Craig Isom — Direct/Cross/Redirect
909 linesJUDGE EVERETT: Go ahead.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to be brief, Judge. The defense has got some objections to my exhibit that I intend to introduce with this next witness. State's Exhibit 64 is an email exhibit. It's a composite.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And I haven't had time to look at all the ones they're objecting to, but I know the first one is marked as State's Exhibit 64A. May I approach?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This is an email from, initially from Donna Adelson and Wendi Adelson, and Wendi replied March 28, 2011.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It includes content in the paragraph three, a discussion of Dan and his parents attempting to spend time with the kids and what is known to Mrs. Adelson. You can read what it says. The defense is objecting to that item on relevance grounds.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Relevance is that Mrs. Adelson hated the victim and that hatred extended to his parents as well.
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Fulford.
MS. FULFORD: This is while they're still together, Judge. This is 2011. 2011.
MS. FULFORD: It has nothing to do with Danny. It's a derogatory comment made by my client regarding Danny's parents.
MS. FULFORD: Wendi made comments, and Mrs. Adelson made comments, and they're not relevant to this case. This is while Danny and Wendi are still together.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to whether your client had any animus towards the deceased, is there a time period where it has to be within the divorce?
MS. FULFORD: It's not animus towards the deceased. I'm talking about the comments towards his parents.
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Cappleman, as it relates to the comments going towards the parents?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think it's relevant, Judge. It goes toward motive.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She did not want these children to be with the father and with the father's family. She wanted them with her and her family. And that's what happened.
MS. FULFORD: That's not what this email says.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Right. That's not what the email says. It's not a confession to murder.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's an expression of dislike. It just goes to the mother.
JUDGE EVERETT: Much of this email does lack relevance or probative value for the jury. However, Ms. Cappleman, does this tie in to other messages which otherwise would demonstrate the motive you're trying to prove?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I mean, there are other emails that express similar sentiments. I don't think they're specifically tied to the visit that's referenced in that particular email.
JUDGE EVERETT: Are you arguing, then, that the defendant had a consistent animus towards the deceased?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Oh, yes.
JUDGE EVERETT: Well, over objection, I will permit it only on the grounds that it shows that the defendant had a consistent animus towards the deceased or his family. However, if the defense is asking for a limiting instruction as to this evidence, you may request it now.
MR. ZELMAN: Yes, we would ask for a limiting instruction. This is not directed towards Danny Markel.
MR. ZELMAN: I mean, if you take a look at it, Mrs. Adelson is complaining that Danny and Wendi have to schlep the boys down to see his parents instead of them driving up to see the boys. It has nothing to do with trying to keep the boys from the family, so I'm not sure what limiting instruction would be effective. But this — it doesn't express any animus to Danny, so I'm not sure what the Court would suggest.
MR. ZELMAN: The state's theory is not hatred towards Danny Markel's family.
MR. ZELMAN: That's — and so I'm not, I'm just confused —
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Cappleman, as to the State's theory, please clarify this issue.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's theory includes that Mrs. Adelson hated all things Dan Markel, and all things Dan Markel needed to be erased from these children's lives, including the grandparents. Now, I know Your Honor has precluded me from mentioning visitation of the grandparents and things like that, but obviously that's always been a part of the state's theory. I understand that I'm limited from including that, but it is important to show that this animus existed as far back as 3-28 of '11. And this is the first item in the exhibit because it goes back the furthest in time. I think it's important.
JUDGE EVERETT: We're not going to be wasting a lot of time on this back and forth. This is the point of pretrial motions.
JUDGE EVERETT: On this point, as it relates to the state's theory of the case, the defendant had animus towards the deceased or his family. It will be permitted on those grounds. If the defense is asking in some way for a limiting instruction to be given, please request it now.
MR. ZELMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: What is the limiting instruction that is requested?
MR. ZELMAN: Your Honor, I'm at a loss. Um, I think that an instruction that - this doesn't show hatred towards Danny.
MR. ZELMAN: So, again, I'm not sure. I obviously disagree with the state's argument concerning this, so I'm open to suggestions.
JUDGE EVERETT: It would only be considered for the defendant's state of mind, as it related to the deceased or his family?
MR. ZELMAN: I would ask that it be related to the deceased's family, because it has nothing to do with the deceased.
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: There's five more items, Judge.
JUDGE EVERETT: Well, let's go through them.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir. State's Exhibit 64D is an email dated 10-26-12. May I approach?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This email is from Donna Adelson to Wendi Adelson, showing her a list of prospective love interests from the website Mrs. Adelson has identified as potential matches for Wendi. It's offered to show how controlling Donna Adelson was over her children's lives, how much she inserted herself into their private lives, and again, she likes to be in control of who they date and who they marry.
JUDGE EVERETT: Response?
MS. FULFORD: Judge, this is not an email from my client, Wendi Adelson. This is an email from Match.com to the email address that my client has.
MS. FULFORD: It doesn't say anything — the copy I have, at least, doesn't say anything at all about Wendi Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, I'll replace it with a copy that shows the email heading on the top page.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's my fault.
JUDGE EVERETT: And this was her forwarding this, or actually including some sort of message?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She forwards it. I'm not sure if she included a message. She definitely did on the next one, which is also subject to defense objection.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's Exhibit 64I. I'll approach with that as well.
MR. ZELMAN: What's the date on that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 1/17/14. State's Exhibit 64I.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to any questioning of Wendi Adelson as to the role her mother played in her life, including screening potential romantic interests, that question certainly can be asked. But as to an exception to hearsay, what is being offered concerning this?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The relevance of it? The exception to hearsay is it's a statement of a party.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Relevance is that Mrs. Adelson was very controlling and micromanaging in her children's lives, particularly in their love lives, which directly relates to the motive to this offense.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Eliminated Mr. Markel. You get the idea.
MS. FULFORD: I just can't understand how this would be material to this case in any way, anything that the state has to prove. That, you know — it's not that we just want to bash her reputation, or what she did. They've got no proven criminal offenses against her. How does her being on Match.com while she's living with her daughter have anything to do with something the state has to prove here? Nothing.
JUDGE EVERETT: I believe this once again goes to the issue of motive.
JUDGE EVERETT: I understand the defense's position that you disagree. As to this motion — or excuse me, as to this item, this is — 3, you said? 64I?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 64D and I, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to whether the defendant in any way possessed a motive concerning Wendi Adelson — or excuse me, as it related to the deceased, in controlling who Wendi Adelson may have sought as a romantic interest.
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Cappleman, do you have other evidence that's going to tie that to this particular item?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I do have other evidence that Mrs. Adelson — which is on the wire — speaking about Wendi's love life and her current love interest and who she wants her to date, and discussing with Charlie Adelson and wanting Charlie to intervene with Wendi and encourage her to date a certain person. So I do think it is a theme that re-emerges with other evidence.
JUDGE EVERETT: Well, as to state of mind and motive, I will permit this evidence to be given over objection. However, as to the foundations for these things, Ms. Cappleman, they'll have to be laid through the appropriate witnesses.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The next item, Judge, is this, for W, an email dated June 27th, 2013. The objection in this case relates to the characterization of Judge Hobbs as — I can't find the quote, but something like a "southern black lady."
MS. CAPPLEMAN: They just were proposing redacting that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Find the page for Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Email — I'll give you one and two.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Second page, two-thirds of the way down in the second paragraph, mention of Judge Hobbs.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: There's no particular relevance to that characterization of Judge Hobbs. So I just don't think it's prejudicial. So I don't know why we're redacting. Whatever Your Honor thinks on that, I'll Judge.
MS. FULFORD: I don't believe the judge — but the jury could take that in a very derogatory way. It has absolutely nothing to do with this case, that comment.
MS. FULFORD: Nothing.
MS. FULFORD: Unless there's another motive I don't know about.
JUDGE EVERETT: If in some way, since we do have two jurors of African American descent, that would otherwise impute on the defendant a negative character trait, I will permit the redaction for that reason. Beyond that, the item will be admitted.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The next item, Judge is an email dated April 7th, 2015, and what is referenced here is 64HH, average.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This email is an email regarding Wendi moving, and the evidence is going to show that she moved from a more secure location to a less secure location. So the relevance is sort of going to have to be developed as the trial goes on, but the idea is that there was no fear for Wendi's safety.
JUDGE EVERETT: What's the date of change?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That email is dated 7-15, I believe, is the last date of change.
JUDGE EVERETT: Thank you.
JUDGE EVERETT: If we have to start a foundation with one witness but enter it at a later point, that is certainly appropriate. What is the objection?
MS. FULFORD: Well, Judge, I have a question.
MS. FULFORD: The email that I'm looking at that was provided to us on July the 15th, 2014, is to Jeff Lacasse from Wendi Adelson.
JUDGE EVERETT: I believe these are from David Trafton at myrealestate.com.
MS. FULFORD: That's not what we were given.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May I show the exhibit to the defense?
JUDGE EVERETT: Please do.
MS. FULFORD: This email we've been handed is an April 7th, 2015, 4:42 p.m. This is regarding Wendi moving.
MS. FULFORD: It had less security than where she was living with her mother, so less secure.
MS. FULFORD: There's nothing in here that indicates that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to ask Ms. Adelson about that. It is less secure. They're asking lots of questions, but they're not about security — which, if they were being actively extorted under threat to their lives, one would expect, and would inquire about such a thing.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may lay the foundation — or at least begin to lay the foundation for that item — when that witness is examined.
JUDGE EVERETT: Going back to the last trial in this matter, when the intent instruction was given: "The intent with which an act is done is an operation of the mind, and therefore is not always capable of direct and positive proof. It may be established by circumstantial evidence like any other fact in the case." Typically, as counts two and count one that are charged in the indictment deal with aspects of intent, we want to define evidence that demonstrates the defendant's alleged motive, which goes specifically to intent — is admissible.
JUDGE EVERETT: One thing, though, that is starting to trouble me is — we had many motion hearings in this matter, and we've continued this case several times to handle these matters pre-trial.
JUDGE EVERETT: Why is this coming up now?
MS. FULFORD: The exhibit that we were provided with — I went through thoroughly and had all of my objections listed, and then was told that's not correct. It's another binder.
MS. FULFORD: It's a different email. The binder I was handed by the state was completely discombobulated, not in date order. It was a train wreck. That's correct. And so then they provided us with this binder that appears to maybe — maybe still be missing something — but this, they have a list, an exhibit list, everything laid out by date, by exhibit, Exhibit A, you know, all the sub-exhibit numbers.
MS. FULFORD: So that's why, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: We're not going to be wasting the jurors' time.
JUDGE EVERETT: At this point, we're 30 minutes behind where we should have been. Are there any other matters that need to be addressed?
MS. FULFORD: There's one more that I asked for, Judge. It's dated April the 20th of 2016, and it's an email about whether one of the children is sad.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 64II, Judge, is an email — specifically, in which the defendant is claiming that the child cannot be sad about the death of his father.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Extremely relevant.
MS. FULFORD: Its probative value is outweighed by the undue prejudice, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Again, the purpose it's being offered for is going to motive or state of mind.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: What is the undue prejudice that the defense is arguing concerning this particular email?
MS. FULFORD: The undue prejudice is what the state is arguing, and they're going to argue to the jury, is that this email says that Donna Adelson said he could not be sad about his father. What she's describing is her time with the child, and she hasn't seen him sad.
MS. FULFORD: And it's two years after, unfortunately, Mr. Markel was killed.
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Cappleman, if you wish to proffer the testimony from the witness on this, I'll allow you to do so out of the presence of the jury, but this one is seeming a bit attenuated.
JUDGE EVERETT: In commenting on how the child is sad.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sure, Judge, but it relates back to the motive in thinking that it wouldn't harm the children — it was going to be good for the children to get rid of their father. Children have no memory prior to the young age that the father was killed.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think it goes to motive, Judge.
JUDGE EVERETT: With that, I'll allow you to set up your foundation within parts if you need to do so.
JUDGE EVERETT: I'll revisit whether this item can be admitted at that point.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sir, there's one item that I've added today in light of the opening statement regarding Mrs. Adelson's use of Skype to facilitate visitation with her father. It's dated December 18th, 2013.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It has been previously provided.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's now marked as State's Exhibit AA.1.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: While the defense is looking that over, I also have a stipulation of the parties. May I approach?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This will be the first thing — I'd like to have Your Honor read this to the jury as they come back in.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sorry, Judge. I've handed them the wrong thing. I'm gonna have to circle back to that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: With that stipulation, we're ready. No other issues.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. As to 64, I believe D and I, I did rule over motion that these can be admitted with a proper foundation.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to II — 64II, I should say — that's the item the state is going to attempt to lay the foundation for as it relates to motive in this matter.
JUDGE EVERETT: From Donna to Wendi — here, I'm sorry — from Wendi to Donna: "Dear Mom and Dad, here's the phone-slash-Skype plan for the holidays," and she's forwarding a Skype plan from Dan Markel. "Please help me do this. It means less stress for me if we just follow it." I don't know what the relevance of that is.
MS. FULFORD: Wendi Adelson sending an email to her mother — because her mother takes care of the children very frequently — and saying "Here's the schedule, let's do this." It doesn't say Mrs. Adelson has not done it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think it suggests that Mrs. Adelson has not done it, or at least that there's been issues and problems with Skype, and facilitating Skype is satisfactory to Mr. Markel. So I would ask to admit it based on the statements made in the opening statement by the defense.
JUDGE EVERETT: The opening statement is not evidence. The jurors are not to consider it as such.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to any foundation that you wish to lay for that particular item — that it was not previously followed, and now Wendi Adelson has sent that item to her mother — you'll need to establish the foundation first before it's offered.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please bring in the jurors.
JUDGE EVERETT: As they are offered, the limiting instruction will be given.
JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.
JUDGE EVERETT: Members of the jury, I trust you had a restful lunch break. Before we resume with the evidence this afternoon, I'm going to read to you a stipulation that has been agreed upon by the parties.
JUDGE EVERETT: When the parties agree that certain facts are true, that is called a stipulation of fact. You must accept stipulated facts as having been proven. However, the significance of these facts, as with all facts, is for you to decide. In this case, the stipulated fact that you must accept as true is: the projectiles contained in State's Exhibits 122 and 123 were examined microscopically by a firearms expert from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and were determined to have been fired from the same revolver.
JUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Cappleman, you may call your next witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you, Judge. The state calls Craig Isom.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please raise your right hand, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?
CRAIG ISOM: I do.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may take your seat.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please speak loudly and clearly for the jurors.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Please introduce yourself and spell your name.
CRAIG ISOM: Craig Isom. C-R-A-I-G, I-S-O-M.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How are you employed?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm currently retired.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Congratulations. Where did you work when you worked?
CRAIG ISOM: The Tallahassee Police Department.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long were you with the Tallahassee Police Department?
