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

[ShadyLady]

Great post in it's entirety. But BBM is what I found truly hilarious. He's supposed to be this great *advertiser censored* finding computer expert but doesn't even know that for a LONG time iTunes and Quicktime automatically updated your system. He had the nerve to scoff at the question too talking about "apple licensing doesn't allow that blah blah blah".

And I thought the damage to Travis' computer was more than a couple pins that were straightened.

I think Juan wants both copies/images DF took off computer, and I wonder like someone else upthread said.....was third person in room Jodi's recent hire Darin? the PD/PI......

 

[Hope4More]

I have to disagree with MeeBee about what she said about JA's testimony. When she declined to talk about that, she said "again, it wasn't complete". That comment related to her earlier talk about not revealing her personal views in order to protect the integrity of the case and the remaining jurors' ultimate decision - at this point the info she had received is "not complete" because the trial isn't over, IOW. Also, she was not aware of the COA statement, and since they were probably sworn to secrecy, she only had a reporter/blogger telling her the ID had been revealed. I doubt they even knew about the media's appeal, etc. so she was probably a little confused too.

Her comment about JA seeming normal, was when she did look at her "the weird thing is..she seemed, seemed (repeated and emphasis on seemed) normal".


I agree, and after listening to her, think the excused juror from the 1st trial was correct in agreeing to discuss only after the trial is finished. If she had only come on to clear up why she was no longer on the jury, that would be OK. But she's even agreed to go on with Jenn again in some "ask your questions" segment, for some reason.

I did, after listening to this interview a 2nd time, figure out what was bothering me about her. First, she's pretty impressed with her own ability to analyse only the facts, and to lead the other jurors to the 'important' issues by her questions. In several areas she talks about avoiding emotion because it has no place in decision making. She avoided looking at the autopsy pics b/c she didn't want to interject emotion that seeing them would bring. She only looked objectively to get info on a question she might have. Same with the VISs, she said that emotion was not appropriate and thought they were told that they could not consider anything re: the VIS. That actually, both families were impacted by this, so it was a wash there. I'm paraphrasing this, but it's like she thinks she's supposed to turn into some robot in order to be fair. Hello, the brutal murder of a person should affect someone. The family of JA was brought into this, but their 'loss' is in no way equal to the Alexanders. The idea of just the facts, only the facts, being considered leaves the human aspect out of the jury and that is exactly why you're tried by a "jury of their peers". They're supposed to be human, they have emotion, this murder was not just a cold fact and being passionless is not necessarily all that useful in a juror, IMO. I'm glad she had other plans, actually. I certainly didn't get the impression as those tweeters did, that she was pro-state. Not at all, and further I suspect she thinks she would have made the perfect foreman.

Wow! Thank you for that analysis. Sounds like a bullet was dodged that she left. Mostly because from you're saying, if accurate, she would never have budged from whatever position she took. Too convinced of her own ability to be right.

Ps-,I think its shocking she didn't look at the autopsy photos. They're evidence. It was her job to look.

 

[Zuri]

The mitigation witnesses will drag on like the Bataan Death March. Nurmi's oral argument in support of his motion to dismiss or drop the death penalty won't occur until B has complied with J.M.'s demand, "substantiates" his own claims and leaves the stand because that oral argument depends on B's success. After Dr. F. and B, my appetite for what was to be today's presentation is nil. How about yours? If this witness founders, the motion may be withdrawn in the near future.

At least a dozen Websleuths suspect the May 10, 2008 tape Arias stealthily recorded (wherein she is heard asking Travis to repeat or enunciate) was created to blackmail him. I think there is an unmentioned reason she was panicked by the thought of that airing at her trial. When she learned the defense was going forward with it, she "could not speak or be reasoned with or form rational thought beyond the horrors of exposing Travis and myself." In terms of her body, she is an exhibitionist and in terms of her sexual language & admissions, she is raw and blatant. Her testimony left nothing to the imagination. She was in terror of that tape because it was a threat to her case. It is certainly a very real possibility she feared the reason for the recording would be deduced. Websleuths are on it like bloodhounds when they post that her plot began that early in May, not on the 26th. The tape was part of a festering scheme to ruin Travis and eventually take absolute revenge in the manner she did. The "or else" aspect was weak by May because her hatred and his avoidance had reached a point of no return. She had to know it was beyond repair and for his part, he was confiding in friends how dangerous she was, receiving warnings from the French psychic and feeling premonitions himself. By the 26th, he provoked Arias into resorting "to my lawyer", as if. Her urge to destroy him was gaining by the day and out of control. That tape is in no way a jolly to and fro between two experimental lovers, that is an embarrassment to the killer. It is one of the uprights in her plot to demolish her victim and everything he stood for.

Tuba, your insight is always a welcome perspective in this case. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Colie]

Back to the issue at hand. I am TERRIBLE at math, is there a fellow sleuth-er who can compile the data of the *advertiser censored* hits the DT is alleging and put that into context during that timeline they are alleging. Like, if travis were to have looked at the *advertiser censored* as they alleged who would have had to of spent 9 hours of every single day watching/searching for *advertiser censored* without a break. Does that make sense? I think if we put it into that context, we will all see what hyperbole this entire allegation is.

You maybe interested in this blog http://jodiariastrialtruth.blogspot.com/

 

[grammieto5]

I've never seen a trial where a computer that was not password protected, was kept in the common area of a house with multiple people living in it, multiple roommates, friends and friends with benefits who had access to it, be admitted into evidence as proof the VICTIM, let alone the perpetrator did something on it. How is it even possible they are arguing this? It CANNOT be proven that if any *advertiser censored* sites were visited on that computer, child or otherwise, that TA was the person who was using it at the time. And I mean actual sites that were searched and accessed, not sites that a computer full of viruses was hitting on.

How has the judge not made that determination already? No KN, you cannot tell this jury that TA was looking at *advertiser censored* on that computer. There is no absolute proof of WHO may have been looking at it, if it is even there...so it doesn't matter. People get off on child *advertiser censored* charges all the time for this exact reason. A computer that is in a home where others have access to it. Think Cindy Anthony taking claim for the searches that Casey did. Happens all the time. And in that case they did prove she couldn't have been there at the time. I think the "misconduct" allegations were well proven to be absurd yesterday, which was the actual reason for the hearing. That whole thing should have been over by lunch. And you could tell that JM was frustrated beyond belief that he got all this evidence together to exonerate himself and LE and no one was even bothering to listen to it. It just kept going back to *advertiser censored* on the computer. MOO

YES! And if there is *advertiser censored* on Travis' computer the only reason it would be of any importance is if it's kiddie *advertiser censored*. I'll never believe Juan Martinez would ignore/delete/cover up kiddie *advertiser censored*. There's no way. They would go after anyone/everyone connected with kiddie *advertiser censored*. Unless there's proof of any type of *advertiser censored* this judge should not allow any mention of it.

 

[gcharlie]

The fourteen witness bomb from yesterday.

The defense sure is playing games with witnesses. Do you have them or not? Will they testify or not?

Who are they? What do they have to say and how will their testimony fit into the list of mitigators? Does this supplemental list of witnesses signal a change in mitigation strategy?

Can't this bloody trial ever end!!!!

 

[Hope4More]

The mitigation witnesses will drag on like the Bataan Death March. Nurmi's oral argument in support of his motion to dismiss or drop the death penalty won't occur until B has complied with J.M.'s demand, "substantiates" his own claims and leaves the stand because that oral argument depends on B's success. After Dr. F. and B, my appetite for what was to be today's presentation is nil. How about yours? If this witness founders, the motion may be withdrawn in the near future.

At least a dozen Websleuths suspect the May 10, 2008 tape Arias stealthily recorded (wherein she is heard asking Travis to repeat or enunciate) was created to blackmail him. I think there is an unmentioned reason she was panicked by the thought of that airing at her trial. When she learned the defense was going forward with it, she "could not speak or be reasoned with or form rational thought beyond the horrors of exposing Travis and myself." In terms of her body, she is an exhibitionist and in terms of her sexual language & admissions, she is raw and blatant. Her testimony left nothing to the imagination. She was in terror of that tape because it was a threat to her case. It is certainly a very real possibility she feared the reason for the recording would be deduced. Websleuths are on it like bloodhounds when they post that her plot began that early in May, not on the 26th. The tape was part of a festering scheme to ruin Travis and eventually take absolute revenge in the manner she did. The "or else" aspect was weak by May because her hatred and his avoidance had reached a point of no return. She had to know it was beyond repair and for his part, he was confiding in friends how dangerous she was, receiving warnings from the French psychic and feeling premonitions himself. By the 26th, he provoked Arias into resorting "to my lawyer", as if. Her urge to destroy him was gaining by the day and out of control. That tape is in no way a jolly to and fro between two experimental lovers, that is an embarrassment to the killer. It is one of the uprights in her plot to demolish her victim and everything he stood for.

