Kun reported no canine DNA and detected pig DNA in the submitted swabs.
What the record shows
The first-trial testing concerned two swabs submitted from O'Keefe's clothing. Kun had not tested the wounds or every portion of the garment.
At the retrial, questioning about the testing prompted an objection and a defense request for a mistrial. The judge rejected that request and allowed the questioning to continue.
Limits and disputed context
A negative result from submitted swabs is not a test of every possible contact. Detected material was not dated. First-trial evidence is not automatically evidence admitted at the retrial.
Claims connected to this record
We examine defense arguments and broader inferences separately. Each heading is a paraphrase of the proposition being tested, not a quotation or a finding. The source account comes first; our reasoning is labeled. Missing evidence is not automatically evidence that an event could not happen.
These claim assessments cover the criminal trials through June 18, 2025. Later proceedings are covered separately in After the Verdict. These are selected assessments, not an exhaustive trial record. Most sources are trial reporting; a passage check does not authenticate original evidence. Several reports may describe the same testimony, and measurements from one phone are not independent witnesses. Rejecting a proposed cover-up mechanism does not establish a collision or guilt.
The arm injuries establish a dog attack inside the house
A defense medical explanation, with an additional inference about location.
Why the claim is raised
Russell favored a dog-related explanation for the arm injuries.
Strongest evidence or missing support
Kun found no canine DNA on two submitted clothing swabs. A contrary medical opinion discussed during cross-examination considered an animal bite unlikely while describing the wounds as nonspecific.
Our reasoning
We do not find the wound pattern sufficient to establish a dog, an attacker or an indoor location. The negative testing is relevant, but its scope matters.
Limits and strongest remaining objection
Two clothing swabs are not comprehensive wound testing. The negative result cannot conclusively exclude a dog encounter, and rejecting that explanation does not establish a vehicle strike.
S35: Kun: animal-DNA tests of submitted clothing swabs
First-trial testimony of Teri Kun about submitted swabs
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