Hi MeeBee,
I understand what you are saying and you explain it so much better than I. But Beth said it is the prosecutions job to turn over the evidence and the defense does not have to ask for it. She said the prosecution never did that. That's where I was confused. I like Beth but her stance tonight definitely seemed to be pro defense. I was a little taken back by it.
I will let AZL answer because she knows more about it than me and I could be wrong, but I will say it appears, at least to me, that the defense knew of the existence of the 2008 image. They were given a report of Melendez' findings and his testimony at trial should have tipped them off that it existed. If they wanted to see it for themselves they could have. But they did have a report. In 2009 an image was made and as far as both sides knew this was fine. Both sides seemed to think this was ok in providing evidence which was Travis' original hard drive. Despite the 2009 modifications all the *advertiser censored* that was on Travis' computer was on Dworkin's copy. So it was there to find anyway even though their image was modified.
I throw my 2-cents in, too ... MeeBee, as I understand it, you are correct. Melendez turned over his report (and was subject to a DT interview) about the 2008 image. That report/interview PROBABLY indicated the evidence number of the source drive; a description of the drive; information re: when the image was made; and what type of image (E01) was studied.
The DT knew about an image made in 2008, without question.
When the Dworkin image was made in 2009, neither Mesa PD nor the DT expert had any reason to believe an image pulled in 2009 would be different than one made in 2008. The newly minted image was checked against the source drive, and it was a match to the drive as it existed in 2009 (according to Dworkin).
So, was it prosecutorial misconduct that files on the actual drive in evidence were modified during the DT's examination in the summer of 2009? Doesn't sound like it is. Was it prosecutorial misconduct that the PT did not turn over the 2008 image? Probably not.
The DT knew it existed; if they wanted to work with the same image Melendez used, they could have asked for it. Now, if they asked for the 2008 image and received, instead, a 2009 image? That’s maybe a bad thing, but only if the Mesa PD or the PT knew the hard drive in evidence had been altered between Image #1 in 2008 and Image #2 in 2009.
But I ask: What conceivable advantage would befall the PT by making a switcheroo? Remember, in 2009 JA was still talking ninja’s, wasn’t she? And didn’t Sue D. Smith-o-nym say the modifications in 2009 did not make substantive changes, or at least none affecting the DT’s *advertiser censored* claims?
I don’t subscribe to BK’s site, so I’m not sure why she (reportedly) says “with holding” the 2008 drive is a big deal. AZL I am not. (Although, when I grow up, I want to BE her … hum … Too late!) But, IMO, this entire Porngate mess is a case of “no intentional harm, no actual harm, and no foul.”
The only foul thing about it is Larry’s continued attempt to trash the victim-who-shall-not-be-called-a-victim. And his continued bloviating. Plus, I’m not crazy about his haircut either, don’tcha know.