Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/21-11/23/14 In recess

[MeeBee]

Jodi said Travis was viewing child , other types of have no bearing because she didn't mention it. She only mentioned child . So of these manually accessed , were any of them related to child ? If not then any errors the state may have made don't matter.

Jodi also said there dozens of pics of women's on this computer. Were any such pics ever found or recovered? If not then none of the testimony elicited were done to make Jodi look like a liar. She's just a liar. No child and no pics, Jodi's story is not intact right now, even with what's come out.

So far, no evidence what so ever the state has done anything untoward. Just possible mishandling of evidence on June 10th that also had no effect on Jodi's case or story because no changes were made to any just downloads and updates. And all they have of the July 19th 2009 incident are insinuations. And a very suspect version of events from Maria Schaffer, if I'm honest.

 

[netbrsr]

Thank you for those two folks who tried to point me to the picture of the hard drive "damaged pins" but I can't find them! There are 63 pages there, you referred to a motion by "Jen" I don't know who Jen is! I'm old and I can't follow all this, I'm sorry! Is this an External Hard Drive, or the Internal one that you have to remove the back cover of the laptop to access? I'm sorry, I'm about to cry with frustration!!!

http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/11/jodi-arias-defense-response-to-states.html?spref=tw

Page 7

 

[daisydomino]

I just got back to my desk after being in meetings all morning. I'm glancing over the Tweets, but I don't see an easy answer to my main question. Maybe you guys know? How come none of this showed up until now?

 

[Brattinella]

Thank you SO MUCH, netbrsr!!

 

[Nosey Parker]

Thank you for those two folks who tried to point me to the picture of the hard drive "damaged pins" but I can't find them! There are 63 pages there, you referred to a motion by "Jen" I don't know who Jen is! I'm old and I can't follow all this, I'm sorry! Is this an External Hard Drive, or the Internal one that you have to remove the back cover of the laptop to access? I'm sorry, I'm about to cry with frustration!!!

This is Jennifer Willmott's last motion. http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/11/....html?spref=tw

Click on the link. Scroll down, to the page after "Exhibit A" and there is a photo of the 'repaired pins'. I tried to copy just the photo, but can't save it off a PDF. Hope this helps you.

ETA: see you already have it.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't understand the worry. Nurmi's allegations against JM and Flores have been debunked, and that's all that matters, imo. DP stays on table, her conviction is safe.

Beyond that, the worse thst happens is gets introduced into the sentencing phase. JM can raise all kinds of doubt about it got there. So what.

I an 100% sure TA didn't look at kiddie . If this quack says he did, he's lying.

 

[MeeBee]

I just got back to my desk after being in meetings all morning. I'm glancing over the Tweets, but I don't see an easy answer to my main question. Maybe you guys know? How come none of this showed up until now?

Scrubbers? Idk!

 

[RR0004]

IMHO...it's wasn't Juan's job to examine the computer...and anything that was told or explained to him would have been been by the LE expert. Juan didn't just pull stuff from the air, he relied on reports from a professional. If...and that's a BIG IF...there was a mistake in the reporting (think CA trial)...then there was a mistake (but, I don't personally think there was because the DT's expert the first go-round would have had to make the same mistake). What I don't like here, is the audacity of the DT to "put" the computer in the hands of JM. That didn't happen. JM didn't tamper with any computer...and to insinuate that he did goes above and beyond "defending one's client". JMHO

 

[Ricki]

So I am viewing all these tweets from work. They brought it 1st attorney staring Juan had his fingers on the keyboard and then Nurmeiater to say there is and scrubbers? on laptop. Does Juan have any one there to be a witness for him? Is he representing himself? Yes, I am confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Jodi said Travis was viewing child , other types of have no bearing because she didn't mention it. She only mentioned child . So of these manually accessed , were any of them related to child ? If not then any errors the state may have made don't matter.

Jodi also said there dozens of pics of women's on this computer. Were any such pics ever found or recovered? If not then none of the testimony elicited were done to make Jodi look like a liar. She's just a liar. No child and no pics, Jodi's story is not intact right now, even with what's come out.

So far, no evidence what so ever the state has done anything untoward. Just possible mishandling of evidence on June 10th that also had no effect on Jodi's case or story because no changes were made to any just downloads and updates. And all they have of the July 19th 2009 incident are insinuations. And a very suspect version of events from Maria Schaffer, if I'm honest.

:seeya: :tyou: Thanks, MeeBee, for this explanation !

The defense has NOTHING for mitigation and their best hope is for a "mistrial" ...

:gaah: They are a sneaky and conniving bunch !

 

[T-4-2]

From WAT:

Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial · 14s 14 seconds ago


B goes over the tons of viruses and Trojans that were on the computer. More than a few times. #JodiArias

When I think of Jodi, I think of Trojans and viruses in a completely different context.

 

[Dmacky]

I don't recall the first time she went pro se, but this latest time was 04 Aug' 2014 if my memory is correct. You probably are referring to the first time she went pro se I think.

I have been sleuthing...and you are correct
*August 4, 2014 - Jodi goes pro se (watch out AZlawyer, she'll steal your username)
*August 14? 2014 - Jodi hires PI Dorian Bond (not to be confused with James Bond)

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/warped-jodi-arias-hires-private-detective-prove-innocence

His twitter is very weird, if you ask me... loves him some Sponge Bob
Dorian Bond (@dorianbond) | Twitter
Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge Fan

Dorian Bond
‏@dorianbond Need 151 more votes to qualify for a Chase Bank $150k small business grant. Please vote for Bond Investigations!

PS Websleuthers, don't forget to vote :crazy: He still needs 151 more votes:lol:

 

[Nosey Parker]

When I think of Jodi, I think of Trojans and viruses in a completely different context.

I love your dry humour, T-4-2. Are you a Brit?

 

[MeeBee]

IMHO...it's wasn't Juan's job to examine the computer...and anything that was told or explained to him would have been been by the LE expert. Juan didn't just pull stuff from the air, he relied on reports from a professional. If...and that's a BIG IF...there was a mistake in the reporting (think CA trial)...then there was a mistake (but, I don't personally think there was because the DT's expert the first go round would have had to make the same mistake). What I don't like here, is the audacity of the DT to "put" the computer in the hands of JM. That didn't happen. JM didn't tamper with any computer...and to insinuate that he did goes above and beyond "defending one's client". JMHO

And it is just patently ridiculous. Schaffer is trying to say she only wanted to look at the computer but it was Juan's idea to turn it on? But admits she wanted to look at files. So did she or didn't she make the request to turn it on? She's being unclear. Why would Juan be the one browsing files when she is the one who wanted to see the files? It's like she's saying, well I just wanted to see the computer, but I didn't want it turned on! Then why did you want to see it? To make note of the color? She's trying to place all the blame on Juan. I believe Juan when he says the investigator warned her and I believe him when he says she's the one who was looking through it. And she's lying. Just...ugh.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

As others have noted, this was a public computer, his roomates came and went even while he was dead in the shower. There is nothing that 100% puts this on Travis, did he like ? Who cares, as long as it's not the child kind. If state and defense could power it up, then there was no passwords that could put it on him.

Right?

Travis was also known to be gone weeks at a time to do with his job. His roommates were guys so I imagine they looked at like most young single guys do.

But for the life of me I don't understand how this is relevant. She didn't murder him because he watched . Heck she never said he/they watched on the computer. To hear her tell it he was looking at photos of little boys. She never even testified he watched kiddie on the computer.

It is my understanding that the act has to be intentionally done and it seems from what I can understand this was done out of ignorance that all these things would change just by powering it up.

I wonder if Juan will have his own computer expert testify? The expert up now said ITunes have to be manually updated and I don't think that is true. Who in the heck would be updating ITunes of all things anyway after Travis was murdered? That makes no sense to me.

IMO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

IMHO...it's wasn't Juan's job to examine the computer...and anything that was told or explained to him would have been been by the LE expert. Juan didn't just pull stuff from the air, he relied on reports from a professional. If...and that's a BIG IF...there was a mistake in the reporting (think CA trial)...then there was a mistake (but, I don't personally think there was because the DT's expert the first go-round would have had to make the same mistake). What I don't like here, is the audacity of the DT to "put" the computer in the hands of JM. That didn't happen.

JM didn't tamper with any computer...and to insinuate that he did goes above and beyond "defending one's client". JMHO

:seeya:

BBM: Amen ! I totally agree !

Just want to add that I have NO doubt whatsoever that CMJA and/or her crew DID tamper with that computer ... CMJA is a sneak !

:moo:

 

[Love Never Fails]

Hi all. I'm at the dentist. Can you tell me who is Brian Neumeister? Is he expert for defense or prosecution and does he work for Encase? Sorry for just logging on. Thanks.

 

[RR0004]

When I think of Jodi, I think of Trojans and viruses in a completely different context.

OMG- just too funny!!!

 

[MeeBee]

Also, there's a story of Jodi being in Travis' home and browsing his computer. She admits he had an open door policy and would just come over whenever, and would probably even play around on the lap top.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hi all. I'm at the dentist. Can you tell me who is Brian Neumeister? Is he expert for defense or prosecution and does he work for Encase? Sorry for just logging on. Thanks.

He said he works for both the defense and the state but is testifying for the defense. I don't know who he exactly works for.......

But yes, that is who he is.