Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveYuri Bukhenik - Cross (Part 1)
602 linesJUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Cross-examination.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Sergeant Bukhenik. I want to start with one of the latter things that you discussed with Mr. Lally — that's specific to the Ring video — you all talked about this morning. Do you have that in mind?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. JACKSON: The search warrant that produced — and just so we're clear, I'm talking about the specific Ring video or series of videos that were associated with 1 Meadow Ave, John O'Keefe's home. Okay?
MR. BUKHENIK: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't write the search warrant for those Ring videos, did you?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You were not the affiant for those search warrants?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was not.
MR. JACKSON: Who was the author of the search warrant and the affiant?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was Trooper Mike Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: Who received the actual Ring video or videos from The Ring Corporation?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was Trooper Mike Proctor who received it.
MR. JACKSON: And who ultimately either logged those into evidence or controlled those once they were received from The Ring Corporation?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe it was Trooper Mike Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: And ultimately, Sergeant Bukhenik, you did note that in addition to just the physical videos themselves, that login information and login keystrokes, et cetera, were requested from The Ring Corporation as well, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: There was discussion with Ring asking for those — logs, I'll call it.
MR. JACKSON: Is it correct to say an activity log? That's what was requested?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. Activity log, yes.
MR. JACKSON: So ultimately the activity log would show who logs in, who accesses the data, things of that nature, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Or at least that was the hope. That is what was requested.
MR. JACKSON: All right. And it would also show logging in and executing deletions, manipulating the log files, things of that nature, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is what was requested, yes.
MR. JACKSON: When you reviewed those logs, or activity logs, there was no evidence revealed that my client ever logged into that account, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: There were no activity logs provided by Ring.
MR. JACKSON: So you have zero — hang on. Isn't it true that Ring contacted Trooper Proctor and indicated that they created a Dropbox folder that contained the evidence that had been sought in the search warrant?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Isn't it true that the search warrant return specified account information, video recordings, and number three, activity logs associated with video recordings — all times displayed in UTC?
MR. BUKHENIK: All — I'm not aware of that, no.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall that activity logs were in fact provided from The Ring Corporation?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not recall that, no.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. May I approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look, Sergeant, at that paragraph — my finger's on it — it's the third paragraph down, the middle of the page, and review that to yourself and let me know when you're finished. Have you had an opportunity to review that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Does this refresh your recollection as to the items received from The Ring Corporation?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is the first time I saw that document, so it does not refresh my recollection. I simply read it.
MR. JACKSON: So do you have a recollection, as you sit here, that in fact during the course of your investigation the three items that you received from Ring Corporation were the account information, the video recordings, and — quote — "activity logs associated with the video recordings, all times displayed in UTC, to the extent of its availability"?
MR. BUKHENIK: As it says in that document, okay.
MR. JACKSON: The long and short of it is: during the entire course of your investigation, that investigation never revealed any evidence whatsoever that my client ever even accessed the account information for the Ring account associated with this search, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Nothing provided by Ring proved or suggested any evidence of that type of activity, no.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Sergeant Bukhenik — you were notified —
MR. BUKHENIK: I am not Trooper Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. No, you're not. Sergeant Bukhenik — Sergeant Bukhenik — how do I say it?
MR. BUKHENIK: Bukhenik.
MR. JACKSON: I'll give that a shot. It's fine. Bukhenik?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. Is that better?
MR. JACKSON: That's better. Thank you. If I screw it up again, please — on January 29th, you were notified about a Boston police officer found gravely injured outside the home at 34 Fairview — at about 6:40 in the morning? Was that your testimony?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is not correct.
MR. JACKSON: What time were you notified?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was not notified he was a Boston police officer.
MR. JACKSON: So you didn't have that information upon the first notification?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What information did you have?
MR. BUKHENIK: There was a male party in the snowbank, possibly of a heart attack.
MR. JACKSON: At what point did you learn that the individual was in fact a sworn Boston police officer?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not know exactly when I learned that he was a Boston police officer. I think it was during that day or the following day. It was most likely that day.
MR. JACKSON: Either — yeah, fair enough. Trooper Proctor was ultimately assigned as the — what did you call him? Not lead investigator, but case officer?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: He was assigned on the 29th, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: He was on call from 7 a.m. on January 28th until 7 a.m. on January 29th. So his assignment — he was assigned on the 29th because he was on call.
MR. JACKSON: He was on call.
MR. BUKHENIK: His assignment took effect when the schedule came out back in mid-December.
MR. JACKSON: Well, he wouldn't be assigned to this investigation until there was a need for the investigation. That's all I'm getting at. Once the call came in, he was the assigned trooper on call.
MR. BUKHENIK: Once the call comes in, the person that's on call is automatically assigned that case.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Did you personally, as his supervisor, personally respond to 34 Fairview at any point on January 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Did Trooper Proctor, at your direction or on his own, ever respond to 34 Fairview Road at any time on January 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, he did not.
MR. JACKSON: Based on your initial investigation — and I'm talking about going way back — Sergeant, on your initial investigation, by 10 or 10:30 in the morning, 10:40 in the morning, it was your belief that Mr. O'Keefe had been struck in the face by a person. That was your initial understanding of the circumstances surrounding the investigation, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: My initial understanding was that the defendant stated that she hit him. We did not know then.
MR. JACKSON: Sergeant, you hadn't even met my client at that point. You hadn't interviewed a single witness by 10:41 in the morning, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Not one witness — that's not correct. We had already interviewed the first responders.
MR. JACKSON: When I say "witness," I'm talking about civilian witnesses. So at 10:41, you hadn't interviewed a person at 34 Fairview or associated civilians associated with this incident, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: At that point, no civilians had been interviewed.
MR. JACKSON: Now, but at 10:41, Sergeant, you contacted Good Samaritan Hospital to inform them that — quote — "Mr. O'Keefe was struck in the face with a cocktail glass" — correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not recall contacting Good Samaritan Hospital.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like you to take a look at this document, and if you wouldn't mind, pay special attention to the second page, the bottom paragraph, where it's tabbed in — For — want to approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Having reviewed this, does this refresh your recollection that you contacted Good Samaritan Hospital and gave them an assessment — at least based on your investigation at that time?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is not true.
MR. JACKSON: What did you say to Good Samaritan Hospital?
MR. BUKHENIK: I never spoke to Good Samaritan Hospital. That document is for the medical examiner's office.
MR. JACKSON: I'm not asking you where the document is from. I'm asking you if the document says Trooper Yuri Bukhenik called back at 10:41 stating the case is now being treated as a suspicion —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you call back to Good Samaritan Hospital and say that the investigation was being treated as suspicious due to a domestic situation? Did you say that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I never spoke to Good Samaritan Hospital.
MR. JACKSON: Did you say that there's a possibility that O'Keefe was struck in the face with a cocktail glass?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever contact anybody at any medical facility and indicate that the investigation was being treated as suspicious — in quotation marks — because the victim appeared to have been struck in the face by a cocktail glass?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever say that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're on record — yes?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did say that to the medical examiner's operation desk.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So when I was asking you if you ever contacted Good Samaritan, you said no — — that's not true, that's never happened. You were correcting me on the fact that it happened at the medical examiner's office, not at Good Samaritan.
MR. BUKHENIK: I responded and answered your question honestly.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. So — honestly — you did in fact at 10:41 a.m. indicate to another professional involved in the investigation that the circumstance was being treated as a physical assault at that point, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I communicated our suspicions to the medical examiner's office, and that was at 10:41, or thereabouts, in the morning. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's correct. Your initial investigation — during those obviously critical hours, the beginning hours — led — you to believe that there was at least a good possibility — you indicated that you made a phone call — that it was a physical altercation that led to John O'Keefe's death, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. What steps did you take, sir, in those moments, to determine whether someone in the house at 34 Fairview may have been involved in that physical altercation that you suspected at the time?
MR. BUKHENIK: As investigations develop, we followed the evidence and statements made. The steps I took — Trooper Proctor and I proceeded to an eyewitness who was also present at the scene when the victim was discovered, and interviewed Mr. McCabe. And prior to that, prior to — — interviewing Miss McCabe —
MR. JACKSON: By the way, that was at Miss McCabe's home, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Even though you believed that there may have been a physical altercation, you didn't ask anybody to come down to the station — is that right? Any of the witnesses?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you did not seek to actually go to the physical location of 34 Fairview Road in those next few hours?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Or the next few days?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Not myself, no.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. As a matter of fact, Trooper Proctor did not either, did he?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, he did not.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't secure the interior of the house as a potential crime scene — you certainly know how to do that, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's a compound question. Do you — — want me to answer whether I did it or whether I know how to do it?
MR. JACKSON: I'll ask the question. If you can answer it, please answer it.
MR. BUKHENIK: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Can you answer that question?
MR. BUKHENIK: I can answer that question.
MR. JACKSON: Why don't you answer both of them?
MR. BUKHENIK: First portion — we did not secure the home as a crime scene. And the second portion — yes, I do know how to do that.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't — as a Massachusetts State Police official, you didn't secure the outside as a crime scene?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: To your knowledge, nobody else from Massachusetts State Police ever did either, didn't —
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, they did.
MR. JACKSON: How was that done, and when?
MR. BUKHENIK: When members of our office and — — a search team responded to that location and secured the front yard grass area and processed it. That was at 5:45, 6 o'clock that night.
MR. JACKSON: The 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe it was earlier, but I was not present, so I can't testify to the time.
MR. JACKSON: So you don't know personally what they did to — quote, unquote — secure or not secure the crime scene. You know they searched it, but in terms of securing it as a crime scene, you don't have personal knowledge of that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was not present.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You never took any photos of the interior of the house?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You never caused CSS to go inside the house and process that house as a potential crime scene?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I did not.
MR. JACKSON: No forensic criminalist at your direction ever went into 34 Fairview?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, they did not.
MR. JACKSON: And the people that you interviewed on January 29th — you already mentioned Miss McCabe — the other people were her husband, Matt McCabe, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And her brother-in-law, Brian Albert — is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: And all three of them were interviewed where?
MR. BUKHENIK: They were interviewed at the McCabe residence.
MR. JACKSON: Now, yesterday when you testified, did you indicate that Brian Albert was not present in the home when you interviewed Matt McCabe and Jennifer McCabe?
MR. BUKHENIK: He was not present in the dining room when we — — were interviewing each individual separately.
MR. JACKSON: So if all three of them testified that he arrived before you arrived, they would all be [unintelligible]?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not see him in the home when we arrived.
MR. JACKSON: No. I want to switch gears — real quick — to a couple of the physical items that you testified about yesterday: specifically the gray shirt — or the gray hoodie — and the orange shirt. You and Trooper Proctor collected both of those items, you indicated, from the floor of the hospital at Good Samaritan, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You testified that you and Trooper Proctor immediately bagged both of those items — they were sort of soaking wet, I think you said?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that the bags were so wet that you had to take the items back out of the bags and then lay them out on — I think you said butcher paper — is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: The items were soaked and wet. They were bagged — double-bagged — to prevent leakage of physiological fluids and the moisture coming off of it. And then once they were transported to the office, they were laid out on butcher paper in order to dry naturally.
MR. JACKSON: So you went from Good Samaritan directly to Dighton, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then you went from Dighton directly to the Canton Police Department, after which you had seized the vehicle —
MR. BUKHENIK: — correct. And the phone. We seized the phone in the vehicle in Dighton, and then followed the tow truck straight to the Canton Police Department.
MR. JACKSON: So at some point — if you had received, or gathered, the wet clothing at Good Samaritan, went from Good Samaritan to Dighton, Dighton to Canton PD — at what point that evening did you finally get those items of clothing out and laid out to dry?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was late that night, around 10 or so.
MR. JACKSON: So where were the items in the meantime?
MR. BUKHENIK: They were stored in the back passenger compartment of my pickup truck, in those double bags.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Who took control of the items to then lay them out late that night at the office?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not recall.
MR. JACKSON: Is that you or — — Trooper Proctor?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't recall. I don't remember.
MR. JACKSON: At some point — obviously it was getting late, you'd been on duty for a long time that day — you went home at some point, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you wait for those clothes to dry before you went home, or did you leave that to Trooper Proctor?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. Once they were laid out in the processing area in the office, we went home.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Who would have controlled those items of evidence when you left?
MR. BUKHENIK: Well, they're under lock and key within the security area of the District Attorney's office, so they're secured. Nobody's in physical control watching guard over them.
MR. JACKSON: Who had access to that area?
MR. BUKHENIK: Troopers in our office —
MR. JACKSON: Meaning you?
MR. BUKHENIK: Obviously, yes. Supervisor — Trooper Proctor as well.
MR. JACKSON: Right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, given the fact that he was the case officer — sort of in charge — he would have bagged those items up, been responsible for taking those items, tagging them, getting them stored wherever they needed to be stored and processed, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: As a case officer, he could direct other people to perform those tasks for him. The evidence officers in the office log in the evidence, and once it was dried it was sealed up, bagged, and put into storage. As far as who actually performed those tasks, I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: Well, yesterday — approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure, go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: This is not a vision contest — I'll bring these up to you in just a second, but just for familiarity's sake: do you recognize these two bags as bags that we brought to court with you yesterday?
MR. BUKHENIK: They look familiar, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. This one has a 437 on it — on my right — the one on my left has a 438 on it. May I approach, please? Yes. I'm not going to ask you to open those — don't worry about clubbing up at this point. The bag on your left — which one is that, 437 or 438?
MR. BUKHENIK: The bag on my left is 437.
MR. JACKSON: 437. Okay. And you indicated that those items were bagged after the clothing was dried and then ultimately processed and logged in, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Once the items dried they were bagged and logged in, awaiting processing, yes.
MR. JACKSON: But you didn't personally do that?
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. BUKHENIK: — and it says Brockton, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: No. Matter of fact, looking at the bag on your right — what's been marked as Exhibit 43 — help me — 438, thank you. That one has some writing on it, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it has a lot of handwriting on it, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that whose —
MR. BUKHENIK: — handwriting is that? I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: You've seen Trooper Proctor's handwriting a thousand times, I guess, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Not a thousand times, but it looks like his writing. It says "Trooper Proctor" on it, but other than that I do not know what Trooper Proctor's handwriting looks like.
MR. JACKSON: All right. It indicates that Trooper Proctor is the one that bagged that item, or those items, up, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh, yes. This bag indicates that the item was collected by Trooper Proctor on 1/29, right — at
MR. JACKSON: Good Samaritan Hospital in Brockton.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes — that — you just took the question out of my mouth. That's where Good Samaritan Hospital is, correct?
MR. JACKSON: That's correct. And there's a tag, or a printed label — looks like a label maker of some sort — that is on that physical bag, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Before we get to that — what's the description on that bag, in handwriting? Just — I'm sorry, can you be specific as to "Description of" what?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh, it says "Description of Items" — "Description of Enclosed Evidence." Correct. It says one orange T-shirt, one gray long-sleeve shirt.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So — may I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And before I do that, just so I close this loop — what's the description on the bag to your left, the one that looks like it's less wrinkled? Number 437? Yes. If you would read the same clothing —
MR. BUKHENIK: — description. The "Description of Enclosed Evidence" states: sweatshirt with recovered items inside container.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. May I approach now?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Yesterday — I'll keep my voice up — yesterday when you opened these two bags: this one, 437, has the gray sweatshirt in it; 438 has the orange T-shirt in it. Now, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's what was in the bag, yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. However, the bag indicates that at one point this bag — 438 — the physical bag I'm holding in my left hand — had both the sweatshirt and the T-shirt together, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's what the description is. I do not know if that was in fact the case.
MR. JACKSON: The reason you don't know is — — because you're not the one that bagged them — Trooper Proctor did, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: The reason I don't know is I wasn't present during the separation of those items, and I did not observe it taking place, nor was I made aware of how the items were separated or when.
MR. JACKSON: You are aware, however, that the tag — the label-maker-looking tag, the white tag that's on that bag — indicates a date of February 4th, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: You'd have to bring that back up. I'm sorry, I didn't take note of that. My fault.
MR. JACKSON: May — yes, just direct your attention to the tag and the date associated with that tag. The label-maker tag does have the date —
MR. BUKHENIK: — February 4th, 2022, on bag number — Exhibit 438.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. That's obviously six days after the item was actually recovered on the 29th, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: So that indicates — at least based on that tag — that that item was not booked into evidence and processed until six days after it was actually recovered on the floor at Good Samaritan Hospital. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: The date indicates February 4th, 2022, right.
MR. JACKSON: And that date would be indicative, in your experience, of the date that it was moved into processing by some other folks — the evidence sergeants, or whomever, or the evidence officers rather — or who?
MR. BUKHENIK: I can't speak to — — their procedures. As far as when they print it, that date could be when they printed the label, but the bag might have been tagged otherwise. I do not know that.
MR. JACKSON: But there's no other tag on that bag that suggests an earlier date, correct? There's just that one tag from the label maker. My question to you — if you know, sir, and you may not know — is: what was happening to these items between January 29th, after you lost sight of them that night on the butcher paper, and February 4th, when that tag indicates that they were first processed?
MR. BUKHENIK: To the best of my knowledge, those items are drying on the butcher paper for six days — if that's what the label maker says.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. For six days they were soaking wet, and those would have been certainly accessible to — and in the possession of — the lead case officer in the case. That was Trooper Proctor, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If Trooper Proctor needed to review those items, he would have access to those items?
MR. BUKHENIK: Absolutely.
MR. JACKSON: And you're also aware that the first actual log of any chain of custody for those items is March 14th, when they were finally submitted six weeks later to the crime lab?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is not true. The first actual log of those items is when we collected them from the hospital.
MR. JACKSON: Where's the log? I'm talking about a physical log — like a sign-in/sign-out log. Where's the log?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's — — documented in the reports saying that we collected them.
MR. JACKSON: I know that. There's a report — anybody can write a report, right? I can write a report. Doesn't mean anything. I'm asking for a log —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Obviously, when items move in and out of people's custody in an official capacity for the Massachusetts State Police, there's a log of that, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's documented — yes. Or at least it should be, correct.
MR. JACKSON: It's documented. Where's the log of these items before March 14th?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's documented in the report.
MR. JACKSON: There is no log, is there, Sergeant?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I want to talk a little bit about some searches that Mr. Lally asked you — — about: February 4th and February 10th, very specifically. Both of those searches you were involved with out at 34 Fairview, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: But, Sergeant, you didn't personally write a report about your conduct at 34 Fairview on either of those two dates — in other words, you didn't go back to the station and generate a report yourself?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't recall doing that.
MR. JACKSON: Now, there were no photos that you took of the items at the location?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not take photos, correct.
MR. JACKSON: You did not take photos of the items. Okay. And the first report that indicates anything that happened or was recovered at the location on either February 4th — — or February 10th, that was first notated in a report dated November 4th, 2023 — a year and a half, year and several months later, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: If you say so. I do not know the exact date. That report would have to be presented to me.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You don't have to read the whole thing, but if you can skip to the part that talks about the February 4th and February 10th searches. I'm sorry — I didn't realize you were finished already. What's the date of that? Well, let me ask a foundational question: does that refresh your recollection as to the date of the report that actually talks about the February 4th and February 10th searches?
MR. BUKHENIK: It does.
MR. JACKSON: And what's the date?
MR. BUKHENIK: Well, this report is dated November 4th, 2023.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Now, as it relates to those two searches — I'd like to ask you a little bit about the February 4th search first. You indicated that you actually responded to 34 Fairview personally, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was responding to that location on my own — I personally responded. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That was because you had received information that Chief Berkowitz had seen something or found something, is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Chief Berkowitz from Canton PD — that is not correct. No.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So when you got there, was Chief Berkowitz there?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, he was.
MR. JACKSON: You just happened to go by 34 Fairview at the exact same time on the exact same date as Chief Berkowitz — or was that coordinated in some way?
MR. BUKHENIK: There was no coordination between me and Chief Berkowitz. As I testified, I had directed the troopers to go by the location. I planned to go by the location in the morning on the way to the office and in the afternoon on the way home, just to see if any more items would reveal themselves. So that morning I was actually traveling to that location in order to conduct a view of the area to see if any more evidence had been revealed. Prior to my arrival — approximately, while I was on Chapman Street — I received a call indicating that — — Chief Berkowitz was at the location.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Was there also an Officer Lank — Sergeant Lank?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not know if Sergeant Lank was there. No.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Chief Berkowitz certainly was there, yes?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And Chief Berkowitz indicated that as he was driving by he saw a piece of plastic?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And stopped his car and then started making phone calls. I believe that's what he indicated — to the caller, yes?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you question Chief Berkowitz about why he was driving by the location in the first place?
MR. BUKHENIK: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You knew at that point that the Canton Police Department had been recused because of — at least an appearance or potential for a — conflict of interest, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I knew they recused themselves — due to — only in respect to interviews: they didn't want to perform, uh — conduct interviews with us side by side.
MR. JACKSON: If there's a conflict of interest, Sergeant — for a department — conducting the interviews is just one aspect of an investigation, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm not going to speak to a conflict of interest, but yes — conducting an interview is just one aspect of the investigation. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So is it your testimony that your understanding was they couldn't conduct interviews, but they could collect evidence, store evidence, write search warrants, collect — get returns on search warrants, execute search warrants —
MR. BUKHENIK: Have searches, they can do all that but not conduct interviews. My understanding was they were recusing themselves from conducting interviews. They still allowed us to use their facilities. We utilized their conference room to conduct interviews. There was evidence being stored at their sallyport, being the vehicle. So that was my understanding.
MR. JACKSON: Isn't it true that you knew that the entirety of the Canton Police Department had recused itself because of a familiarity between one of their members, Kevin Albert, and the Albert family on whose lawn John O'Keefe was found? That was the conflict, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I knew that that was the connection between them, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you understood, sir, that that agency was to have nothing — from an investigative standpoint, nothing — to do with this investigation? Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: They were not conducting the investigation.
MR. JACKSON: No. As a matter of fact, Trooper Proctor and you supervising him — y'all were conducting the investigation, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Our office was conducting the investigation.
MR. JACKSON: So did you find it unusual or suspicious in any way that the chief of police for the conflicted Canton PD was the person driving by 34 Fairview, looking for evidence? Can you answer that question, Sergeant?
MR. BUKHENIK: He would have to repeat it. There was just so much, I can't — it was a little wordy.
MR. JACKSON: I'll try it again. Did you find that suspicious?
MR. BUKHENIK: Which part? You have to repeat the whole thing.
MR. JACKSON: That Chief Berkowitz, from the conflicted Canton PD, was at 34 Fairview looking for evidence.
MR. BUKHENIK: The way you posed the question, um, I did not find it suspicious at all. He's the chief of the police in the town where he works, and he's driving down the street. I mean, that's not suspicious.
MR. JACKSON: With a conflict of interest on the very case that he's driving by?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Um, you certainly knew, as a supervisor over the case officer, that any involvement by Canton Police Department — given the fact that there's a potential conflict — any involvement by them could compromise your otherwise clean investigation. You knew that, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Not necessarily, no.
MR. JACKSON: Did Chief Berkowitz disclose to you that morning on February 4th that he had been communicating with Brian Higgins and Brian Albert — two witnesses on your case — that morning?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: If you knew information about communication between and among Canton PD and your witnesses, you would find that inappropriate, would you not?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You returned to the scene on February 10th, is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh, to conduct another search? You said I was present on the 10th. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who dispatched you back to — or did anybody dispatch you back to that location on February 10th? How'd you end up there — is a better way of asking.
MR. BUKHENIK: February 10th, just like um previous days, we made plans to go to the location in the morning and in the afternoon — drive by. I was on my way to work and to home, so I traveled that route on purpose. And um, as evidence revealed itself due to the natural melting of the snow, we would stop and collect the visible evidence.
MR. JACKSON: You believe at this point, sir, that whatever you might have collected at the scene would obviously be important, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Anything we collected that had evidentiary value or presented itself as somehow related to the crime or the uh incident would be collected, and it would be important to the investigation, right?
MR. JACKSON: You treat it as important — as important?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So my question is — especially as it relates to the February 10th search, where there were multiple items found — did you seek to have CSS come out and actually either mark with GPS coordinates or measure with cross coordinates exactly where each item of evidence was found?
MR. BUKHENIK: We did not do that. We had collected so much evidence already, and so much has been documented at that point, that we did not contact crime scene services to come back out and photograph more shards of glass and plastic. We simply collected it for processing.
MR. JACKSON: So the location of each one of those items was not of that great importance to you, at least at that time?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was of great importance as to the fact that it was located in the vicinity where the victim was found and in the vicinity of other items located of the same characteristic uh shape, size, and uh color.
MR. JACKSON: So that's my question — what does "vicinity" mean?
MR. BUKHENIK: In — in the area.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What does "area" mean?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's a location. Specific location.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Are we — we could do this all day, I guess — are we talking about an area of 5 feet or an area of 50 feet?
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on where the items were recovered, we're talking about an area approximately of 30 square feet, between the um the roadway uh into the grass.
MR. JACKSON: It's the — we saw photographs, Sergeant, of items that were butted up against a fire hydrant in one instance, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Is that — yes, that's correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: A drinking straw that's out in the road, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Another shard of glass that's in the grass closer to the flag pole, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: A hat that's under the snow adjacent to the left side of the flag pole, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry — it wasn't. It was closer to the electrical box, wasn't it?
MR. JACKSON: No. The pictures document where the hat was — it was to the right of the flag pole. So these shards of glass — the point I'm asking is, did you seek to use basic cross-coordinate measurements from something that you know is a known object — like, for instance, I don't know, a flag pole or a fire hydrant — 27 in. to the north and a foot and a half to the south of those two known points? That would give you a cross coordinate, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: It would document the exact location, correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you did not do that with any of these items, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: The items that were not photographed, um, were not also GPS located, but they were within the same vicinity of where the other items were collected.
MR. JACKSON: But again, now we're back to the same question — your word for "vicinity" might be different than my word for "vicinity," right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
PARENTHETICAL: [court officer]
MR. JACKSON: : [unintelligible], please. Thank you. Should make it easier. Sergeant, have you been able to familiarize yourself with that evidence bag — with the photograph?
MR. JACKSON: When you recover these items or any other items, uh, it's obviously important to memorialize — on the evidence bag or in some other way — exactly where they're found, who found them, the date, time, et cetera. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: We do the best we can to uh document all known information on each evidence item bagged at the time.
MR. JACKSON: And in terms of the February 10th search, I want to just ask you a couple of quick questions about that evidence bag. Did you bag the items into a single evidence bag that you found that day, or do you recall?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would have to uh see the bag. Um, if you have those available, I'll take a look.
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission, Exhibit — I think it's 310, it was entered into evidence yesterday — I'd like to display that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: You're looking at a photograph of what was previously entered into evidence as Exhibit 310. Can you see that from where you're at?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't have the evidence bag with me, so I can only ask to enlarge it if you can. Enlarge it, please.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Um, I didn't realize — I've got a photograph of it. You need the lights on.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. Um, taking a look at that evidence bag — it has the information on it. Has your name as "collected by," correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The date of collection is February 10th, is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's what it says. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Um, and it indicates multiple pieces of red, black, and clear plastic, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Actually it says six pieces of red, black, and clear plastic. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's correct. But that is not an evidence bag that was filled out by you.
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not fill that bag out. No. As a matter of fact, that's Trooper Proctor's handwriting. I do not know what Trooper Proctor's handwriting is — I cannot confirm that that's his handwriting.
MR. JACKSON: But it's not your handwriting.
MR. BUKHENIK: It is not my handwriting, though.
MR. JACKSON: Um, so are you aware that this particular bag — that bag that contained those six items uh of plastic material that you already deemed was incredibly important to the investigation — was never booked into any evidence until March 14th, the date it was submitted to the crime lab?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was not aware of that. No.
MR. JACKSON: We can take that down. If I may approach, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: You're welcome. Did you ever uh draft a report yourself documenting the recovery of those six items and the other 14 items that you said you found on the same date, February 10th?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you leave that — assuming that Trooper Proctor would document that?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: I'll ask it another way, if I can. Um, did you believe that you didn't need to write a report, Sergeant, because Trooper Proctor would take care of that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I knew that it would be documented. Uh, it was already documented on the actual uh bag, as far as who collected it, when, where, what it was. And a report eventually would be authored on it. But the where for all these very intricate pieces — the where is left to [unintelligible] on the back — correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: The general vicinity location of the other items collected and documented with photographs was consistent with the same locations this was collected.
MR. JACKSON: I want to shift gears for just a second. Um, well, actually I want to ask one final question about that item. Um, based on the documentation that you just mentioned — that it's documented on the bag — and if the bag is presented to the crime lab on, uh, February 14 — I'm sorry, on March 14th — some five weeks later, um, those items were completely unaccounted for from a log standpoint, the entire time from when they were collected until they were booked at the crime lab. Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: Possession of those items — those five... four, five, six weeks...
MR. BUKHENIK: Are you talking about the items that were just displayed on the screen?
MR. JACKSON: I am, sir.
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection. Sustained.]
MR. JACKSON: Okay. They have just moved on, yes. May I inquire?
MR. JACKSON: Now I'd like to shift gears to um The Ring video that you saw yesterday — it's in Exhibit 6, video number 50153 — that may mean nothing to you. It's the 5:07 a.m. video of Miss Read's car pulling out of the One Meadows garage. Do you remember that video?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You indicated yesterday, on questioning by Mr. Lally, that Miss Read's car came close to — came in contact with, or close to coming in contact with — the other vehicle, the Traverse, in the video. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: The video — as I watched the video, I observed the vehicle come near Mr. O'Keefe's car.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, that's what I want to talk about. With the Court's permission, may we play that video one more time? Pull that up. — Okay, you just play that for a quick second. No — pause, pause. Does that appear to be — I'm just pausing it in the first two or three seconds — does that appear to be the video that you saw yesterday?
MR. BUKHENIK: It appears that way, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Mr. B, if you could enlarge the area around the — right — I'm sorry, the left rear tire of the Traverse. I'm going to ask you, sir, if you'll pay close attention to what's been zoomed, and when the SUV gets close to it, I'm going to pause it and ask you another question. Go ahead and play this.
MR. LALLY: I'm going to object to this.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't we pause the screen, take it down, and I'll see you at sidebar.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to try to situate myself out of the way. If we can have the lights — sure. Go ahead and enlarge that — the rear area of the — and I'm going to ask you to pay special attention to the back wheel, and any movement that you may or may not see. Pause it in about the next three seconds. Start. I'm going to ask you to pay special attention. We can have light, and you can take that down. Sergeant, were you able to see that video? I know it's not the clearest thing in the world. Were you able to see that video okay?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What did you notice about the rear wheel of the Traverse based on the motion in the shot with the snowfall falling?
MR. BUKHENIK: It appears that there is movement, but the video speaks for itself.
MR. JACKSON: What would you assess, based on the movement of the rear wheel of the Traverse, about whether or not the two vehicles came in contact with one another?
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection. Sustained.]
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware of when that video that we saw yesterday was collected?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. I'm trying to use my time wisely, your Honor. Yesterday, Sergeant, you were asked about a couple of videos related to the sallyport garage. Do you have that in mind?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. Matter of fact, we watched one of them pretty specifically toward the end of the day yesterday.
MR. JACKSON: Did you actually — I want to talk about the one that is the clearer of the two, where you slip. Do you remember that one?
MR. BUKHENIK: If you pull it up, I can — I can —
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection.]
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: You are unmuted, ma'am.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have a meeting with the DA?
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection. Sustained.]
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever have any kind of communication with Mr. Lally about your testimony?
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection. Sustained.]
MR. JACKSON: Can we approach?
MR. JACKSON: I will in just a second. There was one where Mr. Lally paused it and you were slipping in front of the vehicle.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't recall myself slipping, though. But it was icy that day, so if there's documentation of me slipping, fair enough.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. I wasn't — I didn't mean anything by that, other than that was a moment that I thought you might recall to differentiate the videos. It's Exhibit 446, but I don't think that's going to help you. All right, let's see if I can do this another way. Did you actually personally go to Canton PD to retrieve any or all of the videos of the sallyport? You yourself?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did go to Canton and collect already-extracted video. But it was a portion of video surveillance — I didn't collect all of the videos.
MR. JACKSON: So, when was the most recent time that you went to Canton to collect a portion of the video?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't remember. I don't remember, I'm sorry.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review — well, let me ask it this way. Did you collect a video that was sought on or about April 23rd, 24th — this year, just a few weeks ago?
MR. BUKHENIK: Did I collect it?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not collect that video.
MR. JACKSON: Of April this year. Now, you're aware that the video that you saw yesterday was in fact collected after the trial started, in April of 2024?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. BUKHENIK: I am not aware.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Was yesterday the first time you'd seen that video?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: When had you seen that video previously?
MR. BUKHENIK: A couple of weeks ago.
MR. JACKSON: What were the circumstances in which you saw that video?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Sergeant, did you have any meetings or communications with Mr. Lally in anticipation of your testimony?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: When was that?
MR. BUKHENIK: About two weeks ago, and then last week, I believe.
MR. JACKSON: What was discussed generally?
MR. BUKHENIK: We discussed the portions of the case that I would be presenting.
MR. JACKSON: Did you write a report about your communications with Mr. Lally?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Were you shown any of the videos that you've seen here in anticipation of your testimony?
MR. BUKHENIK: Not during the first meeting. I did review a video during the second time.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And that video that you did see the second time — was it the interior video of the sallyport that we saw yesterday?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm just trying to remember exactly what video I saw. I had reviewed videos outside of our meeting, so I don't remember exactly what video Mr. Lally showed me.
MR. JACKSON: But you do recall seeing the video that you saw yesterday — the sort of clear one that has the crime scene taping put up and all that — you have seen that one before?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that was with Mr. Lally?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is not correct, because I do not recall when I saw that video or what video I saw with Mr. Lally.
MR. JACKSON: I see. All right. I'd like to talk about Exhibit 446 for a second, and then I'll show it to you. You indicated that all the videos — everything that you saw yesterday — was true and accurate. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on my memory of the events that were memorialized in the video, the video captures events taking place in an accurate fashion. Yes, in an accurate fashion.
MR. JACKSON: All right, that's what I wanted to find out. And after you watched the video, I think you were asked by Mr. Lally — does the video show you or Trooper Proctor having access to, or messing with in any way, that right rear tail light in any fashion — and you said "never."
MR. BUKHENIK: I was asked if at any point Trooper Proctor and I had come into contact — I believe — and/or touched the vehicle and that portion of the vehicle, and I said "never." We never touched the vehicle prior to it being properly processed with a search warrant.
MR. JACKSON: And that was specifically — his question was to, and your answer was to, the right rear portion. Right? That right rear tail — the right rear damaged tail. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission, I'd like to play a portion of Exhibit 446. Okay, before we begin playing it, Mr. B, if you wouldn't mind — may I inquire, your Honor, of the witness, just to lay foundation?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Sergeant, did you recognize this as being the video that we saw yesterday?
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. JACKSON: At this point, you see the person toward the back of the vehicle walking toward the opposite side of the SUV?
MR. BUKHENIK: It does look accurate. Okay, yes.
MR. JACKSON: I just want to make sure we're on the same page. This is 446. Just so you have it in mind — if I reference that timestamp, you can play that. And I think — run to time zero. Do you recognize that as the video we saw yesterday?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: Very briefly, if you could move to time of day 5:37:05. With the Court's permission, can we play at this point?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right, that shows the vehicle coming into the sallyport. And we're looking at which side of the vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: So that is the driver side of the vehicle. What that video depicts is a mirror reflection — although mirrors are an accurate representation of what you're seeing, it's just inverted — so that is the driver side of the vehicle. I do not know why it is inverted, but that's the way it was collected and presented from Canton Police.
MR. JACKSON: Can you see a time stamp or time and date stamp on the bottom of that?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's in blue. I cannot — no.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Does it appear that the time and date stamp — if you can't read every letter on it — that it is in correct order? In other words, that it's not inverted?
MR. BUKHENIK: I cannot read it now.
MR. JACKSON: All right, let's go and play this for a second. Who was that, that just got out of the car?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not know. I think that's the tow truck driver — he would have the only access to the vehicle. We did not touch the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Who's that on the left?
MR. BUKHENIK: I missed that — I was looking down at the laser pointer. I do not know. I know for a fact I'm the gentleman wearing a dark olive drab State Police baseball-style hat, and Trooper Mike Proctor is wearing a winter hat.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor is wearing what?
MR. BUKHENIK: A winter hat.
MR. JACKSON: Just — that was playing and I didn't realize it was playing while you were talking. And stop. Yesterday when you testified, you indicated that the two individuals in this scene were you and — correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Not correct. There were two individuals in the rear of the vehicle — I shined my light too. That was me and Trooper Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see Trooper Proctor toward the back of the rear of the vehicle there?
MR. BUKHENIK: I can't tell, because of where the head is. I just know that Trooper Proctor is wearing a black hat. It's the person in that — in the video, to the left, to the rear of the car, is wearing a black hat. Right?
MR. JACKSON: I can't tell.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't want to be locked into a statement where later on you show me ...that it's somebody else — magically. I can't testify to that.
MR. JACKSON: There's no magic about this. It's your testimony. I'm just asking you what you see.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't see that.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go and play it.
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. JACKSON: What area does he appear to be going to?
MR. BUKHENIK: He appears to be going towards the rear passenger side of the vehicle, although it does not appear so because the video is inverted — a mirror image — that's where he's going.
MR. JACKSON: And Sergeant Bukhenik, you testified for at least a half an hour about this video yesterday, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry, it was — — a long day. I don't know the timing of how long I testified.
MR. JACKSON: You significantly testified about this video yesterday, did you not?
MR. BUKHENIK: I testified about this video.
MR. JACKSON: And you testified that it was true and accurate, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You testified that it was reflective of your observations — what was happening in that sallyport that evening — correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I testified that this is an accurate scene and collection of video evidence from the sallyport. And as that truck sits in that sallyport, just like this, it appears from all perspectives that what we're looking at is the passenger side of the car, and that right rear tail light is right there shining — — in our face.
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays and stops]
MR. JACKSON: Correct? From this perspective —
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
MR. JACKSON: From this perspective — from the perspective that the jurors are looking at — from all indications, that would appear to be the right side of the truck, the passenger side of the truck, and that tail light that you can see is the right rear tail light. From this perspective, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: The way it presents itself, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And yesterday, during the entirety of your questioning by Mr. Lally, not once did you mention that this video is actually completely inverted?
MR. BUKHENIK: Did not.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Lally didn't ask you if it was inverted, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And if I hadn't gotten up here and begun questioning you — — that would be left uncorrected, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: The person with the winter cap appears to walk directly to what ultimately should be the right rear tail light of this car, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's the vicinity. Yes, that's where he is.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like you to pay attention to the right rear of this car. And I know we're completely backward, but it's the far corner of the car. Do you see a person's head there?
MR. BUKHENIK: It appears as if someone's still there.
MR. JACKSON: And that person is located at or near what portion of the car? In real life — or as it's depicted — is the person near, in real life, near the right rear tail light of the —
MR. BUKHENIK: — car? Yes, as a matter of fact, standing there, hovering around there.
MR. JACKSON: Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: We don't know the distance that they are in proximity to the actual vehicle. We just know that they're behind the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: That looks like it's pretty close.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Does that look like he's in close proximity to the right rear tail light?
MR. BUKHENIK: As I said, I can't tell how far away he is from the vehicle.
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. JACKSON: Just played. At this point, pause it. You see the sallyport garage door came down?
MR. JACKSON: Head's right there, sir. You can't tell that he's right next to the right tail light?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: All right. I want you to pay attention to what that person does as soon as the other person comes out from behind that car. See if you see a mov— stop it. You see that person —
MR. BUKHENIK: Move? I saw movement in the frame, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Right when the other person is in eyesight of the person toward the right rear, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I mean, the video speaks for itself. I— yeah.
MR. JACKSON: It does.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. No commenting, Mr. Jackson. We've talked about that.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to ask that we back it up, because there's one other issue I want you to pay attention to, if you can. Right at this moment — or right before this moment — and that is the time stamp. Back it up maybe 10 seconds. About there. Instead — don't play yet. Instead of paying attention to the individuals, I'm going to ask you — can you see — may I approach the screen?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you see the time stamp at 5:37 and 37 seconds PM? Can you see that from where you're at?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I cannot.
MR. JACKSON: Me neither. Let's play it for about 10 seconds. Pause it. Did you see another person just appear toward the rear end of the car?
MR. BUKHENIK: There was a fog of some sort. I — it did appear as if a person was — actually, there were two people back there, and two people walked away, or one person walked away.
MR. JACKSON: The time stamp jumped to 5:38.1, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I can — I cannot see the time stamp, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did it appear that there was an anomaly? There was a portion of that video that was deleted — it's missing, not deleted, but just missing. Can you tell? Does it appear that way to you?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. I cannot tell what is happening with the video.
MR. JACKSON: If you take a close look — there's a classic police car in that sallyport, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: There's an antique vehicle there. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Take a close look at the trunk of that vehicle. The word "police"?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I believe I can read that, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And it's backwards, correct?
PARENTHETICAL: [counsel]
JUDGE CANNONE: : That's what the court wants. Yes. Yeah. We'll have a hearing on it at 8:30 Monday. Are you around tomorrow?
MR. BUKHENIK: It is mirrored, correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's a good indication that this is an inverted video, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: It appears that way, yes.
MR. JACKSON: If we were to fast forward — at 5:42 — another 20 seconds. There you go.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You see a number on the garage?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Is that — — correct? What is it? Does the number appear correct? How do you read it — four?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, the number is in the mirror image.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. I just wanted to make the point — everything in this video is completely... it's not backwards, it's mirrored, reversed. You can look yourself in the mirror in the morning, you still see your own face. It's not backwards.
MR. BUKHENIK: But my mirror image is not an accurate depiction of who I am. My actual physical appearance is who I am.
MR. JACKSON: Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: A mirror image, Sergeant, is not an accurate representation of this, is it?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's a mirror image by definition.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: I — thank you. I would like to — To mark — I have a — we can bring the lights up. Wait — I'd like to have it marked with the Court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Does Mr. Lally know what's on this thumb drive, without you telling us?
MR. LALLY: I do not.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. We can approach, and I can certainly bring it out. We're trying to wrap up our morning. It's marked for identification.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to play the first 10 seconds of that video.
JUDGE CANNONE: No. We'll come to it. It's marked for identification. Right, Mr. Jackson. You are — audio glitch — gap of approximately 8 minutes You are unmuted, so we'll just wait. Jurors — I know that you want to know when this case is going to end, and I don't mean that in any negative way. After speaking with the lawyers, I can safely say that you will get this case for your deliberations sometime the last week in June. We'll know better next week. We will not be in session next Tuesday. We will go full days Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday next week. We will not be in session next Tuesday. All right, I have to give you those cautions again. Please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don't do any independent research or investigation into this case.
JUDGE CANNONE: If you happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case, please disregard it and let us know. Have a great weekend. We'll see you Monday. All right, for the jury please. Jurors, you are muted. Thank you. You be seated. All right, so I received a motion from the Commonwealth this morning that I have not had an opportunity to read yet. It's on my desk. I'd like to go spend a few minutes looking at that and come back out at 12:00 on that, in order for us to argue it.
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you need — I'll get it either way. You've been busy.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Could we do it on Monday?
JUDGE CANNONE: I want to get as much evidence in as we can each day. We can do it at 8:30 Monday morning, I think. Madam — Court Reporter, could we do it at 8:30? COURT REPORTER: Sure, absolutely.
MR. LALLY: Fine with us.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can we do it at 8:30 Monday morning?
MR. LALLY: Are you around tomorrow?
MR. JACKSON: Oh — am I? Yes, absolutely.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you want to do tomorrow morning?
MR. JACKSON: If I had a preference, I would say Monday.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, we'll do Monday morning at 8:30. Okay. And if you want to put something in writing, just email it to us this weekend.
MR. JACKSON: We'll do.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, thank you. All right, we'll see you then. All right, for court please.