It took a three day evidentiary hearing and three weeks of arguing for a Mesa, Arizona police technician to admit that there was pornography present on Travis Alexander’s computer.  That might not sound like much, but it is at the center of a disturbing question in the capital case, were files deleted from the victim’s computer?

Judge Sherry Stephens must now decide whether prosecutorial misconduct in the case was egregious enough to dismiss the prosecution’s intent to seek the death penalty.

She has a few questions to answer:
1.  How is it possible for there to be pornography on the computer when police testified in court that there was none?
2.  Who deleted tens of thousands of files?
3.  Was it a deliberate act of misconduct?

Arias’ defense attorneys Jennifer Willmott and Kirk Nurmi and their forensic expert Bryan Neumeister explained to the court the computer contained viruses that had infected Alexander’s computer due to the explicit viewing.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez began the three day hearings blaming a previous defense member for the deletions and when that proved untrue, he turned his blame on Neumeister.  Neumeister repeatedly told Martinez that he didn’t understand computers and the prosecution was lying.

Martinez even called a Mesa police expert to talk to the court about “clones” as an attempt to prove that the files were altered by the defense in some manner.  The problem is that “clones” are copies of the original, have no effect on the original files, and are altered frequently during analysis.

The Mesa expert, Perry Smith, eventually admitted during the hearing that there was pornography present all along.  That begs the question:  Why would the prosecution push so hard to say there wasn’t then when confronted with evidence blame the defense?

Arias, 34, was convicted early last year of first-degree murder in the death of her on again, off again boyfriend Travis Alexander, 30.  He was found dead in the summer of 2008.

During her trial, Mesa police officers testified that there were no viruses on the computer or pornography.  Martinez called Arias a liar for saying there was.  It turns out there was.

“Let’s put an end to this circus,” Kirk Nurmi told the court, and referenced the “false evidence” as being a basis for some of the prosecution’s case.

In the end, despite the admission of the police expert, Martinez attempted to blame the defense. “Perhaps they should point [the finger] at themselves,” he said in closing statements to the court.

The sentencing resumes Monday.

In other news, witnesses for Jodi Arias refuse to testify in open court.  Three defense witnesses refuse to testify in view of the public out of fear of reprisal.  This refusal is causing some to question whether Arias can get a fair sentencing after the sensationalism of her trial?  The three witnesses aren’t being publicly identified for obvious reasons, but they are described as one of Arias boyfriends, one of her former co-workers, and a friend of Travis Alexander.

An appeals court overturned a ruling by Judge Stephens allowing the witnesses to testify in private before the jury.  The jury was only able to hear a small part of the testimony before The Arizona Republic and three local stations – KPNX, KPHO, and KTVK, protested the secrecy.

The news organizations are now pushing for Judge Stephens to unseal the testimony conducted in late October.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, which is prosecuting Arias, declined to comment.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Matthew says:

    I’m glad there are other people who realize that juan martinez is a worthless scumbag. I was starting to think that I was the only one who noticed.

    Like

  2. Excellent and objective analysis of what’s currently happening in this farce of a trial. I hope you don’t mind, but this very excellent argument was sent to me anonymously. I feel it’s an astute argument and hope you will find it adds value to this article and your blog:

    “How did the prosecution prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Incinerator program was used to shred the “hard” or mess with the clone?

    Well, I mean it is just impossible to prove that this exact app(build) was used to do so meaning the Juan’s discovery of it on the HDD should be irrelevant (to some extent as in finding a baseball bat at the crime scene of a shooting) and taken with a huge grain of salt (as in him trying to save his a**), unless he can prove unprovable i.e that the app was used to delete anything.

    Juan didn’t prove anything by “suspiciously” and conveniently finding this app on the HDD, unless he can prove that it was used in the commission of a “crime” and seeing how no body can prove it he is f**** to say the least.

    How did the prosecution prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Incinerator program was used to shred the “hard” or mess with the clone?

    To make things perfectly clear. To prove that the program was used in the way the prosecutor alludes it was the prosecution has to “prove” that there was “porn” on the HDD in the first place and that it was, subsequently, “shredded” thus incriminating “themselves” in the commission of a punishable offense, to wit, prosecutorial misconduct and evidence tampering.

    Unless the prosecution can prove that the defense used the program to cover up the fact that the prosecution committed a felony offense by forever deleting “porn” off of the hard drive disk the incinerator bull**** should be stricken off the record…

    “Why on earth would the defense destroy the direct evidence of prosecutorial misconduct” is the question you should be asking now. “It just doesn’t make any sense why they would do something like that” should be the answer.

    Additionally, the forensics expert didn’t use a write-blocker as he examined the camera’s flash card. This is a direct violation of protocols meaning you can get the “photos” thrown out.”

    Like

Join the Discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s