Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/09-11

[wenwe4]

Something just occurred to me . . . Neumeister testified he was "hired by the defense", and I just assumed that he meant "The Office of Defense" but maybe it was actually Jodi when she was pro per.

AZL - Would there be funding allotted for her while she was acting on her own behalf? Could his statement actually be true but Nurmi and Willmott weren't the actual requestors?

 

[Madeleine74]

It is a good thing because the defense can't accuse the state of removing SIM cards the phone never had.

They managed to accuse them despite not having a SIM card. LOL. It wouldn't matter with this defense team, they'll throw it all against the wall and hope something/anything sticks.

 

[Nali87]

I do remember Juan telling the jury that there was no *advertiser censored* at all on Travis' computer. I love Travis and the issue of *advertiser censored* is irrelevant but it did strike me as odd.

I thought it was odd too lol. I just figured he didn't need it since JA was supplying him with pics, videos, texts and phone sex.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL, based upon what you can decipher from the tweets - what do you think about testimony this morning?

I'm confused by it, at least the Twitter version. Did BN say that the numerous deleted files were *advertiser censored*? If not, what was his point? If so, is he saying they were deleted in 2008 or 2009? If in 2008, did Juan's expert say that the deletions don't show up on the original 2008 image? If 2009, do the deletions show up on Dworkin's Dec. 2009 image? Or was that copy made from the 2008 copy? If so, does that mean the only one with a post-June 2009 image is BN? No one seems to be asking/ tweeting the important info.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I don't know, all I'm getting out of this is that the state or the defense or both may have inadvertently allowed the computer to be modified and we'll never be sure who.

And we'll never be sure where the *advertiser censored* came from, if there is any.

I can't see how JSS is going to allow any of this.

BBM: I have no doubt that any *advertiser censored* was put on there by CMJA ... she is a sneaky, conniving :dervish:

:seeya:

 

[MeeBee]

AZlawyer, I have a question that pertains to BN. You suggested his work is really good with audio equipment and the like and it sounds like you have a good opinion of him. How about him calling JM a liar and defying JSS about not providing prosecution with the original he says he saw the *advertiser censored* on? i see him as an opportunist and a paid hack.

That Juan himself has hired? He's probably good at what he does, he was just a little out of his element here. Maybe he felt personally insulted with the eye stuff.

 

[cady]

So Juan is saying the expert could have deleted the *advertiser censored* files off his own copy and used incinerator to cover his tracks and then tried to pin it on the state? But since Incinerator was used there's no way to know for sure when the deletions happened? And that is why he needs an image not a clone?

Why would the defense want to delete the *advertiser censored* files??? JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

None of Neumeister's copies seem to be valid ones.

The only thing left to do is take the original HD from Travis' computer and create brand new images and clones from that. 1 for the defense, 1 for the state. That assumes no one tampered with TA's computer HD and that the HD is in the exact same state it was when it was first seized back in 2008.

 

[potboiler]

OK, the way I understand this, all parties are still seeing the same info, because the copies, clones, all info, was the same copy that was put under the encase software to block all things from changing once the forensics team took over the computer, The clone (copy) JA started out with is the same one the defense team started out with. All changes that need to be seen are the changes done by defense RIGHT....

I think(/) that because this is prosecutorial misconduct they need to see what changes were made between when they first got it and bn made his copy. The dt is saying that juan made changes- updated iTunes deleted stuff to hide material from the defense. Thats why they need bn's copy that he made his working clones from.

The hard drive is damaged so they can't get that info.

is this correct?

 

[Madeleine74]

What a cluster******.

Pretty hard to point a finger at "misconduct" when all the opposing side has shown so far is that they themselves are incompetent at managing and analyzing their copies of the evidence.

 

[tinkabella]

Did BN ever turn in his original work copies as he was instructed to by the judge?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer, could Wilmott have succesfully introduced the *advertiser censored* found without alleging misconduct?

Yes.

AZlawyer, I have a question that pertains to BN. You suggested his work is really good with audio equipment and the like and it sounds like you have a good opinion of him. How about him calling JM a liar and defying JSS about not providing prosecution with the original he says he saw the *advertiser censored* on? i see him as an opportunist and a paid hack.

In his area of expertise, he seems to be very good. I don't know why anyone would hire him for computer forensics as he doesn't claim to be an expert in that area. And obviously his behavior on cross was unprofessional.

Something just occurred to me . . . Neumeister testified he was "hired by the defense", and I just assumed that he meant "The Office of Defense" but maybe it was actually Jodi when she was pro per.

AZL - Would there be funding allotted for her while she was acting on her own behalf? Could his statement actually be true but Nurmi and Willmott weren't the actual requestors?

She could have arranged to hire him while acting pro per, yes. Or her investigator could have hired him.

 

[blefuscu]

Why would the defense want to delete the *advertiser censored* files??? JMO

Maybe because their expert Dworkin said that there was no *advertiser censored* in the original trial. So they are now trying to say that the prosecution deleted it. However it's backfired spectacularly

 

[LinTX]

Yes, I think Wilmott is playing with semantics when she claims they already have the "original". She's using that to mean the 2008 copy, hoping that JSS won't understand the difference. Apparently, their "expert" didn't know what was required, or how to do it.
Also, I think using the word "*advertiser censored*" on the computer is another case of semantics. In the first trial they were talking about *advertiser censored* images - remember, JM asking about nude photo's etc. But here they're talking about links - probably left from the antivirus primarily. They're saying there may have been one actual visit, but that could have been TA being curious what exactly the viruses were linked to?

 

[MeeBee]

I'm confused by it, at least the Twitter version. Did BN say that the numerous deleted files were *advertiser censored*? If not, what was his point? If so, is he saying they were deleted in 2008 or 2009? If in 2008, did Juan's expert say that the deletions don't show up on the original 2008 image? If 2009, do the deletions show up on Dworkin's Dec. 2009 image? Or was that copy made from the 2008 copy? If so, does that mean the only one with a post-June 2009 image is BN? No one seems to be asking/ tweeting the important info.

I just watched the portion of Dworkin talking about this on day 12 of the guilt phase and he says he was provided a forensic copy to use.

http://youtu.be/5R6OTb6vT04

 

[WhoaIsMe]

I think(/) that because this is prosecutorial misconduct they need to see what changes were made between when they first got it and bn made his copy. The dt is saying that juan made changes- updated iTunes deleted stuff to hide material from the defense. Thats why they need bn's copy that he made his working clones from.

The hard drive is damaged so they can't get that info.

is this correct?

Makes sense. If the original is now damaged and no other images can be made, then the one BN made is the latest. If he actually made one correctly. There is some reason they are not complying with Juan's request/JSS order. It was made improperly, they/he tampered with it, or he never made one with Encase and just made a clone. Or it's just more stalling but I don't think it's that because of BN asking for a recess to confer with the DT when he was last ordered by JSS to give it to Juan.

 

[wenwe4]

Honestly, I think this entire "mitigation" trial has been Nurmi and Willmott just trying to put frosting on poop! (sorry Mods! Delete if you need to)

All they have is excrement and they are just trying to make it look better for Jodi. Doesn't make any of this easy to swallow, IMO!

 

[Nali87]

But he can't because the *advertiser censored* was on his copy too, he just missed it. Same as Melendez.

Yes, I think Wilmott is playing with semantics when she claims they already have the "original". She's using that to mean the 2008 copy, hoping that JSS won't understand the difference. Apparently, their "expert" didn't know what was required, or how to do it.
Also, I think using the word "*advertiser censored*" on the computer is another case of semantics. In the first trial they were talking about *advertiser censored* images - remember, JM asking about nude photo's etc. But here they're talking about links - probably left from the antivirus primarily. They're saying there may have been one actual visit, but that could have been TA being curious what exactly the viruses were linked to?

LinTx, you're right.

I remember Dworking attempting to testify that "no *advertiser censored* images but some *advertiser censored*" was found on the harddrive during the original trial. Does anyone else remember this?

I think that they didn't find any downloaded *advertiser censored* on his computer. Not Dworkin, not Melendez and not BN. But Dworkin and Melendez didn't search for *advertiser censored* websites. BN did.

I think that that is what happened..

 

[MeeBee]

Why would the defense want to delete the *advertiser censored* files??? JMO

Well, again, to pin it on him and then cover their tracks so it can't be traced back to their own expert. I'm not sure if that's what they did, but I think that's what Juan is suggesting MIGHT have happened.

 

[Madeleine74]

So, to sum it up:

- no prosecutorial misconduct

- no kiddie *advertiser censored* or images of kids in any compromising way


And yet JSS is still engaging in this hearing. I'd be shutting everyone up and denying the motion.