State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[macd]

Pardon me. Create the weekend thread now. I am going to be the one tonight who gets the thread locked out.
...

I'm with you. The investigation and prosecution of this case has stunk. I think it should have been a slam dunk for the state.
I see a legal system (police, lawyers, judges, witnesses) that is ill equipped to deal with digital evidence.
For the sake of our future, I hope that changes quickly.
In this case, I have been convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't know about the jury. If it is a jury that distrusts computers and law enforcement, then we might have another OJ verdict.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Thanks, is that why JF is saying BZ lied to the judge? Because I thought BZ made it sound like anyone could find out what the mac address belonged to.

That is one of several lies yes. The judge almost figured it out when he started talking about the manufacturing database and Boz lied again to throw him back off track.

 

[macd]

That is one of several lies yes. The judge almost figured it out when he started talking about the manufacturing database and Boz lied again to throw him back off track.

Come on, Boz begged the judge at least three times today to bring CF to the stand to make sure that everything was clear. The judge finally relented and did call CF to the stand to hear first hand. Boz did not lie and did not try to lie, from what i saw on the stream today.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Hopefully you've gotten that out of your system now, and we can rationally converse once again. The only proven liar here is Brad Cooper.

There are so many proven liars in this case you need a March Madness bracket to keep the lies straight.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Come on, Boz begged the judge at least three times today to bring CF to the stand to make sure that everything was clear. The judge finally relented and did call CF to the stand to hear first hand. Boz did not lie and did not try to lie, from what i saw on the stream today.

Boz absolutely tried to lie and Trenkle clearly called him out on it.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I have a bit more respect for Cummings. He may have lost his ever-loving mind during some of his cross but at least he told the truth. His witnesses looked like liars and his theory of the ducks missing because of violence in the foyer flew out the window.

 

[macd]

Boz absolutely tried to lie and Trenkle clearly called him out on it.

We have 27 minutes of testimony today. Please point to one lie.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9524242/#/vid9524242

Note the first response to the judge's first question (time 12:50) was basically "Judge, I don't know about this stuff, I'll tender my witness" He requested this 3 times before the judge relented. Judge should have taken him up on it the first time... but the judge eventually accepted the offer and got all info first hand.

 

[Tink56]

Come on, Boz begged the judge at least three times today to bring CF to the stand to make sure that everything was clear. The judge finally relented and did call CF to the stand to hear first hand. Boz did not lie and did not try to lie, from what i saw on the stream today.

WOW! I have no idea what is going on...BUT, whatever it is, it has rankled a few feathers.

What did CF say? Why is it significat? Is it on WRAL? :dunno:

 

[ohiogirl]

i dont'knowwhat to tell you

 

[ohiogirl]

I don't know what any one else thinks but this has become too bogged down in all the tech stuff that most of the jury won't understand

It's a shame

 

[johnfear]

Can you tell us what Frye is going to say (or what he did say today)?

Yes, I can go over what was said today (and previously) and compare and contrast.

(Pardon my BOZ commentary)

Basically, Cisco has discovered that they can indeed relate the machine codes back to individual components (conveniently) by date.

Problems (IMO): This is a "new" follow up (primarily to CYA on things come to light per this case, but, honestly, coupled with previous misconceptions within the company). They are putting CFry into an impossible position and a "hero" role. Unfair? Yes. They are going to lump (onto three people's backs) a very heavy burden in relying on some "scrabbled together" information.

Why is this a problem: 1) The spoilage/unknown issue is the biggest. Some of this evidence is invalid because it's invalid. It CAN NOT be used in the search for the truth. 2) It's new data and if the trial were in six months would be perfectly valid and tested, but is not currently because it has not withstood any level of errors. 3) It feels contrived because of the timing/wave it is riding and it comes on the heels of Boz being a self-righteous d__k about a lot of the other evidence and showing it in his cross. 4) It contradicts DD and CF in previous testimony to what means? Rebuttal means or new evidence means? We are saying what here? 5) This information is suspect by timing, spoilage AND inventory controls. Now we also have to deal with a new expert witness who can convolute this further OR we can accept it in light of numerous other missteps in the prosecution's case that have literally been "sponged" or had numerous holes poked in it.

The BIGGEST problem is this: We are going to rely on information from a potentially "spoiled" piece of evidence (the IBM Thinkpad's hard drive) to bolster a VERY weak CE case and say: Here's one more piece of the poison fruit from a (now) poison tree to sink your teeth into. Why is this a problem? Because you want me to see a router in a forest of routers that is "missing" and unaccounted for. (But, Johnfear, this could be the "truth" and that would show _________________ and that BC did ____________.) Unless this router is shown to be in existence until the moment the call is spoofed and then never heard from again, it is completely irrelevant. It is a tree in a forest where we've decided to count trees recently and it is lost on the case-in-chief and irregardless of the outcome, we do NOT preserve the tree, we preserve the underlying FOREST legally and move on.)

Why is all of this suspect? Because Boz and BC have one thing in common. They lie to preserve their lies. I liked Boz for about ten minutes early on. Then I saw him cross ineffectively. Then I saw him intentionally confuse Gessner. At that moment (and today) I decided I don't trust him on this case. Had it been Cummings. Even with Cummings saying exactly what I said above, it would be 10000 times the evidence that I needed. Boz saying it = last ditch effort and we know we are losing. Cummings saying it (after the ducks) = "Your Honor, this is the truth, and I understand it LESS than you, but, it's the truth".

The Cfry timing is not only suspect based on timing, it is also very scheme/map oriented. He's a witness who JUST HAPPENS to go digging and find the information on the eve of deliberations (calculate this odds and stop at a GOOGLE) it is suspect based on the source of the information and the heels of the "we don't have time to prepare for cross" complaints. Again, BOZ.

Boz needs to be ejected from the courtroom at this point. (Look at some of his weaker crosses and the behavior I consider to be OVER-THE-LINE lying and obfuscating.)

Cummings and Fitzhugh can carry this out in a fair manner. Boz just lies to Gessner thinking: (I'ma be a twitter-loving, myspace condemning judge some day soon)

CFRY basically is saying (This information ain't gone be ready, so I be coming back when it be ready. Cause then it's ready. This is not rebuttal. It's buying the Pros five days or six days to finish "exams' and cobble together a rebuttal around it when they should have gone along with the stay in Feb., presented the case to Cisco and CTF and THEN presented a case-in-chief.)

You ain't gonna hide behind national security on this one. And GM, witness or not, will have the cross prepped to tear it apart as "spoiled" evidence (via Trenkle, I'd wager) and you lose the case on the merits you introduced.

There may be something for the re-trial on these logs. Save it for the retrial. Cut your loses and move on.

 

[johnfear]

We have 27 minutes of testimony today. Please point to one lie.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9524242/#/vid9524242

Note the first response to the judge's first question (time 12:50) was basically "Judge, I don't know about this stuff, I'll tender my witness" He requested this 3 times before the judge relented. Judge should have taken him up on it the first time... but the judge eventually accepted the offer and got all info first hand.

Go to any time he talked in court today other than to say "Your Honor, can I have a moment." You'll see a lie He was talking out of both ends at length today, full on, work around, diarrhea of why-the-state-bar-should-step-in.

And seriously, pardon me, but attorneys on the defense side doing this earn hackles and fiery spit from all of us.....so should attorneys acting "green and geeky" for the state.

 

[johnfear]

By the way, my rankle on this has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence as this point.

It's about two things. 1) Fair trials and 2) due process versus "crap a waffle house platter of spaghetti on the wall post-case-in-chief" and see if noodles fall down. I actually liked Boz until the first time he lied to Gessner and exploited the judge trying to see things simply.

ETA: For the BDI side of the fence, you should be angry at this. Why? Because a win has been contaminated by "spoliage" and leaving reasonable doubt on the table by saying: Oh, we got a grand jury indictment on a "gut feeling" and we crammed as much in to confuse the jury to secure a win because "that is justice" and we don't care if it ruins future cases by locking this case into 10 years of appeals.

And prepare yourself for the lamest excuse ever by a prosecution: Oh, your honor, the defense had this for like 2.5 years now. We just didn't know the "right questions" to ask to illicit the answers we wanted to hear. And we know you would totally disallow that if a defense attorney asked it, but come on, ummm, we're the prosecution. The law doesn't apply to us, or the Cary PD. This is an instance of national security and ummmm, new technology. You knowhatImsayin?

 

[otto]

Johnfear, thank you so much for you courtroom insights. It sounds like you're doubtful that any prosecution witnesses will be able to undo the damage that has been done by the prosecutor. From where I'm sitting, I have been completely stunned, shocked and astounded at the prosecutor's antics, and depths to which he has stooped to "win". It's not just the message that the jury hears, but also the messenger. If he has lost credibility, then it doesn't matter what he says anymore ... no one is listening.

The prosecution has had every opportunity to present a solid case, and they started with a week of neighborhood gossip. I'm sure the jury is viewing that entire week as a complete waste of time. We have a theory based on ducks in the foyer, one that now makes no sense. The lead detective said that there is no proof that any phone calls were spoofed. The necklace was supposedly never taken off, but now we know it was. Even if the prosecutor tells the jury that a router is missing, I think they'll assume it's in a box that police didn't search. Why wouldn't they? That's where the ducks were.

 

[uncfan]

So, assuming he had the router at home on July 11, would the router be "accessed" everytime you started up the VPN connection?

Now, assuming all the above plus, it had an FXO card, plus it was connected to the TWC phone, what else would BC have had to do on Sat morning to spoof the call?

 

[ncsu95]

By the way, my rankle on this has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence as this point.

It's about two things. 1) Fair trials and 2) due process versus "crap a waffle house platter of spaghetti on the wall post-case-in-chief" and see if noodles fall down. I actually liked Boz until the first time he lied to Gessner and exploited the judge trying to see things simply.

Exactly. That's what pissed me off today too. Fairness be damned.

 

[johnfear]

Oh, and reps of CW's WCDA office,

We will vote for CW again, under one condition. FIRE BOZ.

He is the weakest link. Goodbye!

CPD clearly needs a forensic champion. See if they can work him into their budget as a "Disturbance and obfuscation consultant". He can convince judges in the future that twitter is a sound a bird might make if it "tweets".

 

[johnfear]

I'm with you. The investigation and prosecution of this case has stunk. I think it should have been a slam dunk for the state.
I see a legal system (police, lawyers, judges, witnesses) that is ill equipped to deal with digital evidence.
For the sake of our future, I hope that changes quickly.
In this case, I have been convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't know about the jury. If it is a jury that distrusts computers and law enforcement, then we might have another OJ verdict.

What you said right here is the future. It is a very succinct post about why we need to play catch-da-heck-up. I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY. The sad thing is...all of this could have been avoided with proper training, appropriate research AND basic scrutable accountability in this investigation.

Sorry for the rampage guys.

 

[Tink56]

We have 27 minutes of testimony today. Please point to one lie.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9524242/#/vid9524242

Note the first response to the judge's first question (time 12:50) was basically "Judge, I don't know about this stuff, I'll tender my witness" He requested this 3 times before the judge relented. Judge should have taken him up on it the first time... but the judge eventually accepted the offer and got all info first hand.

Thank you for the link to this video.

I agree. I do not "hear" any lies. The judge makes the decision to call the witness for questioning. Is there further video that includes this part of the hearing?

 

[Shadow722]

So, assuming he had the router at home on July 11, would the router be "accessed" everytime you started up the VPN connection?

Now, assuming all the above plus, it had an FXO card, plus it was connected to the TWC phone, what else would BC have had to do on Sat morning to spoof the call?

Actually it would be three (3) spoofed calls (2 successful and 1 failure), or no spoofed calls, or you can't tell if there was a spoofed call or not, depending of course on how you view the case.

Let me explain further:

But to answer your first question if the router was at home and connected, then it would be accessed everytime you made any type of VPN connection.

The data "just found" suggests it was connected @ 10:21 PM July 11th, 2008
just once and then "disappeared".

I Then say three spoofed calls, if there was any because: The first was made just after 6:20 AM July 12. This was called the search for the cell phone spoof, as a test.

The second spoofed call was on the first trip to HT, which failed to connect. Necessitating a return trip to HT, to establish an alibi.

Quick return to the house, re-set everything, and then the third call @ 6:40 AM.


Then I said no spoofed calls, because spoofed calls are only required if you believe the state timeline and facts as presented. NC could have been murdered after 6:40 AM, by BC, and no spoofing is required, IMHO.

And lastly I said, you cannot tell if there was a spoofed call, cause the data the BC's laptop is so screwed it cannot be relied on.

So there are your choices.