State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[ncsu95]

Then why did Mr. Ward testify that when he downloaded to obtain MFT from that hard drive ( in his home) that his findings didnt match the FBI's MFT?..Dont shot the messenger, that is what he said to Boz..

Kurtz really did try to obscure his request for the tool, but thats what it really came down to in the end. Mr. Ward sought out many other tools in order to replicate that and couldnt...What was he trying to replicate then if you dont believe he had them to replicate?..Sorry..this was all haggled out pre-trial and Kurtz lost that battle then, he mearly tried to do it in court again to get the judge confused and possibly over-rule his original ruling IMO

I think is is the report generated from the MFT that is in question.

 

[cody100]

He's been alert and very fair today to both sides.

Yes, In my opinion he has been fair today and fairly alert. Maybe he is not feeling so stressed.

 

[NCEast]

Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

But a Cisco employee loaned it to him and supervised his using it. The equipment that was so vital to the defense. Not kosher in anybody's eyes.

 

[cody100]

I think is is the report generated from the MFT that is in question.

That was what I understood. It seemed to get very murky that day when they were arguing their points of view.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

He didn't take on the job for the defense until Oct. 2010. He was no longer working for Cisco. A good friend of his who still worked at Cisco gave him a copy.

 

[Palomine]

Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

wouldn't you need to give it back ..if you no longer worked there??

 

[otto]

I think Kurtz is alleging CDI planted that search on the computer not the FBI..and of course we already know how expert they are with cells and computers?????? Chain of custody has already been established, and this cisco comuter was locked up from colletion date until it was removed and given to FBI??..Only 3 people had the key to that locked room..Wonder which one Kurtz feel expert enough to plant such a search?

We know that they wiped out a cell phone by accident (so they say), that they believe phone calls were remotely initiated but they can't prove it, and now that an area of a map was zoomed in but they couldn't reproduce it without just zooming in themselves.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this. It's not a clear connecting of the dots. Police appear to be stating opinions on the stand, and I think this is a big problem. In fact, we'd have a lot of opinion testimony, whereas I would prefer to see verifiable facts.

 

[ncsu95]

But surely, with the total weight that the defense was putting on this witness and the supposed enormity and value of his testimony--and then telling the judge that his testimony would take 6 hours--I can't see them not advising Ward to hang around for a few days. I hate to use the word stupid but that's what it was.

Sure. I have no idea why he isn't available beyond tomorrow. I believe the prosecution had a witness like that as well. I thought they did something out of order to accommodate a witness.

 

[LaLaw2000]

True that. Call the police inept and corrupt. Call the judge a cheat for the prosecution side. Call the prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves... but don't dare have an opinion about the first defense witness out of the gate.

I think the Innocence Project has been alive and well here since the beginning of the trial.

Just my :twocents:.

 

[otto]

He's been alert and very fair today to both sides.

That's good ... but if he's spent any time rolling his eyes and acting bored or impatient during defense questioning, he's communicating his opinion to the jurors.

 

[gracielee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor bug
i hear ya...all i heard was he penetrated more than 100

lol!!

lol!!

Wait a minute, I thought that was the *first* thing to go.....?

:great:

 

[NCEast]

We know that they wiped out a cell phone by accident (so they say), that they believe phone calls were remotely initiated but they can't prove it, and now that an area of a map was zoomed in but they couldn't reproduce it without just zooming in themselves.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this. It's not a clear connecting of the dots. Police appear to be stating opinions on the stand, and I think this is a big problem. In fact, we'd have a lot of opinion testimony, whereas I would prefer to see verifiable facts.

I think we all agree that the facts would be ideal. But this trial is what it is and it's been like this since the first week.

 

[ncsu95]

Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

He wasn't working for Cisco at the time. He used to work at Cisco and had a deal with a Cisco employee to allow him to use the software to generate the report at the Cisco office. It wasn't stolen or borrowed equipment.

 

[NCEast]

That's good ... but if he's spent any time rolling his eyes and acting bored or impatient during defense questioning, he's communicating his opinion to the jurors.

They have been out all day. Until just before the blackout witness was called to the stand.

 

[ncsu95]

He didn't take on the job for the defense until Oct. 2010. He was no longer working for Cisco. A good friend of his who still worked at Cisco gave him a copy.

He didn't give him a copy (from my understanding), he allowed him to use a copy that the Cisco employee supervised him using.

 

[NCEast]

He wasn't working for Cisco at the time. He used to work at Cisco and had a deal with a Cisco employee to allow him to use the software to generate the report at the Cisco office. It wasn't stolen or borrowed equipment.

My understanding was that he used the equipment in his 'home lab', not at Cisco?

 

[Palomine]

on now ...and off
seems another witness Kurtz cannot use

 

[gracielee]

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.

Which is why so many were ragging on the prosecution for their case in chief. One must lay the groundwork for future testimony. *If* that was what the defense intended, then they call two witnesses, one to offer proof of hacking and the other to offer proof of tampering. Or ONE witness who is 'certified as an expert' in both fields. Think of Henry Lee, who at one time, prior to his becomming a paid wh*re, was well respected and certified an expert in numerous aspects of his field.

 

[ncsu95]

My understanding was that he used the equipment in his 'home lab', not at Cisco?

No, he did the analysis of the report at his home. He generated the MFT report at Cisco.

 

[GhostCrab]

I like how it's being claimed the judge is corrupt and one-sided merely because he is ruling in favor of the state's arguments more often than the defense, when in fact, those calling the judge corrupt and one-sided have no clue about the laws that apply, prior judicial rulings that apply, similar rulings in other cases that apply and a myriad of other legal basis that go into rulings.

I am an attorney myself, interned in the DA's office in Wake County during law school. I don't have an opinion one way or the other if BC is guilty. I did not like the prosecutions case. I imagine A LOT of work went into it to finesse it just right to prove their burden because the evidence is pretty lightweight. I've lurked here for a while because it's pretty interesting to read some of these threads and I am curious as to the outcome since it is in my own county. I did not call the judge corrupt. That is quite a leap but that sort of thing seems to go here with regularity so I won't take it personally. Curious what you all will do if he is acquitted of these charges. Send a lynch mob after him? Oh and I stopped into court last week and took a moment to watch part of the trial. I would pay to be in that jury room during deliberations. This is QUITE an interesting jury.