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

[Katharine]

Here is my understanding with so little knowledge on the computer technology stuff, too. On June 10, 2008, Flores awakened the computer with a pen that was proper at that time under procedure protocol. The warrant arrived. Then the computer forensic person(s) from LE properly shut down computer to take in for evidence. A hard copy was made of Travis' hard drive i.e. mirror image with write blocker in 2008.

Then in 2009 when the DT requested to look at all the evidence, computer was plugged in and looked at. Something happened at that time that could have been anything of a natural cause when a computer is turned on. No one purposely did anything to Travis hard drive computer in 2009. But no one thought to make another mirror image with write blocker at this time in 2009 after this event.

Fast forward to October of 2014, Travis' actual computer with hard drive was requested again for DT. Why on earth did they just not give a copy of the original 2008 hard drive mirror image with write blocker?? BN or whomever he contracted out to supposedly was to make another copy of HD i.e. a mirror image with write blocker.....from which to then make his working clone or clones. If they wanted to make their own hard copy mirror image with write blocker BN & company should have done it in the evidence room with proper witnesses is my opinion.

Travis' actual computer with hard drive is returned to evidence and is broken beyond repair. Why? How did this happen? One wonders if BN or ? made a mirror image copy with write blocker and only made working clones since so far not providing the "original" that was worked from to make these working clone or clones.

Even though Travis original hard drive is broken on his actual computer, they still do have the mirror image with write blocker they made in 2008. So I fail to see what difference it makes to anything that happened when defense team had the computer turned on in 2009 since they still have that 2008 hard drive mirror image copy with write blocker.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Oh my Steely, you made me log in over that post! Good one!

I only see JA scheduled for Monday, 12/15/14, so far on JSS's calendar next week. Wonder why that is? Don't they know what's going on after Monday, trial day? Hopefully, it will change in the next day or two.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Sheriff Joe putting it to CMJA back in September. The sneaky Freaka' From Yreka got the spanking she so well deserved, and didn't even have to suggest it. Sheriff Joe is such a good boy. :happydance:



Snipped from AZ Central article:


"So, if the media can't have cameras in the courtroom we could always wait until after the day's court proceedings or during off days and visit her in jail.

She loves those interviews. And my brothers and sisters in journalism love doing them.

But ... Arpaio said no.

The sheriff announced that he has ordered his media relations unit to turn down all media requests to talk to Arias. He sent out a press release saying, in part, that "from her closed custody cell, she (Arias) appears to be manipulating persons on the outside to help build her prestige by having them sell her artwork and personal items."
The sheriff's announcement ends with this quote from Arpaio: "I know there is a good deal of interest in this inmate. She probably has been the highest profile inmate ever in this jail system. But she's had her 15 minutes of fame and any further attempts to convey her thoughts through interviews with the media will not be permitted while the penalty phase is ongoing."

 

[Kamille]

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.

LMAO. Imagine ALV or Dr F analysing THOSE emails. :floorlaugh:

 

[geevee]

Oh my Steely, you made me log in over that post! Good one!

I only see JA scheduled for Monday, 12/15/14, so far on JSS's calendar next week. Wonder why that is? Don't they know what's going on after Monday, trial day? Hopefully, it will change in the next day or two.

I noticed that after the secret witness/media motions/CoA/delays the docket calendar went to only one day in advance, I guess the scheduler never knows when they'll have trial either so is doing it one day at a time.

 

[Steely Dan]

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?

AFAIK, there is no way for the layman to delete a program without uninstalling it. Maybe an expert can, but I certainly can't.

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.

BBM

That's what I think too. :thumb:

Sheriff Joe putting it to CMJA back in September. The sneaky Freaka' From Yreka got the spanking she so well deserved, and didn't even have to suggest it. Sheriff Joe is such a good boy. :happydance:



Snipped from AZ Central article:


"So, if the media can't have cameras in the courtroom we could always wait until after the day's court proceedings or during off days and visit her in jail.

She loves those interviews. And my brothers and sisters in journalism love doing them.

But ... Arpaio said no.

