Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveJoseph Paul - Cross
985 linesJUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Cross-examination.
MR. JACKSON: So, do you have any -- do you hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of mathematics?
MR. JACKSON: You hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of physics?
MR. JACKSON: Hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of biomechanics?
MR. JACKSON: How about in engineering?
MR. JACKSON: How about in kinematics?
MR. JACKSON: What's the highest degree that you do hold, sir?
MR. JACKSON: And what -- administration of justice?
MR. PAUL: You mentioned kinematics on Friday. Do you hold any certificates in the specific area of kinematics? Yes, it's covered in the basic crash investigation classes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, so you took a class -- in other words, correct? Multiple classes. They introduced the idea of what kinematics is. Right?
MR. JACKSON: You testified about that on Friday?
MR. JACKSON: Define kinematics.
MR. JACKSON: It's a subfield of what broader field? Kinematics is a subfield of what broader discipline of science?
MR. JACKSON: Physics, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And it describes how points and objects -- systems of objects -- how they move, the rate they move, and the rate of their velocity, correct?
MR. JACKSON: What's that called -- the rate of velocity? What's another word for that?
MR. PAUL: The rate of velocity -- I mean, it's a -- it deals with the motion. It deals with forward, and also deals with speed. It deals with travel and speed. If something's moving, it also has a speed to it, right?
MR. JACKSON: The word you're looking for is "acceleration," correct?
MR. JACKSON: What role does acceleration play in the field of kinematics? What role does -- so what role does acceleration play within kinematics?
MR. PAUL: Right, it talks about -- like you just said, it talks about the speed and talks about motion.
MR. JACKSON: Is kinematics also known as the geometry of motion? Is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Never heard that? What's the difference between constrained and unconstrained motion?
MR. JACKSON: That's what I asked.
MR. JACKSON: Constrained motion is motion on a predetermined path, isn't it?
MR. JACKSON: Unconstrained motion is what -- when it doesn't have a predetermined path? Free movement?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Could you remember that from your class?
MR. PAUL: For the most part, we don't go that -- that -- that deep into constrained and unconstrained.
MR. JACKSON: Constrained and unconstrained, not restrained. So -- sorry -- unconstrained -- yes. Kinematics uses algebraic formulas to model these motions -- right, the motions of these points and systems of points -- correct?
MR. JACKSON: And it includes concepts like displacement and speed, velocity, distance, acceleration -- which we've talked about -- correct?
MR. JACKSON: And it looks at how these things -- these values -- vary over a point in time or duration in time. Is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Do you actually understand the physics behind the study of kinematics?
MR. JACKSON: Learned in class?
MR. JACKSON: On Friday, you said that this incident is a pedestrian strike from a vehicle. You reiterated that again this morning. Is that right?
MR. JACKSON: I want to be clear -- that is your opinion based on your training and experience, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And on Friday, you said -- you based that -- you based that, rather, opinion on the fact that you noted a half-mile-per-hour decrease in speed and a steering input of less than 10 degrees at some point in that reverse motion, correct?
MR. PAUL: I -- I said that was consistent. That data point in general was consistent with something that you would see within data of a pedestrian strike -- or striking something else. I do -- in my report, I say I can't say that's definitely where he was struck. But -- I'm sorry, it wasn't definitely -- I'm sorry, in my report I do say I can't say that -- that is definitely where the pedestrian was struck.
MR. JACKSON: Cannot say definitively?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you're going to have to slow down and speak up, okay?
MR. JACKSON: I just want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly. And I apologize. You said you cannot say definitively that that resulted in a pedestrian strike -- that data point within the tech stream data -- is what I'm talking about. Okay? That specific point -- those -- that time frame -- because there's a multitude of reasons why when someone is driving in reverse they might slow down by a half a mile an hour, right?
MR. PAUL: It's -- what I -- when I say when it's consistent, it's because there's the -- the other aspects. It's the fact that the accelerator is consistently --
JUDGE CANNONE: Let him answer. Finish your answer.
MR. PAUL: So the accelerator -- it's consistent at a constant rate, and then this just drops by half a mile -- and the steering wheel roughly goes to the right. That's -- that's what I'm talking about when I say it is consistent with a pedestrian strike. That's something that you would see. It's not going to be a huge change of speed during this collision.
MR. JACKSON: You also note that at the time it had begun to snow, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Would be snow on the lawn, right?
MR. JACKSON: There would be snow on the cars?
MR. JACKSON: Snow on the trees?
MR. JACKSON: Snow on the roadway?
MR. JACKSON: Snow on the roadway could impact how tires move over the roadway, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And obviously there are a multitude of reasons why somebody might input a 10-degree input on a steering wheel, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So every time somebody slows down going in reverse or forward and introduces a 10-degree input on the steering wheel, doesn't mean they hit a pedestrian, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You testified that you determined the area of impact by basically -- if I heard your testimony correctly -- basically following the debris field from the body, from where you believed John O'Keefe's body's final resting place was, almost linearly to the furthermost piece of debris that was found. Did I get that right?
MR. JACKSON: In other words, you established what in your mind -- what you were told was his final resting place, and what you were told was the debris -- and you indicated that the furthermost piece of debris would basically be the area of impact, right?
MR. PAUL: I -- it's -- it's within that line. I didn't say that is the area of impact where the furthermost piece of evidence is. It's just the linear -- like you -- like you said earlier, it's that linear -- we're throwing that path. That's the path that he traveled post-impact with the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: And that -- that fact -- that you stated -- is on -- which -- what -- terrible question. That's the basis for your opinion of where the area of impact was, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Let's take a look at -- with the Court's permission -- exhibit 587. It's your diagram three. May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you can see it. May we publish exhibit 587?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Sir, you see diagram 3 on the board? You also have it in front of you, correct?
MR. JACKSON: It's easier for you to refer to what's in front of you because that's a little bit further away. Let me know, okay. The red arrows adjacent to the blue right angle where I'm highlighting right now indicate basically the debris field that you explained to the jurors on Friday, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And then there's a point of an arrow that comes back to a word -- it says "pedestrian's final rest" -- basically right there, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And the debris field ends right in the middle of that highlighted area, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right, so that's the area of impact that you indicated to Mr. Lally you believe occurred because of the debris field -- and the linear portion of that debris field going from the pedestrian's final rest all the way out to that final little red arrow that says "red plastic" -- in parenthesis -- correct?
MR. JACKSON: Can we have exhibit 492 published, please? May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: While that's coming up -- have you ever seen this?
MR. JACKSON: Take a look. Just above the arrow -- [unintelligible]. Maybe highlight or magnify the area just above the arrow. Okay, you see that?
MR. JACKSON: Right underneath the fire hydrant, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. What does that look like?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Can we go back -- with Court's permission -- to exhibit 587? Okay. See the fire hydrant?
MR. JACKSON: Right there, correct?
MR. JACKSON: That's another -- according to your scale -- that's probably 30 feet from the pedestrian's final rest, correct?
MR. JACKSON: That is the furthermost -- on this diagram -- the furthermost piece of debris on the diagram, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So now your testimony changed -- that this is in fact the area of impact?
MR. JACKSON: Why not?
MR. PAUL: Because there's just a piece of debris. I'm talking about the path. You follow the path of the debris field. Debris can move and change.
MR. JACKSON: The debris doesn't fly backward, does it?
MR. JACKSON: I'm saying you pointed to just the fire hydrant as the area of impact — where the debris — where that one piece of plastic was — saying that's the area of impact — is right next to the fire hydrant.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, that's what you said, right? I'm asking you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask the question again, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: In fact, you indicated on Friday that your analysis of the area of impact was predicated on — based on — the furthermost piece of debris from the pedestrian's body that you were aware of, which is right there, red plastic B.
