JusticeFever
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 94
Any word on what is happening in this case or if/when a new trial will be scheduled?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Still hoping for a tech explanation of why deleting a google search cookie would be a good strategy for a "framer" who wants that very search to be found and look valid.....
anyone?
Bueller? Bueller?
I look forward to it. I believe that if you honestly strive to understand how cookies work, you will come to the same conclusions I have.Agent Johnson called by the Defense --- questioned about the missing cookie associated with the incriminating Google map search. I'm going to be writing a detailed article specific to cookies and this case and why this is so important as it relates to tampering.
There no good answer to that question, because there is no such thing as a "search cookie". If you do 1 search or 1,000 searches, you'll have the same number of cookies saved on your computer.
The "missing cookie" is just smoke and mirrors that the defense used to try to create a facade of "doubt".
For typical use, the first time you go to Google Maps, you get a map cookie. Each time you use Google Maps in certain ways (let's say set satellite view), Google remembers your preference by updating the cookie. Google also keeps a copy of an identifier in the cookie, and stores information (at Google) about everything you've done on Google and associates it with that identifier. Any of the Google cookies found on Brad's computer would have matched to Brad and could have been used to extract all of Brad's stored Google activity.
The defense claimed that there was no cookie matching the zip code search on Google Maps. They say it that way to make it seem nefarious. A better description of the "missing cookie" is: The creation date of the Google Map cookie was for a date after July 11.
This can only mean one of two things: (1) The first time Brad ever used Google Maps was July 15, the date of the Google Map cookie. or (2) Brad did use Google maps at some point before July 15, and that cookie was somehow deleted and it's entry in the MFT was somehow overwritten.
I think Brad was using private browsing that week, so no cookies were written during that time. Or, he could have deleted them using a method that also overwrites the MFT entry. But, it is ridiculous to say that Brad never used Google before July 11. Any discussion of a "missing cookie" is someone either 1) being purposefully misleading about the nature of cookies (like Kurtz) or 2) someone not understanding the nature of cookies."A better description of the "missing cookie" is: The creation date of the Google Map cookie was for a date after July 11."
I have no idea what you're talking about now. The creation date after July 11th? So then that clears Brad completely, right?
"This can only mean one of two things: (1) The first time Brad ever used Google Maps was July 15, the date of the Google Map cookie. or (2) Brad did use Google maps at some point before July 15, and that cookie was somehow deleted and it's entry in the MFT was somehow overwritten."
July 15th? I'm lost. If the first time he used it was July 15th, how was he convicted of doing a search that allegedly occurred on July 11th?
That is the cross examination that you've taken out of context.No cookie was overwritten or deleted. Please see the trial transcript.
It certainly would have been better if they had. I attribute the oversight more to incompetence than malice.Also, what is your explanation for why LE didn't ask Google to track the searches on his computer - to verify that it originated on that machine? They ignored the FBI's instructions.
I think Brad was using private browsing that week, so no cookies were written during that time. Or, he could have deleted them using a method that also overwrites the MFT entry. But, it is ridiculous to say that Brad never used Google before July 11. Any discussion of a "missing cookie" is someone either 1) being purposefully misleading about the nature of cookies (like Kurtz) or 2) someone not understanding the nature of cookies.
Wrong. The State's own experts testified that no private browsing was used. You're saying "that week". There were cookies for 7/10 and cookies for 7/12, none for 7/11. Why?
That is the cross examination that you've taken out of context. Wrong. This is direct testimony. Kurtz called Johnson as a direct witness after the court failed to allow him to call his own witnesses. [/COLOR]
Why not take is original testimony when he said there were not signs of tampering and that the search artifacts were genuine? Because all of it was refuted during cross. That has all been posted on my blog.
It certainly would have been better if they had. I attribute the oversight more to incompetence than malice.
The search artifacts have plenty of other corroboration though:
1) The browser history showed a search for the zip code was done at the time of the search.
2) The system log showed that Brad logged in with his userid and password at the time of the search.
3) Brad's co-workers confirmed that he was in the office with his laptop at that time, before they went out to lunch.
4) Other internet activity before and after the search time showed Brad was using his computer at that time.
I don't have it; those were snippets from the snippets that Sunshine05 has posted on her blog.How do you get access to the full trial transcript?
The search artifacts have plenty of other corroboration though:
1) The browser history showed a search for the zip code was done at the time of the search.
2) The system log showed that Brad logged in with his userid and password at the time of the search.
3) Brad's co-workers confirmed that he was in the office with his laptop at that time, before they went out to lunch.
4) Other internet activity before and after the search time showed Brad was using his computer at that time.
Snipped by me.
If the above information is correct/not in dispute, then refuting it would seem vital to Brad's case. It appears somewhat damning, but given the twists and turns of this case, I'm keeping an open mind for the next trial.
Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie
No news, huh? Shouldn't there be a some kind of a date for a pre-trial hearing or some motions?
Something!! The last time he was in court was January, thats 6 months now.
Yeah isn't it odd that someone who isn't convicted of anything is hanging out in jail? I'm sure he has state-funded legal counsel working on something, but one would have expected something to happen by now.
Does the speedy trial law kick in when there is an appeal?
Good question, sure doesn't look like it, does it.....
The state needs to decide what they want to do.