← All EvidenceDirectMaureen Hartnett - Direct Examination Maureen Hartnett Adam Lally
Physical Evidence
Glass Pieces from Defendant's Vehicle Bumper (Item 3-3)
Five glass pieces from the Lexus rear bumper. A and B did not physically match the road samples; E was instrumentally consistent with item 7-14. Hartnett did not know when they reached the bumper.
About
The prosecution used bumper piece E's microscopic and instrumental consistency with road item 7-14 to argue a connection. The defense emphasized that bumper pieces A and B did not physically match the drinking glass or the compared road items and challenged the significance of fragments found resting on the bumper surface.
Five pieces of clear glass, labeled A through E, were recovered from the rear bumper of defendant's Lexus SUV (MA 3GC684). Pieces A and B were used for physical-match comparison and did not physically match the road items 3-2, 7-12, or 7-14. Pieces C and D were not used for physical match because of their size and condition. Piece E was separately examined microscopically and instrumentally and found consistent in physical and instrumental properties with item 7-14. The pieces were observed resting on the bumper surface, not embedded. Jackson posed that they had traveled roughly 60 miles in a blizzard; Hartnett said she did not know when the pieces reached the bumper.