Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveAndrew Rentschler - Direct/Cross
305 linesJUDGE CANNONE: Yeah. You know, I'll do it back there.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, we would ask Dr. Andrew Rentschler to join us, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. While he's coming in — just very quickly about scheduling. You are muted.
COURT OFFICER: You are unmuted. Please stand, face the court and jury.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do.
COURT CLERK: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Could you please state your first and last name, spelling your last name for the record, please?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Certainly. Andrew Rentschler. R-E-N-T-S-C-H-L-E-R.
COURT CLERK: And what do you do for a living, sir?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I'm a biomechanical engineer, and
MR. JACKSON: — Accident Reconstructionist. And who do you work for?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I work for a company called ARCCA LLC.
MR. JACKSON: How long have you been in that position — or, well, working for ARCCA, first of all?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I've been with ARCCA for about 16 and a half years now.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you're the director of biomechanics and human factors. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am. I'm a vice president and the director of biomechanics for the Midwest Division.
MR. JACKSON: Can you tell us what education, training, and background qualifies you to perform your duties as the director for biomechanics and human factors?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Sure. Well, I've got my BS in mechanical engineering with a minor in biomedical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in 1995. I then went on to get my masters in bioengineering and biomechanical engineering from the University of Pittsburgh in 2002, and then I went to get my doctorate, or my PhD, in bioengineering and biomechanics from the University of Pittsburgh in 2004.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, do you specialize in research and analysis to evaluate — specifically the study of the relationships between crash injuries and crash forces?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: And when I say crash injuries, we're talking about to human beings?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's right. Injuries to human beings — whether it be in a crash, motor vehicle accident, slip and fall, industrial — any type of setting where there's an injury to the human body. I evaluate basically that event and the mechanisms responsible for producing those types of injuries.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, does it also include the study of and understanding of human kinematics?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It does, yes, as well as human tolerances. Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: We all know what tolerances mean. What does kinematics mean?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So kinematics is really just the motion of the human body — it's the study of the human body, how the body moves under different circumstances. Whether you're in a car that's struck from behind, what direction will your body move; slip and fall, how will your body rotate and move. It's really looking at the motion and the response of the body.
MR. JACKSON: Are you certified by any professional associations?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have — again, a PhD. There's no professional licensure for biomechanical engineering. A PhD is the highest basic certification you can get. And I'm also a member of SAE, Society of Automotive Engineers, as well as the American Society for Mechanical Engineers.
MR. JACKSON: Have you received additional training and education further beyond your PhD and the associations that we've just talked about?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe — without going through all the detail — describe the kind of continuing education that you engage in?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, I attend seminars and professional classes with respect to biomechanics as well as accident reconstruction, but looking at new technology and research with respect to injuries — for instance, motor vehicle accidents. If there are new safety measures such as airbags, seat belt pretensioners, auto detection devices on vehicles — so really kind of staying up to date with the current research and literature that's out there.
MR. JACKSON: So your specialty — your subfield, if you will — in terms of your engineering degree and education, is literally in accident reconstruction and the effect that accidents and incidents can have on the human body. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is, yes. And biomechanics is really looking at injury to the human body. So we use traditional engineering principles and apply it to the body, because an injury is just an engineering problem. Instead of looking at a piece of steel — if you know the dimensions and size and you apply a force, it'll bend and break — we look at the human body: how much force does it take, and how does the force have to be applied to get a fracture, or intervertebral disc injury, or any type of injury? There's specific forces and mechanisms you need to produce those injuries, and that's what I do as a biomechanical engineer.
MR. JACKSON: Is there a difference between a biomechanical engineer and a doctor, in terms of injuries?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There is, yes. So we really approach injuries from two different directions. Someone has an injury — you go to the doctor, you go to the hospital. The medical doctor will diagnose that injury, determine the best way to treat it, and determine what the prognosis is. As a biomechanical engineer, I look at that injury from a different direction. Here's the injury — how did that injury occur? What type of loading did you need to actually produce that injury? How much force was required? What happened to your body to actually cause that injury to occur? So we approach it really kind of from two different areas.
