Jodi Arias Trial Verdict IS IN: GUILTY Of MURDER In The Slaying Of Travis Alexander
Image courtesy Arias
Phoenix, AZ- In the 4 month long trial of Jodi Ann Arias for the murder of her brief boyfriend Travis Victor Alexander, the jury deliberating since last Friday has arrived at a verdict in her case. Arias was found guilty of the pre-meditated murder of Travis Alexander on June 4th, 2008.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
1,859 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
if the compaq remained in State custody, how could
D expert damage it? Allegation without descriptive facts is
treating her honor as too stupid to understand tech talk.
That and it is technically an ethics breach. Notice he neglected to mention the fact that the defense was in his presence or that of Flores the entire time. His response brief borders on deceptive, imo.
B
blink writes, re Computer allegations:
His response brief borders on deceptive, imo.
——
after reading the motions put forth by Martinez, it is my understanding that he is saying that the porn sites were malware, and that the computer had blocks that would not allow the user to access those specific sites in any case
There are also programs ( spybot etc) that will actually remove viruses from a computer within the computer.
All files on a computer are trackable for forensic purposes. So if a human being removed the porn sites, or if a programmed was installed to remove viruses, that is discoverable.
The same way that Fonseca was asked her opinion of an email stating ” please stop sending my daughter emails”, WITHOUT checking context , claiming that the state purposely destroyed files without having absolute proof is equally misleading.
I cannot find any info on line that says that Martinez made a statement to the press claiming that defense deleted files.
I do see, as everyone else can, that Martinez was attributed the statement that ” IF anyone deleted files, it was the defense because they had possession of the computer at the time”
IF is the operative word. And lack of open proceedings factors into what is perceived about all of this.
We are filling in gaps at a rapid pace here, with a lot of conjecture.
As I understand it, there will be a hearing on Nov 21 regarding defense claims about porn on Travis computer.
side note:
I am sure we can access testimony from Jodi Arias, where she describes a virus on Travis computer that she saw.
To me the real issue regarding porn on the computer is to find absolute proof that Travis was accessing these sites and viewing them.
Still doesn’t mitigate murdering him in the way she did. These references are only being made to show that Travis was a bad person. Like saying that a girl wearing provocative clothes is asking to be raped, if the rapist had life experience that made him nuts and irresponsible when he saw that particular girl in provocative clothing.
Question:
If Travis were NOT a Mormon, would his secret sex life and computer use ( in any case) be basis for character assassination? If this is predicated on his being Mormon, isn’t that opinion domed with some religious prejudice, condemning his actions BECAUSE he was mormon?
just my opinion.
I share your opinion whodunnit about outcomes.
Whether or not TA viewed child porn is to me irrelevant as to her sentence,
which could reasonably go either way. But, hus viewing, if true, is relevant in 2 ways.
If true, knowledge of same would have corroborated her Trial 1 testimony on one
fact, and JM hid excelpatoey info from D. Trial re-do.
Secondly, as to sentencing phase, JM played evidence games & only gave D expert
access the day before the evidential hearing, which was the day before
trial. Unethical. What was found, allegedly, moreover, is very very relevant to D’s expert witness’
mitigation testimony, and she has not been abke to base any of
her testimony on porn & child porn because the evidentiary hearing has not been held. Imo
Juan deliberately set out to destroy the heart of her testimony & is trying to oreclude
by any accusation possible any reliance or use of computer content, making it unavailable, then alleging it is
too unreliable, and now HE cannot test it.
I find Miccio-Fonesca very good, very competent, & very relevant to
mitigation. It is unfortunate all the crap that is disrupting her testimony.
(Sexy French maid’s outfit while cleaning up house indeed.
imo if one requires that of one’s sexual release tool, one owns it.)
btw, thx for links, whodunnit.
I think JA is smarter than she wants Nurmi to believe, when it comes to hijacking puters. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised she’s sheepishly advising Nurmi. She may know more about the trojans and deletions on Travis’ puter, and may help navigate her counsel on who’s responsible for deletions. If Martinez is confusing the cell phone with the puter, he should have known better before filing a motion (purposefully confused ?). Otherwise, JA had access to Travis puter up until the day she was brought in for questioning. Those trojans didn’t put themselves on his drive…and a firewall would navigate him away from malicious sites, if he was surfing porn.
Is it unreasonable for the judge to have an independent, neutral expert to analyze the computer?
…and thank you for your responses friendLY. You’ve come so far along in your forensics wisdom. Awesome possum!
@ Rose… I’m so diggin your firecracker ‘tude. Thanks for all the research and links….and opines. You and Mom3.0 would make kick @$$ prosecutors xo
Great postings, Blinkers. Love y’all to pieces.
to clarify:
I wrote
“To me the real issue regarding porn on the computer is to find absolute proof that Travis was accessing these sites and viewing them.”
I say this because IF there is no proof that Travis was viewing these sites, would ANYONE be guilty of destroying “evidence” Evidence of what?
At the time they were looking at that computer ( 2009), Arias was still saying the ninjas did it.
She kept with the ninjas for two years after her July 9 2008 arrest.
Former defense attorney Maria Schaffer, comments about ‘tampering with computer’. We can rule out the ‘cell phone’…for now.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/jodi-arias/Defense-attorney-accused-of-tampering-with-evidence-in-Arias-case-282780611.html
…AND….Nurmi in trouble for providing state with wrong hard drive.
http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/11/jodi-arias-state-motion-for-sanctions.html
@whodunnit.
Admittedly, I know little of this case,
just watching trial 1 online, and I know
less of the principals. Tonite I kimmed info,
many pics too, of their lives.
Imo there are many Travis-type males out there, whatever
aspects of his lifestyle are true, & JA made her choices.
None of JA’s experts, including Fonesca’s exam of his failings or
the relationship, can profer mitigation of the DP for
his heinous killing unless there is a further expert’s testimony
that given the nature of the relationship Fonesca outlines,
a person with a significant lifelong mental illness might
respond with slaughter, self-justifying psychotically as
self-defense. Expert 2 would have to substantiate a severe mental illness
to inclde psychotic thinking objectively imo.
rose writes:
Imo there are many Travis-type males out there, whatever
aspects of his lifestyle are true, & JA made her choices.
——-
I think the point that La Violette was most ardently trying to make was that verbal abuse should be regarded as just as potent as physical abuse.
In 1994 that federal laws were put in place to define domestic violence specifically: :http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/documents/federallaws.pdf
The also defined domestic partner as a spuse, ex spouse or a person who had co habituated.
Fiollwing this line of defense means proving the relationship between Arias and Alexander were in fact domestic partners.
So I find Fonseca’s testimony lacking. At the crux of her testimony, as I understand it- Fonseca is saying that Travis was ONLY sexually intimate with Arias, and says that Alexander did not engage Arias in a committed relationship. She evidently is saying that Arias was emotionally victimized BECAUSE Alexander wanted sex with her and would not participate in a relationship with Arias in a conventionally recognized type of relationship. This is predicated on the moral system that if you should only have sex in a committed relationship, and Fonseca is apparently trying to use Travis religious background to show that he was aware of this morality, ergo, he was bad- implication being he was asking for it.
I do think that having an expert in the area of sexual deviance is worthy. But as I glean from twitter feeds, Arias is not being viewed in the same context as Alexander- she is being viewed as a victim, where as Alexander is being viewed as the perpetrator.
In a situation where it was acknowledged by both that there was no commitment, with the two involved living a thousand miles apart- with an expert testifying that there was no REAL intimacy, how is this testimony doing anything other than denigrating the character of the dead person.
I am very interested in what the heck is going on with this computer business. Hope that hearing info will be valuable to the public.
legal definition of domestic violence:
http://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence
As per Fonseca: sexual deviancy was the hallmark of the alexander arias relationship.
Arias has stated that the sex was consensual.
Is it possible to have a consenting sexual relationship where only one of the participants is sexually deviant?
Was arias own sexual deviancy a motivating force in the homicide she committed?
I have to say I am not especially warming to Fonseca’s classification of sexual deviancy in this case. It is clinical- not subjective ( if that makes sense) really- in the context she was hired for sure.
Unhealthy, dysfunctional, abusive so far I would say is supported, but in terms of consenting adults of normal faculty and social investments- I am not seeing that classification as founded.
That’s not to say that on a personal level I don’t find the whole sordid mess- exactly that-but professionally I would need what is lacking here. I presume that query is why it is where it is.
B
twitter feed is interesting.
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/jodiarias
Hiw does one cross when one can’t question the expert’s credentials or experience?
One attacks the expert’s conclusions
–by offering an alternate psychological or relationship
expert’s conclusions (if the State anticipated D expert testimony &
had one on the stand as to sentencing–I don’t recall one);
–by deconstructing facts on which conclusions are based;
and so on.
Imo Juan is lazy and intemperate.
He merely tries to humiliate the expert as a person,
obfuscate, & as his admiters say, “lay traps” which are
designed to devalue her which are not tethered to testing her expert testimony.
No doubt Nurmi tried to prepare her, but imo she was
not believing Juan = her worst client on his worst day imo.
thank goodness. tomorrow, a computer evidentiary hrg that
should have occurred in trial phase 1. Prediction:
Judge will rule the Defense mirror image quacks like a
duck & is admissible. And if TA’s computer got damaged to the point
of non-re-recovery while in State custody, too bad. Just use your own
mirror image, Juan. Again, as to hard drive analysis, it will
be expert v expert testifying.
@Ragdoll. I don’t think Nurmi gives a D..mn how “smart” Arias is with respect
to anything whatsoever, but more relevantly, her competence
intellectually does not affect his trial strategy. And her computer prowess and the
whole Travis porn thing is not useful to mitigation, if at all,
without, as whodunnit would say, corroboration on any porn viewing.
And even if he did what does that mean?
Nurmi is merely documenting a zealous defense.
Personally, I think he is a criminal Court misfit, or say
torts where jurors must be swayed, & perhaps he should consider
contract law, tho he’s also a demeanor fit for trusts & estates.
speaking of porn….
didn’t the sex tape presented in court reference a mutual desire between alexander and arias to make a porn movie?
Wasn’t Flores asked if he considered the photographs of Arias pornographic and he answered yes?
Was Fonseca asked the same?
the point I am trying to make is the contradiction -
Arias stated her desire to participate in homemade porno movies ( referred to in sex tape) . And we have seen the photos ( whenever they were taken lol) of Arias posing in explicitly revealing poses that could certainly be considered pornographic according to this legal definition: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pornography
so is the expert saying that Jodi arias is not in any way responsible for the pornography she willingly participated in?
Don’t the pictures that Jodi is posing in put her in the position ( no pun) of supplying pornographic materials to Travis?
Is the issue just the porn that did not involve Arias ?
If Arias didnt condemn Travis for the pornograpghy that SHE was a part of, why does she condemn him for other porn that he may or may not have viewed?
Does Arias ire over possible porn sites on his computer support the thread of her jealousy and possessiveness . Is defense saying that Jodi posing for porn shots ( again see legal definition above) is okay, but Travis viewing any other images indicate that Travis is a deviant?
Arias is trying to build the case that Travis was angry at her because she walked in on him viewing boys in underwear and masturbating. Defense is saying that the prosecution called her a liar and is trying to show that piece was true because they found porn on his computer.Did they find the photos of the boys in underwear? Will the public be made aware of this one way or another?
oops I am getting sucked into this trial again, darn it!!
Who- right now, for me, this is all posture. I need a report I can analyze that is filed with the court to make heads or tails of any of this- the rest is white noise. Forensically Martinez’s motion made zero sense and does not meet the standard- HOWEVER, technically, without an accompanying analysis or completed expert opinion to include bench notes, neither does Nurmi’s. It continues to bother me how completely ignorant this case has been regarding evidentiary inclusions.
B
@whodunnit. wrt “Is it possible to have a consenting sexual
relationship where only one of the participants is sexually deviant?”
to be facetious, Douglas Spink in WA. Imo Fonesca is describing an interlocking system
(which is not him, or her, but a 3rd thing) in which sexual deviancy played a role, but more
importantly significant emotional abuse (TA) played a role, as did outsized anger. It
is very hard for a young woman who lacks ego boundaries (and in Arias’ case is borderline) to
separate from such a relationship. Lisa, Fonesca said, had those ego
boundaries but still found it hard.
rose writes:
is very hard for a young woman who lacks ego boundaries (and in Arias’ case is borderline) to
separate from such a relationship.
—–
to play devil’s advocate to your position, with all respect!!:
Arias was 9 years over the legal age of consent and according to Fonseca, had already co habited in recognized committed long term relationship with three other men before meeting Travis. Travis had dated women, and had intimate sexual relationship with only one that we know of. Travis experience in this area made him much younger, experientially.
Arias lived 1000 miles away from Travis. They both acknowledged that they weren’t even dating ( both acknowledged it was only sexual, expert states it was only sexual) for a year before the murder. This leaves out the set up that is necessary for behavior to qualify as domestic abuse in the way that mitigating factor has been used when offering that as self defense in homicide. But bottom line is these were two adults, not too young to be alleviated of responsibility due to age.
Citing boundary issues as basis of problem calls for a delineation of responsibility.Arias admits she was responsible for stabbing 29 times,shooting Travis and slicing his throat to his spine. We have evidence of Travis saying cruel things to, rejecting Arias , saying nice things, but always maintaining it can’t be.We have no evidence that Arias was physically injured in proportion to a claim of defending her life in self defense, only expert opinions that due to her skewed mind, she reacted to Travis’s behavior by committing homicide instead of escaping . But Arias didnt claim insanity, or even temporary insanity, she claimed self defense and obscured the facts with her claim of amnesia.
To me, true remorse would come with a documented effort to retrieve memory for the sake of true justice and honoring the vow to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The prosecution is hinging a LOT on their presentation of the murderer as a liar..
questions regarding computer
did arias state that she had password to travis computer,
could arias have accessed the computer remotely.
would computer analysis yield history of remote computer access
hey, this is a mess……. habeas corpus coming up?
@whodunnit. You should do the closing for Juan!
I agree with all you wrote. I was referring to ego boundaries, because Fonesca did.
See http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=ego+boundary
as a media-starved news seeker, just the facts, Court twitter hashtag is useless is the few Jodi-ites interpret all with their world view, and the TA-defenders interpret all with their world view, & intelligent media reps duspatched to tweet from Court are missing in action, if ever there.
Can anyone improve on this? (tho it omits the escort search.)
http://www.kpho.com/story/27448806/day-13-of-jodi-arias-trial-defense-dismissal-motion-on-tap
—my fav word of the day is “slimy.”
Any prosecutor who makes his case by impugning
competent Counsel (maybe female makes it easier for him),
and questioning the ethics, not the work product, of the
computer forensics expert, should be driving a bus.
You know Blink, ebola is highly contagious.
I have gone here & there, seeking today’s testimony.
Can’t find any good script or analysis.
As far as I can tell, the defend- TA parties
(which defense is unnecessary to the conviction)
proponents attack Bryan the Forensics Man’s credentials on
his record, ethics, or competence, BUT NOT his work
product in this case.
Does it matter if BN is accurate?
If I as a juror, in trial 1, had heard testimony as to
TA vile porn search terms, plus escort search terms,
plus all the Fonesca testimony (and fogidda bout Alyce the
…..), I’d have gone with lwop or even more likely believed the alleged
secrecy motive & anger issues of TA & bit for a lessor murder degree.
Doesn’t mean it’s right; just an average juror would.
So that gives behaviorally bizarre unethical keepers
of the evidence motive to
clean up their case by whatever
means were at hand.
If one believes Shaffer (I do),
and “Greg” could corroborate,
one cannot believe the Prosecution wrt
other submitted forensic evidence.
We’ve just arrived at ineffective assistance of Counsel,
and prosecutorial misconduct, in the convicting trial.
It would appear both Nurmi and Juan are behaving way below their ethical standards (understatement, if you will). As for Nurmi, if we’re questioning his counseling abilities in this case, you don’t think he’s got some dolt like tendencies not to consider JA’s opinions? Whatever sticks, right? Reasonable boundaries have long since been pushed as opined in the above posts. So which is it…Nurmi can or he can’t?
Legal conduct on both sides could become an appellate issue in the not to distance future. Cannot lie… leaves a skid mark in my knickers. The issues of porn and computer tampering being heard in the penalty phase is a huge gamble, too, for both sides. Just what this case needed -smdh- Everbody in this case ( not applicable to the Alexander family and jury ) now look more busy trying to fit in.
Mmmmk?
Peace out.
Should read…..JUST look busy trying to fit in.
@ whodunit
Thank you for supporting your posts with case facts. Hope Juan read your ‘boundary’ post. If he kept it relevant, tight and concise just as you have, it would have clearly defined the true nature of their relationship for the jury.
http://www.skymeister.com/bryan%20neumeister.htm
“slimy,” works for me.
Juan Can’t contest BN’s competence.
BN Shook D’s hand?
he’d spent hours and hours at this task.
Perhaps been consumed by it processionally.
(and doubtless read enough email with &
between Travis & various women to include JA
that was not a part of his testimony but affected him)
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/11/21/jodi-arias-expert-miss-porn-computer/19369563/
Interesting. 19 different anti virus programs or soft ware on Travis’ computer. 19 is beyond reasonable. I’m surprised the expert didn’t mention having that many programs, used to perform the same function, can conflict with each other and even prevent these programs to run efficiently and effectively. It can also confuse the firewall, rendering it ineffective off and on. I’m self taught on my knowledge and have learned a lot about over stacking your drive with too many programs, including registry cleaners, etc. I guess I could sum it up with one word…….clash.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/225240/too_many_AV.html
All these programs could have removed crap without tampering. It could also be why his computer was turned on and off improperly. No doubt his computer was riddled with malware. It can effect the start up, freeze the screen, slow down the performance speed. At this point, I’m surprised TA didn’t reformat his hard drive, period. No way it was functioning reasonably There are too many other possibilities that haven’t been ruled out, IMHO.
@Ragdoll. Downloading “free” “cleaner” software is seductive.
Then there is sharing memory sticks & movies. I took my dau’s laptop in to
a hot shot spot adjacent to her U as a malfunction. My son alerted me she had some
downloaded movies thru some means he felt was wrong to do. Turned out she’d taken a
dorm peer’s memory stick with (illegally) downloaded movies & consequently had
copious viruses. The “cleanup” shop saud these viruses were commonly seen with that
movie activity or with certain freeware. And they simply installed a free microsoft defense, yet
I bote her a MAC (refurbished).
Personally I think BN is very very good, and I’d bow to his analysis any day.
I believe someone who had access to the laptop while in police custody
did not use write block (because they did not have write block or were not
technically ept) turned the computer on & off twice for their own agenda–whatever that
was. Juan & Flores & “the evidence room” imo have zero credibility with me. Goodness
knows about the zombie judge tho.
The question is, with a slam dunk conviction, & all the forensic evidence in the world,
before Trial 1 started, why would Juan & Mesa PD continuously play fast & loose with
evidence? This was a Murder 1 conviction before Trial 1 commenced.
What do Juan & Mesa PD do with hard murder conviction cases? If I were the Innocence Project, I’d scrub
each & every one of his past murder convictions for shady dealings & forensic evidence walk aways.
So to me his whole trial (1) strategy was focused on securing the DP & suppressing mitigators. In light of that,
imo this man would deep six any mitigator of any kind including questionable forensic aspects of vic’s lifestyle.
question:
will the computer analysis yield WHEN the files in question were FIRST downloaded?
In what I could glean from the defense motion, the sites in question that defense claims were deleted are sites that were found to have download dates beginning June 1, 2008- a few days after the blow out texting fight between arias, and three days before alexander murder.
Has Neumeister been asked to, or has he attempted to retrieve info from Arias’s broken computer?
Does computer analysis yield record of remote access?
—
Jodi Arias took the stand and admitted she lied in previous interviews about killing Travis-
She took the stand in the trial stating that yes she did kill Travis but it was in self defense-
She sat on the stand for many days
she said yes she had lied but she was testifying underoath (now) to the truth
1 she killed him
2 she doesnt recall killing him or the immediate aftermath to include attempts at cleaning up she says she ran turned in the closet- got the gun the gun went off and a scuffle ensued- she says there was a knife but she doesnt know what happened in the stabbing…
2 she brought 2 gas cans bcuz she was careful driving thru the desert in case of emergency not as part of premeditation
3 she rented a white not red car bcuz she was taught it was better to not attract cops (not for murder plot but for speeding tickets)
4she said he is the one that initiated sex the first time (oral) in the car and that he was the one to come to her a room at the friends house and initiate relations there
5 she said he lied to her about the laws of chastity and that anything that wasnt vaginal penetration was ok
6 she said Travis was very into degrading sex
and that he was into porno and little boys and the undies were part
of that fantasy not a cameron diaz fantasy
7she said he abused her on her baptism day
8she said she was attacked and kicked by Travis when she saw photos of little boys an attack that was testified to being similar to the beginning of the june 4th attack which may have acted as a trigger for a BPD episode of extreme dissociation resulting in lack of memory to details etc
9she said he talked with her about his sickness and that she was trying to help him change with pmplets etc
10 she claimed there was a virus on the computer- and TA visits xxx sites
The state used the claim of NO porno no images of children or women on the computer no viruses to show the jury that since their experts testimony showed this JA obviously lied about the laptop virus and pornography then she had to be lying about all the rest-
The jurors questions regarding pornography and Melendez the computer forensics testimony was pp:
With all items ( not just laptop) did u find any indication of pornography naked women or images of children?
His answer
no No photos on any of the items i examined related to mr Alexander.
Yet now we have testimony and motions that there was evidence which was somehow deleted showing at least 160,000 hits
IRt any virus on the laptop Melendez testified there was none
JW: So if it says “VIRUS ALERT” there does that mean there was a
virus going on?
Melendez: It could be that that’s just what is written in there. I don’t know.
JW: Ok.
JW: Did you do any further investigation about it?
Melendez: I did not see any signs of viruses on the computer, no.
JW: Ok
JW: But if you didn’t investigate any further as to what that “Product Id Virus Alert”
Melendez: By looking at the computer and checking for viruses,
which I did, I did not see anything.
—yet now we have testimony and motions regarding viruses on TA computer and at least 19 different programs to catch viruses
–
The state succeeded in the murder trial to get the jury to trust their experts testimony and to distrust all of Arias testimony the experts assertions helped the jury to see it the prosecutions way if she lied about the viruses and the porn then she most likely was lying about all of it-
- If the prosecution was wrong- regarding the porn and the viruses essentially bolstering the notion that Arias may have been telling the truth about this -then what else did the prosecution get wrong and whatelse was Arias telling the truth about
We already have concerns about Florez’ changing testimony regun shot
we have Horns changing testimony the dura mater “typo” Melendezs testimony regarding the camera and the sim cards chain of custody issues date/sequencing issues and now we have these major potential concerns-
This was never about the who did it- She did Arias killed Travis it was about the why and the how and the punishment
If the evidence was tampered with- if it is found that the prosecution tampered with evidence or if questions concerning same can not be squashed and if their experts testimony can not be trusted then can anyone really answer the why and the how of this case – and if the evidence and testimony can not be trusted can a just verdict/punishment be handed down
truthfully it seems not-
AJMO Peace
Rose says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm
snipped-
Does it matter if BN is accurate?
If I as a juror, in trial 1, had heard testimony as to
TA vile porn search terms, plus escort search terms,
plus all the Fonesca testimony (and fogidda bout Alyce the
…..), I’d have gone with lwop or even more likely believed the alleged
secrecy motive & anger issues of TA & bit for a lessor murder degree.
Doesn’t mean it’s right; just an average juror would.
— i agree – and would only add if the prosecutions computer forensic expert was discredited on the stand then that would have aided in more scrutiny over his testimony irt the camera and the sim cards
and if that would have happened then the whole story of what really happened on June 4th becomes up for grabs-
whats the truth? as Blink wrote way back then:
“With the general public consensus after a nearly 4 month trial that most are no closer to the truth about what actually happened at casa de alexander on June 4, 2008 other than the outcome, this jury has its work cut out for them.”
Respectfully snipped- from Blinks piece:
http://blinkoncrime.com/2013/04/22/jodi-arias-trial-rebuttal-winds-down-fog-fugue-freed-or-fraud-are-the-sex-pics-from-months-before-travis-alexanders-murder-do-they-show-arias-broke-in
Following sound practices including preservation of chain of custody is looking like a welcome addition to this case.
In testimony from Detective Michael Melendez where the images allegedly taken by Travis’s camera were recovered from the deleted or unallocated portions of the memory stick via Encase software we learned that the infamous afternoon of highly graphic sex images of both Travis and Jodi that were dated and time-stamped on June 4th took place that afternoon prior to Travis’s murder.
……I am aware that Det. Melendez says that the timestamps are from the image files, however, he never offers any explanation as to why some have it and many do not. Nor is he asked how if Neumiester was able to pull EXIF data identifying the shower image as taken from Travis’s camera from a similarly deleted image, why he was not able to. Likely why Mr. Neumiester was kept off the stand via the State’s agreement to the stipulation that has the legal community scratching its collective head.
There’s just one problem with that. Well, maybe two. Connor stated it was located in the bottom of the washer along with the camera battery cover, which were separate from the camera itself. In fact, one can see the battery pack in the camera from the image taken into the washer.
Melendez stated he found the card or memory stick inside the camera when he opened its cover door.
My current thought bubble: Why would the prosecution take the murder weapons out of the hands of the suspect and in one fell swoop support her account of events as opposed to allowing Judge Stephens to rule on the Daubert hearing?
My current thought bubble response: Because it opens the door that has a little bottle labeled drink me on the other side.
Exhibit #215 Is Fat
No, not a person. The blue SD card labeled exhibit #215, confirmed by the State by its two witnesses Heather Connor and Det Melendez to be the card where all deleted images were extracted.
Sony Duo SD
How did it get there if he was the only one who handled it, and how does he account for the fact that it is definitely not compatible with Travis’s camera a Sony (insert model).
Travis’s camera used a proprietary Sony duopro memory stick which is thinner and rectangular, and included notches for locking the data contained on it. The blue SD card cannot and does not fit inside the camera.
SO….
How does one account for the fact that there is only one card located in exhibit #215 and it is indeed now a Sony duopro, and it is NOT the same card pictured in the envelope presented by Thomas through prosecutor Juan Martinez.
As much as it pains me to say this- Jodi told them that herself and Det. Flores confirmed it during their interview on July 15, 2008.
Excerpted in pertinent part, my actual case bench notes from 4/2/13:
1:57 starts discussion on card- notes for review, upload and feedback
JA: To me pictures are very compelling but I know they can be modified, altered and I don’t know but I think date and time stamps can be tampered with.
Flores: we did not modify anything. Say like a computer, we take a mirror copy of it, and we don’t even touch it…. That’s exactly what we do with the photos. We don’t work with the originals and we make an exact duplicate copy and we work with the copy..And our guys are so good, that every case that I know of, has never been lost in court
(Note b: That sounds dangerously like no jury will ever convict me, ugh.)
8:34
Arias begins to ask Flores if they have her camera from storage.
Flores responds do you remember taking these pictures?
Arias: we took many pictures, vaguely
9:00
Arias in response to Flores saying they both deleted everything off both or all devices (sic) says prior to Travis getting his camera, all those pictures were on her camera.
Flores: All these same pictures?
Arias: I dunno, we took a bunch the week before I left
Arias: What I am asking is it possible that my memory card is in his camera? They are interchangeable.
