Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/04 In recess Computer Exp Hearing

[PenElaine]

And Sleuth5 and Hopeful One?

ETA: Sorry, this is in response to demacky's post #35, wondering where some of the posters from last year are.[/QUO
TE]

I miss Linda7NJ. I wish we knew what happened to her. I've told my son to drop a line to you folks should something happen to me - not that I think it would make a difference to anyone - only to let you know how important our collective quest for justice has touched me personally and deeply. (Sorry to "geek out" - this is the only forum I've ever cared to follow) ....

 

[geevee]

Thank you so much! I'm listening to Beth now...but man, I really miss Croaker Queen's full court videos. So, the proceedings aren't being televised during this retrial? That's disappointing... :-(

YW, I really wish we were getting videos daily also, one of these days though.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

So as I understand things is if you encrypt something you can unencrypt it too.


Encrypt or decrypt a folder or file
Windows 7 More

Encrypting folders and files is a way to protect them from unwanted access. Encrypting File System (EFS) is a feature of Windows that you can use to store information on your hard disk in an encrypted format. Encryption is the strongest protection that Windows provides to help you keep your information secure.
Watch this video to learn how to encrypt a folder or file (0:54)
To encrypt a folder or file

Right-click the folder or file you want to encrypt, and then click Properties.

Click the General tab, and then click Advanced.

Select the Encrypt contents to secure data check box, click OK, and then click OK again.

Note

The first time you encrypt a folder or file, an encryption certificate is automatically created. You should back up your encryption certificate. If your certificate and key are lost or damaged and you don't have a backup, you won't be able to use the files that you have encrypted. For more information, see Back up Encrypting File System (EFS) certificate.

To decrypt a folder or file

Right-click the folder or file you want to decrypt, and then click Properties.

Click the General tab, and then click Advanced.

Clear the Encrypt contents to secure data check box, click OK, and then click OK again.



Now was that hard?

 

[bsk]

I think she did order him to turn over whatever it was Juan was asking for--I think. But the only way any of that is important is if Juan was saying that the *advertiser censored* is not on the 2008 mirror drive that Juan already has. Is he saying that? I didn't see any tweets saying that.

I think Juan wants what they say they got so that BN can then demonstrate how he found that files were deleted (and Juan can have an expert duplicate it - except that he refuses to say how he came to that determination. We're just supposed to trust him since he's won Emmys and all.

And I think Juan wants what they have today to prove that they destroyed evidence. BN already admitted as much, saying the first thing he did was encrypt it, which means it is no longer a clone if I'm not mistaken. So he has altered or destroyed evidence, while saying he doesn't need to prove his claim that the state altered or destroyed evidence.

 

[AZlawyer]

Results of various possible determinations by the judge:

1. Travis might have looked at *advertiser censored*. .... IMO the result is, who cares.

2. Travis might have looked at kiddie *advertiser censored*. .... IMO the result is that JA gets to present this information to buttress her ridiculous story that the "kiddie *advertiser censored*" incident led to a downhill spiral in their relationship and ultimately to physical abuse which stressed her out so much that, given her preexisting mental condition, it was pretty much inevitable that she killed him.

3. The prosecution/police accidentally deleted something. .... Again, who cares.

4. The prosecution/police purposely deleted *advertiser censored*. .... Disturbing but would have no effect on the trial.

5. The prosecution/police purposely deleted kiddie *advertiser censored*. .... Major prob, to quote Cindy Anthony.

 

[MeeBee]

To add just one thing to MeeBee's comments about juror #3, she was the "book writer" and did ask a lot of questions. She said she did that at times to call attention to something she wanted the other jurors to note or to think about, and since they were not able to discuss things, this was a way for her to do that. That might be why some of the questions didn't make sense, because they weren't really questions? I agree with MeeBee about her though. She was very well spoken and bright, but I'm not sure she was seeing things as most of us do. Of course, she is getting a *very* condensed version and knew very little about the case going in, but still, there was just something there...

Glad it wasn't just me. I liked her, I really did. I think she tried hard to, at least, project impartiality and an ability to use logic. But something is telling me she gave weight to things that would have worried me. I thought she implied she bought into the pedophile thing, in not so many words (don't know if you caught it). I think she did see abuse from Travis. I think she thinks they were both toxic, manipulative people. Perhaps she would still have been able to give the death penalty, though.

ETA: And she had a frustrating, roundabout way of answering things lol.

Also, I don't know if you heard this, but when Jen was like, yeah, we know it was Jodi on the stand so you can just say it, juror 3 said, um, that isn't the whole thing so I still don't feel confident discussing it.

 

[elementary]

OK, so maybe I was reading too fast. I understand the computer stuff. I even understand what BN was saying about Juan not getting the difference between a clone and an image, and Juan not understanding that he was asking for a picture of a picture. (Obviously I don't get why BN had to say those things like a petulant child and disrespect the court.)

But was there any testimony about anything important today? E.g.,

1. Was there child *advertiser censored* accessed on the laptop according to BN (not virus-*advertiser censored* but actually intentionally accessed *advertiser censored*)?

2. Was BN saying that the child *advertiser censored* or the evidence that it had been accessed was deleted? Or even that any *advertiser censored*/tracks of *advertiser censored* at all had been deleted?

Were the Twitterers just out to lunch or did no one ask any relevant questions?

IMO the tweeters are totally out to lunch. It's really diffiicult to get genuine detailed unedited reportage from the courtroom. I lay this major public fail at Judge Sherry Stephen's feet. And social media sensibilities.

 

[Val1]

He might remember her, but what can he really testify to? He was about 4 or 5 when she moved out. How much can he really know about her? She was nice and made him PBand J?

Nothing really relevant imo, other than she didn't kill his dad after she broke up with him.... whether he was witness to any arguments who knows, didn't the mom come and get her son moved out of there sometime during JA and DB's relationship?

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I don't get it. Has JM had his computer forensics guys look at the 2008 image of the hard drive or not? Did they find this *advertiser censored* or not? Is it on the copy given to Dworkin or not? How is this difficult?

I am no good at computer stuff. LOL! I don't have to be. DH was a program manager and, while not educated in computer stuff, knows a whole lot from working on programs for years. He fixes most of my problems.

As far as the 2008 image, we don't know yet. Melendez and Dworkin didn't find any. I'm thinking that the new expert who will testify next Wednesday just might have done a complete analysis to find out. I'm hoping and praying that this is so.

 

[geevee]

I am now thoroughly sure I don't know what's going on. I don't know what Juan is saying, I don't know what BN actually looked at, I don't know what Juan is looking at now. I thought I understood what Juan wanted and now I don't.

Also, BN said...so why were all the files created in 2009 in re: to the copy that was provided Dworkin. Wilmott said, good point, we'll come back to that. And then they never did. Was it not really that important? Is it just because Lonnie received a copy that was made in 2009 of the original 2008 image and she knows that? This is so frustrating. I don't like it anymore.

I'm frustrated too, they never got back to Spybot being accessed at the time one of the nudies was timestamped, but I have learned that if the laptop was in sleep mode then as well, Spybot can't do anything on its own, neither can any other program, until the computer is woken up again. So it would have had to be user initiated, if it happened.

 

[daisydomino]

I'm glad I found this! I was hoping to read about the juror #3 interview and I must have missed this post earlier. It's hard to catch up here, we post a lot! lol! Thank you MeeBee

Okay! Just listened to the juror's interview!

It was interesting but not super informative.

I now know why Nurmi added more witnesses. She learned it was going past Dec 18 and she couldn't do it anymore. Stuff came up. I do believe this is Nurmi's new goal

She was a very logical, focused person. Not a lot of emotion. She wasn't overtly pro state or defense. She did ask the "trigger" question. I think she would have been a leader and she would have made a good juror. But after listening to her, I'm still kind of glad she is off the jury lol. Something just rubs me the wrong way about her.

The BEST thing she said though is she is confident the jury will come to a unanimous verdict.

Well as long as it's not unanimous that they've all got better things to do with the next few months of their lives...

I think juror attrition has been in the DT's plan since day 1 of this retrial. Possibly even part of how jurors were chosen.

 

[Myvice]

What I got from Beth's site was that this is being handled more informally because this is a motions hearing and not court. People are calling each other by their first name because they have all worked together etc.

I didn't get the feeling from her that BN was being disrespectful in saying Juan didn't understand the computer stuff, more like he was understanding that it's pretty technical for someone that's not in the field. I kind of thought that she felt BN was right, but I don't know how much she knows about this stuff either.

She weighed in as saying she didn't believe they'd proven misconduct because nothing was intentional. But they may have mishandled evidence which could come up on appeal. She doesn't believe the death penalty will be dropped but that the *advertiser censored* may come in.

She said filing affidavits is acceptable as long as both parties find the witnesses credible. I don't think I fully understand this part but my take was Nurmi wanted 11 affidavits but the 3 witnesses that wanted to testify were still a problem.

Sorry I'm rambling and long winded but I want to add that Juan's expert hasn't testified yet so we have no clue what he'll have to say. I'm on the edge of my seat until Wednesday.

She did say that Nurmi said they were winding down and she said

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I am probably one of a handfull that thinks JSS might just be:

 

[LinasK]

In a similar vein, why wouldn't JSS keep it simple and tell BN to turn over two things by 5pm Monday or the defense motion is denied?
1) Clone of what they claim they got from Juan.
2) Clone of what they ended up with.

It's blatantly obvious that BN is trying to hide something. If the DT has nothing to fear from ignoring her, then why would they ever turn it over?

And encrypting it (god knows why they did) would not prevent Juan from opening it. Either turn over the encryption key/password, or let Juan find an expert who can unencrypt it. I know there are FBI cyber-experts who can.

 

[MeeBee]

What I got from Beth's site was that this is being handled more informally because this is a motions hearing and not court. People are calling each other by their first name because they have all worked together etc.

I didn't get the feeling from her that BN was being disrespectful in saying Juan didn't understand the computer stuff, more like he was understanding that it's pretty technical for someone that's not in the field. I kind of thought that she felt BN was right, but I don't know how much she knows about this stuff either.

She weighed in as saying she didn't believe they'd proven misconduct because nothing was intentional. But they may have mishandled evidence which could come up on appeal. She doesn't believe the death penalty will be dropped but that the *advertiser censored* may come in.

She said filing affidavits is acceptable as long as both parties find the witnesses credible. I don't think I fully understand this part but my take was Nurmi wanted 11 affidavits but the 3 witnesses that wanted to testify were still a problem.

Sorry I'm rambling and long winded but I want to add that Juan's expert hasn't testified yet so we have no clue what he'll have to say. I'm on the edge of my seat until Wednesday.

She did say that Nurmi said they were winding down and she said

Fantastic. Thank you. I feel better now, lol. I also am wondering how much Beth understand too. Just reading tweets from people who are there, no one really seems to understand. But I think her assessment makes sense, overall. The defense really has not proved intent, at all.

ETA: Glad it was just affidavits, lol. Those are probably the affidavits Juan was talking about. 14 new witnesses would have been ridiculous lol.

 

[LinasK]

With all due respect, please stop it. Maybe she makes crazy decisions just like any other judge.

Yup, Judge Belvin Perry allowed the juror who refused to judge!!!
Maybe the personal emergency was a death in the judge's family. We need to stop speculating on her. She achieved a 1st degree premeditated Guilty verdict for Jodi, that's more than I can say for Belvin Perry or Lance Ito!!! And OJ's trial was televised, and was a circus!

 

[Amster]

So, Beth thinks Juan was badgering the witness and the witness calling Juan a liar is understandable? Because Juan doesn't know what the heck he's talking about and the guy with the eye reflection does?? Oh, and the dreaded appeal!! Like I said before.....so glad I trusted my instinct about BK. Are she and monica friends?

 

[LinasK]

I think she did order him to turn over whatever it was Juan was asking for--I think. But the only way any of that is important is if Juan was saying that the *advertiser censored* is not on the 2008 mirror drive that Juan already has. Is he saying that? I didn't see any tweets saying that.

She ordered BN to turn over the encryption key (which is a way of coding the info to secure it so it can't be viewed). That's when he consulted with Wilmott & Nurmi instead of complying. Why didn't he have to immediately comply and turn over this password???

 

[MeeBee]

She ordered BN to turn over the encryption key (which is a way of coding the info to secure it so it can't be viewed). That's when he consulted with Wilmott & Nurmi instead of complying. Why didn't he have to immediately comply and turn over this password???

Based on the tweets, the judge did order him to turn it over.

 

[elementary]

So it looks like the DT should be up on allegations of misconduct then. Geesh. I so wish TA had a Mac. The quality of computer expert would have been so much higher than these secret hacks with no credentials.
:gaah:

It will never happen.

The DT placed a default safeguard in their accusations- it was a mistake. Meanwhile, they furthered their agenda- the *advertiser censored*. All the while keeping Judge Sherry Stephens onside.