a view from the inside: observations from our own court observers #8

[LinTX]

Just read an interesting blog discussing what might be happening with ALV...they point out some of the questions JM asked her today to show how the prosecution may be asking for an impeachment hearing. She misrepresented her expertise on her CV, "misspoke" on 2 or 3 important issues, and today was caught inflating her trial experience. JM touched on those things again today, and started to question her education before an objection. I want to say another issue I just can't recall.

Maybe her 'standing' as an expert is being questioned, along with her in & out of court behaviors, such as the interview disclosing the topic of an in chambers meeting. If such a hearing has been requested, the blogger added, it could also be why the judge looked so unhappy...having to make this kind of a ruling? If the witness is impeached, the jurors will be instructed to disregard any of her testimony.

 

[crime cases addict]

Did ALV really say this? I guess I missed it. ty

yup I heard it

 

[AZlawyer]

Will you be my Mom? I need one.

:hug:

KCL, please take care of yourself. We need you!

 

[AZlawyer]

Just read an interesting blog discussing what might be happening with ALV...they point out some of the questions JM asked her today to show how the prosecution may be asking for an impeachment hearing. She misrepresented her expertise on her CV, "misspoke" on 2 or 3 important issues, and today was caught inflating her trial experience. JM touched on those things again today, and started to question her education before an objection. I want to say another issue I just can't recall.

Maybe her 'standing' as an expert is being questioned, along with her in & out of court behaviors, such as the interview disclosing the topic of an in chambers meeting. If such a hearing has been requested, the blogger added, it could also be why the judge looked so unhappy...having to make this kind of a ruling? If the witness is impeached, the jurors will be instructed to disregard any of her testimony.

WTF is an impeachment hearing?

Where is this nonsense coming from?

 

[crime cases addict]

Maybe it was determined through her testimony or maybe someone overheard that ALV has been watching trial and hearing testimony? That would be a huge no no. Or maybe she text Jodi thru atty phone or maybe asked Jodi questions during her testimony so shed keep in tune with the TALL tale.

She was talking on the phone in the resturant. My first thoughts OMG she talking to Jodie:what:

 

[crime cases addict]

WTF is an impeachment hearing?

Where is this nonsense coming from?

perjury.......lying under oath

 

[AZlawyer]

perjury.......lying under oath

That's completely different from impeachment. Impeachment is just successful cross-examination. Perjury is lying under oath. And NEITHER one would result in a separate hearing during the case.

 

[susan1122]

There was an article in USA Today regarding discussions in Chambers to do with Alyce - so obviously ALYCE has discussed what happened with one of her friends...and should not have done so...and I think this is why the Judge is pissed and why Alyce will be back Tuesday - just my thoughts

Great catch, Lovebug! I think you are right. Wow.

 

[luvbug622]

I wondered the same thing, and I am not a lawyer LOL

WTF is an impeachment hearing?

Where is this nonsense coming from?

 

[Tulessa]

Thank you Katie! :blowkiss:

 

[mamapena2]

Thanks for understanding. Things are getting very intense now and I have to be very careful about what/how/where I post things so trying to keep things simple.

I completely understand! All I am doing is following the trial and praying for family and all of you involved and it feels like it is getting intense....take a breath..you are awesome and we appreciate ya!

 

[ilovewings]

Just read an interesting blog discussing what might be happening with ALV...they point out some of the questions JM asked her today to show how the prosecution may be asking for an impeachment hearing. She misrepresented her expertise on her CV, "misspoke" on 2 or 3 important issues, and today was caught inflating her trial experience. JM touched on those things again today, and started to question her education before an objection. I want to say another issue I just can't recall.

Maybe her 'standing' as an expert is being questioned, along with her in & out of court behaviors, such as the interview disclosing the topic of an in chambers meeting. If such a hearing has been requested, the blogger added, it could also be why the judge looked so unhappy...having to make this kind of a ruling? If the witness is impeached, the jurors will be instructed to disregard any of her testimony.

umm-methinks they have already disregarded her testimony

 

[Kris Munroe]

PASA,

So sorry to hear about your family member. Please know you have a lot of positive thoughts and prayers coming your way. Healing thoughts and prayers to your family member.

 

[sammijo]

No it's not the DT that's putting me under any stress...it's just the intensity of the trial now and my semi awkward position now. I just need to be more careful as we have all agreed. i don't even want to meet any new people anymore and stick with those I know very well to hang out with. IMO

That's sad. I understand completely, and know you said your stress is not in relation to DT nonsense, but I've been wondering a lot lately about how the jury feels with Nurmi, Jodi, and God only knows who else, staring them down throughout trial in recent weeks. I would feel harassed and threatened if it were me. From everything I've read, they are straight-faced and all business. Other than #11, and we don't even know what she said, they've shown no bias other than their questions, and you can't call those bias. They're trying to find the truth, and the questions are their legal right. It doesn't seem decent that the DT should be allowed to "stalk" them in the courtroom.

