Prosecutor Juan Martinez releases new book, February 2016 - #2

[Renee110]

And WHO could blame them? I would be praying she was far, far away...

 

[Renee110]

I just can't see "when did you eat your banana?"as a personal question.

Her lizard lickings,hesitations, complete lack of cockiness, wariness, death stares at JM, and even, for a delightfully long few seconds, look of real panic and blessed silence when on one question about the shower pics he had her completely pinned down (she actually looked over to her DT to save her).....

nope, I didn't see that at all. I saw someone who had to explain a whole imaginary day to Juan Martinez and he wasn't having any of it, lol.

(Day 25. 1 of 3. The cross about all this lasts about 30-40 minutes. The video says it far better than I can.).

Ok, I've listened to Day 25 part one. And this is what I see and hear. Actually you can listen to any day or time of redirect.

I'm going to JUST GIVE THE FIRST 5 MINUTES as my example of what I think she does not only here, but did growing up and did to everyone who had the misfortune of having to deal with her.

She is not waffling about the timeline or making stuff up on the fly. I have typed up the five min of redirect here, but please go back and listen to it.

She is actually good at not admitting thing, and tries to make it look like Juan has his facts wrong. She just has a way. Look at what I've bolded. Juan is simply trying to reiterate what she testified to on direct. She doesn't argue or get evasive with Nurmi, but when Juan repeats what she as ALREADY said on direct, she makes it sound like Juan doesn't have the facts right... to the point where Juan asks her do you want me to read what you said and of course, Nurmi objects.

Juan tries to get her to commit to times and she waffles and wanes and refuses to. I imagine she did this growing up, and did this to employers and boyfriends. Also it took over five minutes to get her to admit at 2 o'clock. Not because it didn't happen, or she was making it up. It'a just a mind game she plays. Most anyone else would have said ****** it. And given up, which in her eyes is a win and make her right.

Notice also, she loves to say... Correct. She is inferring that most of what he say in incorrect. So after you read this, go back and listen to this five minutes and see the game she plays. And also just watch ANY of her interactions with Juan and see that she makes him call an Act of Congress to say just simply Yes to any question.... she makes him work for it and always make it look like he is only PARTIALLY correct.... that he has somehow messed up the facts. There were so many instances where he was bringing in what she already testified to in direct and then in redirect made it sound like Juan was lying and when Juan would try to read what was testified too Nurmi objects. She is just trying to make Juan look like his facts are half skewed, and plus she gets off on mind fu*king him. That is why all the the trial it would take him forever to get her to concede to just one the like 2 o'clock....

Day 25: 1 of 3: time 0.23 sec.: Juan: We were talking about the time that you took your luggage and you placed it in your car. You remember we were talking about that?

Arias: Yes

Juan: And one of the things that you were telling us was that you didn't remember what you had said on direct examination, do you remember that?

Arias: I didn't remember the precise words, that's correct.

Juan: Well no, you didn't remember the TIME, it was more than the precise wording wasn't it?

Arias: Ummm, I don't remember the exact time, thats also correct.

Juan: And when I asked you if it was closer to five, you weren't able to tell me were you?

Arias: Yes.

Juan: In fact, what the exchange was during direct examination is that you were asked so you say you were packing your luggage or you packed your luggage in your car and were getting ready to leave and the question was do you remember about what time of the day that this was when you were packing your car and getting ready to leave and you said I think it was after two, I'm sure. So it was after 2'clock that you took everything and put it down in the car, correct?

Arias: That makes sense.

Juan: When you say that makes sense, although it makes sense, I'm asking you if that's what happened.

Arias: Well it would have been after two, because around before two we were having sex.

Juan: Pardon?

Arias: Before two we were .... otherwise engaged.

Juan: But, after two o'clock, the way you are saying it, your saying it could be 6 o'clock in the evening. It was after two. Specifically, it was AROUND two o'clock when you actually put the luggage in the car, right?

Arias: It was AFTER two o'clock, I don't know how close to two o'clock.

Juan. Ok so it could have been between 2 and, so your telling us shortly after two o'clock based on that statement right?

Arias: I just know it would have been after we....did what we were doing.

Juan: And was it shortly after you did....what you were doing?

Arias: Ummmm. well. Maybe. Maybe not. I guess it's relative. I just know it was AFTER what we were doing. I don't remember the exact time.

Juan: I just want to know. HOW much time after you and he got done doing what you were doing, you SAID 2 o'clock, how much time elapsed after that that you took your items down to the car?

Arias: I'm not sure.

Juan: And so, when you say your not SURE, you WERE a little bit more sure on direct examination.

Arias: Ummm, not on exact time, no.

Juan: But you were more... SURE about the time. You want me to read it back to you?

Nurmi objects overruled.

Arias: Umm, I was more, wait, you asked me two questions.

Juan: Answer the first one then. You were ready to answer that.

Arias: I was more sure that... I was sure it happened after we were done having sex.

Juan: And you mentioned 2 o'clock, didn't you?

Arias: Um that would have been after 2 o'clock, yes.

Juan: So then you were asked after your car's packed and ready to go you were dressed right?

Arias: ummm

Juan: were you asked about that?

Arias: I was dressed. Unless we were engaging in other things I was dressed.

Juan: And ah, it was AFTER you packed your car that you and he then went downstairs to the study right? Or the office, however you want to call it.

Arias: uumm, we DID go downstairs, after the bedroom stuff.. but I don't know about packing the stuff in the car.

Juan: Well, WHEN did you pack your stuff then? You seem to have a hard time telling us when you packed your stuff?

Arias: Yes, the PRECISE moment I don't remember.

Juan: Am I asking you the precise moment?

Arias: You said when.

Juan: Right. When means...if I wanted the precise moment, I'll ask you for the precise moment. WHEN, in the sequence of events, DID you pack your stuff, and put it in the car?

Arias: Uummm, as far as sequence of events the most precise I can tell you is after 2 o'clock and before leaving.

Juan: And, you can't get any clearer than that?

Arias: It's not there, maybe it's somewhere there, I can't remember.

Juan: So, AGAIN, it's an issue with your memory, as to WHEN it was that you actually put the stuff in the car, correct?

Arias: That's correct.

Juan: And WHEN you put the items in the car did you do it alone or did Mr. Alexander help you?

Arias: I did it alone.

Juan: Do remember telling us that Mr. Alexander helped you?

Arias: Yes, it's possible he helped me with it downstairs but usually he let me get my own luggage.

Juan: So usually means that your telling us that you don't remember whether or not he helped you on this occasion right?

Arias: I'm.....I don't know. I'm pretty sure that he helped me bring it downstairs but I don't remember him walking me out to the car to put my own luggage in.

Juan: So you went outside and put it in your car right? The car was parked out front right? In the driveway, correct?

Arias: I was parked in the driveway, yes.

Juan: And, would it be fair to say that, if your car didn't have a license plate, affixed to the back, that it would make it more difficult for people to know who was driving that car

Arias: Ummm I guess so.

Juan That WOULD be the case though, right?

Arias: IF there were no license plate, that would be true.

Juan: And we know that you hadn't put at least the front license plate back correct?

Arias: That's correct, I drove from Pasadena to Mesa with it in the floorboard.

Juan: So the answer is thats correct, it was still in the car, correct?

Arias: Yes.

Juan: And so, your inside, and your in the study, and you have some cd's or something....

I'm stopping at 5:39. This is just one example of hundreds.

 

[Hope4More]

Exactly. She shows up. It's hey there, I brought you a check for two car payments...can I crash here.. I'm on the way to see a guy in Utah but wanted to say in person I'm so sorry about our fight the other night but let's be friends tonight and I'll leave tomorrow..got any KY?

#makeup sex

Travis says in gchat that she knows he always weakens and "you know I'll get pissed but take you back. I'm addicted"

Jodi only needed him to feed his addiction one last time so she could rid herself of her obsession with him and move on with her life

You keep taking those words at face value, which is a mistake, IMO, given both the context of the chat itself and of the larger "show down" going on between them.

Why do you think he demanded on the 22nd that she put whatever she had to say in writing or on a VM? And refused to speak with her until she did?

Why do you think she refused to do either, saying to Travis that she wasn't going to incriminate herself by doing either? Incriminate herself to whom? Him.

Neither trusted the other. Travis was trying to get her to slip up and write something incriminating he could use against her, to forestall her using whatever she had on him. He was trying to convince her he would forgive anything, as long as she would be truthful with him.

Notice she responded to those attempts by turning him down. Telling him she didn't deserve his forgiveness, that he deserved better, that she didn't want him to be miserable any more.

They were circling one another, at least for a short time. He just wasn't the slightest bit capable of that kind of manipulation, no contest.

 

[Renee110]

But, she couldn't risk getting nailed down on any details, because that might conflict with a story she would need to tell later. She really couldn't anticipate where it would all go. There were key elements and details among the minutiae that day which would reveal she was nothing but a monster, victimizing a completely innocent man. She couldn't risk being backed into that corner, in whatever roundabout way.

Good theory, and maybe right on, though, but I still think that she was always happy to tell a story, about ninjas or whatever. When she is being grilled by Juan it's all about getting under his skin and making him work for it. She has no compunctions about coming up with bu!!shi! and running with it, because in her mind, we will all believe her brilliant foolproof stories.

 

[Renee110]

Yes, but she was SO BAD at the whole game plan. Terrible actually. This is just my opinion, mind you.

1. Stole Grandfather's gun mere DAYS before the murder.

2. Logged into his accounts unaware they could tell by the IP.

3. Bought gas can and saved the receipt.

4. Bought gas for several gas can at the same station...with her credit card.

5. Put license plate back on UPSIDE DOWN.

6. Cell phone radio silent until Kingman.

7. Manufactured pedo letters.

8. Caught interfering with a witness through magazine codes.

9. Manufactured false events (pedo claim, abuse, abuse!) even though it contradicts her very own diary.

10. Slashes tires repeatedly, and everyone knows it's her.

11. Takes pictures of herself, committing a horrendous crime.

12. Leaves evidence, hair, blood, prints all over the crime scene.

13. Tells Daryll she's going to Mesa when she asks to borrow his gas cans.

14. Baiting the investigator for information right after Travis' body is found.

15. Is a full day late getting to her alibi's house, and doesn't call or update in any way.

Taken just these few, off of the top of my brain instances of the murderers boneheaded actions, I find it completely implausible that she planted those pictures with the appropriate file data. No. Way. No. How.

And this is just the stuff we know about, that wasn't deemed "too prejudicial". Sheesh!


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

GREAT POINTS!!!

Speaking as someone who has literally dealt with a narcissistic crazy a$$ sociopath, they really don't see their faults, mistakes etc. They are perfect. Literally. It's very disconcerting to deal with someone who thinks everyone else is stupid and inferior, and they themselves are superior. They JUST DON'T SEE HOW THEY COULD BE WRONG. Even with proof. It was the most bizarre thing(s) I ever saw or heard when I had that person in my barn boarding their horses with me for 8 months. Frightening actually. They think they are brilliant. Never wrong. Etc.... I hope I never again have to experience that again. And there is no winning or being right. Because in THEIR mind, they are right. Period. Like I said, proof doesn't mean anything to them. They see and know what they want to.

 

[Hope4More]

Ok, I've listened to Day 25 part one. And this is what I see and hear. Actually you can listen to any day or time of redirect.

I'm going to JUST GIVE THE FIRST 5 MINUTES as my example of what I think she does not only here, but did growing up and did to everyone who had the misfortune of having to deal with her.

She is not waffling about the timeline or making stuff up on the fly. I have typed up the five min of redirect here, but please go back and listen to it.

She is actually good at not admitting thing, and tries to make it look like Juan has his facts wrong. She just has a way. Look at what I've bolded. Juan is simply trying to reiterate what she testified to on direct. She doesn't argue or get evasive with Nurmi, but when Juan repeats what she as ALREADY said on direct, she makes it sound like Juan doesn't have the facts right... to the point where Juan asks her do you want me to read what you said and of course, Nurmi objects.

Juan tries to get her to commit to times and she waffles and wanes and refuses to. I imagine she did this growing up, and did this to employers and boyfriends. Also it took over five minutes to get her to admit at 2 o'clock. Not because it didn't happen, or she was making it up. It'a just a mind game she plays. Most anyone else would have said ****** it. And given up, which in her eyes is a win and make her right.

Notice also, she loves to say... Correct. She is inferring that most of what he say in incorrect. So after you read this, go back and listen to this five minutes and see the game she plays. And also just watch ANY of her interactions with Juan and see that she makes him call an Act of Congress to say just simply Yes to any question.... she makes him work for it and always make it look like he is only PARTIALLY correct.... that he has somehow messed up the facts. There were so many instances where he was bringing in what she already testified to in direct and then in redirect made it sound like Juan was lying and when Juan would try to read what was testified too Nurmi objects. She is just trying to make Juan look like his facts are half skewed, and plus she gets off on mind fu*king him. That is why all the the trial it would take him forever to get her to concede to just one the like 2 o'clock....

