Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/3 -12/04 In recess w/hearing

[RickshawFan]

I can't speak for PHd's but as an RN it would be unethical for me to form an opinion without insuring I had explored and considered all the data available. I would be responsible for identifying there were pieces of the puzzle missing and to find them. I'm hoping that juror is like me and disgusted at what this woman has said over the past few weeks. The question was a polite version of who are you kidding 'Doc'. JMO

kaRN is right! There are all kinds of skills Dr. F is lacking that are standard requirements for the Ph.D. Note: she did not get her degree at a "standard" (i.e. accredited) degree-issuing institution. The skills she lacks include many that are standard requirements even for a BA. For example: critical thinking, evaluating sources, forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, engaging in critical discussion with others (e.g. JM) about an opinion, understanding what an "informed opinion" is, using evidence-based methods to evaluate data, understanding when one is not qualified to answer a question, citing examples/sources in support of a conclusion, keeping personal emotions out of data analysis, demonstrating a thorough grasp of the subject before asserting an opinion, not confusing hypotheses, assessments, evaluations with making things up....

I can't wait for Dr. "Data-Point" DeMarte!

 

[TrialWatcher]

Does anyone know when TA went to his Bishop? When was TA expelled from the Temple? Is this same Bishop scheduled to testify? I am thinking (not a good thing) that TA went to his Bishop before CMJA could give the Bishop TA nude photo's, CMJA nude photos, his journal entries, possible phone sex tape, or her writing a letter describing TA calling CMJA the three hole wonder, etc. or CMJA sent the Bishop letters describing the relationship, the Bishop called TA and held a meeting and he was expelled from the Temple. Now that would send me on a rant for sure.

Both Travis and Deanna Reid went to their respective bishops, if memory serves me correctly, following regret over straying from the teachings of LDS. I'm not sure of the exact year, it must have been during the span of the relationship. Both did as the church required and moved forward.

 

[NashBridges2]

I have trouble with this concept of some forms of sexual expression being "clean" and some "dirty". Dr. F has been trying to force us to make this value judgment. Dr. F is trying to blast TA for the sexual expression he chose to share with JA. And she is trying to use her "expert" voice to define "good sex" and "bad sex", when there is a huge variety of sexual practices out there in the universe, because people have different ways of expressing themselves. Let's not fall into the judgment trap that Dr. F is trying to force on us!

You're taking me out of context, mis characterizing my words I'm not very good at expressing myself by typing, I'm much more comfortable in public where I can talk and explain verbally so I hope this makes sense. Myself, I have no judgements on what is clean or dirty sex. I'm using the terms in a way I feel the doctor was trying to portray. Like the sex he had with JA behind closed doors was dirty/kinky. AAll I was trying to say was that the jury will see that in TA background, that it's ONLY jodi he did these "acts". (Anal, cream pie) with but in Jodis background, she did these acts with Darryl, Bobby, Travis etc. As a layperson, that would tell me whose idea it was, who initiated it, etc.

I don't care who does what in their bedrooms, or on the kitchen table, or in the showers etc, too each their own.

As for me, I'm all in for the kink. Bring it on, the dirtier the better

 

[garthmax]

I agree, Hope. And I imagine as the Dr. was reading these messages where Travis says horrible mean things about Jodi, they have to be thinking, but he was RIGHT about her being evil, and a liar, and the worst thing that ever happened to him, so maybe all the rest of this was justified as well. These are not really such mean things to say to a person who would travel 1000 miles to kill you three times over in an especially cruel manner and then lie about it repeatedly with a smile on her face.

I remember Nancy Grace commenting on the older gentlemen when CMJA was interviewed by JM. Every time CMJA lied he would make a harsh mark tallying up how many times she lied. If, MF testimoney was based on CMJA statements, which it was, I am sure this juror didn't give much thought to MF's expert tesitmoney. I am sure this juror is pretty darn smart or lets hope so.

