State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[cody100]

It was the defense that bent over backwards and did everything they could to keep the computer evidence out of court. If they were so sure of this "tampering", why didn't they just say, "Bring it on!"?

If the prosecution was so certain their evidence was not tainted, why not let the defense experts explain it in rebuttal.

 

[Cheyenne130]

If the prosecution was so certain their evidence was not tainted, why not let the defense experts explain it in rebuttal.

I can only answer to the first defense expert because the second defense expert didn't get to complete his investigation. The first defense expert was contradicted by the second defense expert regarding the cursor files so how "expert" was the first guy? The second expert was actually qualified to testify regarding forensics but the defense chose not to use him. Why?

 

[sunshine05]

Thinking about the blackberry.

Maybe, Young looked at the data in August, took it to his superiors, it didn't fit with BDI.

They decided, we better get a SW for the phone and do this right.

Once they got the SW, they wiped the phone of all data permanently.

I wonder what was on that phone.

 

[sunshine05]

Do you know that he didn't do anything to the computer during the time he had access up until 7/15? I think the defense witness testified that the invalid timestamps were from 6/23 on. What files were deleted or in some way altered to cause all those invalid timestamps going back to June 23rd?

There is no way to know, that's the problem. Files can be altered after the fact so we may never know who was responsible. It never should have happened though.

 

[gbay]

Thinking about the blackberry.

Maybe, Young looked at the data in August, took it to his superiors, it didn't fit with BDI.

They decided, we better get a SW for the phone and do this right.

Once they got the SW, they wiped the phone of all data permanently.

I wonder what was on that phone.

I guess anything is possible...however a bit too far fetched for me to believe!!

 

[cody100]

I can only answer to the first defense expert because the second defense expert didn't get to complete his investigation. The first defense expert was contradicted by the second defense expert regarding the cursor files so how "expert" was the first guy? The second expert was actually qualified to testify regarding forensics but the defense chose not to use him. Why?

Please just answer why the prosecution fought so hard to suppress the explanation of the computer irregularities. You do remember Boz having major kittens over JW?

 

[Cheyenne130]

There is no way to know, that's the problem. Files can be altered after the fact so we may never know who was responsible. It never should have happened though.

That is only partially true. Experts do know. Otherwise the computer crimes people would get away with it 100% of the time. The defense counted on confusing the issue with "tampering" and "spoilage" and it looks like they succeeded with a few. I'm hoping that 12 jurors are not that gullible. MOO

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I didn't mean to suggest everyone does it. I've outright accused 1 witness of lying and that was RL (mainly because I believe he was).

ETA: And I believe JA lied about some things on the stand as well.

As much as I hate to say this, but don't you think JY did a bit of lying himself when he basically said he didn't know what a sim card was; or that he "accidentally" deleted everything off the phone?? I hate to say he was a LIAR, but I personally think he didn't tell the whole truth.

I don't think a lot of the "friends" were liars per se, but just that they stated things on how they wanted them to be seen / heard but not truly in the way they actually occurred. Again, a bit of embellishment.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Please just answer why the prosecution fought so hard to suppress the explanation of the computer irregularities. You do remember Boz having major kittens over JW?

I would have fought to keep his testimony out as well. Even the other defense expert disagreed with his "opinion". I believe that he was directed to find certain evidence by the defense and he didn't disappoint. MOO

 

[sunshine05]

I guess anything is possible...however a bit too far fetched for me to believe!!

Why do YOU think he wiped the phone, got the search warrant and then documented that the phone had been wiped in August when it was actually wiped in September?

Why did they wait 9 months to inform defense that their important evidence was destroyed?

ETA - I'll answer the 2nd question...because that made the ability to get detailed phone records impossible.

 

[gracielee]

But forget about the phone for a minute. Phone does not equal Google search no matter how much people would like to link the two.

McDreamy tried to unlock the phone. McDreamy did not touch that IBM laptop. Period. End of comparison.

Conspiracy theories abound with wild neighborhood wifi hackers getting into BC network, Kurtz initially claiming BC gave out his network password (hey, NO EVIDENCE of that!), CPD 'planting' something or 'changing' files. Those are some of the wild conspiracy theories that are laughable. I bet the FBI just rolled their eyes at those allegations too. Perhaps they shouldn't have dismissed it, but they testified they didn't see evidence of planting and I certainly don't see where they would put themselves on the line to protect some cop in Cary.

I think the defense spun a lot of scenarios and I think lots of people are ripe for the picking when it comes to believing scenarios. The mere possibility being suggested gets imaginations spinning.

Curious, has anyone compared what Kurtz said in his opening statement with what he actually produced at trial?

 

[Cheyenne130]

I guess anything is possible...however a bit too far fetched for me to believe!!

There was no way to wipe from that phone who was called at what time and date and what number called in at what time and date. They have the duration of the calls incoming and outgoing. The have the numbers to and from for text messages. The "deletion of the phone to cover up evidence that BII" is so far out there they may as well ask Elvis what he thinks. MOO

 

[BrownRice]

As much as I hate to say this, but don't you think JY did a bit of lying himself when he basically said he didn't know what a sim card was; or that he "accidentally" deleted everything off the phone?? I hate to say he was a LIAR, but I personally think he didn't tell the whole truth.

I don't think a lot of the "friends" were liars per se, but just that they stated things on how they wanted them to be seen / heard but not truly in the way they actually occurred. Again, a bit of embellishment.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you - and forgot about JY's testimony about the SIM card. His demeanor completely changed on that topic and he appeared to be either dishonest in his answer or withholding information. And remember the 2nd defense witness (after JW) - can't remember his name (?) said instructions to wipe a phone had to be in written format per AT&T's policies - they could not give that info out on the phone. We never rec'd follow up information from AT&T confirming this, but if it's true, it's one more thing JY was not honest about.

 

[sunshine05]

That is only partially true. Experts do know. Otherwise the computer crimes people would get away with it 100% of the time. The defense counted on confusing the issue with "tampering" and "spoilage" and it looks like they succeeded with a few. I'm hoping that 12 jurors are not that gullible. MOO

Absolutely not. There clearly were normal file updates but MUCH MORE. You are right. Experts do know and something wasn't right with many of those files.

Do you think I am gullible because I believe the computer was tampered with, after listening to two independent experts who had nothing to gain by lying?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Why do YOU think he wiped the phone, got the search warrant and then documented that the phone had been wiped in August when it was actually wiped in September?

Why did they wait 9 months to inform defense that their important evidence was destroyed?

I thought that the search warrant that everyone keeps referring to that was after the phone was wiped was for the memory card (not sim card) in the phone.

 

[macd]

Absolutely. I can't wait to hear the truth, if Jay ever comes back to share it with us. I fully believe there's tampering on that machine, and I think that's why the prosecution didn't want to open the door to Masucci's testimony. I just think it's disingenuous to state that the prosecution had no idea of tampering, when their witnesses testified that they did. Also, if you listen to Thomas's testimony, he states he gave the computers to FBI on July 28, 2008. FBI Agent Johnson said analysis was started immediately on the mac, and then he was told to speed up with the IBM, which was started in late August. The test where Chappell attempted to re-create the map search, was in September of 2008.

To clarify, when you say "tampering" do you mean "someone planted evidence"? When GM, the disallowed defense witness, said "tampering" he meant only "at least one bit changed after the search warrant was executed".

No amount of automated updates or other types of "spoilation" are going to create a file with a dump site map or a log entry with a missing router's mac addresses.

The only question is: do you believe this evidence was planted or not?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Absolutely not. There clearly were normal file updates but MUCH MORE. You are right. Experts do know and something wasn't right with many of those files.

Do you think I am gullible because I believe the computer was tampered with, after listening to two independent experts who had nothing to gain by lying?

Only one claimed "tampering". The other claimed "spoilage" which he said is because the computer was not powered down in the first minute after the home was secured and before the search warrant was served. (Like they really could have gone in and touched that computer before the search warrant was served. The defense would have LOVED that because then they could have had ALL the computer evidence thrown out.)

 

[sunshine05]

There was no way to wipe from that phone who was called at what time and date and what number called in at what time and date. They have the duration of the calls incoming and outgoing. The have the numbers to and from for text messages. The "deletion of the phone to cover up evidence that BII" is so far out there they may as well ask Elvis what he thinks. MOO

Too much time elapsed to retrieve detailed phone logs. That is why they waited 9 months to tell defense about the destroyed phone. Everything point to intentional tampering. The question is - why? what is the motive?

 

[sunshine05]

Only one claimed "tampering". The other claimed "spoilage" which he said is because the computer was not powered down in the first minute after the home was secured and before the search warrant was served. (Like they really could have gone in and touched that computer before the search warrant was served. The defense would have LOVED that because then they could have had ALL the computer evidence thrown out.)

That is not true. I watched it many times. They both agreed and said "indications of tampering" surrounding the google searches.

 

[Cheyenne130]

That is not true. I watched it many times. They both agreed and said "indications of tampering" surrounding the google searches.

When did those "indications of tampering" occur? Do you think Brad tried to delete those files but wasn't successful?