Name: James Keith McElveen — Direct/Cross - Day 4 - Donna Adelson
Uploaded: 2025-08-27
Description: Audio forensics expert James McElveen qualifies without objection and explains how he enhanced restaurant recordings from Dolce Vita and Matsuri for use as trial exhibits; cross-examination is brief, ending on whether McElveen was ever given the July 18, 2014 law enforcement interview with Wendi Adelson — he was not.

Audio forensics expert James McElveen qualifies without objection and explains how he enhanced restaurant recordings from Dolce Vita and Matsuri for use as trial exhibits; cross-examination is brief, ending on whether McElveen was ever given the July 18, 2014 law enforcement interview with Wendi Adelson — he was not.

← Day 3

Day 5 →

Proceedings

Direct James Keith McElveen - Direct Line 1

Cross James Keith McElveen - Cross Line 82

Direct James Keith McElveen Georgia Cappleman

1 6:49:45

JUDGE EVERETT: Please call your next witness.

2 6:50:49

JUDGE EVERETT: Please raise your right hand to be sworn.

3 6:50:51

JUDGE EVERETT: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

4 6:50:55

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I do.

5 6:50:55

JUDGE EVERETT: You may take your seat.

6 6:50:57

JUDGE EVERETT: Please speak loudly.

7 6:51:00

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sir, please introduce yourself and spell your name.

8 6:51:03

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: James Keith McElveen, M-C-E-L-V-E-E-N.

9 6:51:11

MS. CAPPLEMAN: How are you employed?

10 6:51:12

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I work as a forensic scientist. I'm an electrical engineer. I work at Wave Sciences in Charleston, South Carolina.

11 6:51:20

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what type of work do you perform at that business?

12 6:51:23

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I mostly do audio research, particularly in forensics.

13 6:51:27

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Can you describe your education and experience in that field?

14 6:51:32

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I am a master's-level engineer, electrical engineer, and I've had 35 going on 40 years of experience.

15 6:51:42

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And as part of your work, do you clarify audio recordings?

16 6:51:48

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I do. I also sit on committees that write international standards for audio forensics.

17 6:51:55

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And approximately how long have you been doing the type of work that you did in this case specifically?

18 6:52:03

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Probably about 25 to 30 years now.

19 6:52:07

MS. CAPPLEMAN: At this time I would tender the witness as an expert in the field of electrical engineering and forensics.

20 6:52:07

JUDGE EVERETT: Does the defense wish to voir dire or any objection to him providing an opinion while testifying?

21 6:52:07

JUDGE EVERETT: Members of the jury, the witness will be permitted to testify in the form of opinion in the fields of electrical engineering and audio forensics. You may continue.

22 6:52:42

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think you testified you have a master's in electrical engineering, is that right?

23 6:52:47

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: That's correct.

24 6:52:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you were the program manager for a government organization that included tech ops work?

25 6:52:54

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes.

26 6:52:54

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and also have done some work with private companies doing government contract type of work, is that right?

27 6:53:01

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes.

28 6:53:04

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you found the company that you're currently with?

29 6:53:08

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I did.

30 6:53:11

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Have you published articles related to your field?

31 6:53:14

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes, I have multiple.

32 6:53:16

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Have you ever testified as an expert before in this area?

33 6:53:20

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I have.

34 6:53:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Were you asked to clarify some recordings made at the Dolce Vita restaurant in association with this case?

35 6:53:29

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes, I was.

36 6:53:29

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What items were you provided with?

37 6:53:32

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Two audio-video recordings from two different devices that were in the restaurant.

38 6:53:39

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: One of which had better video and one of which had better audio.

39 6:53:45

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and were you able to put those together and give us the best product that you know how to give us to help us make out the words the best we can?

40 6:53:54

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes.

41 6:53:54

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and in that process do you do anything that changes or alters the speaking voices that are on the audio recording?

42 6:54:02

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Only the — how do I put this — we don't alter the subject's voice. We leave it natural and as untouched as possible. What we do is suppress everything else that's not in that place that we're trying to focus on.

