The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[Cheyenne130]

He is putting his reputation on the line IMO. I do not feel he was after free advertising at all.

I thought his remarks were all self serving. That was my impression based on having seen the evidence in the limited way we were allowed to see it and even hearing his witnesses, including what the jury did not get to hear. Kurtz's remarks were not accurate and were self serving. MOO

 

[otto]

I agree completely with your comments. It may not have changed the outcome, but there is a nagging feeling that the jury should have been allowed to hear the defense's rebuttal computer expert. Since hearing Kurtz, I really feel more strongly about this opinion.

After learning that the Judge knows nothing about technology, from MP3 to Facebook, we can conclude that testimony about how data works is like an oblivion void to him. How could he rule to exclude exculpatory testimony when he ddn't have a clue what it was about, or how it related to the case?

 

[cody100]

I thought his remarks were all self serving. That was my impression based on having seen the evidence in the limited way we were allowed to see it and even hearing his witnesses, including what the jury did not get to hear. Kurtz's remarks were not accurate and were self serving. MOO

If you can prove that, I would love to see it. I am serious and not being rude. I just did not see it at all like that.

 

[Cheyenne130]

If you can prove that, I would love to see it. I am serious and not being rude. I just did not see it at all like that.

He is the one that stated emphatically that those files were planted. If he can prove that (which he can't) then I will change my opnion.

 

[cody100]

After learning that the Judge knows nothing about technology, from MP3 to Facebook, we can conclude that testimony about how data works is like an oblivion void to him. How could he rule to exclude exculpatory testimony when he ddn't have a clue what it was about, or how it related to the case?

I agree. And that may be one distinct way Kurtz will approach the appelate case for BC. I would have felt better if JG would have had them go into chambers or consult with a judge with computer knowledge.

 

[cody100]

He is the one that stated emphatically that those files were planted. If he can prove that (which he can't) then I will change my opnion.

He says he can, but he was not allowed to do so. I, for one, would love to have seen all of the proof for tampering. Until then, I would never say he can't prove it. MOO

 

[LyndyLoo]

Isn't he the guy that slept his way through the neighborhood? He probably doesn't need any more sleep.

BUT didnt JP turn out to have a solid alibi.....it sure shows just how aware one has to be on every given day of where they were, what they did, who they were with and be able to prove that in the eye's of LE....Not to mention to one time indiscrete items that occured like three years ago.....

So the accusations go on, and the liars are continually be blamed..and I dont hear any BDDI team pointing any fingers on how he dealt with the initial report of "Where is Nancy" right on thru to avoidance of answering anyone after the Body was found.....

Its all moot now, judgement by his (Brad) peers has been rendered..and heinsight by the Def. Team maybe having regrets of NOT bringing a true Expert in "Forensics" of computers to the table is evident!!...

I happen to believe JW did not help them in the least except to continue with the "Conspiracy" theory..and on Cross exam that was shown to the Jurors in spades just where he was coming from...JW was a Hacker, with acceptance by the "Internet World"..but the bottom line > ...his interpretations were skewed just ONE WAY...Could NOT get past "Plantings" :banghead:JW will have his own road to hoe given his experiences...Dont envy him one bit :rocker:

 

[RPD]

He is putting his reputation on the line IMO. I do not feel he was after free advertising at all.

Kurtz is a criminal defense attorney that is pursuing an appeal.
Seriously, what did you expect him to say?

Did you hear David Rudolf after Mike Peterson was convicted?

"Travesty of justice"
"My client is innocent"
"We will appeal all the way the Supreme Court"

Blah, blah, blah

 

[cody100]

Kurtz is a criminal defense attorney that is pursuing an appeal.
Seriously, what did you expect him to say?

Did you hear David Rudolf after Mike Peterson was convicted?

"Travesty of justice"
"My client is innocent"
"We will appeal all the way the Supreme Court"

Blah, blah, blah

Yes, I did hear David Rudolf say those things. I expect those things. I never expect a reputable attorney to say he is 100 per cent certain that those files were planted if he doesn't have the proof.

 

[LyndyLoo]

He is the one that stated emphatically that those files were planted. If he can prove that (which he can't) then I will change my opnion.

Precisely my question too..Bring a big gun, properly credentialed..to testify to that fact..and NOT rely on a Non-forensic "Hacker" of computers..who only look for "Hackings"..What the heck does he really KNOW what is normal or acceptable in the "Forensic World"??..He doesnt...Tho the true expert in his "Offer of Proof" testimony said quite simply the cur. file showing as bmpfile was normal...yet JW said it was "Mysterious"..IMO Def. made a huge strategic error relying of JW:banghead:

 

[Maja]

Where is JW now?

 

[TallCoolOne]

Of course. Nothing like capitalizing on someone's murder to make an easy buck.

Yeah, that privilege should be reserved only for defense attorneys.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Precisely my question too..Bring a big gun, properly credentialed..to testify to that fact..and NOT rely on a Non-forensic "Hacker" of computers..who only look for "Hackings"..What the heck does he really KNOW what is normal or acceptable in the "Forensic World"??..He doesnt...Tho the true expert in his "Offer of Proof" testimony said quite simply the cur. file showing as bmpfile was normal...yet JW said it was "Mysterious"..IMO Def. made a huge strategic error relying of JW:banghead:

My opinion; they tried to slip something by. They knew the real forensic expert wouldn't say what they needed him to say. So they got JW. When they couldn't slip in his non-expert testimony, they tried to bring in the real guy at the last minute but only gave him a part of the evidence. All he testified to was "spoilage" and a cookie that had been damaged. I don't think the real expert would have found that any files were planted.

 

[cody100]

BUT didnt JP turn out to have a solid alibi.....it sure shows just how aware one has to be on every given day of where they were, what they did, who they were with and be able to prove that in the eye's of LE....Not to mention to one time indiscrete items that occured like three years ago.....

So the accusations go on, and the liars are continually be blamed..and I dont hear any BDDI team pointing any fingers on how he dealt with the initial report of "Where is Nancy" right on thru to avoidance of answering anyone after the Body was found.....

Its all moot now, judgement by his (Brad) peers has been rendered..and heinsight by the Def. Team maybe having regrets of NOT bringing a true Expert in "Forensics" of computers to the table is evident!!...

I happen to believe JW did not help them in the least except to continue with the "Conspiracy" theory..and on Cross exam that was shown to the Jurors in spades just where he was coming from...JW was a Hacker, with acceptance by the "Internet World"..but the bottom line > ...his interpretations were skewed just ONE WAY...Could NOT get past "Plantings" :banghead:JW will have his own road to hoe given his experiences...Dont envy him one bit :rocker:

I think Kurtz did address the no reaction type behavior by BC. I am not a BDDI but not necessarily a BDI either. I do like to see justice, and perhaps it was served here but with a bittersweet ending that not all of the evidence on the computer was explained to the jury. I am sure the defense wishes they had found the forensic computer guy first and had him to testify, and that was a tactical error on their part IMO. JP's alibi was the kids and his ex-wife if I remember correctly.

 

[less0305]

I found it to be quite laughable that Kurtz brought up JP "lying to police in a murder investigation" and that anyone who "lies to police in a murder investigation, that interview should then become an interrogation." Really? What about your client Mr. Kurtz. When was he interrogated? Oh, yeah, NEVER, because he would never go to the police department to answer any questions, give a statement, or to assist in the investigation.

 

[Danielle59]

Kurtz is obsessed with the appeal. I guess he is thinking "billable hours"?

Billable hours that can't be charged to anyone? I think he would be better off if he was only worried about money to back off this case and get back to his practice where he can charge his billable rate. I think he believes in this case and is sticking to it because of that.

 

[Maja]

It just seems preposterous to me for the defense not to have sought the foremost expert forensic computer guru in a matter appearing to have the most weight in this trial. I would have taken the PI driver dude out and put the $ toward the forensic expert. To me, this is where either the defense dropped the ball or they didn't have a ball to drop.

 

[cody100]

I found it to be quite laughable that Kurtz brought up JP "lying to police in a murder investigation" and that anyone who "lies to police in a murder investigation, that interview should then become an interrogation." Really? What about your client Mr. Kurtz. When was he interrogated? Oh, yeah, NEVER, because he would never go to the police department to answer any questions, give a statement, or to assist in the investigation.

Where was JP's interview held, his home?

 

[cody100]

It just seems preposterous to me for the defense not to have sought the foremost expert forensic computer guru in a matter appearing to have the most weight in this trial. I would have taken the PI driver dude out and put the $ toward the forensic expert. To me, this is where either the defense dropped the ball or they didn't have a ball to drop.

I would love to know why they did not do that also. Surely they could have found someone capable of doing it who was also forensically qualified. I honestly think they thought the judge would allow JW to testify. They did drop the ball there IMO

 

[RPD]

Yes, I did hear David Rudolf say those things. I expect those things. I never expect a reputable attorney to say he is 100 per cent certain that those files were planted if he doesn't have the proof.

Criminal defense attorney

Their reputations are bolstered by getting their clients off...regardless of actual innocence. Personally, I don't believe for a minute he thinks that computer was tampered with.