Could Dr. Douche courtroom sneak be considered as evidence tampering?
Could Dr. Douche courtroom sneak be considered as evidence tampering?
Who is this idiot Julie person?
An associate/"friend" of Travis. From PPL if I remember correctly.Originally Posted by biggie
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
Thanks Annie, Jillee and Brillig!
If JM can prove it like we think he's going to he very well could be!
It doesn't ultimately matter legally what order the shooting & stabbings were in (tho the coroner says stabbing came first). Coroner also says the first stabs were the ones that caused mortal wounds, so any which way, she she continued infilicting possible death-causing assaults on a person that was no threat to her. That's why she must have 'the fog', not just to excuse covering up evidence, but to excuse herself from conscious action in the next 25 stabs.
Exactly.
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
Thank you Sneakers! Saved me some digging! Yeah, she was really looking for it. I'm surprised that she didn't check with the DR.
It makes me to sad that she's putting his family through all of this. She has no remorse.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!
This morning he came into court and opened up his bag and returned a bunch of exhibits he had "borrowed"
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!
I wish Martinez would ask the good doctor what kind of PTSD Travis would have suffered had he miraculously survived! And what kind of mental suffering did Travis go through as she was stabbing him over and over again.
THIS! I hate how she is trying to play the victim. She is NOT the victim..........I wish Martinez would ask the good doctor what kind of PTSD Travis would have suffered had he miraculously survived! And what kind of mental suffering did Travis go through as she was stabbing him over and over again.
What website do you speak of??
Never mind. This is where the cool kids are.
Last edited by Jillee; 03-22-2013 at 02:15 AM.
Quote of the day: "PTSD is not a get out of jail free card"-- repeated TWICE in case any juror missed it.
Best juror question: "Is there a DSM diagnosis for 'selective amnesia'?" (SNERK!)
Best unintentional comic line: THREE HOLE BINDER.
Word of the day: CONFABULATE
Honorable mention: AZ crater = One Hole Wonder
And so much more...what a wonderful day!
Wow, I just spent time listening to the last part of today's session. Those text messages are VERY telling and, to me, give her a HUGE motive to kill him. She was about to be "outed" with all of her crazy, stalking ways! Listen to the part where Willmott is using those messages, as evidence, while questioning Doc Dick about the mean and negative things that Travis said about Jodi in those messages. (Now, unless you are a total bonehead, there is no way to misinterpret those messages from Travis as anything other than what they are "Jodi, get out of my life.") Then, she reminds him of the "positive" things that Jodi wrote in her journal. She asks him "And, why did she do that? Just write positive things?" Doc Dick replies "Well....she loved him. She respected him. She thought things would change, and they could have a life, together. She did that to please Travis."
Nothing screams STALKER, more loudly than this testimony. Wow. Today's testimony did some major damage to the defense. I hope that JM points this crap out, in closing!!
I can't rep you anymore!!!! LMAO!!!!"This is the trial that never ends.....and it goes on and on MY friends! Somebody, started watching it, not knowing what it was.....and they will go on watching it forever just because.....this is the trial that never ends......and it goes on and on my frieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeends......(tra laa laaaa)....... x infinity.)
I was only able to catch bits and pieces and some of it I couldn't hear very well because I had to turn the volume down a bit. Did the doc say that one of the things a person who plans a murder tries to do is cover it up? Because she DID try and cover it up! She just did a bad job. Sorry if I misunderstood or if it was discussed already...
I found it. This is the most mind-blowing violation of patient confidentiality I can imagine. Dr. Samuels has just revealed privileged information about his patient on national television. The best part, he wasn't even asked about it! He just threw it out there as a helpful example.
Jump to 1:02:30
Wilmott: blah blah assertiveness?
Samuels: For example, I had a gentleman in therapy who was the CEO of a major New York manufacturer of women's coats. And he probably had 1500 to 2000 employees working for him. And he came to see me because he was having trouble dealing with his mother. His mother dominated his life. Yet he controlled 1500 employees. And this was a dilemma for him. He was assertive in the world he had created as an adult, but when it came to the parent-child relationship, he was still the child and his mother was the parent. So the therapy dealt with him becoming more assertive with his mother.
How many companies in New York that make women's coats and have 2000 employees can there be? It won't be hard to figure out the name of the patient he is talking about. Disgraceful!
I can only conclude that Samuels was the only person who would take this case. Any self-respecting professional would have run screaming in the other direction.
I have every confidence that JM is going to deliver the closing of a lifetime, with this trial. Just by watching him in action, it is obvious that he does this work with a passion for bringing home justice for the victims and their families. I have watched trials for years, and I have seen some amazing and dedicated detectives and prosecutors....this team is one of the best I have ever witnessed. My heart is with this team, and with the victims.I wish Martinez would ask the good doctor what kind of PTSD Travis would have suffered had he miraculously survived! And what kind of mental suffering did Travis go through as she was stabbing him over and over again.
juan justed started his redirect on jury questions and more questions are piling up for the doc
the one thing that the doc did get out is that the crime scene was unorginized which could show opposite of premed
The key phrase, here, is "self-respecting professional." Doc Dick is obviously not of that caliber.
That's his main goal, to through out the whole "reactive killing" with all the buzzwords about adrenaline, fight or flight, disorganized, frenzied, frantic, etc. I think they have sacrificed everything else (credibility, months of our time, money) to get those ideas into the jurors' minds. Second degree murder, I continue to stress that will be the verdict.
LMFAO!!! Seriously??!! I missed the very beginning!!!
on the new and improved bathroom mock up there is fake blood all over the fake bathroom. it's just silly.
Who the heck is this mental midget on HLN After Dark?!?!?!
He just said that the legal definition of "reasonable doubt" is whether or not the juror would be willing to stake their life on a particilar fact or theory?!?!?!?!?!? And that if a juror would not stake their life on it, then they had to vote not guilty!
SINCE WHEN? That is NOT the definition!
Where do they get these morons?
(Why am I even watching this? Ack!)
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
There are currently 47 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 47 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
