Day 17 - May 16, 2025

Andre Porto, a forensic scientist II in the DNA unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, was qualified through testimony about his education (UMass Amherst, Boston University School of Medicine), training, proficiency testing, and lab accreditation. He explained the four-step DNA analysis process (extraction, quantitation, amplification, detection) and contamination prevention protocols. Porto then presented his findings on numerous evidence items: a swab from the passenger-side tail light of vehicle 3GC684 produced a three-contributor DNA profile at least 510 nonillion times more likely if it originated from O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals, supporting an inclusion; a broken drinking glass exterior from 34 Fairview Road (530 nonillion); five stains on the upper right leg of O'Keefe's jeans, including stain A at 5,770 nonillion; stains on O'Keefe's gray long sleeve shirt and orange t-shirt (up to 490 octillion as single-source profiles); and right and left fingernail clippings (490 octillion each, single source). A hair root from the vehicle's exterior passenger-side rear handle yielded no detectable human DNA; the hair shaft was sent to Bode Technology for mitochondrial testing. Four items were not suitable for comparison due to complexity or low DNA quantity. Porto could not determine when the DNA profile from the passenger-side tail light was deposited.

Defense attorney Yannetti cross-examines DNA analyst Porto about additional DNA contributors on multiple evidence items and whether Porto was asked to compare certain profiles to specific individuals.

On redirect, ADA Adam Lally addressed the cross-examination's emphasis on multiple DNA contributors by having Porto testify that, depending on the circumstances, multiple contributors on clothing can happen and are not a complete anomaly. Lally then walked Porto back through the key DNA findings: the passenger-side tail light swab (510 nonillion times more likely to include O'Keefe's DNA), the 13 stains on O'Keefe's orange t-shirt and gray long sleeve shirt (all single-source, 490 octillion), and the fingernail clippings from both hands (also single-source, included O'Keefe). The redirect was cut short by a sustained objection before Lally could finish his final question.

ADA Lally walks Ashley Vallier through the cross-item phase of her physical-match analysis. She describes a mechanical fit between item 7-6 piece B and item 7-11 piece D, and testifies that listed pieces from items 7-5, 7-8, 7-10, 7-11, 7-12, 7-13, 7-15, and 7-16 fit mechanically with item 3-1, the passenger-side tail light housing. Later, when discussing the pictured reconstruction, Vallier says items 7-8 and 7-14 did not fit the other pieces. Photographs of a reconstructed assembly are admitted as exhibits 182-A and C. Vallier also describes debris labeled as coming from John O'Keefe's clothing, including a piece of apparent clear plastic measuring approximately 1/8 inch by 1/16th inch, and says she did no further examination herself; Christina Hanley might have examined some of the material further.

David Yannetti cross-examined Ashley Vallier about item 3-1 and pre-lab evidence handling. Vallier said the reconstruction contained an empty spot and that she had not been provided pieces that filled it. She answered no when asked whether she had been told about pieces or a collision at One Meadows Street; those questions did not establish an alternate debris source. Vallier said she received debris labeled as coming from clothing rather than the clothing itself. After reviewing an evidence submission form, she testified that Michael Proctor submitted the submission-7 items and that the clothing reached the lab on March 14, 2022, about six weeks after the January 29 incident. She described the lab's chain as beginning at intake and said she could not vouch for how the clothing or tail-light pieces were handled beforehand. Objections to questions about why Proctor waited and whether he had access to tail-light pieces were sustained or stricken.

In this brief 11-utterance redirect, ADA Lally addresses two points raised during Yannetti's cross-examination. He has Vallier confirm that the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory has a separate evidence unit she has no involvement with, establishing that her chain-of-custody responsibility extends only from when she retrieves an item for analysis to when she returns it. Lally then asks whether ten submission-number-seven items were mechanical fits to item 3-1, the tail light housing from the defendant's vehicle. Vallier says she would have to count and answers that the items beginning with seven discussed on direct were mechanical fits to each other and the housing, adding that she means the pieces previously stated. Judge Cannone then dismisses the jury for the day with standard cautions.