03-01-2015, 07:49 PM
Discussing the lost Jodi phone and sex tape I copied much of a page, everyone should get something from this! I'll post sex tape transcribed if I find it!
Note Jodi deposited money at Washington Mutual during her road trip but didn't use that money during her roadtrip so she wasn't broke she was borrowing and late on payments and Travis had filed a Lawsuit (filed or just had Attorney inform Jodi) Jodi asked a attorney of retainer required!
[quote="Liberty"][quote="Victorious"]
[quote="JustDaTruth" and "Liberty"]I think the tip-off as to the extent of the defense cover-up is found in the sex tape. Only the Travis portions were intended to be played to the jury, and Jodi was horrified and pissed that the prosecutor was able to produce the whole thing in open court.
You've said this more than once so I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion. The court offered the option of playing the ENTIRE sex tape to the jury in a closed hearing. The defense turned down that option. Martinez played the sex tape in private to the family and ask if they had any objections to it being played in open court and they had no objection. Where are you getting the defense only wanted Travis portions played? This wasn't anything the prosecutor masterminded.
[/quote]
IIRC, the court offered to have the tape played to jury in a closed hearing after ruling that the entire tape must be played for the jury instead of selected cuts. Thats not how I remember it and that is why I wondering how some are arriving at that conclusion. Both parties had to agreed that it would be played in open court. Judge Stephens even took it one step more and said the family had agreed to it being played in open court. She even ask again (before the jury was brought in) if anyone of the family was not in agreement with this and no one raised their hand. That is when the defense chose to have the tape played in open court.
If you go back and view Bryan Meumeister testimony of how he produced one of ENTIRE tape for jury to be able to stop,rewind and listen to different parts of it more easily, its more proof to me the defense wanted it all it from the start.
Below is part 3 of the defense closing arguments for the guilt phase of the trial. At 11:35, Nurmi plays almost 3 minutes of selected audio from the sex tape. I believe that this is what the defense planned to play during the trial. I think your mistaken, I think Nurmi wanted the whole thing in.
Martinez was correct in asking that the entire tape be played for the jury. Using snippets, esp the ones used during the defense closing, is prejudicial to the State's case. This piece of evidence was all or nothing, esp because it isn't prejudicial to Jodi ... she recorded the tape, kept it for years and then, when changing her story a 3rd time, hands it to her lawyers. The phone sex was consentual (I don't believe the recording of the call was consentual). The consentual nature of the call makes playing the entire tape unprejudicial to Jodi.
My theory (just a theory): After the court ruled, the defense had a few options.
*Play the tape in a closed hearing.
*Play the tape in open court.
*Try to convince Martinez to agree to withdrawing the tape entirely.
It would have been better for Jodi to not have the entire tape played. Once the tape is heard in context, it is obvious that Jodi isn't the victim ... she is a consentual participant. Agreeing to play the tape in open court puts Martinez in a difficult spot; if Travis' family tells him not to play the tape in open court, Martinez would have followed their wishes (IMO). I think the defense was hoping that the family would object and then the entire tape could be tossed from trial under mutual agreement. The court ruled all or nothing ...
The tape itself was more damaging to Jodi than Samuels and ALV combined. It also saved her life because 4 jurors believed the defense's portrayal of Travis as an abuser.
The family agreed to playing the entire tape in open court. Now the defense has to decide whether or not to go with the court's offer of play the tape for the jury in a private hearing or open court.
The defense HAD to have the tape played in open court. Why? The defense needed to have the option of playing snippets of the tape throughout trial. ALV's testimony was highly dependent on the sex tape. Why? It is one of very few sources available to any witness that doesn't come solely from Jodi's mouth. Without the tape, any claim Jodi made about Travis' sexual preferences would be coming solely from Jodi ... who was a pathological liar even before the crime. The defense needed to paint Travis as Jodi's rapist. If handled correctly, the tape could help with that portrayal. Without the tape you have a few nudes pics and a few sexually explicit but not extreme text messages.
When the jury asked ALV why she was willing to believe Jodi, one of the key pieces of evidence that ALV pointed to was the tape.
ALV stated that she believed that Travis was a sexual deviant and a pedophile. The tape had to be available to play in open court should the defense choose to play it throughout trial, which they did.
Had the tape not been played in open court, there may have been many, many more objections to testimony, esp by Martinez. Evidence must be accessible at all times. The State and the Defense both have a story to weave. All parts of the story must be easily accessible for the story to work.
The defense also needed the jury to believe that Jodi was telling the entire truth about her relationship with Travis. If the defense decided to play the sex tape in a closed hearing, the defense could come off as secretive. They desperately needed Jodi to come off as being fully open even when discussing the more difficult parts of her story.
Had the tape not been played in open court, the jury would have had to shuffle back and forth for hearings often. Had the tape only been played in a closed hearing, the flow of the defense would be regularly interrupted. The defense needed the jury to remain open to the sex tape. Constant shuffling would inhibit the flow of testimony and the jury would start tuning it out. It's how our brains work. Playing the tape in a closed hearing meant that important correlations might be missed by the jury.
In a nut shell, the defense needed the tape to be availabe in open court. I certainly agree with that. That sex tape had different things that the defense needed. It had the Cancun topic, it had the fantasies that were mentioned in other text message or emails and whip ass vibe and more. I think Nurmi wanted it all in from the start. The edited tape with Travis only just was an additional tool (with words) for drive home his point. And I think because he had Meumeister to product is Travis voice track tape, is how this lore got started.
It's hard to say whether or not the defense should have agreed to use the tape after the court's ruling. Jodi was always going to be convicted of M1. While that was debated by lawyers throughout the trial, once the evidence was all presented, Jodi's conviction of M1 was certain. IMO, the defense knew this. The guilt phase was really a 5 month mitigation phase for the defense. And Nurmi and Willmott knew that all along.
Note how the sex tape is edited to make it seem that taping a "porn" video was Travis' idea. It wasn't. Start at 11:35.[/quote]
[quote="Victorious"][quote="JustDaTruth"]Slim rumor has it that she may have infiltrated Travis's bank account and that's the reason for the huge fallout. You have to admit for a on-again off-again waitress who had to borrow a lot of money from her mom just a couple months before to move, and who was forced to live with her grandparents, she had a lot of money to suddenly take a week long 'vacation' after quitting her month-old job, and spent at least $100 on gas to Pasadena with no reimbursement, and had her nails done in Monterey, rented a car for that week and all these side trips that just ate into her gas money.