MR. PAUL: I said — well, I said — we said... ...earlier, with a linear equation. I mean, it might have moved it over more, but it's the debris — the start of that debris — and where that is, I can't say that's definitely the point of area impact, or the point of impact. I just — I cannot say that is the point of impact right there. You just kind of follow the linear paths because they have to follow in a direct path that way.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, so now your testimony is that's not the area of impact?
MR. PAUL: I never — I never said that was the area of impact. I said it's after that — we were all here on Friday.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, that's exactly what you said under questioning by Mr. Lally, wasn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Didn't you say on Friday that... ...you determined the area of impact for Mr. O'Keefe — the point of impact was red plastic B — because that was the furthermost piece of debris you were aware of from the final point of rest from Mr. O'Keefe's body? Isn't that what you said?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, I'm not asking if it was your exact words — I don't have a transcript of it — I'm asking you: is that what you tried to impart to the jurors?
MR. PAUL: What I said to the jury — I said after that — that's the start of that — that's the last — that's the last point of evidence that I had. I said the area of impact is probably along the roadway after that point. I mean, like before it, have to... ...walk towards him.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, I keep doing that because I think you're done. Are you done?
MR. JACKSON: So, now you're aware that there's a piece of debris that looks like tail light material right under the fire hydrant. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: If the area of impact that you indicated on Friday was where this red plastic B is, you would be wrong, right? Your analysis would be flawed.
MR. PAUL: No, because that's not what I said. I said it's along the roadway — it's going to be after that point.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, so is the area of impact now where the fire hydrant is?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Are you now indicating — because now you realize that there's a piece of debris directly under the fire... ...hydrant — are you now indicating that that's the area of impact where John O'Keefe's body was struck?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Let's take a look, with the Court's permission, at exhibit 279. Okay. Taking a look at 279, I want to draw your attention to that piece right there — a plastic. You see it?
MR. JACKSON: Describe it for me — just physically, what does that look like?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Maybe in a triangular shape. Is that fair?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Now if we could go back to — with the Court's permission — exhibit 492. Okay, and highlight just above the ruler. How would you describe that piece of material?
MR. JACKSON: Does that — based on that — does that appear to be part of the tail light material...
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Now, based on that, are you now suggesting — if we could go, with the Court's permission, back to 587? I'll stop jumping around. Just a second. I think — okay, just get back to 587. Oh, sorry. The diagram. Now, seeing what we've just now seen in terms of that piece of plastic that appears to be from the tail light — does that appear to be under the fire hydrant, which is highlighted? Same piece?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Based on that, does that change your opinion? Is the fire hydrant now the point of impact?
MR. JACKSON: Then where is the point of impact?
MR. JACKSON: Can I — so you... ...don't know the area of impact?
MR. PAUL: I said the area of impact is along the roadway after the debris. And the only thing it would change — the only thing it would change — is maybe it was a little further away. But besides that, it's still — it's a linear field. I'm not talking about like one point. You kind of follow the middle of the debris field, and that should be the path.
MR. JACKSON: Well, if the point of impact is along the roadway, where along the roadway? You can show the jurors. Where along the roadway, in your expert opinion, was the point of impact?
MR. PAUL: It should be within — if you follow from the pedestrian's final rest here, just kind of follow back — that would be — that's what I'm... ...talking about, the linear field.
MR. JACKSON: I can — so now you've indicated an area. I can follow your laser pointer — an area along here. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: Somewhere in there. All right. If I have my spotlight — is that — if I leave it right there, is that about where — the middle of the spotlight — about where you believe the area of impact is?
MR. PAUL: It's within — I guess you can say it's within that area. I don't know definitely. There's nothing on the roadway that has a definitive point that says this is the area of impact right here. It's within — it's within the roadway, based on the evidence.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Paul — sorry, Trooper Paul. I'm asking you, based on your expert opinion and your... ...conclusions, based on your full analysis, can you point me to within an area of 5 feet or so on the roadway where you believe the area of impact is? Is my spotlight basically highlighting the area that you believe, in your opinion, is the area of impact?
MR. JACKSON: I do.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't we let him show you — it'd be easier for the jury to see.
MR. PAUL: So what I'm trying to say is — so we follow the linear path back around this area. Okay, can you — and sorry, I'm trying to keep it straight as much as I can — follow it back to here. I can't say like if this is definitely it, but it's possibly — based on also vehicle damage to the back of the vehicle — so if we follow... ...all the way back to here — that could be a possible area of impact.
MR. JACKSON: So when you say that area there — just — I want to be very clear for the record — that what you highlighted is an area basically just to the left of an X that's on the road, on the bottom of diagram 3, or the lower part of diagram 3?
MR. JACKSON: You would use your circle — almost — kind of be an area around — sorry. You can use a circle around here, just — this would be around the area.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So using your scale — that scale is going from full left to full right — it's plus or minus 40 feet, right? [unintelligible]: Switch — can't see it. So — say again — say the question. That scale is 40 feet going full left to right?
MR. JACKSON: It's 40 feet?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Sorry — 20 feet? My mistake.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. All right. So if you use that scale, can you estimate for the jurors — I'm just going to use this X as a starting point — estimate for the jurors from this X that I've highlighted, pedestrian's final rest — what's that number? Doesn't have to be exact, give me an estimate.
MR. PAUL: I mean, could be within 30 feet. Because I'll tell you this also — on my scale, this 2 and 3 is 50 feet from each other.
MR. JACKSON: How much?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, 5-0, 5-0. So would you agree that from this X down here — pedestrian's final rest — that's probably a good 35 to 40 feet?
MR. PAUL: I mean, I can try to use the scale... ...with — use me as a scale, if you wouldn't mind.
MR. JACKSON: Paper?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: You need a pen?
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Approximately 30 feet?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can you place — with the Court's permission — can you estimate 30 feet in here? Can I — can you point to a place in the — looks like 30 feet from you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: No. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Does the Court have a diagram — a diagram of distances in this courtroom?
JUDGE CANNONE: No.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated just now — I'm finished with this, thank you — you indicated just now in answer to Mr. Lally's last couple of questions that in your expert opinion the SUV struck pedestrian John O'Keefe, and he was "projected forward into the left, to the front yard, to his final place of rest." Yes?
MR. JACKSON: So your expert testimony is that John... ...O'Keefe was hit with the SUV and flew 30 feet? "Projected" — I mean, like he flew all the way there?
MR. PAUL: He was projected in that way — he got pushed forward in that direction. He was incapacitated, landed there. Have to sort of fly there, right? Didn't walk there.
MR. JACKSON: I mean, would you define "flying" like literally off the ground the whole entire time?
MR. JACKSON: You're the expert.
MR. PAUL: I mean, he got — when we say "projected," we mean he gets projected and they usually have a landing phase, and they land, and they either roll or tumble to final rest.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. How far do you think he landed? How far was it until he landed, of that 30 feet?
MR. JACKSON: There's no indication of where his exact landing spot was. Is there any evidence whatsoever that he landed and rolled?
MR. JACKSON: According to you, the evidence that you have in front of you is that you get hit, fly 30 feet, land where he ended up — in his final rest — right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Based on your expert opinion, you believe that he was projected through the air to his final resting place?
MR. JACKSON: Well, you said there's no evidence that he rolled, and there's no evidence that he flew through the air either?
MR. JACKSON: Exactly.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You said on Friday that in your experience, people tend to lose objects that are not strapped to them. Is that right?
MR. JACKSON: In other words, get hit by something — car, truck, bus, whatever, train — and if you have something in your hand, boom, you lose it, you drop it, if it's not strapped to you. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: How do you suppose that Mr. O'Keefe, in your opinion, held on to that glass cup that was found right next to him over the course of 30 feet being projected?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have a theory on that?
MR. PAUL: I don't know. I mean, it just could have been with him the whole way. I don't have a — I don't know. I wasn't there, so I don't... ...know how the glass stayed with his body and went with him to the final rest.
