Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveJoseph Paul — Cross
1,269 linesCROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Sir, do you have any -- do you hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of mathematics?
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of physics?
MR. JACKSON: Do you 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: In what?
MR. JACKSON: You mentioned kinematics on Friday, do you hold any certificates in the specific area of kinematics?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you took a class in other words, correct?
MR. JACKSON: They introduced the idea of what kinematics is, right?
MR. JACKSON: You testified that about that on Friday?
MR. JACKSON: Define kinematics for the jurors.
MR. JACKSON: It's a subfield of what broader field?
MR. JACKSON: Kinematics is a subfield of what broader discipline of science?
MR. JACKSON: Being physics, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And it describes how points and objects, systems of objects, how they move and how 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. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. PAUL: I mean it deals with the motion. It deals with forward and it also deals with speed. It deals with travel and speed. If something's moving, it also has a speed to it.
MR. JACKSON: Right. The word you're looking for is acceleration, correct?
MR. JACKSON: What role does acceleration play in the field of kinematics? A What role does -- what role does acceleration play in kinematics?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. PAUL: It talks about, like you just said, it talks about the speed and it talks about function.
MR. JACKSON: Is kinematics also known as the geometry of motion; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: You've never heard that. What's the difference between constrained and unconstrained motion?
MR. JACKSON: That's what I asked.
MR. JACKSON: Constrained motion is a motion on a predetermined path; isn't it?
MR. JACKSON: Unconstrained motion is what?
MR. JACKSON: Free movement, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember that for your class?
MR. JACKSON: Constrained and unconstrained. Not restrained.
MR. JACKSON: Kinematics uses algebraic formula to model these motions, right, the motions of these points, the 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, a duration in time; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Do you actually understand the physics behind the study of kinematics?
MR. JACKSON: It's a word you learned in class?
MR. JACKSON: On Friday you said that this incident is a pedestrian strike on the 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 fact, and you based that rather opinion on the fact that you noted a half mile an hour decrease in speed and a steering input of less than 10 degrees at some point in that reverse motion, correct?
MR. PAUL: I said it was consistent. That data point in general was consistent with something that you would see with the data of a pedestrian strike or striking something else. I do go in my report saying I can't say that's definitively where a pedestrian was struck, but --
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. I can barely.
MR. PAUL: I'm sorry. In my report I do say I can't say that it's definitively where the pedestrian was struck --
COURT REPORTER: Are you saying --
JUDGE CANNONE: 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.
MR. JACKSON: You said you cannot say definitively that that resulted in a pedestrian strike.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Because there's a multitude of reasons why when someone is driving in reverse may not slow down by a half a mile an hour, right?
MR. PAUL: It's when I say it's consistent it's because the other aspects of it is the fact that the accelerator is --
MR. JACKSON: That --
JUDGE CANNONE: Let him answer. Finish your answer.
MR. PAUL: So the accelerator it's a consistent -- constant breaks and then it just drops by a half a mile and the steering wheel also abruptly goes to the right. That's what I'm talking about when I say it is consistent with a pedestrian strike. That's something you 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: There 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: The 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: Right. So every time somebody slows down or reverse or forward and introduces a 10 degree input on the steering wheel, doesn't mean they're looking to hit a pedestrian, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You testified that you determined the area of impact by basically following, 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 furthest further most piece of debris that was found. Did I get that right?
MR. JACKSON: In other words, you established what in your mind or what you were told was his final resting place and what you were told was the debris field, and you indicated that the further most piece of debris would basically be the area, correct?
MR. PAUL: It's within that line. I didn't say that is the area of impact where the further the most piece of evidence is.
MR. JACKSON: All right.
MR. PAUL: It's just the linear. Like you said earlier, it's that linear. We're going that path. That's the path that he traveled post-impact with the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: And that is on which that fact that you stated is on which what you -- that's a 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 exhibit -- with the Court's permission 587. It's your diagram three.
MR. JACKSON: If I may approach, Your Honor, just for ...
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may we publish Exhibit 587?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Okay. Sir, you see diagram three on the board. You also have it in front of you, correct?
MR. JACKSON: If 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?
MR. JACKSON: The red arrows adjacent to the blue writing 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 at an arrow that comes back to a wording and it says, "Pedestrian final rest." Basically right there, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And the debris field ends right in the middle of that spotlight, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. So that's the area of impact that you indicated to Mr. Lally you believe occurred because the debris field, the linear portion of that debris field, going from the pedestrian's final rest all the way out to that final in the red arrow that says red plastic B in parentheses, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, can we have Exhibit 492 published to the jury, please?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: While that's coming up, have you ever seen this?
MR. JACKSON: If you could take a look just above the arrow.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, with the Court's permission may we highlight or magnify the area just above the arrow?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see that?
MR. JACKSON: Right underneath a fire hydrant, correct?
MR. JACKSON: What does that look like to you?
MR. JACKSON: It's the debris, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. I'm going to go back, with the Court's permission, to Exhibit 587.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see the fire hydrant?
MR. JACKSON: The fire hydrant's 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, in this diagram, the furthermost piece of debris on the diagram, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So now your testimony changed that this in fact is the area of impact?
MR. JACKSON: Why not?
MR. PAUL: Because it was 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: But the debris doesn't slide backward, does it?
MR. PAUL: I'm saying you pointed to, like, justify a 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: Are you asking me a question?
MR. JACKSON: I'm asking you --
JUDGE CANNONE: Asked 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 further most piece of debris from the pedestrian's body that you were aware of which is right there, red plastic B, right?
MR. PAUL: I said it's -- when I said earlier with the linear equation. I mean it might've moved it over more, but the debris the start of that debris and when that is, I can't say that's definitively the point of area of impact or the point of impact.
MR. JACKSON: You can or can't?
MR. PAUL: 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. JACKSON: Trooper, we were all here on Friday.
MR. JACKSON: That's exactly what you said on the 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 on 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 point, 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's the last point of evidence that I had. I said the area of impact was probably along the roadway after that point. I mean like before it so as you work towards him.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. I keep doing that because I think you're done. Are you done?
MR. JACKSON: Now you are aware that there's a piece of debris, looks like taillight material, right under the fire hydrant, correct?
MR. JACKSON: If the area of impact, which you indicated on Friday was where this red plastic B is, 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, and it's going to be after that point.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So is the area of impact now where the fire hydrant is?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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 at Exhibit --
MR. JACKSON: Well, with the Court's permission 279.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at Exhibit 279. I'm going to draw your attention to that piece right of plastic; do you see it?
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe it for me? Just physically, what does that look like?
MR. JACKSON: Right. Maybe in a triangular shape; is that fair?
MR. JACKSON: Now, if you could go back to, with the Court's permission, Exhibit 492.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: And highlight just with 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 taillight material that was found at the scene?
MR. JACKSON: Now based on that are you now suggesting, if we could go, with the Court's permission, if we could go back to 587. I'll stop jumping around in just a second.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: If we could just get back to 587. Oh, sorry. Now, seeing what we've just now seen in terms of that piece of plastic, that appears to be from the taillight, 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 that now the fire hydrant now point of impact?
MR. JACKSON: Where is the point of impact now?
MR. JACKSON: So you don't know the area of impact?
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. PAUL: I mean the only thing that would change -- just finish. The only thing it would change is maybe it's a little bit further away.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. PAUL: But besides that it's still -- it's a linear field. I'm not talking 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, can you 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 linear field. I can't --
MR. JACKSON: So now you've indicated an area, I'm following your equation, to an area along here, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. If I have my spotlight, is that -- if I meet it right there, is that about where the middle of the spotlight right where you believe the area of impact is?
MR. PAUL: It's within I guess you could say it was within that area. I don't know definitively it's not 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 at the scene.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. 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 that area of 5 feet or so on the roadway where you believe the area of impact is? Isn't my spotlight basically highlighting the area that you believe in your opinion was the area of impact?
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you have that laser pointer?
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't we let him show you. It would be easier for the jury to see.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can you --
MR. PAUL: Sorry. I'm trying to keep it straight as much as I can. Follow back to here. I can't say, like, if this it definitively is, but it's possibly based on also a vehicle damage to the back of the vehicle. So if you follow back to here, that could be a possible area of impact.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So when you say that area there, I just 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 roadway on the bottom of diagram three, toward the lower part of diagram three, correct?
COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You need to -- A You can use a circle around here. This would be around the area.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: So using your scale, that scale is going from full left to full right, it's plus or minus 20 feet, right?
MR. JACKSON: That scale is 40 feet from full left, full right, 20 feet.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Sorry. Twenty feet. My mistake.
MR. JACKSON: My eyes are terrible 20 feet. Thank you. All right. So if you used that scale, can you estimate for the jurors I'm just going to use this X as a starting point, can you estimate for the jurors from this text that I've highlighted to the pedestrian's final rest, what's that number? It doesn't have to be exact. Give me an estimate.
MR. PAUL: So I mean, it can be within 30 feet because I'll tell you there's also on my scale there's two and three is fifty feet from each other.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is how much?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Five-zero.
MR. JACKSON: So would you agree that from this X down here to the pedestrian's final rest as the crow flies, that's probably a good 35, 40 feet?
MR. JACKSON: If you wouldn't mind. Do you need a piece of paper?
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Just a blank piece of paper.
MR. JACKSON: Do you need a pen?
MR. JACKSON: It was 30 feet?
MR. JACKSON: Can you place, with the Court's permission, can you estimate 30 feet in here.
MR. JACKSON: Can you point to a place in the courtroom that looks like 30 feet from me?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: No. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Does the Court have a diagram of distances?
JUDGE CANNONE: In this courtroom, no.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated just now -- I'm finished with this. Thank you. Thanks. You indicated just now in answer to Mr. Lally's last couple of questions that in your expert opinion when the SUV struck the pedestrian John O'Keefe, he was, quote, projected forward and to the left to the front yard to his final place of rest?
MR. JACKSON: So your expert testimony is that John O'Keefe was hit with the SUV and flew 30 feet?
MR. PAUL: Projected mean like he -- I didn't say he flew all the way there. He was projected and that way he got pushed forward in that direction.
MR. JACKSON: Which if he was rendered incapacitated, landed there, that's sort of fly there, right? He didn't walk there.
MR. PAUL: I mean what's your definition -- you're flying, like, literally off the ground the whole entire time or --
MR. JACKSON: Well, you tell me. You're the expert.
MR. PAUL: I mean he got -- and when we say projected, we mean he gets projected and they usually have a landing face, 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: Is there any evidence whatsoever that he landed and rolled?
MR. JACKSON: According to you the evidence that you had in front of you was that he got hit, fly 30 feet, landed 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 rest place?
MR. JACKSON: But you said there's no evidence that he rolled?
MR. JACKSON: Exactly. Right? 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, you get hit by something, car, truck, bus, whatever, a train, and if you have something in your hand, 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 onto that glass cup that was found out next to him over the course of 30 feet being projected?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it. 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 -- I don't have a -- I don't know. I wasn't there, so I don't how the glass stayed with his body and went with him to the final rest.
MR. JACKSON: So it's common sense, you have to believe it was in his hand, and he held onto it the entire time he was being projected, correct?
MR. PAUL: It's possible it could have been in his hand. It could've been tucked next to his clothing.
MR. JACKSON: Did you say tucked into --
MR. PAUL: I mean, like, it could have been next to his body. So when he projected, the glass was with his body as is it was also flying, so there's a number of reasons why the glass because it also got projected with the body why he was holding it.
