Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/14/14

[Nosey Parker]

Is it a full moon?

Something's up. There's a very strange vibe today.

 

[geevee]

I thought of that. But sometimes antiviruses run on an automatic schedule, either weekly or monthly or as needed. It could be that when it was turned on the long over due scan began running. Or an antivirus was deliberately run.

While I agree it's possible MeeBee, usually an antivirus, aside from running a scan at a preset time, will attack malware as soon as it notices it, at the very least it will throw a box up saying it detected something and ask for permission to clean it. Even if, when defense had it and a preset scan began it should have been disabled immediately so as not to skew the evidence on the hard drive. And if a mirror image was all either defense or prosecution were working with there should have been no antivirus interference at all, there wasn't when the prosecution cloned the drive, why only when the defense 'expert' got ahold of it? Something smells very fishy, esp. with JM saying now that it's damaged to such an extent that a mirror image cannot be made. Things that make ya go Hmmmm.

 

[LambChop]

I must admit it happened to me. When I first posted on WS, I worded something wrong and was promptly called out. Maybe it wasn't as bad as I remember (it was a long time ago) and I will be the first to admit I am an extremely overly-sensitive person. But it has kept me from posting. I am the epitome of a "lurker" and I think that's why.

If it ever happens again, angelrae, make sure you alert and a MOD will take care of it for you.

Thanks, Lambchop

 

[geevee]

I didn't post at all. Then I saw a blank post. Tries to edit but I see no delete. Oh well. Just my Peace Dove will have to do
Darn tapatalk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely strange things afoot. :thinking:

 

[Nosey Parker]

Just posting these for handy reference.

AZL - I assume the defence have just as much responsibility as the State for protecting evidence?



http://lmgcorporate.com/kpho/news/defensemotion.pdf

 

[Sulamith]

I must admit it happened to me. When I first posted on WS, I worded something wrong and was promptly called out. Maybe it wasn't as bad as I remember (it was a long time ago) and I will be the first to admit I am an extremely overly-sensitive person. But it has kept me from posting. I am the epitome of a "lurker" and I think that's why.

My first postings on internet forums were on another site. Somebody disagreed with me in a rather brusque manner. I got my feelings hurt, but I grew a thicker skin.

Keep posting!

 

[MeeBee]

While I agree it's possible MeeBee, usually an antivirus, aside from running a scan at a preset time, will attack malware as soon as it notices it, at the very least it will throw a box up saying it detected something and ask for permission to clean it. Even if, when defense had it and a preset scan began it should have been disabled immediately so as not to skew the evidence on the hard drive. And if a mirror image was all either defense or prosecution were working with there should have been no antivirus interference at all, there wasn't when the prosecution cloned the drive, why only when the defense 'expert' got ahold of it? Something smells very fishy, esp. with JM saying now that it's damaged to such an extent that a mirror image cannot be made. Things that make ya go Hmmmm.

In suppose it depends on the software. Some of them will run in the background and you'll never know it's doing it's work, perhaps why neither the DT or the state knew deletions were happening. They weren't working with the clone that day, they were viewing the actual computer. The deletions happened. I don't know. It's the only thing I can think of that would target thousands of virus files and delete them in such a short amount of time.

There is something fishy about this latest examination though. Why were they so determined to get that lap top now? What kind of analysis did they do on it? How/why did they damage the hard drive? What is the credentials of the expert doing these analyses? A mistake was made when it was turned on that day. But the defense and the state had been working with a copy made in 2008 so deletions are not relevant nor does it make sense that Juan would do that. But clearly Jodi knew she would find something and was determined to get the computer so she could find it. This is a very strange thing.

And the one thing that is confounding me is why did Melendez testify (if he did) that there were no viruses if the viruses were found back in 2008? Why didn't Dworkin detect them? Gah!

 

[Tuba]

Fifteen89 comments that Arias would have been pumping adrenaline on her drive to Travis' house. She was focused on her intention. We have photos of their sex sessions and the expression on her face in no way fits the scene. If you look at it, you see resentment as control over an emotion barely held in check. He is blasé, indifferent, spent but she might as well snarl. "If looks could kill." She was ready. The afternoon was drawing to a climax of fury finding its target.

 

[LinasK]

I would venture to say, that most people here are pretty pleased with Juan Martinez's performance...he brought in the right verdict, I say that's a "win". A big win.

I like his style! He's aggressive enough to get convictions! Not too much!!!

 

[bsk]

Fifteen89 comments that Arias would have been pumping adrenaline on her drive to Travis' house. She was focused on her intention. We have photos of their sex sessions and the expression on her face in no way fits the scene. If you look at it, you see resentment as control over an emotion barely held in check. He is blasé, indifferent, spent but she might as well snarl. "If looks could kill." She was ready. The afternoon was drawing to a climax of fury finding its target.

Didn't she do a loooong drive there with almost no sleep, then maybe take a nap at most at Travis's before another long drive to go grind on Ryan? Talk about somebody who is focused!!

 

[AZlawyer]

Just posting these for handy reference.

AZL - I assume the defence have just as much responsibility as the State for protecting evidence?



http://lmgcorporate.com/kpho/news/defensemotion.pdf

Well, if they are allowed to take evidence off-premises, yes. But IMO the only reason they were allowed to have the original hard drive was because the State already had a mirror drive from 2008. So it basically didn't matter if the defense ruined the original drive or not--UNLESS, of course, they were going to allege that something had been changed, in which case they'd darn well better preserve the evidence of the allegedly changed drive.

And as MeeBee pointed out, why would the prosecution delete things off the original hard drive? Everyone had already been given a copy of the 2008 mirror drive, so the altered original drive would never have been seen by anyone again under normal circumstances.

In suppose it depends on the software. Some of them will run in the background and you'll never know it's doing it's work, perhaps why neither the DT or the state knew deletions were happening. They weren't working with the clone that day, they were viewing the actual computer. The deletions happened. I don't know. It's the only thing I can think of that would target thousands of virus files and delete them in such a short amount of time.

There is something fishy about this latest examination though. Why were they so determined to get that lap top now? What kind of analysis did they do on it? How/why did they damage the hard drive? What is the credentials of the expert doing these analyses? A mistake was made when it was turned on that day. But the defense and the state had been working with a copy made in 2008 so deletions are not relevant nor does it make sense that Juan would do that. But clearly Jodi knew she would find something and was determined to get the computer so she could find it. This is a very strange thing.

And the one thing that is confounding me is why did Melendez testify (if he did) that there were no viruses if the viruses were found back in 2008? Why didn't Dworkin detect them? Gah!

BBM

They were both working from EnCase forensic images. Certainly the pop-ups would not be happening while examining a forensic image. You'd pretty much have to be looking for something specific to identify a virus in a forensically imaged drive IMO.

 

[Hope4More]

While I agree it's possible MeeBee, usually an antivirus, aside from running a scan at a preset time, will attack malware as soon as it notices it, at the very least it will throw a box up saying it detected something and ask for permission to clean it. Even if, when defense had it and a preset scan began it should have been disabled immediately so as not to skew the evidence on the hard drive. And if a mirror image was all either defense or prosecution were working with there should have been no antivirus interference at all, there wasn't when the prosecution cloned the drive, why only when the defense 'expert' got ahold of it? Something smells very fishy, esp. with JM saying now that it's damaged to such an extent that a mirror image cannot be made. Things that make ya go Hmmmm.

FWIW...an IT friend custom built my old desktop computer (circa 2006 or so). He installed a top notch malware clean up utility on it in addition to a garden variety Norton type AV program.

The AV program ran scans and required my input as to deletions and quarantines. The malware utility didn't. It automatically deleted any malware without notifying me, and began doing so as soon as I turned the CPU on. I have no idea if it issued reports anywhere. Never saw one....

 

[Deleted member 122533]

BBM: That's crazy to me because I thought it was one of the strongest points in the case against her.

I agree, the theft of the murder weapon from Arias' grandparent's house was outlined convincingly by Juan Martinez. As the weapon had never been recovered, he could only provide strong markers leading to Arias. His mocking of the 'burglar' and taunting CMJA with the recorder given to Brewer was as close as he could skate. He made the point powerfully. I haven't heard any jurors claim the gun ownership was a sticking point.

 

[katydid23]

Since all the began on 5/28 (as far as we know) I wonder why the antivirus would suddenly start cleaning up the malware a year later (and not when Travis was booting up the laptop between 5/28 and 6/4). It was still connecting to sites on 6/10 when apparently it was shut down when being collected by LE - I just find it odd that the antivirus program would start deleting 'thousands of sites' a year later, doesn't make much sense.

Here is what I am wondering about that. As I said in an earlier post, my son had a very similar virus on his gaming PC about 5 yrs ago. And he thinks it came from some free games he downloaded. weird sexual images would pop up on his screen, and being a 19 yr old male, it didn't bother him at first. LOL

But as weeks went on, it got worse and worse. And almost to the point of not being able to use the computer as it would just freeze with MULTIPLE sexual images cramming the screen. If you try to close the window, several more pop up like a hydra. So my husband was finally able to download an anti-virus software program and it slowly began attacking the invaders.

Did TA ever try doing the same maybe? Could he have added some anti-viral software to the computer sometime before his death? It takes awhile for it to catch up to the malaware.

 

[Hope4More]

I agree, the theft of the murder weapon from Arias' grandparent's house was outlined convincingly by Juan Martinez. As the weapon had never been recovered, he could only provide strong markers leading to Arias. His mocking of the 'burglar' and taunting CMJA with the recorder given to Brewer was as close as he could skate. He made the point powerfully. I haven't heard any jurors claim the gun ownership was a sticking point.

Just to be clear. I believe she staged the burglary and stole the gun. I think JM did a masterful job of weaving each circumstantial piece together into a net she couldn't escape.

I'm speaking from how I would have heard the gun piece as a DP juror. I would take that reasonable doubt duty veeeeery seriously. Ultimate I tend to see and analyze in big picture mode. Small picture is I would allow reasonable doubt about the gun being stolen IF THAT HAD BEEN JM's ONLY PROOF OF PREMED, which is the point that keeps getting missed in replies.

Big picture is, sitting there as a juror I would dismiss any doubts I had about the gun because I would conclude its irrelevant. She brought a gun, she shot a gun, I don't need to see the gun or know its stolen to be convinced she is guilty of premed.

 

[ShadyLady]

Something's up. There's a very strange vibe today.

Could it be desperation?? :jail:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I have been thinking about "did CMJA have an accomplice"? I really don't think she did. With that being said, I doubt she would have snitched them out since she was claiming "self defense". Besides, after six plus years, who would believe her?

 

[DebinGA]

One of the great moments was JM showing JA the picture of the undisturbed closet shelves with its neat stacks of clothes/shoes which she claimed she'd climbed upon in a panic to reach TA's nonexistant gun in the far back corner. Remember the teensy pegs holding up those shelves, which would have certainly bent/crashed if her story were true? Will her fighting off an enraged TA and shooting him with the gun she told Flores TA didn't own even make an appearance in this phase?

 

[cindymac]

Somewhat o/t but when i worked with the library, we were looking up characters from kid's stories like Dora the explorer and we got slammed with , despite having firewalls and protections in place to supposedly prevent this. I was alarmed because we had kids who used those computers and often printed pics of such characters. she blamed me for finding it.

(My boss was a b**** and basically blamed ME for finding it and then proceeded to yell at me for causing this problem. She didn't do anything about it until a another librarian (one she liked, she didn't like me, lol) sent her some graphic pics of what was showing up.)

So can show up in computers where people are NOT looking for it and have taken precautions to prevent it. Jodi and Nurmi are vile for going down this desperate, disgusting and pathetic path.

Your situation sounds horribly similar - but with less drastic consequences - to the case of Julie Amero, a teacher who had the same thing happen to her while teaching. In nutshell, she was convicted of four felony counts of "impairing the morals of a child", largely due to inept and inaccurate forensic analysis. The convictions were ultimately overturned, but only in exchange for pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, paying a fine and losing her teaching license. Amero agreed because by that time, her mental and physical health had been seriously damaged by the stress.
http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/12/the-prosecution-of-julie-amero

I'm sure there are many similar cases, and I'm also sure that Nurmi is well aware of shortcomings in computer forensics. As he specializes in defending sex crimes, the issue of whether or not a defendant has actually visited sites found in computer logs, will be critically important - a key defense tool. That's why I'm certain that he knows full well that the sites he's listed in the motion are actually listed in the malware logs - placed there by anti-virus software.

 

[gcharlie]

Here's what is inconsistent about Juan's story:
- His motion asks the judge to order the defense to provide a copy of the image(s) made during his examination(s) of the computer.
--- If he is talking about the instance when he and Flores were in the room, then wouldn't he know what if any images were made and why didn't they get one then if it looked like anything changed?
- He says the defense expert damaged the hard drive and it was impossible to take a mirror image of it afterward.
--- Unless JA got a hold of it and did like she did to her computer, then why couldn't a mirror image be made now? And if they were present, wouldn't he have been able to tell right away if it had been damaged? And don't they have a mirror image of what it looked like before the defense touched it?

This would make more sense if he was talking about Dworkin and not this later instance, but he seems to be referring to this later incident. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I've got a couple of pages to catch up on still, yet I have to agree with bsk's comments on the subject of the Compaq computer. Things do not make sense.

We've got some comments attributed to Martinez from the press. These seem to be muddying things significantly. What Martinez and Nurmi have written in their motions are at direct odds with one another. I have not been able to confirm whether or not Arias or her agent was able to take possession of the hard drive this summer while she was acting pro per; if in fact this is the case, it adds a whole other dimension to things, especially in light of Martinez's last motion for discovery, in which he states that the hard drive is now damaged.

Each of us has differing levels of knowledge and or experience when it comes to computers and forensics. Nurmi is challenging a highly technical area here, and he may be counting on the judge not being able to understand things...blowing smoke and mirrors her way, if you will. His allegations are also highly inflammatory, because if true, this would be a real example of prosecutorial misconduct.

We do not know what the judge ordered in terms of allowing the previous defense team to examine electronsic devices. It may be that the order allowed for the computer to be booted up, in which case any AV software would have done its job by repairing the registry and quarantining malicious files. If the first defense team had accepted the first mirror image of the computer, then the judge's order might be explainable although not the best move in hindsight.

When a mirror image is made, some kind of software or hardware, called a write blocker is used to prevent changes to the storage device. The hard drive is typically not powered up, because booting the drive inevitably creates changes.

A lot of allegations have been made with questions raised. Hopefully the allegations made by the defense are false and questions raised are satisfactorily answered. At the heart of this is our reliance on the integrity of the judicial process and Nurmi has accomplished his mission of putting that in doubt.

If the man is out of line, I hope the judge and the Arizona Bar deal with him in the most severe and appropriate terms.