Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/13 thru 2/18 - Break

[Stripehaven]

I agree. And after going back and rereading some of his posts, it seems he is more interested in "painting a picture" of the what's going on in the courtroom versus relaying facts? I enjoy his perspective though!

I think he's writing his next book (JMO), but I do enjoy reading his recaps.

 

[RickshawFan]

I am so glad to read I'm not the only one who feels that way about their behaviour at the court house. While I do NOT agree it was racist or an intentional attack to MDLR, behaviour like that, coming from an adult, in a public setting? Just down right weird. And then confronting a witness, while she's still on the stand ? Totally unprofessional. Had that been a JA supporter like Donovan who approached a witness etc, everyone here would have been outraged. There's a time and a place for every behaviour and the court house isn't the place. No wonder everyone believes it's a circus, half the spectators are down there acting like animals.

I agree that it was inappropriate. Since MDLR is an inflammatory drama queen maybe she attracts some of that behavior to herself, but there was absolutely no excuse for anyone to go chasing after a witness and an attorney who might need to collect their wits over lunch in the middle of a big murder trial. Sanders allowed his syrupy crush on Dr. Demarte to to cause all kinds of problems.

 

[Kensie]

The killers face is looking really bad.

 

[Meemaw12]

http://youtu.be/5R6OTb6vT04

Lonny Dworkin begins testimony at around 50:30 day 12

Interesting he states he took pics:screen captures of the helio phone only way to do it, he refers to the msg as texts but are they? He also testifies on day 13

http://youtu.be/jJ2MBfGaMTA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RickshawFan]

I've often thought the reason Jodi Arias bought the Glock was to go kill Lisa, Chris and Sky or all three. Travis' journal the last few months makes it clear that he regrets, ever so, messing around with Jodi as it cost him Lisa. Travis journaled that he realized he truly was in love with Lisa. He saw her as the one that got away. Jodi was just sex on the side.

BBM. I don't remember seeing any evidence that Travis was doing Jodi while he was dating Lisa. I believe Jodi got in the way in the sense that she kept sabotaging TA's relationship with Lisa, and that caused Lisa to back off. This wasn't anything TA had control over: Jodi was on a mission.

 

[katydid23]

Even if the info didn't light up the sky for jurors at that moment, I believe JM pre-undermined (is that a word??) Dr. Fonseca's upcoming rebuttal. How will the jurors be able to digest her (plodding) review of texts and emails now that the seeds of doubt have been planted in their minds?

EXACTLY. And her testimony will give Juan another chance to plant those seeds of doubt. JMO :cow:

 

[Hope4More]

Even if the info didn't light up the sky for jurors at that moment, I believe JM pre-undermined (is that a word??) Dr. Fonseca's upcoming rebuttal. How will the jurors be able to digest her (plodding) review of texts and emails now that the seeds of doubt have been planted in their minds?

By light up the sky I mean, sink in enough. If it didn't for now there's no seed planted to doubt --at the time they hear it-- the texts/emails the Terrible Two will no doubt punish them with again.

I'm not suddenly stricken with fear or major doubts. I've said from the beginning she'll get the DP and I still believe that. The echo chamber effect on thinking is very real, though, so I'm always open to the possibility that the certainty I feel or think about a thing may be just flat out misplaced or wrong.

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

I do think that Travis went on a trip or several trips with Jodi while he was dating Lisa.

 

[Val1]

I do hope Jodi does beg for mercy. Nobody will believe her and just cement the deal she only cares about herself. I'm confused tho as to how that will happen now since Jodi has such "issues" to publicly speak. Maybe Maria will get up and read it for her LOL

If MDLR did, wouldn't JM be able to counter that with an argument against secondary gain for the witness, in that apparently it is the mitigation specialist that is responsible for being there for the defendant should they get the DP? Iow's, if JA gets off with some variation of life, that would let MDLR off the hook too because otherwise she could be tied to this case until the DP is carried out.

 

[LambChop]

From guilt phase, jury questions to JA (paraphrased)

Q8. About passwords. A: Became a problem after I left. I changed mine, he wasn't OK with that. We had a conversation on May 22 and agreed "we weren't going to do that anymore."
"To my knowledge I didn't log onto his, and I don't think he attempted to log onto mine."

Q20. Relating to Steve Carroll. A: "He wrote me a really nice email which went to my Gmail account, which Travis read..." (goes on to lie about why Travis thought Steve didn't exist.)

Q107. Why sex call was on her Helio phone, not his. A: Travis' phone couldn't record calls. Hers didn't either. Didn't have capability until "I bought the Helio, or Gus gave me the Helio."

This is what I do not get. They were not together. It makes no sense to record the call unless she intended to use it for one purpose only. Also was it not reported that Gus did not like Travis. Why would he give her the phone that records?

 

[Caylee Advocate]

From guilt phase, jury questions to JA (paraphrased)



Q20. Relating to Steve Carroll. A: "He wrote me a really nice email which went to my Gmail account, which Travis read..."

I always thought that it wasn't true, and that she "spun it around" to fit another lie, and that she got the name from Steve Carell, the actor from "The 40 Year Old Virgin."

 

[Truth Detector]

I can't either. Really can't. But then again, not everyone here agreed that the Helio info trumped Dworkin "finding" *advertiser censored* videos on T's HD. And I'm not just referring to you, Truth, though your dissent gives me pause, as you are pretty dang astute.

I still believe the Helio info was worth it, and I still believe at least SOMEONE on the jury got it, but am less sure than I was yesterday that the info lit up the sky for jurors.

What must the jury be thinking right now?

JA's suspect Defense Team serving up lie after lie, 'experts' with doctored diagnoses, and a judge hoop-jumping over the Arizona Constitution in order to obey an especially cruel murderer in unprecedented fashion at the jury's expense.

Given the reality on the ground, what little we can see of it, it would seem the table was set for the State, especially after the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court weighed in against the Defense and their judge.

Unlike JA's hired guns, if there was one thing the jury could count on, it was that the State wasn't going to play games. JM was going to shoot straight, even and especially through the distractions -- including those of a pornographic nature. Over against the monotony of the Defense rehash it was something to look forward to, a thing to be anticipated.

Or was it?

The State assured the jury there was no *advertiser censored* on that hard drive.

When faced with Defense evidence disproving the State's obviously false contention, the State conceded that there were URL's (Internet addresses) which resolve to *advertiser censored* sites, but they certainly weren't admitting anything else -- yet.

Until they were faced with additional evidence, that is. Then the State further conceded that there were four images, but that only two were pornographic. Some downloading by device or human user. And at least one user spent 45 minutes on youporn.com. Not much was said about who that user might or might not have been. (We now know there were multiple images and at least one video on the hard drive, despite the State's initial testimony to the contrary.)

Then the State had its witness assure the jury that the video couldn't actually be played.

Well, that settled the video issue. That is until the State called a Defense witness who explained to the jury that he had no problem playing the *advertiser censored* video.

Isn't this the same prosecutor who aggressively cross-examines Defense witnesses, famously making a major issue out of the number and the size of their own and the defendant's lies?

Now, if folks have read this far without blowing a gasket, congratulations.

Thank you for your patience, and read on.

With me, most of you are no doubt concurring that this sentencing phase retrial isn't about *advertiser censored* -- or at least that it shouldn't be.

And you know what?

I'm still fairly confident that the jury can get past that, if they even need to.

But I'm willing to bet that what some of them will now struggle with moving beyond at this point is something else entirely. Something much larger is at stake. And that something is the very credibility of the State's computer forensics evidence and testimony.

And what of other evidence? Other experts and their testimony? How much of the State's case is now suspect in those jurors' minds?

And if that credibility hit contaminates the State's entire refutation of JA's mitigation claims...

At this point, the jury knows that the Defense will mislead and attempt to hoodwink them.

Are the jurors now thinking that they have to similarly guard against the State, its evidence, its expert witnesses, its testimony -- its entire case?

Where does the jury go now for a little integrity?

I'm not in a position to script this trial, but if I were I'd have scripted a better week than I believe this one was, and right at the point of the State resting its case.

OTOH, maybe trial reporting by Twitter has just caused a giant misunderstanding and the week did not actually unfold as Tweet readers were led to believe.

I could accept that.

 

[ziggy]

Interesting read about the computer forensic testimony that equals, basically, Jodi lied about Travis's temper (with a list of things that could have triggered a person with a temper, yet Travis acts passively), and she needed to create something big that he would want to kill her for knowing/revealing - something that dropping a camera a few inches would trigger his blind rage causing her to slaughter him in self defense - hence the child *advertiser censored*/pedo/voracious *advertiser censored* appetite lie.

http://.blogspot.com/2015/02/jodi-arias-so-was-there-any-*advertiser censored*.html

 

[wenwe4]

From guilt phase, jury questions to JA (paraphrased)

Q8. About passwords. A: Became a problem after I left. I changed mine, he wasn't OK with that. We had a conversation on May 22 and agreed "we weren't going to do that anymore."
"To my knowledge I didn't log onto his, and I don't think he attempted to log onto mine."
Q20. Relating to Steve Carroll. A: "He wrote me a really nice email which went to my Gmail account, which Travis read..." (goes on to lie about why Travis thought Steve didn't exist.)

Q107. Why sex call was on her Helio phone, not his. A: Travis' phone couldn't record calls. Hers didn't either. Didn't have capability until "I bought the Helio, or Gus gave me the Helio."

The May 22nd date is significant. (IIRC)

1) The helio text(s) message were dated on 5/2/08. Then the phonesex recording on 5/10, on 5/26 was the rant that Travis said you are the worst thing that ever happened to me.

2) They broke up in Feb 07? and she has his passwords in 5/08 to prove their "trust" issues to each other?

 

[Hatfield]

I agree that it was inappropriate. Since MDLR is an inflammatory drama queen maybe she attracts some of that behavior to herself, but there was absolutely no excuse for anyone to go chasing after a witness and an attorney who might need to collect their wits over lunch in the middle of a big murder trial. Sanders allowed his syrupy crush on Dr. Demarte to to cause all kinds of problems.

Is that really what even happened?

I thought I read where the group was just standing there and may not have even noticed her walk by. I thought I also read that they were talking about a restaurant where it was good to go eat at.
So maybe the restarant people sing that song inside the restarant and they were just imitating what happens when you eat there. Who knows if they even knew she had walked on by.

I would like to hear from a 3rd party witness what really happened before I make any judgements because I sure dont take the DT word for anything.

ETA: Sorry, didnt realize you were referring to Sanders. LOL Yeah, his article describing himself chasing after them was off the deep end. LOL

 

[katydid23]

In the beginning, BOTH the state and the DT experts agreed there was no *advertiser censored*.

Then Nurmi came and said there were thousands and thousands of *advertiser censored* sites, and Juan and Flores tried to secretly delete them all.

Juan successfully battled that BS, by bring in an expert or two, to show that it was spybot that wrote those *advertiser censored* sites into the computer files. And he showed the accusations of misconduct to be false.

And Juan's own recent computer experts also spoke of the *advertiser censored* pictures and the video fragments. He did not lie about their existence. His expert did not have success playing the videos. Then Lonnie cam on and said that he did finally do so.

I do not think it is damning to Juan's integrity in any way. JMO :cow:

 

[katydid23]

Is that really what even happened?

I thought I read where the group was just standing there and may not have even noticed her walk by. I thought I also read that they were talking about a restaurant where it was good to go eat at.
So maybe the restarant people sing that song inside the restarant and they were just imitating what happens when you eat there. Who knows if they even knew she had walked on by.

I would like to hear from a 3rd party witness what really happened before I make any judgements because I sure dont take the DT word for anything.

By 'chasing after a witness' I think they were referring to Paul S. 'chasing after' Juan and Dr D and fawning all over them.

 

[Hatfield]

By 'chasing after a witness' I think they were referring to Paul S. 'chasing after' Juan and Dr D and fawning all over them.

Oh. Thanks. Yeah I read his own article where he described himself doing that. LOL

Yeah, thats a bit crazy. LOL

 

[bsk]

BBM. Absolutely agree. I think JM's whole case (apart from his defensive maneuvers regarding prosecutorial misconduct) has been to undermine JA's credibility so nothing she says in allocution is going to be believable. Last time, allocution seemed to work on some jurors. This time, no chance. Of course, she thinks her magic mouth will work, but since when has her thinking been rational?

UBM. Paul Sanders is not on this jury, although he projects himself there: nothing to worry about. JM didn't have to make the business about the Heliophone crystal clear. He only had to fix it so that jurors would readily jump to the conclusion that JA created at least a bunch of fake texts/emails/journal entries, and since she did that, none of them are believable. The real jurors (i.e. not the Paul Sanders' version of the real jurors) will have a chance to run in this direction with the help of one another.

Obviously I've got a biased viewpoint, but it seems like Juan has done a great job knocking down all these nonsense defense claims. Think of the notes they wrote down during the defense's presentation:
- Child *advertiser censored*?
- Trying to hook up w/ 9yo girl?
- Detective tampering with computer evidence?
- Massive life-long abuse?

Do any of these sorts of things carry any water any more? I think not. And the defense has gone so far overboard with what are obviously lies that it's likely most jurors won't believe anything they said even if Juan didn't destroy it.

They are left with a remorseless butcher who tried to further destroy him, his family, and his friends after he was dead. And who wasted 4+ months of the jurors' lives with stuff that was 99% carp. There may still be someone who can't vote for putting a young woman to death, but if so they were not going to do it no matter what - even if they really thought they could going in.

 

[Hatfield]

What must the jury be thinking right now?

JA's suspect Defenst Team serving up lie after lie, 'experts' with doctored diagnoses, and a judge hoop-jumping over the Arizona Constitution in order to obey an especially cruel murderer in unprecedented fashion at the jury's expense.

Given the reality on the ground, what little we can see of it, it would seem the table was set for the State, especially after the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court weighed in against the Defense and their judge.

Unlike the JA's hired guns, if there was one thing the jury could count on, it was that the State wasn't going to play games. JM was going to shoot straight, even and especially through the distractions -- including those of a pornographic nature. Over against the monotony of the Defense rehash it was something to look forward to, a thing to be anticipated.

Or was it?

The State assured the jury there was no *advertiser censored* on that hard drive.

When faced with Defense evidence disproving the State's obviously false contention, the State conceded that there were URL's (Internet addresses) which resolve to *advertiser censored* sites, but they certainly weren't admitting anything else -- yet.

Until they were faced with additional evidence, that is. Then the State further conceded that there were four images, but that only two were pornographic. Some downloading by device or human user. And at least one user spent 45 minutes on youporn.com. Not much was said about who that user might or might not have been. (We now know there were multiple images and at least one video on the hard drive, despite the State's initial testimony to the contrary.)

Then the State then had its witness assure the jury that the video couldn't actually be played.

Well, that settled the video issue. That is until the State called a Defense witness who explained to the jury that he had no problem playing the *advertiser censored* video.

Isn't this the same prosecutor who aggressively cross-examines Defense witnesses, famously making a major issue out of the number and the size of their own and the defendant's lies?

Now, if folks have read this far without blowing a gasket, congratulations.

Thank you for your patience, and read on.

With me, most of you are no doubt concurring that this sentencing phase retrial isn't about *advertiser censored* -- or at least that it shouldn't be.

And you know what?

I'm still fairly confident that the jury can get past that, if they even need to.

But I'm willing to bet that what some of them will now struggle with moving beyond at this point is something else entirely. Something much larger is at stake. And that something is the very credibility of the State's computer forensics evidence and testimony.

And what of other evidence? Other experts and their testimony? How much of the State's case is now suspect in those jurors' minds?

And if that credibility hit contaminates the State's entire refutation of JA's mitigation claims...

At this point, the jury knows that the Defense will mislead and attempt to hoodwink them.

Are the jurors now thinking that they have to similarly guard against the State, its evidence, its expert witnesses, its testimony -- its entire case?

Where does the jury go now for a little integrity?

I'm not in a position to script this trial, but if I were I'd have scripted a better week than I believe this one was, and right at the point of the State resting its case.

OTOH, maybe trial reporting by Twitter has just caused a giant misunderstanding and the week did not actually unfold as Tweet readers were led to believe.

I could accept that.

Id say it was a fair assessment of this week. I'm still thinking that either the virus OR JA OR JA installing the virus is what caused the *advertiser censored* to be on the computer in the first place but the way it was left, it seems it was left admitting that Travis may have caused it to be there. Which is unfortunate to leave it like that.

The whole *advertiser censored* thing is so insignificant that I just wish it wasnt attempted during the 1st trial to even claim there was no *advertiser censored*. Maybe the state should have just never claimed anything about it.