CRAIG ISOM: 28 and a half years.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you assigned to investigate the murder of Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long did Dan Markel live after being shot?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe my understanding was around approximately 11 hours.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As part of your investigation, were the people closest to the victim interviewed?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Including his ex-wife, Wendi Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: When and where did you approach Wendi Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: She was at a restaurant in Tallahassee on Market Street.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What date and time did you approach her at the restaurant?
CRAIG ISOM: That was on the day of the shooting, which was July 18th, 2014.
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, July 18th, 2014.
CRAIG ISOM: It was approximately 2:15 in the afternoon.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so approximately three hours — three hours and 15 minutes — after the shooting?
CRAIG ISOM: Approximately, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What did you say when you approached her?
CRAIG ISOM: I told her that I needed to discuss something with her in private. She was with two other individuals at the table.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Two ladies having lunch?
CRAIG ISOM: Three total, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And when you told her that you needed to speak with her, were you wearing police insignia? Did you identify yourself as law enforcement?
CRAIG ISOM: Immediately, before I identified myself and said that I was there for the purpose of speaking with Wendi Adelson, I had a badge on that was readily identifiable as a police officer.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did you reassure her that she wasn't in any trouble? Did you?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. I got her to step away from the table she was eating at, approximately 10–15 feet, out of earshot of the other two individuals that were sitting at the table. And I told her that I needed to discuss with her something that happened with her ex-husband, and that her children were not involved. I reassured her, because the children had already been checked on — they were still at the daycare and they were fine.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As part of this approach of Wendi Adelson, were there any handcuffs involved?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any Miranda rights read?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any use of force at all?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She was not detained or under arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At any time did you tell her she was a suspect in anything?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was she a suspect in anything at that moment?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At any time during your interview did you do anything that would treat her as a suspect?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In fact, you told her several times in the interview that she was not a suspect, isn't that right?
CRAIG ISOM: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever accuse her of anything?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you provide her with a victim advocate?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that something that your office typically does for next of kin when a tragedy has occurred?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you allow her to access her phone during the interview?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What did you learn about the victim's relationship with his ex-wife, Wendi Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: They had gone through and were still fighting in a contentious divorce regarding child custody.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: With child custody?
CRAIG ISOM: Including child custody.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, I'm going to approach with State's Demonstrative A.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You had an opportunity to review this exhibit before today?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What is that exhibit?
CRAIG ISOM: It's all of the filings from the divorce case between Wendi Adelson and Daniel Markel.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Starting with the petition for divorce and ending at the time of his death, is that right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the filings in here — have you had an opportunity to review them?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did this litigation include arguing over things so petty as a tennis racket?
CRAIG ISOM: It did.
MR. ZELMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: Nothing's been entered into evidence, and we would object to a witness testifying to the contents of the file.
JUDGE EVERETT: Of the rule, the witness may testify concerning his personal knowledge of the investigation.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As part of these proceedings, did Wendi Adelson seek to relocate with the children from Tallahassee to South Florida?
CRAIG ISOM: She did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did she say why she wanted to relocate to South Florida?
MR. ZELMAN: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE EVERETT: Sustained. The answer would call for hearsay unless you have an exception.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 60.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Have you had an opportunity to review State's Exhibit 60?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are those the portion of the divorce filings contained in State's Demonstrative A that can be directly linked to Donna Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Meaning she saw those items?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Move into evidence State 60, Your Honor, please.
JUDGE EVERETT: Be seated. What's that? You can step down. Mr. Isom, please step outside the courtroom at this point.
JUDGE EVERETT: I'm nearing becoming inclined to send the jurors home for the day, as we are wasting a significant amount of time. One matter is that we're either previously litigated or now are still being challenged for reasons that could have been handled out of court.
JUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Zelman, for any item that is being objected to with State 60 that you are claiming has no tie to your client's communications, you need to look through that binder now.
MR. ZELMAN: Part of the objection that we're making concerning that is, without laying the foundation through a witness with personal knowledge, there is no tie to my client — anything, specifically anything post-dissolution, so post July 31st of 2013, that's in here, there's no evidence. I heard this argument previous.
JUDGE EVERETT: Yes, it has been ruled upon. Yes. At this point, if the state has multiple witnesses that the foundation can be laid through, your objection will be noted for the record, but we are going to move on. If you need to look through this binder to match it up with specific communications in which you believe no foundation can be laid, you'll need to take the time, but as far as wasting the jurors' time on this any further today — what else does a defense need to look through concerning these exhibits?
JUDGE EVERETT: Before — we leave here today, if we need to go through every single state exhibit to deal with any objections concerning them, we will do so, however long that takes.
JUDGE EVERETT: But we're not going to be wasting the jurors' time.
MR. ZELMAN: To my — client's knowledge, we're ready to —
JUDGE EVERETT: Sir — and that, Ms. Cappleman: between former Detective Isom, Wendi Adelson, or any other witnesses, are you going to be establishing the foundation as to the defendant's knowledge or connection through multiple witnesses?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Can — I have a moment, please?
JUDGE EVERETT: Go ahead.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: To — the defense, I have not heard anything about an objection, so I have not planned to ask this — go through every single piece of paper with this witness. I can do that, but that is going to take some time. I will need a recess to prepare for that. I do have a list of how each piece of paper is related to the defendant, but this witness isn't prepared to go through every single piece of paper in this exhibit.
JUDGE EVERETT: Are you requesting for me to send the jurors home for the day?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think I've complied with the court's ruling, and I'm requesting that the exhibit be admitted pursuant to that, and we move on.
JUDGE EVERETT: There does have to be a foundation as to the nexus between the defendant's either communications or actions and these pleadings. That was the ruling for what was provided in discovery.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that something that needs to be done in front of the jury, Judge, or is that something we can tie up later and move on right now?
JUDGE EVERETT: You can tie up later, but it will not be admitted until the foundation is tied up.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, Judge. I think that would be my preference, then.
JUDGE EVERETT: Very well. Please bring the jurors up.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please direct Detective Isom to come back in and take the stand.
JUDGE EVERETT: Detective Isom, come back in.
JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may continue your examination, Ms. — Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you, Judge.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's Exhibit 64.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Recognize State's 64?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How do you recognize it?
CRAIG ISOM: These are the emails, I believe. I believe these are from Wendi Adelson's computer.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was a search warrant issued to Wendi Adelson's Google account?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did we receive emails subject to that search warrant?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does State's Exhibit 64 contain fair and accurate copies of emails between Wendi Adelson and Donna Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I turn to the yellow tab there.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In particular, are you familiar with this email?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: For the record, Judge, this is tab AA.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that an email that was sent from Wendi Adelson to Donna Adelson on the bottom?
CRAIG ISOM: This is from Donna.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It starts out as something from Danny, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right. Dan sends this email to Wendi, and it's cc'd to another individual.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And what did Wendi do with it?
CRAIG ISOM: She forwarded it to her mother.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And is the content of the email related to what we refer to as the grandma motion?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What is the grandma motion?
CRAIG ISOM: This is where Dan Markel —
MR. ZELMAN: Objection, Your Honor. First of all, lack of foundation, and it's hearsay at this point.
JUDGE EVERETT: Overruled as to lack of foundation. The investigator may testify as to his personal knowledge of the investigation.
JUDGE EVERETT: Concerning hearsay, Ms. Cappleman...
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Mrs. Adelson respond to this email?
MR. ZELMAN: Your Honor, I'm going to object again.
JUDGE EVERETT: Members of the jury, the bailiff is going to take you out.
JUDGE EVERETT: Investigator Isom, if you could step down, please, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: So, not to sound like a broken record, but isn't that the point where the jurors need to go home so the issues concerning these documents could be worked through?
JUDGE EVERETT: Concerning that, Mr. Zelman, what is your position?
MR. ZELMAN: Judge, I've said all along — I know what your argument is, but as to the items the state is seeking to admit today, are there going to be more challenges of this nature?
JUDGE EVERETT: If you have objections, I will rule on them, but we're not going to waste the jurors' time.
MR. ZELMAN: Judge, as to 64AA, my client and her husband shared an email address.
MR. ZELMAN: There's no evidence as to who sent the response that the state is trying to get to.
JUDGE EVERETT: How many parts of 64 is the defense objecting to?
MR. ZELMAN: Just AA, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Cappleman, concerning AA, does the foundation need to be laid amongst multiple witnesses, or is Detective Isom capable of doing this?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As far as to whom the email address belongs, that will have to be tied up with Wendi Adelson.
JUDGE EVERETT: Very well. Is there any other parts of Exhibit 64 that need to be dealt with now while the jurors are out of the room? Please look through it.
MR. ZELMAN: Just AA, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Are there any other exhibits that pertain to Detective Isom that need to be dealt with while the jurors are out of the room?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Would you like to know what items I intend to introduce, Judge, through him?
JUDGE EVERETT: Please, so it can handle these objections now and there will not be a constant back and forth where the jurors need to leave the room.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 60 is the divorce excerpts, which, again, we're going to deal with separately.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The email, 64 — my understanding is we're going to deal with AA, and then the rest of it is going to come into evidence with this witness at this time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 65, Mr. Rivera's ticket, which is certified.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 66, Garcia's ticket, which is certified.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 67, Save Gas records with certification.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 68, Adelson Institute records with certification.
JUDGE EVERETT: Any objections by the defense that need to be handled out of the presence of the jury concerning these items?
MR. ZELMAN: No, Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: There's, there's a couple more, Judge. 89 — Premier video clips. 90 — bus video clips. 119 is a thumb drive containing the raw data from Premier, and 120 is a thumb drive containing the raw data from the bus.
MR. ZELMAN: No objection to those, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please bring back in the detective.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to AA, whichever portion of the foundation you're capable of laying with the detective, you can at least start it with that.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to the rest of it, you can seek to admit it if the foundation can be laid without it, or without any other witnesses.
JUDGE EVERETT: Bring back in the jurors.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may continue with your examination of Mr. Isom as it relates to the foundation.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You, I believe, previously indicated that you reviewed the divorce file as part of your investigation.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that's the court file?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And as part of your investigation, did you review the emails that were subject to Wendi Adelson's Google search warrant?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And in those emails, was there an email in which the contents of — well, let me ask you first about the motion. Did you review a motion where Dan Markel was seeking to restrict Donna Adelson's access to the children?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And that motion was filed with the court?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It was pending at the time of his death?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you find in the emails any evidence that the contents of that motion were sent to Donna Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is that tab AA of State's Exhibit 64?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are the contents of that email substantially similar to the allegations made in the court filing?
CRAIG ISOM: Substantially, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And what is the gist of what it is that Dan Markel is requesting?
CRAIG ISOM: He wants — he does not, he does not want Donna Adelson to have unsupervised contact with his children.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Why not?
CRAIG ISOM: Because of the statements that are made in here, and that was shown in the court filing, that the children reflected that "Grandma says you're stupid, Grandma says she hates you."
MR. ZELMAN: That is not submitted.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At this time, Judge, I would ask to admit State's Exhibit 64.
JUDGE EVERETT: All parts, or just the part that does not include AA?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Subject to tying up AA, I would seek to admit the whole thing.
JUDGE EVERETT: State's 64 — any objection?
MR. ZELMAN: Just the objection previously made, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Concerning State's 64, it will be admitted except for part AA, and any later foundation that needs to be addressed for the rest.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did, in your review of these emails contained in State's Exhibit 64, the defendant Donna Adelson use any strong language against Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did she call him any names?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I would ask you to review State's Exhibit 64, tab DD.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you recognize that exhibit?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What email is that?
CRAIG ISOM: This is, this is from Donna to Wendi.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does she call Dan any names in that email?
CRAIG ISOM: She calls him Elvis.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How about "asshole"?
CRAIG ISOM: I know it's in here.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Take your time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Have you ever seen an email where she called him an asshole?
CRAIG ISOM: I've seen an email, but I don't see it here.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, let's move on. Tab M, please.
CRAIG ISOM: M?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: M as in Mike.
CRAIG ISOM: M.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did she — what, who — I guess tell us who it's to, who it's from, and the date, please.
CRAIG ISOM: It's from Donna to Wendi, March 6, 2013.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does she call Dan Markel any names in that email?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, she does.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What name does she call him?
CRAIG ISOM: In this particular email, after the first paragraph, it says that she calls him a "major fucker."
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Please refer to tab Q, a May 3rd of '13 email.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does that email — is it from Donna to Wendi?
CRAIG ISOM: It is.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does it reference Wendi's relocation efforts?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does it indicate that Wendi's relocation efforts are extremely important to Donna Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Please reference tab V, as in Victor — a June 25th email.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are you familiar with the court filing in which relocation was denied?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know on which date relocation was denied?
CRAIG ISOM: June 20th, 2013.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 2013. So this is email on tab B as in Victor. Is it five days after relocation was denied?
CRAIG ISOM: It is June 26, 2013.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does Donna Adelson, the defendant, propose another plan to facilitate relocation in light of the court's ruling?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So this is done after the court's ruling?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And relocation is still being discussed?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. What does she suggest?
CRAIG ISOM: She suggests that the children between Wendi and Dan start attending, or at least the ruse of them going to a Christian church or a Catholic church.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And to take pictures of it and send it to Dan Markel, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: To strong-arm him into agreeing to the relocation, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Coercion. Did Donna Adelson, the defendant in this case, suggest a bribe to Dan Markel to cause him to allow these kids to be moved to South Florida?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Draw your attention to tab W. What is the proposal in reference to this bribe?
CRAIG ISOM: A million... a million dollars.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: A million dollars?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Were there any death benefits, any monies that were to be gained from the death of Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did he have a life insurance policy?
CRAIG ISOM: He did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was the amount of the life insurance policy?
CRAIG ISOM: One of them was for $2 million.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And a second one for $60,000?
CRAIG ISOM: $60,000 from a second one through the law school.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were there any survivor benefits for these kids in the event of Dan's death?
CRAIG ISOM: There was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What are those?
CRAIG ISOM: $4,800 a month.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Who gets that money for the disbursement of the kids?
CRAIG ISOM: Wendi Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What about through his employment at FSU Law School? Did he have a pension there?
CRAIG ISOM: He had a pension, a deferred comp, 401K.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And an estate worth some money, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right. Approximately $300,000.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was the total value of Mr. Markel's estate?
CRAIG ISOM: $2.7 million.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As part of your investigation, did you attempt to establish a timeline of the victim's activities prior to his murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What did he do that day?
