Paul Gallagher

“Yes. I had Sergeant Goode take a video since we were improvising, using something I wasn't familiar with being used before in case there were any questions on how it was deployed. I had Sergeant Goode take a short video.”

Gallagher described documenting the improvised snow-removal method.

“We were concerned with the weather destroying biological evidence at that time.”

He identified the stated reason for the scene-processing approach.

“Well, the blood samples, because they were frozen, we debated on how to collect it.”

He described the condition that affected collection of the samples.

“Not myself, no.”

Gallagher confirmed that he personally had no notes or report documenting what happened at Fairview on January 29.

“Of course not. Nothing about the scene was standard.”

Gallagher acknowledged that borrowing red Solo cups from a neighbor to collect evidence was not standard practice, while qualifying the answer by referring to the conditions at the scene.

“The reason was we had a Boston police officer on another Boston police officer's lawn, property, and that property owner was the brother of somebody in our investigative unit.”

Gallagher gave his stated reason for Canton Police stepping back from further investigative interviews.

Gallagher testified that he made no report or notes about his scene involvement on January 29 and had not been formally interviewed about the case until about a month before trial.

“I did not observe him place it in evidence. Yes.”

Gallagher limited his personal knowledge of the cups' placement into evidence.

“There was no conflict of interest. I said appearance of conflict of interest. So we have to be careful. I didn't believe there was a conflict. I honestly believed we could have investigated this case. I said the appearance of such a conflict.”

Gallagher clarified his distinction between an actual conflict and an appearance of one.

“It's not yes or no. But, for your purposes, I would say yes.”

Gallagher agreed that the described placement of unsealed blood could create cross-contamination.

Gallagher said he did not observe Sergeant Lank place the Solo cups into evidence; the judge struck Gallagher's statement that Lank had told him the later steps.

“We did not want to go on any investigative interviews because one of our best investigators, his name is Kevin Albert, is the property owner's brother.”

Gallagher explained the department's stated reason for avoiding investigative interviews.

“There wasn't going to be any cross-contamination. I wasn't concerned about cross-contamination.”

Gallagher directly addressed the defense's cross-contamination questioning.

“No probable cause.”

Gallagher gave the stated reason no search warrant was obtained.

“When there is probably cause, we do. Absolutely.”

Gallagher stated that search warrants are sought when probable cause exists.

“Since the state police were not responding, I decided to process the area where Mr. O'Keefe was found and try to find out why he had the medical episode he was having.”

Establishes that Canton PD processed the scene only because state police initially declined to respond.

“Because of the blood — the pink spots I thought might be blood — I thought a leaf blower would be the best method because I have seen it used to remove light layers of snow and it can be controlled.”

Explains the rationale behind the leaf blower decision, which was challenged extensively in Trial 1 cross-examination.

“I expected it to be John's DNA and I wasn't going to get a second chance at it. It was either collected or never have it.”

Justifies the urgency of evidence collection under deteriorating weather conditions.

“No. Nothing.”

When asked whether he saw anything broken or out of place, Gallagher answered, 'No. Nothing.'

“I didn't.”

Gallagher admits he never wrote any report about his extensive hands-on evidence collection at the scene.

“Could have, but didn't.”

Gallagher agrees he could have retrieved swabs but did not; he says storm conditions, scene-security needs, and supply-access constraints informed the decision.

“Yep. They hold liquid terrifically.”

Gallagher's response concerns Solo cups, which he agrees were not normally used for evidence collection; his testimony also cites urgent storm conditions in explaining the collection choice.

“Specifically, no.”

Admits there is no documentation of which Solo cup's contents came from which specific location at the scene.

“I know what that camera captures.”

Gallagher's stated basis for not seeking Arlo footage; he later said he only assumed it was gone because he did not know how long Arlo retained footage, which Jackson challenged.

“You're absolutely going to get it. Yes.”

Gallagher agrees that DNA transfer is highly sensitive and easily accomplished through touch — supporting cross-contamination concerns given the unsealed evidence stored near the SUV.

“Correct. None of that was done with what we just saw.”

Gallagher concedes that standard evidence-sealing protocols were not followed for the biological evidence collected at the scene.

“No, that was — that was us. I guess you would call it spitballing on possibilities.”

Clarifies that fight speculation came from detectives brainstorming, not from any witness statement

“So, probable cause is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or evidence of a crime can be found in a specific location.”

Sets up the legal framework for why no search warrant was sought for the Albert home

“No, I had complete faith in the criminalist.”

Rebuts cross-contamination concerns about blood evidence stored near Read's SUV

“Because I knew it wouldn't have captured anything. I also know that they're motion-activated cameras and he didn't have them on the street, because it's a busy street and the batteries would die very quickly if they captured the street.”

Gallagher's explanation for not seeking Kelleher's Owl camera footage — directly addresses Jackson's cross-examination implication that the footage was negligently lost

“No one is ruled out. Nothing is ruled out. Correct. That's correct.”

Gallagher affirms the investigative principle Jackson then uses to highlight everything that was in fact ruled out without investigation.

“I would have to twist circumstances to have the right to search Brian Albert's house. We had no reason. And there's been no reason since.”

Gallagher's strongest defense of the no-warrant decision — asserts there was and remains no basis for a search warrant, invoking Brady/Giglio obligations.

“Not to this day.”

Gallagher answers Brennan's question, after which the court immediately sustains an objection to the question as to form.