State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[cityslick]

Good point Gracie!

You guys were killing him as soon as he got in the chair. It's not comparable.

 

[Danielle59]

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.

According to BZ during his arguments during the prosecution case all that was required was the harddrive, he can't even say what software the state, read FBI, used to obtain the information. So what are the right programs?

 

[otto]

I have never heard of highly skilled IT workers moving from job to job..if they are highly skilled the company makes it a practice to keep them

It's not that uncommon for professionals to move from one company to another ... it's one of the easiest ways to climb the corporate ladder.

 

[ncsu95]

C'mon, where's your sense of humor on the van driver. Other than that, how does this differ from JA and HP being called liars and conspirators?

They didn't deserve that either...although questioning the truthfulness of what they are saying isn't the same as bashing them.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Am I geting this right?..Defense thinks the LE is corrupt and inept, they believe CDI has planted evidence on Brad's computer, and NOW they are accusing the Judge of malfeasance?? I tend to believe Defense is running out of "Fallguys" to blame for likely verdict coming down the tubes..Yikes!

 

[NCEast]

I wouldn't be surprised if Kurtz filed a complaint with the Bar. Gessner has not allowed BC a fair trial. I don't care what you think of BC, he deserves a fair trial just like everyone else.

Trust me--even the Brad Did It folks on here absolutely want Brad to have a fair trial. I absolutely do not want him to be found guilty under any circumstance if everything is not above board. The judge has ruled, overwhelmingly, in favor of the prosecution but he has also ruled in favor of the defense on several matters. With respect to his ruling that have 'favored' the prosecution, most have been on point. An appeals court can sort it all out if need be.

 

[ncsu95]

So are you saying this Cisco employee did this with the knowledge of their employer, Cisco Systems? The owner of said equipment? That would be like me allowing a friend to use something very important of mine, and that friend then allowing somebody else, somebody I might not *like*, access to my stuff. JMO

I'm not saying anything. I was repeating what the witness said this morning. I was a bit shocked that he used those tools. Seems like he could have purchased his own copy and charged the defense.

 

[Madeleine74]

I have never heard of highly skilled IT workers moving from job to job..if they are highly skilled the company makes it a practice to keep them

This was very common in the 1995 - 2002 timeframe, certainly before the tech crash of 2001/02. Tons of startups, lots of opportunities, inflated job titles, IPOs, stock options, $$$$$$, and some big perks.

 

[ncsu95]

This is WAYYYYY uncool.

Cisco will be most unhappy that they're corporate tools and employee's time is being used to further a defendant who has pretty much made them look bad in public and they've warned employees internally about even TALKING about this case - and now there's an employee letting defense "expert" use their tools and staff?

Any expert should have known this was not cool. The expert should HAVE THE TOOLS and not have to borrow.

Kurtz was clear that he was not offering his as a forensic computer analyst. He would have known he needed one of those to refute the FBI guy. In my opinion - this was going to be an uphill battle - to show that some files were altered, this was not done on Cisco's network, the PD knew enough to put the search on the PC when they could prove BC was at work, etc. These are REALLY strong allegations. He should know that he needed REALLY STRONG experts - unimpeachable really since the prosecution is using the FBI - and that there should have been more than one - working in concert - network guy to show how network hacking could have occurred and forensic guy to say "here's the proof on the PC" that shows it was hacked.

And I am not of the opinion that someone needs a lot of letters after his / her name to be an expert - for example - I'd concede that Kevin Mitnick was an expert. I also have a friend that got into a little bit of trouble in his younger years and the trouble ended up getting him recruited by the military to help with hacking and other safety nets for the DoD - so even the "good guys" hire folks with, well, let's call them specialized skills. He's since gone on to do quite well in IT Security. I did not see any of these skills in Mr Ward - and to bring in someone who has never been classified as an expert IN ANY TRIAL was a huge risk and simply not good lawyering.

Oh I agree...and it made the witness look bad. And it probably cost that Cisco employee his job.

 

[momof7]

Am I geting this right?..Defense thinks the LE is corrupt and inept, they believe CDI has planted evidence on Brad's computer, and NOW they are accusing the Judge of malfeasance?? I tend to believe Defense is running out of "Fallguys" to blame for likely verdict coming down the tubes..Yikes!

Sounds like it..but if I had to guess the area that might get ole Brad a new trail will have something to do with his counsel not being effective.

As far as I am concerned, I don't think I would hire Kurtz for anything that required me to worry about life/death.

Kelly

 

[gracielee]

Did he name the friend who gave him a boot-leg copy?

Ay'yup. I'm guessin' 'former friend' right about now. :waitasec:

 

[Overly-Curious]

ALERT: Brad Cooper defense asks for mistrial http://www.wral.com/

 

[Cheyenne130]

I just saw on wral twitter that the defense has asked for a mistrial.

 

[GhostCrab]

Am I geting this right?..Defense thinks the LE is corrupt and inept, they believe CDI has planted evidence on Brad's computer, and NOW they are accusing the Judge of malfeasance?? I tend to believe Defense is running out of "Fallguys" to blame for likely verdict coming down the tubes..Yikes!

Well, from what I've gleaned from colleagues who are in court on a day to day basis, there are A LOT of people questioning the way Gessner has handled this trial. And this is coming from people who are friendly with him and have cases before him on a regular basis. The complaints about the judge are legit and are coming from every direction.

 

[momof7]

Ay'yup. I'm guessin' 'former friend' right about now. :waitasec:

Hope he is one of the 4 employees of this guys company so he is not unemployed.

What would be the possibility that Cisco, if they did not know of this, could bring suit against this guy/company?

Kelly

 

[Danielle59]

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.

I am curious how much money they had to spend on experts.

 

[ncsu95]

my responses in red.

I'm looking forward to seeing this on dateline (or 48 hours). They usually talk to jurors.

 

[NCEast]

This is WAYYYYY uncool.

Cisco will be most unhappy that they're corporate tools and employee's time is being used to further a defendant who has pretty much made them look bad in public and they've warned employees internally about even TALKING about this case - and now there's an employee letting defense "expert" use their tools and staff?

Any expert should have known this was not cool. The expert should HAVE THE TOOLS and not have to borrow.

Kurtz was clear that he was not offering his as a forensic computer analyst. He would have known he needed one of those to refute the FBI guy. In my opinion - this was going to be an uphill battle - to show that some files were altered, this was not done on Cisco's network, the PD knew enough to put the search on the PC when they could prove BC was at work, etc. These are REALLY strong allegations. He should know that he needed REALLY STRONG experts - unimpeachable really since the prosecution is using the FBI - and that there should have been more than one - working in concert - network guy to show how network hacking could have occurred and forensic guy to say "here's the proof on the PC" that shows it was hacked.

And I am not of the opinion that someone needs a lot of letters after his / her name to be an expert - for example - I'd concede that Kevin Mitnick was an expert. I also have a friend that got into a little bit of trouble in his younger years and the trouble ended up getting him recruited by the military to help with hacking and other safety nets for the DoD - so even the "good guys" hire folks with, well, let's call them specialized skills. He's since gone on to do quite well in IT Security. I did not see any of these skills in Mr Ward - and to bring in someone who has never been classified as an expert IN ANY TRIAL was a huge risk and simply not good lawyering.

Seems much of this expert witness's tools of the trade seem to be either borrowed, used, or downloaded straight off the web. I think he probably may have bombed himself right out of business when word gets out.

 

[gracielee]

That is what he said. The Cisco employee that let him use the software supervised him and told him what to do to generate the report.

Right there, 'not the makings of an 'expert witness'.' Kurtz should have known that IMO.

 

[LaLaw2000]

ALERT: Brad Cooper defense asks for mistrial http://www.wral.com/

I thought that might be coming. Uh, oh.