State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[snowshuze]

Is it too late in the game for Kurtz to open up the phone book (figuratively) and get another "real" forensic expert to come in and testify to Ward's findings (or do it himself and find the same thing Ward did)?

Too late. He can't add anyone new to the witness list NOW.

 

[momof7]

Too late. He can't add anyone new to the witness list NOW.

Without knowing who is on the list, is there a possibility there is another expert?

Kelly

 

[LyndyLoo]

Is it too late in the game for Kurtz to open up the phone book (figuratively) and get another "real" forensic expert to come in and testify to Ward's findings (or do it himself and find the same thing Ward did)?

There is one thing I have leanred over the years and that when professionall in your field, you MUST realize just what your are NOT expert in and advise or suggest to whomever hires you to get someone else to do that portion of examination....I think this guy, Mr. Ward has a boatload of experiences, just not qualified to testify or perform certain things..which I think he forgot about.:twocents:

ETA~~~ Thats why a Orthopedic Surgeon cant testify about Neuro Surgery and visa versa

 

[gritguy]

So the defense couldn't adequately cross examine the FBI on their report because they weren't allowed access to it...now they can't present their own report.

A blow, and I'm not sure I agree with the judge that the defense shouldn't see the MFT or whatever (did it really expose means or other protected methods - I don't knwo). However, to call a guy who would be testifying on a forensic investigation of a computer and alleging the FBI or whoever messed up the forensic investigation and who has never testified in this field or otherwise qualified himself in that way was dicey at best.

Example: I'm a pilot. I can testify to lots of things about flying and how small aircraft work. And I might be able to tell why a plane crashed, if the cause were simple enough and the evidence obvious. I'm not an expert though in investigating crashes and certainly am not an expert in questioning the NTSB's methods.

Granted, that's not a close analogy, but I think most of these decisions are at the superficial level in this case and no actor in the case is arguing in technical terms very well.

 

[FullDisclosure]

So the defense couldn't adequately cross examine the FBI on their report because they weren't allowed access to it...now they can't present their own report.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[snowshuze]

Without knowing who is on the list, is there a possibility there is another expert?

Kelly

Going by Kurtzs expression....NO.

 

[Madeleine74]

This "expert" can talk about network vulnerability but he cannot testify to Cooper's IBM Laptop and what he thinks about it (he claimed it was hacked). The judge ruled that Ward is not a forensic computer expert and he cannot testify as an expert with regards to the laptop computer.

This guy is a hack.

If this is the best that Little K can do, then that tells me no one else was willing to sit up there on the witness stand and testify to laptop hacking. At least no one who can do it with a straight face, other than this dude.

 

[gritguy]

Too late. He can't add anyone new to the witness list NOW.

Well, the judge could allow that if Kurtz comes up with somebody quickly. Probably he should if the state has enough time to prepare for it. However, could Kurtz find somebody to take the case, who could do the analysis, and then offer that witness up all very quickly? It'd be very dangerous to find somebody who agrees to do it and then offer them up before they do the test - they might agree with the state! Then of course you don't call them but the state probably would in rebuttal.

In any respect, time is not on his side here.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Is the break they are taking until 12:45 their lunch break??? Or just a lil' recess?

 

[momof7]

There is one thing I have leanred over the years and that when professionall in your field, you MUST realize just what your are NOT expert in and advise or suggest to whomever hires you to get someone else to do that portion of examination....I think this guy, Mr. Ward has a boatload of experiences, just not qualified to testify or perform certain things..which I think he forgot about.:twocents:

And never having actually been an expert who has gone to trail, he may not have realized, paid attention to it. Then again, Kurtz is a lawyer with a whole staff to help him figure this stuff out. You would think HE would cover himself in the event this guy was not allowed to be a witness. Or...he got a false sense of security when the Pros didn't, at the beginning, question the expertise of their witness?


Seems like one side is just a little more cunning than the other, and Brad is on the wrong team this time. I do believe he is guilty but I also think with what we have seen already, reasonable doubt for lesser verdict/not guilty was a good possibility in this case. Until today.

Kelly

 

[less0305]

This "expert" can talk about network vulnerability but he cannot testify to Cooper's IBM Laptop and what he thinks about it (he claimed it was hacked).

This guy is a hack. If this is the best that Little K can do, then that tells me no one else was willing to sit up there on the witness stand and testify to laptop hacking. At least no one who can do it with a straight face, other than this dude.

And nobody is going to make me believe that he didn't already know the Cisco link - and picked up the phone and called the defense team and said, "Let me help you with this one. I want to be an expert witness and grow my biz."

 

[GhostCrab]

Judge Gessner was a police officer who went to law school to be a prosecutor. I don't think that he has been impartial at any point in this trial. I would hope that at the very least the manner in which he has conducted this trial, on and off the record, would be reviewed by the Chief Judge for Superior Court. I don't believe that Gessner right now is concerned in the sanctity of the justice system, but more for a victory for the prosecution. Could Brad Cooper have drawn a worse judge in Wake County? Probably not.

 

[Just the Fax]

This "expert" can talk about network vulnerability but he cannot testify to Cooper's IBM Laptop and what he thinks about it (he claimed it was hacked). The judge ruled that Ward is not a forensic computer expert and he cannot testify as an expert with regards to the laptop computer.

This guy is a hack.

If this is the best that Little K can do, then that tells me no one else was willing to sit up there on the witness stand and testify to laptop hacking. At least no one who can do it with a straight face, other than this dude.

I missed the video, but it seems obvious no real expert is willing to get on the stand and lie for Brad Cooper. The indigent fund can't pay enough for that. The computer evidence is real and was shown to be very credible.
Kurtz is fighting a lost battle.

 

[Palomine]

Is the break they are taking until 12:45 their lunch break??? Or just a lil' recess?

lunch time

 

[snowshuze]

Well, the judge could allow that if Kurtz comes up with somebody quickly. Probably he should if the state has enough time to prepare for it. However, could Kurtz find somebody to take the case, who could do the analysis, and then offer that witness up all very quickly? It'd be very dangerous to find somebody who agrees to do it and then offer them up before they do the test - they might agree with the state! Then of course you don't call them but the state probably would in rebuttal.

In any respect, time is not on his side here.

Rules of discovery do not allow for surprise witnesses. The prosecution would need time to prepare for a new witness. This judge wants to keep things rolling along, and I don't see him allowing anything like that.

 

[momof7]

I missed the video, but it seems obvious no real expert is willing to get on the stand and lie for Brad Cooper. The indigent fund can't pay enough for that. The computer evidence is real and was shown to be very credible.
Kurtz is fighting a lost battle.

I would agree. If this witness was not even given the evidence until Oct 2010?

Can anyone direct me to the dates when the FBI ran their testing and came to their conclusions? Did it take that long? Or just that long for Pros to give information to Def?

Kelly

 

[gracielee]

So the defense couldn't adequately cross examine the FBI on their report because they weren't allowed access to it...now they can't present their own report.

They can't use a witness who is not an expert in computer forensics to either enter a report as such, a forensic report, nor can they use this guy to testify about someone who is actually a 'computer forensic expert'. That would be like allowing me to be called to dispute the ME's testimony. "Well, I don't believe N.C. died as a result of yadda yadda yadda....... doesn't matter if I'm qualified or not to have an opinion on such."

 

[FullDisclosure]

lunch time

Since the jury has been out all day, I understand why Counsel is only getting a half-hour lunch. But could it get any worse for the Defense? They really need some time to regroup, IMO. Maybe another hour wouldn't have made enough of a difference, but that just sucks for them.

 

[LyndyLoo]

A blow, and I'm not sure I agree with the judge that the defense shouldn't see the MFT or whatever (did it really expose means or other protected methods - I don't knwo). However, to call a guy who would be testifying on a forensic investigation of a computer and alleging the FBI or whoever messed up the forensic investigation and who has never testified in this field or otherwise qualified himself in that way was dicey at best.

Example: I'm a pilot. I can testify to lots of things about flying and how small aircraft work. And I might be able to tell why a plane crashed, if the cause were simple enough and the evidence obvious. I'm not an expert though in investigating crashes and certainly am not an expert in questioning the NTSB's methods.

Granted, that's not a close analogy, but I think most of these decisions are at the superficial level in this case and no actor in the case is arguing in technical terms very well.

Actually gritguy, Defense got the FBI MFT..This guy saw it..and couldnt replicate it with his tools he begged borrowed or stole to try to..and As I kept referring to way back, Kurtz wanted the "Tool" or "Browser" used by FBI in order to do that..which was disallowed due to security for FBI's ability to forensically search computers for criminal activities..

Would you give this guy a "Protected" tool after we heard how be came by his programs and tools??..Dont blame the FBI for prtecting the information at all!!

 

[gritguy]

Rules of discovery do not allow for surprise witnesses. The prosecution would need time to prepare for a new witness. This judge wants to keep things rolling along, and I don't see him allowing anything like that.

The judge can always allow it regardless of discovery. I agree discovery and witness lists etc. are generally to be adhered to, but the judge can deviate in the interests of justice and it is not uncommon for them to do so. Clearly Kurtz isn't sandbagging a new witness, he just doesn't have one.

If the judge did allow a witness offered by Kurtz and the state had time to prepare, it would essentially moot the appeal point of denying this other guy the ability to testify on the forensic level.

However, I think it doubtful Kurtz could get someone up to speed in time to offer them up.

When trying a case, expect something unexpected to happen!