Day 19 - May 20, 2025

Hank Brennan's redirect addressed Burgess's credential representations, correction timeline, and disagreements with parts of Dogra's clock-variance analysis. Burgess distinguished early call rows recorded while the Lexus was off, which he said reflected iPhone-to-iPhone times, from later powered-on infotainment-to-iPhone comparisons; he said he agreed with a 5:00 a.m. calculation but considered it temporally distant from 12:30, and separately said GPS point 154 preceded the three-point turn. Burgess reaffirmed a 21-to-29-second variance and testified that the 12:32:09 last user interaction fell within the adjusted Techstream data-end range of 12:32:04 to 12:32:12; he said the end of the recorded data did not establish the end of the backing maneuver.

Robert Alessi continued his cross-examination of Shanon Burgess, focusing on three areas. First, Alessi questioned Burgess about whether his prior oral discussion matched the correctly dated January 30 timeline slides. Burgess said the timelines were correct, acknowledged that events after midnight were on January 30, and stated that, if he had said January 29 in his prior discussion, he had misspoken. Second, Alessi challenged Burgess's May 8 supplemental-report methodology, arguing that Burgess abandoned discrete call-log clock-variance data for an approximate three-point-turn synchronization that could place TechStream event 11622 after the phone lock. Alessi introduced defense expert Dogra's chart (Exhibit 190), which presented calculations placing the event before the phone lock; Burgess said those calculations were inaccurate. Alessi also addressed iPhone data: Burgess identified the device lock as user interaction, agreed that the reported steps were human activity, and distinguished both steps and pocket state from user interaction per se. Third, Alessi asked Burgess to assume 30 TechStream trigger events over eight months; Burgess answered that the premise would not support concluding there had been 30 collisions. Alessi also revisited Burgess's criticism of Maggie Gaffney's chip-off work. Burgess explained that later Berla software supported in-vehicle acquisition from the infotainment module, not the micro SD card on the circuit board.

Christina Hanley, a forensic scientist 3 and unit supervisor at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab's Trace Arson and Explosives Unit, was sworn and qualified through testimony about her education, training, proficiency testing, laboratory accreditation, analytical methods, and contamination controls. She identified a broken drinking glass (item 3-2), five bumper-glass pieces labeled A-E (item 3-3), nine scene-glass pieces (item 7-12), and one road-glass piece (item 7-14). Before adjournment, Hanley said she believed six item 7-12 pieces mechanically fit the drinking glass and reported no physical match for the two item 3-3 pieces selected for physical-match comparison. In the approved Day 20 continuation, she confirmed six and identified the matching item 7-12 pieces as A, B, C, D, F, and K. She also identified item 3-3 pieces A and B as the no-physical-match subset, said C, D, and E were not used for physical match because of size and condition, and separately reported that sampled piece E was consistent with item 7-14 in physical and instrumental properties.