State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[NCEast]

My vote is guilty. I don't have any reasonable doubt and I am using my common sense as to weighing the testimony of all the witnesses so far. So, put me down for a GUILTY.

And put me down for a guilty as well. My thoughts have not changed in the least with the defense's case. Brad did it.

 

[Danielle59]

A couple weeks ago I was accused of being BC's mom. It's quite funny actually, the accusations that are made here but really it just wastes board space. It's okay to think something and not type it, especially if you think it isn't adding anything of value to the discussion. Accusing posters of things is not very helpful.

I agree with you, that is so funny, BC's mom LOL Sorry, it just made me laugh.

 

[gritguy]

It seems the guy got the point across today that the defense wanted to make. That's why they called him.

What's left is what he would have said (or what someone else would have said) if the defense had been successful in qualifying him on forensics.

That being said, a fallback for Kurtz is taking his direct that was denied and reframing it and calling the state's computer guy as a hostile witness.

 

[Cheyenne130]

My vote is guilty. I don't have any reasonable doubt and I am using my common sense as to weighing the testimony of all the witnesses so far. So, put me down for a GUILTY.

I think he's most likely guilty but wouldn't say I would vote that way today. I am still interested in hearing the rest of the witnesses including the rebuttal witnesses. I just hope that enough notice is given when the witnesses are on the stand who cannot be seen or heard on camera so we can get some WS reporters in there to report back to us what is said. (Please!!!)

 

[NCEast]

A couple weeks ago I was accused of being BC's mom.

I'm sorry, I think that was me.

 

[cody100]

No doubt the state has considerable investigatory resources and they have a great head start on the defense. The defense gets some of that back through the Brady obligation to provide exculpatory evidence, should the state discover any.

But the defendant could have applied for reimbursement for a different expert, and we just don't know if his team did.

I would think the judge would approve an expert for payment on computer stuff, since one is obviously needed by both sides.

I really don't know why they didn't go with a more seasoned person.

I agree completely. A more seasoned guy, with his own knowledge and programs. It would have been hard for the prosecution to challenge his credibility. JW was a sitting duck. Thanks for your post, your open minded approach to hearing other thoughts and ideas even though they may differ from yours.

 

[unc70]

I must admit I am a bit surprised, why not ask if files could be altered and end up with a date stamp in the future...seems to me this might well be possible but aparently I am the only one curious about it. Sure wasn't broached by either side.

All the BS about Ward not being "forensic" expert meant that K could not as the question directly and get a direct answer. They had to circle all around the network to get most of it in. And they did get it in, just not all wrapped in a nice package. They will be able to pull the pieces together later.

The defense testified to that very point when Ward was showing the ease with placing files on a disk with any date past or future you chose. Also by using the "touch" command from the UNIX/Linux tools with the disk mounted in NTFS format.

That is one of the strongest indicators that the files are not as they should be. The creation, modification, last access timestamps for the critical files are identical to the last fraction of a second!! That would not normally be the case for those files, part of the reason the were listed as timestamp errors by the tool Ward used.

 

[cody100]

It seems the guy got the point across today that the defense wanted to make. That's why they called him.

What's left is what he would have said (or what someone else would have said) if the defense had been successful in qualifying him on forensics.

That being said, a fallback for Kurtz is taking his direct that was denied and reframing it and calling the state's computer guy as a hostile witness.

I have wondered if he might do that. Would the judge let him get someone else at this late date to interpret the data------a forensic qualified witness?

 

[Cheyenne130]

It seems the guy got the point across today that the defense wanted to make. That's why they called him.

What's left is what he would have said (or what someone else would have said) if the defense had been successful in qualifying him on forensics.

That being said, a fallback for Kurtz is taking his direct that was denied and reframing it and calling the state's computer guy as a hostile witness.

The defense did call one of the state's computer experts yesterday morning. He was their first witness. (Of course we didn't get to hear any of it since he is not allowed to be on camera. Darn it!)

 

[gritguy]

Thanks, and I am curious why they didn't too, or now I wonder if they did and were denied. Maybe some said without having access to the FBI data they wouldn't do it. I bet we never know exactly unless it comes out in an appeal.

Those things though suppose (I think) that Kurtz wanted someone else.

It seems yesterday once the guy got some time on the stand he gave solid testimony. Many who saw it today thought so too. I think Kurtz was really shellshocked when his guy was not qualified to discuss certain of the state's evidence and give opinions on it, and perhaps the witness would have done well there too.

IOW, maybe Kurtz thought this guy the jury will understand and will get the job done.

Still, dicey to use a guy for the first time testifying in such a high-stakes case.

A trial of this length has many things that are just tough to understand without knowing the behind the scenes. In the event of a guilty verdict, it would be interesting to see the appeals and their supporting briefs.

 

[cody100]

I think he's most likely guilty but wouldn't say I would vote that way today. I am still interested in hearing the rest of the witnesses including the rebuttal witnesses. I just hope that enough notice is given when the witnesses are on the stand who cannot be seen or heard on camera so we can get some WS reporters in there to report back to us what is said. (Please!!!)

Me too Cheyenne. I won't miss that.

 

[gritguy]

I have wondered if he might do that. Would the judge let him get someone else at this late date to interpret the data------a forensic qualified witness?

They could ask the judge. The judge could allow it or not. So far they don't seem to have asked (unless I missed it). This could mean they put their effort to trying to get in the info they needed w/o qualifying him as an expert on forensics (computer people would have to chime in on whether this was going on or not) or could mean they don't think they can get someone (if there is anyone to get who would give them what they want) at this point with any hope of getting it ready and approved for trial.

 

[Star12]

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.

mmmm...the men and Women of the jury do not have any forehead tattoos that say "IT". Sorry for the sarcasm, but I find it difficult to judge casually dressed folks' professions. Right noW they are jurors. I am sure We have many more IT folks here, for the obvious reason.

sorry about my ailing W

 

[sunshine05]

Those things though suppose (I think) that Kurtz wanted someone else.

It seems yesterday once the guy got some time on the stand he gave solid testimony. Many who saw it today thought so too. I think Kurtz was really shellshocked when his guy was not qualified to discuss certain of the state's evidence and give opinions on it, and perhaps the witness would have done well there too.

IOW, maybe Kurtz thought this guy the jury will understand and will get the job done.

Still, dicey to use a guy for the first time testifying in such a high-stakes case.

A trial of this length has many things that are just tough to understand without knowing the behind the scenes. In the event of a guilty verdict, it would be interesting to see the appeals and their supporting briefs.

My guess is he is pretty highly specialized and local and there seemed to be no reason to limit his testimony on print-outs of logs. The problem is, Kurtz has to find a network security expert WITH a forensics background and I don't think that's going to be easy. I think JW had more knowledge than the FBI guys probably did.

 

[Star12]

did i hear that bc's phone Was actually Wiped by cisco?

 

[NCEast]

mmmm...the men and Women of the jury do not have any forehead tattoos that say "IT". Sorry for the sarcasm, but I find it difficult to judge casually dressed folks' professions. Right noW they are jurors. I am sure We have many more IT folks here, for the obvious reason.

sorry about my ailing W

Yes, they are jurors but are you not interested in what their take on 7 weeks of testimony is? Does it not bother you that we have listened and watched all these weeks and come away with little to nothing with respect to evidence? How many of the prosecution's witness were we thinking may produce solid evidence and they didn't--not the ME, not the real bug guy, not the mica scientist,,,,not anybody. Until the blacked out testimony of the computer testimony. We have struggled on this forum to put it all together and I'm wondering how they will be able to put it together, especially since they have not had people like the ones on here to explain it all to them as the testimony has slowly dragged on and on. We daily post our thoughts and feelings about each person's testimony--not that we always agree--but we are able to hash through it. They have not and I am very worried that there have not been very many clear points on which they can base a verdict. That's my concern.

PS: For either side, the lack of evidence is alarming.

 

[gracielee]

Today is another illustration of what has bothered me with this trial, the rulings are inconsistent.

Early in the case Det. Young and Zellinger argued that the fact that NC had a Facebook page was not relevant basically because it's just a silly non-important social media site. Flash Forward to today and suddenly Facebook is this big important thing that should destroy the credibility of a network security expert.

The Judge just sits back and claims ignorance while making rulings that are neither consistent nor appropriate.

That wasn't what was argued. nancy cooper had exactly two friends on facebook and her account was long dormant.

 

[gracielee]

I knew that, but my remarks concern the level of funding from the State.

The *fund* the going rate.

 

[Danielle59]

did i hear that bc's phone Was actually Wiped by cisco?

Yes, that was the testimony.

 

[unc70]

That's not what I got from his testimony and I'm sitting here listening just like the jurors. What I got is that it is possible to manipulate files and he showed some of the tools for doing that. He did not show that any files on Brad's computer were manipulated. MOO

He showed a report (full report in evidence) showing examples of the timestamps all the same, with the report noting timestamp errors. He talked several times about different ways that could happen (copying files from elsewhere, the touch command, etc.) and how that would not be the case in normal operations. Most of that made it into testimony, some questions were disallowed but the problem was still "exposed" to the jurors.

Overall, a very effective job once all the pieces are assembled. Not sure quire when or how that might be done. By raising the possibility of hacking the home network, the jury can believe that tampering likely happened without also having to believe that it was done by CPD or FBI.