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.