Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/13/15 Break

[dog.gone.cute]

Anyone else prepared for disappointment when these transcripts are released?
I can just imagine all the 'good' stuff totally redacted and it only showing filler words like 'the' or 'and' or 'or'.
(I'm in a snotty mood today I guess)

BBM:

While it MAY be a "disappointment," JA should have NEVER been allowed to testify in "private." The effort of both the court and defense team to "protect" the testimony of the defendant, who has already been found GUILTY of 1st Degree Pre-Meditated Murder, was unbelievable, and they should all be ashamed of themselves !

JMO but I think that Transcript was "edited" -- and not just removal of the numerous SideBars. I will NOT be surprised to find some testimony blocked out -- like a name or two, etc.

:moo:

 

[bsk]

I think for the small time bloggers it would be fair to decide who all want the transcript and then find some reason to divide the costs. The big media networks spend 1000 dollars on lunch so they'll be fine.

I thought it was stated that a rep from each side would receive a copy, so maybe someone can bum Kiefer's free copy. :waitasec:

 

[geevee]

@TrialDiariesJ: @WildAboutTrial @xxxxxxxx @BethKaras My fingers won't type right! OK I will try again...it's $1000-1500 now for transcript ��

From what Beth said before, the price was 576. for 144 pages, which works out to 4 bucks per page, half the price AZL said she found when she looked up what transcriptions were costing. Looks like it's gone back to the 8 dollar per page price ($1152. for 144 pages @ 8.00 per page).

 

[ElleElle]

Why did the defense spend all this time trying to get *advertiser censored* into the trial? I wonder if that's because there are a lot of lies about *advertiser censored* in Jodi's secret testimony, something so salacious that even JSS felt her testimony needed to be kept secret. There must be something in there. I want to read it for myself.

Maybe there is video of her and Travis? I am just throwing a stone in the pond. There is a reason testimony occured before the transcripts and ruling was released. IDK.

 

[Kamille]

@TrialDiariesJ: @WildAboutTrial @xxxxxxxx @BethKaras My fingers won't type right! OK I will try again...it's $1000-1500 now for transcript ��

Did I read correctly that it's the court reporter that is doing the transcript that is setting the price? How can this be possible? Don't they get paid by the court to sit there day in and day out? How can they profit from this job by selling transcripts of public information? And in this day and age, isn't there a computer program that would automatically transcribe for them?

MOO

 

[Nali87]

From what Beth said before, the price was 576. for 144 pages, which works out to 4 bucks per page, half the price AZL said she found when she looked up what transcriptions were costing. Looks like it's gone back to the 8 dollar per page price ($1152. for 144 pages @ 8.00 per page).

Apparently two people worked on it.

Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 17m 17 minutes ago
@@WildAboutTrial @ @BethKaras Each court reporter has a fee. 2 diff ones worked those days. That's what I heard

 

[LambChop]

And here we thought that it was only men like Juan and Travis yelling at her that affected her ability to think.

I never quite got why she said it would affect her ability to think. She was spoon fed her questions by her attorney. What was there to "think" about? She does not have to fabricate her answers, just answer the questions truthfully. jmo

 

[Kensie]

From what Beth said before, the price was 576. for 144 pages, which works out to 4 bucks per page, half the price AZL said she found when she looked up what transcriptions were costing. Looks like it's gone back to the 8 dollar per page price ($1152. for 144 pages @ 8.00 per page).

Unreal. I did not realize that a fee could be charged for the transcript. WOW seems kind of like robbery to me.

 

[ElleElle]

Agreed, BN never should have been allowed to testify about the hard drive, he has no expertise in that department.

I'm very curious about the hard drive being 'wiped' on June 1st, how exactly was it wiped, formatted and operating system reinstalled? How was any hard drive/browser information prior to that retained if that's the case? If not, what kind of wiping was done to it that the file system contents seems to have been left intact?

BBM ~ A backup and restore could be done. JMO

 

[Kamille]

Mr. Pseudo testified that the laptop hard drive had been 'wiped' on June 1st of 2008, I think it was mentioned yesterday as well but I can't find the relevant tweets, I'm just really interested in how it was wiped and why no one seems concerned about lost info in that process (which is intended to make everything disappear) and why so much info survived if it was actually wiped.

Is it possible that there was a scheduled scan done that day? The last scan before TA was murdered? Maybe he had his antivirus software scheduled to scan once a week?

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

Days ago someone remarked that the testimony doesn't even get up to the time that she met Travis. She probably hadn't even met Bobby yet. If there's something really bad that she has already testified about, it must have to do with her parents or someone else in the family.

 

[bsk]

I never quite got why she said it would affect her ability to think. She was spoon fed her questions by her attorney. What was there to "think" about? She does not have to fabricate her answers, just answer the questions truthfully. jmo

But on cross, she has to try to think as fast as Juan. Inventing lies on the fly, even for a person as skilled at it as she is, is hard. Part of the reason for so many objections from the defense isn't as much to try to throw Juan off as much as it is to try to give their witness time to fabricate a response. That's IMHO anyway.

 

[ElleElle]

@TrialDiariesJ: @WildAboutTrial @xxxxxxxx @BethKaras My fingers won't type right! OK I will try again...it's $1000-1500 now for transcript ��

Price keeps going up. Is it written in JAs blood?

 

[Kensie]

Days ago someone remarked that the testimony doesn't even get up to the time that she met Travis. She probably hadn't even met Bobby yet. If there's something really bad that she has already testified about, it must have to do with her parents or someone else in the family.

Didn't her family have to leave the court room too??? No telling what the poor pitiful abused killer said. More than likely more lies.

 

[Nali87]

I never quite got why she said it would affect her ability to think. She was spoon fed her questions by her attorney. What was there to "think" about? She does not have to fabricate her answers, just answer the questions truthfully. jmo

I know right LambChop. And if their presence affects her ability to think, then sending them to the viewing room should have been enough.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

@TrialDiariesJ: @WildAboutTrial @xxxxxxxx @BethKaras My fingers won't type right!
OK I will try again...it's $1000-1500 now for transcript ��

From what Beth said before, the price was 576. for 144 pages, which works out to 4 bucks per page, half the price AZL said she found when she looked up what transcriptions were costing.
Looks like it's gone back to the 8 dollar per page price ($1152. for 144 pages @ 8.00 per page).

BBM:

JMO but the Court/JSS should be supplying this Transcript for FREE.

The Media and Public should NOT have to pay for this Transcript because the Media and Public did NOT violate the Constitution of the U.S.

The Court/JSS violated the Constitution, and the Court/JSS was smacked down by the Court of Appeals !

No one should pay for something they are not responsible for !

:moo:

 

[MeeBee]

BBM ~ Not disagreeing with you Meebee. But, can't the DT say of course there was no virus(es) because when the computer was "awoken" June 2008, the virus scanner cleaned it?

They'd have to prove that I think. They could say that but it would just be conjecture. JS even said the modifications on 2009 were minor. Again, everything they needed to refute the state's claims they had. The urls in the registry were the viruses and they were on Dworkin's copy.

The judge said something when she was hearing arguments about how they were questioning Dworking and he said something about finding *advertiser censored* and they chose not to follow up. I think what will go into her ruling is what we were saying: they had the power then to rebut Melendez' claims and they chose not to. She's letting them do it now. But it's clearly not the state's fault because they had all this info on LD's copy and never pursued it until now. Their excuse that they haven't had time to look through and find child *advertiser censored* is just that. They have had 5 years now. And you'd have to be pretty naive to think that turning on a computer and tapping a space bar erased any and all evidence of child *advertiser censored* and it's gone forever.

Viruses are viruses. Who really cares? It's hardly exculpatory and it, again, probably had nothing to do with why she was convicted.

 

[steelman]

I need a little bit of help here. I don't want to be one of those lazy lurkers that just pops in and asks everybody else to get them up to speed without doing any reading. However, I was on the road yesterday and Fox News radio had a report that Judge Stephens was going to make "a major ruling that would greatly affect" the Jodi Arias trial. I heard that report a couple of times while I was driving down the road.

After I got back home last night, I hurriedly sped through a bunch of pages from yesterday, but couldn't find any comments in regards to the "major ruling" that was expected yesterday by JSS. It was my understanding that her ruling was in regards to taking the death penalty off the table in an effort to spank Juan and per Nurmi's orders, which everyone has been discussing for days now. I found nothing in regards to that (that I saw). Maybe I just missed it, or maybe it didn't happen after all.

Am I getting the release of the transcripts confused with the expected ruling from JSS ? I was expecting BIG news when I got home last night, but didn't really come across anything noteworthy.

Can somebody fill me in real quick on those two matters ?

 

[TorisMom003]

There's a big problem, IMO, concerning the whole debacle of Flores "waking" the computer up. If the laptop had been unplugged while it was in sleep mode, that could have also affected the laptop and the defense would be #itching about that instead. The State is in a no win situation here and the defense knows it. The defense is simply trying to take advantage of whatever itty bitty scrap of anything they can think of to try and help their case.

MOO

 

[geevee]

I need a little bit of help here. I don't want to be one of those lazy lurkers that just pops in and asks everybody else to get them up to speed without doing any reading. However, I was on the road yesterday and Fox News radio had a report that Judge Stephens was going to make "a major ruling that would greatly affect" the Jodi Arias trial. I heard that report a couple of times while I was driving down the road.

After I got back home last night, I hurriedly sped through a bunch of pages from yesterday, but couldn't find any comments in regards to the "major ruling" that was expected yesterday by JSS. It was my understanding that her ruling was in regards to taking the death penalty off the table in an effort to spank Juan and per Nurmi's orders, which everyone has been discussing for days now. I found nothing in regards to that (that I saw). Maybe I just missed it, or maybe it didn't happen after all.

Am I getting the release of the transcripts confused with the expected ruling from JSS ? I was expecting BIG news when I got home last night, but didn't really come across anything noteworthy.

Can somebody fill me in real quick on those two matters ?

JSS was supposed to rule on the DP dismissal yesterday but decided to hold the ruling until Flores testified (yesterday) and "John Smith" finishes his testimony tomorrow. Transcripts to be released at noon AZ time today.