State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[NCEast]

gritguy has made it quite clear that he believe Brad is guilty. Please don't start accusing people of being part of either the prosecution or defense. He's just an observer like the rest of us. He's offering his perspective as a lawyer.

And I am so happy he's on here with us. Even if he were on the BDDI side, I would still love to hear his remarks.

 

[cody100]

Does anyone think Kurtz will try to find a forensics expert to help tie this together?

It is hard to speculate not knowing his complete case strategy. I would if I were he, especially if I had evidence of tampering. IMO

 

[Lori59]

gritguy has made it quite clear that he believe Brad is guilty. Please don't start accusing people of being part of either the prosecution or defense. He's just an observer like the rest of us. He's offering his perspective as a lawyer.

I asked, I didn't accuse. Please don't lecture me.

 

[NCEast]

No. But it doesn't mean that I'm not going to argue about it. I really want to hear it.

So............we are walking away from both sides of the computer testimony without really knowing much detail. That's really quite bad since the entire case hinges on it.

 

[NCEast]

It is hard to speculate not knowing his complete case strategy. I would if I were he, especially if I had evidence of tampering. IMO

Didn't somebody say yesterday that it's too late to add a witness now?

 

[otto]

No. But it doesn't mean that I'm not going to argue about it. I really want to hear it.

Me too, and if any of the jurors are paying attention, at least one of them will want the answers as well. Right now, I'm envisioning a bunch of hand waving by the FBI and claims of "we said so, therefore it's a fact." That's not good enough. Who messed with the computer, why and is it in any way connected with someone messing with Nancy's cell phone? Why were some electronic files modified and wiped out while the products (phone, computer) were in the hands of police?

 

[gritguy]

As a lawyer, maybe you can help with this. I understand why the objection to him creating an mft and doing an analysis on it was sustained. What I don't understand is why he wasn't allowed to use the FBIs report to highlight the files that indicate tampering when that is how a network security expert would determine if tampering occurred (at least one way).

Unfortunately, I don't have any idea. I'm still not sure whether the defense ever got the FBI version of the MFT (I thought not, but then a debate ensued). And, if they did have it, I did not see the testimony which caused the judge to decline to allow him to testify as an expert on forensics. I only caught the last few minutes of testimony and the judge's decision. So, I fail to qualify myself as an expert on this! :innocent:

Under Rule 702 of the NC Rules of Evidence, an expert can be qualified on the basis of "knowledge, skill, experience, training or education." The "or" is significant. The case law suggests lots of kind of contradictory standards. The appeals courts leave the matter largely to the trial court's descretion if it is a point on appeal - meaning it is a tall order to have that be reversable error (not impossible if the error deprived the party of a fair trial). During the trial, the judge can exclude if he finds the method of deriving an opinon unreliable, and on the other hand can include merely on the basis the offered witness is better qualified than the jury on the particular subject! State v. Howard.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The jury know the pros is disallowing the examination and analysis of the (only) convincing evidence from the defense for "national security", and they now know that the judge and pros prevented them from hearing JW state that those files were manipulated. They KNOW what JW was going to say, Kurtz approached it from several different angles. Now the jury is left with: "the state won't tell us how they got the evidence or explain any discrepencies, the state will not allow the witness to state the files were manipulated".

There is at least one juror in there who will refuse to convict given the above, so we're looking at a hung jury at the minimum.

But there is no way of knowing if JW is correct in his assumptions and they are still just that; assumptions. Could he tell if someone perhaps tried to delete a file to erase a google search but they didn't get all of the files so it still showed up? But now it looks like something was "manipulated" because it was? The problem with this witness is that he is accustomed to looking at computers to find out if an employee is doing something they are not supposed to be. Or he's looking for intrusions. In this situation he was asked to look at a computer and determine how a file got there when the owner of the computer didn't do that search. That's my guess as to what he was asked. Coming at the problem from that perspective could very well give different results. I just don't see that the defense proved anything even with continually asking questions that were not allowed. It would be like the prosecution asking every witness, "Did Brad kill his wife?" The defense would object every time but that offers zero proof just because a question is asked. That's my perspective.

 

[ncsu95]

So............we are walking away from both sides of the computer testimony without really knowing much detail. That's really quite bad since the entire case hinges on it.

Yep. And if it isn't revisited, I would hate to be a jury. They are really left without answers in the google search (which I believe was real) and the "spoofed" phone call (which I believe was a real call). And both are critical to each side.

 

[cody100]

Didn't somebody say yesterday that it's too late to add a witness now?

I am not sure about that. I don't remember that. Since his witness didn't qualify, it might be possible.

 

[NCEast]

We have heard from eye witness courtroom observers that the majority of the jurors are African American women. And there are 2 men. Do any of you who have been in the courtroom think the men appear to be 30-40 somethings who hold degrees? I'm trying to determine for myself if there is anybody on the jury who has an analytical mind and who can look at the evidence re the computer and cell phone technology testimony and break it down. I am saying 'man' simply because most of the men on here appear to be more analytical.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I don't think this approach is going to work very well for the prosecution. If the jury hasn't used Fecebook they won't care and if they have, they have experienced Facebook privacy fiascos.

Quoting myself because "fece"book really was a typo! :floorlaugh:

 

[gritguy]

What do you mean ...."in areas I want testimony offered?" Did u just slip and are part of the team?????

No, I was just saying it was equally possible Kurtz would think, "This guy will qualify and give me the testimony I want." However, sloppy typing w/o quotes left that unclear.

I'm not, certainly, on their team. I am confident both sides are busy night and day anyway with little else. Court all day, preparing directs, crosses, motions, being ready for the other guy's motions. It makes for VERY long days, stressful, and tiring. The lawyers, both sides, are working harder than it seems on camera.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

The jury know the pros is disallowing the examination and analysis of the (only) convincing evidence from the defense for "national security", and they now know that the judge and pros prevented them from hearing JW state that those files were manipulated. They KNOW what JW was going to say, Kurtz approached it from several different angles. Now the jury is left with: "the state won't tell us how they got the evidence or explain any discrepencies, the state will not allow the witness to state the files were manipulated".

There is at least one juror in there who will refuse to convict given the above, so we're looking at a hung jury at the minimum.

:waitasec: How did you figure all that out? Amazing insight for a mere mortal.
How's the weather going to be in 3 weeks.....no fair googling.

 

[LyndyLoo]

It is hard to speculate not knowing his complete case strategy. I would if I were he, especially if I had evidence of tampering. IMO

Ya know cody...the way I look at it is that he offered his view on how someone could have tampered with Brads computer..and its the same as the Cisco guy who listed and pointed out the 10 ways Brad could have spoofed that call by Nancy...The only problem I can see is that JWard's credibility and possible agenda was shown..DID we hear anything about what the Cisco Guy's possible agenda was??..Dont recall any credibility questions..

Bottomline will be just who the jury will deem credible or not...Both witnesses could not prove anything one way or the other...only the possibility of doing so given Brad's expertise..

Thats the way I am taking it so far..I sure hope Def. has another rabbit to pull out of their hat in their CIC

 

[Cheyenne130]

No. But it doesn't mean that I'm not going to argue about it. I really want to hear it.

I really, really wish we could have heard the other experts.

 

[jrb0124]

I asked, I didn't accuse. Please don't lecture me.

Just suggesting it is ridiculous, I wish all of you "you must be on the defense team!" posters would just knock it off - its juvenile and condescending.

 

[ncsu95]

Unfortunately, I don't have any idea. I'm still not sure whether the defense ever got the FBI version of the MFT (I thought not, but then a debate ensued). And, if they did have it, I did not see the testimony which caused the judge to decline to allow him to testify as an expert on forensics. I only caught the last few minutes of testimony and the judge's decision. So, I fail to qualify myself as an expert on this! :innocent:

Under Rule 702 of the NC Rules of Evidence, an expert can be qualified on the basis of "knowledge, skill, experience, training or education." The "or" is significant. The case law suggests lots of kind of contradictory standards. The appeals courts leave the matter largely to the trial court's descretion if it is a point on appeal - meaning it is a tall order to have that be reversable error (not impossible if the error deprived the party of a fair trial). During the trial, the judge can exclude if he finds the method of deriving an opinon unreliable, and on the other hand can include merely on the basis the offered witness is better qualified than the jury on the particular subject! State v. Howard.

Thank you.

What I don't understand is how not qualifying him as an expert witness in computer forensics (which he obviously isn't) precludes him from talking about computer files. But it wasn't even all computer files. He was able to talk about the csa log file, but not files that the FBI indicated had date/timestamps or something else that were not explainable. He wasn't the one that found the files. I just don't get why he can't talk about how those files could have been modified as part of a security breach.

 

[NCEast]

Unfortunately, I don't have any idea. I'm still not sure whether the defense ever got the FBI version of the MFT (I thought not, but then a debate ensued). And, if they did have it, I did not see the testimony which caused the judge to decline to allow him to testify as an expert on forensics. I only caught the last few minutes of testimony and the judge's decision. So, I fail to qualify myself as an expert on this! :innocent:

Under Rule 702 of the NC Rules of Evidence, an expert can be qualified on the basis of "knowledge, skill, experience, training or education." The "or" is significant. The case law suggests lots of kind of contradictory standards. The appeals courts leave the matter largely to the trial court's descretion if it is a point on appeal - meaning it is a tall order to have that be reversable error (not impossible if the error deprived the party of a fair trial). During the trial, the judge can exclude if he finds the method of deriving an opinon unreliable, and on the other hand can include merely on the basis the offered witness is better qualified than the jury on the particular subject! State v. Howard.

Is the State v Howard the New Hanover case?

 

[jrb0124]

:waitasec: How did you figure all that out? Amazing insight for a mere mortal.
How's the weather going to be in 3 weeks.....no fair googling.

I'm stating my opinion. If it comes across as stating fact, then its no different from 90% of the other posts on here.