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

[ShadyLady]

IIRC from BK notes, BN did not touch the original HD .

But I think he had it in his possession, so that he did not "touch it" could be a technicality.

And when returned to prosecution it was broken. So they broke the pins on the original HD. Therefore no way to check the original HD, how convenient.

 

[daisydomino]

Ok, now I get why he didn't want to hand over his HD, or the mirrors he was working on... I think. The 500gb HD he had copied the mirror onto probably hadn't been sanitized... so technically he was reading stuff that was showing up from whatever had been on that 500gb HD before too, right? At least I'm betting that could be one of JM's arguments.

Wild speculation alert:
Thinking more about this, maybe Tony Klump from http://www.azcomputerlab.com/ sanitizes with something called Incinerator?

 

[T-4-2]

"Convicted killer Jodi Arias believes she will have her murder conviction overturned, The National ENQUIRER has learned."​ (Jon Leiberman, NE, 12/4/14)
Her mind-set is there’s no way she is getting death, but it’s more than that,” a close source that spoke with Arias divulged. “She is focused on her appeal because she thinks she’ll win it. She truly thinks she will walk free one day.“This is the most upbeat (Arias) has been in months. She’s ready for this to be over so she can hammer away on the appeal,” the insider added. “She’s talking about writing a book when she’s a free woman!” more at link: ww.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/jodi-arias-theyll-overturn-my-murder-conviction

Holy delusional, Batman! Or maybe wholly delusional? Let's see...

• I wasn't there.
• It was self-defense.
• I'll represent myself.
• Oops maybe not.
• I want to die.
• Oops maybe not.
• LWOP sounds awesome. I can be a beacon of light for my sisters behind bars.
• stupid jury
• Lose Nurmi or I'll represent myself and make everything exponentially worse for everybody, especially the people in Travis' life whom he actually loved.
• Playing lawyer is fun! Juan Martinez has to talk to me!
• Oops. Playing lawyer is hard. Nurmi can stay.
• (bunch of stuff, haven't been keeping up)
• God this is tedious. Can I just appeal now?
• I'll get this overturned, no worries
• This jury won't give me the death penalty. They'll all be totally broken people by the time I am good and ready to wrap this up.
• Death row is the best! Lots of "me time." All sorts of awesome plans for when these haters let me go.
• This guy's a plastic surgeon, right? I'm here for more "work"
• Whoa, dude, that injection was awesome. Another one? Sure!
• Hold on a sec. What's with that big mirror thing-y?
• OK, I see what this is.
• I'm getting antidote, right?
• Like now?
• Seriously guys. Now would be good.
• Why doesn't anybody like me...

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Paul Stern is someone who appeared on HLN saying he loaned Arias money. And that she paid him back.

His name did not come up in the trial, and to the best of my knowledge, Arias has never mentioned him. I've treated his interview with a grain of salt.

He was the same guy that was arrested in 2012 IIRC for DUI and they found cocaine in his possession.

 

[MeeBee]

I told my husband about the computer yesterday, and, since it fascinates him, he requested a link to the thread. To my surprise, he actually read it. He said he didn't see the big deal with the copies and the encryption. I think it could be, like AZL and BK were saying, BN was trying to explain that Juan didn't understand. Either that, or Juan does understand it and he wants it anyway. In any case, I thought it was the copy of the hard drive Juan was needing, which he would need if the hard drive was damaged and changed while in possession of the defense or at least, post July 19th, 2009. But BN is saying he just used a copy of the copy the state made. However, while it's not a big thing, I'm curious why, even after explaining it to Juan, he still refuses to turn over the copy. It's clear Juan wants it anyway.

But I also couldn't tell if Juan was saying Incinerator was used on BN's image or on the actual hard drive or if the deletions that happened in August were on his image or on the actual hard drive. In any case, it is odd BN seems to have no idea what Incinerator is even though it was used on something he gave to the state. And it's an odd thing to use anyway. BN is saying he only deleted viruses (I think) but Incinerator is an odd thing to use. It sounds like something you use when you want to cover your deletion tracks.

I'm just really confused but my husband doesn't seem that confused so I'll go with that. I'll just rest easy knowing the defense cannot win on the destruction of evidence stuff. GP's testimony may not have been super helpful but like someone else said, the fact that he doesn't remember much shows nothing weird happened or he would have remembered it. He also did say we were ALL looking at the computer.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm reading like crazy to understand the typical process. I have been going by Lonnie Dworkin's detailed testimony from day 12, but it sounds to me (and it's really hard to tell since we must rely on Twitter and liveblogged translations of testimony) that BN is doing something different than what Det. Melendez and Dworkin did. This may be why he is finding stuff that the other two did not.

From what I've read, the process is not standard and even in law enforcement, each investigator seems to have his own work method. However, there are some standards that are required, especially in capital criminal cases.

National Institute of Standards and Technology requires that the investigator:
1. Write block the original disk
2. Make a full-volume, bit stream, bit-for-bit, sector by sector forensic image of the original disk, copying onto a new or sanitized re-used blank hard drive
3. Verify that it is an exact copy by comparing checksum MD5 or SHA-1 hash values
4. Return the original disk to evidence
5. Document everything he does

After that, it looks like there are a zillion forks. I can't find anywhere that the forensic copy must be read-only, but I'm sure that's what Lonnie Dworkin testified that EnCase does. It makes sense to me.

From what I've read of BN's testimony, he is working on a live, writable clone of TA's drive and he's removing software (viruses, for instance) as he examines it. This is why his copies are not the same capacity in GB as TA's original drive any more. He has given the prosecution at least one copy of his work materials—I have completely lost track of who has what now.

Evidently BN did not give the prosecution the forensic image (the one that should be exactly the same as TA's hard drive in evidence) that he started with? I did read somewhere that he wanted to know if Juan wanted the image, not the clone, and then BN tried to tell him that he already had what he was asking for.

Sorry if I took this on a bit of a tech tangent. It's technical stuff—like legalese—we have to use the lexicon that comes with it or we'll get even more confused. If I'm misusing terms, let me know. I'm trying to be careful, but I don't know...

This makes sense and this is what I have been thinking. Melendez and Dworkin might have followed more standard forensic protocol while BN did something else which is why he is finding things they missed. It doesn't mean incompetence or dishonesty, and I don't know if BN understands this or he's just obfuscating.

 

[Steely Dan]

Holy delusional, Batman! Or maybe wholly delusional? Let's see...

• I wasn't there.
• It was self-defense.
• I'll represent myself.
• Oops maybe not.
• I want to die.
• Oops maybe not.
• LWOP sounds awesome. I can be a beacon of light for my sisters behind bars.
• stupid jury
• Lose Nurmi or I'll represent myself and make everything exponentially worse for everybody, especially the people in Travis' life whom he actually loved.
• Playing lawyer is fun! Juan Martinez has to talk to me!
• Oops. Playing lawyer is hard. Nurmi can stay.
• (bunch of stuff, haven't been keeping up)
• God this is tedious. Can I just appeal now?
• I'll get this overturned, no worries
• This jury won't give me the death penalty. They'll all be totally broken people by the time I am good and ready to wrap this up.
• Death row is the best! Lots of "me time." All sorts of awesome plans for when these haters let me go.
• This guy's a plastic surgeon, right? I'm here for more "work"
• Whoa, dude, that injection was awesome. Another one? Sure!
• Hold on a sec. What's with that big mirror thing-y?
• OK, I see what this is.
• I'm getting antidote, right?
• Like now?
• Seriously guys. Now would be good.
• Why doesn't anybody like me...

Great rundown. I suspect the Ninjas stole the part about them though.

I told my husband about the computer yesterday, and, since it fascinates him, he requested a link to the thread. To my surprise, he actually read it. He said he didn't see the big deal with the copies and the encryption. I think it could be, like AZL and BK were saying, BN was trying to explain that Juan didn't understand. Either that, or Juan does understand it and he wants it anyway. In any case, I thought it was the copy of the hard drive Juan was needing, which he would need if the hard drive was damaged and changed while in possession of the defense or at least, post July 19th, 2009. But BN is saying he just used a copy of the copy the state made. However, while it's not a big thing, I'm curious why, even after explaining it to Juan, he still refuses to turn over the copy. It's clear Juan wants it anyway.

