trial day 50: REBUTTAL; #153

[Little Mel in ATL]

Regarding the bear vs tiger question I wish DR.D would have elaborated with. Well if you were attacked by a bear but somehow escaped unharmed vs being attacked by a tiger in which you kill the tiger, then yes very different.

Dr. DM could also have elaborated by discussing the scenario of the attack. For example, it is reasonable for someone who is attacked by a bear during a camping trip to exhibit symptoms of PTSD on future camping trips. A scenario in which a tiger attack could occur seems less likely to reoccur during "normal" activities, and therefore manifestation of PTSD symptoms is also less likely. :moo:

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I live in the SE and our house payments aren't as crazy as other places in the country. Where I live you can get a 2800 sq ft house for around $300K.
Seriously, how in the world could two servers qualify for a $500K house?
Maybe they had down payment money - who knows.

Jodi had BIG dreams As manipulative as this gal is, it wouldn't surprise me if JA talked DB into buying a house well beyond his means. :moo:

 

[GumShoe209]

Guys, I'm feeling a little bummed about the juror questions for Dr. DeMarte. Most of them seemed born out of a want for understanding, but others, like the bear/tiger question, or even the organizational thinking question, seemed like challenges.

The former in particular is logically bankrupt. A more apt comparison, if they were indeed seeking clarification, might have been an attack by a stray dog versus an attack by your own pet dog. I think Dr. DeMarte answered it professionally and well, but it didn't seem like a Q designed to get a better grasp on the concept; as previously stated, it was a challenge. And, JMO, an incoherent one given its premise.

I would wager that at this point, every juror knows more or less how they'll vote. There's been enough evidence presented and enough time lapsed that it's now more about just cementing those ideas in their head. To have a Q such as the 'tiger/bear' shows a deficit in understanding that I'm not sure can be rehabbed, you know?

JMO but - the jurors asked 150-200 to the previous two experts, if I were on the jury and had asked them a bunch of questions I would have thought real hard to ask a question of DD especially if I seen no one else was asking questions.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I think the questions were positive for the PT, especially the lack of questions. She had about 20, I believe, compared to 100 for RS and AL. That means she was well understood and well accepted. Indeed she was clear and came off like a real expert. They asked about her experience, but I think it's obvious she appeared more expert than RS or Al, who were disorganized, sloppy and fuzzy on answers. JD answered questions without hesitation, clearly and concisely. JD FTW!

 

[Little Mel in ATL]

Here's my birthday wish - since it's my birthday....

Maybe it has to do with Jodi's tweeting...and placing a gag order on her Twit?
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

:bdscroll:

 

[Chester_from_THM]

I can't remember the poster now, but someone was asking whether it was worth going back to see the ME x-exam.

I am at the point where JW is asking him about whether the bullet actually went through the brain, and the good (looking) Dr. answer is great. (Day 3 full, 2:36:34)

It is kind of an interesting different point of view now, watching early parts of the trial. You can pick up on different things without the anxiety of not knowing the outcome.

 

[kayice]

Thank you GV for providing those dates.

To me, it makes it pretty clear that they were a couple only in her mind. If they had become official in early Feb 07, what are the chances he would forget Valentines day for his new girlfriend?

Add to that there seems to be no text, e-mail, IM w/TA that talk about breaking up (or the supposed courting), I think the relationship, beyond hookups, was fictional.

I wouldn't even call it friends with benefits, as they don't really seem to have been friends for much of the time.

Or maybe I am just seeing this totally one sided. I just simply don't believe Jodi about anything.

I'm starting to worry about myself thinking devious like Jodi would...but do you think it is possible, that she does something nasty to him like hacking, lying about a biggie or possibly stealing....to provoke a fight, thinking that make-up Valentine's presents and/or sex (if they were having it yet) would be forthcoming. Maybe the "relationship" is her mind only, like you say ...could this woman possibly send presents to herself, if he wouldn't? Bragging like it was from him, maybe that is what the fight was about in the first place...her bragging about him getting her stuff that he in fact, did not. Not sure if I explained this right, gives me a headache...oh no. :facepalm:

 

[Angelina Frost]

I'm watching the medical examiner's testimony. What do we need Matt, the Hughes or anyone else for? Let's get the walmart guy and the medical examiner. That's it. There is no place in this universe for a thing like JA.

