Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 19 - Shortest Court Day, EVER

[Nali87]

JusticeJunkie had JSS' number back in March of 2013!!

 

[Shadowboy]

Catching up with the past few pages. Juan's motion is a masterpiece. I love that when the defense asked him to use a pseudonym, he didn't bother to make one up, just Pseudonym! Little dig at the defense there.

ITA. Plus "Laurence Nurmi" instead of "L. Kirk Nurmi."

He also managed to debunk Neumeister as the computer whiz with his direct quotes. He essentially turned into Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes! "I know nothink!"

And I love the little Juan snark in the first quoted section of BN's interview: "What else don't you know?" Ha!!

Great post, Carolina Moon; respectfully snipped

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I would like to know why TA did not change the locks on his house. IMO, he could have kicked her out or called LE when he found her sleeping under the Christmas tree.

From what I have read and heard from Travis' Family and Friends, Travis was a very nice and wonderful person, and willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt ...

Unfortunately, Travis underestimated how devious, conniving and EVIL she really was/is, and that is probably why he did not call the police on CMJA.

She stalked him to death -- literally !

Oh, and I don't think changing the locks would have made a difference -- she would have gone in through the "doggy door"

 

[AZlawyer]

Well the rest of your post I already agreed with the lawyers wouldn't want that person. But even a person who claims to have formed an opinion can theoretically be qualified if they say they can be impartial and are still capable of hearing all the evidence.

Also, not being death qualified means you don't belive in the death penalty and couldn't administer it under any circumstances. It doesn't mean you already decided the person doesn't deserve the death penalty. Saying I don't believe in the death penalty is different than saying I believr in it but this person doesn't deserve it, for whatever personal reasons they have.

"I don't believe in the death penalty" = not death-qualified so dismissed for cause.

"I believe in the death penalty but have made up my mind that JA does not deserve the death penalty and do not believe I can set aside that opinion and reconsider based solely on the evidence presented to me" = death-qualified but dismissed for cause due to prior opinion on the case.

"I am OK with the death penalty in certain cases but am not sure it makes sense in this case based on closely following it on WS for years, but I will listen to all the evidence before making a final decision" = death-qualified, no dismissal for cause, almost certain strike by prosecution.

"I am OK with the death penalty and think it is appropriate in this case based on closely following it on WS for years, but I will listen to all the evidence before making a final decision" = death-qualified, no dismissal for cause, almost certain strike by defense.

 

[Madeleine74]

Ok if that's the case. But you have made posts in the past that have suggesting your pre smiley sentence is not something that's too far off from what you really believe.

If someone on this forum says because of this case they aren't sleeping and have feelings of anxiety or depression or feel nauseous or they can't stop thinking about this case and it's affecting their family and/or their daily life, then yes, I believe them.

If someone says "I'm pulling my hair out," or "I'm so frustrated I could scream and scream and scream," no I don't think they are doing that.

Context.

 

[Val1]

:floorlaugh:

His expertise is in audio/video enhancement. He has nothing to do with computer forensics and so farmed that work out--to whom, nobody seems to know. Could be a couple of computer science students for all we know...

BBM - Just a refresher about BN's expertise... pulled from some posts back on Feb.4, 2013. It seems he often lets others do all the "background" work for him, at least back then the "expert" involved didn't feel the need to hide from public scrutiny. The parts I bolded makes me wonder if he also worked for Pistorius' DT....what they did was shady(made a bat strike sound as loud as a gunshot):

"--Heliophone was looked at by Dworkin, the phone is a predeceasor of today's smart phones. The phone has some multimedia features such as take photos and record audio.
--Dworkin received the phone (Exhibit #424) on June 30, 2010.
--Once received Dworkin processed the phone to extract information. He generated several reports that each had a different perspective and scope.
--Dworkin had some "challenges" pulling information off the phone.
--Used to have to use screen captures or commercial software to extract information. With this particular type of phone there is no forensic software available to extract information. Dworkin captured the audio by playing it and capturing it. The text messages...he had to take photos of them.
--Phone belonged to Jodi Arias.
--As soon as the phone was powered on there was a photo of Jodi and another young lady.
--re: audio on phone. Dworkin obtained a copy of the user manual to make sure he wouldn't change anything on the phone. He noted that the phone has the ability to record audio.
--Dworkin was able to listen to 7-8 recordings. The phone had a small headphone jack on the side of the phone. He played the audio over the wire plugged into the jack and recorded it on his computer. The phone was directly connected to Dworkin's computer.
--Dworkin did screen captures to capture call logs and messages.
--Information was displayed on the phone and Dworkin took photos of each screen and this is what he did with this phone."

"DEFENCE WITNESS: Bryan Neumeister
--He is with U.S.A Forensic, does state of the art video and audio for trials.
--certified forensic expert and has worked with the military and the courts before. He refers to his CV as he is going through his experience that makes him an expert.
--he is a contracted technical expert.
--he is working with the prosecution on another case, the Mesa police, and the defence.
--He says does not take a side he just analyzes data. His company has the equipment that a lot of police agencies do not have.
--His experience is working on analyzying 911 calls, surveillance video, recovering video that has been erased, etc.
--has also worked with a lot of Hollywood production companies which he lists. Most of the company's work is legal, as in working with evidence.
--he was retained Sept 15, 2010 and was asked to enhance a telephone recording. The person on the other end of the telephone could not be heard very well. He was asked to clean up the audio of the person that was not heard very well.
Exhibit #429, DVD, contains a number of screen grabs for this type of job. Has to follow a certain set of standards so that they can reproduce the work. They catalog the work so that another company can reproduce the work.
--Received 7 recordings from a telephone. Had to figure out what frequencies they were dealing with. These recordings were taken from a headphone jack to a .mp3 recorder. The DT is showing the software that shows graphs of the frequencies.
--It's not a very good recording so the witness' job was to make it more inteligible.
--the .mp3 file was changed to a .wav file. this made some of the noise go away. Witness narrowed the range frequency.
--background noise and hum was eliminated using software.
--a vocal enhancer was used to bring up the treble to make it easier to understand.
--the remaining background hiss or noise was then taken out.
--a program was used to bring Jodi's voice and Travis' voice to be of equal decible level.
--after the audio was enhanced the audio was put onto a DVD. The witness put a time marker that is visible when the audio is played so that the jury can identify parts of the audio if they have questions."

 

[MeeBee]

If someone on this forum says because of this case they aren't sleeping and have feelings of anxiety or depression or feel nauseous or they can't stop thinking about this case and it's affecting their family and/or their daily life, then yes, I believe them.

If someone says "I'm pulling my hair out," or "I'm so frustrated I could scream and scream and scream," no I don't think they are doing that.

Context.

That's not what I was saying...

 

[LinasK]

Actually, it was Juan who got the conviction in this case, IMO, not JSS.

Yes, with JSS being the judge. She is competent. I don't like all the comparisons to how much better a judge that Judge Perry was, because in the end, he wasn't.

 

[Nali87]

Thanks Val1. I truly wonder why they went to BN's company for analysis on the laptop instead of a certified computer forensic expert like Dworkin. It's like getting a check up by a specialist and then going to a nurse for a second opinion.

 

[daisydomino]

Thanks Val1. I truly wonder why they went to BN's company for analysis on the laptop instead of a certified computer forensic expert like Dworkin. It's like getting a check up by a specialist and then going to a nurse for a second opinion.

Or to an audio/video guy.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From the beginning, I said the secret witness was CMJA and I was right. I'm going out on a limb here to say that "Pseudo" is not CMJA. It's a guy based on testimony. JMO

:seeya: Any ideas on who you think this "Psuedo" person is ?

TIA !

I'm lost when it comes to all this computer stuff and who looked at the computer/hard-drives ... but I try to keep up with it

 

[Madeleine74]

If I had to listen to all the computer tawk with dueling experts (or even just 1 expert, say a defense expert), my first question in the question box would be, "So did you actually find CHILD and if so, what was it and when was it downloaded?" followed by my second question, "So why did you waste hours of my time talking about on a computer when you already determined there was no CHILD ?"

