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

[CyberPro]

So are you saying that 'account locked' is different from having your wireless signal firewalled or what ever it's called? I know we have our wireless signal 'secured' or 'locked' or whatever it's called. So that our neighbors couldn't run their computers off our wireless signal. I know also when we first moved here and I turned on my computer, prior to us having service, I could pick up a couple signals from other computers, I'm assuming living somewhere near us, because they apparently didn't have their 'signal' locked???

< obviously confused >

OK, some folks might know this while others don't so it is time for a little primer on these issues.

WiFi - AKA Wireless Networking. This, by default is a standard that many computers and other devices can use to communicated with each other, and the Internet. It is a limited range radio signal and by default is not secure. This is why you can take a laptop to a coffee shop and use their wireless to connect to the Internet.

WiFi Security - This is the same signal as above, but the wireless equipment is configured to encrypt the data on the radio signal. Any device that wants to communicate on this system must be configured with the same encryption type and encryption keys. After this is configured, some encryption schemes will change the encryption key based upon the orignial key periodically to prevent it from being cracked. The encryption schemes vary a bit, but go from open (unencrypted) to Wireless Equavalency Protocol (now hopelessly crackable), WiFi Protected WPA, WPA2 and so forth to the high level for home and most business use now, WPA2 with AES Encryption and Temporal Key Integrity Protocol. If you set your WiFi with WPA2 and AES/TKIP, it is very secure.

Account - This is an account used to access a computer or other device. You are using one on your computer now, but your computer may not require you to log in, as it has been configured this way. Newer systems can have accounts for several people, all can be password protected, if desired. The level of password security depends on the computer operating system, and the selection of password.

Account Locking - Can be a confusing term. It can mean that the account has been secured with a password, or that the account has been locked from too many failed password attempts. It can also mean the account is logged on, but the screen saver has been configured to require a login.

As a poor choice, a locked account might also refer to an account that has been disabled by the computer administrator.

All routers have accounts, which require passwords to configure the system. These do have default values, but can be changed.

 

[borndem]

Further, if BC was logged on to his Cisco network he would have entered that network on a secure VPN connection (i.e. Virtual Private Network). It's another layer of computer security that companies use to ensure only authorized people can access the corporate network.

Same here. I am (early, early, please!) retired from 30 yrs. at a local bank. I was a tech writer, and then for 25 yrs a programmer. I was mainframe & PC support. We could work at home via VPN, as you mentioned, and we were locked up, docked up, firewalled, fireballed, and in general Fort-Knoxed to be able to do that. Any company of any size has huge & costly h/w, s/w & tekkies for all that. BC seems to be one of the heavies in his particular field, and some of those guys are amazing at what they know & what they can do with their own home equipment... Ijust wrote programs & fixed fubars...

 

[cygnusx1]

The explanation of cookies offered by this witness strikes me as being somewhat amateurish...

As does explanation of deleting files...perhaps he could have offered the concept of FAT (File Allocation Table) by actually calling it by name?

And WHO uses IE?

Many police officers in local departments who do audio/video/computer forensics are forced to by their department. They weren't necessarily hired for that reason and have learned everything on the job. They may get told by the captain one day that they are the new video forensics guy and get sent away for a day or two of training. Many do not hold any type of technical degree.

This guy seems like one of those people. He doesn't look like a techie and he seemed nervous testifying on the subject. I know he said he has four years of doing this, but this may be one of only a few times (if not the first time) he has been called to testify in a trial on the subject.

Now the forensics lab people, like at the FBI and SBI, will have technical degrees and many have post-graduate degrees in the specific forensic field.

The guy we see tomorrow may be the real techie and this guy is an "apprentice".

 

[SleuthinNC]

OMG, I have so much to say about this witness testimony, not sure how much I can stand to type on my iPhone but I will give it a shot.

First off Kurtz is a freaking genius, his delivery of cross was outstanding.

1. He makes the objection leading the jury to believe he can only speak on very basic terms in regards to computer forensics because they don't have their expert witness.

2. He asks questions in such a way to challenge the witness' ego, and it works! Now the witness begins answering questions clearly outside of his knowledge and starts to sound less credible when he should have said "I'm sorry I don't know, it is outside my area of expertise

3. Prosecution finally tries to bail him out with an objection and defense counters with "I'm sorry, maybe I'm not asking the questions well, I'm not a computer expert" then continues to hammer the witness with technical questions.

4. Witness continues to flounder through answers and begins looking defeated and less credible

I mean holy cow that was amazing to watch. The questions being asked were fantastic and should have been able to have been answered by a non-junior level computer forensics person

 

[SleuthyGal]

This CPD guy probably ran a forensics software program on the computer drives...a program that would be automated to go look for stuff and then show what was on the drive. This guy is not a programmer. He's not deep down into the computer code. He's running a piece of software owned by the police.

It would be akin to asking someone who uses MS Word a lot to describe in detail the underlying code base and way the code is compiled. They would go 'huh?' They use the program, they don't create the program!

 

[Just the Fax]

Many police officers in local departments who do audio/video/computer forensics are forced to by their department. They weren't necessarily hired for that reason and have learned everything on the job. They may get told by the captain one day that they are the new video forensics guy and get sent away for a day or two of training. Many do not hold any type of technical degree.

This guy seems like one of those people. He doesn't look like a techie and he seemed nervous testifying on the subject. I know he said he has four years of doing this, but this may be one of only a few times (if not the first time) he has been called to testify in a trial on the subject.

Now the forensics lab people, like at the FBI and SBI, will have technical degrees and many have post-graduate degrees in the specific forensic field.

The guy we see tomorrow may be the real techie and this guy is an "apprentice".

He said most of what he does is work with image and video files in child *advertiser censored* cases. Big difference in what we are dealing with here.
In the Mike Peterson trial, all the computer forensics were done by an outside 3rd party specialists. The SBI also has such a specialist and may have been used in this case.

 

[BrownRice]

OMG, I have so much to say about this witness testimony, not sure how much I can stand to type on my iPhone but I will give it a shot.

First off Kurtz is a freaking genius, his delivery of cross was outstanding.

1. He makes the objection leading the jury to believe he can only speak on very basic terms in regards to computer forensics because they don't have their expert witness.

2. He asks questions in such a way to challenge the witness' ego, and it works! Now the witness begins answering questions clearly outside of his knowledge and starts to sound less credible when he should have said "I'm sorry I don't know, it is outside my area of expertise

3. Prosecution finally tries to bail him out with an objection and defense counters with "I'm sorry, maybe I'm not asking the questions well, I'm not a computer expert" then continues to hammer the witness with technical questions.

4. Witness continues to flounder through answers and begins looking defeated and less credible

I mean holy cow that was amazing to watch. The questions being asked were fantastic and should have been able to have been answered by a non-junior level computer forensics person

Yes, all that is true. Until......drum roll.......evidence from the computers show up tomorrow. :crazy:

 

[SleuthyGal]

I mean holy cow that was amazing to watch. The questions being asked were fantastic and should have been able to have been answered by a non-junior level computer forensics person

I respectfully but completely disagree. Kurtz bored *me* and I do understand computers, networks, and what he was asking. His whole 'golly shucks I don't know nothin' bout birthin no computers' argument to the judge was not heard by the jury.

The jury doesn't give a rats arse about esoteric computer terminology. They want to see EVIDENCE.

Plain and simple English will always trump obscure posturing, IMHO.

The point is, this witness is not an expert in computer forensics. So to throw expert forensics questions out is ridiculous and pointless and wastes time.

 

[calgary123]

At one point when the computers were being brought into evidence the camera spent some time on Brad. He looked noticeably nervous. The slight smile on his face looked like a 'guilty' smile, like he knows that he's about to be caught.

It would ironic if Brad gets convicted because of what he left on his computer. Brad holds himself out as very computer knowledgable and he does know about things like, when you delete a file it doesn't actually get erased from the drive.

 

[SleuthinNC]

The thing is Kurtz got him to testify as if he DID know what he was talking about when it came to those questions. Defense can now throw in the angle of nobody really knows what was on those computers because the forensic job was poorly handled.

I hope the other computer forensic expert really has something concrete to show or this could be a real problem for the prosecution.

 

[NCEast]

I respectfully but completely disagree. Kurtz bored *me* and I do understand computers, networks, and what he was asking. His whole 'golly shucks I don't know nothin' bout birthin no computers' argument to the judge was not heard by the jury.

The jury doesn't give a rats arse about esoteric computer terminology. They want to see EVIDENCE.

Plain and simple English will always trump obscure posturing, IMHO.

The point is, this witness is not an expert in computer forensics. So to throw expert forensics questions out is ridiculous and pointless and wastes time.

Your last paragraph sums up why I used the word evasive of this witness. He was not evasive in a negative manner, just that he was not qualified to answer most of them as an expert in computer forensics.

 

[FullDisclosure]

(snipped)
The point is, this witness is not an expert in computer forensics. So to throw expert forensics questions out is ridiculous and pointless and wastes time.

Unless, as several have suggested, Kurtz was stalling to get to the end of the day so his computer expert could be consulted and/or present tomorrow. If that was the case it wasn't pointless, it was brilliant.

Kurtz may not be well-liked here, but I have to say that if I'm ever on trial, I hope that my attorneys provide me with such a zealous defense.

 

[SleuthyGal]

The prosecution needs to establish 4 very simple things AND use plain English:

1. Were the computers kept in a secure and locked place at all times after leaving the Cooper house?

2. Did anyone at CPD or SBI or FBI access BC's computers without express and proper permission to do so?

3. Were any files altered during the course of examining any of the computers. If yes, what and why?

4. What was found on the computer(s) that incriminates the defendant and the details of it (date/time/program)?

 

[CyberPro]

This CPD guy probably ran a forensics software program on the computer drives...a program that would be automated to go look for stuff and then show what was on the drive. This guy is not a programmer. He's not deep down into the computer code. He's running a piece of software owned by the police.

It would be akin to asking someone who uses MS Word a lot to describe in detail the underlying code base and way the code is compiled. They would go 'huh?' They use the program, they don't create the program!

Yes, and they SHOULD use this kind of software. The forensics software that they use will have already stood up to review and judicial scrutiny. Imagine if the guy on the stand or someone else at CPD wrote their own software to examine these systems. The defense might have some kind of a stroke! When you write the program, you really could make it do anything you want, including place bogus information on the system.

When conducting a forensics exam on any kind of equipment, one of the first things you learn is that you make an exact duplicate of ALL of the data. A bit by bit image, and test the image. You do not test against the original data source so you won't corrupt it. I once knew someone who caught a suspected child pornographer. He went to open the case of the computer to take the hard drive out and make a copy, but the perp had wired the chassis intrusion switch to an electromagnet and wiped the data on the drive as soon as the case was opened.

FWIW, CPD does have a computer crimes unit. I don't know how good they are, but I know they have solved several cases. There is always the FBI too.

 

[jilly]

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.

It would be up to the prosecutor to use re-direct and put it all in laymans' terms. The prosecutors in the OJ case were inept, imo, but besides that, it wouldn't have mattered to that jury anyways.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

It would ironic if Brad gets convicted because of what he left on his computer. Brad holds himself out as very computer knowledgable and he does know about things like, when you delete a file it doesn't actually get erased from the drive.

If there is incriminating evidence on his computers, then I don't think Brad knew that NC was scheduled to paint at JA's house, or that he planned this in advance (even 24 hours in advance). This is because pretty much any reasonably intelligent computer owner would have purchased a replacement hard drive and gotten rid of the incriminating one before the police seized the computer.

The only reason Brad didn't have time to do this was because JA called the police. For his plan to work he needed time to make this necessary purchase and he needed to do it in a way such that the store employees would not be able to link him to NC's murder once her body was found.

I think any incriminating evidence must be on the hard drives of the computers. I don't know anything about smart phones. I figure all he would have to do would be to ditch it and get a new one in order to make it unavailable to provide evidence, right?

 

[ncsu95]

OMG, I have so much to say about this witness testimony, not sure how much I can stand to type on my iPhone but I will give it a shot.

First off Kurtz is a freaking genius, his delivery of cross was outstanding.

1. He makes the objection leading the jury to believe he can only speak on very basic terms in regards to computer forensics because they don't have their expert witness.

2. He asks questions in such a way to challenge the witness' ego, and it works! Now the witness begins answering questions clearly outside of his knowledge and starts to sound less credible when he should have said "I'm sorry I don't know, it is outside my area of expertise

3. Prosecution finally tries to bail him out with an objection and defense counters with "I'm sorry, maybe I'm not asking the questions well, I'm not a computer expert" then continues to hammer the witness with technical questions.

4. Witness continues to flounder through answers and begins looking defeated and less credible

I mean holy cow that was amazing to watch. The questions being asked were fantastic and should have been able to have been answered by a non-junior level computer forensics person

I honestly thought the guy was about to cry at one point.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I respectfully but completely disagree. Kurtz bored *me* and I do understand computers, networks, and what he was asking. His whole 'golly shucks I don't know nothin' bout birthin no computers' argument to the judge was not heard by the jury.

The jury doesn't give a rats arse about esoteric computer terminology. They want to see EVIDENCE.

Plain and simple English will always trump obscure posturing, IMHO.

The point is, this witness is not an expert in computer forensics. So to throw expert forensics questions out is ridiculous and pointless and wastes time.

Just so I understand correctly, asking computer forensics related questions to a computer forensics witness is wasting time but showing a thousand pieces of evidence with no link to anything is being thorough?

Come on now each side needs to be allowed to make their case whether we find it interesting or not.

I did not feel any of the questions asked were off topic nor particularly difficult to answer if you know forensics and or hacking. If he asked a bunch of questions over and over that the witness did not answer that would be one thing but the guy answered the questions. Albeit many answers were not really correct he chose to answer.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I honestly thought the guy was about to cry at one point.

Yes, I felt really bad for him.

 

[Just the Fax]

Kurtz is obviously very well prepared for the computer forensics. He knows technology (computers and VOIP) is the heart of the states case.You could tell in his opening when he rattled off the reasonable doubt he plans to use. I just hope the state is prepared and can nail this.