MR. JACKSON: So, I mean, it's just common sense — you have to believe he held on to it the entire time being projected?
MR. PAUL: It's possible. It could have been [unintelligible] — it could have been tucked next to his clothing.
MR. JACKSON: Did you say "tucked"?
MR. PAUL: I mean, like, it could have been next to his body. So when he was projected, maybe the glass went with his body — it was also flying. So there are a number of reasons why the glass — because it also got projected with the body.
MR. JACKSON: Well, while he was holding it? I thought you said on Friday, and you just agreed with me, that people drop things...
MR. PAUL: ...when they're hit. Yes. But not everything. It tends to fly off. I mean, some stuff flies off, some stuff will stay on. It's — it's not uncommon to find pieces of clothing and stuff, you know, that you find at the scene — pieces of clothing like shoes and stuff like that, to come off the body in a pedestrian crash.
MR. JACKSON: Well, that's not what I asked.
MR. PAUL: I know. I'm just saying — you said why this — I'm just responding to what you said, and trying to make sure you understand what I'm saying.
MR. JACKSON: No, I don't. But I'll ask another question. Shoes are strapped on, by definition, right?
MR. JACKSON: But it's very common for shoes...
MR. JACKSON: How about a cell phone?
MR. JACKSON: Well, it was found under his body. Okay. How do you account for that — you hold on to a cell phone with one hand and hold on to a cup?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: The cell phone was found under his torso, under his body. What's your theory on how that cell phone ended up there, being projected 30 feet?
MR. JACKSON: Just did. And somehow, as he landed, tucked that cell phone underneath his body, and landed on top of it?
MR. PAUL: It just did. That's the evidence at the scene. I can't — I didn't put the evidence there.
MR. JACKSON: So, well, you didn't —
JUDGE CANNONE: So, jurors, I've told you before, lawyers cannot make comment. Disregard it. Mr. Jackson, don't do it again. Understand?
MR. JACKSON: I understand.
JUDGE CANNONE: Don't do it.
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Your answer is always, "I understand. Don't do it."
MR. JACKSON: Cell phone in one hand, cup in the other hand — through the —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You were informed of this incident on January 29th, 2022, at about 2:30 in the afternoon. Is that right?
MR. JACKSON: At the time, you were working out of the CARS facility, which is located on West Grove Street in Middleboro. Is that right?
MR. JACKSON: By the way, that's a facility that has multiple garages — sally ports, I don't know if they're called sally ports — but garage bays, correct?
MR. JACKSON: The mechanic shop, yes?
MR. JACKSON: If you're going to review, for instance, for purposes of reconstruction — if you're going to review a vehicle, is the vehicle placed in those mechanic bays?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So where are the mechanic bays? Sorry, reverse that. Where are the sally ports where you do your analysis — your reconstruction, your review of the vehicle, inspection, things of that nature?
MR. JACKSON: You don't have anything dedicated to that?
MR. PAUL: No. The only time we would use a sally port is crime scene would have some sort of space that they would do to... ...document their crime scene stuff. And I've gone there to do my inspections. But most of our inspections are done either at the tow yard or some type of facility.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, was this SUV ever taken to the Middleboro facility?
MR. JACKSON: Where was it placed?
MR. JACKSON: Is it outside or inside?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did it remain outside in that fenced-in area the whole time?
MR. JACKSON: Where did it get moved to?
MR. JACKSON: Are you familiar with the... ...Foxboro location?
MR. JACKSON: Does that have a sally port bay for inspection and evaluation?
MR. PAUL: It has garages in it, but we wouldn't use them. We don't normally use those garages for inspections.
MR. JACKSON: Is it possible to use those garages for inspections?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. It's happened before, correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up and speak slowly.
MR. JACKSON: You know, those bays could be used for inspections or analysis or evaluation, if needed, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. Given the fact that the SUV that was being seized on January 29th was being seized as potential evidence, best practices would suggest — if you want to get it in and out of the bad weather, the inclement weather, as quickly as possible, correct? You wouldn't want to subject it to continued forces from nature like rain, wind, snow, sleet, hail, right? That would be beneficial?
MR. JACKSON: All right. So from — where — from Dighton. Sorry. From Dighton, where the vehicle was seized, going — all going toward Canton — you pass by either Middleboro or Foxboro to get to Canton, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. The car was not taken to Foxboro, was it?
MR. JACKSON: Just — fact of the matter — the car was taken basically double the distance, all the way to Canton. That's correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, do you know that? Is that double the distance?
MR. JACKSON: I don't know the exact distance. I just know it was in Canton. And you know what — Foxboro to Canton — from Dighton.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And you're also aware — because you've been to the scene at 34 Fairview, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And Canton PD?
MR. JACKSON: You know those two locations are about three, four minutes apart?
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask this a little bit different way. Before you began any review on this case — any physical review on this case or analysis on the case — you were told that there had been a crash, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You testified to that at the state court grand jury in this matter, is that right? That you'd been told in advance this was a vehicle-pedestrian crash, and you were asked to analyze it?
MR. JACKSON: You wrote in your report that it was a single... ...vehicle collision involving a pedestrian, and you were quote "assigned to reconstruct that collision," correct?
MR. JACKSON: So when you began your analysis — [unintelligible] — you were told conclusively by the lead investigator, Michael Proctor, that the deceased was hit by a car, and your job was to reconstruct it. Is that right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So there are lots of parts to that. Break it down.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Were you told by Michael Proctor to reconstruct this incident?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, were you told that by Trooper Proctor?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Next question. Who gave you your instructions?
MR. JACKSON: Reconstruct this incident.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Your assistance was requested to reconstruct. That's my question: who assigned you to it?
MR. JACKSON: And you were told some basics about that reconstruction — about the event that you were asked to reconstruct, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Information that you were told — came from the case officer. Is that right?
MR. JACKSON: The information that this was a pedestrian-vehicle incident, as opposed to motor vehicle — pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle, motorcycle — you were told it was a motor vehicle... ...pedestrian incident, that you were asked to reconstruct, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. And you had to be given some basic parameters of — what that incident — how that incident occurred — car was going in reverse, it's got a damaged tail light, things like that, some basic stuff?
MR. JACKSON: What I'm trying to get to is who gave you that information. Where did it come from, that the car was traveling in reverse? Like, which part of the information —
MR. JACKSON: Were you given information from multiple sources, or did someone give you a summary of what you were being asked to do at the very beginning?
MR. JACKSON: Who gave...
MR. PAUL: — the summary of the whole event that I was asked to reconstruct? I was — when I got to the garage, there was nobody — they gave me the summary, like, that I can remember. I was told that it was a pedestrian crash, I knew it was a Boston police officer involved, that this was the vehicle, and that it was traveling in Reverse. That's all they had.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What I'm asking is — that's great, thank you for the summary. Who gave you that summary?
MR. PAUL: I don't know if it was definitely anybody from the get-go that I — like, I talked to — from where I — — don't know if anybody that I could definitely say was — was the person. There were multiple people going around when I got there. I think I talked to Trooper Clark — he was doing the crime scene. I think he was Zack Clark — he was doing the crime scene photos at the time. I knew him from past crashes. He just said "this is the vehicle," and I think he kind of gave me a little bit of a lowdown on what the vehicle was.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So my question is this — when you got that — did you call it a "lowdown"?
MR. JACKSON: He gave you information. Yes. Right. When you got the lowdown, you were told a Boston police officer was — — involved, the vehicle-pedestrian incident, car was going in Reverse, ultimately led to the death of the pedestrian — struck the pedestrian in Reverse — correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. And you were assigned specifically to try to reconstruct that incident?
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever heard of the phrase "confirmation bias"?
MR. JACKSON: You know what it means?
