State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[SleuthSayer]

Yesterday he said that an employee made a copy of a program for him to use. He also said that he had Cisco equipment that he got while he was employed there. Today he made a point of saying that he had Cisco equipment that he bought. His statements about taking outdated equipment just emphasized the prosecution point that Brad could have had throw away equipment in his house that could have been set up to generate a ClicktoCall. (And I KNOW I'm not the only one that saw that deleted file on that screen today!)

Actually, ClickToCall is the one way that we know that he didn't spoof the call, unless he had some other smart phone or a laptop on a WiFi network. ClickToCall would have required a data access from his smart phone concurrent with the spoofed call. There was no such data access on the AT&T logs.

There is nothing magic about ClickToCall that makes the call spoofing easier. ClickToCall just means that you click on the person's name to call them rather than dialing the actual digits.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I am confused seeing this comment and reading the most current ones.

I don't wish to speak for the poster but I'm guessing that he/she is very honest and sees things from both sides. MOO

ETA: Much like ncsu95 and a few others.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Actually, ClickToCall is the one way that we know that he didn't spoof the call, unless he had some other smart phone or a laptop on a WiFi network. ClickToCall would have required a data access from his smart phone concurrent with the spoofed call. There was no such data access on the AT&T logs.

There is nothing magic about ClickToCall that makes the call spoofing easier. ClickToCall just means that you click on the person's name to call them rather than dialing the actual digits.

Gotcha. So he called someone from his computer? Or was it his phone syncing with the computer that created that log?

 

[less0305]

Madeleine,

Yours is an excellent analysis, and points to exactly why JW was chosen for the defense. Bear with me, and let's see if I can articulate this thought:

JW the Network Security "expert" at first blush seems like a strange choice, rather than a genuine hired gun civilian Computer Forensic expert. The defense I believe postulated that they could not refute the analysis done by the FBI.

So rather than have dueling analysts, and confounding the jury completely, they devised a "red herring" to bluff the prosecution. But on JW and hope that the prosecution bites, and tries to both discredit and suppress the defense expert.

Kurtz was smart enough to get in just enough testimony to plant the inference with the jury (or hope to) that BC's computer was tampered with. The Pros bite at it, and because they were afraid of what might be reviled.

If they called Kurtz's bluff, what would have been disclosed is a whole lot of nothing, that could not stand up to cross examination.

But the Pros blinked while playing chicken with JW, cause their case is generally weak (it is what it is), and the most compelling evidence in their hand is the computer stuff that points right at BC and only BC.

Damn if that's what Kurtz did, it is a clever and risky maneuver. He took the risk cause maybe his client is as guilty as sin.

There are games within games being played, and the jury is the audience.

I now think BC is not only guilty, but very calculating.......and stone cold

Hence that cocky little smirk he wears. I only pray that the jury is a little more common sense and able to see the whole picture - the whole movie, the movie that started with opening credits in April, 2008. It's a shame, but I *believe* - in my opinion - that Nancy's fate was sealed when BC opened that separation agreement in April. I *think* he decided then that Nancy was expendable and he had from April until July 11/12, 2011 to calculate his every move. He didn't even continue his "dad journal" after May - why? He wasn't going to need it, or so he thought. His time was better spent going over the kill and cover up. Of course, I'm only expressing my own opinions here.

 

[sunshine05]

Madeleine,

Yours is an excellent analysis, and points to exactly why JW was chosen for the defense. Bear with me, and let's see if I can articulate this thought:

JW the Network Security "expert" at first blush seems like a strange choice, rather than a genuine hired gun civilian Computer Forensic expert. The defense I believe postulated that they could not refute the analysis done by the FBI.

So rather than have dueling analysts, and confounding the jury completely, they devised a "red herring" to bluff the prosecution. Put on JW and hope that the prosecution bites, and tries to both discredit and suppress the defense expert.

Kurtz was smart enough to get in just enough testimony to plant the inference with the jury (or hope to) that BC's computer was tampered with. The Pros bite at it, and because they were afraid of what might be reviled.

If they called Kurtz's bluff, what would have been disclosed is a whole lot of nothing, that could not stand up to cross examination.

But the Pros blinked while playing chicken with JW, cause their case is generally weak (it is what it is), and the most compelling evidence in their hand is the computer stuff that points right at BC and only BC.

Damn if that's what Kurtz did, it is a clever and risky maneuver. He took the risk cause maybe his client is as guilty as sin.

There are games within games being played, and the jury is the audience.

I now think BC is not only guilty, but very calculating.......and stone cold

I disagree. I think Kurtz through this witness firmly planned to show the jury exactly where the penetration/tampering occurred. I also think, even without using the FBI data exactly, they did show that it doesn't look as though BC did the zooming in that the FBI implied on the 11th.

I'm back to "not guilty" after today's testimony.

 

[ncsu95]

I agree. I do think BC is G, but I did not like his cross at all. I don't remember Kurtz ever speaking that way in cross. I was disappointed. And perhaps the FB thing was offensive, but it had nothing to do with this trial. I, too felt he was playing dirty and it undermined any points he was trying to make.

Zellinger was very condescending in the way he questioned Ward. He talked down to him. I thought Ward did a great job of keeping his composure and answering respectfully. I certainly hope someone talks to him about this and he doesn't approach the rest of the witnesses like that. Kurtz never did that to any of the prosecution witnesses. It was very bad form and came across poorly (to me at least).

 

[otto]

I will acknowledge that just about all the tech people here know more than I do even though I may have worn more "hats" in my job. I'm saying that he could talk the talk and make it seem like he really knows what he's talking about but he might not be presenting a complete picture. What he says and what "IS" doesn't necessarily match up. MOO

Seems to me that tech people have different areas of expertise, and not all tech people are equal. Put four tech people in a room, and they will all know something about tech that no one else in the room knows. One tech guy might know more than the others put together, like Brad knows more than the expert. Brad has better credentials, work history and professionalism (aside from the swinging and personal webpage) than the expert. How can the expert purport to be an expert on technology that is managed by someone like Brad; his acknowledged superior? How can he purport to describe technology capabilities and limitations from 2008 using 2011 software?

 

[Cheyenne130]

I disagree. I think Kurtz through this witness firmly planned to show the jury exactly where the penetration/tampering occurred. I also think, even without using the FBI data exactly, they did show that it doesn't look as though BC did the zooming in that the FBI implied on the 11th.

I'm back to "not guilty" after today's testimony.

Kurtz did not want to show where this penetration/tampering occured because it didn't. He wanted to use this witness to give the illusion that tampering/penetration occured. It remains to be seen if he bamboozled the jury. MOO

 

[Cheyenne130]

Seems to me that tech people have different areas of expertise, and not all tech people are equal. Put four tech people in a room, and they will all know something about tech that no one else in the room knows. One tech guy might know more than the others put together, like Brad knows more than the expert. Brad has better credentials, work history and professionalism (aside from the swinging and personal webpage) than the expert. How can the expert purport to be an expert on technology that is managed by someone like Brad; his acknowledged superior? How can he purport to describe technology capabilities and limitations from 2008 using 2011 software?

Excellent! You have summed it up better than the prosecution has to date. I would use a silly emoticon but I would rather just say BRAVO!

 

[SleuthSayer]

Gotcha. So he called someone from his computer? Or was it his phone syncing with the computer that created that log?

Dunno. I didn't see it. If he was fooling around with the kind of stuff he tested at work, I suppose it would make sense that he had done some CTC.

You may know what it is, so I'm not being condescending, but I'll take a shot at explaining what ClickToCall is for those who don't know.

The idea is your company has some kind of online Web-based directory of employees. You go to your browser and look someone up. When their directory entry comes up, next to their phone number there would be something like a little button with a phone icon on it. If you click on that button, your IP Phone that is sitting beside you calls the person. So, rather than having to read the number on the web page, reach over to the phone, and punch the numbers, the CTC does the dialing for you.

So, if he had some ClickToCall application on his phone, it would have allowed him to click on the name rather than dial the digits. But, he would have had to be on the Internet at that time to do it. According to the AT&T log, he wasn't.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Zellinger was very condescending in the way he questioned Ward. He talked down to him. I thought Ward did a great job of keeping his composure and answering respectfully. I certainly hope someone talks to him about this and he doesn't approach the rest of the witnesses like that. Kurtz never did that to any of the prosecution witnesses. It was very bad form and came across poorly (to me at least).

I agree and stated as much during the questioning. I didn't like it. Later I wondered what the history was with this witness. They have obviously known about him since at least February. Someone said that he was also on the prosecution witness list. I know we will never know but I would LOVE to know the back story. MOO

 

[SleuthinNC]

Seems to me that tech people have different areas of expertise, and not all tech people are equal. Put four tech people in a room, and they will all know something about tech that no one else in the room knows. One tech guy might know more than the others put together, like Brad knows more than the expert. Brad has better credentials, work history and professionalism (aside from the swinging and personal webpage) than the expert. How can the expert purport to be an expert on technology that is managed by someone like Brad; his acknowledged superior? How can he purport to describe technology capabilities and limitations from 2008 using 2011 software?

They work in two completely separate areas of technology. Security and voice are not the same thing at all. It is almost funny the way JW can be portrayed as some kind of second rate tech wannabe here and then there is the actual outside world where he is a highly regarded expert in the field of computer and network security particularly in the area of Windows security which is exactly what he was testifying about.

 

[sunshine05]

Kurtz did not want to show where this penetration/tampering occured because it didn't. He wanted to use this witness to give the illusion that tampering/penetration occured. It remains to be seen if he bamboozled the jury. MOO

How do you know that? Even the FBI couldn't explain ALL of the modified files so how you just point blank discount this?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Dunno. I didn't see it. If he was fooling around with the kind of stuff he tested at work, I suppose it would make sense that he had done some CTC.

You may know what it is, so I'm not being condescending, but I'll take a shot at explaining what ClickToCall is for those who don't know.

The idea is your company has some kind of online Web-based directory of employees. You go to your browser and look someone up. When their directory entry comes up, next to their phone number there would be something like a little button with a phone icon on it. If you click on that button, your IP Phone that is sitting beside you calls the person. So, rather than having to read the number on the web page, reach over to the phone, and punch the numbers, the CTC does the dialing for you.

So, if he had some ClickToCall application on his phone, it would have allowed him to click on the name rather than dial the digits. But, he would have had to be on the Internet at that time to do it. According to the AT&T log, he wasn't.

The record of the deleted file was in the CSA log on the computer. I did not note the time and date. Maybe someone else (who takes MUCH better notes) can come along and help out.

 

[otto]

I am confused seeing this comment and reading the most current ones.

The prosecutor confronted the expert with having had 7 jobs in 10 years. The expert said that it was actually 5 per the resume that he provided to defense. It seems that the prosecution had a different copy of his resume. The prosecution showed the resume to the expert, and he agreed that the resume did list seven jobs, but that 2 could be fudged, so it was actually 5 jobs in 10 years.

At first, I thought that he was a legitimate expert and the questions were a little hostile. By the time we saw the half naked photos being handed to the judge (wish I'd had my finger on the print screen key), we knew that there was an issue of credibility.

Credibility is all that counts with experts.

 

[calgary123]

Am watching the JW testimony. I'm less than impressed some Facebook info was allowed in. Maybe the conspiracy theory stuff, but that's still a stretch. That's a hard question, I think the lesson is if you want to put yourself out there as an expert, lock down your social networking and don't let it out you're a conspiracy theorist. And certainly his expertise in network security has nothing to do with his own Facebook privacy settings, BZ was really on the wrong path there.

I like JW, I think he's he's honest and straightforward. I think he knows network security very well.

The prosecution objected to him getting into forensics, and I think only because they don't want the jury influenced by a true non-expert. A more confident prosecution would have let him potentially hang himself and then rebutted showing what I expect would be JW's significant errors be they via assumptions or actual analysis.

I have to think if the defense really needed to put some high quality forensic analysis into evidence they would have hired someone different. I also assume they did have a budget to do it. If they got the best they could afford, this is not due process for Brad.

 

[unc70]

Kurtz did not want to show where this penetration/tampering occured because it didn't. He wanted to use this witness to give the illusion that tampering/penetration occured. It remains to be seen if he bamboozled the jury. MOO

I think K & W got very close to a full-course buffet showing where to look for the tampering and getting the logs into evidence to back it up. The expert, but not FORENSIC expert, ruling made it a bit more muddled than if they could have just entered Ward's report directly into evidence as originally planned. The prosecution had that document and used every trick trying to suppress it and Ward's testimony.

 

[otto]

They work in two completely separate areas of technology. Security and voice are not the same thing at all. It is almost funny the way JW can be portrayed as some kind of second rate tech wannabe here and then there is the actual outside world where he is a highly regarded expert in the field of computer and network security particularly in the area of Windows security which is exactly what he was testifying about.

I have no idea about who the guy is (still looking for the CV). All I know is what was implied in court ... although I did like the part where the prosecutor asked how the expert knew something about the phone, and he said that he read the screen. That was a bit over the top.

 

[Cheyenne130]

How do you know that? Even the FBI couldn't explain ALL of the modified files so how you just point blank discount this?

I can't speak to what the FBI explained because I didn't get to hear it. I'm in the dark. Based on what I saw today, the questions were not being asked to get at the truth of the matter. They were asked to benefit the defense. That's not a criticism. That's his job. He's not going to ask any questions that show what really happened. He only wants to benefit his client. MOO

 

[sunshine05]

I can't speak to what the FBI explained because I didn't get to hear it. I'm in the dark. Based on what I saw today, the questions were not being asked to get at the truth of the matter. They were asked to benefit the defense. That's not a criticism. That's his job. He's not going to ask any questions that show what really happened. He only wants to benefit his client. MOO

I disagree again. They skimmed over most of the files that were clearly just updates and honed in on the questionable/penetration/tampering files. They should not have been there....unless someone was on there when no one was supposed to be.