6.James Keith McElveen — Direct/Cross/Redirect
261 linesJUDGE WHEELER: Have a good day.
LOUIS BRONSTEIN: You too.
JUDGE WHEELER: The State may call its next witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The State calls Keith McElveen.
JUDGE WHEELER: Keith McElveen, please.
(Pause. )
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Good afternoon. Before you have a seat, we're going to swear you in. Please raise your right hand and respond to the clerk.
whereupon, KEITH MCELVEEN was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE WHEELER: Please have a seat.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sir, please introduce yourself and spell your name.
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: James Keith McElveen, last name is spelled M-C-E-L-V-E-E-N.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How are you employed, sir?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I'm a forensic engineer.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long have you been a forensic engineer?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: About 35 years now.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what is a forensic engineer?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: we take audio, video computer data and try to restore it or enhance it as needed.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what training and experience do you have in this area?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I have given or received over 20 courses in speech enhancement and audio restoration and forensic audio.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And during the course of your employment, have you worked for the federal government?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I have.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you currently are self-employed; is that right?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I work for Wave Sciences, a company that I founded.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. were you asked to clarify the audio from a restaurant recording in the case that we're here about today?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what were you provided with in this case?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Thumb drives with audio and video evidence.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And were they from two separate devices from a restaurant recording?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And what device -- was there one device that was particularly better audio-wise?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes, there were. One device had clear-looking video in the file. The other one had a mesh cover to the video camera. The one that had the mesh cover was the much better audio capture.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So we had one with better video and one with better audio; is that right?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes, exactly.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So your focus is the audio, correct?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So you didn't do anything with the video as far as clarifying the video or doing anything with that?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So let's talk about the audio. So you focused on the second device that had the better audio recording. What types of -- I mean, was it one file or multiple files that you were provided with?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: we were provided with multiple files. Originally it was one huge file, which was too big for our tool to handle without choking. So we then asked for it to be broken up into three pieces, and the pieces we asked to be overlapped so there would be no chance that something would be missed and a word left out here or there.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So this is an approximately 45-minute recording to begin with; is that right?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And we have separated it into what we are calling beginning, middle, and end segments?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And there is some overlap between the two segments to make sure nothing gets lost?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Exactly. I think it was about two minutes per segment of overlap.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what can you tell us about the quality or the issues with the quality on these recordings -- or this recording?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: The audio quality was very poor due to distance, due to noise, and due to the configuration of the equipment. The location changed somewhat. The place that the second recording device was positioned was on a bench. And I believe it was leaning against the operator of the equipment, and, therefore, it would rub against his leg -- or it was propped against his leg from the best that I could tell from looking at the video and listening to the audio. So that created pointing issues as well as rubbing noise issues.
There was music going on. There was -- the way that the device was pointed, it wanted to pick up noises from the kitchen. If and when the video from Device 2 is viewed, you will see behind the male that it is pointed generally toward -- that there is a swinging kitchen door which is very thin. And the dishwashing sink was right beside the door; so you get a lot of dish clatter. There was also, like, coffee grinder and blender noises and all kind of things going on.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Could you explain for the jury the processes that you employed to try to clarify or improve the audio of the voices on the recording?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Initially we used the standard techniques that have been practiced in forensic audio for the last 30 years. They yielded minimal improvement -- some improvement but not significant. So then we used our own tool that I mentioned earlier, and it works in a substantially different way.
Instead of listening in a direction or trying to learn the noise, it tries to learn the person who's talking, and it works to focus in -- all the sound on the recording on that person -- that person's location. So the easiest way to think about it is like with a camera -- when you have a camera lense. So if I focused the camera on your face, things close and far away are going to be all blurry, but your face is going to be sharp. And that's what our tool does, is it focuses in on that person and then blurs out and reduces the rest.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you attempt to focus in on the person of both Charlie Adelson as well as -- well, I should say the male speaker as well as the female speaker on the recording?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Exactly. In each of the three segments, we had to set the tool up independently for each segment. And then in some segments, there just wasn't much voice to deal with. In segment one, the beginning, there is a lot of noise. There is a lot of motion. The operator has not moved very close to the male and the female, and there's not much voice there to get a focused lock on.
Starting at about seven and a half minutes into the first segment, the positioning changes. And it gets a lot more clear, and we could begin getting a lot. And by about -- I think it's 17 and a half minutes in, then they finally move, and a much better lock is capable of being achieved at least on the male. The female did not get a very good lock at all in the first segment.
In the second segment, we were able to get a lock on the female for the first time, and the lock on the male was still good.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So was there a significant difference in the quality or ability to clarify the male voice versus the female voice in general?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes, there was. The male voice was stronger, partly because being masculine and a stronger voice box, partly because the male was talking toward -- in the general direction toward the device that's capturing the audio. The female has a softer voice, doesn't talk nearly as much -- so there was fewer opportunities to glimpse her voice -- and then was talking in the general direction away from the recording device.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you --
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: And I would like to just continue one point. You can -- once you've listened to the different segments, the male repeatedly -- eight or more times -- says, What was that, and he was only -- sat two and a half feet maybe when their heads are close together. So he was having difficulty hearing her with her talking in his direction; so the recording device was in a very disadvantaged location.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Even though the recording devices were at the next table?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yeah.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It just kind of worked out that way?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Exactly.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you make some efforts to actually go down to this location and take some measurements of the way sound operates within the room where these recordings were made to try to assist your clarification efforts?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could you tell us about that?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I traveled there to the restaurant location and made a good number of recordings over the period of two days trying to get enough of kind of post-event forensic recordings to see if they could be used. But it was -- we were incapable of getting more than three or four additional words that were just I'm-going-to-the-bathroom type of utterance that -- well, actually not that -- but due to the fact that many things had changed both in the environment and in the recording equipment in the intervening years.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 115. Do you recognize this exhibit?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I do. It has my marks on it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And what does the exhibit contain?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: This is the recordings from the devices that have been enhanced and that I returned to your office.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So does this exhibit contain your best efforts in reference to the voices in the restaurant that day?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: It does.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And is there any part of your processing that actually interferes or changes the voices themselves or the words that are being uttered?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Absolutely not. The way that our tool works is you configure it. You input the audio. You hit process, and then you go away. There's no ability for it to add, to delete, or to otherwise edit any of the content. There's no -- the operator has no ability to make any changes in real time while it's doing its processing. You just get what comes out the end. And then our forensics procedures that we practice in our laboratory require us to follow a certain work flow; so we have a procedure that's gone through, certain steps that are executed the same way for each recording.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And are all of those steps and processes the standard in your field?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes, they are.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Judge, at this time I'd ask to introduce State's Exhibit 115.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. 115 will be admitted into evidence subject to any previous objections.
(State's Exhibit 115 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE WHEELER: Cross-examination?
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you.
CROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Better up here. How are you doing? I hope you had a good flight down.
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes, thank you.
MR. DECOSTE: Just a couple of questions, and you will be heading back to the airport. So Ms. Cappleman asked you about your best efforts. Let's go through the timeline. This recording is from 2016, correct?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The government -- they just came to you a couple of months ago, correct?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: That would be the second time when we received the entire recording set, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So into 2022, you get -- you get handed to you at a gas station parking lot halfway between where you're from and Florida, right? And you get handed the raw data?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: The raw data for Device 2, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you're given a very short timeframe to work on these items, correct?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I think that perhaps you're confusing something else in the deposition. The first delivery that we did was using the standard techniques, and that was what we were in a rush to provide before the deposition. we had plenty of time to do this second one where we refocused the audio.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So let me ask that differently. And we're on the same page. The item that the government just gave you to enter and which would be your enhancement, you just provided that recently, correct?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Not that long ago. I don't remember the date exactly, but I can check my notes.
MR. DECOSTE: we're not talking years? we're talking, like, weeks and months, right?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And there was a pressure to get this done within a certain timeframe, correct?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I can't say that I felt pressured to meet any specific date.
MR. DECOSTE: Fair enough. So you were asked questions about the first segment, right?
MR. DECOSTE: There's three total segments. In the first segment -- which would be the introduction, the beginning -- you can't make anything out?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: We gave it -- we provided our best cleanup. I would say that if you listen carefully, you can recover words, but it's not as good as the situation that existed by the time that the operation had progressed and what is captured in segments two and three.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, with respect to the equipment that was used to make the recording, you're aware of that, correct?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I don't understand the question.
MR. DECOSTE: The microphone that was used was a directional microphone?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: It has that capability.
MR. DECOSTE: And your understanding of the one that was used here and how it was used is that it was pointed at the male, not at the female?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: It is my assessment as a forensics examiner based upon looking at the video and listening to the audio. But I should point out that the video was a fish-eye video; so it is distorted.
MR. DECOSTE: Sort of like when you are looking at somebody outside of your door? That type view?
MR. DECOSTE: Okay.
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: And that makes it very difficult unless you have special training in doing the un-distortion of that type of camera image to be able to say exactly where it was pointed.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But based on the audio that you've reviewed, is it your belief that it was focused on the male and not on the female? It's okay to agree with me.
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I would not use the word "focus," and I would say that the device was turned toward that table. But the way that the audio pick up -- and because of the acoustics, I explained earlier, with the male talking more in the direction of the recording device and the female talking -- the voice is propagating away -- in the general direction -- that the net effect was that he ends up being the prominent voice.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. We can agree on that? That what is more prominent is the male voice?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, let's talk about Dolce Vita. You recently went down there, and you took a look at the restaurant, right?
MR. DECOSTE: It is not a big restaurant, is it?
MR. DECOSTE: Is it bigger or smaller than the well? So from the bar there from the Judge all the way back to these tables to the jury and to the screen?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: By volume it is a little bit bigger. It is longer.
MR. DECOSTE: But not much bigger?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Not significantly bigger.
MR. DECOSTE: From you to where? To what row?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Are you talking about from the front door to the very back at the kitchen door? Or what dimension are you asking about?
MR. DECOSTE: wherever a patron could go. A patron is not going to walk into the kitchen.
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: If I'm positioned roughly at the front of the establishment and the first table, as they were configured when I went, which is not necessarily how they were configured during the original operation -- then I would say that the distance was probably -- to the kitchen door was probably about the third to fourth row of bench seats from the rear.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So you're at the entrance. The third to the fourth row right there, that's going to be the back of the restaurant -- roughly? Roughly?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: This is just my rough estimate, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the width of it -- it is not a terribly wide restaurant? Maybe from here to the jury?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: For the patron seating area?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So if somebody were to be sitting in the back, I mean, it is not like there is a back that's, like, all the way in the back of a restaurant -- in a large restaurant where somebody could, you know, be hiding and talking, right?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It is a small, intimate place?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you had said something on direct -- and I just want to understand it correctly -- where you said you knew the distance between the female, Ms. Magbanua, and Mr. Adelson, that you knew their distance. But you weren't there when the recording was made obviously, right?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I was not there when the recording was made. But on the clear video, you can see the male leaning forward and back in his chair. Although the chairs were obviously different chairs than were there during the original recording, the tables looked the same and --
MR. DECOSTE: But you don't know. I mean, it could have been a table that, you know, it's this wide or a little bit wider. You just don't know, right?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes. And I gave an approximate distance. I was not trying to say that it was exactly two and a half feet.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And to help the jury for what they are going to see, basically you're probably where the agent is. You've got Mr. Adelson sitting on this side of the table, and then on the other side of the table, however wide it is, you have Ms. Magbanua. And they're having a conversation --
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Uh-huh.
MR. DECOSTE: -- right? Can we agree on that?
MR. DECOSTE: I think I'm done. Give me one second.
Thank you so much. Good seeing you.
JUDGE WHEELER: Redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So the thumb drive that I showed you that you etched your initials into, this is your final audio product, correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And does this contain video as well, or no?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I would have to go back and look at it again, but I -- what I returned by thumb drive, I believe, for the final process did not contain video.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Right.
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: The first delivery did contain video where we used the standard enhancement techniques, but I do not believe that's the -- that's not the thumb drive you have in your hand.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The thumb drive I have in my hand is the final product, right?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And that's the final best effort on the audio?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: It is.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. But you have also had an opportunity to review the exhibit that my office prepared with your best effort audio as well as the video from the equipment that was in the restaurant that we talked about earlier that had the better video?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I have.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So those two things were put together. And is that a fair and accurate exhibit of the video that you were initially provided with along with your best-effort audio?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Yes. I reviewed the video with the -- with our audio put in it, and I checked two things: One, that the audio seemed to be the same audio, and it was; and, two, that the timing of where the audio was inserted relative to the movements in the video were synchronous. In other words, you know, when somebody's hand made a motion to emphasize an utterance, then the word comes up. When the mouth moves, the word comes up.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And did you initial or do anything to initial that particular item of evidence that has both on it?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: The demonstrative, no, I did not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Judge, I'm going to ask for a brief recess at this time so the witness may review the exhibit and tell us whether it is, in fact, his audio on the video as discussed.
JUDGE WHEELER: And is this on Exhibit 115 or 116? Is that 115?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir. It is 114. I'm going to need a short recess, Judge. I'm sorry.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. we are going to take a short recess then. Please take the jury out, Deputy.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. The jury is out of the courtroom. The door is closed. Please be seated.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So I think what I've done, Your Honor, is introduced the final product, which I intended to introduce with this witness, along with his final product, which is 115. That's correct.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Is 115 just the audio?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, that's the one thing I am confident of. 114 should have been marked 116, which I think this witness is about to tell us is --
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I need an adaptor. I need to borrow a different laptop. Mine will not handle this one.
JUDGE WHEELER: 114 was admitted in through the special agent.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. I admitted the wrong item. So I'm going to have to recall him and admit the real 114, which I did show him the exhibit outside the courtroom and actually played it for him; so I apologize for the confusion. But if this witness is able to say, Yes, it is my audio on the video. It should be 116, but this is the thing I previously showed Bronstein and called 114.
JUDGE WHEELER: So this is what you're calling what on this exhibit list?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The final composite.
JUDGE WHEELER: Dolce Vita composite.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir. 114 -- I basically just didn't show him 114. I showed him -- I showed Bronstein 116, is what I think I did.
MR. DECOSTE: So I had asked the initial question if -- when one of the exhibits was going in if it was the raw data --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Right. And you were right; it wasn't.
JUDGE WHEELER: 114 is the original surveillance raw data.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Correct. And I do have that exhibit, which we can introduce now by stipulation, or I can recall Bronstein and do it again.
MR. DECOSTE: If we could have one second.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
(Pause. )
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We basically just had two exhibits swapped, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And since they are all just thumb drives and discs, it is really hard to tell what's what.
JUDGE WHEELER: So 114 is surveillance. You showed him 116. You need to bring him back to show him 114, which would then be admitted subject to any other objections. we can have that stipulation then, or we can -- or the State's going to recall the witness.
MR. DECOSTE: So, Your Honor, we were discussing it. we fear that there -- you know, in the off chance that there is a mistake and something goes to the jury that shouldn't, that they go through whatever steps they need to go through to ensure that it is the exact items.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This is 114 -- what should have been introduced as 114, and what I would introduce as 114 with Bronstein is currently playing right now. So the Defense can check that out. It is the same item that was previously entered in the previous trial through Bronstein. Got it out of the clerk's office; remarking it.
JUDGE WHEELER: So, basically, what we're doing right now is 114, which was shown to Bronstein -- which 116 was shown to him. 114 is withdrawn at this point unless it's stipulated to by the Defense.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I normally would stipulate because we want it to move smoothly, but we do not want to take responsibility for any mistake that may have happened.
JUDGE WHEELER: well, we are looking at 114 right now. Do you want to look at what 114 is? Or we will go ahead and recall --I don't know what normally -- and why this is abnormal, but the State will just recall the witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Is your witness -- do you want to make sure that he has remained outside?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He is still here. This disc is the same disc he initialed in the last trial. His initials are still on it. So I just showed him the wrong thing.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It is my mistake.
MR. DECOSTE: Just so Your Honor knows, the issue is that we have had so many enhancements in this, I can't just look at it and say that's the right --
JUDGE WHEELER: This is the raw data. This is not the enhancement.
MR. DECOSTE: I understand. And I can't just look at it and know that that's the raw data.
JUDGE WHEELER: She can show it to you.
MR. DECOSTE: But there is no way for us to know if that is the raw data or one that was minimally enhanced. There is so many different versions of it.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Then he will have to identify it then.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's fine, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: And then with respect to the disc, I mean, of course -- and not saying the government did this. But could there have been a situation that the disc is different than the envelope that has the signature --
JUDGE WHEELER: Now you are making all kinds of things up. There has been no allegations of that.
MR. DECOSTE: And I am not making it -- and I am not making it. But, obviously, they had some things that were disorganized, and we don't want --
JUDGE WHEELER: The one mistake that was made was the wrong exhibit was shown to the wrong witness.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
JUDGE WHEELER: And so -- it was a correct witness, but it was the wrong exhibit. So the State will recall. Let's go ahead and -- do you need to make sure -- what do you need to make sure now with this witness?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: TI need this witness to agree that 116 is his audio coupled with the video that he was originally provided.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So has he viewed --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: which he is nodding that he can do.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. why don't you go ahead and ask him questions about that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Proffer him?
JUDGE WHEELER: Please.
PROFFERED EXAMINATION
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Mr. McElveen, have you had an opportunity to review State's 116?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: I have.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what does State's 116 contain?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: To the best of my ability in the current situation, it contains the original video that I was sent by your office coupled with the audio that we returned for Device 2.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, that would be the proffer.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Do you have any questions?
MR. DECOSTE: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So we can bring the jury back in.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: You will ask for it to be admitted through this witness, I'm gathering, correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: And then when you're done with this witness -- and then we will bring in the other witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We have to do Bronstein again. I'm sorry, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Let's bring the jury in, please.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: Please be seated. Thank you for your patience. we are ready to continue with the testimony.
And, Ms. Cappleman, we are ready to proceed with your continuation of the redirect?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you. Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Mr. McElveen, have you had an opportunity to review State's 116?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: 116, I have.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does 116 fairly and accurately contain a copy of your best efforts on the audio as well as that video that we talked about coming from the other device?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Are you calling this one 116?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I quit. Yes, I'm calling it 116.
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Okay. Then, yes, I have. Sorry. I didn't want either one of us to be confused.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I know. I can be confused enough for both of us.
All right. So, Judge, at this time I ask to move into evidence 116.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Any objections other than those previously made on the record?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. It will be admitted as 116.
(State's Exhibit 116 received in evidence.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So just to clarify, 115, your final product, just audio? And 116, your final product plus the video?
JAMES KEITH MCELVEEN: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you. No further questions.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. We can excuse the witness?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Thank you, sir. You are free to go. Have a good day.
The State may call its next witness.