Yes, it is scheduled to be back on track for Monday. But I wouldn't hold my breath :smile:
Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/11-14 ~weekend~
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
-
FL - Harley Don Hiatt Jr., 2, tortured to death, Polk County, 31 Jul 2018- Latest: PayrollNerd
- Status
Yes, it is scheduled to be back on track for Monday. But I wouldn't hold my breath :smile:
CarolinaMoon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 5,173
- Reaction score
- 126
No, unfortunately, she hasn't. The video is from the first and only kick-out. It's mentioned at the end of the article. Wish she had been, though.
There has been so much discussion about why JA was so adamant that there was 
on Travis's computer. The one thing that keeps running through my head is one way she would be so confident that there was on there is if they viewed it together for ideas of things to try when they were together for booty calls. I don't have any real issues with adult and think if a couple wants to look at it, that's okay. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the ONLY way I can see that CMJA could have been so positive there was some there. I would like to see if on dates there were "hits" on adult sites, does CMJA's journal reflect that she had seen Travis on those dates. I wouldn't expect for there to be a one to one correlation as she didn't consistently journal, but on the dates she said she saw him, were there sites accessed? Tellingly, there has been no evidence at all that on the date the liar says she saw TA with a child's pic, there were no sites accessed. FWIW. JMO.
on Travis's computer. The one thing that keeps running through my head is one way she would be so confident that there was on there is if they viewed it together for ideas of things to try when they were together for booty calls. I don't have any real issues with adult and think if a couple wants to look at it, that's okay. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the ONLY way I can see that CMJA could have been so positive there was some there. I would like to see if on dates there were "hits" on adult sites, does CMJA's journal reflect that she had seen Travis on those dates. I wouldn't expect for there to be a one to one correlation as she didn't consistently journal, but on the dates she said she saw him, were there sites accessed? Tellingly, there has been no evidence at all that on the date the liar says she saw TA with a child's pic, there were no sites accessed. FWIW. JMO.
pinkandgreenmom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,189
- Reaction score
- 674
Honestly, I would expect Nurmi is going to make the same argument as last week - until the COA releases its written ruling on who specifically isn't allowed to testify in secret, he is putting no one on the stand. Sigh. What a joke.
I may be the last one here to get it, but I finally understand the computer stuff and why its relevant.
1. Nurmi's motion is predicated on both misconduct (tampering with HD) and on what he essentially is calling concealment of evidence/false testimony based on that evidence. The evidence he's referring to is on the computer, so actually, imo, all the stuff of the past weeks is relevant.
Nurmi is saying that JM falsely called CMJA a liar because she claimed and a virus, and that Samuels was unfairly discredited for backing her claim.
His argument is that CMJA received an unfair trial because there was on the computer and the State's denial of that reality was prejudicial enough to CMJA to warrant overturning the verdict, or at least taking the DP off the table.
2. Three relevant questions
**Is the State guilty of deliberate misconduct? Short answer, no, for every obvious reason.
*Was there on TA's computer? The answer to that largely comes down to how one defines "on the computer." Both sides examined TA's viewing HISTORY for the first trial, using an exact image of TA's HD. Neither side found any history of TA viewing , nor of any being downloaded. I think neither side analyzed TA's registery.
The State did not interfere in any way with the DT's examination of the HD image for the first trial, nor had the image the DT used been altered in any way other than whatever was modified on June 10 2008 when the HD was woken by Flores.
on the computer was a non issue until CMJA went pro per again and directed her minions to recheck the HD. What HD image or clone or whatever BN used to search for remains a mystery because he still hasn't turned it over.
What BN claims, however, is that TA had a huge amount of on his computer. The he claims to have found is in the REGISTRY, not in the viewing history. BN claims the reason why there is no in the viewing history is because TA used an abnormally large number of "scrubbers" to erase his viewing tracks.
So, BN says ignore the viewing history and focus on the registry. The State concedes there are links in the registry, but states that the links could be/are a result of viruses, and that there is no evidence, even in the registry, that TA actually searched for on his computer.
Imo, the whole long tussle about HD's is irrelevant to the issue of alleged misconduct. As Wilmott herself said, the original image of TA's HD is entirely intact and unmodified, as is Dworkin's 2009 image. The original evidence , then, was neither modified or destroyed. Not by the State and not by BN.
Again, the only modification to TA's HD happened on June 10, 2008, when Flores woke it up by tapping on the space bar. I don't know if BN is alleging he can figure out what was modified at that time, in the 45 minutes or so before forensics came and shut it down. Whatever was or was not modified, the changes were accidental. Not even negligent, because Flores did not violate any protocol by waking it up.
And in terms of the DT's charges of on the computer.... BN claims he found the anyway, even after June 10 modifications, so? No harm no foul on that count either.
