Found Deceased State v Bradley Cooper - 3/23/11

[SleuthyGal]

I agree. We also have wireless in the house with multiple desktop and lap top computers. We have nothing visible that shows we would have wireless just by looking around. I am also surprised he didn't check, but maybe someone else did?

Whether there are multiple routers is irrelevant as far as the police dept is concerned. Their search warrant was to seize computers. Period. Not analyze BC's wireless network. Not examine his routers. Not opine on the height of the antennas.

SEIZE THE COMPUTERS and bring them back to the computer lab at CPD so the computer drives could later be analyzed.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think the defense has pretty much tipped their entire hand in terms of what will be asked of the actual computer expert who did the examination of the computers. I don't know how wise it was to put this all out there to a person who did nothing more than collect the computers. MOO

 

[carolinalady]

I agree. We also have wireless in the house with multiple desktop and lap top computers. We have nothing visible that shows we would have wireless just by looking around. I am also surprised he didn't check, but maybe someone else did?

The routers themselves sometimes have antennas on them. But, I don't think I'd classify it as highly visible (ours only sticks up an inch or two above the router itself). Wireless signal amplifier/booster antennas are available,, but the ones I've seen aren't huge either.

Not really sure what the point of the question was other than to get closer to 5pm dismissal.

 

[borndem]

Prediction: Kurtz will completely baffle the jury with his vomitus of techie terms.

Yes, yes, yes. I didn't think it possible, but I think we've found someone WORSE up there than ADA Cummings.

 

[NCEast]

Whether there are multiple routers is irrelevant as far as the police dept is concerned. Their search warrant was to seize computers. Period. Not analyze BC's wireless network. Not examine his routers. Not opine on the height of the antennas.

SEIZE THE COMPUTERS and bring them back to the computer lab at CPD so the computer drives could later be analyzed.

Exactly. That's why I think the judge allowed great latitude in Kurtz' examination of this witness. And why the witness....don't know his name, it sounds like Ice when they pronounce it, is being honest yet somewhat evasive at times.

 

[Coolmomof4]

Have same. Can use MOBILE PHONE as well to search web/send e-mails/watch movies/even have a websleuths app

What??? Websleuths app? I just got an iPhone (can also do surf etc with the wireless router in the house) I gotta find that app asap!

It's ridiculous really. We have 8 computers in this house total, plus two smartphones that use the router.

 

[per_curiam]

Prediction: Kurtz will completely baffle the jury with his vomitus of techie terms.

Well, we have been well-prepared via WS today, already.

Hopefully at least two on the jury will be informed @ computers enough that they can run things by each other.

 

[gorealtors]

I think the defense has pretty much tipped their entire hand in terms of what will be asked of the actual computer expert who did the examination of the computers. I don't know how wise it was to put this all out there to a person who did nothing more than collect the computers. MOO

I agree, Cheyenne. Defense basically gave us a template.

 

[SleuthyGal]

You mean to tell me that they did not tape the ports shut when they took the computer to the forensics test lab?? Oh, gosh, this is really bad news. See, while it was in there, bad ideas and date could have seeped into the unprotected ports and invaded the hard drive. </sarcasm>

There might be some rule of evidence that you have to put tape over a port, like crime scene tape, but this is a completely bogus thing to get upset over.

Can you BELIEVE THAT CyberPro? I mean, dirt and dust could have found their way into those ports and magically changed data on the computer drives. A fly could have flown into one of the ports on the way to taking the computer out of the house. It's a conspiracy of epic proportions!

 

[SleuthyGal]

Websleuths app?

Tapatalk is an iPhone/iPod Touch app that allows you to access compatible forums. Websleuths can be accessed from Tapatalk.

 

[Coolmomof4]

Whether there are multiple routers is irrelevant as far as the police dept is concerned. Their search warrant was to seize computers. Period. Not analyze BC's wireless network. Not examine his routers. Not opine on the height of the antennas.

SEIZE THE COMPUTERS and bring them back to the computer lab at CPD so the computer drives could later be analyzed.

You're right. This case is driving me batty with how painstakenly slow it all is. I don't remember other cases being like this. But you're right. Wasn't his job. Like I said earlier, I'm guessing someone else checked those other things out. I'm thinking the defense is trying to make this and other witnesses look inept that they didn't check things or test for specific things, when in fact it wasn't their job.

 

[raisincharlie]

I think the defense has pretty much tipped their entire hand in terms of what will be asked of the actual computer expert who did the examination of the computers. I don't know how wise it was to put this all out there to a person who did nothing more than collect the computers. MOO

Bingo !

 

[NCEast]

Ok girls and guys, I have to work outside my home tomorrow and will miss everything. I hate it so badly. So I want you all to do a good job of noting the important stuff because just as soon as I get back in the door I'm coming straight here to get caught up!

 

[SleuthyGal]

Exactly. That's why I think the judge allowed great latitude in Kurtz' examination of this witness. And why the witness....don't know his name, it sounds like Ice when they pronounce it, is being honest yet somewhat evasive at times.

I don't think this witness was being evasive at all. Kurtz was asking random tech questions about computer definitions. The witness didn't know the answers. In some cases Kurtz wasn't making sense, thus this witness would not have been able to answer some of them. :twocents:

 

[Cheyenne130]

Yes, yes, yes. I didn't think it possible, but I think we've found someone WORSE up there than ADA Cummings.

I'm not sure I'd classify him as worse. I think he may well be trying to confuse the entire issue and muddy the waters so that the jury will just choose to disregard all of the computer testimony because it's too confusing. The computer evidence must be pretty bad for the defense to be this worried about it.

 

[raisincharlie]

Prediction: Kurtz will completely baffle the jury with his vomitus of techie terms.

I believe that is the plan, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs. Overall I do believe this is the end game, make it so technical that perhaps the jury is overwhelmed and confused. Sure would complicate a decision wouldn't it ?

 

[Just the Fax]

Prediction: Kurtz will completely baffle the jury with his vomitus of techie terms.

Kurtz knows the computer forensics will sink his client.
Yep, blabbing out all these techie terms that trip the witness will just confuse the jury. Hopefully the jury won't be gullible enough to believe that neighbors or crooked CPD compromised his home network and framed poor Brad with incriminating web searches or data files .....That is what Kurtz will desperately want the jury to believe.

 

[NCEast]

I don't think this witness was being evasive at all. Kurtz was asking random tech questions about computer definitions. The witness didn't know the answers. In some cases Kurtz wasn't making sense, thus this witness would not have been able to answer some of them. :twocents:

I didn't mean evasive in a negative light....just evasive because some of the questions were out of his purview of expertise. And he is not the one some of the questions should have been asked of.

 

[NCEast]

I believe that is the plan, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs. Overall I do believe this is the end game, make it so technical that perhaps the jury is overwhelmed and confused. Sure would complicate a decision wouldn't it ?

That's what happend in the OJ murder trial with all of the DNA testimony (that was in a baby stage at that time). The jury didn't understand all of the numbers, the terminology, and instead of the DNA testimony having a positive impact it worked totally opposite.

 

[Just the Fax]

That's what happend in the OJ murder trial with all of the DNA testimony (that was in a baby stage at that time). The jury didn't understand all of the numbers, the terminology, and instead of the DNA testimony having a positive impact it worked totally opposite.

The DNA in the Simpson case is just what I was thinking of too.
Make it so complicated and over the head of even techies, so the jury is so confused they discount the evidence.