Trial day 53: REBUTTAL; #162

[Boytwnmom]

and that wasn't the only court that had some choice words for him. The case you cited-his testimony about the father being an abuser-the court found him lacking any credibility and awarded the father full custody and made the mother pay his attorney fees.

Kind of like this case. The mother was a liar and he accepted and adopted her lies, performed no adequate evaluation and simply parroted what the liar wanted him to and concluded the poor father who he never interviewed was an abuser, because the liar said so. Because his conduct was so egregious and unprofessional it wasn't like he actually accomplished anything for the liar. Let's hope this jury is as savy as the judge in that court obviously was.

I think everyone clearly has his #. He is a hired gun, biased, lacks credibility, does shoddy work and devotes most of his time to testifying for liars and the guilty. Sounds perfect for Jodi and her pals.

Are you referring to the discovery sanction in the O'Rourke case? If so, that sanction was against the Mother for failing to timely disclose Geffner's information. The trial court did refer to his as a "hired gun" and had some other choice words, but did not sanction him personally. It merely limited the scope of his trial testimony to the two affidavits he'd submitted.

~quote from the link

Mother objects to the discovery sanction that limited the testimony of her expert witness, Dr. Robert Geffner, whom she describes as "a psychologist and preeminent nationally acclaimed authority on domestic violence." Setting aside the question of Dr. Geffner's credentials, we note that the trial court imposed the sanction because of Mother's failure to participate in the discovery process in good faith.

Father submitted interrogatories asking Mother to reveal the identity of all the experts she intended to call upon and the issues each would be testifying about. Mother first spoke to Dr. Geffner early in November of 2006. On December 31, 2006, she first provided his name and his CV to Father's attorney, but no other information, thereby making it difficult or impossible to obtain a timely deposition from him. The trial court found that Mother and/or her attorney consistently procrastinated in responding to discovery requests, that they withheld information from Father in an attempt to gain an advantage over him, and that the delay over Dr. Geffner's opinions was just the latest example of that tactic.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...2801.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7

 

[ButForFortune]

I agree cecy. All of them are dispicable killers, but Arias strikes me as disturbed in a way that the others you mention are not. Could any of them kill again? Absolutely, no question. But WOULD any of them kill again? I can't say with any certainty. If Arias ever got out of jail though, I would bet my bottom dollar on it. What they found her packing after her arrest (knives, and the recently purchased gun) pretty well confirms that IMO.

I agree with you. If Jodi gets off she will feel empowered and will continue to eliminate any unfortunate soul who gets too close too her and then "offends" her.

 

[legalmania]

Because the "fog" told her to.

Just like the dog in the Son of Sam case.

 

[ricky_ticky]

Yesterday everybody said it was Deanne's ring....
Which/Who is it?
TIA

Travis wasn't going to give Deanna a ring. That's why they broke up. IIRC the ring that was stolen was going to be presented to Mimi, but then she told Travis that she wanted to be friends.

 

[Sleuth5]

Who is this DD talking head woman who is saying that women say "no" as a way to encourage sex?????

I know, I nearly ruptured a spleen. Between her and the young guy with his fifteen-year-old male sexuality perspective -- at one point claiming that he "is a human *advertiser censored* detector," I was bit astonished that a group of professional women stayed relatively placid and smiling. I realize the show must go on, but I would have expected a bit more indignation. Shameful.

 

[seguek9]

Who is this DD talking head woman who is saying that women say "no" as a way to encourage sex?????

All of his women look the same to me...moo.

 

[HarvestMoon]

Travis wasn't going to give Deanna a ring. That's why they broke up. IIRC the ring that was stolen was going to be presented to Mimi, but then she told Travis that she wanted to be friends.

No, this new girl on Nancy (Linda) said the ring was for her.

 

[ClosArgs]

Exactly. It is beyond comprehension why the defense went down that road.

MOO

ITA, why alienate the jury with an unsubstantiated domestic violence defense? They had no real proof of abuse other than a couple of alleged "pyschological abuse" emails/texts/ims of arguments. I have to believe JA drove this defense, and the defense attys are forced to go along for the ride.
STBT.

 

[ElleElle]

These are the same people who say if a women is scantily clothed she deserves to get raped. :stormingmad:

Who is this DD talking head woman who is saying that women say "no" as a way to encourage sex?????

 

[ButForFortune]

I was just able to watch today's courtroom drama on YouTube. Boy did Jodi put on a show for the first 33 minutes! I have never seen her "crying" that much or as animated as she appeared for that length of time before.

What a fake! I guess she figures she is down to the final days she can cry and turn her pleading eyes toward the witnesses and jury members. She is trying to make it really good!

