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

[ShadyLady]

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.

And, just after they had a big old argument on texting IMs!!

 

[Wagara]

There were quite a few superficial stab wounds to the chest that wouldn't hamper his ability to wring Jodi neck.
But, how he died doesn't matter now, becasue the person I think responsible has been caught (at least one of them) and will only get to leave the prison in a body-bag one way or another if there's any good left in the world.

I just really don't like how JM goes about prosecuting her. I don't know he rubs the wrong way for some reason.

P.S I could continue to poke holes in JM case, but I don't want to "compromise" his case or something.

What is your opinion of the performance of the defense table?

 

[Tuba]

Have to say, it is much more interesting to read here today without the tweets of unconvincing testimony about the victim. Timing is so revealing. The charge of *advertiser censored* on Travis' computer was an Arias pursuit with her secret p.i, begun when she last represented herself as a fool. His name is Dorian Bond & he is not a lone independent contractor, he has a business, or did when I looked him up in August. Together, they may have provided Nurmi with their assurances. He was only one of a list of top secret, shall we say, assistants in her mitigation.

Unfortunately for her hidden defenses, the witnesses were exposed, down to the very last one. Somehow, self-counsel didn't realize they were due the prosecution. After that blow, Arias made another strike for secrecy. The mitigation itself would be hidden from press & public. That would have been her plan all along. More ignorance of our justice system. But I like to look at the rationale for all of the subterfuge, which is a key part of her method of operation in life as well as trial. A stage magician comes to mind. And this applies to the Fonseca testimony. We are to look at this, but not that.​ View this in isolation, without context or other influences. Keep fixed on what is being shown you, nothing else. Meanwhile, everything that is relevant is to fall away & you won't notice it because we're keeping that dark. Not a glint of light on it. If the magician can make what we are looking at sensational, so much the better.

The objective of the stage magician is to fool those looking on and to make them gasp, if possible. It is certainly not to expose the truth. We have to wonder at this point, how many will be complicit in the act?

 

[Hope4More]

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

And its interesting to me that the two of us would see the strength of this piece so differently, especially since we usually see things similarly.

Reinforces for me the beauty of our jury system, whatever its flaws, that a group of strangers with different opinions are asked to come to an agreement.

 

[LinasK]

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.

Yeah, but if you can't find the murder weapon because she disposed of it, probably somewhere in the Arizona desert, the Grand Canyon, or Hoover Dam, then how else are you supposed to prove it? To me that's an inference you can draw circumstantially. Just like we know that Travis didn't commit suicide when he was found, even though Jodi wasn't on scene then.

 

[Predator]

What is your opinion of the performance of the defense table?

Poor and underhaned

 

[Hope4More]

Yeah, but if you can't find the murder weapon because she disposed of it, probably somewhere in the Arizona desert, the Grand Canyon, or Hoover Dam, then how else are you supposed to prove it? To me that's an inference you can draw circumstantially. Just like we know that Travis didn't commit suicide when he was found, even though Jodi wasn't on scene then.

We know she shot him with a gun she brought with her. That's not circumstantial, and it is premed. Where she got the gun is more circumstantial, imo, but ultimately irrelevant.

 

[angelrae]

For sure.

But I still think people should be able to bounce their ideas off us without getting laughed off the board!

I must admit it happened to me. When I first posted on WS, I worded something wrong and was promptly called out. Maybe it wasn't as bad as I remember (it was a long time ago) and I will be the first to admit I am an extremely overly-sensitive person. But it has kept me from posting. I am the epitome of a "lurker" and I think that's why.

 

[twomanywords]

Is it a full moon?

 

[Bernina]

What is that in blue ? It's not in the original post, but it shows up here as though it is .

Blue was a response by me to the bolded "I have decades of experience under my belt with this kind of thing."

Skipped a groove, apologies! :facepalm: ...and went back and clarified it! :floorlaugh:

 

[Ricki]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[geevee]

He probably means they altered it by booting it, and thus kicking off the AV software, before making a backup.

