With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". exculpatory findings.” Standing as it does, “could have” is merely an introduction to speculation and is not a substitute for “concrete evidence.” Id. There was no abuse of discretion, and there is no basis to disturb the judge’s denial of the motion to suppress. See Commonwealth v. O’Day, ante 296, 307 (2003) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss due to inadequate showing that Commonwealth’s intentional destruction of infernal device denied defendant access to exculpatory evidence); Commonwealth v. Cintron, supra at 785 (affirming denial of motion to dismiss or suppress due to defendant’s failure to show that access to original fingerprint would have provided evidence more favorable than did access to photographs of fingerprint); Commonwealth v. Gomes, 403 Mass. 258, 277 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Neal, 392 Mass. 1, 12 (1984)

A: holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation
B: holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay
C: holding that defendant failed to show that lack of photographs of test plates used to analyze blood stains prejudiced his case
D: holding blood test taken for independent medical purpose is not same as blood test taken pursuant to section 3755a
C.