Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/21-11/23/14 In recess

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ricki said:
So it looked like at some point juan questioned Jodi's brother. That's where Juan got the FU Bill from. Wonder what else came from that interview. Is this the same brother who said on his FB page his sister was going to use the sex tape to show to TA's past or future girlfriend?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think someone said that was Joey her younger brother. Carl is the one she hit in the head and tormented.
 
:seeya:

Does anyone know what time the hearing is tomorrow ? TIA !

I can cover some Tweets.
 
@TrialDiariesJ: Wed. 11/26 & Thur. 11/27 were scheduled as "dark days".
The Crt of Ap shows Tues. 11/25 4 Oral Argument re: the media motion. #JodiArias
 
MeeBee said:
@TrialDiariesJ: Wed. 11/26 & Thur. 11/27 were scheduled as "dark days".

The Crt of Ap shows Tues. 11/25 4 Oral Argument re: the media motion. #JodiArias
Click to expand...



:seeya: Oh goodie ... and Thanks for the reminder because I forgot about this hearing !

It's going to be interesting to see what the Court of Appeals ruling will be !
 
Can Jodi kicking the dog come in now? Shows uncontrollable temper.
 
I have some comments about JW's response:

First, she either doesn't understand what a damaged hard drive is, or she's playing it that way in hopes that JSS won't know the difference between a hard drive and a connector with bent pins.

She then goes on to confuse the issues re: the State's request for an image copy as of the day defense rec'd the computer in 2014 to the copy the State made in 2008. She says he obviously didn't need another image copy, since JM later said they had gone back and analyzed their original copy. His original 2008 copy would not show the damage they claim was done in 2009, thus the need for a later dated one, and one they should have been able to furnish. It's their allegation, and their need to provide proof - I suspect she knows the difference.

She admits they sent the wrong file originally, but somehow blames "FTK software" for "grabbing the wrong drive". How exactly does software "grab" the wrong drive to turn over? This is ridiculous!

She then says the State had all this time to make one, but if they were unaware of these supposed 2009 changes, why would they do that? There would be no need. Both State & defense forensic examiners (that knew what they were doing) testified to what was on the 2008 copy, and both agreed there was no evidence of *advertiser censored* then. Again, you claim all this was done in 2009 - it's your allegations of wrong doing to prove, JW.

She then says there is nothing wrong with the 2nd copy they sent over and that they are appalled that the State doesn't know how to read what they sent...um, what exactly was sent and are we supposed to think State forensics wouldn't be able to read a real image copy? She says it's a clone, but not an untouched image - so what is it exactly? It's not a forensic image copy as protocol requires, but that's the State's problem, how? A clone is used basically to restore a drive to a existing state. It's for backup if your computer goes out, it's not what is required in forensic computer work and anyone familiar with those requirements would know that. I know she mentioned FTK software (above), but I have my suspicions (below) that neither FTK or Encase software with a write block was used, but either one would have done the job.

If you notice the picture of the pin damage, they included some interesting information:

Name: DSC09743.jpg
Item(?) type: FarStone.JPG File
Folder path E:/ARIAS MESA PD
Date created 8/26/2014 2:02PM (hard to read the day and could be 25th - but if it is it's @ a later time than when modified)
Date modified 8/25/2014 10:49AM (on the pdf, the font or size of the lettering here looks a little different to me, but could be the angle or something?)

The first thing I noticed was that the created date is after the modified date - unless I just need a new prescription and am reading this wrong. How can you modify a file before it's created? Also, I thought they didn't get this until late Sept or so?
Next was the "Item type": FarStone, which meant nothing to me, so I hit Google only to find a company that sells cloning/backup software that is basically for consumers and small businesses. It's products get good consumer reviews for inexpensive cloning or backup type software, but it's certainly not something a professional forensic person would use. Who might buy a copy of something like this? Maybe a private investigator, who in trying to provide what JA said was there, somehow screwed up the contents of the HD so badly that it can't be read again. Who knows what was furnished to the State, but JW's feigned surprise that the State couldn't read whatever they sent to them reads a little false after seeing "FarStone" on that pic. I notice the BBM on one of their product descriptions:
DriveClone automatically clones your entire machine, including system files, applications, preferences, emails, music, photos, movies, documents, and all partitions. But what makes DriveClone different from other disk cloning applications is that it not only clone all data on a system, it automatically defrag all files, remove junks, resize partitions, and only clone the files that have been changed since last cloning.
Click to expand...
If this is indeed what their "expert" used, who knows what they had to 'analyze' and how it compared to the 2008 image copy?