MR. JACKSON: I thought you said on Friday, and you just agreed with me, that people drop things when they're hit.
MR. PAUL: Yes, but I think not everything it tends to fly off. I mean, some stuff flies off. Some stuff will stay on. It's --
MR. JACKSON: I see.
MR. PAUL: It's not uncommon to find piece of clothing and different stuff, you know, like you find at the scene.
MR. JACKSON: Piece of clothing?
MR. PAUL: Like clothing like shoes I mean. Like shoes and stuff like that to come off the body during a pedestrian crash.
MR. JACKSON: Well, that's not what I asked.
MR. PAUL: I know. I'm just saying you asked me -- you said why this -- I'm just responding to what you said. I'm trying to make sure you understand what I'm saying.
MR. JACKSON: No, I don't, but I'll ask another question. The shoes are strapped on by definition, right?
MR. JACKSON: How about a cell phone?
MR. JACKSON: It was under his body.
MR. JACKSON: How do you account for that? You hold onto your cell phone in one hand and you onto your cup with the other?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: His cell phone was found under his torso, under his body. What's your theory of how that cell phone ended up flying 30 feet with him?
MR. JACKSON: It just did. And somehow as he landed, he tucked that cell phone underneath his body so he 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, so.
MR. JACKSON: Well you didn't.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, jurors, I've told you before, lawyers cannot make comments. So disregard it. Mr. Jackson, don't do it again.
MR. JACKSON: I understand, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: You understand, but don't do it. Your answer is always, "I understand." Don't do it.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: Cell phone in one hand, cup in the other hand, flew through the air, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You were informed of this incident on January 29, 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 Middleborough; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: By the way, that's a facility that has multiple garages, sallyports I don't know if they're called sallyports, but garage bays, correct?
MR. JACKSON: The mechanic shop?
MR. JACKSON: Is if you're going to review, for instance for purposes of a reconstruction, if you're going to review a vehicle, is the vehicle placed in those mechanic's bays?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So where are the mechanic's bays -- sorry. Reverse that. Where are the sallyports where you do your analysis, your reconstruction, your review of the vehicle, inspections, things of that nature?
MR. JACKSON: You don't have anything dedicated to that?
MR. PAUL: No, the only time we would use a sallyport is the crime scene would have some sallyports that they would do the document their crime 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 for that.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately was this SUV ever taken to the Middleborough 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 Foxborough location?
MR. JACKSON: Does that have sallyports or bays 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?
MR. JACKSON: But it's --
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up and speak slowly.
MR. JACKSON: But you know it could be used --
MR. JACKSON: Sorry. You know that 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 29, was being used as potential evidence, best practices would suggest that 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?
MR. JACKSON: All right. You're aware that Foxborough -- the Foxborough location and the Middleborough location with the mechanic's bays are closer to Dighton than Canton, right?
MR. JACKSON: Foxborough and Middleborough are both closer to Dighton than Canton. In other words, you have to pass by, depending on which way you go, pass by Middleborough or pass by Foxboro to get to Canton.
MR. JACKSON: From Dighton, sorry.
MR. JACKSON: Where the vehicle was seized?
MR. JACKSON: All I'm -- I'm going toward Canton. You pass by either Middleborough or Foxborough to get to Canton, correct?
MR. PAUL: I don't believe you pass by Middleborough to get to Canton, but you pass by Foxborough.
MR. JACKSON: All right. The car was not taken to Foxboro, was it?
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, the car was taken basically double the distance all the way to Canton to that sallyport, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you know that? Is that double the distance?
MR. JACKSON: And you know it's further to Canton?
MR. JACKSON: Right. And you also are aware that because you've been to the scene assuming, correct, you've been to 34 Fairview?
MR. JACKSON: And you've been to Canton PD?
MR. JACKSON: You know that those two locations are about three or four minutes apart?
MR. JACKSON: When you started your -- let me ask you this maybe in a different way. Before you began any review on this case, any physical review on this case, your analysis on the case, you were told that there had been a crash, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You testified that -- to that at the state court grand jury in this matter, is that right, that you had been told in advance this was a vehicle pedestrian crash, and you were asked to analyze it, right?
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, Trooper Paul, you were told conclusively by the lead investigator Michael Proctor that the deceased was hit by a car and your job to was -- 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. LALLY: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Were you told by Michael Proctor to reconstruct this incident?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Were you told that by Trooper Proctor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Who were you told -- who were you given your instructions by?
MR. JACKSON: To reconstruct this incident.
MR. PAUL: I wasn't given instructions to reconstruct. It was just I was assigned to it. I was requested -- my assistance was requested to reconstruct it.
MR. JACKSON: That's my question. Who was the one who assigned you to it? A I talked to my sergeant at the time he gave me the phone call.
MR. JACKSON: And you were told some basics about that that reconstruction, that the event that you were asked to reconstruct, correct?
MR. JACKSON: The 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/motor vehicle incident, 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? The car was going in reverse. It's got a damaged tail light, things like that?
MR. JACKSON: What I'm asking is, what I'm trying to get to is who gave you that information, where did it come from?
MR. PAUL: That the car was traveling in -- like which part of the information? You asked me several different things just now.
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 you the summary?
MR. JACKSON: Of the event that you were asked to reconstruct.
MR. PAUL: I was passed down when I got to the garage that -- there was nobody that said -- that gave me the summary that I can remember. I was told that it was a pedestrian crash, and he was a Boston police officer involved, that this was a vehicle, and that it was traveling in reverse. That's all I 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's definitively anybody from the get-go that I -- that was like I talked to.
MR. JACKSON: From where?
MR. PAUL: I don't know if it was anybody that I could definitively say that was the person. There was multiple people going around when I got there. I think I talked to Trooper Zach Clark. He was doing the crime scene --
COURT REPORTER: Who?
MR. PAUL: Zach Clark. A He was the crime scene photos at the time. I knew him from past crashes. And he just said this is the vehicle and he kind of gave me a little bit of a lowdown on what the vehicle was.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: My question is this, when you got that did you call it a lowdown? He gave you the lowdown?
MR. JACKSON: Right. When you got the lowdown, you were told Boston police officer was involved. It's a vehicle/pedestrian incident. Car was going in reverse. Ultimately led to the death of a pedestrian, struck a pedestrian in reverse, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. And you were assigned specifically to try to reconstruct that incident?
MR. JACKSON: Have you heard of the phrase confirmation bias?
MR. JACKSON: Do you know what it means?
MR. JACKSON: Developing a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to fit that conclusion. Does that sound right?
MR. JACKSON: You noted in your direct 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 29, 2022, as opposed to any other time?
MR. PAUL: I didn't have anything else on the time those scratches happened prior to this collision.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry?
MR. PAUL: I didn't have any information that those scratches were caused from a prior collision, and so when you try -- when I looked at the evidence, I knew it was in that same area of the right red taillight, so when I looked at it, it didn't quite fit the pedestrian thing. So when you show me the video or I saw the video like a year ago on Court TV, I said that could be --
JUDGE CANNONE: You asked the question, so next. Keep going.
MR. JACKSON: I can't --
JUDGE CANNONE: He's answering. Next question. Go ahead.
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on.
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Ask your question, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know what normal wear and tear on a vehicle is, right?
MR. JACKSON: Bumpers get scratched myriad of ways, correct?
MR. JACKSON: They can get scratched in a grocery store parking lot, right?
MR. JACKSON: Shopping cart can bounce off the back of a car and scratch the bumper or scratch the side of the car, corner panel or something, right?
MR. JACKSON: I don't want to go through it, but there's thousands and thousands and thousands of ways that a car can get scratched, correct?
MR. JACKSON: My question is do you, as you sit here, do you have any scientific evidence that those scratches occurred on January 29, 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 of that vehicle?
MR. PAUL: Like I said earlier, the video seems to appear that's what it looks like that could have been from.
MR. JACKSON: Well you said on Friday -- let's talk about those scratches for a second.
MR. JACKSON: You testified Friday, you were pretty clear, you said that -- see if I can find it exactly.
MR. JACKSON: If I may have just a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: You said, quote, the dent and scratches for his hand could be those are consistent with striking the Lexus. Do you remember saying that?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So the dent and scratches we talked about on Friday you said were from his hand?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Then are those the same scratches you're talking about in terms of the bumper?
MR. JACKSON: So --
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Is there any way to scientifically date a scratch?
MR. JACKSON: If you go out in the parking lot right now, even as an accident reconstructionist if you walk out into the parking lot right now and you 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, could you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So you can ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Is there a way that you can -- 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.
MR. JACKSON: Nothing more.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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 and that a scratch would have came from.
MR. JACKSON: Right. But it's possible that any or all of those scratches on the Lexus could have predated January 29, correct?
MR. JACKSON: That's not possible?
MR. JACKSON: There's scratches anywhere on the car.
MR. PAUL: It depends on what you got to pick the other scratches. You got to show me the other scratches on the car.
MR. JACKSON: I'm saying, it's possible since you can't date a scratch, it's possible that any or all of those scratches could predate January 29, it's simple, 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 29?
MR. PAUL: Any and all of the scratches? See that's where I'm saying you're being pretty broad. Any and all scratches on the car.
MR. JACKSON: Can you answer that question?
MR. LALLY: Objection. A I don't know every single scratch on that car. I couldn't --
JUDGE CANNONE: Overruled. 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 being -- coming from the cup?
MR. JACKSON: 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, could be matched to a cup?
MR. JACKSON: So if you knew that the glass pieces on the bumper do not match the cup, does that change your opinion?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: About that glass?
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you answer that question?
MR. JACKSON: You can't answer the question?
MR. JACKSON: Got it. By whom?
MR. JACKSON: Who told you?
MR. PAUL: There was crime scene that was there that said there's glass in the cup, and my initial inspection, that's what it was on from.
MR. JACKSON: That's not what you just said. You said that's what was told to me.
MR. JACKSON: Wait. What?
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 was what was told to me is the crime scene talked to you?
MR. JACKSON: The 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: Just the crime scene told you?
MR. JACKSON: But if you knew that the crime scene was incorrect and in fact those glass pieces don't match the cup, would 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: I'll allow that. Can you answer that question?
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry? No, you --
MR. PAUL: I don't -- it's glass from a cup. It's glass. It's not -- it doesn't belong to a vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Right.
MR. JACKSON: But if I told you it didn't match that cup, would it change your opinion?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Does that change your opinion?
MR. PAUL: Are you talking -- which cup are me -- let me establish which cup we're talking about.
MR. JACKSON: How many cups have we been talking about, Trooper?
MR. JACKSON: I'm talking about --
MR. PAUL: Okay. I just want to make sure you're on the clear path here. We're clear about what we're talking about.
MR. JACKSON: Absolutely. We really should.
MR. JACKSON: The cup that was found next to John O'Keefe's body in the snow at 12 -- at 34 Fairview on January 29, 2022, you got the cup in mind?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's the cup. When I say cup, that's the cup?
MR. JACKSON: 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, I would say it was glass from a cup. That's the only opinion I have. It's glass from a cup that was on a bumper.
COURT REPORTER: Are you saying "a cup"?
MR. PAUL: A cup, a cup. A It's not glass from the car. That's -- that was my opinion on it. I didn't never said it matched to the scene.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. It's safe to say you didn't do any testing to determine the forces necessary to shatter a taillight on a 2021 Lexus 570, correct?
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 base your diagram on, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Who told you that number?
MR. JACKSON: Can you say that again?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What I'm asking is how did it get on the diagram?
MR. JACKSON: In other words, who told you that his body was 7 feet from the roadway?
MR. PAUL: Well, the way that he -- I was told by Lieutenant, was it, Gallagher, Paul Gallagher, Canton PT(sic). 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 that Lieutenant Gallagher never saw John O'Keefe in place at the scene? Did he 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, would that have changed your diagram?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Overruled.
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 piece of item -- 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. JACKSON: Again, that was by Lieutenant Gallagher just pointing at the ground saying he was about here?
MR. JACKSON: 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: Whoever was there. Who was there with you when you started doing your measurements, et cetera at 34 Fairview?
MR. JACKSON: Just you and him?
MR. JACKSON: You were training a trooper at the time?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So my mistake. I assumed that there several people out there. Just you and Lieutenant Gallagher?
MR. JACKSON: And, again, Lieutenant Gallagher didn't tell you that he never saw John O'Keefe body in place?
MR. JACKSON: You did document in your report that the items that you noted on your diagram you just looked at a few minutes ago, those what I found by the SERT team, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated in your report that the members of the SERT team located a single Nike sneaker that's noted on your report; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: On the diagram, 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 SERT team on January 29, were a shoe, right?
MR. JACKSON: A glass, partial glass cup, broken, correct?
MR. PAUL: I don't if that was on there. I don't remember if that's what's on their diagram or if that's what I was told at the scene, but, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: You knew that a cup was found?
MR. JACKSON: Or you were told a cup was found?
MR. JACKSON: And three pieces of plastic, two red, one clear blue?
MR. JACKSON: Not five pieces of plastic, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You didn't measure those items; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Measure them relative to John O'Keefe final place of rest - 10 feet from it, 12 feet from it.
MR. JACKSON: So 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 use some calculation, some tool, or something to measure distances. Like there's where I presume, assume, John O'Keefe body was or his final rest place, and I used that as point A, and then I'm going to measure from there and go 7 feet to where the shoe was found, or the red plastic -- the first red plastic piece was 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?
MR. JACKSON: You noted that the glass cup was 1 foot from John O'Keefe's body, correct?
MR. JACKSON: One foot is about that long, right?
(Demonstrating.)
MR. JACKSON: Right.
MR. JACKSON: A piece of red plastic 7 feet from John O'Keefe body, correct?
MR. JACKSON: A clear plastic piece, 10 feet from John O'Keefe's body, right?
MR. JACKSON: Another 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 6 foot 2?
MR. JACKSON: Did Lieutenant Gallagher tell you where his center mass was?
MR. PAUL: No, I measured from -- he just said he was here, so I try to put like where his, where are his feet and try 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 got no photographs of John O'Keefe in place, correct?
MR. JACKSON: There were no establishing shots. They were no respective shots, correct?
MR. JACKSON: There were no relative shots, meaning, this is relative to that. I can measure that and figure out distances, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, so, you know how that was done in science, right? You want to find out what was the position of something, so you take two or three of four shots, you know that something is never going to move like, I don't know, a flagpole, you can measure it from there.
MR. JACKSON: And you can get cross coordinates, right?
MR. JACKSON: Left to right and the two coordinates match, that's where the eye is, right?
MR. JACKSON: None of that was done, right?
MR. JACKSON: None of that was done to do your measurements.
MR. PAUL: I used -- like I said, I used the measurements from -- I used -- I measured all my diagram in itself and I measured from those points off my diagram.
MR. JACKSON: Right, Trooper, 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Did you guess?
JUDGE CANNONE: Next question.
MR. JACKSON: You stated in your report that you Google mapped Ms. Read's path of travel. Well, let me ask you a different question.
MR. JACKSON: If I could withdraw that question with the Court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your diagram has all those arrows pointing at specific locations, very, very specific, very thin arrows that point, correct?
MR. JACKSON: If you start off with an incorrect assumption about where John O'Keefe body was, right, hypothetically, if you were to start off with incorrect assumptions where John O'Keefe's body was, every single piece of every single item that you note on that diagram would then be off as well, wouldn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that true?
MR. JACKSON: The answer's yes, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You stated in your report that you Google mapped Ms. Read's path of travel on January 29, 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 a three-point turn essentially I guess it's a three-point turn.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Did you say U-turn on Friday? I could have sworn I heard that.
MR. PAUL: It could've been a U-turn. I mean, it's still turning around, so he had to make a U-turn, (Ph)three- point turn or not, but it's still.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Not to be picky, but it's sort of my job.
MR. JACKSON: A U-turn that's traveling in one direction, it's a turn, right? It's the wheel, never changing a gear, and it's a turn, right?
MR. JACKSON: A three-point turn requires moving forward, stopping, changing gears, moving backwards, stopping, changing gears, using the steering equipment to move in and out, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So those are two very different maneuvers, right, you would agree?
MR. PAUL: In a sense, I was trying to say she made a U-turn like you can someone say they made a U-turn, it's a three-point turn. They're still making a U-turn, and I didn't mean it as like she literally had to make a direct U-turn. She was turning around and obviously the diagram or the trigger shows the three-point turn.
MR. JACKSON: Well, I guess she 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 have possibly had been a U-turn?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Because you have evidence of the starting, stopping, changing gears, the person stopping, changing gears, turning?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So when you said U-turn, that was inaccurate?
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: The objection is 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 tell you in terms of the path of travel, specifically? Starting point and an ending point, did he tell you the exact path of the closest travel?
MR. JACKSON: Okay . So if you got a two points on a map and Trooper Proctor told you the Lexus traveled from point
MR. PAUL: to point B, there are multiple ways to get from point A to point B, you would agree with that, right? A Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You'd pick one of those, right, the path of travel including three 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've been something different, right?
MR. JACKSON: 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 a thing, and one of the possibilities of 36 miles -- and that was after looking at all of them, that 36 miles is a possibility.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Understood. So that's what I'm trying to get to, Trooper Paul.
MR. JACKSON: That's one possibility and it's 36 miles.
MR. JACKSON: One route of travel, right?
MR. JACKSON: There were no other possibilities, right?
MR. JACKSON: So between an amount, the possibility that she hit and the other possibilities, you just sort of had to guess. I mean, there's no science. You just said I'm going to pick that one and put it on hold, 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 poss -- it came up as 36 miles as a possibility.
MR. JACKSON: 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 Ms. Read's cell phone to determine the exact route of travel, correct?
MR. JACKSON: So that answers my next question. You did not even attempt to do that, did you?
MR. JACKSON: You did 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'm going 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. JACKSON: Tell me what I've got wrong?
MR. JACKSON: Say that again.
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?
MR. JACKSON: Right. So a key cycle can be an ignition cycle but it doesn't have to be an ignition cycle, it also can be just a turning up the sort of accessory on, right?
MR. JACKSON: All right. But it doesn't -- my question was where we started with this conversation is it does not have any location data on it whatsoever?
MR. JACKSON: All right. So when you drive your car, you walk out, you get in the car, turn the ignition on, start to drive, get your location turned off. That's one key cycle, right?
MR. JACKSON: But the -- and I'm going to use the word key cycles because you used the word key cycles in your report, and that's what we're talking about.
MR. JACKSON: That's how what?
MR. JACKSON: The key cycles.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to use that phrase key cycle.
MR. JACKSON: We're talking about the same thing. It's ignition on/ignition off, it's a cycle.
MR. JACKSON: So you mean the engine doesn't have to be turned on?
MR. JACKSON: But if you're seeing triggering events, I'm not trying to be tricky here, you're seeing triggering events, the car's in motion, what does that tell you? Ignition's on or off?
MR. JACKSON: Right. That's what I'm getting to. 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: Right.
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 on a 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 were -- all I got from the key cycles is that they were -- that they occurred close within proximity to the time we've 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.
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: You testified on Friday that this is a copy of the exhibit that's put in, it was part of your report, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And this is a chart that shows when this -- that arrow indicates top and bottom where you're testing occurred, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And you move over to the left, that is key cycle what?
MR. JACKSON: Right. So you've testified -- and you can turn the lights on.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I don't mind if that stays up. You can turn the lights on. I don't think it hurts anything.
MR. JACKSON: You stated in your report that there were, quote, two triggers recorded on odometer 12629 and key cycle 1162, correct? A Yes.
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 we're saying, what you're saying, in that report is the triggering events were at 1162 going in reverse in order, 1162 becomes before 1164, they're numerical; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Every other single key cycle just tags another number on top of it, right? There's no formula.
MR. JACKSON: After one comes two, after two comes three, four, five, six, and then move on, right?
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 when you put it in your report or you know that the triggering events that you see on 1164, those are yours?
MR. JACKSON: Right. I mean, that's your testing.
MR. JACKSON: And you were very clear that the triggers that you recorded and you talked to Mr. Lally about were two cycles before that?
MR. JACKSON: Meaning the ignition cycles at least, right?
MR. JACKSON: Let me finish the point. You said that the mileage distance 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 paragraph 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 Zach Clark; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor assisted to a certain degree, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Marini, Carol Marini; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Also Sergeant Sam -- I'm sorry -- Sean Good 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. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: So in summary everybody that read the report and you who authored the report, believed and it's reflected in that report, that key cycle 1162 contained 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 then went on and testified to that exact thing under oath in front of the state grand jury, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, on the key cycles.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You testified to it on direct examination on Friday, and again this morning?
MR. JACKSON: If your testing occurred at key cycle 1164, that means you turned the engine on or the ignition on to start your testing, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And that triggering event that we see up there at 1164 initiated your testing; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: All right. So that 1164 is where you -- that's where there's no more unknowns in other words. Like 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: It's you?
MR. JACKSON: So that would be the cornerstone, basically, of your entire analysis is the key cycles.
MR. JACKSON: The cornerstone, like in other words the one known that is immovable - it's immutable - is 1164 began your -- your testing; is that right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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 note 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 29, 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 how -- I can't speak to the fact that that recorded a key cycle at that time.
MR. JACKSON: I can't hear you.
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 in different ways. So I can't speak to how or why it 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 that a car is turned on and then turned off, there's a key cycle.
MR. JACKSON: Right.
MR. JACKSON: That's what I mean. When it's turned on. When the engine turns on.
MR. PAUL: That's the definition of what it is. I can't speak to why not -- why it didn't go on -- why it did not record.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let's talk about the ignition cycles.
MR. JACKSON: Before 1164, okay?
MR. JACKSON: Obviously, the car had 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, a cycle ignition cycle 1163, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Which one do you want me to use?
MR. PAUL: If you want to talk about key cycles, key cycles. If you want to talk about ignition cycles, it's ignition cycles when a vehicle gets turned on. A key cycle does have to -- it does not need to be turned on.
MR. JACKSON: But every single ignition cycle includes a key cycle. You can't have an ignition cycle without a key cycle, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Paul --
MR. PAUL: I'm trying to make sure that this gets out -- I'm sorry. I'm trying to make sure that this gets put out the correct way.
MR. JACKSON: Every ignition cycle includes a key cycle, correct?
MR. JACKSON: By definition, it has to, right?
MR. JACKSON: You can have an ignition cycle without a key cycle?
MR. JACKSON: Explain that. How could that possibly happen?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So work with me here.
MR. PAUL: Ignition cycle is when it turns on, engine running for two seconds, and then it comes off.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So --
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's ignore the two seconds.
MR. JACKSON: That's not what we're doing.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Let's assume that it's an old-fashioned type of key.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Halfway on, the electricity is on. It's like it used to be called ACC --
MR. JACKSON: -- right? That's a key cycle, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Keep turning.
MR. JACKSON: And that turns the engine on, right?
MR. JACKSON: And the ignition cycle, right?
MR. JACKSON: The 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?
MR. JACKSON: Fine. With that definition, I want to talk about ignition cycles because I don't want to get confused about accessories. Just assume the engine --
MR. JACKSON: -- lights up. If you started your testing at 1164, and if the engine was turned on thereby indicating -- 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, if the SUV was -- I'm sorry. Let me add one event that I just forgot. It had to get off the tow truck in Canton and be driven into the sallyport, did you ever see that video?
MR. JACKSON: It 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 at key cycle 1163. My mistake. I was missing one, right?
MR. JACKSON: Before that, the car was turned on and driven onto the flatbed to get to Canton, that would be key cycle 1162 in order, correct, going backward?
MR. JACKSON: All right. Before that if the car were started and the car was 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 Ms. 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 Ms. Read to the Waterfall -- I'm sorry. From the Waterfall to 34 Fairview at approximately 12:15 a.m., that would be another key cycle 11:59, right?
MR. JACKSON: I want to be clear. The reason that these numbers stick in the diagram, right? Not every single number is in order on this left-hand column because this is only the diagram of when triggering events occur, right?
MR. JACKSON: Something unusual about the operations of the vehicle, correct?
MR. JACKSON: And it's clear 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, right, 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, her 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 at Canton, 1163. Your testing starts at 1164. That would mean that at 1162, that key cycle would include the time in which Trooper Proctor had possession of that car, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Assuming that -- assuming my hypothetical.
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Then what?
MR. JACKSON: On June 9, 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 if struck by a vehicle. Do you 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 you show him? He said he didn't remember it that way.
MR. JACKSON: May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at the middle the page, your answers starts at about line 12, but the question above it is probably informative.
MR. JACKSON: Do 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 you 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, the striking vehicle and stuff. Do you 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 do -- did you ever do any stuff to test that? That was the grand juror's question.
MR. JACKSON: Say that one more time.
MR. JACKSON: Who's we?
MR. JACKSON: Do you know John O'Keefe's weight, right?
MR. JACKSON: You know John O'Keefe's weight 217 pounds, right?
MR. JACKSON: Did you know that?
MR. JACKSON: Do you know the weight of the vehicle?
MR. JACKSON: What's the weight of the vehicle, gross weight?
MR. JACKSON: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to calculate the mass of the vehicle?
MR. JACKSON: Well, you told the grand juror that you were planning on doing that kind of stuff to calculate how far a person would travel being struck at that speed with a 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," correct?
MR. JACKSON: There'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. This type of collision would not -- 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 we'd use for a calculation as opposed to impact -- that's used for pedestrians.
MR. JACKSON: So that includes certain principles of physics to calculate that, right?
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry?
MR. JACKSON: 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?
MR. JACKSON: That's a basic principle --
MR. JACKSON: Okay. 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 my -- in this scenario, in this collision, it's more of a sideswipe. So he did not sustain -- he did not get enough speed of the vehicle post impact with the vehicle to be calculations. His center mass was offset from the vehicle. So we cannot get -- we could 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've been projected forward and using that projection forward, when -- he would've had -- he would've gone to get more closely to the actual speed of the vehicle during that post impact travels.
MR. JACKSON: Well, that presumes a couple of things, Trooper Paul. That presumes that he was quote/unquote sideswiped, right?
MR. JACKSON: Presumed by you. You didn't see how he was hit, did you?
MR. JACKSON: That's your opinion?
MR. JACKSON: You're saying that the principles of physics as we know them today and modern mathematics is thwarted by a sideswipe?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that what you're saying?
MR. PAUL: The calculations are out there, you can get a speed. It would just underestimate the speed.
MR. JACKSON: You would have to know what the initial momentum of the object is that's in motion, correct?
MR. JACKSON: The truck, Trooper Paul.
MR. JACKSON: Yep. You would have to know what the initial momentum is, not speed. Momentum. That's -- there's a difference.
MR. JACKSON: 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 of the body at rest would move?
MR. PAUL: Well, in that sense. Are we talking about I'm trying to find a speed of the vehicle. That's usually what we're trying to do.
MR. JACKSON: All right. 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: There's actually one type of momentum formula. It's to calculate momentum --
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: To calculate momentum there's a --
JUDGE CANNONE: So sustained. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Isn't it true, Trooper Paul, that there is a singular calculation for determining initial momentum; that is, P equals M times V where P is the momentum you're solving for that, M is mass. You multiply that by velocity; is that right? It's pretty simple.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, because the pedestrians somehow magically out of the realm of physics?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is the pedestrian out of the realm of physics and calculations?
MR. JACKSON: 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: Got it. Where did you learn that?
MR. JACKSON: In your math class?
MR. JACKSON: Got it. Got it. Would you need to apply the theory of conservation of momentum when calculating this data?
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, the conservation of momentum?
MR. JACKSON: Do you know what that is? There's an equation for that as well, right?
MR. JACKSON: Do 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? The total momentum before the collision, is it greater or less than the total momentum after the collision? Basic question.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Paul, they're exactly equal in also -- in all respects under the principles of physics, right? That's the theory of the conservation of momentum. Momentum doesn't change.
MR. JACKSON: It transfers from one body to another --
MR. JACKSON: Correct?
MR. JACKSON: Why didn't you say that to the jurors?
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor.
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 need to figure out the stuff that you were talking to 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 that 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, did you ever do that?
MR. JACKSON: In order to calculate how far the body would move based on the mass of the object striking the body, did you use displacement using kinematic equations?
MR. PAUL: So like I said before, the sideswipe he would not have gotten hundred percent of the vehicle -- a hundred percent of the speed of the striking vehicle. It would have vastly underestimated this vehicle. You can hit a person and sideswipe them, and spin them off to the side and have that -- and get a speed from those calculations.
MR. JACKSON: So you're saying 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 flow now somewhat or been projected somewhat 30 feet?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Are you saying that the principles of physics are incapable of determining that the proper calculations how far John O'Keefe's body would've moved given the collision at issue?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that what you're saying, Trooper?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you just said because it was a sideswipe, all these calculations, these physics calculations are inadequate, right?
MR. JACKSON: The truth is, Trooper Paul, you have no idea what all these physics calculations mean, do you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You've not been trained in physics formally, have you?
MR. JACKSON: You have been?
MR. JACKSON: Right. You had a few classes. You used the word physics, but you haven't been formally trained in physics, have you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You haven't been formally trained in kinematics, correct?
MR. JACKSON: You haven't been formally trained and hold no degrees in biomechanics, do you?
MR. JACKSON: In fact, basically what you did in this case was calculated ignition cycles, and you 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 and your two-year investigation, exactly how was that taillight shattered? Explain it to us.
MR. PAUL: How does the taillight -- what do you -- so the taillight in this case was shattered when it was strucked(sic) John O'Keefe's arm.
MR. JACKSON: Exactly what part of his arm?
MR. JACKSON: Was his arm out and it just struck the arm like a hinge? Was it in front of him? You did the reconstruction. Tell the jurors exactly how his body was positioned when he was struck by that?
MR. JACKSON: You're indicating up and by his side, correct?
MR. JACKSON: All right. And the taillight would have struck his arm, right?
MR. JACKSON: Not his torso?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So the full mass, the full weight of that truck hit him basically at the elbow; is that right?
MR. JACKSON: Missing his person?
MR. JACKSON: The forebone and the biceps.
MR. PAUL: I didn't see anything that shows it an indication that his lower torso was struck, but --
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So this torso --
MR. PAUL: 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, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you said he then did a spin like a sort of pirouette?
MR. PAUL: He got spun around kind of. Possibly the way he got struck, it looks like it could have gone turn around counterclockwise.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So he turns around counter clockwise, is he turned around in there counter clockwise?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So he gets hit in the upper biceps/shoulder area and down to the forearm, right?
MR. JACKSON: By an unbroken taillight, right?
MR. JACKSON: In other words, it's nice and smooth. Nothing -- no shards of plastic or anything broken at the time that it made contact with his arm, right?
MR. JACKSON: So how did his arm get all cut up?
MR. PAUL: Because when his arm struck the taillight, the taillight then it cracked, and as the car is driving past him, the taillight it scratch it.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. So he gets hit by the car, not his torso just the arm. The taillight cracks, and as it passes by, his arm stays with it long enough to get striations, the scratches that we see, those lacerations -- I'm sorry -- those abrasions that we see, right?
MR. JACKSON: And at the same time, he does the pirouette and flies 30 feet to his final point of rest?
MR. JACKSON: Well, I'm using the word pirouette. He spun around.
MR. PAUL: He started rotating counter clockwise. I don’t know how far he ran counter clockwise, but he started to rotate. According to that it would have pushed him to rotate counter clockwise. Whether or not he went counter clockwise, all the way to his back toward the ground, that's a possible -- it seems like the most likely possibility.
MR. JACKSON: Did you account for the fact that his arm was unhinged?
MR. JACKSON: Did you account for the fact that in this scenario that you just told the jurors that his arm was on a hinge?
MR. JACKSON: On his shoulder.
MR. JACKSON: So arm got hit, didn't his arm just swing?
MR. JACKSON: Even if his shoulder got --
MR. JACKSON: -- the upper part. You're pointing to his upper biceps.
MR. JACKSON: Right. There's no injuries on his shoulder. Not a single one. Not even a bruise, right?
MR. PAUL: I said it looked like to me it was from up here. I don't how far I can 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, it's about mid forearm, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Right?
MR. JACKSON: No injuries on the shoulder, no injuries on the torso, no injury on the ribs, no injuries on the back, correct? Is that right?
MR. JACKSON: So your theory is he got hit on the arm, took the brunt of the force from the taillight on the arm, stayed with the vehicle long enough for the taillight to explode basically, to shatter, then these striations get on his arm, these abrasions, does a pirouette, a spin counterclockwise, he flies 30 feet in the air to his final rest.
MR. JACKSON: I thought you said he hit his head on the curb?
MR. PAUL: I said that's one of the possibilities of when you look at the roadway. As he gets spun around counter clockwise, it's a possibility that the curb is there, any blunt force object on the ground as the ground is pretty blunt.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, except in your scenario that you just told us, he flew through the air onto the white dusting of snow and perhaps the dirt.
MR. JACKSON: Say that again.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'll use your word. He got projected.
MR. PAUL: Projected doesn't mean it's not incorporating just throw. Project just means you get pushed forward. There's two parts to 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 a crash.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So I have a couple questions. If his arm, elbow took the brunt of that entire, how do you account for the fact that he didn't suffer a broken bone?
MR. JACKSON: How do you account for the fact that he didn't have a fracture?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: How do you account for the fact that he didn't even have a bruise on the arm?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained.
MR. JACKSON: May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
(Sidebar commences:
(Impounded sidebar.)
end of sidebar.)
MR. LALLY: May I inquire, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: The truth is, Trooper Paul, you know having investigated other pedestrian accidents in the past that 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.
MR. JACKSON: That's all I have.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Jurors, we'll take the morning recess.
(Jury out.)
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see counsel at sidebar about scheduling.
(Court in recess.)
(Court in session.)
(Defendant is present with counsel.)
(Jury in.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.