Yuri Bukhenik

“I don't know. It happened last night,”

Bukhenik testified that Read gave this account when asked about damage to her vehicle.

“No investigation is a one-man show.”

Bukhenik explained the unit's collaborative investigative structure while the parties disputed foundation for video evidence.

Bukhenik identified surveillance footage and receipts from C.F. McCarthy's and the Waterfall, including images of O'Keefe leaving the Waterfall holding a cocktail glass.

“We located Mr. O'Keefe's baseball hat. We located a drinking straw from a cocktail glass. We located items of plastic, colored plastic and other shards of colored plastic at the location.”

Bukhenik identified the items he said were found during the February 3 secondary search.

“Each item that was collected was placed in an evidence paper bag. The collection was done by utilizing Latex gloves to prevent any transfer of evidence from fingerprints or DNA onto those items. Then those items were transported to our office, logged into the system and stored in the evidence locker at the office.”

Bukhenik described the collection and storage process for recovered items.

“Nothing provided by Ring proved or suggested or proved any evidence of that type of activity, no.”

Bukhenik denied that the Ring materials established the account activity defense counsel asked about.

“The first portion is we did not secure the home as a crime scene. And the second portion, yes, I do know how to do that.”

Bukhenik acknowledged that the home itself was not secured as a crime scene.

“It's not backward. It's mirrored, reversed. You can look yourself in the mirror in the morning, and you still see your own face. It's not backwards.”

Bukhenik distinguished a mirrored image from a backward image while the defense questioned the sally port video's orientation.

“I do not know all the inner workings of the system.”

Bukhenik qualified the extent of his technical knowledge about the recording system.

“The blue writing appears to be backwards.”

Bukhenik acknowledged that the timestamp text in the displayed version appeared reversed.

“It's not on the screen, no.”

Bukhenik agreed the questioned interval was not visible in the footage shown.

“Outside of it being a mirror image of itself, it accurately depicts any activity or action in the sally port.”

Bukhenik distinguished the video’s mirrored orientation from its depicted activity.

“I could tell that the glass was most likely not the object, the weapon which was used to cause the injury to the back of Mr. O'Keefe's head.”

Bukhenik gave his qualified view after describing observations at the hospital.

Bukhenik testified that, based on his observations, the glass was most likely not the object used to cause the injury to the back of Mr. O'Keefe's head.

“That there was a possibility the decedent was struck to the face with a glass.”

Bukhenik stated the wording he reported to the OCME after reviewing the report.

“That video was never secured by me. I was not asked to secure it. I was just asked to review it.”

Bukhenik distinguished his review of the inverted video from its acquisition.

“No, we were still in the information and fact-finding portion of the investigation.”

Bukhenik characterized the early investigation as fact-finding rather than a concluded determination.

“There was a large piece of red taillight cover missing from the vehicle.”

Bukhenik described his observation of the Lexus before it was seized.

Bukhenik described being shown a broken glass, John O'Keefe's phone, and cups reported to contain blood in snow, then said Canton police stepped back from interview-investigation assistance because of a possible town connection to the address.

“Yes, they were two sustained findings as a result of that investigation.”

Bukhenik acknowledged sustained internal findings arising from the investigation of the text chain.

“We always trust but we always verify the information that we take in from individuals who we do not know.”

Bukhenik described the investigative purpose he gave for reviewing video and other sources.

Bukhenik described the planned February 3 search at 34 Fairview Road, including the lawn area searched and the process of photographing and bagging recovered items.

The court sustained defense objections and struck portions of Bukhenik's commentary during the video presentation about alcohol consumption.

“The investigation was handled with integrity by Michael Proctor.”

Bukhenik expressly defended Proctor's handling of the investigation during cross-examination.

“It's impossible to know everything somebody was doing.”

Bukhenik acknowledged a limit on what a supervisor can know about a subordinate's work.

“Anyone that had access to the office with the proper key card authorization would have access to that area.”

Bukhenik described who could access the area where clothing had been left to dry.

“We did not create a log to document the documentation, so it would be redundant, really.”

Bukhenik explained why no separate real-time log had been created for the drying clothing.

“The exact location where each item was recovered from was not documented with a picture or GPS location.”

Bukhenik acknowledged that the individual recovery locations were not recorded by photograph or GPS.

“It was a member of the Massachusetts State Police assigned to our office. It wasn't just a random person. I can't specifically identify who it was or who wrote on that bag.”

Bukhenik said he could not specifically identify the person who received the evidence or wrote on the bag.

“The first time the lab received these items for processing, according to this document, is March 14, yes.”

Bukhenik agreed that the document showed the lab first received the referenced items for processing on March 14.

“In my opinion they appear very similar, yes.”

Bukhenik gave his opinion that two displayed handwritten words appeared very similar after the court permitted the comparison.

“We did not try to get Brian Albert's phone for any reason whatsoever.”

Bukhenik directly described the investigation's decision not to seek Brian Albert's phone.

“Logically speaking, the two vehicles had to have come into contact for the tire to move.”

Bukhenik gave his conclusion after viewing the Ring-video clip.

“Again, perfect, ideal world scenario it would be quicker.”

Bukhenik responded to questioning about the timing of an eyewitness interview.

“I do not have evidence that he saw them, no.”

Bukhenik said there was no evidence that John O'Keefe saw the messages at issue.

“Correct. He did not tell me that he was going through — uh, for naked pictures through the phone. He wrote "No nudes so far."”

Bukhenik confirmed Proctor wrote 'No nudes so far,' while stating that Proctor did not tell him he was searching the phone for naked pictures.

“The investigation was handled with integrity and honor.”

Bukhenik doubles down on defending Proctor's integrity despite the text messages, undermining his own credibility as a supervisor.

“That text message does not show integrity.”

Bukhenik said the text message did not show integrity. After Jackson's intervening question asking whether it showed honor, Bukhenik separately answered, 'That text message does not show honor.'

“This footage, the way it is depicted right now, very accurately represents what I remember from being there.”

Bukhenik said the corrected video accurately represented his memory. He separately stated that, if the person was Proctor, the person appeared to walk to the SUV's right rear; this testimony did not establish contact with the taillight or a reason for the video orientation.

“I looked into that matter. It produced the fact that it had been recording that way prior to January 29th.”

Establishes the sallyport camera inversion was a pre-existing condition, countering the defense's manipulation theory

“Not obviously tied at the hip, but we were within eyesight, traveling together.”

Bukhenik testified that he and Proctor were within eyesight and traveling together at Canton PD, while qualifying that they were not 'tied at the hip'; this addressed questions about Proctor's movements.

“That would be absurd.”

Bukhenik's response to the suggestion that Proctor placed taillight pieces in his folder, expressing his view of that suggestion.

“My understanding is that nobody else was with him.”

Bukhenik testified that, to his understanding, nobody else was with Proctor during recovery of other evidence on three dates not covered on direct.

“There's a possibility there, but I didn't see it.”

Bukhenik concedes the possibility of Higgins having a jealousy motive but admits he never explored it — key to the defense argument that investigators had tunnel vision.

“We did not follow up on that aspect based on the totality of the entire investigation.”

Acknowledges that the jealousy motive for Higgins was never investigated despite being identified as a possibility.

“Giving you courage that truly shouldn't be there. That you might not otherwise have if you weren't drinking.”

Bukhenik's own definition of 'liquid courage' applied by Jackson to Higgins's state of mind on the night in question.