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

Status
Not open for further replies.

bsk

New Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
2,051
Reaction score
2
I see stuff like the defense asking the judge to tell JM what to ask or not ask and I can't help but wonder what the heck they are hiding? If it's something the defense can ask about in direct then JM has every right to follow up on it within his cross.

The work drives business is all about hiding the Incinerator debacle.
 

Hatfield

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
17,014
Reaction score
59,061
Can this be true: *advertiser censored* on the computer is IN as evidence, but the INCINERATOR stuff is OUT? Are you kidding me?

One of the most shocking things to read today was the blatent unproven allegations from the witness that LE purposely did something illegal with the hard drive evidence and prosecurial misconduct. As well as unproven allegations that Travis had and watched *advertiser censored* on his computer.
All being allowed to be said in front of the jury with no statements for them to disregard or anything.
At least from what we can tell in the brief tweets we see. It is really hard with Trial-by-Tweet to appeciate how that went down.
 

deedee21

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
5,160
Reaction score
2,046
JMO
I think BN felt (and his other cohorts agreed) that he was the best person capable to handle being grilled on the stand and so he just claimed he did all the computer analysis too until Juan tore that apart.

If that is what happened, I truly wonder how many other cases they pulled this stunt on.

If you are right then this could open a whole can of worms. Maybe JSS realizes other cases could be overturned.
 

NashBridges2

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
9
Best part of today IMO...tweeters reporting JA was all upset after finding out the Supreme Court denied the stay. Any day that things go awry for JA (not to mention the mitigation specialist after her smug tweet this week) is a good day in my book

And my favorite thing was Juan jumping out of his chair for cross and blurting out "what's your real name"
 

deedee21

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
5,160
Reaction score
2,046
I wonder if cases Nurmi himself has worked on would be affected.
 

MeeBee

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
10,768
Reaction score
9
The work drives business is all about hiding the Incinerator debacle.

Which seems a little unfair. If the state feels something is invalid he's told to handle it on cross and disprove it in front of the jury. If the defense does, with intention of hiding something, instead of telling them the same Juan is told he can't bring it up at all, which severely limits his ability to make an effective argument. Couldn't the judge have let Juan question them about the working copy and leave it up to Nurmi to let the jury know it was a working copy and let the jury decide? It only seems fair. I mean I'm sure there's something in the law about using working copies as evidence and blah blah blah. But the defense used this copy in their motion and it was given to Juan after he requested their copy for his viewing. So now all of a sudden he can't use it? It doesn't make any sense. It's just a convenient out.
 

mydirtysecret

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
933
Reaction score
2
I think the SCOA choosing social media first to announce their ruling was indeed a dig to show how ludicrous the DT AND the judge are being
 

Caylee Advocate

RIP TARA
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
3,923
Reaction score
10,934
I don't know how to tweet or I'd tweet right back to the Supreme Court and ask if immediately meant right now or in a week. Also, there's the jan16th date again in this tweet. What does it mean?



I wish I knew, but it's all a mystery to me.
 

Kamille

Shine bright like a diamond
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,718
Reaction score
5,840
Which seems a little unfair. If the state feels something is invalid he's told to handle it on cross and disprove it in front of the jury. If the defense does, with intention of hiding something, instead of telling them the same Juan is told he can't bring it up at all, which severely limits his ability to make an effective argument. Couldn't the judge have let Juan question them about the working copy and leave it up to Nurmi to let the jury know it was a working copy and let the jury decide? It only seems fair. I mean I'm sure there's something in the law about using working copies as evidence and blah blah blah. But the defense used this copy in their motion and it was given to Juan after he requested their copy for his viewing. So now all of a sudden he can't use it? It doesn't make any sense. It's just a convenient out.

Just think of all the time and expense it takes the state to deal with these ridiculous motions and hearings and then when it turns out that there may be some "questionable" and downright devious actions going on and the state can prove this, the DT just says "oops...my bad...strike that" in another motion and all is well in their world because it just goes away and they underhandedly get the info in anyway. Meanwhile JM and his staff have been run ragged dealing with all these lies and insinuations and nothing is ever done about it. So it continues.

MOO
 

dog.gone.cute

Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
15,653
Reaction score
1,945
A Kodak moment I hope we all get to see.


:seeya: Unfortunately we will not get to see it:

JSS ordered NO cameras in court today, and NO video recording was done regarding today's testimony.

:gaah:
 

Kamille

Shine bright like a diamond
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,718
Reaction score
5,840
I don't know how to tweet or I'd tweet right back to the Supreme Court and ask if immediately meant right now or in a week. Also, there's the jan16th date again in this tweet. What does it mean?

I think that's the date when the SC will hear arguments about the motion that Nurmi sent regarding secret testimony?

MOO
 

5bigfish5

New Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
809
Reaction score
0
What does she mean IF she releases? she has no choice! We might be surprised at what comes out. I think there are words on them she doesn't want certain people to read. She doesn't give a fig about general public..


Smoke and Mirrors. Folks!

I think we are all going to be disappointed.

This "pizzing contest, didn't accomplish anything...EXCEPT what it was orchestrated to do. STALL!

Trust me. Jodi didn't reveal anything, Nurmi wanted under wraps.

Congrats to the Choreographer tho.

sherry...you can waste money and time with the VERY best.
 

5bigfish5

New Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
809
Reaction score
0
One of the most shocking things to read today was the blatent unproven allegations from the witness that LE purposely did something illegal with the hard drive evidence and prosecurial misconduct. As well as unproven allegations that Travis had and watched *advertiser censored* on his computer.
All being allowed to be said in front of the jury with no statements for them to disregard or anything.
At least from what we can tell in the brief tweets we see. It is really hard with Trial-by-Tweet to appeciate how that went down.

Yep!

Nurmi knew better, but sherry let him have his way....*sigh*. (AGAIN)

His new and improved buttocks would be confined in jail until the cows came home...if I was on the bench.
 

ElleElle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
7,497
Reaction score
33
Hacker is not the same as criminal! Maybe he's secret because he's not really a data scientist but an audio/visual engineer who knows his way around computers a little better than BN.

I never said hacker was criminal. I have an ex BF who was hired by a large corporation because he told them their network was not secure. They called his bluff, and sure enough, he was able to hack into it. They promptly asked him if he wanted a job. ;)

I take this guy as being more familiar with this stuff then BN.

It sounds like BN was hired and had to sub-contract the work to "John Smith".
 

5bigfish5

New Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
809
Reaction score
0
Nite-Nite Guys!

I'm going to say one thing about "John Boy", A Boy Named Sue, Sue Doe Nihm (however that one works)..

I refused to pound on him, other than sherry allowing him to testify as an expert in the first place.

He has NOT tried to battle with or play word games with Juan. He was respectful.

He was actually a breath of fresh air...as far as Defense witnesses go

Doesn't know his *advertiser censored* from his elbow, but he's young...he'll learn.

I LOVE the Irony!

Pseudonym might actually be the ONLY DT witness...so far...that didn't really need to hide their face.
 

ElleElle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
7,497
Reaction score
33
:seeya: Unfortunately we will not get to see it:

JSS ordered NO cameras in court today, and NO video recording was done regarding today's testimony.

:gaah:

There was audio recording. :notgood:
 

JSR

Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
11
What do you think all that means?

Motions in Limine (MILs) are motions parties file to request that certain evidence, testimony or witnesses are included or precluded at trial. But I'm not sure what they are seeking to include or exclude.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,884
Reaction score
2,125
What do you think all that means?

It means that (1) the defense asked to keep out the Incinerator stuff, and (2) Juan filed some additional material responding to the ridiculous Prosecutorial Misconduct motion and had to file it under seal, probably because it contains John-Sue's real name or something lol.

BTW if the Incinerator was only on a work drive, it is absolutely proper for the Court to keep it out. No one is testifying about *advertiser censored* that was only found on BN's work drive, so therefore it's irrelevant what was deleted from the work drive. If *advertiser censored* was added to the work drive and the tracks deleted, who cares? The *advertiser censored* that John-Sue is discussing (i.e., the one single click to YouPorn and the supposed word searches that sound virus-y to me) is from the 2008 image and was there long before BN ever created any work drive.

I don't know how to tweet or I'd tweet right back to the Supreme Court and ask if immediately meant right now or in a week. Also, there's the jan16th date again in this tweet. What does it mean?

Jan. 16 is the date for supplemental briefs to be filed with the AZ Supreme Court on the "secret trial" issue.

I think the SCOA choosing social media first to announce their ruling was indeed a dig to show how ludicrous the DT AND the judge are being

The clerk and social media person say that they were both just out of town when the ruling came down so this was the fastest way to let everyone know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top