PDA

View Full Version : State v Bradley Cooper 4/14/11



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

hotpinkstef
04-14-2011, 08:56 AM
Good Morning to Everyone

hotpinkstef
04-14-2011, 08:58 AM
Kurtz didn't get far b4 early recess. Barely got into invalid time stamps of google image files

sounds like more blackout and no twitter could be a quite day

Cheyenne130
04-14-2011, 09:01 AM
We first have to wait to find out if we even have court today since it ended yesterday with an ill juror.

KellyCrash
04-14-2011, 09:18 AM
From Twitter:

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Will do our best to post updates asap. RT @hotpinkstef: @wral Can you tell us anything on #coopertrial w/ judge's order no phones/laptops?

hotpinkstef
04-14-2011, 09:20 AM
I love that wral will answer tweets

KellyCrash
04-14-2011, 09:23 AM
From Twitter:

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Yes, we plan to livestream #coopertrial once this FBI witness is done. RT @HalfaSlice: @wral Will livefeed start back up after this witness?

RaleighNative
04-14-2011, 09:40 AM
WRAL has a clip of the judge yesterday getting angry about someone in the courtroom blogging about the case on the internet. Anyone know what the deal is?

Coolmomof4
04-14-2011, 09:48 AM
WRAL has a clip of the judge yesterday getting angry about someone in the courtroom blogging about the case on the internet. Anyone know what the deal is?

Can you link to the clip? I can't find it on their site.

fran
04-14-2011, 09:49 AM
WRAL has a clip of the judge yesterday getting angry about someone in the courtroom blogging about the case on the internet. Anyone know what the deal is?

It appears that there was a group of people who post on WRAL at golo, that believe BC innocent, and they went to court yesterday.

First the judge admonished the spectators about staring at the jury. It made the jurists feel uncomfortable.

Then I THINK he complained about some of what was being said on golo about participants in the case, ie LE and him, I think...............

Then he got upset about someone reporting directly from the courtroom about the revelation about BC accessing the Google search of the site where NC was ultimately found.

So at the end of the day, he announced, no tweets, no cell phones, no electronic device use from the courtroom, including media.

hth
fran

NCEast
04-14-2011, 09:49 AM
WRAL has a clip of the judge yesterday getting angry about someone in the courtroom blogging about the case on the internet. Anyone know what the deal is?

I would like the link as well. I've spent the past hour going back over all of yesterday's post trying to find it. I watched the clip yesterday but can't find it today.

RaleighNative
04-14-2011, 09:50 AM
Can you link to the clip? I can't find it on their site.

Here is a link to WRAL's clip of the judge getting angry about bloggers. Not sure of the backstory? http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9436593/#/vid9436593

NCEast
04-14-2011, 09:50 AM
Forgot to say Good Morning to you all!

NCEast
04-14-2011, 09:53 AM
Here is a link to WRAL's clip of the judge getting angry about bloggers. Not sure of the backstory? http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9436593/#/vid9436593

Thank you!

Coolmomof4
04-14-2011, 09:56 AM
Here is a link to WRAL's clip of the judge getting angry about bloggers. Not sure of the backstory? http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9436593/#/vid9436593

Thanks! Dang, he was MAD.

RaleighNative
04-14-2011, 10:00 AM
Thanks! Dang, he was MAD.

Anyone know why the judge got so angry? Was there something online which violated a juror's confidentiality? Or info on an undercover officer?

gritguy
04-14-2011, 10:01 AM
If the judge figured that internet stuff was resulting in people coming into the courtroom and staring at the jury, damn right he gets mad.

NCEast
04-14-2011, 10:03 AM
Anyone know why the judge got so angry? Was there something online which violated a juror's confidentiality? Or info on an undercover officer?

I don't know the details but in the link--Amanda Lamb's coverage--the news about the Google search on Brad's computer apparently went viral just seconds after the testimony. The judge was very angry that what was going on in his courtroom was being tweeted or talked about outside the courtroom, or something to that effect based on what he said when he then banned all cell phones and laptops. Other than that, I don't know.

ohiogirl
04-14-2011, 10:03 AM
Forgot to say Good Morning to you all!

Good morning!:spring::cup:

RaleighNative
04-14-2011, 10:07 AM
I don't know the details but in the link--Amanda Lamb's coverage--the news about the Google search on Brad's computer apparently went viral just seconds after the testimony. The judge was very angry that what was going on in his courtroom was being tweeted or talked about outside the courtroom, or something to that effect based on what he said when he then banned all cell phones and laptops. Other than that, I don't know.

I believe AL's coverage on this was way too vague. I'd like to know specifics. The courtroom is open to the public, it is videotaped, and everyone has a right to free speech. Of course people discuss the case.

The only thing I can figure is it had to do with a leak of confidential information or as Grit suggested, juror intimidation.

But we don't know any details...

gracielee
04-14-2011, 10:09 AM
So any bets on a lengthy cross?

less0305
04-14-2011, 10:11 AM
Anyone know why the judge got so angry? Was there something online which violated a juror's confidentiality? Or info on an undercover officer?

I can't read all of GOLO's comments - it drives me insane!!! - but I sure hope that someone in the courtroom didn't have some personal knowledge of the undercover officer or one of the jurors and was stupid enough to post it. I can reasonably assume that may have happened, but the defense hasn't gotten to cross yet, so I'm on the fence until there is a snapshot of the text, a video of the offender texting, or some dna from a type pad to be tested 16 ways to Sunday.

cityslick
04-14-2011, 10:12 AM
So any bets on a lengthy cross?

No idea. Apparently cross has been going on since court started but we've got no info about any of it.

Cheyenne130
04-14-2011, 10:12 AM
I believe AL's coverage on this was way too vague. I'd like to know specifics. The courtroom is open to the public, it is videotaped, and everyone has a right to free speech. Of course people discuss the case.

The only thing I can figure is it had to do with a leak of confidential information or as Grit suggested, juror intimidation.

But we don't know any details...

This is just a guess but one of the comments I saw yesterday on the wral twitter site was something about the jurors being lost on the computer testimony or something to that effect. It wasn't wral that tweeted that. It was someone else who was in the courtroom and added that comment to #coopertrial. I have to think that would make him angry to have someone judging the jurors and their reactions to the testimony.

NCEast
04-14-2011, 10:15 AM
I believe AL's coverage on this was way too vague. I'd like to know specifics. The courtroom is open to the public, it is videotaped, and everyone has a right to free speech. Of course people discuss the case.

The only thing I can figure is it had to do with a leak of confidential information or as Grit suggested, juror intimidation.

But we don't know any details...

I would like more detail about exactly what triggered the judge's outbursts--twice, yesterday. But we may never know. I am just counting the minutes until we can get our live stream back.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 10:16 AM
Wading into the golo place is like getting lost in a trailer park in a really bad area of town. Those people are really pro brad, but trememdously anti victim/nancy. :(

RaleighNative
04-14-2011, 10:17 AM
I can't read all of GOLO's comments - it drives me insane!!! - but I sure hope that someone in the courtroom didn't have some personal knowledge of the undercover officer or one of the jurors and was stupid enough to post it. I can reasonably assume that may have happened, but the defense hasn't gotten to cross yet, so I'm on the fence until there is a snapshot of the text, a video of the offender texting, or some dna from a type pad to be tested 16 ways to Sunday.

I agree, GOLO drives me crazy too! I did a quick glance at the comments on the latest BC article. Seems most of the commentors are pro-BC, and many slam AL and WRAL's coverage, as well as slam the judge on this case. Maybe that's why that site was specifically pointed out? Because it tends to be highly critical of both the prosecution and judge?

I don't know...just thinking out loud... :waitasec:

NCEast
04-14-2011, 10:18 AM
I can't read all of GOLO's comments - it drives me insane!!! - but I sure hope that someone in the courtroom didn't have some personal knowledge of the undercover officer or one of the jurors and was stupid enough to post it. I can reasonably assume that may have happened, but the defense hasn't gotten to cross yet, so I'm on the fence until there is a snapshot of the text, a video of the offender texting, or some dna from a type pad to be tested 16 ways to Sunday.

I read a twitter comment last night that made mention of 'all the creepy people in the courtroom that were too attached to this trial'. The jurors are the most important people in that courtroom and I can surely understand why the judge wants them protected....and happy.
But it's still somewhat a mystery this morning.

MD MOMMY
04-14-2011, 10:19 AM
IMO, electronic media should be barred from the court room when a confidential witness is on the stand anyway. It seems to be the judge should have been more proactive about that from the beginning. What exactly did he think would happen? I agree the comments about the jury have no business out there either. JMO.

NCEast
04-14-2011, 10:19 AM
So any bets on a lengthy cross?

I hope it won't be but 3 minutes but knowing Kurtz and the desperation they are facing, he may cross for the entire day just throwing more junk out there to trip up things.

johnfear
04-14-2011, 10:22 AM
Yeah, our updates were better than WRAL's last night. Sad. Thanks to all of you guys!

NCEast
04-14-2011, 10:22 AM
Wading into the golo place is like getting lost in a trailer park in a really bad area of town. Those people are really pro brad, but trememdously anti victim/nancy. :(

The other night some of those posters were just flat out saying Nancy deserved it and more accusations along those lines. I had to leave quickly. Those were the posts that gave me the impression that a huge majority of those folks over there need an education, some culture, and a bath.

snowshuze
04-14-2011, 10:25 AM
I think the judge was having a bad day yesterday. Between Kurtz going on and on and on about something ruled on months ago, and someone tweeting live from the courtroom <I think>, his patience wore a bit thin. Technology is advancing so quickly it's hard for anyone to keep up. Apply that to a court of law, where it's difficult to find time to even keep up with new law, old law applications/case law, etc.....I can see where it would get overwhelming for a judge having to attend to every single detail of a trial in progress.

MOO and stuff.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 10:25 AM
I think the judge should have simply allowed live audio feed from the courtroom, to protect identity of the witness while still preserving the open court room atmosphere of our legal system. MOO It's done in many other trials where there are minor's as witnesses, etc.

RaleighNative
04-14-2011, 10:25 AM
The other night some of those posters were just flat out saying Nancy deserved it and more accusations along those lines. I had to leave quickly. Those were the posts that gave me the impression that a huge majority of those folks over there need an education, some culture, and a bath.

There are a lot of trolls on GOLO that simply like to stoke the fire and get other riled up. You can't take a lot of it seriously. But still, it is very sad for victims of accidents or crimes when their stories are written on WRAL. Those comments really rip people to shreds.

CyberPro
04-14-2011, 10:26 AM
I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

So, I will boil it down for the non-technical folks among us....

"Your honor, no fair, the state has better experts than we do..."

Kurtz argues that, in essence, there is one version of the Master File Table (MFT) for the prosecution, and one for the defense. This is not true on the face of it. If the defense was given a disk image of the computer, they have the same MFT. They might lack the exact tools used by the FBI to extract and interpret that information, but they do have it.

Different tools might give different outputs, I know, shocker right? A hammer gives different results than a screwdriver, but that is to be expected. In essence, Kurtz is asking the prosecution to help with the defense case by spelling out the extracted data, in the same format, and explaining what it means, so he can take potshots at it.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 10:30 AM
I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

So, I will boil it down for the non-technical folks among us....

"Your honor, no fair, the state has better experts than we do..."

Kurtz argues that, in essence, there is one version of the Master File Table (MFT) for the prosecution, and one for the defense. This is not true on the face of it. If the defense was given a disk image of the computer, they have the same MFT. They might lack the exact tools used by the FBI to extract and interpret that information, but they do have it.

Different tools might give different outputs, I know, shocker right? A hammer gives different results than a screwdriver, but that is to be expected. In essence, Kurtz is asking the prosecution to help with the defense case by spelling out the extracted data, in the same format, and explaining what it means, so he can take potshots at it.

LOL, that's what I got out of it last night. Your honor, our guys aren't as good at this, we want your guys to tell us how they did it. < stomps foot numerous times, whines some more > and like one of my grandsons favorite statements " that's not fair " huge pouty lower lip. :maddening:

Palomine
04-14-2011, 10:33 AM
IMO, electronic media should be barred from the court room when a confidential witness is on the stand anyway. It seems to be the judge should have been more proactive about that from the beginning. What exactly did he think would happen? I agree the comments about the jury have no business out there either. JMO.

everything was good until they started staring down the jurors and posting stuff they weren't supposed to
they hide behind freedom of speech

bloghooligan
04-14-2011, 10:35 AM
I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

So, I will boil it down for the non-technical folks among us....

"Your honor, no fair, the state has better experts than we do..."

Kurtz argues that, in essence, there is one version of the Master File Table (MFT) for the prosecution, and one for the defense. This is not true on the face of it. If the defense was given a disk image of the computer, they have the same MFT. They might lack the exact tools used by the FBI to extract and interpret that information, but they do have it.

Different tools might give different outputs, I know, shocker right? A hammer gives different results than a screwdriver, but that is to be expected. In essence, Kurtz is asking the prosecution to help with the defense case by spelling out the extracted data, in the same format, and explaining what it means, so he can take potshots at it.

I understood it more like -- the prosecution witness used specific software to produce a very detailed 'report' of the data (non techy terms used). The defense has the data but it makes it difficult to question the witness about the data without having the same very detailed "report" that he is testifying from. I think I understand what he is saying. How did the judge ultimately rule -- was the Pros going to turn over the very detailed "report"?

Palomine
04-14-2011, 10:36 AM
I think the judge should have simply allowed live audio feed from the courtroom, to protect identity of the witness while still preserving the open court room atmosphere of our legal system. MOO It's done in many other trials where there are minor's as witnesses, etc.

as the pros put it, it is sensitive stuff the FBI is talking about, they cannot let the criminals get the upper hand
I am glad we are blacked out for this..even though it is the best evidence

JiminWilton
04-14-2011, 10:39 AM
I don't agree with the decision to deny the defense the data. An excellent example from another site: We all have access to the internet. It's the same for everybody. I do a google search, you do a yahoo search, she does a bing search and he does a dogpile search. We all have accessed the same disk, but each one has different search results. So if you testify to your google results, and deny me access to what your search disclosed (no need to show me HOW google got the results, just show me the results), how can I ask you questions to determine the validity of what you found?

As a strong anarchist, I am disturbed that the courts will allow an "expert" to testify to something without any foundation of how he achieved those results. Darned shame we with some technical background were not able to hear how the evidence was presented. And a further shame that we cannot hear the cross.

snowshuze
04-14-2011, 10:42 AM
Sometimes, it is what it is.....and we just have to deal with it.

TigerBalm
04-14-2011, 10:43 AM
I think the judge should have simply allowed live audio feed from the courtroom, to protect identity of the witness while still preserving the open court room atmosphere of our legal system. MOO It's done in many other trials where there are minor's as witnesses, etc.

I understand what you are saying gracielee, but there is a huge difference between a minor testifying and an undercover officer testifying.

We are lucky the trial is even broadcast in the first place. Not all states and courtrooms allow cameras. The judge could have barred the cameras all together, but he didn't. He ruled the cameras were not to record the four undercover officers due to the line of work they are in.

As much as I would like to hear their testimony, I would rather not have their lives be risked, over one alleged murdered named Bradley Graham Cooper.

MOO of course

less0305
04-14-2011, 10:43 AM
I agree, GOLO drives me crazy too! I did a quick glance at the comments on the latest BC article. Seems most of the commentors are pro-BC, and many slam AL and WRAL's coverage, as well as slam the judge on this case. Maybe that's why that site was specifically pointed out? Because it tends to be highly critical of both the prosecution and judge?

I don't know...just thinking out loud... :waitasec:

Yes, and those people slam their community and the police. I'm like - why do you live there??!!!!

bloghooligan
04-14-2011, 10:44 AM
I don't agree with the decision to deny the defense the data. An excellent example from another site: We all have access to the internet. It's the same for everybody. I do a google search, you do a yahoo search, she does a bing search and he does a dogpile search. We all have accessed the same disk, but each one has different search results. So if you testify to your google results, and deny me access to what your search disclosed (no need to show me HOW google got the results, just show me the results), how can I ask you questions to determine the validity of what you found?

As a strong anarchist, I am disturbed that the courts will allow an "expert" to testify to something without any foundation of how he achieved those results. Darned shame we with some technical background were not able to hear how the evidence was presented. And a further shame that we cannot hear the cross.

Great example, thanks.

I agree on the expert testimony, darned shame but I do kinda understand. The transcripts will be available one day, I hope.

I don't understand why tweeting was ok but blogging at golo wasn't. He didn't set rules about what could be reported or how, just that there could be no audio/video. I do wish we knew what set him off.

NCEast
04-14-2011, 10:46 AM
I understood it more like -- the prosecution witness used specific software to produce a very detailed 'report' of the data (non techy terms used). The defense has the data but it makes it difficult to question the witness about the data without having the same very detailed "report" that he is testifying from. I think I understand what he is saying. How did the judge ultimately rule -- was the Pros going to turn over the very detailed "report"?

I watched it 2 more times last night and I came away with the feeling that the defense already has the output or data from the device/method. They are arguing that they want the same device/method-- MTF table or whatever it's called-- and since that aspect of it seems to be a tool or method that belongs solely to the FBI and has never been allowed in other court cases the defense was not going to get it in this case. Zell was adamant that the defense already had the output, and the judge had ruled 8 months ago on the other aspects of the motion. Then he ruled against striking the two FBI witness's testimony. So their computer testimony stands.

johnfear
04-14-2011, 10:47 AM
I understood it more like -- the prosecution witness used specific software to produce a very detailed 'report' of the data (non techy terms used). The defense has the data but it makes it difficult to question the witness about the data without having the same very detailed "report" that he is testifying from. I think I understand what he is saying. How did the judge ultimately rule -- was the Pros going to turn over the very detailed "report"?

They handed the report over. Not the tool. he crossed line-by-line I believe. (Using it as a reference)

The reason this is all being hammered over and over again is because it questions a very large net of forensic analysis questions that experts have said are not only largely protected because of sensitivity reasons, but also possibly produce questionable results in the specificity. (hence the close hand cursor files, etc)

This is the "landmark" issue in this case. If you listen carefully to the case law, a lot of what is being quoted is from the late seventies and is woefully outdated.

Also, the argument is not random (from Kurtz) that the tools produce different data. They do. (Think of a Habitat for Humanity house being built versus a General Contractor building a house) And in items of sensitivity, the more specific the data: "He opened the file directly to what appears to be the address of the body dump" the more important the tools be similar. If the prosecution had not used this item as "smoking gun" it would be wholly irrelevant. Because they have, it is going to set or be referenced in the future setting of a precedent regarding MFT and it's use in murder cases.

The fact that Boz stopped answering the judge's questions and used the judge's inability to understand the technological side to his advantage was what was dragging the argument on. Why? He was leading this into appeals with what will be an effective "ineffective counsel" offering.

It's not just bluster. It's actually the edge of a huge new argument in a system that already has nearly 12,000 pieces of law to follow to begin with.

macd
04-14-2011, 10:48 AM
I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

So, I will boil it down for the non-technical folks among us....

"Your honor, no fair, the state has better experts than we do..."

Kurtz argues that, in essence, there is one version of the Master File Table (MFT) for the prosecution, and one for the defense. This is not true on the face of it. If the defense was given a disk image of the computer, they have the same MFT. They might lack the exact tools used by the FBI to extract and interpret that information, but they do have it.

Different tools might give different outputs, I know, shocker right? A hammer gives different results than a screwdriver, but that is to be expected. In essence, Kurtz is asking the prosecution to help with the defense case by spelling out the extracted data, in the same format, and explaining what it means, so he can take potshots at it.

Defense is just doing their job.
This can be used later for grounds for mistrial or appeal.
Objections and rulings all have to be on the record.
He'd be remiss if he didn't cover his all his bases on damning evidence.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 10:49 AM
in a perfect world there would be message boards for guilty and not guilty posters..Call it wrong but I go into every trial believing the defendant is guilty..most trials either have a grand jury or preliminary hearing...

gritguy
04-14-2011, 10:52 AM
So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.

The picture has been painted. In fairness, one must keep an open mind (and certainly the jury should and must) until the defense evidence is submitted and considered. But those who hoped the judge would direct the verdict against the state before the defense even had to present their case have had their hopes dashed.

As to the unpleasant testimony about Nancy – it is necessary as part of the picture. A man is on trial and if his misdeeds in a relationship are relevant, it is only fair the defense can show the whole picture. Maybe the halo some tried to place on Nancy, well meaning as that was, has been tarnished. Yet she was a person, and people aren’t perfect. She deserved the right to live her life, make her mistakes, have her successes and failures, have and return the love of family and friends. There has not been one thing said of her, true or untrue, that diminishes one iota the evil that was worked on her and the injustice suffered by a family, friends, and a community. To the contrary, the picture of mutual strife just increases the odds that Brad saw the relationship as one that needed to end on his terms.

Brad Cooper was in a tough spot in life. He considered his options and decided on the one that he figured would be best for him. The incremental benefit to him was worth any cost to others. He executed his plan on a weekend – too much trouble and too many tasks for a work night. He did an admirable job covering his tracks, and got lucky in that no one saw him on holly springs and well meaning people thought they saw Nancy out running that morning. But he didn’t cover all his tracks. Some he left behind were surprising in that they relate to computers, his area of interest. Some were made conspicuous by his great effort to hide them – the floor cleaning binge in an otherwise disheveled house and trunk cleaning an otherwise messy car and the many loads of laundry done on this special day of cleaning. His story of the night and morning of murder rang hollow, as he told of a morning of his perfect adherence to the duty of husband and father with none of the conflict which otherwise marked their routine interactions.

Brad, if you have the chance to come back to Websleuths, a place you visited so shortly after Nancy was murdered, consider this. You are a weak failure. You liked triathlons because they represent the conquering of a challenge through hard work and endurance. They are hard, they prove your mettle – you need to have strong will to do well. But those are only games. In the real contest of will and strength – life – you failed in the worst way possible. Rather than overcome the adversity of a bad relationship or a rough legal settlement, you gave up. You cheated. You stole. You robbed your own children of their mother and their father all to avoid the consequences of life. You robbed a human being of her life. All the contests you ever entered were there just to convince you you were not the weak minded failure you ultimately proved to be. You’re just a chump who gave up when the going got tough, a loser who would stoop to any measure, even murder, rather than face your obligations.

It’s sad that it was not a mystery van of killers, because the children have lost both their parents now. But it is good they have a loving family who embrace them without reservation and without regard to burden or cost. And it is good that it is far, far away from this place where selfish self-regard cast a shadow of evil on a dark night on their mother who loved them so much.

Brad, the strong are Nancy’s family who now carry with love the remainder of the family you ultimately destroyed. Even in death Nancy has the means to protect and provide for her children - you just couldn't understand and thankfully couldn't destroy the bridge of love between her family and her and the children. Thank God that family, each of them, has the perseverance and willpower and love that you lacked completely.

CyberPro
04-14-2011, 10:53 AM
I don't agree with the decision to deny the defense the data. An excellent example from another site: We all have access to the internet. It's the same for everybody. I do a google search, you do a yahoo search, she does a bing search and he does a dogpile search. We all have accessed the same disk, but each one has different search results. So if you testify to your google results, and deny me access to what your search disclosed (no need to show me HOW google got the results, just show me the results), how can I ask you questions to determine the validity of what you found?

<respectfully snipped>


No a bad analogy, and you will also know that the framework of the discussion is much the same. Google jealously guards the mechanics of how their spider-bots crawl the web, and how they use that information to derive their indces. In this case, the MFT does represent the Internet, and it is the same for Google and Bing, so I Google and you use Bing. I print out the first page of my search results and you do the same. You question me about why I am showing a site that you did not see. Answer, my tool showed me this result, your tool shows you a different result. You can clearly see my result, you might not understand why your tool does not show the same thing, but that is the difference in the tool used, not the Internet that we checked.

Kurtz is arguing that there are different versions of the MFT, that is not true, it would be like saying because my results are different than your results you must have looked at a different Internet. Nope, same Internet, different results. The reason is the tool used and the algorithyms used to interpret and display that data.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 10:54 AM
how sick is Brad Cooper checking out dump sites before he kills his wife..did he kill her because he knew she would thrive without him.. because of her relationship with her family and friends

Cheyenne130
04-14-2011, 10:56 AM
No a bad analogy, and you will also know that the framework of the discussion is much the same. Google jealously guards the mechanics of how their spider-bots crawl the web, and how they use that information to derive their indces. In this case, the MFT does represent the Internet, and it is the same for Google and Bing, so I Google and you use Bing. I print out the first page of my search results and you do the same. You question me about why I am showing a site that you did not see. Answer, my tool showed me this result, your tool shows you a different result. You can clearly see my result, you might not understand why your tool does not show the same thing, but that is the difference in the tool used, not the Internet that we checked.

Kurtz is arguing that there are different versions of the MFT, that is not true, it would be like saying because my results are different than your results you must have looked at a different Internet. Nope, same Internet, different results. The reason is the tool used and the algorithyms used to interpret and display that data.

Most excellent! You and johnfear have given the best explanations yet!

NCEast
04-14-2011, 10:58 AM
So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.

The picture has been painted. In fairness, one must keep an open mind (and certainly the jury should and must) until the defense evidence is submitted and considered. But those who hoped the judge would direct the verdict against the state before the defense even had to present their case have had their hopes dashed.

As to the unpleasant testimony about Nancy – it is necessary as part of the picture. A man is on trial and if his misdeeds in a relationship are relevant, it is only fair the defense can show the whole picture. Maybe the halo some tried to place on Nancy, well meaning as that was, has been tarnished. Yet she was a person, and people aren’t perfect. She deserved the right to live her life, make her mistakes, have her successes and failures, have and return the love of family and friends. There has not been one thing said of her, true or untrue, that diminishes one iota the evil that was worked on her and the injustice suffered by a family, friends, and a community. To the contrary, the picture of mutual strife just increases the odds that Brad saw the relationship as one that needed to end on his terms.

Brad Cooper was in a tough spot in life. He considered his options and decided on the one that he figured would be best for him. The incremental benefit to him was worth any cost to others. He executed his plan on a weekend – too much trouble and too many tasks for a work night. He did an admirable job covering his tracks, and got lucky in that no one saw him on holly springs and well meaning people thought they saw Nancy out running that morning. But he didn’t cover all his tracks. Some he left behind were surprising in that they relate to computers, his area of interest. Some were made conspicuous by his great effort to hide them – the floor cleaning binge in an otherwise disheveled house and trunk cleaning an otherwise messy car and the many loads of laundry done on this special day of cleaning. His story of the night and morning of murder rang hollow, as he told of a morning of his perfect adherence to the duty of husband and father with none of the conflict which otherwise marked their routine interactions.

Brad, if you have the chance to come back to Websleuths, a place you visited so shortly after Nancy was murdered, consider this. You are a weak failure. You liked triathlons because they represent the conquering of a challenge through hard work and endurance. They are hard, they prove your mettle – you need to have strong will to do well. But those are only games. In the real contest of will and strength – life – you failed in the worst way possible. Rather than overcome the adversity of a bad relationship or a rough legal settlement, you gave up. You cheated. You stole. You robbed your own children of their mother and their father all to avoid the consequences of life. You robbed a human being of her life. All the contests you ever entered were there just to convince you you were not the weak minded failure you ultimately proved to be. You’re just a chump who gave up when the going got tough, a loser who would stoop to any measure, even murder, rather than face your obligations.

It’s sad that it was not a mystery van of killers, because the children have lost both their parents now. But it is good they have a loving family who embrace them without reservation and without regard to burden or cost. And it is good that it is far, far away from this place where selfish self-regard cast a shadow of evil on a dark night on their mother who loved them so much.

Brad, the strong are Nancy’s family who now carry with love the remainder of the family you ultimately destroyed. Even in death Nancy has the means to protect and provide for her children - you just couldn't understand and thankfully couldn't destroy the bridge of love between her family and her and the children. Thank God that family, each of them, has the perseverance and willpower and love that you lacked completely.

What a well written and thoughtful post. Thank you!

cody100
04-14-2011, 10:59 AM
I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

So, I will boil it down for the non-technical folks among us....

"Your honor, no fair, the state has better experts than we do..."

Kurtz argues that, in essence, there is one version of the Master File Table (MFT) for the prosecution, and one for the defense. This is not true on the face of it. If the defense was given a disk image of the computer, they have the same MFT. They might lack the exact tools used by the FBI to extract and interpret that information, but they do have it.

Different tools might give different outputs, I know, shocker right? A hammer gives different results than a screwdriver, but that is to be expected. In essence, Kurtz is asking the prosecution to help with the defense case by spelling out the extracted data, in the same format, and explaining what it means, so he can take potshots at it.

I have a question regarding why he shouldn't have the fruit of their analysis. In most all other evidence, the defense is allowed to see the charts, graphs, and all data created during the examination. I am not trying to be argumentative, but just curious why computer examinations are excluded from producing this exculpatory evidence. Maybe someone can explain it to me. I think Kurtz was ok not to know what tool they used if he could see their print outs of the examinations.

JiminWilton
04-14-2011, 11:02 AM
Kurtz is arguing that there are different versions of the MFT, that is not true, it would be like saying because my results are different than your results you must have looked at a different Internet. Nope, same Internet, different results. The reason is the tool used and the algorithyms used to interpret and display that data.

I listened to the clip this morning. We both need to re-listen. Kurtz did NOT argue that there are different versions of the MFT. He argued that the report generated by varying methods of inquiry will vary, as my analogy disclosed, and asked for the REPORT. He did not ask how google crawled the web, he merely asked for the results of the search.

Let's you and I agree, while there is nothing forthcoming, to re-listen to the arguments and come to an agreement. I'm off to hear it again.

NCEast
04-14-2011, 11:03 AM
I have a question regarding why he shouldn't have the fruit of their analysis. In most all other evidence, the defense is allowed to see the charts, graphs, and all data created during the examination. I am not trying to be argumentative, but just curious why computer examinations are excluded from producing this exculpatory evidence. Maybe someone can explain it to me. I think Kurtz was ok not to know what tool they used if he could see their print outs of the examinations.

