State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[ncsu95]

Mr FBI COMPUTER FORENSIC PHYSICIST?

He is not doing a forensic analysis. He is reviewing security logs. The FBI person would know more about forensics, but I doubt very seriously he understands the security logs at this level.

 

[Just the Fax]

Now this guy is unethical? You really need to stop attacking this guys character.

I said "perhaps" unethical.
MOO

 

[ncsu95]

Does anyone else wonder if BC isn't responsible for some of the things on this CSA log????? I understand his home computer being vulnerable to others using his home network. Maybe I don't understand this CSA log.

Could be. That would be another way to create an alibi.

 

[LyndyLoo]

You know looking at this log...and realizing I get these notifications all the time that someone or somethings is trying to access my portal ( which is setup as private wireless (and is password protected) does mean they actually entered or planted something on my computer....I think it is the nature of the beast when working on wireles puters...I also get notified when another wifi network becomes available to me and do I want to setup a profile for it....

This log shows nothing other than usual wireless activities to me..
IF defense it attempting to show that something nefarious went on on July 11th, July 14th July15 or July 16th....and IF that happened..whomever did so planted very specific items when no one would have known them except Brad Cooper at that time....

Sorry Not sure if this is going to fly with jurors, after cross exam is done.

 

[jrb0124]

Who said there is bias by the DA in this case?
Just because Kurtz said it's so, doesn't mean it's true.

You are making an assumption that those who detect bias are basing that on the fact that the defense attorney thinks so as well.

People can and do form opinions on their own which might coincide with someone else's opinion - doesn't mean its a result of it.

 

[snowshuze]

You are simply wrong. The witness is an expert in what he is currently testifying about. Or else he wouldn't be allowed to testify about it. He is not doing a computer forensic analysis. He's examining security logs and the court has declared him an expert in that field.

IMO, Mr Kurtz keeps wandering into areas outside the witnesses so called expertise.

 

[momof7]

And for everyone hopping on the judge is biased bandwagon, he is giving the defense and this witness A LOT of leeway in this testimony despite constant objection by the Pros.

Kelly

 

[gritguy]

The job and responsibility of the DA is to find the truth and equally and fairly dispense justice according to the law, their job is not to bring their egos into work or to just "win." They do not work for the victims, they work for the public at large and are responsible to the public at large. There should be no bias in the DA's office, if they are not able to rid of their bias then they should not be working for the public at large in the DAs office.

I agree with this. In this case, I think the prosecutors are convinced they have the killer on trial, so I don't see them violating their duty. But, I agree, they have a different sort of responsibility than other attorneys to the administration of justice.

 

[macd]

Between "penetration testing" and "network security" expertise, kurtz will be able to get all testimony in. It will just take some extra foundation at each question. Spoon feed the judge.

 

[Skittles]

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)

I'm inferring from this that no one directed you to the local Mr. Ward. Am I inferring correctly?

 

[jrb0124]

And for everyone hopping on the judge is biased bandwagon, he is giving the defense and this witness A LOT of leeway in this testimony despite constant objection by the Pros.

Kelly

As of yesterday afternoon, AFTER the defense motion for mistrial or recusal. I think he had a moment of self-awareness.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

It seems to me....and I'm using my common sense, that a "Certified Ethical Hacker" would have to keep written records of his method. I don't know if JW is certified or ethical.

He's never done forensic work....right?

 

[jrb0124]

He's never done forensic work....right?

He has forensically examined 9 computers for clients, compared to the FBI witness who has examined 5 - I'd say "experience" is on the side of the defense witness, regardless of credentialing or who wears the badge.

 

[Bernie]

No, he called himself a professional hacker - and explained the term quite well.

Excuse me professional hacker .....

 

[ncsu95]

IMO, Mr Kurtz keeps wandering into areas outside the witnesses so called expertise.

And the judge is not allowing those questions. But he is an expert on what he is testifying about.

 

[kljohnson0458]

You know looking at this log...and realizing I get these notifications all the time that someone or somethings is trying to access my portal ( which is setup as private wireless (and is password protected) does mean they actually entered or planted something on my computer....I think it is the nature of the beast when working on wireles puters...I also get notified when another wifi network becomes available to me and do I want to setup a profile for it....

This log shows nothing other than usual wireless activities to me..
IF defense it attempting to show that something nefarious went on on July 11th, July 14th July15 or July 16th....and IF that happened..whomever did so planted very specific items when no one would have known them except Brad Cooper at that time....

Sorry Not sure if this is going to fly with jurors, after cross exam is done.

thank you for saying what I couldn't find the words for. I also think BC could be responsible for some of this as well. I agree 150% with your post. Thanks. It is proving nothing in the wireless world.

 

[momof7]

As of yesterday afternoon, AFTER the defense motion for mistrial or recusal. I think he had a moment of self-awareness.

Well, honestly it wasn't the first request for a mistrail or recusal, so not so sure about that. I do agree with others, from what I have watched, he has case law on his side. In all instances was he correct? Not sure. But, I find the 'judge is bias' argument just as likely as BC's lawyers have no clue what they are doing and are doing more damage to their client than the judge IMHO.

Kelly

 

[jrb0124]

Q&A re: cursor files now...drifting back to forensics....temp internet files...access times, lets see how far Kurtz can get with the witness.

 

[yeknomaras]

I just want to say thank you to the computer savvy people that are explaining stuff in this thread. Between all the mean posts, it's nice to read just facts about networks and computers and all that. It really helps understand what's going on here.

So thanks and good morning all. Can we all get along?

 

[NCEast]

I think this witness is very knowledgeable. If he comes across as unethical or whatever, it's because of the way Kurtz may be twisting the questioning.
He seems very, very down as opposed to his demeanor of yesterday morning. He doesn't even sound like the same man.