State rests rebuttal case- thread #166

[lil_buddy]

How will Dr. H do on the stand, if called?
In another case, a civil case, a few yrs. ago, she testified for R.J Reynolds.

This clip is atty for the smoker (COPD, apparently)-plaintiff's cross exam of her (did not see direct exam).
He raises questions --
---so, no matter what you say about cig's & addiction,
it's still just an opinion.
--- goes thru her 23pp CV/resume & her website,
page by page, nothing about cigs, tobacco, addiction.
---asks about poss. consulting or testimony re other Big-Cig Trials in future.

I watched just 40 min.

She gets a wee bit defensive w. a few questions.
If she takes stand in AZ, she may do a little better w. more experience since then..
(By the offhand ref to New Orleans/Katrina, I take it this was recorded post 2005)
But no where near as belligerent as Dr. Dick S. or Alyce LaV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qF4zbATV3J0#

I'm disgusted that she would be an expert witness for Big Tobacco - indicates to me lack of ethics. Sorry guys.

 

[Truth Detector]

BBM

^THIS^

I'd put my money on Pedophilia.

Chris said that he and Sky didn't want Jodi around their children.

Guess those self-help brochures just didn't 'take'.

 

[zaza]

I'm watching NG, listening to JA responding to the jury questions - Boy, does she like to talk! She's one of the chattiest defendants I've ever seen. I'm guessing that she's making a lot of her answers up as se goes along. She gives way too much information at times and with great detail. And she forgets her lies. Example: one reply - 'the last words I remember from TA was after I dropped the camera, he said, a two year old could do a better job....(paraphrase)'. Then a later reply, 'the last thing TA said was I'm going to ******ing kill you, bi*ch, after the gun went off (again, paraphrase)'. And prior she said she didn't remember anything after the gun went off. Her story keeps changing.
I hope the jury is keeping track of these discrepancies , there are plenty more. I wish JM had gotten after her for these contradictions.

 

[MidwestMama]

Is it just me or does Nurmi seem as weee bit on the sleazy side?

I will refrain from saying what I REALLY want to say lest I get my first TO, but I would like to say that it is not just you :floorlaugh:

 

[missy1974]

ITA. No matter WHAT some unscrupulous defense lawyer told me about my friend, I would not agree with it in some email (or anywhere else) unless I had an agenda.

I do not think for one daggum second that Travis was a pedophile. NO WAY NO HOW!!!!

But I do find it upsetting that Sky would so easily turn on Travis just because Nurmi told her some lie. Seriously? Gah!!!!

I cannot stress enough how insincere I find both Hugheses and I think this is EXACTLY why JM elected not to call either of them to the stand.

In stark contrast, there is the testimony of Deanna Reid. No agenda, no spin. If anything, she took a personal hit in admitting her sexual relationship to the victim, Travis. People seldom amaze me anymore, but that young woman has. I think the world of her.

The Hugheses? Not so much. I think Sky comes off as a "mean girl" and a busybody, and Chris as a guy more interested in the almighty dollar than the happiness of his "friend".

This is TOTALLY my take on these folks, and I understand others may not see things the same way. I am posting my opinions respectfully.

I certainly wouldn't feel good knowing the money I donated to the Alexanders was being administered by CH. nuh uh. Nope.

That is exactly how I feel FrayedKnot, and I have been hesitant to post about it today. So I thank you for putting it into words for me! The breaking point for me was Skye's willingness to believe Nurmi, that was it, I don't want a friend that would even consider the possibility that I could do something like that. I have seen comments that Nurmi was an authority figure or an officer of the court, that doesn't explain it for me, nope, it doesn't. That officer of the court is DEFENDING the woman that brutally killed my good friend. Nope, never gonna believe a word that guy says, wouldn't even talk to him unless I was ordered too. But I guess that's just me. As for the other emails.... CH said that he went on to say in those emails that saying abuse was being harsh. I can't believe that not once did Juan bring that up? I find that hard to believe too. JMO

All just my opinion, and I apologize if it offends anyone. But this is a forum, to discuss things, and unfortunately for the Hughes', their words were used in this trial an awful lot.

