Witnesses described damage in Dighton before the Lexus was towed to Canton.
What the record shows
Bukhenik described a substantial missing section. Barros also observed damage, but said the later sallyport photograph showed more missing material than he recalled seeing in Dighton.
Limits and disputed context
Pre-tow damage and the precise extent of that damage are separate questions. The witnesses did not give identical accounts. We have not independently authenticated the pre-tow vehicle condition from original images.
What the Dighton observation contributes
Our interpretation of the timing of observed damage.
Why we give this weight
Barros described damage before the SUV was towed. That matters because the taillight was already described as damaged before it reached Canton.
The material challenge
Barros also said the later photograph showed a substantially different extent of damage. That qualification belongs beside his pre-tow observation.
Our response
His account supports preexisting damage. It does not tell us when each piece broke off, or settle why the later photograph looked different from what he remembered.
What we are not claiming
Damage before transport is not, by itself, proof of how or where that damage occurred.
S06: Bukhenik: Dighton interview, vehicle custody, and bar footage
May 8, 2025, 1:30 p.m. update: opening Dighton observations and vehicle-custody discussion.
Open publisher sourceS07: Barros describes the taillight he observed in Dighton
June 3 report: Barros's description of the taillight before towing.
Open publisher sourceS36: Russell cross-examination, evidentiary ruling, and Barros
3:45 p.m. update: Nicholas Barros; Dighton condition, later photograph, report detail, and cross-examination.
Open publisher source