**Was CMJA prejudiced by the " exclusion" of in registry evidence during her first trial? Somehow I think we'll see that become an appeals issue, but it isn't for JSS to decide.
Her decision to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the DP can only be based on whether or not the State deliberately tampered with evidence. It did not. Motion denied.
(Neither side was aware of whatever was in the registry, and no tampering had taken place to prevent the DT from searching and finding what was in the registry. The DT simply chose not to look at the registry. Their call. Their responsibility. Their deflection by blaming the State for their own choice).
Whether or not she'll allow this sentencing phase to go down a deep and irrelevant rabbit hole of dueling IT experts discussing HD's and clones and scrubbers and the victim's internet viewing history is anyone's guess. I guess, sadly, that she will.
1. Nurmi's motion is predicated on both misconduct (tampering with HD) and on what he essentially is calling concealment of evidence/false testimony based on that evidence. The evidence he's referring to is
on the computer, so actually, imo, all the stuff of the past weeks is relevant.Nurmi is saying that JM falsely called CMJA a liar because she claimed
and a virus, and that Samuels was unfairly discredited for backing her claim. His argument is that CMJA received an unfair trial because there was
on the computer and the State's denial of that reality was prejudicial enough to CMJA to warrant overturning the verdict, or at least taking the DP off the table.2. Three relevant questions
**Is the State guilty of deliberate misconduct? Short answer, no, for every obvious reason.
*Was there
on TA's computer? The answer to that largely comes down to how one defines "on the computer." Both sides examined TA's viewing HISTORY for the first trial, using an exact image of TA's HD. Neither side found any history of TA viewing , nor of any being downloaded. I think neither side analyzed TA's registery.The State did not interfere in any way with the DT's examination of the HD image for the first trial, nor had the image the DT used been altered in any way other than whatever was modified on June 10 2008 when the HD was woken by Flores.
on the computer was a non issue until CMJA went pro per again and directed her minions to recheck the HD. What HD image or clone or whatever BN used to search for remains a mystery because he still hasn't turned it over. What BN claims, however, is that TA had a huge amount of
on his computer. The he claims to have found is in the REGISTRY, not in the viewing history. BN claims the reason why there is no in the viewing history is because TA used an abnormally large number of "scrubbers" to erase his viewing tracks. So, BN says ignore the viewing history and focus on the registry. The State concedes there are
links in the registry, but states that the links could be/are a result of viruses, and that there is no evidence, even in the registry, that TA actually searched for on his computer. Imo, the whole long tussle about HD's is irrelevant to the issue of alleged misconduct. As Wilmott herself said, the original image of TA's HD is entirely intact and unmodified, as is Dworkin's 2009 image. The original evidence , then, was neither modified or destroyed. Not by the State and not by BN.
Again, the only modification to TA's HD happened on June 10, 2008, when Flores woke it up by tapping on the space bar. I don't know if BN is alleging he can figure out what was modified at that time, in the 45 minutes or so before forensics came and shut it down. Whatever was or was not modified, the changes were accidental. Not even negligent, because Flores did not violate any protocol by waking it up.
And in terms of the DT's charges of
on the computer.... BN claims he found the anyway, even after June 10 modifications, so? No harm no foul on that count either.**Was CMJA prejudiced by the " exclusion" of
in registry evidence during her first trial? Somehow I think we'll see that become an appeals issue, but it isn't for JSS to decide. Her decision to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the DP can only be based on whether or not the State deliberately tampered with evidence. It did not. Motion denied.
(Neither side was aware of whatever was in the registry, and no tampering had taken place to prevent the DT from searching and finding what was in the registry. The DT simply chose not to look at the registry. Their call. Their responsibility. Their deflection by blaming the State for their own choice).
Whether or not she'll allow this sentencing phase to go down a deep and irrelevant rabbit hole of dueling IT experts discussing HD's and clones and scrubbers and the victim's internet viewing history is anyone's guess. I guess, sadly, that she will.
mydirtysecret
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2014
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 2
Excellent post hope. I'd like to add, that the coa won't put up with these antics we've seen from the dt regarding DTs inability to provide evidence. Either they have it or they don't. The COA simply won't give these jokesters a platform like JSS hasI may be the last one here to get it, but I finally understand the computer stuff and why its relevant.
1. Nurmi's motion is predicated on both misconduct (tampering with HD) and on what he essentially is calling concealment of evidence/false testimony based on that evidence. The evidence he's referring to is
Nurmi is saying that JM falsely called CMJA a liar because she claimed
His argument is that CMJA received an unfair trial because there was
2. Three relevant questions
**Is the State guilty of deliberate misconduct? Short answer, no, for every obvious reason.
*Was there
The State did not interfere in any way with the DT's examination of the HD image for the first trial, nor had the image the DT used been altered in any way other than whatever was modified on June 10 2008 when the HD was woken by Flores.
