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

[Tuba]

For two years of incarceration, there wasn't a whisper about pedophilia nor domestic violence. When Nurmi assumed his representation, he began visiting Arias & he dunned her with the hard fact that her tale of intruders was not in the least credible. She finally caved and well, she had to replace that lie with something! Why not another one? I think she studied what people, and jurors particularly, find execrable. What revolts a decent person. Finds beneath contempt. She had access to material on this subject.

So I think the victim's pedophilia was late in formation. However, during the days in Utah following the murder, Arias confided in Leslie Udy that she envisioned the day when her children and Travis' children would be playing together. Travis' body had not been discovered. This hopeful statement directly contradicts others she has made from the witness stand where she explained her fear for the children of Travis' friends and the trouble she went to, to keep him away from them. Little did she realize that Leslie Udy would remember that vision Arias shared and testify to it in the murder trial. We also remember the threat Arias made from her cell. Bargain with me for a term less than life or I will, regrettably of course, smear Travis Alexander with everything I've got.

 

[Truth Detector]

From what I understand, Juan wants a copy of BNs 2 images he made with the State's image from the original HD.
It's confusing, because it seems like Juan is asking for something he already has. And, like BN said, it's like asking for a picture of a picture.

BN stated under oath that JM is a liar. JM has officially been accused of prosecutorial misconduct.

So JM asked the DT for proof. JSKS ordered the DT to produce the precise evidence (copy of the HDD) used to accuse JM of the prosecutorial misconduct.

Instead, BN gave the State a copy of Tony's HDD.

If I understand correctly, after yet another try, the DT produced still another copy which was significantly smaller than the one originally provided to the DT by the State.

BN admitted that he had modified it (removed viruses and malware, etc.) before providing it to the State.

It is likely that at this point BN cannot produce what he was given by the State, and that is the reason for his obfuscation.

When he says that JM is asking for what he already has, that's beside the point.

JM requested the evidence the State originally provided to the DT so that it could be examined to determine whether BN and the DT are lying to the court.

They have yet to produce it.

They're stonewalling probably because they can't produce it.

If JSKS allows the DT to modify their copy of the evidence, claim it is still the same as the unmodified evidence, and then draw conclusions from it that they present to the court as fact, JM will properly object.

Will JSKS overrule or sustain?

 

[Truth Detector]

I am disappointed that the same *advertiser censored* was on the original copy though. I was imagining BN, the handshaking-with-the-killer-expert, could have been caught doing something to the hard drive and that scenario kind of made N-DOGG happy.

I refuse to assume that Dog-In-The-Eye-Guy is truthful.

BN needs to prove his allegations that JM is a liar, that there are more than 100,000 *advertiser censored* pics/vids/files on the HDD, that they were put there by TA, and that the State deleted them and lied about it.

If he fails on any of those points, he and the DT have been discredited.

 

[garthmax]

Paul Stern is the one that loaned her money. Not sure if he knew MM or not.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/02/06/man-who-gave-jodi-money-visit-travis-speaks-out

What? And than Dr. MF has the nerve to say TA want to borrow money from CMJA

 

[daisydomino]

BN stated under oath that JM is a liar. JM has officially been accused of prosecutorial misconduct.

So JM asked the DT for proof. JSKS ordered the DT to produce the precise evidence (copy of the HDD) used to accuse JM of the prosecutorial misconduct.

Instead, BN gave the State a copy of Tony's HDD.

If I understand correctly, after yet another try, the DT produced still another copy which was significantly smaller than the one originally provided to the DT by the State.

BN admitted that he had modified it (removed viruses and malware, etc.) before providing it to the State.

It is likely that at this point BN cannot produce what he was given by the State, and that is the reason for his obfuscation.

When he says that JM is asking for what he already has, that's beside the point.

JM requested the evidence the State originally provided to the DT so that it could be examined to determine whether BN and the DT are lying to the court.

They have yet to produce it.

They're stonewalling probably because they can't produce it.

If JSKS allows the DT to modify their copy of the evidence, claim it is still the same as the unmodified evidence, and then draw conclusions from it that they present to the court as fact, JM will properly object.

Will JSKS overrule or sustain?

ohboy ohboy I want to use a fancy word I found yesterday. I hope I use it right.

