Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/26 -12/02/14 In recess

[Truth Detector]

I agree that they likely had sex far less often than she's said, and that it took a long time for her to convince him to have vaginal sex. I think she would have loved to get pregnant to force him into marriage but she couldn't persuade him to have vaginal sex very often at all.

Thank goodness a baby never happened.

Some of us speculate about whether she may have lied to him about pregnancy/abortion, etc.

Wouldn't put it past her.

 

[joe jones]

I had absolutely no idea what stuff was being posted blogged about relating to this case, just went for a meander round the web and jaw on floor amazement, I am genuinely flummoxed as to why it matters so much to people who are not relatives or personal friends of the victim or defendant,

 

[wenwe4]

You may have already seen this, but it gives a fairly good indication of how the judges feel about Nurmi's actions...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_k7P_QQ4Fs

I am behind a bit - please forgive if already noted:

I reviewed this video again (Thank You!) and something occurred to me. I think Nurmi has been arguing - referenced a sealed minute entry JSS made on 11/14/13 that the CoA had no copy or information about - that the "super secret testimony" can be done when someone's life is in danger. I think he is arguing that Jodi's life is endangered because she is facing the death penalty.

CoA tells Nurmi closing the court is a very drastic thing 10:35.

Start watching Mr. Bodney's face as he listens to Nurmi - 10:55 (wide mouth - like he has no knowledge of this)
@ approx 12:13 Nurmi is saying in this missing JSS sealed motion she explains the backdrop of why she would allow this sort of thing (Bodney shakes his head - no)
CoA Judge says defendant has no constitutional right to a secret trial & Bodney nods in agreement
@ 13:38 - Nurmi talks about Defendant's rights are superior for due process - Bodney looks like "WTH?"

I truly am looking forward to the CoA's statement that backs up their decision, because it was presented to the CoA that Nurmi not only wanted this witness to be able to testify in secret - he wanted the opportunity to conduct the entire rest of the trial in secret.

It was interesting to rewatch this - Bodney's reaction to Nurmi was precious!

 

[krkrjx]

Yes or No has a post on the Sidebar with a tweet from the nutty George Barwood claiming BN has the goods on the prosecution for deletingporn and that defense is going to refute the gas can claims. Don't know what it means. We do kow Barwoodis crazy. On page 19 of Sidebar. FYI.

Yes, GB is crazy. I see no reason to even read his tweets other than for entertainment purposes. He has always said the third gas can was returned (as the killer claimed) but that matters not. He can say what he wants. DT can say what they want. Killer can say what she wants. What matters is not what they say but what can be proven. And what has been proven is Jodi Arias murdered a man in a cruel and heinous manner, lied about it for days before inventing new lies. George Barwood is the same flavor of nut that all high profile murder cases attract like vermin. IMO

 

[Truth Detector]

For someone that claims she is smart, what an idiot to leave the camera. But I'm glad she did. I said this before, I'm surprised she didn't get pregnant.

I agree with Hope4More on this. There was probably very little vaginal sex (next to none) going on, thus low probability of conception.

But if there was any, did she lie about pregnancies? Abortion(s)? Threats of extortion(s)?

 

[katiecoolady]

After thinking of some things prompted by another post either here or on the Sidebar I've realized that I am quite mixed issues of rehabilitation of criminals and I think with good reason. I do believe in programs that help the vast majority of incarcerated people get rehabilitated and released back in to society with some good skills and remorse and a new outlook on how they want to live their life. I'm heartened by writing programs, vocational programs and even myself participated in an improv theatre group for incarcerated teens which was amazing. I think therapy is a good thing for people with true mental illness, PTSD, addiction and can help them pivot their lives while in prison. I do believe in the goodness of people and the inherent ability to heal/grow given the right conditions for the vast majority of people.

With that being said, I also believe that a significant but much smaller aspect of prison population is completely and totally unrehabilitatable (word?). That would include sociopaths like Jodi Arias, Scott Peterson, the men who killed my sister, nearly all pedophiles who kill children. But I do believe these are in the minority of prisoners generally speaking but the MAJORITY (ok more like all) of those sentenced to Death for sure and LWOP likely. I do believe, practically speaking, they are true lost causes.

I'd like to see more $ funneled to those who have a chance at rehab and less to those who serve as political pawns for a larger debate (which would be the DP). We simply need to be protected as a society from those who fall, imo, in the EVIL category and I'd be all for studying them like bugs. See if we can figure out how their brains tick, give them mandatory brain scans, research early identification, education and outreach so people can see them coming maybe more clearly. But the $ spent on fighting for their freedom absolutely weakens us as a society and shows where our priorities lie: spending copious amounts of our own money on our collective ambivalence about those parts of our culture that have the greatest opportunity to harm us all.

It's like seeing a worm in an apple and instead of just cutting that part away and using the still edible parts of the apple to enjoy, the Chef spends his day trying to figure out what to do with the worm as the edible part browns and rots on the counter.

I guess I"m saying that it's ok to be somewhat ambivalent and the situation demands it. AND I'm going to keep using the national stage of this trial, not on Arias but on what she represents and bring options to consider to "the way it's always been done" (which is actually NOT the case in this triall--it's more "the way we've been able to get away with").

Dismounting my soapbox.

 

[wenwe4]

Yes or No has a post on the Sidebar with a tweet from the nutty George Barwood claiming BN has the goods on the prosecution for deletingporn and that defense is going to refute the gas can claims. Don't know what it means. We do kow Barwoodis crazy. On page 19 of Sidebar. FYI.

Curious, can you give the post number instead of page number? Some of us have different page settings (mine is 100 posts per page).

 

[joe jones]

she had a fair trial as far as I could see, there are issues that have now surfaced over the computers which do need investigating, but whether Travis had or not on his computer wouldn't have effected the conviction in my opinion,

I am not a big fan of any of the protagonists, don't think Juan is as great as many seem to do, think defence should have done what they are now doing which is argue emotional abuse (although I don't think Jodie was emotionally abused or a victim) Nurmi seems to have picked up his game, and I would be fine with LWOP as am anti DP

wonder why some cases grab people when others equally or even more heinous don't

 

[ElleElle]

I really do not think they actually were together in his room that many times alone. JA may have been in the bedroom (cleaning) but if the sex tape was made to verify they had sex JA only mentions a few times. TA is not alive to ask so it seem unfair to him to assume they were having sex all the time especially when people were constantly coming and going within the household. If her car was always at his house I think witnesses would have mentioned it. I don't know, what do you think? jmo

I agree LambChop. I don't think they had sex as much as the DT makes it out to be. How long did they know each other? Not that long, and besides, Jodi moved back and forth to CA a couple of times.
Also, didn't TA ask Daniel Freeman to chaperone one of their trips? Just goes to display TA did not trust JA. She was using sex as her way to reel em in. JMO

 

[katiecoolady]

she had a fair trial as far as I could see, there are issues that have now surfaced over the computers which do need investigating, but whether Travis had or not on his computer wouldn't have effected the conviction in my opinion,

I am not a big fan of any of the protagonists, don't think Juan is as great as many seem to do, think defence should have done what they are now doing which is argue emotional abuse (although I don't think Jodie was emotionally abused or a victim) Nurmi seems to have picked up his game, and I would be fine with LWOP as am anti DP

wonder why some cases grab people when others equally or even more heinous don't

Hi Joe,

I first saw Jodi Arias on Dateline shortly after she was in jail and I watched the whole thing, went back to the beginning and rewatched it. Her bizarre demeanor, clearly fabricated story, soft voice and feminine appearance astounded me--female sociopaths are rare which is at least part of the interest. I also think the victim Travis is extremely relatable to people. He was young, attractive, popular yet came from a distinctly difficult background. He was a true success story who's life was so abruptly cut short. Then add the camera and all of her premed it's one of the most well planned disturbing crimes with simply a motive of anger/jealousy coming from this soft looking female. This kind of disorder of humanity, I think, at least is part of why people got so captivated.

 

[krkrjx]

I had absolutely no idea what stuff was being posted blogged about relating to this case, just went for a meander round the web and jaw on floor amazement, I am genuinely flummoxed as to why it matters so much to people who are not relatives or personal friends of the victim or defendant,

Genuinely flummoxed as to why what matters?

Murder and murder trials are everyone's business. Horrible violent crimes affect all society, as does the process of putting the perpetrators away.

Not sure what your post is referring to but it has been posted here a couple times that what is going on in that AZ courtroom is really no one's business but for those directly involved. I don't know if that's what you are saying but if it is, I disagree.

If it is not what you are saying, though, please forgive my misunderstanding.

 

[ElleElle]

BBM - Maybe you're right. I thought Flores and/or Juan had said it was individually, which always struck me as weird - unless she planned only to delete that day's pictures and leave anything from earlier to make it look like the camera hadn't been touched. In that case she would have had to do it individually if she was doing it directly on the camera.

There is more than likely an option to "Delete All". I had the camera but lower end - the Sony Cyber-shot, and was able to do that.

 

[daisydomino]

My big question is JM and his experts (and the defense expert in Trial #1) say no was found in the "browser history", Neumesiter is now saying he found it in the "viewing history" - I don't know what the distinction is and where Neu. found it. I can undertstand none being found in the browser if Travis used cleaning tools but where is this area of 'viewing history' on the hard drive that's not the browser? I'd like that answer before I could put any creedence in Neumeister's most recent testimony.

I don't understand the difference here either.

Following the Tweets in this hearing was very frustrating. One guy reported on Twitter that there were no SIM cards in the camera. DSLRs do not have SIM cards.

 

[LinTX]

I did notice this tweet this morning, LOL! At least I'm not the only one that he looked familiar.

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial Nov 24
RT @Felicia250 @WildAboutTrial Donovan and Bryan Nuemeister look very much alike! #jodiarias

 

[ElleElle]

I believe she put the camera in the washer because she was afraid to take it with her because it would point fingers at her. It had to be a bloody mess and she needed to destroy any DNA. I think also that she was hoping that it would destroy the photos.