 

[NashBridges2]

I don't think nashbridges20 meant it that way. (And he/she can correct me freely!) I don't think he/she meant dirty as being perverted sex.. More as in hot, kinky, dirty, need a smoke after it sex. ( I read a lot of romance novels ) And the sex with Deana was "clean and vanilla" as in not as kinky. I don't think we're saying one type of sex is "bad or immoral" it's just words to describe the level of heat and kinkiness of the type of sex.
IMO.

<--------is a SHE :->

 

[garthmax]

Well he's got the computer expert thing going on, and writing songs for rock and rollers, playing his drums and guitar, winning all his EMMY AWARDS.....there is just not enough time in the day :wink:

PS he thinks very highly of himself

Ta Da !! Recipient of numerous EMMY AWARDS – National Association of Television Arts & Sciences for Technical Excellence


Written & Recorded music with Blue Oyster Cult, 24,000,000 (24 Million) albums sold - Gold & Platinum records) & Credence Clear Water Revival recording artist Tom Fogerty (Movie Score). I have Mixed / Engineered for numerous top recording acts; Jazz, Rock & Classical.

Written music for hundreds of commercials including music cuts for Super Bowl *advertiser censored* & Music/SFX for 5 popular Video Games.

Worked "Live" sound as sound mixer for concerts with crowds up to 35,000. Challenging live mixes like: Chick Corea, Return to Forever, Ronnie Laws, Gerald Wilson's 24 piece Big Band etc.

Recently won an Emmy Award for best music on a Television series (Written & Performed).

I have Mixed and Mastered hundreds of National, International & Regional Television Shows.

Take a peek
http://www.skymeister.com/bryan neumeister.htm

Scroll down to the bottom and you can pick any button and she how great he is.

http://www.skymeister.com/bryan neumeister.htm

Well, with all this experience he would have no trouble adding 166,000 sites of *advertiser censored* to the computer when there was none there to begin with.

 

[gcharlie]

I am putting my trust in the jury on this one. It will really boil down to their individual beliefs about when the death penalty is appropriate and whether or not what they've heard in court warrants death or deserves mercy.

The defense does not have anything new and has just repackaged the old strategy. Instead of DV and Travis attacked her that day, its now a toxic relationship with the implied snapping by Arias because Travis was a master manipulator, was looking a child *advertiser censored*, had conflicted feelings, yada yada yada. The jury is seeing the victim bashing. They get it. Question is, will any of this stick?

The State will be able to present Arias as obsessed over Travis. She will be portrayed as a stalker. We may find out much, much more about darker parts of her background because the State never presented a case in the last mitigation phase.

I've read quite a few scholarly papers on juries in capital trials and the two things that matter most to jurors when weighing for the death penalty are the nature of the killing and remorse. The number and types of injuries sustained by Travis before he died are way up there in terms of being heinous. As for remorse, we have not seen any yet and I doubt that we will. I think the harder she has to fight for her life, the more that she ends up hating Travis. She thought she could get away with this and now it is his fault that she didn't.

Even if she did try to show remorse, the jury will most likely question whether it is genuine in light of the victim bashing they have heard.

Ugh. I can barely wait for this to be over. RIP Travis. Support and comfort for your family.

 

[garthmax]

BBM- this is what I don't understand. At the time of Travis' death, he wasn't JA's boyfriend. I hope someone makes that very clear to the jury. JA was convicted of pre-meditated murder. It wasn't a crime of passion..or that his behavior was intolerable, so much so that she just "snapped"...she planned and executed a brutal killing. She wanted him, she couldn't get him, she killed. IMO, end of story. I don't see how she doesn't deserve the DP.

I have no fear the JM will hit a home run during his closing.

 

[JSR]

I don't know whether Nurmi is overconfident that Arias will get life or whether he simply does not care but this trial seems to be about getting even with Juan. Same thing with the vile expert. Did it ever cross her mind that her hostility might influence the jurors to view the defendant in an unfavourable light? A death penalty case is no joke. I don't think she even cares. It's all about getting even with Juan and trying to humiliate him in court.

Rose I really have to agree with you. I can't imagine that this doctor, and I use that term loosely, actually believes her vile demeanor and behavior in Court is helpful to her client. I just can't. So for whatever reason her behavior was motivated by something OTHER THAN providing favorable testimony for Jodi.

 

[Night-owl]

This is her first one.

Possibly her last one as well. [emoji52]

 

[Val1]

in perspective. This is not about mean words, messages, sex habits, *advertiser censored* or any of the other distractions they're throwing off the back of the turnip truck. That's why Juan is not going over each line of minutia like the DT is-he's not going to get the jury lost in the weeds. They will be reminded of what this is about-murder with special circumstances and whether the convicted first degree murderer gets to spend the rest of her life in prison or whether she gets sentenced to death. Faced with yet another kooky defense "expert" he quickly exposed her to the jury and sat down. The defense can keep anyone they want on the stand for the next 365 days and Juan will still bring it back to the murder and murderer. Let's remember their brilliant plan to have Jodi on the stand for 18 days and how much that helped her. In the end the jury remembered the murder and we have the same prosecutor reminding this jury.

I have to admit, I was rather disappointed that JM didn't do this with Dr.F., when she said TA "gutted" women, he should have put the autopsy pics up and asked if she meant like that.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I would like to see DB on the stand with his pants down. Proof that JA lied about the picture.

I have hated all the secrecy in this re-do, but if that would happen, I would hope it would be done in secret. LMAO. I can only imagine how WAT would tweet about it.

 

[gcharlie]

As a side note, the trial has once again brought *advertiser censored* to the forefront.

Don't know if anyone here caught it, but last night and this morning, someone on twitter was posting some incredibly vile and graphic pix that went beyond *advertiser censored*. The user got shut down several times, but kept reincarnating and posting the same pix. Most of the targeted accounts were Arias supporters and there were a few victim support accounts hit as well.

Nasty nasty stuff. Surprised it has not happened more often, given how lax Twitter is and what it takes to get accounts shut down.

 

[Boytwnmom]

expert to begin with.

Mr. Neumeister presents high resolution video in court to explain Procedure or Evidence of Tampering to juries. Using 3D Sonograph and Spectrograph printouts, he can also spot and visually explain the &#8220;altering of tapes.

http://www.experts.com/Expert-Witnesses/Audio-Video-Forensics-Expert-Witness-Bryan-Neumeister

So, how is it that the one non-computer expert finds what the actual experts didn't? It's just a little too convenient for me. He has a lot of interest in "tampering". That's all I know. And there's many ways to hedge and mince words. I've no doubt the drive copy he reviewed had *advertiser censored* and that's what he testified to. Beyond that I can't say.

But no way do I believe JM was in on some plot to remove *advertiser censored* from a victim's computer. in fact, I don't think I've ever heard of police or prosecutors being accused of anything this stupid. They don't care about what the victim did or had or was. They care about the suspect. I've heard of LE being accused and found guilty of PLANTING evidence about the suspect. But there is really no value in deleting stuff from a murder victim's computer. I'd say it's pretty darn absurd.

Do you all think that Neumeister would plant evidence or mischaracterize whatever it is he found? I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I can't picture someone putting his career on the line for the likes of
JA but its all so freaking weird! Two experts looked and didn't find anything. Now this guy finds all this *advertiser censored* but somehow breaks the harddrive? :thinking:

 

[krkrjx]

I have hated all the secrecy in this re-do, but if that would happen, I would hope it would be done in secret. LMAO. I can only imagine how WAT would tweet about it.

They could take a photo instead...then put both photos side by side on the Jumbotron to compare.

 

[Steely Dan]

Maybe more like a pcychotic break... Apparently they tried to get the computer genius to move his testimony from Thursday to Wednesday, but he was 'busy, busy, busy', to quote Kurt Vonnegut.

:happydance: Gotta love a KV fan!

 

[Val1]

BBM

I suspect it was the sexual expression that she chose as much as or more than he did -- see KY lubricant.

