I had thought of this...however, he would have been better off just deleting the files than modifying them. It's really the only direct evidence (in my opinion) and was not found initially by the FBI.
State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011
- Thread starter borndem
- Start date
New Posts
-
Australia Australia - Janine Vaughan, 31, Bathurst, NSW, 7 Dec 2001- Latest: TootsieFootsie
- Status
I had thought of this...however, he would have been better off just deleting the files than modifying them. It's really the only direct evidence (in my opinion) and was not found initially by the FBI.
Hello all WebSleuthers. This is Jay Ward (yes that one, from the trial). I come here in peace, not to stir anyone up or anything up, nor necessarily to defend myself. As I have read this thread and yesterdays, I recognize that there are many of you that question my qualifications, and that is perfectly fine. It's your prerogative.
Also, comments about my hair (or lack thereof), my not being credible as a computer forensics expert and the way I may have come off to some of you while you were looking at me from the courtroom or via the live stream - those are all fair game. I have very thick skin, as most geeks typically do.
Frankly, I wish that I could explain everything that I know about what was on the computer, and maybe I can after the trial is over and the verdict rendered. I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind, but just to clear up a couple of misconceptions that I have seen posted about me. I don't suspect that many of you may care, nevertheless, I'll do my best.
1. Yes, it's true, I took the case pro-bono, and for the reason I stated on the stand. My step-father, whom I loved as much as my real father, was a criminal defense attorney and I had the privilege of learning many valuable lessons from him. I saw him do a great deal of pro-bono work and I followed his lead by first becoming a Guardian ad Litem while still in college. As I had previously indicated, I had intended to follow in his footsteps or into some sort of law enforcement. I also did NOT seek this case out. I honestly had zero knowledge of this case when the defense called me as I do not watch television (except during college football season - Go Gamecocks!), nor do I read the papers.
2. I did not take this case for the fame and notoriety. As a matter of fact, I initially had no idea that the case would be on television. Once I was told it was, I had great trepidation about it. Once I heard that the FBI witnesses were going to be blocked out for "national security" reasons, I did inquire if that same courtesy could be extended to me (though, obviously NOT for national security reasons).
3. For those that question my degree in Interdisciplinary Studies, the story is as follows: I initially started off in Chemical Engineering; but quickly became bored with it and thusly moved to on to Biochemistry (as I have always had a love of sciences). Again, I became bored with very rigid and prescribed courses, so I went to my dean of engineering to inquire how I could create my own curriculum in the model of the classical education model (that is, taking classes that I thought would make me a well rounded person and pique my interest). They suggested Interdisciplinary Studies but with some suggestions on classes to include when designing my curriculum. Beyond that, I have always been an autodidact learner, teaching myself most of what I know, outside of formalized education, usually through trial and error and understanding what works. (I guess I have some mild OCD which ostensibly attracted me to computers).
4. Regarding the Facebook pictures - it was quite funny to me, but I can confirm to you that the pictures were in no way partially nude or otherwise. It's up to you to believe me or not. They were: a picture of me in a shirt that was made by a friend for a benefit that says "I'll be nicer when you're smarter." A picture of me with a t-shirt over my head in ninja like garb as seen here: http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-to-make-ninja-mask-out-of-t-shirt.html and a picture of me, smiling and flipping the middle finger.
I recognize some people will likely be offended at the "*advertiser censored*" comment. As a fan of Mr. Zappa, I am in agreement with him when he queries: "What do you make of a society that is so primitive that it clings to the belief that certain words in its language are so powerful that they could corrupt you the moment you hear them?" While not everyone can, or will appreciate my sense of humor, it's targeted towards those that, like myself, see absurdity in pretty much everything. I respect you, even if you disagree with me.
5. Regarding my lack of a corporate web site: as a couple of people have surmised on here, my business does not come from a web presence, but from referrals and repeat customers. If it makes you actually feel any better, the site *is* actually getting ready to launch, just as soon as I can find some spare time to finish with some content to get it to the webmaster.
6. Actually, I agreed with the Judge's ruling not to allow me to testify to forensic practices. As I freely admitted on the stand, while I do have some experience in analyzing forensic data, I would never hold myself out as a forensic expert. I also told the defense this, up front. What I disagreed with, was the DA taking obvious advantage of the Judge's ignorance in technology to claim that so much of what would normally be within my normal purview as analysis as being "forensics". This is simply laughable, but I do understand that the DA also has a job to do and I do not begrudge him. As a matter of fact, I went up to him during the break and told him that I understood he was doing his job and that I held no ill feelings towards him. I extended the same courtesy to Special Agent Johnson from the FBI, and found him to be warm, cordial and genuine. Being involved with Infragard, I find it preferable to be friendly with law enforcement as they will occasionally ask me to advise them as well.
I will likely not be back to answer any questions and I will leave it to you to form your own opinions about me, my motivations and whether or not I have any skillset that you would ever deem appropriate. Such is your right and your judgment.
If you remotely care, you can find somewhat of a CV on my linkedin profile at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jayward
Kind regards to you all, even those of you who ridicule and attempt to belittle me and my abilities. I have zero ill will towards anyone on here.
Jay:seeya:
Also, comments about my hair (or lack thereof), my not being credible as a computer forensics expert and the way I may have come off to some of you while you were looking at me from the courtroom or via the live stream - those are all fair game. I have very thick skin, as most geeks typically do.
Frankly, I wish that I could explain everything that I know about what was on the computer, and maybe I can after the trial is over and the verdict rendered. I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind, but just to clear up a couple of misconceptions that I have seen posted about me. I don't suspect that many of you may care, nevertheless, I'll do my best.
1. Yes, it's true, I took the case pro-bono, and for the reason I stated on the stand. My step-father, whom I loved as much as my real father, was a criminal defense attorney and I had the privilege of learning many valuable lessons from him. I saw him do a great deal of pro-bono work and I followed his lead by first becoming a Guardian ad Litem while still in college. As I had previously indicated, I had intended to follow in his footsteps or into some sort of law enforcement. I also did NOT seek this case out. I honestly had zero knowledge of this case when the defense called me as I do not watch television (except during college football season - Go Gamecocks!), nor do I read the papers.
2. I did not take this case for the fame and notoriety. As a matter of fact, I initially had no idea that the case would be on television. Once I was told it was, I had great trepidation about it. Once I heard that the FBI witnesses were going to be blocked out for "national security" reasons, I did inquire if that same courtesy could be extended to me (though, obviously NOT for national security reasons).
3. For those that question my degree in Interdisciplinary Studies, the story is as follows: I initially started off in Chemical Engineering; but quickly became bored with it and thusly moved to on to Biochemistry (as I have always had a love of sciences). Again, I became bored with very rigid and prescribed courses, so I went to my dean of engineering to inquire how I could create my own curriculum in the model of the classical education model (that is, taking classes that I thought would make me a well rounded person and pique my interest). They suggested Interdisciplinary Studies but with some suggestions on classes to include when designing my curriculum. Beyond that, I have always been an autodidact learner, teaching myself most of what I know, outside of formalized education, usually through trial and error and understanding what works. (I guess I have some mild OCD which ostensibly attracted me to computers).
4. Regarding the Facebook pictures - it was quite funny to me, but I can confirm to you that the pictures were in no way partially nude or otherwise. It's up to you to believe me or not. They were: a picture of me in a shirt that was made by a friend for a benefit that says "I'll be nicer when you're smarter." A picture of me with a t-shirt over my head in ninja like garb as seen here: http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-to-make-ninja-mask-out-of-t-shirt.html and a picture of me, smiling and flipping the middle finger.
