trial day 46: the defense continues its case in chief #138

[Karmady]

I think the point of posting the rule was that maybe we shouldn't post stuff like that here to give ANYONE fodder for a future argument.

JMO

It was my post. And yes, that's why I posted it.

 

[katydid23]

Agree, I get the impression that she's been a right royal pain in the rear from day 1. The toilet breaks she needed earlier, and now doesn't seem to need to, the illnesses, leaving her phone on, not answering questions, needing to be reprimanded by the judge, approaching Samantha, then stuffing up everyone's schedule by needing Monday, no Tuesday, no Monday off - as in make an appointment and stick to it so we can work around it, but do NOT say you have one but haven't nailed down the day!

The woman has been a pain to deal with, and we aren't even privy to what's been going on behind the scenes.

She has been back in chambers a zillion times. And I bet she was whining and complaining about Juan being a meanie and the bad reviews on Amazon and the testimony going on for so long, bla bla bla. :boohoo:

 

[Liar]

The real reason why ALV refuses to say "yes" or "no"
Takes 1 second to say "Yes", that earns her $.08 in revenue for her business
But if she asks for the question to be repeated, looks at the defense, then the jury, then states that she doesnt really understand what JM is looking for... then preaches for a while she can earn much more. Its taken several minutes to get an answer out of this lady and she earns $5.00 per minute. She should not have had to testify for so long but she is stalling so much.

 

[TigerBalm]

Mods or veteran WS ers Are we supposed to verify or be sure of statements we post as facts? It seems like many posts are posted as fact when in fact they are absolutely wrong. This causes going round and round with posts. How do we differentiate what we are sure of and what we "think or suppose"??? Many thanks

Adding a supporting link or saying IMO (in my opinion), MOO (my own opinion).

 

[LinasK]

I didn't hear the Judge say anything to ALV about her schedule or tell her not to concern her with her personal issues. Where is that?

After the jury left

 

[nursebeeme]

There are repeated posts that it is a 70 yr old man---I thought Paco was fairly young. Thank you

The list is in the court observer thread and it is just their impression.we don't know any real details

 

[Schuby]

I got the sense that she was saying essentially ... "we're on the record/being broadcasted, so do not talk about your personal life or it will not be personal anymore" ... am I the only one who thought this?

She wasn't saying that at all. She followed it up by saying something like, "Well look, it's either going to be Monday or Tuesday, and you're under subpoena anyway."

 

[JustMeDeb]

ALV seemed to be wanting to delay having to come back. Just my opinion but I wonder if it has to do with her approaching Sam in the courtroom. If it was something that was going to be beneficial and help rehab ALV, you know darn well she would have said, "Judge you tell me the day and time, I will be here."

 

[lisalei321]

I am sooooooo naughty!

forgive me?
:facepalm:
:blushing:
lease:

Always my Friend!

:truce:

:grouphug:

 

[RR0004]

I guess we can also be grateful that JSS is a woman and not a man Judge. Otherwise ALV would have screamed abuse because JSS "ordered" her to return on Tuesday.

...and she didn't say please!

 

[katydid23]

If Jodi wants a fair trial, then maybe she should stop tweeting about JM. I hope JM brings this up on Monday morning. The murderess can't have it both ways. Mean ol' Mr. Martinez -- I think I'll bash him publicly through my bff Donovan.

:banghead:

I wonder if that's why those certain tweets were just deleted?


I am happy that the killer is currently tweeting. that takes the wind out of Nurmi's sails, imo.

 

[geevee]

She is evolving into JA - it's now kinda creepy.

She's probably just trying to break JM's stride.

 

[TigerBalm]

What is the deal with Ms Wong that she would have to have an attorney?

Ms Wong is a producer for HLN/InSession.
The network would want to make sure she had an attorney present.

 

[kscornfed]

She wasn't saying that at all. She followed it up by saying something like, "Well look, it's either going to be Monday or Tuesday, and you're under subpoena anyway."

i'm with you. the judge was actually saying what she meant----'i don't want to hear your problems. be here.'

 

[JRS_JD2L]

If Jodi wants a fair trial, then maybe she should stop tweeting about JM. I hope JM brings this up on Monday morning. The murderess can't have it both ways. Mean ol' Mr. Martinez -- I think I'll bash him publicly through my bff Donovan.

:banghead:

What??? Jodi is certainly NOT tweeting and writing negative things about JM. This cannot be right. I heard from an "expert" witness that Jodi has very low self esteem and has trouble asserting herself. I also heard that she would never write anything negative, because of the "Law of Attraction." :deal:

You must be mistaken.

 

[GumShoe209]

Scroll down to see COURT EXPERIENCE

http://www.alycelaviolette.com/Alyce-LaViolette-cv.pdf

 

[Liar]

Thank you Basilcat and yes, that was my first post.

 

[nursebeeme]

I could be wrong, but I thought that post referred to the video of the Judge's reaction to a part of ALV's testimony. In any case, the video was referenced several times for that reason in this thread.

eta: regardless of whether the judge has broken a rule or not, I don't think that would preclude a motion for a mistrial by the defense? I think they've demonstrated that that's what they're gunnin' for imo.

It is alyce that has broken a rule. Nothing wrong with the judge cutting off her personal comments.

 

[DebinGA]

I got the sense that she was saying essentially ... "we're on the record/being broadcasted, so do not talk about your personal life or it will not be personal anymore" ... am I the only one who thought this?

I thought JS was being dismissive, but your guess is a good one.

 

[Avalon85]

Why is Ms. Wong testifying and need a lawyer? Does anyone remember what motion this is related to? Also, is this something that is concerning?