Nicholas Barros

“Later on, I believe it was around 2:30 in the afternoon, I received a phone call from the Norfolk District Attorney's Office with the troopers assigned there, and they had stated that they were going to come to Dighton to retrieve a vehicle that was involved in a homicide.”

Places Barros's involvement in the local assistance and vehicle-retrieval response.

“I saw that there was some damage to the right rear taillight. To my best ability and recollection that taillight was not completely damaged. It was cracked and that a piece was missing but not completely damaged.”

States Barros's qualified firsthand description of the taillight condition.

Barros testified that state troopers asked Dighton Police to assist in retrieving a vehicle from 345 Country Hill Drive.

Barros described the snow-covered driveway, the request to plow it, and the arrangement for Diamond Towing to access the vehicle.

“His intention was to retrieve a vehicle that he said was involved in a homicide.”

Establishes that Proctor told Barros the vehicle was connected to a homicide and his stated purpose was seizure, relevant to chain of custody timeline.

“Absolutely not.”

Barros's emphatic denial that Exhibit 13 reflects the tail light condition he observed, establishing a before/after discrepancy in the physical evidence.

“That tail light is completely smashed out.”

Barros characterizes the extent of additional damage visible in the exhibit photo compared to what he personally observed.

“That middle section was intact when I was there. Towards that right side where that large chunk is, that's what was missing.”

Specific description of which portion of the tail light was damaged versus intact, pinpointing exactly what changed between his observation and the later photograph.

“The vehicle had damage to the right rear tail light. That's what I wrote.”

Barros confirms his entire report description of the key evidence was a single line with no detail about size, shape, or placement.

“It's not in there.”

After reviewing his Trial 1 transcript, Barros concedes he never actually distinguished the sally port photograph from his on-site observations — contradicting his confident testimony moments earlier that he had.

“I know what I saw and that wasn't it.”

Despite conceding memory difficulties, Barros pushes back with conviction that the sally port photo differs from his observation — showing the limits of Brennan's impeachment.

“No.”

Barros's final answer unequivocally maintains his position despite extensive cross-examination

“It is.”

Barros agrees that Brennan's closeup photograph is consistent with what he saw. The answer does not establish that the photograph was the same as the one Jackson showed him on direct examination.