 

[CrescentMohn]

Yes, I don't think Jodi even thought she was being abused until Alyce planted
the idea in her mind.

I thought this too at first but I have a theory that has been on my mind the last few days. I believe the abuse was JA's idea from the beginning. I believe it's part of her premeditation. For the longest time I kept thinking TA might have been a player but that's no reason to murder somebody. I don't think he was though. Travis knew what JA was capable of, as he told friends they might find him dead sometime. I think he was appeasing her by having sex with her so she would not escalate.

I also believe that these sexual fantasies that she is trying to use against him (the spiderman underwear, the little girl stuff, the tree fantasy) were all JA's fantasies and he was playing along. The dildo with a heartbeat comment showed me that JA was more into the sex than TA was. Also the comment he made to her to have another guy fulfill the tree fantasy (I'm putting this mildly) shows me that was HER fantasy not his. Having seen the recent pic of JA with BJ wearing the superman t-shirt and braids also fits this theory.

I believe when JA was recording these sex tapes she knew that he would talk about this stuff to please her so she could use against him later..one more piece of premeditation in my mind. Of course, this is jmo.

Also, AL testified she did not get on this case until a year and a half ago. JA was starting to go with the abuse allegations in 2010 or before. It was in 2010 when she tried to get the forged letters from TA into evidence. This was JA's idea for a defense, they just found somebody willing to go along with it.

 

[LinTX]

That's completely different from impeachment. Impeachment is just successful cross-examination. Perjury is lying under oath. And NEITHER one would result in a separate hearing during the case.

Evidently (by your reaction) she used 'impeachment hearing' in the blog in error, but what she was talking about was clarified in a comment:

The hearing part that she is referencing is usually in response to a Motion in Limine (which, in layman’s terms, is a motion to preclude or bar evidence). It is possible that Juan advised the court that he is planning on filing some motion to preclude her testimony based on credibility and false testimony. She is correct that a criminal punishment for perjury would come later; but having an expert accused of perjuring herself on the stand (or misrepresenting her qualifications in, for example, a previous hearing before the judge on her qualifications as an expert) could be grounds for striking her testimony (i.e., instructing the jury to disregard). Sorry if that’s too much legalspeak

 

[Suzanna in Arizona]

Like another poster mentioned, I think the jury has already discredited/struck her testimony, even without the Judge instructing them to do so! But it would also be nice to have the judge formally mention it. JMO

 

[Madilu]

Do any of you observers know why JA seemed really depressed early on today?

Now there's a question! I can't imagine what she has to feel depressed about...Personally (and I didn't watch today) I think she has been a bit off guard in her behavior lately -indignant even

 

[AZlawyer]

Evidently (by your reaction) she used 'impeachment hearing' in the blog in error, but what she was talking about was clarified in a comment:

Quote:
The hearing part that she is referencing is usually in response to a Motion in Limine (which, in layman’s terms, is a motion to preclude or bar evidence). It is possible that Juan advised the court that he is planning on filing some motion to preclude her testimony based on credibility and false testimony. She is correct that a criminal punishment for perjury would come later; but having an expert accused of perjuring herself on the stand (or misrepresenting her qualifications in, for example, a previous hearing before the judge on her qualifications as an expert) could be grounds for striking her testimony (i.e., instructing the jury to disregard). Sorry if that’s too much legalspeak

JM could not ask to preclude her testimony based on lack of credibility or false testimony. What you do if you have lack of credibility or false testimony is impeach the witness--i.e., cross-examine her. He seems to have done a pretty good job of that already.

I also don't think there is any possibility that JM is asking the judge to reconsider some objection he had to her qualifications. She didn't say anything new about her qualifications during her testimony that JM didn't already know before she got on the stand. And the things she exaggerated on the stand (which JM already knew were exaggerations) were insufficient to make any difference on whether or not she was qualified as an expert.

And why in the world would he ever WANT to have her disqualified now? Why would he WANT the jury to be told to disregard her testimony? I have seen no signs that he's an idiot, and this was IMO one of his best witnesses.

ETA--LinTX--sorry if I sound like I'm yelling. Sometimes I get frustrated by all the legal nonsense out there on the Interwebs and then I get like Juan...

 

[jayarohh]

LinTX--sorry if I sound like I'm yelling. Sometimes I get frustrated by all the legal nonsense out there on the Interwebs and then I get like Juan...

(snipped for focus)

"Get Like Juan" - $20 says that's going to be next week's catch phrase and will grace the front of T-shirts and coffee mugs everywhere.