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

[indicat]

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...

Thank you for clearing some of this up. Its going to be a long weekend of speculation so it helps!

 

[My3Sons]

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...

So, do you have any thoughts, then, on what it could be? Sounds like that's the million dollar question

 

[celticthyme]

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

We know, having heard all of the testimony, about the myriad of lies ( false testimony) Jodi has told. The problem for LV is that not only did she not take into account all the information out there, about this murder andJjodi's role in it (in her role as a professional), but she did not question 1) Jodie's far fetched tales, AND 2)she allowed the DT to dictate what information she "reviewed" and which to avoid, deny or dismiss. That really is not only highly unprofessional, but criminal. As well,she has repeated those lies, to the detriment of the court and her career. Now today she was caught giving more false testimony by JM, on the stand. She's going to have some"splainin" to do come Monday. Will she be held in contempt?

 

[Hally]

A--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...

If you were in my class MS Azlawyer I would ask you to take a time out. Or, go to the office of personality.:floorlaugh:

 

[Kaddy Wonders]

I'm wondering if this has something to do with either perjury or perhaps her behavior in the courtroom. :waitasec: I don't know, really, but I'm very curious.

Another hmm, fwiw. Juan tried line of questioning about her education. Objection/approach. Discussion at sidebar. Juan comes back, dropping that line of questioning. Could they be looking further into "invented" higher education? Would that be a big deal during the trial or something they could hold off for perjury after the trial? :doh:

I also wondered about poquito mas' back. He wasn't reported as ever looking 100% comfortable?

 

[Tesstruhart]

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.

I have thought along these same lines for awhile now. The phone call is what did it for me. Travis had no idea he was being taped. She led him down the garden path. She was the driver of that whole conversation. He sounded like he fell asleep at the end. She is very cunning. The gas cans, gun, sex tape, doggy door, hacking into computers etc. etc. etc. This imo is premeditated murder.

 

[Lark2]

So, do you have any thoughts, then, on what it could be? Sounds like that's the million dollar question

I know this was directed to AZ Lawyer but I thought I'd pass on what was discussed on other thread: the mistrial motion from last week regarding prosecutorial misconduct and witness intimidation is still open; Grace Wong of HLN has been told to be on court Monday; she may have info about the "cane signing" nonsense. The stress ALV has undergone is referenced in the motion, so maybe they want her testimony too?

Someone said that it was reported that the testimony is to be in front of the jury, but I think that might not be correct. If this mistrial motion requires conversations with ALV and Wong, they would still have to be under oath and a court reporter would need to be taking their "testimony," but not in front of a jury.

Could this be correct, AZL?

 

[Leilei]

I know this was directed to AZ Lawyer but I thought I'd pass on what was discussed on other thread: the mistrial motion from last week regarding prosecutorial misconduct and witness intimidation is still open; Grace Wong of HLN has been told to be on court Monday; she may have info about the "cane signing" nonsense. The stress ALV has undergone is referenced in the motion, so maybe they want her testimony too?

Someone said that it was reported that the testimony is to be in front of the jury, but I think that might not be correct. If this mistrial motion requires conversations with ALV and Wong, they would still have to be under oath and a court reporter would need to be taking their "testimony," but not in front of a jury.

Could this be correct, AZL?

If this has to do with ALV's stress, why would she seem to be dragging her heels about appearing next week? The judge had to admonish her about her personal issues when it came to deciding which day. This whole thing is so intriguing... we're all going to be speculating until Monday :seeya:

 

[katydid23]

I know this was directed to AZ Lawyer but I thought I'd pass on what was discussed on other thread: the mistrial motion from last week regarding prosecutorial misconduct and witness intimidation is still open; Grace Wong of HLN has been told to be on court Monday; she may have info about the "cane signing" nonsense. The stress ALV has undergone is referenced in the motion, so maybe they want her testimony too?

Someone said that it was reported that the testimony is to be in front of the jury, but I think that might not be correct. If this mistrial motion requires conversations with ALV and Wong, they would still have to be under oath and a court reporter would need to be taking their "testimony," but not in front of a jury.

