Trial Transcript 07 29 2014

MARY ELLEN KUSIBAB
Official Court Reporter

2650 South California
Room 4C02
Chicago , Illinois 60608
773 - 674 - 6065
DATE :
October 10 ,
To:
Ms. Annabel Melongo

P.O . Bo x 5658
Chicago , Illinois 60680
Phone : 312 - 415 - 6632
In re:
People v . Annabel Melongo

Cas e No. 08 CR 10502 - 01
Judge Timothy Joyce
Date
Taken:
2014
7 - 29 - 2014
Pages:
Rate:
Subtotal:
Less Deposit:
194
1.00 - Copy ,
Regular
194 . 00
- 0-
Amount Due and Owing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RECEIVE D BY:
DATE:
194 . 00
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION
2
3
THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff,
No.
VS.
ANNABEL ME LONGO ,
Defendant.
8
9
08 CR 10502-01
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the jury

trial of the above-entitled cause before the
10
HONORABLE TIMOTHY JOYCE,
11
the 29th day of July,
Judge of said Court,
2014.
12
APPEARANCES:
13
HON. ANITA M. ALVAREZ,

State's Attorney of Cook County,
By:
MS. NANCY ZARKOS and
MS. DEBJANI DASGUPTA,
Assistant State's Attorneys,
on behalf of the People;
14
15
16
MS.
17
JENNIFER BONJEAN,
on behalf of the Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mary Ellen Kusibab, Official Court Reporter

CSR License No. 084-004348
24
on
1
2
3
4
I N D E X
Case :
Case No. :
Date:
Pages:
Status:
Reporter:
People vs. Annabel Melongo

08 CR 10502-01
7-29-2014
1 - 194
Jury Trial
Mary Ellen Kusibab
CSR License No.:
084-004348
6
7
OPENING STATEMENTS
By Ms.
By Ms.
PAGE
Dasgupta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bonj ean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
27
10
WITNESSES
11
For the State:
12
Shahna Voita
13
14
Direct Examination by Ms. Dasgupta ... .

Cross-Examination by Ms . Bonjean . . . . . .
Redirect Examination by Ms. Dasgupta ..
Recross-Examination by Ms. Bonjean ....
36
80
87
89
15
Detective William Martin
16
17
Direct Examination by Ms. Zarkos . . . . . . . .

Cross-Examination by Ms. Bonj ean . . . . . . . .
Redirect Examination by Ms. Zarkos . . . . . .
94
118
133
18
Carol Spizzirri
19
20
Direct Examination by Ms. Zarkos

Cross-Examination by Ms. Bonjean
Redirect Examination by Ms . Zarkos
21
22
23
24
135
142
170
I N D E X (continued)
1
2
Case:
Case No. :
Date:
Pages:
People vs. Annabel Melongo

08 CR 10502-01
7-29-2014
1 - 194
Status:
Reporter:
Jury Trial
Mary Ellen Kusibab
CSR License No.:
084 - 004348
5
6
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
By Ms.
By Ms.
Bonj ean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zarkos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
174
180
RULING
187
10
11
12
PEOPLE 'S EXHIBIT
13
No.
No.
Nos.
No.
No.
14
15
MARKED
1
2
2A
H I B I T
137
44
46
97
103
3
5
16
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT
17
18
19
No. 2
Nos. 2A,
No. 3
No. 4
130
131
152
169
2B
20
21
22
23
24
s
ADMITTED
173
45
173
173
(Whereupon,
the following proceedings
were held in open court outside the
presence of the
Could the attorneys identify themselves,
please.
MS.
Annabel Melongo.
THE COURT:
jury.)
ZARKOS:
Assistant State's Attorney Nancy
Zarkos -- Z- a-r-k-o-s.
MS.
DASGUPTA:
Assistant State's Attorney
10
Debjani Dasgupta -- D-e-b-j-a-n-i ,
11
D-a-s-g-u-p-t-a -- on behalf of the People.
12
MS .
BONJEAN:
Good morning,
Your Honor.
13
Jennifer Bonjean -- B-o-n-j-e-a-n
14
the defendant,
15
THE COURT:
16
on behalf of
Annabel Melongo.
And Ms.
Good morning,
Melongo is here.
everybody.
We had spent a
17
considerable amount of time yesterday after the
18
jury had been selected,
19
parameters of the defendant's motion in limine.
20
indicated that
21
the circumstance.
22
make a
23
parameters regarding what
24
won't permit .
arguing - -
discussing the
I
wanted to think some more about

I
have,
and I'm prepared to
ruling and set what
I
I
suppose I
can call
will permit and what
Does anybody wish to say anything
before I
do?
MS.
ZARKOS:
Your Honor,
before you make that
ruling,
e-mail and the word,
problem referred to.
to the author of the e - mail,
it refers to what it says in the subject matter:
Downed system;
problem was a downed s y stem.
you asked me yesterday regarding the

fix our problem -- what that
And I
had a
chance to speak
and she told us that
the system was down and that the

And it is reflected
10
in the e-mai l
11
consultants -- in the subject line,
12
The problem that they wanted to fix was the downed
13
system.
14
that she is sending to her
You had asked me that yesterday.
THE COURT:
And after thinking about this,
15
don't
16
I'm going to make,
17
that down.
know that that ' s
18
MS.
19
THE COURT:
20
Ms.
downed system.
ZARKOS:
going to impact the ruling
but I
appreciate you tracking
No problem.
Do you want to say anything further,
Zarkos?
21
MS.
22
record,
23
investigation on the other matters began on May
24
5th.
ZARKOS:
No.
also want to,
this e - mail was Monday,
And there wil l
just for the
May 1st;
the
be testimony regarding that
matter from the officers.
problem was a downed system.
THE COURT:
MS.
So on May 1st,
the
And what was May 5th?
ZARKOS:
May 5th is when the investigation
began by the Schiller Park Police Department.
THE COURT:
MS.
Any last words,
BONJEAN:
Yes,
Ms.
Your Honor.
Bonjean?
And,
again,
in
working last night and looking through all the
discovery that had been tendered to me and trying
10
to figure out exactly what it was that was
11
troubling me,
12
understand that the content of the e-mail -- which
13
may or may not be relevant,
14
not sure i t is,
15
State.
16
realized that i t ' s important to
quite honestly.
I'm
based on the allegations of the
But the content of the e-mail which
17
refers to the downed problem,
i t ' s important to
18
understand that that problem,
Ms.
19
believed Ms.
20
was -- in fact,
21
think we found our culprit.
22
Spizzirri
Melongo was responsible for.

the e-mail itself
We also know,
Your Honor,
23
Ms.
24
individuals about the e-mails.
That
because I
that
Spizzirri made prior statements to different
And it was all in
the context of Ms.
Melongo being responsible for
the downed system.
They're very interconnected.
And to parse out just the Count III allegation and
not take into account that Ms.
point of view -- see,
I'm completely disabled before the
could sit there and go,
why would anybody -- why would this woman ever
just forward an e - mail?
Spizzirri,
from her
this is the big dilemma.
huh,
jury,
the jury
that's really crazy;
Why would this woman just
10
falsely accuse her of forwarding an e-mail?
11
That's implausible.
12
sense wh atsoever.
13
If
On its face,
it makes no
But there is an explanation from our
14
perspective.
15
explanation so it doesn't seem so strange.
16
is the whole context of the case.
17
i t ' s just so d iffic ult to parse out that one
18
allegation without taking into account the allegations
19
that were being made simultaneously about the
20
deletion of file and so forth.
21
and parcel of the same allegations that
22
Ms.
23
24
We have the right to provide that

And it
Unfortunately,
This was all part
Spizzirri was making against my client.

So while I
respect the Court's effort at
circumscribing the cross-examination,
surely we
should be permitted to cross-examine her about the
e-mails themselves and whether or not she made
prior inconsistent statements about the e-mails,
you know,
did or did not do.
hasn ' t
to other individuals about what my client

you know,
Ms .
Spizzirri
been exactly consistent about that.
THE COURT:
I mean,
I'm not -- we're not talking about
what you can cross-examine her on on prior witness
statements,
whether by e-mail or otherwise,
prior
10
statements to anybody that she might be subject to
11
impeachment for.
12
your theory that she's motivated to lie against
13
your client because of Ms.
14
Ms.
15
financial purpose.
16
discussing,
17
MS .
18
We're talking about the issue of
Melongo's claim that
Spizzirri has destroyed records to hide her

I mean,
that's the issue we're
correct?
BONJEAN:
Yes,
Your Honor.
That's right,
correct .
19
THE COURT:
I'm ready to make my ruling.
We spent a lot of time yesterday on this,
20
21
and I very much -- I
22
23
from the attorneys.
24
Thank you.
commented on it.
appreciated it then,
And I
I think
still do -- the input
And I'm grateful for it.
I went on at length because it's
And it's challenging in this issue.
challenging.
Obviously,
in Count III are the sole issue before the Court,
the sole issue upon which the j ury will have to
make its decision.
as I discussed yesterday ,
the allegations
The defense has presented numerous
supporting documents in support of its motion in
limine,
including letters from an Illinois State
10
senator dated April 2012;
11
Village of Carpentersville; documentation from the
12
Off ice of the Attorney General regarding their
13
I don't want to say suspicion or belief;
14
I ' l l say concerns -- regarding moneys that were
15
given to either by those organiza ti ons or by other
16
individuals or organizations for charitable
17
purposes to Safe-A-Life Foundation.
18
requesting a follow-up with respect to how those
19
contributions were spent.
20
that the Attorney General has a statutory obligation
21
to monitor and regulate,
22
the federal government does as well,
23
the moment that this was a s o -called 501 (c) (3)
24
organization.
documentation from the
Certainly,
I guess
And they were
an issue
not to mention,
suppose,
presuming for
But in many respects,
Spizzirri did,
the question of
whether Ms.
financial chicanery in connection with that
charitable organization is completely collateral.
But,
motive on her part to lie about Ms.
order to protect herself,
from a claim of financial perfidy in connection
with this charitable organization is potentially
at the same time,
in fact,
engage in any
whether there exists a

Melongo in
protect Ms.
Spizzirri
10
relevant for Ms. Melongo's sake and for her
11
opportunity in displaying any motive that
12
Ms.
Spizzirri may have to testify falsely against
13
Ms.
Melongo.
Now,
14
when I state that someone has a
15
motive to testify falsely,
I certainly am not
16
concluding that anybody is or is not testifying
17
falsely.
18
is a reason that might motivate someone to proceed
19
in some particular manner.
20
do not proceed in that particular manner,
21
for the fact finder to figure out.
22
defense has a right to investigate that motive,
23
reveal that motive;
24
interfering with the State's right to a fair trial
That's not what a motive is.
And whether they do or

this is
But the
at the same time,
10
A motive
while not
and without engendering collateral damage to such
a degree that it becomes a distraction to the
primary,
not the State can prove Ms.
a reasonable doubt with respect to Count III --
the only count remaining before the Court now.
I suppose sole issue,
which is whether or
Melongo's guilt beyond
To that end -- and part of my difficulty
yesterday was not being able to formulate my
ruling in a decisive manner and formulate it in a
10
manner that would give the parties direction with
11
respect to how to proceed and how not to proceed.
12
So the only way I was able to come up with a
13
solution to that issue that faced the Court is to
14
essentially write out a series of questions on
15
cross - examination that I believe would be
16
appropriate.
17
saying that these questions have to be asked in
18
this manner.
19
cross-examination would have to be limited to the
20
subject issues evoked by the questions themselves.
21
So I
And I don't mean to impugn that I'm
But the subject matter of the
figured more or less that if the
22
defense wished to -- and I ' l l talk about that in a
23
moment - -
24
They could ask Ms.
the defense could proceed as follows.

Spizzirri whether Save - A-Life
11
They
Foundation is a charitable organization.
could ask her whether i t ' s funded by charitable
contributions.
believe this is a requirement of the law
me if I'm wrong -- that the charitable
organization,
have to keep tabs or keep records regarding those
contributions and expenditures in order to maintain
proper charitable status,
They could ask her -- and I

tell
the person or persons who run it
vis - a-vis,
any
The defense can ask
10
government agencies.
11
Ms.
12
alleges that certain records relating to those
13
contributions and expenditures were on Save-A-Life
14
Foundation computer or computers.
15
to ask her if i t ' s correct -- that some government
16
agency has previously requested those records from
17
her.
18
but whether it is correct that Ms.
19
alleges that Ms.
20
Spizzirri,
is i t correct that Ms.
You can go on to ask - -
Now,
Spizzirri
They can go on
the defense can't,

Spizzirri
Melongo destroyed those records.

appreciate that the destruction of
21
those records is what is alleged in Counts I
22
II,
23
the reason I
24
allegation by Ms.
which has been nolle pros'd by the State.

would permit this is because the
Spizzirri that Ms.
12
Melongo
and
But
destroyed those financial
computer could,
motivated by her desire to hoist this destruction
of the records on Ms.
fact,
order to hide some purpose,
didn't.
did or didn't;
fact
in fact,
records held on the

be a claim by her,
Melongo.
And,
in point of
she's the one who made the destruction in

whether she did or
Because I'm not interested in whether she

I want the
jury to be aware of the
that because of the circumstances that lie,
10
she has motive to do so.
11
Ms.
12
turn,
Spizzirri,
And the defense can ask
isn't it true that Ms.
Melongo,
in
has claimed that you destroyed those records.

Now,
13
that might be -- some people might
14
think that's hearsay,
that is to say that
15
Ms.
16
it is.
17
offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
18
It's offered to show that by virtue of the fact
19
that Ms.
20
communicated to her that Ms.
21
for that destruction of the records.
22
reason it gives Ms.
23
lie against Ms.
24
purportedly destroyed records.
Melongo is claiming that.

And I
But I
don't believe
don't believe it is because i t ' s not
Spizzirri has been -- that that has been

Melongo blames her
Another
Spizzirri potential motive to
Melongo as the person who
13
Does everybody understand the parameters
of what the Court is saying?
appreciate that by virtue of the fact that the
State nolle pros' d Counts I
and II,
seeks to go in that manner,
if the defense is
opening the door and essentially putting it out as
another crime to the effect that somebody is
claiming that Ms.
what's alleged in Count III,
10
MS.
12
THE COURT:
14
15
16
defense will
if the defense
Melongo did s o mething beyond

it's a double - edged
sword.
11
13
Now,
BONJEAN:
Yes,
indeed,
If you do it,
it is.
you can't complain
about its effect.

MS.
BONJEAN:
Never would.
Fully understand,
Judge.
THE COURT:
Does anybody want t o talk me out
17
of my ruling before we bring the jury out and get
18
going an hour and a half later than I hoped,
19
is my fault,
20
MS.
which
not anybody else's.
BONJEAN:
Your Honor,
I have one
21
question/concern.
22
presented me with four pieces of evidence that
23
they intend to i ntroduce into evidence.
24
at least three of them,
This morning,
14
the State kindly
Presumably,
would be coming in
assume,
through,
they intend to use it in opening.
have an objection that would probably need to be
addressed,
ZARKOS:
MS.
BONJEAN:
Ms.
Counsel?
These -- People's Exhibit 2A and B.
Your Honor,
is a
would
All of them or one of them,
MS.
But I
if they do intend to use it in opening.
their expert.
don't know if
raise this question as ther e
snapshot that was apparently taken of

Melongo's Yaho o mail inbox ,
suspect.
And I
10
presume that was done by the expert that they
11
intend to offer.
12
testify to what she did.
13
the State still has an obligation to show a
14
of custody and authenticity as to this snapshot --
15
that this,
16
account.
17
purely through the expert that did the
18
examination
19
Now,
in fact,
I
the expert certainly can

But notwithstanding that,
is Ms.
chain
Melongo's Yahoo e-mail
don't know that they can establish it
the forensic examination.
So before the
jury would see this,
20
belie v e that there are certain foundational
21
requirements that the State is going to need to
22
meet.
23
express a
24
witnesses.
And I'm not sure based -- the only reason I

concern is they've indicated three
And I
don't know -- I'm at a
15
loss how
they would lay the foundation for this.

MS.
ZARKOS:
But --
If you'd like to argue that
particular exhibit now,
that.
were found -- pursuant to the search warrants,
Counsel;
of business for the Sa v e-A-Life Foundation.
we are prepared to argue on two.
10
Are there arguments on the others?
MS.
and the other one,
BONJEAN:
MS.
ZARKOS :
12
MS.
BONJEAN:
14
Yes.
in the regular course
This,
But
don't know where
The search warrant.

This was from the search warrant
as well?
MS.
ZARKOS:
Correct.
The expert will not be
15
testifying as to those two documents.
16
be the officer.
17
Two
it came from.
11
13
we are prepared to do
MS.
BONJEAN:
I don't know.
That will
This document I ' m
18
not particularly concerned about.
19
2A and even 2B,
20
lacking in foundation in order to get them into
21
evidence with just an expert.
22
23
24
MS .
ZARKOS:
wh i ch,
bel i eve,
It's People's
is going to be
We are prepared to argue if you'd
like to do that before we begin.

MS.
BONJEAN:
And,
16
Your Honor,
would have
brought this up earlier,
these exhibits this morning.
THE COURT:
but I
was
I
just handed
apologize.
I'm not hesitating because of that
argument.
hate to resolve evidentiary rulings before I've
heard any evidence.
foundation,
not laid.
9
10
MS.
I ' m always hesitant because I
I mean,
if somebody can lay a
foundation is laid.
BONJEAN:
THE COURT:
always
If they can't,
it's
Understood.
I
take the attorneys at their word.
11
The State believes they have a
12
If they mention it in opening -- if they do,
13
can mention it in opening statement.
14
if they don't get it into evidence thereafter,
15
can only imagine what you do in an argument
16
thereafter.
17
often been my experience that what the attorneys
18
say regarding the proper foundation or the existence
19
of the proper foundation or its nonexistence --
20
always said in good faith,
21
expectation here -- but i t ' s sometimes different
22
with respect to how the witness is perceived when
23
the witness testifies regarding that foundation.
24
So you often spend a
The reason I
17
foundation for
it.
they
If they don't,
I
say this is because i t ' s
and I
have no different
lot of time talking about
evidentiary foundations beforehand without being
able to resolve the propriety of those foundations
in a proper manner,
assume take this as it comes,
constitutional reason to prohibit its
introduction,
MS.
in my estimation.
So I'd just
unless there's some
other than an evidentiary reason.
BONJEAN:
No,
Your Honor.
believe the
basis would be potentially a lack of chain of
custody and the typical foundational element.
10
11
waive any issues.
12
that if it turns out that they can't lay the
13
foundation later on.
So
bring it to the Court's attention so as not to

But I will certainly address
14
THE COURT:
There will be a
joint motion to
15
exclude witnesses.
16
keeping their witnesses out when others are
17
testifying or matters of substance are being
18
disc ussed by the Court .
19
the proceedings;
20
after an y recesses or after any other date.
21
anticipate bringing the jury out now,
22
them in,
23
with Supreme Court -- IPI Instruction 1.018,
24
opening statements and then breaking for
Both sides are responsible for
That will be throughout
it doesn't have to be renewed

I
swearing
giving my prefatory remarks consistent
18
doing
lunch
will make a
because i t ' s just after noon.
prefatory explanation with respect to why they've
been waiting so long:
else's.
Any reason not to proceed,
5
6
MS.
THE COURT:
MS.
THE COURT:
10
That's my fault,
No,
ZARKOS:
State?
Your Honor.
Defense?
BONJEAN:
No,
Your Honor.
Bring our jury out,
THE SHERIFF:
Thank you.
please.
All rise.
(Whereupon,
11
not anyone
12
were held in open court in the
13
presence of the
14
THE COURT:
jury.)
I'm compelled to say,
good afternoon,
15
everybody.
16
you all to remain standing for the moment.
I ' l l explain that in a moment.
17
Everyone else can be seated.
18
Please raise your right hands,
19
20
21
want
folks .
(Jurors sworn.)
THE COURT:
First,
Thank you.
thank you,
You may be seated.

ladies and gentlemen,
22
for your promptness today.
23
here promptly would otherwise have enabled us to
24
get started quickly.
19
The fact that you got
The fact that we did not is
It is not the fault of the attorneys o r
my fault.
of Ms.
get rid of some other matters before the Court
that have nothing to do with this case.
thank you as much as I possibly can for your
patience and promise you as much as I
will endeavor to not make you wait anything like
this hereafter.
Melongo.
I misjudged how quickly I
could
wish to
can that I
apologize.
Members of the jury,
the trial is about
10
to commence.
11
law regarding some of your duties during trial and
12
deliberations.
13
I will now instruct you as to the
You should not do any independent
14
investigation or research on any subject o r
person
15
relating to the case.
16
heard outside of the courtroom is not evidence.
17
This includes any press,
18
programs.
19
available on the Internet.
20
and information are not evidence.
21
must not be influenced in any way by such
22
material.
23
Internet or any other sources to search for any
24
information about the case or the law which
What you may have seen or
radio or television
And it also includes any information
For example,
20
Such programs,
reports
Your verdict
you must not use the
applies to the case.

In the course of the trial,
do not
communicate with or provide information personally,
in writing or electronically to anyone about this
case,
courtroom personnel and also not even among
yourselves until otherwise instructed.
parties and witnesses are not permitted to speak
with you about any subject,
not even your own families
or friends,
even if unrelated to
10
this case,
11
are discharged from your duties as
12
Lawyers,
until after the case is over and you

jurors.
There is an order in which trials are
13
conducted.
14
by the attorneys.
15
presented.
16
evidence is in,
17
opportunity to make final
18
that point that I
19
will
read those instructions to you here in open
20
court,
and you will also have them in writing back
21
in the
jury room when you begin your deliberations.
22
Soon you will hear opening statements
As
Thereafter,
evidence will be
indicated yesterday,
after the
the attorneys will have the

arguments.
And i t is at
will instruct you as to the law.
Evidence consists of testimony by
23
witnesses and of exhibits that are allowed into
24
evidence by me.
Statements and remarks by
21
attorneys are ordinarily not evidence and should
not be considered by you as
exceptions to that,
such.
If there are
will let you know.
You do have the right to take notes
during trial.
Notepads have been provided for
your convenience.
identification mark on the cover of the notepad.
No one will be allowed to look at your notes at
any time.
Please place your name or other
You do not have to take notes;
that is
10
entirely up to you.
11
or the other.
12
that sto p you from hearing all the evidence.
13
may use your notes to refresh your memory at the
14
appropriate time,
15
memory of the evidence.
16
with your memory or if someone else's notes conflict
17
with your memory,
18
memory of the evidence.
19
taken notes does not mean that his or her memory
20
of the evidence is any better than the memory of a
21
juror who has not taken notes.
22
have no preference one way
If you do take notes,
do not let
You
but you should also use your own

If your notes conflict
you are free to use your own

Just because a
juror has
Your notes will not leave this courtroom .
23
The deputy sheriff will collect them when you
24
leave for
lunch and at the end of the court day.
22
At the end of the trial when you are discharged
from further service in this case,
will be collected by our deputy sheriff and then
destroyed.
notes before they are destroyed.
No one will be allowed to look at the
As I
those notes
folks,
sit
If there are any of you who
wherever you wish.
are harder of hearing and wish to sit closer to
the witness stand,
please do so.
If as
indicated
10
yesterday,
11
break and I
12
be regarding breaks,
13
you.
14
because I'm looking somewhere else -- maybe at my
15
notes -- say,
16
and we'll take a break.
17
if you wish to take a break or get a

have not been so resolute as I
raise your hand.
I ' l l see
If I don't see you
We'll take a break.
excuse me,
try to
Judge,
During this trial,
need a break,
you will hear
18
objections from the attorneys.
19
the right to object when they believe testimony or
20
other offered evidence is not admissible.
21
observations help me ensure that you only hear
22
admissible evidence.
When I
23
you will hear me say,
sustained,
24
disregard the question and answer if one had been
23
The attorneys have
Those
sustain an objection,
and you will
given and you must not infer anything from the
question or answer.
what the witness would have said if I would have
him or her to answer.
You must not speculate on
At this time,
the attorneys for each side
have the opportunity of making an opening statement.
An opening statement is not evidence and should
not be considered by you as such.
statement by the attorney as to what they expect
10
the evidence to show.
11
State,
12
statement?
13
MS.
14
THE COURT:
do you wish to make an opening
DASGUPTA:
Yes,
Ms.
Judge.
Dasgupta,
15
OPENING STATEMENT
16
BY THE PEOPLE:
17
It is a
MS.
DASGUPTA:
you may do so now.
Ladies and gentlemen,
you're
18
not going to hear about the crime of the century
19
today.
20
this century.
21
a crowbar to get into somebody's home,
22
window or a door,
23
belongings and then take some things --
24
papers,
But what you will hear about is a crime of

You're used to the burglar who used
pry open a
rummage through somebody's personal
electronics.
24
jewelry,
We know that's a crime.
Nowadays,
you have a criminal sitting in
the privacy of their own home with their laptop or
their computer,
computer miles and miles away without the knowledge,
the presence,
can look at e-mail accounts,
can alter,
MS.
line of
10
remotely accessing another person's
the authority of that victim.
remove,
BONJEAN:
bank accounts.
They
They
delete information.
Objection,
Your Honor.
This
sounds more like argument and does not
sound like the evidence they intend to prove at trial.
11
THE COURT:
12
MS.
Overruled.
DASGUPTA:
That's also a crime.
This
13
defendant sitting before you today was an ex-employee
14
of what was the Save-A-Life Foundation.
15
president of that foundation was a woman named
16
Carol Spizzirri.
17
being fired from her job,
18
an exit interview where she was forced to give up
19
access to Save-A-Life Foundation,
20
passwords ,
this defendant accessed Ms.
21
computer.
She didn't stop there:
22
Ms.
23
rummaged through Ms.
24
took one.
This defendant,
The
within days of
within days of completing
specifically,
Spizzirri's
She accessed
Spizzirri's personal e-mail account,

Spizzirri's e - mail.
She didn't stop there.
25
and she
And she
She forwarded
it to herself.
the subject line.
e-mail,
Save-A-Life Foundation.
authority to do so.
After she did that,
she changed
She changed content in that
and she forwarded it to other employees at

And she had absolutely no
We know she did this because after
detectives investigated this case,
valid search warrant,
from her home.
they obtained a
and they recovered her laptop
They had a computer forensic
10
analyst look at this laptop,
11
left electronic footprints of her crime in her
12
laptop.
13
One of them was a copy of a web page that was
14
saved in her computer.
15
e-mail that the defendant had forwarded to herself.
16
and it was as if she
This analyst found a number of things.
That web page was that very
She found in the defendant's computer
17
typed in the victim,
18
address,
19
after she was fired from this
20
home were usernames and passwords -- a whole list
21
of Save-A-Life employees'
22
and passwords.
23
24
Carol Spizzirri's,
with her personal password.

job.
e-mail
Again,
days
Found in her
information -- usernames
We also know this because this defendant

admitted to those detectives what she did.
26
She
admitted to retaining passwords of those employees.
She admitted to looking at Ms.
account.
Spizzirri's e - mail
She admitted to forwarding one to herself.

This defendant is no different than your
common th i ef in the night,
except she used the
tools of her trade to commit this crime.
going to show you evidence that will prove that
she did not have authority to access
Ms.
Spizzirri's e-mail account,
We're
did not have
10
authority to forward that e-mail to herself;
11
when she forwarded it to herself and when she
12
changed the information in that e - mail,
13
actually altered data.
14
will find her guilty of computer tampering.
15
16
that she
And because of that,
you
Thank you.
THE COURT:
17
18
and
Ms.
Thank you,
Bonjean,
Ms.
Dasgupta.
do you wish to given an
opening statement?
19
MS.
20
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
do,
Your Honor.
You may.
21
OPENING STATEMENT
22
BY THE DEFENDANT:
23
MS.
24
gentlemen .
BONJEAN:
Thank you.
Good afternoon,
ladies and
I'd like again to introduce myself.
27
My name is Jennifer Bonjean,
Ms.
right of me.
Melongo,
and I
represent
who is my client that sits to the
You will be instructed that opening
statements are theories of what the lawyers intend
to pro v e at trial.
evidence.
get very zealous during opening statements about
what they think they're going to pro v e.
Theories.
They're not
And sometimes there are lawyers that
They have
10
high hopes of what the evidence will show.
11
turns out sometimes that they don't actually
12
deliver.
13
case here.
14
And it
And you are going to find that to be the
Now,
if you listened to the State's
15
opening statement,
they are telling you that eight
16
years ago -- back in May 1st of 2006 -- eight years
17
ago -- my client committed the act of computer
18
tampering when she accessed -- allegedly -- an
19
e-mail account of her former boss because she was
20
so disgruntled.
21
forwarded an e-mail to herself.
22
they ' re alleging.
23
full access to the boss'
24
she does to really sabotage and get at them is
And you know what she did?
She
That's what
This disgruntled employee has
28
e-mails.
And the things
forward an e-mail to herself.
make you wonder whether or not this analogy of a
burglar is going to hold up.
things.
you that my client stole things.
going to be a shred of evidence that you hear from
the witness stand that my client did anything
improper,
They cannot demonstrate by proof beyond a reasonable
Hum.
It should
A burglar steals
A thief steals things.
They're telling
There's not
including access anyone 's computer.
10
doubt -- and that's their burden,
11
gentlemen.
12
not underestimate computer tampering is a very
13
serious offense.
14
If they bring the case -- and let's
THE COURT:
15
Sustained.
ladies and gentlemen.
17
serious,
18
20
Sustained.
You are instructed to disregard that,
16
19
ladies and
An offense,
that's what we're going to resolve.

Please continue,
MS.
serious or not
BONJEAN:
Yes,
Ms.
Bonjean.
Your Honor.
Thank you.
The State is going to tell you here in
21
opening statement what they intend to prove,
and
22
they just did.
23
to deliver from the witness stand because
24
there's -- and I'm not going to get into all the
But they're not going to be able
29
evidence here in opening statements,
to point out a few things.
going to hear that July 6th,
client ' s
Ms.
allegations about the IT person that preceded
Ms.
You're going to hear that testimony.
was the IT administrator and had access --
laptop,
Spizzirri.
Melongo.
First of all,
based on allegations of
Ms.
Spizzirri made these same
She made allegations after this.
rightfully had access
11
things.
12
question about it .
13
Ms.
14
the exact person that preceded Ms.
15
he sabotaged her computers,
16
information,
17
said,
to passwords,
And she used her laptop.
My client
all of those
There's no
You are going to hear from
Spizzirri that she made an allegation against

Melongo -- that
that he destroyed
that he went into her off ice and
if you don't hire me permanently
18
MS.
19
THE COURT:
20
MS.
22
you are
they confiscated my
10
21
but I'm going
DASGUPTA:
BONJEAN:
Objection.
Overruled.
If you don ' t
hire me permanentl y ,
I'm going to sabotage your computer.

So apparently,
she's the most unlucky
23
employer in the world -- that she now has two IT
24
people that are j ust out to get her.
30
And you're
going to listen to her testimony,
gentlemen,
own reasons why she may have had a motive to make
allegations against my client.
that cannot be demonstrated.
ladies and
and you're going to come up with your
False allegations
You're also going to hear that while they
went in and took my client's laptop computer,
didn't they do.
image of the server that the e-mails might have
Well,
they didn't go get a mirror
10
gone through that was based in Colorado.
They
11
didn't do that.
12
to work on my terminology here.
13
subpoena the e-mail provider and get requested
14
logs and user activity.
15
what
They didn't -- sometimes
have
They didn't even
They didn't do that.
What they went to is her computer and her
16
computer alone and from this speculated and made
17
wild assumptions.
18
evidence -- hard evidence -- that they could have
19
gotten to show IP addresses -- things that would
20
actually be strong evidence that you might be
21
interested in hearing in deciding this case.
22
quite honestly,
23
entitled to the best evidence when you're passing
24
on something as serious as whether or not
And,
yet,
they have no
ladies and gentlemen,
31
And,
you're
someone
MS.
ZARKOS:
MS.
BONJEAN:
Objection.
-- is guilty or not guilty of
the crime of computer tampering.
to the best evidence.
THE COURT:
MS.
You're entitled
Overruled.
BONJEAN:
You're not entitled -- you
shouldn't have to make these grave determinations
based on speculation and based on assumptions and
10
based on,
11
i t might have happened that way or I
12
how that got there.
13
will not be provided with the best evidence.
14
oh,
Now,
it might have happened that way or

don't
know
And you will find that you
here's the thing,
ladies and
15
gentlemen.
16
State has to offer you,
17
a not guilty verdict against my client and this is
18
why.
Because they have to prove that she altered
19
data,
and they cannot prove that.
20
e-mail to yourself is not altering data.
21
not -- maybe -- I
22
clear.
23
We intend to establish that she is 100 percent
24
innocent of ever y charge that they've made.
Even if you believe everything that the

you're going to still return
Forwarding an
She did
want to make this perfectly
We are not stating that my client did that.
32
But
even if the State were right,
guilty of the crime o f
she didn ' t
e-mail to herself.
It might be something,
tampering.
computer tampering because
alter anything.
And I
she's still not
She forwarded an
That's not computer tampering.

but i t ' s not computer
want you to remember the words the
prosecutor used.
e-mails.
Listen;
She rummaged through the

listen from the witness stand
10
whether my client -- what their evidence is of my
11
client rummaging through any e-mails.
12
overreaching.
13
evidence from the witness stand,
14
a determination o f
15
big promise they just made to you.
16
confident that they cannot,
17
to;
18
unfortunately,
19
But I
This is
You will hear the testimony and the

and you will make
whether they delivered on this

Because we are
will not,
are unable
and that this will all have been,

a waste of our time.
appreciate your time and look
20
forward to listening to the evidence with you.
21
we're confident that you will have no trouble
22
returning a not guilty verdict at the close of
23
this case.
24
Thank you.
33
An d
THE COURT:
Thank you,
Ms.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Bonjean.
I'm going to give
you your lunch break now rather than start with
any State witnesses and have to interrupt them.
Your lunch should be here any moment,
THE SHERIFF:
THE COURT:
believe.
It's here.
At least one thing is going well.
I ' l l see you at about 1:45.
do want to admonish you not to discuss this case
10
with anyone until you've heard all the evidence,
11
the arguments and my instructions on the law and
12
begun your deliberations.
13
We'll see you about 1:45.
14
THE SHERIFF:
15
Before you leave,
Enjoy your lunch.
All rise.
(Whereupon,
16
17
presence of the
18
19
20
211
22
THE COURT:
Thank you,
jury.)
everybody.
You can be
seated.
A real quick point before we adjourn,
did take the liberty of engendering a
the objection because I
23
very serious crime,
24
punishment,
response to
thought that the phrase,
impended on the potential
which is not a proper subject for
34
the
jury,
pursuant to the law and,
instructions that will be given at the close of
this case.
4
5
the I PI
Anything else to discuss before we break

for
lunch?
MS.
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
No,
Your Honor.
See everybody at 1:45.
(Lunch break)
10
in fact,
THE COURT:
the
Anything we need to discuss before
jury comes out?
11
MS.
12
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
13
don't think so,
Bring the
(Whereupon,
Your Honor.
jury out.
14
15
presence of the
16
THE COURT:
17
jury.)
You can be seated everyone.
Call your first witness.
18
MS.
19
THE COURT:
DASGUPTA:
State calls Shahna Voita.
Please step up if you would,
Miss.
20
Raise your right hand and remain standing for the
21
moment.
22
(Wi tness duly sworn. )
23
THE CLERK:
You may be seated.
24
THE COURT:
Ms.
Gupta,
35
you may proceed.
SHAHNA VOITA,
called as a witness on behalf of the People of the
State of Illinois,
was examined and testified as follows:
having been first duly sworn,
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS.
DASGUPTA:
In a loud ,
clear voice,
can you state and
spell your first and last name.
Shahna Voita -- S-h-a-h-n-a,
10
Shahna,
11
In Minnesota .
12
What's your profession?
13
I work for Immigration and Customs
14
V-o-i-t-a.
where do you currently reside?
Enforcement as a staff assistant.
15
How long have you worked there?
16
Since 2007.
17
Prior to your current job,
18
work?
19
20
where did you
I worked for the Illinois Attorney
General's Office.
21
And is that here in Chicago?
22
Yes,
23
And what was your position at the
24
it is.
Illinois Attorney General's Office?
36
How long were you a
was a computer forensic analyst.

computer forensic
analyst there?
Since 2002.
What division did you work at?
High - Tech Crimes Bureau.
THE COURT:
I'm sorry,
you to keep your voice up.
good in this room.
Ms.
Voita.
You've got to project a little
bit more than you might ordinarily,
11
please.
THE WITNESS:
13
THE COURT:
14
15
16
17
Yes,
if you would,
sir.
Thank you.
I'm sorry,
BY MS.
ask
The acoustics are no
10
12
Can I
Ms.
Dasgupta.
Go ahead.
DASGUPTA:
You said you worked in the High-Tech
Crimes Bureau?
18
That's correct.
19
In what capacity did you work there?
20
As a
21
And you did that the entire time you were
22
computer forensic analyst.
there?
23
Yes.
24
Before that,
37
where did you work?
worked for the State of South Dakota
the governor's office in the Internet Crimes
Against Children Unit.
Directing your attention to approximately
June or July of 2006,
were you employed in the
High-Tech Crimes Bureau at the Illinois Attorney
General's Office?
What were your responsibilities there?
10
To seize computer evidence and analyze
11
that evidence.
12
13
was.
In that position,
did you receive any
special training?
14
15
And what type of training did you receive?
16
did.
attended several training seminars and
17
classes provided by industry,
18
FBI,
corporations,
the
the National White Collar Crimes Center.
19
What types of classes?
20
These were anywhere from basic computer
21
classes to more advanced computer forensic analysis
22
training.
23
24
In your career,
about how many computers
have you conducted forensic analyses on?
38
hundreds.
never kept track,
would say
say you did that?

A
From when I
South Dakota until
Office in Illinois.
And over what period of time would you
but
Again,
started with the State of

left the Attorney General's
during the -- directing your
attention back to that June,
July of 2006,
did you
10
have an opportunity to meet with detectives from
11
the Schiller Park Police Department?
12
13
Why did you meet with them?
14
15
did.
was asked to assist on a
case they were
investigating.
16
What was your assistance supposed to be?
17
To help serve their search warrant,
18
any computer-related evidence and perform a
19
analysis on that evidence that was seized.
seize
forensic
20
Was this search warrant executed at a
21
It was.
22
And do you recall approximately where
23
24
home?
that home was?

A
don't recall.
39
think it was
Palatine,
perhaps.
Here in Illinois?
Correct.
Do you recall -- did you go to that home?
Do you recall the month and year you went
did.
there?
Did you know whose home that was?
10
It was Annabel Melongo's.
11
Do you see that person here in court toda y?
12
13
Can you point to her and identify an
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
believe it was June of 2006.
do.
article of clothing that she is wearing?

A
She is sitting at that table over there
with a blue jacket on.

MS.
DASGUPTA:
May the record reflect an in-court
identification of the defendant?

THE COURT:
BY MS.
Q
So indicated.
DASGUPTA:
When you got to the scene,
did you meet
with -- were you there with the detectives?
23
I met them there,
24
Was one of the detectives a
40
yes.
Detective
Martin?
Yes,
When you got to the scene,
it was.
how many
computers were at this home?
I believe there were two .
Can you tell us what type of computers
they were?
A laptop and a desktop.
What were you asked to do -- or what d i d
10
11
you do with those computers?

A
seized those computers per the evidence
12
seizure rules that the Illinois High-Tech Crime
13
Bureau had established to bring back to our lab.
14
15
16
And can you describe what you did with
those computers?
A
Photographs were taken of the evidence as
17
it was found,
and then it was seized per our
18
policies.
19
not shut down.
20
the laptop,
21
and taken back to our office.
The computers were unplugged;
they were
And the batteries were pulled from
and then they were labeled as evidence
22
Did you take them back to the off ice?
23
Pi.
I did.
24
And were the computers with you from the
41
time you took them from the home until you got
back to your office?
Yes,
What did you with them when you got back
5
6
they were.
to your office?
A
They were checked in as evidence in this
case and placed in our evidence room.
Did you do that?
10
And how were they placed in the evidence
11
room?
12
I'm sorry;
13
In what condition were they placed there?
14
The condition that I
15
And how - -
16
17
did.
evidence room,
A
don't understand.
seized them in.
when they were placed in the
how were they secured?
They were secured under lock and key that
18
was only accessible to employees of the High-Tech
19
Crime Bureau.
20
21
At some point,
did you retrieve those
computers again?
22
23
Do you recall approximately how long after?
24
It was a
did.
few months after the seizure.
42
And in what condition were those computers
at that time when you retrieved them?
as when I
They appeared to be in the same condition

seized them.
Did you conduct a
forensic analysis on
both of these computers?
did.
And can you briefly describe how you did so?
Forensic analysis on any computer
10
electronic evidence,
11
write-blocked to prevent any changes to that
12
evidence.
13
used.
14
will prevent any changes to that evidence.
15
evidence is then d i gitally copied bit by bit onto
16
another hard drive or storage device.
17
perform the analysis on.
18
analysis on the original evidence;
19
a copy.
that evidence is first
believe in this case FastBloc was
It's a hardware write-blocking device that

The
And that we
We never perform the

i t ' s always on
20
And why is that?
21
To preserve the integrity of the evidence
22
that was seized.
23
MS.
24
THE COURT:
DASGUPTA:
May I
Yes.
43
approach the witness?
(People's Exhibit No.
marked for identification. )
2 was
BY MS.
DASGUPTA:
I'm showing you a copy of what I've
marked on this CD as People's Exhibit No.
you take a look at that?
2.
Can
Do you recall what that is?
7
8
analysis.
This is my case report from the forensic
10
When did you create that?
11
believe it was done in September.
It
12
would have been fairly shortly after the analysis
13
was done.
14
15
analysis?
16
I believe there's around 500.
17
And only you created it?
18
Correct.
19
Did you view this CD prior to coming to
20
Approximately how many pages is on this
court today?
21
I did.
22
And does it -- first of all,
is the CD in
23
the same or substantially the same condition as
24
when you created it?
44
It appears to be.
And the contents of it,
are the contents
the same as when you created it?
It appears that they are,
yes.
And do the contents truly and accurately
depict the information that you retrieved off of
the defendant's computer?
MS.
Yes.
DASGUPTA:
At this time,
10
that People's Exhibit No.
11
evidence.
12
THE COURT:
13
MS.
14
THE COURT:
No objection,
Your Honor.
It will be permitted.
(Peop le's Exhibit No.
16
17
2 be admitted into
Any objection?
BONJEAN:
15
I'm going to ask
2 was
admitted into evidence.)

THE COURT:
18
this from a
19
MS.
20
THE WITNESS:
21
evidence seized.
What computer was this from?
Was
laptop or from a desktop?
DASGUPTA:
22
THE COURT:
23
MS.
24
THE COURT:
believe they're from both.
Yes.
DASGUPTA:
It was from all the
beg your pardon.

Can I
Yes.
45
have one moment?
(People's Exhibit Nos.
D were
marked for identification.)
2A -
MS.
At this time I'd like to ask
DASGUPTA:
this witness to review People's exhibits that I've
marked 2A through D.
forensic report that I
also like to have them published to the jury --
prior to the discussion that was previously had,
did tender these to counsel prior.
10
THE COURT:
They are pages from her

just admitted.
would
When you say -- just for my
11
edification,
12
placed on the monitor that the
13
within their purview rather than passed around
14
amongst each other?
15
16
MS.
when you say,
DASGUPTA:
Yes.
published,
you mean
jury would have
And I
would ask the
witness be able to testify using the evidence.
17
THE COURT:
18
MS.
19
THE COURT:
20
MS.
BONJEAN:
BONJEAN:
Anything objection?
No,
Your Honor.
It will be permitted.
Your Honor,
do have one
21
objection that perhaps we can address at sidebar
22
quickly.
23
THE COURT:
Sure.
24
46
We will address it sidebar.
(Whereupon,
a sidebar was had
outside the presence of the jury. )

MS.
BONJEAN:
Your Honor,
don't have an
objection to her identifying that this was
something she took off the computer for
use -- if they're using it substantively,
still out of court statements offered for the
truth of the matter asserted.
they're going to use this to say that this shows

that -- I
11
material substantively.
12
to its chain of custody grounds.
14
it's
For example,
10
13
-- to
if
have a hearsay objection to using this
THE COURT:
don't have an objection
When you say,
this,
what you're
referring to is People's Exhibit No.
15
MS.
16
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
Yes,
yes,
2A?
I'm sorry.
Which purports to be a copy of
17
what looks like listed e-mails and then an
18
inbox -- I
19
i t ' s like an inbox,
suppose it is an inbox.
20
MS.
BONJEAN:
21
MS.
ZARKOS:
22
Your Honor,
Looks like
correct?
Yes.
It's a folder within a computer,
yes.
23
THE COURT:
24
that it lists,
How is it hearsay in the sense

sender and subject,
47
date and time
sent?
pardon
time.
listing of things rather than something that is
communicated,
That's my question.
MS.
It seems to be a computer.
date and time -- a date,
such as
BONJEAN:
rather than a
But it just seems to be a
apologize.
beg your
how is it hearsay?
If it's being used on -- it
depends how they're trying to use the evidence in
terms of show this,
show -- that substantively
10
this means that Carol Spizzirri -- an e-mail from
11
Carol Spizzirri was sent to Annabel Melongo.
12
MS.
DASGUPTA:
Judge,
I would like the witness
13
to testify of the things in here,
but I'm not
14
having her testify because she doesn't know who
15
sent this
(inaudible).
16
THE COURT REPORTER:
17
MS.
DASGUPTA:
I can't hear you.
I'm not having the witness
18
testify that one person sent something to another.
19
I'm having the witness testify as to what she
20
found and point out those things.
21
jury to decide where they ...
22
MS.
BONJEAN:
Okay.
And I
It's for the
also point out that
23
this copy was printed on July 29th,
24
assume they're going to ask her if it's -- I mean,
48
2014.
this is not the -- this isn't what she looked at,
obviously -- this piece of paper originally.
MS.
DASGUPTA:
These are just copies.
I 'm
going to point it out it ' s not what was on the
actual.
MS.
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
Okay,
I
f i ne.
would suppose that your -- I
would suppose that the item of evidence could be
amenable to a number of interpretations or a
10
number of uses .
11
somehow,
12
this,
13
wouldn't be hearsay.
14
point where the State sought to use this for a
15
hearsay purpose,
16
at that point.
17
It could be usable as a
showing that somebody supposedly accessed
which is part of the res gestae,
MS.
record
BONJEAN:
and this
suppose if there came a
you could object and then cr o ss
This purports to be an e-mail
18
that was sent from her -- taken from her sent
19
e-mail;
20
MS.
DASGUPTA:
21
MS.
BONJEAN:
is that right?
It was in her sent box.
In Annabel's sent box.
22
she's going to testify that she found it
23
this?
24
MS.
ZARKOS:
Yes.
49
And
just like
MS.
DASGUPTA:
MS.
BONJEAN:
THE COURT:
In one of her folders.

Okay.
Just so we're clear,
we're talking
about People's Exhibit 2B,
Court -- or given to the Court yesterday or shown
to the Court yesterday.
this is the physical manifestation of the alleged
offense ,
MS.
ZARKOS:
THE COURT:
11
MS.
What did you want to say about -No,
that's fine.
(Sidebar concluded.)
THE COURT:
14
Ms.
Dasgupta,
go ahead.
Everybody's monitor works,
15
you wish to mov e,
16
does work;
17
am I
Go ahead,
MS.
DASGUPTA:
witness step down?
20
THE COURT:
21
you may,
but
correct?
If
e v erybody's monitor
correct?
19
Ms.
Dasgupta.
Thank you.
May I
have the
Absolutely.
And as the witness is stepping down,
22
there anybody on the
23
monitor?
24
but
Correct.
BONJEAN:
12
18
Tell me if I'm wrong,
correct?
10
13
which is sent to the
jury who cannot see the
Raise your hand.

(Jurors'
50
hands were raised.)
is
You cannot see it?
THE COURT:
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR:
can see it;
can't
read it.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR:
It's not close enough to
read.
( Brief pause .)
THE COURT:
We're all set.
Go ahead,
MS.
DASGUPTA:
Ms.
Dasgupta.
I'm showing the witness what
10
have marked as
11
the computer screen.
12
BY MS.
People's Exhibit 2A.
It is now on
DASGUPTA:
13
Shahna,
14
Yes.
15
And what do you recognize it to be?
16
It appears to be a document list of e-mail.
17
Did you find this -- what exactly is what
18
19
the
do you recognize what this is?
jury is seeing?
A
This is a list of e-mails that is in the
20
personal folder,
21
That's what this indicates.
22
23
24
which is located right here.
Let me stop you right there.
Where was
this found?
A
believe it was on the defendant's
51
3
4
laptop.
Q
her laptop?
A
MS.
9
10
It was in the temporary Internet files
folder.
And do you recall where you found it on
BY MS.
Q
And can you explain why it would be there?

BONJEAN:
Can you explain how things are put into a
temporary Internet file?

MS.
12
THE COURT:
14
Your Honor.
DASGUPTA:
11
13
Objection,
BONJEAN:
Objection,
Your Honor;
speculative .
That will be overruled.
BY THE WITNESS:
A
Web pages are placed in the temporary
15
I nt ernet file folder as a courtesy to the user o f
16
an Internet browser.
17
for instance,
18
convenience,
19
a temporary Internet file folder.
20
them again,
21
BY MS.
22
23
24
or Firefox,
Safari,
for the user's
web pages that you visit are saved in

So if you use
they will load faster.
DASGUPTA:
Now,
the entirety of what you found is
not on this screen;

A
When you use Internet Explorer,
is that right?
It doesn't appear it is,
52
no.
Is this zoomed in?
Yes.
I'm going to scroll to the top of this
file.
whose e-mail does this purport to show to be,
this -- understanding that you don't
actually the owner is?
If you could point,
MS.
THE COURT:
10
BONJEAN:
where does this
Objection,
know who
Your Honor.
I'm going to sustain it.
Put the question again,
Ms.
Dasgupta.
11
wasn't clear what you were seeking to elicit.
12
BY MS.
13
14
15
16
Whose e-mail does this purport -- whose
e-mail account does this purport to be from?

MS.
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
Your Honor,
the objection --
DASGUPTA:
18
THE COURT:
19
MS.
Just based on this --
BONJEAN:
That question I
Your Honor,
got.
if she's
Go ahead.
just asking
20
the witness to read what -- the name on it,
21
fine.
22
anybody could take an e-mail
24
DASGUPTA:
17
23
just
that's
But this witness can't say whose e-mail --
THE COURT:
Overruled.
You can cross on that when you get it.
53
MS.
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
3
question.
BY THE WITNESS:
Melongo Annabel.
BY MS.
Voita.
Please answer that
DASGUPTA:
Scrolling down,
10
this before,
11
list o f
12
Ms.
The e-mail address appears to be
When i t ' s that time.
Go ahead,
Very good.
you may ha v e mentioned
what folder does this -- do these
e-mails purport to be from?

In the personal folder.
And if you
13
scroll down again,
14
folders and then there's a personal folder.
15
there's a
folder here.
So i t ' s
Directing your attention to the first
two
16
e-mails that it lists,
can you point to the first
17
one and,
tell them where that e-mail
18
purports to be sent from.
19
20
for the jury,
The first e-mail under the sender column
appears to be from a CSpizz irri@SALF. org.
21
And the subject line?
22
The subject line is,
forward,
RE,
quick
23
update from John Reid -- I'm not sure how to
24
pronounce it.
54
And the date?
The date is Monday,
Can you do the same for the second?
The second e-mail was sent from the
e-mail address,
was,
Monday,
8
9
10
forward,
CSpizzirri@SALF.org.
RE,
May 1st ,
May 1st,
downed system.
2006.
The subject
And the date is
2006.
How are date stamps put on a
list of
e-mails such as this?

A
This listed e-mail,
the date here would
11
have been the date that i t was sent from an e-mail
12
address.
13
by your computer system.
14
It's stamped when you send that e-mail
The second exhibit,
15
Exhibit 2B,
16
exhibit purports to be?
17
which is People's
can you tell us what this second
This appears to be an e-mail.
I'm not
18
sure what folder i t ' s in.
19
shows it.
20
Where was this found?
21
This was
22
And was i t similar to the last exhibit
23
24
don't
know if that
found on the defendant's
was i t found where the last exhibit was
Yes.
55
laptop.
found?
Can you explain that again?
It as found in the temporary Internet
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
file
folder on the laptop.

Q
And,
again ,
who does this e-mail -- whose
e-mail account does this purport to be?

A
The e-mail account again appears to be
Melongo Annabel.
Q
What date does this e-mail purport to
have been sent?

A
May 1st,
This e-mail shows a date here of Monday,

2006.
12
And who does it purport to be from?
13
It shows on the "from" line,
14
Annabel,
as the name;
15
is Melongo Annabel@yahoo.com.
Melongo,
and then the e-mail address
16
And who does it purport to be sent to?
17
It is sent to an SGholar@SALF.org,
18
DNeal@SALF.org,
19
RBarnes@SALF.org,
20
and BrianSalerno@True-Consult.com.
21
22
23
24
Where,
DStolerow@SALF . org,
VDavis@SALF.org,
if at all,
Staff@SALF.org
on this e-mail does it
show if it was sent to a CSpizzirri@SALF.org?

A
It does not appear it was sent to that
e-mail address.
56
Moving to the lower portion under -- the
lower portion of the e-mail,
e-mail within the first?
is there another
It appears there is another e-mail here
at the bottom.
When,
When you forward or respond to an e-mail,
typically ,
would that happen?
typically,
the body of the e-mail you're sending.
10
it will paste the original e-mail in
In the three lines above the message,
is
11
there anything t hat appears to be unusual about
12
that -- those three lines?
13
14
15
16
17
MS.
BONJEAN:
Overruled.
THE COURT:
BY THE WITNESS:
A
What's unusual is the brief header
information.
19
the top.
20
Typically,
It does not match the top -- you see
It says,
21
MS.
22
Your Honor.
24
Your
Honor -- unusual.
18
23
Objection to that question,
date,
from,
in my experience,
BONJEAN:
THE COURT:
subject,
to.
this is the default
Objection to her experience,
Overruled.
You can cross-examine on that.
57
1
2
Go ahead,
Ms.
Voita.
BY THE WITNESS:
The date ,
from,
subject,
the default brief header format.
from,
to .
top here .
sent,
subject.
There's a
MS.
THE COURT:
10
BY MS.
11
12
14
"sent:",
DASGUPTA:
Can I
Here it shows,
no date,
there's no
which you don't see in the
have one moment?
Yes.
DASGUPTA:
Is this typically what you would see when
a message is
13
There 1 s
to typically is
forwarded?
This appears to not be the typical brief
header,
no -- this portion at the bottom here.
15
What about the top portion?
16
The top portion seems more typical.
17
Would you say that this e-mail has been
18
altered?
19
20
MS.
a
THE COURT:
BY MS.
23
24
Objection,
Your Honor.
-- going to an ultimate fact
21
22
BONJEAN:
Q
2D.
That's
in the case.
Sustained.
DASGUPTA:
I'm going to move on to Exhibit 2C and
Shahna ,
do you recognize these two pages --
58
page 13 and page 14?

They're very hard to read,
though.
Yes.
Were these from your report as well?
They appear to be ,
I want to start with the bottom of
yes.
page 13.
It continues on to 14,
with 13.
And I ' l l zoom in .
No.
you explain what that entry is?
10
23,
but I ' l l start
I ' l l start with
which is the bottom of the top page.
Next to No.
Can
23 is the case number that
11
the case was given.
12
number given to the laptop hard drive.
13
drive is what HOD stands for.
14
drive
15
drive .
16
on the C drive ,
17
for documents and settings on the computer.
18
Intermediary data registry,
19
dollar sign is part of the registry information.
20
Software is another folder.
21
Microsoft.
22
typed URLs.
23
24
Laptop HDDOOl is the evidence
the first partition,
"C:"
is the C
typically,
Documents and settings,
Hard disk
on a hard
if you look over
administrator is the user account
the key here with the
Under that is
Then Internet Explorer.

And this is URL No.
I'm going to point out,
does that mean?
59
And then
17.
typed URLs .
What
Typed URLs is a
folder where any -- URL
is the Uniform Resource Locator.
page for an address on the web.
www.CNN.com,
type it i nto the address bar at the top of your
computer will save that address for you for
reference for ease of use.
well?
10
11
Q
page 14,
14
Typed URLs,
later
the URL 17.
Can you explain,
going to the top of
starting with the,
http,
what that is?
This information at the top here next to
No.
16
This is
17
information was found.
18
put in the forensic report.
19
http://mail.SALF.org,
20
that was typed into this browser.
22
when you
The computer operating system assigns
15
21
You type in,
Do URLs have numbers assigned to them as
that number - -
12
13
that's a URL.
It is the web
23 is not information found on the laptop.
just the file
account where the

This is my comment that
And below that,
is the URL o r
For clarification,
the
the web page
do you know what SALF
stands for?
23
24
Moving on to No.
believe i t ' s Save-A -L ife Foundation.
60
24,
can you explain what
1
2
this entry means?

Number 24 is -- once again,
this is the
case number that was assigned to the case.
under the administrator account.
infor mation .
Microsoft,
there's protected storage system
provider.
This long string of numbers is just an
identifying number for that user account.
another identifying number for the user account.
Unde r
It was
There's registr y
the folder software,
10
And then under that is the website
11
www.SALF.org/2095/webmail.
under
Data,
12
And then can you explain the next porti on?
13
The next portion down here,
14
again,
15
user name and password.
16
that was actually on the computer.
17
Carol@SALF.org:Hermann.
18
19
20
21
22
this is,
once
just my comment where it says appears to be
Specifically,
This is the information
the,
It says
":Herman",
typically
what does the colon signify?

A
The colon signifies a break in the
information.
Q
And in your experience,
23
e-mail address and then colon,
24
that indicate to you?
61
when you see an
word,
what does
2
3
It appears to me that that's the password
for that e-mail account.

The second portion of it that's after the
Q
colon?
After the colon,
Now,
correct.
you may have explained this.
http/staffmail.SALF.org
that the user of the computer is typing?
10
Correct,
(sic),
that's something
because it was found in the
typed URLs folder.
11
12
password?
13
What about the e-mail address and the
Because i t ' s in the Microsoft protected
14
storage system provider,
15
Microsoft -- the operating system
16
user information for your user ID and your
17
password for different accounts.
18
like the password vault that Microsoft has
19
The
20
at No.
21
to be?
I
18,
this filepath is where

stores your
This is kind of
want to go back up to page 13.
set up .
Starting
can you explain what this entry purports
22
Number 18?
23
Yes.
24
Once again,
62
it is the case number;
the
name that was given to the evidence -- Hard
Drive 1;
where information is stored by the operating
system administrator -- the user account;
registry information.
to the end,
8
9
10
11
12
the C drive documents and settings folder
the
And all the way back down
typed URLs -- URL 19.
What was the typed -- was there a typed
URL in this registry?
Yes.
The typed URL was
ftp://70.142.251.
242/document.
Q
At the time you investigated this,
do you
know what those numbers -- is that an IP address?
13
It is an IP address.
14
And do you know what those numbers
15
related to?
16
17
MS.
This IP address,
BONJEAN:
Objection,
believe,
belonged --
Your Honor.
That's
18
hearsay -- she believes an IP address -- an IP
19
address belongs to somebody.
20
21
THE COURT:
Overruled.
BY THE WITNESS:
22
23
MS.
24
THE COURT:
was told at the time --
BONJEAN:
Objection;
Sustained.
63
she was told,
Your Honor .
BY MS.
DASGUPTA:
MS.
objection.
5
6
7
8
Were you familiar with this IP address?

BONJEAN:
THE COURT:
BY MS.
Objection,
Your Honor.
Overruled.
DASGUPTA:
Were you familiar with this
IP address
when you did this investigation?
Yes.
10
How were you familiar with it?
11
12
MS.
was told --
BONJEAN:
13
told.
14
matter asserted,
15
16
Same
Objection,
Your Honor;
was
It's being offered for the truth of the
THE COURT:
and therefore,
is rank hearsay.
Why don't we take the
jury out.
We'll have a brief discussion.
17
See you in about five or ten minutes,
18
(Whereupon,
folks.
19
20
presence of the
21
THE COURT:
jury.)
The record will reflect that the
22
jur y is out of the courtroom.
23
because I
24
the URL -- the witness is referencing in the
I'm walking over
want to see what you all might say about
64
bottom of No.
MS.
THE COURT:
18.
ZARKOS:
Right.
How is it not hearsay if she's
going to talk about what she was told?
MS.
URL in ,
MS.
witness,
DASGUPTA:
if I'm not mistaken,
BONJEAN:
MS.
11
THE COURT:
13
She's just not coaching the
DASGUPTA:
That was my understanding.
Your objection is i t ' s hearsay.
First of all,
MS.
and it went to the
Your Honor --
10
12
At that time she had typed that
DASGUPTA:
tell me what the URL is.
This goes to Save-A-Life.org
14
or it did at the time when it was -- that was
15
assigned at the time to Save-A-Life.org.
16
THE COURT:
17
MS.
How would somebody know that ?
DASGUPTA:
If she they typed it in,
18
would go to that.
19
you could type that in --
20
21
22
23
24
MS.
ZARKOS:
Instead of typing,
Th e URL,
it
www.SALF.org,
and it would go to
Save-A-Life.
THE COURT :
How would this witness know that in
order to testify?
MS.
DASGUPTA:
It's my understanding that
65
that 1 s what she had done.
do it,
THE COURT:
Ask her some questions.
consider it a proffer.
ask her the questions.
BY MS.
8
9
10
11
12
if she didn't
we can ask her.
I mean,
We'll
She's still under oath;
DASGUPTA:
At the time that you investigated this,
did you type in those numbers?
No,
did not type in those numbers in
the website -- or into a browser,

THE COURT:
no.
You indicated that you were told
something about those numbers?
13
THE WITNESS:
14
THE COURT:
15
THE WITNESS:
Right.
Who told you something?
I believe,
if I
recall correctly,
16
the lead detective knew that that belonged to
17
Save-A-Life.
18
THE COURT:
19
THE WITNESS:
And you typed it in;

No,
20
where it belonged.
21
THE COURT:
22
23
24
is that correct?
I never typed it in to see
How did you access it or how did
you find it?

THE WITNESS:
It was on the laptop.
record on the laptop.
66
It was a
3
4
THE COURT:
Is somebody going to testify that
that's SALF?
MS.
BONJEAN:
The detective can't testify to
that.
THE COURT:
didn't ask if he was going to;
asked if some one was going to.
to testify that that goes to Save-A-Life?
MS.
THE COURT:
DASGUPTA:
Is someone going
don't believe --
Is there some way that someone can
10
testify that it does go to Save-A-Life,
11
of whether they were told that?
12
MS.
ZARKOS:
When the -- I
regardless
believe the expert
13
can testify that that URL that ' s
14
you type it in,
15
detective can testify to that because he typed it
16
in or he saw it as part of his investigation.
17
THE COURT:
18
MS.
19
THE COURT:
20
MS.
21
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
ZARKOS:
listed there,
it belonged to Save-A-Life.
if
The
He's going to testify to that?

I ' l l have him testify to that.
You believe he'll testify to that?
I
bel i eve he will,
yes.
I'm going to overrule the
22
objection.
23
because I
24
truth of the matter asserted that someone told her
I'm going to overrule the objection

don't believe that i t ' s offered for the
67
that was a Save-A-Life URL.

2
MS.
THE COURT:
It's offered for --
It's an IP address.
BONJEAN:
My ignorance is revealed yet
again.
in my estimation because i t ' s not being offered
for the truth of the matter asserted
say that i t ' s SALF IP address -- but to explain
why it is that she continued her investigation.
But my point is is that i t ' s not hearsay
that is to
So your objection is overruled.
10
MS.
11
objection.
12
than to say that this belongs to Save-A-Life and
13
she did not -- she has no personal knowledge of
14
that.
15
Detective Martin,
16
to testify that he had either the qualifications
17
or the expertise to determine whether or not --
18
where this IP address goes to and that he actually
19
did.
20
here in order to determine what his testimony
21
would be regarding this IP address.
22
are offering it to show that it went to Save-A-Life.
23
24
they're saying --
BONJEAN:
Your Honor,
I maintain my
There is no other proper purpose other
She's getting that information from a
I mean,
who we don't even know is going
believe we would have to have him
I mean,
they
can't think of anything more substantive than
68
MS.
We're
In belongs to Save-A-Life.
ZARKOS:
just saying it belongs -- that was the IP address
for Save-A-Life.
51
6
MS.
And i t ' s associated with an
BONJEAN:
entry that was done by this witness.

MS.
ZARKOS:
We're not saying anything about
entries.
belonged to the Save-A-Life Foundation.
91
saying anything
We're merely stating that this URL
10
MS.
11
THE COURT:
12
MS.
I'm not
That's not --
BONJEAN:
One at a time.
ZARKOS:
We're not saying that anybody
13
sent anything -- that anything was sent.
141
saying that this was the URL for the Save-A-Life
15
Foundation at that time.
16
MS.
BONJEAN:
And I
We're
guess i t ' s irrelevant.
17
mean,
18
i t ' s not -- if they're not offering it to -- I
19
don't understand what the purpose would be in
20
offering it then.
21
221
23
241
then i t ' s a relevance argument.
MS.
ZARKOS:
Well,
Part of our overall case;
if
its
relevance will be revealed.

MS.
BONJEAN:
believe you have to meet
relevance standard at this
69
juncture before you can
admit evidence.
MS.
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
don't believe --
What does it prove?
What does it
show?
MS.
ZARKOS:
It shows that this is the
Save-A-Life URL Foundation and that's what she saw
on her computer -- the URL for Save-A-Life
Foundation was on her computer.

THE COURT:
10
That's it.
Isn't that what was already on the
computer at the other entry?
11
MS.
12
that are --
13
MS.
14
THE COURT:
15
MS.
16
DASGUPTA:
ZARKOS:
Judge,
If you go -One at a
ZARKOS:
there are other things
time.
apologize,
Right now,
right now
Corne on.
Your Honor.
that's what it shows.
17
goes forward,
18
now,
19
belonged to Save-A-Life Foundation.
20
we're going to show more.
But right
all we're saying is that this is the URL that
MS.
BONJEAN:
Your Honor,
don't
they intend to show,
22
not to have to continue to ask for a
23
regarding this.
THE COURT:
but I
21
24
If she
know what
would certainly prefer

sidebar
So if we could resolve.
How is it not hearsay?
70
1
2
MS.
That the URL belongs to the
Save-A-Life Foundation?
3
4
ZARKOS:
Yes.
THE COURT:
She's testifying that someone
told her that's Save-A-Life's IP address or URL.
MS.
DASGUPTA:
Judge,
in the course of this
investigation when she was looking in the defendant's
computer,
go for a
get.
she put in search terms;
she didn't
just
fishing expedition to see what she could
She put in search terms.
She can explain
10
those search terms and why those things popped up,
11
why these are the specific things that she put in
12
her report.
13
MS.
BONJEAN:
Again,
don't know if I'm making a
14
relevance objection or a hearsay objection because
15
16
show.
17
still don't
MS.
know what this is being offered to
DASGUPTA:
Judge,
part of this case is
18
circumstantial and we believe that this probative
19
information.
20
you're going to talk about the relevancy of it.
21
There's more to this than -- obviously just stopped
22
at the IP address.
23
THE COURT:
24
We believe that it should be -- if
There are more things that are .
Correct me if I'm wrong,
but I'm
getting the sense that you're offering i t to prove
71
that on Ms.
address?
3
4
Melongo's computer was the URL or IP
Are those the same things -- URL and IP

address?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Yes,
So therefore,
Ms.
access that URL or IPA,
10
sir.
in your estimation,
Melongo must have utilized this computer to
MS.
DASGUPTA:
correct?
Right .
It's already been
established that --
11
THE COURT:
12
MS.
13
though,
14
the number version.
Which is what -- go ahead.
DASGUPTA:
It's already been established,
that she'd gone to SALF.org.
15
MS.
ZARKOS:
16
MS.
BONJEAN:
In the e-mail,
But,
This is
it says,
Your Honor,
just
SALF. org.
that's
17
actually -- the e-mail is not -- an e-mail is not
18
evidence that the -- the IP address is something
19
very different.
20
say -- can corroborate that -- that the IP address
21
actually gives an identifying actual address and
22
where something is located,
23
computer is.
24
purports to say something,
And I'm sure this expert can
a server -- or where a
Whereas an e-mail address,
72
but it doesn ' t
you know,
necessarily -- there could be any number o f
explanations.
But an IP address is something kind
of different.
And I
see the two as the same.
6
7
MS.
DASGUPTF.:
this computer,
MS.
don't
Well,
know exactly --
the e-mail was
don't
f ound in
just as this was.
BONJEAN:
And I
had a hearsay objection t o
that as well.
And if i t ' s being offered
substantively,
will maintain my hearsay
10
objection.
11
of fered here substantively in that we want the
12
jury to believe that this IP address belongs to
13
Save-A-Life because circumstantially it then shows
14
my client accessed Save-A-Life,
15
But nonetheless ,
16
jury,
17
matter asserted.
18
You know,
19
to actually testify to this.
20
called anybody.
21
22
Anything that's being purported to be
which is debatable.
what they intend to argue to the
that's being offered for the truth of the

There's no other way around it.
i t ' s very easy to get an expert in here
THE COURT:
Ms.
Vo ita,
They could have
s omebody told you that
that was Save-A - Life's IPA or URL,
23
THE WITNESS:
24
THE COURT:
Yes,
correct?
believe so.
Did anything you did after someone
73
told you that confi r m to you that that was
Save-A-Life's IPA or URL?
4
5
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
believe that I
ever ver i fied
Objection sustained.
Let's bring the

THE SHERIFF:
Al l
jury out.
rise.
(Whereupon,
10
11
don ' t
that that belonged to Save-A-Life.
6
7
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT:
Ms.
12
your examination.
13
BY MS.
14
15
MS.
Dasgupta,
you can conti nue
DASGUPTA:
I
want to stay with this Entry No.
DASGUPTA:
16
back-tracking a
17
BY MS.
apologize,
Judge;
18.
I'm
little bit.
DASGUPTA:
18
But can you explain what an IP address is?
19
An IP address is an Internet protocol
20
address.
Every website -- everything that connects
21
to the
22
guess the best analogy I
23
number.
24
CNN.com.
Internet i s
given an identifying number.

can think of is a phone
When you visit a website,
you type in,
That's the easy way for the user to
74
remember because CNN.corn's actual
IP or Internet
protocol address or uniform resource locater is
not CNN.com;
once again,
it to CNN.com.
for the ease for the user,
For No.
Yes.
And before the IP address,
But for,
it is a string of numbers.
three letters.
18,
they shorten
do you see an IP address?
there are
Can you point those out?
10
FTP.
11
Can you explain what FTP is?
12
FTP stands for file transfer protocol.
13
What does that mean?
14
File transfer protocol enables a user of
15
a computer to transfer files
16
another.
from one computer to
17
Do those computers have to be connected?
18
No.
19
Does a
20
file transfer protocol allow for
remote access to another computer?
21
Yes .
22
And what types of things could you access
23
24
with a
A
file transfer protocol?

Files on another remote computer.
75
Going down to Entry No.
19,
is that a
similar entry?
Yes.
And is that the same IP address as Entry
No.
18?
Yes,
And is that also a
it is.
file transfer protocol
entry?
Yes,
10
When you find this in a
11
12
it is.
again,
what does that purport to show?

A
To me that indicates that the user is
13
trying to initiate a
14
computer is located at that
15
computer,
file transfer for whatever

IP address.
And you look at Entry No.
18,
which is
16
just at the very top,
17
what's the difference between one where there's a
18
"/document" and where there's nothing?
19
and compare it to Entry 19,
The only difference is the top one has
20
"/documents" and the bottom one - -
21
entry does not have documents.
the bottom
22
What does it mean when it has a
23
Forward slash indicates that you're going
24
to another folder within that location.
76
"/document"?
MS.
BONJEAN:
Objection,
Your Honor.
At this
point,
know what this has to do with the charges.
5
6
7
8
am going to object on relevance?
THE COURT:
BY MS.
Q
Overruled.
don't
Overruled.
DASGUPTA:
Going down to Entry No.
21,
can you explain
what this entry is?

A
number,
Number 21,
once again,
is the case
the evidence label given to the evidence,
10
documents and settings,
11
account or of the computer,
12
typed URL.
13
14
administrator of the
registry information,
This is URL 23.
And the bottom of that entry,
can you
explain what that is?
15
The typed URL is http://www.gotomypc.com.
16
Are you aware of what "Go to My PC"
17
Yes.
18
And what is that?
19
"Go To My PC"
is a
commercially-available
20
software what allows remote access to other
21
computers.
22
23
24
Does this allow full
access to another
computer that i t ' s connected to?

A
It can.
77
is?
Does it have to be physically connected?
No.
MS.
THE COURT:
MS.
BY MS.
DASGUPTA:
have one moment?
Yes.
DASGUPTA:
have a
May I
The witness could have a
few additional questions.
DASGUPTA:
When a computer is turned on,
When a computer is turned on,
11
hundreds of files that are altered,
12
timestamps are changed.
13
16
THE COURT:
19
20
BY MS.
23
24
BONJEAN:
Objection,
Your Honor.
Ove rruled.
BY THE WITNESS:
18
22
dates and
how is the e-mail account changed?

MS.
21
there are
When somebody accesses an e - mail account,
15
17
how is the
computer altered or changed?
10
14
seat.
What do you mean by'
access?
I'm sorry;
don't understand your question.
DASGUPTA:
Somebody logs into an e-mail account.
anything changed about the computer?

A
To clarify,
an e-mail account that's
located on the computer or,
78
like ,
a web-based
Is
e-mail?
There are differences in what's changed.

If you remotely access a computer,
if at all,
MS.
is that computer changed?
BONJEAN:
Objection,
Your Honor.
going to ultimate facts and i t' s
questions are very vague.
certainly don ' t
9
10
THE COURT:
BY MS.
how,
This is
also -- the
don't
know that
understand what's be i ng asked.

Overruled.
DASGUPTA:
If you access somebody's e-mail -- an
11
e-mail account -- can you describe at least a
12
ways,
if at all,
13
MS.
14
THE COURT:
15
MS.
16
17
few
that that computer is changed.
BONJEAN:
Objection;
hypothetical --
Overruled.
BONJEAN:
-- substantive.
BY THE WITNESS:
A
Just accessing an e-mail account,
18
there are settings for last log-on time.
19
BY MS.
typicall y
DASGUPTA:
20
That's one way i t ' s changed?
21
That ' s
22
When you send an e-mail from your account
one way i t ' s changed.
23
to another person,
to another e-mail account,
24
is th at e-mail changed?
79
how
Which e-mail -- the receiver or mine?
From the time you send it until the time
3
4
somebody gets it.

A
If I
log into my e-mail and I
e-mail to another e-mail account,
default settings is that a
my sent folder in my e-mail.
MS.
DASGUPTA:
THE COURT:
10
MS.
11
THE COURT:
12
13
May I
typically,
the
copy would be placed in
have a moment?
Yes.
DASGUPTA:
have no other questions.
Thank you.
Cross-examination?
MS.
BONJEAN:
Yes.
14
CROSS-EXAMINATION
15
BY MS.
16
send an
BONJEAN:
I'm sorry.
but I
Could you -- I
17
maiden name,
18
remember what your married name is.
19
Voita.
20
Ms.
don't
Voita,
know your
know your -- don't
you testified to all these
21
entries here,
22
I'm not sure that I
23
everything.
24
didn't mention any dates.
some information about them.
And
completely understand
But one thing I
80
do know is that you
You have no idea when
this occurred,
correct?
According to this report,
You have no independent recollection,
no,
do not.
you
have no basis to know when this occurred,
correct
any of these entries that we've previously heard
about today?
The entries
The entries that you testified to based
just in the forensics
on the State's examination.
report?
You didn't testify
10
about any times that an IPA may have been accessed
11
or anything of that nature,
12
Correct.
13
And,
in fact,
correct?
you were aware that
14
Ms.
Melongo was the IT administrator for the
15
Save-A-Life Foundation,
16
Correct.
17
Right.
Now,
correct?
also never heard any
18
testimony from you for which you could say that my
19
client accessed Carol Spizzirri's e-mail account,
20
right?
21
Correct.
22
You can't come in here and testify to that;
23
24
isn't that right?

A
That's right,
81
ma'am.
Now,
I want -- now,
you testified that it
appeared as if this e - mail was a forward,
this e-mail right here?
THE COURT:
MS.
BY MS.
10
Correct.
You're talking about 2A,
the record is clear,
BONJEAN:
just so
correct ?
Yes.
BONJEAN:
There's nothing that says forward,
though,
right?
11
Correct.
12
In fact,
13
right
oftentimes,
an e-mail says,
forwarded e-mail?
14
Correct.
15
Or FWD,
16
Correct.
17
That's completely absent from this?
18
Correct.
19
And,
right?
in fact,
it's equally plausible or
20
not
21
Carol Spizzirri,
22
this part and put it in a e - mail and sent it off
23
to these people;
24
if my client had received an e-mail from
she could have copied and pasted
isn't that right?
That's right.
82
So there's nothing from this that
suggests that it was actually forwarded.
know.
it says,
experience.
In fact,
We don't
usually when you forward e-mails,
forwarded e-mail.
At least that's my
Don't you find that to be the case?
That's typical,
And you have no independent knowledge,
you,
client;
correct.
do
that Carol Spizzirri didn't send e-mail to my

isn't that right?
10
I have no independent knowledge,
11
And you have no reason to know whether
yes.
12
maybe somebody else sent an e-mail to Carol
13
Spizzirri's account to my client;
isn't that right?
14
That's correct.
15
It could have been the new IT
16
a dm in is tr at or ,
is n ' t
that right ,
17
sent an e-mail to my client?
that could have
18
Anyone could have sent that e-mail to her.
19
And this purports to be my client's
20
e-mail address,
21
you don't know that that's really her e-mail address,
22
23
24
suppose,
because that's her name,
although
right?
THE COURT:
This is 2A,
correct?
83
just so we're clear,
MS.
BY MS.
3
4
You're going -- and I
MS.
isn't that right?
That's correct.
BY MS.
DASGUPTA:
Objection.
BONJEAN:
Just to point out,
it doesn't have tirnestarnp,
10
here,
11
On this viewing,
12
Now,
131
could go get an
e-mail address with Annabel Melongo;

A
Yes.
BONJEAN:
71
BONJEAN:
this has date stamp but

as far as you can see
right?
no,
it does not have times.
were you asked to look at Carol
Spizzirri's PC?
14
No.
15
Did you do any forensic analysis of her PC?
16
No.
17
Did the Schiller Park Police Department
181
say,
hey,
19
PC.
We'd like you to actually look at her PC as
20
well so we can see what e-mails were corning and
21
going?
22
we have a
don't
copy or we have Ms .
Spizzirri's
know if they were ever in
23
possession of her computer,
24
to analyze it.
84
but I
was never asked
And were you ever asked to analyze any
servers from the Save-A-Life Foundation?
No.
Were you asked analyze any other servers
that the Save-A-Life Foundation may have utilized,
like,
No.
In fact,
10
11
third-party servers?
asked to analyze was Ms.
13
not June?
14
17
right,
I'd
don't recall exactly.
July;
And you prepared a pretty massi v e report,
right?
19
MS.
22
June,
have to look.
THE COURT:
21
right?
And that was seized in July of 2006,
18
20
laptop,
But correct.
Q
16
Melongo' s
And the other evidence that was seized.
12
15
the only thing that you were
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
I'm not sure what that means.

Well,
I'm go i ng to show it to her.
BONJEAN:
Can you just take a look at this and tell
me if you can identify these?
23
MS.
ZARKOS:
24
MS.
BONJEAN:
Can the State see that as well?

Yes,
85
you can see it.
I'm not
going to be offering them into evidence.
2
3
THE COURT:
You can step up and look at it.
BY THE WITNESS:
Without looking at every single page,
appears to be my forensic report.
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
it
And what the State asked you about here
today was about four or five entries,
10
That you can't say a
believe so,
correct?
yes.
date or a
time about
11
when they were relevant or accessed or -- you have
12
no information about that,
correct?
13
Correct.
14
And you testified about this,
15
software,
16
Correct.
17
The Go To My PC software actually has to
Go To My PC,
correct?
18
be download on the PC you want to access;
19
that right?
isn't
20
That's correct.
21
And so if my client had -- my client was
22
23
student,
which she was,
THE COURT:
Sustained.
24
86
what is --
1
2
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
If my client were to want to access her
PC from school,
have to have the software on her PC at home,
in order to access it remotely?
7
8
MS.
BONJEAN:
Thank you.
We have nothing further,

THE COURT:
Your Honor.
Thank you.
Redirect?
12
MS.
13
THE COURT:
DASGUPTA:
Briefly.
Please.
14
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
15
BY MS.
17
right,
receiving and the sending computer.
11
16
she would
The software has to be on both the
10
like her PC at her home,
DASGUPTA:
The search warrant that was executed was
for this defendant,
correct?
18
Correct.
19
And it wasn't for Ms.
20
Correct.
21
And that's why her computers weren't
22
accessed?
23
Her ..
24
Ms.
Spizzirri?
Spizzirri's computers weren't
87
analyzed?
Correct.
The search warrant was for this defendant's
computers?
Correct.
Counsel asked you that there were no
forwards on Exhibit -- nothing that says,
on Exhibit 2B.
removed
forward,
Is that something that can be
the letters,
FWD?
10
Yes.
11
I want to go to 2A.
12
entries have the letters,
13
entries,
Those two first
FWD,
on those first two
correct?
14
Yes.
15
And does that mean,
16
Typically,
17
You mentioned that those purport to be
yes,
that means,
18
from a CSpizzirri@SALF.org,
19
are May 1st,
2006,
forward?
forward.
and the dates on those
correct?
20
That's what it shows,
21
And this was after the time the defendant
22
was terminated from employment,
23
24
THE COURT:
correct.
correct?
Correct.
I'm sorry.
88
Ask that last question
again,
Ms.
BY MS.
DASGUPTA:
3
4
Dasgupta.
May 1st,
2006,
was after the time she was
terminated from her employment,
correct?
Correct.
When you recovered those computers from
the defendant,
access to this defendant's computer?
were you aware if anyone else had
Not that
10
MS.
11
THE COURT:
12
DASGUPTA:
I'm aware of.

I
have no other questions.
Thank you.
Recross?
13
MS.
BONJEAN:
Yes,
Your Honor.
14
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
15
BY MS.
16
BONJEAN:
You don't have any knowledge of whether
17
Ms.
Spizzirri's computers were accessed by anybody
18
else;
19
Correct.
20
You would have no way of knowing who was
isn't that right?
21
in her home,
22
friends
if anybody
children,
parents,
-- right?
23
Correct.
24
And you also have no way of saying from
89
your report whether or not Ms.
this e-mail to Ms.
Melongo,
Spizzirri forwarded
correct?
Correct.
That's what it purports to show,
That's what it shows.
And the prosecutor asked you,
can remove the forwarding in a
That's true,
right?
well,
you
forwarded e-mail.
right?
If you hit forward or reply,
typically it
10
pastes a copy of that e-mail in the bottom.
11
then you can change anything you want in there.
12
13
You can change anything you want;
And
isn't
that right?
14
Correct.
15
And you have no idea one way or the other
16
whether my client changed anything;
isn't that right?
17
18
And isn't it possible to contact an
19
have no knowledge of that.
e-mail provider and request
20
MS.
21
THE COURT:
22
23
24
ZARKOS:
Objection.
I
haven't heard the question.
Finish the question.

BY MS.
Q
BON JEAN:
Well,
the prosecutor asked you about you
90
had a
search warrant for Ms.
Melongo's computer.
You weren't asked to go get Ms.
isn't that right?
Spizzirri's computer;
Correct .
You weren't asked to go get -- you were
asked to get get Ms . Melongo's computer.
were you asked by to go get Ms.
And wh o m
Melongo's computer?
The Schiller Park Police Department.
And the Schiller Park Police Department
10
didn't ask you to go get Ms.
Spizzirri's PC,
right?
11
Correct.
12
And they didn't ask you to look at her
13
ser v er?
14
Her who?
15
Her server.
16
Correct.
17
And you weren't asked,
for
instance,
18
contact the e-mail provider for Save-A-Life
19
Foundation;
isn't that right?
20
No,
21
And if you had contacted them,
did not contact them.

you would
22
have been able to find certain information,
23
as logs and user activity,
24
MS.
to
ZARKOS:
Objection.
91
right?
such
THE COURT:
MS.
31
4
Basis.
ZARKOS:
Conjecture.
We don't know what
she would have found.

THE COURT:
asking again.
BY MS.
Particularize what it is you're
BONJEAN:
Can you get user activity from e-mail
providers?
Yes.
10
And that would provide information about
111
when an e-mail was sent and by whom;
isn't that right?
12
131
possible.
14
But that's not something that you did?
15
Correct.
16
Could an e-mail provider show you log-ins
171
Depending on what the provider saves,
and timestamps?
18
Yes.
19
And you did not get that information;
201
that right?
21
MS.
22
THE COURT:
231
24
it's
BY MS.
Q
DASGUPTA:
Objection;
isn't
asked and answered.
Overruled.
BONJEAN:
I
said,
from an e-mail provider,
92
you can
get information about log-ins into an e-mail
account;
isn't that right?
Correct.
And you did not do that?
Correct.
MS.
BONJEAN:
I
have nothing further.
THE COURT:
MS.
10
11
Re-redirect?
DASGUPTA:
THE COURT:
excused.
12
Thank you.
No,
Your Honor.
Thank you,
Ms.
Voita.
You're
You may step down.

Does anybody need a break?
13
(No responses.)
14
THE COURT:
State,
15
Sir,
16
if you would.
17
up,
18
your right hand.
please call your next witness.
please step up on the witness stand,

Thank you.
After you've
remain standing for the moment,
19
stepped
please raise
(Witness duly sworn.)
20
THE CLERK:
You may be seated.
21
THE COURT:
Ms.
Zarkos,
22
23
24
93
you may proceed.
DETECTIVE WILLIAM MARTIN,
State of Illinois,
having been first
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS.
duly sworn,
ZARKOS:
Officer,
Detective William Martin.
Where are you employed?
10
The Schiller Park Police Department.
11
And what is your star number,
12
Twenty-nine.
13
What unit are you assigned to?
14
Detective Division.
15
How long have you been in that position,
16
could you please state your name.
Officer?
Officer?
17
Ten years.
18
Do you have any specialized training?
19
Yes;
20
21
financial crimes,
gang
crimes.
Q
On or about May 5th,
22
assigned to a
23
Save-A-Life?
24
cyber crimes,
Yes,
case involving a
was.
94
2006,
were you
company known as
What did your investigation involve?
Computer tampering.
During the course of your investigation,
did you execute a search warrant on July 20th,
2006?
Where did you execute the search warrant?
1218 East Long Valley Drive,
Palatine,
Was this in Cook County?
10
Yes,
11
Was this a residence,
12
Yes,
13
Who was present besides yourself when you
14
15
did.
Apartment 3A,
Illinois.
it was.
Officer?
it was.
executed the search warrant?

A
Detective Cook of the Schiller Park
16
Police Department,
17
from the Illinois Attorney General's Office.
18
19
Shahna Monge and Amber Conley
At the time you executed the search warrant,
who was living at this apartment?
20
Annabel Melongo.
21
Do you see Annabel Melongo in court t od ay?
22
23
Can you identify her by a piece of clothing
24
do.
that she is wearing?
95
MS.
3
4
5
6
7
The young lady wearing the blue pantsuit.

May the record reflect that the
ZARKOS:
witness has identified the defendant ,

THE COURT:
BY MS.
Q
Annabel Melongo?
So indicated.
ZARKOS:
Was the defendant present at the time you
executed the search warrant?
Yes,
Did she allow you into her apartment?
10
Yes,
11
Did you personally conduct a
12
she was.
she did.
search of
the defendant's apartment?
13
Yes,
14
Did you have a
15
defendant?
did.
conversation with the
16
Yes,
17
Where did that conversation take place?
18
At the kitchen table.
19
Who was present for that conversation?
20
Myself and Detective Cook.
21
Was the defendant read her Miranda rights?
22
Yes,
23
Did the defendant voluntarily waive her
24
did.
she was.
Miranda rights?
96
Yes,
What d i d you ask her?
she did.
asked her if she had accessed the
Save-A-Life server .
And what did she say to you?
She admitted to accessing the server for
7
8
up to two weeks.
Q
Did she also tell you that she no l onger
worked at the Save-A-Life Foundation?
10
Yes.
11
Did she tell you how she was accessing the
12
Save-A - Life Foundation?
13
She was accessing the e-mail servers.
14
And was this after she no longer worked
15
16
there?
A
17
20
21
it was.
18
19
Yes,
3 was

BY MS.
ZARKOS:
I'm showing you what has been marked as
People's Exhibit No.
22
MS.
23
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
3,
May I
Yes.
24
97
for identification purposes.

approach,
Your Honor?
BY MS.
2
3
4
Q
the
ZARKOS:
Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of
jury and the Court what that is?

A
It's a
list of employee passwords,
names of the employees,
passwords.
the user IDs and their
Have you ever seen that document before
today?
Yes,
10
Where was that?
11
That was found in the defendant ' s
12
13
14
have.
bedroom
when we did the search.

Q
And you recovered this document during the
execution of the search warrant?
15
Yes,
16
Can you tell me what that first
17
the
ma'am.
name is
listed in that exhibit?
18
Carol Spizzirri.
19
And can you tell me the password associated
20
with that name?
21
Herman.
22
Can you please spell it for the Court?
23
H-e-r -- m,
24
Nancy.
98
as in Mary -- a
-- n,
as
in
ZARKOS:
MS.
THE COURT:
BY MS.
approach,
May I
Your Honor?
Yes.
ZARKOS:
Do you recognize that document?
Yes,
What is that?
It is access to two FTP servers -- one
do.
labeled,
with the user and password.
10
11
Perry Medic;
the other labeled,
S-A - L-F
Did you recover this document during the
execution of your search warrant on July 20th,
2006 ?
12
Yes,
13
During that time that you executed that
did.
14
search warrant,
did the defendant tell you what
15
her position had been before she was terminated
16
from the Save-A-Life Foundation?
17
Yes,
18
And what was that position?
19
She was a system administrator,
20
she did.
web
designer and programmer.
21
Officer,
22
Yes,
23
Who is Carol Spizzirri?
24
She is the president and f ou nder of the
do you know who Carol Spizzirri is?
do.
99
1
2
3
Did the defendant make any statements to
you regarding the e-mail account of Carol Spizzirri?
Yes,
What did the defendant tell you about any
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
she did.
particular e-mail accounts of Carol Spizzirri?
She admitted to accessing and reading her
e-mail.
Did the defendant tell you what she did
with those e-mails once she accessed them?

A
She forwarded them to her personal Yahoo
account.
Q
What e-mail acc ount did the defendant
14
forward Carol Spizzirri's -- did she tell you what
15
e-mail account she forwarded those e-mails to?
16
Yes,
17
What did she tell you?
18
The e - mail address was
19
20
21
she did.
Melongo Annabel@yahoo.com.
MS.
ZARKOS:
Your Honor,
apologize.
have
to do this the old-fashioned way.
22
THE COURT:
23
MS.
24
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
Do you want to take a break?

May I
approach,
Absolutely.
1 00
Your Honor?
Do you wish to take a
break to get your system rebooted or ...
MS.
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
Just a couple minutes.

We'll take a break.
See you in about ten minutes.

THE SHERIFF:
All rise.
(A short recess was had.)
THE COURT:
witness stand.
Detective,
please retake the
Are we ready to proceed,
10
MS.
11
THE COURT:
12
MS.
13
THE COURT:
14
THE SHERIFF:
ZARKOS:
We are,
Ms.
BONJEAN:
15
folks?
Your Honor.
Bonjean?
Yes,
Your Honor.
Please bring out our
jury.
All rise.
(Wh ereupon,
16
17
18
19
THE COURT:
Ms.
21
examination.
22
BY MS.
24
everybody.
You can be
seated.
20
23
Thanks,
Zarkos,
you may continue your
ZARKOS:
Detective Martin,
did the defendant tell
you what -- I'm showing you what's been marked as
101
People's Exhibit 2B.
Can you see it on your monitor?
Yes.
Have you seen this document before?
Yes,
And can you tell me what it is?
It appears to be an e-mail.
And who was it from?
have.
In the "from" line,
what does it say?
10
Melongo,
Annabel,
and then the Yahoo
e-mail address of Melongo Annabel@yahoo.com
11
And who is it going to?
12
SGholar@SALF.org;
( sic ) at the same;
DNeal at the same;
13
DSolaro
14
VD a v is at the same;
15
Brian.Salerno@True-Consults.com.
16 1
language,
18
19
22
CSass at the same;
And at the bottom,
17
the next
RBarnes at the same;
"from",
past the,
and then a
hey,
Carol,
who does it say,
from?
From Carol Spizzirri and then mail to the
hyperlink of CSpizzirri@SALF.org.
Q
Is there a date?
Yes;
1s t,
2006,
it shows being sent on Monday,
at 6:04 p.m.
23
Is there a
24
No,
"to" there?
there is no t.
102
May
Did the defendant tell you that she
had
you previously testified that the defendant
told you that she had viewed e-mails belonging to
Carol Spizzirri;
is that correct?
Correct.
Did the defendant -- what did the defendant
7
8
9
10
tell you she did with those e-mails?

A
She forwarded them to her own personal
Yahoo account.
Q
And did the defendant tell you what she
11
did with the e-mail after it was forwarded to her
12
own e-mail account?
13
14
the Save-A - Life Foundation.
15
(Peoole's Exhibit No.
16
17
18
19
She then forwarded it to other members of

BY MS.
Q
ZARKOS:
I'm going to show you what's been marked
as People's Exhibit No.
20
MS.
BONJEAN:
21
MS.
ZARKOS:
22
THE COURT:
23
MS.
24
5 was
5.
Objection,
objection.
This is not on the monitor.

What's the basis of your objection?
BONJEAN:
seen the exhibit.
Well,
i t ' s the first time I've
But aside from the surprise
103
element,
I don't know what purpose she's offering
it for.
expect i t ' s for a hearsay
basis.
the jury.
MS.
THE COURT:
10
11
Sure.
BONJEAN:
here soon,
just wanted a quick
didn't want to argue in the presence of
Here.
THE COURT:
Hopefully,
their snack will be
Kelly.
We'll hope for the best.

another break,
folks.
THE SHERIFF:
12
I'm giving you
All rise.
(Where upon,
13
14
15
THE COURT:
The jury is out of the room.
16
You can be seated,
Detective.
17
You can be seated,
everybody.
18
Ms.
19
MS.
Zarkos,
ZARKOS:
what is this?
This is from the Yahoo mail account
20
that was subpoenaed by the officer and received
21
from him.
22
Yahoo e-mail account from the Yahoo Corporation.
It's the e-mail as it appears on her
23
THE COURT:
24
MS.
ZARKOS:
Was it tendered to the defense?

It was.
104
Today,
but also part of
discovery.
MS.
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
Your Honor,
this is not the full --
Hang on.
Was it tendered prior to today?
MS.
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
Do you recall that you did or didn't
get this?
the first time.
MS.
Yes.
You're saying you're seeing this for

Have you seen this before today?
BONJEAN:
Well,
Your Honor,
I've seen
10
this
11
it's possible that it was contained in part of a
12
larger thread.
13
14
again,
if you notice,
received.
15
It's possible that I
received it.
But,
it's one page out of who knows how many.
16
of her exhibits,
17
we can resolve this,
19
And so
This is a random piece of paper that
Furthermore,
18
the page 3 is gone.
THE COURT:
I asked Ms.
Zarkos for all
to take a lo ok at them prior,
so
and this was kept from me.
The gist of the e-mail -- and
there's all sorts of computer --
20
MS.
BONJEAN:
I don't know what he can testify
21
t o,
22
expert.
23
as an expert,
24
going to testify to about the code that's here.
Your Honor.
In fact,
He's not been qualified as an

the other woman wasn't qualified
either.
105
So I'm not sure what he's
He has not been
There's a lot of code here.
qualified as an expert.
is a detective that has investigated cyber crimes.
But that does not qualify him to speak to much of
the material that's being presented here.
don't know for what purpose it's being offered.
It's also not complete.

THE COURT:
9
10
He's a police officer who
Let's stop for a minute.
appears to be -- am I
And I
This
correct that this is generated
by the e-mail provider?
11
MS.
ZARKOS:
12
THE COURT:
Correct.
As opposed to the e - mail that you
13
all showed me yesterday when we were having our
14
long discussion of the e - mail that began,
15
Carol,
16
all showed me when we had our extended discussion
17
about the admissibility of the financial stuff?
18
19
MS.
received this e-mail?
BONJEAN:
the same thing.
20
THE COURT:
21
22
it is the same.
MS.
ZARKOS:
24
MS.
BONJEAN:
That's the one you
cannot confirm that this is
Moreover -No;
let me stop you.
can remember reading that.
23
hey,
It's the exact same.
106
can,
because
In terms of the text,
can confirm it.
That's fine,
but --
THE COURT:
No.
It may well have been
generated by the e-mail service provider as
opposed to it having been printed off someone's
computer in the usual format that we probably see
most of our personal e-mails.
appear to be something that nobody knew about.
MS.
BONJEAN:
Well,
But it does not
they should get the Yahoo
provider to lay the foundation for this document,
not a police officer who subpoenaed it.
Just
10
because you subpoena something doesn't mean you
11
have the authority to lay the foundation for the
12
document.
13
THE COURT:
Going on in this regard,
because
14
you've communicated in the presence of the
15
the fact that you didn't get this.
16
MS.
BONJEAN:
didn't get it earlier when I
17
asked for it;
18
not -- that was not fair play;
19
wasn't.
20
THE COURT:
21
MS.
jury
that's true.
That was -- that was

I'm sorry.
It
just
It was provided in pretrial discovery.
BONJEAN:
Do you know how many -- Your
22
Honor,
23
see the forensic report that was provided?
24
page out of the --
there were hundreds and hundreds -- did you
107
One
impressions to be given to the
3
4
My point is,
THE COURT:
MS.
to the
jury.
The right impression was given
BONJEAN:
jury.
don't want the wrong
But I
THE COURT:
No,
it wasn't,
because that's not
going to be discussed.
we're not going to discuss or litigate any
discovery issues in the presence of the jury.

MS.
BONJEAN:
We're not going to
Fair enough,
Your Honor.
and
I'm
10
not intending on doing that.
11
Ms.
12
to review the exhibits she intended to publish to
13
the jury,
Zarkos this morning that I
MS.
15
using that.
16
MS .
18
19
20
did ask
have an opportunity
and she omitted this one.
14
17
But I
DASGUPTA:
ZARKOS:
We didn't intend on initially
We didn't intend on initially
using that after the testimony of

THE COURT:
There's an objection.
purpose of presenting this to the

MS.
ZARKOS:
What's the
jury?
just want the officer to identify
21
the time on top of the e-mail address that he got
22
from the Yahoo provider and the IP .
23
24
THE COURT:
this one,
Well,
That's it .
why not instead of using
utilizing the one yesterday that was
108
MS.
Your Honor.
3
4
ZARKOS:
THE COURT:
It's different than the one that's
printed here.
MS.
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
Yes.
The one --
But i t ' s printed in a di fferent
format --
MS.
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
10
yesterday?
11
MS.
ZARKOS:
Correct.
-- than the one you showed me
It is.
12
time.
13
has been the issue here,
14
time.
15
MS.
And that one has the
The time has been the issue.
BONJEAN:
And I have no basis to believe
17
this came from.

ZARKOS:
I don't know where
I wi ll ask -- I
will lay that
19
foundation with the officer.
20
He received these and he gave them to the State
21
and the State tendered them to Counsel.
22
MS.
time
And an IP address.
that this came from Yahoo.
MS.
Apparently,
and that one has the
16
18
used yesterday,
It's not the one that's printed here.
That is the one I
BONJEAN:
Yes.
But,
He subpoenaed Yahoo .
Your Honor,
he can't
23
testify to the contents o f material that's provided
24
by Yahoo and generated by Yahoo.
109
He's not an
expert and he also is not the author of these
reports.
3
4
He can't lay that foundation.
THE COURT:
Let me see the other one you

whoever showed it to me.
showed me yesterday
MS.
THE COURT:
And my client
BONJEAN:
Let me stop you for a minute.
want to see the one that was shown to me yesterday.
That's where we're at right now.
hear five different arguments before I
10
one.
Fair enough?
Fair enough?
BON JEAN:
That's very fair,
11
MS.
12
THE COURT:
don't want to
resolve the
Your Honor.
The one you showed me yesterday
13
was in a
14
off someone's personal computer rather than gotten
15
from the e-mail service provider,
16
in this case,
17
18
format like it would have been printed
which,
guess,
is Yahoo -- purports to be Yahoo.
Well,
2B seems to be the same thing as 5,
correct?
19
MS.
20
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
21
time on it,
22
MS.
23
THE COURT:
24
MS.
Correct.
And it has the time - -
2B has the
correct?
ZARKOS:
ZARKOS:
Correct.
So what would be the purpose of 5?
The purpose of 5 also has the IP
110
address listed on it that belongs to Ms.
or that's coming from that computer.
Melongo
That's it.
MS.
think I
Court knows what my objection is to that.
BONJEAN:
Exactly,
Your Honor.
need to renew my objection.
THE COURT:
And on 5,
think the
where's the IP address
purporting to show that that's coming from
Ms.
10
11
Melongo?
MS.
ZARKOS:
The 2.2415202102 received from
Yahoo says that is Ms.

MS.
BONJEAN:
Melongo's IP address.
And that's why Yahoo should be
12
here to testify to that,
13
Martin.
14
MS.
ZARKOS:
address.
16
her IP.
17
records.
18
That's all I'm saying.
21
records?
Yahoo sends us these
That IP address belonged to Ms.
THE COURT:
is Ms.
Schiller -- or
She forwarded -- all it shows is that's

We subpoenaed Yahoo.
20
MS.
23
have Yahoo.
ZARKOS:
THE COURT:
Melongo.
But is Yahoo going to testify this
Melongo's IP address,
22
24
not Mr.
She forwarded it to her IP
15
19
don't
No;
according to their
just the o fficer.
We do not
But then wouldn't he be testifying
111
to hearsay of what Yahoo said?
know this
saying Yahoo knows this is Ms.
MS.
is Ms.
ZARKOS:
belongs to Ms.
THE COURT:
MS.
THE COURT:
MS.
10
11
Melongo's
IP address.
You're
Melongo's --
Yahoo is telling him that that

Melongo.
ZARKOS:
ZARKOS:
An admission.
Admission by Yahoo,
apparently.
Yes.
How would that not be hearsay?
I
just want him to identify that
IP address and the time.

MS.
Because he doesn't
BONJEAN:
That's i t .
She wants him to identify the IP
12
address as my client's IP address.
13
the heart of the matter.
14
there's no purpose for it other than to --
15
MS.
16
THE COURT:
17
MS.
ZARKOS:
18
MS.
BONJEAN:
19
MS.
ZARKOS:
20
THE COURT:
21
MS.
ZARKOS:
BON JEAN:
That goes to
It's substantive and
Yahoo
One at a
I
time.
apologize.
The only --
He subpoenaed
Finish up.
The only purpose to get that
22
information is to argue that,
to this
23
that IP address belonged to my client,
24
cannot say.
jury,
that
which he
Only the Yahoo people can say that,
112
which is why I
listed on the witnesses.
they have could have been subpoenaed here to
testify.
things that he subpoenaed that
with if that's the -- if that's the standard we're
going to go by,
look at some of the materials that were subpoenaed
and speak to that if we can get around the hearsay
10
was surprised that they weren't
don't think I
I'm quite certain that
can -- I
I
have plenty of
can present him
would love to have the officer
rule that way.
11
MS.
ZARKOS:
He subpoenaed Yahoo,
asking for
12
all the information regarding Annabel Melongo's
13
account.
14
to say is,
15
what's listed there,
16
this
17
testify that it belongs to Ms.
18
all he received back from Yahoo.
That's what he got back.

this
is what I
received back,
want him
this is
this e-mail is there and then
IP address is there.
19
All
He doesn't even have to
His subpoena said,
Melongo.
may I
That's
have all
20
information regarding this e - mail account in the
21
name of Annabel Melongo.
22
That's all I'm putting in.
23
24
MS.
BONJEAN:
the Court,
And,
Your Honor,
that's not -- I
113
That's what he got back.
if I
could show
don't believe that's
My client has
just pointed out to
entirely true.
me that this is a
response.
It says,
that document is.
to believe that that's a Yahoo document.
has ever represented that to me as a Yahoo document.
It says nothing about Yahoo on it.
Yahoo is here to identify it.
reference,
Yahoo search warrant
And i t ' s an entirely different document.

Yahoo logging tracker.
10
11
Well --
12
MS.
ZARKOS:
13
MS.
BONJEAN:
subpoenaed Yahoo,
don't
know what
really don't have any reason

No one
No one from
All he can say is,
and this is what they gave me.
That's all
No.
want him to say.
But there's no -- he can't
14
admit that i t ' s substantively in any way.
15
what use is it to say -- if the
16
to see what the document says,
17
it possibly serve?
18
THE COURT:
19
MS.
20
THE COURT:
And
jury doesn't get

what purpose could
Anybody else want to say anything?
ZARKOS:
No.
I
suppose if you want to lay a
21
foundation,
you can say,
the detective subpoenaed
22
some documents,
23
story.
24
pursuant to the business records exception,
got this back from Yahoo.
End of
Then you can have Yahoo come in and say,
114
these
are our business records held by Yahoo in the
ordinary course of business.
course of business by Yahoo to hold these records,
and these records show that this particular unique
IP address -- much like the phone number is,
other witness said -- goes according to our records
to some person named Annabel Melongo.
MS.
THE COURT:
10
that ,
ZARKOS:
It's the ordinary
MS.
12
THE COURT:
Correct.
But Yahoo's not corning in to say
ZARKOS:
No,
they're not.
So if you did show him this
13
document,
14
get it into evidence in the first
15
second place,
then there's nothing to follow up on to
MS.
17
THE COURT:
18
MS.
ZARKOS:
ZARKOS:
19
Yahoo.
20
your ruling.
MS.
That's correct.
Okay.
Just that he received this from
That's all.
BONJEAN:
I ' l l work on this if that's
Your Honor,
I'm sorry.
22
approach?
23
not show that it came from Yahoo,
place -- in the
correct?
16
24
Correct?
are they?
11
21
as some
have the full document.
When I
And i t does
which needs to.
get surprised by this,
115
May I
i t ' s hard
for me,
things.
Your Honor,
But
THE COURT:
MS .
BONJEAN:
MS.
ZARKOS:
gotten.
7
8
9
You did just fine.

Okay.
This was something she must have
Officer,
MS.
to pull out and rebut these
did you receive
BONJEAN:
Judge,
pursuant to subpoena.
that was obtained by me
That was provided -- that
10
went to the State.
11
when that document was here.
12
parties -- which is beside the point,
13
they're representing i t ' s a Yahoo document when
14
i t ' s not.
15
MS.
16
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
That was
was on the case
And this was -- both

because
Your Honor - Let's do this.
The
jury is eating
17
their snacks.
18
offer of proof,
19
questions.
20
But let's be as firm as we can and we'll go from
21
there.
22
23
24
know that.
In the nature of an
ask Detective Martin a
believe I
few more
know how I'm going t o rule.
Let me give you Exhibit 5 back.

BY MS.
Q
Go ahead.
ZARKOS:
On that document I
116
had showed y ou,
Officer,
did you subpoena Yahoo Corporation?
Yes,
Did you ask for documents involving Annabel
did.
Melongo's e-mail?
Yes,
Did you receive information back with a
10
did.
list of e-mails and an IP address and times?
8
9
received a
log-in showing the dates and
times that the account was logged in and what
IP
addresses that had logged in at what time.
11
THE COURT:
Why don't we do this.
Why don't
12
you show him the entire page document that
13
Ms.
14
page of the exhibit you were going to show him.
15
BY MS.
16
Bonjean had,
rather than the single,
third
ZARKOS:
Here ' s
five-page document.
Did you
17
receive a document from Yahoo that looked like
18
that?
19
20
THE COURT:
21
MS.
22
THE COURT:
23
five-minute break,
24
and bring the
No,
did not.
So you're withdrawing your exhibit?
ZARKOS:
I'm withdrawing my exhibit.

Fair enough.
and I
expect we'll come back
jury back out.
117
We'll take a
You're again free to step down,
(A short recess was had.)
Detective.
All rise for the jury.
THE SHERIFF:
(Whereupon,
81
THE COURT:
111
12
Ms.
MS.
Zarkos,
ZARKOS:
you may continue.
have no further questions of
Thank you.
THE COURT:
Ms.
MS.
Bonjean,
do you wish to cross-examine?
Yes,
BONJEAN:
do.
15
CROSS-EXAMINATION
16
BY MS.
17
You may be
Detective Martin.
13
14
everybody.
seated.
10
Thank you,
Mr.
BONJEAN:
Martin,
you know that my client was
18
the IT administrator for the Save-A-Life Foundation,
19
correct?
20
Yes,
do.
21
And that as part of her responsibilities
22j
at the Save-A-Life Foundation,
23
passwords and was charged with the responsibility
24
of sometimes changing passwords or retrieving
1 18
she had access to
passwords,
but I
4
5
6
7
10
11
correct?
That I don't know.
I would assume so ,
don't know for sure.

With regard to the exhibit that you looked
at that -- I'm going to show you

MS .
BONJEAN:
May I
approach the witness,
Your
Honor?
THE COURT:
BY MS.
Yes.
BONJEAN:
(Continuing.)
-- what's been previously
marked as People's Group Exhibit No.
3.
12
Yes.
13
You previously identified that document
14
as a document that you found in Ms.
15
correct?
Melongo's home,
16
Correct.
17
And you don't know when that document was
18
made,
right?
19
No.
20
You don't know wheth er that is a document
21
There's no date on it.
that she had had for six months or six days,
22
Correct.
23
And Ms.
24
right?
Melongo told you that she was the
IT administrator and actually did have passwords;
119
isn't that right?
She told me she was the administrator,
Okay.
Now,
yes.
you testified on direct
examination that my client told you that for about
two weeks she had been accessing the server
subsequent to her termination,
correct?
Correct.
And you're talking about the server at
9
10
the Save-A-Life Foundation?

A
don't recall exactly which servers were
11
in reference to.
12
she admitted to accessing the e-mail server.
13
14
Q
server.
But further on in the conversation,
She admitted to accessing the e-mail

Is that your testimony?
15
Correct.
16
Okay.
17
in Colorado,
And the e-mail server is located
though;
isn't that right?
18
19
So my client admitted to you to locating
believe so,
yes.
20
or to accessing an e-mail server in Colorado.
21
what she told you?
22
23
24
No.
That's
She said she had viewed e-mails and
was accessing the e-mail server.

Q
And that e-mail server lies in Colorado?
120
Correct.
Now,
3
4
did yo u issue an y subpoenas or get any
information about that e-mail server in Colorado?

We attempted to contact them.
don't
believe we got any response back as far as official
documents or anything like that.
You never were able to have that e-mail
server forensically analyzed,
No,
10
And,
11
to Ms.
12
it analyzed?
correct?
we were not.
in fact,
Spizzirri' s
Mr.
Martin,
did you ever go
PC and confiscate her PC and have
13
No,
14
Did you ever go to the Save-A-Life
we did not.
15
Foundation servers that were on-site and have those
16
examined?
17
No,
18
Did you ever contact any of the Internet
19
providers
20
21
22
MS.
BY MS.
we did not.
BONJEAN:
Or strike that.
BONJEAN:
(Continuing.)
-- the e-mail providers for
23
Save-A-Life Foundation and request any material
24
from them?
121
We requested it;
we
just never received it.
You requested it but never received it?
Yes.
And how did you request it?
spoke to a manager,
believe,
not
and they were supposed to get back to us.
spoke to him on a number o f
returned wit h any official documentation.
10
11
can't recall his name.
Well,
But
spoke to him,
you did have the power to subpoena,
correct?
Correct.
13
You used that power to subpoena;
16
providers;
17
19
20
23
24
Not on that,
no.
We did on other service
not the e-mail provider.
So you didn't use your power to subpoena
the e-mail providers.

THE COURT:
Is that your testimony?
Sustained as to the form of the
question.
21
22
isn't
that right?
15
18
And I
occasions but never
12
14
but
He doesn ' t have the power to subpoena.

BY MS.
Q
BONJEAN:
Well,
did you issue subpoenas in this
case with the --
122
THE COURT:
subpoenas.
BY MS.
4
5
BONJEAN:
Well,
did the prosecutors that you were
working with issue subpoenas to various people?
Yes,
Okay.
He does not have the power to issue
they did.
And you saw the search warrant for
my client's house,
though,
right?
Yes,
10
And you did reach out to various Internet
11
providers,
we did.
correct,
and ask for documents,
right?
12
Subpoenas were sent,
yes.
13
Subpoenas were sent;
isn't that correct?
14
Correct.
15
Now,
it's your testimony that my client
16
admitted to you that she viewed e-mails -- viewed
17
and forwarded to her Yahoo account;
is that right?
18
That's correct.
19
And it's your testimony that Ms.
20
made that admission to you on July 20th,
Melongo
2006,
correct?
21
Yes.
22
Did you record that in any way?
23
No,
24
Did you have her sign a statement to that
we did not.
123
effect?
No,
Did you write out a statement for her to
we did not.
sign to that effect?
No,
did not.
Did you have a paper and pencil at the
time that she could have written out the statement
that you now attribute to her?
Yes.
10
And you chose not to have her do that,
11
right?
12
Correct.
13
I'm going to draw your attention to
14
January 17th,
15
testimony in this matter before a Grand Jury?
16
17
18
19
2007.
Do you remember giving sworn
I don't recall the date,
was
yes,
And when you go before a Grand Jury,
you
at the Grand Jury.

Q
take an oath,
right?
20
Correct.
21
Took an oath,
22
but,
kind of like you did here
today?
23
Uh-huh.
24
To tell the truth?
124
Correct.
And I'm going to ask you if you recall
being asked these questions and giving these
answers.
THE COURT:
MS.
page 7.
would prefer me to go back further.
What page?
BONJEAN:
I ' l l start at line 9,
MS.
ZARKOS:
10
MS.
BONJEAN:
11
THE COURT:
12
your sake,
13
asking about.
14
15
16
This is 2007 Grand Jury testimony,
Is there a
unless the State
question pending,
I ' l l repeat it.

No.
She's
just referencing,
for
where in the Grand Jury testimony she's
Go ahead.
BY MS.
Q
BONJEAN:
Okay.
I'm going to set this up one more
17
time.
18
to you to accessing the e - mails of Ms.
19
or viewed the e-mails and forwarded them,
You just did testify that my client admitted

Spizzirri
right?
20
Correct.
21
That's what you testified to today?
22
Correct.
23
Now,
24
Counsel?
do you remember being asked these
questions when you were under oath back in 2007:
125
"Question:
At any point,
did you
confront Ms. Melongo with any of these
allegations?
Answer :
Question:
Yes,
And did Ms.
Melongo talk to
you about these allegations?
Answer:
Question:
I did.
Yes,
she did.
And what did Ms. Melongo say
about the e-mail account?
10
Answer:
She said she had gone into the
11
e-mail server to check her own account and
12
claimed that the e-mails were forwarded to her
13
by another employer?"
14
That's correct.
15
Or employee, my apologies.
16
17
18
19
201
Correct?
A
If that's what it says,
recall exactly what it said,

Q
but it sounds familiar.
oath in May of 2007?

A
Correct.
22
Now,
24
I don't
And that's the testimony you gave under
21
231
yes.
sorry;
you also gave testimony -- I'm
January of 2007.
You also gave testimony again under oath
126
in May of 2008;
MS.
line 6.
MS.
ZARKOS:
MS.
BONJEAN:
7
8
9
BY MS.
Q
isn't that right?
Yes.
BONJEAN:
would refer counsel to page 10,
Is this the May or the June?

This is the May.
BONJEAN:
You also gave testimony before the Grand
Jury again in May of 2008,
right?
10
11
And do you remember being asked these
12
"Question:
Ms.
16
"Answer:
17
Question:
Yes,
did.
Did Ms.
Melongo talk to you
about these allegations?

Answer:
20
Question:
22
d i d you confront
think that's an error.
19
21
At any point,
Melongo with -- of the allegations?"
15
18
yes.
questions and giving these answers:
13
14
believe so,
Yes she did.

What did Ms.
Melongo say
about the e - mail accounts?

Answer:
She claimed that she had access
23
because she was the administrator of the
24
company.
127
Question:
Did she indicate that she was
only trying to check out her own e-mail
account?
Answer:
Question:
Yes.
And did she also indicate to
you during the conversation that the e-mails
from Carol Spizzirri were actually forwarded
to her by another employee?

Answer:
10
11
That was her excuse,
yes."
Do you remember being asked those

questions and giving those answers?
12
Yes.
13
Now,
at no point during your prior Grand
14
Jury testimony on January 27th or May 28th did you
15
tell the Grand Jury that my client admitted to
16
viewing those e-mails and forwarding them to
17
herself,
18
19
MS.
20
did you?
Apparently not.
BONJEAN:
THE COURT:
22
MS.
24
could have one second,
Your
Honor?
21
23
If I
Take your time.
BONJEAN:
If I
Thanks.
could have one second,
have to double-check one thing.
128
Your Honor;
1
2
3
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
Detective Martin,
with a
subpoena was issued
letter from you to Comcast;
isn't that co rre ct?
Correct.
And isn't it true that you testified
before the Grand Jury that on May 1st of 2006,
was a Comcast IP address that was billed to and was
assigned to the modern at Ms.
9
A
Yes,
11
And,
in fact,
MS.
14
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
15
17
18
19
do.
Comcast responded to that
subpoena and told you that they had no --
13
16
Melongo's in Palatine.
Do you remember giving that testimony?
10
12
it
Objection.
Sustained .
It's hearsay.
MS .
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
understand.
BON JEAN:
Did you ever get any materials back from
Comcast?
20
Yes,
21
And what materials did you get back?
22
THE COURT:
23
MS.
we did.
ZARKOS:
Sustained.
Objection.
24
12 9
11
2
31
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
Well,
without getting into the content of
those materials,
what materials did you get back?
A response to our request.
And,
sir,
I'm going to hand you what's
been previously marked -- or what I'm going to
mark as Defendant's Exhibit 1,
THE COURT:
MS.
10
11
12
13
Two,
ZARKOS:
we're on 4.
You had one.
Maybe you didn't
mark i t as an exhibit.
MS.
BONJEAN:
should have marked it,
but
didn't offer it.

THE COURT:
15
MS.
We'll call this 2.
BONJEAN:
16
We'll call this
Defendant's 2.
(Defend ant's Exhibit No.
17
19
guess.
thought.
Actually,
THE COURT:
14
181
marked for
BY MS.
2 was
identification. )
BON JEAN:
Sir,
I'm handing you what's been marked
20
as Defendant's Exhibit 2.
211
document?
22
Yes,
23
And without getting into the substance of
241
Do you recognize that
do.
that document -- and I'm going to show you
130
Defendant's Exhibit 2B.

(Defendant's Exhibit Nos.
4
5
2A and 2B
were marked for identification. )

BY MS .
BONJEAN:
I'm going to ask you to refer to both
Defe nda nt's 2A and 2B.

Without getting into the content of it,
7
8
I'd ask you to review -- those letters were written
by you,
correct?
10
No.
11
Are written to you?
12
Correct.
13
Okay.
14
15
16
Sir,
I'm sorry.
isn't it true that you did
not get any documents from Comcast?

THE COURT:
Sustained,
sustained.
BY THE WITNESS:
17
18
THE COURT:
No.
19
way what I
20
minute ago.
21
MS.
Sustained.
You can't do it this
sustained -- prevented you from doing a
BONJEAN:
22
Well,
I'd ask
Let's move on.
23
MS.
24
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
Very well .
Let's move on.
131
11
2
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
Now,
Mr.
Martin,
the sum total of the
31
evidence that you examined is by way of computers
was Ms.
of the evidence that you obtained via a
warrant was her laptop,
materials,
nature?
Melongo's
10
was a
111
they were,
12
131
like,
or I'm sorry.
correct,
search
and some additional
jump drive or something of that
don't recall the list of items,
significant amount .
but it
don't recall what
though.
And it was -- they were electronic
equipment that was in Ms.
Melongo's home?
14
That's correct.
15
And you did not get a
161
The sum total
search warrant for
the Save-A-Life Foundation's servers,
17
Correct.
18
You didn't ask Ms.
correct?
Spizzirri to give you
19
her servers to make duplicate copies of the hard
20
drive,
right?
21
No.
22
You didn't examine those servers?
23
No.
24
You didn't examine her PC,
132
correct?
No.
You didn't ask her to provide her PC so
that a mirror image could be made of the hard
drive there?
No,
And you didn't access the server in
we did not.
Colorado to get a hard drive -- or a mirror image
of that,
right?
No,
we did not.
10
MS.
11
THE COURT:
12
MS.
BONJEAN:
have nothing further.
Any redirect?
ZARKOS:
Briefly,
Your Honor.
13
14
BY MS.
15
16
Officer,
on July 20th,
ZARKOS:
you served your search warrant
2006;
17
Correct.
18
And Ms.
i s that correct?
Melongo told you she was
19
terminated from the Save-A-Life Foundation.
20
she tell you when her termination occurred?
21
Did
don't recall if she said the specific
22
date,
23
had access two weeks after her termination date.
24
but it was about -- she had claimed that she
And was her termination date some time in
133
April?
It was in April some time.
believe so.
And the search warrant was in July?
That's correct.
And you recovered the passwords that
showed you in Exhibit 3 in her bedroom;
correct?
The list,
On July 20th,
is that
yes.
approximately two-and-a-half
10
months after her termination with the Save-A-Life
11
Foundation?
12
13
MS.
14
THE COURT:
15
MS.
16
THE COURT:
17
excused.
Correct.
ZARKOS:
Thank you.
Recross?
BONJEAN:
Nothing,
Thank you,
Your Honor.
Detective.
You're
You may step down.
18
State,
please call your next witness.
19
Please step up,
if you would,
Miss.
20
up onto the witness stand,
21
Remain standing for a moment and raise your right
22
hand.
23
24
if you would,
Step
(Witness duly sworn.)

THE CLERK:
You may be seated.
134
please.
THE COURT:
MS.
Ms.
ZARKOS:
Zarkos,
Thank you,
you may proceed.

Your Honor.
CAROL JEAN SPIZZIRRI,
State of Illinois,
having been first duly sworn,
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS.
10
Ma'am,
ZARKOS:
could you please state your name
for the record.
11
Carol Jean Spizzirri.
12
Can you please spell it?
13
C-a-r-o-1 -- J
14
15
16
-- Spizzirri
S-p-i-z-z - i - r - r-i.
Q
Calling your attention to 2006,
were you
employed then?
17
Yes,
18
Where were you employed,
19
20
And what was your title at the Save-A-Life
21
was.
ma'am?
Foundation?
22
The president and founder.
23
Do you know the defendant,
24
Yes,
do.
135
Annabel Melongo?
How do you know her?
She worked for our organization.
Do you see the defendant in court today?
Yes,
Can you please identify her by a piece of
MS.
10
11
12
do.
clothing that she is wearing for the record?
She has a blue suit on.

ZARKOS:
May the record reflect that the
witness has identified the defendant,

THE COURT:
BY MS.
Annabel Melongo?
So indicated.
ZARKOS:
Ms.
Spizzirri,
when you were at the
13
Save-A-Life Foundation in 2006,
14
e-mail account?
did you have an
15
Yes,
16
Did you have a password to access that
17
did.
acc ount?
18
Yes,
19
What was that password and what was that
20
did.
account name?
21
The account name was CSpizzirri@SALF.org.
22
And your password,
23
H-e-r-m-a-n -- Herman.
24
Did you ever give the defendant authority
136
ma'am?
1
2
to access your e-mail account?

No,
5
6
did not.
marked for
BY MS.
1 was
identification.)
ZARKOS:
I'm showing you what has been marked as
this document?
1.
Ma'am,
do you recognize
10
What is it?
11
It's an employee e xit review.
12
Was this document prepared in the ordinary
13
do.
scope of the business of your company?
14
Yes,
15
And where was this document stored after
16
17
18
19
20
it was.
i t was prepared?
A
It was stored in ou r
accounting locked
cabinet.
Q
Was it a
regular part of your business to
keep and maintain records of this type?
21
Yes,
22
Is this document the type that would be
23
24
it was.
kept under your custody or control?

A
Yes,
it would be.
137
the top of the document?
3
4
Can you please tell me what it says at
Employee Exit Review.
Melongo,
630 --
That's okay.
Go ahead.
BY MS.
8
9
Employee home phone,
Annabel.
THE COURT:
Employee Name,
ZARKOS:
Did this document -- the middle part of
the document -- call for a return of all passwords
10
accessing Save-A-Life Foundation's computer upon
11
termination of employment?
12
Yes,
13
Does this document indicate that on April

2006,
it did.
14
27th,
the defendant was terminated from her
15
employment at the Save-A-Life Foundation?
16
17
THE COURT:
18
Ms.
Yes,
I 'm sorry.
What was the date,
Zarkos?
19
MS.
20
THE COURT:
21
it did.
BY MS.
ZARKOS:
April 27th,
2006.
Thank you.
ZARKOS:
22
Is this document dated April 27th,
23
It is dated and signed by Ms.
24
our supervisor and our account manager.
138
2006?
Melongo and
As of April 27th,
2006,
was the defendant's
authority revoked as to the access of the Save-A-Life
Foundation's computers?
It is.
Does it call for the return of all
passwords --
Yes.
-- related th the Save - A-Life Foundation?
Yes,
10
11
MS.
13
ZARKOS:
bit so Ms.
12
it does.
I'm going to turn this a little
Spizzirri can see this.
THE COURT:
Can everybody on the jury see it --
the way it's turned?
14
UNIDENTIFIED JURORS:
15
THE COURT:
16
MS.
ZARKOS:
17
working.
18
BY MS.
No.
How about you ask her to come down.

I don't know if her monitor is
ZARKOS:
19
Is your monitor working?
20
No.
21
It's not you;
22
it's the equipment.
Looking in the middle of this document,
23
Ms.
Spizzirri,
after the word,
24
tell me what it says after the word,
139
"from",
can you
"from",
in
11
2
31
4
51
the middle of the document?

A
Okay .
Melongo,
Annabel;
Melongo Annabel@yahoo.com.
Q
And after the word,
"to",
is there a
list
of people --
Yes.
And
And my accountant -- also our computer
91
company,
These were my employees.
Brian Serno
(sic),
True Consulting.
10
And are you listed on that,
11
No,
12
Did you ever receive this e-mail fr om
131
14
"to",
I'm not.
Annabel Melongo?
A
Not to my computer,
151
by others .
16
After the word - -
17
e-mail,
from the word,
18
"from",
there?
no.
was notified
after the end o f
"from",
that
is there a word,
19
Yes,
20
And it says from whom?
21
It says from Annabel Melongo.
221
list?
it is.
Or are you
referring underneath?
23
Underneath.
24
Oh,
okay .
It says,
140
from Carol Spizzirri,
cs
or CSpizzirri@SALF.org.
And the date of that?
May 1st at
And the subject?
It's,
Did you write and author this e-mail?
6:04 p.m.
return,
downed system.
responded to -- it says,
response to an e-mail to Mr.
"RE";
Brian Serno
that's a
(sic) .
Is this your e-mail,
10
Yes,
11
And you wrote this e - mail?
12
Yes.
13
Did you send this e-mail to the defendant?
14
No.
15
Did you write and send this e-mail regarding
16
ma'am?
it is.
the defendant?
17
18
And who did you send this e-mail to?
19
To Brian Serno
20
You never sent this e-mail to the defendant,
21
did mention her in there.
True Consulting.
Annabel Melongo?
22
No.
23
Did you,
24
(sic),
at any time,
give the defendant
the authority to access your e-mail account for
141
the purpose of forwarding e-mails to herself?

No.
MS.
THE COURT:
MS .
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
Thank you .
Anything further,
ZARKOS:
Ms.
Bonjean,
you may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS.
Ms .
Zarkos?
I'm sorry.
No.
Ms.
BONJEAN :
Spizzirri,
10
11
Do you see that there?
I'm asking you to look at
1 that you previously identified.
12
Yes,
13
Please point to me exactly where it says
14
that Ms.
do.
Melongo was to relinquish passwords?
15
16
says,
17
the property of Save - A-Life Foundation and may be
18
protected by copyright law .
19
returned and verified prior to final
20
of employment.
21
windows,
22
23
24
It says,
No.
2,
it has,
company-owned i terns,
passwords.
listed i terns below are
All items are to be

termination
Number 2 is passwords,
verified,
It
computer
yes .
And when it says it was verified,
yes,
what does that mean?

A
That meant that she had relinquished the
142
passwords.
How do you relinquish a password?
There -- every time you have some kind of
document or file,
there's a password to get into that.
Isn't it true that you changed the password?
I'm sorry;
Isn't it true you had the password changed
8
9
when Ms.
don't understand.
Melongo left?
At that time,
we did not -- at the time
10
she left,
11
the moment that she left,
12
no.
To my knowledge,
Sass - -
14
password when she left?

A
at
no.
It's your testimony that Christopher
13
15
she did not,
your new IT director -- did not change the
Chris Sass was not an employee of ours.
16
He was a consultant.
17
consulting --
He was a temp for another
18
19
left?
20
I'm sorry.
21
You don't remember whether anyone changed
22
Did anybody change the password when she
don't remember.
the password?
23
They
24
Would an e-mail --
143
Ms.
THE COURT:
Bonjean,
wait until the witness
has finished her answer before you begin asking your
next question.
4
5
6
MS.
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
Okay.
BONJEAN:
Would an e-mail of yours perhaps refresh
your recollection about whether the passwords were
changed?
At the time that Ms.
Melongo left our
10
employment or was terminated on the 27th of
11
April -- March
12
was at the end of the day,
13
if he would have changed the passwords at that
14
time.
15
it might spark something.
16
17
no,
Sorry.
and I
She
it
couldn't verify
So maybe if you have some kind of e-mail,
Well,
Ms.
back to that.
18
April.
But I
Spizzirri,
we're going to get
have to find it.

do have a question.
Can you
19
produce the e-mail with a timestamp that showed
20
that an e - mail was forwarded from your Save-A-Life
21
Foundation account to Annabel's account?
22
I'm not certain what you're referring to.
23
Well,
24
your e-mails,
you claim that my client accessed

right?
144
According to this --
Ma' am,
I'm not asking you to refer to any
of the exhibit.
is -- that my client accessed your e-mails and
forwarded an e-mail to herself,
temps
My employees
9
10
I'm asking you what your allegation
didn't
right?
know that she did that.
my employees.
The
She never sent i t to me.
But you allege today -- you're the
complaining witness in this case,
right?
11
Uh-huh.
12
You allege today that that is how she
13
tampered with your computer,
right?
14
She took an e-mail of mine,
15
Right.
16
Uh-huh.
17
And that she accessed your computer to do
19
Uh-huh.
20
And that's what you're stating,
18
21
yes.
That's what you're alleging?
it?
right?
Can you produce the e-mail that would
22
have been in your sent e-mail box that would have
23
been sent to Ms.
24
sent to herself?
Melongo -- what she would have
145
MS.
I don't understand.
ZARKOS:
Counsel,
that she --
THE COURT:
MS.
THE COURT:
BY MS.
Is that an objection?
ZARKOS:
Objection,
Your Honor.
Sustained.
BONJEAN:
How could she produce an e-mail,
Have you ever produced an e-mail to the
State from your "sent e-mail" box that shows that
10
an e-mail was sent from your e - mail account to
11
Ms.
12
Melongo?
A
never received this document.
13
you' re referring to this document,
14
received it.
15
If
never
It was sent to all my employees.
Ma'am,
are you -- have you -- you have
16
testified that you did not gi ve Ms.
17
permission --
Melongo
18
Right.
19
-- to access your e-mail and send an
20
e-mail to herself,
right?
21
Right.
22
And i t ' s your allegation that she did
23
that -- accessed your e-mail;
24
account,
and from your e-mail
sent it to somebody else,
146
right?
Yes.
Then you should have a
account
THE COURT:
MS.
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
Sustained,
sustained.
Objection.
Sustained AS to the form of the
question.
"sent e-mail"
MS.
BY MS.
10
ZARKOS:
Objection.
BONJEAN:
Do you have and can you pr ov ide a copy o f
11
sent e - mail with a timestamp from your sent
12
e - mail folder that supports what you come in here
13
and say today?
14
15
MS.
16
TH E COURT:
17
BY MS.
I'm sorry.
ZARKOS:
19
THE COURT:
21
22
23
24
Objection,
Your Honor.
Overruled.
BON JEAN:
18
20
You can't d o that.
Yes?
Ov erruled.
Answer the question.

BY MS.
Q
BON JEAN:
And you claim that you did not send this
e-mail to Annabel Melongo?

A
Let's move on.
Right.
147
And that she,
herself,
But the e-mail should still exist,
THE COURT:
to the form of the question.
of things there.
MS.
THE COURT:
it up.
BY MS.
10
BONJEAN:
You're asking a couple
Well . . .
It's a compound question.
Break
BONJEAN:
Ms.
correct?
I'm going to sustain an objection
11
did it?
You have an e-mail account,
correct,
Spizzirri?
12
Right.
13
And you know how to work e-mail,
14
I'm not a real pro at it,
15
And do you know that you have the ability
16
but,
right?
yes.
to compose e-mails?
17
Right.
18
And that you have the ability to forward
19
e-mails?
20
True.
21
And that when you forward an e-mail from
22
your account,
23
or sent to whoever you were forwarding it to?
24
it would appear as being forwarded
If you're -- like a CC?
148
Like a copy?
Or
2
3
4
attachments?
Q
Ma'am,
to somebody?
A
Like,
Sure.
Ok ay,
if I
had received one and then I
sent it to someone else?
have you ever forwarded an e-mail
it wou ld say,
Q
that's correct.
"RE".
Right.
And that's where
That's return.
And when you forwarded that,
10
copy of that forwarding would be in your sent
11
e-mail box,
right?
12
True.
13
And I'm asking -- that's what I
was
14
asking.
15
copy of the e-mail that was purportedly sent from
16
your e-mail account?
17
18
19
Did you ever provide the State with a
No.
the fact when the employees came to me.

Q
Now,
on that point,
20
even realize,
21
you about this?
correct,
22
Uh-huh.
23
Ma'am,
24
didn't even realize until after
you say that you didn't
until the employees came to
do you remember writing a
letter
to Assistant Attorney Barry Goldberg from the
149
Illinois Attorney General's Office?
MS.
THE COURT:
Your Honor,
ZARKOS:
objection.
Let me cut to the chase.
see the letter,
point that you think is relevant.
(Whereupon,
10
and direct me to the particular
We'll have a brief sidebar.
Let me
sidebar was had outside
the presence of the

THE COURT:
MS.
jury.)
What's your objection?
ZARKOS:
11
isn't the previous
12
THE COURT:
don't
know what this
Is this the letter?
is.
This
Is this the
13
letter -- is this the document -- the letter -- by
14
this witness?
15
MS.
16
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
Yes.
All right.
And it states on
17
Monday,
18
on Monday,
19
received two e-mails from Ms.
20
e-mails from Ms.
21
22
she sent some letter to this person;

May 1,
that
she knew that she and staff

Melongo -- private
Spizzirri's corporate account.
How is that impeaching?

MS.
BONJEAN:
She didn't get it on May 1st.
23
She was never told about it.
24
nowhere in here -- a very long summary -- of what
150
She also said
transpired;
i t ' s impeachment by contribution and impeachment
by omission.
MS.
that the e-mails were forwarded.
ZARKOS:
that to her,
sent it to her.
MS.
BONJEAN:
And here she said that Ms.
ZARKOS:
10
MS.
BONJEAN:
Where?
Ms.
MS.
ZARKOS:
She received that e-mail on May
1st from her staff.
14
clear.
16
19
From her staff.
She was
Her staff was aware of it.
THE COURT:
It's confusing them.
State has to
establish she got this from her staff.
17
18
Spizzirri said she received
it on May 1st.
13
15
BY MS .
Q
BONJEAN:
Ms.
Spizzirri,
want to get back to your
20
prior testimony that the passwords were not
21
immediately changed after Ms.
22
was terminated from the company.
23
24
Melongo
sent it to her on May 1st.

MS.
12
She said that she didn't send
but she became aware that her employee
11
So
Melongo terminated
can't honestly answer you with that.
It's been nearly eight years.
151
don't remember.
about
Would anything refresh your recollection
Maybe.
(Defendant's Exhibit No.
5
6
7
8
9

BY MS.
BONJEAN:
Okay.
11
MS.
14
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
I'm
just take a look at this letter.
Is that Defendant's 3?
Defendant's 3.
BONJEAN:
And if you could identify that letter for
the record?
15
16
Attorney,
17
18
Spizzirri,
Sure.
THE COURT:
13
I'm going to -- Ms.
going to ask you to
10
12
3 was
That was a
letter to the State's
Dick Devine.
It's a
to Dick Devine,
letter that you wrote specifically

correct?
19
Uh-huh.
20
And I'd ask you to look down at the third
21
paragraph and tell me
22
see that.
23
The second paragraph.
24
paragraph.
And read that
And tell me if that refreshes your
152
recollection about whether -I don't want you to read it out
THE COURT:
Read the letter and then answer the attorney
loud.
with respect to whether that refreshes your
recollection.
BY THE WITNESS:
I do.
letter is May 8th.
BY MS.
10
also understand the date of this

And that was --
BONJEAN:
Ma'am,
does that refresh your recollection
11
of whether Christopher Sass changed your passwords
12
immediately after Ms.
13
No.
Melongo left?
This verifies he didn't,
because
14
he
15
Mr.
16
that's the same date this letter was written.
this date -- I
have an actual e-mail from
Sass that he changed them on May 8th.
And
17
So,
18
It was after -- it was May 8th he changed
19
it,
20
21
not April 27th.

Q
8th,
22
it
24
8th,
Well,
ma'am,
you wrote this letter on May
you said?
A
23
ma'am --
Yeah.
And that's the same day he changed
it wasn't April 27th;

which was several days,
153
he changed it on May
a week after she left.
Well --
Because I
THE COURT:
4
5
6
BY MS.
Q
Sustained.
BONJEAN:
Ma'am,
MS.
ZARKOS:
MS.
BONJEAN:
MS.
ZARKOS:
10
MS.
BONJEAN:
11
THE COURT:
13
BY MS.
Q
I'm going to ask you to look at
And without getting
paragraph 2.
12
didn't even get the e-mail --
Objection -I
want her to read -asked and answered,
Your Honor.
I'm asking a different question.

What's the question?
BON JEAN:
Part of your policy at Save-A-Life
14
Foundation is that when someone is terminated,
15
passwords are changed,
the
correct?
16
Not necessarily.
17
Was that part of -- that wasn't part of
18
your standard policy?
19
No,
20
To change the passwords?
21
No.
22
You just -- part of the standard policy
23
24
no.
is to give up the passwords?

A
Yes.
154
And how does that protect Save-A-Life
Foundation -- to give up a password?
MS.
ZARKOS:
THE COURT:
5
6
Your Honor.
Overruled.
Go ahead.
BY THE WITNESS:
Objection,
How does that protect us?
BY MS.
She was in IT.
BONJEAN:
Ma' am,
I'm as king you to answer my
10
question.
11
your passwords memorized?
How does somebody -- do you have any of
12
In my computer?
13
Yes,
14
Sure.
15
And if someone told you to give up those
16
passwords,
17
18
19
20
it.
correct.
how exactly would you do it?
I'd give it to you or whoever asked for

I'd give them the password.
And would yo u be able t o not remember
them anymore?
21
MS.
ZARKOS:
22
MS.
BONJEAN:
23
My personal computer?
Objection,
Your Honor.
I'm just trying to understand
what she means by giving up the passwords.
24
155
BY THE WITNESS:
Excuse me.
Annabel signed --
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
Ma'am,
Do you
MS.
admonish --
But in this document that
BONJEAN:
THE COURT:
am asking the questions.
Judge,
I'd ask you to
suppose giving up the passwords
10
means that the present IT administrator could then
11
change the passwords.
12
apparently,
13
That's been established.
14
BY MS.
15
So let's move on.
they didn't as of May 1 or May 9.

Let's go.
BONJEAN:
Now,
Ms.
Spizzirri,
have a couple
16
questions regarding your relationship with
17
Ms.
18
person;
Melongo.
Ms.
Melongo replaced a prior IT
isn't that right?
19
He's a temp.
20
In fact,
you obtained IT administrators
21
from the Robert Half organization,
22
that was a
23
organization?
24
And,
replacement or a
correct,
and
temp placement
After our initial IT had a heart attack,
156
we had to go into Robert Half and got a
replace him.
temp to
And you had an IT administrator by the
name of Victor Rodriguez;
isn't that correct?
Uh-huh.
And he was immediately preceding Ms.
Melong o ,
correct?
Yes.
Do you remember approximately when he was
10
hired?
11
I'm sorry,
12
Do you remember how long he worked for you?
13
That I
14
15
16
17
18
maybe.
Q
can't even say.
Several months,
I'm not sure.

When he departed,
hacking your servers;

A
don't.
No,
no.
the passwords.
you accused him of
isn't that right?
What it was,
he wouldn't gi v e up
He changed
19
He,
20
He changed the passwords,
21
22
23
24
too,
wouldn't give up the passwords?

but he wouldn't
give them up.

Q
In fact,
according to you,
he threatened
you that if you didn't hire him full-time -MS.
ZARKOS:
Objection.
157
1
2
Sustained.
BY MS.
Sustained.
THE COURT:
don't
Well,
Ms.
Spizzirri,
you had a prior IT
according to you,
tampered with y o ur
person who,
passwords and --
9
10
11
12
13
No,
that's not tampering.
Okay.
Well,
did you ha v e
any understanding
of why he wouldn't gi v e up the passwords?

MS.
ZARKOS:
Objection.
This is beyond the
scope.
THE COURT:
15
MS.
16
Honor.
17
BY MS.
19
He wouldn't
give up the passw o rds.
14
18
know what his relevance is here.
BONJEAN:
Sustained.
Sustained.
BONJEAN:
Your Honor - - one second,
BON JEAN:
And,
in fact,
Ms.
Melongo replaced this
person that wouldn't give up the passwords,
20
Yes.
21
And you were very happy with Ms.
22
Your
performance;
correct?
Mel o ng o 's
isn't that right?
23
24
Called her very trustworthy in multiple
believe so.
158
communications to people.
her performance?
You were very happy with
Uh-huh.
Found her to be honest,
You stuck up for her?
Yeah.
Because she did a
stuck up for her.
always complimented her.

good job for you;
She did from -- to my knowledge,
12
Okay.
And,
in fact,
13
forwarded this e-mail to Ms.
14
know you didn't,
16
17
18
19
20
isn't
that right?
11
15
isn't
that right?
10
helpful;
you don't
Melongo;
she did.
know who
you just
correct?
did not forward it.
didn't even
receive it.
Q
Right.
forward it,
A
You don't
know -- you didn't
but you don't even know who forwarded it?

did not,
no.
after they did a footprint,
21
Who did a
22
was told.
I mean,
they traced
footprint?
believe that Christian Sass - -
23
temporary employee from True Consulting.
24
he -- he traced it.
159
And - -
the
And that
He traced it?
Do you have any documents

Did you
to show that Christopher Sass traced it?
provide any of those documents to the State?
Yes.
And you have information that this was
6
7
traced by Christopher Sass?

A
Well,
then it was retraced,
but,
yes.
Like I
True Consulting.
10
11
12
said,
he was a temporary -- he was with
What was the information that he provided
to you that this was traced?

A
He said it had to do -- and I
don't know
13
any terminology of computers at all.
14
it to me on May 8th,
15
particular time,
16
even received it until the following morning,
17
which would have been May 2nd.
18
out about it until about May 3rd.
19
time,
20
know how they do it.
21
and said that he was able to trace it.
22
when,
23
24
in fact
because at this
it was late at night and nobody
And I
he was already going through.
you know,
And,
He presented
didn't find
And so by that
And I
don't
But he came back on May 8 th

And that's
I was first -- had knowledge of it.
Ms.
Spizzirri,
do you have any
documentation that you can provide to me right now
160
that shows that Christopher Sass from this
consulting firm made those findings?
A
anyhow.
5
6
wouldn't be able to give it to you
don't have any documents with me.
But do you have any in your possession
somewhere?
At my home.
Have you provided those to the State?
They have everything.
10
Okay.
11
Uh-huh.
12
Now,
They have everything,
right?
you -- back to my question.
13
not,
according to you - -
according to you,
14
didn't forward the e-mail that was,
15
subject matter,
downed system,
You did
you
believe,
the
to Ms.
Melongo,
right?
16
Correct.
17
But you can't say who forwarded that to
18
19
her,
can you?
A
wouldn't have no reason,
20
anybody else,
21
response to our - -
nor would
because it was pertaining to a

True Consultants.
22
My question is,
23
And she was terminated already.
24
understand.
161
you can't say
But my question is,
you
can't say -- you didn't forward it to her;
can't say who forwarded it to her,
have no independent knowledge of who forwarded it
to her,
5
6
7
according to you,
I'm sorry.
I'm really -- I
Q
Now,
you
can you?
You
if it wasn't you?
But as far as computers go,
don't know nothing.
you're not alleging that -- i t ' s
your position that my client was very disgruntled
after she was terminated,
10
MS.
11
THE COURT:
12
13
ZARKOS:
Objection.
Overruled.
BY THE WITNESS:
I would say that she was -- when she was
14
terminated,
15
BY MS.
16
she wasn't very happy.
BONJEAN:
And according to you,
17
e-mails.
18
from your e-mail account?
19
right?
she accessed your
But there were no e-mails deleted,
right,
On the 28th -- the day after -- we came
20
to work,
and we had no computers,
21
e-mails,
we had no nothing.
22
turned on their computer,
23
So it took many days for us to even get into our
24
e-mails.
162
we had no
Our employees went
all the files were gone.
And you have no information or basis to
believe that my client had anything to do with
that;
isn't that right?

I
just had to bring in people.
We
thought we were downed system.
But you don't know how that happened,
No.
Ma'am,
10
do
you?
Foundation;
you were the founder of Save-A-Life
isn't that right?
11
Yes,
12
That's a defunct organization,
13
Uh-huh.
14
It was closed,
15
After almost 20 years.
16
And it was a charitable organization?
17
Yes.
18
As part of this charitable organization,
19
ma' am.
correct?
We closed our doors.

right?
you're required to keep financial
records?
yes.
20
Oh,
21
And expenditures and other types of logs
22
and reports,
correct?
23
Yes.
24
And isn't it true that the
163
Illinois
Attorney General --
THE COURT:
MS.
THE COURT:
Sustained,
BONJEAN:
I
specifically said not to do
that.
identify any agency.
abided by.
said do it another way,
MS.
THE COURT:
10
11
BON JEAN:
but not to
intend for that to be
Okay,
Your Honor,
but
intend for that to be abided by.
Let's go.
MS.
BONJEAN:
12
the Court's order,
13
THE COURT:
understand.
but I
at sidebar,
15
it in the presence of the
16
MS.
17
THE COURT:
18
MS.
19
THE COURT:
will.
BONJEAN:
want to follow
--
But I'm not going to discuss

jury.
No problem,
Your Honor.
Yes,
do.
Great.
(Whereupon,
21
sidebar was had
outside the presence of the

THE COURT:
23
which I
24
objection.
Thank you.
Do you want to have a sidebar?
BONJEAN:
20
If you wish to discuss i t with me
14
22
sustained.
Your Honor --
sustained,
forbade
jury. )
was very clear in my ruling in
you to do this over the State's
After a
lot of thought by the Court
164
that the only question I
asked for specificity.
MS.
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
I
I
would ask you is -- and I
wrote it down word for word.
said -- I
wrote it down too
is it correct that a government agency has
previously requested those records from you.
MS.
THE COURT:
MS.
BONJEAN:
Okay.
That's it.
BONJEAN:
Okay.
10
THE COURT:
11
say state senator,
12
clear in that regard.
13
14
MS.
BONJEAN:
specifically stated
a specific agency.
I
I
didn't
was quite
I misunderstood that -- naming
the government agency.
15
THE COURT:
16
Let's go.
(S idebar concluded.)
17
18
THE COURT:
BY MS.
19
You may continue your examination.
BONJEAN:
Ms.
Spizzirri,
has a government agency
20
requested any financial
21
Save-A-Life Foundation from you?
22
records related to the
The Save-A-Life did quarterly reports by
23
the
24
at the end of the fiscal
our independent auditors each quarter and
165
year and put -- sent it
to our project manager at the state and federal
levels.
Ms.
THE COURT:
Spizzirri,
agency requested financial
or no?
7
8
THE WITNESS:
12
13
records from you:
not to my knowledge.
Yes
Are
you saying -THE COURT:
No.
Yes or no;
you've answered
the question.
10
11
No,
has any governmental
Put another question,

MS.
BY MS.
Q
BONJEAN:
please.
Give me one second,
Your Honor.
BONJEAN:
Ms.
Spizzirri,
were you aware that my
14
client had alleged that you had destroyed certain
15
records related to your organization?
16
No,
17
And,
18
never
ma'am,
no.
No.
did you ultimately end up
filing a suit against the Robert Half Company?
19
We started,
20
You withdrew that lawsuit;
21
Yes.
22
And the basis of that lawsuit was --
23
MS.
24
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
but we never fulfilled.
Objection.
Overruled.
166
isn't that right?
11
BY MS.
BONJEAN:
The basis of that lawsuit was based on
your allegations against their temp employees --
two of them -- that had purportedly done things to
your computers;
isn't that right?
They actually -- they actually settled
without going
they compensated for the employees'
we had lost.
10
111
out of court,
Did you file a
13
MS.
14
THE COURT:
15
MS.
wages -- what
lawsuit and then withd ra w
Yes.
BONJEAN:
One second,
Your Honor.
Take your time.
BONJEAN:
16
sidebar before I
17
Ms.
Your Honor,
can we have a
quick
close my cross -exami nation of
Spizzirri?
THE COURT:
19
Sure.
(Whereupon,
20
sidebar was had
outside the presence of the
21
MS.
22
THE COURT REPORTER:
23
MS.
24 1
because
the lawsuit?
12
18
basically,
BONJEAN:
BONJEAN:
jury . )
(Inaudib le ).
What?
She did respond to a
from the Illinois Attorney General for
167
request
financial
records.
not true.
3
4
She said she was never asked,
THE COURT:
MS.
THE COURT:
BONJEAN:
MS.
BONJEAN:
11
MS.
12
THE COURT:
13
BONJEAN:
MS.
15
THE COURT:
16
MS.
BONJEAN:
BONJEAN:
22
Do you want to cross her on this?

She testified that she
Cross her on this.
Nothing more.
I'm just curious.
Your Honor,
this is the letter
that we were looking for.
18
21
I have it somewhere in here.
How much more do you anticipate?
14
20
Do you have a prefatory request
have to find it.

THE COURT:
19
I'm sorry?
from the Attorney General's Office?
10
17
Is there a prefatory request that
we have?
which is
BY MS.
Q
BONJEAN:
Ms.
Spizzirri,
when did you dissolve your
charitable foundation?
A
It was dissolved the latter part of -- we
23
sent the paperwork in the latter part of 2009,
24
it was accepted -- the final audit was 2010.
168
and
And it was your testimony that no
government agency had requested financial
from you;
Well,
down,
they do.
isn't that right?

at the end of the -- when we close
Okay.
I'm going to show you what's been
previously marked -- or as Defendant's 3.
believe we're at Defendant's 3.
10
THE COURT:
No;
Defendant's 3
(Defendant's Exhibit No.
12
14
Defendant's 4;
was some letter to a prosecutor.
11
13
records
4 was

BY MS.
BONJEAN:
I'd ask you to take a look at this letter.
15
And without telling me anything about the contents
16
of that letter,
17
18
19
20
do.
do you recognize that letter?

And it was complied with by our
auditor.
Q
And was that a request for
financial
documents from a government agency?
21
That was standard.
22
Were you requested financial documents?
23
As a nonprofit,
24
year.
We got that every year.
we had to do that every
And this was the close-down.
169
And did you comply with it?
Yes,
absolutely.
We're in good standing
to-date.
MS.
THE COURT:
I have nothing further,
BONJEAN:
Your Honor.
Thank you.
Redirect examination?
MS.
ZARKOS:
Very briefly,
Your Honor.
BY MS.
10
Ms.
ZARKOS:
Spizzirri,
it was your testimony
11
before that the e-mail that appears on the second
12
line here was written by you;
is that correct?
13
Yes,
14
And that e-mail was never forwarded by
15
ma' am.
you to Annabel Melongo?
16
Absolutely not.
17
This e-mail was sent to whom?
18
It says to Brian Sarno
19
Consulting.
20
21
( sic ) fr om True
Ms.
Ma'am,
it was your testimony before that
Melongo was terminated on April 27th,
2006?
22
Uh-huh.
23
Do you recall if that was a Friday in the
24
calendar?
170
It was a Thursday.
And what time was that?
That would have been,
4:00,
would say,
about
4:30 -- somewhere around there.
Late in the afternoon on Thursday?
Uh-huh;
The end of the day on a Thursday on April
the end of the day.
27th;
is that correct?
Right.
10
Therefore,
11
28,
29,
12
is that correct?
A
14
MS.
15
THE COURT:
16
MS.
17
THE COURT:
18
MS.
19
THE COURT:
21
22
23
excused.
counting forward --
30 -- May 1st would have been that Monday;
13
20
May 1st,
Yes,
ma'am.
ZARKOS:
ZARKOS:
BONJEAN:
Thank you.
Anything further,
No,
Ms.
Zarkos?
Your Honor.
Recross?
No,
Your Honor.
Thank you,
Ms.
Spizzirri.
You're
You may step down.

Ladies and gentlemen of the
another break.
THE SHERIFF:
jury,
you get
We'll see you in about ten minutes.

All rise for the
24
171
jury.
(Whereupon,
4
5
THE COURT:
everybody.
You may be
seated.
State,
MS.
THE COURT:
Thank you,
ZARKOS:
do you have any further witnesses?

No,
we do not,
Your Honor.
Do you wish to introduce formally
any particular items of evidence that have been
10
presented?
11
MS.
12
THE COURT:
13
MS.
ZARKOS:
ZARKOS:
Yes,
And what will those be?

Formally enter into evidence
14
State's Exhibit No.
15
through A through 2
16
and Exhibit 4.
17
THE COURT:
18
MS.
ZARKOS:
Your Honor.
1,
State's Exhibit No.

2A through 20;
What was
Four,
Exhibit 3
4 again?
Your Honor,
is the --
19
certain e-mails that were recovered from Ms.
20
Melongo's bedroom.
21
THE COURT:
22
MS.
23
24
ZARKOS:
Annabel
And 3 was the list of passwords?

Correct,
Your Honor.
Employee
passwords.
THE COURT:
Any objection to the admission of
172
those,
MS.
Ms.
Bonj ean?
BONJEAN:
No objection.
THE COURT:
They will be admitted.

(People's Exhibit Nos.
MS.
BONJEAN:
jury or is that
THE COURT:
10
into evidence.
11
MS.
12
THE COURT:
13
MS.
14
THE COURT:
15
MS.
16
motion.
2A -
D,
ZARKOS:
18
MS.
20
just for -No;
we're
just talking about admitted
No objection.
State rests?
Yes,
Ms.
BONJEAN:
THE COURT:
notes,
Will that be published to the
BONJEAN:
17
19
1,
and 4 were admitted into evidence.)
I'd like to look at those.
Your Honor.
Bonjean?
Yes,
Your Honor.
do have a
Please.
BONJEAN:
Give me one second to grab my
Your Honor.
I
do not have any objection to
21
Ms.
Spizzirri being present,
22
there's a motion in limine still pending and
23
whether or not there's a motion to exclude.
24
173
but I
don't
know if
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
BY THE DEFENDANT:
MS.
BONJEAN:
Your Honor,
yes,
we would move
for a directed finding as to Count III of this
indictment,
1st,
Save-A-Life Foundation founder's
through her computer,
in Schiller Park,
2006,
which alleges that on or about May

Ms.
Annabel Melongo accessed
e-mails.
11
e-mail right here was
12
herself.
13
And,
Now,
which was physically located
Illinois,
10
apparently,
first
computer e-mail
and then accessed

the theory is that this
forwarded to Ms.
and foremost,
Melongo by
I'm going to get
14
into the technical argument and then a more
15
insufficiency of the evidence argument.
16
statute requires that
17
of Count III,
18
the data that was accessed.
19
provide a definition for,
20
reviewing courts -- the Illinois Supreme Court
21
has
22
its plain and ordinary meaning in the absence of a
23
statutory definition indicating legislative
24
intent.
for Ms.
The
Melongo to be guilty
she must have altered the e-mail or

The statute does not
altered.
But our
said that statutory language should be given
An undefined word must be given ordinary
174
and popularly understood meaning.
Third New International Dictionary defines alter
as to change.
defines alter as to change o r
character or composition typically in a
comparatively small but significant way.
Now,
The Webster's
And Oxford's English Dictionary

cause to change in
i t ' s also important that pursuant t o
720
ILCS 5/43 that a person must have a mens rea
associated with every single element of the
10
offense.
11
other than the offense which invol v es absolute
12
liability unless with respect to each element
13
described by the statute defining the offense,
14
acts while having one of the mental states
15
described in 4-4 through 4-7.
16
defining an offense proscribed the particular
17
mental state with respect to the offense as a
18
whole,
19
thereof .
20
each of the elements.
A person is not guilty of an offense
he
If the statutes
then that should be applied to the elements
21
The prescribed mental state applies to
So in this case,
the mental state is
22
knowingly accessed and knowingly altered.
23
best as I
24
taking it in the light most favorable to them,
So as
can tell from the State's evidence,
175
that i t ' s their theory that,
well,
maybe when it
got forwarded,
you know,
testified typically when an e-mail is forwarded
that there's -- and I
technical jargon behind it.
that Ms.
there's some type of alteration,
guess every time something is sent via the
there was certain data that was,
being altered.
believe their expert
don't understand all of the

But that -- nothing
Melongo would do to the e-mail,
but that
timestamp.
10
Internet or via e-mail,
11
according to the State's theory.
12
possibly be what the legislature intended and
13
certainly does not coincide with the plain and
14
ordinary meaning of the statute.
15
Now,
it would have an alteration,
the State
And that can't
so even if you take the
16
evidence in the light most favorable
17
they have failed to demonstrate that there was an
18
alteration that took place.
19
Ms.
20
again,
21
have caused it.
22
And i t ' s not clear to me from the evidence that
23
the State provided what exactly is the alteration
24
to the data that was accessed from Ms.
As a
result,
Melongo cannot be found guilty.

has to be a
to the State,
And this,
knowing alteration.
She has to
She has to have done the alteration.
176
Spizzirri's
computer,
if you believe that they have demonstrated
that she accessed Ms.
brings me to the next point.

The access.
Spizzirri's computer,
which
Taking the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State,
they have
failed to show that she accessed Ms.
computer.
expert witness,
expert,
Spizzirri's
Let's look at the evidence.
Their
who they didn't even offer as an
but she unequivocally said,

Melongo accessed Ms.
can't say
10
that Ms.
Spizzirri's e-mail
11
account.
12
officer has no independent basis or knowledge that
13
Ms.
14
is asking the Court to deduce is that because
15
Ms.
16
to Ms.
17
Well,
18
just testified,
I don't know,
19
I don't know.
20
any personal knowledge.
21
technical testimony that showed -- which was
22
available;
23
There's a way to do it.
24
It's called getting those people in who can
She couldn't say that.
Certainly the
Melongo accessed the e-mails.
What the State
Spizzirri claims she didn't forward an e-mail

Melongo that it must have been Ms.
Ms.
that is a huge stretch.
didn't do it,
Melongo.
Spizzirri herself
don't know,
know
She doesn't have
Without scientific and
they could have gotten it if it existed.
177
It's called IP addresses.
testify if that was the case,
which it wasn't.
But if they wanted to and proof was there,
witnesses were available for them to make their
case.
could not show any unlawful access.
a hunch.
And they were unable to do so.
They simply
It is merely
That's what they're asking us to deduce.
We don't know how many people had access.
Your Honor,
And,
I would also point out and remind the
10
Court that there was massive contradictions in
11
that Martin,
12
e-mail server.
13
the State has theorized -- that she accessed the
14
e-mail itself on the PC.
15
indictment alleges.
16
accessed the servers,
17
it up,
18
accessed the servers.
himself,
Well,
of course,
19
said that she accessed the

that's different than what
And that's what the
So Martin is saying,
with,
again,
no,
she
nothing to back
just his testimony that she
So we have even this big contradiction
20
because the servers themselves are in Colorado.
21
I've been hearing the expert witness testimony
22
in fact,
23
servers in Colorado analyzed?
24
idea what those -- an analysis of those servers
specifically asked it:
178
No.
Were any of the

But we have no
would have shown.

Furthermore,
also asked the expert,
could you have gotten user ID information and
log-ins and activity if you had subpoenaed data
from the e-mail providers themselves.
even do that.
accessed an e-mail account when you have all the
ability in the world to get the evidence to show
it and you choose not to.
They didn't
How can you say that this woman
10
and say,
11
have deleted here,
12
That is not good evidence.
13
which this Court can find that they have satisfied
14
their burden,
15
most favorable to them.
16
well,
You just put this up
she might have done this,
she could
she might have deleted here.

It's not evidence on
even taking everything in the light
Not to mention that they cannot demonstrate
17
alteration because alteration contemplates
18
something very different than what they're
19
proposing here.
20
change.
21
written by Ms.
22
changed,
23
forwarde d this e - mail.
24
contradictory because it doesn't even say,
The content of the e-mail did not
The e-mail itself is exactly as i t was

Spizzirri.
The only thing that
according to them,
179
And,
was that Ms.

yet,
Melongo
i t ' s inherently
It doesn't say -- it looks to me,
forwarded.
quite honestly,
plausible that it was copied and pasted there and
it wasn't forwarded.
too many -- it would be complete conjecture and
speculation to say that she was responsible for
this without the technical testimony that we just
did not hear.
that you direct this out in favor of Ms.
10
think i t ' s easily -- easily as
We don't know.
And based on that,
THE COURT:
11
12
State,
Thank you,
Ms.
Ms.
There's
just
we'd ask you

Melongo.
Bonjean.
Zarkos or Ms.
Dasgupta,
do you
wish to respond?
13
MOTION AGAINST DIRECTED VERDICT
14
BY THE PEOPLE :
15
MS.
ZARKOS:
Your Honor,
in light of the
16
evidence most favorable to the State,
we have an
17
officer who testified that on July 20th,
18
Ms.
19
Foundation computers and that she accessed and
20
forwarded this e-mail to herself.
21
e-mail itself.
22
itself
23
e-mail is what we're alleging was - -
24
to herself.
2006,
Melongo told him she accessed the Save-A-Life
As counsel said,
the alteration.
And it says,
180
We have the
it speaks for
The bottom of the
she forwarded
received this e-mail
forwarded to me and I
can't imagine -- on and on
and on.
at the Save-A-Life Foundation.
testified this e-mail that she authored she sent
to a consultant,
part she never saw.
This was added by Ms.
e-mail.
And it's being sent to a series of people
not to Ms.
Ms.
Spizzirri
Melongo.
That top
It was never sent to her.

Melongo.
This altered the
She forwarded it to the people at the
10
Save-A-Life Foundation in her home -- this was in
11
her home -- two months after she was terminated.
12
A list of passwords were found,
13
Ms.
14
H-e-r-m-a-n-n.
15
for two weeks she was accessing the Save -A-Life
16
Foundation following her termination.
17
Ms.
18
this e-mail to her.
19
viewing these e-mails.
20
This e-mail ended up in the Save-A-Life Foundation
21
on May 1st
22
terminated on Thursday, April 27th at 4:30.
23
Passwords were not changed on that day.
24
no other explanation.
Spizzirri's password.
including
The first one,
Hermann
She admitted to the officer that
And
Spizzirri clearly said that she had never sent

She told the officer she was
on Monday,
181
She saw these e-mails.
May 1st,
2006.
She was
There's
In the light most favorable to the State,
this is an altered e-mail that was forwarded to
the Save-A-Life Foundation.
she is guilty of accessing the Save-A-Life
Foundation and also altering this e-mail and
forwarding i t to other employees.
testimony of Ms.
Spizzirri.
of the officer.
We have the testimony of the
expert who took a picture of this and is
10
11
12
13
And we have the
We have the testimony
presenting it to court today -- an altered e-mail.

MS.
BONJEAN:
Your Honor,
if I
could respond
just briefly.
THE COURT:
14
15
And we believe that
No,
not yet.
And the alteration is what precisely?

MS.
ZARKOS:
The alteration,
Your Honor,
is
16
she removed this e-mail and attached it to this
17
e-mail that she sent out.
18
forwarded to me.
19
new copy in front of it.
20
other people.
21
e - mail.
22
altered it and forwarded it on.
23
that she accessed it through the Save-A-Life
24
Foundation using Ms.
Ms.
received this e-mail
She altered it.
She put a whole
And she forwarded it to
Spizzirri never sent her this
Whatever she did to this e-mail,
182
Now,
she
we're saying
Spizzirri's Hermann account.
THE COURT:
She got this e-mail.
Taking the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State.
She gets this e-mail,
gets the e-mail.
closing arguments.
verdict -- look at the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.
computer by using the password.
e-mail and she sends it on to other people --
10
apparently,
11
list.
she admits to Martin she
It's not the trial.
It's not
It's a motion for directed
She accesses a
She gets the
the people who were listed in the "to"
12
MS.
13
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
Correct.
According to the res gestae in the
14
e-mail itself and purports to have come from her,
15
herself,
16
although she doesn't send it to Ms.
17
highl ights or begins her note on top of Carol
18
Spizzirri's e-mail that's sent to somebody else
19
we don't know who.
201
the other consultant,
21
our problem.
22
e-mail server,
23
e -mail she had appropriated from Ms .
24
e -mail account.
sending it to these other people.
And
Spizzirri,
she
Maybe this Chris Sass or maybe

talking about downed system,
But she apparently utilizes her

her address at Yahoo to send an
183
Spizzirri's
MS.
THE COURT:
Ms.
Misappropriated.
How does that alter
Spizzirri' s computer in any manner?

MS.
ZARKOS:
ZARKOS:
It alters the e-mail,
the
computer program.
instruction that it is a computer program.
e-mail is data;
THE COURT:
8
9
We're going to have a jury

The
you alter the data.

And tell me I'm wrong,
theory -- tell me I'm wrong .
but your
Your theory,
going
10
back to what I thought you all said yesterday is
11
that it's altered by virtue of the fact that when
12
it's taken from Ms.
13
altered in the sense that some "sent" notation
14
gets added,
15
May 1,
16
maybe Ms.
17
some computer consultant on May 1 at 3:44 p.m.,
18
on April 30th at 9:15 a.m.,
2006,
Spizzirri's account,
it's
showing that it was sent on Monday,

at 6: 04 p.m.;
when,
in point of fact,
Spizzirri sent this e-mail originally to
19
MS.
20
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
or
correct?
Correct.
So your theory,
then,
is that the
21
alteration,
the additional data is now placed on
22
Ms.
23
that she never intended to send or forward to
24
Ms.
Spizzirri' s computer,
showing that this e-mail
Melongo or anybody else is now on her computer
184
or her e-mail account being noted as having been
sent to Ms.
Melongo?
Correct.
That's the alteration?

Correct.
5
6
Now,
is that an alteration to the
that an alteration to the e-mail
8
9
Both.
10
11
12
An alteration of the computer or

an alteration of the e-mail?
MS.
ZARKOS:
Which one is it?
Because it causes an alteration
13
in the computer program and to the data in the
14
computer.
15
16
THE COURT:
MS.
18
damage,
20
Does it do anything to damage the
computer?
17
19
The e-mail itself is the data.
ZARKOS:
don't believe I
have to prove
but the answer --
THE COURT:
It's an alternate thing.
mean,
it doesn't do anything to harm it?
21
MS.
22
THE COURT:
ZARKOS:
No.
Does it prevent Ms.
Spizzirri or
23
anybody else from using her e-mail account or the
24
particular computer from which it may have been
185
accessed thereafter in the manner in which it was
intended or anticipated?
MS.
ZARKOS:
THE COURT:
MS.
No.
It's not a
BONJEAN:
loaded question.
Your Honor,
i t ' s also equally
possible that the manipulation,
was done in Ms.
nothing to do with Ms.
if i t was done,
Melongo's own account,
THE COURT:
Spizzirri's account.
That would be the case if some
10
other person had forwarded it to Ms.
11
correct,
12
MS.
which has
Melongo,
which may be one of your theories,

BONJEAN:
Well,
certainly,
correct?
that is one of
13
our theories.
14
herself,
15
being forwarded to her.
16
into evidence of any e-mail.
17
me see the e-mail.
18
can't -- we don't know what it shows.
19
know.
20
could have been -- this,
21
was copied and pasted from another e-mail.
22
would normally say,
23
i t ' s their theory that that was deleted.
24
usually you see an indentation.
But even if she forwarded it to
which we don't have that e-mail of it

They haven't put that
I
asked for it.
It doesn't exist.
All we have is this e-mail,

to me,
forwarded,
186
Let
So we
We don't
which easily
looks more like it
or FW.
Like,
It
guess
But
this does
not look like it was forwarded.
THE COURT:
MS.
ZARKOS:
No.
RULING
Anything?
THE COURT:
The Court has listened carefully
to the arguments of the attorneys.
And as I
presented thus far by the attorneys.
issues on a bunch of different levels.
interesting case,
ably
Interesting
There were
10
originally three counts in this case.
11
has already dismissed two of them -- Counts I and
12
II -- prior to the commencement of this trial.
13
The only remaining count is Count III,
14
alleges the violation of what was then Section
15
16D-3(a) (3)
16
reconstituted.
17
that I happened to find in this building.
18
sure -- I expect it says the same as the recodified
19
2014 book.
20
Criminal Code for the State of Illinois.
21
The State
which
of the criminal code and now

But I am referencing the 2007 book
I'm
But I am working off the 2007 West
It indicates that someone is guilty of
22
computer tampering when they knowingly,
without
23
authorization of the computer's owner or,
24
matter,
for that
excess of the authority granted to them;
187
three,
quote,
computer or any part thereof or a program or data
and damages or destroys the computer or alters,
deletes or removes a computer program or data.
accesses or causes to be accessed a
This is a motion for a finding --
directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the
State's case.
juncture in the proceedings,
in the face of such a motion to view all of the
The Court indicated at this

the Court is required
10
evidence in the light most favorable to the
11
nonmoving party,
12
determine whether in the face of that motion,
13
rational trier of fact could conclude that the
14
State's evidence proves Ms.
15
a reasonable doubt.
16
in this instance the State,
to
some
Melongo guilty beyond
By virtue of the statutory section I
17
read,
the State's indictment of -- the Grand
18
Jury's indictment roughly followed the statutory
19
language.
20
present evidence that in point of fact,
21
accessed a computer or a part thereof or a program
22
or data.
23
most favorable to the State,
24
of fact could conclude the State has presented
The State is thus called upon to

Ms.
Melongo
And looking at the evidence in the light
188
some rational trier
sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is the e-mail itself generated by the
forensic examination of the computer,
an account purporting to be Ms.
e-mail from Carol Spizzirri on May 1,
wrote a note purporting to be to Ms.
apparently was sent to others in this
organization -- Save-A - Life Foundation
apparently,
Ms.
showing that
Melongo's,
had an
2006.
Actually
Spizzirri but
evincing,
Melongo's less than fa vo rable
10
impression of Ms.
11
by the fact she had been terminated or fired some
12
days earlier.
13
testimony of Detective Martin,
14
fact,
15
forwarding that particular e - mail to herself.
Spizzirri.
Motivated,
And she admitted,
perhaps,
according to the
that,
in point of
she admitted accessing SALF e-mails and
16
Now,
there's considerable impeachment,
17
both direct impeachment and impeachment by
18
omission generated by Ms.
19
behalf.
20
because the Court is required to view the evidence
21
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
22
at this juncture.
23
could conclude,
24
accessed or caused to be accessed a computer,
Bonjean on Ms.
Melongo's
But that's of no moment at this point
So some rational trier of fact
in my estimation,
189
that Ms.
Melongo
any
Certainly the
part thereof or a program or data.
e-mail account would constitute a computer program.

But that doesn't end the analysis.
The
State initially has to go on to prove that the
person who has accessed or caused to be accessed
the computer or the program thereafter damages or
destroys the computer.
that.
is that the computer or the program or data was
10
The State's not claiming
But the State is claiming that the alternative
altered,
deleted or removed.
Therein lies the rub.
11
This is a felony offense.
In determining
12
the application of this particular statute,
13
legislative intent is necessarily relevant.
14
look at Subsection 1 of the same section;
15
Class B misdemeanor.
16
Class B misdemeanor if they access or cause to be
17
accessed a computer or any part thereof,
18
program or data.
19
offense set forth in Subsection 3,
20
legislative intent that the legislature wants
21
someone punished for a felony offense only upon
22
proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
23
the accessing the computer,
causing it to be
24
accessed,
the computer or the
the
You
it's a
A person is guilty of the
or a
Essentially half of the felony
computer program,
190
thus evincing a
that by virtue of
program is,
thereafter,
damaged,
altered,
evinces the legislative intent in some manner so
that it impacts the user's ability to use the
computer or the program in the manner intended or
anticipated.
deleted or removed;
destroyed or
that is to say,
The State's theory in this instance isn't
the alteration of the computer or of the e-mail
program operating Ms.

quote,
Spizzirri' s e-mail account
10
was,
altered in the sense that apparently
11
accessing it,
12
previously written by Ms.
13
either forwarding it to herself -- which is what
14
she admitted doing,
15
admitted doing to -- when she's discussed the case
16
with Detective Martin.
17
program were altered in the sense that additional
18
information was generated,
19
addition to the original e-mail generated by
20
Ms.
21
program,
either on the computer or in the e-mail
22
program,
additional information showing that that
23
original e-mail by Ms.
24
forwarded to Ms.
Spizzirri,
appropriating this particular e-mail

Spizzirri,
which is what Ms.
thereafter
Melongo
The computer or the
showing that in
there would then be in the sent
Spizzirri was thereafter
Melongo or to whomever,
191
but
Ms.
Melongo,
according to the State's theory.
Accepting that evidence in the light most
2
3
favorable to the State,
it doesn't appear to me
that that alters the computer program.
additional data.
It certainly doesn't remove or
delete anything.
So the words used in conjunction
with the word alter,
in paragraph 3,
deletion or removal,
It may add
in the particular sub-phrase
requiring proof of alteration,

if damaged or destroyed is
10
not here.
11
real legislative intent that a person is guilty of
12
computer tampering under Subsection A3 if the
13
manner in which they access the computer or the
14
program is manipulated,
15
affected it,
16
particular if their use impacts the user's ability
17
to use the computer in the manner intended or
18
originally anticipated.
19
It seems to me that there is a very
move around in it,
seek to effectuate something in
And I
just don't see it.
Some years since I've been in this
20
building as a judge,
I do not fault or begrudge
21
the State their theory at all.
22
begrudge them the manner in which they creatively
23
presented it to the Court and to this jury.
24
estimation,
do not fault or
In my
a contradistinction to their excellent
192
argument,
believe that the legislature did not
intend for this to be the felon y offense of
computer tampering.
defendant's motion for a directed verdict of not
guilty and enter judgment on such finding.
So I'm going to grant the
Anything further?
Court is adjourned.
Thank you,
everyb ody .
(Jury dismissed.)
(Which were all the proceedings
10
had in the above-entitled cause
11
on this date.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
193
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SS.
2
COUNTY OF C 0 0 K
I,
MARY ELLEN KUSIBAB,
an Official
Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of Cook
County,
Division,
shorthand the proceedings had on the hearing in
the above-entitled cause;
Illinois,
County Department,
do hereby certify that I
that I,
Criminal
reported in
thereafter,
10
caused the foregoing to be transcribed into
11
typewriting,
12
and accurate transcript of the proceedings.
13
14
which I hereby certify to be a true
~enClwcK~
Kusibab
15
16
C.S.R. No. 084-004348

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL
County Department - Criminal Division
17
18
19
20
Dated October 10,
2014.
21
22
23
24
194

Trial Transcript 07 29 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Trial Transcript 07 29 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trial Transcript 07 29 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARY ELLEN KUSIBAB

Official Court Reporter

Ms. Annabel Melongo

People v . Annabel Melongo

Amount Due and Owing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the jury

HONORABLE TIMOTHY JOYCE,

the 29th day of July,

Judge of said Court,

HON. ANITA M. ALVAREZ,

Mary Ellen Kusibab, Official Court Reporter

People vs. Annabel Melongo

For the State:

Direct Examination by Ms. Dasgupta ... .

Direct Examination by Ms. Zarkos . . . . . . . .

Direct Examination by Ms. Zarkos

People vs. Annabel Melongo

MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT

PEOPLE 'S EXHIBIT

the following proceedings

were held in open court outside the

Could the attorneys identify themselves,

Assistant State's Attorney Nancy

Assistant State's Attorney

Debjani Dasgupta -- D-e-b-j-a-n-i ,

D-a-s-g-u-p-t-a -- on behalf of the People.

Jennifer Bonjean -- B-o-n-j-e-a-n

considerable amount of time yesterday after the

jury had been selected,

parameters of the defendant's motion in limine.

parameters regarding what

wanted to think some more about

and I'm prepared to

ruling and set what

will permit and what

Does anybody wish to say anything

before you make that

e-mail and the word,

problem referred to.

to the author of the e - mail,

it refers to what it says in the subject matter:

problem was a downed s y stem.

you asked me yesterday regarding the

and she told us that

the system was down and that the

consultants -- in the subject line,

The problem that they wanted to fix was the downed

that she is sending to her

You had asked me that yesterday.

And after thinking about this,

I'm going to make,

know that that ' s

going to impact the ruling

appreciate you tracking

investigation on the other matters began on May

also want to,

this e - mail was Monday,