State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[Just the Fax]

For those that continue to disparage the qualifications and reputation of this witness.

JW is extremely knowledgeable, experienced and certified in the area of network security. He is well known and VERY well respected in the industry. You don't have to like what he has to say, you can believe the prosecution attempt to disparage the witness but facts are facts. He is not a HACK he is a HACKER.

Just because Kurtz presented him as very well respected in the industry doesn't mean it's true.

 

[snowshuze]

Probably because the Judge just took away his right to PROVE that those files were planted.

How can he PROVE something the witness is NOT QUALIFIED to testify about?

 

[JiminWilton]

In keeping with the ruse that a semblance of propriety being expected in postings, calling a witness a hack does not in any way support any factual argument you may have. Further, continual reference to counterfactual statements are not helpful.

I continue to believe that the State clearly shows they have much more interest in winning than in seeking the truth.

 

[sunshine05]

What is the CSA log? Is that the same data the FBI extracted?

 

[LAWsy_ME]

What is this dude's full name? I know J** Ward - just wondering what his full name is.

Jay "who ya gonna call? GHOSTBUSTER!" Ward :great:

 

[Just the Fax]

Probably because the Judge just took away his right to PROVE that those files were planted.

You honestly think Kurtz and Ward can PROVE those files were planted?:laugh:

 

[momof7]

Judge is lost, has no idea how to delineate the testimony parameters.

Yes, I agree. But the defense will get lucky sometimes and the Pros others. The judge does not understand what he himself ruled on. That should help both sides out, whether they realize it or not..but oh boy..more to appeal later on!

This technical stuff is way over my head too!

Kelly

 

[jrb0124]

Wow, the jury HAS to think at this point the pros REALLY doesn't want them to hear what JW has to say about the logs. That's one way to validate potential defense witness testimony as damaging to their case without him saying a word.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

How can he PROVE something the witness is NOT QUALIFIED to testify about?

He is qualified. The standard is more knowledgeable than the jury, but the judge can't understand technology enough to see that a Network security architect understands ALL aspects of the system. And he's not offering an opinion. As Kurtz stated, he's just wanting to read from the FBI data. That's it. There's proof in there, and the prosecution is terrified of the jury seeing that proof, so they're dredging up facebook pictures to try and impeach his credibility. If this guy weren't that good, do you think banks would be entrusting billions and billions of dollars to him?

You honestly think Kurtz and Ward can PROVE those files were planted?

Yes I do. And I have to say, even when I have disagreed with you in the past, I've never used derogatory emoticons to get a point across. It comes across as childish, and detracts from your point. I truly believe that if they could not prove those files were planted, then they would not be afraid of Mr. Ward testifying. They have the ability to put on a rebuttal case, and if Mr. Ward were really a "hack" then the FBI can point that out in rebuttal (or cross).

 

[Just the Fax]

I continue to believe that the State clearly shows they have much more interest in winning than in seeking the truth.

They are working for the people of Wake County, the victim and her family.
"Winning" means justice.

 

[CyberPro]

Probably because the Judge just took away his right to PROVE that those files were planted.

1. I don't believe that any files were planted, manipulated, folded, spindled or mutilated at all.

2. I have a strong belief that the data presented by the FBI analysis on the date and time that the zoom was done is correct and true.

3. This "closed hand" cursor data is pretty obscure. Try a Google search and see how little comes up at all about it.

4. Kurtz had plenty of time to produce a verified, credible, forensic expert to refute the Prosecution's contention, and/or produce evidence that the computer was tampered with. He did not.

 

[macd]

I think prosecution is making too big a deal of this.
Let him testify, they can cross examine and call rebuttal witnesses.
"Forensic" is not a computer industry term... they shouldn't get wrapped around that semantic. "Reading Formatted Logs and Drawing Conclusions from Information" is something JW has demonstrated expertise in.
MOO.

 

[SleuthinNC]

What is the CSA log? Is that the same data the FBI extracted?

No the CSA log is from Cisco Security Agent. It is an intrusion protection system that is not the same data the FBI extracted.

 

[jrb0124]

we're getting warmer... pros is sweating bullets.

 

[Just the Fax]

And just because you call him a hack makes it true?

I think JW's rep is pretty well supported by those in the industry.

Professional Hacker.

Do you know him?
Do you personally know others that ("pretty well") support his rep?

 

[gracielee]

IMO, Boz, in his objections in front of the jury, should simply say 'your honor, we have already shown this witness is NOT qualified to perform nor analyze a forensic analysis of a computer.' It is NOT his area of expertise. If mr kurtz wants to bring forth a witness that IS QUALIFIED as an expert in this area, we will be happy to hear them.' 'But you have already ruled and this witness has already admitted 'he is NOT QUALIFED' to do such.'

 

[sunshine05]

No the CSA log is from Cisco Security Agent. It is an intrusion protection system that is not the same data the FBI extracted.

Thanks. I wonder if Kurtz generated a similar log to the FBI's to have JW analyze also?

 

[LyndyLoo]

Good Morning Folks....

Who else here is trying to scroll that log on their computer screen??..I know I am :floorlaugh:

 

[cody100]

Nothing...Ward will try to discredit their analysis with smoke and mirrors.
He's a certified hack and not qualified to parrot what Kurtz wants the jury to hear.

Morning JTF, I guess I was looking for one of the computer experts to answer that. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Star12]

I think he is a professional hacker. He admitted to that. In this use it is not derrogatory. Just a function of his job. Not the same as a hack