Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[daisydomino]

I believe it's been mentioned in this thread that the pics were found on JA's damaged hard drive? So if they weren't on her phone and they weren't on TA's phone, doesn't make sense to me that they are pics that he texted to her. Nor does it matter. She didn't kill him because he sent her pics of his penis. The only thing important about those pics is that it is the ONLY thing that was allowed to be entered into evidence from HER computer. In the guilt phase, that would have been very interesting to me as a juror. In the mitigating phase...not important at all.

MOO

Except that this jury knows no details of the guilt phase. :/ I hope that the narrow scope of their decision is clear to them so they realize that it doesn't matter. The only testimony they have to consider is about whether her life is worth saving. So far it looks like the defense hasn't been about how awesome JA is, at all. Maybe they're counting on a really good PowerPoint allocution.

 

[ParrotGal]

You know, when BN accused JM of STALLNG a light bulb went off in my head. What an absurd comment. JM is the prosecutor. He has NO REASON to stall.
The defense, on the other hand, DOES have reasons to stall, as have been discussed here (for example~ hoping to lose jurors, thus cause a mistrial).
Why, why, why are the PAID PROFESSIONAL witnesses for the defense so vested in this defendant and her case? They are emotional about it!
We see them grinning at her, shaking her hand, being angry & disrespectful in public in her defense. It is baffling to say the least.
I keep thinking there just can't be that many more out-of-date, sketchily educated, bewitched by the defendant, unprepared, ill-tempered professionals* (*hmmmm)
for the defense to hire. Right??? :facepalm:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Not at all...I hear ya.

Thing is, compared to about 90 percent of young men in his age range, not of the Mormon faith, he pretty much was a saint as far as relationships with women go. Whether he was not a "saint" in the eyes of his church is irrelevant. And the ridiculous part is that the defence team, via Dr. F, tried to point out that the reason why TA is so much worse than anyone else for his "emotional abuse", "sexual promiscuity" and "womanizing" (none of which have been proven and never will be because it's just not true) is because he was a Mormon.

I find this so unbelievably offensive just off the top because any single young man, who may actually be doing those things, does not deserve for a "friends with benefits" stalker to premeditate and drive 1000 miles to slaughter them, Mormon or not. This is not a situation where she was actually fighting for her life in an abusive situation. This has been proven. She did not kill him because he was a pedophile or because she was discussing anything about him being a pedophile with him when she snuck up on his house in a rental car with missing or altered plates and her hair dyed. Equipped with a stolen gun and a large knife. Apparently the only thing they discussed before the murder was that she was still a 3 hole wonder (and would only be a 3 hole wonder to him) by looking at the pics taken in the bedroom before the slaughter in the bathroom. This whole mitigating phase is beyond absurd. She doesn't deserve to live because she knows there was accessed on TA's computer ( likely because she accessed it on there often) and the original trial did not bring that out. It has no relevance to her mitigation phase. It had no relevance to her guilt phase either but she can certainly waste time her new lawyer's time with it on appeal. I really don't know what this judge is thinking allowing this to go on. And I cannot believe that there is not a higher power to set her and this phase of the trial straight. She must be accountable to someone?

MOO

Very good thoughts. I agree with it 100%. I just wish all the BS would stop, and the Judge would grow some balls, and get this savage butcheress beast sentenced.

 

[Meemaw12]

If I am understanding correctly

The PI picked up TA laptop from Mesa PD in early Sept

BN the computer expert for JA says he never touched it

1 what did PI do with laptop, how long did he have it?

2 how did Hd on laptop have broken pins if only carried out of Mesa PD and no one touched it except to carry it?

Something stinks in this mess and I only hope the Def has opened the door wide enough for MR M to drive a Mack truck through it....

 

[Kamille]

And why leave his laptop for all to use, and for it to be discovered. Or if a pop up box warning of a virus and click here, and someone not knowing what it was and clicked it.

If he was looking at that much I'd think he'd been more careful and discreet. Something like that would bring down everything he held in the world. OH yeah I forgot that's whats Jodi doing now.

BBM

I think that's what she was doing then as well in that last month that brought out TA's anger. Blackmailing him but by using a fake person as the one who was going to expose everything they had been doing together. So he would never be able to marry a "nice Mormon girl". So he would be "stuck with her" I guess?

And he was having none of it. He was willing to destroy her reputation even if it meant ruining his own by the sounds of that last "rant". He was going to tell everyone just what a lying piece of work she was. And there was no way she could let that happen. You just don't confront and dismiss a borderline like her and not expect their wrath. Unfortunately he didn't realize this when she showed up at his home unexpectedly likely all apologetic, admitting her lies and begging his forgiveness. Just toying with him until she was ready to slaughter him. Sweet revenge.

