State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[gracielee]

You honestly think it was done? Or is he just taking advantage of common things that would be found on computers and trying to make is seem like it could have been done?

Okay, if I'm understanding this right, now the van-travelling mormons zapped brad's computer after dumping nancy's body, and added in the Fielding Dr. search. Wait a minute, aren't they stealing this one from the scott peterson trial? Garagos suggested that the real killer/s, after having seen that scott was 'fishing in S.F. Bay on the 24th', dug Laci up and went and dumped her body into the bay to frame scotty. I knew I'd heard this defense somewhere before. Didn't work for S.P. though. :crazy:

 

[otto]

What search are you referring to?

Zooming on the zip code map search.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Been lurking for awhile now because I'm waiting for something new to discuss in this trial ........quickly wanted to point out..don't for a minute discount how some posters have said they are bored, this is smoke and mirrors etc. The jurors feel the same way I bet. Jurors seem to always use common sense and not be influenced by ANY outrageous excuse to behavior... This case is sounding a lot like Scott Peterson's in offering alternate reasons for suspicious and guilty behavior. JMO

I can see a similar comparison Lori....
Right Now~~
He is showing how it can be done.and He tried to suggest that people with Zero Computer knowledge would know exactly how to do what he is doing?? No way Jose...
For the Investigators/or anyone for that matter.. To know and even know what tools they would need to do this, and to also be in the know on July 16th where Brad was and what he was doing could achieve such "Planting"...Sorry tooooo out there for common sense. JMOO

 

[ncsu95]

Then it follows, Defense is suggesting the inept investigators, who knew nadda about cell phones much less hacking computers BUT planted this information..and that they also knew Brad was even at Cisco on July 11th, until 130PM before going to lunch, and all before Nancy was identified on July 15th, just a few hours prior to being powered down....Interesting concept.

I don't think they are suggesting who did it...just that someone did it. Doesn't have to be CPD. And again, I don't believe anyone did it (at least not based on what I have seen so far....I really hope to see the modified files though).

 

[ncsu95]

You honestly think it was done? Or is he just taking advantage of common things that would be found on computers and trying to make is seem like it could have been done?

Again, I do not think it was done. But I'm still open minded enough to watch the testimony and then decide. I'm really curious about what they found.

 

[BrownRice]

Just like I needed more evidence for the phone calls (I want to see that the call was spoofed, not that it could have been), I am holding this witness to the same standards. I don't want to see if it could have been tampered with, I want to see that it was.

 

[Just the Fax]

I see ... so the person that did this went to Brad's neighborhood, was lucky to find Brad's computer turned on, and then deposited this search on Brad's machine.

And just happened to have a copy of specialized hacking software.
Please spare me the drama Kurtz.

 

[Danielle59]

<snip> I'd say HM's name as been far more 'run through the mud' than this 'expert' who attempted to pass himself off as a forensic expert.

I think this comment is disengenuious without qualification stated.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

I think I've reached the point where this testimony is becoming laughable to me. Noone, I mean noone, (JMO) would go to this much trouble to set BC up for the murder of his wife on 7/12. I truly hope that the State will knock Ward's socks off and he stammers himself right off the stand ASAP. I am still a fence sitter and this testimony is proving nothing to me unless BC had some people that truly, truly hated him. This dog don't hunt!

ETA: I don't mean to say I don't believe this witness and that he doesn't know what he's doing. I don't believe someone went to these lengths to set up poor BC.

:beagle: "not" , wire:ghost:

 

[Maja]

Zooming on the zip code map search.

If I'm not mistaken, they are discussing the home computer versus the cisco one.

 

[otto]

And just happened to have a copy of specialized hacking software.
Please spare me the drama Kurtz.

He did say that it could be done manually, without software, but I agree ... it's starting to sound a little farfetched. If it was really that simple to remotely hack into someone's computer, I would expect the explanation to last 15 minutes, not hours.

 

[ncsu95]

Just like I needed more evidence for the phone calls (I want to see that the call was spoofed, not that it could have been), I am holding this witness to the same standards. I don't want to see if it could have been tampered with, I want to see that it was.

It doesn't look like he will be able to show the data because of the judge's ruling. But I don't think this was going to be a "it could have happened moment". He was going to show these files were modified and it means x.

 

[LyndyLoo]

If I'm not mistaken, they are discussing the home computer versus the cisco one.

They are talking about the Cisco IBM Netbook..Brad's laptop from Cisco

 

[AnotherSleuth]

I can see how Mr Kurtz believes it would take two weeks to present his case.

If he spoke at 65MPH instead of 15MPH the case would go much faster :sigh:

 

[gracielee]

There is a difference here. It's not like dna evidence where you can get contamination from stuff like not using gloves or other cross-contamination ways. He's also using a copy of a hard drive, not the actual hard drive. So if that drive was contaminated in some way (or altered by someone else), other copies and the actual hard drive could be used to prove that. Other than that, he's using a computer to look at data. Whether that computer is in his house, and office, the park, his car, wherever won't change the data that it shows.

IMO, there are still 'industry standards'. Equipment standards. Tool standards, & methodology standards. Just as their are standards for expert witness testimony from psychological experts. They don't have any sort of 'contamination' issues, but their tests and methodology must meet standards. This guy, as far as I can tell, hasn't met any sort of standards as of yet. This is the first time he's testifying as an expert witness, and he hasn't done anything to standarize his *lab*. JMO. Again, when my husband, an engineer, testified as an expert witness, his credentials, lab, experience with the equipment he used, etc., were all examined extensively prior to his being sworn as an expert.

 

[ncsu95]

If I'm not mistaken, they are discussing the home computer versus the cisco one.

You are mistaken. All of this is dealing with the Cisco laptop. It was at work on Friday and home from Friday night on.

 

[otto]

If I'm not mistaken, they are discussing the home computer versus the cisco one.

There must be a reason why we are hearing about hacking into someone's computer, and hearing about modifying time stamps. I'm assuming it is to refute the evidence of zip code map search into the area where Nancy was found. The implication is that evidence discovered on Brad's computer could have been put there by someone other than Brad.

 

[ncsu95]

IMO, there are still 'industry standards'. Equipment standards. Tool standards, & methodology standards. Just as their are standards for expert witness testimony from psychological experts. They don't have any sort of 'contamination' issues, but their tests and methodology must meet standards. This guy, as far as I can tell, hasn't met any sort of standards as of yet. This is the first time he's testifying as an expert witness, and he hasn't done anything to standarize his *lab*. JMO. Again, when my husband, an engineer, testified as an expert witness, his credentials, lab, experience with the equipment he used, etc., were all examined extensively prior to his being sworn as an expert.

Maybe in some line of work. This guy is not normally a trial witness (it's his first trial). His line of work doesn't require some special lab. His customers don't require him to have some special lab.

 

[BrownRice]

It doesn't look like he will be able to show the data because of the judge's ruling. But I don't think this was going to be a "it could have happened moment". He was going to show these files were modified and it means x.

Yes, that's my understanding too. IF (big if) there is physical evidence showing tampering happened, he better find someone to get up there and show this. A person's life is depending on this.

However, how many times has this ever happened in real life (not a movie)? Maybe if this was a political or mob family, but a Cisco guy and his stay at home wife? Seems a bit farfetched, but I'm willing to listen and give them the benefit of doubt!

 

[kar]

He did say that it could be done manually, without software, but I agree ... it's starting to sound a little farfetched. If it was really that simple to remotely hack into someone's computer, I would expect the explanation to last 15 minutes, not hours.

It is farfetched. The only thing that might make sense to me is if Brad did something himself, to try to cover his tracks. And that is showing up as something suspicious, so they are using that to try to prove that someone else tampered with his computer.

MOO