Day 23 - May 29, 2025

Defense attorney Robert Alessi resumes cross-examination of Dr. Judson Welcher, focusing on four main areas. First, Alessi establishes that Welcher cannot connect glass found on the Lexus bumper to the broken glass found near O'Keefe's body, and that forensic testing was inconclusive. Second, Alessi conducts an extended challenge of Welcher's photogrammetry work at One Meadows, revealing that the Ring camera used in October 2024 was a different model than the one present on January 29, 2022, that Welcher never measured the positional difference between cameras, never obtained camera model numbers, and never documented key parameters like the principal point or lens distortion differences. Third, Alessi challenges Welcher's vehicle alignment analysis by questioning the Lexus's adjustable suspension system — establishing that Welcher used suspension height measurements from two days after the incident and did not know the actual suspension setting on the night in question, despite a potential 5-inch range. Finally, Alessi elicits that of 18 prior VCH events recorded on Read's Lexus, none were collisions, and that the confirmed low-speed collision with O'Keefe's Traverse at One Meadows did not register a VCH event — while Welcher's theory relies on VCH data from the alleged 34 Fairview incident. Welcher concedes that TechStream does not register collisions at all, only excessive acceleration, steering, or braking events.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan conducts a focused redirect examination of Dr. Judson Welcher addressing key points raised during Alessi's cross-examination. Brennan establishes that the Ring camera replacement at 1 Meadows does not affect Welcher's photogrammetry conclusions because any error would have been visible when overlaying point clouds onto video. Welcher confirms no evidence the Lexus suspension was changed, no evidence his presentation was photoshopped, and that he never used encrypted apps like Signal to communicate with the Norfolk County DA's office. Brennan then has Welcher explain that the force calculations raised during cross used hypothetical variables rather than case-specific ones, and that load distribution matters — broad contact from a tail light panel differs fundamentally from narrow-point contact. The redirect concludes with Welcher walking through TechStream data on slide 33, confirming that shift position, vehicle speed, and 74% acceleration readings are objective electronic sensor data that cannot suffer from confirmation bias.

Defense attorney Robert Alessi uses recross to undercut the confirmation bias rebuttal Brennan established on redirect. While Brennan had Welcher testify that TechStream data on slide 33 is objective sensor data immune to confirmation bias, Alessi pivots: he gets Welcher to confirm that the TechStream trigger data does not indicate whether a collision even occurred, then shifts to Welcher's claim of starting from a null hypothesis. Alessi asks Welcher to identify a single document or slide in his 130-slide presentation that analyzes the alternative hypothesis of no contact between the Lexus and O'Keefe. Welcher cannot. Alessi closes by pressing on the concept of 'showing your math' — documenting rejected hypotheses to demonstrate absence of confirmation bias — which Welcher does not embrace. The witness is then excused after spanning testimony across three trial days.