MOO

 

[elementary]

I think JSS will find it easy enough to rule against Nurmi on the tampering/dismissal of DP motion.

I have a bad feeling the stuff is going to cause her considerable consternation. Thankfully both sides missed whatever the stuff is during the guilt phase.

I somehow doubt an appeals court will be inclined to throw out her verdict based on not being presented. But, JSS will likely be extraordinarily cautious in establishing whether or not its possible TA deliberately sought out child .

The theoretical existence of child on his computer would potentially be exculpatory. There's no way she isn't going to accommodate the DT on establishing its existence, even if it takes weeks, IMO.

Sadly, I think you're correct and hit at the heart of Judge Stephens' insane amount of latitude. She wants to give the murderer every opportunity to prove there were extenuating circumstances. Even though it's not a true mitigating factor. Instead, IMO, it supports the idea that Travis deserved to be murdered in a sadistic manner because he may have had possible (yet unproved) child on his computer (even though his comp was open to the world at large). I do hope you're wrong.

I'm beginning to wonder if Judge Stephens has a problem with boundaries.

Nevertheless I still don't understand how the possibility of child is exculpatory.

 

[Kamille]

You know, when BN accused JM of STALLNG a light bulb went off in my head. What an absurd comment. JM is the prosecutor. He has NO REASON to stall.
The defense, on the other hand, DOES have reasons to stall, as have been discussed here (for example~ hoping to lose jurors, thus cause a mistrial).
Why, why, why are the PAID PROFESSIONAL witnesses for the defense so vested in this defendant and her case? They are emotional about it!
We see them grinning at her, shaking her hand, being angry & disrespectful in public in her defense. It is baffling to say the least.
I keep thinking there just can't be that many more out-of-date, sketchily educated, bewitched by the defendant, unprepared, ill-tempered professionals* (*hmmmm)
for the defense to hire. Right??? :facepalm:

Wrong. There are all kinds of "experts" out there who will do or say anything to make a decent buck testifying. And there are some who have a real dislike/distrust in LE and prosecutors. And both of these "experts" so far were personally chosen by JA herself during her stint as a pretendy lawyer. BN does have a personal dislike of JM I'm sure after his testimony in the guilt phase. And I fully believe that Dr. F knows ALV from the psychology circuit out in CA so her purpose was to vindicate ALV and show up JM. All planned by JA. Pretty sure any other mitigating witnesses who may show up are going to be on the same bandwagon. Should be real interesting if it ever gets that far.

MOO

 

[elementary]

You're right. I'm re-reading Beth Karas' notes and the Tweets I collected from the hearing and it sounds like BN found

• site URLs had been typed into the web browser
• viruses that connect with sites
• the Zlob trojan, which BN testified that you get from visiting sites in the first place or downloading a video viewer to watch
• when JM asks BN to find the sites listed in Nurmi's motion, BN says it's taking a while for him to find those particular sites because "there's just so much on this computer"
• BN says on the stand that "if you put in the word '' there are 25,000 hits"
• The sheer number of "scrubbers" on the computer point to someone trying to cover up
• 100s of 1000s of URLs in the history

He does not say that he found any actual on the computer. No photos of breasts. No images of women nude from the waist up.

More like smoke and mirrors, IMO. All about implications and innuendo. Yet, no proof.

 

[ParrotGal]

Wrong. There are all kinds of "experts" out there who will do or say anything to make a decent buck testifying. And there are some who have a real dislike/distrust in LE and prosecutors. And both of these "experts" so far were personally chosen by JA herself during her stint as a pretendy lawyer. BN does have a personal dislike of JM I'm sure after his testimony in the guilt phase. And I fully believe that Dr. F knows ALV from the psychology circuit out in CA so her purpose was to vindicate ALV and show up JM. All planned by JA. Pretty sure any other mitigating witnesses who may show up are going to be on the same bandwagon. Should be real interesting if it ever gets that far.

MOO

Dang it! You're right ... :tantrum:

 

[elementary]

***
Based on above provided link and following comment, here is a mini transcript of that testimony - Juan Martinez questioning Lonnie Dworkin (defense witness):

Beginning @ 1:10:04

JM: And that involved the computer that we’ve been calling the victim’s computer, correct?
LD: Correct.

JM: With regard to that computer, did you check to see whether or not there were any images at all of women’s breasts in the victim’s computer?
LD: Not specifically. No, I did not.

JM: Generally, did you do that?
LD:: No, not generally.

JM: Did you even look to see if there were any photographs of any women’s breasts on there?
LD: Not specifically, no.

JM: As you sit here today can you tell us if there were any images of women’s breasts in that computer
JW: Objection. Speculation. He just said he didn’t look for them.
JS: Overruled. You may answer.
LD:: I don’t have that knowledge because I wasn’t asked to do that.

JM: Right. But the bottom line is, as you sit here, you can’t tell us that there is because you didn’t look, right?
LD:: Correct.

JM: And you can’t tell us that there are any images whatsoever of any nude women, whether it’s breasts or otherwise, right?
LD: Not without reviewing my notes. I would have to review my notes. If you’d like, I could.

JM: You’re now telling me this may be in your notes or…and before you told me that you didn’t review the data. Which one is it?
LD:: When I’m asked to provide …

JM: Sir, when I ask which one is it, not a long answer…, if you don’t mind.
LD:: Can you re-ask the question?

JM: Sure. Is it that you didn’t look in this computer for any nudes or is it that there weren’t any?
LD:: I recall there was some on the computer. I don’t recall if they were specifically just women’s breasts or if there was a …more than that or of a different nature of .

JM: Do you remember that we had an interview about this issue that we discussed ?
LD:: I remember we did have an interview a couple years ago, yes.

JM: And isn’t it true that at that time that you told me that there was no ?
LD:: If I said that at that time, then I would stand by that statement. I just don’t have the specific knowledge at this time.

JM: All right. So you don’t have any knowledge at all at this time is what you are trying to tell me?
LD:: Correct.

JM: Okay

~to be continued~

Thanks for this. What's really telling is that at that point in time, the DT was not interested in either.

 

[Kamille]

More like smoke and mirrors, IMO. All about implications and innuendo. Yet, no proof.

Exactly. And that last hearing wasn't even about whether or not there WAS proof. It was about whether or not LE and the prosecution KNEW it was there and whether there was prosecutorial misconduct because they deleted it. And more importantly I suppose WHAT was there if there was anything. Illegal child or legal adult , who deleted it and when. If there was no misconduct on the part of the prosecution, then the motion to drop the DP should be denied. That hearing should have been over that day.

Then of course there is the whole question of how this affects anything. I believe JA indicated she defended her life because TA tried to kill her over the dropped camera. She was afraid for her life because he lunged at her. And she tried to prove he was physically abusive but the jury didn't buy it. Or does she want to come up with some other lie? Does she realize she's already been convicted based on the story she chose to tell for 18 days? Which did not include a story about her discussing pedophilia or child with TA on the day she slaughtered him. Apparently she does not realize she's been convicted and neither does her defence team because they are trying to have a do over. I'm starting to wonder if the judge realizes it. It's not a mitigating factor because it is not the reason she said she had to kill him. It has no place in this phase of the trial.

MOO

 

[WhoaIsMe]

One thing we have to remember in this is Juan mentioned a program by name a couple of times, Incinerator 2.3. He kept asking BN about it and asking if it was on TA's computer, to which tweeters said BN answered that that wasn't even a thing, but then they would say "but it is" and provide a link. (like this one http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Incinerator.shtml ) He must have a reason to keep bringing that up and asking for BN's copy. He outright accused BN of deleting things. I don't know why BN or anyone who works for him would but Juan seems to think they did.

 

[Kamille]

One thing we have to remember in this is Juan mentioned a program by name a couple of times, Incinerator 2.3. He kept asking BN about it and asking if it was on TA's computer, to which tweeters said BN answered that that wasn't even a thing, but then they would say "but it is" and provide a link. (like this one http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Incinerator.shtml ) He must have a reason to keep bringing that up and asking for BN's copy. He outright accused BN of deleting things. I don't know why BN or anyone who works for him would but Juan seems to think they did.

Yes he sure did seem to believe that this program was downloaded onto whatever copy had been supplied to him. I would have to assume it was his experts who told him this. I also believe that BN is using others to do this work for him because he is not an expert and is winging it as far as testifying about it.

Someone mentioned that "experts" in forensic computers have to be certified or licensed? Is this correct? Would he be licensed as a forensic expert in the audio and video that he usually testifies about? Is he using this license to testify to the computer information? Is that why he has to testify and not "Tony"?

MOO

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Yes he sure did seem to believe that this program was downloaded onto whatever copy had been supplied to him. I would have to assume it was his experts who told him this. I also believe that BN is using others to do this work for him because he is not an expert and is winging it as far as testifying about it.

Someone mentioned that "experts" in forensic computers have to be certified or licensed? Is this correct? Would he be licensed as a forensic expert in the audio and video that he usually testifies about? Is he using this license to testify to the computer information? Is that why he has to testify and not "Tony"?

MOO

IDK but you might be right. Maybe that's why Tony isn't in court.

 

[Steely Dan]

Off topic....

About 10 minutes of ALV playing dumb and Juan cornering her with her own words:


About 33:00 to 45:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-8M9JyVXk8

I'm not sure she was playing. JMO

Gotta love the classics, listening to this brings back memories of having fun with the streamed trial and making comments about defendants witness' and idiocy.

ALV said 90% of all communication is non verbal, but ALV only read stuff and didn't talk to anyone other than the psychopath. She could tell by just reading because it's all in the context. You have to get the context from the written word, but she couldn't tell a joke from someone vs. a fact without interviewing them. :waitasec:

Re-watching this is a good reminder of what a great witness she made for the state. Probably their best one. :thumb:

She was so vain that she didn't want JM using her words "out of context". She didn't want to answer yes and no. If she had it would have gone a lot better for her. She kept evading the whole "Was Snow White a Battered Woman?" lecture. If she had just said "Yes, I did do a lecture with that title." and let JM continue and then let the defense clarify in cross she wouldn't have had all of the problems she had associated with her testimony. It was her combative attitude that sank her. Her approach, much like the last sexpert the defense put up was to attack Juan instead of providing calm lucid testimony. Juan knows how to push people's buttons and he does it without them realizing they are starting to act like :butthead: JMO

DeMarte's calm professional demeanor just downgrades the defenses flimsy witness'. JMO

Perhaps someone should ask Dworkin where the sim cards went that BN claims weren't there, otherwise just how did Dworkin get the data off the phone?

I think JM is waiting for that until the computer stuff is cleared up.

 

[NashBridges2]

@Justice4TravisA: #JodiArias UPDATE:

Mon. 9:30a - Status Conference

Wed. 9:30a - Evidentiary Hearing.

Thurs. 8:30a - Trial

Honestly, the delays piss me off more than all this pedo/computer accusation crap. The status hearing, evidentiary hearing and all the motion rulings should be done IN ONE DAY. On Fridays. If they worked a full day, it would be possible. Mon-Thur should fricken be FULL TRIAL DAYS.

 

[Kamille]

You know, whoever it was (sorry I can't remember) that first posted they believe that JA wanted to testify in secret because she's testifying that her father or some other adult male sexually abused her as a child was probably right on the money. Which explains why it's so important for her to get this testimony about , child and pedophilia on the part of TA into this phase. I suppose it will all be tied together with the concept that because she was sexually abused as a child, this was the reason she allowed TA to "abuse and exploit" her. And that something just "snapped" in her when he lunged at her because of her childhood sexual abuse and the way TA treated her because he was a pedophile and into himself. She was getting revenge on her "abuser" based on her childhood trauma...blah blah blah.

And of course the reason why she wanted to do it in secret was because this is such a deep seated psychological issue with her that she couldn't bring herself to discuss it in open court in the first trial, which hurt her case. So of course she needed complete secrecy to do it in the sentencing phase. Because it took everything she had to discuss it in front of this jury but there's no way she could discuss it in front of the rest of the public.

Yep...I can see this being the new route she's chosen to take. And of course being forced to discuss it in open court after the COA ruling will just be another "whoa is me" bonus for her. I can see her doing a complete about face in the way she testifies about her "abuse" and especially in the way she handles JM. She'll go complete victim on him if he gets the chance to cross her.

Otherwise I can't see the "TA was a pedophile who deserved to die" line of reasoning being much of a mitigating factor here. :waitasec:

MOO

 

[Steely Dan]

Exactly. And that last hearing wasn't even about whether or not there WAS proof. It was about whether or not LE and the prosecution KNEW it was there and whether there was prosecutorial misconduct because they deleted it. And more importantly I suppose WHAT was there if there was anything. Illegal child or legal adult , who deleted it and when. If there was no misconduct on the part of the prosecution, then the motion to drop the DP should be denied. That hearing should have been over that day.

Then of course there is the whole question of how this affects anything. I believe JA indicated she defended her life because TA tried to kill her over the dropped camera. She was afraid for her life because he lunged at her. And she tried to prove he was physically abusive but the jury didn't buy it. Or does she want to come up with some other lie? Does she realize she's already been convicted based on the story she chose to tell for 18 days? Which did not include a story about her discussing pedophilia or child with TA on the day she slaughtered him. Apparently she does not realize she's been convicted and neither does her defence team because they are trying to have a do over. I'm starting to wonder if the judge realizes it. It's not a mitigating factor because it is not the reason she said she had to kill him. It has no place in this phase of the trial.