 

[otto]

Are we naive in thinking not a soul on the (or any?) jury really isn't reading the news at home? Or do people trust them at their word? There is no fact checking, nobody is going to their homes to check their computers or interview their families, . I know we want to take people at their word, that's human nature to trust first, ask questions later, but skeptics work on the opposite side of that track - ask questions first, ask HARD questions first. Has it ever been proven that a jury member did, in fact, read the papers or watch news and was therefore influenced and more well-informed? This is just a general question, thought, not an accusation of course, please understand. 50 years ago I'd have believed that a juror wouldn't have read a newspaper, but these days, it's hard for me to believe that they don't come across something, even unwittingly. Again, just a conversation, not an accusation, ok?

If a juror has been checking the news, that will come out during deliberations. Lots of information was in the news that wasn't in the trial. Anyone that was checking the news will slip up in the jury room.

I think that people on juries agree that they won't read the newspaper, won't watch TV, won't listen to the radio and will minimize social contacts while sitting on a jury. If there's a slip up, they have to report it to the judge. It does seem to be an honor system, but it also seems to have some safety checks in place.

 

[Karmady]

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/04/...iend-linda-ballard-engagement-ring-jodi-arias

snipped:

Alexander’s ex-girlfriend also recalled an eerie conversation she had with Alexander during the last visit she had with him at the Arizona State Fair in October of 2006.

“He said he had been dating a girl named Jodi and he mentioned to me that she is a pathological liar,” Boss said.

“I want people to know that the real Travis was not abusive. He was kind, he was a shoulder to cry on, he was passionate about life, he had more goals than most people would ever dream about trying to accomplish. He inspired people to be better,” Boss told HLN.

Is the date October 2006 a typo?

 

[katydid23]

Are we naive in thinking not a soul on the (or any?) jury really isn't reading the news at home? Or do people trust them at their word? There is no fact checking, nobody is going to their homes to check their computers or interview their families, . I know we want to take people at their word, that's human nature to trust first, ask questions later, but skeptics work on the opposite side of that track - ask questions first, ask HARD questions first. Has it ever been proven that a jury member did, in fact, read the papers or watch news and was therefore influenced and more well-informed? This is just a general question, thought, not an accusation of course, please understand. 50 years ago I'd have believed that a juror wouldn't have read a newspaper, but these days, it's hard for me to believe that they don't come across something, even unwittingly. Again, just a conversation, not an accusation, ok?

If I am completely honest with myself, I would have to admit that I would possibly peek at some things on the internet. I think I could avoid newspapers and tv news shows if I was a juror. But I would still check my email and stuff, and would be very tempted to see what happened to a missing juror for example. I would probably b e dying to google 'juror # 5' for example.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Me too. I also miss MTV when it was actually 24 hour music videos. Now let me go get my cane so I can hobble over the refrigerator for my Geritol.

You too? I cut school the day MTV came on the air!

Video Killed The Radio Star... First video played.

Remember the VG's? I used to make fun of bobble head Nina Blackwood all the time! Lol




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mrs G Norris]

These are the same people who say if a women is scantily clothed she deserves to get raped. :stormingmad:

I heard a confession by a rapist once where he said he picked his victims for how they sat on barstools, women who sat a certain way 'wanted it' and were giving off signals that most men wouldn't pick up on .. he could however :stormingmad:

Shiver.

 

[TexMex]

:floorlaugh:

Like when DH stood in the kitchen doorway, watching me pour pancake syrup on the floor and side kick an uncooked rigatoni noodle into the puddle......doing my own casing test......

He just asked "when you're done, may I come in and get some ice cream?"

During the Simpson trial posters were doing tests on ice cream. I think Nicole had bought she and the kids ice cream and a detective had noted approximately how melted it was...

 

[Martin L]

That is why they are trying to change their defense at the end of the trial. I wonder if they realize how ridiculous that looks. I can see the verdict form. Please choose from the following. A) Do you believe Jodi was in a struggle for her life B) Do you believe Jodi was suffering for PTSD and was in a fog and cannot remember certain events that day C) Do you think Jodi went into an rage because she has multiple personality disorder D) None of the above. She is guilty as sin and we have no defense to what she did.

by the end it will read will you find not guilty and release ja if she said sorry

 

[seguek9]

Is the date October 2006 a typo?

That was bugging me too...

 

[legalmania]

GRAPHIC GRAPHIC GRAPHIC

Why Jodi needs to get the Death Penalty.

Well I was hungry. His poor family, I don't know how they can look at that, time after time.

 

[katydid23]

I was just able to watch today's courtroom drama on YouTube. Boy did Jodi put on a show for the first 33 minutes! I have never seen her "crying" that much or as animated as she appeared for that length of time before.

What a fake! I guess she figures she is down to the final days she can cry and turn her pleading eyes toward the witnesses and jury members. She is trying to make it really good!

I think she has been a lot more emotional since her grandmother was in the gallery. I do think she did have an emotional connection with her grandma, and she might be really feeling sorry for herself when she sees her grandmother there in court and realizes she will be dead before Jodi even dreams of being free.