UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> Jodi Arias Trial


4/9/13 5:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
231 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14808
Oh shit. This tard is talking about "The Secret." She's a kook.
4/9/13 5:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98724
Combat Sport Fan - in angryinch's world there should be no adversarial proceedings, the prosecution should simply ask them to tell their story then sit down, no challenging, no impeachment.


You are either trolling or retarded

the problem with you is that he's challenging the witnesses and you are somehow offended that the witnesses are having the audacity to fight back and not let him steamroll them and not let him twist and mischaracterize their testimony.  

In your world, the prosecutor should be able to ask the defense witnesses whatever questions he wants and should be able to demand that the witnesses give him the exact answers he's looking for.

Prosecutor:  "All of the testimony you gave in favor of the defendant is bullshit, made up, and incorrect, right?"

Witness:  "Umm...yes, you are right, my analysis was bogus, I've been lying all along, I'm an unqualified hack, and she's guilty as charged because you say so."

....in your world............

4/9/13 5:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98725
Rhymenoceros - Oh shit. This tard is talking about "The Secret." She's a kook.

Unfortunately, a lot of psychologists are kooks.   A lot of them went into that field to try to figure themselves out and to solve their own mental issues.  

That said, isn't HE the one who just brought it up?

4/9/13 5:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Combat Sport Fan
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/28/05
Posts: 14981
angryinch - 
Combat Sport Fan - in angryinch's world there should be no adversarial proceedings, the prosecution should simply ask them to tell their story then sit down, no challenging, no impeachment.


You are either trolling or retarded

the problem with you is that he's challenging the witnesses and you are somehow offended that the witnesses are having the audacity to fight back and not let him steamroll them and not let him twist and mischaracterize their testimony.  

In your world, the prosecutor should be able to ask the defense witnesses whatever questions he wants and should be able to demand that the witnesses give him the exact answers he's looking for.

Prosecutor:  "All of the testimony you gave in favor of the defendant is bullshit, made up, and incorrect, right?"

Witness:  "Umm...yes, you are right, my analysis was bogus, I've been lying all along, I'm an unqualified hack, and she's guilty as charged because you say so."

....in your world............


if it is not barred by the rules of evidence, he should be ask her anything he wants. anything.

Its not fighting back to make an off the cuff remark, its unprofessional and an insult to justice.


And yes or no questions are good strategy if the first word out of her mouth isnt yes or no then dont let her answer...simple. defense will do it too on rebuttal.
4/9/13 5:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98726

"if it is not barred by the rules of evidence, he should be ask her anything he wants. anything."

And he is. 

"Its not fighting back to make an off the cuff remark, its unprofessional and an insult to justice."

So in all of her cross examination, that is the only answer you have a problem with?

"And yes or no questions are good strategy if the first word out of her mouth isnt yes or no then dont let her answer...simple. defense will do it too on rebuttal."

And it's also a good strategy to avoid answering them in that way if they are obviously designed to mischaracterize your earlier testimony.  

It seems that you're all for impeachment but are completely against a witness defending themselves from an attempt to impeach them, especially one that uses dishonest tactics such as asking questions designed to mischaracterize their testimony.

The one with an obvious bias here is you.  

4/9/13 6:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Combat Sport Fan
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/28/05
Posts: 14982
angryinch - 

"if it is not barred by the rules of evidence, he should be ask her anything he wants. anything."

And he is. 

"Its not fighting back to make an off the cuff remark, its unprofessional and an insult to justice."

So in all of her cross examination, that is the only answer you have a problem with?

"And yes or no questions are good strategy if the first word out of her mouth isnt yes or no then dont let her answer...simple. defense will do it too on rebuttal."

And it's also a good strategy to avoid answering them in that way if they are obviously designed to mischaracterize your earlier testimony.  

It seems that you're all for impeachment but are completely against a witness defending themselves from an attempt to impeach them, especially one that uses dishonest tactics such as asking questions designed to mischaracterize their testimony.

The one with an obvious bias here is you.  




He is allowed to ask an impeaching question, she can answer it how she wants. I havent seen him ask one mis characterizing question, he asks her yes or no, she can then respond she cant asnwer that way which he can then move on.


You are so offended that he would try and expose bias...afterall its not like she is getting paid by the state of arizona to be her witness....oh wait.
4/9/13 6:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/09/13 6:05 PM
Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98728
Combat Sport Fan - 
angryinch - 

"if it is not barred by the rules of evidence, he should be ask her anything he wants. anything."

And he is. 

"Its not fighting back to make an off the cuff remark, its unprofessional and an insult to justice."

So in all of her cross examination, that is the only answer you have a problem with?

"And yes or no questions are good strategy if the first word out of her mouth isnt yes or no then dont let her answer...simple. defense will do it too on rebuttal."

And it's also a good strategy to avoid answering them in that way if they are obviously designed to mischaracterize your earlier testimony.  

It seems that you're all for impeachment but are completely against a witness defending themselves from an attempt to impeach them, especially one that uses dishonest tactics such as asking questions designed to mischaracterize their testimony.

The one with an obvious bias here is you.  




He is allowed to ask an impeaching question, she can answer it how she wants. I havent seen him ask one mis characterizing question, he asks her yes or no, she can then respond she cant asnwer that way which he can then move on.


You are so offended that he would try and expose bias...afterall its not like she is getting paid by the state of arizona to be her witness....oh wait.

 

I'm not offended by him trying to expose bias, I simply find his style to be despicable and uncalled for and I'm glad she sat him the fuck down on more than one occasion. 

 

4/9/13 6:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Combat Sport Fan
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/28/05
Posts: 14983
explain to me how she sat him the fuck down? by acting childish.....WIN FOR THE PROSECUTION. you dont make a mockery of the courtroom...especially in front of 12 people who have put their lives on hold for this.


Sorry. There was not sitting down, there was a sign of weakness
4/9/13 6:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/04
Posts: 98730
Combat Sport Fan - explain to me how she sat him the fuck down? by acting childish.....WIN FOR THE PROSECUTION. you dont make a mockery of the courtroom...especially in front of 12 people who have put their lives on hold for this.


Sorry. There was not sitting down, there was a sign of weakness

No, it was putting him in his place.  

And thank you homos for finally putting me in the negative.  I hope you all have the nice happy circle jerk you've been dreaming of since I started posting on this thread.  

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
4 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
4 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
231 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
4 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
4 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
231 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
4 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
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
160 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
160 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.

Reply Post

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