Zell and the judge are convinced that Kurtz already has the printout/data/exact same information. Kurtz began with wanting the data and then changed up in his argument that he wanted the method used to extract the data.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:03 AM
I have a question regarding why he shouldn't have the fruit of their analysis. In most all other evidence, the defense is allowed to see the charts, graphs, and all data created during the examination. I am not trying to be argumentative, but just curious why computer examinations are excluded from producing this exculpatory evidence. Maybe someone can explain it to me. I think Kurtz was ok not to know what tool they used if he could see their print outs of the examinations.

it was explained that the FBI doesn't need criminals and pedophiles knowing how the FBI gets it info..knowing this would give criminals the upper hand
argument is on wral.com

CyberPro
04-14-2011, 11:04 AM
So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.

The picture has been painted. In fairness, one must keep an open mind (and certainly the jury should and must) until the defense evidence is submitted and considered. But those who hoped the judge would direct the verdict against the state before the defense even had to present their case have had their hopes dashed.

As to the unpleasant testimony about Nancy – it is necessary as part of the picture. A man is on trial and if his misdeeds in a relationship are relevant, it is only fair the defense can show the whole picture. Maybe the halo some tried to place on Nancy, well meaning as that was, has been tarnished. Yet she was a person, and people aren’t perfect. She deserved the right to live her life, make her mistakes, have her successes and failures, have and return the love of family and friends. There has not been one thing said of her, true or untrue, that diminishes one iota the evil that was worked on her and the injustice suffered by a family, friends, and a community. To the contrary, the picture of mutual strife just increases the odds that Brad saw the relationship as one that needed to end on his terms.

Brad Cooper was in a tough spot in life. He considered his options and decided on the one that he figured would be best for him. The incremental benefit to him was worth any cost to others. He executed his plan on a weekend – too much trouble and too many tasks for a work night. He did an admirable job covering his tracks, and got lucky in that no one saw him on holly springs and well meaning people thought they saw Nancy out running that morning. But he didn’t cover all his tracks. Some he left behind were surprising in that they relate to computers, his area of interest. Some were made conspicuous by his great effort to hide them – the floor cleaning binge in an otherwise disheveled house and trunk cleaning an otherwise messy car and the many loads of laundry done on this special day of cleaning. His story of the night and morning of murder rang hollow, as he told of a morning of his perfect adherence to the duty of husband and father with none of the conflict which otherwise marked their routine interactions.

Brad, if you have the chance to come back to Websleuths, a place you visited so shortly after Nancy was murdered, consider this. You are a weak failure. You liked triathlons because they represent the conquering of a challenge through hard work and endurance. They are hard, they prove your mettle – you need to have strong will to do well. But those are only games. In the real contest of will and strength – life – you failed in the worst way possible. Rather than overcome the adversity of a bad relationship or a rough legal settlement, you gave up. You cheated. You stole. You robbed your own children of their mother and their father all to avoid the consequences of life. You robbed a human being of her life. All the contests you ever entered were there just to convince you you were not the weak minded failure you ultimately proved to be. You’re just a chump who gave up when the going got tough, a loser who would stoop to any measure, even murder, rather than face your obligations.

It’s sad that it was not a mystery van of killers, because the children have lost both their parents now. But it is good they have a loving family who embrace them without reservation and without regard to burden or cost. And it is good that it is far, far away from this place where selfish self-regard cast a shadow of evil on a dark night on their mother who loved them so much.

Brad, the strong are Nancy’s family who now carry with love the remainder of the family you ultimately destroyed. Even in death Nancy has the means to protect and provide for her children - you just couldn't understand and thankfully couldn't destroy the bridge of love between her family and her and the children. Thank God that family, each of them, has the perseverance and willpower and love that you lacked completely.



:takeabow: :gthanks: :clap: :yourock: :tyou: :goodpost:

Gritguy,

You do not post all that often, but you have spoken VOLUMES here!

I would surely nominate this for not only post of the day, but post of the CASE!!

I seriously think the judge should use this as part of the sentencing. Completely astounding! Succinct... extremely well done!!

ohiogirl
04-14-2011, 11:05 AM
So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.

The picture has been painted. In fairness, one must keep an open mind (and certainly the jury should and must) until the defense evidence is submitted and considered. But those who hoped the judge would direct the verdict against the state before the defense even had to present their case have had their hopes dashed.

As to the unpleasant testimony about Nancy – it is necessary as part of the picture. A man is on trial and if his misdeeds in a relationship are relevant, it is only fair the defense can show the whole picture. Maybe the halo some tried to place on Nancy, well meaning as that was, has been tarnished. Yet she was a person, and people aren’t perfect. She deserved the right to live her life, make her mistakes, have her successes and failures, have and return the love of family and friends. There has not been one thing said of her, true or untrue, that diminishes one iota the evil that was worked on her and the injustice suffered by a family, friends, and a community. To the contrary, the picture of mutual strife just increases the odds that Brad saw the relationship as one that needed to end on his terms.

Brad Cooper was in a tough spot in life. He considered his options and decided on the one that he figured would be best for him. The incremental benefit to him was worth any cost to others. He executed his plan on a weekend – too much trouble and too many tasks for a work night. He did an admirable job covering his tracks, and got lucky in that no one saw him on holly springs and well meaning people thought they saw Nancy out running that morning. But he didn’t cover all his tracks. Some he left behind were surprising in that they relate to computers, his area of interest. Some were made conspicuous by his great effort to hide them – the floor cleaning binge in an otherwise disheveled house and trunk cleaning an otherwise messy car and the many loads of laundry done on this special day of cleaning. His story of the night and morning of murder rang hollow, as he told of a morning of his perfect adherence to the duty of husband and father with none of the conflict which otherwise marked their routine interactions.

Brad, if you have the chance to come back to Websleuths, a place you visited so shortly after Nancy was murdered, consider this. You are a weak failure. You liked triathlons because they represent the conquering of a challenge through hard work and endurance. They are hard, they prove your mettle – you need to have strong will to do well. But those are only games. In the real contest of will and strength – life – you failed in the worst way possible. Rather than overcome the adversity of a bad relationship or a rough legal settlement, you gave up. You cheated. You stole. You robbed your own children of their mother and their father all to avoid the consequences of life. You robbed a human being of her life. All the contests you ever entered were there just to convince you you were not the weak minded failure you ultimately proved to be. You’re just a chump who gave up when the going got tough, a loser who would stoop to any measure, even murder, rather than face your obligations.

It’s sad that it was not a mystery van of killers, because the children have lost both their parents now. But it is good they have a loving family who embrace them without reservation and without regard to burden or cost. And it is good that it is far, far away from this place where selfish self-regard cast a shadow of evil on a dark night on their mother who loved them so much.

Brad, the strong are Nancy’s family who now carry with love the remainder of the family you ultimately destroyed. Even in death Nancy has the means to protect and provide for her children - you just couldn't understand and thankfully couldn't destroy the bridge of love between her family and her and the children. Thank God that family, each of them, has the perseverance and willpower and love that you lacked completely.

Just quoting so anyone who missed this can see it again.

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 11:05 AM
It appears that there was a group of people who post on WRAL at golo, that believe BC innocent, and they went to court yesterday.

First the judge admonished the spectators about staring at the jury. It made the jurists feel uncomfortable.

Then I THINK he complained about some of what was being said on golo about participants in the case, ie LE and him, I think...............

Then he got upset about someone reporting directly from the courtroom about the revelation about BC accessing the Google search of the site where NC was ultimately found.

So at the end of the day, he announced, no tweets, no cell phones, no electronic device use from the courtroom, including media.

hth
fran

FullDisclosure was there yesterday and she posted there was no new group there or a group from GOLO, that is was something else.

cityslick
04-14-2011, 11:08 AM
Finally an update:

break witness not check with google to confirm, no cookie on cooper pc for the google maps. Still witness elusive with kurtz

gritguy
04-14-2011, 11:08 AM
Regarding the defense motion to suppress - that's nonsense.

Regarding the defense request for the MFT from the prosecution, I thought it was confusing whether that table was a result of a protected procedure that would not reveal the procedure or whether it was part of a protected procedure. Either way, I do not see it being a key either way, as the defense does have the imaged drive.

The old saying is that if the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table. Some of this stuff is now defense table-pounding, IMO.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 11:09 AM
I don't agree with the decision to deny the defense the data. An excellent example from another site: We all have access to the internet. It's the same for everybody. I do a google search, you do a yahoo search, she does a bing search and he does a dogpile search. We all have accessed the same disk, but each one has different search results. So if you testify to your google results, and deny me access to what your search disclosed (no need to show me HOW google got the results, just show me the results), how can I ask you questions to determine the validity of what you found?

As a strong anarchist, I am disturbed that the courts will allow an "expert" to testify to something without any foundation of how he achieved those results. Darned shame we with some technical background were not able to hear how the evidence was presented. And a further shame that we cannot hear the cross.

Which is what I understood was done. Kurtz wanted to know *how*, which is what the court previously had ruled against. Results fine, methods of finding the results, no no

hotpinkstef
04-14-2011, 11:09 AM
Twitter
break witness not check with google to confirm, no cookie on cooper pc for the google maps. Still witness elusive with kurtz

Cheyenne130
04-14-2011, 11:10 AM
Finally an update:

break witness not check with google to confirm, no cookie on cooper pc for the google maps. Still witness elusive with kurtz

To me "no cookie" indicates he did delete with the IE function to clear cookies. I would imagine that will be addressed in redirect. My guess on the elusiveness is that Kurtz is doing what he has been doing all along; ask questions that are somewhat misleading in terms of the actual evidence at hand. MOO

cody100
04-14-2011, 11:11 AM
it was explained that the FBI doesn't need criminals and pedophiles knowing how the FBI gets it info..knowing this would give criminals the upper hand
argument is on wral.com

I read and heard all of that. The key or tool is the method used to extract the data. That is the part that is restricted from revealing. The actual print out or information gleamed from it should not be restricted. His comparison to the judge and Zell is like DNA evidence. Kurtz did not eed to know what system the DNA analysis was performed on, but he wanted the DNA patterns or evidence gleamed from this analysis. Big difference. Now, I am not a computer expert so Kurtz could be blowing smoke. But, as he explained it, I understood it. I am looking for an answer from someone who is either in the field of computers or has a lot of legal knowledge on admission of computer evidence. It is just a legal/computer question.

momof7
04-14-2011, 11:13 AM
To me "no cookie" indicates he did delete with the IE function to clear cookies. I would imagine that will be addressed in redirect. My guess on the elusiveness is that Kurtz is doing what he has been doing all along; ask questions that are somewhat misleading in terms of the actual evidence at hand. MOO

That was what I was thinnking, this shows BC did attempt to clear out cookies. I am hoping Pros can show other sites that no cookies appear on the PC.

Kelly

TallCoolOne
04-14-2011, 11:13 AM
So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.

The picture has been painted. In fairness, one must keep an open mind (and certainly the jury should and must) until the defense evidence is submitted and considered. But those who hoped the judge would direct the verdict against the state before the defense even had to present their case have had their hopes dashed.

As to the unpleasant testimony about Nancy – it is necessary as part of the picture. A man is on trial and if his misdeeds in a relationship are relevant, it is only fair the defense can show the whole picture. Maybe the halo some tried to place on Nancy, well meaning as that was, has been tarnished. Yet she was a person, and people aren’t perfect. She deserved the right to live her life, make her mistakes, have her successes and failures, have and return the love of family and friends. There has not been one thing said of her, true or untrue, that diminishes one iota the evil that was worked on her and the injustice suffered by a family, friends, and a community. To the contrary, the picture of mutual strife just increases the odds that Brad saw the relationship as one that needed to end on his terms.

Brad Cooper was in a tough spot in life. He considered his options and decided on the one that he figured would be best for him. The incremental benefit to him was worth any cost to others. He executed his plan on a weekend – too much trouble and too many tasks for a work night. He did an admirable job covering his tracks, and got lucky in that no one saw him on holly springs and well meaning people thought they saw Nancy out running that morning. But he didn’t cover all his tracks. Some he left behind were surprising in that they relate to computers, his area of interest. Some were made conspicuous by his great effort to hide them – the floor cleaning binge in an otherwise disheveled house and trunk cleaning an otherwise messy car and the many loads of laundry done on this special day of cleaning. His story of the night and morning of murder rang hollow, as he told of a morning of his perfect adherence to the duty of husband and father with none of the conflict which otherwise marked their routine interactions.

Brad, if you have the chance to come back to Websleuths, a place you visited so shortly after Nancy was murdered, consider this. You are a weak failure. You liked triathlons because they represent the conquering of a challenge through hard work and endurance. They are hard, they prove your mettle – you need to have strong will to do well. But those are only games. In the real contest of will and strength – life – you failed in the worst way possible. Rather than overcome the adversity of a bad relationship or a rough legal settlement, you gave up. You cheated. You stole. You robbed your own children of their mother and their father all to avoid the consequences of life. You robbed a human being of her life. All the contests you ever entered were there just to convince you you were not the weak minded failure you ultimately proved to be. You’re just a chump who gave up when the going got tough, a loser who would stoop to any measure, even murder, rather than face your obligations.

It’s sad that it was not a mystery van of killers, because the children have lost both their parents now. But it is good they have a loving family who embrace them without reservation and without regard to burden or cost. And it is good that it is far, far away from this place where selfish self-regard cast a shadow of evil on a dark night on their mother who loved them so much.

Brad, the strong are Nancy’s family who now carry with love the remainder of the family you ultimately destroyed. Even in death Nancy has the means to protect and provide for her children - you just couldn't understand and thankfully couldn't destroy the bridge of love between her family and her and the children. Thank God that family, each of them, has the perseverance and willpower and love that you lacked completely.
:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

hotpinkstef
04-14-2011, 11:13 AM
another twitter update
the witness on google is being difficult with kurtz
1 hour ago

snowshuze
04-14-2011, 11:14 AM
To me "no cookie" indicates he did delete with the IE function to clear cookies. I would imagine that will be addressed in redirect. My guess on the elusiveness is that Kurtz is doing what he has been doing all along; ask questions that are somewhat misleading in terms of the actual evidence at hand. MOO
IMO, Kurtz delivers misleading narratives and waits for a response. :)

RobT
04-14-2011, 11:15 AM
I read and heard all of that. The key or tool is the method used to extract the data. That is the part that is restricted from revealing. The actual print out or information gleamed from it should not be restricted. His comparison to the judge and Zell is like DNA evidence. Kurtz did not eed to know what system the DNA analysis was performed on, but he wanted the DNA patterns or evidence gleamed from this analysis. Big difference. Now, I am not a computer expert so Kurtz could be blowing smoke. But, as he explained it, I understood it. I am looking for an answer from someone who is either in the field of computers or has a lot of legal knowledge on admission of computer evidence. It is just a legal/computer question.

If the actual printout, then entered in to public record, allows someone to reverse engineer how this information is obtained then yes... it most certainly should be protected. MFT and the filesystem that uses it NTFS are very protected trade secrets by Microsoft and any third-party software that is able to access that filesystem is either blessed by Microsoft and a ton of non-disclosure agreements or reverse engineered. Simple as that.

gritguy
04-14-2011, 11:15 AM
I read and heard all of that. The key or tool is the method used to extract the data. That is the part that is restricted from revealing. The actual print out or information gleamed from it should not be restricted. His comparison to the judge and Zell is like DNA evidence. Kurtz did not eed to know what system the DNA analysis was performed on, but he wanted the DNA patterns or evidence gleamed from this analysis. Big difference. Now, I am not a computer expert so Kurtz could be blowing smoke. But, as he explained it, I understood it. I am looking for an answer from someone who is either in the field of computers or has a lot of legal knowledge on admission of computer evidence. It is just a legal/computer question.

It seems reasonable to me the judge could have seen it as you lay out. Probably from what I heard I would have. But, on the other hand, I don't see it as very prejudicial that he was denied. As I understood it, and I could be wrong, it was something he wanted mostly to go off on this tangent that the computer was tampered with.

If the PD wanted to frame BC (I realize that's not what you're saying I'm on a tangent now), IMO, they easily could have done it by moving actual dirt and straw from the crime scene to the house and saying look what we found. I can't see altering computer files as their master plan, especially when to be fair they have not demonstrated themselves to be masters of technology.

gritguy
04-14-2011, 11:16 AM
If the actual printout, then entered in to public record, allows someone to reverse engineer how this information is obtained then yes... it most certainly should be protected. MFT and the filesystem that uses it NTFS are very protected trade secrets by Microsoft and any third-party software that is able to access that filesystem is either blessed by Microsoft and a ton of non-disclosure agreements or reverse engineered. Simple as that.

Excellent counterpoint.

dramamama
04-14-2011, 11:17 AM
I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

So, I will boil it down for the non-technical folks among us....

"Your honor, no fair, the state has better experts than we do..."

Kurtz argues that, in essence, there is one version of the Master File Table (MFT) for the prosecution, and one for the defense. This is not true on the face of it. If the defense was given a disk image of the computer, they have the same MFT. They might lack the exact tools used by the FBI to extract and interpret that information, but they do have it.

Different tools might give different outputs, I know, shocker right? A hammer gives different results than a screwdriver, but that is to be expected. In essence, Kurtz is asking the prosecution to help with the defense case by spelling out the extracted data, in the same format, and explaining what it means, so he can take potshots at it.

Thank you for this explanation. It really helps! So can I ask, how different would his version really be? Would it be similiar enough? Would it contain the same information but not enough detail? Just wondering.

Also, I don't know enough to even think this could be valid, but did he save the zoomed in images so he could use the computer later to view them updated and see the site without having to go there? There were aerial searches, weren't there? Would this be easier to cover and destroy than multiple knew searches on the map?

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 11:18 AM
Which is what I understood was done. Kurtz wanted to know *how*, which is what the court previously had ruled against. Results fine, methods of finding the results, no no

What he said was fine if you are not going to give me the output then you have to tell me how you got the output, one or the other. For the prosecution to simply say we have output and you can't have it and take advantage of the judge not understanding the technical argument by answering the judge's direct question evasively is a problem.

less0305
04-14-2011, 11:19 AM
Gritguy, BRAVO!!!!!!

RaleighNC
04-14-2011, 11:21 AM
Gritguy - your summary of this case and your insight is awesome - thank you.

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 11:22 AM
If the actual printout, then entered in to public record, allows someone to reverse engineer how this information is obtained then yes... it most certainly should be protected. MFT and the filesystem that uses it NTFS are very protected trade secrets by Microsoft and any third-party software that is able to access that filesystem is either blessed by Microsoft and a ton of non-disclosure agreements or reverse engineered. Simple as that.

Reading the output of an MFT extraction is not going to lead to reverse engineering of NTFS.

angela s
04-14-2011, 11:22 AM
:tyou::tyou::tyou::yourock::tyou:
:takeabow: :gthanks: :clap: :yourock: :tyou: :goodpost:

Gritguy,

You do not post all that often, but you have spoken VOLUMES here!

I would surely nominate this for not only post of the day, but post of the CASE!!

I seriously think the judge should use this as part of the sentencing. Completely astounding! Succinct... extremely well done!!

:tyou: I rarely post either, but had to agree with this. Excellent post Gritguy.

LaLaw2000
04-14-2011, 11:22 AM
I read a twitter comment last night that made mention of 'all the creepy people in the courtroom that were too attached to this trial'. The jurors are the most important people in that courtroom and I can surely understand why the judge wants them protected....and happy.
But it's still somewhat a mystery this morning.

Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

Cheyenne130
04-14-2011, 11:23 AM
Thank you for this explanation. It really helps! So can I ask, how different would his version really be? Would it be similiar enough? Would it contain the same information but not enough detail? Just wondering.

Also, I don't know enough to even think this could be valid, but did he save the zoomed in images so he could use the computer later to view them updated and see the site without having to go there? There were aerial searches, weren't there? Would this be easier to cover and destroy than multiple knew searches on the map?

The issue as I see it is that Kurtz wants to try to demonstrate that the information is incorrect. His experts can not recreate a scenario in which the information is incorrect because they don't have the means. They can only rely on the information as presented by the agent. MOO

yeknomaras
04-14-2011, 11:25 AM
good morning trial-watching friends!

quick question - are Nancy's kiddos with her sister now? I sure hope so. just finished watching her testimony. what a strong and lovely sister she is. :)

cody100
04-14-2011, 11:26 AM
Reading the output of an MFT extraction is not going to lead to reverse engineering of NTFS.


I wouldn't see how it would either, Sleuth. Now I am a technical guy but not so much in the computer world so I rely on computer techies to answer that question. Again, I am not saying the information gleamed is wrong, just very curious from a legal standpoint. It did generate some lively discussion though.

momof7
04-14-2011, 11:26 AM
Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

Yes, I am with you on this. Again, the appeals portion of this case will be interesting to say the least. Something is happening that we will see when it is all said and done.

Kelly

RobT
04-14-2011, 11:26 AM
Reading the output of an MFT extraction is not going to lead to reverse engineering of NTFS.

Considering that MFT and its construction contain algorithms to minimise disk fragmentation which are not at all understood by the open source community that has reverse engineered drivers for NTFS/MFT I don't know if I could make that statement for certain.

ohiogirl
04-14-2011, 11:27 AM
Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

Could it be that he is possibly seeing this computer data/info issue going all the way to the Supreme Court? Wants to have his own record of just what exactly went down?

snowshuze
04-14-2011, 11:27 AM
I would liken this info to the gov't chasing plutonium. In a terrorist trial, the gov't can say, due to our intelligence we know that plutonium was purchased from point A and ended up at point B, our suspect. We can't disclose our sources, as it would endanger our program. The end result is that our suspect was caught with plutonium in their posession.

MOO and stuff.

johnfear
04-14-2011, 11:27 AM
Excellent counterpoint.

In this situation, it should be disallowed by both sides, and the folks at Google should be compelled to provide data that they glean FROM the MFT creation from their servers, coupled with the Cisco computers to verify.

ncsu95
04-14-2011, 11:29 AM
in a perfect world there would be message boards for guilty and not guilty posters..Call it wrong but I go into every trial believing the defendant is guilty..most trials either have a grand jury or preliminary hearing...

For that reason (and this is not a personal attack), I would hope you were never on a jury. That puts the burden on the defense to prove their client innocent instead of the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 11:30 AM
Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

Kurtz reminds me a bit of David Rudolph was it, working so hard to try and keep the dying womans last words out of the trial. 'my baby daddy, Rae Carruth, did this to me'. :maddening:

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:30 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Just got notes from #CooperTrial. Detective Chris Chappell is back on the stand, being cross-examined by defense attorney Howard Kurtz.

RobT
04-14-2011, 11:30 AM
Reading the output of an MFT extraction is not going to lead to reverse engineering of NTFS.

Just to be clear, I don't wholly disagree with your point but I've also no idea if the report that any MS-blessed tools generate might also be considered under non-disclosure as well. *shrug*

cityslick
04-14-2011, 11:30 AM
Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

Interesting observation. All I know is despite the smoking gun yesterday, I don't think we've seen the last 'wow' moment of this trial yet.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:31 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Defense asks Det. Chappell to replicate search Brad Cooper supposedly did that showed Fielding Drive images online. #coopertrial

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 11:31 AM
Considering that MFT and its construction contain algorithms to minimise disk fragmentation which are not at all understood by the open source community that has reverse engineered drivers for NTFS/MFT I don't know if I could make that statement for certain.

Considering it has already been ported to Linux with full support in the open source community since 1.2 and other companies have NTFS versions for Mac users I really don't see reverse engineering as any sort of issue.

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 11:32 AM
I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

So, I will boil it down for the non-technical folks among us....

"Your honor, no fair, the state has better experts than we do..."

Kurtz argues that, in essence, there is one version of the Master File Table (MFT) for the prosecution, and one for the defense. This is not true on the face of it. If the defense was given a disk image of the computer, they have the same MFT. They might lack the exact tools used by the FBI to extract and interpret that information, but they do have it.

Different tools might give different outputs, I know, shocker right? A hammer gives different results than a screwdriver, but that is to be expected. In essence, Kurtz is asking the prosecution to help with the defense case by spelling out the extracted data, in the same format, and explaining what it means, so he can take potshots at it.

That is how our legal system is set up, it is a check and balance.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:32 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell says he'd be happy to replicate it, but you can't compare the search Brad did in 2008 with a search now. #coopertrial

RobT
04-14-2011, 11:33 AM
Considering it has already been ported to Linux with full support in the open source community since 1.2 and other companies have NTFS versions for Mac users I really don't see reverse engineering as any sort of issue.

Mac uses the same open source NTFS driver as Linux... neither of which deal with fragmentation in the same exact way MS does. But you're exactly right, all the cluster pointers *should* behave the same way.

bloghooligan
04-14-2011, 11:33 AM
in a perfect world there would be message boards for guilty and not guilty posters..Call it wrong but I go into every trial believing the defendant is guilty..most trials either have a grand jury or preliminary hearing...

Couple of comments on North Carolina grand jury procedures. NC is one of only two remaining states that don't record (in any form) grand jury procedures. The prosecution gets to choose who testifies and the defendant has no rights. There is no doubt in my mind that PD lied to the grand jury in the Duke Lacrosse case. But, it's secret and not recorded so there is little (but not none) proof. One of the police officers slipped up and testified at Nifong's Bar hearing what he told the GJ and there is proof that what he said is a lie. ANYWAY... there are very good reasons that they say in North Carolina that a Grand Jury could convict a ham sandwich of murdering a pig... (or something like that). I give no weight to the fact that someone is indicted by a grand jury...

momof7
04-14-2011, 11:33 AM
Could it be that he is possibly seeing this computer data/info issue going all the way to the Supreme Court? Wants to have his own record of just what exactly went down?


I agree. Possibly the def is working on the belief that without this evidence there would be doubt, enough to cause a not guilty verdict. Without both sides having the 'tool' to do their own type of research the computer evidence is not valid in the case.

I would agree with the Defense on that in the end. This is, so far, for me, the most concrete evidence.

Kelly

NCEast
04-14-2011, 11:34 AM
Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

Thanks for sharing the comments about the two young women. I remember them.
Until yesterday, I didn't have a bad feel. After yesterday's tally of strange events, I do have a feel that something is going on that we have not been made aware of. Kurtz is normally a drug defense attorney, when I found out about that I immediately disliked him and felt he would stoop to the very lowest point to accomplish whatever need he has. If he is doing anything behind the scenes, or anything underhanded to effect the outcome of this trial--or even tiny, daily bits of it, I would not be surprised. I am still wondering how it was that Brad sought out Kurtz initially since his area of expertise is drug related and not homicide. Maybe the sleaze factor plays into it.

dramamama
04-14-2011, 11:34 AM
Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

I absolutely do. When the trial first started, I didn't know about this website, and was reading the GOLO comments, and was horrified. There didn't seem to be any discussion, but a constant stream of comments geared towards smearing NC. I know that there are always going to be people on both sides, but to attack the victim's character in the most disgusting of ways was shocking to me. I actually wrote an am email of comlaint to wral's news director, and in it, suggested that I wouldn't be surprised if the defense was somehow behind these comments as part of their tactic. I asked that they monitor more closely for defaming statements, because they are likely getting the most viewers due to the livestream. I received a reply the next day that basically said they monitor statements as they come, and if i had complaints, i needed to do it comment by comment on GOLO. When I went to GOLO shortly after, someone posted a snide comment about this site, and said to find it, google w/s cooper. So I did and the rest is history.

I must say, I am so happy I was able to be find this site, and so thankful for the posts that are helping to explain and clear up so much complicated evidence!

johnfear
04-14-2011, 11:36 AM
Couple of comments on North Carolina grand jury procedures. NC is one of only two remaining states that don't record (in any form) grand jury procedures. The prosecution gets to choose who testifies and the defendant has no rights. There is no doubt in my mind that PD lied to the grand jury in the Duke Lacrosse case. But, it's secret and not recorded so there is little (but not none) proof. One of the police officers slipped up and testified at Nifong's Bar hearing what he told the GJ and there is proof that what he said is a lie. ANYWAY... there are very good reasons that they say in North Carolina that a Grand Jury could convict a ham sandwich of murdering a pig... (or something like that). I give no weight to the fact that someone is indicted by a grand jury...

And Wake County is one of the only counties that uses it to bypass a probable cause/preliminary hearing.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:36 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: “I don’t want you 2 draw some incorrect conclusion if test done now doesn’t have same results as it did 3 years ago.” #coopertrial
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
»
WRAL NEWS in NC
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell: The zip code Brad searched now incorporates more land & population. Center of the zip code is not the same now. #coopertrial

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:36 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell: "There were magnifications of two (areas), including the area where Nancy Cooper's body was found." #coopertrial

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:37 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Defense: "Is it your theory that on July 11 Brad was searching for a place to put his wife's body?" #coopertrial

bloghooligan
04-14-2011, 11:37 AM
I listened to the clip this morning. We both need to re-listen. Kurtz did NOT argue that there are different versions of the MFT. He argued that the report generated by varying methods of inquiry will vary, as my analogy disclosed, and asked for the REPORT. He did not ask how google crawled the web, he merely asked for the results of the search.

Let's you and I agree, while there is nothing forthcoming, to re-listen to the arguments and come to an agreement. I'm off to hear it again.

I agree in fact I think he specifically said he has the MFT what he doesn't have is the "report" on the data (or extract or whatever you want to call it) that the FBI analyzed and testified to.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 11:38 AM
The issue as I see it is that Kurtz wants to try to demonstrate that the information is incorrect. His experts can not recreate a scenario in which the information is incorrect because they don't have the means. They can only rely on the information as presented by the agent. MOO

I could be wrong, but somewhere in that jumble of whining I listened to last night, I thought I heard Kurtz, at one point, make some sort of statement about certain of his computer expert/s, come up with the same result and tell him so? It was just a minor thingie, sort of almost under his breath, but I really thought I heard some sort of concession sneak out of his lips?

cody100
04-14-2011, 11:38 AM
Just to be clear, I don't wholly disagree with your point but I've also no idea if the report that any MS-blessed tools generate might also be considered under non-disclosure as well. *shrug*

Thanks both of you for your input. Great input. I realize the judge did not know what Kurtz was talking about, and he was honest about it. I was expecting him to bring FBI guy in and ask him some questions before ruling on it until going on with the trial became a priority, for good reason.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:38 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell: That's consistent with what I found on his computer. The fact remains, it was at a high level of magnification. #coopertrial

LaLaw2000
04-14-2011, 11:38 AM
Yes, and those people slam their community and the police. I'm like - why do you live there??!!!!

These same people need to remember that the next time they call LE for an emergency of their own, IMO. They may slam LE all they want, but if they call them for any reason, LE will respond. It really chaps me when people down LE. We are sitting here looking at all of this in hindsight. Could any of those who are so critical have done it perfectly? Detective Young made a mistake. It wasn't for malicious reasons. He wasn't trying to make a mistake.

The most dangerous call LE goes on is a domestic violence call. You know what you are dealing with in a robbery, for instance, but never in a domestic violence call. I am just using this as an example. The general public simply does not realize what some LE deals with on a daily basis.

less0305, this tirade wasn't directed at you or anyone else really. I just needed to get this off my chest.

MOO

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:40 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Defense asks Chappell about cookies on computers & how they're created when someone visits a website. #coopertrial

bloghooligan
04-14-2011, 11:40 AM
And Wake County is one of the only counties that uses it to bypass a probably cause/preliminary hearing.

Unfortunately that happens across the state. Due to the fact that there is no record of what goes on behind those closed doors the process is ripe for the prosecutors to abuse. How hard would it be to put a recorder in the room and why shouldn't a defendant have a record of the hearing? Almost all other states and the federal government agree....

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:41 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell: I found 92 hits on Google on Brad's computer. No cookie for Fielding Drive view on Google though. #coopertrial

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 11:41 AM
I understood it more like -- the prosecution witness used specific software to produce a very detailed 'report' of the data (non techy terms used). The defense has the data but it makes it difficult to question the witness about the data without having the same very detailed "report" that he is testifying from. I think I understand what he is saying. How did the judge ultimately rule -- was the Pros going to turn over the very detailed "report"?

The Judge said no to the Defense. Think of it this way. Remember the old man FBI guy that talked about the cell phones? Pros objected that Defense wanted to ask about an email that explained some software. Pros said that the witness didn't have that email so Defense should not be able to question him (this was before we foundout witness did have it, but that doesn't hurt my initial example). Anyhow, the Pros said because the witness hadn't seen that exact email and had discussion on it then he would not be able to comment on it. Now the Pros is saying, you can run your own, yes, it will be different data output, but you can question the witness on that. The Pros wants both sides of the fence, and then muddies it up more by bringing in National Security as to why the Defense could not look at what the Pros is saying is evidence against him.

Do you see the disconnect? How can Defense question the witness on something that has a different data output if they run their own when he needs to ask witness about the data that the witness found when he ran his report? It makes no sense.

Defense did not want the process or procedure, he jsut wanted the final output so he could see what was being used as evidence so he could question it.

ncsu95
04-14-2011, 11:42 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: “I don’t want you 2 draw some incorrect conclusion if test done now doesn’t have same results as it did 3 years ago.” #coopertrial
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
»
WRAL NEWS in NC
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell: The zip code Brad searched now incorporates more land & population. Center of the zip code is not the same now. #coopertrial

The only problem with this is that Fielding was never in the zip code. It's always been a Raleigh address with zip 27606. It was 27606 3 years ago.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:43 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: If file's deleted/overwritten, can't be recovered. Defense: You think Brad deleted cookie? Chappell: Possibly. #coopertrial

less0305
04-14-2011, 11:43 AM
OOOOHHHH, we got some tweets!!

NCEast
04-14-2011, 11:44 AM
I could be wrong, but somewhere in that jumble of whining I listened to last night, I thought I heard Kurtz, at one point, make some sort of statement about certain of his computer expert/s, come up with the same result and tell him so? It was just a minor thingie, sort of almost under his breath, but I really thought I heard some sort of concession sneak out of his lips?

I know what you are referring to....I caught it as well. But then he went off onto something else and let it drop. I think it may have been a slip. My take is that Zell and the judge are satisfied that the Kurtz team has the output or data and Kurtz was wanting the tool/method--his excuse was so that he could cross examine the witness using the same method, etc. I guess none of it matters today since Judge Gessner ruled against the defense but I am certain we will hear about it again during the appeals process.

snowshuze
04-14-2011, 11:44 AM
These same people need to remember that the next time they call LE for an emergency of their own, IMO. They may slam LE all they want, but if they call them for any reason, LE will respond. It really chaps me when people down LE. We are sitting here looking at all of this in hindsight. Could any of those who are so critical have done it perfectly? Detective Young made a mistake. It wasn't for malicious reasons. He wasn't trying to make a mistake.

The most dangerous call LE goes on is a domestic violence call. You know what you are dealing with in a robbery, for instance, but never in a domestic violence call. I am just using this as an example. The general public simply does not realize what some LE deals with on a daily basis.

less0305, this tirade wasn't directed at you or anyone else really. I just needed to get this off my chest.

MOO
Another search warrant was secured for a deeper investigation into that device. In the grand scheme of things, not that big of a deal, IMO.

ETA: LE investigations are an ever evolving updating upgrading process, learn from mistakes, move on.

ncsu95
04-14-2011, 11:44 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell: I found 92 hits on Google on Brad's computer. No cookie for Fielding Drive view on Google though. #coopertrial

Now that is interesting. So he didn't just clear the cookies on IE.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:44 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: Brad searched museum sites July 12 am. Defense: Is that consistent w/ someone who killed their wife the night before? #coopertrial

gritguy
04-14-2011, 11:44 AM
The grand jury process is a farce, and it could result in innocent people sitting in jail pre-trial. But, a convinction requires twelve citizens to agree based on evidence which can rebutted in an open forum by representatives of the defendant with the defendant present. As well, in a trial the defendant is often allowed to allude to various conspiracies or missing witnesses, evidence, etc., even when there really is no evidence of such.

Trials are not perfect, and rules of evidence are confusing, but it is a reasonably balanced process.

cody100
04-14-2011, 11:45 AM
I agree in fact I think he specifically said he has the MFT what he doesn't have is the "report" on the data (or extract or whatever you want to call it) that the FBI analyzed and testified to.

You are both correct. He didn't ask for the protected name of the tool, but asked for the byproduct or report. As I said, if this were DNA evidence, he would be asking for the final results/report not what mechanism they used to arrive at the data. It made sense to me. Now, do I think it will change anything? Probably not. However, it could present a problem on appeal if anyone understands the difference.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:45 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: It might be something you do if trying to establish an alibi. In my career, I've seen people do the strangest things. #coopertrial

NCEast
04-14-2011, 11:45 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: If file's deleted/overwritten, can't be recovered. Defense: You think Brad deleted cookie? Chappell: Possibly. #coopertrial

What, exactly, does this mean?

Coolmomof4
04-14-2011, 11:46 AM
Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

Yes! I don't post often, but I have thought when watching this trial that he is working behind the scenes and/or has people doing his bidding. There's just too much weirdness going on in the courtroom, online, etc.

CyberPro
04-14-2011, 11:47 AM
Thank you for this explanation. It really helps! So can I ask, how different would his version really be? Would it be similiar enough? Would it contain the same information but not enough detail? Just wondering.

Also, I don't know enough to even think this could be valid, but did he save the zoomed in images so he could use the computer later to view them updated and see the site without having to go there? There were aerial searches, weren't there? Would this be easier to cover and destroy than multiple knew searches on the map?

I think a lot of this is either a misunderstanding by Kurtz, or poor choices of wording in his arguements. Since he works with words and as part of his training should have pretty much mastered the art of working with words and phrasing, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say it is a misunderstanding of the technology.

This applies to my earlier discussion to you as well JimInWilton. Kurtz has referenced something that sounds a lot like he is saying that the "version" of the MFT that he has analyzed is different from the prosecution's MFT. If they have a disk image, they have the MFT. He has said something like..."the version of the MFT"... "The tool for one version of the MFT might produce different results from the version of the MFT that we have..." - not direct quotes, but pretty close.

The whole word "version" there is problematic. In computer terms, version or versioning refers to a change of some kind. As an example, you could consider Windows 2000 and Windows 2003, they are both Windows, but different versions. For Kurtz to apply this terminology to the MFT argument is stating that the MFTs are different in some significant way, and therefore there are different results. Someone in a previous post said something that was talking about the tools the defense used might not be able to understand the newer version of the MFT, and that is possible. This again, would indicate the defense needed a newer version of the tool, but the source of the data was the same.

So, I think it is more of a point of the way the words are being used and the semantics of the statements that, to me at least, Kurtz is not communicating his point very well. I tend to take words pretty much at litteral value, and inserting "version" in the sentences skews the meaning to me.

I would like to point out that some other posters have made some very good arguments for why this data should be protected.

If you have ever studied the "clean room" techniques that were used by Phoenix to create the first compatible BIOS chip that allowed IBM Clone computers to be made, you would see a comparison.

JiminWilton
04-14-2011, 11:47 AM
Having re-watched the argument over discovery, it is obvious to me that the pros. is in possession of a REPORT that was generated by some method that would risk national security were it be disclosed (which I find foolish in this particular instance), and refuses to provide the defense with the REPORT. At the same time, the pros. tenders and expert witness, elicits testimony about the REPORT, and attempts to hinder the cross exam by denying the REPORT to the defense. Pros. alleges that having the computer disk (the internet, in my earlier comment) is the same as having access to the REPORT the super secret spy software generated. Remember, the REPORT is unique to this ThinkPad. Never did Kurtz ask for the methodology by which the MFT was extracted, REPORT.

This is not about whether BDI or Kurtz has a whiny voice, it's about basic fairness in a trial where a man is on trial for murder. And I continue to hold my belief that equity demands that the defense be provided with the REPORT, not the methodology.

I have no cat (or kitten) in this fight, but I am amazed at what I perceive to be serious prejudice by Gessner for the prosecution. Years on the police force might do that.

ncsu95
04-14-2011, 11:48 AM
Another search warrant was secured for a deeper investigation into that device. In the grand scheme of things, not that big of a deal, IMO.

Regarless of the outcome of this case...or looking at it outside of this case..it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. The defense attorney sent a letter to the CPD specifically asking that the phone being handled with the utmost care because it was potentially crucial evidence to them. The CPD acknowledges getting that letter. Then it is the one piece of potential evidence that was destroyed. How is that not a big deal? And I don't care if this is Brad Cooper or whoever...that is a big deal.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:48 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: 692 files on Brad's computer modified after it was seized. I checked every one & they were all automatic updates. #coopertrial
1 minute ago

snowshuze
04-14-2011, 11:48 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: Brad searched museum sites July 12 am. Defense: Is that consistent w/ someone who killed their wife the night before? #coopertrial
Objection, speculation.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 11:49 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: Brad searched museum sites July 12 am. Defense: Is that consistent w/ someone who killed their wife the night before? #coopertrial

IIRC, didn't scott peterson make a couple innocuous online purchases the morning prior to dumping Laci's body?

Cheyenne130
04-14-2011, 11:50 AM
Now that is interesting. So he didn't just clear the cookies on IE.

Unless those 92 hits came after his return at 3. Again we are left in the dark with incomplete information. (Darn it!)

less0305
04-14-2011, 11:51 AM
These same people need to remember that the next time they call LE for an emergency of their own, IMO. They may slam LE all they want, but if they call them for any reason, LE will respond. It really chaps me when people down LE. We are sitting here looking at all of this in hindsight. Could any of those who are so critical have done it perfectly? Detective Young made a mistake. It wasn't for malicious reasons. He wasn't trying to make a mistake.

The most dangerous call LE goes on is a domestic violence call. You know what you are dealing with in a robbery, for instance, but never in a domestic violence call. I am just using this as an example. The general public simply does not realize what some LE deals with on a daily basis.

less0305, this tirade wasn't directed at you or anyone else really. I just needed to get this off my chest.

MOO

Oh, I completely agree!!! My husband served 20 years in law enforcement. At the end he was busting into crack houses on drug raids - but he had his fair share of all calls over his years. Nobody really appreciates them for what they do every day. My husband's very first call on his first night on duty at a large metropolitan city was the murder of a woman by her husband in a domestic violence situation. A few years later he was in a house with a husband who was holding his family at gunpoint - wife and kids - my husband wouldn't leave the house until he got those babies and their mom out some 7 hours later - then was forced to exchange gunfire with the husband. It fries my butt when I hear people badmouth the police!!! I know what the chances are - I lived with the chance I'd lose my husband 24/7.

cody100
04-14-2011, 11:52 AM
Now that is interesting. So he didn't just clear the cookies on IE.

That is interesting

Cheyenne130
04-14-2011, 11:52 AM
If these wral tweets are correct, the defense is making it much worse for their client with this cross.

less0305
04-14-2011, 11:53 AM
Tell it det. Chappell!!!!!!!

BrownRice
04-14-2011, 11:53 AM
If these wral tweets are correct, the defense is making it much worse for their client with this cross.

I was thinking the same thing? If they're trying to make a point, I'm missing it. Kinda like in the beginning with the state.

bloghooligan
04-14-2011, 11:53 AM
The grand jury process is a farce, and it could result in innocent people sitting in jail pre-trial. But, a convinction requires twelve citizens to agree based on evidence which can rebutted in an open forum by representatives of the defendant with the defendant present. As well, in a trial the defendant is often allowed to allude to various conspiracies or missing witnesses, evidence, etc., even when there really is no evidence of such.

Trials are not perfect, and rules of evidence are confusing, but it is a reasonably balanced process.

I don't disagree but it does seem that if NC instituted recording of GJ hearings and there was a requirement that the prosecutor present known exculpatory evidence -- that some false indictments might be avoided. I won't even go into NC's version of a persons right to a speedy trial (that has been upheld by the supreme court).

fran
04-14-2011, 11:54 AM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: It might be something you do if trying to establish an alibi. In my career, I've seen people do the strangest things. #coopertrial

Ooopppsss!

Looks like Kurtz got toooo MUCH answer!:eek:

:great:

JMHO
fran

Coolmomof4
04-14-2011, 11:55 AM
The only problem with this is that Fielding was never in the zip code. It's always been a Raleigh address with zip 27606. It was 27606 3 years ago.

Correct, but if you google map that Cary zip code, Fielding Drive area still comes up to the far right of the map. And I swear somewhere yesterday I read on WRAL that the map had been "moved" which I equate with clicking and dragging the map over to the Fielding area then zoomed in.

Google the zip code. You will see Holly Springs Rd on the right, and if you zoom enough you will see Fielding even if it is a different zip code.

less0305
04-14-2011, 11:55 AM
Good Morning!

I am just now getting caught up here this morning. Remember when the trial first started and the two young women were sitting at the defense table with Kurtz and Trenkle? Judge Gessner made them move to the front row behind them. I am not sure where I heard it, but one of the young women was supposedly from the Innocence Project, and Kurtz said the other one was assisting him with looking up information. The judge made them move anyway.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think Kurtz is behind some kind of blogging campaign. I don't know why he would be, though. Kurtz had wanted his own person to film the trial in tandem with the videographer from WRAL. Maybe it was to watch later and critique his performance. IDK, but the judge denied that request as well.

There is something going on with this trial that I haven't seen in other trials. I am not even sure what it is, but I feel Kurtz has a hand in it. He wants to win at all costs, IMO.

Does anyone else have a really bad feeling that something is going on that we do not know about where the defense is concerned?

MOO's

I agree with you on this also! I had half an idea that the judge found out someone on the defense team was sending out some tweets or GOLO comments and that's what infuriated him so much. But I think there'd have been an even bigger blow up if that were true.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:56 AM
http://www.wral.com/news/video/9058102/#/vid9058102

these are old pre trial hearings in case you missed them

NCEast
04-14-2011, 11:56 AM
That is interesting

I asked previously, and don't think it was responded to...but what does this mean or indicate?

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 11:56 AM
Just as a public service announcement with the desire to keep this thread open for great discussion, the mods have aked us several times not to discuss GOLO here.

Carry on with your regularly scheduled programming. :)

LyndyLoo
04-14-2011, 11:56 AM
No a bad analogy, and you will also know that the framework of the discussion is much the same. Google jealously guards the mechanics of how their spider-bots crawl the web, and how they use that information to derive their indces. In this case, the MFT does represent the Internet, and it is the same for Google and Bing, so I Google and you use Bing. I print out the first page of my search results and you do the same. You question me about why I am showing a site that you did not see. Answer, my tool showed me this result, your tool shows you a different result. You can clearly see my result, you might not understand why your tool does not show the same thing, but that is the difference in the tool used, not the Internet that we checked.Kurtz is arguing that there are different versions of the MFT, that is not true, it would be like saying because my results are different than your results you must have looked at a different Internet. Nope, same Internet, different results. The reason is the tool used and the algorithyms used to interpret and display that data.


I am bumping this post foreward by CyberPro as formyself it explains exactly why the FBI "Tool" or "Search Engine" locates sites and data andother "Tool" or Search Engine wont. And whatever search engine the FBI uses is a guarded secret soas not to inform or educated cybercrime types to elude detection..For me it was a great ananlogy and TY CyberProp :bowdown::bow::aktion::thumb::toast::highfive:

Big hugs to you and johnfear for excellent common sense explanations!!

fran
04-14-2011, 11:57 AM
IIRC, didn't scott peterson make a couple innocuous online purchases the morning prior to dumping Laci's body?

I THINK he was checking auctions at Ebay.

JMHO
fran

cody100
04-14-2011, 11:57 AM
Regarless of the outcome of this case...or looking at it outside of this case..it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. The defense attorney sent a letter to the CPD specifically asking that the phone being handled with the utmost care because it was potentially crucial evidence to them. The CPD acknowledges getting that letter. Then it is the one piece of potential evidence that was destroyed. How is that not a big deal? And I don't care if this is Brad Cooper or whoever...that is a big deal.

IMO, it is a big deal for BC and the defense. And, for his rights as a defendant, it will be made into a big deal imo.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 11:57 AM
old court tv forum dvBulletin Message

We are conducting techinical upgrades to the In Session boards. The boards will re-open in a few hours. Please continue to check back.

- In Session Message Boards

bloghooligan
04-14-2011, 11:58 AM
Tell it xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!!!!!!!

I was (nicely) told we are not allowed to use names here. Especially for the folks where trial recording is not allowed.

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 11:58 AM
I watched it 2 more times last night and I came away with the feeling that the defense already has the output or data from the device/method. They are arguing that they want the same device/method-- MTF table or whatever it's called-- and since that aspect of it seems to be a tool or method that belongs solely to the FBI and has never been allowed in other court cases the defense was not going to get it in this case. Zell was adamant that the defense already had the output, and the judge had ruled 8 months ago on the other aspects of the motion. Then he ruled against striking the two FBI witness's testimony. So their computer testimony stands.

We don't know what is bolded and the law, Kurtz even cited it, said the court could allow it. Zell was also avoiding the issue.

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 11:59 AM
A couple of great questions/answers for the defense.

Did you contact Google to verify? No

Google is a server based application, if there was a search Google should have a record of it.

The other answer which is good for the defense, they found cookies just not a cookie for this specific search.

So all cookies were not cleared.

NCEast
04-14-2011, 12:00 PM
Just as a public service announcement with the desire to keep this thread open for great discussion, the mods have aked us several times not to discuss GOLO here.

Carry on with your regularly scheduled programming. :)

You are right and I kept thinking about that yesterday. When GOLO became the center of so much attention yesterday right in the middle of the afternoon trial it seemed impossible not to mention them if they were the reason for the judges ire.
I am going mute on that topic starting now.

momof7
04-14-2011, 12:03 PM
I am bumping this post foreward by CyberPro as formyself it explains exactly why the FBI "Tool" or "Search Engine" locates sites and data andother "Tool" or Search Engine wont. And whatever search engine the FBI uses is a guarded secret soas not to inform or educated cybercrime types to elude detection..For me it was a great ananlogy and TY CyberProp :bowdown::bow::aktion::thumb::toast::highfive:

Big hugs to you and johnfear for excellent common sense explanations!!

I agree..thanks to both for explaining it in plain language. My 17 yo son would understand the technal jargon and testimony and I would still be scratching my head!

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 12:03 PM
One other thing I took away from from the MFT argument by Kurtz. The judge has essentially ruled that whatever the defense has is the same or equal to what the prosecution has. If the defense brings forth an expert that can show according to our data these files were tampered with and this is how we know, there is no room for the prosecution to turn around and say, well we don't see that in our data.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 12:04 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8199733/

old story Judge denies cooper request for FBI procedures

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:04 PM
So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.


I am respectively editing to this point only. If you truly believe what you have written above then I hope that you are never unjustly charged or suspected of a crime. My opinion has only to do with what you said above, and not this case in particular.

cody100
04-14-2011, 12:05 PM
I asked previously, and don't think it was responded to...but what does this mean or indicate?

I am sorry. This was the first time I saw your post. I was referring to ncsu comment about the cookies for fielding were not present on the computer.

CyberPro
04-14-2011, 12:06 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Defense: "Is it your theory that on July 11 Brad was searching for a place to put his wife's body?" #coopertrial

CAREFUL....

that is a loaded question. The FBI Technical guy should probably not have a theory. He analyzes data and presents findings. Interpretation is not up to him, nor are theories about why the data exists...

cody100
04-14-2011, 12:08 PM
One other thing I took away from from the MFT argument by Kurtz. The judge has essentially ruled that whatever the defense has is the same or equal to what the prosecution has. If the defense brings forth an expert that can show according to our data these files were tampered with and this is how we know, there is no room for the prosecution to turn around and say, well we don't see that in our data.

Yes, Sleuth. I agree that is correct. And, it is possible that is where they were going with this all along. That would be interesting, wouldn't it?

momof7
04-14-2011, 12:08 PM
CAREFUL....

that is a loaded question. The FBI Technical guy should probably not have a theory. He analyzes data and presents findings. Interpretation is not up to him, nor are theories about why the data exists...

Exactly. We all theorize but isn't the witness obligated to only state facts? Was Katz hoping for a yes answer, something that could be used for a mistrail?

Just wondering!

Kelly

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:09 PM
Zell and the judge are convinced that Kurtz already has the printout/data/exact same information. Kurtz began with wanting the data and then changed up in his argument that he wanted the method used to extract the data.

The Judge didn't understand any of it, and Zell knew that Kurtz did not have it and was purposely obfuscating the issue based on the Judge's not understanding.

Albert
04-14-2011, 12:09 PM
Now that is interesting. So he didn't just clear the cookies on IE.

Would cookies be present if private browsing was enabled?

RobT
04-14-2011, 12:10 PM
One other thing I took away from from the MFT argument by Kurtz. The judge has essentially ruled that whatever the defense has is the same or equal to what the prosecution has. If the defense brings forth an expert that can show according to our data these files were tampered with and this is how we know, there is no room for the prosecution to turn around and say, well we don't see that in our data.

I would think that the prosecution could simply ask something along the lines of (if they know the answers are all no):
"are you aware of what tools the FBI uses?"
"did you use those tools?"

and then a yes question:
"would you expect the tools used by our Federal Gov't to be more accurate than yours?"

JiminWilton
04-14-2011, 12:10 PM
CAREFUL....

that is a loaded question. The FBI Technical guy should probably not have a theory. He analyzes data and presents findings. Interpretation is not up to him, nor are theories about why the data exists...

While I don't know if he were tendered as an expert (and I imagine he was), then theories and opinions are allowed.

momof7
04-14-2011, 12:11 PM
One other thing I took away from from the MFT argument by Kurtz. The judge has essentially ruled that whatever the defense has is the same or equal to what the prosecution has. If the defense brings forth an expert that can show according to our data these files were tampered with and this is how we know, there is no room for the prosecution to turn around and say, well we don't see that in our data.

Then this would effectively alleviate any appeals process on this as this would mean both def/pros are on even and level playing fields. One expert for the def with the ability to show tampering or any other would then change the whole thing for the prosecution. They would essentially not be able to recover from that information.

Just my thoughts.
Kelly

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:12 PM
That was what I was thinnking, this shows BC did attempt to clear out cookies. I am hoping Pros can show other sites that no cookies appear on the PC.

Kelly

We don't know that, his broswer could be set to clear all cookies automatically each time he signs off. Then we would need to know how long it has had that setting to make it relevant.

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 12:13 PM
Would cookies be present if private browsing was enabled?

No cookies but also no TIF

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:15 PM
If the actual printout, then entered in to public record, allows someone to reverse engineer how this information is obtained then yes... it most certainly should be protected. MFT and the filesystem that uses it NTFS are very protected trade secrets by Microsoft and any third-party software that is able to access that filesystem is either blessed by Microsoft and a ton of non-disclosure agreements or reverse engineered. Simple as that.

But Kurtz offered to review it 'in camera" in the Judge's chambers in which case he would be able to review to base his cross, but he would not have a copy and that was denied also.

sunshine05
04-14-2011, 12:15 PM
CAREFUL....

that is a loaded question. The FBI Technical guy should probably not have a theory. He analyzes data and presents findings. Interpretation is not up to him, nor are theories about why the data exists...

Well, he did voluntarily offer his opinion that searches for museums could have been part of an alibi.

Maja
04-14-2011, 12:15 PM
No cookies but also no TIF

"C is for cookie, that's good enough for me!" ... sorry, had to say it :)

Palomine
04-14-2011, 12:17 PM
we should be live after this witness

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 12:17 PM
So what they are saying if the tweets are correct is that BC cleared a single cookie but did not clear history nor clear cache nor manually delete the Temporary Internet Files. This makes not much sense.

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:19 PM
It seems reasonable to me the judge could have seen it as you lay out. Probably from what I heard I would have. But, on the other hand, I don't see it as very prejudicial that he was denied. As I understood it, and I could be wrong, it was something he wanted mostly to go off on this tangent that the computer was tampered with.

If the PD wanted to frame BC (I realize that's not what you're saying I'm on a tangent now), IMO, they easily could have done it by moving actual dirt and straw from the crime scene to the house and saying look what we found. I can't see altering computer files as their master plan, especially when to be fair they have not demonstrated themselves to be masters of technology.

He wanted it so he could prepare his cross examination. They are basing their testimony on what they have, the Defense should be able to see it.

They are using this information to be their coup d'gras regardless of how masterful they have been on technology otherwise.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 12:19 PM
we should be live after this witness

I'm guessing this witness will at least go until lunch. :(

cody100
04-14-2011, 12:22 PM
The Judge didn't understand any of it, and Zell knew that Kurtz did not have it and was purposely obfuscating the issue based on the Judge's not understanding.

That was my take on it. Well stated Danielle. The judge admitted he didn't know what Kurtz was talking about. IMO this may become an issue unless showing their data/report is part of the FBI security issue. What this does is deprives the defendant to examine the final report and the actual work product imo. I am glad to see so many ideas and comments on this question.

johnfear
04-14-2011, 12:23 PM
He wanted it so he could prepare his cross examination. They are basing their testimony on what they have, the Defense should be able to see it.

They are using this information to be their coup d'gras regardless of how masterful they have been on technology otherwise.

I think he wanted the "experts" to verify there was no tampering because he has contradictory evidence that will negate them. If no tampering is said ten times, then the pros can't say: You're DEFENSE expert tampered with the search.

cityslick
04-14-2011, 12:24 PM
CAREFUL....

that is a loaded question. The FBI Technical guy should probably not have a theory. He analyzes data and presents findings. Interpretation is not up to him, nor are theories about why the data exists...

This was his answer:

Det. Chappell: That's consistent with what I found on his computer. The fact remains, it was at a high level of magnification. #coopertrial

So he didn't give him a yes or no answer, just a safe 'that's what it looks like' answer.

Basically though, isn't this evidence 'prints on the gun'? There is no reasonable explanation why he would have a high level of magnification of the dump site a day before she went missing. Even if you play devils advocate and think this was done purposely by CPD, what kind of expertise and coordination do you thing that would take? And what would be the motive behind it? Because they didn't like BC? Because they want to preserve Cary as a place where no murder can take place?

It's just really a stretch that you would have some cops buy into framing this guy by putting high magnification images of Fielding on his work computer. Why wouldn't they had done that on his home computer and change the date to the morning of July 12th, where it would make a ton more sense?

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:24 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell says he'd be happy to replicate it, but you can't compare the search Brad did in 2008 with a search now. #coopertrial

That doesn't make sense, only the image should be different because time has evolved and houses and businesses have been built, but it should be comparable.

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 12:25 PM
So BC who was supposedly slick enough to wipe out any trace of making a spoofed alibi call doesn't clean up his web browsing?

Someone who we have already have established is a VoIP CCIE which means he has well above average knowledge of operating systems and filesystems both Windows and Linux?

NCEast
04-14-2011, 12:26 PM
I am sorry. This was the first time I saw your post. I was referring to ncsu comment about the cookies for fielding were not present on the computer.

Not a problem and I wasn't really directing it to anybody but I didn't understand what the cookies, or lack of them meant in the big picture.

momof7
04-14-2011, 12:27 PM
That doesn't make sense, only the image should be different because time has evolved and houses and businesses have been built, but it should be comparable.

I think I am following what you are saying here Danielle but could you elaborate? Thanks!

Kelly

kantoo
04-14-2011, 12:28 PM
That doesn't make sense, only the image should be different because time has evolved and houses and businesses have been built, but it should be comparable.

wral: Det. Chappell: The zip code Brad searched now incorporates more land & population. Center of the zip code is not the same now. #coopertrial

macd
04-14-2011, 12:28 PM
So what they are saying if the tweets are correct is that BC cleared a single cookie but did not clear history nor clear cache nor manually delete the Temporary Internet Files. This makes not much sense.

There are probably a number of ways that a computer can end up in a state where certain temporary internet files are present and certain cookies are absent. The defense is picking tampering as their theory. There is no need for the prosecution to pick a specific theory on how the computer got into this state, their theory is that this is how BC left his computer.

cityslick
04-14-2011, 12:29 PM
That doesn't make sense, only the image should be different because time has evolved and houses and businesses have been built, but it should be comparable.

From one of the tweets, the agent indicated that the zip code has actually changed (in terms of size) from two years ago and if I understand correctly, google maps puts the pointer in what it defines as the 'center' of whatever search you do. So, since the size of the zip code changed, the 'center' is not the same as it was 2 years ago.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 12:29 PM
So BC who was supposedly slick enough to wipe out any trace of making a spoofed alibi call doesn't clean up his web browsing?

Someone who we have already have established is a VoIP CCIE which means he has well above average knowledge of operating systems and filesystems both Windows and Linux?

Perhaps he simply hadn't gotten around to it yet? Maybe he hadn't planned the murder would take place as soon as it did. Something that happened that night accelerated his plans. But for JA's quick response, 'missing Nancy', he would have had the time to clean this up too. Swing by on his way to the museum with the kids.

filesman
04-14-2011, 12:30 PM
Well catching up on what I missed yesterday and I a firmly off the fence and on the guilty side. It makes me sad to think that someone could murder anyone, let alone the mother of their children.

Albert
04-14-2011, 12:30 PM
So BC who was supposedly slick enough to wipe out any trace of making a spoofed alibi call doesn't clean up his web browsing?

Someone who we have already have established is a VoIP CCIE which means he has well above average knowledge of operating systems and filesystems both Windows and Linux?

VoIP CCIE does not imply any knowledge of OS and filesystems.

Maja
04-14-2011, 12:31 PM
This was his answer:

Det. Chappell: That's consistent with what I found on his computer. The fact remains, it was at a high level of magnification. #coopertrial

So he didn't give him a yes or no answer, just a safe 'that's what it looks like' answer.

Basically though, isn't this evidence 'prints on the gun'? There is no reasonable explanation why he would have a high level of magnification of the dump site a day before she went missing. Even if you play devils advocate and think this was done purposely by CPD, what kind of expertise and coordination do you thing that would take? And what would be the motive behind it? Because they didn't like BC? Because they want to preserve Cary as a place where no murder can take place?



It's just really a stretch that you would have some cops buy into framing this guy by putting high magnification images of Fielding on his work computer. Why wouldn't they had done that on his home computer and change the date to the morning of July 12th, where it would make a ton more sense?

Day of the 11th shows pre-meditation.

PolkSaladAnnie
04-14-2011, 12:31 PM
<----- snipped for space - the ending immaculate ------>


Brad, the strong are Nancy’s family who now carry with love the remainder of the family you ultimately destroyed. Even in death Nancy has the means to protect and provide for her children - you just couldn't understand and thankfully couldn't destroy the bridge of love between her family and her and the children. Thank God that family, each of them, has the perseverance and willpower and love that you lacked completely.

Holy Schmoly! This melted me so. Powerful words, immense passion. Huge! Stunning post ...

Has my vote as The Most Outstanding Post of The Case!

Thank you, gritguy!

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:32 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Det. Chappell: I found 92 hits on Google on Brad's computer. No cookie for Fielding Drive view on Google though. #coopertrial

He testified yesterday the search was on BC's own zipcode of 27518 so why would there be a cookie for Fielding Drive? Chappell is trying to imply that there should be one, but that is not true.

CyberPro
04-14-2011, 12:32 PM
Would cookies be present if private browsing was enabled?

NOPE - as far as I know. Private browsing aka "porn mode" claims it does not store any history or files of any kind during the session.

I know the private browsing mode exists on IE as of version 8, not sure when it was in FireFox, but it was earlier than IE had it.

MrsWendy
04-14-2011, 12:33 PM
Something about the defense not having full access to the sensitive FBI methods bothers me. Suppose that there is a generic trial somewhere and the main evidence against someone is that their fingerprints were found at the crime scene. To prove it, the prosecution presents an expert witness who testifies that the fingerprints at the crime scene were the defendant's.

But let's say that to match the fingerprints the expert looked at a picture of the defendant's fingerprints and a picture of the fingerprints from the crime scene and basically said "they are both shaped like fingerprints therefore they are a match."

I think everyone would agree that this would be a bogus way of determining a match and normally the defense would tear the expert's testimony to shreds. But what if the prosecution argued that the method used was sensitive and couldn't be disclosed? That would result in bad evidence being used with the defense having no way to challenge it since they wouldn't know what method was used. Of course, they could present their own expert to contradict the prosecution's expert but, at best, that would only put a little bit of doubt in the jury's minds.

In the Cooper case, it's possible that the computer evidence is completely valid. But it's also possible that the FBI's methods could be flawed. Without knowing how the FBI examined the evidence there is no way for anyone, especially the defense, to know how accurate the FBI's testimony is.

Does this make sense or is there a flaw in my analogy?

Palomine
04-14-2011, 12:33 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
New #CooperTrial story on WRAL.com: http://tiny.cc/zgqbl

RobT
04-14-2011, 12:33 PM
There are probably a number of ways that a computer can end up in a state where certain temporary internet files are present and certain cookies are absent. The defense is picking tampering as their theory. There is no need for the prosecution to pick a specific theory on how the computer got into this state, their theory is that this is how BC left his computer.

The big thing I'd want to know is if all cookies on the machine are after July 11 (or more importantly, after his last logoff). If Cisco has an enterprise policy to delete cookies on logoff it would explain why there are cookies there but none for a Google Map search of Fielding Dr (i.e. he would have created new cookies during his last login). Though as the tweet reads now that I think about it, why would there be a cookie for "Fielding Dr." ? Wouldn't it be for 27518?

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 12:33 PM
There are probably a number of ways that a computer can end up in a state where certain temporary internet files are present and certain cookies are absent. The defense is picking tampering as their theory. There is no need for the prosecution to pick a specific theory on how the computer got into this state, their theory is that this is how BC left his computer.

But it looks much more like the work of somebody who doesn't actually know what they are doing, trying to do something that looks fishy. Let's not just put the search here, let's do something to make it look as though he hid the search and remove the cookie. But we have to leave the other information so we can show there was a search.

And how easy is it to remove the cookie for a single google search out of a list of google searches?

NCEast
04-14-2011, 12:34 PM
Perhaps he simply hadn't gotten around to it yet? Maybe he hadn't planned the murder would take place as soon as it did. Something that happened that night accelerated his plans. But for JA's quick response, 'missing Nancy', he would have had the time to clean this up too. Swing by on his way to the museum with the kids.

That's the same thing I was thinking. The events of that Saturday morning moved along way too quickly for him.

gracielee
04-14-2011, 12:34 PM
Well catching up on what I missed yesterday and I a firmly off the fence and on the guilty side. It makes me sad to think that someone could murder anyone, let alone the mother of their children.

And yet it is done frequently. In our rather small area of the country, Raleigh/Durham, look how many young, upper middle class mothers have been murdered in the recent past. Nancy, Janet, Michelle, Kelly, I'm sure the list goes on, someone help me here...?

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:35 PM
Another search warrant was secured for a deeper investigation into that device. In the grand scheme of things, not that big of a deal, IMO.

ETA: LE investigations are an ever evolving updating upgrading process, learn from mistakes, move on.

I think it is a major deal, there could have been some very important information on her cell phone that we needed to know.

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 12:35 PM
VoIP CCIE does not imply any knowledge of OS and filesystems.

It most certainly does. If you install and configure Cisco VoIP you have to screw around with the operating system and filesystems, particularly if you are troubleshooting.

foltster
04-14-2011, 12:35 PM
What he said was fine if you are not going to give me the output then you have to tell me how you got the output, one or the other. For the prosecution to simply say we have output and you can't have it and take advantage of the judge not understanding the technical argument by answering the judge's direct question evasively is a problem.

I agree with this. They are giving the defense no way to CE the witness about the central basis of their defense. IMHO a big mistake on the part of the judge.

Merely publishing a report would be unlikely to expose any new capabilities the FBI might have and Zell's assertion that it hurts child pornography cases is almost an out-right lie.

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:36 PM
The grand jury process is a farce, and it could result in innocent people sitting in jail pre-trial. But, a convinction requires twelve citizens to agree based on evidence which can rebutted in an open forum by representatives of the defendant with the defendant present. As well, in a trial the defendant is often allowed to allude to various conspiracies or missing witnesses, evidence, etc., even when there really is no evidence of such.

Trials are not perfect, and rules of evidence are confusing, but it is a reasonably balanced process.

Not if the Judge rules that you have no right to look at the evidence.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 12:36 PM
it is strange Brad never thought of the temp internet files Maybe on work computer that is kind of a backup for cisco..to see who is working or surfing the net

Palomine
04-14-2011, 12:37 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Brad Cooper defense questions Google Maps search http://bit.ly/dZCh44

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:38 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: It might be something you do if trying to establish an alibi. In my career, I've seen people do the strangest things. #coopertrial

That was inapproprate response imo.

Albert
04-14-2011, 12:38 PM
It most certainly does. If you install and configure Cisco VoIP you have to screw around with the operating system and filesystems, particularly if you are troubleshooting.

The CCIE lab, the OS is already installed and there is no troubleshooting aspect for the lab. It is simply a mad house effort to configure features and make call flows work as expected.

filesman
04-14-2011, 12:38 PM
And yet it is done frequently. In our rather small area of the country, Raleigh/Durham, look how many young, upper middle class mothers have been murdered in the recent past. Nancy, Janet, Michelle, Kelly, I'm sure the list goes on, someone help me here...?


I know very sad indeed. Kind of makes me paranoid.

cityslick
04-14-2011, 12:39 PM
Perhaps he simply hadn't gotten around to it yet? Maybe he hadn't planned the murder would take place as soon as it did. Something that happened that night accelerated his plans. But for JA's quick response, 'missing Nancy', he would have had the time to clean this up too. Swing by on his way to the museum with the kids.

IMO I don't think he knew for certain that he was going to kill her that night when he went into work that morning. I think he was still formulating the plan when the argument at the party threw him over the edge. I believe he would of thought the 'fake phone call' plan a little through, perhaps make it more cleaner than it was.

foltster
04-14-2011, 12:40 PM
The Judge said no to the Defense. Think of it this way. Remember the old man FBI guy that talked about the cell phones? Pros objected that Defense wanted to ask about an email that explained some software. Pros said that the witness didn't have that email so Defense should not be able to question him (this was before we foundout witness did have it, but that doesn't hurt my initial example). Anyhow, the Pros said because the witness hadn't seen that exact email and had discussion on it then he would not be able to comment on it. Now the Pros is saying, you can run your own, yes, it will be different data output, but you can question the witness on that. The Pros wants both sides of the fence, and then muddies it up more by bringing in National Security as to why the Defense could not look at what the Pros is saying is evidence against him.

Do you see the disconnect? How can Defense question the witness on something that has a different data output if they run their own when he needs to ask witness about the data that the witness found when he ran his report? It makes no sense.

Defense did not want the process or procedure, he jsut wanted the final output so he could see what was being used as evidence so he could question it.

This hits the nail on the head. I hope they are able to get this point across to the Judge at some point.

LyndyLoo
04-14-2011, 12:42 PM
Perhaps he simply hadn't gotten around to it yet? Maybe he hadn't planned the murder would take place as soon as it did. Something that happened that night accelerated his plans. But for JA's quick response, 'missing Nancy', he would have had the time to clean this up too. Swing by on his way to the museum with the kids.

I tend to think that Brad did intent Friday Night was THE NIGHT, especially after he saw the response from the Realtor about getting alternate housing for Nancy and the kids. And he had had the prior 2 weeks or so to scope out Fielding Drive, prepare his spoofing calls, etc etc... I'll bet he had made himself a check list to hide, get rid of evidence, create his alibi, BUT the 2 monkey wrenches were1) She fought back, and she made a mess downstairs in that foyer, and had to do alot more house cleaning than he expected...I think Brad did his dump of Nancy during the dead of night, and spent the rest of the night cleaning like mad...In the end, altho he thought he had covered his cyber tracks ( being the super Tech Expert) is yikes..FBI was able to find things he thought he had deleted..2)He thought he had more time to that..Drat those nosey friends, neighbours!! Drat the police alerted to her being missing before he was ready..Drat Drat Drat!

Cant wait for Det Daniels to climb up on that stand..Im ready for this guy to start weaving all these circumstantials to be woven together...:seeya:

foltster
04-14-2011, 12:42 PM
I think it is a major deal, there could have been some very important information on her cell phone that we needed to know.

The proof of CPD tampering with NC's phone (however accidental it likely was), gives even more reason why the defense needs to be able to see the entire FBI report!

PolkSaladAnnie
04-14-2011, 12:44 PM
Oh, I completely agree!!! My husband served 20 years in law enforcement. At the end he was busting into crack houses on drug raids - but he had his fair share of all calls over his years. Nobody really appreciates them for what they do every day. My husband's very first call on his first night on duty at a large metropolitan city was the murder of a woman by her husband in a domestic violence situation. A few years later he was in a house with a husband who was holding his family at gunpoint - wife and kids - my husband wouldn't leave the house until he got those babies and their mom out some 7 hours later - then was forced to exchange gunfire with the husband. It fries my butt when I hear people badmouth the police!!! I know what the chances are - I lived with the chance I'd lose my husband 24/7.

Salute your husband - and you, too, less. There are far more dedicated, brave, good cops - and forces - out there than there are bad ones; especially when you think of the ratios!

Peace and ... justice for all!

Palomine
04-14-2011, 12:47 PM
The Judge said no to the Defense. Think of it this way. Remember the old man FBI guy that talked about the cell phones? Pros objected that Defense wanted to ask about an email that explained some software. Pros said that the witness didn't have that email so Defense should not be able to question him (this was before we foundout witness did have it, but that doesn't hurt my initial example). Anyhow, the Pros said because the witness hadn't seen that exact email and had discussion on it then he would not be able to comment on it. Now the Pros is saying, you can run your own, yes, it will be different data output, but you can question the witness on that. The Pros wants both sides of the fence, and then muddies it up more by bringing in National Security as to why the Defense could not look at what the Pros is saying is evidence against him.

Do you see the disconnect? How can Defense question the witness on something that has a different data output if they run their own when he needs to ask witness about the data that the witness found when he ran his report? It makes no sense.

Defense did not want the process or procedure, he jsut wanted the final output so he could see what was being used as evidence so he could question it.

would you really want the FBI showing their cards so that all criminals, pedophiles have access

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:47 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: 692 files on Brad's computer modified after it was seized. I checked every one & they were all automatic updates. #coopertrial
1 minute ago

I am having a hard time buying that.

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:48 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Chappell: 692 files on Brad's computer modified after it was seized. I checked every one & they were all automatic updates. #coopertrial
1 minute ago

Thank you for posting all of these.

Danielle59
04-14-2011, 12:51 PM
Oh, I completely agree!!! My husband served 20 years in law enforcement. At the end he was busting into crack houses on drug raids - but he had his fair share of all calls over his years. Nobody really appreciates them for what they do every day. My husband's very first call on his first night on duty at a large metropolitan city was the murder of a woman by her husband in a domestic violence situation. A few years later he was in a house with a husband who was holding his family at gunpoint - wife and kids - my husband wouldn't leave the house until he got those babies and their mom out some 7 hours later - then was forced to exchange gunfire with the husband. It fries my butt when I hear people badmouth the police!!! I know what the chances are - I lived with the chance I'd lose my husband 24/7.

Do you agree though that the Police have a tendency to become jaded towards all after experiencing things like above? That once you become jaded it changes your perspective? Or that there are also LEOs and Pros that have huge egos that influence them and cause bias?

PolkSaladAnnie
04-14-2011, 12:53 PM
would you really want the FBI showing their cards so that all criminals, pedophiles have access

Precisely...

less0305
04-14-2011, 12:53 PM
would you really want the FBI showing their cards so that all criminals, pedophiles have access

Heck, they might as well do a you tube video and put it on the web just like "how to make a bomb," or "here's how you can circumvent airport security." OMG - people slay me with their rationale. Yeah, let's just show everybody HOW to get caught sending child porn around the world - never mind that innocent babies are raped and murdered for some sick SOB's satisfaction, so long as the sick SOB's attorney makes a handful of dough and gets their client back to his cushy life of disseminating child porn. :banghead:

foltster
04-14-2011, 12:53 PM
This was his answer:

Det. Chappell: That's consistent with what I found on his computer. The fact remains, it was at a high level of magnification. #coopertrial

So he didn't give him a yes or no answer, just a safe 'that's what it looks like' answer.

Basically though, isn't this evidence 'prints on the gun'? There is no reasonable explanation why he would have a high level of magnification of the dump site a day before she went missing. Even if you play devils advocate and think this was done purposely by CPD, what kind of expertise and coordination do you thing that would take? And what would be the motive behind it? Because they didn't like BC? Because they want to preserve Cary as a place where no murder can take place?

It's just really a stretch that you would have some cops buy into framing this guy by putting high magnification images of Fielding on his work computer. Why wouldn't they had done that on his home computer and change the date to the morning of July 12th, where it would make a ton more sense?

Playing devil's advocate here:

Because they needed to create evidence late in the game and you can't do that easily physical evidence at that point? Just a thought.

Does anybody know off-hand when the image of the hard drive in brads computer was taken and was that done by the FBI or CPD?

Cheyenne130
04-14-2011, 12:53 PM
That was inapproprate response imo.

I tend to think it was more of an inappropriate question by the defense. What answer would you expect the witness to give? It seemed like an honest answer to a loaded question. MOO

SleuthinNC
04-14-2011, 12:55 PM
The CCIE lab, the OS is already installed and there is no troubleshooting aspect for the lab. It is simply a mad house effort to configure features and make call flows work as expected.

Even Lab v2.0? I could have sworn you still had to deal with all that windows crap because the linux appliance wasn't universal yet. I could very well be wrong though, it has been a looooong time since I had to irritate myself with any of that stuff.

foltster
04-14-2011, 12:55 PM
Heck, they might as well do a you tube video and put it on the web just like "how to make a bomb," or "here's how you can circumvent airport security." OMG - people slay me with their rationale. Yeah, let's just show everybody HOW to get caught sending child porn around the world - never mind that innocent babies are raped and murdered for some sick SOB's satisfaction, so long as the sick SOB's attorney makes a handful of dough and gets their client back to his cushy life of disseminating child porn. :banghead:

I don't think you are fully understanding the issue here. It has nothing to do with internet files, cookies, deleting history, etc. This about detecting whether or not a computer has been tampered with. The results form this type of test would have no bearing on a normal child pornography case.

momof7
04-14-2011, 12:56 PM
LOL - update, pleeeez: has Kurtz become Katz? ROARRR! Snoshuze - look watcha did :D

Him and Cupper are a pair! DIdn't even realize the type!

Kelly

Palomine
04-14-2011, 12:59 PM
I don't think you are fully understanding the issue here. It has nothing to do with internet files, cookies, deleting history, etc. This about detecting whether or not a computer has been tampered with. The results form this type of test would have no bearing on a normal child pornography case.

from how I understood the argument in court...Defense wanted the exact way the FBI got their evidence and the FBI said they weren't saying...it would compromise the FBI
Brads just peeved they found it and wants to know how they found it

Coolmomof4
04-14-2011, 01:01 PM
So what they are saying if the tweets are correct is that BC cleared a single cookie but did not clear history nor clear cache nor manually delete the Temporary Internet Files. This makes not much sense.

I'm thinking it's possible he did that on purpose so the evidence of "mundane" searches would stay on the computer... I mean hey he was searching museums and all....
:loser:

Maybe he didn't have time to go back and permanently delete the rest of the evidence of the map search, or maybe he was so preoccupied after just killing his wife that he overlooked it. He slipped up.

JMO

ohiogirl
04-14-2011, 01:02 PM
To all of the computer experts out there, if Cary LE had given this computer to a normal expert that did not work for the FBI and he found this info, this would all be moot? correct? Or, are you saying that "only" the FBI would have found this?

less0305
04-14-2011, 01:03 PM
I don't think you are fully understanding the issue here. It has nothing to do with internet files, cookies, deleting history, etc. This about detecting whether or not a computer has been tampered with. The results form this type of test would have no bearing on a normal child pornography case.

You know, I'm just a common every day individual who happens to not know a whole damn lot about computer or cell phone technology. What I do know is what doo-doo smells like. Brad's internet "research," if you will, and his actions prior to Nancy's death and after Nancy's death, his knowing what item of clothing she was wearing, his conveniently not giving Nancy her allowance on Friday, his hijacking Nancy's email accounts, his ending up with a necklace that she never took off, his two highly suspicious trips to HT that very morning, the mysterious missing two shoes of the same foot, the mysterious missing of his own shoes shown in the HT video, his ability and knowledge and procuring of equipment to spoof an alibi call, his hatred of Nancy, and his inability to show any emotion for the death of the mother of his children REEKS of doo-doo. That's what I know. My bet is on the fact that jurors are a little more like me - just your normal everyday folk that knows when the toilet is overflowing.

cityslick
04-14-2011, 01:03 PM
Playing devil's advocate here:

Because they needed to create evidence late in the game and you can't do that easily physical evidence at that point? Just a thought.

Does anybody know off-hand when the image of the hard drive in brads computer was taken and was that done by the FBI or CPD?

The analysis was done by the FBI. I don't think CPD was supposed to touch it but I'm not sure. If I remember at in 2008 they gave it to FBI because their cyber crime unit was fairly new and they didn't have the expertise for computer forensics.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 01:04 PM
To all of the computer experts out there, if Cary LE had given this computer to a normal expert that did not work for the FBI and he found this info, this would all be moot? correct? Or, are you saying that "only" the FBI would have found this?

i think they didn't get this info until the FBI examined the computer

ohiogirl
04-14-2011, 01:04 PM
I'm thinking it's possible he did that on purpose so the evidence of "mundane" searches would stay on the computer... I mean hey he was searching museums and all....
:loser:

Maybe he didn't have time to go back and permanently delete the rest of the evidence of the map search, or maybe he was so preoccupied after just killing his wife that he overlooked it. He slipped up.

JMO
Or, maybe, he deleted as much as he could and it was not enough?

LaLaw2000
04-14-2011, 01:04 PM
Great post, less!

ncsu95
04-14-2011, 01:04 PM
Correct, but if you google map that Cary zip code, Fielding Drive area still comes up to the far right of the map. And I swear somewhere yesterday I read on WRAL that the map had been "moved" which I equate with clicking and dragging the map over to the Fielding area then zoomed in.

Google the zip code. You will see Holly Springs Rd on the right, and if you zoom enough you will see Fielding even if it is a different zip code.

I was saying this because of the testimony yesterday that Fielding Dr was tht lat/long center of the zip code. It's not because it isn't in that zip code and wasn't in that zip code in 2008.

gritguy
04-14-2011, 01:04 PM
I am respectively editing to this point only. If you truly believe what you have written above then I hope that you are never unjustly charged or suspected of a crime. My opinion has only to do with what you said above, and not this case in particular.

I am lucky to have never been charged with anything other than speeding. I hope that luck holds out, and I hope to improve my odds by not committing crimes, or at least avoiding murdering people as that seems to land one in court. But relevant to the point, here's what you took issue with of mine:

“So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.”

And that is a fair summary of how things work. The jury is not charged to abandon common sense or view things in a vacuum. Let me illustrate further by quoting the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions for criminal cases as relevant.

The jury must find the state’s case made beyond a reasonable doubt for each element of the offense, not for each iota of possible evidence. Here is one concluding instruction the judge likely will give the jury:

“You should consider all the evidence, arguments, contentions and positions urged by the attorney(s) and any other contention that arises from the evidence; and using your common sense you must determine the truth in this case.”

Actual common sense is encouraged in light of “all the evidence.” As to the burden of proof of the offense and its elements, not dissected bits of information and fanciful conspiracy theories, the judge would likely instruct thusly:

“Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you of the defendant's guilt.”

And as to the weight of the evidence, the judge would likely say:

“You are the sole judges of the weight to be given any evidence. By this I mean, if you decide that certain evidence is believable you must then determine the importance of that evidence in light of all other believable evidence in the case.”

Again, the admonition that evidence be construed in “light of all other believable evidence.”

I say likely because these are pattern instructions and the judge may instruct as he wishes though by practice the attorneys will suggest various pattern instructions or perhaps an instruction drafted or modified to fit the case in particular.

Now, it is right of each attorney to attack evidence in piece and the opposing narrative as a whole, but it is not required for the jury to consider the mere possibility of various alternate theories of evidence as more important than the picture in total.

Granted, the system is not perfect, but that is how it works.

These instructions noted above (which are current, I just looked them up on casemaker) and the philosophy behind them is consistent with how we understood juries to decide things in practice and in theory when I tried cases. However, I left trial practice several years ago and if you have more recent information to show juries should work differently now, I’d be glad to type corrected.

Coolmomof4
04-14-2011, 01:05 PM
He testified yesterday the search was on BC's own zipcode of 27518 so why would there be a cookie for Fielding Drive? Chappell is trying to imply that there should be one, but that is not true.

Because he apparently moved the map over and zoomed in to fielding drive. I think that is what cookie is missing. JMO.

snowshuze
04-14-2011, 01:05 PM
You know, I'm just a common every day individual who happens to not know a whole damn lot about computer or cell phone technology. What I do know is what doo-doo smells like. Brad's internet "research," if you will, and his actions prior to Nancy's death and after Nancy's death, his knowing what item of clothing she was wearing, his conveniently not giving Nancy her allowance on Friday, his hijacking Nancy's email accounts, his ending up with a necklace that she never took off, his two highly suspicious trips to HT that very morning, the mysterious missing two shoes of the same foot, the mysterious missing of his own shoes shown in the HT video, his ability and knowledge and procuring of equipment to spoof an alibi call, his hatred of Nancy, and his inability to show any emotion for the death of the mother of his children REEKS of doo-doo. That's what I know. My bet is on the fact that jurors are a little more like me - just your normal everyday folk that knows when the toilet is overflowing.
I heart you. :)

Palomine
04-14-2011, 01:05 PM
you know what is creepy ..they have technology now they can watch what others are doing on the computer...man the ISP address is huge

dgfred
04-14-2011, 01:05 PM
To all of the computer experts out there, if Cary LE had given this computer to a normal expert that did not work for the FBI and he found this info, this would all be moot? correct? Or, are you saying that "only" the FBI would have found this?

Wouldn't some be saying... 'it wasn't the FBI so not reliable or best available'?

LyndyLoo
04-14-2011, 01:06 PM
from how I understood the argument in court...Defense wanted the exact way the FBI got their evidence and the FBI said they weren't saying...it would compromise the FBI
Brads just peeved they found it and wants to know how they found it


And I just bet Brad assured Kurtz and Co. there would be NO evidence to implicate himself on his computer ( as he thought he had erased it)..and Kurtz, the good def. lawyer he is, assumes Brad told him the truth..NOW Brad is likely racking his brain trying to figure out just what tool or search engine FBI uses??...I think it looks good on them. It appears, Brad and his expert cannot replicate the search done by FBI..And poor Kurtz after taking crash courses on computer stuff from Brad for 2 years, is fumbling to circumvent the legalities ..to the point of alleging tampering..then violations of his rights.

Poor poor Brad, I do think it fitting that his expertise is precisely what caught him in the end of this!! :loser:

foltster
04-14-2011, 01:06 PM
from how I understood the argument in court...Defense wanted the exact way the FBI got their evidence and the FBI said they weren't saying...it would compromise the FBI
Brads just peeved they found it and wants to know how they found it

They asked to see the report from the software that they used. Not to know or use the software or methods themselves.

They want materials created by the FBI, not the process or methods they used to create the evidence.

Hiding behind the pedofile excuse is entirely disingenuous on the part of the Pros.

kantoo
04-14-2011, 01:07 PM
I was saying this because of the testimony yesterday that Fielding Dr was tht lat/long center of the zip code. It's not because it isn't in that zip code and wasn't in that zip code in 2008.

I thought the lat/long quote refers to 1 of the zoomed areas, not original search results

ncsu95
04-14-2011, 01:08 PM
Would cookies be present if private browsing was enabled?

I don't think so. But would the other files be modified? Was private browsing available in IE in 2008?

Palomine
04-14-2011, 01:09 PM
I am curious which night time posters are on the defense team

Palomine
04-14-2011, 01:10 PM
personally I am glad I don't have to listen to the repetitious cross by the defense

NCEast
04-14-2011, 01:10 PM
The court is probably in recess for lunch right now and I'm going to go outside and mow a some grass. All of this computer talk is more than I can comprehend. Yall have at it :)

Coolmomof4
04-14-2011, 01:10 PM
I was saying this because of the testimony yesterday that Fielding Dr was tht lat/long center of the zip code. It's not because it isn't in that zip code and wasn't in that zip code in 2008.


Gotcha.

Wish we could hear this testimony. I think it would make SO much more sense.

Palomine
04-14-2011, 01:12 PM
They asked to see the report from the software that they used. Not to know or use the software or methods themselves.

They want materials created by the FBI, not the process or methods they used to create the evidence.

Hiding behind the pedofile excuse is entirely disingenuous on the part of the Pros.

its the FBI that won't give it up..don't blame it on the pros..do you think Apple would give Cisco an insight of their software

ncsu95
04-14-2011, 01:13 PM
From one of the tweets, the agent indicated that the zip code has actually changed (in terms of size) from two years ago and if I understand correctly, google maps puts the pointer in what it defines as the 'center' of whatever search you do. So, since the size of the zip code changed, the 'center' is not the same as it was 2 years ago.

But the center wouldn't be on Fielding Dr. no matter what. Not arguing against the evidence...just not understanding the tweet yesterday about Fielding being the lat/long center of the zip code when it wasn't and isn't in that zip code.

cityslick
04-14-2011, 01:15 PM
But the center wouldn't be on Fielding Dr. no matter what. Not arguing against the evidence...just not understanding the tweet yesterday about Fielding being the lat/long center of the zip code when it wasn't and isn't in that zip code.

It's not, but I think the agent said (this may have been in the news article and not a tweet) that his analysis showed the map was 'moved' and 'zoomed'. It was actually zoomed to 2 different places (one was Fielding).

ohiogirl
04-14-2011, 01:16 PM
If defense bring their own computer experts on, if they found this search also, they will have to testify such, no? I am really having a hard time believing that the only way to find this is by the FBI's secret program. Would the defense be trying to get this out of the trial so that they will not have to bring their own experts? Wouldn't it be funny if they don't call any in their side? Just thinkin' out loud.