Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/21-11/23/14 In recess, Part 2

[Steve44]

I find that confusing. Computers are things, not people. Computers can be analysed without bias. Why shake the hand of the defendant then?

The ability to analyze computers has nothing to do with ones taste in people.

 

[AZlawyer]

Oddly, BN does not seem to market himself as having any expertise in computer forensic analysis whatsoever. :thinking:

 

[Steve44]

Oddly, BN does not seem to market himself as having any expertise in computer forensic analysis whatsoever. :thinking:

And some people are honest in certain areas and not in others...

 

[Ijustdontknow]

Last week I spent 12 hours removing 8 viruses from my spouses computer. This computer is behind 2 firewalls and have 2 antivirus programs running on them. He infected his machines by clicking on an email that contained adware, which in turned opened a port in the firewall. I was not amused, especially when I figured out that all the "cleanup" software I have didn't clean all the places where the sneaky things were residing. So I had to find/install a program that allowed me to "force" a removal and even then, there were traces. Determined at this point, I plugged the hole in the firewall and then manually searched and manually removed residue from the registry and services. Now I'm sure that if I can do it, any LE professional with a standard set of tools would have found any viruses/adware/malware on Travis's computer. I smell a whopper of a lie from the DT, and I can't wait to see how this turns out.

 

[Joan (Canada)]

Thanks for clarifying AZ. I was just so shocked. I really couldn't believe he had done this and no one objected. Duh, I get it now. Again, thank you for everything you do for us. Keeps up from working ourselves into a frenzy.

 

[AZlawyer]

He does say "data recovery," but is that all he was claiming to have done in this case? Most of his website is about audio and video enhancement/forensics.

 

[daisydomino]

You guys are probably on to this, but I just figured out why I was failing at finding his CV or web site. His name is spelled Bryan Neumeister. http://www.skymeister.com/bryan neumeister.htm
His web designer was bleeding edge for the internet of 1998, you might want to get some ice ready for your eyeballs in advance if you check out his site.

 

[lilyet]

I do not know how to "bring over" stuff to a new thread so I am copying and pasting what Elementary said and I sure hope that is ok.


"You would love Canadian courts. I was on a jury for felony assault. The judge ruled that courtroom in a fair and just manner. The gravitas was palpable. It was also all, 'just the facts, ma'am'. There was a sense of decorum and ultimate respect for the process in the courtroom even though there were a couple of jurors who could care less behind the scenes."

ETA: oops, I see now you're in Canada!
Last edited by elementary; Today at 08:05 PM. Reason: oops

I have had the opportunity to sit in on many court hearings in Vancouver BC and it always strikes me how decent the "parties" are to each other as well as the formality. MOO, there is not the feeling of "I want to outdo you". My impression is that both parties listen to each other and want to work TOGETHER for justice. MOO

 

[Dr. Know?]

Is he a PI?

 

[Troubled]

Maybe Travis had so many programs because he was trying to keep JA from constantly getting into his computer?.? If I remember correctly she was in his fb and myspace accounts etc.

 

[Zuri]

http://www.skymeister.com/bryan neumeister.htm

Mr. Neumeister seems pretty well qualified. After all, he has won Emmys for his work....

 

[Steve44]

Last week I spent 12 hours removing 8 viruses from my spouses computer. This computer is behind 2 firewalls and have 2 antivirus programs running on them. He infected his machines by clicking on an email that contained adware, which in turned opened a port in the firewall. I was not amused, especially when I figured out that all the "cleanup" software I have didn't clean all the places where the sneaky things were residing. So I had to find/install a program that allowed me to "force" a removal and even then, there were traces. Determined at this point, I plugged the hole in the firewall and then manually searched and manually removed residue from the registry and services. Now I'm sure that if I can do it, any LE professional with a standard set of tools would have found any viruses/adware/malware on Travis's computer. I smell a whopper of a lie from the DT, and I can't wait to see how this turns out.

But it wasn't LE job to find and/or clean viruses on TA's computer. They did testify their was no *advertiser censored*/viruses when they examined it, but the DT expert said the same thing. I suspect this DT is casting a very wide net in their definition of viruses/*advertiser censored* in an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. If it carries any weight in the end I suspect it will not be enough to give JA any fate-changing relief.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Marking my spot my d word


den·i·grat·edden·i·grat·ing
Full Definition of DENIGRATE
transitive verb
1
: to attack the reputation of : defame <denigrate one's opponents>

 

[lilyet]

http://www.skymeister.com/bryan neumeister.htm

Mr. Neumeister seems pretty well qualified. After all, he has won Emmys for his work....

Unfortunately that is what I thought also when I pulled him up, though it could be an over inflated opinion of himself and a manipulation of his accolades, as with ALV. Though, he does have a lot of employees and has been around for awhile. I do not understand computer talk at all so I am at a lost for what most of this computer testimony means. What I do know is that he is clearly biased toward the defense, and I do NOT like him because he messes with my Juan!!

 

[bsk]

Oddly, BN does not seem to market himself as having any expertise in computer forensic analysis whatsoever. :thinking:

I wonder if he approached the DT or somehow got in touch with JA and offered to dig. Maybe he's friends with the PI. The whole thing is fishy: JA switches to representing herself, gets this PI and BN to muddy up the waters (allowing KN and JW to keep their hands clean of whatever this trio of geniuses dreams up), then brings KN and JW back in immediately afterward - all in less time than it takes KN to question a witness it seemed.

 

[geevee]

If Travis has tracking erasers, cleaners, debuggers and whatever else that makes up the 19 'scrubbing' programs Neu. testified he had on the laptop, I don't think it's a big surprise that Melendez didn't see anything in the "browsing history" - one (or more) of those programs would have deleted the last browser session's history if T ran a cleaner before shutting down (presuming he looked at any *advertiser censored*). Neumeister apparently found the *advertiser censored* addresses in another place, I am not adept enough to know exactly where he found it to label it as 'viewing history', maybe in the 'Content.IE5' folder (a hidden temp internet file subfolder). As most of us know, it's extremely difficult to completely erase all traces of any activity on a computer and I recall with XP it seemed impossible to delete contents of that folder just by deleting t.i.f.s, cookies and history but until we get more info about where all these links were found, I don't think Melendez was untruthful about not seeing anything in the browser history.

And "no *advertiser censored* on the computer" simply means none was saved in the form of pictures, graphics, or videos. Frankly I don't know how the defense plans to prove T was responsible for all the possible *advertiser censored* viewed, his laptop wasn't password protected and he had roommates and an 'open-door policy' so any one of a number of people had access to that laptop, they can't 'prove' any particular person was at the keyboard.

Just my thoughts this evening.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm reading through the tweets again.

The defense attorney was basically implying that the state deleted a bunch of files either in front of her or after she left.

The computer was only turned on at 2:58 pm, which goes with the timeline of when she was there. It was turned off at 3:10. It was not turned on again. So the computer was only on for 12 minutes. Schaffer says the computer was still on when she left. In this time 2500 files were modified, changed, or deleted.

For all that to happen in such a short amount of time it has to be something that happened automatically, not that someone went through and manually deleted files. And it either had to happen in front of the defense attorney or after she left.

This leaves a very small window of time for the attorney or Juan, whoever you choose to believe, to flip through the computer, Schaffer to leave, and for whoever to make all these changes. It was clearly turned off shortly after she left, IF she's telling the truth. Could have been turned off while she was there and she is lying. The computer was never turned back on after this.

So whatever caused these deletions was already on the computer because that's not enough time to install something and then make deletions happen. Yet BN testified he can't tell what it was that caused these deletions. I find that very hard to believe. He can recover deleted files and can tell whether iTunes was updated automatically or by clicking 'yes"...but he can't tell what caused thousands of files to be deleted within a 12 minute window? They were just deleted?

Obviously, whatever happened was not done intentionally. And I think BN knows full well it was caused by anti-virus software. I just don't think he's giving us the full story.

 

[MeeBee]

If Travis has tracking erasers, cleaners, debuggers and whatever else that makes up the 19 'scrubbing' programs Neu. testified he had on the laptop, I don't think it's a big surprise that Melendez didn't see anything in the "browsing history" - one (or more) of those programs would have deleted the last browser session's history if T ran a cleaner before shutting down (presuming he looked at any *advertiser censored*). Neumeister apparently found the *advertiser censored* addresses in another place, I am not adept enough to know exactly where he found it to label it as 'viewing history', maybe in the 'Content.IE5' folder (a hidden temp internet file subfolder). As most of us know, it's extremely difficult to completely erase all traces of any activity on a computer and I recall with XP it seemed impossible to delete contents of that folder just by deleting t.i.f.s, cookies and history but until we get more info about where all these links were found, I don't think Melendez was untruthful about not seeing anything in the browser history.

And "no *advertiser censored* on the computer" simply means none was saved in the form of pictures, graphics, or videos. Frankly I don't know how the defense plans to prove T was responsible for all the possible *advertiser censored* viewed, his laptop wasn't password protected and he had roommates and an 'open-door policy' so any one of a number of people had access to that laptop, they can't 'prove' any particular person was at the keyboard.

Just my thoughts this evening.

Agree. He is very vague, based on tweets, about where he found this stuff and I don't think I saw anywhere where he said it was in the browser history.

 

[bsk]

If Travis has tracking erasers, cleaners, debuggers and whatever else that makes up the 19 'scrubbing' programs Neu. testified he had on the laptop, I don't think it's a big surprise that Melendez didn't see anything in the "browsing history" - one (or more) of those programs would have deleted the last browser session's history if T ran a cleaner before shutting down (presuming he looked at any *advertiser censored*). Neumeister apparently found the *advertiser censored* addresses in another place, I am not adept enough to know exactly where he found it to label it as 'viewing history', maybe in the 'Content.IE5' folder (a hidden temp internet file subfolder). As most of us know, it's extremely difficult to completely erase all traces of any activity on a computer and I recall with XP it seemed impossible to delete contents of that folder just by deleting t.i.f.s, cookies and history but until we get more info about where all these links were found, I don't think Melendez was untruthful about not seeing anything in the browser history.

And "no *advertiser censored* on the computer" simply means none was saved in the form of pictures, graphics, or videos. Frankly I don't know how the defense plans to prove T was responsible for all the possible *advertiser censored* viewed, his laptop wasn't password protected and he had roommates and an 'open-door policy' so any one of a number of people had access to that laptop, they can't 'prove' any particular person was at the keyboard.

Just my thoughts this evening.

BBM - And that could be a problem. The DT is going to argue that it's impossible to tell, so the judge has to allow all that carp in and let the jury decide the facts. If they don't get the conviction overturned or the DP tossed - neither of which the judge will do - but they get to put this jerk on the stand for a month reading 90 pages of URLs, the DT will be ecstatic.

 

[bsk]

Juan's little comment at the end of the day will have BN sweating if he did anything unsavory. We'll see on Dec 4th if he looks like he's had two weeks of no sleep. :scared: