State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[Cheyenne130]

Attempting to delete evidence would not have generated those types of inaccuracies. Deleting incriminating files did not produce these files with timestamp errors.

So what are all of the activities that can create an invalid timestamp?

 

[Cheyenne130]

His resume said he was a consultant for IBM, but the copy that he he said he gave to defense apparently had that line amended. Then, he combined two jobs into one. That reduced the numer of jobs from 7 to 5, but it still looks like his resume intended to give the impression that there were 7.

College? So his credentials were discussed. I take it he did not go to university?

He said he graduated from the University of SC with a degree in interdisciplinary studies. It used to be called general studies when I went to college.

 

[borndem]

I have a file with profile pictures, some I used some I did not. I posted them on profile for a second or two and changed my mind. Don't think anyone saw them nor were they my actual PROFILE picture for anything more than a second.

Who cares if he is a Frank Zappa fan, if people at my work knew that I spent most of my time on WS and reading about murder, death and mayhem they would look at you like you were crazy.

Kelly

Well, I must admit, I have listened to quite a bit of Zappa myself. One of my favorites is "Dynamo Hum." Does that sound familiar to anyone?

I don't have, nor do I plan to have a FB listing. I'd rather be on here.

 

[jrb0124]

His resume said he was a consultant for IBM, but the copy that he he said he gave to defense apparently had that line amended. Then, he combined two jobs into one. That reduced the numer of jobs from 7 to 5, but it still looks like his resume intended to give the impression that there were 7.

College? So his credentials were discussed. I take it he did not go to university?

Yes, he got his degree from USC and has a pretty impressive collection of industry tech certifications, and membership in a pretty interesting organization which partners with the FBI.

 

[Danielle59]

I disagree. If they can discredit him as an expert, then his testimony falls with him. The expert was proven to demonstrate poor judgement. That much is obvious with his facebook page; not because it wasn't secure, but because of what he chose to put on that personal page. It was demonstrated that he has an unstable career. Sure, it can be argued that many people climb the corporate ladder by hopping across companies in the same field. 5-7 times in ten years is a little too often. That actually looks like an unstable career history. We also had the question of whether he was really a consultant for IBM, or whether he worked for them for a short time. I didn't hear about any university degrees, but perhaps I missed that.

I don't think anything demonstrated an unstable work history. I lost my job in 2001 right after 911, I took a new job and that company closed down within six months, I became a consultant until the economy became more level and worked at about 10 companies in a consulting position on special projects before I found my current postion that I have been in for close to six years now. No one has ever questioned me on it, they have actually have been impressed that I didn't quit and that I presevered, gained skills, and experience. I showed that I was able to work in an assortment of places sucessfully.

He has been in the same field for all that time and just bettered himself. I don't see an unstable work history at all. I think that in this day and age three years is not a bad run at many companies. Employers don't have the same dedication to employees that they used to have in the past. You could be the most dedicated employee and next week your job could move to another Country with no thought of you, you have to look out for yourself in this day and age.

 

[sunshine05]

His resume said he was a consultant for IBM, but the copy that he he said he gave to defense apparently had that line amended. Then, he combined two jobs into one. That reduced the numer of jobs from 7 to 5, but it still looks like his resume intended to give the impression that there were 7.

College? So his credentials were discussed. I take it he did not go to university?

Degrees aren't very important for computer specialists. My husband has 2 CCIE's but didn't study computers in college, he was a math major. His knowledge makes him a network expert, not his degree.

 

[CrimeAddict]

He said he graduated from the University of SC with a degree in interdisciplinary studies. It used to be called general studies when I went to college.

I went to his college. It is now Coastal Carolina University. They offered me interdisciplinary studies just so I could graduate. Its a basic degree, very strange one indeed. I refused, my degree is in Sociology, it just took taking a few extra Soc. classes. Apparently he had no "emphasis" on anything because that was their explanation to me about it at the time just a few years after him.

 

[dramamama]

So what are all of the activities that can create an invalid timestamp?

Again, I am no expert, but from what I read, automatic updates can produce invalid timestamps if every file single file is not in sync with it. It could be as simple as that. Can anyone else with expertise clarify because I am no expert. Just a google researcher.

 

[dramamama]

Well, I must admit, I have listened to quite a bit of Zappa myself. One of my favorites is "Dynamo Hum." Does that sound familiar to anyone?

I don't have, nor do I plan to have a FB listing. I'd rather be on here.

Yes, i guess the point is that what you do in your private life is private unless you put it on facebook for the world to see. And who in the world who uses facebook missed any of the media accounts of privacy issues?

 

[jrb0124]

I hope they do. It seems like there should be a way to stop the inferences and just testify to the facts.

It was the pros that put the brakes on his testimony, not a planned attempt to leave it at inferences.

I doubt we'll see a rebuttal witness from the state - I don't think they want to dance around the teetering forensics any more than they have to, and it would also allow the defense to do the same.

 

[johnfear]

Every single poster here is supposing, assuming, opining, guessing, estimating, asking, and hypothesizing. Your comments are no more facts than my own. I'd kindly ask you to ignore my posts if they are so upsetting to you.

Thanks, Less. Mind if I post my jury breakdown here? I have tried about ninety dozen times, but it always gets way too long and convoluted. So, here I go.

Several things to remember when it comes to the jury. It's a pool. So, randomness is where you start. But, the narrowing factors are what makes it interesting, particularly in a longer case ala State versus BC. (Ignored my sarcasm)

1. Some people are there because it's all of our civic duty and they want to be there, rearrange their schedules, etc.
2. Some people are there because they could not figure a legitimate way out.
3. Random to 1 and 2 gets mixed with all the things that could be involved in #2. Take potshots at will.
4. These are folks who either COULD rearrange their schedules for an eight week trial, OR had nothing better to do.

This jury is mostly female. Mostly AA. I am excluding those two points from the rest of what I type because I think we've all covered what race and gender mean here (diddly doo).

Now, bear in mind, I'm taking my notes on this from the back end of the courtroom. (Camera far left and offstage) My notes come from about eight partial days over the trial. Almost all prosecution. The jurors are well-identified and fairly close proximity to the witnesses, but fairly shadowed by the proceedings (on purpose, I assume) in terms of being a focal point. I am also being as VAGUE as possible (ident wise) so as not to draw ire.

1. We have about six sporadic note takers in the group. Only two of them seem to be taking notes at a pace that means they are trying to formulate something they can read and pull from later. (Man, I've always wanted to stay late and peek at juror's notebooks, FYI) This is an interesting sign to me. It means a little less than half the people are actually note-oriented unless I am just missing something. One of the men is just jealous that BC is a voracious writer and they both enrolled in the Novel In A Month club.

2. You CAN tell when they are paying attention and the main pros. witnesses I saw that "lost" their attention were DD and JY. I don't know why they did. By "lost" attention, I mean they looked glazed out, over three quarters of the jury were rightfully glazed out. (JY more in pros stuff, DD in both pros and defense stuff) I can only imagine this was similar during some of the tech stuff I did not see.

3. You can hear their reactions. They are smaller and less noticeable than what is going on. You can also see their reactions. Based on these two things, I think we have one or two techies in the bunch, or at least folks familiar with the concept of technology. Ironically, they are not two of the note-takers I have down.

4. When you get to four, you realize that it was probably JohnFear the judge was asking to stop staring. (I think the future defendant who sat down next to me on one day maybe decided that staring was fun, so he joined me. I kid.) The jury is reacting to two things when the witness is not talking. They are watching the judge and reacting. They are watching Kurtz and reacting. They have basically ignored Cummings altogether, but watched the witnesses he has questioned. They have ignored Trenkle altogether but they listen to the witnesses he has questioned. I do NOT think Daniels went over well with them. I do not know why other than there were a few smug looks at him through out. One or two of the women reacted as you guys did to JY, which is why I think the BB-gate thing bothered them more than us. He was engaging and forthcoming until that and the cross. Four of the jurors wear emotions on their sleeve for sure. I think one of them was the one that fainted. They were the furthest from me, but the most visible. One of them was clearly on Nancy's mom side. (I was on Nancy's mom's side too)

5. They do not like Zellinger for some reason. Body language changes when he talks. Kurtz gets some of the same reaction when he gets long, but from the moment Zell gets up, eyes look elsewhere, arms get crossed, people sit back and ignorance sets in. He is also the lest consistent lawyer, but perhaps the most talented, IMO.

6. They are still making eye contact with Brad. Several of them, at key moments are not afraid to check him out and gauge him.

7. I think they are split on who "likes" the judge and who doesn't. I think the men and a few women are in a position where they seriously respect him and I think a few of them are more "arm crossers" with him. I think I've picked out who might have had relatives in trouble with the law before and I think I've picked out two potential sympathizers for the defense. So, four folks could potentially sway what happens.

8. There is a whole LOT of BOREDOM going on. You can tell that about ten of these people are A) not used to being quiet and B) not used to sitting still this long. I would bet that my ability to baseline body language would have been about ten times as great if I could have sat in on the whole thing.

9. The guy yesterday (and today) who was probably NOT the key defense witness, but was important did several things right. The jury liked that he spoke directly and seemed to try and put a "laymans" spin on things. The second thing I noticed was he riled Boz up. That got their attention. They paid way more attention to Boz during that than him. There were more note takers yesterday than I had seen the whole time. No clue what that meant. He also seemed nervous but genuine and he was scared of the pros, so it made his answers seem more real.

10. I think we have ourselves some fun times ahead in Verdict Watch. I am betting if they want to convict, it will be SUPER quick. If they want to acquit, it'll be a day and change.

Thanks for letting me post. I know it's not much, but I couldn't decide how much to let in based on some of the individual ideas I had about jury members, and with all the hand-slapping going on, I decided not to include anything wholly identifiable at all. So, hope you don't think I was too vague.

 

[jumpstreet]

Tust a heads up--the mods here would prefer that other sites not be mentioned. Don't want you to get into any trouble.

Curious on this one.. are we not allowed to even mention the existence of other sites? Or, just encouraged not to pull in detailed quotes/discussions from other sites?

Heated/pointed discussions from other sites I can understand, but if (as sleuths) we read something 'of interest', or a well made point on another site that fellow WS folks might find of interest also, isn't it okay to share it (and reference (in general) the source)?

 

[Danielle59]

Every single poster here is supposing, assuming, opining, guessing, estimating, asking, and hypothesizing. Your comments are no more facts than my own. I'd kindly ask you to ignore my posts if they are so upsetting to you.

I was replying to your remarks, I am not the least bit upset. When I put a hypothoses out there it is posted as a possibility, some post theirs as if they were fact. I don't present my comments as fact unless they are. Why did you ask if I was on the Defense team?

 

[otto]

He said he graduated from the University of SC with a degree in interdisciplinary studies. It used to be called general studies when I went to college.

So he took a couple of 400 level humanities courses and a bunch of options to get a degree. I take it he didn't have any credentials in computers other than maybe a course here or there?

 

[otto]

Yes, he got his degree from USC and has a pretty impressive collection of industry tech certifications, and membership in a pretty interesting organization which partners with the FBI.

Is his CV available online?

 

[otto]

Degrees aren't very important for computer specialists. My husband has 2 CCIE's but didn't study computers in college, he was a math major. His knowledge makes him a network expert, not his degree.

Math is important in computers. Humanities are not.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Again, I am no expert, but from what I read, automatic updates can produce invalid timestamps if every file single file is not in sync with it. It could be as simple as that. Can anyone else with expertise clarify because I am no expert. Just a google researcher.

That was my problem with the testimony today. It wasn't what he said. It was what he didn't say. That's no reflection on him. He answered the questions he was asked but he did add information to other questions but the one about the invalid timestamp he answered that adding files would do that. Yes, it will. But that's not what normally creates an invalid timestamp. He didn't ask if he would expect to find invalid timestamps on every computer. I know. That's not the job of the defense. They aren't seekers of truth. I expected to prosecution to bring this up in cross but it became evident that they had no respect for the opinions of the witness one way or the other. They will clarify with their own witness. MOO

 

[Danielle59]

There's techy, and then there are wives of men with computer science degrees or men with computer science degrees. Have a look at Cooper's shoes ... I don't think you'll find them falling apart. Quality of shoes is something to look at if you want to know what people do for a living ... in my opinion.

Maybe in some cases, but I make a good wage and I prefer barefeet, and do have nice shoes, but I am not big on material items like that. As long as they look nice and are comfortable. Not to say that I don't have a lot of pairs of shoes, I do enough to go with any outfit I have, but none over $50 but my sneakers, sketchers.

My favorite pair are a $5 cloth pair and I wish I had of bought more pairs at the time, I can jsut slip them on.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Math is important in computers. Humanities are not.

You have no idea what his degree in interdisciplinary studies constituted, so why do you assume humanities? He also testified to his many computer certifications. His CV has been posted here, and is available online.

 

[otto]

It was the pros that put the brakes on his testimony, not a planned attempt to leave it at inferences.

I doubt we'll see a rebuttal witness from the state - I don't think they want to dance around the teetering forensics any more than they have to, and it would also allow the defense to do the same.

The judge put the breaks on the testimony because the expert was not qualified. I doubt we'll see a better expert from the defense, but I have no doubt the defense closing will include allusions to conspiracy theories.