The sheriff announced that he has ordered his media relations unit to turn down all media requests to talk to Arias. He sent out a press release saying, in part, that "from her closed custody cell, she (Arias) appears to be manipulating persons on the outside to help build her prestige by having them sell her artwork and personal items."
The sheriff's announcement ends with this quote from Arpaio: "I know there is a good deal of interest in this inmate. She probably has been the highest profile inmate ever in this jail system. But she's had her 15 minutes of fame and any further attempts to convey her thoughts through interviews with the media will not be permitted while the penalty phase is ongoing."

[video=youtube;kdOPBP9vuZA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdOPBP9vuZA[/video]

 

[Ruby]

Sheriff Joe putting it to CMJA back in September. The sneaky Freaka' From Yreka got the spanking she so well deserved, and didn't even have to suggest it. Sheriff Joe is such a good boy. :happydance:



Snipped from AZ Central article:


"So, if the media can't have cameras in the courtroom we could always wait until after the day's court proceedings or during off days and visit her in jail.

She loves those interviews. And my brothers and sisters in journalism love doing them.

But ... Arpaio said no.

The sheriff announced that he has ordered his media relations unit to turn down all media requests to talk to Arias. He sent out a press release saying, in part, that "from her closed custody cell, she (Arias) appears to be manipulating persons on the outside to help build her prestige by having them sell her artwork and personal items."
The sheriff's announcement ends with this quote from Arpaio: "I know there is a good deal of interest in this inmate. She probably has been the highest profile inmate ever in this jail system. But she's had her 15 minutes of fame and any further attempts to convey her thoughts through interviews with the media will not be permitted while the penalty phase is ongoing."

The sheriff denying the request of interviews through media etc. is the reason (IMO) that the defense did not want cameras in the court room.

I think it's Jodi trying to give a one finger salute and wave at Sheriff Joe.

 

[Steely Dan]

LMAO. Imagine ALV or Dr F analysing THOSE emails. :floorlaugh:

:scared:

I haven't done one in a long, long time. After he calls me and answers my questions I'll do another one to thank him. I'm such a swell friend. :giggle:

 

[MeeBee]

AFAIK, there is no way for the layman to delete a program without uninstalling it. Maybe an expert can, but I certainly can't.



BBM

That's what I think too. :thumb:



[video=youtube;kdOPBP9vuZA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdOPBP9vuZA[/video]

BBM: I found this link on how to manually uninstall Inicnerator. I don't know if after all this it would end up in the recycle bin, but it seems like some of the files from the program might.

http://www.quicklyuninstall.com/article/Quickly-Uinstall-Incinerator-2.3.html

 

[Ruby]

:scared:

I haven't done one in a long, long time. After he calls me and answers my questions I'll do another one to thank him. I'm such a swell friend. :giggle:

With a friend like that who needs emunies :drumroll:

sorry, couldn't resist :blushing:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

LMAO. Imagine ALV or Dr F analysing THOSE emails. :floorlaugh:

I had typed my Dr. F analysis, but I won't post it. Glad I didn't hit submit quickly like I normally do. I just like to have fun, not make anyone mad. :facepalm: The email is hilarious though, something I would do to a close friend.

 

[ohreally]

I think the self reporting secret person is BN, and I think it has something to do with the original clone ( or whatever the proper term is). I think both Willmont and BN knew that he would never be able to produce the original in its original format. Willmont fought just as hard as him to not have to produce it. She kept saying over and over again that Juan already has it (meaning the very original copy). I think that Juan is still insistant on getting the clone and BN has been advised it is in his best interest to self report before he is held in contempt of court and gets himself some jail time.

 

[MeeBee]

The sheriff denying the request of interviews through media etc. is the reason (IMO) that the defense did not want cameras in the court room.

I think it's Jodi trying to give a one finger salute and wave at Sheriff Joe.

His decisions to do this actually came after the judge's decisions to kick out the cameras. He says it was the judge's order and he was just helping Jodi comply with the order, which gave him a great excuse to shut her up. The defense should be thanking him for "saving her from herself."

 

[Steely Dan]

BBM: I found this link on how to manually uninstall Inicnerator. I don't know if after all this it would end up in the recycle bin, but it seems like some of the files from the program might.

http://www.quicklyuninstall.com/article/Quickly-Uinstall-Incinerator-2.3.html

Thanks, those guys who couldn't delete it entirely were pretty... Anyway, thanks for that. I bookmarked it in case I have trouble with my download.

 

[Katharine]

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.

Whereas I do not understand the first two paragraphs, especially the second paragraph (you are definitely a computer geek ). I so agree with your brilliant last paragraph deduction. Thank you so much.

 

[Steely Dan]

I had typed my Dr. F analysis, but I won't post it. Glad I didn't hit submit quickly like I normally do. I just like to have fun, not make anyone mad. :facepalm: The email is hilarious though, something I would do to a close friend.

AWWWW, C'mon, I don't mind. You can post it! :happydance:

 

[bsk]

Truth Detector had a good description of how it works above. I'll try it from a different angle.

Think of the following analogies of a computer and its hard drive vs a book:
file manager = table of contents
files = chapters
bit/bytes = words/pages/paragraphs

When you delete a file on a computer, the file manager deletes the pointer to it, same as if you erased an entry in the table of contents in a book. The actual chapter is still there, but you would no longer know it exists if the only way you knew how to find it was through the table of contents.

So in that analogy, you could flip through a book and find something that looked like a chapter in a book, even if it wasn't referenced in the table of contents. Similarly with the right tools you can look for files without using file manager. That is a more complicated endeavor, because files are not necessarily contiguous. They can span blocks of space but have pointers between pieces. Think of taking a book and mixing up the pages: if they had page numbers on them you could piece them back together in the right sequence and reconstruct a chapter.

The last part of the analogy is what things like Incinerator do. If you really want to get rid of a file, you need to wipe out all the bits that make up the file. This can take multiple passes (not sure why that is to be honest) that keep overwriting the area that the file was in. It would be similar in the book analogy to taking the pages of the deleted chapter and running them through a shredder and then running the shredded contents through a shredder again. Eventually no matter how patient you were, it would be impossible to reconstruct the pages as they originally were and you could not tell anything about what had been there originally.

 

[Ruby]

His decisions to do this actually came after the judge's decisions to kick out the cameras. He says it was the judge's order and he was just helping Jodi comply with the order, which gave him a great excuse to shut her up. The defense should be thanking him for "saving her from herself."

Thank you, I was unaware of that :blushing:

 

[Val1]

The defense's own expert testified in the trial that there was no . Even BN doesn't testify that any was found on it, just that had been accessed. He had zero proof that any had been downloaded. He never proved that any was accessed intentionally as opposed to coming from some virus.

JA was called a liar by Juan. She has been called a liar by the defense's own witnesses as well, if not by her defense counsel. Bottom line: She's a liar. Is some COA going to overturn her conviction because Juan called her a liar. Odds are greater than I'll run a marathon. It ain't happening.

No negligence or destruction of evidence was ever proven by the defense. But it was pretty clear that the DT tampered with their copy of the evidence and then tried to use that to prove negligence. KN's argument was that that doesn't count since it was a copy, not the original. What a bunch of hogwash. His original expert said nothing was found, and his latest expert screwed up royally.

So all of that adds up to a big pile of nothing.

What the DT could have done if they had an expert who knew what the heck he was doing was possibly determine whether someone had searched for on Travis's computer. The registry keeps track of recent searches among other things, so BN claiming that Travis had typed in this or that might have been provable (well not that it was Travis, but that it was someone on Travis's computer) but he never seemed to offer proof of it - he just claimed it. That doesn't add up to squat either.

ETA: I forgot to add that RS's credibility was killed on any number of fronts. "Maybe I should have rerun the test" is enough in and of itself to show he was incompetent regardless of anything else.

BBM

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/05/03/jodi-arias-trial-defense-closing-arguments-kirk-nurmi-live-blog

1:02 p.m. ET:

"If Jodi arias were accused of the crime of lying, I could not stand before you say she’s not guilty of that crime. But nowhere in your jury instructions are you asked to convict Jodi Arias of lying. There is no verdict form that you will have that says…is Jodi Arias guilty of the crime of lying or not? Well, of course she is…that’s not the crime she’s being charged with,” said Nurmi.

 

[ohreally]

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?

If I am remembering right items can be sent to the recycle bin and as long as the item is still in the recycle bin it can be restored. When you used the incinerator on your picture are you able to restore the picture? I am so slow at figuring out all the computer stuff, but I am slowly getting there. Lol