Steven P. Jacobson

Steven P. Jacobson

Preliminary Hearing

November 18, 2003

Direct Examination by Rick Distaso

DISTASO: Investigator Jacobson, would you state your full name and spell your last name for the record?

JACOBSON: Steven P. Jacobson, J-A-C-O-B-S-O-N.

DISTASO: Where are you employed, sir?

JACOBSON: I'm employed by the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office.

DISTASO: Just briefly, what are your duties there?

JACOBSON: My duties are I'm assigned to major narcotics and I'm assigned to several task forces to investigate people that are trafficking in major narcotics.

DISTASO: And how long have you been a sworn peace officer in the State of California?

JACOBSON: Almost twelve years.

DISTASO: The -- just for the record and so the judge knows, you have a broken leg, right, as you sit up here today?

JACOBSON: Unfortunately, yes, sir, I do.

DISTASO: So, Judge, I'm going to put these close to the witness, and hopefully he can flip through them. If not, I'll have to help him out. But this is 142 through 146, and I think counsel have already seen these. You want to take a look at them again?

JUDGE: They've just been marked this morning; correct?

DISTASO: That's right. (Whereupon counsel conferred, off the record.)

GERAGOS: Do you have a smaller copy for me?

DISTASO: I can get one. I don't have one here.

GERAGOS: Just give me one when you get a chance.

DISTASO: All right.

DISTASO: Investigator Jacobson, as part of your duties in this particular case, were you tasked to investigate cell phone records from a number of persons, but specifically the defendant in this case, Scott Peterson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I was.

DISTASO: And, also, were you tasked to investigate cell phone records from a woman by the name of Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I was.

DISTASO: Okay. As part of your -- as part of that, did you ask for or did you obtain the cell phone records of both of those individuals?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And I'm trying to just kind of run through this foundation briefly, but were those records pretty voluminous?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they were.

DISTASO: Okay. The -- starting with the defendant's cell phone records, did you specifically obtain records of the defendant's for the telephone numbers (209)505-0337?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And did you also receive telephone records for the defendant (209)499-8427?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And what company produced those records?

JACOBSON: AT&T Wireless.

DISTASO: And did you speak to the custodian of records regarding those particular records?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And did you go through those records extensively with the custodian?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me ask you a couple questions about those records. Did you prepare some -- well, all right, I'm sorry. Regarding -- let me ask it this way first then. Regarding Amber Frey, did you obtain her records?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And what was the phone number that you obtained for Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: Area code (559)681-4944. A Sprint number.

DISTASO: Okay. And that was -- that company was Sprint Wireless?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it was.

DISTASO: Okay. And did you speak to the custodian of records of Sprint Wireless regarding those particular phone records?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And did you take both of the -- of those -- well, let's -- trying to make it quick, but let's not do that because it's going to be confusing. Did you take the records of Scott Peterson, his cell phone records and did you go through them in detail?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: Did you put those records -- did you put those telephone calls -- did you find calls where Scott Peterson had called the number that subscribed to Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And did you put those particular numbers on a chart?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And is the charts that you used, are those behind you there?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they are.

DISTASO: And that would be People's 142 through 145?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. And if you could, just -- and, now, let me ask you this. Did you go through the records of Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And did you take the records from Amber Frey and find out the times when her telephone, the number you already gave us, contacted the phone numbers associated with the defendant?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And did you also put those numbers on the charts of People's 142 through 145?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And can you take the Court through just briefly, just take him through that chart? What do all the things on there mean? There's some writings in pink, some writings in blue. Go ahead and take the Court through that.

JACOBSON: As you will see, the first month is November of 2002, with a start date of November 19th of 2002, which is the first documented call that I was able to find between Scott Peterson and Amber Frey. The calls that you will see in the pink are calls that Amber Frey made outgoing where they were incoming to Scott Peterson's cell phones. The calls in the blue are the Scott Peterson's outgoing phone calls or incoming to Amber Frey. Starts November.

DISTASO: Here. I can flip these for you. Go ahead keep your seat because of your leg. Let's go through November. Hold on a second. So November 19th was the first documented calls between these parties?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Looks like there was a call on the 20th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: 21st?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: A couple calls on the 22nd?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Couple calls on the 24th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Were those -- does that detail all the calls you found from the records regarding these two parties in November?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Now, regarding the month of December, there's some more writing on the chart. The blue and pink writing, does that remain the same throughout all these charts?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it does.

DISTASO: Okay. So on the 2nd, it looks like there was a call from the defendant to Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And then two calls on the 3rd?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And then one call on the 4th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: One call on the 5th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: One call on the 7th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Six calls on the 9th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And when I'm -- as I'm going through this, so the record's clear, I'm putting the pink and blue calls together; right?

JACOBSON: Right.

DISTASO: And so these were just contacts between the two parties you were able to document?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: On the 10th there's three calls?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: On the -- was there an objection? I'm sorry?

GERAGOS: I was just asking Mr. McAllister if any of this qualifies as leading.

DISTASO: I'm just trying to --

GERAGOS: Save time?

DISTASO: If you want me to go through it slower, I can ask him what each date was.

GERAGOS: No.

JUDGE: No objection. You may proceed.

DISTASO: On the 10th there was three calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The 11th, there was two?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: The 12th, there was one?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: No calls on the 13th?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: One call on the 14th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And three calls on the 15th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Five calls on the 16th?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: Four calls on the 17th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Two on the 18th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Eight calls on the 19th?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: Two calls on the 20th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Two calls on the 21st?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: Two calls on the 22nd?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: One call on the 23rd?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: No calls between the parties on December 24th?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: December 25th, seven calls?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: December 26th, 16 calls?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: With the majority of those calls being Amber Frey's --

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: -- calling the defendant?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: In fact, on the 26th, it looks like there's only two calls from the defendant to Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: On the 27th, seven calls?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: On the 28th, five calls.

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: The 29th, five calls between the parties?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: The 30th, five calls between the parties?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The 31st, six calls between the parties?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. And does that -- does this chart properly document all the calls you found from the records between these two parties?

JACOBSON: For those numbers, yes.

JUDGE: For the record, I assume you're referring to 143?

DISTASO: That's right, Your Honor, 143.

JUDGE: Wait a minute.

DISTASO: 143.

DISTASO: That's the month of December; right?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Now, for the month of January of 2003, this is 144, for the record, we can go through -- there were two calls on the 1st?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Five calls on the 2nd?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Three calls on the 3rd?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Five calls on the 4th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Three calls on the 5th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Six calls on the 6th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And it looks like all of these calls were the defendant calling Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: One call on the 7th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Five calls on the 8th?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: One call on the 9th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Two calls on the 10th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And, for the record, these -- the legend that you wrote on each chart, it's -- it lists, like when we're talking about the calls, it will say Cell 2 or it will say Cell 1, you've listed the legend that corresponds to what phone number is being called; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: All right. On the 11th, one call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: On the 12th, four calls?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: On the 14th, one call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: On the 14th, four calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The 15th, four calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The 16th, five calls?

JACOBSON: The 17th.

DISTASO: I'm sorry. 16th, no calls?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: The 17th, five calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: 18th, one call?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: The 19th, four calls?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: The 20th, three calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: No calls on the 21st or 22nd?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: The 23rd, three calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The 24th, one call?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: The 25th, five calls?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: 26th, no calls?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: 27th, three calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: 24th, four calls?

JACOBSON: 28th.

DISTASO: I'm sorry. 28th, four calls?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: The 29th, no calls?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: The 30th, three calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And the 31st, between these two parties there was four calls?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

DISTASO: That properly reflects the calls that you documented for the month of January?

JACOBSON: For those numbers, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: At this point the document speaks for itself.

DISTASO: Well, I think I'm allowed to go through it.

JUDGE: You can save time. The witness is entitled to summarize it, even though the document I assume will come into evidence. I'll allow it.

DISTASO: All right. On February 1st, it looks like there was twelve calls between the parties?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And that breaks down to four calls from the defendant to Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: And the remaining calls from Amber Frey to the defendant?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: Two calls for the 3rd?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Five calls for the 4th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Two calls for the 5th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Three calls for the 6th?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: Six calls on the 7th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And all of those calls are the defendant calling Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: Six calls for the 8th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Two calls for the 9th?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: Five calls for the 10th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: No calls on the 11th or 12th?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: Four calls or --

JACOBSON: Two.

DISTASO: Two calls for the 13th?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: No calls on the 14th?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: Two calls on the 15th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: One call on the 16th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: One call for the 17th?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: The times you've listed by these calls, these are the times the calls were made?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: No call on the 18th?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: One call on the 19th?

JACOBSON: That was the last documented call was February 19th.

DISTASO: Okay. What is the -- from November 19th, the first call, to February 19th, the last call, how many days took place?

JACOBSON: It's a 93-day period between November 19th and February 19th.

DISTASO: And how many -- we went through all of these calls, but what's the total number of calls during that time period?

JACOBSON: At least 241 calls.

DISTASO: Now, as part of your investigation, did you also look into cell site information, and what I mean by that is, the physical location that some of these calls were made?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And briefly, for the Court, can you just describe briefly what I mean by cell site information?

JACOBSON: What you asked me to do is to research specific calls that you had asked to see if I could locate an approximate location of where those calls were made in relation to the state of California.

DISTASO: Okay. And does a cell phone use a particular cell site?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Does it use the same cell site, no matter where you are in the state?

JACOBSON: No.

DISTASO: Okay. So as the -- as the -- as a phone is traveling or being used, does it switch cell sites?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Did I ask you to look up some cell site information in the phone records and then talk to the custodian of records about regarding some calls made on December 24th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, you did.

DISTASO: All right. (Whereupon counsel conferred, off the record.)

DISTASO: Now, as a foundational matter, did -- when you were looking into the defendant's cell phone records, do those records come to you in Eastern Standard Time?

JACOBSON: Some of the records came to me in Eastern Standard Time. Others came to me in Pacific Standard.

DISTASO: Okay. Regarding the phone number (209)505-0337, did you look into the cell site information for that particular phone number on December 24th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And that phone number was subscribed to the defendant; correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it was.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me show you People's 146. And is that too high? You want me to --

JACOBSON: No, that's fine.

DISTASO: You can see it up there? Okay. On December 24th -- well, actually, let me just ask you this. How many calls were made from that particular cell phone on December 24th?

JACOBSON: There was several calls made.

DISTASO: All right. Do you know when the first call was made?

JACOBSON: The first call that you had me look into was at 10:08 AM.

DISTASO: All right. And at 10:08 AM, that's Pacific Standard Time?

JACOBSON: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: Where -- what cell phone tower was that phone using at that time?

JACOBSON: At the initiation of the call, the cell tower was at 1250 Brighton Avenue, which services the area of 523 Covena.

DISTASO: So the 1250 Brighton cell tower is the one that services the area of the defendant's residence?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: And how long was that particular call?

JACOBSON: That call was -- that was the 10:08 AM. It was one minute and 21 seconds.

DISTASO: And what number did that call -- what number did that call dial?

JACOBSON: It dialed the same number you just gave, the (209) 505-0337. In essence, what happened was it called its voicemail.

DISTASO: Okay. Did that call -- did the call stay with the 1250 Brighton Avenue cell site during the duration of the entire call?

JACOBSON: No.

DISTASO: And did it transfer to another cell site?

JACOBSON: Yes, it did.

DISTASO: And what was that cell site?

JACOBSON: The terminating cell site location was at Tenth and D at the water tower near downtown Modesto.

DISTASO: On this chart does it reflect first call 10:08 AM?

JACOBSON: Yes, it does.

DISTASO: Then you wrote 1250 Brighton?

JACOBSON: Initiation of the call, yes.

DISTASO: Can you just put a slash on there or something there that references Tenth and D so we know all about that call?

JACOBSON: (Witness complied.)

DISTASO: Okay. Thanks. And then what was the next call that occurred on December 24th?

JACOBSON: The next call was the one that you see on the far left corner there, this one here at 2:12 PM.

DISTASO: Okay. Before we talk about that, are you aware of what cell site services the defendant's shop location at 1027 North Emerald?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I am.

DISTASO: What cell site location is that?

JACOBSON: It's 929 Woodland Avenue.

DISTASO: Now, do you know where that address, 929 Woodland, is in relation to the defendant's shop?

JACOBSON: I do.

DISTASO: Where is it in relation?

JACOBSON: It's several blocks away.

DISTASO: Now, let's go to the next call. There was some calls later in the day; correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: Okay. When was the next one? Tell us about that one.

JACOBSON: This box here encompasses the calls between 2:12 PM and 2:17 PM, which were all made at the same cell site location at 2600 Tenth Street in Berkeley. (Whereupon the reporter requested the answer to be repeated.)

JACOBSON: There were three calls made between 2:12 and 2:17 PM from the cell site location at 2600 Tenth Street in Berkeley, California.

DISTASO: And you said the first one started at 2:12?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And who -- is that the cell site that services the Berkeley Marina?

JACOBSON: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: Who were those calls made to?

JACOBSON: The first one was a repeat, checking voicemail. It was a 28-second duration call. The second one was a call to the home, the home phone, Scott and Laci's home phone. It's an SBC land line. It's the (209)524-2049. That was a 29-second call. The third one was a call to a Verizon Wireless that Laci Peterson was using. That's the (209)402-8806 number.

DISTASO: Okay. How long --

JACOBSON: That was a 30-second duration.

DISTASO: Thirty-second call. Okay. Thank you. Where were the next series of calls made or next call?

JACOBSON: The fifth call was made at 2:34 PM coming down south at 95 -- cell site location at 9500 Stearns Avenue in Oakland.

DISTASO: And what call -- tell us about -- just detail that call for us.

JACOBSON: That was a call to an AT&T Wireless being used and subscribed by Greg Reed. It was a five-minute-and-one-second duration call at that cell site location.

DISTASO: When was the next call made?

JACOBSON: The next call was call number six at 2:40 PM. The cell site location was 20103 Lake Chabot Road in Castro Valley.

DISTASO: Just for the record, on the chart you've put little cell phones in blocks where these calls were made?

JACOBSON: That's correct, sir.

DISTASO: This is on a map?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: Tell me about the next call. Tell me about the sixth call. Just detail that for me.

JACOBSON: Sixth call was made to an AT&T Wireless cell phone subscribed by San Diego Crating and Packing with the user name being Jacqueline Peterson. It was three-minute-nine-second call.

DISTASO: What about the next call?

JACOBSON: Next call was call number seven that you see on the chart at 2:45 PM, originating at the cell site location of 6390 Grassland Drive in Castro Valley, California; and that is also to an AT&T Wireless cell phone at San Diego Crating and Packing, which was a two-minute-27-second duration call.

GERAGOS: The record reflect that the detective is looking through some notes, and I'd ask that a copy of that be made for the defense. It's my understanding, I think it's 771 of the Evidence Code, if the witness uses notes in preparation for testifying, that those notes are -- or the adverse party is entitled to have a copy of those notes.

JUDGE: What are you referring to, Detective Jacobson?

JACOBSON: Exactly what he said, notes that I prepared for the questions that Mr. Distaso was going to ask me this morning.

JUDGE: You haven't given those to Mr. Distaso or anyone else?

DISTASO: No, I do have them, Your Honor. They're notes that he just prepared for testimony. All that information on there is contained in the cell phone records that's already been turned over.

JUDGE: Well --

DISTASO: I don't mind him having a copy of this, though.

JUDGE: Okay. I'll have the clerk -- it's only three pages. I'll have the clerk make copies right now. Let her have it.

DISTASO: Yeah, that's fine.

JUDGE: Just one copy needed, I believe.

GERAGOS: That's fine. We'll share.

DISTASO: Want me to keep going?

JUDGE: You can.

DISTASO: He probably can keep going. Can you keep going without your notes?

JACOBSON: Except if you don't ask me the duration of the calls, I have to have the notes.

DISTASO: Okay. Well, let's just wait one second, Your Honor.

JUDGE: While she's doing that, these times you're giving us, are these all Pacific Standard Times?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they are. They're converted from the Eastern Standard Times that Mr. Geragos had a question about.

DISTASO: You know, also, for the record, Your Honor, I will say this. All of the information in those notes is contained in supplemental reports that have been discovered that Investigator Jacobson prepared. This is just easier, so if we want to do it this way, it's fine. (Pause.)

JUDGE: When I saw it, I thought it was only three pages. It's 10 or 15 pages.

JACOBSON: It's lengthier than that, yes, sir.

JUDGE: What pages do you need and she'll start working on it?

JACOBSON: I think Mr. Geragos wanted these cell site locations, Your Honor.

GERAGOS: If it's going to take a couple minutes and he wants to testify from it, I'll wing it while I'm crossing with the notes.

JUDGE: Do you need to see these?

JACOBSON: I do, if he asks me questions regarding the duration of those calls. But those are the --

JUDGE: We'll do it at the break. I saw you flipping through the pages. I thought there was only three. (People's Exhibit 147 was marked for identification.)

CLERK: 147.

DISTASO: Okay. Detective, whatever we -- I can't remember what call we left off on.

JACOBSON: The seventh call there at 6390 Grassland Drive, Castro Valley.

DISTASO: Detail -- give me the details of that particular call.

JACOBSON: That was a call made to an AT&T Wireless subscribed by San Diego Crating and Packing again. The call duration was two minutes 27 seconds.

DISTASO: And that particular -- again, that phone is subscribed to Jacqueline Peterson?

JACOBSON: Its user is Jacqueline Peterson, but the actual subscriber is San Diego Crating and Packing.

DISTASO: Okay. Let's see. Tell me about the eighth call.

JACOBSON: The eighth call was made at 3:52 PM. The cell site location covering that particular call was 4959 South Front Road in Livermore, California. It was a call to the land line, once again, the SBC land line at (209)524-2049, the home telephone number for Scott and Laci Peterson.

DISTASO: Okay. That's what I was going to ask. That was a call from that location or somewhere in the vicinity of that cell tower to the home at 523 Covena?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: And then what was the ninth call?

JACOBSON: The ninth call was a call made back at the residence at 1250 Brighton Avenue. That's the cell site location that covered it.

DISTASO: That was -- could you detail that call?

JACOBSON: I don't have the information to detail that exact ninth call.

DISTASO: Okay. But you do have the information that a call was made at 5:54 in back at --

JACOBSON: Back --

DISTASO: -- using the 1250 Brighton Avenue cell site?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me show you People's 147, and do you recognize this particular document?

JACOBSON: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: And what is that?

JACOBSON: This appears to be a blown-up copy of a Microsoft maps and streets document that I attached to a supplemental report that was discovered to both you and the defense.

DISTASO: Okay. And does this -- does this map detail kind of the locations you've been talking about, just, for example, the cell tower at 1250 Brighton?

JACOBSON: This shows the approximate location of the cell site location at 1250 Brighton Avenue in relation to Scott Peterson -- Scott and Laci's home at 523 Covena Avenue. It also depicts the cell tower location at Tenth and D Street that I testified earlier about the handoff on that first call.

DISTASO: Okay.

JACOBSON: It also shows the cell site location of 929 Woodland Avenue in relation to Scott's business over at 1027 North Emerald.

DISTASO: You put another cell tower on there, one at 115 Frances?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: Why was that one on there?

JACOBSON: There were calls made where there were handoffs to 115 Frances Avenue, either on the 24th or in relation to that period of time where this cell site location was also used for calls.

DISTASO: Okay. But the calls that we've talked about, the ones that were referenced in People's 146, the cell site locations that are on that document are all the cell site locations that handled those particular calls?

JACOBSON: That's correct, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. No further questions, Your Honor.

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos

GERAGOS: Detective, the first chart they gave you with Amber Frey calls and Scott Peterson calls, was there a call on Valentine's Day?

JACOBSON: Which is February --

GERAGOS: I'm sure your significant other appreciates that. Is there a call on February 14th?

JACOBSON: Start knocking my significant other, sir, I'll get this crutch out here.

GERAGOS: She may take -- she may have been the one who broke your leg in the first place.

JACOBSON: It's February 4th; right?

GERAGOS: No, it's not February 4th. It's February 14th.

JACOBSON: There you go. No, there were no calls made on February 14th.

GERAGOS: Now, the chart that's here, which is 146, now, there's -- you have a -- I guess some notes there that summarize a previous document that you prepared, I think, which had by day every single phone call that was made; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: Let me see this document. On the 24th? That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, these are the notes that you're referring to today?

JACOBSON: Yes. Sorry.

GERAGOS: Okay. The -- is it fair to say that the first call that you've got on the 24th was at 10:08?

JACOBSON: 10:08, yes.

GERAGOS: That was at what cell tower?

JACOBSON: The cell site location that covered that first call was 1250 Brighton Avenue, and a transfer occurred on that call to Tenth and D Street as well, so there were actually two cell site locations used to cover that call.

GERAGOS: Okay. Can you point to the Tenth and D site?

JACOBSON: (Indicating.)

GERAGOS: Okay. Where is the warehouse?

JACOBSON: The warehouse is directly north and west of that location.

GERAGOS: Okay. So does it appear that he's driving from the house and that, while making the phone call, that the cell phone site switches, if you will?

JACOBSON: That would be my -- that would be my understanding.

GERAGOS: That's your best guess --

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: -- as to what's going on? Is it also a fair statement that you never really know what cell phone site -- well, you know the cell phone site that registers?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: But there are problems with the cell phone sites in terms of trying to determine exactly where somebody is; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: As in locating them to a specific point?

GERAGOS: That's correct. Sometimes --

JACOBSON: Right.

GERAGOS: -- they can be outside of the specific cell phone site area. That's why you get static or you lose your connection or things of that nature; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: What happens is these cell site locations have specific radiuses, so although like, for instance, one of the radiuses at 1250 Brighton covering Scott's home I believe it's 1.42 miles. So we can say, roughly, that that call originated somewhere within 1.42 miles of this radius at 1250 Brighton. But saying he's at a particular location within that 1.42 miles would be very difficult to say.

GERAGOS: Okay. Technology is not designed -- that cell site technology is not designed to pinpoint the exact location; right?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. So all you're doing is surmising that sometime at around 10:08, he's leaving the radius, if you will, around Brighton and entering the other radius around D Street; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Tenth and D, that's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So you're surmising that he's going to the warehouse; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I'm surmising that he's heading -- he's heading west.

GERAGOS: Okay. You have some indication -- I mean, you're familiar with this investigation; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I am, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: We had on yesterday a computer expert. That computer expert's taken a look at his hard drive. You're familiar with that; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. You're familiar that he's at the warehouse sometime shortly after 10:08, if you believe that he's the one that accessed the computer at the warehouse; correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he's there at the warehouse for a period of time up until almost 11:00 o'clock, if you accept that he's the one that's on the computer and using that hard drive?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then you have a series of phone calls and the -- I think you said there were three of them. But actually it looks like at 5:12. Do you have the document that I'm referring to? Because yours looked like it was a summary. Bates number stamped 16923.

JACOBSON: I don't believe I have that one with me up at the stand.

GERAGOS: You had mentioned that there was a -- I thought, if I heard it right, that the next call was --

JUDGE: 2:12.

GERAGOS: Yeah, 2:12.

GERAGOS: But there was another one at 2:12 that went into voicemail; right?

JACOBSON: Right. These calls are one in the same, to a voicemail check that came back to that address using that cell site.

GERAGOS: You say one "in the same," one at 2:12:15 seconds?

JACOBSON: Right.

GERAGOS: One at 2:12:54 seconds?

JACOBSON: Right. Still one in the same call.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, so at that point, that 2600 Tenth Street in Berkeley, have you gone up there to take a look at that cell phone site?

JACOBSON: I have not physically viewed the cell site location, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you know how close that is to the marina?

JACOBSON: I can tell you, the radius of that cell site location.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: The radius of that cell site location is 5.3 miles, which to Berkeley Marina falls within the radius of that cell site location.

GERAGOS: Is it on the perimeter of the radius?

JACOBSON: How far in? I can just testify that it's within the 5.3 miles.

GERAGOS: So you don't know?

JACOBSON: I haven't physically measured it.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: I don't feel comfortable giving an approximation.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, there is another phone call made at 5:34; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And then that's somewhere a radius around Oakland; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct. It's a .9-mile radius, and it's at 9500 Stearns Avenue in Oakland.

JUDGE: I think we're going to make it difficult for anyone reading the transcript later on if we jump from Eastern --

GERAGOS: That's true.

JUDGE: -- Standard Time and Pacific. So I assume you meant 2:34 Pacific?

GERAGOS: Yeah, looking -- let me ask a couple questions about that.

GERAGOS: The raw data that you receive doesn't read either Pacific or Eastern; you're surmising once again or you've been told by somebody that in actuality it's Eastern?

JACOBSON: What happens is the AT&T Wireless they have different sets of reports that they're able to review through either fraud management or billing records; and, unfortunately, fraud records or billing records could be in Eastern Standard or Pacific Standard, depending upon which system they look at. So they have responded via court order or subpoena in either Eastern or Pacific Standard Times, so they've responded to our court orders in either time period or actually both time periods.

GERAGOS: So you're the one who's doing the conversion; they're not doing the conversion. Is that fair to say?

JACOBSON: Depending upon which supplement you're looking at and which document I've prepared, it could be me doing the conversion or AT&T Wireless.

GERAGOS: Okay. So the first three calls, which are a voicemail and a call to the Peterson house and a call to Laci's cell phone all range from 2:12 to 2:17; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: 2:34 Pacific Standard Time is to Greg Reed; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And at that point the phone is in that .9-mile perimeter of Oakland; is that right?

JACOBSON: Of 9500 Stearns Avenue, specifically in Oakland, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then there's two calls at 2:40 and 2:45, and that's to Lee Peterson, and the subscriber is Lee Peterson? I think you testified that it was Jackie Peterson as the user?

JACOBSON: Jackie's the listed user on AT&T Wireless, but I know the cell phone to be used by Lee Peterson.

GERAGOS: Okay. And those are -- come back to a cell site in Castro Valley; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct. Two different locations in Castro Valley heading east, respectively.

GERAGOS: So that would also track with, as if the person who's using the cell phone, if it's Scott Peterson, is coming back from the marina --

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: -- and heading back to his house; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the two calls to Lee Peterson are nowhere near the Berkeley Marina; right?

JACOBSON: No, they are some distance away from the Berkeley Marina.

GERAGOS: Okay. So it's a safe bet that, when Lee Peterson is being called by my client, he's -- my client's not sitting in a boat at the Berkeley Marina; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: That would be correct, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at 2:45 -- I'm sorry -- 2:44, there's another call to voicemail. When you say "voicemail," the reason you surmise that is because the number that comes up is the subscriber number?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And when you access voicemail, the phone just dials itself?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then at -- is it 4 -- 3:52?

JACOBSON: 3:52, that's correct.

GERAGOS: There's a call to the Peterson -- to Laci and Scott's home?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And at that point the phone is in Livermore?

JACOBSON: That's correct. Further east.

GERAGOS: Going straight back to the house?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. The next call is 5:44; is that right?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: That's to a 209 number. You've been unable to turn that number, meaning find out who the subscriber was?

JACOBSON: Right.

GERAGOS: Okay. And how long was that call?

JACOBSON: I don't have the duration of that particular call with me this morning.

GERAGOS: Okay. But immediately following that call, there's a call to Amy Rocha?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. How long was that call?

JACOBSON: I don't have those durations of those calls on that supplemental report with me.

GERAGOS: Immediately after the call to Amy, there's a call to Sharon?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Within a minute?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Within a minute of that, there's a call to Greg Reed?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Do you know Greg Reed to be one of Mr. Peterson's closest friends?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: There's immediately within a minute another call to Guy -- is it Milagi?

JACOBSON: Miligi.

GERAGOS: Miligi?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: You know that to be one of Laci and Scott's closest friends?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

GERAGOS: Within less than a minute, there's another call to Sharon's number; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Within a minute of that, there's another incoming call that you haven't been able to identify; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then within, I think, eight minutes there's another incoming call; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I believe so, yes.

GERAGOS: At about 5:57?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: At 5:59, there's another call to Sharon; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: 6:03 there's two successive incoming calls, and you don't know who they're from?

JACOBSON: No. You're correct on that. They're unlisted.

GERAGOS: Okay. All those calls that I've just been through with you, after the one at 3:52 and starting at 5:44, all of those calls came back to Modesto; is that correct?

JACOBSON: 1250 Brighton Avenue, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Which would service Covena?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So you're surmising that at that point when Mr. Peterson, Scott, gets home, he's calling everyone around or that knows Laci at that point, including Amy, Sharon, Greg, Guy, Sharon again. Amy's getting calls virtually at the same time?

JACOBSON: Incoming, that's correct. Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then at 6:10 he calls 911; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And then there's a succession of calls after that, and is it fair to say that all of the calls after that until about 8:46 -- I take that back -- until about 7:14 are all at the Brighton Avenue cell site area?

JACOBSON: What was your time period on that, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: Starting at about -- I think the first one's 5:44, which is the unknown call?

JACOBSON: Right.

GERAGOS: And then going up until looks like 7:14?

JACOBSON: Actually about 10:14 PM.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is that 10:14 Eastern or is that --

JACOBSON: Oh, you're right. The conversion on this. This is Eastern Standard. So you're right.

GERAGOS: So it would be 7:14?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: So it appears at that point there is all kinds of activity on that phone?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Between Amy, Guy, Sharon, Scott, Amy again, Greg again, Stacey Boyers, a Laurie Ellsworth, Rene Garza, Brian Ulrich, Rene Tomlinson, Lee Peterson, Greg Reed. Even Karen Servas makes it on here. Isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And all of these calls are either at the Brighton or at the 10th and D location; right?

JACOBSON: That's correct, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you said on the cell phone charts that were previously marked with Amber's calls that there was a 93-day span; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, from November 19th to February 19th.

GERAGOS: Okay. And what did you do when you summarized all of these calls? What did you do with the information?

JACOBSON: I put them on the chart that's here in the courtroom with me this morning.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: And also you have a copy of the phone records yourself.

GERAGOS: You turned it over in discovery; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then the -- by the way, do you have any or did you have -- when did you obtain these records?

JACOBSON: I started obtaining the phone records in the early part of January of 2003.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: With the assistance of the Modesto Police Department.

GERAGOS: I'm going to ask you -- I'm going to change subjects, if I can, Judge. You said you would give me some latitude on the surveillance, and I think he's an appropriate person to make inquiry of.

JUDGE: Any objection?

DISTASO: Well, if he's going to use this witness as a witness in his case in chief, then I'd ask that he be limited to direct questions, and I be allowed to cross-examine the witness. Otherwise, I do object and he can recall the witness in his case.

GERAGOS: I don't think that I ever have an officer deemed as or be forced to use an officer on direct.

JUDGE: I'm going to allow leading questions and only direct from the prosecution, and I'm going to allow you to get into that area now to save time.

GERAGOS: Okay.

GERAGOS: Investigator Jacobson, is that correct?

JACOBSON: I am a commoner, sir. You can call me whatever name you want to call.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: Maybe first name would be appropriate.

GERAGOS: Okay. They call you "Jake," though, don't they?

JACOBSON: They do call me that, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That's not your first name?

JACOBSON: That's a nickname.

GERAGOS: Okay. Jake, did you --

JUDGE: Let's refer to him as Mr. or Investigator.

GERAGOS: Investigator Jacobson, they have a -- there was a surveillance camera set up on a pole across the street from Covena; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Were you involved in either the setting up of the surveillance camera?

JACOBSON: I was not involved in the physically -- the physical setting up of that camera.

GERAGOS: Okay. The -- did you know that the surveillance camera was being set up?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. When did you know that it was first set up?

JACOBSON: I knew the day that the request was made to set up the pole camera.

GERAGOS: Okay. What day was that?

JACOBSON: I'm not quite sure what specific date it was. The reason I know that the pole camera was set up --

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you --

JACOBSON: I don't know the exact date, though. I didn't prepare any reports regarding that as well.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you prepare any reports on the pole camera or the surveillance of, or the monitoring of, that surveillance at all?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. When that pole camera was set up, do you know if that was in December?

JACOBSON: It could have been late December, but I believe it was possibly the first week of January.

GERAGOS: Okay. Was the -- who was the agency or what agency set the camera up?

JACOBSON: It was set up by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: The Federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you are on a task force jointly with the DEA; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And are you the liaison, so to speak, between the DEA and the DA's Office?

JACOBSON: It could be looked at -- looked like that, yes, that's correct.

GERAGOS: Now, as the liaison between the DEA and the DA's Office, were you telling the DA's Office that there was a surveillance camera set up across the street?

JACOBSON: I don't believe I informed the DA's Office of the setup of the pole camera. It was at that period of time related to the Modesto Police Department.

GERAGOS: You work for the DA's Office, technically, though, don't you?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. They're the ones who sign your paycheck, so to speak?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you were helping on this investigation at that point; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, this surveillance camera that was set up, is that the first time that you have ever in connection with the DEA set up a pole camera?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you're aware of the methods for doing that; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you have to -- did somebody have to make a request of the DEA specifically to get that camera up?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Was there paperwork filled out in regards to that request?

JACOBSON: I don't know about any paperwork regarding the actual request to be set up. I do know that people had communicated orally regarding that pole camera to be set up.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: And there was paperwork regarding a part of the pole camera that was filled out in a previous investigation.

GERAGOS: Okay. And where is that paperwork?

JACOBSON: That paperwork would be with the DEA.

GERAGOS: Okay. And do you have copies of that?

JACOBSON: I don't believe I have a copy of it, no.

GERAGOS: You can obtain a copy, though, can't you?

JACOBSON: I could probably obtain a copy of the permission slip in the which the pole camera was originally checked out from DEA, San Francisco.

GERAGOS: Okay. Was that pole camera set up on Covena Avenue prior to this date?

JACOBSON: Which date?

GERAGOS: Whatever you think it is, late December or early January?

JACOBSON: No. Well, that pole camera was already here in the City of Modesto. It was my understanding it was already here. And then it was taken off from another site and put onto the Covena address per a request from the Modesto Police Department.

GERAGOS: Okay. Who requested that from Modesto PD?

JACOBSON: I'm not sure who, specifically, requested it.

GERAGOS: Well, did you talk to, for instance, Craig Grogan about it?

JACOBSON: I don't believe I did, no.

GERAGOS: Did you talk to Brocchini about it?

JACOBSON: I don't believe I did, no, sir.

GERAGOS: Did you talk to Rudy -- is it Skultety?

JACOBSON: No, I don't believe I talked to him about it.

GERAGOS: Okay. Can you name one person who's a core investigator in this case who you talked to about putting up a surveillance camera in this investigation?

JACOBSON: I don't believe I talked to anybody over at Modesto Police Department regarding the pole camera itself on getting it set up. I overheard conversations taking place regarding the pole camera being set up, but I don't remember which detective it was that was asking for it.

GERAGOS: Okay. When the pole camera was set up, was there a surveillance van that was also connected to that?

JACOBSON: That's my understanding, but I don't have firsthand knowledge on that.

GERAGOS: Okay. Where are the tapes kept for the surveillance camera?

JACOBSON: If the tapes are made in relation to what the pole camera is observing, the tapes would be with the person inside of the van who has the hotel kit.

GERAGOS: And do we know who that is?

JACOBSON: I don't know who actually did physical surveillance inside of the van that would have those tapes.

GERAGOS: Have you reviewed any reports in connection with this surveillance, the most recently drawn up reports?

JACOBSON: I have not, no.

GERAGOS: Are you aware tapes appeared on somebody's desk when they were away on vacation?

JACOBSON: Yes, I'm aware of that.

GERAGOS: Is that how you generally keep tapes in the DEA on this task force, that they just miraculously appear on somebody's desk when they go on vacation?

DISTASO: Objection. It's argumentative.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: Have you checked your desk recently? You've been off, haven't you?

JACOBSON: I have.

GERAGOS: Have there been any tapes put on your desk?

DISTASO: Objection. It's argumentative and it's not relevant.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: Do you know if that camera was set up throughout the month of January?

JACOBSON: Throughout the entire month of January? I'm not aware if it was throughout the entire month.

GERAGOS: Do you know if it was set up through the evening that the house on Covena was burglarized in January?

JACOBSON: Which date was that?

GERAGOS: January the 19th?

JACOBSON: I am not sure if it was set up at that point, up to that point on the 19th.

GERAGOS: Do you know when it was taken down?

JACOBSON: I don't know exactly what date it was taken down, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is there anybody else in the DA's Office who's a liaison with the DEA besides you?

JACOBSON: Depending upon which investigation, there could be other people that liaison with the DA's Office.

GERAGOS: In this investigation, you're it, though, aren't you?

JACOBSON: There were other DA investigators that were assisting in this investigation besides myself.

GERAGOS: As far as the DEA, whose camera it is, you're it in this investigation; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I know about the interworkings of the pole cameras. I know how they're set up. I've used them before on previous investigations. I had used pole cameras just previous to this investigation, which was the reason why we had the pole cameras here in the first place within the city of Modesto. So I know a lot about kind of what goes on with the interworkings between DEA and investigations here locally, but there are other investigators that are aware of this information as well.

GERAGOS: Well, simply, who is the person most knowledgeable about this pole camera being set up, when it was set up, when it was taken down, whether there was tapes, anything else? Who is that?

JACOBSON: His name would probably be Ken O'Gara [phonetic] with San Francisco DE

JACOBSON: He is their tech.

GERAGOS: And the tapes would normally be kept by Modesto PD?

JACOBSON: The tapes would be kept by whoever is requesting this pole camera and the hotel kit that goes along with it.

GERAGOS: Okay. That would be Modesto PD?

JACOBSON: That would be the Modesto Police Department or whoever the Modesto Police Department had or used to sit in the van to monitor the activity of that pole camera.

GERAGOS: Okay. To the best of your knowledge, was that pole camera up as recently as within the last month?

DISTASO: Objection, Your Honor. It's been asked and answered.

GERAGOS: I don't believe I've gotten an answer as to when it was taken down.

JUDGE: Overruled.

GERAGOS: Was it removed within the last month?

JACOBSON: I don't know when the pole camera was actually removed itself. I don't know the exact date.

GERAGOS: Do you know if it's still in the city of Modesto?

JACOBSON: If they removed it, San Francisco DEA probably took it back to the Bay Area to be used on other investigations.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is the surveillance van a DEA van or is that a Modesto vehicle?

JACOBSON: I don't know which specific van they used. Of course, they have vans and we have vans as well.

GERAGOS: With that particular pole camera, on your previous investigation, what agency's van was used?

DISTASO: Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: The -- have you seen any of those videotapes --

JACOBSON: I have.

GERAGOS: -- in the surveillance?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: You've watched those?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: When did you do that?

JACOBSON: When the surveillance tapes were made known to me.

GERAGOS: Within the last couple of weeks or the last two weeks?

JACOBSON: Not within the last two weeks. It's probably been a month or two or so.

GERAGOS: Okay. When those surveillance tapes were made known to you a month or so ago, about September 30th?

JACOBSON: I don't know the exact date when they were made known to me. I'm sure that they were forwarded to the Modesto Police Department, and they would probably have record of that.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you promptly tell the DA's Office, hey, there's some tapes that appeared?

JACOBSON: I told a detective who provided those tapes to me that they needed to get to the lead detective over at Modesto Police Department as soon as possible.

GERAGOS: Who was the detective that provided them to you?

JACOBSON: Detective Bill Pooley.

GERAGOS: Okay. Who did you tell him to take the tapes to?

JACOBSON: Detective Grogan.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was what day?

JACOBSON: I don't know the date of that.

GERAGOS: At least a month ago?

JACOBSON: At least a month ago, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you do anything to inquire further as to whether or not there are records or documentation or logs in support of the pole camera and the surveillance?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Did you do anything to determine whether or not the pole camera was still up a month ago when you discovered the tapes?

DISTASO: Objection, Your Honor. It's been asked and answered.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that you've done the cell phone site analysis for Mr. Peterson for a span -- for a wide span of time?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Beginning when?

JACOBSON: The records that I obtained from AT&T Wireless, they contain a lot of cell site information, so it would be upon the first request that I received cell phone records from AT&T Wireless, sometime in December. It would be where the records go back showing the cell site locations all the way up through -- into January and then in April as well.

GERAGOS: Okay. You obtained records from January to April or separately December, January and then --

JACOBSON: I obtained records throughout a course of period of time, but the cell site locations are only attributed or attached to certain records that AT&T has provided me.

GERAGOS: Okay. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you.

JUDGE: Mr. Distaso?

DISTASO: I don't have any follow-up, Your Honor.

JUDGE: Pardon?

DISTASO: I don't have any follow up.

JUDGE: You may step down. Do you want to take our recess here? Who do you have next?