Since all the *advertiser censored* began on 5/28 (as far as we know) I wonder why the antivirus would suddenly start cleaning up the malware a year later (and not when Travis was booting up the laptop between 5/28 and 6/4). It was still connecting to *advertiser censored* sites on 6/10 when apparently it was shut down when being collected by LE - I just find it odd that the antivirus program would start deleting 'thousands of *advertiser censored* sites' a year later, doesn't make much sense.

 

[ShadyLady]

I would venture to say, that most people here are pretty pleased with Juan Martinez's performance...he brought in the right verdict, I say that's a "win". A big win.

 

[geevee]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Tapatalk forgot your post, Ricki.

 

[MeeBee]

Since all the *advertiser censored* began on 5/28 (as far as we know) I wonder why the antivirus would suddenly start cleaning up the malware a year later (and not when Travis was booting up the laptop between 5/28 and 6/4). It was still connecting to *advertiser censored* sites on 6/10 when apparently it was shut down when being collected by LE - I just find it odd that the antivirus program would start deleting 'thousands of *advertiser censored* sites' a year later, doesn't make much sense.

I thought of that. But sometimes antiviruses run on an automatic schedule, either weekly or monthly or as needed. It could be that when it was turned on the long over due scan began running. Or an antivirus was deliberately run.

 

[ShadyLady]

Since all the *advertiser censored* began on 5/28 (as far as we know) I wonder why the antivirus would suddenly start cleaning up the malware a year later (and not when Travis was booting up the laptop between 5/28 and 6/4). It was still connecting to *advertiser censored* sites on 6/10 when apparently it was shut down when being collected by LE - I just find it odd that the antivirus program would start deleting 'thousands of *advertiser censored* sites' a year later, doesn't make much sense.

Could it have been a program that Jodi put on Travis' computer on June 4, but it was corrupted and it not run (hence "bug comments" from Jodi when she tried to put *advertiser censored* on his computer), then when the "new" most recent defense computer guy (2014) got involved, he finally got it to run?

 

[LinTX]

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.

I'm sitting on my hands, but I will admit to reading purely for entertainment value. Had few giggles here and there :laughing:, but yeah, scrolling is probably wise.

 

[bsk]

And its interesting to me that the two of us would see the strength of this piece so differently, especially since we usually see things similarly.

Reinforces for me the beauty of our jury system, whatever its flaws, that a group of strangers with different opinions are asked to come to an agreement.

It makes sense - it just depends on what you make of it. If the gun had been recovered in her possession afterward, then it becomes direct evidence - they could do ballistics test, test for gunshot residue, etc. But since that was not the case, it becomes circumstantial evidence.

Maybe this isn't always the case, but to me circumstantial evidence works out to something like: "for it NOT to be true, then you need A and B and C and ... to NOT add up to Z being the obvious answer." That may sound weird, but in this case you have that a .25 that she would have known about JUST HAPPENED to be stolen and the "burglar" JUST HAPPENED to do it in a very strange manner and Travis JUST HAPPENED to be shot by a gun of the same caliber that JUST HAPPENED to disappear afterward. So unless you are willing to believe in a whole string of events being coincidences, then circumstantial evidence says she stole the gun and shot Travis with it. Not as strong as having the gun to tie her to it, but about as strong as you can get otherwise - it's just not plausible that these didn't happen.

Edited: Like I was saying in the next post - I had to change "and" to "as" in the last sentence.

 

[bsk]

I must admit it happened to me. When I first posted on WS, I worded something wrong and was promptly called out. Maybe it wasn't as bad as I remember (it was a long time ago) and I will be the first to admit I am an extremely overly-sensitive person. But it has kept me from posting. I am the epitome of a "lurker" and I think that's why.

That's a stupid reason to be a lurker!

Just kidding!!! Post away!

It's funny - I am pretty much a grammar Nazi in real life, but when I go back and read some of my posts I'm horrified that I left out a word here or there etc. So sometimes I feel like I come across as stoooopid because of that. If we all were worried about that sort of stuff our refresh keys would be in a lot better shape because no one would be posting!

 

[Ricki]

I think Tapatalk forgot your post, Ricki.

I didn't post at all. Then I saw a blank post. Tried to edit but I see no delete. Oh well. Just my Peace Dove will have to do
Darn tapatalk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk