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

[katiecoolady]

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.

Awesome!!! He *****es about the "spectacle" of this trial (to my face) then creates a spectacle.

 

[noor]

How would he know that?

It's part of the court hearing, part of the trial, it's on the record.
My guess is that she was there, because it's her right.
Unless she waived her right to be there.

IMO.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

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 Much of her information comes from outdated information with her referring back to the 1980's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

BBM - that is exactly the point when I knew just what this lady was (I think I even posted that exact thought! LOL) - and I agree, I don't want her speaking for me or anyone else!

 

[katiecoolady]

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.

Saw that too. That juror must have said it didn't influence their ability to be impartial. Fail!

 

[katiecoolady]

Clarification: Jodi was there for the stupid hearing (no jury) but not there for the jurors being individually questioned

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Awesome!!! He *****es about the "spectacle" of this trial (to my face) then creates a spectacle.

:floorlaugh: Sounds to me he is more like jodi than he knows - when the attention is on someone else, do something to bring the spotlight to yourself. Migraine vs. stupid story ---------> Gosh, I am gonna have a hard time picking which is lamer! LOL :floorlaugh:

 

[Southern_Meadow]

Is there any chance this jury seeing a photo taken could cause a mistrial, or would they remove the one juror if they needed to? I know he or she said it didn't and wouldn't influence their verdict, but I can't imagine Nurmi letting this go.

 

[deedee21]

The jurors go home late afternoon every day. Do I believe they live under a rock until they have to be back at court the next day? Hell no. They have 3 day weekends every week. Do I beleve they live under a rock until Monday morning? Hell no.

 

[tater4332]

~WitchyWizdom~ ‏@WitchyTweets 8h
#JodiArias trial Video Just-Released INTERROGATION Part 1 ~ 3/20/2013 via rhoracius2006

http://youtu.be/lRwBD1brzD4

Police Phone Interviews June 10, 21 (vm) & 25, 2008. WSTigerBalm

http://youtu.be/NmXxck9IiFQ

 

[Southern_Meadow]

The jurors go home late afternoon every day. Do I believe they live under a rock until they have to be back at court the next day? Hell no. They have 3 day weekends every week. Do I beleve they live under a rock until Monday morning? Hell no.

I agree with you. I could be wrong, but I think there's some that do watch the coverage or read newspapers about this case, maybe not to the extent that they watch it nonstop, but I think some have seen a little here and there. It's everywhere and has been for the entire trial. JMO.

 

[Liebchenmutti]

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:

GREAT POST!! I agree--she's really off base.

 

[katiecoolady]

Is there any chance this jury seeing a photo taken could cause a mistrial, or would they remove the one juror if they needed to? I know he or she said it didn't and wouldn't influence their verdict, but I can't imagine Nurmi letting this go.

I'm sure it depends 100% on whether the DT thinks that particular juror is one the think they want on the final panel.

 

[BChand]

WildAboutTrial has retracted the false info


WildAboutTrial‏@WildAboutTrial34m
@jaoeffler I don't know the official answer, I know that what I was told is not accurate so as far as I know, no juror saw the incident.

 

[KBisMe]

Is there any chance this jury seeing a photo taken could cause a mistrial, or would they remove the one juror if they needed to? I know he or she said it didn't and wouldn't influence their verdict, but I can't imagine Nurmi letting this go.

No. The only way I think it could cause a mistrial is if 6 or more (all of the alternates) said they saw it and it would influence their judgement.

WildAboutTrial tweeted
"Source is not credible after all, I can't confirm that a juror saw it. Sorry for the false alarm. Will continue to investigate."

I haven't heard from anyone that a juror even saw it, so I'm not worried about it. Beth Karas said yesterday that, as far as she knew, the jury was still intact.

 

[Liebchenmutti]

I hope Nurmi doesn't eat himself into a coma now that his little ploy to embarrass Juan Martinez didn't work.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Well now, I just remembered something I uploaded to my youtube channel and well................... JEAN sure has become more critical when it is not her doing EXACTLY what she feared!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this video - AIRED BEFORE JURY SELECTIONS WERE COMPLETE IN THE HIGHEST PROFILE CASE SINCE OJ - her and the team of InSession did hours of pre-trial, pre-jury selection interviews with Cheney Mason and Jose Baez and aired them at a time in which jurors (and potential jurors) would/could have most likely been swayed.

Me thinks this is a Tobleron out of both sides of the mouth!
cheney mason insults potential jury pool on InSession - Part 8 of 8 - YouTube

YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME CONCERN THEN, DID YOU?

 

[katiecoolady]

No. The only way I think it could cause a mistrial is if 6 or more (all of the alternates) said they saw it and it would influence their judgement.

WildAboutTrial tweeted
"Source is not credible after all, I can't confirm that a juror saw it. Sorry for the false alarm. Will continue to investigate."

I haven't heard from anyone that a juror even saw it, so I'm not worried about it. Beth Karas said yesterday that, as far as she knew, the jury was still intact.

Moral of this story: believe Beth 100%

 

[LambChop]

Saw that too. That juror must have said it didn't influence their ability to be impartial. Fail!

I can't imagine it would. If a juror said it did and they were easily influenced by what they saw who would want that juror on the jury in the first place. And that should go for either side.

 

[Liebchenmutti]

I have the feeling that Nurmi & Willmott are going to really regret that little stunt involving Juan Martinez & fan photos.

I think Juan will now be RELENTLESS. I think that this stupid ploy to embarrass him will REFOCUS his will to get justice for Travis.

Congratulations "Team Jodi!" You've now revitalized Juan Martinez to defeat you.

 

[SunnyinMO]

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.

Wild is now saying source not credible

WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial
I will just stick to reporting about fashion in the #JodiArias trial from now on. I don't like dealing with sources and false info.
ExpandReplyRetweetFavorite
1h
WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial
Source is not credible after all, I can't confirm that a juror saw it. Sorry for the false alarm. Will continue to investigate. #JodiArias