Jodi Arias Trial Verdict IS IN: GUILTY Of MURDER In The Slaying Of Travis Alexander
Image courtesy Arias
Phoenix, AZ- In the 4 month long trial of Jodi Ann Arias for the murder of her brief boyfriend Travis Victor Alexander, the jury deliberating since last Friday has arrived at a verdict in her case. Arias was found guilty of the pre-meditated murder of Travis Alexander on June 4th, 2008.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
1,859 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
So this just frosts me!
Did Jodi NOT have access into Travis’ computer? First, if it’s just porn…how is that relevant to his murder? Second, Jodi had many opportunities to access his computer. She could have done those searches. Third….was child pornography found on the computer? Otherwise, this b*tch really is heartless and diabolical.
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis/posts/735903099819168
Dear FriendLY- I dunno if this is going to be her ticket- but she is def going to get one in some phase of her due process. Major evidential issues are absolutely going to be a factor at some point.
AND
Keep in mind- this was avoidable. This crazoid woman should be spending 23 hours in a cell, not a courtroom
B
PS….and if Jodi did those searches, perhaps Travis attempted to remove her dirty work. There is NO WAY they can determine this for sure. She could have done this after she killed him. I would LOVE to know if they checked his computer for prints.
Agreed friendLY…and honestly, I KNEW you would come back and remind me of what you’ve been saying all along.
Crazoid woman…now you’re just being nice
She really believes she is the real victim, with a huge helping of trickery and evil.
We know the agenda, here. Regardless, it still gets to me because that’s how I’m wired. Like you and so many, I have had enough. Then I realize what I’m feeling is just remnant of what Travis’ family is going through. Dear God…. I pray for justice for Travis’ and deliverance for his family from this hell.
This was posted in light of the ‘porn searches’. Not sure what to make of it, but no detection of ‘deletion’ on Travis’ computer (until another update, of course. I should just let it ride out and not get my roos in a bunch, before posting. I need a few rolls before wisdom kicks in…sorry friendLY
).
The State vs Jodi Arias ~ Travis Alexander murder trial
11 hrs ·
UPDATE:
Could this be attributed to a Trojan horse that was infecting and hijacking browsers to those sites during May-June 2008?
According to posters here and twitter, every one of the sites listed in Nurmi’s motion is a Trojan redirect page.
Therefore, there is no evidence of porn – just evidence of a malware attack present in Travis’ computer close to the time he was murdered. That’s it.
[^^ If this is your comment, in part, please advise. It has been copied so many times, I'm unable to trace it back to the original poster. Further, if anyone knows more about the virus, please chime in.]
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis?fref=nf
I really haven’t assessed the ‘factual’ component of this site. I do know their hearts and purpose are with Travis. Grateful for that. Perhaps comments from this site should be researched for links to lend credibility.
I’m sure I’m not the only one, but this feels like Caylee’s trial revisited. Everyone is sooo sure of the outcome (on Travis justice site). I’m afraid to go there. I remember someone commenting during that trial, on a live chat, they felt like egg donor was going to walk. I felt so smug and sure that that wasn’t remotely possible.
Blinkness, I hope I’m not trying your patience on this case. You must feel like a broken record, at times. I’m just grateful you’re on this, and the others because I KNOW where your heart is.
God bless our troops!
Interesting and did NOT know this was a puter capability (probably firewall and virus protection???)
-snipped
Jenn Justice It prob updated and deleted by the time forensics looked at it
2 hours ago · Edited · 4
Another poster mentions that it’s possible a CD JA gave to Travis, before the murder, had viruses on them.
Is it not ‘fair’ (fair…like that’s a virtue in this case) that defense needs to determine when these files were deleted AND how (manual deletion vs.virus software removal?) Talking out loud here…it seems they need to prove those files were deleted BY forensics, beyond a shadow of a doubt; not that there was porn on his computer and it was deleted. Ambiguous scope of attack by the defense…pardon my ignorance.
Anyways, as Blinkness said…one of many major evidential issues. Can’t afford to be smarmy. Lord have mercy!
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6137382
I see you’ve all found this. unsurprizing.
arrogant Juan should’ve just given her lwop.
personally I believed her on the porn testimony.
doesn’t excuse butchering him tho.
I suspect last week the Judge postponed resumption to allow
Defense time to submit this motion. I bet she’s been
thinking about this prosdcutorial misconduct thing for a bit.
Why didn’t Defense expert examine computer before Trial 1?
Rose- I am going to go back to my first opinion on this, when I knew it was coming back to haunt.
It was in the defense best interests to not raise that issue because it would have netted the fact that Jodi and Travis were not intimate that day- it was from a prior “romp”. It defeated the defense strategy and now that they know those files ( or any) were deleted it is a second bite at the apple.
If this falls on Flores there is no way Martinez will have plausible deniability- I seem to remember a different encase witness who could not get his program to read in his machine and had to go to another computer.
That is not forensic analysis with accompanying chain of custody. None of this ever was and Nurmi was an idiot for agreeing to that stipulation on the residual image as well.
I have not checked, but is this motion even proper at this juncture as we are in the penalty phase here- not the guilt phase?
B
@Ragdoll. The forensic expert will have quantified where
the child porn came from & when. Most likely it was over tome,
including time frames not involving JA.
I doubt it could be fabricated.
All Juan had to do was give D exculpatory evidence, not delete porn files, & not put
Mesa PO on the stand to perjure himself. If Juan will do this in one case, he’ll do this
in all his other indigent cases. If he’d complied with procedure, she’d still have been convicted.
If true, this was unnecessary overkill on both Juan & Mesa’s parts.
They did it to preserve Travis’ reputation for the family imo.
Juan Catering to the family’s view of Travis has been a prosecutorial achilles heel imo.
and at this critic juncture, Arias’ parents need to stop youtubing, and go crawl into the deepest darkest hole they can find so no press ever breathes a whiff of their names defending their murderous daighter.
It will backfire on her.
Unbelieveable.
“According to the motion, forensic analysis showed that thousands of files from pornography sites were deleted from the computer during a three-hour period on June 19, 2009, when it was in the possession of the Mesa Police Department.”
“The motion says that during that time, Mesa police Detective Esteban Flores, the case agent who has testified in the trial and sits at the prosecutor’s table with Martinez, removed the computer from the evidence department and took it to “Forensic Services.” During that period, thousands of files were deleted and shredded.”
The question is, will Estaban-who sits-at-the-table-with-Martinez cop a plea Martinez directed him to take this action?
Anyone think it was Esteban’s idea to go get that computer & spend 3 hours on the delete button?
” To counter possible suggestions that Arias may have accessed the sites on Alexander’s computer, the motion notes that she was not in Arizona on those dates.”
In my opinion, Estaban checked the computer out after and BECAUSE these thousands of files were known to the prosecution BECAUSE they were sought by Defense. (prior to Defense incompetent expert’s exam 1 before Trial 1).
The odd thing is this computer wipe was entrusted to Estaban. good thing for Juan that Nurmi apparently hired a cheaper less comoetant computer expert before trial 1.
btw Imo Mesa “forensic Services” did this, not Esteban personally.
“removed the computer from the evidence department and took it to “Forensic Services”
How many other County cases has LE “Forensic Services” done computer support for?
Imo call in the FBI.
Rose says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 11, 2014 at 10:58 pm
I see I failed to include the link, Blink.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/11/10/jodi-arias-sentencing-trial-defense-says-evidence-destroyed-travis-alexander-computer-abrk/18828589/
Sure you’ve read it by now,
Prosecutorial misconduct–Trial 1 or Trial 2.
Twas both as Esteban pernured himself in
both trials imo with Juan’s knowledge & direction.
The point is, in both Trials jurors relied on Esteban not only
re whether child porn was on his computer, but for the
entire fabric of his testimony which is now wholly unreliable.
If he knowingly lied about one thing, nothing else is trustworthy.
When he took computer from evidence room to
computer forensic service fof 3 hours, could a reasonable person
not understand the job he tasked forensics with?
And what did thousands of files of child porn mean?
To me, vis a vis her slaughter, nothing.
But to Defense arguments, with ordinary jurors, it
meant much about the nature of the relationship
wrt perversions, and would
have gone to the sentence in Trial 1 if nothing else.
And, if Juan & Esteban suppressed evidence in Arias, they’ve done it to
secure other convictions & death penalties
I am still trying to figure out if they were deleted how they know it was “child” porn. I mean, was the file labeled that?
B
What an unprofessional mysogenist:
“During one conference, Martinez said that if he were married to defense attorney Jennifer Willmott, he “would f-ing kill himself.”
In another conference, he told Willmott she should go back to law school”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/11/jodi-arias-sentencing-retrail-resumes/18874871/
Why didn’t Stephens control him with contempt piwers?
She had several opportunities over the course of that trial and the truth is her Honor has zero control over her courtroom. I realize I am sounding like a broken record, but the best combination of criminal court due process adjudication I have seen recently was in the MacNeill case. I have never seen a Judge/Prosecutor/Defense Attorney with such a grasp of courtroom decorum and rules of process and procedure in criminal court like this- wish that were not such an anomaly.
B
@ Rose
I sure do hope JA parents’
YouTube ‘ yelps , backfire!
@Ragdoll. They must have known of this issue last week because
that’s when they started youtube fundraiskng for appellate Court.
Quite distasteful when there’s been no verdict. And the
best appellate capital lawyers are those associated with nonprofits
for the indigent.
We shall know at the evidentiary hearing.
Apparently an evidentiary hearing was scheduled the
day before trial but was postponed because Juan hadn’t coughed up the
computer to Defense expert.
Lots of left coast activity today. This is really just an embarrassment to the criminal justice process imo. This sort of hubris is unreal. If this was defense misconduct that attorney would end up suspended or disbarred. We need to hold our sworn officers of the court accountable.
B
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/jodiarias
Lotsa acting out. Purportedly –
Judge said she hadn’t read Nurmi’s motion & just get on with the trial.
Fonesca can codify love, lust, & forbidden love into an anonymous bodice ripper.
Juan blames a previous attorney for anything untoward techwise,
OR Defense was at fault when their expert had the moxie to boot up the computer.
Calling all who can decipher legalese.
This is a link to a lawsuit against Dr. Fonseca, circa early 2000′s.
Honestly I can’t tell what the order is- can anyone?
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/09/0316734.pdf
Yup. Micco-Fenseca was sued for procedure error SS1983 in evaluating the plaintiff. Plaintiff is suing but not to invalidate conviction or in the place of a habeas.
B
What Judge gets a Motion like that & doesn’t read it,
and says so on the record,
having had several business days out of the Courtroom
to clean her desk up.
Miccio-Fonesca gives a long interview in this article
http://www.thomaslarson.com/publications/san-diego-reader/125-not-only-the-man.html
@whodunnit.
I didn’t read past page 3, but my opinion is in that case she was a good guy with a white hat
whose testimony got a violent sexual predator locked up for 2 years–civil commitment
I presume for mental health treatment. There was apparently a Court Order she do an
eval of him as a sexual predator at risk for reoffense but he refused interview during
her in person visits twice. So she
reviewed his records (which pissed him that she had access) and opined
for the permissible 2 year civil commitment. Imo what she does in such evals is not rocket
science & a professional opinion could be formed on adequate past clinical records alone.
Agreed- the differences in civil v criminal commitment are not supposed to “fuel or fuse” is the basic gist- but this process has kept some pretty dangerous folks off the street for longer than their punishments allowed in many cases.
B
ok whodunnit, I dipped in to page 10.
What prompted his suit imo is he was going to have a new recommitment trial, & he wanted to be dang sure the
previously effective records reviewer with a clinical opinion did not testify again in that new trial. He wanted an injunction to prevent that. Appellate Court just sent it back down to try the injunction issue. but it’s kinda irrelevant as
She did not participate in the recommitment eval. Since he’s representing himself, he probably didn’t realize she wasn’t gonna testify at recommitment trial 2.
The other part, his civil suit against her for $, only works if his civil commitment was judicially overturned or expunged, and it wasn’t. So the judge threw those civil claims out & the 9th agreed. He was not cleared but was transferred from the State Hospital to prison for parole violation. Acter that term, rather than being released, he was getting retried for commitment. Both Calif & Fonesca were zealous to keep this offender locked up imo.
quote
I am still trying to figure out if they were deleted how they know it was “child” porn. I mean, was the file labeled that?
B
That’s the question I was asking. How do they know? If it’s just porn, this wouldn’t be an issue, right?
I sat up last night thinking about this gong show. Scenarios crept in my mind. It’s on record that Jodi saw Travis on his computer, viewing child porn. I believe something happened to the tune of Jodi witnessing Travis viewing something that she said she’d used against him. My question is…did Travis invite Jodi into his home, if and when this alleged event took place? AND….I suspect Jodi did see Travis viewing porn. That’s what frosted her. He was watching other naked women, which she took person offense to. Again, pure speculation here, but she thought/thinks she was more than enough woman for Travis. A WOMAN SCORNED AND OVER THE TOP JEALOUS! (no, I wouldn’t like my husband to be viewing porn…more for moral reasons. I could even go as far as to say it would make me feel inadequate….but I’m not a psycho). So, were the sex photos a way of pleasing Travis and she was trying to be his porn fix?
PS…is Fonseca w/ Mesa/forensics?
Seriously, judge needs to get back to the penalty aspect. The jury is going to become flustered…and probably to the defense’s delight, and another mistrial. This is soap opera material but it’s not our first rodeo in terms of counsel going to far in the court of law.
Thanks Rose for your input!
You know what I am wondering friendLY- is if Arias created some sort of peer to peer or VPN network and could access Travis computer remotely. OR- did she use homeshare functions, etc citing the fact she could not get the CD to write or whatever excuse I recall she gave him. There is no doubt in mind that she was in his office on June 4th- honestly I have always been more interested in what the interface of his phone, her phone, the computer and their activities show.
B
Found this on a google search….Juan responds to the computer meddling accusations:
http://content.foxtvmedia.com/ksaz/pdfs/Arias111214.PDF
I then went to https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis?fref=nf and found the above link was posted there as well as this (some good comments by posters):
http://www.azcentral.com/story/i%20see%20news%20people/2014/11/12/12news-victim-on-trial-arias/18924677/
PS…I had no idea JA had different counsel prior to Willmot and Nurmi. Juan claims THAT defense team had access to the victim’s computer before the State.
I have never heard of a defense team having access to evidence prior to State analysis- is he sure he is not referring to the phone that was allegedly lost and then found years later in Arias’s Aunt’s car?
This is truly an issue of chain of custody log review- all of this we are seeing are the same deficits that existed in the trial- nobody seems to know or follow forensic analysis standards.
Gonna be honest- there are very, and I mean V E R Y few Leo’s that come up from the field that learn computer or electronic forensics “on the job” that are what I would call true experts ( secret service assets are the exception to this but they are never street cops)in the necessary data analysis. When the state’s le “expert” does not notice the SD cards in evidence do not match those from field images I get concerned ( as you recall LOL). The only legitimate reason I can think of that Nurmi et al did not beat this over the head at trial to lay the foundation is because they knew further analysis would uncover what I said- that the rendevous that went south was from months prior and that made Jodi look like she broke in there- was not an invited guest, with intent and effs up their entire defense. Now that she has been convicted the strategy is different.
At any rate, I thought his brief was one of the best I have seen of his and I really was hoping to watch the argument if anyone has a link.
B
Seriously.
quote
Kirk Nurmi is constantly referring to Travis Alexander as T-Dogg/Hyde [as in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde]. This is a different def. strategy – last year, it was all about physical abuse, now, it’s emotional [abuse].
unquote
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis?fref=nf
Both sides are offside, imo
re: Fonseca.
This is what i am getting from the various twitter feeds that recount Fonseca’s testimony-
In her opinion:
Travis was abusive because he kept his sex life a secret from his friends and family.
Travis was abusive because there are texts and emails that show how angry he was at Arias
travis was abusive because he called Arias dirty names.
Travis’s friends (the Hughes) didn’t approve of his behavior, and admonished him.
Travis was struggling to adhere to the tenants of his religion.
Travis was abusive because he engaged in a sexual relationship without an emotional commitment.
is this expert really trying to say that because of the above immoralities, Jodi should be excused from the full responsibility of stabbing shooting and cutting Alexanders throat and leaving him to die?
isn’t his like saying that a woman who wears provocative clothes, engages in sex indiscriminately with multiple partners and leads an immoral life in general, deserves to be raped?
This is going to be a LONG cross examination!!
@whodunnit. In testifying wrt mitigation, any professional
would not be “excusing” JA because the least outcome for
her is lwop. I do not think the tweets depict the testimony
accurately. Perhaps she is saying JA’s behavior was
in context part of a secret relationship system, and abusive interpersonal
behavior could tip someone with her personality disorder
into destruction. Nurmi is so unlikeable demeaning
Travis with names like Hyde that he is sure
to alienate and anger jurors no matter how good Fonesca is.
@Blink. By “his brief” do you nean Martinez or Nurmi? There was no hearing on the evidentiary matter (deleted files impacting trials 1 and 2) because Stephens said on the record she hadn’t read Nurmi’s Motion and would go ahead with Trial. This of course disables key Defense mitigation arguments if the evidence proves suasive. Additionally, evidentiary hearing on the computer was scheduled before Trial, as it should be, but Juan did not turn the computer over until it was too late to examine the computer or hold a critical evidentiary hearing. That is when Stephens shoukd’ve postponed trial altogether until an evidentiary hearing could be held. So imo Stephens & Juan brought this
on (mistrial or overturn on appeal) themselves, and imo she just guaranteed it this week.
So in essence on the record she refused to hear the motion at all- or that she is going to take it under advisement, rule later, etc? He needs interlocutory.
The inability to review the laptop due to Martinez if true would be Nurmi’s filing responsibility- perhaps that was in his most recent motion to withdraw?
I was referring to Nurmi’s motion, although I do agree that something substantive in terms of a report should have been included- I do understand why it was not. He wants a hearing, not for Stephens to conclude on it’s merit. In many jurisdictions an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct designates the very nature that it is an offense to the counsel that files it in bad faith to the bar makes it presumptive. Martinez’s response blaming “the first team” did not have an offer of proof either- as in a simple chain of custody log. I seriously cant get past how loose that standard has been throughout this case. I have seen judges tear up motions, hold counsel in contempt, fine them and worse for less. This is a capital case and the sloppiest one I have seen in recent memory.
B
have not yet found her I havent read the motion comment
her decision was not to delay trial & to address it later.
“In Wednesday’s hearing, Nurmi said that his analysis of the computer was ongoing and that he was not ready for an evidentiary hearing. He asked for two or three days of expert testimony later in the month.”
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/11/12/jodi-arias-trial-sentencing-computer-porn-allegations-fault/18944771/
Ok, that was Nurmi’s call then. Hell of an allegation to make mid-query. Looks like a pump fake in court. Not liking that
B
She won’t rule until after an evidentiary hearing.
Imo she should’ve postponed trial originally when an evidentiary hearing could not
occur pretrial due to Defense’ expert’s lack of computer access.
And, if true, sanctioned prosecutor.
Of course, but I guess she could just rely on the fact that she had not read his motion and he was not prepared. Sheesh.
B
@Blink. Nurmi was not responsible for the Defense computer experts findings arriving in midtrial, and their not being ready for an evidentiary hearing for another week, as the Defense did not wrest the computer for reexamination from Juan until the day before trial began on the date that was long scheduled for that hearing.
Got it, I think I misunderstood the timing.
B
@whodunnit. Azcentral does have a good twitter, but I feel so much is lost.
The trial should be televised. That it is not will work against Arias imo.
rose writes:
. Nurmi is so unlikeable demeaning
Travis with names like Hyde that he is sure
to alienate and anger jurors no matter how good Fonesca is.
————
The jury of the original Arias trial already rejected Arias claim of self defense, and opted for premeditated murder. So it looks to me like the defense is just hitting the same character flaw points that they put forth in the original trial, but this time couched in mitigation.
Fonseca is putting forth that Travis had a double life, that even his close friends the Hughes didnt approve of his behavior, that Deanna Reid was having secret sex,, Travis didnt tell his family or friends about his secret sex life, and that his actions were in conflict with the tenants of his religion.
The desired effect, as I understand it, is to create the picture that Jodi wasn’t the only person who was ” aware” of Travis immorality, thereby bolstering a judgment of Travis as a bad person who was riving Jodi Arias crazy.
The difference between other people participating in and dealing with Travis’s moral transgressions and Jodi Arias, is that Jodi murdered him.
and yes, agreed that twitter filters through the poster’s personality and agenda, and no it is not possible to make full judgement on this trial without being exposed to it due to compromised media access.
The open court laws were made part of our constitution in reaction to the closed court system and lack of trial by jury in England. At that time, there wasn’t even any electricity, let alone multiple platforms for disseminating information.
I think this particular case is illustrating that laws do need to be updated in the context of the present state of any society. Our ” freedom of press” has been pressed to a huge degree-news media has become very much personality and ratings driven, and I do think it can affect public opinion. And it does shine a light on the concept of who a jury of peers are, and there own responsibility to have knowledge of the law… that is the basis of trial by judges, with no ” laymen” jury involved, isn’t it?
I think Stephens got around all of this by saying that video and transcripts of the proceedings WILL be available, but not until after the penalty phase in concluded. Its frustrating to the public, but its not a total denial of our rights, imho.
I see a lot of monday morning quarterback in our future!
That is a pretty solid argument whodunnit, I will give you that. However, it is not the Judge’s job to decide what high profile is and the effect on it’s jury because in theory, if she thinks it has one, she has to declare a mistrial. I can tell you from personal experience ( and this is one example) in a case I worked on that was televised, once I was no longer invoked, I was permitted to watch it. I was watching testimony of a witness I flat out knew was committing perjury and I was quite literally texting the prosecutor- you can see him/her look at their phone, and then a legal assistant move up the isle. My point is this- she has no power to decide outcomes based on media exposure when she has ruled on them differently, and in one case already been reversed.
At this point I am wondering if she is prolonging the inevitable. She can’t have it both ways- if she thinks media is affecting the trial she has to rule accordingly in every sense.
Lastly- I would not want to be her or a lawyer in this case whatsoever
B
I just got a glimpse of Arias’ attorney 1.
I suppose Arias didńt like her bcz she is Very Direct & forthright (as I
suppose is Arias’ Nurmi issue), fat, and hispanic name, therefore a scapegoat.
However, imo she would’ve been far more appealing to
jurors than Nurmi, & would’ve rocked Stephens imo.
I think representing Arias would have to be tantamount to walking into an Ebola tent marked “Ebola Tent”.
B
@whodunnit. I agree with “the difference”.
I do not know what Fonesca testimony was in full bloom as heard by jury.
I suspect her thesis is the secret sexual happenings were so severely emotionally abusive
to JA, that at the peak of rejection or exploitation, her “snap” was not unexpectable.
@whodunnit.
to me double life or secrecy is not the Defense’s defense.
Intrusive Aggression is. The Butt Grab for example.
In the original trial, not Sentencing, TA’s aggression to jA was at issue.
Blink writes:
At this point I am wondering if she is prolonging the inevitable. She can’t have it both ways- if she thinks media is affecting the trial she has to rule accordingly in every sense.
Yes, and well said, now I get it. She made a ruling acquiescing to the concept that media had an effect. if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that if she thinks media affects a fair trial, its mistrial time.
My prayer is that a miracle will happen, and this woman Arias will just tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Truth.
In context, yes. I am taking into consideration she has excused jurors and interviewed broadcast journalists 2x- AND she has ruled against other motions involving social outreach ( twitter, fansites). Her only consistency is that she is consistent.
B
@whodunnit. I just now discovered there is a FB support site for Arias.
It bizarrely treats this as a new trial.
Some AZ posters seem to have axes to grind with LDS, too.
They actually had a screenshot up of what I think is a scholarly article I found yesterday of
Miccio-Fonesca’s which is completely irrelevant to this trial.
http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/99.html
Perhaps Nurmi throwing in the baby with the bath
is his safeguard against an
ineffective assistance of Counsel appeal.
I think he started this case assuming it would go that route considering he says so in his ( I lost count) multiple motions to withdraw. I am wondering since he started as a PD here, how much of that absolute immunity extends to private practice- ya know?
B
rose writes:
I suspect her thesis is the secret sexual happenings were so severely emotionally abusive
to JA, that at the peak of rejection or exploitation, her “snap” was not unexpectable.
to me double life or secrecy is not the Defense’s defense.
Intrusive Aggression is. The Butt Grab for example.
In the original trial, not Sentencing, TA’s aggression to jA was at issue.
————–
Is the defense saying ” now that Travis is dead, Jodi won’t have that antagonist, so she won’t have that behavior, so therefore she should just be allowed to live out her life being kept away from any more antagonists.”……. ?
The sentencing is about whether or not the murder Arias committed rose to the standards of heinous and cruel to the degree that warrants the death penalty.
It is not about Travis intrusive aggression. The jury of the original trial already decided that Jodi did not snap, they decided that Jodi premeditated the murder. ( btw,Pre meditation can happen in seconds, according to law. It is about knowing that your actions will result in death)
a person can “snap” and still be guilty of first degree murder. It is the basic difference of being able to form the thought of right or wrong. There is no set of circumstances that there were not infinite opportunities for her to ESCAPE imminent bodily harm or death (justifiable defense).
This prosecution has always been about removing that thought from a jury’s mind- So much so they changed the order of wounds from the first few years although no evidence changed whatsoever.
As you already know- I think that was a monumental mistake and no offense to Nurmi or Wilmot but if either one of them ever had a chemistry set or knew wth they were doing in a forensic case that was not be tried as such- I would proffer this verdict might be different, but if it was not- it would at least survive a habeas. The single biggest thing this prosecution had going for it was the unification of hatred for Jodi Arias and the inability to look past intrinsic motivations as a result.
Not a shiny star on US jurisprudence and if I am to be honest- I don’t give a rats ass if she rots in the slammer or “guests” on orange is the new black (remote) as long as she is never free.
What I absolutely care about is the measures of justice Travis and his family are entitled to, the proper and true representation of due process in the State of AZ to the letter and that The State of Arizona v Jodi Ann Arias (supra) doesn’t start all over. I admit my bias toward the defendant- she is batshit, the sworn officers of the court have no such excuse.
To your point “who”- you are correct. We are in the phase of evaluating aggravators and/or mitigators. However, Nurmi’s motion was succinct for me- this is the correct time and venue for it’s citations but as Rose has pointed out- all of this should have been continued until the evidentiary hearing could be heard. It’s a shonda.
B
B
“….rose to the standards of heinous and cruel to the degree that warrants the death penalty”
If this were the sentencing litigation focus, it’s a slam dunk for the DP. However, it seems the heinous & cruel test
is weighed together with mitigators favoring the D. But it seems she doesn’t have any
intrinsic mitigators (ie, low iq), so mitigaton has to relate not to her but to
the “situation” (ie the victim relationship).
Juan put the heinous on. I blame the Judge for allowing the evidence to stray afar
from Arias herself.
.
rose writes
I blame the Judge for allowing the evidence to stray afar
from Arias herself.
.
——-
still can’t figure out who this dead mans words, in the emails addressed to his friends and jodi, can be used against him to support that he was murdered in self defense. The whole thing of aan expert who has never met or interviewed him putting forth that he had a kind of split personality is silly.
Travis did not write those emails and texts with the knowledge or intention that they would be held up to public scrutiny.
United states law says that any letters are legally the property of the recipient, but the recipient does not have the right to publish those letters without consent of the writer ( this was established in the case about the letters of JD Salinger- MY lawyer represented his estate and won.)
So how did the basis of the defense- that is, the emails and texts- get into this anyway????
I am spinning wheels here, sorry!
my question is-
wouldn’t all written material by Travis be considered part of his estate and therefore owned by his heirs.
What gives Defense tweak the right to use these? I am just looking to be educated, not trying to be provocative, its an honest question.
Not a probate atty but in terms of the context of a criminal matter- if it was published by any means, that in itself is a copyright- so it is owned by his estate. It likely has no value in that regard however, especially if he already published on his blog. It is in the public domain. Value is judged by use and market.
B
@whodunnit. isn’t all that is needed in a criminal trial a subpoena or a warrant?
And while I expect it was LE who accumulated the writings, even Juan has to
turn over exculpatory material.
OT Imo “Low Blow” Juan had every reason to attempt to destroy Maria Schaeffer’s credibility as a defense attorney due to the Doody case now on appeal. His gratuitous slur on a fellow bar member, albeit female, which is problematic for him it seems, was not because of deleted files.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/jodi-arias/Defense-attorney-accused-of-tampering-with-evidence-in-Arias-case-282780611.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-14/news/sns-rt-us-usa-temple-murder-20140314_1_wat-promkunaram-temple-johnathan-doody-alessandro-alex
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/johnathan-doody-center-consoled-attorney-maria-schaffer-other-photo-205713820.html
It took AZ trial courts 3 tries to finally get a conviction–after coerced confessions.
I have known many Thai univ students, & have journeyed to Thailand to visit one–actually after his death & participated with 3 days of ceremonies at the temple and so on. the monks & nuns–they have special status.
many offerings. (often mundane, mops,, buckets, articles of necessity for daily life).
Imo, There is not a snowball’s chance in hell any Thai born, Thai immigrant, with a family-temple culture, would ever rob a temple or shoot a monk or nun. But a young Thai man would sit there and agree with his PD interrogators, esp after 12 hours. Anything to leave the room after 12 hours.
blink and Rose
Thanks for your answers!
I just found a FB page wahooing support for Prosecutor Martinez.
Imo now that I discovered he accused a peer female bar member of a
criminal act, most likely not to salvage hus deleted files problem,
but to F her over on the Doody appeal,
imo disbarment is too good for him.
returned a mirror image of wrong computer?
how is that possible unless
they were given the wrong computer.
sloppy, sloppy.
It never left custody Rose. Never. To say that they deleted files is to say that Martinez and/or Flores was present for same. This is what I was referring to previously. I have never heard of the State handing over forensic evidence out of their complete custody- again, this is what is so effefd about this case- it is like a soap opera where the rules do not apply, just the story.
B
here is motion filed by state as of Nov 16, 2014, regarding the computer prone business:
http://courtchatter.tv/documents/arias/ja_motion_for_sanctions111614.pdf
So either Juan provided D the mirror image, or he did not but he &/or Flores were present when D expert made the mirror image. So Juan’s motion fir D to deliver their mirror image by 5 last Friday was to have his
experts look for porn or look for alteration on that mirror image? But it would be
insane for D to deliver their own mirror image to Juan. So what tbey were to turn over
was a mirror image of a hard drive’s mirror image? That is ridiculous!
Each side should merely put their own expert on, subject to cross, about
their own examinations. If a mirror image is tested, let it be in open court on the record
under the rules of evidence.
I went & read at Justice4Travis, iirc tweets. A sister “walked out” during testimony she was offended by with D expert on.You know that is nonverbal testimony (rebuttal) on her part & can inflame 1 or more jurors. Yet, it is not on the record.This has happened all along. Imo either grieving relatives should have been required by Judge to exercise self control when angry or upset, or watch in an overflow room. I’d have a 3 breakdowns & you’re in the room next door rule. Does D not object to behavioral family demonstrations because he does not want his witness further interrupted?
Blink-
My post of Nov 17, 6:06 p.m. contains a link that does not open.
I am trying to post the motions mad by Martinez regarding the computer and porn files.
These links below should work.
His motions clarify things a bit, imho
here is State motion of Nov 13:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByBlLbpcgb3wTXV1SWtJMXJtMGs/view?pli=1
and here is state motion to sanction, filed Nov 16:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByBlLbpcgb3wc2JwOURRanJxR2s/view?pli=1