I think what they're doing is called spoliation of evidence. The prosecution's expert will know if they modify it. I can't believe they'd chance it in a capital case, but this is the Jodi Arias trial so anything could happen.

 

[Hatfield]

BN stated under oath that JM is a liar. JM has officially been accused of prosecutorial misconduct.

So JM asked the DT for proof. JSKS ordered the DT to produce the precise evidence (copy of the HDD) used to accuse JM of the prosecutorial misconduct.

Instead, BN gave the State a copy of Tony's HDD.

If I understand correctly, after yet another try, the DT produced still another copy which was significantly smaller than the one originally provided to the DT by the State.

BN admitted that he had modified it (removed viruses and malware, etc.) before providing it to the State.

It is likely that at this point BN cannot produce what he was given by the State, and that is the reason for his obfuscation.

When he says that JM is asking for what he already has, that's beside the point.

JM requested the evidence the State originally provided to the DT so that it could be examined to determine whether BN and the DT are lying to the court.

They have yet to produce it.

They're stonewalling probably because they can't produce it.

If JSKS allows the DT to modify their copy of the evidence, claim it is still the same as the unmodified evidence, and then draw conclusions from it that they present to the court as fact, JM will properly object.

Will JSKS overrule or sustain?

This is my understanding as well of what has gone down so far.
Thank you for summarizing it.

 

[Hope4More]

I think the simple answer is that they were referring to the parts of Travis' computer that they were asked to look at - his actual activity (photos, messages, browsing history). And in those parts, they didn't find any *advertiser censored*, or active viruses.

If they'd been asked to look at anti-virus program log files (outwith Travis' activity) they might have added, "But I did find lots of *advertiser censored* files and viruses which had been deleted/de-activated by anti-virus programs."

But they wouldn't have been asked to look at those, because they have no bearing on actual user activity.

One of the interesting things BN said that I haven't seen discussed is that its possible to know every single time a thumb drive or any other external device was used on T's HD.

That means it should be possible to find out if CMJA did download anything onto his computer June 4th.

Also, I think JM is anticipating that the *advertiser censored* allegation will be admitted. Which is likely why he didn't seize on the impossibility of Travis being on the computer at 1:44 on June 4. He's saving that rebuttal for Nurmi, not wasting it on that pipsqueak BN.

 

[garthmax]

I'm 10 pages behind and maybe others have given better answers in the meantime, but here goes my shot at it.

1. If BN was a true professional, you'd think his procedures would include making two clones of what he was given and then working against one of them. Then when he was finished, he could compare the one he worked with vs the one he didn't touch to be sure they were the same. We don't know what he has because he has refused to provide either of those things.

2. Exactly. That's why Juan has demanded what I said in #1 and for BN to document what steps he used to find it so the state can duplicate what he did and tell for themselves whether he found something they missed. He has refused to say how he found what he did as far as I can tell.

3. I think JA's original lawyer covered this to some extent. He didn't say much of anything, but it's obvious that nothing out of the ordinary took place because he would have recalled if something weird had gone on. So while something may or may not have happened to files at that point, a) it was at the request of the defense that anything happened at all and b) if anything did happen it was completely accidental.

4. When the state got the computer, what they would do is remove the hard drive and attach it to a different computer, perhaps enclosing it in something first. The write blocker is part of THAT process, not something in the original computer. The state can then make clones and examine it without affecting the original. After that perhaps they replaced it immediately in the computer or perhaps they left it separate, but for the June 19th business, the hard drive would have been back in the computer if the defense wanted it turned on. And there wouldn't have been a write blocker at that point because it's not part of the original computer. Then the hard drive was pulled again to give to BN. (Now I suppose it's possible (in theory anyway) that the hard drive could have been enclosed in some sort of protective casing or something that protects it and wired into the original computer as though it was installed. Whether that is possible in reality I don't know, but it sounds like it was just stuck back into the computer to return it to the state where they received it.

5. I don't think anyone denies this happened when it was turned on. At the crime scene you would think they did not open the laptop since that might wake it up, but it's possible that mistake was made. Once the laptop was at the crime lab, they would have removed the battery and not plugged it in for the same reason. That way they can open it if needed to get to the battery without it waking up.