I always found her arrest curious, because here she is, a month after the murder, after working a couple of weeks at a new waitress job, quitting that job and renting ANOTHER rental car, filling it with Matt's books and some knives she 'thinks were Matt's, but they might have been mine' and miscellaneous personal items, with the intention of driving to Monterey just to return those items (that she had kept for several years up until that time). She claimed she felt she would be under imminent arrest and wanted him to get back his stuff. Why? Why couldn't she have boxed up his stuff, told him to pick it up at Grandma's, and saved all the car rental money and gas and time? And why the 9mm taped under the dash?[/quote]
Jodi was deep in debt when she met Travis. She had been paying her share of the mortgage for her house with Darryl on credit cards. She was unemployed for some time while in AZ. Waitressing doesn't bring in much money, esp in a small town like Yreka. Jodi charged most of her trip to AZ, NV and UT. She was broke and drowning in debt.
Jodi claimed that she was unemployed in Mesa because Aug is typically a slow month for restaurants. Bullshit. The Mesa/Phoenix/Tempe area is ginormous and continually growing it's population. Jodi was, IMO, unemployed so she could spend as much time as possible with Travis.[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"]Liberty, if we're mistaken, explain to us how. I wish to be correct regardless of whether the facts fit what I intially believed or not. You call my and others interpretation of that "lore" while presenting nothing concrete to explain it away (keep reading as I explain in greater detail).
If the defense wanted the entire tape played then why was Jodi surprised and upset when the court ruled to play the entire tape for the Jury? If the defense wanted the entire tape played then why did the court have to rule on the issue? Or was her issue with playing the tape in open court vs closed hearing? What was it that the Judge had to rule on.
I interpret Judge Steven's question as a request for confirmation of what she was told by Martinez and to confirm that the family in attendance remained on the same page. I suspect that if the family disagreed with playing the audio in open court, the Judge would have decided that the closed hearing was to be the only option for playing the tape regardless of the defense or state's wishes. She has that power. See the below video.
Bryan Meumeister explains that he put a time code on the video. Of course he did. That is standard. The defense needed that regardless of whether or not the entire tape was to be given to the jury. As I said, evidence must be available to all parties. The defense had to have the entire tape prepped because the Judge could potentially require the entire tape be used. That does not mean that they intended to play the entire tape for the jury. That simply means that Meumeister did his job in a standard manner. And as Meumeister stated, the video was not in evidence yet. He had no idea what parts or if all of the video was to be admitted. He had no idea whether or not the video would ever be used at the time he put the time code on the video. It's not his job to know. It's his job to work with the audio so that it is presentable to the jury if it is used.
Crap, at the time he time coded the tape he wouldn't have known if this case would even go before a jury. Settlements happen.[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Slim"]Here's a link to a May 22, 2008 journal entry that was not shown in court:
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Arias1.pdf
Given my very jaded view of Arias, this entry appears to be her setup for blackmailing Travis. She writes about just having received her replacement cell phone after she lost hers on May 17 or 18th. She also writes about 1 or 2 sex tape recordings (why 1 or 2?) and a scandalous 10 page text from Travis.
"Wherever my phone is now, I just hope the text messages and conversations are never discovered. Yikes"
Was a scandalous 10 page text from Travis ever entered into evidence? I don't think so. There was an angry Steve Carrell text from him on May 9 (text shows the 10th, but was actually the 9th), but I don't recall a scandalous text from the week prior to May 22.
May 10- sex recording
May 15- Helio phone pictures of Arias and sister
May 16- long email where she wanted credit and was his friend but was going to back off so that he would not subject to criticism from friends.
May 17 or 18- lost Helio, per testimony
May 19 IIRC, Travis had the text exchange on May 19 where he was extremely afraid.
May 22- new helio phone arrives, per journal entry. Entry also describes long break up conversation with Travis, which presumably took place that same date.
May 31- Helio phone picture of Casa Ramos finger injury. Testimony is ambiguous as to whether this was Helio phone #1 or #2.
This journal entry also contains a paragraph about them exchanging passwords eons ago. The CYA move against any claims from Travis that she was hacking his accounts. She's also trying to cast herself in a favorable light and him less so in terms of their physical relationship and her morality. Ugh. She's all over the map when in writing about him and his relationship with Mimi. Mimi did get her fair share of ink in Arias's journal over time.
I don't know if it is still possible, but at that time, SMS spoofing could be done. I'm wondering if she forged that scandalous text from Travis as part of her arsenal against him. It would be very interesting to see if a scandalous text was on her hard drive and not on his phone.
I wonder what the cell phone records show about cell phone activity (calls and/or text) for the time that her Helio was supposedly lost? Was there any activity between her and Travis?[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Liberty"]Hi Victorious,
Judge Sherry, unsealed some of the bench conferences and in-chambers arguments that took place during the controversial trial.
In the Jan. 31 hearing, prosecutor Juan Martinez tried to dismiss the tape-recording as hearsay and claimed there was no verification that the woman's voice on the recording was that of Arias.
(Refer to B. Neumeister testimony, known sample comparison of Travis Alexander, none of Jodi Arias)
Martinez wanted to argue in chambers because, as he said, according to the transcript, "what I'm trying to avoid is having to squawk up like a Jack-in-the-box every five minutes" with objections, a threat he repeated later in the argument.
JM: "And rather than making a big fight out there, I guess, I'm wanting to make the big fight here."
Martinez argued in the hearing that there was no proof that Alexander actually performed those acts.
Willmott responded that the intent of playing the tape was to show that Alexander was sexually aggressive with Arias and hardly the virgin that some witnesses testified they thought him to be.
Kirk Nurmi, added that "it relates to the abusive and exploitative relationship which is entirely relevant to not only her self-defense, but also anything that can give rise to sudden heat of passion," in other words, second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Willmott said, "They actually hear Travis' voice and Travis talking about the things he supposedly wouldn't know if he really was a virgin before he met Ms. Arias."
Nurmi added, "Again at a time when she is supposedly this crazy stalker person that he doesn't want around, he's having phone sex with her and talking about the things that he wishes to do."
Martinez countered by saying, "He's not the aggressor, she is."
At the end of the transcript, Stephens agreed to listen to the tape.
Source: Court minutes January and February 2013 and USA Today.
So, the ruling you are referring to came down giving the defense and state the option of the jury listening to the tape in a closed hearing. Both agreed to waive this option.Jodi wanted it played in a close hearing and Nurmi and Willmott did not. That’s why she upset with Nurmi because he didn’t go for this option when the court offered it.
I agree, if the Alexander family didn't agree to have this played in open court, I think Judge Stephens would have moved it to a close session.
Is this enough information to show how I reached my conclusion that Nurmi and Willmott wanted the ENTIRE tape in as evidence?[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="lunarscope"][quote="Liberty"] Kirk Nurmi, added that "it relates to the abusive and exploitative relationship which is entirely relevant to not only her self-defense, but also anything that can give rise to sudden heat of passion," in other words, second-degree murder or manslaughter.
So he wanted to use the tape in closing arguments' whatever the bad verdict, he was needing the just Travis edited down version for argumentation' to seak leniency' Jodi didn't understand the entirety.
Willmott said, "They actually hear Travis' voice and Travis talking about the things he supposedly wouldn't know if he really was a virgin before he met Ms. Arias."
She needs a job' if that argument was lost (no tape), she was in preparation for arguing the the Little Boy anyway' and that would have had (Martinez) no backing' eliminating the Self Defense and Crime of Passion bullshit, her entire case was supported by what she could shit on, did she ever watch a trial televised? Juries don't believe the unbelievable' 30 year virgin' argument' her witnesses carried her laziness! Defamation of Character comes to mind' pier reviews required' I knew she was worse than Nurmi' just couldn't pinpoint!
Nurmi added, "Again at a time when she is supposedly this crazy stalker person that he doesn't want around, he's having phone sex with her and talking about the things that he wishes to do."
Again' he knew then, how to defend a guilty client with closing arguments!
Martinez countered by saying, "He's not the aggressor, she is."
Yes 1,000 %, but he should have said; This can lead to a month of trial time that has no possible advantage' it did nothing but open the door to defense delays' as a advantaged waste the clock goal, aggression wasn't the issue' character assassination was!
So, the ruling you are referring to came down giving the defense and state the option of the jury listening to the tape in a closed hearing. Both agreed to waive this option.
Nurmi won over Martinez' that it was important for his closing' or penalty closing' but the Judge lost control, because Jodi spent 18 days lying and ALV with Samuels restricted to following Willmott's agenda!
Is this enough information?
It was' but lead to this above!
[/quote]
[left] [/left][/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"]Thank you, Liberty. Now that I know the source of your opinion, I was able to pull up the transcript of the hearing. I don't have a link for the transcript, but others might. I downloaded the transcript months ago. Below I quote relevant portions of the transcript. I was very careful to transcribe the relevant portions of the transcript accurately to give a complete picture of the issue as objectively as possible.
Liberty, you're partially correct. The defense was planning to play the tape in open court, but not the entire tape. (Keep reading and I will explain more below.)
In the transcript:
[quote]"Ms. Willmott: Judge, with regards to the sex tapes, the phone sex tape is what it is, we intend to play the entire tape."[/quote]
Interestingly though, when the Judge asks how long the sex tape is, both Nurmi and Willmott claim it is 25-30 minutes.
[quote]The Court: How long is the tape?
Mr. Nurmi: Thirty --
Ms. Willmott: I believe it's around 25 to 30 minutes.
The Court: Is this the only recording to recovered from the defendant's cell phone?
Mr. Nurmi: We have --
Ms. Willmott: There were two other ones with Ms. Arias singing.
Mr. Nurmi: There were others. But they are separate recordings.
Ms. Willmott: Right.
Mr. Nurmi: It's not like we're playing a portion of the recording. This is one complete phone call. The portions of her singing are also included on the tape.
Ms. Willmott: Yeah.[/quote]
[quote]Mr. Martinez: I think you can take the 20 minutes or whatever it is to listen to it. It is actually very short, I believe 20 to 25 minutes. And then you can make your decision because I do believe it's for the truth.[/quote]
(Regarding Mr. Neumeister's upcoming testimony)
[quote]Mr. Nurmi: He would need to -- he has the equipment here to play it for you and then if the Court admits it then he would --
Ms. Willmott: I have the DVD already marked.
Mr. Nurmi: -- lay down the foundation to play it.
The Court: All right. Let's put Mr. Dworkin on and then we'll recess and I will listen to the tape.[/quote]
The Judge's ruling is not included on the transcript that I have; parts of it were sealed. Obviously she required the entire phone call to be played. However, I can't quote what I don't have. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022013/m5617354.pdf
So, I think this is why there is a belief that the defense didn't want to play the entire tape. The tape played in court is 68 minutes long. Obviously the defense didn't plan to play the entire tape. However, they planned to play the explicit portion of the "sex" portion of the conversation. (Much of the phone call contains sexual references, which is why I refer to the explicit portion of the phone call as a separate portion.)
But there is a possible issue. Jodi may have taped portions of the call in different sections. Perhaps that is why the defense and state are claiming that the tape is 25ish minutes. I don't know. That isn't public info. We can say that the defense didn't plan to play the entire phone call.
Interestingly, the defense concedes that there is no way to know whether Travis did or did not know he was being recorded. The fought that in open court.
[quote]The Court: Is it clear on the tape that Mr. Alexander was aware he was being recorded?
Mr. Martinez: No, he wasn't.
Mr. Nurmi: How can he say that? How do you know that?
Mr. Martinez: Because of the way he's talking. Who is going to tell us that he knew he was being recorded other than the defendant? I mean, no one can tell us that.
Mr. Nurmi: Right. And no one can tell us that he didn't. You seem to be saying that you can just conclude that.
Mr. Martinez: I am concluding that.
Mr. Nurmi: Based on what? I don't want to get into --[/quote]
bickering....
On youtube, this video has close to 458,000 views.![[Image: 5a226ce9c64e0795084b40c04311e21dfba2be6e_r.gif]](http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/5a226ce9c64e0795084b40c04311e21dfba2be6e_r.gif)
[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"][quote="Slim"]This journal entry also contains a paragraph about them exchanging passwords eons ago. The CYA move against any claims from Travis that she was hacking his accounts. She's also trying to cast herself in a favorable light and him less so in terms of their physical relationship and her morality. Ugh. She's all over the map when in writing about him and his relationship with Mimi. Mimi did get her fair share of ink in Arias's journal over time.[/quote]
Excellent find, Slim. Thank you.
That journal entry has "borderline" all over it. Yikes! But the entry is interesting. Many surmise that Jodi began planning to kill Travis around May 28th. The entry is from May 22. I personally doubt that Jodi was maliciously manipulating her journal at that time. I think this reflects her perceptions of herself and of Travis when viewed through the kaleidoscope of BPD.
[/quote][left]CYA; Cover Your Ass
I agree that the journal entry has personality disorder written all over it. She may not have been manipulating her diary at that time, but using it as a means to justify to herself actions that she was undertaking that she knew were fundamentally wrong. Without disclosing the actions, she writes just her thought process leading up to things that she cannot commit to writing. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well or not.
[/left][/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Jrze Joe"]Something that strikes me about the journal entries that I've seen is that she seems to write with a angle / purpose, its as if what she includes, and more importantly excludes, are written with a self-knowledge that someone other than herself will be reading her words. After all, it was common knowledge by everyone who knew her that she carried them with her everywhere she went. Even writing in them when she was out in public with others around, as if waiting for someone to ask " What are you writing about? ".[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"]Thanks, Slim and Jrze Joe. Slim, your comment makes sense to me.
I just remembered how paranoid Jodi was about her parents "snooping" through her stuff. During her interview with Flores, Jodi's mom mentioned that Jodi wouldn't allow her parents to stay at her house because she didn't want them snooping through her stuff. Jodi's mom assured her that they wouldn't snoop but Jodi wouldn't buy that.
I've always had the sense that Jodi writes carefully in her journal. I don't think she did so consciously. I think she's quite paranoid about her privacy. Jodi also writes to excuse herself of her behavior. She is quite articulate about explaining the why's of her behavior but she excuses away the behaviors she believes are inconsistent with her beliefs. We all do this. But Jodi is extreme in this nature. In her journals, Jodi honestly thinks she takes responsibility for her actions, but she doesn't. And she doesn't see that.
Just where is the evidence of low self-esteem issues Jodi/defense claims she suffered from? I have yet to see self-esteem issues of any significance show themselves in Jodi's writings. Saying "I feel bad for doing xyz but" is not the same as having low self-esteem. It's often the opposite of low self-esteem.[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Liberty"][quote="Victorious"]Thank you, Liberty. Now that I know the source of your opinion, I was able to pull up the transcript of the hearing. I don't have a link for the transcript, but others might. I downloaded the transcript months ago. Below I quote relevant portions of the transcript. I was very careful to transcribe the relevant portions of the transcript accurately to give a complete picture of the issue as objectively as possible. Yes, we are on the same page with 24 page transcript of the in chambers proceedings, dated January 31, 2013.
Liberty, you're partially correct. The defense was planning to play the tape in open court, but not the entire tape. (Keep reading and I will explain more below.) I'm ok with partially correct. As long as we agree on defense intentions were not to just play the edited tape with Jodi's voice edited out and leaving Travis portion in, that's the lore.
In the transcript:
[quote]"Ms. Willmott: Judge, with regards to the sex tapes, the phone sex tape is what it is, we intend to play the entire tape."[/quote]
Interestingly though, when the Judge asks how long the sex tape is, both Nurmi and Willmott claim it is 25-30 minutes.
[quote]The Court: How long is the tape?
Mr. Nurmi: Thirty --
Ms. Willmott: I believe it's around 25 to 30 minutes.
The Court: Is this the only recording to recovered from the defendant's cell phone?
Mr. Nurmi: We have --
Ms. Willmott: There were two other ones with Ms. Arias singing.
Mr. Nurmi: There were others. But they are separate recordings.
Ms. Willmott: Right.
Mr. Nurmi: It's not like we're playing a portion of the recording. This is one complete phone call. The portions of her singing are also included on the tape.
Ms. Willmott: Yeah.[/quote]
[quote]Mr. Martinez: I think you can take the 20 minutes or whatever it is to listen to it. It is actually very short, I believe 20 to 25 minutes. And then you can make your decision because I do believe it's for the truth.[/quote]
(Regarding Mr. Neumeister's upcoming testimony)
[quote]Mr. Nurmi: He would need to -- he has the equipment here to play it for you and then if the Court admits it then he would --
Ms. Willmott: I have the DVD already marked.
Mr. Nurmi: -- lay down the foundation to play it.
The Court: All right. Let's put Mr. Dworkin on and then we'll recess and I will listen to the tape.[/quote]
The Judge's ruling is not included on the transcript that I have; parts of it were sealed. Obviously she required the entire phone call to be played. However, I can't quote what I don't have. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022013/m5617354.pdf
So, I think this is why there is a belief that the defense didn't want to play the entire tape. The tape played in court is 68 minutes long. Obviously the defense didn't plan to play the entire tape. However, they planned to play the explicit portion of the "sex" portion of the conversation. (Much of the phone call contains sexual references, which is why I refer to the explicit portion of the phone call as a separate portion.)
But there is a possible issue. Jodi may have taped portions of the call in different sections. Perhaps that is why the defense and state are claiming that the tape is 25ish minutes. I don't know. That isn't public info. We can say that the defense didn't plan to play the entire phone call. I agree, I don't know how they decide the length of the tape...the singing at the end, oh lord.
Interestingly, the defense concedes that there is no way to know whether Travis did or did not know he was being recorded. The fought that in open court.
[quote]The Court: Is it clear on the tape that Mr. Alexander was aware he was being recorded?
Mr. Martinez: No, he wasn't.
Mr. Nurmi: How can he say that? How do you know that?
Mr. Martinez: Because of the way he's talking. Who is going to tell us that he knew he was being recorded other than the defendant? I mean, no one can tell us that.
Mr. Nurmi: Right. And no one can tell us that he didn't. You seem to be saying that you can just conclude that.
Mr. Martinez: I am concluding that.
Mr. Nurmi: Based on what? I don't want to get into --[/quote]
bickering....Did you get the feeling reading this, there was a under current if the defense wanted tape entered, Martinez wanted to make sure Jodi was going to take the stand?
On youtube, this video has close to 458,000 views.FUNNY! So many law students and people researching this trial.
[/quote]
[left] [/left][/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"][quote]Thank you, Liberty. Now that I know the source of your opinion, I was able to pull up the transcript of the hearing. I don't have a link for the transcript, but others might. I downloaded the transcript months ago. Below I quote relevant portions of the transcript. I was very careful to transcribe the relevant portions of the transcript accurately to give a complete picture of the issue as objectively as possible. Yes, we are on the same page with 24 page transcript of the in chambers proceedings, dated January 31, 2013. [/quote]
[quote]Liberty, you're partially correct. The defense was planning to play the tape in open court, but not the entire tape. (Keep reading and I will explain more below.) I'm ok with partially correct. As long as we agree on defense intentions were not to just play the edited tape with Jodi's voice edited out and leaving Travis portion in, that's the lore.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]The Judge's ruling is not included on the transcript that I have; parts of it were sealed. Obviously she required the entire phone call to be played. However, I can't quote what I don't have. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022013/m5617354.pdf
So, I think this is why there is a belief that the defense didn't want to play the entire tape. The tape played in court is 68 minutes long. Obviously the defense didn't plan to play the entire tape. However, they planned to play the explicit portion of the "sex" portion of the conversation. (Much of the phone call contains sexual references, which is why I refer to the explicit portion of the phone call as a separate portion.)
But there is a possible issue. Jodi may have taped portions of the call in different sections. Perhaps that is why the defense and state are claiming that the tape is 25ish minutes. I don't know. That isn't public info. We can say that the defense didn't plan to play the entire phone call. I agree, I don't know how they decide the length of the tape...the singing at the end, oh lord.[/quote]
Oh lord, indeed!
[quote]bickering....Did you get the feeling reading this, there was a under current if the defense wanted tape entered, Martinez wanted to make sure Jodi was going to take the stand?[/quote]
That's a tough one. I became a bit frustrated with the testimony issue because both parties kept referring to "she". But they also mentioned ALV (not by name but as a "domestic abuse expert"). I have a tough time trying to distinguish exactly who is being referred to when.
I do think that ruling on the hearsay ruling requires Jodi to take the stand. Someone has to comment about the tape, and only Jodi can do so. But hearsay is such a complicated issue.
[quote]On youtube, this video has close to 458,000 views.[/quote]
Note Jodi deposited money at Washington Mutual during her road trip but didn't use that money during her roadtrip so she wasn't broke she was borrowing and late on payments and Travis had filed a Lawsuit (filed or just had Attorney inform Jodi) Jodi asked a attorney of retainer required!
[quote="Liberty"][quote="Victorious"]
[quote="JustDaTruth" and "Liberty"]I think the tip-off as to the extent of the defense cover-up is found in the sex tape. Only the Travis portions were intended to be played to the jury, and Jodi was horrified and pissed that the prosecutor was able to produce the whole thing in open court.
You've said this more than once so I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion. The court offered the option of playing the ENTIRE sex tape to the jury in a closed hearing. The defense turned down that option. Martinez played the sex tape in private to the family and ask if they had any objections to it being played in open court and they had no objection. Where are you getting the defense only wanted Travis portions played? This wasn't anything the prosecutor masterminded.
[/quote]
IIRC, the court offered to have the tape played to jury in a closed hearing after ruling that the entire tape must be played for the jury instead of selected cuts. Thats not how I remember it and that is why I wondering how some are arriving at that conclusion. Both parties had to agreed that it would be played in open court. Judge Stephens even took it one step more and said the family had agreed to it being played in open court. She even ask again (before the jury was brought in) if anyone of the family was not in agreement with this and no one raised their hand. That is when the defense chose to have the tape played in open court.
If you go back and view Bryan Meumeister testimony of how he produced one of ENTIRE tape for jury to be able to stop,rewind and listen to different parts of it more easily, its more proof to me the defense wanted it all it from the start.
Below is part 3 of the defense closing arguments for the guilt phase of the trial. At 11:35, Nurmi plays almost 3 minutes of selected audio from the sex tape. I believe that this is what the defense planned to play during the trial. I think your mistaken, I think Nurmi wanted the whole thing in.
Martinez was correct in asking that the entire tape be played for the jury. Using snippets, esp the ones used during the defense closing, is prejudicial to the State's case. This piece of evidence was all or nothing, esp because it isn't prejudicial to Jodi ... she recorded the tape, kept it for years and then, when changing her story a 3rd time, hands it to her lawyers. The phone sex was consentual (I don't believe the recording of the call was consentual). The consentual nature of the call makes playing the entire tape unprejudicial to Jodi.
My theory (just a theory): After the court ruled, the defense had a few options.
*Play the tape in a closed hearing.
*Play the tape in open court.
*Try to convince Martinez to agree to withdrawing the tape entirely.
It would have been better for Jodi to not have the entire tape played. Once the tape is heard in context, it is obvious that Jodi isn't the victim ... she is a consentual participant. Agreeing to play the tape in open court puts Martinez in a difficult spot; if Travis' family tells him not to play the tape in open court, Martinez would have followed their wishes (IMO). I think the defense was hoping that the family would object and then the entire tape could be tossed from trial under mutual agreement. The court ruled all or nothing ...
The tape itself was more damaging to Jodi than Samuels and ALV combined. It also saved her life because 4 jurors believed the defense's portrayal of Travis as an abuser.
The family agreed to playing the entire tape in open court. Now the defense has to decide whether or not to go with the court's offer of play the tape for the jury in a private hearing or open court.
The defense HAD to have the tape played in open court. Why? The defense needed to have the option of playing snippets of the tape throughout trial. ALV's testimony was highly dependent on the sex tape. Why? It is one of very few sources available to any witness that doesn't come solely from Jodi's mouth. Without the tape, any claim Jodi made about Travis' sexual preferences would be coming solely from Jodi ... who was a pathological liar even before the crime. The defense needed to paint Travis as Jodi's rapist. If handled correctly, the tape could help with that portrayal. Without the tape you have a few nudes pics and a few sexually explicit but not extreme text messages.
When the jury asked ALV why she was willing to believe Jodi, one of the key pieces of evidence that ALV pointed to was the tape.
ALV stated that she believed that Travis was a sexual deviant and a pedophile. The tape had to be available to play in open court should the defense choose to play it throughout trial, which they did.
Had the tape not been played in open court, there may have been many, many more objections to testimony, esp by Martinez. Evidence must be accessible at all times. The State and the Defense both have a story to weave. All parts of the story must be easily accessible for the story to work.
The defense also needed the jury to believe that Jodi was telling the entire truth about her relationship with Travis. If the defense decided to play the sex tape in a closed hearing, the defense could come off as secretive. They desperately needed Jodi to come off as being fully open even when discussing the more difficult parts of her story.
Had the tape not been played in open court, the jury would have had to shuffle back and forth for hearings often. Had the tape only been played in a closed hearing, the flow of the defense would be regularly interrupted. The defense needed the jury to remain open to the sex tape. Constant shuffling would inhibit the flow of testimony and the jury would start tuning it out. It's how our brains work. Playing the tape in a closed hearing meant that important correlations might be missed by the jury.
In a nut shell, the defense needed the tape to be availabe in open court. I certainly agree with that. That sex tape had different things that the defense needed. It had the Cancun topic, it had the fantasies that were mentioned in other text message or emails and whip ass vibe and more. I think Nurmi wanted it all in from the start. The edited tape with Travis only just was an additional tool (with words) for drive home his point. And I think because he had Meumeister to product is Travis voice track tape, is how this lore got started.
It's hard to say whether or not the defense should have agreed to use the tape after the court's ruling. Jodi was always going to be convicted of M1. While that was debated by lawyers throughout the trial, once the evidence was all presented, Jodi's conviction of M1 was certain. IMO, the defense knew this. The guilt phase was really a 5 month mitigation phase for the defense. And Nurmi and Willmott knew that all along.
Note how the sex tape is edited to make it seem that taping a "porn" video was Travis' idea. It wasn't. Start at 11:35.[/quote]
[quote="Victorious"][quote="JustDaTruth"]Slim rumor has it that she may have infiltrated Travis's bank account and that's the reason for the huge fallout. You have to admit for a on-again off-again waitress who had to borrow a lot of money from her mom just a couple months before to move, and who was forced to live with her grandparents, she had a lot of money to suddenly take a week long 'vacation' after quitting her month-old job, and spent at least $100 on gas to Pasadena with no reimbursement, and had her nails done in Monterey, rented a car for that week and all these side trips that just ate into her gas money.
I always found her arrest curious, because here she is, a month after the murder, after working a couple of weeks at a new waitress job, quitting that job and renting ANOTHER rental car, filling it with Matt's books and some knives she 'thinks were Matt's, but they might have been mine' and miscellaneous personal items, with the intention of driving to Monterey just to return those items (that she had kept for several years up until that time). She claimed she felt she would be under imminent arrest and wanted him to get back his stuff. Why? Why couldn't she have boxed up his stuff, told him to pick it up at Grandma's, and saved all the car rental money and gas and time? And why the 9mm taped under the dash?[/quote]
Jodi was deep in debt when she met Travis. She had been paying her share of the mortgage for her house with Darryl on credit cards. She was unemployed for some time while in AZ. Waitressing doesn't bring in much money, esp in a small town like Yreka. Jodi charged most of her trip to AZ, NV and UT. She was broke and drowning in debt.
Jodi claimed that she was unemployed in Mesa because Aug is typically a slow month for restaurants. Bullshit. The Mesa/Phoenix/Tempe area is ginormous and continually growing it's population. Jodi was, IMO, unemployed so she could spend as much time as possible with Travis.[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"]Liberty, if we're mistaken, explain to us how. I wish to be correct regardless of whether the facts fit what I intially believed or not. You call my and others interpretation of that "lore" while presenting nothing concrete to explain it away (keep reading as I explain in greater detail).
If the defense wanted the entire tape played then why was Jodi surprised and upset when the court ruled to play the entire tape for the Jury? If the defense wanted the entire tape played then why did the court have to rule on the issue? Or was her issue with playing the tape in open court vs closed hearing? What was it that the Judge had to rule on.
I interpret Judge Steven's question as a request for confirmation of what she was told by Martinez and to confirm that the family in attendance remained on the same page. I suspect that if the family disagreed with playing the audio in open court, the Judge would have decided that the closed hearing was to be the only option for playing the tape regardless of the defense or state's wishes. She has that power. See the below video.
Bryan Meumeister explains that he put a time code on the video. Of course he did. That is standard. The defense needed that regardless of whether or not the entire tape was to be given to the jury. As I said, evidence must be available to all parties. The defense had to have the entire tape prepped because the Judge could potentially require the entire tape be used. That does not mean that they intended to play the entire tape for the jury. That simply means that Meumeister did his job in a standard manner. And as Meumeister stated, the video was not in evidence yet. He had no idea what parts or if all of the video was to be admitted. He had no idea whether or not the video would ever be used at the time he put the time code on the video. It's not his job to know. It's his job to work with the audio so that it is presentable to the jury if it is used.
Crap, at the time he time coded the tape he wouldn't have known if this case would even go before a jury. Settlements happen.[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Slim"]Here's a link to a May 22, 2008 journal entry that was not shown in court:
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Arias1.pdf
Given my very jaded view of Arias, this entry appears to be her setup for blackmailing Travis. She writes about just having received her replacement cell phone after she lost hers on May 17 or 18th. She also writes about 1 or 2 sex tape recordings (why 1 or 2?) and a scandalous 10 page text from Travis.
"Wherever my phone is now, I just hope the text messages and conversations are never discovered. Yikes"
Was a scandalous 10 page text from Travis ever entered into evidence? I don't think so. There was an angry Steve Carrell text from him on May 9 (text shows the 10th, but was actually the 9th), but I don't recall a scandalous text from the week prior to May 22.
May 10- sex recording
May 15- Helio phone pictures of Arias and sister
May 16- long email where she wanted credit and was his friend but was going to back off so that he would not subject to criticism from friends.
May 17 or 18- lost Helio, per testimony
May 19 IIRC, Travis had the text exchange on May 19 where he was extremely afraid.
May 22- new helio phone arrives, per journal entry. Entry also describes long break up conversation with Travis, which presumably took place that same date.
May 31- Helio phone picture of Casa Ramos finger injury. Testimony is ambiguous as to whether this was Helio phone #1 or #2.
This journal entry also contains a paragraph about them exchanging passwords eons ago. The CYA move against any claims from Travis that she was hacking his accounts. She's also trying to cast herself in a favorable light and him less so in terms of their physical relationship and her morality. Ugh. She's all over the map when in writing about him and his relationship with Mimi. Mimi did get her fair share of ink in Arias's journal over time.
I don't know if it is still possible, but at that time, SMS spoofing could be done. I'm wondering if she forged that scandalous text from Travis as part of her arsenal against him. It would be very interesting to see if a scandalous text was on her hard drive and not on his phone.
I wonder what the cell phone records show about cell phone activity (calls and/or text) for the time that her Helio was supposedly lost? Was there any activity between her and Travis?[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Liberty"]Hi Victorious,
Judge Sherry, unsealed some of the bench conferences and in-chambers arguments that took place during the controversial trial.
In the Jan. 31 hearing, prosecutor Juan Martinez tried to dismiss the tape-recording as hearsay and claimed there was no verification that the woman's voice on the recording was that of Arias.
(Refer to B. Neumeister testimony, known sample comparison of Travis Alexander, none of Jodi Arias)
Martinez wanted to argue in chambers because, as he said, according to the transcript, "what I'm trying to avoid is having to squawk up like a Jack-in-the-box every five minutes" with objections, a threat he repeated later in the argument.
JM: "And rather than making a big fight out there, I guess, I'm wanting to make the big fight here."
Martinez argued in the hearing that there was no proof that Alexander actually performed those acts.
Willmott responded that the intent of playing the tape was to show that Alexander was sexually aggressive with Arias and hardly the virgin that some witnesses testified they thought him to be.
Kirk Nurmi, added that "it relates to the abusive and exploitative relationship which is entirely relevant to not only her self-defense, but also anything that can give rise to sudden heat of passion," in other words, second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Willmott said, "They actually hear Travis' voice and Travis talking about the things he supposedly wouldn't know if he really was a virgin before he met Ms. Arias."
Nurmi added, "Again at a time when she is supposedly this crazy stalker person that he doesn't want around, he's having phone sex with her and talking about the things that he wishes to do."
Martinez countered by saying, "He's not the aggressor, she is."
At the end of the transcript, Stephens agreed to listen to the tape.
Source: Court minutes January and February 2013 and USA Today.
So, the ruling you are referring to came down giving the defense and state the option of the jury listening to the tape in a closed hearing. Both agreed to waive this option.Jodi wanted it played in a close hearing and Nurmi and Willmott did not. That’s why she upset with Nurmi because he didn’t go for this option when the court offered it.
I agree, if the Alexander family didn't agree to have this played in open court, I think Judge Stephens would have moved it to a close session.
Is this enough information to show how I reached my conclusion that Nurmi and Willmott wanted the ENTIRE tape in as evidence?[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="lunarscope"][quote="Liberty"] Kirk Nurmi, added that "it relates to the abusive and exploitative relationship which is entirely relevant to not only her self-defense, but also anything that can give rise to sudden heat of passion," in other words, second-degree murder or manslaughter.
So he wanted to use the tape in closing arguments' whatever the bad verdict, he was needing the just Travis edited down version for argumentation' to seak leniency' Jodi didn't understand the entirety.
Willmott said, "They actually hear Travis' voice and Travis talking about the things he supposedly wouldn't know if he really was a virgin before he met Ms. Arias."
She needs a job' if that argument was lost (no tape), she was in preparation for arguing the the Little Boy anyway' and that would have had (Martinez) no backing' eliminating the Self Defense and Crime of Passion bullshit, her entire case was supported by what she could shit on, did she ever watch a trial televised? Juries don't believe the unbelievable' 30 year virgin' argument' her witnesses carried her laziness! Defamation of Character comes to mind' pier reviews required' I knew she was worse than Nurmi' just couldn't pinpoint!
Nurmi added, "Again at a time when she is supposedly this crazy stalker person that he doesn't want around, he's having phone sex with her and talking about the things that he wishes to do."
Again' he knew then, how to defend a guilty client with closing arguments!
Martinez countered by saying, "He's not the aggressor, she is."
Yes 1,000 %, but he should have said; This can lead to a month of trial time that has no possible advantage' it did nothing but open the door to defense delays' as a advantaged waste the clock goal, aggression wasn't the issue' character assassination was!
So, the ruling you are referring to came down giving the defense and state the option of the jury listening to the tape in a closed hearing. Both agreed to waive this option.
Nurmi won over Martinez' that it was important for his closing' or penalty closing' but the Judge lost control, because Jodi spent 18 days lying and ALV with Samuels restricted to following Willmott's agenda!
Is this enough information?
It was' but lead to this above!
[/quote]
[left] [/left][/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"]Thank you, Liberty. Now that I know the source of your opinion, I was able to pull up the transcript of the hearing. I don't have a link for the transcript, but others might. I downloaded the transcript months ago. Below I quote relevant portions of the transcript. I was very careful to transcribe the relevant portions of the transcript accurately to give a complete picture of the issue as objectively as possible.
Liberty, you're partially correct. The defense was planning to play the tape in open court, but not the entire tape. (Keep reading and I will explain more below.)
In the transcript:
[quote]"Ms. Willmott: Judge, with regards to the sex tapes, the phone sex tape is what it is, we intend to play the entire tape."[/quote]
Interestingly though, when the Judge asks how long the sex tape is, both Nurmi and Willmott claim it is 25-30 minutes.
[quote]The Court: How long is the tape?
Mr. Nurmi: Thirty --
Ms. Willmott: I believe it's around 25 to 30 minutes.
The Court: Is this the only recording to recovered from the defendant's cell phone?
Mr. Nurmi: We have --
Ms. Willmott: There were two other ones with Ms. Arias singing.
Mr. Nurmi: There were others. But they are separate recordings.
Ms. Willmott: Right.
Mr. Nurmi: It's not like we're playing a portion of the recording. This is one complete phone call. The portions of her singing are also included on the tape.
Ms. Willmott: Yeah.[/quote]
[quote]Mr. Martinez: I think you can take the 20 minutes or whatever it is to listen to it. It is actually very short, I believe 20 to 25 minutes. And then you can make your decision because I do believe it's for the truth.[/quote]
(Regarding Mr. Neumeister's upcoming testimony)
[quote]Mr. Nurmi: He would need to -- he has the equipment here to play it for you and then if the Court admits it then he would --
Ms. Willmott: I have the DVD already marked.
Mr. Nurmi: -- lay down the foundation to play it.
The Court: All right. Let's put Mr. Dworkin on and then we'll recess and I will listen to the tape.[/quote]
The Judge's ruling is not included on the transcript that I have; parts of it were sealed. Obviously she required the entire phone call to be played. However, I can't quote what I don't have. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022013/m5617354.pdf
So, I think this is why there is a belief that the defense didn't want to play the entire tape. The tape played in court is 68 minutes long. Obviously the defense didn't plan to play the entire tape. However, they planned to play the explicit portion of the "sex" portion of the conversation. (Much of the phone call contains sexual references, which is why I refer to the explicit portion of the phone call as a separate portion.)
But there is a possible issue. Jodi may have taped portions of the call in different sections. Perhaps that is why the defense and state are claiming that the tape is 25ish minutes. I don't know. That isn't public info. We can say that the defense didn't plan to play the entire phone call.
Interestingly, the defense concedes that there is no way to know whether Travis did or did not know he was being recorded. The fought that in open court.
[quote]The Court: Is it clear on the tape that Mr. Alexander was aware he was being recorded?
Mr. Martinez: No, he wasn't.
Mr. Nurmi: How can he say that? How do you know that?
Mr. Martinez: Because of the way he's talking. Who is going to tell us that he knew he was being recorded other than the defendant? I mean, no one can tell us that.
Mr. Nurmi: Right. And no one can tell us that he didn't. You seem to be saying that you can just conclude that.
Mr. Martinez: I am concluding that.
Mr. Nurmi: Based on what? I don't want to get into --[/quote]
bickering....
On youtube, this video has close to 458,000 views.
[/quote][left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"][quote="Slim"]This journal entry also contains a paragraph about them exchanging passwords eons ago. The CYA move against any claims from Travis that she was hacking his accounts. She's also trying to cast herself in a favorable light and him less so in terms of their physical relationship and her morality. Ugh. She's all over the map when in writing about him and his relationship with Mimi. Mimi did get her fair share of ink in Arias's journal over time.[/quote]
Excellent find, Slim. Thank you.
That journal entry has "borderline" all over it. Yikes! But the entry is interesting. Many surmise that Jodi began planning to kill Travis around May 28th. The entry is from May 22. I personally doubt that Jodi was maliciously manipulating her journal at that time. I think this reflects her perceptions of herself and of Travis when viewed through the kaleidoscope of BPD.
[/quote][left]CYA; Cover Your Ass
I agree that the journal entry has personality disorder written all over it. She may not have been manipulating her diary at that time, but using it as a means to justify to herself actions that she was undertaking that she knew were fundamentally wrong. Without disclosing the actions, she writes just her thought process leading up to things that she cannot commit to writing. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well or not.
[/left][/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Jrze Joe"]Something that strikes me about the journal entries that I've seen is that she seems to write with a angle / purpose, its as if what she includes, and more importantly excludes, are written with a self-knowledge that someone other than herself will be reading her words. After all, it was common knowledge by everyone who knew her that she carried them with her everywhere she went. Even writing in them when she was out in public with others around, as if waiting for someone to ask " What are you writing about? ".[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"]Thanks, Slim and Jrze Joe. Slim, your comment makes sense to me.
I just remembered how paranoid Jodi was about her parents "snooping" through her stuff. During her interview with Flores, Jodi's mom mentioned that Jodi wouldn't allow her parents to stay at her house because she didn't want them snooping through her stuff. Jodi's mom assured her that they wouldn't snoop but Jodi wouldn't buy that.
I've always had the sense that Jodi writes carefully in her journal. I don't think she did so consciously. I think she's quite paranoid about her privacy. Jodi also writes to excuse herself of her behavior. She is quite articulate about explaining the why's of her behavior but she excuses away the behaviors she believes are inconsistent with her beliefs. We all do this. But Jodi is extreme in this nature. In her journals, Jodi honestly thinks she takes responsibility for her actions, but she doesn't. And she doesn't see that.
Just where is the evidence of low self-esteem issues Jodi/defense claims she suffered from? I have yet to see self-esteem issues of any significance show themselves in Jodi's writings. Saying "I feel bad for doing xyz but" is not the same as having low self-esteem. It's often the opposite of low self-esteem.[/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Liberty"][quote="Victorious"]Thank you, Liberty. Now that I know the source of your opinion, I was able to pull up the transcript of the hearing. I don't have a link for the transcript, but others might. I downloaded the transcript months ago. Below I quote relevant portions of the transcript. I was very careful to transcribe the relevant portions of the transcript accurately to give a complete picture of the issue as objectively as possible. Yes, we are on the same page with 24 page transcript of the in chambers proceedings, dated January 31, 2013.
Liberty, you're partially correct. The defense was planning to play the tape in open court, but not the entire tape. (Keep reading and I will explain more below.) I'm ok with partially correct. As long as we agree on defense intentions were not to just play the edited tape with Jodi's voice edited out and leaving Travis portion in, that's the lore.
In the transcript:
[quote]"Ms. Willmott: Judge, with regards to the sex tapes, the phone sex tape is what it is, we intend to play the entire tape."[/quote]
Interestingly though, when the Judge asks how long the sex tape is, both Nurmi and Willmott claim it is 25-30 minutes.
[quote]The Court: How long is the tape?
Mr. Nurmi: Thirty --
Ms. Willmott: I believe it's around 25 to 30 minutes.
The Court: Is this the only recording to recovered from the defendant's cell phone?
Mr. Nurmi: We have --
Ms. Willmott: There were two other ones with Ms. Arias singing.
Mr. Nurmi: There were others. But they are separate recordings.
Ms. Willmott: Right.
Mr. Nurmi: It's not like we're playing a portion of the recording. This is one complete phone call. The portions of her singing are also included on the tape.
Ms. Willmott: Yeah.[/quote]
[quote]Mr. Martinez: I think you can take the 20 minutes or whatever it is to listen to it. It is actually very short, I believe 20 to 25 minutes. And then you can make your decision because I do believe it's for the truth.[/quote]
(Regarding Mr. Neumeister's upcoming testimony)
[quote]Mr. Nurmi: He would need to -- he has the equipment here to play it for you and then if the Court admits it then he would --
Ms. Willmott: I have the DVD already marked.
Mr. Nurmi: -- lay down the foundation to play it.
The Court: All right. Let's put Mr. Dworkin on and then we'll recess and I will listen to the tape.[/quote]
The Judge's ruling is not included on the transcript that I have; parts of it were sealed. Obviously she required the entire phone call to be played. However, I can't quote what I don't have. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022013/m5617354.pdf
So, I think this is why there is a belief that the defense didn't want to play the entire tape. The tape played in court is 68 minutes long. Obviously the defense didn't plan to play the entire tape. However, they planned to play the explicit portion of the "sex" portion of the conversation. (Much of the phone call contains sexual references, which is why I refer to the explicit portion of the phone call as a separate portion.)
But there is a possible issue. Jodi may have taped portions of the call in different sections. Perhaps that is why the defense and state are claiming that the tape is 25ish minutes. I don't know. That isn't public info. We can say that the defense didn't plan to play the entire phone call. I agree, I don't know how they decide the length of the tape...the singing at the end, oh lord.
Interestingly, the defense concedes that there is no way to know whether Travis did or did not know he was being recorded. The fought that in open court.
[quote]The Court: Is it clear on the tape that Mr. Alexander was aware he was being recorded?
Mr. Martinez: No, he wasn't.
Mr. Nurmi: How can he say that? How do you know that?
Mr. Martinez: Because of the way he's talking. Who is going to tell us that he knew he was being recorded other than the defendant? I mean, no one can tell us that.
Mr. Nurmi: Right. And no one can tell us that he didn't. You seem to be saying that you can just conclude that.
Mr. Martinez: I am concluding that.
Mr. Nurmi: Based on what? I don't want to get into --[/quote]
bickering....Did you get the feeling reading this, there was a under current if the defense wanted tape entered, Martinez wanted to make sure Jodi was going to take the stand?
On youtube, this video has close to 458,000 views.
FUNNY! So many law students and people researching this trial.[/quote]
[left] [/left][/quote]
[left] [/left]
[quote="Victorious"][quote]Thank you, Liberty. Now that I know the source of your opinion, I was able to pull up the transcript of the hearing. I don't have a link for the transcript, but others might. I downloaded the transcript months ago. Below I quote relevant portions of the transcript. I was very careful to transcribe the relevant portions of the transcript accurately to give a complete picture of the issue as objectively as possible. Yes, we are on the same page with 24 page transcript of the in chambers proceedings, dated January 31, 2013. [/quote]
[quote]Liberty, you're partially correct. The defense was planning to play the tape in open court, but not the entire tape. (Keep reading and I will explain more below.) I'm ok with partially correct. As long as we agree on defense intentions were not to just play the edited tape with Jodi's voice edited out and leaving Travis portion in, that's the lore.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]The Judge's ruling is not included on the transcript that I have; parts of it were sealed. Obviously she required the entire phone call to be played. However, I can't quote what I don't have. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022013/m5617354.pdf
So, I think this is why there is a belief that the defense didn't want to play the entire tape. The tape played in court is 68 minutes long. Obviously the defense didn't plan to play the entire tape. However, they planned to play the explicit portion of the "sex" portion of the conversation. (Much of the phone call contains sexual references, which is why I refer to the explicit portion of the phone call as a separate portion.)
But there is a possible issue. Jodi may have taped portions of the call in different sections. Perhaps that is why the defense and state are claiming that the tape is 25ish minutes. I don't know. That isn't public info. We can say that the defense didn't plan to play the entire phone call. I agree, I don't know how they decide the length of the tape...the singing at the end, oh lord.[/quote]
Oh lord, indeed!
[quote]bickering....Did you get the feeling reading this, there was a under current if the defense wanted tape entered, Martinez wanted to make sure Jodi was going to take the stand?[/quote]
That's a tough one. I became a bit frustrated with the testimony issue because both parties kept referring to "she". But they also mentioned ALV (not by name but as a "domestic abuse expert"). I have a tough time trying to distinguish exactly who is being referred to when.
I do think that ruling on the hearsay ruling requires Jodi to take the stand. Someone has to comment about the tape, and only Jodi can do so. But hearsay is such a complicated issue.
[quote]On youtube, this video has close to 458,000 views.
[/quote]