Sweetiemom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,790
- Reaction score
- 69
Good morning, everyone! Let's hope Willmott is done with LaV soon and we can get on to the jury questions!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's the only way I play....:great:
I really hope we get to Juror questions today. It's fascinating.
I really hope we get to Juror questions today. It's fascinating.
Re-posting, doors closed on me!
I wouldn't call any of what is happening on social media and the media witness tampering. I also don't feel the bad in the slightest for ALV or the DT. From a historical perspective, the purpose of an open court is that "justice is not done in the dark."
Justice would not be done if ALV and the DT were allowed to trash the good name of the victim for an admitted murderer which could lead to her acquittal or a lesser punishment than the community (as represented by the jury) feels that she deserves.
Name calling and ad hominem attacks are not necessarily the right way to express outrage over these proceedings, but the community has a right to express themselves. The limitations on those rights come only when someone could be done actual physical harm. Otherwise, no one ever died from hurt feelings and panic attacks.
If ALV did not want to be exposed then she should have turned the case down like the 11 other experts. If she wanted to continue on in her career as she had before, then she should have opted out. If the DT did not want to be exposed to ridicule for their tactics, then they should have tried this case honorably like so many other defense attorneys do for reprehensible clients every day. Since they chose not to, the chickens are coming home to roost and hopefully future hacks, quacks and hired guns will think more of themselves then to "de-edify' the judicial process.
Truth is not found in dark spaces or back rooms...sunshine is always the best disinfectant.
Thanks to the mods for cleaning up after us. Apologies, too.
Just getting in where I fit in:seeya:
Today is the day we start an hour late right? Due to a Juror having something to tend to.
Today is the day we start an hour late right? Due to a Juror having something to tend to.
Re-posting, doors closed on me!
I wouldn't call any of what is happening on social media and in the media witness tampering. I also don't feel bad in the slightest for ALV or the DT. From a historical perspective, the purpose of an open court is that "justice is not done in the dark."
Justice would not be done if ALV and the DT were allowed to trash the good name of the victim for an admitted murderer which could lead to her acquittal or a lesser punishment than the community (as represented by the jury) feels that she deserves.
Name calling and ad hominem attacks are not necessarily the right way to express outrage over these proceedings, but the community has a right to express themselves. The limitations on those rights come only when someone could be done actual physical harm. Otherwise, no one ever died from hurt feelings and panic attacks.
If ALV did not want to be exposed then she should have turned the case down like the 11 other experts. If she wanted to continue on in her career as she had before, then she should have opted out. If the DT did not want to be exposed to ridicule for their tactics, then they should have tried this case honorably like so many other defense attorneys do for reprehensible clients every day. Since they chose not to, the chickens are coming home to roost and hopefully future hacks, quacks and hired guns will think more of themselves then to "de-edify' the judicial process.
Truth is not found in dark spaces or back rooms...sunshine is always the best disinfectant.
We are allowing the link to the articles about cyberstalking and witness intimidation so that you may see the severity of the problem we're facing.
This is NOT an open invitation to express your views on the matter one way or the other.
If you have made disparaging remarks about the defense team or their witnesses, go back and delete your comments or alert the post and ask that a moderator delete it for you.
In the past week, we've been issuing 24-timeouts for name calling and disparaging remarks. Future timeouts for this type of violation will be extended to include at least 3 days of trial coverage.
Please check your posts now.
Thank you.
I want to say this, without giving away the person/people I heard things from. I have a mentor who happens to be a therapist who is married to a professor at Cal State Long Beach.
This mentor travels in the same professional circles as ALV. According to my friend (and another person) ALV is extremely well liked and well respected and I have the utmost respect (personally) for the individuals I heard this from.
My mentor said she consider's ALV to be compassionate, intuitive, generous and very good at the work she does. She is apparently well liked among her colleagues.
I have come to my own conclusions as to why ALV chose to believe and testify for the defendant and I am weighing that with what I have heard about her.
I am sorry for her decision but have to believe it came from a well intentioned place. She was manipulated- wether or not I believe she allowed herself to be- I feel compassion for her as a woman, partner, mother, professional, and fellow community member.
I don't want to see anyone end up in the hospital or worse over this- well...except the defendant!