a view from the inside: observations from our own court observers #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
What troubles me most is today - the defence took time in a courtroom to cast allegations against Juan Martinez and misconduct. I, like everyone else am extremely impressed with the job he does inside that courtroom as the only voice for Travis. Having said that, I became troubled when in other places including HLN some began referring to him as a 'rockstar'. The fact is this is not a concert, this is a trial to convict to the nth a violent, evil murderer. I would not want to jeopardize Juan in any way absolutely. The biggest problem I have with this whole fan adoration of Juan, is the end result - which is Jodi Arias as the defendant got to sit in when the Judge questioned each of the jurors after court was done for today. The part WE did not see. Which means, Arias was able to sit in a room making eye contact with each of the 12 jurors. All this during a period of time when a DV 'expert' is on the witness stand claiming what she did today. I'm not gonna cast stones at anyone, but I hope this was a learning curve for anyone of us, be it attending court or posting on the internet. I don't think Martinez needs this on his plate, even though he is fully competent and capable. Let's have the 'Juanfest' AFTER she is hopefully convicted. We can make assumptions on the jurors but NO ONE knows what is really going through their minds. That is what I fear the most, and today because of a bit of fan-fare, Arias was given the chance to make direct eye contact with those jurors.

Do we know for sure she was in that jury questioning? I thought it was private w the judge.
 
The only time I've witnessed a similar kerfuffle was during the DeeDee Moore trial in which she was convicted of the murder of Abraham Shakespeare in Tampa, FL.

The Tampa Bay Times was doing their first live feed with a chat room underneath. They were extremely responsive to reader demands and said they wanted to stream other trials.

Well, one day, there were problems switching the feed to a new format. During that time, one of the techs accidentally pushed a button that fed his image/conversations live. Most of the talk was technical, but a couple of things came in about the trial.

Don't ask me details, but the next morning the defense lawyer made an accusation about that feed. A lawyer friend of his had called him and told him x,y,z had been broadcast live. He was as furious and indignant as Nurmi was yesterday.

Those involved were called in to testify, as was Jean Casarez. It turned out the friend of the lawyer was wrong as to the nature of what came over the stream and the whole incident came to nothing more than a warning not to let it happen again.

I'd appreciate more details in anyone else there saw this. For what it's worth, there were hundreds of viewers who could have testified to what they observed/heard! I only got to testify loudly to my computer screen!
 
The only time I've witnessed a similar kerfuffle was during the DeeDee Moore trial in which she was convicted of the murder of Abraham Shakespeare in Tampa, FL.

The Tampa Bay Times was doing their first live feed with a chat room underneath. They were extremely responsive to reader demands and said they wanted to stream other trials.

Well, one day, there were problems switching the feed to a new format. During that time, one of the techs accidentally pushed a button that fed his image/conversations live. Most of the talk was technical, but a couple of things came in about the trial.

Don't ask me details, but the next morning the defense lawyer made an accusation about that feed. A lawyer friend of his had called him and told him x,y,z had been broadcast live. He was as furious and indignant as Nurmi was yesterday.

Those involved were called in to testify, as was Jean Casarez. It turned out the friend of the lawyer was wrong as to the nature of what came over the stream and the whole incident came to nothing more than a warning not to let it happen again.

I'd appreciate more details in anyone else there saw this. For what it's worth, there were hundreds of viewers who could have testified to what they observed/heard! I only got to testify loudly to my computer screen!

Nurmi was so concerned about JM he never checked it out himself before jumping the gun about what happened. To me he should have been more concerned with the person in the bunny suit. My guess is, that did not bother Jodi as much as KW and her perception that Dr. Drew hired her. lol
 
Just confirmed in an article by Michael Kiefer which I won't link because his inaccurate and embellished reporting on this case is officially disgusting me, that only present in the jury questioning on the photogate issue were the judge and attorneys. No Jodi.
 
The only time I've witnessed a similar kerfuffle was during the DeeDee Moore trial in which she was convicted of the murder of Abraham Shakespeare in Tampa, FL.

The Tampa Bay Times was doing their first live feed with a chat room underneath. They were extremely responsive to reader demands and said they wanted to stream other trials.

Well, one day, there were problems switching the feed to a new format. During that time, one of the techs accidentally pushed a button that fed his image/conversations live. Most of the talk was technical, but a couple of things came in about the trial.

Don't ask me details, but the next morning the defense lawyer made an accusation about that feed. A lawyer friend of his had called him and told him x,y,z had been broadcast live. He was as furious and indignant as Nurmi was yesterday.

Those involved were called in to testify, as was Jean Casarez. It turned out the friend of the lawyer was wrong as to the nature of what came over the stream and the whole incident came to nothing more than a warning not to let it happen again.

