Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveAshley Vallier - Direct (Part 2)/Cross/Redirect
235 linesCOURT OFFICER: Go to the session. Please be seated.
COURT CLERK: Got to go. Thanks, Chrissy.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, Miss Vallier, I'm going to ask you that you speak right into your microphone when you answer, if you could, please.
MS. VALLIER: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Lally, go right ahead.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Now, Miss Vallier, we talked about sort of the physical match or mechanical fit analysis that you did with regard to each of the items individually. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain for the jury the process that you undertook in your physical match analysis between different item numbers?
MS. VALLIER: So between different items, amongst the questioned ones, I only compared the pieces that were large enough to have a label on them. Some pieces were quite small. I utilized several benches and divided them up into sections for each item, and individually pulled out all of those pieces. And then I had another bench where I did the actual comparison. I started with all the pieces of the same color and looked to see if any of those had potential edges that could match.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to items 7-15 and 7-16, did you do a physical match analysis between those two separate items?
MS. VALLIER: May I look at my notes?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
MS. VALLIER: Okay. Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what if any conclusions did you come to in relation to your physical match analysis between item 7-15 and item 7-16?
MS. VALLIER: Two pieces from item 7-15, F and H, fit mechanically with two pieces from item 7-16, F and G.
MR. LALLY: And what if any conclusion were you able to draw with reference to the physical match between pieces from item 7-15 and pieces from item 7-16?
MS. VALLIER: Those four pieces were at one time together as part of a larger unit.
MR. LALLY: Now, Miss Vallier, what physical match analysis did you do with reference to items 7-6 and 7-11?
MS. VALLIER: So one piece from item 7-6, piece B, fit mechanically with one piece from item 7-11, piece D. So those two pieces were at one time together as a larger unit.
MR. LALLY: And, Miss Vallier, with reference to items 7-8, 7-9, and 7-16 — what if any conclusions were you able to draw from any physical match analysis you did between pieces from those three items?
MS. VALLIER: So two pieces from item 7-8, pieces C and D, one piece from item 7-9, piece A, and one piece from 7-16, piece E, were found to have a mechanical fit. So those pieces were at one time together as a larger unit.
MR. LALLY: Lastly, for this section, at some point did you do a physical match analysis for the glass pieces in items 7-12 and 7-14?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what conclusions were you able to draw from your physical match analysis between 7-12 and 7-14?
MS. VALLIER: There was no physical match between the glass pieces from 7-12 and the glass piece from item 7-14.
MR. LALLY: Now, Miss Vallier, are you aware that there was an additional analysis that was done with respect to glass pieces and other glass pieces that you didn't examine in your analysis at your lab?
MS. VALLIER: I know that there was other trace work done. I'm not sure exactly what the work was.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And do you know who performed that additional trace work?
MS. VALLIER: Christina Hanley.
MR. LALLY: And who is she to you, as far as in reference to your work at the lab?
MS. VALLIER: She's my supervisor.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to each of these items individually, they came as labeled in individual bags, as we demonstrated on the screen. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And with respect to those bags, did you note any particular date associated on the front of those bags?
MS. VALLIER: That's documented in my photos.
MR. LALLY: And all I'm asking here is that with respect to each of those bags of items — whether they be 3-1, 7-5, or 7-6, or 7-8 — many of those bags had different dates on them. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And when you received those items in that bag, you essentially removed the items from those individual bags, placed them on the table, and examined them. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that examination
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to any of those items, there were some items — pieces within the same bag that had the same date on that bag — that did not fit together mechanically. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: However, there were items from one bag collected on one date that did fit mechanically with items from another bag collected on another date. Is that correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention to item 3-1. Again, for the jury, what is the physical description associated with item 3-1?
MS. VALLIER: Item — passenger side tail light — Massachusetts 3GC684.
MR. LALLY: Now, did you perform a physical match analysis with pieces from item 3-1, 7-5, 7-6, 7-8, 7-10, 7-11, 7-12, 7-13, 7-14, 7-15, and 7-16?
MS. VALLIER: I compared them. Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what if any conclusions did you come to from your analysis — your physical match analysis — between item 3-1 and all of the items beginning with the number seven?
MS. VALLIER: There was a physical match with — do you want me to list — if you could please?
MR. LALLY: Okay.
MS. VALLIER: So two pieces from item 7-5, four pieces from item 7-8, one piece from item 7-10, four pieces from item 7-11, two pieces from item 7-12, two pieces from item 7-13, four pieces from item 7-15, and four pieces from item 7-16 were found to fit mechanically with item 3-1.
MR. LALLY: And what if any conclusions were you then able to draw from your physical match analysis between item 3-1 and each of those respective items beginning with the number seven?
MS. VALLIER: Those pieces were once together as part of a larger unit.
MR. LALLY: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Malier, I'm showing you three additional photographs. Do you recognize what's depicted in those?
MS. VALLIER: I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those as?
MS. VALLIER: This is a comparison between item 3-1 and those pieces from all of the other pieces.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, I seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibit A and C. Is there any objection to that?
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: 182-A and C.
MR. LALLY: And may I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 2096. Miss Gilman, yes. If you could zoom in just a little bit more on the item itself. Malier, what are we looking at in this photograph?
MS. VALLIER: So those pieces that I labeled from item 7 — all of those — they all fit together mechanically into this piece.
MR. LALLY: And as far as earlier you were testifying about the label maker and the various pieces that you would label throughout the process of your physical match analysis — do you see these in this photograph as well?
MS. VALLIER: I do.
MR. LALLY: And where are they located with reference to the reconstructed piece above?
MS. VALLIER: They're those little white rectangles on the piece.
MR. LALLY: And so what's depicted here is the mechanical fit between items 7-5, 7-6, 7-8, 7-10, 7-11, 7-12, 7-13, 7-14, 7-15, and 7-16. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Not items 7-8 and 7-14, but the other ones. Yes.
MR. LALLY: And why not those two?
MS. VALLIER: They didn't fit mechanically with the other pieces.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 2150, and again if you could just zoom in a little. And Malier, what are we looking at in this photograph?
MS. VALLIER: So on the right side was that piece that was just shown, and on the left side is item 3-1.
MR. LALLY: And lastly, Miss Gilman, if we could have 2151. Again, if you could zoom in on that item just a little. And Malier, what are we looking at in this photograph?
MS. VALLIER: That's that right piece on top of the tail light from the previous photo.
MR. LALLY: And is this the mechanical fit that you were testifying about earlier with reference to item 3-1, the tail light housing, and all of the various pieces that were found at 34 Fairview, starting with the number seven?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Miss Gilman. You can take that down. Malier, lastly, in reference — did you also receive some debris from John O'Keefe's clothing?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Mr. Officer, we can have the lights back on. Thank you very much. And what did you find contained within that debris from John O'Keefe's clothing?
MS. VALLIER: So there are five different items. It was debris collected from — labeled as coming from the clothing. There was mostly debris, some apparent fibers.
MR. LALLY: Were there any pieces of apparent plastic contained within the debris?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Was there dirt contained within the debris?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that debris was labeled as item 17-18. Is that correct?
MS. VALLIER: I believe so.
MR. LALLY: And what is it that you did with the debris from the gray long sleeve shirt and the orange t-shirt?
MS. VALLIER: So those are all packaged in glassine folds. I looked through it and documented it.
MR. LALLY: When you say you documented it, did you look at it under a microscope?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So you did an examination under a microscope. Is that correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And did you measure some of those items contained within the debris?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Specifically, did you measure items of apparent clear plastic contained within the debris?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what did you measure those items to be?
MS. VALLIER: The piece of apparent clear plastic was approximately 1/8 inch by 1/16th inch.
MR. LALLY: And once you had conducted your preliminary analysis of those items, where did those items go?
MS. VALLIER: I did no further examination on this myself. Christina Hanley might have examined some of these further.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. I have nothing further.
MR. YANNETTI: Good afternoon.
MS. VALLIER: Good afternoon.
MR. YANNETTI: I'd like to first talk fairly briefly about your reconstruction of the tail light to which you've testified at the outset. By the way, that was item 7-3.1. Am I correct?
MS. VALLIER: Sorry. For which one?
MR. YANNETTI: That's the tail light. This 7-3.1. Am I correct?
MS. VALLIER: Three-1, I believe.
MR. YANNETTI: 7-3-1?
MS. VALLIER: The tail light is item 3-1.
MR. YANNETTI: Oh, 3-1. I'm so sorry. Okay. With regard to that particular item, your lab has different departments, correct? Criminalists who do different things. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: You are aware that there are scientists within your lab who do DNA analysis, for instance, correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And with regard to the order of processing items, is the DNA analysis done before or after you get the item?
MS. VALLIER: It's usually before.
MR. YANNETTI: Okay. In this case, it was before. Am I correct?
MS. VALLIER: I believe so.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you made aware that there were three contributors of DNA to that tail light 3-1?
MS. VALLIER: Made aware — no.
MR. YANNETTI: Once you reconstructed the tail light, you'll agree with me that it was missing a piece, correct? Or pieces?
MS. VALLIER: There was an empty spot on the overall reconstruction. Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you ever provided with any pieces of tail light that would have filled in that missing spot?
MS. VALLIER: No.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you ever provided or told about any pieces recovered from One Meadows Street in Canton?
MS. VALLIER: No.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you ever told about a collision at One Meadows Street in Canton?
MS. VALLIER: No.
MR. YANNETTI: In any case, you'll agree with me that there was no glass in that tail light at all. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Within the tail light, I classified them as apparent plastic pieces. There's no glass as part of the tail light. Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: Hmm.
MS. VALLIER: I mean, it depends on what you call — like the bulbs usually have glass as far as I'm aware.
MR. YANNETTI: Those are very, very thin glass though. Correct? Those bulbs.
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: All right. Now, your lab received clothing in connection with this case. You've testified to that, correct?
MS. VALLIER: I received the debris labeled as coming from the clothing. I never saw the clothing at all.
MR. YANNETTI: Right. But you're aware that your lab received clothing before the debris got to you. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And your understanding was that that was John O'Keefe's clothing in which he was found on January 29th of 2022. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: It's labeled as coming from him. I'm not sure of the date that it was found.
MR. YANNETTI: Okay. You understand the procedure that goes on at your lab when it receives evidence?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And you know that once clothing is brought to your lab, it's given evidence numbers. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And then one of your colleagues at the lab handled the clothing and/or examined it, correct? Before it came to you.
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And your understanding is that one of your colleagues retrieved debris from those items of clothing and then packaged it in a fold before it got to you. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: You then open up the fold and you look at the debris. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: You never saw that debris inside the clothing. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: And the pieces of clothing that come in are given evidence numbers when your lab receives them. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: For instance, the orange t-shirt was given — or was named — item number 7-17?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And the gray long sleeve shirt was item 7-18. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And your lab is accredited, correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: There is a complete chain of custody from the moment the clothing was brought to the lab, to when the debris was removed from the clothing, ultimately to when you're in court today handling the items. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes. Our in-lab chain of custody extends from when we receive it to when it is returned to the submitting agency.
MR. YANNETTI: Okay. And you have complete confidence that the chain of custody at your lab is effective at making sure that the evidence does not get lost or mixed up or contaminated, right?
MS. VALLIER: The chain of custody is meant to track where a piece of evidence is. The evidence unit also does inventories and audits to make sure that things are where they're supposed to be.
MR. YANNETTI: And you have confidence in your lab's chain of custody policies and procedures. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: But you'll agree that your lab cannot control who handled the clothing before it arrived at your lab. Correct?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: There are times in which crime scene technicians from — or criminalists from your lab actually participate in the search for evidence at a crime scene, do they not?
MS. VALLIER: Um, some of the people at the lab are crime scene responders. Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Uh, there are times when they actually take custody of evidence. Again, I'm talking about people from your lab, professionals. They take custody right from the crime scene and transport that evidence to your lab. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Uh, in those circumstances, your lab would have a complete chain of custody from discovery to seizure to testing — or whatever comparison you're doing — until you release the items. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Um, yes, but the electronic chain of custody doesn't start until that item is entered into our LIMS system at the lab.
MR. YANNETTI: Right. But when it's entered in, it would be entered in as having been seized by somebody from your lab. Correct. In the hypothetical that I'm giving you.
MS. VALLIER: Um, yeah, there's an evidence submission form that says that this crime scene responder submitted it to the laboratory.
MR. YANNETTI: There are other cases, however, when the evidence is brought to your lab by the police. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Local departments have access to your lab, um, for evidence drop off?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: The state police have access to your lab for evidence drop off?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And in this case, it was not a criminalist or other professional from your lab who seized the clothing and brought it to your lab. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Um, I'm not sure.
MR. YANNETTI: Do you have a record of that in your report in terms of who it was that brought the material to your lab?
MS. VALLIER: Um, I could look at the evidence submission form to see who — with the court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Okay. Do you have that with you now?
MS. VALLIER: Uh, I do.
MR. YANNETTI: All right. Go ahead. Having reviewed your reports, uh, can you testify to the jury about who it was that brought this evidence into the lab? So you can tell us.
MS. VALLIER: Okay. Um, so submission seven — all the items that are seven dash, um — was submitted by Trooper Michael Proctor.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you aware of the date of the incident that gave rise to this case?
MS. VALLIER: Um, yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And what was that date?
MS. VALLIER: Uh, January 29th, 2022.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you aware that the clothing that you received was seized from the Good Samaritan Hospital that very day?
MS. VALLIER: No.
MR. YANNETTI: What date was the clothing brought to your lab?
MS. VALLIER: Uh, March 14th, 2022.
MR. YANNETTI: So that means that your chain of custody at the lab began on March 14th of 2022. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And would you agree with me that was about six weeks after the date of the incident, January 29th of 2022?
MS. VALLIER: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And of course, you can't speak to the chain of custody from January 29th to March 14th of 2022. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: And you have no information and do not know why Michael Proctor waited six weeks to bring this clothing to your lab. Do you?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. YANNETTI: Do you know where Michael Proctor stored this clothing during that six-week period?
MS. VALLIER: No.
MR. YANNETTI: Do you know how often he was alone with access to the clothing during that six-week period? Do you know if he had access to pieces of red or clear tail light during that six-week period?
JUDGE CANNONE: Strike. Move on, Mr. Jackson.
MR. YANNETTI: You were not present when the clothing was seized. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: You did not have custody of this clothing from January 29th of 2022 to March 14th of 2022. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: You do not know what was done with the clothing before it arrived at your lab. Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: You've covered this, Mr. Jackson. Please.
MR. YANNETTI: One last question. You cannot vouch for how the clothing or tail light pieces were handled before they got to your lab. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: I cannot. [garbled — see flag]
MR. LALLY: There is a separate evidence unit contained within the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And fair to say you have absolutely nothing to do with that. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: I'm not a part of that unit.
MR. LALLY: And so your responsibility, as far as chain of custody is concerned, is from when you retrieve the item during your analysis and then when you return the item to the evidence unit. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And from that analysis that you performed, uh, you found that there were 10 different items starting with the number seven that were a mechanical fit to 3-1, the tail light housing from the defendant's vehicle. Correct.
MS. VALLIER: Um, if it's 10 items — I don't have — I can count them. As far as all those items beginning with seven that you went through or elucidated on in your direct examination, each of those were a mechanical fit to each other and then to the tail light housing in 3-1. Um, the pieces that were previously stated, yes.
MR. LALLY: Nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. All right. So, jurors, that is it for today. I am told when I spoke with counsel earlier that we are still on track. Um, I have to tell you those same cautions. Please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don't do any independent research or investigation into this case. If you happen to see, hear, or read about this case, please disregard it and let us know. Be extra careful with your social media use. And also, I just want to remind you — next week, Thursday is a half day and Friday is a day off. All right. So, we'll see you on Monday.
COURT OFFICER: Rise for the jury.