State v Bradley Cooper 4/14/11

[snowshuze]

Sometimes, it is what it is.....and we just have to deal with it.

 

[TigerBalm]

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

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

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

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

MOO of course

 

[less0305]

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

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

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

 

[bloghooligan]

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

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

Great example, thanks.

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

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

 

[NCEast]

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

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

 

[johnfear]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[macd]

I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Palomine]

in a perfect world there would be message boards for guilty and not guilty posters..Call it wrong but I go into every trial believing the defendant is guilty..most trials either have a grand jury or preliminary hearing...

 

[gritguy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CyberPro]

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

<respectfully snipped>

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

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

 

[Palomine]

how sick is Brad Cooper checking out dump sites before he kills his wife..did he kill her because he knew she would thrive without him.. because of her relationship with her family and friends

 

[Cheyenne130]

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

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

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

 

[NCEast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a well written and thoughtful post. Thank you!

 

[cody100]

I just watched as much of the motion to strike the Thinkpad evidence as I could before my ears started bleeding from listening to the high pitched whining from the defense.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JiminWilton]

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

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

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

 

[NCEast]

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

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

 

[Palomine]

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

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

 

[CyberPro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gritguy,

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

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

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

 

[ohiogirl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Danielle59]

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

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

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

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

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

hth
fran

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