I'd appreciate more details in anyone else there saw this. For what it's worth, there were hundreds of viewers who could have testified to what they observed/heard! I only got to testify loudly to my computer screen!

I just went on azcentral to confront the crap out of Kiefer for his BS reporting but they don't allow comments. Don't make Mama drag out her twitter.
 
I think being called to the stand kind of freaked her out.

Shame on the defense team They made themselves look like fools today. I mean at the very least get what your complaining about right. First, they didn't even listen to what JC said. Second, Nurmi thinks Katie works for HLN? Come on now. Just ridiculous.

Just how desperate are they?

Maybe the the DT is watching the THs on HLN... you know the ones.. the defense attys who spew craziness.. the ones who said Juan did such a horrible thing??? Maybe they are listening to the WRONG folks.. including their client (which they are paid to do) and their expert witnesses (who fool NO ONE with an ounce of common sense!) Ahhhh feels better!:great:
BBM
 
I am still kind of new here and I hope it's okay for me to post this in this thread, (I can't keep up with the other one).

Today was absolutely ridiculous. This DT has nothing they can use to try to spare their client except to manufacture these fables, ask for mistrials, complain that JA doesn't get this or that, or has migraines. This judge needs to get more control over this court room and these proceedings. This has become a big circus.
Juan is not new to these "rodeo's" done by the defense. It seems this is their favorite motion - prosecutorial misconduct. They claim he doesn't give them "information" (with holds it), Surprise attacks witnesses or this latest load of hooey - that he could "taint the jurors" by signing autographs or taking photos with fans. What a load of garbage. They have NOTHING to get their client out of this mess she got herself into so they are going to throw anything at the wall and hope that something sticks.
I don't believe that this jury, (or any rational sane person), will fall for their tactics and quite frankly, I actually do believe that this jury "gets" what really happened and that JA was NOT abused by TA and in fact TA was the one abused.
I know that the CA trial really shook everyone's faith in the justice system. But this isn't Florida and there is so much more evidence of how evil, cruel, maniplulative, and mean JA is and was to TA. There is no way that JM is going to do anything that would cause a mistrial. He's too smart for that. He's been around the block too long and he's fighting for Travis and his family.
The anger we feel needs to be directed where it belongs -- on the DT and JA. I don't think that Wilmott or Nurmi or their "experts" will have a career when this case is over. They have made themselves look like fools with the defense they went with. They are going to lose and their client is going to be found GUILTY and be sentenced to DEATH. I don't even think it's going to take the jurors long to consider her fate and do the right thing.
This 1.4 million that has lined the DT's pockets better last them... they are going to have a hard time practicing law in this state.

JUSTICE FOR TRAVIS and the ALEXANDER FAMILY.

I think defense will do fine after this trial is over. They defend clients who have been accused of serious crimes. Overall JW and KN have done the best they can to defend Jodi with what little they can use. We don't like it, sure, but it's all in a day's work for them and there are plenty of criminals out there that will be using their services because they can see they do work hard for their client. We may not like it........but it is their job. KN scrapes the barrel to get a mistrial. He really, really does. lol jmo
 
I am not sure but it seems like no one is testifying to help jodi,not family or friends.

They might turn up in the mitigation stage. Probably had nothing of value to add the the case in chief.. and our Juan would have had a field day perhaps. JMHO
 
Just confirmed in an article by Michael Kiefer which I won't link because his inaccurate and embellished reporting on this case is officially disgusting me, that only present in the jury questioning on the photogate issue were the judge and attorneys. No Jodi.

How would he know that?
 
Just confirmed in an article by Michael Kiefer which I won't link because his inaccurate and embellished reporting on this case is officially disgusting me, that only present in the jury questioning on the photogate issue were the judge and attorneys. No Jodi.

That makes sense. It would have been all kinds of wrong if JA was permitted to sit in on questioning the jurors.

What a waste of time this latest stunt has been. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with what JM did. He's outside of court and is being polite to his supporters.

If the DT is worried about what a juror may possibly see or hear, then why are the jurors permitted to sit on the benches or hang out anywhere around the court building to begin with? Do they really believe they can stop jurors from hearing comments from the average people hanging out?

If the DT wants the jury to not see or hear anything on breaks or after court, then they should suggest that jurors be escorted from the property and make some rules that the jurors cannot hang out around the building.

Gee whiz - just nonsense. Shows desperation in my opinion.
 
Well that was a good one from Mark, but even better was when he said he would like to ask ALV, what it was like to work for the Brady Bunch all those years. I swear, she does look like the BB maid, and her name was Alice too, LOL!

Oh my gosh - that's funny. I never thought about it before but she does look a little like Alice from the BB.

Mark Eiglarsh is one of the few defense attorneys that I enjoy hearing from. Most defense attorneys get on TV and abandon common sense to make a case for a defendant just because they are defense attorneys. They can't even say what comes out of their mouths with a straight face half the time. Unlike them, Mark has a good sense of humor and common sense.
 
I love popping in here to read the insiders observations at the end of the week! It really helps keep this case in perspective. I wanted to point out a few things I observed concerning the "expert witness". First if all initially I was a bit impressed with her CV, that was until I did some digging and listened closely. As a survivor of DV myself she began to loose credibility based on:

1. Her CV states she is a Psychotherapist yet she WAS registered only as a PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSISTANT which was canceled back in 1992. In fact the Dr she worked under back then Dr Charles Stockton had his license revoked back in 1998 for inappropriate sexual behavior with a patient. Alyce is only licensed as far as I can see as a MFC Marriage, Family and Child since 1992 and a Continuing Education Provider since 1997.

2. Her use of improper terms the first days such as "Bottom Lines" instead of Boundaries, "Hostage Syndrome" instead of Stockholm and the non existent "Chronic Combat Syndrome"

3. Much of her information comes from outdated information with her referring back to the 1980's

4. Her amazing ability to have memorized more about JA's own life history and story then JA evens knows herself.

5. The fact that she is "paid" and making over $12,000 for her testimony and time spent with JA

6. Any good DV advocate or person working within that field KNOWS they can not make assumptions as to the abuser without having substantiated evidence. Just because an abused person says it is so does not mean it is so. Even the Women's shelter I eventually fled to back in the 90's had to question MY motives for fleeing with my children and make sure I was not trying to flee with them for custody reasons or there was some other motive involved.

7. Lastly, to state that a child's possibly "neglectful" environment is "abusive" is a very dangerous statement. Just because a child comes from a neglectful home, does not mean that child will be abusive even if that home was abusive. It actually is the opposite in the majority of cases, it sets that child up to be abused as an adult is all. My abusive childhood did not make me abusive, it made me an easy target for abuse.

Sorry so long, but I am disgusted that this women attempts to speak for me or the others I know who are survivors! Men are OFTEN abused but for them to report it makes them appear weak as a man is all.

Keep up the inside work! Love what I read by everyone posting!!!!! I hope this trial ends soon for Travis's family:blowkiss:
 
In #jodiarias trial daily. Hv seen JM exit front door ONCE , photo op ONCE. Def team exit same front door daily, no security. Be accurate.


My tweet. So there. Lol
 
I love popping in here to read the insiders observations at the end of the week! It really helps keep this case in perspective. I wanted to point out a few things I observed concerning the "expert witness". First if all initially I was a bit impressed with her CV, that was until I did some digging and listened closely. As a survivor of DV myself she began to loose credibility based on:

1. Her CV states she is a Psychotherapist yet she WAS registered only as a PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSISTANT which was canceled back in 1992. In fact the Dr she worked under back then Dr Charles Stockton had his license revoked back in 1998 for inappropriate sexual behavior with a patient. Alyce is only licensed as far as I can see as a MFC Marriage, Family and Child since 1992 and a Continuing Education Provider since 1997.

2. Her use of improper terms the first days such as "Bottom Lines" instead of Boundaries, "Hostage Syndrome" instead of Stockholm and the non existent "Chronic Combat Syndrome"

3. Much of her information comes from outdated information with her referring back to the 1980's

4. Her amazing ability to have memorized more about JA's own life history and story then JA evens knows herself.

5. The fact that she is "paid" and making over $12,000 for her testimony and time spent with JA

6. Any good DV advocate or person working within that field KNOWS they can not make assumptions as to the abuser without having substantiated evidence. Just because an abused person says it is so does not mean it is so. Even the Women's shelter I eventually fled to back in the 90's had to question MY motives for fleeing with my children and make sure I was not trying to flee with them for custody reasons or there was some other motive involved.

7. Lastly, to state that a child's possibly "neglectful" environment is "abusive" is a very dangerous statement. Just because a child comes from a neglectful home, does not mean that child will be abusive even if that home was abusive. It actually is the opposite in the majority of cases, it sets that child up to be abused as an adult is all. My abusive childhood did not make me abusive, it made me an easy target for abuse.

Sorry so long, but I am disgusted that this women attempts to speak for me or the others I know who are survivors! Men are OFTEN abused but for them to report it makes them appear weak as a man is all.

Keep up the inside work! Love what I read by everyone posting!!!!! I hope this trial ends soon for Travis's family:blowkiss:

Only response to this is Bravo! And I love you!!! And please post more!!
 
There's nothing ALV can do to make what JA did on 6/4/08 a justified self-defense killing. JA had to prove her life was in danger or that she reasonably thought it was at 5:30pm that day, and when her own lawyer served up the question, "What did you think Travis was going to do to you?" Her answer was, "who knows..." She couldn't even pretend he was really going to kill her--that was the one important question she was asked and she didn't follow the script.

I hope the jury paid attention to that and I sure hope JM reminds the jury of her answer from that one question. "Who knows..." That's not what someone in fear of their life (honestly and truly) would respond.

< /game over Jodi >

ALV is just wasted testimony, stretching this thing out into infinity.
 
The only time I've witnessed a similar kerfuffle was during the DeeDee Moore trial in which she was convicted of the murder of Abraham Shakespeare in Tampa, FL.

The Tampa Bay Times was doing their first live feed with a chat room underneath. They were extremely responsive to reader demands and said they wanted to stream other trials.

Well, one day, there were problems switching the feed to a new format. During that time, one of the techs accidentally pushed a button that fed his image/conversations live. Most of the talk was technical, but a couple of things came in about the trial.

Don't ask me details, but the next morning the defense lawyer made an accusation about that feed. A lawyer friend of his had called him and told him x,y,z had been broadcast live. He was as furious and indignant as Nurmi was yesterday.

Those involved were called in to testify, as was Jean Casarez. It turned out the friend of the lawyer was wrong as to the nature of what came over the stream and the whole incident came to nothing more than a warning not to let it happen again.

I'd appreciate more details in anyone else there saw this. For what it's worth, there were hundreds of viewers who could have testified to what they observed/heard! I only got to testify loudly to my computer screen!

IIRC there was a kerfluffle in the CA case - something about the camera man panning the camera to the jurors or something....Or he took an unflattering shot of the princess....can't remember exactly. Judge questioned him (might have been Red Huber) and was just told "don't let it happen again".

I also agree that JM is the example of HOW TO CORRECTLY PROSECUTE A CASE, and the fact that Nurmi accused him of prosecutorial misconduct makes my blood boil. :furious:
 
Just confirmed in an article by Michael Kiefer which I won't link because his inaccurate and embellished reporting on this case is officially disgusting me, that only present in the jury questioning on the photogate issue were the judge and attorneys. No Jodi.

I read his tweet, pointing to his article also. I retweeted him saying "so, in short" if the jurors didn't know that Juan has fans, they do now?"

IOW, HE caused them to know this.
 
I thought it was highly unlikely Jodi would be in on that. All the reporters have in house sources. Just ask the bailiff for one.

WildAboutTrail is tweeting that there IS one juror who saw the picture taking episode. Asked how they know this, they are now checking for more sources but claim the one they have is good.
 
Do we know for sure she was in that jury questioning? I thought it was private w the judge.

The jury wasn't there. When they were done they called the jury in.

I love popping in here to read the insiders observations at the end of the week! It really helps keep this case in perspective. I wanted to point out a few things I observed concerning the "expert witness". First if all initially I was a bit impressed with her CV, that was until I did some digging and listened closely. As a survivor of DV myself she began to loose credibility based on:

1. Her CV states she is a Psychotherapist yet she WAS registered only as a PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSISTANT which was canceled back in 1992. In fact the Dr she worked under back then Dr Charles Stockton had his license revoked back in 1998 for inappropriate sexual behavior with a patient. Alyce is only licensed as far as I can see as a MFC Marriage, Family and Child since 1992 and a Continuing Education Provider since 1997.

2. Her use of improper terms the first days such as "Bottom Lines" instead of Boundaries, "Hostage Syndrome" instead of Stockholm and the non existent "Chronic Combat Syndrome"

3. Much of her information comes from outdated information with her referring back to the 1980's

4. Her amazing ability to have memorized more about JA's own life history and story then JA evens knows herself.

5. The fact that she is "paid" and making over $12,000 for her testimony and time spent with JA

6. Any good DV advocate or person working within that field KNOWS they can not make assumptions as to the abuser without having substantiated evidence. Just because an abused person says it is so does not mean it is so. Even the Women's shelter I eventually fled to back in the 90's had to question MY motives for fleeing with my children and make sure I was not trying to flee with them for custody reasons or there was some other motive involved.

7. Lastly, to state that a child's possibly "neglectful" environment is "abusive" is a very dangerous statement. Just because a child comes from a neglectful home, does not mean that child will be abusive even if that home was abusive. It actually is the opposite in the majority of cases, it sets that child up to be abused as an adult is all. My abusive childhood did not make me abusive, it made me an easy target for abuse.

Sorry so long, but I am disgusted that this women attempts to speak for me or the others I know who are survivors! Men are OFTEN abused but for them to report it makes them appear weak as a man is all.

Keep up the inside work! Love what I read by everyone posting!!!!! I hope this trial ends soon for Travis's family:blowkiss:

If I'm a juror my question would be; You interviewed Jodi. Why would you believe anything she says?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
1,042
Total visitors
1,170

Forum statistics

Threads
589,928
Messages
17,927,789
Members
228,003
Latest member
Knovah
Back
Top