Day 19 - May 20, 2025

Burgess (Redirect), Hanley

5Proceedings

4Pages

2Witnesses

1,770Lines

Day 19 of 36

Appearing:

The Burgess examination ends with a Texas federal CV filing containing an acknowledged educational-line error; Burgess says he did not file or see it. Hanley begins glass testimony, believing six scene pieces fit a drinking cup.

Full day summary

Day 19 opened with Robert Alessi completing his cross-examination of digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess. The timeline slides were correctly dated January 30; Burgess said that, if he had previously said January 29, he had misspoken. Alessi challenged Burgess's use of a three-point-turn synchronization anchor, which Burgess said was the adjustment the data allowed to place the TechStream event after O'Keefe's last phone interaction. Hank Brennan's redirect addressed Burgess's credentials and elicited his disagreements with parts of defense expert Dogra's clock-variance analysis. On recross, Alessi introduced a Texas federal filing containing a CV line Burgess described as an error and lacking a 'currently pursuing' qualifier; Burgess acknowledged that an incorrect statement about his educational background was filed. On re-redirect, Burgess said he had neither submitted nor seen the document before filing. The court then heard the opening of Christina Hanley's direct examination, in which she said she believed six glass pieces from 34 Fairview Road mechanically fit the broken drinking glass and reported no physical match for the two bumper-glass pieces used in that comparison.

Key Moments

Alessi establishes that Burgess's three-point-turn synchronization method was the only approach that could place the TechStream backing event after O'Keefe's last phone interaction, arguing confirmation bias.
On recross, Burgess acknowledges that a Texas federal filing contained an incorrect education line; on re-redirect, he says he did not submit or see the document before filing.
Alessi contrasts the Texas filing's missing 'currently pursuing' qualifier with CVs filed in the Karen Read case; Burgess says he neither submitted nor saw the Texas document before it was filed.
Brennan counters Dogra's clock variance analysis through Burgess, arguing Dogra's call logs compared two iPhones rather than the Lexus infotainment clock to O'Keefe's phone.
Hanley says she believed six glass pieces from 34 Fairview Road mechanically fit the drinking glass, while no physical match was found for the two bumper pieces used in that comparison.

Notable Quotes

Robert Alessi

“Choosing the three-point turn as the independent data source is the only way you could ever get the text stream event to even possibly occur after the lock event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone. Correct.”

Alessi's core confirmation bias argument — framing Burgess's entire May 8 methodology as reverse-engineered to reach a predetermined conclusion — is the defining attack of the day's extended Burgess examination.

Shanon Burgess

“Correct. Yes, it was.”

Burgess's acknowledgment that a Texas filing contained an incorrect education line supplied a focused impeachment point; on re-redirect, he said he had neither submitted nor seen the document before filing.

Christina Hanley

“there were, I believe, six pieces of glass from item 7-12 that fit mechanically to the cup that was also recovered from the road, item 3-2.”

Hanley's testimony that she believed six scene-glass pieces mechanically fit the drinking glass marks the day's transition from contested expert impeachment to new physical evidence; her no-match finding covered two bumper pieces used for that comparison.