Skip to content
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev— Case Archive
personpersonAnthony ImelAnthony ImelFBI forensic examiner whose work focuses on digital video and still imagery.← All People
WitnessFederal Bureau of Investigations

Anthony Imel

FBI forensic examiner whose work focuses on digital video and still imagery.

Appeared2015 Federal Trial
250 lines·4 proceedings·2 mentions

About

Anthony Imel authenticated a video-and-photograph timeline for the prosecution on Day 29. An FBI forensic examiner specializing in digital video and still imagery, he described processing 655 imagery submissions, preserving originals, and reviewing the submitted images and videos over three to four months. He qualified the compilation's chronology as approximate because camera times depended on their settings; he had not personally reconciled them against runners' finish records.

During playback, Imel described the suspects' approach and separate exit routes, a backpack visible at a depicted suspect's feet after it was no longer seen on his back, and an apparent phone call. Telephone records showed a 19-second call at 2:49:06. His testimony concerned visible conduct and record entries, not the call's contents or the suspects' intentions. The court admitted Exhibits 22 and 15-11 over defense objections to title cards and a caption, while reserving admission of diagrams 623 and 620 and allowing their use as demonstratives.

On cross-examination, Miriam Conrad tested whether the timeline established the brothers' sequence and relative movements. Imel could not determine which brother reached the depicted departure location first and had no specific reason for ordering those images. He acknowledged gaps in Tamerlan's route coverage and differences between the side-by-side diagram and videos in which he had described Tamerlan leading, although positions changed. Records showed calls in both directions, and he could not determine which call appeared in the Forum video.

On redirect, Imel said the Montessori school video and a photograph of Dzhokhar at Fairfield Street both displayed 2:50, but he could not verify their accuracy. After the court sustained an objection to a question placing the call right before the explosion, Weinreb rephrased it. The court permitted an answer over another objection, and Imel said the records placed the call from Dzhokhar to Tamerlan before the explosion.

Trial Record (4)

2015 Trial2015 Federal TrialJan 5, 2015 – Jun 24, 2015Called by prosecution

Anthony Imel authenticated the prosecution's surveillance timeline and described the suspects' movements, backpack observations, and telephone records. Under cross-examination, he acknowledged uncertain image sequencing and incomplete route coverage; on redirect, he maintained that the records placed the brothers' call before the explosion.

Day 29

DirectDirect Examination - Anthony ImelAnthony ImelWilliam D. Weinreb2highlightsMentioned149lines spoken

Summary

Imel explained the surveillance timeline, backpack observations, and phone records. The court admitted Exhibits 22 and 15-11 but reserved admission of two diagrams.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

Quote“They're approximate. On many of the videos and images there are date timestamps that are associated with those videos or images. That is limited to whoever records that video and what time that they put in on that individual system or the camera itself.”— Anthony ImelImel expressly qualified the precision of timestamps used in interpreting the recordings.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightDuring playback, Imel said the backpack appeared to remain on the depicted suspect's shoulder up to a particular point. After the movement identified by counsel, Imel said it was no longer seen on his back and identified an image showing it at his feet.Open in transcript →
CrossCross-Examination - Anthony ImelAnthony ImelMiriam Conrad3highlights90lines spoken

Summary

Imel acknowledged uncertain timeline sequencing, differences between the route animation and footage, and an inability to identify which recorded call appeared in the Forum video.

Highlights (3)

admissionAfter a compound-question objection prompted rephrasing, Imel said he did not know the relative order of the brothers' depicted departure locations, had no specific reason for placing one image first, and had not considered distances.Open in transcript →
Quote“It was just the proper way that I laid it out. There was no specific reason why I placed one in front of the other.”— Anthony ImelImel acknowledged that the ordering of the two departure images lacked a specific supporting reason.Open in transcript →
admissionPhone records showed an outgoing call at 2:49:06 and an incoming call at 2:51. Imel agreed the first was from Jahar to Tamerlan and believed the second was the reverse, but could not identify which call appeared in the Forum video.Open in transcript →
RedirectRedirect Examination - Anthony ImelAnthony ImelWilliam D. Weinreb1highlight11lines spoken

Summary

Imel retained his timestamp qualifications but said the records placed the brothers' phone call before the explosion. The court sustained one objection and permitted a rephrased chronology question.

Highlights (1)

testimony highlightAfter Weinreb rephrased the chronology question, the court permitted an answer over another objection. Imel said the records placed the phone call before the explosion.Open in transcript →

Day 43