Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchivePaul Gallagher — Cross
993 linesCROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Good morning, Lieutenant.
MR. GALLAGHER: Good morning.
MR. JACKSON: When was the first time you were ever interviewed about your conduct on this case, your involvement in this case?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: It was about a month ago, wasn't it, April 3rd, 2024?
MR. GALLAGHER: When I was interviewed by -- I don't know who you're referring to.
MR. JACKSON: A formal interview by any law enforcement agency.
MR. GALLAGHER: Oh, I was never, yeah, until about a month ago, I was not interviewed, correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that interview was conducted by whom?
MR. GALLAGHER: I met at the D.A.'s office with the prosecutor, Adam Lally.
MR. JACKSON: And there was also a state trooper there?
MR. GALLAGHER: There was.
MR. JACKSON: Lieutenant Tully?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So Michael Proctor never formally interviewed you about your involvement in the case?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: He never interviewed you about your involvement on the morning of January 29th, 2022?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: He never interviewed you about your recovery of any physical evidence at the scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Which would include the bloodstains as well as the piece of drinking glass?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. He never interviewed you about where that evidence ultimately went and how it made its way back to Canton Police Department?
MR. GALLAGHER: He never interviewed me. No.
MR. JACKSON: And his partner, Yuri Bukhenik, also -- I won't go through the litany of things -- never interviewed you, as well?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. And, until April 3rd, 2024, nobody from the D.A.'s office had interviewed you either?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you write a report about your involvement in the case?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not on that particular day.
MR. JACKSON: Did you write a report after that?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: When did you write that report?
MR. GALLAGHER: Possibly January 2023. I believe it was the request for the metadata acquisition of the photos report.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Fair enough. Did you ever -- I'll narrow my question. Did you ever write a report about your involvement on the day at the scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: So that's not documented, at least by you that's not documented, anywhere?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you take notes when you were at the scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you go back to the station and memorialize your findings and your conduct at the scene by taking notes back at the station?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: So you have no notes and no report about anything that happened at Fairview on the 29th?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not myself, no.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Were you ever instructed by any superior -- you're pretty high up in the ranks. You reported to whom?
MR. GALLAGHER: At that time, I reported to the deputy chief/chief of police.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Either the deputy chief or the chief?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did either the deputy chief or the chief instruct you, Lieutenant, don't worry about writing a report in this case?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. They never said anything like that.
MR. JACKSON: You would agree that it's one thing to respond to a scene. It's another thing to actually gather evidence at a scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Especially a scene where it's a potential, at that time, a potential homicide of a police officer?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Part of the reason for annotating, memorializing, exactly what evidence is recovered is so you can relay that to other officers, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So for instance, in your direct examination just a few minutes ago, you said that you went back to the scene at one point. What was the date where the drone was considered?
MR. GALLAGHER: February 1st.
MR. JACKSON: You go back to the scene on February 1st. That's three full days after the event, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: After the incident. And you said, I directed them to where John O'Keefe's body was found, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: But, in fact, you never saw John O'Keefe's body, did you?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: So you were giving them information that you had no -- about which you had no personal knowledge, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: I had knowledge from other officers. I did not see John O'Keefe at the scene. He was transported to the hospital. But that is correct, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Right. So you couldn't determine exactly how he was positioned, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not precisely.
MR. JACKSON: From head to toe, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not precisely.
MR. JACKSON: Where his arms or his hands were?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: He's a six-foot-two man, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: You don't even know that?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know his size, no.
MR. JACKSON: If I told you that he's over six feet tall, would you have any quarrel with that?
MR. GALLAGHER: If Mr. Lally told me, I would have -- I would take it as fact.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. For purposes of my question, you don't want to take my word for it. But, for purposes of this question, assuming that he's over six feet tall, there's a better than six-foot margin for where he would be situated in the snow, correct, from toe to head?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the details matter ina case like this. Any investigation, the details matter?
MR. GALLAGHER: Surely.
MR. JACKSON: Accuracy is vital in a homicide investigation, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You did find some blood droplets. We saw it on the screen. Correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You also found part of a drinking glass, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you engage or did you endeavor to make a diagram of exactly where those items were found?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware as a former -- you were the former chief of detectives?
MR. GALLAGHER: I was a detective sergeant.
MR. JACKSON: Detective sergeant. You were a supervisor over detectives?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware of what cross-coordinates are in measuring a crime scene, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You take a stable item like a flag pole, for instance, that might be one, that doesn't move. You measure exactly from a compass position exactly north or exactly west the number of inches, maybe even down to meters and millimeters if you use that. Instead of inches, using meters, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yeah. We don't employ that process.
MR. JACKSON: So you don't employ a process where you could measure something from a known item north, south, east or west, and then measure it from another known item and have an exact cross-point of where --
MR. GALLAGHER: We don't typically exercise that in our investigative unit.
MR. JACKSON: You knew how to do that, though?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I mean, you've been trained on how to do that?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: But you didn't employ that technique here?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: So the glass, where the glass was found, is sort of an estimate?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And where the blood was found, that's kind of an estimate also?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yeah. We would guess that would be where his body was. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You just used the word "guess."
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: But, if you had actually documented it using cross-coordinates, you wouldn't have to guess; you would know exactly where the tip of his head was, where the tip of his toes were, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Why not?
MR. GALLAGHER: Because he wasn't there when we got there.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. When I say "you," I meant other officers. If someone had employed that before he was moved, they could have figured out exactly how he was situated, where he was in that yard, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: It would never happen. Lifesaving measures come first. The officers are not going to start measuring while first responders are conducting lifesaving measures. It doesn't happen.
MR. JACKSON: That's exactly right. But, once the body was moved, for instance, Officer Saraf, who is literally standing there, could have said, okay, I just saw the tip of his head right here. He's now on the gurney. He could have measured that, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: He could have, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then he could have said, tip of his goes were right here, and he could have measured that?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And certainly, when there's no lifesaving measures at play, you could have done the same thing with the drinking glass and the blood spots?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And, in terms of recovering those blood spots, I'll get back to that in a second, but in terms of recovering those blood spots, you indicated that you used temporary evidence containers, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Plastic cups, I said. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Before responding to 34 Fairview -- and you indicated that you were told to respond to 32 Fairview, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: That was a mistake on either dispatch's part or somebody?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: But you figured out where to go once you got there?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yeah. You could tell by the emergency lights.
MR. JACKSON: It was Sergeant Goode who contacted you, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you were at home at the time?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Which is why you needed to respond to Canton P.D. to get some foul weather gear, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You also contacted Brian Albert's neighbor, a gentleman by the name of Tom Kelleher, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you wanted to let him know that you were responding over to the scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. He was the lieutenant in charge of detectives at the time.
MR. JACKSON: Lieutenant in charge of detectives and also the man who lived directly across the street from Brian Albert, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: I would say there's two property lines he's directly across from, 32 and 34.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. GALLAGHER: But, yes, that vicinity.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Is there a reason that you didn't contact Chief Berkowitz on that day to let him know where you were responding? Why did you pick Deputy Chief Kelleher?
MR. GALLAGHER: Because that would be my next call. Like I said, he is the lieutenant in charge of detectives at the time. We were responding to a possible crime scene, a possible unattended death. He would be my call.
MR. JACKSON: The normal chain of command?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. But you knew at the time that Chief Berkowitz was actually out on leave, having been injured on duty in some way?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recall that. Chief Berkowitz is always present.
MR. JACKSON: Not only did you respond to the scene, but you were -- either you were tasked by one of your superiors or you, as the ranking officer on -- I guess I should ask this first. Forgive me. Were you the ranking officer on scene when you arrived?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, sir. I was.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So either having been tasked by one of your superiors or because you were the ranking officer on scene, did you take over the coordination of the preservation of that crime scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: So others were sort of answering to you?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you had never preserved a crime scene in the snow before?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Thirty years plus and your policing experience is here in the Boston area?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: It snows a lot?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: In 30-plus years, you've never processed a crime scene in the snow?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, I have not.
MR. JACKSON: Lucky you.
MR. GALLAGHER: Well, we don't typically process our own crime scenes. Sometimes we use the state police. Sometimes we use Plymouth County detectives.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So save the state police or setting them aside because they were not tasked on this call yet --
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: -- you were then in charge of preserving this crime scene, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: What exactly did you do, if you can name the categories, what exactly did you do to actually preserve the entire crime scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure. I can tell you that I had Sergeant Goode move all the cars so I could photograph the scene, document it by photo evidence. I told Detective Sergeant Lank, make sure he has initial statements from everybody present. And I -- that's basically what we did prior to searching the scene, itself.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to Sergeant Lank, you told him to make sure that we had statements, your words, we had statements from all of the witnesses that were at the scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: Initial statements, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does that mean the people inside the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Maybe people across the street, if there were people across the street?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. It didn't include them at the time. It included people that were involved from the prior night's incident out, I would call it.
MR. JACKSON: At the time that you tasked Sergeant Lank with this responsibility, did you know personally that you were standing on property of Brian Albert?
MR. GALLAGHER: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Did you also know that Sergeant Lank had an ongoing and a longtime relationship with the Albert family?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Did you know that?
MR. GALLAGHER: I know he knew them. I think you're mischaracterizing the relationship.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Did you see a problem with having somebody who knew the parties taking the initial statements from those parties?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not at all. Sergeant Lank, no issue at all.
MR. JACKSON: Not in your mind?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not in my mind.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware that before you got to the location that Sergeant Lank had taken it upon himself to already make contact with the individuals in the house?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see you at sidebar.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE CANNONE: What is the objection?
MR. LALLY: First of all, knowledge of this witness, whether or not he knows what Lank knew or what Lank did prior to him getting there. Secondly, I --
JUDGE CANNONE: Is it in a report Lank wrote?
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is it in a report that Lank wrote that he would have known about?
MR. JACKSON: Generally, yes. If he had reviewed all the reports would know, this lieutenant would know, as a supervisor that Sergeant Lank had certain relationship or hada relationship which he just testified to with the Alberts.
JUDGE CANNONE: I understand that. But your question was whether he knew what he had done before he got there.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. The only way that he would know that is if Lank had informed him, I've already interviewed these folks. And that's what I want to find out; why did you task him to do something that had already been done. If he says "T didn't know," then I'll live with that.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So the question that was asked you can ask.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
MR. LALLY: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Lieutenant, just before we went to sidebar, I'd asked a quick question, were you aware at the time that you tasked Sergeant Lank to go talk to the folks in the house that he had already gone into the house to talk to them?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that one of the reasons that -- I'd like to move back. I'm bouncing around a little bit. I apologize.
MR. GALLAGHER: I understand.
MR. JACKSON: One of the things you talked about was the preservation of the crime scene and the lack thereof because of the inclement conditions?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: There was wind blowing from all directions, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: There was snow falling?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: It was icy cold out?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: There was already snow accumulated on the ground, about four inches, you said?
MR. GALLAGHER: At least. It was different spots because of the wind drifts.
MR. JACKSON: Wouldn't that be even more of a reason ina potential homicide investigation to adequately preserve the scene as best as you possibly could?
MR. GALLAGHER: Of course.
MR. JACKSON: Wouldn't you want to, for instance, protect the area? You mentioned the tent?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Wouldn't you want to make sure that anybody from the civilian side and/or officers don't just start traipsing through the middle of the crime scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: That was all done.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, the first responders -- sorry -- the EMTs had already done what they needed to do in the scene and Mr. O'Keefe had been transported to the hospital, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: So that was not a concern?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: So nobody needed to be inside that scene that wasn't authorized to be there?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Civilian or officers?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Who was it that told you specifically where John O'Keefe's body was?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recall specifically. I hada collaborative meeting with Sergeant Lank and Sergeant Goode.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware at the time that you had the meeting with Sergeant Lank that Sergeant Lank did not ever see John O'Keefe's body in the position?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, I did. I don't believe Sergeant Goode did, to my knowledge. I believe John O'Keefe may have been in the ambulance at that time.
MR. JACKSON: John O'Keefe -- I'm sorry. I got a little confused. John O'Keefe may have been in the ambulance at which time?
MR. GALLAGHER: When some of the officers arrived.
MR. JACKSON: So if that were the case, then they wouldn't have any personal knowledge of where John O'Keefe's body was, either?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not to your precise locations, yes.
MR. JACKSON: You mentioned a tent, and you said that you, in answer to a question by Mr. Lally, you did not go back to Canton P.D. to get the tent. You had a tent in your trunk or something?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. When you interviewed with Lieutenant Tully, did he specifically ask you -- this was about a month ago -- about the tent?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: Would it refresh your recollection if you were to review just a small snippet of his report about your interview?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at that. I direct your attention to Paragraph 4. Tell me if you recognize that document.
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recognize the document. It's the first time I've seen it.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. Read the highlighted portion and tell me whether that refreshes your recollection about a conversation you had with Lieutenant Tully about the tent.
MR. GALLAGHER: Okay. I --
JUDGE CANNONE: Read it to yourself.
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. Okay.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: You've read that?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall telling Lieutenant Tully --
JUDGE CANNONE: You can ask him if that refreshes his recollection.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Does that refresh your recollection at this point?
MR. GALLAGHER: It doesn't change my recollection.
MR. JACKSON: You said you didn't recollect exactly what you told Lieutenant Tully about the tent. And I'm asking does that refresh your recollection about what you told Lieutenant Tully about the tent?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is not what I said about the tent.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you didn't say, I drove to Canton P.D. headquarters to retrieve a tent to protect the area where O'Keefe was found from falling snow but never used the tent due to high winds?
MR. GALLAGHER: We didn't have a tent at that time.
MR. JACKSON: That wasn't my question. I'm being very specific. Did you say that to Lieutenant Tully?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. That was misinterpreted.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So if he got that -- if that's in his report, that's incorrect?
MR. GALLAGHER: It's not accurate. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Is there anything else that you read in that report that's not accurate?
MR. GALLAGHER: You asked me to read the highlighted version. That's what I read, and I didn't see anything. I didn't read any other part of the document.
MR. JACKSON: If I may have just a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: You indicated, still staying at the crime scene on January 29th, you indicated on direct examination that the area adjacent to the bloodstains that you saw and the drinking glass that you found, that area was somewhat trampled by, you presume, the first responders, the EMTs?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You also indicated that you didn't see any other signs of shoe prints going from the street to the house, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: From the scene to the house, correct.
MR. JACKSON: From the scene to the house.
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: What do you mean when you say that, from the scene to the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: So the house, you have the house, and the scene was to the far left, actually on the property line with No. 32. So I didn't see any footprints. The only other footprints I saw was where the officers walked around and put up the crime scene tape.
MR. JACKSON: Meaning walking through the yard?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And putting up crime scene tape?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And, if somebody had -- how many of those sets of prints did you see?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: Did you photograph or seek to have anybody else photograph the area from the scene to the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: Just those long shots that you saw in the exhibits.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And the snow was actively falling at the time, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: It is, yes.
MR. JACKSON: So if there had been a print a couple of hours earlier, you very well might not see it?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about the collection of the blood. You found what you thought was blood initially, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Pink in color, reddish in color?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you began the process of removing layers of snow, in other words, dusting the area with a leaf blower?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Had you ever used a leaf blower in a crime scene preservation effort?
MR. GALLAGHER: The first time.
MR. JACKSON: The first time? And you indicated -- your testimony was temporary evidence containers to collect that blood, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. We utilized cups, plastic cups.
MR. JACKSON: Those were red Solo cups, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: The same kind of red Solo cup you'd drink beer out of at a barbecue?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure. You could.
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor. Move to strike.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: There is nothing special about the red Solo cup?
MR. GALLAGHER: Other than they are plastic, nothing special.
MR. JACKSON: And where did you get those red Solo cups?
MR. GALLAGHER: We got them from Lieutenant Kelleher.
MR. JACKSON: So in other words, you got, to use your words, the evidence containers from a neighbor?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: He had some Solo cups in his house?
MR. GALLAGHER: We asked him if he had any plastic containers, any type of plastic container that we could utilize.
MR. JACKSON: How far were you from Canton P.D.? From 34 Fairview to Canton P.D., give me an idea.
MR. GALLAGHER: A mile, mile anda half.
MR. JACKSON: So even in really bad weather, four minutes, five minutes, is that right, to drive?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't go back to Canton P.D. to get actual evidence containers, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: We wouldn't have temporary plastic containers that -- what we were looking for. We were looking to take samples of snow. I know for a fact we did not have those. We needed bags, needle containers, things of that nature. We were all set. But, as far as plastic containers that we wanted to utilize, we didn't have them.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any glass containers?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: So Canton P.D. does not have or utilize evidence collection containers that are plastic?
MR. GALLAGHER: We have needle containers that are plastic. We have blood swabs that are in plastic containers. But for what we wanted to take a sample, we did not have. So we improvised.
MR. JACKSON: That's my next question, is certainly Canton P.D. employs and owns sterile swabs?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: A sterile swab is in a container that's long and usually the swab is connected to the lid?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You pop it out and then it's sealed?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And forensically stable, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the reason that it's sealed and forensically stable is so nothing can contaminate the sample, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: But, just as importantly, the blood sample can't contaminate anything else?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you go to Canton P.D. a mile away and get sterile swabs for the blood collection?
MR. GALLAGHER: The blood was frozen. We didn't think it would be viable.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't think it would be viable?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: If you touched the swab to cold blood, do you think you might get some blood on that swab?
MR. GALLAGHER: I wouldn't be sure it would be efficient for testing.
MR. JACKSON: So what you did instead was you gathered red solo cups from a neighbor, unsterilized, and scooped up the snow with what you thought the blood was and just carried them back to the truck?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. We took six samples, individual samples. Our philosophy was we'll let the crime lab extract it the way they best see fit. Those six samples were bagged and then transported back to Canton Police Headquarters and placed into evidence.
MR. JACKSON: Were they covered?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, not that I recall.
MR. JACKSON: They weren't sealed in any way?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: So if somebody sneezed over the top of one of those cups?
MR. GALLAGHER: They were sealed in a bag, brown evidence bag at that time. Nobody was going to sneeze over the cup.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have a rough estimate of how many people handled those red Solo cups before they were used to collect blood evidence in this homicide case?
MR. GALLAGHER: Do you want me to estimate?
MR. JACKSON: Give me an idea.
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure. Sergeant Lank --
MR. JACKSON: No. I'm sorry. My question was a bad one. Before you took possession of the red Solo cups, do you have any idea how many people before you had handled those Solo cups?
MR. GALLAGHER: I took them out of a package. So probably none.
MR. JACKSON: How about before they were packaged?
MR. GALLAGHER: I assume Solo doesn't sell contaminated cups. I would say none.
MR. JACKSON: So they're certainly not forensically stable? They're not sterile?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know what definition you're looking for, but I would agree.
MR. JACKSON: Do you think it's standard practice for a police department to borrow red Solo cups from a neighbor to gather evidence?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: You can go ahead and answer that.
MR. GALLAGHER: Of course not. Nothing about the scene was standard.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Right. The glass shard -- I'll touch on the Solo cups in just a second. But I want to talk about the glass shard of the drinking glass. Were you the one that found the drinking glass?
MR. GALLAGHER: I was operating the leaf blower and uncovered the glass, yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you were the first one -- well, I guess you couldn't tell me if you're the first one, but you noticed it pretty quick?
MR. GALLAGHER: I wouldn't say it was quick, but we uncovered it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And then there is -- you mentioned a CARS report in your direct examination. There was a report done of where some of these items were found, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: You'll have to clarify. I'm not sure what you mean.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Did you mention a CARS report, which is a report of the crime scene, where things were located, mapping of those things?
MR. GALLAGHER: You objected. It was sustained. I never got to answer that question.
MR. JACKSON: Touche.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: I'm just going to show you a document and see if you recognize that.
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recognize it. I couldn't tell you what it is.
MR. JACKSON: That's okay. If you don't recognize it, that's all I needed.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Are you familiar generally -- I don't need to necessarily talk about this one, but are you familiar generally with CARS reports?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not at all.
MR. JACKSON: Not at all? That's not sort of in your framework?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not in my realm.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Are you aware that there is a process by which items of evidence are mapped or they're attempted to be mapped for a crime scene?
MR. GALLAGHER: I'm not -- I don't do homicide investigations. I'm not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Again, with regard to where the blood drops were found -- let me go back to one other question I had. You said you took six samples, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you precisely indicate in any report or note or diagram exactly which blood drops were in which Solo cup?
MR. GALLAGHER: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: As you were using that snow blower and you uncovered the glass cup and more of the blood samples, at any point did you see a Size 12 men's shoe, black in color?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: At any point, did you see a man's baseball hat, black in color?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: You actually dug out a portion of a -- you didn't dig it out. You moved it with your foot or somebody did, a portion of the berm or the curb that separates the street from the yard, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: At any point along that curb line, did you see a men's shoe?
MR. GALLAGHER: Along the exposed curb line, no.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see it anywhere else?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't see a hat anywhere else?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't see any bright red taillight material anywhere else?
MR. GALLAGHER: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You did not see any clear taillight material, plastic material?
MR. GALLAGHER: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You did not see any black plastic material?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: You certainly didn't see 45 pieces of plastic material?
MR. GALLAGHER: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: If you had found a broken glass, if you finda broken glass in somebody's yard in a situation like this, did that seem out of place to you?
MR. GALLAGHER: They were coming from a bar. It didn't seem totally out of place, no.
MR. JACKSON: At the time that you found the broken glass, would you rationally think, well, maybe the rest of this glass is inside the residence?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: You did not think that?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. There was a reason that I didn't think that.
MR. JACKSON: Did you think that -- well, let me ask you this: Did you ever go inside the house to search for the other part of the glass?
MR. GALLAGHER: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Because you made up your mind initially where that glass came from?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: You can answer that, sir.
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Did you search the house for any other matching glasses?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, you didn't search the house for any physical items, did you?
MR. GALLAGHER: Of course not.
MR. JACKSON: Is that because that house belonged to a Boston police officer?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. It's because it requires a probably cause, as you know, which we did not have.
MR. JACKSON: Or at least you didn't think you had at that time?
MR. GALLAGHER: We knew we didn't have it.
MR. JACKSON: Did you seek it from a judge?
MR. GALLAGHER: I'm familiar with what probable cause is.
MR. JACKSON: Did you seek a probable cause warrant from a judge?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Did you ask for consent to search the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: We wouldn't do consent in a death investigation.
MR. JACKSON: That wasn't my question. My question was --
MR. GALLAGHER: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Is that because you were at the house of a Boston police officer?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. It's because we wouldn't do it because if consent is denied, we still don't have probable cause and we still couldn't search the house.
MR. JACKSON: But you never asked, did you?
MR. GALLAGHER: Never asked.
MR. JACKSON: According to your interview with Lieutenant Tully, after going to the scene the first time, you then returned back to Canton Police Department, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: At that point, you remember having a conversation with Chief Berkowitz, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated that having that conversation with Chief Berkowitz, that was about the Canton Police Department recusing themselves?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not doing any further investigating of interviews, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated actually in that conversation that you agreed with Chief Berkowitz that Canton should be recused, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: He agreed with me.
MR. JACKSON: It was your assessment that the recusal should take place?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, it was.
MR. JACKSON: And he agreed?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the reason for that recusal was because of the relationship between the Albert family and the Canton Police Department?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: What was the reason for the recusal?
MR. GALLAGHER: The reason was we had a Boston police officer on another Boston police officer's lawn, property, and that property owner was the brother of somebody in our investigative unit.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be because of the Albert family having a relationship with the Canton Police Department?
MR. GALLAGHER: It has to do with Detective Albert having a relationship with his family.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Or the other side of that is his family having a relationship with Canton Police Department?
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Go ahead and move on, please.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: What time was that conversation with Chief Berkowitz?
MR. GALLAGHER: It was after 8:00 a.m. when we got back to the police department.
MR. JACKSON: You then traveled back to 34 Fairview to interview the homeowners with Sergeant Lank?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sergeant Lank was doing the interviews, yes. But I accompanied him.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Approximately what time did you arrive back at 34 Fairview to engage these interviews?
MR. GALLAGHER: Approximately 9:00 o'clock.
MR. JACKSON: Were you and Sergeant Lank the -- well, let me ask you this: At that time, did you know whether Sergeant Lank had already gone into the home?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you knew that you were not the first person to go in and make contact with the individuals inside the home. That was Sergeant Lank?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sergeant Lank and Sergeant Goode, correct.
MR. JACKSON: Before you ever got there?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did they show you any documentation, notes or anything of that initial interview?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether they took notes of that initial interview?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether they recorded that initial interview?
MR. GALLAGHER: I know they did not.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you, personally, knew Brian Albert; is that right?
MR. GALLAGHER: I knew him since I became a police officer, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And so you indicated that you have a professional relationship with him but not necessarily a personal relationship with him?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you know that he was in the house before you walked in the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: What was your personal interaction -- sorry -- your professional interaction with Brian Albert before you walked into that house that day?
MR. GALLAGHER: Previously?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Just in general.
MR. GALLAGHER: So in general, as a detective, he was with the fugitive unit at one point. He was helpful when we had a fugitive we needed to apprehend in Boston. Things of that nature, job-related things.
MR. JACKSON: Had you ever, for lack of a better phrase, hung out with Brian Albert?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not a day.
MR. JACKSON: You never socialized with him?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Okay
MR. GALLAGHER: Not intentionally. It's possible if I went to a retirement party that he had been present, possibly, but not that I'm aware.
MR. JACKSON: But you had no social relationship with him?
MR. GALLAGHER: Zero.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that there were five or six people inside the house, including Brian Albert and Jennifer McCabe; is that right?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: So you clearly knew those two people?
MR. GALLAGHER: I didn't know Jen McCabe. I know that Sergeant Lank was going to speak with her. But I didn't know her personally. I never had a conversation with her.
MR. JACKSON: What was it about Jen McCabe that you recall as opposed to the other four or five people that were in the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sergeant Lank was talking to her.
MR. JACKSON: You just remember that name?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's who he went to talk to.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. So he went back specifically with the intent of talking to Jennifer McCabe?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that's when you accompanied him.
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Was that interview recorded?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you take any notes about that interview?
MR. GALLAGHER: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Did you write a report about that interview?
MR. GALLAGHER: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You said that there were -- other than Brian Albert and Jennifer McCabe, there were three or four other people in the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were those three or four other people in the house at the time that John O'Keefe was found dead or dying on the lawn?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't have the answer to that.
MR. JACKSON: Did you think that might have been an important thing to find out?
MR. GALLAGHER: Again, I didn't think of that at that time and I didn't think it was important at that time. I knew that Sergeant Lank had already interviewed people in the house.
MR. JACKSON: You had a -- you knew at that time, Lieutenant, was -- you had an officer, a Boston police officer, who was either dead or dying on the front lawn of a house with a bunch of occupants, and you didn't think that it was necessary to investigate or interview those occupants yourself?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, I did not. At that time, I wanted to not participate in investigative interviews.
MR. JACKSON: You did tell Lieutenant Tully in your interview with them, you volunteered that Brian Higgins was not present when you went back to the house, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: I didn't believe he was.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't believe he was?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. I don't recall Brian Higgins being there.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recall who the other people were at that time.
MR. JACKSON: But Brian Higgins was not one of them?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know the answer to that. He could have been. I can't say with certainty.
MR. JACKSON: You know Brian Higgins?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Obviously, you know him well?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, you guys occupy sort of the same space at Canton P.D., correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: You might see him most days out of the week?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, but I know him.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of f relationship with Brian Higgins, as well?
MR. GALLAGHER: I have been social with Brian Higgins, yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you know him professionally and socially. You can't tell the jurors whether or not he was in that home when you went back over there to interview individuals about a Boston police officer who had fallen and was either dead or dying on the front lawn?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead and answer that, sir.
MR. GALLAGHER: I can't answer that question. I had no conversation with Brian Higgins. So I don't recall.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: You do know that on January 29th -- well, let me ask you this foundationally. Did you go back after that series of unrecorded interviews? Did you go back to Canton Police Department and work the rest of the day?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Brian Higgins was also at the station for nearly the entire day?
MR. GALLAGHER: Again, I don't recall that.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that Brian Higgins has a -- had been granted a keycard for the station?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'm guessing that is a relative rare thing if you're not a Canton police officer to have a keycard and full access to the station?
MR. GALLAGHER: There were a couple ATF agents that had that access, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. But he was one of them?
MR. GALLAGHER: He was one of them, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that access restricted, Lieutenant? In other words, does his keycard work the same as your keycard?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know the answer to that.
MR. JACKSON: He would have -- to your knowledge, he roamed throughout the station at will, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know how he roamed. He was a very private person. You very rarely see him. Usually his habits were he'd go to a front stairwell, right to his office.
MR. JACKSON: But his access -- I guess I'm struggling with the question. His access was not limited to your knowledge?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know the answer to that. I can't answer that to my knowledge.
MR. JACKSON: He could go into any door he wanted to?
MR. GALLAGHER: I would doubt it.
MR. JACKSON: You would doubt that it would be limited?
MR. GALLAGHER: I would doubt he'd have unlimited access. The patrolmen don't have full access. It all depends by your grade. Where he's an outside agency, I'm sure he had limited access.
MR. JACKSON: Who has access to the sally port?
MR. GALLAGHER: The doors, whoever is in the dispatch area, the overhead doors, there is one pedestrian door that everybody would have access to.
MR. JACKSON: So he would have access to that, as well?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Where is Chief Berkowitz's office in relation to the rest of Canton Police Department, the physical building?
MR. GALLAGHER: The best way to describe it -- I don't know if the jury is familiar with the building. But, if you were looking from Washington Street dead on, it's the top floor, far left office.
MR. JACKSON: I don't know this. I'm not being -- this is not rhetorical. Is it three floors or two floors?
MR. GALLAGHER: So it's really three floors, but it's numbered 1, 1A and 2.
MR. JACKSON: So he would be on two? Three physical floors up?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. Thank you. When you had the meeting that you earlier described with Chief Berkowitz where you indicated Canton P.D. needed to recuse itself, was that in the office or someplace else?
MR. GALLAGHER: That was in the office of the detective sergeant.
MR. JACKSON: Which is where?
MR. GALLAGHER: It's on Floor 1A.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. We are going to take a five, 10-minute break.
(Whereupon, the jury was escorted from the courtroom for a brief recess.)
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see counsel at sidebar.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
MR. JACKSON: I appreciate that.
JUDGE CANNONE: So it takes about 10 minutes because they've got to go through another courtroom to do that. So you all have 10 minutes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
(Court resumes at 11:58 a.m.)
(Defendant present. Jury present.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: You had started to tell us who at the scene, who handled those Solo cups. Can you describe that for us?
MR. GALLAGHER: I handled them to the scene. Sergeant Lank collected the samples.
MR. JACKSON: Under your supervision?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did anybody other than Sergeant Lank handle those Solo cups?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: So once they were in his possession, they remained in this possession until they were booked into evidence?
MR. GALLAGHER: They were bagged, placed in Sergeant Lank's vehicle. He transported them to Canton Police Headquarters, transported it into the office and logged them in as evidence. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you watch all that happen?
MR. GALLAGHER: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You did not. So you're presuming those next steps after he was out of your vehicle?
MR. GALLAGHER: I know that because he told me so.
MR. JACKSON: Well, that's hearsay. Move to strike, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'll strike the end of that.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Not what he told you. What you observed.
MR. GALLAGHER: I did not observe him place it in evidence. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: At what point did you lose sight of those Solo cups?
MR. GALLAGHER: When I got in my vehicle to leave the scene.
MR. JACKSON: So once the Solo cups were in his -- you saw them go in the brown paper bag?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: The evidence bag. Then you saw him go in the truck?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And, at that point, you don't have any personal information about what happened to those Solo cups, personal observations?
MR. GALLAGHER: Until I removed them from temporary evidence, I have no recollection.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I am going to ask you a couple of questions about once you were inside the home. You've already indicated that you did not seek a search warrant and you did not seek consent to search the home, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you look around the house for any sign of a struggle or a fight?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you go to the basement at all?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Had you ever been in the house before that morning at 9:00 a.m.?
MR. GALLAGHER: Never.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry?
MR. GALLAGHER: Never.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did you go to the backyard?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you personally observe whether or not that house has a bulkhead door that services the basement?
MR. GALLAGHER: I have no idea.
MR. JACKSON: Did you photograph any portion of the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: The front of the house.
MR. JACKSON: Sorry. Bad question. Good point. Inside the house, did you photograph any part of the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have a cell phone with you?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: It has a camera on it?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you could have photographed it; you chose not to?
MR. GALLAGHER: I would have needed permission or a warrant.
MR. JACKSON: And you got neither?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You sought neither?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you photograph any of the individuals in the home, for instance, for injuries or anything like that?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you or Sergeant Lank separate the witnesses before they were interviewed?
MR. GALLAGHER: There was only one witness he was interviewing.
MR. JACKSON: Who was that?
MR. GALLAGHER: Jen McCabe.
MR. JACKSON: Where was everybody else in the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: I believe they were all in the same area. The kitchen. I believe it was the kitchen.
MR. JACKSON: Those individuals were not taken to a different part of the house?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not that I'm aware, no.
MR. JACKSON: And they were allowed to communicate with and among one another?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sure. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And I think you already answered this, but I'm going to ask it just to make sure I'm clear. That interview of Jen McCabe was not recorded in any way, audio or video recorded?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: How long were you inside the house for that interview?
MR. GALLAGHER: Ten minutes, maybe.
MR. JACKSON: Other than Jen McCabe being interviewed, were any of the other witnesses inside that house asked any questions by Sergeant Lank or by you?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, not that I believe so. Not that I recall.
MR. JACKSON: Were you the person on February 1st who gave access to the Massachusetts State Police to the sally port?
MR. GALLAGHER: I was probably one of them. The sally port doors can only be opened by dispatch.
MR. JACKSON: Did you approve or authorize those doors to be opened for purposes of Massachusetts State Police coming in and processing that vehicle?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know if I specifically did it at that point, but I certainly would, yes.
MR. JACKSON: You knew that the vehicle had been in that sally port since January 29th in the afternoon, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't believe at what point I knew it was in the sally port, but I did know it was there for days before, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And, if it had been there from January 29th to February lst, that's three full days?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: From the time that that SUV arrived and was Situated in the sally port, how many people had access to that truck, to that SUV?
MR. GALLAGHER: How many people had access or access to the sally port? Is that one, or are you asking --
MR. JACKSON: It's one and the same.
MR. GALLAGHER: I would says the entire department.
MR. JACKSON: Dozens?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Hundreds?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. We were very small.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I don't know that.
MR. GALLAGHER: So we're probably 45.
MR. JACKSON: Forty-five. And just about every one of those 45 people would have access to that sally port and that SUV had they wanted to?
MR. GALLAGHER: Had they wanted to, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that 45 doesn't include Brian Higgins?
MR. GALLAGHER: It probably doesn't, but he would have access, as well.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Those same individuals that would have access to the SUV inside the sally port very obviously would also have access to anything else that had been placed in the sally port, along with the SUV, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you photograph or cause to be photographed that SUV immediately upon its arrival into the sally port on January 29th?
MR. GALLAGHER: I wasn't working. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did anybody to your knowledge seek to photograph the condition of that vehicle immediately when it arrived at the sally port?
MR. GALLAGHER: I wasn't there. I can't say.
MR. JACKSON: You've certainly never seen any photographs from January 29th immediately when that SUV was brought into the sally port, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: Other than our evidence, I haven't seen any evidence in this case.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that Massachusetts State Police was having some difficulty removing the light. We saw a short snippet of the video, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Who made the decision to even remove the taillight? Was that Canton P.D. or was that Massachusetts State Police?
MR. GALLAGHER: That would have been somebody within the state police.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And then you contacted Officer Wanless to actually facilitate the removal of that light, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: I contacted dispatch to ask Officer Wanless to return.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew at the time that Officer Wanless was a sworn Canton police officer?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: But, Lieutenant Gallagher, you told us just a few minutes ago that you and the chief, actually you and then the chief agreed, that the Canton Police Department was completely recused from this case and the investigation based on a conflict of interest, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: No You're spinning it. What I said was from participating in investigative interviews.
MR. JACKSON: So they could take part, Canton Police Department could take part, in any other part of the investigation, according to you, with the exception of investigative interviews?
MR. GALLAGHER: We can open doors. We can facilitate things. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Remove taillights?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yeah. If it's an assist, round peg, round hole, absolutely, yes.
MR. JACKSON: So in other words, the Canton Police Department notwithstanding the conflict of interest, was still allowed to participate in the investigation of the Karen Read matter?
MR. GALLAGHER: There was no conflict of interest. I said appearance of conflict of interest. So we have to be careful. I didn't believe there was a conflict. I honestly believed we could have investigated this case. I said the appearance of such a conflict.
MR. JACKSON: You also didn't believe that there was probable cause to search the house, either?
MR. GALLAGHER: I know that --
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That answer will -- it's stricken, and so is the guestion.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: So Canton Police Department was, in fact, at your authority given permission to manipulate that light in terms of pulling it out of the SUV, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Canton Police Department was allowed to facilitate the removal of that light?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And, during the course of the removal of that light, a taillight was broken, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And shattered?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: There were parts of it that were falling onto the ground?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't think there was anything falling onto the ground at that point.
MR. JACKSON: So now we do have evidence that that taillight in some way, shape, form or fashion was broken or broken more once it was inside the sally port in Canton Police Department's custody?
MR. GALLAGHER: You're going to have to rephrase that. I don't understand the "broken more" part.
MR. JACKSON: During the removal process, that light was broken even more?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Just take a look at that photograph and tell me if you recognize it.
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't recognize the photograph. It's the first time I've seen it.
MR. LALLY: Do you recognize what's depicted in the photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: It's a broken taillight.
MR. LALLY: Does that appear to be the taillight that was removed during the process that we saw on the video just a few minutes ago on direct examination?
MR. GALLAGHER: I can only assume it is. I never examined the light.
JUDGE CANNONE: So you can't assume. So can you answer the question, Lieutenant?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: You don't recognize it?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And were you -- I didn't see you on the video, but it was a fairly dark video. Were you there?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. I'm in the gray shirt.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Were you there as Officer Wanless was actually removing the taillight from the vehicle?
MR. GALLAGHER: I'm not sure. I'd have to watch the video again.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Do you recall if pieces and parts were being broken off and shattered while he was removing it?
MR. GALLAGHER: Not at all.
MR. LALLY: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Were you the person who actually recovered -- I think you did answer this. You were not the person who knelt down and actually recovered the blood droplets?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That was Sergeant Lank?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: When you gave the -- sorry. Let me rephrase that. Was it you or Sergeant Lank that put the Solo cups into the evidence bag?
MR. GALLAGHER: Sergeant Lank.
MR. JACKSON: Was that in your presence?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. How long after he put the Solo cups in the evidence bag did he put the evidence bag in his truck?
MR. GALLAGHER: Seconds. Less than a minute.
MR. JACKSON: And then how long did the truck sit there until he left or you left and you were no longer able to observe?
MR. GALLAGHER: He left immediately.
MR. JACKSON: You were at the location of the sally port on February 3rd. You've already testified to that, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. I testified February Ist.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. My mistake. February 1st. You also indicated that at your direction, Sergeant Lank booked the Solo cups into the evidence locker?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's procedure. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Right. I understand it's procedure. I'm asking if he actually did.
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did you see a log of that?
MR. GALLAGHER: Excuse me?
MR. JACKSON: Did you see a log of that?
MR. GALLAGHER: I saw the police report.
MR. JACKSON: Which police report?
MR. GALLAGHER: The original call.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And, in that police report, he indicates that he took the Solo cups back to Canton Police Department and booked them into evidence, right?
MR. GALLAGHER: It was given a property number and assigned to temporary evidence.
MR. JACKSON: And, when something is given a property number, is there an officer working that property area to assign the property numbers?
MR. GALLAGHER: No. The officer placing the property evidence assigns the property number himself.
MR. JACKSON: I see. So that officer would assign a property number and physically place that into temporary -- what's it called again?
MR. GALLAGHER: Temporary evidence until the evidence officer takes custody of it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did an evidence officer actually take custody of these items?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, because it was being transferred to the state police. So it wasn't going into our permanent evidence locker.
MR. JACKSON: So where did those cups sit for the three days between January 28th and February lst?
MR. GALLAGHER: In the refrigeration unit in temporary evidence.
MR. JACKSON: And is there a log to sign in and sign out to make sure the chain of custody of items like this are maintained?
MR. GALLAGHER: The evidence officer keeps that log. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is there any log, Lieutenant Gallagher, of these items being booked into the temporary evidence locker?
MR. GALLAGHER: There should be, but I don't know for a fact. But there should be, yes.
MR. JACKSON: I agree that there should be. I am asking you if there is.
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't know the answer to that.
MR. JACKSON: The fact of the matter is, there is no law, document or report ever showing these items were ever booked into the temporary evidence locker at Canton P.D.; isn't that right?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't believe that's accurate.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have that evidence log?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't. I don't have access to the evidence log.
MR. JACKSON: Could you get access to the evidence log?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: You're a supervisor at Canton P.D.
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Why would you not have access to the evidence log?
MR. GALLAGHER: I think only two or three people have access to evidence.
MR. JACKSON: Who would they be?
MR. GALLAGHER: The evidence officer.
MR. JACKSON: Which is who?
MR. GALLAGHER: Paul DiGiampietro, sergeant.
MR. JACKSON: Can you spell that for us, please?
MR. GALLAGHER: D-I-G-I-A-M-P-I-E-T-R-O.
MR. JACKSON: Who else?
MR. GALLAGHER: I'm not sure, to be honest. I'm assuming the chief of police.
MR. JACKSON: Chief Berkowitz, I assume?
MR. GALLAGHER: Most likely, but I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: Deputy chief?
MR. GALLAGHER: Possibly, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Head of detectives?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Any other lieutenants or supervisors?
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't believe so. I know I don't have access as a lieutenant.
MR. JACKSON: If there is no evidence log of an item being booked into evidence, that's a pretty good indicator that it actually never made it into the evidence log -- evidence locker, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: We do know that wherever it went, the blood items and the glass went back to Canton P.D., correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Lieutenant, I am going to ask you kindly to take a look at those four photographs. And then once you've had a chance to review them, just look up at me and I'll ask you a couple of questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: Did you see them?
MR. LALLY: I don't know what was just handed to the witness.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you go take a look.
(Whereupon, Mr. Lally views the photographs.)
MR. JACKSON: May I approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Take your time.
MR. GALLAGHER: I'm all set.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize those photos or what's depicted in those photos?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes
MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize the time frame those photos would have been taken?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Based on the context?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: February 1st, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: I have no idea if it was February the list. But it would be between the 29th of January and February 1st.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Have they been introduced?
MR. JACKSON: They have not yet been introduced, Your Honor. I'm sorry. Protocol-wise, I missed that step. I need to ask that these be marked next in order, four photographs.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Any objection?
MR. LALLY: No, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, four photographs were entered and marked Exhibits No. 37 through and including 40 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibits 37 through 40.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at what's --
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Hold on. They are still being marked, and the court reporter has to record everything you say.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission, Lieutenant, I'm going to try and go in the same order. So you might want to glance at this photograph. It may be a better visual for you.
MR. GALLAGHER: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to ask you if you recognize what's depicted in this photograph, especially the area right down here on the right, bottom right. Do you see that white rag?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Lieutenant, would you take a close look at that rag? I'm going to ask you to identify it on the photograph. Do you see a couple of dark marks on what appear to be that --
MR. GALLAGHER: I see it on that screen.
MR. JACKSON: It's a better visual up there. Okay. Fair enough. What is the position of that rag as it relates to the vehicle in the photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: It's the rear passenger side.
MR. JACKSON: Right rear quarter panel, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And is that, in fact, the SUV in question?
MR. GALLAGHER: I believe it is.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The SUV that belonged to Ms. Read?
MR. GALLAGHER: I believe it is, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's take a look at the -- excuse me.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, for the record, we were just speaking about Item 37.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Looking at 38, does that appear to be the same rag in the photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: It does, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Do you see a shadow sort of looming over the top of the photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Given what you just said about Evidence Item 37, does that appear to be the shadow of the right rear guarter panel of the truck?
MR. GALLAGHER: I would guess it's the tailgate.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sir, you can't guess.
MR. GALLAGHER: I would say it was the tailgate. The tailgate's up. Maybe the tailgate is up at this point.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Do you see the bag in the middle of the photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you read what's on that bag?
MR. GALLAGHER: Stop & Shop.
MR. JACKSON: That does not look like an evidence bag, does it, sir?
MR. GALLAGHER: No.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, it looks like a grocery bag?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So not a forensically stable item, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Certainly not sterile?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Right?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know where that bag came from?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do not.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a bag that you supplied to Sergeant Lank?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know where Sergeant Lank got the Stop & Shop bag?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know where Sergeant Lank got the Stop & Shop bag?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: Next photograph, please. Taking a look at what's been marked as evidence item 39, do you recognize what's in the middle of the photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is that?
MR. GALLAGHER: Those are the plastic cups with the coagulated blood.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see on the top of the photograph the same rag?
MR. GALLAGHER: I do.
MR. JACKSON: With the same markings?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does it appear that those unsealed cups with liquid blood in them are situated right near the right rear quarter panel of the SUV in this photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: They are to the rear of the vehicle. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So this appears to be evidence item 40. Do you see the same white rag?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you see the same evidence bag -- I'm sorry -- Stop & Shop bag, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And it's filled with six Solo cups?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: With what appears to be liquid blood?
MR. GALLAGHER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Does that photograph appear to be taken at or about the same place, near the right rear quarter panel of the SUV?
MR. GALLAGHER: It's actually -- I would say that the mat is the mat to the entrance to the booking area. So that is probably a couple of feet behind the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's go back to Evidence Item No. 37, which was the first photograph. Do you see the rag in that photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next item. Now, do you see the mat -- I'm sorry. I should note this for the record. We are now looking at 38. Do you see the mat and the rag in the photograph?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: And you see a tire on that mat?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's a golfcart of some sort that belongs to the Canton Police Department?
MR. GALLAGHER: It's a Kubota. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: A Kubota. Thank you. It looks like the rag is in the same spot?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So the blood inside the Stop & Shop bag is sitting right next to the right rear quarter panel of that truck, correct?
MR. GALLAGHER: You can see the rear tire. It's probably at least three feet from the rear. If you'll look at the top -- I can use the marker here. This appears to me to be the rear tire, which would put this a couple of feet behind the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
MR. JACKSON: That's all I have. You can do the lights.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Would you agree that having unsealed and unsecured blood next to the right rear portion of the SUV is a recipe for cross-contamination?
MR. GALLAGHER: If I can speak to this incident alone?
MR. JACKSON: That's a yes-or-no question. Do you think --
MR. GALLAGHER: It's not yes or no. But, for your purposes, I would say yes.
MR. JACKSON: And, in fact, it could even be worse, for instance, not just inadvertent cross-contamination. If somebody wanted to touch something on that bag, on those cups, and then touch the vehicle, they could easily do that with that juxtaposition of the open blood next to the back, the rear of the car?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Lieutenant, if somebody was so inclined, that Situation could provide an opportunity for evidence tampering, couldn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: May I have a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I have nothing further at this time, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Yes. Just briefly, Your Honor.