Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 21

[ElleElle]

This scares me a bit.

"MM said "I did not see any signs of viruses on the computer." MM had testified that he looked for viruses and he told the previous jury that. JW: We now know there were numerous viruses? EF: Yes, there were numerous. JW: We know those statements were false? JM objects." ~ BK Site

 

[Val1]

Question for AZlawyer...I have just watched Beth Karas live video on her website. She said the prosecution not giving the defense the hard drive in 2008 as evidence was a huge deal. She said prosecution was wrong and this is a good appeal issue. She also stated this is the reason the defense in going into such drawn out detail is for appellate reasons. Juan said it isn't the job of prosecution to notify the defense of the hard drive. Beth Karas said he is wrong and it was definitely the responsibility of the prosecution to do so. What is the truth of this matter? Thanks.

I also wonder if this, dated 09/11/2008, has any significance to this whole debacle, is it saying that it was up to the DT to bring a list of the specific items of Discovery that they needed for the pre trial conference? It seems to me that the whole thing with JA pretending to represent herself plus the changing of her counsel over that whole first year is more to blame for any problems with what and when any evidence was handed over, besides, since when is the PT's "work"(ie. their Encase copy of a HD) considered evidence when the DT were able to not only gain access to but obtain the actual HD itself?

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092008/m3373092.pdf
"5. Defense Counsel shall prepare and file a List of Specific Items of Discovery required
under Rule 15.1 (b), but which were not disclosed. See Rule 15.2(e). Such list shall be filed with
the assigned Commissioner not less than 5 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference."

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I've tried to get through all the posts...but after awhile I get so tired, I have to close my eyes.

Did anything happen today that was supposed to happen?

Any motions decided...I mean other than the prosecutorial misconduct? TIA

:seeya: Here's the super secret condensed version:

- NO "child *advertiser censored*" was found on Travis' computer !

Of course, we knew this, but at least the jury got to hear it from Det. Flores.

- NO Transcript released today!

Supposed to be released tomorrow -- we shall see.

- NO Rulings on any Motions !

Supposedly, JSS is going to rule on the Motion for Pros Misconduct AFTER the Pseudo Witness testifies on Wednesday -- again, we shall see.

 

[TexMex]

:seeya: Here's the super secret condensed version:

- NO "child *advertiser censored*" was found on Travis' computer !

Of course, we knew this, but at least the jury got to hear it from Det. Flores.

- NO Transcript released today!

Supposed to be released tomorrow -- we shall see.

- NO Rulings on any Motions !

Supposedly, JSS is going to rule on the Motion for Pros Misconduct AFTER the Pseudo Witness testifies on Wednesday -- again, we shall see.

Beth thinks the transcripts will be available tomorrow for $576. She will get one, scan it and post it

 

[pocketaccent]

This scares me a bit.

"MM said "I did not see any signs of viruses on the computer." MM had testified that he looked for viruses and he told the previous jury that. JW: We now know there were numerous viruses? EF: Yes, there were numerous. JW: We know those statements were false? JM objects." ~ BK Site

That scares me a lot.

 

[Val1]

This scares me a bit.

"MM said "I did not see any signs of viruses on the computer." MM had testified that he looked for viruses and he told the previous jury that. JW: We now know there were numerous viruses? EF: Yes, there were numerous. JW: We know those statements were false? JM objects." ~ BK Site

Just read this article;

http://jodiariastrialtruth.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-truth-about-*advertiser censored*-part-two-case-of.html#comment-form

it explains all of it, for the short version basically the pc had been wiped of all history before June 1, 2008 and even "Sue" said that there was no hits after June 1, 2008. Everything he did find he attributed to one url listed in the registry which we have yet to see any proof that 1. it was done by a live person and not either by malware or remote access, and 2. that that live person was TA and not one of the other persons(including JA) who had had access to the pc.

The only part that scares me is that JSS isn't as knowledgeable about such matters and gets snowed by the obvious mistruths spouted by the DT in this matter.

 

[pocketaccent]

Going to the jury not caring, I think we have to view this testimony through the very narrow window the jury is right now. This seems much bigger to us because of its relation to prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations and all that. But this is the first time the jury is hearing about this. They probably view this as just regular old testimony and evidence, along the same lines as the defense questioning of Horn and Flores in the first trial. In the end, it amounted to nothing. Even the first jury might have found this a little more relevant. This jury knows it's here to decide her fate and there's a good chance this isn't going to do much to help or hurt her. It just makes the DT feel like they've scored some brownie points. They're waiting for the meat.

BBM The meat dish will be served by a highly intelligent, long legged, dark haired beauty, Dr. DeMarte. When she makes appearance, it's game over.

 

[bsk]

Thanks so much. I think I finally understand.

If I have it right, the prosecution most likely turned over in written form the email exchanges and other pertinent texts that was on the computer that the prosecution was planning on using in the trial. Nothing else much was important to the prosecutioin case that they found on the computer at the time in 2008. So they only turned over hard copies of the email exchanges, etc.

The prosecution did not give the defense the hard drive because they had already researched it and gave the DT what they were planning to use in trial in text form. And the DT did not request the hard drive image because they did not think they needed anything more either off of the hard drive since the Prosecution was only going to use the texts they had given them.

Enter 2009 and Nurmi coming up with a plan to look for *advertiser censored* on computer. The DT requests to see hard drive and prosecution obliges. They then request image and was provided a 2009 image.
Important Point here: Neither the DT nor the Prosecution thought about the possibility of the images being different. Who woulda thunk.
Plus like was mentioned, the DT knew the existance of the original image if it was in a LE report.

So even if a mistake done at time of image giving, it was a mutual mistake and more importantly, no exculpary evidence hidden anyway between the 2 copies.

So unless Mr. Smith comes up with something he claims is exculpary on the 2008 image , this hopefully will go the way of the child *advertiser censored* has gone. Nowhere.

Since they are tossing stuff against a wall, they'll argue any and all of the following:
- In 2009 the state caused the child *advertiser censored* to be deleted from Travis's computer by turning it on, and they hid from the defense that they had changed the hard drive.
- In 2008 the state caused the child *advertiser censored* to be deleted from Travis's computer when Flores woke it up at the scene, and they hid from the defense that they had changed the hard drive.
- Given there are these two known instances of the state illegally manipulating evidence and hiding it, they probably manipulated it further in 2008 once they had the computer in their office, falsifying the chain of custody so they could get it scrubbed before making the first image, destroying the child *advertiser censored* forever and making it impossible for Ms Arias to prove her innocence.

 

[luvmygarden]

I had been fading out a bit as well...then a friend of mine told me about an app called Social Radio which actually reads the tweets of those you are following for you.I am back in the game now ...put on my headphones and let the app read the tweets to me ! Some of the pronunciations are a bit wacky, but at least I can accomplish something and still follow along.

Thanks for the clue to listening to the court days. I babysit and it is sooo hard to read in real time. Funny they pronounce JA's name as Joe Diarreahs on my phone. But that's ok under the circumstances LOL

 

[Val1]

from 400 to 149 pages!!Are we not getting the whole transcipt? and if we are not,why not? Thanks.

I hope that doesn't mean two thirds of the thing has been redacted...though it seems likely that much of it probably fell under sidebar status. :/

 

[bsk]

I think the sidebars are taken out - but still transcribed.
Sidebars will be released after verdict.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - but I remember seeing a post with about 5-8 (can't remember exact number) of time frames
to not be included with the transcribing order. I thought they were sidebars?

Maybe 400 was an estimated number of pages. 149 is a bit less than half, and the number of sidebars ? not sure, could they total more than half?

Just some thoughts, may not be accurate. :seeya:

BBM - Yeah but it'll take six years and cost a billion dollars for the three million pages of transcribed sidebars. :dance:

 

[Val1]

She is correct that they don't have to ask. It is the duty of the prosecution to turn over the evidence without being asked. But for things that are not documents, like hard drives, the prosecution can say, "Hey. Here's what we have. Let us know if you want to come see it or if you want an image." That's what the prosecution did in this case. Then the defense came to see it. Then the defense asked for and received an image.

BBM - Exactly and I noted that the order for it did NOT specify the PT's E01 2008 copy, just a copy of the hard drive, plus it was well after the DT had already had their file altering visit. Like JM said, it's not the PT's job to make sure the DT does theirs.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112009/m3971765.pdf
"Based on the arguments presented,
IT IS ORDERED that the State shall disclose on or before November 20, 2009, a mirror
image of the hard drive (internal, external and storage device) and the memory card(s) from the
cellular phone(s)."

 

[KathrynL]

Someone had brought up earlier that at the time of the murder, the state of AZ did have LWP option and I was wondering if it is still a possible sentence even though there are no guidelines.
Because in future if guidelines ever re-established, then its still a possibility.

I get so confused with this trial. LOL

I do agree it is highly unlikely the judge would want to give her LWP even if she can.
Since JA crime was so heineous. It would be like giving Charles Manson a parole option.

Even if she did get LWP, I don't see being paroled. As far as I know, Betty Broderick has been denied every time. A woman from my hometown convicted of murdering her parents and younger brother in 1977 has been denied every time. Not worried, knowing how JA will never own up or change her tune in any relevant way.

“So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” ~ Matthew 6:34

Thanks for that and for all your input. You are so very helpful.

Just to be very clear here, I do not think that Travis watched *advertiser censored* or had anything to do with *advertiser censored*, ok? For argument sake, even if he did watch *advertiser censored*, what is heck has this got to do with mitigating factors in his brutal murder?

Nothing, imo. They appear to be trying to create a "fog". But the facts (as I understand them) are that this jury must accept the verdict from the guilt phase, and will have an instruction that instructs them of the mitigating factors they can find (or not). I think Nurmi himself told JA that she didn't have any. He was right, she doesn

 

[Val1]

BBM - Exactly and I noted that the order for it did NOT specify the PT's E01 2008 copy, just a copy of the hard drive, plus it was well after the DT had already had their file altering visit. Like JM said, it's not the PT's job to make sure the DT does theirs.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112009/m3971765.pdf
"Based on the arguments presented,
IT IS ORDERED that the State shall disclose on or before November 20, 2009, a mirror
image of the hard drive (internal, external and storage device) and the memory card(s) from the
cellular phone(s)."

Just to add to the information, here's the motion/argument about all that...

http://thetrialdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Juans-objection-to-the-supplemental-motion-for-dismissal-of-charges1.pdf

Also, here's the motion where JM interviews Neumeister says he never made an E01 copy... perhaps that's why JM hasn't been able to get that "nonworking" copy of the HD that iirc BN claimed to have made?

http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/01/jodi-arias-state-motion-to-preclude.html

 

[Nali87]

IMO it is beyond what one would expect. Most defense attorneys IMO would tell Jodi, e.g., "we are not going to bring up the PPL mass email that happened to be copied to an 8-yr-old girl" or "we are not bringing up *advertiser censored* unless it's child *advertiser censored*."

ETA: The constant requests for delays are also beyond normal.

I think Nurmi and JW wanted the media gone so that they could say all these things and act this way without worrying about Nancy Grace or other journalists playing and re-playing their dirty tactics on national tv! Hmph.

 

[tcrockett]

re: where exactly Beth's info about the transcripts is posted... it is a 21:09 entry (updated at 21:11) on Day 21 on the members page

 

[neesaki]

Well, azcentral continues its cyber-bullying of WS'ers and other trial watchers this a.m.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmo...ias-bill-montgomery-sherry-stephens/21465237/

So Travis Alexander's family, as "Jodi Arias junkies", are "addicts who are morbidly hooked on her case"!?!

While EJ Montini, columnist, admits that the [Alexander] family mourns, he also refers to all trial watchers thusly:

"And don't worry about the Jodi junkies suffering withdrawal symptoms. While there may be a dearth of common courtesy and common sense in our world, there is never a shortage of sordidness."

​

This passes for journalism?

I greet all my fellow 'sordid scandalmongers' this a.m.

Yet the snarky cynic with his vicious tongue is the one profiting from all the lurid sordidness. What a hypocrite.

 

[rose222]

I was expecting some sob story about child abuse but rumour has it that there are no bombshells. What was the point of the secret testimony and why was Arias so upset? What a waste, huge waste! It's hard to believe that this petty drama is occurring in an American courtroom.

 

[steelman]

I take it that if Nurmi is successful, and Judge Stephens takes the death penalty off the table, this trial will be wrapped up and finished by the end of the week ? This was Nurmi's strategy all along wasn't it, corrupt the process so badly that everybody just gives up ?

I wouldn't be surprised if JSS just gives in......she seems to give in to everything else they ask for, including an obscene amount of sidebars and a cloak of secrecy over the entire process.

 

[Dmacky]

How long is this trial supposed to last?

Till December 18 :wink: