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

[The Village Idiot]

Cliff-Hanger till MONDAY!!


(Guess I just watch the Snow-Melt here till then.... :floorlaugh: )

 

[Tiger09]

Urban dictionary lists it as a psychiatrist or mental doctor or a therapist- that term derives from the phrase "brain shrinker". Yes, I have the app and I use it a lot.

 

[Boodles]

I wouldn't ask ALV the time as I would not trust her enough to give me the correct answer!

JM: Ma'am, it is 6:00, isn't it?

ALV: I can't answer that question. There are two hands on the clock, and they move. They are moving now, even though it's imperceptible. So I cannot say yes, it's not a yes or no answer.

JM: ma'am, the big hand is on the 12 and the shorter one is on the 6, correct? Yes or no.

ALV: It depends what you mean, Mr Martinez, by "the big hand" and "the shorter one." And what do you mean by "on"? Are you trying to trick me? I just can't answer the question. I don't know what you are asking. A clock has moving parts and numbers. There are different types of clocks, digital and analog. And there are time zones...

JM: I didn't ask you whether a clock has moving parts. Did I ask you that? Did I ask you about time zones? Ma'am, you do know how to tell time, don't you?

ALV: Yes, Mr Martinez, I can tell time, but I am here to talk about domestic violence, Mr Martinez, so when you ask me if its 6:00, I am confused about where you're going.

JM: Judge, non-responsive. Please instruct the witness...

JW pops to her feet: Judge, may we approach?

JSS: You may.

Stomp stomp strut strut ==>sidebar ==> 5 minutes of white noise

Stomp stomp strut strut back to chairs.

JSS: Ladies and gentlemen, we are taking a recess for 10 minutes.

30 minutes pass

JM: ma'am, is the time now 6:40? Yes or no.

ALV: the big hand is on the 40 and the little hand is between the 6 and the 7, closer to the 7, so it's 6:40.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think this Tuesday appearance by ALV has anything to do with perjury or her rude intrusion upon Samantha.

I think the judge is doing an out of jury hearing on the latest bogus Motion for Mistrial. And Nurmi threw ALV into his latest motion, so now she will have to answer to it. JMO

Hope you're wrong on this..

 

[AZlawyer]

So...I was going to respond to a bunch of posts but there were just too many.

Just to clear a few things up:

1. A witness being impeached is not an EVENT that causes anything else to happen. It just means the cross-examination went well. It does not mean there is some announcement to ignore her testimony. It does not mean there could be a mistrial.

2. Witnesses lying on the stand is also common and normal and a daily occurrence. This does not cause a mistrial or create any need for a separate hearing. In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that perjury charges were brought--and I mean close to zero percent probability--those charges would be brought in a separate criminal proceeding and not as part of the proceeding in which the witness was testifying.

2. If JM had wanted to disqualify ALV as an expert, that motion would have been made and ruled upon before she got on the stand. And absolutely nothing she has said on the stand has altered the qualifications JM was aware of before she got there. And she clearly is qualified as a DV expert anyway.

3. There is some possibility that this hearing on Tuesday will concern ALV's approach of Samantha, depending on what she said and what she had been instructed prior to that time. Obviously, she knows at least as of today that it would be illegal for her to approach the family for an interview. It would also have been illegal for her to approach the family as an agent of the defense team (e.g., bearing a message from the defense), rather than going through the prosecutor. It would not have been illegal for her to say, e.g., "sorry, nothing personal" to Samantha, although it would have been unprofessional and thoughtless. But perhaps somehow she had already been instructed not to talk to the family? Seems unlikely, though. Anyway, my guess is that the hearing Tuesday is something about ALV that has ticked off the judge and that ALV was subpoenaed for (so she is not testifying in her expert capacity IMO). I suppose there is also some possibility it's a contempt hearing relating to her non-cooperativeness on the stand, since she was admonished numerous times and might have been further instructed in chambers. But normally non-cooperative witnesses are not held in contempt--they are just made to look like biased fools in front of the jury, and that's good enough for most of us.

 

[Schuby]

I can see it now..."What did the overbearing prosecutor say that sent you to the er with palpitations, Ms. ALV?" "He, sniff sniff, he asked me, sniff sniff sniff, how old the seven dwarfs are!!"

Her panic attacks weren't over Juan's aggressiveness. I'm sure ALV lights up at the chance to spare with aggressive, in-your-face men. Her panic was because she couldn't spar with him. She couldn't outmaneuver him which meant she'd have to sit there and take it and Miss ALV doesn't take anything from a man.

 

[Only4Justice]

Anyone want a tossed salad?

Ugh, from here on out it's Caesar salad for me!

It took me days to look up what "tossed salad" meant lol. And I thought I was pretty ***sophisticated*** (cough-cough) sexually.

It grossed me out! NO I have never done THAT~ :blushing:

Wish I would have remained ignorant.

 

[Harmony 2]

New thread please jump on over... this thread will close in 10 minutes.

weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #139 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Truth Detector]

What is she trying to say to Samantha>she knows she should not be talking to her.

ALV testified today that she knows it is illegal to speak to the victim's family.

So, why did she knowingly and willfully engage in that particular illegal behavior?

I wonder how she would answer that question.

 

[artsy1]

Because the continued on with the trial.

I think part of why they continued on with the trial was to see if outside influences really were affecting ALV's ability to testify before ruling on the mistrial motion.

Apparently, they did not, since ALV continued to go toe-to-toe with JM.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

How much are we loving the fact that JA's cell was raided and journals seized by the way? Oh to have footage of it.

 

[kscornfed]

Yup - Michael Peterson. I used to like Henry Lee, after that one .. not so much.

and phil spector, version 1.0. remember the thumbnail?

 

[DebinGA]

Yup - Michael Peterson. I used to like Henry Lee, after that one .. not so much.

Henry Lee: "Too much blood for beating" ... as if most falls down stairs result in blood covered walls.

 

[Truth Detector]

How much are we loving the fact that JA's cell was raided and journals seized by the way? Oh to have footage of it.

The Jodi Ann Arias Manifesto... and to think, some inmates have their very own autographed copies.

 

[GumShoe209]

So...I was going to respond to a bunch of posts but there were just too many.

Just to clear a few things up:

1. A witness being impeached is not an EVENT that causes anything else to happen. It just means the cross-examination went well. It does not mean there is some announcement to ignore her testimony. It does not mean there could be a mistrial.

2. Witnesses lying on the stand is also common and normal and a daily occurrence. This does not cause a mistrial or create any need for a separate hearing. In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that perjury charges were brought--and I mean close to zero percent probability--those charges would be brought in a separate criminal proceeding and not as part of the proceeding in which the witness was testifying.

2. If JM had wanted to disqualify ALV as an expert, that motion would have been made and ruled upon before she got on the stand. And absolutely nothing she has said on the stand has altered the qualifications JM was aware of before she got there. And she clearly is qualified as a DV expert anyway.

3. There is some possibility that this hearing on Tuesday will concern ALV's approach of Samantha, depending on what she said and what she had been instructed prior to that time. Obviously, she knows at least as of today that it would be illegal for her to approach the family for an interview. It would also have been illegal for her to approach the family as an agent of the defense team (e.g., bearing a message from the defense), rather than going through the prosecutor. It would not have been illegal for her to say, e.g., "sorry, nothing personal" to Samantha, although it would have been unprofessional and thoughtless. But perhaps somehow she had already been instructed not to talk to the family? Seems unlikely, though. Anyway, my guess is that the hearing Tuesday is something about ALV that has ticked off the judge and that ALV was subpoenaed for (so she is not testifying in her expert capacity IMO). I suppose there is also some possibility it's a contempt hearing relating to her non-cooperativeness on the stand, since she was admonished numerous times and might have been further instructed in chambers. But normally non-cooperative witnesses are not held in contempt--they are just made to look like biased fools in front of the jury, and that's good enough for most of us.

Here is AlV - CV -- I din't find her testifying as a witness in Criminal Court except for women

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

 

[basilcat]

Cliff-Hanger till MONDAY!!


(Guess I just watch the Snow-Melt here till then.... :floorlaugh: )

...I am biased towards loving you ....
Do you go by Village or Idiot? :floorlaugh:
I share everything in your signature!

...and, unfortunately, where I am...the snow is presently falling-EGADS!- not melting...Grrrrr

 

[SkiptomyLu]

I bet Dr. DeMarte will describe Jodi as one who loves to get a rise out of someone - or as southerners say "get their goat". No telling what outrageous stuff she did or said to Travis on the phone that ALV knows nothing about.

Hi Georgia!
ATL here :seeya:

 

[Schuby]

ALV testified today that she knows it is illegal to speak to the victim's family.

So, why did she knowingly and willfully engage in that particular illegal behavior?

I wonder how she would answer that question.

Because she's arrogant and self-indulgent (my answer, not hers).

 

[sammijo]

I'm pitiful sitting here. Drs office lol tuning in to ws, obcession ?

I did the same thing while having a pedicure the other day. The guy asked me if I had any preference on what I watched....

 

[Harmony 2]

New thread please jump on over... this thread will close in 5 minutes.

weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #139 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:fence: