Summary from Official Court Transcripts
(not actual phone record above)
(Area Retail Sales Manger with AT&T Cellular Services)
Daliwal has been employed by AT&T for almost 16 years.
DIRECT EXAMINATION: MS. BRAZIL
Brazil presents Daliwal with a 72-page exhibit entitled “Exhibit 19”. This exhibit includes the cell phone records of Murray via the phone number (702) ***-0973. Murray has an Apple iPhone. The demographics for the number above are: Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada.
“Exhibit 19” includes information such as calls, texts, emails and data pushes. A data push can also be described as a sync. Data pushes can be done manually or automatically. Each push is recorded as an activity on the AT&T phone record.
Daliwal and Brazil begin looking at “Exhibit 19” going over the information. Brazil points out there is no information in the “Sent To” or “Received From” column. Daliwal remarks this is not his area of expertise but he has seen this before. He then explains that the next column, “Quantity Used”, reflects the amount of date that has been used, in kilobytes and megabytes. He says there is a meter that keeps track of how much information comes into the phone. A higher number reflects more data, such as a larger text message or email.
The next column observed is the “Usage Type” column. “G.P.R.S” refers to data coming into the phone. “S.M.S” refers to a text message. Daliwal states that he cannot differentiate on the exhibit whether or not these text messages were sent or received from this particular phone number mentioned above. He says that information would be available on the bill statement, whether a message was incoming or outgoing.
The next column observed represents charges incurred. They proceed onto the next column which is the “Servicing Area”. This column represents data–“it says text message, the only thing it mentions is TX–it’s Texas”.
The last two columns include “Location Area Code” and “Cell Identifier Number”.
Brazil then directs Daliwal’s attention to the phone activity starting on June 25th, 2009. The first data transmission for June 25th 2009 was at 12:04 a.m., a data transmission means information or data was received by Murray’s AT&T cell phone. The same occurrence also occurred at 1:04 a.m. and again at 3:04 a.m. Brazil then remarks that all these entries are consistent, “12:04, 1:04, 2:04, 3:04, 4:04, 5:04, 6:04”. Daliwal states that the significance of these date could signify there was a setting on the phone to push data after every one hour, in hour-intervals. Daliwal confirms that this does not indicate that Murray actually had the phone in his hand when this was occurring.
At 6: 31 a.m., Murray’s cell phone record reflected a text message occurrence. At 7:03 a.m., a data activity was recorded. Another data transmission was detected at 7:29 a.m. Another data transmission was detected at 8:14 a.m.. An S.M.S text message either to or from Texas was detected at 8: 26 a.m. Another data entry was detected at 8: 54 a.m. Text messages were either sent to or received from Texas at 9:00 a.m. and 9:11 a.m.
Data transmissions were detected at 7: 35 a.m., 10: 04 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. Another text message either to or from Texas was recorded at 10: 26 a.m. Data transmission were again recorded at 10:44 a.m. and 11:08 a.m. A text message to or from Texas was recorded at 12:03 p.m. as well as a data entry. at 12:04 p.m. there was also a text to or from Texas recorded. At 12:13 p.m. and 12:18 p.m. data transmissions were recorded. At 12:53 p.m. a text message to/from California was recorded. At 1:23 p.m. a text message was sent/received from Nevada. A data transmission was recorded next but a time was not given so the Court asked for clarification. Ms. Brazil asked Daliwal, “you are referring to that last call, Mr. Daliwal, what time was that one”? His response was 2:19 p.m.
Additional activities were reflected after “2:19, 2:54, 3:23, 3:30, 3:33, 3:58 and 4:03 p.m”.
Brazil and Daliwal then begin to review incoming/outgoing calls. Minutes used are also shown as well as the usage type (D.T. for daytime, N.W. for nights and weekends). Brazil and Daliwal go over other specifications such as roaming, switch codes, etc.
An incoming call to Murray’s AT&T cell phone occurred at 9: 23 a.m. that was 22 minutes in length. This call was from (702) ***-2909. Demographics for this number are: Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada.
An incoming call to Murray’s AT&T cell phone occurred at 10:14 a.m. that was 2 minutes in length. This call was from (713) ***-4955. Demographics for this number are: Harris County, Houston, Texas.
An incoming call to Murray’s AT&T cell phone occurred at 11:07 a.m. that was 1 minute in length. This call was from (619) ***-3233. Demographics for this number are: San Diego County, San Diego, California.
An outgoing call from Murray’s AT&T cell phone occurred at 11:18 a.m. that was 32 minutes in length. This call was to (702) ***-6802. Demographics for this number are: Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada.
An outgoing call from Murray’s AT&T cell phone occurred at 11:49 a.m. that was 3 minutes in length. This call was to (702) ***-4989. Demographics for this number are: Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada.
An outgoing call from Murray’s AT&T cell phone occurred at 11:51 a.m. that was 11 minutes in length. This call was to (832) ***-3832. Demographics for this number are: Harris County, Houston, Texas.
An outgoing call from Murray’s AT&T cell phone occurred at 12:12 p.m. that was 1 minute in length. This call was to (562) ***-2570. Demographics for this number are: Los Angeles County, Long Beach, California.
An incoming call to Murray’s AT&T cell phone occurred at 12:15 p.m. that was 1 minute in length. This call was from (562) ***-2570. Demographics for this number are: Los Angeles County, Long Beach, California.
Brazil concludes her direct examination.
CROSS-EXAMINATION: MR. CHERNOFF
Chernoff has 2 questions. His first question asks if there is any way to retrieve the actual contents of text messages rather than just the technical information. Daliwal replies there is a way, however he is not familiar with how it is done as he is not involved in that sort of process nor does he have the knowledge of how to do such. Chernoff then asks about the contents of voicemails on an AT&T iPhone–if there is a way for AT&T to retrieve the contents of voicemails. Daliwal’s reply is similar to his reply regarding text messages–it is possible but he does not know how it done.
Chernoff concludes his cross examination. Brazil excuses Daliwal.
Summary written up by a True Michael Jackson Fan: She wants no Credit, but i must direct you to her blog, and her other Hard Work: Click here: GatorGirl
You must be logged in to post a comment.