State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011
- Thread starter gritguy
- Start date
New Posts
-
Spain - Asunta Fong Yang, 12, Killed by Wealthy Adoptive Parents
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
- Status
SleuthinNC
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,338
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting, evidence then rest. But I have unanswered questions! 
snowshuze
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,473
- Reaction score
- 436
There's still rebuttal.Interesting, evidence then rest. But I have unanswered questions!
gritguy
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 82
Interesting. Well, they had said they were almost done the other day.
From a tactical perspective, if the state were not quite ready with this new evidence and I only had marginal witnesses left, I might just rest to put the state on the spot of do you have the "new" evidence or not rather than give them more time to prepare.
However, I don't think that was the defense move as they had declared earlier they planned to be done around the end of the week (Trenkle had told the judge that).
From a tactical perspective, if the state were not quite ready with this new evidence and I only had marginal witnesses left, I might just rest to put the state on the spot of do you have the "new" evidence or not rather than give them more time to prepare.
However, I don't think that was the defense move as they had declared earlier they planned to be done around the end of the week (Trenkle had told the judge that).
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm surprised that a lot of people weren't called. We were told that certain state witnesses were going to be recalled by the defense. I really am sort of surprised.
You missed not stopping on time as well.
The state's purported buffet of evidence has turned into an itty bitty doggie bag of crumbs IMO.
SleuthinNC
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,338
- Reaction score
- 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by macd View Post
Was the crazy future date 2038?
The Unix time counts the number of seconds since 1/1/1970. On a 32-bit system:
Minimum Unix Time (0) = 1/1/1970
Maximum Unix Time (0xFFFFFFFF) = 1/19/2038
OK wait you are suddenly making very good sense to me. If the search was originally done on a linux machine the timestamps would be in unix time. If those files were then dropped on to a Windows Vista machine there would be an operating system mismatch. This could cause those timestamps to show as invalid. Right?
Brought this over from yesterday's thread since the thread was locked.
Originally Posted by macd View Post
Was the crazy future date 2038?
The Unix time counts the number of seconds since 1/1/1970. On a 32-bit system:
Minimum Unix Time (0) = 1/1/1970
Maximum Unix Time (0xFFFFFFFF) = 1/19/2038
OK wait you are suddenly making very good sense to me. If the search was originally done on a linux machine the timestamps would be in unix time. If those files were then dropped on to a Windows Vista machine there would be an operating system mismatch. This could cause those timestamps to show as invalid. Right?
Brought this over from yesterday's thread since the thread was locked.
Interesting, evidence then rest. But I have unanswered questions!
I speculated yesterday that the jury has telegraphed to the court that they have collectively heard enough (reasonable doubt) and the defense can stop. The decision by the defense to rest just reinforces this.
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
Based on the cross yesterday by BZ, I think they have enough router evidence to bolster their electronic portion of the case. Whether or not they can get that admitted is another question.
If you are referring to me, I am not on any side and not much of an expert with IE -- we barely allow MS Windows. The other day, I did a response to you after I did some further testing, but they closed the thread and thus lost the post. Attached is recreated from an intermediate save.
I do not understand how the watermarks on each image/tile and the watermarks in this deleted cookie with the invalid / missing meta data all fit together, but apparently that deleted cookie water mark had not been found until this week. M testified that with a subpoena Google could recover from this watermark the who, where, and when for the associated search. Someone MIGHT be in big trouble real soon.
The "dropping" of files could have been done locally on the machine, timestamps forced with one of the utilities, done remotely through the VPN or otherwise, or done on the disk while removed from the laptop. There was something that indicated that the disk was accessed after power down without using a writeblock or at least a functioning one.
M also testified that the FBI's disk with a fresh install of Vista and then doing a duplication of the search had a small fraction of a percent of its files with invalid timestamps, while BC's computer had more than an additiional 2% with invalid timestamps. CC testified that there was no significant difference found.
I would guess a subpoena has gone to Google. I also heard that Gilmore and another forensic expert are on the defense witness list incase something comes back before this goes to the jury. Rank speculation on my part.
ETA: I got caught again posting to a closed thread!
+++++++++++++++++
First, the tricks to getting Windows Explorer to display the TIF is when you are at the "Temporary Internet Files" folder, go into the Address window and add "\Content.IE5" at the end. You probably need to also change the Folder > Options... to display Hidden and System files. This lets you then browse around all those files IE and websites have used.
By manually clearing the .bmp files, I can roughly approximate what you did, but playing around with that raises other interesting questions that I haven't researched yet. What were the TIF retention policies on that computer?
I earlier asked if this data would have been updated by any later uses of Google Maps or of other Google apps that might use the same cursors.
IMO, G is out as a possibility. The jury has no idea what other witnesses the defense has not called and what their effect on the pros case would be; therefore, I believe they think they have heard enough to justify reasonable doubt.
I was mentioning an operating system mismatch. (Thinking flash drive, drop in) However, I was also referencing the fact that BC appears to have a standard up-to-date Cisco IBM Thinkpad which in my experience around the May 2008 would have been Vista Business 64 with an XP Pro overlay.
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
Or they have heard enough to justify guilty
Or they have heard so much and understand very little of it which will justify people going in different directions and justify hung
Ha. Nice try. It's called "Unix Time" because it is based off of the Unix Time Epoch, which is 1/1/1970. Windows uses it too.
It's just a number between 0 and 4,294,967,296. (2 to the 32)
Bits are bits. There are not unix bits and windows bits.
What do you think about every single google file (500+) having the same issue? Were they all planted? If only the Fielding Drive Zoom file had this issue, you might have a point. But since all the files have the same symptoms, it points to a systemic error with a boring non-nefarious reason.
The problem with "heard enough to justify guilt" is that they (jury) are unaware if there are any other witnesses the defense might be calling to dispute evidence which at this point in time convinces them of guilt.
Hung jury is possible I suppose, but that would also require one or more jurors being convinced that defense cannot or will not call witnesses mentioned above.
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
I hope we have someone in the courtroom today who can report back to us. I'm curious to know how many jurors are interested in viewing the evidence on the computer.
- Status