Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[Dr. Know?]

At this point, show me State vs Jodi Arias, so far it's the state reguesting x 3 at least. jmo

 

[bsk]

Disclaimer- I am hopelessly confused by all the computer stuff and so am not the best person to dig useful info out of BK notes. But after reviewing them twice, here's what I think might be relevant:

1. BN says that he never touched TA's original HD. He also says that the Mesa PD's (clone, copy whatever ) does indeed have the exact same *advertiser censored* stuff and files that he found on his own (clone, copy, whatever).

2. Inference- Nurmi says BN found child *advertiser censored* on his (clone, copy, whatever). That means the same info can still be found on the Mesa PD's version.

3. Still be to refuted by JM. That programs were deliberately installed on June 10 (19?) thst could not have been auto updates or installation), and that the installation of those programs erased files.

4. I think BN verified that the HD was turned on June 19 without a write blocker- the protection that ensures nothing is changed on the computer. That's how files were deleted/modified on June 19.

5. BN also says the unprotected HD was on for a total of 12 minutes before being turned off improperly (cord pulled or some such).

There are 2 separate issues-did JM /Flores tamper with evidence? And, did Travis access *advertiser censored* (including child *advertiser censored*) on his computer?

Tampering- whatever happened or didn't happen, it seems extremely unlikely that JSS will believe the State acted deliberately to erase or modify files. The evidence just isn't there, bolstered by the ex-atty's testimony yesterday that Maria did indeed look at files on the HD.

As far as the *advertiser censored*. I'm gonna guess that JSS allows the DT to bring it in, unless JM 's expert testifies that he looked and there is no *advertiser censored* on the Mesa PD (clone, copy, whatever).

An awful possibility would seem to be that the DT is given the time - weeks- to sort thru all the alleged *advertiser censored* on their clone, copy, whatever, to ascertain what was caused by viruses and what they claim had to be accessed on purpose.

Adding...(left it out). I don't know if BN is actually hiding anything /covering up tampering. It seems equally possible he is following directions to obfuscate, hinder, and to delay.

I say that because I think it was ok for him to delete files on his own (clone, copy, whatever). He says they were malware and viruses. The other difference between the 2 versions , used memory , might be an indication of the size of the HD BN uses to examine the clone , copy, whatever.

Thst doesn't mean he shouldn't turn over whatever it was he used or did. Just saying there may well nothing incriminating to find on it.

I'm 10 pages behind and maybe others have given better answers in the meantime, but here goes my shot at it.

1. If BN was a true professional, you'd think his procedures would include making two clones of what he was given and then working against one of them. Then when he was finished, he could compare the one he worked with vs the one he didn't touch to be sure they were the same. We don't know what he has because he has refused to provide either of those things.

2. Exactly. That's why Juan has demanded what I said in #1 and for BN to document what steps he used to find it so the state can duplicate what he did and tell for themselves whether he found something they missed. He has refused to say how he found what he did as far as I can tell.

3. I think JA's original lawyer covered this to some extent. He didn't say much of anything, but it's obvious that nothing out of the ordinary took place because he would have recalled if something weird had gone on. So while something may or may not have happened to files at that point, a) it was at the request of the defense that anything happened at all and b) if anything did happen it was completely accidental.

4. When the state got the computer, what they would do is remove the hard drive and attach it to a different computer, perhaps enclosing it in something first. The write blocker is part of THAT process, not something in the original computer. The state can then make clones and examine it without affecting the original. After that perhaps they replaced it immediately in the computer or perhaps they left it separate, but for the June 19th business, the hard drive would have been back in the computer if the defense wanted it turned on. And there wouldn't have been a write blocker at that point because it's not part of the original computer. Then the hard drive was pulled again to give to BN. (Now I suppose it's possible (in theory anyway) that the hard drive could have been enclosed in some sort of protective casing or something that protects it and wired into the original computer as though it was installed. Whether that is possible in reality I don't know, but it sounds like it was just stuck back into the computer to return it to the state where they received it.

5. I don't think anyone denies this happened when it was turned on. At the crime scene you would think they did not open the laptop since that might wake it up, but it's possible that mistake was made. Once the laptop was at the crime lab, they would have removed the battery and not plugged it in for the same reason. That way they can open it if needed to get to the battery without it waking up.

It seems like the whole thing is a big pile of nothing. If BN can't come with the actual proof of his findings vs just saying "Trust me. I'm an expert." then the judge should throw out the defense motion. If he does provide it (this will be the fourth attempt at getting him to do so I believe) then Juan can get it checked out. But even in the event he does provide the evidence and something did happen then, it was nothing nefarious as JA's attorney testified. Recall that the accusation is that the state tracked down and deleted tens of thousands of files to hide the truth. It's clear nothing like that happened or else BN would have been glad to supply the actual details vs just talking about it and blowing smoke with wrong drives returned etc.

 

[bsk]

(Snipped all but the last part to avoid confusion.)

I did, after listening to this interview a 2nd time, figure out what was bothering me about her. First, she's pretty impressed with her own ability to analyse only the facts, and to lead the other jurors to the 'important' issues by her questions. In several areas she talks about avoiding emotion because it has no place in decision making. She avoided looking at the autopsy pics b/c she didn't want to interject emotion that seeing them would bring. She only looked objectively to get info on a question she might have. Same with the VISs, she said that emotion was not appropriate and thought they were told that they could not consider anything re: the VIS. That actually, both families were impacted by this, so it was a wash there. I'm paraphrasing this, but it's like she thinks she's supposed to turn into some robot in order to be fair. Hello, the brutal murder of a person should affect someone. The family of JA was brought into this, but their 'loss' is in no way equal to the Alexanders. The idea of just the facts, only the facts, being considered leaves the human aspect out of the jury and that is exactly why you're tried by a "jury of their peers". They're supposed to be human, they have emotion, this murder was not just a cold fact and being passionless is not necessarily all that useful in a juror, IMO. I'm glad she had other plans, actually. I certainly didn't get the impression as those tweeters did, that she was pro-state. Not at all, and further I suspect she thinks she would have made the perfect foreman.

There was nothing the first jury could have done. The foreman was a stealth juror in my opinion. He refused to deliberate. So there was nothing the rest of the jury could do.

I don't know whether the released juror has in common with RZ that she would not vote for death no matter what, but it sure sounds like she does have in common with him that she was setting herself up to be the foreperson.

 

[bsk]

Nurmis goal at this point is to drag this out to get three more jurors to drop. I have a feeling he might succeed. However I don't know the life situations of each of the jurors maybe they will have understanding employers and/or families that will be accommodating. I hope so otherwise this whole thing was a colossal waste of time and money.

I agree, though I think four more jurors have to drop. Started with 12 + 6 and are down to 12 + 3 I believe.

I'm starting to wonder whether the judge has cracked and is willing to let the DT drag this out however many months it takes for the needed number of jurors to die of old age or otherwise drop out.

 

[Hatfield]

"Remember the missing engagement ring…the one Travis bought for another woman and it turned up missing? Many people believed that Arias, stole this ring. It occurred to me what if…Arias showed up wearing this ring and Travis ripped it from her finger?

Perhaps, he caused no physical damage but to Arias his removal of the ring perhaps roughly, along with the words he may have uttered, caused Arias to keep insisting that this finger…ring-less…is damaged!"

Very interesting theory I had not heard before. Very possible IMO.

The image of JA raising her "Flying Fickle Finger of Fate" while on the stand is permanently etched into my memory. LOL

(you have to be old enough to remember the show "Laugh-In" with Goldie Hawn to understand the reference)

 

[Hatfield]

I agree, though I think four more jurors have to drop. Started with 12 + 6 and are down to 12 + 3 I believe.

I'm starting to wonder whether the judge has cracked and is willing to let the DT drag this out however many months it takes for the needed number of jurors to die of old age or otherwise drop out.

One of the things that has really bothered me during this phase is I saw tweets of Juan doing really good objections about "no context" and similar and he gets no help from the judge. She continually lets the testimony stray far away from anything remotely relevant.

It would really speed this trial along if the testimony could stay relevant and when Juan tries to steer it back and object about it, he gets no help. Nurmi can just let his witnesses talk about anything under the sun and the trial carries on like a long boring 5000 page novel.

About the jury numbers. I agree. I think we have 12 + 3 left. So if 3 more drop we would still be ok but if a 4th were to drop it would be too few.

 

[Dmacky]

Frigga:


I found this concerning CMJA meeting MM and his friend. Gosh there is just so much to try to remember isn't there? I found it interesting about her supposed to meet up with Gus Searcy also. Hmm



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-receipts-and-the-monetary-transactions/page5

Does anyone remember a guy named John Dixon?
There was a question asked by a juror in her Trial last year about him.

STEPHENS: Sustained. "Why did you plan on going to see John Dixon when you were on your way to Utah to see Ryan?"

ARIAS: John Dixon was a friend, although there was somewhat of an interest there. It was nothing that I ever let grow, because he wasn`t a church member, so it would be kind of a poor investment of my heart to get attached to somebody who is not a member of the church.

What I was going down there for is he had a friend who either owned a gallery or ran a gallery where he hung some of the greats such as Van Gogh and Monet. And when I told him I painted, he said, "We could make a space in this gallery for you.:laugh: I could hang it right next to a Monet or Van Gogh." It sounded like a very big -- it sounded like a very exciting thing for me, because one of my goals at that time was to get my paintings into galleries.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/06/ijvm.01.html

 

[Hatfield]

Does anyone remember a guy named John Dixon?
There was a question asked by a juror in her Trial last year about him.

STEPHENS: Sustained. "Why did you plan on going to see John Dixon when you were on your way to Utah to see Ryan?"

ARIAS: John Dixon was a friend, although there was somewhat of an interest there. It was nothing that I ever let grow, because he wasn`t a church member, so it would be kind of a poor investment of my heart to get attached to somebody who is not a member of the church.

What I was going down there for is he had a friend who either owned a gallery or ran a gallery where he hung some of the greats such as Van Gogh and Monet. And when I told him I painted, he said, "We could make a space in this gallery for you.:laugh: I could hang it right next to a Monet or Van Gogh." It sounded like a very big -- it sounded like a very exciting thing for me, because one of my goals at that time was to get my paintings into galleries.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/06/ijvm.01.html

wow. I remember that now. JA, the narcistic trace artist who thinks she has the same talent as Vincent Van Gogh. Just incredible.

 

[rose222]

Does anyone remember a guy named John Dixon?
There was a question asked by a juror in her Trial last year about him.

STEPHENS: Sustained. "Why did you plan on going to see John Dixon when you were on your way to Utah to see Ryan?"

ARIAS: John Dixon was a friend, although there was somewhat of an interest there. It was nothing that I ever let grow, because he wasn`t a church member, so it would be kind of a poor investment of my heart to get attached to somebody who is not a member of the church.

What I was going down there for is he had a friend who either owned a gallery or ran a gallery where he hung some of the greats such as Van Gogh and Monet. And when I told him I painted, he said, "We could make a space in this gallery for you.:laugh: I could hang it right next to a Monet or Van Gogh." It sounded like a very big -- it sounded like a very exciting thing for me, because one of my goals at that time was to get my paintings into galleries.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/06/ijvm.01.html

wow. I remember that now. JA, the narcistic trace artist who thinks she has the same talent as Vincent Van Gogh. Just incredible.

She pretends to have low self-esteem but that's just another form of manipulation. I'd be mortified rather than excited if someone wanted to put my painting next to a Monet or Van Gogh.

 

[T-4-2]

My two cat commando team nudged me out of bed a couple hours ago. As long as I was up, I figured I might as well come here and do a little late night catch-up reading. I'm probably only half awake, and that's probably why I actually thought someone (i.e. MeeBee) had written: "If they get to watch it in a public vomiting room, that's a little better."

Now I can't stop giggling.

(Snipped from MeeBes's Oct. 30/25:9 post, where she refers to "a public viewing room." Viewing/vomiting, whatever.)

 

[Nali87]

Great article, thanks for sharing- much more at link but here is this:


Their investigation revealed results that exonerated Fiola. On his computer it was found that a program had been remotely installed that essentially programmed the computer to access 40 child *advertiser censored* sites every minute. This is a computer "task" that would be impossible for a human to do by hand. Much like it would be impossible for Travis Alexander to access 70,000 child *advertiser censored* sites, while maintaining a full time job, a full time religion, and a full time stalker.

The Fiola investigation discovered that child *advertiser censored* sites had been accessed when they weren't even on the computer. One night when the Fiolas were out for dinner, their computer downloaded "thousands of *advertiser censored* files", at the rate of 40 per minute, to their state issued laptop. This sounds similar too. This sounds much like the evidence that shows that Travis Alexander accessed child *advertiser censored* 6 days after he was killed.

Very interesting. But if this is what happened prior to Travis death, I still wonder how come the police and Lonnie didn't find anything.

 

[ElleElle]

According to PS, it was before she went down to see MM and DB. He was a customer at the Ventana Inn where JA worked.

Being customer where Jodi used to be a waitress... um. Makes me wonder what she did for cash from this customer.

 

[ShadyLady]

Found it, it was May 10. http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/10/did-arias-expert-intentionally-ignore-stalking-evidence

I wish ALL the chat logs were released. Bet we could figure out what happened the last two months.

 

[Steve44]

Very interesting. But if this is what happened prior to Travis death, I still wonder how come the police and Lonnie didn't find anything.

I still think what the current defense is referring to are links to *advertiser censored* sites, probably triggered by viruses. What the original prosecution and defense experts were referring to were actual *advertiser censored* files, videos and pictures. The formal were there, the latter weren't. Even the current defense isn't saying they found videos and pictures, just a history of searching for them, which could all be due to viruses. Even though that's weak evidence that Travis looked for/at *advertiser censored*, it wouldn't surprise me if JSS allows them to claim he did, or at least imply it.

So far Jodis 'mitigation' has consisted wholly of making Travis look bad. I can only hope that that becomes obvious to the jury, and reflects appropriately back on Jodi, and that it becomes obvious that trying to justify the murder by sliming the victim is the very opposite of remorse.

 

[Dmacky]

She pretends to have low self-esteem but that's just another form of manipulation. I'd be mortified rather than excited if someone wanted to put my painting next to a Monet or Van Gogh.

Rose,
I think that's a big fat LIE

 

[geevee]

According to PS, it was before she went down to see MM and DB. He was a customer at the Ventana Inn where JA worked.

Alrighty; then did we ever know who the friend was that she spent the night along with MM?

 

[ShadyLady]

I think the information we have on the whereabouts of Travis' computer are correct. The P.I. examined it in the Mesa P.D. evidence room & photographed it on August 20, 2014 and on September 2, came in to take it with him. This was probably Dorian Bond, for delivery to Bryan Neumeister. Once she was satisfied that this item she had designs on was available to her, Arias gave up her self-representation and sought her attorneys again. (She had also procured Dr. Fonseca and had "evaluated her".)

If this is what happened....oh boy!

Arias really does think she is the clever one. Travis says repeatedly how she like to manipulate and create machinations. Love Websters definition: a scheming or crafty action or artful design intended to accomplish some usually evil end. Machinations has Jodi's name.

 

[Val1]

Being customer where Jodi used to be a waitress... um. Makes me wonder what she did for cash from this customer.

He did make it quite clear that he had not been interested in JA(was with someone at the time and he said she knew he was "taken") when asked if she had ever made any moves on him. He said they would often sit beside each other at the counter, but she was always on her pc(I presume probably to use the inn's wifi access). He said she used to try and show him pictures all the time, he said she had thousands of them, but that he barely paid attention at the time. It's quite a short clip with him on Dr.Drew. Oh yea, she apparently paid him back... no idea how she could have afforded that, unless as some suspect, she also robbed TA. Car rental, gas, gas can, food/drink, hair dye, suntan lotion, etc. plus 20 irises sent to TA's grandma, a new? gun, rental car, etc for her "camping" trip that the cops stopped her from leaving on. Oh and didn't she also go back for TA's memorial... what else did she do while she was there?

 

[Hatfield]

I still think what the current defense is referring to are links to *advertiser censored* sites, probably triggered by viruses. What the original prosecution and defense experts were referring to were actual *advertiser censored* files, videos and pictures. The formal were there, the latter weren't. Even the current defense isn't saying they found videos and pictures, just a history of searching for them, which could all be due to viruses. Even though that's weak evidence that Travis looked for/at *advertiser censored*, it wouldn't surprise me if JSS allows them to claim he did, or at least imply it.

So far Jodis 'mitigation' has consisted wholly of making Travis look bad. I can only hope that that becomes obvious to the jury, and reflects appropriately back on Jodi, and that it becomes obvious that trying to justify the murder by sliming the victim is equal to the very opposite of remorse.

Excellent summary of the whole defense and this whole sentencing phase.

The only other obvious agenda they have is to purposely drag on this phase as long as possible to accomplish:

-finding any and every reason to get rid of jurors to get below 12

-finding any and every reason to appeal + squeal to see if anything will stick

-personally becoming wealthy off of Arizona taxpayers. They practically have a small business going on now with funds being shared for all on their side (Nurmi, Willcott, Mitigation "experts", hired "expert" witnesses, technical consultants, etc.).

For the last bullet, it would not surprise me if we see a Want-Add in the paper soon:
"Many People Needed. No skills needed. Will train. Just need to be willing to throw away all morals. Great Pay for little work."

 

[Steve44]

Rose,
I think that's a big fat LIE

I agree. I knew a couple artists who are 1000 times, at least, better than Jodi. They are paid well by wealthy people for their work. Neither of them would expect their work to hang next to Van Gogh or Monet. Did she think her tracings would actually look good there? It's ludicrous and delusional, like that's all it takes in her mind to be their equal.