Skip to content
personpersonDavid McCollamDavid McCollamFBI chemist and forensic examiner assigned to the Explosives Unit.← All People
WitnessFBI

David McCollam

FBI chemist and forensic examiner assigned to the Explosives Unit.

152 lines·4 proceedings·3 mentions

About

David McCollam testified for the prosecution on Day 40 as an FBI forensic chemist assigned to the Explosives Unit. He described laboratory testing that found Boylston Street blast residues consistent with burned pyrotechnic material and Watertown bulk powder consistent with pyrotechnic flash-powder-type material. He also reported pyrotechnic residues in Norfolk Street filters and on gloves from a Honda CR-V, and black powder grains in four Norfolk Street samples.

McCollam explained that fireworks were one common source of pyrotechnic material, not the only source, and discussed approximate extraction yields and powder transfer. He said his unit had not quantified the residues, he had not weighed the bulk powder, and the residue evidence did not identify a specific assembly location. After defense objections, the court excluded an undisclosed expert opinion comparing the trace-residue amounts with the explosives involved.

On cross-examination by Timothy G. Watkins, McCollam distinguished the pyrotechnic findings on gloves Q667 and Q668 from the more limited chemical findings on Q671. He explained that a hobby fuse contained bulk low-explosive material and that a can lid carried chemicals commonly found in some double-based smokeless powders. He acknowledged having no firsthand collection knowledge and reported that vacuum filters identified in laboratory records as coming from a UMass Dartmouth dormitory room screened negative for the typical explosive-residue traces tested. That result did not establish a broader conclusion about activities in the room.

On redirect, McCollam contrasted trace residues with intact explosive materials. His confirmation of intact fireworks from Pine Dale Hall remained conditional on the origin supplied to the laboratory. The court sustained an objection to a question about production location.

Trial Record (4)

2015 Trial2015 Federal TrialJan 5, 2015 – Jun 24, 2015Called by prosecution

David McCollam testified as an FBI forensic chemist about pyrotechnic materials and explosive residues, while explaining that his testing did not establish quantities or a specific bomb-assembly location. Defense questioning elicited negative dormitory-filter screening and limits on his collection knowledge; the court excluded an undisclosed residue-proportionality opinion.

Day 40

DirectDirect Examination - David McCollamDavid McCollamAloke Chakravarty3highlightsMentioned91lines spoken

Summary

David McCollam described explosive-residue findings and testing limits; the court excluded an undisclosed residue-proportionality opinion.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (3)

testimony highlightMcCollam identified Scene A and Scene B residues as consistent with burned pyrotechnic material and identified the Watertown bulk material as pyrotechnic flash powder.Open in transcript →
Quoteβ€œThe Explosives Unit on the chemistry side, we don't quantitate anything. We're just trying to determine what's present. Is there an explosive there or not. So I did not determine how much of anything was present.”— David McCollamDefines a central limit of the testing before the disputed residue comparison.Open in transcript →
rulingThe court sustained a defense objection for lack of foundation when the prosecutor asked whether McCollam expected more residue in this case.Open in transcript →
CrossCross-Examination - David McCollamDavid McCollamTimothy G. Watkins3highlightsMentioned55lines spoken

Summary

McCollam clarified glove and drawer-item findings and reported negative explosive-residue screening of dormitory vacuum filters.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (3)

testimony highlightMcCollam distinguishes the pyrotechnic findings on Q667 and Q668 from Q671, which had chloride, nitrate, and sulfate that could occur in some pyrotechnic or low-explosive formulations.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightMcCollam says the vacuum filters screened negative for the typical explosive-residue traces tested by the laboratory.Open in transcript →
Quoteβ€œNo. The screening technique showed that they were negative for any typical explosive residue traces that we screen for.”— David McCollamStates the negative screening result while preserving the scope of the laboratory's screening technique.Open in transcript →
RedirectRedirect Examination - David McCollamDavid McCollamAloke Chakravarty2highlightsMentioned6lines spoken

Summary

McCollam contrasted trace residues with intact explosive materials; the court sustained an objection to a production-location question.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

Quoteβ€œIf it was submitted to the laboratory coming from there, I analyzed it, so, yes, there were.”— David McCollamMcCollam qualified his confirmation of fireworks attributed to Pine Dale Hall by relying on the material's submitted laboratory origin.Open in transcript →
rulingThe court sustained Watkins's objection to a question asking whether McCollam had found a single IED production location. McCollam gave no answer.Open in transcript →