 

[Sulamith]

I just want Juan to use a map in closing.,,in my own experience people assume other people are familiar with states close to them. I'm in south jersey.. Super close to center city Philadelphia ... I hate the city, rarely go over the bridge. I'm also fairly close to NYC.., been 5 times in my entire life.., hate the city.

People assume all the time I know my way around those areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When JM was going over JA's "route" I told my husband that if I were on the jury I would want them to give me a map so I could follow along or project a map on the overhead projector (whatever it is called).

 

[noonie]

Chris wants the chace to finally tell Travis' story and I thik he should. Why should we believe the Jodi's stories that were put into evidense? I'm sure most of the story is her fantasy. I want to hear Chris and Sky. Good for them for coming forth to help their brutally murdered best friend. I know I would and it wouldn't be for the $$$., It would be for the right's of my best friend, who was slaughtered to death by someone none of them knew very well nor wanted too. She had a really bad vibe and she sure does know how to fabricate stories that are not true. Bless the Hughes family.

 

[ElleElle]

Yes.

And, as per ALV :giggle: Sky said she would not let Travis date her sister.

Elle, which email are you talking about? Is this the one where Sky said she though Travis was treating Jodi badly?

 

[Linda7NJ]

It's even worse the second time around! The biggest mistake the DT ever made was allowing the killer to take the stand. I don't think Stanislavski or Strasberg could help her - she is that bad. How the jury could contain themselves and not discuss her pathetic performance is a miracle. She cooked her own goose! (After I shot him, I didn't know I shot him, he kept lunging at me for a second and then he fell on me.) Guess she didn't notice the hole in his head and the blood oozing out! Puleeze!

It was a time delayed bullet wound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PrincessSezMe]

It's hot enough here to be nekkid, and it's only April.

I'm so jealous. It's STILL snowing here :facepalm:

 

[al66pine]

I actually looked into that. Turns out, in a bizarre display of ethical standards, the Vegas sports bets don't put out odds or accept bets on murder trials.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the above is factual, are "ethics" the basis for it?

Or is it (in part?) because someone placing a huuuugggggge bet could also 'influence' the verdict, to assure or enhance their odds of winning?
e.g. bribing a witness; threaten jurors; blackmail a judge; pay off attorney on one side or the other? :facepalm::twocents::blushing::moo::banghead:

Just a thought.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Is it just me or does Nurmi seem as weee bit on the sleazy side?

Can you imagine him questioning a child victim of sexual assault?

I feel like puking just thinking about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElleElle]

BBM~ Or of her Jodi exposing Travis.

IMO this whole trial was only a game to JA after reading her plea and threat of what she would do.
She decided to kill Travis and leave his body naked as pay back for his threat to expose her. If I had to guess her secret was one that was sexual in nature.

All just MOO

 

[Emmi]

I thought it was more like she was answering ?'s for a Miss America pageant.

I know just what you mean. Her poise has a studied quality, which of course comes off as remote.

 

[sammijo]

I understand the desire behind this but I don't understand the reasoning. Jodi has presented evidence beyond her own testimony. (The tape, the texts, the t-shirt.). This seems to call for some outside arbiter to evaluate what evidence is cacceptable before it can be submitted to a jury. That is what pre-trial hearings are for. I don't see the point.

Then possibly the pre-trial hearings need to have new "guidelines"? I don't know what the correct terminology would be.

And you're absolutely right, it is solely a desire on my part to see people like Jodi Arias denied the chance to slander everyone she "feels" like, just to save her own life, after she so cruelly and viciously took someone else's.

I have no idea what the proper solution is. I do think it needs to be considered and looked into by people who understand the law, to see if there is anything that can be done. Maybe there isn't... :/

 

[Schuby]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the above is factual, are "ethics" the basis for it?

