State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011
- Thread starter borndem
- Start date
- Status
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
Indeed there is.
I wonder what info Google keeps on searches, and if they can be tracked to an IP address 3 years later. A Google employee under oath saying... "yep, that search was done from that IP address at that time" would make for a good rebuttal.
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
I got to thinking about expert testimony/expert witnesses while taking my shower just now. And I was reminded of park deitz. When he testified at the andrea yates trial, didn't he give misleading testimony/out-right lies more than once, resulting in the mistrial? Does anyone know if his services as an expert are still sought since then? The way I understand it, any 'offering of proof' as an expert in future trials, allows the opposing side to question him about his lies resulting in a mistrial, right?
hmmm it was 4 tiles put together to make the image. I think 88 gb could tax most systems.
I'm not seeing a coherent argument from Kurtz at this point. First we see that someone can remotely access the internet, then we see someone can alter time stamps, now we're talking about a .bmp and a .cur. In the end, I suppose we're supposed to believe that someone could drop a .cur or .bmp or .tif or some kind of graphic file onto someone's computer. That is some kind of criminal mind at work going to all the trouble of dropping that info on the husband's computer. Most criminals commit murder and they're on to something else, not sitting around hacking computers.
The way you say that is incorrect and misleading. The VPN Client, which I use daily, does create a secure tunnel to the Cisco Network, AND prevents local network traffic from reaching your computer. It takes over the network connection as part of securing the tunnel, and traffic destined for the network must transit the tunnel, it cannot go outside the tunnel.
The point being, let's say computer user x is on the VPN, but he is a loser and is on an insecure home network. His neighbor, the evil Dr. Y, wants to attack the company that user x is on, so it would be a simple matter of accessing the WiFi network at user x's house and using that access to attack the company at the other end of the VPN. It does not work that way, if you are secured on the VPN, local network access is restricted. If not, anyone getting a virus or worm on your local network would have a broad golden path into the corporate network. Not a good idea.
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
Wonder if he's related in some way to the 'peterson three'? they just can't seem to keep *live* wives either.
LyndyLoo
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,993
- Reaction score
- 3
I think I heard testimony that Google scrubs the sites every 9 months or so..so at this point I doubt it 2 half years later... Unless the FBI forensic guy can try and find that IP address, we'll never know..however I would be willing to bet it was Brad's IP address that would show up..JMOO
Gotta run ... but will try to make more sense of this. Hopefully the answer will become clear with the forthcoming testimony.
(from the chart on the linked page, it looks like 4 tiles should be about 58 mb ... not sure if I'm reading that correctly though ... since I'm a skimmer at the best of times).
Amster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 11,584
- Reaction score
- 4,443
Amazing....just unbelievable! I mean REALLY unbelievable!!
Hartzy34
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2011
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Was it ever established whether NC had or did not have access to BC's work computer when he brought it home for the weekend. Just thinking the defense could argue that NC was googling a new running route which just happened to lead to the very place her body was found. Far-fetched I know but my wife uses my work computer all the time for e-mail, web searches and probably Google map searches...
it's amazing to think that this hacker ould know just what time bc was at his computer at cisco. 1:15 pm is pretty much lunch time - or after lunch wash-up and howdy-do time.
Hmmmpf. this whole thing is just too far fetched.
there was no hacker. bc can take credit for the fielding drive search.
Hmmmpf. this whole thing is just too far fetched.
there was no hacker. bc can take credit for the fielding drive search.
LAWsy_ME
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 238
- Reaction score
- 0
ython: I think, IIRC, the time of the search was approx 1:15 and the laptop was with Brad at work.
Kelly
gritguy
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 82
Possible, but I think people on both sides (and even Brad!) think the idea of Nancy deciding to jog down Holly Springs was a non-starter, and to get to Fielding she'd have to do that so probably no interest in checking there.
WolfpackWoman
Inactive
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 399
- Reaction score
- 0
That was the whole point of the defense stating they didn't get access to the computers until the google privacy policy had expired. The only method of verification by a third party--something that can't be tampered with, was gone. Even the FBI guy agreed with this (Johnson).
Maja
Seeker of Truth
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 1
Believe someone came to get him to go to lunch around that time and he was using the computer, am I right? Understand BC and gang went to lunch (which we've heard was very rare) at 1:20 PM.
LAWsy_ME
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 238
- Reaction score
- 0
What????? googled the place where she was coincidentally dumped?
I am feeling nauseous.....That just is out there....no where near reality
And the pros obviously wants nothing to do with any witness who could offer alternate explanations to their "evidence" which cannot be examined or tested by the defense, i.e. "the FBI expert (former airport cop) who has previously examined a whopping 5 computers has determined it so, lets move on!"
The case is weak and vulnerable. The pros knows it, the defense knows it, the jury knows it. Regardless of whether kurtz gets to where he wants to go with this witness the damage has been done by virtue of continual pros objections.
If I was on that jury, I too would wonder "what are they hiding?"
- Status