State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[Palomine]

blacked out....

 

[Danielle59]

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

I am really curious, are you interested and believe in justice in our Judicial system, or just in bashing the defense even when the defense doesn't merit bashing?

 

[momof7]

blacked out....

darn it!

 

[Cheyenne130]

blacked out....

Rats! One of the undercovers back on the stand!

 

[MrsWendy]

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.

I agree with the part about the computer evidence being real. But it was not shown to be credible. The method used to obtain the evidence was kept secret so the credibility of the evidence was never proven. Of course the evidence is probably very legitimate, but nobody outside of the FBI knows whether that is true or not.

 

[gracielee]

blacked out....

Oh for craps sakes! Now what? I need to get outside and plant some border plants. Does anyone think I'll have the time to do that now?

 

[kljohnson0458]

No pic and don't know who was called.

 

[snowshuze]

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.

The witness testified he DID have the output.

 

[gritguy]

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

Usually an expert is challenged by one side when actually called by the other side. You go through a foundational challenge, sometimes with and sometimes w/o the jury, and then the judge declares the person an expert or not.

I don't think the prosecution had any reason, or really any method, to challenge the guy before being called.

The best thing is to use someone CLEARLY qualified as an expert, since you know he can't testify if he doesn't pass the challenge.

This one lands in Kurtz's court. He knows the timing and process of qualifying an expert and should know the danger in putting up a guy who has, not even once, ever qualified as an expert in forensics before.

ETA: how could you even make a motion to challenge the expert when you have not been told exactly what the guy will be testifying as an expert on, and as his qualifications could change before trial, and they might not even call him. The judge would say, if you made that motion (and of course you'd need to depo the guy before making the motion to have the facts), "Bring it up if and when they call him."

 

[LyndyLoo]

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.)

I heard Mr. Ward say very clearly that he could NOT replicate the MFT offered by FBI and it differed to his MFT..and tried to replicate it....IF he didnt see it, then HOW would he even know it differed at all??

I think Kurtz tried to phrase things to make it appear the way you suggested, but it came quite clear to the judge, Boz and to some Puter Whizes here that explained it..

JMO

 

[kantoo]

No pic and don't know who was called.

special agent somebody...

:crazy: i know, i'm a big help

 

[Palomine]

I am really curious, are you interested and believe in justice in our Judicial system, or just in bashing the defense even when the defense doesn't merit bashing?

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

 

[gracielee]

I am really curious, are you interested and believe in justice in our Judicial system, or just in bashing the defense even when the defense doesn't merit bashing?

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.

 

[TXredhead178]

The defense called Spec Agent Johnson, hence the blackout.

So, not going with their expert at this point ...

 

[snowshuze]

No pic and don't know who was called.

Maybe the FBI is back? Rebuttal?

 

[kljohnson0458]

Rats! One of the undercovers back on the stand!

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

 

[momof7]

Usually an expert is challenged by one side when actually called by the other side. You go through a foundational challenge, sometimes with and sometimes w/o the jury, and then the judge declares the person an expert or not.

I don't think the prosecution had any reason, or really any method, to challenge the guy before being called.

The best thing is to use someone CLEARLY qualified as an expert, since you know he can't testify if he doesn't pass the challenge.

This one lands in Kurtz's court. He knows the timing and process of qualifying an expert and should know the danger in putting up a guy who has, not even once, ever qualified as an expert in forensics before.

Common sense would dictate, for Kurtz and his staff, that they need to be prepared. It does not appear that they are thoroughly prepared.

Gritguy, thank you so much for your insight.

Kelly

 

[cody100]

special agent somebody...

:crazy: i know, i'm a big help

Johnson I think

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

 

[jmflu]

i hear ya...all i heard was he penetrated more than 100 :shocked2::floorlaugh:

lol!!