Day 25: 1 of 3: time 0.23 sec.: Juan: We were talking about the time that you took your luggage and you placed it in your car. You remember we were talking about that?

Arias: Yes

Juan: And one of the things that you were telling us was that you didn't remember what you had said on direct examination, do you remember that?

Arias: I didn't remember the precise words, that's correct.

Juan: Well no, you didn't remember the TIME, it was more than the precise wording wasn't it?

Arias: Ummm, I don't remember the exact time, thats also correct.

Juan: And when I asked you if it was closer to five, you weren't able to tell me were you?

Arias: Yes.

Juan: In fact, what the exchange was during direct examination is that you were asked so you say you were packing your luggage or you packed your luggage in your car and were getting ready to leave and the question was do you remember about what time of the day that this was when you were packing your car and getting ready to leave and you said I think it was after two, I'm sure. So it was after 2'clock that you took everything and put it down in the car, correct?

Arias: That makes sense.

Juan: When you say that makes sense, although it makes sense, I'm asking you if that's what happened.

Arias: Well it would have been after two, because around before two we were having sex.

Juan: Pardon?

Arias: Before two we were .... otherwise engaged.

Juan: But, after two o'clock, the way you are saying it, your saying it could be 6 o'clock in the evening. It was after two. Specifically, it was AROUND two o'clock when you actually put the luggage in the car, right?

Arias: It was AFTER two o'clock, I don't know how close to two o'clock.

Juan. Ok so it could have been between 2 and, so your telling us shortly after two o'clock based on that statement right?

Arias: I just know it would have been after we....did what we were doing.

Juan: And was it shortly after you did....what you were doing?

Arias: Ummmm. well. Maybe. Maybe not. I guess it's relative. I just know it was AFTER what we were doing. I don't remember the exact time.

Juan: I just want to know. HOW much time after you and he got done doing what you were doing, you SAID 2 o'clock, how much time elapsed after that that you took your items down to the car?

Arias: I'm not sure.

Juan: And so, when you say your not SURE, you WERE a little bit more sure on direct examination.

Arias: Ummm, not on exact time, no.

Juan: But you were more... SURE about the time. You want me to read it back to you?

Nurmi objects overruled.

Arias: Umm, I was more, wait, you asked me two questions.

Juan: Answer the first one then. You were ready to answer that.

Arias: I was more sure that... I was sure it happened after we were done having sex.

Juan: And you mentioned 2 o'clock, didn't you?

Arias: Um that would have been after 2 o'clock, yes.

Juan: So then you were asked after your car's packed and ready to go you were dressed right?

Arias: ummm

Juan: were you asked about that?

Arias: I was dressed. Unless we were engaging in other things I was dressed.

Juan: And ah, it was AFTER you packed your car that you and he then went downstairs to the study right? Or the office, however you want to call it.

Arias: uumm, we DID go downstairs, after the bedroom stuff.. but I don't know about packing the stuff in the car.

Juan: Well, WHEN did you pack your stuff then? You seem to have a hard time telling us when you packed your stuff?

Arias: Yes, the PRECISE moment I don't remember.

Juan: Am I asking you the precise moment?

Arias: You said when.

Juan: Right. When means...if I wanted the precise moment, I'll ask you for the precise moment. WHEN, in the sequence of events, DID you pack your stuff, and put it in the car?

Arias: Uummm, as far as sequence of events the most precise I can tell you is after 2 o'clock and before leaving.

Juan: And, you can't get any clearer than that?

Arias: It's not there, maybe it's somewhere there, I can't remember.

Juan: So, AGAIN, it's an issue with your memory, as to WHEN it was that you actually put the stuff in the car, correct?

Arias: That's correct.

Juan: And WHEN you put the items in the car did you do it alone or did Mr. Alexander help you?

Arias: I did it alone.

Juan: Do remember telling us that Mr. Alexander helped you?

Arias: Yes, it's possible he helped me with it downstairs but usually he let me get my own luggage.

Juan: So usually means that your telling us that you don't remember whether or not he helped you on this occasion right?

Arias: I'm.....I don't know. I'm pretty sure that he helped me bring it downstairs but I don't remember him walking me out to the car to put my own luggage in.

Juan: So you went outside and put it in your car right? The car was parked out front right? In the driveway, correct?

