trial day 46: the defense continues its case in chief #138

[kayice]

Who is that loud blond lady that usually argues for the prosecution on HLN, she was with Joey and Ryan today...she was praising Juan. Usually she is all over him. She said Juan is setting it all up for closing arguments, Juan had to bring out the lies from ALV to show the jury. DT case is just a bunch of phooey lies.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Henry Lee: "Too much blood for beating" ... as if most falls down stairs result in blood covered walls.

I am no blood expert but it was clear to me that she had been beaten to death at the bottom of those stairs, head likely rammed repeatedly against stairs and doorframe if you ask me, falling down stairs and moving around while husband was poolside sipping on a glass of wine after she'd found emails on his computer from young men? Seriously.

 

[swanna]

JM: Ma'am, it is 6:00, isn't it?

ALV: I can't answer that question. There are two hands on the clock, and they move. They are moving now, even though it's imperceptible. So I cannot say yes, it's not a yes or no answer.

JM: ma'am, the big hand is on the 12 and the shorter one is on the 6, correct? Yes or no.

ALV: It depends what you mean, Mr Martinez, by "the big hand" and "the shorter one." And what do you mean by "on"? Are you trying to trick me? I just can't answer the question. I don't know what you are asking. A clock has moving parts and numbers. There are different types of clocks, digital and analog. And there are time zones...

JM: I didn't ask you whether a clock has moving parts. Did I ask you that? Did I ask you about time zones? Ma'am, you do know how to tell time, don't you?

ALV: Yes, Mr Martinez, I can tell time, but I am here to talk about domestic violence, Mr Martinez, so when you ask me if its 6:00, I am confused about where you're going.

JM: Judge, non-responsive. Please instruct the witness...

JW pops to her feet: Judge, may we approach?

JSS: You may.

Stomp stomp strut strut ==>sidebar ==> 5 minutes of white noise

Stomp stomp strut strut back to chairs.

JSS: Ladies and gentlemen, we are taking a recess for 10 minutes.

30 minutes pass

JM: ma'am, is the time now 6:40? Yes or no.

ALV: the big hand is on the 40 and the little hand is between the 6 and the 7, closer to the 7, so it's 6:40.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:That is a :goodpost: :tyou:

 

[The Farm]

It took me days to look up what "tossed salad" meant lol. And I thought I was pretty ***sophisticated*** (cough-cough) sexually.

It grossed me out! NO I have never done THAT~ :blushing:

Wish I would have remained ignorant.

Ok I give. What is a tossed salad and how did I miss that???

 

[Tuba]

ALaV's defense of her repeated statements that the gun was fired in the closet is unsatisfactory. Now she says she is relying on what Falsity told Dr. Samuels and denying she ever heard it from the defendent's own mouth. I cannot believe her. Martinez may be able to impeach this testimony.

 

[katydid23]

since the judge told ALV that THIS is the priority, leads me to believe that this is not about any health issues that ALV might be having.....so it has to be about her approaching Sam in court the other day.....it just has to be....IMO

I doubt it is about her approaching Sam. This is a Capital Murder Case. I don't think she would take her limited court time to deal with that rude obnoxious action by ALV. She already dealt with it, IIRC.

I am pretty sure this is about Nurmi's Motion for Mistrial.

 

[katiecoolady]

2 things regarding ALV:
1. Juror question something like...JA receiving minor wounds and TA receiving horrific wounds, wouldn't that mean TA received the worse of the domestic violence...JM had to keep objecting and finally ALV said... NO! Good LORD woman!!!!

2. Seems the "tuesday issue" just might be the ALV speaking to Sam like others have posted. This is from a spectator on twitter who has been in the courtroom... she "observed Alyce La Violette come over to the Alexander family in the spectator section of the courtroom and quietly make a comment to Travis' sister, Samantha. This spectator was unable to hear what the "expert witness" said to Samantha. This spectator was aware that this was in violation of courtroom protocol.

There was some type of distraction in the back of the courtroom or possibly in the hallway, and most of the people in the courtroom were focused on the distraction. Therefore, few individuals saw La Violette speak to Samantha Alexander. A little later, this spectator made a point of talking to Samantha and told her she did not have to endure talking to La Violette. She said Samantha looked at her and softly said, the Prosecutor is already on it.

