Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[MeeBee]

I believe it was Windows XP, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I believe its possible Windows updates were completed upon boot up in 2009.

I guess the question still is, was a write blocker used then?

In 2009? No.

 

[Val1]

Nothing to do will Bill's feelings. He's probably in on it if that's what's happening. Might even be one of the new witnesses. Or she's using another male family member or friend, possibly now deceased, in her "story". The reason for the secrecy is to explain why she didn't tell anyone about this "abuse" in the first trial. It is so psychologically traumatizing to her that she just couldn't bring herself to do it. But now that she has a second chance to save her life, she realizes how important it is. But she still wanted to tell this story in secrecy because it is so difficult for her and wasn't aware she could ask for this in the first trial.

Now this is just my speculation and if she is doing this I totally believe it's all a complete lie.

MOO

I'm betting it was so people that know J Freeman's story wouldn't be able to hear her use it for her own. I don't for a minute believe that anything she has done was to spare anyone other than herself.

 

[Predator]

That is what I'm wondering. This is also why I take some issue with BK claiming BN was just a computer having trouble explaining things to a lawyer. BN wanted to condescend to Juan and say, you're taking about the incinerator like it's a program. But it is a program. Juan claims it is Incinerator 2.3. It's a program that is used to clear out the recycle bin so you can hide things you've deleted (in a nutshell). The expert has no idea what Incinerator is, when it was apparently on the image he turned over to the state? And it was not a program that was on Travis' original hard drive? It might be an innocent thing, BUT it is odd that he doesn't know what it is when it is on something he gave the state.

Perhaps BN sounded convincing, but I don't think he is in any way full proof. Is computer forensics even his area of expertise? He turns over an image and says you don't need a copy, that's good enough. But from reading here, computer forensics experts don't work with compressed images. They work with copies. BN should know that.

Wow... it was on the HDD...

Also, it's not like the guy who would use something like that wouldn't know to install it on an external storage device (to run it only in the RAM) and then to clean up the registry (it's no-brainer ,too, to clean up the registry and event logs) to not leave any trace of it. I mean if (even though I am no computer buff) even I know better than to ever install such software on your HDD and any forensics expert must know that, too. And by the way, I would use something military-grade like this http://www.summitcn.com/hdscrub.html .... It just doesn't make any sense to me that a forensics expert would use run-of-the-mill software instead of writing and using his own custom builds for security purposes.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That is what I'm wondering. This is also why I take some issue with BK claiming BN was just a computer having trouble explaining things to a lawyer. BN wanted to condescend to Juan and say, you're taking about the incinerator like it's a program. But it is a program. Juan claims it is Incinerator 2.3. It's a program that is used to clear out the recycle bin so you can hide things you've deleted (in a nutshell). The expert has no idea what Incinerator is, when it was apparently on the image he turned over to the state? And it was not a program that was on Travis' original hard drive? It might be an innocent thing, BUT it is odd that he doesn't know what it is when it is on something he gave the state.

Perhaps BN sounded convincing, but I don't think he is in any way full proof. Is computer forensics even his area of expertise? He turns over an image and says you don't need a copy, that's good enough. But from reading here, computer forensics experts don't work with compressed images. They work with copies. BN should know that.

Since computer forensics have become so prevalent in trials in the past decade or so I image Juan knows a heck of a lot more about computers than BN thinks he does.

IMO

 

[MeeBee]

Wow... it was on the HDD...

Also, it's not like the guy who would use something like that wouldn't know to install it on an external storage device (to run it only in the RAM) and then to clean up the registry (it's no-brainer ,too, to clean up the registry and event logs) to not leave any trace of it. I mean if (even though I am no computer buff) even I know better than to ever install such software on your HDD and any forensics expert must know that, too. And by the way, I would use something military-grade like this http://www.summitcn.com/hdscrub.html .... It just doesn't make any sense to me that a forensics expert would use run-of-the-mill software instead of writing and using his own custom builds for security purposes.

Was it on the hard drive or the compressed image? As far as I can tell, the state can't look at the hard drive because it's damaged. If it's on the image he may have only used Incinerator on his copy of the hard drive.

But I'm wondering if BN even used that at all. I'm wondering if Jodi wanted the computer looked at while acting pro per and the PI took it to some computer schmuck and when the *advertiser censored* was found she told the DT and the DT said, ok, let's take this to a real expert so we can have it properly analyzed and so their expert testimony can be used in a court of law. And that fringe "expert" is the one who used Incinerator, not BN.

 

[MeeBee]

Since computer forensics have become so prevalent in trials in the past decade or so I image Juan knows a heck of a lot more about computers than BN thinks he does.

IMO

I'm sure BN knows plenty about computers. It's the area of computer forensics that he probably had to brush up on.

 

[mydirtysecret]

I'm betting it was so people that know J Freeman's story wouldn't be able to hear her use it for her own. I don't for a minute believe that anything she has done was to spare anyone other than herself.

What do you mean by this? I'm unfamiliar with all the freemans story I just know one committed suicide shortly after travis was killed

 

[Predator]

Was it on the hard drive or the compressed image? As far as I can tell, the state can't look at the hard drive because it's damaged. If it's on the image he may have only used Incinerator on his copy of the hard drive.

But I'm wondering if BN even used that at all. I'm wondering if Jodi wanted the computer looked at while acting pro per and the PI took it to some computer schmuck and when the *advertiser censored* was found she told the DT and the DT said, ok, let's take this to a real expert so we can have it properly analyzed and so their expert testimony can be used in a court of law.

This ,actually, makes a lot of sense. When do you think a proper defense expert will take a look at it?

P.S or has the defense already had analysis done on it? (I have not been really following the case)

 

[Val1]

This link has a timeline of the computer findings. Hopefully it is okay to post it. If not, I guess I will know in a few.... ducking now:escape:



http://jodiariastrialtruth.blogspot.com/

From your link:

5-28-2008 First date proof of *advertiser censored* is shown (DT allege present in 07, no evidence provided yet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Travis_Alexander

On May 28, 2008, a burglary occurred at the residence of Arias' grandparents, with whom she was living. Among the missing objects was a .25-caliber gun, which was never recovered.

 

[MeeBee]

This ,actually, makes a lot of sense. When do you think a proper defense expert will take a look at it?

I think BN is that expert. But I'm curious if he's actually the first one who looked at it.

 

[Val1]

What do you mean by this? I'm unfamiliar with all the freemans story I just know one committed suicide shortly after travis was killed

If you go back and follow the link you will see the connection. Don't forget, JA kept in contact with the Freeman's even after the murder, DF in fact had gone to visit her in jail a few times iirc. She had known the young man who killed himself as well as the two other siblings that testified for her re the camping trip. Obviously they only knew her "good" side and cannot seem to believe that she is capable of lying, even after she admitted in court that it had all been a lie.

Bottom of page 4, June 17, 2008.:
http://murderpedia.org/female.A/images/arias-jodi/jodi-arias-journal-entries.pdf

 

[Truth Detector]

Because no one is claiming *advertiser censored* was missed, then found. The DT is claiming links to *advertiser censored* sites were missed then found. These are text files, URL's, showing the computer was once directed to *advertiser censored* sites, and in this case no one is disputing at least partially through the action of viruses. Maybe intentionally too, but imo that's impossible to prove. Anything a person could possibly do with a computer using a mouse or keyboard can also be done by a virus, except write 'War and Peace' or other creative work. Linking a computer to *advertiser censored* sites is not only possible for a virus, it's what many of them were written to do, and making it appear as if they were typed in is trivial. The original experts were asked if there was *advertiser censored* on the computer and they said no. They were right, and there still isn't. What was 'missed' but actually never asked, was "has this computer ever been to *advertiser censored* sites?" This is what the current defense has found.

Regarding the original claim that there were no viruses either, I would point out the difference between active viruses and quarantined ones.

I'm not claiming nothing was missed by the original experts but I will point out that this detailed an analysis of Travis' hard drive was never central to the prosecutions case.At this stage, however, the defense seeks to miss no opportunity to smear Travis and/or implicate the prosecution in wrongdoing. Even if they fail they still succeed via delay.

BBM

JA's counsel is claiming far worse than that *advertiser censored* was missed and then found; although they're claiming that as well when they state that Dworkin found none before, but BN did in 2014.

They are claiming that the State intentionally deceived the court regarding *advertiser censored* on TA's computer; ergo, the DT's filing is to dismiss all charges.



The motion specifically alleges "purposeful and egregious prosecutorial misconduct".

It details an allegation that "a plethora of *advertiser censored*" was found on TA's computer, that the prosecution knew it, intentionally deleted it, and then lied about it in order to gain a conviction.



The motion specifically excludes the possibility that *advertiser censored* was deleted in error "inadvertently" in the course of forensic examination. It makes clear that there is no agreement between the parties that viruses 'accidentally' caused the deletions.

Rather, in their filing, LKN, JW, and JA accuse "someone" of intentionally seeking to "alter [the] content" of TA's Compaq Presario, and then successfully executing said alteration, coinciding with Detective Flores's actions of June 19, 2009.

They further accuse the State of "deceit" in so doing.

If the court ordered the powering on of that computer at the DT's request, proving the allegations in the motion will be a tall order indeed.

From what has been tweeted thus far, the DT does not appear likely to prevail and I believe that JSKS will have no alternative but to deny the motion.

 

[Predator]

I think BN is that expert. But I'm curious if he's actually the first one who looked at it.

And what were his findings? I mean yes it is hard to say whether it was the clone or the original modded, but it's not impossible in some cases ( especially if the clone (image) was made via EnCase) if you know what you are doing so they should be able to get to the bottom of this.

And one more thing was the HDD "flashed (fired)" or did it break down due to natural causes?

 

[ljwf22]

Undoubtedly

:welcome6:

 

[bznbear]

I actually believe he instilled himself into this case to stroke his ego. Nurmi didn't contact him, everyone was trying to Photoshop TA's eye in the shower photo way before BN came on the scene. I think he saw what was going on, tried it himself, then called Nurmi to say he could blow the case wide open. Trouble is everyone else saw JA with her arm raised & a knife in her hand lol.

BBM: Yep, totally agree

 

[Hope4More]

I'm not aware of anyone claiming viruses deleted files. As far as I'm aware the alleged file deleters are:

1) LE and the prosecution (least likely)
2) Antivirus software, triggered by the original defense team (most likely)
3) the current defense expert (undetermined and unrelated to the original alleged deletions)

There isn't enough real information for anyone on the outside to make a clear determination on what actually went on. We haven't heard from Juan's expert, and that may shed some light on the situation.

I choose not to speculate on how fast Travis' computer would or wouldn't have run with X number of viruses, active or quarantined. It's not an issue that any of the parties have brought up, and frankly I'm grateful for that.

The computer environment of 2008 is similar to the one today. Viruses of this nature arose with the internet ca. 2000, and its been more the same than different since then.

As someone with above average knowledge of these things, which imo says more about the average level of knowledge than about my own, I simply wanted to point out that the numbers you find significant are not at all to me, and I hoped you would find that information helpful.

You strike me as a keen critical thinker, and I don't want to lose you down a rabbit hole.

But really, we have to wait for more information before any of this becomes really clear, if that ever happens.

I don't quite get why you're worried about losing me down a rabbit hole, but...... thanks for the concern.

It's been obvious for days now that we haven't heard enough concrete info about the whole HD non sequitur drama for even the best informed to understand what happened and how.

Frankly the what happened with HD is of little interest to me. It is crystal clear to me that Flores and JM did nothing wrong, which after all was supposed to be what the computer rabbit hole was about.

Now the only salient question, IMO, is whether or not the DT can make an argument, preposterous or not, that will result in JSS allowing them to assert TA had child *advertiser censored* on his HD.

That would matter, and is at the heart of the matter. The rest just doesn't in the big picture.

 

[ElleElle]

In 2009? No.

Wasn't it booted up again 1 year or so later?

Darn dates... regardless, on next boot up since brought back to Mesa PD.

 

[bznbear]

Either he's playing dumb because it was used and he knows it or he is NOT a computer expert IMO.

I think he thinks he's an expert in many fields, but I don't believe he's as knowledgeable as he believes in computer forensics.

 

[Hope4More]

That is what I'm wondering. This is also why I take some issue with BK claiming BN was just a computer having trouble explaining things to a lawyer. BN wanted to condescend to Juan and say, you're taking about the incinerator like it's a program. But it is a program. Juan claims it is Incinerator 2.3. It's a program that is used to clear out the recycle bin so you can hide things you've deleted (in a nutshell). The expert has no idea what Incinerator is, when it was apparently on the image he turned over to the state? And it was not a program that was on Travis' original hard drive? It might be an innocent thing, BUT it is odd that he doesn't know what it is when it is on something he gave the state.

Perhaps BN sounded convincing, but I don't think he is in any way full proof. Is computer forensics even his area of expertise? He turns over an image and says you don't need a copy, that's good enough. But from reading here, computer forensics experts don't work with compressed images. They work with copies. BN should know that.

I agree with you about BK. Her notes throughout that hearing were sympathetic to BN. At one point she commented that JM was "browbeating" BN about turning over his copy.

Reading others instead of seeing is an inferior way to get information, but even given the lack of visual and audio cues, I am quite sure BN doesn't deserve sympathy for how JM handled him. And that's about as diplomatic as I get on the subject.

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't quite get why you're worried about losing me down a rabbit hole, but...... thanks for the concern.

It's been obvious for days now that we haven't heard enough concrete info about the whole HD non sequitur drama for even the best informed to understand what happened and how.

Frankly the what happened with HD is of little interest to me. It is crystal clear to me that Flores and JM did nothing wrong, which after all was supposed to be what the computer rabbit hole was about.

Now the only salient question, IMO, is whether or not the DT can make an argument, preposterous or not, that will result in JSS allowing them to assert TA had child *advertiser censored* on his HD.

That would matter, and is at the heart of the matter. The rest just doesn't in the big picture.

JSKS has already allowed testiphony served up by the especially cruel lying torture murderess that TA possessed a paper copy.

IMO, the central issue will be whether the DT can prove, as they allege in their motion, purposeful and egregious prosecutorial misconduct resulting from the State's intentional deletion of "a plethora of *advertiser censored*" from TA's computer (evidence tampering), and then lying about it to the court in order to obtain a conviction.