Day 12 - May 15, 2024

Adam Lally conducts a brief redirect examination of Julie Nagel, following up on her prior testimony about seeing a dark object on the front lawn at 34 Fairview Road in the early morning of January 29, 2022. Lally establishes that the front lawn area near the flagpole was not typically used by the homeowners, that visibility was limited but aided by snow glare, and that Nagel was not expecting to see anything in that area. Lally asks the key hypothetical: had Nagel realized the object was a body, she says she would have called 911 and alerted everyone in the car. Nagel confirms she connected the object to John O'Keefe the following day.

Alan Jackson conducts a focused recross-examination of Julie Nagel lasting under three minutes. He establishes that despite testifying she would have called 911 had she known the object was a body, Nagel never contacted police — not 911, not the business line, not any officer — after she connected the object to John O'Keefe the following day. Jackson then drives home the point that Nagel's estimate of the object as 5 to 6 feet long was offered for the first time to the jury, two and a half years after the night in question. Judge Cannone sustains an initial objection but allows Jackson to rephrase, and Nagel concedes both points. The witness is then excused.

Teri Kun, a forensic scientist and DNA technical lead at UC Davis's veterinary genetics lab, was qualified as an expert in animal DNA testing. She described the lab's accreditation, DNA testing methodology, and chain of custody procedures. Kun testified that two swabs submitted by the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab (taken from a shirt) were tested using K9-specific qPCR and a broader 12-species meat ID test. Neither test detected any canine DNA. The meat ID test did detect pig DNA on both swabs, which Kun explained could come from food sources such as cooked pork or bacon.

Alan Jackson cross-examined Teri Kun on the limitations of her canine DNA analysis. He established that UC Davis received only two swabs — not the source garment — and had no knowledge of how Massachusetts State Police collected them, what protocols they followed, or what condition the shirt was in. Kun confirmed her own lab's rigorous documentation practices (photographing swab locations, detailed chain of custody logs) but could not speak to whether similar standards were applied before she received the samples. Jackson highlighted that Kun's own report identified inhibitors in the nuclear DNA test, and that blood and garment dye — both present on the source shirt — are known inhibitors. Kun agreed that two of her three listed explanations for not detecting canine DNA (degradation and inhibition) allow for the possibility that dog DNA was present but undetectable. Jackson also established that dog saliva is a rich DNA source while claws (keratin) are not, and that pig DNA found on the swabs could come from dog treats.

On redirect, ADA Lally addressed points raised during Alan Jackson's cross-examination. Lally elicited testimony that Teri Kun had instructed the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab on proper swabbing procedures before receiving the samples, and that the packaging she received met her expectations. Kun explained that mitochondrial DNA testing (the meat ID test) is significantly more sensitive than nuclear DNA testing because cells contain thousands of mitochondrial DNA copies versus a single nuclear copy. She confirmed that unlike the nuclear DNA test, the mitochondrial meat ID test showed no inhibitors — and that test still detected no canine DNA.

Alan Jackson conducted a brief recross-examination of Teri Kun, returning to the topic of protocols provided to Massachusetts State Police analyst Hartnett for swab collection. Jackson began to ask whether Kun was aware that Hartnett had failed certain proficiency tests, but the court sustained an objection and struck the question before Kun could answer. Jackson concluded his examination immediately after. The judge then dismissed Kun and called for the next witness.

Ryan Nagel, a Canton resident, testifies about his movements on the night of January 28-29, 2022. He went out drinking with his girlfriend Heather Maxon and friend Ricky D'Antuono, visiting C.F. McCarthy's and then the Hillside. Around midnight, his sister Julie texted asking for a ride from Brian Albert's house on Fairview Road. When they arrived, a black SUV had turned onto Fairview just ahead of them and parked approximately a car length and a half in front of their truck. While waiting for Julie, Nagel observed the SUV's brake lights activate and the vehicle move forward about a car length. Julie came out briefly but decided to stay. As Ricky pulled around the SUV to leave, Nagel saw a woman with long hair sitting in the driver's seat with the dome light on, hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel, staring straight ahead. He noticed no damage to the vehicle, no one exiting or entering the SUV, and no footprints in the light snow.

Alan Jackson cross-examines Ryan Nagel, focusing on what Nagel did and did not observe while parked behind the black SUV at 34 Fairview Road. Jackson establishes that Nagel was distracted by his phone and a five-minute conversation with his sister Julie, during which his attention was directed away from the SUV. Despite these distractions, Nagel confirms he saw no damage to the SUV's tail lights, no vehicle reversing or striking a pedestrian, no person on the ground, and only one occupant — a lone female with long hair. Jackson also confirms no other vehicle, including a Jeep with a snowplow, pulled in between Nagel's truck and the SUV.

Heather Maxon, girlfriend of Ryan Nagel, testifies about her movements on the night of January 28-29, 2022. She went out drinking in Canton with Ryan and friend Richard D'Antuono, visiting C.F. McCarthy's and the Hillside. After leaving the Hillside, they drove in D'Antuono's truck to pick up Ryan's sister Julie from a friend's house. As they turned onto the street, they yielded to an SUV coming from the opposite direction carrying a Caucasian female driver and Caucasian male passenger. The SUV parked in front of the same house, and D'Antuono parked just behind it. Maxon observed no damage to the rear of the SUV, no footprints in the fresh snow around it, and no one exiting the vehicle. When they departed after a brief visit with Julie, Maxon observed the same female still in the driver's seat with interior lights on, but did not see the male passenger.

Alan Jackson's cross-examination of Heather Maxon focuses on three points: the significant delay before law enforcement contacted her (19 months after the events), her proximity to the SUV when the truck parked just two to three feet behind it, and what she could see inside the vehicle when they departed. Jackson establishes that Maxon saw both functioning brake lights and no damage to the rear of the SUV, and that no other vehicle was between the truck and the SUV. He also confirms that when the group left approximately five minutes later, the SUV's interior dome light was on, the female driver was still visible, but the male passenger was no longer seen. Jackson's questioning is brief and efficient, lasting only about seven minutes.

In a focused seven-utterance redirect, prosecutor Adam Lally asks Heather Maxon to confirm that from her position in the truck parked just behind the SUV, she would have seen a six-foot man walking away from the vehicle toward the house. Maxon confirms she had that vantage point and did not see anyone exit. The redirect directly addresses the defense's cross-examination emphasis on Maxon's proximity to the SUV, turning it into a prosecution point: she was close enough that she would have noticed a person leaving the vehicle.

Ricky D'Antuono, a Canton resident and flooring worker, testified about his evening on January 28-29, 2022. He went out with best friend Ryan Nagel and Heather Maxon, first to C.F. McCarthy's bar, then to the Hillside, before leaving around midnight to pick up Ryan's sister Julie Nagel from a friend's house at 34 Fairview Road. D'Antuono described parking his Ford F-150 in front of the driveway and observing another vehicle parked 10-20 yards ahead with taillights or brake lights on. He testified he saw no damage to the vehicle, no one exit it, and no one move between the vehicle and the house. Julie came to the passenger window, spoke briefly, declined the ride, and went back inside. D'Antuono identified the location and the approximate position of the parked vehicle using exhibit photographs.

Defense attorney David Yannetti cross-examined Ricky D'Antuono, focusing on two themes: the delayed investigation and the witness's observations at 34 Fairview Road. Yannetti established that no state police investigator or prosecutor interviewed D'Antuono during all of 2022, with his first statement coming approximately 16 months after the events. On the scene itself, D'Antuono confirmed his headlights were aimed directly at the rear of the black SUV approximately 20 yards ahead with nothing obstructing his view, yet he noticed no broken taillight, no damage to the vehicle, and nothing unusual about how it was parked. He also confirmed there was only a dusting of snow on the ground at that time. Yannetti concluded by establishing that D'Antuono never saw anyone in the passenger seat, standing outside the SUV, sitting in the street, or lying near the vehicle.

In a brief nine-utterance redirect, ADA Lally asked D'Antuono to confirm three points: that he never saw anyone enter or exit the house or the black SUV during his time parked on Fairview Road, that he never saw anyone around the SUV, and whether he would have noticed a six-foot man walking from the SUV to the house. D'Antuono confirmed the first two points; his answer to the third was inaudible. The redirect served to reframe the defense's cross-examination emphasis on what D'Antuono did not see, redirecting it toward the prosecution's theory that no one exited the vehicle.

Allison McCabe, a high school senior at the time, testified about her evening on January 28-29, 2022. She described attending a hockey team dinner at her house, going to her sister's basketball game, driving around Canton with friends, finding a stray dog, and ultimately picking up Colin Albert from 34 Fairview Road around midnight. She testified that Colin had been drinking and needed a ride, that she parked in the driveway, texted him 'here,' and he came out within a few minutes. She observed no injuries on Colin and described his demeanor as normal. She drove him to his house near the center of Canton (a five-to-seven minute drive), waited for him to get inside, then went home, arriving around 12:30 AM. Her parents were not home when she arrived. The proceeding also addressed screenshots of text messages between McCabe and Colin Albert from that evening, and photographs of Colin taken at a welcome-home party a few weeks later.

In this voir dire examination, defense attorney David Yannetti questioned Allison McCabe about her familiarity with iPhone features, specifically the ability to delete text messages and alter timestamps on both messages and photos. McCabe confirmed she knew how to delete texts but stated she was unaware that iPhone timestamps could be manually changed through Settings or the photo info panel. Yannetti walked her through the specific steps to alter timestamps, and McCabe denied having done so. Judge Cannone briefly intervened to keep the questioning focused on the voir dire issue rather than broader cross-examination topics. The judge ultimately ruled the testimony (screenshots and photos from McCabe's phone) admissible, stating the defense's argument went to weight rather than admissibility under Commonwealth v. Trachey.

ADA Lally resumed direct examination of Allison McCabe following a voir dire interruption. Judge Cannone gave a limiting instruction requiring jurors to authenticate the electronic communications before considering them. Lally then walked McCabe through screenshots of her text exchange with Colin Albert from the night of January 28-29, 2022, establishing that at 11:54 PM Colin texted 'You can get me now if it's easier,' McCabe replied she was driving people home, Colin responded 'Get me,' and at 12:10 AM McCabe texted 'here' with Colin replying 'okay.' Lally then introduced two photographs of Colin Albert taken at a welcome-home party at the Albert residence on February 11, 2022 — approximately two weeks after the incident — and had McCabe confirm they were a fair and accurate depiction of Colin's appearance at that time.

Defense attorney David Yannetti cross-examined Allison McCabe on three main fronts. First, he established that the screenshot of her text conversation with Colin Albert was not turned over to law enforcement until August 2023 — over 18 months after the incident — and that by then she had switched phones, making verification of the original messages impossible. No extraction was ever performed on either phone. Second, Yannetti demonstrated that iPhone timestamps on screenshots can be easily altered and that deleted messages would be undetectable. Third, he confronted McCabe with Life360 location data showing she made multiple trips after picking up Colin Albert — including drives to Canton High School and a 12-mile drive — contradicting her testimony that she went straight home and stayed there. McCabe disputed the Life360 records, stating she did not recall those movements.

ADA Lally conducted a brief redirect examining four topics raised during cross-examination. He established that McCabe upgraded her iPhone around Christmas 2022 (not destroyed it), and that she never altered or deleted text message content. McCabe testified that Life360 accuracy was questionable because every alert page shown by the defense displayed a 'turn Wi-Fi on' reminder, and that the app placed her at Canton High School and home two minutes apart — a physical impossibility given the seven-to-ten minute drive. Lally then addressed the late disclosure of text screenshots, with McCabe explaining they weren't turned over until August 2023 because Colin Albert's presence at 34 Fairview wasn't relevant until the defense raised it. The proceeding concluded with emotional testimony about sustained harassment — phone calls, emails, people showing up at their homes, and contacts to McCabe's school — directed at both families due to public speculation about Colin Albert's involvement.