Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveChristina Hanley - Direct (Part 2)
282 linesJUDGE CANNONE: All right. May we have Miss Hanley, please? And I'll remind you you're still on your oath and keep your voice up. All right, Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. And ma'am, if you could, please introduce yourself for the jury again, spelling your last name for the record.
MS. HANLEY: Sure. I'm Christina Hanley. Hanley is spelled H-A-N-L-E-Y.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Hanley, given the — if I could just ask you a few questions to reorient as far as the items that we were speaking about yesterday in your testimony. First, starting with the items of glass that you analyzed in this case. The first of those items was an item 3-2. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And if you could, please provide the jury with the description for that item that you received.
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So item 3-2 was a clear glass cup with broken irregular edges. And there was some dirt debris material that was noted on the exterior and interior surfaces.
MR. LALLY: Your honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Hanley, do you recognize that?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize that as?
MS. HANLEY: Uh, so this is a photograph that I took. Um, it's item 3-2. Um, but it's also — um, I would have to double-check my notes — um, but I believe it has item 7-12. Um, one of the pieces that I'm holding, um, that's showing a physical match between those two items.
MR. LALLY: You want to call the clerk to introduce the next exhibit?
JUDGE CANNONE: No. Okay. 195.
MR. LALLY: And your honor, may I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have photograph 9490. Miss Hanley, what's up on the screen? Is that the photograph that I just presented to you?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could please describe for the jury what we're looking at here.
MS. HANLEY: Uh, so that is a photograph that I took upon examination. Um, it is the clear glass cup, item 3-2. Um, and I'm holding another piece, which again I believe it's one of the pieces from item 7-12. Um, I would need to confirm in my file. Um, but I'm — I'm showing that one of the pieces physically fits with item 3-2.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, ma'am. Miss Gilman, you can take that down. May I approach again, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: I'm showing you two other photographs. If you can review those, look up when you're finished. And do you recognize those?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those as?
MS. HANLEY: So these are photographs that I took of item 7-12.
MR. LALLY: Your honor, seek to introduce the next exhibit A and B.
JUDGE CANNONE: Any objection?
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
COURT CLERK: Thank you. Exhibits 196A and 196B.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Hanley, if you could just remind the jury as far as the physical description that you received in regard to item 7-12.
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So item 7-12 consisted of some clear plastic pieces as well as nine pieces of glass with broken irregular edges.
MR. LALLY: And may I publish, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Gilman, if I could have first photograph 9476. And if you can enlarge that just a bit, Miss Gilman. And Miss Hanley, what are we looking at in this photograph?
MS. HANLEY: So this is the photo that I took of item 7-12 as I received it. So there are several pieces of clear glass with broken irregular edges.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Gilman, if I could have 9477. And if you can enlarge that just a bit. And again, Miss Hanley, what are we looking at in this photograph?
MS. HANLEY: So those are the same pieces of glass as in the previous photo, just a little bit more up close of the clear glass that was recovered and is item 7-12.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Miss Gilman. You can take that down. Now, Miss Hanley, as far as a comparative analysis between items 3-2, the glass cup, and 7-12 regarding the glass pieces, what if any conclusions did you make in reference to your comparison between those two items?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So upon comparing those items, I did note that six of the nine pieces of clear parent glass had a physical match to item 3-2, the clear glass cup.
MR. LALLY: And if you could just remind the jury as far as a physical match — what does that mean?
MS. HANLEY: So a physical match is basically — if an item breaks and those items have broken irregular edges, if those pieces come back together like a jigsaw fit, then it's a physical match and they were at one time together as one larger unit.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as those — each of those items within 7-12 had a letter associated with them, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And do you recall which of the six were a physical match for item 3-2, the glass?
MS. HANLEY: I would just need to refer to my notes for the exact letters.
MR. LALLY: Sure. You can take your report out.
MS. HANLEY: Okay. The six pieces of glass from item 7-12 that physically fit to item 3-2 were A, B, C, D, F, and K.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Well, let me ask you this first. I'm sorry. So, Miss Hanley, during the course of this physical match analysis that you're conducting, are you memorializing that process with photographs as well?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I am.
MR. LALLY: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: I'm presenting you with four photographs. If you could review those and look up. And do you recognize those, ma'am?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize?
MS. HANLEY: Those are photographs that I took upon my examination of items 7-12 and item 3-2.
MR. LALLY: Introduce.
COURT CLERK: Thank you. Exhibits 197A through B.
MR. LALLY: And may I publish, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 9502, please. And Miss Hanley, what's up on the screen? Can you please describe for the jury what we're looking at in this photograph?
MS. HANLEY: So this is one of the photos that I took of one of the breaks that physically fit together between item 3-2 and item 7-12.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Gilman, if I could have 9514. And again, Miss Hanley, can you please describe for the jury what we're looking at in this photograph?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So this is a photo that I took when I was doing my comparison of item 3-2 and several pieces from item 7-12.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the individual pieces — they had sort of little white stickers or labels affixed to them, is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Is that something that you did, or is that something that when the items were provided to you was already done?
MS. HANLEY: So item 7-12 — I received those pieces with the labels already on them.
MR. LALLY: And again, those items, especially 7-12, had been with Ms. Vallier in your unit prior to coming to your table or your station.
MS. HANLEY: Correct. Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 9518. Again, Miss Hanley, what are we looking at here?
MS. HANLEY: So this is another photograph that I took of the physical match. It's just another view of the items together — of item 3-2 and several pieces from item 7-12.
MR. LALLY: And lastly, Miss Gilman, if I could have 9520. And again, Miss Hanley, what are we looking at here?
MS. HANLEY: So this is another picture that I took of the items, just slightly rotated, of item 3-2 with a physical fit to several pieces from item 7-12.
MR. LALLY: Miss Hanley, is there a laser pointer on the desk in front of you?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: If you could, preferably using this screen just so it's visible for the jury, could you delineate where you see in this photograph item 3-2 and where you see the items associated with item 7-12?
MS. HANLEY: So this right here is item 3-2. And these pieces up here are several pieces from 7-12.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Miss Gilman, you can take that down. Now, the other two items that you analyzed or examined in this part of your physical match analysis were items 3-3 and 7-14. Correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And turning your attention specifically to item 3-3, if you could just remind the jury as far as the physical description of that item that was provided to you.
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So item 3-3 was five pieces of clear glass with broken irregular edges that were recovered from the bumper of the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: May I approach again, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: A single photograph. Do you recognize that?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize?
MS. HANLEY: That is a photo that I took of item 3-3.
MR. LALLY: Introduce.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
COURT CLERK: 198.
MR. LALLY: And may I publish, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 9446, please. And Miss Hanley, in addition to the five pieces of glass associated with item 3-3, what else is depicted in this photograph?
MS. HANLEY: So this is a photo of the five total pieces that are from item 3-3.
MR. LALLY: And in addition to that, is there a ruler depicted in this photograph as well?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, there is.
MR. LALLY: And what is the purpose of that ruler in the photograph?
MS. HANLEY: It's there just as a scale.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Miss Gilman. You can take that one down. And Miss Hanley, the last of those items, 7-14 — if you could just remind the jury as far as what was the physical description that was provided to you in reference to item 7-14.
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So item 7-14 was a clear piece of glass with broken irregular edges that was recovered from the road.
MR. LALLY: May I approach again, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Again, Miss Hanley, just showing you a single photograph. Do you recognize that?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize?
MS. HANLEY: This is a photo that I took of item 7-14.
MR. LALLY: Introduce. [unintelligible]
COURT CLERK: All right. Exhibit 199.
MR. LALLY: May I publish, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 9471, please. Again, the two screens don't match. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Hanley, again, if you could just describe for the jury what is depicted in the photograph up on the screen.
MS. HANLEY: This is the photo that I took of item 7-14.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Miss Gilman. You can take that down. So, Miss Hanley, in addition to the physical match analysis that you did between item 3-2, the cup, and six of the pieces that you found to be a physical match from item 7-12, did you also compare pieces from item 3-2, 7-12, and 7-14?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And what did you conclude in your physical match analysis of those items together?
MS. HANLEY: So upon examining and comparing item 3-2, 7-12, and 7-14, I had concluded that six of the pieces — six of the nine pieces of glass from 7-12 — physically fit with item 3-2, and the remaining three of the nine from 7-12 did not have a physical fit to item 3-2. I also compared item 3-2 and 7-12 to 7-14, but there was no physical match to item 7-14.
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to that, did you also do a physical match analysis between item 3-2, the drinking glass, 7-12, pieces found from the roadway, and certain pieces from 3-3 from the bumper of the vehicle?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And what did you conclude based on that physical match analysis between those items?
MS. HANLEY: So upon examining and comparing those items — there were five total pieces of glass from item 3-3. I used two of those pieces for physical match comparison to the items recovered from the road. Upon my examination, there was no physical match between those two pieces from item 3-3 to any of the pieces recovered from the road. So that included items 3-2, 7-12, and 7-14.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the two pieces that you had selected from item 3-3, do you recall which of those two lettered pieces you chose for your comparative analysis?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And which were they?
MS. HANLEY: They were pieces A and B.
MR. LALLY: And if I could ask — why pieces A and B versus other pieces?
MS. HANLEY: So A and B were used for physical match. The remaining three of the five were not used for physical match comparison due to their size and condition.
MR. LALLY: Now, those same two pieces from item 3-3, pieces A and B — did you then do a physical match analysis between that and 7-14?
MS. HANLEY: I did.
MR. LALLY: And what did you conclude from that analysis?
MS. HANLEY: I concluded that there was no physical match between the two pieces from item 3-3 to item 7-14.
MR. LALLY: Now, did you also do a physical match analysis between piece E from item 3-3 from the bumper?
MS. HANLEY: I did not. No, not a physical match examination.
MR. LALLY: Did you do any comparative analysis between a piece of glass E from 3-3 from the bumper and item 7-14?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And what did you conclude from that analysis?
MS. HANLEY: So I selected piece E — sorry, piece E — for further examination. I did microscopic examination as well as instrumental analysis, and I did the same microscopic and instrumental analysis to 7-14, and I compared the data and I was — I came to the conclusion that the piece that I sampled from item 3-3, piece E, was found to be consistent in physical and instrumental properties to the sample that I took from item 7-14.
MR. LALLY: If you could, Miss Hanley, could you please explain to the jury — when you say instrumental analysis, what is that? What does that consist of?
MS. HANLEY: So the instrumental analysis that I conducted was on the GRIM instrument, which measures the refractive index of the samples. So after I had run my samples for both item 3-3 and 7-14, I compared the data to determine whether they were consistent or not consistent.
MR. LALLY: And so when you say that something is consistent in instrumental properties, what does that mean?
MS. HANLEY: So in this instance they had consistent refractive indices.
MR. LALLY: In addition to that comparative analysis for the glass items, what other additional examinations did you perform in this case?
MS. HANLEY: Sorry. Could you say that again?
MR. LALLY: In addition to items 3-2, 3-3, 7-12, and 7-14, what other items did you look at in this case?
MS. HANLEY: So I also examined item 3-1 and item 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description provided to you in reference to item 3-1?
MS. HANLEY: 3-1 was a tail light. And there were also some other plastic pieces as well.
MR. LALLY: And tail light from the same vehicle as the glass from the bumper.
MS. HANLEY: Correct. Yes.
MR. LALLY: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Another single photograph. Do you recognize that?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize that?
MS. HANLEY: This is the photo that I took of item 3-1.
MR. LALLY: [unintelligible — exhibit admission] Thank you. 200. May I publish, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have photograph 9394. And Miss Hanley, do you recognize what's up on the screen as exhibit 200?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize it to be?
MS. HANLEY: This is the photo that I took of item 3-1.
MR. LALLY: And what's contained in here? Is that a fair and accurate portrayal of what item 3-1, the tail light housing, looked like when you received it?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as — and we'll get to this more a bit in a moment, but as far as any sort of comparative analysis that you did with any other item, what part of this tail light housing were you comparing to that other item?
MS. HANLEY: So there were clear and red plastic portions of the tail light that appeared to be broken. So I sampled portions of the clear plastic as well as the red plastic on the tail light.
MR. LALLY: And just for clarity purposes, if you could with the pointer — as far as which of these pieces up on the screen were you sampling the clear and/or the red plastic from?
MS. HANLEY: So the red plastic that I sampled was from this area. It's a little hard to tell from here. I think I'd have to refer to my photo in my notes, but I think there were a couple of different areas that had clear broken plastic. I think this might have been one of the areas that was broken that I sampled.
MR. LALLY: And just for my purposes, really what I'm asking, Miss Hanley, is the clear plastic that you used from item 3-1 was from the housing unit itself, the large piece. Correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, you can take that down. Now, the other item that you were comparing this to was item 7-18.18. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LALLY: And what was provided to you as the description of that item 7-18.18?
MS. HANLEY: So 7-18.18 was debris that was collected from two pieces of clothing from the victim.
MR. LALLY: And specifically, that would be 7-7, an orange t-shirt. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: I believe that is correct. Yeah.
MR. LALLY: Okay. As well as 7-18, a gray long sleeve shirt. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And when you say that item 7-18.18 contained debris, what did that debris consist of?
MS. HANLEY: So the debris consisted of one clear piece of plastic as well as several pieces of red plastic, among some other trace material.
MR. LALLY: Now, were there measurements taken of those items within the debris, specifically the clear plastic and the red plastic?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what were those measured to be?
MS. HANLEY: I would just need to refer to my report for that.
MR. LALLY: Okay, go ahead.
MS. HANLEY: Thank you. Okay. So the clear piece of plastic in 7-18.18, it measured approximately 1/8 of an inch by 1/16th of an inch. And then I measured the largest and the smallest of the red plastic pieces. And the largest piece of red plastic measured approximately 1/16th of an inch by less than a 16th of an inch. And the smallest piece among those measured approximately less than a 16th of an inch by less than 1/16th of an inch.
MR. LALLY: And so those particular pieces that you measured — about how small are we talking about?
MS. HANLEY: So the largest for the red plastic, the largest piece measured — just for visual purposes — it's roughly like the size of a grain of rice. The rest of the pieces were smaller than that.
MR. LALLY: And who within the lab provided that debris in that tail light housing to your unit, to the trace unit?
MS. HANLEY: So the debris from the clothing was transferred to my unit by Maureen Hartnett, and the tail light was submitted to the lab by Trooper Christopher Moore.
MR. LALLY: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Showing you a series of five photographs. You can review those and look up when you're finished. Generally speaking, Miss Hanley, do you recognize what's depicted in those photographs?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those?
MS. HANLEY: Those are the photographs that I took of 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: [unintelligible — exhibit motion] introduce and admit as the next exhibit, A through E.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: 201. May I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have photograph 9352. And Miss Hanley, what is depicted in this photograph on the screen?
MS. HANLEY: So this is one of the photos that I took of 7-18.18. This is how I received the clear piece of plastic.
MR. LALLY: And is that a tin that it's encased in at the time that you received it?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 9355. And what is this, Miss Hanley?
MS. HANLEY: So this is a photo of the clear piece of plastic that was within that tin.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 9364. And Miss Gilman, if you could enlarge this just a bit. Maybe just a little more, please. Thank you. And Miss Hanley, what are we looking at in this photograph?
MS. HANLEY: This is the photo that I took of the debris that was collected from the clothing items.
MR. LALLY: Miss Gilman, if I could have 9366. And again, Miss Hanley, what are we looking at here?
MS. HANLEY: This is a photo that I took under a microscope of the red plastic pieces that I noted within the debris.
MR. LALLY: And lastly, Miss Gilman, if we could have photograph 9369. And Miss Hanley, what are we looking at here?
MS. HANLEY: This is a picture that I took of the red plastic pieces that I removed from the debris.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Miss Gilman. You can take that down. Now, Miss Hanley, in reference to your comparative analysis from item 3-1, the tail light housing plastic, to the clear and red plastic pieces of debris from item 7-18.18, the clothing of Mr. O'Keefe — what types of instruments did you utilize in this comparative analysis?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So after completing my examination, I utilized a comparison microscope as well as a polarized microscope, a FTIR which is a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer, and I also used a micro spectrophotometer, also known as a microspec.
MR. LALLY: And what is a microspec?
MS. HANLEY: So a microspec is an analytical tool that we can use to examine samples that have color. So it provides information on the sample's dyes and pigments.
MR. LALLY: And how is that utilized in your comparative analysis?
MS. HANLEY: So I ran samples from both items that I was comparing, and I compared the data from those two items as part of my comparative analysis.
MR. LALLY: And when you run that sort of data, can you describe for the jury sort of what that data looks like — what are you physically seeing when you're examining the data from a microspec?
MS. HANLEY: So — what we refer to as a spectrum, or just a graph — and when we do the comparison we can overlay those spectra, or graph, to determine if they are consistent or not consistent.
MR. LALLY: And I know you spoke a little bit about it in your testimony yesterday, but if you could remind the jury — as far as an FTIR, what is that and how is that used in your analysis?
MS. HANLEY: So an FTIR is another analytical tool that we can use. A sample is exposed to infrared light and it reacts in a certain way with that light, and what's produced is a spectrum of peaks and valleys that are representative and unique to your sample. And so that instrument was used to run samples from both items, and then the data was compared from both items.
MR. LALLY: Now, from your comparison — starting with the clear plastic from the debris from Mr. O'Keefe's clothing — from your comparative analysis of that clear plastic to the clear plastic from item 3-1, the tail light, what did you conclude?
MS. HANLEY: So the clear plastic from the debris was found to be consistent in color and instrumental properties to the clear plastic — sorry, clear plastic from the tail light. So accordingly, the clear plastic from the debris could have originated from the clear plastic from the tail light or from another source with the same characteristics.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to the red plastic from item 7-18.18, from Mr. O'Keefe's clothing — in your comparison of that red plastic with the red plastic from the passenger side tail light of the defendant's vehicle, item 3-1, what did you conclude from that analysis?
MS. HANLEY: So the red plastic that I sampled from the debris from the clothing from 7-18.18 was found to be consistent in color, microscopic appearance, and instrumental properties with the portions that I sampled from the red plastic from the tail light. So accordingly, the red plastic from item 7-18.18 could have originated from the red plastic that I sampled from the tail light or from another source with the same characteristics. I'm sorry. I don't know if I could just hold on one minute while the sirens pass.
MR. LALLY: May I approach again, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Actually, is this a good time to take a break, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Entirely up to the court. I probably have another three, four minutes left.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see counsel for two minutes, folks. Like I told you earlier, we're ahead of schedule. So we will take a lunch break and we'll take an hour. So, I know. All right.
COURT OFFICER: To the court, please. Follow me. The court's back in session. Please be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: Whenever you're ready, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, your honor. Now, Miss Hanley, when we left off, you were discussing the comparative analysis you did between item 7-18.18, Mr. O'Keefe's clothing, and item 3-1 — the tail light housing, or the plastic within the tail light housing of the defendant's car.
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Correct. And there were a number of different instruments that you used through the course of your examination and analysis.
MS. HANLEY: Correct. That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And what were those instruments that you used again in that portion of the analysis?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So I used a polarized light microscope, a comparison microscope, an FTIR, and a microspec.
MR. LALLY: You may approach.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Showing you three documents. If you could review those a couple minutes, please. And do you recognize those?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And starting with the first page of that three pages, what do you recognize that?
MS. HANLEY: It is the FTIR comparison data for the clear plastic from item 3-1 and the clear plastic from item 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: And if I could direct your attention to the second page within that — what do you recognize that?
MS. HANLEY: So this is also FTIR comparison data for the red plastic from item 3-1 and item 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: And lastly the third page within that set. What do you recognize that?
MS. HANLEY: So this is the comparison data from the microspec of the red plastic from item 3-1 and the red plastic from 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: To introduce as the next, individually.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. You want some marks individually or are you going to set? Individually, please — 203 and 204. Thank you.
MR. LALLY: And again, Miss Hanley, when it came to your analysis of the clear plastic material from the debris from John O'Keefe's clothing and the clear plastic material from the defendant's tail light, what were your conclusions from that analysis?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. Upon comparison, the clear plastic from item 7-18.18 was found to be consistent in color and instrumental properties with the clear plastic from item 3-1. Accordingly, the clear plastic from 7-18.18 could have originated from the clear plastic from item 3-1 or from another source with the same characteristics.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. May I publish — and I'm sorry, I forgot already the exhibit numbers, but Miss Gilman, if I could have the clear plastic — And Miss Hanley, can you describe for the jury what we're looking at — what's up on the screen right now?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So this is the FTIR comparison data of the clear plastic from item 3-1 and the clear plastic from item 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Hanley, if you could, using the laser pointer before you, if you could direct the jury's attention to which is which as far as the top and bottom here.
MS. HANLEY: Sorry, the top — sorry.
MR. LALLY: That's okay.
MS. HANLEY: The top spectrum is item 3-1 and the bottom spectrum is item 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Hanley, when you're comparing these two as far as the data that you receive, what is it specifically that you're looking at in your comparison as far as the data is concerned?
MS. HANLEY: So when I'm comparing the spectra, I'm looking at the peaks in each sample to determine if they are consistent or not consistent.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. And if I could turn your attention to the red plastic material from the debris from Mr. O'Keefe's clothing and the red plastic from the passenger side tail light of the defendant's vehicle. What did you conclude in your analysis there?
MS. HANLEY: So upon comparison, the red plastic from 7-18.18 was found to be consistent in color, microscopic appearance, and instrumental properties with the red plastic from item 3-1. So accordingly, the red plastic from 7-18.18 could have originated from the red plastic from item 3-1 or from another source with the same characteristics.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. And Miss Gilman, if I could have the red plastic data. And Miss Hanley, directing your attention to the screen again with the laser pointer, if you could delineate for the jury as far as which set of data is associated with which item.
MS. HANLEY: So the top spectrum is item 3-1 and the bottom spectrum is item 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: And again, if you could just direct the jury's attention with that laser pointer to the areas as far as the data peaks and valleys that you're looking at in comparison of this data.
MS. HANLEY: So when I'm comparing them, I'm comparing the peaks to each other in each of the spectra to determine if they are consistent or not consistent.
MR. LALLY: And in this case, you found them to be consistent. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Gilman, lastly, if I could have the microspec data. And Miss Hanley, if you could describe for the jury, please, what are we looking at in this particular data set?
MS. HANLEY: So this is the comparison data from the microspec of the red plastic from item 3-1 and the red plastic from 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the data in any microspec, but particularly this one up on the screen — using that laser pointer, could you illustrate to the jury sort of what these individual lines or what this data means?
MS. HANLEY: So these are the samples that I ran — the samples that I ran from item 3-1 and 7-18.18 — and the spectra are overlaid in order to look at it and to determine whether they have a consistent or not consistent pattern.
MR. LALLY: And from overlaying the data from the pieces of O'Keefe's clothing and the pieces of plastic from the defendant's tail light, what do you observe from overlaying those two data points?
MS. HANLEY: So I determined that they had consistent microspec data.
MR. LALLY: Again, if you could just remind the jury — as far as microspec data, what type of data is that?
MS. HANLEY: So the microspec analyzes samples that have color. So it provides information of a sample's dyes or pigments.
MR. LALLY: Thank you very much. Miss Gilman, you can take that down. Thank you, Miss Hanley. I have no further questions, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.