What BN claims, however, is that TA had a huge amount of
So, BN says ignore the viewing history and focus on the registry. The State concedes there are
Imo, the whole long tussle about HD's is irrelevant in the sense that , as Wilmott herself said, the original image of TA's HD is entirely intact and unmodified, as is Dworkin's 2009 image. The original evidence , then, was neither modified or destroyed. Not by the State and not by BN.
Again, the only modification to TA's HD happened on June 10, 2008, when Flores woke it up by tapping on the space bar. I don't know if BN is alleging he can figure out what was modified at that time, in the 45 minutes or so before forensics came and shut it down. Whatever was or was not modified, the changes were accidental. Not even negligent, because Flores did not violate any protocol by waking it up.
**Was CMJA prejudiced by the exclusion of
Her decision to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the DP can only be based on whether or not the State deliberately tampered with evidence. It did not. Motion denied.
Whether or not she'll allow this sentencing phase to go down a deep and irrelevant rabbit hole of dueling IT experts discussing HD's and clones and scrubbers and the victim's internet viewing history is anyone's guess. I guess, sadly, that she will.
janx
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,178
- Reaction score
- 2,384
I think #2 is likely. God only knows who worked with those images/clones. The Meister is not a forensic computer expert; his expertise is in amplifying audio and video. He likely contracted the work out. Hell, computer science students could have been working on those things. :giggle:
There has been so much discussion about why JA was so adamant that there was
The previous jury didn't believe the pedophilia allegations. What's a girl to do? JA has either recently planted something (gotten something to do it) on the computer or remembered that Travis watched
and that she could use it to her advantage...just lie and say that = child . In reality there is no prosecutorial misconduct, no child . Just desperate lies from a desperate woman.Yes, I now think it might be after thinking about my earlier guess of it being JM and having to do with "
or no ". They are only req'd to turn over evidence they know is there, not something they didn't find. It could be BN correcting some of his earlier testimony that he later found to be false, although that probably covers a lot of ground.
debloree
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,419
- Reaction score
- 6
Nosey Parker
A Brit in Canada
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,335
- Reaction score
- 25
I found this by Googling, and now wonder if the Self-Disclosure is to do with Juror #3.
https://www.azdes.gov/InternetFiles/InternetProgrammaticForms/pdf/LCR-1034AFORNA.pdf
https://www.azdes.gov/InternetFiles/InternetProgrammaticForms/pdf/LCR-1034AFORNA.pdf
mydirtysecret
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2014
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 2
I think you stumbled upon the land mine Nosey
daisydomino
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 2
I may be the last one here to get it, but I finally understand the computer stuff and why its relevant.
1. Nurmi's motion is predicated on both misconduct (tampering with HD) and on what he essentially is calling concealment of evidence/false testimony based on that evidence. The evidence he's referring to is
Nurmi is saying that JM falsely called CMJA a liar because she claimed
His argument is that CMJA received an unfair trial because there was
2. Three relevant questions
**Is the State guilty of deliberate misconduct? Short answer, no, for every obvious reason.
*Was there
The State did not interfere in any way with the DT's examination of the HD image for the first trial, nor had the image the DT used been altered in any way other than whatever was modified on June 10 2008 when the HD was woken by Flores.
What BN claims, however, is that TA had a huge amount of
So, BN says ignore the viewing history and focus on the registry. The State concedes there are
Imo, the whole long tussle about HD's is irrelevant to the issue of alleged misconduct. As Wilmott herself said, the original image of TA's HD is entirely intact and unmodified, as is Dworkin's 2009 image. The original evidence , then, was neither modified or destroyed. Not by the State and not by BN.
Again, the only modification to TA's HD happened on June 10, 2008, when Flores woke it up by tapping on the space bar. I don't know if BN is alleging he can figure out what was modified at that time, in the 45 minutes or so before forensics came and shut it down. Whatever was or was not modified, the changes were accidental. Not even negligent, because Flores did not violate any protocol by waking it up.
And in terms of the DT's charges of
**Was CMJA prejudiced by the " exclusion" of
Her decision to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the DP can only be based on whether or not the State deliberately tampered with evidence. It did not. Motion denied.
(Neither side was aware of whatever was in the registry, and no tampering had taken place to prevent the DT from searching and finding what was in the registry. The DT simply chose not to look at the registry. Their call. Their responsibility. Their deflection by blaming the State for their own choice).
Whether or not she'll allow this sentencing phase to go down a deep and irrelevant rabbit hole of dueling IT experts discussing HD's and clones and scrubbers and the victim's internet viewing history is anyone's guess. I guess, sadly, that she will.
