PDA

View Full Version : State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

gritguy
04-19-2011, 12:43 PM
Actually gritguy, Defense got the FBI MFT..This guy saw it..and couldnt replicate it with his tools he begged borrowed or stole to try to..and As I kept referring to way back, Kurtz wanted the "Tool" or "Browser" used by FBI in order to do that..which was disallowed due to security for FBI's ability to forensically search computers for criminal activities..

Would you give this guy a "Protected" tool after we heard how be came by his programs and tools??..Dont blame the FBI for prtecting the information at all!!

Thanks much. I did not understand that to have been the case. That's a pretty important distinction!

momof7
04-19-2011, 12:43 PM
The judge can always allow it regardless of discovery. I agree discovery and witness lists etc. are generally to be adhered to, but the judge can deviate in the interests of justice and it is not uncommon for them to do so. Clearly Kurtz isn't sandbagging a new witness, he just doesn't have one.

If the judge did allow a witness offered by Kurtz and the state had time to prepare, it would essentially moot the appeal point of denying this other guy the ability to testify on the forensic level.

However, I think it doubtful Kurtz could get someone up to speed in time to offer them up.

So, lets say there is an expert out there who can, and Kurtz has several witnesses to go, he could ask the Judge to allow the new 'expert' as long as the Pros as time to prepare?


Kelly

eta: Not that I am thinking that is possible, but interesting to know.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 12:46 PM
i missed the video, but it seems obvious no real expert is willing to get on the stand and lie for brad cooper. The indigent fund can't pay enough for that. The computer evidence is real and was shown to be very credible.
Kurtz is fighting a lost battle.

exactly.

gritguy
04-19-2011, 12:49 PM
So, lets say there is an expert out there who can, and Kurtz has several witnesses to go, he could ask the Judge to allow the new 'expert' as long as the Pros as time to prepare?


Kelly

eta: Not that I am thinking that is possible, but interesting to know.

Yes, he could certainly ask. It'd be up to the judge on whether to allow it. The state would howl of course, probably rightfully so. The judge has a low opinion it seems of the "tampering" theory so I don't see him holding up the trial for it.

But, for example, let's say somebody comes back tonight from a mission trip in the jungle, realizes this case is going on and just happened to be walking down Lochmere that fateful morning at 7:20 a.m. and happened to discuss the weather with Nancy as she ran by and happened to videotape it all. Kurtz would want that person in and in the interests of justice it obviously should be.

Of course, that didn't happen! :-)

BrownRice
04-19-2011, 12:49 PM
Could Kurtz have received this information prior to today (i.e. asked for a special hearing at the beginning of trial to ensure this witness was kosher)?

NCEast
04-19-2011, 12:50 PM
Is it too late in the game for Kurtz to open up the phone book (figuratively) and get another "real" forensic expert to come in and testify to Ward's findings (or do it himself and find the same thing Ward did)?

I had two phone calls and I'm behind but I had wondered this as well. I don't think the judge would allow a 3 or 4 day recess while another person examines it.

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 12:50 PM
Little K wants someone who will sit up on that stand and say the FBI is wrong, someone hacked into Cooper's secure IBM computer and changed files. Not going to happen...not with anyone who is credible and certified and accepted as an expert.

I'm sure there's a homeless guy on Fayetteville St who has at one time gone into a library and sat at a computer terminal. I suppose he would do it.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 12:50 PM
Originally Posted by LyndyLoo
Actually gritguy, Defense got the FBI MFT..This guy saw it..and couldnt replicate it with his tools he begged borrowed or stole to try to..and As I kept referring to way back, Kurtz wanted the "Tool" or "Browser" used by FBI in order to do that..which was disallowed due to security for FBI's ability to forensically search computers for criminal activities..

Would you give this guy a "Protected" tool after we heard how be came by his programs and tools??..Dont blame the FBI for prtecting the information at all!!





Thanks much. I did not understand that to have been the case. That's a pretty important distinction!


Looks like the FBI and prosecution were correct in not wanting their *tool* given to this flake who copies and boot-legs for his *business*.

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 12:51 PM
Yes, he could certainly ask. It'd be up to the judge on whether to allow it. The state would howl of course, probably rightfully so. The judge has a low opinion it seems of the "tampering" theory so I don't see him holding up the trial for it.

But, for example, let's say somebody comes back tonight from a mission trip in the jungle, realizes this case is going on and just happened to be walking down Lochmere that fateful morning at 7:20 a.m. and happened to discuss the weather and happened to videotape it all. Kurtz would want that person in and in the interests of justice it obviously should be.
Can you imagine the notes from the jury?

:panic:

WolfpackWoman
04-19-2011, 12:51 PM
So, someone with 18 years of security hardening and network experience detecting intrusion and tampering isn't an expert, even when their results exactly match up with the FBI results. But, an agent who doesn't know how to turn on the cell phone during his testimony, or the Durham cop who started out as an airport cop at RDU can?

Danielle59
04-19-2011, 12:52 PM
Thanks much. I did not understand that to have been the case. That's a pretty important distinction!

They were not allowed the output from the MFt is my understanding.

Danielle59
04-19-2011, 12:53 PM
Could Kurtz have received this information prior to today (i.e. asked for a special hearing at the beginning of trial to ensure this witness was kosher)?

The man has been on the witness list forever, seems BZ jsut questioned his credentials today, he should have done it prior.

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 12:54 PM
They were not allowed the output from the MFt is my understanding.
IMO, what they were not allowed was information pertaining to the apparatus and methodology.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 12:55 PM
delay delay delay ...that is all the defense has ...they have nothing 6 hours of testimony from a geek!!!

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 12:57 PM
Thanks much. I did not understand that to have been the case. That's a pretty important distinction!

I heard the conversation completely differently. I was there and took notes, BTW, and here's what they say:

During motion to suppress FBI testimony--
Kurtz had asked for the report over a year ago in motion for discovery. Answer was "deferred while we await answer."

Boz--argues Defense has the hard drive so they have it. Defense is barred from procedures and that is what they are asking for. "The real issue seems to be that the Defense is unhappy with the answers he got"

Motion denied.

Kurtz--moves for immediate copy of master file. wants any exculpatory evidence. "We're 7 weeks into this trial. This is not the discussion we should be having." Argues that just because we have the computer doesn't mean we have the MFT. "I can't show him our document and say, 'Are you familiar with this? He isn't. He is familiar with HIS table."

Boz--argues Kurtz is asking for procedure.

Kurtz--We don't want the procedure. We want the product." Wants it before cross so he can go through it line by line, item by item.

Boz--says court ruled months ago on this when arguing discovery.

Kurtz- This is their result. Referred back to the "deferred wile State seeks answer..." Says that this was courts order on motion to compel. Says, "We shouldn't have gotten our answer from the witness."

Boz--argues MFT on hard drive.

Kz- that's like saying if I have a bloody t-shirt I have the DNA sequence.

Judge--You can't extract it?
Kz--We can IN A DIFFERENT form! Can't effectively cross examine witness with a different table.

(Me--So, I hear this as them just asking for the product. The MFT--before the cross so he could go item by item with the witness.)

Palomine
04-19-2011, 12:57 PM
we will hear that Jay's first computer was a commodore 64

gracielee
04-19-2011, 12:57 PM
I don't detect the usual 'cupper smirk' on brad right now.

gritguy
04-19-2011, 12:57 PM
So, someone with 18 years of security hardening and network experience detecting intrusion and tampering isn't an expert, even when their results exactly match up with the FBI results. But, an agent who doesn't know how to turn on the cell phone during his testimony, or the Durham cop who started out as an airport cop at RDU can?

They may not have been good experts, but I'm guessing they demonstrated during voir dire the requisite background of experience or training. I didn't see/hear those.

The problem with Kurtz's guy appears to be that while he is knowledgeable on the subject matter, he isn't an expert on forensic examination. I'm surprised they would call a guy who had never done a forensic exam (if I'm correct in what I think the problem was) before and use him as the key and perhaps only expert on the subject. There are loads of computer experts out there who easily could have qualified, whole firms who specialize in forensics. I got from the conversation (I didn't see the witness testify) that this guy did not have such a background in forensics.

Danielle59
04-19-2011, 12:57 PM
IMO, what they were not allowed was information pertaining to the apparatus and methodology.

He agreed to not have that as long as he could have the output and BZ double talked and confused the already confused Judge to a point that even the output was not allowed.

momof7
04-19-2011, 12:57 PM
delay delay delay ...that is all the defense has ...they have nothing 6 hours of testimony from a geek!!!

I am betting 6 hours is conservative at this point with all the objections that are surely to be raised as they 'decide' what he can testify to as they are going along. Am I correct in hearing that?

Kelly

Palomine
04-19-2011, 12:58 PM
blacked out....

Danielle59
04-19-2011, 12:58 PM
delay delay delay ...that is all the defense has ...they have nothing 6 hours of testimony from a geek!!!

I am really curious, are you interested and believe in justice in our Judicial system, or just in bashing the defense even when the defense doesn't merit bashing?

momof7
04-19-2011, 12:59 PM
blacked out....

darn it!

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 01:00 PM
blacked out....

Rats! One of the undercovers back on the stand!

MrsWendy
04-19-2011, 01:00 PM
I missed the video, but it seems obvious no real expert is willing to get on the stand and lie for Brad Cooper. The indigent fund can't pay enough for that. The computer evidence is real and was shown to be very credible.
Kurtz is fighting a lost battle.

I agree with the part about the computer evidence being real. But it was not shown to be credible. The method used to obtain the evidence was kept secret so the credibility of the evidence was never proven. Of course the evidence is probably very legitimate, but nobody outside of the FBI knows whether that is true or not.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 01:01 PM
blacked out....

Oh for craps sakes! Now what? I need to get outside and plant some border plants. Does anyone think I'll have the time to do that now?

kljohnson0458
04-19-2011, 01:01 PM
No pic and don't know who was called.

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 01:02 PM
He agreed to not have that as long as he could have the output and BZ double talked and confused the already confused Judge to a point that even the output was not allowed. The witness testified he DID have the output.

gritguy
04-19-2011, 01:02 PM
The man has been on the witness list forever, seems BZ jsut questioned his credentials today, he should have done it prior.

Usually an expert is challenged by one side when actually called by the other side. You go through a foundational challenge, sometimes with and sometimes w/o the jury, and then the judge declares the person an expert or not.

I don't think the prosecution had any reason, or really any method, to challenge the guy before being called.

The best thing is to use someone CLEARLY qualified as an expert, since you know he can't testify if he doesn't pass the challenge.

This one lands in Kurtz's court. He knows the timing and process of qualifying an expert and should know the danger in putting up a guy who has, not even once, ever qualified as an expert in forensics before.

ETA: how could you even make a motion to challenge the expert when you have not been told exactly what the guy will be testifying as an expert on, and as his qualifications could change before trial, and they might not even call him. The judge would say, if you made that motion (and of course you'd need to depo the guy before making the motion to have the facts), "Bring it up if and when they call him."

LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 01:02 PM
I heard the conversation completely differently. I was there and took notes, BTW, and here's what they say:

During motion to suppress FBI testimony--
Kurtz had asked for the report over a year ago in motion for discovery. Answer was "deferred while we await answer."

Boz--argues Defense has the hard drive so they have it. Defense is barred from procedures and that is what they are asking for. "The real issue seems to be that the Defense is unhappy with the answers he got"

Motion denied.

Kurtz--moves for immediate copy of master file. wants any exculpatory evidence. "We're 7 weeks into this trial. This is not the discussion we should be having." Argues that just because we have the computer doesn't mean we have the MFT. "I can't show him our document and say, 'Are you familiar with this? He isn't. He is familiar with HIS table."

Boz--argues Kurtz is asking for procedure.

Kurtz--We don't want the procedure. We want the product." Wants it before cross so he can go through it line by line, item by item.

Boz--says court ruled months ago on this when arguing discovery.

Kurtz- This is their result. Referred back to the "deferred wile State seeks answer..." Says that this was courts order on motion to compel. Says, "We shouldn't have gotten our answer from the witness."

Boz--argues MFT on hard drive.

Kz- that's like saying if I have a bloody t-shirt I have the DNA sequence.

Judge--You can't extract it?
Kz--We can IN A DIFFERENT form! Can't effectively cross examine witness with a different table.

(Me--So, I hear this as them just asking for the product. The MFT--before the cross so he could go item by item with the witness.)

I heard Mr. Ward say very clearly that he could NOT replicate the MFT offered by FBI and it differed to his MFT..and tried to replicate it....IF he didnt see it, then HOW would he even know it differed at all??

I think Kurtz tried to phrase things to make it appear the way you suggested, but it came quite clear to the judge, Boz and to some Puter Whizes here that explained it..

JMO

kantoo
04-19-2011, 01:02 PM
No pic and don't know who was called.

special agent somebody...

:crazy: i know, i'm a big help

Palomine
04-19-2011, 01:02 PM
I am really curious, are you interested and believe in justice in our Judicial system, or just in bashing the defense even when the defense doesn't merit bashing?

basically bashing the defense when he was just speaking to the Judge about Jay is not available after tomorrow (Jay is self employed by the way) trust me I am not the only one who feels this way...it has been brought up in court ...how he argues about stuff that has been ruled on already..if that is not delaying the trial ..not sure what it is

gracielee
04-19-2011, 01:03 PM
I am really curious, are you interested and believe in justice in our Judicial system, or just in bashing the defense even when the defense doesn't merit bashing?

I believe in a justice system that works for both the victim & the accused. Do I believe in a system to be *played* and *used*? No. A system like that which Ira Eikhorn played? Charles Ng *used*? Nope, nada, not at all.

TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 01:03 PM
The defense called Spec Agent Johnson, hence the blackout.

So, not going with their expert at this point ...

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 01:04 PM
No pic and don't know who was called.
Maybe the FBI is back? Rebuttal?

kljohnson0458
04-19-2011, 01:05 PM
Rats! One of the undercovers back on the stand!
If he's undercover WRAL did him no favors as he was on camera getting up and walking to the stand from behing KC.

momof7
04-19-2011, 01:06 PM
Usually an expert is challenged by one side when actually called by the other side. You go through a foundational challenge, sometimes with and sometimes w/o the jury, and then the judge declares the person an expert or not.

I don't think the prosecution had any reason, or really any method, to challenge the guy before being called.

The best thing is to use someone CLEARLY qualified as an expert, since you know he can't testify if he doesn't pass the challenge.

This one lands in Kurtz's court. He knows the timing and process of qualifying an expert and should know the danger in putting up a guy who has, not even once, ever qualified as an expert in forensics before.

Common sense would dictate, for Kurtz and his staff, that they need to be prepared. It does not appear that they are thoroughly prepared.

Gritguy, thank you so much for your insight.

Kelly

cody100
04-19-2011, 01:06 PM
special agent somebody...

:crazy: i know, i'm a big help

Johnson I think

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 01:07 PM
Takeaway from this morning: if you're going to have someone testify a laptop was hacked and you're going to go up against the FBI, you better make sure you actually have a bonafide expert in computer forensics, who owns and uses industry standard forensic software, has real credentials other than "examined Anna Nicole's computer," has a credentialed facility and has done more than a 'couple forensic exams.'

Or else you will be handed your own spleen for lunch.

jmflu
04-19-2011, 01:07 PM
i hear ya...all i heard was he penetrated more than 100 :shocked2::floorlaugh:

lol!!

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 01:08 PM
Maybe the FBI is back? Rebuttal?

My understanding is that during the state side of the case, the defense is only supposed to cross on stuff brought up by the prosecution. In this instance, my guess is that the defense wants this witness back so they can bring up stuff not brought up by the prosecution. Does that make sense?

Unfortunately we're missing the most significant part of the case, AGAIN and have to rely on twitter. (Unless we can talk FullDisclosure into running down to the court right now! :biggrin:

Maybe Star12 is there.)

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:09 PM
A blow, and I'm not sure I agree with the judge that the defense shouldn't see the MFT or whatever (did it really expose means or other protected methods - I don't knwo). However, to call a guy who would be testifying on a forensic investigation of a computer and alleging the FBI or whoever messed up the forensic investigation and who has never testified in this field or otherwise qualified himself in that way was dicey at best.

Example: I'm a pilot. I can testify to lots of things about flying and how small aircraft work. And I might be able to tell why a plane crashed, if the cause were simple enough and the evidence obvious. I'm not an expert though in investigating crashes and certainly am not an expert in questioning the NTSB's methods.

Granted, that's not a close analogy, but I think most of these decisions are at the superficial level in this case and no actor in the case is arguing in technical terms very well.

But I believe they guy was going to offer that he believed the network was hacked...and his proof is that these x files were tampered with. Now he can say that the network was hacked but can't offer proof. If they had brought up a computer forensics expert, he probably would not have been able to testify that the network was hacked, only that files were changed. So I'm not sure what the best course of action would have been here. The guy offered that one of the ways they can tell a system has been hacked is that you have modified files.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 01:09 PM
I believe in a justice system that works for both the victim & the accused. Do I believe in a system to be *played* and *used*? No. A system like that which Ira Eikhorn played? Charles Ng *used*? Nope, nada, not at all.

Charles ng ..reason why Brad tried to get back to Canada(if not for those pesky friends)
see how long it took them to extradite NG

momof7
04-19-2011, 01:10 PM
basically bashing the defense when he was just speaking to the Judge about Jay is not available after tomorrow (Jay is self employed by the way) trust me I am not the only one who feels this way...it has been brought up in court ...how he argues about stuff that has been ruled on already..if that is not delaying the trial ..not sure what it is

I also was wondering why he was not available after today. Obviously, he would have had to be there tomorrow regardless. So, I was a bit confused as to why he had to testify today, and today only?

Maybe he has to be in another case as an expert, don't know. But, I would imagine, if he thought he was going to be an EXPERT witness he would have made sure he was available.

Kelly

less0305
04-19-2011, 01:10 PM
Takeaway from this morning: if you're going to have someone testify a laptop was hacked and you're going to go up against the FBI, you better make sure you actually have a bonafide expert in computer forensics, who owns and uses industry standard forensic software, has real credentials other than "examined Anna Nicole's computer," has a credentialed facility and has done more than a 'couple forensic exams.'

Or else you will be handed your own spleen for lunch.

So did he hightail it out of Dodge? Is the defense not going to use him at all now? Color me confused.

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 01:10 PM
Takeaway from this morning: if you're going to have someone testify a laptop was hacked and you're going to go up against the FBI, you better make sure you actually have a bonafide expert in computer forensics, who owns and uses industry standard forensic software, has real credentials other than "examined Anna Nicole's computer," has a credentialed facility and has done more than a 'couple forensic exams.'

Or else you will be handed your own spleen for lunch.


Without condiments.

cody100
04-19-2011, 01:11 PM
Takeaway from this morning: if you're going to have someone testify a laptop was hacked and you're going to go up against the FBI, you better make sure you actually have a bonafide expert in computer forensics, who owns and uses industry standard forensic software, has real credentials other than "examined Anna Nicole's computer," has a credentialed facility and has done more than a 'couple forensic exams.'

Or else you will be handed your own spleen for lunch.

I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 01:11 PM
My understanding is that during the state side of the case, the defense is only supposed to cross on stuff brought up by the prosecution. In this instance, my guess is that the defense wants this witness back so they can bring up stuff not brought up by the prosecution. Does that make sense?

Unfortunately we're missing the most significant part of the case, AGAIN and have to rely on twitter. (Unless we can talk FullDisclosure into running down to the court right now! :biggrin:

Maybe Star12 is there.)
I'm upset we have to miss Mr Kurtz and a kitten episode.

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 01:12 PM
I guess we now know the driver of the white van was Mr. Ward. Surreptitiously driving around and hacking into insecure wireless networks, as it were.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:12 PM
Judge Gessner was a police officer who went to law school to be a prosecutor. I don't think that he has been impartial at any point in this trial. I would hope that at the very least the manner in which he has conducted this trial, on and off the record, would be reviewed by the Chief Judge for Superior Court. I don't believe that Gessner right now is concerned in the sanctity of the justice system, but more for a victory for the prosecution. Could Brad Cooper have drawn a worse judge in Wake County? Probably not.

I agree. I also find his reactions, heavy sighs, staring at the ceiling, etc. to be quite unprofessional for a judge.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 01:12 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
We've had to cut our live feed of the #coopertrial while FBI agent Gregory Johnson testifies. It'll be back once his testimony is over.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:12 PM
If he's undercover WRAL did him no favors as he was on camera getting up and walking to the stand from behing KC.

I saw a head full of gorgeous hair!

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 01:13 PM
Without condiments.

and no fava beans or a nice chianti either!

gritguy
04-19-2011, 01:13 PM
But I believe they guy was going to offer that he believed the network was hacked...and his proof is that these x files were tampered with. Now he can say that the network was hacked but can't offer proof. If they had brought up a computer forensics expert, he probably would not have been able to testify that the network was hacked, only that files were changed. So I'm not sure what the best course of action would have been here. The guy offered that one of the ways they can tell a system has been hacked is that you have modified files.

I think they should have gotten someone who has experience testifying in both areas. It was dangerous to call a guy who has not been to the plate before. There are so many firms around, how did they land with this guy?

One thing to think about (it may not work the same in criminal stuff), is that if you have an expert who agrees with you, you list them as a testifying expert. If you talk to one who does not agree with you, you consider them a consulting expert and don't list/mention them at all. Perhaps this guy who took the stand wasn't the only expert talked to, just the one who seemed most helpful.

LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 01:14 PM
I dont believe Mr. Ward is being bashed so much as being tagged with being underqualified to testify as an expert to call into question the FBI find of those computer searches of pictures...Never heard him called a liar, or embellisher of truthes at all!! He is a very well seasoned computer geek. Unfortunately Defense picked him to fight computer forensic facts which he isnt qualified to do...

I also read one post a few pages back, accusing the Judge as being a ringer for the prosecution, as an ex-cop, ex-prosecutor..and is biased for Prosecutions success...Now what was that all about I wonder??

ohiogirl
04-19-2011, 01:14 PM
I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

Was it $$ or was he the only one willing?

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:15 PM
Actually gritguy, Defense got the FBI MFT..This guy saw it..and couldnt replicate it with his tools he begged borrowed or stole to try to..and As I kept referring to way back, Kurtz wanted the "Tool" or "Browser" used by FBI in order to do that..which was disallowed due to security for FBI's ability to forensically search computers for criminal activities..

Would you give this guy a "Protected" tool after we heard how be came by his programs and tools??..Dont blame the FBI for prtecting the information at all!!

