16.Marcia Rodriguez — Direct/Cross
187 linesJUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Did you have another brief witness?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
MICHAEL DILLMORE: Did you want this?
MS. NORRIS: Yes. Thank you.
The State calls Investigator Marcia Rodriguez.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(witness exits.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: If you'd face the clerk and be sworn, please.
MICHAEL DILLMORE: Yes, sir.
whereupon, MARCIA RODRIGUEZ was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Are you ready?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Give me one more second, please.
(Brief pause.)
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Could you please introduce yourself to the jurors?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Hi. My name is Marcia Rodriguez.
MS. NORRIS: And can you spell that for us?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Sure. It's M-A-R-C-I-A, R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z.
MS. NORRIS: where are you employed?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: At the Tallahassee Police Department.
MS. NORRIS: Do you work in a certain department or division?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: I'm attached to our Special Investigations Unit as a digital forensic investigator.
MS. NORRIS: All right. And how long have you been with TPD?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Over 25 years.
MS. NORRIS: And what do you do in the Digital Forensics Section?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: So when an investigator or an officer has some sort of electronic device or storage media that they think may contain some sort of evidence, they bring it to me and I evaluate it to see if there is anything of value on it.
MS. NORRIS: How many -- and when you say electronic, like, devices that you're analyzing for any evidence --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Put that microphone back in front of you, would you, please, Ms. Norris? I'm sorry.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: when you say you're examining, like, items of evidence to see if there's anything you want to pull off of them, like a cell phone, could that be any electronic device, a cell phone, a tablet, a laptop?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And approximately how many electronic devices have you extracted information off of?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: I've worked on over a thousand phones.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And do you do -- use different kind of programs to extract that data?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: what types of programs do you use?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: The primary program that we use is Cellebrite. we use a couple of other ones, but that is our primary tool.
MS. NORRIS: And you're trained on how to use that tool?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Did you perform a digital extraction ora cellebrite on a phone belonging to wendi Adelson?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: And do you recall what type of phone that was?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: It was an iPhone 4 Apple.
MS. NORRIS: An Apple iPhone 4?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: when you perform a Cellebrite extraction on a phone, it doesn't -- does it change any of the contents inside of the phone itself?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: No, ma'am, it does not.
MS. NORRIS: why would you do a Cellebrite extraction rather than just looking through the phone?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: So one of the things that we do is we make sure that we don't alter the device that we get. we try and keep it in the state that it's originally found in. And so if we manipulate and kind of flip through pictures or text messages, stuff like that, we may change something.
Also, one of the things that we use a forensic tool for is so that we may -- if something's been deleted, if something's -- if there's a hidden file that the user can't see or if they've hidden from view, we may not see it. So we use these tools, and sometimes the tools are able to gather that information for us.
MS. NORRIS: when you do the extraction using Cellebrite, does it basically spit out, like, a PDF report that you can then flip through and look at to see what was contained in the phone?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: It -- we use a -- the software that they use to do the processing analysis of the raw data that comes from the phone. It gives the opportunity to create a report. Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: A Cellebrite report.
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: A Cellebrite extraction report. Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: And that extraction report categorizes different things, for example, puts all the call logs in one section, all of the text messages in one section, and so forth?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. It categorizes it.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Can -- and you can also pull out the contact lists? Like, if I have phone numbers saved in my phone, like my husband or my mother, it would show up the contact name and then the phone number associated with that contact?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. How is it entered in the phone, yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you what I've previously shown defense counsel and marked for identification as State's Exhibit 126. Do you recognize what that item is?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. This is the disk that I placed the report that I created, the Cellebrite report, for Ms. Adelson's phone.
MS. NORRIS: And that is an accurate Cellebrite report directly from wendi Adelson's iPhone?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: You didn't make any changes to it?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: No, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: And you recognized that disk, because you initialed it underneath the pretty label that we put on top?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, at this time I'd offer State's Exhibit 126.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. Sidebar.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(Sidebar discussion held as follows):
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, same objection that we had before. we don't object to authenticity, but we do object to the actual contents coming in. There's going to be a whole bunch of hearsay, although wendi Adelson may testify. Getting the information off of her phone, I believe that a lot of it is not going to be relevant but it will also absolutely be hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So what is it that you're trying to get into evidence, Ms. Norris?
MS. NORRIS: well, I am going to -- my next couple exhibits will be the contacts for certain individuals, subjects in this case, including her mother, her father, her brother, her ex-husband Jibbers, as well as a call log and a voice mail log, which will become relevant in Sergeant Corbitt's testimony. None of these items are being offered for their truth. I offered this because I, I was faulted for not doing so with the last witness. So I don't -- understand if they, if they don't want the raw evidence in but -- but they're arguing I can't put in the extracts in the raw evidence. I...
MR. DECOSTE: well -- I'm sorry.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Go ahead.
MR. DECOSTE: For us, these are two different matters. It's one thing to have Charles Adelson's iCloud communications with our client, Katherine Magbanua, which the State could bring in to the hearsay exception of a statement by a defendant.
In this situation, however, there's no communications between wendi Adelson and my client and Ms. Kawass' client, Katherine Magbanua. More importantly, it is a statement by wendi Adelson when she says, this phone belongs to this person. She's making a statement, this is who this person is to me. It's not something that's automatically saved by a program. It's physically typed in by wendi Adelson. To me, that is a statement.
what the State should be doing instead is entering in cell phone records from the perspective companies saying this phone number belongs to this person.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Well, I would assume in 126 there's a whole lot of stuff other than the three items you've marked here.
MS. NORRIS: And I -- at this time I have no problem not introducing.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Make sure you speak to the --
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. At this time I have no problem not introducing. I just am damned if I do or damned if I don't. So I can proceed with the other ones and just hold onto this one.
MR. DECOSTE: I'd just rather have the cart behind the horse instead of vice versa --
JUDGE HANKINSON: well --
MR. DECOSTE: -- so to speak.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, I guess the next thing is going to offer the call logs, and there's going to be objection to that. Let me see what you have.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: This would be Exhibit 70?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And this is what?
MS. NORRIS: These are the contacts and the pictures associated with those contacts.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And who are these people pictured here?
MS. NORRIS: His first contact.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Oh. I see. It's a --
MS. NORRIS: I'm sorry. It's Charlie and it has the -- we just pulled it up so you can see it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I see. There's a picture that goes with the contact.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. And what -- 70.
MS. NORRIS: And 71, this is showing the contact for Daniel Markel, who is Jibbers.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MS. NORRIS: Seventy-two is the call log, just dates and times of phone call logs on the date of the homicide.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MS. NORRIS: And 74 is the voice mail log from the day of the murder, as well.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there any content to the...
MS. NORRIS: No, sir. There is in this Cellebrite which is --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right. Right.
MR. DECOSTE: I have one specific objection made to it. I believe what the State is trying to do is take into -- and Jibbers was identified -- that, that Daniel Markel was identified as jibbers. So they then can contact that over to e-mails in between Donna Adelson and wendi Adelson, where Donna Adelson refers to somebody as Jibbers. A whole bunch of hearsay here.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. well, hold this microphone for me, please.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm going to sustain the defense objection to 126. I'm going to overrule their objection to 70, 71, 72, and 74. Those will be admitted.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge.
(Sidebar discussion concludes.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: So I have admitted -- I believe the correct numbers are 70, 71, 72, and 74 over objection.
Do I have those numbers correct, Ms. Norris?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir, 70, 71, 72, and 74.
(State's Exhibit Nos. 70, 71, 72, and 74 received in evidence.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Probably need to get the witness to identify those items.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach, again?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Okay. So I'm going to show you, first, State's Exhibit 70. And what is contained in this particular exhibit?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: It looks like a -- two different contacts from the report that I created.
MS. NORRIS: So these are from the Cellebrite extraction of Wendi Adelson's phone. These are her contacts, who she has listed, and phone numbers stored in her phone.
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: These were the contacts, yes, that were -- a sampling of the contacts that were in the phone.
MS. NORRIS: And contacts for whom? If you could just...
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: It looks like Charlie and Dad's cell. And this appears to be another contact extraction for mom's cell.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And do each of those three contacts, Mom's cell, Dad's cell, and Charlie have photographs that are associated with the contact name and phone number?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am, they do.
MS. NORRIS: Next, I want to ask you about State's Exhibit 71. Does this exhibit contain a phone number of interest in this investigation?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: It's -- it appears to be a page from the contacts. I don't know specifically.
MS. NORRIS: Does it contain a contact name and a phone number associated with that name for a Jibbers?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am, it does.
MS. NORRIS: And State's Exhibit 72, what is contained in that?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: This is part of the report that I created. It's the beginning of the call log section of the report.
MS. NORRIS: And do those contain the call logs from wendi Adelson's phone on or about July 18, 2014, and previous -- and prior to that?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am, it does.
MS. NORRIS: But that's not every call log ever from her home phone, just a sampling?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am, just a sampling.
MS. NORRIS: And then, finally, in State's Exhibit 74, what's contained in that document?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: This is also a part of the report that I created. It's showing a sampling of the voice mails that was taken from the phone.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And, again, are the dates on that approximately July 16, 2014, to July 18, 2014?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And in any of these exhibits, has anything been deleted or removed or --
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: No, ma'am.
MS. NORRIS: -- taken away? Okay.
(Pause. )
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm not sure if I asked you this yet, but when you do the extraction, the Cellebrite extraction report, does it tell you the phone number for the phone you're extracting data from?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: This report did. This -- the extraction listed the phone number for the phone that I extracted, this Apple iPhone as (954)803-0079.
(off-the-record discussion.)
MS. NORRIS: All right. Thank you, Investigator Rodriguez. I don't have anymore questions.
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Cross. Garcia.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Good afternoon, Investigator. How are you?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon. I'm well. Thank you.
MR. ZANGENEH: One of the, the points that you were discussing during your discussions with the Government was that you were concerned when you transfer the data that you don't want to manipulate any of the photos or any of the data, correct?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: And that's because you -- the original photographs or videos, you don't want them to be manipulated or altered, correct?
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: No cross, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any redirect?
MS. NORRIS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Any juror have a question of this witness?
All right. If not, you may step down.
Do we need to keep her further?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge. No objection, not for Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: Not for Ms. Magbanua, Your Honor.
MS. NORRIS: I would like to keep her under subpoena --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MS. NORRIS: -- but she can go about her business.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You remain under the rule of sequestration, Investigator.
MARCIA RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. It would be a good time to break. Is this what y'all had in mind? Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, may we approach?
(witness exits; sidebar discussion held as follows):
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So I had Mr. Brown from the bus video come back, and he's reviewing the original footage. Yes, they're coming down the stairs right now. So I'd like to get him back up, when possible, to introduce the original bus footage since issues were raised about alterations to the disk that was introduced.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. when -- is that available now?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. Well, they're coming down the stairs.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So if you'd give me a couple minutes, I'll be ready.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(Sidebar discussion concludes.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: I think we have a brief witness that will be here momentarily. If you want to stand up for just a minute. I misunderstood. I thought they had said that we had run out of witnesses. But we'll have just one brief witness before we break.
(Pause. )