Kelsey Fitzsimmons Trial

Testimony Inconsistencies

Critical High Medium

Firing sequence — "rapid succession" vs. shot / commands / shot

Directly contradicts state police statement from July 3, 2025

Critical ▶

◀ Direct Exam (Day 1) ~12:17

"She after she successfully got around in the chamber, her right arm started to come up and I shot twice in rapid succession at her."

Described as a single, near-simultaneous double-tap. Demonstrated as "boom boom" when asked.

Cross Exam (Day 2) ▶ ~21:14–23:52

Defense reads back state police statement from July 3rd: "I pulled the trigger once. I kept giving commands. I pulled the trigger again."

Under pressure, Noonan tries to merge both: "I was giving commands and shooting at the same time." Then: "It all happened in 4 seconds or less."

⚠

What changed: A sequential interrupted sequence (shoot → pause → commands → shoot) became a simultaneous double-tap. Defense explicitly asked: "Both of those things can't be true, can they?" His answer — "They can be true" — was not credible on its face. The July 3rd statement is days after the incident; the trial testimony is 8+ months later.

Source: Day 1 Transcript ~12:17 Day 2 Transcript 21:14, 22:43, 23:33, 35:10–36:02 State police statement: July 3, 2025 @ audio 12:32

Kelsey's stance — two-handed modified weaver → one hand

Changed description mid-cross-examination, same session

Critical ▶

◀ Direct Exam (Day 1) ~12:17

Noonan physically demonstrated the stance for the judge during direct. Showed a two-handed grip. Later confirmed on cross: "And yesterday when you were being questioned, you assumed a two-handed stance to show that, didn't you? That's correct."

Confirmed the name: "modified weaver stance."

Cross Exam (Day 2) ▶ ~41:51

Later in the same cross, while re-walking the sequence, Noonan states unprompted: "No, no weaver stance. It's a one hand."

Defense immediately noted the contradiction. Noonan does not reconcile the two descriptions. When asked what stance it was: "It's a one-handed…" — trial counsel re-asks, Noonan can't name it.

⚠

What changed: He demonstrated two hands on direct, named it a modified weaver stance, and confirmed that characterization at the start of cross — then switched to one-handed later in the same cross without explanation. This matters to trajectory, grip, and the plausibility of the threat posture he describes.

Source: Day 1 Transcript ~12:17 (demonstrated) Day 2 Transcript 29:13–30:34, reversal 41:51–41:59

Distance at time of firing — ~3 ft → "about 15 ft"

5× increase in stated distance; no measurement evidence offered

Critical ▶

◀ Direct Exam (Day 1) ~9:22, 20:29

"She was 3 feet in front of me" — stated during the bedroom sequence. At exhibit 50: confirmed he was right before the door frame when he first observed her draw. General impression throughout direct is close-quarters confrontation at or near the door.

Cross Exam (Day 2) ▶ ~36:48–37:06

Defense: "Your first shot, you missed her from about 7 ft away."
Noonan: "I did. Uh, it was longer than 7 ft. It was at that point about 15 ft."

Offers a rationale: "if you remove the bed and you were to walk diagonal from where I shot, it was probably around 15." No measurements. Defense immediately: "Do you have any measurements on this?" Answer: No.

⚠

What changed: 3 feet at initial contact → 15 feet "diagonal" by the time he fired. The room is 11'3" × 12'10". His diagonal estimate requires Kelsey to have moved nearly the full room depth while tap-racking. This is geometrically possible but was never established on direct. He also corrects the defense's own 7-foot estimate upward — volunteering a larger number unprompted.

Source: Day 1 Transcript 9:22, 20:29–20:56 Day 2 Transcript 28:37–28:49, 36:48–37:06 Room dims: 11'3" × 12'10" per floor plan

"Whack job" — no opinion → on-stand slur during testimony

Bias statement made live; also surfaced via neighbor witness

Critical ▶

◀ Direct Exam (Day 1) ~0:54–1:05

"Knew her but not well. Um she was on maternity most of the time that when I first transferred over."

Later confirmed got along with her on the calls they worked together. Framing: professional indifference, limited contact, no strong opinion.

Cross Exam (Day 2) ▶ ~8:09–8:53, 33:14

Defense: Did you call her a whack job to your neighbor Moren Teresi?
Noonan: "I don't recall." Then: "It's possible."

Then, spontaneously during the sequence re-walk at 33:14: "Yes, she's a well-trained police officer who's a whack job who tried to kill me."

Used the term unprompted, present tense, mid-testimony.

⚠

What changed: "No real opinion" on direct becomes a documented bias term used to a neighbor, then restated voluntarily on the stand. The 33:14 instance is the most damaging — he said it while describing her tactical behavior, suggesting it's his settled characterization of her, not a reactive slip. This goes to pre-existing mindset at the time of the service call.

Source: Day 1 Transcript 0:54, 7:39–8:08 Day 2 Transcript 8:09–8:53 (neighbor ref.), on-stand use: 33:14

Handing off the baby — comfort vs. tactical readiness

Omission on direct; contradicted by state police statement

High ▶

◀ Direct Exam (Day 1) ~4:57–5:12

"Um he was screaming. I was trying to calm him down... I wear an elder carrier vest and I have all my equipment in the front. So it was kind of hard to create [comfort]."

Sole stated reason: baby's physical discomfort on his vest. No mention of tactical considerations.

Cross Exam (Day 2) ▶ ~15:00–15:47

Defense: "That's what you told the state police — that you didn't like having anything in your hands and it was really a tactical reason why you gave the baby up, right?"
Noonan: "Uh, no. It wasn't a tactical."
Then concedes: "I'm sure it could apply." And: "I want to have my hands free on every call."

Defense: "You left it out. Not on purpose. We'll see."

⚠

What changed: His stated motivation shifts from baby welfare to tactical hands-free readiness — or he has two reasons and chose to present only the sympathetic one at trial. Defense's inference: he wanted his hands free because he anticipated the encounter would escalate. His concession that "it could apply" after initially denying it is the tell.

Source: Day 1 Transcript 4:57–5:12 Day 2 Transcript 14:29–16:10

"Sectioning" — not mentioned on direct; state police statement says otherwise

Pre-operational intent to 5150/section Kelsey omitted from direct narrative

High ▶

◀ Direct Exam (Day 1)

No mention of sectioning, involuntary psychiatric hold, or pre-planning to take Kelsey into custody on mental health grounds. Direct narrative: respond, serve papers, retrieve firearms, transfer baby. No indication of anticipated psychiatric intervention.

Cross Exam (Day 2) ▶ ~9:06–10:33

Defense: "You told the state police that the job was to section her, didn't you?"
Noonan: "It was spoken about that if she reacts badly during the restraining order, she may have to get sectioned."

Defense presses: "You told the state police that part of the job was to section her." Noonan: "I don't recall."

Also confirms he discussed boxing her in with the car, and taking her into custody.

⚠

What changed: The pre-call discussion included contingency planning to involuntarily commit Kelsey if she reacted badly. This was entirely absent from direct. Combined with "whack job" and tactical gloves, it builds a picture of officers who went in with a threat assessment already formed — which directly contradicts the "routine service call" framing of his direct testimony.

Source: Day 1: omitted entirely Day 2 Transcript 9:06–10:33

"Sounds good" — didn't get the plan on the phone vs. grand jury

Contradicted by his own grand jury testimony

Medium ▶

◀ Direct Exam (Day 1) ~0:20–0:43

"Houston said, 'Hey, can you meet me at the CCC?' He said, 'We have to serve papers to Officer Kelsey.'"

Implication: minimal information conveyed on the phone. He didn't know the full scope. Met at CCC where the plan was explained by Lieutenant Daly.

Cross Exam (Day 2) ▶ ~17:40–18:20

Defense reads from grand jury transcript, page 36: Houston told him about serving papers, custody transfer, firearms, and Noonan's response was "Okay, sounds good."

Noonan: "I don't I don't recall." Does not deny the substance. Defense: "You knew those papers were a restraining order for Kelsey to give up the baby, give up her guns, lose her job."

⚠

What changed: "I only knew to show up at the CCC" becomes "sounds good" after being briefed on firearms, custody, and the stakes for Kelsey's career. This matters because Noonan's direct testimony framed his knowledge as limited going in — the grand jury record suggests he understood the full picture before arriving.

Source: Day 1 Transcript 0:20–0:43 Day 2 Transcript 17:40–18:35 Grand jury transcript: page 36

Gun location — "she still has it" → "I don't recall where it was"

Certainty on direct collapses under cross on physical evidence

High ▶

◀ Direct Exam (Day 1) ~13:33–13:50

Daly: "Where's the gun?"
Noonan: "She still has it."

