Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMichael Lank - Cross
721 linesMR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: May we approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Jurors, you're about to hear evidence of an event that happened in 2002. This evidence can be considered by you insofar as it demonstrates or relates to the credibility of this witness and the thoroughness of the investigation into this case for which the defendant is currently on trial. Before you folks, you may use this evidence to the extent that you find it credible in deciding whether there was any bias or favoritism on the part of the police in their investigation in this case. You may, Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Lieutenant Lank, I want to start by asking you about your relationship with certain members of the Albert family. Do you know any other members of the Albert family other than Brian Albert?
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe who those are?
MR. LANK: Kevin Albert, who is a detective on our department. Chris Albert, and I know Tim Albert.
MR. JACKSON: Are those three individuals brothers?
MR. JACKSON: Who is the eldest brother?
MR. JACKSON: How long have you known — I want to start first with Tim Albert. How long have you known Tim Albert?
MR. LANK: I knew Tim Albert when he was a kid, because he was friends with a younger brother of a friend of mine.
MR. JACKSON: Starting at what age?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So the better part of your life, you've known Tim Albert since about — since you were 16?
MR. JACKSON: And what about Chris Albert?
MR. JACKSON: Which would be about what age?
MR. JACKSON: You grew up —
MR. LANK: 12, 13. I was friendly with Chris from junior high through high school and into our 20s, and friendly with Tim — I wouldn't say — it was friendly to say hello to Tim. I didn't associate with him. He was younger. He was Chris's younger brother.
MR. JACKSON: But you also knew Chris's older brother Brian in those days?
MR. JACKSON: So you've known the three of them for basically your entire life?
MR. LANK: No. I had met them — I had met Brian. I didn't know him other than just being Chris's older brother when we were younger kids. Certainly with regard to Chris, you would consider him a close friend? Consider who a close friend?
MR. JACKSON: Chris — first names only because they're all —
MR. JACKSON: I want to draw your attention to an incident in August of 2002. Do you remember an incident in 2002 occurring with — it involved Chris Albert?
MR. JACKSON: In 2002, in August of 2002 specifically, you were off duty, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You had been drinking alcohol, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You were approached by Chris Albert out in the parking lot, is that right?
MR. JACKSON: And Chris Albert told you some information about being in a fight — that he had been in a fight or an altercation of some sort, correct?
MR. LANK: He told me he had been in an altercation earlier in the night and some threats had been made to him and his family.
MR. JACKSON: And you got out of your car and discussed this with Mr. Albert, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You just talked to him while you were seated in your car?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. At some point did some other individuals approach that same area?
MR. JACKSON: Was there a fight that you believed was about to ensue?
MR. JACKSON: Did you get out of your car at that point?
MR. JACKSON: Did you come to Chris's aid by, quote unquote, activating yourself as an officer?
MR. LANK: I got out of my car and I approached the group and I pleaded with them to not fight tonight. I said there's not going to be a fight tonight. There's six of you guys. He's here with his girlfriend. There's not going to be a fight tonight.
MR. JACKSON: Did you come to Chris Albert's aid as best you could as a longtime friend of his?
MR. LANK: I came to the aid of a citizen who was in fear and in need. That citizen happened to be Chris Albert.
MR. JACKSON: Whom you had known since you were 12 years old, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately a fight did break out, did it not?
MR. JACKSON: And you engaged in that fight?
MR. JACKSON: And again, you had been drinking alcohol at that point, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you were off duty in August of 2002 during this fight, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Just like you were off duty in 2022 when you were called by Sergeant Goode to activate and come to the crime scene at 34 Fairview —
MR. LANK: When Sergeant Goode contacted me, I was not working. I was due to work at 7:45 that morning. When Sergeant Goode contacted me and told me what was going on, then I activated myself and came to work because I was the detective sergeant.
MR. JACKSON: And that's a similar sort of activation — using that word in air quotes — a similar sort of activation that you employed back in 2002 to assist Chris Albert?
MR. JACKSON: You did in fact call for someone to call the police and get some Canton officers over there, correct?
MR. JACKSON: In 2002. In 2002.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And I failed to ask you this, but in 2002 you were in fact a Canton police officer?
MR. JACKSON: At the time. After the other officers arrived, did you order the other officers to handcuff or somehow restrain one of the two brothers that were involved in this fight with Chris?
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, did you see whether or not those officers handcuffed or otherwise restrained one of the brothers that was involved in this fight?
MR. JACKSON: And did you then engage physically in a fight with the other brother who was not restrained?
MR. JACKSON: All right. So let me make sure I get the timing right. You did in fact engage in a physical fight with one of the brothers, correct?
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, say that again?
MR. JACKSON: And then you struck him back?
MR. JACKSON: You ended up on the ground?
MR. JACKSON: Wrestling?
MR. JACKSON: And ultimately the other officers had to pull you off that man, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately the fight was broken up between you and the other brother, is that right?
