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

[SleuthyGal]

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?

No, they're both a waste of time!

The questions Kurtz asked had nothing to do with what the witness actually did in this case. Testing this witness's knowledge of all things computer and all things forensic was beyond the scope. He is not on the stand as an EXPERT witness. This guy literally collected the computers, took them back to the CPD lab, and (from what I gather) ran a program on one of the hard drives.

 

[NCEast]

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.

You said a mouthful with the word 'inept'. Never in my life have I ever been so upset with a group of people as those on that jury.

 

[SleuthinNC]

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)?

I agree and those things were challenged as part of cross today.

Do you know what would happen if the has was run after something else had been done to the computer?

Do you know what happens when files are erased?

Do you understand these timestamps and can you explain it?

All great questions. So were the others.

 

[NCEast]

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

That's probably at the same time I thought how young he was yet he looked so old and tired.

 

[NCEast]

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.

And I pray Zellinger will continue with the computer forensics. (don't know why he wouldn't) But if Cummings stands up in the morning and starts questioning the expert witness I think we'll all have heart attacks.

 

[SleuthinNC]

No, they're both a waste of time!

The questions Kurtz asked had nothing to do with what the witness actually did in this case. Testing this witness's knowledge of all things computer and all things forensic was beyond the scope. He is not on the stand as an EXPERT witness. This guy literally collected the computers, took them back to the CPD lab, and (from what I gather) ran a program on one of the hard drives.

Whether he was on the stand as an expert or not doesn't matter if he answers the questions as though he is serving in that capacity. Prosecution should have done a better job of shutting down the questions. It is not Kurtz job to daintily ask specific easy questions.

 

[Just the Fax]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1361211/

Cary PD started cyber crime unit in 2007

"It gives us the resources in house to deal with it. We use the SBI, CCBI. We need to do it internally and have a quicker turnaround on issues that come up,

 

[SleuthyGal]

I agree and those things were challenged as part of cross today.

Do you know what would happen if the has was run after something else had been done to the computer?

Do you know what happens when files are erased?

Do you understand these timestamps and can you explain it?

All great questions. So were the others.

IF and WHEN are hypotheticals. Kurtz is fond of asking hypothetical questions. That does not mean any of those things did, in fact, occur. He's floating conspiracy theories out to the jury by asking witnesses "do you know ...what would happen....IF....."

 

[NCEast]

Whether he was on the stand as an expert or not doesn't matter if he answers the questions as though he is serving in that capacity. Prosecution should have done a better job of shutting down the questions. It is not Kurtz job to daintily ask specific easy questions.

All of this ties in with Kurtz' outburst, the judge's outburst, and I don't think the scope of questioning was in line for this witness. It was made apparent during the outburst that the witness would only be questioned about his involvement in removing the computers from the house and transporting them back to the CPD. I remember the prosecution's objections to a couple of Kurtz's questions and they were overruled; however, I do think the judge allowed too much testimony--questions and answesr--from the defense given what this guys role was.

 

[NCEast]

IF and WHEN are hypotheticals. Kurtz is fond of asking hypothetical questions. That does not mean any of those things did, in fact, occur. He's floating conspiracy theories out to the jury by asking witnesses "do you know ...what would happen....IF....."

Yea, those rabbit hole or whatever the judge called them.

 

[jmflu]

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

I'm on Tapatalk! Makes forum reading easier.

 

[gorealtors]

I'm on Tapatalk! Makes forum reading easier.

How do you access Tapatalk??

 

[NCB]

I agree there were some questions beyond the scope on cross, but as the jury's first taste of computer forensics, the prosecution should have known Kurtz would go for their witness and test his mettle. The defense wants to muddy up this water as quickly as possible--"See, Mr. and Ms. Juror, this computer stuff is complicated and they could have easily corrupted Mr. Cooper's data." Kurtz et al have done a much more thorough job with many witnesses, and frankly have clarified many details (most for their own benefit) for the jury, IMO.

 

[raisincharlie]

All I know is it seems to me to be an incredible coincidence that the manual for the landline phones is laying right next to a computer with antennae and all kinds of other gobbly gook connected to it....since I don't believe in coincidence, tells me a thing or two or even three. Add in a car that has no, zero, trace evidence of anything at all in it and I can add four or five more things. Hows that for techie

 

[SleuthyGal]

Racing doesn't lie, but Brad does!

 

[Just the Fax]

How do you access Tapatalk??

It's an app for iphone, BlackBerry and Android.

 

[ncsu95]

All I know is it seems to me to be an incredible coincidence that the manual for the landline phones is laying right next to a computer with antennae and all kinds of other gobbly gook connected to it....since I don't believe in coincidence, tells me a thing or two or even three. Add in a car that has no, zero, trace evidence of anything at all in it and I can add four or five more things. Hows that for techie

It's a phone. You can't do anything special with those phones. The manual doesn't have some super secrect voip decoder ring in it. It's a cordless phone.

 

[ncsu95]

And right by my router, I have 9 user manuals for various things including 5 different phone manuals, 2 different router manuals, and a couple of others. I never look at any of them, but they are right there beside my PC and router.

 

[CyberPro]

It's a phone. You can't do anything special with those phones. The manual doesn't have some super secrect voip decoder ring in it. It's a cordless phone.

Maybe, but you can also see my previous post about how this "ordinary" phone becomes a VOIP phone when plugged into the TWC system.

Can someone post the pic with the manual and/or a link. I would usually dig myself, but this dang connection is so slow the pages are timing out when I am looking for stuff.

TIA

 

[raisincharlie]

It's a phone. You can't do anything special with those phones. The manual doesn't have some super secrect voip decoder ring in it. It's a cordless phone.

I know very well what it is, thus my point since Brad claims Nancy called him on that phone right when he was at the intersection of Tryon and Kildaire Farm on July 12th. I didn't claim the phone was anything special, but the computers, Brad's back ground and knowledge and where he works are somewhat special. I believe he is perfectly capable of initiating that phone call himself and I believe the computers will prove it. Pretty plain and simple.