Wonder who will testify on Monday?
My absolute best guess? Nobody. Nurmi already implied as much.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wonder who will testify on Monday?
My guess is no one. I don't think Nurmi has any witnesses. And I think Jodi might refuse to testify in open Court.
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
Wonder who will testify on Monday?
Jinx..
CMJA will be given a pass until the computer stuff is finished, and Nurmi already has said he doesn't have other witnesses for next week....
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.
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 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?
Respectfully also.....
IIRC from Flores' interrogation of JA, TA's friends knew the status of TA's relationship with JA: they were immediately able to state that she was "obsessive, fatal attraction...." The great thing about Dr. "Data Point" DeMarte is that there is no fog, no attempt to obfuscate, and opinions based on evidence. I don't believe adding to or getting sucked into the "fog" aspects of the trial would get TA's case to the goal. But, also, JM in the past has shown a photo of TA with JA in his lap while TA's friends were sitting around. This was not at all a secret relationship, apparently: it's just that TA didn't think of JA ever as his girlfriend, so why broadcast it?
Wonder who will testify on Monday?
I personally blame all this retrial crap on the first jury! Had they held out just a bit longer and come up with a sentence, we would have all moved on and Jodi would be rotting away in prison - DP or not....
JMHO
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
Respectfully also.....
IIRC from Flores' interrogation of JA, TA's friends knew the status of TA's relationship with JA: they were immediately able to state that she was "obsessive, fatal attraction...." The great thing about Dr. "Data Point" DeMarte is that there is no fog, no attempt to obfuscate, and opinions based on evidence. I don't believe adding to or getting sucked into the "fog" aspects of the trial would get TA's case to the goal. But, also, JM in the past has shown a photo of TA with JA in his lap while TA's friends were sitting around. This was not at all a secret relationship, apparently: it's just that TA didn't think of JA ever as his girlfriend, so why broadcast it?
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.
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.
View attachment 64937
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.
Okay! Just listened to the juror's interview! It was interesting but not super informative. I now know why Nurmi added more witnesses. She learned it was going past Dec 18 and she couldn't do it anymore. Stuff came up. I do believe this is Nurmi's new goal.
She was a very logical, focused person. Not a lot of emotion. She wasn't overtly pro state or defense. She did ask the "trigger" question. I think she would have been a leader and she would have made a good juror. But after listening to her, I'm still kind of glad she is off the jury lol. Something just rubs me the wrong way about her.
The BEST thing she said though is she is confident the jury will come to a unanimous verdict.
To add just one thing to MeeBee's comments about juror #3, she was the "book writer" and did ask a lot of questions. She said she did that at times to call attention to something she wanted the other jurors to note or to think about, and since they were not able to discuss things, this was a way for her to do that. That might be why some of the questions didn't make sense, because they weren't really questions? I agree with MeeBee about her though. She was very well spoken and bright, but I'm not sure she was seeing things as most of us do. Of course, she is getting a *very* condensed version and knew very little about the case going in, but still, there was just something there...
Glad it wasn't just me. I liked her, I really did. I think she tried hard to, at least, project impartiality and an ability to use logic. But something is telling me she gave weight to things that would have worried me.
I thought she implied she bought into the pedophile thing, in not so many words (don't know if you caught it). I think she did see abuse from Travis. I think she thinks they were both toxic, manipulative people.
Perhaps she would still have been able to give the death penalty, though.
ETA: And she had a frustrating, roundabout way of answering things lol.
Also, I don't know if you heard this, but when Jen was like, yeah, we know it was Jodi on the stand so you can just say it, juror 3 said, um, that isn't the whole thing so I still don't feel confident discussing it.
If anyone has any doubt that Nurmi is purposely trying to drag this thing out (with judge helping him along), just notice how he throws in that he has 14 more witnesses.
He threw that in for shock factor and to laugh in the face of the court all while he keeps cashing his checks.