Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveJudson Welcher - Cross (Part 1)
1,433 linesMR. ALESSI: Sure. Good morning, Dr. Welcher.
MR. WELCHER: Good morning. We haven't been formally introduced. Your whole name?
MR. ALESSI: Robert Alessi, sir.
MR. WELCHER: Robert Alessi. Nice to meet you.
MR. ALESSI: Nice to meet you. Dr. Welcher, the area in which you engage can also include — and I believe you used the term on direct — forensics, correct. Do you engage in any forensic activity in your profession?
MR. WELCHER: Yes. The general umbrella of you basically coming in giving scientific evidence in court applies to forensics. So my main job is accident reconstruction and biomechanics. And so that's what I do. Sometimes it doesn't involve court. When it goes to court, that's generally forensics.
MR. ALESSI: Right. So you're here today — that is my question. You're here today at least in part with regard to forensics.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Because forensics — the Latin term for it — is basically you're going to have some type of court or jury present. It's for law. Correct? Would you agree with that?
MR. WELCHER: It's for law. Forensics — I mean, exactly the way you asked that — no, it's for engineering and it's for biomechanics. It's in the court of law, I think is what you're asking.
MR. ALESSI: That's exactly. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Certainly for the court of law. I guess it ends up in a court of law. Forensics as a common term. So it relates to, or it's used in, or it's suitable for a court of law. The analysis — you'd agree that's a general principle.
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Not a trick question.
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: And so in forensics, what you're doing, among other things, is you're applying the scientific method and principles in a criminal matter. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Yeah. You try and apply as much as possible.
MR. ALESSI: Right. And so the primary goal of forensic science is to uncover the truth and to provide objective evidence that can be presented in court.
MR. WELCHER: That is generally correct. Again, there are elements — for example, this analysis — that are relying sort of on subjective evidence, like the testimonial, the witness statements. So it's not solely based, but ideally you'd want it as much as possible based on objective data.
MR. ALESSI: So you would agree that truth and objective evidence is part of the presentation — in terms of information for forensics in a court of law.
MR. WELCHER: Certainly objective information. Truth sometimes again can be subjective.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, so you don't believe truth? You believe sometimes truth applies, sometimes it doesn't?
MR. WELCHER: No, if you know for a fact it is true. But if you take someone's deposition testimony, you have to look at it relative to the evidence, and it's either consistent with the evidence or not.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So now let's go to your direct examination that you just went through, please. Hopefully this is fairly straightforward. You have testified to — and it's varied a bit — "a reasonable degree of engineering certainty." Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: You've also — have you used the phrase sometimes "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty"?
MR. WELCHER: I might have. Right. So I don't know.
MR. ALESSI: In terms of your role as a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist, is it important to engage in a critical analysis of the data?
MR. WELCHER: Critical analysis? Yeah, I think it's important to have a critical analysis. You want to try and look at it from all sides. Consider all possibilities.
MR. ALESSI: So it is therefore important to try to review the data as objectively as possible. You had mentioned sometimes subjectivity comes in, but I understand the goal is to try to look at it as objectively as possible.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. Now, you stated with respect to your conclusions early on in your direct testimony and your analysis that you don't — and I think I've got it quoted — "you don't have a dog in the fight." Is that what you said, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I did.
MR. ALESSI: And that you, quote, "don't care," end quote, about the outcome. That's what you made a point of saying in the beginning.
MR. WELCHER: That is 100% correct.
MR. ALESSI: Now, you simply follow the data. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: I try to do that.
MR. ALESSI: You try to do that.
MR. WELCHER: I'm not perfect. No. I do my best. I believe I've done it here.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, in terms of — you've agreed that you apply the scientific method. So I want to see if you're in agreement generally, so the jury can understand what the scientific method is. Are you familiar with NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So would you agree with this definition of the scientific method? "The systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and definition of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, analysis of the data, the formulation, evaluation and testing of hypotheses, and where possible the selection of a final hypothesis." Is that a general, fair statement of the scientific method?
MR. WELCHER: So for forensics, you'd have to add in the testimonial evidence aspect of it. So those are testimonial, or things are in evidence. So frequently there's one or two versions and you're trying to match which version is most consistent with the evidence.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Adding that to what I stated relative to NIST, you would agree that evaluation and testing of hypotheses, and where possible the selection of a final hypothesis, is the scientific method. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Generally, yes.
MR. ALESSI: Is it correct that a proper biomechanical injury analysis utilizes a sound scientific methodology that's been subjected to peer review and publication, and that's been generally accepted in the engineering community?
MR. WELCHER: Well, I can't. So — this — I've done my analysis here, biomechanical analysis. I can't submit this analysis to peer review. I'm not allowed to give this to people outside the court. So there would be no way for me to submit my analysis for peer review. So this occurs in forensics all the time. The forensic analysis in court generally never goes through a peer-review process. The methodologies underneath it — and looking at, for example, I think I referenced 25 papers in my report — that goes to the issue of trying to follow the science. 26.
MR. ALESSI: So I think you may have misunderstood my question, sir. I was talking about your methodology — your biomechanical injury methodology. The methodology that you use and apply — is that to be subject to peer review and general acceptance in the engineering community? Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: So I have no way of publishing this analysis to get—
JUDGE CANNONE: I need you to go ahead and answer his question.
MR. WELCHER: "Peer reviewed," like you said, means I give it to my peers. I send it out to somebody to review for the scientific method. That's what the peer-review process is. So I will gladly send this out to peer review with the court's permission, but I haven't and cannot do that.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, my question is not your analysis here in this case. My question regards the methodology that you use. You said 26 references, right? My question is simply: is the methodology that you use for your analysis in this matter — the methodology for a proper biomechanical analysis — should that methodology be generally accepted in the engineering community?
MR. WELCHER: I think, with the forensic application, yes.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. That was my question. Just the methodology. Thank you.
MR. WELCHER: You're welcome.
MR. ALESSI: Now, the scientific method that you've used in this case — part of the use of scientific method, the purpose is to avoid what is called bias in the scientific method, right? Not cultural bias, but just bias in terms of the application of methodologies and principles. You would agree that's a pretty fundamental purpose of the scientific method — is to avoid biases.
MR. WELCHER: The purpose of the scientific method is to get the most logical and correct answer without bias.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. Exactly. To apply the scientific method without bias being part of the application of the method.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: That's hopefully what you can do.
MR. WELCHER: That's hopefully what you can do.
MR. ALESSI: That is the goal, right?
MR. WELCHER: That is one of many goals.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. So, are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias"?
MR. WELCHER: I am.
MR. ALESSI: And that relates — confirmation bias is part of a larger term. Are you familiar with "cognitive bias"?
MR. WELCHER: Generally. I'm not a human factors expert, though.
MR. ALESSI: Pardon me?
MR. WELCHER: I'm not a human factors expert.
MR. ALESSI: All right. These biases — don't you agree that cognitive biases are not just for one category? You would agree it applies to medical analyses, to doctors doing studies, to engineers doing studies and other scientists doing studies.
MR. WELCHER: I'm not a cognitive expert. I think I would generally agree with it, but I don't want to step out of my lane. I'm not an expert on cognitive. I can talk to you about confirmation bias if you like.
MR. ALESSI: Let's talk about confirmation bias. Now, confirmation bias is actually when someone selectively gathers and interprets evidence to confirm one or another's beliefs, as well as neglecting evidence that contradicts those beliefs. Is that a fair statement of confirmation bias?
MR. WELCHER: That is a statement. Yeah, it could be broader, but sure.
MR. ALESSI: But you would agree that that is generally correct. What confirmation bias is — and an example of confirmation bias is not considering alternative hypotheses once an initial hypothesis has been selected, even though data and information might contradict the initial hypothesis. Is that an example of confirmation bias?
MR. WELCHER: That could be, yes.
MR. ALESSI: And confirmation bias is antithetical — it's against the scientific method. It's to be avoided. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: You would like to avoid it.
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Are you familiar with the term "failure analysis"?
MR. WELCHER: Generally. You might need to define how you're using it for me.
MR. ALESSI: Sure. So is "failure analysis" the enablement of a scientific examination of an alleged incident by beginning at the undesired consequences? Is that a fair use of that phrase?
MR. WELCHER: I was thinking something different, like a piece of metal failing. I guess it could fall into that category.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. And would you agree that the first question — or one of the first questions — to be asked by a biomechanical engineer when conducting an analysis of, say, an injury, is "how did this happen"? Is that one of the first few questions that you ask?
MR. WELCHER: No, that's usually the last question.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, so — for you — hold on a second.
MR. WELCHER: Generally, what you want to do is gather data. You want to know what injuries there are, what evidence there is — like, for example, on the vehicles — and then the very last thing you want to know or define is, given all that information, how did it happen? So that's the end.
MR. ALESSI: I think you may have misunderstood my question. So I wasn't talking about the method or the process. I was talking about when you get to answering questions — whenever that is in the process. Isn't one of the questions, and maybe one of the first questions, "how did this happen"?
MR. WELCHER: No, that's not one of the first questions. The first questions are: where's the damage? What are the injuries? What's the evidence? What black box or text stream data do we have? What physical evidence was at the scene? So that is certainly not one. It is a question, but that question is at or near the end.
MR. ALESSI: Isn't every one of the questions that you just mentioned part of the data gathering?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. But when you're gathering data, you're always asking yourself questions along the way like what is this? Where did it come from?
MR. ALESSI: But you would agree that for you, at least at some point, it's how did this happen?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And don't you ask that question to come up with a hypothesis?
MR. WELCHER: I generally have many working hypotheses as I'm working on the case and then as the evidence comes in I'm applying that to my hypothesis and either accepting or rejecting the hypothesis based upon the factual information.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, how then is it just a matter of logic or syllogism? If you don't ask the question how did this happen until the end, how do you then not get your hypotheses up front when under the scientific method you should be having different hypotheses up front? How is it that you ask how did it happen at the end and not go through hypotheses in the beginning? Can you help me with that logic?
MR. WELCHER: Sure. I guess I misunderstood — I was trying to give you an answer to how it happened. So when you're answering how it happened, or you want to be able to answer that question, you want to make sure you've looked at the totality of the data, accepted and rejected things as they came along to be able to answer that final question: how did it happen? But along the way, like for example, a right eye laceration, you want to know how that happened. So you look for the evidence of how that may have happened.
MR. ALESSI: So you would agree then that questions of how it happened, formulating and identifying hypotheses, does and can happen toward the beginning of the analysis. It doesn't happen at the end all the time. Would you agree with that?
MR. WELCHER: So the ultimate question of how did it happen happens at the end. The questions about the elements of what occurred to make it happen, those occur at the beginning, middle, all along the way.
MR. ALESSI: You would agree that creating hypotheses occurs more toward the beginning than toward the end of the analysis. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: There are probably more hypotheses in the beginning, but I am continually forming, looking at hypotheses, either accepting or rejecting them upon the evidence.
MR. ALESSI: So you would agree that the creation of hypotheses does occur more toward the beginning of the analysis. You would agree with that — there are more towards the beginning — the process occurs throughout the whole investigation. Right. I'm asking about the hypothesis, sir. You would agree that the hypotheses occur more toward the beginning than the end. Just hypothesis.
MR. WELCHER: So I don't know if you and I are saying different things. More hypotheses in the beginning because you have more questions in the beginning. You continue to form hypotheses as the data presents itself. So you don't stop the formation of hypotheses. It's just as you get more evidence you narrow down the number of questions.
MR. ALESSI: Maybe I can take this last question and make it clearer for you. Sir, you would agree — not analysis, which you added, as I heard it, to the last part — just hypothesis. You would agree that even though hypotheses can be created and changed perhaps all the way up to the end, you would agree that it's important in the analysis to create at least some hypotheses, plural, in the beginning. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And once you create these hypotheses, would you agree that those hypotheses should be tested?
MR. WELCHER: So if you take the word "testing" to mean testing compared to testimony, compared to physical evidence. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And when you test those hypotheses, isn't it often the case that particularly in your line of work, the one that most consistently produces the same injury will emerge as the mechanism of injury.
MR. WELCHER: I guess it depends on the scientific evidence behind it. Again, sometimes we get very unique injuries.
MR. ALESSI: So my question, sir, is this —
MR. WELCHER: Mm-hmm.
MR. ALESSI: Isn't it the case that when you have multiple hypotheses — multiple hypotheses — the one that, most, most out of all of them, it's a relative thing, the one that most consistently produces the same injury emerges as the mechanism of injury. Is that a fair statement?
MR. WELCHER: I think generally, again, I would — it's on a case-by-case basis. You have to look at the science and the facts of what you're basing it upon. I think as a general premise what you're saying is accurate.
MR. ALESSI: Okay.
MR. WELCHER: But there's exceptions.
MR. ALESSI: Fair enough. But it's a general principle with some exceptions. That's a fair statement.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Yes, sir.
MR. ALESSI: We're going to have several topics, sir. And what I'm going to try to do to make it a little clearer is I'm going to say when I'm switching topics.
MR. WELCHER: Oh, good.
MR. ALESSI: So what I'd like to do now is switch topics. You're aware that the Massachusetts State Police has troopers who specialize in accident reconstruction. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And there are troopers within the Massachusetts State Police Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Section whose sole responsibility is to engage in accident reconstruction. Do you know that?
MR. WELCHER: I do not know that.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know that there are troopers within the Massachusetts State Police Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Section who engage in accident reconstruction?
MR. WELCHER: Just based on what I've seen in this case, right?
MR. ALESSI: Based upon what you've seen in the case, that's a fair statement.
MR. WELCHER: And I just know that those people are doing it.
MR. ALESSI: Are you familiar with a Massachusetts State Trooper named Joseph Paul? P-A-U-L.
MR. WELCHER: Yes. I'm familiar with his reports. I don't know the man.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Familiar with Trooper Paul through his reports in this case. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And are you aware that he was assigned by lead investigator, former Trooper Michael Proctor, to be a reconstructionist in this case on January 29th of 2022, as evidenced by that report or those reports of Trooper Paul? Do you know that?
MR. WELCHER: Well, you put a lot of things in there. I know he issued a reconstruction report. I don't know who told him to do it. So the first part of your question I don't know, but I did see a reconstruction report from him.
MR. ALESSI: You were retained — and so do you recall — is the date January 29th of 2022 a rough time period of him being assigned, or you don't know when he was assigned?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know. That might have been in his report but I wouldn't have paid attention to when he received an assignment.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know the date of the first report of Trooper Joseph Paul in this case?
MR. WELCHER: I can pull it up. I do not know off the top of my head.
MR. ALESSI: You know that the date of the incident in question is January 29th, 2022. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Yet your firm — and you — were retained for this case by the Commonwealth two and a half years after the incident in question. You were retained — your firm — on September 23rd, 2024. Is that correct, sir?
MR. WELCHER: No, I believe we were retained a couple days before that.
MR. ALESSI: A couple days. Okay.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. So actually I might be able to find out if you'd like me to look at documents.
MR. ALESSI: It's not all that important. You would say it's within a week of September 23rd, 2024.
MR. WELCHER: It was in September. Yes. I would want to double check.
MR. ALESSI: That's two and a half years from the date of the incident in question, if I did the math right.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Oh, I never thought about it. Yeah, approximately.
MR. ALESSI: And as we just discussed and you stated on your direct examination, you have no dog in this fight. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: On November 5th of 2024, your firm Aperture was paid $44,500 by the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office to conduct work that was at least similar to the work of Trooper Paul. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: I have no idea. I don't get the billing or the statements.
MR. ALESSI: Do you recall whether Aperture has — well, do you believe Aperture is working for free in this matter?
MR. WELCHER: Oh, no. I don't believe that. We're an engineering company. We bill for our time.
MR. ALESSI: So you know that Aperture is getting paid for its work in this case, correct?
MR. WELCHER: We are billing for our analysis work.
MR. ALESSI: Well, you're not just billing. You're billing and getting paid. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: I have not seen any of the payments. I would assume that we're getting paid, but I don't know
MR. ALESSI: Sir, you are a senior vice president of Aperture, are you not?
MR. WELCHER: I am.
MR. ALESSI: You would know, wouldn't you, if your firm was not getting paid for work since September 23rd of 2024, wouldn't you?
MR. WELCHER: No, probably not. Usually it takes, you know, 9, 10, 12 months of not getting paid before the accounting department reaches out to me.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. So if it would take 9 months or 12 months, if you weren't getting paid, you would have been notified by now. Correct? I'm pointing to your own answer you just gave.
MR. WELCHER: I've not been on this case for two and a half years. I'm sorry, sir.
MR. ALESSI: Let me go back to the question of payment. Hold on. You said — I've been on this case for two and a half years. I was retained in September, the 17th-ish, of 2024. So that's what, less than a year ago.
MR. WELCHER: Understood.
MR. ALESSI: I'm moving on to the next question because I want to move away from that discussion and just go right to the bill. You, as you sit here today, do not have a recollection of whether Aperture has been paid. Is that your testimony?
MR. WELCHER: It has nothing to do with recollection. I'm not part of that process. We have an accounting department. I don't have any involvement in that.
MR. ALESSI: Are you — so is your testimony you have no knowledge about any contractual relationship between Aperture and the Commonwealth?
MR. WELCHER: Oh, no. No. I was sent a contract by the Commonwealth to sign. So, I'm aware of the contractual agreement, but the day-to-day or month-to-month invoicing and billing, I'm not involved in that.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, you're aware there's a contract between Aperture and the Commonwealth?
MR. WELCHER: I signed it.
MR. ALESSI: And you signed it. And wasn't that contract obligating the Commonwealth to pay for the services of Aperture? Isn't that the purpose of the contract?
MR. WELCHER: In part, in part, sure. Yeah.
MR. ALESSI: It's a legal obligation of the Commonwealth. Your firm does work and the Commonwealth pays for it.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: That's the idea, right? And so you know about that contract because you signed it.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Also, you testified on direct that there was a purchase of a Lexus exemplar for your testing.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Who pays for that Lexus exemplar?
MR. WELCHER: Aperture.
MR. ALESSI: And is that cost then passed on to the Commonwealth?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: Oh. Oh. So, you pay for the Lexus. You don't pass that cost on.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. So, what we're doing is we paid for the Lexus. We're keeping it till the trial's over. We're selling it and charging the Commonwealth the difference in the price.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. That was where I was going, sir. So, they're only paying the difference. And in theory, if we sell it for more in
MR. WELCHER: California, then we'll reduce the bill.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. I don't want to speculate. I just wanted to see what the obligation was. So, the obligation is the difference.
MR. WELCHER: Exactly.
MR. ALESSI: So, the obligation is the difference. Are you aware that on April 5th, 2022, the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office amended your contract? Are you aware of that, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I am.
MR. ALESSI: And isn't it the case that that amendment authorized the amount of $325,000 to be paid to Aperture? Isn't that what that amendment contract states?
MR. WELCHER: I believe that's correct.
MR. ALESSI: So, the Commonwealth is obligated to pay at least $325,000. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: That is my — You're asking me a legal opinion now about a contract. That is my understanding of how contracts work, but I'm certainly not an attorney.
MR. ALESSI: And on top of that, are you aware that Aperture has already been paid $44,510 for its work? Are you aware of that?
MR. WELCHER: The second time you asked me, no, I'm not aware of anything we've been paid.
MR. ALESSI: And as you stated yourself, those amounts reflect, as you say, less than six months worth of work.
MR. WELCHER: That's not what I said.
MR. ALESSI: Well, no. My question is, you've been on the case. You said since September of 2024 when we were talking about dates, you said that was about 6 months that your firm's been retained. Did I have your answer correct about how long you've been on it?
MR. WELCHER: I guess it's closer to 8 months.
MR. ALESSI: All right. So, eight months. So, for eight months of work, about $400,000. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: So, there's three offices working on the case. There's the Boston office, there's Mr. Burgess's office, and there's my office in Long Beach. I only know about the billing from my office.
MR. ALESSI: But you signed the contract on behalf of all of Aperture, not just your office.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. That I don't know, but I definitely did sign a contract.
MR. ALESSI: Would it refresh your recollection as to who you signed the contract on behalf of — whether it's all of Aperture in all offices — if I showed you the contract?
MR. WELCHER: Sure.
MR. ALESSI: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: May I approach, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Yeah. Could you direct me so we're not wasting time?
MR. ALESSI: Well, what I'd like to do, your honor, is just ask the witness a question with regard to —
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you just take a look at that, Dr. Welcher? Thank you. And then when he's done, Mr. Alessi — unless you can take it.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. There you go. I have a few more questions before I do that for foundation purposes. Would you like me to start?
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead and start. Go back to the podium, please.
MR. ALESSI: Sure. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. Dr. Welcher, does that refresh your recollection as to the contract you signed on behalf of Aperture with the Commonwealth?
MR. WELCHER: So, it lists the legal address as my office. So, for my office, yes.
MR. ALESSI: And did you see the amount that was in the contract? Did that refresh your recollection?
MR. WELCHER: Oh, no. I didn't look at that.
MR. ALESSI: Do you recall the amount of the obligation that the contract relates to in this document? Do you recall that?
MR. WELCHER: You just asked me that earlier and I'm taking what you said to be true. So, it was like $325,000. I have no reason to disbelieve that.
MR. ALESSI: And is there also a total — do you recall the total maximum obligation for the contract that's listed in the contract? Do you recall it? May I approach, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: And Dr. Welcher, I am now going to — you asked me last time, I hope this is helpful. You said please point to the applicable part so we can do it faster. I am now pointing to that part. See if you can just look at that and see whether this refreshes your recollection on the maximum obligation of the contract pursuant to this contract — without saying what it is. Just — does it refresh your recollection?
MR. WELCHER: No, but I don't have any reason to believe it's not correct. And that is my signature on it.
MR. ALESSI: Right. And — well, we got started on this conversation with regard to a statement you made earlier in your direct that you didn't have any dog in the hunt. You recall that statement in the beginning of your direct testimony?
MR. WELCHER: You misquoted me. I don't have any dog in the fight.
MR. ALESSI: You don't have any dog in the fight.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. Now, switching topics.
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: You submitted an updated PowerPoint presentation — the one that you went over on your direct examination. You created that presentation quite recently. Correct, sir?
MR. WELCHER: The updated one was where I had redacted or taken out slides. So, in terms of taking out slides, I did add one alternative path a couple weeks ago.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. My question, sir, is this: the updated presentation — we'll get to the changes later — but the updated presentation, you created just how many days ago?
MR. WELCHER: I'm going to say weeks ago.
MR. ALESSI: Weeks? Two weeks?
MR. WELCHER: I don't actually know without looking at the documents.
MR. ALESSI: Well, was it more than three weeks ago that you created it?
MR. WELCHER: I still don't know without looking at the documents.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know when the trial started in this matter, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I do not know. I assume the trial started approximately April 22nd of 2024.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Did you create your updated presentation before or after April 22nd of 2024?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know.
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on one sec. Dr. Welcher, I'd ask that you not look at —
MR. WELCHER: Okay. I was going to try and answer his question. My apologies. I will shut it down.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. WELCHER: You're welcome.
MR. ALESSI: If I may, your honor — are you able to determine when you created the updated presentation?
MR. WELCHER: I think so. That's what I was attempting to.
MR. ALESSI: Your honor, may he do that?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. I'm going to see counsel while you pull that up, please. Dr. Welcher, what I'm going to ask you to do is get whatever information you need for Mr. Alessi's last question. Mr. Alessi, I need you. I need you over there. And once you get that answer, I'm going to ask you to shut your computer down, or at least put down the cover.
MR. WELCHER: How about it?
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. All right. So, you can answer Mr. Alessi's question.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you, your honor.
MR. WELCHER: Could you give me the question again, please?
MR. ALESSI: Yes. When did you create the updated presentation that you reviewed in your direct testimony?
MR. WELCHER: So that addition I made was taken out. It wasn't in my direct testimony.
MR. ALESSI: If you can just hear my question, it's this. The version of the presentation that you put on the screen — when did you create that version? I'm just looking for a date.
MR. WELCHER: To answer your question about the version on the screen, I created that yesterday when the judge asked me to take off some of the headers.
MR. ALESSI: So yesterday. Okay, good. Now the version before that — when did you create that version?
MR. WELCHER: The day before.
MR. ALESSI: And then the version before that one, when did you create that?
MR. WELCHER: I mean, I save it every day.
MR. ALESSI: Understood. So every day. So you've changed the presentation every day since when?
MR. WELCHER: No, I don't think I've changed a presentation every day.
MR. ALESSI: That's my question. My question is, how many times have you changed it within the last two weeks — your presentation?
MR. WELCHER: Let me try and cut to the chase here.
MR. ALESSI: Sure.
MR. WELCHER: That slide was added on May 13th and then it was taken out before I presented it here. So, it was not in my presentation here.
MR. ALESSI: Right. So, thank you for that answer. So, here's the question. Your first version, as I understand it, of the slide presentation was January 30th, 2025. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: When was the next time after January 30th, 2025 that you changed that presentation?
MR. WELCHER: May 13th.
MR. ALESSI: Assuming the trial started April 22nd of 2025, you changed your PowerPoint presentation during this trial.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. And how many times did you change your presentation after April 22nd of 2025?
MR. WELCHER: Well, the last time I changed it was like 10 minutes ago. So, in response to various discussions, I've been making continuous changes to it.
MR. ALESSI: I want to make sure you finish your answer.
MR. WELCHER: I'm not sure how much granularity you want in that answer.
MR. ALESSI: Right. So, you created on January 30th, 2025. You made your — the 13th — pardon me.
MR. WELCHER: Oh, no. Oh, the original one. Sorry. January 30th, modified May 13th.
MR. ALESSI: Right. If I could finish my question, I might be able to shortcut this.
MR. WELCHER: Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: So, you created the original one on January 30th, 2025. You made your first amendment May 13th of 2025, and then before you sat for your testimony, which was yesterday, correct? That was the first time you sat for your testimony.
MR. WELCHER: That is correct. I was here yesterday.
MR. ALESSI: Days get foggy when we're in a courtroom. So, but it was yesterday. How many times had you changed your presentation from January 30th, 2025 until when you first walked in the courthouse yesterday?
MR. WELCHER: Do you mind if I count?
MR. ALESSI: Not at all.
MR. WELCHER: So, there was the May 13th change. Half of that was in response to objections from the defense. I had to add all the paths to where everything was. Then when I got out here, Mr. Brennan asked me to take out references to evidence about statements that I was not allowed to present. So, that would have been within the last three days. And then I've modified it a couple times today based on rulings from the judge.
MR. ALESSI: Okay, let's break that down. You said half of the changes you made on May 13th related to what? Because I want to know about the other half.
MR. WELCHER: Sure. There were two changes. I added the extra path of 138, and then I was told that the defense was having problems with my PowerPoint. So, I had to go in and add the paths to every single slide about where the evidence came from, because they were saying I didn't provide everything and I had provided everything.
MR. ALESSI: All right. So, that was the second half. Got it. I want to go to the first half, sir.
MR. WELCHER: Sure.
MR. ALESSI: And I'm going to try to shortcut this, and if I'm not clear, you just let me know. I want to talk about the first half — you called it. I didn't hear it — was, did you say "path"?
MR. WELCHER: Path. P-A-T-H.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. The path Ms. Read was driving. Right. The — what you made the change for on May 13th, that first half — that wasn't something that was triggered by the defense. That was something irrespective of the defense. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: It was based upon her statements. Is she part of the defense?
MR. ALESSI: All right. So that's what I wanted to get to. You changed the first half based upon statements you allege that Ms. Read made. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: I changed one slide. There were 130 slides originally, or something like that. So half of the changes on that day, which was one slide — I added one line to the bottom of the previous slide.
MR. ALESSI: Did you consider that change significant?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: Well, then why did you make it in the middle of trial if it wasn't significant? Why didn't you just leave it off and then discuss it in terms of testimony?
MR. WELCHER: So, A, it ultimately was left off. B, because it was insignificant and I didn't need to have it. So, the way it got presented was exactly the way it was before May 13th.
MR. ALESSI: So it didn't change anything, but it was significant enough for you to make a change to your presentation. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. So my goal is to be as accurate as possible. When I saw the path that I gave — the way she was going to drive — I gave the possible paths. That was one of the possible paths that hadn't originally been included. So, in striving to be as accurate as possible, including as much information as I could, I wanted to make sure I included that.
MR. ALESSI: So, you were striving — the clip that you used to make the change — you say you made the change based upon a clip you observed with regard to Ms. Read. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: I believe that. Yes, that is correct.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know that clip has been in existence for months?
MR. WELCHER: I don't believe I got it until April.
MR. ALESSI: So, a clip that has been in — assume the clip's been in existence for months.
JUDGE CANNONE: Dr. Welcher, I have to ask you not to —
MR. WELCHER: I'm trying to be helpful.
JUDGE CANNONE: Close your computer.
MR. WELCHER: Let me close it. Sorry. I was trying to answer his question.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to ask you to close the top.
MR. WELCHER: Yeah, that's probably a good idea.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. Thank you, your honor. So, assume the clip that you said was the basis for changing your PowerPoint on May 13th after the trial started had been in existence for months. You just got that clip, you say, in April. So yes. What was the — tell me the circumstances by which you got the clip. Did you ask for it?
MR. WELCHER: I was told there was a new interview.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Who initiated the conversation about the new interview?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know if it was Mr. Brennan. It was someone associated with the prosecution. Yes. I wouldn't have known about it.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. So, somebody affirmatively communicated with you — when — about this clip?
MR. WELCHER: I need to look, but I remember it being about mid-April. Mid-April, if I'm thinking of the correct clip.
MR. ALESSI: What were you asked to do, if anything, with regard to that clip?
MR. WELCHER: When I got the clip, I wasn't asked to do anything.
MR. ALESSI: What did you do with the clip once you got it?
MR. WELCHER: So, they then indicated there was this suggestion of an alternative route. So, then I looked at the alternative route description and added the alternative route.
MR. ALESSI: So, it was suggested to you by the prosecution that you look at the clip and they pointed out that there was an alternative route they wanted you to look at.
MR. WELCHER: So, I took it to be: we have additional evidence, please look at the additional evidence and add it to your analysis.
MR. ALESSI: On the topic of additional analysis by Aperture while this trial is going on — are you aware of Mr. Burgess submitting a report dated May 8th of 2025 in this case?
MR. WELCHER: Yes, I received that report on May 8th.
MR. ALESSI: Right. And so you were aware of the creation of that report on May 8th because you got a copy of it, right?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Were you aware that Mr. Burgess was intending to submit that May 8th report to the Commonwealth?
MR. WELCHER: Yes, we had had a discussion before that — that he had found new information that changed the timing.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, he had found new information. What is your basis for saying he found new information as opposed to the information always existed — it's just it was pointed out to him that that should be looked at. What's the basis of your understanding that he found new information?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection to the question.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow the question, but you have to ask it differently.
MR. ALESSI: I will, your honor. Thank you. What is the basis for the statement you made that Mr. Burgess found new information?
MR. WELCHER: I guess it was his meeting — in our discussions, he indicated that he had found new information.
MR. ALESSI: Did you ask him what do you mean by "new"?
MR. WELCHER: No. I took it at what it said.
MR. ALESSI: So, as you sit here today, do you have any basis to say that that information is new as opposed to it's always been in existence?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: What is that?
MR. WELCHER: What he told me.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, so you relied upon the representation of Mr. Burgess. You didn't have any independent document to determine whether in fact it was new.
MR. WELCHER: I don't quite frankly care whether it's new or not. I just care what's in the data. Whether it's new, old, I don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing. I don't say this is new data, this is old data. I just care what the data is.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, has Aperture ever submitted a changed report in the middle of a trial, to your knowledge?
MR. WELCHER: I have no idea.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know whether Aperture has ever submitted an amended report in the middle of a trial? You said you testified in federal and state courts. Can you recall an instance where Aperture has submitted an amended report in the middle of a trial?
MR. WELCHER: So, Aperture is like 290 people. I can only speak for myself. I have certainly done amended analysis. Only certain courts and certain legal systems require reports. But for example, rebuttal — analyzing testimony that comes up in court, getting trial transcripts — I very frequently have come up with new analysis during the trial.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, my question is: as you sit here now, can you state one court case where you — where you or Aperture has submitted an amended report in the middle of a trial?
MR. WELCHER: I cannot speak for Aperture. I can only speak for myself.
MR. ALESSI: You can — oh, speak for yourself, sir. Can you then for yourself recall any instance where you submitted an amended report in the middle of a trial?
MR. WELCHER: Amended reports. No. Amended analysis. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you.
MR. WELCHER: You're welcome.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Alessi, is this a good time for a break, or five more minutes?
MR. ALESSI: It's a good time, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right, folks. Why don't we just — — seated. Question. All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Alessi.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you, your honor. And if I could please address an administrative matter that I wish I didn't have to address. Dr. Welcher was just using — at least by my observation — his computer. He still has monitors on his desk. Could we have all that removed, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: It was closed.
MR. ALESSI: Closed?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Would he open? So, he's just — did you just turn it off?
MR. WELCHER: No, but I will. I'll close it.
JUDGE CANNONE: You want the computer all the way off, or just everything?
MR. ALESSI: Is he going to need to turn his computer back on? I do not see a need for the computer to be turned on. Do we have the ability to put the presentation and documents from our —
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see counsel at the sidebar. The lunch break — I'll ask you to remove those monitors.
COURT OFFICER: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sorry. During the lunch break — I know it takes you a while to set up in the morning — we're going to ask you to take all that down during the lunch break.
COURT OFFICER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: May I, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. Dr. Welcher, we left talking about the amendments you made to your PowerPoint presentation, and in terms of the amendments — are you aware that defense counsel received your amended PowerPoint presentation at 3:00 p.m. on Memorial Day? Are you aware of that?
MR. WELCHER: Correct, sir? Day after Memorial Day.
MR. WELCHER: I testified yesterday.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. Are you aware of any activity in this trial of any kind before you testified yesterday?
MR. WELCHER: Again, as I mentioned, I've been getting random emails and then I've been seeing it pop up on my news feeds as well. But once I was aware of the exclusion, I made sure to not review any of that. But as recently as last night, I got an email that said "biomechanical engineering job," like applying for a job. And I opened it up and it was some internet troll.
MR. ALESSI: Sure. I'm asking about emails from the prosecution.
MR. WELCHER: Oh, no. There've been no emails about what's been going on. I mean, there's been scheduling — you know, when am I going to come, things like that.
MR. ALESSI: How then was it determined that you were going to be able to amend your PowerPoint presentation if you weren't communicating with the prosecution?
MR. WELCHER: I mean, they asked me about the witness statement at 1:38 right around May 13th.
MR. ALESSI: How did they ask you about that, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I don't recall if it was a Zoom meeting or a phone call.
MR. ALESSI: So there was a communication with the prosecution — might have been by Zoom, might have been by another method — but there were — excuse me — communications while this trial is going on relative to you amending your PowerPoint that ended up with an amended PowerPoint on May 13. Do I have that correct?
MR. WELCHER: I believe so.
MR. ALESSI: I'm going to switch topics.
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: One of the goals of Aperture's analysis and reconstruction was to determine the location and timing of certain Techstream events. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: EDR—
MR. WELCHER: I'm sorry. My — your — your role?
MR. ALESSI: Yes. EDR, and just for clarification, EDR is event data recorder.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: So I'm going to refer to that as you have before as EDR, event data recorder.
MR. WELCHER: Sounds good.
MR. ALESSI: EDR data does not show the location associated with a Techstream event. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: In this particular vehicle, it does not.
MR. ALESSI: And the EDR data for this particular vehicle, namely the Lexus SUV, also does not provide the time associated with a Techstream event. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Not at the time of this event.
MR. ALESSI: So the answer is no.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: That is not correct? So let me ask the question a slightly different way. The EDR data for the Lexus SUV that you've been talking about does not provide the time associated with a Techstream event. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: That is correct.
MR. ALESSI: Instead, every Techstream event is associated with a particular key cycle on the vehicle. Right?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: There can be multiple Techstream events in a single key cycle. Right?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And every time you start the car — when you push the button — that's a new key cycle, right?
MR. WELCHER: That will cause a key cycle.
MR. ALESSI: And the EDR data indicates the number of seconds into the key cycle that the particular event occurred. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: The EDR data? No.
MR. ALESSI: So EDR data gives you no information about the number of seconds into the key cycle that a particular event occurred.
MR. WELCHER: You're confusing EDR data and Techstream.
MR. ALESSI: I'm not, sir. I'm just asking a question. If it's yes or no, I'm fine with that.
MR. WELCHER: EDR data will — depending on the vehicle — sometimes have information about GPS date and time. Sometimes it has ignition cycles, which are a little bit different than key cycles, which is why you frequently have different ignition cycles versus key cycles in EDRs compared to Techstream.
MR. ALESSI: So let me ask it a different way.
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: The Techstream data—
MR. WELCHER: Mhm.
MR. ALESSI: —indicates the number of seconds into the key cycle that a particular event occurs.
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: That is correct.
MR. ALESSI: In order to properly determine the location and the timing of a Techstream event, it's important that you correctly identify the trip that is associated with a particular key cycle. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: I think I'm going to say yes. The Techstream tells you the trip.
MR. ALESSI: I'm just asking if it's important that you correctly identify the trip associated with a particular key cycle, in order to properly determine the location and timing of a Techstream event.
MR. WELCHER: So the Techstream tells you the trigger event and it tells you the key cycle. So I'm not determining that. I'm reading that from the Techstream data.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So in order to properly — to use your verb — read the location and timing of a Techstream event, it's important that you correctly identify the trip that is associated with a particular key cycle. Is that a fair statement?
MR. WELCHER: I think that's a fair statement.
MR. ALESSI: If you associate the wrong trip with the wrong key cycle, then your estimate of when the Techstream event occurred will be wrong. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: It can — I mean, you need to take the totality of the evidence in the Techstream with the mileage, the overall timing, into account.
MR. ALESSI: So are you saying, sir, that if you have the wrong trip with the wrong key cycle, you can get the correct Techstream event?
MR. WELCHER: No, not necessarily. Again, you just — you have to take the totality of the data.
MR. ALESSI: My question is: if you have the wrong trip with the wrong key cycle, then your estimate of when the Techstream event occurred will also be wrong. Isn't that just a matter of logic, sir?
MR. WELCHER: So again, the Techstream event tells you the trip and it tells you the time. If you're saying I'm associating that with the wrong infotainment information, or vice versa, then that would be wrong. But the Techstream data tells you how much time is associated with each trip. There's no difference there.
MR. ALESSI: If you associate the wrong trip with the wrong key cycle, then your estimate of where the Techstream event occurred will be wrong. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: You can't associate the wrong event with the wrong key cycle because it keys in the key cycle with the event.
MR. ALESSI: Let me try it a different way. Your analysis — or anyone's analysis — and conclusions regarding the timing and the location of the Techstream data are only as good as your ability to correctly associate a key cycle with a particular event. Is that an accurate statement?
MR. WELCHER: No. Again, you need to take the totality of the data. So that is one element. You need to look, for example, at the mileage. You need to look at the timing of the events. So this is considered a tool in the analysis process. You need to look at the totality of data to see how it matches up with the physical evidence.
MR. ALESSI: So are you saying that you can have an incorrect key cycle with a particular trip, but you can still get accurate timing and location of Techstream data?
MR. WELCHER: So again, you don't get incorrect key cycle with the trip. The trip and the key cycle are coded in by the Techstream. If you are attributing an event to the wrong trip, which has a fixed key cycle, that could be a problem.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. So if we could — your honor, if we could publish a slide, please, that is in evidence.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. What are we — what are we looking at? Pardon me. Slide number — I've got slide nine. Mr. Woll, if I — yes, I've got the correct one. Thank you, your honor. So I'm going to use the acronym VCH that you've used on your — do you recall using the acronym VCH on your direct testimony?
MR. WELCHER: Yes, sir.
MR. ALESSI: And VCH stands for vehicle control history. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: You viewed the vehicle control history on September 23rd of 2024. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: In addition to the PCS data, I viewed the vehicle control history on September 23rd, 2024.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. That is — yes. You took photographs of the vehicle control history, including key cycle 1167. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And in this screenshot, we can see four Techstream events. Actually, can you zoom in on the key cycle? woll/tech: Oh, sure.
MR. WELCHER: Because I think when I got to — no, scroll. So when I got to it, you can see it was at key cycle 1264. The blue highlight was the last file that was written on key cycle 1167. Right? So to answer your question, I got it at 1264. So we can go back so we can see the four Techstream events.
MR. ALESSI: I just want to reestablish the foundation here. In this screenshot, we can see four Techstream events that are associated with key cycle 1167. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: But isn't it true, Dr. Welcher, that there were actually 10 Techstream events associated with just that one key cycle 1167?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. I gave you the original files.
MR. ALESSI: Right. So you were aware that the Commonwealth had maintained up until your firm's engagement that— ADA McLAUGHLIN/LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Are you saying there's no basis for the question? All right, I'm going to allow the question, and I'll hear it.
MR. ALESSI: You are aware that the Commonwealth has maintained up until your engagement in September of 2024 that all Techstream events associated with key cycles 1164, 1165, and 1167 occurred while the Lexus was in the custody of the Massachusetts State Police at the Canton Police Department.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So the objection is sustained. You need a foundation, Mr. Alessi.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, as part of your work in your review of the many documents that you referenced on your direct examination, did you review the Techstream events associated with the Lexus SUV?
MR. WELCHER: I reviewed the one I downloaded. Pardon me. I reviewed the one I downloaded.
MR. ALESSI: Right. And did what you download include key cycle 1164? Did it include that?
MR. WELCHER: It did.
MR. ALESSI: Did it include 1165?
MR. WELCHER: It did.
MR. ALESSI: And did it include 1167?
MR. WELCHER: It did. It did not include 1166.
MR. ALESSI: I didn't mention 1166, sir. I only mentioned 1164, 1165, and 1167.
MR. WELCHER: I purposefully skipped because I didn't understand you had reviewed it.
MR. ALESSI: So here's my question. You therefore — based upon the fact that you reviewed them — you said it's important to understand timing, etc. That's very important in your forensic
MR. WELCHER: You asked me two questions. Newton's first law is generally — as you said — it could be at rest or at constant velocity, but yes, okay. And Newton's second law is generally just a mathematical calculation. Correct. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So what I'd like to do is turn to page 11 of your report. And on page 11, you discuss the force calculation in conjunction with the part of your report where you discuss your experiment where you dropped a test dummy backwards. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Analysis. Correct. Yes, sir.
MR. ALESSI: So let's go to the timing question in the — and you understand where the Lexus has been at various points in time. You testified to that on direct — whether it was at the Canton Police Department, whether it was being towed. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: In addition to having Mr. Burgess's analysis of the data — in addition to Mr. Burgess's analysis —
MR. ALESSI: So that analysis contained locations of where the Lexus had been.
MR. WELCHER: It contained where it had been, and also included date and time when it was turned on, when it was turned off.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. So not only did you have all the locations, you had dates and times associated with the location where the SUV, the Lexus SUV, had been.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Now, to the question — based upon that review, that knowledge, that understanding, that base, those bases —
MR. WELCHER: Mhm.
MR. ALESSI: You're aware — and you've reviewed, by the way, Trooper Paul's reports. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: I have.
MR. ALESSI: There were two reports of Trooper Paul. There was his original CARS report and then a supplemental report that were listed in the documents you reviewed. Do you recall that?
MR. WELCHER: I don't recall that, but I'll take your word for it.
MR. ALESSI: I don't want you to have to take my word. Do you recall, sir, that there were reports? Do you recall that there was a report of Trooper Paul?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. And you read that report, I assume, sir.
MR. WELCHER: I did.
MR. ALESSI: And it would be important for you to read that report and read it carefully, because it addressed the subject matter that you were addressing. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. No, I did it in my own independent analysis. As a matter of fact, it probably would be more important that I don't do that, to avoid confirmation bias.
MR. ALESSI: But you did read Trooper Paul's report, right?
MR. WELCHER: Of course.
MR. ALESSI: So you're therefore aware that the Commonwealth has maintained, up until your engagement —
MR. WELCHER: Yeah.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see you at sidebar on this. May I?
MR. ALESSI: Yes. Thank you. Are you aware that over the course of the Commonwealth's and your investigation — into this case that the theorized time of the alleged contact of the SUV?
MR. BRENNAN: So there's two words to strike — "theorized."
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Thank you, Ron.
MR. ALESSI: Are you aware that over the course of the Commonwealth's investigation and your —
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Alessi, the court reporter will come to you. Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. I will. Thank you.
MR. BRENNAN: I'll object again to the question that's coming.
MR. ALESSI: Can I begin my question?
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask a question.
MR. ALESSI: Sure. Do you have knowledge whether there is one time or more than one time for the Commonwealth's position — as you know it from reading documents that you said you've reviewed — that there are different times alleged for the incident to have occurred at 34 Fairview?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You can ask the question — remove part of it.
MR. ALESSI: I'm sorry.
JUDGE CANNONE: You have to remove part of that.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Understood. Your honor, do you know whether there is more than one time that has been proposed by the Commonwealth for the impact alleged to have occurred at 34 Fairview?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. ALESSI: I'm going to ask for an instruction.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm not giving the instruction now. Dr. Welcher, in terms of the analyses that you have reviewed in this case, is there one time that you understand there to be for a hypothesis for the time of the impact at 34 Fairview?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see you again, folks.
MR. ALESSI: I'm sorry about that. Excuse me. Yeah, your honor. Yes. Thank you. I'm going to move past that for the moment. We'll come back to the other topic a little bit later. As we discussed earlier, you've got — on various documents — you're a biomechanical engineer, but I've also heard you make reference to biomed. Can you just tell me what you consider yourself, sir? Is "biomechanical engineer" something you consider yourself to be?
MR. WELCHER: Sure. My degrees are in biomedical engineering. The discipline within biomedical engineering that I practice is biomechanics.
MR. ALESSI: Right. And so is it accurate to say that you are a biomechanical engineer?
MR. WELCHER: Yes. And you say that much in your report.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. And the CV and resume I gave you.
MR. WELCHER: Right.
MR. ALESSI: Now, in your report — and your honor, I have no issue if he refers to the page of his report. Do you have a paper copy, or do you need your —
MR. WELCHER: I do.
MR. ALESSI: If you, sir, could turn to page nine of your report.
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: And on page nine you state, "As a biomechanical engineer, I have no opinion on any aspect of" — and I think you're referring to Mr. O'Keefe's medical treatment or medical diagnosis — "I have conducted an accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering analysis of this matter." Did I read that correctly?
MR. WELCHER: You did.
MR. ALESSI: In that statement, I assume, given you wrote it, it's a fair representation of your professional role in this case.
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And you go on to add on page nine, "My biomechanical engineering analysis is determining the effects of physical forces on the human anatomy." Did I read that correctly?
MR. WELCHER: You did.
MR. ALESSI: And on your direct examination, is it correct that you stated — as a civil engineer, you made an analogy? You assess the cables and beams of a bridge as you would assess the cables and beams of a bridge; you assess the human anatomy. You made that analogy. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: The analogy that bones are my bridge elements. Cables are muscles and ligaments, right?
MR. ALESSI: And you stated that it's the job of a biomechanical engineer to quantify the force acting upon a person to determine the cause of their injuries. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: That is part of what we do.
MR. ALESSI: It's part — but it is therefore something that a biomechanical engineer does. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Given sufficient data.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. So — do you know what a force calculation is, sir, when I refer to that term?
MR. WELCHER: I believe so.
MR. ALESSI: What do you believe it to be?
MR. WELCHER: Well, force is usually a physical measurement, but you can also use Newton's second law, which is force equals mass times acceleration.
MR. ALESSI: That's exactly what I wanted to get to. Newton's second law — okay — is sometimes referred to as the second law of motion. And the second law is force equals mass times acceleration. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And just sort of like simple algebra, sometimes you have one or more of those. But I'm focusing on when you're trying to determine — sir, you're pulling something out.
MR. WELCHER: Calculator. I thought you were going to ask me numbers, do calculations.
MR. ALESSI: All right. We need to — we're going to do that. We need to do it with the court's permission. So if you feel you need to do that, just let me know. You just leave it right there. So I just want to get the principles down first. So
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: You determined that at a fall of 69 inches — at that fall — Mr. O'Keefe's head would have accelerated with 458 G's of force.
MR. WELCHER: That's what we actually measured, right?
MR. ALESSI: And can you tell the jury what is meant by G's?
MR. WELCHER: So G's is a measure of acceleration. If you take — usually acceleration is measured in feet per second squared. If you divide it by 1g, which is 32.174 feet per second squared, that gives it to you in G's. People have often heard about fighter pilots losing consciousness at 6 or 7 G's — basically because your blood's getting sucked away from your head, not because you're being impacted. But G forces, or G's as they're more properly called, is a measure of the acceleration. It's just whatever the acceleration is divided by what we all feel when we're standing here, which is one g of gravity.
MR. ALESSI: And you estimated Mr. O'Keefe's head weight of approximately 15.7 pounds — you used a percentage. Is 15.7 about right for the mass of the head? So if we apply Newton's second law, we keep F — force — open as the unknown. We take and apply the mass, which is 15.7, multiply it by the acceleration. You end up with a force acting upon Mr. O'Keefe's head of 7,200 pounds. Do I have that right?
MR. WELCHER: That's right out of your report.
MR. ALESSI: So that math is all correct. Falling backwards onto a hard surface from his standing height will give you approximately 7,200 pounds of force. And that 7,200 pounds is the previously unknown F in Newton's second law equation. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: So now we have an answer for F: 7,200 pounds. Now you then go on to note that the applicable scientific literature states that a fracture to the occipital bone — and just to review, the occipital bone is the back of the head, right here. Right?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: So you then — as I understand it — you go to scientific literature, and you concluded that a fracture to the occipital bone can occur with an average force of 1,634 pounds from a fall distance of 40 inches. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. How many inches?
MR. ALESSI: 440.
MR. WELCHER: That's in your report. Well, you mixed two things together. There was stuff that reported force data. You had those numbers correct: a range of between 1,150 and 2,150, a mean of 1,634 pounds. And then it says a drop distance as low as 40 inches. Right.
MR. ALESSI: And is the number 634 pounds a proper number for an average force?
MR. WELCHER: Did you say 1,634 pounds?
MR. ALESSI: 1,634. Yes. Okay. So, what I want to do is see if this is correct. So, if you can get a fracture of the occipital bone in an average force of 634 pounds.
MR. WELCHER: No, no, no. 1,634.
MR. ALESSI: I thought that's what I said. If I did, I missed.
MR. WELCHER: Oh, I'm sorry. I just heard 634.
MR. ALESSI: No. 1,634. My apologies. And you compare that to the 7,200 pounds of force that you calculated, surely you're going to have a fracture of the occipital bones through that calculation in that comparison. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Falling on a hard surface can definitely fracture your skull.
MR. ALESSI: So, I'm not getting at the manner. I'm just applying Newton's second law. Newton's second law doesn't look at manner, does it?
MR. WELCHER: It just looks at force equals mass times acceleration.
MR. ALESSI: Newton's second law doesn't look at the surface, does it?
MR. WELCHER: So, it's a function of the surface. The A value is a function of the surface you hit.
MR. ALESSI: So, you're saying acceleration depends upon the surface?
MR. WELCHER: Yes, of course. For an impact, it does.
MR. ALESSI: Now, let's go to the study you cited. "Injuries to pedestrians in real accidents in their relation to collision and car characteristics." That's in your report, correct?
MR. WELCHER: Which — what reference number?
MR. ALESSI: May I, your honor, grab the report?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. If you can — it's in your report, sir. If you can find it, I'll do it in parallel with you. Is it number 25?
MR. WELCHER: That's the one I think it is. I just want to check your report.
MR. ALESSI: Would you like me to actually pull up the paper?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Just want to get to that. That's it. Number 25. We're talking about the same one. Now, isn't it true that this study states that head injuries are the most common injury type for motor vehicle collisions, constituting more than 61% of all injuries sustained from motor vehicle collisions?
MR. LALLY: Can the witness see the document that's being referred to?
MR. ALESSI: Do you have your report in front of you?
MR. WELCHER: I have my report, but reference 25 is not in the section he's referring to.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you show it to him, Mr. Alessi?
MR. ALESSI: I do not have with me a copy of the report he cites in his reference. [unintelligible] Can I ask another question?
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: Dr. Welcher, on your direct testimony, did you not discuss the percentage of pedestrian injuries and relate it to heads? Did you not on your direct talk about percentages of injuries that are head injuries in impacts of pedestrians with cars?
MR. WELCHER: Yes, I did.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, you came up with a number. What I'm trying to do is to compare that number to the number in the study that you cite. If you don't remember, that's okay. We'll just move to the next question. Can I go to my slide? Whatever you can use to determine what was the percentage that's in the study that you cite in footnote 25 of your report.
MR. WELCHER: Sure. That was also from my presentation that I gave. It's 61.5 for all injuries, 12.7 for fatal injuries.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. So, I'll repeat my question and then we'll work through it logically. So, that study states that head injuries are the most common injury type from motor vehicle collisions, constituting slightly more than 61% of all injuries sustained from motor vehicle collisions. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: That number is correct. You're quoting a sentence. I would want to pull the paper up, but the number is correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, doesn't this article also state that of all head injuries sustained from motor vehicle collisions, only 12.7% of them are fatal?
MR. WELCHER: That does. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Did you mention that only 12.7% are fatal on your direct examination?
MR. WELCHER: It's circled with a red box on my slide.
MR. ALESSI: Did you mention that on your testimony on direct?
MR. WELCHER: I thought I did.
MR. ALESSI: This article was published back in 1979. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: I believe that's correct.
MR. ALESSI: It's 46 years old. Therefore, if I did the math correct, right?
MR. WELCHER: That sounds correct.
MR. ALESSI: Are you aware that given advancements in science since 1979, advancements in medicine, advancements in technology, the currently understood most common injuries as a result of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions are injuries to the lower extremities?
MR. WELCHER: I'd have to see the study. It wouldn't surprise me. Car technology, especially for example with pedestrian safety systems, has caused autonomous braking. So you're getting fewer higher severity crashes, which results in a higher propensity for lower extremity injuries. It's the higher severity crash that causes the head to either slap into the hood or the window and or bounce off, to where if you get the lower severity crashes you can still maintain a standing posture. So it wouldn't surprise me if that's accurate.
MR. ALESSI: So you would agree that as of January 2022, the most common injury as a result of a pedestrian motor vehicle collision is one to lower extremities?
MR. WELCHER: No, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that date. And again, you have to look at frontals versus rears.
MR. ALESSI: So you contest that the most commonly understood injury as a result of a pedestrian motor vehicle collision is injuries to lower extremities?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow the question.
MR. WELCHER: I'd want to see the data again. Most cars — for example, this Lexus has a pre-collision system in it that will start to apply the brakes if it senses a pedestrian at the front of the car. And so for frontal collisions, it's transitioning, taking what were head injuries because they're more severe, higher speed crashes, making them lower speed crashes, and shifting the injuries to the lower extremities, just like airbags shifted the head injuries away from the severe ones, and we started getting more or higher ankle and lower leg injuries. So the change in the technology — but for backing, that may not be the case because you have different geometry on the vehicles and you have different safety systems.
MR. ALESSI: I'll try it a different way. Do you have knowledge as you sit here today whether the most common injury from a motor vehicle accident is to the lower extremities?
MR. WELCHER: I'd have to look at the literature. I don't have the article I gave you.
MR. ALESSI: So the answer is you don't know the answer to that question. Is that correct, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know it off the top of my head.
MR. ALESSI: All right. The Newton's second law analysis that we went through — force equals mass times acceleration — where we came up with the 7,200 number. You didn't discuss that calculation on your direct examination, did you?
MR. WELCHER: I don't think so. We didn't discuss a whole bunch of those things that were — that wasn't necessarily an opinion. That was a sub-opinion or basis for my opinion.
MR. ALESSI: You didn't discuss that Newton's law calculation on your direct examination, did you, sir?
MR. WELCHER: So in a way I did because I said my drop testing shows that you can do this. So I didn't quote that number, but we are going through the specific numbers now. But I absolutely did say — and as a matter of fact I showed a video of my drop testing and talked about how falling onto a rigid surface, a hard surface, can cause a skull fracture.
MR. ALESSI: Did you discuss on your direct examination applying 15.7 of the head weight to 458 Gs and come up with a number of 7,200? Did you do that on your direct examination?
MR. WELCHER: Those specific numbers? No. The general concept of the drop testing and what it showed. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So instead of that calculation, you referred to a flowchart comparing injury characteristics of falls versus blows. Do you recall doing that on your direct?
MR. WELCHER: So you asked me two questions. He said "instead of" — so that's no, it's not instead of. They're two completely different topics. So no, I didn't do that instead of.
MR. ALESSI: Okay.
MR. WELCHER: I looked at a force analysis. Then I looked at three peer-reviewed publications that were attempting to differentiate whether an injury associated with a fall or a blow — an assault — and they came up with a metric for doing that. Those things are completely separate.
MR. ALESSI: Let's ask it this way. Did you, on your slide presentation that you presented to this jury, put the inputs into F = M × A in your slide presentation with the numbers we talked about — 15.7 for the M and 458 for the G — to come up with 7,200? Was that anywhere on your slide presentation?
MR. WELCHER: So, the slide presentation showed the 458 Gs. The rest of it was not on there.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you.
MR. WELCHER: You're welcome.
MR. ALESSI: You also indicated that the laceration above Mr. O'Keefe's right eye is consistent with the shape and height of the fin on top of the Lexus SUV. Do you recall that?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. It's actually probably called a spoiler. And so you
MR. ALESSI: Would call it a spoiler instead of a fin.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Fair enough. We'll call it a spoiler. You visited the scene at 34 Fairview. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: I did.
MR. ALESSI: You stated that you like to visit the scene while you're working as an accident reconstructionist so you can get a better understanding of the data.
MR. WELCHER: I like to use the word "like," but we want to go to the scene to look, to see the scene.
MR. ALESSI: When you visited 34 Fairview, did you go into the garage at 34 Fairview?
MR. WELCHER: No, I actually didn't set foot on the property.
MR. ALESSI: You didn't set foot on the property?
MR. WELCHER: No, I stayed in the street. It's my understanding there were new owners.
MR. ALESSI: Did you consider the scene limited to the road?
MR. WELCHER: So, the access I had was to the road. The laser scanners and the photographs will extend further, but I didn't have access to the interior of the house.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, so you didn't access the entire scene.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. In my opinion, I did access the entire scene. I didn't physically step 7 feet onto the grass to the point of rest, but I stood and photographed where that was. I didn't want to trespass.
MR. ALESSI: Where did you understand the body of Mr. O'Keefe was located?
MR. WELCHER: I know it's 7 feet in from the grass. I've seen cruiser cameras showing people around a body. It's slightly north — and I guess — or excuse me, slightly south and a little
MR. ALESSI: But you didn't access that part of the scene that you just described.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. I absolutely did. I took photographs of him. I didn't trespass and stand at that exact location, but I stood right there. We scanned the whole thing. The scanner uses a laser beam that goes out, you know, 150, 200, 300 ft. So, we scanned all that stuff.
MR. ALESSI: Did your scan scan topography?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Then you know that there is a berm raised above street level.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: If you did the scan — correct? Do you know the height of that berm?
MR. WELCHER: I believe it's 4 in.
MR. ALESSI: Nowhere in your report. When you're comparing the height of Mr. O'Keefe to the spoiler, do you account for that 4 in of the berm? Do you?
MR. WELCHER: So, yes and no. As I indicated, we don't know exactly where the point of impact is, whether he was completely in the road or up on the berm, but for example, where the tire spins on the Lexus, that could be where she's driving up on the curb. And so then that tire would be at the height of the curb. So if he's standing on the higher part and the right rear tire of the Lexus goes up there and spins, then that would be at the same height. We don't know the exact point of impact. So I don't know whether he was on the road or — excuse me — on the street or on the side of the road exactly.
MR. ALESSI: But when you did your depiction on your slide — you remember you had the ruler and you measured the height — was it you in that slide?
MR. WELCHER: It was.
MR. ALESSI: Where were your feet?
MR. WELCHER: On the ground.
MR. ALESSI: Not on the berm.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So you chose a measurement which was the ground to the top of the spoiler, and you took a measurement and you said that the height approximates the height of Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Of the laceration of Mr. O'Keefe. Exactly. Because what you were doing was you were trying to determine and present testimony on whether or not that laceration could be caused by the spoiler. And to do so, you had to take measurements.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. So, you chose to place Mr. O'Keefe in your simulation on the ground. You didn't choose to put him on a berm that would be 4 in higher, did you?
MR. WELCHER: Nor did I put the Lexus 4 in higher. I didn't do either one of those.
MR. ALESSI: So the point is it's certainly possible that if there's four to five more inches that would take that eye out of the ability to be hit by the spoiler. Isn't that correct?
MR. WELCHER: No. Because if it's four to five inches higher and he leans his head down or reacts to it — again, we don't know the exact position of his head.
MR. ALESSI: Did you in your slide yesterday describe the possibility that his head could be down? You're — as I understand it, you're positioning that photo just like this. You're not positioned like that in any photo you presented to the jury, were you?
MR. WELCHER: I'm trying to make it clear, we don't know his exact body position at the point of impact, nor do we know the exact position on the ground. So, which is part of the reason why I haven't tried to exactly simulate this because we don't have enough parameters to do that. So, I don't have that information. I'm showing the geometry relative to someone of Mr. O'Keefe's height.
MR. ALESSI: So you don't have the information to do that properly. So therefore, you can't conclude that he had a laceration to the eye from the spoiler, by your own answer that you just gave.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. So it was done properly. We don't have absolute information to say where exactly he was. I'm pointing out that the physical evidence, the height matches the height of the laceration. That is one data point of many data points.
MR. ALESSI: So you would have to at least concede that the level of his eye could be [unintelligible] because you don't have information as you just described. Is this correct?
MR. WELCHER: It could be from contacting the ground.
MR. ALESSI: Pardon me.
MR. WELCHER: It could be from contacting the ground. It could be from other things.
MR. ALESSI: But you don't have the information necessary to conclude with any certainty that Mr. O'Keefe at the time of impact had a level of his head in an upright such that it hit that spoiler. You don't have that information.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. We don't have that level of certainty. We have that the height and geometry matches.
MR. ALESSI: And you didn't take into consideration the berm, and you didn't mention the berm at all when you were discussing this measurement with the jury yesterday.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. That is not correct. You asked me two questions. I absolutely considered the berm — [unintelligible] — when I presented to the jury, I mentioned the berm when we showed the picture of the shoe in the snow, but that was it.
MR. ALESSI: That's my question. I'll ask it a different way. When we were talking — not about finding a shoe in the snow and you mentioned a berm — I'm talking about when you did the measurement of whether or not the laceration could be caused by the spoiler. You didn't mention accounting for berm height when you discussed that measurement with the jury, did you?
MR. WELCHER: That is correct.
MR. ALESSI: Likewise, you didn't present any Newton's second law analysis regarding the front of Mr. O'Keefe's head with respect to whether his head was contacted by that spoiler. Did you?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Again, it was a glancing hit. We wouldn't be able to do that.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, so now it's a glancing hit. To the front of the head is your hypothesis — this whole pedestrian impact is a glancing hit.
MR. WELCHER: So you can have your arm to the side like this with the back of the vehicle coming like this. And you could glance the right eye with the arm out.
MR. ALESSI: Is that what you're saying?
MR. WELCHER: That's what my picture shows when I'm standing next to the car. I could probably find the slide for you.
MR. ALESSI: So, you didn't do a force analysis to determine how much force would be applied assuming a contact with the right eye, did you?
MR. WELCHER: That's correct.
MR. ALESSI: And force analysis is what biomechanists do.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: That's what a biomechanist does.
MR. WELCHER: That is part of what they do. So, I lined up his anthropometry relative to the known height of the vehicle.
MR. ALESSI: You attempted to line it up. That's one method. But another method is to apply Newton's second law like you did to the back of the head when he fell.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct. If we had more information—
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Alessi, why don't we break here?
MR. ALESSI: Thank you, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Jurors, your lunches are here. Goodbye. Let's
PARENTHETICAL: [break]
COURT OFFICER: Please be seated. Court is in session.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead, Mr. Alessi. Whenever you're ready.
MR. ALESSI: Just take a moment, your honor, to reorient. I'll be right. Good afternoon, Dr. Welcher.
MR. WELCHER: Good afternoon.
MR. ALESSI: I see you again.
MR. WELCHER: Same.
MR. ALESSI: We had left off talking about some examples of Newton's second law and the application of it and the parlance of force equals mass times acceleration. And I now want to continue on with that discussion. It is correct that you can conduct a force analysis on any part of the body.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. I mean it's more difficult on internal — with live people — like if you wanted, like, my appendix, I really necessarily couldn't.
MR. ALESSI: Let's talk about the musculoskeletal system, the outside bones. You can conduct a force analysis—
MR. WELCHER: Your bones are on the inside.
MR. ALESSI: I — sir, if I could finish my question, please.
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: You can conduct a force analysis on any bone in the body.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. More or less. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So the force analysis — I use as a synonym with Newton's second law — is not exclusive to the head.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: You can do it on other bones in the body.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: On direct examination — your direct examination here — you did not present a force calculation representing what you alleged to be contact between the vehicle and Mr. O'Keefe's right arm. Did you?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And nowhere in your report do you present a force calculation for Mr. O'Keefe's right arm, do you?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. We didn't have enough information to do it.
MR. ALESSI: We're going to get to that. Now, given that you stated that, quote, determining the effects of physical forces on the human anatomy, end quote, is the job of a biomechanical engineer — you must have conducted several force calculations related to accidents involving humans in your career. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Hundreds. Hundreds.
MR. ALESSI: Now, you didn't present a force calculation in your materials — as you've stated on direct — with regard to the arm. And I'll include in the right arm going from the shoulder all the way to the tip of the hand. Okay. So that's my definition of a right arm. You didn't present any force calculation on that part of the body of Mr. O'Keefe, did you?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Assume M — and we're going to apply Newton's second law. Assume Mr. O'Keefe's hand weighed seven pounds. So that's the M in F=MA.
MR. WELCHER: That's not a good assumption.
MR. ALESSI: Well, what number would you like to apply for an M for the hand of Mr. O'Keefe? I'll take any number you got. Just the hand. Just the hand.
MR. WELCHER: Oh. The whole arm of Mr. O'Keefe weighs approximately 12 pounds.
MR. ALESSI: Okay, fair enough. So the whole arm — from the shoulder down to the tip of the fingers — is about 12 lbs.
MR. WELCHER: Right. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So assume that the Lexus SUV was traveling at 20 miles an hour. All right. Under your theory going backwards. 20 miles an hour. And the third variable I'd like to give you is to assume an impact window of 10 milliseconds. Okay. Can you calculate the G's of force from that data?
MR. WELCHER: No, you need more information.
MR. ALESSI: Well, let me ask you this. What more information would you need?
MR. WELCHER: So, we talked about the glancing impact.
MR. ALESSI: I'm talking about a force calculation of an impact, not as to whether it's glancing or not. So, you want a direct head-on impact into the arm, not a glancing hit to where the Lexus comes in, hits the arm, and they
MR. WELCHER: Continue off together.
MR. ALESSI: I'd like to start with that, but just so we can hopefully expedite it for the jury. Okay. I'm going to want to get to what you have depicted in your diagram of holding the arm out, and that's not a glancing impact. Is that sort of with the right arm in parallel with the back of the Lexus?
MR. WELCHER: Yes, it is.
MR. ALESSI: So really what —
MR. WELCHER: interrupts
MR. ALESSI: I'm sorry, let me finish please.
MR. WELCHER: What you're concerned about is where the center of mass is. With the center of mass out towards the corner of the car, that becomes a glancing contact. So you don't have a center of mass contact. You have a glancing contact.
MR. ALESSI: Okay, fair enough. But so let's start the first force calculation.
MR. WELCHER: I need my calculator.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to let him use his calculator.
MR. ALESSI: Sure. Okay. Tell me when you're ready. Go ahead.
MR. WELCHER: So let's take a scenario where it's a center of impact — center of mass. Center of mass impact. Right. Okay. Impact to the right arm. Okay. Let's start with that one. Okay. And you want me to use like a 10 millisecond?
MR. ALESSI: Yeah, be conservative. Yeah, let's use a 10 millisecond for the impact window. Okay. Question. What do you get for F of force in the F = MA calculation?
MR. WELCHER: About 2,188 lb. I made a triangular crash pulse assumption, right?
MR. ALESSI: And if you took the milliseconds in half, become less conservative, would you end up doubling the 2,188 number?
MR. WELCHER: If you cut it in half, you would double.
MR. ALESSI: Yes, exactly. Through a simple mathematical, semi-algebraic application of the numbers, correct? You divide.
MR. WELCHER: We're doing a little simplification in terms of the crash pulse shape, but generally yes.
MR. ALESSI: Right. So, but let's take the conservative number — the lower number, 2,188 — that you came up with. Do you know from the literature, as you did with the head, you went to the literature and said this is how much pounds of force —
MR. WELCHER: Yeah.
MR. ALESSI: — you would have to have to cause a break at the occipital bone. Do you know from the literature how much force it would take to break an arm bone?
MR. WELCHER: I have an idea. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: What is your idea?
MR. WELCHER: So, for a distributed load such as this, not a concentrated load, you're going to need somewhere between — I've seen, and this is for cadaver tests — a low of like 2,500, maybe a little lower, to a high of 7,000.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, you have switched, haven't you? We're talking about center of mass impact. Did you in your calculation just switch to a sideswipe impact to do your calculation? I'm asking about a center of mass impact. How much force would you need? Let's start with the hand. Maybe it's a simpler one. Do you know how much force it takes to break — excuse me — any of the hand bones, the — you know what I'm referring to — the phalanges, the metacarpals, and the carpals?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: How much pounds of force do you need to break any one of those bones?
MR. WELCHER: Actually, I — I didn't find any distributed loading on the amount of force. I don't know.
MR. ALESSI: No, no, I understand, but I'm asking — do you know from the literature — not a calculation — doesn't the literature tell you — can't you go to the literature like you did with the head, and you say, okay, to break the occipital bone the literature says you need a minimum amount of force of this? I'm asking you the same question for the hand. If you don't know, it's okay, but do you know what the literature says for how much force is needed to break a bone in the hand?
MR. WELCHER: So for a distributed load across the hand, there are distributed load tests that show you need over 300 gs on the arm to do that. So it would depend on the mass of the hand.
MR. ALESSI: What is the range of force that you would need to break a bone in the hand? Do you know from the literature? If you don't, that's okay.
MR. WELCHER: I could probably figure it out.
MR. ALESSI: How long would it take you to figure it out? Do you know from the literature what that number is?
MR. WELCHER: Not off the top of my head. No.
MR. ALESSI: Is 300 to 400 lb of force — does that sound right from the literature — as the force it would take to break a bone in the hand for a distributed load such as the tail light?
MR. WELCHER: No, no, no.
MR. ALESSI: Not a distributed load. A load from a motor vehicle going backwards, right?
MR. WELCHER: That's a distributed load, right?
MR. ALESSI: So, you're saying 300 to 400 lb of force would not be enough to break any bone in the hand. Is that your answer?
MR. WELCHER: So, for a flat distributed load, like hitting the tail light, you're going to need higher.
MR. ALESSI: How about another part of the back of the vehicle?
MR. WELCHER: Um, I guess if you hit on the very corner and it wasn't a distributed impact — like if you had a more concentrated impact — yes, that could increase or decrease the amount of force required.
MR. ALESSI: How much would it decrease it from the number you gave?
MR. WELCHER: Depends on what you're hitting, what it's made out of.
MR. ALESSI: The Lexus SUV. Let's assume —
MR. WELCHER: I'm sorry, Mr. — can you repeat the question?
MR. ALESSI: Absolutely. Thank you. Let's assume we're talking about this Lexus SUV.
MR. WELCHER: Mhm.
MR. ALESSI: Right. Let me back up. You don't know where exactly, under your theory, that there was a contact. You don't know — [unintelligible] — you don't know exactly where that point of contact is.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: You don't know.
MR. WELCHER: Except it's on the tail light.
MR. ALESSI: Well, you're saying it's on the tail light, but you didn't observe any impact yourself personally, right?
MR. WELCHER: Did I see Ms. Read's Lexus?
MR. ALESSI: You didn't see the impact.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. That is correct.
MR. ALESSI: So, and there is no firsthand witness that saw, under your view, that a collision occurred. There's no witness to say where the arm was.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: There's no person that saw it.
MR. WELCHER: Right.
MR. ALESSI: And you have chosen a point of contact. Okay. You chose that for your analysis.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And you picked that location. But it's also possible that under your theory that a collision occurred, that arm could have been impacted at any part of the back of the vehicle. That's possible, isn't it?
MR. WELCHER: That's not probable.
MR. ALESSI: No. I'm asking is it possible?
MR. WELCHER: Anything is possible. I don't deal in possibilities. I deal in probabilities. It's not probable.
MR. ALESSI: So, but you don't know exactly where the point of impact was — so, within the range of the light and the exact angle of the hand.
MR. WELCHER: No, I don't. What I do know is at the rear tail light area.
MR. ALESSI: So, your assumption is that because there's a tail light that is altered, it must have been by Mr. O'Keefe's arm. That's your conclusion.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. My conclusion is there are tail light fragments, broken glass, lacerations to his arm, and his DNA on the back of the vehicle in the area of the tail light.
MR. ALESSI: Sir — I'm going to move to strike the DNA part of that answer for obvious reasons.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah, I'm not going to strike it.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, you're making assumptions. You're taking what you view to be certain data and you're coming to a conclusion, but that is based upon circumstantial information. Correct. Is that fair?
MR. WELCHER: Are you calling pieces of the tail light at the scene around his body circumstantial information?
MR. ALESSI: Sir, let me — let's go back to the force analysis. Let's go back to the numbers. I want to stay on, if we can, just the calculation. So, let's go back to the minimum amount of force you understand from the literature that it takes to break any bone in the arm from the finger up. Let's start with the hand. What's the minimum amount of force that can be applied to break a bone in the hand?
MR. WELCHER: So, it depends on the loading. I — I don't actually know. In terms of the forearm, I can tell you there's data that shows up to 300 gs of loading, you will not get fractures. There's one up to 750 gs showing no fractures for a male of similar height and weight of Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you.
MR. WELCHER: You're welcome.
MR. ALESSI: So, let's take those numbers. Okay. You said 300 and 750. Did I hear it correctly?
MR. WELCHER: You did.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Those are the numbers you gave that would break a bone.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: So, the 300 actually didn't break any bones.
MR. WELCHER: I believe the 750 — the one example — didn't break a bone, but as you got above 350, you started to break bones.
MR. ALESSI: So, you got above 350. 300.
MR. WELCHER: 300.
MR. ALESSI: Above 300. Yeah, because that's what I thought you said the first time. You got above 300, you start to get breaking bones.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And so if you take that 300 number and compare it to the 2,188 lbs of force, you have 7 times the amount of force necessary to break the bone.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. In the force analysis, no. If you take 300 gs times a 12-pound arm, you get 3,600 lb. The calculation you asked me to run earlier gave you 2,188 lb. Right? So you are 1,412 lb above the force required — the tolerance is 1,412 pounds above the force you would get in a 20 mph impact, in terms of the fracture forces.
MR. ALESSI: Let's do it this way. I'm sorry. Let's do it this way. The force that you calculated from my hypothetical of this Lexus SUV going backwards — you came up with the F number of 2,188.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: I'm sorry. I didn't —
MR. WELCHER: What was the — you said — you said "dyslexic" or did you say "Lexus"? I didn't understand what you said.
MR. ALESSI: The Lexus SUV that you've been talking about.
MR. WELCHER: Gotcha. Okay. I didn't hear.
MR. ALESSI: You came up with a number for F force of 2,188. Are you changing that number?
MR. WELCHER: Nope.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, let's go with your number of force from this vehicle of 2,188. I'm just simply asking how much force does it take to break a bone in the right arm of a human being? How much force, not acceleration, how much force does it take to break a bone in the right arm?
MR. WELCHER: Sure. So somewhere between 2,500 — the one cadaver test of the distributed load of someone of similar size and weight and actually close in age to Mr. O'Keefe showed about 7,000 lbs of force to break it.
MR. ALESSI: Let's go to the hand. Do you disagree that the literature shows it only takes 300 to 400 lb of force to break a bone in the hand? Do you disagree with that?
MR. WELCHER: Your question's too general. I can't answer your question. It depends on the loading. If I take my pencil, which has a very fine point, and jam it through my hand, I can jam it right through my hand because it's a very small point. But if I distribute the load — a broader load, such as hitting a tail light — it takes much more force because the load's distributed across it. It's like if I sit on the corner of my bed, I might sink in this far when I sit on the corner of my bed. But what happens when I spread my load out? When I lay on my bed like this, I don't sink in as far. Has my weight changed? And weight is basically force. No, but I've distributed it over a larger area. So for a given force, you get less sinking into the mattress.
MR. WELCHER: So if you hit a broad surface like a tail light or a wall like this, it takes much more force than if I were to take a singular small round object and jam it into the hand. That hurts. This does not.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. If you can't hear my question, if it's unclear, you tell me. For not a pen, not your bed, but for a Lexus SUV of 6,000 lb — is there any part of the back of the Lexus in any manner where you can get a break to the hand from 300 to 400 lb of force? Any part on the back of the Lexus?
MR. WELCHER: Yes, probably.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, probably — your words — you can get a break to the hand from just between 300 to 400 lb of force. That's what you just said, correct?
MR. WELCHER: So, you're taking the totality of the back of it, like if you got it stuck in the bumper potentially. Yeah. But from a tail light or a broad flat surface, no.
MR. ALESSI: I was asking about any part of the back of an SUV. You agree that it is probable that you can get a break of the handbones from just 300 to 400 lb of force.
MR. WELCHER: Your question is incomplete, right? You said any part of the back, but then you wanted me to not include tail lights or not include the rear body panel. If you hit a very narrow part of the car — like, say, the edge of the tailpipe — that creates much more of a narrow contact. So force divided by area is pressure. So if you have a very tiny area you have very high contact pressures. But if you distribute the load over a larger area, the number on the bottom of that fraction is much bigger. So your contact pressure drops. So hitting the edge of the exhaust pipe is going to have a much higher likelihood of causing a fracture than hitting flat against the tail light.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. What we're going to do to make this more efficient — sorry, sorry — Mr. Woll, can you pull up a slide from Mr. Woll's — or Dr. Welcher's presentation for the back of the Lexus, please? The back hatch. And your honor, may we publish that?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. Do you know what number though, Mr. Alessi?
MR. ALESSI: Mr. Woll does. And I know you need it. So he'll tell me before I publish and then we'll give you the number. Your honor, may I look here?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. I'm going to let Dr. Welcher look at his slide.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, sure. Here instead of just up there. The back hatch.
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Do you have one of just the rear gate? The one measuring the height. There we go. Thank you. Okay, this is your slide presentation. Is there any part of the back of the Lexus SUV that has that more concentrated area where if the hand hit it, 300 to 400 lb of force could break it? Is there any part? For example, the edge of the license plates, above the license plates — the L symbol that sticks out, that would be concentrated. Anything you see there — could 300 to 400 lb of force contacting at any of those points cause a fracture of any of the bones of the hand?
MR. WELCHER: So — I don't know how to show this — because the L in the middle photograph, right where the two is on the license plate. Yes, there's a vertical edge; that area is recessed in. So if you hit right on that vertical edge, that could potentially do it.
MR. ALESSI: That could do it. How about the L of the Lexus symbol?
MR. WELCHER: If the hand is there, no, it's not deep enough. The compliance of the hand — is this going to sink into the car?
MR. ALESSI: Is there any other part other than the license plate where the force applied would only need 300 to 400 lb of force to break the hand?
MR. WELCHER: Maybe the exhaust pipe, and potentially if you had your hand up near the spoiler.
MR. ALESSI: Right. So now let's go from 300 to 400. Let's go to the 2,188, which is your number. Use 2,188. Is there any place where with 2,188 force you could have a fracture of the hand on that back gate?
MR. WELCHER: Just to be clear, 2,188 is a number I calculated for you. It's not, quote, my number.
MR. ALESSI: I understand. But we did — I understand, but we did the calculation. Is there anywhere on the back of the vehicle where 2,188 could cause a fracture of the hand?
MR. WELCHER: So that was a forearm fracture tolerance I thought we were talking about, because we used a weight of the whole arm for that.
MR. ALESSI: We did. And my question is, is there anywhere in the back of the vehicle — in your opinion — that could cause a fracture? With that — I'm sorry, what?
MR. WELCHER: To the hand — to just the hand, or the whole arm?
MR. ALESSI: I'll take any part of the right arm. You call it the hand, the forearm — is there any part that could cause a fracture?
MR. WELCHER: So, probably similarly, if you got your forearm down near that transition — I don't know if you can see the little dot, I'm talking about this area.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. Yes. Right here. Yep.
MR. WELCHER: So, that transition between the two body panels — yes, that could potentially do it. That's back where the reverse lights are. I'd have to look at whether that would take it before breaking the plastic. And then, again, maybe if you hit the exhaust pipe as well — it's a much more narrow loading condition.
MR. ALESSI: How about the corner of the tail lamp?
MR. WELCHER: The corner of the tail lamp — I suppose, if you had just your hand on the very, very corner — potentially, potentially. But you didn't do any of
MR. ALESSI: But you didn't do any of that force analysis for this case for the hand.
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: But you did it for the head.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct. Because that I'm able to quantify.
MR. ALESSI: I just want to — I'm sorry, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, Mr. Woll.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Thank you. Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: You are aware, Dr. Welcher, that Mr. O'Keefe suffered no fractures of any kind in his hand. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. So there were no fractures noted in the autopsy report, but they didn't actually X-ray — from the records I've seen — either his hand or his arm. So there was, at least according to the autopsy report, no overt fractures, but the X-rays I saw, none of them were of the arm. And the autopsy report said no sternum, spine — I think it said torso. They didn't say that there were no fractures there.
MR. ALESSI: Was there any evidence in the medical records that you reviewed of any indication whatsoever of a fracture in Mr. O'Keefe's hand?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: Was there any indication whatsoever in any of the medical records you reviewed that there was a fracture of any bone in the right arm of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. WELCHER: Not that I saw. Again, it wasn't X-rayed.
MR. ALESSI: Was there any indication in the medical records and the autopsy that you say you reviewed of any fracture of any bone anywhere in the body of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. WELCHER: Other than the occipital bone or the skull?
MR. WELCHER: There are a couple bones in the skull that are fractured, but other than the skull, no.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. So, are you aware that the medical examiner for the state of Massachusetts, Dr. Scordi-Bello, performed an autopsy on Mr. O'Keefe? Are you aware of that?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And you're aware of it because you read the autopsy report, correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Are you implying — and it's a question — that Dr. Scordi-Bello missed a fracture or didn't look properly for a fracture on Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. WELCHER: No, I'm simply indicating that, for example, a hairline fracture — I didn't see any evidence that they actually X-rayed the structure. So there would be no overt evidence of that.
MR. ALESSI: There were wounds on the right arm of Mr. O'Keefe. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And you are saying that the medical examiner should have X-rayed that to determine whether there was a hairline fracture. Is that your testimony?
MR. WELCHER: No. You're asking me about evidence and proof of absence of fracture. So, I would look for an X-ray to see if that was the case. I haven't seen any evidence of an X-ray of the arms.
MR. ALESSI: So, it's your position that on every autopsy, there should be an X-ray of every bone in the body and that the clinical judgment of the medical examiner should not be accepted and there should be an X-ray of every bone before a conclusion can be drawn that there's no fracture to a bone in the body of a deceased. Is that your testimony?
MR. WELCHER: Absolutely not. Like, I'm an engineer. You're asking me about proof. And so proof is somebody looked at it. Somebody took an X-ray. Somebody palpated and found a comminuted fracture. So we're talking about proof.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, how do you use "proof" in my question? I asked about the opinion of a medical examiner.
MR. WELCHER: I'm not a medical —
JUDGE CANNONE: Only one person at a time. Mr. Alessi, let him finish and then you can ask the question.
MR. ALESSI: Your honor, I can't finish my question.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, then finish your question. Dr. Welcher, wait for the at 34.157. Yes. You add those two together, that gives you the same result. So it went 34 feet forward and then 50-something feet backwards.
MR. ALESSI: Right. And what is — is the 87 feet traveled? Is that what you're indicating is the distance traveled during the trigger? Is that what the 87 represents to you?
MR. WELCHER: That is the — so 87 represents the total rearward distance traveled during the trigger.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So you believe 87 represents the total rearward distance? Did I hear you correctly?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Now, can you hold on— to be clear? So, it starts, it pulls forward, then it backs up, passes where it initially started, and goes 53 ft further back. That's what I want to get to. How many feet did you say on direct and did you just say now that it went 87 ft in reverse?
MR. ALESSI: exercise. And what I want to do is to reference — and if we need to bring it up, sir, to refresh you — slides 103 to 120 of your PowerPoint presentation in this trial. Um, I'll just call it the blue paint exercise. Is that descriptive enough for you to know what I'm talking about?
MR. WELCHER: No, it's not an exercise. It's a test.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. You want to call it a blue paint test?
MR. WELCHER: Sure.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Let's call it blue paint test. I just want to try to expedite things and use parlance that we can agree on. Okay. So, your blue paint test involved painting the right rear tail light blue. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Positioning the test subject behind the tail light. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: With the arm held out. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And at a right angle. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And then the vehicle, the Lexus SUV, is backed into the test subject. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: So, I ran three different tests.
MR. ALESSI: I know. Well, let's just do each one at a time. Okay.
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: So, you're starting with the last one.
MR. WELCHER: I'll start with whatever one you want.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. How about if we start with the one at 1 mile per hour?
MR. WELCHER: None of them are at 1 mile an hour.
MR. ALESSI: 2 miles an hour?
MR. WELCHER: 2 miles an hour.
MR. ALESSI: Let's do 2 miles per hour. Let's start with that one. Okay. Now, did you conduct that test in an attempt to show that the injury patterns on Mr. O'Keefe's right arm are consistent with being struck by the Lexus tail light on that arm?
MR. WELCHER: So generally I want to show that the location, area, and span over which that tail light covers matches the location and area of the lacerations on his arm. That's what I want to get to.
MR. ALESSI: So you discussed data that you say shows — or excuse me — that you say shows the Lexus SUV was traveling above 20 miles per hour during the period that you alleged the SUV made contact with Mr. O'Keefe. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: No. Where'd you get that from?
MR. ALESSI: Hold up. Okay, the answer is no. So let's — did you do a test involving 20 mph?
MR. WELCHER: Um, I did some other backing tests. I was looking at how the rear pedestrian system — and what warnings you got from the rear pre-collision system, the PCS system.
MR. ALESSI: Let me ask you this. Would you agree that you did a blue paint test with the vehicle going at 2 miles per hour? Did you do that?
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: You didn't do a blue paint test with the vehicle going at 20 miles per hour. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: That is correct. I was not going to hit myself with a Lexus at 20 mph.
MR. ALESSI: You could have done other tests where the vehicle was going at 20 miles an hour if you used a crash test dummy. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: You could have done that if you used the right crash test dummy. And then to set up the test, because generally you only get one or two shots at it because you damage the car, you have to know everything about the parameters. And so again, pedestrian impacts are so very sensitive to initial angles. If I were to do a test and it was off a tiny bit and we got some different results, I would be in here having to defend it.
MR. ALESSI: Well, your own testing didn't show it. Point is, we don't have enough information to be able to conduct that testing.
MR. WELCHER: Exactly.
MR. ALESSI: So your assertion is that the Lexus was going 24 miles an hour in reverse — that's the basis of your analysis?
MR. WELCHER: No. There is not one single slide I have that says this is the speed he was hit at 24 miles an hour.
MR. ALESSI: Do you have a hypothesis at what speed you believe there was impact? Do you have the point of —
MR. WELCHER: I do not know the exact speed. We don't know the initial point of contact. We don't know where exactly he was on the road. We don't have enough information to determine that.
MR. ALESSI: Let's talk about the other information we don't have. Okay. You don't have the information as to — from your alleged point of contact to where Mr. O'Keefe landed. You don't have that information —
MR. WELCHER: For you, sir, I'm sorry. Where is my alleged point of contact?
MR. ALESSI: You allege that there was a point of contact between the Lexus, the back of the Lexus, and —
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Right. But I don't know where that is on the road.
MR. ALESSI: You don't know that. I want to go through the information that you don't have. Okay.
MR. WELCHER: Nope.
MR. ALESSI: So you don't have that. You don't have the point of impact. You don't have where in the road there was impact, under your allegation. Those are the same thing, right? You don't have where, under your view, the body of Mr. O'Keefe landed precisely. You don't have that information, do you?
MR. WELCHER: What do you mean by precisely? We know it's 7 feet off the road. We know it's near the flagpole. We don't know where it started.
MR. ALESSI: The problem isn't where it landed. The problem is where it started, right? And you don't have that information.
MR. WELCHER: I don't have where it started.
MR. ALESSI: The paint tests that you used — aren't those used, if they're used at all, as an element of physical impact reconstruction?
MR. WELCHER: An element, not as the focal point of the test itself. So that was the focal point of that test. The focal point of the purpose of that test was to show the contact width and location of how someone of Mr. O'Keefe's height, which happens to be me, contacts and where it would contact where the broken tail light was. So, no, that was the focal point of the testing. That's why I did the testing. That's why we're calling it paint transfer testing.
MR. ALESSI: Right. But my question, sir — I understand you use paint test as the focal point — but aren't paint tests in accurate accident reconstruction not used as focal points? They're used as supplements to other tests to get more accurate information. Do you agree or disagree with that?
MR. WELCHER: You didn't give me enough information. I can't agree nor disagree. It depends on what you're trying to do.
MR. ALESSI: Let's go to — on direct examination, you testified that after the 11622 trigger event, Ms. Read's vehicle traveled a distance of 87 feet. Do you recall that?
MR. WELCHER: You are mixing up two things. Remember, the trigger is in the middle of the event.
MR. ALESSI: Get the chart, please. Your honor, I'll give you — as soon as Mr. Woll gives it — slide 23, I believe it is.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sorry. What slide?
MR. ALESSI: Well, I want Mr. Woll to go through it to check. Let me ask it this way. See if we can get to it quicker. Do you remember talking on direct about a calculation of 87 feet where you added — I think it was like a 30-something number and a 50 number — and you came to 87? Do you remember that in your slide presentation, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Slide 37.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. Right. So if we could bring up that slide, please, your honor, with your permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. That's 36, but okay.
MR. ALESSI: Are you on 33, sir?
MR. WELCHER: No, I'm on 36.
MR. ALESSI: Mr. Woll, do you have 33? If you could go to 33, sir.
COURT OFFICER: Oh, sorry.
MR. ALESSI: Yeah, because that's where your 87 number is, not on the other. It's on a bunch of slides. Yep. Go ahead. All righty. So, if you could zoom in, Mr. Woll, so Dr. Welcher can see the numbers in the column. You're going the wrong way. Yep. To the farther to the right. Oh, I'm not the only one that has problems. Okay. You still — do you remember testifying about this? To the farther to the right. Farther to the right. Yep. Keep going. Keep going. A little more. Is that 53 number down there? That column? Right. Can we scroll up a tad so you can see the headers?
COURT OFFICER: There you go.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Okay. Go ahead. So, if I am — am I in the right column relative to start? Is that the column?
MR. WELCHER: So there's two columns — like, Z is relative to where it started. And then positive is forward, and then as you back up, once you go past zero, it becomes negative. Right?
MR. ALESSI: So what I want to do is have you direct us to the column where you calculated 87 feet.
MR. WELCHER: Uh, it's in two spots. It's at the end of column Y. Right. We go all the way down. It's — is that in the yellow there? Is that 87, sir?
MR. ALESSI: It is.
MR. WELCHER: Okay. Is that the 87 number you were referring? Hold on a second. You asked me to identify. So then it's — see where the one next to it
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. From its furthest point forward.
MR. WELCHER: Well, that's what I want to get to because I want to have this point clear.
MR. ALESSI: How many feet do you believe the Lexus went in reverse based upon your PowerPoint presentation? Not when it went forward and then came backwards. How many feet do you believe that vehicle went in reverse?
MR. WELCHER: Your question doesn't make any sense because when it went forward, then it went in reverse.
MR. ALESSI: How many feet do you believe the Lexus went during the trigger?
MR. WELCHER: So, it went a total of 87. It went 34 ft forward. Then it came back another 53 feet past where it went.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. So, you've testified that the 11622 trigger event represents a backwards maneuver. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: So, again, that was clear. It initially pulls forward and then backs up.
MR. ALESSI: I would like you to define, so it's clear to the jury, do you consider the event of 11622 just backward movement, or do you consider the trigger to be forward movement and adding to it backward movement? Which one?
MR. WELCHER: So, can we pull the slide up?
MR. ALESSI: Sure. Could you zoom in? There you go. No, no, go back to the left.
MR. WELCHER: So that T in the third column for data ID represents the trigger. If you scroll over a little bit to the right where the highlighted yellow blocks are, you can see one is a forward drive gear, zero is neutral, two is reverse. So that's where it's switched from forward to reverse. I mentioned the brake. So you have it on the brakes coming in, slowing, stopping, going into reverse, and then backing up.
MR. ALESSI: So you conclude that the vehicle for this trigger went 34 ft forward. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: How do you know the vehicle didn't go 150 ft forward? How do you know it just went 34 ft forward? How do you know that?
MR. WELCHER: So the only data we have is this 10-second window. And so we have the velocity when it's going forward. We know how much time it took to do that. So that tells us how far it would travel. Velocity times time is distance.
MR. ALESSI: So are you saying that it is a certainty that it went forward 34 ft and there's no other number of feet it could have gone forward? You're absolutely certain of the 34 number.
MR. WELCHER: No. Again, if you look, see where it says vehicle speed?
MR. ALESSI: I see it.
MR. WELCHER: So, at the start of this event, which is the trigger minus 5 — so, the trigger is actually where it's triggered and it takes 5 seconds before, 5 seconds after — but when the trigger happens, it's actually stopped. But the 5 seconds before, it's going 13.6 miles an hour forward. So, at the start of the data, it's still going 13.6 mph forward, but it's slowing down. You can see you have the brake where it says brake SW, which is short for switch. The brake switch is a one, which means it's on. So, when this event data started, it's going 13 miles an hour.
MR. ALESSI: I'll ask the question a different way. Are you certain that the distance traveled forward during this trigger event was 34 ft? Are you certain?
MR. WELCHER: I'm — yeah, I'm pretty certain during this trigger event.
MR. ALESSI: Pretty certain or certain?
MR. WELCHER: Well, the — I've checked the math. I've had people check my math. So, I try to be as accurate as possible. I would say I'm certain, but I'm an engineer. So, there's no absolutes. There's no 100% in my job.
MR. ALESSI: So, you're certain of the 34 ft. And is it correct that you're certain of 53 ft going backwards? Are you certain of that, sir? So, backwards from its initial starting position.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. And therefore, you are certain of a total of 87 ft traveled that you have at the bottom in that yellow orange. You're certain of that as well.
MR. WELCHER: 87 feet of backing. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Now, you also testified on direct, as I understand it, in slide 23, that different numbers represent different gear states of the vehicle.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. And a zero represents neutral.
MR. WELCHER: I think it's either neutral or park, but I'm pretty sure it's neutral.
MR. ALESSI: A one represents drive.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: A two represents reverse.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Or a two can represent slowing down. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: Not for a gear shift number.
MR. ALESSI: So you didn't say on direct that two could represent reverse or slowing down.
MR. WELCHER: God, I hope not. It doesn't.
MR. ALESSI: So those numbers simply represent is the transmission in drive, is it in neutral, is it in reverse. It doesn't tell you anything about whether it's slowing down or not.
MR. WELCHER: But the brake switch and the brake pressure and the longitudinal accelerometer data gives you some information on that.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, your honor, we could go to slide 30, please. Mr. Woll, I want to do it generally. There's not a need to read any specific number. I just want it clarified, Mr. Lally.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, is this 30 or 31?
MR. ALESSI: Um — I'm sorry, your honor, you are correct. It's 31 in the most up-to-date presentation.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: You see all the numbers in blue font on that slide, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I do.
MR. ALESSI: Those are all numbers that you have placed on that slide. Did I have that correct in your direct presentation?
MR. WELCHER: You do.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, this Excel spreadsheet, there's also numbers in black.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: So, all the ones that are in blue, those are numbers that you have placed into the spreadsheet. That correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. The one exception is column N where it says shift position. Yes. I changed green to forward and red to reverse.
MR. ALESSI: So the data in the columns in blue are not from the original data that was downloaded from the vehicle. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Like for example, if you look at column H, column H I simply did a unit conversion. So it's the same number. It's just in different units. But the black numbers represent exactly as it comes out of the vehicle, but it's the same number.
MR. ALESSI: All right, that's what I wanted to get to. So, for clarity for this slide, when you download this data from the vehicle, what is in black, those numbers just come right out, correct?
MR. WELCHER: As they're stated.
MR. ALESSI: But the blue numbers, they don't come out like the numbers in blue. You have to do something, some calculation, some application to get to the blue. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WELCHER: You're welcome.
MR. ALESSI: No, we're going to keep that up. Mr. Woll, please. Thank you. And when we need to get to the specific numbers, we'll be fair and make sure you can see them. Now, in these columns, do I understand it correctly that you attempted to account for wheel slippage in the revolutions per minute speed values produced by the car?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, not here. You're looking — this is 1162-1. The wheel slippage occurred in 1162-2.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. And so if we go to a slide with 11622, we will then go to the slide you believe represents wheel slippage. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: There are data points in that that represent slippage.
MR. ALESSI: That's my question. In which slide, sir, would you like to pick?
MR. WELCHER: 35.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. So we will go to slide 35.
MR. WELCHER: So I've highlighted the slippage.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. So you agree that there is data that shows that there is wheel slippage with the Lexus SUV during the trigger event. Let's enlarge it for this one here. The trigger event. The number 11622. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And as I understand it, you testified that this trigger event was caused by a depression of the accelerator pedal at more than 30%. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: It's a transition into reverse and then a quick acceleration exceeding 30%.
MR. ALESSI: So, in reverse. Okay, got it. So the accelerator pedal being depressed to this degree — more than 30% — can be the result of wheel slippage. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Uh, I mean it doesn't necessarily work that way. I mean you can have wheel slippage at any acceleration technically depending on the roadway. It's just what is in the data that shows that it's slipping. It isn't necessarily because of the accelerator. Normally, that's what causes slippage, but it's the data. When you look at the data, you're like, well, that doesn't make sense. It's increasing in speed, but yet the longitudinal acceleration is dropping.
MR. ALESSI: My question again, doctor, is you can have an accelerator pedal depress greater than 30% and it be caused by wheel slippage — that can occur. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: The wheel slippage does not cause the accelerator pedal.
MR. ALESSI: I'm not saying a cause and effect. I'm just saying a correlation. Do you understand what I mean by a correlation?
MR. WELCHER: Let me — let me, if I may, try and straighten this out. So applying heavy acceleration can cause the wheels to spin. Is that what you're asking me?
MR. ALESSI: Yes. Yes. Okay. That's all I wanted to get at. So, in your review of the materials that are related to January 29th, 2022, did you become aware of whether there were — and you said you extensively reviewed documents — did you become aware whether there were people at 34 Fairview?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And approximately how many people — without regard to names, just number — how many people did you become aware were at 34 Fairview on January 29th, 2022, the early morning hours? How many people approximately did you become aware were present?
MR. WELCHER: It depends on which time, but there could be as many as 16.
MR. ALESSI: As many as 16. And let's talk about the time period from midnight to 1:00 a.m. Do you have an understanding of how many people could have been present at 34 Fairview at that time period?
MR. LALLY: [unintelligible], your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Dr. Welcher, am I correct in my understanding that you believe — under your theory, the Lexus for event 11622 backed up 53 feet. Am I correct?
MR. WELCHER: No, it backed up a total of 87 feet.
MR. ALESSI: Okay, let's take your 87. It backed up a —total of 87. Okay.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And your further theory is that it did so and reached 24 miles per hour?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And you stated you have an understanding of a certain number of people — and I don't want to talk about the inside of the house, but just those that were at 34 Fairview between roughly 12 and 1 a.m. Do you have an understanding of that, sir, approximately?
MR. WELCHER: I believe I do.
MR. ALESSI: And what is that number? Do you want the people that were there for that entire window of time, or just—
MR. WELCHER: Yes, 12 to 1?
JUDGE CANNONE: So, Mr. Alessi, just move to the last question.
MR. WELCHER: Right. Sure.
MR. ALESSI: So, sir, did you assume that there were cars parked out front of 34 Fairview at that 12 to 1:00 window?
MR. WELCHER: Did you assume any cars parked out front the entire time?
MR. ALESSI: No, I'm just talking 12 to—
MR. WELCHER: Yeah.
MR. ALESSI: Any time between 12 and 1. Did you make any assumptions whether there were cars parked out front on the roadway at 34 Fairview? Did you make any assumptions with regard to that?
MR. WELCHER: At a point in time there was a vehicle behind it.
MR. ALESSI: I'm sorry. There was a vehicle behind it? Just one?
MR. WELCHER: That is my understanding. In terms of on the street — is that your question?
MR. ALESSI: Yes. And do you remember the type of vehicle?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: What kind of vehicle was it?
MR. WELCHER: An F-150 pickup.
MR. ALESSI: Did you have any understanding as to whether there was a Jeep vehicle on the road at that 12 to 1 time period?
MR. WELCHER: I had seen testimony somewhere to that effect, but the majority of the testimony was there were no other vehicles.
MR. ALESSI: But you did see testimony that there was also a Jeep-type vehicle out front of 34 Fairview between 12 and 1. Is that what you're recalling?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, I'm going to let that answer stand — what he's just testified to. Just go ahead.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, Dr. Welcher, what I want to do is have you, using your data — you say 87 ft for the backup. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: 11622, up to 24 miles per hour. Isn't there a likelihood, if there is at least one vehicle out in front of 34 Fairview, that there would be a collision of the Lexus SUV with a vehicle out front?
MR. WELCHER: No. The vehicle had left prior to the end — or prior to event 11622.
MR. ALESSI: What information do you have with regard to how many vehicles are in front of 34 Fairview at between 12 and 1?
MR. WELCHER: So, I have Ms. Read's interview statements. I have statements of a number of witnesses. I don't know if I'm allowed to say the names.
MR. ALESSI: Let's not. I was just going to say let's not — just number of vehicles.
MR. WELCHER: Okay. So I have a number of witness statements — multiple statements from the same witnesses at different times — indicating the path and following the Lexus to the house and then leaving before the event.
MR. ALESSI: Assume that there were vehicles — at least one vehicle — parked out front of 34 Fairview. Is there a likelihood that, given 24 miles per hour over 87 ft, there would be a collision, given the weather conditions as you knew them to be at that time?
MR. WELCHER: Well, the weather I don't think necessarily plays into whether there would be a collision or not, but we know it backed up 87 feet. So again, it goes forward like 35-ish and then back like 60-something. And so if something is within 65 ft of the rear of it — or whatever the numbers are, I need my slides. It was 50— 57, uh. If something is within that window, then it would hit it.
MR. ALESSI: All right, good. So now let's look at another scenario. If it's going as you describe it, is there a likelihood that the Lexus would also go upon the lawn in front of 34 Fairview?
MR. WELCHER: It depends on where it starts.
MR. ALESSI: You have an opinion, don't you, as to where it starts?
MR. WELCHER: No, I do not. That's actually why I have that diagram showing it off to the side. I'm simply showing how far it moved forward, how far it moved back.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. We don't know where on the roadway it started.
MR. WELCHER: Exactly.
MR. ALESSI: You don't know where on the roadway it started, and therefore all you have is the distance covered.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. So, you're saying the distance is 87 ft.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: 87 ft backwards.
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So, backwards at 24 miles an hour. Have you ever driven a vehicle backwards at 24 miles an hour, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Yes. I think I've driven this Lexus backwards at 24 miles an hour.
MR. ALESSI: Have you ever driven any vehicle back at 24 miles an hour at 1:00, 12:00 in the morning?
MR. WELCHER: Probably not since I got out of high school.
MR. ALESSI: Have you ever done it when there's a storm that is beginning?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: Have you ever done it when there is less than clear visibility?
MR. WELCHER: No. And no.
MR. ALESSI: And have you ever done it when there's low lighting?
MR. WELCHER: Oh, you know, maybe when I've been up skiing in the snow, I've done it. But again, that's been decades, right?
MR. ALESSI: So, 87 ft, 24 miles an hour. Are you saying that in every instance that vehicle will stay on the road and at 34 Fairview it wouldn't go up on the lawn?
MR. WELCHER: When you mean every instance — meaning like every possible location on the road it starts from?
MR. ALESSI: Correct.
MR. WELCHER: No. There's some spots — if you start here, it's going to go up on the yard. If you start too far the other side, you're going to go over into the neighbor's yard. So, it depends on where you start, right? And so, given the conditions that we've just described, right?
MR. ALESSI: —have nothing to do with where you start. Finish my question, sir.
JUDGE CANNONE: Only one at a time.
MR. ALESSI: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE CANNONE: Let him finish his question, please.
MR. ALESSI: Given the conditions that you've described, it is reasonable to conclude that that vehicle, under your parameters, would have gone up on the lawn. Is that a reasonable conclusion?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: So, you don't think there's any possibility that could occur? For a vehicle going 24 miles an hour at this location, 87 ft backwards in the dark with wet pavement at a minimum and low lighting — you don't believe it's possible for the vehicle, under your scenario, to have gone up on the lawn?
MR. WELCHER: That's not possible.
MR. ALESSI: So your first question was reasonable—
MR. WELCHER: So your first question was about reasonable, and I said no. Now you're asking about possible. It of course is possible. Whether it's reasonable or not, I'd have to know the starting position. If it's very close to the side, then it could be reasonable. If it's further towards the middle of the road — because snow is building up on the side of the road — then it's probably not as reasonable. I would need more information to be able to determine whether it's reasonable or not. It's certainly possible. It's possible it could have shot off into space, as an engineer. But not probable.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, you think it's possible that it could have been shot off into space, sir?
MR. WELCHER: As an engineer, it's a possibility. It's a possibility that this Lexus could have been shot off into space. Highly unlikely, but again, you're asking an engineer about possibilities and probabilities.
MR. ALESSI: Let's get back to reality. So, in terms of the Lexus itself — because you, under your method of analysis, don't have the starting point — you can't rule out that, under your scenario, the vehicle would have gone up on the lawn. You can't rule that out, can you, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I cannot. No, it could.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Now let's go to the next topic. If we could, your honor, have exhibit 168 published in evidence.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: Which is now under the 167. Now, as I understand your testimony, Dr. Welcher, you believe that it's possible that the Lexus tail light could have caused these wounds to Mr. O'Keefe's right arm. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And more specifically, it's your belief that the lacerations would have been caused by the vehicle scratching Mr. O'Keefe's arm as it drives past him. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know that I'd characterize it that way. What happens is, you know, this 6,000-lb vehicle is coming and he's standing on a, you know, icy, snowy roadway area and it's going to contact him and move his whole body and induce rotation.
MR. ALESSI: Right. So, it's going to contact him and under your theory induce rotation. So, wouldn't such a movement of the car relative to his right arm result in horizontal injuries to Mr. O'Keefe's arm, as can be seen on his bicep above the elbow?
MR. WELCHER: So, could we pull up one of my slides to address this issue? I'd like to answer your question with a slide that I have that addresses this exact point.
MR. ALESSI: I'd like to stay with this slide, Dr. Welcher, and see if you can answer my questions off of this slide. So I'll repeat it. Do you agree that the injuries up at the upper part — are you familiar with the biceps brachialis?
MR. WELCHER: I am.
MR. ALESSI: And aren't those two up at the top right over the biceps brachialis?
MR. WELCHER: They're actually about midway between the biceps and the triceps.
MR. ALESSI: Right. So, you know which two I'm talking about? The two up there. Can you just use your laser pointer, just so we're talking about the same two? Do you have one?
MR. WELCHER: I'll give it a try, but the upper ones. I know it's not your fault, but — it's the upper left. I mean, technically the ones right to the right of that are also on the biceps and triceps, right? Biceps goes all the way to the elbow. So do the triceps, right? So I'm talking about the two that are the farthest up.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. All right. Would you agree that those are in a horizontal orientation?
MR. WELCHER: Generally, yes — which is what you'd expect with your arm like this and the tail light coming across like this, which is what I showed in my slides.
MR. ALESSI: My questions are trying to keep this moving. I just asked if those are in a horizontal orientation.
MR. WELCHER: Yeah, more or less. They're angled down slightly, but more or less horizontal.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Isn't it true that if Mr. O'Keefe's arm were to be flexed, like it was with the test subject in your blue paint test, the lacerations on Mr. O'Keefe's forearm would be oriented in a vertical direction?
MR. WELCHER: Absolutely not. If you pull up my slide— 117, it'll show exactly that it is perfectly horizontal when you're standing like this. And this is the tail light. The laceration, when it comes across here and pushes my body, it's going to make a horizontal laceration, because this 6,000-lb vehicle is going to push me out of the way. As this pushes me out of the way, it's going to drag and create a horizontal laceration across my arm. This is exactly what you'd expect.
MR. ALESSI: So, let's talk about the forearm. Sir, we may have miscommunicated. I'm talking about the lacerations on Mr. O'Keefe's forearm now. So, we're switching from the arm to the forearm.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Wouldn't those be oriented in a vertical direction?
MR. WELCHER: No. Again, you have the vehicle. If this is me and this is the car, it's pushing and pushing across like this. And with your arm bent like this, it's going to cause laceration. As it pushes my arm away, it pushes like that. And my slide shows this quite clearly.
MR. ALESSI: So you disagree— you do not agree that the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe's forearm under your theory would be oriented in a vertical. You disagree with that. I just want to get that on the record.
MR. WELCHER: I disagree with that.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Now, do you also understand that under your theory of injury here, that there would be injuries caused in two different directions by the same movement of the car? Agree or disagree?
MR. WELCHER: I'm going to say I disagree. You need to give me a little more. You're going to have— again, this is a glancing or a clipping type impact. And so it's going to sweep across the arm, which is what causes the horizontal lacerations.
MR. ALESSI: We're talking about a flat surface, right, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Approximately. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And therefore you would have to maintain contact with the arm as the car moves. Am I correct about that?
MR. WELCHER: Maintain contact with the arm. I'm unclear what you mean.
MR. ALESSI: What I'm trying to do, sir, is to get under your theory—
MR. WELCHER: Mhm.
MR. ALESSI: Right. Given the contact that you've described, what would you expect to be the orientation of the wounds to the upper part of the arm and to the lower part of the arm?
MR. WELCHER: Just like it's shown in this photograph.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Isn't it the case, under your theory, that the tail light would have to break, and after the break the arm would have to maintain contact with the tail light area as the car moves.
MR. WELCHER: So that is what happens in pedestrian contacts. There is a contact duration. For example, you asked me earlier— in that calculation you had me run— you said 0.01 seconds. That was the contact duration. So when you have things like this, that's why you have to allow, if you do testing, the body to move, because the car is going to hit the body. It's going to cause it to move. The body's going to rotate away and the car is going to continue on in that clipping type impact. So the arm is definitely in contact with the rear of the car for some time.
MR. ALESSI: That's what I wanted to get to— is simply that under your theory, the tail light would break, and also the arm would need to maintain contact with the tail light area as the car moves. Is that your supposition?
MR. WELCHER: So, at a point in time, it'll stop contact, but the 6,000-lb vehicle is going to want to continue moving on. It's going to push— it's going to initially contact the arm and then push the arm away as it rotates the body. So, yes, it's going to maintain contact until the clipping is over and the vehicle continues on.
MR. ALESSI: So my next question is simply: how long do you believe the arm needs to maintain contact with the tail light— after, under your theory, it breaks— to produce those types of wounds that you say came from a tail light?
MR. WELCHER: We don't have enough information to determine that.
MR. ALESSI: Right. You don't have enough information to make that determination. Do you, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: But we know, because of the laws of physics, that it has to be some amount of time. It doesn't occur instantaneously. So now you do apply the laws of physics to the right arm, which weren't applied before because you applied a paint experiment. Is that correct? You're now applying the laws of physics to the injury to the right arm. But you didn't do that in your report.
MR. WELCHER: Nope. Always applied the laws of physics. The paint experiment, as you're referring to it, was to look at basically the orientation of the scratches that match this. So that was an engineering experiment to correlate height position of the tail lights relative to height orientation of the lacerations on Mr. O'Keefe's arm.
MR. ALESSI: You just said, sir— if I heard you correctly— you, to answer my previous question, applied the laws of physics. That's what you just said.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. So the laws of physics cover more than Newton's second law. The whole field of physics is a broad subject. So a simple measurement of height is a physical measurement.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, I have your entire report in my hand right here. Where in the report do you apply the laws of physics to the right arm of Mr. O'Keefe? Where?
MR. WELCHER: So in the paint experiment, we did apply the laws of physics— about gravity, orientation, things like that. I didn't apply Newton's second law, as we already went through. But again, those simple positions, arm angles, the possible physical arm angles, those are all generally governed by the laws of physics. The laws of physics are very broad.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, I'll ask it this way. Where in your 14-page report do you even mention the laws of physics related to the right arm of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. WELCHER: So in terms of applying the laws of physics—
MR. ALESSI: I'm not asking "applying." Just where in the report is it mentioned— laws of physics relative to the right arm? Can you point me to a word or a page in your report?
MR. WELCHER: I would write a report to say "these are the laws of physics." I would say "these are the numbers." But for example, the timing and GPS, how a clock times, the concept of a second— what does that mean? Those are all concepts of physics. So the timing, the GPS, the mileage, how we calculate the mileage, those are all based on the laws of physics.
MR. ALESSI: I'm talking about injuries to the right arm.
MR. WELCHER: That's not what you asked. You asked about my whole report.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, if you could please— I just need to finish my question. Where in your report do you use any laws of physics in connection with injuries to the right arm of Mr. O'Keefe? Can you point me to a word or a page in your report?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Where?
MR. WELCHER: 2-A, Roman numeral 1; 2-A, Roman numeral 2; 2-A, Roman numeral 3; 2-A, Roman numeral 4; 2-A, Roman numeral 5.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, I followed all of it, but what I'm asking about is: where in all of what you just mentioned is the word "right arm"? I'll take what you just said. Where in 2-A, and all of those, is the word "right arm"? Where is it?
MR. WELCHER: Oh, sorry. It's in number three.
MR. ALESSI: So, let's go to three. You state: "The location and orientation of the laceration on John O'Keefe's right forearm and right arm are consistent with the geometry and orientation of the right tail light of the Read 2021 Lexus LX570." Can you read the next sentence?
MR. WELCHER: I'm sorry. Is it C— PowerPoint slides 102–120?
MR. ALESSI: Correct. Correct. All right. I want to just start with the report. Did you apply any force analysis to support three?
MR. WELCHER: So in terms of the force analysis, I did not do an F=MA analysis, but in terms of the contact pattern, I obviously had to apply some force, even at 2 miles an hour, to do that.
MR. ALESSI: So the answer is: for what you cited as number three, you did not use a force analysis. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: So force was applied to my arm in the paint test. I didn't do an F=MA force analysis.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you.
MR. WELCHER: You're welcome.
MR. ALESSI: So now let's go to the horizontal movement we were talking about with regard to the car. Do you agree or disagree— sorry, your picture's down. I'm sorry. We'll take that down. Do you agree or disagree that given a horizontal movement of the car, vertical lacerations would be an inconsistent injury pattern?
MR. WELCHER: So horizontal motion generally will cause a horizontal laceration. You can get what are called stellate— which are blunt force— and it causes a splitting of the skin as well. But generally, when the vehicle is clipping or running horizontal across it, it will generally cause horizontal lacerations. But when you have a fractured tail light, you can get pieces going off in other directions. So it's not necessarily going to be perfectly horizontal.
MR. ALESSI: So my question is not about clipping. You keep inserting "clipping" into my question. My question is this: given a horizontal movement of the car, do you agree that it's more likely than not that vertical lacerations would be an inconsistent injury pattern?
MR. WELCHER: I'm trying to help you, but you've got to give me more. So— is it a clipping contact or is it not a clipping contact? Is it a direct impact in the center of the car?
MR. ALESSI: Are those the only two variables you need to answer the question? But this is a good start. All right. So let me do it this way. You can't answer the question, on a general basis, of whether— given a horizontal movement of a car— vertical lacerations would be an inconsistent injury pattern. You can't answer that question without more information. Is that your answer?
MR. WELCHER: So generally, again, horizontal motion should cause horizontal lacerations, but it depends on what's being hit.
MR. ALESSI: Okay.
MR. WELCHER: So for example, if I have something that bends as a result of the impact, it could bend up and create a vertical laceration.
MR. ALESSI: So you would agree, based upon what you said, that generally horizontal movement of a car would be expected to cause horizontal lacerations.
MR. WELCHER: Generally.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Now, during your blue paint test, the blue paint was featured more predominantly on your upper arm than your forearm. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, I think it depends on the test.
MR. ALESSI: Do you want us to bring up a slide? Will that help?
MR. WELCHER: I'd love to bring up a slide.
MR. ALESSI: We're going to be running the presentation. So, we'll just bring one up and you tell me whether this slide works for you, sir.
MR. WELCHER: Do you want me to tell you the slide?
MR. ALESSI: I want— if we could take a shot at it first and then we may ask you for it. But I think we've got a slide for you. And what number, Dr. Welcher? 111. 111 is on the screen, sir. Is the blue paint more predominantly on your upper arm than your forearm? Is there more blue paint on your upper arm than your forearm?
MR. WELCHER: Probably. This is the one where I actually walked sideways into the back of the car. The one where the car is moving is probably a little better representation.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, I'm just asking you a question about this slide. If you could just focus on this slide here, and if you can't answer it, so be it.
MR. WELCHER: I just answered it.
MR. ALESSI: Is the blue paint featured more predominantly on your upper arm than your forearm?
MR. WELCHER: It sort of looks like it. I didn't actually measure the total area of it.
MR. ALESSI: All righty. So on direct, you stated that in order for the injuries on Mr. O'Keefe's forearm to have been caused by an impact with a tail light, his arm would have needed to be held outstretched as you did in your demonstration. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Uh, you would need some degree of outstretch. Yes. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So isn't that an example of confirmation bias?
MR. WELCHER: No. That's matching the contact pattern to the injuries.
MR. ALESSI: But don't you have to select among other choices this outstretching of the arm? You had to make that selection from among others.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. So that was matching the physical evidence on his arm to the physical evidence on the car and then running a test to see if dynamically those matched up. So, you know, I didn't have it hit the exhaust pipe, for example, because there was no assertion it hit the exhaust pipe. There was no damage to the exhaust pipe. So it was based upon the evidence and the testing was done to— to use your vernacular— test the hypothesis that that's where it came from.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, have I ever asked you anything about a tailpipe in any of my questions today?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: I have not. I have never asked.
MR. WELCHER: Yes, you have. You asked me about the totality of the rear of the Lexus, which includes the tailpipe.
MR. ALESSI: All right. I am not going to be asking any questions that involve the tailpipe in any fashion. So what I'd like to do is to go back to the question that I'm asking, which is did you consider as part of the scientific method in terms of more than one hypothesis, did you consider in your analysis any other orientation of Mr. O'Keefe other than the one you selected for your paint test?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And where is that consideration of other hypotheses stated in any report?
MR. WELCHER: It's not. I was just looking at the damage that was up on the sheet metal.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, are you saying that you considered other orientations of Mr. O'Keefe relative to the vehicle as part of your analysis in terms of where exactly the hand would be?
MR. WELCHER: Some slight different angles in the forearm, which is from the elbow to the hand. I did consider that, but all the physical testing is done with the hand hitting the approximate center of the tail light.
MR. ALESSI: Do you have any notes that you took for these alternative orientations?
MR. WELCHER: No, I think I just included photographs of that damage.
MR. ALESSI: Do you have any proof at all that you considered those other orientations? Anything in writing?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, no, I don't believe so.
MR. ALESSI: Did you consider any other locations of Mr. O'Keefe under your theory relative to the back of the Lexus?
MR. WELCHER: Sure. In the beginning of this, I started with, hey, it could be anywhere on the back of it. Then narrowed it down based upon the evidence. Started eliminating various hypotheses based upon the evidence and came to this conclusion. Eliminating hypotheses based upon —, the tail light fragments near his body, the lacerations, his height, the height of the tail light in the Lexus. So it was an iterative process.
MR. ALESSI: Did you mention any of these supposed hypotheses in your direct testimony?
MR. WELCHER: No, because I was able to reject them. I didn't come in here to tell these people what didn't happen. I came in here to tell them what I believe happened.
MR. ALESSI: Would you agree, sir, that the scientific method requires the scientists to identify various hypotheses, go with the data that—
MR. WELCHER: Of course it does.
MR. ALESSI: —but you show your math as to why you're rejecting each hypothesis, as you said you rejected them. I'm asking for proof that you considered other hypotheses. Do you have anything in writing, any notes at all? Any videos? Any tests that you did, documentation of other hypotheses other than picking this one? Do you have any documentation of that?
MR. WELCHER: So I did a bunch of tests with the Lexus. I did backing tests. I looked at how the rear braking system worked to see if it would autonomously brake. I confirmed it did not. So I eliminated that as a hypothesis. I tested the steering. I tested the transmission, what drive one, two represented. So I did a whole bunch of tests on the vehicle.
MR. ALESSI: I understand you say you did a bunch of tests on the vehicle. My question is, did you ever take the vehicle and position yourself or anybody else in various locations to determine whether or not your hypothesis could be properly rejected? Do you have any documentation that you did that?
MR. WELCHER: I mean, I did do one static and two dynamic tests in very similar positions, though. So I did a total of three tests relative to the arm.
MR. ALESSI: Where is the documentation for that, sir?
MR. WELCHER: It's in the file. I gave it to you. Some of the slides are some of it.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, Mr. Alessi, I think if we're going to—
MR. ALESSI: I am, and I want— I'm going to move on, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, okay. Mr. Alessi, hold on. We're going to— —deal with that later.
MR. ALESSI: Can I ask— I don't— I just have one other area, your honor. I can do it in short order if I could, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: Finish your answer.
MR. WELCHER: I wasn't finished. So slides 109, 110, 111— actually through, I guess, 121— deal with the testing of the hypothesis.
JUDGE CANNONE: We'll come back to this at another time.
MR. ALESSI: Dr. Welcher. So what I want to do is to finish up on this point. So is it your testimony that no part of what you did in selecting this area, no part of it is confirmation bias? You say there's no confirmation bias at all in what you did. Is that your testimony?
MR. WELCHER: That's certainly my goal. I try to eliminate all confirmation bias. I didn't start out at this particular location. This is where the physical evidence led me to. So I would say the conclusions are supported by the science.
MR. ALESSI: My question is did you engage in any confirmation— and this would be my last question. Did you engage in any confirmation bias in terms of how you approached the issue that you have testified about in written reports?
MR. WELCHER: The answer is still no.
MR. ALESSI: Good. So, okay. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, jurors, we're going to send you home because we still have work to do here and we don't need you waiting while we do it. So, tomorrow is a half day. We'll see when exactly that half day ends, but we won't go until 4 tomorrow. Those three cautions: 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. Let us know. Fourth admonition, please be very careful with your social media use. See you tomorrow.
COURT OFFICER: You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Okay. Mr. Alessi, it's your voir dire.
MR. ALESSI: If I have a moment, your honor, to switch.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Can I load up my slides?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah. Can you do that while you're sitting here answering questions?
MR. ALESSI: Yes. I'm going to start, your honor, with regard to the fall.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. And we're on a very limited schedule here. Okay.
MR. ALESSI: Okay, your honor. Mr. Woll, if with your honor's permission, if we could pull up the January 30th, 2025 PowerPoint of Dr. Welcher in slide 36. You see that? Dr. Welcher, do you recall that from your January 30th, 2025 PowerPoint?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, I thought I had replaced the video on the left-hand side by the time I produced it.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, I got to go through this quickly. Mike, that image is a drone image on the left. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Oh, correct.
MR. ALESSI: And you had that in your original report, but you removed it in subsequent reports.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Where did you get that drone image from? It was in the file, wasn't it?
MR. WELCHER: In the CARS report of Trooper Paul, I believe it was.
MR. ALESSI: So, you took that drone image from the CARS report of Trooper Paul.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Let's, uh— if we could, Mr. Woll, go to diagram one. Do we have that electronically of Trooper Paul's report? Do you recognize that as diagram one from Trooper Paul's report?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So, and that's the diagram that you took that image and you put it in your January 30th, 2025 PowerPoint.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. I'm pulling up my version of PowerPoint. Yes, that's correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. If we could take that down. I'm going to go to the next example. Can we go to— Dr. Welcher, I'm sorry. Actually, can we go back to that?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: With your honor— why did we—
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, I have limited time. Go ahead.
MR. WELCHER: So, that particular diagram I did not use. If you notice, the diagram I use has different cars and doesn't have all those— all the writing about the position of things on it.
MR. ALESSI: I am going to now, your honor, have to take the time to go to Trooper Paul's report. We have the hard copy of Trooper Paul's report. Could you turn the lights on, please? May I approach, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Mr. —, yes. Mr. Brennan— is— may I approach you? Excuse me, Dr. Welcher. You see this first page? Do you recognize this as the cover page for the Trooper Paul report that I was referring to?
MR. WELCHER: I think so.
MR. ALESSI: Can you show the signature?
MR. WELCHER: You want to look at the report? I'm not so sure there is a signature on the report.
MR. ALESSI: Signature block right here. Trooper Paul 16.
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: You're welcome. Now, what I want to do is to go to diagram one. And if I could, your honor, republish what was just up — I'm showing you diagram one, sir. And I'm asking you, is that the image from Trooper Paul's report that you then used to put into your January 30th slide presentation?
MR. WELCHER: No. See all the writing on here with the glass cup? All the dimensions here. Here's my January 30th one. None of that stuff's here. None of this stuff is here.
MR. ALESSI: Isn't it the case that this is cropped more and there's a larger picture of the same image or not?
MR. WELCHER: See this tree? Yes. See these trees? Yes. See all these measurements by the trees? All these — that's right here. Okay. Those do not show up on my image.
MR. ALESSI: Let me go to a different method then to do this. You have an image. Let — can we go, Mr. Woll, to the January 30th presentation? Slide 36.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Where did you get that image from that's in your PowerPoint presentation on the left?
MR. WELCHER: I think it was from the file. A satellite image from the file. What part
MR. ALESSI: Of the file, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I actually don't know at this time.
MR. ALESSI: How close is the image on diagram one — the drone image — to the image that you can't now recall where you got it from in your slide presentation? Are they similar?
MR. WELCHER: So, that one has a whole bunch of measurements and ID on it, but the underlying image is very similar. It's probably the same one.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. You're welcome. Do you know of any other location other than Trooper Paul's report that you could have gotten that drone image from?
MR. WELCHER: No, I'm not sure I got it from the report. I recall getting it from the file.
MR. ALESSI: My question is, do you know of any other source other than Trooper Paul's report that you could have gotten that drone image from?
MR. WELCHER: So this image is not in that report. It's not my —
MR. ALESSI: Yes, it is.
MR. WELCHER: You asked me anything but the report. That image is not in that report.
MR. ALESSI: Did you get the drone image from any file from the Massachusetts State Police?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Did Trooper Paul work on any drone images to your knowledge with respect to 34 Fairview?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know.
MR. ALESSI: But you would agree that the drone images are from the Massachusetts State Police file, correct?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, give me one second.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, let me know — you've had a fair opportunity to answer that question.
MR. WELCHER: Yeah, give me a second. Yes, it came in a file called CARS-TRP.Joe Paul.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, it came from — and that's the report of Trooper Paul.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. No, these are drone images that are not in the report.
MR. ALESSI: No, I'm saying what you just read. Can you repeat it again? What you just read, where it came from?
MR. WELCHER: I read you a folder.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. Yes. It contains a bunch of things including the report.
MR. WELCHER: Understood. That image is not in his report.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Can you read the file name again that you just read? The folder name?
MR. WELCHER: Yes. It's CARS-TRP.Joe Paul.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. And did you get the drone image from that file folder?
MR. WELCHER: I did.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Now, let's go on to the May 26, 2025 PowerPoint that you created. And I'd like to go to slides 25, 26, and 27. Have you discussed with anybody today at all the source of what is depicted up on this slide?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So let's now go to — where did you get the — you see the larger chart to the left there in the — looks like a mostly a rectangle. Do you see that, sir?
MR. WELCHER: What slide are you on? What slide is that?
MR. ALESSI: 25, I believe. Okay. And then if we could click to 26 because it looks like it's the same. If we can go to 26 and 27. Looks like it's the same one. You tell me.
MR. WELCHER: Similar. Similar.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Yeah. In 27, correct? See the same or similar one there.
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: These are all from Google Maps.
MR. WELCHER: Well, my question —
MR. ALESSI: May I approach, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: Let me ask you this so I don't have to keep going back and forth. Do you have access to the CARS report of Trooper Paul on your computer?
MR. WELCHER: Think so.
MR. ALESSI: You remember the name of it?
MR. WELCHER: I don't.
MR. ALESSI: We'll do it with a hard copy. Mr. Woll, I'd like to show — thank you. So, if I could — may I approach, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So, you see what I'm pointing to right here, which is page 10 of Trooper Paul's CARS report. Do you see that?
MR. WELCHER: I do.
MR. ALESSI: Is this the same report dated 12/9/12?
MR. WELCHER: I believe so, sir. Let me just take a peek. This is —
MR. ALESSI: You can just compare this to the one I have in my hand. Take it and look for any identification it gives you.
MR. WELCHER: Right. We got the same one and mine's broken.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, we have that report and I'm now referencing page 10 of that report and I'm looking at the chart on page 10. Is that chart on page 10 the same or substantially the same as the chart that is up on your slide presentation right now?
MR. WELCHER: So, it's not the same. I did not use this data at all, but we both use Google Maps.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. All righty. Now, let's go to — continuing on the same slide — if Mr. Woll, we could go to slides 22 and 23.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. And this will be the last on this, Mr. Alessi. If you want to get to the autopsy photo, we're wrapping this all up at 10:04.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Your honor, you see these photos? I'm sorry. You see the photos that are up on that?
MR. WELCHER: I do.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Do you, in terms of those photos, do you recognize any aspect of those photos?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: What do you recognize in terms of the person in it?
MR. WELCHER: Oh, you want me to limit it to just these three photos?
MR. ALESSI: Any photo that would be this photo or any photo similar to it? But let's start with just these three.
MR. WELCHER: If I have to limit it to these three, I don't know who that is.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. And if you don't limit it to those three, who would you conclude it is in those photos?
MR. WELCHER: It appeared to be Trooper Paul from other photos.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So, you can tell from other photos that this is Trooper Paul in these photos, correct?
MR. WELCHER: I have photos of Trooper Paul in the car. I don't know that someone else switched out. I have no reason to believe this isn't anybody but Trooper Paul.
MR. ALESSI: Would you have any understanding that there's any other trooper that would be doing this type of analysis other than Trooper Paul?
MR. WELCHER: Someone else took the photographs.
MR. ALESSI: No, I'm talking inside the vehicle. I'm sorry. Inside the vehicle doing what's depicted here.
MR. WELCHER: Someone is inside the vehicle taking a photograph.
MR. ALESSI: What's your best conclusion as to who that is?
MR. WELCHER: Trooper Paul.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you, your honor. That is — okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, next topic.
MR. ALESSI: Yes. Thank you. And I just need to reload, if you will, with regard to that topic. Okay, if you could — your honor, we can go to slide — and I think I can do this fairly quickly. Okay, if you can go, Mr. Woll, to slide 131 of Dr. Welcher's PowerPoint presentation — and it's now 132. I don't believe that's the right one. It's the one before that.
MR. WELCHER: Yeah, I think — yeah. Okay.
MR. ALESSI: So, this is slide 131 from your slide presentation.
MR. WELCHER: Correct, sir.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. And if you look to the far right — I'm sorry, Mr. Woll, you go to the other one. Yes, that one. And scroll down so we can see what's in green for that depiction.
MR. WELCHER: That is from Dr. Scordi-Bello's autopsy report, page three.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. Is that where you got that from?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, it's from the report.
MR. ALESSI: Take your word for it on page three. So, but it is from Dr. Scordi-Bello's autopsy report.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Now, if we could zoom back out and go to the multicolored image in the center up at the top. Just go straight to — yeah, just go straight right there. Yep. Yep. Yep. No, I got it. Yep. Got it. Thank you. If you can go to the very top line, it says autopsy report performed by Irini Scordi-Bello, MD, PhD. If you could scroll back over, Mr. Woll. Date of autopsy, January 31, 2022. And then you see final diagnosis. That is all directly from the autopsy report, is it not, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And that is in your slide presentation.
MR. WELCHER: Correct, sir.
MR. ALESSI: This is page 131 of your slide presentation.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: That's all I have, your honor.