Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by LambChop, Jan 27, 2015.
Please continue your discussion here.
:loveyou: This is for OUR #1 witness.
Phew! Good timing!
Thanks for the smooth transmission LambChop!
For a minute there, I didn't think you'd care how we FEEEEEEEEL (sarcasm)
:applause:. . . .Standing O :rose: . . . . . .Deanna and Ziggy . . . . . . . ❤️ My Heroes for the Day! ❤️
Of course I care. You are the best posters E_V_E_R! :slap:
I've missed the trial for a few days and am getting caught up. I'm finally reading today's testimony and just came across this gem:
JW asks if she was ever misleading in her interviews.
DR: "The only one who is being misleading is you."
Can't wait to read more. Also BK has the letter to TA's family posted. I'll probably read that too before coming back here. :seeya:
Rickshawfan, last thread you asked if Det. Smith was taking Flores place tomorrow (re: jensdiaries tweet I posted). Detective Smith is the computer forensic guy for the state. Juan will probably clear up a lot of porn issues, tampering, etc...with this expert. jmo
Too bad Deanna couldn't answer JW today when she asked if she had brought the audio with her "no but my lawyer did" and some attorney in the courtroom turned it over. Imagine JW having to deal with that audio on the fly! JSS would never have allowed that to happen but it would have been epic.
I still can't believe JW actually said that to DR just to be sarcastic and snippy. Along with the other things she tried to copy from JM. It's not like DR had spent days on end on the stand spewing lies. She had been on there for less than a half hour with JM and she got under JW's skin with one comment shortly into their exchange. Priceless. And JW went after her like that even after whining to the judge and having DR admonished. So unprofessional. JM likely would have had that audio there just in case if the shoe was on the other foot. That's how prepared he usually is...for anything. Can't wait for the release of the video of this trial.
when the thread closed. I really hate that. But I saw katydid captured much of my comment:
I thought the same thing.
I was also thinking back to my litigation firm days and, as I recall, after a deposition of a witness you would send them the transcript for review and correction. And there were corrections. No one is perfect and words aren't always transcribed correctly. I get the impression DR was never provided with the transcript or asked to approve it as correct. Or else JW would have said that. So, yes, there is every reason to refuse to answer questions based upon an "alleged" transcript of her words.
I too think Juan knew this was going to happen and was in on it-not that it was wrong or anything-she had every right to do what she did. I also wonder if the abrupt end today was because JSS told them to bring the audio. Hope springs eternal that JSS would take a position against something the defense did.
I also like how all this is illustrating that nothing the defense does should be trusted. Their witnesses LIE-that's kind of important. The affidavits are useless. Everything they say is suspect.
Wow, what a day! So much to comment on: the defense finally rests, Deanna's polite snark to JW. She is so impressive and, like others noted on the previous thread, embodies truth, decency, and integrity, all qualities that the DT's witnesses so obviously lacked. I'm sure the jury can't help comparing the quality of the prosecution's witnesses to those the DT offered.
My favourite JM sarcasm of today: email by homing pigeon. :giggle: Gotta love him.
Anyway, I've got some work to do before bed, so I'll lurk you all tomorrow.
(Geez, I can't stay away). What I admire about Juan is how he so effortlessly dismantles all the bs and lies that the DT spent so much time and energy (and dollars) constructing. He never breaks a sweat, never gets flustered, never gets the JW deer-in-the-headlights look. Instead, he makes it seem like brushing away an ant.
An errata sheet is meant to alert the court reporter to possible errors in a deponent’s notes or transcription of his/her notes.
By the way, here is Keifer's comment on what was on the transcript page before Willmott actually read it I think. Different take than I got but how did he know what was in the transcript?
Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · 33s33 seconds ago
The page says that she didn't know Alexander was having sex with others. "I don't feel comfortable answering the question from a transcript.
So it appears that her answer of "I don't know" to that weirdly worded question was automatically taken as I don't know if he was having sex with others. Which in itself was a wrong interpretation likely and then it was multiplied by suggesting that meant DR was lying about whether she had sex with him. What a far stretch. Very far.
Did Kiefer get his info from MDLR before it was presented or were some of the other tweets delayed?
BBM and they haven't even seen Dr. DeMarte yet!
And the "magic" email.
I also remember back when they were arguing that Deanna Reid lied in a motion in front of the judge, Michael Kiefer tweeted that he thinks they might be misreading that. He even knew back then that it was a misquote.
I'm still smiling, and I'm sure Wilma & Jodi are still fuming!!!
Your guess is as good as mine but ...... Kieffer is listed as a "friend" on MDLR's Facebook. hmmmm:thinking:
Wait a sec? Did JA meet Abe and Travis at around the same time?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it came out that she met Abe the month before she met Travis.
Separate names with a comma.