Paul Gallagher - Cross (Part 2)

MR. JACKSON: Good morning, Your Honor. Thank you. Mr. Gallagher, good morning.

MR. JACKSON: Thanks for joining us again. I want to ask you a quick question about what we talked about yesterday concerning your search at the scene. If we could go back to that — when you were engaging the leaf blower during the time that you were removing materials in and around the area of the flag pole going out to the — I think you called it the berm. B-E-R-M, the berm. The curb.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. And that led straight to the asphalt of the street.

MR. JACKSON: And you were searching the area where you believed Mr. O'Keefe's body to have been found all the way out toward that curb or berm area.

MR. JACKSON: 50 square feet. Okay. Fair enough. But you did say at some point — I think on direct examination — you said that you exposed the berm just to give you some orientation as to where the curb was, where the street was. And if it was possible, he may have tripped and fallen.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You did not recover or see a hat, a man's hat?

MR. JACKSON: Black in color, baseball-style hat.

MR. JACKSON: You did not see or recover a man's shoe?

MR. JACKSON: And you said you searched the area — in that 50 square foot area — by removing materials, getting down to — moving the snow, getting down to all the way down to the lawn.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You did not see a single piece of bright red plastic tail light material either, did you?

MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, you didn't see 46 pieces of tail light material, either clear or bright red plastic, in any part of the area that you searched.

MR. JACKSON: Speaking of the glass — that's a good segue. You found that piece of broken drinking glass that you brought in and showed the jurors yesterday.

MR. JACKSON: Did you search the house at all to determine whether or not there was any matching glass in the home?

MR. JACKSON: You testified yesterday that you looked around the — when you were in the house. This is the second time you're at the location. So you went back with Sergeant Lank. I want to orient you to that time. That's when you actually entered the home for the first time, of Brian Albert. Is that right?

MR. JACKSON: And you indicated that you did look around the family room, the kitchen, and you didn't see any signs of a struggle or anything like that.

MR. JACKSON: I asked you that exact question about a year ago at another proceeding. Do you recall that colloquy between the two of us?

MR. JACKSON: And at that time, I asked you: did you look around the house for any sign of a struggle or a fight? And your answer was no. Do you remember that?

MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. Let's clear that up right now then. With regard to the time that you were inside the residence, you did not seek to or ask permission to look around any place other than where you happened to be standing, which is right inside that front door, the family room, sort of adjacent to the kitchen area.

MR. JACKSON: You didn't walk into any adjacent rooms?

MR. JACKSON: You didn't search the kitchen area?

MR. JACKSON: You didn't look through the cabinets or anything like that?

MR. JACKSON: You didn't look at the glassware?

MR. JACKSON: You didn't go down to the basement. We talked about that previously.

MR. JACKSON: You didn't go out to the garage?

MR. JACKSON: You look around the garage?

MR. JACKSON: Where you just described standing while Sergeant Lank was engaged with Miss McCabe. You didn't do anything to search the interior of that house for anything?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You also didn't, subsequent to that, seek or receive a search warrant?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You didn't believe that it was necessary — in your mind, it was necessary — to seek a search warrant to search the interior of that house for —

MR. JACKSON: You were aware at the time that you did go into the house that Sergeant Lank had earlier reported at least the possibility that John O'Keefe may have gotten into a fight. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. So that's fair enough. So an altercation — meaning a physical fight. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: So that was a possibility in your mind.

MR. JACKSON: And at that time you had the information that you found — or his body was found — on the lawn of a residence where there was alcohol, drinking, a party of some sort or a gathering of some sort hours earlier. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: At least to your mind.

MR. JACKSON: At that time, and the evidence at that time was simply your communications with some — not all — the occupants of the house, including Jennifer McCabe. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: You didn't separate any of the witnesses — or any of the occupants that you saw inside the house or came across inside the house — for instance by taking them to the station, putting them in separate rooms so that they couldn't coordinate testimony, things of that nature. At that time.

MR. JACKSON: At that time. So, Detective Sergeant Lank was there to —

MR. JACKSON: Okay. But there were others in the house.

MR. JACKSON: I'm just trying to figure out whether or not you took the added step of separating those witnesses, asking those witnesses potentially to join you down at the station, putting them in separate rooms, separating those witnesses. You did not do that.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. At any time, did you?

MR. JACKSON: And before you were removed from the investigation, you just left the house after the conversation that Sergeant Lank had with Jennifer McCabe. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: Is the reason that you didn't seek a search warrant, or separate the witnesses, or ask any of the potential witnesses to join you down at the station — did that have anything to do with your knowledge that the homeowner was a police officer?

MR. JACKSON: My question — it didn't factor into your decision making that Brian Albert was a police officer.

MR. JACKSON: He didn't get any special treatment because of that.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Not by you.

MR. JACKSON: You were aware — and you indicated yesterday — that the reason that Canton PD was removed from the investigation, or at least the interview section of the investigation, was because of a relationship of one of your detectives. You indicated your best detective, Kevin Albert. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: You gave Detective Albert very high praise.

MR. JACKSON: And you were his direct supervisor.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You're aware that Kevin Albert was disciplined by the Canton Police Department for an incident occurring in July 2022. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: Do you stand by your testimony that Kevin Albert is your best detective — or was your best detective?

MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you contacted your deputy chief — Deputy Chief Kelleher — and ultimately secured some Solo cups from Deputy Chief Kelleher across the street. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: You were aware at the time that Deputy Chief Kelleher's house was adorned with a Ring video camera just over the front door, facing out toward the street and facing across the street, which would be facing 34 Fairview. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: My mistake. Arlo camera. A-R-L-O.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's still — although it's a different brand — it's still a home personal surveillance camera. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: But you're aware that those are motion-activated cameras designed for security, to capture images of things that may be going on outside the home.

MR. JACKSON: May I approach, your honor?

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Mr. Gallagher, would you take a look at that photograph that I've just handed you?

MR. JACKSON: Which are marked for ID?

MR. JACKSON: And Mr. Gallagher, if you could read that for me, to save me a trip up to the stand.

MR. JACKSON: Could it be an S?

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Do you recognize what's depicted in that photograph?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Is that a shot of Deputy Chief Kelleher's —

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Does that front porch face 34 Fairview just —

MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, your honor. Sure. Did you see that Arlo camera so situated when you went over there on January 29th, 2022?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. And is that a fair representation of what the camera looked like and its positioning — basically its positioning in January of 2022?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did you seek the footage?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Your honor, with the court's permission — actually, I'd like to mark this as evidence, next in order.

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: May I publish, your honor?

MR. JACKSON: Mr. Gallagher, do you recognize this as being the photograph that you just saw, exhibit 53?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'm going to draw your attention — and by the way, there's one amendment to this photograph. There's a redaction of the address. You see that?

MR. JACKSON: I'd like to draw your attention to that area right there, which I'm highlighting.

MR. JACKSON: What is that?

MR. JACKSON: Can you orient the jurors for us, please, to what we're looking at in this photograph?

MR. JACKSON: And is it the front porch of that residence, directly across the street from 34 Fairview?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Is it across the street from 34?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Is there a view from that front porch? Just generally, as you're standing there — if you were to turn 180° and put your back to the door — is there a view of 34 Fairview as well as 32 Fairview?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. We can take this down. Did you seek to secure any footage from that Arlo camera from Deputy Chief Kelleher?

MR. JACKSON: Did you talk to Deputy Chief Kelleher about that footage?

MR. JACKSON: Did you ask him whether or not he had reviewed the footage for a determination whether or not it caught any of the incident that may have occurred at or around 34 Fairview on January 29th — the early morning hours of January 29th?

MR. JACKSON: How do you know it would not have?

MR. JACKSON: How do you know what that camera captures?

MR. JACKSON: So, you've reviewed the Arlo footage from his iPhone.

MR. JACKSON: So, you've seen screenshots that Deputy Chief Kelleher sent you. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: But you've never looked at the actual application to see what it might encapsulate or what it might capture.

MR. JACKSON: Do you believe that it would have been best practices to go ahead and secure that footage so we don't have to take anybody's word for it? We could actually look at the footage ourselves.

MR. JACKSON: Uh, do you think that would have been best practices to do that — just to have belt and suspenders — so there's no question about whether or not that camera, that's facing — at least it's facing directly across the street — might have captured something of interest on the morning of January 29th, 2022?

MR. JACKSON: So because of your expectation, you didn't seek the footage and you didn't secure the footage?

MR. JACKSON: And you now know that that footage is gone.

MR. JACKSON: So you are familiar enough that you decided that it wasn't important to capture the footage, but you're not familiar enough to know whether or not the footage is actually saved onto the Arlo system.

MR. JACKSON: So, you don't have an Arlo system.

MR. JACKSON: You're not familiar with how Arlo works.

MR. JACKSON: You're not familiar with the total uh array of where the cameras might capture versus what might be captured on your phone app, or that you can say — like, push a button that says "packages" or "people" and it narrows the focus of the camera. You're not aware of that?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. But you would have been aware of that if you had captured the footage and simply said to Deputy Chief Kelleher, "I'd like that ring footage for that 24-hour period." Okay. It's not ring — and I'm sorry — that Arlo footage for a 24-hour period.

MR. JACKSON: Um, well, let me ask you this. Did Deputy Chief Kelleher get any special treatment from you because he's a police officer?

MR. JACKSON: Did Deputy Chief Kelleher get any special treatment from you because he was your boss?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Um, you know Brian Higgins?

MR. JACKSON: How do you know him?

MR. JACKSON: How long have you known him?

MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, did that professional relationship seep into more of a personal relationship as well?

MR. JACKSON: And did he maintain that office all the way through January of 2022?

MR. JACKSON: Uh, and during the course of your interaction with Mr. Higgins, uh, did you become friendly with Mr. Higgins?

MR. JACKSON: Is it safe to say that you socialized at times with —

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Uh, you've shared cocktails with Mr. Higgins? Shared meals with Mr. Higgins?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Um, so it is safe to say that you have both a professional and a personal relationship with Mr. Higgins.

MR. JACKSON: And you consider him a good friend?

MR. JACKSON: You were aware, uh, Mr. Gallagher, that he was at 34 Fairview on January 29th, those early morning hours, during the course of the time when John O'Keefe went to 34 Fairview.

MR. JACKSON: You're aware that Mr. Higgins was at 34 Fairview in the home at the time that John O'Keefe went to 34 Fairview on January 29th, 2022?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Uh, that's what I mean. I know you weren't aware of it at the moment, but you became aware of it later on.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. When did you become aware of it?

MR. JACKSON: It was during the time that you were dispatched over to Brian Albert's house to ultimately either begin the investigation or go into the home with Sergeant Lank and interview the people there. Correct.

MR. JACKSON: Uh, didn't you say in a report to um Lieutenant Tully that when you went over to Brian Albert's house that Brian Higgins was not there?

MR. JACKSON: Right. So, what I'm trying to register is whether or not you knew at the time that you went to Brian Albert's house, at least that second time, that you might or might not have expected to see Brian Higgins there because you knew he was at the home when John O'Keefe —

MR. JACKSON: Sure. When you went back to — in other words, during the time that you were investigating uh and joining Sergeant Lank —

MR. JACKSON: — back over at Brian Albert's house. You knew that Brian Higgins had been somehow in that home the night before.

MR. JACKSON: When do you think you learned that?

MR. JACKSON: Would that have been days or weeks later?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Within 24 hours of your involvement.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to. Thank you. I apologize. My bad. Bad questioning on my part. So, within 24 hours of your involvement, which would have been your involvement was uh the early morning hours of January 29th. That's

MR. JACKSON: Correct. Within 24 hours of that, you knew Brian Higgins was somehow tangentially involved or collaterally involved as a potential witness if nothing else.

MR. JACKSON: Right. And you said, "Well, I'm not sure he was a witness to anything." The one way to figure out whether or not someone is a witness to anything is to actually formally interview them. Correct.

MR. JACKSON: Which you did not do.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. So,

MR. JACKSON: You were removed and then it was within a few hours of that that you realized that Brian Higgins was somehow involved.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You're aware that Mr. Higgins not only had an office at Canton PD, he also had a key card for Canton PD.

MR. JACKSON: Explain for the jurors what a key card or an access card at Canton PD means. What is that? What is a key card for Canton PD?

MR. JACKSON: You had, for instance, being a top-level Canton Lieutenant, you had a key card that was probably the functional equivalent of a master key card. You could get in pretty much any place you wanted.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Where could you go?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Uh, you're aware that Brian Higgins had a key card?

MR. JACKSON: And that access card gave him access to pretty much — with the exception of the armory, possibly the evidence room. Uh, and what was the other location?

MR. JACKSON: You're aware that Brian Higgins's key card gave him access basically to the entirety of the Canton Police Department.

MR. JACKSON: I want to focus your attention on the sallyport, if I could. You can enter the Sallyport, which is a fancy name for a garage.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You can enter that from the outside, meaning out in the elements. You come from a parking lot adjacent to or that services the Sallyport. You can enter from there.

MR. JACKSON: There's one pedestrian door uh on the main entrance side. Uh, and it's — for location purposes — it's right beside the garage door that's marked number four. And the garage door is one of those big roll-up, industrial-style roll-up doors that comes up and down.

MR. JACKSON: And then you can also enter the Sallyport from inside Canton PD.

MR. JACKSON: And Brian Higgins's key card gave him access to both of those locations — the pedestrian portal going into the Sallyport from outside, as well as the pedestrian portal from inside Canton PD.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Speaking of the Sallyport, you were, if not the person, one of the people who let Massachusetts State Police into the Sallyport on February 1st, 2022 to process the black SUV.

MR. JACKSON: The Lexus.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. That SUV had actually arrived on January 29th, 2022 — three days earlier. Is that right?

MR. JACKSON: So it was in the Sallyport from January 29th all the way to February 1st — at least to your knowledge — for three full days in the Sallyport. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. From the time it arrived at Canton PD until it was processed out and moved out of the Sallyport, how many people would have had physical access to that SUV?

MR. JACKSON: Maybe even some civilians?

MR. JACKSON: Civilians?

MR. JACKSON: But do you have non-sworn civilians that work there?

MR. JACKSON: So, at least the entire sworn police department.

MR. JACKSON: The uniformed police.

MR. JACKSON: As well as Brian Higgins.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Oh, by the way, can I go back to something? When you were at 34 Fairview, when you walked in with Sergeant Lank, you walked in through the side door or the main door?

MR. JACKSON: Correct. I believe it's a family room. Yeah. Walked into the kitchen?

MR. JACKSON: Did you see a dog?

MR. JACKSON: Speaking of the Sallyport, I want to move back to the Sallyport. I apologize about bouncing around a little bit.

MR. JACKSON: Moving back to the Sallyport, you indicated that basically all the uniformed officers — every single uniformed officer at Canton PD — would have had access to that Sallyport, as well as Brian Higgins. They also would have had access to everything inside the Sallyport, whatever was left there.

MR. JACKSON: SUV and other stuff, for lack of a better technical phrase.

MR. JACKSON: Did you photograph, or did you cause to be photographed, the SUV when it arrived on January 29th in your Sallyport?

MR. JACKSON: So I thought you said you were recused only from doing interviews.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you could have taken photographs of the vehicle had you wanted to, or caused someone to do that had you wanted?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. As the lieutenant in charge at the scene, was it important to you to know that a seminal piece of evidence had been moved into the custody and control of Canton PD?

MR. JACKSON: On your property, in your Sallyport, with access through your key cards.

MR. JACKSON: I see. To your knowledge — let me just ask it this way. To your knowledge, did anybody seek to photograph the vehicle when it arrived at Canton PD on January 29th, 2022?

MR. JACKSON: Have you ever seen a photograph of that vehicle that was taken by someone in law enforcement on January 29th? I'm going to give you three days: January 29th, January 30th, or February 1st.

MR. JACKSON: The photos were taken. You have not seen a photograph that was taken on January 29th, however, have you?

MR. JACKSON: You've never seen a photo. And I'm going to go through this a little bit more, but you've never seen a photograph that was taken on January 30th, have you?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You were at the time the head of detectives, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You were not. You had already moved from that spot. In January of 2022 — I may be wrong — I thought as the lieutenant you were also the head of detectives.

MR. JACKSON: At some point, had you been in charge of detectives?

MR. JACKSON: June of 2022. Approximately six months later. Understood. You had been a detective previously, however.

MR. JACKSON: Okay, sir. As a detective, do you believe that it would have been important to photograph — had you had your officers to do it — it would have been important to photograph that vehicle when it came in, so that it could be memorialized and documented, the exact condition that that vehicle came in on January 29th, 2022?

MR. JACKSON: Even something as uninvasive as taking photographs.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You would agree, as a former detective and former head of detectives, that there are protocols for securing evidence — evidence of all types. Correct.

MR. JACKSON: Those protocols dictate that not only is evidence properly secured — once it's seized, it needs to be properly secured and it needs to be separated from other evidence to avoid something known as cross-contamination. Correct.

MR. JACKSON: And you would agree with me that that is paramount in evidence handling in any investigation. Correct.

MR. JACKSON: And that's because once evidence is cross-contaminated, its integrity basically collapses. Right.

MR. JACKSON: It's especially true of biological material. Is that right?

MR. JACKSON: Because biological material — like a shovel — the biological material on the shovel becomes hyper sensitive. It's hyper important. It can be cross-contaminated with other items.

MR. JACKSON: And it can tell an incorrect story. Correct.

MR. JACKSON: It could tell — if there's cross-contamination — it could tell a false story.

MR. JACKSON: And DNA — obviously we're talking about biological material. The most sensitive of all the biological material is DNA evidence, right?

MR. JACKSON: So it might take some effort to move saliva from one item to another, but it takes almost no effort to move DNA from one item to another, and to detect it. You understand what I'm saying? The sensitivity of the detection.

MR. JACKSON: You understand that I could touch this podium and you might not get my fingerprint off it.

MR. JACKSON: What do you think about getting my DNA off that podium that I just touched?

MR. JACKSON: Yeah. That's what I mean by sensitivity. You would agree that DNA is hyper sensitive.

MR. JACKSON: I'd like you to take a look at a series of photographs if we could. There are four photographs — [unintelligible] — I'd like you to look at briefly and familiarize yourself with, if you can. Do you recognize what's depicted in those photographs?

MR. JACKSON: How do you recognize what's depicted in each one of those? There are four of them in front of you. Just generally, how do you recognize what's depicted in those photographs?

MR. JACKSON: Are those taken inside the Sallyport, to your knowledge?

MR. JACKSON: Some of those photographs include the SUV — one SUV picture. Yes. And some of those photographs include the blood evidence that you've earlier described: the Solo cups, the Stop & Shop bag.

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, with the court's permission, I'd like to have these marked as next in order.

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. I'd like to publish, Your Honor. I'd like to start with what's been marked as 54. It shows a license plate. Do you recognize what's depicted in this photograph?

MR. JACKSON: And do you know when this photograph was taken?

MR. JACKSON: Do you believe it was taken between January 29th and February 1st?

MR. JACKSON: But you don't know when it was taken?

MR. JACKSON: I just want to draw your attention very briefly, just to orient us to this area on the bottom right-hand corner. Do you see what looks like a white rag on the ground?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. If we could look at the next photograph, which is 55. Looks like a paper bag. Do you recognize what's depicted in this photograph?

MR. JACKSON: What is that?

MR. JACKSON: Do you see the rag in that photograph as well?

MR. JACKSON: Yes. For all I care, the white thing. That's fine. All right. And do you see that that's next to a tire, just at the top of the picture, just for orientation purposes?

MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. And that of course is the tire of the SUV.

MR. JACKSON: So that would be the right rear of the SUV just a few inches from this bag.

MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. If we could take a look at the next photograph. This is Exhibit 56. For the record. What's depicted inside the bag?

MR. JACKSON: And you still see the rag in the photograph?

MR. JACKSON: So, the SUV would be right here, correct? At the top of the left.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. And it's not just nearby. It's the right rear of the SUV that's nearby.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. And one final photograph. This is Exhibit 57. For the record, what is inside that? What's depicted inside that bag?

MR. JACKSON: And these are the only — We can have the lights, please. And so if you take that down. These are the only photographs that we have or that you've ever seen of those red solo cups, that Stop and Shop bag, and the biological material in those red solo cups.

MR. JACKSON: And those photographs that you see are within 2 and 1/2 feet from the right rear of that SUV.

MR. JACKSON: And the right rear of that SUV houses the tail light material.

MR. JACKSON: The cups were not sealed.

MR. JACKSON: The cups were not sealed. The bag was not sealed, was it?

MR. JACKSON: Yesterday you brought a box in. You remember that?

MR. JACKSON: That box had tape on it.

MR. JACKSON: What color was the tape?

MR. JACKSON: Why is the tape red?

MR. JACKSON: Normally, in your experience, red evidence tape is used to formally seal evidence bags or evidence containers.

MR. JACKSON: That's because it highlights to the eye a visual cue — hey, that's important. It's been sealed. It's got bright red tape on it.

MR. JACKSON: Often times that tape has additional information on it as well.

MR. JACKSON: It could have initials on it of who put the tape on.

MR. JACKSON: Right. In other words, it might say evidence.

MR. JACKSON: And it may have a place for initials to be.

MR. JACKSON: And one of the reasons that you initial it is because if someone takes a razor blade and cuts through, or a knife and cuts through that tape, those initials are cut through. It has to be retaped and re-initialed.

MR. JACKSON: That is a basic protocol for chain of custody, is it not?

MR. JACKSON: And that's to maintain the care, custody, and control and the integrity over the items and the items inside the evidence container, whatever they may be.

MR. JACKSON: Whether they are biological material, physical items of evidence, a document, whatever.

MR. JACKSON: We've agreed already that the blood was stored in non-sterile solo cups.

MR. JACKSON: We've agreed that those cups were not sealed. The cups themselves were not sealed. There was no cap. There was no plastic, plasticine, saran wrap, nothing put over the cups.

MR. JACKSON: So, they were open.

MR. JACKSON: They were not in an evidence bag. They were in a grocery bag.

MR. JACKSON: Yesterday on direct examination — it may have been on cross-examination, Mr. Gallagher. I don't remember. You said, "I have no idea where Sergeant Lank got that grocery

MR. JACKSON: Could it come out of the back of his car seat?

MR. JACKSON: No idea what had been in that bag previous to those cups with blood being in the bag.

MR. JACKSON: And obviously that bag, it goes without saying, is not a forensically sterile item either.

MR. JACKSON: And not only the cups were not sealed, the bag that the cups were in was not sealed. They were only closed.

MR. JACKSON: You will agree that having unsealed and unsecured biological material, specifically blood material, situated right next to the right rear quarter panel of that SUV, would not be within normal protocols for securing evidence.

MR. JACKSON: You don't know. You have no personal knowledge of where that bag had been or where the cups had been previous to that photograph being taken.

MR. JACKSON: You will agree that having unsealed and unsecured blood right next to the right rear of the SUV is a recipe for cross-contamination, wouldn't you?

MR. JACKSON: Well, generally speaking, there were other people there that weren't the trained criminalists, right? There was a photographer who took the pictures who's not a trained criminalist.

MR. JACKSON: That's not my question. My question is there was unsealed blood in an unsealed bag for how much time? You don't know — sitting right there by the right rear of that SUV.

MR. JACKSON: How do you know?

MR. JACKSON: And before you grabbed that bag, you don't know where that bag had been for 3 days — 3 days before.

MR. JACKSON: You actually never saw it in the temporary evidence room in the refrigerator until February 1st, did you?

MR. JACKSON: So, you don't know where that bag had been. You don't know who had handled those cups before you pulled them out of that temporary evidence locker.

MR. JACKSON: Do you remember us talking about this about a year ago?

MR. JACKSON: And I asked you, would you agree that having unsealed and unsecured blood next to the right rear portion of the SUV is a recipe for cross-contamination? I asked you that question.

MR. JACKSON: And you said if I can speak to this incident alone — and I asked a yes or no question.

MR. JACKSON: Do you remember that?

MR. JACKSON: And you said, "Well, it's not a yes or no, but for your purposes, I would say yes."

MR. JACKSON: So, it is at least in your mind a recipe for potential cross-contamination.

MR. JACKSON: Hypothetically — my question, hypothetically, anything is possible.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. That's all I have.