Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/11-14 ~weekend~

[Steely Dan]

Incinerator 2.3 is a software used to remove deleted files from the recycle bin so they cannot ever be recovered with recovery tools.

It also says, "While it also places an entry in the Windows Context Menu to easily wipe files on the go, Incinerator is also able to shred free disk space, regardless if we're talking about hard-disks, USB removable drives or any other media."

And from what I understand of it, that version didn't come out until 2010. And it was in a recycle bin that was not on Travis' OS. What reason would anyone have to use that kind of software while examining Travis' hard drive?

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Incinerator.shtml

Maybe it's just me, I just find it an odd thing to use. Even odder that when questioned about it, he had no idea what it was.

I just downloaded it. I'll see if I can install it and use it. I'll let you know how it works if it does anything obviously different. Also, that's the only reason I'm downloading it. I don't have anything to hide or anything. :angel:

 

[janx]

Incinerator 2.3 is a software used to remove deleted files from the recycle bin so they cannot ever be recovered with recovery tools.

It also says, "While it also places an entry in the Windows Context Menu to easily wipe files on the go, Incinerator is also able to shred free disk space, regardless if we're talking about hard-disks, USB removable drives or any other media."

And from what I understand of it, that version didn't come out until 2010. And it was in a recycle bin that was not on Travis' OS. What reason would anyone have to use that kind of software while examining Travis' hard drive?

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Incinerator.shtml

Maybe it's just me, I just find it an odd thing to use. Even odder that when questioned about it, he had no idea what it was.

He had no idea what it was because "Tony" et al. were the ones doing the work, IIRC. And the only reason that piece of software would reside on a computer is to permanently delete files to the extent that they are not recoverable. Tony et al. may have screwed up and used it to cover their tracks (?). It sounds like incompetence.

I've never followed a trial closely before, and I'm astounded at the sub-par expert witnesses in this one. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious a case. It seems that the defense can't get real experts in as witnesses, so they mess around with witnesses that either aren't expert in the field at issue or that are experts in their fields but do not have much to do with the case (the latter being LaViolette since this case was not about domestic violence). The only conclusion I can reach is that real expert witnesses don't want to have anything to do with the defense of this cretin. It's career suicide.

Am I on the wrong track here?

 

[janx]

I just downloaded it. I'll see if I can install it and use it. I'll let you know how it works if it does anything obviously different. Also, that's the only reason I'm downloading it. I don't have anything to hide or anything. :angel:

Seriously? You are actually going about an Incinerator experiment? :floorlaugh: If you are, how cool! If you are not, I'm gullible.

 

[Val1]

LOL duh. I honestly didn't notice that. I just saw the date of Oct. 22.
Well, ironically JA must have filed a motion to get rid of KN on October 22, 2013 as well? I just reread that article, and it has even more pages than her newest Oct.22 2014

From article I posted earlier:
The first of the two fresh motions by Arias' defense team asks the judge to withhold from the jury any information about the 15-page handwritten letter, in which she told the judge she doesn't trust defense lawyer Kirk Nurmi, he doesn't like her, and that he has an "utter poverty of people skills."

If the new jury hears about an October 22 handwritten motion Arias made for a change of counsel, both of her lawyers will have to withdraw from the case, one of the new motions states.

This is the motion from this October 22, 2014, it's only 12 pages :smile:
http://wildabouttrial.com/court_docs...mi-motion.pdf#

Jodi likes that October 22 date

BBM Sorry if this has already been posted:

Someone actually went into the computer and attempted to delete the incinerator program manually. ON OCTOBER 22 2014 AT 10:16 PM TO BE EXACT."

http://www.examiner.com/article/jodi-arias-trial-porngate-continues-maria-de-la-rosa-takes-center-stage

 

[Steely Dan]

Well it's just like a recycle bin. You right click it and it disintegrates stuff. If you want to uninstall it it just works like uninstalling any other program. I don't think installed programs go to the recycle bin. So I'm not sure what they mean when they say they found it in the recycle bin?

 

[Steely Dan]

Seriously? You are actually going about an Incinerator experiment? :floorlaugh: If you are, how cool! If you are not, I'm gullible.

Yes, I did. :snooty:

 

[janx]

Well it's just like a recycle bin. You right click it and it disintegrates stuff. If you want to uninstall it it just works like uninstalling any other program. I don't think installed programs go to the recycle bin. So I'm not sure what they mean when they say they found it in the recycle bin?

Maybe that is where it resides. Or perhaps it just wound up there? But a program in the recycle bin? You will have to let us know, Steely.

 

[Steely Dan]

Maybe that is where it resides. Or perhaps it just wound up there? But a program in the recycle bin? You will have to let us know, Steely.

I don't know enough about deleting programs. I've never noticed a deleted program in my recycle bin after deleting it. :dunno:

Maybe someone can get an expert to drop by and explain it all to us.

 

[Steely Dan]

I just deleted one photo from my computer using it. It took a long time to delete one photo. I know they aren't being accused of deleting photos, I'm just saying typical deletions through the recycle bin are a lot faster.

 

[Ruby]

Maybe they deleted it vs uninstalling it?

Uninstalling may leave the files intact for future use if need be, able to reinstall later.
So they needed to delete them.
This is a far out question but I'm putting it out there - don't laugh to hard at me :blushing:
Could they have used the incinerator to delete its own files, to make it close up on itself in the recycle bin?

 

[janx]

I just deleted one photo from my computer using it. It took a long time to delete one photo. I know they aren't being accused of deleting photos, I'm just saying typical deletions through the recycle bin are a lot faster.

So it's like a auxiliary recycle bin? Photos take up a lot of space.

 

[Truth Detector]

Knowing this Judge I think she will say no prosecutorial misconduct but 'evidence' can come in and the experts can duke it out in front of the jury. What a waste of time that will be. I hope she's at least firm on the child issue as there is none. The defense will do anything to distract the jury from the autopsy photos and JA's lack of remorse.

Only they won't duke it out in front of the jury.

Instead, JSKS will host incessant sidebar after sidebar ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad _______________ (add your latin 'ad' here) thereby stretching this phase of the trial into eternity.

 

[Truth Detector]

I just deleted one photo from my computer using it. It took a long time to delete one photo. I know they aren't being accused of deleting photos, I'm just saying typical deletions through the recycle bin are a lot faster.

Yes, but it's faster because when you 'delete' you're essentially 'un-indexing' the file you 'deleted'. I.e., the file itself is still there, if not overwritten. It takes a comparatively short amount of time to 'delete'.

When you 'incinerate' or 'shred' the file, you're actually overwriting (re-initializing) the area of the physical disk drive where those data (zeroes and ones which represent the file) resided. The larger the file, the more zeroes and ones, the longer it takes to overwrite.

As our especially cruel, lying torture murderess found out the hard way, deleting data doesn't mean that it's gone. Only the 'pointer' to it is gone -- even after the rinse and spin cycles.

It is still quite recoverable. But once those original zeroes and ones are overwritten, they're gone for good. Overwriting means that there are now other zeroes and/or other ones in other configurations written onto portions of that same physical area of the disk, replacing the original data, which completely preclude the possibility of recovering the previously 'deleted' data.

Initialization of the disk can also occur using a full format. For example, Windows Vista will write zeroes to the disk. Other formats both under Vista and other versions of Windows may or may not write all zeroes throughout the writable disk surfaces.

 

[zoomom]

ok, Steely: you keep working on that and reporting back to us - I'm taking apart a bathroom sink that's clogged. First time for me! I keep running back in here to check WS!

Divide and Conquer!

 

[Truth Detector]

Maybe they deleted it vs uninstalling it?

Uninstalling may leave the files intact for future use if need be, able to reinstall later.
So they needed to delete them.
This is a far out question but I'm putting it out there - don't laugh to hard at me :blushing:
Could they have used the incinerator to delete its own files, to make it close up on itself in the recycle bin?

Well, not to get us too far into the weeds here -- you don't actually have to install a program on a drive in order to execute the program's functionality 'against' that drive.

E.g., I have multiple drives in multiple towers and servers. They are wired and wirelessly connected. When I play music or videos which reside on any of those drives using Windows Media Player (WMP), I can do so from a single location referencing and accessing those files from a single computer. I don't need WMP installed on server 4 in order to play the music and videos which reside on the "H:" drive (partitioned disk) of server 4.

More expert 'experts' would not have installed anything on that 'copy of evidence' disk drive. Nor would they have deleted anything from it. They would have write-blocked it in order to preserve their 'copy of evidence' as they received it.

I stand by my contention that they mucked things up so badly that their 'copy of evidence' disk drive was modified (by themselves, using things like Incinerator 2.3) and they no longer had a 'clean' copy with which to comply when the Court ordered or State requested it, depending upon whether you are JW or not.

 

[MaryND]

First, I am not a computer person, so none of this may make sense.
BN needed to start with a mirror image of the HD, yes? So, the whole point of having the actual HD was to make a new one, so that he could then make clones and work on it, yes?
What if - "someone" changed the original HD, and then he made the images to work on - and now, all of a sudden there are all these bits of urls/files, etc in the registry. The image wouldn't match the 2008 or 2009 images, if this was true - yes or no? Is this why Juan wants the original (2014) image he was working from, and not the clones?
Second, I am so highly suspicious of the HD not working anymore... "it just clicks"...this is what makes me wonder if someone messed with the original HD.
Is there any way it could be fixed? Or is it gone forever?

 

[Kamille]

I think the only person we can trust here regarding the computer HD information is the state's expert working with the original HD copy that BN failed to be able to provide to the prosecution on 3 separate occasions and has still not provided as far as we know.

I believe the state's expert stated that there were sites in the registry as of June 10, 2008. Not the history, the registry.

I also believe he stated that there may have been one site that was manually looked up. YouPorn. He did not indicate on what date(s) that may have been.

I also believe that he can verify that there was no "on the computer", child or adult. ie: there were no pictures of a young boy in underwear that JA claims that TA was masturbating to at a time when it was pretty much proven that it didn't happen. Nor were there pictures of women topless from the waist up, which I believe was another claim.

So if both of her claims still cannot be proven, what difference does it make if there were sites in the registry, likely from viruses, to anything that was discussed in the original trial and the final verdict? Or even an actual manual look up of an adult site that likely cannot be proven to have been done by TA anyway. How exactly does that factor in to what happened in their non relationship and why she slaughtered him? Or to how she somehow got an unfair trial? The defence has still not proven that any of the things that JA claimed were ON the computer were actually ON the computer.

:waitasec:

MOO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

How Troy Hayden got the interview with CMJA...... Can't blame Juan for that



http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/2...-explains-how-he-got-the-jodi-arias-exclusive



Message left for Troy Hayden by CMJA..... AGAIN, can't blame Juan for that



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiePr-Vsn6M

 

[geevee]

Incinerator 2.3 is a software used to remove deleted files from the recycle bin so they cannot ever be recovered with recovery tools.

It also says, "While it also places an entry in the Windows Context Menu to easily wipe files on the go, Incinerator is also able to shred free disk space, regardless if we're talking about hard-disks, USB removable drives or any other media."

And from what I understand of it, that version didn't come out until 2010. And it was in a recycle bin that was not on Travis' OS. What reason would anyone have to use that kind of software while examining Travis' hard drive?

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Incinerator.shtml

Maybe it's just me, I just find it an odd thing to use. Even odder that when questioned about it, he had no idea what it was.

Maybe JM should take a closer look at some of these 'scrubbers' BN found, and see if they existed before 6/04/08.

 

[Steely Dan]

Well I put in a call to one of my old good friends a couple of hours ago. We don't talk a lot anymore, but we email sometimes and are still very friendly with each other. He's a computer programmer and might know the answers we seek. He wasn't home and he probably won't call anymore tonight.

I also take articles about ummm... guys caught with animals ummm... in compromising positions and then paste the article into an email and change the perps name and town to his. I then email it to him and two other very long time buddies who know him too. He's responded by threatening to kill me the next time he sees me. :giggle: I still think he'll call me back though.