Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/3/14 Hearing - Part 2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
And ALV has since continued to do speaking engagements and interviews promoting her book.

What better credentials for someone who sticks up for the downtrodden than being spectacularly and very publicly downtrodden themselves? Alyce, maybe you wouldn't have had any part of your anatomy handed to you on a platter if you had had even the tiniest clue who it was who was actually downtrodden in this case. (Hint: it was never Jodi.)
 
I suppose Nurmi could claim LE deleted the stuff and then this was then provided as the original to the DT for analysis after over writes were made.

Melendez stopped working in the computer forensic unit in November of 2008. Nurmi is saying the files were deleted on June 19, 2009. There must be a pristine forensic image of the drive somewhere.
 
Melendez stopped working in the computer forensic unit in November of 2008. Nurmi is saying the files were deleted on June 19, 2009. There must be a pristine forensic image of the drive somewhere.

Thank you! So Melendez did his analysis before the alleged over writes and he would not be behind them.

My head is spinning. I'm trying to think how Nurmi can spin this...
 
Well, the good news is that those dates are mighty suspicious indeed. The bad news is that they were recovered after attempts to delete files, if this story is to believed.

If LE did delete, then the obviously suspicious activity was never investigated to see when and how 1000's of files magically appeared on his HD.


If the defense had the computer....could someone have put the files on the HD recently....then deleted, then discovered them? I still think she got into his computer....maybe with the CD she took on june 4th, and I bet she had already killed TA when she logged on to his computer for the last tiem...and now we know why she destroyed her computer.
 
Thank you! So Melendez did his analysis before the alleged over writes and he would not be behind them.

My head is spinning. I'm trying to think how Nurmi can spin this...

Me too! I really think that all the prosecution has to do is provide evidence to show that what Nurmi is alleging here is impossible or irrelevant or both. Nurmi gets more delay, and most importantly: more headlines for jurors to see during all this down time. His goal is enough juror attrition for a mistrial, I think.
 
The killer's description of Travis' reaction to a damaged CD of their travel photos seemed artificial. According to her testimony, he really became exercised, and then some. Since she supposedly brought her record of the trip to share, they might both be disappointed but I doubt he would be that rude. Plenty of Sleuths would have suspected she either distorted the incident or made it up. Only sex could pacify him, don't you know. In light of the new defense motion, the likelihood is she created the scene she describes because it was useful to cover what she was really up to that afternoon, all of it premeditated to fit not only her escape but her utter destruction of Travis. If she indeed was in part motivated by rage, jealousy & envy of his imminent trip to Cancun, their own ruined travelogue would have demonstrated both insult & revenge as it infected his computer. "This is what I think of you and this is what our memories mean now. To hell with your trip without me!"
 
Me too! I really think that all the prosecution has to do is provide evidence to show that what Nurmi is alleging here is impossible or irrelevant or both. Nurmi gets more delay, and most importantly: more headlines for jurors to see during all this down time. His goal is enough juror attrition for a mistrial, I think.

Well, something clearly did happen on July 9, the day the computer was signed out. Either LE did this or it was an antivirus program that ran when they booted the computer. Or something else. I hope they can provide some record of why the computer was removed for "services" that day.

While Nurmi is going to claim the over writes happened on July 9, and the overwritten hard drive was provided to Dworkin in 2012, it still doesn't explain why Melendez also never found any *advertiser censored* either during his initial analysis, unless he lied.
 
Anyone know what this piece of evidence is?
Exhibit 440 is temporarily released to Defense to be returned on 11/12/14. 10:33 a.m. Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112014/m6566145.pdf. From 11/5

I did a search and found 2 references, one when CMJA was on the stand, and the other was from when ALV was on the stand - Exhibit 440 are the text messages between Travis and CMJA

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...*&p=8860009&highlight=exhibit+440#post8860009

Post #206
Exhibit440, looks like 1/4 ream of paper, text messages between Travis and JA January 2006 to June 6, 2008

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...8&p=9154731&highlight=exhibit+440#post9154731

Post 401
 
Well, something clearly did happen on July 9, the day the computer was signed out. Either LE did this or it was an antivirus program that ran when they booted the computer. Or something else. I hope they can provide some record of why the computer was removed for "services" that day.

While Nurmi is going to claim the over writes happened on July 9, and the overwritten hard drive was provided to Dworkin in 2012, it still doesn't explain why Melendez also never found any *advertiser censored* either during his initial analysis, unless he lied.

They should never have had to boot the computer to clone the drive to analyze it. If the computer was booted from that original drive later, it is possible that AV software did alter the drive in the computer. If the first forensic mirror image still exists, a writable copy of that will attempt to do the exact same thing if the operating system boots from it. It will be really easy to figure this out. Don't worry.
 
OK, I'm caught up again, so much that my eyes are crossed and my brain scrambled, so if I'm not "getting it", please be gentle. I know enough about computers to be dangerous, but even so this is just not making sense to me. Those of you who go to sleep reading computer type stuff just scroll on by but I'm hoping someone will understand my confusion and point out where I got so confused.

Melendez testified he was at the scene on the 9th, said the computer was asleep when he checked it, so he powered it off and removed the plug. Came back the next day to pick it up and log it into evidence. I cannot seem to find the exact date for when he did his exam but it was June 2008 - I would suspect that it was shortly after bringing it in. He powered it on and did a mirror image using Encase & writeblock. He testified to most of what he looked at and it sounds like he did a thorough job, at least one good enough to have noted anti-virus activity but nothing like this was mentioned AFAIK. He stated there was no *advertiser censored*, no naked women, no browser history showing *advertiser censored* sites or software that users typically use to access *advertiser censored*. Defense had their guy examine this image and he found nothing either.

So a whole year later, according to Nurmi, Flores takes the computer out of evidence and deletes/shreds 1,000s of files, plus the browser history and registry. A detective does this, knowing full well that the forensics team has preserved the data from that computer a whole year prior?

Their new forensics person is somehow able to find evidence of this in a computer years after he says Flores deleted huge amounts of data. Am I correct in assuming they actually received the physical computer and that's where they found all of this? Someone up thread said it was found in overwritten files, although I missed reading where info this originated. But if they found them in 2014, and found evidence that the files were deleted in 2009, how do they explain the image copies that Melendez made days after the murder that don't show these deleted files? They had to have been there in 2008 to have been deleted in 2009, right?

Several here are talking about a trojan and antivirus cleanup being the reason these links were left on the computer. But if these files were on the computer, the anti-virus would have had to have been activated prior to Melendez making his image copy, so why did he or the defense expert not notice something like this? Whether or not anti-virus writes over the files it deletes, either Encase softwear or a forensic examiner would find a bunch of nonsense data that is used when a program wipes/overwrites files. Or there would be huge unallocated clusters from thousands of files being deleted if they were not overwritten. Both forensics guys would have noticed the anti-virus software startup in the activity logs too. But Nurmi says that Flores deleted all these files in 2009, so they couldn't have been left from anti-virus activity in 2008. Now if there were in fact only a few links planted by a trojan and then overwritten by anti-virus software, that might be easier to understand, but I still say Melendez would have noted it being activated in the activity log, and Nurmi is saying huge amounts of data were deleted/wiped in 2009.

Help?
 
Not trying to be a contrarian, but I disagree that the DT is desperate. Nurmi doesn't have a lot to work with in substance but he's proven himself a master of delay, which may yet doom any chance of a DP sentence. That's not desperation. It's strategy, however slimy and low it goes.

In for a dime and all that...... I don't think anyone here thinks JM or TA's family should or will be bullied into dropping the DP. BUT....again, IF (and inly if) for whatever reason JM can't adequately refute these allegations and IF at that point continuing on to obtain a DP may jeopardize the guilty verdict, then heck yah I think he should drop the DP.

It seems logical to me since KN is the one making the accusations it would be up to him to prove they are true. Other than that they are just wild allegations.

I don't see why Juan would have to prove his or Flores' innocence. Surely Juan and Flores are afforded equal protections under the law like anyone else who has been accused.

To me it is up to Nurmi to prove what he has said happened. If not that means the ones he accuses have to prove their innocence, and if not, then mere allegations mean guilt.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no doubt Juan's reply to this motion will be smoking with facts to support his position. But he nor Flores should be made to prove they are innocent in all of this, which I totally believe they are.

Nurmi needs to put up or shut up. Motions are one thing but facts are another. And facts are one thing KN has always fallen short of having.

I doubt seriously that Juan or the Alexanders will back off from the death penalty no matter how low KN is willing to go trying to force them to do so.
 
http://youtu.be/Z_M2C1kY7qg

The CD testimony is above - starting at 2.33. It always seemed incongruous - even stranger than Arias' normal crazy fiction. She mentions the virus. It's emphasised in the throwing the CD against the wall nonsense. Could Arias have brought the CD with the purpose of infecting his computer with a virus? Another premeditation. Another reason that no jury will ever convict her?
 
OK, I'm caught up again, so much that my eyes are crossed and my brain scrambled, so if I'm not "getting it", please be gentle. I know enough about computers to be dangerous, but even so this is just not making sense to me. Those of you who go to sleep reading computer type stuff just scroll on by but I'm hoping someone will understand my confusion and point out where I got so confused.

Melendez testified he was at the scene on the 9th, said the computer was asleep when he checked it, so he powered it off and removed the plug. Came back the next day to pick it up and log it into evidence. I cannot seem to find the exact date for when he did his exam but it was June 2008 - I would suspect that it was shortly after bringing it in. He powered it on and did a mirror image using Encase & writeblock. He testified to most of what he looked at and it sounds like he did a thorough job, at least one good enough to have noted anti-virus activity but nothing like this was mentioned AFAIK. He stated there was no *advertiser censored*, no naked women, no browser history showing *advertiser censored* sites or software that users typically use to access *advertiser censored*. Defense had their guy examine this image and he found nothing either.

So a whole year later, according to Nurmi, Flores takes the computer out of evidence and deletes/shreds 1,000s of files, plus the browser history and registry. A detective does this, knowing full well that the forensics team has preserved the data from that computer a whole year prior?

Their new forensics person is somehow able to find evidence of this in a computer years after he says Flores deleted huge amounts of data. Am I correct in assuming they actually received the physical computer and that's where they found all of this? Someone up thread said it was found in overwritten files, although I missed reading where info this originated. But if they found them in 2014, and found evidence that the files were deleted in 2009, how do they explain the image copies that Melendez made days after the murder that don't show these deleted files? They had to have been there in 2008 to have been deleted in 2009, right?

Several here are talking about a trojan and antivirus cleanup being the reason these links were left on the computer. But if these files were on the computer, the anti-virus would have had to have been activated prior to Melendez making his image copy, so why did he or the defense expert not notice something like this? Whether or not anti-virus writes over the files it deletes, either Encase softwear or a forensic examiner would find a bunch of nonsense data that is used when a program wipes/overwrites files. Or there would be huge unallocated clusters from thousands of files being deleted if they were not overwritten. Both forensics guys would have noticed the anti-virus software startup in the activity logs too. But Nurmi says that Flores deleted all these files in 2009, so they couldn't have been left from anti-virus activity in 2008. Now if there were in fact only a few links planted by a trojan and then overwritten by anti-virus software, that might be easier to understand, but I still say Melendez would have noted it being activated in the activity log, and Nurmi is saying huge amounts of data were deleted/wiped in 2009.

Help?

Sounds like you understand it the same way I do. And you're right, it makes no sense.

Melendez examines the drive of this Compaq Presario in 2008, looking for deleted internet history and finds no *advertiser censored*.
Flores allegedly deletes/"shreds" thousands of *advertiser censored* files from the Compaq Presario's browser history in 2009.
Dworkin examines the drive of this Compaq Presario in 2012, looking for deleted internet history and finds no *advertiser censored*.
New expert examines Compaq Presario in 2014 and allegedly finds thousands of deleted/"shredded" *advertiser censored* files.
 
Yeah, they are very hard to break. Good point.

I may be in the "memory fog" that JA talked about, but I could have sworn there was previous testimony about a broken CD. Maybe someone else remembers about it.

I may have gotten confused with the testimony she claimed about being able to read information off of a CD in Travis bedroom and she claimed Travis got all mad because the CD didnt work. Something to that effect.

(deleted because someone beat me to it.)
 
@jeffgoldesq: "@thegoldpatrol: "@courtchatter: BREAKING: *advertiser censored* sites listed in #JodiArias defense motion are KNOWN trojan horse viruses FACT.""

Praying for this to be the explanation!

I am really not understanding how they can retry this WHOLE thing. Can someone break it down for me? The evidence was presented in it's entirety and she was convicted of 1st degree murder. Attorneys in da house, please dumb it down for me and tell me how this is becoming a whole new being. Where is the line drawn?

They wouldn't retry it--the charges would be dropped and she would walk. This would happen only if there was intentional destruction of evidence by the state (which does happen) and the evidence was exculpatory. If the evidence is child *advertiser censored*, IMO it would be slightly exculpatory because it would support JA's latest story.

It certainly sounds from this like the witness is NOT JA.

Didn't the COA tell JSS that she was limited to what AZ 9.3 allowed and that she had overstepped it? It sounds like from the wording of the issue KN is addressing (p 2) that he is going back to tell them that screwed up and don't understand AZ 9.3, because she really didn't overstep it, hence they need to correct their earlier mistake.

AZL or some other lawyer will have to say whether my interpretation above is correct or not, but it seems to me that his chances are slim and none, and slim has left town. Then again, maybe that's all he can do in his appeal is to try to convince them to change their minds, so it's guaranteed to be an uphill battle no matter what.

I agree that the brief strongly suggests that the witness in question was not JA. And I don't think Nurmi's going to win.
 
OK, I'm caught up again, so much that my eyes are crossed and my brain scrambled, so if I'm not "getting it", please be gentle. I know enough about computers to be dangerous, but even so this is just not making sense to me. Those of you who go to sleep reading computer type stuff just scroll on by but I'm hoping someone will understand my confusion and point out where I got so confused.

Melendez testified he was at the scene on the 9th, said the computer was asleep when he checked it, so he powered it off and removed the plug. Came back the next day to pick it up and log it into evidence. I cannot seem to find the exact date for when he did his exam but it was June 2008 - I would suspect that it was shortly after bringing it in. He powered it on and did a mirror image using Encase & writeblock. He testified to most of what he looked at and it sounds like he did a thorough job, at least one good enough to have noted anti-virus activity but nothing like this was mentioned AFAIK. He stated there was no *advertiser censored*, no naked women, no browser history showing *advertiser censored* sites or software that users typically use to access *advertiser censored*. Defense had their guy examine this image and he found nothing either.

So a whole year later, according to Nurmi, Flores takes the computer out of evidence and deletes/shreds 1,000s of files, plus the browser history and registry. A detective does this, knowing full well that the forensics team has preserved the data from that computer a whole year prior?

Their new forensics person is somehow able to find evidence of this in a computer years after he says Flores deleted huge amounts of data. Am I correct in assuming they actually received the physical computer and that's where they found all of this? Someone up thread said it was found in overwritten files, although I missed reading where info this originated. But if they found them in 2014, and found evidence that the files were deleted in 2009, how do they explain the image copies that Melendez made days after the murder that don't show these deleted files? They had to have been there in 2008 to have been deleted in 2009, right?

Several here are talking about a trojan and antivirus cleanup being the reason these links were left on the computer. But if these files were on the computer, the anti-virus would have had to have been activated prior to Melendez making his image copy, so why did he or the defense expert not notice something like this? Whether or not anti-virus writes over the files it deletes, either Encase softwear or a forensic examiner would find a bunch of nonsense data that is used when a program wipes/overwrites files. Or there would be huge unallocated clusters from thousands of files being deleted if they were not overwritten. Both forensics guys would have noticed the anti-virus software startup in the activity logs too. But Nurmi says that Flores deleted all these files in 2009, so they couldn't have been left from anti-virus activity in 2008. Now if there were in fact only a few links planted by a trojan and then overwritten by anti-virus software, that might be easier to understand, but I still say Melendez would have noted it being activated in the activity log, and Nurmi is saying huge amounts of data were deleted/wiped in 2009.

Help?

You're right. The motion doesn't say anything about overwritten files but about someone going in without a write blocker and deleting thousands of files. I just figured the only way to successfully alter something but still have it be findable is by over writing it.

So now I'm more confused than ever. If LE was going to destroy evidence this is the dumbest, most traceable way possible. It just doesn't make sense. I want to know what exactly is happening. I want to know what Juan's response is going to be.

And Nurmi is known for wanting things out into the media that he knows will help him. He is calling a some computer guy to testify and if he and Mr. Computer guy were confident in what they'd found, they wouldn't want his testimony sealed. Maybe computer guy is the secret witness. This ploy of having nothing but this motion out there without the anchor of a thorough cross examination is very beneficial to the defense but, again, only in the court of public opinion. Maybe Nurmi wanted to save this motion until after the computer guy testified but now that the ish is hitting the fan, he went for a desperation Hail Mary pass.
 
I'm getting the impression that Nurmi has been dooped by JA and her new detective. Look at how easily this has been torn apart today. Wasn't the new detective hired by Jodi while she was representing herself? Wasn't he hired for her appeal, and not under Nurmi's control? I can see Jodi telling this detective that she knows that there is *advertiser censored* on the computer because she planted it there. I don't see her telling Nurmi. I still have the image of Nurmi and Wilmont trying to figure out the code in the magazine. I think that maybe the detective went to Nurmi with the discovery of tampering (knowing full well it was a virus planted by Jodi). Nurmi not being knowledgeable of computers fell for it and filed the motion. As much as I don't like or trust Nurmi I just cannot see him filing this knowing that the truth and how easy it would be to disprove.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
4,470
Total visitors
4,611

Forum statistics

Threads
602,851
Messages
18,147,670
Members
231,551
Latest member
Lucysmom20
Back
Top