Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/13/15 Break

[DebinGA]

Why did the defense spend all this time trying to get into the trial? I wonder if that's because there are a lot of lies about in Jodi's secret testimony, something so salacious that even JSS felt her testimony needed to be kept secret. There must be something in there. I want to read it for myself.

The DT sandwiched JA's secret testimony between Dr. "Even his close friends the Hughes thought Travis was an abuser" Fonseca and Dr. Richard "The gun shot to TA's head was not incapacitating" Geffner. There's something JA planned to say that Geffner, a so-called domestic violence expert, was willing to support. JA may not have gotten to say it before her testimony was stopped though. JA and the 2 DT psychs were following a predetermined script imo but I have no idea how was supposed to figure into it.

 

[bsk]

What Beth said last night was that the prosecution not handing the 2008 hard drive over to the defense, whether they asked for it or not, was a HUGE deal and that Nurmi was right when he said JA "would never be executed". She said that is because this is a very good appeal issue. She didn't quibble about it, nor did she say "in my opinion". That is why I went to AZlawyer. I get the feeling Beth is on the side of the defense team, even though she likes Jodi less than we do probably.

I don't think she's on the defense's side in general - I think she's the most fair person out there, at least of the people we used to see on TV. If the DT accusations were true, it would be devastating. Except that they're not true. As to what impressed her about BN, who knows - I always thought she was pretty good at cutting through the BS.

 

[bsk]

Agreed, BN never should have been allowed to testify about the hard drive, he has no expertise in that department.

I'm very curious about the hard drive being 'wiped' on June 1st, how exactly was it wiped, formatted and operating system reinstalled? How was any hard drive/browser information prior to that retained if that's the case? If not, what kind of wiping was done to it that the file system contents seems to have been left intact?

Not sure what you're talking about re the drive being wiped. Who knows what happened with any "work drives" that BN and his crew might have put together. They are irrelevant, unless Juan wants to bring up some shady things they may have done.

 

[bsk]

The DT sandwiched JA's secret testimony between Dr. "Even his close friends the Hughes thought Travis was an abuser" Fonseca and Dr. Richard "The gun shot to TA's head was not incapacitating" Geffner. There's something JA planned to say that Geffner, a so-called domestic violence expert, was willing to support. JA may not have gotten to say it before her testimony was stopped though. JA and the 2 DT psychs were following a predetermined script imo but I have no idea how was supposed to figure into it.

You could well be correct that what she said so far is worthless and the juicy bits were going to come later. The DT argument will be that they need to vigorously protect her 'right' to testify under whatever circumstances she desires on any given day because they want to extend that to the rest of her planned testiphony. If in the meantime if they can waste a lot of time and have people chasing gold and finding manure, well at least they wasted a lot of time and pocketed some more cash, so it's all good to the DT.

 

[TexMex]

I don't think she's on the defense's side in general - I think she's the most fair person out there, at least of the people we used to see on TV. If the DT accusations were true, it would be devastating. Except that they're not true. As to what impressed her about BN, who knows - I always thought she was pretty good at cutting through the BS.

Yes. Beth said it "could be" important down the line and that as a former prosecutor she would not be happy with herself if she somehow overlooked turning over something to the defense as required.

 

[ElleElle]

Quote Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
IIRC the original tweets said that the cost of the transcripts was going to be $400. There wasn't any mention of how many pages, just the cost. AZlawyer even posted that she had paid up to eight dollars per page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first afternoon of tweets never mentioned 400 pages only the cost of $400.
IMO there is no way JSS is going to redaction any of the testimony. She would be caught so fast and be in big trouble. All it would take is for Juan to ask Jodi one question about her secret testimony that is not found in the transcripts and media lawyers would be all over it.
I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any tweets about there ever being 400 pages.



Beth's video blog last night said the cost is now $576 for "expedited" transcripts. The media lawyer will get free copies for the parties he represents and Beth was hopeful she might get a discounted price from him. The $576 goes to the court reporter, not the court and iirc she said its under 200 pages

If double spaced, would the amount of pages double?

In the grand scheme of things, 200 is still quite a bit!

 

[Kamille]

Anyone else prepared for disappointment when these transcripts are released?
I can just imagine all the 'good' stuff totally redacted and it only showing filler words like 'the' or 'and' or 'or'.
(I'm in a snotty mood today I guess)

I'm prepared for there not to be much in them with regards to what she was going to say. I don't think she had a lot of time and we know how notoriously slow the DT is at extracting information. Plus I'm sure there must have been objections and sidebars galore. She may have just gotten to the 12-14yr old "fog", which explains why Dr F was insinuating things but not outright saying them as information that JA told her IMO.

MOO

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

Is a link to the transcripts going to be put on this board? I was just wondering where to go since I don't subscribe to Beth's site. Will a link be at the top of the thread about discussion of the transcripts?

 

[MeeBee]

I do remember there being something about the transcript being 400 pages because I remember writing how did she manage 400 pages of testimony in such a short amount of time? Now that the number is falling it's probably because they are taking sidebars and other sealed matters out.

 

[geevee]

Not sure what you're talking about re the drive being wiped. Who knows what happened with any "work drives" that BN and his crew might have put together. They are irrelevant, unless Juan wants to bring up some shady things they may have done.

Mr. Pseudo testified that the laptop hard drive had been 'wiped' on June 1st of 2008, I think it was mentioned yesterday as well but I can't find the relevant tweets, I'm just really interested in how it was wiped and why no one seems concerned about lost info in that process (which is intended to make everything disappear) and why so much info survived if it was actually wiped.