Yes, or, done by accident getting tousled in the bedding in the haste clean-up.

Either way, neither was smart on her genius mind.

If she did take the camera, and LE noticed, she would of said the ninjas took it. :eyeroll:

 

[Steve44]

I am 120% sure that TA had no idea that JA was coming to his house that fateful morning. She used that check for the car payment to get in the door, IMO ~ If Travis would have accidently dropped that check, it certainly would have bounced :wink:


But I have a thought that I can't seem to shake. What if she went there (stalking) and Mimi or another girl was at his house? Besides slashing his tires (which would have been a given) what do you all think would have happened? I'm sure she had a Plan B

* sometimes I wonder if she really did have black pants/hoodie and even had a ski mask in her magic bag of tricks. Just in case?? A little bit of truth in her lies?

Perhaps we would have had a tragedy even greater than the one we have now. Fortunately Travis was too decent a person to have anyone of the opposite sex with him at 4:30 in the morning, other than Jodi.

 

[gcharlie]

My big question is JM and his experts (and the defense expert in Trial #1) say no was found in the "browser history", Neumesiter is now saying he found it in the "viewing history" - I don't know what the distinction is and where Neu. found it. I can undertstand none being found in the browser if Travis used cleaning tools but where is this area of 'viewing history' on the hard drive that's not the browser? I'd like that answer before I could put any creedence in Neumeister's most recent testimony.

Neumeister and defense counsel have made some very bold accusations. We have to wait for more testimony to understand whether these allegations are true or a twisting of facts.

Dworkin generated a report which was more than 1,000 pages long. He testified that he examined recovered files.

Some explanations which would refute Neumeisters claims carrying a sinister pall:
- Travis may have scheduled a task for his laptop to come out of sleep mode on the morning of 6/10/08 to check his flight status with Southwest Airlines. This would explain why the computer booted out of sleep mode before the search warrant was signed, and that it automatically pinged Southwest Airlines.
- We know from Neumeister's testimony that TA's computer had at least 19 software programs to handle malware and other issues. Some of these AV programs can be bogus; for example, people who are concerned about malware may load an antivirus program onto their computer thinking it is a solution, when in fact it is malware masquerading as AV software. Based on the sheer number that BN cited, I tend to think this is what happened with TA'scomputer.
- Proper AV software will encrypt and quarantine suspect files. My guess is that all of these files BN is claiming were , but not noticed by Dworkin or Melendez had been encrypted and quarantined by software.
- BN implied that TA had to search for some of these sites and that he accessed them. If he searched for them, the search would show up in his browser history. In the event that his full browser history was not available from his hard drive, the defense could always subpeona the ISP for this information. They did not because they know the results would not support their claim.

We'll have to wait for more testimony, but my gut tells me that BN put his balls on the table with this one, making some wild claims that will be shot down.

To me, it's unconscionable that making these kinds of allegations is even allowed. I really want to see sanctions if there is no substance to claims made in motions and subsequent testimony.

 

[ElleElle]

My big question is JM and his experts (and the defense expert in Trial #1) say no was found in the "browser history", Neumesiter is now saying he found it in the "viewing history" - I don't know what the distinction is and where Neu. found it. I can undertstand none being found in the browser if Travis used cleaning tools but where is this area of 'viewing history' on the hard drive that's not the browser? I'd like that answer before I could put any creedence in Neumeister's most recent testimony.

No idea either geevee.

Hopefully this -hard-drive fiasco will soon be over.

 

[katiecoolady]

I had absolutely no idea what stuff was being posted blogged about relating to this case, just went for a meander round the web and jaw on floor amazement, I am genuinely flummoxed as to why it matters so much to people who are not relatives or personal friends of the victim or defendant,

How we manage evil and homicide collectively as a culture should be a concern to those beyond people it has directly touched. Not saying everyone should care about every *cause* out there but this kind of thing puts ourselves directly at risk and the legal process is bizarre at best. You went looking for a reason out of at least curiosity. These kinds of conversations can impact change if nothing else by bringing awareness to this kind of dark underbelly. I believe shining a big light on it is important (and I do have a personal reason as my sister was murdered in this STate with two death penalty sentences so these issues strike at the core of things that are important to me and I so appreciate those "who are not relatives or personal friends" caring about what is happening.

 

[ElleElle]

Neither side argued the pictures being entered because both thought they helped their case. The only minute entry afaik about letting them in or not was 2 pics that apparently showed them 'in the act' and neither thought they were necessary. But there was no deeper investigation into them than what Melendez testified to, to the ebst of my knowledge (and as many here know I have concentrated a great deal on the camera pics lol). I agree with the post above stating how light her hair looked - in a dark room, in normal lighting I think her hair would look even lighter, like in the March pics of her with the black dog. I don't think they were taken on June 4th, in short.

That type of raw extracted data cannot lie. JMO I can appreciate its hard to believe because of the hair and rawness, but every photo looks different depending on the lighting.

When do you think those pics were taken?