2.Michelle Gamble — Direct (Part 1)
438 linesMS. CONRAD: Your Honor, we would like to be heard at sidebar.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: She's an FBI field photographer. For the past two years -- she took many, many of the photos at the two scenes, and for the past two years she's been analyzing the photos, categorizing them, assembling them in databases and putting together exhibits or useful compilations of photos.
She will testify as to a couple of things: There were certain additional photos that everybody's been putting in through her that were provided to the defense last Wednesday. For example, one shows both the second explosion and the race clock in the same photo so it's possible to know exactly when the second explosion took place.
She's also, at my request, put together a chalk that shows the approximate location of various things and people at the -- at various times, including the time roughly around when the explosion took place based on analysis of various photos. All of that was provided to the defense a week ago.
THE COURT: These are not necessarily photos she took?
MR. WEINREB: These are not necessarily photos she took, no. That's correct.
MS. CONRAD: So there are a couple of issues with respect to this witness. With respect to photos that she took, no issue with that. With respect to the chalk, this is the chalk that the government proposes to use.
MR. WEINREB: Just this part.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. So, first of all, this is highly prejudicial. I think it should be excluded under 403. She has eliminated everybody else who was in this area. It's not clear what she based this on. The closest we can tell, it's based on this photograph which was not previously provided in discovery which was taken at approximately 2:48 p.m. I asked the government yesterday and again today to provide the originals so we can look at the metadata to determine when it was taken.
This is designed to essentially make it appear -- and Mr. Weinreb says that this chalk shows the time when the second bomb exploded. Now, we know that's not true because Mr. Tsarnaev wasn't standing there when the second bomb exploded; otherwise, he would be dead. But it's designed to make it appear like there was no one in this area except the children.
It's not relevant to any material issue in this case. To the extent that she has determined these locations, it seems to me she's essentially testifying as an expert. We don't have any of the underlying basis for her opinion about where everyone was.
This was just not disclosed until last Wednesday. We were not given expert notice on this witness, and I think that this chalk should be excluded under 403.
In addition, we would object to the admission of this photograph, the one that's labeled -- I think it was provided to me as "railing" -- I can't read that. But it looks like 22836.jpg, I think. Not previously disclosed. Now, we did review thousands of photographs. I can't tell if this is an enlargement, I can't tell -- I don't have the underlying source of this. The government emailed me a rather cryptic description of the source this morning but did not provide the original for our review. And we object to this.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, this was provided in discovery six months ago in something called a "raid drive" along with thousands of other photos. The defense essentially asked for every photo that the government had received from the public. This was one of them. It was produced to them along with the others. I think that they did not focus until recently on the significance of the photo, but that doesn't mean it wasn't provided in discovery.
As for this, this is not a chalk through which the government intends to establish the timing of the bombing. That's something separate. This is simply a chalk that will help illustrate testimony about where various people were at various times. I don't think the government every time it puts together a chalk has to put in every detail that the defense thinks may be relevant. It can put in details it thinks is relevant.
If I could just say one more thing? She is not offering expert testimony; all -- she is testifying as a lay expert, as someone who, through her normal experience looking at photos and analyzing them and learning about them, is offering her lay opinion, which need not be to a scientific certainty, can be to a fair approximation if you look at Rule 701 which I just reviewed, of where various things are.
If I had her up on the witness stand and said, "Looking at this picture, where on this diagram is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev standing?" and she circled it, nobody would object. She's just done it in advance.
THE COURT: Well, okay. I don't think the private testimony is expert. I'm not sure it's a lay opinion either, but we'll get to that. It will depend on the foundation that she lays and as she's examined for what comes in. Generally the objection is overruled. I think it's a matter of cross-examination to show weakness in her methodology.
MS. CONRAD: Well, your Honor. Two issues: With respect to the 403 objection, this -- which is designed only to show the children, and that's what the government's trying to do.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CONRAD: With respect to this photograph, your Honor, I am not going to be prepared to cross-examine her unless I am provided with the original and the source for it. For the government to say, We provided the raid drive months ago and then without any prior notice, without listing it as an exhibit, to pluck it out a few days before offering it without providing us with the source -- we did a search of that entire raid drive for that file name and could not find it.
THE COURT: Okay. Your objection is overruled.
(In open court:)
MICHELLE GAMBLE, duly sworn
COURT CLERK: State your name, spell your last name for the record, keep your voice up and speak into the mic.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Michelle Gamble, G-A-M-B-L-E.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Good morning.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Good morning.
MR. WEINREB: Where do you work?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I work for the FBI in Boston.
MR. WEINREB: How long have you worked for the FBI in Boston?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Fourteen years.
MR. WEINREB: What's your current job assignment?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Primarily I am the field photographer for the division.
MR. WEINREB: What training have you had at the FBI?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I've had various photographic training, and I also had training in both audio and video work.
MR. WEINREB: Can you describe the kinds of training you've had inside the FBI?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Sure. I've had advanced photography, intermediate photography, surveillance, crime scene, digital imaging, video analysis, audio analysis.
MR. WEINREB: How many years of training?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Probably around 14.
MR. WEINREB: Have you had outside training as well?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes. I've also taken classes at the New England School of Photography and Future Media Concepts.
MR. WEINREB: Do you have training in evidence -- as an evidence recovery technician?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes. So I've been on the Evidence Response Team for approximately 12 years, and I've received training through them as well. Do you want me to tell you about that?
MR. WEINREB: Just briefly.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Okay. So basic training, advanced photography training, body recovery training, latent print training.
MR. WEINREB: How many investigations have you worked on at the FBI?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: God, hundreds.
MR. WEINREB: Were you the field photographer on the Boston Marathon bombing investigation?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: What does it mean to be a field photographer?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: A field photographer, you basically meet any of the photographic needs of the division. That could be taking a passport photo all the way up to photographing a major crime scene. You deal with a lot of digital imagery. Sometimes you're creating it, like graphics or photo spreads. I'm also the photo and the audio-video coordinator for the division, so I deal with all of the audio and video requests that come in as well. And it's just basically you deal with imagery daily.
MR. WEINREB: How soon after the bombs exploded were you assigned to the Boston Marathon bombing investigation?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Almost immediately.
MR. WEINREB: What was the first thing you did?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I geared up and went down to Boylston Street and was asked to photograph several pieces of evidence in front of the Forum. I then went and photographed several pieces of evidence in front of Scene A, which would be LensCrafters, Marathon Sports, and I also was -- I was asked to photograph the body of Krystle Campbell, Martin Richard and Lingzi Lu.
MR. WEINREB: How many days were you on the Boylston Street scene taking photographs in the aftermath of the bombing?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I was there continuously until we closed -- finished processing the scene, which I believe was the 22nd.
MR. WEINREB: So roughly seven days?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Since then have you continued to work on the Boston Marathon bombing investigation?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Part time, full time?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Full time. It's probably taken up 90 percent of my work responsibility.
MR. WEINREB: And what have your responsibilities been?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Fulfilling investigative requests; compiling or putting together compilation videos, things of like Whole Foods and Mobil and Shell gas station. I organized a database full of all of the scene photographs and search photographs and reviewed those for any important pieces of evidence. I assisted with coming up with some of the exhibits, laying the groundwork for that, doing the graphics, finding which photos pertain to which piece of evidence and then where that evidence was found. I've reviewed pretty much all of the imagery that we received, whether it be photo or video in nature.
MR. WEINREB: How many photos were taken and collected as part of the investigation?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Thousands.
MR. WEINREB: And how many have you personally reviewed?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: All of them.
MR. WEINREB: Have you also spent time at the blast sites on Boylston Street?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: I want to turn to a slightly different matter, though, to begin with.
MR. WEINREB: Can we have Exhibit.
1586 for the witness, please?
MS. CONRAD: Excuse me. May I spoke with Mr. Weinreb for a moment?
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MR. WEINREB: May we approach?
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the jury:)
MS. CONRAD: We don't have it.
THE COURT: What?
MS. CONRAD: That exhibit.
THE COURT: What is it?
MS. CONRAD: It's a T-Mobile --
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: T-Mobile records about the purchase of a SIM card purchased on Sunday --
MR. WATKINS: We have it. I didn't see an exhibit number with it, though.
MS. CONRAD: That's the problem. When they put these exhibits up, we get a list and --
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: We did send the exhibit number later, but that exhibit number now has been taken by the exhibit that was just marked for identification with the medical examiner, 1586. So I think this we need to label as 1586A or a different number.
MS. CONRAD: Can we just get a copy of it, whether you email it to us or give us a hard copy? I can't see it on the screen. I don't know what you're offering.
THE COURT: What's the significance of it? What is it?
MR. WEINREB: So, your Honor, there was testimony earlier there were phone records of calls that were made between Jahar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev immediately before or after the bombing, depending on how you interpret it. This is simply the receipt for the SIM card that was in one of the phones that was used.
MS. CONRAD: That's fine.
MR. WEINREB: It's a business record.
MS. CONRAD: I'm probably not going to object. I just want to see what it is. I can't see it on the screen.
THE COURT: Do you have a paper copy?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I'm not sure we do, but I can try to email it.
MS. CONRAD: If there are other exhibits that are going to be marked through this witness that I don't have copies of, I would like a copy now.
MR. WEINREB: We did email copies of it to Mr. Watkins. There was no request for the actual exhibit until just a second ago.
THE COURT: I was going to ask if this is controversial.
MS. CONRAD: I don't think so. The problem is when we get an exhibit without a number attached to it, then we don't know what they're offering when they put it up on the screen.
THE COURT: I do want to make sure that we don't have a mix, using bad numbers. So 1586 was used with the last witness?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It was used with the last witness to mark something for ID, just the autopsy report. There are two -- there's a 1585, which is a certificate of authenticity for the T-Mobile records which we don't need to tender into evidence. We can simply take the 1585 and make that its exhibit.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: That's what's on the screen.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: So can I -- do you have a copy? I'm going to get a copy.
THE COURT: Well, if it was emailed, there should be an email.
MR. WATKINS: There definitely is. I can show it to you if we can take a quick break.
MS. CONRAD: Can you email it to me?
MR. WATKINS: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. Thanks.
THE COURT: Real time?
MS. CONRAD: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Fine.
(In open court:)
MR. WEINREB: So, your Honor, in an effort to avoid confusion, the autopsy report that was previously marked for identification as Exhibit 1586 has been renumbered Exhibit 1591.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Therefore, the exhibit --
THE COURT: That's just for identification.
MR. WEINREB: Just for identification.
So now I would ask that the -- just for the witness, we have 1585, and in light of 1585, we would offer 1586.
MS. CONRAD: I'm trying to take a look at it.
(Pause.)
MS. CONRAD: No objection.
THE COURT: All right.
(Government Exhibit No. 1586 received into evidence.)
MR. WEINREB: I'd ask it be published.
(Pause.)
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, it appears the other screens are still deactivated.
THE COURT: Can we activate the gallery monitors?
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Ms. Gamble, can you describe what this document is?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Sure. It's a T-Mobile receipt, and it appears to be for a micro SIM plug, electronic pin, and a SIM starter kit.
MR. WEINREB: And a SIM card, what is that?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: A SIM card would be something that you would put in a phone. You could also use it, I believe, for a camera.
MR. WEINREB: And does a SIM card in a phone bring a unique phone number with it?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And what -- who does it say is the purchaser of the SIM card?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Jahar Tsarni.
MR. WEINREB: And the date and time on which it was purchased?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 4/14/2013 at 17:59:50.
MR. WEINREB: And in non-military time, what's that?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: It is, let's see, almost six o'clock.
MR. WEINREB: 6 p.m.?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Where was it purchased?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 100 Cambridge Side Place in Cambridge.
MR. WEINREB: And the mobile phone number associated with it?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Is (617) 286-9151.
MR. WEINREB: And there's a prepaid activation?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So it was purchased and activated the day before the marathon bombings?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Can we bring up next to this Exhibit 882, which is already in evidence.
MR. WEINREB: This is a receipt from a Target?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And do you see -- and it's a Target in Watertown, Mass. Is that it?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: What's the date and time?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 4/14/2013 at 4:06 p.m.
MR. WEINREB: And that's a purchase for backpacks?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And how does the date and time on that receipt compare to the date and time on this receipt?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: It's two hours earlier.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 1584 for the witness, please.
MR. WEINREB: Do you recognize this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: What is it a photo of?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: This is a video still from the Boston Athletic Association video, and it is of first -- I'm sorry -- the second blast.
MR. WEINREB: The government offers 1584.
MS. CONRAD: No objection.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Government Exhibit No. 1584 received into evidence.)
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: So by touching the screen which will leave an arrow, can you indicate the second blast?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness complies.)
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Sorry.
MR. WEINREB: And then in front we see a clock. Is that correct?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Which clock is that?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: That is the official marathon clock.
MR. WEINREB: What time is shown on the clock?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Four hours, nine minutes and 57 seconds.
MR. WEINREB: Do you know how that clock is set?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
MR. WEINREB: There's already been testimony from Mr. Grilk about it, your Honor.
MS. CONRAD: Well, but there's no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Do you know when the third wave of runners is released at the Boston Marathon?
MS. CONRAD: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. WEINREB: But if she knows.
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Taking 10:40 a.m. as your starting point and adding the amount of time that is shown on this clock, four hours, nine minutes and 57 seconds, what time does that yield?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer that.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: It would be 2:49:57 p.m.
MR. WEINREB: Can we have 592 for identification? I'm sorry, 1592.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. WEINREB: 1593 for identification.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Did you prepare an exhibit for use in connection with your testimony?
MS. CONRAD: Your Honor, we haven't been provided this.
MR. WEINREB: It was. In any event, your Honor, it's just -- it's something she could be doing right here in real time on the screen.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that's probably right.
MR. WEINREB: Can we have the first line?
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So you just testified that beginning with 10:40 a.m., adding the amount of time on the race clock, the actual time would be 14:49:57?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Or 2:49:57 p.m., correct?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Are you familiar with the Forum restaurant surveillance video?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: How familiar are you with it?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I extracted some of the video from that.
MR. WEINREB: And how many times have you reviewed that video?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Hundreds.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 22, which is already in evidence.
(Video recording played.)
MR. WEINREB: What just happened on that video?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: The bomb exploded.
MR. WEINREB: And what time is the timestamp on that video according to the Forum surveillance system?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: It's -- the DVR time here is 14:49:37.
MR. WEINREB: Can you go back to the previous exhibit, 1593.
MR. WEINREB: So how does the race clock time compare to the timestamp on the Forum video?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: The timestamp for the Forum video is 20 seconds slower, and that would just be by somebody --
MS. CONRAD: Objection. Nonresponsive.
THE COURT: I think she'd answered the question.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: So if the race clock is accurate, the Forum video is 20 seconds slow?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: You may have it.
MR. WEINREB: Now let's go back to Exhibit 22, please.
(Video recording played.)
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: I would just ask you to direct your attention to the figure in the white circle on the left-hand part of the image.
(Video recording played.)
MR. WEINREB: Do you see his hand just go to his face?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: What's the timestamp there?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 14:48:48.
MR. WEINREB: Can we go back to -- can we go to the second line.
MR. WEINREB: So if that's the timestamp on the Forum video, what would the time be according to the race clock?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 14:49:08.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 1172 -- I'm sorry. Not yet. Let's go back to Exhibit 22.
(Video recording played.)
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Did the figure just take his hand away from his face?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: You have to answer out loud.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And what time is the timestamp on the Forum video?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 14:49:07.
MR. WEINREB: Now let's go back to 931 -- 932. Sorry, 1593. Go to the next line.
MR. WEINREB: So how does -- if that's the timestamp on the Forum video, what would the race clock time be?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 14:49:27.
MR. WEINREB: And if you subtracted the phone call start time from the phone call end time, how long did that phone call last?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 19 seconds.
MR. WEINREB: May I have Exhibit 1172, which is already in evidence?
MR. WEINREB: These are phone records for that phone 9151 that we saw earlier?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Did I ask you to incorporate this into the exhibit --
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: -- that I asked you to prepare?
MR. WEINREB: Let's go back to 1593. And go to the second page.
MR. WEINREB: So looking at the call that, according to Exhibit 1172, was made at 2:49:06, how does that compare to the phone call start time pursuant to the race clock time?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: It's -- the race clock time, is that what you asked?
MR. WEINREB: Yes, the race clock time.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: It's two seconds slower.
MR. WEINREB: And how long does it last?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: 19 seconds.
MR. WEINREB: Did that call take place before or after the first marathon bombing explosion?
MS. CONRAD: Objection to "that call."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Before.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: And do you see the next call on that slide, an incoming call that began at 2:51:19? Did that call take place before or after the second bombing?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: After.
MR. WEINREB: How long after the second bombing did it take place?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Approximately a minute, 20 seconds.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Was one of your responsibilities in this investigation to determine the location of people and things at various times?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And did you at my request prepare an exhibit or a chalk that indicates some of those things?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Can I have Exhibit 29, please, just for -- no, it's in evidence.
THE COURT: 29 is in evidence?
MR. WEINREB: It is.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Do you see the defendant in this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Can you circle him?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness complies.)
MR. WEINREB: Do you see something at his feet?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Have you seen that -- images of that before?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: What is it?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: It's a backpack.
MR. WEINREB: You said you watched the Forum video hundreds of times?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: On the Forum video, are people able to walk directly into the backpack?
MR. WEINREB: Why not?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: He pretty much stands behind it most of the time, almost kind of like hovering over it.
MR. WEINREB: Can I have Exhibit 1581 for identification, please.
MR. WEINREB: What's that a picture of?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: That's a still image of the Forum video taken at, I believe, six o'clock in the morning.
MR. WEINREB: Of the day of the marathon?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Of the day of the marathon, yes.
MR. WEINREB: This grate here that the tree -- surrounds the tree, have you seen that?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: What is it made of?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Steel.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 1582 for the -- I'm sorry. Can I offer 1581.
MS. CONRAD: No objection.
THE COURT: All right.
(Government Exhibit No. 1581 received into evidence.)
MR. WEINREB: Can we go back out?
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: So this is the patio of the Forum restaurant --
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: -- on the morning of the bombing? And this is the grate you were referring to?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 1582 for identification.
MR. WEINREB: Do you recognize that?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Is that a fair and accurate picture of how that grate looked after the blast?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: The government offers 1582.
MS. CONRAD: No objection, but I think it may already be in.
THE COURT: It's already in evidence.
MR. WEINREB: It is? That's fine, then.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Do you see here now part of the grate is missing?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Is that where the second bomb exploded?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 1580, please.
MR. WEINREB: Is this the exhibit or chalk I asked you to prepare?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes, it is.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Did you indicate on there the seat of the blast, or where the second bomb exploded?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Can you point it out for us?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness complies.)
MR. WEINREB: Now, in this photograph we see a figure here dressed in a Tyvek suit. Is that correct?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: I circled it, the figure on the left?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So when was this photograph taken?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: This was at the end of the processing of the crime scene.
MR. WEINREB: So the tree is no longer there. Is that right?
MR. WEINREB: What happened to the tree?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: We took the tree as a piece of evidence.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 24, please. It's already in evidence. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can we publish 1580, please?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CONRAD: Is this being admitted or just a chalk?
MR. WEINREB: No, just a chalk.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: So the figure in the Tyvek suit that I circled earlier on the left-hand side I just circled again. Is that right?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And the seat of the blast is here?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And I've circled the red mark that's roughly in the center of the page and it's labeled "backpack with bomb"?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 24, please.
THE COURT: Is this in evidence?
MR. WEINREB: It is.
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Do you see Lingzi Lu in this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Can you point her out to us?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: Do you see Martin Richard?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Can you circle him, please?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness complies.)
MR. WEINREB: Is that him lying there face up?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Did you indicate their locations on the chalk that I asked you to prepare?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I did, yes.
MR. WEINREB: Go back to 1580.
MR. WEINREB: So can you point -- circle where the body of Lingzi Lu was located?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: And that's labeled with her name and where the body of Martin Richard was located?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness indicates.)
MR. WEINREB: And that's labeled with his name?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Exhibit 1575 for identification.
MR. WEINREB: Is this a close-up of a photo that was received from a member of the public?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Was there an internal timestamp that revealed when the photo was taken?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: The metadata said it was 2:48 p.m.
MR. WEINREB: And how does that compare to the time of the actual blast?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: It's a minute before.
MR. WEINREB: Do you see the defendant in this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Actually, the government offers 1575.
MS. CONRAD: As noted.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MS. CONRAD: As noted.
THE COURT: Okay. Admitted.
(Government Exhibit No. 1575 received into evidence.)
BY MR. WEINREB:
MR. WEINREB: Do you see the defendant in this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Can you point him out?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness complies.)
MR. WEINREB: So you've circled the individual whose face is partially obscured by the tree?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Do you see Martin Richard in this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I do.
MR. WEINREB: Can you point him out?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness complies.)
MR. WEINREB: And you've circled the little boy who's standing over against the railing near the tree?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Do you see Jane Richard in this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I do.
MR. WEINREB: Where is she located?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Right here (indicating).
MR. WEINREB: You've circled the little girl in the green coat who's standing next to Martin?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Do you see Bill Richard in this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I do.
MR. WEINREB: And where is he located?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness indicates.)
MR. WEINREB: You circled the man standing in between Martin and Jane?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Do you see Denise Richard in this photo?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: I do.
MR. WEINREB: Where is she standing?
MICHELLE GAMBLE: (Witness indicates.)
MR. WEINREB: You've circled the person all the way at the left-hand side --
MICHELLE GAMBLE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: -- of the photo?
MR. WEINREB: I have no further questions, your Honor.