Matthew DiSogra

“The trigger is a singular point in time.”

Establishes that Dr. Welcher's characterization of the trigger event as lasting 5 seconds conflated the trigger with the recording window, adding 5 seconds of ambiguity to his timeline.

“He calculated all of them, but he didn't apply any of them.”

Key criticism of Burgess's methodology — he did the offset math but never completed the analysis by applying offsets to the event times.

“Regardless of what adjustment or combination of adjustments we make from the original reports, John's interaction window remains positive.”

Core conclusion from the January 2025 report analysis — every offset scenario shows the phone lock occurred after the vehicle event.

“25 of them are positive. John's interaction window is positive for 25 of them and only three were negative.”

DiSogra's summary count across 30 Aperture-derived scenarios: 25 after the event, two simultaneous, and three before. He did not select a preferred method and described each approach as having strengths and weaknesses.

“None of the prior events were triggered by a collision.”

The exchange clarified the statement's scope: Techstream is not triggered by a collision itself, so this described trigger taxonomy rather than an opinion that no collision occurred.

“There's a minimum threshold to record in the EDR and a pedestrian impact generally wouldn't meet that.”

Concession that neither EDR nor Techstream data would necessarily capture a vehicle-pedestrian collision, limiting the defense's 'no collision data' argument.

“The data only tells us about the window of time the data captures. There's no way to know beyond that from the data.”

DiSogra admitted the 10-second Techstream window reveals nothing about what happened before or after, including a potential collision.

“Primarily, I wasn't asked to. So, I didn't do it. I wouldn't commission work without being asked to do it.”

DiSogra testified that he did not write a report because he was not asked to and described the work beyond the PowerPoint as basic addition using figures already in the Aperture reports.

“I don't know how the clocks are synchronized when you plug an iPhone into a car.”

Key concession undermining the foundation of his analysis — he built conclusions on data whose source behavior he cannot explain

“It's stated that way and I think it could be that way, but it might be iPhone to iPhone too, if those times are just copied over.”

DiSogra acknowledged a conditional alternative: the times might be iPhone-to-iPhone if copied over, rather than definitively accepting that characterization.

“I don't think it is. I don't think there's one.”

DiSogra said he did not think he had seen a TechStream event for the proposed 5:07 a.m. incident, but repeated that he did not remember and did not have all nineteen events committed to memory. He then expressly answered that he was not offering an opinion that no collision occurred that night.

“None of them were triggered by a collision.”

States that the Techstream events DiSogra reviewed were not triggered by a collision.

“If the phone event moves from 12:32:09 to 12:32:16, then of the 30 possibilities I had in the chart, all of them would become positive. That would mean that that interaction occurs after the end of the vehicle event every single time.”

Demonstrates DiSogra's conditional recalculation: if the hypothetical phone event moved from 12:32:09 to 12:32:16, all 30 scenarios would place the interaction after the vehicle event.

“Infotainment call timestamps.”

Reading Burgess's own column label directly undercuts Brennan's suggestion that DiSogra misidentified the data source

“I don't know.”

Concedes he cannot say whether the first five data points are based on the infotainment clock — the key ambiguity Brennan raised during cross

“I don't think the analysis was possible in this case because the testing wasn't done in this case.”

DiSogra said he did not think the analysis was possible because the testing was not done in this case; he later acknowledged that he had not read Whiffin's report and did not know whether the testing had been done.

“I do not know.”

DiSogra's generic answer concluded a sequence in which Brennan proposed a 12:32:16 last phone movement and possible intervening activities. DiSogra repeatedly disclaimed knowledge; the questions and answers did not establish who possessed the phone, any activity, or proximity to the vehicle.

“Mr. Burgess's data and Dr. Welcher's data.”

Final answer of the examination — establishes that DiSogra's entire analysis was built on the prosecution's own experts' work.