It seems like the whole thing is a big pile of nothing. If BN can't come with the actual proof of his findings vs just saying "Trust me. I'm an expert." then the judge should throw out the defense motion. If he does provide it (this will be the fourth attempt at getting him to do so I believe) then Juan can get it checked out. But even in the event he does provide the evidence and something did happen then, it was nothing nefarious as JA's attorney testified. Recall that the accusation is that the state tracked down and deleted tens of thousands of files to hide the truth. It's clear nothing like that happened or else BN would have been glad to supply the actual details vs just talking about it and blowing smoke with wrong drives returned etc.[/QUOI
I not sure but can't you set the computer to wake up automatically from sleep mode.

 

[Ruby]

Thank you Truth Detector for stating what I could not - I tried but you made it clear to understand.

From head to hand to post sometimes just doesn't work for me :blushing:

 

[Hatfield]

I refuse to assume that Dog-In-The-Eye-Guy is truthful.

BN needs to prove his allegations that JM is a liar, that there are more than 100,000 *advertiser censored* pics/vids/files on the HDD, that they were put there by TA, and that the State deleted them and lied about it.

If he fails on any of those points, he and the DT have been discredited.

JSS needs to give a firm deadline. A one last shot at proving their allegations.

IMO the DT already has failed 3 times. JSS again is allowing this nonsense to continue because she is not stepping in to do her job. Provide an ultimatum deadline and if Juan receives yet another not-complete or not exact copy of what was given to them, along with proof of the allegations from that drive, then just deny all this nonsense and lets continue the trial.

I have to keep apologizing for jumping on JSS case, but she really is contributing to all these delays by not using the power she has to stop the nonsense. So, until she does that, then she will continue to get criticism unfortunately.

 

[ElleElle]

One thing i'd like to add is I doubt there were 22 anti-virus/scrubbers on TAs laptop. The reason why I say this is because anti-viruses compete with each other and cannot be ran at the same time or even reside on the same hard drive.
JMO

 

[Hatfield]

One thing about the original trial that has always bugged me were the time stamps on the photos and Jodi saying something to the detective about how date/time stamps can be altered.

Somewhere along the line she spoofed date/timestamps somewhere.

As far as computer email date/timestamps. Couldnt someone just spoof them on emails by changing the clock on the computer. Then send an email. Like backdating the computer clock then send email then changing the clock back to current date.

Not sure if that would work but was wondering if Jodi did something like that from Travis computer after she killed him.

 

[MeeBee]

One thing i'd like to add is I doubt there were 22 anti-virus/scrubbers on TAs laptop. The reason why I say this is because anti-viruses compete with each other and cannot be ran at the same time or even reside on the same hard drive.
JMO

That does seem like an awful lot. Overkill to the max.

 

[Hatfield]

One thing i'd like to add is I doubt there were 22 anti-virus/scrubbers on TAs laptop. The reason why I say this is because anti-viruses compete with each other and cannot be ran at the same time or even reside on the same hard drive.
JMO

I was thinking about that when they brought that up last week about 20+ virus apps. I suspect they may have all been there but maybe only a few of them were actively running.

I think you are right that not all of them could be running at the same time.

I basically only have 2 running at same time on my machine. The windows normal protection that is turned on (maybe doesnt really count) and a 3rd party software one that is running.

 

[ShadyLady]

BN stated under oath that JM is a liar. JM has officially been accused of prosecutorial misconduct.

So JM asked the DT for proof. JSKS ordered the DT to produce the precise evidence (copy of the HDD) used to accuse JM of the prosecutorial misconduct.

Instead, BN gave the State a copy of Tony's HDD.

If I understand correctly, after yet another try, the DT produced still another copy which was significantly smaller than the one originally provided to the DT by the State.

BN admitted that he had modified it (removed viruses and malware, etc.) before providing it to the State.

It is likely that at this point BN cannot produce what he was given by the State, and that is the reason for his obfuscation.

When he says that JM is asking for what he already has, that's beside the point.

JM requested the evidence the State originally provided to the DT so that it could be examined to determine whether BN and the DT are lying to the court.

They have yet to produce it.