All just my 2cents ...
 
MeeBee said:
@TrialDiariesJ: Wed. 11/26 & Thur. 11/27 were scheduled as "dark days".
The Crt of Ap shows Tues. 11/25 4 Oral Argument re: the media motion. #JodiArias
Click to expand...

So next week will be another week with only 1 day of testimony? This is the trial that never ends.
 
daisydomino said:
The more I read about this computer, the more I think it's a red herring. Say what you will about JSS, but I do think she's been pretty good about dismissing Nurmi's nonsense quickly.

All this computer business might have looked like supporting mitigation evidence or possibly evidence of prosecutorial misconduct to her at first, but I think she's been studying it carefully. It's all cloaked in the arcane magic of computer *advertiser censored* virus magic, which is not really magic at all. If she has gotten good advice, she's seen the Great and Powerful Oz behind the curtain and she can see that this is more delay tactics and really nothing more.

Tomorrow we'll know for sure whether I'm right or wrong, but I really do think tomorrow will be a short day.
Click to expand...

ITA. It's a total red herring. To my mind, one of the following is true:

Nurmi jumped the gun with the *advertiser censored* allegations, acting before he had all the facts to hand. Now he's back-peddling like crazy, trying to bury his error under a whole lot of kerpufffle about whether the copy works, who broke the hard drive, etc. etc.
OR
Nurmi knew full well that the *advertiser censored* was never accessed by Travis but played dumb, requesting "many weeks" to investigate. Or in other words, a big delay. After which, he'd have said, oh it was all a misunderstanding.

Either way, and whatever his latest spin, the bottom line remains the same: He made an allegation and still hasn't backed it up with credible evidence.

I would imagine (hope) that this would make a ruling simple. Provide the evidence or drop the motion.
 
Off topic: I would very much like to know what shade of red Gaga is wearing in this gif! Been looking for a "new red".

Kensie said:
Please excuse me, way behind, but what is the ruling on??
Click to expand...
 
LinTX said:
I have some comments about JW's response:

First, she either doesn't understand what a damaged hard drive is, or she's playing it that way in hopes that JSS won't know the difference between a hard drive and a connector with bent pins.

She then goes on to confuse the issues re: the State's request for an image copy as of the day defense rec'd the computer in 2014 to the copy the State made in 2008. She says he obviously didn't need another image copy, since JM later said they had gone back and analyzed their original copy. His original 2008 copy would not show the damage they claim was done in 2009, thus the need for a later dated one, and one they should have been able to furnish. It's their allegation, and their need to provide proof - I suspect she knows the difference.

She admits they sent the wrong file originally, but somehow blames "FTK software" for "grabbing the wrong drive". How exactly does software "grab" the wrong drive to turn over? This is ridiculous!

She then says the State had all this time to make one, but if they were unaware of these supposed 2009 changes, why would they do that? There would be no need. Both State & defense forensic examiners (that knew what they were doing) testified to what was on the 2008 copy, and both agreed there was no evidence of *advertiser censored* then. Again, you claim all this was done in 2009 - it's your allegations of wrong doing to prove, JW.

She then says there is nothing wrong with the 2nd copy they sent over and that they are appalled that the State doesn't know how to read what they sent...um, what exactly was sent and are we supposed to think State forensics wouldn't be able to read a real image copy? She says it's a clone, but not an untouched image - so what is it exactly? It's not a forensic image copy as protocol requires, but that's the State's problem, how? A clone is used basically to restore a drive to a existing state. It's for backup if your computer goes out, it's not what is required in forensic computer work and anyone familiar with those requirements would know that. I know she mentioned FTK software (above), but I have my suspicions (below) that neither FTK or Encase software with a write block was used, but either one would have done the job.

If you notice the picture of the pin damage, they included some interesting information:

Name: DSC09743.jpg
Item(?) type: FarStone.JPG File
Folder path E:/ARIAS MESA PD
Date created 8/26/2014 2:02PM (hard to read the day and could be 25th - but if it is it's @ a later time than when modified)
Date modified 8/25/2014 10:49AM (on the pdf, the font or size of the lettering here looks a little different to me, but could be the angle or something?)

The first thing I noticed was that the created date is after the modified date - unless I just need a new prescription and am reading this wrong. How can you modify a file before it's created? Also, I thought they didn't get this until late Sept or so?
Next was the "Item type": FarStone, which meant nothing to me, so I hit Google only to find a company that sells cloning/backup software that is basically for consumers and small businesses. It's products get good consumer reviews for inexpensive cloning or backup type software, but it's certainly not something a professional forensic person would use. Who might buy a copy of something like this? Maybe a private investigator, who in trying to provide what JA said was there, somehow screwed up the contents of the HD so badly that it can't be read again. Who knows what was furnished to the State, but JW's feigned surprise that the State couldn't read whatever they sent to them reads a little false after seeing "FarStone" on that pic. I notice the BBM on one of their product descriptions:
If this is indeed what their "expert" used, who knows what they had to 'analyze' and how it compared to the 2008 image copy?

All just my 2cents ...
Click to expand...

And there you have it.

Thanks for this LinTx, as it is worth way more than 2 cents.
 
Something that I do not understand that is big enough to bother me:

In the courtroom, if something is put on the big screen and the other party objects to it and a sidebar is called to discuss whether or not it can actually be displayed on the big screen...why is it allowed to stay on the big screen during that sidebar?

Is that normal in courtrooms, or it unique to this one? Anyone know, or have a good guess?
 
There have been oblique references to Fonseca's degree not being from an accredited university. Could someone enlighten me? Where was it from? Does she have a Ph.D.? (Her line of reasoning suggests not, since there are key critical thinking skills missing. Plus, she doesn't seem to know how to evaluate sources, a key component of junior-senior undergraduate and any kind of graduate work. Not to mention a post doc!!!!) Was her undergraduate degree from an accredited institution? Does she only defend women? Where was her post-doc?

On a related topic, is it just me, or does Fonseca not seem to know a whole lot about sex? Especially the role of fantasy, pop rocks, KY etc.? That there is a large range in sexual behaviors between average consenting adults? That inventive sex is often a symptom of a healthy relationship and not necessarily a sick one? That you can go to an adult "toy" store and get creative tips and it's not *advertiser censored* or sicko, but simply a way to "liven things up"?

I thought Fonseca was supposed to be an expert in kinkiness? She seems like a prude.... I mean, really, implying KY is a symptom of sexual pathology by making an issue over who brought it to the JA/TA relationship? She hasn't seen a tube of KY lying on the counter in her doctor's office? If she has, would she consider her doctor reprehensible for knowing how to use it?
 
LinTX said:
I have some comments about JW's response:

First, she either doesn't understand what a damaged hard drive is, or she's playing it that way in hopes that JSS won't know the difference between a hard drive and a connector with bent pins.

She then goes on to confuse the issues re: the State's request for an image copy as of the day defense rec'd the computer in 2014 to the copy the State made in 2008. She says he obviously didn't need another image copy, since JM later said they had gone back and analyzed their original copy. His original 2008 copy would not show the damage they claim was done in 2009, thus the need for a later dated one, and one they should have been able to furnish. It's their allegation, and their need to provide proof - I suspect she knows the difference.

She admits they sent the wrong file originally, but somehow blames "FTK software" for "grabbing the wrong drive". How exactly does software "grab" the wrong drive to turn over? This is ridiculous!

She then says the State had all this time to make one, but if they were unaware of these supposed 2009 changes, why would they do that? There would be no need. Both State & defense forensic examiners (that knew what they were doing) testified to what was on the 2008 copy, and both agreed there was no evidence of *advertiser censored* then. Again, you claim all this was done in 2009 - it's your allegations of wrong doing to prove, JW.

She then says there is nothing wrong with the 2nd copy they sent over and that they are appalled that the State doesn't know how to read what they sent...um, what exactly was sent and are we supposed to think State forensics wouldn't be able to read a real image copy? She says it's a clone, but not an untouched image - so what is it exactly? It's not a forensic image copy as protocol requires, but that's the State's problem, how? A clone is used basically to restore a drive to a existing state. It's for backup if your computer goes out, it's not what is required in forensic computer work and anyone familiar with those requirements would know that. I know she mentioned FTK software (above), but I have my suspicions (below) that neither FTK or Encase software with a write block was used, but either one would have done the job.

If you notice the picture of the pin damage, they included some interesting information:

Name: DSC09743.jpg
Item(?) type: FarStone.JPG File
Folder path E:/ARIAS MESA PD
Date created 8/26/2014 2:02PM (hard to read the day and could be 25th - but if it is it's @ a later time than when modified)
Date modified 8/25/2014 10:49AM (on the pdf, the font or size of the lettering here looks a little different to me, but could be the angle or something?)

The first thing I noticed was that the created date is after the modified date - unless I just need a new prescription and am reading this wrong. How can you modify a file before it's created? Also, I thought they didn't get this until late Sept or so?
Next was the "Item type": FarStone, which meant nothing to me, so I hit Google only to find a company that sells cloning/backup software that is basically for consumers and small businesses. It's products get good consumer reviews for inexpensive cloning or backup type software, but it's certainly not something a professional forensic person would use. Who might buy a copy of something like this? Maybe a private investigator, who in trying to provide what JA said was there, somehow screwed up the contents of the HD so badly that it can't be read again. Who knows what was furnished to the State, but JW's feigned surprise that the State couldn't read whatever they sent to them reads a little false after seeing "FarStone" on that pic. I notice the BBM on one of their product descriptions:
If this is indeed what their "expert" used, who knows what they had to 'analyze' and how it compared to the 2008 image copy?

All just my 2cents ...
Click to expand...

Wow. This was fantastic Lin, all of this. And I think it really hammers down that Willmott doesn't really understand what's going on or what the issues are. She's lost.
 
It does sound like they just used some software any kid could buy online. And if it does those things, like defrag, declutter, etc. Doesn't that suggest the damage Juan is talking about is not actually physical and Willmott just brought up some weirdness about pins for no reason?

I Willmott is just in CYA mode with this and is desperately trying to continue turning it all around on Juan.
 
Okay, I understand some of this via on hands visuals of laptop hardrive pins. Did the Defense expert damage the hard drive by trying to put a dell into a compaq? or vice versa? Damage of the pins. I know that can happen. That would be a rookie if so.

Eta, I sure hope this isn't going to be the meeting of the rookies who have no qualifications to even be writing a motion! But, it does look like it is unfortunetly.
 
Gawd I feel like I've missed a lifetime just being gone all afternoon and evening.

But it was worth it spending an enchanting evening with someone who's name starts with AZ and ends with Lawyer and her wildly colorful husband.

I don't even know where to begin but it does look like Juan started off with a B A N G.
 
RickshawFan said:
There have been oblique references to Fonseca's degree not being from an accredited university. Could someone enlighten me? Where was it from? Does she have a Ph.D.? (Her line of reasoning suggests not, since there are key critical thinking skills missing. Plus, she doesn't seem to know how to evaluate sources, a key component of junior-senior undergraduate and any kind of graduate work. Not to mention a post doc!!!!) Was her undergraduate degree from an accredited institution? Does she only defend women? Where was her post-doc?

On a related topic, is it just me, or does Fonseca not seem to know a whole lot about sex? Especially the role of fantasy, pop rocks, KY etc.? That there is a large range in sexual behaviors between average consenting adults? That inventive sex is often a symptom of a healthy relationship and not necessarily a sick one? That you can go to an adult "toy" store and get creative tips and it's not *advertiser censored* or sicko, but simply a way to "liven things up"?

I thought Fonseca was supposed to be an expert in kinkiness? She seems like a prude.... I mean, really, implying KY is a symptom of sexual pathology by making an issue over who brought it to the JA/TA relationship? She hasn't seen a tube of KY lying on the counter in her doctor's office? If she has, would she consider her doctor reprehensible for knowing how to use it?
Click to expand...

Here's her Linkedin:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/l-c-miccio-fonseca/5/960/409

Education: 1979-1982
Professional School for Psychological Studies

http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html
Schools Not Accredited by Recognized Accrediting Agency
Professional School for Psychological Studies

+++ lots more out there about that "school"....
 
katiecoolady said:
Gawd I feel like I've missed a lifetime just being gone all afternoon and evening.

But it was worth it spending an enchanting evening with someone who's name starts with AZ and ends with Lawyer and her wildly colorful husband.

I don't even know where to begin but it does look like Juan started off with a B A N G.
Click to expand...

My op, lucky ducks being together!

eta, I think Juan started and ended with a B A N G.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 3,956 (members: 163, guests: 3,793)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
3,793
Total visitors
3,956
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,522
Messages
17,970,319
Members
228,793
Latest member
aztraea
Back
Top