State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[jrb0124]

They key word being "imagined." Will take a strong imagination to believe that hackers and corruption framed BC.

files manipulated = compromised evidence = unreliable

who? what? where? doesn't matter at that point

 

[ncsu95]

No law that if they really needed an expert that Brad's family couldn't chip in for it. Really, there is no telling why they used who they used and no one else.

Those thinking the tampering is bogus may conclude no other expert would support it; those thinking it might be valid may conclude defense had no more money. It is equally possible Kurtz thought this guy will be good and will qualify as an expert in the areas I want testimony offered.

As a lawyer, maybe you can help with this. I understand why the objection to him creating an mft and doing an analysis on it was sustained. What I don't understand is why he wasn't allowed to use the FBIs report to highlight the files that indicate tampering when that is how a network security expert would determine if tampering occurred (at least one way).

 

[cody100]

So....when did the jury release a statement saying they liked a witness?? Or, did someone sneakily ask one of them if they liked a witness? Or, did a family member of a juror get word to the defense team or one of their many messengers that the jury liked a witness? Has this been brought to the judges attention?

ESP. Seriously, it is an opinion based on our perception of the guy. It is no less right than some other opinions offered here.

 

[Cheyenne130]

He was asked several times about the manipulated files on the computer but wasn't allowed to answer due to the objections. The jury heard all that.

Exactly. He was not allowed to answer so there is no evidence that any file on Brad's computer was manipulated. According to what others have said, the FBI agent testified that there was no tampering and files were not manipulated. MOO

 

[Amster]

Maybe on their facebook page?? :crazy:

FB page? The jury?? :doh:

 

[NCEast]

Very true.

Maybe I'm just out and out stupid but I am thinking the jury probably doesn't know what was testified to. All they can take away from the testimony were the technical aspects of it. And if the jury is a representative of the majority of people unless it's spelled out for them they may not have understood any of it. I have no idea how much computer experience any of them have and my own is limited with critical details involving security, but it was hard to follow and unless there is one person on that jury who can outline, sentence by sentence what both the prosc. and the def. said, they just may not get it in deliberations.

 

[Tipstaff]

They key word being "imagined." Will take a strong imagination to believe that hackers and corruption framed BC.

A very strong imagination for sure! Maybe the residents of Lochmere need be on the prowl for hackers and corrupters parking outside their houses and inserting and manipulating data on their computers.

 

[ncsu95]

Exactly. He was not allowed to answer so there is no evidence that any file on Brad's computer was manipulated. According to what others have said, the FBI agent testified that there was no tampering and files were not manipulated. MOO

Actually, he testified there were files that he didn't have an explanation as to why they were modified....but didn't think tampering occurred. That is completely different than files were not manipulated.

 

[Amster]

ESP. Seriously, it is an opinion based on our perception of the guy. It is no less right than some other opinions offered here.

"Our perception"?? The defense team?? Odd...

 

[Lori59]

No law that if they really needed an expert that Brad's family couldn't chip in for it. Really, there is no telling why they used who they used and no one else.

Those thinking the tampering is bogus may conclude no other expert would support it; those thinking it might be valid may conclude defense had no more money. It is equally possible Kurtz thought this guy will be good and will qualify as an expert in the areas I want testimony offered.

What do you mean ...."in areas I want testimony offered?" Did u just slip and are part of the team?????

 

[Cheyenne130]

Actually, he testified there were files that he didn't have an explanation as to why they were modified....but didn't think tampering occurred. That is completely different than files were not manipulated.

Does this mean that you have changed your mind and you now believe that someone inserted that file of the google search on Brad's computer?

 

[LyndyLoo]

I found it odd that Mr. Coomings drove that point home. That goes completely against all of the prosecution witnesses that said Brad was an absent father that didn't really care about his kids.

Not really..as this guy could only speak to one occasion since 2005 he even saw them together or apart for that matter...But Brad's teacher witnesses did day they rarely saw him until May/June of 2008..

Lets be honest here..Brad was a workaholic and spent very little time with Nancy and the kids..and like most hard working folks..Its the quality not the quantity of those times that counts for kids..

Having said that tho..Nancy was complaining way back before children that Brad showed little or no interest in her since she moved down to Cary NC..and felt alientated and alone and questioned the wisdom of her choices...
This does NOT say he didnt care about his kids..but it says alot about his considerations towards his wife...

I am speaking to personal experiences..when I worked 12 hours shifts, and had pow wows with my kids while in BR before I left for work....Not too thrilling..but at least they got to voice their thoughts and questions..and yeppp I wrote them down and dealt with them when I had more time..Sorry for the anecdote..but it tells ya just how far one has to go to communicate with those they love...

 

[ncsu95]

Maybe I'm just out and out stupid but I am thinking the jury probably doesn't know what was testified to. All they can take away from the testimony were the technical aspects of it. And if the jury is a representative of the majority of people unless it's spelled out for them they may not have understood any of it. I have no idea how much computer experience any of them have and my own is limited with critical details involving security, but it was hard to follow and unless there is one person on that jury who can outline, sentence by sentence what both the prosc. and the def. said, they just may not get it in deliberations.

You are not stupid and they don't know what was testified to. But it seems like they kept hearing "Mr. Ward, did you see any files on Mr. Coopers computer that would indicate tampering" at which point the prosecution would quickly object with "He's not an expert witness" and it was sustained. But they heard several times that the objections were with regards to tampered files. They also heard the FBI testimony about files that the FBI witness did not know how they were modified (according to FD who was in court that day). So it wasn't outright testimony, but they definitely got something from it. Much like everyone here got something from Kurtz jumping up and objecting everytime the computer was mentioned.

 

[jrb0124]

Exactly. He was not allowed to answer so there is no evidence that any file on Brad's computer was manipulated. According to what others have said, the FBI agent testified that there was no tampering and files were not manipulated. MOO

The jury know the pros is disallowing the examination and analysis of the (only) convincing evidence from the defense for "national security", and they now know that the judge and pros prevented them from hearing JW state that those files were manipulated. They KNOW what JW was going to say, Kurtz approached it from several different angles. Now the jury is left with: "the state won't tell us how they got the evidence or explain any discrepencies, the state will not allow the witness to state the files were manipulated".

There is at least one juror in there who will refuse to convict given the above, so we're looking at a hung jury at the minimum.

 

[Tipstaff]

Excellent point that BC's family can contribute to his defense.

 

[cody100]

"Our perception"?? The defense team?? Odd...

No I will speak for myself. I am not on the defense team. I just thought he did a good job getting things across. I might have thought the same about the State's witness from the FBI had I seen him. Our referred to anyone else who might have had the same opinion.

 

[ncsu95]

What do you mean ...."in areas I want testimony offered?" Did u just slip and are part of the team?????

gritguy has made it quite clear that he believe Brad is guilty. Please don't start accusing people of being part of either the prosecution or defense. He's just an observer like the rest of us. He's offering his perspective as a lawyer.

 

[sunshine05]

Does anyone think Kurtz will try to find a forensics expert to help tie this together?

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Does he also mention 'retards' on that page? Sorry, that one just cut like a knife. We have been having current problems with our grandson, health issues along with the autism. Just typing this brings tears to my eyes. That a grown man would show such a lack of empathy. I wonder if he's married, has children of his own? Do his children take cues from his own words? Could he be the parent of one of the children who makes fun of and causes my grandson to feel hurt/cry?

< rant off >

I totally get it! A c l a s s less thing to post on FB. I have no respect
for that lack of consideration for people who struggle every day of their lives,
or are different. Not funny and inexcusable in my opinion, but extremely arrogant towards other human beings.

 

[ncsu95]

Does this mean that you have changed your mind and you now believe that someone inserted that file of the google search on Brad's computer?

No. But it doesn't mean that I'm not going to argue about it. I really want to hear it.