State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011
- Thread starter otto
- Start date
- Status
Only if LE had connected his computer to the network or a WiFi hot-spot while it was in their custody; which I suppose is possible if they turned it on without disabling the WiFi radio in the presence of an unsecured hot-spot.
Which is why LE should NEVER even turn on a computer they have seized. The drive should be removed, connected to a write-blocker, imaged, hashed and placed in a sealed evidence bag. All forensic examination should be conducted on the copied image.
The hash is so that they can go back at anytime and verify that the hash of the original drive is the same before it was sealed in the bag as after and that any copied images have the same hash after being created to show that any examination has been started from the same point.
RaleighNative
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 475
- Reaction score
- 0
Never mind, just saw him, sorry!
gritguy
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 82
I guess JG tipping his hand a little bit that there may be no evidence upon which the State can offer rebuttal, at least in regards to cisco stuff.
Remember this quote when he denies the rebuttal, citing the same set-up, saying this evidence is too late.
Why are you so happy that this witness isn't allowed to testify?
Perhaps he'll testify as to the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow. It'll have just as much relevance.
gritguy
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 82
Curious to me that Kurtz said it's not the state's fault they haven't gotten it from Cisco.
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
I was under the impression it was left on, not that they turned it on. Does anyone know?
If there is potential evidence/testimony that important in determining guilt or innocence, you should want that admitted.
The could rebutt the size of a router that accepts an fxo card since there is apparently a smaller one that was MD'd in 2008.
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
It would depend on when the tampering occured. The computer was deemed in the custody of the police the moment the search warrant was executed on the house. The computer remained powered up and on the network until the detective(s) unplugged it and removed the battery. If the tampering occured after the house was seized but before the computer was powered down, it could still have been Brad. MOO
Yes, it appears so.
Only if you care more about getting to the truth than getting to a guilty verdict.
Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]
he told Kurtz that the motion was premature (to enter this witness under his discretion and reconsideration) because they may have other fish to fry.
(The witness made it extremely clear that the examination was continuing i.e. get to the bottom of it whether he went on the stand or not and seemed to be more on the lines of getting to some manner of truth, as opposed to Boz who is taking FULL ADVANTAGE of the newness of the technology)
Basically, Boz was talking out of both sides of his mouth.
One side says: I need to get this last piece in or it will prejudice the state.
The other says: He can't get a new guy in, my guys were on the list. Not my fault this technology is new and we've had three years to do this.
I agree and I would be interested in hearing the psychology behind that.
- Status