State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[NCEast]

Is the defense finished with the Ward witness?
I have been away and just got caught up on here.

 

[kljohnson0458]

Was it ever established whether NC had or did not have access to BC's work computer when he brought it home for the weekend. Just thinking the defense could argue that NC was googling a new running route which just happened to lead to the very place her body was found. Far-fetched I know but my wife uses my work computer all the time for e-mail, web searches and probably Google map searches...

I don't think there is a snow balls chance in haites that BC would allow NC to be on his work computer. JMO.

 

[momof7]

Believe someone came to get him to go to lunch around that time and he was using the computer, am I right? Understand BC and gang went to lunch (which we've heard was very rare) at 1:20 PM.

I would have to go back and check the details, but yes, this was very close to my understanding. Initially, the Cisco co-worker thought they went to lunch closer to 1 but realized that they were gone 1.5 hours and got back to Cisco at 3, making the time they left somewhere in the 1:20 to 1:30 timeframe on 7/11. The FBI expert says the search on the computer for the Fielding Drive area was approx 1:18 7/11, before Nancy went missing or was found in that area.

My understanding is the defense is questioning this, saying they have evidence the information is incorrect due to tampering, that the time stamp for the search may be incorrect and it occurred later.

A layman, non techie, understanding of what we have heard so far!

Kelly

 

[LyndyLoo]

Is the defense finished with the Ward witness?
I have been away and just got caught up on here.

I believe Kurtz mentioned he only has "Offer of Proof" left to cover with Mr. Ward...then Boz will start his cross...not sure what time they are due back tho..missed that little tid bit..Sorry

 

[raisincharlie]

I got to thinking about expert testimony/expert witnesses while taking my shower just now. And I was reminded of park deitz. When he testified at the andrea yates trial, didn't he give misleading testimony/out-right lies more than once, resulting in the mistrial? Does anyone know if his services as an expert are still sought since then? The way I understand it, any 'offering of proof' as an expert in future trials, allows the opposing side to question him about his lies resulting in a mistrial, right?

Yes, good old Park Deitz - you're right. He said AY got her ideas about drowning her own children from an episode of Law and Order, which had not been aired at the time. He's pretty much a freak, and yes he is still consulted. The Fed Prosecutor in the Lisa Montgomery case in Missouri also used Dr. Deitz, and yes she is sitting on death row in TX. (Horrible crime, DP probably fitting but I no more believed Deitz then than his testimony against AY.

 

[less0305]

it's amazing to think that this hacker ould know just what time bc was at his computer at cisco. 1:15 pm is pretty much lunch time - or after lunch wash-up and howdy-do time.

Hmmmpf. this whole thing is just too far fetched.

there was no hacker. bc can take credit for the fielding drive search.

If someone hacked the computer and tried to frame BC how would they have had the foresight to have known if there was or was not other evidence pointing to BC or anyone else for that matter. Were the hackers clairvoyant that the police had no evidence and were on a path that they didn't want them to go down? How did they know they needed to frame BC? It's just so far out there I don't understand the concept at all.

 

[kljohnson0458]

Is the defense finished with the Ward witness?
I have been away and just got caught up on here.

It sort of sounded like he was finished when they broke for lunch but he was trying to get some questions in and objections were sustained. I couldn't really tell.

 

[KellyCrash]

I don't think there is a snow balls chance in haites that BC would allow NC to be on his work computer. JMO.

I wouldn't dream of touching my husband's work laptop for any reason. Never know what he's doing with it or what sort of testing he might have running or whatever else. That's why I have my own laptop. Nevertheless how would she search Fielding Drive on his work laptop when it was at Cisco?

 

[less0305]

I believe Kurtz mentioned he only has "Offer of Proof" left to cover with Mr. Ward...then Boz will start his cross...not sure what time they are due back tho..missed that little tid bit..Sorry

2:30, I understood

 

[kljohnson0458]

I believe Kurtz mentioned he only has "Offer of Proof" left to cover with Mr. Ward...then Boz will start his cross...not sure what time they are due back tho..missed that little tid bit..Sorry

2:30 I believe

 

[unc70]

I have not read much of this thread yet, was intently watching and listening to the testimony, capturing images of the logs that were shown, and seeing what was allowed as sworn expert testimony and what other items were "exposed" through questions that were disallowed.

I need to verify some more things before I am willing to claim tampering "beyond a reasonable doubt", but there are a couple of important indications that something might have been altered on the disk either while the system was still active or after the disk had been removed from computer.

I think they were showing that the timestamps on the Google Maps files all have exactly the same timestamps for creation, modification, last access, etc. One way for that to happen would be to move (vs copy) the files from another media type or to use the UNIX/Linux style "touch" command to set the file dates. Normal files being used would have slightly different values in these fields.

Could have been done while the PC was still "live" at the house or later when the disk was removed from the PC prior to the "forensic" imaging. Seem to recall that something about some of the examination being done on the actual disk, not on a copy, but could be wrong since that testimony was blacked out.

About the time stamps, the program report displayed on the screen and showed the files with a notation concerning invalid timestamp. That full report is in evidence.

The defense so far has not directly accused CPD or FBI of changing the files, which would be harder for jurors to believe IMHO. They have shown how it could have been done over the wireless or some other way by some other agent not connected with law enforcement.

These are my first impressions from this morning. Not sure where I will be
after another round of testimony.

 

[gritguy]

If someone hacked the computer and tried to frame BC how would they have had the foresight to have known if there was or was not other evidence pointing to BC or anyone else for that matter. Were the hackers clairvoyant that the police had no evidence and were on a path that they didn't want them to go down? How did they know they needed to frame BC? It's just so far out there I don't understand the concept at all.

Indeed. All that work and the only thing they left was an image tile? That's it.

Reminds me of that old Round Up commercial where the guy lowers himself down a rope on Mt. Rushmore and then squirts a big weed once, and only once, before lifting out. The commercial was effective b/c they went to all that trouble and had certainty that one squirt would do the job.

Would the mystery hacker have been so confident that one image tile would do it? No.

 

[kljohnson0458]

I wouldn't dream of touching my husband's work laptop for any reason. Never know what he's doing with it or what sort of testing he might have running or whatever else. That's why I have my own laptop. Nevertheless how would she search Fielding Drive on his work laptop when it was at Cisco?

Exactly but I think the poster that originally said could NC have gotten on it at home given the defense is saying the timestamps and all are all wrong. What they are trying to smother us with right now.

 

[NCEast]

I believe Kurtz mentioned he only has "Offer of Proof" left to cover with Mr. Ward...then Boz will start his cross...not sure what time they are due back tho..missed that little tid bit..Sorry

Thank you so much for the update LyLo!

 

[SleuthinNC]

The way you say that is incorrect and misleading. The VPN Client, which I use daily, does create a secure tunnel to the Cisco Network, AND prevents local network traffic from reaching your computer. It takes over the network connection as part of securing the tunnel, and traffic destined for the network must transit the tunnel, it cannot go outside the tunnel.

The point being, let's say computer user x is on the VPN, but he is a loser and is on an insecure home network. His neighbor, the evil Dr. Y, wants to attack the company that user x is on, so it would be a simple matter of accessing the WiFi network at user x's house and using that access to attack the company at the other end of the VPN. It does not work that way, if you are secured on the VPN, local network access is restricted. If not, anyone getting a virus or worm on your local network would have a broad golden path into the corporate network. Not a good idea.

It really depends where the other computer is on the network and how the networks are connected to the router. If the two computers are on the same network behind the router the vpn is not protecting those computers from each other.

Again what you stated was something happening on the LAN being propogated to the corporate network and what I said was the transport between the host and corporate network is secure. This is why hosts are quarantined before being allowed to access the corporate network, there is no additional security transmitted to the LAN.

For example, I can connect to a corporate vpn from the wifi network in the local library. My connecting to the VPN does not mean the library is now somehow more secure.

 

[raisincharlie]

And the pros obviously wants nothing to do with any witness who could offer alternate explanations to their "evidence" which cannot be examined or tested by the defense, i.e. "the FBI expert (former airport cop) who has previously examined a whopping 5 computers has determined it so, lets move on!"

The case is weak and vulnerable. The pros knows it, the defense knows it, the jury knows it. Regardless of whether kurtz gets to where he wants to go with this witness the damage has been done by virtue of continual pros objections.

If I was on that jury, I too would wonder "what are they hiding?"

I would be wondering what kind of wool the expert and the defense is trying to pull over my head that the Prosecutor has to keep objecting to it because he is not a qualified computer forensic guy and why I was sent away for three hours or so while the court went on some kind of expedition prior to the expert's testimony.

 

[less0305]

Wonder if he's related in some way to the 'peterson three'? they just can't seem to keep *live* wives either.

And two of those three went on to kill again. Let's hope BC doesn't get that opportunity.

 

[momof7]

If someone hacked the computer and tried to frame BC how would they have had the foresight to have known if there was or was not other evidence pointing to BC or anyone else for that matter. Were the hackers clairvoyant that the police had no evidence and were on a path that they didn't want them to go down? How did they know they needed to frame BC? It's just so far out there I don't understand the concept at all.

And you would think, they would plant even more physical evidence. I mean this one, literally one, piece of evidence. No dna, no proof that she was killed in either the house or at Fielding, no evidence in the vehicles. It is bizarre to me that anyone would supposedly frame BC and provide CPD with one minut piece of evidence.

However, the Defense only, really, has one piece of evidence to rebutt and give jurors reason to doubt the entire mountain of he said/she said evidence. Other than the depo filled with inconsistencies, really this computer evidence is it. So, while I don't think anyone 'planted' or 'framed' BC, I do think he is guilty and premeditated, the Pros really has only a circumstanial case. IMHO, it could go either way at this point.

But, at the same time, I agree with some who are pointing out the level of expertise in computers in the jury. I find myself wandering off into lala land within minutes. However, I can be easily swayed by one poster who seems to know exactly what the testimony is alluding to or means. In other words, once the jury goes in for deliberations, if there is ONE juror who is a computer geek, for lack of a better word, I do believe they can sway the opinions of those not so savy. I would never know if what some have posted is true,untrue, reasonable, unreasonable or downright made up.

:twocents:

Kelly

 

[RoughlyCollie]

I wonder if, after the trial is over and (if) BC is convicted, whether a juror will say that the computer evidence didn't enter into their decision because it was too confusing and no one understood it. Or a juror will say that only one of them understood it, so they went with what s/he said (regardless of whether that person actually knew what s/he was talking about).

I think the defense is trying to pin the alleged computer tampering on LE -- and anything about the "real killer" having done it is just icing on the cake that may stick as reasonable doubt, but probably won't. IMO, if there was a "real killer" trying to frame BC, he would have done a much better job.

 

[less0305]

Indeed. All that work and the only thing they left was an image tile? That's it.

Reminds me of that old Round Up commercial where the guy lowers himself down a rope on Mt. Rushmore and then squirts a big weed once, and only once, before lifting out. The commercial was effective b/c they went to all that trouble and had certainty that one squirt would do the job.

Would the mystery hacker have been so confident that one image tile would do it? No.

And would do it with an inept police department at that.