UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> Jodi Arias Trial

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

4/9/13 6:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98731
verdum - im just watching this whole manipulative testimony right now, the whole conversation about this issue should have taken 5-10 minutes tops, you would have to think he is losing at least one juror with all this going on about it.

and he does this with almost every point that he makes, its crazy.

This.  He beats every point into the ground.  Then goes off on tangents and gets all mired in the weeds splitting hairs, then if someone uses a poor choice of words in an answer, he hammers on that incessantly and does not let them explain what they meant (which is why witnesses have learned to be very precise and specific in their answers to his questions, to the point of being pedantic), etc..etc...  

All it takes is one juror to find him distasteful and have their dislike of him cloud the evidence for it to be a mistrial.  

4/9/13 6:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98732
verdum - oh one hysterical juan moment from earlier was regarding that this woman was bashful about asking certain sexual questions when she first interviewed arias;

"and you said that you didnt ask ms arias certain questions because you were "old-fashioned"?

they go on for a few minutes but eventually she says that yes, she didnt ask certain questions at first but that months later she did ask them.

and juan says "and when you asked them later you were even older then weren't you?!"

as if it then follows that she would be even older-fashioned then!


That was hilarious, and quite the idiotic moment for him.

I think that anyone who is watching this trial objectively will agree that that was an idiotic moment for him. 

4/9/13 6:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98734

Now he's finally getting somewhere......IF...what he's doing is setting up this Freeman guy to come in as a rebuttal witness and say that the info she's reading which she used as a part of the info she used to come to her conclusions is all wrong.  

4/9/13 7:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ruthless Rye
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/18/12
Posts: 800
You know what sucks?

Ms. Laviolette has been chucked under the bus by the defense.

What is worse, Ms. Laviolette assumed that she had all the answers, and never investigated a damn thing...other than what the defense gave her.
4/9/13 7:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/09/13 7:21 PM
Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98735
Ruthless Rye - You know what sucks?

Ms. Laviolette has been chucked under the bus by the defense.

What is worse, Ms. Laviolette assumed that she had all the answers, and never investigated a damn thing...other than what the defense gave her.

 

I can't believe that given the importance of this case, she didn't listen to Jodi's testimony.  

BTW, I find it interesting that he's going with all of these hypotheticals because I think he's figured out that based on the questions the jury has asked, at least a few of them are too stupid to know what a hypothetical is and believe that a hypothetical situation means something that really happened.  

 

4/9/13 8:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ruthless Rye
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/18/12
Posts: 801
angryinch - 
Ruthless Rye - You know what sucks?

Ms. Laviolette has been chucked under the bus by the defense.

What is worse, Ms. Laviolette assumed that she had all the answers, and never investigated a damn thing...other than what the defense gave her.

 

I can't believe that given the importance of this case, she didn't listen to Jodi's testimony.  

BTW, I find it interesting that he's going with all of these hypotheticals because I think he's figured out that based on the questions the jury has asked, at least a few of them are too stupid to know what a hypothetical is and believe that a hypothetical situation means something that really happened.  

 


This is why you may be trolling, AI.

All Witnesses are not allowed to hear former testimony. Those who have testified, are only allowed to talk to the lawyers that are in their charge.

And he is using the term "hypothetical", because the witness is not allowed to hear what the former witness has testified to. That is why he is asking her to assume that what he is asking Ms. Laviolette is the truth.

Ms. Laviolette looks shaken, taken aback, and is smart enough to realize that what is being presented as a hypothetical is actually documented as prior testimony. (And that is why the Judge, upon objections from the defense, overruled her. And told the Jury to recollect prior testimony).

Ms. Laviolette may indeed have thought Jodi to be truthful, and believable. Now, and you can see it in her eyes, and read it in her body language, she realizes that she has been duped.

And Ms. Laviolette's career and reputation has been seriously tarnished.
4/9/13 8:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
471 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14809
Ruthless Rye - 
angryinch - 
Ruthless Rye - You know what sucks?

Ms. Laviolette has been chucked under the bus by the defense.

What is worse, Ms. Laviolette assumed that she had all the answers, and never investigated a damn thing...other than what the defense gave her.

 

I can't believe that given the importance of this case, she didn't listen to Jodi's testimony.  

BTW, I find it interesting that he's going with all of these hypotheticals because I think he's figured out that based on the questions the jury has asked, at least a few of them are too stupid to know what a hypothetical is and believe that a hypothetical situation means something that really happened.  

 


This is why you may be trolling, AI.

All Witnesses are not allowed to hear former testimony. Those who have testified, are only allowed to talk to the lawyers that are in their charge.

And he is using the term "hypothetical", because the witness is not allowed to hear what the former witness has testified to. That is why he is asking her to assume that what he is asking Ms. Laviolette is the truth.

Ms. Laviolette looks shaken, taken aback, and is smart enough to realize that what is being presented as a hypothetical is actually documented as prior testimony. (And that is why the Judge, upon objections from the defense, overruled her. And told the Jury to recollect prior testimony).

Ms. Laviolette may indeed have thought Jodi to be truthful, and believable. Now, and you can see it in her eyes, and read it in her body language, she realizes that she has been duped.

And Ms. Laviolette's career and reputation has been seriously tarnished.

AI isn't trolling about certain juror(s) not understanding what a hypothetical is. There were shitloads of questions of both Jodi and the psychologist that were like, "if you did this, or that happened, then why did you say that hypothetically something else happened?"

And Jodi and the guy said, "Uhh, it was a hypothetical. I was answering a question posed by the prosecutor based on a hypothetical."

This probably happened a dozen times. Seriously, at least one juror isn't aware of what a hypothetical is.
4/9/13 8:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ruthless Rye
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/18/12
Posts: 802
^^^

I am not on the Jury. I can not speak for them.

AI said that the jury may believe a hypothetical to be truth. And I hope that is not the case.

Just remember, the Judge advised the Jury to recollect prior testimony. That is either saying:

A: The hypothetical that Mr. Martinez is presenting is made up. Realize this.

B: The hypothetical that Mr. Martinez is presenting is on the record as fact, by former witnesses. Listen very closely to Ms. Laviolette's answers.


And the kicker? The hypotheticals are indeed fact. The jury should know this (from prior testimony), and you can bet the house that Ms. Laviolette knows it as well.
4/9/13 8:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ruthless Rye
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/18/12
Posts: 803
Also, Mr. Oceros, I see you conveniently left out the tampering of witnesses that AI would have liked to have happened..??..
4/9/13 8:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
471 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14810
Ruthless Rye - ^^^

I am not on the Jury. I can not speak for them.

AI said that the jury may believe a hypothetical to be truth. And I hope that is not the case.

Just remember, the Judge advised the Jury to recollect prior testimony. That is either saying:

A: The hypothetical that Mr. Martinez is presenting is made up. Realize this.

B: The hypothetical that Mr. Martinez is presenting is on the record as fact, by former witnesses. Listen very closely to Ms. Laviolette's answers.


And the kicker? The hypotheticals are indeed fact. The jury should know this (from prior testimony), and you can bet the house that Ms. Laviolette knows it as well.

I get that.

But it is true, based on dozens of questions presented from the jury to prior witnesses, that at least one member of the jury doesn't have a clue what a hypothetical is.
4/9/13 8:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98737

"AI said that the jury may believe a hypothetical to be truth. And I hope that is not the case."

Unfortunately, that is absolutely the case.  At least one person on the jury thinks that a hypothetical means something that really happened.  

4/9/13 8:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ruthless Rye
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/18/12
Posts: 804
^^^

And that is why our Judicial system is not perfect. Better than most.

If I was ever guilty of a crime, I would want a jury trial.

If I was innocent, but accused, I would want a bench trial.
4/9/13 9:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Combat Sport Fan
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/09/13 9:33 PM
Member Since: 4/28/05
Posts: 14984
hypothetical based on a true story since she isnt allowed to be influenced by previous testimony...actually a very smart play. he can bring them together in his closing
4/10/13 11:49 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
aarondramp
185 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/3/10
Posts: 1383
This trial is going to last forever.
4/10/13 12:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98769
aarondramp - This trial is going to last forever.

Especially since they never seem to be able to start on time.  

4/10/13 1:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
aarondramp
185 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/3/10
Posts: 1385
angryinch - 
aarondramp - This trial is going to last forever.

Especially since they never seem to be able to start on time.  


The hours that the court is open is crazy. Start at 10:30 and end at 4:30 with a long lunch break in there, too.
4/10/13 1:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
471 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14814
This woman is retarded. All of this pointless quibbling makes her look like she has something to hide.

I mean, when he says, "is this word 'stalking'?" and she says, "That's not a yes or no question." She looks really bad. The only logical explanation of her refusal to answer such simple questions make her seem like she has to control the narrative in order to maintain her diagnosis. That's not a very strong diagnosis.
4/10/13 1:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Zwingli
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/8/08
Posts: 958
She's risking a contempt charge
4/10/13 1:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98771
Zwingli - She's risking a contempt charge

I doubt it.    If they start holding expert witnesses in contempt for not letting the attorneys play word games and mischaracterize their testimony, it would throw the entire expert witness system into disarray.

4/10/13 1:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
471 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14815
The judge is getting frustrated with her, too. I doubt a contempt charge is coming, but a warning is a real possibility at this point.
4/10/13 1:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
471 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14816
According to this "expert,"

1. moving to the same neighborhood as your ex isn't an indication of stalking.

2. sneaking over to his house, trying to break into the garage, and spying on him through a window isn't an indication of stalking.

WAT? She has zero credibility as a witness at this point.
4/10/13 1:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98774

Martinez is gonna have a seizure.  

4/10/13 1:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98775
Rhymenoceros - According to this "expert,"

1. moving to the same neighborhood as your ex isn't an indication of stalking.

2. sneaking over to his house, trying to break into the garage, and spying on him through a window isn't an indication of stalking.

WAT? She has zero credibility as a witness at this point.

As isolated incidents, I agree with her.  If there is a larger pattern of more behaviors, then those behaviors must definitely be taken into account but those incidents alone do not indicate stalking. 

4/10/13 1:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BradGluckman
963 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/5/03
Posts: 17140
Rhymenoceros - According to this "expert,"

1. moving to the same neighborhood as your ex isn't an indication of stalking.

2. sneaking over to his house, trying to break into the garage, and spying on him through a window isn't an indication of stalking.

WAT? She has zero credibility as a witness at this point.

LOL did she really say that any juror with a pulse would understand that is stalking and she is insulting there intelligence
4/10/13 2:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98777

here goes Martinez completely mischaracterizing her testimony.   Attempting to turn a conversational statement into an implication that that is how she conducts her analyses.  


| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.