State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[Tipstaff]

Isn't it time for the Judge to have lunch brought into the jury room and shorten the lunch break to 45 minutes?

 

[gracielee]

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.

IIRC, he not only testified there was such a 'non-existent' episode, he also testified it had aired in the week or so preceding the drowning of her children. And that L&O was a *favorite* program of AY. A woman who had been catatonic for weeks prior to the children's deaths. Didn't Deitz also testify at the trial of the mother who stoned her children to death? I thought he did that one too?

 

[KellyCrash]

Isn't it time for the Judge to have lunch brought into the jury room and shorten the lunch break to 45 minutes?

I think the Jury needs to be able to get out of the building and get some fresh air and enjoy whatever time they get because otherwise Kurtz and Ward are going to put them to sleep.

 

[jrb0124]

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.

I'm sure the jury sees through the pros agenda + the pros own witness could not answer questions about the methodology or circumstances he used to extract the "evidence". You really think a jury will give that a free pass? No. They expect the defense to tell its version, and are witnessing the pros attempt to silence it. Has nothing to do with the conflicting standards set for expertise as I believe this jury feels the witness is competent to testify to the matter - and will fill in the blanks themselves should the pros/judge deny the witness the opportunity to testify to something he is at this point obviously qualified (by common sense = jury) to testify to.

 

[less0305]

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.

I could throw out the entire Google search/Fielding Drive map and still convict. We had a feeling all along that the Cupper thought his technology skills were so superior to anyone else's that he would slip and leave something of evidence somewhere on the very venue he thought he was most superior. However, on numerous occasions I've listed the *mountain* of circumstantial evidence that points to only one person - BC. That mountain is big and wide, looms over BC like a shadow and I can't see the defense plowing through it or around it or getting over it. The computer wizardry and magic show is just that - a show to try to divert the jurors attention away from the mountain - "here the view is better over here. don't look over there. trust me, not your common sense."

 

[gracielee]

I think the Jury needs to be able to get out of the building and get some fresh air and enjoy whatever time they get because otherwise Kurtz and Ward are going to put them to sleep.

It's been mentioned at least one of the jurors is a smoker. I think the jury should be allowed to smoke someplace in that building. MOO I'm a former smoker, and I'd go literally bat-$hit if I couldn't have had a cigarette regularly. :maddening:

 

[momof7]

Just out of curiosity, when the jurors were out for 3 hours yesterday while they were deciding if the witness was an Expert, were they given that information? I.E. the court trying to determine if this particular witness was an expert in Forensics or just an expert? Do they know why they were out of the court for those 3 hours?

Because, IMHO, seeing him up on the stand today, depending on the knowledge of the jury, no matter what he testifies to they can assume he is an expert, regardless of what he is an expert in?

Thanks!
Kelly

 

[jrb0124]

However, on numerous occasions I've listed the *mountain* of circumstantial evidence that points to only one person - BC.

I replied to your mountain - IMO its all opinion and unconnected speculation. No hard evidence, circumstancial or otherwise. Believe me, without the image there would be no need for any defense witnesses for an acquittal.

 

[ncsu95]

I'm not seeing a coherent argument from Kurtz at this point. First we see that someone can remotely access the internet, then we see someone can alter time stamps, now we're talking about a .bmp and a .cur. In the end, I suppose we're supposed to believe that someone could drop a .cur or .bmp or .tif or some kind of graphic file onto someone's computer. That is some kind of criminal mind at work going to all the trouble of dropping that info on the husband's computer. Most criminals commit murder and they're on to something else, not sitting around hacking computers.

There is no coherent argument at this point because he isn't allowed to ask the questions about modified files. So he is asking around the question.

 

[jrb0124]

back live!

 

[ncsu95]

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.

Are you saying you use a no-split tunnel vpn profile?

 

[borndem]

No, I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you're saying. The other witnesses speak to the jury all the time, as in, turn their heads and talk to them, instead of to the question asker. Is that not what you're referring to?

IIRC, the witness asked the jury a question -- in this case, very innocent and certainly polite -- he said something like, "Can you see okay?" and meant the screen where they were putting some stuff together for his testimony. And certainly the witness can look at the jury while he is testifying, but the witness cannot ask any questions of the jury (!). I think Ward was feeling his oats a bit, trying to be a good witness, was comfortable, and just didn't think. But Judge G. had to call him on it, and he did, very nicely. NBD.

 

[ncsu95]

I think I heard testimony that Google scrubs the sites every 9 months or so..so at this point I doubt it 2 half years later... Unless the FBI forensic guy can try and find that IP address, we'll never know..however I would be willing to bet it was Brad's IP address that would show up..JMOO

They scrub IP addresses, but he said they keep the records of searchs (if I remember correctly....just not who made them). I wonder if they could tell if there was a search for the zip code on the 11th at 1:15 or whatever time it was, even if they can't say where it was from.

 

[ncsu95]

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...

The search occurred when he was at work.

 

[jrb0124]

They scrub IP addresses, but he said they keep the records of searchs (if I remember correctly....just not who made them). I wonder if they could tell if there was a search for the zip code on the 11th at 1:15 or whatever time it was, even if they can't say where it was from.

Good point! You'd think if possible, and it supported their case, the pros would have gotten a hold of it though.

 

[less0305]

I replied to your mountain - IMO its all opinion and unconnected speculation. No hard evidence, circumstancial or otherwise. Believe me, without the image there would be no need for any defense witnesses for an acquittal.

Not my opinion.

 

[gracielee]

Witness shouldn't bring notes to court, and kurtz should have advised him as such.

 

[momof7]

Lets see what happens now...doesn't sound good already!

Kelly

 

[LyndyLoo]

They scrub IP addresses, but he said they keep the records of searchs (if I remember correctly....just not who made them). I wonder if they could tell if there was a search for the zip code on the 11th at 1:15 or whatever time it was, even if they can't say where it was from.

I dont know how to answer you, but since the hard drive was never exposed to the internet post July 16th, then I doubt very much Google could have scrubbed anything from Brads hard drive..It was cloned and copied is how I understand it..so again..NOT sure just what a forensic examiner could find regarding IP addresses after the fact??
:waitasec:

 

[momof7]

Witness shouldn't bring notes to court, and kurtz should have advised him as such.

Was wondering why he was taking notes?

Kelly