Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/14/14

[krkrjx]

Somewhat o/t but when i worked with the library, we were looking up characters from kid's stories like Dora the explorer and we got slammed with *advertiser censored*, despite having firewalls and protections in place to supposedly prevent this. I was alarmed because we had kids who used those computers and often printed pics of such characters. she blamed me for finding it.

(My boss was a b**** and basically blamed ME for finding it and then proceeded to yell at me for causing this problem. She didn't do anything about it until a another librarian (one she liked, she didn't like me, lol) sent her some graphic pics of what was showing up.)

So *advertiser censored* can show up in computers where people are NOT looking for it and have taken precautions to prevent it. Jodi and Nurmi are vile for going down this desperate, disgusting and pathetic path.

I have had pop-ups, some pornographic, show up on my computer after looking up song lyrics.

It can and usually does happen from the most innocent of web searches.

 

[bettybaby00]

Respectfully, BBM: This video and the evidence Beth says is so damning was from Nurmi's motion. They made this video before Juan Martinez told the court what really happened and who had the computer. Again, the motion was filed and everyone was jumping to conclusions. Only to find out that the defense were the ones who powered up the computer and somehow deleted info.

IMO - nothing to see in regards to any wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution.

I'm thinking nurmi filed the motion knowing full well it was inaccurate. He did it b/c JA demanded he do it (I would love to know how she shaped that discussion!), and he knew if he investigated the allegation prior to the motion he would have found the truth. His "ignorance" of who actually had possession on that date allows him to say, "oops, sorry no harm no foul right?" Its also a CYA move in that he's demonstrating that he is continually doing everything he can for his client.

I have a feeling this motion that will quietly be dropped when no one is "watching."

 

[Dmacky]

If anyone is interested, here is Lonnie Dworkin's testimony

Day 12 ~ start around 58:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTpvEnF4ubA


Day 13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ2MBfGaMTA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[fifteen89]

It's a minor detail, but where did you find that Lonnie Dworkin examined the image in 2008? In his testimony in the trial, he said that he received the read-only mirror image on November 5, 2012.

I was not able to find anywhere that he ever had the original hard drive.

Not to answer for LinTX but I think they're saying the image of the computer that was made in 2008 is what Dworkin examined. The rest of the sentence says "I have yet to find the date that he examined it". So I don't think they were saying it was examined in 2008.

 

[bsk]

Juan and the defense attorney said that a power cord was needed to turn it on. Obviously that was because the battery was either removed or it was dead.

I haven't found Juan's remarks to be contradictory. He says he was there. Has he said anything else? Are you saying they all just decided to have a computer and phone viewing party without a judge or anyone else knowing about it or without the defense making the request?

As for the rest of it, I think we need to learn more about what is proper protocol before jumping to conclusions. For instance, do we know the hard drive would have been removed and never put back in? It sounds like, in any case, they have been placing the hard drive back in, because everyone time the analysis is done on the computer, they request to see the whole computer.

I also don't understand what you're saying in the BBM. Juan didn't say they should have made a copy before turning it on. His latest motion is saying something else, that the original hard drive was destroyed and he needs the defense's copy of their mirror image. I think the latest motion for discovery was made by Juan.

Obviously, someone screwed up. But the question is did it amount to what the defense is saying: prosecutorial misconduct and evidence tampering? If not then the whole thing, while strange, is not going to get anyone in trouble.

Here's what is inconsistent about Juan's story:
- His motion asks the judge to order the defense to provide a copy of the image(s) made during his examination(s) of the computer.
--- If he is talking about the instance when he and Flores were in the room, then wouldn't he know what if any images were made and why didn't they get one then if it looked like anything changed?
- He says the defense expert damaged the hard drive and it was impossible to take a mirror image of it afterward.
--- Unless JA got a hold of it and did like she did to her computer, then why couldn't a mirror image be made now? And if they were present, wouldn't he have been able to tell right away if it had been damaged? And don't they have a mirror image of what it looked like before the defense touched it?

This would make more sense if he was talking about Dworkin and not this later instance, but he seems to be referring to this later incident. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[bsk]

For the most part all opinions are welcomed and respected here. But I gotta say, at this point in time there is no way I feel compelled to respect an opinion that this killer may not even be guilty of the crime.

She is guilty. She confessed to the killing. She did it alone. She lied, over and over. Any discussion of her possible innocence is over.

I have to sit on my hands sometimes when things are posted that I believe to be too far off the wall to have a place in a discussion--IOW, I usually ignore rather than say what I am thinking. But, that's my modus operandi and I certainly cannot demand others do that. However, if something really of the wall is posted I cannot see pointing that out as being in their face, or disrespectful. Good grief, if GB comes here and posts his opinion, are we expected to respect that? I am saying here and now--I wouldn't, and I am not sure how long I would be able to remain sitting on my hands for that one!

BBM - Apologies for being nit-picky, but technically she did not confess to the crime she was convicted of. After her many lies about it, she eventually claimed she killed him in self defense. She has never admitted that she committed a crime as far as I can recall, just that she killed him. If only the jury hadn't 'betrayed' her....

ETA: I think we're both saying the same thing, but I just wanted to clarify because my first reading of your comment was that she confessed her guilt, which she did not do. But your wording similar to mine - she admitted to the killing and that's as far as it went.

 

[Bernina]

Welcome Predator, I figured now is as good a time as any to jump in myself, although I did post a couple of days ago too. Anyway, I have always thought MM was involved with this murder because I just couldn't make myself believe CMJA was able to pull this off by herself without having more than a couple of cuts on her finger. I have no ideas on how it took place except I do believe that is how some of the evidence was left like it was, for example the camera, he may have been responsible for it and not knowing a lot about them thought he could ruin it with the wash. Imo that is why she says that she knows he would never turn on her. Just a thought. Imoo

CMJA would have thrown ANYONE under the bus, including MM, if that were the case. It's always someone else who is the problem, NOT her. Besides, what would be MM's motivation?

Anger, rage, and adrenaline are very powerful. A wet naked body and leverage. CMJA talked about martial arts sparring earlier in her testimony on the stand. None of us know what we are capable of until we're tested, backed into a corner, or on a "mission".

 

[TorisMom003]

I think that if JA didn't act alone, she would have implicated MM in a heartbeat and that she would have wanted a deal (f.e DP off the table) in exchange for such information. If there was anyone else involved in this crime, she would have said so.

Exactly. When JA threatened the State with that letter demanding 2nd degree murder instead of 1st degree murder she would have at least hinted at having information of a second person involved, if there was one. JA is not the type of person that is going to go down alone for a crime that she had help in committing. No matter what JA has claimed in the past, she does NOT want the death penalty and does NOT want to spend the rest of her life in prison. No, if someone else was there (that helped her or not) JA would have shouted it from the rooftops years ago.

There is also no physical evidence of anyone else being in Travis' room/bathroom during the time of the murder. It makes no sense that a second killer/helper would be wearing gloves while JA herself had none on.

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

Here's what is inconsistent about Juan's story:
- His motion asks the judge to order the defense to provide a copy of the image(s) made during his examination(s) of the computer.
--- If he is talking about the instance when he and Flores were in the room, then wouldn't he know what if any images were made and why didn't they get one then if it looked like anything changed?
- He says the defense expert damaged the hard drive and it was impossible to take a mirror image of it afterward.
--- Unless JA got a hold of it and did like she did to her computer, then why couldn't a mirror image be made now? And if they were present, wouldn't he have been able to tell right away if it had been damaged? And don't they have a mirror image of what it looked like before the defense touched it?

This would make more sense if he was talking about Dworkin and not this later instance, but he seems to be referring to this later incident. It just doesn't make sense to me.

In their latest examination, the defense requested to have the whole computer released to them for forensic analysis and it was. It came back with a damaged hard drive so he is asking for a copy they would and should have made to perform their analysis recent analysis that revealed deletions made in 2009. I think he's assuming they did but they should have and if they didn't, well, that's a problem because he needs to examine the hard drive as it is post deletions. He cannot work from the original copy made in the beginning because alterations were made to the original hard drive so their copy is not adequate now. This is why the examinations made by Melendez and Dworkin didn't reveal the deletions, they were working from the copy made in 2008. This latest expert was working from either a copy recently made or the original hard drive.

People are assuming the defense requested access to the computers and such in 2009 for forensic purposes. Far as I can tell, that's not what the purpose of the visit was. The attorneys didn't bring an expert with them, they just wanted to view the computer. So a copy was not made at this time because attorneys aren't really qualified to do that.

Juan says he can't make a copy now because it's damaged. This analysis may have been done while Jodi was acting as her own attorney. In that case, we shouldn't put anything past her. We'll have to wait and see what the damage was exactly that Juan is referring to. If the man was not knowledgable enough to know you should not be performing analysis on the original then he may have not been knowledgable enough to not damage the hard drive while examining it. It could be physical and he may have noticed it right away. It may be damage that only his forensic expert saw once he began examining it. We need to wait and see on that part because the motion was quite vague.

 

[daisydomino]

Not to answer for LinTX but I think they're saying the image of the computer that was made in 2008 is what Dworkin examined. The rest of the sentence says "I have yet to find the date that he examined it". So I don't think they were saying it was examined in 2008.

Ah, thank you! I'd save myself so much time by just reading a bit more carefully. :silenced:

 

[krkrjx]

BBM - Apologies for being nit-picky, but technically she did not confess to the crime she was convicted of. After her many lies about it, she eventually claimed she killed him in self defense. She has never admitted that she committed a crime as far as I can recall, just that she killed him. If only the jury hadn't 'betrayed' her....

ETA: I think we're both saying the same thing, but I just wanted to clarify because my first reading of your comment was that she confessed her guilt, which she did not do. But your wording similar to mine - she admitted to the killing and that's as far as it went.

Thank you for catching that because I too did not want to be nit-picky. She confessed to the killing.

She was then found guilty of murder.

 

[LinTX]

It sounds to me like Nurmi's allegation is a bit more serious than throwing a less serious allegation out there to make it stick. I posted this conversation between JVM and Beth Karas in a previous thread but will post again in case someone that has not seen it is interested. BK says the allegation is damning, serious. I cannot imagine both KN and JW making false accusations just for JA. It is not like she is OJ Simpson. Stranger things have happened though. Guess we will find out someday.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154793765755693&set=vb.114250430692&type=2&theater

First, if you can't imagine KN/JW making false allegations, you've missed a lot. This is just the last of I don't know how many false accusations they've made about prosecutorial misconduct. AFAIK JSS has ruled against all of them. And second, I agree they're not really doing this just for JA, they're doing it for their own record and reputation.

Several good comments have been posted re: this allegation, or JM's record. As one pointed out prosecutorial misconduct is a go-to charge for appeals, and I’d add another one being ineffective counsel. KN's charging either/or in this one, apparently. If I saw anyone without charges of misconduct that had been prosecuting for 25 years (17+ of those years prosecuting murder cases) I'd expect to see one that lost most of his cases and wonder how he kept his job. JM has an excellent record and most likely quite a reputation with defense attorneys and probably some of the judges too. Then add people working against the DP planting biased articles and it's easy to see why JM makes an easy target. But his job is not to be likeable or make things comfortable for them, and he’s been doing it for a long time when he could have had a very lucrative career working for ‘the other side’. Objecting or filing motions for mistrial or misconduct with good cause is one thing, but in this case they're being used as tools to delay the process and harass and/or harness the prosecutor with little to no merit behind the charges. That's wrong. What is behind this last motion, we’ll have to wait and see, but if one is going to assume anything based on JM’s record, then look at his whole record and not just tiny parts taken out of it.

 

[Predator]

There was one and only one attacker and murderer in this crime scene: Jodi Arias. Let's not get it twisted. And it was in no way any sexual assault. No matter what your "gut" says, it's not what the evidence nor her testimony of the crime supports.

If it appears that one person couldn't have commited this alone, that speaks to the strong degree of premeditation and planning this one murderer put in to it.

I'm not going to try and poke any holes in JM's case, but I will say you all this to make my point perfectly clear:
Firstly, it is almost next to impossible to stage anything in the heat of the moment ,especially, when the victim fights back and I believe Travis gave "them" his worst and in most cases where a woman of Jodi's size attacks alone a man of Travis' size with a knife or other deadly weapon like a shovel, an axe or pickaxe a man manages to subdue his attacker.

Secondly, there's no doubt in my mind that Jodi killed him she ,just, might have had some help with the killing. To me it looks like a clear-cut assault by two if I ever saw one and I have seen a lot of those in my day.

Please note that this is just conjecture (for I have never been to the crime scene) and conjecture never did anybody any good, but on the other hand I have decades of experience under my belt with this kind of thing.

CMJA would have thrown ANYONE under the bus, including MM, if that were the case. It's always someone else who is the problem, NOT her. Besides, what would be MM's motivation?

Anger, rage, and adrenaline are very powerful. A wet naked body and leverage. CMJA talked about martial arts sparring earlier in her testimony on the stand. None of us know what we are capable of until we're tested, backed into a corner, or on a "mission".

Let's say she says there was a second attacker with her in the room and that second attacker says that she masterminded and premeditated the whole thing (which is what she or he is most likely to say), what would happen then,huh? How would saying such a thing benefit her when it could only hurt her self-defense case?

 

[bsk]

In their latest examination, the defense requested to have the whole computer released to them for forensic analysis and it was. It came back with a damaged hard drive so he is asking for a copy they would and should have made to perform their analysis recent analysis that revealed deletions made in 2009. I think he's assuming they did but they should have and if they didn't, well, that's a problem because he needs to examine the hard drive as it is post deletions. He cannot work from the original copy made in the beginning because alterations were made to the original hard drive so their copy is not adequate now. This is why the examinations made by Melendez and Dworkin didn't reveal the deletions, they were working from the copy made in 2008. This latest expert was working from either a copy recently made or the original hard drive.

People are assuming the defense requested access to the computers and such in 2009 for forensic purposes. Far as I can tell, that's not what the purpose of the visit was. The attorneys didn't bring an expert with them, they just wanted to view the computer. So a copy was not made at this time because attorneys aren't really qualified to do that.

Juan says he can't make a copy now because it's damaged. This analysis may have been done while Jodi was acting as her own attorney. In that case, we shouldn't put anything past her. We'll have to wait and see what the damage was exactly that Juan is referring to. If the man was not knowledgable enough to know you should not be performing analysis on the original then he may have not been knowledgable enough to not damage the hard drive while examining it. It could be physical and he may have noticed it right away. It may be damage that only his forensic expert saw once he began examining it. We need to wait and see on that part because the motion was quite vague.

I don't disagree with any of that but didn't Juan say he and Flores were present during that second examination? If had said "we handed it over to them and they gave it back a couple hours later" then everything would be in synch on Juan's side.

 

[MeeBee]

Which makes me realize something: what exactly would be the point of deleting *advertiser censored* from the original hard drive in 2009 after a copy had been made and was being worked with and would still have *advertiser censored* on it? Once a defense expert comes around for analysis, they would just give him the copy from 2008 to work with because that's what they worked with. Deleting filed from the hard drive in 2009 would serve zero purpose other than it would eff up the evidence. They couldn't know that experts would come around five years later for examinations to the hard drive. And then it would be even more stupid because the deletions that there was no point in making would have been easily found.

Jodi had already had analysis done on a copy made of the hard drive pre deletions, making this latest claim even more moot.

Hope I'm making sense.

 

[bsk]

I'm not going to try and poke any holes in JM's case, but I will say you all this to make my point perfectly clear:
Firstly, it is almost next to impossible to stage anything in the heat of the moment ,especially, when the victim fights back and I believe Travis gave "them" his worst and in most cases where a woman of Jodi's size attacks alone a man of Travis' size with a knife or other deadly weapon like a shovel, an axe or pickaxe a man manages to subdue his attacker.

Secondly, there's no doubt in my mind that Jodi killed him she ,just, might have had some help with the killing. To me it looks like a clear-cut assault by two if I ever saw one and I have seen a lot of those in my day.

Please note that this is just conjecture (for I have never been to the crime scene) and conjecture never did anybody any good, but on the other hand I have decades of experience under my belt with this kind of thing.



Let's say she says there was a second attacker with her in the room and that second attacker says that she masterminded and premeditated the whole thing (which is what she or he is most likely to say), what would happen then,huh? How would saying such a thing benefit her when it could only hurt her self-defense case?

I think the thing you're missing from the original trial is that she was there a good deal of time afterward. So any staging she was not necessarily rushed/in the heat of the moment. She claims that she was "in a fog" but while in that fog she took a bunch of stuff (including, perhaps accidentally, the camera) and loaded them in the washer with bleach. I forget if she packed up the knife or put it in the dishwasher - maybe it was some other knife in the dishwasher. She packed up the gun and whatever else (including some rope, according to her) to take with her.

Someone else with a better memory than me can correct/fill in my recollection of the above.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't disagree with any of that but didn't Juan say he and Flores were present during that second examination? If had said "we handed it over to them and they gave it back a couple hours later" then everything would be in synch on Juan's side.

No, he said he was present for the examination made in 2009, not this one made in 2014. The computer was handed over to the defense and they apparently have had it ever since. Nurmi even said it would take weeks to examine it. There was a recent motion made, presumably by Juan, to have the computer turned back over to him.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm not going to try and poke any holes in JM's case, but I will say you all this to make my point perfectly clear:
Firstly, it is almost next to impossible to stage anything in the heat of the moment ,especially, when the victim fights back and I believe Travis gave "them" his worst and in most cases where a woman of Jodi's size attacks alone a man of Travis' size with a knife or other deadly weapon like a shovel, an axe or pickaxe a man manages to subdue his attacker.

Secondly, there's no doubt in my mind that Jodi killed him she ,just, might have had some help with the killing. To me it looks like a clear-cut assault by two if I ever saw one and I have seen a lot of those in my day.

Please note that this is just conjecture (for I have never been to the crime scene) and conjecture never did anybody any good, but on the other hand I have decades of experience under my belt with this kind of thing.



Let's say she says there was a second attacker with her in the room and that second attacker says that she masterminded and premeditated the whole thing (which is what she or he is most likely to say), what would happen then,huh? How would saying such a thing benefit her when it could only hurt her self-defense case?

One problem with the "heat of the moment" part of the post.....This was not a "heat of the moment" murder. This was planned out more than a week in advance. The theft of JA's grandfathers gun, the car rental (non descript white one please instead of a stand out red one, thanks), the purchased gas can/borrowed two gas cans, cell phone turned off the entire time while in AZ, the "I got lost" for more than 24 hours while on her way to Utah, etc all point to this being planned out from beginning to end.

There are several women that have brutally killed a man that was larger than they were, moved their bodies all by themselves, without any help from anyone else. JA is not the first female to do this and she will not be the last.

If JA claimed that someone else had helped her kill Travis or even stage the scene, that would have been investigated completely. The evidence points to JA acting alone. JA also did not claim self defense until after changing her story/version at least twice before.

MOO

 

[Amster]

The jury, who saw and heard all of the evidence, agreed with JM. Just saying.....

 

[TorisMom003]

The jury, who saw and heard all of the evidence, agreed with JM. Just saying.....

Including the foreman that was adamant about JA NOT receiving the death penalty. Even he couldn't find it in himself to find her not guilty. Heck, he even thought that the crime was especially cruel.

MOO