I also wonder whether all the projecting JA did onto TA was mostly a window into her own soul.

I can easily picture her talking him into more and more physical intimacy -- he trying to remain temple worthy and she trying to convince him as she rationalized that it didn't violate the Law of Chastity (which by then she had been taught) because it was underwater, or in the back door, or oral, etc.

But then again I don't know how common it was to get/give a goodbye Lewinsky in the car on a first date circa 2007.

Either way, there's probably not much Toblerone tossing happening in the Estrella lockup.

Hmm, I keep coming back to the fact that they first met in Sept 2006... then carried on online until that "first date". I do know that online relationships can escalate very quickly, from just being friendly to talking about more intimate stuff(it's easier when you're not actually facing a "real" person and just the distance factor, never thinking it may amount to more than an online thing, etc) and even straying into sexual fantasies/talk/cybering, whatever you want to call it. So perhaps the culmination of all that was what happened on that "first" date? Just because it took them 2-3 months to have a first date doesn't mean the intimacy level hadn't already escalated way past petting.

Heck, just go back and review the relationship JA was starting with RB online... you can see exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Steely Dan]

So is the *advertiser censored* hard drive crap gonna go on tomorrow or not?

Also, did they find any images of *advertiser censored* or only the words "tween" and "teen"?

 

[garthmax]

That is exactly what I suspect happened. It is probably why we never heard what the argument was about in any great or convincing detail. Arias planned to blackmail Travis using the sex tape. That would spark anger in a saint. It also explains the sexual terms used in the exchange. The sex tape was to hurt him, perhaps even control him but it backfired. Then CMJA brought her main plan into play. Operation Slaughter. My heart breaks for Travis.

If CMJA get back up to testify, I am sure that juror who asked about the reason for the rant, will ask CMJA.

 

[Sweet Fox]

BBM

Thank you for giving me a jumping-off point to say what I've been thinking!

In Nurmi's latest motion to dismiss the death penalty, he pretty much said that, without "secret" witnesses, he would be unable to present mitigation. In his not-so-humble opinion, that goes against case law that says that cases had been overturned due to the inability of the defense to present mitigation.

Juan so brilliantly gave the actual case law Nurmi mentioned. In every one of those cases, the lack of mitigation came from the COURT not allowing certain testimony. Ie., the defense wanted to prove mitigation through certain facts, certain witnesses and were not allowed to do so by the judge.

This is not the case here. Nurmi is using these cases to cloak his "witnesses" in anonymity. He refuses, as in the first penalty phase, to put witnesses on the stand. When there was a hung jury, he had to take it to a higher level. In none of the cases cited by both parties (mainly Juan), the defense was blocked from presenting mitigation. Nurmi/Arias are personally blocking their own witnesses from testifying.

Say what you will about JSS, I can't imagine she will drop the DP. If she does, I'll totally join those who have totally given up on her.

I am of two minds as to what's going on with those 3 witnesses. Part of me says that Nurmi doesn't really want them to testify at all, and never did. He knows that Juan will destruct them totally on the stand.

The other part of me says that Nurmi would present these witnesses in total secrecy so that the public has no knowledge of what they said and hear how Juan destructed their testimony.

We've only seen ONE witness for the defense as of now. Dr. F did not account for ANY of the mitigation factors listed by the defense. Let's hope that, in deliberations, the jury posts that list writ large on the wall and goes through them to see how many the defense has proven.

As for Juan, I think he is loving the Dr.'s demeanor on the stand with him. I think he is relishing this moment before the jury. Plus, when he's finished for the day, I can imagine him adding a paragraph or ten to his closing trashing her testiphoney. That's when it will really count.

I think this is pure BS. Nothing is preventing KN from calling his witnesses to testify. I don&#8217;t believe these witnesses are in any danger or received threats (unless they wrote them themselves). That said, if they really felt they were in physical danger, why can&#8217;t they testify remotely via video? JM could still cross examine them via video.