MR. PAUL: I can definitely say what it means — developing a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to fit that conclusion. Does that sound right?
MR. JACKSON: You say — So you noted in your examination that there were scratches on the passenger side rear bumper of the Lexus, correct?
MR. JACKSON: How exactly were you able to scientifically determine that any of those scratches were from an incident on January 29th, 2022, as opposed to any other time?
MR. PAUL: I didn't have anything else on the time — is that those scratches happened prior to this collision. I'm sorry — I didn't have any information that those scratches were caused from a prior collision. And so when I tried — when I looked at the evidence — I knew it was in that same area, the right red tail light. So when I looked at it, it didn't quite fit the pedestrian thing. So when you showed me the video — or I saw the video like a year ago on Court TV — I said that's — that could be — you asked the —
JUDGE CANNONE: — question. So — next. Keep going, he's answering. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Scientifically, I think the scratches were —
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on, ask a question, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: You know what normal wear and tear on a vehicle is, right?
MR. JACKSON: Bumpers get scratched myriad ways, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Getting scratches going to a grocery store parking lot, right?
MR. JACKSON: Shopping cart can bounce off the back of the car and scratch the bumper — scratch the side of the car, quarter panel or something, right?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. I mean, I don't want to go through it, but there's thousands and thousands and thousands of ways that a car can get a scratch, correct?
MR. JACKSON: My question is — do you have — as you sit here — do you have — — any scientific evidence that those scratches occurred on January 29th at approximately 12:45 a.m.?
MR. JACKSON: Well, do you have any evidence whatsoever that you can point to that those scratches occurred on that date and at that time, rather than any other time in the history —
MR. PAUL: — I — like I said earlier, the video seems to appear — that's what it looks like — that could have been from — well, you said on Friday — let's talk about those scratches for a second. Okay, you testified Friday, you were pretty clear, you said that — I can find it exactly —
MR. JACKSON: Let me have just a moment, Your Honor — sure. You said, quote, "the dent and scratches — for his hand — could be — those are consistent with striking the Lexus." Remember saying that?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So the dent and scratches we talked about on Friday — you said it was from his hand, yes?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Then are those the same scratches you're talking about in terms of the bumper?
MR. JACKSON: So what are you talking about? The scratches inside the bumper we talked about, correct?
MR. JACKSON: What about — okay — is there any way to scientifically date a scratch? No — if you go out to the parking lot right now, even as an accident reconstructionist, you walk out to the parking lot right now, look at a Toyota Camry — — sitting there, it's got a scratch on it — there's no analysis that you can engage in to date that scratch.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: You can ask it differently, Mr. Jackson. Is there any way that you could, in general, look at a scratch and say that scratch is from such and such date?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it — nothing more — I'll allow it.
MR. PAUL: You cannot say — you can look at evidence and it shows that it may have been older than what the newer evidence would be, but there's no way to say that specific date and time that a scratch came from.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And it's possible that any or all of those scratches on the Lexus could — — have predated January 29th, correct?
MR. PAUL: No, that's not possible. The ones that are on — from the tail light and the other parts of it — scratches anywhere on the car — depends on what you — you got to pick — the other scratches you guys showed me, the other scratches on the car —
MR. JACKSON: I'm saying it's possible — since you can't date the scratch — it's possible that any or all of those scratches could predate January 29th. Simple question, right? It's possible.
MR. JACKSON: I'm not being broad. Let me ask it a different way. Let me ask it again — is it possible that any or all of the scratches noted on that car predate — — January 29th? Any and all of the scratches?
MR. PAUL: See, that's — see, I'm saying you're being pretty broad — any and all scratches on the car — that question — that it predate —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: So can you answer that question?
MR. JACKSON: You testified that you noted glass on the rear bumper of the SUV, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you said something about that glass coming from the cup, correct? You also said that you did not see anything on that SUV that could be the source of those glass pieces on the bumper, right?
MR. JACKSON: When you did your reconstruction and your analysis, were you informed that none of — — the glass pieces — not one of them — would be matched to the cup?
MR. JACKSON: So if you knew that the glass pieces on the bumper do not match the cup, would that change your opinion?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: About that glass — can you answer that question?
MR. JACKSON: You can't answer the question?
MR. JACKSON: Got it. By who?
MR. JACKSON: Who told you — at the crime scene? I was there — it says the glass is from the cup when I was there.
MR. JACKSON: That's not what you just said. You said "that's what was told to me."
MR. JACKSON: Wait —
MR. PAUL: — it was told to me by the crime scene when I was at my inspection, at the initial inspection.
MR. JACKSON: So what you meant by "that's what was told to me" is the crime scene talked to you?
MR. JACKSON: Crime scene say anything else?
MR. JACKSON: Did Trooper Proctor tell you that those pieces of glass on the bumper were somehow associated with the cup?
MR. JACKSON: But if you knew that the crime scene was incorrect, and in fact those glass pieces don't match the cup — did that change your opinion?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Would it change your opinion in any way if you knew that the glass pieces do not match the cup?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: — that — can you answer that question?
MR. PAUL: No, I'm sorry. I don't — I don't — it's glass from a cup. It's glass. It's not — it doesn't belong to the vehicle. Right, it's glass. But if I told you it didn't match that cup —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Does that change your opinion?
MR. PAUL: Are we talking — which cup are we — we never established which cup we're talking about. How many cups have we been talking about?
MR. JACKSON: Trooper, you said that cup — the one found at the scene. Okay? That cup — I just want to make sure that we're on the clear path here. I'm clear what we're talking about. Absolutely. All I said — it was found next to John O'Keefe's body in the snow at 34 Fairview Road, January 29th, 2022. You got the cup in mind?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's the cup. When I say "cup," that's the cup. Okay. Would it change your opinion if I told you that the glass pieces on the bumper don't match that cup?
MR. PAUL: What's my opinion on it? All I said — it was glass from a cup. That's the only opinion I have. It's glass from a cup that was on a bumper.
MR. JACKSON: Are you saying a cup? A cup? A cup? It's not glass from the car?
MR. PAUL: That was my opinion on it. I didn't — never said it matched to the scene. You did. I never said that. My thing — I say it's glass from a cup. Okay.
MR. JACKSON: It's safe to say you didn't do any testing to determine the forces necessary to shatter a taillight on a — ...on a 2021 Lexus — right?
MR. JACKSON: Your report indicates — we talked about this a little bit, I'm going to go back to something you talked about earlier this morning — your report indicates that John O'Keefe came to his final resting place about 7 feet from the roadway, and that's what you based your diagram on, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Who told you that number?
MR. JACKSON: Say that again?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What I'm asking is, how did it get on the diagram? In other words, who told you that his body was 7 feet from the roadway?
MR. PAUL: Well — I was told by Lieutenant — was it Gallagher? — he told me this is where the body was found, so I used my devices to mark that location.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. But before you used your devices, he just pointed someplace on the ground and said he was about — here — correct?
MR. JACKSON: Did Lieutenant Gallagher tell you — Lieutenant Gallagher never saw John O'Keefe in place at the scene — did you say that?
MR. JACKSON: Did Lieutenant Gallagher tell you that the first officer on the scene estimated his body at being approximately 15 to 20 feet from the roadway?
MR. JACKSON: If he had told you that, that would have changed your diagram?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. PAUL: I was just — he told me this is where he was found. I marked that location. That's all that was.
MR. JACKSON: And you marked basically every other — I'm sorry, that was a terrible question. Every other item you marked based on a distance from where you were told John O'Keefe's body came to rest, correct?
MR. PAUL: Yes. Again, that was by Lieutenant Gallagher just pointing at the ground saying, "Was about here."
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Was there a single member of the team that was out when you were being shown where the body came to rest — was there a single member of that team who actually said they saw John O'Keefe's body in place?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Canton PD — whoever was there — who was there with you when you started doing your measurements, et cetera?
MR. JACKSON: So — just the two of you — just you and him?
MR. JACKSON: You were training a trooper at the time?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So my mistake — I assumed there were several people out there. Just you and Lieutenant Gallagher?
MR. JACKSON: All right. And again, Lieutenant Gallagher didn't tell you that he never saw John O'Keefe's body in place?
MR. JACKSON: You did document in your report that the items that you noted on your diagram — we just looked at a few minutes ago — those were found by the C team, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated in your report that the members of the C team located a single Nike sneaker — that's noted on your report, is that right?
MR. JACKSON: You also indicated that, quote, "in the same area, two red plastic pieces and one clear piece of plastic of a taillight was discovered."
MR. JACKSON: So your report is clear that in total, the items discovered by the C team on January 29th were: a shoe, right?
MR. JACKSON: A glass — partial glass cup, broken — correct?
MR. PAUL: Well, was that on there? I can't remember if that's on their diagram or if that's what I was told at the scene, but yes.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. You knew that a cup was found?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. And three pieces of plastic — two red, one clear?
MR. JACKSON: Not five pieces of plastic, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You then measured those items — is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Like, relative to John O'Keefe's final place of rest — from it, 12 feet from it?
MR. JACKSON: So — and I'm going to get to that question in just a second — I want to make sure that we walk through it sort of methodically. You then used some calculation, some tool or something, to measure distances? Like: here's where I presume John O'Keefe's body was, here's the final rest place — I'm going to use that as Point A — then I'm going to measure from there and go 7 feet to where the shoe was found, or the first red plastic pieces found, or whatever — right?
MR. JACKSON: Who told you where the pieces were found?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you noted that the shoe was 9 feet?
MR. JACKSON: And you put that in your diagram, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You noted that the glass cup was one foot from John O'Keefe's body, correct?
MR. JACKSON: One foot is about that long, right?
MR. JACKSON: They basically said it was found next to him, right?
MR. JACKSON: A piece of red plastic — 7 feet from John O'Keefe's body, correct?
MR. JACKSON: A clear plastic piece — 10 feet from John O'Keefe's body, right?
MR. JACKSON: And a red plastic piece 12 feet from John O'Keefe's body, correct?
MR. JACKSON: What part of his body were you measuring from?
MR. JACKSON: So he's six foot two?
MR. JACKSON: Did Lieutenant Gallagher tell you where his center mass was?
MR. PAUL: No, I — I measured — he said he was here, so I tried to put like where his head, where his feet, and tried to measure the middle between those two.
MR. JACKSON: So ultimately, because Lieutenant Gallagher was not at the scene when he was found, Lieutenant Gallagher had to sort of guess where the body was found, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You had no photographs of John O'Keefe in place, correct?
MR. JACKSON: There are no establishing shots?
MR. JACKSON: There are no perspective shots, correct?
MR. JACKSON: There are no relative shots — meaning, this is relative to that, I can measure that and figure out distances — correct?
MR. JACKSON: Like, from a picture? You know how that's done in science, right? You want to find out a relative position of something, so you take two or three or four shots. You know that something is never going to move — like, I don't know, a flagpole — you can measure from there. Sure. You get cross-coordinates, right?
MR. JACKSON: Left, right — where the two coordinates match, that's where the item is, right?
MR. JACKSON: None of that was done to establish your measurements — from the pictures — none of that was done?
MR. PAUL: I used — like I said, I used the measurements from it. I measured on my diagram in itself, and I measured from those points off my diagram.
MR. JACKSON: Right. But the starting point was a guess, wasn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have to sort of guess at where you thought John O'Keefe's body was?
MR. JACKSON: Did you guess at his center of mass?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Next question. You stated in your report that you Google Mapped Karen Read's path of travel — well, let me ask a different question, if I could. Withdraw that question.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. Go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Your diagram has all those arrows pointing at specific locations — very, very specific, very thin arrows — correct?
MR. JACKSON: If you start off with an incorrect assumption about where John O'Keefe's body was — right, hypothetical — if you were to start off with an incorrect assumption about where John O'Keefe's body was, every single item that you note on that diagram would then be off as well — would it not?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: The answer is yes, right — hypothetically?
MR. JACKSON: You stated in your report that you Google Mapped Karen Read's path of travel on January 29th, based on what you determined to be — quote — "it's likely the two" — and you said that it's quote "it's likely that the two events" — meaning the triggering events — "occurred at the same time the Lexus was at 34 Fairview at the time of the collision," correct?
MR. JACKSON: The first triggering event was what? Was it a three-point turn or a U-turn? I thought I heard you say both.
MR. PAUL: I guess it would be more — I mean, three-point turns, essentially. I guess it's a three-point turn.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Yes. Well, did you say U-turn on Friday? I swear I heard that.
MR. JACKSON: So you had to make a U-turn, whether that's a three-point turn or not, but it's still — okay. But not to be picky — but sort of my job. Okay. A U-turn: traveling in one direction, turning the wheel, never changing gear — no reverse or anything — just turning, right?
MR. PAUL: A three-point turn requires moving forward, stopping, changing gears, moving backward, stopping, changing gears, using steering input, and then moving off, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Well, those are two very different maneuvers, right? You agree?
MR. PAUL: It's — in a sense, I was trying to say she made a U-turn — like, you say "they made a U-turn," it's a three-point turn, they're still making a U-turn. And it's — I didn't mean it as like she literally had to make a direct U-turn; she was turning around. And obviously the diagram, the trigger shows a three-point turn.
MR. JACKSON: Well, I mean, I guess you could have said "reversing direction," right?
MR. JACKSON: You didn't say that. You said "U-turn." So are you changing your testimony from Friday — that it was a three-point turn? Or could it possibly have been a U-turn?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Because you have evidence of the starting, stopping, changing gear, reversing, stopping, changing gear, turning — that's correct?
MR. JACKSON: So when you said "U-turn," that was inaccurate?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Let's get back to the path of travel. When you began your analysis, how did you know what the Lexus's path of travel was that day?
MR. JACKSON: And what did Trooper Proctor tell you in terms of the path of travel — specifically starting point and an ending point?
MR. PAUL: Tell you the exact path the Lexus traveled? No. They just — all I got is mostly just the addresses.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So if you've got two points on a map and Trooper Proctor told you the Lexus traveled from Point A to Point B, there are multiple ways to get from Point A to Point B — you'd agree with that, right?
MR. JACKSON: You picked one of those paths of travel, including freeways, et cetera, right?
MR. JACKSON: But as you sit here, you don't know what her actual path of travel was, because it could have been something different, right?
MR. JACKSON: Something — that's why, that's why I gave a range on my diagram. Do you have any scientific evidence to establish what her actual path of travel is, or did you just guess at the path of travel?
MR. PAUL: I got the addresses from Trooper Proctor, I put them into the thing and the GPS, and one of the possibilities was 36 miles, and that was after looking at all — at 36 miles is a possibility, right?
MR. JACKSON: Understood. So that's what I'm trying to get to, Paul. Okay, that's one possibility — there's 36 miles — one path of travel, right? There are other possibilities, right?
MR. JACKSON: So between and among the possibility that you picked and the other possibilities, you just sort of have to guess, and there's no science to it — you said I'm going to pick that and put it forth, right?
MR. JACKSON: Okay, why don't you tell me how that works.
MR. PAUL: Her odometer mileage on the car from the download — and the time we had the vehicle — shows 36 miles. So when I plugged those addresses into Google, one of the GPS possibilities, it came up as 36 miles.
MR. JACKSON: As a possibility, and you knew that there was another route of travel to the same location, correct?
MR. JACKSON: There were alternative routes of travel to the same two points — from and to the same points, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You could have tried to extract the location data from the — uh — cell phone to determine the exact path of travel, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So that answers my next question — you did not even attempt to do that, did you?
MR. JACKSON: And you did not attempt to analyze the key cycles for the Lexus in order to determine placement of that vehicle — you just talked about that with Mr. Lally, right?
MR. JACKSON: I want to be clear for the jurors, because most people have probably never heard of key cycles. A key cycle does not have any location data associated with it whatsoever, does it?
MR. JACKSON: It just shows you when a vehicle is turned on — the ignition is on and off — that's one cycle, correct?
MR. PAUL: No — what — tell me what what I got wrong. A key cycle — the car doesn't have to be turned on. It goes from off to run; the engine doesn't have to be started.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. So if it turns on — well, every single ignition is a key cycle — every time the engine turns on, that's absolutely a key cycle. Once it's turned off again, right, that gets recorded as an ignition cycle, right?
MR. JACKSON: So a key cycle can be an ignition cycle, but it doesn't have to be an ignition cycle — it also can be just turning the sort of accessory on, right? Like the key cycles turn the accessories on?
MR. JACKSON: But — my question was, where we started with this conversation — it does not have any location data on it whatsoever, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So when you drive your car — you walk out, get in the car, turn the ignition on, start to drive, get your location, turn it off — that's one key cycle, right?
MR. PAUL: One ignition cycle, but — and I'm going to use the word key cycles because you use the word key cycles in your report —
MR. JACKSON: That's what we're talking about.
MR. PAUL: I'm using that because that's how the trigger was read — that's how the triggers were read on the text stream — that's how they read them: key cycles, by key cycles.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to use that phrase "key cycle." Okay. We're talking about the same thing — it's an ignition on, ignition off cycle — doesn't have to be on?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Right. But if you're seeing triggering events — not trying to be tricky here — if you see triggering events and your car is in motion, what does that tell you?
MR. JACKSON: Right. That's what I'm getting. But it has no location data associated whatsoever — it could be here, it could be in Wyoming, the car wouldn't know the difference, it's not going to report the difference to you, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Say that again.
MR. JACKSON: Right. So your analysis is trying to go from a known key cycle that you can figure out, and then work backward from there to try to figure out where the car was on a particular ignition cycle or key cycle, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Say that again.
MR. PAUL: I did not use the key cycle to place the car back in its location. The key cycles — all I got from the key cycles is that they occurred within proximity to the time we had the vehicle — not basically saying that this was the location based off the key cycle.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let's look at Exhibit 591, with the Court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Did you testify on Friday that this is a copy of the exhibit that was put in — part of your report, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And this is a chart that shows — when this arrow — that arrow indicates top and bottom where your testing occurred, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And we move over to the left — key cycle 1164, right?
MR. JACKSON: So you've testified — and we can turn the lights on, I don't mind if that stays up — you can turn the lights on, I don't think it hurts anything. You stated in your report that there were, quote, "two triggers recorded on odometer 12629 and key cycle 1162," correct?
MR. JACKSON: These events were prior to the testing. Triggers on odometer readings 12665, 12666, and at key cycle 1164 — is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So what you're saying — what you're saying in that report is the triggering events were at 1162 — going in order, 1162 comes before 1164 — they're numerical, is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Every single key cycle just tags another number on top of it, right? There's no formula, correct?
MR. PAUL: After one comes two, after two comes three, four, five, six, and then move on, right? Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So by the time you got the vehicle, there had been 1,164 key cycles on the history of that car, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. And you knew — and you put in your report — or you know — that the triggering events that you see under 1164 — those are yours, yes?
MR. JACKSON: And you were very clear that the triggers that you recorded — that you talked to Mr. Lally about — were two cycles before that?
MR. JACKSON: Meaning ignition cycles, at least, right?
MR. JACKSON: That report — well, let me finish the point. You said that the mileage difference between these two triggers and the triggers that occurred while testing was 36 miles — you just said that, right?
MR. JACKSON: And the key cycle difference was exactly two key cycles, right?
MR. JACKSON: 1164, 1163, 1162 — that's the triggering events, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You also reiterated in your report in paragraphs 23, 24, 26, and 29, and also in this exhibit in your CARS report, that the triggers occurred at key cycle 1162, right?
MR. JACKSON: You were assisted in your CARS report — I think you mentioned Trooper Zack Clark — is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor assisted to a certain degree, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Trooper — Guarino — Carol Guarino, is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Also Sergeant — sorry — Sean Goode of Canton PD assisted as well, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Did they all read the report before it was finalized?
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any supervisor read the report before it was finalized?
MR. JACKSON: And he agreed with the assessments in the report?
MR. JACKSON: So in summary, everybody that read the report — and you, who authored the report — believe and it's reflected in that report that key cycle 1162 contains the two triggers that you're talking about, right?
MR. JACKSON: That's the three-point turn — I guess it's now a three-point turn, right — changing direction, and then the reverse at 24 miles per hour, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you even went on and testified to that exact thing in front of the state grand jury, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Wait — hold on — I need the text streams on the — yeah, on the key cycles — not in grand jury. Okay. And you testified to it on direct examination on Friday, and again this morning — that's correct?
MR. PAUL: If your testing occurred at key cycle 1164, that means you turned the engine on — the ignition on — to start your testing, correct? Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that triggering event that we see up there at 1164 — initiated your testing, that right?
MR. JACKSON: All right. So that 1164 is where there's no more unknowns — in other words, right — you know exactly where the car is, who's in the car, who turned the car on, and what the triggering events were and what they reflected, because you did it, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So that would be the cornerstone, basically, of your entire analysis — key cycles. Say again?
MR. PAUL: The cornerstone — in other words, the one known that is immovable, it's immutable — is 1164 began your testing, is that right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, is that right? I'm going to allow the question.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So starting at 1164 and counting backward — before you started your testing — you know that the SUV had to be started, the ignition had to be turned over, and it was driven to the sallyport in Canton at 5:31 p.m. from a tow truck on January 29th, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You did or did not?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Assuming that the car had to be started and put on a tow truck, that would be key cycle what?
MR. PAUL: I don't know — I can't — I can't speak to the fact that that recorded a key cycle at that time. I can't — I can't speak to the fact that it would record a key cycle at that time.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If the car was turned on and driven onto a tow truck, would that be a key cycle?
MR. PAUL: I don't know, because — these keys record different ways, so I can't speak to how or why it did or did not record on there. All I can speak to is that those are the key cycles. The odometer mileage is more what I was going after on this whole thing.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Paul, you just said unequivocally: when a car is turned on and then turned off, there's a key cycle.
MR. PAUL: I said when the car — with the ignition on — that's a key cycle — that's correct. That's what I mean — when it's turned on, when the engine turns on, that's the definition of what it is. I can't speak to why it did not record.
MR. JACKSON: Let's talk about the ignition cycles, okay? Before 1164. Obviously the car had to get to Canton PD, because you saw it there, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Assume for purposes of my question the car was turned on and there's a video of it turning on, driving up onto a flatbed tow truck.
MR. JACKSON: That would be — ignition cycle — I'm going to use your word — key cycle — ignition cycle 1163, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Which word do you want me to use?
MR. PAUL: If you want to talk about key cycles, key cycles. You want to talk about ignition cycles, it's ignition cycles.
MR. JACKSON: When a vehicle gets turned on, a key cycle does not mean it has to be turned on. But every single ignition cycle includes a key cycle — you can't have an ignition cycle without a key cycle.
MR. PAUL: Well, if you want to talk — just use the key cycles or ignition cycles. I'm trying — I'm trying to make sure this — without — I'm sorry, I'm trying to make sure that this gets put out the correct
MR. JACKSON: — way. Every ignition cycle includes a key cycle, correct?
MR. PAUL: In a sense. By definition it has to, right? It doesn't have to — they record multiple different ways. You can have an ignition cycle without a key cycle. I don't know how it recorded, but it could happen.
MR. JACKSON: Explain that. How could that possibly happen?
MR. PAUL: Because a key cycle is when it turns on — not engine running — and then turns off. Okay, so work with me here. An ignition cycle is when it turns on, engine running for two seconds, and then comes off.
MR. JACKSON: So the two seconds is not on long enough, it might not record one.
MR. JACKSON: All right, let's assume that it's an old-fashioned type of key, okay? Halfway on, electricity is on — it's like it used to be called ACC — except, right?
MR. JACKSON: This vehicle does not have a traditional key — key cycles, they're not a thing — it's a keep-turning, okay? And that turns the engine on, right?
MR. JACKSON: An ignition cycle, right?
MR. JACKSON: Then turns off — ignition cycle necessarily includes the precursor key cycle, correct? Even though every key cycle might not include an ignition cycle — would you agree with that in that scenario?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. With that definition, I want to talk about ignition cycles, because I don't want to get confused about accessories — just assume the engine, right? Okay. If you started your testing at 1164, then if the engine was turned on — thereby initiating a key cycle — driving the car onto a flatbed truck and then hauling it over to Canton PD, that would be key cycle 1163 in that hypothetical, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Then going backward from there — the SUV was — I'm sorry, let me — let me add one event that I just forgot. It had to get off the tow truck in Canton and be — and be driven into the sallyport. Did you ever see that video, being driven in?
MR. JACKSON: If there was a video showing that the car was actually driven into the sallyport, that would necessarily be a key cycle, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So that would be key cycle 1163 — my mistake, I was missing one, right? Okay. Before that, if the car was turned on and driven onto the flatbed to get to Canton, that would be key cycle 1162 in order, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. Before that, if the car was started and driven from 1 Meadows Avenue to Karen Read's parents' home in Dighton, that would be another key cycle — 1161, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Before that, if the SUV was started and driven by Miss Read from the garage at John O'Keefe's house to Jennifer McCabe's house at 5:07 in the morning, that would be another key cycle, correct — 1160. Isn't that right?
MR. JACKSON: And before that, if the SUV was started and driven by Miss Read from the Waterfall to 34 Fairview at approximately 12:15 a.m., that would be another key cycle — 1159, right?
MR. JACKSON: I want to be clear — the reason that these numbers skip on your diagram, they don't go directly in order, right? Not every single number is in order on this left-hand column, because this is only a diagram of when triggering events occur, right?
MR. JACKSON: Something unusual about the operation of the vehicle, correct?
MR. JACKSON: That from the data there was no triggering event at key cycle 1159, was there?
MR. JACKSON: So assuming the driving events that I just told you — assuming for purposes of my question that the driving events started at 1159, driving over to 34 Fairview from the Waterfall, then driving at 5:07 in the morning over to Jen McCabe's house — 1160, then driving to Dighton, Read's parents' house — 1161, then the car being seized in Dighton by Trooper Proctor — 1162, then the car being taken off the flatbed and driven into the sallyport — 1163, your testing starts at 1164 — that would mean that at 1162, that key cycle would include the time in which Proctor had possession of that car, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Assuming that — assuming my hypothetical —
MR. JACKSON: Then — what if that's hypothetically how it works, then —
MR. JACKSON: On June 9th, 2022, you were asked by a grand jury whether you knew or had done any scientific testing to determine the distance a body would actually travel struck by a vehicle. Remember that?
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember answering that you had not — I'm just paraphrasing — that you had not done all the — you hadn't finished your report yet?
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't — why don't you show him? He said he didn't remember it that way.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at, um, middle of the page. Your answer starts at about line 12, but the question above it is probably informative. You have that in mind?
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked — does that remind you that you were asked by a grand juror if you could calculate how far a body would move having been struck by a vehicle?
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated, quote: "Yeah, there's — I mean, there's certain calculations we can do with that. But figure out if — you say if the car backed up, hit somebody, and then they go a certain amount of distance — and it's based on miles per hour, the speed of the vehicle, striking vehicle, and stuff." Remember saying that?
MR. JACKSON: What did you mean by "stuff"?
MR. JACKSON: You said that the calculations would be based on miles per hour and "stuff." Did you — did you ever do any "stuff" to test that?
MR. JACKSON: Say that one more time.
MR. JACKSON: Who's "we"?
MR. JACKSON: You know John O'Keefe's weight, right? What's that? You know John O'Keefe's weight — 277 pounds, right?
MR. JACKSON: Did you know that?
MR. JACKSON: You know the weight of the vehicle?
MR. JACKSON: What's the weight of the vehicle? Gross weight — what's the gross weight?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Were you able to calculate the mass of the vehicle?
MR. JACKSON: Well, you told the grand jury you were planning on doing that kind of "stuff" — to calculate how far a person would travel being struck at that speed with the car of that weight. You didn't do those calculations?
MR. JACKSON: You testified — again — "My report isn't done yet. I'm going to look into it. I'm looking into all that stuff." In quotes. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: That's that word again. It's been more than two years since that statement at the grand jury. Is your report finished?
MR. JACKSON: Did you engage in any of those calculations?
MR. PAUL: I looked into it. Um, this type of collision — I would not be able to use the formulas for this type of collision.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let's talk about those formulas. How would you calculate how far a body at rest would travel after being struck by an object in motion? How would you calculate that?
MR. JACKSON: A what formula?
MR. JACKSON: What does that mean?
MR. PAUL: It's a type of formula that would be used for a calculation of post-impact speed for pedestrians.
MR. JACKSON: That includes certain principles of physics to calculate that, right? What do you mean — I'm sorry — what do
MR. PAUL: You mean by a certain forms of physics — there would be physics calculations that would be required to figure out how far a body at rest would move, having been struck by an object in motion. That's the basic principle.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, I guess you could say that. All right, can you describe for the jurors exactly what calculations you would need to employ to determine how far a body at rest would travel having been struck by an object in motion?
MR. PAUL: So, in this — in this scenario, in this collision, it's more of a sideswipe. So he did not — he did not get enough speed of the vehicle post-impact with the vehicle to base those calculations. His center mass was offset from the vehicle, so it would vastly underestimate his speed. So that's why I did not do a formula. If he was more in line with — behind the vehicle, he would have been projected forward, and using that projection forward, he would have been closer to the actual speed of the vehicle during that post-impact travel.
MR. JACKSON: Well, that presumes a couple of things. That presumes that he was, quote unquote, situated, right?
MR. JACKSON: Based on the evidence, it appears to be a swipe — that's your
MR. JACKSON: You're saying that the principles of physics as we know them today, in modern mathematics, is thwarted by a sideswipe?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is that what you're saying?
MR. PAUL: It — it's the calculations that are out there. You can get a speed — it just underestimates the speed. You would have to know what the initial momentum of the object is that's in motion.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Of what object?
MR. JACKSON: I would have to know that speed.
MR. PAUL: Yeah, you'd have to know what the initial momentum is — not speed. Momentum. There's a difference.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Right. Would you agree with that?
MR. JACKSON: You wouldn't have to calculate what the initial momentum is of the object in motion to determine the distance the body at rest would move?
MR. PAUL: Well, in that — in that sense — are we talking about — I'm trying to find the speed of the vehicle. That's usually what we're trying to do, right?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Well, let's put the speed of the vehicle aside. Let's talk about initial momentum. What's the formula for calculating initial momentum?
MR. JACKSON: Well, there's actually one type of momentum formula — it's to calculate momentum —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Momentum — there is.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it.
MR. JACKSON: Isn't it true, Trooper, that there is a singular calculation for determining initial momentum — that is p = mv, where p is the momentum you're solving for, m is mass, you multiply that by velocity — is that right? It's pretty simple.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, because pedestrians somehow magically are out of the realm of physics?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is a pedestrian out of the realm of physics and calculations?
MR. PAUL: No. It's the — it's the weight differential between the pedestrian and the vehicle. So if the vehicle is too heavy and the body is too light, you can't calculate the initial momentum of the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Got it. Where'd you learn that?
MR. PAUL: It's in my — we only use momentum for a vehicle — to be the crash reconstruction classes I have taken.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. Would you need to apply the theory of conservation of momentum in calculating these data?
MR. JACKSON: The conservation of momentum. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: There's an equation for that as well, right?
MR. JACKSON: You know what that is?
MR. JACKSON: Based on the basic principles of physics, is the total momentum of the collision greater or less than the total momentum after the collision? Total momentum before the collision — is it greater or less than the total momentum after the
MR. JACKSON: They're exactly equal in all respects under the principles of physics, right? That's the theory of the conservation of momentum — momentum doesn't change, it's transferred from one body to another.
MR. JACKSON: Why didn't you say that to the jurors?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Paul, if you were qualified to, quote, "look into all this stuff," you would probably know these answers, wouldn't you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Are there any other calculations that you'd need to figure out the stuff that you were talking about with the grand jury?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: How about calculating the final velocity of the objects after the collision — would that be important?
MR. JACKSON: That would be John O'Keefe's body, sir — the object you claim was flying through the air 30 feet.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: How about calculating the displacement — using kinematic equations — would you be able to do that? The displacement of the body in order to calculate how far the body would move based on the mass of the object striking the body — could you use displacement using kinematic equations?
MR. PAUL: So, like I said before, the sideswipe — he would not have gotten 100% of the vehicle — 100% of the speed of the striking vehicle — it would have basically underestimated. This vehicle — you can hit a person and sideswipe them, spin them off to the side, and get a speed from those calculations.
MR. JACKSON: So you're saying that the discipline of physics cannot figure out how far John O'Keefe's body would move, but you personally figured out that he would have flown — or been projected — somewhat 30 feet?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Are you saying that the principles of physics are incapable of determining, with the proper calculations, how far John O'Keefe's body would have moved given the collision at issue?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is that what you're saying, Trooper?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Next question. Well, you just said — because it was a sideswipe — all these calculations, these physics calculations, are inapplicable, right?
MR. JACKSON: The truth is, Trooper, you have no idea what all these physics calculations mean, do you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You've not been formally trained in physics, have you?
MR. JACKSON: You have a few classes that use the word "physics," but you haven't been formally trained in physics.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You haven't been formally trained in kinematics?
MR. JACKSON: You have not been formally trained and hold no degrees in biomechanics, do you?
MR. JACKSON: In fact, basically what you did in this case was calculate key cycles — and you even got those wrong, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Come on, Mr. Jackson. Ask the appropriate part of the question — you'll get it.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask you this: based on your reconstruction — nearly two-year investigation — exactly how was that tail light shattered?
MR. PAUL: How does the tail light — what do you — how did it get broken? So the tail light in this case was shattered when it was struck by John O'Keefe's arm.
MR. JACKSON: Exactly what part of his arm?
MR. JACKSON: Was his arm out? It just struck the
MR. JACKSON: Did you reconstruct exactly how his body was positioned when he was struck by that?
MR. JACKSON: You're indicating out by his side?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. All right. And the tail light would have struck his arm, right?
MR. JACKSON: Not exactly, so — yes. Okay. So the full mass — the full weight of that truck — hit him basically at the elbow, is that right?
MR. PAUL: Meaning — I said it — yeah, from upper part of the arm down — elbow and the biceps. I didn't — I don't — I didn't see anything that shows an indication that his lower torso was struck. But okay, it's not saying it could not have been a possibility. But I just didn't see anything.
MR. JACKSON: So his torso was spared from being hit, but the arm took the brunt — the full force of the vehicle?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. And you said he then did a spin — like a sort of a pirouette?
MR. PAUL: He — he got spun around — counterclockwise — the way it struck it, it looks like it could have gone — turned around counterclockwise.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So if it turns around counterclockwise, is he turning around in the air counterclockwise?
MR. JACKSON: So it gets hit on the upper biceps — shoulder area — and down to the forearms, right?
MR. JACKSON: By an unbroken tail light, right?
MR. JACKSON: In other words, it's — smooth, nothing —
MR. PAUL: No. No shards of plastic or anything broken at the time that it made contact with his arm, right?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Okay, so how did his arm get all cut up?
MR. PAUL: Because when his arm struck the tail light, the tail light then cracked — and I see the car driving past him — the tail light could scratch it.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. So — gets hit by the car, not his torso, just the arm. The tail light cracks. And as it passes by, his arm stays with it long enough to get striations — those scratches that you see — those lacerations — I'm sorry, those abrasions you see?
MR. JACKSON: And at the same time, he does a pirouette and flies 30 feet to his final point of rest?
MR. JACKSON: Well, I'm using the word "pirouette." He spun around, he started rotating counterclockwise.
MR. JACKSON: According to you, what would be pushing him to rotate counterclockwise — was it that he went counterclockwise all the way to his back, toward the ground?
MR. JACKSON: Did you account for the fact that his arm is on a hinge?
MR. JACKSON: Did you account for the fact, in this scenario that you just told the jurors, that his arm is on a hinge — on his shoulder?
MR. PAUL: Okay, so arm got hit — his arm just slid — I said arm and shoulder area — so his arm could have been considered part of
MR. JACKSON: — even if his shoulder got the upper — into his upper biceps — right? There's no injuries on the shoulder, not a single one, not even a bruise, right?
MR. PAUL: I said, look, it looked like to me it was from up — from up here. I don't know how far — I can up back here — but it was up here.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you're the one that talked about his injuries on his arm.
MR. JACKSON: That's limited to about mid biceps, about mid forearm.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Right. No injuries on the shoulder, no injuries on the torso, no injuries on the ribs, no injuries on the back, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So your theory is you got hit on the arm, took the brunt of the force from the tail light on the arm, stayed with the vehicle long enough for the tail light to explode — basically to shatter — and these striations get on his arm, abrasions. Does a pirouette, spins counterclockwise, and flies 30 feet to his point of rest?
MR. PAUL: Yeah. Probably a little faster than that, though. Actually, I said he hit his head on the curb. I said that's one of the possibilities — when you look at the roadway, as he gets spun around counterclockwise, it's a possibility that the curb — there's any blunt force object on the ground, as the ground is pretty blunt.
MR. JACKSON: Well, except in your scenario, you told us he flew through the air onto the light dusting of snow, grass, and dirt.
MR. JACKSON: Say that again.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'll use your word. You got — projected?
MR. JACKSON: "Project." "Projected" doesn't mean it's not incorporating — just "throw." "Project" just means you get pushed forward. There's a two parts of that — there's the air, then there's the ground. Like I said earlier, the tumbling, the rolling, whatever — that part of the crash would happen. Projecting is just what we call what happens to a pedestrian post-impact with the crash. Okay. So, couple of questions. If his arm — elbow — took the brunt of that entire impact, how do you account for the fact that he suffered a broken bone?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: How do you account for the fact that he didn't even have a bruise on —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained too.
MR. JACKSON: Approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: You may.
MR. JACKSON: The truth is — to you — having investigated automobile pedestrian accidents in the past, John O'Keefe's injuries do not look anything like an automobile pedestrian accident, do they?
MR. JACKSON: Isn't it true, Trooper Paul, you came to these opinions and conclusions because Trooper Proctor told you to come to these opinions and conclusions in furtherance of his investigation?
MR. JACKSON: That's why you have these opinions and conclusions that just don't make sense, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you're just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. All right, jurors, we'll take the morning recess.
COURT CLERK: All rise for the Court, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see counsel at sidebar about scheduling. Court reconvenes [unintelligible] —
COURT CLERK: Thank you. Please be seated. The court is back in session.