DR. RENTSCHLER: And certainly the doctors diagnose the injuries and determine what they are, and then the biomechanical engineer will come in and we'll look at that injury — not only how it's produced, but ultimately our hope is to mitigate and prevent injuries from occurring, whether in motor vehicle accidents, sports settings, industrial settings — anywhere there's an interaction with the body and the environment, we want to try and make it safer for individuals.
MR. JACKSON: So you're not diagnosing an injury as much as you are trying to figure out the mechanics and the forces behind the injury. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's right. I'm not a medical doctor. I wouldn't diagnose an injury. But given an injury, I understand the mechanics of how that injury is produced and what you need to actually cause that injury to happen.
MR. JACKSON: Are you also involved in research in the field of biomechanics and engineering?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Could you describe that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: When I did my graduate work at the University of Pittsburgh, I worked at a place called the Human Engineering Research Lab. It was associated with the VA in Pittsburgh as well as the University of Pittsburgh. And so we looked at people with disabilities. One of the big things that we did — one of the major points — was people in wheelchairs. So if you have to propel a manual wheelchair, you put a lot of stress and force on the arms, the shoulder, the elbow, the hands, carpal tunnel. So we look at the injuries that were produced during those types of events — how can we reduce the force acting on the body for someone like that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So it's looking at, again, how the body responds, how we can set up a chair differently to actually reduce the amount of force one might experience doing that type of activity.
MR. JACKSON: Have you qualified as an expert in the past in the area of biomechanical engineering and human factors?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, yes.
MR. JACKSON: In furtherance of — let me ask it this way. Were you asked — was ARCCA asked to be engaged in an analysis of the incident that is currently before the court?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you produce — or did your team produce — a report about your opinions and conclusions, including the testing and the methodology that went behind those opinions and conclusions?
DR. RENTSCHLER: We did, yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were not hired by the defense in this case, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, we were not.
MR. JACKSON: You were not hired by the Commonwealth in this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. We were not.
MR. JACKSON: When you started your analysis, you didn't know who we were — you did not know who the Commonwealth was?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You'd never heard of Karen Read?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I had not, no sir.
MR. JACKSON: Were you contacted by my office after you provided your report?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is correct, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were you ever contacted by the Commonwealth?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Not that I'm aware of, no sir.
MR. JACKSON: And you and I have never discussed the substance of your testimony, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. We have not.
MR. JACKSON: Would you consider that your analysis — your analyses, your conclusions and opinions in this case — are completely independent of any party in this room?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You've not been paid by the defense. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have not, no sir.
MR. JACKSON: And you do not answer to us in any way?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do not. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you and your team were asked to undertake a review of the circumstances. What exactly did you review in coming to your opinions and conclusions and performing the tests that you perform?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, we looked at — there were police reports with respect to the incident, medical records for Mr. O'Keefe as well as the autopsy report, photographs of the evidence in this case involving the Lexus, the tail light, the incident scene, where the evidence was found, as well as some other documentation.
MR. JACKSON: And you also worked with Dr. Wolfe, who just left the court, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you two have sort of a distinct role — although working as a team — a distinct role in making determinations and conclusions about the incident?
DR. RENTSCHLER: We did. There was a distinction. Certainly some of our work overlapped, but there was a distinction with what each of us actually did and performed with respect to this case.
MR. JACKSON: Following your review and your investigation and analysis, did you make any determination as to whether any of the injuries suffered by Mr. O'Keefe in this case were consistent with producing the damage that was seen on the SUV?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: And what did you base your opinion on?
DR. RENTSCHLER: My opinion was based on certainly the medical records, the description of what the injuries were, the damage that we have to the Lexus — primarily the right rear tail light cover — as well as we performed testing to evaluate the strength of that tail light cover, and look at the damage associated with different types of impacts, and also to look at the overall evidence of where everything was found — where Mr. O'Keefe was found, what the injuries were, how they may or may not have occurred based on the damage we have to the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: So did you look specifically to find whether or not you could determine the forces required for Mr. O'Keefe to suffer the injuries that you saw in the records, medical records, et cetera?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes. I determined in my analysis whether there was sufficient force with that damaged tail light, and interaction with that tail light, to produce any of the injuries that were listed or diagnosed in the autopsy report and the medical records.
MR. JACKSON: What, generally speaking, what injuries would you expect to see in a vehicle-pedestrian interaction at, say, 24 miles an hour?
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection]
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that. Just generally, doctor, if you would please.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes. So, 24 miles an hour — once you get up to that speed, you start to see fractures. You see significant ligament and tendon damage. Usually about 15 miles an hour — 15 mph impact — is where you start to see damage to, for instance, the leg and the knee. At that speed, if you impact the vehicle, you're going to produce upwards of a thousand pounds of force on the body, depending on what part of your body impacts the vehicle. So certainly at 25 mph, you start to see significant injuries occur.
MR. JACKSON: Is that true for any part of the body that is struck, whether it's center mass or an extremity — 1,000 pounds of force because of the speed of the vehicle?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, yes. So force is equal — Newton's Second Law. Force is equal to mass times acceleration, so the acceleration is going to be the same. It depends on the mass of whatever body part is being hit. So from the testing that we did at 15 mph, we used a head form which weighs about 11 pounds, and that produced almost 1,000 pounds of force — a little under that — for the head. So anything that weighs 11 pounds is going to produce almost 1,000 pounds of force. The heavier the object — if you get hit center mass — that's going to be even greater force, because that's more mass than just 11 pounds. So the acceleration is the same for each body part; it just depends on the weight of the body part, and how heavy it is determines the force that's actually exerted on the body.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review, in furtherance of your conclusions and opinion, did you review records that indicated injuries to both a head as well as a right extremity — right arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Taking those one at a time — is the injury to the head that you saw consistent with having been struck by a vehicle at 24 miles an hour?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is not, no, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can you explain why?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There are a couple of reasons. First of all, the main reason is that to get the injury — it was a fracture at the occipital region of the head, which is basically the back bottom part of the head. So in order to have that part of the head contacted by the tail light, you would somehow have to have a configuration, or be standing in a manner, where the rest of your body doesn't get hit, because there's no other significant injuries to the body. If there's enough force to cause a skull fracture, then there's certainly going to be enough force to cause injury to the rest of the body. So first of all, you have to determine how you could configure somebody — could actually be standing — to have only the back of the head make contact.
DR. RENTSCHLER: And even if that was the case, if somebody positioned themselves in such a manner to have that occur, you're still going to see other injuries related to that. For instance, with the cervical spine — over a thousand pounds of force acting on the head — you're going to get significant cervical injuries: fractures, disc injuries, tendon and ligament injuries. So the fact that we only have that head injury, and only damage to the occipital portion of the skull, is inconsistent, in this case, with being struck by that tail light. And then there's also the evidence that we saw when we did the testing at 15 miles an hour, where we dropped the head form, so that would be akin to a vehicle backing up at 15 mph hitting the head.
DR. RENTSCHLER: We had more damage to the tail light in that test than what we saw with the subject tail light cover. So if you're going 24 or 25 miles an hour — even faster — you're going to see even greater damage, greater fracturing of that rear tail light, and we just don't have that in this case. So both the physical evidence, as well as looking at the biomechanical aspects of it, are inconsistent with that head injury occurring due to impact with the rear of the Lexus.
MR. JACKSON: Shifting to the arm — are the same forces at play if, instead of the head making contact with the tail light, it's an outstretched arm — for instance, at the elbow area — of a human being?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Shifting to the arm — are the same forces at play if, instead of making contact with a head, you make contact with an outstretched arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: They are. As I just explained, the force is mass times acceleration. So if the arm weighs the same as the head, you're still going to get that same force — almost 1,000 pounds.
MR. JACKSON: Does the arm weigh the same as the head?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It does, actually — almost identical — because your arm, just one of your arms, including the hand, forearm, and upper arm, is about 5% of your total body weight. So for someone who weighs 216 pounds, that comes out to about 10.8 pounds. So your whole arm basically weighs the same as your head.
MR. JACKSON: So is your analysis the same then — if a close-to-11-pound arm made contact with the tail light — sorry — at 15 mph, would you expect even more damage to the tail light at a higher speed?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Watch the leading.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, you would. If it's higher than 15 miles an hour and you have an arm actually striking that tail light, you're going to get even more significant fracturing, more damage to that tail light at a higher speed than what we saw.
MR. JACKSON: So was the tail light damage consistent or inconsistent with striking an arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Our findings — it's inconsistent. For a number of reasons, but it is inconsistent with striking the arm, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I want to shift back to the head injury that you saw. Was the head injury that you saw consistent with falling backward from a standing position onto a rigid surface?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's certainly one of the possible scenarios that would create the injury mechanism. You fall backwards, strike your head on concrete — that can produce thousands of pounds of force on the head. And so that's certainly a scenario where you could produce that damage, if someone was standing, they fell backwards, and struck their head on the roadway, or on the curb, or a hard surface.
MR. JACKSON: So I was going to ask you — I think you may have just answered my question — that those kinds of force multipliers require a hard and rigid surface, or not?
DR. RENTSCHLER: They do, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So grass and dirt would not produce the same sort of force?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Grass and dirt? No, that would certainly not produce the same amount of force as hitting your head on concrete.
MR. JACKSON: And if it was grass and dirt with a little bit of snow on top of it, what effect is that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's going to dampen and lessen the force even more.
MR. JACKSON: So what injuries — I want to shift back to the arm, and I go back and forth if you bear with me — talking about the arm, presuming a strike at, say, 24 mph on just the arm, what kind of damage would you expect to see on the arm, irrespective of the vehicle?
DR. RENTSCHLER: You can see significant damage on the arm, especially if it hits at that tail light. Enough force to actually cause fracture of that tail light — that force is going to be concentrated at an initial point, and you're going to see, at that point, probably the most damage to the arm and to the skin there. So remember, at 15 miles an hour, that's almost 1,000 pounds. So at 24-25, it's even greater. That amount of force on the arm — certainly you're going to see extensive subcutaneous lacerations, bruising, contusions. You're going to see most likely fracture of the arm as well. You're going to see significant damage — just imagine having your arm out and being struck by a car at 25 miles an hour.
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar concluded]
JUDGE CANNONE: Inquire.
DR. RENTSCHLER: There's going to be significant damage, more so compared to simply the abrasions that were diagnosed and documented on the arm in this case.
MR. JACKSON: You did look at multiple photographs of the arm in this case, of John O'Keefe's arm in this case, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Were the injuries that you saw on John O'Keefe's right arm consistent with having been struck by a vehicle in the manner that you just described?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You reviewed injuries specific to John O'Keefe, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Taking that as a hypothetical, would the injuries that you saw, generally speaking, hypothetically be consistent or inconsistent with having been struck by a car at 24 mph?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. If you were to presume, for purposes of my question, that an arm was struck by a vehicle tail light traveling at 24 mph or thereabouts, would you expect to see patterned abrasions with no bruising?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Or just — what would he expect to see? What would you expect to see?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So again, I would expect to see significant trauma to the skin, to the bone, to the tendons. I wouldn't expect to see just abrasions — patterned abrasions. Abrasion, by very definition, means that it's trauma to the skin which is created through rubbing or grinding or friction. So it's basically something rubbing against the skin that basically wears away that top layer of skin. It's not blunt force trauma — if you have blunt force trauma, that produces a contusion or bruising. It's not a laceration-type injury where we have a cutting injury that actually produces a cut or significant laceration. It's really just rubbing along the skin. So that would be inconsistent.
DR. RENTSCHLER: If you have an arm that's actually struck at 25 mph, you're going to have significantly greater damage, especially if there's a tail light that shatters. So you have the tail light coming in, it's hitting the arm, and it's moving forward into the arm. So if that actually causes fracturing of the tail light, then parts of that tail light are going to be pushed into the arm and likely embedded into the arm as the vehicle continues forward and pushes the arm out of the way. I didn't see any of that — basically just superficial abrasions, which all appear to have a similar amount of force. There's not a difference.
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's the other thing: if you had a tail light shatter and explode on an arm, you would have some areas where you would have very deep contusions or lacerations, others lighter areas. But when you look at the abrasions that were noted in this case, they all appear to be of the same force, generally the same direction, and the same severity, which would be inconsistent, in my opinion, with being struck at 25 mph.
MR. JACKSON: Generally speaking, do you look for consistency in the size of an object striking a body and the injury that the body suffers from being struck by the object?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely, yeah. Size is a big part of it, certainly, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you do any measurements of the width of the tail light that was shattered?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what was that width, if you can recall?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I think the width we looked at was maybe six inches or so.
MR. JACKSON: And in coming to your opinions and conclusions, did you look at the arm of John O'Keefe, just sort of laid out straight?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see where the injury started and stopped — or began and ended, however you want to put it — in terms of size?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes. It started from the upper arm and then extended down into the forearm, which was greater than 12 inches in length where you see those injuries and abrasions occur.
MR. JACKSON: Did you come to any conclusions or opinions concerning the size differential between the tail light and the injuries that we see?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Generally speaking, would you expect — if there was an injuring event — that the size of the injury would be consistent with the thing that produced the injury?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, generally speaking, you would certainly expect that. And again, you would normally and usually be able to see an initial point of contact, because that's where the most force is going to occur — where it causes that tail light to break. So you would have an area of severe damage, and then it would extend out, likely to the edges of where it would contact the rest of the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: From a biomechanical and/or physics and engineering standpoint, is it reasonable — if someone is standing with their arm extended and is hit by a moving vehicle —
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Is it consistent in your view with engineering principles and physics principles that — if an arm is hit extended, not the body, just the arm is struck — for the body then to be projected?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
DR. RENTSCHLER: It's not. No. So if we have contact — your arm's down, we have contact to the arm — first of all, it's a ball-and-socket joint, so the arm can move independently of the rest of the body. So with enough force, even if you're contracting your arm and trying to hold it out as tight as possible, it's going to overcome that muscular contraction and basically just move the arm. But secondly, it all depends on your center of mass. The center of mass is the equilibrium point of your body, of where your weight's distributed. And for most normal people, the center of mass occurs at your umbilicus, or your belly button. So wherever your belly button goes, that's where your body is going to move. They teach this to football players, right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: If you're a defensive back and a running back comes around the corner, they tell them — or teach them — to watch the waist and watch the belly button. It doesn't matter what your head or your arms do, or what their feet do — wherever their belly button goes, that's where they're going to go. So that's what you want to tackle. So even if you had your arm straight out — again, it would move because of the joint. But let's assume you had a metal pole sticking out of your body instead of your arm, and that metal pole gets hit — what's going to happen to your body is it's just going to spin around, right? Because it's producing a moment arm, which produces a torque on the body. So your body's going to basically spin.
DR. RENTSCHLER: In order to get the complete body, for instance, 10, 20, 30 feet into the yard, you need a force acting at the center of mass. You need an external force pushing the body that way. And that's not going to happen if you just hit the arm — it's not enough force, it's not the right mechanism to actually cause the body to somehow move that far.
MR. JACKSON: Assuming that a body was struck with enough force at center mass to project that body 20 to 30 feet, what injuries would you expect to be produced on that body?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: If you did have a body that was projected a distance from a car, what injuries would you expect to see on the body?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see you at sidebar. This is the last time on this. You are unmuted.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, do you have my question in mind, or do you need me to repeat it?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Maybe repeat it, yeah.
MR. JACKSON: You said, "Assuming that a body was struck at center mass with enough force from a vehicle traveling at whatever speed to project the body off the ground, would you expect to find injuries on that body?"
DR. RENTSCHLER: You would, and you would actually see that there are specific injuries. Because let's say you're standing forward and you get hit on the right side with the vehicle — you're going to get injuries and damage to the right side of the vehicle as that vehicle impacts you. It depends on the profile of the vehicle, where the hood comes up, whether you're going to wrap up onto the hood, or if it's a van or the back of an SUV, it will project or push your entire body to the left. So you're going to get initial contact and injuries to the right side of your body, and then if it propels you into the air, you're going to get airborne, and then you're going to contact the ground — usually with the left side of your body.
DR. RENTSCHLER: So then we're going to see a correlation of injuries to the left side of your body as it slams down onto the ground as well. And at those speeds, normally you would also see more abrasions, greater abrasions, or road rash along the entire part of the body, as the body then would slide until it came to the point of rest.
MR. JACKSON: And you did not see that in this case? Cross-examination begins
JUDGE CANNONE: You are unmuted.
MR. LALLY: Good afternoon, sir.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Good afternoon.
MR. LALLY: Now, you — in conjunction with the other doctors on your team who conducted the analysis and testing in this case — wrote a report. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: We did, yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And that report — excuse me — was issued on February 12th, 2024. Is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe that's correct, yes.
MR. LALLY: And within the first paragraph of that report, the last two sentences state, "This analysis is based on information currently available to ARCCA and is only to be issued in its entirety; however, ARCCA reserves the right to supplement or revise this report if additional information becomes available." Is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe that's correct, yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, the information that you received and reviewed — either individually or as a team — included some State Police reports. Is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Some Canton Police Department reports?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct, yes.
MR. LALLY: Some scene photos?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes.
MR. LALLY: Medical examiner dispatch removal report?
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe so, yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Some videos from the location of 34 Fairview Road?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Some photos of the defendant's vehicle, the 2021 Lexus LX 570?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Photographs of evidence that was recovered from the scene?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes.
MR. LALLY: CDR report from the defendant's Lexus?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And then essentially there were some other materials — whether they be literature or other things — that you and your team of doctors reviewed over the course of formulating your opinions in this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, in regard to evidentiary materials indicated within the report as reviewed, you talk about the lens cap to the tail light assembly, the tail light assembly, photographs of that nature — and then there's a mention of a black straw that was found on scene?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct, yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: There's no mention in the report of either Mr. O'Keefe's shoe or his hat?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: You are unmuted. Do you need a couple of minutes, Mr. Lally, or just a minute?
MR. LALLY: No, I'm fine, thank you. Are you familiar with a term called compression abrasions?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Compression abrasions? Yes.
MR. LALLY: And am I correct when I say compression abrasions are essentially when direct pressure from a blunt object, together with slight rubbing movements, reduce skin and epidermal crushing? Is that what you're
DR. RENTSCHLER: Understanding of the term is, yes sir.
MR. LALLY: Are you familiar with pattern abrasions?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am, yes.
MR. LALLY: And pattern abrasions are injuries that show a distinct pattern that may reflect the shape of the impacting blunt objects that you may see with reference to injuries that are left by that blunt object, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as in general terms, from what you reviewed — at any point in time did you look at a State Police reconstruction report?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I don't believe that I did, no sir.
MR. LALLY: You weren't provided with that, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, I don't believe so.
MR. LALLY: You weren't provided with any sort of forensic reports, DNA, or anything like that, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I don't believe so, no sir.
MR. LALLY: And you never actually looked at the physical car, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did not, that's correct.
MR. LALLY: You're aware that the physical car — being the defendant's car — is still in law enforcement custody and available for inspection if you wanted to. Are you aware of that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I think I'm aware of that, yes sir.
MR. LALLY: You never made that request, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That was not necessary in this case to inspect the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: But you didn't make that request, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yeah, I don't remember if we made that request or not. We obviously didn't look at the vehicle, but it wasn't necessary in this case.
MR. LALLY: Did you ever look at the actual tail light pieces or the tail light housing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Not the actual — we looked at photographs of the evidence, yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, the injuries that you observed or viewed in materials in regard to Mr. O'Keefe were primarily on the right side of his body, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, certainly on the right arm — in the posterior aspect of the right arm, yes. And then the skull fracture was a little bit to the right, the occipital fracture.
MR. LALLY: Also bruising on his right hand, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was bruising on the back of his right hand, yes — on the dorsal aspect, yes, correct.
MR. LALLY: And there was also bruising on sort of the posterior of his right knee, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was a small bruise, I believe, yes.
MR. LALLY: Sir, now with respect to — within your report you talk about the numerous linear abrasions on the posterior of Mr. O'Keefe's right arm and forearm, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes sir.
MR. LALLY: And in relation to those injuries there is a sentence in which you — or whoever authored this part of the report, I'm assuming it's you — indicate that furthermore any such injuries would be highly improbable if Mr. O'Keefe was wearing a jacket, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes sir.
MR. LALLY: Are you aware that Mr. O'Keefe was not wearing a jacket — other than a long-sleeve sort of hooded shirt?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe that came to light afterwards. Again, I mean, it doesn't affect my actual opinions in this case, but it was a sentence added in there.
MR. LALLY: Yes sir. And so also within your report — same paragraph — you indicate blood and DNA transfer would also be highly probable under such circumstances, none of which were reportedly found on the tail lamp assembly or any of the fractured pieces, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Are you aware that DNA consistent with that of Mr. O'Keefe was actually found on the tail light housing from the defendant's vehicle?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I'm aware — after we wrote or issued the report — that it became known to us that I believe DNA was tested and some DNA was found. I believe a small amount. I don't believe any blood evidence was located or found on any pieces, but there was indication of DNA on the tail light housing.
MR. LALLY: There was also DNA matching Mr. O'Keefe that was found on the exterior of a piece of drinking glass that was found right near his body.
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe so, yes.
MR. LALLY: And there were also pieces of approximately a sixteenth of an inch by a sixteenth of an inch of clear and red plastic that was subsequently found to be consistent with the defendant's tail light, that was found embedded within Mr. O'Keefe's shirt.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Within the shirt, I believe, yes sir. Not his actual body.
MR. LALLY: And so this is all things that you found out after you issued your report in February of 2024, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, when you were talking about the injuries to the back of the head of Mr. O'Keefe — consistent with coming in contact with a hard surface, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, yes sir.
MR. LALLY: Would that hard surface include — if the ground was frozen?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, you'd have to perform an analysis actually, because you'd have to determine how hard that ground was. You'd have to look at the freeze and thaw cycle, probably leading up to weeks of that. You can't just look at ground and say, well, it's below freezing so that ground must be frozen. I mean, is it a possibility? It may be, but you have to go through an actual analysis and procedure to determine how hard that ground is and whether it could have produced those.
MR. LALLY: So it is something that's capable of being done by you, is that correct — performing that type of an analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I mean, you could go through and do it, sure, yeah.
MR. LALLY: And you didn't do it, right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, I did not do it, no. Because — yeah — there's no need in this case. We don't know what happened in this case. There's no indication — certainly it's not consistent with getting hit by the car and ending up where he did, even if the ground is somehow hard enough to cause that type of injury. Again, there's no movement and no force to get his body over there. And then the damage with the car is inconsistent with him being struck by it. So whether the ground could cause it, or the roadway could cause it, or the curb could cause it, a [unintelligible] could cause it — there are numerous different possibilities, and we don't really have enough evidence in this case to determine what one specific event actually caused that injury.
MR. LALLY: You didn't have enough evidence based on what you were provided, isn't that fair to say?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I didn't have enough evidence based on what I was provided, and even looking at the additional evidence that I became aware of after the fact, there's still no evidence. I mean, you can't deny the science and the physics as to what would have happened if he was struck by the vehicle. So anything past that, you have to somehow overcome that hurdle, which is very difficult to do.
MR. LALLY: When was it that you looked at this additional material, and who provided it to you?
DR. RENTSCHLER: We were informed — after the report was issued — that DNA was found, and that was really the primary issue. I believe some DNA was found on the housing, which again there are numerous explanations or ways that DNA can get on the light housing.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you this, sir. With regard to the materials that you were provided with — was there anything in there that stated that Mr. O'Keefe's skull fracture on the back of his head was caused by contact with the tail light?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, I don't believe there was anything in those materials that stated that.
MR. LALLY: Was there anything in those materials that indicated — or that anyone stated at any point in time — that Mr. O'Keefe's arm was outstretched at the time that he was struck by the vehicle?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No sir, there wasn't.
MR. LALLY: Was there anything in there indicating that his arm was tucked in at the time that he was struck by the—
DR. RENTSCHLER: You know, there's no indication in any of that evidence of what he may or may not have been doing, how he may or may not have been positioned. I mean, that's the whole issue — there's no evidence to indicate what may have allegedly occurred in this case.
MR. LALLY: Now, typical pedestrian collision that you see through the course of your work involves a pedestrian being struck by the front of a vehicle, is that fair to say?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, we see all types — different people getting run over, backwards cars, spinning, hitting sideways. Frontal impacts certainly occur, yes, but we see pedestrians getting struck by all parts of the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: I'm sure you see all kinds. What I'm asking is: predominantly, when you see a pedestrian collision — the typical pedestrian collision — would be a pedestrian crossing a road in front of a vehicle as it's approaching, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's certainly not uncommon, yes sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as — I believe you described a little bit on your direct testimony — as far as there being differences in the type of injuries that you would expect or anticipate depending on how the vehicle interacted with the pedestrian in a pedestrian collision, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes sir.
MR. LALLY: And as far as — are you familiar with what's called the [unintelligible] collision?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes sir, I am.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. LALLY: And am I correct when I say that in any typical pedestrian collision with a pedestrian crossing in front of a vehicle, there are a number of different types of interactions — as far as a wrap and a forward projection versus a fender vault versus a number of different ways that a pedestrian can interact with the front of a vehicle, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It depends on the position of the pedestrian, and certainly the profile of that vehicle, and the speed of the vehicle, yes sir. There are many different factors involved in it.
MR. LALLY: And so in a typical pedestrian collision, when a pedestrian is struck by the front of the vehicle, that involves more of an assumption of the velocity of the striking motor vehicle by the pedestrian — then you would expect to see a sideswipe position, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, I mean, yes, generally speaking. Sideswipe means that the person — or the pedestrian — the vehicle don't obtain a similar or common velocity. So if you're standing in front of a car and it hits you, it's going to speed you up to that same speed and then disengage. Sideswipe means that there's not this mass-to-mass impact. By its very nature, sideswipe has minimal forces — we see it even between vehicles that just rub against each other. So if there's a sideswipe impact with a pedestrian and a vehicle, there's going to be very little damage to the pedestrian, and similarly there's going to be very little movement. There's really no force at all acting.
DR. RENTSCHLER: You know, for instance, if a car came and swiped your arm, swiped by your arm but didn't have enough force or enough contact to cause any damage, well it wouldn't actually cause any movement of the person either. So sideswipe by its very nature involves minimal impact, minimal forces, minimal velocities.
MR. LALLY: And also contained within the report that you at least co-authored, there's an indication that Mr. O'Keefe's injuries — at least to his skull, the fracture to his skull — are consistent with him having been pushed, or possibly been impacted by the subject Lexus and fallen backwards striking his head. Isn't that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yeah, so that's another possibility. If —
MR. LALLY: Yes or no.
JUDGE CANNONE: Let him answer. Let him answer the question.
DR. RENTSCHLER: So if we're saying that there's enough force — if you fall backwards to strike your head and cause that skull fracture — well, he could have slipped and struck his head. The car could have backed up and not known that he was there and nudged him and caused him to fall. I mean, any event that would cause him to fall backwards obviously would result in him striking his head, so there's numerous, almost infinite possibilities of different scenarios that could result in that type of an event.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson, nothing further?
MR. JACKSON: Nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, Dr. Rentschler, you are all set, sir.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. I want to see counsel for the last time at sidebar right now.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. With that, Defense rests.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, jurors, that is the evidence in this case. After all these weeks, that's the evidence that you will hear in this case. The lawyers and I still have work to do for tomorrow, but tomorrow morning we will have closing arguments of counsel — they'll get an hour apiece to be able to argue this case. I'll instruct you in the law and then 12 of you will begin your deliberation sometime tomorrow. Okay, so with that, please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don't do any independent research or investigation into this case. If you happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case, please disregard it and let us know.
COURT OFFICER: All rise for the court. Please follow me.