Arias: I was parked in the driveway, yes.

Juan: And, would it be fair to say that, if your car didn't have a license plate, affixed to the back, that it would make it more difficult for people to know who was driving that car

Arias: Ummm I guess so.

Juan That WOULD be the case though, right?

Arias: IF there were no license plate, that would be true.

Juan: And we know that you hadn't put at least the front license plate back correct?

Arias: That's correct, I drove from Pasadena to Mesa with it in the floorboard.

Juan: So the answer is thats correct, it was still in the car, correct?

Arias: Yes.

Juan: And so, your inside, and your in the study, and you have some cd's or something....

I'm stopping at 5:39. This is just one example of hundreds.

A transcript leaves out her facial expressions, body language, lizard lip licking, pauses, hestitations.

I've watched the first 40 minutes of that video multiple times, recently. I agree about the games she plays consistently throughout redirect, and she does play them this day too, on and off.

She was entirely incapable of refraining herself from engaging in combat during cross examination, especially if she had taken a few blows in succession byJM scoring points.

But overall...transcripts can't relay the non verbal differences IMO are glaring between this section of day 25 and the rest of cross.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I'm sorry to go way off topic here.....but where is Geevee? I'm worried about her. It looks like she hasn't posted in many days, I know her JM book arrived, yet not a peep from her.

Geevee??

I'm thinking she might just be taking a break from this for a bit, I know for myself I haven't been discussing much lately either. Hopefully when she finishes the book, she will return with her views which mirror mine for the most part. I still say... no sex on June 4th. And I didn't see "arousal" in those pics of Travis, did I miss a few of them? But I suppose arousal is in the eyes of the beholder. Lol. TTYL.

 

[Nymeria]

This explains it pretty well.
http://www.imspector.org/wordpress/

*BONG* OK, all this time I have thought "texts" being discussed were phone texts.
Have I misunderstood this whole time? The texting being done was all via a PC messenger (such as MSN, AIM, etc.) or phone app for a messenger?
(I mean not regular texts to phone, which is how I always think of them).

PS- Catching up, forgive me if covered already.

ETA- I ask because the link provided can do things with messaging apps, but It does not appear to be able to "hack" regular phone texts.

 

[Val1]

I think in the cases of Matt and Darryl part of their support could be that it would be hard to think they could have been involved with someone who could actually slit another human beings throat. So they grasp at anything they could believe might mean she didn't do it or had to do it in self defense. So maybe Matt bought into an abusive Travis attacking her because it's easier than accepting the idea that he may have missed some signs that a person he was involved with for years could commit such a crime.

From some of what we've learned about JA's childhood, I would think there were plenty of "signs".

 

[TexMex]

You keep taking those words at face value, which is a mistake, IMO, given both the context of the chat itself and of the larger "show down" going on between them.

Why do you think he demanded on the 22nd that she put whatever she had to say in writing or on a VM? And refused to speak with her until she did?

Why do you think she refused to do either, saying to Travis that she wasn't going to incriminate herself by doing either? Incriminate herself to whom? Him.

Neither trusted the other. Travis was trying to get her to slip up and write something incriminating he could use against her, to forestall her using whatever she had on him. He was trying to convince her he would forgive anything, as long as she would be truthful with him.

Notice she responded to those attempts by turning him down. Telling him she didn't deserve his forgiveness, that he deserved better, that she didn't want him to be miserable any more.

They were circling one another, at least for a short time. He just wasn't the slightest bit capable of that kind of manipulation, no contest.

IMO he was physically/psychologically addicted to the sex Jodi provided. His friends and family even said so. He was also lonely and a bit depressed at the end of May. Lisa called him back but he felt it meant they'd be civil and less awkward. CL was busy with her child and hadn't even read the Book of Mormon he'd given her. Mimi felt no spark with him.
He dared her to email him something incriminating. She didn't. He always had forgiven her in the past and apparently he forgave her one last time when she manipulated herself into his house, his bed and finally into his shower. It really was no contest.

 

[pocketaccent]

I'm thinking she might just be taking a break from this for a bit, I know for myself I haven't been discussing much lately either. Hopefully when she finishes the book, she will return with her views which mirror mine for the most part. I still say... no sex on June 4th. And I didn't see "arousal" in those pics of Travis, did I miss a few of them? But I suppose arousal is in the eyes of the beholder. Lol. TTYL.

