Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/9-1/12 Break

[Nali87]

Why doesn't KN just argue his damn case? This emotional abuse stuff might actually work but instead of focusing on that he talks about silly nonsical stuff. You'd think he'd pick a strategy and stick with it. And he blatantly lies too! No shame.

 

[ShadyLady]

Could it be that they are not residents of Arizona? That would make more difficult.

I am completely convinced the 14 are just smoke and mirrors.....last minute smoke and mirrors.

Where does Nurmi appeal next? US SC? I don't know how that works...

I predict Jodi's next move after penalty trial is ineffective counsel. That Nurmi should have been replaced, etc.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Last note by BK...Nurmi says he may have to take it (upcoming JSS ruling) to a higher court, and that the decision whether she should testify again won't be made until court(s) resolve.

the higher court has already spoken, no secret testimony. And I thought he said he wanted the judge's ruling before she would decide if she was going to tesify some more. He would have to get a stay to stop the proceedings and I do not see that happening and he will look pretty stupid if he tries that IMO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Per BK.

JSS indicated that ALL motions under review should be decided by Monday.

RBBM: Wow ... I sure hope so !

JMO but I think someone had a little talking to about getting this show on the road !

:moo:


Oh, and I bet the Super Secret Transcript will not be released until all these motions are decided !

:gaah:

 

[Beccaboo]

*advertiser censored* is dead in the water - this must be Plan B for stall tactics.

I agree this is plan B and this is what is bothering me about this whole trial! If the DT is allowed to continue these games they could succeed in circumventing justice by simply wearing the jury out. I am all for Jodi getting all of her rights, which she has and then some, but Travis and his family have rights too. The people of Arizona have rights.

 

[AZlawyer]

Could it be that they are not residents of Arizona? That would make more difficult.

More difficult, yes, but there is a procedure to compel out-of-state witnesses to at least appear for a video/phone examination. The out-of-country witness can't be subpoenaed, but he appears to be a total fool--JM is willing to have him testify by affidavit because his testimony will be so easy to destroy.

 

[Frigga]

I am completely convinced the 14 are just smoke and mirrors.....last minute smoke and mirrors.

Where does Nurmi appeal next? US SC?

I predict Jodi's next move after penalty trial is ineffective counsel. That Nurmi should have been replaced, etc.

Her PI in an interview stated as much. They are already working on her appeals (and have been since end of summer/early fall). Dorian Bond went so far to even comment about Nurmi and ineffective council- albeit, IIRC it was a bit cloaked.

 

[LinasK]

Per BK. JSS indicated that ALL motions under review should be decided by Monday.

WooHoo!:happydance: Monday, Monday- Mama's & Papa's[video=youtu;h81Ojd3d2rY]http://youtu.be/h81Ojd3d2rY[/video]

 

[MeeBee]

the higher court has already spoken, no secret testimony. And I thought he said he wanted the judge's ruling before she would decide if she was going to tesify some more. He would have to get a stay to stop the proceedings and I do not see that happening and he will look pretty stupid if he tries that IMO.

I think Nurmi is saying if the judge denies this motion he will take this same motion to an appeals court so they can take the DP off the table or drop the charges.

 

[Nali87]

Loved how JM stated how KN is basically operating in bad faith by not even attempting to get his witnesses to testify or come up with solutions that would result in them testifying.

 

[Myvice]

True, but definition of *advertiser censored* includes words as well as images, videos, etc.

The *advertiser censored* that was found -- IIRC -- was only the names of URLs; i.e., website names.

There were no pornographic images/videos found, let alone child *advertiser censored*.

None, nada, zero, zip, zilch, null set, etc.

Yea, that's my point. I thought during the trial that Juan defined it as no images were found on the computer. I could be wrong.

 

[hindsight2020]

Michael K. Jeanes @MaricopaClerk · 20m 20 minutes ago
No #JodiArias transcripts filed with our office yet. We'll move quickly when we get them but it will be next week at the earliest.

Michael K. Jeanes @MaricopaClerk · 5h 5 hours ago
Transcripts from #JodiArias have not been filed with the Clerk yet. Once we get them we can estimate time for processing and access.

I am 15 pages behind, but it looks like we won't see the transcripts until next week folks!

 

[Frigga]

Nurmi's state of mind: If you can't beat 'em- join them!

He and his client are two peas in a pod- with many other peas too!

 

[AZlawyer]

I think Nurmi is saying if the judge denies this motion he will take this same motion to an appeals court so they can take the DP off the table or drop the charges.

And he says he'll wait to make a decision about JA testifying until that appeal is done, right? Let's see... if the Ct App says "no death penalty," then JA won't testify because there won't be any more penalty phase. And if the Ct App says "continue on with the penalty phase," then JA won't testify either because she'll be sulking, right? What am I missing here? How could the Ct App decision on this hypothetical upcoming appeal possibly affect the determination of whether she will testify?

 

[LinTX]

I think even John-Sue Smithdonym said there was no *advertiser censored* on the computer (in the sense of images or videos)--only one visit to a *advertiser censored* site on the Internet history and a bunch of really really super-fast word searches faster than really any human could manage butmaybeaviruscould.

I wish JM would insist this term be clarified when the found evidence is referred to, instead of allowing the defense to use the generic "*advertiser censored*", as if the computer was loaded with images. And while I'm wishing, I wish JM had mentioned the reason DP is an appropriate option for sentencing - whether or not the prosecution failed to do the defense's investigation for Nurmi and handed to him tied with a pretty bow. Let's weigh what was done to TA against this supposed misconduct by the state, shall we? And, btw, she was examined and found sane and ineligible for insanity plea. May be off mentally, but she is legally sane and any emotional problems she might have is mitigation, not something that should be an argument to take the DP off the table.

 

[Truth Detector]

That was taken SO out of context. He was actually addressing the fact that if the witnesses refuse to testify, and they instead use video, affidavits or audio testimony- that it hurts the prosecution- in their ability to cross examine. A hit, he is apparently easily willing to take, to get this show on the road. We all know where it will lead, anyway, even if her 14... no wait 11 witnesses were willing to actually testify in person.

Trial reporting by Twitter, courtesy of JSKS.

It's a lot like threading a needle while wearing mittens.

 

[Hope4More]

BK....Travis lived with Bishop at some point, thus the reference to no *advertiser censored* but *advertiser censored* pop ups on the Bishop's communal computer.

The Australian liar alleges that Travis physically abused Deanna. Even Nurmi conceded that this non-witness " had some problem with dates."

Nurmi said that JSS herself ruled that JA would NOT be voluntarily waiving her right to testify if she refused to trstifybin open court.

 

[Boytwnmom]

they were not then concerned about *advertiser censored*. I went back & listened a while ago and made notes from the 1st trial testimony. Nurmi spent his time with M focusing some music video that I guess he thought had a dirty name. And there were all the questions about whether there were "nudes from the waist up". That's why I don't understand how this is an issue now. Nurmi could have asked all about this stuff in the first trial. If he has an issue it is one for appeal. This is supposed to be about mitigation.

My notes from Dworkin testimony:

Ensure copies match-his copy read only. Standard protocol-we all including LE follow same protocol. Verify evidence is intact. Recover lost folders. If Parent file deleted-child can still be recovered-next step run file signature verification. Sometimes people try to hide info by changing file extension-jpeg-doc etc. check to see files actually match header.

Then examined looking at areas of interest. Internet history-two types of recovery used for this-Encase (internet history-when you surf a log file is maintained that’s not visible to user-it's hidden and Encase recovers these log files and creates a Master Log File. Recovers previously deleted browser records. He generated report-standard Encase report. Report tells us internet history-tells time, date etc. Each thing you do on internet is a log event. Typing in url, redirect, etc.

My notes from Melendez testimony:

Worked for Mesa Police inJune of 2008 in the computer forensics unit. Looked at laptop. He forensically examined hard drive. No indication he couldn’t access anything in hard drive. Everything was available/viewed.

No photos of women from waist up-no photos of women’s breasts.

Initially searched for all types of file images. Looked for files embedded in other files, i.e. photo in doc. No naked women. All interenet history. No access to adult sites.

Looked at what software was added. Just basic software added. Windows office. Looked for file sharing software. No images of children.

Media, cd’s etc seized. Computer registered to Deanna. He looked at it for recent activity.

What do you do to forensic exam. Seized and made mirror image. Hard drive is where data is. Powered it down to preserve data. Wrote report. Exhibit 347-has him read second paragraph. Last activity 4:54.

Cookies-leave a trail-but all history is available in internet history. Exhibit 419-harder faster stronger video-that’s what defense spent their time on. June 4, 2008 at 4:54 last time it was accessed.

IIRC, when the witnesses were questioned about *advertiser censored*, I thought Juan clarified it by saying did you find any pics of nudity from the waist up? Am I wrong about that?

It stands out to me because I thought it was a little strange.

 

[Nali87]

I think Nurmi is saying if the judge denies this motion he will take this same motion to an appeals court so they can take the DP off the table or drop the charges.

:gaah:

 

[AngelWings444]

Last note by BK...Nurmi says he may have to take it (upcoming JSS ruling) to a higher court, and that the decision whether she should testify again won't be made until court(s) resolve.

Of course he will. FFS. Hopefully, JSS won't delay the trial if he does.