State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[Cheyenne130]

Would you consider Bill Gates an expert in computer software? He has no degree.

He would probably be accepted as an expert in the field of computer software in a court of law. He would not be accepted as an expert in computer forensics. MOO

 

[otto]

Nor will a reputable company be interested in someone who gets his "gear" from his buddies at previous employers quite possibly unauthorized and uses bootleg copies of tools and programs. Just my opinion, though. I have a feeling - just my own feeling - that a derogatory word for a protected class under federal laws might just turn off a few prospective clients. But, hey, to each their own. If he gets hired, more power to him. I wouldn't "friend request" him, much less pay him to do work for me even if that work was shoveling the manure from my barn.

What software did he bootleg? Software from cisco and equipment was said to be outdated and available to instructors. Software he demonstrated was linux, free.

 

[Danielle59]

He would probably be accepted as an expert in the field of computer software in a court of law. He would not be accepted as an expert in computer forensics. MOO

I don't think he would be accepted as an expert in computer forensics either, but then again, I have no idea, he may suprise us all. I was just pointing out that not all people, sucessful people, that work with computers have degrees.

 

[Cheyenne130]

What software did he bootleg? Software from cisco and equipment was said to be outdated and available to instructors. Software he demonstrated was linux, free.

Yesterday he said that an employee made a copy of a program for him to use. He also said that he had Cisco equipment that he got while he was employed there. Today he made a point of saying that he had Cisco equipment that he bought. His statements about taking outdated equipment just emphasized the prosecution point that Brad could have had throw away equipment in his house that could have been set up to generate a ClicktoCall. (And I KNOW I'm not the only one that saw that deleted file on that screen today!)

 

[jumpstreet]

The Etiquette site Jellybean posted earlier today covers it:

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Thanks, and good reminder. Referencing the 'Social Media' section there, looks like general mention, and paraphrasing of the dialog is fine, but pasting any direct quotes (unless from media sites) isn't okay. However, general mention of the types of discussion occurring on GOLO / Twitter / etc, seems to be fine. [ At least that's my quick 'take' ]

Good to know, and thanks again!

 

[Cheyenne130]

I don't think he would be accepted as an expert in computer forensics either, but then again, I have no idea, he may suprise us all. I was just pointing out that not all people, sucessful people, that work with computers have degrees.

You're preaching to the choir here. I stated upthread that I have degrees but not in computer science or anything to do with technology and yet that's what I was getting paid to do.

 

[less0305]

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?

Check the post - nowhere did I say "defense" team. I said unless you were on a "legal" team. I didn't even say a team from this trial. Please, I am asking you, ignore me. I obviously have nothing of intelligence or importance to offer you - so there is the option to ignore my posts. I will ask you again - please do.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Yesterday he said that an employee made a copy of a program for him to use. He also said that he had Cisco equipment that he got while he was employed there. Today he made a point of saying that he had Cisco equipment that he bought. His statements about taking outdated equipment just emphasized the prosecution point that Brad could have had throw away equipment in his house that could have been set up to generate a ClicktoCall. (And I KNOW I'm not the only one that saw that deleted file on that screen today!)

No--the employee made a forensic copy of the hard drive using Cisco's lab.

And did you happen to notice the date of deletion of the file? I believe it pre-dated the 12th.

 

[Cheyenne130]

No--the employee made a forensic copy of the hard drive using Cisco's lab.

And did you happen to notice the date of deletion of the file? I believe it pre-dated the 12th.

Deletion of what file?

Oh, never mind. The Click to Call. Practice maybe?

 

[otto]

According to most it is not common. I'm sort of an anomally. I thought going from art to technology made sense. Most of what I did was creative problem solving. I didn't do it right but I made it work.

Not that common. So there's no reason to think that this guy with a General Studies degree and some certifications should be qualified as an expert that could clearly understand what may have happened between Brad and the technology surrounding him at the time of the murder. The expert acknowledged that Brad knew more than he did.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Deletion of what file?

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about the same file I saw, which I believe was CTC.

 

[unc70]

That's a good summary and demonstrates the reasonable doubt create by JW's testimony, although he was not allowed to testify directly to it.

This is why I believe it is significant that the pros did not ask him a single question about any of this - and there are 2 reasons IMO:

1) they could not impeach his testimony

2) they were afriad to open doors they preferred to keep shut, yet did so at the expense of compromising the integrity of their prize evidence.

Agree that sunshine got the message loud and clear.

Agree with you that further challenging Ward's expert testimony could only hurt the prosecution's case. Everything he did was direct and clear and not magic or protected. The jury had seen how it was done. Any question Z might ask could get really damaging answers.

 

[Danielle59]

I have not read much of this thread yet, was intently watching and listening to the testimony, capturing images of the logs that were shown, and seeing what was allowed as sworn expert testimony and what other items were "exposed" through questions that were disallowed.

I need to verify some more things before I am willing to claim tampering "beyond a reasonable doubt", but there are a couple of important indications that something might have been altered on the disk either while the system was still active or after the disk had been removed from computer.

I think they were showing that the timestamps on the Google Maps files all have exactly the same timestamps for creation, modification, last access, etc. One way for that to happen would be to move (vs copy) the files from another media type or to use the UNIX/Linux style "touch" command to set the file dates. Normal files being used would have slightly different values in these fields.

Could have been done while the PC was still "live" at the house or later when the disk was removed from the PC prior to the "forensic" imaging. Seem to recall that something about some of the examination being done on the actual disk, not on a copy, but could be wrong since that testimony was blacked out.

About the time stamps, the program report displayed on the screen and showed the files with a notation concerning invalid timestamp. That full report is in evidence.

The defense so far has not directly accused CPD or FBI of changing the files, which would be harder for jurors to believe IMHO. They have shown how it could have been done over the wireless or some other way by some other agent not connected with law enforcement.

These are my first impressions from this morning. Not sure where I will be
after another round of testimony.

Thank you for this.

 

[gracielee]

I'm a psuedo techy/geek and I prefer the footwear that the good Lord gave me. If I have to wear shoes, sandals are preferred. I don't think anyone would guess my profession based on footwear. Heck, Brad was a geek and he wore sneakers and sandals. (We saw that in the videos.)

My closet is filled with Birkenstocks. I must have at least 40 pairs. Because of my back and knee problems. Every color of the rainbow, including flowered, plaid, even some with dogs on them. :great: My favorites have bright red cherries. Thongs to clogs. So what does that say about me? :waitasec:

 

[ncsu95]

I am very, very proud of you. Not only are you intelligent but you are very well mannered. I'm sure your own mother is very proud.

Thank you, although I know of a couple people on here that probably fell out of their chair laughing at that statement.

 

[Shadow722]

I don't know this guy's credentials or his history and I don't much care. I do not believe, nor have I seen through testimony, that anyone actually altered files on the Cooper laptop.

If someone is trying to frame Cooper through this method, they picked a really obscure and weird way to frame him. Hoping some computer expert might find a search? Hmmmm.

They would also have to be psychic and know exactly where Cooper was on July 11, and know what evidence wouldn't be found.

It's not a reasonable scenario for me.

Madeleine,

Yours is an excellent analysis, and points to exactly why JW was chosen for the defense. Bear with me, and let's see if I can articulate this thought:

JW the Network Security "expert" at first blush seems like a strange choice, rather than a genuine hired gun civilian Computer Forensic expert. The defense I believe postulated that they could not refute the analysis done by the FBI.

So rather than have dueling analysts, and confounding the jury completely, they devised a "red herring" to bluff the prosecution. Put on JW and hope that the prosecution bites, and tries to both discredit and suppress the defense expert.

Kurtz was smart enough to get in just enough testimony to plant the inference with the jury (or hope to) that BC's computer was tampered with. The Pros bite at it, and because they were afraid of what might be reviled.

If they called Kurtz's bluff, what would have been disclosed is a whole lot of nothing, that could not stand up to cross examination.

But the Pros blinked while playing chicken with JW, cause their case is generally weak (it is what it is), and the most compelling evidence in their hand is the computer stuff that points right at BC and only BC.

Damn if that's what Kurtz did, it is a clever and risky maneuver. He took the risk cause maybe his client is as guilty as sin.

There are games within games being played, and the jury is the audience.

I now think BC is not only guilty, but very calculating.......and stone cold

 

[Cheyenne130]

Not that common. So there's no reason to think that this guy with a General Studies degree and some certifications should be qualified as an expert that could clearly understand what may have happened between Brad and the technology surrounding him at the time of the murder. The expert acknowledged that Brad knew more than he did.

I will acknowledge that just about all the tech people here know more than I do even though I may have worn more "hats" in my job. I'm saying that he could talk the talk and make it seem like he really knows what he's talking about but he might not be presenting a complete picture. What he says and what "IS" doesn't necessarily match up. MOO

 

[otto]

Madeleine,

Yours is an excellent analysis, and points to exactly why JW was chosen for the defense. Bear with me, and let's see if I can articulate this thought:

JW the Network Security "expert" at first blush seems like a strange choice, rather than a genuine hired gun civilian Computer Forensic expert. The defense I believe postulated that they could not refute the analysis done by the FBI.

So rather than have dueling analysts, and confounding the jury completely, they devised a "red herring" to bluff the prosecution. But on JW and hope that the prosecution bites, and tries to both discredit and suppress the defense expert.

Kurtz was smart enough to get in just enough testimony to plant the inference with the jury (or hope to) that BC's computer was tampered with. The Pros bite at it, and because they were afraid of what might be reviled.

If they called Kurtz's bluff, what would have been disclosed is a whole lot of nothing, that could not stand up to cross examination.

But the Pros blinked while playing chicken with JW, cause their case is generally weak (it is what it is), and the most compelling evidence in their hand is the computer stuff that points right at BC and only BC.

Damn if that's what Kurtz did, it is a clever and risky maneuver. He took the risk cause maybe his client is as guilty as sin.

There are games within games being played, and the jury is the audience.

I now think BC is not only guilty, but very calculating.......and stone cold

Probably. Stone cold and calculating. It's all about which lawyer has the better tactics, tricks and dirty tricks.

 

[Danielle59]

It's unfortunate. Now we're going to see the guy discredited because he changed jobs 5 times in 10 years. Okay ... that's the nature of the work market these days (IMO).

I am confused seeing this comment and reading the most current ones.

 

[ncsu95]

Crazy thought... Maybe Kurtz realized the faith he eschewed early on in BC (to me, in person) was misplaced. Maybe BC used his arrogance in their dealings and Kurtz's conscience got the better of him. Perhaps he is throwing the case... And that's why he didn't have someone more professional up there on that stand. I mean, you'd think winning is everything. But sometimes... You meet people like the Rentzs and you compare them to the jackass you are defending and you know... you're on the wrong side. What you're doing will free a killer.

Just a thought.

Personally I don't think there is any chance he is trying to throw this case. I think he believes in his clients innocence. I also think that he has alienated himself somewhat by accusing the judge of bias in open court (even though I agree with him). BC will not be able to appeal based on ineffective council in my opinion.