"May have been" = speculation, unfortunately not admissable unless can be proven.Originally Posted by Poppycock
"May have been" = speculation, unfortunately not admissable unless can be proven.
Reminds me of Bill Clinton and "That depends on what the definition of is, is"...
I know! We watched him put a some of his yellow notes already marked as an official court exhibit into his bag on Monday.She and JM know he took that stuff. JM mentioned the little green evidence stickers.
Clerk looking for exhibit video should start at 1:15:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yn1E-k#t=4551s ?
It does! Watch!
Start at beginning of link posted below and you will see it (writing on evidence)
When I was watching looking for this clip I heard exhibit numbers #537 #534 #540 #541 #542 It's hard to figure out because we don't know what exhibit he bags because he could have had it up there from when Willmott was on direct.
Just after 32:00 or so Samuels reaches down to right (our left) and puts a marked exhibit copy of his notes in his bag!
This thread has reached:
2000 pages!!
So glad I found this place!also - 2000 pages of hot mess!!!it!
Assumes facts not in evidence! Have you actually checked? LOLExcept the store are not sold out of bottled water and batteries!
You'd have to put a period at the end of your initial assessment. Then re-evaluate your initial impressions with less certainty, re-adjust your evaluating yardstick to include likely deception in future, ask your subject what might be affecting them in either memory or honesty and ask if they would like to explore that, then re-test them.
I'm soooo ready for rebuttal! Who shall we see? Mrs. Walmart, Mr. Tosoro, Det Flores again, The forensic psychologist, who else? I gots me a feeling that Matt is going to be called. Wouldn't he turn this trial upside down?! Who else??
This is the second time I've responded to my own post, but because I was asked, here it is. (In my words).
Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, is essentially observed circumstances from which a logical and valid conclusion can be drawn based on those observed circumstances. For example, one winter evening, just before you go to bed at night, you look out the window and see that the streets are clean.
You wake up in the morning, look out the window and see that the ground is covered with a light dusting of snow. From the observed 'circumstance' you can speculate/consider the following.
a) Someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow
b) If you believe in snow fairies, it could have been that they passed by and covered the ground in snow.
c) It snowed during the night.
d) If you had never seen snow before, you can't figure out what happened during the night to cover the ground with all that white stuff.
Of course, the correct answer is (c). The snow on the ground is evidence, (proof) that it snowed during the night and that conclusion, based on your observations in the morning, is just as valid as it would be if you had sat up during the night looking out the window and watched the snow fall.
The same applies to the "meteor" example the Dr. used. You didn't see the meteor collide with the ground but the evidence, (the crater it created) left behind is valid circumstantial evidence, (proof) that a meteor landed at that spot at some time before you observed the crater.
That's kind of awkwardly written. Hope it makes the point.
Do you mean to say that there is no Snow Fairy?! Pffft. Next you'll be saying there is no Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy!
Props/Reps/Herp to Cocopop for finding this:
Clerk looking for exhibit video should start at 1:15:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yn1E-k#t=4551s ?
Sorry, I couldn't find it with that link.
I'm having a hard time figuring out where the defense team is going with this...The camera fell, Travis (naked & wet) body slams Jodi onto the tile floor(But she just got a little owey on the head), Jodi gets up...runs down the hall and goes into the CLOSET instead of the DOOR LEADING OUT OF THE ROOM...flight or fight(MY ASS)...closes the door..she uses her ninja skills to jump up and grab the gun on the top shelf in the closet... and instead of going out of the closet and back around to the bedroom door, cuz there are 2 ways to exit the closet, she goes into the bathroom(where she has no other way to run at this point) He lunges, she 'accidentally" shoots him, of course, they fall to the ground, he starts yelling obscenities, and saying he's going to get you bitch (after being shot in the forehead, and a bullet lodged in his JAW)..she gets up..she's running down the hall...then she goes blank. She had this horrible dissociative memory loss, and wakes up in the middle of the desert 'covered in blood' (but no blood all over the car..ok?)
Here's my point, let's just say she really did shoot him first. After he realizes he's been shot, and is bleeding, ALL of the other evidence regarding the 27+ stab wounds, and the slit throat, COULD NOT have been self defense..9 stabs in the back, more on the back of the head, defense wounds on his hands..at this point (and every other point), he's fighting for his life, not the other way around. So is the defense that because she had this "amnesia", she should not be held accountable for brutally murdering a human being, because she pissed him off? Seriously? Is this all she has? Please jury, he was abusive so I shot him..and I'm not responsible for anything that happened thereafter because I had amnesia? I pray she gets the death penalty. She most certainly deserves it...
If I'm asked as a doctor to evaluate a patient who was bleeding from the vagina and sent them for tests, then found out that they were actually just having nosebleeds I'd have to scrap the initial tests and do new ones, wouldn't I?
To whom ever inquired as to "what are you trying to prove JM's got it"
We aren't trying prove anything and I do mean "We" because more people than just me saw this, noted it and went looking for the clip to show it was true.
Isn't that what we do on here? Should I perhaps, along with others, seek your approval before posting something?
So stick it!
Great explanation of circumstantial evidence.Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, is essentially observed circumstances from which a valid conclusion can be drawn based on those observed circumstances. For example, one winter evening, just before you go to bed at night, you look out the window and see that the streets are clean.
You wake up in the morning, look out the window and see that the ground is covered with a light dusting of snow. From the observed 'circumstance' you can speculate/consider the following.
a) Someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow
b) If you believe in snow fairies, it could have been that they passed by and covered the ground in snow.
c) It snowed during the night.
d) If you had never seen snow before, you can't figure out what happened during the night to cover the ground with all that white stuff.
Of course, the correct answer is (c). The snow on the ground is evidence, (proof) that it snowed during the night and that conclusion, based on your observations, is just as valid as it would be if you sat up during the night looking out the window and watched the snow fall.
The same applies to the "meteor" example the Dr. used. You didn't see the meteor collide with the ground but the evidence, (the crater it created) left behind is valid circumstantial evidence, (proof) that a meteor landed at that spot at some time before you observed the crater.
That's kind of awkwardly written. Hope it makes the point.
So for those who think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "beyond any possible doubt", that is like saying (in this example):
"I can't say for sure that it snowed during the night, I did not see it, so maybe answer (a) actually happened (someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow)"
Could someone get a truck and fill it with snow? Yes, that is not impossible
Could someone drive the truck to your street and sprinkle that snow around evenly? Yes, that is not impossible
However, absent some strong, logical evidence to support the "truck with snow" theory, most intelligent people would come to the conclusion beyond a REASONABLE doubt that there is snow on the ground because it snowed during the night. Is this conclusion beyond ANY doubt? No, it is not, because the truck with snow scenario is not absolutely impossible. But the conclusion can be reached beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard required to reach a guilty verdict.
(So in the Arias case, the fact that Jodi made up a story that is not impossible does not mean the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that this murder was premeditated.)
Were you crying when you were stabbing him? --SuperJuan Martinez
Nobody believes a word out of your mouth. Why do you keep talking? -- ABC Interviewer to JA
Am new here so excited to find you kindred spirits thinking what I am about this trial! Yea!
I only started watching the trial and you guys in late Feb and you all have privided a wealth of entertainment, knowledge, your creations and material......etc....... You guys are awesome! Just wanted to thank everyone!
Hey CG, reviewing day 33, something hinky starts here possibly. We have a where's the exhibit game already here.
quack doesn't know. he doesn't have it
watch JUAN, he looks at the judge... is that some kind of knowing look? Juan says he doesn't have it
Judge looks to quack, what's that you have right there
quack lifts up a beige file folder, no no the judge has to tell him ...
here, there is YELLOW notes exhibit right under his nose in front of him!
about 30:00 or so http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...L8uGxM#t=1880s
Not sure where this is taking me yet ... I'm going to watch this jerk's every move for the last few days!
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
There's a whole website outside of this thread.
Welcome to our group. There are so many awesome folks in here, both long term and new. Dive right on it!Am new here so excited to find you kindred spirits thinking what I am about this trial! Yea!
I only started watching the trial and you guys in late Feb and you all have privided a wealth of entertainment, knowledge, your creations and material......etc....... You guys are awesome! Just wanted to thank everyone!
[AnnieBelle*said:Today*07:48 PM*Originally Posted by*MadameX*I shouldn't really say Casey's case was circumstantial... that's not completely accurate. But all of the evidence could only be tied to the family in some way, not specifically Casey.Scott Peterson was convicted and sentenced to die, for the murder of his wife and unborn child. There was plenty of evidence to prove that he was a cad and an asshole, but actual evidence of murder was pretty much all circumstantial and based on his behavior before and after the murder. And Casey....while they could not determine an exact cause of death, that baby didn't bury herself in the woods, plastic bag and all. And Casey was out partying her ass off, living la vida, while she knew her child was dead? And she walked. So, I won't ever call another case until I hear the judge or foreman read the verdict. But, God, I can pray!]
Baez did an excellent job in creating reasonable doubt. Sadly there was evidence in the case that wasn't even discovered until about 6 months ago. But I think even that evidence would not have been enough. The experts could theorize all day long what they thought happened but without proper tissue samples or intact body there was really nothing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. She got lucky. But I look at it this way, she won't always have her looks to fall back on, she really doesn't have an engaging personality. Ppl will get tired of funding her worthless ass. The best job she might be able to get is doing pornos or stripping, which is a short lived window of opportunity. If she ever finds a significant other chances are there will be some major mental issues there. She had no family left that want anything to do with her other than her crazy media whore mother. There is no beautiful life in her future. Sometimes the universe has a way of balancing things out. Wish I would have found this zen attitude towards the CA case before I threw a perfectly good TV remote at the wall, I find peace knowing this evil elfen looking bitch will die lonely and alone.
Props/Reps/Herp to Cocopop for finding this:
Clerk looking for exhibit video should start at 1:15:50
Try this one. Same time mark.
I thought there wasn't trial today to fumigate the courtroom from the barf smell? I have to catch up on today's! I think those were Jodi supporters that were taken out of court. Mistrial by any means!
Am new here so excited to find you kindred spirits thinking what I am about this trial! Yea!
I only started watching the trial and you guys in late Feb and you all have privided a wealth of entertainment, knowledge, your creations and material......etc....... You guys are awesome! Just wanted to thank everyone!
Welcome, gecko!
Were you crying when you were stabbing him? --SuperJuan Martinez
Nobody believes a word out of your mouth. Why do you keep talking? -- ABC Interviewer to JA
I can't make the link work for me. Do you know what trial day it was on??
I'll look it up that way.
This link just takes me to my home page on youtube
It's this oneI can't make the link work for me. Do you know what trial day it was on??
I'll look it up that way.
This link just takes me to my home page on youtube
Welcome Gecko Am! Jump right in! The water's fine here.Am new here so excited to find you kindred spirits thinking what I am about this trial! Yea!
I only started watching the trial and you guys in late Feb and you all have privided a wealth of entertainment, knowledge, your creations and material......etc....... You guys are awesome! Just wanted to thank everyone!
Let's pray that the jury is wise enough to draw the same conclusions. You are right....there IS no justifying it. He had tons of defense wounds, his throat slashed, shot in the head, majority of stab wounds located on the back and back of head area....and she was defending HERSELF??!! Sounds to me like he tried in vain to fight off her attack, but the poor guy didn't have a chance. She planned her attack down to the split second, where she caught him the most vulnerable and off guard. Sitting down, in his tiny shower, while Jodi went psycho on him. Makes me sick to think she is now claiming SHE was the victim!
"You're charging HOW MUCH for that?"
"I ask the questions here, sir. Do you understand that?"
Damn, Mr. Martinez comes up with some great one-liners! And there's always this classic:
"DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR MEMORY?"
There are currently 44 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 44 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
