Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 21

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to BK - Mr. Brown is a Det. from Mesa AZ PD (now retired) who has been working on this case and created a "giant" report - may have found a portion of an actual *advertiser censored* video on the computer.

She said this the last time he was on. I think I said she referred to him as det.smith. Nothing new.
 
Well was this a virus or not? If not, we should care why?

To expand on this, regardless of whether it was a virus or not, is any of this *advertiser censored* child *advertiser censored*? If not, I don't give a flying quart of hydrogenated wombat snot if the man had folder after folder filled to the brim with the most dirty, kinky, smutty, legal *advertiser censored* the internet has to offer. And I highly doubt the jury does, either. If "he looked at some tatas" is justification for callous murder, then I am screwed, and not in the fun way.
 
Can anybody explain why JSS told jury to disregard prior defense and computer?
 
Re: the picture of JA above. She sure looks like the cat that swallowed the canary, no? I have no doubt this whole "strategy" is all her doing.

To me, she has no expression on her face at all. She rarely ever does, and when she does it's creepy. Like bad CG. I've never seen an actual person whose appearance falls so deep into the uncanny valley.

F00BAlN.png
 
There are so many places where the Arias trial is being discussed out there in cyberland. Webforums, social media platforms, all over really. WS is but one place in the big wide web world. I don't think he's talking about WS specifically and only.
I can't help but think that's gotta really be annoying to JA. No excitement of crowds clamoring and the tedium of the same info culled through. JA historically has a very short attention span with anything in her life. Her relationship with this trial is the longest one she's ever had outside the Family into which she was born and JA tried to disconnect from them too.
 
The really confusing part, for me is that BK posted that JSS said this, just prior to the jury coming in:

Judge sustains the objection--irrelevant. Denies motion to remove County Attorney. Judge precludes further questioning in this area of looking for *advertiser censored* or nude photos.

I guess JSS meant between the lawyers?

Anyone else understand this?
 
How long has CMJA been locked up at this point? I forget how long after the murder she was actually arrested.
 
There are so many places where the Arias trial is being discussed out there in cyberland. Webforums, social media platforms, all over really. WS is but one place in the big wide web world. I don't think he's talking about WS specifically and only.


Yes, BUT, the only place to follow a trial is here at WS !

:great: Complete and up to the minute coverage !
 
I can't imagine what this case looks like through the eyes of this jury. I hope at least one of them will give interviews when its all over because I would love to know.

It must be very very confusing for them.

JMO. I know they are not supposed to discuss this trial with anyone and I do hope they follow that. With that said, I hope that some very general comments they may accidentally hear will provide enough for them to realize the DT is the primary party who is making a mockery of this trial.
 
Can anybody explain why JSS told jury to disregard prior defense and computer?
Also, to all the wonderful peeps getting the courtroom info out to us: Has there been anything divulged about the papers Jodi was reviewing this a.m. and her demeanor while reading them?
 
Super secret transcripts will be released @ 12 noon tomorrow (according to BK)

I asked earlier but didn't see a reply - did the video of Friday's hearing get released yet?
 
Super secret transcripts will be released @ 12 noon tomorrow (according to BK)

I asked earlier but didn't see a reply - did the video of Friday's hearing get released yet?

I haven't looked for it personally but I saw it mentioned on Court Chatter that no, it has not been.
 
If I was a juror, the only way I could make sense of all this cloak and daggar computer testimony would be to infer that Travis had something really awful on his computer that the State wants to hide and that the defense is trying to bring to my attention.

There's no other way I'd understand why such a big deal is being made of the victim's computer.

It makes me think the opposite. This has been a DT who has tried to make huge mountains out of grains of sand from moment one.

I think even this jury has learned by now that the DT is desperate to throw any and all spaghetti against the wall hoping it sticks. This DT filled with crybabies make a big deal out of everything.

If I was a juror on this case the *advertiser censored* evidence or lack of would be a wash and wouldn't be something I would consider either way in this phase.

There is just so much uncertainty if *advertiser censored* was really watched by Travis with the knowledge of knowing the prior DT screwed things up. Its just too iffy to be trustworthy and has been tainted. Thus far the main factor would be if I did give it any consideration at all would be if the DT proved that he watched kiddie *advertiser censored*. If that isn't there then all of this about *advertiser censored* would be totally irrelevant to me as a juror.

What would be relevant to me is JA testified to seeing physical photos and did not testify to seeing *advertiser censored* of any kind on his computer and I certainly believe if she had she would have jumped at the chance to say so in the trial since she went to great lengths to crush him further into the ground she put him in. We all know she had access to his computer even when he wasn't home.

In fact after thinking about it further
even if kiddie *advertiser censored* was found and no evidence has been presented that is true..... as a juror I would know that is not a material fact that would mitigate her driving a thousand miles to overkill the man that had rejected her. It makes me convince by her obsession with him the pedophile claim is a lie since she said she wanted to marry Travis and have his children and this was said to a friend even after she had murdered him.

So, imo, the *advertiser censored* issue would turnout to be a non-issue for me and it certainly wouldn't be a mitigating factor based on all of the evidence presented since the hideous slaughter of Travis was not done because of *advertiser censored* on his computer. She claimed over a year later he was a pedophile which as a juror I would also find suspect plus there is no evidence of it either. I am sure Juan will let them know that this lie came long after her other ridiculous stories had failed.

IMO
 
How long has CMJA been locked up at this point? I forget how long after the murder she was actually arrested.

Jodi murdered Travis June 4, 2008. Jodi was arrested and charged on her birthday July 9.
 
The really confusing part, for me is that BK posted that JSS said this, just prior to the jury coming in:

Judge sustains the objection--irrelevant. Denies motion to remove County Attorney. Judge precludes further questioning in this area of looking for *advertiser censored* or nude photos.

I guess JSS meant between the lawyers?

Anyone else understand this?

I think, based on the context of JW's questions to Flores at the time, that JSS was saying no more questions about Juan supposedly looking for *advertiser censored* on TA's computer.
 
I think I see more gray hair on the killer and her complexion looks rough.

Will we ever get off of this *advertiser censored*/no *advertiser censored* topic?

To me it has nothing to do with nothing. Seems like we have been on this topic since October. Enough already.
I don't care if Travis participated in *advertiser censored* movies. *advertiser censored* is not a reason for a brutal murder.
 
The really confusing part, for me is that BK posted that JSS said this, just prior to the jury coming in:

Judge sustains the objection--irrelevant. Denies motion to remove County Attorney. Judge precludes further questioning in this area of looking for *advertiser censored* or nude photos.

I guess JSS meant between the lawyers?

Anyone else understand this?

The defense wanted to tell the jury Juan was looking for nude photos of Jodi and the judge said no. They wanted to have him removed from the case so they could call him as a witness and the judge said no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
2,031
Total visitors
2,191

Forum statistics

Threads
602,210
Messages
18,136,655
Members
231,270
Latest member
appleatcha
Back
Top