MOO

Unfortunately, if the defense wants to accuse the prosecution of destroying evidence and has an expert willing to testify to it the judge has to hear it or it could be an appellate issue. Unfortunately, there are some areas where this is done without a thought. I don't think it's the case here, but the defense knew she'd HAVE to at least hear it. JMO

One thing we have to remember in this is Juan mentioned a program by name a couple of times, Incinerator 2.3. He kept asking BN about it and asking if it was on TA's computer, to which tweeters said BN answered that that wasn't even a thing, but then they would say "but it is" and provide a link. (like this one http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Incinerator.shtml ) He must have a reason to keep bringing that up and asking for BN's copy. He outright accused BN of deleting things. I don't know why BN or anyone who works for him would but Juan seems to think they did.

IIRC, it was reported that Juan asked BN if he would be surprised to hear that JM had someone he would put on the stand to testify that BN tampered with the drive. I believe BN's response was he'd be very surprised. This is where the non televised reporting of the trial is dicey. I would have loved to have heard and seen the reactions of JM and BN during this exchange.

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm not sure she was playing. JMO

Gotta love the classics, listening to this brings back memories of having fun with the streamed trial and making comments about defendants witness' and idiocy.

ALV said 90% of all communication is non verbal, but ALV only read stuff and didn't talk to anyone other than the psychopath. She could tell by just reading because it's all in the context. You have to get the context from the written word, but she couldn't tell a joke from someone vs. a fact without interviewing them. :waitasec:

Re-watching this is a good reminder of what a great witness she made for the state. Probably their best one. :thumb:

She was so vain that she didn't want JM using her words "out of context". She didn't want to answer yes and no. If she had it would have gone a lot better for her. She kept evading the whole "Was Snow White a Battered Woman?" lecture. If she had just said "Yes, I did do a lecture with that title." and let JM continue and then let the defense clarify in cross she wouldn't have had all of the problems she had associated with her testimony. It was her combative attitude that sank her. Her approach, much like the last sexpert the defense put up was to attack Juan instead of providing calm lucid testimony. Juan knows how to push people's buttons and he does it without them realizing they are starting to act like :butthead: JMO

DeMarte's calm professional demeanor just downgrades the defenses flimsy witness'. JMO



I think JM is waiting for that until the computer stuff is cleared up.

Sorry to quote myself, but I wanted to add an example of misunderstanding context in the written word. A friend of mine dated a woman named "Joy". The most inappropriately named woman we've ever met. So say he goes on a date with a JA and ends up dead. (He doesn't read here, God forbid it happens but he's married so I doubt it.) Anyway, ALV is reading email exchanges between me and him about JA. He might say she's a real Joy to be around right now. I would know exactly what he meant, but ALV could testify that he said that JA was a joy to be around. JMO

You know, whoever it was (sorry I can't remember) that first posted they believe that JA wanted to testify in secret because she's testifying that her father or some other adult male sexually abused her as a child was probably right on the money. Which explains why it's so important for her to get this testimony about , child and pedophilia on the part of TA into this phase. I suppose it will all be tied together with the concept that because she was sexually abused as a child, this was the reason she allowed TA to "abuse and exploit" her. And that something just "snapped" in her when he lunged at her because of her childhood sexual abuse and the way TA treated her because he was a pedophile and into himself. She was getting revenge on her "abuser" based on her childhood trauma...blah blah blah.

And of course the reason why she wanted to do it in secret was because this is such a deep seated psychological issue with her that she couldn't bring herself to discuss it in open court in the first trial, which hurt her case. So of course she needed complete secrecy to do it in the sentencing phase. Because it took everything she had to discuss it in front of this jury but there's no way she could discuss it in front of the rest of the public.

Yep...I can see this being the new route she's chosen to take. And of course being forced to discuss it in open court after the COA ruling will just be another "whoa is me" bonus for her. I can see her doing a complete about face in the way she testifies about her "abuse" and especially in the way she handles JM. She'll go complete victim on him if he gets the chance to cross her.

Otherwise I can't see the "TA was a pedophile who deserved to die" line of reasoning being much of a mitigating factor here. :waitasec:

MOO

Excellent insight. :thumb:

 

[04009margaret]

An offer to anyone who's interested. Post whatever question you have about what BN testified to/JM said in the computer hearing and I'll check out BK notes for what she wrote.

FWIW, her notes for this hearing are far superior to any of the tweeters covering it. She wasn't expressing opinions along the way, just capturing WAY more info than anyone else.

Thanks for that Hope, I've let my subscription lapse & don't want to renew it until we have more than 1 trial day per week. Can you tell us what Sid has to say in the comments section under the daily blog for the hearing. He is a computer guru.