trial day 38: the defense continues its case in chief #112

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karmady said:
I think she knows exactly what she's doing and totally believes it's the right thing to do. I think she's aware that her opinion is very unpopular based on her comment that first day about hoping her practice was still there, and is doing this in spite of it. If she'd changed her tune and the defense was forced not to call her, that would be no skin off her nose.
Click to expand...
I don't remember hearing that comment, but I believe she knew exactly what she signed on for. She had quite a while AFTER "investigating" the case before she signed on to become a member of the DT in the role of an expert witness during their CIC. She could have quit at any time, even pulling out in her role as a witness in the mitigation phase, but she decided to push forward, going so far as to be their "star" witness.
This testimony is a slap in the face to those she has helped for many years, and I hope at some point, be it a lack of clients, or just good old fashioned regret, she feels the consequences.
 
marciec said:
I've always thought that the CA jury developed a "pack mentality". Those who are leaders will naturally begin to lead & followers follow. Seemed they all wanted to go home and certain leaders decided the fastest way out the door was to say nothing was proven. Had they not been sequestered, perhaps some would've maintained more independence in their thinking. Who can say, but I often wonder if they have regrets.
Click to expand...

I concur
:seeya:
 
legalmania said:
I think Martinez should wait until the trial is over. If he wants to give a short interview with the media, I don't see anything wrong with that. He is suppose to be fighting to have someone put to death. IMO it makes it look like it's becoming about him. He needs to remember he is working for Travis and his family, not to become a celebrity. I remember Judge Seidlin in the Anna Nicole case, I was asked to do some research for him, I noticed with all the media attention he began to act differently. He was talking about getting his own t.v. series.
Click to expand...
Except, I don't see JM preening. His demeanor hasn't chnaged, IMO. He didn't ask for folks to rush him. Was he even aware that he had "groupies"? Perhaps. Judge Seidlin became "affected" pretty much from the onset of the trial. IMPO, JM isn't seeking adulation. I would imagine that Jeff Ashton got a similar response when he was out in public...only difference, that jury was sequestered. I'm just not getting how this comes close prosecutorial misconduct.
 
panthera said:
Which caused Transient Global Amnesia which was later ruled out and replaced with The Fog.

:floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

Ahhh the fog. How did I forget the freaking fog. :great: It's probably the fog that blurred the boundaries in the first place. Now I understand. :floorlaugh:
 
JusticeJunkie said:
I don't remember hearing that comment, but I believe she knew exactly what she signed on for. She had quite a while AFTER "investigating" the case before she signed on to become a member of the DT in the role of an expert witness during their CIC. She could have quit at any time, even pulling out in her role as a witness in the mitigation phase, but she decided to push forward, going so far as to be their "star" witness.
This testimony is a slap in the face to those she has helped for many years, and I hope at some point, be it a lack of clients, or just good old fashioned regret, she feels the consequences.
Click to expand...

Mark Eiglarsh said it really well earlier tonight. He said this woman seems very genuine and passionate about the work she is doing. Why isn't she out helping real victims of domestic violence? Why this?
 
Pink Panther said:
Yes. Exactly. Context is everything.
Click to expand...

I'm interested ... and equally PISSED at why this email string wasn't brought out by the prosecution. WHY OH WHY didn't the state feel the need to quantify, qualify, ratify or otherwise explain this? These were TA's closest friends. At some point, they turned on Jodi. WHY WHY WHY!
 
JusticeJunkie said:
I don't remember hearing that comment, but I believe she knew exactly what she signed on for. She had quite a while AFTER "investigating" the case before she signed on to become a member of the DT in the role of an expert witness during their CIC. She could have quit at any time, even pulling out in her role as a witness in the mitigation phase, but she decided to push forward, going so far as to be their "star" witness.
This testimony is a slap in the face to those she has helped for many years, and I hope at some point, be it a lack of clients, or just good old fashioned regret, she feels the consequences.
Click to expand...

She initially came on as a "mitigation consultant/specialist" and was most probably privy to much more information that she would have been given had she originally had the role of "expert witness". "Experts" are expected to testify in keeping with their area of "expertise". She switched out of her role as ms/consultant after having seen all of the information available which might not have been presented/available to someone that was simply and expert witness. (I don't know if that made sense but I hope so...)

I firmly believe that she's a staunch anti DP and that is what drives her and motivates the decisions she's made.

moo
 
JusticeJunkie said:
Tell me what makes you think she didn't go over her testimony with the DT? I'm curious.
Click to expand...
I think she did. She presented them with a report, no doubt. I don't think she signed on to be part of the guilt phase. That plan was hatched as a backdoor run to get in evidence that was previously disallowed and has been sealed. I think she looks unhappy about being used this way, but hey, she'll probably make enough money from this case to retire.

Meanwhile, I think JV will use her expertise as a way to expose Jodi's stalking behavior and possibly even the effect stalkers have on their victims. If I understand what I've been reading, JM will also be able to use her testimony on cross as a means to show Jodi's accusation of pedophilia with the falling picture is a lie because she told ALV the pictures were on the computer.

Then there is the matter of the letters and out-and-out betrayal of the Hughes by the DT. ALV was a mitigation witness until that evidentiary hearing, then presto the DT thought they had a "cunning plan." But they keep goofing up.
 
AZWatcher said:
I'm interested ... and equally PISSED at why this email string wasn't brought out by the prosecution. WHY OH WHY didn't the state feel the need to quantify, qualify, ratify or otherwise explain this? These were TA's closest friends. At some point, they turned on Jodi. WHY WHY WHY!
Click to expand...

and do you think the jury might be interested as well over the long weekend, I do.
 
pferrin said:
Is this still a victim friendly site?
Click to expand...

Yes. sweetheart. I just feel like the state left a big ball of dingleberies hanging for the long weekend. I want to HEAR ALL ABOUT why the Hughes went from feeling as though they needed to protect Jodi to feeling like they needed to protect Travis? This should have been a preemptive strike by the state. IMO.
 
I've been absent most of the evening so I have no idea what you guys are discussing. I just had to share...I joined the "forbidden site" (crazy psycho is innocent) out of curiosity and tried to post a comment....I was banned within minutes hahahaha
 
panthera said:
Agree. Two random attackers allow her to escape, yet during "self-defense" she had to stab Travis 29 times, slit his throat and shoot him? Hopefully the jury will be able to differentiate an actual self-defense scenario from what she related.

I was also curious about JA's family wearing ribbons in court when, IIRC, there was an issue with Travis' family wearing the blue ones?

:waitasec:

MOO
Click to expand...

Panthera it makes me angry how they are so blatantly throwing those ribbons in TA's family's faces. After his family and supporters were "instructed" by the court not to wear their ribbons in support of their lost loved one I find it dusgusting. It's completely tasteless on her family's part, but not surprisingly so....to me. I know some have compassion for what her family is going through, and I appreciate that, but the whole ribbon thing is not endearing them to anyone, and how is that helping JA's case? I just don't understand their thinking.
 
popsicle said:
It was actually in 2010 and there was a muzzle imprint.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I re-read the autopsy report and they did state muzzle imprint and soot. I didn't see "stippling" and so read right past that!

Still, downward angle? Husband she called in a tip on for TA's murder? Maybe he didn't forgive her? Still seems like someone ought to have checked it out.

Not that it would affect THIS case......
 
In thread #111 JustJudy said:
Yep totally agree....never knew I coulda offed those guys who...wait...uh oh ...Guess I deserved slaughtering too, back in the day, if breaking a guy's heart, moving on, & saying hateful things deserves the death penalty :~{
Click to expand...

And people thought those 4 little words ("we need to talk") didn't bode well BEFORE this trial ...
 
Pink Panther said:
She initially came on as a "mitigation consultant/specialist" and was most probably privy to much more information that she would have been given had she originally had the role of "expert witness". "Experts" are expected to testify in keeping with their area of "expertise". She switched out of her role as ms/consultant after having seen all of the information available which might not have been presented/available to someone that was simply and expert witness. (I don't know if that made sense but I hope so...)

I firmly believe that she's a staunch anti DP and that is what drives her and motivates the decisions she's made.

moo
Click to expand...
Maybe there's a way to look at the last 18 cases she's testified for, and see if there's a pattern. If that is the case, there are far better ways to show your distain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 234 more.
Total: 3,008 (members: 235, guests: 2,773)

Online statistics

Members online
235
Guests online
2,773
Total visitors
3,008
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,234
Messages
17,965,681
Members
228,729
Latest member
PoignantEcho
Back
Top