good thing. that really didn t surprise a lot of us. a harry met salary ref lens came up as well yesterday. once again the third full day of cross-examination of this final defense witness. the domestic abuse expert alice laviolette. less what happened after that point, after he asked the judge to admonish her he did make he got her to admit even if jodi arias lied to her she could have come to the same conclusion that jodi arias was abused person, abused by travis alexander. he got her to come to the point that there is no physical evidence of any abuse ever. take a listen to this exchange. the words never indicated that he ever hit her, correct? correct. never indicated that he choked her, correct. correct. the words never indicated that any other physical act towards her, correct? indicated cruel behavior
for the joid joed camp. rick: jodi arias. rick: this playbook, which side do you think has the upper hand, the longer this goes on? i think it is definitely the defense. if you were, if i was pros cuting this case i would want to get in, present my evidence and get out and get this case to the jury because the evidence is simply overwhelming that jodi arias committed this crime. the longer this drags out, the more they have these experts come on and talk about this. martinez needs to realize he will not get the knockout punch with these witnesses. laviolette, definitely is standing her ground. she is not giving in to him very much. he is not going to get the knockout punch. i agree with my colleague at some point he need to end the cross-examination and move the trial forward. rick: brian, a couple seconds, if you re on the defense side how are you feeling right now? i m feeling pretty good, as the evidence stands right now i don t think juan martinez can prove first-degree murde
but acts? i don t know what that meant. reporter: again going through at that point some of the journal that jodi arias had written and nowhere in the journals did laviolette or anyone for that matter see any mention of physical abuse by travis alexander. that is one thing the prosecutor continues to hit as he goes after the defense witness like he has with other defense witnesses with foot on the gas pedal going full bore. a number of times the judge had to admonish the witness to answer the question. try to explain things and find a way around it and it was supposed to be a yes or no answer. there were a lot of side bars called by the judge. there was motion for mistrial by the defense the judge for the fourth or fifth time said no. so, jenna, once again day 44 today, the third full day of cross-examination of this witness. one more note. the judge started to schedule days on fridays. normally there is no court date on friday. now there will be court days on fridays. she put
december, potentially could stretch into the six month if this goes into may. jenna? jenna: wow, incredible. adam, thank you. rick: joining you now for more on the trial, faith jenkins is former prosecutor. brian clay fool, a claypool, a criminal defense attorney. my 3-year-old gets a time out. have you ever heard a witness from the stand tell the prosecutor he needs a time out? no, i haven t. it was completely inappropriate which is why the prosecutor wanted that removed from the record which is why it was. you have martinez, his style is to be on the offensive and go after these experts and what he believes are these completely bogus theories they are profounding in front of the jury, go after them, attack them. he can be a little bit long-winded but in the end he is making inroads here. laviolette on the other hand, she seems to want to be combative with martinez at the same time. anytime he advances any sort of theory that undermines what she is trying to put forth in the case.
0 both parties, for example, agree that the rising cost of caring for an aging generation is the single biggest driver of our long-term deficits and the truth is, for those like me who deeply believe in our social insurance programs, think it s one of the core things that our government needs to do, if we want to keep medicare working as well as it has, an we want to preserve the ironclad guaranty that medicare represents, then we re going to have to make some changes but they don t have to be drastic ones. instead of making drastic ones later, what we should be doing is making some manageable ones now. the reforms i m proposing will strengthen medicare for future generations without undermining that ironclad guaranty that medicare represents. we ll reduce our government s medicare bills by finding new ways to loopholes and deductions that most americans don t get. that s the bottom line. if you re serious about deficit reduction, then there s no excuse to keep these loopholes open. th