Day 20 - June 5, 2024

Ashley Vallier authenticated and discussed photographs of plastic fragments, described her process for documenting and mechanically comparing them, and identified several fits within and between evidence items. Photographs were admitted as Exhibits 332 through 434. Vallier testified that Piece 1, assembled from fragments in multiple items, and Item 3-1, the taillight housing, had once been part of the same larger unit. At sidebar, the judge directed the prosecutor to avoid leading questions and to move the examination along.

David Yannetti cross-examined forensic scientist Ashley Vallier about crime-laboratory item numbers, debris from clothing, and the limits of her knowledge about evidence handling before it reached the laboratory. After consulting her notes, Vallier testified that Trooper Michael Proctor submitted Submission 7 on March 14, 2022; the judge allowed one question about handling before that date, and Vallier said she did not know. The defense introduced label photographs as Exhibits 435 and 436 while comparing collection dates and sizes of plastic fragments. Vallier also confirmed that the final taillight reconstruction had a visible missing section and that she did not know where those pieces were or what happened to them.

Ashley Vallier testified that she examined debris using a stereo zoom after taking overall photographs, and identified Maureen Hartnett as the person who submitted or transferred the debris to her unit. Vallier also confirmed that she did not know the circumstances of evidence collection and that the pieces she mechanically fitted fit onto the taillight housing taken from the defendant's vehicle.

Counsel discussed an out-of-order defense witness and a proposed visual comparison intended to clarify anticipated testing testimony. The prosecution did not object to its use as a chalk in principle but objected to displaying the assembled comparison for the jury; the judge deferred the issue until testimony came in. Chain-of-custody documents were marked for identification, and the court took a 15-minute recess.

Forensic scientist Christina Hanley described her training, laboratory procedures, and glass-comparison methods before testifying about several evidence items. She said six pieces of glass from Item 7-12 physically matched the Item 3-2 drinking glass and had once been part of the same unit. She also reported that a bumper-glass piece was consistent in physical and instrumental properties with road glass, and that clear and red plastic from clothing debris was consistent with corresponding taillight material; she qualified those latter comparisons as also potentially originating from another source with the same characteristics.

Defense counsel used the cross-examination to organize the glass evidence into four item groups and distinguish physical matches from findings that materials were merely consistent in physical and instrumental properties. Hanley said a previous analyst had found Item 7-12 pieces E and I to be a physical match; she also testified that bumper piece E was consistent with Item 7-14, while Item 7-14 had no physical match with the cup or the Item 7-12 pieces. The court declined to admit the VV chain-of-custody document at that time and reserved the request for further consideration.

Hanley explained that the Item 7-12 plastic pieces were not examined for a physical match because there were no comparison plastic pieces. The court sustained a beyond-the-scope objection to a broader materials question. Hanley then confirmed that bumper Piece E was consistent with clear glass found at 34 Fairview Road.

Yuriy Bukhenik described his supervisory role in the investigation, the recovery and handling of John O'Keefe's clothing at Good Samaritan Hospital, and the seizure and transport of Karen Read's Lexus. He recounted a voluntary interview with Read, testified about surveillance from Dighton, Canton Police Department, C.F. McCarthy's, and the Waterfall, and identified related exhibits. The court limited medical-causation testimony, instructed jurors on evaluating Read's alleged statements, and addressed disputes over clothing-bag chain of custody and video foundation.

Counsel and the court discussed how the possible testimony of Trooper Proctor could affect cross-examination of Trooper Bukhenik, the anticipated schedule for remaining witnesses, and upcoming days out of session. They also addressed anticipated defense experts, possible voir dire, and the defense's stated limits on obtaining additional information about ARCCA-related witnesses.