JusticeJunkie
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 5,107
- Reaction score
- 2
Thanks posters. You know you sometimes get hooked on something niggling at you? That one was mine, and I thank you for helping me understand.
I'm not saying it's valid, a great defense or anything like that. I'm only saying that I think that is where the defense is headed. They have given us little hints with by the way they portrayed the pigtails, orgasming like 12-year-old and little boy underwear. I do hope I am wrong about this, I really do.
I'm rocking my boy panties right now....I'm not a pedophile and neither is my hubby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Abe is souring, eh? How is he being d-baggy?
I've lost remote control priveledges for the night...
You mean your whitey tighty little boys underwear?
Still watching Lisa's testimony. Jodi's eyes are actually red like she's been crying. I bet those are tears of frustration and anger because Travis preferred Lisa, and everybody just thought crazy Jodi was a stalker.
Are you talking about the pedophilia claim? Isn't the only basis for that from her, and contained in those phony letters that won't come into evidence?
If they can't find a child he molested, I don't see how they get that in. All his relationships were with women. And sexual fantasies don't count, IMO. They're perfectly normal.
Ideas how they'll wiggle this in other than the little innuendos like 'boy's briefs'?
He, for some reason thinks its no longer the DrDrew show ....it's the I Know Everything Abe Show and Drew let him! Lol he talks over everyone, it's extremely combative by nature. IMO
I don't know. But since there is zero actual boys underwear in evidence... I'm going to believe the defense is mis characterizing the panties.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He, for some reason thinks its no longer the DrDrew show ....it's the I Know Everything Abe Show and Drew let him! Lol he talks over everyone, it's extremely combative by nature. IMO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We need to start keeping a list of "Juan moments."
1. "It's not like he was saying 'we need to get down, baby', right?"
2. "Your hindquarters"
3. "You don't get to ask the questions. I ask the questions!"
4. To Gus' "irrelevant" comment, "That's not how it works."
Nurmi said in open court that an expert has said that the letter used in Chris Hughes' testimony was probably written by Travis. The Judge allowed that statement by Nurmi and the State did not object, afaik, or the objection was overruled. So, as of right now, I have no reason to think that the letter has been proven phony. And I have never seen an instance where experts have disagreed over the validity of evidence and the court didn't allow it unless there was some other objection to it -- probative value outweighed by prejudice, relevance, etc. I'm very curious about this aspect of the defense case.
Of course this is nothing more than my own personal opinion as is yours expressed above, but I respectfully disagree with today's testimony being even a teensy, tiny bit positive for the DT..In fact I strongly believe just the opposite in that every single point or issue brought forth today by this DT, if beneficial to anyone it was purely for the Prosecution..IOW the exact opposite of the desired effect that the DT is working toward(or better yet failing to work toward IMO strictly due to what/who they have to work with, JA)So far, I feel the defense has done an alright job of opening the door to the possibility of self-defense. We'll have to see if they have the goods to walk all the way through it. However, a good amount of doubt about TA's character was effectively cast today.
-- Ex-girlfriend Lisa's email was damaging. No matter how the prosecution tries, that bell cannot be "unrung." She read TA the riot act -- and she admittedly didn't even know the half.
-- Desiree's testimony was a problem for the prosecution. TA pulled his car too close to the Grand Canyon for Jodi to get out and take pics? Then he pulled off a bit, as if he'd strand her there? My guy would NEVER play like that. That's MEAN, particularly on the heals of a loud argument.
-- Desiree claimed she couldn't remember TA's exact words once he let JA back in the car. She claimed it was just his tone that was "over the top." I'll bet she remembers the essence of what he said, and I suspect it was a continuation of the mean "drop dead off the edge / get lost" theme.
-- And then comes testimony by Desiree's brother. He had to go upstairs and "diffuse" an obviously loud and embarrassing argument between JA & TA.
Again, the above does NOT a self-defense case make. But depending on what else they have, all of this could be viewed as a down payment.
These testimonies are the "River Cruz" that can cast doubt...
It was probably from the nose hair she pulled out while hiding behind her hair
This was a proceeding in front of the judge, no jury present. There's no issue of whether something is too prejudicial. And yes, the state did object, strenuously. Then there was a sidebar and no further mention of the letter by Nurmi.
Nurmi said in open court that an expert has said that the letter used in Chris Hughes' testimony was probably written by Travis. The Judge allowed that statement by Nurmi and the State did not object, afaik, or the objection was overruled. So, as of right now, I have no reason to think that the letter has been proven phony. And I have never seen an instance where experts have disagreed over the validity of evidence and the court didn't allow it unless there was some other objection to it -- probative value outweighed by prejudice, relevance, etc. I'm very curious about this aspect of the defense case.