Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[krkrjx]

Regarding Nurmi's 14 witnesses: I doubt he will have/need 14 to testify about this computer stuff so I am thinking that newly submitted (if it was?) list of witnesses is for the penalty trial. My question is: How can it be justified that he submit a new or updated witness list at this stage of the game? Or if it is his first submission why does he get to submit so late? And does the judge have to accept it at this stage? We know she will, but is it her choice or because she is required to accept? I know witnesses can be added late if there is good reason--usually someone was not available sooner--but 14??? Seems kinda hard to justify that.

I am just sick of Nurmi not following procedures (if that's what he's doing here) and getting away with it (if he is).

 

[Love Never Fails]

Just watched an interview with a friend of Travis, Danny Jones. YES OR no posted it on the sidebar. He was very concise and well spoken. He said this trial is not about sexual fantasies or mormonism. It is about the slaughter of a decent human being. I fail to understand why Juan Martinez doesn't bring in these friends to testify after Travis has been trashed. Surely there is some law or rule that would allow rebuttal during this phase to restore his reputation. If I were a juror I would rather hear from his friends than from dr. Demarte, a paid witness.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Regarding Nurmi's 14 witnesses: I doubt he will have/need 14 to testify about this computer stuff so I am thinking that newly submitted (if it was?) list of witnesses is for the penalty trial. My question is: How can it be justified that he submit a new or updated witness list at this stage of the game? Or if it is his first submission why does he get to submit so late? And does the judge have to accept it at this stage? We know she will, but is it her choice or because she is required to accept? I know witnesses can be added late if there is good reason--usually someone was not available sooner--but 14??? Seems kinda hard to justify that.

I am just sick of Nurmi not following procedures (if that's what he's doing here) and getting away with it (if he is).

Some of these things were discussed a bit last night - let me see if I can remember what was said. Witness lists were due in September. If the judge refused to let Nurmi submit this now, saying "my lawyer missed the filing deadline" could be grounds for ineffective counsel so while yes it stinks to high heaven it is probably better than the alternative. You would think someone wouldn't be able to benefit from their own ridiculousness, but that seems pretty much par for the course here. Sigh.

Some of these may just be affidavits from witnesses, which I believe AZLawyer said are permissible in this stage of proceedings so long as both attorneys can agree the witness is "credible". No idea what happens if one side doesn't find them credible and what the procedure is there (let me guess, long discussions in court without the jury).

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thanks. I'm glad she didn't believe the pedo lie. I'd like to read more about her interview, but refuse to pay to read per event. BK's is worth the $ for her comprehensive notes. I don't pay for her opinions either.

The fact that she was pro prosecution and asked to be dismissed be a use of her schedule tells me this may may happen more because this trial is being dragged out.

 

[NashBridges2]

I just checked JSS's court calendar again and there's nothing scheduled today for JA. I think since JSS gave BN until Monday to turn of the disk to Juan, the schedule has changed. The next evidentiary hearing is on the 10th (Wed).

Here's the next court dates that I posted last night and remains the same this morning.

Okay, JSS's court calendar has been updated.

12/8/2014 9:30 Trial - Continuing State Of Arizona
Jodi Ann Arias
12/10/2014 9:30 Evidentiary Hearing - Motion Undesignated State Of Arizona
Jodi Ann Arias
12/11/2014 8:30 Trial - Continuing State Of Arizona
Jodi Ann Arias

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....List.asp?ID=3604&startdate=12/5/2014&length=1

The *advertiser censored* on computer hearing should be being held Friday. Maybe if they actually started having more than 1 or 2 court days a week ( and actually starting on time after each break etc) they could maybe get this wrapped up by summer time.

 

[MeeBee]

For anyone who heard #3 interview..

I read elsewhere that she saw CMJA as "normal.". Context?

More intriguing, she seemed to suggest that CMJA didn't simply testify, that something else went on that day. Accurate? Any clues?

The second part is accurate. She did seem to suggest Jodi wasn't the only one who testified or there was more to the story, at least.

The first part...well, she was asked if Jodi gave her the creeps. She said she doesn't really look over there but said when she has, Jodi just seems...normal. I don't get the feeling she meant it in a positive way. Just, subjectively speaking, there's nothing outwardly creepy about her. She's just a normal looking person.

 

[MeeBee]

Thanks. I'm glad she didn't believe the pedo lie. I'd like to read more about her interview, but refuse to pay to read per event. BK's is worth the $ for her comprehensive notes. I don't pay for her opinions either.

She didn't really say whether or not she believed it or not. She was careful not to reveal any opinions. She said she really couldn't say whether it would weigh into her decision, in the end though, whatever she believed. I sort of got the feeling she might have believed it or was considering it as a possibility...but I could be wrong. She might also have been saying the pedophile stuff was irrelevant, wasn't going to consider it because it's not true.

But I wouldn't say you could say she was one side or the other. She was pretty fair to both sides and didn't, in any way, show her cards. Wouldn't say she was "pro state for sure." IMO, she was just hard to read.

 

[cavvy]

This site has a nice recap of what all happened in court yesterday - http://morbitbuzz.blogspot.com/2014/12/12414-no-jury-dead-men-do-watch-*advertiser censored*.html

 

[Hope4More]

Disclaimer- I am hopelessly confused by all the computer stuff and so am not the best person to dig useful info out of BK notes. But after reviewing them twice, here's what I think might be relevant:

1. BN says that he never touched TA's original HD. He also says that the Mesa PD's (clone, copy whatever ) does indeed have the exact same *advertiser censored* stuff and files that he found on his own (clone, copy, whatever).

2. Inference- Nurmi says BN found child *advertiser censored* on his (clone, copy, whatever). That means the same info can still be found on the Mesa PD's version.

3. Still be to refuted by JM. That programs were deliberately installed on June 10 (19?) thst could not have been auto updates or installation), and that the installation of those programs erased files.

4. I think BN verified that the HD was turned on June 19 without a write blocker- the protection that ensures nothing is changed on the computer. That's how files were deleted/modified on June 19.

5. BN also says the unprotected HD was on for a total of 12 minutes before being turned off improperly (cord pulled or some such).

There are 2 separate issues-did JM /Flores tamper with evidence? And, did Travis access *advertiser censored* (including child *advertiser censored*) on his computer?

Tampering- whatever happened or didn't happen, it seems extremely unlikely that JSS will believe the State acted deliberately to erase or modify files. The evidence just isn't there, bolstered by the ex-atty's testimony yesterday that Maria did indeed look at files on the HD.

As far as the *advertiser censored*. I'm gonna guess that JSS allows the DT to bring it in, unless JM 's expert testifies that he looked and there is no *advertiser censored* on the Mesa PD (clone, copy, whatever).

An awful possibility would seem to be that the DT is given the time - weeks- to sort thru all the alleged *advertiser censored* on their clone, copy, whatever, to ascertain what was caused by viruses and what they claim had to be accessed on purpose.

Adding...(left it out). I don't know if BN is actually hiding anything /covering up tampering. It seems equally possible he is following directions to obfuscate, hinder, and to delay.

I say that because I think it was ok for him to delete files on his own (clone, copy, whatever). He says they were malware and viruses. The other difference between the 2 versions , used memory , might be an indication of the size of the HD BN uses to examine the clone , copy, whatever.

Thst doesn't mean he shouldn't turn over whatever it was he used or did. Just saying there may well nothing incriminating to find on it.

 

[daisydomino]

This site has a nice recap of what all happened in court yesterday - http://morbitbuzz.blogspot.com/2014/12/12414-no-jury-dead-men-do-watch-*advertiser censored*.html

Just out of curiosity, is that blogger in the courtroom or is this blog written by putting together what info can be gleaned from Twitter? I'm not criticizing, it's nicely done either way. Just wondering.

 

[Zuri]

Just watched an interview with a friend of Travis, Danny Jones. YES OR no posted it on the sidebar. He was very concise and well spoken. He said this trial is not about sexual fantasies or mormonism. It is about the slaughter of a decent human being. I fail to understand why Juan Martinez doesn't bring in these friends to testify after Travis has been trashed. Surely there is some law or rule that would allow rebuttal during this phase to restore his reputation. If I were a juror I would rather hear from his friends than from dr. Demarte, a paid witness.

Respectfully,
Dr. DeMarte is needed to paint a psychological picture of CMJA. IMO, his friends could paint a nice, real picture of Travis, but the DT would ask them a simple question of whether or not TA confided in them about CMJA. The fact that he didn't substantiates the DT claim that TA kept his relationship with CMJA a secret, thus diminishing her and give the appearance she just "snapped". Then no DP verdict. IMO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Good Morning, Y'all !

:gaah: What an absolute freaking nightmare yesterday was -- especially for the Alexander Family !


A couple of questions:

- Is there anything on the agenda for today ?

- Is there a transcript of Juror #3 interview she did last night ?


Thanks !

 

[atthelake]

Good morning!

Is today's hearing re: Nurmi's latest motion to dismiss the death penalty per the COA's ruling? If so, does anyone know if we can view this one or are we left to decipher tweets?

This trial really is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. (Apologies to Winston Churchill) :crazy:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6151/6168518574_5113b272ca.jpg

 

[Zuri]

I would think that if she admitted to everything, became totally honest, we would not be going forward with the rest of the trial.

I agree. That witness is still under seal IIRC. Could she be charged with contempt of court if she revealed anything that was under seal?

 

[Zuri]

Just out of curiosity, is that blogger in the courtroom or is this blog written by putting together what info can be gleaned from Twitter? I'm not criticizing, it's nicely done either way. Just wondering.

It seemed like it was gathered from twitter or BK blog. Just simplified with some editorial comments. JMO

 

[garthmax]

Anything going in court today?

 

[Hope4More]

She didn't really say whether or not she believed it or not. She was careful not to reveal any opinions. She said she really couldn't say whether it would weigh into her decision, in the end though, whatever she believed. I sort of got the feeling she might have believed it or was considering it as a possibility...but I could be wrong. She might also have been saying the pedophile stuff was irrelevant, wasn't going to consider it because it's not true.

But I wouldn't say you could say she was one side or the other. She was pretty fair to both sides and didn't, in any way, show her cards. Wouldn't say she was "pro state for sure." IMO, she was just hard to read.

I will pull my hair out if a single juror believes the pedo lie, whatever the verdict.

I'm glad she's being discrete. I wish she'd kept silent altogether. What's the point in going public if she knows she shouldn't be open about her experience?

 

[Kamille]

I really don't think KN and JW need to be hearing what the jury members who drop off the case for their own personal reasons were thinking and how the trial is going so far for JA, their thoughts, opinions etc. This just gives the defence more information to change things up, tweak some problem areas and prolong this trial. I really wish the jurors wouldn't be speaking with anyone once they leave.

The whole thing is ridiculous IMO. They are re-trying the guilt phase, looking for appellate issues and maybe will be throwing a lame mitigator or two in the process. The plan for this phase is obviously to drag it out until a mistrial is declared, but use the time to work on appellate issues. And if the jurors have the stamina to stick it out, well then try to make them see that the first trial was corrupt, those jurors got it wrong, and JA should only have been charged with second degree at best. It's so blatantly obvious to everyone following this. It's out of control and no one is doing anything to stop it, while the taxpayers just keep making KN and JW rich and JA gets to stay where she's comfortable and in contact with her family and "friends/fans".

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

I will pull my hair out if a single juror believes the pedo lie, whatever the verdict.

I'm glad she's being discrete. I wish she'd kept silent altogether. What's the point in going public if she knows she shouldn't be open about her experience?

I think her not being open was just a choice. She could have revealed more of her opinions without incident but simply chose not to, for now.

I mostly think she wanted to clear up why she was excused since there was a lot of speculating and misreporting. In particular, she took issue with the way Monica Lindstrom tweeted about her dismissal. It was a little misleading. I thought the same after I read Mon's tweet. I thought she was giving a reason for her dismissal but she was just giving an overview on her.

 

[Marshmallow]

I will pull my hair out if a single juror believes the pedo lie, whatever the verdict.

I'm glad she's being discrete. I wish she'd kept silent altogether. What's the point in going public if she knows she shouldn't be open about her experience?

This! If she isn't allowed to talk then she should not have been talking. The fact that she did give an interview only opens the door for the defense to complain and in this instance, they'd have good reason.