They're stonewalling probably because they can't produce it.

If JSKS allows the DT to modify their copy of the evidence, claim it is still the same as the unmodified evidence, and then draw conclusions from it that they present to the court as fact, JM will properly object.

Will JSKS overrule or sustain?

AND defense gave back a newly damaged physical HD. There is a reason they damaged it. IMO

BTY...reviewing testimony.....they were able to recover 1000's of photo's off Jodi's computer. But, there were damaged files, too.

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm still clueless why both would have missed the *advertiser censored*, virus related or not. What could that good reason be?

The definition of '*advertiser censored*[ography]' for one thing.

 

[Hope4More]

JSS needs to give a firm deadline. A one last shot at proving their allegations.

IMO the DT already has failed 3 times. JSS again is allowing this nonsense to continue because she is not stepping in to do her job. Provide an ultimatum deadline and if Juan receives yet another not-complete or not exact copy of what was given to them, along with proof of the allegations from that drive, then just deny all this nonsense and lets continue the trial.

I have to keep apologizing for jumping on JSS case, but she really is contributing to all these delays by not using the power she has to stop the nonsense. So, until she does that, then she will continue to get criticism unfortunately.

I think JSS will find it easy enough to rule against Nurmi on the tampering/dismissal of DP motion.

I have a bad feeling the *advertiser censored* stuff is going to cause her considerable consternation. Thankfully both sides missed whatever the *advertiser censored* stuff is during the guilt phase.

I somehow doubt an appeals court will be inclined to throw out her verdict based on *advertiser censored* not being presented. But, JSS will likely be extraordinarily cautious in establishing whether or not its possible TA deliberately sought out child *advertiser censored*.

The theoretical existence of child *advertiser censored* on his computer would potentially be exculpatory. There's no way she isn't going to accommodate the DT on establishing its existence, even if it takes weeks, IMO.

 

[mydirtysecret]

The definition of '*advertiser censored*[ography]' for one thing.

And let's not forget, the same dt tried to make a mass marketing email to an 8 year old as proof of their pedo claims. I can only surmise what they are calling "*advertiser censored*" based solely on the dts previous examples

 

[Hope4More]

One thing about the original trial that has always bugged me were the time stamps on the photos and Jodi saying something to the detective about how date/time stamps can be altered.

Somewhere along the line she spoofed date/timestamps somewhere.

As far as computer email date/timestamps. Couldnt someone just spoof them on emails by changing the clock on the computer. Then send an email. Like backdating the computer clock then send email then changing the clock back to current date.

Not sure if that would work but was wondering if Jodi did something like that from Travis computer after she killed him.

CMJA thinks like a criminal because she is one. She assumes others invade privacy because that's her own MO. And she plays games because she enjoys them.

IMO she didn't feel fear when Flores confronted her with the photos, so it isn't likely she inadvertently let slip her understanding about how time stamps could be altered.

If you listen closely to that section of the interrogation, you'll hear her offer up quick and often lame explanations for every single piece of evidence she was confronted with. Imo the timestamp dodge was no different.

 

[mydirtysecret]

I think JSS will find it easy enough to rule against Nurmi on the tampering/dismissal of DP motion.

I have a bad feeling the *advertiser censored* stuff is going to cause her considerable consternation. Thankfully both sides missed whatever the *advertiser censored* stuff is during the guilt phase.

I somehow doubt an appeals court will be inclined to throw out her verdict based on *advertiser censored* not being presented. But, JSS will likely be extraordinarily cautious in establishing whether or not its possible TA deliberately sought out child *advertiser censored*.

The theoretical existence of child *advertiser censored* on his computer would potentially be exculpatory. There's no way she isn't going to accommodate the DT on establishing its existence, even if it takes weeks, IMO.

I do believe this issue should be dealt with at the appeals level, since jss can only remove the dp she cannot overturn a guilty verdict. What the defense team is doing is retrying the case, and its just not the proper avenue for it. JSS shouldn't allow weeks for the defense team to stall in the middle of the trial. The child *advertiser censored* is either there, or it isn't. That we are a month into the accusation and the defense hasn't been able to provide actual evidence that it's there then she should rule against their motion, and allow cmja to appeal it.