MR. JACKSON: And that fight was broken up by the officers who were on scene?
MR. JACKSON: After this physical altercation with the brother who was not ultimately restrained, both of the brothers and everybody else was just told by the officers, just go away, get out of here, go home, correct?
MR. LANK: No. I believe one of the brothers left the scene — fled the scene — and the brother that was restrained was ultimately uncuffed and left free to go.
MR. JACKSON: And nobody was arrested that night, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Nobody chased down the brother that left the scene, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And nobody arrested the brother that had been handcuffed, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And no police reports were written by you or any of the other officers about this incident on that night?
MR. LANK: I don't recall when the other officers wrote theirs. I did not write mine on that night.
MR. JACKSON: The next day, you became aware that one or both of the brothers had arrived at Canton Police Department to file a formal complaint for having been physically attacked by you and some of the other officers involved, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You are aware that there was a complaint sought against you for the physical attack that was alleged to have occurred, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you also are aware that only after that complaint had been sought, the police reports were dated and filed against the two brothers, correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: No, question. I'm just looking — it's not a yes-and-no question. So he was just asking you about dates. Can you answer the question? Ask the question about the dates again, please.
MR. JACKSON: I'm seeking the chronology of events. A fight occurs, a complaint against you occurs, and then police reports are filed against the two people that are complaining against you — is that the chronology?
MR. JACKSON: And you're also aware that although he had been in a physical fight that night, no charges were ever brought against Chris Albert, correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, do you know that?
MR. JACKSON: I don't know. I don't even know where the fight occurred. Officer Lank, what we just talked about — is that an example of you using your position as a police officer to come to the aid of one of the members of the Albert family?
MR. LANK: It was me coming to the aid of a citizen who was terrified and scared for him and his family on that night, who happened to be — what — excuse me — who happened to be Chris Albert.
MR. JACKSON: You mentioned Kevin Albert — who's he?
MR. JACKSON: Is he a coworker?
MR. JACKSON: How long have you known him?
MR. JACKSON: And you also consider him to be a friend as well as a coworker?
MR. JACKSON: And a colleague as well?
MR. JACKSON: And you're also well aware — I mean, you've said it already — he's the little brother of Brian Albert, correct? And you're also aware that the reason that your department was ultimately recused from this investigation, Lieutenant Lank, is because of a perceived bias or conflict of interest between the Albert family and the Canton Police Department, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can you tell me one more time — and now I want to fast forward to the incident in question — what was the exact time that you arrived at the location, if you know?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you indicated that that was in response to a call that you got from Sergeant Goode?
MR. JACKSON: What made you decide — or did you — could you have decided not to take this particular call? Was it up to you, in other words?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, fair enough. So once you got the call, you knew that you were going to respond because there was something very serious afoot, correct? Did you know at the time you got the call that that very serious incident was occurring at 34 Fairview?
MR. JACKSON: When did you realize?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So Sergeant Goode didn't — that — I guess that's what I'm — maybe I asked an inartful question. I was asking whether or not Sergeant Goode told you before you actually arrived.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. At that point, did a light bulb go off and you think to yourself — that's the Albert house?
MR. LANK: I don't recall if I realized it then or once I turned onto the street. I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: At some point before your car came to a stop, you knew — this is 34 Fairview, this is the Albert household?
MR. JACKSON: When you arrived, who was the ranking officer at the scene? You mentioned — obviously we've heard these things — Sergeant Goode, Officer Mullaney, Officer Saraf, you — who's the ranking officer?
MR. JACKSON: Have you reviewed — well, let me ask a different question. Did you have a dash cam in the vehicle that you arrived in?
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. JACKSON: — if you could fast forward that to about the 22 — the runtime — about, sorry, 28:35 or so. With the Court's permission?
MR. JACKSON: And that's because — was that a detective vehicle?
MR. JACKSON: Sometimes used undercover, et cetera?
MR. JACKSON: So it's not a fully marked cruiser.
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. JACKSON: , play that — and let's pause it for a second. Your Honor, may we approach briefly?
MR. JACKSON: The other cruisers, you're aware, did have dash cams, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Have you reviewed any or all of those dash cams from — — Officer Mullaney, Officer Saraf, Sergeant Goode?
MR. JACKSON: And you reviewed those in preparation for your testimony?
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to show you what's been previously marked as Exhibit 16, and I'm going to ask — Mr.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Before we play this — uh, it appears to be a still image of — so let's not describe that. Sure. What do you see on the screen?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Do you recognize either or both of those images?
MR. JACKSON: How do you recognize them?
MR. LANK: It looks like the scene from that morning. From — I believe — I believe it's going to be — uh, the top one anyway, that's [unintelligible] Officer Saraf's cruiser. And the bottom one I'm not sure — okay, looks like possibly Sergeant Goode's based on where it's placed.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If we could fast forward to the 28:40 mark or so — Mr.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you have reviewed these videos in anticipation of your testimony today, correct?
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to ask you to direct your attention to the top video, and specifically to an area right around this area in the video, which is highlighted. Uh, before we play — a couple of foundational questions — did you meet with Jennifer McCabe out behind the vehicle that's depicted in the Officer Saraf dash cam?
MR. JACKSON: Did you have some sort of a conversation with her?
MR. JACKSON: At some point did you see Miss McCabe leave your presence and walk toward the driveway once the conversation had terminated?
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever — did she tell you that she intended to go inside the house?
MR. LANK: I had said to her that at some point we're going to need to speak to Brian and Nicole.
MR. JACKSON: Why did you think it was important to speak to Brian and Nicole?
MR. LANK: Because it's their property and somebody was lying in the snow unconscious and unresponsive.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. And obviously that could potentially at least implicate people inside the house.
MR. LANK: Based on my conversation with Miss McCabe, she had stated that the intention was for Mr. McCabe — excuse me — for Mr. O'Keefe to join them at that house, so I wanted to get statements from everybody who was there — — find out what happened.
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. JACKSON: Stop. Did you see anything occur at around the car in the distance? It appears to be somebody walking towards the house — was that Jen McCabe?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. I mean, that — that's sort of the obvious initial point of an investigation — find out who the witnesses are and interview all of them, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you began by talking to Miss McCabe?
MR. JACKSON: Knowing that she was a potential witness at least, correct?
MR. LANK: She identified herself as a friend of Mr. O'Keefe who had been with Mr. O'Keefe just hours before.
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. JACKSON: Oh — go, sorry. Standing in front of something. Did you see another person — shorter stature — approach you?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Ended up laying in the snow fighting for his life, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you also knew that there were other witnesses potentially inside the house because she just told you that, right?
MR. LANK: I knew that that was ultimately — — where he was supposed to end up. So if there were other — witnesses — in the house — sorry — if there were other individuals in the house, they also were potential witnesses potentially.
MR. JACKSON: And Miss McCabe indicated I'm going to go in the house, right?
MR. LANK: I had told her that she's going to have to wake her sister up because we're going to need to speak with them.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't think that it was more important to separate the witnesses and not let her talk to other witnesses?
MR. JACKSON: You thought that it was appropriate to let all the witnesses get together and just discuss the facts before you had an opportunity to interview them separately?
MR. LALLY: Objection to the form.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm just going to let it go. That's fine.
MR. JACKSON: Lieutenant Lank, if you could direct your attention to the area that I highlighted earlier — let's go ahead and play the video.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see yourself, by the way, in this video?
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. JACKSON: Go — and pause it. Does it appear you're on the phone?
MR. JACKSON: Where are you?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You've described — I don't know if it's tan, gray — it's a gray North Face jacket?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. All right, let's go ahead and play the video, and I'll indicate another stopping place that I'd — — like to ask you a couple of questions about.
MR. JACKSON: Who is that?
MR. JACKSON: Pause it. Did you see yourself just exit screen right?
MR. JACKSON: It appeared that you had something in your hand?
MR. JACKSON: You're taking a call?
MR. JACKSON: On your cell phone?
MR. JACKSON: What was that call?
MR. LANK: I don't recall. It could have — I can't see what time that is. I don't believe that I made the call to the CPAC unit until around 6:38, so I'm not sure who that call is to or from.
MR. JACKSON: If you'll direct your attention — I think now down toward the camera below?
MR. JACKSON: You may see yourself enter the frame. Can we go ahead and play it?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, go ahead. Did it appear that you walked off screen left?
MR. JACKSON: Still on the phone?
MR. JACKSON: Go ahead. Pause it. Did you see somebody following in that same direction?
MR. LANK: It looked like Officer Saraf — uh, actually I'm wrong, because that's Officer Saraf right there. So I'm incorrect. I think it might have been Sergeant Goode. Could we play it back, uh, with the Court's permission?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure, go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Pause. Do you recognize that person?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, go ahead. Does it appear that you've walked back into the frame?
MR. JACKSON: Are you followed by anybody?
MR. JACKSON: Are you speaking to Sergeant Goode, or are you walking away from him? Can you tell in that frame?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let... ...go. Did it appear you were sort of walking away from Sergeant Goode, off frame again?
MR. JACKSON: Were you still on the phone?
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Go ahead. Pause it. Directing your attention to the top video — do you see the SUV in the video?
MR. JACKSON: Does that SUV appear to be leaving the scene?
MR. JACKSON: Do you know who was in that SUV?
MR. JACKSON: Was it at that point — are you walking back into the frame on the lower video?
MR. JACKSON: At this point, Lieutenant, are the lights at 34 Fairview on or off?
MR. JACKSON: And at some point while you were at the scene, did the lights come on? I think you testified to that earlier.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'd like you to pay special attention to that moment and maybe tell me to stop when you see those lights come on. It may be a minute or so.
MR. JACKSON: At this point, does it appear that you're still on the phone?
MR. JACKSON: At this point, is there anything that changed in the scene?
MR. JACKSON: What's that?
MR. JACKSON: And at this point, Ms. McCabe has been inside the house for approximately how long, if you could estimate?
MR. JACKSON: And are you still on the phone, or have you ended that call?
MR. LANK: I can't tell if I'm still on the phone at that point. I know that right around this time is when I end up speaking to the CPAC unit, because I believe I get into the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Let's play it just a little bit further forward, maybe another 30 seconds or so. Does it appear at this point if you can... ...see, does it appear that you've ended that call, or at least your hands are down by your side?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You would agree with me that that was, without counting the seconds, about a five-minute phone call, or maybe a little better than five minutes?
MR. JACKSON: Do you have any idea who you were talking to, now that you've seen that?
MR. JACKSON: You did notice that several minutes after Jen McCabe went in the house, and while you were on that phone call, the lights finally came on at 34 Fairview, correct?
MR. JACKSON: At the point the lights came on, the ladder truck had already left the scene, correct?
MR. JACKSON: The firefighters are all gone?
MR. JACKSON: The ambulance has already left and transported Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. JACKSON: The paramedics are gone, the EMTs?
MR. JACKSON: Fire captain and his SUV, that's gone, is that right?
MR. JACKSON: The fire captain and his SUV, that's gone?
MR. JACKSON: In other words, all the fire and EMTs have — I don't see them on camera. Doesn't appear that any fire or EMTs are still on scene, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Kerry Roberts is gone?
MR. JACKSON: Karen Read is gone?
MR. JACKSON: So when the only parties left at the... ...scene are members of the Albert family, Jen McCabe, and the Canton Police Department representatives — that's when the lights inside 34 Fairview finally came on. Okay? Is that yes?
MR. JACKSON: And then minutes after that call, you did then speak to CPAC — uh, I'm sorry — to dispatch, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Right. I was getting to that. It was dispatch, and the dispatch was to CPAC, not to Canton PD, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And at some point, did CPAC dispatch indicate that they were on their way?
MR. JACKSON: What was that call all about? So there are two separate calls — did you talk to anyone at CPAC?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, do you... ...remember having a conversation with Kelly Dever?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about CPAC dispatch, not Canton Police dispatch.
MR. JACKSON: At some point, did you have a conversation with — well, let me ask it this way. I just don't know — did you talk to both Canton dispatch and CPAC dispatch?
MR. LANK: I definitely spoke to CPAC dispatch. I'm not sure if I spoke to Canton dispatch or not.
MR. JACKSON: All right. At some point, did you indicate to one or the other, "I'm responding to 34 Fairview, we have a Boston police officer who was just found"?
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that he does... ...have some trauma to his head area, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you said, quote, "I'm not sure if he's been in a fight or whatever — our medics don't believe he's going to make it," correct, end quote? Lieutenant Lank, you never saw John O'Keefe's body, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So somebody disclosed to you that it appeared that he had been in a "fight or whatever." At least at that point, that was your thought?
MR. JACKSON: And what made you say — well, you didn't say to dispatch... ...the victim appears to have been shot, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You didn't say he'd been stabbed?
MR. JACKSON: He had been strangled?
MR. JACKSON: Didn't say he appeared he'd been hit by a car, correct? You said it appeared that he'd been in a fight or whatever, correct?
MR. LANK: I stated that he had some trauma to his head, and I said I don't know if he has been in a fight, and then I believe I described it as — I don't remember my exact terminology, but it was a crazy scene, chaotic scene possibly. I don't recall my exact words, something to that effect.
MR. JACKSON: But you do recall your exact words to dispatch being, "I don't know if he's been in a fight or whatever," correct?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I want to talk about inside the house for just a few minutes, if I could. You've talked extensively about the crime scene outside — and we'll get to that in a second — but I want to talk... ...about what did or did not happen inside the house. Did you actually make it inside the house at some point?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. When was that? How long — let's use Jennifer McCabe as the time frame. How long after that did you finally go inside the house, after she had been in the house?
MR. JACKSON: So just a few minutes after we ended that video?
MR. JACKSON: And you walked — you said either along the driveway or through the yard?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Once you went in the house, you made contact with the individuals in the house, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you believe — at least at that point... ...that there was a potential — let me rephrase that. You knew that you were dealing with a violent incident, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You thought maybe it was just a heart attack?
MR. LANK: I didn't know what it was at that point in time. I didn't know what it was. It could have been a multitude of things.
MR. JACKSON: But what was going through your mind at that point? Was it, "It could have been a fight or whatever, because he had trauma to his head"? Those were your words.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you didn't think it was like some old man who died of old age, right, based on his age?
MR. JACKSON: Think it was accidental drowning or... ...something?
MR. LANK: Again, it could have been a multitude of things that caused those injuries. So at that point in time, we had no idea what we were looking at.
MR. JACKSON: But you were aware that it had something to do with a violent incident — he had trauma to his face and he's unconscious, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you believe that there were any indicators that Mr. O'Keefe had been involved in some sort of a physical altercation?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And that's because you used the phrase "trauma to his face and head," right?
MR. JACKSON: So based on what you had been told, you knew that there was a person laying outside unconscious, just...
MR. LANK: Outside a residence that may have been involved in a physical altercation — that's fair, it's a possibility. Yes, again there were a multitude of things that were going through my head as possibilities, but that's one of the possibilities.
MR. JACKSON: The premier possibilities, right?
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection.]
MR. JACKSON: You need to actually investigate the circumstances for yourself, to your own satisfaction — is that a fair statement?
MR. JACKSON: And it's logical to believe that if a fight had occurred, it very well may have started inside the residence 30 feet away —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you believe in your mind that it was possible — given the fact that a violent confrontation was possible in your mind — that it could have started inside the house?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Lieutenant Lank, given what you believed at the time and the possibility that there was a fight or whatever, did you logically think in your mind — your state of mind — was it possible it could have started in the house, if it had been a confrontation?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. So in other words, the house is not excluded in your mind at that point as a starting point for the investigation — is that right?
MR. LANK: Well, the starting point would have been where Mr. O'Keefe had been discovered, and then based on speaking with the witnesses, there was no indication that he had ever made it into the house.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you didn't know that until you followed up on your investigation, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So you just took Miss McCabe's word for it at that point in time?
MR. LANK: That was the only person I had spoken to, and she gave me a timeline of events from that night where Mr. O'Keefe was supposed to come back to the house but never made it.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever — in your course of investigating cases — have you ever been lied to by a witness?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Overruled. You can answer that.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever been lied to by a witness?
MR. JACKSON: So it's not necessarily the best investigative technique to just take a witness's word — — for something, correct?
MR. JACKSON: One of those investigative techniques would be to walk into the house and figure out who's who there, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. One of those investigative techniques — to satisfy yourself that you're actually getting to the truth of the matter — would be to walk into the house and figure out who's in the house first?
MR. LANK: I will agree that I needed to speak to the people in the home. I can't just walk in their house. I have to announce myself and they don't have to — — let me in.
MR. JACKSON: I understand. I'm not trying to parse those words. I just mean entering the home and interviewing witnesses — that would be a normal part of your investigation in this issue, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you also knew that the most obvious place to look for witnesses that may have information about a fallen man in the snow would be 30 feet away in the home, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So once you're inside the residence, you walked in the front door, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that there's a stair that services the second floor, is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Right. Just before the staircase there's a door to your left, right?
MR. JACKSON: You remember — there's a door that when you open it goes directly downstairs to the basement?
MR. JACKSON: You indicated on direct examination that you didn't notice anything — I'm paraphrasing, so forgive me — you didn't notice anything out of place in the home?
MR. JACKSON: You didn't go downstairs to the basement and look, did you?
MR. JACKSON: Didn't look for broken furniture down there?
MR. JACKSON: You didn't look for torn clothing down there —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: How about anywhere in the house — did you look for broken furniture or torn clothing or blood evidence or DNA evidence?
MR. JACKSON: So the answer to my question is no, you did not?
MR. JACKSON: So if I were to ask you one more time — I know you never made it past the foyer — did you ever investigate the foyer area or any other part of the house for evidence of a fight?
MR. LANK: The only area I was able to observe at that point, everything appeared to be in order.
MR. JACKSON: But you didn't search the rest of the house for a fight, Lieutenant? That's all I'm asking.
MR. JACKSON: And did you seek guidance from a court as to whether or not you might have probable cause?
MR. JACKSON: That's what I mean.
MR. LANK: I wouldn't fill out an affidavit for a search warrant because there wouldn't be probable cause.
MR. JACKSON: In your mind there was no PC to search that house, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Let's move on from — — this.
MR. JACKSON: One of the ways to secure a premises — any premises — in a normal crime scene investigation would be to remove the witnesses and animals from that premises to sort of freeze it and lock it down, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Were the witnesses in this case asked to come outside the house in order to freeze the house down as a potential crime scene?
MR. JACKSON: Were any animals removed in order to freeze and lock down the house as a potential crime scene?
MR. JACKSON: And — this is the last question on this issue — did you do anything to lock down and secure that premises, the inside of the house, in any way, shape, form, or — — fashion?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Did you do anything to lock down and secure that premises in any way, shape, form, or fashion?
MR. JACKSON: Did you allow witnesses to go inside the house other than Jen McCabe?
MR. JACKSON: Who is that?
MR. JACKSON: And did you seek to separate any of the witnesses, or admonish them that they are not to be in each other's presence and discuss the facts of the case before you had an opportunity to interview them?
MR. JACKSON: And as you sit here, you have no idea — when you were not in their presence — you have no idea what the occupants of that house were discussing — — correct? Or what they were doing?
MR. JACKSON: Just one moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Given the fact that you were the first law enforcement officer inside the house, did you seek to photograph anything inside the house?
MR. LANK: When you say I was the first law enforcement officer — I was with Sergeant Goode. Both of us walked in at the same time.
MR. JACKSON: That's fair. I don't mean to be vague, but you were sort of leading the discussion, correct — with the interviews?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. As the first law enforcement officer to take charge inside the house, did you seek to photograph that — — location?
MR. JACKSON: Did you make any drawings or diagrams of the layout of the house?
MR. JACKSON: Did you note where the furniture was or was not?
MR. JACKSON: Did you note in a diagram where furniture was — there's a dining room table here, it's got six chairs, there's a kitchen table over there?
MR. JACKSON: Did you note in any document where the individuals — the human beings — were in relation to each other when you walked in the house?
MR. JACKSON: Whether or not you documented that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Had you been told at the time that you went in the house that John O'Keefe was found out in the yard, that there was a shoe missing — his right shoe was missing?
MR. JACKSON: You didn't have that information yet?
MR. JACKSON: Did you subsequently learn that?
PARENTHETICAL: [objection — sustained]
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever — in fact, not whether you believed it was important, but did you ever in fact notify any of your superiors at Canton PD or any other law enforcement agency that you had a personal relationship with the Albert family or members of the Albert family?
MR. JACKSON: Tell me what "much later" means — days, hours, weeks?
MR. JACKSON: I think I know the answer to this, but you didn't do any search for any missing clothing from the victim inside the house?
MR. JACKSON: Last issue. Last series of questions on this issue. You understand the importance of electronic devices in modern investigations, correct?
MR. JACKSON: IPads, cell phones, things of that nature?
MR. JACKSON: Because they can record things like photographs, videos, conversations, text messages, and emails?
MR. JACKSON: Would you consider electronic devices relatively vital in modern law enforcement investigations?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, they're critical items of evidence, right?
MR. JACKSON: It's like walking around with your entire life in the palm of your hand, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Did you seek to secure any electronic devices from any — — of the occupants of that house that morning?
MR. JACKSON: You asked for consent to look through their electronic devices — for instance, their cell phones — for text messages, communications?
MR. JACKSON: Did you believe — well, turning back to a question that you were asked by Mr. Lally — you did in fact interview Brian Albert at the scene, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You also interviewed his wife?
MR. JACKSON: Did you believe at any point, before you interviewed Mr. Albert, that it was incumbent upon you to let your supervisors know that there may be a conflict of interest because of a personal relationship that you had with the family?
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you believe you spoke to Mr. Albert and his wife Nicole Albert for maybe 15 to 20 minutes — is that what you said?
MR. JACKSON: Did you record that conversation?
MR. JACKSON: You had your cell phone with you, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You know that has recording capability?
MR. JACKSON: Was anybody else with Nicole — when I say "with," I mean in earshot of Nicole and Brian Albert — when you interviewed either one of them, or both of them?
MR. JACKSON: So you interviewed them together?
MR. JACKSON: Did you then interview Jennifer McCabe?
MR. LANK: I had spoken to Jennifer McCabe outside. Um, to the best of my memory, I believe once we were inside, I was able to get some more information from her based on the chronological order of events.
MR. JACKSON: And when you were getting this information about the chronological order of events, that was within earshot of Brian Albert and Nicole Albert?
MR. JACKSON: So when you interviewed Brian Albert, Nicole and Jennifer McCabe were listening, correct?
MR. JACKSON: When you interviewed Nicole Albert, Brian Albert and Jennifer McCabe were listening?
MR. JACKSON: And when you got this chronological layout of the night before from Jennifer McCabe, Brian and Nicole were both listening?
MR. JACKSON: After you met with the three of them and interviewed them, you indicated that you came back — you already left, you came back — and I'm jumping ahead a little bit, so forgive me. When you came back, it was around 9:00 a.m.?
MR. JACKSON: Had you actually left? I may be a bit confused, so I apologize. Had you actually left and driven back to Canton PD?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, so you just came back in the house. When Mr. McCabe entered the house — no, I'm so sorry, I'm jumping ahead. So that's unfair. You left. Now we're at the point where you've already cleared the crime scene, okay? And then at some point you get called back?
MR. JACKSON: Because Miss McCabe said she had additional information she wanted to impart?
MR. JACKSON: When you interviewed Miss McCabe that second time, were Brian and Nicole Albert there?
MR. JACKSON: Were they in earshot?
MR. JACKSON: And they listened to that conversation as well?
MR. JACKSON: After that conversation, did you meet with any other witnesses between January 29th — later in the day, January 29th, anytime — until Feb—?
MR. JACKSON: I do want to talk for a second — just a brief second — about setting up a crime scene outdoors. You indicated that the crime scene was "relatively secure" — was your word, "relatively secure" — because there were patrol cars or cruisers sort of around the perimeter?
MR. JACKSON: Scene tape wasn't working because it was windy?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And of course, Canton PD has the ability to go get stakes and just hammer some stakes into the dirt, if you wish to?
MR. JACKSON: You don't have stakes?
MR. JACKSON: I mean stakes — S-T-A-K-E-S. I know what a stake is.
MR. JACKSON: Oh. So if the crime scene tape was blowing down, that was just sort of a — let's give up on it, wasn't doing any good?
MR. JACKSON: In your mind, it was futile — the crime scene tape was futile?
MR. LANK: Yes. It was left up until we made the determination to take it down, but it wasn't — it wasn't really doing its job.
MR. JACKSON: All right. And once the scene was cleared, all those cruisers that were protecting that crime scene were now gone, right?
MR. JACKSON: And all the cruisers were gone by about 7:50 in the morning — 7:50, 7:55?
MR. JACKSON: So before 8 AM — I'm sorry, after 8 AM — that crime scene was completely open?
MR. JACKSON: Unsecured?
MR. JACKSON: And available to anybody who wanted access to it?
MR. JACKSON: One of the reasons to secure a crime scene is to minimize the possibility of evidence destruction on one hand, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And evidence tampering on the other hand, right?
MR. JACKSON: And examples of evidence tampering could be just moving a piece of evidence —
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, that's overruled. Just not too much further with this, though.
MR. JACKSON: I've just got a couple quick questions about this.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. An example, or a couple of examples, of evidence tampering could be something as simple as moving a piece of evidence — moving it from here to here. Correct? That would be tampering?
MR. JACKSON: Hiding evidence, getting rid of it?
MR. JACKSON: Taking evidence out of the scene or putting evidence back into the scene?
MR. JACKSON: Or even planting evidence that didn't exist before — all of those would be examples of tampering with evidence?
MR. JACKSON: And setting up a proper crime scene minimizes or eliminates the possibility for that?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Securing a proper crime scene minimizes or tries to eliminate the possibility of that type of evidence tampering.
MR. LANK: Obviously it would, but at this point in time we weren't aware — at this point in time, State Police had said they weren't responding, so there was no longer an area to preserve at that point.
MR. JACKSON: So in your mind — well, let me phrase it a different way. What that means is, after 8:00 a.m., that scene was just open.
MR. JACKSON: You found both the blood that we saw pictures of, and the cocktail glass that we were just introduced to this morning, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You searched the area that was adjacent to where you believed the body was — is that right?
MR. JACKSON: 6x6 or 7x7 — roughly six feet on each side, right?
MR. JACKSON: You were looking for obviously anything that was out of place, anything that didn't belong?
MR. JACKSON: Like a man-size 12 shoe would have caught your attention?
MR. JACKSON: A black baseball cap would have caught your attention?
MR. JACKSON: A piece of plastic — broken — probably would have caught your attention?
MR. JACKSON: Certainly 45 pieces of plastic would have caught your attention?
PARENTHETICAL: [objection — sustained]
MR. JACKSON: Once these unsealed cups were in your possession, what did you do with them?
MR. JACKSON: And between you, Officer Saraf, Sergeant Goode, Officer Mullaney, Lieutenant Gallagher — none of that was found?
MR. JACKSON: You did find the blood, however — is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Who literally physically leaned down and scooped that blood up?
MR. JACKSON: And that was done in a plastic Solo Cup that we've heard a little bit about?
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that those Solo cups are unsealed?
MR. JACKSON: When I say "unsealed," I mean they don't have a lid on them — they're not airtight containers, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So once you scoop up the snow and the dirt, the debris, and the grass and everything else along with the blood, they're just open — just open to the air.
MR. LANK: Yeah. There was — there was snow and blood. There was no dirt and debris in the — in the cup that I can recall.
MR. JACKSON: You're sure about that? There's no dirt in snow?
MR. JACKSON: No, you didn't observe any dirt in snow? You don't think there's dirt in snow?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Certainly wasn't a sterile cup?
MR. JACKSON: Certainly wasn't a crime scene cup?
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that the Massachusetts State Police crime lab warns against collecting any biological material in anything made of plastic, correct — are you aware of that?
MR. JACKSON: After — well, when you scooped up the blood, did you videotape that process so we know exactly which blood stain was scooped up from where?
MR. LANK: I don't recall if it was videotaped, but we did not document which scoop went in which cup.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So if there were multiple contributors to the blood — sorry, multiple contributors of the blood — we sort of have no idea which blood drop belonged to whom, correct?
MR. LANK: The cups were placed into the Toyota Tundra that I was driving that day, and ultimately returned back to the police station.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you talked a little bit about the process once you returned back to the station — they were put in a brown evidence bag, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And ultimately, when you log these items into the — tell me the name of it again.
MR. JACKSON: Temporary — excuse me — the blood was put in the temporary evidence refrigerator?
MR. LANK: Okay. Inside the evidence bag — cups are still inside the evidence bag, and it's logged in — I don't recall, I'm not sure if I took them out or not. I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that there's an item number or property number that's assigned to them.
MR. JACKSON: Generated — a seal or a label goes on the evidence that's being stored. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: And the bag is sealed — the evidence bag is sealed — like this red tape that we see on this thing. Correct?
MR. LANK: When possible. There are certain items that can't be bagged, and then sometimes you create a tag and attach it to the item. Right.
MR. JACKSON: But if it's a brown paper bag — that's an evidence bag — you certainly just fold over the edge of it and just put a red evidence seal on it to make sure that it's secure and not tampered. That's correct?
MR. LANK: That's correct. That would be one way to do it, yes. I don't recall if I left them in the bag or took them out of the bag. I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: If you left them in the bag, you likely would have — if you're booking them into evidence — you likely would have used some red — not crime scene tape — evidence tape.
MR. LANK: If I had left them in the bag, I would have put the property label right on the bag so everybody could see it. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. This is an evidence bag with important evidence in it. "Don't mess with it. It's secure." Correct?
MR. JACKSON: We have tab 23. You recognize what's depicted in this exhibit?
MR. JACKSON: For the record, you're looking at what's been previously marked as Exhibit 37. You see a little white rag
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay, let's go to tab 24. You see that white rag?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, sorry. Did you see a bag sitting next to it?
MR. JACKSON: Does that look like an evidence bag?
MR. LANK: No. It looks like a Stop and Shop bag, actually. It looks like an evidence bag — it just doesn't say Canton police on it. It says Stop and Shop. But it does look like an evidence bag — it's the same thing.
MR. JACKSON: That's a grocery bag.
MR. LANK: It is. And that's exactly what our evidence bags look like, so that's what I thought it was at first.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Except it doesn't say anything about evidence on it — it says Stop and Shop. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: What do you think's in that — I'm sorry — Stop and Shop bag?
MR. JACKSON: Do you know when these pictures were taken? I can tell it's the Canton Police sallyport, so it's at some point after the state police had seized the vehicle and at some point after you had brought the Solo cups back to the station. Correct? Matter of fact, these were taken on February 1st, when — sorry — the Massachusetts State Police crime lab finally took possession of these items of evidence. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: Let's look at the next tab — tab 25. You recognize that?
MR. JACKSON: Are those just any Solo cups, or are those the Solo cups that you took back to the station from 34 Fairview
MR. LANK: I couldn't say definitively, but it certainly looks like it. It appears that they have red liquid material floating in the bottom.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Appear to be blood?
MR. LANK: The top three I can see — yeah. The only two I see that don't have it are the bottom two, left.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's look at the next tab, which is 26. Do you see somebody with gloved hands opening that bag?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Does that appear to be the same six Solo cups that you just showed me in the previous slide?
MR. JACKSON: — the same six Solo cups that you gathered at the scene at 34 Fairview Road and ultimately brought back to Canton PD?
MR. LANK: They certainly appear like they are, but I can't say definitively. But they appear to be.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar/recess — approx. 12 minutes]
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to step on your words. Go ahead.
MR. LANK: Sure. They appear to be — they appear to be the same Solo cups — but I couldn't say definitively.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go back to tab 24. And the reason you can't say definitively, Lieutenant, is because there is no label on this bag, is there?
MR. JACKSON: There is no property number on this bag, is there?
MR. JACKSON: There's no evidence tape on this bag, is there?
MR. JACKSON: Well, let's look at the other photographs. Are you — well, before we do that — are you suggesting that all of that material is on the other side of this bag?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's look at the next tab. Looking at it from the top — does it appear anywhere from that vantage point that there's evidence tape that's ever been put on that bag? That it has ever been secured?
MR. JACKSON: Well, one of the ways that you can tell that evidence tape has been put on an item is because when the evidence tape is placed on it, it's completely sealed, and if in fact that seal is ever broken, it's not torn off — it's cut — and there's initials put on. Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever used evidence tape before to seal anything?
MR. JACKSON: How long — I'm sorry, how long were you a detective? When you were a detective?
MR. LANK: I was a detective for 11 months as a sergeant, and then I was a detective for 15 months back in 2012.
MR. JACKSON: And in your experience — and how long have you been a police officer?
MR. JACKSON: So in your 24 years of experience and over a year as a detective — you can't remember if you've ever used evidence sealing tape?
MR. JACKSON: When — if you can recall using it at all — isn't the protocol that when evidence sealing tape is used to seal an item of evidence, when it's removed it's not torn off, it's cut, and then new sealing tape is put over it with an initial and a date? Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know the answer to that?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Next question. Thank you. That's all I have for this.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see counsel at sidebar for just a minute, please.
COURT OFFICER: Please rise for the jury. Court is back in session. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. That's all I have at this time.