State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[jrb0124]

no time to read through all the pages, can someone give me a recap on this morning?

Defense presents it own 'evidence buffet' then rests.

Pros wants to call Frye (Cisco) as an rebuttal expert to testify to Cisco logs which purported show a 3825 router connecting via VPN to Cisco 7/11 at 10:21 PM.

Defense says he's not an expert for what they are calling him to testify to, wants vior dire.

Pros says Frye cannot be there monday so impossible to voir dire and have him testify today.

Pros has other rebuttal witnesses, but Cummings said they have to go in sequence - uninterrupted.

Judge releases jury til Monday.

Court resumes with Frye proffer (i assume that's what they are doing)

 

[foltster]

It's the Judge's court, he could have broken that rule.

Defense presents it own 'evidence buffet' then rests.

Pros wants to call Frye (Cisco) as an rebuttal expert to testify to Cisco logs which purported show a 3825 router connecting via VPN to Cisco 7/11 at 10:21 PM.

Defense says he's not an expert for what they are calling him to testify to, wants vior dire.

Pros says Frye cannot be there monday so impossible to voir dire and have him testify today.

Pros has other rebuttal witnesses, but Cummings said they have to go in sequence - uninterrupted.

Judge releases jury til Monday.

Court resumes with Frye proffer (i assume that's what they are doing)

Pretty sure they are at lunch now and should return sometime around 2:30 im guessing/hoping.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Pretty sure they are at lunch now and should return sometime around 2:30 im guessing/hoping.

They are gone til 9:30 am Monday.

 

[macd]

Pros wants to call Frye (Cisco) as an rebuttal expert to testify to Cisco logs which purported show a 3825 router connecting via VPN to Cisco 7/11 at 10:21 PM.

Do we know it was a VPN log?
I'm hearing the log is on the laptop, which means the log should be about a connection from the laptop to the 3825, maybe via telnet or ssh.
Not sure how a VPN connection between the 3825 and Cisco would be logged on the laptop.
I really want more information about that log.

 

[jrb0124]

Do we know it was a VPN log?
I'm hearing the log is on the laptop, which means the log should be about a connection from the laptop to the 3825, maybe via telnet or ssh.
Not sure how a VPN connection between the 3825 and Cisco would be logged on the laptop.
I really want more information about that log.

I heard this piece of Q & A...

Judge: so these logs are what? business records or something?

BZ: yes, that is my understanding.

 

[otto]

They are gone til 9:30 am Monday.

Was there a voir dire for this guy, or will that happen next week?

 

[SleuthinNC]

I heard this piece of Q & A...

Judge: so these logs are what? business records or something?

BZ: yes, that is my understanding.

Lie, err I mean he must have misunderstood.

 

[otto]

So Boz is trying to pull one over on the judge. He's trying to slide in new evidence by misleading the judge into believing that it is old evidence, but unless the defense has all that info, which it doesn't, it shouldn't be admitted.

Am I understanding correctly?

 

[jrb0124]

Maybe the 3825 was in the same box with the ducks?????? After all the CPD in throughly examining the contents of the Cupper house pursuant to a SW missed the damn duckies, makes you wonder what else they missed......

here is the relevent part of the seizure invontory from the October 2008 SW (not all of which was displayed in court):

 

[SleuthinNC]

So Boz is trying to pull one over on the judge. He's trying to slide in new evidence by misleading the judge into believing that it is old evidence, but unless the defense has all that info, which it doesn't, it shouldn't be admitted.

Am I understanding correctly?

You are correct.

 

[FullDisclosure]

here is the relevent part of the seizure invontory from the October 2008 SW (not all of which was displayed in court):

Search of the home or Cisco office? TIA

 

[macd]

Lie, err I mean he must have misunderstood.

Boz has repeatedly offered to have the technical witnesses take the stand for the judge to ask and hear first hand for the technical questions. Judge finally took him up on it.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Boz has repeatedly offered to have the technical witnesses take the stand for the judge to ask and hear first hand for the technical questions. Judge finally took him up on it.

Maybe the judge has finally realized that he has been repeatedly scammed.

 

[jrb0124]

Search of the home or Cisco office? TIA

from the residence

 

[SleuthinNC]

This whole router, call spoofing fiasco is becoming more annoying than anything. If they would just ask the right people for the right information this should really not be that hard to prove or disprove.

 

[ncsu95]

Do we know when we'll hear if this witness is allowed to testify again?

Hopefully when a poster from here gets home (hopefully there is a ws poster in the court room).

 

[ncsu95]

Do we know it was a VPN log?
I'm hearing the log is on the laptop, which means the log should be about a connection from the laptop to the 3825, maybe via telnet or ssh.
Not sure how a VPN connection between the 3825 and Cisco would be logged on the laptop.
I really want more information about that log.

I do too. Until then, we are just speculating.

 

[otto]

I guess we were allowed to hear yesteday's voir dire because it was for appelate purposes, but we are not allowed to hear this voir dire because it may be new State's evidence?

 

[SleuthinNC]

Boz is really trying to play both sides of the fence with this router information.

On one hand he saying the defense has had access to this data all along because it is on the hard drive. If that is the case the prosecution has had it all along as well along with access to the same Cisco people who they want to bring back to talk about it. They should have had this done prior to trial.

On the other hand Boz says, we are just getting this information from Cisco so we couldn't have brought it during our case in chief. Ok so then it is new evidence and should not be admitted.

I can't see any reason why this new evidence should be allowed.

 

[ncsu95]

So Boz is trying to pull one over on the judge. He's trying to slide in new evidence by misleading the judge into believing that it is old evidence, but unless the defense has all that info, which it doesn't, it shouldn't be admitted.

Am I understanding correctly?

That's what I get from it. I personally would like to see it entered. But objectively, I can't see how the judge would allow it. It most definitely is not rebuttal testimony like BZ is trying to claim. Again, the only thing I can think he would be allowed to rebut is the size of the router (to show a smaller one is possible, even though the defense showed the router that the prosecution witness said would be needed), or something to do specifically with the csa log. We know this isn't part of the csa log, it's a system event (apparently). So it's completely new evidence.