Or is it (in part?) because someone placing a huuuugggggge bet could also 'influence' the verdict, to assure or enhance their odds of winning?
e.g. bribing a witness; threaten jurors; blackmail a judge; pay off attorney on one side or the other? :facepalm::twocents::blushing::moo::banghead:

Just a thought.

Yeah, could be but I doubt it. Vegas is all corporate now. They're out of the business of trial tampering.

 

[bettybaby00]

But that's the whole point of the petition, a kind of grass roots movement to change that somehow.

Just because its the state's burden to prove the defendant committed the crime they're being accused of, should not mean a defendant can come into court and make outrageous, slanderous comments with absolutely no proof to back it up, just to avoid the penalty for their crimes.

I keep thinking, what if Travis were seriously harmed, but he had lived? Jodi probably would have used this same defense or accused him of something else, with no proof. Yes, he would be here to defend himself, but that accusation of abuse and pedophilia would follow him the rest of his life. You cannot un-ring that bell. It's devastating.

Consider a man who was accused of molesting his own children, all because his soon-to-be ex wasn't getting what she wanted in the divorce settlement. He was a loving father and proved innocent, but some people will look sideways at him the rest of his life.

And there are "advocates" out there like LaViolette, who are all too willing to fight on a woman's behalf to prosecute a man, with zero proof.

Some kind of change needs to at least be put on the table for consideration. The defense of "My parents abused me - I can't be held responsible for any crime I commit.", has morphed into every excuse imaginable.

This is JMHOO.

BBM

This is why the "specialty" of Nurmi's law practice is......idk ironic is obviously not the right word, but damn!!!!

I can provide you with aggressive representation against
any accusation that you committed a sexual offense.
At the Law Office of L. Kirk Nurmi we understand that you do not have to commit a sexual offense to be accused of being a sex offender.

We understand that innocent people can be accused of sex crimes such as sexual assault, sex conduct with a minor or sexual exploitation of a minor, or any sex offense with very little evidence. We also understand that being accused of committing such a crime is devastating and daunting.

The fact that he plans on basing his private practice on the very accusations that his client is now claiming is just.....it really leaves me speechless... :furious:

 

[ElleElle]

The battle will begin in 15 hours.

Closed hearing was about whether Juan could bring in a witness AFTER Nurmi's surrebuttal witness. Assume happy faces means the answer was YES

 

[ElleElle]

:floorlaugh:

How will Dr. H do on the stand, if called?
In another case, a civil case, a few yrs. ago, she testified for R.J Reynolds.

This clip is atty for the smoker (COPD, apparently)-plaintiff's cross exam of her (did not see direct exam).
He raises questions --
---so, no matter what you say about cig's & addiction,
it's still just an opinion.
--- goes thru her 23pp CV/resume & her website,
page by page, nothing about cigs, tobacco, addiction.
---asks about poss. consulting or testimony re other Big-Cig Trials in future.

I watched just 40 min.

She gets a wee bit defensive w. a few questions.
If she takes stand in AZ, she may do a little better w. more experience since then..
(By the offhand ref to New Orleans/Katrina, I take it this was recorded post 2005)
But no where near as belligerent as Dr. Dick S. or Alyce LaV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qF4zbATV3J0#

 

[indicat]

From what I read, Nurmi told the Hughes the letters were in Travis' own words and in his handwriting. Nurmi was "oh-so-sorry" to have to be the one to break it to them, blah, blah, blah.

The Hughes were duped by the defense. When they found out, they came out very angrily.

It wouldn't be the first dirty, underhanded trick the defense tried. Can you imagine if two of Travis' very good friends had testified "against" him out of some misguided attempt to rectify what they thought was their unfair treatment of Jodi? What a coup for the defense that would be!

At least that's what it seems Nurmi was going for. And that fits with Jodi's MO of making herself into the victim. I'm sure it was an agenda she pushed.

Just MHOO, of course.

And they were told they had been verified by the handwritting experts. I bet nobody is as sorry as they are about this.