Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[Nali87]

I find it hard to believe TA would visit SO many websites. I'd expect him to pick a few, 2-5, and visit those on a regular basis. I have a habit of streaming American sitcoms on not fully trustworthy websites on my laptop and that has led me to have a whole lot of rated pop ups. I'm sure those would show up as visits, but its just pop ups and virusses. I wonder how the DT thinks to prove that all websites were purposely visited by TA. (Didn't Websleuths have rated pop ups for a while as well lol?)

I guess they'll ask for TIME to find out. :gaah:

 

[MeeBee]

From what I understand, Juan wants a copy of BNs 2 images he made with the State's image from the original HD.
It's confusing, because it seems like Juan is asking for something he already has. And, like BN said, it's like asking for a picture of a picture.

It's not really confusing. Juan wants it. BN says there's no need because it's a copy of a copy he already has. He's saying Juan doesn't understand. Maybe Juan does understand but he wants it anyway, so he can line up their copy with his own forensic copy so he can, to quote BN "reverse engineer" the process he used. I get BN's argument. But If Juan wants it, he wants it, he is in his rights to ask for it, I assume. BN can say he has it already and argue over it and be a computer snob about it, but at the end of the day, if you're ordered to provide it there's no reason not to give it over.

 

[Ruby]

There is no reason for him to be difficult, and I don't know for sure that he really is being difficult. When I read the Twitter reports from inside the courtroom, he seems to be playing the "Nick Burns Your Company's Computer Guy" role, but when I read Beth Karas' site (which I have been trouble accessing—she's migrating it to a dedicated server this weekend) it seems like he's just trying to answer nonsense questions from the prosecutor.

Thank you daisydomino, not only for your reply but for all of the tweet collecting you do :loveyou:

I have been following just what's been posted here - so I admit that my assumptions are based off of incomplete (not all) tweets/reports from court.
But even so, one would think that if BN is trying to prove what he claims he would just give the state what he has and how he got to it - then say see, I told you so.
But he is definitely hemmin and a hawin about it - and that is what makes me wonder about him and his claims.

IMO - all this does not change the fact that she drove to another state to see him, then murder him, in a horrendous way.

 

[elementary]

It's not really confusing. Juan wants it. BN says there's no need because it's a copy of a copy he already has. He's saying Juan doesn't understand. Maybe Juan does understand but he wants it anyway, so he can line up their copy with his own forensic copy so he can, to quote BN "reverse engineer" the process he used. I get BN's argument. But If Juan wants it, he wants it, he is in his rights to ask for it, I assume. BN can say he has it already and argue over it and be a computer snob about it, but at the end of the day, if you're ordered to provide it there's no reason not to give it over.

And the judge has ordered it turned over as I recall. He's just stalling because that's what the DT wants. What is egregious is that the judge is letting this happen.

 

[Nali87]

I am disappointed that the same was on the original copy though. I was imagining BN, the handshaking-with-the-killer-expert, could have been caught doing something to the hard drive and that scenario kind of made N-DOGG happy.

 

[Tuba]

And Nurmi is stuck in the stalls. Why aren't his witnesses prepared (hmmn) and ready to testify so that another week is now lost! Is our judge going to accept endless excuses? He has had along stretch of time to produce them.

 

[ShadyLady]

Well if the was on the mesa copy then no one deleted anything before handing over evidence. Two experts just missed it. So what happens now? Will it be introduced at this stage?

But....maybe the copy Juan wants is to prove they erased something in order to "claim" that Juan did it.

 

[MeeBee]

And the judge has ordered it turned over as I recall. He's just stalling because that's what the DT wants. What is egregious is that the judge is letting this happen.

I think BN is doing this now, to make it clear he wasn't hiding anything before. He turned over an image and says that should be good enough and Juan's "badgering" about getting a copy is unnecessary. However, now that Juan is clear he wants his copy and the judge has ordered it, there should be no problem now with it. He got it out there. Fair enough. And he may be right. I think we sort of talked about this and I said something about Willmott maybe having a point in her motion because what they turned over is apparently a compressed image and that should work.

But Juan still wants the copy. When you ask for a copy, you want a copy. BN is saying Juan doesn't know what he wants and what they've given him is fine and he's just splitting hairs. Juan may not understand what the image of the copy BN an gave him was, as alluded to in his motion. But he knows it wasn't a copy. And I think Juan does understand he hasn't gotten the copy, obviously, because he keeps asking for it.

 

[MeeBee]

I am disappointed that the same was on the original copy though. I was imagining BN, the handshaking-with-the-killer-expert, could have been caught doing something to the hard drive and that scenario kind of made N-DOGG happy.

It's actually good news. If there was no on Dworkin's copy provided by the state, that would be a problem because it's there. And if it wasn't on his copy it means the state did something untoward. I don't know what, because you clearly cannot erase anything without leaving a record of it. The fact that it's there, point for point, but simply missed by two experts means there was nothing dishonest going on, it was just human error. The defense can no longer claim the state hid the on purpose to frame Jodi as a liar.

 

[gcharlie]

I gotta say that this case has gone into a level of detail which is probably unprecedented. Once the trial is over, all of the evidence will be a matter of public record, but someone has to pay for it.

Travis' phone records would cost a pretty penny to look at, but I'm sure a lot of people are curious about them. Likewise the IMs, email and computer analysis.

I personally do not want to see the two nude photos which were not shown in court. I could only look at the censored ones of the killer. No need to see any more.

Oy vey!

 

[Hope4More]

I think it can be but BN can no longer assert that the state must have given Dworkin a tainted copy. They didn't. He just missed what Melendez also missed. Also, he can say they're both incompetent, if he wants, but he can't say Melendez lied and Dworkin didn't. Doesn't make sense. There's probably a reason they missed it. A good reason.

I'm still clueless why both would have missed the , virus related or not. What could that good reason be?

 

[ShadyLady]

I am disappointed that the same was on the original copy though. I was imagining BN, the handshaking-with-the-killer-expert, could have been caught doing something to the hard drive and that scenario kind of made N-DOGG happy.

It might be both?

 

[cindymac]

From what I understand, Juan wants a copy of BNs 2 images he made with the State's image from the original HD.
It's confusing, because it seems like Juan is asking for something he already has. And, like BN said, it's like asking for a picture of a picture.

It make complete sense to me. For instance, if Person A and Person B have the same picture, but only Person A can see a red flower in the background, then Person B is naturally going to want to see Person A's copy and (a) make sure it really is the same picture and (b) say, "okay, so where's the red flower?"

 

[Dmacky]

Sounds to me like he was just trying to get in her pants. Who tells some waitress that they just met that they are going to hang her paintings next to Monet or Van Goghs? LOL

Katie, I think this "John Dixon" is just a name/man JA made up. I can't find anything about him except that when I google him, his name ONLY comes up in what Arias testified about.

 

[Shadowboy]

I find it hard to believe TA would visit SO many websites. I'd expect him to pick a few, 2-5, and visit those on a regular basis. I have a habit of streaming American sitcoms on not fully trustworthy websites on my laptop and that has led me to have a whole lot of rated pop ups. I'm sure those would show up as visits, but its just pop ups and virusses. I wonder how the DT thinks to prove that all websites were purposely visited by TA. (Didn't Websleuths have rated pop ups for a while as well lol?)

I guess they'll ask for TIME to find out. :gaah:

BBM

Here's an interesting article about how URLs can appear to be "purposely entered" ... but they are NOT keyed in.
http://crucialsecurityblog.harris.com/2011/03/14/typedurls-part-1/

"Not only is the TypedURLs key populated by the user typing in a website, for instance, it is also updated and populated with URLs completed by the browser’s AutoComplete functionality."

Part 2 is here: http://crucialsecurityblog.harris.com/2011/03/23/typedurls-part-2/

"Another method growing in popularity which can populate this key without user interaction is through infection by malware. If a system is compromised and the malware can invoke the Windows API call RegSetValueEx, specific values can be set in the TypedURLs key. There are many adware samples in the wild that write specific values to this Registry key, so that the user’s address bar is populated with entries chosen by the malware authors."


So ... I still think BN is making a bunch of claims he can't back up with facts (the phone SIM cards; "keyed" approval for updates, etc.)

 

[MeeBee]

I'm still clueless why both would have missed the , virus related or not. What could that good reason be?

I'm stumped too. I think Juan's expert may try to explain the possibilities. It'd be one thing if the copy was incomplete, somehow. But the is all there, so what gives?

 

[RR0004]

I think BN is doing this now, to make it clear he wasn't hiding anything before. He turned over an image and says that should be good enough and Juan's "badgering" about getting a copy is unnecessary. However, now that Juan is clear he wants his copy and the judge has ordered it, there should be no problem now with it. He got it out there. Fair enough. And he may be right. I think we sort of talked about this and I said something about Willmott maybe having a point in her motion because what they turned over is apparently a compressed image and that should work.

But Juan still wants the copy. When you ask for a copy, you want a copy. BN is saying Juan doesn't know what he wants and what they've given him is fine and he's just splitting hairs. Juan may not understand what the image of the copy BN an gave him was, as alluded to in his motion. But he knows it wasn't a copy. And I think Juan does understand he hasn't gotten the copy, though, obviously, because he keeps asking for it.

Juan obviously wants his own expert to look at BN's work, but does anybody know if there's an advantage/disadvantage of looking at one (the image) over another (the copy)? I'm thinking that the PT's expert may have requested to look at the "copy"; hence, the reason for Juan wanting it ordered by the Judge...and let me tell you, that whole "requested vs ordered" nonsense was a lame- but successful- attempt at delaying this retrial even longer. It's going on two months on the resentencing phase. How ridiculous is this? And...if I'm not mistaken, it is the Judge's responsibility to keep things moving along. There's no one else to blame for this going on as long as it has, IMHO.

 

[Nali87]

It's actually good news. If there was no on Dworkin's copy provided by the state, that would be a problem because it's there. And if it wasn't on his copy it means the state did something untoward. I don't know what, because you clearly cannot erase anything without leaving a record of it. The fact that it's there, point for point, but simply missed by two experts means there was nothing dishonest going on, it was just human error. The defense can no longer claim the state hid the on purpose to frame Jodi as a liar.

That's true. But now we'll have more hearings and such on what for it was, whether or not it comes in at this point, whether or not it has consequences for the original trial etc..

It would have been so much better (and fun for me) if all this could have been just BN planting evidence or something like that. I know that was a far fetched idea because an expert wouldn't be easily convinced to that, but his evading of handing over the harddrive had me thinking that maybe he actually did do something. If so he would have faced the consequences, no in the trial and motion dismissed.

 

[Hope4More]

I think BN is doing this now, to make it clear he wasn't hiding anything before. He turned over an image and says that should be good enough and Juan's "badgering" about getting a copy is unnecessary. However, now that Juan is clear he wants his copy and the judge has ordered it, there should be no problem now with it. He got it out there. Fair enough. And he may be right. I think we sort of talked about this and I said something about Willmott maybe having a point in her motion because what they turned over is apparently a compressed image and that should work.

But Juan still wants the copy. When you ask for a copy, you want a copy. BN is saying Juan doesn't know what he wants and what they've given him is fine and he's just splitting hairs. Juan may not understand what the image of the copy BN an gave him was, as alluded to in his motion. But he knows it wasn't a copy. And I think Juan does understand he hasn't gotten the copy, obviously, because he keeps asking for it.

JM isn't a computer expert, but he is meticulous, and prepares/researches thoroughly. There is no way he went into that hearing ignorant of what he was demanding be turned over.

If he isn't trying to nail BN for tampering-_- as he at first appeared to be doing, I'm confident he has another reason. He's a chess player playing a long game.....

 

[daisydomino]

BBM

Here's an interesting article about how URLs can appear to be "purposely entered" ... but they are NOT keyed in.
http://crucialsecurityblog.harris.com/2011/03/14/typedurls-part-1/

"Not only is the TypedURLs key populated by the user typing in a website, for instance, it is also updated and populated with URLs completed by the browser’s AutoComplete functionality."

Part 2 is here: http://crucialsecurityblog.harris.com/2011/03/23/typedurls-part-2/

"Another method growing in popularity which can populate this key without user interaction is through infection by malware. If a system is compromised and the malware can invoke the Windows API call RegSetValueEx, specific values can be set in the TypedURLs key. There are many adware samples in the wild that write specific values to this Registry key, so that the user’s address bar is populated with entries chosen by the malware authors."


So ... I still think BN is making a bunch of claims he can't back up with facts (the phone SIM cards; "keyed" approval for updates, etc.)

Someone here on WS (I wish I could remember who! Sorry!) says that the SIM card issue is because the Helio phone and Travis' devices are CDMA—they don't use SIM cards.

ETA: There may be some joy for you there, Nali I know I'm looking forward to seeing—I mean, reading Tweets about—BN's face when Juan Martinez tells him there are no SIM cards because these phones don't use SIM cards.