(Note b: This may be why she needed the software and cord found in office. Ref my observations that the cord image appears to have red staining, but was not marked for testing. Imo, this is why she states they had sex on the desk. She knew her DNA from the cut would be there.)
Flores: How do you know they are interchangeable?
Arias: That’s why I am asking.
Flores: Just a regular ole standard SD card.
Arias: That’s why I am asking, cause I’ve got one that is like, this big (Note b: draws on his pad lefty)
For my professional camera it is like long and think like a cracker. My other one is more like this big (note b: Draws but in context shown to be larger than the first. She is indicating they are 2 different sizes.)
Flores: they are not interchangeable…His camera was here and your camera was there, why would those be on his camera?
Arias: My camera in storage that is broken but it is still there, I had several memory cards for it that I don’t have any more, and I guess what I am saying.
Flores: so are you saying all these pictures are on that camera?
Arias; no, it’s so farfetched but I guess it’s possible my card fits
Flores: So you’re saying maybe somebody took your memory card?
Arias: No, what I am saying is that if I left my memory cards at his house he could have used it in his camera. (Note b: This is prior to the trip to the big house. Please note how incredibly detrimental it is to call your suspect on the phone and tell them about all your subpoenas and warrants coming her way six weeks earlier- tends to lead to destruction of evidence, witness tampering, I could go on.)
Of particular interest, was Flores’s commentary that the experts on the hard drive and imaging testing (Melendez et al) have never lost a case where they presented evidence?
While that may be true, there was more than a few things he got wrong in that exchange.
While on the stand initially calling the duopro card a SIM card, Melendez stated that SIM cards are smaller and primarily used in phones. This is an incorrect explanation. The storage format Martinez was referring to as a SIM is actually Micro SD. However, no micro SD cards have been admitted into evidence at trial.
In Flores’s interview, he expressly stated that the analysts DID NOT work with the original card or cards in the case that they only make a copy, a mirror copy and work with that. Again, incorrect as we heard Melendez testify that he could not read the card removed until he placed the card directly into his “forensic machine”. No copy was ever made and the images recovered consisted then of deleted and non-deleted items from the card Melendez testified he removed from Travis’s camera himself.
Is it possible Jodi is correct, and Travis had an SD card from her camera and that was the camera used to shoot the tawdry tryst? Whereby he subsequently loaded the amateur effort himself onto the duopro card via the USB attachment and software loaded on his computer? If indeed Melendez was able to recover the deleted images from the duopro card, this would account for why the romp images were on his camera card although Travis and Jodi had not seen each other since its purchase.
Travis also had a Sony video camera that would also use a Sony duopro card enabling him to use the one he had in both. Travis’s video camera has not been referenced as evidence or an exhibit in the trial to date.
Potentially solving the dilemma of how the images get on Travis’s camera- if in fact they predate June 4th unfortunately does not address either how two of the state’s own witnesses testify differently about the same pieces of evidence that cannot possibly be the same storage device or the problems in chain of custody of same.
If Jodi was not the invited guest she claims she was as evidenced previously by the pictures thought to be taken on June 4th, what was she doing there exactly?
Did Travis Alexander even know she was in the house before he spots her holding something other than a gun or knife as he looks out of the shower for the last time?
Travis’s roommate Enrique’s statement to Flores seems to support the theory that at the very least, he was not aware Jodi was in the home when he spoke to Travis that morning and Travis shared he had not gotten any sleep. During her interview Jodi knew nothing of the new second roommate (until Flores outright told her about him and that he was at work) but she definitely would have if she came in through the garage because his car was parked in it.
Does this lend credence to the screen outside being removed by Jodi to the office window laying on the ground for entrance purposes?
Court resumes tomorrow after a closed hearing today. With the general public consensus after a nearly 4 month trial that most are no closer to the truth about what actually happened at casa de alexander on June 4, 2008 other than the outcome, this jury has its work cut out for them.
end respectful snip-
— so whats the truth?
speaking of sim cards:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/11/21/jodi-arias-expert-miss-porn-computer/19369563/
snip
Neumeister also pointed out that all the cellphones he was asked to examine in the case were missing the SIM or data cards that make them function, rendering them useless and impossible to examine.
Prosecutor Juan Martinez blamed Arias’ former attorney, Maria Schaffer. He also blamed Neumeister.
But the hearing ended abruptly so that Martinez could have his own technicians re-evaluate the materials in question…
–
More experts coming … is the truth near or will it be lost again in the neverending fog
AJMO Peace
I’m sorry, but what kind of idiot gives the phones sans their sims, and btw, they should have just provided a copy of the data. If this was a civil divorce case Martinez would be looking at a rectally invasive plenary hearing. It doesn’t matter anymore that in re-reading ( thanks Mom 3.0) my own words this prosecution’s inability to provide proper discovery permeates this case and gives the appearance as intentional- what matters is that it really is. Martinez is going to end up handing this girl a second bat and he best be held accountable for it. These are intentional errors.
B
Martinez claimed that Arias’ former attorneys, Schaffer and Greg Parzych, had made the deletions during an examination of evidence, if any deletions were made. Schaffer denied the allegation.
Schaffer took the stand Friday during the evidentiary hearing. She described how she and her co-counsel and an investigator had met with Martinez and Detective Esteban Flores at the Mesa Police Department to take inventory of all the evidence, ranging from documents to cellphones.
Flores, she said, powered up the computers, and Martinez looked through random files.
On cross-examination, Martinez asked Schaffer if she remembered commenting on the number of photos on the computer.
“You made that comment,” she answered.
He asked about her looking at files, and she countered that he was the only one who did so.
“If Mr. Martinez had told us that turning on the computers would destroy evidence, we would not have allowed that,” Schaffer said.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/11/21/jodi-arias-expert-miss-porn-computer/19369563/
Florez knew that remember Blinks piece?
snipped July 15, 2008 interview
Flores: we did not modify anything. Say like a computer, we take a
mirror copy of it, and we don’t even touch it…. That’s exactly what we
do with the photos. We don’t work with the originals and we make an
exact duplicate copy and we work with the copy..And our guys are so
good, that every case that I know of, has never been lost in court
then this from link:
The first rule of computer forensics, Neumeister said, is “Change nothing.”
When a computer is turned on, he explained, the machine immediately starts downloading updates, checking e-mails and doing other tasks that are written over existing files in the computer cache and deleting data.
And when the computer is turned off, the memory is erased and other data may disappear.
But the Alexander computer was turned on twice without using a write-blocker, Neumeister said, once the day after Alexander’s body was discovered in June 2008 and again in June 2009, when the attorneys came to examine it.
Files were erased both times, he said, and when the machine was not turned off correctly, it suffered more data loss.
The machine was rife with viruses that are spread through viewing pornography, he said. The viruses themselves downloaded some porn files, an explanation offered by Martinez in motions. But there were others that were the result of searches. Neumeister found thousands of sites accessed when he entered search words like “teen.”
Arias claimed that she caught Alexander masturbating to photos of young boys. Martinez dismissed that assertion as a lie.
And Alexander had apparently visited escort-service websites, as well, Neumeister said.
Furthermore, the number of virus-protection programs was extreme, and some were intended to completely erase the viewer history, he said.
“If you don’t want anyone seeing what you’re doing, you would use something like that,” Neumeister said.
end snip
—
Heres the problem- thedates once the day after Alexander’s body was discovered in June 2008 and again in June 2009, when the attorneys came to examine it. long after july 15th….
and then
Melendezs day 6 testimony found only here:
http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/jodi-arias-trial-video-audio/jodi-arias-
trial-video-audio-day-6-jodi-arias-innocent/
vid time 305
melendez i conducted examinations of computer related evidence and also
I collected that evidence
basically what i would do is initially collect that evidence then i would do a fornsic examination of that evidence i would connect that
to what we call write blockers
so that the evidence would not be altered then after that i would make a image of that evidence with software then i would analyize that evidence look thru it
315 Q so lets say you reeived a computer for example…..
what is the first step u would take in yr job back then
Answer-if it was a desktop w/a tower i would remove the hardd rive cuz thaats
what i am gonna examine…thats where all the data is contained
-Q- now u have the hard drive what would u do with it?
answer -i would connect the hard drive to what we call a writeblocker its hardware that prevents when the drive is connected to my computer i
use for incestigations it prevents the computer from altering the drive
Q-you connect it to something that prevents the computer from altering the drive and then what do u do?
A-then at that time i used a forensic software which i was using encase at that time to make an exact copy of that drive
Q-and why would u make an exact copy of that drive?
349 A-the purpose is so that i could work off the copy instead of the actual drive
Q and why?
- 445 Cuz you dont want to alter the drive so we cant really do
anything as far as the information thats on that drive to look at it cuz
then it would be altered
450 Q- so then the original was kept in pristine form then correct?
454 A -yes
Q-then u actually conduct yr work on the image that you made o fit then right?
A-correct right
are u familiar with the term mirror image ?
A-yes
Q what is that
505 A-its an exact image like a mirror
Q-so in this case in yr process is that what you work ith the mirror imageof the hard drive?
514 A- yes i did
Q-what is it tht u do what is it that yr looking for what are the the processes that u undertake take irt to that mirror image in this
hypothetical harddrive from a computer?
529 A- initially u use the software i would look at the.. if its a harddriive from a computer i would look for information as to the user account information the last time the computer was shut down time and date..then any other data that is in that computer
–
If melendez made an exact mirror image copy then why is it that he testified that there was no porn no viruses
Did he lie on the stand?
Maybe maybe not- could it be as Blink said in response to Rose November 18, 2014 at 7:18 am much like Juans response filed does it merely border on deceptive therefore can it be “technically” true making it then essentially not a problem?
to be Cont a closer look
A&P
The questions by Juan seem quite specifically limiting- images…of women images of children “adult” sites
Answers seem specifically limited- as are Melendezs search queries- specific to “images” specific to “peer to peer” sharing
specific to what operating system web browser he may have examined-
Did not look for cookies as this wasnt his “preference”
Limited is one thing but deceptive /obscuring lying is another- so is incompetence-
Look what happened in the CA trial—( Blink knew this selective work would not lead to the truth… and yet the prosecution didnt?)
did not find virus made no mention of software specifically used to completely erase the viewer history,
snipped article
“If you don’t want anyone seeing what you’re doing, you would use something like that,” Neumeister said.
sorry for caps- computer hit fog bank of its own
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FYYfV7eGPM
Q- LAP TOP HARD DRIVE-
WERE YOU ABLE TO ACCESS OR WAS THERE
ANY INDICATION THAT YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS
EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE HARD DRIVE-
A-
I WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT AND ACCESS EVERYTHING YES
-
Q IRT PHOTOS OF WOMEN FROM THE WASTE UP-
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SEE IF THERE WERE TONS OF PICS OF
WOMENS BREASTS ON THIS HARDDRIVE-
A- I WOULD BE ABLE
TO SEE THIS YES 513
Q WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE IT-
A- I DID NOT FIND ANY NO
Q- IRT PHOTOGRAPHS ASIDE FROM TONS- JUST WERE THERE
ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF WOMENS FROM THE WAIST UP
SHOWING THEIR BREASTS- DID YOU EVEN SEE ANY OF
THAT?
A-NO I DID NOT
Q-ANY IMAGES WHATSOEVER THAT IN THAT LAPTOP-
A= NO
Q
WHATELSE DID U DO WRT THIS WHAT EXAMINATION DID YOU
CONDUCT ON THIS HARD DRIVE-
A-INITIALLY I SEARCHED FOR
ALL TYPES OF FILE IMAGES DO THAT BY SEARCHING FOR FILE
HEADERS WHICH IS THE BEGINNING PART OF THE FILE
ITSELF- THIS WAY IF THERE IS ANOTHER FILE IMBEDDED
WITHIN ANOTHER FILE ILL BE ABLE TO FIND THAT
Q-WHEN U SAY ANOTHR FILE IMBEDDED IN ANOTHR FILE WHAT
DOES THAT MEAN-
A=
FOR EX IF SOMEONE TAKES A PHOTO OR
AN IMAGE AND PUTS IT IN A WRD DOCUMENT I WOULD BE
ABLE TO FIND THAT
Q-ALRIGHT AND WRT THAT EXAMINATION DID THAT REVEAL
ANY IMAGES OF WOMENS BREASTS?-
A- 608 NO IT DID NOT-
Q-TO BE CLEAR DID IT SHOW THE LOWER PART EITHER?-
A- NO-
Q OF A WOMEN
A– IT DID NOT
Q-OK WHAT ELSE DID U DO-
A-AFTER THAT I WENT THRU ALL THE
INTERNET HISTORY IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COMPUTER
ITSELF
Q-THE INTERNET HISTORY WHAT DID U FIND IN LOOKING AT
THE INTERNET HISTORY?
A- UHHH JUST BASIC USAGE OF GOING ON THE INTERNET FOR
FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS SOCIAL MEDIA SITES
Q-DID YOU FIND ANY UMMM ACCESS TO ANY OF THE SO
CALLED ADULT SITES-
A NO I DID NOT-
QWHATELSE DID YOU DO?
A- I LOOKED AT THE REGISTRY TO
SEE WHAT TYPE OF SOFTWARE WAS ADDED TO THE
COMPUTER
Q WHEN U SAY THAT U LOOKED AT THE REGIS TO SEE
WHAT SOFTWARE WAS ADDED 648 WHAT IS IT THAT YR
LOOKING FOR OR WHAT IS IT THAT YR DOING THERE?
A- WELL JUST GETTING FEEL FOR WHAT TYPE OF SOFTWARE IS
ADDED TO IT GIVES U AN IDEA OF WHAT THIS USER IS DOING
ON THE COMPUTER…
Q-
SO IF A PERSON ADDS SOFTWARE WHAT WOULD THAT TELL
U IF ANYTHING-
A- WELL IF THEY HAVE SOFTWARE- DEPENDING
IF ITS A CASE INVOLVING LETS SAY CHECK FRAUD AND THEY
HAVE SOFTWARE WHERE THAT ALLOWS U TO CREATE
CHECKS THEN THAT WOULD TELL ME THEY HAD THE ABILITY
TO DO THAT
Q-714 WAS THERE ANY SOFTWARE THAT WAS ADDED TO THIS
COMPUTER?
A- UH JUST BASIC SOFTWARE
Q-SUCH AS WHAT?
A- UH WINDOWS OFFICE THINGS LIKE THAT
Q-ANYTHING RELATED FOR EXAMPLE TO GOING TO ADULT
SITES-
A-WELL IN THAT SENSE I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE PEER TO PEER SOME SOFTWARE THAT
WOULD ALLOW U TO SHARE FILES FROM ONE USER TO
ANOTHER
Q-AND DID U FIND THAT?
A-i DID NOT
Q-AnD WHATELSE DID U DO IN TERMS OF SEARCHING THIS
COMPUTER?-
A-BASICALLY I SEARCHED EVERY SINGLE FILE I COULD OPEN
AND THEN OPENED IT AND SEE WHATS INSIDE OF IT 751
A-AND DID U SEE.THRUOUT THIS WHOLE SEARCHING FROM
BEGINNING TO END DID U SEE ANY IMAGES OF CHILDREN IN
THAT COMPUTER?
A nO
–http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edBd47uAB-k
But Melendez did write a report…
cross
225 Q IN TERMS OF A FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF A COMPUTER
AND W/OUT GOING INTO GREAT DEAL CAN U TELL US KINDA
WHAT U DO WHAT THAT INVOLVES
A-DO U WANT FROM THE BEGINNING ORi DON KNOW HOW
MUCH DETAIL YOU WANT?
Q-238WELL YEAH FROM THE BEGINNING I MEAN U SEIZE THE
COMPUTER YOU MAKE A MIRROR WELL DO IT THIS WAY… U
MAKE A MIRRORIMAGE OF THE HARD DRIVE RIGHT?
A-YES
Q-@250 U GO FOR THE HARD DRIVE BCUZ THATS WHERE THE
DATA IS RIGHT?-
A-
YES
Q-OK AND ONCE U MAKE A MIRRORIMAGE OF THE HARD
DRIVEU CAN SEE ITS CONTENT ACTIVITY WEB BROWSER
ACTIVITY THINGS OF THAT NATURE CORRECT?- CORRECT
IN MOST CASES AND THAT HAPPEND IN THIS CASE
CORRECT?
A-YES
Q-OK AND WHEN U DID THAT FORENSIC EX AM OF THIS COMP
LAPTOP AND U WERE THE ONE WHO SEIZED IT INTO
PROPERTY CORRECT?
A-316- YES
Q-OK AND U TOOK EVERY ASSSURANCE U COULD TO Make
SURE THAT U POWERED IT DOWN CORRECTLY 323 THOSE
KINDA THINGS SO U COULD PRESERVE THAT DATA..
A- YES I DID
Q- 328 OK AND AFTER U DID THAT FORENSIC EXAMINATION
YOU WROTE A REPORT RIGHT? CORRECT
EXhibit 347
continues with more…
So was it incompetence- was it bordering on deception but technically true…
IDK
AJMO Peace
So has that report been submitted into evidence? That would have been part of the discovery in the first trial as well. I don’t think either Melendez or Martinez know wth they are talking about and Melendez is not qualified as an expert in this field. As you point out I said that at the trial.
Incompetence, yes. But in my view ( although I understand both sides strategy) it occurred on both sides.
B
personalky, imo all the data from
the cell sim cards could only have been
suppressed & the cards gone mia for a reason.
Asude from Arias, DOJ needs to look into that evidence room.
If valuabke sim cards go missung, probably evidence in drug cases
does too.
I don’t get the Court dress code trial strategy of Nurmi-Arias, unless
she’s demanding the no photos in stripes thin,
& he’s letter her screw herself.
Pre-conviction, one wants street clothes.
But for asentencing trial, I’d have her in the ugliest stripes I could
find, no makeup, badly cut hair, so the jury would see conviction
resulted in punishment & a changed life. Street clothes make it
look to these jurors like she’s “getting off” if she does not get the DP.
I am going to respectfully disagree on this one Rose- I think the humanity factor vs. the institutionalized factor is critical in the penalty phase of a capital case. Identifying her with an already “doomed” person is prejudicial- in my view.
B
@ Rose
You ask why would both sides play fast and loose with the evidence? Good question. Ego has been brought up. Reckless as h e double hell….and I don’t get why Juan is so easily lured onto the defense mayhem when since JA is already been found guilty of overkill. Regardless, Juan just couldn’t resist the bait for some jackass reasons. The possible reasons overwhelm me and render me to making cooing noises.
..you got me sold on buying a refurbished MAC!
@ Mom3.0
It’s soooo good to see you here, dear friendy. Again, I’m hoping Juan is reading this…..and his ego deflates when he considers how it should be laid down, as demonstrated by the above posts. Juan, as highly revered as he is in AZ justice system, he’s no Jeff Ashton. In hockey terms, Juan’s not exactly a 3 star player with Gordie Howe hat tricks to his game. He’d be benched by the head coach by now and later called into the coach’s office. Expletive deletives would just be the beginning of the rant. A simpleton point of view perhaps, but he’s abandoning Team Alexander to score when the team is already ahead. The ‘fog’ is claiming more victims ,it appears. Even Ashton could admit his emotions needed a ’5 minute misconduct’.
…or maybe this is just a reflection of my bitterness that my team lost the CFL Western Conference finals to our rivals. Buh bye Grey Cup
I fold :p
Damn auto correct! Should read….so easily lured INTO defense blah blah blah SINCE JA.
This doesn’t belong in the phase….and should be considered an appellate issue. Nurmi knows it would have been denied. Why didn’t anyone else call it, especially Juan?
Give her the LWOP.
Ragdoll writes:
This doesn’t belong in the phase….and should be considered an appellate issue.
——–
I agree, this is an appellate issue.
I am thinking that Defense is putting this in motion NOW, because after sentencing, it may be more difficult and more complicated to address.
If there is a ruling on the computer issues before a verdict in the sentencing, obviously, it will end the sentencing trial.
And as I read their motions,Defense put forth that as an alternative to ruling on computer, they would settle for taking DP off the table.
@Ragdoll.
imo the Borderline PD behavioral system which
lacks limit-setting capability (on evidence, on Court procedure &
Rules of Evidence, on Arias, on juror rectitude, on Det competence
& professionalism, on interested spectators whether Press or
either family),
isn’t Arias-Nurmi, but–if such a Borderline “system”
exists–Arias-Martinez-Stephens.
and I think Fonesca is struggling to limit set
from the stand.
I damn auto correct too btw,
because it + my own typos
at times are humiliating.
Well, Blink, on the
garmentry take, I have zero experience,
so I bow to superior info, as usual.
As a pretend juror in the penalty phase, maybe I’m
too Charles Dickens & just fantasize a gaunt appearing contrite person
in Stripes & Sackcloth calling out for Mercy. I read she has a young jury.
The young are merciful, if they feel you contrite proportionally
to the crime.
question:
did neumeister testify that the photos found in travs camera were absolutely 100 percent taken the day that the time stamps showed?
asking because I always have appreciated Blink’s analysis of why those photos may NOT have been taken that day.
Absolutely did not.
B
It seems Fonesca thinks she is testifying on
the precise same subject matter as Alyce–the
“dynamics of the relationship” itself, not on Jodi
per se. The prosecutor tho enlarged her focus
to Jodi.
re blinks response to Mom3.0 says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:11 am
Respectful snip-
It doesn’t matter anymore that in re-reading ( thanks Mom 3.0) my own words this prosecution’s inability to provide proper discovery permeates this case and gives the appearance as intentional- what matters is that it really is. Martinez is going to end up handing this girl a second bat and he best be held accountable for it. These are intentional errors.
B
—-
—
Well you were right – you pointed out in yr earlier piece:
The blue SD card labeled exhibit #215, confirmed by the State by its two witnesses Heather Connor and Det Melendez to be the card where all deleted images were extracted.There’s just one problem with that. Well, maybe two. Connor stated it was located in the bottom of the washer along with the camera battery cover, which were separate from the camera itself. In fact, one can see the battery pack in the camera from the image taken into the washer.
Melendez stated he found the card or memory stick inside the camera when he opened its cover door.How did it get there if he was the only one who handled it, and how does he account for the fact that it is definitely not compatible with Travis’s camera a Sony (insert model).
Travis’s camera used a proprietary Sony duopro memory stick which is thinner and rectangular, and included notches for locking the data contained on it. The blue SD card cannot and does not fit inside the camera.
SO….
How does one account for the fact that there is only one card located in exhibit #215 and it is indeed now a Sony duopro, and it is NOT the same card pictured in the envelope presented by Thomas through prosecutor Juan Martinez.
end
—
Blink it turns out that there WAS TWO DIFFERENT memory cards for the camera-:
@jeffgoldesq: “@michaelbkiefer: The still camera was supposed to have two SIM cards, but only had one.
and this from Jodiisinnocent:
Today 11-21 is the first day during the trial that we heard there were two different memory cards found for the camera (in the washing machine) but there was only ever one memory card produced as evidence…the plot thickens
–
I am having a hard time finding transcripts of testimony etc- to find out what exactly was said in court the 21st…( can anyone clarify or have a link?)_ but if the above is true- and I think it could be… given yr earlier notation regarding the 2 cards seeming difference between exhibits/photos-
if so
I have to say you were right on- with yr thoughts of: this prosecution’s inability to provide proper discovery permeates this case and gives the appearance as intentional- what matters is that it really isMartinez is going to end up handing this girl a second bat and he best be held accountable for it. These are intentional errors.
–Cont
AJMO Peace
One of the things that continues to disturb me is that while these seem like very obvious first year law standards no prosecutor of Juan Martinez’s “season” would miss- strung together they paint a picture of willful- at best.
I am getting ready to state the obvious or repeat myself ( dunno where we are on that I am having 20 for dinner and my dishwasher died today LOL) but if Jodi Arias was not such a completely unlikable loon- you can bet your bippy she would never have been convicted in the first trial as she was- and I say first trial because I can say with certainty there will be another “guilt phase” trial for this wingbat courtesy of Juan Martinez. Maybe he will get a Nikon ad out of the deal. Sheesh.
B
Blink wrote in response to Mom3.0 says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:11 am
Respectful snip-:
I’m sorry, but what kind of idiot gives the phones sans their sims, and btw, they should have just provided a copy of the data. If this was a civil divorce case Martinez would be looking at a rectally invasive plenary hearing.
this was in response to AZcentral snippet:
Neumeister also pointed out that all the cellphones he was asked to examine in the case were missing the SIM or data cards that make them function, rendering them useless and impossible to examine.
Prosecutor Juan Martinez blamed Arias’ former attorney, Maria Schaffer. He also blamed Neumeister.
according to tweets martinez went further claiming this to be a possible answer to thw whys of any missing phone sim cards:
@TrialDiariesJ: Juan is talking about Sims card and how the expert doesn’t know if the Mesa PD may have got the phones minus the Sims card #jodiarias
—
NOT possible as one Florez played all of the messages on the phones remeber Jodis aftermurder call to Travis ?
Next IIRC Melendez testified to also examining the “pocket pc” which was a phone
There was never any mention of these phones not being operable/missing sim cards was there?
Even Jodis thought to be stolen aunt found my cell phone was operational…
–But wait it gets worse when pondering upon yr words Blink:this prosecution’s inability to provide proper discovery permeates this case and gives the appearance as intentional- what matters is that it really is Martinez is going to end up handing this girl a second bat and he best be held accountable for it. These are intentional errors.
–
Evidence tampering…disregard for preservation of evidence–
Remember Martinez dropping the camera….
well now we have these “damaged” items of evidence
#jodiarias external hard drive was tampered with and missing the operating system according to expert
@jeffgoldesq: “@michaelbkiefer: Sounds like at least 3 phones were missing cards. video camera was smashed, but Neumeister was able to extract videos.”
– The video camera was smashed? Not in those evidence pics it wasnt…
Martinez disregard for evidence preservation was cemented the day he threw the camera on the floor to make his point on timing…
Can anyone rule the Prosecutor out as paying no mind to careful handling of evidence or willful or inadvertent destruction of evidence?
No and that looks bad even though he probably had nothing to do with the damage it looks bad and again yr words encapsulate the concerns:
…this prosecution’s inability to provide proper discovery permeates this case and gives the appearance as intentional- what matters is that it really is Martinez is going to end up handing this girl a second bat and he best be held accountable for it. These are intentional errors. B
Mom3.0- thank you for posting the comment on the video camera. Travis’s video camera has never been introduced as evidence in this case to date.
HOWEVER.. as you know I am more than concerned about the seemingly random discussion of sim cards as if the device they are utilized with are of no difference- that is patently false and again- I truly do not understand how the court’s ignorance of such matters allowed this.
B
AJMO Peace
From what i can read on various news feeds, The State did adequate job of placing Fonseca’s testimony in the context of moral judgements.
Bottom line is : Immorality is not the same thing as illegality.
@ whodunnit
Agreed. If this is about morality, JA is no Shirley Temple. She was encouraging TA in those 50 Shades of Gray ‘ converSEXions’….and certainly has a knack for the 1-900 industry, herself. As for the 12 year old girl comment, she didn’t communicate to TA it was an inappropriate reference. In fact , she sounded flattered n giddy by it.
@ Rose… Speaking of BPD…. I can’t help but feel that diagnosis is incomplete. Blink mentioned narcissism…and I agree. No way she’d take her own life. If ignorance is a mental disorder….we got a few quacks that need further assessment, besides JA.
In conclusion, SIM cards are just bad news in murder cases. They’re never where they ‘re supposed to be.