It's amazing we all see different things looking at a same object.
I also did not see 'arousal' in the picture. However JM saw 'erect pxxxx' from the same picture. Chapter 3, page 39.

 

[Val1]

*BONG* OK, all this time I have thought "texts" being discussed were phone texts.
Have I misunderstood this whole time? The texting being done was all via a PC messenger (such as MSN, AIM, etc.) or phone app for a messenger?
(I mean not regular texts to phone, which is how I always think of them).

PS- Catching up, forgive me if covered already.

ETA- I ask because the link provided can do things with messaging apps, but It does not appear to be able to "hack" regular phone texts.

Cells are different, but this, dated 2007, explains that too.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-ce...intercepted-are-you-concerned-yours-might-be/

 

[Val1]

When the female detective was interrogating her the detective spoke of Jodi's "spirituality" and "faith". Jodi just sat there looking at her as if she had three heads." - TexMex

Hahaha. That brought back exactly how she was with the female detective. She didn't even pretend to be that interested in putting herself in a good light. Tumbleweed.

What I mostly took away from that part of her interrogation was how I kept hearing the Det. suggest things that JA then wove into her ninja tale.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I just finished reading his book and was quite surprised at how little he had to say about Samuels and Alice la Violette. He dismisses their testimony in a total of 2 pages, right at the end of the book. I watched every bit of it and it felt like they were on the stand for a MONTH.....! It obviously didn't stress him as much as it did me to listen to those charlatans.

 

[Val1]

Val: "I also saw no evidence(the exif data and/or the dates of the other pics that were not deleted) to prove they hadn't been "planted" or were there from an earlier time(even with possibly manipulated data)."

Val,

There was no evidence because there was no evidence or concern of photo planting or transferring. The reference to memory card mix-up possibilities is via liar Jodi scrabbling for excuses in the interview room as to why she was on Travis' camera There was no dispute about this evidence from prosecution or defence.

The expert testimony was crystal clear that the photos were time stamped by Travis' camera. Travis' camera was not typical in how it stamped files, embedding dates and times that were extracted. You stated that the nude pics were not time covered, only shower pic times dealt with. They were - each exhibit numbered and the time stamps examined or explained by Juan and the witness. The showers pic times are accepted as real. Jodi doesn't deny having sex with Travis. Your belief may be that Travis wouldn't have had sex with her but the evidence proves that they did. I'm open to new evidence or compelling theories but this makes sense to me on no level whatsoever.

Yet when Dworkin was going over Exhibits #413,414,415 and 417 pulled from JA's Canon(which also had no internal memory and the power was dead) memory card, we were given pretty detailed info about what data was available for them.

ie. - the first three only had file information and no exif but were dated May 10,15 &17/08, while #417 had both, exif and file and showed it had been taken July 12/08.
- 413 had arrived on the memory card 05/10/08 without exif data and although he could not confirm it had not just been added to the memory card the file info showed it had been Last Accessed 05/10/08, File Create 05/10/08, and Last Written 05/10/08.
- 414 the same as 413 but dated 05/15/08.
- 415 the same as 413 and 414 but dated 05/17/08.
- 417 had exif data that showed it had been taken and digitized to the card on 07/12/08 at 10:25:15.

My point is that only some of the bedroom pics pulled from TA's camera allegedly had any kind of file info, some had nothing. Who's to know without being shown what all the data was that was pulled, that perhaps the partial file info was being read incorrectly? Yes I'm beating a dead horse around here but at this point I think we will just have to agree to disagree, unless someone can come forward with more info. As we were told, the camera will print whatever date/time it has been set to and we also know that exif info can be manipulated... and pointing out a couple of KY bottles doesn't convince me that they were taken on June 4/08.

 

[TexMex]

My point is that only some of the bedroom pics pulled from TA's camera allegedly had any kind of file info, some had nothing. Who's to know without being shown what all the data was that was pulled, that perhaps the partial file info was being read incorrectly? Yes I'm beating a dead horse around here but at this point I think we will just have to agree to disagree, unless someone can come forward with more info. As we were told, the camera will print whatever date/time it has been set to and we also know that exif info can be manipulated... and pointing out a couple of KY bottles doesn't convince me that they were taken on June 4/08.

The metadata is created when the shutter is pressed and the image is created


Melendez: "Typically you may not, but in this case these images when taken with this camera it embeds the date and time to the file itself."

Four of the six bedroom pics were time stamped via EXIF as 6/4/2008. The KY bottle was used to verify others as being take on the same date...

There are other pics on the new camera memory that were not erased. There is no "old" memory card of Jodi's (as she tried to say to Flores) that Travis was using in his brand new camera. Flores correctly told her the memory cards are NOT interchangeable.

 

[Wing Ding]

Steve was responding to Hope4More's musing about JA's inability or refusal to answer questions about the timeline on Murder Day.

I have to say that when I read Hope's post, before I got to Steve's post, my first thought was the reason she took her time and mulled over answers about the timeline was because she delights in frustrating and enraging people, and being in control. She may be IN their control, such as in custody and not free, but they still NEED and WANT something from her and she can drag it out and make them crazy. Her little word games all through the trial, I mean ALL through it, and always about stupid silly stuff showed me that she gets off on that. Juan would say something like "You DO remember when you were answering the jury's questions that you said you HAD stopped for gas early in the morning after leaving Ryan's?" and she would waffle and not commit and say something like well it was in the morning, not that early. And he would pull receipt out and point out the 4 am time.... and the point Juan was making (in MY head) wasn't about the time....it was the fact that every time Juan would say this is something you said, she would try to make it a little bit erroneous... like he got it MOSTLY right, but not QUITE right.... she likes that kind of control, and making you crazy, condescendingly letting you know that you were a little off. So I agree with Steve in that that is just how Jodi rolls. I remember sitting on the couch, watching this trial back when it was live and saying to my friend could you imagine raising her? She has taught herself to win every argument and has a comeback for everything. Impossible to be around imo.

Oh for God's sake, do you remember when Arias denied even being in Salt Lake City? Then she smugly pointed out to Juan that Ryan Burns lived in West Jordan, not SLC. And when Juan said to her that he was referring to her early morning gas purchases, she claimed ignorance, telling him that she didn't know Tesoro was actually in SLC. Then she battled with him some more regarding the time frame of those early morning hours. You're right, Renee. If Juan didn't get it exactly right with her, he was wrong. She is the very reason Juan starts out with some witnesses like the running of the bulls in Pamplona -- to put them in their place and leave no doubt as to who is in charge. He did it with Gus, he did it with Leslie Udy, he did it with Dr. Fog, he did it with ALV and with some success he did it with Arias.

[to prosecutor, Juan Martinez] "I think that's a compound question"

- Jodi Arias

 

[TexMex]

Oh for God's sake, do you remember when Arias denied even being in Salt Lake City? Then she smugly pointed out to Juan that Ryan Burns lived in West Jordan, not SLC. And when Juan said to her that he was referring to her early morning gas purchases, she claimed ignorance, telling him that she didn't know Tesoro was actually in SLC. Then she battled with him some more regarding the time frame of those early morning hours. You're right, Renee. If Juan didn't get it exactly right with her, he was wrong. She is the very reason Juan starts out with some witnesses like the running of the bulls in Pamplona -- to put them in their place and leave no doubt as to who is in charge. He did it with Gus, he did it with Leslie Udy, he did it with Dr. Fog, he did it with ALV and with some success he did it with Arias.

[to prosecutor, Juan Martinez] "I think that's a compound question"

- Jodi Arias

From his very first question to Jodi he let her know he'd be the one in charge. "Ma'am, take a look at Ex. 413. You recognize that exhibit correct? That's a picture of you here and right there is your dumb sister, Angela".
JA that's my sister she's not dumb
Do you recall in a recorded conversation you called her "dumb"?
JA. I called her dumb and stupid

Did I asked you if you called her stupid? I asked you if you called her dumb.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Superbly illustrated, backed with court evidence points, Renee110.

Dial it back to the first day of cross-examination - even the first MINUTES and contrary Arias battles Juan - tries to wriggle, evade, distort at every turn. Arias' act for Defense was dropped instantly when she took the stand against Juan. This is another of my favourite Martinez days. If there is anyone not familiar with it (which I doubt) - treat yourself. It's mind-boggling:

[video=youtu;Muqjj4B_9Kg]http://youtu.be/Muqjj4B_9Kg[/video]

Within minutes, her victim act evaporates and you see a smirking, arrogant, sexually boasting, immature, calculating evil Arias. Day one of cross is a must-watch.

 

[TrialWatcher]

TexMex, as I was searching for the link, you posted what I was thinking.