I recognize some people will likely be offended at the "*advertiser censored*" comment. As a fan of Mr. Zappa, I am in agreement with him when he queries: "What do you make of a society that is so primitive that it clings to the belief that certain words in its language are so powerful that they could corrupt you the moment you hear them?" While not everyone can, or will appreciate my sense of humor, it's targeted towards those that, like myself, see absurdity in pretty much everything. I respect you, even if you disagree with me.
5. Regarding my lack of a corporate web site: as a couple of people have surmised on here, my business does not come from a web presence, but from referrals and repeat customers. If it makes you actually feel any better, the site *is* actually getting ready to launch, just as soon as I can find some spare time to finish with some content to get it to the webmaster.
6. Actually, I agreed with the Judge's ruling not to allow me to testify to forensic practices. As I freely admitted on the stand, while I do have some experience in analyzing forensic data, I would never hold myself out as a forensic expert. I also told the defense this, up front. What I disagreed with, was the DA taking obvious advantage of the Judge's ignorance in technology to claim that so much of what would normally be within my normal purview as analysis as being "forensics". This is simply laughable, but I do understand that the DA also has a job to do and I do not begrudge him. As a matter of fact, I went up to him during the break and told him that I understood he was doing his job and that I held no ill feelings towards him. I extended the same courtesy to Special Agent Johnson from the FBI, and found him to be warm, cordial and genuine. Being involved with Infragard, I find it preferable to be friendly with law enforcement as they will occasionally ask me to advise them as well.
I will likely not be back to answer any questions and I will leave it to you to form your own opinions about me, my motivations and whether or not I have any skillset that you would ever deem appropriate. Such is your right and your judgment.
If you remotely care, you can find somewhat of a CV on my linkedin profile at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jayward
Kind regards to you all, even those of you who ridicule and attempt to belittle me and my abilities. I have zero ill will towards anyone on here.
Jay:seeya:
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
Listen to the end of tape 4:
Kurtz asked JW, "What type of extension is on a cursor file? JW: .cur
Kurtz: "did you see what type of extension the cursor file data had from BC's computer? (this is from the 7/11 1:15 PM data). JW : Yes, it was .bmp
Kurtz: Do you know what type of cursor file was used in google maps in 2008? JW: Yes.
Kurtz: What was it? .cur
This is big! Someone tampered with his computer. I don't know if Google maps changed to bmp or when or anything but if this is true, this is proof. IF they did change to bmp files *after* '08, well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Kurtz asked JW, "What type of extension is on a cursor file? JW: .cur
Kurtz: "did you see what type of extension the cursor file data had from BC's computer? (this is from the 7/11 1:15 PM data). JW : Yes, it was .bmp
Kurtz: Do you know what type of cursor file was used in google maps in 2008? JW: Yes.
Kurtz: What was it? .cur
This is big! Someone tampered with his computer. I don't know if Google maps changed to bmp or when or anything but if this is true, this is proof. IF they did change to bmp files *after* '08, well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
LaLaw2000
Louisiana
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2008
- Messages
- 12,516
- Reaction score
- 1,818
Brad Cooper did not use a computer to kill Nancy with. He used those big hands of his. He used his computer to look at the dumpsite. He may have even used his computer to spoof a call. This is my take on it. My opinion.
I am just an average person and not a computer expert. I have to skip over many posts and posts that are too computer detailed because of lack of knowledge on my part. Murder has always been around and it always will be. I see the motive, means, and the opportunity here. Were I on this jury, I would vote to convict. Period. That search of Fielding Drive the day before Nancy was murdered is enough for me (as well as the other so-called coincidences) and I would not budge no matter how long it took.
JMO, and goodnight.
I am just an average person and not a computer expert. I have to skip over many posts and posts that are too computer detailed because of lack of knowledge on my part. Murder has always been around and it always will be. I see the motive, means, and the opportunity here. Were I on this jury, I would vote to convict. Period. That search of Fielding Drive the day before Nancy was murdered is enough for me (as well as the other so-called coincidences) and I would not budge no matter how long it took.
JMO, and goodnight.
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
Jay - Thank you for stopping by. I have a huge amount of respect for you. You handled yourself very professionally on the stand and I know you are very well respected in your field. I'm sorry you had to read any negative posts. This is a very tough crowd (not all of us though).
Whether it happened of not, the defense seems to think it is possible. Either a police officer or neighbor murdered Nancy and then endeavored to hide it by planting computer files implicating Brad that would be then discovered and deemed indicative of SOGDI.
whoosh
Spoofing a call questions whether Nancy was alive at 7-ish AM and going for a run. The medical examiner pinned the time to shortly after midnight, but that onion was difficult to pinpoint - and onions take longer to digest. Bugs say midnight. Besides, stomach contents is one of the worst indicators of time of death.
Motive: he didn't want his wife to move to Canada with the children
Means: they lived together
Opportunity: they lived together
I think that if you are someone with relevant credentials, you can hang your hat at the appropriate thread.
Once a verdict is in, please stop by and give your full view of what was on that computer.
Are you saying that the zoomed files were not the right image format for 2008? In 2008, was google maps using jpg, bmp, tif, png ... or did it depend on how the computer was set to interpret image files?
Can anyone say anything sensible about the call to Ireland and be taken seriously?
calgary123
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 0
Jay123, it takes a lot of courage to post here given your involvement. I'm not so sure this was a good idea on your part. I'm also skeptical you are who you say you are but only because it is so unusual for a testifying expert to post on a message board before the trial is complete. But still I believe you are who you say you are, the detail appears so genuine. But I also know you could make it look like the post was from you or not (based on your expertise).
And if you are who you say you are, let me say, I thought you were very honest with your testimony and you got a rough ride from BZ. But as you said, he has a job to do too. Also you are clearly knowledgeable regarding network security. If you supported end users I'd ask you to show vulnerabilities in my home network, but I understand that probably doesn't pay the bills.
Also I was at first surprised that you agreed the judge made the right call about your forensic expertise. But I also agree that the judge does not properly understand the difference between actual computer forensics and your area of expertise. I also think the defense had better have an actual computer forensic analyst queued up if they want to present reliable evidence about the allegedly "changed" files.
Finally, you appear to have been asked to participate very recently. That troubles me from a defense point of view.
And if you are who you say you are, let me say, I thought you were very honest with your testimony and you got a rough ride from BZ. But as you said, he has a job to do too. Also you are clearly knowledgeable regarding network security. If you supported end users I'd ask you to show vulnerabilities in my home network, but I understand that probably doesn't pay the bills.
Also I was at first surprised that you agreed the judge made the right call about your forensic expertise. But I also agree that the judge does not properly understand the difference between actual computer forensics and your area of expertise. I also think the defense had better have an actual computer forensic analyst queued up if they want to present reliable evidence about the allegedly "changed" files.
Finally, you appear to have been asked to participate very recently. That troubles me from a defense point of view.
Straitfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 5
I dont post often, as is obivious but have to say have followed this case for a very, very long time and do get tired of reading the "LE, Judge, FBI, CPD , etc are all out to get BC.... really they have NOTHING to gain.. Like they would "all conspire" together, get real... Personnally doubt any human is capable of doing 100% everyday... sure they did their very best & hope NC and family get some kind of justice at the end..
Just want to clear this up, because that is not the case.
There are a handful of sites that are not allowed to be linked or mentioned. But those sites are blocked with **** when posted.
Generally speaking members quote,link and discuss 100's of different sites in every forum here 24/7. Copyright rules must be followed which means no more than 10% of the information on another site may be copied and pasted here and there must be an accompanying link. If you can't link it, you cannot quote it.
There is mod discretion on a forum by forum basis as to any other sites that are not appropriate for linking for each case for one reason or another. If the content of a website is questionable, mods may remove the link.
Hope that helps
Straitfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 5
Just curious as missed part of the testimony today, did he find the map in his searches?
Was it even brought up today?
- Status