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

[Love Never Fails]

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.

So are you saying Juan has used him before? This is what I have called game playing (by both sides) in my past posts. Regardless how good he "may" be, the entire attitude of calling the prosecutor Juan instead of Mr. Martinez, calling him a liar, saying "this is prosecutorial misconduct" while on the stand, shaking Jodi's hand...what have I left out?....it just sickens me. As a juror, I would discount all he said IF HE WERE TO TESTIFY THAT WAY TO THE JURY. Just saying....all my opinion.

And even posters here have made fun of his lack of knowledge. Either he is correct and if so cut him some slack, or he is a liar. I hate the legal gymnastics when Travis is dead.

 

[ShadyLady]

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.

Defense handed back Travis' physical HD damaged as what I understood.

 

[shajon123]

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?

I get that, but I am just wondering out loud about the first copy/clone made of the hard drive was made after the detective started up the computer at the scene, so any changes made during that startup was the same ones both parties reviewed when the copy/clone was made by the experts, so what difference does it make that the computer was woke up by the detective in the first place...They both got the very same info from the clone...

 

[AZlawyer]

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

A forensic copy of what, though? The 2008 image or the hard drive as it existed in Dec 2009 after the defense inspection of evidence?

 

[Madeleine74]

Defense handed back Travis' physical HD damaged as what I understood.

If the actual HD, I mean *the* HD that was in TA's laptop computer as it was found in 2008 after he was murdered, was handed to the defense, then the state forensics experts should be fired immediately. You never do that. Never ever ever. You never work off the original, only copies made from the original. The original must remain untouched. If it wasn't, if it was damaged by someone, then no assertions can be made about what was or might have been on that drive.

 

[Nali87]

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.

If Juan can't access this "new evidence" (and it is new because the 2009 harddrive is NOT the same as the 2008 one), does this mean this "new discovery" is out? I assume if this was a witness, his testimony wouldn't be allowed if JM didn't get to interview him or cross examine him. This "2009 harddrive" containing ALL the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct can't be analyzed by JM so, in my opinion, the motion should be thrown out.

It's the defense's team fault that the hard driveis broken. And it's their fault they didn't make an image that can be reviewed now.

 

[MeeBee]

So are you saying Juan has used him before? This is what I have called game playing (by both sides) in my past posts. Regardless how good he "may" be, the entire attitude of calling the prosecutor Juan instead of Mr. Martinez, calling him a liar, saying "this is prosecutorial misconduct" while on the stand, shaking Jodi's hand...what have I left out?....it just sickens me. As a juror, I would discount all he said IF HE WERE TO TESTIFY THAT WAY TO THE JURY. Just saying....all my opinion.

And even posters here have made fun of his lack of knowledge. Either he is correct and if so cut him some slack, or he is a liar. I hate the legal gymnastics when Travis is dead.

Yes, Juan has hired him. BN has mentioned this twice.

 

[MeeBee]

A forensic copy of what, though? The 2008 image or the hard drive as it existed in Dec 2009 after the defense inspection of evidence?

Oh, I see what you're asking.

 

[daisydomino]

Another large number of Tweets from this morning behind the "spoiler" cut...

Spoiler

10:01AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmot says that was on a working drive that Neumeister was using to do analysis. She says it has nothing to do with whether *advertiser censored* was found	Twitter
10:02AM	@monicalindstrom	Willmott argues that these drives and working files have nothing to do with the missing files on TA's computer #JodiARias	Twitter
10:03AM	@michaelbkiefer	Martinez says "That's why he destroyed them," of files Neumeister said were wiped. Willmott says to look at original.	Twitter
10:03AM	@monicalindstrom	#JenniferWillmott says the original evidence has not been changed #JodiArias so this line of questioning is irrelevant	Twitter
10:03AM	@michaelbkiefer	Mr. Neumeister worked on these copies, because he's supposed to, Willmott says. Martinez argument irrelevant. Objection overruled.	Twitter
10:08AM	@william_pitts	But it sounds like his evidence to support that has nothing to do with Travis Alexander's actual hard drive… Only the copy. #jodiarias	Twitter
10:08AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Perry- That folder was present on drive and then deleted. There isn't any info at all, no data in the file. #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:08AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Juan- So it could have been 70,000 files? Perry- Yes we just don't know. It was modified in the recycle bin #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:09AM	@william_pitts	And if those 70,000 files are the incinerator program, then where did neumeister get the *advertiser censored* links he displayed?#jodiarias	Twitter
10:09AM	@WildAboutTrial	Willmott continues to object that this isn't relevant but judge is all "psschhhht.. exhibit admitted" #JodiArias	Twitter
10:10AM	@michaelbkiefer	Wiillmott again points out that these things have nothing to do with the original drive, only the versions that Neumeister was working on.	Twitter
10:12AM	@michaelbkiefer	Smith says almost 9,000 files were modified on working clone. Willmott's irrelevance objection again overruled.	Twitter
10:12AM	@WildAboutTrial	Juan asks Smith to explain what a hash value is. It's a fingerprint of electronic data. #JodiArias	Twitter
10:13AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Perry says 9,000 files have been modified on the working clone #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:14AM	@SKrafftFox10	Perry Smith of Mesa PD says thousands of files were changed on hard drive clone used by defense's computer expert. #jodiarias	Twitter
10:15AM	@william_pitts	But again so far none of this proves anyone actually knew about it and covered it up. #jodiarias	Twitter
10:15AM	@TrialDiariesJ	The registry won't hold what a person is doing day to day. If a person is punching the keys is it in the registry? #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:15AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Perry-No....that is in history #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:16AM	@michaelbkiefer	Smith says that just because something is on the registry, it doesn't mean the user went there. It could be the anti-virus program.	Twitter
10:16AM	@WildAboutTrial	Commands being given by the computer involving certain sites would show up in the registry. Not things a person did on the cpu. #JodiArias	Twitter
10:17AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Perry- No..it has more to do with anti virus and commands. It doesn't mean the user was going there #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:17AM	@monicalindstrom	Q: if theres an indication of website on registry is that an indication the user went to that website? A: No. #jodiarias	Twitter
10:18AM	@michaelbkiefer	Smith says that the drive was damaged. Martinez is done.	Twitter
10:18AM	@WildAboutTrial	Juan has no more questions. Willmott asks for a short break. Judge gives her 10 min recess. Hit the pit yall! #JodiArias	Twitter
10:18AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Juan- What happened when you went to make an image from TA hard drive? Perry- It was damaged #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:43AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Perry says you can wake a computer out of sleep and it could be added to the guidelines. #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:44AM	@monicalindstrom	Waking up computer changes files, could delete files depending on types of programs running, cont.	Twitter
10:55AM	@WildAboutTrial	Smith goes over the registry, and that they are commands and doesn't indicate that a person went to that link. #JodiArias	Twitter
10:55AM	@michaelbkiefer	Martinez redirect: Smith repeats that list of *advertiser censored* sites on registry doesn't mean the user went there.	Twitter
10:56AM	@WildAboutTrial	Juan wants to know if the general guidelines address defense attorneys and them handling computers. No it does not says Smith. #JodiArias	Twitter
10:56AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Juan- You were asked about Mesa PD guidelines. Does it address def attorney's and their right to look at computers? Perry- No. #jodiarias	Twitter
10:57AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Juan- Does policy in 2013 talk about waking a computer from sleep Pery- No it does not #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:57AM	@michaelbkiefer	Martinez repeats that the incinerator file in the recycle.bin file could have been 70,000 deleted files.	Twitter
10:58AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Juan- You found the incinerator on the working copy correct? Perry- Yes. #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:58AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Juan- It could have erased 70,000 files? Perry- Yes it could have been anything #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:58AM	@michaelbkiefer	Back to changes on Neumeister's working copy versus the original. Martinez calls it tampering.	Twitter
10:59AM	@TrialDiariesJ	Juan- Couldn't it be tampering by having this incinerator program on there? Perry- Yes #jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
11:00AM	@WildAboutTrial	Willmott continues to object, same as before. They still have the original, these working copies have nothing to do with it. #JodiArias	Twitter
11:00AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott objects that Martinez has the original and that the working clones are not relevant. Martinez calls them files that were changed.	Twitter
11:00AM	@michaelbkiefer	"Counsel, please approach."	Twitter

ETA: these time stamps are Pacific Standard Time (PST) -0800 UTC

 

[potboiler]

I am curious if they can look at the dates that *advertiser censored* sites were searched for, not just the malware, if it can be checked against JA's journal and ta's textxts etc to see if ja was there on those dates.

sorry about the run-on sentance-i'm eating and playing poker too!

 

[Katharine]

Anyone see any tweets about whether Dworkin's December 2009 image was made from the original 2008 image or was made from the hard drive itself (post-2009 meeting with defense)?

Although BN said all the *advertiser censored* was still on there anyway, so maybe it doesn't much matter....

Thank you for this question. I am trying real hard to understand all of this computer stuff and hopefully have a some what better handle on it. But I keep wondering too if a "mirror image" (hope I have term correct) was made after the Defense turned on the computer in 2009. Mirror image meaning with write block if I am understanding all of this. It seems to me that BN should have made a mirror image with write block due to the 2009 meeting or proper protocol anyway for his "experiment". Then make his working clone or clones. Hopefully, I am understanding this properly. Forgive me if I am not.

ETA: Is this then what Juan is asking for, this "original" mirror image that BN worked from to make his working clones?

 

[Nali87]

Thank you for this question. I am trying real hard to understand all of this computer stuff and hopefully have a some what better handle on it. But I keep wondering too if a "mirror image" (hope I have term correct) was made after the Defense turned on the computer in 2009. Mirror image meaning with write block if I am understanding all of this. It seems to me that BN should have made a mirror image with write block due to the 2009 meeting or proper protocol anyway for his "experiment". Then make his working clone or cloness. Hopefully, I am understanding this properly. Forgive me if I am not.

You got it. BN should have and that is the image that Juan wants.
Isn't it ironic that the DT is accusing JM of not following protocol when their own expert committed an even bigger blunder?

 

[Ruby]

You got it. BN should have and that is the image that Juan wants.
Isn't it ironic that the DT is accusing JM of not following protocol when their own expert committed an even bigger blunder?

Post of the day - this sums up the hearing - a big blunder.

 

[LinTX]

Flores mentioned the evidence log showing TA's computer was checked out to Forensic's Services in Dec.09, and that's the date on Dworkin's image copy, so apparently there was one made at that time? I could have sworn that Dworkin and Melendez were testifying about using the same 2008 copy though. Copies from the master (2008) version are generally used, but for some reason Dworkin seems to have one dated later than the original. Maybe the defense asked and received the opportunity to make their own in 2009 ???

 

[LaLaw2000]

:gaah:

I am 64 and a half years old. I cannot hope to understand all of this computer business although I have had one since 1995 and my work involved having to use the computer on a daily basis.

No matter what else is stated by the defense or whomever, CMJA did viciously murder Travis. She has been found guilty. I am sick of this farce going on in the courtroom.

I believe CMJA richly deserves the DP and certainly would give it to her. I have hoped in the past that Travis' family would see this through to the bitter end for the jury to decide whether or not they will give CMJA the DP, but have changed my mind now. I would hope JSS would sentence CMJA to LWOP. Let her do it. Let's end this farce once and for all.

This is so ridiculous and will never end otherwise.

:moo:

 

[Truth Detector]

Anyone know?

She's allowed to touch, and exchange pleasantries -- and who knows what else -- with her 'expert' witnesses.

 

[krkrjx]

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.

I do not look at *advertiser censored* but I bet if my comp were analyzed in depth some would be found. If one does anything online they are subject to malware, adware, popups...blockers do not catch every single thing that is out there.

 

[krkrjx]

LMAO. Jodi exchanging pleasantries. IDK why but that just made me howl.

 

[daisydomino]

Flores mentioned the evidence log showing TA's computer was checked out to Forensic's Services in Dec.09, and that's the date on Dworkin's image copy, so apparently there was one made at that time? I could have sworn that Dworkin and Melendez were testifying about using the same 2008 copy though. Copies from the master (2008) version are generally used, but for some reason Dworkin seems to have one dated later than the original. Maybe the defense asked and received the opportunity to make their own in 2009 ???

I am so confused about who has what and examined what. Can anyone make a nice, neat little table with this info?

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · 1m1 minute ago
Willmott asks if Smith has the exact image of the original hard drive at Mesa PD. Yes.

Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ · 1m1 minute ago
The copies u have of the hard drive is an analysis correct? It's not an exact image? You have the exact image correct? #jodiarias #3tvarias

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · 52s53 seconds ago
Willmott gets Smith to say that the drives he examined were copies that were worked on, not the original evidence.

Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ · 37s38 seconds ago
Perry- Yes and analysis not exact image. I have the exact image from 2008 #jodiarias #3tvarias

Gee, isn't it refreshing to have a witness just answer the question asked, whether it's a positive or negative for the "side" they are on. No badgering, no disses, no playing games, etc.

Refreshing. Professional.

Hmmm, acting like an "expert" in a judicial court.