The prosecution presented two witnesseswho said the guards were not among thoseauthorized to enter the area where the coolerswere stored.

Elizabeth Davidson, food services director atthe Law School, testified that only members of herstaff and officials of the Coop were allowed toenter the area. She said the room where shebelieves the coolers were stored--a recycling areanear the loading dock off of Harkness Commons--wasnot for trash.

The question of whether the guards thought thearea was for trash or for recycling is central tothe case, police officials say. While there isgenerally nothing wrong with removing items from atrash area, deliberately taking coolers from arecycling area might indicate an intent to steal.

Davidson's testimony also provided the basisfor the charge against Perry of receiving stolenproperty. She said Perry told her in a phoneconversation that he took her set of keys tovarious Harvard buildings from the Law School'slost and found and forgot to return them.

The keys were later found by Harvard PoliceSgt. Kathleen Stanford during a search of Perry'shome. The keys, however, did not open the areawhere the coolers were stored, and the charge ofreceiving stolen property was dropped.

Witnesses said they did not know if there was asign on the door of the room where the coolerswere stored. Sources close to Perry and Auterioinsist that a sign on the door read "trasharea--do not lock" until just three days aftertheir arrest this July.

Observers said they were most surprised by theprosecution's apparent unwillingness to questionthe work abilities of Perry and Auterio. Ininterviews, other security guards have questionedthe ability of the two men to patrol the LawSchool.

That possible area of attack may have beenclosed by the decision of Dowling, the manager ofoperations for security, to testify as a defensewitness.

Outside the courtroom yesterday, Dowling wasasked if the guards had done a good job patrollingthe Law School.

"Certainly have," he said. "Otherwise, theywouldn't be working here."

Defense attorneys also suggested thatmembers of the criminal investigations divisionwere pursuing the criminal charges on their own.The attorneys repeatedly noted that PolandSprings, the owner of the water coolers, neverreported a theft and did not pursue a criminalcomplaint. The criminal complaint, in fact, wasfiled by Rooney himself.

In addition, the attorneys frequently notedthat more than a month passed between the theftand the arrest of the two guards. Using this fact,both Holman and Buckley attempted to cast doubt onthe timeliness, thoroughness and seriousness ofthe investigation.

For example, the witnesses from the Law Schoolfood services, attorneys noted and Rooneyacknowledged, were all interviewed by police afterthe arrests of Auterio and Perry in July.

"They were trying to build a case after thefact," one police department source charged in aninterview with The Crimson.

The defense attorneys did not raise the issueof how the search warrant was served asextensively as many close to the case hadexpected.