Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[gracielee]

Actually, he has talked quite a bit about the indigent defense fund and it being cut further. I'm not providing a link to it, but he has. And he was specifically talking about the lack of funds to pay for expert witnesses.

IIRC, didn't the prosecutor reply to Kurtz' remark with something on the order of 'your *experts* didn't give you the results you wanted'? How much money are you willing to spend on state funded expert witnesses? If, as has been suggested, the defense had two other experts on their witness list and didn't use them, how many *experts* are you willing to fund with your tax dollars? Can an indigent defendant 'expert shop' until he finds one who will testify to what they want him to?

 

[jrb0124]

IIRC, didn't the prosecutor reply to Kurtz' remark with something on the order of 'your *experts* didn't give you the results you wanted'?

..and the judge promptly slapped down BZ for that comment.

Don't be naive enough to take everything from the mouth of a SA as gospel, because they may lie and exaggerate to further their cause - even engage in miscoduct (*Nifong*).

The defense did not have sufficient funds to pay the expert witnesses they needed, so Kurtz relied on the testimony of the pro bono experts which would have been sufficient to cast more than reasonable doubt on the State's digital evidence. Unfortunately, this judge allowed BZ to lead him by the nose and deny those experts from either testifying...or testifying to their conclusions.

BZ's remark in closing "no witnesses have testified that BC's laptop was tampered with" - while true as far as testimony (thanks to the judge) was a testiment to their just how worried they were about the integrity of that evidence.

The digital evidence was compromised at best, intentionally altered at worst...it should have never been allowed to be introduced, but once it was BC should have absolutely been allowed to contest it. That the judge and the State railroaded this defendent should give all of us pause.

In any event, the mystery runner who just happened to encounter RZ at the exact time NC would have had she left the house at 7:00 has never surfaced. Until she does (she won't, because it was NC IMO) BC remains innocent IMO. Until the State proves the files on BC's laptop were not tampered with, BC remains innocent.

Even NC's father had doubts once he heard from both sides - and that says a lot. At least he was honest about it, while others seem to be just fine with warping the facts to fit their misguided theory.

I do feel BC will be granted a new trail, as this judge has a 20% reversal rate on appeals...more than double the median. Tells you something doesn't it?

 

[jrb0124]

And he used his funds on a P.I. There are not unlimited funds, that is true. But a defense team can choose where to spend the money. Do you think it's a coincidence there was no paid expert on the stand talking about tampering of files? Why did Kurtz have expert witnesses on his list that he didn't call? He went with a guy who right from the start told them he was not a forensic computer expert, though he was a network security expert. And lo and behold, the judge declared him not to be a forensic expert.

BTW, I never reveal my sources, so asking where I acquire any knowledge is not going to yield an answer. It wasn't on some chat board nor in the media.

I don't have to ask you , but I can tell you that your sources are wrong, the defense did not have the $ to match the State as far as digital and computer forensics. If they did, BC would have been acquitted.

 

[gracielee]

I disagree with you on BC's chances of a new trial. If by chance he were to be granted one, I think he'll be found guilty again. MOO

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't have to ask you , but I can tell you that your sources are wrong, the defense did not have the $ to match the State as far as digital and computer forensics. If they did, BC would have been acquitted.

And you've twisted my words. I never said the defense had the same $ as the state, I said they did have access to funds, obviously not as much as they wanted, and they chose where to spend those monies. Why did they spend their $$ on a P.I.? Stupid move, IMHO. And they did have 2 other witnesses that they never called because those witnesses would not claim to see tampering on that IBM laptop.

 

[macd]

I don't have to ask you , but I can tell you that your sources are wrong, the defense did not have the $ to match the State as far as digital and computer forensics. If they did, BC would have been acquitted.

That's a pretty sad commentary on the US judicial system. Given enough money, you can buy reasonable doubt. :-(

 

[Madeleine74]

It worked for O.J. He spent a million or more for his defense (back in '95). Would probably cost 2 million or more today. There are some people who, for enough $$$$, will sit on a stand and say just about anything. Fortunately there are also honest people who cannot or will not be bought off. Mob boss John Gotti threatened (and paid off) some jury members on at least one trial and got acquitted. Of course everyone's luck runs out at some point, even those who run mafia empires.

 

[Tink56]

It worked for O.J. He spent a million or more for his defense (back in '95). Would probably cost 2 million or more today. There are some people who, for enough $$$$, will sit on a stand and say just about anything. Fortunately there are also honest people who cannot or will not be bought off. Mob boss John Gotti threatened (and paid off) some jury members on at least one trial and got acquitted. Of course everyone's luck runs out at some point, even those who run mafia empires.

Another millionaire husband wasn't so lucky, despite the lack of a body. Michelle Harris's husband Calvin was convicted twice for the murder.

This is another example of a couple living together after the initial filing for divorce. Both had affairs and the husband had not used physical violence before. Michelle disappeared hours before a generous financial settlement was to be finalized. I guess money can be a motivating factor.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/harris_michele.html

 

[diphi]

Latest mug from Central Prison....

Oh, dear...he does appear to be letting himself go. Where's his self-confidence? Poor thing.:seeya:

 

[Just the Fax]

As expected, the interest in Brad Cooper the loser has finally disappeared.
He has been tried and convicted.
Justice was served.
Cooper will die in prison.

 

[macd]

No it does not. There is much more to it than "last accessed" timestamps, which I have seen intermixed with "last modified" which is not a piece of metadata that will remain static or unaltered.

There is the issue of deleted files, the Google cookie & watermark, the array of invalid timestamps and the period for those.

GM testified that yes, timestamps can be altered after the fact to make it seem as if files were created at an earlier time.

In 2008, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 was in Beta Test. This was the first version to contain "inPrivate Browsing", the function to allow users to surf the web without leaving traces. As an IT professional running an Alpha network, it would not be surprising to find BC was using Beta software.

I found some posts from 2008.
Blog Post
Message Board Posts

They describe the function of inPrivate browsing in its 2008 state, and it had some bugs. One issue is that temporary internet files were written and then deleted (instead of never being stored). It's function was to delete files such as cookies and watermarks.

I think BC was using this version of the browser and was using inPrivate browsing to hide his research. I think the use of this browser, and the use of Vista, simply explains every one of the computer anomalies brought up in trial.

If he was trusting the inPrivate browser function to hide his tracks, then that would explain why he didn't clean up the cache himself. Thwarted by a Microsoft bug.

 

[Madeleine74]

Thank you macd. I always learn something new when you post.

From one of the links you provided, I found the following info about IE 8 Beta 2, posted by one of the beta testers at the time:

IE8 Beta 2 on Windows Vista.

InPrivate Browsing is supposed to NOT leave traces on my computer. But after using it, I realized that :

- it leaves an autocomplete History suggestion in the address bar even after cleaning all history. (Chapelle testified they found the google map search in the autocomplete history section of BC's computer browser.)

- it doesn't save to Temporary Internet Files but it does to Windows\Temp folder. The files in the latter are then unsecurely deleted (not overwritten with zeros or random characters) and anyone with a third party undelete utility can see which websites we went to and retrieve some files from there."


Even with a manually cleaned cache, unless that data was overwritten, forensic software could likely still find the files.

 

[Just the Fax]

macd knows the real deal...thanks!

 

[otto]

And you've twisted my words. I never said the defense had the same $ as the state, I said they did have access to funds, obviously not as much as they wanted, and they chose where to spend those monies. Why did they spend their $$ on a P.I.? Stupid move, IMHO. And they did have 2 other witnesses that they never called because those witnesses would not claim to see tampering on that IBM laptop.

Not really, since the private investigator dug up surveillance video of Nancy without her necklace.

 

[Madeleine74]

The grainy video from HT was magnitudes less important than the computer forensic evidence, IMHO. Had I been spending the money I would have put it towards what I thought was the most damning evidence.

That video proved nothing, since 2 eyewitness's testimony had her wearing her necklace (and earrings) while at the pool at 1:15pm, about an hour or so before that video was taken, and another 3 or so witnesses saw her wearing both again at the party that night. Plus on vacation with her family that week, there was further testimony that she never removed the necklace or earrings, even when swimming (it included photos from that vacation with her in the pool).

 

[otto]

The grainy video from HT was magnitudes less important than the computer forensic evidence, IMHO. Had I been spending the money I would have put it towards what I thought was the most damning evidence.

That video proved nothing, since 2 eyewitness's testimony had her wearing her necklace (and earrings) while at the pool at 1:15pm, about an hour or so before that video was taken, and another 3 or so witnesses saw her wearing both again at the party that night. Plus on vacation with her family that week, there was further testimony that she never removed the necklace or earrings, even when swimming (it included photos from that vacation with her in the pool).

To avoid the situation we have today (IMO, a strong argument for appeal), I think it would have been a good idea for the defense to have been provided with a little extra funding for a qualified computer expert and for rebuttal testimony to have been heard. I'm also beginning to think that the prosecution was bluffing when, in the last days of trial, they claimed they had found the router. I think that may have been a stunt to manipulate the court and unsettle the defense.

 

[ncsu95]

The grainy video from HT was magnitudes less important than the computer forensic evidence, IMHO. Had I been spending the money I would have put it towards what I thought was the most damning evidence.

That video proved nothing, since 2 eyewitness's testimony had her wearing her necklace (and earrings) while at the pool at 1:15pm, about an hour or so before that video was taken, and another 3 or so witnesses saw her wearing both again at the party that night. Plus on vacation with her family that week, there was further testimony that she never removed the necklace or earrings, even when swimming (it included photos from that vacation with her in the pool).

Just for clarification on this. I asked my neighbor (the juror) about the HT video. She believes that NC was not wearing the necklace in that video (it was pretty clear to them). She also said that her friends shouldn't have used words like "never" or "always".

 

[otto]

Just for clarification on this. I asked my neighbor (the juror) about the HT video. She believes that NC was not wearing the necklace in that video (it was pretty clear to them). She also said that her friends shouldn't have used words like "never" or "always".

The "always" and "never" bothered me too. The world simply doesn't operate with those types of absolutes. It gave the impression that the friends were over-doing it a little in their claims.

 

[Madeleine74]

She also said that her friends shouldn't have used words like "never" or "always".

I agree if it's a blanket statement, but I re-listened to some of the testimony and what I heard was that ea witness said they never saw her without her necklace and to their knowledge she never removed it.

A witness is fully within their right to testify what they saw or didn't see (whether it was always one way or always another way). As for the HT video, I personally could not tell what was on that video. I saw a gleam at one point that could have come from a chain. I could not see her ears in any detail to determine whether she had her earrings on or not. In the end I had to discard that piece of evidence since it didn't prove it to me either way and the quality just wasn't good enough.

BTW, in his legal affidavit, BC swore he never yelled at Nancy in front of the kids, never swore at Nancy in front of the kids, and he said several 'always' and 'never' statements that turned out to be lies and were impeached in court.

I'm also beginning to think that the prosecution was bluffing when, in the last days of trial, they claimed they had found the router.

Chris Fry from Cisco said he found a log file which showed BC was using that particular model router at 10:30pm on July 11, 2008. There was a proffer of it, but the state decided not to call him. It wasn't a bluff, they did have that witness ready to testify. He was in the courthouse that day, IIRC.

 

[otto]

I agree if it's a blanket statement, but I re-listened to some of the testimony and what I heard was that ea witness said they never saw her without her necklace and to their knowledge she never removed it.

A witness is fully within their right to testify what they saw or didn't see (whether it was always one way or always another way). As for the HT video, I personally could not tell what was on that video. I saw a gleam at one point that could have come from a chain. I could not see her ears in any detail to determine whether she had her earrings on or not. In the end I had to discard that piece of evidence since it didn't prove it to me either way and the quality just wasn't good enough.

BTW, in his legal affidavit, BC swore he never yelled at Nancy in front of the kids, never swore at Nancy in front of the kids, and he said several 'always' and 'never' statements that turned out to be lies and were impeached in court.



Chris Fry from Cisco said he found a log file which showed BC was using that particular model router at 10:30pm on July 11, 2008. There was a proffer of it, but the state decided not to call him. It wasn't a bluff, they did have that witness ready to testify. He was in the courthouse that day, IIRC.

That testimony about the router use could have sealed the deal - and I was eager to hear that testimony. Then, all of a sudden, we heard some completely different testimony. It didn't make any sense that they kept quiet about the information if they had the witness and the evidence.