A summary of lies by witness #1

 Witness #1 Marc McGee (MMC)

• On 04/26/2014 Robert Geffner interviewed Marc McGee in person.  At that time, McGee claimed on or about January 18th 2001,  he and his wife were entering the Bishop,s house and found Travis inflicting physical abuse towards Deanna Reid.  However,  it's not what McGee was claiming earlier.  In 2013 McGee wrote the following that has forever been preserved on Social Media:
  
"I never saw Travis get physical with a woman" --  then how can he allege he witnessed Travis restraining Deanna Reid's wrists,  kneeing her in the stomach, and pushing her down to the couch?   If the incident is not "getting physical"  what is it?

McGee's Allegation He Witnessed Abuse

 Marc McGee claimed to have witnessed Travis Alexander "getting physical" towards Deanna Reid on or about January 18th, 2001.  He alleged his soon-to-be bride was present and witnessed the incident as well.  Per his report,  she put cool wash cloths on Deanna's wrists as first - aide. McGee stated he comforted DR for 1.5 hours following the incident and it was then DR told him she had been home from her mission for a few days.  He claimed the incident and date could be backed up with his wife's journals.

Marc McGee's bride-to-be was in the area because it was arranged.   He dated her online for some time and it progressed to the point where they wanted to meet.  Her parents called Bishop Parker and asked if there was a safe place their daughter could stay.  Bishop Parker invited her to stay at his house.  He added it was something he would not have done if there were other male tenants living there (his own family excluded).   McGee's bride-to-be arrived in Riverside at the Bishop Parker's house around late Nov/ early Dec 2000.   The relationship between McGee and this woman flourished and they became engaged on January 24,2001. They  married on March 10, 2001.   After they married,  McGee's bride-to-be would have moved in with him and no longer remained at the Bishop Parker's house.   Bishop Parker confirmed she no longer lived at his house after she married McGee on 3/10/2001.

McGee claimed the alleged incident was in January 2001 and he stated he verified the date with his wife's journals.   The problem is,  Reid was in Costa Rica in January 2001.   She left for her mission in June 2000 and arrived home in November 2001.   This fact made Mcgee's claims impossible, and it was clear he lied.  He was approached by the defense to give more details to support his claims.  To defend his lie,  Mcgee offered two possible alternatives in his January 17th affidavit he gave to the defense. The first was Deanna Reid came home on a leave of absence from her mission.   As LDS,  Mcgee knows how ridiculous his claim is.  The standards of a mission do not permit leaves of absences.

MISSIONS

• Most missionaries are assigned to serve far from home,  including other countries.
• Deanna Reid was assigned to Costa Rica, a 6.5 hour flight from her home
• Missions typically last 18 months for females
• Deanna Reid was on her mission from June 2000 - November 2001 
• Missionaries serve on a volunteer basis and do not receive a salary for their work
• Deanna Reid would have had to save and provide for herself while in Costa Rica.  A $500 round-trip ticket to go home for a few days would have been difficult for her to manage
• Rarely do missionaries get "Leave of absences."  In short of a death of an immediate family member,  a missionary would not be permitted to leave and come back.  And, even when an immediate family member dies,  a missionary is expected to stay on the mission.
• "In cases where an immediate family member dies, the missionary is strongly encouraged to stay on the mission"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary
• Missionaries are not permitted to date while on a mission. 
• It would be a violation of the rules
• A missionary is allowed to have a boyfriend back home,  but cannot be actively dating him.  
• they are only allowed contact via letters.
• Deanna stated she could not call or email Travis. She was only allowed to write him
• DR stated she only got two calls a year to her immediate family: Christmas and Mother's day
• For rules this strict,  it would be highly unlikely Reid was granted a leave of absence and during that leave of absence would have went to her bishop's house with her boyfriend.
• it would have violated the rules
• A missionary can be sent home for a violation of the rules
• If Deanna Reid left her mission on a LOA for anything less then the death of an immediate family member,  she would have been violating the rules and not allowed back
• If DR went to her bishop's house during a LOA, she would have been risking getting caught and  not being allowed back on her mission
• Travis only lived with the Bishop from June 2000 -August 2000
• no reason for either Deanna or Travis to be at the Bishop's house in January 2001
• Every missionary is assigned a companion who is with them at all times
• "Missionary companions are instructed to stay together at all times and not to go out of the hearing of their companion's voice.^[20]:30–31 Privacy is allowed only for personal care such as showering. One of the intentions of this strict policy of staying together is to discourage missionaries from breaking any mission rules.^[20]:31 Companions share the same living quarters and the same bedroom, but not the same bed."
• Reid could not have left her mission,  taken the 6-hour flight home,  been gone a few days, and taken the 6-hour flight back without being missed by her companion.  
• If her companion showed up alone for mission duties for a few days,  this would have been noticed.
• allowing Reid to leave against the rules and not reporting it would have gotten her companion in trouble as well.

Reid would not be allowed to leave unless it was because an immediate family member died.  And,  Reid could not have stole away for a few days without being missed. As a LDS,  McGee knows this but he was hoping no one on the jury would.   Just in case he opted to allow himself room for another way out.  

The second excuse McGee provided was perhaps his time line was mistaken and the incident happened later in the year.   The defense suggested November 2001 which would fit with the time Deanna came home.  However, it does not fit with the rest of McGee's story.  Other allegations McGee made set the alleged abuse of Deanna Reid to have occurred during the time his wife lived with the Bishop. Mark alleged to have found child porn belonging to Travis on a computer while his soon-to-be bride was living with the Bishop.  McGee made a statement in connection with the story which placed the alleged DR incident to have occurred before the alleged computer incident.  "He (Travis)starts to break down after McGee lays into him about DR and the photos.:  McGee can't lay into Travis about the alleged incident with DR unless it already happened.   McGee stated he was looking at his engagement pictures on the same computer which means the time frame had to be between his engagement on January 24th and his marriage on March 10th.    McGee's wife moved out of the bishop's house when she got married March 10th which means the story about the abuse and his wife being there cannot have occurred in November 2001.   

Summary

• Abuse story could not have occurred in January 2001 because
• Deanna was in Costa Rica
• She would not have been permitted to leave unless someone in her immediate family died
• She could not have secretly left for days without being noticed
• Deanna would have had no reason to go to the Bishop's house should she had secretly left
• doing so would have risked her not being allowed back on her mission
• Travis had no reason to be at the Bishop's house 
• he moved out in August 2000
• Abuse story could not have occurred in November 2001 because
• Mcgee indicated his wife lived with the Bishop when the alleged abuse occurred
• His wife moved out of the Bishop's house in March 2001

.  

THE FAKE PEDOPHILIA CLAIMS

In my opinion,  anyone making fake pedophilia claims has to be a very dark individual.   For every fake claim that is made,  it raises the chance a true victim will not be believed.   It's very sad when this happens and anyone who makes fake claims are helping some very bad people get away with some very severe child abuse.   

McGee alleged he had information to support Travis Alexander was a pedophile.  However,  evidence supports that,  like his lie about the Reid abuse claims,  McGee lied about his information. 

  On 04/26/2014 McGee met with a representative of the defense and told his story:

• McGee was engaged and stored some photos on the Bishops computer
• The time frame had to be between his engagement on January 24th, 2001 and his marriage on March 10th, 2001.
• He allegedly opened the downloads file and pictures of child porn popped up
• McGee described these pictures in detail
• McGee alleged the files had Travis' name on it
• McGee claimed he was afraid to go to the Bishop with his findings so he approached TA instead 
• McGee alleged he left a note on the computer for TA to come see him
• He alleged TA woke him at 2 am and they went outside to talk
• McGee laid into Travis about the photos and DR.  
• McGee told Travis he would not have a place to live if the Bishop found out

Bishop Parker testified that Travis was not living with him when McGee's wife to be was living there. He would not have permitted her to stay if other young men were in the house.  Additionally,   he testified Travis moved out of his home in August 2000.  Travis was not living there between January 2001 and March 2001 when McGee claims the computer incident happened.   And,  because he was not living there,  McGee had no reason to put a note on the computer;   He had no reason to expect Travis to come and visit at 2 am that evening in order to use the Bishop's computer.  And,  McGee had no reason to tell Travis he would have lost his place to live.  Travis did not live there.  

McGee's statements about the computer changed as well.   He had statements on social media that referenced catching Travis looking at legal porn.   Marc also made claims of catching Travis using adult porn to someone close to him.  The full story can be referenced here: http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/12/jodi-arias-another-mystery-witness.html

McGee's told the defense representative on 2/07/2014 that Travis denied the child porn download being his.   ""Travis denied it, despite it being from his screen name from AOL and on the computer itself."  Nowhere in the notes from the conversation did McGee add Travis eventually admitted it.  He alleged Travis broke down and told him about his own abuse,  but he never said Travis admitted to the pictures.   However,  in his January 2015 affidavit,  McGee changed his story.   He said Travis admitted the pictures were his.

Bishop Parker's testimony also shows that McGee lied about the child porn incident.  Parker stated Travis moved out in August 2000.  This is at least 5 months prior to the time McGee alleged Travis woke him up at 2am after viewing the note he left for him on the computer. Parker's testimony confirmed that porn-type images had popped up on the computer.  The incident happened during the time McGee's soon-to-be bride was staying with him.   However,  he stated it was not child porn.  The computer was taken to a shop and the pop-ups believed to be from a virus.  No child porn was ever found.  The culprit for causing the download of the virus was discovered.   An ex tenant had admitted to his cousin that he did it.  The cousin told Parker's son and the information got back to Parker.

There is more testimony to come from Bishop Parker,  and I am guessing more will be produced to show the depth McGee went to in order to foster a lie for some woman he did not know.  He spat in the face of both domestic violence victims and those who have been effected by child sex abuse all in order to support a women he barely knew.  It makes one wonder what his family would think about his actions, and do they even know about his involvement in the Arias case?   Is his desire to remain an anonymous affidavit writer based on the fact he fears his family finding out?   He would like the world to believe it is for his safety,  but he has been too vocal on social media for that.  McGee lives in a foreign country were Arias is little known news so he has little to fear about being public in his lies.  Does he not want his name attached with the case because he has concerns about what his family would say?  And what would you say if you found out your spouse used you to support false claims about abuse and pedophilia?   Especially if it was to help out a member of the opposite sex around his same age?  

For anyone wanting to read the up-to-date details about the trial including Mcgee's claims,  please see karasoncrime.com   She charges a nominal fee of $5.99 per month and the minimum purchase is one month.  

Arias Mitigation Witness One

Because of an alleged fear to testify,   multiple witnesses for Arias were allowed to present affidavits in lieu of live testimony.   Perhaps some did so out of fear,  but can this be true for witness #1 (MMc)?    MMc has been very vocal about his support for Jodi Arias prior to ever becoming mitigation witness #1.   Quotes by this witness can be easily found on social media,  so his support for Jodi Arias is not new knowledge to the masses.    His pedophilia allegations were made known on social media prior to the testimony,  so nothing he would state in his testimony would be new. MMc lives far away overseas so there would be no direct threat if he testified. His willingness to freely state his views and his location makes many believe the only reason MMc does not want to testify is because he knows JM will make him look like a liar.  However,  what MMc doesn't realize is his own words have done that already.  Both his claims about Deanna Reid being abused and his 'discovery'  of Travis' alleged pedophilia image can easily be picked apart.

MMc'S ALLEGATION ABOUT THE DEANNA REID ABUSE

MMc alleged he witnessed a violent episode towards Deanna Reid on the part of Travis Alexander.
MMc's claim:

• "On  or about January 18, 2001, he walked in after an argument and discovered Travis restraining Deanna's wrists. Travis pushed her onto the couch with his knee in her stomach and yelled, "Get it through your fucking head. I'm not going to marry you."   MMc confronted Travis, and he ran off.  MMc's wife wrapped Deanna's wrists in cool wash cloths and comforted her over an hour."

IDIOT SAVANT?

If what MMc stated was true,  is it something that he would even remember in such detail 13 years after it happened?   Who was Deanna to MMc?   She was not his sister,  not his mother, not his cousin,  and not even his friend.  She was just some girl he knew about.  The fact is,  Deanna held little importance in MMc's life.  He didn't even know that in November of 2001 Deanna and Travis were broken up, and she was not talking to Travis.  Perhaps if he did,  he would have picked a different date to change his testimony to after the first one was debunked.If  Deanna held little importance to MMc,  why would a detailed memory of the minor thing that he alleged happened to her remain in his mind 4,750 days later?     Although all physical violence is bad,  the incident MMc described  was relatively low on the domestic violence scale. It was not the type of incident that leaves a detailed permanent scar on the memory of those who witnessed it unless the witness leads an extremely sheltered life. What MMc described was allegedly seeing Travis holding on to Deanna's wrists and pushing her down on the couch.   MMc might remember something like that occurred 13 years after it did,  but would he have remembered the exact date it occurred?  "This happened on or about January 18th, 2001." Would he have remembered it in enough detail to describe where Travis' knee was at the time? "His knee was on her stomach/ lap." Would he have remembered it in enough detail to describe what his wife did for an insignificant injury?  "Wife wrapped cold washcloths around DR's wrists." And, would he remember what Travis yelled at Deanna?  "Get it through your fucking head. I'm not going to marry you."      Unless MMc is an idiot savant,  the answer is most likely he would not.  The event was minor, and Deanna held no special importance to MMc.   After 13 years, it is not something a person retains in such  detail he can cite on or about the exact date it occurred.  But, MMc did. And he was even wrong about that.  

MMc was under the belief that the more details he provided,  the more he would be believed.  It backfired with the date he initially alleged the incident occurred.  What he claimed could not have happened on or about January 19th, 2001. Deanna was not even in the country.   

IMPROBABLE TO IMPOSSIBLE

Deanna Reid was not in the country on January 18th, 2001.  She was in Costa Rica for 18 months. She left in June of 2000 and returned in November of 2001.  When the DT told this to MMc,  his story changed.   If one is telling the truth,  one does not have to change their story when evidence is provided which makes their story impossible. However, MMc changed his: 

• MMc stated
• he knew she was on a mission,  so he was surprised to have seen her there the night of the alleged incident
• On the night of the alleged incident,  Deanna told him she had just returned from her mission and only had been home a few days.  
• Only two possibilities exist in regards to the alleged incident
• 1) Deanna was on a break from her mission
• NOT POSSIBLE
• 2) He made an honest error in the time frame and it was later in 2001;  it was a few days after Deanna returned from her mission.
• HIGHLY IMPROBABLE TO IMPOSSIBLE
• MMc also stated he knew that it was Deanna who Travis had abused. He maintained there was no case of mistaken identity
• Travis was not even dating Deanna in November 2001.  He was dating a woman named Linda.

1)  On a break from the mission

• Deanna testified that  there was limited communication between her and Travis during her 18 months in Costa Rica.  She stated the only way they could communicate was through letters.   She added that at no time during a year and a half did they see each other in person.    These statements were made prior to MMc's allegations. 

"It doesn't work that way.  Once you are there for our church, you stay there the whole time. And you don't have visitors coming in and out. Your just focusing on the work that's there"

•  MMc's allegation that Deanna might have been home on a leave when this happened is an impossibility. She was in Costa Rica the entire time.  

2) He made an honest error in the time frame, and it was later in 2001;  it was a few days after Deanna returned from her mission.

• Deanna left for her mission in June of 2000 and returned in November of 2001
• When Deanna returned from her mission in November 2001,  it was a couple of weeks before she first saw Travis and several weeks before she even spoke to him.  There was no opportunity for Travis to have physically attacked Deanna in November 2001 because they were not ever together. They were not even talking.  
• It's too late for MMc to claim another date now.  He sealed the time frame by claiming Deanna told him she had only been home for a few days.  This places the alleged attack in November 2001

MARRIAGE?

In his allegation about the abuse,  MMc implied that it involved Deanna wanting Travis to commit to marriage.  He alleged he overheard Travis state "Get it through your fucking head. I'm not going to marry you."   This was supposed to be within a few days from when Deanna returned from her mission.    Obviously,  MMc did not listen to both parts of her testimony, or he could have thought up a more solid lie.  Deanna met Travis in 1998, but they were only friends.  She did not start dating him until 2000, and she only dated him a couple of months prior to leaving for Costa Rica. They did discuss the future and marriage,  but Deanna knew she would be gone for a year and a half so she was not really sure if marriage was even a possibility.

On her mission,  Deanna was only able to communicate with Travis through letters.  She did not get to see him,  email him, or call him on the phone during her mission.  Deanna was roughly a year into her mission when the lack of communication started to interfere with her and Travis' relationship.   In the summer of 2001 while Deanna was still in Costa Rica,  Travis wrote her and told her he wanted to start seeing other people.  This signified a break-up between the two of them.  A brief couple of months of physical closeness dwindled down to a year of limited communication and then an ultimate break-up.   However, the break-up did not come to a surprise to Deanna. She didn't expect him to wait a year and a half for her.  Regardless,  she was still hurt.  She only had 3-4 months left on her mission, and during this time communication between the two of them was almost non-existent.  She knew Travis was moving on.    

When Deanna returned home in November,  there was no relationship between the two of them which would support the belief Deanna was pressuring Travis to marry her.  And, without the marriage pressure there can be no attack with Travis yelling ""Get it through your fucking head. I'm not going to marry you."    The lack of the type of relationship in which marriage would be considered is another factor that indicates MMc's allegation is unfounded. 
Travis and Deanna did eventually get back together,  but this was not until 2002. And, even though they occasionally discussed it,   Deanna did not seriously think about marriage until 2005 when she started feeling the social pressure to get married.  MMc was long out of the picture before then.  He moved out of state in July of 2002, so he was not even around when the serious marriage issues came about.
By the end of 2005,  Deanna was ready to get married, and Travis would not commit.  So,  she broke up with him.  According to Deanna,  when she told Travis that she needed to move on,  he started to cry.  She broke his heart, and he only cried. 

 She was asked if he became physically violent with her for breaking his heart:

"Absolutely not"

She was asked if he cursed at her in any way for breaking his heart:

"No,  he did not"

She was asked if he raised his voice in any way for breaking his heart:

"No,  he never raised his voice to me"

Deanna was leaving Travis for his failure to commit to her.  It broke his heart and all he did was cry.  It is not the action of a man who would attack a woman for pressuring him to marry her. 

DEANNA DENIED ABUSE SEVERAL TIMES

During her testimony,  Deanna was asked several times if Travis showed signs of abuse towards her. Unlike MMc's statement,  her answer remained the same.

Deanna was asked if she and Travis ever had arguments.  She answered yes, and they were normal disagreements. She was asked if Travis ever cursed at her:

"NO,  Never"

Deanna was asked if Travis ever physically advanced on her or inflicted any physical violence on her during the time they dated:

"No, Never"

Deanna and Travis stayed friends after she broke up with him.  She was asked if Travis ever screamed at her when he got angry with her. 

"No, he wouldn't"

She was asked if he ever called her names out of anger during that time.

"No"

Deanna was asked if Travis every violently touched her during that time.

"No, he would never do that to me"

"DID he ever scream obscenities at you?"
"No, our relationship was not like that"

"Did he ever physically touch you inappropriate in any way, for example striking you?"

"NO"

"Did he ever curse at you during that time you left in May of 2008?"
"No he didn't"

To believe MMc's affidavit,  one has to believe Deanna Reid lied.  This means yet another person must be added to the long list of those who conspired against Jodi Arias to get her convicted.   The majority of Deanna's testimony would have to be a lie in order to make MMc's affidavit true.   She would have had to be lying about:

The multiple times she said no physical abuse
The multiple times she said he did not curse at her
The multiple times she said he did not raise his voice at her
Only dating him a couple of months before she left on her mission

Staying in Costa Rica the entire time during her mission
Travis breaking up with her before her mission
Not talking to Travis for several weeks after returning from her mission
 Marriage pressure not felt until 2005.

Deanna Reid did not know what MMc's affidavit would show because her testimony came first.  She had no idea what he was going to say in the future.  And,  without knowing what MMc would be claiming,  how could Deanna invent lies which would so perfectly debunk his allegations?   The fact is,  Deanna was telling the truth.  MMc was lying.  Travis never physically abused Deanna Reid.

The DT had to know that MMc was lying.  Previous testimony showed Deanna Reid was in Costa Rica from June 2000 to November 2001.  The DT knew this when MMc initially stated he witnessed abuse on January 18th, 2001 yet they let that fly.  They were willing to present testimony that per prior evidence they knew had to be a lie.   When the prosecutor pointed out the fact in the hearing on January 9th,   MMc's allegation changed.

There were other issues the DT asked Deanna Reid directly and they  accepted it as truth:

Travis and Deanna broke up Summer 2001

Deanna first physically saw Travis a week or so later (but she did not talk to him until much later)
Deanna did not start dating Travis again until 2002
Deanna did not seriously consider marriage until 2005

In fact,  the DT attempted to imply Travis treated Deanna a lot better than he ever treated Arias.  Nurmi even stated (which was striken)
"Must have had a different relationship than he did with Ms. Arias, correct?"
The defense believed then, and they wanted the jury to believe as well,  Travis was only abusive to Jodi.  

If they considered those issues as fact then,  how can they present testimony now from MMc that stated  Travis was abusive to Deanna in November 2001 over an issue related to her pressure for marriage?  They knew she was neither talking to him nor ready to marry him because a relationship did not exist at the time.. It's the promotion of a lie and the DT has a duty of candor to not present that which they know is a lie.  

MMc'S ALLEGATION ABOUT THE CHILD PORN

MMc's credibility is severely damaged due to his false allegation about Travis being abusive to Deanna.   That alone should debunk what MMc claimed about the child porn.  However,  there are things about his child porn allegation that makes the allegation incredibly suspicious. 

If the claim were true,  MMc would have held the information about the child porn prior to Arias ever going to trial.  He was vocal on social media during and after the trial,  but never said one word until early 2014. In one conversation provided  by The Travesties page in October 2014,  MMc is discussing the issue why he didn't bring it up prior to the verdict coming down.  MMc's stated:

 "I did not realize what I knew until Jodi took the stand and was nearly finished. I was under a completely different belief of the situation until that point.  Then she said it and I remembered. and I am not going into details right now."   

• Jodi took the stand and discussed the alleged child porn issues on trial day 16, This was on February 11th, 2013  There was plenty of time for the information MMc alleged to know to be introduced.  Her trial was still going on in April of 2013. It gave MMc plenty of time to contact the DT and present the new evidence which could have been entered in surrebuttal phase to argue against the claim there was no kiddie porn ever found on the computer.  Surrebuttal did not begin until May 1, 2013 which was more than 75 days after Jodi's testimony about her alleged discovery Travis had an attraction to children ended.  MMc's claim there was not enough time is like his allegation Deanna was abused -unfounded.

Even if MMc did not testify,  why has he been so quiet about his claims until recently?  He was well aware many people stated over and over Jodi had no proof of child porn,  and no proof was provided by the DT.    However, he claims he had his "proof"  at his fingertips which he could have shared via multiple outlets prior to the verdict.   And now he  wants the public to believe he kept it to himself until March 2014 when he finally decided to share it with the defense?   Nothing stopped MMc from sharing his "proof"  on social media. In fact,  around March-April 2014 he did.

• MMc provided details about his alleged discovery, and it spread across social media.
• "Allegedly,  in January 2001, when Travis lived in Riverside, California with several Mormon friends, one of the friends discovered a file on a shared computer that contained images of children in questionable poses.  The friend confronted Travis and a discussion ensued into the wee hours of the night. Travis allegedly confessed to his own sexual molestation as a child and gave an example of an incident that occurred on a camping trip. Travis also admitted to a friend that he had an addiction to pornography.  This information along with corroborating supporting evidence was given to Jodi Arias defense team in March.  However, because of the time constraints and logistical obstacles, the friend was not able to appear in court."  

MMc alleged the pedophilia claim happened in January 2001.  This is the same time he initially claimed Travis physically assaulted Deanna Reid in Costa Rica all the way from California.   Like Jodi,  the man seems to like to use similarities in his lies.

However, the big question is not when,  but why.   Why would Travis allegedly share such damning information with someone who was not a close friend?    The information Travis allegedly shared with MMc could have landed him in jail and scarred him for life at the young age of 22. It is a situation that makes a permanent black mark on the record of anyone and is public knowledge for all.  If true and found out,  it meant Travis would have had to register as a sex offender with crimes against children for the rest of his life.   It would have effected any future hopes and dreams of a well-paying job. And,  it would have had a huge negative impact on his dating life and any future Mormon wife he wanted to find.  If the allegation was true,  why would Travis risk all those things and confess to a man he really did not have a tight relationship with?

An interview with one of Travis' real friends indicates that MMc was not even that close of a friend to Travis.  More about this can be found on  http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/12/jodi-arias-another-mystery-witness.html

"He also notes that Travis and Marc were never that close, and he has always doubted the conversation ever took place in the car that day"

If MMc was not a good friend of Travis',  why would he confess when there was another way out?  The computer was a communal computer with multiple users. Any of those users could have downloaded a picture of child porn.  No matter what MMc implied, in reality there would be no definite link to who did it.    

MMc knew he lacked the closeness to Travis to be his confidant.  He also knew if Travis were really a pedophile,  he would never have confessed so easily when there were so many other people who could have downloaded the child porn.    So,  he tailored his affidavit to attempt to provide an excuse as to how he found out and implicate it was definitely Travis who downloaded the porn.   However,  if a person understands a bit about computers,  they can understand why his story is not reasonable.

• MMc was attempting to open a downloads folder on the communal computer owned by the Bishop.   The Bishop had taken some photos of MMc's wedding, and he wanted to see them.  When MMc opened the folder,  child porn popped up on the screen.  He was surprised. The folder had Travis' name on it and the date the file was created.

MMc's story is a lie like no other.  And it shows the MMc doesn't know enough about the way things are downloaded into the download file to use it in his lie.   

  Have you ever downloaded an image from the internet?  If you have and paid attention,  you know why MMc's claim is not reasonable.When downloading an image, it can be saved one of two ways.  The first is under the name the file maker applied to it.  This is automatic, and the user has to do nothing but hit "save." It is how many people save images on their computer.   The second is under the name the user decided to give the file.   For example,  here are two duplicate downloads of puppies from the internet.  I named one and saved it,  and the other I saved under the file maker's tag for the image.  You get one guess which is which.

In order for a downloaded child pornographic image to have Travis' name on it,  Travis would have had to purposely wrote a big "Travis Alexander"  right across the picture of child porn and saved it on a computer that multiple people had access to.   Putting his name on child porn would have been an unbelievable self-incriminating action for an individual to do on a computer with so many users.  It would be like Travis having a scrapbook with his name on it,  putting multiple pictures of child porn in it,  and then leaving it out on the coffee table for anyone in the house to see.   It's not reasonable for anyone with any sense of reason in their head to believe someone would purposely do.   If Travis were a pedophile,  he would do what all pedophiles do; they go to great lengths to hide their secret. They do not purposely put their name on child porn and display it on a computer that has multiple users accessing the downloads file.   There are  ONLY  two ways for Travis' name to get on the alleged image MMc claimed to have discovered.  The first is if Travis put it there himself;  the second is if someone downloaded the image and saved it under Travis' name.   And, if that were the case Travis would have to had confess  a felony he did not commit to a man he did not know that well.  Neither situation is reasonable to believe.  The unreasonableness of MMc's claims indicates that he just was not being truthful.  

MMc did not know Jodi Arias.  However,  like all witnesses he is subject to the same scrutiny and tools to judge whether he is being honest or not.   His stories need to be examined to determine if they could be true and how likely they are to be true.    And,  his stories did not pass the test.

Deanna Reid was not in the country in January 2001 - she could not have been attacked in 1-2001
Deanna Reid was not talking to Travis for several weeks after she returned home in 11-2001 - she could not have been attacked in 11-2001
Deanna Reid had no desire to marry Travis in 11-2001 -- she could not have been attacked for insisting he marry her
Deanna Reid said multiple times Travis never got physical with her -- she could not have been attacked by Travis
Deanna Reid said multiple times Travis never cursed at her or raised his voice -- Travis could not have said "Get it through your fucking head" to DR
Travis was not close friends with MMc -  he would not have told MMc about alleged pedophilia
Travis would have had to write his name on a picture of child porn and not care if all the other multiple users saw it
Travis would have had to confess to using child porn even though there was no definite way to link it to him because of all the other users on the computer.


In the end,  MMc's claims may end up helping the prosecution get their death penalty.   His allegations  are so outrageous in nature and so easily debunked that the jury may associate them to being just another lie told by Arias.   The jury may see the ongoing child porn claims as continued attempts to destroy the reputation of her victim,  and that will not make Arias appear remorseful for her act in the jury's eyes.   It's a very dangerous path the DT is walking because they need to make the jury belief she is remorseful if they want them to spare her life.  And, continuing to lie about pedophilia is far from remorseful.

UPDATE FROM TRIAL DAYS 21 & 22

JM may not have had the opportunity to directly cross-examine MMc (too bad, would have loved to see it),   but he did successfully highlight MMc's inconsistencies in his statements.   MMc had a pre-trial phone interview on 2/27/14 with a member of Robert Geffner's staff,  Stephanie Platt.   MMc wrote his affidavit in 1/2015.  

The Contradictions

2/27/14  "Travis admitted to the pictures"  vs "Travis denied the pictures".  

• MMC stated in his 1/15 affidavit  Travis confirmed possession of child porn: "In the affidavit, MMc says he put a note on the computer to advise Travis to contact him; that the computer crashed. TA woke him up at 2 am. They talked and TA admitted ownership of the pictures"
• In an interview MMc gave on 2/27/14 MMc stated "Travis denied it, despite it being from his screen name from AOL and on the computer itself." At no time in his 2/27/14  interview did MMc claim Travis ever admitted ownership of the pictures

"Deanna Reid was abused in November 2001"vs "Deanna Reid was abused while my wife was living with Bishop Parker"

• Due to the contradiction of DR being out of the country at the time,  MMc changed his allegation and wrote a letter on 1/17/15: "He says it was an error (the 1-18-01 date) and that it could have happened in Nov. or Dec. 2001.  MMc knew that Deanna was home from her mission for only a few days."  Fact ---Deanna Reid was out of the country from June 2000 until she returned in November 2001.  MMc's new words placed the alleged abuse time frame in November 2001  
• MMc stated his soon-to-be wife was living with Bishop Parker when the alleged abuse incident happen (MMc's computer story lie supports this was sometime between 12/2000 and 3/10/2001.).  MMc's old words placed the alleged abuse time frame between January 2001 and 3/2001

MMc's allegations are nothing but lies made-up to give Jodi the corroborating evidence to support her false allegation of abuse and pedophilia.    If he made up the lies of finding the child porn,  one has to consider just how sick this man's mind must be in order to invent the details of the alleged child porn pictures he saw.

• "#1 (MMc) describes the images in detail with approximate ages (10-13 for the boys) and the blonde girl is about 8 years old.One performed oral sex, another was penetrated." 
• What kind of sick SOB can sit there, make up, and describe such images in details in order to promote a lie?  

ARIAS CONTRADICTIONS

Arias' testimony "I walked in and Travis was on the bed masturbating................  I was heading towards the dresser and I stopped.......he started grabbing at something on the bed.  I realized they were papers.   One went sailing off the bed and it landed face up near my feet.  It was a little boy of about 5 in his underwear."


On 2/03/10  Psychologist #1 (ALV) took hand-written notes during her forensic interview she had with Arias.  In the notes,  Arias said the child porn was on the computer,  " Child porn pictures of little boys--she walked in on him viewing this on the internet."

On 4/29/10  Jodi wrote a statement.  - "pictures were spread out on his bed & he was on his knees masturbating"



We all must work together to right a wrong when a wrong is being committed. These are snips posted on "Understanding the Travesties of Unexpected Murder Trials."    They clearly demonstrate what kind of man MMc is.  

https://www.facebook.com/BestNewsSiteCoveringtheAriasTrial?ref=stream

A previous message per MMc - He stated he never saw Travis getting physical with a woman.  MMc is a liar. 

Transcript of Deanna Reid's testimony (part involving Costa Rica and breakup)

J When did you meet him
D In 1998
J How did you meet him
D We met through mutual friends
J After meeting him did you immediately become involved, just friends?  Describe the relationship you and he had in the beginning
D We were friends at first and began dating in 2000
J Describe for me the relationship in the year 2000 once you and he began dating
D We started dating in the year 2000 and then I left for Costa Rica for a year and a half
J How long were you and he dating before you left to go to Costa Rica?
D Just for a couple of months.
J When did you go to Costa Ricca - if you could give me a month and a year?
D In June 2001

J and how long was your stint in Costa Rica?
D for a year and a half

J When did you return?
D I returned in November of 2001

J Was this Costa Rica trip for pleasure or something else
D I was serving  a mission for my church

J And your church is what?
D the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints

J and what are the rules of contact let's say with a boyfriend while you are serving a mission - what is allowed and required of you in terms of contact with a boyfriend?
D when I left on my mission there was to be no communication like telephone calls. At that time they did not allow emails. The only way we could communicate was thru letters.

J And,  would he write you?
D Yes
J And, did you write him back?
D Yes,  I did.


J at anytime during that year and a half did you have occasion to fly up and see him?
D NO
J and did he ever fly down there to see you?
D  NO.  It doesn't work that way.  Once your there on the mission for our church,  you stay there the whole time and you don't have visitors coming in and out, your just focusing on the work that's there.  

J and during that time you were there towards the end were there problems that developed in the relationship?
D Yes

J And what were those problems and approximately when?
D It was towards the end of my mission.  It just had been a long time to not see someone your dating  face to face and be able to like talk to them and hear their voice.

J  How old were you when you went on your mission?
D  I was 21 years old.

J and how old was Travis?
D He's a year older than me, He was 22.

J  What were the problems I interupted you....
D It just became difficult not being able to communicate with each other besides the letters,  so he wanted to start dating other people. So he wrote me a letter letting me know that so it wouldn't be as if he was being unfaithful to me.

J so before he did this he let you know via a letter?
D correct

J About how long before you returned did he let you know he wanted to date other people?
D  I believe it was in the summer of 2001

J had he started dating people earlier would there of been anyway you could have found out?
D No

J So, when he told you this is that the time you broke up?
D  Yes it is

J What year and month did you return?
D I returned in November of 2001

J And when you returned - what city were you living in back then?
D I was living in Riverside Ca

J Where was TA living?
D He was also living in Riverside Ca.

J when you came back did you have occasion to start meeting with him, seeing him,  talking to him or anything like that?
D Yes, several weeks after I had been home from my mission we started talking again and I would see him at church so we began talking and being friends again.

J And did it become more than a friendship?
D It did,  we began dating again.

J When?
D  In the beginning of 2002

J Was it exclusive,  did you talk about it?
D At that time we were exclusive when we started dating again in 2002

KN how did that friendship turn into a dating relationship
D We just starting hanging out and spending more time with each other on a regular basis and got to know each other better. We liked each other and started dating.

K Was marriage brought up between the two of you before Costa Rica
D It was brought up but I knew I would be leaving for a long period of time and the possibility of that happening ... I just wasn't sure that would really happen or not

K Did he propose prior to you leaving for your mission?
D No

K Did he encourage you to not go on this mission?
D No

K Did he express a preference that you stay with him and get married as opposed to going on this mission
D No

K you said you were gone about a year and a half, right?
D yes

K and the only mode of communication that was available to you based on the dictates of your mission was that you could only right letters.  Is that correct
D That's correct.

K is this letter writing for family or friends or are there different boundaries or rules?
D It applies to everyone.  I was allowed to telephone my family twice a year on Mother's day and on Christmas.

K So you were not allowed any phone contact with TA in these 18 months?
D Just the letters.

K and he wrote you a letter expressing a desire to see other people, correct?
D yes

K When you received the letter it was a pretty significant moment, correct?
D I don't know what you mean by significant

K Well, when you left you were thinking you might marry this man.
D I really didn't expect him to wait for me the entire time.

K So this letter you received then,  it was no big deal?
D I wouldn't say that it wasn't a big deal

K How long was it into your mission was it that you received this letter?
D It was well into my mission.  I was to be returning home in just a few months.

K Did this letter state who he wanted to date?
D  No, it didn't

K Did you have a change to respond to that letter before you returned?
D Yes, I did

K How many letters did you exchange after that, do you know?
D I don't know

K When you received that letter,  you weren't upset, you weren't heartbroken?
D  I was sad

K Heartbroken?
D I wouldn't say heartbroken at that time.

K Where you in love with him at that time?
D I was in love with him. But I was so busy with what I was doing there it was a good distraction to be there and doing what I was doing.  I wasn't focused on our relationship.  I was focused on the work I was doing in Costa Rica

K would it be fair to say you were hurt but you had other outlets to help you deal with that hurt?
D Yes

K How long was it before you saw TA?
D  Before I SAW him for the first time?  It was about two weeks I would say ... a week or so.

K how come it took so long?
D Because I figured he was moving on with his live and we were just in different places.  I had a lot of family stuff going on at that time.  And so I figured I would call him when I was ready.

K Did you know him to be dating anyone in particular when you got back?
D I didn't know

K Are you familiar with a person named Linda Balid?
D yes I am

K And who was she to Travis?
D She was the person he was dating at that time


K Did you meet her?
D Yes I did.

K Did you know her before you left for Costa Rica?
D No, I didn't

K What was your impression of the seriousness of the relationship b/t Travis and Linda?
D I didn't know the level of seriousness of their relationship.

K When you began to see him again after these few weeks passed,  did you see him as friends or did you begin dating again?
D  I saw him as friends

K And you started dating in again in 2002,  right?
D right.

The Truth About Porn Part III - DENIED, DENIED, DENIED!!!!!!!!!!!!

A MOTION RIGHTFULLY DENIED

By now we all know JSS' decision:  17 motions denied.  And, many of those denials are based on the fact the defense lacked the evidence to support the claim of prosecutorial misconduct.    This time it was the defense making the accusations so they had the burden of proof, and they fell 1000's of miles short of proving anything intentional.  

One of the reasons the accusations fell short are nobody's fault but Jodi's. Her lies about the intruders made it nearly impossible for the claim of tampering to be true.  The State would first have had to know what they were trying to hide before trying to hide it.  But how could they?  It was 2008 and 2009 when the claims of tampering were alleged; Jodi's sex-related defense never started until 2010.  It's a fact that neither Jodi's DT or her supporters can make go away no matter how much they try.   In the end,  it was Jodi's lies that aided in the State's defense against misconduct.  Karma really bit her in the ass on that one.

The claims of the States "purposeful targeting of sex-related evidence" really comes down to just three days.  And, all three days the sex-related defense did not exist; the DT cannot prove a purposeful act to delete evidence related to a defense which did not exist.  

1. 6-10-2008  "E. Flores tampered with evidence to cover up the porn." FALSE - Tampering means purposely affecting the availability or verity of evidence in a proceeding.  EF had no reason to.  JA claimed intruders did it; the sex-related defense did not exist.
2. 6-19-2009  "Juan Martinez and EF tampered with evidence to cover up the porn". FALSE- JM/EF had no reason to.  JA claimed intruders did it; the sex-related defense did not exist.
3. 12/2009  "JM intentionally withheld the 2008 data drive to cover up the porn.  He made a new one to hide it".  FALSE.  JM had no reason to.  JA claimed intruders did it;  the sex-related defense did not exist.

Jodi's supporters did the "happy dance"  when the allegation nicknamed "porngate"   first was filed.

They taunted and ridiculed anyone who said their celebration was premature.   That "Happy Dance"  has now turned to tear-filled shock and disappointment for Jodi's supporters once they read JSS' words  "Motion denied" over and over again.  It was a finding the majority of those who used reason knew JSS could not help but to conclude.  The defense lacked the proof the state did something intentional.  The state cannot intentionally delete porn to impede her sex-related defense if they do not know her case involves a sexual-related defense.  It is that simple.

But,  many of Jodi's supporters just don't see it that way.  In their eyes,  the fact the prosecution did not know about a sex-related defense in 2009 doesn't matter.   Many of her supporters blame the judge for being biased and ignoring the evidence which 'proves the prosecutions' misconduct'.  Evidence of what?  To meet the requirements of prosecutorial misconduct,  it needs to be shown  the State was aware Jodi would be claiming a sex-related defense and acted egregiously one year before Jodi first told them.  Basically,   her supporters want JSS to believe  the State was psychic and could predict the future.


The definition of prosecutrorial misconduct (per JSS)   "Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.

 "There is a distinction between simple prosecutorial error and misconduct that is so egregious that it raises concerns over the integrity and fundamental fairness of the trial." 
  
In the end,  JSS is saying the same thing to Nurmi many reasonable people have been stating early on,  "Hey Nurmi,  you cannot turn an inadvertent forensic error into an intentional act! The State did NOT know she was going to claim sexual abuse a year later!"

Court decisions are made based on evidence.  Anyone can make an allegation but for it to be founded the evidence must be there.  For example, the State alleged Jodi Arias premeditated the murder of Travis Alexander.   They presented a multitude of evidence to support it:

Travis was "done"  with Jodi and never wanted to see her again.
Travis was moving on with other women.
Jodi was obsessed and not 'done' with him
Even though she was talking to other men, Jodi was still quite obsessed with Travis.
On her trip, she called Travis 11 times before calling another man for the first time.
Jodi lied about not planning to go to Mesa
Jodi had access in her own home to the same type of gun used.  The alleged robbery to remove this access was suspicious in nature and occurred two days after TA was "done" with JA.
JA started the plans for her trip two days after TA was "done" with JA.
JA rented a car to help hide her presence. TA neighbors knew what hers looked like.
The licence plate from the rental was removed. Without a plate the car cannot be traced to the renter.
Jodi dyed her hair on the trip.  TA neighbors only knew  her as a blonde.
JA lied about the third gas can. A third one was needed to make it thru AZ w/o stopping to buy gas.
Jodi turned off her phone  before going to AZ. It was not turned back on until on the outskirts of AZ which could possibly even be in Nevada.  
She used her credit card in every state to buy gas except for AZ despite her claim she purchased gas in AZ.
Jodi made purposeful and conscious attempts to hide her murder after the fact.
Jodi lied about being there.
When caught,  Jodi lied about who killed Travis.  Those same tears were like the ones she had on the stand when she claimed abuse.
Jodi changed her story a third time only after the intruder story was failing.
Jodi attempted to enter copies of hand-written letters alleged to written by Travis and 'proof'  of what she said was true.  One letter with his alleged admission of pedophilia and was dated one year before the exact date she claimed to have found out about his pedophilia.
TA's hand-written journals came up missing and TA accused JA of stealing them.
The coded magazine messages telling the witness they fucked up for telling her attorney something different than her claims and to see her ASAP to fix it.
ETC.

The State won.  And they won because Jodi was stupid when it came to planning a crime and covering it up. She made multiple mistakes that gave her away. Despite whatever her IQ test may imply,  JA is no mastermind genius and never could have planned a "perfect crime."   She was a high school drop out who had little life experience and her work-related expertise involved waiting tables. She was not skilled in planning anything,  including a murder. The woman could not even manage her finaces in way to prevent her car from being repossessed.   

Court decisions are based on evidence.  The DT alleged the State intentionally destroyed and withheld exculpatory evidence.  The DT had no proof of this; they only had their inflammatory allegations about actions that were not supported by a motive.

06/10/2008 no sex-related defense = no motive

06/19/2009 no sex-related defense = no motive

12/09/2009 no sex-related defense = no motive

The defense lost.  And they lost because they could not show the State was aware of the need to tamper with sex-related evidence because Jodi's sex-related defense did not exist.  Without a motive to erase any porn,  the erasure of porn cannot be an intentional act to impede Jodi's case.   

Aside from no motive,  there was no proof the state ever withheld evidence when it comes to the laptop. JSS' explanation makes this clear. She put it so simply:

  

"The original laptop computer and hard drive were disclosed by the State and available for analysis by defense expert witnesses. "

JSS' response is pretty much like saying "The State told you (the defense)  about the original laptop early on so there was no attempt to hide it.  The fact you chose to not make a copy of it on your own at that time is not the State's fault.   It is your own; you knew it existed.    The State met their duty by telling you the laptop and hard drive existed.  They are not mandated to search out exculpatory evidence to prove your client is innocent.   They only have to tell you if they find it.  There is no proof they did."    And courts operate on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

JSS also wrote

"The evidence at issue was on the source

evidence (the original hard drive) and mirror images created from the source evidence"

And,  remember what the expert witness John Smith said 

" I prefer to look at the source and not work from images. The source is the most accurate representation of the data."

When the State provided a copy of the source and not a copy of the image,  they were only trying to provide the most accurate representation of the data. There is nothing more to their actions. 

JSS' response is pretty much like saying "The State gave you exactly what they had.  An image made directly from the hard drive; it was not an image of another image.  The State was under the impression this data was exactly the same.  There is no proof they were not.  The data was not, but they had no knowledge of that fact. You cannot turn this inadvertent forensic error into misconduct."  

JSS might have denied the "porngate"  motions,  but "porngate" will most likely resurface knowing Nurmi.   He has shown his disregard for the court's decision on a previous ocassion over and over again (ie the text messages were withheld allegation).     And,  JSS left it open in her motion for him to do so:

  "If the defense expert finds additional evidence after further review of the 2008 mirror image, he (John Smith) can be recalled as a witness."

JSS made the statement in relation to the penalty phase of the trial.   However,  neither the DT or her supporters may interpret it that way.  It doesn't matter.   John Smith cannot find any additional information on an image which only has data up to Jun 11, 2008 that could support the alleged 6/19/09 misconduct, can he?   Nonetheless,  it seems like it is a situation the DT is trying to imply can be done as they discuss the evidence in the penalty phase.  

THE SAGA CONTINUES

The porn allegations continue during the penalty phase.  It seems like the defense is trying to make the jury believe the State hid evidence of the 6/19/2009 changes.  All it took to debunk that claim were JM's words that in 2009, the State knew nothing about a sex-related defense in so there was no motive to hide such evidence.

The defense had to know the "prosecutorial misconduct"  claim wasn't going to fly so they threw in the implication 'exculpatory evidence' was missed so it was unfair to Jodi and the DP must be taken off the table.  This isn't going to fly either.  JM needs to make it a point that the DT had access to the 6/2009 data via an image they received on 12/2009.  He needs to stress that the DT just decided to not dig further and it is no one's fault but their own the previous jury did not hear this evidence. It wasn't up to the State to look for evidence to show her innocence;  it is up to the defense.  And, It is well within the DT's right to decide to not fully inspect evidence given to them  if they think it does not relate to her case.  Again,  it's Jodi's own fault for telling the "intruder lie"  this happened.  When the DT decided to look at the computer,  they were not looking for porn because Jodi's case was not sex-related. Karma again has bit her in the ass big time.

The defense does have a due diligence to provide evidence of innocence, but they are not mandated to present it in trial.  Failure to due their due diligence does not give them a "do-over"  shot at it should they loose their case. In this case, it will not even work in her favor for ineffective council,  but you can damn well be sure she will try to use it.   The defense failed to discover the porn because Jodi lied. It was an inadvertent error resulting from the action of an uncooperative client.  And, Jodi's letter to the judge where she cries "I wouldn't let Nurmi come see me but he should have made me let him"  is going to support how uncooperative she had been.

 In the end, the evidence discovered on the hard drive was not exculpatory anyhow.  The jury already knew Travis was into sex from the sex tape the defense played. They saw the alleged text from him that had lots of sexual statements on it. How are possible visits to adult porn sites going to change the picture?

The DT knows the existence of porn will not mean anything,  so it has been their claim the State said Jodi lied about porn on the computer.  Like many other times,  they defense cannot provide one link to a transcript where J. Martinez said Jodi lied about adult porn on the computer. JM said there was no child porn found on the computer and used that to imply Jodi lied about the pedophilia.   It doesn't matter anyways because there are so many other lies which so greatly destroyed Jodi's credibility that removing one would not have made a difference (see Lies, Lies, Lies the Arias Way)

The DT had access to the 6/19/09 data since 12/2009.  But, the DT still wants the jury to believe they had no way of knowing about those modifications. They have used the date they received the 2008 image and applied it to the data on the 2009 image. Then, the defense team tailored the testimony to give an impression  their expert has only had a short time to review the 6/19/09 modifications.  The truth is their expert had access to the 6/19/2009 modifications for about 2 months.  Additionally,  their old expert had access to the data since 2009.  It is the 2008 image without the 6/19/2009 modifications that they only had for the limited time and the 2009 changes will not be on that.  JS can study the 2008 image all he wants, but he will never find data from 2009.  That's a fact. 

.

THE JOHN SMITH WORK TIME LINE

• August 14 hired
• was to look for porn,  start-up times, and shut-down times of the computer.
• made 2014 image
• this image had the 6/19/2009 file modifications on it.
• finished his work with the 2014 image in October 2014
• worked on the 2014 image with the 6/19/2014 changes for a period over about two months.  
• December,  Christmas time
• rehired to examine the 2008 image the State made
• 2008 image does not have 6/19/2009 file modifications on it
• 2008 image was basically the same except for no 6/19/2009 file modifications
• Despite the alleged urgency,  he did not attempt to make a copy of the image until January 5th, 2015 ~ 2 weeks after he was hired to do so
• I REPEAT,  THE 2008 IMAGE DOES NOT HAVE THE 6/19/2009 MODIFICATIONS ON IT.

JS had access to the 6/19/2008 data for a period of about 2 months.  So why is he claiming to not have enough time with it?  Why is he only now,  after looking at the 2008 drive,  claiming things about 6/19/09  he did not say when he finished his work on the 2009 data in October?  Is this a sign that somewhere the DT fostered a lie?    They have a duty of candor not to.  

THE HARD SHUT DOWN TIMES 

 BRYAN NEUMEISTER TESTIMONY

BN: Computer was turned off at 4:10 pm on June 19, 2009. It was on for 12 minutes. (3:58 pm)
JM: If someone testified that it was on for hours, they would be wrong?
BN: It wasn’t on for hours.

 BN - The Computer was turned off at 16:10 MST (3:10 pm in AZ) on June 19, 2009. It was a hard shutdown which means it was either unplugged from the wall or on/off button was held down for 4 seconds or it just crashed itself. (Nov 21, 11:43)

"JM moves on to 6/19/09. The hard shutdown was 16:10."(Dec 4th 11:14 p)

"JM asks about 6/19/09. BN -It was a hard shutdown."  (Dec 4th 1:40 p)

Dec 4th 2:49 pmJW: When TA’s computer was turned on and off on June 10, 2008, can you show us the times again?
BN displays it on the screen. According to the computer, it was turned on at 10:27 am. The time cannot be changed. With June 19, 2009, 1558 is when it was turned on. Hard shutdown at 16:10. These times/dates cannot be changed either.
BN would later give away in an interview on 1-05-2009 that his knowledge of computers was not what he allowed the courts to believe. (I wonder what that will do to his career).  However, in the interview BN maintains JS told him the computer was turned off at 16:09:58 on June 19, 2009.

JM  How was it (computer) turned off?
BN  I don't know.  You will have to ask JS.  
JM  You know you testified as to how it was shut off.
BN  I think I testified it was a 'hard shut down'.  
JM  And did you get that information from "JS"?
BN  YES
JM  And the times,   Where did you get the times you testified from?
BN  from John Smith. 
JM So, all the times you go were from John Smith?
BN  That's correct.  

THE PRE-TRIAL INTERVIEW WITH JOHN SMITH

JS' 1-09-25 testimony supports he led JM to believe the same thing BN believed:  The computer was  turned off at 16:09:58 on 6/19/2009.
JM   Didn't you tell me the application ended abruptly at 16:09:58 on June 19, 2009?JS    Yes but it doesn't mean it was turned off. There were no more modified files.
JM   What ended at 16:09:58 ? 
JS    The modification of a file
JM   You indicated to me that it was turned off at that time
JS     I wouldn't say that it was shut off, only that it was the last modified files.....
        ........... but I see a few more modifications after that.

  How can two different 'expert'  defense witnesses state opposing facts? 

EVIDENCE OF A LIE?

The difference in what JS told others about the 16:10 hard shutdown before his testimony supports he possibly was not being honest somewhere.  Was JS being honest when he led BN to believe a hard shutdown occurred at 16:10?  Remember,  he already reviewed the 2009 data; the shut-down information was on the 2014 image he made.    It was not learned from the drive he received 72 hours prior to his testimony on 1/9/15.  That data was from the 2008 image which would have only contained 2008 data; it did not contain data from 2009.

Was JS being honest when he led the prosecutor to believe the hard shutdown occurred at 16:10?  Again,  this information was gathered from the 2014 image he had for about 2 months.  In the 1/5/2015 interview, he had not started his exam of the 2008 image yet; he didn't have it.  Per the DT statements,  JS had to scramble to get as much from that image as he could  prior to his 1-09-15.  If so, he would not have been looking back at the 2014 image he had  for 2 months during  those four days.  However, it was during those four days that his story changed.  Why?  The 2008 image only contained data from 2008; it did not contain data from 2009.  So did he lie to Martinez in the interview or is he lying on the stand?  

Or, was JS being honest when he stated there was no evidence of a 'hard shutdown"  on 6/19/09?   If so,  why did he lead both BN and JM to believe there was?  Did he forget what he had previously told Bryan Neumeister about the hard shutdown?   Or was Bryan Neumeister just mistaken when he made the claim on 1/05/2015 it was JS who told him the computer had a hard shutdown at 16:09:58 on 6/19/2009?  If so,  why did BN continue to stick to his guns in the 1/05/15 interview when he told JM those times came from JS?   

The defense team used the hard shutdown of 16:10 in the hearing.  They did not mention the hard shutdown at 23:07 in the hearing.  Why not?   If they knew,  reason dictates they would have. 

The only logical answer is JS did tell BN that there was a hard shutdown at 16:10 and did not report a  23:07 hard shutdown at that time. He would have had to learn of it between 1/5/15 and 1/09/15 from the 2008 image and that is impossible.  

What is a defense team to do when two of their 'star computer' witnesses' results are in direct contradiction to each other?  Doesn't it mean that one, possibly both,  are either liars or their findings were wrong?  If so,  which one?  It's no wonder why BN has been pulled from the witness list. Again,  I have to wonder what that will do for his career.  Was he only mistaken about the facts when he claimed the 16:10 shutdown over and over again?  That doesn't look good for a forensic investigator whose reputation needs to be built on accuracy.  Did he lie when he said the time was 16:10?  Again,  that does not look good for a forensic investigator.  The only way BN can save his reputation is to be honest that John Smith made him believe the shutdown time really was 16:10 and said nothing to him about the 23:07 hard shutdown.   That isn't going to look good for the DT's case.  Yes,  it's no wonder why BN was pulled from the witness list.  They know JM will bring it out of him on cross-examination.   I wonder if he can share the transcript of the related hearing since it will eventually be part of public record?   

6-09-2014 MODIFICATION TIME

 The defense team fucked up.  What they are telling the court now directly contradicts what they have been saying for over a month.  I guess they better get Tony down to their office ASAP before he testifies so they can fix it.

Yeah- see what I did there?

The DT made three assertions about the computer which do not match either their previous claims or the associated evidence.  The first  was the "hard shutdown" at 16:10 never occurred.  Brian Neumeister's testimony is in direct contradiction of that, and he was a defense witness.

#1 -- HARD SHUT DOWN

Bryan Neumeister, defense team witness, testimony:

With June 19, 2009, 1558 is when it was turned on. Hard shutdown at 16:10. These times/dates cannot be changed either.

John Smith, defense team witness, testimony:

JS Other modifications were on June 19, 2009 at 15:59. The last file was modified at 23:07:09.

 JW  "15:58 is when it (computer) was turned on."

JM   What ended at 16:09:58 ? 
JS    The modification of a file......it doesn't mean it was turned off

During the hearing,  Dt. E. Flores testified about being the one to do the hard shutdown.  He had to either be mistaken, wrong or performed it incorrectly if what JS' says is true.  However,  EF has BN's testimony to corroborate his statement. 

When they were done with the computer, they put it aside and EF proceeded to do a hard shut down."  (Dec 11, 10:03)

#2 - 12 MINUTES VS 2 HOURS

# 3 - THE ELEVENTH HOUR

The second assertion made by the defense is the modifications occurred over a period of two hours.   And the third is  files were modified via human interaction around 11 pm.  Both are debunked by testimony of another defense witness and tangible evidence. 

JS implied the computer was on for about 7 hours on 6/19/2009.  But, how can John Smith say that now when Neumeister states he was told it was 12 minutes by John Smith?

Bryan Neumeister,  defense witness

JM So, all the times you got were from John Smith?
BN  That's correct.
JM: If someone testified that it was on for hours, they would be wrong? (re 6/19/09 computer use)
BN: It wasn’t on for hours.
The defense team graph:On June 19, 2009 approximately 2300 files were modified over a 2-hour period (around 4:00 p.m.) then later in the day around 11:00 p.m.
In his testimony,  JS claimed the computer was accessed by a human user at 23:00 hours. 
With a 5-hour gap in between, it is doubtful that the computer would just spontaneously do that.  JS says that someone activated the computer in the 11 pm hour on June 19, 2009. 

Remember,  JS' information about ANYTHING that happened on June 19, 2009 was known before BN gave his interview to JM.  And in that interview BN implied it was JS who told him the computer was on from 15:58 - 16:10.  

BN's testimony makes JS look like a liar.   And,  when JS made the allegation about human activity at 11pm,  he  obviously did not understand the procedure for evidence and how it makes him look like a liar as well.  

THE EVIDENCE LOG

There is an evidence log kept.  And, the evidence log shows the computer was not on for hours. 

Exhibit 9 was the evidence log. 

Exhibit 9 includes TA’s Compaq Presario. Exhibit 9 is admitted in evidence. It was checked at at 13:56 (1:56 pm). (computer was turned on at 15:58/ 3:58) It was returned at 16:51 (4:51 pm)

JS says that someone activated the computer in the 11 pm 

    Lisa Hendrix became the evidence manager in 2006.  In an 2013 interview (not case-related), Lisa expressed how important the job had become to her:

"It didn’t take long to realize she had found her niche. It just appealed to me,” she said. “It just became a passion for me.” "

She also discussed some of the MPD property room policies: 

All items are entered into a database with an associated case number. Once an item is packaged, an evidence manager like Hendrix cannot open the packaging. 

“We have a strict policy from Day One,” she said. “Sealed in. Sealed out.” 

The life of the evidence — every time an investigator asks to the see the item — is tracked. 

EF physically returned the laptop the same day (testimony on 1-14-15)

In order to be returned to the evidence room, the laptop must be sealed in a bag.(Sealed in. Sealed out). The only way to bag it  is to close the lid.  Closing the lid makes the laptop go into sleep mode and all modifications stop. To be fair,  it's possible for a user to change their settings so the computer will not sleep when the lid is down.  However,  is this something Travis would have done?   It's possible he did so we must accept that.  But even if it was set to not sleep while the lid was down,  it would have still eventually went into sleep mode within minutes of no user interface. We know sleep mode was activated for idle periods because that is how the computer was found. The computer would not have remained running and making modifications for an hour after it was placed back into evidence;  Sleep mode would have kicked in within about 3-5 minutes after it was scanned into evidence because no user was interfacing with it.  And, if we are to believe BN's statement about the computer being shut down at 16:10, the "two-hour" modification time was an exaggeration purposely tailored to give the impression of wrong- doing.

It had a bar code on it that was scanned at 16:51:34 (testimony 1/14)

All property coming in and out of the property room is scanned electronically to keep a running log of every time someone has access to the evidence.  This is done to protect against accusations by defense council that law enforcement tampered with evidence.  If an accusation is made,  the log is pulled up and the accusation is investigated.  

Only the property clerks have keys to the property room.  The investigators must go through them to have access to evidence. The investigators are not permitted to come and go as they please. They have to sign in and out so access to the property cannot happen without the property technician knowing - he or she controls the keys.  

The hours for the property room is only 9-5.  These are the same hours which Flores usually worked. On the rare occasion, the property room may be open later, but usually not 10-11 pm at night.   Cost wise, there would be no reason.  Most the investigations occurred during the day.  

In order to believe the 23:07 both occurred and was human interface, we have to believe the State purposely attempted to hide evidence that had nothing to do with Jodi's defense at the time.  To do this, we have to go beyond reason and accept the following scenario (or a similar one) to be true:

The property clerk broke the rules to help Flores change evidence which held no importance at the time.  She scanned the computer at 16:10 to make it look like it was returned and then let Flores sneak it back into evidence at a later time. Even though she had been at the job for years, she risked the job that was a passion just give Flores the opportunity to change evidence that was not connected in any way to Jodi's crime.  And, even though he had been at his job for years,  Flores was willing to risk it all in order to tamper with evidence that had nothing to do with the case at han

If the 23:07 activation of the computer is true,  for it to be a human interface it would mean even one more person would have to be added to the conspiracy list to convict Jodi Arias:

Juan Martinez, prosecutor

Dt. E. Flores,  investigator
Dt. Bina, investigator

Dt. M Melendez, investigator
Lisa Perry, blood spatter expert
Evidence Techician  MPD property room
M. Galieti,  Utah Police officer
Dr. Kevin Horn ME.

And that is just those in the investigation offices;  it doesn't include the civilians who told of those actions which showed Jodi's guilt.  And this long list  of people willing to risk their freedom and careers in order to convict some unknown woman for killing some unknown man is all supposed to be just to make "Juan happy."   It's a ridiculous claim which Jodi's DT and her supporters expect the jury to just accept and believe.  There is not one piece of evidence which supports the evidence technician violated procedural rules and let someone have access to the laptop without scanning it.   Additionally,  there would be no reason to hide access to the laptop.  Jodi was still using her "intruders did it"  lie.  The laptop held nothing the State needed to hide in which would support that lie.  

WHICH IMAGE...THAT IMAGE....THIS IMAGE....

One has to ask,  how can JS now state there was not a hard shutdown at 16:10 when he made BN believe that?  And why wouldn't the mysterious 23:07 human interaction with the laptop been brought up on the motion or the hearing?  Why would the prosecutor believe the computer was only on from 3:58 to 4:10 after his interview with JS?   I am guessing  the excuse the DT is hoping all will accept, is it is new information JS just found out because of having the image for a limited time.

"Jan 20th 2015 at 12:55 JS "Please keep in mind that I've only had access to this image for 72 hours"

Jan 20, 2015 at 13:56 JS stated "I've only had 72 hours with this data but I'm fairly certain in my findings"  

The problem is it is only the 2008 image JS had for only a short amount of time. He would have learned nothing new about the 6-09-2008 modifications from the 2008 image.  JS learned about all those changes from the 2014 image he had for about two months. And his exam of that image ended in October 2014.  Surely,  two months is enough time for a skilled technician to complete his assigned job, correct?   If so,  why is he making it sound like he did not have enough time to do so?

1-14-2015  JS testimony:
12:10  On June 19, 2009 approximately 2300 files were modified over a 2-hour period (around 4:00 pm) then later in the day around 11:00pm
12:12 JS can see that files were modified, created, or accessed but he cannot see if anything was moved.  He has not had enough time to follow the data and the paths.  If he had more time,  he could possibly determine what, if anything, was put on a USB drive.

The simple answer is because he is using the time frame associated with the 2008 image and applying it to the 2009 image. The 6/19/09 changes would not be on the 2008 image.  JS gives the impression he found the data on the 2008 image by stating he has not had enough time with it. The only image he had limited time with was the 2008 image.  His actions speak of dishonesty. And, if he is being dishonest here, despite his skill level one has to question his overall credibility.  


JS had plenty of time with the 6/19/09 data and found nothing to indicate prosecutorial misconduct.  And, he found no child porn.  However, the DT needs to make the jury believe the reason why nothing was found is because his time with the 6-19-09 data was limited.  In order to facilitate that impression, the 72-hour access to the 2008 drive was substituted for the 2-month access to the 6-19-09 modifications.   It's a dirty trick that does not have to be done if the claims of what they say are true.  


In the end,  if the 23:07 hard shut down did occur,  JS would have been aware of it since October 2014.   He completed his examination of the drive which had the 6/19/2009 modifications on it.  Between the time JM interviewed him on 1-05-15 and the time JS testified on 1-09-15 he was only examining the  2008 drive. 

 He was asked to do work on August. 

JM Did you do any work after Oct. 2014? 

JS No sir.

He made an image of the hard drive and gave it to BN in Oct. 2014. He has had no contact with this case since then. 

JM Your work is done until around Christmas 2014. 

JS In Dec. I was asked to be interviewed for this case.I don't remember the exact date I was asked but it was the end of the holiday season. 

JM: It was actually Jan. 2, 2015.JM On Monday (1-5-19), the old drive (2008) was hooked up by the Mesa PD and it did work, didn't it?

JS yes, sir. 

JM You verified that it did work? 

JS Yes.

 JM It was turned over to defense and then to you? 

JS Yes. 

JM And you worked on it since then?

 JS Yes.

So, if JS knew about no hard shutdown at 16:10 why did BN say he said that?  JS could not have learned of new facts about 2009 from a 2008 image.  If he knew about the 23:07 user-access on 6/19/09 why didn't he say anything before 1-09-15?  JS could not have learned of new facts about 2009 from a 2008 image.   If he knew about there being no hard-shut down at 16:10 in his interview with JM,  why did he give that impression?  JS could not have learned of new facts about 2009 from a 2008 image.  If JS knew the hard shutdown was at 23:07 and not 16:10,  why didn't he say anything in his interview with JM on 1/5/2015?   JS could not have learned of new facts about 2009 from a 2008 image.

But that is what the DT is trying to imply.  JS learned all these new facts from his inspection of the 2008 image. And, because his time with the 2008 image was limited,  he just now learned about the "more modifications"  later in the day on 6/09/2009.  Additionally,  he didn't have enough time to fully investigate those 6/09/2009 changes because of his limited time with the 2008 drive.

It's a lie like no other.