In all probability, this action by Alyce La Violette is why she was summoned to Judge Sherry Stevens chambers this morning. Perhaps, we will soon learn what the consequences of this action will be. It could possibly be a sanction of the defense team for permitting this inappropriate courtroom decorum to occur. It is possible the consequence may be limited to an admonition by Judge Stevens to Alyce La Violette. However, after testifying 18 times as an expert witness, I am certain Ms La Violette was aware she was breaking courtroom decorum. Therefore, the consequence could be a stiff penalty."

Can you please tell me where the bolded part came from ? It's about me. Thanks! (also pls send me in a pm as I'm rushing out ..so i can find it)

 

[AngelWings444]

I found strange and inappropriate that ALV started, then stopped by JM and the Judge, to tell the Jury that she didn't have much built up for her retirement. What? That gives her an excuse for this bias in testifying? Un-ring that bell to the jury, Alyce.

I believe, it was the pity card. ALV does not deserve an ounce of pity after her testimony and blatant lies on the stand. The way she bashed Travis, taking the word of a known, lying murderer, makes me sick! She committed perjury, while being paid over $50,000 for her "investigation/testimony". I'm sure she has some redeeming qualities, but testifying in a criminal case isn't her calling. She is clearly bias against men, or, at least against Travis!

JMO

 

[Maryann123]

JM: Ma'am, it is 6:00, isn't it?

ALV: I can't answer that question. There are two hands on the clock, and they move. They are moving now, even though it's imperceptible. So I cannot say yes, it's not a yes or no answer.

JM: ma'am, the big hand is on the 12 and the shorter one is on the 6, correct? Yes or no.

ALV: It depends what you mean, Mr Martinez, by "the big hand" and "the shorter one." And what do you mean by "on"? Are you trying to trick me? I just can't answer the question. I don't know what you are asking. A clock has moving parts and numbers. There are different types of clocks, digital and analog. And there are time zones...

JM: I didn't ask you whether a clock has moving parts. Did I ask you that? Did I ask you about time zones? Ma'am, you do know how to tell time, don't you?

ALV: Yes, Mr Martinez, I can tell time, but I am here to talk about domestic violence, Mr Martinez, so when you ask me if its 6:00, I am confused about where you're going.

JM: Judge, non-responsive. Please instruct the witness...

JW pops to her feet: Judge, may we approach?

JSS: You may.

Stomp stomp strut strut ==>sidebar ==> 5 minutes of white noise

Stomp stomp strut strut back to chairs.

JJS: Ladies and gentlemen, we are taking a recess for 10 minutes.

30 minutes pass

JM: ma'am, is the time now 6:40? Yes or no.

ALV: the big hand is on the 40 and the little hand is between the 6 and the 7, closer to the 7, so it's 6:40.

OMG! That is too funny. I visualized JW scuttling back and forth to the judge, and nearly fell out of my chair! You really nailed all the players.

 

[The Village Idiot]

What about the day where JM said vocally that He was trying to impeach the witness....then a side bar was called by JW.

JM vocally said that right out outloud in court....so did he impeach her with his questions?

 

[tss]

2 things regarding ALV:
1. Juror question something like...JA receiving minor wounds and TA receiving horrific wounds, wouldn't that mean TA received the worse of the domestic violence...JM had to keep objecting and finally ALV said... NO! Good LORD woman!!!!

2. Seems the "tuesday issue" just might be the ALV speaking to Sam like others have posted. This is from a spectator on twitter who has been in the courtroom... she "observed Alyce La Violette come over to the Alexander family in the spectator section of the courtroom and quietly make a comment to Travis' sister, Samantha. This spectator was unable to hear what the "expert witness" said to Samantha. This spectator was aware that this was in violation of courtroom protocol.

There was some type of distraction in the back of the courtroom or possibly in the hallway, and most of the people in the courtroom were focused on the distraction. Therefore, few individuals saw La Violette speak to Samantha Alexander. A little later, this spectator made a point of talking to Samantha and told her she did not have to endure talking to La Violette. She said Samantha looked at her and softly said, the Prosecutor is already on it.

In all probability, this action by Alyce La Violette is why she was summoned to Judge Sherry Stevens chambers this morning. Perhaps, we will soon learn what the consequences of this action will be. It could possibly be a sanction of the defense team for permitting this inappropriate courtroom decorum to occur. It is possible the consequence may be limited to an admonition by Judge Stevens to Alyce La Violette. However, after testifying 18 times as an expert witness, I am certain Ms La Violette was aware she was breaking courtroom decorum. Therefore, the consequence could be a stiff penalty."

re: """" "observed Alyce La Violette come over to the Alexander family in the spectator section of the courtroom and quietly make a comment to Travis' sister, Samantha."""""

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I thought that in answer to a Juror question, ALV said that she was not legally allowed to talk to TA's Family, which if correct I'm really surprised to know. I'll have to check a youtube.

BTW, does anyone know if that is, in fact, the law?

 

[Jeffssis]

jm: Ma'am, it is 6:00, isn't it?

Alv: I can't answer that question. There are two hands on the clock, and they move. They are moving now, even though it's imperceptible. So i cannot say yes, it's not a yes or no answer.

Jm: Ma'am, the big hand is on the 12 and the shorter one is on the 6, correct? Yes or no.

Alv: It depends what you mean, mr martinez, by "the big hand" and "the shorter one." and what do you mean by "on"? Are you trying to trick me? I just can't answer the question. I don't know what you are asking. A clock has moving parts and numbers. There are different types of clocks, digital and analog. And there are time zones...

Jm: I didn't ask you whether a clock has moving parts. Did i ask you that? Did i ask you about time zones? Ma'am, you do know how to tell time, don't you?

Alv: Yes, mr martinez, i can tell time, but i am here to talk about domestic violence, mr martinez, so when you ask me if its 6:00, i am confused about where you're going.

Jm: Judge, non-responsive. Please instruct the witness...

Jw pops to her feet: Judge, may we approach?


Jss: You may.

Stomp stomp strut strut ==>sidebar ==> 5 minutes of white noise

stomp stomp strut strut back to chairs.

Jss: Ladies and gentlemen, we are taking a recess for 10 minutes.

30 minutes pass

jm: Ma'am, is the time now 6:40? Yes or no.

Alv: The big hand is on the 40 and the little hand is between the 6 and the 7, closer to the 7, so it's 6:40.

excellent!!!!! Ha ha ha!!!!

 

[Only4Justice]

PLEASE ASSURE ME there will not be a mistrial!!!!

It's starting to worry me somewhat.

This deserves the death penalty, or else, abolish it!

BUT. There are so many bizarre things I have seen in this trial, that I have never seen in my life! It has been absolutely UNBELIEVABLE! 4 months in. Wow.

I'm at a point where I just want it over. If she is not sentenced to the death penalty, I will have lost all faith in our justice system.

Surely, these jurors will convict her of 1st degree murder and premeditation. Right?

A man was BUTCHERED to death. DEFENSELESS in the shower, naked.

God Bless the Alexander Family....they personify such restraint. And good court manners. Respect for the court. Hope that Justice will be served.

lease:

 

[The Village Idiot]

What is the TOTAL COST FOR COURT............Now to date

??????????????????????????

 

[artsy1]

Best caption for this picture wins free pop rocks and tootsie rolls

"OMG - they let the only juror who might cause a hung jury go! Think, Jodi, think - can we file a motion for mistrial for letting him go?"

 

[creepingskills]

I knew it! Juan confirmed that ALV has never testified in a criminal case as an expert witness.

JM: Isn't it true to say that you testified in a criminal case KNOWING it was only a report, isn't that base of misrepresentation?

ALV's answer played it off as if she was confused re: criminal court v. family court; testifying v. submitting a report...but would someone who wasn't clear on these concepts be paid to teach others how to be an effective "expert"?

 

[SkiptomyLu]

My bet is ALV will claim medical illness and get a doctor's note and will not show up Monday or Tuesday. She just doesn't seem to respect the court IMO. That is based on a PATTERN of behavior I have observed throughout her testimony.

MOO - I think there could be a great possibility that these medical issues are made up for purposes to try and derail the trial.
ALV got involved after these proceedings were well underway, well AFTER this was a media spectacle. She knew exactly what to expect as proven by one of her very 1st statements: "… If I have a career after this."

:moo: :moo: :moo:

 

[Linda7NJ]

Just seems to me ALV's arrogance allow her to believe she can just do what she wants.

- Speaks over Judge when there is an objection
- Admits to lying on the stand
- Approaches a member of the victim's family
- Asks to use the bathroom in the middle of testimony
- Gets on the stand but forgets to bring her glasses

Did i miss anything?

I really think she has been a huge pain in the backside for everyone involved in the trial, including the DT.

I think she can now safely delete "expert witness" off her CV


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nosey Parker]

So...I was going to respond to a bunch of posts but there were just too many.

Just to clear a few things up:

1. A witness being impeached is not an EVENT that causes anything else to happen. It just means the cross-examination went well. It does not mean there is some announcement to ignore her testimony. It does not mean there could be a mistrial.

2. Witnesses lying on the stand is also common and normal and a daily occurrence. This does not cause a mistrial or create any need for a separate hearing. In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that perjury charges were brought--and I mean close to zero percent probability--those charges would be brought in a separate criminal proceeding and not as part of the proceeding in which the witness was testifying.

2. If JM had wanted to disqualify ALV as an expert, that motion would have been made and ruled upon before she got on the stand. And absolutely nothing she has said on the stand has altered the qualifications JM was aware of before she got there. And she clearly is qualified as a DV expert anyway.

3. There is some possibility that this hearing on Tuesday will concern ALV's approach of Samantha, depending on what she said and what she had been instructed prior to that time. Obviously, she knows at least as of today that it would be illegal for her to approach the family for an interview. It would also have been illegal for her to approach the family as an agent of the defense team (e.g., bearing a message from the defense), rather than going through the prosecutor. It would not have been illegal for her to say, e.g., "sorry, nothing personal" to Samantha, although it would have been unprofessional and thoughtless. But perhaps somehow she had already been instructed not to talk to the family? Seems unlikely, though. Anyway, my guess is that the hearing Tuesday is something about ALV that has ticked off the judge and that ALV was subpoenaed for (so she is not testifying in her expert capacity IMO). I suppose there is also some possibility it's a contempt hearing relating to her non-cooperativeness on the stand, since she was admonished numerous times and might have been further instructed in chambers. But normally non-cooperative witnesses are not held in contempt--they are just made to look like biased fools in front of the jury, and that's good enough for most of us.

Thank you, as always, AZlawyer.

I have been off line since the end of court today. Has anyone posted the possibility that the same juror that asked LaViolette why she continually looked over and smiled at the defendant may have sent a note to the judge last week that LaViolette was being coached from the defence table?

I wondered if the two hour session in chambers the other day, with LaViolette present, was while the judge went through the camera footage, and now Tuesday is a hearing on Wilmott's behaviour.

Just a thought.

 

[VALee]

researching here again, check this out.

Note: BBM as DV items JA is guilty or most likely guilty of...

What is the legal definition of domestic violence in Arizona?


This section defines domestic violence for the purposes of getting an order of protection.

Arizona law defines "domestic violence" as the occurrence of one or more of the following acts:
•physical assault, such as hitting or kicking;
•threatening words or conduct;
•intimidation;
•harassment by phone and in person;
•stalking;
•photographing, videotaping, recording, or secretly watching you without your consent: ◦while you are in a private place (i.e., bathroom, bedroom) doing a private act (i.e., urinating, having sexual intercourse); or
◦while your breasts, buttocks, or genitals are exposed in a way that they are not normally exposed in public;

•endangerment (placing you at risk of immediate death or physical injury);
•unlawful imprisonment;
•kidnapping;
•criminal trespass;•criminal damage;
•disobeying a court order;
•custodial interference;
•negligent homicide, manslaughter and murder;•neglect, abandonment or cruel mistreatment of an animal;
•preventing or interfering with the use of a telephone in an emergency;
•abuse to a vulnerable adult or child;
•certain crimes against children; and/or
•disorderly conduct, such as: ◦fighting
◦reckless display of a dangerous instrument
◦discharge of a deadly weapon and/or
◦abusive language.*

Source: http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=11326&state_code=AZ#content-7686