Skip to content
personpersonMaureen HartnettMaureen HartnettCivilian forensic scientist in the Criminalistics and Crime Scene Response units at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory.← All People
Expert witnessMassachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory

Maureen Hartnett

Courtroom still of Maureen Hartnett.

Civilian forensic scientist in the Criminalistics and Crime Scene Response units at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory.

212 lines·7 proceedings·6 mentions

About

Maureen Hartnett testified for the Commonwealth on Day 6 about forensic sample collection and blood identification. She described collecting samples from Lindsay Clancy's hands at South Shore Hospital on January 24, 2023, and beneath her fingernails at Brigham and Women's Hospital the following day. At 47 Summer Street, she documented and selectively sampled stains rather than testing every visible mark.

Hartnett reported confirmed blood findings from selected basement-floor, bedroom-floor, interior bedroom-windowsill, backyard-snow, and knife-blade samples. She did not identify whose blood it was. She also explained separate sampling of the ends and centers of three exercise bands, intended to help determine whether different individuals contacted different areas. She described collection and preservation for DNA analysis, not findings identifying who touched the bands.

On cross-examination, Kevin Reddington questioned how far those findings extended. Hartnett limited her bedroom-floor conclusion to the material collected, explaining that confirmation indicated human blood but could also react with primate blood. The mirror stain received screening only; the particular exterior windowsill stain, possible doorknob stain, and drops beneath the doorknob were untested. She did not adopt counsel's suggestion that those visible stains could all be treated as human blood. Although she agreed that weather can degrade blood, she did not identify the shingle material as blood or establish a specific degradation history.

On redirect, Hartnett explained why the shingle stains remained screening-positive rather than confirmed blood findings. Their appearance had changed, and she was concerned that little material might remain. She preserved a swab for possible DNA testing instead of consuming additional material in confirmatory testing and reported no further laboratory testing on that swab.

Trial Record (7)

2026 Trial2026 Criminal TrialJul 27, 2026 – Sep 4, 2026Called by prosecution

Maureen Hartnett testified on Day 6 about collecting forensic samples and confirming blood in selected scene and knife-blade samples. Under cross-examination, she distinguished those findings from screening-only and untested stains; on redirect, she explained preserving shingle material for possible DNA testing.

Day 5

Day 6

DirectDirect Examination - Maureen HartnettMaureen HartnettShanan Buckingham2highlightsMentioned155lines spoken

Summary

Hartnett described scene sampling, confirmed blood in selected samples and on a knife blade, and explained exercise-band sampling for potential DNA analysis.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightHartnett confirmed laboratory identification of blood in samples from the basement floor, bedroom floor, bedroom windowsill, backyard snow, and knife blade.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
CrossCross-Examination - Maureen HartnettMaureen HartnettKevin Reddington2highlightsMentioned53lines spoken

Summary

Hartnett distinguished confirmed blood findings from screening-only and untested stains, declining to identify all visible stains as human blood.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightHartnett limited her bedroom-floor findings to sampled stains. She explained that the test confirms blood and indicates human blood but can also react with primate blood.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
Quote“I'm confirming the single stain that I collected from is blood.”— Maureen HartnettLimits the confirmed finding rather than adopting counsel's characterization of every bedroom-floor stain.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
RedirectRedirect Examination - Maureen HartnettMaureen HartnettShanan Buckingham2highlights4lines spoken

Summary

Hartnett explained that she preserved potentially limited shingle material for possible DNA testing rather than perform confirmatory testing.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightHartnett explained that she preserved a swab after a positive screening test rather than consume potentially limited material in confirmatory testing, leaving material available for possible DNA testing.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
Quote“I would've had to use up a portion of that sample to perform the confirmatory tests, and I didn't think that that was in the best interest of the case given the fact that the material may already have been limited.”— Maureen HartnettExplains Hartnett's reason for preserving the sample instead of conducting confirmatory testing.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶

Day 12