State rests rebuttal case- thread #164

[Truth Detector]

On the link I posted, he clearly left no wiggle room in his testimony, the device EXIF information can't be altered.

So, even though what you're saying could be entirely accurate, he adamantly stated something completely different.

BBM

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

It not only could be accurate. It is accurate.

And he was flatly wrong, about a number of things, including the Green Witch to which he testified.

Did you believe his statement? Do you still? Read on.

Digital data are zeroes and ones at the bit level. That's all they are. They are binary representations which are either "off" where the value = zero, or "on" where the value = 1.

Your computer reads and writes data just that way, zeroes and ones. That's all.

Changing the combinations of zeroes and ones, flipping bits, is all that is required to alter digital data.

But why go to all that trouble?

Here's an excerpt showing that EXIF data are commonly edited and how to do it:

"How to Edit Exif Data in Photographs
Why would anyone want to modify the Exif data of photographs? Well, there can be several genuine reasons.

For instance, the internal date of your camera was incorrect and therefore all the pictures were captured with a wrong timestamp. Or you want to add your name to the photograph’s metadata so that people immediately know who the owner is. WIth an Exif editor, you can also geo-tag your photographs manually even if your camera doesn’t have GPS.

You may be a bit surprised but Windows Explorer is actually a wonderful Exif editor. Just right click any image file, choose Properties and click the Details tab. You can now edit a wide range of metadata associated with that image from the camera model to the shooting date to copyright information and more.

Windows Explorer won’t let you edit GPS related information of photographs but Google’s Picasa software is a good choice for doing that.

Finally, if you want to change the Exif data in tons of photographs, you can edit them all in one go using a dedicated Exif editors like Geosetter or Microsoft Pro Photo. Geosetter can pull Exif tags from one photograph and apply them to all your other photos while Pro Photo is more suited for geo-tagging pictures.

Similar stuff can also be done with the help of command like utilities like jHead and ExifTool – these are very powerful tools but implementation is obviously a bit geeky."

Encryption is another level of complexity, but let's not delve into that here.

So what is your point?

I see it as relatively minor compared to a much bigger assumption being made by both sides and probably the jury in this case.

This will make me wildly unpopular perhaps, but it's the truth.

The "Eye Guy" made a point and I'm glad that it got no traction.

He said that he couldn't testify as to the time that his ridiculous eye reflection enlargement photo was actually taken.

Why?

Because he had not examined the camera.

Take it a step further.

Anyone -- Jodi or anyone else with access -- could have changed the date/time on Travis's Sony DSC-H7. And they could have changed it multiple times.

Fortunately, it seems that both sides have effectively stipulated to the date/time verity given the testimony to date.

Well and good.

That's really all I want to say about that here.

If you want to discuss further, PM me.

 

[Callisto]

This is interesting from Gus's calendar and has me scratching my head. It is from 4/29/08, a little over a month before Travis was killed. :banghead:



Santa Ana 92705
Juan Martinez <modsnip>
Reg: 9:00a
9:30a - 10:30a

Googled the phone number it's a car sales place in California with a Juan Martinez as an owner or some such! Common name I guess but that was an interesting catch !!

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

BBM

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

It not only could be accurate. It is accurate.

And he was flatly wrong, about a number of things, including the Green Witch to which he testified.

Did you believe his statement? Do you still? Read on.

Digital data are zeroes and ones at the bit level. That's all they are. They are binary representations which are either "off" where the value = zero, or "on" where the value = 1.

Your computer reads and writes data just that way, zeroes and ones. That's all.

Changing the combinations of zeroes and ones, flipping bits, is all that is required to alter digital data.

But why go to all that trouble?

Here's an excerpt showing that EXIF data are commonly edited and how to do it:

"How to Edit Exif Data in Photographs
Why would anyone want to modify the Exif data of photographs? Well, there can be several genuine reasons.

For instance, the internal date of your camera was incorrect and therefore all the pictures were captured with a wrong timestamp. Or you want to add your name to the photograph’s metadata so that people immediately know who the owner is. WIth an Exif editor, you can also geo-tag your photographs manually even if your camera doesn’t have GPS.

You may be a bit surprised but Windows Explorer is actually a wonderful Exif editor. Just right click any image file, choose Properties and click the Details tab. You can now edit a wide range of metadata associated with that image from the camera model to the shooting date to copyright information and more.

Windows Explorer won’t let you edit GPS related information of photographs but Google’s Picasa software is a good choice for doing that.

Finally, if you want to change the Exif data in tons of photographs, you can edit them all in one go using a dedicated Exif editors like Geosetter or Microsoft Pro Photo. Geosetter can pull Exif tags from one photograph and apply them to all your other photos while Pro Photo is more suited for geo-tagging pictures.

Similar stuff can also be done with the help of command like utilities like jHead and ExifTool – these are very powerful tools but implementation is obviously a bit geeky."

Encryption is another level of complexity, but let's not delve into that here.

So what is your point?

I see it as relatively minor compared to a much bigger assumption being made by both sides and probably the jury in this case.

This will make me wildly unpopular perhaps, but it's the truth.

The "Eye Guy" made a point and I'm glad that it got no traction.

He said that he couldn't testify as to the time that his ridiculous eye reflection enlargement photo was actually taken.

Why?

Because he had not examined the camera.

Take it a step further.

Anyone -- Jodi or anyone else with access -- could have changed the date/time on Travis's Sony DSC-H7. And they could have changed it multiple times.

Fortunately, it seems that both sides have effectively stipulated to the date/time verity given the testimony to date.

Well and good.

That's really all I want to say about that here.

If you want to discuss further, PM me.

I am a fairly intelligent person, but I can honestly say that I cannot to even begin to wrap my head around this information...I bow to you, in all seriousness. TY so much for being a part of this group! Everyone's mind works in different ways and this subject matter is total mud to me. If it wouldn't be for you and others teaching me about this stuff, I'd be even further out in left field than I can be all by myself.
WOW. I bow to your knowledge on this. Seriously.

 

[Pink Panther]

Yes, that's reasonable. Thanks for the mileage. What is it from Mesa to Ryan?

What my problem is, I don't understand why she'd tell Ryan she was on the way at that point instead of stalling with other things, like having to return to Matt's house for some reason. When was the next time she called Ryan? I can't get my timelines to come up on HLN.

I have some times confused. Ryan was the last person she called.



And according to HLN, she called Ryan at 10pm June 4th with her "lost" story. That's 24 hours after she called him to say she'd be there. Makes no sense. Jodi is either stupid as hell or there's some kind of rhyme or reason to this, but to have someone looking for you for 24 hours? That's very conspicuous. I can't see why she'd do that.

Well without question things did not go according to plan; including the time she thought she might make it out to Ryan's.

moo

 

[Pink Panther]

Agree. Also, I don't thing he sounded scared. I think he sounded like whatever question he answered in that tone (can't remember whether it was gas cans or mesa - but I think mesa) was, in his mind, complete and thorough proof of her guilt of premeditated murder. To me, it was the gravity of that which I heard in his voice. I remember it very clearly b/c I was surprised at his tone at the time. At least some peeps even here weren't entirely convinced that Juan had proven premeditation at that time. Yet Daryl acted, imo, as though it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by that one answer. jmo

Yes but he was definitely NOT forthcoming in his answers; JM had to cajole them out of him.

moo

 

[wasnt_me]

He was already onto her at this point, and was trying to get her to confess.

Yes, of course, he suspected her. That's what an alibi is for. It's not needed if no one ever suspects you.

She made up all kinds of alibi exhibits to explain herself in case some one was "on to her." There could be other things she did to cover her tracks that we don't even know about. But she had them ready in case anyone asked. So why she didn't consider the call to Ryan as creating a big hole in her story, I don't know.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Is there a dedicated thread on here for all the texts between the two of them?

 

[IBsleuthin]

P.S. No one should ever take the time stamps on a digital camera as the gospel. My understanding in this case is that both sides have agreed that the date and time stamps are 'probably' accurate.

I developed a method to hide entire documents within digital photos on my Print Shop Pro software. You would NEVER be able to see them nor find them if you didn't know they were there.

And I basically have a 4th grade level in math skills, so someone more savvy that I should easily be able to encript.

 

[Sydni]

Found it, in case link does not work: Jodi Arias trial day 24 (full) by Eonblue3

The part I was referring to is at approx. 2:40 but I suggest either watching the whole day or start listening at about 2:20. That's when JM begins his questions about who she called to tell she was veering off track and going to Mesa first. Interesting that she attempted to call MM and DB to tell them she lost her phone charger...she wanted them to be her alibi IMO that she lost the charger.


http://youtu.be/fuUuumAPdfc

Just watched this (painfully stressful). OMG .. don't go there. I cannot believe how many time this monster says .... "ummm" ... I give Juan so many kudos for sticking with this cross examination. :banghead::banghead:

 

[wasnt_me]

On some tv show he claimed JA called him that night and told him travis was dead...

Yes he did say that and I believe elsewhere people discussed it and decided that he had his weeks messed up. I think they said he was in cancun when she called, but he wasn't in cancun till the following week when the body was found, correct?

This never came up in trial, either. Wonder why.

 

[bznbear]

Not much. I am very curious about these phones. From the way she tells it, she had three phones.

One lost--replaced by Gus in April.

Gus' phone lost--replaced by herself in May.

I keep asking about her getting sim cards and new numbers because I'm thinking you can just turn on the new phone and use the same number without a new SIM. I need to go back and look at the text messages and calls to see if her number changed on them.

By doing this, JA has become her own worst enemy.

Unfortunately, the jury won't know this till after the trial, along with her plea deal to accept 2nd degree murder, which states if the state refuses the deal, she will destroy Travis' reputation.

 

[geevee]

BBM

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

It not only could be accurate. It is accurate.

And he was flatly wrong, about a number of things, including the Green Witch to which he testified.

Did you believe his statement? Do you still? Read on.

Digital data are zeroes and ones at the bit level. That's all they are. They are binary representations which are either "off" where the value = zero, or "on" where the value = 1.

Your computer reads and writes data just that way, zeroes and ones. That's all.

Changing the combinations of zeroes and ones, flipping bits, is all that is required to alter digital data.

But why go to all that trouble?

Here's an excerpt showing that EXIF data are commonly edited and how to do it:

"How to Edit Exif Data in Photographs
Why would anyone want to modify the Exif data of photographs? Well, there can be several genuine reasons.

For instance, the internal date of your camera was incorrect and therefore all the pictures were captured with a wrong timestamp. Or you want to add your name to the photograph’s metadata so that people immediately know who the owner is. WIth an Exif editor, you can also geo-tag your photographs manually even if your camera doesn’t have GPS.

You may be a bit surprised but Windows Explorer is actually a wonderful Exif editor. Just right click any image file, choose Properties and click the Details tab. You can now edit a wide range of metadata associated with that image from the camera model to the shooting date to copyright information and more.

Windows Explorer won’t let you edit GPS related information of photographs but Google’s Picasa software is a good choice for doing that.

Finally, if you want to change the Exif data in tons of photographs, you can edit them all in one go using a dedicated Exif editors like Geosetter or Microsoft Pro Photo. Geosetter can pull Exif tags from one photograph and apply them to all your other photos while Pro Photo is more suited for geo-tagging pictures.

Similar stuff can also be done with the help of command like utilities like jHead and ExifTool – these are very powerful tools but implementation is obviously a bit geeky."

Encryption is another level of complexity, but let's not delve into that here.

So what is your point?

I see it as relatively minor compared to a much bigger assumption being made by both sides and probably the jury in this case.

This will make me wildly unpopular perhaps, but it's the truth.

The "Eye Guy" made a point and I'm glad that it got no traction.

He said that he couldn't testify as to the time that his ridiculous eye reflection enlargement photo was actually taken.

Why?

Because he had not examined the camera.

Take it a step further.

Anyone -- Jodi or anyone else with access -- could have changed the date/time on Travis's Sony DSC-H7. And they could have changed it multiple times.

Fortunately, it seems that both sides have effectively stipulated to the date/time verity given the testimony to date.

Well and good.

That's really all I want to say about that here.

If you want to discuss further, PM me.

Thank you very much TD, I really appreciate all the information.

 

[EquallyDivided]

BBM

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

It not only could be accurate. It is accurate.

And he was flatly wrong, about a number of things, including the Green Witch to which he testified.

Did you believe his statement? Do you still? Read on.

Digital data are zeroes and ones at the bit level. That's all they are. They are binary representations which are either "off" where the value = zero, or "on" where the value = 1.

Your computer reads and writes data just that way, zeroes and ones. That's all.

Changing the combinations of zeroes and ones, flipping bits, is all that is required to alter digital data.

But why go to all that trouble?

Here's an excerpt showing that EXIF data are commonly edited and how to do it:

"How to Edit Exif Data in Photographs
Why would anyone want to modify the Exif data of photographs? Well, there can be several genuine reasons.

For instance, the internal date of your camera was incorrect and therefore all the pictures were captured with a wrong timestamp. Or you want to add your name to the photograph’s metadata so that people immediately know who the owner is. WIth an Exif editor, you can also geo-tag your photographs manually even if your camera doesn’t have GPS.

You may be a bit surprised but Windows Explorer is actually a wonderful Exif editor. Just right click any image file, choose Properties and click the Details tab. You can now edit a wide range of metadata associated with that image from the camera model to the shooting date to copyright information and more.

Windows Explorer won’t let you edit GPS related information of photographs but Google’s Picasa software is a good choice for doing that.

Finally, if you want to change the Exif data in tons of photographs, you can edit them all in one go using a dedicated Exif editors like Geosetter or Microsoft Pro Photo. Geosetter can pull Exif tags from one photograph and apply them to all your other photos while Pro Photo is more suited for geo-tagging pictures.

Similar stuff can also be done with the help of command like utilities like jHead and ExifTool – these are very powerful tools but implementation is obviously a bit geeky."

Encryption is another level of complexity, but let's not delve into that here.

So what is your point?

I see it as relatively minor compared to a much bigger assumption being made by both sides and probably the jury in this case.

This will make me wildly unpopular perhaps, but it's the truth.

The "Eye Guy" made a point and I'm glad that it got no traction.

He said that he couldn't testify as to the time that his ridiculous eye reflection enlargement photo was actually taken.

Why?

Because he had not examined the camera.

Take it a step further.

Anyone -- Jodi or anyone else with access -- could have changed the date/time on Travis's Sony DSC-H7. And they could have changed it multiple times.

Fortunately, it seems that both sides have effectively stipulated to the date/time verity given the testimony to date.

Well and good.

That's really all I want to say about that here.

If you want to discuss further, PM me.

EEEK. I was simply pointing out the testimony, not his accuracy. I feel like you went a little left of center on me, so I'll try to be even more clear in the future.

What is my point? My point is that he said you couldn't - not that you were wrong.

I can't attest to his accuracy OR your accuracy because I am nowhere near 'technologically advanced'. I just learned how to reply to a post with my iphone... Feel me?

 

[kpm]

Just watched this (painfully stressful). OMG .. don't go there. I cannot believe how many time this monster says .... "ummm" ... I give Juan so many kudos for sticking with this cross examination. :banghead::banghead:

I have no words to describe how much I detest her! :banghead:

 

[audreyparker]

I would love it if somebody bought a full page ad in the newspaper the day after the verdict for the jury could read it! Or letter to the editor!

What was the name of the steak house guy last year up in Michigan that did that for another case! He was so angry at something he purchased a full page ad in the newspaper to exclaim the injustice that was going on.



Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

It was Jeff Ruby. I'm from the Northern KY/Cincinnati OH area and he owns restaurants here.

He was pizzed at the CA verdict and was very vocal about it! He also refused to serve OJ Simpson!

 

[geevee]

There were other pics on the camera memory stick (about 90?) that Travis had taken, does anyone know where and when he took those other pictures?

 

[kpm]

Yes he did say that and I believe elsewhere people discussed it and decided that he had his weeks messed up. I think they said he was in cancun when she called, but he wasn't in cancun till the following week when the body was found, correct?

This never came up in trial, either. Wonder why.

IIRC tho, he reiterated that she called him that night and he didn't think much of it until he got to cancun and Travis was not there....
He is an odd bird who seeks 15 minutes IMO so he was not credible for Juan at all.

 

[wasnt_me]

IIRC tho, he reiterated that she called him that night and he didn't think much of it until he got to cancun and Travis was not there....
He is an odd bird who seeks 15 minutes IMO so he was not credible for Juan at all.

That could possibly be what he said. I was going by the conversation I'd followed in some thread. I paid him the attention he deserved in this trial--very little.

If he did say that, it must not have been credible because JM didn't discuss that with him on the stand. I dont think Jodi's phone log recorded that. Anyone else know?

 

[kayice]

Originally Posted by ShadyLady View Post
It's not to address directly your conversations, I have been reviewing her police interviews and found it interesting how she painted a picture to police that if she "had" been guilty of murder, she would be remorseful.

Obviously her only remorse is getting caught (to me). I don't think she ever regretted killing Travis, so for me, I am not sure if she could experience a guilty conscience...I think she is glad to this day he is gone. She won something in her sick mind. Just my opinion, and that is why she deserves DP.

BBM~ Let's try to decipher. What has Jodi won? The ultimate power imo. even after killing Travis' she still needs to have control of everything.

If it wasn't her running the show, this trial would be over.

Sociopaths (psychopaths) ...."They don’t view “winning” in the positive sense of achieving success–be it successful long-term relationships or professional endeavors–but rather as causing others to lose." http://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/why-sociopaths-win-by-losing/

No one views this as a game but Jodi...look what Travis, his family and friends, AZ and its taxpayers, Jodi's supporters such ALV, Samuels, her lawyers have lost....a part of themselves, used and abused by a sociopath. Her own family and friends.

If Jodi would have been honest, maybe said she knows she was obsessed...doesn't know what came over her. Told the truth from day 1, called the police instead of trying to cover-up or even told Flores the truth when he practically begged her for it....she would not be facing death but Jodi thinks she smarter than everyone and can control to win the game. Thinks she's going to walk out of jail with manslaughter or innocence....she's a BPD/Sociopath.

Someone needs to remind Jodi that Travis has been dead, going on 5 years now. Game over.

 

[TexMex]

Gus Searcy gave her a phone to replace her "stolen" helio phone. That was his testimony on the stand.

But Jodi's phone was NEVER STOLEN--evidenced by the fact that she had it on the way to murder Travis & took photos of herself.

I don't believe she was carrying 2 phones with her, so Gus is lying or Jodi is or both.

She met Gus who replaced her Razor phone which she testified she spilled hot chocolate on in the uhaul.
Gus gave her the first Helio
Gus only remembers he met her in Pasadena between 10am-2pm, couldn't remember exact date
Testimony is she reported Helio stolen May 18 and received a new Helio via insurance on May 22