State v Bradley Cooper 4/14/11

[cityslick]

Finally an update:

break witness not check with google to confirm, no cookie on cooper pc for the google maps. Still witness elusive with kurtz

 

[gritguy]

Regarding the defense motion to suppress - that's nonsense.

Regarding the defense request for the MFT from the prosecution, I thought it was confusing whether that table was a result of a protected procedure that would not reveal the procedure or whether it was part of a protected procedure. Either way, I do not see it being a key either way, as the defense does have the imaged drive.

The old saying is that if the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table. Some of this stuff is now defense table-pounding, IMO.

 

[gracielee]

I don't agree with the decision to deny the defense the data. An excellent example from another site: We all have access to the internet. It's the same for everybody. I do a google search, you do a yahoo search, she does a bing search and he does a dogpile search. We all have accessed the same disk, but each one has different search results. So if you testify to your google results, and deny me access to what your search disclosed (no need to show me HOW google got the results, just show me the results), how can I ask you questions to determine the validity of what you found?

As a strong anarchist, I am disturbed that the courts will allow an "expert" to testify to something without any foundation of how he achieved those results. Darned shame we with some technical background were not able to hear how the evidence was presented. And a further shame that we cannot hear the cross.

Which is what I understood was done. Kurtz wanted to know *how*, which is what the court previously had ruled against. Results fine, methods of finding the results, no no

 

[hotpinkstef]

Twitter
break witness not check with google to confirm, no cookie on cooper pc for the google maps. Still witness elusive with kurtz

 

[Cheyenne130]

Finally an update:

break witness not check with google to confirm, no cookie on cooper pc for the google maps. Still witness elusive with kurtz

To me "no cookie" indicates he did delete with the IE function to clear cookies. I would imagine that will be addressed in redirect. My guess on the elusiveness is that Kurtz is doing what he has been doing all along; ask questions that are somewhat misleading in terms of the actual evidence at hand. MOO

 

[cody100]

it was explained that the FBI doesn't need criminals and pedophiles knowing how the FBI gets it info..knowing this would give criminals the upper hand
argument is on wral.com

I read and heard all of that. The key or tool is the method used to extract the data. That is the part that is restricted from revealing. The actual print out or information gleamed from it should not be restricted. His comparison to the judge and Zell is like DNA evidence. Kurtz did not eed to know what system the DNA analysis was performed on, but he wanted the DNA patterns or evidence gleamed from this analysis. Big difference. Now, I am not a computer expert so Kurtz could be blowing smoke. But, as he explained it, I understood it. I am looking for an answer from someone who is either in the field of computers or has a lot of legal knowledge on admission of computer evidence. It is just a legal/computer question.

 

[momof7]

To me "no cookie" indicates he did delete with the IE function to clear cookies. I would imagine that will be addressed in redirect. My guess on the elusiveness is that Kurtz is doing what he has been doing all along; ask questions that are somewhat misleading in terms of the actual evidence at hand. MOO

That was what I was thinnking, this shows BC did attempt to clear out cookies. I am hoping Pros can show other sites that no cookies appear on the PC.

Kelly

 

[TallCoolOne]

So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.

The picture has been painted. In fairness, one must keep an open mind (and certainly the jury should and must) until the defense evidence is submitted and considered. But those who hoped the judge would direct the verdict against the state before the defense even had to present their case have had their hopes dashed.

As to the unpleasant testimony about Nancy – it is necessary as part of the picture. A man is on trial and if his misdeeds in a relationship are relevant, it is only fair the defense can show the whole picture. Maybe the halo some tried to place on Nancy, well meaning as that was, has been tarnished. Yet she was a person, and people aren’t perfect. She deserved the right to live her life, make her mistakes, have her successes and failures, have and return the love of family and friends. There has not been one thing said of her, true or untrue, that diminishes one iota the evil that was worked on her and the injustice suffered by a family, friends, and a community. To the contrary, the picture of mutual strife just increases the odds that Brad saw the relationship as one that needed to end on his terms.

Brad Cooper was in a tough spot in life. He considered his options and decided on the one that he figured would be best for him. The incremental benefit to him was worth any cost to others. He executed his plan on a weekend – too much trouble and too many tasks for a work night. He did an admirable job covering his tracks, and got lucky in that no one saw him on holly springs and well meaning people thought they saw Nancy out running that morning. But he didn’t cover all his tracks. Some he left behind were surprising in that they relate to computers, his area of interest. Some were made conspicuous by his great effort to hide them – the floor cleaning binge in an otherwise disheveled house and trunk cleaning an otherwise messy car and the many loads of laundry done on this special day of cleaning. His story of the night and morning of murder rang hollow, as he told of a morning of his perfect adherence to the duty of husband and father with none of the conflict which otherwise marked their routine interactions.

Brad, if you have the chance to come back to Websleuths, a place you visited so shortly after Nancy was murdered, consider this. You are a weak failure. You liked triathlons because they represent the conquering of a challenge through hard work and endurance. They are hard, they prove your mettle – you need to have strong will to do well. But those are only games. In the real contest of will and strength – life – you failed in the worst way possible. Rather than overcome the adversity of a bad relationship or a rough legal settlement, you gave up. You cheated. You stole. You robbed your own children of their mother and their father all to avoid the consequences of life. You robbed a human being of her life. All the contests you ever entered were there just to convince you you were not the weak minded failure you ultimately proved to be. You’re just a chump who gave up when the going got tough, a loser who would stoop to any measure, even murder, rather than face your obligations.

It’s sad that it was not a mystery van of killers, because the children have lost both their parents now. But it is good they have a loving family who embrace them without reservation and without regard to burden or cost. And it is good that it is far, far away from this place where selfish self-regard cast a shadow of evil on a dark night on their mother who loved them so much.

Brad, the strong are Nancy’s family who now carry with love the remainder of the family you ultimately destroyed. Even in death Nancy has the means to protect and provide for her children - you just couldn't understand and thankfully couldn't destroy the bridge of love between her family and her and the children. Thank God that family, each of them, has the perseverance and willpower and love that you lacked completely.

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

 

[hotpinkstef]

another twitter update
the witness on google is being difficult with kurtz
1 hour ago

 

[snowshuze]

To me "no cookie" indicates he did delete with the IE function to clear cookies. I would imagine that will be addressed in redirect. My guess on the elusiveness is that Kurtz is doing what he has been doing all along; ask questions that are somewhat misleading in terms of the actual evidence at hand. MOO

IMO, Kurtz delivers misleading narratives and waits for a response.

 

[RobT]

I read and heard all of that. The key or tool is the method used to extract the data. That is the part that is restricted from revealing. The actual print out or information gleamed from it should not be restricted. His comparison to the judge and Zell is like DNA evidence. Kurtz did not eed to know what system the DNA analysis was performed on, but he wanted the DNA patterns or evidence gleamed from this analysis. Big difference. Now, I am not a computer expert so Kurtz could be blowing smoke. But, as he explained it, I understood it. I am looking for an answer from someone who is either in the field of computers or has a lot of legal knowledge on admission of computer evidence. It is just a legal/computer question.

If the actual printout, then entered in to public record, allows someone to reverse engineer how this information is obtained then yes... it most certainly should be protected. MFT and the filesystem that uses it NTFS are very protected trade secrets by Microsoft and any third-party software that is able to access that filesystem is either blessed by Microsoft and a ton of non-disclosure agreements or reverse engineered. Simple as that.

 

[gritguy]

I read and heard all of that. The key or tool is the method used to extract the data. That is the part that is restricted from revealing. The actual print out or information gleamed from it should not be restricted. His comparison to the judge and Zell is like DNA evidence. Kurtz did not eed to know what system the DNA analysis was performed on, but he wanted the DNA patterns or evidence gleamed from this analysis. Big difference. Now, I am not a computer expert so Kurtz could be blowing smoke. But, as he explained it, I understood it. I am looking for an answer from someone who is either in the field of computers or has a lot of legal knowledge on admission of computer evidence. It is just a legal/computer question.

It seems reasonable to me the judge could have seen it as you lay out. Probably from what I heard I would have. But, on the other hand, I don't see it as very prejudicial that he was denied. As I understood it, and I could be wrong, it was something he wanted mostly to go off on this tangent that the computer was tampered with.

If the PD wanted to frame BC (I realize that's not what you're saying I'm on a tangent now), IMO, they easily could have done it by moving actual dirt and straw from the crime scene to the house and saying look what we found. I can't see altering computer files as their master plan, especially when to be fair they have not demonstrated themselves to be masters of technology.

 

[gritguy]

If the actual printout, then entered in to public record, allows someone to reverse engineer how this information is obtained then yes... it most certainly should be protected. MFT and the filesystem that uses it NTFS are very protected trade secrets by Microsoft and any third-party software that is able to access that filesystem is either blessed by Microsoft and a ton of non-disclosure agreements or reverse engineered. Simple as that.

Excellent counterpoint.

 

[dramamama]

I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

So, I will boil it down for the non-technical folks among us....

"Your honor, no fair, the state has better experts than we do..."

Kurtz argues that, in essence, there is one version of the Master File Table (MFT) for the prosecution, and one for the defense. This is not true on the face of it. If the defense was given a disk image of the computer, they have the same MFT. They might lack the exact tools used by the FBI to extract and interpret that information, but they do have it.

Different tools might give different outputs, I know, shocker right? A hammer gives different results than a screwdriver, but that is to be expected. In essence, Kurtz is asking the prosecution to help with the defense case by spelling out the extracted data, in the same format, and explaining what it means, so he can take potshots at it.

Thank you for this explanation. It really helps! So can I ask, how different would his version really be? Would it be similiar enough? Would it contain the same information but not enough detail? Just wondering.

Also, I don't know enough to even think this could be valid, but did he save the zoomed in images so he could use the computer later to view them updated and see the site without having to go there? There were aerial searches, weren't there? Would this be easier to cover and destroy than multiple knew searches on the map?

 

[SleuthinNC]

Which is what I understood was done. Kurtz wanted to know *how*, which is what the court previously had ruled against. Results fine, methods of finding the results, no no

What he said was fine if you are not going to give me the output then you have to tell me how you got the output, one or the other. For the prosecution to simply say we have output and you can't have it and take advantage of the judge not understanding the technical argument by answering the judge's direct question evasively is a problem.

 

[less0305]

Gritguy, BRAVO!!!!!!

 

[RaleighNC]

Gritguy - your summary of this case and your insight is awesome - thank you.

 

[SleuthinNC]

If the actual printout, then entered in to public record, allows someone to reverse engineer how this information is obtained then yes... it most certainly should be protected. MFT and the filesystem that uses it NTFS are very protected trade secrets by Microsoft and any third-party software that is able to access that filesystem is either blessed by Microsoft and a ton of non-disclosure agreements or reverse engineered. Simple as that.

Reading the output of an MFT extraction is not going to lead to reverse engineering of NTFS.

 

[angela s]

:tyou::tyou::tyou::yourock::tyou:

:takeabow: :gthanks: :clap: :yourock: :tyou: :goodpost:

Gritguy,

You do not post all that often, but you have spoken VOLUMES here!

I would surely nominate this for not only post of the day, but post of the CASE!!

I seriously think the judge should use this as part of the sentencing. Completely astounding! Succinct... extremely well done!!

:tyou: I rarely post either, but had to agree with this. Excellent post Gritguy.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I read a twitter comment last night that made mention of 'all the creepy people in the courtroom that were too attached to this trial'. The jurors are the most important people in that courtroom and I can surely understand why the judge wants them protected....and happy.
But it's still somewhat a mystery this morning.

Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's