Craig Isom — Direct/Cross/Redirect
1,483 linesJUDGE WHEELER: The State may call its next witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The State calls Craig Isom.
JUDGE WHEELER: Craig Isom, please.
JUDGE WHEELER: Good afternoon.
CRAIG ISOM: Good afternoon.
JUDGE WHEELER: Before you have a seat, we're going to swear you in.
JUDGE WHEELER: Please raise your right hand and respond to the clerk.
COURT CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
CRAIG ISOM: I do.
JUDGE WHEELER: Thank you. Please have a seat.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Good afternoon. 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, Mr. Isom?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm currently retired.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What are you retired from?
CRAIG ISOM: Tallahassee Police Department.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long did you work for TPD?
CRAIG ISOM: 28 and a half years.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What were your duties at TPD?
CRAIG ISOM: I had numerous. Over the time period, the last ten, I was in criminal investigations.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As part of your duties in criminal investigations, did you investigate homicides?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you assigned to investigate the homicide of Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you the lead investigator in that case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you assisted by any other law enforcement agencies?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What other agencies?
CRAIG ISOM: Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. All right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you personally respond to the crime scene in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is that crime scene located in Leon County?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And when you arrived at the scene, had the victim already been transported to the hospital?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, he had.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Was there any evidence that you observed on the crime scene that this was a robbery or a break-in?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any evidence that anything had been stolen or removed from the property or the vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So where do you start an investigation like this?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, you try to find out as much background as you can on the victim and what his activities and actions were leading up to the crime.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Let's talk about what evidence there was on the scene. Do you know if the victim was dressed in gym clothes?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And had a gym bag or gym towel in the car?
CRAIG ISOM: There was items of that nature in the car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. We've heard testimony that he had a cell phone in his hand. Do we have any evidence that he was on the phone at the time?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, there was a reporting person who actually was conversing with Mr. Markel at the time that the incident occurred.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And that was the person whose business card was located inside the vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe so.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And was a neighborhood canvas done to see if anybody in the neighborhood saw anything?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, there was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And were you able to develop a witness — the neighbor, Mr. Geiger, who we already heard from?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Anybody else see anything in the neighborhood?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And when you were working on establishing a timeline of the victim's activities, we talked about him being in gym clothes — was there any evidence collected to suggest he actually had gone to the gym that day?
CRAIG ISOM: We found that he had been at Premier Fitness Club on McClay Boulevard, and we obtained video surveillance from that establishment, that business, that showed him there.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you find any evidence to suggest where he went prior to the gym that day?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. We were able to determine that he had dropped off his two young boys at daycare on West Tharpe Street, and the time was 8:50 a.m. approximately.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And then — did he go straight from the daycare to the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What time did he arrive at the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: It was 9:12.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to show you what's been introduced in the evidence as State's Exhibit 89, the gym surveillance.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could we publish that now, please?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What can you tell us about the camera angles that were available, or the surveillance images that were available, from Premier Gym?
CRAIG ISOM: There was numerous on the outside. There's a couple on the inside where you see his image entering and exiting the gym.
CRAIG ISOM: You can see where his car pulls into the parking lot and parks.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know how long the victim was inside the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: It was more than an hour.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So are there six to seven different camera angles that show the victim or the vehicles that we're interested in?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And are you familiar with the exhibit where they were compiled for ease of presentation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So let's take a look at this exhibit.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, what is this vehicle in the blue circle?
CRAIG ISOM: That is Mr. Markel's Honda, four-door, black.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is he entering the gym parking lot in this image?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, he's entering off of Village Square Boulevard.
CRAIG ISOM: Once again, that's him coming down north to south from Village Square Boulevard in the parking lot.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is that him pulling into that parking spot behind the flag?
CRAIG ISOM: It is.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Does he exit his vehicle immediately?
CRAIG ISOM: No, it takes a couple minutes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This this is, uh, what's being determined as a suspect vehicle. And does the suspect vehicle turn into the parking lot behind Mr. Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: Not directly. The suspect vehicle goes all the way up Village Square Boulevard to McClay and then comes in the main entrance of Premier.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So is that the suspect vehicle driving past the victim?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that's Markel exiting his car. And is the time on this correct? 9:12?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this Markel in the red shirt entering the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Here's Mr. Markel entering the front doors.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what does the suspect vehicle do while Mr. Markel's in the gym for approximately an hour, a little better than an hour?
CRAIG ISOM: The suspect — the driver of the suspect vehicle — moves to different locations within the parking area, off to one end, and then moves again, and it ends up behind trees.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But as far as you can tell, stays in the parking area?
CRAIG ISOM: Oh, yeah. Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Excuse me. So Markel's already entered; now the car's driving past by again. Do you know the make and model of this vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: So, 2008 Toyota Prius.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And colors?
CRAIG ISOM: Silver Pine Mica.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is another area of the gym parking?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. This is at the south end, as it denotes "south parking."
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What's happening now?
CRAIG ISOM: Mr. Markel is now exiting the building from there.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At what time does he exit?
CRAIG ISOM: 10:39.
CRAIG ISOM: Oh I'm sorry, it says 10:33. I guess it was — he's not outside in the parking lot, but it says 10:33, and that is accurate.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So are we going to see Mr. Markel pull out of the parking lot here?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the suspect vehicle follow behind?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Markel's car heading back the way it came in. The —
MS. CAPPLEMAN: — circles indicating where the suspect vehicle's coming from in the back.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you able to get a tag number off the vehicle from the surveillance we just watched?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Were you able to review or find some other surveillance images of this vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Let's talk about the bus. Are there cameras mounted on our city buses here in Tallahassee?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did those buses capture some of the route from where these two vehicles went after they left Premier Gym that morning?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, a good deal of it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Where did Mr. Markel head when he left the gym that morning?
CRAIG ISOM: He went out to Billy Square Boulevard to Thomasville Road, and then southbound on Thomasville Road towards his neighborhood in Benton Hills.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And let's start with State's Exhibit 90, which has been previously introduced into evidence. If you could tell us about bus 505, what does that show us?
CRAIG ISOM: Bus 505 is pulling up here. The bus is — the bus is traveling east on McClay Commerce Drive.
CRAIG ISOM: It comes up to this intersection, and that is what appears to be Markel's black Honda southbound on Thomasville. So he's left Premier, gone to Thomasville Road, and now he's southbound.
CRAIG ISOM: What appears to be the same Prius — a Prius that was in the Premier parking lot — is following in the direction that Markel went.
CRAIG ISOM: This same bus turned off of McClay Commerce Drive, went southbound, and caught up to a similar Prius here at the intersection of Metropolitan Boulevard.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you able to get the tag from the Prius off of these images?
CRAIG ISOM: No, unfortunately not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is the route we're seeing the Prius take in this portion of the exhibit consistent with heading toward the Markel residence?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does this bus catch up with the Prius again before he turns off toward the Markel residence?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, right there where the circle is. That appears to be the same Prius in the left-hand turn lane for Benton Road.
CRAIG ISOM: Once again, the Prius is making the left-hand turn on Benton Road.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And at what time does the Prius make that left-hand turn?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't have the exact time, um —
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does 10:51 sound right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And do you have an idea of when Mr. Markel was murdered?
CRAIG ISOM: It was before 11 a.m.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, all right. And then, was there additional surveillance video from a city bus that captured this Prius after the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was that bus 707?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, if we could publish a little —
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 505 to finish watching here. Okay, here we go. All right, this is 707.
CRAIG ISOM: It's northbound. It stopped on — it's on Thomasville. It's northbound. It stopped at the light at Armistead Road.
CRAIG ISOM: This is the suspect vehicle passing by.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you able to learn some more information about the suspect vehicle based on this — these images?
CRAIG ISOM: These images provided us with a couple of characteristics — a few characteristics — about the car. One of them, as you can see, the passenger mirror casing — the outside mirror casing — is black. All the Priuses come with the same body color on the mirror casing; this one obviously has been replaced at some point. So you've got a black passenger-side mirror casing. There's a — what appears to be a Sun Pass or some type of sticker up in the top center window, and it's common for tolls. And then, I don't think you can see it from here, but if you back up just a hair, there'll be — it's kind of grainy on this image, maybe your all's is better, but there's a black hole just below the driver's side headlight, if you just look below the driver's headlight where the bumper is, there's a black hole — and that, that's correct, that is where a tow hook would mount if the car needs to be pulled or towed, and it's missing the cover. The plastic insert that covers that hole is missing on this car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Looks like something. Can you back it up just a hair? I'm sorry to keep doing that to you. Okay, stop right there. Something white on the windshield there?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, that's what I was referring to. It's possibly a Sun Pass adhesive — toll reader transponder — for when you drive through tolls, you don't have to stop.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that a South Florida thing, or do we have those here?
CRAIG ISOM: Central and South Florida predominantly, down in that area. Very, very rare up here.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What can you tell us, if anything, about the passengers based on this video?
CRAIG ISOM: The passenger is animated, and it appears there's some type of white clothing or a towel, something moving around on the passenger side.
CRAIG ISOM: And then there's nothing — you can't really tell on the driver's side. Looks like it's black as far as any type of clothing, or —
CRAIG ISOM: There you have the three characteristics that I was referring to.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this the same bus?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, it's just another angle. The camera's mounted up on the front part of the bus.
CRAIG ISOM: Prius is passing in the left-hand lane.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the 707 bus video occurs at approximately 10:55 a.m.?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, I have 10:55 where it's at the stoplight.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So then the murder — that puts our time of the murder between 10:51 and 10:55, is that correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do you know what time the 911 call came in from Mr. Geiger?
CRAIG ISOM: 11:02.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. All right, let's talk about the Sun Pass. You mentioned you thought the suspect vehicle appeared to have a Sun Pass.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What, if any, investigative efforts were done to try to locate that particular Sun Pass?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, there was a lot of painstaking effort to figure out if this car had gone through tolls, and which tolls.
CRAIG ISOM: The closest Sun Pass or toll system is north of Orlando, down in Wildwood, Florida, where I-75 intersects with the Florida turnpike.
CRAIG ISOM: That was checked exhaustively without luck, and we didn't really have anything else to go on — just Prius.
CRAIG ISOM: Come to find out, there's thousands of Priuses and a lot of Sun Passes attached to them.
CRAIG ISOM: So that wasn't working out too good. But eventually, we did locate the location where a car like this utilized the Sun Pass through tolls down in South Florida on I-75.
CRAIG ISOM: But that was in correlation with the cell phones that we eventually got.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So after you got cell phone records for suspects, you were able to kind of go back to the Sun Pass records and narrow down the time frames?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. That helped us in determining their route — the travel route they took — and then we were able to determine there's a toll on each end of Alligator Alley down in South Florida, and the toll transponder activity was consistent with where these cell phones were.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do you know the times exactly that this thing went through those tolls?
CRAIG ISOM: The one for leaving Miami — leaving Miami and getting on I-75, eastbound, or westbound, to go across the state towards Naples — was at 2:18 p.m. on July 16th.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So that's two days before the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what about going home after the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Going home was the date of the murder, same date, that evening at 5:23 p.m. That transponder activated at the Alligator Alley toll plaza going eastbound from approximately Naples towards Fort Lauderdale.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is the time frame of the Prius passing through this toll booth on the way home consistent with them leaving Tallahassee, as we just saw on the bus video, and going to —
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 48 — this is what the vehicle looked like when you tracked it down?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was the photo taken of the unit in November, say, 49?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that's the same one that corresponds to the Sun Pass records, right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What were we able to learn about our suspect from the rental car agreement?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, the phone numbers were consistent with what we had already.
CRAIG ISOM: Obviously, there's an additional phone number up there. It's his brother that was determined to be one of the co-defendants.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Who's that?
CRAIG ISOM: Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And this phone number — was that discovered to be the real phone number before you were there?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what about this address in Oregon Drive?
CRAIG ISOM: That was his current — that was his current address at the time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what about — he had another address too, didn't he, with Jessica Rodriguez?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What address was that?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if we could just get for the record what it is that Mr. Isom was taking a look at.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay — are you reviewing your report?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm looking to make sure I have the address right.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
CRAIG ISOM: And just a sheet that has addresses on it.
MR. DECOSTE: Completely understand.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. 1505 Northeast 135th Street, North Miami, Florida.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: On the 15th of July, due back on the 17th of July, two days later?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
JUDGE WHEELER: Mr. Isom, why are you referring to that exhibit? Is that what you're looking at there?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay, this is what I'm looking at.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Okay. What I want you to do is, I want you to look at the exhibit if you need to respond with the exhibit. If you need to refer to your notes, you can just tell counsel that you need to refer to that, and then she'll ask you to refresh your recollection.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE WHEELER: We took that screen down, going blind here.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, let's talk about phone numbers. We talked about that phone number that was listed on the rental agreement for Luis Rivera. Did you subpoena call detail records for that phone number?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And would you be the person responsible for analyzing the call detail records, or is that done by someone else?
CRAIG ISOM: It's done by the Technical Operations Unit.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And would that be Sergeant Corbitt?
CRAIG ISOM: Sergeant Chris Corbitt.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But you did the subpoena and received the returns for these phone numbers?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So specifically in reference to the 305-570-8153 for Rivera—
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment, I'm sorry.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'll I'll come back to that. I think it's going to be Exhibits 91 through 98 that we're hunting. All right, so the phone number that was listed on the rental car agreement for "Brother"—786-372-5986—you mentioned that that phone number was associated with Sigfredo Garcia. Was that phone number subpoenaed for the call detail records?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did you receive a return for those as well?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you also subpoena social media content that contains that phone number?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And under what Facebook name does that number appear on the Facebook identifier?
CRAIG ISOM: Tuto Dade.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, this is part of the return that was showing that this image was on Tuto Dade's Facebook page.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And the phone number associated with "Brother" is associated with this Facebook?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the Facebook image, is that someone that you recognize?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Who is that?
CRAIG ISOM: This is Sigfredo Garcia.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: Exhibits 60 and 61 will be admitted.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May I follow up?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The Facebook and that phone number, is that correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, I want to show you State's Demonstrative Exhibit C.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Have you had a chance to review this exhibit before today?
CRAIG ISOM: I have, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And could you explain to us, starting with Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia those are the two in the Prius, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And how they're related or connected to the other players on this image.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I wonder if we could try displaying it from the laptop, maybe?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: —to walk us through who's who in this case.
JUDGE WHEELER: You can go ahead and start explaining it while she's working on that. I don't want the jury to have to wait. Can they see it?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, you have to just tell us.
CRAIG ISOM: Luis Rivera and his friend Sigfredo Garcia were the two individuals operating in the Prius.
CRAIG ISOM: Sigfredo Garcia's, the mother of his children, is the defendant, Katherine Magbanua.
CRAIG ISOM: There's two children by them. It was determined Katherine had a relationship also with Charlie Adelson.
CRAIG ISOM: Charlie Adelson is Dan Markel's was Dan Markel's brother-in-law, Wendi Adelson's brother.
CRAIG ISOM: Charlie Adelson's parents: Donna Adelson should be the second from the left top, and the father's Harvey Adelson, top left corner. So you have Harvey across the top from left to right: Harvey, Donna, Charlie, Wendi, Dan Markel's ex-wife, and then on the far right is Dan Markel.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So as the button kind of stops, we just go down this way?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you have some ATM images in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Tell us about the ATM images.
CRAIG ISOM: We found out that there was a bank transaction at an ATM drive-thru in Broward County I believe was Broward County where they were on their way home, and they stopped, and Rivera, who was operating the car, he withdrew money at an ATM. And we were able to get images of both of them in the car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Yes. Yes.
CRAIG ISOM: —is Luis Rivera.
CRAIG ISOM: —on the driver's side, and the far image, or the far person on the passenger side, is Sigfredo Garcia.
CRAIG ISOM: Once again, Rivera is operating the car, he's in black. We're back to the bus video. Garcia's in white, he's on the passenger side.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You mentioned that the Prius was the only lead that you got from a crime scene. Was there a lead that started with—
MS. CAPPLEMAN: —Dan Markel's personal life?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Dan and Wendi Markel — well, Dan Markel and Wendi Adelson had gone through a very lengthy and contentious divorce starting in 2012.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And as part of your investigation, did you review the divorce file in their case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was the divorce file pretty voluminous?
CRAIG ISOM: Very, very large. Over 700 pages. I yeah, it was a lot.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Let me show you what I've marked as State's, I think it's Exhibit 59.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Just look there and tell me if you recognize it.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's a lot. Does that appear to be a fair and accurate copy of the Markels' divorce file?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you reviewed that as part of your investigation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to ask you about a couple of documents in there specifically. Do you know when their divorce was finalized?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: And what's your objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Motion in limine, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Your previous objection is noted, but are you asking for the file to be admitted at this time, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, so I'm going to allow him to refer to it. And so your motion, it's denied for my previous reasons stated on the record.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: When was their divorce final, is the question?
CRAIG ISOM: July it was July 31st of 2013.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so a year before the murder in this case — correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was the finalizing of the divorce the end of the litigation between Dan Markel and his former wife Wendi?
CRAIG ISOM: Not at all.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Were there numerous filings that occurred between the time their divorce was finalized and the time of Mr. Markel's murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Even including as recently as March 26th of 2014, shortly before his murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could you tell us about that March 26, 2014 filing that Dr. Markel made?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah. Mr. Markel had found out that his children — his two young children — had been spending time with Markel's mother-in-law, Donna Adelson, and from the children, they said that Donna Adelson had told them or said in their presence disparaging things about Dan Markel. These were things like "Grandma says you're stupid," "Grandma hates you," and that was kind of the last straw, the way it looks when you read through this stuff. I'm sorry, I mean —
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Then go ahead. That Markel had decided that he wanted his mother-in-law to have supervised contact with the children — only supervised contact?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Yes, he did not want the mother-in-law to have unsupervised contact with the children.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was that motion ever heard by the court?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Why not?
CRAIG ISOM: Because Dan Markel was murdered.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I would ask to move into evidence the divorce filing exhibit, which is marked as State's Exhibit 59.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, subject to the previous objection noted on the record. Anything else that you need to add?
MR. DECOSTE: One moment, Your Honor. No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, it will be admitted as State's Exhibit 59.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and Mr. Isom, in those documents — just to sort of give an idea of what we're talking about — they were, this couple was arguing over things as small as a tennis racket?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And quite large things that were very valuable as well, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and are you familiar with a motion that's included in that exhibit where Wendi Adelson was seeking to relocate to South Florida with her children?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what was the outcome of that motion?
CRAIG ISOM: It was denied with prejudice.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so she was not legally permitted to move from Tallahassee to South Florida?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Right. Who was in South Florida? Why did she want to move there?
CRAIG ISOM: Her parents, Harvey.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Where did they live?
CRAIG ISOM: At the time, they lived in Coral Springs, Broward County, Florida.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are you familiar with some emails between Wendi and Donna Adelson in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm gonna show you what I marked as safety footage.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How did you come into possession of those emails?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sure I have —
CRAIG ISOM: They were obtained through the voluntary submission of Wendi Adelson's computer, and I also believe there was a subpoena for her Google account.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, well, we can't find them at the moment.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So we'll move on and come back to emails.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Fair to say that the emails were unfriendly to Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: Very much so.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did the emails — what kinds of things did the emails include?
CRAIG ISOM: ...land.
CRAIG ISOM: Before the ruling that she could not — that Wendi could not relocate to South Florida with the two boys.
CRAIG ISOM: There was a lot of suggestions by her mother, Donna Adelson, to compel or insist that relocation was very important and they needed the stability of the boys in South Florida, because they were divorced now and now we're talking about two different single parents. After the denial — because I believe in June of 2013 —
CRAIG ISOM: Donna, according to the email, she ramped up her suggestions to Wendi and wanted to attempt to coerce Markel to allow the relocation by bribery — by suggesting that the children would be moved from a Hebrew Jewish religion to Catholicism and possibly even baptized in a Catholic church.
CRAIG ISOM: Knowing full well that Dan Markel was very devout in his faith, being Jewish, and that it would get under his skin, and they thought maybe this would trigger something for him to voluntarily allow them to take the kids to South Florida.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and was another suggestion that they could even bribe Markel into allowing the relocation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And it was a specific amount mentioned?
CRAIG ISOM: A million dollars.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So obviously this was a lead, right? This nasty divorce and custody battle.
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you interview the ex-wife, Wendi Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: When was she interviewed?
CRAIG ISOM: Within hours after Dan Markel was shot in his garage.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Where was Ms. Adelson located?
CRAIG ISOM: She was at a restaurant in the Killearn area, north of I-10 off of Market Street.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and did she, during her interview with you, suggest who might have wanted her husband dead?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, she said that somebody could have done it as if it was to help her.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Who? Did she say who?
CRAIG ISOM: She just said that somebody that she knows could have possibly done it. But she also made the statement that her brother Charlie had stated previously that he'd looked into hiring a hitman and found it was cheaper to buy a television for, as a divorce gift.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Her brother Charlie — is that Charlie Adelson on this sheet?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Had looked into hiring a hitman?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: To kill Dan Markel.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. That was a conversation that he — that she reiterated that he told her.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. I want to circle back now to the phone evidence.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you mentioned that Sergeant Corbitt was responsible for analyzing the phones, but there were several different sets of records that you obtained for his analysis. Is that right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, so State's Exhibit 91 pertains to Luis Rivera, 305-750-8153, and Judge, at this time I'd ask to move into evidence pursuant to stipulation 91, which does contain a certification of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objections?
MR. DECOSTE: I didn't hear what it was, but...
JUDGE WHEELER: State's Exhibit 91 with the prior stipulation? No, good.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as State's Exhibit 91.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 92, the records of Sigfredo Garcia, also containing an affidavit of authenticity.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That phone number is 786-372-5986.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. State's Exhibit 92 will be admitted.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'll point out it's 5968. Sorry.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sorry, jury — five nine six eight.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: States exhibit 93 relates to the call detail records of Wendi Adelson, phone number 954-803-0079, also containing an affidavit of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection? Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as State's Exhibit 93.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Next, Judge, State's Exhibit 94, the call detail records of Donna Adelson, phone number 954-396-0997, also with an affidavit of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as State's 94.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's 95, the call detail records of Charlie Adelson, phone number 954-254-9223, also with a record certification.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Thank you. Be admitted as State's 95.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's 96, the cell phone records of Harvey Adelson, phone number 954-980-9032, also with an affidavit of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: State's Exhibit 96 admitted.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The cell phone records of Katherine Magbanua, phone number 786-564-1321, also with an affidavit of authenticity.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 1312.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Be admitted without objection. State's 97.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did I say that one wrong as well?
JUDGE WHEELER: You said 1321.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Dyslexic today. Not normally.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. State's Exhibit 98 — 98, the call detail records of Dan Markel, 202-276-8200, and that one has an affidavit of authenticity included as well.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: It'll be admitted as State's 98.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so Mr. Isom, you received all of these records from the phone companies and turned them over to Sergeant Corbitt for analysis?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. I want to ask you about another aspect of your investigation — your meetings and interviews with Luis Rivera.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to start with a meeting or an interview that occurred on September 30th of 2016. Were you present for that?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And in that interview, did Mr. Rivera include the name Katherine Magbanua as someone that was involved in this murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was there ever a time where you, or any other law enforcement or person of authority in your presence, said Rivera has to say the name Katherine Magbanua to get a deal?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you make some efforts to check out some of the things that Mr. Rivera told you that were stuff you hadn't heard before, didn't already know, pursuant to your investigation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, I want to ask you specifically about the hole in the Prius. Can you summarize what Mr. Rivera told you about the hole in the Prius?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor — hearsay as to what Mr. Rivera is saying.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's — that's sustained.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did you have reason, after Mr. Rivera's testimony, to think there might be a hole in the Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you go to look at the Pri— okay, this was before or after you had already found the actual vehicle?
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on one second. You have an objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor — this line of questioning is premised on—
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, overruled. You may proceed.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was this — when you went to look for the hole in the Prius, was it before or after you had already found the actual Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: The first time, we'd already found the Prius. Did not even know about a hole in the floorboard of the Prius until Rivera provided that information.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so you go back to find the Prius again and look to see if there's a hole in the floorboard, correct? And was there a hole in the floorboard?
CRAIG ISOM: There was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, I'm going to show you some additional—
CRAIG ISOM: This is a straight rod that has been positioned from the inside down through the outside, showing the trajectory of the hole.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Same thing, closer, and you're starting to see what is going to be the gas line of the car?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right there was an additional proffer on October 4th of 2016 — were you present for that meeting as well?
CRAIG ISOM: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you, as a result of your meetings with Mr. Rivera, attempt to locate the murder weapon in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: We did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What did you do to attempt to locate the murder weapon?
CRAIG ISOM: I queried him extensively, and then we actually took him on a road trip, for lack of a better term, in the van and then later on in a car, to attempt to locate the body of water that they were close to when he stated that Garcia — they stopped off of I-75 and Garcia got out and threw the gun towards water.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and you did not recover any firearms as a result of those efforts?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. How many bodies of water on the side of an interstate are there between here and Miami?
CRAIG ISOM: Numerous.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Um, I want to ask you about the arrest of Katherine Magbanua. On what day was she arrested?
CRAIG ISOM: October 1, 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you present for her arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was that in Miami?
CRAIG ISOM: It was in Davie, Broward County.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And when she was arrested, was there anything unusual about the law enforcement presence there? Was there more or less law enforcement than there typically would be for a murder arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: It would be — it was the status of what you would go for a murder suspect. You want to make sure that they're not going to get away.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. But was it heavier, or lighter, or typical?
CRAIG ISOM: It was just typical.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. All right. And on this date, when you were in the process of making this arrest, did you get a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, was that subsequent to Ms. Magbanua being permitted to make a phone call?
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on one second.
JUDGE WHEELER: Do you have an objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Sidebar, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, we'll have a brief sidebar.
JUDGE WHEELER: You may continue.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so during the arrest of Ms. Magbanua, is she permitted to make a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And at the conclusion of that phone call, do you receive a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How much time passed between her phone call and the one that you received?
CRAIG ISOM: Less than 20 minutes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who was calling you?
CRAIG ISOM: An attorney named David Marcus.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who did David Marcus represent?
CRAIG ISOM: He indicated he represented Charlie Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to ask you about Ms. Magbanua's employment status around the time of this murder.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you get some evidence that she was receiving checks from the Adelson Institute after the homicide?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and what is the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: It's a periodontal office in Broward County. Um, does dental work.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who owns the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Harvey and Charlie Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did Donna have some connection to that business as well?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was that?
CRAIG ISOM: I think she did a lot of the clerical stuff there. She wrote the checks that were received by Katherine Magbanua.
CRAIG ISOM: She signed one.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Now, okay. Did you make any effort to determine what, if anything, Ms. Magbanua was doing to earn the money from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, what did you do to try to determine that?
CRAIG ISOM: We subpoenaed their office. I went to the office myself, and Special Agent Sanford went to their office and provided a subpoena to two employees that happened to be there at the time, seeking employment records and documentation showing her duties and so forth at the office.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and did you interact with employees when you went into the business?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I know what kind of a business it is, but is it a large enterprise? Like, how many employees were there?
CRAIG ISOM: There were only two there, and from my understanding, though, it was —
CRAIG ISOM: — maybe two others that worked there, for as far as I believe, was as the record shows.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and were the employees there able to enlighten you as to what it was Ms. Magbanua did there?
CRAIG ISOM: I did. No one had ever heard of her, and another said she heard the name—
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor — hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained. That's hearsay. That'll be struck.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you up on a wire — a T3 wire — when you went into the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And as part of that wire, were you listening to Charlie Adelson's phone calls?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And during the time that you were physically present in the Adelson Institute with your subpoena, was a phone call made to Charlie Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was Charlie Adelson physically present at the Adelson Institute when you went in?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was it regular business hours when you went into the business?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so one of the employees there made a phone call that was recorded?
CRAIG ISOM: From another location, outside my presence.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and ultimately you left your subpoena there, is that right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And left the business not knowing what her employment was at that time?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and were you provided with any documentation from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, did you receive a copy of the checks that Ms. Magbanua received from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. I know we — we had a list of checks.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and they — when you left your subpoena there, you got back a copy of those checks, right? Or a list of those checks.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did you ever get anything like an application?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: A job description?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any W-4?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Schedule?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Personnel file?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So I'm going to show you what I've marked as State's 68.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you recognize 68?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that what you got from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Is that what?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that what you received from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that was in response to your subpoena for all documentation regarding the employment of—
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what's contained in the exhibit?
CRAIG ISOM: It's just that she was —
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Given these paychecks on an incremental, approximately every two weeks, there was a paycheck or a check written from the Adelson Institute to Katherine Magbanua. And when did the payment begin? When did these checks begin?
CRAIG ISOM: In September.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: September of what?
CRAIG ISOM: 2014.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So approximately two months after the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And how long did they continue?
CRAIG ISOM: All the way through March of 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Until there were arrests in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Uh, yes, pretty close to that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, were you able to get any evidence through the course of your investigation that Ms. Magbanua was physically going to the Adelson Institute to perform some job?
CRAIG ISOM: There was no indication of that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Was there a pole camera on the defendant during your investigation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What's that?
CRAIG ISOM: Pole camera is utilized for surveillance in an open public setting, so it would be attached to a utility pole. In this case, it was attached to a utility pole in the neighborhood where Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia resided at the time. And it's a continuous feed. It's just images, it's not video, it's not audio, and it is up for a long duration of time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so was she observed coming and going, maybe on the weekends, consistent with going to the business to clean when the business was not open?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, evidence speaks for itself if it's in evidence.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. You can answer.
CRAIG ISOM: She did not go to anything that was consistent with that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Didn't seem to go to the Adelson Institute on the weekends?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Evenings?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What about any evidence of contact with patients, like by phone or some other means?
CRAIG ISOM: We were monitoring her phone as well as Charlie's — Charlie Adelson's — and there was no contact with patients through that resource.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was the time frame that you were monitoring the phone calls of Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: It started in April — April, I believe, 7th, 8th of 2016 — all the way through past the arrest of Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you didn't capture any calls to patients on there?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know whether Wendi Adelson was able to relocate with her children after her husband was murdered?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She was?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did she move?
CRAIG ISOM: She moved to what ended up being Miami Beach, I believe. Well, the memorial service for Dan was two days after he was shot. It was on a Friday — memorial service was on Sunday. Her and her parents were on the road to South Florida on Monday, the 20th.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: There's some confusion about Sigfredo Garcia's phone number that I want to try to clear up. Could you — is there anything in your records that you could refresh your recollection and tell us what his phone number was at the time of this murder?
CRAIG ISOM: So Fredo Garcia's phone number at the time was 786-372-5986.
CRAIG ISOM: I apologize if I strung it up.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sure.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions at this time.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, we're going to take our afternoon break now.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you.
JUDGE WHEELER: And so we'll break for about 10 minutes or so give you a chance to stretch your legs, use the facilities. Then we'll come back and start with the cross-examination. Okay, please, no talking about the case, and the deputy will escort you out.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, Ms. Cappleman, anything from the state before we bring the jury in?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, from the defense.
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, let's bring the jury in, please.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, please be seated.
JUDGE WHEELER: And we're ready to continue with the testimony, with cross-examination. Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, how you doing?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: So, I think you and I can agree on some stuff. And Your Honor, if I could approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: You know what those are, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Those are still photographs of the characters involved in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know it because it's from the state's demonstrative?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And because you were the investigator on the case for years and you know the faces?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And those photos fairly and accurately depict those people?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Investigator, this is a confusing case with a lot of characters, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And I want to make sure that we have it right on who's who.
CRAIG ISOM: Dan Markel.
MR. DECOSTE: He was murdered, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Before he was murdered, he was married to Wendi Adelson.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Wendi Adelson's father is Harvey.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Her mother is Donna Adelson.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Wendi has a brother, Charlie Adelson.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, at one point in time, Charlie dated Katherine Magbanua, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Katherine, in high school, met this guy, Sigfredo Garcia.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know when they met, but they have two children together.
MR. DECOSTE: And based on the ages that you know of Mr. Garcia and Ms. Magbanua, she had those children when she was young, in her early 20s.
CRAIG ISOM: I haven't done the math.
MR. DECOSTE: But we agree — and we're talking about what we agree on here. We agree that he is the father of two of her children on birth records.
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: No?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's a childhood friend of Sigfredo Garcia.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He was a Latin King boss — not just a member, but the boss in Miami.
MR. DECOSTE: Right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: We agree on this.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And we agree that these two guys, Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera, were the hitmen in this case that murdered Dan Markel, Professor Markel — correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: We agree on all that.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about the motive in this case.
MR. DECOSTE: We agree that the motive in this case was over a divorce — of course, right? When the element of relocation for, with the children, and Wendi Adelson, was the bigger motive.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Oh yeah. And you and I agree that that was the motive for them to have Professor Markel murdered, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe that they ran out of any other option and they chose this.
MR. DECOSTE: So we agree on that — that the motive was because of the divorce and the child custody battle in this case, the Adelsons' motive, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But in your investigation, there was an issue — how these two Miami guys...
MR. DECOSTE: We agree on that, right? And you worked hard to try to figure out what connection could there be between these people, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And ultimately you came upon Katherine Magbanua, and you believe that the connection between these two guys from Miami and the Adelson family was through Katherine — correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, if during your investigation — now correct me if I'm wrong — shortly after Miss Magbanua was arrested, before other arrests had been made in this case, you retired.
CRAIG ISOM: She was the last arrest before I retired.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes. And there's been arrests since you retired.
CRAIG ISOM: There has been an arrest, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And work and investigation since you retired.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Had there been information that showed that these two guys specifically Sigfredo Garcia tied directly to this guy, Charlie Adelson, there would have been a different outcome while you were the investigator, correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection — calls for speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: He can answer the question. Overruled.
CRAIG ISOM: Can you repeat it, please?
MR. DECOSTE: If you had found information tying Sigfredo Garcia to Charlie Adelson, completely separate from Katherine Magbanua, that would have led to a different outcome in your investigation, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Not necessarily, because the same stuff would have come up eventually concerning Ms. Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: I want to focus on what we agree on here. So perhaps we agree on this — the government's demonstrative. Demonstrative exhibit.
MR. DECOSTE: We agree that's the government's demonstrative, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is the government's now-focused theory of the case: the Adelson family, through Katherine Magbanua, hired Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera.
MR. DECOSTE: We agree on that, but that's the government's theory, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you're aware of what ours is. So their theory is that it was through Katherine Magbanua, right? We agree on that.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you now what's been pre-marked as a demonstrative, but you would agree with me that that is our theory — the defense's theory — that the Adelson family hired Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera without going through Katherine Magbanua. We agree on that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't agree on this demonstrative as far as the case. Is that what you're asking me? I'm not sure what you're asking me.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's back up, because I want to make sure that we're clear on this.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, yes. Okay, that's what you're saying. I mean, I'm not sure what you're asking me.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm asking you if you're aware of the argument that we're having — that it was about Katherine Magbanua and not through —
CRAIG ISOM: I'm not aware of that.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to before you retired, and let's focus now on general duties of law enforcement. Do you believe that they've changed since you retired? Would you agree that the job of law enforcement is to objectively investigate a case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: To then present the evidence, whether it's good or bad.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when you're investigating cases, you compile reports.
MR. DECOSTE: Right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You record your activities.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You provide that to the prosecution.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then we end up getting all that in what's called discovery, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That applies to anybody who's charged in a case, whether it's Luis Rivera, Sigfredo Garcia, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, another important aspect of those reports and recording and taking down everything is for when you're testifying like today, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Because you need to — those reports are in front of you, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Some of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that refreshes your memory and helps you remember what was said, what was done, stuff like that, correct? Let's go back now to May of 2016.
MR. DECOSTE: Two guys on the bottom.
MR. DECOSTE: They're arrested in May of 2016, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the — we can go back to agreeing on stuff — you would agree with me that the evidence against those two guys, Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia, was strong.
CRAIG ISOM: Absolutely. We went over —
MR. DECOSTE: You went over, in your direct examination with Miss Cappleman, there's evidence that they were here, and that they were in that Prius.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That they murdered Professor Markel.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But of course, you were lacking the connection to the Adelson family, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm not sure what the question was. We're in May of 2016.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. At that point in time, you're lacking a connection to the Adelson family. You've got these two guys, you've got them dead to rights, but we don't have any connection to Charlie Adelson and the rest of the family.
CRAIG ISOM: We already knew about Magbanua, if that's what you're referring to. We already knew that Magbanua was with Garcia, and that she'd also been with Charlie. And after researching and finding no connection between Garcia and Charlie Adelson, she's it.
CRAIG ISOM: She's the only connection.
MR. DECOSTE: So going back now to the question I asked you at the beginning — had you uncovered at that time evidence tying Charlie Adelson to Sigfredo Garcia, that would have taken your investigation in a different direction, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection — calls for speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's speculation. That's sustained. You don't need to answer that.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's turn to another topic.
MR. DECOSTE: The day of the shooting, July 18, 2014.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that when TPD responds out to a crime scene like this, that you want to keep it quiet for multiple reasons, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that it's only fair to family and friends, to loved ones, that they learn from you and not through the media or from other people, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's also important for the integrity of your investigation, because you don't want — I mean, if there's anybody that you could then arrest that day in the area, you don't want it out there what you know, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That same day, in the afternoon, you go and find Wendi Adelson at Mosaic restaurant and take her back to TPD for some questioning, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And it wasn't until late in the afternoon that you let her know that her soon-to-be ex-husband, Professor Markel, had been murdered.
CRAIG ISOM: I let her know that within 15 minutes of the interview.
CRAIG ISOM: He had been shot and he most likely would not survive.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, though, that that was well after 12:30 in the afternoon.
CRAIG ISOM: Oh, 12:30, yes. It was after that.
MR. DECOSTE: Well after that phone call that apparently was made by Sigfredo Garcia to Katherine Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: Right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now focus on the time you arrested Luis Rivera. You would agree he was in a desperate position, given the evidence you had against him, right? A desperate position. Let's go over that. You had strong evidence against him placing him as involved in the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He's been charged with first-degree murder.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And, if you know, looking at the death penalty.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There was also the potential that his non-Latin King co-defendant, Sigfredo Garcia, could flip on him and cooperate against him, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Are you asking me my perspective of what was going to happen?
MR. DECOSTE: I'm talking about what your knowledge of Mr. Rivera is before you get into a cooperation agreement with him.
CRAIG ISOM: I knew that, and he knew, that there was a mountain of evidence against him.
MR. DECOSTE: Would you agree with me that there would be a danger in telling this guy what to say to get a deal?
MR. DECOSTE: Can we agree on that?
CRAIG ISOM: A danger?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
CRAIG ISOM: Danger to whom?
MR. DECOSTE: A danger to a miscarriage of justice if this guy is told what he needs to say to get a deal.
CRAIG ISOM: I would never consider telling him anything.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay, so let's get into that. You would agree this is a bad guy.
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, he's a bad guy, gang leader, from my understanding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Has a potential to lie.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Has a motive to save himself.
CRAIG ISOM: I would say so.
MR. DECOSTE: And you deny — deny — giving him the script of what to say in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: I did not give him a script of what to say in this case.
MR. DECOSTE: He ultimately cooperates in this case and gets a plea agreement, even, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And he gives you a series of statements in between September 29, 2016 through October 4, 2016.
CRAIG ISOM: That's about right.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we talked about discovery in this case, all the reports — and you all authored a bunch of different reports in this case, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Before that, there were arrest warrants for Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia, right? Before —
CRAIG ISOM: Before what? I'm not following "before."
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, that was confusing. Let me back up.
MR. DECOSTE: So before you author any reports, right — before you author reports about their arrest, you first have to arrest them, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So I jumped ahead there.
MR. DECOSTE: So you draft and you get arrest warrants for Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And if you could explain to the jury what kind of information is contained in an arrest warrant.
CRAIG ISOM: Has their name, their date of birth, identifiers, social security number, last known address, what the elements of the crime were, what the evidence against that individual is.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's what I want to focus on.
MR. DECOSTE: The evidence — that's a detailed narrative of the case, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: It is.
CRAIG ISOM: There is some detail in there. Probably not always everything in the warrant.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the arrest warrant for Luis Rivera was thousands of pages.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall how long it was for that guy.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me, though, that it was multiple pages.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall. Do you have a copy of it?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, we'll come back to that. Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's turn now to your reports, and then we'll come back over to it. So you authored two main reports. September 14, 2016, you authored a report, right?
MR. DECOSTE: Do you have it there in front of you?
CRAIG ISOM: Can I refer to this?
MR. DECOSTE: You can refresh your recollection, please.
CRAIG ISOM: Give me the date again.
MR. DECOSTE: So top right-hand corner, 9/14/2016 at 1535.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, sir, I have it now.
MR. DECOSTE: For juror reference, this is authored 9/14/2016, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is before Luis Rivera starts cooperating?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And in these reports — and I'll refer you to page 4 specifically — it talks about your belief that Katherine Magbanua was involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You also authored another report, and the date is 7/12/2016, top right-hand corner — 31-page report.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me that's several months before Luis Rivera starts cooperating — it's...
MR. DECOSTE: July versus September. So July 12, 2016, you authored this report, gave it to the state attorney's office, it gets sent over to Luis Rivera in discovery to his attorneys, and then roughly two and a half months later, he's cooperating in this case and giving you information, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know the timeline of all of it. I don't know when the state received it for sure. I don't know when it was provided in discovery.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's talk about what you can give me. This is authored and this is finalized on 7/12/2016, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Actually, it's approved on 7/27.
MR. DECOSTE: So at the end of July, this thing is done?
CRAIG ISOM: Yep.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera — the first time that you meet with him to get his statement, his proffer, and we'll talk about the difference in between an interview and a proffer — that is done on September 29, 2016.
CRAIG ISOM: Actually, I was notified on the 29th. I didn't meet with him until the 30th of September of 2016, for the record.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So there was the potential of a couple of months to review your report?
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that this report details what you believed the theory of the case was — that it was through Katherine Magbanua.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know if it's part in that one or the first one you referred to for 9/14/2016.
MR. DECOSTE: Would it help you to review your 31-page report?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm looking at it. You have a specific section or page? And please don't give me a page number — it's probably not going to be the same as my format.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: That help?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me there's a lot of talk of Katherine Magbanua in this report.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In order for Mr. Rivera to get a deal, he has to advance her theory, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know how — I'm not sure how to even answer that. I already gave my part in here.
CRAIG ISOM: You're asking me for a lot of questions that is outside my purview.
MR. DECOSTE: You not being the prosecuting attorney, I understand. You were the lead investigator, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yep.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And you went and met with Luis Rivera in May of 2016 when he was arrested, right?
CRAIG ISOM: We met with him at the federal detention center, Coleman, in central Florida.
MR. DECOSTE: And that interview was recorded?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that you told him: "Giving us Garcia is not enough, we already have him." Okay? You agree with me that that was said?
CRAIG ISOM: So...
MR. DECOSTE: You have that meeting in May of 2016 where it's not enough to give up Sigfredo Garcia because you already have him. There've been arrest warrants and reports that are talking about Wendi Adelson and Katherine Magbanua, and several months later he comes back to you and says Wendi Adelson and Katherine Magbanua were involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: In so many words, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And it was his words — this guy's word alone — that resulted in the arrest of Katherine Magbanua.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection — calls for speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: If you know, you can answer.
CRAIG ISOM: After his proffered interview on September 30th, she was arrested the very next day.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that it was not enough without his testimony — it wasn't enough for the state attorney's office to approve the warrant, correct? So let's talk about what Luis Rivera says against Katherine Magbanua. First, Luis Rivera says that Sigfredo Garcia told him that Katherine was involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: These reports explain how Garcia was involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: How Garcia was involved, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah — and his movements and his actions and his phone calls, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, one of the pages in here talks about specifically the volley of communications — not the substance of it, but just when the communications happened between Mr. Garcia and Ms. Magbanua, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The next thing — the second thing that Luis Rivera gives as evidence — is that he overheard some phone calls, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me that the discovery discusses the call frequency between Garcia and Magbanua, you...
CRAIG ISOM: Know — you're talking about my discovery, is that what you're asking?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes — I don't recall when it was brought up or how it was brought up, but as you're referring to this section that you pointed out to me, there's phone calls between Garcia, Magbanua, and Charlie Adelson back and forth, but not directly between Adelson and Garcia. They all go back to her.
MR. DECOSTE: We're getting a little bit off track here, so I want to bring it back in. We're talking about what Luis Rivera tells you is the direct evidence against Kathy Magbanua. The first one is Sigfredo Garcia telling him that she was involved.
MR. DECOSTE: The second one — that Luis Rivera says that he overheard some phone calls that were being had between Sigfredo Garcia and Katherine Magbanua, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No, he overheard one particular one immediately after the homicide.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And you would agree with me that he didn't have to make up that there was a phone call, because it was right there in your report that said there's a phone call at 12:30 after the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: If he had access to it or if it was read to him or given to him, yeah, he could do that.
MR. DECOSTE: He would just have to pepper in what the conversation was about.
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: You have no reason to believe that he didn't get your report and discovery, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I have no idea.
MR. DECOSTE: In your many years as an investigator...
CRAIG ISOM: Once again, I have no idea. That's my answer.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay, but let me ask the question. In your many years as an investigator, you learned that these reports become part of the process and go to the defense — you know that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you have no reason to believe that that didn't happen here?
CRAIG ISOM: I have no reason to believe otherwise in this case.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, the third thing that Luis Rivera says — the third and final piece of direct evidence, all the evidence that he gives against Katherine Magbanua — is that there was this supposed meeting the day after the murder where the payment was made, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that your reports discuss the cell phone proximity of all these people on the morning of July 19th?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So let me back up to make sure that that's clear for the jury here. The murder happens on July 18, 2014, right? July 19, 2014, it is believed that there is a meeting between Luis Rivera, Sigfredo Garcia, and Katherine Magbanua where a payment is made.
MR. DECOSTE: And Luis Rivera says, "Well, Katherine's there and she makes a payment."
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there's some cell phone communications that morning, and then there's also the general proximity of cell phones in the Miami area, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And all of that is explained in the report about the communication activity and the proximity of the phones, correct? So all Luis Rivera would have to do is just pepper in some details to make it into evidence, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Let's make sure the jurors are clear that the conversation was not captured — it was just where the phones were and the duration of the calls. So as far as the payment or anything, that came directly from Rivera, correct?
MR. DECOSTE: So what we're talking about is that Luis Rivera can take it and go: "All right, so there's a phone call at 12:30..."
MR. DECOSTE: "I know there's a phone call, and I know that because they're telling me." "Oh yeah, that was the phone call where I heard there was a murder." He could do that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And again, you agree this is a dangerous guy.
CRAIG ISOM: I've already answered that — yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes. And although you said that you didn't give him the script intentionally, didn't you unintentionally give him the script of what to say, if you want to look at it from that hindsight?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's all the direct evidence he gives, correct, against Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: To my recollection.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's go to one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that the state asked you about — the paychecks from the Adelson Institute, right? Your theory is that it was payment for involvement in the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I just know she received compensation for no known duties — nothing that she did anything for them.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's great — that's great for their theory, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I guess so, yeah. I mean, getting paid and not having responsibilities — again...
MR. DECOSTE: ...their theory. That's great for their theory to have... payment for no actual work, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you can't say whether she actually worked or not, because you agree with me that you didn't fully investigate.
CRAIG ISOM: Not following.
MR. DECOSTE: All right, so Charlie Adelson — he works at the Adelson Institute, and that's a brick-and-mortar location, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But he's a traveling periodontist?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And if you'd explain to the jury what that is — he goes to other dentists' offices to do special work, so he's not working at one location constantly, correct? Now...
MR. DECOSTE: You were aware of Katherine Magbanua's job description, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: You weren't aware that she was communicating with patients?
MR. DECOSTE: Do you not remember, or is that a no — she wasn't?
CRAIG ISOM: To my knowledge, she was not contacting patients.
MR. DECOSTE: Would it refresh your recollection to take a look at your deposition?
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: You understand — don't read it out loud, just read it to yourself, and then when you're...
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Go ahead.
MR. DECOSTE: Please rephrase. Did that help your memory?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: What was Katherine Magbanua's job description at the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: According to what was talked about on the phone, it was contacting patients. And that would be the wiretap of Charlie and Katie — Katherine Magbanua's phone.
MR. DECOSTE: So surreptitious recordings of Katherine Magbanua speaking to Charles Adelson talks about her working at the Adelson Institute.
CRAIG ISOM: It's just reference of contacting patients. And that would — his patients are what?
MR. DECOSTE: He's only a dentist, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: He's not a doctor. He doesn't have patients in another field of work, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: So his only patients would be through his dental work.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And she was getting paid for doing work for the dental office — that's what was said. So you would agree with me that she's working at the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
CRAIG ISOM: No, I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Would the work of communicating with patients require her to be in any specific office?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Were you aware whether she did or did not have a work phone?
CRAIG ISOM: I never found any evidence of a work phone. I did not know whether she had a work phone.
MR. DECOSTE: Could you explain to this jury what you did to look for it?
CRAIG ISOM: Didn't come across anything. There was never a reference to any other phone number besides the one she maintained that we had.
MR. DECOSTE: My question was: what did you do to look for it?
CRAIG ISOM: Didn't have anything to do with it — but, you had this — I didn't look for a phone, a separate phone. That's what you're asking.
MR. DECOSTE: You had this information from surreptitious recordings — recordings that they don't know about — where she's talking about communicating with patients. So you knew that there was a lead there, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't remember if the reference to patients was at the beginning of the wiretap or later on, when I felt like they were suspicious.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about what other investigation. Did you go and speak to patients?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, whether they've spoken to Katherine —
MR. DECOSTE: Did you even try?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: You could have gone to the Adelson Institute, stood out front, and asked people, "Hey, do you know who this person is?"
CRAIG ISOM: Did not do that.
MR. DECOSTE: Going back for a second to the wiretaps —
MR. DECOSTE: The wiretaps were over a period of time in April, roughly May, of 2016, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you reviewed those yourself.
CRAIG ISOM: I reviewed a good portion of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, what's been termed "the bump" — the communication between law enforcement and Donna Adelson — that doesn't happen until around the 20th, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And in your review of all of the phone calls prior to that bump, before anybody knew anything was going on, you heard phone calls where it was talking about —
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection — hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if we can go sidebar.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, I'm going to frame this a little bit better for you, just for the jury. The government asked you the question about whether there was any evidence that she worked for the Adelson Institute on direct, and your answer was no, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I've now asked you whether you reviewed the wiretap — specifically those prior to the bump, before anybody was thinking "hey, law enforcement is looking at us" — right?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. In your review of the wiretaps, are you aware of the call on April 15, 2016, at 12:03 and 10 seconds, where Ms. Magbanua says to Charles Adelson, quote, "still work for you"?
CRAIG ISOM: Still what?
MR. DECOSTE: Still work for you.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall that offhand.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that a phone call where she says "still work for you" is evidence that she works for him?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know what context that was in. I'm not sure what preceded that or what was discussed beforehand. That terminology could mean a lot of things.
MR. DECOSTE: Could also mean that she works for the Adelson Institute and is legitimately receiving paychecks, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yep.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, not only did you have the wiretaps and have all this call detail record — at one point you get Charles Adelson's iCloud data, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, iCloud data, for anybody that doesn't know — that's all your information that you have in the cloud with Apple for an iPhone, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: My understanding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It includes text messages, phone call logs, notes, calendar events, contacts, stuff like that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know to what extreme it collects everything, but —
MR. DECOSTE: And you, as a lead investigator of course, so you reviewed those iMessages, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I reviewed some. I may not have reviewed by myself for all of them.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you remember on August 12, 2014?
CRAIG ISOM: I actually didn't hear a thing.
CRAIG ISOM: Same response here. Over the road.
MR. DECOSTE: On August 12, 2014 through August 13, 2014, where Ms. Magbanua sends a text message to Mr. Adelson saying, "Can you call me when you get a chance? Have something to ask you about your site. I'm not saying today — any time of the week, because he's asking me and telling me to call your office to get some info and to set up a meeting, but I'm going to tell him to just meet you up anywhere you're at." Response: "I will call him first break today, today" — repeated — "to set something up."
MR. DECOSTE: "Can you text me his contact info?"
MR. DECOSTE: And that was read correctly — there was just a mistake. That was from Magbanua to Adels— Charlie Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that was August 14th, August of 2014?
CRAIG ISOM: August 12th and August 13th.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall that specifically, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You remember that the government's exhibit is somewhere here, but the —
MR. DECOSTE: Government's exhibit is from Paychex, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when did these paychecks start?
CRAIG ISOM: Now at the bottom, the date right there — I can't read it from here, but I believe it's September of 2014.
MR. DECOSTE: September 18, 2014 — that's when the paychecks start, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now staying on the topic of the iMessages — in your review, your objective review — do you remember the text message where Katherine Magbanua texted Charles Adelson on September 14, 2014, four days before that?
MR. DECOSTE: "Text him. I'll let you know my availability so you can know more or less how many hours I can dedicate. Thank you again."
MR. DECOSTE: " Is that, or is that not, evidence that she's about to start working for him and receiving paychecks?
CRAIG ISOM: That sounds like it is.
MR. DECOSTE: Next, on September 17, 2014 —
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine Magbanua sends a text message to Charles Adelson: "That's awesome! Exclamation point. Thank you so much."
MR. DECOSTE: "I'll call them to make sure they put me in the schedule. You said my full name."
MR. DECOSTE: Charles Adelson to Katherine Magbanua: "No problem. You're helping me out more than I'm helping you. I'm excited to —" Excuse me, that's Katherine Magbanua: "No problem. You're helping me out more than I'm helping you."
MR. DECOSTE: "I'm excited to start. Yay."
MR. DECOSTE: Next message: "Cool. It should work good. I did say you would call. I did not give your full name, but just say — but just call. It's cool." Response: "KK." Now, these messages are in September 17, 2014. Sounds —
CRAIG ISOM: — like it.
MR. DECOSTE: So the answer that was given to the State of "no evidence that she's working" — that was incorrect, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No, that was my answer to the State. In your text message, I don't even know what preceded the first part of that "Awesome" — what was the awesome in reference to?
MR. DECOSTE: How do you — how do you not know? You said you reviewed the iMessages.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't have them all right here in front of me. You're — you're referring and picking up in midstream and saying "Awesome" and starting off this whole diatribe. I don't know what the message was before that.
MR. DECOSTE: So do me a favor — explain to this jury what could have preceded "I'll let you know my availability so you can know more or less how many hours I can dedicate. Okay, thank you again."
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection — calls for speculation, argumentative.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. He's already answered the question.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's move on. In your review of the iMessages, you also came across the messages on November 6, 2014, where Charles Adelson writes to Katherine Magbanua: "Put that you work in the office, not at home."
CRAIG ISOM: "Put" — was that the first word you said?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. Let me know if you — let me know if you need me to re-read it. "Put that you work in the office, not at home."
MR. DECOSTE: Next message: "No shit, Sherlock." My apologies, Judge. Response: "lol."
MR. DECOSTE: Next: "I don't know pay period dates. Can you call me? I'm driving, focusing first."
MR. DECOSTE: " So evidence of when she's working there, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's a message that says, "Put that you work in the office, not at home," right?
CRAIG ISOM: I heard you.
MR. DECOSTE: That would indicate two things to you, right? That she is working for the Adelson Institute, right?
CRAIG ISOM: He's telling her what to put on something. I have no idea what that's in reference to.
MR. DECOSTE: But it says in there, "Put that you work in the office, not at home." That was a big deal for you on direct — the fact that you never saw her leave home and go to the Adelson Institute, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All of this lines up with the fact of what you found out in your investigation: that what she was doing was communicating with patients, and she was doing it remotely.
CRAIG ISOM: Could have been easily explained at answering the subpoena, but it never was.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, do me a favor. Look at this jury. Can you — can you tell them conclusively that she did not work for Charles Adelson legitimately, receiving that money?
CRAIG ISOM: I can tell you that I could find no evidence of what duties, how she was employed, what schedule, or any way that would adjust for this compensation.
CRAIG ISOM: Nothing.
CRAIG ISOM: I could not find anything.
CRAIG ISOM: And it was subpoenaed to the office. You would think that an office could supply an application, a W-4, a schedule, duty.
CRAIG ISOM: Nothing was provided. Only — excuse me — only that these paychecks were paid to her on those days.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, my question was: can you conclusively say to them, no, she didn't work there?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Because there's evidence that indicates that she did, right?
CRAIG ISOM: You've read it out.
CRAIG ISOM: I've stated my answer.
MR. DECOSTE: Let me give you a name. And this is — we're talking about your investigation — Juan Marcos Vega.
MR. DECOSTE: Are you aware of who that is? I — I bet you remember the name. That he was a Latin King?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't even recall whether he's a Latin King.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you ever take a look at Luis Rivera's federal indictment?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sure I did. I don't, at this point — I don't recall what exactly it said.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you recall that he was a co-defendant — Luis Rivera's federal indictment?
MR. DECOSTE: Would it have refreshed your recollection to take a look at the indictment?
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, the objection's overruled. Go ahead and show it to him.
MR. DECOSTE: Sure. Make sure you show that to the state. I —
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall reading this before. I mean, I can sit here and read the whole thing, but I don't recall reading this before. This is a federal indictment.
MR. DECOSTE: Fair enough. If you don't remember, look at it.
CRAIG ISOM: Did.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, Jason Newland — he's an investigator for Ms. Cappleman in the State Attorney's Office, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Works with the prosecution.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. When you were working the case and still the lead investigator, did you ever receive information from him concerning the name Juan Marcos Vega?
CRAIG ISOM: I did receive a couple of different names from him, and that may have been one of them.
CRAIG ISOM: I did not.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know if Investigator Newland did, but unless I documented it and have forgotten about it, then it was not my place.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. We're just talking about you.
CRAIG ISOM: I did not.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to Luis Rivera, and specifically the statements that he made to you on October 4th, 2016. You and Agent Patrick Sanford from the FBI — you sit down with him and you have a recorded interview, right? October 4th, 2016, correct? And that was at Jefferson County —
CRAIG ISOM: Jefferson County Jail.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, a couple days before that — September 30th, 2016 — you have your first meeting with him.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, for the jury — these two meetings, these aren't investigative meetings, right? These are proffers. This is where he's showcasing what information he can give you to get a deal.
CRAIG ISOM: I just take the information as part of the investigation. I have nothing to do with the deal. But yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. You get the information, you then pass it over to the government, but it's ultimately the — the — the currency that he has to get a deal, right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's what he — yes, that's the way I understand it works.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes. The first meeting with him on September 30th, 2016 — it was not recorded, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: But could have been?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You were notified, as you told us before, the day before — on September 29th, 2016, right?
CRAIG ISOM: September 29th, I was notified that the next day they requested me — myself and Agent Sanford — to interview him at the Jefferson County Jail, which would be September 30th.
MR. DECOSTE: So you'd agree with me that you had time to prepare?
MR. DECOSTE: Time to prepare a recording device.
CRAIG ISOM: There was already a recording device at the Jefferson County Jail.
MR. DECOSTE: And you were told?
CRAIG ISOM: I was informed of that.
MR. DECOSTE: And yet it still wasn't recorded?
CRAIG ISOM: It was not recorded.
MR. DECOSTE: And that was a decision to not record it, because the capabilities were right there. You were in an interview room, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, you were in the same room that days later you did the recorded interview, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You also had cameras of your own.
CRAIG ISOM: Uh, back up in that — cameras of my own?
MR. DECOSTE: Let me help you out. Right after that meeting, you get into a van and go looking for the gun, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right. I was supplied a body cam that uniformed officers primarily wear.
CRAIG ISOM: I was supplied that right before we went on a van ride on September 30th, 2016 to retrace the steps — the route they took that day.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, as law enforcement, you don't need approval to record. You can do it surreptitiously, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me that the September 30, 2016 interview or proffer should have been recorded, right? You'd agree with me on that?
CRAIG ISOM: Not necessarily. It was a decision by the State Attorney's Office not to record it.
MR. DECOSTE: We didn't record it. And all we have is your account of it.
CRAIG ISOM: I did a detailed report on what was said during that meeting. It's not verbatim, it's not a recording, but it's my record.
MR. DECOSTE: It's summarized, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that word is specifically used in your report — that this is summarized, correct? So it's more of your opinion of what he's saying.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that you're not writing down quotes, like the court reporter here is taking down exactly what I'm saying, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That's not what's in your report.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Your report is "Rivera said this, Rivera said that," correct? Not a quote — open quote, "This is what he said," close quote. It's you saying what you think he's saying.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to another name.
MR. DECOSTE: Anthony Ortiz. You know who that is, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I know the name. It's been a while. I don't recall his involvement in anything.
MR. DECOSTE: Anthony Ortiz — I do remember the name. And he goes by the nickname of Hebaro. Okay?
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that he was a Latin King, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you're saying that you're not sure of any involvement.
MR. DECOSTE: On direct examination, the government moved in through you Luis Rivera's call detail records. And you reviewed those when you were on the case, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The morning of July 19th, there was a bunch of communications with Luis Rivera and Anthony Ortiz — King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: We weren't monitoring Luis Rivera's calls. Is that what you're referring to?
MR. DECOSTE: Let me rephrase it. July 19th, 2014 — the day after the murder, right? When Luis Rivera tells this story that Katherine Magbanua is there for the payment of money — remember that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You have Luis Rivera's call detail records from that morning, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's a whole bunch of communications amongst all the other people, where he's communicating with King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I have to take your word for it. I don't recall it specifically, but I know that King Anthony — or Hebaro — does get involved as far as going to pick up someone.
MR. DECOSTE: You never interviewed King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall interviewing King Anthony, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You think that you would have written a report if you interviewed King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Luis Rivera never made any mention to you about a third trip to Tallahassee, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I've never heard of a third trip — only two.
MR. DECOSTE: In all his statements to you — and in total, how many statements were there?
MR. DECOSTE: 5-27-2016, 6-3-2016, 9-30-2016, 10-4-2016, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: No mention of a third trip, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Your reports only talked about two trips, though, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about the gun.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't have the murder weapon in this case.
CRAIG ISOM: Do not.
MR. DECOSTE: You know the route that was taken by Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera after the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I-75?
CRAIG ISOM: Well, from here, I-10. But yes, then 75.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you know this because the cell phone communications track the route that they take.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Ultimately, the search for the murder weapon has stopped.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. There were a few attempts that were made in 2016.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes. And that's it, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know if there's been anything since I retired.
MR. DECOSTE: In your time on it.
CRAIG ISOM: It was limited to the end of September, the beginning of October 2016.
MR. DECOSTE: The end of September through October, you said. Correct?
CRAIG ISOM: That sounds about right. I don't recall exactly when the last attempt was. It may have been as late as early November.
CRAIG ISOM: We desperately were looking for where the gun had been discarded.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the reason why you're out there looking for it is because Luis Rivera is supposedly trying to help you find it, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: He tells you Sigfredo Garcia, you know, threw it near a bridge.
MR. DECOSTE: Right. But ultimately, he was never able to give you the exact location.
CRAIG ISOM: No, he was not.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I'm sorry — may I... I'm showing you a remark that says, you know...
CRAIG ISOM: I've seen it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's the — well, I've got to lay this foundation.
MR. DECOSTE: That's the drawing that Luis Rivera did for you to help you locate the murder weapon, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And you know what that is because you were in the room when he handed it over to you and Agent Sanford.
CRAIG ISOM: I believe, yes, on October 4th, I believe.
MR. DECOSTE: And it's in the same circumstances, the same condition it was in when you received it on October 4th?
CRAIG ISOM: It doesn't appear.
JUDGE WHEELER: Does the State have any objection in response to the defense's bid?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, it'll be admitted as defense exhibit six.
MR. DECOSTE: Is the best thing he could do for you, right?
CRAIG ISOM: He offered it — it was not even solicited. He just, when he came in for the interview, um, at some point he produced it, and uh, with his limited education, that's what he got.
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: Career criminal?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, my understanding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Potentially with a motive of not wanting you to find that gun, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I — I truly believe he thought it would help somehow for his credibility. If he could find the gun, he believed it would help his credibility.
MR. DECOSTE: He thought finding the gun would help his credibility?
CRAIG ISOM: I can't help his artistic talent.
CRAIG ISOM: That's where he drove. He explained — he was very consistent in explaining — you cross over this bridge, and you pull over on the side of the road right next to this guardrail.
MR. DECOSTE: Well, there's only about 10 dozen of those things along I-75 if you go south. Or perhaps he just wanted to present himself as appearing helpful so that he could get a deal.
CRAIG ISOM: I think the deal was already done at that point.
MR. DECOSTE: October 4, 2016?
MR. DECOSTE: October 4th, 2016 — took the plea the next day, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know. I mean, he — what — this trips were after that. These trips were all later than that. He trips down to South Florida to try to locate the gun, or after he'd already entered his plea, to my understanding.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, understand, you've been retired for years and it's years out — correct me if I'm wrong: you speak with him on September 30th, 2016, you get into a van that day and you're going to look for the gun, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Now that's — for incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: You disagree that you went to look for the gun on September 30th, 2016?
CRAIG ISOM: I do disagree with that.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay, let's go back to Ms. Magbanua and her arrest. You were present with Agent Sanford in South Florida when Ms. Magbanua was arrested?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: As she's arrested the day after Luis Rivera?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's 10 to 15 law enforcement that's around Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Guns are drawn?
CRAIG ISOM: There are some guns drawn.
MR. DECOSTE: She didn't flee?
CRAIG ISOM: She did not flee.
MR. DECOSTE: She was so scared by the police presence and the firepower that she urinated herself, apparently. Apparently you saw it, right? You were there.
CRAIG ISOM: I — I was told. I did not witness that actual action, but I was told she had.
MR. DECOSTE: The reason why you and Agent Sanford were there — you didn't have to be there for the arrest, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Uh, we wanted the opportunity in case her counsel decided to allow her to speak to us. We wanted to be there.
MR. DECOSTE: You were hoping that she would cooperate, of course, to further advance this theory that you believed was correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection — argumentative.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
CRAIG ISOM: The answer — to further advance the theory, sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And it was your words that if she had cooperated, "No charges, nothing — you can walk out of jail once we get all this testimony from you."
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: And that's your — what's the question?
MR. DECOSTE: That he made that statement.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, you can answer whether or not you made that statement.
CRAIG ISOM: I'd like to have it repeated.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, you can repeat that.
MR. DECOSTE: Would it help you to read your deposition? Do you want that, or do you want me to —
CRAIG ISOM: I just — just the question is fine. I just — there was a lot going on here.
MR. DECOSTE: And your words specifically, and your intent and your motive at that point specifically, was "No charges, nothing — you can walk out of jail once we get all this testimony from you."
CRAIG ISOM: That's what I reportedly said, yes. No, totally incorrect.
JUDGE WHEELER: Briefly.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you had a direct examination about some phone calls, right? That you allowed Ms. Magbanua to call Ms. Kawass.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And about ten minutes later, you get a phone call from Mr. Adelson's attorney at the time.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your belief is that that somehow establishes a connection in between Ms. Magbanua and Mr. Adelson, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection — relevance.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. If you know — if you can answer.
CRAIG ISOM: I thought that, uh, it was quite significant that another co-defendant or unindicted co-defendant's attorney had already learned about Ms. Magbanua's arrest so quickly. There was no press release. It was within minutes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's jump into this. So Ms. Magbanua was arrested, yes? You contact Ms. Kawass, and the hope is for cooperation at that point in time?
CRAIG ISOM: Actually, it was just — the phone was held up so Ms. Magbanua could talk to the counsel.
MR. DECOSTE: You didn't take the phone away and have a specific conversation with Ms. Kawass where she asked you for a copy of the arrest warrant to even know why Ms. Magbanua was arrested?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall that. I think we had a separate phone call from my own phone.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, are you aware of who else Ms. Magbanua called? Now, are you aware that she called Sigfredo Garcia's attorney Sam Zanganeh to find out if he knew anything about what was going on?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection Speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. If you know.
CRAIG ISOM: I've heard of it. I've heard that she did call more than one attorney, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know whether Mr. Zanganeh called Mr. Marcus?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection Speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: If you know.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know?
CRAIG ISOM: I have no —
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the purpose of the communications — there'd be nothing wrong with attorneys communicating with one another to say, "Hey, has your client been charged as well too? I don't have a copy of an arrest warrant, we want to know what's going on." Anything wrong in that?
CRAIG ISOM: At face value, doesn't sound like it.
MR. DECOSTE: Sounds like it's pretty quick though, isn't it? Just looking at everybody and anything through dirty windows instead of clean windows.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's argumentative — you don't have to answer that.
MR. DECOSTE: The next — you don't deny that Ms. Kawass was trying to get a copy of the arrest warrant from you to know the basis for the arrest, right? You don't deny that?
CRAIG ISOM: No, I didn't have a copy with me. I didn't have a copy on me to provide. She was not on scene. Ms. Kawass was at another location, and I told her where Katherine Magbanua would be transported, which was the Broward Main Jail, it's called, and that's where she could meet her client. And if she had, after meeting her client, if she decided to provide us any information, she knew my phone number.
MR. DECOSTE: May I have one brief moment?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Alright, investigator, last topic here. We're going to turn the attention back on Ms. Magbanua specifically with evidence of innocence. There are hundreds of phone calls in this case, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You've reviewed those?
CRAIG ISOM: I can't swear that I've reviewed all of them, but I've reviewed a good portion.
MR. DECOSTE: You trust that they've been reviewed by law enforcement though, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, to my knowledge, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree that in those — in those secret recordings of literally hundreds of phone calls in this matter, there is not one admission of involvement or reference of involvement in this case, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: There is evidence though that she was working at the Adelson Institute, though, right? From what — what you provided beforehand. Now —
MR. DECOSTE: There's also text messages — hundreds of thousands of text messages, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Those have been reviewed by law enforcement, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I did not review them, no, but someone else may have. I'm sure they did.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing incriminating against Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: I have no idea. I can't attest to that.
MR. DECOSTE: Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera are arrested in May, June 2016, and there's a lot of media about it, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: She didn't flee, right?
CRAIG ISOM: She didn't flee.
MR. DECOSTE: Continued living her normal life, right?
CRAIG ISOM: To my knowledge. There were probable cause affidavits.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, for the jury again, a probable cause affidavit — that's attached to the arrest warrant, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's that narrative, that long explanation of what's going on. There was an earlier version of an arrest warrant that was leaked to the media months before Ms. Magbanua's arrest, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: I remember — I remember something to that effect, but I don't — I don't think that was Magbanua's arrest warrant.
MR. DECOSTE: That it was both Charles Adelson and Ms. Magbanua — that there were arrest warrants that were leaked.
CRAIG ISOM: I just recall the one for Charlie Adelson. I didn't remember that there was one — I don't recall there was one specifically for Magbanua. Whether it could have been, I don't know how they were leaked.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay, so let's stay on your topic — that one was leaked for Charles Adelson to the media, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I just know I remember seeing it, yeah, but that's the only knowledge of that I have.
MR. DECOSTE: And within that arrest warrant, that PC affidavit to the arrest warrant, had talked about the theory that Ms. Magbanua was involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know if that was in there or not. I don't know if that part of my report or any documentation that I did was in that document.
MR. DECOSTE: But those narrative sections are pretty thorough, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sorry, the narrative sections?
MR. DECOSTE: Of a warrant — to get a warrant, because you have to establish enough to be able to make an arrest, right?
CRAIG ISOM: They don't necessarily — or not, you know, everything in the case, if that's what you're saying.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay, but what we're getting at here is that that's leaked to the media, and it's out there for Ms. Magbanua to see, right? Okay, she doesn't flip — she never fled. There was a 20/20 special — you saw that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: A 20/20 special — national television — naming her as involved in this case, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, she was named.
MR. DECOSTE: She went about her normal day. It's evidence of innocence, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't think you want me to comment on that either way.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE WHEELER: Redirect?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are you familiar with the attempts to interview Katherine Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And simultaneously, Sigfredo Garcia, her husband, the shooter?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, and that was done on what date?
CRAIG ISOM: The 24 — I think it was May 24th, if I remember right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, of what year?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sorry, of 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and were you part of those?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Interview attempts?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was your role in the interview attempts?
CRAIG ISOM: Myself and a task force officer from South Florida went to the residence at the time for Ms. Magbanua. We knew she was home, and we went there and —
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor — beyond the scope of direct and cross-examination.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
MR. DECOSTE: Permission for recross on the same topic?
JUDGE WHEELER: No, not at this point.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She was home.
CRAIG ISOM: We went to that location in an attempt to interview her, to talk to her about her involvement and get as much information from her as possible before arresting her. We had no intention of arresting her. She would not come to the door.
CRAIG ISOM: She actually was on a phone call with a co-worker of Sigfredo Garcia.
CRAIG ISOM: And said she knew —
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, hearsay. Move to strike.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so she didn't come to the door.
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long were you out there?
CRAIG ISOM: Fifteen minutes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Knocking on the door?
CRAIG ISOM: Knocking on the door, standing out front, showing ourselves visibly.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what did she do after that?
CRAIG ISOM: She — she called back. Well, she tried to get a hold of Rivera — I'm sorry, Garcia — and eventually they did talk to each other. I don't recall what happened after that specifically that same day.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yeah, she packed up her stuff.
CRAIG ISOM: Well, okay, yes. Eventually later that day she did pack up her stuff and she left that residence, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She fled that residence.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Mischaracter— mischaracterization of the evidence. If we can please go sidebar.
JUDGE WHEELER: No, I don't need to at this point. That's overruled. You can continue.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She didn't stay at that residence again.
CRAIG ISOM: No, she did not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And she dumped her cell phone that day, didn't she?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And went and bought a burner phone, didn't she?
CRAIG ISOM: They met at Walmart.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Her and Sigfredo — her and Sigfredo both got burner phones that day, didn't they?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You don't make deals with criminal defendants, do you?
CRAIG ISOM: No. I have no authority to do that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you negotiate how many years somebody's going to get?
CRAIG ISOM: Nothing like that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you control what it is that a witness is going to give as a statement?
CRAIG ISOM: No, nothing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you suggest certain things would be good to give as a statement?
CRAIG ISOM: I can't. I have no authority and I wouldn't do that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you didn't do that with Luis Rivera, did you?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever hear a statement come out of Luis Rivera's mouth — were you ever present for a statement from Luis Rivera that did not include this defendant, Katherine Magbanua, hiring him and Sigfredo Garcia to come up here and kill Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: No. It was consistently — his statement was always — included Katherine Magbanua.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: When — when you went to Coleman Prison to talk to him initially, he wasn't under arrest.
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He didn't have anything to plead to.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: We're getting into leading questions.
JUDGE WHEELER: That is leading questions. Please rephrase your question, Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did he have anything to plead to?
CRAIG ISOM: No. He wasn't charged with anything.
CRAIG ISOM: He was not at that time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Wasn't it Luis Rivera that told law enforcement for the first time that the money drop occurred the morning after the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Because we thought maybe it was the night before. We really didn't know, right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And after Luis Rivera told law enforcement that the money drop happened the morning after the murder, that's when Chris Corbitt looked at the phones and found all the evidence to corroborate that statement.
JUDGE WHEELER: What's your objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Leading, beyond the personal knowledge of this witness. She's talking about what another witness knows.
JUDGE WHEELER: It's not leading. Overruled. You can answer the question.
CRAIG ISOM: That's how it occurred, correct — that it provided — what he provided was a basis to look at where each individual phone was, where each of the phones were that day.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At a certain time.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that wasn't something he read in the report?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In fact, he didn't read anything in the report, did he?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Again, leading questions.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's a leading question.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Luis Rivera read anything?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't think he's capable of reading, not very well. No. I — I don't know what education level he's at, but I know that he's limited. He's limited on what he can read.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The defense asked you about the evidence that their client was contacting patients. Was the evidence that you were shown on cross-examination by the defense any evidence of her — I mean, was she contacting a patient in what they showed you?
CRAIG ISOM: It didn't show that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So she's talking about contacting a patient?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And you're familiar with the wiretap in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Maybe not every single call verbatim, but in general, you get the idea of the wiretap?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You've heard a lot of those calls?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And are the parties speaking in code on those calls?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Move to strike, and improper opinion.
JUDGE WHEELER: I'm going to agree with that. That's sustained.
JUDGE WHEELER: And so the jury's to disregard that. Ask another question.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are the parties on those calls specifically referencing contacting patients in a way that does not suggest they're really contacting patients?
MR. DECOSTE: Hold on. Your Honor, objection, and for the record: counsel has just done air quotes to indicate that somehow it was coding. It's a violation of the motions in limine. Please go sidebar.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. No, that's overruled. I'll allow the question.
JUDGE WHEELER: Ask the question.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are people talking about contacting patients on this wire in such a way that does not appear there are any contacts being made with patients?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, improper opinion.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, it appears that it's staged language.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you don't anywhere on the wire have any calls where Katherine Magbanua actually called any patients?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are you familiar with Katherine Magbanua's prior testimony in this case on October 9th, 2019?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection? Hold on.
JUDGE WHEELER: What's your objection?
MR. DECOSTE: We can go sidebar on this one.
JUDGE WHEELER: We'll go sidebar on this one.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So I wanted to ask you about some of these iCloud text messages that you were asked about on cross-examination.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Okay. One of them had to do with — just a moment — getting on the schedule.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You recall that one? Being asked about that?
CRAIG ISOM: Something about a schedule, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And that was offered to you as evidence that — her family worked at the Adelson Institute, yeah?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Would it refresh your recollection to see the entire text thread in context?
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You have to click your way backwards.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Let me know when you're done.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Hey, so does that refresh your recollection?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't re— yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You reviewed the context of that "put me on the schedule" comment now?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what does it appear, based on your review of the context, that they were talking about in reference to putting her on the schedule?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, relevance and improper opinion.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
CRAIG ISOM: It's, uh, this — Magbanua is scheduling to get a wisdom tooth removed.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: By whom?
CRAIG ISOM: By Charlie.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, look at it again because I — maybe it's not clear.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I can hear you from here.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So all right, so she's communicating with Charlie?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And that is his line — line of work.
CRAIG ISOM: That is his line of work, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about, on cross, about her making a phone call for him in August of 2014, and you were specifically asked about a message involving something about a site. You remember that?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, that was in — that was August 12th of 2014?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: September 18, 2014, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And then lastly, you were asked about a message involving Charlie Adelson instructing Ms. Magbanua to say she worked at the office, rather — or to put that she worked at the office rather than at home?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay And in that message, did you have an opportunity to review that message?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So what is Charlie Adelson advising her to do in those?
CRAIG ISOM: It's hard for me to see. It appears that he's saying put that you work in the office, not at home. She responds, "No —"
CRAIG ISOM: "Shit, yeah." Well, we already went over that. "No shit, Sherlock. LOL."
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And we don't know the context as far as what form or document, or to whom she's representing she works at the office, do we, based on that exhibit?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Um, and it appears — it suggests that she's to misrepresent where she's working, doesn't it?
CRAIG ISOM: That's what it sounds like, because it says, "I don't know pay period dates."
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, leading. Counsel testifying.
JUDGE WHEELER: Would you — let's, uh, put it in the form of a question.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Would you expect someone to know the pay period dates if they were employed?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So based on this further review of those text messages, as you said here today, do you have any evidence that Katherine Magbanua was in fact employed at the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She was getting a paycheck from there?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Nothing further.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. That concludes our testimony for today, and so I'm going to excuse you for the day. I'm going to ask that you come back tomorrow again at 8:30. We'll start promptly after everyone has arrived. And I'm gonna again remind you, don't watch any news reports, don't look at anything on the internet, don't have any conversations with any friends or family members or with each other, and we'll see everybody here tomorrow morning at 8:30 and we'll start soon after that, okay? Have a good evening. Thank you. You can just leave your pads on your chairs and we'll take care of those.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, Mr. Isom, you may step down.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, the jury is out of the courtroom, the door is closed, and that concludes the testimony for today. Just a few things before we break. Tomorrow morning we're going to hear from Wendi Adelson's attorney. We'll hear that first off, and whatever he wants to put on the record. I've given him permission to do that. I think you already have my ruling in regards to Ms. Adelson's testimony, so we anticipate that she'll be testifying, Ms. Cappleman, tomorrow morning, okay? All right. So my previous ruling is that the cross-examination will be limited by whatever the direct examination is, and also any future calling of Ms. Adelson for purposes of testifying under a defense subpoena, if we know now what we anticipate we're going to hear from her attorney — that she's just going to take the Fifth, that she will not be called to testify under those pretenses. Also, just for planning purposes and security purposes, do you anticipate that Mr. Rivera will be testifying tomorrow, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor. We do hope to get to Mr. Rivera tomorrow afternoon.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, tomorrow afternoon.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. And so that was one thing that, Mr. DeCoste, that you had requested in regards to particular witnesses — to know if they are going to testify so that you can be prepared with whatever items you need to bring for court. So you do know that those two particular witnesses, we anticipate they'll testify tomorrow. Okay.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, so we'll break for the evening. The jury's coming at 8:30.
JUDGE WHEELER: Let's be ready to go here in the courtroom at 8:45, and then we'll start either at that time. We'll hear from Wendi Adelson's attorney first, and then we'll start with the testimony back up. Okay, everyone have a good evening. Thank you. We'll be in recess.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Your Honor, one brief matter.
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Investigator Isom, we would like him to remain under government subpoena.
MR. DECOSTE: And he is also under ours, and most likely will be called in our case-in-chief.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, so Mr. Isom, you are still under subpoena. You need to, uh, communicate with the State, uh, in anticipation of potentially being recalled, and they'll, uh, let you know — uh, either side will be in contact with you in regards to that, okay? All right.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, the final order from the court — that the rule has been invoked, and you're not watching any of the testimony of other witnesses.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, Mr. Isom? You know that. No discussions with any other witnesses. You can talk with the attorneys, but no reading of anything else in regards to the trial until your testimony is concluded, okay?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right, thank you, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Now, Mr. DeCoste, is it okay if we break for the evening?
JUDGE WHEELER: We're in recess. Thank you.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay, thank you, Madam Court Reporter, so I'll probably see you at the next meeting again before we're through.