CRAIG ISOM: At 8:50 a.m., he dropped off his children at the preschool daycare on West Tharp Street. From there, he proceeded to go back across town to Premier Fitness Gym off of Village Square Boulevard.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was there any surveillance at the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was that collected by law enforcement?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I'd ask to move into evidence State's Exhibit 119, a thumb drive containing the surveillance collected from Premier Gym.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was the raw data or surveillance video collected from the gym compiled in a way that shows what it is we're looking for concerning Mr. Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was that done in State's Exhibit 89?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe so.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, Judge, at this time I'd ask to move into evidence State's 89. State's 89.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you able to see on this gym surveillance video Mr. Markel's vehicle enter the parking lot of the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At what time does he enter the parking lot of the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe it was 9... 9:11, sound right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 9:11, yes. We're talking about a.m., so you said he dropped the kids off at 8:50 and he arrives at the gym at 9:11?
CRAIG ISOM: 8:50 a.m. is when he dropped the children off, and he signed them in at the daycare.
CRAIG ISOM: And then at 9:11 is when you see his car enter the parking lot at Premier, all on July 18, 2014.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And were you able to see anything sinister about the parking lot of Premier Gym on the morning of Mr. Markel's shooting?
CRAIG ISOM: Following Markel's car entering the lot, a short time later a vehicle enters the lot that is similar in description from the next-door witness, Mr. Geiger.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What does this suspect vehicle do when Mr. Markel enters the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: It parks and no one gets out of the car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long does the suspect vehicle stay there while Mr. Markel's in the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall the exact amount of time, but it's quite some time. The whole time he's in the gym, and even after he comes out, gets back in his car and leaves, that's when the car leaves at the same time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So the whole time he's in the gym doing his workout, this suspect Prius is in the parking lot.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And when he comes out to leave and gets in his vehicle, what happens with the Prius then?
CRAIG ISOM: The Prius follows.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I would ask to introduce State's Exhibit 89.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm sorry, I have introduced — I'm asking to publish it at this time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this black vehicle Mr. Markel's vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, it's a black Honda Ford, or same car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's Mr. Markel parking right there behind the flagpole.
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What is this vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: That will be the suspect vehicle, green Prius.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, consistent with the description given by Mr. Geiger — they said a light-colored or silverish — and the car color is a silver pine mica. Who's that in the blue circle?
CRAIG ISOM: That's Mr. Markel exiting his vehicle.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's him in the red shirt?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's Mr. Markel entering Premier's main doors.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What do we see in this image — I'm sorry, what do we see in this portion of the tape?
CRAIG ISOM: That's the suspect vehicle, the Prius, driving through the parking lot.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At this point, is Mr. Markel inside the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: He's inside, yes.
CRAIG ISOM: This is still in the front section where the car went from right to left.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This is still part of the Premier Gym parking lot?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct, yes. It's just the opposite, camera facing the opposite direction.
CRAIG ISOM: Reversing course, coming back towards the front doors.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, now what's the time on the video here?
CRAIG ISOM: I can't remember. 10:30.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think it says 10:38.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is Mr. Markel exiting the gym at this point?
CRAIG ISOM: He's exiting the Premier and the same door he came in.
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sorry, I was 10:33 on the timestamp. Thank you.
CRAIG ISOM: That's Mr. Markel making his way to the parking lot where his car is parked.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Once he gets in the car, does he sit there a few minutes, or is that at the front end?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sorry?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does he sit in his car for a few minutes at one point?
CRAIG ISOM: Just a short — yeah, short period of time, and his car starts backing up.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What is that?
CRAIG ISOM: That's him exiting.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And will we see the suspect vehicle pull out?
CRAIG ISOM: It's coming from the back side.
CRAIG ISOM: See it?
CRAIG ISOM: Same suspect vehicle, following the direction of Markel's car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And it exits the parking lot at 10:39 a.m.?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And based on what would be the logical route from here to Mr. Markel's home, did you try to get some additional surveillance to see if you catch the suspect vehicle any further?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was that?
CRAIG ISOM: That was the location was the business no, I'm sorry, it was a bus video off of a bus at McClay Commerce Boulevard and Thomasville Road.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And were you able to actually find some bus video from both before and after the shooting of the suspect vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And were those the raw data that you collected from the bus — compiled into clips similar to what we saw on the Jim video?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I would ask to move into evidence State's Exhibit 120, a thumb drive containing the bus raw data, and State's Exhibit 90, a disc containing the bus video clips.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Permission to publish State's 90.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: If you can pause it for just a minute, can you orient us? Is this the McClay Commerce?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. This is the bus is pointing east, so just beyond on that circle is where the flyover starts. If you're going southbound you can take the flyover, you don't Capital Circle after you pass the Clay Gardens and everything. So this car is on Thomasville Road, not the flyover, and it is going southbound.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And this camera is mounted on the bus that's how we were able to get this image?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. This is this is a city bus.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Continue, please.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the time on this, 10:44 a.m., is that right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what is this orange circle?
CRAIG ISOM: This is the Prius going the same direction as Markel's car, southbound on Thomasville Road.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Now, where are we?
CRAIG ISOM: This is southbound on Thomasville. We've gone underneath the I-10 overpass and we're at Metropolitan Boulevard, and the bus just so happens to pull up right behind the Prius.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Based on the image in this exhibit right here, were you able to deduce the tag number of the Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That would have saved you a lot of trouble.
CRAIG ISOM: A lot of time, yes.
CRAIG ISOM: The video could not be enhanced anymore.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does the evidence suggest that Markel had already gone on through past this traffic light?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. Because this car was behind Markel's car, so he he must have beat the light or got through the intersection before this.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Now, can you orient us?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe we're now at Thomasville Road southbound at Betton, and that circle was the Prius in the left turn lane to go from Thomasville eastbound on Betton Road.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is that the way to Mr. Markel's residence?
CRAIG ISOM: Not this time he turned beforehand. We found out later on we found out later that Mr. Markel turned later on. Yes, but this is the way the suspect vehicle goes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Right, he turns left. Okay, can you get to Mr. Markel's residence from Betton Road the way he turned?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Now, can you back it up, please? So—
MS. CAPPLEMAN: —the last time we we see the suspect vehicle turning off Thomasville onto Betton Road is what time? Hit play, please. Please.
CRAIG ISOM: 10:40—no.
CRAIG ISOM: 10:51.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And what time does our pause it please. What time does our 911 call come in?
CRAIG ISOM: 11:02 a.m.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, so he was killed between 10:51 and 11:02.
CRAIG ISOM: Well, we narrowed it down even more than that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Tell me how you narrowed it down further.
CRAIG ISOM: Well, this this bus down this is a different bus, same city bus route, but this is a totally different bus, is northbound on Thomasville Road.
CRAIG ISOM: So based on the time, this bus is northbound; the shooting has already happened.
CRAIG ISOM: And you'll see that the Prius catches up in the same lane. Is that black vehicle there next to the bus at 10:55? I believe 10:55. Here it comes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So that helps you narrow it down to what as the time?
CRAIG ISOM: It ends — 10:50, well, 10:51 he's in the Prius is in the turn lane. At 10:55, they have already left Prescott and they're northbound towards I-10.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And you say "they" why do you say "they"?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, here shortly you'll see two what appears to be two different individuals in the front seat of this car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: See something white moving around in the passenger seat?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, the white shirt. The person in that side of the car it seems extremely animated, excited. And the other side the best view that I've ever gotten is someone's in a black, solid black shirt or upper top.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and this is a slowed-down version to try to get a better look at those occupants.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What are these orange circles indicating?
CRAIG ISOM: These are characteristics of this car that we found to be unique.
CRAIG ISOM: The passenger side mirror is solid black.
CRAIG ISOM: These cars have, when they come new, the mirror is the same color as the car — mirror casing on the outside. This one's been replaced, it appears, because it's black. The circle in the middle of the top of the windshield that appears to be a SunPass or toll-type pass activator. And then the lower bumper circle that's where a tow hook can be threaded in for towing purposes, but otherwise it has a cap over it, and the cap is missing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you able to deduce anything about the year of the Toyota Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: Based on the research that we did through Toyota, this was was established to be a 2006 to 2009 Toyota Prius in the color, as I said before, Silver Pine Mica.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Is it fair to characterize your investigation as having kind of two different veins at this point? We're looking at motive over here and we're looking at the Prius over here.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and you mentioned the SunPass transponder. So we know this Prius I'm assuming it's not the only Silver Pine Mica Prius between '06 and '09 in the state.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So what do we do to try to track down the SunPass transponder?
CRAIG ISOM: We got with I contacted Florida Department of Transportation, who administers the SunPass, and wanted to find out, you know, what's the likelihood of that kind of car having a SunPass. And I was overwhelmed with there was thousands, so that wasn't narrowing down anything very quick.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At that time, was SunPass more affiliated with South Florida, or did pretty much everybody in Tallahassee have one?
CRAIG ISOM: South and Central — anything Orlando south, for the most part.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you have any indication based on the surveillance video available as to where the vehicle went after it fled from Markel's residence?
CRAIG ISOM: I just know that right here it's going northbound towards I-10 from Thomasville.
CRAIG ISOM: This intersection is Armistead, so this is north of Betton, heading back towards I-10.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was any cell phone analysis worked on in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Excuse me cell phone analysis, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Who performed the cell phone analysis?
CRAIG ISOM: Uh, Sergeant Corbitt.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And is that something that was going on simultaneously as you're doing this SunPass?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And did Corbitt's work include trying to look for phones of interest traveling in the areas that we know—where—where you found our suspect vehicle, that and Premier, near Jim?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And we will talk to Sergeant Corbitt later, but based on his analysis, did you have an idea or develop an idea of the route that your suspects may have taken?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And what did you do to follow up on that?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, initially, because of our large expanse of cars, we started looking for South Florida at any cars going through the interchange southbound at Wildwood, where you get on the turnpike from I-75.
CRAIG ISOM: That was a bust. We didn't it was way too many. We couldn't find anything that was that was concrete.
CRAIG ISOM: So once the phone analysis was done, we had a better idea that there was one particular number, and tracking that went southbound on I-75 all the way to Naples, and then crossing over on Alligator Alley which is still I-75 from west to east, from Naples to Broward County.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And once you learned that it was actually this other route than what you would expect, were you able to do anything with in reference to the toll plazas and the SunPass transponder that you weren't able to do previously?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, tell us about that.
CRAIG ISOM: Once we had that established, then I contacted, uh, the SunPass administrators again at the Department of Transportation, and I explained to them what I what I had. I says, we got a a Prius, a 2006 to 2009 Silver Pine Mica not that they had that in the records, I says, but we have, uh, them going through approximately this toll plaza in Naples going westbound. And once I gave them that and the time within a couple minutes of of when they would have gone through, they showed an activation with a transponder from the windshield at that toll plaza in Naples and in Collier County. And it was only one Prius, and that's what we determined that it was going back to South Florida and cutting across Alligator Alley.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And were you able to backtrack and find the toll plaza record or SunPass record of the vehicle coming to Tallahassee as well?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. On the 16th of July, that same transponder we're talking about the sticker on the windshield, that same transponder — went through from Broward County, West Broward County, through the other end of the toll plaza. There's one on each end there's nothing in the middle but one going eastbound. That same transponder on the 16th of July cut across Alligator Alley, and then presumably went up 75, which the phone records will show that, and then the return trip was the first one we found.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did that help you out identify the particular SunPass transponder by like an identification number?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is a particular SunPass transponder affiliated with a particular vehicle through some type of SunPass record?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. It shows the customer who purchased the SunPass and they submit what kind of vehicle it is, the tag number, in case of SunPass I mean, that the transponder doesn't work, they could still use their credit, um, because it'll take a picture of the tag.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so what did you learn about the suspect vehicle at this time, during from the SunPass stuff?
CRAIG ISOM: It was a rental. It was a rental from a, uh, Miami, um, car — car rental place called Save Gas.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did law enforcement go to Save Gas in Miami?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was there any documentation discovered at that business related to the rental of this vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: There was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Approach and show you what I marked as State 67.
CRAIG ISOM: United States 67?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. Okay, is that the rental contract that you found at the Save Gas related to your suspect vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Is it a fair and accurate copy of that exhibit or that document?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Move into evidence State 67, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Any objection?
MR. ZELMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: State's 67 is admitted.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Permission to publish 67.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what did we learn about the people that rented the car from this, State 67?
CRAIG ISOM: Not on there?
CRAIG ISOM: According to this document, Luis Rivera, Normandy Drive in Miami, is the one that rented this car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: For himself?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that the number listed right here?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And any other drivers listed on the contract?
CRAIG ISOM: No driver listed there, but up in the top you see the word "brother" and a phone number that became significant.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and whose phone number were you able to associate — who were you able to associate this phone number with?
CRAIG ISOM: The brother, Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: When was this vehicle rented?
CRAIG ISOM: This was on the 16th of July.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm sorry, this shows 15th.
CRAIG ISOM: 15th of July.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and when was it due back?
CRAIG ISOM: It was due back on the 17th of July.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Didn't go back on the 17th?
CRAIG ISOM: No, I don't believe it got back till the 21st.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Do you recognize State 65?
CRAIG ISOM: I do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How do you recognize it?
CRAIG ISOM: This was a traffic citation that we discovered Luis Rivera received on I-75.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: On — I-75 on the way to Tallahassee in the Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: No, it was a different car.
CRAIG ISOM: This was on a different — this was dated June 4th.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm sorry, I've shown you the wrong thing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We'll have to circle back to that. All right, let me ask you about phone — you mentioned that Sergeant Corbitt was working on the phone records.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to approach and show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 55.
CRAIG ISOM: I do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this sort of an org chart of all the folks whose phone records we collected in this case, or many of them?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, that's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And by stipulation, Judge, these phone numbers have been associated with the folks on the chart, so I'd ask to move it in as State's 55.
JUDGE EVERETT: Defense, State's 55?
MR. ZELMAN: Yes, and no objections to the publishing.
JUDGE EVERETT: 55 is admitted at this time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We'll work on that, too.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Okay. Now, Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera — those are the two subjects that you establish as being in the Prius, is that right? Okay. And these are their phone numbers that have been associated with them listed beneath them?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And we've got two different numbers for Luis Rivera, is that right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right. Rivera had two separate numbers, but his main one was 570 — that was on the rental contract.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and the nicknames that are shown there — are those the nicknames that those two go by?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. Tuto and Tato.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Tuto and Tato.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Were you able to establish any link through people between the two that came in the Prius and the Adelson family?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Were you able to establish any — how did you develop a theory or any evidence as to why these two people came to Tallahassee to murder Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, eventually we learned that the female, Katherine Magbanua, was the mother of Sigfredo Garcia's children and considered each other spouses, to my best understanding. At the same time, we also found out that she had been dating and in a relationship with Charlie Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so initially, was there any connection between these two guys from Miami and Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: None.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so this was the connection that was established — turned out to be Katherine Magbanua.
CRAIG ISOM: The only connection we could find.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and was that done through phone records and ultimately other communication records and testimony?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you, as a result of developing Katherine Magbanua as a potential suspect, investigate her at all?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and did that include an investigation into her employment?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was her employment status around the time of this murder?
CRAIG ISOM: At the time of the murder, I believe she worked at another dental office somewhere, but post-murder, she started receiving compensation from the Adelson Institute.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What is the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: It's a dental practice, according to online information, operated by Harvey Adelson and Charlie Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and were the two of them dentists?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, I believe Charlie is recognized as a periodontist.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you come to learn what Donna Adelson's role, if any, was in that business?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, she was clerical and kept books for the business.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you attempt to procure some employment records from the Adelson Institute to verify Ms. Magbanua's employment?
CRAIG ISOM: We did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, tell us about that.
CRAIG ISOM: Uh, myself and Special Agent Sanford from the FBI went to the office — physically to the office — in Broward County, in Tamarac, and served a subpoena seeking records for the employment of Katherine Magbanua, and we received nothing at the initial time. Later on, the best I could get from — I believe it was an attorney that represented that dental office — just a list of checks that were paid, paid checks from the Adelson Institute to Katherine Magbanua, but no W-2, no responsibility form, nothing that showed what she actually did as being employed at that institute.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was it regular business hours when you entered there physically?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was Ms. Magbanua present when you entered the building?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did the employees that you had contact with seem to know who she was or what it was that she did there?
CRAIG ISOM: The initial person that I spoke to at the desk, at the front desk, she had no idea who this person was, who Magbanua was. The other person that came up to the front, she said she knew the name but did not know what her responsibilities were with the company.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the person that knew the name — who is that?
CRAIG ISOM: Erica Johnson, I believe.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And I'm going to approach and show you 68.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, this is — this is all I received as far as any type of records for Magbanua and her relationship with the Adelson Institute.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did the records include any job description for Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any employment application?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Schedule?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Timesheet?
CRAIG ISOM: Nope.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: W-2 forms or tax filing records?
CRAIG ISOM: Nope.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any performance evaluations?
CRAIG ISOM: None.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So only the checks?
CRAIG ISOM: Only the checks.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: According to those checks, during what period of time was Katherine Magbanua on the Adelson Institute payroll?
CRAIG ISOM: From September of 2014 all the way — this particular one shows March of 2016, but I believe it goes further than that, into May 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so it starts shortly after the homicide — about two months?
CRAIG ISOM: Uh, yes. Uh, actually, the homicide happened July 18th and the first check was dated September 18th.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: For what pay period?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't see the pay period on this one. But presumably, she'd be paid for a pay period that had concluded.
CRAIG ISOM: Two weeks prior, according to the way this is laid out.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And we are going to learn more about the bump, or the undercover operation, but is it fair to say the checks terminated shortly after the undercover operation in 2016?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you notice in your review of that exhibit, the documents provided by the Adelson Institute, that some of those check numbers were consecutive?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Who signed those checks?
CRAIG ISOM: Donna Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All of them?
CRAIG ISOM: Every one.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you ever able to develop any evidence that Magbanua was physically going to the Adelson Institute during these pay periods?
CRAIG ISOM: Never.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any evidence that she performed some service off-site for that business?
CRAIG ISOM: Nothing was established that showed that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any evidence of any contact with any patients?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you were, we'll learn later, listening to some of her phone calls, right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: When was Katherine Magbanua arrested for her role in this murder?
CRAIG ISOM: October 1, 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you present for her arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was she allowed to contact her lawyer from the arrest scene?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you speak to her attorney as well?
CRAIG ISOM: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Who was her attorney?
CRAIG ISOM: Uh, Tara Kawas.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What happened after that phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: After Ms. Magbanua was placed into a car for transport to the Broward County Jail, approximately — well, less than, way less than 20 minutes later — I received a phone call on my phone. I would testify —
MR. ZELMAN: Objection — to something that has nothing to do with my client. Ms. Cappleman would please lay the foundation as to how this matter is in this trial. Rule.
JUDGE EVERETT: Go ahead, sir.
CRAIG ISOM: So, once — okay, so, let me back up. So, while, uh, Ms. Magbanua was detained on scene, uh, where she was arrested in the day — daytime, daylight hours — um, she was allowed to place a call to her — to her attorney.
CRAIG ISOM: She spoke to her attorney. I spoke to her attorney, and I asked that Ms. Kawas — the attorney representing her at the time — that she contact her client, Magbanua, at the Broward County Jail, and if, in fact, she wanted to cooperate with the investigation, to call me back.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So you were interested in getting information from Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Information about the other parties involved in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Okay — what I mean by cooperation is if she wanted to provide testimony about other players in this.
CRAIG ISOM: And so I told Ms. Kawas, you know, if you'll talk to your client — obviously out of my presence — and if she decides to cooperate, call me back, and I will go to the Broward County Jail and meet.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did that happen?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What happened instead?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, like I said, within less than 20 minutes from that conversation, I received a phone call from a gentleman that identified himself as David Marcus.
CRAIG ISOM: Instead, he was an attorney representing Charlie Adelson, and he asked that if Charlie Adelson was to be arrested, if I would just contact him.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So you speak to Kawas, and your next phone call is from Charlie's lawyer.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination.
MR. ZELMAN: Good afternoon.
CRAIG ISOM: Good afternoon.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. So at the time of this investigation, when it began, how long had you been with the Tallahassee Police Department?
CRAIG ISOM: Twenty-five years.
MR. ZELMAN: You'd spent the vast majority of your career as an investigator — detective?
CRAIG ISOM: No, I probably spent most of my career as a street officer.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. At the time of this, how long had you been a detective?
CRAIG ISOM: Six years.
MR. ZELMAN: And you continued to be the lead for Tallahassee Police Department on this investigation until your retirement, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, it's important when you're conducting an investigation — especially a homicide investigation — for you to be thorough, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: You don't want to leave essentially any stone unturned.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: Obviously within reason.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: You talked about your agency beginning to obtain cellular phone records of the Adelson family pretty early on, correct?
MR. ZELMAN: You started getting them in July?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: And you learned that Wendi Adelson's parents — my client and her husband — lived in Miami, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe at the time it was Coral Springs, but they had a place on Miami Beach. Well, I know that they ended up at Miami Beach; I don't recall at the time of the homicide if they were living on Miami Beach.
MR. ZELMAN: But you knew that they were in South Florida?
CRAIG ISOM: South Florida's correct.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And so as your investigation continued and you started looking into it, you made the connection between the two individuals who drove up here, Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera — you made that connection to Katherine Magbanua, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. ZELMAN: And you made that connection to Charlie Adelson, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. ZELMAN: And then you see these large cash deposits into Katie Magbanua, or you see Katie Magbanua's unemployment status.
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. ZELMAN: She's still paying her bills in South Florida?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Now, you also mentioned that you contacted the Sun Pass authority.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: Did you ever — you'd already made a connection between the investigation and the Adelson family at this point pretty quickly?
CRAIG ISOM: I wouldn't say that.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay, well — over a couple of years, by the time June of 2016 comes about, you've already made that connection.
CRAIG ISOM: Oh yes, by that time, yes.
MR. ZELMAN: And you contacted the Sun Pass Authority for my client's Sun Pass records, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. ZELMAN: No, you didn't. Did you contact the Turnpike Authority for construction records for the Turnpike?
CRAIG ISOM: Construction records?
MR. ZELMAN: Yes.
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. ZELMAN: What about for I-95 or I- or 595?
CRAIG ISOM: I — to my knowledge, there is no — and I believe I established that with the F-DOT, Florida Department of Transportation, that there was no toll system on 95. Okay, I was asked about construction records on 95; I did not inquire about construction.
MR. ZELMAN: What about accident records?
CRAIG ISOM: Accident records? Yeah, no, uh —
MR. ZELMAN: Isn't it true that my client and her husband shared an email address?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe they did.
MR. ZELMAN: You learned that during your investigation. In fact, I think Wendi said that, didn't she, in her interview with you?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall whether she said it. You —
MR. ZELMAN: I have to — Mr. — Mr. Isom, you identified emails that are contained in State's Exhibit 64, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: And according to your testimony, these are emails between my client and her daughter, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: And in some of these emails, my client called Danny Markel bad names.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: She never actually said she hated him, did she, in any of these emails?
CRAIG ISOM: That came through the grandchildren.
MR. ZELMAN: At the time, the grandchildren were three and four?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall the age. They were young.
MR. ZELMAN: And you also testified about a bribe.
MR. ZELMAN: You are not a family law attorney, are you?
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And you have no idea whether or not it's permitted for one party to offer any sort of financial incentive to another party when it comes to relocation?
CRAIG ISOM: That's not in my realm.
MR. ZELMAN: And you also testified about Mr. Markel's — Mr. Markel's life insurance policy, pension — and you said that those funds went to his children with Wendi as a custodian?
CRAIG ISOM: Some of them, and some of them was Dan Markel's sister as a custodian. Okay.
MR. ZELMAN: Did my client receive any financial benefit in the form of Danny's life insurance, his pension, or anything else?
CRAIG ISOM: Not that I could tell.
MR. ZELMAN: Going back to those emails, especially the one the State highlighted concerning the Catholic Church and dressing the kids up, Wendi didn't take those suggestions, did she?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. ZELMAN: You testified just now concerning your attempt to obtain employment records for Ms. Magbanua from the Adelson Institute.
MR. ZELMAN: It's a small business, right?
CRAIG ISOM: It appeared to be.
MR. ZELMAN: Just a handful of employees?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, there was only two there at the time.
MR. ZELMAN: You don't know whether or not any of the employees had a written job description?
CRAIG ISOM: No, I do not know that.
MR. ZELMAN: You don't know if any of the employees' files had evaluations or job reviews?
CRAIG ISOM: I didn't see that. I would think with that type of business and working on people's mouths and so forth that there would be a little scrutiny involved.
MR. ZELMAN: But you don't know if they kept those records for any employee, do you?
CRAIG ISOM: I have no idea. I was only seeking and only had cause to seek for Magbanua.
MR. ZELMAN: And when Ms. Magbanua was arrested, you testified that you received a call from someone who identified himself as Charlie's attorney, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: After her arrest, the gentleman that called my number, he identified himself as an attorney for Charlie Adelson.
MR. ZELMAN: Not Donna Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Not Donna.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, is it unusual in an investigation like this for a defense attorney to contact you about whether or not there's a warrant for their client's arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: I wouldn't say that. It was shocking to me that within that short of a time frame, the only way that this person would have knowledge would be from Magbanua's attorney. So there would be contact between Magbanua's attorney and this person identifying himself as Charlie's attorney in a short, very short, time. No media, nothing had been divulged.
MR. ZELMAN: So what you found unusual was the short time frame, not the phone call itself.
CRAIG ISOM: No, it was immediate, and I'm basically telling Kawas, if your client wants to cooperate, contact me. Don't call somebody else that's a co-conspirator, their attorney.
MR. ZELMAN: You didn't receive a call from anyone identifying themselves as Donna's attorney in that instant, did you?
CRAIG ISOM: No, sir.
MR. ZELMAN: Ms. Cappleman asked you about what has been coined that grandmother motion.
MR. ZELMAN: Again, you're not a family law attorney.
CRAIG ISOM: Right, still not.
MR. ZELMAN: And so although you read the motion—
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: —and you're educated, you know, absent having some legal knowledge, can you interpret what is being requested in the motion?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe so. I think it's pretty plain.
MR. ZELMAN: I'm glad you said that. Now I want to go back to the emails, and I'm going to use the board, the emails that you testified were between my client and her mom.
MR. ZELMAN: I just think we need to take a break.
MR. ZELMAN: The sender of this email is not Donna Adelson, is it?
CRAIG ISOM: No, it doesn't. I don't know who it's from. It's not showing it.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. It's an evite.com invitation.
CRAIG ISOM: I've seen those.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. You don't have any personal knowledge as to how these are generated, do you?
CRAIG ISOM: Someone has to go through this program to get it set up and sent out, but—
MR. ZELMAN: —you don't have any personal knowledge as to how that stuff, do you? The next page of EE. It's an August 30th, 2014 email to Wendi. Now the sender is donaharvey@gmail.com, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MR. ZELMAN: Whose name is next to that?
CRAIG ISOM: Harvey Adelson.
MR. ZELMAN: That's not Donna Adelson, is it?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe that's her husband.
MR. ZELMAN: Next, it's an email dated September 12, 2014, and the sender is saying that Lincoln will attend Tot Shabbat with his grandpa, Harvey Adelson.
MR. ZELMAN: Isn't that what it says?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, it does.
MR. ZELMAN: Who's it from?
CRAIG ISOM: It's from donaharvey@gmail.com.
MR. ZELMAN: And whose name is next to that?
CRAIG ISOM: It says Harvey Adelson.
MR. ZELMAN: We'll use 64FS.
MR. ZELMAN: This is, again, from Harvey, donaharvey@gmail.com, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: Whose name is there?
CRAIG ISOM: Where it says "from"?
MR. ZELMAN: Yes.
CRAIG ISOM: It says Harvey Adelson.
MR. ZELMAN: "Wendi, this is the information on work order for repair of TV Friday, July 18th, between 8 and 12. Love, Dad." My client's not "Dad," is she?
CRAIG ISOM: I, I wouldn't refer to him as that. I don't think she would either.
MR. ZELMAN: This is still part of that same email. "The Geek Squad schedule. Would you be willing to accept a sooner appointment if one become available?" Do you see that language?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: What's the answer underneath that?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: Nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Redirect examination.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment, Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Defense pointed out: hey, Harvey and Donna share an email address, right? Donna Harvey at gmail.com. Some of these are signed "Dad"?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are some of them signed "Mom"?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And drawing your attention to this one on May 3rd, 2013, including the statement, "the most important part of your divorce is relocation," on page four of that exhibit — well, let me start by going to the very end. Inconveniently, the way this printed — "Love you." Who signed that one?
CRAIG ISOM: Mom.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And on page four of the exhibit, the State's Exhibit W — this is one from Thursday, June 27, 2013. It's signed "Mom and Dad," right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay.
MR. ZELMAN: And this one, so we've got some from "Mom," some from "Mom and Dad," right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MR. ZELMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE EVERETT: Can you lay stuff down, Mr. Isom?
JUDGE EVERETT: Will he be retained?
MR. ZELMAN: Yes.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may recall, at some point in the trial, that you not make contact with the parties.
CRAIG ISOM: What's that? Am I under the rule?
JUDGE EVERETT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: Thank you, Mr. Isom.
CRAIG ISOM: You're welcome.
JUDGE EVERETT: Members of the jury, we'll take a break at this point briefly. The bailiff will take you to the jury room. Everyone can be seated. Just a reminder for the gallery: while the testimony is taking place, if you step outside of the courtroom, you will need to wait until the examination of that witness is complete. We will resume at 3:50.