So Nurmi means to say that Dr. Samuels was improperly impeached because the absence of computer
evidence used to discredit him in the guilt phase has now been determined to have been incorrect? And this is his Brady violation? I'm lost. I thought Dr. Samuels admitted that his work was sloppy and his testimony was based on LOTS of lies, the pedophile lie being only one of them.I really hope all the computer forensics crap does not come in. If it is not exculpatory evidence, isn't that all appeal stuff too? How does it fit in any of JA's 14 mitigators? Can the DT start their whole appeal schpiel just by making a billion (ok, exaggeration, but seems like it) motions in the middle of the sentencing phase?
Perhaps that's what he's disclosing. That he didn't actually work on the hard drive, someone else did then he just viewed the data. And that's why he doesn't know what Incinerator is and why he's not responsible for it.
We can be sure of that one thing.....whatever did or didn't happen, it won't be BN's fault. It'll be JM's fault, no matter how many twists of logic it takes to get there.
I may be the last one here to get it, but I finally understand the computer stuff and why its relevant.
1. Nurmi's motion is predicated on both misconduct (tampering with HD) and on what he essentially is calling concealment of evidence/false testimony based on that evidence. The evidence he's referring to is
Nurmi is saying that JM falsely called CMJA a liar because she claimed
His argument is that CMJA received an unfair trial because there was
2. Three relevant questions
**Is the State guilty of deliberate misconduct? Short answer, no, for every obvious reason.
*Was there
The State did not interfere in any way with the DT's examination of the HD image for the first trial, nor had the image the DT used been altered in any way other than whatever was modified on June 10 2008 when the HD was woken by Flores.
What BN claims, however, is that TA had a huge amount of
So, BN says ignore the viewing history and focus on the registry. The State concedes there are
Imo, the whole long tussle about HD's is irrelevant to the issue of alleged misconduct. As Wilmott herself said, the original image of TA's HD is entirely intact and unmodified, as is Dworkin's 2009 image. The original evidence , then, was neither modified or destroyed. Not by the State and not by BN.
Again, the only modification to TA's HD happened on June 10, 2008, when Flores woke it up by tapping on the space bar. I don't know if BN is alleging he can figure out what was modified at that time, in the 45 minutes or so before forensics came and shut it down. Whatever was or was not modified, the changes were accidental. Not even negligent, because Flores did not violate any protocol by waking it up.
And in terms of the DT's charges of
**Was CMJA prejudiced by the " exclusion" of
Her decision to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the DP can only be based on whether or not the State deliberately tampered with evidence. It did not. Motion denied.
(Neither side was aware of whatever was in the registry, and no tampering had taken place to prevent the DT from searching and finding what was in the registry. The DT simply chose not to look at the registry. Their call. Their responsibility. Their deflection by blaming the State for their own choice).
Whether or not she'll allow this sentencing phase to go down a deep and irrelevant rabbit hole of dueling IT experts discussing HD's and clones and scrubbers and the victim's internet viewing history is anyone's guess. I guess, sadly, that she will.
Sadly, I think you're right Hope and that this will come in, to make up for it not coming in before. But like I said earlier on, that would be stupid for the DT. They'll probably do it anyway. But the jury is likely not going to care about any of this or think it's relevant to Jodi's mitigation. It'll be out of context and they'll wonder TA is being put on trial. And they'll be hip to more pedophilia manipulation once Juan points out that no actual child
was found. That can only be a bad thing. And I don't think the defense will be able to argue, as part of this, that the state hid this from Jodi to make her look like a liar and that it would have impacted the outcome of the first trial because they are not allowed to make arguments that ask the jury to second guess her guilty verdict.
daisydomino
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 2
Wow, that would suck! But she's gone now! They can't put her on trial in this trial? She made it through voir dire by both prosecution and defense. Defense cannot now claim that the jury has been tainted because #3 didn't disclose her warrant and all that*?
*I haven't been following the #3 scandal.
That actually made sense.
Nosey Parker
A Brit in Canada
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,335
- Reaction score
- 25
If that's what was filed, it's probably just a formality.
So Nurmi means to say that Dr. Samuels was improperly impeached because the absence of computer
I really hope all the computer forensics crap does not come in. If it is not exculpatory evidence, isn't that all appeal stuff too? How does it fit in any of JA's 14 mitigators? Can the DT start their whole appeal schpiel just by making a billion (ok, exaggeration, but seems like it) motions in the middle of the sentencing phase?
I thought he was impeached due to his personal relationship with Arias [books and time spent] and how this influenced his ability to assess her properly, via tests, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 126
- Guests online
- 2,197
- Total visitors
- 2,323