Steven P. Jacobson

 

Witness for the People:  Guilt Phase

August 24, 25, 26 & 30, 2004

 

Direct Examination by Rick Distaso

DISTASO: Investigator Jacobson, what is your current job?

JACOBSON: I'm assigned to the Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency as a criminal investigator with the district attorney's office.

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

JACOBSON: Oh, about 13 years.

DISTASO: As part of your duties at the Stanislaus County Drug Enforcement Unit, are you involved in investigating, well, what type of crimes do you investigate there?

JACOBSON: Sir, I'm a public servant for the folks in Stanislaus County. I investigate just about anything.

DISTASO: And what kind, what type of crimes come through the drug unit? I mean, obviously drug-type crimes, but what types does your agency mostly deal with?

JACOBSON: We basically deal with major narcotic violators.  People that are pushing pretty good quantities of drugs out on our streets. Or manufacturing.

DISTASO: Let me, as part of your investigative duties, are you involved, do you get involved in working with the phone companies?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, we do.

DISTASO: And why is that?

JACOBSON: Well, commonly, with these major narcotic violators, we use wiretaps, and also PEN registers, to trace and track folks, and also listen in on conversations.

DISTASO: Okay. Do you, as part of your duties, do you deal with gathering phone records from companies?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

DISTASO: And does that include fraud records?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it does.

DISTASO: And do the fraud records, we've heard a ton of testimony about already, but the fraud records contain cell site information; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, they do. They can.

DISTASO: The, you said you talked about, well, let me ask you this: Have you worked with the various phone companies? AT&T? Start there.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I have.

DISTASO: What about Sprint?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: What about Nextel?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Verizon?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: So are you familiar with the basic records that these types of companies keep?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I am.

DISTASO: You said, you tell the jury something about PEN registers. Can you very briefly tell them what that is?

JACOBSON: Basically a PEN register is used to trace incoming or outgoing phone calls that a person's made, or that a person makes.  You basically receive the data from the phone, everything about the phone basically in the phone calls, except for the actual voice. You don't get any audio but just all the data that comes across from that phone.  That's what a PEN register basically is.

DISTASO: Now, you also talked about, with the jury about being involved in wiretaps. Let's just start from the beginning.  How many wiretaps have you been involved with, either state or federal?

JACOBSON: I'd probably say about ten or more.

DISTASO: And does that include actually acting as a monitor of particular phone calls during the wiretap?

JACOBSON: Sir, probably includes different aspects.

DISTASO: Well, yeah, let me stop you. I mean, when you say you've been involved in these wiretaps, for some of them, as part of the duties, have you also been involved as a monitor who listens in on the conversations?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. And what other types of duties have you had in regards to the wiretap, to wiretapping operations?

JACOBSON: For the wiretap operations, I've been a supervisor that has supervised a wire room. I've also been a monitor, as the district attorney stated. I've been out in the field doing surveillance, based on what information was coming over the phones. I've been the affiant. I've written wiretap applications to the magistrates.

DISTASO: And let me stop you. When you say you've been the affiant, is that the person who actually goes to the judge, writes out the legal requirements for the wiretap and presents it to the judge?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: And then the judge either authorizes it or not?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The, what type of training is required under the law for someone to be a monitor in a wire room? That means sit there and listen to a conversation?

JACOBSON: You need to be certified through the State of California Department of Justice.

DISTASO: And,

JACOBSON: And you must receive your certificate.

DISTASO: I'm sorry, how does that happen? Is there some instruction that's involved?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. There's formal training that's involved for your certification through the California Department of Justice.

DISTASO: And then you have to take a test?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And then, if you pass the test, you're eligible to be someone who can actually monitor conversations?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And you have done that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I have.

DISTASO: What, are you familiar with how the equipment works?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I am.

DISTASO: And have you actually been instructed by the company representatives in how the wiretapping equipment works?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I have.

DISTASO: And when I say wiretapping equipment, since I'm sure the jury has never sat in a wire room, can you explain to them what it is that we're dealing with?

JACOBSON: I'm actually glad that you haven't sat in a wire room. It's pretty boring, to be honest.  It's a small office that's basically set up with computer systems or work stations, and it has basically a computer as your central function of the wiretapping. It's a collection server. It's your, basically your database.  Incoming phone calls go into this collection server, along with data, and this collection server then sends this information to monitoring work station, where the people sit. And at these work stations, these folks are able to monitor, monitor these conversations.

DISTASO: And were you the wire room supervisor for the two wiretaps that were authorized in this particular case?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I was.

DISTASO: Hold on one second. What was the first wiretap's number designation?

JACOBSON: The first wiretap was designated Stanislaus County wiretap number 2.

DISTASO: Okay. And let me stop you. Why did that one get the Stanislaus County number 2?

JACOBSON: Because that was the first, that was the second wiretap that was used in Stanislaus County on the state side, for our particular county.

DISTASO: So for Stanislaus County, that was, this was our second wiretap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And the other wiretaps that you talked about were federal wiretaps; is that right?  When you said you've been involved in these wiretaps, you've been involved in wiretaps on the federal side as well?

JACOBSON: I've been involved in wiretaps on the state and federal side. Stanislaus County wiretap number one I was involved with as well.

DISTASO: Okay. And,

JUDGE: And that's completely unrelated to this case?

JACOBSON: It's completely unrelated, your Honor.

DISTASO: Right.

DISTASO: The, what were the dates that wiretap number two was up and running?

JACOBSON: January 10th, sir.

DISTASO: It started on January 10th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And when was, when did it close down?

JACOBSON: On February 4th, 2003.

DISTASO: 2003?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And --

JUDGE: Wait. 1/10 03 to what date?

JACOBSON: February 4th, 2003, your Honor.

JUDGE: Okay.

DISTASO: And then the second wiretap that was authorized in this case was authorized on what date?

JACOBSON: April 15th, I believe, to April 18th.

DISTASO: So just for that three day period?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And what was that wiretap's designated number?

JACOBSON: That was designated as Stanislaus County wiretap number three.

DISTASO: And why, I mean, I'm sorry, were you the wire room supervisor for that wiretap as well?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I was.

DISTASO: What phone numbers were actually tapped in this particular case?

JACOBSON: The phone numbers were, in the first wiretap, Stanislaus County wiretap number two, the first two numbers, it was a two-number wire intercept. The first one was (209) 505-0337.

DISTASO: Okay, let me stop you. And that phone number was subscribed to the defendant?

JACOBSON: Yes, it was.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me stop you again.  And did you actually monitor calls during that time and hear the defendant speaking on that phone?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: Okay. And what was the second phone number?

JACOBSON: The second phone number was area code (209) 499-8427. Both of these phones being AT&T.

DISTASO: And was that phone also subscribed to the defendant?

JACOBSON: Yes, it was.

DISTASO: And during the course of the wiretap, did you listen to phone calls and identify the defendant speaking on that phone?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: For the wiretap number three, what phone numbers were actually listened to on that particular, I mean monitored on, for that wiretap?

JACOBSON: It was the same for the first one, the (209) 505-0337. And then there was a different number for the second number.

DISTASO: And what was that?

JACOBSON: That was an 858 number.

DISTASO: Do you know what it is?

JACOBSON: I could look really quick.

DISTASO: Go ahead and look it up.

JACOBSON: It was (858) 232-2203.

DISTASO: Your Honor, that pretty much covers the preliminaries.

JUDGE: Okay. Who was that second number, the 858?

JACOBSON: Your Honor, that second number, the 858, was subscribed to the defendant's mother, Ms.  Jacqueline Peterson, and,

DISTASO: I'm sorry, go ahead. Finish your answer.

JACOBSON: The wire intercept didn't actually go up on that phone itself. We had the authorization, but we didn't invoke that authority.

DISTASO: Okay, so that phone,

JUDGE: So you didn't tap Mrs. Peterson's phone?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

JUDGE: You had authority but you didn't do it?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

JUDGE: Okay. This is as far as you can go?

DISTASO: That's fine.

<evening recess>

 

August 25, 2004

DISTASO: Thank you, your Honor.

DISTASO: Investigator, when we left off, you were kind of talking about how wiretaps work and that kind of thing. And once the wiretap is authorized by the judge, what happens?  You get a piece of paper from the judge that says you can start a wiretap, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: What happens next?

JACOBSON: Basically that information then goes to the telecommunications service provider, such as, in this case, it was AT&T Wireless.

DISTASO: Let me stop you. It could be anybody, right? If it's a Verizon phone, it could go to Verizon. If it's a Sprint phone, it could go to Sprint. Here it went to AT&T?

JACOBSON: Correct.

DISTASO: Okay. What happens next?

JACOBSON: What happens is, then we have this database, this computer, or this collection server that I was explaining yesterday, that's in the actual wire room itself. It's in that physical location.  That computer is configured with a system with AT&T Wireless so that we become basically a passive third party in the communication, so we can receive these telephone calls, both the incoming and outgoing calls to that particular phone; or, in this case, those phones.

DISTASO: And let me stop you. So if, in this case the phones that you were wiretapping belong to Mr. Peterson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And so if a call comes in to Mr. Peterson, it gets routed through your computer, so you are listening to it also?

JACOBSON: I'm listening live, yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. And the same thing if a voicemail comes in to Mr. Peterson's phone, you can hear those voicemails?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And same thing, if the defendant makes a phone call, you can hear him dialing, and then you can hear the call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And, finally, if he checks his voicemail, if he dials his voicemail and listens to it,

GERAGOS:  Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: It is.

DISTASO: Okay. If the defendant dials his voicemail and listens to it, can you hear that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I can.

DISTASO: Can you also hear when that happens on an open phone line, and hear things that are going on on his side of the phone?

JACOBSON: You can hear background noise, yes.

DISTASO: If the person who is checking their voicemail talks or says something, you can pick that up as well?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Now, when you are doing a wiretap, are you permitted, or are the officers permitted to listen to every single call all the way through from start to finish?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

DISTASO: The law is kind of restrictive in regards to the wiretaps?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And what is it called when the monitors stop recording or get off the phone?

JACOBSON: It's a term that we use called minimization, or minimize a particular portion of a phone call.

DISTASO: What does that mean? I mean tell the jury what that means.

JACOBSON: Basically what it means is that the monitors stop recording that portion of the phone call.

DISTASO: And,

JACOBSON: They don't listen or record that portion of the call.

DISTASO: And why does somebody minimize a call?

JACOBSON: They can minimize it for various reasons.  Obviously, the first one being that if it is a conversation which we're not entitled to listen to.

DISTASO: Let me stop you. What would be an example of that?

JACOBSON: An example would be where a client is talking with his attorney about privileged communication regarding the case at hand, or he's talking to his parishioner, or clergy, or other entitled privileges that are allowed.

DISTASO: There is some privileged calls that law enforcement is not permitted to listen to?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And without getting too technical in that regard, there is some checks that you are permitted to do in the law when that's happening, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. But, for the most part, you get off the call, and then you get back on the call when that,

GERAGOS:  Objection. Leading.

DISTASO: I'm just trying to lay some foundation, judge.

GERAGOS:  Well foundation has been laid yesterday.

JUDGE: Try to do it without leading questions. Otherwise we'll get these interruptions, take forever. Just try to eliminate the leading questions.

DISTASO: That's fine.

DISTASO: For privileged calls, use attorney calls. There some procedure that the law allows you to check the call occasionally to make sure it's still a privileged call?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And can you just tell the jury what that is, real quick?

JACOBSON: It's basically called a spot check, where the monitor is able to listen to up to thirty seconds of a conversation to determine the nature of that conversation, to see if that conversation is a privileged conversation. And if it is a privileged conversation, the law mandates that the agent stay off the phone for at least two minutes.

DISTASO: And this is a human being, does a human being have to actually sit and monitor each call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The computer can't minimize or do these actions by itself?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

DISTASO: So at some level there is some subjective judgments on the part of the human being who is listening to the call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. Other than privileged calls, are the monitors permitted to listen to every single call, even if, as long as it's not privileged?

JACOBSON: Are they permitted? Repeat that question one more time for me.

DISTASO: Let me make it clear. Can the monitors listen to every single call in its entirety as long as it's not privileged?

JACOBSON: The monitors are instructed that if a call does not contain pertinent information to go ahead and minimize that call. And when I used the term pertinent information, it's going to be something that's relevant to the case.  If the particular person is on the phone with Domino's Pizza, and he's ordering pizza, he's put on hold for thirty minutes waiting to make the order of his pizza, the monitors are probably not going to stay on the line. They are probably going to minimize that call, possibly minimize the call for the entire duration of that call.

DISTASO: Let's use an example in this particular case. If the defendant was speaking to Amber Frey, those calls were general listened to completely?

JACOBSON: For the most part, yes.

DISTASO: Some were minimized at certain portions?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And if the defendant was on like a business call, for example, were portions of business calls minimized?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: So those are the kinds of things, the kind of judgments that the monitors have to make while this is going on?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: What does it sound like in the recording when a call is minimized? It's like you hear talking, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Then you hear kind of a blip?

JACOBSON: You will hear like of a "kaplunk". Be like, it will be, usually it will be something that you will recognize on the call when you are listening to it on a playback. And then you will hear it start back up again, also. You will hear it start back up, a "kaplunk" as well.

DISTASO: And that means that for whatever portion of that call the monitor decided not to listen to or record the call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Now, other than voice data, this voice data that comes through to the wiretap computer, and this information is collected in the computer and stored.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: And it can be put on a CD disk, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it can.

DISTASO: Basically every call that is stored can be downloaded on to a disk, distributed wherever it needs to go?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: You were the one who was responsible for doing this?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Other than voice data, what other data does the wiretap collect?

JACOBSON: General data for the phone call, such as the duration of the call, cell site information, system identities or switch information, the numbers of the digits being dialed, or the incoming number coming in if it's known.

DISTASO: So, basically, the data from AT&T records data also comes with the call and gets stored in the computer?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And you can print that out,

GERAGOS:  Objection. Leading.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me ask,

JUDGE: Why just leave the "and" out.

DISTASO: Can you print that data out and make it available?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Let me just show you a couple of exhibits here.  This is 203,

JUDGE: For the record, these are, in case the jury has forgotten, these are these some of the fraud records that was referred to by Miss Anderson when she testified.

DISTASO: It is. It includes some other stuff as well.

JUDGE: There is other stuff. This was generally the area.

DISTASO: 203F, is that a printout of the data of, the Call Record Data that came with the wiretap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: Okay. And it's called the, it has kind of a name that you use to refer to; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: What name is that?

JACOBSON: It's basically what we refer to as CALEA data.

DISTASO: And that basically just means Call Record Data?

JACOBSON: It basically means it's the data that we received from the telecommunications service provider, such as AT&T Wireless in this case.

DISTASO: And this is the data that is collected and stored in the computer as the wiretap is going on?

JACOBSON: That's correct, sir.

DISTASO: Now, that data that comes in from AT&T, it, does it come in in the kind of AT&T code form?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it does.

DISTASO: That means that it comes in as numbers and letters, and then you have to go to these conversion tables and figure out what all that means?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And the conversion tables that you use,

JUDGE: 204?

DISTASO: 204 and 205.

DISTASO: These conversion tables are the same ones that you use for the CALEA data; is that right? Take a look at them.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they are.

DISTASO: And as far as using this particular, these particular books, it's the same, you use the book the same for the wiretap data as you do for regular AT&T records data?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Did you, did you use those conversion tables to look up some cell site information for the defendant?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And did you do that from some of the records that you received from AT&T, as well as the data that you obtained off of the wiretap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: Your Honor, I'm going to mark another binder.

JUDGE: That will be 207.

DISTASO: 207.

JUDGE: People's 207.

DISTASO: Should be A.

JUDGE: A through what?

DISTASO: A through F. And includes a number of subparts. Do you want me to give you all the subparts, judge?

JUDGE: Yes.

DISTASO: A has A1 through A14. B has B1 through B2. C has C through C5. And D is D through D20.

JUDGE: D20.

DISTASO: Un-hun. E is E through E8. And F is through F5.

JUDGE: Okay.  Binder and Contents marked as Exhibit 207A-F5 for identification.

GERAGOS:  I'm sorry, are you going to play one of these now?

DISTASO: I'm going to start it.

GERAGOS:  Start with, I won't hold you up.

DISTASO: Investigator Jacobson, you, some of this cell site information that you looked up, did you look up the cell site information for the defendant's phone on December 24th of 2002?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And did you look at that for the entire day?

JACOBSON: I did.

DISTASO: And did you make a slide that kind of, that visually depicts where that, where those cell sites were being activated throughout the day?

JACOBSON: For a portion of that day, yes.

DISTASO: Specifically I guess from 10:08 in the morning to 5:44 in the afternoon?

JACOBSON: You are correct.

DISTASO: One thing I forgot to ask you about the wiretap data. Time zones change in these records. What time zone does the wiretap data come in?

JACOBSON: It would come in Pacific Standard Time.

DISTASO: The time when was the call is actually made?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Let me show you 203C, and ask you if, is that a slide that you made that depicts the cell site information?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: Okay. And do you have that, do you have that in your computer there?

JACOBSON: I do, yes, sir.

DISTASO: Let me just put it up. You went through the records. Let's just kind of go through there, throughout the day.  The first call we have heard a lot of testimony about the last two days that was at 10:08 a.m.?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it was.

DISTASO: And the cell towers that it activated were 1250 Brighton and 10th and D in Modesto?

JACOBSON: The originating cell site location was 1250 Brighton Avenue. Terminating cell site at 10th and D Street, downtown Modesto.

DISTASO: And there was an incoming call from a phone that was subscribed to who at 11:44 a.m.?

JACOBSON: The phone is actually subscribed as an AT&T Wireless phone. It's actually subscribed to Miss Jacquelyn Peterson. But I know that phone to be used by Mr. Lee Peterson.

DISTASO: And how is it that you know that phone is used by Mr. Lee Peterson?

JACOBSON: During the course of the wiretap, and also from notes that I have seen in this investigation from the defendant as well.

DISTASO: And so that a call came into the defendant's phone at 11:44?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. But this record doesn't show on his particular phone records. This record comes from Mr. Lee Peterson's phone records.

DISTASO: Okay. The third call was an outgoing to a voicemail, and that was at 2:12 p.m.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it was.

DISTASO: This period of time from 10:00 to 2:00 o'clock, other than these calls that you were able to, these three calls, did you find any other activity on the defendant's phone from that, from those periods of time?

JACOBSON: Other than this 11:44 call that came in through Lee Peterson's phone records?

DISTASO: Un-hun.

JACOBSON: No.

DISTASO: You have looked at the defendant's phone records, all the records you were able to gather in this case?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And did you look at your, you are familiar with the records of the wiretap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I am.

DISTASO: And is this period of time in the morning where there is very little activity on his phone?

GERAGOS:  Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Argumentative.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS:  It's leading.

DISTASO: This period of time where there is only, from ten, activity on the defendant's phone from ten to two, those are the, that's the only activity in that time period, is that consistent with the rest of the defendant's phone usage?

JACOBSON: For weekdays, no.

DISTASO: And on weekdays, what type of usage did you typically see in the records or during the wiretap usage on the defendant's phone?

JACOBSON: Mr. Peterson was very active on his phones.

DISTASO: Kind of throughout the day, during most of the weekdays?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: At 2:14 there was an outgoing call to his home telephone?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And that cell tower that was activated was 2600 10th Street in Berkeley?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Both of these call at 2:12 and 2:14 are cell towers in Berkeley, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they are.

DISTASO: Do you know if those cell towers are the ones that service the Berkeley Marina?

JACOBSON: Yes, they do.

DISTASO: The fifth call at 2:17, kind of just going across counterclockwise, was also at a cell tower in Berkeley?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it was.

DISTASO: And the sixth call was, activated a cell tower where?

JACOBSON: It was at 9500 Sterns in the City of Oakland.

DISTASO: And the seventh call?

JACOBSON: The seventh call was at 20103 Lake Chabot in Castro Valley.

DISTASO: Does it appear from this activity that the defendant is traveling eastward?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And the next call, the eighth call?

JACOBSON: The eighth call at 2:45 p.m. was an outgoing call that Mr. Peterson made to Lee Peterson, at which time it used the 6390 Grassland, Castro Valley, cell tower.

DISTASO: And that's still going in an easterly direction?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: These two calls, they were calls to Lee Peterson on that particular day?

JACOBSON: Yes, there were.

DISTASO: And then there was a ninth call that you were not able to obtain cell site information for?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: And where the you find this call?

JACOBSON: This call came from Mr. Peterson's records.

DISTASO: And the tenth call, that had cell site information attached?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it did.

GERAGOS:  Could I just ask, as a point of information, from which Mr. Peterson's records? He's mentioned two.

JUDGE: My understanding, it's from the father's record.

GERAGOS:  No, I don't think so. If it was, they would say.

JUDGE: Then what, would you clear that up?

DISTASO: I'll clear that up.

DISTASO: The ninth call was in whose records, the defendant, or,

JACOBSON: The defendant's records, sir. Sorry for that.

DISTASO: No problem. The tenth call was a cell tower where?

JACOBSON: At was serviced by the cell tower at 4959 South Front in Livermore.

DISTASO: And, again, that's traveling in an easterly direction?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: And 5:44 p.m., looks like there is a call at the 1250 Brighton tower back in Modesto?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Now, the next slide, 203B, is that a slide that you prepared?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: Is, can you just throw it up on the screen just very quickly? We have already seen it. And this is a slide that you prepared that depicted the information that was contained in the records of the call at 10:08?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: You can move on to the next slide. That's 203D.  And let me ask you, did you prepare this particular slide as well, 203D?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: Did you perform some kind of test where you made some phone calls from the defendant's residence and, with an AT&T Wireless phone that was on the same network that the defendant used to determine what cell sites were activated when you made particular calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And when did you do that? What date was it?

JACOBSON: It was in the month of June of 2004.

DISTASO: And what were, well, let's just start from the very beginning.  What's the first thing you did when you were doing this test?

JACOBSON: The first thing that I did was, I had to locate an AT&T Wireless phone that was on the same network that was being used by the defendant in this case.

DISTASO: Did you do that?

JACOBSON: I did.

DISTASO: And let me show you this record. This record, 203E, is this the record you received, the cell site data for your test calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. You can go ahead and have a seat again.  Once you obtained that phone, what's the next thing you did?

JACOBSON: The next thing that I did was, I coordinated with the person who actually owned that phone to actually sit by, basically be a stopwatch for me as I performed this test.

DISTASO: And the call that was at 10:08 lasted for how long?

JACOBSON: The call from Mr. Scott Peterson's records lasted one minute, 21 seconds.

DISTASO: And so you take this phone. Where did you go?

JACOBSON: I took the phone, and I went over to his residence at 523 Covena, at this location here.

DISTASO: Let me give you that laser pointer. This might make it a little clearer.

JACOBSON: I'm not that educated. Try to figure this out.

DISTASO: Okay. So you started at his residence in the driveway?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: What is it that you did?

JACOBSON: The first call that you see right here is the test number one. I went north on Covena where, near where it deadends. And I made a westbound turn on to Edgebrook. I followed Edgebrook all the way down here to La Loma, until the other lady on the line told me it was basically time.

DISTASO: So you made a call to her; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes. I continued to stay on the phone for the minute and 21 second duration that I perceived, as well as her telling me that my time was up.

DISTASO: Okay. Then what did you do?

JACOBSON: Okay. Then I went back,

DISTASO: Stop. After she said okay, it's time, what did you do?

JACOBSON: I hung up the phone.

DISTASO: Okay. And did you, when you obtained the records of these tests, what cell site did you start out, and what cell site did you finish at?

JACOBSON: Test number one, I started out at the cell site which covers this particular residence, at 1250 Brighton Avenue, and when I ended a minute 21 seconds later, my last originating cell tower location was 10th and D Street in the  line 18 City of Modesto.

DISTASO: And is that consistent with the record of the call that Mr. Peterson made to check his voicemail at 10:08?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: What did you do for the next call?

JACOBSON: Test number two that I outlined here, I did the same thing. I got back into his driveway. I pulled out of his driveway. I made the phone call to the lady who owns this particular phone. She started the timer. This time I chose a different direction to head westbound on Encina, another way that you can leave this house, and being in a southwest direction. About a minute and 21 seconds later, it put me at the intersection of La Loma. So I noticed, really wasn't much of a difference between taking Edgebrook west on Encina. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Didn't make a difference.

DISTASO: Let me stop you. And then did you hang up the phone then?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And when you got the record back from AT&T, which cell site did you start out, and what cell site did you finish at?

JACOBSON: Once again, my originating cell site location was 1250 Brighton Avenue. My termination cell site location was 10th and D Street.

DISTASO: Again, that was consistent with the call that Mr. Peterson made?

JACOBSON: Consistent with his records, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And, finally, did you do, did you try a third test call in a different direction?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: What was the third one?

JACOBSON: The third call, I left his driveway. I made the phone call. I headed south this time on Covena, which last, which terminated at the intersection of Miller and Covena.

DISTASO: And you did the same thing. You made the call, minute 20 seconds, hung up?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: When you got the records back, were the cell towers consistent? You started at 1250 Brighton, you ended at 10th and D?

 JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Did you also make some test calls from the defendant's business at 1027 North Emerald?

JACOBSON: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Can you go back to the previous slide? For the record, this is 203B.  And this depicts kind of a rough approximation where the business is, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it does.

DISTASO: And what did you do in this particular instance?  Where did you do these calls from?

JACOBSON: These calls I performed at his business in the same fashion that I performed at the residence at 523 Covena.

DISTASO: And did you leave his business and drive a minute and 21 seconds?

JACOBSON: I left his business. I drove south from his business a minute and 12 seconds away from the business.

DISTASO: And what cell tower was activated during that call?

JACOBSON: My originating cell site location was at 929 Woodland Avenue. My ending cell site, a minute 21 seconds, was still at 929 Woodland.

DISTASO: Did you try it again in a different direction?

JACOBSON: No. I used, I went the same direction, in a south direction again.

DISTASO: You, so you did that same thing two times?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And both times did you start and end at the 929 Woodland tower?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: During the course of the wiretap, did you, when did Wiretap Number 2 start, again?

JACOBSON: Wiretap Number 2 was signed by the judge on January 10th of 2003.

DISTASO: And when did you actually start recording information?

JACOBSON: Oh, I recollect it was either toward the very latter portion of the 10th or early morning on the 11th. And we finally worked out the handshake with AT&T basically,

DISTASO: Let me show you this binder.

JUDGE: 207.

DISTASO: This is 207.

DISTASO: Take a look at this binder, and let me ask you if you prepared the information that's contained in there. Just take your time.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did. I prepared that.

DISTASO: You can just hand that to the judge. The 207A-1, is that a slide that depicts the defendant's wiretap and cell site location for January 11th?

JACOBSON: I don't have the number, sir. But,

DISTASO: Let me,

JACOBSON: I know what.

JUDGE: Do you want me to give this back to him?

DISTASO: He has it on the computer. He doesn't know the numbers. That's all right. Go ahead and put that slide up on the screen.  For the record, we're looking at 207A-1.

DISTASO: And you also prepared a, for all these slides that we're going to listen to, you prepared CDs of those as well; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, I made, go ahead. I made CDs.

DISTASO: Those are in the binders and marked as part of the exhibits?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. I saw them in there, yes.

DISTASO: On the morning of January 11th, are you aware of what the Modesto Police Department was doing at the Berkeley Marina?

JACOBSON: Yes, I was.

DISTASO: What was that?

JACOBSON: The Modesto Police Department was, with the aid of law enforcement agencies in the area were searching The Bay.

DISTASO: And they had a sonar hit that they wanted to investigate, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Do you know whether or not it had been reported that they were potentially looking for a body?

JACOBSON: As early as January 9th, the media and the organization of the media, had witnessed law enforcement out in The Bay. They also purported that the information that we believe at the time was that there was an accurate sonar hit of an object in The Bay, which we believed may be that of a human.

DISTASO: Let's go through the, what the records show on this particular day.  On these records, now, for the record, what we are looking at on the slide here, 207A-1, are from the wiretap information?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. The information came from the wire intercept.

DISTASO: Okay. And a call started, looks like incoming from SDEA at 6:18, with the cell tower of 1250 Brighton. What does that mean?

JACOBSON: That means at 6:18 in the morning on January 11th, we put in a test call to that phone and hung up, to see whether that telephone actually was on that morning.

DISTASO: So you and the wire room were testing the system?

JACOBSON: We basically did a prank call.

DISTASO: Okay. At 9:37 there were a couple of calls, seconds apart, that the wiretap information shows from the slide accessed from the Concord 3 switch?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, that's correct.

DISTASO: And you drew the boundaries of the Concord 3 switch there on the slide; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: So at 9:37, 9:38, and 9:47, this Concord 3 switch was servicing the defendant's cell phone?

JACOBSON: Yes, it was.

DISTASO: At kind of going around. Now, is this every single call that was made at this time? Or is this just a snapshot of calls?

JACOBSON: For this particular day it's a snapshot of calls placing the defendant at specific locations.

DISTASO: And at 10:13, based on the slide, there was an incoming call that accessed the Concord 2 switch?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: And, again, you put boundaries of the Concord 2 switch up there on the slide?

JACOBSON: I did, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And just so we're clear, these two switches are nowhere near Fresno, or Bakersfield, or Button Willow; is that right?

JACOBSON: Oh, no, sir.

DISTASO: At 10:37, again, another call to the Concord 2 switch?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And the Concord 2 switch is the switch that services the Berkeley Marina?

JACOBSON: It is.

DISTASO: At 10:40, again a call at the Concord 2 switch?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And at 10:48, an incoming call from the defendant's mother at the Concord 2 switch?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And was that call actually recorded?

JACOBSON: Yes, it was.

DISTASO: And did the defendant tell his mother where he was, where he said he was during that particular call?

GERAGOS:  Objection. Hearsay.

JUDGE: Well, why is it being offered?

GERAGOS:  For the truth of the matter.

DISTASO: It's the defendant's statement, your Honor. I'm going to play the call.

GERAGOS:  Let him play the call.

JUDGE: Well, this incoming call from Jackie Peterson. I'm asking. Jackie Peterson?

DISTASO: I'm asking what the defendant told her.

JUDGE: Overruled.

DISTASO: Where did the defendant say that he was at that time?

JACOBSON: Mr. Scott Peterson stated that he was in West Fresno, or in Fresno.

DISTASO: And you have that information, you have that call prepared to be played?

JACOBSON: I do.

DISTASO: Your Honor, I'm going to hand the transcript out to the jury on that.

JUDGE: We'll distribute these transcripts to the media also so you can follow what we're doing here. This is, and did you mark the transcript the same number?

DISTASO: Transcripts are marked in the binder individually.

JUDGE: 207A-1 in the binder is the,

DISTASO: Transcript of this particular call is A3.

JUDGE: All right. All right. It's A3 in the binder.

DISTASO: Your Honor, for the record, the jury is getting all the transcripts for what's in the binder A, B, and C.

JUDGE: You are going to play A through, you are going to get over to B and C?

DISTASO: I'll let you know when we get to B.

DISTASO: Now, on the screen, Investigator Jacobson, you put up another slide that depicts the distance from the Concord 2 switch to where the defendant stated that he was?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call.  (RECORDING)  You can switch over to the next slide.

GERAGOS:  What did the previous slide have to do with that phone call?

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, you got,

GERAGOS:  We are showing a slide that purports to relate to this.

JUDGE: You are commenting on the evidence now.

GERAGOS:  I understand, judge. But we're showing a slide to the jury, if he can show the previous slide, had nothing to do with this phone call. Go back to the previous slide.

JUDGE: I think the other slide shows where,

DISTASO: This one does, but not the previous that was up there.

JUDGE: That's okay. You can ask him about that on cross. He's showing where Scott Peterson's actual location was in Oakland or Berkeley. And he purported to say he was in Fresno.

GERAGOS:  I understand that. The previous slide, that's not what was up.

JUDGE: But this is the slide. He had this up before, right?

GERAGOS:  Okay.

JUDGE: Go ahead.

DISTASO: Were there, were there other calls in the afternoon where the defendant, the cell phone information gave one location, and the defendant was stating that he was in a different location?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go to the next slide. This is 207A-4.

JUDGE: All right. Then the tape is on right after you have got it in your book.

GERAGOS:  That I have got. I'm fine. I just want to make sure when we are showing a slide, it's the same slide. I don't think that's commenting on the evidence. I think that that's an exhibit.

JUDGE: I think it was. You started saying what this relates to.

GERAGOS:  I think that's a valid point.

JUDGE: Get on with it. Go ahead.

DISTASO: At some point in the day on January 11, did the Modesto Police Department call various family members and tell them that they had actually not found a body?

GERAGOS:  Objection. Leading. Hearsay.

JUDGE: Sustained.

DISTASO: Did you hear on the wiretaps Modesto Police Department making any comments to anyone about what they actually found at the Marina?

JACOBSON: If I understand your question correctly, you are asking me if I heard over the wiretap the Modesto Police Department communicating with Mr. Peterson over what they found in the bay?

DISTASO: Let's go there first. Did you ever hear them call him?

JACOBSON: No.

DISTASO: Did you hear Sharon Rocha call and leave a voicemail for the defendant saying what they found at the Marina?

JACOBSON: Did I hear that voicemail left by Miss Rocha?

GERAGOS:  Judge, maybe it would be simpler because I don't want to keep interrupting. But if we are going to just eliminate hearsay, he can testify to anything that's on the wiretaps. If we are, I won't make the objection any more then.

JUDGE: The question is, you are offering this not for the truth, but to the reasonableness of his conduct afterwards?

DISTASO: Of that, your Honor, and as well as for the defendant's reaction to when he gets this information.

JUDGE: You are asking for what Sharon Rocha, he heard from Sharon Rocha, and you are offering this not for the truth, but offering to explain his conduct as a result of what information he received?

DISTASO: And to explain, right, why he kept listening, and why they kept calling, this train of evidence on the tap.

JUDGE: Then it's overruled. It's not coming in for the truth. It's coming in to explain this officer's subsequent conduct.

GERAGOS:  The jury will be admonished as to,

JUDGE: I just said that, I thought.

GERAGOS:  It's not being offered for the truth of what is said.

JUDGE: I thought I just said that.

GERAGOS:  Okay.

JUDGE: Okay.

DISTASO: Okay. Go ahead, detective, play the particular call from Sharon Rocha when she is leaving this voicemail. 

(RECORDING)

DISTASO: Did you hear on, in that particular call, did you hear some noise or some statement, something from the person listening to the voicemail?

GERAGOS:  Objection. Leading. Argumentative.  Document speaks for itself.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS:  I'll also object to, you know, I have got the transcript here where they have got the Scott Peterson whistle. I think that's argumentative in and of itself.

JUDGE: I'm going to let it in now. It's too late to redact it now. You know, I have said this before, the best procedure is for the Court to individually listen to all these. My understanding, again, this morning there was no problem with any of these tapes.

GERAGOS:  That isn't what was said, judge.

JUDGE: I know,

GERAGOS:  In an effort,

JUDGE: I assume that includes the whistle, Mr. Geragos. They have it in their hands. I can't redact it now.

GERAGOS:  I'm not asking you to redact it.  I'm just saying, when I'm given this stuff last Sunday, and  I'm doing witnesses, and everything else, I can't, and I don't want to hold up the jury. They want to get this over with. I want to get this over with. But at the same time, I think that they should be admonished that,

JUDGE: I'll ask them to ignore the whistle, because that's an opinion and conclusion of whoever typed up the transcript. You have heard the tape. You know you can hear. There is nothing better than your ears.  Okay, go ahead.

DISTASO: Was there, then after this call that we just heard, was there a call between the defendant and Sharon Rocha where they speak?

JACOBSON: Yes. Just a few seconds later, as you can see on the timeline on the chart.

DISTASO: So the voicemail was left at 12:55.

JACOBSON: He listened to it at 12:55.

DISTASO: Listened to it sat 12:55. At 12:56:43 there is an outgoing call to Sharon Rocha?

JACOBSON: There is an attempt prior to that. But there was a problem with the handshake of the phones. And then he was able to go through on this, a second call.

DISTASO: And my, okay, am I standing in your way? I'm sorry. Let me move back.  By listening to the calls, are you familiar with Mr. Peterson's voice?

JACOBSON: I am, very much so.

DISTASO: You have heard, you know, probably a couple thousand calls at this point; is that right?

JACOBSON: Not at this point, no. But I'd heard some audio prior to this.

DISTASO: What I mean was from listening to the wiretaps, you heard numerous calls of the defendant speaking?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Let's go ahead. And if you could go to the next slide. That would be A6. And during this particular call between the defendant and Mrs. Rocha, does the defendant give a location where he says he is?

GERAGOS:  Objection.

JACOBSON: Yes, he does. I'm sorry about that, sir. Go ahead.

GERAGOS:  You have got the call. That's the best evidence.

JUDGE: I think so.

DISTASO: That's fine. We'll just play it.

DISTASO: Before we play it, did the wiretap information give you cell site location the for the defendant, where the phone was being serviced by?

JACOBSON: Yes, it did.

DISTASO: Where was where was that?

JACOBSON: For which call?

DISTASO: For the one that we're looking at the slide right now?

JACOBSON: A7.

DISTASO: A7?

JACOBSON: I don't know the slide, but, the number of the slide. The site handling it is 5755 Rossi Lane in the City of Gilroy.

DISTASO: A6 is the slide, A7 is the transcript. Would you go ahead and play that call? 

(RECORDING)

JUDGE: All right. So A3, A5, and A7 may be admitted in evidence, along with the disk.  Go ahead.

DISTASO: Going back to A4, Investigator Jacobson, continuing through the afternoon. And, again, these calls in the afternoon, are these every call, or a snapshot of the calls?

JACOBSON: It's a snapshot of the afternoon for that particular day, sir.

DISTASO: After that call to Mrs. Rocha, looked like there is an outgoing call to voicemail. And that was the same cell tower in Gilroy?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it was.

DISTASO: And then at 1:01 there was an outgoing call that, actually completed call to defendant's father?

JACOBSON: Yes. Mr. Scott Peterson called his dad Mr. Lee Peterson.

DISTASO: And that was at 1:01 p.m.?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And what was the cell tower information that came across the wiretap for that particular call?

JACOBSON: This particular call, the call originated at 8435 San Ysidro in the City of Gilroy.

DISTASO: And do you have that call on a slide?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

DISTASO: This would be A8. Do you have that call available to be played?

JACOBSON: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: This would be at A9 in the transcript. Go ahead and play that.

(RECORDING)

JUDGE: Going back to A4, with the afternoon. Calls continued; is that right?

JACOBSON: They, yes, they continue.

DISTASO: And there was an outgoing to, at 1:09:22. And the cell tower for that call was 1194 West Dunne in Morgan Hill?

JACOBSON: Yes, you are correct.

DISTASO: And another call at 1:09:33?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: A call at 1:11, cell tower in Gilroy?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Call at 1:17, cell tower at 5755 Rossi in Gilroy?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And then there was another call, completed call to a Guy Miligi. And that was at 5755 Rossi in Gilroy as well?

JACOBSON: Same, yes, on Rossi Lane, yes.

DISTASO: Do you have a slide that depicts that call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

JUDGE: This is what, A10?

DISTASO: This is A10. And did you, would you play that call for us, please?  This is A11, the transcript, your Honor. 

(RECORDING)

DISTASO: Go back to A4. After that call there is a series of outgoing calls to voicemail, I mean leaving messages for Mike Richardson; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And were you able to get cell site information for those calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I was.

DISTASO: Don't play that yet. Looks like it was 8635 Lovers Lane in Hollister for all three of those?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The voicemail is very short. And this was, this call, the call that Guy Miligi was at 1:21:19. And then the outgoing call to voicemail was at 1:25, to Mike Richardson?

JACOBSON: Actually an outgoing call to Mike Richardson's voicemail actually occurred nine seconds after the duration or termination of the last call.

DISTASO: Okay. The 1:21:19 is the start of the call with Mr. Miligi?

JACOBSON: Then, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that call goes for three minutes and 54 seconds. And so now it brings us to this outbound call to Mike Richardson's voicemail.

DISTASO: Nine seconds later you got this call to voicemail, and you are able to get some cell site data?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Just play that call. It's very brief. A12. 

(RECORDING)

DISTASO: You go back to A4. After that call, you actually intercept a call where the defendant spoke to Mike Richardson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And were you able to get actual cell site location for that information?

JACOBSON: Not the actual cell site location, but the switch location.

DISTASO: So you just got switch information for that call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And do you have a slide that depicts the location that we have just been talking about?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

DISTASO: And if you could play that call between Mr. Peterson, and just so we're clear,

JUDGE: Which one are we referring to?

DISTASO: We are at A14, your Honor.

JUDGE: A14. And A13 precedes A14?

DISTASO: A13 is what's on the screen right now.

JACOBSON: Sorry, do you want me to play that call?

DISTASO: Don't play it yet. This is, the call is actually between Mr. Peterson and what parties?

JACOBSON: Mike and Heather Richardson.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play the call. 

(RECORDING)

DISTASO: Finally, in this group of calls, did you intercept a call from Robert Weaver that plays, that used a cell site in San Jose?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. He received an incoming phone call. And at the time that he received the phone call, the cell site serviced that particular call was 3751 Polton Place in the e 23 City of San Jose.

DISTASO: And that call was at 2:02, thirty minutes after the call we just heard. This is A15. Go ahead, play that.  This is A15.

(RECORDING)

JUDGE: For the record, we should admit then A1 through 14, including the disks and the transcripts. A1 through 14. 

CLERK: 15.

GERAGOS:  15 was the,

JUDGE: It was identified as A through 14, but there is an additional one.

GERAGOS:  I think on the record you identified it as 14.

JUDGE: There is 15, so it's A through 15.  Thank you. All right. Exhibit 207A1-15 admitted in Evidence.

DISTASO: Also, as part of the wiretap, did you listen to a call between Scott Peterson and Brent Rocha where Mr. Peterson talks about making the cement anchor?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And do you have a slide that depicts that?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS:  And I have an objection to it. I believe it's argumentative. You can take a,

JUDGE: I will look at it.

GERAGOS:  It's right there in, I think in front of you.

DISTASO: For the Court's information, exhibit number B2.

DISTASO: No, yeah, it's B1.

JUDGE: But the transcript is B2.

DISTASO: I think he's objecting to the slide.

GERAGOS:  I'm not objecting to B2. I'm objecting to B1.

DISTASO: The exhibit number is on,

JUDGE: I think we already had testimony on B1.

GERAGOS:  I understand that. It's just the slide is what I'm objecting to. They want to use that in closing, that's fine. It's not appropriate at this point.

JUDGE: Do you want to step up here, show me what the,

GERAGOS:  Yes.  (SIDEBAR)

JUDGE: Objection is overruled. All right.

DISTASO: You can go ahead and pull that slide up, investigator.  This call took place between Scott Peterson and Brent Rocha on January 16th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it did.

DISTASO: What time?

JACOBSON: At 1:46 p.m.

DISTASO: The portion that we are going to play, B2, is just a small little section out of that, out of a fairly long call.

JACOBSON: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: And it only deals with the defendant's statements regarding the making the anchor?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that.

GERAGOS:  Objection. 356.

JUDGE: Overruled. You can play the rest of it if you want, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS:  That's why I'm preserving it, so when I get up, I can do,

JUDGE: You can play the rest of it. You are entitled to under 356.

GERAGOS:  Thank you.

DISTASO: We're having technical problems, obviously.

JUDGE: Actually, check this,

GERAGOS:  Try the, Mr. Jacobson, try the brown box.

DISTASO: Your Honor, we can fix this at the break. We'll move on.

JUDGE: Why don't you skip that now, go on to the transcription.

DISTASO: We'll just do another one.

GERAGOS:  The computer sustained the objection that you overruled.

JACOBSON: Yes, it did.

JUDGE: The computer doesn't count, does it?

GERAGOS:  Well, they said artificial intelligence.

DISTASO: Okay, let's,

JACOBSON: I'm sorry about that. That's my fault. I checked my things.

GERAGOS:  That's where he's trying to, they are trying to.

DISTASO: Trying to play B2. It's not, we'll fix it at the break. I'll move on to another one.

JUDGE: Do you want to go on to C then?

DISTASO: That's fine.

JACOBSON: Sorry about that.

DISTASO: No problem.

DISTASO: Did you also intercept some calls between the defendant and a realtor in town, Brian Argain?

JACOBSON: I did.

DISTASO: And did the calls deal with the defendant wanting to sell his home?

JACOBSON: Yes, they did.

DISTASO: When did the calls start, what day?

JACOBSON: This would just be off my recollection. I don't have the slide in front of me. But I believe they started around the 22nd of January. But I could flip to the slide and confirm that.

DISTASO: Go ahead and pull up C1, the slide.

GERAGOS:  Wait one more time. For the record, I'd like to object that it's argumentative. I think you have it in front of you if you want.

JUDGE: I do have it in front of me.

GERAGOS:  If you want to approach,

JUDGE: I think it's a recitation. You prepared this. You prepared this, Mr. Jacobson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

JUDGE: You prepared this?

JACOBSON: Yes.

JUDGE: This is a resume, on the bottom, this is a resume of what the tape says about what took place?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

JUDGE: Okay. Overruled.

JACOBSON: It's frustrating. I won't give up on it, though.

JUDGE: Skip over for the time being.

DISTASO: Just hold on. Before you play it, this realtor is a friend of the defendant, Brian Argain?

JACOBSON: Yes, he is a friend of Mr. Scott Peterson's.

DISTASO: You heard them speaking on the wiretap on a number of occasions?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: But first, the first call that you intercepted that involved the defendant in the sale of his house, is the slide correct is it 1-22 at 5:39?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. This is C2?

JACOBSON: I have my fingers crossed on that one now.

JUDGE: You know what, being a judge, I can figure it out. It's probably time for a recess. So we'll take a recess until quarter to eleven and get the kinks out.

JACOBSON: Sorry about that. I'll get this figured out. Doesn't like something. 

<morning recess>

DISTASO: Investigator Jacobson, before we leave and go back to that cement slide, the, I wanted to ask one question, one more question about the slides dealing with Bakersfield and Gilroy, and what not.  Throughout the day, or in the afternoon, from, like, 12:00 o'clock on, did the defendant receive any calls from law enforcement dealing with this particular issue?

JACOBSON: No, sir, he didn't.

DISTASO: All right. So the, not from the police, the chief, or Ron Cloward or anybody?

JACOBSON: No, sir, he didn't.

DISTASO: All right. And do you have the cement slide that we were kind of working on before we had the problems?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

DISTASO: The, that is?

JUDGE: B 2.

DISTASO: B 2. There it is. The slide is B 1 and the transcript is B 2. And you can go ahead and play that now. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: Now, we had left that slide and we had gone to a slide regarding the defendant's and, selling his home in January; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. Can you pull that slide up? The slide is C 1 and the transcript would be, start of the transcript would be C 2. Do you have that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

DISTASO: The first call that you intercepted that dealt with this issue, was it January 22nd, 2003?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: At 5:39?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Can you go ahead and play that call now. 

(recording)

DISTASO: And was there another call on the 23rd at 5:42 where the defendant again calls and talks about wanting to meet regarding selling the house?

JACOBSON: Yes. He left a voice mail message on Mr. Argain's phone, yes.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. This is C3. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: And then was there another call where Mr. Argain called the defendant back and again talked about selling the house?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: And that was on the 27th of January?

JACOBSON: Several days later, yes, sir.

DISTASO: 2003 at 5:41?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. This is C 4. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: And, finally, on the 29th at 3:32, was there a discussion again between the defendant and Brian Argain about the house?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, there was.

DISTASO: And during that call, well, let's go ahead and play the call. C 5. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: Your Honor, I'm going to play D, which is a series of calls.

JUDGE: All right.

DISTASO: So we've got to pass out the transcripts now.

JUDGE: Yes.  You may want to play the rest of B?

GERAGOS:  Yes.

JUDGE: She was asking whether we were going to, we're not going to move B.

DISTASO: Starting with D 2.

JUDGE: We can move in C to C 5. Take the same number. 

JUDGE: Ready?

DISTASO: I'm ready.

JUDGE: Okay.

DISTASO: Hold on one second. Pull up that slide.

DISTASO: Was there, Investigator Jacobson, was there a series of calls over the course of a few days regarding a purported sighting of Laci Peterson in Washington state?

JACOBSON: Yes, there were.

DISTASO: And did you intercept those calls as they came in to Mr. Peterson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: When was the first call that you intercepted on the wiretap that dealt with this particular issue?

JACOBSON: The first intercepted and monitored conversation concerning the tip up in Longview happened on January 30th at 2109, or 9:09 p.m., whereas, as you see on the screen, Miss Rita Cosby called Mr. Scott Peterson.

DISTASO: Okay. Go ahead, and that was a short conversation about the tip?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. Go ahead and play that. This is D 2. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: The, from the wiretap records, was that the first information that you had about this particular tip coming in to Mr. Peterson over the phones?

JACOBSON: That was the first call that we intercepted and were able to monitor that, that, basically the notification of Mr. Peterson.

DISTASO: And did you intercept another call, between that call at 9:09 and then a call at 9:18, did Mr. Peterson, according to the wiretap records, make any call to the Longview Police Department?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

DISTASO: Did you intercept another call at 9:18 that dealt with this same issue?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

line DISTASO: And who was this particular call to?

JACOBSON: This time it was an incoming call to Mr. Peterson from Heidi and Aaron Fritz.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: The next day, did you intercept a call between the defendant and another reporter who was calling in about this information?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: Okay. Go ahead and play that call.

JUDGE: D 4, right?

DISTASO: This is D 4.  (Recording)

DISTASO: A few minutes after that call, 8:32, did you intercept the defendant's mother leaving a message for the defendant, talking about this tip?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And did she, well, basically in her message, you know, say what, kind of what's going on about this, do you want to fly up there, do you want to look into it, that kind of thing?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And then did you also intercept, a few minutes after that, the defendant listening to her message?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: At 9:28 on the,

GERAGOS:  Judge, this is just, it really is outrageous. The, I'm objecting to it. I'm not going forward another minute until I have a hearing on the what I think are editorial comments.

JUDGE: The Ha Ha Ha.

GERAGOS:  Yeah. It's just, it's not there.

JUDGE: The Ha Ha can go out. And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you can come to your own conclusions as to what you heard on the tape, and you can disregard the interpretation on the tape. It's up to you to decide if there was any laughter, okay?  All right? Proceed.

DISTASO: The, on the, later that morning at 9:28, did you intercept a call from the defendant and his mother talking about this?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. 

(Recording)

JUDGE: Just admonish the jury, I told you this about a week ago before they played those other tapes, that these transcripts are only to be guides for you. It's what you hear on the tape that's important, and that's the best evidence of what was said. Any of these, any of these editorials that somebody was laughing or something, that's up to you to decide, based on what you hear.

DISTASO: The, it looks like on that particular call, was that a call that the wiretap lost?  Or was this just a portion that we played?

JACOBSON: The latter part of that conversation was lost on the wiretap.

DISTASO: Okay. And that happens throughout the wiretaps; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: It will be, you'll have the information, be listening, and, all of a sudden, gone?

JACOBSON: Sometimes the call will cut out.

DISTASO: Okay.

JACOBSON: And you'll lose the remainder of the conversation.

DISTASO: Up to this point, when, that call at 9:28 on the 31st, had you intercepted any calls where the defendant had called up to the Longview Police Department and asked them about this tip?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

DISTASO: At 10:02 did you intercept a call where the defendant dialed Information and asked for the Longview Police Department number?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. January 31st at 10:02

(Recording)

DISTASO: Other than getting the little traffic primer there at the end, did the wiretap lose the call at that point?

JACOBSON: Basically there was another call. You heard the beeping through the conversation? Another call came in from Mr. Ted Rowlands, and it disconnected me.

DISTASO: The wiretap left this call, and did it go to the other call? Or did it just disconnect?

JACOBSON: It disconnected this call to field the new incoming call, so I basically lost the remainder of this conversation.

DISTASO: At 10:11 did, was there another conversation about this issue between the defendant and his mother?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. This is D 8. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: Investigator Jacobson, the, on the slide, the location information that you, that you have given us there, is that from cell site data that came across in the wiretap?

JACOBSON: I don't understand that question. One more time.

DISTASO: Okay. When we look at the slides when we're playing these calls, it has Scott in Livermore, Scott at Bay Bridge. Is that location information from cell site information that came across the wiretap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: So those are the cell sites that are servicing these calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Did you intercept the call at 11:23 where,

GERAGOS:  Once again I'd object. The slide is argumentative. We've already had testimony from the people that said you can't use this for specific locations.  This slide says Scott in motel, Scott in San Francisco, Scott at Bay Bridge.

JUDGE: He can have him explain the slide for the jury so the jury understands. The objection's overruled.  Okay. Next one.

DISTASO: Did you intercept a voice mail message from Rita Cosby calling back to the defendant and asking to interview him to get this information about Longview out to the public or out on the air?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And that was at 11:23?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. This is D 9. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: Did you intercept a call between Eric Olson on the 31st and Mr. Peterson where they again discussed this particular sighting and what the defendant's been doing or plans are?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. This is D 10. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: Did, at 4:09 on the 31st, did you intercept the defendant checking his voice mail where there were a number of media personnel calling him, asking him if he was going to be doing anything, anything additional to get the word out or,

GERAGOS:  Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

DISTASO: Did you intercept some media personnel calling him on that day and leaving messages for him?

JACOBSON: I believe there were media voice mail messages left.

DISTASO: And was there also a message from his mother, Jackie Peterson, about this Longview, Washington site?

JACOBSON: I believe there was a couple of them, yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and place those.

GERAGOS:  Weren't these the subject of a 402?

DISTASO: I thought that was on the other,

JUDGE: I thought the 402 was going to have to do with stuff played at the end of this examination.

GERAGOS:  Not on Jackie's, on the others.

JUDGE: Pardon me?

GERAGOS:  Not on Jackie's, on the others.

JUDGE: You want a 402 hearing on this right now?

GERAGOS:  No. No. But the ones that they're going into.

JUDGE: All right. I don't understand your objection, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS:  I said not on this particular one, but the ones that we're going into.

JUDGE: The ones that he's going to be playing near the end.

GERAGOS:  Right.

JUDGE: I'm aware of that.

GERAGOS:  Okay.

JUDGE: Go ahead.

DISTASO: That's fine.  Go ahead, play that call. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: The, did you also on January 31st intercept a couple calls between Amber Frey and Scott Peterson dealing with this particular issue?

JACOBSON: Did you say a couple?

DISTASO: I think,

JACOBSON: I think there's only one on this slide, yes, sir.

DISTASO: One on 1938. Go ahead. D 12. 

(Recording)

DISTASO: Now, that was a small portion of a call that dealt with just this issue?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Okay. The next day, on February 1st, did you intercept a call where they again talk about the defendant going to Washington?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that section of call, D 13.  (Recording)

DISTASO: And then later in the day, at 10:55, did, again on February 1st, did they talk about this again?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And from the cell site information, did it appear that the defendant was traveling to Southern California?

JACOBSON: He's in Fresno.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that.  (Recording)

DISTASO: And then at 1:06 did they again speak about this particular incident in Washington?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. It's D 15.  (Recording)  Investigator, on the 2nd of February, did you get indications on the wiretap that the defendant was in Southern California with his family?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And did you intercept a voice mail that he left for his sister?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: What time was that?

JACOBSON: The one, the next call on the slide is at 3:54 p.m. on the 2nd.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that, D 16.

JUDGE: There's a reference to a whistle.  Again, it's what you hear, not, what the tape says, not what the transcript says.  Go ahead.

DISTASO: Go ahead.  (Recording)  At, later that day at 5:03 did the defendant get a call back from his sister?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, he did.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call, D 17.  (Recording)  The next day, did the defendant receive some additional calls from, one from Rita Cosby and one from a woman named Joan Faria.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Have you listened to a voice mail from Joan Faria that occurred some days prior?

JACOBSON: I'm not quite sure. I have to check the records on that. I know that she had called prior to that, yes.

DISTASO: Okay.

JACOBSON: Whether the whole conversation was monitored, I'm not sure, without looking at the records.

DISTASO: But do you remember that there was a call from her,

GERAGOS:  Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

DISTASO: Was there a call from her?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Some days prior to this?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: How, how many days?

JACOBSON: All I could do is as I say off the top of my recollection,

GERAGOS:  Objection. Asked and answered.

JACOBSON: I can look at the --

GERAGOS:  Objection. Asked and answered.

JUDGE: I don't think so. Overruled.

GERAGOS:  He can't answer without looking at the records.

JUDGE: Overruled. Go ahead.

DISTASO: Do you have the summary of calls right there in front of you?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

DISTASO: Go ahead. You can look at that to refresh your memory.

JACOBSON: It appears there was a phone call from Miss Faria, at least on the 1st.

DISTASO: On February 1st?

JACOBSON: On February 1st, and possibly a few more.

DISTASO: All right. And did you intercept a number of calls from her throughout the course of the wiretap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And was she someone who was a supporter of the defendant or was helping the defendant?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: The, up to this point we've heard these series of calls from the 31st to the 2nd. Let's even go back a couple days, on the 27th.  Did you have any problem intercepting calls from the defendant from, let's say, the 27th to the 3rd?  What I mean by that is were you getting calls?

JACOBSON: Certainly, yes, sir.

DISTASO: That you were intercepting?

JACOBSON: Certainly, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And did it appear that in this time period the defendant was able to use his phone successfully?

JACOBSON: Oh, yes, sir.

DISTASO: If you could play the first call from Miss Cosby on February 3rd at 9:08?  (Recording)

And later that day, on the 3rd, did you intercept a voice mail that the defendant left for Miss Faria?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And go ahead and play that call.

(Recording)

And, finally, on this particular slide, at 1449, 2:49 on the 3rd, did the defendant again call up to the Longview Police Department?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. This is the second call.

DISTASO: And in this period of time, was, the wiretap intercepted how many calls between the defendant and the Longview Police Department?

JACOBSON: Like I stated, sir, this is the second call to the Longview Police Department.

DISTASO: Go ahead and play that call. 

(Recording)

JUDGE: Maybe this would be a good time to take the noon recess.

DISTASO: That would be fine.

(Noon recess)

JUDGE: Before we go any further, I'm going to admit into evidence, A through A14 that's been done.  B1 and B2 not yet, because Mr. Geragos may want to play an additional portion of that tape.  C to C5, and D all the way through D20, including the discs, may be admitted into evidence.  Exhibit 207C-C5 & 207D-D20 admitted in Evidence.  Okay, go ahead.

DISTASO: Thank you, your Honor.

DISTASO: As part of your investigation, Investigator Jacobson, did you also review phone billing records for Scott Peterson and Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And did you look at as many records as you could to just try to document where one number would show up on somebody else's phone bill?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: And does that mean that you documented, or you got a handle of every single contact between these people?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

DISTASO: Why is that?

JACOBSON: Well, I know of additional calls that were made that I was unable to find in phone records, and things such as that.

DISTASO: So if a pay phone number, or some number that you were able to recognize either party, Amber Frey or Scott Peterson, used, you wouldn't be able to document that as a call between them?

JACOBSON: That's correct, sir.

DISTASO: Did you prepare some charts that listed the phone contacts that you were able to document?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And when was the first time you were able to document a phone call between them, the first day?

JACOBSON: The first date was November 19th of 2002.

DISTASO: When was the last phone contact that you were able to document between those two people?

JACOBSON: I believe it was February 19th of 2003.

DISTASO: And how many phone contacts were you able to document between those two people?

JACOBSON: At least 250 calls.

DISTASO: And this is calls between Miss Frey calling the defendant, or Miss Frey's number calling numbers that you had somehow associated with the defendant?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And this is Scott Peterson calling numbers that you were at least able to associate with Miss Frey?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: That's the total number between both of them?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Let's see. Did you make some calendar exhibits that kind of listed by day the phone contacts between these people?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: Let me see,

GERAGOS:  I didn't mark the ones I was using.

DISTASO: You didn't?

GERAGOS:  I did not.

DISTASO: I think they are in the binder. Can I take a look? F. Let me see.

DISTASO: Let me show you F1 through F5. Are these the calendars that you made that show those calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they are.

DISTASO: And the F5 was, is just a legend listing the phone numbers that you were able to take a look at?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Could you pull up the first calendar. What month was that?

JACOBSON: November of 2002.

DISTASO: This is F1.  And this shows some calls that we see between those parties. And the calls in blue are when Amber Frey calls the defendant?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: And the calls in red are when you were able to document that Scott Peterson called Miss Frey?

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Go to F2. December. And December, again, shows a number of calls between these parties?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it does.

DISTASO: And, again, the calls in red are from Miss Frey, I mean Mr. Peterson. Calls in blue from Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And go to next call calendar. January, I mean.  January.

GERAGOS:  Is this F3?

DISTASO: This is F3.

JUDGE: F3.

GERAGOS:  Thank you.

DISTASO: And this chart, again, shows a number of calls between these two parties?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it does.

DISTASO: Looks like in the month of January, the predominant numbers of calls from, were from Mr. Peterson?

JACOBSON: Appeared that way, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And go to February. And February looks like there were a number of calls between the parties, starting with the first, and then ending there on the 19th.

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And the phones that you were looking at were the majority of the calls, let me put it this way, were between the cell phones of these two individuals?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

DISTASO: And does that include the two numbers that were subject to the wiretap from Mr. Peterson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it does.

DISTASO: And it also includes Amber Frey's cell phone?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it does.

DISTASO: Now, were you also asked to investigate a phone that was found in the defendant's possession when he was arrested on April 18th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I was.

DISTASO: And what was the phone number of that particular phone?

JACOBSON: Was a 415 area code. I believe was 415-990-1817, I believe. There is a binder I prepared for it.

DISTASO: I was going to say, I was looking for it. Here it is.

JUDGE: Has that been marked already?

DISTASO: It has, your Honor.

DISTASO: 415-990-1817?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And who was the, who was that, what name was this phone subscribed do? Who took this phone out?

JACOBSON: It was a prepaid cellular telephone through AT&T Wireless. And the subscriber name was listed, was California Latham, L-a-t-h-a-m.

DISTASO: And, finally, let me show you 203G. Did you prepare this document?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

DISTASO: On this document you listed a number of calls, or calls between December 23rd and the 26th in Eastern Standard Time?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: And based on the defendant's records, did you put the cell site information for those calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: On the document as we have it here, did you list the calls that were voice message retrievals, or where the defendant was checking his voicemail?

JACOBSON: I didn't distinguish between voice in general, or the retrieval of the voicemail. I believe I just put voicemail.

DISTASO: What I'm going to have you do is take a look at the invoice records here. And, if you could, just jot down next to each entry where there is a,

JUDGE: What document are you referring to now, Mr. Distaso?

DISTASO: This is 203G.

JUDGE: 203G.

DISTASO: I'm having him refer to the invoice call records 203A-1.

JUDGE: All right.

GERAGOS:  Objection. There is no foundation.  If he wanted to do this, he should have done it through Mary Anderson.

JUDGE: He asked him the questions. Maybe he can lay a foundation.

DISTASO: Well, investigator, these records have already been testified to by Mary Anderson. And do these records list the messages retrieved?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they do.

DISTASO: Go ahead, by each entry, if you can put, just put "VM" and then "RT" for voicemail retrieved.

GERAGOS:  Same objection. There is no foundation.

JUDGE: Overruled.

GERAGOS:  I asked if he just crossed it out. Did you make a mistake. Apparently he just crossed it out.

JACOBSON: Doubled it out.

GERAGOS:  This couldn't have been done at lunch so that I would have a chance to look at it?

JUDGE: I'll give you an opportunity. I'll take a recess so you can take a look. And, if not, I'll continue to tomorrow morning.

GERAGOS:  I don't want to take any more recesses.

DISTASO: For the record, your Honor, the problem is, it was a marked document already, in the Court's possession.

GERAGOS:  I have copies of it. I could have handed it to him.

DISTASO: Okay, judge, we're ready.

DISTASO: Okay. Investigator Jacobson, I had you go through and quickly write down the voice message retrievals that were listed in the invoice records?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, you did.

DISTASO: And on your report, your report was based off of the fraud records?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it was.

DISTASO: And so it's in Eastern Standard Time?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they are.

DISTASO: And those particular calls in front of you, those are in Pacific Standard Time?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, on the invoice.

DISTASO: On the invoice.

JACOBSON: Yes.

DISTASO: Let me just show you some calls. On the 24th, on the 24th there were a number of calls where the defendant was known to be at his house, and he's accessing the 1250 Brighton tower. Do you see that?

JACOBSON: I see that, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And there is four calls here that are from the record, show they are straight, coming to voicemail; is that right?

JACOBSON: That appears so, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And then the next call here where the cell tower is registering at his home, there is a voice message retrieval?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

DISTASO: And the call at 10:08 in the morning is also a voice message retrieval?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

DISTASO: And the call from, it would be 2:12 Pacific Time from Berkeley was also a voice message retrieval?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it was.

DISTASO: I'm not going to go through every date. But I had you put them on the dates from the 23rd all the way to the 26th, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS:  Are you done with it?

DISTASO: Not yet.

DISTASO: On the 26th at looks like 1:15, should be, I'm sorry 10:15 a.m., down to 12:00 p.m., it looks like all the calls there, except for one, register on the 1250 Brighton tower. One of them registered on the 10th and D and 1250 Brighton?

JACOBSON: That's what it appears, yes, sir.

DISTASO: Three of those calls are voice message retrievals?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

DISTASO: Nothing further, your Honor.

 

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos

GERAGOS: Good afternoon, investigator.

JACOBSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: How are you doing?

JACOBSON: Doing fairly well, for the most part.

GERAGOS: Your involvement in this case started on approximately what date?

JACOBSON: I guess it would depend upon what determines involvement.

GERAGOS: Who is, when is the first time you did something on this case? How is that?

JACOBSON: Probably the first time that I did anything on this case is when your client called me at home.

GERAGOS: Okay. What day was that?

JACOBSON: That was Christmas.

GERAGOS: Now, first time you prepared, you, Mr. Distaso asked you about these affidavits, you said you were an affiant, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I was.

GERAGOS: Now, you started to explain what an affiant was to the jury. That's somebody who fills out an affidavit, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And you fill out that affidavit so that you can get a search warrant, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And in this case, you were looking for, your specific role was to get a search warrant for the phone records, correct, in the wiretap?

JACOBSON: The wiretap, yes, that's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you explained to the jury what these phone records were. In basic simple terms, it's, you get from the phone company two different sets of data, right?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: One is the voice that comes in, which is whatever is being carried over the broadband lines. The other is the call data that shows the time, the numbers and cell sites, things like that, correct?

JACOBSON: Basically, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And when those two get to the computer, to the software that this these guys in Nebraska developed, the software merges the two of these in the server, and they, you are able to listen to this as kind of a coherent set of data, right?

JACOBSON: Yes. It marries it up and sends the call to the monitoring work stations.

GERAGOS: Now, in this specific case, you used some software that was from where?

JACOBSON: From Pen-Link, or the Lincoln Server, which, as you indicated, was from Nebraska.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then you had problems with this, didn't you?

JACOBSON: I did.

GERAGOS: One of the problems was that you weren't trained adequately on it; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: Well, I don't believe that's,

GERAGOS: You wanted more training, didn't you?

JACOBSON: I did want more training, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: They wouldn't give you $700 to go get more training, would they?

JACOBSON: I don't think that's the proper format to be discussing it with my employers.

GERAGOS: You asked specifically to go to a class to get proper training, correct?

JACOBSON: I asked to go, I asked my administration to go to, I asked them if I could have some money or fees to go get additional training.

GERAGOS: 700 bucks and change, right?

JACOBSON: I don't remember what the exact amount was.

GERAGOS: Okay. You remember it was less than a thousand, don't you?

JACOBSON: I believe so, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And you didn't get it, correct?

JACOBSON: No, sir, I didn't.

GERAGOS: So you did something, right? You made a phone call to the people in Nebraska, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

GERAGOS: And you made that phone call, because you wanted to get, see if you could get some more training, to figure out exactly how to operate this thing, and make sure that you were getting all of the phone calls that go into the server, right?

JACOBSON: I wanted to make sure that you had complete discovery, and that your client had complete discovery on everything.

GERAGOS: Okay. At that point, I mean I understand the noble aspect of this. But you also wanted to make sure, if there was anything there, that you are going to turn it over to the DA?

JACOBSON: Most definitely, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So you weren't out to safeguard our due process rights at that point. You were there to make sure that everything that was there you got, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you made that call, some kind of arrangement was done whereby the gentleman from Nebraska who was involved with the company was going to come and take a look at the servers, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And when we talk about servers, we're talking about actually a computer that is set up in that wire room, and in that computer server the information goes in, it gets married up, then you listen to it, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: There is something called a buffer, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And can you tell the jury what a buffer is?

JACOBSON: Basically it's a storage or a memory for that particular system. And, as Mr. Geragos stated, the call audio comes in and the call data comes in, and it comes in through two different sources. So the information is temporarily stored in this computer on this hard drive until the information can be married and send out to the work stations.

GERAGOS: Now, specifically in this case, when that gentlemen came out to look at the server, something happened, didn't it?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: What happened?

JACOBSON: He discovered that there were audio calls that had not been properly linked up with data, thus had not been out to the work stations, or it hadn't been turned over to the prosecution or to the defense.

GERAGOS: That's correct.

JUDGE: Can I interrupt for a second? Can you explain to the jury the difference between audio and call data? I'm not sure,

GERAGOS: I'll lead him through it, if I could.

GERAGOS: The audio is when you, actually when you play these calls for the jury, you play any of these calls we have heard today, that's the audio portion, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, for any of these, when we show the records themselves, and you have a kind of a sheet, a log sheet of information?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That you title Central Valley HIDTA. That looks like this, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And most of the stuff just, for example, comes back and looks like what we have got here, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And,

JACOBSON: That's the way it's printed out on the format.

GERAGOS: Got the time zone on it, you have got the date, the time. You go across, you see the number, you see the subscriber, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, it is.

GERAGOS: And then over to the right there is a spot on the top for synopsis, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You call in your Central Valley HIDTA, and it's a report name called database listing, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. You have got a run date. That isn't the date that you are actually listening. That's the date you are printing it out on the computer, right?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Then the synopsis here. That's all the way to the right. That's somebody that, computer doesn't do that. Somebody who is working the wire room types in on the computer when they are listening to the call what is transpiring?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, specifically when the person came out who developed the software, they went to the computer, and they discovered that there was at least a hundred, what, 44 calls?

JACOBSON: 176.

GERAGOS: An you have 176 calls that had been received that there was actually no record of, correct? Kind of lost in the buffer, right?

JACOBSON: No. Some of those were duplicate calls that, there was data for most of those calls. Just the audio didn't properly marry up with the data to be sent to the work station.

GERAGOS: Duplicates didn't total that many?

JACOBSON: Duplicates did not.

GERAGOS: Duplicates were just a handful, weren't they?

JACOBSON: You would have to go to my report for the breakdown on that.

GERAGOS: I saw your report. Your report seemed to indicate it wasn't very much at all.

JACOBSON: I don't remember how many on the breakdown. But I remember, as you stated, it wasn't all that many.

GERAGOS: Right. Now, in the vast, the overwhelming majority of the calls that were stuck in the buffer that we had no records of at the time, were not duplicate calls; is that a fair statement?

JACOBSON: Some of them had, most of them had data. It's just the audio did not get married up with that data. So a large percentage of those, or a vast majority of those calls actually did have data, except no audio.

GERAGOS: Right. But the vast majority, in fact, all of those calls you hadn't heard, correct?

JACOBSON: No, that's not true.

GERAGOS: Well, you hadn't, you tested one, didn't you? You, turned out it wasn't something you were familiar with, correct?

JACOBSON: That's what I previously alleged. But then I was mistaken when I heard it. That was one call that I had heard.

GERAGOS: So the first time that you listened to this call that was supposedly stuck in the buffer, it was your belief that it wasn't, that you had never heard it before?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Then later on you came to the belief that you had heard it?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, as you sit here today, how many of those 176 calls were in the buffer that you had never heard?

JACOBSON: I don't know specifically.

GERAGOS: Do you have a report you can look at?

JACOBSON: Yes, I do.

GERAGOS: Can you look at it?

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, you guys are overlapping. The Court Reporter is not going to be happy. So let him finish before you ask the next question.

JACOBSON: I would like to break down. I have the report in front of me now. I'm ready.

GERAGOS: Does that refresh your recollection?

JACOBSON: It does.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the total number of calls that were discovered in the buffer was how many?

JACOBSON: 176.

GERAGOS: Okay. Out of that 176, how many of those calls did you, well, break it down for me.

JACOBSON: 95 of those .wav files out of the 176 were attached to existing call data that did exist. So a vast majority of those calls had call data. And we just simply had to link the audio with the call data to complete the call.

GERAGOS: That was 95 out of 176?

JACOBSON: 95 out of 176.

GERAGOS: How about the others?

JACOBSON: Four of the .wav files were not heard live during the course of the intercept, and were ultimately never attached to a call record.

GERAGOS: What does that mean?

JACOBSON: The call data had to be recreated for those four calls.

GERAGOS: Which means there were calls that were made that were never heard, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And there was no record editing, or Central HIDTA at that call database, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Now, for the 95 previous calls that you just mentioned, were those ever, were those ever listed at the time in real time.

JACOBSON: I didn't understand that question.

GERAGOS: Well, you have a call data sheet?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: The one I just put up there?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: For the 95 calls, did you go back, did you see whether or not those calls were listed in your database?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And were they?

JACOBSON: I stated that the 95 out of the 176 were attached to the existing call data, so they did have the call data. You had to link or marry up the audio with the data.

GERAGOS: Which meant that if the, before this guy went and found the stuff in the server, in the buffer,

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: if you wanted to access this call on the right, you couldn't do it, because you couldn't play the audio?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you had 95 calls that you had information on, synopsis of information, but no audio.

JACOBSON: You had 95 calls that had data, such as a phone number, an incoming call, a date and time, but you did not have any audio associated with that call data.

GERAGOS: So you had this information, just showing the jury.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: But you couldn't, if, for instance, I said go to January 11th, at whatever time, and it was one of those calls, and play that call right now, you couldn't do it?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, out of the remainder of the calls, the 176 minus 95, how many of those you had no call data, so that there is no record? Just the four?

JACOBSON: In addition to, there is some more. As you go down the list here for the proper breakdown,

GERAGOS: You have four that there was no, calls that weren't listened to that had no call data?

JACOBSON: Then 30 of those calls, 30 additional calls out of 176 had no audio at all. They were like random signals from AT&T. Basically just dead air time. Ten of those calls had short, unintelligible audios, like dial tones, stuff like that. Two of the .wav files were busy signals and the computer didn't reset itself. 23 of those .wav files were voicemail hangups, ringing, or immediate hangups but no audio. So they got his voicemail, but didn't want to leave a message, and the computer didn't reset itself.

GERAGOS: With or without call data?

JACOBSON: With call data.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you could tell a, specifically somebody called on this date, got voicemail, didn't want, and they hung up?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then the remainder?

JACOBSON: Remainder 12 were what we call off-hook, or dead air time. Just basically the computer didn't reset itself, and the phone line just remained open.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you got this affidavit, the, specifically you were looking at what you call target phones, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. What were the target zones?

JACOBSON: As I stated to the District Attorney, the target phones for the first wire intercept was Area Code 209-505-0337. And the second target phone associated with the first wiretap intercept was 209-499-8427.

GERAGOS: Specifically you were looking for calls, and wanted to monitor calls between Amber Frey and Scott Peterson, correct?

JACOBSON: That was in the plans, yes, sir, as a part of that wire intercept.

GERAGOS: Was more than in the plans. It was in your affidavit, correct?

JACOBSON: They were listed as interceptees, that's correct.

GERAGOS: What's an interceptee?

JACOBSON: An interceptee is who somebody who we planned on intercepting during the course of this wire intercept, as in hearing the audio between these subjects.

GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, you wanted to, at that point, you told the magistrate the reason you needed the wiretap, specific reason you needed the wiretap, you believed it took more than one person to commit this crime, correct?

JACOBSON: I didn't specifically tell him that. I'm not quite sure. I have heard that in the media. I have heard it elsewhere. I'm not quite sure where you are getting that at. If could you maybe show me in a report or in the affidavit itself, I did a conspiracy theory with the affidavit. I'm not quite sure.

GERAGOS: Did you testify in this courtroom on February 19th of this year?

JACOBSON: I believe so, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Did you just say that you don't know where somebody got that from?

JACOBSON: No. I'm just saying if you have that, if you could direct my attention to that.

GERAGOS: Sure. I'll show you page 964 of your testimony on February 19th of this year in this courtroom.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. Kind of jumped that first paragraph there.

GERAGOS: I'm asking you about it. I'm going to ask you about it right now. One of the reasons you wanted to get a wiretap is because you believed that there may be co-conspirators in this case?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. That's what I asked you back in February, and that's what you answered then?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And I said that was because you did not believe that this could have been accomplished by a single person; is that correct? Isn't that what I asked you?

DISTASO: Objection. It's argumentative.

JUDGE: Overruled. Is that what he asked you?

JACOBSON: I believe so. If I could look at your transcript on that.

GERAGOS: I'm going to ask you, before I refresh your recollection, wasn't that one of the reasons that you sought the wiretap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Because you believed that this could not have been accomplished, that the abduction of Laci Peterson could not have been accomplished by one person, correct?

JACOBSON: I believe that there could possibly be more than just one person involved in Laci's disappearance, yes.

GERAGOS: Well, you testified, and I felt that based on my experience in law enforcement that this, I felt this was carried out by more than one person, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That was your, that was your feeling then. That's why you got the affidavit. That's why you signed it under penalty of perjury, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, specifically, you also, I asked you, and you believed that, based on your experience, and based on what happened here involving Laci Peterson's disappearance, is that one person, I asked you, is that one person could not have accomplished that. Isn't that a fair statement? Do you remember what your answer was?

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

JUDGE: Not that. Do you remember your answer, Mr. Jacobson?

JACOBSON: I think, I believe I said for the co-conspirator or conspiracy portion of this affidavit, I felt that there was more than one person involved.

GERAGOS: That's not, you believed that when you wrote this application that more than one person was perhaps responsible for this crime?

JACOBSON: That's what I just stated that.

GERAGOS: No. You said when you wrote the conspirator portion of it, you said,

JUDGE: Jury has heard what he said.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically I also asked you whether or not you felt that the Modesto PD and law enforcement was getting adequate cooperation from the witnesses. Do you remember that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And what was your answer when I asked you whether they were?

JACOBSON: If they were getting adequate cooperation from the witnesses? I believe we went into specific witnesses.

GERAGOS: Okay. Didn't I ask you specifically if you believed that Amber Frey, as of January 10th, was cooperating?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And wasn't your answer, I was suspect of some of the cooperation from witnesses, or a witness, and that I did not believe that more, and I did believe that more than one person could be responsible for this crime?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And I asked you who was the witness that you were suspect of?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And who was that?

JACOBSON: I believe I responded that I was suspect of Amber Frey's cooperation.

GERAGOS: And the reason you were suspect of Amber Frey's cooperation was?

JACOBSON: Was because I had had some conversations with some detectives from the Modesto Police Department, and we had conversed regarding whether or not Amber had communicated with Scott at different periods of time. And I was told information that which basically contradicted what I believed at the time with what the wire intercept was showing me, and the toll records.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you wrote the affidavit on the 10th, so that we have got it correct, if I understand correctly, and I believe that I do, the wire intercept starts up, meaning you are getting wiretap information starting either late night January 10th or early morning January 11th, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So prior to that, you don't have, you don't have wiretap records, right?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: So you can't hear what's being said on the phone, right?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. You know, by January 6th, 7th, and 8th that Miss Frey is cooperating with Buehler, and to a lesser degree Brocchini and Hagan from Department of Justice, correct?

JACOBSON: Not the third person that you mentioned, but the other two.

GERAGOS: Hagan?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: You know you are talking about Buehler, right, Detective Buehler?

JACOBSON: I talked with either Detective Buehler, Detective Grogan, or Detective Brocchini.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you are talking to them, they are telling you, they are giving you information as to her reports on whether or not she is making calls to Scott Peterson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: After the 8th, or during the entire, is it basically during the entire time?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. It's during the entire scope of the wire intercept as well.

GERAGOS: You have already received a search warrant, or somehow obtained the toll records for Miss Frey and for Mr. Peterson, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I had.

GERAGOS: So before the 10th, before you are actually doing the wiretap, you can see when they are making calls back and forth?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And based upon what you can objectively see in the toll records, and what Miss Frey is telling the officers, it is your belief that she is not giving forth all the information as to the contacts she is having; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I believe that was after the 10th, sir. I believe I might have been mistaken earlier on. But I believe, when you sent that question to us, I believe your date was January 13th.

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: So I believe this was after the course of that intercept, after the first couple of days.

GERAGOS: Okay. So is it a fair statement that by the 13th or 14th of January, you now have got three or four days worth of wiretap intercepts, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So now, differentiated from the toll records, you actually can hear conversations, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And based upon the conversations that you can hear, you physically, well, physically in the wire room, number one, you can listen to them as they are coming in in real time, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: If the call comes in, if Amber Frey is calling Scott Peterson on the 12th at 11:30 at night, and somebody is manning the wire room at 11:30 at night, they can hear the call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You also have the capability, as long as it doesn't get lost in the buffer, to retrieve that audio at some later time, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So your information is, after the 10th, that you are already suspicious on the 10th. That's why you fill out an affidavit for the wiretaps, because you don't believe that one person could have committed this crime alone, correct? Under your conspiracy theory, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. I believed that more than one person could have been involved in this case.

GERAGOS: Okay. So that's your belief. Then moving, I want to get pre the 10th, and after the 10th, so we don't mix it up. Before the 10th, that's your working theory, correct? One of your working theories?

JACOBSON: One of my working theories was to find every aspect to any possible leads, to see if we can develop any further co-conspirators, whether they were known or unknown.

GERAGOS: But the, specifically, specifically, you were, one of your the witnesses that you were specifically focused on was Amber Frey, correct?

JACOBSON: She was listed as an interceptee. We believed we were going to be intercepting her communications with Scott. And I felt it was very important that we listen to these phone calls separately and apart from what Miss Amber Frey was doing. She had no idea that we were going up on a wire intercept. Felt it was important to either corroborate her statements that she was making to the police; or if she wasn't being truthful to the police, to start looking in that area as well.

GERAGOS: And you believed, within three to four days, that she wasn't being truthful with the police; isn't that correct?

DISTASO: Objection. Asked and answered.

JUDGE: I don't think so, no. Overruled.

GERAGOS: You believed within three or four days of that suspicion, that she was not being truthful with the police, correct?

JACOBSON: I had believed that, yes, sir. But as I look back on it now, after talking with John Buehler, going over your question that you had, law enforcement was mistaken. And we were operating under a, not a valid concern there.

GERAGOS: Well, let me just take you back. Let's go step-by-step through this. As of February of this year, you believed that, correct, that she was not being truthful?

JACOBSON: February?

GERAGOS: February is when you, 

JACOBSON: February of this year.

GERAGOS: February this year, when you testified before Judge Delucchi, and I was asking you questions, February 19th of this year, I asked you specifically, easy for me to say, as to whether or not you were suspect of, or you said you were suspicious of the cooperation, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: I also asked you, is it a fair statement that she was telling her handler, Detective Buehler, one thing, and you had toll records which revealed another? Is that a fair summary? And your answer was, I'm not calling the lady a liar. I'm just saying I was suspect in the fact that some of my information that I had didn't quite jibe with the information that was being told to me by the detective.

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And I said to you, did it appear that, to the detectives at least, that they were telling you that Amber Frey appeared to want to have a relationship with Scott, and appeared to be, for lack of a better word, if not lying, working the detectives? And your answer was, that's correct. And I asked you specifically, do you remember, was that Detective Buehler who was telling you that? And you said, yes, sir. Correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, specifically what happened was, if I understand correctly from the records, that in January, on the 10th, you fill out this toll or the, not the toll, but the based upon some of the records you had and your suspicion, you get a warrant. You get the wiretap information. At that point, you have got the 11th, 12th, and 13th, and the wiretap is up and running?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You intercept some calls from Amber Frey to Scott Peterson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You then get information that Amber Frey is apparently saying she's had no contact with Scott Peterson?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: You, and Detective Buehler, and who else, Grogan, go back to the wire room and listen to some tapes?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You listen to some tapes and you see that, in fact, she has been talking to Scott Peterson, correct?

JACOBSON: I'm not sure about the dates when they came and listened, or not. I believe was like on the 13th.

GERAGOS: That's what I said.

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: I assume it was on the, you, and who was it, Buehler and Grogan, all go to the wire room on the 13th?

JACOBSON: I think Detective Brocchini might have been there as well, with a couple of people from SDEA where I'm at as well.

GERAGOS: SDEA?

JACOBSON: Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency.

GERAGOS: All of you get together, all of you listen to these tapes. All of you come to the conclusion that you are getting at least bad information from Miss Frey, based upon what you are hearing on the tapes and what she's telling the detectives at the time; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then when I asked you about this in February of this year, before Judge Delucchi when we were doing the hearing, you reiterated that again; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Today you are saying that after you have had some more discussions with Detective Buehler, by the way, when were those discussions?

JACOBSON: The day that you sent that note with the question on it.

GERAGOS: Last week?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So last week I asked Buehler, where is that call that you claim Miss Frey didn't tell you guys about, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And you remember specifically, I went outside here last week, and I asked Mr. Buehler, you guys say Amber Frey didn't tell you the truth. You say there was a call on either the 12th or the 13th that's on the wire intercept, and you were standing out there in the hall so you could hear me, couldn't you?

JACOBSON: No, sir. I wasn't out in the hallway.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: But I got the message. Looked like your handwriting, or someone's handwriting on there. And Detective Buehler went to me,

GERAGOS: And I specifically said, wait a second, I don't see this call that you guys, you are talking about. Where is this call, right?

JACOBSON: I don't remember the exact wording that you asked of the question. But it was something similar to that. What date and time was the call that you guys were suspect of Amber not cooperating with law enforcement?

GERAGOS: Right. So up until that time, everything that I have just gone through with you was your mindset, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So then I asked you where is this call that you guys, you, Brocchini, Buehler, Grogan, three guys from SDEA, listened to on the 13th together?

JACOBSON: At least, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And all seven of you came to the conclusion that Amber Frey must have been working it, lying. You didn't want to call her a liar?

JACOBSON: No, I don't want to do that.

GERAGOS: Didn't want to call the lady a liar. You were saying that she, we're at the point with making her a co-conspirator, weren't we?

JACOBSON: I don't know if I would label her a co-conspirator. I said I was very suspicious of her cooperation. I wanted to listen to more of their communications. I wanted to basically hear it for myself.

GERAGOS: And when you, that was on the 10th. Once you got to the 13th, by the time you got to the 13th, you were starting to go down that path, right?

JACOBSON: I was, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And up until the time I said where is this call, nobody bothered to come up with any analysis of it to determine what it was; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: That would be a fair statement, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. So last week for the first time, somebody goes back and takes a look and, lo and behold, turns out you guys were wrong, all seven of you; is that right?

JACOBSON: I don't know if I would say wrong.

GERAGOS: You just changed your mind?

JUDGE: Wait a minute.

JACOBSON: I don't think so.

JUDGE: Stop. Stop. Let him finish the question. Let him finish the answer before you ask the next question. Finish your answer.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I don't think it's a matter of who is wrong and who is right. I think it's a matter of the timing of that particular call and how this whole thing got started. If you would like me to elaborate and explain.

GERAGOS: I'll ask you,

DISTASO: Let him finish his answer.

GERAGOS: He wanted to elaborate. It's non-responsive when he goes on in the speech.

JUDGE: It's cross. When you take him back on directs, you can have him elaborate. All I'm asking, Mr. Geragos, let him finish.

GERAGOS: I will, judge.

JUDGE: Ask the next question. I have a court reporter here that's going to be very upset with me and you. Next question.

GERAGOS: Now, you then write up, or not you, but Buehler writes up, Buehler writes up a two-page analysis of what he thinks actually transpired; is that right?

JACOBSON: I believe it was analysis of what we believed, collectively.

GERAGOS: Well, and you saw this. This was, it's dated August 17th, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that's whose handwriting is that?

JACOBSON: That's Detective Buehler.

GERAGOS: Did you review this?

JACOBSON: I don't believe I read it verbatim; but I was there when he wrote it out.

GERAGOS: Okay. Thank you. I'd ask if this is a good time to take the afternoon break. Or do you want me to just keep going?

JUDGE: Well, you folks want to break now? Okay. Court reporter needs a break. We got to switch reporters. We'll take until 3:15. Bring you back here, try to get through this today.

<recess>

GERAGOS: Investigator, the, do you have your, what I call the Central Valley HIDTA records with you?

JACOBSON: Which ones, sir?

GERAGOS: I showed you the example of, I guess would be, what do you call them, the call data records?

JACOBSON: Call database listing or summary sheet?

GERAGOS: Summary sheet.

JACOBSON: I have an extra defense copy right there in my binder for you.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

JACOBSON: I'd like it back, though.

GERAGOS: I'll give it back. The, do you have also up on your computer the calls, I'm going to ask you a question, and I don't know if you can answer it. Do you know the charts that you had that we looked at on direct for the calls from Amber to Scott, back and forth?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Can you pull up November?

JUDGE: Okay, are you talking about F, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: I believe so, Judge.

JUDGE: F 1 through 5.

DISTASO: You have to hit the input.

GERAGOS: Hmm?

DISTASO: You have to hit the input.

GERAGOS: Okay. The, the way these calls are, here on the 24th there's only one, it's kind of blocked a little bit.

HARRIS: There's a binder in the way.

GERAGOS: Okay. This is for November, and what you did, if I understand correctly, is if it's a red call, that means Scott's making it, outgoing from his phone?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. A blue call means Amber's,

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: isn't that right? Okay. Now, the, then you've got this little legend here next to it. I assume that means, for the blue, that it's, that would be a call by Amber to Scott's business; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, that's a correct assumption.

GERAGOS: And Cell 1 would be a call by Amber to Scott's cell number 1, which would be that 505-0337?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, that's correct.

GERAGOS: Now, am I also right, at least in November, the only cell phone that Amber had was whatever, what's the number of that, that cell one?

JACOBSON: (209) 505-0337.

GERAGOS: No, that Amber had that she used.

JACOBSON: Oh, her cell phone.

GERAGOS: A call in red is a call by Scott to Amber?

JACOBSON: Yes, that's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that is, what is Cell 1?

JACOBSON: That means that is a call from Scott Peterson's Cell 1 to Amber's cellular telephone.

GERAGOS: Okay. Does that mean, she's only got at that point one cell phone, correct? Or you're identifying her one cell phone as Cell 1?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

JUDGE: From Scott Peterson's cell phone number 1.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That's what I'm asking here. You've got "business," which is all in blue, to Amber Frey. That doesn't mean from Amber's business, right?

JACOBSON: No, that blue call reflects that Amber called Scott's business.

GERAGOS: Business, TradeCorp?

JACOBSON: So B-U-S is Scott's business.

GERAGOS: Yes, that's what I'm trying to establish.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Right here, if it's in blue, that means Amber's calling Scott?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And then after, if it's in blue, that's the location that she's calling, right?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Scott's business?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Scott's first cell phone, which is the 0337?

JACOBSON: You're correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, red is Amber calling Scott?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That's Amber calling Scott on Scott's cell phone 1, right?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So it wouldn't be Amber calling on, I mean you're, what you're doing is this is the destination; this is the receiving call, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, so all, as far as you can tell, if it wasn't on a pay phone, these are all the calls in November between the two of them, correct?

JACOBSON: All the records that I could find for the month of November which would indicate to me that they had some conversations are on that chart.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, do you have records that reflect whether or not they actually talked on these calls?

JACOBSON: No, sir, I don't.

GERAGOS: And the reason for that is because you didn't have a wiretap then, right?

JACOBSON: That's correct; yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You can make some assumptions, though, can't you, that if you take a look at the call records, you could take a look for how long the call was, right?

JACOBSON: I could look and see the duration of those calls, yes, and form some conclusions.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have those call records?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Would you pull those out for November. These three calls on the 19th, do you have those?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I do.

GERAGOS: Okay. What are the duration of those three calls?

JACOBSON: The first one indicated there at 4:24 p.m. to the business.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: Shows one minute.

GERAGOS: Okay. So we're assuming that's a, leaving a voice mail?

JACOBSON: It's certainly, it all depends whether he had an answering machine there at the business or not, but it is a short duration call, so that could be a correct assumption.

GERAGOS: 4:27?

JACOBSON: 4:27 p.m. shows a four minute duration.

GERAGOS: Okay. So more likely to be either a long message or a conversation?

DISTASO: Objection. Calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Overruled.

JACOBSON: It could either be a long voice mail message or a short conversation, you're correct.

GERAGOS: 10:00 p.m.

JACOBSON: 10:00 p.m. indicates two minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, go to the, and those are the only three that you were able to find, right?

JACOBSON: Those are the only three on the records, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, if I understand correctly from the records and, looking at the records and also talking to you outside the courtroom, a number of these records don't show, for instance, if you take a look at some of the wiretap records, the wiretap records, as we've talked about before, there are a number of calls that didn't get initially picked up, correct?

JACOBSON: Can you,

GERAGOS: There's a hundred and whatever?

JACOBSON: A hundred and 76 audio buffered calls.

GERAGOS: There's also, if you take a look at the fraud usage billing records and compare those calls to the wiretap, you can see there's more calls on the fraud usage than there is on the wiretap, correct? Have you ever done that comparison?

JACOBSON: I have looked at the comparisons between the two.

GERAGOS: And it appears that the wiretap's not picking up all the calls, correct?

JACOBSON: It all depends if there's a problem with the wiretap or if there's some problems with AT&T or RVPN or,

GERAGOS: Right. I'm not asking you what the reason is.

JACOBSON: Right.

GERAGOS: I'm just saying if I lay out, if the jury were to take a look, they go back and take a look at the fraud billing records, and then they take a look at your HIDTA records, and just lay them off, one next to each other, you're going to be able to see that there's entries on any particular date that don't show up in the wiretap that do show up in the fraud usage, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. And vice versa as well.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the same thing goes for, for instance, if you, when you subpoenaed some of Amber Frey's records, there are phone calls that are not shown on there between her and Mr. Peterson, Scott Peterson, that are shown on his records, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And there are some records, for instance, between Lee Peterson and Scott Peterson, which don't show up on Scott's phone bills, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Which do show up on Lee's phone bills?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So is it a fair statement that what you've done with whatever the world of data, universe of data that you have, you tried to put this together, but, like with all things involving these phones, a lot of times the phone calls don't get picked up on the billing records, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And a lot of times they didn't get picked up on the fraud usage records, correct?

JACOBSON: It can happen, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And they didn't get picked up on the wiretaps, correct?

JACOBSON: Not in this period of time, no, sir.

GERAGOS: You didn't have wiretaps then.

JACOBSON: No.

GERAGOS: But I'm talking generally later on during that one month, or less than a month period, right?

JACOBSON: You would have to be more specific as to what period of time calls didn't get picked up.

GERAGOS: I'll go through tomorrow and show you some by example, or you can take a look and compare. If you take a look, if you would do me a favor, just take a look overnight and look at January and see, between fraud usage and the wiretap, whether there's ones that are missing. What's on that 20th, how long is that call?

JACOBSON: The one on the 20th at 1:46 p.m., looks like that's an 11 minute duration.

GERAGOS: Okay. The next day, the, and that's a call by Scott to Amber's cell phone?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You found that on Scott's phone records?

JACOBSON: It's on Scott's. And you can see the corresponding incoming with Amber's Sprint records as well.

GERAGOS: Good. The next day.

JACOBSON: The next day at 11:44 a.m. It appears on the Sprint records that it was an eight minute duration call.

GERAGOS: Okay. The next day, on the 22nd? Once again, if it's red it's Scott calling her, so we've got an eleven minute, an eight minute, 11 on the 20th, eight minute on the 21st, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And the 22nd?

JACOBSON: I would have to go, if you give me a second, I have to switch records between Scott Peterson and Amber Frey.

GERAGOS: With the records that you have right there, are you able to take a look at the 24th and tell me what those are?

JACOBSON: The 24th?

GERAGOS: Looks like there's an 11:43 that's a Peterson call. On a 12:17 it's an Amber Frey.

JACOBSON: The call on the 24th at 11:43 appears to be six minutes, according to the Sprint records.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: And the call at 12:17 appears to be 18 minutes, according to Sprint records.

GERAGOS: So total of how many minutes that day?

JACOBSON: That would be about, what, 24?

GERAGOS: 24 minutes total. And then you have to switch before we leave November to tell me total time on the 22nd?

JACOBSON: Okay.

GERAGOS: If you keep the other records out, because I'm going to move to December after you finish with the 22nd.

JACOBSON: Would you be so kind as to get me the 505?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: records? The first one at 12:30 appears to be a two minute duration.

GERAGOS: Okay. That's from Scott to Amber?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir; you're correct.

GERAGOS: Second?

JACOBSON: And the second one appears to be four minutes in duration.

GERAGOS: Okay. So we've got about six minutes there, and whatever you said, 20 some-odd minutes there?

JUDGE: 24.

GERAGOS: 24.

JUDGE: Mm-hm.

GERAGOS: Okay. So for the, in November, whether the one minute calls are messages or not, total minutes charged by the phone company that you could find is about 49 minutes in November?

JACOBSON: It's about there, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Can you move it to the next exhibit? I think that was, was it F 2?

JACOBSON: Please don't, please don't make me do this one.

GERAGOS: December. Start with --

JACOBSON: Oh, no.

GERAGOS: the 2nd one.

JUDGE: Can I make a suggestion? Maybe he can add these all up over the, over the night and tell you how many minutes' worth.

GERAGOS: Well, I'd like, part of it is, and I want the jury to see --

JUDGE: See who called whom.

GERAGOS: Yes. At least, at least through the 26th. That's all I'm going to do. I just want to show how many of them are one minutes. I think we've got a pretty good idea the duration after that.

JACOBSON: Okay. Sir, the first one on December 2nd.

GERAGOS: Yeah.

JACOBSON: That's 11:39 a.m?

GERAGOS: 11:30 a.m.

JACOBSON: It appears it's a two minute call, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Tuesday?

JACOBSON: Appears it's a two minute call, sir.

GERAGOS: On Tuesday at 4:00?

JACOBSON: That's Tuesday at 4:00 p.m., yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Another two minute call. The 6:25?

 JACOBSON: It appears it's a one minute duration call.

GERAGOS: Wednesday?

JACOBSON: It appears it's a two minute duration call.

GERAGOS: Thursday?

JACOBSON: It appears it's a two minute duration call.

GERAGOS: Saturday? So 1:23.

JACOBSON: Two minute duration call.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the 9th, you have those records in front of you? Start with the 12:44.

JACOBSON: 12:44 is three minutes.

GERAGOS: 1:20?

JACOBSON: One minute.

GERAGOS: 9:00 o'clock?

JACOBSON: Two minutes.

GERAGOS: 9:05?

JACOBSON: That's Amber Frey's, right?

GERAGOS: Right. Both the 9:05 and 9:14 are her.

JACOBSON: One minute, sir, on 9:05.

GERAGOS: Okay. And 9:14?

JACOBSON: And 9:14 is eight minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then going back to, what is it, 10:46?

JACOBSON: 10:46 for Mr. Peterson?

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: 112 minutes.

GERAGOS: How long?

JACOBSON: Shows a hundred and twelve minutes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. That's on the 9th, right?

JACOBSON: That's on the 9th at 10:46 p.m.

GERAGOS: Got it. Move to the 10th.

JACOBSON: That's his call on the 10th at 2:30. That's two minutes, sir.

GERAGOS: And the next one?

JACOBSON: 5:11, that's three minutes.

GERAGOS: And then the 5:20 is her phone?

JACOBSON: Six minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. The next day?

JACOBSON: The next day is the 11th?

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: At 11:19, eight minutes.

GERAGOS: And then the, what is that, a 2:46 call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. Two minutes.

GERAGOS: Next day, the 12th?

JACOBSON: That's his phone.

GERAGOS: Right. 6:51?

JACOBSON: Three minutes.

GERAGOS: And the 14th?

JACOBSON: One minute.

GERAGOS: Okay. You're in the home stretch. Eleven more days. The 15th?

JACOBSON: At 12:12 p.m. is two minutes.

GERAGOS: The next one?

JACOBSON: One minute.

GERAGOS: Okay. The 12:16 is a minute?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: The 12:34, that's from her?

JACOBSON: 12:34 on the 15th, three minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. The next day, the 16th?

JACOBSON: That's his phone again. 5:42, two minutes.

GERAGOS: The 7:23 and 7:32?

JACOBSON: Three minutes.

GERAGOS: The next one?

JACOBSON: Five minutes.

GERAGOS: Next?

JACOBSON: Ten minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. What day are you on?

JACOBSON: Did the, I kind of got lost on that one.

JUDGE: I believe the last one you said, the 8:53 p.m. call, was ten minutes.

JACOBSON: I skipped 7:32.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: 7:32 was two minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the 17th?

JACOBSON: The 17th for 11:32. Two minutes.

GERAGOS: And 1:57?

JACOBSON: Thirteen minutes.

GERAGOS: 3:35?

JACOBSON: Two minutes.

GERAGOS: And 8:49?

JACOBSON: Twenty-one minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the next day, there's a 4:35 and a 4:36. I assume the 4:35 is a minute?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

GERAGOS: 4:36?

JACOBSON: Three minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. The next day, the 19th?

JACOBSON: Four minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that's the 9:20?

JACOBSON: 9:20 a.m., sir, on the 19th.

GERAGOS: The 10:20?

JACOBSON: 10:20 is two minutes.

GERAGOS: 11:40?

JACOBSON: One minute.

GERAGOS: 1:17? Another minute?

JACOBSON: One minute.

GERAGOS: 1:21, is that another minute?

JACOBSON: Twenty-three minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. 9:50?

JACOBSON: Two minutes.

GERAGOS: And 9:54 and the 10:01?

JACOBSON: One minute and one minute.

GERAGOS: Okay. The next day, on the 20th, you've got those two calls. One at 12:35 and the 5:26 (sic)?

JACOBSON: Six minutes and three minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. That takes us to the 21st?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Two calls. Now, here, this is the first time we've got Cell 2 and Cell 1; is that right?

JACOBSON: That's the first time Cell 2 comes into the picture.

GERAGOS: So does, 11:21 means that that's a call by Amber to this other phone, the 499?

JACOBSON: That's correct. The 499-8427.

GERAGOS: Okay. And how long?

JACOBSON: One minute.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the 1:11?

JACOBSON: Three minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Takes us to the 22nd.

JACOBSON: One minute apiece.

GERAGOS: Okay. The 23rd?

JACOBSON: Four minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. No calls on the 24th?

JACOBSON: Not that I could find, no, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. The 25th?

JACOBSON: Five minutes. 8:32 is one minute.

GERAGOS: Five minutes there at the 8:23. One minute at the 8:32?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: And 9:08.

GERAGOS: 9:08 is a call by Scott to Amber?

JACOBSON: That's to his other cell phone. Would you be so kind as to hand me the 499-8427, see if I can make some room up here. Ten minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the, what is it, 6:14?

JACOBSON: Is that where we're at? 6:14 on the 25th?

GERAGOS: Back to Cell 1.

JACOBSON: One minute.

GERAGOS: 7:41?

JACOBSON: One minute.

GERAGOS: And the last two there?

JACOBSON: 8:20 is six minutes, and 8:26 is 23 minutes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you're in the last furlong here. The 26th. What have you got there?

JACOBSON: 3:04 p.m. is two minutes. 5:32 is one minute. 5:37 is one minute. 5:48 is two minutes. 5:50 is one minute. 6:55 is one minute. 6:57, two minutes. 7:18 is one minute. 7:19 is one minute. 7:34 times two by one minute.

GERAGOS: Is that, both of those read 7:34. Are those two calls that are just placed,

JACOBSON: Back to back, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So even though they read one minute apiece, for billing purposes, they're probably somebody makes, she makes the call, it goes to voice mail or something, clicks off and calls again?

JACOBSON: Probably shorter than a minute, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: 7:36 is one minute.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: 8:16 is one minute.

GERAGOS: I assume 8:20 and 8:21,

JACOBSON: 8:20 is one minute. 8:21 is one minute.

GERAGOS: Okay. 9:53?

JACOBSON: Is that 9:33? 9:33, 17 minutes.

GERAGOS: Got it. Okay. Now, the, Mr. Harris is going to add it, but he takes a while. The, the calls that you went through there, that was based, I mean the jury can see what you're doing. You're taking basically the billing records, or how you assembled this is to take the billing records that are labeled, for instance (209) 499-8427 is 206 B, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So you take the phone 206 B, which is the (209) 505-0337, and then you use, you've got the search on the records for Miss Frey sometime that first week of January, right? Or the last week of December?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. You took all those together and then assembled this chart here, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you did that, did you also compile, at the same time that you were doing that, calls or, do you know what the expression "turning calls" is?

JACOBSON: No, I'm not familiar with that.

GERAGOS: Where you take phone numbers and you turn them to find out who either are, to a reverse directory or something, whose calls they are or whose phone they are?

JACOBSON: Yes, I'm familiar with the concept that you're talking about.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you do that, at least, on Miss Frey's call to begin with?

JACOBSON: Did I check other numbers besides --

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: the known numbers she was calling with Scott Peterson?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: Yes, I did check a few.

GERAGOS: Okay. When did you do that?

JACOBSON: During the course of receiving these records and --

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: throughout, you know, several months.

GERAGOS: Okay. The, did you do investigation in connection with the calls that were being made back and forth, as to who the various people were?

JACOBSON: I would see things in the media that was being, that would be reported, and I would check their accuracy and basically see sometimes how they may have received that information, and I would go back and research different numbers to see if I could find subscriber information for those, those numbers that the media were reporting.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the total number of calls, let's see, I won't count them up here, but I would assume for the end of December and then for the first ten days of January, you did not have any wiretap information, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, starting January 10th? Or is it January 11th in the morning, on the a.m.? Is that when you had the first test call?

JACOBSON: The test calls were going throughout the night on the 10th and into the morning of the 11th, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. How many calls, how long was this first wiretap that you call Stanislaus County number 2, how long was that actually up and running?

JACOBSON: It was running from January 10th, or January 11th through February 4th.

GERAGOS: Of 2000 and 3?

JACOBSON: 2000 and 3, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: How many total calls were intercepted from January 10th, nighttime, to the morning of the 11th, through February 4th?

JACOBSON: The total number of intercepted calls, calls that were not necessarily monitored, but I believe the total number of calls was over 3,000.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you say intercepted calls, what this means is that every call that comes in, hopefully, at the end of the day you're hopeful that you got them all, or at least the call data on them, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. You may not have captured the audio and in some cases you may have lost the call data through AT&T or something, but you had at least 3,000 calls, correct?

JACOBSON: At least, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, out of that 3,000 calls, you have to do a report back to the judge in connection with the wiretaps; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. What is that report called? Well, we used to call it a 72 hour report because we had to report to the judge within every 72 hours of the wire intercept, but now it's been changed to a six day report, based on the changes within the legislation?

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the report or the basis for making this report is because this is an intrusion on someone's privacy, the law looks or frowns upon it, basically, and so they try to keep a tight leash on you, correct? Is that your understanding of why you do these reports?

JACOBSON: I don't necessarily believe in the way that you articulated that the courts frown upon the use of this.

GERAGOS: It's an,

JACOBSON: I would say and agree with you that it is quite an intrusion upon somebody's privacy and, because of that, the courts want to maintain strict control over it, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. It's also you understand that it's supposed to be, at least conceptually, an investigative means of last resort, correct?

JACOBSON: Generally what you try to do is exhaust the necessity, to show the necessity for the wiretap, to exhaust the normal course of investigations or the normal investigative tools that you have.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: So generally it is considered a tool of last means, so to speak, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

GERAGOS: Okay. Well, the, one of the requirements is that a necessity?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: The word you used, the legal term is necessity. You have to say that you have exhausted all our other reasonable other alternative ways of investigating and that's why we need the wiretap, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: Or at least you have to show that, if those were to be carried out, they would be likely to fail. So you don't necessarily have to exhaust it but just to articulate the fact, that if you were to do those means, you probably wouldn't have much of an outcome.

GERAGOS: Okay. And at the end of the day you came to a conclusion about the wiretaps; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Wiretap number 1, and that conclusion was that there had been, you didn't seek to renew it after February 4th; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And the reason was that you gave to the judge was what?

JACOBSON: The reason that I gave to the judge is that I felt that Mr. Peterson had left the country on one occasion, on February 4th, and I also believe that he, through his knowledge and understanding of what was going on at the period of time, caught on to the fact that his phones were being intercepted.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: So it was a two-fold reason. First, he was leaving the country, and the second part was I believe that he believed that his phones were being tapped or bugged, so to speak.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you also made a report to the judge as to what you garnered in terms of evidence? You have to do that, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes. You have to show him or show the magistrate a portion of what you've gained during that course of the intercept, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have that report with you?

JACOBSON: The final report? Is that what you're,

GERAGOS: The one, the final report as to Stanislaus County number 2, which is the first wiretap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Can you pull that up? If I could just take it out for a second, if that's okay.

JACOBSON: Are you going to walk away with it?

GERAGOS: I will, but I'll let you refresh your recollection if you need to. Now, what is the, what is your understanding of the purpose of this report?

JACOBSON: The purpose of that report was to inform the magistrate that, the status of the wire intercept. And at that point in time I asked the judge to voluntarily terminate the wire intercept.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you say you asked to voluntarily terminate, what does that mean?

JACOBSON: That means that instead of waiting for the judge to basically make the order to terminate the wire intercept, I was asking him to terminate the wire intercept.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did you come to any kind of a, or did you make a conclusion at any point as to what you felt the wiretap had garnered ultimately?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Calls for his opinion. It's not relevant.

JUDGE: Well, he's testified he asked the judge to terminate the wiretap voluntarily, so I think that's fair game. What reasons did you come to the conclusion that you asked the judge to voluntarily terminate the wiretaps?

JACOBSON: Mr. Peterson had made some conversations with his sister, Janey Peterson, that he believed that his phones were being tapped. He believed that he wasn't the only one on the line, and that was on the 505-0337 number. So basically he told his sister that he was at an undisclosed location. Because I've been around wire intercepts for quite some time, we have to remember that when you're up on a wire intercept, it's the perception of the individual who is having his phones tapped, if he believes he's being intercepted or not. And if the individual believes or perceives that he's being intercepted, most likely, in the drug organizations, those phones are floating in the Bay really quickly, or they're given down to other family members who may be using them to distance themselves from the original person that was using the phone. I believe based on Mr. Peterson being able to put together a few things, you know what I'm talking about, being able to put together a few things in that conversation with his sister-in-law, that he believed that his phone was being tapped or bugged, and I didn't feel at that point in time that any further evidence or admissions or confessions would be solicited from Mr. Peterson.

GERAGOS: Right. You came to the conclusion that he thought that Modesto PD was tapping his phones, right?

JACOBSON: That's what I said, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: All right. I understand what you were saying; but that was your conclusion, that he had figured out that, based upon the things that were happening, the Modesto PD obviously had tapped his phone, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, out of the 3,000 phone calls, over 3,000 phone calls that you intercepted, there were no admissions or confessions by Scott Peterson, correct?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. It calls for a legal conclusion.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: I'll withdraw, I'll withdraw that.

GERAGOS: You didn't receive, you didn't receive out of those 3,000 phone calls, well, let me put it a different way. Were you also at the same time intercepting calls between Scott and Amber Frey?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So were you able then to compare the calls that you were intercepting with the calls or the tapes that she was supplying to Detective Buehler?

JACOBSON: At that time I wasn't able to make a comparison between the tapes and the wiretap calls, but I was at a later date able to go back through and make some sense of the actual recordings that Amber had provided to law enforcement.

GERAGOS: Okay. Well, but did you at the time, I think we went over it before the break. At the time you and a number of the other detectives had gone back to the wire room to do some comparisons, correct? At least on the 13th, I think you wrote, I don't know if you wrote a report, but Buehler wrote a report, right?

JACOBSON: I'm aware of his report, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was done to basically test whether or not the tapes that she was providing or the conversations that she was relating to Buehler were one and the same with what the wiretap would intercept, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct. It's, it wasn't the tapes, it was the conversations at that period of time.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you say it wasn't the tapes, it was the conversations, it's whether she's having the conversations? Or what, the substance of what she's reporting back, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the conversations with Mr. Peterson in Longview that you went through this morning; do you remember what --

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: we talked about that this morning? Specifically there was a first conversation that you intercepted, correct?

JACOBSON: Which conversation are you alluding to?

GERAGOS: To Longview where he talked to somebody named Randy, I think?

JACOBSON: Rendy, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Rendy. Okay. Do you have that on your computer?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Would you punch that up for a second.

JACOBSON: Okay.

GERAGOS: Can you go specifically to that call? You have it in a synopsis form?

JACOBSON: As a transcript or,

GERAGOS: Either as a transcript or the way you've got it on your HIDTA sheet?

JACOBSON: I have a transcript of it, yes.

GERAGOS: Do you have that handy on the computer? Or do you want me to grab the hard copy?

JACOBSON: I don't have it in a way that I could project right now.

GERAGOS: Okay. If you can't project it, I'll just pull it out of here and have a hard copy. That conversation, if I understand it the way you were trying to explain it this morning, you intercept the conversation, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, the intercept is on the 505-0337 number, correct?

JACOBSON: And the 499-8427.

GERAGOS: Okay. But on that particular call you're intercepting 505?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And as you're intercepting 505, if I understand correctly, there's a call waiting that comes in, right?

JACOBSON: Was it,

GERAGOS: Was it that one, the one where you said Ted Rowlands calls in?

JACOBSON: You know, to be honest, Mr. Rowlands called in quite, quite a bit.

GERAGOS: He was a pain, wasn't he? He was a real pain?

JACOBSON: He made things difficult on occasions.

GERAGOS: Yes. Let me show you this, I think this was the one, was it January 31st at 10:02? Does that look like, does that refresh your recollection that that was the first intercept?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And if I'm not mistaken, wasn't this the one that you said that you thought that Ted Rowlands clicked in at the end on this?

JACOBSON: Sir,

GERAGOS: Isn't that what you said this morning?

JACOBSON: You've walked away with my copy of that.

GERAGOS: I thought you said this was the defense copy?

JACOBSON: Well, it's a copy of the defense copy, but I've already given you one, so that's mine and it needs to return home.

GERAGOS: What's this one?

JACOBSON: Those are copies of the other phones.

GERAGOS: Oh, okay. Take a look. Tell me if it's January 31st at 10:02?

JACOBSON: Okay. I see it.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is this the one, and I'm going to show you, I'm going to put you on page two of two of the transcript. You had the whole recording, the traffic information, and then is that when you say you get another call that comes in?

JACOBSON: You can hear it during the course of the conversation, where the beeping take place? That's the incoming call. And according to the records, that is Mr. Rowlands is placing that incoming call.

GERAGOS: Mr. Rowlands; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the call, it looks like he's saying Rendy, hey, Rendy, my name is Scott Peterson. That's all that you were able to get off of that recording, correct?

JACOBSON: I believe the jury's read both pages.

GERAGOS: I'm just asking you, that's all you were able to get off of that particular intercept, correct?

JACOBSON: Nothing else I was able to get, outside of the Longview Police Department telling us about parking on the wrong side of the street being a violation.

GERAGOS: Right. When it, what I'm asking you is when this transcript ends here, if we had another transcript of Ted Rowlands' call, that's the next thing you would have intercepted?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That doesn't mean that this call hung up?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Means that he's still, arguably, or your understanding is, he's still talking on this other call, correct?

JACOBSON: Possibly, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Well, then when you, we get to the February 3rd, 2000 and 3 call to Longview PD, it says: You've reached the Longview PD. If this is an emergency, please hang up. And then specifically it appears that the, the phone call, or the caller, which in this case is Scott Peterson, apparently is using his dial tone, or the push buttons, to punch out Dan Jacobs, correct?

JACOBSON: He was the detective sergeant, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. So somehow between that first call, when the last thing we see, or was intercepted was somebody by the name of Rendy, to February 3rd, he had obtained the information that the detective who was handling this was named Jacobs and was able to punch that in as he called, correct?

JACOBSON: It wasn't, he wasn't necessarily the detective handling it. He was the detective sergeant who was putting out all the press releases.

GERAGOS: Okay. Well, he had obtained that name somehow; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, he had.

GERAGOS: Okay. And we don't know, as we sit here, from the intercept how that took place, because Ted Rowlands in his pesky calls came in and cut us off; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I don't have the remainder of that first conversation, yes.

JUDGE: I'm going to cut you off now, okay? All right. Ladies and gentlemen it's time for evening recess. Remember the admonition. You're not to discuss this case among yourselves, or with any other person, nor form or express any opinions about this case. You're not to listen to, read, or watch any media reports of this trial, nor discuss it with any representatives of the media or their agents. We'll reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00. I'm going to ask counsel to be here tomorrow morning at 8:45, okay? 8:45 tomorrow.

DISTASO: That's fine, Judge.

GERAGOS: Mr. Naljian said he was going to be here earlier.

JUDGE: Right, but I want to let you know my ruling.

GERAGOS: Okay. Got it.

JUDGE: Okay. We'll see you at 9:00 o'clock, and we'll pick up with Inspector Jacobson.

(Evening recess)

 

August 26, 2004

JUDGE: All right, this is the case of People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel, and these proceedings are taking place out of the presence of the jury. And we have had another discovery issue that I think has been sorted out here. Can you sort of give me, what's the sum total of this meeting now? What's going to happen? Are we going to finish with this witness today, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: I have made my record as to the records that have now been turned over.

JUDGE: Right.

GERAGOS: I obviously am going to need to deal with that, and possibly, with when Investigator Jacobson, with Investigator Jacobson. So I will continue the cross examination that I can do with him today. Then I would ask to just defer him until Monday, then we'll go on to Wall.

JUDGE: Okay. We can to Wall today also?

GERAGOS: Yes. I'll do as much of Wall as I can today.

JUDGE: And we'll, do you have, you don't have any more. This is just cross? Got to do as much cross, will be there be any redirect on Wall?

D. HARRIS: Yes.

JUDGE: I want to use the whole day as best I can.

D. HARRIS: We're set, ready to go for that. With respect to, just for the record, then,

JUDGE: It is proposed under 356, I'm going to let the prosecutor play the remainder of the Rocha tape. I gave it to Raffi now. What's the date on that, Raffi?

NALJIAN: January 16th, 03.

JUDGE: I asked him to take out that portion of the Dempewolf testimony. Raffi is going to deal with that. Then if, when you get that redacted, if you give it do Mike, and Mike will have all the copies run off. And then I'll leave it up to you to take see if you can get it out of the disk.

D. HARRIS: Just for the record, I think you might have said the prosecution could play.

JUDGE: The defense can play.

D. HARRIS: All right.

JUDGE: Defense can play it. And the Court will permit it under 356. The Court is of the opinion 356 permits the remainder of the statement to be played by the opposing party, in the event one party only plays a portion of it. With respect to the other issue, with respect to the other tapes, Amber Frey, of Amber Frey, since they postdate the date when the,

GERAGOS: I didn't look at that. Can we defer, since he's coming back on Monday, let me look at that. I believe that there is some other tapes.

JUDGE: I'll reserve a ruling on it. I gave you my tentative ruling in chambers.

GERAGOS: And I understand what you are saying. I'll go back, I'll take a look. I think that there is some tapes, and I think that they can come in. But let me go and look at that.

JUDGE: You will have to persuade me. It's, like I said, it postdates the comment. Okay?

GERAGOS: Right.

JUDGE: And I have the, I have the tapes already. They are, already have the copies all prepared. Now, can I bring the jury in now so we can get going?

GERAGOS: Yes. Yes, please.

JUDGE: Do you want to bring the jury in, please?

GERAGOS: Why don't we decide me we will take the break.

JUDGE: I want the jury for at least an hour before we take a recess. I'm going to just take how about 11:15, approximately.

GERAGOS: You can take at 11:15.

JUDGE: Yeah, until around 11:30.

GERAGOS: Just do it at 11 to 11:15. I'll do 45 minutes. So I will do one for an hour and ten. Hour and ten, and then take it and then.

JUDGE: We'll do it do it at eleven then. I should state for the record, since it was a discovery issue, I have to further indicate that the DAs are blameless on this one.

GERAGOS: Department of Justice isn't.

JUDGE: I don't want to point the finger at anybody. (JURORS ENTER THE COURTROOM)

JUDGE: All right, let the record show now that the jury is present in the jury box, along with the alternates. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I want to apologize to you again. I sound like a broken record, I know that. But there are cases, and then there are cases. And this is the one of those cases. So I have to deal with this stuff out of your presence. And it's a recurring problem, so I hope you will indulge us until we get through this thing. Okay? So I'll appreciate that. Okay, Mr. Geragos, do you remember where you left off?

GERAGOS: No. I'll just wing it.

JUDGE: That shouldn't stop you. Go ahead.

GERAGOS: Okay. Good morning, Investigator Jacobson.

JACOBSON: Good morning, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: I think one of the questions I asked you yesterday is, I'm sure the jury remembers, these what we keep calling the Fraud Billing Records.

JACOBSON: Those records that you are holding up are the AT&T billing records.

GERAGOS: Now, the billing records, yesterday I was asking you about the difference between the billing records. And they show quite a few calls. And I asked you before they came out, you can see it if I put it up here. I asked you yesterday if you would compare the wiretap records, and that's the HIDTA, that Central Valley HIDTA Call Log; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Called Database Listing, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Yes. The one that required me to go get these so I could read it the, small print ones.

JACOBSON: Unfortunately it is a small font, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, I asked you yesterday if you would compare those records to the billing records that were marked, or that had been marked as 206B. Did you do that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. The question I was asking you yesterday is, you get quite a few calls,

JUDGE: Get the lights, Mike.

GERAGOS: on here show incoming, incoming, all the way down.

JUDGE: It's better with the light on.

GERAGOS: The listing of the calls and then the times. And it was just my observation at least when I looked at it compared to your HIDTA records, there is a lot more activity in the billing records than there is on the wiretap. Did you compare that last night?

JACOBSON: I did compare it last night.

GERAGOS: Did you make the same observation?

JACOBSON: Are you referring to that sheet, or just a general observation?

GERAGOS: Not that particular sheet. I'm just using that as an example. I'm asking you, when you looked through all of these pages here,

JACOBSON: Right.

GERAGOS: of the records, it looks to me, just by shear numbers, that it's pretty obvious that from January the 10th or the morning of the 11th, through February 4th that there is a lot more calls, substantially more calls in the billing records than there are on the wiretap.

JACOBSON: I wouldn't agree with that. Not substantially, no.

GERAGOS: What would you, did you,

JACOBSON: I would say that the records do differ, but not substantially.

GERAGOS: How many, did you count?

JACOBSON: No. I didn't tally them up, no, sir.

GERAGOS: Ten percent, 20 percent?

JACOBSON: I wouldn't go that high. No, sir.

GERAGOS: When you made that comparison, did you take a look at, for instance, the days that we were talking about yesterday, the DA asked you about the 11th, and then we had some testimony about the 29th, 30th, 31st, going to February 3rd; correct?

JACOBSON: It was January 11th, then the 30th through February 3rd, I believe on the Longview slide.

GERAGOS: Did you take a look at, let's start with the Longview slide, which is the, starts with the 30th, correct?

JACOBSON: Started with the evening of the 30th, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the evening of the 30th, what was the first call that was, give me the times of the first call on your slide?

JACOBSON: The first time on the slide I believe was at 2109 hours or, 9:09 p.m. That was the notification that I had with Miss Cosby.

GERAGOS: You didn't, I think Mr. Distaso had made it quite clear yesterday, you guys were calling it a snapshot. You just kind of culled out couple of, some of the calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: There is a lot more calls that are there on the 30th, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, starting on the 30th, can you take a look, I'm on page 81 of the Billing Usage Records. Can you take a look and tell me if the calls that are listed on there, if all those calls on the 30th were intercepted by the wiretap?

JACOBSON: From what period of time, sir at 9:09 p.m. onward, or for the full day.

GERAGOS: You started with 9:09 p.m. I want you to start, there is a reference to Mr. Peterson, Scott Peterson saying yesterday that he heard about this Longview, Washington, sighting at around, I think, 3:00 o'clock. Isn't that what it said on one of the intercepts?

JACOBSON: I believe he stated that it went out over the AP wires at about 3:00 o'clock. I don't believe that he said he specifically heard it at that time. But that was something that he stated to somebody else.

GERAGOS: Okay. So when you have, you weren't talking to him. You were intercepting the wire?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I was.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you want, I can put it up here. Do you have, I can blow it up, you can tell me if you have got all the dates. Would you do that?

JACOBSON: Sure.

GERAGOS: On all of these calls on the wiretap. And then let's start from about, well, is this Eastern or Pacific?

JACOBSON: Those billed records would be Pacific Standard Time.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: Ought to be. I haven't had a chance to look those over.

GERAGOS: First one would be on the 30th. Is this 2:42, right here?

JACOBSON: Okay. That's where you want to direct me to, 2:42 in the afternoon on the 30th?

GERAGOS: Do you have that on the wiretap?

JACOBSON: 2:42, yes.

GERAGOS: Go through the next page.

JACOBSON: You are going downward, sir. You are going to the 29th now.

GERAGOS: Got it. 2:19:43?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Got it?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Keep going. Next? Use whatever is the easiest way for you to reference it.

JACOBSON: Probably just if you keep your pencil up there on the screen as a pointer, I'll just go right on down the list. Sometimes I have to use the numbers as well.

GERAGOS: Okay. 2:47?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 2:50?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 2:51?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Next one which is, looks like a 3:41? 3:41?

JACOBSON: You say 3:41? Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 3:43?

JACOBSON: Did you say 3:43?

GERAGOS: 3:41. I'm sorry. 3:41?

line JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: This one, 4:20?

JACOBSON: 4:20, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 4:44?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 4:47?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 4:47?

JACOBSON: Did you say that was two for 4:47? I believe that's an AT&T Direct Connect. That's one call.

GERAGOS: Now, where was that, what was that call right there?

JACOBSON: That was a 4-1-1 call where Mr. Peterson called Information, and then there was a Direct Connect to information.

GERAGOS: To where?

JACOBSON: Doesn't list the "Where".

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have,

JACOBSON: It's a three-minute duration call.

GERAGOS: Right. So do you know where that call, when somebody calls a Directory Assistance, you say it's a Direct Connect. Is that reflected in this? What they have got in here to Direct Connect, is that a Direct Connect charge? This is one of those things?

JACOBSON: Similar to that.

GERAGOS: When you make the call, if you press "1", they will connect it for a buck, or something like that?

JACOBSON: I don't know what their terminology is; but I would assume it's something similar to that.

GERAGOS: Did you intercept, now these are, when I'm asking you if you have got it,

JACOBSON: Okay.

GERAGOS: That means you got it on the call record?

JACOBSON: I have it on the call record. Did you want to distinguish when I have the audio for that?

GERAGOS: My next question was going to be, so when I say do you have it, you are looking at your HIDTA record. And on the HIDTA record, you have got, went over this yesterday with the jury, but I'll just do it one more time. We have got, you have got one portion comes in, which is the call data, which saying your phone number, the duration, what the cell site information is, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, that's correct.

GERAGOS: You have got the audio that comes?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Which is what you would actually play here in court if you had it?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then they marry it together in the software?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, when I'm asking you if you have got it, you say you have got it on the call data?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now I'll go back. Do you have all the audio on all of those calls so far that we have gone through?

JACOBSON: Ones that we have, I don't know through, from 2:42 on the previous page.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: Not every one of those calls has audio.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically this one, which is, looks like a 4:47, which is a Directory Assistance, and then a charge for three minutes. You have the audio for that?

JACOBSON: No, sir, I don't.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you played yesterday the, one of those calls that you culled out was a Directory Assistance call. Do you remember that one?

JACOBSON: I do. Would it be more helpful if I showed the slide?

GERAGOS: If you can, no. If you can just tell me the time. If you have got it on your computer, just call it up on your computer, tell me the time of that one.

JACOBSON: The first call that he made to Longview, Washington.

GERAGOS: The first one you intercepted.

JACOBSON: First one I intercepted, that was at 10:02 a.m. on the 31st.

GERAGOS: 10:02 a.m. on the 31st. What does it look like at 10:02 a.m. on the 31st when he calls Longview, Washington? Is that it right there?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

GERAGOS: Okay. And does it show the same entry, this 999-411-0000, as the one I just pointed out that took place on the 30th?

JACOBSON: Dependent on the previous one.

GERAGOS: Like that?

JACOBSON: Yes, it is one and the same.

GERAGOS: One and the same, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: I have laid these two pages up next to each other, make it a little easier. It looks like the one that you did intercept on the 31st, you got the call data, and you got the audio?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the audio was Scott Peterson calling Longview.

JACOBSON: Calling Information, being directly connected.

GERAGOS: Doing this Direct Connect charge, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then this is what we call, has got the same thing here. It is right here. You have got this Direct Connect charge and five minute call, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. You got audio for that one. But on this one, the 999-411-0000 on the 30th, we did not get the audio on that one the day before?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, have you ever called Longview, Washington?

JACOBSON: Yes, I have.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have any report that you prepared in connection with Longview? Did you ever prepare a report?

JACOBSON: I don't believe I prepared a report, but I have verbally told the District Attorneys before my findings about talking with the detectives up there.

GERAGOS: When did you do that?

JACOBSON: It was probably about a year ago, or so.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the next call, so we don't have audio there on these on this Direct Connect. Now, the prior calls that we have here, right before, and this is on the 30th, the call right before the Direct Connect on the 30th, you see that one?

JACOBSON: Which one are you pointing out?

GERAGOS: 209-575-4844. And that call was at 4:44.

JACOBSON: I see that. Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was a three minute call, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I see it.

GERAGOS: Okay. Can I take a look over your shoulder there?

JACOBSON: Certainly can.

GERAGOS: Now, do you want to point out that specific call? And both of those were, or that one was not monitored at 4:44, either call; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: How long were those calls? They weren't monitored, so you don't have any audio. So is it a fair statement you don't know?

JACOBSON: I can see by the duration that's listed in the report; but I didn't monitor the audio, so, no, I can't confirm the amount of audio versus what it states in the report.

GERAGOS: Okay. That call right before the Direct Connect charge on January 30th, the one that immediately precedes it lists here on the billing usage records is a three-minute call, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. That call is to who?

JACOBSON: That call is to Kirk McAllister.

GERAGOS: Who did you know Kirk McAllister to be?

JACOBSON: Kirk McAllister is a criminal defense attorney in the City of Modesto.

GERAGOS: On January 30th who did Kirk McAllister represent?

JACOBSON: Kirk McAllister represents your client there, Scott Peterson.

GERAGOS: So right before he calls the Direct Connect which is the same as the Direct Connect, that he does the following day, goes to Longview, Washington, he's talking to his lawyer, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did you get, see this call right before at 3:41?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: What is that, NACN?

JACOBSON: I'm not quite sure of the complete acronym. And it's an acronym used by AT&T. It goes something like through National something Cellular Network.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you know whose call that was?

JACOBSON: Basically what that is is that, it's a call that's used when the individual is roaming. It's not necessarily a call itself. It attaches to that call up above.

GERAGOS: Now, the call before was immediately before that 3:41 call?

JACOBSON: Yes, it was.

GERAGOS: You have got that; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes. That was made by Jody Fernandez, and I have that call.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that's one in which, in which she's talking about the hard time she's getting, or something to that effect?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: She also asks about his whereabouts; is that right?

JACOBSON: You are referring to the synopsis at all? Maybe that would help me out. She does ask about his whereabouts.

GERAGOS: In the synopsis, doesn't she say she is asking about the whereabouts?

JACOBSON: Yes. Says it's not for her to know. Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then the call ends shortly thereafter; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, what are the previous calls that you don't have the audio on,

JACOBSON: Did you want to go all the way back up through it, or just,

GERAGOS: Just the ones we're talking to. For instance, give you an example. You have, on the 30th, we have a 2:42 call and a 2:43 call; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, that, both of those calls, the 2:42 and the 2:43, are also, are they on, can you see them on here?

JACOBSON: I think the one up at the very top, I believe, is that, that's 2:43 on the first page that you have down. And then I think you might have to go to another page for the 2:42.

GERAGOS: Who is the,

JACOBSON: The previously page.

GERAGOS: Who is the 2:42 call?

JACOBSON: The 2:42 and the 2:43 are the same individuals.

GERAGOS: Who is that?

JACOBSON: One again it's Mr. Peterson's attorney, Kirk McAllister.

GERAGOS: That call is not monitored because that's his lawyer, correct?

JACOBSON: It's monitored and minimized.

GERAGOS: Meaning that you go on, you realize it's the lawyer's office, and you go off?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was, that's part of what your instructions are, marching orders were, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, the, can you tell me, as we are looking at it, what, which other of these calls did not have the audio attached? At least prior to these, to this directory call on the 30th at 4:47, going on up?

JACOBSON: You just want to point out each call?

GERAGOS: This one, 2:43, is the lawyer. You are not monitoring. It would be,

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: The one right here?

JACOBSON: Are you at 2:47?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: Yes, I have audio.

GERAGOS: This one, the 2:50 call?

JACOBSON: No audio.

GERAGOS: Do you know whose number that is?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Whose?

JACOBSON: It's Grimbleby Coleman, CPA, there in Modesto.

GERAGOS: The incoming at 2:51?

JACOBSON: No audio.

GERAGOS: Okay. Same phone number?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the 661 number at 3:41?

JACOBSON: The 3:41, did you say 3:41?

GERAGOS: Right there where I have got my pen.

JACOBSON: I have that. And that's the Jody Hernandez call.

GERAGOS: One we just talked about?

JACOBSON: One we just talked about. I have the audio on that.

GERAGOS: And, obviously, because we talked about it?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: As we are going down here on the 30th, the calls that they come up after the Directory Assistance calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Can you tell me, have you captured these calls? Do you want to go through them one-by-one? Did you capture this one right here, you,

JACOBSON: Are you looking at 4:50?

GERAGOS: Yeah.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. 4:51?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 5:01?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 5:10?

JACOBSON: 5:10. I have a 5:11 incoming. Might be one and the same. Then you have a 209.

GERAGOS: I have got that. What's your incoming number?

JACOBSON: I don't have an incoming number. It's just like that. But it's, perhaps it's a different,

GERAGOS: Do you have a 5:11 call?

JACOBSON: I have a 5:11. I don't see a 5:10.

GERAGOS: There is a 5:10, right? Do you see where I'm pointing to you? There is a 5:10.

JACOBSON: Reason that, 5:10, I don't have that. If you go over to your left, you have, you will see it's the same NACN. It's not a separate call. It's attached to that previous call.

GERAGOS: You don't have it?

JACOBSON: No. I have that call, yes. Those two records are one record.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, how about this one?

JACOBSON: 209-756 at 5:11?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: I have it.

GERAGOS: Incoming, Modesto, 1-30 at 5:46?

JACOBSON: 5:46. I have an incoming at 5:47.

GERAGOS: What's the number you have got at 5:47?

JACOBSON: Incoming to Scott's mobile. And it doesn't have a number with it.

GERAGOS: Do you have audio?

JACOBSON: No.

GERAGOS: Okay. How many are, how many of those that we went through do you have audio for?

JACOBSON: None of those.

GERAGOS: You don't have audio for any of these calls?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Also, how about this Directory Assistance call at ine 3 5:48?

JACOBSON: 5:48? No, sir.

GERAGOS: You don't have that call?

JACOBSON: I don't have that call listed here, no, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And obviously you don't have the call, you don't have the audio?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: How about the one at 5:49?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: You don't have that call? You don't have the audio?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. How about the Kingsburg call that's listed at 5:43?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: You don't have that call? You don't have the audio?

JACOBSON: No, sir. That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is the, you know there is a space right there. You see that on the billing?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: And this shows incoming 1-30 at 6:14? That's an incoming call?

JACOBSON: That appeared to be so.

GERAGOS: Do you have that call at 6:14?

JACOBSON: Yes, I do.

GERAGOS: Do you have the audio?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Incoming, the Modesto call at 6:15?

JACOBSON: I have it, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Do you have the audio?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. 6:22 incoming call, do you have that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Do you have the audio?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: 6:24, that is the Del Mar number. And it's a four-minute call. Do you have that audio?

JACOBSON: I have a 6:24 with no audio.

GERAGOS: No audio?

JACOBSON: No audio.

GERAGOS: Four-minute call. Looks like, do you know whose number that is, that 509-0026?

JACOBSON: Do I know whose number that is?

GERAGOS: Do you recognize that number?

JACOBSON: I recognize that number. I believe it's cell phone from AT&T subscribed to Jackie Peterson.

GERAGOS: Got it. How about this incoming at 6:48?

JACOBSON: 6:48 incoming. I have that.

GERAGOS: Do you have the audio?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: How about this incoming at 7:35?

JACOBSON: 7:35? I have that.

GERAGOS: Got the audio?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: How about 7:38? Got that call?

JACOBSON: No, sir. I have the call, yes, but no audio.

GERAGOS: Okay. How about the incoming at 8:29?

JACOBSON: I have the call, but no audio.

GERAGOS: Okay. And this incoming at 7:38, that's Eastern Standard Time?

JACOBSON: Excuse me.

GERAGOS: Is that Eastern Time or Pacific Time?

JACOBSON: On the billing records it's Pacific Standard.

GERAGOS: Okay. Seven minute call, no audio?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: The incoming at 9:10, five-minute call?

JACOBSON: 9:10. Do not have that.

GERAGOS: So we don't have, you not only don't have this five-minute call in terms of the call record, you don't have the audio to it either?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And six minute call at 9:18.

JACOBSON: I have that, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Do you have the audio?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Got it. Who is that?

JACOBSON: You said at 9:18. It's Aaron and Heidi Fritz.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then you have got that 800 call 10:57. Do you have that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And do you have the audio?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Got it. Incoming 1-31, at 7:40 in the morning, the one-minute call.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You have call data and the audio?

JACOBSON: I have the call data, no audio.

GERAGOS: No audio on that. The next page, which goes, just put the 31st up there. Do you have that in front of you?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Run you through and tell me which of those calls you have. First, the call data starting at the top? Do you have the,

JACOBSON: I have it.

GERAGOS: 8:07?

JACOBSON: Is the data and audio.

GERAGOS: 8:28?

JACOBSON: Data, audio.

GERAGOS: 8:35?

JACOBSON: Data, audio.

GERAGOS: 9:28?

JACOBSON: 9:28, data and audio.

GERAGOS: 9:29?

JACOBSON: 9:29. See what you are looking at there. That's one and the same call. Again that's one of the NACN calls.

GERAGOS: Same with 9:36?

JACOBSON: 9:36, yes, I have both.

GERAGOS: And the incoming, is that one and the,

JACOBSON: That's correct. It's one and the same.

GERAGOS: 9:37 is one and the same. Then this two incoming here?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 9:50, 9:54, you got those?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And the ones right here I'm pointing to, 10:02, that are the ones you played yesterday?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That's the Longview, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, the audio that you played yesterday on Longview, you said that when another call came in you lost the end of the call, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you compare or follow up, well, let's move forward for a second. There was a second call that you did capture from Longview, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: What date was that?

JACOBSON: That was, I believe, on February 3rd at 2:49 p.m.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on February 3rd, 2:49?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that call was the one to Detective Jacobs, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You had no information that you intercepted between January 31st and February 3rd that allowed you to at least piece together from the wiretap how Scott Peterson got Detective Jacobs' number, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Or name.

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, if I understand correctly, you were asked yesterday about the wiretap, and there were, which phones were intercepted. It was the 505-0337, which was Scott's cell phone, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: A second cell phone that Scott had, that what is a 499 number?

JACOBSON: 499-8427 was the second number with the same area code. That's correct.

GERAGOS: Now, did you get a wiretap on his home phone?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: And that was what number?

JACOBSON: That was area code 209-524-2049.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you subpoena or apply for a search warrant to get the home phone records for that period of time, the same period of time?

JACOBSON: I believe,

GERAGOS: Only from December; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: I think we went beyond December into February. I'd have to look at the record to be specific.

GERAGOS: Do you have the records here? Have you reviewed them to see if there was any calls made to Longview from the home phone?

JACOBSON: I know I have reviewed the records. I don't recall seeing any Longview calls on there. But I don't have the record with me to confirm that. So I think, right now, I would be speculating without seeing the actual records.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have the, did you get a target intercept on the work phone for TradeCorp?

JACOBSON: I did not have an intercept on the TradeCorp phone, or the business phone that you are referring to, no, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you know who the woman by the name of Ann Bird is?

JACOBSON: I do, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Is that Mr. Peterson's, Scott Peterson's sister?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Have you reviewed her records to see if there is any calls on those records to Longview, Washington?

JACOBSON: I don't believe I have reviewed any phone records from Ann Bird, no, sir.

GERAGOS: So you are speculating as to whether or not you reviewed the records on the house, correct?

JACOBSON: No, I have reviewed the records on the house. I don't remember seeing any Longview calls. But at this time I don't have the folder in front of me. I don't want to bear false witness.

GERAGOS: Maybe at the break you will pull out those records and take a look?

JACOBSON: It might be right there in that.

GERAGOS: Which binder would it be?

JACOBSON: It's, I created a separate binder just for that home phone; and if it's not there, I know the District Attorney has it.

GERAGOS: Okay. We'll get it at the break. I'm not going to hold you up now. Did you look to the TradeCorp records?

JACOBSON: I have looked at the TradeCorp as well.

GERAGOS: Now, the intercept you did not have an intercept on the home phone, didn't have an intercept on the TradeCorp phone?

JACOBSON: I did not, no, sir.

GERAGOS: You didn't have an intercept on Jackie Peterson's phone; is that correct, on the Wiretap Number 2, which was the first one?

JACOBSON: The first wiretap concerning Scott Peterson, I did not a have a wiretap on any phone subscribed to Jackie, Miss Jackie,

GERAGOS: Obviously we went through. There was at least in excess of fifteen calls where you either had call data, no audio, or no call data, no audio?

JACOBSON: How many did you say, sir?

GERAGOS: About fifteen.

JACOBSON: About fifteen.

GERAGOS: For the period of time that we ran through?

JACOBSON: I think that's fair to say, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, the calls that were made from that cell phone, or from the, that show on the cell phone that are incoming, is there a way for you, if you didn't intercept them, to see who they were coming from?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Why is that?

JACOBSON: Basically AT&T, on their phone record, doesn't put the incoming digits for an incoming phone call.

GERAGOS: Okay. So as we sit here, to have the billing usage record and the wiretap, it's a fair statement that if you don't capture on the wiretap, you don't know whose phoning, who is doing the phoning; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Now, the, after that February 3rd call at 2:49,

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That was the one where Scott called Longview PD; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: It was played yesterday. And to summarize, Detective Jacobs told Scott that she was not in there, correct?

JACOBSON: That she was not up in Longview. That Laci was not the same lady, that's correct.

GERAGOS: That she was not on the videotapes at all, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And Scott asked if there was a pregnant woman in there at all?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And Jacobs said that there was one, but didn't look like her?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he said not even close, but you will have to contact Modesto PD if you want further information, basically?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: What was the very next call that you intercepted?

JACOBSON: Modesto Police Department.

GERAGOS: Who called Modesto Police Department?

JACOBSON: Your client, Mr. Peterson.

GERAGOS: Okay. And who did he reach?

JACOBSON: He left a voicemail message, I believe, for Lieutenant Joe Aja.

GERAGOS: Okay. And who is Lieutenant Joe Aja?

JACOBSON: I believe is now a Captain. And he is in charge of the Detective Bureau, Modesto Police Department, or answers to the Captain, or something similar to that.

GERAGOS: Okay. The call to Jacobs was at 2:49 and four seconds; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That was about the call was what a little over two minutes in length?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: The officer, last thing that Jacobs said, after Jacobs looks at the video, it is not your wife. She's not on the tape. It's not even close. I'm going to send the tapes down to Modesto PD. If you have got any other requests call Modesto PD?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Very next call at 3:00 o'clock was a voicemail message where Scott, in the voicemail, starts off the call, the next call he makes is to Modesto PD?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: He talked to a woman by the name of Juliana?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And asked to speak with Detective Aja?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And left a message that, do you have that tape?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Can you play that? It's a very short tape, isn't it? If the judge will indulge me, I don't have a transcript of this. But it's not more than a minute.

JUDGE: All right. The Rules of Court require a transcript. If you play a tape, required a transcript. This tape is only a minute long.

DISTASO: I have no objection to no transcript, your Honor.

GERAGOS: Investigator, you hooked up for sound?

JACOBSON: I'm going to be hooked up in just a second. I don't want to send that shock noise throughout the Court. I will find it real quick, sir. I took it out of the directory. Okay.

GERAGOS: Is that the call?

JACOBSON: That's the next call.

JUDGE: Can you turn up the volume?

GERAGOS: Yes, sir. I'll plug in. I just have to find that call, sir. I had them in a different directory. Okay, I'm ready.

GERAGOS: Okay. (RECORDING PLAYED)

GERAGOS: Thank you.

GERAGOS: That call was intercepted and reported by you on the wiretap, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, switch gears a little bit and talk about some of the other exhibits that you spoke about yesterday with Mr. Distaso. Okay? The first thing I wanted to ask you about were these test calls that you did with AT&T. Do you remember testifying about that?

JACOBSON: When you stated the test calls on the 11th, or, I don't understand.

GERAGOS: No. June 14th of this year after we had started trial.

JACOBSON: Correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You went and did some test calls; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

GERAGOS: Now, you used a phone, you borrowed a phone in order to do that; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. Whose phone was that that you borrowed?

JACOBSON: Her name was Carolyn Ward.

GERAGOS: You mentioned yesterday that in one of, you wanted to find one that was on the same network; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, that's correct.

GERAGOS: And did you also talk to AT&T about whether or not there has been changes in the network since the time that, since you did these test calls on June 14th of 2004, correct?

JACOBSON: I believe that's the correct date.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, is, June 14th, 2004, do you know what day of the week that is?

JACOBSON: June 14th, which day that was?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JUDGE: I can take judicial notice it was a Monday.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

GERAGOS: And do you know if that was the day before a holiday?

JACOBSON: I'm not sure. Maybe the Court can take judicial notice of that for me again.

JUDGE: That is, it was not the day before a holiday. Next day was June 15th, and I don't know if that's a holiday.

JACOBSON: I don't know as well.

GERAGOS: I think the jury can take judicial notice that they were sitting here that day. June 15th and June 14th were not a holiday time of year, correct?

JACOBSON: That's my belief.

GERAGOS: You did this, you tried replicate that day what was happening on December 24th; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I performed those tests to see whether or not I could have the same results of what happened on that particular day.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, you know, after talking with, you spent a lot of time going back and forth with AT&T on this, didn't you?

JACOBSON: I think we both have at this point.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you, AT&T, the information that you have received from them has flip-flopped back and forth; isn't that a fair statement?

JACOBSON: That's a fair statement.

GERAGOS: Okay. At one point they were telling you, do you have the records that you were going off of? Was that the billing usage records? Is that what you were looking at initially?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: For the, initially when you, before you decided to do this experiment, you took the December, if I understand correctly, I'm sure you will correct me if I misstate it, but the 24th, the date of the 24th, you took a look at these calls on the billing usage records; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you looked at the calls on the 24th, you specifically wanted to take a look at this call that was at 10:08; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, the call that was at 10:08, the one, is it the one I'm pointing to right here?

JACOBSON: Yes, no. Go up one more. It's the highlighted one that you have.

GERAGOS: Right up there?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

 GERAGOS: Correct? Now, you also had some other records that you looked at in order to try and interpret what was going on with that call; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: What was the other records that you looked at?

JACOBSON: The fraud records that you have up there.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: And also those invoice records that Mr. Distaso showed me yesterday.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the invoice records, different binder. Let me pull them out. The invoice records,

DISTASO: 203.

GERAGOS: That's the last piece that we got, invoice records, were these here?

JACOBSON: I think you were right the first time.

GERAGOS: You didn't have these. You only got these recently; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: I got them when you got them, sir.

GERAGOS: Which is this week, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'm talking about, in addition to that record that's up on the screen, the fraud billing record, didn't you have another record that you were looking at?

JACOBSON: Are you referring to the conversion charts, cell sites locations?

GERAGOS: No, the, when you were, you have had discussions on and off with people at AT&T in Florida, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the people that you conversed with back at AT&T were giving you conflicting pieces of information, right? Is that right?

JACOBSON: At which period of time?

GERAGOS: Well, when you first, during the entire period of time. Isn't that a fair statement?

JACOBSON: Well.

GERAGOS: I mean you have received, is it a fair statement that they have, in talking to the people at AT&T, throughout the course of this investigation, that they have given diametrically opposed information as to what these records mean?

DISTASO: I object to that. That's argumentative.

GERAGOS: Diametrically opposed.

JUDGE: I believe he knows what that means.

JACOBSON: No, your Honor.

JUDGE: Can you answer that?

JACOBSON: I'm not that intelligent.

JUDGE: Rephrase the question.

GERAGOS: Isn't it a fair statement that at one point that this call, you were told that this call right here was a voicemail call; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I was told, I think I understand what you are getting at now. I was told at one period of time that was an incoming call to voicemail. And then we were both told, together, that, we were both told together that, we were both told together that it was a message retrieval at voicemail.

GERAGOS: Now, when you say we were both told together that was an incoming call, to voicemail, the way it was explained to us was somebody had called on to the, or on to this phone number, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: When they reached this phone number, the phone was on, but it was not answered, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Then it went into voicemail itself, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And that was the reason that it was reflected the way it was reflected, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then when we, the two of us started questioning how those records looked, didn't make a whole lot of sense the way that they were talking about it. It was told to us by, it was Mr. White that he didn't really understand what was going on at that point, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And specifically you and I talked about your theory that there were, if there were three records that showed on the phone bill, that that meant to you voice message retrieval. He was telling you, no, that wasn't the case. Isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: I had been told that, previous to all this, that,

GERAGOS: By somebody else?

JACOBSON: By somebody else, that a three-record entry on the phone records indicated a message retrieval.

GERAGOS: Do you have a copy of the, so the jury knows what we're talking about, of that sheet of paper that has the three records on it?

JACOBSON: It's right there in your fraud records that you had up earlier.

DISTASO: It's part of that one.

JUDGE: It's 203A, I think.

DISTASO: He's got it right in front of him.

GERAGOS: I believe that it is 203A-1.

GERAGOS: If I'm not mistaken, isn't this the document that Mary Anderson says that she got faxed on Monday morning of this week?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: That's not the one that we were talking about with Mr. White, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay.

DISTASO: It's 203A, judge. It's right in front of him.

JUDGE: 203A. That is what you said.

GERAGOS: You have got it in front of you? Pull it up.

DISTASO: It's in the front of the binder there.

GERAGOS: Now, this was, originally you had subpoenaed, some time in January of 2003, these records, correct?

JACOBSON: I don't know if they were subpoenaed at that time, or pursuant to a court order. But they were obtained lawfully.

GERAGOS: Says Subpoena Response Cover Sheet. You are a good investigator. What does,

JACOBSON: But we had, they used those forms blanketly to respond to search warrants and subpoenas. I understand. I believe that was a search warrant request.

GERAGOS: Now, on page, I just got marked with a paper clip on this page, specifically when we talked with Mr. White, three records that we were talking about, was if there were three times here that were all the same,

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: It was his theory that the, that because of the three records together, that if a phone call came in, that meant that it was an outside phone call coming in, correct?

JACOBSON: You know, to be honest, Mr. Geragos, I don't understand, I didn't understand much of what he had to say with those fraud records.

GERAGOS: With Mr. White?

JACOBSON: Mr. White.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he had another theory that he was telling us, kept showing him up here, where there were, see this 9:20 call?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Forty seconds?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: He pointed out, at least last week, that when there wasn't a phone number in this blank space, that that meant that it was an outside call. Isn't that what he told us in the room next door?

JACOBSON: I think what you are trying to get at was, the next call up was the one that had the different numbers right there, but yet all one call. He was trying to say that that was two calls, and I was saying it was one call. And then you were telling me to get out of the room, basically.

GERAGOS: Right. I told you to not even that nice.

JACOBSON: No. You were a little upset.

GERAGOS: Yes. And then you pointed him to this call, didn't we?

JACOBSON: We pointed him up above, yes.

GERAGOS: You just kept getting out of your chair, didn't you?

JACOBSON: Like I said, I was told the one thing earlier on. I was sticking by that.

GERAGOS: Then when we come back on Sunday, by the time we're done with him, you and I are yelling at each other in the room, and he's giving us four different interpretations of what these records are. He finally just said, look, I don't know what the heck I'm talking about, so you go find somebody else, in essence, didn't he?

JACOBSON: He basically said, I'm not your man to interpret these fraud records, he said.

JUDGE: That took care of Thursday. That's why you weren't here.e GERAGOS: Then you guys imported Mary Anderson, correct?

JACOBSON: The District Attorney got on the phone, and I had Mary Anderson, I think, Monday.

GERAGOS: Then when we get Mary Anderson out here, you and I have nothing better to do on Sunday afternoon than come over here and show her these same records, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. When we show her these same records, then she tells us that if there is no number here, that that means it's an outside call coming in, correct?

JACOBSON: Boy, you know, when we first talked to her, I didn't quite understand what the theory was on that.

GERAGOS: That's, but that's what she said, right?

JACOBSON: She said something similar to that. She said that was,

GERAGOS: She what is adamant about that, wasn't she?

JACOBSON: Yeah.

GERAGOS: She wasn't backing down on that, correct?

JACOBSON: No, sir, she wasn't.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then she came up with on Monday the records that I just showed you, which are these, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she changed once again, correct? And said that now it was her belief that it was voice message retrieval, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you did your test in June on the, I guess you did, what, nine tests total? You didn't testify to all of them, but you did nine runs, right?

JACOBSON: Something similar to that.

GERAGOS: And you did not, I mean we didn't hear about all of them yesterday.

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: But you did about nine of them. At that point you didn't know, let me, nobody knew, in fact I don't know if anybody does know what,

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. That's argumentative.

JUDGE: It's commentary. Jury can ignore it. Go ahead.

GERAGOS: Whether or not, or what that phone call was, correct? I mean all you knew, it was a phone call back in June when you did it, correct?

JACOBSON: Back in June I was relying on the first bit of information that I received from AT&T that it was a voicemail retrieval. That it was an outbound call to voicemail, checking voicemail.

GERAGOS: Okay, now, did you, when you the your test, and I guess, if I understand correctly, what you did is, you started at Covena, and then you drove in two different directions, took you towards the Emerald Avenue warehouse?

JACOBSON: I drove actually three different locations, but all going south and southwest.

GERAGOS: Okay. But what you did is, you called somebody, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so you were testing it when you were making a call to another cell phone.

JACOBSON: No. I was making a call from that cell phone to an SBC land line.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'm sorry. You are making a call from a phone to a phone?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. You did not test voicemail retrieval.

JACOBSON: No, sir, I did not.

GERAGOS: Okay. So the best test, wouldn't you say, if you wanted to actually test what's going on with those cell phone towers there, would have been to have done that same test, both at the shop, the warehouse, and at the house using the phone and doing voicemail retrieval; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: I would disagree with you on that.

GERAGOS: Okay. You and I will just stay there and disagree. But you didn't do a voicemail retrieval?

JACOBSON: I did not do a voicemail retrieval, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the voicemail retrievals, you weren't in here for Miss Anderson's testimony as to voicemail retrievals, correct?

JACOBSON: I was not in here, no.

GERAGOS: Just leave it at that. The tests that you conducted at the warehouse, they also, and there was nine of these tests that you ran e 26 through. How many at the house?

JACOBSON: Three at the house, sir.

GERAGOS: And how many at the warehouse?

JACOBSON: I believe four.

GERAGOS: Okay. And fair statement that none of those were voicemail retrievals?

JACOBSON: None of those calls were voicemail retrievals, no, sir.

GERAGOS: Did you use, I assume the police took as evidence, the 505-0337 phone?

JACOBSON: I believe the Modesto Police Department has that phone.

GERAGOS: In evidence?

JACOBSON: I believe so. I haven't seen it personally, but that's, my belief is that, yes, they have that phone.

GERAGOS: Did anybody try to, best of your knowledge, you or anybody else, take that phone that they have in evidence, and ask AT&T to activate it, and then do the test using his phone from his warehouse, or from his house?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Did anybody do that on, or did anybody do any kind of test, or any kind of examination on his phone, the 505-0337 cell phone, that you are aware of?

JACOBSON: Do any kind, type of examination as to test calls to see which cell towers, et cetera.

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: No.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically, the tests that you did, you had, you, if I understand correctly, you were leaving the house, you were having somebody time you for about a minute 21; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And that was, with the minute 21, that starts when you pressed the, "Go", basically or when you press the connect on the phone?

JACOBSON: Actually the other party to that call was timing.

GERAGOS: Okay. And, also, I assume, I don't want to belabor it. But that if you are not doing the test call to voicemail, you don't know how long it takes on the phone at that point to actually connect up with the voicemail?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Did you do the, or do you know if anybody from AT&T did any analysis to see whether or not, or have the technology to see whether or not there were existing voicemails that had gone through the trunk that had not been retrieved on the morning of the 24th?

JACOBSON: One more time on that question, please.

GERAGOS: Did anybody at AT&T do any kind of analysis or testing to see if there were voicemails on that phone at the time on the 24th?

JACOBSON: They would not have been able to retrieve any audio that had been left on that voicemail.

GERAGOS: Did anybody do any analysis of the phone records to see whether or not there were, you can tell from the phone records, the ones that you had up, I had up there a minute ago, when somebody leaves a voicemail, can't you?

JACOBSON: No, you can't tell, if you are referring to a duration of a call.

GERAGOS: No. I'm saying you can tell if somebody reaches a  line 7 voicemail from outside?

JACOBSON: I see what you are suing.

GERAGOS: At least we think we can right now, unless somebody comes out from AT&T tomorrow and changes their mind.

DISTASO: Objection.

JUDGE: Sustained rephrase the question.

GERAGOS: We believe that there is a way that you can tell if somebody is calling from outside and leaving a voicemail, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: As we sit here, we think right now that it's a theory, if it's you retrieving a voicemail, or if it's somebody calling from outside leaving one, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Have you analyzed the records, the phone records, to see if anybody on an outside call had made phone calls into the voicemail? Do you understand? You got me so far?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: After the last time that there were voicemail retrievals there, from presumably Scott Peterson?

JACOBSON: After the last time on that particular phone? At which period of time? I'm kind of getting lost there.

GERAGOS: Yeah. Yesterday Mr. Distaso, remember, asked you to write down VMRT on the phone?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Do you remember doing that?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: That means Voicemail Retrieval, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically you can tell the last time he retrieved his voicemail, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You can then look for the next time that somebody on an outside call called in to leave a voicemail, couldn't you?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Did you, or anybody else from AT&T, analyze whether or not, between what you think is a voicemail retrieval at 10:08 and the previous voicemail retrieval, whether or not there was an outside call leaving voicemails?

JACOBSON: The previous one to December 24th at 10:08?

GERAGOS: Exactly.

JACOBSON: I believe I have looked at those records, yes.

GERAGOS: How many voicemails were left between the two?

JACOBSON: I don't recall. I can take some time and look at it if you like.

GERAGOS: Now, at the break I'd ask you to do that if you would.

JACOBSON: Okay.

GERAGOS: When you did your test, you produced a record; is that correct? You called it a snapshot, again, I guess? Something similar to that.

JACOBSON: That was a record sent to me by AT&T.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when that record was sent to you by AT&T, did you ask them if this was what kind of format it was in?

JACOBSON: I didn't ask them, no. I saw that format.

GERAGOS: Okay. And did that look the same to you as the format that you have in 203A-1?

JACOBSON: Not looking at that, I would say that it looked like the fraud records.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did not look like what was in 203A-1, correct?

JACOBSON: It's not complete like this one.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you say not complete like this one, what we have got is, do you have the marked copy of this marked exhibit of this? Do you know what number it is?

DISTASO: It's in the binder.

JACOBSON: Let me see that one more time.

GERAGOS: Sure.

JACOBSON: I think it's just a condensed version of that.

GERAGOS: That's what I'm going to show you right now.

JACOBSON: Just looks like a condensed version.

GERAGOS: This is the way that it comes out on the fraud billing record, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And this is 203E, the way that you got it; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Did you ask them on the test records to send you, it's like there is just one entry, is that correct, for each of the calls?

JACOBSON: What was that question again, sir? Please repeat that.

GERAGOS: Looks like there is just one entry, as opposed to here we have got three, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ask them to send you, you called this a condensed, meaning this right here, a condensed version, right?

JACOBSON: It looks like that contains most of the information on your first, looks like contains most of the information there on your first sheet except for it doesn't have the second part of the call.

GERAGOS: Doesn't have the expanded version?

JACOBSON: And the reason why is because I never called voicemail.

GERAGOS: Right. So you don't know, as you sit here, I mean the problem with what we got is it's really comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

JACOBSON: No.

GERAGOS: The fact of the matter is, you don't call voicemail, you are not going to, in order to do a test record, you are never going to be able to get these kinds of records which would then tell you whether or not your test is accurate; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: That's not correct.

GERAGOS: Well, do you know that the, both Miss Anderson and Mr. White told both you and me on both occasions that these cell phone records, and the, what they call the Fraud Billing Records, were not to be used, and were not designed to be used to identify locations; isn't that correct?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. It calls for hearsay. It's not inconsistent with the expert testimony.

JUDGE: You can ask. Overruled.

JACOBSON: They told me that, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Mr. White told us, when we were in the room over there, and Miss Anderson when we were over at the hotel, correct?

JACOBSON: I believe they reinstated that as well.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now,

JUDGE: I think there was testimony to that effect here in the courtroom, too.

GERAGOS: Right. As prior consistent statement.

DISTASO: Well, actually, your Honor, I can just make the record a prior inconsistent statement would mean that it would have to be attacked. They weren't.

GERAGOS: That's not correct. That's not correct.

JUDGE: Go ahead. It's overruled.

GERAGOS: The January 11th analysis that you did, and move to that if I could.

JACOBSON: Sure. Certainly.

GERAGOS: Now, that was, specifically you are trying to identify Scott Peterson's location; is that correct?

JACOBSON: The slide that I presented on January 11th?

GERAGOS: Yeah. The one that you did up on January 11th, which I think is marked as,

JUDGE: Do you want to explain, if you would project it, it would be helpful.

GERAGOS: I'll put it up. I was going to. 207A-1.

GERAGOS: Do you want to project it? Can you see it if I do it from here?

JACOBSON: Either way.

GERAGOS: Okay. Okay. Now, this slide you did using cell phone records; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did. And wiretap records.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the cell phone records and the wiretap records, you, there was also, I believe, surveillance of Mr. Peterson at that time, was there not?

JACOBSON: My understanding is that in the morning there was surveillance of Mr. Peterson.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you say in the morning, were you aware that there was apparently surveillance throughout the day?

JACOBSON: My understanding is that, if this is the day I'm thinking of, is that they had tried to surveil him. They surveilled him. I believe they had lost him. I might be mistaken. I never seen any surveillance reports.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: You want to give me the surveillance reports, I will be glad to take a look and answer those questions.

GERAGOS: I don't think I can give them to you if you don't know. So you haven't talked to anybody about surveillance of him, have you?

JACOBSON: I have.

GERAGOS: Okay. Who did you talk to?

JACOBSON: I talked to the lead detective at the time, Detective Grogan.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you talked to Detective Grogan about surveillance, did he tell you that the Department of Justice had Mr. Peterson under surveillance on January 11th?

JACOBSON: I don't know if he used the term, that it was law enforcement officers from the Department of Justice or not. But he told me that Mr. Peterson was under surveillance for a portion of that day, or something similar to that.

GERAGOS: Now, have you reviewed any of the surveillance reports?

JACOBSON: I have not.

GERAGOS: Okay. And is it your testimony that at, get another slide here, that specifically at 10:48, you made one individual slide which was A2. That's yours, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

GERAGOS: At 10:48, on the morning of the 11th, continues, actual location was right here, which is right next to Berkeley, right?

JACOBSON: Concord 2 switch, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, when you say the Concord 2 switch, did you have a cell site?

JACOBSON: No, I did not have a cell site for that particular switch at that time.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then stated location, you said, was over here, West Fresno, something like that?

JACOBSON: I believe that's where Mr. Peterson stated, told his mother that he was at.

GERAGOS: Now, were you aware, or are you aware that there are surveillance notes from the Department of Justice that show him at his house at 11:00 o'clock?

JACOBSON: I'm not aware.

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. That misstates the one, misstates what's in the note.

JUDGE: He's never seen the notes.

DISTASO: Third, he's never even seen the notes.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: Have you asked anybody in regards, while you were preparing these, whether or not the surveillance corresponded to the cell phone?

JACOBSON: I had asked Detective Grogan about the surveillance on that particular date. And I believe he told me that they had surveilled him for a period of time, then had lost him, or something similar to that.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did he tell you that they had lost him at approximately, did he tell you what time?

JACOBSON: No, he did not. I believe he said something about maybe early in the morning, or early in the morning, before the afternoon.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, it was your information that one of the other officers has testified to this from Modesto PD. Were you aware that the police had put out an advisory that they were, that something had been identified by sonar in January, on the 9th?

JACOBSON: My understanding was that the media had circled around them out in the Bay and had found out that they were searching the bay at that period of time. And so the Modesto Police Department had put out something.

GERAGOS: Okay. I believe I'll have my Mr. Harris look for it. I believe Modesto PD did put out an advisory at some point in time?

JACOBSON: I believe so. I believe you are correct on,

GERAGOS: Is it your, be fair to stay the Modesto Bee was covering this at this point?

JACOBSON: Modesto Bee performed a lot of coverage.

GERAGOS: Police are going to put out an advisory, they were going to be out there, that would have been printed in the Modesto Bee?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: The location where Mr. Peterson was at 10:48, how close, you don't have a cell site. All you can do is put Concord area?

JACOBSON: I didn't have a particular cell site, so all I could put is the actual switch in which he was at.

GERAGOS: Okay. You put it what looks like here, see if I can zoom it in. We lose a little bit of clarity.

JUDGE: Do you want to go ahead and project it?

GERAGOS: I wanted to kind of just zoom there for a second. Right here if I could.

GERAGOS: Is this right here the Concord switch area?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

GERAGOS: That white line that's right there.

JACOBSON: I believe you need to continue up north. There you go.

GERAGOS: Up here?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So he was, that includes Berkeley, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, on the --

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, probably good time to take the morning recess for the reporter.

<recess>

GERAGOS: I think where I left off, I was going to ask you, I found what we previously marked as Exhibit L1. Do I have to, Did you switch it back over?

JACOBSON: Switch it back over.

GERAGOS: Would this have been the press advisory for, that we were talking about before? Can you see that? Or do you want me to zoom it in?

GERAGOS: This went out, apparently, on the 9th or night of the 9th, so it would have been printed on the 10th, if the reporters picked it up?

JACOBSON: I've never read that, but, as I stated, I was well aware the media had access to something like that, because it was well reported.

GERAGOS: I'm going to showed you two articles that I printed off of ModBee dot com. Does that look, three articles, actually. Does that look familiar of the kind of coverage that was going on back then?

JACOBSON: Yes. It looks familiar, from what I recall from that period of time.

GERAGOS: All right. Mark these defendant's next in order. Whatever number. Glad to make it 1, 2, 3.

JUDGE: Yeah. D 5 R 1, 2 and 3.

GERAGOS: While Marylin's marking that, the, the number of calls we discussed yesterday that were on the wiretap, you estimated in excess of 3,000 and change, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever break that down as to how many of those were media?

JACOBSON: I think we talked about that once before with media-related calls. I don't know if I gave a number before, but I said a large percentage of those, after a certain period of time, like January 16th on, a lot of calls from the media.

GERAGOS: Looking at the, without having to go through all of them, I picked out some pages. And it looks like to me as many, sometimes you would get twelve calls an hour. Is that unusual?

JACOBSON: That's not, not an unusual statement to make, or it's a fair statement.

GERAGOS: And these are from media, we talked yesterday about Ted Rowlands, who must have him on speedy dial for the number of times that he called. You virtually have every single media outlet calling him repeatedly over the course of the day; is that a pretty fair statement?

JACOBSON: I don't know about every media outlet, but I believe the media was properly represented by the,

GERAGOS: Yeah. They weren't shy in this case.

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the calls that were being made, I think yesterday Mr. Distaso was asking you about the cell phone usage by Mr. Peterson. Now, I'm going to, and I think specifically he was asking you about the 24th and how much, how many calls he made that day; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Between the calls between him and Amber Frey?

GERAGOS: No, just on the 24th of December. Do you remember, didn't he ask you yesterday about the cell phone usage, how often would he make calls during the day?

JACOBSON: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Do you remember that?

JACOBSON: That was specifically between 10:08 and 2:12 p.m.?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, that was the day before Christmas, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And I think Mr. Distaso asked you how many calls were made on, or I guess the way he phrased the expression, without pulling out the transcript, was it unusual that there wasn't that many calls made that day for his cell phone usage? Do you remember that?

JACOBSON: I think what Mr. Distaso was trying to say, if he didn't say it, was that was it unusual for Mr. Peterson not to have activity between 10:08 a.m. and 2:12 p.m.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you said that you thought that was unusual, correct?

JACOBSON: With the exception of December 24th, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, I'm going to show you the day before Thanksgiving, and I think, if you'll accept my representation of that, I think that year, 2002, Thanksgiving was the 28th of November.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: There's not a whole lot of activity on either the 26th, which is, what, two days before, or the 27th. There were how many calls on the 27th?

JACOBSON: On the 27th there were how many calls? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven calls.

GERAGOS: Total. That was about the same that you have on the 24th before Laci goes missing?

JACOBSON: About that.

GERAGOS: About seven. And on the 26th how many calls?

JACOBSON: No calls.

GERAGOS: Around the holidays, just picking out at least Thanksgiving, it doesn't appear his usual cell phone activity stays the same; is that correct? Based on that?

JACOBSON: That's correct. And I believe I testified it was from November 29th to January 7th, the time on the phone records.

GERAGOS: Right. The 29th being the day after Thanksgiving?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. The records I showed you include, looks like it starts on the, sometime the beginning of November? Yeah, November 1st?

JACOBSON: November 1st, I believe so, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So the two major holidays that are at least covered there on these billing records, at least, show that on the days surrounding at least Thanksgiving and Christmas is his cell phone usage goes down?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, is there a reason, I was going to ask, you said that in trying to, I said, actually, on A2, which is this, this incoming call from Jackie Peterson to Scott that we heard yesterday; do you remember that one?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Do I switch back, camera off?

JACOBSON: Uh, input.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, is there a reason that you know of, there's a reason you couldn't get a cell site on that day?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, there was a reason for that.

GERAGOS: Do you know what it was?

JACOBSON: Yes, I do.

GERAGOS: Which is?

JACOBSON: At that particular time in the morning of the 11th we weren't provisioned for those switches, which meant that we weren't able to receive any specific cell site information. It wasn't until I called AT&T, when I figured out that I was only getting Incoming calls, what the problem was. I hadn't expected Mr. Peterson to go to the Bay on that particular day.

GERAGOS: Well, the, that was the, if I'm not mistaken, that's, what, you were up and running about 12 hours since you had gotten the tap?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: And I was provisioned in the specific areas in the State of California, and I wasn't provisioned in these two Concord switches.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the next, I've got A, A 1, which is this chart. Can you put that up?

JACOBSON: Which chart are you,

GERAGOS: That's it. That's it.

JACOBSON: Okay.

GERAGOS: I just want to see if I've got this right in terms of the sequence. You've got, you've got a, what looks like, the first call, do you have the 10:58 on here? Okay. You've got some, so this is the one, this is the call that you make, your test call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And when you make your test call, you are, are you the one who actually made the call?

JACOBSON: I believe I was, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And where were you when you made the call?

JACOBSON: In Modesto.

GERAGOS: Where in Modesto?

JACOBSON: It's in a confidential location, but it's northeast, it's northwest Modesto.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you make that, and is the, when you say confidential, I don't want you to reveal it, but is it in a location where, near the wire room? Or is this a separate location?

JACOBSON: No, this is a wire room separate from law enforcement agencies.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you make that call, and then the next one is the incoming from Mike Richardson? Is that the next call that actually registers, if I've got it right?

JACOBSON: Like I stated before, those are snapshots to show a particular, where Mr. Peterson was on that particular day. If I could look at the records --

GERAGOS: Sure.

JACOBSON: and see if that was the exact, in the sequence of calls.

GERAGOS: Sure. Do you have that out?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have, you're looking at the HIDTA records, right?

JACOBSON: I am.

GERAGOS: Okay. So that's not going, that's not going to give us the information as to cells or anything else, right?

JACOBSON: It will not give me cell site locations, but I can tell you if 9:37 was the exact call preceding on 6:18.

GERAGOS: You mean the subsequent?

JACOBSON: The subsequent sounds good, yes. Sorry about that.

GERAGOS: Is it?

JACOBSON: No, it's not.

GERAGOS: Okay. Let's just see if I've got it right. The, does your call show on the billing records?

JACOBSON: I can looking at the billing records, if you provide me with that binder again.

GERAGOS: Sure. I pulled out a copy from,

JACOBSON: Or I can look on the HIDTA records.

GERAGOS: I don't see it on the billing, do you?

JACOBSON: The hang-up test call?

GERAGOS: Hang-up test call.

JACOBSON: It is not on the billing records, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then the first one that I see is a mobile incoming at 8:47; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have any idea where that location is, the cell?

JACOBSON: That incoming is a, incoming call that, checking voice mail.

GERAGOS: Okay. And what, what cell site?

JACOBSON: It doesn't list a cell site.

GERAGOS: No cell site?

JACOBSON: It doesn't list a cell site.

GERAGOS: And that's at 8:47 in the morning?

JACOBSON: That's at 8:47 in the morning.

GERAGOS: Is that a voice mail retrieval?

JACOBSON: Yes, it's a voice mail retrieval.

GERAGOS: With no cell site location?

JACOBSON: We probably have to look at the CALEA data. I think it's probably in here.

GERAGOS: When you say the CALEA data, is that, are you referring to what Mary Anderson had faxed up?

JACOBSON: No, this is People's 203 F.

GERAGOS: You show at 8:47 where it was?

JACOBSON: It doesn't show.

GERAGOS: Okay. So once, there's at least one example of a voice mail retrieval that doesn't go to a cell site, or at least doesn't have the location, right?

JACOBSON: It doesn't show in the system I have on this.

GERAGOS: Now, you've got two calls at 9:37, at least on the billing records. Is that the same call? Or two separate calls?

JACOBSON: If you see on the billing records it has the NACNs again?

GERAGOS: I show two Oaklands and two NACNs?

JACOBSON: Yes. Those are two separate calls.

GERAGOS: Two separate calls?

JACOBSON: But four records.

GERAGOS: This and this?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that's in Concord, right?

JACOBSON: Concord 3 switch, yes.

GERAGOS: It's over by Berkeley, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, it is.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then what I just marked as the exhibit is the Modesto Bee articles which, on the 9th and the 10th, one is Object Spied in the Bay, and the other is Divers Set to Renew Search in San Francisco Bay, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And both of those are the articles, well, the first one says, the one that's on the 10th says: Divers plan to return to San Francisco Bay today to determine if the object found two days ago is a body, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And Modesto police said they put off the object's retrieval to today to give divers a rest and let stormy weather pass?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: The, so if the announcement was on the 9th and they put it off a day, it didn't go out the 10th, they would have set, the morning of the 11th the Modesto Bee is printing: The divers are going to go back out on the Bay?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And presumably Scott Peterson's got the phone at 9:00, that's 9:37 Pacific Time, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: He's out there in the Concord switch area, presumably somewhere near the Berkeley Marina, right?

JACOBSON: I can't say specifically where he's at, but I can tell you that he's within the white boundaries of that Concord 3 switch.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at what point do you know that the, I'm not going to ask you for the intercepts, but you personally, what time does law enforcement and the media start reporting that it's an anchor?

JACOBSON: I believe they started reporting it right before lunch.

GERAGOS: Okay. And do you know what time the, the divers actually came up with the anchor or determined, I don't think they brought it up, but they just determined it; isn't that what happened?

JACOBSON: You know, sir, I wasn't watching it. I was, like I stated, stuck in a little bit, and...

GERAGOS: In that confidential location?

JACOBSON: In that confidential location.

GERAGOS: Right. Now, the, so you've got these calls. All of them are the Concord switch up until 9:47, correct?

JACOBSON: In the Concord 3 switch, that's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the Concord 3 and the Concord 2 are right next to each other?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, they are.

GERAGOS: Berkeley overlaps both of them; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Actually, I don't know if Mr. White covered it, but the switches do have a little bit of an overlap between the 2 and the 3, and,

GERAGOS: Mr. White said that, in order to, I assume this is your understanding, that there's, it's not the same kind of overlap you've got with the cell phone sites when you've got all these circles kind of laying on top of each other, but at the boundaries they overlap so you've got coverage from one switch to another. Is that your understanding as well?

JACOBSON: That's what I've been told, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: All right. Now, the next call, all of these what we've got here are the Concord 2 or the Concord 3 switch; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes. Are they all from the Concord 2? Those are a snapshot representative of the Concord 2 and 3.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, these incomings from Mike Richardson and an outgoing to voice mail, and an incoming from Jackie, and an incoming from Ted Rowlands, once again I'm going to ask you, are there other calls that are in this sequence that are not on this chart?

JACOBSON: I believe so, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. From the billing, do you have the billing records in front of you?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you have your HIDTA records in front of you?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Okay. Does it look like at 9:45 there's an incoming, or an outgoing, I should say, to a La Jolla?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you capture that?

JACOBSON: This is on the billing at 9:48, or 9:45?

GERAGOS: 9:45 to a La Jolla number, which I know to be Jackie Peterson. 232 number?

JACOBSON: You know, these billing records don't show the 10:48 call to Jackie, but it does show the 9:45. So I'm not quite sure if this was an AT&T kind of,

GERAGOS: Glitch?

JACOBSON: glitch.

GERAGOS: They do show, so we're both looking at the same thing. They both, they do show that there's a 9:45 call to Jackie Peterson, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then it shows that there's a 10:41 incoming call from Modesto, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Did you capture that, the audio on that?

JACOBSON: Like I stated, I believe this is one and the same with the 10:48 call, because if you go down you'll see it at 10:48. So these billing records really,

GERAGOS: What I'm asking you, see, what I'm asking is see this incoming that's got a Modesto call location? Incoming?

JACOBSON: At 10:41?

GERAGOS: 10:41.

JACOBSON: I have a 10:40:47.

GERAGOS: You don't have the 10:41 incoming from Modesto; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yeah, I don't have a 10:41. I have a 10:40:47, but I think these billing records have an anomaly to them.

GERAGOS: Okay. The, if I can just go down here to, to try and lead you through here until noon on the records, before noon, which is just the next link. Seven or eight entries?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: There's a call to San Francisco, a 415 number. Did you capture that?

JACOBSON: Yes. I believe so. That was, that shows a 10:48.

GERAGOS: Once again, it looks like it doesn't jive with the HIDTA records, does it?

JACOBSON: Yeah, there's,

GERAGOS: There's something wrong. And then on, looks like on the, see this incoming, this is an NCN?

JACOBSON: NACN. That's attached to the call record up above.

GERAGOS: Right. Does that come in, that doesn't come in, does it?

JACOBSON: The NACN above, below that is actually attached to the 415 number.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: And that call may or may not be somehow related to that 9:45 call. It just doesn't show your client's mother's number on that one.

GERAGOS: Right. We would just be speculating as to what that is?

JACOBSON: Exactly.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then the next, looks like one, two, three, four, five, six calls before noon. Did you capture the audio of those? I'll give you a hint. It doesn't look --

JACOBSON: Yeah, it's not,

GERAGOS: It doesn't look like, at least on the 11th, which is maybe the first day, maybe there was a glitch or something, but it's clear that there's something wrong between the records, the billing records, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: For, from AT&T?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the wiretap, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Because as we go through this and we're comparing, and, if I could, I'm going to switch to the camera so that I can show the jury what we're talking about. Can I borrow your billing records for a second, just that one page so I can show it? The 11th shows, starting from right up, we started talking about right here; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I think you said 8:47. The billing records don't show the test calls or those calls prior to that.

GERAGOS: Right. And then almost all of these calls don't show up on the HIDTA, correct?

JACOBSON: Well, they, they show up, but my records are at different times.

GERAGOS: Yeah, different times, and the numbers don't correspond to the times that you have got on the wiretap, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Whether that's, if I could just, I know I took this from you yesterday. I'm just going to put this up so they can take a look. I'll hand it right back. When you're looking at the HIDTA records and you compare these to these, and you look at them, and you're looking here, at the times and the phone numbers and comparing them, and then comparing them here, what we're saying is that the numbers aren't, they don't correspond, correct?

JACOBSON: Well, the phone numbers may correspond, but the times don't correspond.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that, and as we indicated, and I suppose it would be speculation, but we do know for a fact that on that date, that's the first twelve hours that you're up and running, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So it's quite possible that what's going on is that the numbers, and I used this before, garbage in, garbage out. Maybe the AT&T, when the call records are getting sent, that the call records that are being sent are not marrying up correctly with the audio, or maybe there's some kind of a problem between the billing usage and the wiretap; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I would say there's probably a couple different systems being used by AT&T. Of course, we know that the billing records are separate from the invoices. The invoices are separate from the fraud records. And then I'm getting this information which there may be a problem with the data, the time that I'm getting it.

GERAGOS: Okay. So at least on the 11th, as we're comparing here, the 11th before noon, there's an obvious disconnect, correct?

JACOBSON: There's a discrepancy with the times.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, the, specifically, if I can go back, turn it back off, the camera, and go back to putting it back up for a second? Okay. So what we've got are some, the phone calls, at least I assume, you correct me if I'm wrong, these calls that you've got on this chart are all taken off of the HIDTA records, not off of the billing usage records?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And based upon what you know, the more accurate records in terms of time, capturing the time of the call, would be the billing records, would it not?

JACOBSON: I don't believe so. I believe my records would probably be, well, I guess we're going to get into a feud between AT&T and me, but,

GERAGOS: I betcha AT&T would give the opposite response.

JACOBSON: These records and these times I believe are accurate.

GERAGOS: But they don't seem to jive with the billing usage records, do they?

JACOBSON: No, they don't.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the calls that you took out and that you put on this chart, were you able to capture all of the audio on these?

JACOBSON: I believe most of the audio, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Any of those that you didn't capture the audio of?

JACOBSON: I'm not quite sure. Maybe, maybe one.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then we've already established at least the billing records reflect those number of calls that either are missed time or weren't captured or we don't know; we would just be speculating, right?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, do we know specifically, as you sit here, what, when the first time that you have got a record that shows, by the way, this is all on the 505-0337 phone?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. When is the first time that you see the 505-0337 phone leave either the Concord 2 or the Concord 3 switch? Do you know what I'm saying?

JACOBSON: Right. When does it head back down south into the Gilroy area?

GERAGOS: Right. What time is that?

JACOBSON: I think it's, I think it's, well, it's definitely after that 10:58 call from Ted Rowlands.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: I think the next one is the Heidi and Aaron Fritz call at 11:53 a.m.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that call at 11:53, you've got that, you had that HIDTA thing in front of you, because I gave it back to you, that call shows what switch?

JACOBSON: It doesn't actually show the switch or the cell site. I'm just going off my recollection, but I believe the 11:53 was, or I can go to the CALEA data.

GERAGOS: Right. Can you take a look at that?

JACOBSON: At 11:53:10?

GERAGOS: 11:53:10, correct.

JACOBSON: It shows him in the Santa Clara switch.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the Santa Clara switch would be,

JACOBSON: Just south.

GERAGOS: Just south. And that's roughly the exact time that it started being reported that it was not a body, that it was an anchor, correct?

JACOBSON: I believe that's the time when the reports were coming out, right before lunch.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so that I'm clear, it's not on here, is it, the Santa Clara switch? Do you have it marked,

JACOBSON: Actually, I have those cell sites for the Santa Clara switch showing there. San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy.

GERAGOS: Right in there?

JACOBSON: Right.

GERAGOS: Which is the switch?

JACOBSON: Oh, actually, I don't have the definition of the switch, like you see in the Concord 2 and the Concord 3. I just have individual cell sites that are listed in that same switch.

GERAGOS: Okay. If I understand correct, that's Oakland there?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the, roughly the Concord switch comes like this, where I'm pointing to?

JACOBSON: Right. The Concord 2 and 3 are up north there, and the Santa Clara switch would be where you're pointing at and south.

GERAGOS: And south?

JACOBSON: All the way down, past Gilroy.

GERAGOS: Okay. So it would appear, at least in the morning, whoever's got that phone would be in the switch area for Berkeley, and then shortly before noon, roughly at the same time it's being reported that it's not a body, the person is heading south through that Santa Clara area; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, that's correct.

GERAGOS: Now, the afternoon, you have that afternoon slide up?

JACOBSON: It's on the screen right now for us all, sir.

GERAGOS: Thanks. Now, that, you've got a little blue arrow there that says "start counter-clockwise," right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, what you've done here is, for instance, right here, this cell tower, Rossi in Gilroy, is somewhere in this area is what you're saying?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And how far is this from the Berkeley area, do you know?

JACOBSON: I don't think in terms of mileage or time. It's just in a different switch. So obviously it would be quite some distance, because the switch areas cover a substantial area of terrain.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, the next one you've got, you go to the A 6, which is the outgoing call?

JACOBSON: The next outgoing?

GERAGOS: Well, you've got one says outgoing call. There you go.

JACOBSON: Which one are you looking at?

GERAGOS: That one right there.

JACOBSON: Miss Rocha?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: Okay.

GERAGOS: Now, that is, once again you've got this call, and the, you've got an arrow pointing, but I assume that this white area is the switch area?

JACOBSON: No, that's actually a combination of the cell sites within that switch.

GERAGOS: You don't have information as to a specific cell site for that,

JACOBSON: I do. It's right up on the header there. 5755 Rossi Lane.

GERAGOS: Okay. So what's the point of this right here?

JACOBSON: The point of that is to show that in that slide, all of those cell sites combined don't exceed outside of that radius.

GERAGOS: Okay. So are you saying that the person, even though they're using the Rossi Lane cell site, literally all of these surrounding sites are potential cell sites that they may be operating off of? Or potential --

JACOBSON: Hand offs.

GERAGOS: that's the boundary that they could be, as far as away as they could be and still be using that cell site?

JACOBSON: That's my understanding, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. The, do you know what those boundaries are?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: Approximately what are they?

JACOBSON: For each cell site?

GERAGOS: No. Actually, just give me what the total circumference of that, kind of looks like a circle with a, something on it.

JACOBSON: I would, I would have to give you exact radiuses of each cell site. I, I could look up there and see,

GERAGOS: Are you talking is this thing, I just need an approximation. Are you talking ten miles across? Are you talking 20 miles across?

JACOBSON: If I remember correctly, it's more than ten miles but under 20.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the next call, by the way, is there a call before that that you didn't, you know, we talked about culling these out. Pulling them out.

JACOBSON: Right.

GERAGOS: Is there one before that?

JACOBSON: I believe so. We just talked about that. The Aaron and I think it was Heidi Fritz at 11:53.

GERAGOS: So that was the one, the one previous call?

JACOBSON: Yes.

<Noon recess>

GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor.

JUDGE: By the way, did Raffi finish that little project I gave him?

GERAGOS: No, he didn't. In fact, working on it as we speak. Probably be Monday morning.

JUDGE: Okay. Fine.

GERAGOS: Investigator Jacobson, I was going to ask you for, you got A. We were on A4. You call up, bring up A4 again.

JACOBSON: I don't have the numbers.

GERAGOS: Afternoon. Previous one. Exactly. On this, starting here, and then going down, we already established these two are the ones that you took out of order in order to play here, correct? Took out of order since you didn't take every successive call?

JACOBSON: That's correct, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. As you are going down here, and you are picking these spots, the Gilroy, Gilroy, Gilroy, are those all on the Rossi tower?

JACOBSON: No. As you can see, as you are heading counter clockwise, that next one there is Periwinkle and Reservoir D, short duration.

GERAGOS: Short duration. It's one of these, what they call these hand-offs that goes from one to the other?

JACOBSON: I believe the duration on that was less than about three seconds. I could look at the records. But it's a real quick call that didn't go through. So he went ahead and redialed.

GERAGOS: Okay. So could you tell, if you put in here outgoing to Sharon Rocha. I assume that's the same phone has the same, hits it again, and apparently, on the cell site, for whatever reason, cell tower at Periwinkle doesn't work. The next time the cell phone finds the Rossi cell tower, and that one works, and the call connects?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That's what you are assuming, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then we stay at the Rossi. So basically for a five minute period of time, we're over in Gilroy somewhere, and in this little white circular area?

JACOBSON: I think the time was even beyond that, because, as we had brought up earlier, there is an 11:53 call found him also down in the Gilroy area. So I would be safe to say that, within that hour, he is at the Rossi cell tower there in Gilroy.

GERAGOS: The 11:53, does that have a cell tower on it?

JACOBSON: The call at 11:53, I believe it had the switch showing the Santa Clara switch.

GERAGOS: Do you have that in front of you?

JACOBSON: I need that. Maybe I got the binder right here.

GERAGOS: I think you do. If you don't, I'll grab it for you. You don't need the cell site locations book?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: You can do it straight from there?

JACOBSON: Just has the switch. Doesn't have the cell site location listed on that at 11:53.

GERAGOS: And the switch again?

JACOBSON: So within that period of time he's within that Santa Clara switch.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that's the one that's immediately south, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then the, what calls do we have from here? This outgoing to the voicemail, 12:55, you got the Sharon Rocha right? Another outgoing voicemail, outgoing. Hasn't any other calls interspersed between the Lee Peterson and the disconnected number?

JACOBSON: No calls between Lee Peterson and the disconnected number at 1:09.

GERAGOS: And then the next thing you have got going is the outgoing to 4-1-1, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, do you capture the audio on that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

 GERAGOS: And what's the audio on it?

JACOBSON: Do you want me to explain?

GERAGOS: Do you have the,

JACOBSON: Synopsis of it.

GERAGOS: No. Do you have the, you got the HIDTA there? Just point to me where the 4-1-1 is one these call connects.

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And on the call connect that comes in, there is basically a somebody in the San Luis Obispo area?

JACOBSON: That he is searching for, yes.

GERAGOS: And then presses the button again, and gets the, I guess they do whatever it is. He got the answering machine?

JACOBSON: Just, boom, it goes.

GERAGOS: You press the button once, he gets the number. It goes to voicemail, it gets the answering machine?

JACOBSON: Got the answering machine for Mark and Barbara Sharpe.

GERAGOS: And then what's the next call after that?

JACOBSON: 1:09:33. Still at that same location.

GERAGOS: Do you capture audio on that?

JACOBSON: The first one, 1:09:22, that is a disconnected number where the audio said that, sorry, the number was disconnected. And then 1:09:33, underneath that is the 4-1-1 call we just talked about.

GERAGOS: Now, the next call that you capture is the 1:11:17 for information again. Now, on that, I apologize. I thought that was the 1:11. I gives the way to distinguish it is, there would be a 1:11. This one says No Name, then Uno, and then Gilroy. This 1:11 call?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: What does that mean?

JACOBSON: That's the name of the cell tower, believe it or not. No Name Uno.

GERAGOS: Do you capture any of the audio on the No Name audio?

JACOBSON: I don't get the audio.

GERAGOS: That's why they call it No Name Uno. The next call that comes up?

JACOBSON: Is the 1:17: call there to Mike Richardson.

GERAGOS: To Mike and Heather Richardson. He gets the voicemail again?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then looks like he redials again?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. There is a couple more trying to get Mike Richardson.

GERAGOS: Using different numbers?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then looks like there is a call at 1:21. You don't have it up there. You have got Guy Miligi. But there is another one between that, right?

JACOBSON: Jody Hernandez placed an incoming phone call.

GERAGOS: So as he's calling out to these people, at the same time one of these things you tend to have a lot, here which is media calling, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, you have got Guy Miligi, and we heard that tape, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then you have got, again, Jody Hernandez, three straight calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: 1:21, 1:22, 1:23?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then a call to Mike and Heather, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. That's the 1:25:22. That's the first one. The white box that you see up above Guy Miligi's.

GERAGOS: And as we're going outgoing to voicemail, that means the 1:26, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then after that, we have got two more to Mike and Heather Richardson?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Are those both reflected in the 1:26 and 1:31?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then you have got this Robert Weaver call. We heard that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then another Robert Weaver call, which is not on there, right?

JACOBSON: It's, actually that's one and the same call.

GERAGOS: Okay. You had it as two on your call record; is that correct?

JACOBSON: It shows two on the call records. But if you look at the duration the times, it's actually one call.

GERAGOS: Okay. Okay. And then you have got the call to Jackie. Looks like there is another call, 4:16. What is that?

JACOBSON: That is actually a serving system message that's put out by AT&T. Not an actual call.

GERAGOS: At that point at 2:02, that Robert Weaver call, other than that AT&T service message, service system message, the next one you get is the 4:49?

JACOBSON: Yes. Where he reaches the AT&T recording.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the cell phone usage that day, that's, as we indicated, that was the first day of the wiretap. Did you calculate how many calls there were to be picked up on the wiretap for that day?

JACOBSON: No, sir, I did not.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, going forward from there. The 12th. Were you still manning the wire room at that point?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir I was.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, as you were manning the wire room on the 12th, can you explain a little bit, I guess you have got a confidential location. There is people sitting there. Give me just a little bit more detail. When somebody is actually in the, you have more than one person who monitors the wire room?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And how many, normally how many people normally are in the wire room?

JACOBSON: Normally there are two monitors who sit at the work stations and a supervisor.

GERAGOS: Okay. And are there set hours when you do the monitoring?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: What are the hours for the monitor?

JACOBSON: It varied in this investigation.

GERAGOS: Is it, is the way that the wiretap works, that if there is no monitor that you don't get the call? You don't record the call?

JACOBSON: If there are no monitors that are there at the computer, that are able to minimize the conversation, you will, we turn the machine off. Basically do not get the audio. But you will still receive the call data. So actually continues on with the Pen Register registering the data. We are not able to get the audio.

GERAGOS: So just go through this for a second. Do you have set hours, you do nothing at that point, at least on the 11th, correct, and the 12th? You don't show up at the monitor. I mean at that point it's not a situation where you, as the supervisor, or any of two other supervisors, people who acted as wire room supervisors?

JACOBSON: Yes. Wire room supervisors, yes.

GERAGOS: It's not something that people show up at eight in the morning and then leave at 5:00 o'clock?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. It can be sporadic as well. If we look through the HIDTA records, you could show up at ten in the morning, could show up at noon, you could go until midnight. You could go to two in the morning, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And if you are not there, meaning if that wire room is not open, then the only information you would get, if I understand correctly, would be switch to the camera. The records themselves, the call data, is that's on the left here, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

GERAGOS: Okay. So the wiretap software would still capture this information on the left, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: But the synopsis portion, which is over here on the right, is not captured when there is nobody in the wire room?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the reason for that is, that because of the way that wiretap warrants are, and the wiretap law is written, that if there is not a human being there at the time who can do minimization, turn it off if it's a non-pertinent call, or minimize, or hang it up, not capture it if it's a privileged call, the lawyer, your doctor, your priest, then you, the law does not permit you to grab the wiretap or audio content, correct?

JACOBSON: Correct.

GERAGOS: There is no prohibition under the law from capturing the call data, which would be the, what I just showed the jury to the left, correct?

JACOBSON: Exactly, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: When you say Pen Register, that's another term of art for the call data, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So the calls that you hear, or that get intercepted here, either on the 11th or on the 12th, or going forward through February 4th, to some degree are dependent on when the wire room is in operation correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: One of the reasons, one of the explanations why the AT&T billing form that we were showing the jury this morning may capture calls that we don't have audio on, for instance, where we only have call data, one of the explanations for that would be the wire room may have just been shut down at that point. You may have the call data that shows the calls there, but you are not going to have the audio?

JACOBSON: That's a possibility, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: How many hours, on average, from the 11th to February 4th, would you say the wire room was in operation?

JACOBSON: On average?

GERAGOS: On average.

JACOBSON: I would probably say at least maybe sixteen hours a day.

GERAGOS: Okay. And would the start time and end time vary? Or was there a rough time that you normally would start?

JACOBSON: It all depended on what the events were taking place on a particular day, or what we could foresee as an event that we wanted to be up on earlier. So I would say anywhere between maybe 7:00 o'clock in the morning to sometimes, as you stated two, three in the morning. But generally the wire wasn't monitored around two in the morning until about six, seven.

GERAGOS: And most of the time you would say, after midnight it's not monitored?

JACOBSON: Yes, be a fair statement to make.

GERAGOS: Okay. Leaving the wire for a second. Then there is other surveillance that was also in place. I mentioned before we talked, before the break, there was surveillance that was conducted by the Department of Justice, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: In addition to that, you had some involvement in setting up a pole camera, or obtaining a pole camera for the,

JACOBSON: Oh, no, sir. You brought that up at the preliminary hearing, but I didn't have involvement in that.

GERAGOS: Didn't you, were you aware of the pole camera being set up across the street?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Goes beyond the scope of direct.

JUDGE: I think so. Sustained.

GERAGOS: The surveillance, would the surveillance that's being used by the pole camera,

DISTASO: Objection.

JUDGE: Haven't heard the rest of the question.

GERAGOS: The poem camera surveillance, I know you are indicating you didn't have any direct involvement in it, but does that surveillance, would that be relayed back to the wire room for certain information to be conveyed? Would there be contact between the two?

JACOBSON: From the pole camera surveillance back to my wire room?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: Would there be,

GERAGOS: Communication being are going back and forth?

JACOBSON: Not in this investigation. I don't believe so.

GERAGOS: Did the wire room people who actually work during that period of time from the 11th to the 4th, can you name the people who actively worked in the wire room?

JACOBSON: I have a list of those people, and you have a list as well. We could go down that list. Just off my recollection?

GERAGOS: I'm asking you, were any of the detectives, the lead detectives in this case, working in the wire room?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: Any lead detective, such as Detective Grogan?

GERAGOS: Or Brocchini, Buehler, Owen, or any of those gentlemen working?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: And is it a fair statement that the people who were working the wire room were not in Modesto. They have in, I assume you are familiar with the term "Core Detectives"?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Gentlemen that we just named are the Core Detectives?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Did any of those people that I you have indicated, none of those core detectives were work in the wire room, correct?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: Who would convey information from the wire room to the Core Detectives?

JACOBSON: Generally myself, or one of the other supervisors that you mentioned. One of the other two or three.

GERAGOS: One or two or three supervisors who were working the wire room?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And was that done on a daily basis, if needed?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And anything that was thought to be important would be relayed to the detectives, correct?

JACOBSON: Generally, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. That would include, we hear Scott staying he's going to go to a meeting here, Scott saying he's going to go to a meeting there. Anything that, where somebody wants to inform the Core Detective as to where surveillance should go to?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. Surveillance is set up on him at that particular time.

GERAGOS: Okay. And there was, as far as you know, surveillance that was set up at that time, physical surveillance on Scott Peterson?

JACOBSON: Oh which day?

GERAGOS: On the 11th.

JACOBSON: Yes, I believe it was in the morning time. I think you told me about the time in which the surveillance was terminated because they lost him.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: Yes. So up to that period of time.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you are aware that there were, surveillance was being conducted by, at least it was your understanding, surveillance was being conducted by people who line 13 were supposedly undercover. They weren't black and white, as far as you know, following him around?

JACOBSON: No, sir.

GERAGOS: So when he's being surveilled, the whole idea is that it's supposed to be covert?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And when he's being wire tapped, the whole idea is that's supposed to be covert?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And part of what would happen is, is that the information that's gleaned from the wiretap as to places he's going to go, for instance, there was one piece of information, you heard a phone call, I think on the wiretaps about him meeting Brian Argain, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And part of what was done was to tell the surveillance officers, he's going to be meet Argain here at this particular restaurant, right?

JACOBSON: I don't know if it was the surveillance officers. It was the Core Detective.

GERAGOS: Tell the Core Detectives he is going to go to a certain restaurant. Get a subsequent call in turn, say he's changed his mind, he's no longer going to the restaurant. He's going to the Country Club?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That was done, presumably, I assume, so the Core Detectives would know where he was most of the time, and have him under surveillance most of the time, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, the, ask you the, you know, C1, which was selling his and Laci's home. Do you remember that tape that you captured?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: There were a succession of calls on that; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Or on the slide that I,

GERAGOS: Yeah. You put together a slide. But the slide was nothing more than taking what were a series of calls on four different days, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the first one that was at 5:39, that was when Scott had this discussion with Mr. Argain about putting the house for sale?

JACOBSON: I believe that was January 22nd.

GERAGOS: January 22nd. I believe it was at 5:39, at least according to slide.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, that conversation, specifically there was a portion of that conversation, I don't remember either if it was contained in the recorded spot or not, there was call led up to that, in terms of where they were going to meet, or where they were going to talk on issues; is that not correct?

JACOBSON: Was it the meeting that you are talking about?

GERAGOS: Meeting that I'm talking.

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: He was there attempting to and try to tape, or have somebody sit at a booth near them and tape their conversation?

JACOBSON: I don't know if they actually had brought some recording equipment with them, but there was an attempt by the police department to put a couple of the gals from the police department in a booth nearby to overhear any conversation that Mr. Peterson was talking about with Mr. Argain and group.

GERAGOS: Do you know the date when that first intercept took place, talking about the meeting? Not the meeting itself, but do you remember the first time that you intercepted that?

JACOBSON: I'd have to look at these records; but I think it was like on the 22nd.

GERAGOS: I believe it was too. If you want to take a look. I have got mine in front of me. But I don't have the date earmarked.

JACOBSON: I believe it was, it began the to transpire about on the 22nd, just roughly speaking of looking at what's in front of me.

GERAGOS: And as that, as that call took place, this is the 22nd, first one was, the first one you had on the slide was the 5:39.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And that was the tape that we heard where Scott called Argain, and they talked about agreeing to have lunch at the Del Rio, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And what was the reason why they were going to go there?

JACOBSON: They were going to go there to the restaurant to talk about the sale of the house.

GERAGOS: The reason was because, you have got quotes in there. What was the quote?

JACOBSON: Oh, they agreed to go to the Del Rio Country Club because the media cannot get in there, or can't go there.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the, when he says he wanted to keep it quiet, obviously. Even if Laci comes back, we'll not want to stay there either way, however this comes out, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the meeting, appears that the first meeting or the first discussion on that phone call was about doing it at Del Rio, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Was there a previous call about doing it at some other restaurants?

JACOBSON: A previous call to this one, there was one after it where they changed restaurants.

GERAGOS: Okay. And do you know where they changed it to?

JACOBSON: The Appetez restaurant, is my recollection.

GERAGOS: Okay. And where is that located?

JACOBSON: That's located on Roseburg in the City of Modesto. I think it's Roseburg Square.

GERAGOS: And they agreed to meet there. And that was on 10 10-23, I mean 1-23?

JACOBSON: 1-23.

GERAGOS: I have got it as 1-23.

JACOBSON: What time.

GERAGOS: Looks to, looks to me like 10:49.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: That was not, we did not hear that one yesterday, did we?

JACOBSON: We did not hear that call, no.

GERAGOS: So that would have taken place, can you put up the slide just so we can get it in order?

JACOBSON: Sure.

GERAGOS: The first one that you played yesterday was this 1-22 call, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then there was the, there is another one at 1-23. That would have come right here in between, correct?

JACOBSON: There is several calls actually between those two that coordinate the meeting, about the meeting that's supposed to be taking place.

GERAGOS: The next one that there is an incoming answered by the voicemail where Argain tells him to get in touch with him. And that's at 10:46?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then. Okay. Can you play that, can you pull that one up and play that? I think there is only a minute and 58. The Court will indulge me without a transcript.

JUDGE: I assume there is no objection to that.

DISTASO: Which call are we playing?

GERAGOS: 10:46 on the 23rd.

DISTASO: No, I have no objection to that.

JUDGE: And we have no transcript of this. And I hope it's a short call.

GERAGOS: He indicates it's a minute 58.

JUDGE: All right.

JACOBSON: Okay. Wherever you are ready.

GERAGOS: Sure. Can you play it? (RECORDING)

GERAGOS: Then the next one that's also not on the, that we didn't play yesterday, or wasn't played yesterday, was the one at 10:49, where Scott returns the call to Brian Argain, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: They agree to meet at this Appetez restaurant in Roseburg Square?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: At 12:15?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: They are going to include Guy in the meeting so they can talk about some stuff, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then they have a, you played the one on January 23rd at 12:42, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then on January 23rd at 5:42 left a message for meeting early in the day in that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: In that one he stated, that one is only fifty seconds. Could have him play that one as well?

JACOBSON: That's the one we played.

GERAGOS: The one we played before?

JACOBSON: That's the one, the second call listed in the slide.

GERAGOS: Play that for fifty seconds.

JUDGE: That's the one we played yesterday?

GERAGOS: Yes. (RECORDING)

GERAGOS: Now, this would seem to at least indicate that that meeting took place, at least from the wiretaps, on that day, on the 23rd, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is it also, is it a fair statement that your understanding or memory is, is that the attempted surveillance of that meeting took place on that same day?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And was that also at this restaurant, this Appetez Restaurant in Roseburg Square?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, the, was there, as far as you know, was there an attempt to tape record that conversation?

JACOBSON: Like I stated earlier, I don't believe they brought any recording equipment in there to the restaurant with them. I do know it was a couple ladies from the police department. My understanding is that they did sit nearby, but they couldn't overhear or determine the nature of the conversation.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the 23rd, was it on that date, similar to other dates, you have the HIDTA records in front of you, right?

JACOBSON: I do.

GERAGOS: On the 23rd, was he receiving calls, media calls on that day?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, he was.

GERAGOS: Okay. Roughly, can you estimate how many media calls he received on the 23rd?

JACOBSON: On the 23rd, roughly?

GERAGOS: As always, we have a number of calls from Ted Rowlands, correct?

JACOBSON: Pretty much count on that, sir.

GERAGOS: And we have got Karen Brown from NBC, Jody Hernandez, repeated calls, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Got Michael Reel from CBS. We have got Kimberly Culp repeatedly from ABC, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Karen Brown again from NBC. Kimberly Culp for another back-to-back phone calls?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: We are got Jody Fernandez weighs in again. Kimberly Culp. Is it fair to say that within the span on the 23rd, I'm just looking at the 23rd, there is quite a few calls, isn't there that are inserted, at least on the HIDTA? My Bates stamp 29296, looks like there are over two pages worth of calls on the 23rd; is that right?

JACOBSON: Just talking about media related calls, or calls in general?

GERAGOS: Calls in general.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then, in addition to that, there is a lion's share of these are either media or family, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, can I interrupt? My clerk just reminded me, you have to provide, since we didn't report those conversations that was not without the transcript, we'll not have a transcript for the record. So if you will provide one. Raffi can do it, then we'll mark it defendant's next in order.

DISTASO: If I can just jump in. We could have a CD marked for the record as well of that call.

GERAGOS: Do the same thing I did yesterday. I'll have him burn a CD and mark it as an exhibit.

GERAGOS: Is it fair to say that these incoming calls from the media, for the most part at that point, well, he's getting these calls all day long, at all hours; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Usually they don't call too early in the morning or very, very late at night. But I would say that, beside those two periods of times, they called quite frequently, variety of different times.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, and they have a habit of calling repeatedly within the same, like a number of calls in a row as a pattern that you noticed the media, all with the same purpose, three or four times within an hour, correct?

JACOBSON: They got his voicemail message, they got his voicemail machine quite often. Appears they try to continue the calls to see if the voicemail would pick it up. Continue to pick it up.

GERAGOS: For instance, on this day, on the 23rd, at the same time that Scott was leaving that message, or roughly the same time that he's leaving the message for Brian Argain at 5:42, it looks like Kimberly Culp and Jody Hernandez each call about four or times apiece within a span of about thirty or forty minutes?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, the, we heard the phone call about the selling of the house. And then the last one, I believe, was the renting of the house; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, when that, so the first call was on January 22nd. The meeting takes place on January 23rd. Presumably they don't discuss the selling of the house on January 23rd, because we have got a voicemail message that says here, we never talked about it at the meeting. There is another call four days later?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And that's the one that we heard yesterday where Brian called Scott, and asked Scott if he wanted to talk to him.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Two days after that, on the 29th, is when Brian called Scott, said you better talk to the lawyer because of the title. And then said, what, about renting it?

JACOBSON: Exactly.

GERAGOS: The day that you believe that there was some kind of knowledge by Scott that he was, his phone was being listened to, do you remember what day that was?

JACOBSON: It was early part of February. I believe it was about February 3rd. Do you want me to find that call?

GERAGOS: No. February 3rd. Did you shut it, shut down the wiretap on the 4th, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I did.

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement, as you sit here today, that as soon as you found that out, that you figured that it wasn't going to be much good to you, or much use to you. So the following day, or within a day or two, you shut it down?

JACOBSON: I heard that call and several others that he made. And I figured at that time that I wasn't going to be gaining any additional evidence.

GERAGOS: And is it also a fair statement that on a number of these calls, that Scott would tell either his mother, who said, don't tell me where you are, or his father who said, don't tell me where you are?

JACOBSON: I did hear some of those as well, around that period of time.

GERAGOS: Where you are, meaning location geographic location, what you understood it to be?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Thank you, judge. I think this is as far as I can go with him.

JUDGE: Do you want me to order him back on Monday? Can you reserve your redirect until we finish him on Monday?

DISTASO: I would like to start my redirect.

JUDGE: He's not done with his cross yet.

DISTASO: I will do it Monday.

GERAGOS: He's got Mr. Wall here as well.

JUDGE: Well, do it Monday. He hasn't finished his cross examination. Okay. Then have to come back.

JACOBSON: I don't want to hear that, judge.

JUDGE: We'll see you at 9:00 o'clock.

 

August 30, 2004

GERAGOS: Are you all set?

JACOBSON: Ready.

GERAGOS: Good. The first thing I was going to do is the, when you were here last week there was a snippet of a call from Brent Rocha; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, there was.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, if I remember correctly, that call was on January the 16th; is that right?

JACOBSON: That sounds about the correct date, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so that we can kind of set the stage for this, you, I'm sure everybody remembers that you started this either late morning, early morning hours on the 11th, but at least on the 11th and late on the 10th, the wiretaps themselves?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at that point there was, as far as you're aware, there was, the Rocha family was still supportive of Mr. Peterson; is that correct?

JACOBSON: To, to what point did you say?

GERAGOS: On the 11th, as of the 11th?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the, is it your understanding, from listening to the calls and from talking to investigators, that they had met with the Rocha family on the 15th: Is that correct? Of January?

JACOBSON: On the 15th? I'm not sure of the exact date, but they had met with them I think during that week.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then that's when they, without asking what it was, they had, they had gone to the family, they had told them some information, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you knew that to be the case, based upon listening to these tapes, roughly, that that happened somewhere around the evening of the 15th, right?

JACOBSON: Around in that period of time, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the 16th is one of a couple of calls that Brent Rocha has with my client, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And if we've got the transcripts, I'll ask that that,

JUDGE: Okay. We've got the transcripts of this phone call, and we're going to play that for you in just a second. We have some copies for the media?

CLERK: No.

JUDGE: You didn't make any copies for,

CLERK: They came from,

JUDGE: I got one.

CLERK: Okay.

JUDGE: I thought Raffi said you made 25.

NALJIAN: There's plenty of copies.

GERAGOS: What are you looking for, Judge?

JUDGE: Rocha's phone calls.

GERAGOS: They're passing it out.

JUDGE: I said have we got copies for the media.

GERAGOS: I don't know how many. I thought you made 25.

JUDGE: He said he made a lot of copies.

GERAGOS: While they're...have you got a couple left over?

JUDGE: None for the media?

GERAGOS: They can take my copy. I've got two over here.

JUDGE: Okay. You got an extra one. Okay. We got five copies. That's all they printed up for the media, so you'll have to share out there. Maybe, maybe you'll put it up on the wall, too. You can check it out there.

GERAGOS: I can actually do that, if you want.

JUDGE: Why don't you do both.

GERAGOS: Then I have to grab one of my copies back.

JUDGE: We'll mark this, mark this as the,

GERAGOS: I saw Mr. Cardoza had one, so I grabbed it away from him.

JUDGE: We'll mark the Brent Rocha transcript D 5 V. 1 is the transcript and 2 will be the disc, and we'll move those into evidence at this time so they can be played to the jury. And here it is. I'll give, you can use mine and put that part of the record. ***

(Defendant's Exhibits D 5 V 1 and 2 marked for identification and received in evidence)

GERAGOS: If it's okay, Judge, I'll put it up here and flip the pages as it goes through.

JUDGE: Sure. Okay.

GERAGOS: Investigator, I asked you this already, we heard a snippet of this last week, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, you did.

GERAGOS: This is basically from start to finish the whole call; is that right?

JACOBSON: What you're going to play?

GERAGOS: Yes. What we're going to play.

JACOBSON: Can you ask me that after you're done playing it?

GERAGOS: I can do that, sure.

JUDGE: Well, I can indicate for the record it is the whole call.

GERAGOS: So I don't need to ask you.

JACOBSON: Okay. (Exhibit D 5 2 played)

GERAGOS: Investigator Jacobson, I was asking you just in terms of, I guess you're probably the person who is most knowledgeable from the prosecution side as to what transpired in the wiretaps from the 11th to the 4th of February, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you have the situation where we, obviously the jury and we just heard the tape with Brent Rocha. And that was on the 16th at approximately what time?

JACOBSON: That portion of the call you just played?

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: Was at 1:46 p.m. on the 16th.

GERAGOS: There had been a previous call between my client and Mr. Rocha that day, correct?

JACOBSON: I believe so, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And obviously the release of the information to the family was causing problems at that point between my client and the Rocha family, correct?

JACOBSON: It's,

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Going beyond the scope of the 356 issue.

JUDGE: I don't think so. You heard the tapes. Overruled.

GERAGOS: Was that a correct statement?

JACOBSON: It was my understanding, based on what I was intercepting, that there were some problems between Mr. Scott Peterson and the Rocha family, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. One of the things that was talked about there on the tape between Brent and Scott was the fact that the volunteer center had been closed?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You knew that to be the case; isn't that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: As soon as the Modesto PD had given this information to the Rocha family, that set in, as far as you know, a series of events that led to the volunteer center in Modesto being shut down, right?

JACOBSON: I believe it was information provided by the police department as well as information from the media that prompted the volunteer center closing.

GERAGOS: Okay. And it was done within hours, correct, of this information?

JACOBSON: My understanding, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the 16th, this then caused a whole series or a flurry of calls, looking through the wiretap; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir. There was quite a bit of activity on the 16th.

GERAGOS: Okay. There was a, numerous calls by, to Sharon Rocha, correct? Where Scott had called Sharon Rocha?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then there was a call at 11:21 to Terri, you have identified as a 969 number?

JACOBSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: And who did you know Terri to be?

JACOBSON: Terri Western, I believe, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was a call, that's one of the calls you're basing the information on that the, the center was closed based upon listening to that phone call; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. From there there were some phone calls to, some more phone calls to Brent and assorted media phone calls; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then a series of phone calls with Brent again, the one that we just listened to, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then there were, there was one at 1:46, looks like 1:46 two, of them?

JACOBSON: Actually it's one call, the same.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then the, looks like after that there were a number of calls to Brent, to Sharon, to Brent again, all on the 16th; is that right?

JACOBSON: It appears that way, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the calls that went back and forth, or actually went from Scott calling the Rochas and then the finding out of the volunteer center, at some point after that were you aware that Amber Frey held a press conference about eight days later?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I am.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in the interim, the, if I understand correctly, the Modesto PD goes to the Rochas on the 15th in anticipation of an Enquirer article that's coming out on the 16th, correct?

JACOBSON: I believe it was around that period of time.

GERAGOS: The Enquirer article hits, and shortly thereafter there's a number of calls with the mainstream media calling up and wanting to get comments and things of that nature?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, during that period of time the, the reporters, flipping through your, your HIDTA log, there's a number of calls, repeated calls, from people like Ted Rowlands, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: From Gloria Gomez, I believe on the previous page?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: There was numerous calls from the Michael Reel and some of the other, CBS, and then there was ABC Kimmie Culp, and just a series of phone calls with all people who wanted interviews, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Or comments?

JACOBSON: Comments, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: This was going on at this point, for instance, on the 17th, there's a, just a succession of calls. Some of them you're able to capture, some you're not; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, then at the same time there are some calls between Scott and, looks like a 351 number area code. Do you know what that is?

JACOBSON: What page are you on, sir?

GERAGOS: I'm on page, I've got it as page 15.

JACOBSON: Okay.

GERAGOS: Looks like the 1:17 call at 5:14?

JACOBSON: Right. I see that.

GERAGOS: Is that business related, as far as you can tell?

JACOBSON: I believe so.

GERAGOS: Okay. When I say business related, it appears to you, from listening to these calls, that in addition to the volunteer center being shut down, all of this publicity about Amber Frey coming out, the Rochas basically at that point turning on, on Scott in terms of their support, that he's also trying to maintain his business; is that your,

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. The whole preamble up to Scott trying to maintain his business I object to. It's just argumentative.

GERAGOS: I don't believe that it is.

JUDGE: I don't think so. Overruled.

GERAGOS: And he's still trying to conduct business; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, he is.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, these calls that are coming in., and it's tough to see, but on the 17th, when you've got those calls to Eric that appear to be the business-related calls?

JACOBSON: Those incoming calls from Eric, and then the last one here at 7:38 on page 15?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JACOBSON: 7:38:25 a.m.

GERAGOS: So you can get kind of a feel for what the pattern is, he's got an incoming call related to business, and at the same, same, right after that he's got two successive calls to Ted Rowlands, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then within a very short period of time, like within that 15 minute span, he's got two more incoming calls from Nuno, who is related to his business; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then you've got one, two, three, four phone calls from Ted Rowlands, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then you've got these Joan Faria calls; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And she generally is calling regarding the command center or the volunteer center?

JACOBSON: She provides him with information.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JACOBSON: Such as that, yes.

GERAGOS: Then as she calls at 7:21, bam, you got two more calls from Ted Rowlands, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then his boss, or he calls, trying to call Nuno regarding his business; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes. He's checking his voice mail messages.

GERAGOS: Right. And then tries to call successfully both Nuno and Eric regarding business; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then we've got his parents calling, and then two more phone calls from Ted Rowlands down there, looks like at 8:20?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. He's got his lawyer calling him, Kirk McAllister, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then a lengthy call with Joan Faria on the, looks like about 8:34?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, you're correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then he's got his friends, a couple of friends calling still, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And that would be Aaron and Heidi Fritz, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then the Richardsons?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And all of this is still on the 17th; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, it is.

GERAGOS: As that's happening, he's, now, it looks like the, that there's two entries for the Carol & Anne Sund Memorial Foundation, but I think those are, are those two calls? Or one call?

JACOBSON: I think it's one call, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you know the Carol & Anne Sund Memorial Foundation to be a group for missing persons work that, is it based out of Modesto, or Stanislaus County?

JACOBSON: I believe so, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And Kim Peterson, no relation, is somebody who is an executive director or has a position there?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And Scott is attempting, it's an outgoing call, him attempting to call that foundation, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, it is.

GERAGOS: Okay. There was some question, some of the earlier calls, as to whether or not they were the ones who made the official pronouncement to close the center, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, after that he's, while he's making that call at 8:56, at the same time there's two more incoming calls from Ted Rowlands, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, there are.

GERAGOS: And then it looks like there's a bunch of audio disabled prior call. What does that mean?

JACOBSON: Basically the machine was turned off. Captured the data, did not capture the audio related to those calls.

GERAGOS: So that's what we were telling the jury on Thursday about there's a series where you get the call data but you don't have the audio?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, there's a number of calls that go throughout that evening, and, in fact, literally around the clock, up through, looks like to what time? Up until 11:00 o'clock? Or is it, what time do the calls stop on the 17th? Looks like 10:43? Or is that the next morning?

JACOBSON: On the 17th?

GERAGOS: Yeah. What's the latest calls on the 17th? Do you see why I'm perplexed? Because it looks like you're running through, got two a.m.s that reflect,

JACOBSON: Well, it appears near midnight, about 11:00 o'clock p.m., 11:18 p.m. I think is on page 20, if you're looking.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have an estimate as to how many calls on the 17th? Are you able to do a rough estimate as to how many calls there are?

JACOBSON: I think we just flipped through several pages of them. There's quite a few calls.

GERAGOS: I show, if it starts on page 15 and goes through page 20, roughly somewhere in the neighborhood of about a hundred to a hundred and fifty calls?

JACOBSON: I would say that would be a close guess.

GERAGOS: Okay. There's a number of, on the 17th of incoming calls from Karen Brown of NBC, from Michael Reel, from Ted Rowlands, just repeatedly over and over and over again, correct? Jodi Hernandez of ABC? I'm looking at page 18.

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, there's quite a bit of activity.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, going forward from then, from the 18th, moving up to the 24th, there continues to be a lot of activity from the news media regarding Scott doing an interview of some kind; is that correct?

JACOBSON: I would say it's a fair statement, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the, roughly when we get to the 24th, you know that to be the day that Miss Frey does her press conference; is that correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And is it also a fair statement that, after the press conference that she does at the Modesto Police Department, that at that point, well, actually before we get there, there's also a period of time right after this volunteer center is shut down that the burglary take place at Scott's house, correct? On Covena? And there's calls that reflect or exchange about that?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, there are calls that reflect that.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the house gets burglarized, and he reports it at one point with a 911 call, looks like on the 19th at 7:44? I'm on page 26. I think. It's about the,

JACOBSON: I see that call at 7:44 p.m. on the 19th, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he's saying someone had broken into his house and then the line cut off. You couldn't hear the rest of it; is that correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then there's some other calls, including a call from Detective Brocchini, the very last call on that page, regarding a Kim McGregor; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, it looks like he's come back and he's discovered that his house has been burglarized. He doesn't know by who, correct?

JACOBSON: At this time he does not know.

GERAGOS: Okay. And at the same time he's receiving calls from Kim McGregor, right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir, he is.

GERAGOS: Okay. Most of those we don't have the audio on? At least that succession of calls, no separate calls down there?

JACOBSON: I see you're referring to 1:52 p.m. through 1:59?

GERAGOS: Exactly.

JACOBSON: Exactly, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: So we don't know what's being said there, but we do know at the bottom of the page he checks and there's a voice mail from Grogan regarding McGregor, correct?

JACOBSON: You see at 1:59 there's audio.

GERAGOS: The Modesto PD?

JACOBSON: No, the one at 1:59 where he actually does talk with Ms. McGregor.

GERAGOS: Right.

JACOBSON: So they actually do converse, so I was able to determine the nature of that conversation as it relates to that burglary.

GERAGOS: Got it. So that would have been at approximately a little bit before 2:00 o'clock on the 20th, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then, so the house has burglarized, the, the police have called, or at least notified him of that. At that point he's made the statement, look, he just doesn't, doesn't want to deal with it, something to that effect, correct? The burglary itself and pressing charges?

JACOBSON: Yeah, he did not want to press charges.

GERAGOS: He just wanted,

JACOBSON: Wanted, basically, it left.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the 24th, there's the press conference, and that was at Modesto PD, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And that's where Amber Frey comes forward and makes the statement to the media and she's in the, if I understand correctly, she was in the company of is it Lieutenant Aja from Modesto PD?

JACOBSON: I don't know who she was in the company of, sir. I saw her like the rest of the folks here in the courtroom.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you,

JACOBSON: On TV.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, after that, that creates even more, if you could get more, but it creates a flurry of activity on the phone, incoming from the media, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And with this idea to do some kind of an interview; is that right?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.