DISMISSAL OF CHARGES? REMOVAL OF THE DP? APPEAL? --- NO DICE.

The defense filed a motion to either dismiss all charges or remove the death penalty in the case of Jodi Arias.  The initial motion alleged the state was aware of porn on the victim's computer and purposely deleted it.  However, prior evidence  and that uncovered in the hearing does not support those claims.

THE EVIDENCE AS OF 12/04/2014

Travis's body was found on June 9, 2008
On June 10th the state was actively collecting evidence, including the computer in question.
On June 11th,  the State made a mirrored copy of the computer's hard drive.
During these initial two days,  the PD was still searching for suspects and a motive.

Jodi Arias was arrested and indicted on July 9, 2008   Her Defense was "I had nothing to do with it, intruders killed him"

On June 19th, 2009,  the computer was powered up with the two members of her previous DT and the State in the room.

On June 19th,  Jodi still claimed intruders.

Sometime either in 2008 or 2009 a copy of the original mirrored image was made.  This copy was later inspected by Lonnie Dworkin,  a computer expert for the defense.  He  found no porn.

The State's witness,  Det Melendez testified to the same.  There was no porn found.

Maria Schaffer, one of Jodi's previous two person DT said it was the State who turned on the computers.  She said it was only the State who accessed the computer.

Martinez states it was the DT who asked the computers be powered up.  States they were told it was not a good idea.  States the DT was looking in the computers.

Greg Parzych, the second member of the prior DT stated he could not remember who pushed what buttons on the computer. He said they were not warned to not turn it on. He said they were looking at pictures in the computer.


Bryan Neumeister took a second look at the computer and alleged he found 1000's of porn files which were scrubbed off the hard drive on June 19th, 2009.

Bryan Neumeister described the porn as so obvious it could not be missed.

Bryan Neumeister said the mirror image of the hard drive Dworkin had matched the one the state gave him. He stated both of the hard drives matched the mirror image he made and both had porn on it.

Bryan Neumeister said a write-blocker should always be used before the computer is even turned on to avoid destroying evidence.

Bryan Neumeister viewed the computer without a write-blocker.

Bryan Neumeister or someone in his company,  used Incinerator 2.3 to remove data off the computer. Bryan states these were viruses removed.

Flores - defense requested to view the computer on June 19th. Computer checked out at 2pm.  Returned at 4:51 pm

Flores said he did not know who turned on the computer.  Said the DT was clicking buttons and looking through the computer.

Flores said his job is to watch and make sure the evidence is not left with. Says he does not get involved with the action.

THE DEFENSE CLAIM #1 

The State was aware of the porn because the porn was evident on the 2008 mirrored image.  The state went in the computer on June 19th and purposely removed the porn.

WHY DEFENSE CLAIM #1 IS UNFOUNDED

LACK OF MOTIVE

When the state made the mirrored image on June 11th, 2008,  it was just two days into the investigation.  They had not named Arias as an official suspect. They were not aware the murder case would involve claims of sex or claims of pedophilia.  They had a dead man they knew little about and a muderer they knew nothing about.   When the mirrored copy was made on June 11th, 2008,  there was not any reason to hide porn of any kind.  .

Finding porn on Travis's computer on June 11th, 2008 would not have aroused any concern in the Mesa PD.  Statistics show that every second 28,258 users are watching porn on the internet, and 40 million people regularly visit porn sites.  Finding porn on some unknown murder victim's computer would not seem abnormal.  A normal finding would not have given the MPD a motive to hide porn from the defense team.  However,  it was what Bryan Neumeister initially suggested they did with the June 11th copy of the hard drive provided to the defense. 

The motive to erase porn was still absent on June 19th, 2008 the date the DT alleges the State purposely erased it.   Jodi Arias was claiming she had no hand in the murder of Travis Alexander.  She claimed it was someone else.  Porn found on the man's computer at the time could not have either supported or disproved her claim.   

DEFENSE EXPERT SAID NO PORN

The State found no porn when they searched,  and neither did the initial defense expert.  Lonnie Dworkin is a forensic computer examiner which the defense used to examine the computer.   

When Neumeister was informed Dworkin found no porn,  he suggested it was because the state provided an incompetent copy.  He concluded this had to be the reason because it was overtly obvious.  Neumeister later testified the mirror copy he got from the State showed the porn on it.  He added Dworkin had the same copy.  The identical copy left him no choice but to claim Dworkin incompetent in his job.   However, Bryan Neumeister does not have the personal work history or the credentials to claim incompetence on the part of Dworkin.

BRYAN NEUMEISTER'S CREDENTIALS
Certified Audio & Video forensic expert

Member of ACFE (American College of Forensic Examiners)
Member of AES (Audio Engineering Standard)
Memeber of ABRE (American Board of Recorded Evidence Standards)
Member of NATAS (National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences)
Member of BMI (Broadcasat Music, Inc)
Member of ASCAP (American Society of Composers and Publishers)
Member of ACFEi (American College of Forensic Examiners International)


http://www.skymeister.com/

Bryan Neumeister's credentials are centered around the Audio/Visual field.   He lists "PSA" and "APA"  as titles,  but it is unclear to what they are.  His military, government, and legal department history involve his expertise within the field of audio/visual.  He has done some work with computers,  but his expertise and titles center around audio/visual situations. 

Whereas Neumeister is a certified audio/visual retrieval expert, Dworkin is a certified computer examiner.  He has worked in his current position providing computer forensic and eDiscovery services for almost 12 years.  Prior to that, he spent five years working for IEEE Computer society,  a company that presented workshops and conferences focused on the advancement of computer and information processing in science and technology. Before IEEE,  Dworkin worked with Intel for 11 years.  The man knows his computers.   The fact he found no porn using the same drive the State did supports that the State was unaware of porn on the computer and did not wrong.  

LONNIE DWORKIN'S CREDENTIALS

AcessData Certified Examiner
Certified Computer Examiner

NSA INFOSEC Assessment Method (IAM) (NSA = National Security Agency INFOSEC - information security)

Program Management Professional

http://www.compufor.com/


THE HARD DRIVE ISSUES

When Neumeister received the hard drive,  he was able to make a mirrored image of it to use for his investigation.  He conducted his examination and provided the results to the Defense team, and the motion to dismiss based on Prosecutorial misconduct was filed.  The prosecution attempted to access the hard drive to conduct their own investigation.  However,  they could not.  It was damaged sometime between the time Neumeister made his mirrored copy and the time the State tried to access the computer.  The broken hard drive makes it impossible to deny or confirm if Neumeister's claim the porn was obvious was in fact, true

 ERASED FILES 

The state discovered evidence someone went into the computer and erased 8,000 files on October 22, 2014 using an incinerator program.  Bryan Neumeister initially denied knowledge of the erasing of files and responded two others were working on the computer with him.  Juan showed him the program used was incinerator 2.3, which was not on Travis's hard drive prior to Bryan Neumeister's examination.    

Incinerator 2.3 is a program which completely removes data to the extent no recovery tool can ever get it back.  There is no way of determining what data was removed because there is no trace. However,  one cannot use incinerator 2.3 to remove all tracks of incinerator 2.3,  so it will remain.  

 http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Incinerator.shtml

Bryan Neumeister admitted the files were scrubbed but attributed it to needed virus removal. But,  the question remains as to why the need to completely remove the virus  instead of putting in quarantine? Quarantining the virus would but it in a high-security jail which would prevent it from functioning.  The data would still remain, and it would not affect the computer.  However,  Neumeister removed it.   The fact Bryan Neumeister had to  remove all the viruses prior to obtaining the porn site information supports the porn was not as overtly obvious as he claimed it to be.  It supports the idea the porn was only overtly obvious after he erased portions of the hard drive.  

SUMMARY OF UNFOUNDED ALLEGATION

There is plenty of evidence that cast reasonable doubt as to the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct.  Elements such as no motive,  the defense witness verification of not finding porn,  the credentials of the experts involved,  the hard drive damage which prevents further inspection, and the defense removal of files all cast reasonable doubt on the subject.    There are still more witnesses to testify.  However, they are the state's witnesses.   The state will present two computer technicians who must hold beneficial evidence for the state or they would not be  witnesses. At this point, little hope is left for the defense to pull out a wild card to win their fight.

THE DEFENSE CLAIM #2 

Even if the State was unaware of the erasing of the porn, it happened in their custody. They are responsible for maintaining the evidence, so the motion should be granted

The defense has laid grounds to imply mishandling of evidence by the State.  The defense argued the State purposely erased evidence,  and then said even if it was unintentional it caused Jodi harm.  They implied because of the harm it caused,  either the death penalty should be removed or Jodi should be set free.  However, the mistakes made will not get Jodi Arias a mistrial or the death penalty vacated.  At best,  it could be used to help with an appeal.  

However, in an appeal,  a mistake must be substantial in nature.  And, the jury knowing Travis had porn on his computer would not fall within the criteria.  The jury was already aware Travis was into freaky sex, and he had a knowledge of sexual terms beyond the norm.  A long sext identified as originating from Travis included graphic sexual details and  talk of a pornographic photo shoot.  On the sex tape,  Travis used such terms as "tossed salad"  and "cream pie".  He described in graphic detail what he wanted to do sexually to Arias, and spoke of porn star fantasies.    The defense alleged he sent a picture of his penis to Arias, and provided the alleged picture.  The defense made sure the jury was well aware of Travis's interest in sex.   Because of the defense's actions, porn on Travis's computer would have had no impact.  

However, the defense still tried to claim the porn as exculpatory evidence. The defense is implying it is not the presence of porn on the computer that is exculpatory in nature. They claim it is because the State used the lack of porn to call her a liar.  However,  this too shall fail.  There is so much more evidence of Jodi's lies.  (See LIES LIES LIES - THE JODI ARIAS WAY)

  

The defense is well aware porn on the computer would not be considered exculpatory evidence.  So,  they have attempted to make a suggestion child porn was on the computer.  Neumeister claimed the words "Teen-slut"  and "tween" were including in the search history.  However, he did add "tween"  included the word "between".    He did not personally view any of the stated websites to verify if they were child porn because he did not wish to be subject to viewing it.   It's a dirty job,  but  it was pertinent he checked out those suspect sites.  Because without the verification of what those search words linked to,  the defense only has speculation on their side.  Speculation is not going to earn an appeal.   

There is a lot of evidence that cast reasonable doubt to the charges of misconduct.  However, in the end the decision still falls upon one person.  Let's hope Judge Sherry Stephens is wise enough to see the evidence too.