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 conclusively connect glass found on the Lexus bumper to the broken glass near O'Keefe's body. Welcher testified that he had read reports, recalled the result as inconclusive, and did not personally perform a materials comparison; he acknowledged apparently not reading all reports. Second, Alessi challenges Welcher's photogrammetry work at One Meadows, eliciting that the October 2024 Ring camera was different from the January 2022 camera, that Welcher lacked model numbers and a direct measurement of their positional difference. Welcher responded that videos from both cameras, scene scans, reverse-camera analysis, point-cloud overlays, and the photogrammetry error report supported his work. Third, Alessi questions the Lexus's adjustable suspension system. Welcher did not know the January 29, 2022 setting and used photographs from two days later as the closest available source, assuming a match; he recalled an adjustment range of about one and a quarter inches and said he would need to double-check Alessi's suggested five-inch figure. Finally, Alessi establishes that Welcher had not analyzed the 18 prior VCH events and had not concluded they were collisions, while the One Meadows Lexus-Traverse contact did not trigger a VCH event. Welcher testified that TechStream does not register crashes: the event at issue was triggered by throttle behavior, and TechStream could not identify whether or when an impact occurred.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan conducts a focused redirect examination of Dr. Judson Welcher addressing 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 testifies that he had no information the Lexus suspension was changed, while the January 29 suspension height or setting remained unmeasured. Welcher confirms no evidence his presentation was photoshopped and says 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 from narrow-point contact. The redirect concludes with Welcher identifying slide 33's shift position, reported vehicle speed, and 74% acceleration as direct electronic readings; he notes the reported speed requires a later slippage correction, and the raw readings do not themselves establish a collision or resolve broader interpretive questions.

Defense attorney Robert Alessi used recross to return first to the distinction between TechStream trigger data and whether a collision occurred, then to Welcher's claimed null-hypothesis method. Welcher said he began with a no-contact hypothesis and had performed testing that eliminated hypotheses but was not included in the presentation. When Alessi narrowed the question to whether any slide or document presented to the jury expressly showed the no-contact alternative, Welcher answered no. Alessi then pressed the value of showing rejected hypotheses when addressing confirmation bias. The witness was excused after testimony spanning three trial days.