no he is alive - it looks like he is laying low in hawaii right nowOriginally Posted by gecko am
they were referring to jodis statement that she would never spend time in prison and whether jm could quote what she said in court, not that the court is saying that she does not have to spend time in prison
doesn't look like it
The restraint shown by TA's family is unbelievable. I swear I'd jump over that divider and strangle that evil bitch.
OMG the family has to sit that close to her!!!
They really put Jodi near the family?
I think it's fucking bad ass of his family to sit BEHIND her. If I did what she did and I had 3 of his family members sitting that close behind me. OMG.
WTF is this fuckery with the shower picture?
OMG who cares about his background? he already said this!!!
Exactly my thoughts! It looks like it's taking everything in her to NOT. Poor thing.
Oh My God are the DT going for the ridiculous more than one perpetrator in the eye shit???
Where is this going?
Who cares where the witnesses dad worked??
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 love they sit right at her back.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
stubble?
BTW: a "Daubert" hearing is to determine if the "science" is solid and accepted enough in the field to present to a jury. This is what the judge will determine before this nerd is allowed to speak in front of the jury.
Last edited by Lady MacBeth; 04-15-2013 at 09:01 AM.
Out, damned spot! out, I say! .... Here?s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand!
"Stop being dicks to noobs." -mydeathspace
Omg the family :((
ok this is a daubert hearing - so the defense is trying to get another expert qualified to testify in court as an expert witness for jodi
Leaving that picture of TA up on the screen while they go through this asshat's bullshit is clearly upsetting TA's sisters
Fucking bastard Nurmi. I hate him.
Is this the shower pic that someone zoomed in to TAs eye and claim it shows two people in the bathroom? I saw a video on youtube where someone broke it down. One appeared, to me, to be his bathrobe hanging on a hook, NOT another person. And it's really grasping, because I didn't think you could really see much....
Stabby's on her own! In front of TA's family! WTF! That must be so excruciating!!!
I don't understand what this is about did he photoshop the shower picture or something?
- Beauty is a beast.
If I was Travis' sister I would be thinking a method to strangle that bitch from behind...
I'm starting to wonder.
The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy refers to the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:
In Daubert, seven members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony:
Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge.
Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand" and that it rests "on a reliable foundation". Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584-587. Concerns about expert testimony cannot be simply referred to the jury as a question of weight. Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 104(a), not Rule 104(b); thus, the Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert's methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand.
Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.[3]
Factors relevant: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a nondispositive, nonexclusive, "flexible" set of "general observations" (i.e. not a "test") [4] that it considered relevant for establishing the "validity" of scientific testimony:
Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable.
Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
The known or potential error rate.
The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.
In 2000, Rule 702 was amended in an attempt to codify and structure elements embodied in the "Daubert trilogy." The rule then read as follows:
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000.)
In 2011, Rule 702 was again amended to make the language clearer. The rule now reads:
RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011)
While some federal courts still rely on pre-2000 opinions in determining the scope of Daubert, as a technical legal matter any earlier judicial rulings that conflict with the language of amended Rule 702 are no longer good precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
Seeing that pic of Travis all over the courtroom is haunting.
Bless you Tanisha, Samantha and Steven for your strength. We send you are blessings everyday.
Could be, Juan did ask the question if he looked like he was clean shaven in that photo. I find it hard to believe they would go that far just to prove stubble though. What does it gain them?
There are currently 293 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 293 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
