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

[AZlawyer]

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?

 

[geevee]

No.



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.



And who even cares if it was Travis or not?

Yes, agreed, it has zero to do with mitigating her actions.

 

[MeeBee]

He also says at some point scrubbers made changes to thousands and thousands of files. Well, there was only two instances where this could have been done by the state. June 10th 2008 and July 19th 2009. He says on July 2008 about 2500 files were modified/changed. But says, overall, thousands of thousands of files were altered by scrubbers.

He's being misleading, no? Because obviously there was a time when scrubbers did their work before Travis was even murdered. And if that's the case couldn't scrubbers have done their work in July, as well? Him saying these scrubbers were installed at some point (looks at state) by someone (looks at Juan), how does he explain that there's no point in time that this could have been done by the state because it was only turned on once after it was seized by the state, (not including June 10th)?

Hope I'm making sense...I'm not even sure if I have this right.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

AZL posted the last thread - ET: Melendez said the last activity on the laptop recovered from Alexander was at 4:54 p.m. on June 8, 2008. Hmm and that last visit was to Southwest airlines. Travis already had his ticket The last time Travis is seen alive is at 5: 22, Travis is in the shower and having his picture taken.

I keep coming back to the police interviews and, about the first thing out of Jodi's mouth is time stamps can be manipulated.

 

[Wagara]

I just don't get the defense team experts. They must realize that their careers as expert witnesses are in the tank. No prosecution team will hire them and their credibility is so badly shot that any defense team that hires them would be guilty of malpractice. If I were a prosecutor I would drool at the prospect of cross examining them. Why is this worth it to them, for 5 minutes of fame (going down in flames)? I just don't know about folks.

My guess is because it is a high paying trade. Sadly there are more KNs and JWs out there who will hire him. He might have a good reputation in the 'I'll say whatever you want me to say' world. SMH

 

[Shadowboy]

I noticed another strange thing in the Flores Investigation Report. He says the Mesa PD Computer Forensic Unit was the first to look at TA’s computer on June 10th, determining the last activity on the computer … which, by all means, they would do rather quickly after the discovery of TA’s body.

Went to the City of Mesa PD site: (http://www.mesaaz.gov/police/ForensicServices/)

I see no mention of a specialized computer forensic unit within the City of Mesa PD. Yet, this was Michael Melendez’ unit and area of expertise? There is a photography unit … which is why his testimony about the recovered photos was so important. Yet, by his testimony, he transferred out of the Mesa PD Computer Forensic Unit in (IIRC) November 2008. So … is there/was there a true Computer Forensic Unit for the City of Mesa?

Maricopa County, on the other hand, DOES have a specialized computer forensic unit within Major Crimes. http://mcso.org/Patrol/Investigations/Default.aspx Can any fellow WSers point me to documentation re: which entity (Mesa PD or Maricopa CO) made the initial mirror image … and when?

My point: Is this latest garbage a DT ploy to go after “the weakest links” (Mesa PD/Maricopa CO computer forensics) and spin those weak links as misconduct?

As we have all discussed, the date(?) at which this alleged “white washing” of TA’s computer took place was well before the Trashing the Victim defense. So, IMO, if there WERE lost/hidden *advertiser censored* sites … Why would the Prosecutor/Police try to hide that in 2008/2009? (I know. We all wonder that.) Why would they jeopardize a “slam dunk” case through misconduct by screwing with (what was, and is) inconsequential evidence.

Plus, the more I read about Encase v. Autopsy (and its plug-ins) … Encase seems the far more secure of the two.

#Tony’sPorn?

 

[Steve44]

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.

And all Juan has to say is the last part of your bolded quote and the jury will think: so maybe he looked at *advertiser censored* and maybe he didn't. Does it mitigate what she did to him...hmm not so much.

 

[MaryND]

:thinking::thinking:
Ok, so we know from the picture that was included in one of the defense motions that something was created/modified on August 25/26th. That was when JA was repping herself, yes. My thoughts and JMO, is it possible that she researched to find a time when the "PD" took the computer out of the evidence room, and "no report was made" (Nurmi's first motion to strike), then had the computer expert install something on to the HD on the 25/26th that would correspond to those dates (as well as the 6/10 date - that was in the record, that the PD had powered it on) and make it "look" like all this stuff had happened and "set up" the Mesa PD/State?? And by destroying the original HD, there is no way to follow that path to the truth? Could someone put a virus or two (or 20) on a HD and "predate" it?? Just my wonderings....

 

[bsk]

And all Juan has to say is the last part of your bolded quote and the jury will think: so maybe he looked at *advertiser censored* and maybe he didn't. Does it mitigate what she did to him...hmm not so much.

What I was thinking of more than further attempted trashing of Travis was the DT salivating at the idea that they could stretch this out until maybe Easter. "2 down; 5 to go" is their mantra.

 

[Steve44]

He also says at some point scrubbers made changes to thousands and thousands of files. Well, there was only two instances where this could have been done by the state. June 10th 2008 and July 18th 2009. He says on July 2008 about 2500 files were modified/changed. But says, overall, thousands of thousands of files were altered by scrubbers.

