Brad Cooper: Appeal info

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jessica....Just wanted you to know....I admire the way you used your insight and intuition to track the beast. I have painted a tribute to you and Nancy and I will send it to you as soon as it is ready! Thank you for being there in such a potent way to bring justice for Nancy. She has been "in my head" and I have listened to her. Every woman wants a friend JUST LIKE YOU if she has faced the intruder and lost. Thank you for showing women how it is done! You are a true friend. Take care of yourself. Jenny

However, she may have helped send an innocent man to prison. If so, that's nothing to admire or celebrate. I hope an appeal (topic of this thread BTW) will give BC a chance at a fair trial - one based on evidence and the right to confront it...not one based on an investigation engineered by those with an agenda.
 
Does this put to rest the theory that the search files were planted?

No it does not. There is much more to it than "last accessed" timestamps, which I have seen intermixed with "last modified" which is not a piece of metadata that will remain static or unaltered.

There is the issue of deleted files, the Google cookie & watermark, the array of invalid timestamps and the period for those.

GM testified that yes, timestamps can be altered after the fact to make it seem as if files were created at an earlier time.

There is the intentionally wiped Blackberry. Yes, I say intentionally because that is the B Levitan's conclusion was...just that the pros objected to him being able to state that this was his conclusion, and the judge sustained it...same way he sustained the conclusions of JW, even though GM said JW was more than qualified to make the conclusions he was prepared to testify to.

There is a lot of digital testimony which was never heard...all of it exculpatory. It's a miscarriage of justice IMO that BC could not confront this evidence with his own witnesses, especially given that this was the only piece of incriminating evidence.
 
No it does not. There is much more to it than "last accessed" timestamps, which I have seen intermixed with "last modified" which is not a piece of metadata that will remain static or unaltered.

There is the issue of deleted files, the Google cookie & watermark, the array of invalid timestamps and the period for those.

GM testified that yes, timestamps can be altered after the fact to make it seem as if files were created at an earlier time.

There is the intentionally wiped Blackberry. Yes, I say intentionally because that is the B Levitan's conclusion was...just that the pros objected to him being able to state that this was his conclusion, and the judge sustained it...same way he sustained the conclusions of JW, even though GM said JW was more than qualified to make the conclusions he was prepared to testify to.

There is a lot of digital testimony which was never heard...all of it exculpatory. It's a miscarriage of justice IMO that BC could not confront this evidence with his own witnesses, especially given that this was the only piece of incriminating evidence.

This is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

However, unless you've actually seen the computer, its files, and the phone, plus have the expertise to examine them all, IMO your conclusions are no more reliable than mine. :seeya:
 
There is a lot of digital testimony which was never heard...all of it exculpatory.

I've snipped most of your post, hope you don't mind.

This really caught my attention, because as I understand it, the defence was trying to discredit the digital testimony, not establish that it showed Brad did not do it.

If there is any exculpatory digital evidence, I'd be interested to hear what that is. I presume you understand what exculpatory evidence is... it is positive evidence suggesting innocence.

For example, the bug expert testified to a range for time of death in direct. In cross, the defence did a good job of showing that the bug expert could not be certain and that the time of death could have been after she *cough* went running. This is not exculpatory because it only served to dull the impact of the prosecution's evidence, it was not positive evidence she died after 7 am.

I'd argue there was not one piece of exculpatory evidence presented in either the trial or in any "offer of proof" or "voir dire" as it is more commonly called. At each stage the defence was challenging the validity of evidence as opposed to demonstrate positive innocence.

Compare this to the JY trial about to start. His defence is, he was elsewhere, could not have done it. If they present evidence he was elsewhere, that is exculpatory, whether or not the jury decides to accept that evidence.
 
This really caught my attention, because as I understand it, the defence was trying to discredit the digital testimony, not establish that it showed Brad did not do it.

If there is any exculpatory digital evidence, I'd be interested to hear what that is. I presume you understand what exculpatory evidence is... it is positive evidence suggesting innocence.

I think your definition here (BBM) is a bit too narrow. Exculpatory tends towards disproving guilt broadly, moreso than proving innocence specifically. 'Positive evidence suggesting innocence' is exculpatory, but so is evidence which points away from the accused to someone else or evidence which points to (in this case) intentional tampering with evidence.

The defense was trying to establish that 'someone' changed the timestamps on files on BC's computer - particularly the files which incriminated him. GM testified there was evidence of human interface. Remember, his examination was incomplete at the time he testified, and since then Kurtz has made some very strong statements.
 
Bradley is still locked in Max security Central Prison.
His next custody review date is 11-1-11.
 
