State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[Cheyenne130]

Maybe the FBI is back? Rebuttal?

My understanding is that during the state side of the case, the defense is only supposed to cross on stuff brought up by the prosecution. In this instance, my guess is that the defense wants this witness back so they can bring up stuff not brought up by the prosecution. Does that make sense?

Unfortunately we're missing the most significant part of the case, AGAIN and have to rely on twitter. (Unless we can talk FullDisclosure into running down to the court right now! :biggrin:

Maybe Star12 is there.)

 

[ncsu95]

A blow, and I'm not sure I agree with the judge that the defense shouldn't see the MFT or whatever (did it really expose means or other protected methods - I don't knwo). However, to call a guy who would be testifying on a forensic investigation of a computer and alleging the FBI or whoever messed up the forensic investigation and who has never testified in this field or otherwise qualified himself in that way was dicey at best.

Example: I'm a pilot. I can testify to lots of things about flying and how small aircraft work. And I might be able to tell why a plane crashed, if the cause were simple enough and the evidence obvious. I'm not an expert though in investigating crashes and certainly am not an expert in questioning the NTSB's methods.

Granted, that's not a close analogy, but I think most of these decisions are at the superficial level in this case and no actor in the case is arguing in technical terms very well.

But I believe they guy was going to offer that he believed the network was hacked...and his proof is that these x files were tampered with. Now he can say that the network was hacked but can't offer proof. If they had brought up a computer forensics expert, he probably would not have been able to testify that the network was hacked, only that files were changed. So I'm not sure what the best course of action would have been here. The guy offered that one of the ways they can tell a system has been hacked is that you have modified files.

 

[Palomine]

I believe in a justice system that works for both the victim & the accused. Do I believe in a system to be *played* and *used*? No. A system like that which Ira Eikhorn played? Charles Ng *used*? Nope, nada, not at all.

Charles ng ..reason why Brad tried to get back to Canada(if not for those pesky friends)
see how long it took them to extradite NG

 

[momof7]

basically bashing the defense when he was just speaking to the Judge about Jay is not available after tomorrow (Jay is self employed by the way) trust me I am not the only one who feels this way...it has been brought up in court ...how he argues about stuff that has been ruled on already..if that is not delaying the trial ..not sure what it is

I also was wondering why he was not available after today. Obviously, he would have had to be there tomorrow regardless. So, I was a bit confused as to why he had to testify today, and today only?

Maybe he has to be in another case as an expert, don't know. But, I would imagine, if he thought he was going to be an EXPERT witness he would have made sure he was available.

Kelly

 

[less0305]

Takeaway from this morning: if you're going to have someone testify a laptop was hacked and you're going to go up against the FBI, you better make sure you actually have a bonafide expert in computer forensics, who owns and uses industry standard forensic software, has real credentials other than "examined Anna Nicole's computer," has a credentialed facility and has done more than a 'couple forensic exams.'

Or else you will be handed your own spleen for lunch.

So did he hightail it out of Dodge? Is the defense not going to use him at all now? Color me confused.

 

[snowshuze]

Takeaway from this morning: if you're going to have someone testify a laptop was hacked and you're going to go up against the FBI, you better make sure you actually have a bonafide expert in computer forensics, who owns and uses industry standard forensic software, has real credentials other than "examined Anna Nicole's computer," has a credentialed facility and has done more than a 'couple forensic exams.'

Or else you will be handed your own spleen for lunch.

Without condiments.

 

[cody100]

Takeaway from this morning: if you're going to have someone testify a laptop was hacked and you're going to go up against the FBI, you better make sure you actually have a bonafide expert in computer forensics, who owns and uses industry standard forensic software, has real credentials other than "examined Anna Nicole's computer," has a credentialed facility and has done more than a 'couple forensic exams.'

Or else you will be handed your own spleen for lunch.

I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

 

[snowshuze]

My understanding is that during the state side of the case, the defense is only supposed to cross on stuff brought up by the prosecution. In this instance, my guess is that the defense wants this witness back so they can bring up stuff not brought up by the prosecution. Does that make sense?

Unfortunately we're missing the most significant part of the case, AGAIN and have to rely on twitter. (Unless we can talk FullDisclosure into running down to the court right now! :biggrin:

Maybe Star12 is there.)

I'm upset we have to miss Mr Kurtz and a kitten episode.

 

[Madeleine74]

I guess we now know the driver of the white van was Mr. Ward. Surreptitiously driving around and hacking into insecure wireless networks, as it were.

 

[ncsu95]

Judge Gessner was a police officer who went to law school to be a prosecutor. I don't think that he has been impartial at any point in this trial. I would hope that at the very least the manner in which he has conducted this trial, on and off the record, would be reviewed by the Chief Judge for Superior Court. I don't believe that Gessner right now is concerned in the sanctity of the justice system, but more for a victory for the prosecution. Could Brad Cooper have drawn a worse judge in Wake County? Probably not.

I agree. I also find his reactions, heavy sighs, staring at the ceiling, etc. to be quite unprofessional for a judge.

 

[Palomine]

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
We've had to cut our live feed of the #coopertrial while FBI agent Gregory Johnson testifies. It'll be back once his testimony is over.

 

[NCEast]

If he's undercover WRAL did him no favors as he was on camera getting up and walking to the stand from behing KC.

I saw a head full of gorgeous hair!

 

[Madeleine74]

Without condiments.

and no fava beans or a nice chianti either!

 

[gritguy]

But I believe they guy was going to offer that he believed the network was hacked...and his proof is that these x files were tampered with. Now he can say that the network was hacked but can't offer proof. If they had brought up a computer forensics expert, he probably would not have been able to testify that the network was hacked, only that files were changed. So I'm not sure what the best course of action would have been here. The guy offered that one of the ways they can tell a system has been hacked is that you have modified files.

I think they should have gotten someone who has experience testifying in both areas. It was dangerous to call a guy who has not been to the plate before. There are so many firms around, how did they land with this guy?

One thing to think about (it may not work the same in criminal stuff), is that if you have an expert who agrees with you, you list them as a testifying expert. If you talk to one who does not agree with you, you consider them a consulting expert and don't list/mention them at all. Perhaps this guy who took the stand wasn't the only expert talked to, just the one who seemed most helpful.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I dont believe Mr. Ward is being bashed so much as being tagged with being underqualified to testify as an expert to call into question the FBI find of those computer searches of pictures...Never heard him called a liar, or embellisher of truthes at all!! He is a very well seasoned computer geek. Unfortunately Defense picked him to fight computer forensic facts which he isnt qualified to do...

I also read one post a few pages back, accusing the Judge as being a ringer for the prosecution, as an ex-cop, ex-prosecutor..and is biased for Prosecutions success...Now what was that all about I wonder??

 

[ohiogirl]

I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

Was it $$ or was he the only one willing?

 

[ncsu95]

Actually gritguy, Defense got the FBI MFT..This guy saw it..and couldnt replicate it with his tools he begged borrowed or stole to try to..and As I kept referring to way back, Kurtz wanted the "Tool" or "Browser" used by FBI in order to do that..which was disallowed due to security for FBI's ability to forensically search computers for criminal activities..

Would you give this guy a "Protected" tool after we heard how be came by his programs and tools??..Dont blame the FBI for prtecting the information at all!!

No they didn't. They got a copy of the hard drive in which to derive their own MFT was my understanding.

 

[NCEast]

So did he hightail it out of Dodge? Is the defense not going to use him at all now? Color me confused.

I'm confused as well. I thought they would automatically go with Ward as soon as they jury returned. Nothing in this trial has been in any kind of order.

 

[gritguy]

I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

Maybe they talked to someone with all that gear and determined the testimony would not be helpful. Lawyers forum shop, judge shop, expert shop and witness shop.

 

[momof7]

I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

But, wasn't the Innocence Project people available and seen sitting behind the defense in the beginning of this trail. They have a mountain of resources available to them and most of them are done pro bono.

I am honestly, literally stunned. There is no back up whatsoever. They ruled on the information several weeks ago, there should have been a scurry of activity to get the right people to testify. All they had to do, was provide doubt for the jury, not that it did or did not happen.
Kelly