Summary- 4/12 after juror questions

Alyce LaViolette  & Jennifer Willmott

Wilmott is doing cleanup after the questions and covers the following:

  1. Though JA kicked her Mom it doesn’t mean she would grow up to be an abuser to her boyfriend.
  2. JA’s Mom was abusive to her.
  3. JA does not have a pattern of abuse.
  4. AL didn’t feel JA was manipulating her and saw no patterns of manipulation.
  5. The relationship (JA & TA) was more about battering than stalking.
  6. Both were involved in the sex. (no degradation or humiliation).
  7. JA said she was a ‘whore’ for those feelings- that the sex made TA sweet and she felt closer to him.
  8. They went back over character assassination…and the 16 page text.
  9. 12 year old girls and pics of little boys- are both about children.

10. The continuum doesn’t have room for everything.

11. JA remembers the physical abuse even though it’s not written.

12. They talk about Travis’ rants going for a long time.

13. AL didn’t know JA threatened TA about being a pedo. She says it was just a one-time threat.

14. JA wanted to go to the Bishop, TA did not.

15. TA was controlling because JA knew his secrets.

16. The stalker text also had laughing and smiley faces in it.

17. TA called Deanna crazy and kept her and JA apart.

18. There were omissions in TA’s journals- like no mention of the Havasupai trip, the rants or the name-calling.

19. AL tries not to ask leading questions.

20. She has worked with male clients.

21. JA was not the greater perp as she only acted once, in self-defense.

22. Battered women have faults too.

23. She can work with all kinds of people abusers and abused.

24. The ‘order’ to empty voice-mail not a big deal in her assessment.

25. JA didn’t fight back when being strangled as she wasn’t really sure he would kill her or she didn’t want to hurt him.

26. JA and TA did not have a ‘high conflict’ relationship.

27. TA had the pattern of abuse.

28. AL had 7 hours unedited tape of TA’s family.

29. A battered woman can snap, and over-react.

Juan Martinez is up:

  1. AL cannot recall the names of the men she testified for. (It was a long time ago)
  2. It was one time (in Criminal Court) and it involved a police officer and DV.
  3. JM proves she NEVER ACTUALLY TESTIFIED. She just wrote a report!
  4. Therefore AL lied to the Jury!
  5. AL says just because JA was manipulative as a child/teen it doesn’t mean she was as an adult.
  6. JM makes a reference to her earlier testimony (from today) and AL does not remember.
  7. JM asks ‘even if the alleged pedo incident didn’t occur it doesn’t change your opinion? AL: “Correct.”
  8. AL says JA has no pattern of lying, just after the killing.
  9. JM asks her if her opinion would change if she knew the defendant lied as part of these proceedings. AL says ‘it would depend’ and goes into ‘patterns.’

10. They argue over the quality of lies.

11. JM asks if her assessment is based on JA’s statements she says no.

12. JM points out there is no evidence of DV in the journals.

13. JM again points out she lied about representing a man.

14. In texts you can’t hear inflection-there are limitations –AL ‘I suppose.’

15. AL won’t admit that spoken is better than written word.

16. JM says her evaluation is defective because she only spoke to JA.

One more jury question:

I didn’t get this verbatim- just the gist-

  1. Asked if JA’s story same as today- AL says she didn’t hear her testify but it was consistent with what she knew.

JM is back up- Regarding the shooting in the closet- AL ‘misspoke.’

**Juror 11 has been excused due to illness.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s