 

[ElleElle]

its 2pm here...im fed up waiting for these transcripts already :floorlaugh:

Another 3 hours or so. :sigh: Right when I have to go to work.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Here is what is currently on the agenda for Today and Tomorrow:


Tuesday January 13:

- NO COURT

- Release of the Secret Transcript


Wednesday January 14:

- Re-Trial continues with "Pseudo Witness John Smith"

- Ruling by JSS on the DT's DP/Prosecutorial Misconduct Motion AFTER Pseudo Witness Smith testifies



**NOTE**

The only certainty is that there is no court Today, Tuesday January 13.

The remaining are possible, but not probable, IMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Is a link to the transcripts going to be put on this board? I was just wondering where to go since I don't subscribe to Beth's site. Will a link be at the top of the thread about discussion of the transcripts?

I think the transcript of Arias' secret testimony is going to be more boring than watching paint dry.

Its going to be a big ado about nothing.

I think we will be saying to ourselves once we read them 'Huh, JSS thought she should testify in secrecy for THIS boring stuff?' LOL!

 

[MeeBee]

@TrialDiariesJ: @WildAboutTrial @xxxxxxxx @BethKaras My fingers won't type right! OK I will try again...it's $1000-1500 now for transcript ��

 

[Nali87]

@TrialDiariesJ: @WildAboutTrial @xxxxxxxx @BethKaras My fingers won't type right! OK I will try again...it's $1000-1500 now for transcript ��

That's a retourflight to NY with KLM. Insanity.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Not sure what you're talking about re the drive being wiped. Who knows what happened with any "work drives" that BN and his crew might have put together. They are irrelevant, unless Juan wants to bring up some shady things they may have done.

Didn't the Judge deny the DTs objection when they wanted to exclude BN 'work drives?'

I am sure I read that somewhere.

 

[ElleElle]

Here's why you shouldn't be worried about Melendez' testimony that he found no viruses:

The virus showed up as pornographic links in the registry. As we know, either he didn't look there or what he found there was not important to him. The defense still had this information on their 2009 image and still chose not to pursue it. It was there. Dworkin did not say there was a virus either.

Travis didnt have a virus. His computer was being attacked and the anti virus software was quarantine-ing it and sending it somewhere else. Travis probably didn't even know these attacks were happening. Or there was a virus causing pop ups and it was cleaned up. Jodi said he had a virus. She said there were little bugs crawling all over his screen. She said the CD wouldn't play because of a virus which doesn't make sense. But that wasn't even true. There were some urls in his registry. His computer was otherwise fine. The virus was not active. So she's still a liar.

It's a minor inconsistency. Jodi was not convicted because she said there was a virus on his computer and they said there wasn't. Nor was that the sole reason she was deemed a liar. The gas can evidence pretty much took care of that. She is a liar.

BBM ~ Not disagreeing with you Meebee. But, can't the DT say of course there was no virus(es) because when the computer was "awoken" June 2008, the virus scanner cleaned it?

 

[bsk]

Didn't the Judge deny the DTs objection when they wanted to exclude BN 'work drives?'

I am sure I read that somewhere.

That's correct, but Juan didn't bring them up even though he could (Incinerator etc.). I think he just wanted to get rid of this witness and make the jury think he wasn't important. Sue and the defense never brought up the work drives I don't believe.

 

[Nali87]

I think for the small time bloggers it would be fair to decide who all want the transcript and then find some reason to divide the costs. The big media networks spend 1000 dollars on lunch so they'll be fine.

 

[Kamille]

What Beth said last night was that the prosecution not handing the 2008 hard drive over to the defense, whether they asked for it or not, was a HUGE deal and that Nurmi was right when he said JA "would never be executed". She said that is because this is a very good appeal issue. She didn't quibble about it, nor did she say "in my opinion". That is why I went to AZlawyer. I get the feeling Beth is on the side of the defense team, even though she likes Jodi less than we do probably.

Was BK a defence lawyer? They usually see things differently than a prosecution lawyer naturally.

And I don't believe they've executed a woman in AZ for over 80 years so making a statement like "JA will never be executed" is a pretty safe bet IMO.

I had originally asked about how Dworkin had gotten his copy of the HD to use to testify. AZLawyer has made it clear that during discovery, the prosecution makes the defence aware of what they are going to use and forwards whatever is possible and necessary to them, which they did with all computer evidence that the prosecution was going to use...emails and such. At no time in 2008/2009 did the prosecution indicate that they were going to use /viruses on the computer against JA and at no time did the DT state they were going to use /viruses on the computer as a defence. So the computer was not analysed for this other than to dispute JA's claim that TA had been looking at pictures on his computer of child and adult "". And I believe that didn't happen until much later than 2009. All that was relevant to this crime on the computer was communication between the victim and his assailant. They already knew "who done it", what they wanted to know was why. And at no time has it been stated that the "why" was because TA may have glanced at some adult on his computer so the whole thing is mute and I can't see any appeals court seeing it any differently. There was no intention to withhold evidence here.

The DT has always known that Melendez used a 2008 HD copy for his report. Dworkin likely had no idea that the original DT had logged onto the computer, or he didn't see this as a problem when he made his copy because he wasn't directed to be looking for deleted and altered files either at that time. He was given access to the evidence and instead of asking for a clone of the 2008 copy he just made one of his own from the original HD. And no one had a problem with that. Until now.

MOO