MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #26 Retrial

[kuromiiiilove]

Ms. Hartnett, who is on the stand right now, notoriously testified about “John’s hair” being found on Ms. Read’s vehicle. But it should be noted that DNA testing performed by Karen’s DNA expert, who was present for CW’s testing of the hair, determined the hair was not only inconsistent with Mr. O’Keefe’s DNA profile - it wasn’t even a human hair. This detail was included in a court filing - the defendant’s motion to modify conditions of release - and directly contradicts the implications made in Hartnett’s testimony. I wonder if she will testify on the ‘hair’ this trial.

Answered my own question. MH just said ‘apparent’ hair.

 

[jepop]

looking from the street it is on the left, looking from the house it is on the right.

Other way around I think.

 

[missy1974]

Not to mention he would of almost had to be sitting down to get a head injury from the tail light ,and had his glass up above his hit to get his glass to land on the bumper. I was really trying guys but I cant .

I have tried to think of every scenario... I can't make it make sense.

 

[shotgun09]

Do you have a link or did you google info? jmo

Peggy O'Keefe said on the stand during this trial, that she is now living at One Meadows with the children.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Hartnett testifies there was not blood found on the vehicle. She found ‘apparent hair’ and ‘apparent glass’.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Also something that is annoying me - the gloves are all for show in this trial. Sterile gloves come in a single use package. Pulling gloves from your pocket or even from a box of nitrile gloves is NOT considered adequate to preserve evidence. It’s theater.

 

[Soulmagent]

Anone find it to be really interesting they all bring gloves to court but then they collect evidence in solo cups because not one person had an evidence collect kit on them at the scene of an unattended death.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Do you have a link or did you google info? jmo

It was addressed last trial, but because facts are important, you can verify at the Norfolk Registry of Deeds which is here: Welcome to the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds - Norfolk County Registry of Deeds

 

[jepop]

I have tried to think of every scenario... I can't make it make sense.

That's because it never happened. Jmo

 

[missy1974]

Also something that is annoying me - the gloves are all for show in this trial. Sterile gloves come in a single use package. Pulling gloves from your pocket or even from a box of nitrile gloves is NOT considered adequate to preserve evidence. It’s theater.

well.. not like it matters when I guess there is other evidence in the bag anyway.. what the heck lol I can't believe they treat evidence like this. sighhh

 

[jepop]

Anone find it to be really interesting they all bring gloves to court but then they collect evidence in solo cups because not one person had an evidence collect kit on them at the scene of an unattended death.

Impression management for the jury imo. See? We have cleaned up our act. Sure but even if true, irrelevant. That was then, this is now. Jmo

 

[Izzylizzy]

Peggy O'Keefe said on the stand during this trial, that she is now living at One Meadows with the children.

Yes.
Page 3 of the civil lawsuit the O'Keefe family filed.

Karen Read case: John O’Keefe’s family files wrongful death suit

The lawsuit also names the two Canton bars where Karen Read and John O'Keefe drank the night before O’Keefe died.

www.boston.com

 

[Tortoise]

FROM ASHLEY VALLIER TESTIMONY
other sets of plastic did not have matches.

Vallier said each item she analyzed was documented separately.

”I look at the photos to see if there are any similarities, dissimilarities,” Vallier said, adding that she also checks to see if any pieces match together. She said she analyzed the plastic pieces from the crime scene with a microscope.

Vallier also identified a separate batch of photos she took of pieces of plastic that appeared to fit together. She compared one larger piece of the taillight, identified as piece A, with other smaller ones. She said piece A fit together with two other smaller pieces.

In another set of colorless pieces of plastic, she said, several “fit together.” Another set of red and colorless apparent plastic pieces included two that “were found to fit together,” Vallier said.

Three pieces in another set also fit together, she testified.

In other sets of apparent plastic, Vallier testified, there were no matches.

‘I don’t know, it happened last night.’ State police investigator recounts initial interview of Karen Read at trial. - The Boston Globe

Earlier Wednesday, a forensic scientist at the State Police crime lab testified that plastic found in John O’Keefe’s clothes was "consistent with" Read’s broken taillight.

www.bostonglobe.com

Thank you for the link @Wishbone

Ashley Vallier was testifying about mechanical fits, whether edges could be matched up or aligned to other edges. She was not testifying about properties not matching under the microscope, or additional pieces not a match for Karen's taillight. Obviously there were pieces that were too small to work with, and holes apparent when the whole light was reassembled.

I just took the time to transcribe her testimony word for word, from the day of the reporting you've linked, for everyone interested. I've bolded some portions which highlight this. (Link below.)

--
A. So the taillight I called piece A in this case, and it measured approximately 14” by 9” by 8 ¼”

Q. And then which of the pieces that were contained within that taillight evidence bag did you compare to the taillight housing itself?

A. So there were, there was a lot of like very very small pieces that I took pictures of but they were very very small so they were not suitable for comparison so I didn’t look at those, there were some larger pieces that I did, that were suitable for comparison so I did look to see if they fit in with piece A.

Q. And with regard to that analysis of whether or not they fit in with piece A, which of those pieces did you find did fit?

A. So amongst item 3-1, piece A and piece B fit together mechanically and then piece A and piece F fit together mechanically.

Q. And it may be pretty apparent but if you could expound upon what you mean when you say they fit together mechanically?

A. So when things break they break in a unique pattern, it’s pretty different every time so a mechanical fit is bringing two things with broken edges together to see if they were originally part of the same item, to see if the broken edges align, and if they do then that’s a mechanical fit.

Q. Now turning your attention to items 7-5, you looked at those various pieces together as well is that correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. And were there any, three pieces in total from 7-5, to A, B and C, is that correct as well?

A. (looking at notes) Yes.

Q. And what if any match did you find with item, within item 7-5?

A. There were no mechanical fits amongst those three items, uh three pieces of the item.

Q. And with reference to item 7-6 there were two pieces, A and B, within that, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. and were there any physical matches within those two pieces of item 7-6?

A. No.

Q. Now turning your attention to item 7-8, do you recall how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were 14 pieces.

Q. And of those 14 pieces they were each compared to each other is that correct?

A. Correct

Q. And what if any mechanical fit did you find between the pieces contained within 7-8?

A. Pieces C and D were found to fit together mechanically and then pieces E and F were found to fit together mechanically.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-9, you analysed three pieces for that, is that correct?

A. Sorry could you repeat your question?

Q. How many pieces were contained within item 7-9?

A. Three pieces.

Q. And what if any physical matches did you find contained within that item 7-9?

A. There were no mechanical fits.

Q. And with reference to 7-10, how many pieces?

A. One piece.

Q. And with reference to item 7-11, how many pieces contained within that?

A. Six pieces.

Q. And what if any physical matches did you find contained within 7-11?

A. There were none.

Q. In 7-11 how many different colors of pieces were contained within 7-11?

A. Black, red and colorless, apparent plastic.

Q. With reference to item 7-12, how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were 14 pieces.

Q. And of those pieces how many different colors of pieces were within 7-12?

A. They were all colorless.

Q. and from those what if any mechanical fits did you observe or did you find within item 7-12?

A. There were three. Do you want me to say all the pieces that fit together?

Q. Please.

A. So pieces B, C, D, F and K all fit together, pieces E and I fit together, and pieces M and N fit together.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-13, how many pieces were contained within item 7-13?

A. Three pieces

Q. And how many different colors of items were contained within 7-13?

A. It was red and black apparent plastic.

Q. What if any physical matches did you find within item 7-13?

A. There were none.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-14 how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There was one piece.

Q. And what color was that one piece?

A. It was colorless.

Q. And turning your attention to item 7-15, how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were eight pieces.

Q. And as far as those eight pieces how many items were of different colors, or what color were they?

A. They were red and colorless apparent plastic.

Q. And of those eight pieces what if any mechanical fits did you find within that?

A. Piece F and piece H were found to fit together.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-16 how many pieces were contained within 7-16?

A. There were seven pieces.

Q. And of those seven pieces what if any differences in color were the seven pieces within 7-16?

A. It was red and colorless apparent plastic.

Q. And of those pieces what if any mechanical fits did you find within 7-16?

A. Pieces A, C and D fit together mechanically.

Q. Now with reference to those pieces once you did those inspection from or analysis from the individual items, what if anything did you do with those individual items with reference to the taillight housing?

A. Before even comparing it to the taillight I compared all of the questioned items to each other so if the 7-5 to 7-19, to see if any of those pieces would fit together and amongst those I was able to make five larger pieces, that I called piece 1 through piece 5.

Q. And of those larger pieces which of those larger pieces were you able to mechanically fit together prior to comparing them to the taillight housing?

A. Sorry can you…

Q. From your analysis of those larger pieces and analysing them together with other larger pieces, what if any opinions did you draw what if any conclusions did you come to as far as your analysis of those pieces?

A. So for the larger pieces amongst item, like the different items, that fit together mechanically, I considered those items were once a part of the same unit.

Q. And so I guess what I’m asking is with reference to say item 7-6 or 7-5, were the items in and of themselves, which of those items were you, if any, were you able to find mechanically fit with each other?

A. Amongst like, are you asking me which specific items made up like piece 1?

Q. Correct

A. So piece 1 contained pieces from item 7-5, 7-8, 7-10, 7-11, 7-13, 7-15, and 7-16.

Q. And so based on their mechanical fit what if any conclusion did you draw with reference to those several items?

A. That those specific pieces from all of those items were at one time together as part of a larger unit.

Q. And what if any comparison or analysis did you do of items between item 7-15 and item 7-16?

A. So pieces from item 7-15 and 7-16 were part of piece 1, I could look through my notes and see if there are part of any other pieces that I fit together? (permission given). So piece 2 consisted of pieces from item 7-15 and 7-16.

Q. And then with reference to item 7-6 and 7-11, what if anything did you observe between those pieces?

A. So piece 3 consisted of pieces from item 7-6 and 7-11.

Q. And similar to what you had described before with 7-15 and 7-16 as far as them mechanically fitting together and now I’m talking about item 7-6 and 7-11, what if any conclusions did you draw in regard to that?

A. That those pieces from item 7-6 and item 7-11 were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. and then as far as item 7-8, 7-9, and 7-16, what if anything did you were you able to do with reference to those?

A. So piece no.4 consisted of pieces from item 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16.

Q. And as far as mechanically fitting those pieces together again what if any conclusions did you come to in reference to those items 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16?

A. That those pieces from items 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16 were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. Now lastly with reference to 7-12 and 7-14, what if any analysis did you do with reference to pieces from those items?

A. I have item 7-11 and 7-12 that fit together for piece no.5.

Q. And your honor with what’s now been marked as exhibits 384 through 402 if I could ask to publish some of those to the jury? (Yes.) Miss Gilman if I could have photograph 2069. Miss Vallier do you recognise what’s up on the screen as now exhibit 384?

A. I do.

Q. and what are we looking at here?

A. within item 7-16 those are pieces that were mechanically fit together

Q. Miss G if I could have 2096? And Miss V do you recognise what’s now been marked as exhibit 386?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. So that is what I called piece 1, so the piece that is made up of apparent plastic pieces from many of the different items.

Q. Miss G if I could ask you to zoom in a little to the middle of that photograph. And from this zoomed in version of 386, Miss V are you now able to see some of the stickers or evidence stickers that you put labelling these pieces?

A. Yes. So these labels right here are the labels that I put on each piece individually when I initially examined it. So all of the little white labels.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2097? Miss V do you recognise what is up on the screen, what has now been marked as exhibit 387?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s still piece 1, it’s just from a different angle.

Q. Miss G if I could have 2101. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen now, that’s been marked as exhibit 390?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at here?

A. That’s still piece 1, photo taken from another angle.

Q. Miss G if I could have 2103. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 392?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at here in 392?

A. That is another angle of piece 1.

Q. Miss G if I could have photo 2107. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 395?

A. I do.

Q. And what are we looking at in exhibit 395?

A. That is piece 2.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2110. Miss G if you could just zoom in a little bit. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 398?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That is piece 3.

Q. And Miss G if I could have photo 2111, and if you could zoom in. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 399?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That is piece 4.

Q. And Miss G if I could have photo 2113, and zoom in just a little. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 401?

A. I do. That is piece 5.

Q. Thank you. Your honor may I approach? (Yes.) So Miss V earlier I’d put before you another 23 photographs, do you recognise what’s depicted in those 23 photographs?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s comparisons between item 3-1 and piece 1.

Q. And item 3-1 again was the taillight, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Your honor with the court’s permission the cw would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibits. (D- no objection)

(exhibits 403 through 434 your honor)

Q. Your honor with the court’s permission if I may publish some of these photographs for the jury? (yes)

Q. Miss G if I could have photograph 2156. Miss V do you recognise what’s now up on the screen and been marked as exhibit 403?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s one of the photos comparing item 3-1 and piece 1.

Q. Miss G if I could have photo 2125. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 411?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s the contents of item 3-1.

Q. That’s prior to you.. at what stage of this analysis or comparative process is that?

A. So that’s when I initially looked at item 3-1.

Q. If I may have a moment (yes). Miss G if I could have photo 2150. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 431?

A. I do.

Q. And what are we looking at in 431?

A. So on the left is item 3-1 piece A, and on the right is piece 1.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2151? Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 432?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at in 432?

A. That is piece 1, on top of item 3-1, in a mechanical fit

Q. Is that the mechanical fit that you were talking about earlier in your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Miss G you can take that down. Miss V in reference to those items that you testified to earlier in item 3-1 the taillight housing, what if any conclusions regarding those items as far as a physical match, what if any conclusions did you come to?

A. That item 3-1 and the pieces that make up piece 1, were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. Thank you very much I have no further questions.

 

[mrjitty]

The photo's, I'm not sure how he was able to get them in on his testimony lol I started rewatching Tully's testimony from 1st trial last night too, but didn't finish because apparently I need to sleep haha

So the answer is in today's testimony from the photographers. They admitted all the photos from the 29th and the 3rd.

I am guessing that it was stipulated that O'Hara could be shown the photos out of order, as obviously the CW could just call the photographers first and then show O'Hara the photos. These kinds of things get worked out in advance to be as efficient as possible.

IMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Does anyone else remember Jen McCabe testified that the ‘car repairman’ was at 1 Meadows on 2/1/22? But Brent didn’t take photos until 2/3/22?

 

[Angelwatch]

Anone find it to be really interesting they all bring gloves to court but then they collect evidence in solo cups because not one person had an evidence collect kit on them at the scene of an unattended death.

I find it ironic.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Does anyone else remember Jen McCabe testified that the ‘car repairman’ was at 1 Meadows on 2/1/22? But Brent didn’t take photos until 2/3/22?

Yup. Jen was freaking out a bit when talking and blurted that out.

 

[Anniesflowers]

Karen Read retrial: Prosecution asks to present 'Aruba incident' testimony to jury

Prosecutors argue that flirty text messages presented to the jury last week opened the door to testimony about what happened during the vacation about one month before John O'Keefe's death.

www.wcvb.com

Brennan must really be scared of losing if he’s looking to call the Aruba witnesses. IMO.

 

[Anniesflowers]

So much changing testimony from last trial to this current trial. As has been mentioned their memories seem to get better the longer it has been from the original event. JMOO

That assertion makes me laugh. Memory better with age? If that were to be true, I would have 100% recall at my age!

 

[mrjitty]

Thank you for the link @Wishbone

Ashley Vallier was testifying about mechanical fits, whether edges could be matched up or aligned to other edges. She was not testifying about properties not matching under the microscope, or additional pieces not a match for Karen's taillight. Obviously there were pieces that were too small to work with, and holes apparent when the whole light was reassembled.

I just took the time to transcribe her testimony word for word, from the day of the reporting you've linked, for everyone interested. I've bolded some portions which highlight this. (Link below.)

--
A. So the taillight I called piece A in this case, and it measured approximately 14” by 9” by 8 ¼”

Q. And then which of the pieces that were contained within that taillight evidence bag did you compare to the taillight housing itself?

A. So there were, there was a lot of like very very small pieces that I took pictures of but they were very very small so they were not suitable for comparison so I didn’t look at those, there were some larger pieces that I did, that were suitable for comparison so I did look to see if they fit in with piece A.

Q. And with regard to that analysis of whether or not they fit in with piece A, which of those pieces did you find did fit?

A. So amongst item 3-1, piece A and piece B fit together mechanically and then piece A and piece F fit together mechanically.

Q. And it may be pretty apparent but if you could expound upon what you mean when you say they fit together mechanically?

A. So when things break they break in a unique pattern, it’s pretty different every time so a mechanical fit is bringing two things with broken edges together to see if they were originally part of the same item, to see if the broken edges align, and if they do then that’s a mechanical fit.

Q. Now turning your attention to items 7-5, you looked at those various pieces together as well is that correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. And were there any, three pieces in total from 7-5, to A, B and C, is that correct as well?

A. (looking at notes) Yes.

Q. And what if any match did you find with item, within item 7-5?

A. There were no mechanical fits amongst those three items, uh three pieces of the item.

Q. And with reference to item 7-6 there were two pieces, A and B, within that, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. and were there any physical matches within those two pieces of item 7-6?

A. No.

Q. Now turning your attention to item 7-8, do you recall how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were 14 pieces.

Q. And of those 14 pieces they were each compared to each other is that correct?

A. Correct

Q. And what if any mechanical fit did you find between the pieces contained within 7-8?

A. Pieces C and D were found to fit together mechanically and then pieces E and F were found to fit together mechanically.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-9, you analysed three pieces for that, is that correct?

A. Sorry could you repeat your question?

Q. How many pieces were contained within item 7-9?

A. Three pieces.

Q. And what if any physical matches did you find contained within that item 7-9?

A. There were no mechanical fits.

Q. And with reference to 7-10, how many pieces?

A. One piece.

Q. And with reference to item 7-11, how many pieces contained within that?

A. Six pieces.

Q. And what if any physical matches did you find contained within 7-11?

A. There were none.

Q. In 7-11 how many different colors of pieces were contained within 7-11?

A. Black, red and colorless, apparent plastic.

Q. With reference to item 7-12, how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were 14 pieces.

Q. And of those pieces how many different colors of pieces were within 7-12?

A. They were all colorless.

Q. and from those what if any mechanical fits did you observe or did you find within item 7-12?

A. There were three. Do you want me to say all the pieces that fit together?

Q. Please.

A. So pieces B, C, D, F and K all fit together, pieces E and I fit together, and pieces M and N fit together.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-13, how many pieces were contained within item 7-13?

A. Three pieces

Q. And how many different colors of items were contained within 7-13?

A. It was red and black apparent plastic.

Q. What if any physical matches did you find within item 7-13?

A. There were none.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-14 how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There was one piece.

Q. And what color was that one piece?

A. It was colorless.

Q. And turning your attention to item 7-15, how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were eight pieces.

Q. And as far as those eight pieces how many items were of different colors, or what color were they?

A. They were red and colorless apparent plastic.

Q. And of those eight pieces what if any mechanical fits did you find within that?

A. Piece F and piece H were found to fit together.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-16 how many pieces were contained within 7-16?

A. There were seven pieces.

Q. And of those seven pieces what if any differences in color were the seven pieces within 7-16?

A. It was red and colorless apparent plastic.

Q. And of those pieces what if any mechanical fits did you find within 7-16?

A. Pieces A, C and D fit together mechanically.

Q. Now with reference to those pieces once you did those inspection from or analysis from the individual items, what if anything did you do with those individual items with reference to the taillight housing?

A. Before even comparing it to the taillight I compared all of the questioned items to each other so if the 7-5 to 7-19, to see if any of those pieces would fit together and amongst those I was able to make five larger pieces, that I called piece 1 through piece 5.

Q. And of those larger pieces which of those larger pieces were you able to mechanically fit together prior to comparing them to the taillight housing?

A. Sorry can you…

Q. From your analysis of those larger pieces and analysing them together with other larger pieces, what if any opinions did you draw what if any conclusions did you come to as far as your analysis of those pieces?

A. So for the larger pieces amongst item, like the different items, that fit together mechanically, I considered those items were once a part of the same unit.

Q. And so I guess what I’m asking is with reference to say item 7-6 or 7-5, were the items in and of themselves, which of those items were you, if any, were you able to find mechanically fit with each other?

A. Amongst like, are you asking me which specific items made up like piece 1?

Q. Correct

A. So piece 1 contained pieces from item 7-5, 7-8, 7-10, 7-11, 7-13, 7-15, and 7-16.

Q. And so based on their mechanical fit what if any conclusion did you draw with reference to those several items?

A. That those specific pieces from all of those items were at one time together as part of a larger unit.

Q. And what if any comparison or analysis did you do of items between item 7-15 and item 7-16?

A. So pieces from item 7-15 and 7-16 were part of piece 1, I could look through my notes and see if there are part of any other pieces that I fit together? (permission given). So piece 2 consisted of pieces from item 7-15 and 7-16.

Q. And then with reference to item 7-6 and 7-11, what if anything did you observe between those pieces?

A. So piece 3 consisted of pieces from item 7-6 and 7-11.

Q. And similar to what you had described before with 7-15 and 7-16 as far as them mechanically fitting together and now I’m talking about item 7-6 and 7-11, what if any conclusions did you draw in regard to that?

A. That those pieces from item 7-6 and item 7-11 were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. and then as far as item 7-8, 7-9, and 7-16, what if anything did you were you able to do with reference to those?

A. So piece no.4 consisted of pieces from item 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16.

Q. And as far as mechanically fitting those pieces together again what if any conclusions did you come to in reference to those items 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16?

A. That those pieces from items 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16 were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. Now lastly with reference to 7-12 and 7-14, what if any analysis did you do with reference to pieces from those items?

A. I have item 7-11 and 7-12 that fit together for piece no.5.

Q. And your honor with what’s now been marked as exhibits 384 through 402 if I could ask to publish some of those to the jury? (Yes.) Miss Gilman if I could have photograph 2069. Miss Vallier do you recognise what’s up on the screen as now exhibit 384?

A. I do.

Q. and what are we looking at here?

A. within item 7-16 those are pieces that were mechanically fit together

Q. Miss G if I could have 2096? And Miss V do you recognise what’s now been marked as exhibit 386?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. So that is what I called piece 1, so the piece that is made up of apparent plastic pieces from many of the different items.

Q. Miss G if I could ask you to zoom in a little to the middle of that photograph. And from this zoomed in version of 386, Miss V are you now able to see some of the stickers or evidence stickers that you put labelling these pieces?

A. Yes. So these labels right here are the labels that I put on each piece individually when I initially examined it. So all of the little white labels.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2097? Miss V do you recognise what is up on the screen, what has now been marked as exhibit 387?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s still piece 1, it’s just from a different angle.

Q. Miss G if I could have 2101. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen now, that’s been marked as exhibit 390?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at here?

A. That’s still piece 1, photo taken from another angle.

Q. Miss G if I could have 2103. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 392?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at here in 392?

A. That is another angle of piece 1.

Q. Miss G if I could have photo 2107. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 395?

A. I do.

Q. And what are we looking at in exhibit 395?

A. That is piece 2.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2110. Miss G if you could just zoom in a little bit. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 398?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That is piece 3.

Q. And Miss G if I could have photo 2111, and if you could zoom in. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 399?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That is piece 4.

Q. And Miss G if I could have photo 2113, and zoom in just a little. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 401?

A. I do. That is piece 5.

Q. Thank you. Your honor may I approach? (Yes.) So Miss V earlier I’d put before you another 23 photographs, do you recognise what’s depicted in those 23 photographs?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s comparisons between item 3-1 and piece 1.

Q. And item 3-1 again was the taillight, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Your honor with the court’s permission the cw would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibits. (D- no objection)

(exhibits 403 through 434 your honor)

Q. Your honor with the court’s permission if I may publish some of these photographs for the jury? (yes)

Q. Miss G if I could have photograph 2156. Miss V do you recognise what’s now up on the screen and been marked as exhibit 403?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s one of the photos comparing item 3-1 and piece 1.

Q. Miss G if I could have photo 2125. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 411?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s the contents of item 3-1.

Q. That’s prior to you.. at what stage of this analysis or comparative process is that?

A. So that’s when I initially looked at item 3-1.

Q. If I may have a moment (yes). Miss G if I could have photo 2150. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 431?

A. I do.

Q. And what are we looking at in 431?

A. So on the left is item 3-1 piece A, and on the right is piece 1.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2151? Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 432?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at in 432?

A. That is piece 1, on top of item 3-1, in a mechanical fit

Q. Is that the mechanical fit that you were talking about earlier in your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Miss G you can take that down. Miss V in reference to those items that you testified to earlier in item 3-1 the taillight housing, what if any conclusions regarding those items as far as a physical match, what if any conclusions did you come to?

A. That item 3-1 and the pieces that make up piece 1, were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. Thank you very much I have no further questions.

This is awesome Tortoise. Thank you so much!