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

[Hope4More]

First, thank you for showing that there is value in diversity here! You have given me something to think about, and I will. It's not that she was not well intentioned, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My initial thoughts though are, intent aside, how is that possible? She talks about her corporate world as an analyst, but this is down and dirty life, not a boardroom. Emotions play a huge part in this whole story.

I don't know how anyone can fairly evaluate the evidence without emotion. Without it, how do you even place a value on what you place on each side of your scale? The aggravator itself implies emotion! Without considering & accepting what is normal emotionally, how do you weigh cruelty against any mitigator? It's the absence of healthy emotion/compassion that allows cruel actions. Ignoring the emotion that is raised by seeing his wounds, the emotion in his 'voice' in that text, the lack of emotion that JA demonstrates every time she speaks about her actions, her obsession/stalking, and even her decision to murder him - all deal with emotion. Making a fact based decision and weighing mitigators against the aggravator is their job, I agree. By trying to avoid any emotion in her decision, wouldn't that in some way require at least downplaying the emotional weight of the evidence supporting the aggravator? Even if subconsciously? Not sure I'm explaining well, but that's probably because my feelings about her are based on emotion, LOL!

She's misunderstood her role as juror if she thought emotion wasn't allowed in the sentencing phase.

Juror instructions are quite specific in saying they are to bring their whole own selves into the weighing of mitigation vs. aggravators, and they are allowed to vote based on their own beliefs. Emotion and common sense and logic and analysis. All good..

 

[JSR]

BBM. She may have since Jodi was the secret witness.

But she hasn't seen Jodi be crossed yet. That's the KEY!! Jodi's real and true side comes through loud and clear when Juan crosses her.

 

[LinTX]

OK, there is a link to 8 min. of juror#3's interview on the Sidebar. IMO, just so no one thinks I'm nuts, this is complimentary edit of her interview and doesn't include any remarks that I found troubling and addressed in my comments.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

In the Casey Anthony trial I remember Judge Perry telling the lawyers they had to get their motions in by such and such a date. Why is Nurmi allowed to keep filing never ending motions? I will never understand. I wish we were a sunshine state, I'm so tired of all the secrecy especially in light of the COA ruling. To Nurmi and Wilmott this is just a game, or their money maker. They are just as bad as Jodi IMO, for not letting this trial end, just do your job and let it come to a conclusion without all the motions and delays. Too bad Nurmi will NEVER be a Juan! Never! And Wilmott can't ask a decent question to save her life and she NEVER knows that the answer is. Those two should be up for worst lawyer of the year whether or not they save the killer from death or not. It's so ironic to me that someone can kill someone so heinously and it's proven and admitted to and YET somehow we can't do the same to her (or any other killer for that matter) mind boggling.

 

[kolokolo]

They seem so long ago, don't they? I hope the jury remembers what they heard/felt.

I still remember them from the guilt phase, my body tenses up hearing Steven speak I feel so bad for them.

 

[loveamystery]

This facebook page has a trial watcher with a great recap of today's proceedings
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis?fref=nf

I'm not sure if I'm allowed quote the whole thing.

 

[elementary]

WTH, juror #3 says this jury has bonded and they are united, and will come up with a unanimous verdict???? What does that mean, I thought jurors were not supposed to talk about the trial??? I wish this juror had not given an interview.

I've been on a jury. I don't think it means anything other than they are all able to make the time pass pleasantly. You don't need to talk about the trial to bond.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I understand that it was her choice. I wish her choice was to understand that clearing up why she left is selfish. Why would she care what the public thinks? We didn't even know her name.

An insane trial is still ongoing. I wish she would understand that the chance she'll contribute to the chaos by speaking up trumps anything she has to say right now.

Common sense rules. Thank you Hope. A few threads back you said you were in the minority on an opinion. Not really. I just cannot comment as eloquently as you can. I appreciate all your posts.

 

[gcharlie]

Here's a link to an edited YouTube audio play of Juror #3's interview with Trial Diva Jen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MET9w3lKjAg

Interesting to have read some of the comments here and then have heard for myself what Melissa actually said. We all interpret things our own way.

 

[Myvice]

Sorry, I'm tired and have my hands full of real life, but about BK and trial winding down and 14 witnesses and affidavits.....

We don't know what is going on because Kirk Nurmi doesn't want the public to know and JSS keeps enabling him.

1. BK did NOT say the trial was winding down
2. She heard 14 witnesses like others did, but neither she nor any other tweeter knows what that means in terms of court time, how many may actually testify, or whatever else. Nurmi put paperwork in requesting the addition of a witness- singular, not plural, fwtw.
3. JSS requested affidavits from the 3 witnesses who allegedly refused to testify in open court. BK said NOTHInG about any other affidavits, and nothing else about the other alleged witnesses.

I went back and re-listened to Beth. You're right, she didn't say the 11 witnesses were giving affidavits, she said the 3 that wouldn't testify may do that. When I first listened to it it was confusing to me, and quite frankly still is. She did say that Nurmi said he was winding down, but what can that mean with so many witnesses in the wings?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. I think it was wishful thinking on my part that I didn't understand correctly. I can't imagine how we could have 11 more witnesses if he's winding down. Maybe it will just be 11 people that say they knew JA and she didn't kill them, LOL.

But again, sorry if I misled anyone. It wasn't my intention.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I watched a new episode of Forensic Files last night that had some interesting parallels to this case. 1) The defendant was a hot shot lawyer who shot his wife immediately after having sex with her, then tried to claim she accidentally shot herself. 2) Also, they did forensics on his computer and showed how they took out his hard drive and plugged it in with the pins using a cable into the experts' computer.
He was having an affair with a judge and was stringing along both women, but when his wife announced she was pregnant again, he decided to kill her.

Yes, that's what they do on TV shows. But it is NOT what is done in real life. The target hard disk would be imaged by using a special forensic transfer device that costs thousands of dollars. These devices create a byte-by-byte mirror image of the target hard drive, including all hidden files, files in unallocated spaces, etc. In addition to capturing the data from the target hard disk, when the "capture machine" writes the captured data for later examination by a forensic expert, it writes it in a specially encrypted manner. This specialized encryption of the data would then prevent any data from being altered without such an alteration showing up.

EVERYTHING I have read has stated that no one has ever beaten these types of encryption programs.

Which leads to: Why has there been such an extraordinary amount of foot dragging on the turning over by the Defense Team of the CDs they used to find all of these purported *advertiser censored* files. This expert keeps repeating his mantra of "There are lots of *advertiser censored* files and I know more about computers than you do".

He probably is right that he knows more about computers than JM does. So what? It is not JM's job to be a computer expert. But it IS his job to hire someone who knows as much or more than BN to examine the discs used by BN. And JM was smart enough to get the judge to require BN to turn over ALL discs he used, even his "working copy, which you would not understand".


Folks, while most of us are not "computer experts" or "forensic computer experts", there are plenty of people nowadays out there who are. And the thing about a hard disk or a mirror image of a hard disk is that there is a finite amount of information on it. Period.

It is a matter of understanding the operating system and being educated as to how and where that particular operating system stores data. Any so-called "volatile information" such as what was stored in the RAM (random access memory) is long gone, what with the number of times the original computer with the target hard disk was turned on and off.

Depending on the amount of RAM and the size of the original hard disk, there could possibly have been some "spillage" of data onto the hard drive. COULD have been. And if there was, it would have been captured when the original mirror image was made.

Could both the State computer expert and the Defense's Mr. Dworkin have both missed something like this? Well, anything is possible, I guess.

All JM needs to do is obtain ALL discs used by this latest "Defense expert" and hire someone who knows more than he does. I'd suggest he contact Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA. This is where the people who are writing the codes for these forensic programs often come from.

For those who want to learn a bit more about forensic examination of hard drives, etc this is a very good read. Some of it is basic and some more technical. But even for those of us who don't know all that much, it is worthwhile to plow through it:

https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/Handbook/2005_002_001_14429.pdf

 

[kaRN]

For anyone who heard #3 interview..

I read elsewhere that she saw CMJA as "normal.". Context?

More intriguing, she seemed to suggest that CMJA didn't simply testify, that something else went on that day. Accurate? Any clues?

I didn't see or hear the interview but...Seeing Jodi as 'normal' is great for the state!!! It means she wasn't buying the mental illness, whoa is me so spare my life defense. Maybe Jodi sang for them or maybe she was hypnotized while under oath.

 

[rose222]

I just read on the State versus Arias page that Steven isn't doing well and hasn't been attending court. (The admin who is in touch with Tanisha said so). My heart just breaks for the family. Also, the admin is sorry that Juror 3 has been excused.

 

[shajon123]

$3 million just to buy time!

I've often wondered how Jose Baez fared. He had even better results - he got his liar off of everything except lying. Was it a 15 minutes of fame, or is he viewed in Florida as a hot-shot lawyer, with a huge practice?

Now we would of had an interesting trial, if JA had been able to hire Baez as her lawyer instead of the ones she got.... Baez up against JM... a dog fight for sure.

 

[Colie]

Where is this blog author getting the date that the 70,000 files were scrubbed?

TrialDiariesJ
W- Pros accused you of incinerating things did you do that Bryan- No. Aug 26th, 2014 we found 70,000 files had been zero'd out #jodiarias
12/4/14, 1:08 PM

michaelbkiefer
Neumeister said there were 70,000 files "zeroed out" on Travis Alexander computer with no dates on them. #JodiArias
12/4/14, 1:08 PM

william_pitts
Martinnez: 70,000 files zeroed out (scrubbed) and no meta data left, right? Isn't it true that on Oct 22 you deleted them #JodiArias
12/4/14, 9:15 AM

ETA: I also searched Tweets from 11-21-14 and came up empty.
How the heck are we supposed to sleuth in this mess? lol

Here are the tweets that I have. Hope they are helpful.

William Pitts @william_pitts 3m3 minutes ago
Martinnez: 70,000 files zeroed out (scrubbed) and no meta data left, right? Isn't it true that on Oct 22 you deleted them #JodiArias
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More

Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial 3m3 minutes ago
Juan continues with Neu. Going over the 70000 files that were deleted. A program not on TA's cpu had to do it. #JodiArias
Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ 2m2 minutes ago
Juan is saying Bryan Numeister deleted 70,000 files on Oct 22, 2014. He used an incinerator....Bryan denies #jodiarias ‪#‎3tvarias‬

Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer 1m1 minute ago
Martinez says Neumeister used an "incinerator program" on Oct. 27, 2014 to delete the 75,000 *advertiser censored* files. #JodiArias
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More

Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ 2m2 minutes ago
Juan- On Oct 22, 2014 at 11:32pm someone went and altered, changed messed up files didn't they? #jodiarias #3tvarias
0 replies 3 retweets 7 favorites
Reply Retweet3 Favorite7============================

Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial 1m1 minute ago
Juan wants to know if 8958 files were modified Yes or No? Again Neu goes over the removal of viruses. He wants a YES or NO! #JodiArias
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More

Jeffrey Evan Gold @jeffgoldesq 1m1 minute ago
DIng Ding Ding #JodiArias XXXpert took the clone to his lab to remove viruses.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite3
More

Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial 2m2 minutes ago
"It's all talk withoot seeing the hash values" says Neu. Mmmmmmmmmm. Hashbrowns. #JodiArias
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More

William Pitts @william_pitts 2m2 minutes ago
My computer forensics guy says this can be easily cleared up by comparing the clone to the original. #JodiArias=============================
Retweet2 Favorite6
More

Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer 2m2 minutes ago
Neumeister says they removed the viruses in order to reverse engineer. Martinez says they deleted files.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorite1
More

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Now we would of had an interesting trial, if JA had been able to hire Baez as her lawyer instead of the ones she got.... Baez up against JM... a dog fight for sure.

but Baez might have hit him with an iorn lol. Sorry I am remembering his terrible spelling when he was writing on his presentation board LOL

 

[Love Never Fails]

Taylor Searle is already on the prosecution's list. He was a confidante and Travis did talk to him about Jodi. Anymore than that would be overkill. Juan is not trying to prove Travis was a good person. He is trying to show that Jodi is deserving of the death penalty. This is about Jodi, not Travis. Yes, he will need to dispute the abuse since it is a mitigator. But his main goal is to bring it back around to her. And this is why Demarte is essential. She needs to show Jodi's true self, her true character, and her true psychology. Demarte will also be important when it comes to disputing the abuse and the claims about Travis. If Travis needed a character witness, sounds like Danny would be great. But that's not what Juan needs at this juncture.

Yep I see all your points. For me, Danny comes across better than Searle. But only Juan knows what they have to offer. I am glad Dr Demarte is going to testify. I am not certain Juan will use her to combat the abuse claims unless it is to have her dispute everything Fonseca testified to. And that will be a refreshing change won't it? Juan doesn't have to prove anything about Travis . Not for us anyway. I would just like to see him take maybe two minutes with each person who knew Travis just to show this jury who Travis really was. Can you see my point?

 

[Love Never Fails]

Respectfully also.....
IIRC from Flores' interrogation of JA, TA's friends knew the status of TA's relationship with JA: they were immediately able to state that she was "obsessive, fatal attraction...." The great thing about Dr. "Data Point" DeMarte is that there is no fog, no attempt to obfuscate, and opinions based on evidence. I don't believe adding to or getting sucked into the "fog" aspects of the trial would get TA's case to the goal. But, also, JM in the past has shown a photo of TA with JA in his lap while TA's friends were sitting around. This was not at all a secret relationship, apparently: it's just that TA didn't think of JA ever as his girlfriend, so why broadcast it?

I never said he should broadcast it. I would like the jury to know Travis, from his friends. That's all.

 

[Nosey Parker]

How is his case "winding down" with his recent 14 witness list? How can that be considered winding down? He hasn't even gotten started yet. And no matter what...Nurmi and Wilmott WILL be scrutinized for ...well hopefully for the rest of their lives IMO because no matter if they win or lose, they are terrible lawyers and they are just as bad as the clients they represent IMO. I cannot believe that I read on the other thread that the Manson trial was the longest and most expensive trial back then and it only (only lol) 9 months! Here we have YEARS between just guilty and sentencing let alone the whole span of time that has elapsed since it's inception..

Snipped for space. Someone quoted Winston Churchill up thread, but I can't find it now. I couldn't help thinking of this statement and how appropriate it is to this darned trial, and where we are at now.

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".

Winston Churchill

 

[wenwe4]

AZL - I see you're here,

You mentioned yesterday you understand what BN was trying to say to Juan yesterday. What do think of the big questions about

1) prosecutorial misconduct,
2) whether or not there are links to *advertiser censored* sites on that computer or if anything can be determined from the original vs. the clone vs. the image that were evaluated by both sides
3) Does any of this have relevance to Jodi's DP (ie: no child *advertiser censored* alleged vs. finding *advertiser censored* pings or hits or actual visits)
4) Do you think the CoA judges are aware of what has been happening in this courtroom via local media and talk amongst peers? I am hopeful of this that they might issue their supporting evidence of their decision with a little more firm language around general boundaries that should not be crossed (vs. Jodi can't testify in secret).

Thank you again for indulging my questions and not judging me for throwing out stupid questions!