The more I think about this (and maybe I'm thinking too much lol), the more I realize the defense really has nothing. There was really only one opportunity for the state to do whys the defense is claiming it did and it's July 19th, 2009. And I think it's obvious they got this wrong. The defense made the request to sign out and see evidence and the computer was only on for 12 minutes. There was not, reasonably, enough time for Juan to do what they're saying he must have done. And I think they realize this. So they're bringing up other stuff that isn't related to make it look like something it isn't.
Neumeister says the state must have given Dworkin an incorrect copy of the hard drive. I find that impossible. I've been reading about computer forensics and, from what I understand, to make sure the right copy has been provided and it's complete and accurate, the expert will compare it to the original hard drive to make sure he has a perfect copy and it matches. I don't know how this is done and I don't even know if I'm right. But I feel pretty sure Dworkin would know if he got an incorrect copy. They were able to get emails and IMs from this copy. So how does BN explain the hard drive being partially correct but not fully? They'd have to have deleted this *advertiser censored* and virus stuff and then given it to Dworkin. But BN is finding it now. So why didn't Dworkin find these deletions then? There is another explanation for why the viruses and *advertiser censored* was missed and I think this part will be the most important to explain. But it's like Steve said last night, the court will not find that the state was being deliberately misleading and the defense expert wasn't. So there must be another explanation for missing this stuff or it was just an honest mistake.
Then there is the business of damaged evidence. Willmott claims the hard drive was already damaged when it came to her expert. To bolster this claim, she brought up damage to Jodi's electronics as proof that damage is always being destroyed in possession of LE. Well, that's just stupid. The judge knows as well as we all do that Jodi is responsible for that damage and they came to LE in that state. Why would the state, with an eye to hide hurtful evidence to Travis, destroy Jodi's electronics but not Travis'? That's just backwards. And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't remember seeing any tweets referencing the hard drive and BN having to reset the pins when he got it, but I might be misremembering. It's like they glossed over it.
But when Juan said he has proof BN destroyed the hard drive BN's response was "that's just slimy, Juan." That's interesting to me. When an accusation is made, and the response is over the top like that, it signals guilt to me. Because a normal person, while incredulous, would deny that claim. They'd be confident in themselves. But "that's just slimy..." I don't know. That's not a normal response.
I noticed Nurmi has been very quiet since Juan has began responding. Willmott is the one who wrote their response to sanctions, she's the one doing all the questioning of witnesses. I wonder if Nurmi wishes he could take the motion back altogether but Willmott wants to keep pushing it, just needing to be right. Clearly, they did not have all their facts when they wrote it. And when you looked at this from one side, it seemed they had something, but the more that came out they realized they were wrong.
Jeff Gold explained Brady Violations last night. He said to prove them the defense must prove 1.) intent and 2.) that the evidence destroyed was exculpatory. I don't think the defense has proven either.
Neumeister says the state must have given Dworkin an incorrect copy of the hard drive. I find that impossible. I've been reading about computer forensics and, from what I understand, to make sure the right copy has been provided and it's complete and accurate, the expert will compare it to the original hard drive to make sure he has a perfect copy and it matches. I don't know how this is done and I don't even know if I'm right. But I feel pretty sure Dworkin would know if he got an incorrect copy. They were able to get emails and IMs from this copy. So how does BN explain the hard drive being partially correct but not fully? They'd have to have deleted this *advertiser censored* and virus stuff and then given it to Dworkin. But BN is finding it now. So why didn't Dworkin find these deletions then? There is another explanation for why the viruses and *advertiser censored* was missed and I think this part will be the most important to explain. But it's like Steve said last night, the court will not find that the state was being deliberately misleading and the defense expert wasn't. So there must be another explanation for missing this stuff or it was just an honest mistake.
Then there is the business of damaged evidence. Willmott claims the hard drive was already damaged when it came to her expert. To bolster this claim, she brought up damage to Jodi's electronics as proof that damage is always being destroyed in possession of LE. Well, that's just stupid. The judge knows as well as we all do that Jodi is responsible for that damage and they came to LE in that state. Why would the state, with an eye to hide hurtful evidence to Travis, destroy Jodi's electronics but not Travis'? That's just backwards. And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't remember seeing any tweets referencing the hard drive and BN having to reset the pins when he got it, but I might be misremembering. It's like they glossed over it.
But when Juan said he has proof BN destroyed the hard drive BN's response was "that's just slimy, Juan." That's interesting to me. When an accusation is made, and the response is over the top like that, it signals guilt to me. Because a normal person, while incredulous, would deny that claim. They'd be confident in themselves. But "that's just slimy..." I don't know. That's not a normal response.
I noticed Nurmi has been very quiet since Juan has began responding. Willmott is the one who wrote their response to sanctions, she's the one doing all the questioning of witnesses. I wonder if Nurmi wishes he could take the motion back altogether but Willmott wants to keep pushing it, just needing to be right. Clearly, they did not have all their facts when they wrote it. And when you looked at this from one side, it seemed they had something, but the more that came out they realized they were wrong.
Jeff Gold explained Brady Violations last night. He said to prove them the defense must prove 1.) intent and 2.) that the evidence destroyed was exculpatory. I don't think the defense has proven either.
