State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
No doubt Kurtz tried hard to buy a true forensic professional but had no takers.
No surprise. Reputation and future credibility is huge in this field.
 
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.

But he's only doing this to stay in business, right? Honestly, the attacks on this guy (not what he is saying...attacks on him personally) are ridiculous.
 
Just because Kurtz presented him as very well respected in the industry doesn't mean it's true.

I guess you missed the posts yesterday that have worked with him in the past and know his reputation in the industry.
 
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.

Except I looked for the last three days to find a qualified forensic computer analyst regarding this data and was re-directed to the FBI each time to find someone locally with the qualifications.

This is fruit of the poisoned tree and the pros knows it.

Does not sit well with me legally. (Forget BC for a minute)
 
But he's only doing this to stay in business, right? Honestly, the attacks on this guy (not what he is saying...attacks on him personally) are ridiculous.

IMO, we are getting too close to something sensitive. WHy else would you care about this guy and what he is going to say?
 
No doubt Kurtz tried hard to buy a true forensic professional but had no takers.

Since you have some insight into this, how much did he offer a "true" forensic professional? how short was he $$$ wise with the offer? just curious.
 
What is the CSA log? Is that the same data the FBI extracted?

Nope,

FBI reported on the Master File Table, which is part of the housekeeping data on the hard drive.

JW is looking at a log from a program that I think is Cisco Security Analyzer.
 
Kurtz needs a tattoo that says, " I do not understand NO." One of my children is like this. He is 4. His mantra is, "I want what I want."
 
Now I know why FBI guy is still there. Prosecution will need him to disect this info accurately.
 
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

You are right--he referred to himself a 'white hat hacker' yesterday.
 
No doubt Kurtz tried hard to buy a true forensic professional but had no takers.
No surprise. Reputation and future credibility is huge in this field.

Exactly. Since Greta van Sustern no longer does crime shows, this guy needs to beef up his resume. I'm doubtin' Nancy Grace will be callin' him any time soon. And if she does, if this guy thinks this court room grilling is rough, wait till ole Nancy get's her claws into him. :floorlaugh:
 
Thanks. I wonder if Kurtz generated a similar log to the FBI's to have JW analyze also?

They did but JW is not allowed to testify to anything regarding that because it falls under "Computer Forensics" and he was not deemed qualified to testify in that arena.
 
What I could do is link you all to the opposing cases going on that relate to this so you can think what you want about the "legal aspect" of this evidence. That should bump us to about page 50 on the thread with JUST the current and considerable case law.

Also, this seems to be an epidemic (the "sensitive tools" of the USA argument) going on in DV and various Sexual Assault and Murder cases.

Should do wonder for smart phones sales and laptop usage.
 
Kurtz needs a tattoo that says, " I do not understand NO." One of my children is like this. He is 4. His mantra is, "I want what I want."

Kurtz is simply trying to educate the judge on the ramifications of his own rulings, and the judge seems willing to listen (good for him).
 
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.'

Yes. This is very unprofessional of Kurtz IMO. Take it like a man.

If the information is credible and backed by fact, then the prosecation cannot keep it out at this point. So take your staff off twitter and message boards and give them a phone to use with their computer...(ah, the irony), and tell them to go the the yellow pages, start with A, and call every forensic expert there is until they get someone. They have two weeks.

I think it would be more effective at this point, instead of arguing over this one witness, to just bring in another. Doesn't Jay have any friends they could call?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
228
Guests online
1,844
Total visitors
2,072

Forum statistics

Threads
606,745
Messages
18,210,278
Members
233,952
Latest member
Kwanyin2#
Back
Top