Described Daly rolling her and finding the gun. Then Noonan moved it to the other side of the room — to the white shelf — and ordered Core to secure it.

Confident, sequential account of the gun's location and chain of custody.

Cross Exam (Day 2) ▶ ~41:13–43:44

Defense: "The firearm was under Kelsey's leg. Correct?"
Noonan: "I don't know where it was. I was covering down — I don't recall where it was."

Defense then raises the physics problem: if the gun was out in front of her, she receives a 9mm impact pushing her backward — "how does the gun get all the way behind her and under her leg?"
Noonan: "I have no idea. It's the way she fell."

⚠

What changed: On direct he narrated the gun's location with confidence. On cross, confronted with the physical implausibility of the gun's resting position relative to the described impact and fall, he retreats to "I don't recall." The defense's physics argument remains unresolved: gun extended in front → chest impact pushing backward → gun found under her body. Multiple officers touched the weapon before it was secured.

Source: Day 1 Transcript 13:33–13:52 Day 2 Transcript 41:13–44:00 Chain of custody: Daly → bed → Noonan → white shelf → Core → hallway

Consistent Testimony

Confirmed Both Days

Points Noonan maintained consistently across direct and cross-examination — these are not in dispute.

Physical layout confirmed

Room dimensions, relative positions of baby's room, hall, stairs, and Kelsey's bedroom were not challenged. Floor plan coordinates are agreed upon by both sides.

Gun misfire — click, no discharge

Kelsey pointed the gun at Noonan's face and pulled the trigger. It clicked but did not fire. This was consistent across direct, cross, and the July 3rd state police statement.

Baby handed off before confrontation

Noonan gave the baby to another officer before following Kelsey upstairs. The fact and timing of the handoff is undisputed — only the stated reason changed.

Kelsey drew first

Noonan consistently maintained he did not draw his weapon until after Kelsey produced hers and the misfire occurred. Order of draw was not seriously contested.

Two shots fired total

Both direct and cross confirm Noonan fired twice. The dispute is sequence (simultaneous vs. separated by commands), not the count itself.

Lunge direction — away from Noonan

Noonan consistently stated Kelsey lunged behind the door frame to her right (away from him). He could not see what she retrieved. This direction is undisputed.

Kelsey Fitzsimmons — Direct Testimony

Testified March 25, 2026 · Commonwealth v. Fitzsimmons · Defense direct + prosecution cross

Core claim: gun raised to her own temple in a suicidal crisis — never pointed at Noonan.

Critical High Medium

Consistent with Evidence

Guns in basement — intentional misdirection

Testified she lied about gun location specifically to keep officers from interfering with her suicide. Established in defense opening on Day 1 — not invented on the stand.

Gun physics support her account

Gun recovered under her leg. If raised to her temple (already lateral to her body) when she fell backward from a chest shot, this position is geometrically consistent. Inconsistent with Noonan's version of a forward-pointing weapon.

Trying to clear the room

Asked Houston to take baby for a walk. Asked officers to take items downstairs. Consistent throughout — defense framed this as suicide attempt preparation, not attack staging.

Postpartum depression — documented pre-incident

Involuntarily committed March 9, 2025 for PPD at Lowell General — four months before the shooting. Court record corroboration, not self-serving testimony.

"Kelsey, no" — Noonan's own words

Defense argument: "You don't say 'Kelsey, no' when staring at a muzzle. You say it to someone with a gun to their own head." Noonan's in-moment language supports her account.

Relationship ended without warning

Confirmed she had no prior warning the relationship was over. Restraining order was the breakup. Consistent with documented emotional crisis on the day.

Car parked away — deliberate, documented

Testified she parked at the school rather than her driveway because she "knew something was going on" and feared Aylaian and others might come to the house. Undercuts Noonan's "suspicious parking" framing from his direct testimony. Also corroborates that her mental state was already in crisis before officers arrived.

Vulnerabilities Under Cross

"Confused and surprised" vs. prior-day behavior

Cross established she may have known something was coming

High ▶

◀ Direct Testimony March 25, 2026

Testified she was confused and surprised by the restraining order. Had no warning it was coming. The relationship ended when the order was handed to her.

Cross-Examination (Gubitose) ▶

Gubitose asked if anything the prior weekend might explain it. Aylaian's sister testified Kelsey drove by the house where Aylaian was deciding to file. Mitchell testified Kelsey was crying, driving around North Andover saying she "needed Justin" hours before the service.

⚠

More nuanced than the framing suggests. She testified she saw Aylaian's truck at his friend's house, recognized other vehicles, tried to contact him, and was cut off. She knew "something was going on" — which is why she parked at the school — but did not know a restraining order specifically was coming. "Confused and surprised by the restraining order" and "sensed something was wrong" are compatible. The prosecution's strongest version of this is that her emotional state was already escalated before the service, not that she was lying about surprise at the specific legal action.

Suicidal intent — when exactly did it form?

Defense opening vs. her own account creates a timing gap

Medium ▶

◀ Defense Opening (Day 1)

Defense opening stated she decided to kill herself and then misdirected officers about the guns being in the basement — intent formed downstairs. Causal chain: intent → misdirection → retrieve gun upstairs.

Her Own Testimony ▶

Her own account places the decision in the bedroom. If intent formed downstairs before she went up, her normal behavior while packing clothes upstairs requires explanation. If it formed in the bedroom, the basement misdirection happened before suicidal intent — which undercuts the clean causal chain.

⚠

Minor but exploitable. The sequence of when she decided vs. when she lied about gun location needs to be airtight. As reported, there's a gap between the defense's framing and her own account.

The tap-rack sequence — her timeline vs. Noonan's

Irreconcilable accounts of what happened in the seconds after the misfire

Critical ▶

◀ Kelsey's Testimony March 25, 2026

She grabbed the gun, held it near her stomach, took a few steps backward, and raised it to her temple. Pulled the trigger — misfire, click. She let out an expletive. Noonan shot her as she was finishing the curse word. In her version there was no gap after the click — no tap-rack, no movement toward him, no raising of the arm. The shot came immediately.

Noonan's Account ▶ Day 1–2 Testimony

After the misfire, she backpedaled across the room and performed two tap-rack attempts — a deliberate malfunction-clearing sequence — over approximately 4 seconds. Her right arm then started coming up toward him. He fired when he saw the arm rise.

⚠

Now a direct contradiction, not a gap. Her account eliminates the tap-rack entirely — Noonan fired immediately after the click with no interval for movement or malfunction-clearing. His account requires 4+ seconds of deliberate tactical movement between the click and his shots. These cannot both be true. The judge must decide which timeline is credible. Her version has the advantage of physics (gun under her leg) and verbal command language ("Kelsey, no"). His version requires her to have executed a trained tactical drill under stress while backpedaling.

Source: Day 3 — Kelsey Fitzsimmons Direct Testimony Day 1 — Noonan Direct ~12:17

Noonan vs. Fitzsimmons — Core Disputes

Same facts, irreconcilable interpretations

Point of Dispute	Noonan's Account	Kelsey's Account	Analytical Note
Gun direction	Leveled at his face, two-handed modified weaver (revised to one-handed)	Raised to her own temple — never pointed at Noonan	Irreconcilable. No third eyewitness inside the room.
Trigger intent	To shoot him	To shoot herself	Irreconcilable. Turns entirely on direction of gun.
Tap-rack sequence	She backpedaled, performed two deliberate tap-rack attempts over ~4 seconds, then raised her arm toward him — he fired	There was no tap-rack. Noonan fired immediately after the misfire click as she said a curse word — no interval, no movement toward him	Direct contradiction — not a gap in her account. Two incompatible timelines. Central question for the judge.
Basement gun claim	Accepted at face value; found no gun	Deliberate lie to clear room for suicide	Both agree on facts. Dispute is motive only.
Requests to take things downstairs	Suspicious — possibly pre-attack staging	Attempts to isolate herself to complete suicide	Same facts, opposite interpretation. No resolution available.
Gun under her leg	"The way she fell" — couldn't explain physics	Temple placement + backward fall = lateral gun position. Consistent with physics.	Her physics argument is stronger and went unanswered.
"Kelsey, no" commands	Telling her to stop pointing at him	Defense: language used to someone with gun to their head, not muzzle in your face	Noonan's own words in the moment support her account.

Testimony Inconsistencies

Consistent Testimony

Kelsey Fitzsimmons — Direct Testimony

Consistent with Evidence

Vulnerabilities Under Cross

Noonan vs. Fitzsimmons — Core Disputes

Source Transcripts