I think she feared the tape would expose her too. But for a different reason. Up until the tape jurors had a completely one sided picture of Travis as the kinky and demeaning sex predator, and her as the reluctant little woman just trying to please him.

Weeks of Nurm 's slime were blown out of the water by that tape. Travis became more real...hearing his voice brought him into the Court, and she was exposed as an initiating , eager, willing, equal in the sex stuff.

 

[Nali87]

I have to disagree with MeeBee about what she said about JA's testimony. When she declined to talk about that, she said "again, it wasn't complete". That comment related to her earlier talk about not revealing her personal views in order to protect the integrity of the case and the remaining jurors' ultimate decision - at this point the info she had received is "not complete" because the trial isn't over, IOW. Also, she was not aware of the COA statement, and since they were probably sworn to secrecy, she only had a reporter/blogger telling her the ID had been revealed. I doubt they even knew about the media's appeal, etc. so she was probably a little confused too.

Her comment about JA seeming normal, was when she did look at her "the weird thing is..she seemed, seemed (repeated and emphasis on seemed) normal".


I agree, and after listening to her, think the excused juror from the 1st trial was correct in agreeing to discuss only after the trial is finished. If she had only come on to clear up why she was no longer on the jury, that would be OK. But she's even agreed to go on with Jenn again in some "ask your questions" segment, for some reason.

I did, after listening to this interview a 2nd time, figure out what was bothering me about her. First, she's pretty impressed with her own ability to analyse only the facts, and to lead the other jurors to the 'important' issues by her questions. In several areas she talks about avoiding emotion because it has no place in decision making. She avoided looking at the autopsy pics b/c she didn't want to interject emotion that seeing them would bring. She only looked objectively to get info on a question she might have. Same with the VISs, she said that emotion was not appropriate and thought they were told that they could not consider anything re: the VIS. That actually, both families were impacted by this, so it was a wash there. I'm paraphrasing this, but it's like she thinks she's supposed to turn into some robot in order to be fair. Hello, the brutal murder of a person should affect someone. The family of JA was brought into this, but their 'loss' is in no way equal to the Alexanders. The idea of just the facts, only the facts, being considered leaves the human aspect out of the jury and that is exactly why you're tried by a "jury of their peers". They're supposed to be human, they have emotion, this murder was not just a cold fact and being passionless is not necessarily all that useful in a juror, IMO. I'm glad she had other plans, actually. I certainly didn't get the impression as those tweeters did, that she was pro-state. Not at all, and further I suspect she thinks she would have made the perfect foreman.

The VIS comments bring back the foreman's remarks. He thought they weren't necessary eiher. I'm glad this juror is gone.

 

[Colie]

I thought so, too. But the whole reconsideration motion was based on the fact that his only 3 witnesses were afraid to testify. He now has 14 witnesses. I wonder if he withdrew his petition?

I thought it was moved to Dec. 10 due to Juan needing the BN what he used to discover all this *advertiser censored*.

 

[rose222]

I have to disagree with MeeBee about what she said about JA's testimony. When she declined to talk about that, she said "again, it wasn't complete". That comment related to her earlier talk about not revealing her personal views in order to protect the integrity of the case and the remaining jurors' ultimate decision - at this point the info she had received is "not complete" because the trial isn't over, IOW. Also, she was not aware of the COA statement, and since they were probably sworn to secrecy, she only had a reporter/blogger telling her the ID had been revealed. I doubt they even knew about the media's appeal, etc. so she was probably a little confused too.

Her comment about JA seeming normal, was when she did look at her "the weird thing is..she seemed, seemed (repeated and emphasis on seemed) normal".


I agree, and after listening to her, think the excused juror from the 1st trial was correct in agreeing to discuss only after the trial is finished. If she had only come on to clear up why she was no longer on the jury, that would be OK. But she's even agreed to go on with Jenn again in some "ask your questions" segment, for some reason.

I did, after listening to this interview a 2nd time, figure out what was bothering me about her. First, she's pretty impressed with her own ability to analyse only the facts, and to lead the other jurors to the 'important' issues by her questions. In several areas she talks about avoiding emotion because it has no place in decision making. She avoided looking at the autopsy pics b/c she didn't want to interject emotion that seeing them would bring. She only looked objectively to get info on a question she might have. Same with the VISs, she said that emotion was not appropriate and thought they were told that they could not consider anything re: the VIS. That actually, both families were impacted by this, so it was a wash there. I'm paraphrasing this, but it's like she thinks she's supposed to turn into some robot in order to be fair. Hello, the brutal murder of a person should affect someone. The family of JA was brought into this, but their 'loss' is in no way equal to the Alexanders. The idea of just the facts, only the facts, being considered leaves the human aspect out of the jury and that is exactly why you're tried by a "jury of their peers". They're supposed to be human, they have emotion, this murder was not just a cold fact and being passionless is not necessarily all that useful in a juror, IMO. I'm glad she had other plans, actually. I certainly didn't get the impression as those tweeters did, that she was pro-state. Not at all, and further I suspect she thinks she would have made the perfect foreman.

Oh my. Avoided looking at the autopsy photos? What!?! The death penalty is basically about the autopsy photos aka how Arias butchered a man to death. Objectivity? Look closely at Travis' autopsy photos and you can OBJECTIVELY count each stab wound, see the depth of each wound and see Travis' gaping throat.

As for VIS, families present them to the jury for a reason. They can be considered! There aren't any VIS from the defendant's family precisely because they are not victims as far as the court is concerned.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. :gaah:

 

[holidayy]

For the vis comment alone,I am very glad she is gone,that is just down right COLD,there is suppose to be some human compassion,that statement has no warm heart,things happen for a reason,maybe, but yeah glad she is gone.

 

[daisydomino]

YES! And if there is *advertiser censored* on Travis' computer the only reason it would be of any importance is if it's kiddie *advertiser censored*. I'll never believe Juan Martinez would ignore/delete/cover up kiddie *advertiser censored*. There's no way. They would go after anyone/everyone connected with kiddie *advertiser censored*. Unless there's proof of any type of *advertiser censored* this judge should not allow any mention of it.

That's a good point. This serious stuff. I hadn't given it any thought until now, knowing in my heart that it's 100% lie, it doesn't exist in this case. If they were to have found child *advertiser censored* on this computer, they would have discovered a whole bunch of victims that the State of AZ cannot ignore. They'd have to go after anyone/everyone connected with it. Wouldn't it actually be criminal if the defense team or their forensic experts knew of any and did not report it?

It's not there. Such an ugly, cruel allegation. JA victimizes people who really are victims every time she pretends that she herself is a victim. It's so awful that she doesn't have to prove that he had child *advertiser censored* to keep saying that TA had pedophilic tendencies. JA is truly psycho. Ugh.

 

[Nali87]

Oh my. Avoided looking at the autopsy photos? What!?! The death penalty is basically about the autopsy photos aka how Arias butchered a man to death. Objectivity? Look closely at Travis' autopsy photos and you can OBJECTIVELY count each stab wound, see the depth of each wound and see Travis' gaping throat.

As for VIS, families present them to the jury for a reason. They can be considered! There aren't any VIS from the defendant's family precisely because they are not victims as far as the court is concerned.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. :gaah:

Exactly Rose! I assumed the decision on whether or not to give the DP depends hugely on emotions. If you're not looking at the photos, if you're not considering the VIS, you can't grasp the impact of the crime and you sure as hell can't assess the cruelty of the killing. HEARING "he had his throat slit" and actually seeing it are two different things.

 

[Dmacky]

I have been searching all day to find where JM was crossing JA about the pic of the little boy. I specifically remember JA saying it was one picture on a piece of paper. She was adamantly denying about ANYTHING of that nature being on the computer!!! I remember ALV saying she just assumed it was on the computer? Juan kind of made a big deal about the computer vs paper !
So what's going on now, all of the sudden ??? Why is JA so determined to get evidence off of TA's computer now a year later, after testifying in the trial last year nothing was on there, it was on paper, you know the way paper sails off the bed and falls in that chaotic pattern ...and lands straight up on JA' feet.

On my phone so if this is hard to read or words misspelled , I'm sorry

 

[Hope4More]

You maybe interested in this blog http://jodiariastrialtruth.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link. I read there. It made my head swim. I think the blogger is off on a couple of points, but the points about the timeline and the State having no motive to tamper are totally relevant.

 

[NashBridges2]

My guess is no one. I don't think Nurmi has any witnesses. And I think Jodi might refuse to testify in open Court.

You know, if this is the case and he has NO witnesses ready for the week, the judge should punish him. He's had 5 days to get people lined up.

 

[Nali87]

I have been searching all day to find where JM was crossing JA about the pic of the little boy. I specifically remember JA saying it was one picture on a piece of paper. She was adamantly denying about ANYTHING of that nature being on the computer!!! I remember ALV saying she just assumed it was on the computer? Juan kind of made a big deal about the computer vs paper !
So what's going on now, all of the sudden ??? Why is JA so determined to get evidence off of TA's computer now a year later, after testifying in the trial last year nothing was on there, it was on paper, you know the way paper sails off the bed and falls in that chaotic pattern ...and lands straight up on JA' feet.

On my phone so if this is hard to read or words misspelled , I'm sorry

Great point Dmacky. That's what she testified to yes. So it actually doesn't take anything away from her testimony if *advertiser censored* is on the computer or not.

 

[MeeBee]

I have to disagree with MeeBee about what she said about JA's testimony. When she declined to talk about that, she said "again, it wasn't complete". That comment related to her earlier talk about not revealing her personal views in order to protect the integrity of the case and the remaining jurors' ultimate decision - at this point the info she had received is "not complete" because the trial isn't over, IOW. Also, she was not aware of the COA statement, and since they were probably sworn to secrecy, she only had a reporter/blogger telling her the ID had been revealed. I doubt they even knew about the media's appeal, etc. so she was probably a little confused too.

Her comment about JA seeming normal, was when she did look at her "the weird thing is..she seemed, seemed (repeated and emphasis on seemed) normal".


I agree, and after listening to her, think the excused juror from the 1st trial was correct in agreeing to discuss only after the trial is finished. If she had only come on to clear up why she was no longer on the jury, that would be OK. But she's even agreed to go on with Jenn again in some "ask your questions" segment, for some reason.

I did, after listening to this interview a 2nd time, figure out what was bothering me about her. First, she's pretty impressed with her own ability to analyse only the facts, and to lead the other jurors to the 'important' issues by her questions. In several areas she talks about avoiding emotion because it has no place in decision making. She avoided looking at the autopsy pics b/c she didn't want to interject emotion that seeing them would bring. She only looked objectively to get info on a question she might have. Same with the VISs, she said that emotion was not appropriate and thought they were told that they could not consider anything re: the VIS. That actually, both families were impacted by this, so it was a wash there. I'm paraphrasing this, but it's like she thinks she's supposed to turn into some robot in order to be fair. Hello, the brutal murder of a person should affect someone. The family of JA was brought into this, but their 'loss' is in no way equal to the Alexanders. The idea of just the facts, only the facts, being considered leaves the human aspect out of the jury and that is exactly why you're tried by a "jury of their peers". They're supposed to be human, they have emotion, this murder was not just a cold fact and being passionless is not necessarily all that useful in a juror, IMO. I'm glad she had other plans, actually. I certainly didn't get the impression as those tweeters did, that she was pro-state. Not at all, and further I suspect she thinks she would have made the perfect foreman.

I agree wholeheartedly with the second part of your post. She did seem to be impressed with her own ability to remain impartial and logical and just the facts, folks. You're right in that she thought she had to be a robot, or at least, present herself that way, in order to decide JA's sentence. What she doesn't seem to understand, and what Jen was trying to tell her, is that this is the sentencing phase, you can bring feelings and opinions into this part. The juror said, yes the VIS's were emotional but it's not like we can consider them and in the same breath said this is affecting BOTH sides, so...But the VIS ARE there to consider, yes you CAN take it back with you. Just like you could consider Jodi's family's side, were they to speak. You have to weigh everything. I'm with you in that I did not get the impression she was "pro state, for sure."

 

[MeeBee]

WTH, juror #3 says this jury has bonded and they are united, and will come up with a unanimous verdict???? What does that mean, I thought jurors were not supposed to talk about the trial??? I wish this juror had not given an interview.

They didn't talk about the trial. But they are allowed to talk to each other, shoot the breeze and such. That's what she meant.

 

[Nali87]

That's a good point. This serious stuff. I hadn't given it any thought until now, knowing in my heart that it's 100% lie, it doesn't exist in this case. If they were to have found child *advertiser censored* on this computer, they would have discovered a whole bunch of victims that the State of AZ cannot ignore. They'd have to go after anyone/everyone connected with it. Wouldn't it actually be criminal if the defense team or their forensic experts knew of any and did not report it?

It's not there. Such an ugly, cruel allegation. JA victimizes people who really are victims every time she pretends that she herself is a victim. It's so awful that she doesn't have to prove that he had child *advertiser censored* to keep saying that TA had pedophilic tendencies. JA is truly psycho. Ugh.

Hmhm right. Prosecutors charge people with the killing of actual abusive people, pedophile, rapists, prostitutes all the time. Who the victim is/did doesn't matter to them. What I mean is, they wouldn't tamper with evidence to paint a pretty picture of murder victims. What would be the point? The defense team insinuating this makes me pissed off at them. Because they KNOW their claim is ridiculous.