weekend break: discuss the latest here #124

[JustJudy]

How tall do you suppose he is? I notice JM doesn't quite come up to the top of his shoulder. I'm putting him at at least 6'5" and, what, 350 lbs. One big guy. Yeah, I can see where those chairs would be way too small.

With Juan as an opponent, Nurmi & W have to have built up rock hard quads by now, just from hopping in & out of their chairs hundreds of times ea day!

In fact, watching opening statements yesterday, it does appear that the DT didn't fly out of their chairs as effortlessly as they do now, months later.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[kaRN]

There was no need to interview anyone else. She was paid for her specific testimony. If she were honest and unbiased she would have needed to interview others to attain the full view picture of JA (knowing that JA was such a liar). She didn't. I doubt her family would have told the truth about her at this point anyways, but it is still pretty obvious ALV is just paid to give the DT what they want. Shameful.

In the first moments of her testimony on direct she stated how important it was to interview both parties involved in the 'abuse'. She sounded like a true professional back then. Then she morphed into the little sheep who lost her way. Baa, baa, blackbird.
It's really too bad she didn't go on to get her PhD. She might have understood better the components of an accurate assessment if she had.

 

[Sleuth5]

I may have already responded to this but I do not trust J5. She may think well, if I can't be on this jury, I will disrupt. Not sure how J5 feels about Casarez getting her kicked off either.

In fairness, Jean Casarez did not get Juror #5 kicked off of the jury. The judge determined that there were grounds sufficient to remove her during the questioning occasioned after defense motion for mistrial involving JM and the photo/signing.

Sure, you can argue that the motion for mistrial based on the JM incident would never have happened had JC not reported her concerns about it. But I say that this defense team would have found another reason for the same kind of questioning because the jury is not sequestered. There would simply have been a different proximate cause. We can see that in Nurmi's demand for sequester, which would have happened in any event as various media outlets show more and more new information.

So, even if JC's report was the proximate cause for questioning the witnesses, Juror #5 still had to have said something that gave the judge concerns sufficient to remove her -- and I can't believe that even if JC hadn't reported it, the DT wouldn't have found out about it and made the same motion. At this point, you need to watch what you say in the lunch line (just ask Katie DDJ). The DT is going to look for any opportunity, and would have no matter how any external forces played into things. Just my opinion.

:cow:

 

[DebinGA]

So what fairytale character do you identify with?

Why ask me? Did you watch Steely Dan's ALV clips and find her offensive in them, because I'd be interested to learn what I missed?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't like jodi.

 

[Sleuth5]

Can wilmott recross after juan? Please tell me it isn't so. If she doesn't than were into rebuttal?

Oh, she certainly can (redirect), and unfortunately, she certainly will. Given what we've seen from the defense thusfar, what we can expect is an agonizing repeat of as much of the direct testimony as possible. I wouldn't be surprised to see it take at least two days.

:cow:

 

[rose222]

In the first moments of her testimony on direct she stated how important it was to interview both parties involved in the 'abuse'. She sounded like a true professional back then. Then she morphed into the little sheep who lost her way. Baa, baa, blackbird.
It's really too bad she didn't go on to get her PhD. She might have understood better the components of an accurate assessment if she had.

Unfortunately the PhD would not have helped her. It is not ignorance but narcissism that drives her to do what she does.

 

[Sunny_In_AZ]

Another interview with J No 5 with 12 news. She says she didn't come back for the attention. She came back to show she had not done anything wrong and to be part of the trial again. She doesn't know if she'll go back which I think she means she won't be. She hints the reason she was thrown out was due to a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGxlqS65_jg

According to them, when she wanted to break her silence, she turned to this reporter. I don't think so. He shoved a microphone in front of her face! They also revealed her name but I've not printed it.

Thanks for the link!
:bump:

 

[scorpio24]

I seemed to notice Ms. Laviolette's demeanor go from "I'm winning", to "Oh my God. What am I up against?"

BTW, here is a version of the Snow White story that JM wouldn't let her expound on. I've clipped the video to only include the Snow White analogy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v6FE0q7fXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIaVKwfuXJU

Please like them.

Done! Thanks so much for posting! I could not MAKE it through the entire video. I tried. I failed. You ROCK! :rocker:

One of the more interesting points I noted was her "Snow White to Wicked Witch Conversion theory." She teaches abused ADULT women to be more like the Evil Stepmother/Wicked Witch, since women are taught in fairy tales to be "passive." That if they wait long enough AND SUFFER ENOUGH, they will get what they want. She wasn't talking about children at all there. She was talking about ADULTS. (In my mind, she was talking about poor long-suffering JA. Absurd.)

She also goes on to say she teaches abusive MEN to be more like Snow White. ???

So, it's more than a catchy title. It's an entire THEORY! One she has used over and over as a teaching mechanism. The problem is, she has the characters reversed! Thanks again for posting! :seeya:

 

[Steely Dan]

Quoted from Tuba in the last thread...
:goodpost:
Bbm. This is what I wanted to say, but you stated it wonderfully!

I agree. I think ALV is out of her comfort zone unless she knows what the answers should be. She wants to know the conclusion JM is trying to make before he makes it. She wants to tailor her answer to fit the conclusion. She thought she could get away with that at the beginning, but soon found out she was wrong.

I firmly believe that when she took on this case that the only conclusion would be that Jodi was a DV victim. Now she has a prosecutor trying to tell her she's wrong when she absolutely knows she's right and he's wasting her time and so she thinks she can play with him. Because he's the expert and he's not privy to the esoteric workings of DV.

She should be answering the questions yes and no and then let the defenses follow up allow her to expound on "Was Snow White an abuse victim?" What's she's doing is sinking her credibility. JMO

 

[rose222]

Done! Thanks so much for posting! I could not MAKE it through the entire video. I tried. I failed. You ROCK! :rocker:

One of the more interesting points I noted was her "Snow White to Wicked Witch Conversion theory." She teaches abused ADULT women to be more like the Evil Stepmother/Wicked Witch, since women are taught in fairy tales to be "passive." That if they wait long enough AND SUFFER ENOUGH, they will get what they want. She wasn't talking about children at all there. She was talking about ADULTS. (In my mind, she was talking about poor long-suffering JA. Absurd.)

She also goes on to say she teaches abusive MEN to be more like Snow White. ???

So, it's more than a catchy title. It's an entire THEORY! One she has used over and over as a teaching mechanism. The problem is, she has the characters reversed! Thanks again for posting! :seeya:

Lying, manipulative, sneaky, hateful, defiant...sounds a lot like someone else huh?

 

[Pink Panther]

Another of my favorite quotes was the objection. She stated every single objection in one long sentence that she could think of just to try to cover all bases.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

...And she was still over-ruled...

 

[molly333]

I second that. She knows that continuum is going to be the end of her when he makes it clear how many fantastic scenarios (can you say Snow White, Alyce?) he can use to create "abusive" diagnoses. It was maddening to see her suddenly pretend it wasn't all that important. I wish I had actually counted how many times I hear the word "continuum" come out of her mouth during her direct. Sheesh. :facepalm:

The continuum is an expansion on the cycle of violence, which, although it was groundbreaking in its time, is too simplistic. It's a way to identify abusive behaviors so that you can count their frequency, and identify the relative dangerousness of such behaviors so you can identify escalation. Otherwise, there is no way to quantify and qualify the behavior.

She said she had changed it. That's good. This whole field is a work in progress, but not happening fast enough. People might not like what she is doing with JA, but her work in general is spot on and very desperately needed. Trying to minimize and ridicule her work is not helping anyone.


"One out of every three women will be abused at some point in her life.

Battering is the single major cause of injury to women, exceeding rapes, muggings and auto accidents combined.
A woman is more likely to be killed by a male partner (or former partner) than any other person.
About 4,000 women die each year due to domestic violence.
Of the total domestic violence homicides, about 75% of the victims were killed as they attempted to leave the relationship or after the relationship had ended.
Seventy-three percent of male abusers were abused as children.
Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband in the past year.
Women of all races are equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate partner.
On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or partners in this country every day.
Intimate partner violence a crime that largely affects women. In 1999, women accounted for 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence.
On average, a woman will leave an abusive relationship seven times before she leaves for good.
Approximately 75% of women who are killed by their batterers are murdered when they attempt to leave or after they have left an abusive relationship."

http://www.domesticabuseshelter.org/InfoDomesticViolence.htm

 

[Miss Behavin]

We have just got to get past Willmott's re-direct of ALV. I am already :facepalm: thinking about it.

I always dread redirect, gah! :facepalm:

 

[gauntlet]

I agree. I think ALV is out of her comfort zone unless she knows what the answers should be. She wants to know the conclusion JM is trying to make before he makes it. She wants to tailor her answer to fit the conclusion. She thought she could get away with that at the beginning, but soon found out she was wrong.

I firmly believe that when she took on this case that the only conclusion would be that Jodi was a DV victim. Now she has a prosecutor trying to tell her she's wrong when she absolutely knows she's right and he's wasting her time and so she thinks she can play with him. Because he's the expert and he's not privy to the esoteric workings of DV.

She should be answering the questions yes and no and then let the defenses follow up allow her to expound on "Was Snow White an abuse victim?" What's she's doing is sinking her credibility. JMO

I agree Dan she must have been told a great story at first but was wondering at what point in the case ALV would have first been interviewed by JM? It's so hard for me to imagine at least one thing in that interview didn't make her think twice? She must have also been aware of how the stories had changed too. Also if the rumour is true that other Expert Witnesses refused to take the case on, and that's why they had to go out of State to get ALV, her view must have been very bias to begin with.

 

[Pink Panther]

In fairness, Jean Casarez did not get Juror #5 kicked off of the jury. The judge determined that there were grounds sufficient to remove her during the questioning occasioned after defense motion for mistrial involving JM and the photo/signing.

Sure, you can argue that the motion for mistrial based on the JM incident would never have happened had JC not reported her concerns about it. But I say that this defense team would have found another reason for the same kind of questioning because the jury is not sequestered. There would simply have been a different proximate cause. We can see that in Nurmi's demand for sequester, which would have happened in any event as various media outlets show more and more new information.

So, even if JC's report was the proximate cause for questioning the witnesses, Juror #5 still had to have said something that gave the judge concerns sufficient to remove her -- and I can't believe that even if JC hadn't reported it, the DT wouldn't have found out about it and made the same motion. At this point, you need to watch what you say in the lunch line (just ask Katie DDJ). The DT is going to look for any opportunity, and would have no matter how any external forces played into things. Just my opinion.

:cow:

I think the DA brought up the whole incident knowing that the jurors would have to be questioned. I think they were eager to get a better "read" on what the juror's are thinking at this stage of the trial. JA had been jury-watching for a couple of days already.

ETA - I wouldn't be surprised if someone on JA's side of the courtroom overheard (and reported) the juror comment as they were leaving trial.

moo

 

[atthelake]

*Updated*

A longer version of JAM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VwUeA9Gf2M

At 04:20, Det Fl tells her there's lot of evidence and her mom's Ohhh is painful and sad.

--

The rest of the conversations are here . http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9173313#post9173313

--
Det Fl: Was she talking about leaving town?
JAM: She talked about not staying here. But she didn't come out and say I'm leaving tomorrow. I went over and talked to her last night for a little while coz I couldn't sleep. And I calld her and I said are you still awake I said or can you or can I come over because she used to come over late at night and visit with the kids and be on the computer.

And just this last couple of week she has, since Travis's death um she has been the best relationship we've had in our whole life. And I've said maybe this death has made her see that life is short and you have to, you know you can't be this way and it's changing her so so you know the last few weeks have been I mean I didn't spend a lot of time with her but I talked to her more than I have ever talked to her since when she left the house at 18.

She told me she didn't want to stay here long and she was gonna leave. She did tell me that was going to go down to umm Monterey for a few days but she didn't tell me when. She was going to go down and visit some friends and stop and see my step daughter in Hollister

Det Fl: What was the urgency for her to leave like soon?
JAM: I don't know. I don't know. I did not know she was leaving today.
Det Fl: Your husband mentioned something about her like not going to work and quitting her job
JAM: She didn't quit her job
Det Fl: And because like a police offer called her work for some reason
JAM: She told me that someone called her yesterday and wanted to question her about the break in at my mom and dad's house. She did tell me that. And she said why don't you want to talk to my grandma and grandpa cozt's their house coz it's their house. She did tell me that but no mention of anything else. I mean I don't know if that scared her. I don't know. I know she bought a gun which they probably already found the gun.
Det Fl: Yeah. She has registered it and everything so there's no problems with the gun
JAM: She was scared when Travis died. She said Mom I was at his house all the time. She cleaned his house all the time. And spent all that time there In fact Travis was supposed to come up here and they were going to go over to the Oregon coast and
Det Fl: When did she tell you that?
JAM: Um um after he died. No it was before he died she told me he was coming up. In fact it was last last weekend I think and she said this is the weekend that Travis was supposed to come up and we were going to do things. We were going to go to Crater Lake and they had a book 1000 things to see before you die and and her and Travis were doing a lot of those things together. They went to the Grand Canyon. They went all these places together.
JAM: I didn't know she was leaving today. She told me she was going to go down and visit but I don't know. Maybe that phone call scared her. Maybe she did do it. I don't know but I just can not even imagine her doing it.
Det Fl: I can't either
JAM: JA's a very intelligent person
Det Fl: She is
JAM: Go look the books she brought to our house. I mean she's got all these books that I would not even think about reading you know and she's smart and how could someone...
Det Fl: I understand she's extremely intelligent and the more I've talked to her over the last month and a half I know she's intelligent
JAM: You know in fact she gave us a hard time because I never went to college and she kept telling me mom you need to read, you need to do this, you need to better your life. I don't know. I just can't even imagine. My god. I can't. I just can't even think about it.
Det Fl: Unfortunately the evidence we have is completely convincing to me. We have everything from her fingerprints at the scene of the crime
JAM: Well I know she's her fingerprints are there
Det Fl: Her DNA. Her uh things like her hair. You know things like that are there
JAM: Well you know she spent time with him though so does that prove that she killed him? She cleaned his house.
Det Fl: The evidence we have is more than just that. I mean you don't leave a fingerprint in blood.
JAM: Oh.
Det Fl: Okay
JAM: Why would she do something like that?
Det Fl: I don't know
JAM: Did she just snap or what? I don't know. And how could she come back here, and be normal and when her friends call her and told her that he died she totally freaked out like she knew nothing about it. I mean how could someone do that. How? I can't even. I can't I can't think of how anybody could do that
Det Fl: And that's why I wanted her explanation but she absolutely refused to tell me the truth

Can someone refresh my memory? I thought it was discussed on the threads that her mother actually or father rented the car not her. I am in a fog.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Pink Panther]

I agree Dan she must have been told a great story at first but was wondering at what point in the case ALV would have first been interviewed by JM? It's so hard for me to imagine at least one thing in that interview didn't make her think twice? She must have also been aware of how the stories had changed too.

It was my understanding that ALV was originally hired as a mitigation consultant quite a long time ago. She only later agreed to become an "expert witness". (Probably when the others had declined the invitation.) She changed clothes if you will...So, it's likely that in her previous first role, she was made privy to much more information than that which she used as an "expert". I'm quite confused as to how this has been allowed but I would imagine that JM will raise this issue somehow.

moo

 

[Sleuth5]

I think she left the camera on purpose. I don't think she realized (she's not intelligent) that the photos could be recovered. If she had planned on taking it with her then why bother deleting the photos right then and there? She could have deleted them later on while in her car.She knew she needed to clean up fast and get out of there. She didn't have time to waste. The fact that Arias took up precious time to delete the photos says a lot to me.

I'm curious as to why you think she left it on purpose.

 

[Tulessa]

I don't like jodi.

We know....

:floorlaugh: