AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
Is he a PI?
No.
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.
The defense team hired him to blow up and enhance the eyeball photo. Why they then decided to use him instead of someone qualified like Lonnie Dworkin to look at the hard drive a second time is a mystery.
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.
And who even cares if it was Travis or not?