Christina Hanley

“Item 3-2 and the six pieces from 7-12 were at one time together as one unit.”

States the physical-match conclusion for the drinking glass and six recovered pieces.

“Accordingly, the examined portion of the piece of clear glass that I labeled as "E" from Item 3-3 could have originated from the examined portion of the piece of clear glass from Item 7-14 or from another source with the same characteristics.”

States the qualified association between bumper glass and road glass.

“The clear plastic from Item 7-18.18 was found to be consistent in color and instrumental properties with the examined portion of the clear plastic from the taillight.”

States the comparison result for clear plastic recovered from clothing debris and the taillight.

Hanley testified that six glass pieces from Item 7-12 physically matched the drinking glass in Item 3-2 and had once been part of the same unit.

“So Item 7-12 was previously examined by another analyst in the trace unit. Specifically, "E" and "I" I received when I opened this item for examination, "E" and "I" were taped together because they were found to have a physical match by the analyst who previously examined the item.”

Hanley attributed the earlier E-I physical-match finding to another analyst.

“That's correct. So 7-14, there was no physical match between 7-14 and 3-2 or any of the pieces in 7-12.”

Hanley summarized the absence of a physical match between Item 7-14, the cup, and the Item 7-12 pieces.

Hanley said a previous analyst had found Item 7-12 pieces E and I to be a physical match before her examination.

“I didn't examine the plastic pieces for a physical match because there were no other plastic pieces for comparison for a physical match.”

Explains the stated limit of the physical-match analysis for the plastic evidence.

Hanley explained that she did not conduct a physical-match examination of the plastic pieces because no other plastic pieces were available for comparison.

“So the Locard exchange principle — it's kind of the foundation or basis of trace analysis. It is a principle that states that when two objects or two items come into contact with each other there is an exchange of material.”

Establishes the scientific foundation underlying all trace evidence analysis in this case.

“So a physical match is if an item is broken and those pieces are compared to each other and their broken irregular edges fit back together — and they have a jigsaw fit, that would be considered a physical match.”

Defines the physical match standard for the jury before presenting her findings.

“there were, I believe, six pieces of glass from item 7-12 that fit mechanically to the cup that was also recovered from the road, item 3-2.”

In this Day 19 answer, Hanley said she believed six item 7-12 pieces mechanically fit the drinking glass. The approved Day 20 continuation confirmed six and identified them as A, B, C, D, F, and K.

“there was no physical match between those two pieces from the bumper, item 3-3, compared to the glass pieces and the cup that were recovered from the road.”

Hanley reported no physical match for the two item 3-3 bumper pieces used in that comparison. The approved continuation identified them as A and B, said C, D, and E were not used for physical match because of size and condition, and separately reported piece E consistent with item 7-14 in physical and instrumental properties.

“So a physical match is basically — if an item breaks and those items have broken irregular edges, if those pieces come back together like a jigsaw fit, then it's a physical match and they were at one time together as one larger unit.”

Defines the physical match standard for the jury in plain terms.

“So the largest for the red plastic, the largest piece measured — just for visual purposes — it's roughly like the size of a grain of rice. The rest of the pieces were smaller than that.”

Conveys the extremely small scale of the plastic debris recovered from O'Keefe's clothing.

“So the red plastic that I sampled from the debris from the clothing from 7-18.18 was found to be consistent in color, microscopic appearance, and instrumental properties with the portions that I sampled from the red plastic from the tail light.”

Core prosecution finding that red plastic debris from O'Keefe's clothing was consistent in color, microscopic appearance, and instrumental properties with sampled tail-light plastic; Hanley qualified that it could have originated from that sampled plastic or another source with the same characteristics.

“Accordingly, the clear plastic from 7-18.18 could have originated from the clear plastic from item 3-1 or from another source with the same characteristics.”

Standard forensic qualification — consistency does not mean exclusive match, leaving room for defense argument.

“Correct. It could have come from — they could have a common origin, or it could have come from another source with the same characteristics.”

Hanley concedes that the plastic match to the tail light is not conclusive — it could have come from any source with similar properties.

“I did not make any notation that I noted portions that were glass.”

Hanley said she did not make a notation of glass portions, while saying most parts appeared plastic and that she was not certain the entire assembly was plastic.

“I did not note anything that would be maybe consistent with that.”

Hanley, outside her expertise in biological-material examination, said she did not note anything maybe consistent with biological material; this was a bounded visual observation, not a test conclusion.

“Nothing. Um, in a physical match comparison, there was no physical match comparison to the cup.”

Hanley stated that there was no physical-match comparison to the cup; her earlier testimony specified that two of five bumper pieces were used for physical-match comparison.

“I just have the description um that's put in the LIMS system when it's submitted to the lab.”

Establishes Hanley's limited knowledge of evidence provenance — she works from lab submissions, not field recovery details

“No, there was not.”

Confirms the defense chart excluded the clothing-to-tail-light connection from its visual summary

“Correct. To, uh — there was no physical match to the pieces that I compared for physical match from the bumper. Um, there was no physical match to the glass cup, 3-2. 3-2.”

Hanley confines her result to no physical match between the cup and the bumper pieces she compared for physical match.

“It was consistent with item 7-14.”

Hanley confirms the connection but uses the neutral exhibit number rather than adopting Jackson's Proctor framing.