Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 25

[bsk]

My guess is that Juan knows for sure that there is child *advertiser censored* on that computer. And, of course, how would Marc knows about the details of those revolting images unless he was the child *advertiser censored* viewer? If I even came across such nastiness I would immediately close those sites and tell someone. I wouldn't look at them long enough to remember details. If Travis had really watched child *advertiser censored* then Arias/Marc would have made sure to focus on it every single day during the first trial. I think Marc recently remembered that he had looked at child *advertiser censored* on the Bishop's computer and realized that he could try and blame poor Travis for it--hence the ever-changing dates and testimony. This kind of evil is nauseating.

Or else he was content to flip it and let the jury draw the conclusion that the reason this witness is afraid to testify is because HE is the child pornographer.

 

[bsk]

If it was such a big deal that JM said MM's name in court, why didn't the judge say something to the public and media in attendance after the first side bar? Even though she didn't say anything (or maybe she did?) it didn't appear that anyone tweeted his name anyway.

But every forum or discussion site that was talking about or following the trial knew it was him because HE told everyone the same lies. For years.

I hope this does cause KN to appeal when his motion is struck down. I hope the appeals court overturns the whole secret affidavit testimony in this trial because there is absolutely no proof that any of these people are in any danger. And a number of them have already been "cyber bullied" for years.

MOO

BMM - "The jury will disregard the use of Mr McGee's name and Mr McGee's name will be stricken from the record."

 

[lauraoh]

I won't know if my hunch is right until/if the bishop's wife testifies, but isn't it possible that Travis caught MM looking at the *advertiser censored* and MM has just reversed the two of them in his telling? And that's why he hates Travis?

 

[DebinGA]

In the news accounts I've read of Nurmi's opening statement there's no mention of *advertiser censored*. From the local CBS5 report:

"Judge Sherry Stephens read the jury instructions and opening statements began Tuesday morning with the defense discussing Arias' childhood, mental history and past relationships. The defense detailed nine mitigating factors including Arias' diagnosis of PTSD and borderline personality disorder."

When did "*advertiser censored*" make its first appearance at this trial? With Dr. Fonseca? Or not until now-discredited BN?
​

 

[Nosey Parker]

My guess is that Juan knows for sure that there is child *advertiser censored* on that computer. And, of course, how would Marc knows about the details of those revolting images unless he was the child *advertiser censored* viewer? If I even came across such nastiness I would immediately close those sites and tell someone. I wouldn't look at them long enough to remember details. If Travis had really watched child *advertiser censored* then Arias/Marc would have made sure to focus on it every single day during the first trial. I think Marc recently remembered that he had looked at child *advertiser censored* on the Bishop's computer and realized that he could try and blame poor Travis for it--hence the ever-changing dates and testimony. This kind of evil is nauseating.

BBM: Indeed he did. He posted on Facebook that he watched the guilt phase, and it was not until Jodi mentioned it, that he remembered this 'incident' with Travis at the bishop's house.

He also blatantly insinuated that Chris Hughes murdered someone; Juan should remember that Jodi left a decomposing body in a shower and now he (Juan) wants to stick a needle in her; that he (McGee) would not want to take a shower with Jodi; that Erin should take note that when Jodi gets out, she (Erin) should remember that she 'pissed him off'. It goes on and on. Lovely if Juan somehow has the opportunity to put all those posts up on the big screen, but it probably won't even be necessary.

 

[AZlawyer]

Good Morning! I'm lost.... who is MM?

I wonder the same, why would JM say that there was *advertiser censored* on the bishop's computer when that is all hearsay to begin with?

MM didn't out himself about *advertiser censored*.

My point is JM destroyed MM's credibility (and Dr. G's , as least as it related to MM's allegations) by producing the 3 pages of notes that contradicted crucial parts of MM's affadavit. The very last minute correction of dates went towards that deconstruction of MM as well.

So why say there was *advertiser censored* there at all? Why not insinuate that MM made up the whole story? MM describes the *advertiser censored* in detail. Playing devils advocate, a story could be spun he remembered it well because it shocked him so much. And lying to the bishop? Because he took pity on Travis after hearing that he was sexually abused as a child.

Why leave even the tiniest shred of doubt in jurors' mind about Travis and child *advertiser censored*? Saying that there was child *advertiser censored* on the computer leaves the DT the opening to keep asserting it belonged to Travis. I just don't get why JM would give the DT that.

My guess is that Juan knows for sure that there is child *advertiser censored* on that computer. And, of course, how would Marc knows about the details of those revolting images unless he was the child *advertiser censored* viewer? If I even came across such nastiness I would immediately close those sites and tell someone. I wouldn't look at them long enough to remember details. If Travis had really watched child *advertiser censored* then Arias/Marc would have made sure to focus on it every single day during the first trial. I think Marc recently remembered that he had looked at child *advertiser censored* on the Bishop's computer and realized that he could try and blame poor Travis for it--hence the ever-changing dates and testimony. This kind of evil is nauseating.

Or else he was content to flip it and let the jury draw the conclusion that the reason this witness is afraid to testify is because HE is the child pornographer.

Exactly, BSK. Juan wasn't saying there WAS child *advertiser censored*; he was saying assuming we believe this lying liar Marc McWitness1, in his original story HE's the only one who admits to looking at child *advertiser censored*, because Travis denied it, RIGHT? YES OR NO?

 

[Hope4More]

I won't know if my hunch is right until/if the bishop's wife testifies, but isn't it possible that Travis caught MM looking at the *advertiser censored* and MM has just reversed the two of them in his telling? And that's why he hates Travis?

I like your hunch.

Accurate or not....MM certainly has quite the track record of levelling that charge. I've read some of his online ravings. He has a distinct pattern of accusing anyone who disagrees with him of pedophilia, even folks he's never met.

 

[MeeBee]

I won't know if my hunch is right until/if the bishop's wife testifies, but isn't it possible that Travis caught MM looking at the *advertiser censored* and MM has just reversed the two of them in his telling? And that's why he hates Travis?

And he just tacked on the child *advertiser censored* for effect. I don't think there was child *advertiser censored*. I think it was just *advertiser censored*, if the story even happened at all, which we probably won't know until one of the Parkers are called. There was a sort of consciousness of guilt even in his retelling. And of course, again, the seeming projection of things onto other people including Travis.

 

[Tessa2009]

Ok. From BK notes about MM and *advertiser censored*.

1. In the 3 pages of notes written during interview of MM he says that TA denied that the *advertiser censored* on the computer was his, despite, says MM, the fact that TA's name was on the *advertiser censored* file.

2. MM 's aff says that Travis confessed the *advertiser censored* was his, after responding to a note MM left on the computer telling TA to talk to him, that the computer had crashed.

3. MM says he was afraid to tell the bishop what had happened because he did look at the child *advertiser censored* downloaded by Travis.

4. MM described the *advertiser censored* in great detail, including the age of the children (both boys and an 8 year old girl) and descriptions of sex acts.

Hi guys, just jumping in for a minute - I always feel like I'm hijacking a conversation when I don't apologize first for doing so, so I'm sorry! Okay, does this not sound like MM is the child *advertiser censored* viewer? IMO, there is no other explanation for MM being so frantic about it.

 

[Tessa2009]

Ha, I just asked this same thing

 

[Kamille]

In the news accounts I've read of Nurmi's opening statement there's no mention of *advertiser censored*. From the local CBS5 report:

"Judge Sherry Stephens read the jury instructions and opening statements began Tuesday morning with the defense discussing Arias' childhood, mental history and past relationships. The defense detailed nine mitigating factors including Arias' diagnosis of PTSD and borderline personality disorder."

When did "*advertiser censored*" make its first appearance at this trial? With Dr. Fonseca? Or not until now-discredited BN?
​

I think it was sometime after BN told an excited DT that there was TONS of *advertiser censored* ON Travis' computer. TONS. And I think that revelation was likely sometime after the penalty retrial began.

MOO

 

[runningwater]

Sorry I wasn't intending to be mean at all. Posting food and drinks is something we have done for years during trials in the opening post.

I can't wait to see Juan in action today.

Sooo Kay...just teasing...
I can't wait either. I should get my dinner started early so I don't miss anything. I hope Juan keeps him on the chair all day!!!

 

[NashBridges2]

How could it possibly be a mistrial? Mark's testimony was read out to the jury. His life is not in danger (in fact, he seems to be the dangerous one) but even if it were how would that affect Arias and life versus death? Yes, it was a court order to keep his name sealed but revealing his name to the world didn't change anything. The jury still got to hear his idiotic testimony.

I bet Arias is furiously writing him a letter "You ****e! up. Must talk ASAP." :laughing: :laughing:

Is there actually a court order to keep his name sealed? I don't think so.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

While we :waiting: ... checked into TwitterLand:


The Gold Patrol™ @thegoldpatrol · 10m 10 minutes ago

More #jodiarias trial today beginning at 11:15AM EST.

Continuing cross of Dr Geffner.


The Gold Patrol™ @thegoldpatrol · 8m 8 minutes ago

Miss last night’s episode of The Gold Patrol?

Catch up here! #jodiarias #AmericanSniper http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodiarias-run-amok …



From JEN:


Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 2h 2 hours ago

#jodiarias begins today at 9:15am MST Juan Martinez is crossing Bob Geffner. See you all there!



And WAT is on his way:

Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial · 4m 4 minutes ago

I love how every road is closed downtown. Super doop.


-----I hope you know who does NOT shut down court because of the Super Doop being there !

 

[grammieto5]

Hey everyone, Good morning I hope today is as good if not better than yesterday! It was great seeing Juan Martinez in action. I hope the police have the Bishops computer. And I hope someone somewhere, here or NZ are looking into this mcgee freak!


A huge THANK YOU to all the posts and tweets

 

[debidot]

I think Juan was just arguing that for those potential jurors who may believe this story to be true. Discredit the witness from different vantage points. I don't believe any of this story actually happened but some might.

 

[atthelake]

Sorry. I was being snarky about the mail order thing. BK didn't say that. But....how else to describe never seeing your intended, yet arranging for her to fly in and stay at your bishop's house? Then getting engaged 3 weeks later?

Treading lightly on commenting on this one as a fellow member here did internet interactions/phone etc. with a man for a few months, met the man after flying across the country and was engaged within a few days of meeting him and blogs about such...

 

[Nosey Parker]

Hi guys, just jumping in for a minute - I always feel like I'm hijacking a conversation when I don't apologize first for doing so, so I'm sorry! Okay, does this not sound like MM is the child *advertiser censored* viewer? IMO, there is no other explanation for MM being so frantic about it.

It certainly does, doesn't it? By the way Tessa, you can't hijack a conversation in WS. It's open to everyone's views and opinions, so keep on posting, without apologies. :cheers:

 

[Mindmatters]

MM didn't out himself about *advertiser censored*.

My point is JM destroyed MM's credibility (and Dr. G's , as least as it related to MM's allegations) by producing the 3 pages of notes that contradicted crucial parts of MM's affadavit. The very last minute correction of dates went towards that deconstruction of MM as well.

So why say there was *advertiser censored* there at all? Why not insinuate that MM made up the whole story? MM describes the *advertiser censored* in detail. Playing devils advocate, a story could be spun he remembered it well because it shocked him so much. And lying to the bishop? Because he took pity on Travis after hearing that he was sexually abused as a child.

Why leave even the tiniest shred of doubt in jurors' mind about Travis and child *advertiser censored*? Saying that there was child *advertiser censored* on the computer leaves the DT the opening to keep asserting it belonged to Travis. I just don't get why JM would give the DT that.

Good Morning all!

Hi Hope, I think you make some great points and have been wondering the same thing. As Lambchop's siggy so aptly states, "A lie will go round the world before the truth gets its pants on", thus I worry that the smallest seed of doubt or even the remotest possibility of a pedo pattern has the potential to grow like wildfire in a jurors mind.

Honestly, I was convinced that agreeing to allow affadavits from these mitigation witnesses was a complete mistake on JM's part but boy did he prove me wrong. I am 100% positive that JM knew exactly what he was doing, he has (without ever asking JA one question) cleverly given the jury an example of how remorseless and manipulative JA really is when she offered up this person who lied as a mitigation witness, while simultaneously bringing into question Geffner's credibility as an expert. So, while I cannot see where this is going, Juan never misses a strategic beat and his attention to detail is scary brilliant, I have no doubt he has got this issue covered.

Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if JM brings in the Pastor's wife to testify to something that leaves no doubt that *advertiser censored* couldn't have been on the Bishops computer.

 

[Kadoober]

I'm excited for today!
How refreshing is it to be able to look forward to a day of truth and justice, after weeks and weeks of slogging through filth.
Ahhhhh......Juan.