State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

gracielee · Apr 29, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Please re-read my previous posts where I said I hope all of this information is heard (including the defense expert that was not allowed). I'm simply talking procedure here...I don't see how this is rebuttal testimony at this point. Again, in an effort to search for the truth, I hope this is allowed and he changes his mind and allows the defense expert.

My laymans interpretation of the defense expert, was that he was basing much of his *opinions* on the work product of JWard. JW, IMO, was discredited as an expert, and his work product was derived by means not determined to be accurate. Had this new expert been hired and given the material right from the start, I wouldn't have a problem hearing from him. As a lay person, I don't trust the work product of JWard, and in his posting here at WS, he himself stated 'he told the defense he wasn't an expert in forensic examination of computers.' IMO, that tells me the defense should have politiely thanked him and moved along to find an expert who was tenured as such. MOO Attempting to bring in the new expert, who is basing much of his opinions on the work product of someone who admitted to NOT being a forensic computer expert, rubs me the wrong way and IMO open's up a whole new can of worms. MOO

macd · Apr 29, 2011

Yes. Last words I heard judge say were: "Since this will likely become a motion to suppress...".

:-(

RaleighNative · Apr 29, 2011

ncsu95 said:
It won't be.

NCEast said:
I've got the audio but no picture.

Could you post the link to where you have audio, please?

FullDisclosure · Apr 29, 2011

NCEast said:
I've got the audio but no picture.

WRAL or ABC? If it's ABC, will you provide the link, please?

Bottle Cap · Apr 29, 2011

macd, a quick thank you for your posts. They're easy to understand, concise, and the perfect antidote to all the schadenfreude that creeps its way into every conspiracy conversation.

foltster · Apr 29, 2011

macd said:
He's being asked to read on entry in one log.
The entry is about a network connection to a Cisco box.

JW was not allowed to read any lines from the FBI report and analyze so how can this guy be allowed to?

RaleighNative · Apr 29, 2011

FullDisclosure said:
WRAL or ABC? If it's ABC, will you provide the link, please?

both WRAL and ABC links are blank for me, no audio on either. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/livenow?id=8020507

cityslick · Apr 29, 2011

gracielee said:
My laymans interpretation of the defense expert, was that he was basing much of his *opinions* on the work product of JWard. JW, IMO, was discredited as an expert, and his work product was derived by means not determined to be accurate. Had this new expert been hired and given the material right from the start, I wouldn't have a problem hearing from him. As a lay person, I don't trust the work product of JWard, and in his posting here at WS, he himself stated 'he told the defense he wasn't an expert in forensic examination of computers.' IMO, that tells me the defense should have politiely thanked him and moved along to find an expert who was tenured as such. MOO Attempting to bring in the new expert, who is basing much of his opinions on the work product of someone who admitted to NOT being a forensic computer expert, rubs me the wrong way and IMO open's up a whole new can of worms. MOO

But the guy the pros wants to bring in isn't an expert either. The point being JW wasn't allowed to read any logs due to him not being in expert in forensics. CFry isn't one either, so how is that fair?

gracielee · Apr 29, 2011

FullDisclosure said:
Sincere question. Shouldn't the State have had this info before they brought the case to trial? I do want all the evidence, but if this was "all on the computer" as Boz keeps stating, why didn't they have all this ready before they brought it to trial? Perhaps if they had produced such evidence to begin with, the State would have had a much stronger case and not have made a big deal about things like necklaces and ducks.

I'm just a layperson when it comes to computer technology, but by that same token, so are probably many of the jurors. My understanding is, Cisco is just now releasing this to the prosecution. This fault lies in Cisco dragging their feet, what has taken them this long to cough up this stuff?

gracielee · Apr 29, 2011

Are we being blacked out from the proffer?

NCEast · Apr 29, 2011

Is this an exact repeat of yesterday's testimony by this witness? He is saying the exact same thing at the exact same times ie root canal.

RaleighNative · Apr 29, 2011

Ugh, looks like we're blacked out until Monday.

Anyone care to share their thoughts on jury deliberations? Based on the note, they have grown extremely impatient and will want deliberations over quick.

So unless everyone agrees on a verdict right away (which I doubt will be the case), I have a feeling things will get pretty ugly and snippy during deliberations.

Danielle59 · Apr 29, 2011

RaleighNative said:
Question - if the judge had granted that motion, would the state be able to retry BC later, or would it have meant acquittal?

I think it would depend on the dismissal, with prejudice or without.

NCEast · Apr 29, 2011

RaleighNative said:
Could you post the link to where you have audio, please?

WRAL http://www.wral.com/news/video/9247382/#/vid9247382

BUT--the video is gone now. I still have the audio.

NCEast · Apr 29, 2011

I am very confused. WRAL is currently doing the audio of Mucucci or whatever his name is but it was yesterday testimony. He even mentioned his root canal again today so I'm thinking it's yesterday tape.

NCEast · Apr 29, 2011

Now I'm getting a total blackout.

kljohnson0458 · Apr 29, 2011

If I recall the State indicated that Cisco's investigation into this router, etc., was not complete so I believe the Judge knew this was going to come up. Remember yesterday when the Defense expert even said he wasn't totally finished either????? I don't believe this is a case of the state just bringing this in and they've had it.

NCEast · Apr 29, 2011

gracielee said:
I'm just a layperson when it comes to computer technology, but by that same token, so are probably many of the jurors. My understanding is, Cisco is just now releasing this to the prosecution. This fault lies in Cisco dragging their feet, what has taken them this long to cough up this stuff?

That's my understanding as well. Seems like yesterday is when the prosc. said they just received the info from Cisco this week.

macd · Apr 29, 2011

Anyone want to talk on a hypothetical?
Let's say that the log on the laptop indicates that a Cisco 3825 was in BC's house on July 11 at 10:30pm. Remembering that a 3825 would support an FXO port that could be used to spoof a call.
Would this move anyone to the G side of the fence?

RaleighNative · Apr 29, 2011

gracielee said:
I'm just a layperson when it comes to computer technology, but by that same token, so are probably many of the jurors. My understanding is, Cisco is just now releasing this to the prosecution. This fault lies in Cisco dragging their feet, what has taken them this long to cough up this stuff?

Has the prosecution released information as to exactly what date they requested this information from Cisco?

That would determine which side was dragging their feet.

State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics