Found Deceased State v Bradley Cooper - 3/23/11

[Maja]

I saw that too. I think that might have brought on/intensified Kurtz's kitten labor pains.

Interesting to see how things will go if cross takes place to today.

Wouldn't it be interesting (forewarning that I'm WILDLY speculating here), after all of the "nothing" "nothing" "nothing" answers of so many witnesses in relation to lack of evidence, if the prosecution was using this strategy deliberately, and then whipped out evidence of a "How to Commit Murder in Ten Easy Steps Without Leaving a Trace" e-book? Gasp...

Okay, I told you I was wildly speculating here... There is just something about the way this witness says "nothing" that strikes me oddly.

I really like the way you think There was something almost eerie in the way this witness said, "nothing" . Almost as if 1) it was agonizing for him to say it or 2) Just wait.

 

[per_curiam]

The defense is overly sensitive about all of this computer stuff. Apparently that is where the good stuff is. Hopefully.

I started figuring it out when the defense asked the witness about how they transferred, secured, etc., the parts of each laptop. Then, they wanted the laptop turned over to show where the battery would be. I wanted to laugh. I'm a little slow, but hey.

 

[NCEast]

Yeah, like I said I missed it, but Kurtz has reason to believe somehow that the computers were tampered with, based on his opening statements and if he needed his computer expert present, why not grant him that? This is someone's life we're dealing with here.

Now he has to cross examine without all the information he could have had, had his expert been present.

I don't know that he will have another opportunity to question this witness? Does anyone know?

This is not the 'real' witness so none of this really matters. This witness didn't do the forensics so that person who did the computer forensics will be the most important one. That person wasn't scheduled to be called today, this witness was, and Kurtz thought this witness was going to get into the deepest aspects of the forensics. So it's not a huge deal. When the actual guy is on the stand, that's when both sides will get to the real nitty gritty.

 

[Albert]

I know a ton about computers and networks. This 'account locked' is referring to the computer operating system.

I will put money on the fact that BC had his wireless network secured and secured well with industry-standard encryption. It would be required by his employer to work from home. Security is all-important in networks and BC was an expert.

BTW, turning OFF a computer by unplugging it or removing the battery would NOT place incriminating info on a computer. It *might* corrupt a file where the file could not be read, but it would not create evidence linking a suspect to a crime!

small correction, BC obtained expert level for cisco's enterprise voip product. He does not have an expert level for wireless or security.

 

[cygnusx1]

I agree that Kurtz is stalling here so the next witness (actual computer forensic examiner) will not be called today.

 

[sunshine05]

Could Kurtz be dragging this out so they end with him and therefore will have to start with him again in the morning after he's had a chance to discuss with his "expert"?

 

[per_curiam]

"When the real witness gets on the stand..." with all the nitty gritty computer forensics is when the going gets good. Amen sistah! I keep forgetting that, what with these boring "other" witnesses.

 

[NCEast]

Could Kurtz be dragging this out so they end with him and therefore will have to start with him again in the morning after he's had a chance to discuss with his "expert"?

That's exactly what I think. And I also gathered from his outburst that he wants his computer expert there, by his side, during testimony.
He is just asking general questions now to waste time. It's almost 5:00 Kurtz.

 

[gracielee]

I know a ton about computers and networks. This 'account locked' is referring to the computer operating system.

I will put money on the fact that BC had his wireless network secured and secured well with industry-standard encryption. It would be required by his employer to work from home. Security is all-important in networks and BC was an expert.

!

So are you saying that 'account locked' is different from having your wireless signal firewalled or what ever it's called? I know we have our wireless signal 'secured' or 'locked' or whatever it's called. So that our neighbors couldn't run their computers off our wireless signal. I know also when we first moved here and I turned on my computer, prior to us having service, I could pick up a couple signals from other computers, I'm assuming living somewhere near us, because they apparently didn't have their 'signal' locked???

< obviously confused >

 

[SleuthyGal]

Further, if BC was logged on to his Cisco network he would have entered that network on a secure VPN connection (i.e. Virtual Private Network). It's another layer of computer security that companies use to ensure only authorized people can access the corporate network.

 

[dgfred]

So are you saying that 'account locked' is different from having your wireless signal firewalled or what ever it's called? I know we have our wireless signal 'secured' or 'locked' or whatever it's called. So that our neighbors couldn't run their computers off our wireless signal. I know also when we first moved here and I turned on my computer, prior to us having service, I could pick up a couple signals from other computers, I'm assuming living somewhere near us, because they apparently didn't have their 'signal' locked???

< obviously confused >

Two different kinds of 'locks' gracielee. There is one for what you describe and also one for the computer's Operating System to keep others from picking up you laptop and using it.

 

[SleuthyGal]

'Account' refers to computer account. Multiple people can use the same computer and each person would then have their own login on that computer. It's governed by the operating system. One would use a password to enter their 'account' on the computer. The computer operating system would not allow someone who did not have a username and password to access the computer.

Having a firewall and/or having your wireless network locked is not controlled at the individual user level. It is set and affects anyone using the network. Locked in this context = having your network password protected using encryption to hide the password so no one can see it or access it without the correct password. People can 'see' your wireless signal, but they cannot access your network unless they know your password.

 

[gracielee]

LOL, I know what cookies are. I hope *these* cookies are Vanilla Double Stuff Oreo's.

 

[CyberPro]

sigh...

Kurtz is trying to infer that the computer laptop was mishandled because "ports weren't taped shut." What a ridiculous argument. My goodness.

He's also desperately trying to get the wireless network info in...which this witness did not (and does not) work with. He really wants everyone to believe that someone hacked into that network and put incriminating evidence on BC computers.

You mean to tell me that they did not tape the ports shut when they took the computer to the forensics test lab?? Oh, gosh, this is really bad news. See, while it was in there, bad ideas and date could have seeped into the unprotected ports and invaded the hard drive. </sarcasm>

There might be some rule of evidence that you have to put tape over a port, like crime scene tape, but this is a completely bogus thing to get upset over.

 

[gracielee]

Two different kinds of 'locks' gracilee. There is one for what you describe and also one for the computer's Operating System to keep others from picking up you laptop and using it.

Again, computer illiterate here, is that the same as having to use a password to access your account?

 

[JiminWilton]

The explanation of cookies offered by this witness strikes me as being somewhat amateurish...

As does explanation of deleting files...perhaps he could have offered the concept of FAT (File Allocation Table) by actually calling it by name?

And WHO uses IE?

 

[Coolmomof4]

I know nothing about computers, but our wireless router doesn't have any highly visible antenna's that I see. And my husband has lots of *stuff* hooked up. We have two desktop computers, and we each have a wireless laptop. I know I can PRINT stuff from my wireless laptop, upstairs to the printer hooked up to the desktop. I'm surprised this guy doesn't have 'router' knowledge. As for this current discussion about the 'account being locked'. Doesn't that refer to having ones wireless router 'locked' so your neighbors can't pick up and run their computers off of your wireless? Or am I confused in terminology?

I agree. We also have wireless in the house with multiple desktop and lap top computers. We have nothing visible that shows we would have wireless just by looking around. I am also surprised he didn't check, but maybe someone else did?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Prediction: Kurtz will completely baffle the jury with his vomitus of techie terms.

 

[Maja]

I agree. We also have wireless in the house with multiple desktop and lap top computers. We have nothing visible that shows we would have wireless just by looking around. I am also surprised he didn't check, but maybe someone else did?

Have same. Can use MOBILE PHONE as well to search web/send e-mails/watch movies/even have a websleuths app

 

[NCEast]

The explanation of cookies offered by this witness strikes me as being somewhat amateurish...

As does explanation of deleting files...perhaps he could have offered the concept of FAT (File Allocation Table) by actually calling it by name?

And WHO uses IE?

I'm getting the feeling that this witness is being truthful, yet not producing complete answers, because he knows this is not his area of expertise and he's not the person that these questions should be asked of. Kurtz has been allowed a lot of freedom in his questioning of this witness.

Judge just released jury, thank goodness!