Maureen Hartnett

“In this particular instance, I had an inconsistent answer with the expected laboratory result.”

Hartnett directly acknowledged the proficiency-test error that led to remediation.

“I determined the hair was consistent with a human hair with a root.”

States Hartnett's microscopic conclusion about the hair collected from the vehicle.

“With that alternate light source, I tested several stains on the sneakers, one of which screened positive for blood.”

Summarizes her reported screening result for the sneakers.

“My apologies. That was my error. It was February 1st.”

Hartnett corrected the date of her sally-port examination.

“The testing that I did on scene from the various areas of the undercarriage which I had mentioned before, the tire flaps, the edge of the bumper and the exhaust pipe, screened negative for blood.”

She described the reported result of her on-scene vehicle swabs.

“I personally do not have any data that would indicate where those items of evidence were prior to them being accepted into the lab.”

She limited her knowledge of the evidence history before laboratory intake.

Hartnett testified that one collection swab covered multiple external areas of the taillight housing, so the testing could not identify the particular swabbed location from which any DNA originated.

“I took them from what would have been the exposed area of the taillight should the taillight have been intact. So I did not collect from any of the interior portions of the taillight that would have been protected by the exterior plastic piece.”

Hartnett specified the exterior, exposed location from which she collected the taillight-housing swabs.

“I noticed there was some damage to the rear passenger area of the vehicle.”

Initial observation establishing the focus area of vehicle damage relevant to the case theory.

“Those were negative.”

Blood screening on the vehicle undercarriage was negative — a key fact for the defense challenging the pedestrian-strike theory.

“This item was quantity limited. The swab itself was quantity limited, meaning that they'd have to use up the whole swab in order to run DNA analysis.”

Explains that the quantity-limited swab was cut up for further testing and that the whole swab would be required to run DNA analysis.

“That scraping was combined with the scrapings from the sweatshirt.”

Debris from the orange T-shirt and sweatshirt were combined into a single submission (item 7-18), a packaging decision relevant to trace evidence analysis.

“That would be outside the scope of my expertise. I don't make any conclusions on injuries on the person.”

Witness cannot connect arm wounds to anything on the vehicle, limiting the prosecution's ability to link vehicle damage to victim injuries through this witness.

“Correct. At this time, those were not tested for blood at all. So I couldn't confirm that they were blood, and no additional testing was done.”

The solo-cup stains were not confirmed as blood, and the swabs received no additional testing. Hartnett returned the cups to a Canton police officer and did not know their subsequent custodian.

“No, they were resting on the bumper.”

Establishes that the apparent glass was resting on the bumper; Hartnett did not know when it appeared.

“It was not difficult.”

Hartnett said the apparent glass was not difficult to remove with tweezers. Alessi's later travel-and-weather feasibility question was sustained for lack of proper foundation.

“No, there was not.”

Confirms no biological testing was performed on tail light fragments found at 34 Fairview Road.

“Yes, the items were packaged together, so they were already co-mingled, so there was no way for me to determine which debris came from which item, and it would be misleading to label them as such, so I combined them.”

Establishes that the two clothing items were already co-mingled before lab analysis, making it impossible to attribute debris to a specific garment.

“No, I don't know the source of the debris.”

Hartnett cannot identify whether debris on the clothing originated from the scene, an ambulance, a hospital, or elsewhere.

“I have no knowledge of where they were stored or anything like that before that.”

Confirms Hartnett has no chain of custody information for evidence items submitted by the Norfolk Detective Unit prior to lab receipt.

“No, I was not.”

Confirms Hartnett was not at the scene the morning O'Keefe was found, establishing she has no firsthand knowledge of evidence collection conditions.

“I did not note any. I also did not examine the interior of the vehicle.”

Hartnett testified that she did not note additional dents, scratches, or hair in response to the question asked, while also stating that she did not examine the vehicle interior. This does not establish that such evidence was absent everywhere on the vehicle.

“No. To the best of my recollection, there was no snow on the vehicle when I saw it.”

Hartnett recalled that there was no snow on the vehicle when she saw it. The answer describes her examination-time recollection and does not establish the vehicle's condition at the incident.

“I think there are really just too many variables to say either way.”

Hartnett said that too many variables prevented her from saying either way when an observed item was placed from a later examination. This was the admitted timing limitation; it did not establish that evidence had been placed on the vehicle.

“No, I did not.”

Concession that no causation analysis was performed on the hoodie damage.

“I wanted to correct something from the record yesterday. I wasn't sure when it was appropriate to do that.”

Hartnett requests to correct something from the prior day's record; the available transcript does not disclose the proposed correction or its disposition.