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

[Hope4More]

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

It was day 21, JM cross. Three parts on YouTube (look for the guy who edited out sidebars...brain glitch can't remember his name). The pedo lie is at the end of part 1, all of part 2 (look here first) and into part 3, tho it quickly shifts into the magazine code thing.

 

[Mollyandme]

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."

I agree. Hopefully during closing juan reminds them that they can consider victim impact statements

 

[Nali87]

I agree. Hopefully during closing juan reminds them that they can consider victim impact statements

They seem so long ago, don't they? I hope the jury remembers what they heard/felt.

 

[blefuscu]

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:

That's ridiculous. How can she make a decision if she won't even look at the autopsy photos. The whole point of showing the autopsy photos is to show what CMJA did to Travis, to show that she acted in a way that was depraved. I know the autopsy photos won't be pleasant. Myself, I haven't looked at them as I feel that I wouldn't be able to cope with them, but if I had been up for jury duty on this I would accept that I had to look at them to subjectively decide on CMJA's fate.

 

[LinTX]

Twitter is definitely not the way to follow something technical like computer forensics. Right now, we only have tech talk from the defense expert, so there is a lot of info that still needs to be cleared up.

I don't get it with these defense "experts". Seems like most of them so far have been long on ego and short on knowledge in their field. For example, BN saying that the three phones were missing SIM cards. Travis used Verizon and at that time, all of their devices were CDMA, which means they never had SIM cards. Same thing for Arias' Helio phone. BN also linked the Zblog virus with a media player for *advertiser censored* sites, with the implication that was the only source of the virus. Another false statement was that Apple QuickTime and Itunes cannot update automatically.

BN, like Dr. Samuels, was not well prepared and could not answer technical questions. But he certainly made some strong claims and used emotional language in delivering his message. He is unequivocal that Travis purposefully visited *advertiser censored* sites. In both hearings, he has made statements by which he appears to be saying he can identify certain entries in the registry as automatic files vs. keystroke files. I have been researching this and cannot find the basis for him to be able to state this so clearly, unless TA's computer had a key stroke logger program installed on it. Last week, BN testified that Travis had 19 AV/scrubber programs on his computer and yesterday that number went up to 22, without any explanation for the difference.

I'm also confused by BN saying that he has not touched Travis' hard drive. Surely he is not playing games up there trying to say that he personally did not touch the drive when his agents may have? Willmott wrote the 11/20/14 Defendant's Response to State Motion...and included a picture of the hard drive after pins had been straightened so that the expert could access the drive.

(snipped pic)

Mr. Expert called previous experts grossly incompetent for not having found *advertiser censored*. It had been previously suggested that the first defense expert, Dworkin, did not find anything because he had been given a tampered copy of the drive. Yesterday it was learned that on 6/3/2008 a newer version of SpyBot was installed and then run on 6/4/08 at a corrected time of 2:44 pm. It may be that because SpyBot was run on 6/4/08, it did quarantine any active virus exe program on the computer, thus leading to Melendez answer on the stand. It may also be that the *advertiser censored* files were encrypted and coded, and as such, did not qualify as *advertiser censored* by forensic examination standards. BN had to do a lot of work to recover these files, and the type of work may not be accepted practice. We have to wait and see.

To me, this is quite simple. There are three distinct dates in question with this computer. By using the same software, a qualified examiner should be able to work from copy A to copy B and finally to copy C, producing the same results. For some reason, the defense expert is balking at providing the State with the unaltered copy, which presumably should be B.

Great post and agree it's going to come down to anti-virus and where this stuff was found. Re: the BBM(again per BethK) BN said he never did work on TA's hard drive and never touched it without a write blocker. I find Beth's notes very useful, because she's entering her court notes on a laptop and is not constrained to 140 characters. I don't always agree with her opinions, and in this last video I believe she thinks BN is much more knowledgeable about computer forensics than he is, so she's taking his word for all this supposed evidence. She doesn't think there was anything intentional on the State's part, but doesn't seem to consider that there might be on this expert's part. Also, the continued statements that TA's computer was loaded with *advertiser censored* are misleading and intentional. What they're finding, AFAIK, is links or urls to *advertiser censored* sites. Which I suspect we'll find were on there because of the type of viruses on it. Proving he viewed it or actively searched for it is another thing, and I will be surprised if they can prove that. His only *advertiser censored* addiction, IMO, was the defendant herself.

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

BBM. I think this may be a commonly believed fact based on Melendez's testimony. He was asked if he needed a password to do his work, and he said no because a password wasn't needed because he was viewing the computer's files on the image copy, not from the laptop. AFAIK he never said the laptop wasn't protected. I personally can't see TA not having a password on his laptop. He knew he was having a problem with *advertiser censored* viruses, and also knew that JA was messing with his stuff. Believing those things, would he really want just anyone to open his computer and see some of that? I think he did have it password protected, but just MOO.

 

[Frigga]

I want to comment about the juror interview and I while I agree with MeeBee (to a degree) and LinTX (I think she was spot on according to my own perception), I deduced something further that I don't feel comfortable sharing at this point.

The most important thing I came away with- and really it is all that matters now that this juror has been excused (because she had other commitments)- is the fact that she believes (and they spent two months talking about anything BUT the trial) that this jury WILL come to a decision.

She is quite intelligent herself and I believe her when she said that the jury is made up of a group of extremely intelligent (and diverse) people. That is almost ALL I need to know.

The fact that they are young is a huge plus, IMO, and I felt she was quite puzzled by the psychology of the DT and the PT in making the choices they did in selecting this young jury.

My personal belief is that this will NOT help the defendant- whatsoever. Take that for what it's worth, my opinion, and nothing more. I gleaned a lot by what she didn't say- that's just the way I operate on an intuitive level. Time will tell, at this point I feel good.

I really think at this point this jury is committed and will see this through to the end- if at all possible- no matter how long the defense drags this out. Probably even more so BECAUSE of these delays. This is personal now, they are taking their responsibilities seriously and they know they are there to make a decision- one that the first jury was unable to. I think this fact alone puts an even greater responsibility on them to get this done. They are residents, this is their state, and this is their duty.

Oh, I also didn't hear that she DIDN'T ever look at the autopsy photos she just couldn't stay focused on them- and that I totally understand.

 

[MeeBee]

My favorite place.

I want to comment about the juror interview and I while I agree with MeeBee (to a degree) and LinTX (I think she was spot on according to my own perception), I deduced something further that I don't feel comfortable sharing at this point.

The most important thing I came away with- and really it is all that matters now that this juror has been excused (because she had other commitments)- is the fact that she believes (and they spent two months talking about anything BUT the trial) that this jury WILL come to a decision.

She is quite intelligent herself and I believe her when she said that the jury is made up of a group of extremely intelligent (and diverse) people. That is almost ALL I need to know.

The fact that they are young is a huge plus, IMO, and I felt she was quite puzzled by the psychology of the DT and the PT in making the choices they did in selecting this young jury.

My personal belief is that this will NOT help the defendant- whatsoever. Take that for what it's worth, my opinion, and nothing more. I gleaned a lot by what she didn't say- that's just the way I operate on an intuitive level. Time will tell, at this point I feel good.

I really think at this point this jury is committed and will see this through to the end- if at all possible- no matter how long the defense drags this out. Probably even more so BECAUSE of these delays. This is personal now, they are taking their responsibilities seriously and they know they are there to make a decision- one that the first jury was unable to. I think this fact alone puts an even greater responsibility on them to get this done. They are residents, this is their state, and this is their duty.

Oh, I also didn't hear that she DIDN'T ever look at the autopsy photos she just couldn't stay focused on them- and that I totally understand.

Yes, I don't think she said she didn't look at them, just tried not to glean anything emotional or "shocking" from them. She just tried not to focus on them, like you said.

 

[Hope4More]

It is sobering to think of what the jury faces if the die hard, perceptive, attentive trial watchers found here can find such different meanings in what juror 3 said....just saying.

 

[5bigfish5]

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."

Spoken like a Defense Attorney's GF. I am glad she is gone.

 

[Nali87]

The jurors remark that Jodi seemed almost normal made me think about something.

You know what's mindblowing? If you supposedly snapped and killed a man you loved, would you be able to leave such a calm message on his voicemail? And after his alleged abuse and perversions were made public, and you were a damaged woman with low self esteem would you be able to stand up for yourself against a bulldog like Juan Martinez? IF I had killed someone by mistake and I felt remorseful about it, I'd be sobbing so hard on the stand that no one would be able to understand what I was saying.

Like detective Flores said "Jodi just isn't acting right".

 

[mydirtysecret]

Except, this isn't guilt or innocence. This phase is only about whether jodi has enough to mitigating evidence to outweigh the cruelty of the murder. This is the phase you are supposed to use some emotional compass on deciding.

 

[Nali87]

It is sobering to think of what the jury faces if the die hard, perceptive, attentive trial watchers found here can find such different meanings in what juror 3 said....just saying.

Totally OT but do you guys watch BrainGames on National Geographic? It's insane how many things people miss or interpret differently. It made me doubt witness testimony lol.

 

[LinTX]

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

In his motion, Nurmi said it was important because it backed up her statements about TA viewing *advertiser censored*. And b/c the finding of no *advertiser censored* was JM's basis for calling her a liar and belittling ALV and Samuels because they believed her. But again, AFAIK, they're not finding pics, they're finding links to sites, most probably from the viruses. So if she's saying he had *advertiser censored* saved on his computer, meaning pics that he viewed and/or masturbated to, she's still a liar unless they can prove it by finding it somewhere other than in quarantine or links. Nope, correct that - she's still a liar about hundreds of other statements outside of this *advertiser censored* issue. Nurmi's client is a liar who lies, and he's already admitted that.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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".
...
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.

Respectfully Snipped and RBBM:


:seeya: Thank You, LinTX, for this summary !


1st RBBM: OMG ... so she "avoided" looking at the autopsy photos ? SMDH !

It is the duty of juror to review ALL the evidence -- not just cherry-pick what might or might not cause you "emotion" !


2nd RBBM: Really ? Again . . . SMDH !

This IS the SENTENCING PHASE, and Victim Impact Statements are allowed ... and of course, they are going to be EMOTIONAL -- they ARE victims ! So she "thought" she was told NOT to consider the VIS ? I call BS on that one !


3rd RBBM: This is JMO but I do not believe CMJA's family -- except maybe her mother and auntie -- really give a hoot about her ... there were problems between CMJA and her family way before she met Travis ...


4th RBBM: Yep ... absolutely she wanted to be the foreman ...

I am glad she is OFF this jury because she would been Zervakos II


:moo:

 

[imawitch]

I think LWOP or LWP will give her an avenue to speak however. Not sure about death row but I can imagine the number of interviews she'll be giving from inside prison. I can also imagine the people she will manipulate and the following she will garner there. The fan club she'll continue to run on the outside and the letters and gifts she'll receive. Because her fans will have a purpose. To raise money for her appeal. If she receives the DP that "JA appeal fund" will be unnecessary and hopefully that fan club will disband eventually. She'll take courses and do people's hair and nails, make friends and it'll be a much easier time on her in general population than in isolation on death row. It is easier on women in prison. It just is. And she is a chameleon who knows how to manipulate and fit in.

I understand why TA's family wants the death penalty. Too bad the last jury didn't see it.

MOO

this is not based on jmo..it is based on fact, as I know what prison life is like..

I wont go into a long detailed talk here, but If your so inclined, click on my name, you will find my post and can read them, about prison

I will say this..it is not easier on women in prison..womens prison is just as bad as mens prisons..just as deadly, just as vile, and horrific..death, murders, fights, drugs, gangs..same things happen in womens prisons just as they do in mens prisons.

I served 3 yrs, I know..

of course, that was over 20 yrs ago, but its all the same on the inside..

just so you know, I served 3 yrs flat..I caught a drug case, 28 grams of cocaine..I did my time...paid the price for it...

Life changed..lessons learned..

Jodie wont be making any friends, she will be watching her back..gen pop is more at risk then death row..Jodie will be just another inmate number..

and for what its worth, jail is so much different then prison..I sat in jail a yr before pulling chain to prison ..

I hope I dont come off sounding angry, and I mean no dis respect, only stating the facts as I know them and lived them..

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

She didn't leave out the possibility that the the vote would be for life, just that she thought it would be unanimous.

I fail to see how she hurt anything with regard to the trial. She is free to speak to the media now. She was probably told this.

To call someone to back up MF would be disasterous and unnecessary. They don't need it.

I think people just look for things sometimes. She did nothing wrong, she was professional, unbiased, fair, and secretive. Really, with all that's going on, I don't think it's going to be an innocent juror interview that will derail things, nor will this be a main concern for Nurmi. Again, she offered nothing in the way of strategy. MF has already testified. The damage is done. If Nurmi wants to drag this out, that's his call. He was going to do it anyway. I think 12 people will make it.

Also, BK reported Nurmi said his case was winding down.

How is his case "winding down" with his recent 14 witness list? How can that be considered winding down? He hasn't even gotten started yet. And no matter what...Nurmi and Wilmott WILL be scrutinized for ...well hopefully for the rest of their lives IMO because no matter if they win or lose, they are terrible lawyers and they are just as bad as the clients they represent IMO. I cannot believe that I read on the other thread that the Manson trial was the longest and most expensive trial back then and it only (only lol) 9 months! Here we have YEARS between just guilty and sentencing let alone the whole span of time that has elapsed since it's inception.

I hear a lot on here about how if they lived here they would be upset and in an uproar about this trial and this judge, and I AM! If I knew of something that could be done I would do it but I don't even know who to call, or write to inquire about the state of this trial and this judge. I surely will be voting her out in 2016 but that doesn't help us now. I wish I could find out if anyone above her is even monitoring any of this trial. Surely I would think eyes would be on me if I just got reversed from COA but I don't know if that's really true or not. I want more information, I just don't know how to get it. If you know, let me know because I DO live here and I AM outraged but beyond that I don't know what to do.

 

[grammieto5]

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.

So they were just shooting the breeze about coming up with a unanimous verdict? She really should have just not said anything. I can't remember, did the other jurors speak to the media?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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.

But . . . but . . . JSS is part of the defense team, so no way is she going to sanction Nurmi!

Nope . . . not going to happen !

:seeya:

 

[ohiogirl]

I know, right? And the same goes for trying to follow this by tweets. What one person writes comes off completely different when another one does. You can go from "sexual bond" to "sexual bomb" and not know what in the H was meant! Yesterday I was racking my brain to figure out how the computer files were "mortified" until I realized it was supposed to be "modified". Ha.

 

[grammieto5]

So I'm just wondering, is juror #3's boyfriend a defense lawyer?