Good stuff, no?

Assuming Dr. Horn is set to make a return, I cannot believe there is ANYONE on that jury who would fail to make the connection between the autopsy photos and murder 1. Walmart and Tesoro will seal the DP.

I understand there are people who are consistently hitting the panic button because of a wonky question or two, but seriously? Revisiting the photos will eradicate any confusion.

I'm in the minority I'm sure (or outing myself as 2/3 of a sociopath), but I have no sympathy for the Hughes. If JM feels compelled to call them though, I'd respect that 100%.

MM is a different story. :help:

 

[SusieD]

Guys, I'm feeling a little bummed about the juror questions for Dr. DeMarte. Most of them seemed born out of a want for understanding, but others, like the bear/tiger question, or even the organizational thinking question, seemed like challenges.

The former in particular is logically bankrupt. A more apt comparison, if they were indeed seeking clarification, might have been an attack by a stray dog versus an attack by your own pet dog. I think Dr. DeMarte answered it professionally and well, but it didn't seem like a Q designed to get a better grasp on the concept; as previously stated, it was a challenge. And, JMO, an incoherent one given its premise.

I would wager that at this point, every juror knows more or less how they'll vote. There's been enough evidence presented and enough time lapsed that it's now more about just cementing those ideas in their head. To have a Q such as the 'tiger/bear' shows a deficit in understanding that I'm not sure can be rehabbed, you know?

There's a good chance that whoever asked that question won't make it to the final round.

And any conclusion a juror might form now must stand up to the arguments of 11 others. With the evidence being so strong if most agree that JA is guilty then I think they will be very convincing to whoever might have another opinion. They will remind whoever might be so coughcluelesscough that Travis is the victim here and they signed on to serve his interests, not Jodi's.

If I got into a jury room with someone who was going to go not guilty on this particular case it wouldn't be pretty. But hopefully it would be effective.

I'm not worried about any one juror at this point.

 

[sacrablue]

Guys, I'm feeling a little bummed about the juror questions for Dr. DeMarte. Most of them seemed born out of a want for understanding, but others, like the bear/tiger question, or even the organizational thinking question, seemed like challenges.

The former in particular is logically bankrupt. A more apt comparison, if they were indeed seeking clarification, might have been an attack by a stray dog versus an attack by your own pet dog. I think Dr. DeMarte answered it professionally and well, but it didn't seem like a Q designed to get a better grasp on the concept; as previously stated, it was a challenge. And, JMO, an incoherent one given its premise.

I would wager that at this point, every juror knows more or less how they'll vote. There's been enough evidence presented and enough time lapsed that it's now more about just cementing those ideas in their head. To have a Q such as the 'tiger/bear' shows a deficit in understanding that I'm not sure can be rehabbed, you know?

She is a rookie. She has nothing to add. She was strictly there to puppet for JM. I love the way JM gave her the strong cross as if he was showing he did it with everyone.

 

[Little Mel in ATL]

My birthday also!!

:bdscroll:

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Awesome question! Because Jenny is either a way better actress than she is attorney, or she's drinking Jodi's Kool Aid.

I'd prefer to think of her as an actress, and that she's working so hard to prevent any appellate issues. Rather than, she really enjoys trashing Travis Alexander, the continued victim in all this.

But that smile she had on her face yesterday when she repeatedly asked Dr. DeMarte if the reason she couldn't get more information from Travis because he was no longer living, that was major inappropriate. I don't know what to make of that...

That line of questioning was the most stunning to me yesterday, Willmott walked into Dr D giving that answer and proceeded to run head on to that same answer two more times. I was wondering wth good she thought it was doing her client to keep reminding the jury that TA is dead and can't speak for himself. I expected her to run away after the first time, but no, she went so far as to say something like "so you can't get information from a dead person?" and Dr D was just like "well no, because they're dead..." I was slacked-jawed watching it.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

I think you should go back and listen to the jury questions for RS and ALV.
Those were full of cynicism if not downright contempt - nothing like the questions for JDM.

I agree the bear/tiger question was not good for the prosecution, but not a game changer.

i think there is a majority that's convinced this is murder. if there's ONE juror who's on the fence, they may be persuaded by those jurors because the evidence IMO is overwhelming. i would hope that juror can be convinced in deliberations. if there's more than one, i'll be surprised, but then we've got a real problem. i just won't let myself believe this jury won't convict her and i don't want to see some BS compromise verdict either.

I agree that Dr. DeMarte faced fewer challenges from the juror questions than Dr. Samuels or AlV, but that there's even just ONE person with a brain that thinks the bear/tiger Q is analogous to Jodi's situation with the PTSD test, makes me concerned for their logical reasoning. Typically the most ignorant are the most stubborn, and stubbornness could lead to a hung jury.

I don't mean to denigrate a juror, I just can't help but find the train of thought the question was born from troubling and indicative of larger reasoning problems.

 

[DebinGA]

Sounds like a "balloon" mortgage - initial payments start off lower and increase over time. Does anyone know the purchase price of the house? The figures - even $4000 a month - don't seem unreasonable for a house that was $500,000+. I'm sure that there are folks in my sub whose mortgage payments are that high, especially for those who bought their homes when the market skyrocketed. :moo:

Desert Palm house

* Purchased by DB/JA 6/05 for $357,000

* Foreclosure 1/08

* Sold 1/09 for $151,000

 

[josie1986]

i think there is a majority that's convinced this is murder. if there's ONE juror who's on the fence, they may be persuaded by those jurors because the evidence IMO is overwhelming. i would hope that juror can be convinced in deliberations. if there's more than one, i'll be surprised, but then we've got a real problem. i just won't let myself believe this jury won't convict her and i don't want to see some BS compromise verdict either.

if there is at least one of them that think she is telling the truth,who says they will get into the final cut?

jmo that people are blowing these questions way out there,i seen no problem with them i think jodi is guilty as sin but i'd probably ask the same type of questions. plus this was witness one of rebuttal.

the jury are there to decide if someone lives or dies basically,its their job to seek clarification on things.

they didn't question her diagnosis of jodi and i didn't hear anything that said they didn't find her credible.

jmo

 

[Chester_from_THM]

I think you should go back and listen to the jury questions for RS and ALV.
Those were full of cynicism if not downright contempt - nothing like the questions for JDM.

I agree the bear/tiger question was not good for the prosecution, but not a game changer.

buddy, I have a different interpretation.

I thought this helped clarify that the source of the trauma is critical to the diagnosis of PTSD. The juror question enabled Dr. D to state unequivocally that even this example of animal attack, very similar circumstances, would not necessarily result in the same PTSD symptoms/diagnosis.

To me this says the jurors understand that Dr. S's testimony was nonsense, that the trauma of a fictional ninja attack on the perp would be the same as the prep committing a heinous murder.

JMO.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

She is a rookie. She has nothing to add. She was strictly there to puppet for JM. I love the way JM gave her the strong cross as if he was showing he did it with everyone.

Great lawyer trick. Bounce your own tenuously related rhetoric off an otherwise unrelated post. :facepalm:

 

[kscornfed]

I have no idea if it's factual or just someone stirring up a mess, but I felt the need to find out if anyone here had heard about this. Another WSer mentioned a 'rumor' of the gun possibly being found, so I went hunting.
That's all I found so far. I posted to get follow up, so we'll see. As much as I want it to be true, I hope this person on Topix wasn't just blowing smoke....

there's a huge chain of custody problem if that story's true. and i doubt it IS true but still...

 

[Chester_from_THM]

Oh, that cross exam gets better, I love that Dr.

You also get more glimpses of Nurmi with his finger up the nose. Not that anyone needs to see more of that!

 

[goldenlover]

She is a rookie. She has nothing to add. She was strictly there to puppet for JM. I love the way JM gave her the strong cross as if he was showing he did it with everyone.

That is the word I have been looking for since I saw Dr. D's testimony.."puppet" That is exactly the impression I got of her. Not sure why everyone was so impressed.