He's being misleading, no? Because obviously there was a time when scrubbers did their work before Travis was even murdered. And if that's the case couldn't scrubbers have done their work in July, as well? Him saying these scrubbers were installed at some (point looks at state) by someone (looks at Juan), how does he explain that there's no point in time that this could have been done by the state because it was only turned on once after it was seized by the state, (not including June 10th)?

Hope I'm making sense...I'm not even sure if I have this right.

He also said he couldn't tell when those scrubbers were used. Maybe he took it to the Best Buy Boys in March, 2007 after JA used it to study the joys of anal and BJ's with her future husband.

 

[MeeBee]

:thinking::thinking:
Ok, so we know from the picture that was included in one of the defense motions that something was created/modified on August 25/26th. That was when JA was repping herself, yes. My thoughts and JMO, is it possible that she researched to find a time when the "PD" took the computer out of the evidence room, and "no report was made" (Nurmi's first motion to strike), then had the computer expert install something on to the HD on the 25/26th that would correspond to those dates (as well as the 6/10 date - that was in the record, that the PD had powered it on) and make it "look" like all this stuff had happened and "set up" the Mesa PD/State?? And by destroying the original HD, there is no way to follow that path to the truth? Could someone put a virus or two (or 20) on a HD and "predate" it?? Just my wonderings....

I was talking to my husband about this just now and he basically suggested exactly this. And your idea that they planned to correspond the deletions/alterations with a date that it was signed out and thought a reason could not be accounted for was also a thought I had. It's a bit of a stretch. But BN's reluctance to turn over a proper hard drive copy is suspect as hell. It should not be this difficult.

But my husband has told me that you can't backdate a virus.

 

[shana]

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

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

IIRC, his interest in all things audio-video began at an early age when he sat at the knee of his father who was employed in some a-v capacity by the TV/movie industry.

imo, he was a coddled child who did not get any lessons in respect for authority...the Court, for example.

 

[Z&BsMommy]

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.

What I'm worried about is that if the defense can prove any discrepancy or negligence, it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, anyone know how that works? Does it have to be relevant for a mistrial? Sorry if I'm not getting it out right..TIA

#ComeHomeChristina

 

[AZlawyer]

What I'm worried about is that if the defense can prove any discrepancy or negligence, it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, anyone know how that works? Does it have to be relevant for a mistrial? Sorry if I'm not getting it out right..TIA

#ComeHomeChristina

To really be a problem, there would have to be intentional deletions of evidence that would likely have been favorable to Jodi. IMO *advertiser censored* wouldn't count unless it was child *advertiser censored*, and a virus wouldn't count unless it was a virus that was still active on June 4 that showed up as bugs eating the screen or whatever Jodi said.

 

[Z&BsMommy]

To really be a problem, there would have to be intentional deletions of evidence that would likely have been favorable to Jodi. IMO *advertiser censored* wouldn't count unless it was child *advertiser censored*, and a virus wouldn't count unless it was a virus that was still active on June 4 that showed up as bugs eating the screen or whatever Jodi said.

Thank you!!! I didn't know if I was getting it out right!

#ComeHomeChristina

 

[Steve44]

What I'm worried about is that if the defense can prove any discrepancy or negligence, it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, anyone know how that works? Does it have to be relevant for a mistrial? Sorry if I'm not getting it out right..TIA

#ComeHomeChristina

I guess because of all the maligning of TA's character by the defense, it may look like a central issue in this trial, but I don't think it is. JA never testified that TA was a *advertiser censored*-dog bent on corrupting every female he chanced to meet. Her only allegation in this direction was he 'liked little boys' which is in itself weak and not the same issue. She has testified that their sexual relationship was mutual 'always' and enjoyable to both. Even if they show there was *advertiser censored* on his computer, they can't prove it was his doing, and it's not looking like its invisibility in the early part of the trial was due to any deliberate wrongdoing by the prosecution. It's not going to amount to much, if anything.

 

[Z&BsMommy]

More wasting time.. Shocking.

#ComeHomeChristina

 

[Nore]

AZL posted the last thread - ET: Melendez said the last activity on the laptop recovered from Alexander was at 4:54 p.m. on June 8, 2008. Hmm and that last visit was to Southwest airlines. Travis already had his ticket The last time Travis is seen alive is at 5: 22, Travis is in the shower and having his picture taken.

I keep coming back to the police interviews and, about the first thing out of Jodi's mouth is time stamps can be manipulated.

---------------
Hi, wasn't Travis murdered on the 4th? body found on the 9th?

 

[krkrjx]

Jodi Arias researching anal sex and BJ "how to" sites?

:hilarious:

 

[Steve44]

I was talking to my husband about this just now and he basically suggested exactly this. And your idea that they planned to correspond the deletions/alterations with a date that it was signed out and thought a reason could not be accounted for was also a thought I had. It's a bit of a stretch. But BN's reluctance to turn over a proper hard drive copy is suspect as hell. It should not be this difficult.

But my husband has told me that you can't backdate a virus.

If they've done something to the drive where none of their allegations can be verified then they've shot themselves in the foot, or another body part of your choice, IMO.