LIVE: Karen Read Murder Trial — MA v. Karen Read — Day 22

LIVE: Karen Read Murder Trial — MA v. Karen Read — Day 22

All the all the [Music] stories getting silent and warm. [Music] Let’s get out. These people are just going to have people over there. This is more of like a safety when they’re coming in and out. The street is open. What was the quarantine? 30 10 days. 10 days. 10 days in Tokyo. Yeah. I mean at that angle. Yeah, they’re all there quite far. I mean, I guess they got protest on the market. They usually don’t stick around. No, like they they’ll protest in the morning. Then usually there’s like the first. Yes, sir. 12. Thank you. or something. 47. That’s 47. Okay. Okay. 45. 47. 46. You got 47. You guys right in the middle. I was over here at 8. I didn’t realize it started at 10 today. I just like missed that piece of information. So, I was over here at 8:30 late. My reporter watch out and told me. I was like, “Okay.” No one tells you. I mean, I needed to like to be here early. Yeah. 8:30 is a little too early, though. I’m standing over here like, “I don’t need to be here. No. So then the crazy thing is I ask that every day. I want that job. I want to be able to go do in the middle of the day and not worry about bills. I like people like our age like Yeah. I’m like don’t have jobs. Maybe not. They get paid for that. Our taxes are paying for that. You’re doing it right. You have a job. You’re being a productive member of society. See, we’re here cuz we’re getting paid. Yeah. That’s a little different than the generates. I have a few people like family members and friends stuff like that very invested in this case and above every detail of it. When I tell him, “Oh yeah, I was there today.” You know, I don’t I don’t even know what’s going on. I was like, “I’m only here cuz I came to be here.” I was like, “Yeah, I promise I could hear what’s trying to get my paycheck.” He said I don’t care. He said like a little more politely. However, this game doesn’t love that. That’s how you know he’s telling the truth, right? Cuz I know it doesn’t affect me. So why would I lie? Yes. I’ll be inside all you know the case was downtown Boston was [Applause] Yeah. Oh yeah. Did you count this here? There’s a part in the she’s walking over. We got to get our timing in there. That’s here. Little cow here. Okay. Well, that goes well for you at 45. I’m a 46 over there. I guess she’s got pass line wave. Yeah, she’s got when I walked up my last I wish I had a relation cuz they’re all They’re more likely to be studies of workers. What I [Music] want probably sound So, I got you. Oh yeah. Yeah. I’m so excited to be here. Not me. You work with her. You work with her. No, that’s the other one. That was like a redheaded kind of one strawberry. Jess remembered one of the names. Pretty good. Well, last time I was here, Britney was the one going in to do it. Jess off that. You’re good. I was It’s embarrassing. It’s all right. In two weeks he’s gone and lost [Music] cigarette. Anyone that walks on camera like we’re trying to get sound walking up towards us. Oh, I’m like what? If someone with a camera, I would walk the other way. Good morning. there was a chance that the um uh window units could void the warranty on the windows if the window unit is shown to have been the reason that you know all the plastics crack. Oh, so I had the guy build me a This is amazing. No. Yeah. just like so quiet. Yeah. So we did Windows We got it. We got down six years. $250,000. five minutes. I said 46. Oh, he said 46. Oh, that’s right. I said 47. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Write this down. Witnesses almost arriving. I mean, it should be the truth. Oh, they’re very No, they’re they’re going to go on the bus that way. They’re going to block off. Oh, they go that way. I didn’t know that. Sir, can you just move up a little bit? I’ll turn that way for a while. August like Yeah, I know. I was probably too much. cop institutionalize you. Someone needs to be out on the streets. disguise. Hello. How are you today? Good. How are you? She’s like almost walking. Yesterday she like technically took her first step and Laura didn’t see it so it didn’t count. 43. She was washing dishes and I was feeding the baby and all a sudden she was like two steps grabbed onto me and I was like you just did it. Yeah. She’s like, “No, okay.” Exactly. She’s got to walk between you guys, you know. I told her mom and my mom was if you ever see her walk, keep it to yourself. Yeah. Yeah. Terry the Terry alarm. All right, I’m going to head in then. Enjoy yourself as always. That’s like I know very similar similar Couple times I’ve pulled in behind her, like I’ve been right behind her on this road and she’ll like when she stop she’ll like wave the Listen turtle biggest part of my day. She came earlier than she came earlier than 45. Yeah, [Music] [Applause] Aiden. [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Oh, really? [Music] [Music] [Music] That’s why [Music] How you doing? Good. How are you? What about you? I was like [Music] earlier. I feel like the answer is like [Music] See you. See you. All right. Good morning, everybody. All right. So, Dr. Welchure can testify that the data he downloaded and analyzed and the damage to the Lexus is consistent with Ms. Reed’s vehicle being in a collision on January 29th at 12:32 a.m. because he’s a qualified expert and his opinion is based on reliable methodology appropriately applied. In addition, Dr. Welchure can testify that Mr. O’Keefe’s injuries are consistent with his having been struck by a Lexus that is physically identical to Ms. Reed’s Lexus because this opinion is based upon, among other things, his experimental work that came into evidence without objection as to scientific methodology and application. However, he may not testify that Miss Reed’s Lexus collided with Mr. O’Keefe because that conclusion is not based on the application of reliable scientific methodology. The problem here is not that the opinion concerns the ultimate issue because in Massachusetts that’s not a bar to admissibility. Rather, it is that Dr. Welchure, the expert, is drawing an inference based upon more than scientific method. His opinions set the stage for argument and a permissible inference to be drawn by jurors through the application of their sound judgment to the opinions that they find credible. But the jurors are as well positioned to draw or reject the inference as is the expert. That is the inference is not compelled by the application of any scientific method. So that’s the ruling. All right. So the jurors are lining up. We should have them momentarily. Thank you for the late coffee. Okay. Is Dr. Welchure right around? Why don’t we bring him in if he’s here before the jurors? updated version. We provided a copy to the defense with all the uh redactions. Okay. The Are you in agreement with this, Mr. Allessie? I I haven’t gone through, but I have no reason to believe that I wouldn’t be in agreement. There is one slide so I’ll admit it conditional to redactions that you didn’t rule on but I feel as though you probably will exclude and that is in that version I didn’t want to pull it out with the court’s order but I’ll talk to do you know the do you know the number you don’t have to find it if you don’t it’s 131 oh is this the was it 130 was it 131 yesterday too it was so at sidebar I said we could go back to that and Mr. agreed that we could go back to that. So, and I know we I thought we were starting there and I think Dr. Welchure thought we were starting there and then you went to 132. That was my understanding at Sidebar. It is, but subject to me being able to object. I was basically because we wanted the jury to come in. So, I I want to look at the slide. Okay. So, look at it again. That’s not my understanding, Mr. Allessie. It was you were concerned just about the heading and then I said we’d go back to both slides. Oh, yeah. No, I’m okay with that. That one. Yes. Your honor to recollection is correct. Yeah. And we were going to start on that, but you thought because I struck it. I struck it based on the objection, but then it sidebar I said we could go back to that. That’s your understanding, too. Are you sure that Dr. W took off the heading on 131? I think he did, but because I think he took off from 124 to one. I think he did as well. I did. Thank you very much. Okay. Are they out there, Paul? Okay, thank you. Gay gay gay. All persons have any business before the honorable Beverly Canon, justice of the Northolk Superior Court and before the county of Northol. Draw near. Give your attendance. You shall be heard. Say the Commonwealth of Massachusetts court is now open. You may be seated. All right. Good morning again, councel. Good morning again, Miss Reed. Morning, Dr. Good morning, your honor. And good morning, jurors. So, I have to ask you those same three questions. Was everyone able to follow my instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left yesterday? Everyone said yes or nod affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instruction and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes or noded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left yesterday? Everyone said no or shook their heads. Thank you very much. All right, Mr. Brennan. Thank you, your honor. [Music] Morning, Dr. Welch. Good morning. When we left off yesterday, I was asking you about some of your opinions. I’m going to ask you those questions again, but before we do, I’m going to ask you two other questions. The first is I’d ask you to turn to your PowerPoint slide 110. You want me to display it, please? I’m going to ask you a question about a series of your slides regarding um this effort. This is 110. Could you also follow through to 111 12 13 14 15? You want me to play the videos? Um you don’t need to play the videos. I just want to acquaint you for the question. 111 12 112 113 114 115 How many times did you engage in testing where your arm and forearm touched the rear right of the exemplar Alex Lexus three times in any of those three times did Did it ever leave any paint on the underside of your arm or forearm? No. If you could turn to slide 130, please. What? Could you go back one, please? Perhaps it’s 131. Dr. Welchure, there we go. Could you explain the significance of this slide, please? Your honor, um, this is Oh, could you take that down, Dr. Welch? Sure. Thank you, Mr. We’re going to move forward. Yesterday when we left off, I had asked you. So, we need to take this. Sorry. You can take the PowerPoint down, please. I was in a different spot on this line. Hold on a second. That’s Thank you. Sorry. I had asked you yesterday about some of your opinions. I want to ask you about some of your opinions relative to that last effort that you made regarding testing between the Lexus and your arm. Correct. Um you had mentioned earlier on in your testimony that you reviewed a number of pieces of information um and offered that you relied on some of those pieces for your opinion. Can you share with us for this part of your analysis? What pieces of evidence or information did you rely on for the opinions I’m going to ask you relative to the testing on the arm contact on the tail light? Yes. So, it was the physical evidence at the scene, the photographs of Miss Reed’s vehicle, uh, to a certain extent my analysis of the Ring doorbell and the One Meadows event. the uh nature and just your honor. Pardon my interruption. I just want to know if he’s reading from something or not. Looks like he’s counting on his reading from No, I am counting on my finger. So, um I am counting on my fingers. The uh Ring video doorbell um Mr. O’Keefe’s height um you know the type of shoes he’s wearing because I needed the same type of shoes. my exemplar inspection where I matched up the heights, the um locations of the lacerations and then the text stream data as well. that information that you consider um in addition to the text stream data you considered considering both those areas of information. Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty and whether the damage to the defendant’s Lexus is consistent with a collision with Mr. John O’Keefe on January 29th, 2022 at around 12:32 a.m. So, there’s been two potential theories that I’ve seen on that issue. One is a glass was thrown at the rear of the vehicle and shattered it. The second one was an impact to the arm. If the impact is basically more than approximately 8 miles an hour, uh, it will likely break the tail light lens. Do you have an opinion whether based on the data and based on the physical damage and your testing whether that is consistent with a collision or a impact with Mr. John O’Keefe? It is consistent with a collision as long as it’s greater than approximately 8 miles an hour. Do you have an opinion whether it’s consistent with an impact or collision with Mr. John O’Keefe on January 29th, 2022 at around 12:32 a.m.? With that caveat, yes. In your testing, did you consider or do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty whether John O’Keefe’s injuries on his arm, inevitably in the back of his head, are consistent with being struck by Alexis identical to the defendant’s Lexus on January 29th, 2022? Yes. What’s your opinion that it is it is consistent with being struck by Alexis and ultimately contacting a hard surface such as frozen ground. And is that specifically pertain to January 29th, 2022 around 12:30 a.m.? Objection, your honor. I’m going to award that. Yes, it does. To finish, I’d like to ask you a few more questions. You’ve written some papers on sideswipe collisions or clipping. Can you describe for the jury and explain what a sideswipe collision is or a clipping and how that may or may not differ from a direct hit on a pedestrian impact. Sure. So what generally differentiates say sidewipes or clipping contacts compared to say an inline uh impact or say a t-bone impact is what refers to that the object that you’re hitting isn’t accelerated up to the speed of the object that’s coming in. So, for example, if I rear end a car, that car will be accelerated up as a result of the contact and they reach what’s called common velocity and then they separate. And so, in a glancing hit, you can have a glancing hit and you don’t have what’s called complete momentum transfer, meaning the momentum from the car because it’s a glancing hit doesn’t completely transfer to the object being struck. For example, you can drive down the road at 100 miles an hour and clip the mirror of a parked car and you’ll break the mirror off, but you’re not going to go from 100 to zero instantaneously. You’re just going to keep going because you don’t have all that momentum transfer. So, when you have glancing contacts, you can have much higher speeds without a lot of damage to the car because you’re only in momentary contact and it’s a glancing type hit. You mentioned about potential damage to a car. How about potential damage to the pedestrian? It’s the same thing. So, um, when you have a glancing hit to a pedestrian, this is referred to as a as a fender vault. In this case, they call it a fender. Fenders on the front of cars because most pedestrian impacts involve the front of cars. In this case, it would be called a quarter panel vault, which means you’re kind of vaultting off the corner of the car. those are much more complicated um because you don’t have that common velocity that I referred to. So it’s difficult to calculate the exact speeds at which the vehicle contacted without a whole bunch of information in that type of crash. If the impact has occurred in the center of the vehicle and we knew where the point of impact was and the point of rest, we’d have a much better chance of determining how fast the vehicle was going. But when you have just a corner clipping or glancing, it makes it more difficult to determine even when you have an area of impact, which is where the person was and they got hit and a point of rest where they landed, makes it more difficult for glancing contacts because you don’t have you have that sideswipe problem where they don’t obtain what’s called common velocity. And what are some of the other difficulties in attaining specificity in a sideswipe or being hit by a quarter panel as opposed to offender? So for a pedestrian, correct? Yes. Um so pedestrian impacts and how you move post impact are very sensitive to your exact body position. For example, whether your right foot is on the ground or off the ground, whether your left foot is on the ground off the ground, whether you jump up in response to the crash. Um, simply raising and lowering your arm changes the amount of rotation that’s going to happen. Um, post impact motion of the person. So, um, cadaavvers, crash dummies don’t have any muscle reaction. So, the motion of a crash dummy is just going to be like you’re hitting a dead body to where people will step, try and regain their balance if possible, will do additional activities that alters where they come to rest. In your studies of direct pedestrian collisions by front or back bumper as opposed to sideswipe or clipping somebody, is there a similarity or difference in type of injuries that you see? Yes. And what is the difference? So in direct centralized impacts, you tend to get much more severe injuries. Really, what’s occurring is you’re getting that momentum transfer. So, it’s it’s more you’re accelerating the person up to the vehicle. They can wrap onto the side in front of the vehicle. Uh, at higher severities, their head will hit the hood, head the rear of the vehicle. So, when you have that direct contact, there’s actually more momentum transferred to the actual occupant. There’s more applied force to the occupant as well. When you see direct impacts, is there ever the existence of lower body extremity injuries, broken bones in the legs. So, there can be both um depending and again it’s very sensitive to where the foot is on the ground, whether the foot’s on the ground as well as the severity of the crash. In the presentation that I gave at the actual reconstruction collision safety institute on pedestrian injuries, I went through all the literature on lower extremity injuries and looked at what parameters affected that. And so depending on how it was loaded, some at 15 mph had no injuries, some at 15 mph had some fractures. It depended on how exactly the foot was loaded. Is it uncommon in sidesw flight pedestrian accidents to see no lower body broken bone? No, it is not uncommon. Have you had cases that you’ve studied or been involved with where you’ve studied the effect of a sideswipe or a clipping impact where there’s an absence of broken bones in the lower body extremities? Yes. I’d ask you to turn to slide 139, please. [Music] Oh, sorry. I fixed those other two slides. Okay. Could you share with the jury what this represents? Sure. So, this was a trial that I was involved with in downtown Los Angeles. Uh I’ve redacted the name at the top, but this was an instance where we had um this is a image from the police report. Well, um let me see if I can So AOI in this diagram stands for area of impact. That’s where the pedestrian was when they got hit. AO is area of rest and you can see we have information on exactly how far the pedestrian was thrown. Then on the right hand side we have photographs showing the impact to the pedestrian. This was determined by experts on both sides of this case to be between a 25 to 35 mph impact. And then what you see is a closeup on the bottom slide of um where there was DNA transfers uh hair and tissue samples on the vehicle from the individual that was hit by the vehicle. Next slide, please. And what does this represent? So this is the deedent in the case, the person that was hit. He was killed uh at the scene. Uh what you see uh on the left hand image um oops on the left hand image is he had a massive laceration to his right forearm but it didn’t break his arm. There was no broken bones in his arm. On the right hand side of this image, you see the autopsy report. What you’ll notice is he had red marks on his leg, left buttocks, but he had no leg fractures. And again, this individ individual was hit at between 25 to 35 miles an hour. Can you expand that? I’m sorry. Do you want that expanded like other times? There you go. Thank you. I’m sorry to interrupt you. Yeah. No, my pleasure. Thank you. So to to at the top, he had a a severe brain injury, which again is is the most common injury in pedestrian crashes. Um he did have fractures of the right 11th and 12th rib. Um and a liver laceration. If you look at the extremities, it says right upper extremity. Again, that’s from a shoulder to the end of the hand. Uh extremity wound with vascular injury. So, no fractures. Um, if you look where I was talking about the multiple abrasions, so when they’re looking at the lower extremities, they’re noting a number of red marks, but there was notably no fractures to the lower extremities. Thank you. You can take that down, please. Okay, Dr. Welch, regarding your analysis of the data and the evidence in this case, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty whether the absence of lower body breaks to Mr. O’Keefe is consistent with the defendant’s Lexus impacting in a sideswipe or a clipping Mr. O’Keefe? Yes, you you could definitely have this type of impact and not have anything beyond say red marks to the lower extremity. Thank you, Dr. Welchure. I would move to evidence subject to redactions. Dr. Welch’s PowerPoint presentation. That’s by agreement with your honor. Thank you. put in both the flash drive and the notebook representation. It’s consistent the same. So let’s put them both together now and decide later. Okay, those two slides are incorrect on the flash. Okay, so we’ll switch that. Thank you. What exhibit number is it? 206. Thank you. 206 A and B. All right, Mr. Leie, whenever you are ready. Sure. Morning, Dr. Walter. Good morning. We haven’t been formally introduced. Your whole name? Robert Allessie, sir. Robert Leie. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Dr. Welchure. Um the area in which you ga engage can also include and I believe you use the term on direct forensics correct. Do you engage in any forensic activity in your profession? Yes. The the general umbrella of you basically coming in giving scientific evidence in court applies to forensics. So my main job is action reconstruction and biomechanics. And so that’s what I do. Sometimes it doesn’t involve court. When it goes to court, that’s generally forensics. Right. So you’re you’re here today. That is my question. You’re here today at least in part with regard to forensics. Correct. Because forensics is the the the Latin term for it is basically you’re you’re going to have some type of court or jury present. It’s it’s for law. Correct. Would you agree with that? It’s for law. Forensics. I mean exactly the way you asked that. No, it’s for engineering and it’s for biomechanics. It’s in the court of law I think is what you’re asking. That’s exactly. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Certainly for the court of law. I guess it ends up to a court of law in forensics as a common term. So it relates to or it’s used in or it’s suitable for a court of law. The analysis you’d agree that’s a general principle. Yes. Not a trick question. Okay. And so in forensics what you’re doing among other things is you’re applying the uh scientific method and principles uh in here in a criminal uh matter. Correct. Yeah. You try and apply as much as possible. Right. And so the primary goal of forensic science is um to uncover the truth and to provide objective evidence uh that can be presented in court. That is generally correct. Again, there are elements, for example, this analysis that are relying sort of on subjective evidence like the testimonial, the witness statements. So, it’s not solely based, but ideally, you’d want it as much as possible based on objective data. So, you would agree that um truth and objective evidence is part of the presentation in terms of information for forensics in a court of law. Certainly objective information. Truth sometimes again can be subjective. Oh, so you don’t believe truth. You believe sometimes truth applies, sometimes it doesn’t. No, if you know for a fact it is true. But if you take someone’s deposition testimony, you have to look at it relative to the evidence and it’s either consistent with the evidence or not. Okay. So now let’s go to uh your direct examination that you just went through, please. Uh hopefully this is is fairly straightforward. You have uh testified to and it’s it’s varied a bit a reasonable degree of engineering certainty. Is that correct? Correct. You’ve also have you used the word sometimes to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. I might have. Right. So I don’t know. In terms of your role as a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist, um is it important to engage in a critical analysis of the data? Critical analysis. Yeah, I think it’s important to have a critical analysis. You want to try and look at it from all sides. Consider all possibilities. So, it is therefore important to try to review the data as objectively as possible. You had mentioned sometimes subjectivity comes in, but I understand the goal is to try to look at it as objectively as possible. Correct. Correct. Now, you stated with respect to your conclusions early on in your direct testimony and your analysis that you don’t, and I think I I’ve got it quoted, you don’t have a dog in the fight. Is that what you said, sir? I did. and that you quote don’t care end quote about the outcome. That’s what you made a point of saying in the beginning. That is 100% correct. Now, you simply follow the data. Is that correct? I try to do that. You try to do that. I’m not perfect. No, I do my best. I believe I’ve done it here. Okay. So, um in terms of you’ve agreed that you uh apply the scientific method. So I want to see if you’re in agreement generally so the jury can understand what the scientific method is. Are you familiar with NIST National Instit? Yes. Yeah. So would you agree with this definition of the scientific method? The systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and definition of a problem. The collection of data through observation and experimentation, analysis of the data, the formulation, evaluation and testing of hypotheses and where possible the selection of a final hypothesis. Is that a general fair statement of the scientific method? So for forensics, you’d have to add in the testimonial evidence aspect of it. So those are testimonial or things are in evidence. So frequently there’s one or two versions and you’re trying to match which version is most consistent with the evidence. Okay. Adding that to what um I stated uh relative to NIS, you would agree that evaluation and testing of hypotheses and where possible the selection of a final hypothesis is the scientific method. Correct? Generally, yes. Is it correct that a proper biomechanical injury analysis utilizes a sound scientific methodology that’s been subjected to peer reviewed and a publication that’s been generally accepted in the engineering community? Well, I can’t. So, so this I’ve done my analysis here, biomechanical analysis. I can’t submit this analysis to peer review. I’m not allowed to give this to people outside the court. So there would be no way for me to submit my analysis for peer review. So this occurs forensics all the time. The forensic analysis in court generally never goes under through under a peerreview process. the methodologies underneath it and looking at like for example I think I referenced 25 papers in my report that goes to the issue of trying to follow the science 26 so I think you may have misunderstood my question sir I was talking about your methodology your biomechanical injury methodology the methodology that you use and apply is to be subject to peer review and general acceptance in the engineering community. Is that correct? So I have no way of publishing this analysis to get I need to go ahead and answer your question. You’re ask peer reviewed like you said means I give it to my peers. I send it out to somebody to review for the scientific method. That’s what the peerreview process is. So I will gladly send this out to peer review with the court’s permission but I haven’t and cannot do that. Sir, my question is not your analysis here in this case. My question regards the methodology that you use here is the methodology. You said 26 references, right? My question is simply is the methodology that you use for your analysis in this matter is the methodology for a proper biomechanical analysis should that methodology be generally accepted in the engineering community I think in the with the forensic application yes okay that’s that that was my question just the methodology. Thank you. You’re welcome. Now the scientific method that that you you’ve used in this case, part of the use of scientific method, the purpose is to avoid what is called bias in the scientific method, right? Not cultural bias, but just bias in terms of the application of methodologies and principles. You would agree that’s a a pretty fundamental purpose of the scientific method is to avoid biases. The purpose of the scientific method is to get the the most logical and correct answer without bias. Exactly. Exactly. To do it with apply the scientific method without bias being part of its the application of the method. Correct. That’s hopefully what you can do. That’s hopefully what you can do. That is that is the goal, right? That is one of many goals. Yes. So, are you familiar with the term confirmation bias? I am. And that relates co uh confirmation bias is uh part of a larger term. Are you familiar with cognitive bias? Generally, I’m not a human factors expert though. Pardon me. I’m not a human factors expert. All right. This is biases are don’t you agree that cognitive biases are not just for one category. You would agree it applies to medical analyses. It applies to doctors doing studies, engineers doing studies and other scientists doing studies. I’m not a cognitive expert. I I think I would generally agree with it, but I don’t want to step out of my lane. I’m not an expert on cognitive. I can talk to you about confirmational bias if you like. Let’s talk about confirmation bias. Now, confirmation bias is actually when someone selectively gathers and interprets evidence to confirm one or another’s beliefs as well as neglecting evidence that contradicts those beliefs. Is that a fair statement of confirmation bias? That is a statement. Yeah, it could be broader, but sure. But you would agree that that is generally correct. What confirmation bias is and an example of confirmation bias is cons uh not considering alternative hypotheses once an initial hypothesis has been selected even though data and information might contradict the initial hypothesis. Is that an example of confirmation bias? That could be yes. And confirmation bias is anothetical. It’s against the scientific method. It’s to be avoided. Correct. You would like to avoid it. Yes. Are you familiar with the term failure analysis? Generally, you might need to define how you’re using it for me. Sure. So is failure analysis the enablement of a scientific examination of an alleged incident by beginning at the undesired consequences. Is that a fair use of that phrase? I was thinking something different like a piece of metal failing. I guess it could fall into that category. Okay. And would you agree that the first question or one of the first questions that are to be asked by a biomechanical engineer when conducting an analysis of say an injury is how did this happen? Is that one of the first few questions that you ask? No, that’s usually the last question. Oh, so for you so hold on a second. Generally what you want to do is gather data. You want to know what injuries there are, what evidence there is, like for example on the vehicles, and then the very last thing you want to know or define is given all that information, how did it happen? So that’s the end. I think you may have misunderstood my question. So I wasn’t talking about the method or the process. I was talking about when you get to answering questions whenever that is in the process. Isn’t one of the questions and maybe one of the first questions how did this happen? No, that’s not one of the first questions. The one of the first questions is where’s the damage? What are the injuries? What’s the evidence? What blackbox or text stream data do we have? Um what physical evidence was at the scene? So that is certainly not one. It is a question, but that question is at or near the end. Isn’t every one of the questions that you just mentioned part of the data gathering? Correct. But but when you’re gathering data, you’re always asking yourself questions along the way like what is this? Where did it come from? But you would agree that for you at least some point it’s how did this happen? Correct. And don’t you ask that question to come up with hypothesis? Uh I generally have many working hypotheses as I’m working on the case and then as the evidence comes in I’m applying that to my hypothesis and either accepting or rejecting the hypothesis based upon the factual information. Sir, how then is it just a matter of logic or syllogism? If you don’t ask the question, how did this happen until the end? How do you then not get your hypotheses up front when under the scientific method you should be having different hypotheses up front? How is it that you asked how did it happen at the end and not go through hypotheses in the beginning? Can you help me with that logic? Sure. I guess I misunderstood like I was trying to give you an answer to how it happened. So when you’re answering how it happened or you want to be able to answer that question, you want to make sure you’ve looked at the totality of the data, accepted, rejected things as they came along to be able to answer that final question. How did it happen? But along the way, like for example, um a right eye laceration, you want to know how that happened. So you look for the evidence of how that may have happened. So you would agree then that questions of how it happened, formulating and identifying hypotheses does and can happen toward the beginning of the analysis. It doesn’t happen at the end all the time. Would you agree with that? So the ultimate question of how did it happen happens at the end. The questions about the elements of what occurred to make it happen, those occur at the beginning, middle, all along the way. You would agree that creating hypothesis occurs more toward the beginning than toward the end of the analysis. Is that correct? There are probably more hypotheses in the beginning but I am continually forming looking at hypotheses either accepting or rejecting them upon the evidence. So you would agree that hypo the creation of hypotheses does occur more toward the beginning of the analysis. You would agree with that there are more towards the beginning the process occurs throughout the whole investigation. Right. I’m asking about the hypothesis, sir. You would agree that the hypotheses occur more toward the beginning than the end. Just a hypothesis. So, I don’t know if you and I are saying different things. More hypotheses in the beginning because you have more questions in the beginning. You continue to form hypotheses as the data presents itself. So, you don’t stop the formation of hypothesis. It’s just as you get more evidence you window down the number of questions. Maybe I can just this last question and make it clearer for you. Sir, you would agree not analysis which you added uh I as I heard it to the last part just hypothesis. You would agree that even though hypotheses can be created and changed perhaps all the way up to the end, you would agree that it’s important in the analysis to create at least some hypotheses plural in the beginning. Correct? Yes. And once you create these hypotheses, would you agree that those hypotheses should be tested? Um, so if you take the word testing to mean testing compared to testimony compared to physical evidence. Yes. And when you test those hypotheses, isn’t it often the case that particularly in your line of work, the one that most consistently produces the same injury will emerge as the mechanism of injury. I guess it depends on the scientific evidence behind it. Um again sometimes we get very unique injuries. So my question sir is this Mhm. Isn’t it the case that when you have multiple hypotheses, multiple hypotheses, the one that cons most most out of all of them, it’s a relative thing, the one that most consistently produces the same injury emerges as the mechanism of injury. Is that a fair statement? Uh, I think generally, again, I would it’s on a case- by case basis. You have to look at the science and and the facts of what you’re basing it upon. I think as a general premise what you’re saying is accurate. Okay. That but there’s exceptions. Fair enough. But it’s a general principle with some exceptions. That’s a fair statement. Correct. Yes, sir. We’re going to uh have several topics, sir. And what I’m going to try to do to make it a little clear is I’m going to say when I’m switching topics. Oh, good. So, um what I’d like to do now is switch topics. Okay. Um, you’re aware that the Massachusetts State Police has troopers who specialize in accident reconstruction. Correct. Yes. And there are troopers within the Massachusetts State Police Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Section whose sole responsibility is to engage in accident reconstruction. Do you know that? I do not know that. Do you know that there are troopers within the Massachusetts State Police Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Section who engage in accident reconstruction? Just based on what I’ve seen in this case, right? Based upon what you’ve seen in the case, that’s a fair statement. And I just know that those people are doing it. Are you familiar with a Massachusetts state trooper named Joseph Paul? P A U L. Yes. And you know, I’m familiar with his reports. I don’t know the man. Okay. Familiar with trooper Paul through his reports in this case. Correct. Correct. And are you aware that he was assigned by uh lead investigator, former troop Michael Proctctor to be a constructionist in this case on January 29th of 2022 as evidenced by that report or those reports of Trooper Paul? Do you know that? Well, you put a lot of things in there. I know he issued a reconstruction report. I don’t know who told him to do it. So the first party question I don’t know but I did see a reconstruction report from him. You were retained and so do you recall is it is the date January 29th of 2022. Is that a rough time period of him being assigned or you don’t know when he was resigned? I don’t know. That might have been in his report but I I wouldn’t have paid attention to when he received an assignment. Do you know when the the date of the first report of Trooper Joseph Paul in this case? I can pull it up. I do not know off the top of my head. You know that the date of the incident in question is January 29th, 20122. Correct. Correct. Yet your firm and you were retained for this case by the Commonwealth 2 and a half years after the incident in question. You were retained your firm on September 23rd, 2024. Is that correct, sir? No, I believe we were retained a couple days before that. A couple days. Okay. Correct. So, actually, I might be able to find out if you’d like me to look at documents. It’s not all that important. You would say it’s within a week of September 23rd, 2000. It was in September of 2024. Uh, I believe it was in September. Yes. I would want to double check. That’s two and a half years from the date of the incident in question if I did the math right. Correct. Uh, oh, I never thought about it. Yeah, approximately. And as we just discussed and you stated on your direct examination, you have no dog in this fight. Correct. Correct. On November 5th of 202024, your firm Aperture was paid $44,500 by the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office to conduct work that was at least similar to the work of Trooper Paul. Correct? I have no idea. I don’t get the billing or the statements. Do you recall whether Aperture has Well, do you believe Aperture is working for free in this matter? Oh, no. I don’t believe that. We’re an engineering company. We build for our time. So, so you’re you know that Aperture is getting paid for its work in this case, correct? We are billing for our analysis work. Well, you’re not just billing. You’re billing and getting paid. Correct. So, I have not seen any of the payments. I would assume that we’re getting paid, but I don’t know that. Sir, you are a senior vice president of Aperture, are you not? I am. You would know, wouldn’t you, if your firm was not getting paid for work since September 23rd of 2024, wouldn’t you? No, probably not. Usually, it takes, you know, 9 10 12 months of not getting paid before the accounting department reaches out to me. Exactly. So, you’ve been on this for 2 and 1/2 years. So, if it would take 9 months or 12 months, if you weren’t getting paid, you would have been notified by that by now. Correct? I’m pointing to your own answer you just gave. I’ve not been on this case for two and a half years. I I I’m sorry, sir. Let me go back to the question of payment. Hold on. You said I’ve been on this case for two and a half years. I was retained in September 17thish of 2024. So that’s what less than a year ago. Understood. I’m moving on to the next question because I I I want to move away from that discussion and just go right to the bill. You as you sit here today do not have a recollection of whether Aperture has been paid. Is that your testimony? It has nothing to do with recollection. I’m not part of that process. We have an accounting department. I don’t have any involvement in that. Are you so is your testimony you have no knowledge about any contractual relationship between Aperture and the Commonwealth? Oh, no. No. I was sent a contract by the Commonwealth to sign. So, I’m aware of the contractual agreement, but the dayto-day or month-to-month invoicing and billing, I’m not involved in that. Okay. So, you’re aware there’s a contract between Aperture and the Commonwealth? I signed it. And you signed it. And wasn’t that contract obligating the Commonwealth to pay for the services of Aperture? Isn’t that the purpose of the contract? In part, uh, in part, sure. Yeah. It’s it’s a legal obligation of the Commonwealth. Your firm does work and the Commonwealth pays for it. Correct. That’s the idea, right? And so you know about that contract because you signed it. Correct. Also, you testified on direct that there was a purchase of a a Lexus exemplar for your testing. Correct. Who pays for that Lexus exemplar? Aperture. And is that then cost passed on to the Commonwealth? No. Oh. Oh. So, so you pay for the Lexus. You don’t pass that cost on. Correct. So, what we’re doing is we paid for the Lexus. We’re keeping it till the trial’s over. We’re selling it and charging the Commonwealth the difference in the price. Exactly. That was where I was going, sir. So, but they’re only paying the difference. So, and in theory, if we sell it for more in California, then we’ll reduce the bill. Okay. I don’t want to speculate. I just wanted to see what the the obligation was. So, the obligation is the difference. Exactly. So, the obligations, the difference. Um, are you aware that on April 5th, 2022, the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office amended your contract? Are you aware of that, sir? I am. And isn’t it the case that that amendment authorized the amount of $325,000 to be paid to Aperture? Isn’t that what that amendment contract states? I believe that’s correct. So, the Commonwealth is obligated to pay at least $325,000. And is that correct? That is my You’re asking me a legal opinion now about a contract. That is my understanding of how contracts work, but I’m certainly not an attorney. And on top of that, are you aware that Aperture has been already paid $44,510 for its work? Are you aware of that? The second time you asked me, no, I’m not aware of anything we’ve been paid. And as you stated yourself, those amounts reflect, as you say, less than six months worth of work. That’s not what I said. Well, no. My question is, you’ve been on the case. You said since September of 2024 when we were talking about dates, you said that was about 6 months that your firm’s been retained. Did I have your answer correct about how long you’ve been on it? Uh, I guess it’s closer to 8 months. All right. So, eight months. So, for eight months of work about $400,000. Is that correct? So, there’s three offices working on the case. There’s the Boston office, there’s Mr. Burgess’s office, and there’s my office in Long Beach. I only know about the billing from my office. But you signed the contract on behalf of all of Aperture, not just your office. Correct. That I don’t know, but I definitely did sign a contract. Would it refresh your recollection as to who you signed the contract on behalf of whether it’s all of Aperture in all offices if I showed you the contract? Sure. May I put you on? Yes. May I put you sir? Yeah. Could you direct me so we’re not wasting time? Um, well, it’s your what I’d like to do, your uh uh with the witness uh your honor, is just ask the witness a question with regard to Why don’t you just take a look at that, M. Uh, Dr. Burgess? Thank you, And then when he’s done, Mr. Unless you can take it. Yes. There you go. I have a few more questions before I do that for foundation purposes. If I want to do more, right, would you like me to start? Go ahead and start with me first. Go back to the podium, please. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, honor. Dr. Welchure, does that refresh your recollection as to the contract you signed on behalf of Aperture with the Comedy? So, it lists the legal address as my office. So, for my office, yes. So, are you saying that therefore and did you did you see the amount that was in the contract? Did that refresh your recollection? Oh, no. I didn’t look at that. Do you recall the amount that uh of obligation that the contract relates to in this document? Do you recall that? You just asked me that earlier and I’m taking what you said to be true. So, I was like $325,000. Uh, I have no reason to disbelieve that. And is there also a total do you recall the total maximum obligation for the contract that’s listed in the contract? You recall it. May I approach your honor? Okay. And Dr. Welchure, I am now going to uh you asked me last time. I hope this is helpful. You said please point to the applicable part so we can do it faster. I am now pointing to that part and see if you can just look at that and see whether this refreshes your recollection on the maximum obligation of the contract pursuant to this contract without saying what it is. Just does it refresh your recollection? No, but I don’t have any reason to believe it’s not correct. And that is my signature on it. Right. And we got started on this conversation tying it to well we got started on this conversation with regard to a statement you made earlier in your direct that you didn’t have any dog in the hunt. You recall that statement in the beginning of your direct testimony. You misqued me. I don’t have any dog in the fight. You don’t have any dog in the fight. Correct. Thank you. Now, switching topics. Okay. You submitted an updated PowerPoint presentation, the one that we that you went over on your direct examination. You created that presentation quite recently. Correct sir? The updated one was where I had redacted or taken out slides. So in terms of taking out slides, I did add one alternative path a couple weeks ago. Okay. My question sir, is this the updated presentation? We’ll get to the changes later, but the updated presentation you created just how many days ago? Uh, I’m going to say weeks ago. Weeks? Two weeks? I I don’t actually know without looking at the documents. Well, was it more than 3 weeks ago that you created it? I still don’t know without looking at the documents. Do you know when the trial started in this matter, sir? I do not assume the trial started approximately April 22nd of 2024. Okay. Did you create your updated presentation before or after April 22nd of 2024? I don’t know. Do you know when Hold on one sec. Dr. Welch, I’d ask that you not do not look at Okay. I was going to try and answer his question. My apologies. I will shut it down. Thank you. You’re welcome. If I may, your honor, take it. Are you able to determine when you created the updated presentation? I think so. That’s what I was attempting to. Your honor, may he do that? Yes. I’m going to see counsel while you pull that up, please. Dr. Welchure, what I’m going to ask you to do is get whatever information you need for Mr. Allessie’s last question. Mr. Allessie, I need you. I need you over there. So, um, and once you get that answer, I’m going to ask you to shut your computer down or at least put down the the cover. How about it? Thank you. All right. So, you can answer Mr. Allessie’s question. Thank you, honor. Could you give me the question again, please? Yes. When did you create the updated presentation that you reviewed in your direct testimony? So that addition I made was taken out. It wasn’t in my direct testimony. Update. If you can just hear my question, it’s this. The version of the presentation that you put on the screen. When did you create that version? I’m just looking for a date. So to answer your question about the version on the screen, I created that yesterday when the judge asked me to take off some of the headers. So yesterday. Okay, good. Now the version before that that you created yesterday, when did you create that version? The day before. And then the version before that one, when did you create that? I mean, I save it every day. Understood. So every day. So you’ve changed the presentation every day since when? No, I don’t think I’ve changed a presentation every day. That’s my question. My question is, how many times have you changed it within the last two weeks, your presentation? Let me try and cut to the chase here. Sure. That slide was added on May 13th and then it was taken out before I presented it here. So, it was not in my presentation here. Right. So, thank you for that answer. So, here’s the the question. Your first version, as I understand it, of the slide presentation was January 30th, 2025. Is that correct? Correct. When was the next time after January 30th, 2025 that you changed that presentation? May 13th. Assuming the trial started April 22nd of 2025, you changed your PowerPoint presentation during this trial. Correct. Correct. And how many times did you change your presentation after April 22nd of 2025? Well, the last time they changed it was like 10 minutes ago. So, in response to various discussions, I’ve been making continuous changes to it. I want to make sure you finish your answer. So, I didn’t No, no. I’m I’m not sure how much granularity you want to that answer. Right. So, you created on January 30th, 2025. You made your 13th, pardon me. Oh, no. Oh, the original one. Sorry. January 30th modified May 13th. Right. If if I could finish my question and I might might be able to shortcut this. Thank you. So you created the original one on January 30th, 2025. You made your first amendment May 13 of 2025 and then before you sat for your testimony, which was yesterday, correct? That was the first time you sat for your testimony. That is correct. I was here yesterday. days get foggy when we’re in a courtroom. So, but it was yesterday. How many times had you changed your presentation from January 30th, 2025 until when you first walked in the courthouse yesterday? Do you mind if I count? Not at all. So, there was the May 13th change. Um, half of that was in response to objections from the defense. I had to add all the paths to where everything was. Um, then when I got out here, uh, Mr. Brandon asked me to take out references to evidence, uh, about statements that I was not allowed to present. So, that would have been within the last 3 days. And then I’ve modified it a couple times today based on rulings from the judge. Okay, let’s let’s break that down. You said half of the changes you made on May 13th related to what? Cuz I want to know about the other half. Sure. There was there was two changes. I I added the extra path of 138 and then I was told that the defense was having problems with my PowerPoint. So, I had to go in and add the paths to every single slide about where the evidence came from because they were saying I didn’t provide everything and I had provided everything. All right. So, so that was the second half. Got I want to go to the first half, sir. Sure. And I’m going to try to shortcut this and if I’m not clear, you just let me know. I want to talk about the first half you called it. I didn’t hear it was like did you say path? Path. P A T H. Correct. The path Miss Reed was driving. Right. the the what you made the change for for May 13th that first half that wasn’t something that was triggered by the defense that was something irrespective of the defense correct it was based upon her statements is she part of the defense all right so that’s that’s what I wanted to get to you changed the first half based upon statements ments you allege that Ms. Reed made. Is that correct? Speak. I changed one slide. There was 130 slides originally or something like that. So half of the changes on that day, which was one slide, I added one line to the bottom of the previous slide. Did you consider that change significant? No. Well, then why did you make it in the middle of trial if it wasn’t significant? Why didn’t you just leave it off and then discuss it in terms of testimony? So, A, it ultimately was left off. B, because it was insignificant and I didn’t need to have it. So, the way it got presented was exactly the way it was before May 13th. So it didn’t change anything but it was significant enough for you to make a change to your presentation. Correct. So my goal is to be as accurate as possible. So when you when I saw the path that I gave the way she’s going to drive, I gave the possible paths. That was one of the possible paths that hadn’t originally been included. So, in striving to be as accurate as possible, including as much information as I could, I wanted to make sure I included that. So, you were striving the clip that you used to make the change. You say you made the change based upon a clip you observed with regard to Miss Reed. Is that correct? I believe that. Yes, that is correct. Do you know that clip has been in existence for months? Uh, I don’t believe I got it until April. So, a clip that has been in Assume the clip’s been in existence for months. You just got Dr. Welch, I have to ask you not to I’m trying to be helpful. Close your computer. Let me close it. Sorry. I was trying to answer his question. So, I’m going to ask you to close the top. Yeah, that’s probably a good idea. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. So assume the clip that you said was the basis for changing your your PowerPoint on May 13th after the trial started had been in existence for months. You just got that clip, you say, in April, I believe. So yes. What was the circ tell me the circumstances by which you got the clip. Did you ask for it? Uh, I was told there was a new interview. Okay. Who initiated the conversation about the new interview? I don’t know if it was Mr. Brandon. It was someone associated with the prosecution. Yes. I wouldn’t have known about it. Exactly. So, somebody affirmatively communicated with you when about this flip? Uh, I need to look, but I remember it being about midappril. Midappril if I’m thinking of the correct clip. What were you asked to do, if anything, with regard to that clip? When I got the clip, I wasn’t asked to do anything. What did you do with the clip once you got it? So, they then indicated there was this suggestion of an alternative route. So, then I looked at the alternative route description and added the alternative route. So, it was suggested to you by the prosecution that you look at the clip and they they pointed out that there was an alternative route they wanted you to look at. So, I took it to be we have additional evidence. Please look at the additional evidence and add it to your analysis. On the topic of additional analysis by Aperture, while this trial is going on, are you aware of Mr. Burgess submitting a report dated May 8th of 2025 in this case? Yes, I received that report on May 8th. Right. And so you were aware of the creation of that report on May 8th because you got a copy of it, right? Correct. Were you aware that Mr. Burgess was intending to submit that May 8th report to the Commonwealth? Yes, we had had a discussion before that that he had found new information that changed the timing. Oh, he had found new information. What is your basis for saying he found new information as opposed to the information always existed. It’s just it was pointed out or to him that that should be looked at. What’s the basis of your understanding that he found new information? Objection to the question. I’m going to allow the question, but you have to ask it differently. Mr. I will, your honor. Thank you. What is the basis for the statement you made that Mr. Burgess found new information? Uh, that I guess it was his meeting in our discussions. He indicated that he had found new information. Did you ask him what do you mean by new? No, I took it at what it said. So, do you as you sit here today have any basis to say that that information is new as opposed to it’s always been in existence? Yes. What is that? What he told me? Oh, so you relied upon the representation of Mr. Burgess. You didn’t have any independent doc document to to determine whether in fact it was new. I don’t quite frankly care whether it’s new or not. I just care what’s in the data. Whether it’s new, old, I don’t care. It’s not relevant to what I’m doing. I don’t say this is new data, this is old data. I just care what the data is. Sir, have you ever has Aperture ever submitted a report, a changed report in the middle of a trial to your knowledge? I have no idea. Do you know whether Aperture has ever submitted an amended report in the middle of a trial? You said you testified in federal and state courts. Can you recall instance where Aperture has submitted an amended report in the middle of the trial. So Aperture is like 290 people. I can only speak for myself. Um I have certainly done amended analysis. Only certain courts and certain legal systems require reports. But for example, rebuttal uh analyzing testimony that comes up in court, getting trial transcripts. I very frequently have come up with new analysis during the trial. Sir, my question is as you sit here now, can you state one court case where you where you or Aperture has submitted an amended report in the middle of a trial? I I cannot speak for Aperture. I can only speak for myself. You can you answer Oh, speak for yourself, sir. Can you then for yourself recall any instance where you submitted an amended report in the middle of a trial. Amended reports. No. Amended analysis. Yes. Thank you. You’re welcome. Mr. Allessie, is this a good time for a break or five more minutes? It’s a good time, your honor. Okay. All right, folks. Why don’t we just again? Great. Love to hear the rest. That [Music] was seated. Question. All right. Whenever you’re ready, Mr. Leie. Thank you, your honor. And if I could please address an administrative matter that I wish I didn’t have to address. Dr. Welchure was just using uh at least my observation, his computer. He still has monitors on his desk. Could we have all that removed, your honor? It was closed. Closed? Yes. Would he open? So, he’s just Did you just turn it off? No, but I will. I close it. you like want the computer all the way off or just everything. Is he going to need to turn his computer back on? I do not see a need for the computer to be turned on. Do we have the ability to put the presentation and documents from our our I’m going to see council side. the lunch break. I’ll ask you to remove those monitors. Okay. I’m sorry. During the lunch break, I know it takes you a while to set up in the morning. We’re going to ask you to take all that down during the lunch break. Okay. Thank you. Mayor, your honor. Yes. Thank you, Dr. Welchure. We left talking about the amendments you made to your PowerPoint presentation and in terms of the uh amendments, are you aware that the defense council received your amended PowerPoint presentation at 300 p.m. on Memorial Day? Are you aware of that? No. And you testified began testifying the day after yesterday. Correct, sir? Day after Memorial Day. I testified yesterday. Yes. Are you aware of any activity in this trial of any kind before you testified yesterday? Uh again, as I mentioned, I’ve been getting random emails and then I’ve been seeing it pop up on my news feeds as well. Um but once I was aware of the reclusion, I made sure to not review any of that. But as recently as last night, I got an email that said biomechanical engineering job or um like applying for a job. And I opened it up and it was some internet troll. Sure. I I’m I’m asking about emails from the prosecution. Oh, no. There’ve been no emails about what’s been going I mean, there’s been scheduling, you know, when am I going to come, things like that. How then was it determined that you were going to be able to amend your power presentation if you weren’t communicating with the prosecution? I mean they they asked me about the witness statement of 138 right around May 13th. How did they ask you about that sir? I don’t recall if it was a zoom meeting a phone call. So there was a communication with the prosecution might have been by Zoom, might have been by another method, but there were prose or excuse me, communications while this trial is going on relative to you amending your PowerPoint that ended up with an amended PowerPoint on May 13. Do I have that correct? I believe so. going to switch topics. Okay. One of the goals of Apertur’s analysis and reconstruction was to determine the location and timing of certain text stream events. Correct. Correct. EDRD. I’m sorry. My role your your role. Yes. EDR and just for clarification, EDR is event data recorder. Correct. Correct. So, I’m going to refer to that as you have before as EDR, event data recorder. Sounds good. EDR data does not show the location associated with a textream event. Correct. In this particular vehicle, it does not. And the EDR data for this particular vehicle, namely the Lexus SUV, also does not provide the time associated with a techstream event. Correct? Not at the time of this event. So the answer is no. Correct. That is not correct. So let me ask the question slightly different way. The ER the EDR data does not provide the time the EDR data for the Lexus SUV that you’ve been talking about does not provide the time associated with a text stream event. Correct. That is correct. Instead every textream event is associated with a particular key cycle on the vehicle. Right. Correct. There can be multiple text stream events in a single key cycle. Right. Correct. And every time you start the car, this when you push the button, that’s a new key cycle, right? That will cause a key cycle. And the EDR data indicates the number of seconds into the key cycle that the particular event occurred. Correct. the EDR data. No. So EDR data gives you no information about the number of seconds into the key cycle that a particular event occurred. The you’re confusing EDR data and text stream. I’m not sir. I’m just asking a question. If it’s yes or no, I’m fine with that. EDR data will depending on the vehicle have sometimes has information about GPS date and time. Sometimes it has ignition cycles which are a little bit different than key cycles. which is why you frequently have different ignition cycles versus key cycles in EDRS compared to text stream. So let me ask it a different way. Okay. The text stream data Mhm. indicates the number of seconds into the key cycle that a particular event occurs. Yes. Is that correct? That is correct. In order to properly determine the location and the timing of a text stream event, it’s important that you correctly identify the trip that is associated with a particular key cycle. Correct. The I I think I’m going to say yes. That text stream tells you the trip. I’m just asking if it’s important that you correctly identify the trip associated with a particular key cycle and do so by determining in order to properly determine the location and timing of a text stream event. So, so the the text stream tells you the trigger event and it tells you the key cycle. So, I’m not determining that. I’m reading that from the text stream data. Okay. So, in order to properly read to use your verb the location and timing of a text stream event, it’s important that you correctly identify the trip that is associated with a particular key cycle. Is that a fair statement? I think that’s a fair statement. If you associate the wrong trip with the wrong key cycle then your estimate of when the t the text stream event occurred will be wrong. Correct? Uh it can I mean you need to take the totality of the evidence in the text stream with the mileage the overall timing into account. So are you saying sir that if you have the wrong trip with the wrong key cycle you can get the correct text stream event? No not necessarily. Again you just you have to take the totality of the data. My question is with regard to if you have the wrong trip with the wrong key cycle, then your estimate of when the text stream event occurred will also be wrong. Isn’t that just a matter of logic, sir? So again, the text event tells you the trip and it tells you the time. If you’re saying I’m say associating that with the wrong infotainment information or vice versa then that would be wrong. But the text stream data tells you how much time is associated with each trip. There’s no difference there. If you associate the wrong trip with the wrong key cycle, then your estimate of where the text stream event occurred will be wrong. Is that correct? You you can’t associate the wrong event with the wrong key cycle because it keys in the key cycle with the event. Let me try it a different way. Your analysis or anyone’s analysis in conclusions regarding the timing and the location of the text stream data are only as good as your ability to correctly associate a key cycle with a particular event. Is that an accurate statement? No. Again, you you need to take the totality of the data. So that is one element. You need to look for example at the mileage. You need to look at the timing of the events. So this is considered a tool in the analysis process. You need to look at the totality of data to see how it matches up with the physical evidence. So are you saying that you can have an incorrect key cycle with a particular trip, but you can still get accurate timing and location of textream data. So again, you don’t get incorrect key cycle with the trip. The trip and the key cycle are coded in by the text stream. If you are attributing event to the wrong trip which has a fixed key cycle, that could be a problem. Exactly. So if we could go uh if your honor if we could uh publish a slide please that is in evidence. Okay. Thank you. What are we look what are we looking at? Pardon me. Slide number I’ve got slide nine. Mr. Wol if I Yes, I I’ve got the correct one. Thank you, your honor. So, I’m going to use the acronym VCH that you’ve used on your uh Do you recall using the acronym VCH on your direct testimony? Yes, sir. And VCH stands for vehicle control history. Correct. Correct. You viewed the vehicle control history on September 23rd of 2024. Correct. In addition to the PCS data, you reviewed you viewed the vehicle control history on September 23rd, 2024. Yes, that is yes. You took photographs of the vehicle control history including key cycle 1167. Correct. And in this screenshot, we can see four text stream events. Actually, can you zoom in on the key cycle? Oh, sure. because I think when I got to no scroll. So when I got to it, you can see it was at key cycle 1264. The blue highlight was the last file that was written on key cycle 1167. Right? So to answer your question, I got it at 1264. So we can go back so we can see the four text stream events. Um I just want to reestablish the the foundation here. In this screenshot, we can see four text stream events that are associated with key cycle 1167. Correct. Correct. But it isn’t isn’t it true uh Dr. Welchure that there were actually 10 text stream events associated with that just that one key cycle 1167. Correct. I gave you the original files. Right. So you were aware that the Commonwealth had maintained up until your firm’s engagement that objection. Are you saying there’s no basis for the question? Say, all right, I’m going to allow the question and and I’ll hear it. You you are aware that the Commonwealth has maintained up until your engagement in September of 2024 that all Techstream events associated with key cycles 1164, 1165, and 1167 occurred while the Lexus was in the custody of the Massachusetts State Police at the Canton police department. Okay. So, the objection sustained. You need a foundation. Mr. Leie, sir, as part of your work in your review of the many documents that you referenced on your direct examination, did you review the techstream events associated with the Lexus SUV? I reviewed the one I downloaded. Pardon me. I reviewed the one I downloaded. Right. And did that re what you download include key cycles 1164? Did it include that? It did. Did it include 1165? It did. And did it include 1167? It did. It did not include 1166. I didn’t mention 1166, sir. I only mentioned 1164, 1165, and 1167. I purposefully skipped because I didn’t understand you had reviewed it. So here’s my question. You therefore based upon the fact that you reviewed them and you reviewed you said it’s important to understand timing etc. That’s very important in your forensic analysis. Correct. Yes sir. So let’s go to the timing question in the lo and you understand where the Lexus has been at various points in time. You testified to that in direct whether it was at the Canton Police Department, whether it was being towed. Correct. In addition to having Mr. Burgess analysis of the data in addition to Mr. Burgess’s analysis. So in that analysis contained locations of where the the Lexus had been. It contained where it had been and also include date and time when it was turned on, when it was turned off. Exactly. So, not only did you have all the locations, you had dates and times associated with the location where the SUV, the Lexus SUV had been. Correct. Correct. Now, to the question, based upon that review, that knowledge, that understanding, that base, those bases, Mhm. you’re aware and and you’ve reviewed, by the way, Trooper Paul’s reports, correct? I have. There were two reports of trooper Paul. There was his original cars report and then a supplemental report that were listed in the documents you review. Do you recall that? I don’t recall that, but I’ll take your word for it. I don’t want you to have to take my word. Do you recall, sir, that there were report Do you recall that there was a report of Trooper Paul? Yes. Okay. And you read that report, I assume, sir. I did. And it would be important for you to read that report and read it carefully because it addressed the subject matter that you were addressing. Correct. No, I did in my own independent analysis. A matter of fact, it probably be more important that I don’t do that to avoid confirmational bias. But you did read Trooper Paul’s report, right? Of course. So you therefore aware that the Commonwealth has maintained up into your engagement. Yeah. I’m going to see you sidebar on this. May I? Yes. Thank you. Are you aware that over the course of the Commonwealth’s and your investigation into this case that the theorized time of the alleged contact of the SUV? So there’s two words to strike theorized. Okay. Thank you, Ron. Are you aware that over the course of the Commonwealth’s investigation and your Mr. Les court reporter come to you? Thank you. I will. Thank you. I’ll object again to the question that’s coming. Can I begin my question? Ask a question. Mr. Sure. Do you have knowledge whether the is one time or more than one time for the Commonwealth’s position as you know it from reading documents that you said you’ve reviewed that there are different times alleged for the incident to have occurred. at 34 Fair. Objection. Sustained. You can ask the question. Remove part of it. I’m I’m sorry. You have to remove part of that. Okay. Understood. Your honor, do you know whether there is more than one time that is that has been proposed by the Commonwealth for the impact alleged to have occurred at 34 Fairview? Objection. Sustained. I’m going to ask for an instruction. I’m not giving the instruction now. Dr. Dr. Welchure in terms of the analyses that have uh that you have reviewed in this case. Is there one time that you understand there to be for a hypothesis for the time of the impact at 34 fairy? Objection. I’m going to see you again, folks. I’m sorry about that. Excuse me. Yeah, your honor. Yes. Thank you. I’m going to move to for the moment. We’ll come back to the other topic uh a little bit uh later. As we discussed earlier, you’re you’ve got um on various documents, you’re a biomechanical engineer, but I’ve also heard you make reference to biomemed. Can you just tell me what you consider yourself, sir? Is it a bio is biomechanical engineer something you consider yourself to be? Sure. My degrees are in biomedical engineering. The discipline within biomedical engineering that I practice is biomechanics. Right. And so is it accurate to say that you are a biomchanical engineer? Yes. And you say that much in your report. Correct. And the CV and resume I gave you. Right. Now in your report and your honor, I I have no issue if he refers to the page of his report. Do you have a paper copy or do you need your I do. If you sir could turn to page nine of your report. Okay. And on page [Music] nine you state as a biomechanical engineer I have no opinion on any aspect of and I think you’re referring to Mr. O’Kis medical treatment or medical diagnosis. I have conducted an accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering analysis of this matter. Did I read that correctly? You did. In that statement, I assume given you wrote it as a fair representation of your professional role in this case. Yes. And you go on to add on page nine, my biomechanical engineering analysis is determining the effects of physical forces on the human anatomy. Did I read that correct? You did. And on your direct examination, is it correct that you stated uh as a civil engineer, you made an analogy? You assess the cables and beams of a bridge as as you would assess the cables and beams of a bridge. You assess the human anatomy. You made that analogy. Correct? The analogy that bones are my bridge elements. Cables are muscles and ligaments, right? And you stated that it’s the job of a biomechanical engineer to quantify the force acting upon a person to determine the cause of their injuries. Correct? That is part of what we do. It’s part of but it is therefore something that a biomechanical engineer does. Correct. Given sufficient data. Yes. So you know how to do you know what a force calculation is sir when I refer to that term? I believe so. What do you believe it to be? Well, force is usually a physical measurement, but you can also use Newton’s second law, which is force equals mass times acceleration. That’s that’s what exactly what I wanted to get to. Newton’s second law, okay, is and sometimes referred to as is the second law of motion. And in the second law is force equals mass times acceleration. Correct. Correct. And just sort of like simple algebra, sometimes you have one or more of those. But I’m focusing on when you’re trying to determine Sir, you’re pulling something out. Calculator. I thought you were going to ask me numbers, do calculations. All right. We need to do we’re going to do that. We need to do it with the court’s permission. So if you feel you need to do that, just let me know. You just leave it right there. So So I just want to get the principles down first. So Newton’s second law, force= mass Acceleration and force is often time what you’re trying to calculate in a force calculation. Correct. Calculate or measure. Yes. Yeah. And Newton’s first law is the law of uh generally inertia. An object at rest tends to stay at rest. Object of motion tends to stay in motion. We’re not talking about that in force. We’re talking about Newton’s just second law. Correct. You asked me two questions. Newton’s first law is generally as you said it could be at rest or at constant velocity but yes okay and that Newton’s second law is generally just a mathematical calculation correct yes so what I’d like to do is to turn to page 11 of your report. And on page 11, you discuss the force calculation in conjunction with the part of your report where you discuss your experiment where you dropped a test dummy backwards. Correct. Correct. You determined that a fall of 69 in at that at that fall, Mr. O’Keefe’s head would have accelerated with 458 G’s of force. That’s what we actually measured, right? And can you tell the jury what is meant by G’s? So G’s is a measure of acceleration. If you take usually acceleration is measured in feet per second squared. If you divide it by 1g, which is 32.174 feet per second squared, that gives it to you in G’s. People often heard about fighter pilots losing consciousness at 6 or 7 G’s. Basically because your blood’s getting sucked away from your head, not because you’re being impacted. But G forces or G’s as they’re more properly called is a measure of the acceleration. It’s just whatever the acceleration is divided by what we all feel when we’re standing here, which is one g of gravity. And you estimated Mr. O’Keefe’s head weight of approximately 15.7 pounds. You used a percentage. Is 15.7 about right for the mass of of the head? So if we apply Newton’s second law, we keep F force open as the unknown. We take and apply the mass which is 15.7 multiply it by the acceleration. You end up with a force acting upon Mr. O’Keefe’s head of 7200 lb. Do I have that right? That’s right out of your report. So that math is all correct. falling backwards onto a hard surface from his standing height will give you approximately 7200 lb of force and that 7200 lb is the previous unknown F in the Newton’s second law equation. Correct. Correct. So now we have an answer for F 7200 lb. Now you then go on to note that the applicable scientific literature states that a fracture to the occipital bone and just to review the occipital bone is is the back of the head right here. Right. Correct. So you then, as I understand it, you go to scientific literature and you concluded that a fracture to the occipital bone can occur with an average force of 1,634 pounds from a fall distance of 40 in. Correct. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. How many inches? 440. That’s in your report. Well, you mixed two things together. There was stuff that reported force data. You had those numbers correct. A range of between 1,150 and 2,150. A mean of 1,634 lb. And then it says and a drop distance as low as 40 in. Right. And is the number 634 lb a proper number for an average force? Did you say 1,634bs? 1,634. Yes. Okay. So, what I want to do is see if this is correct. So, if you can get a fracture of the occipital bone in an average force of 634 pounds. No, no, no. 1,634. I thought that’s what I said. If I did, I missed. Oh, I’m sorry. I just heard 634. No. 1,634. My apologies. um and you compare that to the 7200 lb of force that you calculated, surely you’re going to have a fracture of the occipital bones through that calculation in that comparison. Correct. Correct. Falling on a hard surface can definitely fracture your skull. So, so I’m not getting at the manner. I’m just applying the Newton’s second law. Newton’s second law doesn’t look at manner, does it? It just looks at force equals mass times acceleration. Newton’s second law doesn’t look at the surface, does it? So, it’s a function of the surface. The A value is a function of the surface you hit. So, you’re saying acceleration depends upon the surface? Yes, of course. For an impact, it does. Now, let’s go to the study you cited. Injuries to pedestrians in real accidents in their relation to collision and car characteristics. That’s in your report, correct? Which what reference number? May I, your honor, grab the report? Yes. Thank you. If you can It’s in your report, sir. If you can find it, I’ll do it in parallel with you. Is it number 25? That’s the one I think it is. I’m just want to check your report. Would you like me to actually pull up the paper? No. Okay. Just want to get to the That’s it. Number 25. We’re we’re we’re talking about the same one. Now, isn’t it true that this study states that head injuries are the most common injury type for motor vehicle collisions, constituting more than 61% of all injuries sustained from motor vehicle collisions? Can the witness see the document that’s being referred to? Do you have your report in front of you? I have my report, but reference 25 is not in the section he’s referring to. Why don’t you show it to him, Mr. Le? I do not have with me a copy of the report he cites in his reference. He did. Can I ask another question? Thank you. Dr. Welchure, on your direct testimony, did you not discuss the percentage of pedestrian injuries and relate it to heads? Did you not on your direct talk about percentages of injuries that are head injuries in impacts of pedestrians with cars? Yes, I did. Okay. So, you came up with a number. What I’m trying to do is to compare that number to the number in the study that you site. If you don’t remember, that’s okay. We’ll we’ll just move to the next question. Can I go to my slide? Um, whatever you can use to determine what was the percentage that’s in the study that you cite in footnote 25 of your report. Sure. That was also from my presentation that I gave. It’s 61.5 for all injuries, 12.7 for fatal injuries. Thank you. So, I’ll repeat my question and then we’ll get it in logic. So, that study states that head injuries are the most common injury type from motor vehicle collisions, constituting slightly more than 61% of all injuries sustained from motor vehicle collisions. Correct. That number is correct. You’re quoting a sentence. I would want to pull the paper up, but the number is correct. Okay. So, doesn’t this article also state that of all head injuries sustained by motor vehicle collisions, only 12.7 of them are fatal? That does. Yes. Did you mention that only 12.7 are fatal on your direct examination? It’s circled with a red box on my slide. Did you mention that on your testimony on direct? I thought I did. This article was published back in 1979. Correct. I believe that’s correct. It’s 46 years old. Therefore, if I did the math correct, right? That sounds correct. Are you aware that given advancements in science since 1979, advancements in medicine, advancements in technology, the currently understood most common injuries as a result of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions are injuries to the lower extremities? Uh, I’d have to see the study. It wouldn’t surprise me. um car technology uh especially for example with uh pedestrian safety systems has caused autonomous braking. So you’re getting fewer higher severity crashes which results in a higher propensity for lower extremity injuries. It’s the higher extremity crash that causes the head to either slap into the hood or the window and or bounce off to where if you get the lower severity crashes you can still maintain a standing posture. So it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s accurate. So you would agree that as of January 2022, the most common injury as a result of a pedestrian motor vehicle collision is one to lower extremities. No, I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that date. And again, you have to look at frontals versus rears. So you can test that the most commonly understood injury as a result of a pedestrian motor vehicle collision is injuries to lower extremities. Hey Jack, I’ll allow the question. So I’ I’d want to see the data again. Most cars, for example, this Lexus has a pre-colision system in it that will start to apply the brakes if it senses a pedestrian at the front of the car. And so for frontal collisions, it’s transitioning, taking the what were head injuries because they’re more severe, higher speed crashes, making them lower speed crashes, and shifting the injuries to the lower extremities, just like airbags shifted the head injuries away from the severe ones, and we started getting more more or higher ankle and lower leg injuries. So the change in the technology, but for backing that may not be the case because you have different geometry on the vehicles and you have different safety systems. I’ll try it a different way. Mhm. Do you have knowledge as you sit here today whether the most common injury from a motor vehicle accident is to the lower extremities? I’d have to look at the literature. I don’t I don’t I have the article I gave you. So the answer is you don’t know the answer to that question. Is that correct, sir? I don’t know it off the top of my head. All right. The Newton’s second law analysis that we went through force equals mass times acceleration where we came up with the 7200 number. You didn’t discuss that calculation on your direct examination, did you? Uh, I don’t think so. We didn’t discuss a whole bunch of those things that were the sub that wasn’t necessarily an opinion. That was a sub opinion or basis for my opinion. You didn’t discuss that Newton law calculation on your direct examination, did you, sir? So in a way I did because I said my drop testing shows that you can do this. So I didn’t quote that number but we are going through the specific numbers now but I absolutely did say and a matter of fact I showed a video of my drop testing and talked about how falling onto a rigid surface a hard surface can cause a skull fracture. Did you discuss on your direct examination applying 15.7 of the head weight to 458 GS and come up with a number of 7200? Did you do that on your direct examination? Those specific numbers? No. The general concept of the drop testing and what it showed. Yes. So instead of that calculation, you referred to a flowchart comparing injury characteristics of flaws versus blows. Do you recall doing that on your direct? So you asked me two questions. He said instead of So that’s no, it’s not instead of. They’re two completely different topics. So no, I didn’t do that instead of. Okay. I looked at a force analysis. Then I looked at three peer-review publications that were attempting to differentiate whether an injury associated with a fall or a blow, an assault, and they came up with a metric for doing that. Those things are completely separate. Let’s ask it this way. Did you on your slide presentation that you presented to this jury, did you put the inputs into F= M* A in your slide presentation with the numbers we talked about of 15.7 for the M and 458 for the G to come up with 7200. Was that anywhere on your slide presentation? So, the slide presentation showed the 458Gs. The rest of it was not on there. Thank you. You’re welcome. You also indicated that the laceration above Mr. O’Keefe’s right eye is consistent with the shape and height of the fin on the top of the Lexus SUV. Do you recall that? Correct. It’s actually probably called a spoiler. And so you would call it a spoiler instead of a fin. Correct. Fair enough. We’ll call it a spoiler. You visited the scene at 34 Fair View. Correct. I did. You stated that you like to visit the scene while you’re working as an accident reconstructionist so you can get a better understanding of the data. I like to use the word like, but I we want to go to the scene to look to see the scene. When you visited 34 Fair View, did you go into the garage at 34 Fair View? No, I actually didn’t set foot on the property. You didn’t set foot on the property? No, I stayed in the street. It’s my understanding there were new owners. Did you consider the scene limited to the road? So, the access I had was to the road. The laser scanners and the photographs will extend further, but I didn’t have access to the interior of the house. Oh, so you didn’t access the entire scene. Correct. In my opinion, I did access the entire scene. I didn’t physically step 7 ft onto the grass to the point of arrest, but I stood and photographed where that was. I didn’t want to trespass. Where did you understand the body of Mr. O’Keefe was located. I know is 7 ft in from the grass. I’ve seen cruiser cameras showing people around a body. It’s slightly north and I guess or excuse me, slightly south and a little bit west of the flag pole. But you didn’t access that part of the scene that you just described. Correct. I absolutely did. I took photographs of him. I didn’t trespass and stand at that exact location, but I stood right there. We scanned the whole thing. The scanner uses a laser beam that goes out, you know, 150, 200, 300 ft. So, we scanned all that stuff. Did your scan scan topography? Yes. Then you know that there is a burm raised above street level. Correct. If you did the scan, correct? Do you know the height of that burm? I believe it’s 4 in. Nowhere in your report. When you’re comparing the height of Mr. O’Keefe to the spoiler, do you account for that 4 in of the burm? Do you? So, yes and no. As I indicated, we don’t know exactly where the point of impact is, whether he was completely in the road or up on the burm, but for example, where the tire spins on the Lexus, that could be where she’s driving up on the curb. And so then that tire would be at the height of the curb. So if he’s standing on the higher part and the right rear tire of the Lexus goes up there and spins, then that would be at the same height. We don’t know the exact point of impact. So I don’t know whether he was on the road or in the street. Excuse me. On the street or in the on the side of the road exactly. But when you did your depiction on your slide and you remember you had the ruler and you measured the height that y was it was you was it you in that slide? It was. Where were your feet? On the ground. Not on the burn. Correct. Correct. Okay. So you chose a measurement which was the ground to the top toward the spoiler and you took a measurement and you said that that approximate the height approximates the height of Mr. O’Keefe. Correct. Of the laceration of Mr. O’Kee Exa. Exactly. Because what you were doing was you were trying to determine and present testimony on whether or not that laceration could be caused by the spoiler. And to do so, you had to take measurements. Correct. Correct. So, you chose to place Mr. O’Keefe in your simulation on the ground. You didn’t chose You didn’t choose to put him on a BM that would be 4 in higher, did you? Nor did I put the Lexus 4 in higher. I didn’t do either one of those. So the point is it’s certainly possible that if there’s four to five more in that would take that eye out of the ability to be hit by the spoiler. Isn’t that correct? No. Cuz if it’s four to five inches higher and he leans his head down or reacts to it again, we don’t know the exact position of his head. Did you in your slide yesterday describe the possibility that his head could be down? You’re, as I understand it, you’re positioning that photo just like this. You’re not positioned like that in any photo you presented to the jury, were you? I’m trying to make it clear, we don’t know his exact body position at the point of impact, nor do we know the exact position on the ground. So, which is part of the reason why I haven’t tried to exactly simulate this because we don’t have enough parameters to do that. So, I don’t have that information. I’m showing the geometry relative to someone of Mr. O’Keefe’s height. So you don’t have the information to do that properly. So therefore, you can’t conclude that he had a laceration to the eye from the the spoiler by your own answer that you just gave. Correct. So it was done properly. We don’t have absolute information to say where exactly he was. I’m pointing out that the physical evidence, the height matches the height of the laceration. That is one data point of many data points. So you would have to at least concede that the level of his eye could be non-conting that finally because you don’t have information as you just described. Is this correct? It could be from contacting the ground. Pardon me. It could be from contacting the ground. It could be from other things. But you don’t have the information necessary to conclude with any certainty that Mr. O’Keefe at the time of impact had a level of his head in an upright such that it hit that sport. You don’t have that information. Correct. We don’t have that level of certainty. We have that the height and geometry matches. And you didn’t take into consideration the burm and you didn’t mention the burm at all when you were discussing this measurement with a jury yesterday. Correct. That is not correct. You asked me two questions. I absolutely considered the burm and the was the second question when I presented to the jury when you mentioned the burm when we showed the picture of the shoe in the snow, but that was it. That’s my question. I’ll ask it a different way. when we were talking not about finding a shoe in the snow and you mentioned a burn. I’m talking about when you did the measurement of whether or not the laceration could be caused by the spoiler. You didn’t mention accounting for bm height when you discussed that measurement with the jury, did you? That is correct. Likewise, you didn’t present any Newton’s second law analysis regarding the front of Mr. O’Keefe’s head with respect to whether his head was contacted by that spoiler. Did you? Correct. Again, it was a glancing hit. We wouldn’t be able to do that. Oh, so it’s now it’s a glancing hit to the front of the head is your hypothesis. This whole pedestrian impact is a glancing hit. So you can have your arm to the side like this with the back of the vehicle coming like this. And you could glance the right eye with the arm out. Is that what you’re saying? That’s what my picture shows when I’m standing next to the car. I could probably find the slide for you. So, you didn’t do a force analysis to determine how much force would be applied assuming a contact with the right eye, did you? That’s correct. And force analysis is what biomechanists do. Correct. That’s that’s what a biomechanist does. That is part of what part of what they do. So, I lined up his anthropometry relative to the known height of the vehicle. You attempted to line it up. That’s one method. But another method is to apply Newton’s second law like you did to the back of the head when he fell. Correct. Correct. If we had more information, Mr. Allessie, why don’t we break here? Thank you, your honor. So, juries, your lunches are here for the jury. Goodbye. Let’s pull up. Please be seated. Court is in session. Go ahead, Mr. Lassie. Whenever you’re ready. Just take a moment, your honor, to reorient. I’ll be right. Good afternoon, Dr. Welchure. Good afternoon. I see you again. Same. We had left off talking about some examples of Newton’s second law and the application of it and the parlance of of of force equals mass times acceleration. And I now want to continue on with that discussion. It is correct that you can conduct uh a force analysis on any part of the body. Correct. Uh I mean it’s more difficult on internal with live people like if you wanted like my appendix I really necessarily couldn’t. Let’s talk about the muscularkeeletal system. the outside bones. You can conduct a a force analysis. Your bones are on the inside. I I sir, if I could finish my question, please. Okay. You can conduct a force analysis on any bone in the body. Correct. More or less. Yes. So the force analysis I use as a synonym with Newton’s second law is not exclusive to the head. Correct. You can do it on other bones in the body. Correct. Correct. On direct examination. Your direct examination here. You did not present a force calculation representing what you alleged to be contact between the vehicle and Mr. O’Keefe’s right arm. Did you? Correct. And nowhere in your report do you present a force calculation for Mr. O’Keefe’s right arm, do you? Correct. we didn’t have enough information to do it. We’re going to get to that. Okay. Now, given that you stated that quote determining the effects of physical forces on the human anatomy, end quote, is the job of a biomechanical engineer. You must have conducted several force calculations related to accidents involving humans in your career. Correct? Hundreds. Hundreds. Now, you didn’t present a force calculation in your materials as you’ve stated on direct with regard to the arm and I’ll include in the right arm going from the shoulder all the way to the tip of the hand. Okay. So that’s my definition of a right arm. You didn’t present any force calculation on that part of the body of Mr. O’Keefe, did you? Correct. Assume M and we’re going to apply Newton’s second law. Assume Mr. O’Keefe’s hand weighed seven pounds. So that’s the M in the F= MA. That’s not a good assumption. Well, what number would you like to apply for an M for the hand of Mr. O’Keefe? I’ll take any number you got. Just the hand. Just the hand. Oh. Uh, the whole arm of Mr. O’Keefe weighs approximately 12 pounds. Okay, fair enough. So the whole arm is from the shoulder down to the tip of the fingers is about 12 lbs. Right. Correct. Okay. So assume that the Lexus SUV was traveling at 20 miles an hour. All right. Under your theory going backwards. 20 miles an hour. And the third variable I’d like to give you is to assume an impact window of 10 milliseconds. Okay. Can you calculate the G’s of force from that data? Uh not. You need more information. Well, let me ask you this. What more information would you need? So, we talked about the glancing impact. I’m I’m talking about a force calculation of an impact, not as to whether it’s glancing or not. So, you want a direct head-on impact into the arm, not a glancing hit to where the the Lexus comes in, hits the arm, and they continue off together. I’d like to start with that, but just so we can hopefully expedite it for the jury. Okay. I’m going to want to get to what you have depicted in your diagram of holding the arm out and that’s not a glancing impact. Is that sort of with the right arm in parallel with the back of the Lexus? Yes, it is. So really what I’m sorry let me finish please. What you’re concerned about is where the center of mass is. With the center of mass out towards the corner of the car that becomes a glancing contact. So you don’t have a center of mass contact. You have a glancing contact. Okay, fair enough. But so let’s start the first force calculation. I need my calculator. I’m going to let him use his calculator. Sure. Okay. Tell me what you’re ready to say. Go ahead. So let’s take a scenario where it’s a center of impact. Center of mass. Center of mass impact. Right. Okay. Impact to the right up. Okay. Let’s start with that one. Okay. And you want me to use like a 10 millisecond? Yeah, be conservative. Yeah, let’s use a 10 millisecond for the impact window. [Music] Hey, Okay. Question. What do you get for F of force in the F= M * A calculation? About 2,188 lb. I made a triangular crash pulse assumption, right? And if you took the milliseconds in half, become less conservative, would you end up doubling the 2188 number? If you cut it in half, you would double. Yes, exactly. Through a simple mathematical semi-algebraic application of the numbers, correct? You divide. We’re doing a little simplification in terms of the crash pole shape, but generally yes. Right. So, but let’s take the conservative number, the lower number 2188 that you you came up with. Do you know from the literature as you did with the head, you went to the literature and said this is how much pounds of force Yeah. you would get to to have to cause a break at the occipital bone. Do you know from the literature how much force it would take to break an arm bone. I have an idea. Yes. What is your idea? So, for a distributed load such as this, not a concentrated load, you’re going to need somewhere between I’ve seen, and this is for cadaavver tests, a low of like 2500, maybe a little lower to a high of 7,000. Sir, you have switched, haven’t you? We’re talking about center mass impact. Did you in your calculation just switch to a side swipe impact to do your calculation? I’m asking about a center of mass impact. How much force would you need? Let’s start with the hand. Maybe it’s a simpler one. Do you know how much force it takes to break excuse me any of the hand bones the the fel you know what I’m referring to the felangals the metacarpals in the carpals correct how much pounds of force do you need to break any one of those bones actually I I didn’t find any distributed loading on the amount of force I don’t know no no I understand but I’m asking do you know from the literature not a calcul doesn’t the literature tell you can’t you go to the literature like you did with the head and you say okay to break the occipital bone the literature says you need a minimum amount of force of this I’m asking you the same question for the hand if you don’t know it’s okay but do you know what the literature says for how much force is needed to break a bone in the hand so for a distributed load across the hand there are distributed load tests that show you need over 300 gs on the arm to do that so it would depend on the mass of the hand what is the range of force that you would need to break a bone in the hand. Do you know from the literature? If you don’t, that’s okay. Uh, I could probably figure it out. How long would it take you to figure it out? Do you know from the literature what that number is? Not off the top of my head. No. Is 300 to 400 lb of force sound right from the literature that it would take to break a bone in the hand for a distributed load such as the tail light? No, no, no. Not a distributed load. A load from a motor vehicle going backwards, right? That’s a distributed load, right? So, you’re saying 300 to 400 lb of force would not be enough to break any bone in the hand. Is that your answer? So, for a flat distributed load, like hitting the tail light, you’re going to need higher. How about another part of the back of the vehicle? [Music] Um, I guess if you hit on the very corner and it wasn’t a distributed impact, like if you had a more concentrated impact, yes, that could increase or or decrease the amount of force required. How much would it decrease it from the number you gave? depends on what you’re hitting, what it’s made out of. The Lexus SUV. Let’s assume I’m sorry, Mr. Can you repeat the question? Absolutely. Thank you. Let’s assume we’re talking about this Lexus SUV. Mhm. Right. Let me back up. You don’t know where exactly under your theory that there was a contact. You don’t know who you testify to on. You don’t know exactly where that point of contact is. Correct. You don’t know. Except it’s on the tail light. Well, you’re saying it’s on the tail light, but you didn’t observe any impact yourself personally, right? Did I see Miss Reed’s Lexus? You didn’t see the impact. Correct. That is correct. So, and there is no firsthand witness that saw under your view that a collision occurred. There’s no witness to say where the arm was. Correct. There’s no person that saw it. Right. And you have chosen a point of contact. Okay. You chose that for your analysis. Correct. Correct. And you picked that location. But it’s also possible that under your theory that a collision occurred that that arm could have been impacted any part of the back of the vehicle. That’s possible, isn’t it? That’s not probable. No. I’m asking is it possible? Anything is possible. I don’t deal in possibilities. I deal in probabilities. It’s not probable. So, but you don’t know exactly where the point of impact was. So, within the range of the light and the exact angle of the hand. No, I don’t. What I do know is at the rear tail light area. So, your assumption is that it had that because there’s a tail light that is altered. It must have been by Mr. O’Keefe’s arm. That’s your conclusion. Correct. My conclusion is there are tail light fragments, a broken glass, lacerations to his arm, and his DNA on the back of the vehicle in the area of the tail light. Sir and you’re I’m going to move to strike the the DNA part of that answer uh for obvious reasons. Yeah, I’m not going to strike it. Okay. So, so you’re making assumptions. You’re taking what you view to be certain data and you’re coming to a conclusion, but that is based upon circumstantial information. Correct. Is that fair? Are you calling like pieces of the tail light at the scene around his body circumstantial information? Sir, let me go to the force and go back to the force analysis. Let’s go back to the numbers. I want to stay on if we can just the calculation. So, let’s go back to the minimum amount of force you understand from the literature that it takes to break any bone in the arm from the finger up. Let’s start with a hand. What’s the minimum amount of force that can be applied to break a bone in the hand? So, it depends on the loading. So, I I don’t actually know. In terms of the forearm, I can tell you there’s data that shows up to 300 gs of loading, you will not get fractures. There’s one up to 750 gs showing no fractures for a male of similar height and weight of Mr. O’Keefe. Thank you. You’re welcome. So, let’s take those numbers. Okay. You said 300 and 750. Did I hear it correctly? You did. Okay. That’s the numbers you gave that would break a bone. Correct. So, the 300 actually didn’t break any bones. I believe the 750, the one example didn’t break a bone, but as you got above 350, you started to break bones. So, you got above 350. 300. 300. Above 300. Yeah. cuz that’s what I thought you said the first time. You got above 300, you start to get breaking bones. Correct. Correct. And so if you take that 300 number and compare it to the 2,188 lbs of force, you have 7 times the amount of force necessary to break the bone. Correct. In the force analysis, no. If you take 300 gs times a 12 pound arm, you get 3,600 lb. The calculation you asked me to run earlier gave you 2,188 lb. Right? So you [Music] are 1,412 lb above the force required. like the the tolerance is 1,412 pounds above the force you would say get in a 20 mph impact in terms of the fracture forces. Let’s do it this way. I’m sorry. Let’s do it this way. The force that you calculated from my hypothetical of the this Lexus SUV going backwards. You came up with the F number of 2,188. Correct. I’m sorry. I didn’t What was the You said you said dyslexic or did you say Lexus? I didn’t understand what you said. The Lexus F UV that you’ve been talking about. Gotcha. Okay. I didn’t hear. You came up with a number for F force of 2,188. Are you changing that number? Nope. Okay. So, let’s go with your number of force from this vehicle of 2,188. I’m just simply asking how much force does it take to break a bone in the right arm of a human being? How much force, not acceleration, how much force does it take to break a bone in the right arm? Sure. So somewhere between 25,500 the one cadaavver test of the distributed load of someone of similar size and weight and actually close in age to Mr. O’Keefe showed uh about 7,000 lbs of force to break it. Let’s go to the hand. Do you or disagree that the literature shows it only takes 300 to 400 lb of force to break a bone in the hand? Do you disagree with that? Your question’s too general. I can’t answer your question. It depends on the loading. If I take my pencil, which has a very fine point, and jam it through my hand, I can jam it right through my hand because it’s a very small point. But if I distribute the load and a broader load, such as hitting a tail light, it takes much more force because the load’s distributed across it. It’s like if I sit on the corner of my bed, I might sink in this far when I sit on the corner of my bed. But what happens when I spread my load out? When I lay on my bed like this, I don’t sink in as far. Has my weight changed? And weight is basically force. No, but I’ve distributed it over a larger area. So for a given force, you get less sinking into the mattress. So if you hit a broad surface like a tail light or a wall like this, it takes much more force than if I were to take a singular small round object and jam it into the hand. That hurts. This does not. Okay. If you can hear my question, if it’s unclear, you tell me. for not a pen, not your bed, but for a Lexus SUV of 6,000 lb. Is there any part of the back of the Lexus in any manner where you can get a break to the hand from 300 to 400 lb of force? Any part on the back of Alexis? Yes, probably. Okay. So, probably your words, you can get a break to the hand from just between 300 to 400 lb of force. That’s what you just said, correct? So, you’re taking the totality of the back of it, like if you got it stuck in the bumper potentially. Yeah. But from a tail light or a broad flat surface, no. asking about a tail light, any part of the back of an SUV, you agree that it is probable that you can get a break of the handbones from just 300 to 400 lb of force. Your question is incomplete, right? You said any part of the back, but then you wanted me to not include tail lights or not include the rear body panel. If you hit a very narrow part of the car like say the edge of the tailpipe that creates much more of a narrow contact. So con force divided by area is pressure. So if you have a very tiny area you have very high contact pressures. And so if but if you distribute the load over a larger area the number on the bottom of that fraction is much bigger. So your contact pressure drops. So, hitting the edge of the exhaust pipe is going to have a much higher likelihood of causing a fracture than hitting flat against the tail light. Okay. What we’re going to do to make this more efficient, sorry, sorry, Mr. Wool, can you pull up a slide from Mr. Wol’s uh or Dr. Welchure’s presentation for the back of the the the Lexus, please? The back hatch. And your honor, may we publish that? Sure. Do you know what number though, Mr. Les? Mr. Mr. Wol does. And and I know you need it. So he’ll tell me before I publish and then we’ll give you the number. Your honor, may I look here? Yes. I’m going to let Dr. Welch look at his slide. Oh, sure. Here instead of just up there. The back hatch. Yes. Do you have one of just the rear uh gate? the one measuring the height. There we go. Thank you. Okay, this is your slide presentation. Is there any part of the back of the Lexus SUV that has that more concentrated area where if the hand hit it, 300 to 400 lb of force could break it? Is there any part. For example, the edge of the license plates above the license plates, the L symbol that sticks out that would be concentrated. Anything you see there could 300 to 400 lb of force contacting at any of those points cause a fracture of any of the bones of the hand. So, oh, I don’t know how to show this because the L in the middle photograph right where the two is on the license plate. Yes, there’s a vertical edge, that area is recessed in. So, if you hit right on that vertical edge, that could potentially do it. That could do it. How about the L of the for the Lexus symbol? If the hand is there, no, it it’s not deep enough. The the compliance of the hand, is this going to sink into the car? Is there any other part other than the license plate that the force applied you would only need 300 to 400 lb of force to break the hand? Uh maybe the exhaust pipe and potentially if you hand your hand up near the spoiler. Right. So now let’s go from 300 to 400. Let’s go to the 2188 which is your number. Use 2188. Is there any place where in 2188 force you could have a fracture of the hand on that back gate? Just to be clear, 2188 is a number I calculated for you. It’s not quote my number. I understand. But we did I understand but we did the calculation. Is there anywhere on the back of the vehicle where 2188 could cause a fracture of the hand? So that was a forearm fracture tolerance I thought we were talking about because we used a weight of the whole arm for that. We did. And my question is is there anywhere in the back of the vehicle in your opinion that could cause a fracture with that that I’m sorry what to to the hand to just the hand or the whole arm. I I’ll take any part of the right arm. You call it the hand, the forearm. Is there any part that could cause a fracture? So, probably similarly, if you got your forearm down near that transition like I don’t know if you can see the little dot. I’m talking about this area. Yes. Yes. Right here. Yep. So, that transition between the two body panels. Yes. That could potentially do it. Um, that’s back where the reverse lights are. I’d have to look at whether, you know, that would take it before breaking the plastic. And then, uh, again, maybe if you hit the exhaust pipe as well, it’s a much more narrow loading condition. How about the corner of the tail lamp? The corner of the tail lamp, I suppose, if you had just your hand on the very very corner. Potentially, potentially, but you didn’t do any of that. force analysis for this case for the hand. No, but you did it for the head. Correct. Correct. Cuz that I’m able to quantify. Mr. Allessie, that was slide 108. I just want to I’m sorry, your honor. Yes, Mr. Wolf. Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. You are aware, Dr. Welchure, that Mr. O’Keefe suffered no fractures of any kind in his hand. Correct. So there were no fractures noted in the autopsy report, but they didn’t actually X-ray from the records I’ve seen either his hand or his arm. So there was, at least according to autopsy report, no overt fractures, but the X-rays I saw, none of them were of the arm. And the autopsy report said no sternum, spine, uh I think it said torso. They didn’t say that there were no fractures there. Was there any evidence in the medical records that you reviewed of any indication whatsoever of a fracture in Mr. O’Keefe’s hand? No. Was there any indication whatsoever in any of the medical records you reviewed that there was a fracture of any bone in the right arm of Mr. O’Keefe? Not that I saw. Again, it wasn’t X-rayed. Was there any indication in in the medical records and the autopsy that you say you reviewed of any fracture of any bone anywhere in the body of Mr. O’Keefe? Yes. Other than the occipital bone or the skull? Other there’s a couple bones in the skull that are fractured, but other than the skull, no. Correct. So, are you aware that the medical examiner for the state of Massachusetts, Dr. Shorty Bellow, performed an autopsy on Mr. O’Keefe? Are you aware of that? Yes. And you’re aware of it because you read the autopsy report, correct? Correct. Are you implying and it’s a question that Dr. Scotty Bellow missed a fracture or didn’t look properly for a fracture on Mr. No, I’m simply indicating that for example a hairline fracture. I didn’t see any evidence that they actually x-rayed the structure. So there would be no overt evidence of that. There were wounds on the right arm of Mr. O’Keefe. Correct. Correct. And you are saying that the medical examiner should have x-rayed that to determine whether there was a hairline fracture. Is that your testimony? No. You’re asking me about evidence and proof of absence of fracture. So, I would look for an X-ray to see if that was the case. I haven’t seen any evidence of an X-ray of the arms. So, it’s your position that on every autopsy, there should be an X-ray of every bone in the body and that the clinical judgment of the medical examiner should not be accepted and there should be a X-ray of every bone before a conclusion can be drawn that there’s no fracture to a bone in the body of a deceased. Is that your testimony? Absolutely not. Like, I’m an engineer. You’re asking me about proof. And so proof is somebody looked at it. Somebody took an X-ray. Somebody palpated and found a communive fracture. So we’re talking about proof. Sir, how do you use proof in my question? Ask me about the opinion of a medical examiner. I’m not a medical only one person at a time. Mr. Leie, let him finish and then you can ask the question. Your honor, I can’t finish my question. Okay, then finish your question. Dr. Welch, wait for the question, then let Dr. Welchure respond. It’s a nightmare for matter. I understand. I think I’ve been doing that, but I’ll redouble my efforts. Dr. Welch, I didn’t use proof in my question. I’m going to repeat the question. Mhm. Is there any indication in any medical record autopsy report of the deceit of any fracture of any bone in the body? That was not your original question. But to answer your question, no. Except for the skull. Except for the skull. Correct. Do you understand whether the absence of any fractures other than the skull of Mr. O’Keefe was of significance to the medical examiner Dr. Scorty Bellow in the conclusions she reached in the autopsy report that you read system. Did you read the conclusions of Dr. Scorty Bellow in the autopsy? I believe so. Are you aware of whether Dr. Gordy Bellow has analyzed whether the injuries to Mr. O’Keefe are inconsistent or consistent with a motor vehicle impact. Have you are you aware of any analysis to that effect? Objection. So, I’m going to see you on this one. Thank you. May I, your honor? Yes. Thank you, Dr. Welchure. Um I would like to talk now about your paint exercise. You did not present as you have stated a force calculation with regard to the arm. You did a a paint uh exercise. And what I want to do is to um reference and if we need to bring it up sir for to refresh you slides 103 to 120 of your PowerPoint presentation in this trial. Um I’ll just call it the blue paint exercise. Is that descriptive enough for you to know what I’m talking about? No, it’s not an exercise. It’s a test. Okay. You want to call it a blue blue paint test? Sure. Okay. Let’s call it blue paint test. I just want to try to expedite things and use parliaments that we can agree on. Okay. So, so your blue paint test involved painting the right rear tail light blue. Correct. Correct. Positioning the test subject behind the tail light. Correct. Correct. With the arm held out. Correct. Correct. And at a right angle. Correct. Correct. And then the vehicle, the Lexus SUV is backed into the test subject. Correct. So, I ran three different tests. I I know. Well, let’s just do each one at a time. Okay. Okay. So, you’re starting with the last one. I’ll start with whatever one you want. Okay. How about if we start with the one at 1 mile per hour? None of them are at 1 mile an hour. 2 miles hour. 2 miles an hour. Let’s do 2 miles per hour. Let’s start with that one. Okay. Now, did you conduct that test in an attempt to show that the injury patterns on Mr. O’Keefe’s right arm are consistent with being struck by the Lexus tail light on that arm. So generally I want to show that the location area and span over which that headlight covers matches the location and area of the lacerations on his arm. That’s what I want to get to. So you discussed data that you say shows that Mr. or excuse me, that you say shows the Lexus SUV was traveling above 20 miles per hour during the period that you alleged the SUV made contact with Mr. O’Keefe. Is that correct? No. Where’d you get that from? Hold up. Okay, the answer is no. So, let’s Did you do a test involving 20 mph? Um, I did some other backing tests. I was looking at how the rear pedestrian system and what warnings you got from the rear um pre-colision system, the PCS system. [Applause] Let me ask you this. Would you agree that you did a blue paint blue paint test with the vehicle going at 2 miles per hour? Did you do that? Okay. You didn’t do a blue paint test with the vehicle going at 20 m per hour. Correct. That is correct. I was not going to hit myself with Alexis at 20 mph. You could have done other tests where the vehicle was going at 20 miles hour if you used a crash test dummy. Correct. You could have done that if you used the right crash test dummy. And then to set up the test because generally you only get one or two shots at it because you damage the car, you have to know everything about the parameters. And so again, pedestrian impacts are so very sensitive to initial angles. If I were to do a test and it was off a tiny tiny bit and we got some different results, I would be in here having to defend it. Well, your own testing didn’t show it. Point is is we don’t have enough information to be able to conduct that testing. Exactly. So your ass is that Alexis was going 24 miles hour in reverse and made your analysis. No, there is not one single slide I have that says this is the speed he was hit at 24 miles an hour. Do you know do you have a hypothesis at what speed you believe there was impact? Do you have the point of I do not know the exact speed. We don’t know the initial point of contact. We don’t know where exactly he was on the road. We don’t have enough information to determine that. Let’s talk about the other information we don’t have. Okay. You don’t have the information as to the from your alleged point of contact to where Mr. O’Keefe landed. You don’t have that information for you, sir. I’m sorry. Where is my alleged point of contact? You allege that there was a point of contact between the Lexus, the back of the Lexus and Correct. Right. But I don’t know where that is on the road. You don’t know that. I want to go through the information that you don’t have. Okay. Nope. So, you don’t have that. You don’t have the point of impact. You don’t have where in the road there was impact under your allegation. Those are the same thing, right? You don’t have where the under your view the body of Mr. O’Keefe landed precisely. You don’t have that information, do you? What do you mean by precisely? We know it’s 7 ft off the road. We know it’s near the flag pole. We don’t know where it started. The problem isn’t where it landed. The problem is where it started, right? And you don’t have that information. I don’t have where it started. The paint tests that you used, aren’t those used, if they’re used at all, as an element of physical impact reconstruction? an element not as the focal point of the test itself. So that was the focal point of that test. The focal point of the purpose of that test was to show the contact width and location of how someone of Mr. O’Keefe’s height, which happens to be me, contacts and where it would contact where the broken tail light was. So, no, that was the focal point of the testing. That’s why I did the testing. That’s why we’re calling it paint transfer testing. Right. But my question, sir, I understand you use paint test as the focal point, but aren’t paint tests in accurate accident reconstruction, not used as focal points. They’re used as supplements to other tests to get more accurate information. Do you agree or disagree with that? You didn’t give me enough information. I can’t agree nor disagree. It depends on what you’re trying to do. Let’s go to on direct examination. You testified that after the 11622 trigger event. Miss Reed’s vehicle traveled a distance of 87 ft. Do you recall that? You are mixing up two things. Remember the trigger is in the middle of the event. Get the chart, please. Your honor, I’ll give you the um as soon as Mr. Wool gives it the slide 23, I believe it is. I’m sorry. What slide? Well, I I I want Mr. Wool to to go through it to to check. Let me ask it this way. See if we can get to it quicker. Do you remember talking on direct about a calculation of 87 feet where you added I think it was like a 30 something number and a 50 number and you came to 87. Do you remember that in your slide presentation sir? Slide 37. Yes. Right. So if we could bring up that slide please your honor with your permission. Okay. That’s 36 but okay. Are you on 33, sir? No, I’m on 36. Mr. W, do you have 33? If you could go to 33, sir. Oh, sorry. Yeah, because that’s where your 87 number is, not on the other. It’s on a bunch of slides. Yep. Go ahead. All righty. So, if you could zoom in, uh, Mr. Wol, so Dr. Welchure can see the the numbers in the column. You’re going the wrong way. Yep. To the farther to the right. Oh, I’m not the only one that has problems. Okay. You still Do you remember testifying about this to the farther to the right? Farther the right. Yep. Keep going. Keep going. A little more. Is that 53 number down there? That column? Right. Can we Can we scroll up a tad so you can see the headers? There you go. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. So you if am I in the right column relative to start? Is that the column? So there’s two columns like Z is relative to where it started. And then positive is forward and then as you back up once you go past zero it becomes negative. Right? So what I want to do is have you direct us to the column where you calculated 87 ft. Uh it’s in two spots. It’s at the end of column Y. Right. We go all the way down. It’s that is that in the yellow there if is that 87 sir? It is. Okay. Is that the 87 number you were referring? Hold on a second. You asked me to identify. So then it’s see where the one next to it says minus 53. Yes. 429. If you go up. So it’s not a little bit down a little bit and add see where it’s changing directions at 34.157. Yes. You add those two together that gives you the same result. So it went 34 feet forward and then 50 something feet backwards. Right. And what is is the 87 feet traveled? Is that what you’re indicating is the distance traveled during the trigger? Is that the what the 87 represents to you? That is the So 87 represents the total rearward distance traveled during the trigger. Okay. So you believe 87 represents the total rearward distance? Did I hear you correctly? Correct. Now, can you hold on to be clear? So, it starts, it pulls forward, then it backs up, passes where it initially started, and goes 53 ft further back. That’s what I want to get to. How many feet did you say on direct and did you just say now that it went 87 ft in reverse? Correct. Okay. From its furthest point forward. Well, that’s what I want to get to because I want to have this this point clear. How many feet do you believe the Lexus went in reverse based upon your PowerPoint presentation? Not when it went forward and then came backwards. How many feet do you believe that vehicle went in reverse? Your question doesn’t make any sense because when it went forward, then it went in reverse. How many feet do you believe the Lexus went during the trigger? So, it went a total of 80. It went 34t forward. Then it came back 80 another 53 feet past where it went. Exactly. So, you’ve testified that the 11622 trigger event represents a backwards maneuver. Correct? So, again, that was clear. It initially pulls forward and then backs up. I would like you to define so it’s clear to the jury. Do you consider the event of 11622 just backward movement or do you consider the trigger to be forward movement and adding to it backward movement? Which one? So, can we pull the slide up? Sure. Could you zoom in? There you go. No, no. go back to the left. So that T in the third column for data ID represents the trigger. If you scroll over a little bit to the right where the highlighted yellow blocks are, you can see one is a forward drive gear, zero is neutral, two is reverse. So that’s where it’s switched from forward to reverse. I mentioned the brake. So you have it on the brakes coming in, slowing, stopping, going into reverse, and then backing up. So you conclude that the vehicle for this trigger went 34 ft forward. Is that correct? Correct. How do you know the vehicle didn’t go 150 ft forward? How do you know it just went 30t 4T forward? How do you know that? So the only data we have is this 10-second window. And so we have the velocity when it’s going forward. We know how much time it took to do that. So that tells us how far it would travel. Velocity times time is distance. So are you saying that it is a certainty that it went forward 34 ft and there’s no other number of feet it could have gone forward? You’re absolutely certain of the 34 number. No. Again, if you look, see where it says vehicle speed? I see it. So, at the start of this event, which is the trigger minus 5. So, the trigger is actually where it’s triggered and it takes 5 seconds before, 5 seconds after, but when the trigger happens, it’s actually stopped. But the 5 seconds before, it’s going 13.6 miles an hour forward. So, at the start of the data, it’s still going 13.6 mph forward, but it’s slowing down. You can see you have the brake where it says break SW, which is short for switch. The brake switch is a one, which means it’s on. So, when this event data started, it’s going 13 miles an hour. I’ll ask the question a different way. Are you certain that the distance traveled forward during this trigger event was 34 ft? Are you certain? I’m Yeah, I’m pretty certain during this trigger event. Pretty certain or certain? Well, the I’ve checked the math. I’ve had people check my math. So, I try to be as accurate as possible. I would say I’m certain, but I’m an engineer. So, there’s no absolutes. There’s no 100% in my job. So, you’re certain of the 34 ft. And is it correct that you’re certain of 53 ft going backwards? Are you certain of that, sir? So, backwards from its initial starting position. Correct. Okay. And therefore, you are certain of a total of 87 ft traveled that you have at the bottom in that yellow orange. You’re certain of that as well. 87 feet of backing current. Okay. Now, you also testified on direct, as I understand it, in slide 23, that different numbers represent different gear states of the vehicle. Correct. Correct. And a zero represents neutral. I think it’s either neutral or park, but I’m pretty sure it’s neutral. A one represents drive. Correct. A two represents reverse. Correct. Or a two can represent slowing down. Is that correct? Not for a gear shift number. So you didn’t say on direct that two could represent reverse or slowing down. God, I hope not. It doesn’t. So those numbers simply represent is the transmission in drive, is it in neutral, is it in reverse. It doesn’t tell you anything about whether it’s slowing down or not. But the brake switch and the brake pressure and the longitudinal accelerometer data gives you some information on that. Okay. So, if your honor, we could go to slide 30, please. Mr. Wol and I want to do it generally. There’s not a need to read any specific number. I just want it clarified, Mr. Lei. So, is this 30 or 31? Um, it’s I’m sorry, your honor, you are correct. It’s 31 in the in the the most up-to-date presentation. Thank you. You see all the uh numbers in blue font on that uh slide, sir? I do. Those are all numbers that you have placed on that slide. item. Did I have that correct in your direct presentation? You do. Okay. So, this Excel spreadsheet, there’s also numbers in black. Correct. Correct. So, all the ones that are in blue, those are numbers that you have placed into the spreadsheet. That correct? Correct. The one exception is column N where it says ship position. Yes. I changed green to forward and red to reverse. So the data in the columns in blue are not from the original data that was downloaded from the vehicle. Correct? Like for example, if you look at column H, column H I simply did a unit conversion. So it’s the same number. It’s just in different units. But the black numbers represent exactly as it comes out of the vehicle, but it’s the same number. All right, that’s what I wanted to get to. So, for clarity for this slide, when you download this data from the vehicle, what is in black, those numbers just come right out, correct? As they’re stated, but the blue numbers, they don’t come out like the numbers in blue. You have to do something, some calculation, some application to get to the blue. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. You’re welcome. now. And no, we’re going to keep that up. Mr. Woke, please. Thank you. And when we need to get to the specific numbers, we’ll be fair and make sure you can you can see them. Now, in these columns, do I understand it correctly that you attempted to account for wheel slippage in the revolutions uh per minute speed values produced by the car? Uh not here. You’re looking, this is 1162-1. The wheel slippage occurred in 1162-2. Okay. And so if we go to a slide with 11622, we will then go to the slide you believe represents wheel slippage. Is that correct? There are data points in that that represent slippage. That’s my question. In which slide, sir, would you like to pick? 35. Thank you. So we will go to slide 35. So I’ve highlighted the slippage. Exactly. So you agree that there is data that shows that there is wheel slippage with the Lexus SUV during trigger event. Let’s enlarge it for this one here. The trigger event. The number 11622. Correct. Correct. And as I understand it, you testified that this trigger event was caused by a depression of the accelerator pedal at more than 30%. Is that correct? It’s a transition into reverse and then a quick acceleration exceeding 30%. So let’s in reverse. Okay, got it. So the accelerator pedal being depressed to this degree more than 30% can be the result of wheel slippage. Correct. Uh I mean it doesn’t necessarily work that way. I mean you can have wheel slippage at any acceleration technically depending on the roadway. It’s just what is in the data that shows that it’s slipping. It isn’t necessarily because of the accelerator. Normally, that’s what causes slippage, but it’s the data. When you look at the data, you’re like, well, that doesn’t make sense. It’s increasing in speed, but yet the longitudinal acceleration is dropping. My question again, doctor, is you can have an accelerator pedal depress greater than 30% and it be caused by wheel slippage that can occur. Correct. The the wheel slippage does not cause the accelerator pedal. I I’m I’m not saying a cause and effect. I’m just saying a correlation. Do you understand what I mean by a correlation? Let me let me if I may try and straighten this out. So applying heavy acceleration can cause the wheels to spin. Is that what you’re asking me? Yes. Yes. Okay. That’s that’s all I wanted to get at already. So, in your review of the materials that are related to January 29th, 2022, uh did you become aware of whether there were and you said you extensively reviewed documents. Did you become aware whether there were people at 34 Fair View? Yes. And approximately how many people without regard to names, just number, how many people did you become aware were at 34 Fairview on January 29th, 2022, the early morning hours? How many people approximately did you become aware we’re present? It depends on which time, but there could be as many as 16. As many as 16. And let’s talk about the time period from midnight to 1:00 a.m. Do you have an understanding of how many people could have been present at 34 Fair View at that time period? Uh, so I’m going to see you at Sar, Mr. May your honor. Yes. Thank you. Dr. Welchure, am I correct in my understanding that you believe the under your theory, the Lexus for event 11622 backed up 53 feet. Am I correct? No, it backed up a total of 87 feet. Okay, let’s take your 87. It backed up a total of 87. Okay. Correct. And your further theory is that it did so and reached 24 miles per hour. Correct. Correct. and you stated you have an understanding of a certain number of people and I don’t want to talk about the inside of the house but just that we’re at 34 Fair View between roughly 12 and 1 a.m. Do you have an understanding of that sir approximately? I I believe I do. And what is that number? Do you want them people that were there for that entire window of time or just Yes. 12 to one? So, Mr. Allessie, just move to the last question. Right. Sure. So, sir, did you assume that there were cars parked out front of 34 Fair View at that 12 to 1:00 window? Did you assume any cars parked out front the entire time? No, I’m just talking 12 to Yeah. Any time between 12 and 1. Did you make any assumptions whether there were cars parked out front on the roadway at 34 Fervity? Did you make any assumptions with regard to that? At a point in time there was a vehicle behind it. I’m sorry. There was a vehicle behind it. Just one? That is my understanding. In in terms of on the street is your question. Yes. And what do you remember the type of vehicle? Yes. What kind of vehicle was it? An F-150 pickup. Did you have any understanding as to whether there was uh a Jeep vehicle on the road at that 12 to1 time period? I had seen testimony somewhere to that effect, but the majority of the testimony was there were no other vehicles. But you did see testimony that there was also a Jeep type vehicle on the front out the front of 34 Fairview between 12 and 1. Is that what you’re recalling? Yes. So, I’m going to let that answer stand. What he’s just testified to. Just go ahead and Okay. So, Dr. Welchure, what I want to do is to have you using your data. You say 87 ft for the backup. Correct. Correct. 11622 up to 24 miles hour. Isn’t there a likelihood if there is at least one vehicle out in front of 34 Fair View that there would be a collision of the Lexus SUV with a vehicle out front? No, the vehicle had left prior to the end or prior to event 1162-2. What information do you have with regard to how many vehicles are in front of 34 clear view at between 12 and 1? So I have Miss Reed’s interview statements. I have statements of a number of witnesses. I don’t know if I’m allowed to say the names. Let’s not. I was just going to say let’s not just number of vehicles. Okay. So I have a number of witness statements at different multiple statements from the same witnesses at different times indicating the the path and following the Lexus to the house and then leaving before the event. Assume that there were vehicles, at least one vehicle parked out front of 34 Fair View. Is there a likelihood that given 24 miles per hour over 80 87 ft, is there a likelihood that there would be a collision given the weather conditions as you knew them to be at that time? Well, the weather I don’t think necessarily plays into whether there would be a collision or not, but we know it backed up 87 feet. So again, it goes forward like 35ish and then back like 60s something. And so if something is within 65 ft of the rear of it or whatever the numbers are, I need my slides. It was 50 50 57 U. If something is within that window, then it would hit it. All right, good. So now let’s look at another scenario. If it’s going as you describe it, is there a likelihood that the Lexus would also go upon the lawn in front of 34 Fair View? It depends on where it starts. You You have an opinion, don’t you, as to where it starts? No, I do not. That’s actually why I have that diagram showing it off to the side. I’m simply showing how far it moved forward, how far it moved back. Exactly. We don’t know where on the roadway it started. Exactly. You don’t know where on the roadway it started and therefore all you have is the distance covered. Correct. Correct. So, but you’re saying the distance is 87 ft. Correct. 87 ft backwards. Yes. So, backwards 24 miles an hour. Have you ever driven a vehicle backwards 24 miles an hour, sir? Yes. I think I’ve driven this Lexus backwards 24 miles an hour. So, if anybody has driven a a vehicle back, have you ever driven a uh any vehicle back 24 miles an hour at 1:00, 12:00 in the morning? Probably not since I got out of high school. Have you ever done it in a when there’s a storm that is beginning? No. Have you ever done it when there is uh less than clear visibility? Uh, no. And no. And have you ever done it when there’s low lighting? Oh, you know, maybe when I’ve been up skiing in the snow, I’ve done it. Uh, but again, that’s been decades, right? So, 87 ft, 24 miles an hour. Are you saying that in every instance that vehicle will stay on the road and for 34 verview it wouldn’t go up on the lawn? When you mean every instance, meaning like every possible location on the road it starts from? Correct. No, there’s some spots if you start here, it’s going to go up on the road on the yard. If you start too far the other side, you’re going to go over into the neighbor’s yard. So, it depends on where you start, right? And so, in given the conditions that we’ve just described, right? have nothing to do with where you start. Finish my question, sir. Only one at a time. Yes, ma’am. Let him finish his question, please. Given the conditions that you’ve described, it is reasonable to conclude that that vehicle under your parameters would have gone up on the lawn. Is that a reasonable conclusion? No. So, you don’t think there’s any possibility that could occur? for a vehicle going 24 m an hour at this location, 87 ft backwards in the dark with wet pavement at a minimum and low lighting. You don’t believe it’s possible for the vehicle to under your scenario to have gone up on the lawn. That’s not possible. So your first question was reasonable and I said no. Now you’re asking possible. It of course is possible. Whether it’s reasonable or not, I’d have to know the starting position. If it’s very close to the side, then it could be reasonable. If it’s further towards the middle of the road because snow is building up on the side of the road, then it’s probably not as reasonable. I would need more information to be able to determine whether it’s reasonable or not. It’s certainly possible. It’s possible it could have shot off into space as an engineer, but not probable. Oh, you think it’s possible that it could have been shot off into space, sir? As an engineer, it’s a possibility. you. It’s a possibility that this Lexus could have been shot off into space. Highly highly unlikely, but again, you’re asking an engineer about possibilities and probabilities. Let’s get back to reality. So in terms of the Lexus itself because you under your method of analysis don’t have the starting point you can’t rule out that under your scenario the vehicle would have gone up on the lawn. You can’t rule that out can you sir? I cannot. No it could. Okay. Now let’s go to the next topic. If we could, your honor, have exhibit 168 published in evidence. Okay. Which is now under the 167. Now, as I understand your testimony, Dr. Welchure, you believe that it’s possible that the Lexus tail light could have caused these uh wounds to Mr. O’Keefe’s right arm. Is that correct? Correct. And more specifically, it’s your belief that the lacerations would have been caused by the vehicle uh scratching Mr. O’Keefe’s arm as it drives past him. Is that correct? I don’t know. I’d characterize it that way. What’s happens is, you know, this 6,000lb vehicle is coming and he’s standing on a, you know, icy, snowy roadway area and it’s going to contact him and move his whole body and induce rotation. Right. So, it’s going to contact him and under your theory induce rotation. So, wouldn’t such a movement of the car relative to his right arm result in horizontal injuries to Mr. O’Keefe’s arm, as can be seen on his bicep above the elbow. So, could we pull up one of my slides to address this issue? Sir, I’d like I’d like I’d like to answer your question with a slide that I have that addresses this exact point. I’d like to stay with this slide, Dr. Welchure, and see if you can answer my questions off of this slide. So, I’ll repeat it. Sure. Do you agree that the injuries up at the upper part where you’re familiar with the bicep brachiialis? I am. And is it aren’t those two up at the top right over the bicep brachiialis? They’re actually about midway between the biceps and the triceps. Right. So, you know which two I’m talking about? The two up up there. Can you just use your laser pointer just so we’re talking about the same two? Do you have one? I I’ll give it a try, but the upper ones. Uh I know it’s it’s not your fault, but the it’s the upper left. I mean, technically the ones right to the right of that are also on the biceps and triceps, right? Biceps goes all the way to the elbow. So do the triceps, right? So I’m talking about the two that are the farthest up. Correct. All right. Would you agree that those are in a horizontal orientation? Generally, yes. which is what you’d expect with your arm like this and the tail light coming across like this, which is what I showed in my slides. My questions are are are trying to keep this moving. I just asked if those are in a horizontal orientation. Yeah, more or less. They’re angled down slightly, but more or less horizontal. Okay. Isn’t it true that if Mr. O’Keefe’s arm were to be flexed like it was with the test subject in your blue paint test, the lacerations on Mr. O’Keefe’s forearm would be oriented in a vertical direction. Absolutely not. If you pull up my slide 117, it’ll show exactly that it is like perfectly horizontal when you’re standing like this. And this is the tail light. The laceration when it comes across here and pushes my body, it’s going to make a horizontal laceration cuz this 6,000lb vehicle is going to push me out of the way. As this pushes me out of the way, it’s going to drag and create a horizontal laceration across my arm. This is exactly what you’d expect. So, let’s talk about the forearm. Sir, we may have miscommunicated. I’m talking about the lacerations on Mr. O’Keefe’s forearm now. So, we’re switching from the arm to the forearm. Correct. Wouldn’t those be oriented in a vertical direction? No. Again, you have the vehicle. If if if this is me and this is the car, it’s pushing and pushing across like this. And with your arm bent like this, it’s going to cause laceration. As it pushes my arm away, it pushes like that. Okay. And it’s my slide shows this quite clearly. So you disagree, you do not agree that the injuries to Mr. O’Keefe’s forearm under your theory would be oriented in a vertical. You disagree with that. It’s just just want to get that on the record. I disagree with that. Okay. Now also do you understand that under your theory of injury here that there would be injuries caused in two different directions by the same movement of the car? Agree or disagree? Uh I’m going to say I disagree. You need to give me a little more. You’re going to have, again, this is a a glancing or a clipping type impact. And so it’s going to be a like a it’s going to sweep across the arm, which is what causes the horizontal lacerations. We’re talking about a flat surface, right, sir? Approximately. Yes. And therefore you would have to maintain contact with the arm as the car moves. Is am I correct about that? Maintain contact with the arm. I’m unclear what you mean. What I’m trying to do, sir, is to get under your theory. Mhm. Right. Given the contact that you’ve described, what would you expect to be the orientation of the wounds to the upper part of the arm and to the lower part of the arm? Just like it’s shown in this photograph. Okay. Isn’t it the case with your your theory that the tail light would have to break and after the break the arm would have to maintain contact with the arm as the car moves. So that is what happens in pedestrian contacts. There is a contact duration. For example, you asked me earlier in that calculation you had me ran. You said 0.01 seconds. That was the contact duration. So when you have things like this, and that’s why you have to allow if you do testing the body to move because the car is going to hit the body. It’s going to cause it to move. The car the body’s going to rotate away and the car is going to continue on in that clipping type impact. So the the arm is definitely in contact with the rear of the car. for some time. That’s what I wanted to get to is simply that under your theory, the tail light would break and also the arm would need to maintain contact with the tail light area as the car moves. Is that your supposition? So, at a point in time, it’ll stop contact, but the 6,000lb vehicle is going to want to continue moving on. It’s going to push, it’s going to initially contact the arm and then push the arm away as it rotates the body. So, yes, it’s going to maintain contact until the clipping is over and the vehicle continues on. So my next question is simply how long do you believe the arm needs to maintain contact with the tail light after under your theory it breaks to produce those types of wounds that you say came from a tail light. We don’t have enough information to determine that. Right. You don’t have enough information to make that determination. Do you sir? Correct. But we know because of the laws of physics that it has to be some amount of time. It doesn’t occur instantaneously. So now we do apply the laws of physics to the right arm that weren’t applied before because you applied a pink experiment. Is that correct? You’re now applying the laws of physics to the injury to the right arm. But you didn’t do that in your report. Nope. Always applied the laws of physics. The paint experiment as you’re referring to it was to look at basically the orientation of the scratches that match this. So that was an engineering experiment to correlate height position of the tail lights relative to height orientation of the the lacerations on Mr. O’Keefe’s arm. You just said sir if I heard you correctly you to answer my previous question applied the laws of physics. That’s what you just said. Correct. So the laws of physics cover more than Newton’s second law. There’s a whole law of physics. The whole field of physics is a broad subject. So a simple measurement of height is a physical measurement. Sir, I have your entire report in my hand right here. Where in the report do you apply the law of physics to the right arm of Mr. O’Keefe? Where? So in the paint experiment we did the laws of physics about gravity, orientation, things like that. I didn’t apply Newton’s second law as we already went through. But again, those simple positions, arm angles, the possible physical arm angles, those are all generally governed by the laws of physics. The laws of physics are very broad. Sir, I’ll ask it this way. Where in your 14page report do you even mention the laws of physics related to the right arm of Mr. O’Keefe? So in terms of applying the laws of physics, I’m not asking applying. Just where in the report is it mentioned law of physics relative to the right arm? Can you point me to would write a report to say these are the laws of physics. I would say these are the numbers. But for example, the timing and GPS, how a clock times, the concept of a second. What does that mean? Those are all concepts of physics. So the timing, the GPS, the mileage, how we calculate the mileage, those are all based on the laws of physics. I’m talking about injuries to the right arm. That’s not what you asked. You asked about my whole report. Sir, if you could please, I just need to finish my question. Where in your report do you use any laws of physics in connection with injuries to the right arm of Mr. O’Keefe? Can you point me to a word or a page in your report? Yes. Where? 2 A 2 A Roman numeral 1 2 A Roman numeral 2 A Roman numeral 3 2 A Roman numeral number four 2 A Roman numeral number five sir I I followed all of it but what I’m asking about is where in all of what you just mentioned is the word right arm I’ll take what you just said. Where in 2 A and all of those is the word right arm? Where is it? Oh, sorry. It’s in number three. So, let’s go to three. You state the location and orientation of the laceration on John O’Keefe’s right forearm and right arm are consistent with the geometry and orientation of the right tail light of the reed 2021 Lexus LX570. Where can you read the next sentence? I’m sorry. Is it C PowerPoint slides 102120? Correct. Correct. All right. I want to just start with the report. Did you apply any force analysis to support three? So in terms of the force analysis, I did not do an F equal MA analysis, but in terms of say the contact pattern, I obviously had to apply some force even at 2 miles an hour to do that. So the answer is what you cited number three. You did not use a force analysis, correct? So force was applied to my arm in the paint test. I didn’t do an F= MA force analysis. Thank you. You’re welcome. So now let’s go to the horizontal movement we were talking about with regard to the car. And you can agree or disagree. Sorry, your picture’s down. I’m sorry. We’ll take that down. Do you agree or disagree that given a horizontal movement of the car, vertical lacerations would be an inconsistent injury pattern? So horizontal motion generally will cause a horizontal laceration. You can get what are called stellate which are blunt force and it causes a splitting of the skin as well. But generally when the vehicle is clipping or running horizontal across it, it will generally cause horizontal lacerations. But when you have a fractured tail light, you can get pieces going off in other directions. So it’s not necessarily going to be perfectly horizontal. So my question is not with clipping. You you keep inserting clipping into my question. My question is this. If you given a horizontal movement of the car, do you agree that it’s more likely than not that vertical lacerations would be an inconsistent jury pattern? injury. You got I’m trying to help you, but you know, you got to give me more. So, like, is it a clipping contact or is it not a clipping contact? Is it a direct in the center of the car impact? Let’s Okay. Are the only two variables you need to answer the question, but this is a good start. All right. So, you let me let me do it this way. You can’t answer the question on a general basis of whether there’s horizontal movement of a car whether vertical lacerations would be an inconsistent injury pattern. You can’t answer that question without more information. Is that your answer? So generally again horizontal motion should cause horizontal lacerations but again it depends on what’s being hit. Okay. So for example, if I have something that bends as a result of the impact, it could bend up and create a vertical laceration. So you would agree based upon what you said that generally horizontal movement of a car would be expected to cause horizontal lacerations. Generally. Okay. Now during your blue paint test, the blue paint was featured more predominantly on your upper arm than your forearm. Is that correct? Uh, I think it depends on the text. Do you want we bring up a slide? Will that help? I’d love to bring up a slide. We’re going to be running the uh thing. So, we’ll just bring one up and you tell me whether this slide works for you, sir. Do you want me to tell you the slide? I want If we could take a shot at it first and then we may ask you for it. But I think we’ve got a slide for you. And what number? Dr. Welch. 111 111 is on the screen, sir. Is the blue paint more predominantly on your upper arm than your forearm? Is there more blue paint on your upper arm than your forearm? Probably. This is the one where I actually walked sideways into the back of the car. The one where the car is moving is probably a little better representation. Sir, I’m just asking you a question about this slide. If you could just focus on this slide here and and if you can’t answer it, so be it. I just answered it. Is the blue paint featured more predominantly on your upper arm than your forearm? It sort of looks like it. I didn’t actually measure the total area of it. All righty. So on direct, you stated that in order for the injuries on Mr. O’Keefe’s forearm to have been caused with caused by an impact with a tail light, his arm would have needed to be held outstretched as you did in your demonstration. Correct. Uh you would need some degree of outstretch. Yes. Yes. So isn’t that an example of confirmation bias? No. that’s matching the contact pattern to the injuries. But don’t you have to select among other choices this outstretching of the arm? Don’t you don’t you had to make that selection from among others. Correct. So that was matching the physical evidence on his arm to the physical evidence on the car and then running a test to see if dynamically those matched up. So it’s, you know, I didn’t have it hit the exhaust pipe, for example, because there was no assertion it hit the exhaust pipe. There was no damage to the exhaust pipe. So it was based upon the evidence and the testing was done to test to use your vernacular the hypothesis that that’s where it came from. Sir, have I ever asked you anything about a tailpipe in any of my questions today? Yes. I have not. I have never asked. Yes, you have. You asked me about the totality of the rear of the Lexus, which includes the tailpipe. All right. I am not going to be asking any questions that involve the tail light in any fashion. So what I’d like to do is to go back to the question that I’m asking which is did you consider as part of the scientific method in terms of more than one hypothesis did you consider in your analysis any other orientation of Mr. O’Keefe other than the one you selected for your paint test? Yes. And where is that consideration of other hypotheses stated in any report? It’s not. I was just looking at the damage that was up on the sheet metal. Okay. So, are you saying that you considered other orientations of Mr. O’Keefe relative to the vehicle as part of your analysis in terms of where exactly the hand would be? some slight different angles in the uh forearm which is from the elbow to the hand. Uh I did consider that but all the physical testing is done with the hand hitting the approximate center of the tail light. Do you have any notes that you took for these alternate alternative orientations? No, I think I just included photographs of that damage. Do you have any proof at all that you consider those other orientations? anything in white? Uh, no, I don’t believe so. Did you consider any other locations of Mr. O’Keefe under your theory relative to the back of the ent? Sure. In the beginning of this, I started about, hey, it’s all over could be anywhere on the back of it. then will it down based upon the evidence. Started eliminating various hypotheses based upon the evidence and came to this conclusion. Eliminating hypotheses based upon the head, the tail light fragments near his body, the lacerations, his height, the height of the tail light in Alexis. So it was an iterative process. Did you mention any of these supposed hypotheses in your direct testimony? No, because I was able to reject them. I didn’t come in here to tell these people what didn’t happen. I came in here to tell them what I believe happened. Would you agree, sir, that the scientific method earlier has the scientists identify various hypotheses, go with the data that Of course it but you show your math as to why you’re rejecting hypothesis as you said you rejected them. I’m asking for proof that you considered other hypotheses. Do you have anything in writing any notes at all? Any videos? Uh any tests that you did documentation of other hypotheses other than picking this one? Do you have any documentation of that? So I did a bunch of tests with Alexis. I did backing tests. I looked at how the rear system worked to see if it would autonomously break. I confirmed it did not. So, I eliminated that as a hypothesis. Um, I tested the steering. I tested the transmission, what one, two represented. So, I did a whole bunch of tests on the vehicle. I understand you say you did a bunch of tests on the vehicle. My question is, did you ever take the vehicle and position yourself or anybody else in various locations to determine whether or not your hypothesis could be properly rejected? Do you have any documentation that you did that? I mean, I did do um one static and two dynamic tests in very similar positions though. So, I did a total of three tests relative to the arm. Um where is the documentation for that, sir? It’s in the file. I gave it to you that some of the slides are some of it. All right. So, Mr. Allessie, I think if we’re going to I am and I want I’m going to move on, your honor. So, okay. Mr. Allessie, hold on. We’re going to do that for our deal. Can I ask I I don’t I I just have one other other area, your honor. I can do it in short order if I could, please. I wasn’t finish my Go ahead. Finish your answer. So slides 109, 110, 111 actually through I guess 121 deal with the testing of the hypothesis. We’ll come back to this at another time. Uh uh Dr. Welchure. So what I want to do is to finish up on this point. So is it your testimony that no part of what you did in selecting this area, no part of it is confirmation bias? You say there’s no confirmation bias at all in what you did. Is that your testimony? That’s certainly my goal. Uh I try and eliminate all confirmational bias. I didn’t start out at this particular location. This is where the physical evidence led me to. So uh I would say the conclusions are supported by the science. My question is did you engage in any confirmation and this would be my last question. Did you engage in any confirmation bias in terms of how you approach the issue that you have testified about in written reports? The answer is still no. It’s a good. So, okay. Thank you. All right. So, jurors, we’re going to send you home because we still have work to do here and we don’t need you waiting there while we do it in. So, uh tomorrow is a half day. Um, we’ll see when exactly that half day ends, but we won’t be here until we won’t go until 4 tomorrow. Um, those three cautions, do not discuss this case with anyone. Don’t do any independent research or investigation into this case. If you happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case, please disregard it. Let us know. Fourth admonation, please be very careful with your social media use. See you tomorrow. You may be seated. All right. Okay. Mr. Allessie, it’s your vo dear. If I have a moment, your honor, to switch. Yes. Can I load up my slides? Yeah. Can you do that while you’re sitting here answering questions? Yes. I’m going to start with your honor with regard to fall. Okay. And we’re on a very limited schedule here. Okay. Okay. Your honor. Mr. Wol, if with your honor’s permission, if we could pull up the January 30th, 2025 PowerPoint of Dr. Welchure in slide 36. You see that? Um, Dr. Welchure, do you recall that from your January 30th, 2025 PowerPoint? Uh, I thought I had replaced the video on the left hand side by the time I produced it. Sir, I got to go through this quickly. Mike, that image is a drone image on the left. Correct. Oh, correct. And you had that in your original report, but you removed it in subsequent reports. Correct. Correct. Where did you get that drone image from? It was in the file, wasn’t it? In the car’s report of Trooper Paul, I believe it was. So, you took that drone image from the car’s report of trooper Paul. Correct. Correct. Let’s uh if we could um Mr. W go to diagram one. Do we have that electronically of trooper Paul’s report? Do you recognize that is diagram one from Trooper Paul’s report? Yes. So, and that’s the diagram that you you took that image and you put it in your January 30th, 2025 PowerPoint. Correct. I’m pulling up my version of PowerPoint. Yes, that’s correct. Okay. If we could take that down. I’m going to go to the next example. We could go to Dr. Welchure. I’m sorry. Actually, can we go back to that? Yes. With Your honor, why did we Well, I have limited. Go ahead. So, that particular diagram I did not use. If you notice, the diagram I use has different cars and doesn’t have all those all the writing about the position of things on it. I am going to now, your honor, have to take the time to go to to Jupaul’s report. We have the hard copy of Jup. Could you turn the lights on, please? May I approach your honor? Yes. I’m Mr. Yes. Mr. Bren is May I approach you? Excuse me, Dr. Welch. You see this first page? Do you recognize this as the cover page for the trooper fall report that I was referring to? I think so. Can you show the signature? You want to look at the report? I’m not so sure there is a signature on the report. Signature block right here. Trooper Paul 16. Yes. You’re welcome. Now, what I want to do is to go to diagram one. And if I could, your honor, republish uh what was just up, I’m showing you diagram one, sir. And I’m asking you, is that the image from Trooper Paul’s report that you then used to put into your January 30th slide presentation? No. See all the writing on here with the glass cup? All the dimensions here. Here’s here’s my January 30th one. None of that stuff’s here. There’s different none of this stuff is here. Isn’t it the case you’re that you that this is cropped more and there’s a a larger picture of the same image or not? See this tree? Yes. See these trees? Yes. See all these measurements by the trees? All these that’s right here. Okay. Those do not show up on my image. Let me let me go to a different method then to do this. You have an image. Um, let can we go Mr. Wolf to the January 30th presentation? Slide 36. Correct. Where did you get that image from that’s in your PowerPoint presentation on the left? I think it was from the file. A satellite image from the file. What part of the file, sir? I actually don’t know at this time. How close is the image on diagram one? the drone image to the image that you can’t now recall where you got it from through your slide presentation. Are they similar? So, that one has a whole bunch of measurements and ID on it, but the underlying image is very similar. It’s probably the same one. Yes. You’re welcome. Do you know of any other place you could have Let’s put the uh presentation back up on the uh the slide presentation. Do you know of any other location other than Trooper Paul’s report that you could have got that drone image from? No, I’m not sure I got it from the report. I recall getting it from the file. My question is, do you know of any other source other than Trooper Paul’s report that you could have gotten that drone image from? So this image is not in that report. It’s not my my Yes, it is. You asked me anything but the report. That image is not in that report. Did you get the drone image from any file from the Massachusetts State Police? Yes. Okay. Did trooper Paul work on any drone images to your knowledge with respect to 34 Fairview? I don’t know. But you would agree that the drone images are from the Massachusetts State Police file, correct? Uh, give me one second. Sir, let me know you’ve had a fair opportunity to answer that question. Yeah, give me a second. Yes, it came in a file called cars dash TRP.jop. Okay. So, it came from And that’s the report of Trooper Paul. Correct. No, these are drone images that are not in the report. No, I’m saying what you just read. Can you repeat it again? What you just read, where it came from? I read you a folder. Yes. Yes. It contains a bunch of things including the report. Understood. That image is not in his report. Okay. Can you read the file name again that you just read? The folder name? Yes. Is cars- TRP period Joe Paul. Okay. And did you get the drone image from that file folder? I did. Okay. Thank you. You’re welcome. Now, let’s go on to your the May 26, 2025 PowerPoint that you created. And I’d like to go to slides 25, 26, and 27. [Applause] Have you discussed with anybody today at all the source of what is depicted up on this slide? No. Okay. So let’s now go to where did you get the you see the the larger chart to the left there in the looks like a re mostly a rectangle. Do you see that sir? What slide are you on? What slide is that? 25 I believe. Okay. And then if we could click to 26 because it looks like it’s the same. If we can go to 26 and 27. Looks like it’s the same one. You tell me. Similar. Similar. Okay. Yeah. In in 27, correct? See the same or similar one there. Okay. These are all from Google Maps. Well, my question is may I approach your honor? Yes. Thank you. Let me ask you this so I don’t have to keep going back and forth. Do you have access to the uh cars reported trooper Paul on your computer? Think so. You remember the the name of it? I don’t. We’ll do it with a hard time. Mr. I’d like to show. Thank you. So, if I could uh approach her. Y So, you see what I’m pointing to right here, which is page 10 of Trooper Paul’s cars report. Do you see that? I do. Is this the same report dated 12912? I believe so, sir. Let me just take a peek. This is You can just compare this to the one I have in my hand. Take it and look for any identification it gives you. Right. We got the same one and mine’s broken. Okay. So, that’s the paper. Okay. So, we have that report and I now I’m referencing page 10 of that report and I’m looking at the chart on page 10. Is that chart on page 10 the same or substantially the same as the chart that is up on your um slide presentation right now? So, it’s not the same. I did not use this data at all, but we both use Google Maps. Okay. All righty. Now, let’s go to your continuing on the same slide. If Mr. Woke, we could go to slides 22 and 23. Okay. And this will be the last on this, Mr. Leie. If you want to get to the autopsy photo, we’re wrapping this all up at 10 4. Okay. Hey, your honor, you see these photos? I’m sorry. You see the photos that are up on that? I do. Okay. Do you uh in terms of those those photos, do you recognize any aspect of those photos? Yes. What do you recognize in terms of the person in it? Oh, you want me to limit it to just these three photos? Any photo that would be this photo or any photo similar to it? But let’s start with just these three. If you if I have to limit it to these three, I don’t know who that is. Okay. And if you don’t limit it to those three, who would you conclude it is in those photos? It appeared to be Trooper Paul from other photos. Okay. So, you can tell from other photos that this is Trooper Paul in these photos, correct? I have photos of Trooper Paul in the car. I don’t know that someone else switched out. I have no reason to believe this isn’t anybody but Trooper Paul. Would you have any understanding that there’s any other trooper that would be doing this type of analysis other than Trooper Paul? Someone else took the photographs. No, I’m talking inside the vehicle. I’m sorry. Inside the vehicle doing what’s depicted here. Someone is inside the vehicle taking a photograph. What’s your best conclusion as to who that is? Trooper Paul. Thank you, your honor. That is okay. So, next topic. Yes. Thank you. And I just need to reload if you will with regard to that topic. Okay, if you could uh your honor, we can go to slide and I think I can do this fairly quickly. Okay, if you can go uh Mr. Woke to slide 131 of Dr. Welchure’s PowerPoint presentation and it’s now 132. I don’t believe that’s the right one. Uh it’s the one before that. Yeah, I think you’re Yeah. Okay. So, this is slide 131 from your slide presentation. Correct, sir. Correct. And if you look to the far right, I’m sorry, Mr. Woke, you go to the other one. Yes, that one. And and scroll down so we can see what’s in green for that depiction. That is from Dr. Gordy Bellow’s autopsy report page three. Correct. Is that where you got that from? Uh, it’s from the report. Take your word for it on page three. So, but it is from Dr. Scorty Bellow’s autopsy report. Correct. Correct. Now, if you could go to if we could zoom back out and go to the multicolored image in the center up at the top. Just go straight to Yeah, just go straight right there. Yep. Yep. Yep. No, I got it. Yep. Got it. Thank you. If you can go to the very top line, it says autopsy report performed by Irene Scory Bellow MD PhD. If you could scroll back over, Mr. Date of autopsy, January 31, 2022. And then you see final diagnosis. That is all directly from the autopsy report is it not sir? Yes. And that is in your slide presentation. Correct sir. This is page 131 of your slide presentation. Correct. Correct. That’s all I have your honor. Okay. You are all set doctor. Thank you. All right. Did you have any questions Mr. Brennan? If it’d be helpful to I have a couple quickly. Okay. Keep under two minutes. Dr. Welchure, you were shown a photograph of the street of Fair View Road. Did you know that didn’t come from Trooper Paul? It came from the C report and Trooper Paul then took it from the C report and put it in separately in his presentation. Did you know that? I had no idea. I just was given it as a folder. And the photo you were using, it didn’t have the markings that Trooper Paul put on his report, did it? It did not. When Trooper Paul When you used that photo, was it because you were borrowing, relying on, or using any of Trooper Paul’s reports for your conclusions or any of your decisions or analysis in this case? I did not use his report at all. It was simply limited to the use of the photo to show a different demonstrative issue. Correct. And then when you saw diagram one, again, that was different than what was used in Tupal’s report because it had absent in it all the writing. Isn’t that fair to say? As per second, did you rely on Trooper Paul’s analysis or conclusions in this case for your conclusions and your analysis? Not at all. Is that why you went and downloaded the information and looked at the car and did everything individually separately and uniquely from trooper Paul? I wanted it to be independent in my analysis. Regarding Dr. Scortoelloo, did you ever consider her conclusions regarding manner or cause of death as a basis for your analysis and conclusions? Yes. And when you considered her analysis, did you consider the conclusion? Did you consider the conclusion of undetermined cause of death? Was that part of your analysis? Oh, no. I was using like the skull fractures, the description of the injury. So, you were considering the information in her autopsy report? Correct. How about her conclusions? Did you rely on her conclusions to do your studies or any analysis in this case as far as cause of death or manner of death? Only I thought I said blood, trauma, and hypothermia. Okay. regarding her conclusions about whether this wasn’t caused by a car accident or not. Did you consider that as the basis of your opinion? No, I wouldn’t take a person like that opinion for that. Did you ever have a conversation with Dr. Scordelloo about her expertise limitations? No, I would I would want a biomechanical analysis. Was your opinion regarding the collision in this case, did it have anything to do whatsoever with Dr. Scor’s conclusions regarding cause of death, whether it was accident undetermined or homicide. No. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, your honor. All right. One question. Can we just wrap it up? I’d like to hear you argue, but we don’t have time. So, I’m just going to I I I have two two questions, your honor. You You put in your slide presentation information from the autopsy report of Dr. Scorty Bellow for a reason. Correct, sir? And that reason is because you considered the autopsy report as part of your analysis. Correct. So I considered portions which are the portions I included here for the autopsy report. And part of those considerations were the final diagnosis. We can put that back up. Mr. Mr. What? But you recall the the the slide that you had has the final diagnosis of Dr. Scorty Bellow and you put that in your slide presentation because you considered that as part of your analysis else it wouldn’t be in there. Correct. So the final diagnosis is in there. There’s a line. Then it says cause of death and then manner of death. The things I highlighted are the things I thought were important. So the highlighting on slide 130. So look at So the final diagnosis again does not include cause of death. It does not include manner of death. There’s that horizontal line demarcating them. The important things that I was looking at are the under or highlighted which is why I highlighted them. Exactly. So the the ones that you highlighted you considered are from the autopsy report. That’s why you’re highlighting them, right, sir? You considered them. Correct. Thank you. No questions, your honor. I appreciate that opportunity. So I’m not going to let you argue now. I’ll hear you very briefly tomorrow before we stop. But Mr. Leie, how much longer are you going to be tomorrow? I could have a motion. [Applause] I’m about halfway through, your honor. I think it will take up um a little bit tomorrow. If we can get through things quicker, I would like to do that today. That’s my best estimate. So, we’re we’re half a day tomorrow. Um Oh, that’s right. So, it may be that we have a 20 minute break tomorrow and we finish up by 1:30 by going straight through. We’ve got a juror who has an appointment that we told her she’d be able to make. So, um, I’d like to do everything we can so that Dr. Welchure doesn’t have to come back or stay here another day. So, let’s just see what we can do and we will do the same thing for your experts as well. No, I understand your honor and I respect everything that your honor is saying. I I must say, your honor, to state the obvious, this is a key aspect of the case and we’ve got to be able to proceed through to the question and I’m not asking you to curb it. I’m just hoping that we can do it. So, I will ask you tomorrow at a certain time to see whether it’s we’re able to do it with the 20-minut break and finish. Fair enough. My my answer is that point. Okay. All right. Thank you. All rise for the court, please. Thank you, Dr. Welch. Thank you. Can I step down

Karen Read is back on trial again after investigators say she drove drunk, hit her Boston cop boyfriend, John O’Keefe, then left him to die in the snow. O’Keefe was found dead outside the home of fellow Boston police officer Brian Albert, in Canton, Massachusetts. In July of 2024, a judge declared a mistrial in her first trial. Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a collision causing death.

Get a free 15-day trial of Odoo’s all-in-one business solution and see how it can make your life easier! Check it out at https://odoo.com/lclivecrm

Subscribe to Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/LawAndCrimeNetwork

STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:
Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3y
Where To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5
Sign Up For Law&Crime’s Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Read Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2Iqo

Submit Tips to Law&Crime: tips@lawandcrime.com
For Advertising Inquiries, Please Contact: sales@lawandcrime.com
For Licensing Inquiries, Please Contact: licensing@lawandcrime.com

LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetwork
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrime
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrime

LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/

SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK YOUTUBE CHANNELS:
Main Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz8K1occVvDTYDfFo7N5EZw
Law&Crime Shorts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVXOqoOCYbi-iXChKAl6DTQ
Channel B: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXCLaaClAWQiTkl3pw9ZdLw
Channel C: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMV3pzWIhJGLYzoHyxBjjNw