43 6:54:20

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What were the issues with this particular exhibit as far as being able to hear it in its raw form?

44 6:54:30

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Well, it was a restaurant — a busy restaurant.

45 6:54:34

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: There was everything from typical restaurant noises with coffee grinders and espresso machines and such as that going on.

46 6:54:46

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: The position of the recording devices also made them pick up noises coming from the kitchen. So there was dishwasher and vegetable-chopping type sounds going on back there, kids screaming, voices playing on a television. So it's easier probably to list what wasn't on the recording than what was.

47 6:55:06

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And can you explain the process you used to clarify the audio on this exhibit?

48 6:55:14

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes. So what we do is we treat the sound that's captured on the recording more like it's the light captured by a camera. So if you do any photography and you use a lens, you may think of kind of the classic taking a picture down a picket fence.

49 6:55:32

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: And you can focus on one of the wooden slats in the fence and it's sharp, but all the rest of them in the foreground and the background are blurred out, maybe invisible. So that's our approach — we're able to set the focus spot on the subjects that we were asked to enhance and then blur out, like those missing pickets in the fence, everything else in the restaurant.

50 6:56:02

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are the results of your audio efforts contained on the exhibit in front of you, State's Exhibit 115?

51 6:56:11

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes.

52 6:56:12

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did you also, for us, pair the audio with the video that was available of that particular event?

53 6:56:22

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: In Dolce Vita, we did not.

54 6:56:25

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Have you had an opportunity to review State's Exhibit 116, which does include both the audio, the video, and the transcript of that event?

55 6:56:36

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes. Although we did not review the transcript content, we did review the audio on the video and it does match the enhanced audio that we provided.

56 6:56:46

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So everything seems to be appropriately lined up with the audio clarification that you did.

57 6:56:53

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes. I just don't want to step outside my role in audio forensics and speak to a transcript.

58 6:56:58

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Understood. All right. Judge, at this time I'd ask to move into evidence State's 115 and 116.

59 6:57:04

JUDGE EVERETT: Any objection?

60 6:57:06

MR. ZELMAN: I understand the witness's testimony — he's not able to say the transcript is accurate.

61 6:57:16

MS. CAPPLEMAN: That was Ms. McVannell's part, Your Honor. She has already been carried as part of her testimony.

62 6:57:23

MR. ZELMAN: No objection.

63 6:57:24

JUDGE EVERETT: State's 115 and 116 are admitted.

64 6:57:32

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you also do some work on State's Exhibit 132, a recording from a Matsuri restaurant?

65 6:57:42

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I did.

66 6:57:43

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And were the same processes that you've previously described with the prior exhibit used on this one as well?

67 6:57:49

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: They were.

68 6:57:49

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And does State's Exhibit 132 contain the audio product that you generated?

69 6:57:56

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes.

70 6:57:57

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And has the audio been paired with the video accurately in State's Exhibit 133 also in front of you?

71 6:58:05

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes.

72 6:58:06

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time, I'd ask to move into evidence State's 132 and 133.

73 6:58:11

JUDGE EVERETT: Any objection?

74 6:58:13

MR. ZELMAN: Just a moment, Your Honor.

75 6:58:26

MR. ZELMAN: No objection, Your Honor.

76 6:58:28

JUDGE EVERETT: State's 132 and 133 are admitted.

77 6:58:31

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And then you also have an Exhibit 118 in front of you. Did you do some work on a phone call?

78 6:58:40

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Phone call? Yes.

79 6:58:42

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And is the work that you did on clarifying that phone call fairly and accurately contained on State's Exhibit 118?

80 6:58:50

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes, it is.

81 6:58:51

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, Judge. That's just for identification only at this time. No further questions.

Cross James Keith McElveen Joshua D. Zelman

82 6:58:58

JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination.

83 6:58:59

MR. ZELMAN: Just briefly, Your Honor.

84 6:59:01

MR. ZELMAN: Good afternoon, sir.

85 6:59:16

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Good afternoon.

86 6:59:18

MR. ZELMAN: With respect to the second restaurant footage that you enhanced, am I to understand that you enhanced an enhancement more recently?

87 6:59:40

MR. ZELMAN: Did you provide additional materials recently to the State Attorney's Office?

88 6:59:49

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: What we did was not an enhancement. We only took the audio track and put it with the video track, so we didn't touch anything but just basically saved the processed audio that we did and the original video, and just saved it in a different format.

89 7:00:08

MR. ZELMAN: Okay, so then that's what you did recently?

90 7:00:09

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes.

91 7:00:10

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Okay.

92 7:00:11

MR. ZELMAN: So no enhancement done in that step. Okay.

93 7:00:15

MR. ZELMAN: And then were you ever provided with the audio of the interview done by law enforcement of Wendi Adelson on July 18th of 2014?

94 7:00:32

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: No, I was not.

95 7:00:33

MR. ZELMAN: And specifically the end of that interview, when Ms. Wendi Adelson calls my client?

96 7:00:40

JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Not to my recollection. I do not believe so.

97 7:00:43

MR. ZELMAN: And so the government did not ask you to do that, correct?

98 7:00:46

MR. ZELMAN: Just a moment.

99 7:01:15

JUDGE EVERETT: Redirect examination? You may step down, sir. Will you be recalled by either party?

100 7:01:22

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.

101 7:01:23

JUDGE EVERETT: You are released. Have a good day.

Insights

Direct James Keith McElveen

Audio forensics expert McElveen authenticates enhanced versions of covert restaurant recordings; four exhibits admitted without objection.

Case Significance

McElveen's testimony provides the authentication foundation for the covert Dolce Vita surveillance recordings capturing an alleged co-conspirator meeting — one of the prosecution's central pieces of conspiracy evidence — and clears four exhibits into the record without opposition.

Dolce Vita recordings (Exhibits 115, 116) admitted — the covert capture of an alleged co-conspirator meeting is now in evidence
Matsuri recordings (Exhibits 132, 133) also admitted without challenge
Exhibit 118 phone call held at identification, signaling further authentication to come
Defense silence on voir dire and objections removes reliability dispute before recordings are played for the jury

Highlights

Procedural

Defense waives voir dire and raises no objection; Judge Everett admits McElveen's opinion testimony in electrical engineering and audio forensics.

“Only the — how do I put this — we don't alter the subject's voice. We leave it natural and as untouched as possible. What we do is suppress everything else that's not in that place that we're trying to focus on.”

— James Keith McElveenCore methodology claim establishing that the enhancement process does not manipulate the recorded speakers' voices, preempting reliability objections before the exhibits are played.

“And you can focus on one of the wooden slats in the fence and it's sharp, but all the rest of them in the foreground and the background are blurred out, maybe invisible. So that's our approach — we're able to set the focus spot on the subjects that we were asked to enhance and then blur out, like those missing pickets in the fence, everything else in the restaurant.”

— James Keith McElveenPicket-fence analogy makes spatial audio isolation concrete and memorable for a lay jury, reinforcing that the target voices are rendered sharp while ambient noise is removed.

“I just don't want to step outside my role in audio forensics and speak to a transcript.”

— James Keith McElveenExpert self-limits his scope, demonstrating methodological discipline and signaling that transcript authenticity was handled by a separately qualified witness.Evidence

State's Exhibits 115 and 116 — enhanced audio and audio-video-transcript composite of the Dolce Vita covert recording — admitted into evidence without objection.

Evidence

State's Exhibits 132 and 133 — enhanced audio and audio-video composite of the Matsuri restaurant recording — admitted into evidence without objection.

Locations Mentioned

Dolce Vita Matsuri

Evidence Mentioned

State's 115 State's 116 State's 118State's 132State's 133

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Streamlined Expert Foundation

Cappleman moves efficiently through credentials, methodology, and exhibit authentication without over-elaborating. Gaining defense silence on voir dire and objections eliminates any reliability dispute before the surveillance recordings are played for the jury.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Exhibit 118 — Phone Call Held at Identification

The phone call recording is marked for identification but not moved into evidence at this stage, indicating additional foundation or context will be provided in a subsequent examination.

Testimony Themes

Spatial Audio Enhancement — Non-Invasive Methodology

McElveen describes a spatial-focus technique that isolates target speakers by suppressing ambient noise while leaving voices unaltered, analogized to a camera lens sharpening one picket in a fence while blurring everything else. The analogy frames the enhanced recordings as natural rather than manipulated.

Exhibit Authentication and Scope Limitation

McElveen authenticates the audio components of four exhibits and explicitly declines to authenticate the transcript portion of Exhibit 116, keeping his testimony tightly within his qualified field.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

McElveen is the prosecution's audio forensics expert, called to authenticate the enhanced covert surveillance recordings from the Dolce Vita and Matsuri restaurants. His testimony provides the methodological and foundational predicate for admitting exhibits that are central to the prosecution's conspiracy narrative.

Cross James Keith McElveen

Brief defense cross establishes that McElveen did not analyze the July 18, 2014 law enforcement interview of Wendi Adelson — specifically the portion in which she called Donna Adelson.

Case Significance

A short cross that surfaces a gap in the prosecution's audio forensics scope — McElveen was not asked to analyze the Wendi Adelson interview — but the point is not developed into a completed argument.

Cross covers only two narrow topics: a technical clarification about the second recording and the Wendi Adelson interview audio gap.
No exhibits contested, no prior testimony impeached, no concessions extracted on the restaurant recordings themselves.
Defense leaves the Wendi Adelson interview thread unresolved when examination ends at utterance 34276.

Highlights

Testimony

Zelman asks whether McElveen was ever provided the July 18, 2014 law enforcement interview of Wendi Adelson — specifically the portion where she calls Donna Adelson. McElveen confirms he was not, and that the government did not ask him to analyze it.

People Mentioned

Wendi Adelson

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Scope gap — Wendi interview audio

Zelman establishes that McElveen was not provided and was not asked to analyze the July 18, 2014 Wendi Adelson interview audio, implying the prosecution selectively directed the forensics work. The line of questioning ends before a conclusion is drawn.

Followup Questions Or Open Threads

Wendi call to Donna — July 18 2014

The content and significance of the portion of Wendi Adelson's July 18, 2014 interview in which she called Donna Adelson is not established in this proceeding. Whether the defense later develops this thread, or introduces the interview audio through another witness, remains open.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

McElveen is the audio forensics expert who authenticated the enhanced Dolce Vita and Matsuri restaurant recordings admitted during direct. Cross is minimal — no challenge to his qualifications, methodology, or the admitted exhibits.

Summary

James Keith McElveen, a master's-level electrical engineer and founder of Wave Sciences with 25–30 years in audio forensics, is called by the prosecution. Defense waives voir dire and raises no objection to his qualification as an expert in electrical engineering and audio forensics. McElveen describes receiving two audio-video recordings of the Dolce Vita restaurant — one with superior video, one with superior audio — and combining them through a spatial-focus technique that concentrates on target speakers while suppressing ambient noise such as espresso machines, dishwashers, a television, and children, without altering the subjects' voices. He confirms that State's Exhibit 116, pairing his enhanced audio with video and a transcript, matches the audio product he produced, but he declines to authenticate the transcript itself. State's Exhibits 115 and 116 are admitted without objection. He applies the same enhancement process to a Matsuri restaurant recording; State's Exhibits 132 and 133 are likewise admitted without objection. A phone call recording marked as State's 118 is identified but not further examined. On cross, Zelman briefly clarifies that a recently provided second version of the restaurant recording was not a new enhancement but the same processed audio saved in a different format, then asks whether McElveen was ever provided the July 18, 2014 law enforcement interview with Wendi Adelson — specifically its conclusion, when Wendi called Donna Adelson. McElveen confirms he was not provided that recording and does not believe the government asked him to analyze it. He is released without recall.

← Louis Bronstein — Direct/Cross 4 of 6 Brian Kendall — Direct/Cross →