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
Ugh. Ok…so no tweets revealed from counsel on up….except the nefarious killer. My mind is mosh…but I’m still frosty as ever!
OT
Blink
Thank you for your arrow prayer -much needed and so appreciated
Your Dearest Mom was such a smart Lady, thank you for sharing her name for cutting out the middle man it seems to be helping BTW as My Dad was doing better today – I cont pray he is on the road to full recovery.
—
On To The hearing today-
Not sure why Judge Stevens feels that the defense is now centering in on Porn- that isnt the issue- the issue is that the Most pristine image was kept from defense- the 2008 mirror image and even though they had access to the harddrive and to the other later copies- that fact does not change what seems to be blatant withholding/obscuring mishandling/ manipulation of evidence
JM said that pp they did not withhold it and that it does not unfairly prejudice the defendant- but – how could it not as the jury was very interested in any truth to be had on the computer/ porn issue- several jury questions to Melendez and others directly related to porn and whther it was a lie of Jodis or not-
JM denied Porn as did his experts- He utilized the lack of porn in his closing arguments-…. But it does not go toward prejudicing?
- Yesterdays after lunch testimony was more JM style cross – tryng to badger the witness into attacks of memory loss… in some areas he might have succeeded.. in others not so much.
I will try to keep me & U all- updated and report back – not sure how much free time I will manage though in the coming weeks-
ps-
Ragdoll
always nice to read your kind posts. Blink thanks forsharing yr thoughts via RD response.
Happiest & Healthiest of New years to you and yours friendLY You too Blink- Stay warm
AJMO Peace
O/T: Glad. I cling to my Daddy like air (figurative) but literal at family gatherings as he would lament, LOL.
I am not a criminal defense attorney. That said, the credibility of witnesses is ENTIRELY intended to be weighted by the jury- AS OBSERVED ad jurists in a criminal trial (guilt phase). There is no way around the fact that this jury MAY have been impacted in terms of potential impeachment and credibility issues and that is plain to this Judge right now. She was certainly justified to allow the witness to testify- but where is her ruling on the motion in front of her?
B
Prayers for God’s favor and the healing balm of the Holy Spirit over your dad and your family, my dearest Mom.3.0. I’m like Blnkster…..I was such a daddy’s girl. Honestly, when he passed away suddenly when I was 20, I no longer cared about the future. Fathers are precious, if we’re so blessed. Please know we’re praying and please rest in your Abba Father Daddy. His hand is in this.
Love and light my dear friendy xo xo xo
PS…Mom, so agree with your opinion about preserving TA’s character. Anyone with a heart knows he didn’t deserve the overkill. It was heinous and she was no victim. She chose to keep in touch with him, not to mention there is not a shred of domestic violence against her. Fiery conversations can happen, and not be life threatening. The pics speak for themselves. I’m certain the jury could come to a reasonable verdict without the state white washing the truth or acting dishonorably. In fact, the attack on TA’s character may have favored the state, had they stuck to the evidence alone, as Blink has clearly stated over time.
my opinion only:
If I knew that someone looked at porn on their computer, I would think them as someone who looked at porn, period. I do not think it is reasonable to be murdered for looking at porn or for participating in consensual sex., emphasis on no one harmed in exercise of constitutional rights that include watching sexual content and having the right to consensual sex with people of legal age.
If the issue was about their ability to be responsible in a context where that action was ” against the rules” of a religion,I would look at at the action in that context. But this trial is not about his choice of religion or his ability or inability to meet the written standards. I don’t think it is reasonable for a person to be murdered for inability to perform according to tenets of chosen religion.
As a reasonable person, I would say that a Mormon who looks at porn is breaking the rules, and should not be considered a perfect Mormon.
To ME, that would take away the context that this person should be judged in terms of his religion, because technically he isn’t following it.
In the end, as a reasonable person, I would just say, hey, following the rules of his religion weren’t important to him, no matter what he said- and THAT would be it, – a MORAL issue, no more and no less.
I do not feel it is reasonable to be murdered because you have acted in immoral ways.
As a reasonable person, I would not say that an ex lover’s morality is grounds for stabbing 27 times, sling a throat open and shooting- let alone photographing while naked in the shower or conducting sexual p hone calls or acts.( I use the term ” ex: very lightly because at no time were travis and Jodi engaged, or even held out publicly as a couple)
So to me, the real issue is , was Travis’s immorality so impactful that Jodi Arias truly was defending her life when she murdered him, or not.
Presenting Arias a mentally ill, as Nurmi did today, means her judgement was screwy. It means that her self accounting in the psychological profiling will be distorted by her mental illness. The defense is using amnesia to account for her lack of responsibility in telling the whole truth about the act she committed. And they are saying the amnesia is based on psychological problems, and trying to prove it was brought about by Travis.
There is no way to prove that it was Travis’s intention to destroy this woman. There is no proof for the jury that he intended to destroy anyone at any time in his life, not even a bar fight over honor, a purposely placed block on someone’s livelihood- just nothing except that he was a bachelor who was going against laws of chastity with others who consented to it.
It really comes down to the way in which he was murdered. If Arias had told the whole truth from the beginning, we would not be here, period.
As far as misconduct and concealing evidence, we saw the OJ trial get derailed because of racist remarks and police mishandling of evidence. We saw the Anthony case derailed by the introduction of alleged sexual molestation by the father. Now, we are basically seeing both approaches in one, with the added kicker that the death penalty itself is up for grabs as of February.
This system is based on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Our court cases are based on the presumption of honor and innocence.
what have we come to?????
I wonder if the profession of being a lawyer was as low paying as a teachers salary. Would we then see a feild where the practioners performed for their love of justice in a purer way?
adding something
perhaps the FORENSIC evidence could prove that Travis was defending his life, not trying to kill Arias over the dropped camera. But , echoing and repeating, that forensic evidence, blood splatter anaz=ylisis etc etc has never been brought in. We have only Arias description of what happened, and states theory.
Yep, circus.
Who,
I liked your post and agree….this is not about the porn. I’m leery about his faith being brought into this.
As a juror, I would feel judged and condemned by the defense for being flawed and human, like Travis. Id begin to think everyone in that courtroom is being judged be the defense. I know so man guys who’ve cheated, gone to porn, etc. I’m a Christain…because I’m broken and need Jesus. Most religions are about accepting their short comings because we all fall short from the grace of God. The fall has made us broken and imperfect. Becoming a Christian has redeemed my sins. It does not make me better, superior, or holier than thou. If anything, it’s humbling. I’ve done lots of things that people, spiritual or not, would frown upon. I can’t believe for one second, a jury would judge me for being human and imperfect. Focusing only on Travis as the broken soul, makes Jodi look more shameful and guilty in my eyes.
Travis should NOT be condemned for his stumbling or having hills and valleys, in his life. It’s a very pathetic and perfectly ‘broken’ defense strategy. We already know Jodi was a practicing Mormon, who failed to follow the laws of the Mormon doctrine. It’s so hypocritical. Very trite and uninspired defense, to say the least….removing the blood from Jodi’s hands and transferring it defensive wounded hands of the real victim (which prove he tried to fight off a passionately over raged killer).
That’s just my inexperienced insight to this case. You covered the rest, beautifully.
xo
PS…..if this were truly about breaking Mormon rules, that church could step in and judge as deemed fit. Again, I agree with you. This is not about his faith and struggle to be keep his demons tame. We’d all get the DP if that was a legitimate offense in the court of law. It does not prove him to be deserving of having been butchered and hacked to death. Fiery conversations with a psycho and manipulator, do not make him abusive. Who really abused the power in this relationship? Maybe both are guilty…but Jodi is the one who took it too far and she’s exactly where she’s supposed to be. Travis is not.
I probably just repeated myself, but does the defense really want to focus on the common brokenness of being human?
Blessings
OT thank you for the prayers Ragdoll- Much appreciated-
My dad has made two steps forward and one step back- still struggling to make it back- So I continue to pray and cont to thank you – for yr kind thoughts and prayers-
—–
On to the trial
Blink the judge finally gave her decision-
http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1-14-Motion-denied-JodiAriasIsInnocent-com.pdf
–I do not agree with much of it-
The defense was denied evidence- the expert testimony concerning NO PORN and NO viruses Did impact the jury and very well may have affected the verdict-
Martinez Melendez Florez and Horne did willfully change testimony and they JM Florez and Melendez proved it again in the last two days with actually changing testimony and remembrances again as it would better suit the prosecution.
Today Florez PP actually denied a tape contained the voice of TAs roommate claiming he couldnt remember-it its been years….even though JM had agreed it was an interview of travis’ roommates denial of using TAs computer-
JM actually stated PP that at the time of the interview the “computer” was not important- and therefore basically immaterial…
and if I am understanding correctly, The judge actually ruled PP that since a mirror image was taken the day after florez messed with the evidence- that goes to show that defendant was not adversely affected— Hello Judge dont you understand they obscured the touching of the computer they allowed the defense to mess with evidence without telling them what would happen if they turned on the computers without writeblockers they withheld the 2008 mirror image until 2014- and Judge all of it goes to show Misconduct and total disregard for evidence – the facts and truth Justice-
I mean we went into the trial knowing she was the killer she confessed to it- it was always supposed to be about getting to the truth figuring out the most appropriate sentence-
The prosecution and LE swiftboated TA and JA s sentence whatever it turns out being will never be Just–
Because we still are no closer to the real truth as the evidence was lambasted by those set forth to collect preserve and present-
AJMO Peace
Look forward to reading Blinks and you guys thoughts nice to see u Who
I will keep your Pop on the rotation Mom3.0- thanks for the update.
On the order- while I am not remotely surprised at it’s denial in total, I am pretty surprised that she found that a discovery violation had occurred on behalf of the State but that it wasn’t at least sanction-able considering she denied all motions similarly throughout the guilt trial and at the end of the day it cannot be denied that exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense. In my view, how is a juror or Jurist supposed to evaluate the credibility of witnesses if they never knew there was impeachable information to consider? That makes zero sense for her to decide how materially it factored into the juror’s determinations.
I don’t have Melendez testimony transcript handy but I am pretty positive her summary of it is incorrect as well- at any rate she should have referenced the transcript by line and paragraph as she is required.
And how the eff did I miss Mama Flores tweeting, LOL?
I agree with your points, and part of me wished that Nurmi had sprung for a law professor specializing in criminal evidence submission, process and procedure to help draft this motion and centered it more around the inability at the time (due to lack of knowledge) to raise some 404 issues and the like. Nurmi’s argument against the extent of misconduct was light on specifics and then should have been supported by examples of different outcome as it related to the verdict but he did preserve all issues appellate, imo.
Lastly- how do you rule on the evidentiary issues that are still being analyzed by both parties and how does she really say that she can’t remember all things said in different hearings or chambers, etc, when she has access to minutes and transcripts? Bizarre.
Basically she is saying hey- you hired experts- none of us figured out until now wth was on there so it is a level playing field except I don’t believe that whatsoever.
If Arias had not testified on her own behalf, which the Judge does not even address- I might say that although I vehemently believe prosecutorial misconduct has been proven, it could not be proven to the extent of “a different verdict”- but because she did, and within that direct/redirect/cross/rebutt strategy jurors absolutely weighted her credibility and truthfulness with a portion of that going to the instant motion matter- in essence, this withheld evidence was supportive of her testimony, and impeached the states and the jury never had the information to weigh- that my friend, is unconstitutional as a violation of due process- it just is.
Stephens REALLY does not want to call this one, of that I am sure.
B
As I read Stephens decision, she is saying that to meet the criteria for sanction, not only must it be proven that state willfully and intentionally withheld evidence but also that that evidence is exculpatory.
Arias position is that state called her a l;air, and that presence of porn on computer means she is not a liar. However, Arias key claim was that she caught Travis viewing image of young boys and masturbating while doing so. Defense has not proven that these images existed on the computer, and have no proven that such images were ever on that computer and have not shown that these specific images were withheld or erased or whatever.
Re computers, her point is that BECAUSE the porno was accessible on the mirror image, it cannot be proven that it was purposely hidden. She states that in fact, in the guilt phase Dworkin testified that there WAS porn on the computer, and defense had the opportunity at THAT time to address it, which they did by his testimony- and that the jury had the ability and right to weigh the two positions and factor the conflicting testimony in their verdict. But MOST importantly, she says that this issue is not properly before her court, in essence saying, this is an issue regarding the guilt phase, we are in the penalty phase, so this is an appellate issue. To me that is different that saying there is no validity in defense’s position.
I don’t have a problem with her ruling because the point of the ruling was whether or not to dismiss the death penalty on grounds of misconduct and withholding evidence. As I read it, Stephens acknowledges not only that protocol was different in 2008, but also that at that time, the defense had no issue with pronograpghy on a computer because Arias was maintaining that ninjas did it, and did not change that position until just before the trial. So it was incumbent upon the defense to use their experts to reassess the evidence in light of their clients new position, and according to Stephens, they did so. Stephens further adds that John Smith can be called again as a witness if he finds something, but it is not the states duty to provide defense with experts who would specifically look for things to support their claim. I truly believe that the State did not find any exculpatory evidence, the same way that the defense did not- that would support Arias specific claim that Travis was masturbating to images of boys on his computer.
Negligence is not technically criminal, and as I read Stephens, she is most focused on the prong of exculpatory nature of evidence in any case.
Arias beleivability to a jury was not wholly contingent on the computer. The state was able to present many instances of dishonesty, and defense presented their client as lacking the ability to even recall exactly what happened. I do believe that the amnesia stance was treacherous,a. because it casts a shadow on everything that Arias claims and b., it is begging a jury to believe some things she says and not other things. I think the failing of the defense is that they have thrown too many things against the wall, made too many motions written poorly, made too many attempts to leave the case, have put the judge through Arias representing herself TWICE now and then rescinding.. surely this is all affecting the judge in her perspective.
In the penalty phase, the issue is if the manner in which Travis was murdered meets the criteria for death sentence. All stephens has really said is that this opinion still stands- and issues of guilt itself should be addressed, if necessary, after penalty phase verdict. Of note, an lwop is appealable, but not with state provided funds. The state will only pay for appeal in the event of dp verdict.
My guess is that this will be a life sentence, and that arias task will be to raise private funds or get a pro bono lawyer to appeal said life sentence.
Here’s the thing- the burden on the State is just that (guilt phase) it is because of that the defense never really has to defend per se. I mention that because the willfull act of not disclosing the manipulations of data rests solely with them for a variety of reasons, but the biggest one is the fact that the discovery process is how the defense mounts itself, so to speak so they are reliant in the state’s adherence to the rules of discovery, period. I believe I said when I read his first motion that Nurmi had no shot of getting Stephens to reverse herself from the guilt phase in essence that is really what he was attempting. Legally, I also agree with your minor point that the merits of the motion should have been restricted to serious accusations- nobody gives a rip about who is tweeting what and so on. Nurmi missed the mark ( in my view) with substantive examples but at this point I truly opine that he is more interested in not having bar allegations for ineffectiveness of counsel, considering he has called himself that already in trying to withdraw.
There is a smidge of “be careful what you wish for your Honor,” here. Her Honor refused several motions to remove counsel by both defendant and counsel.
Here is my thing- I am an avid supporter in the death penalty for certain offenses. I am equally avid about such a conviction being pristine. This is far from that.
I could be wrong, but there is just no doubt in my mind the 9th is going to send this back.
B
” part of me wished that Nurmi had sprung for a law professor specializing in criminal evidence submission, process and procedure to help draft this motion ”
yes, a local U one, all along.
I am at sea.
But is Stephens in an elective or appointive position?
for life or a term?
blink writes
I could be wrong, but there is just no doubt in my mind the 9th is going to send this back.
——-
I am always so grateful for your responses and your point of view, and you have never been off the mark.
I will be watching and wondering as this train chugs along!
as far as the defense mounting its approach based on disclosure, I really do think at the very core is the fact that Arias has always been a moving target and has never given her lawyers a fighting chance by being honest, truly honest with them- who on earth knows what she is telling them?
I am wondering if this focus on the computer is a result of that brief period when Arias was repping herself, and tried to get back to what she was doing the FISRT time she repped herself, which was introduce the alleged pedo letters, only this time , she focused on the porn that she knew was on the computer, because, well, she KNEW about it. I think the train that Arias is driving is what it always seems to have been- that Travis is a bad guy who done her wrong. I believe she herself is convinced that if people knew how” immoral”, she will get a pass- and no amount of legal advice will deter her from that wrong headed belief.
I wholly agree that this is definitely a situation of be careful what you wish for in terms of Stephens not excusing Nurmi.I think he is succeeding in proving that no matter what, he is not ineffective counsel. He has an impossible client.
Its like being in an echo chamber to say that State missed the opportunity to focus on forensics. Hubris.
I’ll say they did. What I can’t decide is if they did so because they did not properly know how to interpret them (forensics) in their case in chief, or if they believed ( as do I) that it told the real story and they were concerned that she would get off via some justification defense. I am still not 100% she went there alone,
If anyone is interested, this report is very interesting as it relates the “CSI effect”, which I used as a citation in an oral argument I had to do for school.
http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/pages/csi-effect.aspx
His Honor Shelton did a great job interpreting data, and in my view, realizes that empirical meets the practical when it comes to juries.
B
blink writes
What I can’t decide is if they did so because they did not properly know how to interpret them (forensics) in their case in chief, or if they believed ( as do I) that it told the real story and they were concerned that she would get off via some justification defense. I am still not 100% she went there alone,
————–
Martinez used the words ” bait and switch” most recently when referring to the change in mitigation witnesses from Neumeister to John Smith last week, saying State did not have adequate time to interview Smith.
I believe that due to Arias own shenanigans, both state and defense has been scrambling from the get go,
looking at the court minutes from this case, the endless variations that take us from an adamant claim of total innocence, to admission of guilt to where we are now.: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092008/m3373092.pdf
Arias maintained her ninja theory for YEARS. The original investigation and even interviews by Defense psych experts were all in the context that Arias was a witness to a murder, not the murderer herself. So regionally, the State’s case in chief was that Jodi was guilty, not the ninjas.
I think that when she finally admitted guilt, the State may have just assumed, okay case closed. I think the state assumed that with this admission of guilt, there was very little else that was needed. Then when she mounted her convoluted self defense claim, state then switched gears slightly, just to show it was premeditated and heinous, and assumed the photos spoke for themselves. I believe that is where their focus went, instead of systematically using forensics to show the sequence of events at the crime scene that would refute self defense- because they thought they had a slam dunk with Arias admission of guilt.
Shortly after Arias changed from ninja story, she chose to rep herself and submit the letters to support her claim that Travis was a pedo.- that her discovery of that fact angered Travis so much that she feared for her life. This was her prong when she repped herself. The letters were copies, not original documents, and they were not accepted as authentic. I can see how the State may have thought, well, if her defense is that he was a pedoo, that won’t fly, porno is irrelevant,case closed, who needs to do more?
I may be pollyanna here, but I still believe it was negligence – albeit gross negligence- simply because up until now, the stuff on the computer did not seem to factor in , in any way to either side, to defense.
Anyway,
Arias returned to court appointed counsel after the letters were not admissible, and then tried to plea bargain for manslaughter, saying that if she went to trial, she would have to say bad things about Travis that would offend his family and the church. That didn’t work either. No plea bargain, and trial began, after many postponed trial dates
Her ” official” carefully crafted self defense claim came only when the trial finally began, after years of postponements and conflicting stories. I really think that the State did not consider forensics as important as her admission of guilt. Hubris , negligence- the same way that in the OJ case, State thought they had a slam dunk and had no prep for the effect of testimony that reflected racism. (Defense in OJ case was even able to cast dispersions on concrete dna evidence by pointing out there was one chance in 6 million that it wasn’t OJ! I recall being at an event during that trial period and hearing with my own ears from Garcetti that they were sure OJ would take the stand, pride goeth before a fall, just saying.) My point here is that State underestimated the impact of tangental immorality on Travis’s part.
I may be pollyanna here, but I still believe it was negligence – albeit gross negligence- simply because up until now, the stuff on the computer did not seem to factor in , in any way to either side. Smith is claiming that with more time, he may actually be able to show that child porn sites were deleted from Travis computer. To me, that would be the ONLY thing that would truly qualify as the active withholding of exculpatory evidence that could have affected a verdict. And even then, you would have to put fingers on a keyboard that deleted that with the intention of keeping Arias claims of same from being corroborated. When the computers were first examined, the masturbating to images of boys wasn’t even on the table. And you know what? I can’t recall where or when, but for some reason, I recall that when Arias put this claim forth , she referred to pictures, not computer images. I am certain she said she left the house, returned minutes later, walked into his bedroom and found him doing this- which means he would have taken his computer from his office to his bedroom immediately after she left. Was it a laptop? If NOT, wow it takes a lot to move a PC.
spinning out now, gotta stop!
Post of the Day in this thread- Who, nice job.
I recall the term picture(s) as well. The true bottom line here is that Arias knows what happened to the nth. That is a powerful “position” in a case where we likely agree there is evidentiary negligence at best, misconduct at worst.
I am not getting past the camera chuck- he knew what he was doing and as far as that is concerned- for me is evidence of knowledge of issues that this defense has not even presented, imo. So in that sense, this prosecution really did a lousy job evaluating it’s evidence because honestly, had this come across my desk ( going to sound arrogant, not my intent) depending upon what side of the fence I landed, either way, I would have tried it differently.
B
We also agree that the State thought this case would settle and in my view- was the recommendation of her counsel and why
Blink writes:
I am still not 100% she went there alone,
———-
I have always wondered about Arias’s association with the Freeman family.
old article about Daniel Freeman, Arias relationship. It was Daniel who reached out to Arias after the murder, and ” broke the news” to Arias that Travis was murdered.
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/jodi-arias-trial-daniel-freeman-friend-of-arias-and-alexander-speaks-out
Daniel’s younger brother, Joshua, committed suicide the day Jodi was arrested. He wrote a suicide note describing the pain he felt due to being sexually abused as a kid, and his impossible to deal with concern that he himself would turn into a sexual predator of children.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rjubmn
Where was Joshua on June 4th?
What do you make of the ” tie in” that Joshua Freeman was so affected as a victim of a pedophile that he took his own life so he would ” break the chain” of behavior? And that it was on the day Arias was arrested that he chose to do so?
The above is a tangent, off topic- but I am responding to your lingering question of whether or not Arias was alone.
I have always wondered what caliber gun was used and where it was purchased. To your point, I think the bigger question for me is did she somehow convince Freeman that Travis was a pedophile like she claimed in her defense and seek his aid?
B
oh don’t shoot me!! I have been circling back to your last post, sorry to stretch this out!!
—–
blink writes
Here’s the thing- the burden on the State is just that (guilt phase) it is because of that the defense never really has to defend per se.
—–
per se, no… BUT if you plead guilty but in self defense, it IS incumbent upon the defense to justify that claim, in that the defendant not only has to show that their actions were defensive, but also that their actions were a reasonable response to the alleged attack, whatever form it took.
Arias claimed that the emotional abuse over a long period of time drove her to believe Travis would kill her when he dropped the camera. She forgot exactly what happened though, no recollection of stabbing or slicing throat or cleaning up after . Her defense rests on being credible, hence this drama about the computers, because she believes that if a jury knew there was porn on the computers, they wouldn’t think she was a liar.
okay, TRULY stopping now.
Heart you- but this is where I have to play blink a bit- disclaimer- Your commentary is not a legal definition as it relates to “self defense”. Her plea defines this as to statute. You can’t mount an “absolute defense” if you cannot prove imminent threat to bodily harm/reasonable fear of same/oppty to flee attacker safely , etc, etc- It is true that an absolute defense must justify it’s claim and remove mens rea.
B
Arias claimed plenty. Delivered in a truckload of kitchen sinks, even.
@Who
I only have one perfect response for your brilliant post:
http://youtu.be/QLbR8w0mBUE. <——– STOP @ 0:31 mark or you' lol get over loaded
PS…can u tell I’m a hockey fan? I LOVE goal horns. Maybe that’ll be my BOC meme for great posts. (That’s a lot of goal horns)!!!
OT thanks so much Blink for keeping My dad in yr prayers. Truly appreciated I will keep you updated as it does alot to keep me sane-
Blink I think yr response to my post was very insightful and I would like to respond in detail
If its ok I wish to respond to whos well thought out posts first as they have gave me much to ponder as well
Please forgive my many posts as i am going to try to break up my thoughts
Who wrote:
Arias position is that state called her a l;air, and that presence of porn on computer means she is not a liar. However, Arias key claim was that she caught Travis viewing image of young boys and masturbating while doing so. Defense has not proven that these images existed on the computer, and have no proven that such images were ever on that computer and have not shown that these specific images were withheld or erased or whatever
—
Who was that Arias key claim? Did not her defense at trial center around a claim of self defense and of essentially being in a battered womans mindset- that was due to travis’ breaking down her self esteem thru manipulation emotional verbal abuse as well as certain episodes of physical abuse and yes of demeaning sex as well as demeaning requests that she did agree to-
The claim of sex pictures and masturbating to boys pics were offered up as a precursor to a violent encounter between Arias and Travis over her seeing him w/ these images which in turn in a way fueled the responses/actions on june 4th
Is that the truth? I dont know and respectfully no one does other than TA or JA
I agree that during the trial arias seemed to say that these images were pics that wafted to the floor- at another earlier time though she according to her experts said these were on the computer-
KIM at trial everything Arias claimed to be on the computer was supposedly proven “false” and with that she was a liar- her own expert Dwarkin was unable to recover much if anything in the way to collaborate her story- KIM he was working from only the later clones-
For one moment entertain the thought what she claimed was true that she did walk in on Travis pleasuring himself to these images -suppose this did unleash travis’rage and he did attack her-
Knowing that there was little to no proof to be had on the computer that according to the prosecution and many experts to a degree even her own, the “truth” was that there were no images no porn no viruses no visits to “socalled” adult sites
is it so hard to fathom that Arias trying to tell the story of what happened changed her remembrance to paper images rather than computer images?
as Blink said Arias knows the truth correct? what if the truth is that much of what she claimed happened happened but she thought the only way the truth was going to be believed was if she amended it to paper images rather than those from a computer? Hoping one juror would believe the essential claim- that travis became enraged and violent when she caught him pleasuring himself to images of what appeared to be young males? (theres lots of legal porn that can fool the watcher) Perhaps to Arias the “key claim” to get across was what happened and why– not whther or not it was the computer or paper-
if so Is that part a lie-yes but does it change the truth of the important/key claim? no not without a doubt it doesnt
You wrote:
Defense has not proven that these images existed on the computer, and have no proven that such images were ever on that computer and have not shown that these specific images were withheld or erased or whatever.
–
Who how can the defense prove that these images were on the computer or not? how can they prove that the prosecution or LE erased them or perhaps even erased the pedo letters or other evidence that would go to further corroborate Arias claims or earlier recall?
If it was done and it was overwritten then there is never going to be proof and we are right back to Arias word being next to worthless even though this is a woman who despite changing her story several times did go to trial accepting her guilt- stating the truth she killed travis yet she stated it was in selfdefense-
What if the essential claim is true that Travis was fighting an attraction to young children even boys- what if he never acted on this not even with actual images of children but of legal porn that was made to answer that need much like incest porn or Arias other claim of Travis wishing her to dress more schoolgirlish or other perhaps it was images of youngish looking men but of legal age.. -what if it was merely a sears catalog- or Kmart online ad for childrens clothing- would that mean the claim of Arias was a lie? that he became enraged when he was found looking at images ?
As you said a guy watching porn or having viruses on his computer or being a jerk is not an “excuse” for horrendous murder neither is any of Arais claims IRT Travis- even if true- theres no law against legal porn or sears catologs or wanting yr significant other to dress as a school girl/boy
So what was the prosecution thinking when they withheld the cputer info and the original 2008 image…why argue there was no porn and no viruses- why limit the xperts testimony so much?
why is it we are trusting their “truth” or their word their testimony
is it mere negligence? IDK- especially if one goes back to review – it to me seems odd that JMs questioning and the experts answers are tiptoeing around the issues itr…perhaps the truth itself that they knew nd withheld -is that the only “proof” left to be had- their actions in the aftermath? – if so for me there seems to be no other way to view it with the benefit of hindsight- more in part 2
To be cont
Respectfully submitted
AJMO
Peace
the testimony
Question of mere negligence vs altering obscuring manipulating
IRT virus’s Melendez the expert testifies that despite there being a “virus alert”- he found no evidence of viruses..
JW: So if it says “VIRUS ALERT” there does that mean there was a
virus going on?
Melendez: It could be that that’s just what is written in there. I don’t know.
JW: Ok.
JW: Did you do any further investigation about it?
Melendez: I did not see any signs of viruses on the computer, no.
JW: Ok
JW: But if you didn’t investigate any further as to what that “Product Id Virus Alert”
Melendez: By looking at the computer and checking for viruses,
which I did, I did not see anything.
— end
—-
Me
Which computer is he speaking to? which mirror image or was it on a computer itself- who knows? we know now there were countless viruses …
all found on 2008 mirror image- sthe defense was unawre of 2008 mirror image prosecution LE were not was Melendez?
KIM this same expert did not look at cookies because it wasnt his prefer4ence- good thing for if it was he may have found something- itd be interesting to know if he was called as an expert in other cases prior/during this tril and if he overcame his own preferences to supply LE and the prosecution with the most thorough of examinations to include cookies-
——
For this next part the prosecutor and LE Melendez are now claiming that porn was never an issue that the computer itself was basically immaterial because Arias hadnt made her porn/virus claim yet-
KIM they are saying now that they PP never really looked into porn or images or for that matter viruses- (even though they did as aforementioned) because Arias hadnt claimed anything…
KIM as you read- the word Images keep being used – as in saved images not clips or jpegs movies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FYYfV7eGPM
Q- LAP TOP HARD DRIVE-
WERE YOU ABLE TO ACCESS OR WAS THERE
ANY INDICATION THAT YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS
EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE HARD DRIVE-
A-
I WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT AND ACCESS EVERYTHING YES
-
Q IRT PHOTOS OF WOMEN FROM THE WASTE UP-
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SEE IF THERE WERE TONS OF PICS OF
WOMENS BREASTS ON THIS HARDDRIVE-
A- I WOULD BE ABLE
TO SEE THIS YES 513
Q WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE IT-
A- I DID NOT FIND ANY NO
Q- IRT PHOTOGRAPHS ASIDE FROM TONS- JUST WERE THERE
ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF WOMENS FROM THE WAIST UP
SHOWING THEIR BREASTS- DID YOU EVEN SEE ANY OF
THAT?
A-NO I DID NOT
Q-ANY IMAGES WHATSOEVER THAT IN THAT LAPTOP-
A= NO
Q
WHATELSE DID U DO WRT THIS WHAT EXAMINATION DID YOU
CONDUCT ON THIS HARD DRIVE-
A-INITIALLY I SEARCHED FOR
ALL TYPES OF FILE IMAGES DO THAT BY SEARCHING FOR FILE
HEADERS WHICH IS THE BEGINNING PART OF THE FILE
ITSELF- THIS WAY IF THERE IS ANOTHER FILE IMBEDDED
WITHIN ANOTHER FILE ILL BE ABLE TO FIND THAT
Q-WHEN U SAY ANOTHR FILE IMBEDDED IN ANOTHR FILE WHAT
DOES THAT MEAN-
A=
FOR EX IF SOMEONE TAKES A PHOTO OR
AN IMAGE AND PUTS IT IN A WRD DOCUMENT I WOULD BE
ABLE TO FIND THAT
Q-ALRIGHT AND WRT THAT EXAMINATION DID THAT REVEAL
ANY IMAGES OF WOMENS BREASTS?-
A- 608 NO IT DID NOT-
Q-TO BE CLEAR DID IT SHOW THE LOWER PART EITHER?-
A- NO-
Q OF A WOMEN
A– IT DID NOT
Q-OK WHAT ELSE DID U DO-
A-AFTER THAT I WENT THRU ALL THE
INTERNET HISTORY IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COMPUTER
ITSELF
Q-THE INTERNET HISTORY WHAT DID U FIND IN LOOKING AT
THE INTERNET HISTORY?
A- UHHH JUST BASIC USAGE OF GOING ON THE INTERNET FOR
FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS SOCIAL MEDIA SITES
Q-DID YOU FIND ANY UMMM ACCESS TO ANY OF THE SO
CALLED ADULT SITES-
A NO I DID NOT-
QWHATELSE DID YOU DO?
A- I LOOKED AT THE REGISTRY TO
SEE WHAT TYPE OF SOFTWARE WAS ADDED TO THE
COMPUTER
Q WHEN U SAY THAT U LOOKED AT THE REGIS TO SEE
WHAT SOFTWARE WAS ADDED 648 WHAT IS IT THAT YR
LOOKING FOR OR WHAT IS IT THAT YR DOING THERE?
A- WELL JUST GETTING FEEL FOR WHAT TYPE OF SOFTWARE IS
ADDED TO IT GIVES U AN IDEA OF WHAT THIS USER IS DOING
ON THE COMPUTER…
Q-
SO IF A PERSON ADDS SOFTWARE WHAT WOULD THAT TELL
U IF ANYTHING-
A- WELL IF THEY HAVE SOFTWARE- DEPENDING
IF ITS A CASE INVOLVING LETS SAY CHECK FRAUD AND THEY
HAVE SOFTWARE WHERE THAT ALLOWS U TO CREATE
CHECKS THEN THAT WOULD TELL ME THEY HAD THE ABILITY
TO DO THAT
Q-714 WAS THERE ANY SOFTWARE THAT WAS ADDED TO THIS
COMPUTER?
A- UH JUST BASIC SOFTWARE
Q-SUCH AS WHAT?
A- UH WINDOWS OFFICE THINGS LIKE THAT
Q-ANYTHING RELATED FOR EXAMPLE TO GOING TO ADULT
SITES-
A-WELL IN THAT SENSE I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE PEER TO PEER SOME SOFTWARE THAT
WOULD ALLOW U TO SHARE FILES FROM ONE USER TO
ANOTHER
Q-AND DID U FIND THAT?
A-i DID NOT
Q-AnD WHATELSE DID U DO IN TERMS OF SEARCHING THIS
COMPUTER?-
A-BASICALLY I SEARCHED EVERY SINGLE FILE I COULD OPEN
AND THEN OPENED IT AND SEE WHATS INSIDE OF IT 751
A-AND DID U SEE.THRUOUT THIS WHOLE SEARCHING FROM
BEGINNING TO END DID U SEE ANY IMAGES OF CHILDREN IN
THAT COMPUTER?
A nO
and If he did look thru the registry and did have access to everything and opened everything then how is it if he was using the 2008 mirror image that he did not uncover YOUporn site or others with
clearly that would be a site that you could upload yr own vid and download others…yet he claims no adult sites were visited
cont
Q-OK AND ONCE U MAKE A MIRRORIMAGE OF THE HARD
DRIVEU CAN SEE ITS CONTENT ACTIVITY WEB BROWSER
ACTIVITY THINGS OF THAT NATURE CORRECT?- CORRECT
IN MOST CASES AND THAT HAPPEND IN THIS CASE
CORRECT?
A-YES
Q-OK AND WHEN U DID THAT FORENSIC EX AM OF THIS COMP
LAPTOP AND U WERE THE ONE WHO SEIZED IT INTO
PROPERTY CORRECT?
A-316- YES
Q-OK AND U TOOK EVERY ASSSURANCE U COULD TO Make
SURE THAT U POWERED IT DOWN CORRECTLY 323 THOSE
KINDA THINGS SO U COULD PRESERVE THAT DATA..
A- YES I DID
Q- 328 OK AND AFTER U DID THAT FORENSIC EXAMINATION
YOU WROTE A REPORT RIGHT? CORRECT
EXhibit 347
So which internet browser did he check all of them or was his preference again limiting did his report ex 347 thorough did he note all info nd was the report written from his examination of 2008 image or was it written of later copies if later copies why? and if he did examine 2008 image then unlike defense who never had access till 2014 he should have uncovered visits to sites regardless if no “images were saved….
negligence or other…IDK but several things become clear- LE and their expert viewed the computer and its contents as important INCLUDING any sites visited as melendez testified in denial to any “so called” adult sites – and they were looking into and opening everything…yet the testimony is rather limiting…what of the report?
AJMO Peace
who writes:
Re computers, her point is that BECAUSE the porno was accessible on the mirror image, it cannot be proven that it was purposely hidden.
–
who the mirror image where the porno resides Was withheld from the defense- was it hidden? yes i was not given over in discovery- can it be proven that it was done inorder to deny access to favorable evidence to the defendant?- what other reason can be surmised other than perhaps i was done simply to coverup LEs mishandling gross negligence in securing handling examining and presenting evidence other than covering up misconduct and the withholding evidence.
For Gods sake- Florez regardless of 2008 protocol or lack there of FULLY understood the need to handle secure and keep evidence pristine- His own words are the proof that what Florez and Melendez did and did not do was gross negligence incompetence-misconduct and withholding of evidence
snipped interview:
JA: To me pictures are very compelling but I know they can be modified, altered and I don’t know but I think date and time stamps can be tampered with.
Flores: we did not modify anything. Say like a computer, we take a mirror copy of it, and we don’t even touch it…. That’s exactly what we do with the photos. We don’t work with the originals and we make an exact duplicate copy and we work with the copy..And our guys are so good, that every case that I know of, has never been lost in court
–
Um except the photos were altered the timestamps and times were written on there by someone other than the computer expert- and Who knows what was altered or erased on the computer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mJ9A39cWyQ
10200
Q only some of those were timestamped right
A from what i recall yes
Qwhen i say timestamped i mean only u were able to get information from the forensic program u used to get those pictures right?
A right from the dat that the camera imbedded in the file
Q right so inotherwords the info that is on those photos the red writing that actually comes from yr forensic program 10223
A not the red writng itself the information does…
Q oh did u put the red writing on it?
A No
Q somebodyelse did then?
A shrugs shoulders 10231 I dont know little shrug I didnt put the red writing on there
Q alright do u disagree that is the time..in those pictures?
A .. no that is the accurate time 10238
—
what is obvious by Florez words is that they surely understood not to touch the computer the camera the evidence surely they understood the need for securing it- and surely they understood the need to warn the defense written protocal or no and if it was done surely to note it on logs and surely to turn over evidence for trial as how else can they be so good as to never lose …unless to do so- IS the way they win …
So was evidence hidden obscured not given possibly erased purposely because it might be detrimental to the victims image as well as their story going to trial Of Kind gentle somewhat naive religious man struggling to find his lifemate struggling to be better who was overtaken by an evil woman who used sex and lies to snare him and then killed him when he dared to break it off and want to marry vacation with another…
Who you wrote
She states that in fact, in the guilt phase Dworkin testified that there WAS porn on the computer, and defense had the opportunity at THAT time to address it, which they did by his testimony- and that the jury had the ability and right to weigh the two positions and factor the conflicting testimony in their verdict.
–i agree in part although it WAS addressed at trial and it was answered by the prosecutions Lies and supposed proof of expert testimony of NO PORN NO viruses- Jurors asked LOTS of questions some were not read- others were and they wanted to know the truth about the computer-about TA about JA they needed to know how throrough and reliable Melendez was- did he look for porn – and whether there was evidence of TA looking at naked women and children- – these questions were answered by No adult sites no images of Women or children…None No porn no viruses…So if u were a juror- how would you weigh that? especially when it was used by JM to prove LIAR- youd say hum he looked he opened everything no sites No porn no viruses… expert did job ws utterly truthful How could defense impeach him back then?
—If the jury would have heard LE and the prosecutor thought that porn was irrelevant as was the computer that the expert was testifying WRONGLY either by total NEGLIGENCE or LIES or other I BET it would have weighed into any decision making …
You wrote;
But MOST importantly, she says that this issue is not properly before her court, in essence saying, this is an issue regarding the guilt phase, we are in the penalty phase, so this is an appellate issue. To me that is different that saying there is no validity in defense’s position.
–
i agree it is an appellate issue but these issues were before her court during the trial the camera dropping the other issues and how could the defense bring these issues up at trial? the 2008Mirror image etc before/during the trial- as they had just learned of it in 2014?
Why waste the tax payers money to seek out the death penalty if she agrees that there is validity to the claims?
Why not sanction the prosecution or take the penalty of the table?
She confessed the jury who found her guilty were split on the decision they toiled over their decision– and likely are haunted by the whole thing-
Perhaps those who voted for life would have been swayed with this evidence to vote not guilty perhaps those who voted for death would have chang3d their vote for life- theyll never know -we will never know-
The prosecution and LE did a disservice to them and to Travis when they withheld evidence and or attempted to obscure the truth-
Jodi will be punished –
What of LE and the prosecution will they be held accountable or will they go on to “never lose a case”
Just How do you lose a case when a defendant pleads guilty and admits to the brutal killing?
Ask “the prosecutor”- ask Florez melendez and Horne- for nomatter what- there are those outthere – wondering if they can railroad an obviously guilty defendant inorder to secure a death sentence then my God what are they capable of doing to secure a conviction of an innocent person who does not have the money the means or the notoriety to stop them?
who thanks for letting me think this thru with u- I sincerely appreciate yr viewpoint I learn alot thru the exchange of ideas
AJMO Peace
Blink writes:
Heart you- but this is where I have to play blink a bit- disclaimer- Your commentary is not a legal definition as it relates to “self defense”. Her plea defines this as to statute. You can’t mount an “absolute defense” if
—-
first of all, heart you more, Blinkster!
Am including the link upon which I based my presumption that it was incumbent on Arias to justify claim of self defense. I am ( obviously) a laymen, and apologize for any misinterpretation.( I admit that I am definitely in the zone of confirmation bias now, but I am hoping that regardless of my present bias is allowed on this site. At this point, I am just going by Stephens ruling that there is no misconduct, and still ” festering” on Arias’ guilt.. Thank you for your patience, I think we all know you are usually miles ahead)
here is the site where I got my input about self defense claims:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-defenses.html
Hi Mom 3!
Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into your posts. They always reveal what a good person you are!
I believe your last post speaks very clearly to appellate issues regarding Arias guilt.If this jury comes to verdict of DP, no question the appeal will be focused on the computer saga.
Unfortunatley, Arias has told her truths so inconsistently that anything she says is under suspicion. That is the consequence of lying about any ONE thing, it snowballs. Jury instructions acknowledge this by saying , in so many words, that the jury can choose to discredit part or all of any witness testimony if they discern lack of credibility in any one thing. For example, La Violette imparted a lot of truths about emotional abuse. But she was discredited for other things she said. Baby out with the bathwater, same as Samuels etc.
.
If for example, Arias testified and could prove that when she dropped the camera, Travis became so angry that he physically attacked her to such a degree that it took shooting stabbing and cutting his throat for her to stay alive, this would have been be a different trial.
Arias defense has always been that Travis was an immoral and emotionally abusive person who took away her ability to leave him, and Arias responded to all of this by murdering him in self defense, fearing for her life when she angered him by dropping the camera. That is about guilt. Guilt phase over ( for the moment)
As far as penalty phase , the question is simply: was the manner in which Arias murdered Travis a reasonable response ti the threat posed by Travis,or did it reach the level of heinous and cruel that would qualify for death penalty.
If the jury has compassion for her emotional struggles, and believes there is specific value in granting her life, they would then vote for life in some form either with parole or not.
@whodunnit. I recommend you get a
law degree at night, practice a few years
while greasing a political party,
and run for judge. you are good.
Rose writes
I recommend you get a
law degree at night, practice a few years
while greasing a political party,
and run for judge. you are good.
—-
Thanks but with all respect, thats a real lol! I found this site , and now am certainly a die hard Blink fan – really enjoy the experience of reading and learning from all posters! But as you can see, I tend toward bias- and barely got out of high school, let alone being able to take on further education!! I am grateful that I am allowed to post my opinions here, but can’t ever claim any expertise, I leave that to you and others who already have a solid background! Thanks always.
Don’t be so self-critical who- if I sound too forward I apologize- but your critical thinking and perspective has progressed here a great deal, imo. If I achieved one goal for this site, ever, it would be that I advanced my own critical thinking, education and perspectives as well as others – from an advocacy perspective. We are the sum of our parts.
B
Blink writes:
( in reference to the suicide of Joshua Freeman, brother of witness Daniel Freeman, who identified Arias a a ( pre murder of Travis),close family friend)
I have always wondered what caliber gun was used and where it was purchased.
——–
Blink, I have scored and cannot find any direct statement of caliber of gun, though perhaps death cert would have info. I found THIS reference , posted by Daniel Freeman on Jan 24, 2014, where he states it was a ” small caliber gun”. Note: no reference is made to where the small caliber gun used by Joshua came from.
here is link:
http://forwardwalking.com/2014/01/24/loved-ones-suicide/
Hi back Who- Thanks for the kindness I value yr well thought out perspectives as well- who i think you are a kind hearted person as well.
You wrote: whodunnit says:
January 18, 2015 at 2:56 pm
Unfortunatley, Arias has told her truths so inconsistently that anything she says is under suspicion. That is the consequence of lying about any ONE thing, it snowballs. Jury instructions acknowledge this by saying , in so many words, that the jury can choose to discredit part or all of any witness testimony if they discern lack of credibility in any one thing. Jury instructions acknowledge this by saying , in so many words, that the jury can choose to discredit part or all of any witness testimony if they discern lack of credibility in any one thing. For example, La Violette imparted a lot of truths about emotional abuse. But she was discredited for other things she said. Baby out with the bathwater, same as Samuels etc.
Yes who I agree totally – a juror may weigh any witnesses testimony based on their belief of truthfulness vs mendacity even that of an expert
Based on yr own examples you help to further my thought process
Let me try to explain
You rightfully brought up the defenses experts testimony as ringing untrue and in many instances being proven untrue- Samuels findings of PTSD were based on an untrue incident-
and LaViolette testimony could be seen as discredited on several issues- –
Despite this Some jurors wholeheartedly believed Travis was abusive and Jodi was victimized- (the jury foreman for ex.) others felt they were totally discredited on the stand- – and disregarded the testimony- point being they were able to weigh these points for themselves and arrive at a decision
Who- if the prosecution released the 2008 mirror image in discovery melendez testimony at the very least would have become an issue for debate melendez incompetency and possible outright lying IRT no porn no viruses would have been argued by the defense. the jury would have been able to fairly judge the facts and arguments by both sides for themselves to decide if his expert testimony was sound- or should in part or in its entirety be disregarded- which then might have also called into question his testimony and expertize IRT the camera/photo evidence-
faced with this info argued by both sides
would one or more of the jurors think :If he could be so inept so wrong… or if he could obscure the truth so well or perhaps even lie so effortlessly how can his testimony- his work – his findings be trusted or relied upon as evidence?
The jury did not get to do this- as the 2008 mirror image was not turned over until 2014 and the prosecution seemingly “proved” thru melendez (whose expertize and honesty was nonimpeachable then) that there was no viruses no porn therefore JA lied about no triggering of self defense mode first thru remembrance of an earlier attack then 2nd by TA anger both which were said to have attributed to arias fleeing and then when cornered killing travis
who you wrote:
Arias has told her truths so inconsistently that anything she says is under suspicion.
— I agree that anything she says must carefully be scrutinized- but IMO Florez credibilty as well as Hornes as well as melendez and JM is now called into question same as hers-
And in fact it seems that JM has a history of“improper” behavior and or misconduct
See here:
Martinez helped send seven other killers to death row since he was hired at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in 1988.
He was accused by defense attorneys of prosecutorial misconduct in all but one of those cases; the Arizona Supreme Court characterized his actions as constituting misconduct in one of them, and cited numerous instances of “improper” behavior in another, but neither rose to the level where the justices felt they needed to overturn the cases. Allegations of misconduct by Martinez in the second case and at least two others are pending in state and federal courts.
snipped :
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131028jodi-arias-juan-martinez-conduct-day3.html
—
So like Arias it seems that if we are judging on past behaviors/conduct then he too must be under the microscope of suspicion- No?
Who should be trusted … A murderer Arias pleading guilty asking for leniency claiming it was selfdefense shot came first and stating yes i previously lied- (but not under oath) or Horne who only changed testimony when pressed- meledenez who was sorely incompetent or worse…Florez the same in addition to changing testimony – or the prosecutor with 6 of his 7 cases being reviewed for improper behaviors and misconduct…
IDK
Who you wrote:
If for example, Arias testified and could prove that when she dropped the camera, Travis became so angry that he physically attacked her to such a degree that it took shooting stabbing and cutting his throat for her to stay alive, this would have been be a different trial.
–
Who if the blood evidence was collected it might have told that story…
who perhaps if the blood /computer/camera evidence was properly handled and secured and if chain of custody w simcard etc were not in question as well as timetamps and so on than I would feel more like you do- as it is right now – I cant say if Arias killed Travis alone with malice a forethought or if LE made it impossible for the truth to be uncovered in their zealousness to send Arias to death row.
You wrote:
Arias defense has always been that Travis was an immoral and emotionally abusive person who took away her ability to leave him, and Arias responded to all of this by murdering him in self defense, fearing for her life when she angered him by dropping the camera. That is about guilt. Guilt phase over ( for the moment)
who , respectfully she didnt always claim that- in fact she claimed the opposite at first- remember when she was lying…why is it that so many choose to disregard her earlier stories except for the part that travis was good and nice and loving…
- who although it pains me greatly to say it as i am a staunch supporter of NOT bashing a victim- TA was not a very morally upright man- he could be manipulative smarmy-mean bordering on abusive not just to Arias but to deanna – he treated them very poorly he used them and he recognized this as did his friends
Arias claim was never that she murdered him because of any of that but because he attacked her that day- the testimony of earlier actions incidences was to supply background/foundation- – the backwounds tend to show what Blink claimed might of happened what Arias claimed that he was on top of her and she was reaching around- does a physical fight between the two of them have to show self defnse on Arias part? no it could show a brutal attack where travis was the one who was fighting in self defense- we’ll never no because this LEA and the prosecution failed in collecting preserving safeguarding and presenting the evidence
I agree this was part of the guilt phase – the point is that we still dont have the truth which prevents us from having justice despite this jury handing down a verdict
who wrote:
As far as penalty phase , the question is simply: was the manner in which Arias murdered Travis a reasonable response ti the threat posed by Travis,or did it reach the level of heinous and cruel that would qualify for death penalty.
— I agree who but without having reliable evidence reliable expert testimony reliable police work forensics and all the rest how on earth can you or i or the jury or the judge ever begin to determine if Arias murdered Travis as a reasonable response to the threat posed by Travis- Without knowing that why are we even contemplating a death penalty – for regardless if She killed in in self defense or not his manner of death was heinous wasnt it?
Who wrote:
If the jury has compassion for her emotional struggles, and believes there is specific value in granting her life, they would then vote for life in some form either with parole or not.
–
who I understand that- although I am not sure if life with P. parole is an option.. having said that- if the trial was tainted by misconduct and worse than the verdict was never just- was it?
the jury was not able to do their duty- as the facts and evidence/testimony was faulty… and if that is the case -then this whole penalty phase was a waste of tax payers money and a further injustice to TA and his family as well as Arias/family and to we the people wasnt it?
IDK what the truth is who- I just think if a jury is being asked to send a person to death then LE and the prosecution sure as heck better be able to get as close to it as possible – thru facts and evidence not thru hyperbole and hubris
Thanks for sharing yr thoughts with me who- you ofcourse could be right in every instance I hope that you are-
AJMO peace
As you wish but I think it was a benefit to the thread.
B
Mom 3.O writes:
posted Jan. 19,12:30 A.M.
—–
MOM 3.0-
– I am watching the twitter feeds today and yesterday and am factoring that info in to my response to your analysis of what I posted earlier.
You have expressed grave concerns about what the jury was exposed to in the first two trials , citing misconduct and withholding of evidence, saying that Arias claims may well have been considered in a different light. The defense put forth 17 motions based on the same concept. Stephens made it clear that this was not properly before her court, which is code for ; These are appellate issues that go to the previous verdict of guilty of pre meditated murder in the first degree.
Re twitter feeds of the past two days of the penalty phase, affidavits have been presented that include a witness claims that he saw with his own eyes child porn that was linked to Travis accessing that computer ( at a Bishop’s house in Riverside Calif.) and that he also talked to Travis about it, and claimed that Travis not only admitted to using the computer but also that he ( Travis) had been molested as a child. So if your concern is that the original jury was never given this info as a mitigating factor, that at least should be allayed.
In Stephens ruling, she refers to the responsibility of the juror. Jury instructions acknowledge that the jury has the responsibility of deciding ON THEIR OWN, what is fact and what is not, when drawing conclusions. In a case where we have an admission of guilt, but without specific corroboration of the defendants claim, the State provides THEIR scenario to the best of their ability, and this is, as I understand, ” circumstantial evidence”, where the jury must connect the dots. There is no evidence provided that Arias was defending her life in terms of broken bones, ( finger has never been X-rays to my knowledge to show what made it crooked and how long aao, something that I would imagine is possible to to know) . She was seen within hours of the murder with no visible physical compromise aside from bandaids on two fingers,as per by Ryan’s testimony. If the forensics revealed a struggle where Arias was truly defending herself against a potentially fatal attack, I would have imagine that defense would have presented that, as they had access to the info gathered.
The point is that it was two years later that the crime scene itself even came into back into play in terms of a self defense claim, because Arias maintained she was a bystander, not the perpetrator. On top of that, the police didnt even get to the crime scene for five days. The body was in such a state of decomposition at that point that even the autopsy was compromised due to deterioration of body. Although I think in a perfect world we would have loved to have seen television worthy ( hello CSI factor) investigation, I still maintain that it was a confluence of many circumstances that led to negligence on State’s part.
Many of State’s objections today were ” residual doubt”.. In the penalty phase,the jury must accept the verdict of guilt, premeditated and fitting for death penalty (if this jury agrees to that in penalty phase) tthese are all conclusions from the previous trial. So in penalty phase, Defense cannot present an argument that is aimed at casting doubt- ” residual doubt” on that verdict.
As I read your response to my previous post, it looks like, to me, and with all respect, that you have residual doubt about the verdict achieved in the guilt phase. I can’t imagine that the defense is going to just let the computer issues ride, they have a basis for appeal if they can prove the State purposefully withheld exculpatory evidence. ( having said that, remember that the child porn thing is NOW IN, as mitigation)
you write:
I just think if a jury is being asked to send a person to death then LE and the prosecution sure as heck better be able to get as close to it as possible – thru facts and evidence not thru hyperbole and hubris
———
Wouldn’t that be great!- of course that is the goal of the system we have.Our trial system is based on the concept that lawyers will ethically argue law in an effort to illuminate the truth, and that being under oath will illicit the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth- but at the core , we have never gotten the truth ,. the whole truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth from the defendant claiming guilt.
—–
I came to this trial with a desire to find the truth behind the murder. I still do not know, except that a man was cruelly murdered by a defendant who is trying to show that, due to her own traumas in life accrued over years and heightened in her relationship with Travis, she was incapable of fleeing the scene when the man allegedly became aggressive in anger when she dropped a camera. (I honestly don’t even fully buy that the sex romp pics and even nude shower pics were taken that day, or that there was even an argument over a dropped camera, but thats another thread, lol)
My point is that to me, this retrial has now become more about our system than about what happened on June 4th.
I am biased in my belief that 1. Arias does know what happened and 2. will take that to her grave, however she arrives at her final destination.
If there was anything more exculpatory than her claim that she feared for her life because she discovered his secret sexual predilection, I would think it would have come out already.
It’s clear she has always had emotional problems. But it is still not clear to me if murdering him the way she did was in any way a reasonable response – even factoring in her emotional problems-to the behavior she was exposed to by continuing her relationship with Travis.
The affidavits and the Geffner testimony about Travis relationships with other women is proving ( to me, at least) that it was ONLY Jodi who responded with murder to behavior that other women responded to by ending their thing with him. So it just comes down to the jury saying they understand why she went that far and granting her life, or saying, no excuse, DP.
As far as taxpayers costs, again, its the system we have. Arizona is one of only three states that empowers the jury all the way through and demands a unanimous vote ( for example, in other states, the majority rules – and in other states, the jury is NOT involved with the penalty)
Arias once stated, in so many words, that if she never have done anything to hurt Travis, and if she HAD lilled him, she would beg for the death penalty. She also stated that would PREFER the death penalty to life in prison, though she recanted the next day. She has been a moving target since day one, and without wanting to sound harsh, I think that trying to find the truth when a defendant won’t be honest is at the core of the costs to date. Her own subterfuge,her avoidance of fact has opened the door for all kinds of things, misconduct included. But even that isn’t the issue at hand.
There is a LOT of information that is coming out of the State;s cross of Geffner, today Jan 22, not the least of which is the letter that Arias wrote to the grandparents- which I don’t recall hearing quoted to such a degree in the previous trial .
Anyway, I am going to try to hold off and observe for a bit before posting away- I keep changing my perspective with every new tidbit! my last post was submitted rather hastily, retracted, then I had another go, whoa I am getting carried away!
On the order- while I am not remotely surprised at it’s denial in total, I am pretty surprised that she found that a discovery violation had occurred on behalf of the State but that it wasn’t at least sanction-able considering she denied all motions similarly throughout the guilt trial and at the end of the day it cannot be denied that exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense. In my view, how is a juror or Jurist supposed to evaluate the credibility of witnesses if they never knew there was impeachable information to consider? That makes zero sense for her to decide how materially it factored into the juror’s determinations.
Yes I agree Stevens did acknowledge a discovery violation- yet leaves the prosecution unscathed and the defense without relief-
Yes exculpatory evidence was held from the defense and I agree with your view/question how is a juror supposed to weigh out the credibility of witnesses if they never knew there was impeachable evidence to consider- I again agree that it is senseless for the judge to attempt to decide how it would have factored into the jurors determinations.
In fact Ill go one step further to say that Stephens should have realized that it may have played a huge part in their deliberatioins because a great portion of the jurors questions to Melendez centered around his “expert” analysis of the computers and what was or was not found IRT porn – he assured them that his evaluation was thorough and that there was NO porn no viruses- went further to say no “so called” adult sites were accessed
Although Now
Whats real interesting is that Florez and Melendez and JM have now adopted the view that visiting XXX sites are different than having xxx images on the computer-
MK Jan 12 tweets:
Flores says there was no child pornography on the computer.
Martinez asks questions, Flores agrees. At the time, Martinez says, they were still entertaining the ninja killer theory not pornography.
On redirect, Willmott asks if there wasn’t a search term for teen porn. No porn, she says was that he didn’t see images.
Flores says that finding porn on the computer and visiting porn sites are two different things. Search terms, visit to you porn, no images
—-
Florez finishes up Jan 12th by saying
MK tweet
Willmott: to say there was no porn on the computer is not the whole picture. Martinez protesting. Flores: “There is history of access.”
—
Well there was a history of access- and what else was in the history before it it was overwritten and ALLOWED to be overwritten? who knows-
hey talked of no images none of womanbs breasts none of below the waist- yet TA was constantly asking for pics of the women he had on the line…at least one who was in a sexual relationsip- what happened to those that Arias sent- that others sent? IDK
even IRT the images allegedly seen by witness at Bishops house JMs question was PP Do you know if these imagess were OWNED by Travis- did travis deny ownership…
Well first, if caught with a folder of kiddie porn what person wouldnt deny ownership?
Michael Kiefer Jan 21
“Yes or no?” “Yes or no, what?” Did Alexander “own” those photos?” “I don’t know if the word ‘owner’ came up.”
—
My question, Huh? Seriously this is supposed to prove they werent his? if it were illegal xxx pics of kids then OBVIOUSLy they were not legally “owned” by anyone.
The computer evidence is far from pristine and in fact has been called ointo question by the prosecution…it was a shared computer there were virusesArias had access- well if they to believe that the coimputer evidence is not reliable then how they heck was it allowed into evidence at all during the trial-
JA s “pedo” leters were argued as inadmissable stating in part:
We do not know if the victim wrote dozens of letters or
none at all. Defendant has produced only those letters that show her in a good light and disparage the victim. They are
irrelevant, cumulative and hearsay. However, if this court is inclined to admit some portions of the letters, the State
requests that defendant identify which specific portions she intends to use, how they are relevant and which hearsay
exception applies. She should not be permitted to simply introduce pages of self-serving hearsay.
end
How do we know if this isnt exactly what LE and the prosecution did with the computer- they presented the evidence prone to show Arias in bad light withhelf evidence from defense during discovery and further did away with evidence that showed TA in bad light ?
Blink you wrote:
I don’t have Melendez testimony transcript handy but I am pretty positive her summary of it is incorrect as well- at any rate she should have referenced the transcript by line and paragraph as she is required.
TOTALLY agree
And how the eff did I miss Mama Flores tweeting, LOL?
I missed this too Blink- wasnt it his wife though?
You wrote:
I agree with your points, and part of me wished that Nurmi had sprung for a law professor specializing in criminal evidence submission, process and procedure to help draft this motion and centered it more around the inability at the time (due to lack of knowledge) to raise some 404 issues and the like. Nurmi’s argument against the extent of misconduct was light on specifics and then should have been supported by examples of different outcome as it related to the verdict but he did preserve all issues appellate, imo.
– Youre right Blink had he been more specific it might have made all the difference- and I agrre he seems to have done a good job perserving for appelate ct
You wrote:
Lastly- how do you rule on the evidentiary issues that are still being analyzed by both parties and how does she really say that she can’t remember all things said in different hearings or chambers, etc, when she has access to minutes and transcripts? Bizarre.
Basically she is saying hey- you hired experts- none of us figured out until now wth was on there so it is a level playing field except I don’t believe that whatsoever.
— IDK all good questionsYet again Blink
You wrote
If Arias had not testified on her own behalf, which the Judge does not even address- I might say that although I vehemently believe prosecutorial misconduct has been proven, it could not be proven to the extent of “a different verdict”- but because she did, and within that direct/redirect/cross/rebutt strategy jurors absolutely weighted her credibility and truthfulness with a portion of that going to the instant motion matter- in essence, this withheld evidence was supportive of her testimony, and impeached the states and the jury never had the information to weigh- that my friend, is unconstitutional as a violation of due process- it just is.
Hear hear Blink
and the evidence that is coming to light now of witnesses backing poss abuse of Deanna – womanizing reminiscent of JA TA relationship – asking for pics
and with the possible misconduct evidence tampering withholding etc-
It makes me question what LE was capable of obscuring… possibly the truth of who TA might have been or what he migfht have been capable of…
Which has me even wondering about the letters
Is it possible he wrote the letters- it seems the prosecution wasnt wholeheartedly denying them as written byTA- mostly that they would be hearsay possible dealt in fantasy only and were too prejudicial- Should the jury been able to weigh them IDK
http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Jodi-Arias-Court-Docs-1.pdf
AND this BOTHERS me that Im questioning.. THIS as a possibility that it can not be thrown out – theres doubt because of all the questionable antics of LE and the prosecution
You:
Stephens REALLY does not want to call this one, of that I am sure.
B
AGreed-
AJMO Peace
OT Sorry it took so long to respond Blink
Still working to help my Dad recover- Still a daily battle as Pneumonia is Hell
oops the post should have began wih the header RE Blink says
Mom3.0 says:
January 14, 2015 at 8:19 pm
Re who-
HI-
you wrote:
In Stephens ruling, she refers to the responsibility of the juror. Jury instructions acknowledge that the jury has the responsibility of deciding ON THEIR OWN, what is fact and what is not, when drawing conclusions.
—-
who,
Yes it is the responsibility of a juror to decide on their own what is fact and what is not
What I am saying, respectfully- is that the jury it seems was not ever capable of completing their responsibility
As a very REAL possibility exists that any conclusions were drawn from potentially erroneous info misrepresented as facts
You wrote:
In a case where we have an admission of guilt, but without specific corroboration of the defendants claim, the State provides THEIR scenario to the best of their ability, and this is, as I understand, ” circumstantial evidence”, where the jury must connect the dots. There is no evidence provided that Arias was defending her life in terms of broken bones, ( finger has never been X-rays to my knowledge to show what made it crooked and how long aao, something that I would imagine is possible to to know) . She was seen within hours of the murder with no visible physical compromise aside from bandaids on two fingers,as per by Ryan’s testimony.
–
who thats my point, whther she lied before or not she ADMITTED guilt- before trial
as to the self defense-
S1149,expanded the rights of Arizona citizens to use lethal force in cases of self-defense. ** it switched the burden of proof in such cases to the state from the defendant, and it raised the degree of proof necessary to achieve convictions in such cases**
who respectfully,
There need not be ANY evidence of bodily harm- not even a hair out of place to be considered a lawful act of self defense even with the use of lethal force-
The law states PP
its lawful IF
A reasonable person would believe they were acting to preserve their life or prevent serious or grave bodily harm to themselves-
You wrote:
If the forensics revealed a struggle where Arias was truly defending herself against a potentially fatal attack, I would have imagine that defense would have presented that, as they had access to the info gathered.
who-
Im sorry but thats the PROBLEM- The evidence PICS DO show there was a struggle- as do the wounds to TA.(KIM some of which for ex,*superficial shallow back wounds* tend to corroborate Blinks theory of life/death struggle w/ Arias on bottom
theres Blood from one end of the hall to the other theres blood evidence; spray- drops smears-on the sink- the mirror the bathtub the shower- the toilet in the other room- – NEAR and on the scales- etc – most of that evidence was NOT COLLECTED- OR TESTED/TYPED as Blink has pointed out- only certain areas were collected typed- preserved presented-
who, the defense DID NOT HAVE access to all this evidence- it was not collected- preserved- ETC so how could they have presented it for the jury?
KIM JM stood before the jury and gave THIS instruction to them before deliberations
snipped closing argument IRT self defense- and JMs instructions on why it DOESNT apply to JA:
The statute … or the law says a reasonable person. It doesn’t say that the defendant is a reasonable person. The defendant is a liar and a killer. That’s not what it says there. It says a reasonable person; a person that is involved in those circumstances. And that’s not the defendant;
end snip
–
- So because JA admitted guilt and is a liar- JM led the jury to believe they must not apply the SD law to her (even if the killing falls under selfdefense) because Self defense law cant be applied to an unreasonable person and by JM definition a person who has killed and has told lies can never be be seen as a “reasonable” person?
JM went on to state:
you have to believe that force was immediately necessary because she told you so. That’s the only way that you would know that it was immediately necessary, because she told you so.
end
NOT so there was another way if LE and the prosecution did their job and shared discovery etc then NO ONE least of all this jury would have to rely ONLY upon Arias, word- they could have presented the EVIDENCE the FACTS not her omissions her lies nor her lacking journal-
you wrote:
In Stephens ruling, she refers to the responsibility of the juror. Jury instructions acknowledge that the jury has the responsibility of deciding ON THEIR OWN, what is fact and what is not, when drawing conclusions.
I agree who it is the jurys task to draw conclusions based on facts/evidence and to do so within the confines of the law but inorder to do so RESPONSIBLY the facts, the evidence and the LAW must be collected preserved and presented not be withheld-obscured or misrepresented
ps
who I appreciate the conversation Im learning alot from the discussion
to be cont-
AJMO Peace
cont part 2
re who
you wrote:
The point is that it was two years later that the crime scene itself even came into back into play in terms of a self defense claim, because Arias maintained she was a bystander, not the perpetrator. On top of that, the police didnt even get to the crime scene for five days.
—-
who , what if Arias NEVER came out and admitted ANYTHING?
This LEA and this prosecution tainted evidence never collected evidence rushed to judgement centered in on Arias- lost evidence didnt preserve evidence or chain of custody
What does it matter ifdArias was still claiminbg ninjas dd it? Did the prosecution eliminate them and all avenues? does any of the evidence presented negate someonelse committing this crime- even with the defendant or FOR the defendant??
there has been testimony that her brother and friends went after her previous boyfriend when he became violent – he scared them off with sword- Did LE and this prosecution thru investigation and evidence eliminate such a scenario in the event that Arias never admitted guilt?
there has been much talk of Mormonism- and TAs standing in the church- with this talk we have all presented ponderings over the possibility that someone wanted to kill TA in a atonement killing- his wounds do coincide with this- if Arias never admitted guilt- could this LEA and the prosecution present meaningful evidence and testimony that such a scenario didnt occur and not by someone other than JA?
If JA didnt admit guilt could LE/prosecution prove someone a helpful roommate- church goer family member etc didnt try to clean up the scene the computer the “images” etc inorder to safeguard TA
reputation and the churchs reputation- before calling LE- there was witness statements that someone cleaned up- who? the banister was wet remember why? etc
It wouldnt be the first time that happened would it?
What does it matter that porn was never an issue brought up by arias before? LE should have looked into EVERY thing and every one following wherever the evidence took them-
If Arias held steadfast to nonguilt-the computer could have held the key to who killed travis and why- the porn site access should have ALWAYS been an avenue to follow for LEA- regardless of who they believed the killer to be- for all they knew Arias killed him over an uploaded youporn vid of himself and JA- afterall he did claim he wanted to do “legitimate porn” perhaps she killed him to get access to the computer so she could abort upload- was youporn site checked for any uploads by Travis- it seems not because porn access wasnt an issue UNTIL Arias brought it up….OK
you wrote:
The body was in such a state of decomposition at that point that even the autopsy was compromised due to deterioration of body. Although I think in a perfect world we would have loved to have seen television worthy ( hello CSI factor) investigation, I still maintain that it was a confluence of many circumstances that led to negligence on State’s part.
who respectfully the autopsy was compromised by the ME firstly perhaps by decomp /time secondly-
the Medical examiner presented report that he took slices of TA brain- honestly MUSh DOES NOT slice… report stated that the DURA MATER WAS INTACT- that is impossible IRT his later testimony which only changed when it suite the prosecutions newest theory of gun shot last the number of stab wounds changed as did the force /manner in which he thought they were made…
- respectfully- it seems to me after much research/comparison to other cases TA was relatively WELL preserved- respectfully he was in an airconditioned home-
Inall honesty who,
this case the amount of POTENTIAL forensic evidence it very well could have gave CSI a run for is money had LE only collected preserved and presented the evidence- all the evidence
had LE allowed that evidence to tell TAs story not left it up to their own theories or that of the prosecution which might go to prove a death penalty worthy case- instead of potentially a case of only self defense or as Blink allows the possibility had the evidence been collected and followed a far worse true scenario of JA an uninvited wanna be killer- who killed him tortured him and essentially got away withit because it didnt fit LE and the prosecutions faulty camera timestamps simcard evidence and so on….
who I have no doubt that negligence played a part but I am not content to give this pro?LEs team a pass with only negligence as the answer – For me negligence does NOT account for all actions inactions – testimony etc as previously opined
Cont part 3
AJMO Peace
Part 3
re who
Just wanted to say that I sincerely appreciate yr well thought out reasonings
You wrote:
Many of State’s objections today were ” residual doubt”.. In the penalty phase,the jury must accept the verdict of guilt, premeditated and fitting for death penalty (if this jury agrees to that in penalty phase) tthese are all conclusions from the previous trial. So in penalty phase, Defense cannot present an argument that is aimed at casting doubt- ” residual doubt” on that verdict.
— Good point as usual who-
This was JMs argument true- but KIM that residual doubt is not a settled argument as to mitigating factors
….
In California v. Brown 479 U.S. 541 and other
cases, the US Courts took the view, “”Residual doubt” is
not a fact about the defendant or the circumstances of
the crime, but a lingering uncertainty about facts, a state
of mind that exists somewhere between “beyond a
reasonable doubt” and “absolute certainty.”
In Donald Gene Franklin v.
James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of
Corrections 487 US 164 (1988) : 101 L Ed 2d 155, while
dealing with the death sentence, held
snipped
Brief for Petitioner
14. The plurality and dissent reject petitioner’s
“residual doubt” claim because they conclude
that the special verdict questions did not prevent
the jury from giving mitigating effect to its
“residual doubt[s]” about petitioner’s guilt. See
ante at 487 U. S. 175; post at 487 U. S. 189. This
conclusion is open to question, however. Although
the jury was permitted to consider evidence
presented at the guilt phase in the course of
answering the special verdict questions,
the jury
was specifically instructed to decide whether the
evidence supported affirmative answers to the
special questions “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
App. 15 (emphasis added). Because of this
instruction, the jury might not have thought that,
in sentencing petitioner, it was free to demand
proof of his guilt beyond all doubt.
State v. Harrod (I), 200 Ariz. 309, 26 P.3d 492 (2001)
All five justices agreed there was no lingering doubt that the defendant killed the victim. The Court concluded it “thus need not reach the question of whether residual doubt is a mitigating factor which the defendant must prove.”
Nevertheless, two justices, the second joined by a third justice, wrote special concurrences to discuss the concept. Justice Jones wrote that consideration of residual doubt at sentencing does not fall within the permissible scope of A.R.S. §13-751(G), because that provision refers to “any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense.”
In a separate special concurrence, Justice Feldman, with Justice Zlaket concurring, wrote that
“it is time to make clear to the bench and bar that residual doubt is a mitigating factor.” Justice Feldman reasoned that residual doubt should be considered, especially given the recent evidence showing wrongful convictions occur in capital cases. He also disagreed with Justice Jones, finding that the statute does not limit mitigation to evidence of the defendant’s character and circumstances of the offense, but only provides examples for the command to consider any factors relevant to sentencing. He concluded, “Residual doubt, properly defined, should be considered a substantial mitigating circumstance, and the court should say so.”
you wrote:
As I read your response to my previous post, it looks like, to me, and with all respect, that you have residual doubt about the verdict achieved in the guilt phase. I can’t imagine that the defense is going to just let the computer issues ride, they have a basis for appeal if they can prove the State purposefully withheld exculpatory evidence. ( having said that, remember that the child porn thing is NOW IN, as mitigation)
–
who in all honesty the case that the prosecution presented is bunk-
and speaking for myself that TOTALLY SUCKS she aditted guilt- and still we know nothing of the truth and for me it didnt have to be had LE and this prosecution DID their job and follwed the evidence-
and my arguments and strfe surround the hope that something is done to make sure it NEVER happens again-
JM centered in on her lies
he stated:
Credibility of witnesses
It’s the credibility of witnesses’ instruction. I know, the judge has read it, but because it’s so important it is worth my referencing it again, because it directly relates to the two primary allegations in this case, that of physical abuse and the fact that Mr. Alexander was interested in little boys and girls, according to her.
It tells you that in deciding the facts of this case, you should consider what testimony to accept and what to reject. What it’s telling you there, is that you ultimately decide whether or not this person here, who is the epitome of a liar, whether this individual, whether you are going accept or reject what she tells you. Are you going to pick and choose some things of what she says and then accept some other things? How is that you can know with any certainty whatsoever whether or not she’s telling the truth about anything? It says you may accept everything a witness says or part of it, or none of it. The state submits to you that you are, based on what you’ve seen, based on what you’ve heard, and based on the testimony of others, you should accept none of it. It doesn’t mean that the eighteen days that she was on the witness stand are wasted, no, what that means is you are finally able to see this individual in the light of day. You’re able to see how she reacts. You’re able to see that when push comes to shove, she’ll look each and every one of you in the eye and lie. It doesn’t matter where. And this instruction then goes on and says, in evaluating testimony you should use the tests for truthfulness that people use in determining matters of importance in everyday life……
She has an incredible memory alright, when it comes to lying……
whether or not the witness had a motive, bias or prejudice; if there is any witness in this case, who had motive to lie, it’s this defendant. She’s the person that’s charged.
Alyce LaViolette motive to lie
All of the other witnesses that came here, some of them had a motive, for example, Alyce LaViolette, she had a motive to lie. I mean, um, maybe perhaps it was her reputation that she was interested in, or things like that.
Other witnesses, motive to lie
Um, all the other individuals, for example, Ryan Burns, why would he want to lie about anything? He lives in Utah; he just met her that one time. There’s no reason to believe that he was going to be making these things up. Amanda Webb, why would she want to come in here, after all the work that she’s done and make things up?
Defendant only person with motive to lie
The only person with a motive is the defendant. So when evaluating her testimony, that’s something that you need to consider. When it’s to her benefit, she’s going to lie. Whether the witness, the defendant, was contradicted by anything the witness said or wrote before trial. Well, she wrote, for example, in terms of these two allegations involving the pedophilia and involving the domestic violence that they didn’t happen. Additionally, she never told anybody, and, the reports out there, if, there aren’t any reports, that would corroborate what she said. So, in terms of the pedophilia, well, she says it was on the computer. Well the computer doesn’t show that, and they even back looked and traced and looked everywhere, the house. There were no implements, if you will or anything associated with that kind of conduct. And so in this case, nothing supports what the defendant said. And then you’re asked to take a look at the reasonableness of her testimony, in light of the other evidence. In light of the … in order for her to prevail in this case, in order for you to believe her, because it actually comes down to, whether or not you believe her;if you believe her, then certainly, you could apply the jury instructions, but it comes down to whether or not you believe her.
The other evidence, all of the other evidence that’s out there, contradicts her. So you have to go against all the evidence that’s out there, turn your back on all of that, and say I believe her, therefore, I’m going to find in her favour. The state submits to you that in light of everything, that’s not something that you should do. So what standard do you apply? Well, the standard that you apply is the burden of proof instruction which tells you, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt, firmly convinced is the term.
Not any of the other terms that you may have heard anywhere else in life, it’s just firmly convinced. And it does tell you there are very things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, so absolute certainty is not required. And it does say in criminal law that the law does not require proof that overcomes every doubt. That’s not what we’re talking about here. You just need to be firmly convinced.
end snip
– Using JMs own words all the evidence out there does NOT contradict her…. His question was who other than the defendant and Alyce had a motive to lie?
Well… Florez / testimony should be weighed in the same daylight as Hornes should be as Melendez should be-
as Jms should be … he used JAs lies against her even though some now have come back as true he used his witnesses SEEMING unimpeachability (is that a word? it reminds me of snoopy song Fundamental-Friend-Dependability ) to his full advantage- even though now it is quite questionable- there was porn there were viruses there were visits to so called adult sites- there were witnesses and or poss instances of TA abusiveness to other woman- and possibly to child porn – etc
Flores Horne and melendez had a motive to lie too- that is if a person can reasonably entertain the thought that they were protecting their jobs their butts & their prosecutor and his theory which allowed him to pursue the death penalty without revealing poss misconduct and all the rest… and in turn allowed him o protect his own behind…
You wrote:
, I think that trying to find the truth when a defendant won’t be honest is at the core of the costs to date. Her own subterfuge,her avoidance of fact has opened the door for all kinds of things, misconduct included.
who respectfully MOST guilty persons arent honest and NEVER admit guilt it wasnt her lies that opened any doors it was LE inepttude and possibly WORSE that ALLOWED those doors to remain open for if they would have done their jobs accordingly the evidence would have shut every door she tried to open–
her les did not bring up accusations of misconduct – this prosecuter and his team actions inactions and testimony opened that door wide- and she waltzed thru it….with a middle finger held high in thanks.
Who For me it IS about the system -for what are we doing here as advocates if not trying to ensure the best chance at truth and justice for the victims and their families as well as a fair and just trial for the accused?
Innocent till proven guilty BTLOG hopefully by and thru FACTS and evidence for if that is denied than all the rest goes up in smoke- and we are all at the mercy of inept or corrupt LEA shitty trial lawyers bent on winning at all costs and pizz poor excuses for experts paid by the highest bidder and my friend that aint my hope of
of what the American justice system should be – so if we dont speak to the injustice than we are ALL doomed to repeat it time and time again.
another perp walks and the innocent pay all the while kudos ring out for which ever side “won”….
AJMO Peace
Hi Mom3.0
I have read and re- read your latest post addressed to me many times.
I just wanted you to know that I am reading your posts and am deeply appreciative of the amount of time and detail you put forth to support your opinions. I have a different take on some of the issues you cite,but I don’t have the emotional investment that would provide the energy needed at this point to respond to everything you state. Please forgive my lack of ability to provide the time for a point by point response at this time!!
At this point, I am watching and waiting, and hope you will not be offended if I don’t respond in full.
It is certainly valuable to be able to understand another’s point of view, and whether I agree with you or not, I commend your zeal and commitment to illuminating what you see as injustices in this trial. I’m learning a lot, and thank YOU!
who, I appreciate yr taking the time to read and I value all of yr thoughts and opinions as well. No worries about responding- as My thoughts and opinions change frequently, more often then not I argue for the side of most resistance- its my way of keeping things fair.
I hope it proves out that all of my fears are unfounded and nothing will come back w/ appeals-
I realize LE are more often than not the good guys trying their best to do whats right.
Which brings me to this sad note:
I would like to extend my sincere condolences to DT Florez and to his Family. You are in my prayers.
Mom3.0
AJMO peace
I did so personally on behalf of BOC yesterday, thank you for posting that.
For those that do not know- Det. Flores 15 year old son was killed in an accident.
B
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27945185/2015/01/26/15-year-old-boy-dies-while-zip-lining
PHOENIX (KSAZ) – A 15-year-old boy has died in a zip line accident near Payson this past weekend.
Thank You E-
In addition.
B
I’m so sorry to learn of Det. Flores son passing away. I cannot image the pain he and his family are feeling. I pray they are surrounded by loving friends and family and infinite comfort fro our Heavenly Father.
May the peace of the Lord reign over them during this dark time xo
The devastating circumstances and untimely passing of Detective Flores son have added an element of such deadness to these proceedings. Thank you Blink for sending condolences on behalf of BOC.
Blink, what do you make of such contradictory testimony from State witness’s Bishop Parker and Deanna Reid? The jury is faced with a true he said she said situation- in much more glaring terms than perhaps any other evidence put forth. What do you think is being accomplished here?
As I understand it, heresy evidence is admissible in the penalty phase- what about the 14 witnesses the Defense referred to previously, I don’t see where all those affidavits have preen presented in open court- is it possible that the 14 affidavits will be put in the hands of the jury during deliberations, or did the defense change their minds? Kind of confusing!
Going to be honest here “who”- I am now evaluating this case with the presumption that it will survive its appeal, providing one is filed. Therefore I struggle to opine in the penalty phase in a way- to me- it is a protracted exercise. One on hand, Stephens rules the jurors are not experts- which I support fully, but loosely translated, they have absolutely been put in that position in the penalty phase. This trial phase is off the rails and is going to stay that way.
B
B
TYPO
OMG I meant to say , in sentence one of my post Jan 31, 3:08 pm.
Have added an element of such SADNESS- Blink can you correct that for me, i would hate to put out the word deadness !!! autocorrect eluded me until I saw it !!
blink writes:
This trial phase is off the rails and is going to stay that way.
———
This has indeed been an amazing journey- I was drawn into the Anthony case , and found your website about the 19th day into the original Arias trial. I agree fully when you say that the Huge is demeaning expertise beyond those chosen to make this decision. Arizona one of only three states that does this in the penalty phase, and demands a unanimous vote to boot. Along with questioning the DP itself ( on the boards for Arizona) I am wondering if the use of a jury for the penalty phase will be continued. for much longer. Thanks as always for your generosity and sharing your experience with all of us!
OT
Update on my Dads progress he is doing much better- He Had to be in rehabilitation center for over a month after long hospital stay but now is back at home with outpatient therapies- Thanks for the prayers Most appreciated-
On to the trial-
whodunnit-
I was wondering about the rest of the 14 witnesses as well-
I must say after reading around on the net and nevr forgetting the fiasco surrounding Alyce- I too would feel VERY ill at ease testifying on Jas behalf.. given what we know Im not sure that I blame anyone for not risking backlash Id wonder about the dangers to myself and my family.
Speaking on the question you asked of Blink:
what do you make of such contradictory testimony from State witness’s Bishop Parker and Deanna Reid?
Wih KNurmis cross of Deanna we learned she was said to have been engaged in sexual intercourse with TA only once in a years time-
I think this statement may come back to haunt her as some may think it is not believable for TA such a physical sexual being to be content to keep dating DR for an additional yr without having full intercourse again- especially since up until she put the cabosh on the relationship she was still believing that there was going to be marriage in their future… – IRT the supposed 1 time intercourse… IME This is one of the real life warnings most imparted to inexperienced teens mostly girls – that once a relationship crosses that barrier – it is gone – theres no going back to “innocent” fooling around – DR was kindof vague on time frames which i thought was rather strange also what virgin especially a girl doesnt remember the particulars of their firsttime and of their breakup and of confessing the sins /loss of temple recommend- in addition to whose idea it was to confess and so on?
I think she is even more impeachable because with todays bishops testimony it seems she was not entirely truthful about knowing the persons residing in the bishops home witness one in particular…
The bishops testimony today so far during cross has been fruitful for the defense IMO as it seems they have successfully brought this witness along with DR truthfulness into question-
The bishops depo was much different than todays testimony and it was proven with a marriage certificate that Jake was not lying in the home at the time said so the blame for the pornography/computer would not have been his- with this revelation IMO it puts the bishops whole timeline as well as deannas into question and raises reasonable doubt as to whther they are truthful (especially about the witness 1 episode)or just trying to protect the church and understandably (to a point) victim TA at all costs
tweet jens trial diaries-
Nurmi asking Parker if Deanna Reid witness 1 knowing each other Parker says yes
(That contradicts Deanna Reid saying she didnt know the guy)
Nurmi says its impossible for Jake to have been living there he was married in 1999 Parker just froze
—–end tweets
—Whether anyof this will play to the jury and their deliberations over life or death- is left to be seen.
testimony resumes after lunch
AJMO Peace
correction
* living not lying
mom 3.o
My goal at this point is to be wary of looking for things that confirm the belief I have- known as confirmation bias- for many reasons. Most profoundly is that the info we get about what is said is coming from tweets.
From what I read today, I do not believe that Bishp Parker or Deanna Reid were impeached. I also do not put great value on whether or not Travis was immoral within his religion. Defense prong on the religious aspect is to show that Arias was affected by Travis position in the church and unable to think for herself.
There is no evidence anywhere to show that Travis knowingly and purposely demanded that Arias get no other information about being a Mormon than from him. It is well established that the defense sees Travis’s behavior as so immoral as to have provoked Arias to murder. The jury has to decide if that [ostion cuts her slack for the WAY Travis was murdered.
I do not have any proof of verbatim coming from Bishop. I read his answer about if deanna knew witness one or not to be a general response that he hoped everyone knew each other. I don’t see how this refutes Reid’s claim that she hadn’t met witness 1.I have not read testimony that the Bishop witnessed Reid and Winess ! in the same room at the same time. It is witness one’s claim that Reid was held down by travis and yelled at by Travis who said ” I am mover going to marry you, get that through your head” or variation of that. I have not read anything that corroborates witness1 claim, which was supposed to support aggression and manipulation.
Again, I am not looking at tweets to confirm my beliefs, as tempting as it is to do so!!
Hi Mom 3.0
Here is an example of the position we as trial watchers are in, when interpreting what was actually said in court , and being dependent on tweets, and locking onto any ONE tweet as ” proof”
You write:
tweet jens trial diaries-
Nurmi asking Parker if Deanna Reid witness 1 knowing each other Parker says yes
——-
here is a copy and paste of some tweets today, also from jen Trial diaries:
1. ( from ” cathy”
tweet jens trial diaries-
Nurmi asking Parker if Deanna Reid witness 1 knowing each other Parker says yes
2. Cathy retweeted
Jen’s Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 10h 10 hours ago
Bishop never saw Witness #1 with Deanna Reid
3.
Cathy retweeted
Jen’s Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 10h 10 hours ago
Bishop didn’t think TA and witness #1 were friends. They never hung out and Bishop doesn’t even know if they knew each other #jodiarias
– the above re tweets are all from the Jen trial diaries, the same source you cite as proving that Reid was lying when she said she didnt know Witness 1.
See what I mean? You have to admit its interesting to see how you got one thing from the tweeted entries, and I interpreted it another way- and ALL of the info is coming from a person who is interpreting what was said.
who,
I totally understand and share your wariness over the fact that we are receiving info only thru tweets.
I have mentioned this very real limitation several times. These tweets are for the most part rife with the writers own cognitive biases- such as IMO each tend to listen/report only that information which tends to confirm preconceptions or allows bolstering of such beliefs
who, I most assuredly respect yr endeavor to avoid bias- I share the hope in my own thought process as well.
The funny thing is that cognitive biases are tricky things more often than not we fall victim to Bias blind spots
BS- that is Failing to recognize ones own cognitive biases which is a bias in itself.
“individuals see the existence and operation of cognitive and motivational biases much more in others than in themselves.”
often times we can not recognize then go onto eliminate our own nomatter how hard we try in fact sometimes trying only leads to further follies
Take for instance confirmation bias-
I have learned often times trying to avoid confirming a belief leads one to actively avoid even more information which if viewed MIGHT lead us to change our beliefs… Which again is a part of confirmation bias; tendency to search for =collect or dismiss or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.
Knowing and trying to avoid the tendency sometimes only leads to choices which can further enhance a bias stronghold
For ex choosing to avoid certain info in the hopes of lessening bias can lead me to
Observer-expectancy effect
which is Related to confirmation bias, here the expectations themselves unconsciously influence how we perceive an outcome.
I have found for myself these bias which can unconsciously have an effect also:
Information bias — the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
Ambiguity effect — the avoidance of options for which missing information makes the probability seem “unknown”.
Anchoring — the tendency to rely too heavily, or “anchor,” on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.
Attentional bias — neglect of relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.
Availability heuristic — estimating what is more likely by what is more available in memory, which is biased toward vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples.
Availability cascade – a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or “repeat something long enough and it will become true”).
Clustering illusion — the tendency to see patterns where actually none exist.
Hindsight bias — sometimes called the “I-knew-it-all-along” effect, the inclination to see past events as being predictable.
Primacy effect — the tendency to weigh initial events more than subsequent events.
Recency effect — the tendency to weigh recent events more than earlier events
Repetition bias – A willingness to believe what we have been told most often and by the greatest number of different of sources.
Extreme aversion — the tendency to avoid extremes, being more likely to choose an option if it is the intermediate choice.
Focusing effect — prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
Framing — by using a too narrow approach or description of the situation or issue. Also framing effect — drawing different conclusions based on how data are presented.
Open world assumption – emphasising that lack of knowledge does not imply falsity
—
We are all human who even the jurors you brought up an important point the other day concerning whether or not juries will be utilized in the future… based upon the shortcomings faced during this trial- its an interesting dilemma especially when viewing under the realization that all humans share the same unconscious bias which can be recognized molded/manipulated say by experienced lawyers or jury consultants…
Does that make it more a case of fairness in that it is a jury of our peers- or less so because they can be easily lead…despite contrary info/facts presented…IDK
Last thing- I feel the need to point out that my personal beliefs on the verdict and on JA and TA as a whole were given in earlier threads-
who I did not say Deanna Reid nor the Bishop were definitely lying nor that they were impeached on the stand I said that with cross their testimony /truthfulness could now be seen as impeachable questionable- not that it must be
I realize that you do not put much value on TA failings- I can respect that- I also respect yr reasonings on why u believe the defense is pursuing this aspect-
U might be right or not- – my thoughts are more on what a juror may possibly interpret themselves- not necessarily on my own beliefs.
You wrote of not having proof on Bishop – well it seems at least one juror was seeking such proof too – when they questioned whther or not there ws a record of who lived there and when- Bishop said no…will this lack of proof coupled with the bishops changing remembrances “prove” that he is lying? no but it may push that juror to disregard him as truthful-which then AGAIN could bring all of his and DR testimony into question- as you rightfully pointed out this is ALL mostly a he said she said thing and it comes down to personal beliefs…thats very important when a juror is deciding whther to believe one witness over another… who has more motive to lie… DR BIshop or witness 1?
Thanks for the discussion who-again i may not always agree still I welcome and value yr perspective – as i always learn something new
AJMO Peace
Hi Mom 3.
I have written before that I have a bias. I believe that Jodi Arias is guilty of committing a premeditated and heinous murder. The testimony that supports her stance of self defense has not deterred my judgement. HOWEVER, I would never qualify as a juror for a DP case because I don’t feel like I could take that responsibility under any circumstances, even in the worst of the worst. I am a kibitzer and I am casting stones, mea culpa.
Regarding the mitigation witnesses, specifically Witness 1.
W.1 was put on the stand to corroborate Arias claim that Travis was a manipulative and immoral person who was capable of violence.
Witness 1 was also there to address the defense biggest issue, and the lynch pin of her case- which is that Arias is not a liar.
The testimony of witness 1 is intended to support that Arias is not lying with accusation of pedophila leanings, and was physically violent with Arias. Witness 1 said he saw child porno that Travis hd downloaded onto the Bishop’s computer, and that Travis was a close enough friend of witness 1 to have confided that he was molested as a child . Witness 1 said that he saw Travis being violent with Deanna Reid- which is a situation of offering testimony that shows previous acts that support present claims of defense.
My point is that I did not see any testimony that confirmed that Witness 1 saw Travis hold down Deanna at the Bishop’s house and yell at her about not getting married. I did not read any testimony that confirmed that Travis had downloaded child porn onto Bishops computer, or that there was child porn on that computer. I did not read tweets of any testimony that corroborated the private conversation about molestation and child porn between Travis and Witness 1. This is NOT to say it didnt happen, but it is to say that there is no corroborating testimony to Witness 1 claims.
Taken at face value, if the Bishop says he did not keep records of who stayed at his house when, that does not mean he is lying when he says who stayed there when, it just means Bishop didnt keep records. Conversely, I don’t recall corroboration from Witness 1 claim about his own time line. He has not offered proof that he was there on specific dates either. Both Bishop and Witness 1 have acknowledged that they cannot be absolutely specific.
Deaana Reid claims she did not know witness one and had never met him. The bishop testified that he did not know if Reid knew witness 1. It SEEMED like this contradicts Bishop’s statement that ” everyone knew each other” and ” according to tweets that he thought she knew him. But to me, it doesn’t make him a liar- There are people I ” know” and ” know of” who work in the same business I do, but I don’t really know them outside of professionally oriented gatherings. I make assumptions that others know each other at times, because we are all part of the same community.
(side note: I could say I ” know” Blink, based on this site. But I have never met her and have had no common experience with her outside of this site. So you could say I know her, but I could say, hey haven’t met her, don’t know her- and ALL of that has truthfulness.
But I digress- and way too deeply into semantics- apologies!!!)
anyway-
Neither State nor defense asked Bishop to clarify between the apparent discrepancy of saying that he thought Reid knew witness 1, and saying that he did not know if Reid knew witness one- as far as tweets go.
I just don’t think that anything that witness 1 or reid and the Bishop said go to a black and white solution to the true issue- Arias veracity. Between those three witness’s there is contradiction, and to me, that makes it practically a wash, a he said she said moment about Travis character. And as you know, I am less interested in Travis character than I am in Arias actions in response to him, if that makes sense. He is the victim, she is the defendant. The question is, did her actions warrant the death penalty or should her life be spared. And as i said, I myself couldn’t sentence someone to death.I have no idea what this jury will do.
I do think the jury questions can give SOME idea of whats on the jury’s collective mind,- but at the same time, there is discrepancy in the various twitter feeds that recount the answers to those questions, so it really is hard to know what the jurys are getting in response to those questions.
The issue of Arias being victimized by misconduct on states part is an appellate one.
You sum up by writing:
as you rightfully pointed out this is ALL mostly a he said she said thing and it comes down to personal beliefs… thats very important when a juror is deciding whther to believe one witness over another… who has more motive to lie… DR BIshop or witness 1?
——-
Who has the most to gain?
1. Arias is fighting for her life. If her side of things is believed, the jury cannot sentence her to death.
2. The Bishop and Deanna Reid have, well…… what exactly can they gain from their testimony that will enhance their lives?
Deanna Reid has put herself on the stand to be identified as a transgressor of her faith, and subject to the inevitable attacks of her own character. Her gain is apparently the value of speaking her truth.
The Bishop is not representing the Mormon Church. As I understand it, a Bishop is a member of the congregation that is ” called” by the higher ups, and acts as Bishop for a set amount of time. My point is that Parker is not actively campaigning for or seeking election for this non paying role in the church, and has been appointed Bishop off and on in his lifetime. Here is link to explain what a Bishop is in the Mormon church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(Latter_Day_Saints)
Parker is not on the stand specifically to represent the church, he is there to testify as to what he saw heard touched with regards to Witness 1 ( ergo Arias) claims. I do not see how this position can offer any gain for him with his standing in his church. And in any case it certainly isn’t monetary, its a temporary appointed position with no pay.. Rather, the mere act of agreeing to testify – no matter WHAT his testimony is- has put him in a position to be stigmatized the rest of his life. I believe he is telling his truth. I just don’t see how him lying will get him anything..
Saying you don’t recall, or being vague on dates and details of who stayed where and when is not lying-( and defense is putting a lot of weight on conveying that in terms of Arias amnesia etc)
Oh – almost forgot- I had a some questions you might have an answer to-
The incident that witness 1 claimed he was present for happened was in 2001. Was witness 1 claiming he lived at the house in 2001? When did witness 1 get divorced?
Oh the mind boggles!!
Thanks for taking time to read my humble opinions, just opinions!
Hello who
Your post whodunnit says:
February 3, 2015 at 3:15 am had not posted yet so I apologize for not responding to it w/ my earlier response
you posted these retweets :
2. Cathy retweeted
Jen’s Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 10h 10 hours ago
Bishop never saw Witness #1 with Deanna Reid
3.
Cathy retweeted
Jen’s Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 10h 10 hours ago
Bishop didn’t think TA and witness #1 were friends. They never hung out and Bishop doesn’t even know if they knew each other #jodiarias
You commented:
– the above re tweets are all from the Jen trial diaries, the same source you cite as proving that Reid was lying when she said she didnt know Witness 1.
who, with much kindness and respect I need to point out that
I did not cite the tweets as “proof” of anything only as a source from which I obtained the info- I did not claim that they proved DR was lying only that the Seeming contradictions could be viewed as such
who please take note
****** I did not choose or disregard tweets based on any bias – I did not “lock on” to any one tweet – I did not misinterpret the tweets- *****
for who- the retweets you cite as proof that I am locking on to a belief or exhibiting cognitive bias by their exclusion from my thoughts- had not occurred as of its writing- – the tweets underscored by you are from the afternoon session- NOT the morning session
Just needed to clarify why it is that I did not include those tweets
** again that info/testimony was unavailable at the time of the initial tweets and at the time of my post**
You wrote:
See what I mean? You have to admit its interesting to see how you got one thing from the tweeted entries, and I interpreted it another way- and ALL of the info is coming from a person who is interpreting what was said.
—
who it is interesting to read one anothers interpretations – still who at the time of my post the other tweets/testimony had not occurred-
and please KIM
I also used qualifiers when opining such as **it seems** therefore allowing for the possibility it might turn out differently
see here:**
I think she is even more impeachable because with todays bishops testimony **it seems** she was not entirely truthful about knowing the persons residing in the bishops home witness one in particular…
The bishops testimony today **so far** during cross has been fruitful for the defense IMO as **it seems** they have successfully brought this witness along with DR truthfulness into question-
—
So yes who, I agree no one should lock on to any one tweet as proof of anything instead they (tweets) should at best be used to discuss possibilities – just as you and I have done.
and if the jurors are doing their just duty they wont run into the same pitfalls we do
because they will wait for all info/evidence/testimony to be presented and then will review it in deliberations before reaching any definite conclusions ..
AJMO Peace
RE who
Hiya
you wrote:
Regarding the mitigation witnesses, specifically Witness 1.
W.1 was put on the stand to corroborate Arias claim that Travis was a manipulative and immoral person who was capable of violence.
Witness 1 was also there to address the defense biggest issue, and the lynch pin of her case- which is that Arias is not a liar.
The testimony of witness 1 is intended to support that Arias is not lying with accusation of pedophila leanings, and was physically violent with Arias. Witness 1 said he saw child porno that Travis hd downloaded onto the Bishop’s computer, and that Travis was a close enough friend of witness 1 to have confided that he was molested as a child . Witness 1 said that he saw Travis being violent with Deanna Reid- which is a situation of offering testimony that shows previous acts that support present claims of defense.
—
who it is my understanding that witness 1 never took the stand -
I agree that witness 1 info was offered so that JA might be seen as not solely making claims absent any other persons/evidence to corroborate.
You wrote:
My point is that I did not see any testimony that confirmed that Witness 1 saw Travis hold down Deanna at the Bishop’s house and yell at her about not getting married.
—
if true no one besides witness 1 and wife- (who did according to testimony /affidavit corroborates witness 1 testimony/affidavit) was in the position to observe the alleged incident w/DR nor the alleged folder w/ porn TAs aol address header other than witness 1 himself-
We already know DR denies such an incident occurred- TA isnt here- and witness1 and wife did come forward- Bishop according to earlier depo- earlier email correspondence w/witness one and earlier testimony did at one time Seemingly corroborate witness 1/wife recall of roommate timeframe as well as state DR did know witness one and that TA and all residents used communal computer…only later did his remembrances change –
You wrote:
I did not read any testimony that confirmed that Travis had downloaded child porn onto Bishops computer,
–
Noone claimed child porn was downloaded…
you wrote:
or that there was child porn on that computer.
–
It is my understanding folder was deleted (so to Bishop and others there wold be no “evidence” to see and all that remained of “porn” was popups of scantily clad women-
KIM
–the bishop testified PP that the popups bothered him and that it wasnt good or right for his residents to be subjected to that”porn”- so he went to experts for cleaning- later chnging thoughts to popups werent a big deal- not “porn” and we just closed them…and they might have been there up to a year…
This could be seen as Contradictory it seems to me- and might prompt juror to disregard witness testimony as truthful
you wrote:
yet
I did not read tweets of any testimony that corroborated the private conversation about molestation and child porn between Travis and Witness 1. This is NOT to say it didnt happen, but it is to say that there is no corroborating testimony to Witness 1 claims.
–
True yet its rather Hard to corroborate a private one on one convo no? Not to say it DID happen only that lack of corroboration does not prove fallacy
You wrote:
Taken at face value, if the Bishop says he did not keep records of who stayed at his house when, that does not mean he is lying when he says who stayed there when, it just means Bishop didnt keep records.
– who no it doesnt have to mean he is lying but it COULD be interpreted as such- my point was that a juror was looking for proof for corroboration of the bishops newly formed remembrance on timeline of roommates- the fact that there is none coupled with the fact that his testimony was contradictory to previous earlier remembrances COULD prove to be a very real sticking point to a juror trying to decide to weigh Bishops testimony in a favorable light or to disregard it based on inconsistencies.
you wrote:
I don’t recall corroboration from Witness 1 claim about his own time line. He has not offered proof that he was there on specific dates either. Both Bishop and Witness 1 have acknowledged that they cannot be absolutely specific.
–
True but it is my understanding (keeping in mind the limitations of tweeted info) witness one fully acknowledged from nearly the beginning that his dates could be off AND he never wavered on specific details of the incidents or who and what was involved only on the timeframe- it would appear the bishop has wavered on much…
You wrote:
Deaana Reid claims she did not know witness one and had never met him. The bishop testified that he did not know if Reid knew witness 1. It SEEMED like this contradicts Bishop’s statement that ” everyone knew each other” and ” according to tweets that he thought she knew him. But to me, it doesn’t make him a liar
– who Bishop went even farther to say pp that it was one of his duties to make sure everyone was introduced and knew everyoneelse- but yeah I agree as I said his SEEMING contradictions dont necessarily prove him to be a liar…but they do tend to show his remembrances are undependable and MAY be interpreted as lies if A person say juror was so inclined that was my point the defense succeeded in bringing Bishop and DRs testimony into question- a juror could now reasonably debate the truth of their testimony as well s all other witnesses to date as earlier opined
you wrote:
2. The Bishop and Deanna Reid have, well…… what exactly can they gain from their testimony that will enhance their lives?
Deanna Reid has put herself on the stand to be identified as a transgressor of her faith, and subject to the inevitable attacks of her own character. Her gain is apparently the value of speaking her truth.
– who her truth may not be THE TRUTH- what does she gain that would enhance her life?
well going only by human nature and My own experiences w/ love loss crimes against those you love etc- Id have to say-
She gains the satisfaction of putting his killer Arias to death- she gains the satisfaction of supporting her longlost love- in protecting him in death when she could not protect him in life-
you wrote:
The Bishop is not representing the Mormon Church…Parker is not on the stand specifically to represent the church
who he testified:
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Feb 2
Nurmi: “You also have a duty to safeguard the integrity of the church, don’t you?” Parker: “Yes.” #jodiarias
–It could be said he enhances his life by not admitting his and his churches shortcomings aswell as the satisfaction of helping the victim Travis over the murderer Jodi
you wrote:
I do not see how this position can offer any gain for him with his standing in his church. And in any case it certainly isn’t monetary, its a temporary appointed position with no pay.. Rather, the mere act of agreeing to testify – no matter WHAT his testimony is- has put him in a position to be stigmatized the rest of his life. I believe he is telling his truth. I just don’t see how him lying will get him anything..
–
who respectfully to be a bishop is far more than just a job and involves so much more than monetary gain- a bishop hears confessions a bishop stands in judgement and is part of the decision making process IRT marriages temple recommends and excommunications and safeguarding a members spiritual and physical wellbeing-etc
He has much to gain if one takes into account that his own shortcomings advice and decisions or lack thereof may have played a significant part in TAs slide into questionable moral behavior as well as those of any other of his charges- Deanna Reid– witness 1 his daughter his son and so on..
Its not only his churches integrity he works to protect but that of his own.
you wrote:
Saying you don’t recall, or being vague on dates and details of who stayed where and when is not lying-( and defense is putting a lot of weight on conveying that in terms of Arias amnesia etc)
–
good point yet again who- which brings us right back to whther or not a juror will interpret these shortcomings as proof of lies as they did in trial 1 IRT Arias- that is yet to be seen-
Its a shame the prosecution did not present the forensics as proof and instead focused on JAs “lies” for with the sentencing trial we are getting a indepth focus on every humans tendencies to forget to misinterpret to “lie”…all witnesses are no better or worse than JA in this regard it seems…
Sorry who I dont have the answers to yr questions at the ready if I stumble upon them Ill share-
Thanks again for the very educational discussion always a pleasure who-
sorry for length
AJMO Peace
behind on trial- trying to catch up
yesterday the defense wished to preclude Demartes testimony over a alleged failure of disclosure on Prosecutions part
Snipped Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Feb 3 :
#jodiarias Defense claims Juan Martinez failed to timely disclose Dr. DeMarte’s report. Martinez says it was just some pages of notes.
Martinez: “The state sees no prejudice.”
Martinez says he was not aware DeMarte had those notes until Friday. #jodiarias
Willmott says the interviews were conducted in December and January, and the state never advised defense that the notes existed. #jodiarias
Willmott: “There is no other reason except that the state didn’t want to disclose it.” #jodiarias
Stephens rules that precluding witness is not appropriate. But, she says, because of the late disclosure, defense can interview DeMarte before cross-examination
–
Next defense wishes to preclude Smith expert recomputer
Snipped Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Feb 3 :
Same issue: defense claims Martinez failed to disclose report in a timely manner, which has been an ongoing complaint since early pretrial.
Stephens offers an excuse: It’s time-consuming, is that the reason for delay, she asks. Martinez doesn’t know. #jodiarias
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 1d 1 day ago
Willmott says that during interview w Smith, he refused to answer questions because he didn’t bring his computer and hadn’t finished report
Jen’s Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 1d 1 day ago
Judge wants Juan to call Detective Smith at lunch and get a status report on this matter #jodiarias #3tvarias
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 19h 19 hours ago
Nurmi discussing what he characterizes as ongoing misconduct in withholding info. He thinks state doesn’t want to show Mesa PD report
Nurmi: “I believe the non-report is convenient for the state.”
Martinez details how Smith will refute the testimony by Neumeister and “John Smith.” Stephens then cuts off Nurmi to discuss it tomorrow.
—
Todays tweets on matter:
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 47m 47 minutes ago
Willmott says no point for Smith to submit a written report after he testifies. Martinez says law does not require one. Stephens agrees
0 replies 2 retweets 22 favorites
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 50m 50 minutes ago
Judge Stephens grants #jodiarias defense team another interview with Smith.
0 replies 4 retweets 5 favorites
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 50m 50 minutes ago
Juan Martinez says that Mesa Det Smith has not started his written report on forensic analysis. #jodiarias defense team wants him precluded.
0 replies 2 retweets 2 favorites
—
Thoughts on yesterdays Demarte testimony- To be Cont
Peace