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

[Preyevateye]

Thanks

 

[MeeBee]

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

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

No. It was only booted once, in 2009 without a write blocker. The activity in 2008 when they picked it up doesn't count. After that, there was only the 2009 incident and that's it. And, obviously, the state could not have done all the DT is claiming they did in the 12 whole minutes it was on that day.

 

[Myvice]

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.

I would agree with this. I also remember her agreeing with BN that Juan didn't know much about computers and that that was the word around the courthouse.

It kind of made me wonder if they are playing it as his weakest link.

BK almost seemed as if she knew BN personally because she repeated that he was a very nice person. IDK

I also thought BK seemed a little "off" on Friday though and that maybe she was a bit stressed out with all she has going on with the website.

Just my take on it.

 

[MeeBee]

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?

BBM: Good question. We don't know what the damage is that the state is alleging because he hasn't said exactly. The defense claimed it was already damaged because when they got the hard drive some pins had to be reset. This doesn't really make sense. That kind of "damage" is just what happens to a hard drive that has been taken out and put back so many times, as TA's hard drive has been. That kind of damage would not make the hard drive unreadable, as Juan is claiming. Clearly, because the DT expert was still able to get info from it. Something else happened to it. Sure we'll find out on Wednesday. I don't even know what kind of damage could do that.

 

[geevee]

I'm pretty sure my McAfee can, I don't see why Spybot couldn't as long as the pc is turned on and the program has been authorized to run.

It's possible to do it through Windows Task Scheduler, it's relatively complex to set it up (or at least you have to follow a decent-sized list of directions), here's how for McAfee:

https://community.mcafee.com/docs/DOC-5503

It may be possible to do that with Spybot S&D +AV, I found this (although no mention that it'll wake it from sleep mode/hibernation, although it may), I don't know if he had the version with antivirus:

http://www.safer-networking.org/task-schedulingautomation/

I think it's more likely it was set on default and started with boot-up.

 

[Kamille]

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.

Well first of all, for a computer "expert", his company website is pathetic. And secondly, anyone who would brag about winning "Emmys" but neglect to mention that they are regional Emmys, the majority of which were likely won during his time working for KPNX-TV, a local news station, is more than likely to embellish his credentials during a hearing such as this.

MOO

 

[bznbear]

I would agree with this. I also remember her agreeing with BN that Juan didn't know much about computers and that that was the word around the courthouse.

It kind of made me wonder if they are playing it as his weakest link.

BK almost seemed as if she knew BN personally because she repeated that he was a very nice person. IDK

I also thought BK seemed a little "off" on Friday though and that maybe she was a bit stressed out with all she has going on with the website.

Just my take on it.

Yes, Beth was very un-Bethlike in that report, imo.

 

[MeeBee]

Well first of all, for a computer "expert", his company website is pathetic. And secondly, anyone who would brag about winning "Emmys" but neglect to mention that they are regional Emmys, the majority of which were likely won during his time working for KPNX-TV, a local news station, is more than likely to embellish his credentials during a hearing such as this.

MOO

An Emmy is an Emmy.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

Yes, the misconduct charge is central, but again, I'm not worried about it because I don't believe Flores or JM did anything wrong, and nothing BN said indicated otherwise.

For me, then, what is key now is whether or not JSS will allow in spurious charges of TA looking at child *advertiser censored* on the computer. Yes, CMJA was allowed to testify about that fictitious swirling piece of paper. Yes, JM demolished her story.

But....loose allegations of child *advertiser censored* on the computer told to the jury plus her paper story plus Brazilian waxes and pigtails and what not...at some point its reasonable to worry that at least one juror will believe the pedo story enough to vote against the DP.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

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.

I remember different people doing just that. IIRC, there was a guy that I think his name was "Blankenship" who started the whole eyeball and image thingy. Off to look now.




Lol, he was the one who saw 3 people in the iris.

 

[MeeBee]

Yes, the misconduct charge is central, but again, I'm not worried about it because I don't believe Flores or JM did anything wrong, and nothing BN said indicated otherwise.

For me, then, what is key now is whether or not JSS will allow in spurious charges of TA looking at child *advertiser censored* on the computer. Yes, CMJA was allowed to testify about that fictitious swirling piece of paper. Yes, JM demolished her story.

But....loose allegations of child *advertiser censored* on the computer told to the jury plus her paper story plus Brazilian waxes and pigtails and what not...at some point its reasonable to worry that at least one juror will believe the pedo story enough to vote against the DP.

I think there's a possibility JSS will allow the *advertiser censored* in and will let BN talk about hits for "teen" and "tween." It's clear there's no child *advertiser censored* on that thing. And even if there is, there's no way it was searched for. So let them make their little insinuations, like they did with Harder, Faster, Stronger and the email to the 9-year-old. There's no way they'll be able to say Travis was looking at child *advertiser censored*. Even the searches he made were not particularly pedophiliac, like 'good anal' and 'perfect BJ' or whatever that was. If there was any deliberate searches for child *advertiser censored* I'll give up. But there wasn't we know this.

Besides, if the defense brings this into mitigation now it'll be a mistake. It's out of context right now. And it's overkill. It will really look to the jury like the defense is saying he deserved to be murdered. They'd wonder why they're trying so hard to prove something so sick with so little evidence. It'll look bad on them.

 

[Predator]

No. It was only booted once, in 2009 without a write blocker. The activity in 2008 when they picked it up doesn't count. After that, there was only 2009 incident and that's it. And, obviously, the state could not have done all the DT is claiming they did in the 12 whole minutes it was on that day.

What do you know what HWB (hardware write blocker) they used? Tableau, WiebeTech, FastBloc?

 

[Steve44]

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.

View attachment 65082

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.

View attachment 65091

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.

The defense speaks in hyperbole. In court, they only produced links to *advertiser censored* sites, not *advertiser censored*, and the unlawful behavior they accused the prosecution of evaporated when Juan pointed out that on the date in question it was the previous defense team who insisted the computer be powered up who were likely responsible for the 'deliberate' deletions, which were not deliberate after all. If you recall the hearing, just after Juan said that, Nurmi immediately backed down, and said something like "well then if that's the case LE should have protected it, or Ms. Arias has a case for ineffective assistance of council."

 

[MeeBee]

What do you know what HWB (hardware write blocker) they used? Tableau, WiebeTech, FastBloc?

No clue, they've never said.

 

[Steve44]

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.

If she does, and I wouldn't be surprised, it won't be because the defense uncovered any actual evidence of it.

 

[Kamille]

An Emmy is an Emmy.

I doubt there are many people who know there are about 4 categories of Emmy awards and that when someone wins a regional Emmy, it is not for work that has been seen on a national level such as with the Primetime and Daytime Emmy awards. I don't think there is much competition in each regional category either and more than likely film students and interns also win regional Emmys but I admit I've never really looked into it.

I just think that most people would specify they have won Regional Emmys unless they are deliberately trying to mislead.

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

I doubt there are many people who know there are about 4 categories of Emmy awards and that when someone wins a regional Emmy, it is not for work that has been seen on a national level such as with the Primetime and Daytime Emmy awards. I don't think there is much competition in each regional category either and more than likely film students and interns also win regional Emmys but I admit I've never really looked into it.

I just think that most people would specify they have won Regional Emmys unless they are deliberately trying to mislead.

MOO

I'm an Emmy follower lol. I'm an award buff. An Emmy is an Emmy. The prime time Emmy's are, of course, the big ones, but the daytime and regional Emmys are Emmys, nonetheless. It's not about misleading. The categories don't make them any less than the others. Ellen always advertises her show as Emmy award winning even though it's a day time Emmy award. Regional winners typically advertise themselves in the same way, as Emmy award winners. Emmys are Emmys.

 

[Dr. Know?]

I just keep trying to weigh the balance of

Emmy Award winner vs. Military, Goverment Forensic Expert, certified.

It sounds like a group with certifications for different things, kind of like the group in Phoenix, PI's linking up. BN did not impress me. I know how to search things he says too. Might be rusty but I knew a couple things so far aren't true as stated on the witness stand as far as software, viruses/malware & operating systems. He's outdated if he can't google like me, ha ha. jmo

 

[Kamille]

The defense speaks in hyperbole. In court, they only produced links to *advertiser censored* sites, not *advertiser censored*, and the unlawful behavior they accused the prosecution of evaporated when Juan pointed out that on the date in question it was the previous defense team who insisted the computer be powered up who were likely responsible for the 'deliberate' deletions, which were not deliberate after all. If you recall the hearing, just after Juan said that, Nurmi immediately backed down, and said something like "well then if that's the case LE should have protected it, or Ms. Arias has a case for ineffective assistance of council."

Which is what I don't understand. This is pretty much a two part hearing I suppose. First the allegations that there WAS *advertiser censored* on the computer that may have helped JA in her first trial (I don't see how) and that the prosecution knew about it and maliciously deleted it so therefore they should be able to declare a mistrial and the DP should be off the table.

Okay so they've pretty much proven that there was no prosecutorial misconduct, which I thought was the purpose of the hearing, and they've not really proven actual *advertiser censored* sites visited manually yet but why are they even being allowed to prove this? Wouldn't that have to be a separate motion to get that evidence allowed into this sentencing phase? And wouldn't they have to prove why this is so important? Not to mention have to prove that it was in fact TA who accessed those sites on a computer that multiple people had access to?

MOO

 

[ParrotGal]

Well first of all, for a computer "expert", his company website is pathetic. And secondly, anyone who would brag about winning "Emmys" but neglect to mention that they are regional Emmys, the majority of which were likely won during his time working for KPNX-TV, a local news station, is more than likely to embellish his credentials during a hearing such as this.

MOO

Agreed! And don't forget his "Glamour Shot". BN was probably the 2nd best guy on the AV crew in high school & couldn't quite make the chess team. He's a wannabe and it shows.
I think he is in way over his head in this trial. He should have to wear an eyeball painted in the middle of his forehead while he testifies.