Day 19 - June 3, 2024

Attorney David Yannetti methodically questioned Lt. O'Hara about the timeline between the initial call from Lt. Tully at 2:32 p.m. and the team's actual arrival after dark, emphasizing that the crime scene was unsecured and unguarded for hours before the search began. Yannetti established that O'Hara was never told the scene had been abandoned by police since approximately 7:50 a.m. and that no one from law enforcement was controlling it when his team arrived. The cross-examination challenged inconsistencies between O'Hara's prior testimony about evidence proximity (within inches/less than a foot) and the mapped GPS coordinates, and highlighted gaps in search documentation — including no timestamp for the team's dispatch in the Daily Journal. Yannetti concluded by establishing that lead investigator Trooper Proctor never called the SERT team back for a daylight follow-up search on any of six subsequent dates, despite O'Hara's offer to return.

In a brief redirect of seven questions, ADA Lally addressed two points raised during cross-examination. First, he established that the decision to dispatch both O'Hara's SERT unit and Tully's unit came from above their respective ranks, countering any implication of delay or poor coordination at their level. Second, Lally clarified the documentation hierarchy — the Daily Journal contains only general day-to-day summaries, while the Mission Manager software generates more detailed reports, and the AVL (automatic vehicle locator) system on cruisers provided precise arrival times. Finally, Lally reinforced that all recovered evidence was photographed in place as discovered, neutralizing the cross-examination's challenge about measurement inconsistencies between inches and feet.

Maureen Hartnett, a forensic scientist with the Massachusetts State Police crime lab, testifies about her examination of Karen Read's black Lexus SUV at the Canton Police Department garage on February 2, 2022, and her subsequent lab analysis of collected evidence. She documents damage to the rear passenger area including a dent, scratches, and a broken tail light, and collects an apparent human hair from the rear quarter panel, apparent glass fragments from the bumper, paint standards, and the tail light housing. Blood screening tests on the vehicle's undercarriage and bumper are negative. Hartnett later examines John O'Keefe's gray sweatshirt (item 7-18), documenting 13 areas of damage (tears and cuts) on the sleeves and body, multiple red-brown stains tested positive for blood, and collects swabs from the damaged right sleeve area for canine DNA testing sent to UC Davis Veterinary Lab.

In this continuation of her direct examination, forensic scientist Maureen Hartnett walks the jury through her examination of the remaining clothing items collected from John O'Keefe: the orange T-shirt (item 7-17), jeans (item 7-1), and sneakers (items 7-3 and 7-4, recovered from two different locations). Lally publishes photographs showing red-brown stains she marked on each item — five stains labeled A through E on the T-shirt and five on the jeans. Hartnett testifies that screening and confirmatory blood tests were positive on the sweatshirt, T-shirt, and jeans, while one sneaker stain also screened positive after examination with an alternate light source. She describes her trace evidence collection process — loose hairs and fibers, skin cell scrapings and swabs for DNA, and material scrapings — and explains the chain of custody for sub-items sent to the DNA and trace units. The examination concludes with Hartnett's handling of glass fragments from the bumper and a drinking glass from the crime scene, from which she collected skin cell swabs for DNA testing.

Alan Jackson methodically challenges Hartnett's forensic work on several fronts. He establishes that none of the vehicle damage — dent, scratches, or broken tail light — was scientifically linked to a pedestrian strike, and that blood screening of the vehicle was negative. Jackson highlights that glass fragments found on the bumper were merely sitting on the surface, not embedded, despite the vehicle having traveled approximately 60 miles through a blizzard before examination. He raises similar questions about a hair found on the vertical quarter panel, unsecured and easily removed. Jackson then targets evidence handling: Solo cup blood samples were not individually labeled, only one of six was swabbed, no DNA testing was performed on that swab, and the remaining cups were left with Canton police. He establishes that clothing items were bagged together and that debris collected from two shirts was combined into a single submission. The cross concludes by revealing a chain of custody gap — all evidence except what Hartnett personally collected at the sallyport was submitted on March 14, 2022, over six weeks after the incident, with no documented chain of custody predating that submission.

In a short redirect of 21 utterances, ADA Lally addresses two points raised during cross-examination. He confirms that the defendant's vehicle was in generally good condition aside from the documented right rear damage, and establishes that Hartnett's DNA swabs from the tail light housing were collected only from the exterior-facing surfaces — not from interior portions that would have been protected by the intact plastic cover. Lally also asks about garage conditions, but Hartnett cannot recall the temperature or whether the garage was heated. She testifies she does not recall seeing frozen snow or ice on the vehicle's exterior when she examined it.

In a brief recross of just 14 utterances, Alan Jackson asks Maureen Hartnett to look again at what has been marked for identification as Exhibit UU, the evidence submission form. He asks who signed the form, but ADA Lally objects and Judge Cannone sustains the objection, offering Jackson a sidebar. Jackson rephrases, but the judge cuts him off, telling him it is the same question and again offering a sidebar. Jackson declines and concludes his examination with no further questions. Hartnett is excused.