No they didn't. They got a copy of the hard drive in which to derive their own MFT was my understanding.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:15 PM
So did he hightail it out of Dodge? Is the defense not going to use him at all now? Color me confused.

I'm confused as well. I thought they would automatically go with Ward as soon as they jury returned. Nothing in this trial has been in any kind of order.

gritguy
04-19-2011, 01:15 PM
I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

Maybe they talked to someone with all that gear and determined the testimony would not be helpful. Lawyers forum shop, judge shop, expert shop and witness shop.

momof7
04-19-2011, 01:15 PM
I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

But, wasn't the Innocence Project people available and seen sitting behind the defense in the beginning of this trail. They have a mountain of resources available to them and most of them are done pro bono.

I am honestly, literally stunned. There is no back up whatsoever. They ruled on the information several weeks ago, there should have been a scurry of activity to get the right people to testify. All they had to do, was provide doubt for the jury, not that it did or did not happen.
Kelly

gritguy
04-19-2011, 01:16 PM
I'm confused as well. I thought they would automatically go with Ward as soon as they jury returned. Nothing in this trial has been in any kind of order.

They may still call him but need time to reframe the direct exam since the ruling destroyed their plans.

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 01:16 PM
Your expert witness has to be able to lay their professional integrity on the line. Just sayin'.

borndem
04-19-2011, 01:16 PM
must have bach. or master's degree


Look at his resume (I wouldn't call it a CV) on the website -- he cites a BA in "Interdisciplinary Studies" which at many colleges or universities used to be called, "General Studies," i.e., a non-technical degree, but a student could take some tech courses if the school offered them, but he wouldn't have had enough to qualify for a tech degree or even a BS.

Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 01:17 PM
Somebody help me out here...How did we get from the Computer guy (Ward) back to the undercover guy?

less0305
04-19-2011, 01:17 PM
I think they should have gotten someone who has experience testifying in both areas. It was dangerous to call a guy who has not been to the plate before. There are so many firms around, how did they land with this guy?

One thing to think about (it may not work the same in criminal stuff), is that if you have an expert who agrees with you, you list them as a testifying expert. If you talk to one who does not agree with you, you consider them a consulting expert and don't list/mention them at all. Perhaps this guy who took the stand wasn't the only expert talked to, just the one who seemed most helpful.

Perhaps the one who wanted to bulk up his business coffers with defense expert witness fees? Perhaps the one who heard and knew about a Cisco link and contacted the defense with a deal they just couldn't turn down?

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:17 PM
IMO, what they were not allowed was information pertaining to the apparatus and methodology.

They first asked for that...when that was denied, they asked for the MFT report. That was denied as well due to national security.

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 01:17 PM
So, if the defense is calling Agent Johnson, is he on both witness lists? I know that this can happen with witnesses, but I wouldn't expect it from the FBI expert. It can't be cross examination, because that already happened, right? How does this work?
Remember, I'm a rookie...

I should have gone to court today!!!

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:18 PM
I agree. I also find his reactions, heavy sighs, staring at the ceiling, etc. to be quite unprofessional for a judge.

I was doing some background research on him and found something akin to 'rate a judge'. His scores were high in some areas, very low in others. Only 7 people had completed the poll when I saw it a few weeks ago.

Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 01:19 PM
I agree with the part about the computer evidence being real. But it was not shown to be credible. The method used to obtain the evidence was kept secret so the credibility of the evidence was never proven. Of course the evidence is probably very legitimate, but nobody outside of the FBI knows whether that is true or not.

Another one of those corrupt federal government conspiracies, perhaps?
Saving John Edwards I could see, but a lowly NC murder suspect?
Naw, the FBI is credible in this case.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:19 PM
we will hear that Jay's first computer was a commodore 64

Mine was a commodore vic 20. I would have loved the 64.

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 01:20 PM
I dont believe Mr. Ward is being bashed so much as being tagged with being underqualified to testify as an expert to call into question the FBI find of those computer searches of pictures...Never heard him called a liar, or embellisher of truthes at all!! He is a very well seasoned computer geek. Unfortunately Defense picked him to fight computer forensic facts which he isnt qualified to do...

I also read one post a few pages back, accusing the Judge as being a ringer for the prosecution, as an ex-cop, ex-prosecutor..and is biased for Prosecutions success...Now what was that all about I wonder??

I'm a long time lurker that decided to chime in. I do not think that Gessner has run a fair and objective trial. I think that decisions he has taken are time and time again in favor of the prosecution. And I think with his background, it makes sense. You can also see by watching him that he is a rather emotional guy so I in no way believe that he has been able to keep his biases from clouding his perspective. JMO

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 01:20 PM
Somebody help me out here...How did we get from the Computer guy (Ward) back to the undercover guy?

My guess is that if they use Ward, they just have to regroup, since they can't use him to report on his MFT findings, only on security.

less0305
04-19-2011, 01:21 PM
I dont believe Mr. Ward is being bashed so much as being tagged with being underqualified to testify as an expert to call into question the FBI find of those computer searches of pictures...Never heard him called a liar, or embellisher of truthes at all!! He is a very well seasoned computer geek. Unfortunately Defense picked him to fight computer forensic facts which he isnt qualified to do...

I also read one post a few pages back, accusing the Judge as being a ringer for the prosecution, as an ex-cop, ex-prosecutor..and is biased for Prosecutions success...Now what was that all about I wonder??

True that. Call the police inept and corrupt. Call the judge a cheat for the prosecution side. Call the prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves... but don't dare have an opinion about the first defense witness out of the gate.

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 01:21 PM
Mine was a commodore vic 20. I would have loved the 64.
I had to take classes to learn DOS for my first computer, lol.

cody100
04-19-2011, 01:21 PM
Maybe they talked to someone with all that gear and determined the testimony would not be helpful. Lawyers forum shop, judge shop, expert shop and witness shop.

You might be right. I doubt the defense would have picked this judge though in their shopping.

less0305
04-19-2011, 01:21 PM
My guess is that if they use Ward, they just have to regroup, since they can't use him to report on his MFT findings, only on security.

But he can't come back after today. Barbados called and they want their fee back. They didn't realize he wasn't qualified when they hired him.

macd
04-19-2011, 01:22 PM
They were not allowed the output from the MFt is my understanding.
That was the judges ruling, but from what I heard this morning, the defense did get a copy last week.
The witness this morning was asked to compare the FBI information with his.

LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 01:23 PM
No they didn't. They got a copy of the hard drive in which to derive their own MFT was my understanding.

Then why did Mr. Ward testify that when he downloaded to obtain MFT from that hard drive ( in his home) that his findings didnt match the FBI's MFT?..Dont shot the messenger, that is what he said to Boz..

Kurtz really did try to obscure his request for the tool, but thats what it really came down to in the end. Mr. Ward sought out many other tools in order to replicate that and couldnt...What was he trying to replicate then if you dont believe he had them to replicate?..Sorry..this was all haggled out pre-trial and Kurtz lost that battle then, he mearly tried to do it in court again to get the judge confused and possibly over-rule his original ruling IMO

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 01:24 PM
But he can't come back after today. Barbados called and they want their fee back. They didn't realize he wasn't qualified when they hired him.

I had some buffering issues earlier. Did he say he can't or is it against the rules? (Sorry, my rookie status is showing again.) :)

less0305
04-19-2011, 01:25 PM
I had some buffering issues earlier. Did he say he can't or is it against the rules? (Sorry, my rookie status is showing again.) :)

Kurtz kept saying he couldn't be here beyond today. <shrug> I don't know.

gritguy
04-19-2011, 01:26 PM
You might be right. I doubt the defense would have picked this judge though in their shopping.

Indeed. Clearly they weren't allowed to shop that one! Anyway, it is pretty easy to shop judges for pre-trial motions but much harder for trials, due to how all that is scheduled.

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 01:27 PM
Well, today isn't over yet. I wonder if they'll use him for anything at this point. Wow.

momof7
04-19-2011, 01:27 PM
But he can't come back after today. Barbados called and they want their fee back. They didn't realize he wasn't qualified when they hired him.

And this is what bothers me immensly. How could BC attorney's not realize there was a probability he would not be considered an expert. He hadn't been called in a trail before now as an expert. How could they not find another backup plan in case this were to happen.

For me, this pretty much says, they couldn't. There was not a single expert out there willing to say what they wanted to hear and testify to it. Do you think BC feels the gravity of his situation? I hope his attorney's have been preparing him for it, because they certainly had to know it was a shot in the dark. I am pretty sure I can not be convinced otherwise.

Kelly

otto
04-19-2011, 01:30 PM
Trying to catch up ... but a bit confused.

Who had stolen software on the computer: Brad or the expext?

Did Kurtz receive a full description of what FBI did to discover the zoomed in area?

Is Kurtz trying to argue that the computer was tampered with by FBI and that the information was not on the computer prior to FBI analysis of the machine?

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 01:30 PM
I like how it's being claimed the judge is corrupt and one-sided merely because he is ruling in favor of the state's arguments more often than the defense, when in fact, those calling the judge corrupt and one-sided have no clue about the laws that apply, prior judicial rulings that apply, similar rulings in other cases that apply and a myriad of other legal basis that go into rulings.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:30 PM
I also was wondering why he was not available after today. Obviously, he would have had to be there tomorrow regardless. So, I was a bit confused as to why he had to testify today, and today only?

Maybe he has to be in another case as an expert, don't know. But, I would imagine, if he thought he was going to be an EXPERT witness he would have made sure he was available.

Kelly

Maybe he has a business trip. I'm sure his work isn't just local.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:32 PM
Kurtz kept saying he couldn't be here beyond today. <shrug> I don't know.

That makes calling a different witness altogether seem so strange.
Kurtz told the judge that Ward would probably be on the stand for 6 hours, including the prosc. turn. The judge questioned that it would take the rest of this afternoon and a chunk of tomorrow for Ward.
I sure don't understand.

borndem
04-19-2011, 01:32 PM
Just because someone has a college degree it does not mean they are better at what they do than someone else. I am sure you go to the Doctor's ocassionally, do you know if your doctor was an "A" student, or a "D" student, both would be passing you know? A doctor is not the best comparison, because they both have degrees, but a degree along in technology does not relate to being better. is: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs degree is in Physics not computer technology. In the 80s we didn't have laptops, the person PC was a Commodore 64, mainframes and CRTs was still the lay of the land, there was no network other than in the military and even that was rudimentary.

If they had of picked a Cisco person then the argument would be, "this guy works for Cisco, he probably knew BC and is just not admitting it," or some other issue.


I understand your point, but how many D-students graduate from college? Do you have any idea what kind of grades it takes to get into a medical school in the US? It's brutal.

I do most certainly agree with you that physics is indeed a good background for technical expertise. NCSU's first class of Computer Science students graduated in 1971 (it was a 4-year curriculum, of course). CoBOL, assembler, and Fortran were the languages then. I was there.

And I do remember Commodores!!! Techies went crazy for 'em, didn't they?!

otto
04-19-2011, 01:32 PM
And this is what bothers me immensly. How could BC attorney's not realize there was a probability he would not be considered an expert. He hadn't been called in a trail before now as an expert. How could they not find another backup plan in case this were to happen.

For me, this pretty much says, they couldn't. There was not a single expert out there willing to say what they wanted to hear and testify to it. Do you think BC feels the gravity of his situation? I hope his attorney's have been preparing him for it, because they certainly had to know it was a shot in the dark. I am pretty sure I can not be convinced otherwise.

Kelly

If Kurtz didn't have the information he needed, it would be very difficult for any expert to say one way of the other whether they could give an opinion on the process used by FBI ... wouldn't it?

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:33 PM
Trying to catch up ... but a bit confused.

Who had stolen software on the computer: Brad or the expext?

Did Kurtz receive a full description of what FBI did to discover the zoomed in area?

Is Kurtz trying to argue that the computer was tampered with by FBI and that the information was not on the computer prior to FBI analysis of the machine?

The software wasn't stolen--borrowed from Cisco. And the rest we still don't know yet.

MrsWendy
04-19-2011, 01:33 PM
Another one of those corrupt federal government conspiracies, perhaps?
Saving John Edwards I could see, but a lowly NC murder suspect?
Naw, the FBI is credible in this case.

Nope, no conspiracy theories. I actually agree with your belief that the computer evidence is legitimate. I was just pointing out that you weren't entirely correct when you said that the evidence had been shown to be very credible. The actual credibility was never proven. Instead all we got was a "our methods are legitimate -- trust us".

otto
04-19-2011, 01:33 PM
I like how it's being claimed the judge is corrupt and one-sided merely because he is ruling in favor of the state's arguments more often than the defense, when in fact, those calling the judge corrupt and one-sided have no clue about the laws that apply, prior judicial rulings that apply, similar rulings in other cases that apply and a myriad of other legal basis that go into rulings.

Is the Judge alert and paying attention when defense is asking questions, or is his head looking like it's ready to explode, and is he leaning back staring at the ceiling with his arms crossed?

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:34 PM
I dont believe Mr. Ward is being bashed so much as being tagged with being underqualified to testify as an expert to call into question the FBI find of those computer searches of pictures...Never heard him called a liar, or embellisher of truthes at all!! He is a very well seasoned computer geek. Unfortunately Defense picked him to fight computer forensic facts which he isnt qualified to do...

I also read one post a few pages back, accusing the Judge as being a ringer for the prosecution, as an ex-cop, ex-prosecutor..and is biased for Prosecutions success...Now what was that all about I wonder??

He's been called a loser, said he did his analysis on an etch-a-sketch, was called the driver of the white van breaking into networks, had his voice and mannerisms laughed at, called a name dropper, etc. etc. etc.

LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 01:35 PM
Trying to catch up ... but a bit confused.

Who had stolen software on the computer: Brad or the expext?

Did Kurtz receive a full description of what FBI did to discover the zoomed in area?

Is Kurtz trying to argue that the computer was tampered with by FBI and that the information was not on the computer prior to FBI analysis of the machine?

I think Kurtz is alleging CDI planted that search on the computer not the FBI..and of course we already know how expert they are with cells and computers?????? Chain of custody has already been established, and this cisco comuter was locked up from colletion date until it was removed and given to FBI??..Only 3 people had the key to that locked room..Wonder which one Kurtz feel expert enough to plant such a search?

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:35 PM
Maybe he has a business trip. I'm sure his work isn't just local.

But surely, with the total weight that the defense was putting on this witness and the supposed enormity and value of his testimony--and then telling the judge that his testimony would take 6 hours--I can't see them not advising Ward to hang around for a few days. I hate to use the word stupid but that's what it was.

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 01:35 PM
I like how it's being claimed the judge is corrupt and one-sided merely because he is ruling in favor of the state's arguments more often than the defense, when in fact, those calling the judge corrupt and one-sided have no clue about the laws that apply, prior judicial rulings that apply, similar rulings in other cases that apply and a myriad of other legal basis that go into rulings.

I don't think I've heard anyone call the judge corrupt. I think that his pro-prosecution bias has been called out. I think he's human, and he's pro-prosecution because of his background. I think most judges have some bias one way or the other, since they are all human and bring past experience to the bench. I also think that this particular judge doesn't do a very good job of hiding his particular bias.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:37 PM
Is the Judge alert and paying attention when defense is asking questions, or is his head looking like it's ready to explode, and is he leaning back staring at the ceiling with his arms crossed?

He's been alert and very fair today to both sides.

otto
04-19-2011, 01:37 PM
The software wasn't stolen--borrowed from Cisco. And the rest we still don't know yet.

Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 01:37 PM
Is the Judge alert and paying attention when defense is asking questions, or is his head looking like it's ready to explode, and is he leaning back staring at the ceiling with his arms crossed?

Like most judges, he's looking at or referring to case law on his computer, which is what guides rulings.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:38 PM
True that. Call the police inept and corrupt. Call the judge a cheat for the prosecution side. Call the prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves... but don't dare have an opinion about the first defense witness out of the gate.

That's not fair. Have an opinion on what he is saying or testifying to. I see nothing wrong with questioning his use of borrowed tools, etc. That would make him inept in this. But he was being bashed from the moment he sat down about things that didn't pertain to his expertise.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:39 PM
Then why did Mr. Ward testify that when he downloaded to obtain MFT from that hard drive ( in his home) that his findings didnt match the FBI's MFT?..Dont shot the messenger, that is what he said to Boz..

Kurtz really did try to obscure his request for the tool, but thats what it really came down to in the end. Mr. Ward sought out many other tools in order to replicate that and couldnt...What was he trying to replicate then if you dont believe he had them to replicate?..Sorry..this was all haggled out pre-trial and Kurtz lost that battle then, he mearly tried to do it in court again to get the judge confused and possibly over-rule his original ruling IMO


I think is is the report generated from the MFT that is in question.

cody100
04-19-2011, 01:39 PM
He's been alert and very fair today to both sides.

Yes, In my opinion he has been fair today and fairly alert. Maybe he is not feeling so stressed.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:39 PM
Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

But a Cisco employee loaned it to him and supervised his using it. The equipment that was so vital to the defense. Not kosher in anybody's eyes.

cody100
04-19-2011, 01:40 PM
I think is is the report generated from the MFT that is in question.

That was what I understood. It seemed to get very murky that day when they were arguing their points of view.

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 01:40 PM
Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

He didn't take on the job for the defense until Oct. 2010. He was no longer working for Cisco. A good friend of his who still worked at Cisco gave him a copy.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 01:43 PM
Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

wouldn't you need to give it back ..if you no longer worked there??

otto
04-19-2011, 01:43 PM
I think Kurtz is alleging CDI planted that search on the computer not the FBI..and of course we already know how expert they are with cells and computers?????? Chain of custody has already been established, and this cisco comuter was locked up from colletion date until it was removed and given to FBI??..Only 3 people had the key to that locked room..Wonder which one Kurtz feel expert enough to plant such a search?

We know that they wiped out a cell phone by accident (so they say), that they believe phone calls were remotely initiated but they can't prove it, and now that an area of a map was zoomed in but they couldn't reproduce it without just zooming in themselves.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this. It's not a clear connecting of the dots. Police appear to be stating opinions on the stand, and I think this is a big problem. In fact, we'd have a lot of opinion testimony, whereas I would prefer to see verifiable facts.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:45 PM
But surely, with the total weight that the defense was putting on this witness and the supposed enormity and value of his testimony--and then telling the judge that his testimony would take 6 hours--I can't see them not advising Ward to hang around for a few days. I hate to use the word stupid but that's what it was.

Sure. I have no idea why he isn't available beyond tomorrow. I believe the prosecution had a witness like that as well. I thought they did something out of order to accommodate a witness.

LaLaw2000
04-19-2011, 01:45 PM
True that. Call the police inept and corrupt. Call the judge a cheat for the prosecution side. Call the prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves... but don't dare have an opinion about the first defense witness out of the gate.

I think the Innocence Project has been alive and well here since the beginning of the trial.

Just my :twocents:.

otto
04-19-2011, 01:45 PM
He's been alert and very fair today to both sides.

That's good ... but if he's spent any time rolling his eyes and acting bored or impatient during defense questioning, he's communicating his opinion to the jurors.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor bug
i hear ya...all i heard was he penetrated more than 100

lol!!






lol!!


Wait a minute, I thought that was the *first* thing to go.....?

:great:

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:45 PM
We know that they wiped out a cell phone by accident (so they say), that they believe phone calls were remotely initiated but they can't prove it, and now that an area of a map was zoomed in but they couldn't reproduce it without just zooming in themselves.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this. It's not a clear connecting of the dots. Police appear to be stating opinions on the stand, and I think this is a big problem. In fact, we'd have a lot of opinion testimony, whereas I would prefer to see verifiable facts.

I think we all agree that the facts would be ideal. But this trial is what it is and it's been like this since the first week.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:46 PM
Thanks. Companies often permit employees to install work software from their home computers ... I don't see anything unusual about that.

He wasn't working for Cisco at the time. He used to work at Cisco and had a deal with a Cisco employee to allow him to use the software to generate the report at the Cisco office. It wasn't stolen or borrowed equipment.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:47 PM
That's good ... but if he's spent any time rolling his eyes and acting bored or impatient during defense questioning, he's communicating his opinion to the jurors.

They have been out all day. Until just before the blackout witness was called to the stand.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:48 PM
He didn't take on the job for the defense until Oct. 2010. He was no longer working for Cisco. A good friend of his who still worked at Cisco gave him a copy.

He didn't give him a copy (from my understanding), he allowed him to use a copy that the Cisco employee supervised him using.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:48 PM
He wasn't working for Cisco at the time. He used to work at Cisco and had a deal with a Cisco employee to allow him to use the software to generate the report at the Cisco office. It wasn't stolen or borrowed equipment.

My understanding was that he used the equipment in his 'home lab', not at Cisco?

Palomine
04-19-2011, 01:48 PM
on now ...and off
seems another witness Kurtz cannot use

gracielee
04-19-2011, 01:49 PM
But I believe they guy was going to offer that he believed the network was hacked...and his proof is that these x files were tampered with. Now he can say that the network was hacked but can't offer proof. If they had brought up a computer forensics expert, he probably would not have been able to testify that the network was hacked, only that files were changed. So I'm not sure what the best course of action would have been here. The guy offered that one of the ways they can tell a system has been hacked is that you have modified files.

Which is why so many were ragging on the prosecution for their case in chief. One must lay the groundwork for future testimony. *If* that was what the defense intended, then they call two witnesses, one to offer proof of hacking and the other to offer proof of tampering. Or ONE witness who is 'certified as an expert' in both fields. Think of Henry Lee, who at one time, prior to his becomming a paid wh*re, was well respected and certified an expert in numerous aspects of his field.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:49 PM
My understanding was that he used the equipment in his 'home lab', not at Cisco?

No, he did the analysis of the report at his home. He generated the MFT report at Cisco.

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 01:50 PM
I like how it's being claimed the judge is corrupt and one-sided merely because he is ruling in favor of the state's arguments more often than the defense, when in fact, those calling the judge corrupt and one-sided have no clue about the laws that apply, prior judicial rulings that apply, similar rulings in other cases that apply and a myriad of other legal basis that go into rulings.

I am an attorney myself, interned in the DA's office in Wake County during law school. I don't have an opinion one way or the other if BC is guilty. I did not like the prosecutions case. I imagine A LOT of work went into it to finesse it just right to prove their burden because the evidence is pretty lightweight. I've lurked here for a while because it's pretty interesting to read some of these threads and I am curious as to the outcome since it is in my own county. I did not call the judge corrupt. That is quite a leap but that sort of thing seems to go here with regularity so I won't take it personally. Curious what you all will do if he is acquitted of these charges. Send a lynch mob after him? Oh and I stopped into court last week and took a moment to watch part of the trial. I would pay to be in that jury room during deliberations. This is QUITE an interesting jury.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:50 PM
on now

I still show the test pattern screen.

Sailor Bug
04-19-2011, 01:50 PM
we are live...well we were for moment
bringing in the jury...waiting

otto
04-19-2011, 01:50 PM
wouldn't you need to give it back ..if you no longer worked there??

If software was installed on a machine, the only option is to uninstall the software.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:51 PM
Murder trial delayed for ex-Edmontonian
Kelly Turner
4/19/2011

The defence in the the murder trial of former Emontonian Brad Cooper stumbled and fell coming out of the starting gate. Cooper's lawyer Howard Kurtz ended yesterday on a high note, getting the key police witness to concede there's not much physical evidence to suggest Brad Cooper murdered his wife Nancy. The prosecution called its last witness and Kurtz hoped to jump to Cooper's defence this morning. That was before the prosecution challenged the knowledge of his opening witness by computer expert Jay Ward Junior. The judge kept the jury out of the courtroom and the two sides with Ward in the middle went back and forth for hours. When there was no end in sight, the judge gave the jury the morning off. The jury, already upset by how long the trial is taking, got more bad news today. The judge ruled that the trial will continue on Good Friday

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:52 PM
I am an attorney myself, interned in the DA's office in Wake County during law school. I don't have an opinion one way or the other if BC is guilty. I did not like the prosecutions case. I imagine A LOT of work went into it to finesse it just right to prove their burden because the evidence is pretty lightweight. I've lurked here for a while because it's pretty interesting to read some of these threads and I am curious as to the outcome since it is in my own county. I did not call the judge corrupt. That is quite a leap but that sort of thing seems to go here with regularity so I won't take it personally. Curious what you all will do if he is acquitted of these charges. Send a lynch mob after him? Oh and I stopped into court last week and took a moment to watch part of the trial. I would pay to be in that jury room during deliberations. This is QUITE an interesting jury.

Do you have an opinion on the judge and the way he has handled this trial? He obviously wears his emotions on his sleeve...is that typical in a courtroom?

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 01:52 PM
We got a short snippet of Mr Kurtz stipulating for the record that once again, Brads constitutional rights are being violated.

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 01:52 PM
No, he did the analysis of the report at his home. He generated the MFT report at Cisco.

He did testify that he hooked the hard drive up at home so he had to have run something on it there.

Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 01:53 PM
I am an attorney myself, interned in the DA's office in Wake County during law school. I don't have an opinion one way or the other if BC is guilty. I did not like the prosecutions case. I imagine A LOT of work went into it to finesse it just right to prove their burden because the evidence is pretty lightweight. I've lurked here for a while because it's pretty interesting to read some of these threads and I am curious as to the outcome since it is in my own county. I did not call the judge corrupt. That is quite a leap but that sort of thing seems to go here with regularity so I won't take it personally. Curious what you all will do if he is acquitted of these charges. Send a lynch mob after him? Oh and I stopped into court last week and took a moment to watch part of the trial. I would pay to be in that jury room during deliberations. This is QUITE an interesting jury.

What do you find so interesting about this jury?
I have seen them several times myself and they appear to be everyday citizens of Wake County.

Do you practice criminal defense?

Albert
04-19-2011, 01:53 PM
Maybe he has a business trip. I'm sure his work isn't just local.

Possible and also incredibly lucky for the defense that the state rested on Friday. Otherwise the witness for the prosecution would have been on his business trip and thus no witness for the prosecution.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:53 PM
Which is why so many were ragging on the prosecution for their case in chief. One must lay the groundwork for future testimony. *If* that was what the defense intended, then they call two witnesses, one to offer proof of hacking and the other to offer proof of tampering. Or ONE witness who is 'certified as an expert' in both fields. Think of Henry Lee, who at one time, prior to his becomming a paid wh*re, was well respected and certified an expert in numerous aspects of his field.

Now that would be cool....bring in Henry Lee to testify if there was any splatter on the hard drives. Or maybe he could change his expertise and testify about byte splatter.

LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 01:54 PM
we are live...well we were for moment
bringing in the jury...waiting

What link are you using..the WRAL link is still test pattern :maddening:

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:55 PM
I am an attorney myself, interned in the DA's office in Wake County during law school. I don't have an opinion one way or the other if BC is guilty. I did not like the prosecutions case. I imagine A LOT of work went into it to finesse it just right to prove their burden because the evidence is pretty lightweight. I've lurked here for a while because it's pretty interesting to read some of these threads and I am curious as to the outcome since it is in my own county. I did not call the judge corrupt. That is quite a leap but that sort of thing seems to go here with regularity so I won't take it personally. Curious what you all will do if he is acquitted of these charges. Send a lynch mob after him? Oh and I stopped into court last week and took a moment to watch part of the trial. I would pay to be in that jury room during deliberations. This is QUITE an interesting jury.

If Brad is acquitted, I think he will fly home to Canada as soon as he can get a suitcase packed.
And as for me, while I think he murdered Nancy, I will never give him another thought.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:55 PM
Murder trial delayed for ex-Edmontonian
Kelly Turner
4/19/2011

The defence in the the murder trial of former Emontonian Brad Cooper stumbled and fell coming out of the starting gate. Cooper's lawyer Howard Kurtz ended yesterday on a high note, getting the key police witness to concede there's not much physical evidence to suggest Brad Cooper murdered his wife Nancy. The prosecution called its last witness and Kurtz hoped to jump to Cooper's defence this morning. That was before the prosecution challenged the knowledge of his opening witness by computer expert Jay Ward Junior. The judge kept the jury out of the courtroom and the two sides with Ward in the middle went back and forth for hours. When there was no end in sight, the judge gave the jury the morning off. The jury, already upset by how long the trial is taking, got more bad news today. The judge ruled that the trial will continue on Good Friday

Wow. Where did get this info. So nothing more until Friday?

kantoo
04-19-2011, 01:55 PM
Murder trial delayed for ex-Edmontonian
Kelly Turner
4/19/2011

The defence in the the murder trial of former Emontonian Brad Cooper stumbled and fell coming out of the starting gate. Cooper's lawyer Howard Kurtz ended yesterday on a high note, getting the key police witness to concede there's not much physical evidence to suggest Brad Cooper murdered his wife Nancy. The prosecution called its last witness and Kurtz hoped to jump to Cooper's defence this morning. That was before the prosecution challenged the knowledge of his opening witness by computer expert Jay Ward Junior. The judge kept the jury out of the courtroom and the two sides with Ward in the middle went back and forth for hours. When there was no end in sight, the judge gave the jury the morning off. The jury, already upset by how long the trial is taking, got more bad news today. The judge ruled that the trial will continue on Good Friday

bbm

isn't that because a juror needs thursday afternoon off for an orthodontic appt.?

gracielee
04-19-2011, 01:56 PM
I agree. I also find his reactions, heavy sighs, staring at the ceiling, etc. to be quite unprofessional for a judge.

Just curious, truly, do you watch a lot of trials? Judges are human. One of the trials my husband was a juror on was in front of Judge Stephens. Hubby really liked him. I think it was Donald IIRC.

LaLaw2000
04-19-2011, 01:56 PM
My understanding was that he used the equipment in his 'home lab', not at Cisco?

I did not hear that the Cisco employee supervised Ward. Did you hear that, NCEast? Some here are alledging this was the case.

otto
04-19-2011, 01:56 PM
I think we all agree that the facts would be ideal. But this trial is what it is and it's been like this since the first week.

The first week was basically taking all the street gossip and intoducing it into evidence ... crazy thing to do since so much time was spent trying to find jurors that were unaware of the street gossip.

This is the sort of testimony we've had:

Investigators theorized that Brad Cooper, an expert in Internet phone technology, somehow made the phone call himself either by scheduling it or by calling remotely.

"He had the know-how. He had the means to do it and the opportunity to do it," Daniels said.

Defense attorney Howard Kurtz said there was no proof. Brad Cooper didn't have the technology in his home to make the call remotely, and phone logs and records don't indicate he did, Kurtz said.

"You don't have any phone records that can show that's what happened?" Kurtz asked.

"No," Daniels said.

"You have no expert that can show that's what happened?" Kurtz asked.

"No, I don't," Daniels replied.

Daniels said earlier that investigators spent months collecting information and evidence and following up on information in the case.

Ref: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9447679/


He had means, motive and opportunity, but it can't be proven ... but so what, believe that it happened. Personally, I sure wouldn't want to be convicted of anything on that basis.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:57 PM
bbm

isn't that because a juror needs thursday afternoon off for an orthodontic appt.?

I thought that was next week (the 28th).

gracielee
04-19-2011, 01:58 PM
Was it $$ or was he the only one willing?

Possibly the only one who would agree with the defense theory.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:58 PM
Just curious, truly, do you watch a lot of trials? Judges are human. One of the trials my husband was a juror on was in front of Judge Stephens. Hubby really liked him. I think it was Donald IIRC.

No I do not. That is why I asked the attorney a few posts up if this is typical. The only other trial I watched was OJ. No need to get into the professionalism of that judge.

Maja
04-19-2011, 01:58 PM
He didn't take on the job for the defense until Oct. 2010. He was no longer working for Cisco. A good friend of his who still worked at Cisco gave him a copy.

Did he name the friend who gave him a boot-leg copy?

NCEast
04-19-2011, 01:59 PM
Wow. Where did get this info. So nothing more until Friday?

It came from a Canadian Twitter report just a few minutes ago. Newspaper based.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 01:59 PM
I did not hear that the Cisco employee supervised Ward. Did you hear that, NCEast? Some here are alledging this was the case.

That is what he said. The Cisco employee that let him use the software supervised him and told him what to do to generate the report.

LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 01:59 PM
I did not hear that the Cisco employee supervised Ward. Did you hear that, NCEast? Some here are alledging this was the case.

Ward did say the Cisco guy did supervise his use of whatever program, guiding him thru how to use it etc.....Interesting to have yet another outsider see exactly what was on Brad's computer...Yikes..Doubt Brad is too pleased about having his privacy seen by a fellow Cisco Employee..

momof7
04-19-2011, 01:59 PM
I did not hear that the Cisco employee supervised Ward. Did you hear that, NCEast? Some here are alledging this was the case.

I interpeted the testimony differently as well.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 02:00 PM
But, wasn't the Innocence Project people available and seen sitting behind the defense in the beginning of this trail. They have a mountain of resources available to them and most of them are done pro bono.

I am honestly, literally stunned. There is no back up whatsoever. They ruled on the information several weeks ago, there should have been a scurry of activity to get the right people to testify. All they had to do, was provide doubt for the jury, not that it did or did not happen.
Kelly

Perhaps it was like Joe McGinnis and Jeffrey MacDonald?

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 02:00 PM
What do you find so interesting about this jury?
I have seen them several times myself and they appear to be everyday citizens of Wake County.

Do you practice criminal defense?


The jury is made up of primarily African American women. Most likely these were a top demographic who could attest to not having formed a prior opinion about BC. From a socioeconomic stand point my best guess is that you are going to have at least one of these jurors not be able to relate to NC at all and may have even formed a negative opinion of her due to her lifestyle and behavior. I'm just playing the devil's advocate but I imagine the fact that she was a stay at home mom driving a BMW with a diamond necklace and diamond earrings will be considered during deliberations. Will it be brought to bear on the outcome, who knows, but it sure would be interesting to listen to their discussions.

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 02:00 PM
Did he name the friend who gave him a boot-leg copy?

Yes. BZ specifically asked him the name of the person who gave it to him.

momof7
04-19-2011, 02:00 PM
Did he name the friend who gave him a boot-leg copy?

Yep, first and last name.

Kelly

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 02:01 PM
Wow. Where did get this info. So nothing more until Friday?

I *think* it means that they will not have Good Friday off as originally planned.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:02 PM
I did not hear that the Cisco employee supervised Ward. Did you hear that, NCEast? Some here are alledging this was the case.

My understanding was that the Cisco employee either told him how to perform the examine, or walked him through it. A Cisco employee who had some hands-on with the way Ward got the information....something to that effect. That's the way I heard it but I may be wrong.

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 02:02 PM
Yep, first and last name.

Kelly

...and made him spell it.

macd
04-19-2011, 02:02 PM
Wow. Where did get this info. So nothing more until Friday?

Poor writing by reported.. I think she means court will be held on Friday (in addition to Tuesday-Thursday this week). Jury, apparently, wanted a 3 day weekend for the holiday.

kantoo
04-19-2011, 02:03 PM
The jury is made up of primarily African American women. Most likely these were a top demographic who could attest to not having formed a prior opinion about BC. From a socioeconomic stand point my best guess is that you are going to have at least one of these jurors not be able to relate to NC at all and may have even formed a negative opinion of her due to her lifestyle and behavior. I'm just playing the devil's advocate but I imagine the fact that she was a stay at home mom driving a BMW with a diamond necklace and diamond earrings will be considered during deliberations. Will it be brought to bear on the outcome, who knows, but it sure would be interesting to listen to their discussions.

so black women are always from a low socioeconomic strata?!

not in my neighborhood. their houses are 3 times the size of mine

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:03 PM
Wow. Where did get this info. So nothing more until Friday?

I think the Friday mention was not that they were off til Friday but that the jurors were going to have to be there Friday. Earlier, they were told they would have Friday off.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:03 PM
Gosh, you guys are flying on here. I'm still a page behind and can't get caught up!!!!!!

cody100
04-19-2011, 02:04 PM
Poor writing by reported.. I think she means court will be held on Friday (in addition to Tuesday-Thursday this week). Jury, apparently, wanted a 3 day weekend for the holiday.

I am sure delay until Friday is not right. The judge is not going to give the defense any down time with the jury already not happy with delays. You are right poor choice of words.

LaLaw2000
04-19-2011, 02:05 PM
Yep, first and last name.

Kelly

And he even spelled the last name out!

macd
04-19-2011, 02:05 PM
My understanding was that the Cisco employee either told him how to perform the examine, or walked him through it. A Cisco employee who had some hands-on with the way Ward got the information....something to that effect. That's the way I heard it but I may be wrong.

Cisco employee helped make a copy of the hard drive at Cisco.
Ward examined the copy of the hard drive at his lab at home alone.

Ward testified that some of the hardware and software in his lab was by special arrangements with friends and previous employers. Some folks might call that stealing.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 02:08 PM
Maybe he has a business trip. I'm sure his work isn't just local.

I know you hate these, but I'm sorry. I just can't resist this one.


:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:


me thinks 'his work' is about to fall into a slump. And his *equipment* might just be confiscated.

unc70
04-19-2011, 02:08 PM
My understanding was that he used the equipment in his 'home lab', not at Cisco?

The forensic copy (using equipment that blocked writing to the source disk) was made at Cisco using Cisco hardware and software.

Don't know Cicso's policy, if any, on this type of thing, but similar things are routinely done within the IT industry. We, for example, have a large collection of older systems and media formats that we allow others to use to retrieve data from ancient tapes, disks, etc. Usually, we do this as a courtesy to those in our community, and would only charge if the effort required were extensive.

I expect that K will call the FBI related witnesses back for questioning on topics that the pros. avoided introducing during their earlier testimony. Probably reworking Ward's reports to avoid the restrictions imposed by how computer and networking expert vs forensics expert are defined foravoid this case.

The whole FBI/national security/protected methods shielding of prosecution "evidence" has become a convenient epidemic. Swear in a local police detective as a Deputy US Marshal on the FBI Cyber Crime Task Force, and magically he avoids all those pesky defendant rights issues. Terror! Terror! Terror!

metafizik
04-19-2011, 02:10 PM
Wondering with this witnesses track record of moving from job to job and his high opinion of himself if it is difficult for him to get a corporate job and thus he now has his own company?

As a person interviewing him for a job he throws up a lot of red flags. JMO
It is not uncommon for highly skilled IT workers to change jobs frequently. Sometimes it is for more money and some people contract and move from company to company every 2 years or so.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 02:11 PM
He's been called a loser, said he did his analysis on an etch-a-sketch, was called the driver of the white van breaking into networks, had his voice and mannerisms laughed at, called a name dropper, etc. etc. etc.

C'mon, where's your sense of humor on the van driver. Other than that, how does this differ from JA and HP being called liars and conspirators?

Sailor Bug
04-19-2011, 02:11 PM
What link are you using..the WRAL link is still test pattern :maddening:

Appeared Kurtz was complaining about the judge and something about jurisprudence(sp) Then Judge said bring the jury in --->then the test pattern is back...not sure what happened Lyndy

cityslick
04-19-2011, 02:13 PM
C'mon, where's your sense of humor on the van driver. Other than that, how does this differ from JA and HP being called liars and conspirators?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I also don't recall people breaking down JA's appearance, mannerisms, etc.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:13 PM
Appeared Kurtz was complaining about the judge and something about jurisprudence(sp) Then Judge said bring the jury in --->then the test pattern is back...not sure what happened Lyndy

2:13pm and I'm still on test pattern.

momof7
04-19-2011, 02:14 PM
It is not uncommon for highly skilled IT workers to change jobs frequently. Sometimes it is for more money and some people contract and move from company to company every 2 years or so.

Contract work would make sense, but aren't they considered self employed, not employed by the company?

Kelly

cityslick
04-19-2011, 02:14 PM
From WRAL

I couldn't get word for word but something to the affect of "your honor has repeatedly violated jurisprudence" ...

Sailor Bug
04-19-2011, 02:15 PM
It is not uncommon for highly skilled IT workers to change jobs frequently. Sometimes it is for more money and some people contract and move from company to company every 2 years or so.

I hope he signed pilfering contracts with whomever he worked for.:floorlaugh:

Palomine
04-19-2011, 02:15 PM
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Defence+argues+there+hard+evidence+murder/4638975/story.html

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Detective+admits+evidence+thin+murder+case/4638835/story.html

since only Alberta is really following this story ..these are the only 2 news stories online at the moment for today

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 02:17 PM
From WRAL

I couldn't get word for word but something to the affect of "your honor has repeatedly violated jurisprudence" ...

I wouldn't be surprised if Kurtz filed a complaint with the Bar. Gessner has not allowed BC a fair trial. I don't care what you think of BC, he deserves a fair trial just like everyone else.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 02:17 PM
He wasn't working for Cisco at the time. He used to work at Cisco and had a deal with a Cisco employee to allow him to use the software to generate the report at the Cisco office. It wasn't stolen or borrowed equipment.

So are you saying this Cisco employee did this with the knowledge of their employer, Cisco Systems? The owner of said equipment? That would be like me allowing a friend to use something very important of mine, and that friend then allowing somebody else, somebody I might not *like*, access to my stuff. JMO

Palomine
04-19-2011, 02:17 PM
It is not uncommon for highly skilled IT workers to change jobs frequently. Sometimes it is for more money and some people contract and move from company to company every 2 years or so.

I have never heard of highly skilled IT workers moving from job to job..if they are highly skilled the company makes it a practice to keep them

RaleighNC
04-19-2011, 02:18 PM
That is what he said. The Cisco employee that let him use the software supervised him and told him what to do to generate the report.

This is WAYYYYY uncool.

Cisco will be most unhappy that they're corporate tools and employee's time is being used to further a defendant who has pretty much made them look bad in public and they've warned employees internally about even TALKING about this case - and now there's an employee letting defense "expert" use their tools and staff?

Any expert should have known this was not cool. The expert should HAVE THE TOOLS and not have to borrow.

Kurtz was clear that he was not offering his as a forensic computer analyst. He would have known he needed one of those to refute the FBI guy. In my opinion - this was going to be an uphill battle - to show that some files were altered, this was not done on Cisco's network, the PD knew enough to put the search on the PC when they could prove BC was at work, etc. These are REALLY strong allegations. He should know that he needed REALLY STRONG experts - unimpeachable really since the prosecution is using the FBI - and that there should have been more than one - working in concert - network guy to show how network hacking could have occurred and forensic guy to say "here's the proof on the PC" that shows it was hacked.

And I am not of the opinion that someone needs a lot of letters after his / her name to be an expert - for example - I'd concede that Kevin Mitnick was an expert. I also have a friend that got into a little bit of trouble in his younger years and the trouble ended up getting him recruited by the military to help with hacking and other safety nets for the DoD - so even the "good guys" hire folks with, well, let's call them specialized skills. He's since gone on to do quite well in IT Security. I did not see any of these skills in Mr Ward - and to bring in someone who has never been classified as an expert IN ANY TRIAL was a huge risk and simply not good lawyering.

CrimeAddict
04-19-2011, 02:18 PM
C'mon, where's your sense of humor on the van driver. Other than that, how does this differ from JA and HP being called liars and conspirators?

Good point Gracie!

Danielle59
04-19-2011, 02:18 PM
Charles ng ..reason why Brad tried to get back to Canada(if not for those pesky friends)
see how long it took them to extradite NG

There is nothing in evidence that Brad tried to get back to Canada.

borndem
04-19-2011, 02:19 PM
Interesting defense is starting with computer expert, which was last for prosecution.
Will this be the defense's only witness?
Perhaps they think they did all they needed in cross for the medical examiner, the bug witness, and the soil expert.

Who knows? But they did enter evidence during the prosecution's CIC, but that may mean nothing. We'll just have to be patient & see what rolls out.http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 02:20 PM
I am an attorney myself, interned in the DA's office in Wake County during law school. Welcome to the forum!

{snipped for space}

Curious what you all will do if he is acquitted of these charges. Send a lynch mob after him? Don't know about anyone else here, but my life goes on either way. Nancy's doesn't, either way. A lynch mob? That'd be a lot of effort for one Mr. Cupper. I like to save my lynch mobs for super big important murderers.

Oh and I stopped into court last week and took a moment to watch part of the trial. I would pay to be in that jury room during deliberations. This is QUITE an interesting jury.I too would love to see and hear what the jury thinks when both sides are done.

my responses in red.

otto
04-19-2011, 02:20 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Kurtz filed a complaint with the Bar. Gessner has not allowed BC a fair trial. I don't care what you think of BC, he deserves a fair trial just like everyone else.

It's good to hear that from someone that knows the law and if familiar with the case. From a distance, it also looks like something is amiss in this trial.

LaLaw2000
04-19-2011, 02:21 PM
Serious question: Do any of you who are experienced in the computer field ever have to sign a confidentiality agreement? In other words; Ward worked on the security end. Would he be allowed to share Cisco's security trade secrets? I know he didn't have a security clearance, but he certainly could take away a lot of their information when he left.

cityslick
04-19-2011, 02:21 PM
Good point Gracie!

You guys were killing him as soon as he got in the chair. It's not comparable.

Danielle59
04-19-2011, 02:21 PM
I was amazed that he did not even have the right programs, etc. to do this test. So, I do agree with the Judge's decision on this one. I am just surprised that they couldn't find someone qualified for the courtroom. Guess money was limited there.

According to BZ during his arguments during the prosecution case all that was required was the harddrive, he can't even say what software the state, read FBI, used to obtain the information. So what are the right programs?

otto
04-19-2011, 02:22 PM
I have never heard of highly skilled IT workers moving from job to job..if they are highly skilled the company makes it a practice to keep them

It's not that uncommon for professionals to move from one company to another ... it's one of the easiest ways to climb the corporate ladder.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 02:22 PM
C'mon, where's your sense of humor on the van driver. Other than that, how does this differ from JA and HP being called liars and conspirators?

They didn't deserve that either...although questioning the truthfulness of what they are saying isn't the same as bashing them.

LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 02:23 PM
Am I geting this right?..Defense thinks the LE is corrupt and inept, they believe CDI has planted evidence on Brad's computer, and NOW they are accusing the Judge of malfeasance?? I tend to believe Defense is running out of "Fallguys" to blame for likely verdict coming down the tubes..Yikes!

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:24 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Kurtz filed a complaint with the Bar. Gessner has not allowed BC a fair trial. I don't care what you think of BC, he deserves a fair trial just like everyone else.

Trust me--even the Brad Did It folks on here absolutely want Brad to have a fair trial. I absolutely do not want him to be found guilty under any circumstance if everything is not above board. The judge has ruled, overwhelmingly, in favor of the prosecution but he has also ruled in favor of the defense on several matters. With respect to his ruling that have 'favored' the prosecution, most have been on point. An appeals court can sort it all out if need be.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 02:24 PM
So are you saying this Cisco employee did this with the knowledge of their employer, Cisco Systems? The owner of said equipment? That would be like me allowing a friend to use something very important of mine, and that friend then allowing somebody else, somebody I might not *like*, access to my stuff. JMO

I'm not saying anything. I was repeating what the witness said this morning. I was a bit shocked that he used those tools. Seems like he could have purchased his own copy and charged the defense.

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 02:25 PM
I have never heard of highly skilled IT workers moving from job to job..if they are highly skilled the company makes it a practice to keep them

This was very common in the 1995 - 2002 timeframe, certainly before the tech crash of 2001/02. Tons of startups, lots of opportunities, inflated job titles, IPOs, stock options, $$$$$$, and some big perks.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 02:25 PM
This is WAYYYYY uncool.

Cisco will be most unhappy that they're corporate tools and employee's time is being used to further a defendant who has pretty much made them look bad in public and they've warned employees internally about even TALKING about this case - and now there's an employee letting defense "expert" use their tools and staff?

Any expert should have known this was not cool. The expert should HAVE THE TOOLS and not have to borrow.

Kurtz was clear that he was not offering his as a forensic computer analyst. He would have known he needed one of those to refute the FBI guy. In my opinion - this was going to be an uphill battle - to show that some files were altered, this was not done on Cisco's network, the PD knew enough to put the search on the PC when they could prove BC was at work, etc. These are REALLY strong allegations. He should know that he needed REALLY STRONG experts - unimpeachable really since the prosecution is using the FBI - and that there should have been more than one - working in concert - network guy to show how network hacking could have occurred and forensic guy to say "here's the proof on the PC" that shows it was hacked.

And I am not of the opinion that someone needs a lot of letters after his / her name to be an expert - for example - I'd concede that Kevin Mitnick was an expert. I also have a friend that got into a little bit of trouble in his younger years and the trouble ended up getting him recruited by the military to help with hacking and other safety nets for the DoD - so even the "good guys" hire folks with, well, let's call them specialized skills. He's since gone on to do quite well in IT Security. I did not see any of these skills in Mr Ward - and to bring in someone who has never been classified as an expert IN ANY TRIAL was a huge risk and simply not good lawyering.


Oh I agree...and it made the witness look bad. And it probably cost that Cisco employee his job.

momof7
04-19-2011, 02:25 PM
Am I geting this right?..Defense thinks the LE is corrupt and inept, they believe CDI has planted evidence on Brad's computer, and NOW they are accusing the Judge of malfeasance?? I tend to believe Defense is running out of "Fallguys" to blame for likely verdict coming down the tubes..Yikes!

Sounds like it..but if I had to guess the area that might get ole Brad a new trail will have something to do with his counsel not being effective.

As far as I am concerned, I don't think I would hire Kurtz for anything that required me to worry about life/death.

Kelly

gracielee
04-19-2011, 02:26 PM
Did he name the friend who gave him a boot-leg copy?

Ay'yup. I'm guessin' 'former friend' right about now. :waitasec:

Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 02:27 PM
ALERT: Brad Cooper defense asks for mistrial http://www.wral.com/

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 02:27 PM
I just saw on wral twitter that the defense has asked for a mistrial.

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 02:27 PM
Am I geting this right?..Defense thinks the LE is corrupt and inept, they believe CDI has planted evidence on Brad's computer, and NOW they are accusing the Judge of malfeasance?? I tend to believe Defense is running out of "Fallguys" to blame for likely verdict coming down the tubes..Yikes!

Well, from what I've gleaned from colleagues who are in court on a day to day basis, there are A LOT of people questioning the way Gessner has handled this trial. And this is coming from people who are friendly with him and have cases before him on a regular basis. The complaints about the judge are legit and are coming from every direction.

momof7
04-19-2011, 02:27 PM
Ay'yup. I'm guessin' 'former friend' right about now. :waitasec:

Hope he is one of the 4 employees of this guys company so he is not unemployed.

What would be the possibility that Cisco, if they did not know of this, could bring suit against this guy/company?

Kelly

Danielle59
04-19-2011, 02:28 PM
I think they should have gotten someone who has experience testifying in both areas. It was dangerous to call a guy who has not been to the plate before. There are so many firms around, how did they land with this guy?

One thing to think about (it may not work the same in criminal stuff), is that if you have an expert who agrees with you, you list them as a testifying expert. If you talk to one who does not agree with you, you consider them a consulting expert and don't list/mention them at all. Perhaps this guy who took the stand wasn't the only expert talked to, just the one who seemed most helpful.

I am curious how much money they had to spend on experts.

ncsu95
04-19-2011, 02:28 PM
my responses in red.


I'm looking forward to seeing this on dateline (or 48 hours). They usually talk to jurors.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:28 PM
This is WAYYYYY uncool.

Cisco will be most unhappy that they're corporate tools and employee's time is being used to further a defendant who has pretty much made them look bad in public and they've warned employees internally about even TALKING about this case - and now there's an employee letting defense "expert" use their tools and staff?

Any expert should have known this was not cool. The expert should HAVE THE TOOLS and not have to borrow.

Kurtz was clear that he was not offering his as a forensic computer analyst. He would have known he needed one of those to refute the FBI guy. In my opinion - this was going to be an uphill battle - to show that some files were altered, this was not done on Cisco's network, the PD knew enough to put the search on the PC when they could prove BC was at work, etc. These are REALLY strong allegations. He should know that he needed REALLY STRONG experts - unimpeachable really since the prosecution is using the FBI - and that there should have been more than one - working in concert - network guy to show how network hacking could have occurred and forensic guy to say "here's the proof on the PC" that shows it was hacked.

And I am not of the opinion that someone needs a lot of letters after his / her name to be an expert - for example - I'd concede that Kevin Mitnick was an expert. I also have a friend that got into a little bit of trouble in his younger years and the trouble ended up getting him recruited by the military to help with hacking and other safety nets for the DoD - so even the "good guys" hire folks with, well, let's call them specialized skills. He's since gone on to do quite well in IT Security. I did not see any of these skills in Mr Ward - and to bring in someone who has never been classified as an expert IN ANY TRIAL was a huge risk and simply not good lawyering.

Seems much of this expert witness's tools of the trade seem to be either borrowed, used, or downloaded straight off the web. I think he probably may have bombed himself right out of business when word gets out.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 02:28 PM
That is what he said. The Cisco employee that let him use the software supervised him and told him what to do to generate the report.

Right there, 'not the makings of an 'expert witness'.' Kurtz should have known that IMO.

LaLaw2000
04-19-2011, 02:28 PM
ALERT: Brad Cooper defense asks for mistrial http://www.wral.com/

I thought that might be coming. Uh, oh.

cityslick
04-19-2011, 02:28 PM
ALERT: Brad Cooper defense asks for mistrial

cody100
04-19-2011, 02:29 PM
BIG NEWS. Kurtz has asked for a mistrial based on Judge Gessner's bias

borndem
04-19-2011, 02:30 PM
Like most judges, he's looking at or referring to case law on his computer, which is what guides rulings.


I was in the courtroom, just watching, years ago. I went with a friend who wanted me to just see the judge in action -- a good guy, retired now -- before laptops, etc., so they had their brains and some books at the ready.

This judge would often turn his swivel chair 180 degrees and appear to be staring at the wall, or lean back in his chair & close his eyes and appear to be asleep. Once or twice, he whirled around in that chair, or snapped open his eyes and asked a question or o-ruled or sustained an objection -- just as sharp as a whip. This was not the guy to underestimate or assume he wasn't paying attention! I learned a lot that day and enjoyed every minute.

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 02:30 PM
I just saw on wral twitter that the defense has asked for a mistrial.
It's a Kurtz Kitten bonanza today.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 02:30 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
ALERT: Brad Cooper defense asks for mistrial http://www.wral.com/

Ha ...ha...I knew it..I knew the defense really doesn't have much in the way of witnesses all they have are accusations of misconduct

cityslick
04-19-2011, 02:32 PM
BIG NEWS. Kurtz has asked for a mistrial based on Judge Gessner's bias

I think he's guilty (smoking gun did it for me), but you have to not be paying attention if you don't think there is a bias going on (how much so is up for debate).

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 02:33 PM
Certainly not unexpected. At least I expected them to ask. Next maybe they will ask the judge to recuse himself.

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 02:33 PM
It's a Kurtz Kitten bonanza today.

I think this is actually sort of "old news". This is what was happening when we went back live briefly and heard the judge say "overruled" and then we went back to test pattern. My guess (since we have so few twitter updates) is that this occured after a court recess/break and now the FBI agent is back on the stand.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:33 PM
I'm not saying anything. I was repeating what the witness said this morning. I was a bit shocked that he used those tools. Seems like he could have purchased his own copy and charged the defense.

His using borrowed, downloaded, etc. tools, software and equipment is the sole basis he fell from grace with me. Not to mention his home lab. Nothing about him seemed professional once the prosc. began asking questions and probing. I think he has a very good background but the other stuff just made him appear to be a wannabe.

gritguy
04-19-2011, 02:34 PM
Judge Gessner was a police officer who went to law school to be a prosecutor. I don't think that he has been impartial at any point in this trial. I would hope that at the very least the manner in which he has conducted this trial, on and off the record, would be reviewed by the Chief Judge for Superior Court. I don't believe that Gessner right now is concerned in the sanctity of the justice system, but more for a victory for the prosecution. Could Brad Cooper have drawn a worse judge in Wake County? Probably not.

If you are an attorney, this is flirting with Rule 8.2.

We have an obligation to reflect on our comments before airing them in public, and I think that includes even when we are behind screen names. Particularly, comments about the integrity of a judge (and isn't saying the judge has not been impartial "at any point in this trial" a comment on integrity since he would be violating the duties of his office completely) should be completely merited and not blown out of proportion.

Not a personal attack or a threat, just a perspective on the Rules of Professional Conduct as they relate to the judiciary.

Star12
04-19-2011, 02:34 PM
Raleigh, N.C. One of the attorneys representing Brad Cooper in his first-degree murder trial for the death of wife, Nancy Cooper, asked for a mistrial Tuesday, accusing the judge of being "clearly biased."

From the front page of wral

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 02:34 PM
Certainly not unexpected. At least I expected them to ask. Next maybe they will ask the judge to recuse himself.

They already did. That was their second motion. He overruled that one as well. (According to the article.)

snowshuze
04-19-2011, 02:34 PM
Just because he asked, does NOT mean he'll get it folks. The judge has case law on his side.

Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 02:34 PM
Certainly not unexpected. At least I expected them to ask. Next maybe they will ask the judge to recuse himself.

They did...Motion denied..

SleuthinNC
04-19-2011, 02:34 PM
Certainly not unexpected. At least I expected them to ask. Next maybe they will ask the judge to recuse himself.

They already did. Asked for mistrial and judge to recuse himself based on clear bias.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 02:34 PM
There is nothing in evidence that Brad tried to get back to Canada.

he wasn't given enough time, because of the fast action of her friends

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:35 PM
I am curious how much money they had to spend on experts.

The defense more times than not has resources to spend on expert witnesses and a lot of other things. However, with Kurtz and Trenkle being appointed, I have no idea.

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 02:35 PM
Certainly not unexpected. At least I expected them to ask. Next maybe they will ask the judge to recuse himself.

They did ask for that.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9464609/

Shadow722
04-19-2011, 02:36 PM
I have never heard of highly skilled IT workers moving from job to job..if they are highly skilled the company makes it a practice to keep them

Ward is a professional paid hacker. He is hired to test systems security/vulnerability by breaking into supposedly secure systems, and showing those companies how their systems can be exploited.

He is quite well known in IT circles locally/nationally. He is a hired gun for systems security. That's why the job jumping. He is brought in to test and hack away. When he's done, he reports finding on weaknesses, makes recommendations to better secure networks/systems, then he moves on to the next job/client.

I would profer that he knows how Cisco systems could be exploited and demonstrate what he would do to break it, and what tracks he might leave behind.

The Prosecution wants him no where near this case. Which is why they are having Kurtz kittens about his testimony. Most good hackers don't have impressive degrees, rather they have a track record of penetration/exploitation of secure systems. That how their rep is made, not with sheepskins on the wall.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 02:36 PM
They already did. Asked for mistrial and judge to recuse himself based on clear bias.

didn't they try that at the beginning of trial for a new judge

kljohnson0458
04-19-2011, 02:36 PM
I bet the veins are popping in the judge's head now.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9464609/

raisincharlie
04-19-2011, 02:36 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
ALERT: Brad Cooper defense asks for mistrial http://www.wral.com/

Ha ...ha...I knew it..I knew the defense really doesn't have much in the way of witnesses all they have are accusations of misconduct

That's why it is predictable that Kurtz would also accuse the judge of bias. That is of course assuming Kurtz really did that, all we have is a tweet, would have preferred to hear it from Kurtz himself though. I do wonder if Kurts has any feet left, he keeps shooting them :D

gritguy
04-19-2011, 02:37 PM
Well, from what I've gleaned from colleagues who are in court on a day to day basis, there are A LOT of people questioning the way Gessner has handled this trial. And this is coming from people who are friendly with him and have cases before him on a regular basis. The complaints about the judge are legit and are coming from every direction.

It is an interesting perspective and now the motion has been made apparently officially by defense we will see what comes of it. The thing has been taped so it could be reviewed in complete context by any reviewing authority (court of appeals, judge, etc.).

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 02:37 PM
If you are an attorney, this is flirting with Rule 8.2.

We have an obligation to reflect on our comments before airing them in public, and I think that includes even when we are behind screen names. Particularly, comments about the integrity of a judge (and isn't saying the judge has not been impartial "at any point in this trial" a comment on integrity since he would be violating the duties of his office completely) should be completely merited and not blown out of proportion.

Not a personal attack or a threat, just a perspective on the Rules of Professional Conduct as they relate to the judiciary.

Got it, I'll keep that in mind, but anonymity is what it is.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 02:39 PM
WRAL NEWS in NC
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Brad Cooper defense attorney asks for mistrial http://bit.ly/hHGWBl
1 minute ago

WRAL NEWS in NC
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Judge Gessner denied the motions. #coopertrial
1 minute ago

WRAL NEWS in NC
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Brad Cooper's defense attorney accused Judge Gessner of being biased and asked that he recuse himself and declare a mistrial. #coopertrial

Palomine
04-19-2011, 02:39 PM
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
#coopertrial story at http://www.wral.com/9464609/

gracielee
04-19-2011, 02:40 PM
The forensic copy (using equipment that blocked writing to the source disk) was made at Cisco using Cisco hardware and software.

Don't know Cicso's policy, if any, on this type of thing, but similar things are routinely done within the IT industry. We, for example, have a large collection of older systems and media formats that we allow others to use to retrieve data from ancient tapes, disks, etc. Usually, we do this as a courtesy to those in our community, and would only charge if the effort required were extensive.

I expect that K will call the FBI related witnesses back for questioning on topics that the pros. avoided introducing during their earlier testimony. Probably reworking Ward's reports to avoid the restrictions imposed by how computer and networking expert vs forensics expert are defined foravoid this case.

The whole FBI/national security/protected methods shielding of prosecution "evidence" has become a convenient epidemic. Swear in a local police detective as a Deputy US Marshal on the FBI Cyber Crime Task Force, and magically he avoids all those pesky defendant rights issues. Terror! Terror! Terror!

I'm curious, do you allow such usage in criminal trials? And murder trials of former employee's of your company? Seems like something like this is ripe for opening up a whole big can of whup a$$ on somebody?

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 02:41 PM
I bet they are doing madzz scrambling to go to appellate level now. Gessner ruling wasn't incorrect. The guy simply is not a forensic computer expert no matter how long his resume is or regardless of how much he helped Anna Nicole Smith.

Palomine
04-19-2011, 02:43 PM
I believe the defense will rest and put in its closing they were kept from putting on a defense

FullDisclosure
04-19-2011, 02:44 PM
I believe the defense will rest and put in its closing they were kept from putting on a defense

I think that actually might happen now.

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 02:44 PM
I bet they are doing madzz scrambling to go to appellate level now. Gessner ruling wasn't incorrect. The guy simply is not a forensic computer expert no matter how long his resume is or regardless of how much he helped Anna Nicole Smith.

The ruling may or may not have been correct but MUCH of what BZ was arguing about should not have been taken into consideration as to whether he is an expert or not. It would come into play during cross examination before the jury, but now it has been made sure that the jury will never hear it.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:45 PM
I think that actually might happen now.

The defense doesn't have much recourse.

Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 02:46 PM
I do wonder if Kurts has any feet left, he keeps shooting them :D

LOL. I lost one too. Had to chew it off escaping from the bear trap of a looooong winded individual. That was 3 hrs of my life I can never get back.

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 02:46 PM
What specifically did the agent on the stand now testify to for the prosecution?

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 02:47 PM
I think the reference was to whether or not you are an attorney. Now me, I get a lot of time off from my brain surgery practice....... since I'm the senior member of the team.


:floorlaugh:


BTW, I'm not dissing you here, I'm laughing 'with me' not at you. Just wanted to make sure I'm not misinterpreted. :fence:


Understood. The snarkiness is still uncalled for.

kljohnson0458
04-19-2011, 02:47 PM
I see the defense possibly resting as well. I imagine there is quite a bit of tension in that courtroom right about now. We may not see any more live today.

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:48 PM
The ruling may or may not have been correct but MUCH of what BZ was arguing about should not have been taken into consideration as to whether he is an expert or not. It would come into play during cross examination before the jury, but now it has been made sure that the jury will never hear it.

I'm not an attorney but the way I heard it, this witness did not have the education, qualification, certifications, experiences, or anything else needed to qualify as an 'expert witness' in forensic computer technology. I think ADA Zell was huge in his handling of the potential expert.

gracielee
04-19-2011, 02:48 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right. I also don't recall people breaking down JA's appearance, mannerisms, etc.

Did you miss all the refereences to 'stepford wives' and cary clones?

NCEast
04-19-2011, 02:49 PM
What specifically did the agent on the stand now testify to for the prosecution?

I hope somebody can answer because, as has been the case a lot lately, I'm lost.

Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 02:50 PM
To the attorneys here...What do you believe is the best course of action for the defense at this point?

LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 02:50 PM
The ruling may or may not have been correct but MUCH of what BZ was arguing about should not have been taken into consideration as to whether he is an expert or not. It would come into play during cross examination before the jury, but now it has been made sure that the jury will never hear it.

But the judge did say he was considered an expert in security and penetrations of computers, but could NOT testify as a Forensic Computer expert. Mr. Ward said in his own word, exactly that. so the judge will not give him that hat of expert to challenge the States's Forensic Expert...Beside, he has the Supreme Court Ruling on his side to make that ruling, no?..

Unfortunately, Kurtz and Co. brought a non-proven Forensic Computer expert that has never been testified in court before or deemed that particular expertise Expert... Just saying :twocents: Who is ata fault, Kurtz/Defense or the Judge?

kljohnson0458
04-19-2011, 02:52 PM
Maybe they took a break. If Kurtz is still taking on the judge I'm glad to not be hearing it.

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm not an attorney but the way I heard it, this witness did not have the education, qualification, certifications, experiences, or anything else needed to qualify as an 'expert witness' in forensic computer technology. I think ADA Zell was huge in his handling of the potential expert.

But there was a lot of talk about protocol and methodology. That goes to discredit a witness on cross, not whether he is an expert or not.

Star12
04-19-2011, 02:52 PM
Any attorney here who wants to be recognized as such can become verified by contacting Tricia.

gritguy
04-19-2011, 02:52 PM
To the attorneys here...What do you believe is the best course of action for the defense at this point?

Put on the best defense they can with the witnesses they have. I think that is what they must do and the only thing they should or can do.

IMO, Kurtz has made the right motions and preserved the right things to support any points on appeal the defense might want to make should the verdict be guilty. If the verdict is not guilty, none of the drama on objections etc. matters anyway.

sunshine05
04-19-2011, 02:52 PM
I hope someone steps in and removes this judge.

Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 02:53 PM
I hope somebody can answer because, as has been the case a lot lately, I'm lost.

I searched and found. He testified to Brad being on his computer 4 times the night of the 11th and he testifies about Nancy's emails being forwarded unknown to her. He was crossed about the handling of the computer and the fact that it was left on the network for 27 hours after the house was seized.

macd
04-19-2011, 02:54 PM
I'm curious, do you allow such usage in criminal trials? And murder trials of former employee's of your company? Seems like something like this is ripe for opening up a whole big can of whup a$$ on somebody?

Maybe this was done under subpoena.

GhostCrab
04-19-2011, 02:54 PM
To the attorneys here...What do you believe is the best course of action for the defense at this point?

I would move forward...it would be a huge risk not to.

gritguy
04-19-2011, 02:55 PM
I never met an attorney that could get their feelings hurt, just saying

Try not paying their bill!! :rocker: