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

[Sulamith]

It's common sense, really. No proof she did burglary, it's circumstantial. A strange burglary occurred at her house a week before the murder. Only one tiny gun was stolen and all the other guns were left. And a DVD player and the remote. Coincidentally, the tiny gun that was stolen was of the same calibre used to kill Travis. Not a single shred of evidence Travis ever owned a gun. Jodi dropped a DVD player and a remote off to Daryl when she borrowed the gas cans. No evidence that she returned the gas can she bought and a paper trail of her having used it after she killed Travis. Keeping receipts from her entire trip save for the ones that show she'd been in AZ. The cover up. The voicemail, the email. Her story of his attack being improbable, even the foreman admitted this. The roommates had alibis. Why are we still accusing the roommates when Jodi admits to the killing? SO MANY THINGS! When taken alone it's like, so what? But when you put them all together it is so clear what happened. The why is slightly hazier. But I am 100% certain she planned this crime.

I have been reading about other crimes where the accused was convicted on circumstantial evidence and years later DNA tests are done and proves the accused was in fact, innocent. I am not so sure on believing eye witness either. Not accusing them of lying. I am a bit wary of circumstantial now days.

I'm not one of the people blaming the roommates on anything. I guess I should have been more clear. She got damn "lucky" that the roommates or even one of TA's friends did not walk in on her. I remember one of his roomates (I think) said TA had an open door policy and did not lock his door.

My home was burglarized and I had my costume jewelry and my fine jewelry in the same place. The thieves took all the costume and left the good stuff. So stupid they were. The costume jewelry was from Joan Rivers and Nolan Miller. (Back in my QVC phase lol!) IF JA did not steal the gun IMO, it is possible that the thief could take one gun and leave the rest. MOO

 

[LinasK]

Yes! Even if everything she said is true, (obviously it is NOT), none of it is justification for murder. Travis was a great person but he was flawed, like all of us. There is no perfect murder victim. And any of those flaws should be irrelevant in a case where a murder is premeditated. She is not allowed to be judge, jury and executioner.

Actually, Joey Jackson put up a good lengthy satirical post yesterday on Facebook- claiming that the higher court of appeals immediately replaced Judge Strickland due to multiple complaints with (wait for it)... Jodi Arias!!!!!:crazy::giggle::lol::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious:

 

[MeeBee]

I have been reading about other crimes where the accused was convicted on circumstantial evidence and years later DNA tests are done and proves the accused was in fact, innocent. I am not so sure on believing eye witness either. Not accusing them of lying. I am a bit wary of circumstantial now days.

I'm not one of the people blaming the roommates on anything. I guess I should have been more clear. She got damn "lucky" that the roommates or even one of TA's friends did not walk in on her. I remember one of his roomates (I think) said TA had an open door policy and did not lock his door.

My home was burglarized and I had my costume jewelry and my fine jewelry in the same place. The thieves took all the costume and left the good stuff. So stupid they were. The costume jewelry was from Joan Rivers and Nolan Miller. (Back in my QVC phase lol!) IF JA did not steal the gun IMO, it is possible that the thief could take one gun and leave the rest. MOO

There's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence as long as it paints a clear picture. Here it does, I think. Most importantly, Jodi is not claiming innocence of the killing, she admits it. So DNA exoneration isn't really possible. Her DNA was everywhere.

Your home invasion example doesn't jel to me. If the burglars had taken one necklace then left the rest, the analogy would be better. But they took a lot of things that they thought had value.

It is possible the burglars stole one gun and left the rest. But it doesn't really fit with how burglars operate. The guns were all in one place and it would have been easy to take all of them. Even the cops thought it odd they only took one very small gun when they had the run of the home. The calibre is the most important part though.

 

[Sulamith]

I think the better explanation has been given by WS's in thousands upon thousands of posts over the past many months. You're entitled to your scenario, but folks are also entitled to not engage in explaining point by point why your scenario is not borne out in any of the proven facts of this case.

Thousands and thousands of posts that were pretty much in agreement! MOO

 

[LinasK]

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!

Veteran posters, keep in mind, we are not obliged to feed the trolls. Jodi supporters will find this site and challenge the conviction. The ignore feature can be your best friend. This is not directed at krkrjx.

 

[Niner]

Sure, he could be called in rebuttal.



The witness would be cross-examined in open court. And the witness would not be able to refuse. And I'm still not convinced it was JA.

ETA: If it is a witness who was not subject to the court's jurisdiction in the first place, then the witness could refuse to continue, and the judge would have to decide if the jury could realistically be instructed to disregard the testimony. If not, a mistrial would be declared and we would start over.

Just started reading this thread - but I agree re bold - I believe it was Maria de la Rosa...

and again... :gthanks: AZlawyer for your explanations to us lay people!! :wave:

okay... back to reading...

 

[Hope4More]

I have been reading about other crimes where the accused was convicted on circumstantial evidence and years later DNA tests are done and proves the accused was in fact, innocent. I am not so sure on believing eye witness either. Not accusing them of lying. I am a bit wary of circumstantial now days.

I'm not one of the people blaming the roommates on anything. I guess I should have been more clear. She got damn "lucky" that the roommates or even one of TA's friends did not walk in on her. I remember one of his roomates (I think) said TA had an open door policy and did not lock his door.

My home was burglarized and I had my costume jewelry and my fine jewelry in the same place. The thieves took all the costume and left the good stuff. So stupid they were. The costume jewelry was from Joan Rivers and Nolan Miller. (Back in my QVC phase lol!) IF JA did not steal the gun IMO, it is possible that the thief could take one gun and leave the rest. MOO

I agree that JM didn't prove that CMJA staged the burglery or stole the gun. IMO, the stolen gun thing was the weakness of JM's circumstantial links.

It's a good thing that the gun thing wasn't JM's only proof of premed. But, it sure wasn't. It was only one link of many that connected made an overwhelmingly convincing case for premed.

Again , just about the gun. Travis didn't own a gun. CMJA shot him with a gun. Therefore, CMJA brought the gun. Whether or not she stole the gun from her grandfather or bought/ borrowed one is largely immaterial, imo, tho if she did steal the gun (I think she did) it offers an insight into when she began her planning in earnest.

 

[LinasK]

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".

BBM. Her "bent, broken" finger was the damage she sustained after knifing Travis. There is zero evidence that Travis broke her finger prior to the date of the murder, only the word of a proven liar. Totally agreed that Jodi was capable of this killing all by herself. She's not petite- she's at least 5'6". Not that much shorter than Travis.

 

[LinasK]

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.

BBM.
Excellent post!!!:clap::clap::clap::goodpost:

 

[Steve44]

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.

I believe Juan is referring to the latest defense examination of Oct/Nov 2014, on which Nurmi is basing his current allegations. If the computer in total was turned over to them, and the forensics they did are the basis of their extreme claims, they should also have created their own mirror image of the drive prior to these forensics, when the computer was in their sole possession. This, I believe, is the mirror image they have yet to deliver to the prosecution. Additionally, it appears based on Juan's motion, that they returned the computer, and the hard drive by implication, in such condition that the state cannot now obtain a mirror image from it, at least not one in the same state it was in when they took possession of it.

It is important that it is a mirror image created by the defense, because although the State probably had a mirror image of the drive just before they turned it over to the defense in Oct 2014 the defense can claim it is not, in fact, a mirror image, since their drive was 'different', thus due diligence on the part of the defense to create their own mirror image prior to examining it is critical to verifying the defense claims, and so far that mirror image seems to be MIA, which is interesting in and of itself.

 

[LinasK]

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.

BBM. Thank-you for pointing this out! :clap:This is very important information. This was clearly a premeditated murder, and in addition to the murder staging she also took the time after then fact to leave fake voicemails and emails for her victim about their "future plans" to help establish her alibi- she didn't know he was dead!!!

 

[LinasK]

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

Another excellent post by an informed poster!!!:clap::clap::clap::goodpost:

 

[Amster]

Right now, this is the sentencing part of the trial. JA has been found guilty of 1st degree murder. DP eligible.

Perhaps those who disagree with the jury in the guilt/innocence phase can assist her defense on her many appeals to come.

 

[MeeBee]

FYC, here is the ME testimony and he explains why bleeding would be more external than internal with the chest wound.

http://youtu.be/D8k_rP9Xm3w

 

[Wagara]

I think the better explanation has been given by WS's in thousands upon thousands of posts over the past many months. You're entitled to your scenario, but folks are also entitled to not engage in explaining point by point why your scenario is not borne out in any of the proven facts of this case.

This is just so well said!

 

[MeeBee]

I agree that JM didn't prove that CMJA staged the burglery or stole the gun. IMO, the stolen gun thing was the weakness of JM's circumstantial links.

It's a good thing that the gun thing wasn't JM's only proof of premed. But, it sure wasn't. It was only one link of many that connected made an overwhelmingly convincing case for premed.

Again , just about the gun. Travis didn't own a gun. CMJA shot him with a gun. Therefore, CMJA brought the gun. Whether or not she stole the gun from her grandfather or bought/ borrowed one is largely immaterial, imo, tho if she did steal the gun (I think she did) it offers an insight into when she began her planning in earnest.

BBM: That's crazy to me because I thought it was one of the strongest points in the case against her.

 

[LinasK]

I agree that JM didn't prove that CMJA staged the burglery or stole the gun. IMO, the stolen gun thing was the weakness of JM's circumstantial links.

It's a good thing that the gun thing wasn't JM's only proof of premed. But, it sure wasn't. It was only one link of many that connected made an overwhelmingly convincing case for premed.

Again , just about the gun. Travis didn't own a gun. CMJA shot him with a gun. Therefore, CMJA brought the gun. Whether or not she stole the gun from her grandfather or bought/ borrowed one is largely immaterial, imo, tho if she did steal the gun (I think she did) it offers an insight into when she began her planning in earnest.

BBM. Only weak because Jodi disposed of the gun, yet we know from the shell casings that Travis's gunshot wounds were the exact same caliber as Jodi's grandfather's gun that mysteriously disappeared- the lone gun to do so of his extensive collection, right before her murder trip to Mesa AZ!!! I'd say that's pretty darned strong circumstantial evidence. If you spend any time watching Forensic Files, you'll see that many, many cases are won on circumstantial evidence alone- it's stronger stuff than direct evidence!!
P.S. We also know that Jodi has a habit of packing guns and knives when she travels, as they found both in her next rental car after she was arrested. That's part of her MO, you know in case the strange men you're going camping with in gold country might attack you and it demonstates responsible gun ownership- that's according to Jodi!

 

[ShadyLady]

I believe Juan is referring to the latest defense examination of Oct/Nov 2014, on which Nurmi is basing his current allegations. If the computer in total was turned over to them, and the forensics they did are the basis of their extreme claims, they should also have created their own mirror image of the drive prior to these forensics, when the computer was in their sole possession. This, I believe, is the mirror image they have yet to deliver to the prosecution. Additionally, it appears based on Juan's motion, that they returned the computer, and the hard drive by implication, in such condition that the state cannot now obtain a mirror image from it, at least not one in the same state it was in when they took possession of it.

I am reviewing

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...l-for-Sentencing-of-Jodi-Arias-11-14-14/page9

and this computer expert says he received the HD on Oct 25, 2012....Wilmott slips in it was "previously damage", but unclear when. Then he received a mirror image Nov 2012....so I believe this mirror image must have been made by LE before they let go of computer. Maybe this is what JM wants returned.

 

[Hope4More]

OT, and hope you dont mind the question, but why the screen name "Predator" on a victim friendly site?

 

[Hope4More]

BBM. Only weak because Jodi disposed of the gun, yet we know from the shell casings that Travis's gunshot wounds were the exact same caliber as Jodi's grandfather's gun that mysteriously disappeared- the lone gun to do so of his extensive collection, right before her murder trip to Mesa AZ!!! I'd say that's pretty darned strong circumstantial evidence. If you spend any time watching Forensic Files, you'll see that many, many cases are won on circumstantial evidence alone- it's stronger stuff than direct evidence!!

I get circumstantial. Actually I LOVE circumstantial, because it requires thinking and logic.

Fact is 25's are pretty common. Fact is too though the police thought the burglery was mighty hinkey, and the timing was very very coincidental, it still isn't conclusive enough, by itself, to not allow for doubt that's how she obtained the gun. Jmo.