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

[ICit]

WOW. I really should have bolded the entire email!
JA knew there WAS a way to mend it, and she was not going to let Travis ruin her "reputation." She would have to kill him....She is pure evil, through and through. I swear I actually had chills reading that email, and knowing what was coming :frown:

He was going to "kill her life", so he forced her to defend herself by killing him.

 

[Truth Detector]

Nurmi's a pest. I'm pretty sure that whatever was bended or broken came to the prosecution in that condition. Can he stop wasting everybody's time!?

Yeah, but I blame this one on JW, who's handling all the Dog-In-The-Eye Guy testiphony.

(See the Willmott & Assoc. in the margin of the motion DT filed.)

 

[Zinvestigator]

I don’t care if Travis downloaded satanic dancing, human sacrifices or Jihadi beheadings. What does that have to do with Jodi hacking him to death, slitting his throat and shooting him? Not about what Travis watched.

In fact, if his personality was influenced by *advertiser censored* or violence to women, SHE would be the one who is dead. He would have taken his rage out on Jodi, not the other way around.

 

[daisydomino]

How do you find this out?

Beth Karas reported this was BN's testimony on 12/4/14 at 2:06pm

 

[Hope4More]

OK. Please realize I don't speak this language..From BK..

--BN says he found 44 viruses and 250 malware.
--He worked with Lonny over the previous weekend and they found every single *advertiser censored* site on Mesa's copy that BN had found on his.

 

[daisydomino]

I don’t care if Travis downloaded satanic dancing, human sacrifices or Jihadi beheadings. What does that have to do with Jodi hacking him to death, slitting his throat and shooting him? Not about what Travis watched.

In fact, if his personality was influenced by *advertiser censored* or violence to women, SHE would be the one who is dead. He would have taken his rage out on Jodi, not the other way around.

I don't care either! I do care that the DT are alleging prosecutorial misconduct and tampering with evidence and have filed a motion that the case be dismissed because of that.

 

[Tuba]

There you are, geevee! The Travis cell phone record is paltry. It was located in the home office & its call log registered the last communication as 12:13 p.m. on June 4, 2008: a text to Chris Hughes. Flores inquired whether Hughes rec'd it and he did, indeed. There were further incoming calls and texts, thereafter and all went unanswered. As far as I know, the identities of the persons making these calls & texts were never published.

 

[Nali87]

Yeah, but I blame this one on JW, who's handling all the Dog-In-The-Eye Guy testiphony.

(See the Willmott & Assoc. in the margin of the motion DT filed.)

Ah yes, of course. I should have recognized the whining.

 

[RR0004]

If so, JM knows it now and I hope he will subpoena him for this hearing. We know that he and BN worked together last weekend and he agreed that all of the newly discovered *advertiser censored* has always been there and he missed it.

Did LD make a statement to that effect? Do you know where he stated this so I can read it. TIA

 

[Nali87]

I don't care either! I do care that the DT are alleging prosecutorial misconduct and tampering with evidence and have filed a motion that the case be dismissed because of that.

Wilmott just can't let JM's "Maybe you should go back to law school" remark go. This is payback. She gets to charge tons of money while making JM's life harder. Hmph.

 

[Myvice]

Did I dream this or did DF's brother commit suicide? Could he have confessed something to TA about child *advertiser censored* and TA was trying to help him? Hope I'm not totally losing my mind, LOL.

 

[gcharlie]

I gotta say that this case has gone into a level of detail which is probably unprecedented. Once the trial is over, all of the evidence will be a matter of public record, but someone has to pay for it.

Travis' phone records would cost a pretty penny to look at, but I'm sure a lot of people are curious about them. Likewise the IMs, email and computer analysis.

I personally do not want to see the two nude photos which were not shown in court. I could only look at the censored ones of the killer. No need to see any more.

Oy vey!

 

[daisydomino]

Did LD make a statement to that effect? Do you know where he stated this so I can read it. TIA

Not to my knowledge.

http://karasoncrime.com/arias-retrial-day-2-of-hearing-on-deleted-computer-images-dec-4-2014/ (membership required)
2:06pm
"Lonny Dworkin and I this past weekend looked at the Mesa PD drive and found every single *advertiser censored* site that we found on our clone."

 

[Nali87]

OK. Please realize I don't speak this language..From BK..

--BN says he found 44 viruses and 250 malware.
--He worked with Lonny over the previous weekend and they found every single *advertiser censored* site on Mesa's copy that BN had found on his.

Well if the *advertiser censored* was on the mesa copy then no one deleted anything before handing over evidence. Two experts just missed it. So what happens now? Will it be introduced at this stage?

 

[Ruby]

OK. Please realize I don't speak this language..From BK..

--BN says he found 44 viruses and 250 malware.
--He worked with Lonny over the previous weekend and they found every single *advertiser censored* site on Mesa's copy that BN had found on his.

So there should be no problem for BN to turn over or in other words prove that is what was found.

BN is being difficult and maybe now since the judge ordered him (prior was just requesting) he will provide how/what/where his findings.

Hopefully this all makes sense - it sounds ok in my head, but not sure how it reads in a post :blushing:

I don't get the anguish against Juan - BN states he has proof, but will not present the hard facts/evidence of what he claims. :gaah:

 

[Hope4More]

Ok. I think I get the gist of it. The deletion of files happened on June 19. Both the DT and State were there for the 12-13 minutes when files were deleted. The deletion happened because the original HD was not protected by a write block. The DT blames the State for not using a write block. The State blames the DT for asking for access to the original HD, and for viewing files. None of them seem to have a clue that the write block should have been used.

Because of what happened on the 19th, Nurmi believes files were intentionally deleted. His accusation has no basis. Misconduct by the State on that date cannot be proven. Nurmi's motion to dismiss based on misconduct will fail.

The second issue is whether or not there was *advertiser censored* on T's computer. The real clash between the DT and State is over this question.

Although files were allegedly deleted on the original HD, the Mesa PD had made a clone earlier on. BN is saying he AND Dworkin found the exact same *advertiser censored* and in the same huge amount on Mesa's copy as they did on his own copy.

Common sense says that if the alleged *advertiser censored* can be found on the Mesa PD clone, there would be absolutely no reason for the State to try to delete it on the original HD.

IMO, JM isn't making sense when he accuses BN of deleting files. Maybe there is a reason other than factual for doing so. I think BN isn't hiding anything, but stalling as much as possible for as long as possible, at the DT's request.

What remains to explained is whether or not the *advertiser censored* was deliberately searched for or the product of viruses or both. I'd bet on weeks long delays while that gets sorted out, unless JSS limits that search to any potential child *advertiser censored*.

 

[daisydomino]

So there should be no problem for BN to turn over or in other words prove that is what was found.

BN is being difficult and maybe now since the judge ordered him (prior was just requesting) he will provide how/what/where his findings.

Hopefully this all makes sense - it sounds ok in my head, but not sure how it reads in a post :blushing:

I don't get the anguish against Juan - BN states he has proof, but will not present the hard facts/evidence of what he claims. :gaah:

There is no reason for him to be difficult, and I don't know for sure that he really is being difficult. When I read the Twitter reports from inside the courtroom, he seems to be playing the "Nick Burns Your Company's Computer Guy" role, but when I read Beth Karas' site (which I have been trouble accessing—she's migrating it to a dedicated server this weekend) it seems like he's just trying to answer nonsense questions from the prosecutor.

 

[MeeBee]

Well if the *advertiser censored* was on the mesa copy then no one deleted anything before handing over evidence. Two experts just missed it. So what happens now? Will it be introduced at this stage?

I think it can be but BN can no longer assert that the state must have given Dworkin a tainted copy. They didn't. He just missed what Melendez also missed. Also, he can say they're both incompetent, if he wants, but he can't say Melendez lied and Dworkin didn't. Doesn't make sense. There's probably a reason they missed it. A good reason.

 

[MeeBee]

Ok. I think I get the gist of it. The deletion of files happened on June 19. Both the DT and State were there for the 12-13 minutes when files were deleted. The deletion happened because the original HD was not protected by a write block. The DT blames the State for not using a write block. The State blames the DT for asking for access to the original HD, and for viewing files. None of them seem to have a clue that the write block should have been used.

Because of what happened on the 19th, Nurmi believes files were intentionally deleted. His accusation has no basis. Misconduct by the State on that date cannot be proven. Nurmi's motion to dismiss based on misconduct will fail.

The second issue is whether or not there was *advertiser censored* on It's computer. The real clash between the DT and State is over this question.

Although files were allegedly deleted on the original HD, the Mesa PD had made a clone earlier on. BN is saying he AND Dworkin found the exact same *advertiser censored* and in the same huge amount on Mesa's copy as they did on his own copy.

Common sense says that if the alleged *advertiser censored* can be found on the Mesa PD clone, there would be absolutely no reason for the State to try to delete it on the original HD.

There'd be no point anyway, but even better point!

 

[ElleElle]

Thanks MeeBee's husband! :seeya: I hope that if my posts are incorrect that your DH will tell you and you'll correct me, MeeBee. I am definitely not a computer guru.

What is Juan asking for? Does he already have it? I don't know who has what. I'm finding it very difficult to follow on Twitter.

From what I understand, Juan wants a copy of BNs 2 images he made with the State's image from the original HD.
It's confusing, because it seems like Juan is asking for something he already has. And, like BN said, it's like asking for a picture of a picture.