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

[04009margaret]

I am so pissed. I have paid twice and when I go to see these under trial info all I get is a link to some free court report ad...

If you are referring to Beth's site? You chose the court document you want to view from the list of documents. That then takes you to a new page with the name of the document in bold & then under that it is listed again (not in bold), this is the link. I hope this explained it.

 

[bsk]

It has nothing to do with her state of mind. If there was child accessed on the computer, it would tend to corroborate JA's testimony that TA was looking at a picture of child , which in theory would tend to corroborate JA's testimony that her discovery of this fact caused their relationship to go into a downward spiral of physical abuse and ever-kinkier sex, which in theory mixed with JA's already-crazy brain chemistry to make her unable to see that murder was not the answer.

Is that a mitigation issue or a guilt/innocence issue? I'd have thought it was the latter.

ETA: I see while catching up that you answered more or less the same question in #581.

 

[bsk]

Question for AZL: BN get on the stand and states he is a forensic computer expert and we are led to believe that he was doing all the analysis. Later we find out that Mr. Pseudo is in fact the one doing the analysis and BN has no knowledge and understanding about how the analysis was done because he is just an audio video expert.Would this be an issue as to BN being truly a forensic computer expert?
Would all the cases BN has testified to as a forensic computer expert be called into question?

I've been thinking about this as well, at least in terms of this case only. Can you imagine the mess this would be if BN's testimony had been in front of the jury? We'd have the following:
DT: BN testified in the original case as an expert witness and he should be able to continue as one. Computers are involved in both cases.
JM: His audio work proves nothing of whatever expertise he may or may not have in general computer forensics.
JSS: I might get overturned on appeal if I don't let him testify, so that makes him an expert in what he says he's an expert in.
BN: There were 800 billion instances of that I printed out before I destroyed the hard drive image.
(various sidebars etc. later)
BN: Hell, I never said I was an expert on computer forensics. I hired this expert my buddy Guido recommended for that. But I can't tell you his name or I'd have to kill you because it's a secret.

 

[bsk]

Not sure what is happening tomorrow. Do I make a new thread, or not? If I do, what should I call it? :findinglink:

I'm shocked! Didn't all this get cleared up with the 4pm announcement? :gaah:

 

[bsk]

Can she describe the man? Black? White? Brown? Tall? Short? Fat? Thin? Beard? Large mole on forehead? Come on, BK, give us something to work with!

It doesn't really matter if he's "really" an expert as long as he's only testifying in front of the judge. Juan is free to point out any shortcomings in BN's qualifications or understanding of the analysis done.

This case would have no effect on any other cases in which BN has testified, but IIRC he has never testified as a computer forensics expert before.

Oh, I agree with you. Juan would certainly be free to point out that possibility.

3) Sue D. Nimh works for some company/agency that does not permit him to freelance and will fire him if they find out?

I haven't seen his petition, but I agree there is not much media coverage at all on this phase, even in AZ, and the only salacious/controversial coverage is the coverage initiated by the defense team.

BBM - If that's the case, then he should be fired because he should know better than to collect money on the side for something that is guaranteed to expose his 'secret' identity. JSS would have absolutely no reason to protect his identity in that situation.

 

[garthmax]

I think you should call it The Never Ending Trial of CMJA year 2015....

 

[TartLemon]

What's up? Is there any trial for Tuesday 01/06?

 

[bsk]

Pretty soon you'll be able to refer to it via the old Zager & Evans song from when I was in 8th grade: "In the year 2525".

 

[TartLemon]

If this computer stuff is so important, why was it not admitted by the defense at the guilt trial?

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Can she describe the man? Black? White? Brown? Tall? Short? Fat? Thin? Beard? Large mole on forehead? Come on, BK, give us something to work with!



It doesn't really matter if he's "really" an expert as long as he's only testifying in front of the judge. Juan is free to point out any shortcomings in BN's qualifications or understanding of the analysis done.

This case would have no effect on any other cases in which BN has testified, but IIRC he has never testified as a computer forensics expert before.



Oh, I agree with you. Juan would certainly be free to point out that possibility.



3) Sue D. Nimh works for some company/agency that does not permit him to freelance and will fire him if they find out?



I haven't seen his petition, but I agree there is not much media coverage at all on this phase, even in AZ, and the only salacious/controversial coverage is the coverage initiated by the defense team.

I'm voting #3, AZlawyer. Thank goodness, Juan has (supposedly) his real name. My reason for believing this is the best possibility, maybe? Go back to the Casey Anthony trial. On Day 18, the defense tendered William Rodriguez, a Defense Department employee and expert in forensic anthropology and taphonomy, the study of human decomposition, as a witness. It turned out that Jeff Ashton had never read a report from him and needed time to depose him.

In the meantime, someone at the Department of Defense learned of Rodriguez’s potential testimony and contacted Assistant State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton, one of the prosecutors in the Anthony case. The official told Mr. Ashton that Rodriguez had failed to obtain authorization to testify at the trial as a defense witness and would be fired if he did so.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...asey-Anthony-s-murder-trial-abruptly-recessed

He was dropped like a hot potato and we know the rest of the story. It's too bad there are no Sunshine Laws in AZ. The article is worth a read for more, but let it be said; his co-workers saw him on TV and ratted him out.