Could this be correct, AZL?

AZL answered similar question just now in the legal thread:



Originally Posted by lisalove
At the end of court today the judge announced they were going to be addressing an issue involving laviolette on the record Monday. could this be about alv approaching Travis' sister? What would be the point of putting it on the record?

AZL:
It could be about that (I think she said Tuesday BTW). Or it could be about some other contempt issue. Or it could be about Nurmi's latest motion for mistrial and ALV is just going to be a witness about the effect of the "circus" atmosphere. I don't know about that last one, though--it seemed to me that the judge was ticked off at ALV when she was setting the hearing. Also, she noted more than once that ALV was under subpoena, and I would assume that ALV would gladly appear without a subpoena to help Nurmi's motion.
__________________

 

[Sleuth5]

Hey Katie, was this the guy? I got a pic of him standing outside the courthouse, talking to himself, and pulling something that looked like popcorn out of his pocket. He was muttering something about "Koolaid", but I assume that had something to do with the salt. Who knows.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

I just posted the following in the weekend thread, but I thought I'd post it here, too, because I'm wondering if any of our court watchers saw this or if they know who should be contacted about it. I suspect the camera person may have contacted someone, since the camera stayed on JA for this part, but you never know. Whatever she did, she wasn't supposed to be doing it:

Around 32:45 into part 3 of the JA trial day 46 put on youtube croakerqueen123's channel today, JA is CLEARLY up to something clandestine having to do with JW's chair. No. Question. About. It. Here is a slo-mo, then normal speed video of it.

Jodi Diddles JW's Chair

• First she kicks JW's chair away/into position.

• Then she twirls the seat of JW's chair into a different position.

• Then she slowly pulls JW's chair alongside her own, using her foot.

• She waits a little bit, looks covertly out the side of her eyes to see if anyone is glancing at her.

• She picks up a notebook and grasps it near the middle with her left hand, then slides the thumb across the bottom of the page.

• She puts her hand down on the arm of her own chair and makes a couple of picking motions.

• She quickly moves her hand to JW's chair at the back of the armrest.

• She works the end of the armrest along the back and bottom of it. It looks like she's screwing or unscrewing something and/or picking/poking at something.

• She jerks her head up and looks at the bench conference, pretending to be interested in what they are doing, but continues to diddle the back and bottom of the armrest on JW's chair.

• She quickly pulls her hand back to in front of her, picks up a stubby pencil and starts to write or pretend to write as the conference breaks up and the lawyers head back toward their respective tables.

I never actually saw anything IN her hands other than the notebook and the pencil, but she did something she shouldn't have been doing (I think she hides something). Does D have access to those chairs after the court clears out or before court convenes?

 

[deedee21]

We know, having heard all of the testimony, about the myriad of lies ( false testimony) Jodi has told. The problem for LV is that not only did she not take into account all the information out there, about this murder andJjodi's role in it (in her role as a professional), but she did not question 1) Jodie's far fetched tales, AND 2)she allowed the DT to dictate what information she "reviewed" and which to avoid, deny or dismiss. That really is not only highly unprofessional, but criminal. As well,she has repeated those lies, to the detriment of the court and her career. Now today she was caught giving more false testimony by JM, on the stand. She's going to have some"splainin" to do come Monday. Will she be held in contempt?

They get paid alot of money to do what you described above.If she was there for the proscecution, she would be more forthcoming about violence towards men. She would go on to say that Travis showed the same traits as a woman who was abused.

 

[katydid23]

If this has to do with ALV's stress, why would she seem to be dragging her heels about appearing next week? The judge had to admonish her about her personal issues when it came to deciding which day. This whole thing is so intriguing... we're all going to be speculating until Monday :seeya:

I still lean towards her Tuesday testimony being about the pending Mistrial Motion. I know it is supposedly about her personal stress issues, but I don't think she wants to come back to court anymore. I think she was ready to hightail it back to Long Beach.

And even though this is a pro-defense motion, it will still be stressful for her, to have to go and discuss all of the negative messages and calls and reviews and posts harassing her. JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

So, do you have any thoughts, then, on what it could be? Sounds like that's the million dollar question

Contempt hearing of some kind? That's my best guess for now, but the judge has done a very good job of concealing what's going on behind closed doors.

We know, having heard all of the testimony, about the myriad of lies ( false testimony) Jodi has told. The problem for LV is that not only did she not take into account all the information out there, about this murder andJjodi's role in it (in her role as a professional), but she did not question 1) Jodie's far fetched tales, AND 2)she allowed the DT to dictate what information she "reviewed" and which to avoid, deny or dismiss. That really is not only highly unprofessional, but criminal. As well,she has repeated those lies, to the detriment of the court and her career. Now today she was caught giving more false testimony by JM, on the stand. She's going to have some"splainin" to do come Monday. Will she be held in contempt?

If she is held in contempt, it won't be for failing to question Jodi's stories or failing to ask the DT for more info. Neither of those things would be in violation of any court order. Neither or those things would be criminal either, although for sure they don't tend to lead to believable expert testimony.

If you were in my class MS Azlawyer I would ask you to take a time out. Or, go to the office of personality.:floorlaugh:

DID I ASK YOU, HALLY, WHAT YOU WOULD DO IF I WERE IN YOUR CLASS? IS THAT WHAT I ASKED YOU? ARE YOU DONE? :floorlaugh:

I know this was directed to AZ Lawyer but I thought I'd pass on what was discussed on other thread: the mistrial motion from last week regarding prosecutorial misconduct and witness intimidation is still open; Grace Wong of HLN has been told to be on court Monday; she may have info about the "cane signing" nonsense. The stress ALV has undergone is referenced in the motion, so maybe they want her testimony too?

Someone said that it was reported that the testimony is to be in front of the jury, but I think that might not be correct. If this mistrial motion requires conversations with ALV and Wong, they would still have to be under oath and a court reporter would need to be taking their "testimony," but not in front of a jury.

Could this be correct, AZL?

Wong is IMO going to testify in the mistrial hearing, and that definitely will not be done in front of the jury. ALV might testify in that hearing too--but I got the distinct feeling from the judge that her "issue" was something separate.

 

[luvmygarden]

O/T : I have a p/t laptop repair business...it has been booming for the last 3 weeks . Lots of "overheating"... fan failures. 85% of these crashed laptops seem to be WS'ers or otherwise following this trial! I encourage everyone using a laptop to get some "canned air" and clean out the vents on the bottom/sides of your laptops. Whatever you do, don't block these vents...overheating causes the Graphics Processing Chip (GPU) chip to blow out = Black Screen.

Canned air is your laptop's friend. Sorry for the O/T

O/T I had a problem this evening and found this re: win7 I deleted the recent update and it is back So relieved I was panicking. Do you think this was a big problem for lots of people??
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...-7-users-to-uninstall-faulty-security-update/

 

[PhantomAngel]

Katiecoollady, Please remember that although we love your posts and views, that is not why we read your posts. To me you have become like a super hero, One of many that Websleuths has. It is mainly because of your heart, your love and how you are seen as being so very true to yourself. Those are qualities that make you you Katie! And I adore you!
Pasa, I hope your family member does better and I thank you for being you also.
I must say, Websleuths not only has very intelligent people here but also people that care about each other and have lots of heart and love.
It is definately different on the outside!!! Glad I am inside!!!

 

[leebee52]

AZ what would you think if you were crossing an expert witness if they said to you that if you were in their group they would put you in a time out in open court?

 

[twirlin]

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

It appears that the jury has already disregarded most of AL's testimony.
Unfortunately, she was a huge waste of taxpayers money and a huge
wasted hunk of trial time.

 

[shragae]

The judge made it a point to say that ALV is still under subpoena. To me that sounds like she is in some kind of trouble. . . I guess we'll find out on Monday! :what:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

WTF is an impeachment hearing?

Where is this nonsense coming from?

:what: LMAO