But I also couldn't tell if Juan was saying Incinerator was used on BN's image or on the actual hard drive or if the deletions that happened in August were on his image or on the actual hard drive. In any case, it is odd BN seems to have no idea what Incinerator is even though it was used on something he gave to the state. And it's an odd thing to use anyway. BN is saying he only deleted viruses (I think) but Incinerator is an odd thing to use. It sounds like something you use when you want to cover your deletion tracks.

I'm just really confused but my husband doesn't seem that confused so I'll go with that. I'll just rest easy knowing the defense cannot win on the destruction of evidence stuff. GP's testimony may not have been super helpful but like someone else said, the fact that he doesn't remember much shows nothing weird happened or he would have remembered it. He also did say we were ALL looking at the computer.

Does he think it's hinky that BN is upset about having to turn a copy over and that when he did at first turn a copy over it was Tony's computer? Didn't BN only turn over space that was used and not the whole disc? Also, ask him if anything sounds hinky on the prosecution end or the defense end that we may have missed. TIA If it's not too much trouble.

 

[MeeBee]

I am amazed that TA goes on this 'rant' about her imaginary friend, email and the things she has done to him and the Dr. believes JA has no idea what this is about. She calls herself a Dr. Really? Any reasonable person with common sense would know there was a reason to this rant and the reason behind it was definitely not good. Expert witness my azz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Someone posted a text from Travis to Jodi calling her out for using her imaginary ex again. I've heard about a Steve she made up and I've heard that eventually Travis realized he wasn't real. But it seems been towards the end Jodi was still blaming things on an "ex." By now, though, Travis knew she was lying about her exes and her stalkers and was just playing weird mind games. Perhaps she also blamed the stolen phone on an ex. I can see her telling him that someone stole her phone, admitting to the sex recording and telling Travis he's threatening to go public with it out of jealousy. And, once again, Travis was already on to her and probably knew it was really her, thus his anger, in general. She'd do things to him, hack his stuff and then blame a jealous ex boyfriend or blame her own weakness.

 

[Ruby]

Something keeps nagging at me about the time stamps on the pics and the time the *advertiser censored* was allegedly looked at on the day TA was killed.

??? Could they both have been looking at a *advertiser censored* site, and then replicating or imitating what they saw, so they then took pics of it????

How can the time stamp on the photo be the same as the *advertiser censored* on computer?

Am I missing some info - did I read it wrong - or is there something to this tidbit of info?

:thinking: :dunno:

Just have to wait and see how things turn out :waiting:

 

[MeeBee]

Great rundown. I suspect the Ninjas stole the part about them though.



Does he think it's hinky that BN is upset about having to turn a copy over and that when he did at first turn a copy over it was Tony's computer? Didn't BN only turn over space that was used and not the whole disc? Also, ask him if anything sounds hinky on the prosecution end or the defense end that we may have missed. TIA If it's not too much trouble.

I can ask him all of this. He didn't get far in reading and didn't see everything. I asked him about the incinerator thing but he said he'd have to get back to that. While what BN is saying might be true, his refusal to turn over the copy is still strange.

One thing though, and this is me, is that BN did say his image had the same amount of gigs as the forensic copies being provided. I don't understand that since BN is saying he deleted viruses and things off of it and the forensics experts wouldn't have done this.

 

[daisydomino]

I told my husband about the computer yesterday, and, since it fascinates him, he requested a link to the thread. To my surprise, he actually read it. He said he didn't see the big deal with the copies and the encryption. I think it could be, like AZL and BK were saying, BN was trying to explain that Juan didn't understand. Either that, or Juan does understand it and he wants it anyway. In any case, I thought it was the copy of the hard drive Juan was needing, which he would need if the hard drive was damaged and changed while in possession of the defense or at least, post July 19th, 2009. But BN is saying he just used a copy of the copy the state made. However, while it's not a big thing, I'm curious why, even after explaining it to Juan, he still refuses to turn over the copy. It's clear Juan wants it anyway.

But I also couldn't tell if Juan was saying Incinerator was used on BN's image or on the actual hard drive or if the deletions that happened in August were on his image or on the actual hard drive. In any case, it is odd BN seems to have no idea what Incinerator is even though it was used on something he gave to the state. And it's an odd thing to use anyway. BN is saying he only deleted viruses (I think) but Incinerator is an odd thing to use. It sounds like something you use when you want to cover your deletion tracks.

I'm just really confused but my husband doesn't seem that confused so I'll go with that. I'll just rest easy knowing the defense cannot win on the destruction of evidence stuff. GP's testimony may not have been super helpful but like someone else said, the fact that he doesn't remember much shows nothing weird happened or he would have remembered it. He also did say we were ALL looking at the computer.

Thanks MeeBee's husband! :seeya: I hope that if my posts are incorrect that your DH will tell you and you'll correct me, MeeBee. I am definitely not a computer guru.

What is Juan asking for? Does he already have it? I don't know who has what. I'm finding it very difficult to follow on Twitter.

 

[Steely Dan]

This makes sense and this is what I have been thinking. Melendez and Dworkin might have followed more standard forensic protocol while BN did something else which is why he is finding things they missed. It doesn't mean incompetence or dishonesty, and I don't know if BN understands this or he's just obfuscating.

I'm not sure that they missed anything. I think some things may have "accidentally" been added to the hard disc while in BN's care. This would explain finding hits after TA died. JMO

 

[Colie]

Probably because when the laptop was turned on, the anti-malware programs also turned on, possibly updated(though often updates don't take effect until the pc is restarted again after the downloads are done), and any *advertiser censored* hits were probably encoded in quarantine and deleted, so you'd have to look for them in the unallocated spaces. Didn't the police and Lonnie work off that first mirror image, not the same as the one that BN used?

I believe BN went twice to the Mesa PD to make copies. He went with someone and wouldn't give that name to Juan?

 

[gcharlie]

The other thing with finding *advertiser censored* on a computer is to determine whether it got there by deliberate user intentions or a virus.

BN is saying that this was intentional user actions, basically due to his findings in the typedurls key of the registry. He has not offered further explanation, which he needs to do. Many of the browser redirect viruses focus on typed searches.

Here's an interesting article from 2009 about child *advertiser censored*, computers, forensics and the law:

http://www.cnet.com/news/a-child-*advertiser censored*-planting-virus-threat-or-bad-defense/

 

[daisydomino]

I'm not sure that they missed anything. I think some things may have "accidentally" been added to the hard disc while in BN's care. This would explain finding hits after TA died. JMO

I think they all agree that the hits that occurred in 2008 on the dates shortly after TA died were from

1. when the computer woke from sleep when detectives collected it at the crime scene. It was still connected to its home wifi and it downloaded some software update and
2. when the computer was booted up from its hard drive at Mesa PD when JA's original defense team wanted to look at it, the computer then finished installing the software it had downloaded at the crime scene.

The stuff that happened on the drive in 2009—we haven't really even heard anything about that yet in the hearings, AFAIK.

ETA: Corrected by gcharlie in post #459. The things that happened in (2.) occurred in 2009

 

[Steely Dan]

Someone posted a text from Travis to Jodi calling her out for using her imaginary ex again. I've heard about a Steve she made up and I've heard that eventually Travis realized he wasn't real. But it seems been towards the end Jodi was still blaming things on an "ex." By now, though, Travis knew she was lying about her exes and her stalkers and was just playing weird mind games. Perhaps she also blamed the stolen phone on an ex. I can see her telling him that someone stole her phone, admitting to the sex recording and telling Travis he's threatening to go public with it out of jealousy. And, once again, Travis was already on to her and probably knew it was really her, thus his anger, in general. She'd do things to him, hack his stuff and then blame a jealous ex boyfriend or blame her own weakness.

That's a good theory.

Something keeps nagging at me about the time stamps on the pics and the time the *advertiser censored* was allegedly looked at on the day TA was killed.

??? Could they both have been looking at a *advertiser censored* site, and then replicating or imitating what they saw, so they then took pics of it????

How can the time stamp on the photo be the same as the *advertiser censored* on computer?

Am I missing some info - did I read it wrong - or is there something to this tidbit of info?

:thinking: :dunno:

Just have to wait and see how things turn out :waiting:

I think Juan has something up his sleeve. He asked about the timestamp on the computer during BN's questioning. I think this will come in later. JMO

 

[Steely Dan]

I think they all agree that the hits that occurred in 2008 on the dates shortly after TA died were from

1. when the computer woke from sleep when detectives collected it at the crime scene. It was still connected to its home wifi and it downloaded some software update and
2. when the computer was booted up from its hard drive at Mesa PD when JA's original defense team wanted to look at it, the computer then finished installing the software it had downloaded at the crime scene.

The stuff that happened on the drive in 2009—we haven't really even heard anything about that yet in the hearings, AFAIK.

Thanks, I find it interesting that only BN could find a dog person holding a camera in TA's eye when nobody else could and I find his sudden ability to find *advertiser censored* interesting too. JMO

 

[Hope4More]

I can ask him all of this. He didn't get far in reading and didn't see everything. I asked him about the incinerator thing but he said he'd have to get back to that. While what BN is saying might be true, his refusal to turn over the copy is still strange.

One thing though, and this is me, is that BN did say his image had the same amount of gigs as the forensic copies being provided. I don't understand that since BN is saying he deleted viruses and things off of it and the forensics experts wouldn't have done this.

An offer to anyone who's interested. Post whatever question you have about what BN testified to/JM said in the computer hearing and I'll check out BK notes for what she wrote.

FWIW, her notes for this hearing are far superior to any of the tweeters covering it. She wasn't expressing opinions along the way, just capturing WAY more info than anyone else.

 

[daisydomino]

I told my husband about the computer yesterday, and, since it fascinates him, he requested a link to the thread. To my surprise, he actually read it. He said he didn't see the big deal with the copies and the encryption. I think it could be, like AZL and BK were saying, BN was trying to explain that Juan didn't understand. Either that, or Juan does understand it and he wants it anyway. In any case, I thought it was the copy of the hard drive Juan was needing, which he would need if the hard drive was damaged and changed while in possession of the defense or at least, post July 19th, 2009. But BN is saying he just used a copy of the copy the state made. However, while it's not a big thing, I'm curious why, even after explaining it to Juan, he still refuses to turn over the copy. It's clear Juan wants it anyway.

But I also couldn't tell if Juan was saying Incinerator was used on BN's image or on the actual hard drive or if the deletions that happened in August were on his image or on the actual hard drive. In any case, it is odd BN seems to have no idea what Incinerator is even though it was used on something he gave to the state. And it's an odd thing to use anyway. BN is saying he only deleted viruses (I think) but Incinerator is an odd thing to use. It sounds like something you use when you want to cover your deletion tracks.

I'm just really confused but my husband doesn't seem that confused so I'll go with that. I'll just rest easy knowing the defense cannot win on the destruction of evidence stuff. GP's testimony may not have been super helpful but like someone else said, the fact that he doesn't remember much shows nothing weird happened or he would have remembered it. He also did say we were ALL looking at the computer.

I thought so too. From everything I read on BN's testimony at the hearing last Thursday, I thought that Tony and the super-secret third examiner were people who worked at BN's lab. Today, I read here that Tony may be a subcontractor with his own company and his company is not a certified computer forensic lab.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

An offer to anyone who's interested. Post whatever question you have about what BN testified to/JM said in the computer hearing and I'll check out BK notes for what she wrote.

FWIW, her notes for this hearing are far superior to any of the tweeters covering it. She wasn't expressing opinions along the way, just capturing WAY more info than anyone else.

Since you offered...LOL

Is there any specific mention of CHILD *advertiser censored* being found? I keep reading about "*advertiser censored*" but nothing about children specifically. Hopefully that question isn't too dumb - I just don't recall reading about it.