Nurmi is going to exceptional lengths to keep this witness, he must have studied the "other" case somewhere along the way.

 

[sharpar]

[FONT=ce[FONT=Century Gothic][/FONT]

Call it 1001 defenses before you die thread

My expert is so special thread

Pseudo defense for dummies thread

Duper delight thread

Its true you can trust me thread

We dont need no stinking procedure thread

My taxi to court wont stop.at.starbucks thread

My minions lie too thread

Motions get me press thread

 

[Ricki]

If it is DH(the one I am thinking of) he does kind of fit the description but I don't think he is of slight build and he studied political science. I don't see anything about computers. I don't think it is him. Other than that if this person took this on fearing if he is exposed he may get fired, I think he has a good chance of that, especially if the defense team is parading him at their side.

 

[YESorNO]

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/06/2015 8:00 AM

01/02/2015

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in need of a transcript of the testimony of Lonnie Dworkin from the guilt
phase trial. That testimony was taken on February 4, 2013. The transcript is required for the
Court to rule on a pending Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendant.

IT IS ORDERED the court reporter present for the testimony, Janell Rose, shall prepare a
transcript of Mr. Dworkin’s testimony for the Court.

The Court has determined an expedited transcript is a reasonable and necessary expense.
The cost of the transcript shall be paid by the Office of Public Defense Services.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012015/m6639096.pdf
==============

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/06/2015 8:00 AM

01/05/2015

HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court previously set a January 23, 2015 Status Conference in this Division to discuss
the February 6, 2015 oral argument on the Defendants’ omnibus Motion to Dismiss the Death
Penalty. Unless a formal Waiver of Presence is filed, each Defendant who has joined the Motion will be transported for the January 23 Status Conference.

Any Waiver of Presence applicable to the January 23 Status Conference must be filed on
or before January 16 and must be emailed to this Division.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012015/m6638732.pdf
----------------------------

Case Documents

Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
1/6/2015 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 1/6/2015
1/6/2015 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 1/6/2015

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CR2008-031021
--------------------------------------

MC Superior Court ‏@courtpio 19h19 hours ago
There will be no trial today in State v #jodiarias

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

So if Sue D. Nimh is allowed to remain nameless, will the PT simply “accept” this person’s credentials without eliciting experience, background, etc. on the record during the hearing?

IDK, but it seems if this person’s qualifications are discussed at length, some smart folks on this forum will be able to figure out who it is.

Plus, I’m still mystified why an expert who has “bombshell” information in a highly publicized case would want his/her identity hidden. Flies in the face of marketing oneself. Flies in the face of proudly, with conviction, presenting compelling evidence.

I can think of two primary reasons: 1) This person is someone BN knows through BN’s work with DOD/government contracts and, because of that association (due to government agreements?), Sue D. Nimh needs to fly under the radar; 2) This person knows JM will rip him/her a new “rear end” due to faulty (or unreplicable) procedures.

Anyone up to suggesting other reasons Sue D. Nimh wants to remain “black ops?”

I am catching up from last night so not sure if this was discussed by here is my two cents. I think Sue D. Nimh will turn out to be as much of an "expert" as BN is. I think Sue and the defense know this is a crock of you-know-what and doesn't want his name associated with it as such. As we have seen time and time again with this defense, their witnesses are a bunch of has beens, never weres, and losers. No one with any credibility whatsoever is associated with this defense which is very telling considering the bottomless pit of money from which it could pay someone credible.

Sorry if this is a repeat.

 

[runningwater]

Sooo...what are we doing today? What was the results from yesterday?
This is getting so complicated that I'm getting dizzy...
Buddies help me...where the hell are we now?:tantrum:

 

[runningwater]

Who is Sue D. Nimh?
Is she another of witness that doesn't want to reveal them selves?
I'm so confused....

 

[TartLemon]

Sooo...what are we doing today? What was the results from yesterday?
This is getting so complicated that I'm getting dizzy...
Buddies help me...where the hell are we now?:tantrum:

I'm with you on the confusion thing.

Too much legalese for me to understand. Can someone please translate? What is being argued to dismiss?

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Who is Sue D. Nimh?
Is she another of witness that doesn't want to reveal them selves?
I'm so confused....

It is the mysterious 3rd person who worked with Neumeister and "Tony" on the hard drive. He wants to testify under a pseudonym so Juan in his filing with the court just referred to him as Pseudonym which we changed to Sue D. Nimh...hope that clears it up.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Who is Sue D. Nimh?
Is she another of witness that doesn't want to reveal them selves?
I'm so confused....

Aka...Pseudonym. Called that by Juan Martinez. No name given yet.
Sue D. Nimh came from AZL.

 

[runningwater]

It is the mysterious 3rd person who worked with Neumeister and "Tony" on the hard drive. He wants to testify under a pseudonym so Juan in his filing with the court just referred to him as Pseudonym which we changed to Sue D. Nimh...hope that clears it up.

:hilarious:

ok ...got it...made me bust out laughing!!