weekend break: discuss the latest here #123

[cubbeegirl]

Something about her being there doesn't feel right to me. I can't quite put my finger on it but it makes me nervous.

Hopefully I'm wrong and she's there to support Travis's family.

I am really glad to see that I am not the only one feeling this way...my boyfriend who only casually follows the trial even said last night that he was afraid it could be a problem...he definitely does not want a mistrial and may very well dump me in the event that occurs :floorlaugh:

 

[The Farm]

Ok I finally finished watching on you tube what happened when Juan FINALLY got out of his seat and all I can say is WOW!!!!

Work is getting in my way today!!!!!!!

 

[discogirl]

I personally have issues with a dismissed juror making a statement about "no statement" then showing up at the trial. Is there any better way to assure one will be the center of attention? Then claiming they have to go home and talk to their "legal advisors."

It's not about her and she just made herself the center of the circus. Legal advisors? She's a dismissed juror. GMAB

JMO

I really have no opinion on whether she should or should not be there. My biggest concern is whether her presence can influence the jury, cause a mistrial, or affect any future appeals. I'm not a legal expert so I don't know the answer.

 

[LambChop]

GM Everyone!:seeya:

I just finished watching Juan's cross again of ALV.

I found it riveting.

But what I did pick up on the second time around is he is stressing that Jodi was abused as a child (ACCORDING TO HER) yet ALV dismisses that history and only gives weight to Travis' childhood abuses which she thinks makes him an abuser.:furious:

In fact as I watched ALV spar with Juan it was like seeing a clone of JA all over again. The same defiance, arrogance and combativeness.

imo

And almost the same comeback when she challenged JM about his attitude. Easy to see Jodi was coached by ALV to stand up to JM. ALV was also refusing to answer JM's questions with a direct answer because she wanted to control the cross. She wanted to answer questions her way and twist her answers accordingly. I'm sure she feels JM is very abusive. lol

 

[StephanieHartPI]

For anyone that I have heard say she has no pattern of this kind of chaos in prior relationships, to that I say, it drives the point home even more that this is a classic Stalker situation. If they don't have this weird almost chemical attraction for a man, they can and do walk away, they actually get bored and move on. Once they lock eyes on someone and there is this "thing", um, he'll be lucky to get out alive. Same if a man is the stalker and goes along fine until he sets eyes on "the one". Once you live through it, you know how possible it is that someone has no criminal record, no real reputation for being bat shi* crazy...until that moment.

They can go along very normal, in and out of relationships and to some, not show an ounce of weird behavior, nothing that sets off alarm bells (I must admit my bias in that I do feel men fail to recognize "trouble" sleeping next to them in bed, as fast as a woman realizes it)

I am sorry, and hope I don't offend any men, I believe this stems from social cultural ways we are different. Men tend not to be afraid of women until they wake up and go to the kitchen in their boxers and find her standing there holding their cats body in one hand and the cats head in the other and her nightie is covered in blood and there is a knife on the cutting board.

 

[Sustained]

Next week, the courtroom clouds will clear, rebuttal will start, and all will be reminded of who the true victim is in this case. All of this nonsensical spouting by the defense so-called experts will be flushed and after the guilty verdict, Arias and supporters will fade to black...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kamille]

I don't know if this has been posted but I hope it is ok to post -

Expert Witness Fundamentals: Do You Really Want To Swim With Sharks?

http://store.ceutopia.com/product_p/130201-ewf.htm

Well this is interesting. And she just did that little speaking engagement/course? back in February. $199 to go see her speak/teach? She's really got a lucrative business going on.

Does she consider JM a shark? LOL

MOO

 

[kaRN]

Oh yeah, I had a dream about JA last night (nightmare, I should say). Can't remember the details.

I can't even get away from this case in my sleep. I literally wake up in the middle of the night thinking about it.

I'm having weird dreams too! Last week I had one where I was with a media crew searching for JA for some reason and we ended up at the Anthony's house to search and Caylee was alive!!

 

[cubbeegirl]

I'm no lawyer but can't really think of a circumstance where a spectator's presence is reason for a mistrial.

Something has to actually "happen" for a mistrial. Nothing has. Looking at someone is not a crime. She could probably go right up and talk to any juror (outside the courtroom) as long as they didn't talk about the trial.

I do believe the judge would have the right to keep her from the courtroom if she felt her presence was improper. The last thing a judge wants is a mistrial on their hands.

I think talk of a mistrial is reaching but I'll be interested to see what the lawyers say.

Me too... it kinda put me into panic mode and I had to just turn off the tv and stick with WS when they were talking about mistrial ...AGAIN !

 

[Rocco]

Yes absolutely. She was charged with Felony Murder, 1st Degree. They can find her Not Guilty should they believe her defense, her life was in imminent danger and she merely defended herself...a lot.

Is it probable? I would hope not. Possible, yes. It's also possible I will grow 5 more inches. Probably not, but...

Isn't it true that you can only use enough force to stop the threat if you beleive your life is in imminent danger? She went so far beyond that standard that I don't think her claim of self defense can stand up. She's toast.

 

[popsicle]

Something about her being there doesn't feel right to me. I can't quite put my finger on it but it makes me nervous.

Hopefully I'm wrong and she's there to support Travis's family.

She might just be there supporting the system of justice for the victim. Seeing out what she had started on as a juror and perhaps too, to see Juan in action on cross. jmo I do not see anything negative in j5.

 

[Hopeful One]

I feel the same way, except that there will be 10,000,000,000 objections by Wilmy and Nurmott, and it'll take FOR-EVER.

ALV and her merry group of man-hating minions are REALLY going to be hating the dudes when JM gets through with her. BOO-YAH!!

(btw - anyone wonder if her "seminar" this weekend will end up with a few fewer attendees than originally RSVP'd?)

I was SHOCKED when her followers guffawed out LOUD when ALV said, "Mr. Martinez, are you angry at me?" How RUDE and insensitive and disrespectful and immature and all of the other words I can't think of right now.

This isn't a comedy show - it's a MURDER TRIAL!!!!!! If you're going to LAUGH in the courtroom, take your a$$ home.

Sorry but it made me REALLY angry.

 

[Hopeful One]

She might just be there supporting the system of justice for the victim. Seeing out what she had started on as a juror and perhaps too, to see Juan in action on cross. jmo I do not see anything negative in j5.

That could very well be the case.

I've said a million times, I'm not a very good judge of character. Whatever I think, choose the opposite and you'll be right. lol

 

[Foghorn]

Good morning all! Curious in Indiana - this was my response to your post regarding JSS controlling her courtroom in the previous thread...I missed the jump!

ITA! After JW teed-up the obviously rehearsed "Are you mad at me?" line by ALV with her cheap shots in closing, ie: "Let's get this out of the way - do you have a problem with your memory....". The laughter from the JA/ALV fan club was disgusting, I prayed the judge would take control of her courtroom and have them escorted out by the bailiff. At the very least, she should have firmly admonished them with a strict warning.

The difference in professionalism and ethics between the DT and JM (and the Alexander family) should be evident to all, I'm not sure how anyone with an ounce of common decency can think that this DT has presented one piece of evidence that JA acted in self-defense. The fairy tale journals, which the defense has built their entire case upon, are simply the writings of a mentally ill woman. IMO, they only bolster the prosecutor's case and I cannot wait to hear the testimony of a true mental health professional.

For every opinion stated that Juan was too harsh on ALV, the take-away was this " You are taking this out of context, Mr Martinez." Exactly, the point - which she did for six straight days while she repeatedly assassinated the character of TA. I love the fact that the jury left for the week-end with the jaw-dropping words of ALV..."Travis was not the victim" - in the short amount of time left to JM, he knocked the ball out of the ballpark.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So no real interview and she shows up in court. Big whoop. I'd probably do the same thing except realllly run from reporters. As long as she says nothing about an ongoing trial (and legally she cannot and she knows it) and keeps a shut mouth and straight face in the courtroom there is nothing that can legally be done. People like to run around with bits and pieces of things that don't necessarily give a full story and all of a sudden things get blown out of proportion. There isn't a big story unless she sharts blabbing prematurely, giving details she shouldn't. It hasn't happened so far.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

But legally she CAN say anything about the trial if she cares to do it. There are no laws/rules preventing a dismissed juror from speaking out publicly. In fact I have seen other dismissed jurors speak to the media about the case and their feelings soon after being dismissed. They also told which way they were leaning in the case.

The Judge has no jurisdiction over a dismissed juror. They are as free to speak out as any other free citizen would be.

Even if she decides to defend herself I don't think she will talk about the case per se but how she felt she has done no wrong and shouldn't have been dismissed but respects the court's decision.

I think she will do that because she feels it is the right thing not to discuss the actual case and it has nothing to do with her not being free to speak about the case. It is a choice she has made imo. It shows she is a woman on integrity and character.

IMO

 

[Mare10]

What has been bothering me most about ALV's testimony is that it's all JA's word and she is talking about this all as if it is fact. No one but JA and TA were in that house and TA cannot tell his side of the story. Other statements ALV has said can be disproved. All of her testimonial statements should begin with "According to what JA has said". I hope the jury get's that. It's all JA's word and her word isn't worth a hill of beans. Therefore almost all of ALV's testimony isn't worth a hill of beans. It's all just a fairy tale and IMO ALV sounds like she is reading a fairytale as she is telling the jury this junk. JM is on point beginning with "Snow White".

 

[SusieD]

She can't cause a mistrial. It's over for her. She has integrity because she hasn't given out information regarding her experiences. She also has every right to be there. Same rights that you and I would have. If anything she is letting defense know that she has nothing to be ashamed of and that their lying client is not going to get away with tossing jurors. This will be a consideration for any future trials when a defense attorney feels justified when outing a juror just because his client does not like them. Sort of...."throw me off and I'll be back in the courtroom tomorrow."

If J5 did anything inappropriate she would not have the support of Travis' family which she does. They were in chambers when J5 was being questioned. Right now is the perfect opportunity for her to get her face out there why she has some protection through the court because by the time the verdict is read she will be old news and the media will not be hounding her. Their focus will be on those remaining jurors. Why should J5 hide as if she did something wrong? Would any one of us here be hiding out? No, we'd be right back in that courtroom to let everyone know that we have done nothing wrong.

BBM

I can tell you without hesitation that there is no way I would turn myself into the center of attention by showing up at the courtroom. No effing way.

So speak for yourself, but claiming you don't want to speak to the media (via the media) and showing up in the middle ring of the circus is by no means universal behavior.

Legal advisors? GMAB

 

[BritsKate]

2 Q's please: (sneaking on here so plz excuse if already answered)...

1. will court be in session today?
2. does anyone else think that Jodi's diary is fake? I think Jodi had plenty of time to rewrite her real diary and exclude all the negative info (which she now "claims" was an attempt at living by "The Secret").

1. No.
2. I don't believe anything negative was ever written at all - and using 'The Secret' is simply her convenient, psychopathic explanation for not recording any of Travis' 'atrocities'. I believe her journals are genuine and not rewritten - she likely would've thought to excise her recording details of Travis' dates which goes a very long way to support a theory of unstable, obsessive and possessive behavior. :biggrin:

I'll admit the whole journal thing I have strong personal opinions on due to my experiences. My ex once, early into our relationship, found my journal. He ripped out all the pages, staple-gunned them to the walls of our house, and left a note stating 'If this is how you really feel about me, get the fu£* out of my house.' I didn't write in another journal for 9 years - at all. So Jodi's many different accounts of writing things to appease Travis, not writing negative things in accordance to 'The Secret', carrying her journal around with her to his home, not hiding it and not stopping journaling ring very hollow for me. Perhaps one less biased has a different take though.

 

[Truth Detector]

I had the same thought but was giving her the benefit of the doubt right up until the words, "legal advisors," passed from her lips.

"Have your people get with my people, dahling. Then we'll do the lunch thing."

"Legal advisors" = Agent and publicist

 

[Nosey Parker]

Interesting. Wonder what the next workshop will be after she gets through this? I bet she thought she'd be all finished giving testimony by now.

Let's see. Hmm? How about: Juan Martinez: Snow White meets Beowulf?

I found it amusing that Snow White was being interpreted by Alyce in Wonderland. :floorlaugh: