State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[gritguy]

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!!

Thanks much. I did not understand that to have been the case. That's a pretty important distinction!

 

[momof7]

The judge can always allow it regardless of discovery. I agree discovery and witness lists etc. are generally to be adhered to, but the judge can deviate in the interests of justice and it is not uncommon for them to do so. Clearly Kurtz isn't sandbagging a new witness, he just doesn't have one.

If the judge did allow a witness offered by Kurtz and the state had time to prepare, it would essentially moot the appeal point of denying this other guy the ability to testify on the forensic level.

However, I think it doubtful Kurtz could get someone up to speed in time to offer them up.

So, lets say there is an expert out there who can, and Kurtz has several witnesses to go, he could ask the Judge to allow the new 'expert' as long as the Pros as time to prepare?


Kelly

eta: Not that I am thinking that is possible, but interesting to know.

 

[gracielee]

i missed the video, but it seems obvious no real expert is willing to get on the stand and lie for brad cooper. The indigent fund can't pay enough for that. The computer evidence is real and was shown to be very credible.
Kurtz is fighting a lost battle.

exactly.

 

[gritguy]

So, lets say there is an expert out there who can, and Kurtz has several witnesses to go, he could ask the Judge to allow the new 'expert' as long as the Pros as time to prepare?


Kelly

eta: Not that I am thinking that is possible, but interesting to know.

Yes, he could certainly ask. It'd be up to the judge on whether to allow it. The state would howl of course, probably rightfully so. The judge has a low opinion it seems of the "tampering" theory so I don't see him holding up the trial for it.

But, for example, let's say somebody comes back tonight from a mission trip in the jungle, realizes this case is going on and just happened to be walking down Lochmere that fateful morning at 7:20 a.m. and happened to discuss the weather with Nancy as she ran by and happened to videotape it all. Kurtz would want that person in and in the interests of justice it obviously should be.

Of course, that didn't happen!

 

[BrownRice]

Could Kurtz have received this information prior to today (i.e. asked for a special hearing at the beginning of trial to ensure this witness was kosher)?

 

[NCEast]

Is it too late in the game for Kurtz to open up the phone book (figuratively) and get another "real" forensic expert to come in and testify to Ward's findings (or do it himself and find the same thing Ward did)?

I had two phone calls and I'm behind but I had wondered this as well. I don't think the judge would allow a 3 or 4 day recess while another person examines it.

 

[Madeleine74]

Little K wants someone who will sit up on that stand and say the FBI is wrong, someone hacked into Cooper's secure IBM computer and changed files. Not going to happen...not with anyone who is credible and certified and accepted as an expert.

I'm sure there's a homeless guy on Fayetteville St who has at one time gone into a library and sat at a computer terminal. I suppose he would do it.

 

[gracielee]

Originally Posted by LyndyLoo
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!!

Thanks much. I did not understand that to have been the case. That's a pretty important distinction!

Looks like the FBI and prosecution were correct in not wanting their *tool* given to this flake who copies and boot-legs for his *business*.

 

[snowshuze]

Yes, he could certainly ask. It'd be up to the judge on whether to allow it. The state would howl of course, probably rightfully so. The judge has a low opinion it seems of the "tampering" theory so I don't see him holding up the trial for it.

But, for example, let's say somebody comes back tonight from a mission trip in the jungle, realizes this case is going on and just happened to be walking down Lochmere that fateful morning at 7:20 a.m. and happened to discuss the weather and happened to videotape it all. Kurtz would want that person in and in the interests of justice it obviously should be.

Can you imagine the notes from the jury?

anic:

 

[WolfpackWoman]

So, someone with 18 years of security hardening and network experience detecting intrusion and tampering isn't an expert, even when their results exactly match up with the FBI results. But, an agent who doesn't know how to turn on the cell phone during his testimony, or the Durham cop who started out as an airport cop at RDU can?

 

[Danielle59]

Thanks much. I did not understand that to have been the case. That's a pretty important distinction!

They were not allowed the output from the MFt is my understanding.

 

[Danielle59]

Could Kurtz have received this information prior to today (i.e. asked for a special hearing at the beginning of trial to ensure this witness was kosher)?

The man has been on the witness list forever, seems BZ jsut questioned his credentials today, he should have done it prior.

 

[snowshuze]

They were not allowed the output from the MFt is my understanding.

IMO, what they were not allowed was information pertaining to the apparatus and methodology.

 

[Palomine]

delay delay delay ...that is all the defense has ...they have nothing 6 hours of testimony from a geek!!!

 

[FullDisclosure]

Thanks much. I did not understand that to have been the case. That's a pretty important distinction!

I heard the conversation completely differently. I was there and took notes, BTW, and here's what they say:

During motion to suppress FBI testimony--
Kurtz had asked for the report over a year ago in motion for discovery. Answer was "deferred while we await answer."

Boz--argues Defense has the hard drive so they have it. Defense is barred from procedures and that is what they are asking for. "The real issue seems to be that the Defense is unhappy with the answers he got"

Motion denied.

Kurtz--moves for immediate copy of master file. wants any exculpatory evidence. "We're 7 weeks into this trial. This is not the discussion we should be having." Argues that just because we have the computer doesn't mean we have the MFT. "I can't show him our document and say, 'Are you familiar with this? He isn't. He is familiar with HIS table."

Boz--argues Kurtz is asking for procedure.

Kurtz--We don't want the procedure. We want the product." Wants it before cross so he can go through it line by line, item by item.

Boz--says court ruled months ago on this when arguing discovery.

Kurtz- This is their result. Referred back to the "deferred wile State seeks answer..." Says that this was courts order on motion to compel. Says, "We shouldn't have gotten our answer from the witness."

Boz--argues MFT on hard drive.

Kz- that's like saying if I have a bloody t-shirt I have the DNA sequence.

Judge--You can't extract it?
Kz--We can IN A DIFFERENT form! Can't effectively cross examine witness with a different table.

(Me--So, I hear this as them just asking for the product. The MFT--before the cross so he could go item by item with the witness.)

 

[Palomine]

we will hear that Jay's first computer was a commodore 64

 

[gracielee]

I don't detect the usual 'cupper smirk' on brad right now.

 

[gritguy]

So, someone with 18 years of security hardening and network experience detecting intrusion and tampering isn't an expert, even when their results exactly match up with the FBI results. But, an agent who doesn't know how to turn on the cell phone during his testimony, or the Durham cop who started out as an airport cop at RDU can?

They may not have been good experts, but I'm guessing they demonstrated during voir dire the requisite background of experience or training. I didn't see/hear those.

The problem with Kurtz's guy appears to be that while he is knowledgeable on the subject matter, he isn't an expert on forensic examination. I'm surprised they would call a guy who had never done a forensic exam (if I'm correct in what I think the problem was) before and use him as the key and perhaps only expert on the subject. There are loads of computer experts out there who easily could have qualified, whole firms who specialize in forensics. I got from the conversation (I didn't see the witness testify) that this guy did not have such a background in forensics.

 

[Danielle59]

IMO, what they were not allowed was information pertaining to the apparatus and methodology.

He agreed to not have that as long as he could have the output and BZ double talked and confused the already confused Judge to a point that even the output was not allowed.

 

[momof7]

delay delay delay ...that is all the defense has ...they have nothing 6 hours of testimony from a geek!!!

I am betting 6 hours is conservative at this point with all the objections that are surely to be raised as they 'decide' what he can testify to as they are going along. Am I correct in hearing that?

Kelly