However, unless you've actually seen the computer, its files, and the phone, plus have the expertise to examine them all, IMO your conclusions are no more reliable than mine. :seeya:

The two defense experts (500+ and 9+) who examined the computer had more expereince individually than the 'expert' who had examined 5 computers. I would tend to believe their conclusions (disallowed by the judge in testimony of course). Pros expert did not find as many issues as the defense experts had, and GM directly contradicted the pros expert in testimony.
 
I think your definition here (BBM) is a bit too narrow. Exculpatory tends towards disproving guilt broadly, moreso than proving innocence specifically. 'Positive evidence suggesting innocence' is exculpatory, but so is evidence which points away from the accused to someone else or evidence which points to (in this case) intentional tampering with evidence.

The defense was trying to establish that 'someone' changed the timestamps on files on BC's computer - particularly the files which incriminated him. GM testified there was evidence of human interface. Remember, his examination was incomplete at the time he testified, and since then Kurtz has made some very strong statements.


Take this fwiw, but don't put too much stock on what Mr. Kurtz says. He's a defense attorney and he just lost a huge case. He was praying he could get Brad off and it would cement his career into the big time. But now he's trying to justify the loss by saying there's evidence that proves him innocent but the judge wouldn't allow it. That is a COMMON claim by defense attorneys who loose. Mr. Garegos used that in the Scott Peterson trial as well. It was a big conspiracy, LE incompetency, planted and altered evidence.

Scott is still on death row and Mr. Geragos has moved on to client, after client. But guess what? Mr. Geragos reputation, or celebrity if you will, was severly damaged by the Peterson case. His pandering to the cameras was recognized for what it was worth........nothing, just like the exculpatory evidence he said he had, that was never presented.

Although there MAY be sufficient evidence to warrant throwing out the verdict in this case, it is a VERY REMOTE possibility at best.

JMHO
fran
 
Take this fwiw, but don't put too much stock on what Mr. Kurtz says. He's a defense attorney and he just lost a huge case. He was praying he could get Brad off and it would cement his career into the big time. But now he's trying to justify the loss by saying there's evidence that proves him innocent but the judge wouldn't allow it. That is a COMMON claim by defense attorneys who loose. Mr. Garegos used that in the Scott Peterson trial as well. It was a big conspiracy, LE incompetency, planted and altered evidence.

Scott is still on death row and Mr. Geragos has moved on to client, after client. But guess what? Mr. Geragos reputation, or celebrity if you will, was severly damaged by the Peterson case. His pandering to the cameras was recognized for what it was worth........nothing, just like the exculpatory evidence he said he had, that was never presented.

Although there MAY be sufficient evidence to warrant throwing out the verdict in this case, it is a VERY REMOTE possibility at best.

JMHO
fran

You are so right, Fran. I've yet to see a defense attorney that doesn't pander his losses. Especially high profile ones. Wasn't it David Rudolph who lost the Rae Carruth case? He went on and on about the Carruth appeal, and old Rae has been 'doin' his time' now for what, about ten years or so? What amazes me is that these attorney's continue to find people who will believe their pandering. Look at Jeffrey MacDonald.
 
Even good 'ole Wade Smith had to take the hit when his client, Jeffrey MacDonald went down (1979) for the triple murder of his pregnant wife and 2 little girls in 1970.

One of Kurtz experts says he wasn't finished with his exam or report. Had this expert been hired or contacted sooner maybe Kurtz would have had a shot.

BTW, I heard that Kurtz had 2 other computer experts on his list. He didn't call them because they did not find evidence of tampering (i.e. someone intentionally planting or changing BC computer files) and would not get on the stand and testify to what he wanted them to say. His whole "we didn't have any money" is bogus. He spent money on a P.I. who was not needed. He played a game of poker and bluffed and lost. The kind of maneuvering done behind the scenes might surprise lots of people. And I'm talking from the defense side. It is NOT about getting to the truth, it is only about trying to get a client off or minimize their sentence.

I'll be very surprised if BC's case wins an appeal or turnover.
 
I've snipped most of your post, hope you don't mind.

This really caught my attention, because as I understand it, the defence was trying to discredit the digital testimony, not establish that it showed Brad did not do it.

If there is any exculpatory digital evidence, I'd be interested to hear what that is. I presume you understand what exculpatory evidence is... it is positive evidence suggesting innocence.

For example, the bug expert testified to a range for time of death in direct. In cross, the defence did a good job of showing that the bug expert could not be certain and that the time of death could have been after she *cough* went running. This is not exculpatory because it only served to dull the impact of the prosecution's evidence, it was not positive evidence she died after 7 am.

I'd argue there was not one piece of exculpatory evidence presented in either the trial or in any "offer of proof" or "voir dire" as it is more commonly called. At each stage the defence was challenging the validity of evidence as opposed to demonstrate positive innocence.

Compare this to the JY trial about to start. His defence is, he was elsewhere, could not have done it. If they present evidence he was elsewhere, that is exculpatory, whether or not the jury decides to accept that evidence.

I thought the voir dire is what was done to show someone was an expert and the offer of proof was showing what the expert would have testified to if he were allowed to testify. I never heard of either of these terms prior to the trial, so I'm not basing this on any level of expertise....just how it was used in the trial.
 
Even good 'ole Wade Smith had to take the hit when his client, Jeffrey MacDonald went down (1979) for the triple murder of his pregnant wife and 2 little girls in 1970.

One of Kurtz experts says he wasn't finished with his exam or report. Had this expert been hired or contacted sooner maybe Kurtz would have had a shot.

BTW, I heard that Kurtz had 2 other computer experts on his list. He didn't call them because they did not find evidence of tampering (i.e. someone intentionally planting or changing BC computer files) and would not get on the stand and testify to what he wanted them to say. His whole "we didn't have any money" is bogus. He spent money on a P.I. who was not needed. He played a game of poker and bluffed and lost. The kind of maneuvering done behind the scenes might surprise lots of people. And I'm talking from the defense side. It is NOT about getting to the truth, it is only about trying to get a client off or minimize their sentence.

I'll be very surprised if BC's case wins an appeal or turnover.


And where exactly did you hear this information? All I know is what came out in court, and money was the reason.
 
1304971350-cooper_new_mug_edited-1-400x300.jpg


Latest mug from Central Prison....
 
No it does not. There is much more to it than "last accessed" timestamps, which I have seen intermixed with "last modified" which is not a piece of metadata that will remain static or unaltered.
I have to think that Kurtz would be discussing his strongest piece of tampering evidence in this interview. I have to conclude that lastAccess==Created is the strongest, yet that situation is normal.
There is a lot of digital testimony which was never heard...all of it exculpatory.
Some of the unheard digital testimony is inculpatory. The windows system event log that shows BC configuring a vox capable router in his home at 10:21pm (a time he told police he was sleeping). Also the Cisco VPN logs; we never heard what they showed.
It's a miscarriage of justice IMO that BC could not confront this evidence with his own witnesses, especially given that this was the only piece of incriminating evidence.
We agree somewhat on this point. I do think he should have gotten a better expert on the stand. But, I think the best he could have gotten from it would be something like "the police didn't follow procedures".
 
I have to think that Kurtz would be discussing his strongest piece of tampering evidence in this interview. I have to conclude that lastAccess==Created is the strongest, yet that situation is normal.

Some of the unheard digital testimony is inculpatory. The windows system event log that shows BC configuring a vox capable router in his home at 10:21pm (a time he told police he was sleeping). Also the Cisco VPN logs; we never heard what they showed.

We agree somewhat on this point. I do think he should have gotten a better expert on the stand. But, I think the best he could have gotten from it would be something like "the police didn't follow procedures".

There is a huge difference. The prosecution was allowed to introduce that evidence and chose not to. The defense was not allowed.
 
And where exactly did you hear this information? All I know is what came out in court, and money was the reason.

Kurtz was 'out of order' when he made that statement. If he had anything to back it up, we'd certainly have heard about it by now. He'd have been whining about it in his 15 minutes of fame exit interviews, don'cha think? He can't back it up, that's why he dropped it.
 
Kurtz was 'out of order' when he made that statement. If he had anything to back it up, we'd certainly have heard about it by now. He'd have been whining about it in his 15 minutes of fame exit interviews, don'cha think? He can't back it up, that's why he dropped it.

Actually, he has talked quite a bit about the indigent defense fund and it being cut further. I'm not providing a link to it, but he has. And he was specifically talking about the lack of funds to pay for expert witnesses.
 
And he used his funds on a P.I. There are not unlimited funds, that is true. But a defense team can choose where to spend the money. Do you think it's a coincidence there was no paid expert on the stand talking about tampering of files? Why did Kurtz have expert witnesses on his list that he didn't call? He went with a guy who right from the start told them he was not a forensic computer expert, though he was a network security expert. And lo and behold, the judge declared him not to be a forensic expert.

BTW, I never reveal my sources, so asking where I acquire any knowledge is not going to yield an answer. It wasn't on some chat board nor in the media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
2,426
Total visitors
2,626

Forum statistics

Threads
589,956
Messages
17,928,316
Members
228,017
Latest member
SashaRhea82
Back
Top