Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveBrian Tully - Cross
643 linesMR. JACKSON: Good morning, Lieutenant Tully.
MR. TULLY: Good morning.
MR. JACKSON: I'm not going to go in any particular order, so forgive me if I bounce around just a little bit. You indicated on direct examination this morning that you didn't seek a search warrant for 34 Fairview — the interior, 34 Fairview — correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: To your knowledge, nobody under your supervision sought such a search warrant?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You explained that in your mind there was no probable cause to seek the search warrant for the interior of the home, is that right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: But you also admitted that you didn't seek consent, for which you don't have to have probable cause if you get consent, correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You can ask me right now — "Hey, Alan, can I look at your cell phone?" I say "Sure, you do your thing," right?
MR. TULLY: I could.
MR. JACKSON: But for a court to order that I hand over my cell phone, you've got to get a search warrant, sign an affidavit, get a court to agree with it, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You've applied for myriad search warrants in your career, I'm guessing?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Very experienced?
MR. TULLY: Supposedly.
MR. JACKSON: And I expect that there have been circumstances, Lieutenant Tully, in which you sought a search warrant and the judge says, "No, I don't think there's enough here," correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You don't get in trouble for that, correct?
MR. TULLY: With whom?
MR. JACKSON: Well, it's not illegal. You don't get sanctioned for it, you don't get your pay docked because you don't get a search warrant based on an affidavit, correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So there's no real sanction in seeking it if you in good faith believe that there's a reason to seek it, correct? Outside of the time that it takes to author it and put it together and go to the court?
MR. TULLY: Yes, there's no sanction.
MR. JACKSON: Of course. But in a homicide investigation, you're not going to fail to do certain investigative tasks because it takes time — you're going to do what is necessary for the investigation, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you did not believe that there was information sufficient that you all had at the very initial stages of the investigation to seek a search warrant or to ask for consent, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: But you did know the following in the initial moments of the — in the beginning of the investigation: you were aware that John O'Keefe had been invited to a party inside a home, right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You knew that that home was located at 34 Fairview?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You also knew that John O'Keefe arrived at 34 Fairview?
MR. TULLY: We believe so, yes.
MR. JACKSON: You also knew at the time that he had been — for want of a —better phrase—partying with the individuals who were inside the home, correct? Expected to meet at the house? They were at a bar previous to that?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that a drinking glass was found in the yard, attendant to—or close to, adjacent to—where Mr. O'Keefe's body was found?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That drinking glass had been broken, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that drinking glasses are commonly found inside homes, right?
MR. TULLY: As well as bars.
MR. JACKSON: As well as bars, right. But at that point you didn't know—it's just a broken glass, correct?
MR. TULLY: It's a broken glass, correct.
MR. JACKSON: Um, you also know that he was found without a coat on?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are coats normally worn outside or inside?
MR. TULLY: It's the user's choice.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. 18°—you would expect that if someone was outside, they'd have a coat on, correct?
MR. TULLY: I'm the kind of person that wears shorts throughout the year—I'll often go without a jacket.
MR. JACKSON: All right, a true Bostonian.
MR. TULLY: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Um, he didn't have any coat, gloves, scarf, nothing like that, correct?
MR. TULLY: He had no winter gear on whatsoever, correct.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Under ordinary circumstances—and you may be the exception—but under ordinary circumstances, if someone was out in 18° weather, you might expect they would have some winter gear on, correct? You would also—you would certainly expect that if someone took their coat, their gloves, their hat, their winter gear off, they might leave it inside the house rather than outside the house?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, I'll let you answer that, Detective.
MR. TULLY: Uh, it's probably predicated on where you take it off, right, and your relationship to the location.
MR. JACKSON: Right. A reasonable assumption might be the winter gear might be inside the house.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that a reasonable assumption, Detective Lieutenant?
MR. TULLY: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: It's not reasonable that he would have his jacket inside the house? You wouldn't just assume that? What—using the term "the house," you talking about any house? 34 Fairview?
MR. TULLY: Correct. No, it's not reasonable.
MR. JACKSON: All right. You didn't think it was reasonable at the time, still don't, to even ask—could he have had his jacket off inside the house? And I'm talking about at the time—initial stages of the investigation. Who am I asking this question to? So I'm asking if you believe it was reasonable—if a man is found 30 feet outside the front door of a home and he's got no winter gear on whatsoever—that perhaps he came from inside the home, not having donned his winter gear?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you answer that, Detective Lieutenant?
MR. TULLY: Um, it's not reasonable given other information I had.
MR. JACKSON: You also know that he didn't have a shoe on, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Where might you look for the shoe if—
MR. TULLY: I—well, the question is not accurate to the facts we had at the time.
MR. JACKSON: Well, the facts you had at the initial stages—I'm talking about just after 6:30, 7:00, 7:30 in the morning when the investigation was beginning. During those times, you didn't have any information about where the other shoe was, except he just didn't have a shoe on—at the hospital—correct?
MR. TULLY: We didn't know there was a shoe unaccounted for until after noontime.
MR. JACKSON: So when you did find out that there was a shoe unaccounted for, one place to look might be outside, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And another place to look might be inside the hall—
MR. TULLY: Correct. We looked at the former and we located it there.
MR. JACKSON: You also are aware that a body being dragged by the shoulders could easily lose a shoe?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever experienced a homicide in which a body is dragged, and you're aware of a shoe being pulled off while the body's being dragged?
MR. TULLY: That—I don't have experience with that.
MR. JACKSON: Um, certainly not outside the realm of possibility as a professional investigator?
MR. TULLY: Possible.
MR. JACKSON: Um, you're also aware that at least initially it appeared, from accounts, that John O'Keefe may have been involved in a physical altercation, correct?
MR. TULLY: Possible.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, that was reported by one of your subordinates—Yuri Bukhenik—to the medical examiner's office, right? As a possibility?
MR. TULLY: Yes, as a possibility.
MR. JACKSON: And you're aware that your other subordinate, Trooper Proctor—according to certain information he had gotten from first responders—also believed that a physical altercation was possible, as well?
MR. TULLY: It was possible, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you also knew that the house would be a normal location to have other individuals who might have been involved in that physical altercation.
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, can you answer that, Detective Lieutenant?
MR. TULLY: An altercation could take place anywhere.
MR. JACKSON: Exactly. And people can often travel from the location of the altercation miles away to another location, or they could travel 30 feet outside as well, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Um, in the early morning hours—well, let's say the hours following your Massachusetts State Police initiation or engagement in this investigation—you became aware of Brian Higgins, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That name was bandied about as a potential witness in the investigation, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you're aware that Brian Higgins indicated that he saw a tall, dark-haired man enter the home after he arrived, correct?
MR. TULLY: I'm not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: And the reason you're not aware of it, Lieutenant Tully, is because nobody bothered to interview Brian Higgins until February 10th— right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, in that form—sustained. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: When was Brian Higgins first interviewed?
MR. TULLY: February 7th.
MR. JACKSON: 7th? 10th?
MR. TULLY: Yeah, in—in February. Not January 29th.
MR. JACKSON: Certainly. Correct. Although he was known to be inside the house, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So had you known that—had you had the information, for instance, that Brian Higgins admitted to having seen a tall, dark-haired man walk into the house—that might have changed the complexion of your investigation at that time.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you answer that, Detective Lieutenant?
MR. TULLY: In the off chance that Mr. Higgins presumably had said something like that, I would certainly need more information describing this person. I would ask a series of questions to narrow it down to make sure that this person was John.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Exactly. That would just be a normal part of the investigation—you just take evidence A and link it to evidence B to evidence C. That would be the normal way to do an investigation.
MR. TULLY: We would normally follow the evidence, correct.
MR. JACKSON: Um, but in point of fact, nobody did seek a warrant to—to go inside the house, correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Nobody did seek to have a forensic team go inside the house and look, correct?
MR. TULLY: And nobody asked for consent, correct.
MR. JACKSON: I want to ask you about the sallyport video, if I could. Um, did you obtain a copy of any video surveillance footage from Canton Police Department?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If you can tell me which footage you obtained and where—and there are several videos, Lieutenant, and it can be confusing—so if you could be as detailed as possible, explain what footage you gathered and when you gathered it.
MR. TULLY: Most recently—and the date escapes me—but it's within the last couple of months, I had contacted Chief Rafferty of the Canton Police Department and asked her to burn another copy or create another copy of the sallyport video during a certain time period on January 29th, to ensure that the video that we had received previously was all the records responsive to that request.
MR. JACKSON: And you found out that the video that you received earlier was not in fact completely responsive, because there was a video left out, right?
MR. TULLY: I—I didn't do a one-to-one comparison. I just had made the request.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, you did receive a video of the interior of the sallyport, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And can you tell me—did you look at that? Did you review that video?
MR. TULLY: Quickly, not the whole thing.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Was there anything of note about that interior video? By the way, let me ask you another question, Lieutenant Tully, just to clarify. There's a very grainy, dark, almost-black video of the interior, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes, or excerpts of it.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. And that video is missing some pretty significant time frames throughout the video?
MR. TULLY: I haven't—I didn't review the whole thing, but I'm aware of that video existing.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. Then there's another video that's pretty clear, right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'm asking you about the clear video. Did you make any note about anything unusual about that video?
MR. TULLY: No, but again, I didn't really review it.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't review it with any detail, correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you make a note that that video was inverted?
MR. TULLY: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Did you make a note about the timestamp on the video—either being correct and properly positioned, or inverted?
MR. TULLY: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you give that video to Trooper Proctor?
MR. TULLY: I believe I gave it to Sergeant Bukhenik.
MR. JACKSON: And then what did Sergeant Bukhenik do with it?
MR. TULLY: Reviewed it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Is that somehow uploaded onto the Massachusetts State Police computer system for safekeeping?
MR. TULLY: Uh, no. We'll hold it within the DA's office on that server. You know, it's not touching the MSP.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So it is uploaded on some sort of server?
MR. TULLY: We will memorialize it somewhere.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Did Chief Rafferty give it to you on a thumb drive or a disc, or how was it physically provided?
MR. TULLY: Uh, I don't know. I didn't receive it—she dropped it off at the office. I—I remember a thumb drive.
MR. JACKSON: You remember a thumb drive. All right. And then it's uploaded onto the system, and the case officer would have access to that system?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And in this case, that would be Trooper Proctor?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you notify Trooper Proctor—and I say "immediately," reasonably quickly—after you received, or after you got notice that the video had been dropped off by Chief Rafferty?
MR. TULLY: I informed Sergeant Bukhenik.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And do you know—as you sit here, you may not—as you sit here, do you know if Sergeant Bukhenik reasonably quickly informed Trooper Proctor that that video existed?
MR. TULLY: I don't know when or where that notification was made.
MR. JACKSON: As you sit here now, are you aware that Trooper Proctor is aware of that video and had—
MR. TULLY: Access to it — yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Yesterday there was some testimony about taillight pieces that were found at the location. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I have just a moment, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission, I've asked for the evidence bags that were admitted into evidence yesterday. Okay, may take a minute before I get to the evidence bags. May I inquire? Thank you. Before I get to the evidence bags, let me tell you one more — or maybe a couple more — questions about the sallyport video. You indicated that you received additional video from Chief Rafferty — once she dropped it off, you said within a couple of months — yeah — additional — that package?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was the original sallyport video that you received? In other words, what were you following up on?
MR. TULLY: Uh, what you had previously described as a grainy, blackish video.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And so just to be clear and close that loop — when did you receive that video, if you can tell us? Which one, the grainy one?
MR. TULLY: Uh, earlier in the investigation. A year ago, two years ago — I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Do you believe it was pretty early on in the investigation?
MR. TULLY: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know what the mechanism was that you received that one? If Chief Rafferty is the one that gave over the clear video, how did you get the grainy video?
MR. TULLY: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: Was it you that received it, or do you believe that you commissioned Trooper Proctor to go get that video?
MR. TULLY: That would have been a task for Sergeant Bukhenik or Trooper Proctor, or someone else from the unit.
MR. JACKSON: So the reason you don't know is because you didn't personally do it. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yesterday, you testified that it is obviously your responsibility — as not just the chief of the unit, but as the Evidence Officer — to maintain and protect the integrity of the physical evidence that's found under your supervision. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you took photographs of the items that were recovered on that initial search, and you took those photographs in place — where they were found. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: With the exception of one of the photos, you indicated that it had been moved by a shovel, and then you instructed the individual to put it back down where it was found, and then that's the point at which you photographed it. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You took an establishing shot, then a closer shot, and then I think even a third, close-up shot. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated pretty clearly yesterday what the evidence that you found at the scene was: a red plastic taillight piece that was recovered first, then three feet or so to the south of that the shoe was recovered, and then one to two feet south of that another red plastic piece, and then a clear plastic piece next to that. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Uh, yeah — you get the last two inverted. It's clear then red.
MR. JACKSON: But the inversion — it's becoming a theme. Sorry about that.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to strike that comment.
MR. JACKSON: Clear piece, and then a red piece next to the clear piece?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Three pieces of plastic in total, and a shoe?
MR. TULLY: No — there were — with the clear piece, there were two pieces with it.
MR. JACKSON: So clear plastic — multiple pieces of the clear plastic?
MR. TULLY: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: So yesterday, when we saw the photographs that you testified to, there was one piece of clear plastic that was photographed. Right?
MR. TULLY: Two.
MR. JACKSON: Didn't the photograph have one sort of arc-shaped clear piece of plastic that you described as having — did you say dimples or stippling?
MR. TULLY: I did, yes. I believe — I think I said dimples.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What was the second photo there?
MR. TULLY: The next photo that was displayed was the second piece of clear plastic taillight.
MR. JACKSON: So in fact that would be four pieces of plastic?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, but yesterday you testified that you found three pieces of plastic, and in your report you reported that you found three pieces of plastic. Correct?
MR. TULLY: I didn't — I didn't number the pieces of plastic. If I recall my report correctly, I said we found clear plastic, and as I displayed out of the bag, there were two pieces of clear plastic. But there was only a photograph of one.
MR. JACKSON: No, there wasn't. And your report says three total pieces of plastic, doesn't it?
MR. TULLY: No.
MR. JACKSON: Let's take a look. Do you have your report with you, Detective Lieutenant? Not that one. Your Honor, okay, let me have just a moment. Jim, can I have those photographs from yesterday?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is it possible we can take our recess so I don't waste the jurors' time?
MR. JACKSON: I can use my time.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. All right, jurors, we'll take our morning recess. All rise for the court. Please follow me. [unintelligible — background conversation during recess] Go right ahead, Lieutenant.
MR. JACKSON: We were talking just before the break about the search on January 29th, 2022. Obviously it's important to be accurate in terms of the memorialization of things that are found of note during a search. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the way that you normally would memorialize something like that would be in a police report. Correct?
MR. TULLY: That's one method, yes.
MR. JACKSON: You might have personal handwritten notes that attend a search. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You might videotape part of it, or all of it?
MR. TULLY: I could.
MR. JACKSON: And then you could photo-document it as well.
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: But ultimately, the circumstances surrounding how something was found — or what was found at the time — is best done in a memorialization in a police report. Correct?
MR. TULLY: That is one method, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that is the official record of what was done at the time, and who did it. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you did in fact draft a police report as it pertains to the search that was done by the search team on — February 20, I'm sorry — January 29th, 2022?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If you would take a look at the face page of that and tell me if that looks familiar to you.
MR. TULLY: It does.
MR. JACKSON: Is that the report that you wrote — rather, not utilized — is that the report that you wrote, documenting the search that was conducted that we've testified to in front of this jury?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What's the date of that report?
MR. TULLY: February 10th, 2021 — which was a typo — should be February 2022.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So February 10th, 2022 was the date that you memorialized the information about the search. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Obviously that was much, much closer in time than today. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Or yesterday. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: If you turn to paragraph three, could you review that paragraph and tell me — after you review it — if that refreshes your recollection about exactly what you indicated was found by you and the search team on January 29th, 2022?
MR. TULLY: My recollection of what was located remains the same. I do see that the report states that it was a piece of clear plastic.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So in fact your report says that in approximately 1745 hours — which is what time?
MR. TULLY: 5:45 p.m.
MR. JACKSON: The search team located, quote, "a piece of red plastic." Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then it goes on to say it was consistent with brake light material from a motor vehicle. Right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And if you look down a couple of other sentences, you talk about the shoe that was then recovered. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And if you look at the second to the last sentence — "a few feet south from the sneaker, a piece of clear plastic consistent with clear lens of a motor vehicle is located." Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yeah. The quote is "a second piece of red plastic."
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Well, actually the sentence before that — the sentence just above that, starting with "a few feet south" —
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: It reads "a few feet south from the sneaker, a piece of clear plastic" —
MR. TULLY: That's not what it says. Would you like me to read it?
MR. JACKSON: I'm reading it.
MR. TULLY: Sure, read it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The sentence is — "several feet south of the clear plastic" — Lieutenant, the sentence above that, before that: "a few feet south of the sneaker, a piece of clear plastic consistent with clear lens of a motor vehicle was located." Right? So in your Lexicon, "a piece" means singular, does it not?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If you meant "pieces," you would have written "pieces." You're educated. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Allegedly.
MR. JACKSON: So clearly, from this report that was memorialized on February 10th, you indicated that a piece of clear plastic was located, consistent with clear lens from a motor vehicle. Right?
MR. TULLY: That's what it says.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Then — well, it's not just what it says, it's what you wrote. Correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Then the next sentence — which is the sentence you were about to read — go ahead and read that for me as well.
MR. TULLY: Several feet south of the clear plastic, a second piece of red plastic was located.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Simple math — according to your report written on February 10th: a piece of red plastic was found first, then a piece of clear plastic was found, then a piece of red plastic was found thereafter. Correct?
MR. TULLY: According to that report, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Then you go — on in the following paragraph to reiterate, just to clear up any doubt about what was found, and the last sentence reads, "the sneaker and three pieces of plastic were secured as evidence." Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: What is the objection?
MR. LALLY: Form.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that what it says?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Then yesterday you were asked to open these two evidence bags. Could I take a look?
MR. TULLY: Of course. Of course.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Sure. Right. 570, 571.
MR. JACKSON: Those are the bags that you opened yesterday, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated yesterday in front of the jury — you pulled out two pieces of clear plastic, did you not?
MR. TULLY: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That was in bag — I want to say that was in bag 570. Why don't we do this — can you please, with the Court's permission, open bag 570? I'm sorry, Exhibit 570, and just look inside.
MR. TULLY: I didn't bring gloves, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I think there might be some on the stand there. Attorney Jackson, could you repeat your request again to make sure I have it correct?
MR. JACKSON: Of course. Um, let's start with 570.
MR. TULLY: Okay. I don't remember which one it is, so if you could just open it and look inside and describe for us which items are inside that bag. So, 570, the description is "pieces of red hard plastic tail light cover" contained inside this bag.
MR. JACKSON: Look down in there and tell me, do you see red plastic pieces?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Yesterday you pulled out two pieces and indicated that's what was contained in the bag, correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Take another closer look.
MR. TULLY: As I take a closer look, there are two pieces and there is a very small fragment that remains in the bag.
MR. JACKSON: Can you pull that fragment out and show that to the — okay, you can go ahead and replace that. So in total, Lieutenant Tully, how many pieces of red plastic are in that?
MR. TULLY: As we said here today, there are three.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Now open up the second bag. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. If you wouldn't mind, the next bag is Exhibit 571, is that right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Could you please open that? Let's go through the same process — just look inside and tell us what you see inside 571.
MR. TULLY: There are two pieces of clear plastic.
MR. JACKSON: Go ahead and replace those. Thank you, Lieutenant. Those two bags are supposed to represent what was found by the search team on January 29th, 2022, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: There are five pieces of plastic — two red, sorry, three red, two clear, correct?
MR. TULLY: As we said here today, yes.
MR. JACKSON: My question, Lieutenant Tully, is: where did the other pieces of plastic come from? Be more specific — which pieces? Where did the extra two pieces of plastic come from in those evidence bags?
MR. TULLY: Well, it appears to me that small fragment I pulled out may have potentially come from the larger piece.
MR. JACKSON: The — that — just to clear that up: you believe, as you sit here, that smaller piece was broken off from one of the larger pieces?
MR. TULLY: I — again, I'm making a big assumption here at your request. Okay, so yeah, that's what it appears to me by looking in the bag.
MR. JACKSON: And by the way, Lieutenant, this isn't a trick question. I'm not asking you to assume anything. You were there and you recovered the pieces, and you described recovering three items of evidence, correct?
MR. TULLY: No.
MR. JACKSON: Didn't you just read — your — in your report? I'll read it again. Last sentence: "the sneaker and three pieces of plastic were secured as evidence." That's — that's four.
MR. TULLY: Sorry, I said items of evidence — items of plastic. Let's leave the sneaker out of our discussion for the time, okay.
MR. JACKSON: You were the one that conducted the search, correct?
MR. TULLY: The search team conducted the search. I was present at the search.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. You were there photographing the things that were recovered in the search, yes?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And ultimately you were responsible for bagging those items up, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: There are five items in that bag, or in those two bags, right? Just the plastic, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And yet your report very clearly says there were three items of plastic evidence recovered at the scene, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So my question once again is: where did the extra two items come from, the pieces of plastic?
MR. TULLY: Well, as memorialized on the bag, it says "pieces of clear plastic," so I will take the hit that my report does not properly memorialize it, but I would argue that the handwritten notes on the bag that are contemporaneous to the collection of the evidence would be more accurate, as is my memory of two clear plastic things being collected. Now, as to the third piece, again I'm making an assumption that it appears that that is a small piece that was separated from the other two pieces.
MR. JACKSON: You don't know that that small piece separated from the other two by being broken off, do you?
MR. TULLY: No, I don't.
MR. JACKSON: Just a guess on your part?
MR. TULLY: It's a guess. The bags were, you know, out of our custody at the crime lab for a period of time. They had done an analysis. We did an evidence review with you yourself and other defense counsel on December 1st of last year. We pulled all the evidence out, it was memorialized by your investigator, and it was put back in the bags.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't see our investigator snapping pieces off the plastic, right?
MR. TULLY: He did not.
MR. JACKSON: I want to shift gears for a second, Lieutenant, and talk a little bit about the cell records that you testified to — specifically the Verizon call records that you testified about. During your training, the 200-plus hours of training that you had, you've learned how to read Verizon records to determine cell towers that are used in your investigation, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were also taught how to read Verizon call records to determine the sector, or the side that a cell tower is pinging — for lack of a better word, called a cell face, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. One of the documents that you rely on pretty heavily is — ultimately it's a call record that gives you certain information provided by whoever the carrier is — Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, whoever — right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize the document that's in front of you, or the portion of the call record that's in front of you?
MR. TULLY: It appears to be a portion from the call detail records we referenced earlier.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. My questions about this are relatively simple. There is a sector number that provides information that describes the directionality, if you will, of the target phone number — which part of the cell tower that target phone number, or that target device, was facing, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In your maps, did you include any of the face data about which portion of the cell tower was pinging vis-à-vis the phone that was being tracked?
MR. TULLY: No. Can I explain why I made that decision?
MR. JACKSON: Please do.
MR. TULLY: The trouble with depicting and making exhibits relative to cell phone records is you don't want to make the map too complicated. So as I describe it to the jury, I want to make sure that the record is clear. I don't typically use the sector as part of my maps. I would argue that it gives greater deference to the defendant because the phone could be anywhere within a 360-degree area of the antenna, as opposed to a narrower 120-degree area around that antenna. So for the purposes of making a clear depiction, I typically will not use sector unless it's absolutely important to show that a handset was in a specific location.
MR. JACKSON: And so you did not include the sector information on the maps that you provided — both to Mr. Lally — that you showed to the jurors, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes, as relative to the CSLI ones, yes.
MR. JACKSON: So in point of fact, according to the map at least, wherever that little triangle is — that red triangle that you use to denote the cell tower or the antenna — the responsive phone, the device, would be anywhere on a 360-degree azimuth from that antenna, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I want to ask you about the one map that was related to 5:20 a.m. to 5:37 a.m. You remember that?
MR. TULLY: Not off the top of my head.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. There were several maps shown. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's a copy of a page of an exhibit that's already been marked and entered into evidence. You recognize that?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that's a copy of your map that you did dealing with eNB 5721, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the time frame was 5:20 a.m. to 5:37 a.m., is that right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. And by the way, do you know what "eNB" stands for?
MR. TULLY: No. That's why the legend key is helpful. I've thought it's — it's "node" is the NB, but I'm not — I'm unsure on the E.
MR. JACKSON: "Evolved Node B identifier," right? Is that a question?
MR. TULLY: Yeah. I — that's possible.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, it is. My question — refresh your recollection: that's what it means.
MR. TULLY: I have to look at the key again, but that sounds right.
MR. JACKSON: So an evolved — if that's what it stands for — an evolved Node B identifier, and then a series of numbers after that is simply sort of the proper name for a particular tower, correct? No two towers have the same eNB ID, correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. With regard to — and I'm just going to call it ID 5721 — do you see what appears to be, on your map, the cell tower that is associated with that ID number, 5721?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And there's one address that's not denoted on your map, correct? That 34 Fairview —
MR. TULLY: No, there's multiple.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Which — what are the other addresses that you noted on your map?
MR. TULLY: One Meadow [unintelligible] and Waterfall Bar & Grille.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Approach
MR. JACKSON: Yes, if I could hand you another map. Does that appear to be a Google map?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does that generally track the map that you created — the darker map you created — meaning it's the same basic scale?
MR. TULLY: It is not the same scale.
MR. JACKSON: How much different is that scale?
MR. TULLY: The one you handed me is a zoomed-in version of the map I created.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You recognize it as being a true and accurate reflection of a Google map that's just zoomed in a little bit on the same basic area?
MR. TULLY: It's as you just described. It appears to be a Google map.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you see two addresses that are denoted on that Google map?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What are those two addresses?
MR. TULLY: 34 Fairview Road and 12 — — Country Lane.
MR. JACKSON: And as you look at that Google map with both of those — given your experience with both of those addresses — those appear to be denoted accurately on that Google map?
MR. TULLY: It does. I would note that you can't see the roads really on this map that you handed me.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. I'm not going to ask a question about it — it's a white blur — but does it look like that's where 34 is and that's where 12 Country Lane is?
MR. TULLY: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Then I'm going to ask you for the third item that's denoted on the map, and that is the cell tower 5721. You see that denoted on the map?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does that appear to be generally accurate in terms of the spatial —
MR. TULLY: — location where that cell tower is? Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'd offer — that document
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Sorry. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Taking a look at that exhibit — would you agree that the cell tower 5721 is significantly closer to what's denoted as 12 Country Lane — the McCabe residence — physically, as the crow flies, than it is to 34 Fairview?
MR. TULLY: I would not characterize it as significant.
MR. JACKSON: How would you characterize it?
MR. TULLY: That it is closer.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. May I publish? Okay. Take a look — just a second. Take a look at the upper portion, upper right portion of the map that I just — what does that denote?
MR. TULLY: The cell tower that we previously mentioned, 5721.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And then there's a line from — — a straight line from that cell tower down to this location. What is that location?
MR. TULLY: It's denoted on this exhibit as 34 Fairview Road.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And do you see a legend indicating scale — how far that is?
MR. TULLY: I see numbers and miles written on there.
MR. JACKSON: Does that appear to be reflective — given your understanding and your experience with this location or these locations — does that appear to be a relatively accurate delineation of the distance between the cell tower and that location and that address?
MR. TULLY: I don't know the distance between the cell tower and the address off the top of my head.
MR. JACKSON: Would you agree that it's around two —
MR. TULLY: — miles?
MR. JACKSON: It's roughly two miles.
MR. TULLY: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Then I'm going to ask you to take a look at the same proximity — cell tower on the top of the screen — and then the address at 12 Country Lane. You see those two items denoted on the map?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And do you see the approximate distance between those two items?
MR. TULLY: I see it on the map.
MR. JACKSON: All right. And does it appear to you that the distance from 12 Country Lane looks like it's less than half the distance to 34?
MR. TULLY: I wouldn't characterize it as it appears to be less than half.
MR. JACKSON: How would you characterize it?
MR. TULLY: My understanding of that area — I would say it's at least a mile between those two locations as the crow flies.
MR. JACKSON: Okay — meaning — — between the cell tower and 12 Country Lane?
MR. TULLY: Yeah, right.
MR. JACKSON: And that indicates approximately a mile?
MR. TULLY: It does indicate that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, and the other location indicates approximately 2.4 miles?
MR. TULLY: It does indicate that.
MR. JACKSON: Right. So would you agree that a mile is less than half of 2.4 miles?
MR. TULLY: I would agree a mile is less than half of 2.4.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Can — not take that. You also noted that there were two cell towers much, much closer to 34 —
MR. TULLY: There are two cell towers much, much closer to 34 Fairview than the 5721.
MR. JACKSON: Correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And as a matter of fact you already noted that for the jurors — that at 6:00 a.m. or 6:05 — — a.m. and thereafter, when it's clear that Karen Read was at 34 Fairview — found the body of John — that her phone was relaying to those two towers, various, bouncing back and forth?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Those two towers are 57171, correct?
MR. TULLY: Sorry, I don't —
MR. JACKSON: I don't want to test your memory like that. I can — may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: This is just his [unintelligible] — not the same stuff that you should know. I'm just going to give you that packet, Lieutenant. Like I said, it's not a memory test. Does that help refresh your recollection of the name of the two towers closest to 34 Fairview? Do you have that in mind?
MR. TULLY: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So the two towers closest to 34 Fairview are 57171, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And 57286 — is that right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And both of those towers picked up Read's signal at 12:33 a.m. and again after 6:03 a.m., correct?
MR. TULLY: You asked me about 12:33, so — it's okay, I'm going to refer back in the exhibit of course — and that is correct: it hit the 57171, and then after 6:00 a.m. it was also picking up — bouncing, I think you said bouncing — back and forth between 57171 and 57286.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Both of those towers — [unintelligible] — yes. Importantly, though, between 5:20 and 5:37 a.m., neither of those two towers ever picked up her phone or any signal from her phone, correct?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So based on those facts, it's far more likely that Karen Read was actually at Jennifer McCabe's — on her way to Jennifer McCabe's — at around 5 a.m., rather than going to 34 Fairview, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach just to retrieve?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Did I — I just want to make sure I leave the — mark. Oh, I'm sorry, that — that goes with that, I believe.
JUDGE CANNONE: Oh, you handed me that.
MR. JACKSON: Here's the marked item.
JUDGE CANNONE: Perfect. Sure.
MR. JACKSON: There were two other documents you had handed me previously that are not marked.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: I just want to touch very briefly on the ranging data — the RTT records. What does RTT stand for?
MR. TULLY: Depends on who you ask. From Verizon: either "Range to Tower" or "Round Trip Time."
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever heard "Real Time Tool"?
MR. TULLY: I have.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So the RTT has several acronyms, but "Real Time Tool" is one of them, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: The RTT data is what you earlier described as ranging data — or access distance?
MR. TULLY: I didn't use the term "access distance." I know that Verizon may, but — yeah, I said "ranging."
MR. JACKSON: So it's just in common vernacular — it's the distance from the tower, or from the antenna, to where the signal is going?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. All right. May I approach one more time?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Could you please review that and tell me if you recognize what's depicted on that document?
MR. TULLY: I recognize it to be one of the entries from the RTT report for the account we're talking about — I'm sorry — and it's around 5:18 in the morning?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Yes. Okay. And you utilized this report — or portions of this report, including this entry — to come up with your data, especially as it relates to ranging data?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Do you see the column on that document called — procedure duration secs?
MR. TULLY: I do.
MR. JACKSON: What does that mean?
MR. TULLY: That is the amount of time in which this communication occurred.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Am I correct in understanding that the length of time for the RTT event is calculated in seconds?
MR. TULLY: It is.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Do you see the row in the exhibit that indicates the time 5:18 a.m.?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you see a column that's labeled — procedure start time?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And right next to it there's a procedure end time?
MR. TULLY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Are those the start times and the end times that you earlier testified to in front of the jury about the events in question at 5:18 a.m. or thereabouts — the start of the interaction or the communication with the device, and the end of the communication with the device?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: When you say "communication with the device," what does that mean? What are you referring to? A phone call? A text? Something?
MR. TULLY: We don't know. As I testified to, the ranging reports will create entries even unbeknownst to the user. So I have no information with this record before me about what the user was or was not doing with the phone.
MR. JACKSON: But your testimony is that those two arcs that we saw — those respective arcs that we saw — your testimony is that this RTT data, in your view, establishes that she was on the device? Not she, but the device was on the first arc at the start time, and it was on the second arc at the end time?
MR. TULLY: I'm going off the ranging that they give me.
MR. JACKSON: And then you created those two arcs. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what the definition of those two arcs are in your map.
MR. TULLY: The definition comes from the first distance and last distance, which is denoted on the document you have in front of me here.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And the first distance is what?
MR. TULLY: 0.82 miles.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And the second distance is — from memory, I think it's 0.97 — correct?
MR. TULLY: Right.
MR. JACKSON: That's a difference of what — 1.5 miles?
MR. TULLY: 0.15 miles.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Excuse me. Yes. Okay. And do you see the procedure duration column indicated on that document?
MR. TULLY: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And the procedure duration column indicates zero, doesn't —
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: However, if we look very closely at the start time and the end time, they're not actually the same times, are they?
MR. TULLY: Correct, there's a difference in those two times.
MR. JACKSON: Can you tell the jurors what that difference is?
MR. TULLY: It is 4 thousandths of a second.
MR. JACKSON: 0.004 seconds, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you testified that you believe that the start and end distances for the RTT event in question indicate two different locations for that device — in other words, the start time it was on the first arc, the end time it was on the second arc. You don't know where on the arc, but somewhere on those two arcs.
MR. TULLY: Using the ranging data I created a map, and that's what I did.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And so the device would have moved from the first arc to the second arc, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Right. You're familiar with obviously the formula to determine speed using distance and time, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Can you calculate for us the speed that the device would have traveled to go from the first arc to the second arc — over a distance of .15 miles in 4 thousandths of a second?
MR. TULLY: Not off the top of my head.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: Back on record Do you happen to have your cell phone with you?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let me see if I can help. So — distance, sorry — speed is calculated as distance divided by time, right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If you divide .15 miles by 4 thousandths of a second, you come up with 37.5 miles per second — would you agree?
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection. Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Can you do the calculation in your head?
MR. TULLY: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You need a calculator?
MR. TULLY: I would.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I'd like to see counsel at sidebar, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: I thought you were going to ask the other question first with your numbers.
MR. JACKSON: Can I — um, let me ask you so you don't have to sit there with a cell phone in front of you. Let me ask you if you would agree with this: that 0.15 divided by .004 is 37.5.
MR. TULLY: I'd have to write it out. I'm not sure.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. If you had a calculator in front of you, could you do it?
MR. TULLY: I could.
MR. JACKSON: You don't have your cell phone with you?
MR. TULLY: I do not.
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission, I've got mine right here — I can turn it on. Or my colleague has one. How about — can you use Madam Court Reporter's cell phone and do that? She's closest.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Court Reporter. Thank you. If you could divide 0.15 by 0.004, let me know what you come up with.
MR. TULLY: 37.5.
MR. JACKSON: So that would be — given the fact that the distance, as indicated on that record, the distance is .15 miles over the course of 0.004 seconds, right?
MR. TULLY: No, I would push back as to when the distance was being created. That's the first distance and last distance, correct.
MR. JACKSON: What you indicated was the cell phone — or the device — was on the first arc during the first time — at the start time — and on the second arc at the end time. All I'm asking is some basic math. So you would agree that if the calculation we just did — or you just did — is 0.15 miles divided by 4 thousandths of a second, that is 37.5 miles per second. To stay consistent — miles per second, correct?
MR. TULLY: Well, I don't agree with the premise of the question.
MR. JACKSON: You don't have to agree with the premise of the question. I'm asking you about the math.
MR. TULLY: Oh — the math is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, the math is correct. It's miles per second, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Based on that calculation, in order to get to miles per minute you multiply it by 60, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you do that for me, please?
COURT CLERK: The question again, sir?
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. Yes — multiplying 37.5 times 60 would give us miles per minute. What is that number?
MR. TULLY: 2,250.
MR. JACKSON: And if we wanted to go to miles per hour — which we're more familiar with — multiply it by 60 again, wouldn't you? And what's that number?
MR. TULLY: 135,000.
MR. JACKSON: Excuse me, sorry — 135,000?
MR. TULLY: 135,000.
MR. JACKSON: 135,000 miles per hour, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you would agree — if the premise is moving from the arc — the first arc — moving .15 miles to the second arc over the course of 0.004 seconds — the device would have to be traveling 135,000 miles per hour, correct?
MR. TULLY: In your question you said 1.5 miles traveled. It's 0.15 miles.
MR. JACKSON: You corrected me. I'm going to throw it back at you, sir.
MR. TULLY: Fair enough.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. .15 miles over the course of 0.004 seconds — the device would have to be traveling 135,000 miles per hour. It's basic math now, correct?
MR. TULLY: Well, I agree with that. I would push back — that's probably not what the record is indicating.
MR. JACKSON: You would agree that that is physically impossible, correct?
MR. TULLY: For a cell phone, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And you would also agree that since that's impossible, you're not suggesting to this jury that the device moved from arc one to arc two in 4 thousandths of a second — that can't be what you're suggesting.
MR. TULLY: I'm not suggesting that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. In fact, what actually makes more sense is that the signal was moving to and from the device at light speed — 186,000 miles per second. Radio waves — radio waves move at what speed?
MR. TULLY: Speed of light.
MR. JACKSON: Speed of light — 186,000 miles per second, right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If, as you indicated on direct examination, if that return signal — the bounce — is in any way refracted — meaning it takes a deviation and it's not straight — because of something like, I don't know, weather, precipitation, or snow — then it would take longer to get back to the antenna, correct?
MR. TULLY: That's fair.
MR. JACKSON: And that could be what's reflected in that map and the distance of the two arcs — isn't that correct?
MR. TULLY: That's not my experience with these records.
MR. JACKSON: But you do agree that in fact the device — as you indicated earlier — moved from arc one to arc two, from the start time to the end time. That's impossible.
MR. TULLY: No, I'm saying that the records reflect that the first time the distance was created, marked, and the second time the distance was marked — that's what's represented on the map.
MR. JACKSON: Right, but you said that those are reflective of the start time and the end time, which is 4 thousandths of a second apart.
MR. TULLY: No, I don't — that's when these distances were created. It doesn't say "start of procedure distance," it says "first distance, last distance."
MR. JACKSON: Actually — I've got the copy. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Procedure start time: 5:18:19.154, right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Procedure end time: 5:18:19.158, right?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's the difference. May I approach one more time?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's the difference — that's the 4 thousandths of a second difference, correct?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And on direct examination you said the start time and the end time are how you calculated the two different arcs, correct?
MR. TULLY: No.
MR. JACKSON: You're changing your testimony?
MR. TULLY: No. The map says "first and last," as reflected in the record — first distance and last distance. So one could hold the map and this record next to each other and figure out how I determined those locations depicted on the map. It doesn't say start and end time, it says first and last.
MR. JACKSON: Right, but you said that it was the beginning of the communication and the end of the communication — which are both reflected on that document, namely start time and end time.
MR. TULLY: I understand what you're saying about the distance — .15. Nobody's arguing. You said on direct examination that the distance was the difference between what time the first arc occurred and what time the second arc occurred, and there was a distance between it, and your testimony was the device moved from the first arc to the second arc — just as you said, right?
MR. JACKSON: I'm saying the device moved from the first arc to the second arc.
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And it would be impossible to do that in 4 thousandths of a second, correct?
MR. TULLY: For a cell phone, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Um — one last issue, and I'm going to deviate from the cell tower stuff. You got information during the course of your investigation that eyewitnesses — or an eyewitness — placed a Ford Edge in front of 34 Fairview in the early morning hours of January 29th, 2022, correct?
MR. TULLY: I'm familiar with that.
MR. JACKSON: As the supervising investigator — by the way — you were familiar with the fact that the witness — the eyewitness — placed a Ford Edge — sorry, let me start that over. The eyewitness indicated that the Ford Edge was placed there sometime between 2:30 in the morning and 3:30 in the morning, correct?
MR. TULLY: I'm familiar with that.
MR. JACKSON: All right. As the supervising investigator, did you do anything to investigate the circumstances of that Ford Edge being placed in front of 34 Fairview sometime between 2:30 and 3:30 in the morning?
MR. TULLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What did you do?
MR. TULLY: Well, we determined the veracity of that statement and we want to make sure that the person who gave it is consistent and had a good vantage point of it. Um, I have concerns about—
MR. JACKSON: You satisfied with that?
MR. TULLY: No.
MR. JACKSON: Why not?
MR. TULLY: Well, the person has given the statement multiple times and it appears to have changed over those times. It also appears that the person observed this vehicle from a distance, and also the identification of a Ford Edge seemed highly suggestive the way that I had read the account of it. If I had done that as a police officer, this court would throw out that identification.
MR. JACKSON: So did you find out if anybody in the Albert family owned a Ford Edge?
MR. TULLY: I don't recall off the top of my head if somebody did.
MR. JACKSON: Did you look at automobile registration records?
MR. TULLY: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ask anybody else to look at automobile registration records?
MR. TULLY: I believe Trooper Proctor and Sgt. Bukhenik had investigated that.
MR. JACKSON: And do you have any idea what that investigation revealed?
MR. TULLY: I don't.
MR. JACKSON: Did the Alberts own a Ford Edge?
MR. TULLY: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: [unintelligible — they did own a Ford Edge, didn't they?]
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection. Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: But nothing was done further that you're aware of to investigate the circumstances of that Ford Edge being ...seen placed in front of 34 Fairview — right where the body was found — between 2:30 and 3:30 in the morning? Right? An investigation into the reliability of that witness was conducted? So you just decided — and that investigation, quote, is "I didn't believe"?
MR. TULLY: No.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. That's all.