Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/26 -12/02/14 In recess

[krkrjx]

(respectfully snipped)

Early on, I thought the upside down plate was, indeed, a way to get her presence in Utah "on the record." But ... maybe she replaced the plate in the dark, in the middle of the desert? Have a hard time believing she would drive with NO license plate, especially since she left TA's during daylight hours (approx. 6-6:30 pm in June). Hum. Wondering now if she mounted a "spare license plate" (from her repossessed car? JA's BMW?) ... then mounted the "real" license plate (upside down) in the darkness of the desert.

It was the CA plate that was upside down, right? She probably used AZ plates she owned from another vehicle for her trip to Mesa then switched back to the rental's plate (CA) after her getaway. Did either state use only rear plate or did either or both require both front and rear? I do not recall for sure which state required what back in 2008...and since I am unsure, I am not sure if it is important or not.

I also still toy with the idea that the camera in the washer was accidental. That there was bleach in the mix doesn't really matter--she might have added that hoping to destroy blood evidence from the sheets and towels. IOW her adding bleach does not indicate that she knew the camera was in the wash.

Arias is an odd one and her thinking process is hard to pin down on certain things. There could be perfectly good reasons (in her strange mind) for needing upside down license plates (which attract attention more than conceal) and the camera in the washing machine (rather than taking it from the scene for disposal with the weapons, clothing, car mats). Even with her meticulous plotting and planning, it is possible that some things that look calculated happened by accident.

 

[Truth Detector]

I thought it was possible that throwing the camera in the wash was an accident. She gathered up a pile of sheets, towels, clothes, whatever to throw in the wash and could have accidentally grabbed it.

But maybe not - she apparently took the time to delete each photo individually, so that would seem to mean she didn't plan on taking the camera with her. I don't know why not - at least she could have taken the memory card if nothing else. It would have been way harder to convict her if she had destroyed it too.

I don't recall that individual deletion was ever proven.

Assumed perhaps, but proven?

We can be certain that she knew enough to be able to remove the card from the camera or connect the camera to a computer (a Compaq Presario, for example), delete any or all of the photos either individually or en masse, and disconnect the camera or place the card back in the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H9 whichever may have been applicable.

(I verified that Sony supplied USB cables with those cameras. Source: https://docs.sony.com/release/DSC-H7_H9.pdf)

 

[Truth Detector]

Re: secret testimony
I think she was either going to add or subtract from her story, leaving her followers asking questions. Her most avid fans would excuse anything, but I could see some turning against her.

I really want more about the COA to come out. I really want to know both the Judge's & Nurmi's arguments.

The crux had to do with JSKS' and LKN's contention that the especially cruel torture murderer's right to effectively argue mitigation in a relatively threat-free environment outweighs Freedom of the Press rights and the public's right to know.

LKN's substantial reliance on JSKS' previous order to hide the proceedings was unsurprising.

She and Nurmi tried to shield the courtroom from the press and the public, but the CoA said no, except that there will still be no live-streaming of the proceedings.

Having a technology background, I believe that sense of urgency is a primary driver of reliability.

If we expect that true, accurate, and comprehensive recordings of each day's proceedings have all been captured and retained absent real-time review, I suspect that we are in for a disappointment.

Yes, I'm predicting that while most of the court reporters' transcripts will be comprehensive, I fully expect that audio and/or video of the proceedings has already been compromised.

Don't be surprised if substantial portions of the audio/video of this sentencing phase re-trial were never recorded or are 'unviewable' or 'unlistenable' do to 'technical difficulties'. Oh, and there are no do-overs.

[If CMJA can make up words, I reserve the undie-edifiable right to do likewise. Okay, you saw what I did there.]

 

[bsk]

I don't recall that individual deletion was ever proven.

Assumed perhaps, but proven?

We can be certain that she knew enough to be able to remove the card from the camera or connect the camera to a computer (a Compaq Presario, for example), delete any or all of the photos either individually or en masse, and disconnect the camera or place the card back in the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H9 whichever may have been applicable.

(I verified that Sony supplied USB cables with those cameras. Source: https://docs.sony.com/release/DSC-H7_H9.pdf)

BBM - Maybe you're right. I thought Flores and/or Juan had said it was individually, which always struck me as weird - unless she planned only to delete that day's pictures and leave anything from earlier to make it look like the camera hadn't been touched. In that case she would have had to do it individually if she was doing it directly on the camera.

 

[Bernina]

Flipping the plate to attract attention in UTAH is a possibility, but I think there's easier ways she could have done it. What are the chances she'd run into a traffic cop and be stopped? She couldn't be sure that would happen. If all she wanted to do was an alibi that she was in Utah, I think the receipts she kept as proof were enough. She also could have stopped at shops with camera's etc.

But..............mano y mano with a Utah LEO w/a witness is a pretty solid alibi putting herself in Utah. :thinking:

 

[ICit]

And, why did she attempt destroy evidence by putting it in the washer with bleach thinking it would destroy the camera? She was trying to hide the pics, IMO. Even though are deleted, they are recoverable. Another reason why I don't think she is so smart with technology.

Ive always wondered why she just didn't take the camera with her. The only reason I can think of, is LE would see the empty camera box with no camera and friends would point at Ms. Photographer, which they did anyways.

I believe she put the camera in the washer because she was afraid to take it with her because it would point fingers at her. It had to be a bloody mess and she needed to destroy any DNA. I think also that she was hoping that it would destroy the photos.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Yes or No has a post on the Sidebar with a tweet from the nutty George Barwood claiming BN has the goods on the prosecution for deletingporn and that defense is going to refute the gas can claims. Don't know what it means. We do kow Barwoodis crazy. On page 19 of Sidebar. FYI.

 

[Meemaw12]

What are these jurist thinking?

Are they thinking about what Mr M presented in the beginning of this phase?

Are they getting lost in the defense case?

Are they thinking what a monster JA is?

Are they thinking TA deserved what he got?

I only read that they are writing or not writing, looking bored. A few questions.

I so wish we had someone reporting on the jury like in first trial. Are they bonding? Are there loners? What are their expressions to some of this BS the defense is putting in. We read bits and pieces but not enough for me to get a feeling of how this is going.

 

[krkrjx]

But..............mano y mano with a Utah LEO w/a witness is a pretty solid alibi putting herself in Utah. :thinking:

Not at the critical time, though. I mean, if it was her intent to have a Utah alibi it is lacking because she had no idea it was going to take several days for the murder to be discovered. It could have been discovered that evening, for all she knew at the time. So, alibi in Utah would be useful if it were not hours after "the incident" in Mesa. MOO

 

[geevee]

I think there is a difference between *advertiser censored* that is downloaded due to a virus or whatever, and *advertiser censored* that is accessed on purpose via web search. Perhaps the "no *advertiser censored*" originally reported was for accessed sites and that which came from virus or whatever was not mentioned because accessed sites are of most interest and are the ones scrutinized in any investigation.

IDK how to say it clearly. The *advertiser censored* being claimed to be on the computer was missed by the defense expert also, right? So...I think we just do not know enough yet.

I would be surprised if there was absolutely nothing questionable found on the computer, given so much junk that is out there and how many sites track visitors, the malware, etc.

Biggest red flag for me: Jodi's insistence from Day One that the computer hard drive be examined again. She never did let up on this, even after it was reported by experts on both sides that there was nothing questionable found. She mentioned this hard drive in her complaint to the judge about Nurmi--he wasn't investigating it doggedly enough to suit her or something to that nature. She finally became her own attorney and the first thing she does is get that computer examined and voila...160,000 *advertiser censored* hits are found! And with that she is no longer her own attorney, after which is filed the motion to dismiss the DP based on prosecutor misconduct.

Come on. This is just all too down pat for me. Something stinks in all this.

My big question is JM and his experts (and the defense expert in Trial #1) say no *advertiser censored* was found in the "browser history", Neumesiter is now saying he found it in the "viewing history" - I don't know what the distinction is and where Neu. found it. I can undertstand none being found in the browser if Travis used cleaning tools but where is this area of 'viewing history' on the hard drive that's not the browser? I'd like that answer before I could put any creedence in Neumeister's most recent testimony.

 

[krkrjx]

I believe she put the camera in the washer because she was afraid to take it with her because it would point fingers at her. It had to be a bloody mess and she needed to destroy any DNA. I think also that she was hoping that it would destroy the photos.

It may have pointed fingers at her but it wouldn't prove anything if it was not on the scene. She would have destroyed it with the weapons; it's not like she would have kept it as a souvenir. I imagine most people would think washing a camera could destroy it and maybe she believed that too and did in fact toss it in the machine. But I see nothing that convinces me of that and as it turned out, her leaving it on the scene proved some things that would have otherwise had to be speculated.

Whether accident or on purpose...she messed up by leaving the camera on the scene, IMO. I am extremely thankful that she did!

 

[geevee]

Both the defense and the prosecution believe the pictures are from that day. It's never been argued. She's admitted she was there, and she killed him all by herself. If they weren't from that day then she put them on the camera to make it look as if they were, and that makes no sense, since initially she was denying she was even there that day. Why would she deny it, then provide false evidence to the contrary?

Neither side argued the pictures being entered because both thought they helped their case. The only minute entry afaik about letting them in or not was 2 pics that apparently showed them 'in the act' and neither thought they were necessary. But there was no deeper investigation into them than what Melendez testified to, to the ebst of my knowledge (and as many here know I have concentrated a great deal on the camera pics lol). I agree with the post above stating how light her hair looked - in a dark room, in normal lighting I think her hair would look even lighter, like in the March pics of her with the black dog. I don't think they were taken on June 4th, in short.

 

[krkrjx]

My big question is JM and his experts (and the defense expert in Trial #1) say no *advertiser censored* was found in the "browser history", Neumesiter is now saying he found it in the "viewing history" - I don't know what the distinction is and where Neu. found it. I can undertstand none being found in the browser if Travis used cleaning tools but where is this area of 'viewing history' on the hard drive that's not the browser? I'd like that answer before I could put any creedence in Neumeister's most recent testimony.

I need to know more as well. For one thing, I want to know why JM said in court that he could prove that BN damaged the drive. He is not one to throw statements like that around casually so I am going to assume he does in fact have such proof. I want to know what it is!

Also, I want to know if JM has received the copy of the hard drive that JSS ordered BN to provide. He said JM would have it by Wednesday (day before Thanksgiving).

Finally, will JSS order the drive copies examined by a neutral party? If so, who? And how soon could that all be accomplished? If she sends everything to the FBI it might take years to figure out--aren't they usually backlogged? And would the FBI even agree to get involved in something at state level?

 

[geevee]

She did deny it, iirc right up until the Det. showed her some of the pics... then suddenly ninja's appeared and suddenly yes her and TA had spent the day sleeping, taking pics, etc. She obviously thought it might help her at that point so of course no more arguing it and yes, I think she may have put them on there herself, though perhaps not realizing that her using the camera for TA's shower pics may compromise the dates. Either way, she did try deleting a lot of pics and then oops, it fell into the washing machine along with the wash...

Yes, and one of the first things she said to Flores about the pics was 'those pics had been on my camera (or card)' - I don't take much of anything she says as truth without lots of backup but this may be true, she couldn't say anything further at that point without divulging that she had been there that day (and she was still sticking with the 'I wasn't there at all' Story #1). The next day the ninja story came along and by the time, 2 years later, that she went with Story #3 she knew the evidence against her and had worked it as well as she could into that story.

 

[Hope4More]

I really do not think they actually were together in his room that many times alone. JA may have been in the bedroom (cleaning) but if the sex tape was made to verify they had sex JA only mentions a few times. TA is not alive to ask so it seem unfair to him to assume they were having sex all the time especially when people were constantly coming and going within the household. If her car was always at his house I think witnesses would have mentioned it. I don't know, what do you think? jmo

I agree that they likely had sex far less often than she's said, and that it took a long time for her to convince him to have vaginal sex. I think she would have loved to get pregnant to force him into marriage but she couldn't persuade him to have vaginal sex very often at all.

Thank goodness a baby never happened.

 

[Hope4More]

Neither side argued the pictures being entered because both thought they helped their case. The only minute entry afaik about letting them in or not was 2 pics that apparently showed them 'in the act' and neither thought they were necessary. But there was no deeper investigation into them than what Melendez testified to, to the ebst of my knowledge (and as many here know I have concentrated a great deal on the camera pics lol). I agree with the post above stating how light her hair looked - in a dark room, in normal lighting I think her hair would look even lighter, like in the March pics of her with the black dog. I don't think they were taken on June 4th, in short.

[Fyi....For those tuning in for the first time, this question was debated a great deal during the trial's guilt phase. ]

I have no doubt the photos were taken on the 4th. IMO the only reason to doubt it, or to disbelieve they had sex that day, is because it is so difficult to understand why Travis would agree to it, especially given what he said in his May 26 IM's.

I don't think he invited her. I do believe that she snuck in, and after checking out his computer, surprised him in his bed. He never had a chance after that. The sex and shower and photo-taking were all to lull him, to make him drop his defenses.

I've wondered at times if anyone would disbelieve the sex if genders were reversed. Guy going to kill girl, had sex or raped her first. It happens.

A clue to the kind of sex they had in the 4th is on their faces. Neither looks happy or satisfied or relaxed. Perhaps Travis was just appeasing her, doing whatever it took to get her out the door without her exploding, or crying, or making him any more miserable than he was.

 

[Meemaw12]

[Fyi....For those tuning in for the first time, this question was debated a great deal during the trial's guilt phase. ]

I have no doubt the photos were taken on the 4th. IMO the only reason to doubt it, or to disbelieve they had sex that day, is because it is so difficult to understand why Travis would agree to it, especially given what he said in his May 26 IM's.

I don't think he invited her. I do believe that she snuck in, and after checking out his computer, surprised him in his bed. He never had a chance after that. The sex and shower and photo-taking were all to lull him, to make him drop his defenses.

I've wondered at times if anyone would disbelieve the sex if genders were reversed. Guy going to kill girl, had sex or raped her first. It happens.

A clue to the kind of sex they had in the 4th is on their faces. Neither looks happy or satisfied or relaxed. Perhaps Travis was just appeasing her, doing whatever it took to get her out the door without her exploding, or crying, or making him any more miserable than he was.

Or threatening suicide like she had before...

 

[Truth Detector]

BBM - Maybe you're right. I thought Flores and/or Juan had said it was individually, which always struck me as weird - unless she planned only to delete that day's pictures and leave anything from earlier to make it look like the camera hadn't been touched. In that case she would have had to do it individually if she was doing it directly on the camera.

Yes, I don't dispute that they said it.

Only whether it was proven.

Also not proven = The date/timestamps on the photos.

Anyone could have changed the date/time on the camera. And changed it back again, etc.

Also not proven = Which human composed, sent, viewed, and/or deleted any of the thousands of emails, instant messages, etc.

IP addresses are assigned by ISP's and tie to the subscriber's/user's modem/gateway. This is not the same as positively identifying any individual user.

We may not like it, but unless there is a detailed eyewitness or a confession, it's nigh unto impossible to prove that a given user e-transacted anything.

"But they logged on!"

Well yes, someone logged on -- with someone's userid and password.

But proving precisely whom?

Attorneys don't make this case nearly strongly enough, IMO.

It's amazing what courts will accept as fact. If attorneys and judges only knew what they don't know.

 

[Luvrosco]

For someone that claims she is smart, what an idiot to leave the camera. But I'm glad she did. I said this before, I'm surprised she didn't get pregnant.

 

[ElleElle]

But would that show on the memory card, which is where the pics were retrieved from?

It was not a cheap camera. I believe the pics are burned into the memory, just as the shower pics.

" Alexander’s new camera was a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H9. The camera is currently being sold on*Amazon*for $1,499.99, but likely cost more in 2008 when Alexander bought it."

Link: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/03/01/jodi-arias-camera