State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[sunshine05]

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.

But the judge is barring that, allowing the state's objections that he is not a forensic expert. He can't even look at the FBI data.

 

[Just the Fax]

I get why Kurtz is using this guy instead of a forensic investigator. He is showing how it could be done. Now he made a mistake in that it doesn't look like he will get to show the evidence that it was done. Maybe he can bring the FBI guy back up and get the files that were modified shown and then tie the 2 together.

If it were that easy , kurtz should have a hired an expert to do just that.
Instead, he ends up with a network consultant that he should have known would never be allowed to testify about computer forensics.

 

[snowshuze]

If it were that easy , kurtz should have a hired an expert to do just that.
Instead, he ends up with a network consultant that he should have known would never be allowed to testify about computer forensics.

Hallelujah and Amen.

 

[Danielle59]

Considering he isn't testifying about the mft he generated, I doubt he melts. He is only talking about stuff that he is an expert in and knows very well. He obviously knows it better than the prosecution. But I'm sure Zellinger will talk to him like he is an idiot like he did yesterday.

BZ is already showing exasperation and agressiveness jsut in his objections, if he continues it will turn the jury right off IMO since this witness if not being defiant.

 

[JBean]

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



Take a minute to read.
Thank this post when you are done so we know that everyone is aware of the rules. Anyone posting on this thread needs to thank this post.

This post lands randomly in the thread.

Just so you all are aware, Mods can tell if you actually viewed the linked information from the quoted post.

As of this writing the thanks don't match the views. IOW, peeps are thanking but are not viewing the rules.

Please don't only thank the post, we really need you to read and understand etiquette and rules here.

TO's and bans are the last resort but the moderators will have to if rules are not followed.

Thanks for your cooperation, it is appreciated.

ETA: To those of you that have already read and understand the rules, that is totally fine. But, you may want to check and see if there is anything new.
Please pm any moderator in this forum if you have questions.
Thanks again all.

 

[Just the Fax]

BZ is already showing exasperation and agressiveness jsut in his objections, if he continues it will turn the jury right off IMO since this witness if not being defiant.

The objections are sustained.
How does slapping Kurtz down turn the jury off?

 

[gritguy]

If the notion is seriously that you can't trust the search data because somebody hacked in and planted it, then they should really have the proof for that. Because it sounds extremely far fetched. And if you are coming up with far fetched theories as your best defense, you are probably in trouble.

In OJ's case, the glove had a terrific impact. But the defense didn't say imagine many sizes of gloves, now imagine one size that is too small for my client, and then imagine that is the glove that was found. If they had, OJ probably would have gone to jail. They actually presented a demonstration of the apparent size problem.

If Kurtz is going to go, "If the search isn't legit, you must acquit" or "If the neighbors were nosey, my client's rosey" then he will need to carry forward and show something actually happened.

 

[gracielee]

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.

That's just the point though. If one wants to be used as an expert witness, in a murder trial, part of that accredidation requires one's self and one's methods & equipment to meet certain standardized requirements. It's the nature of *expert testimony*.

 

[Just the Fax]

gritguy said...If the notion is seriously that you can't trust the search data because somebody hacked in and planted it, then they should really have the proof for that. Because it sounds extremely far fetched. And if you are coming up with far fetched theories as your best defense, you are probably in trouble.

 

[ncsu95]

If the notion is seriously that you can't trust the search data because somebody hacked in and planted it, then they should really have the proof for that. Because it sounds extremely far fetched. And if you are coming up with far fetched theories as your best defense, you are probably in trouble.

In OJ's case, the glove had a terrific impact. But the defense didn't say imagine many sizes of gloves, now imagine one size that is too small for my client, and then imagine that is the glove that was found. If they had, OJ probably would have gone to jail. They actually presented a demonstration of the apparent size problem.

If Kurtz is going to go, "If the search isn't legit, you must acquit" or "If the neighbors were nosey, my client's rosey" then he will need to carry forward and show something actually happened.

Actually, Christopher Darden from the prosecution had OJ do that demonstration. It was one of the biggest blunders of the whole case since he was able to spread his hand out to make it look like it didn't fit. But the defense did not do that. That of course led to "if the glove don't fit you must acquit".

 

[Just the Fax]

The judge will blow his top soon

 

[gritguy]

Actually, Christopher Darden from the prosecution had OJ do that demonstration. It was one of the biggest blunders of the whole case since he was able to spread his hand out to make it look like it didn't fit. But the defense did not do that. That of course led to "if the glove don't fit you must acquit".

Good point! :rocker:

 

[ncsu95]

This is interesting. The cursor file the FBI showed had a file type of .bmp (bitmap...which is a picture file)...but this guy is saying it should have had an extension of .cur.

 

[Star12]

the .cur file is hat you choose for your cursors. the .bmp file is a picture file. Not the same thing

 

[otto]

I want to hear the answer to these question ... because I think this is going to relate to whether all the large file tiles of the smaller image are loaded when going to any location on the map.

Guess not ... still curious though.

 

[BrownRice]

lunch break

 

[otto]

This is interesting. The cursor file the FBI showed had a file type of .bmp (bitmap...which is a picture file)...but this guy is saying it should have had an extension of .cur.

This is going to answer whether it really was zoomed isn't it.

 

[ncsu95]

This is going to answer whether it really was zoomed isn't it.

I honestly have no idea. But I'd like to hear it.

 

[unc70]

If I were on this jury and the testimony was in a field I did not know, I would be very suspicious of what the prosecution is trying to hide. It would be hard not to consider the questions asked but not allow to be answered.

Every objection by the prosecution would further undermine by confidence in the related prosecution evidence and testimony.

Will be curious to find out how this jury was processing this testimony.

 

[Shadow722]

I honestly have no idea. But I'd like to hear it.

Me too....