 

[mydirtysecret]

I just read the states motion to preclude, and basically from what I now understand is its all sues fault and she is going to be the patsy. BN backed off his high horse while being deposed

 

[Ruby]

:seeya: Any ideas on who you think this "Psuedo" person is ?

TIA !

I'm lost when it comes to all this computer stuff and who looked at the computer/hard-drives ... but I try to keep up with it

Could it be the PI Jodi hired?

 

[Val1]

My question is, how long has she been trying to frame him? When did she decide she was going to plant of his laptop? No wonder why they are so persistent to expose this alleged .

I don't think there is any. This is just a huge stall tactic by Jodi et al. My new prediction is this is over in May - early June. The bittersweet irony would be so nice.

BBM - Imo, it could have been as long ago as Oct/2007.

Oct.16, 2007
"He left me a great voicemail the other night. One that was worth saving, for sure."

Oct.21, 2007
"Something important happened on this date in my past, I just can remember what it is." Then she started talking about her roommates and them watching Cold Case.

Oct.23, 2007
Talks about Bobby(see above?)

Oct.26, 2007
She's "over" TA, then starts her pity party postings... again.

Oct.27, 2007
She has made a note to watch Court TV.

Oct.29, 2007
Claims TA made her tear a page out "a few days ago" and she has to "Correct the errors of my past".
(my note: I didn't see any pages missing, at least not during this time)

 

[Val1]

Could it be the PI Jodi hired?

Possible, though I admit the name "Steve" comes to mind. Isn't that who she claimed was helping her with her webpage when her and TA got into one of their texting arguments? I seem to recall there was a Steve on her list of men that she was stringing along... will need to confirm that(I think it was in her last journal).

 

[5bigfish5]

No, not at all.

I wonder if they have a hearing at the AZ Supreme Court if Nurmi requested a stay of the order to release the transcript. Normally such a hearing would be by phone and only take about 10 min., though.

AND, there we have it! Very early this day you pegged it.

Thanks AZ.

 

[MeeBee]

Possible, though I admit the name "Steve" comes to mind. Isn't that who she claimed was helping her with her webpage when her and TA got into one of their texting arguments? I seem to recall there was a Steve on her list of men that she was stringing along... will need to confirm that(I think it was in her last journal).

Steve was just a made up person conjured up to make Travis jealous and to be her fall man when Travis was onto her.

 

[5bigfish5]

The jury doesn't have to sit in court every single day and when there are days off due to whatever excuse, the jurors simply go back to their regular lives. They are not stuck in a hotel somewhere and away from their friends and families. So they have no need to leave the case. They could travel during the holidays as those days were dark, they can work any day they're not in court, their lives are not as impacted as imagined. Every day the defense drags their feet is just another regular day off for jurors. Sure it's probably frustrating to have this going on and on, but remember, they're not sitting on a forum tapping their foot and pulling out their hair. They are going about their own lives and they are only in the courtroom or in the courthouse when there's actually something going on, for the most part (with some exceptions).

Spoken like someone who has never been held hostage by the Judicial System!

Been there, got the T-Shirt and I PITY the poor jury panel!

 

[Val1]

If I had to listen to all the computer tawk with dueling experts (or even just 1 expert, say a defense expert), my first question in the question box would be, "So did you actually find CHILD and if so, what was it and when was it downloaded?" followed by my second question, "So why did you waste hours of my time talking about on a computer when you already determined there was no CHILD ?"

BBM - Except... we're dealing with a DT that is trying to stall this case and keep their client out of prison until at least the year 2099. They would of course need to interview each and every person in each and every "viewing" that their "expert" claims to have uncovered during the period that their "expert" also said the pc in question had absolutely no history between inception and June 1, 2008(as if it had been formatted), to determine the age at which the participants were filmed(oh and of course if that was also over the age of majority in their locale) to be able to answer that question.:gaah: