Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveJudson Welcher - Cross (Part 2)/Redirect/Recross
501 linesCOURT CLERK: All persons having any business before the Honorable Beverly Cannone, justice of the Norfolk Superior Court, before the county of Norfolk, draw near, give your attendance, and you shall be heard. I'll take the call of Massachusetts. Court is now open.
JUDGE CANNONE: You may be seated. Good morning, jurors. We do appreciate you. We were doing work in here, but we appreciate your patience. So, I do have to ask you those three questions. Were you all able to follow the instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left yesterday? Everyone said yes or nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes or nodded. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left yesterday? Everyone said no. Thank you. Could we have Dr. Welcher back here, please? And Mr. Jackson, feel free to go to the podium. Computer and any electronics there so we don't have to. It doesn't look like it's turned on.
JUDGE CANNONE: Oh, okay. Good. And smart watches. Sure. I'll remind you you're still under.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. Morning, your honor. And Dr. Welcher, we're going to ask you to not turn on your computer yet.
MR. WELCHER: Okie dokie.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. And your honor, if I could — smartwatches that are receiving text messages during his direct, if we can make sure that that does not occur. I get my email. I'll take my time. Okay. Or just don't look at your watch.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Thank you. Morning, Dr. Welcher.
MR. WELCHER: Good morning.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know whether there was glass found on the bumper of Miss Read's Lexus SUV?
MR. WELCHER: My understanding there was. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Did you reach a conclusion on whether the glass on the bumper came from the drinking glass that you assert Mr. O'Keefe was holding at the time of the alleged impact?
MR. WELCHER: I didn't have an opportunity to inspect the glass, but the glass was broken and there was glass on the bumper. That's all I know.
MR. ALESSI: So, as you sit here today, you have no basis to conclude that the glass on the bumper came from the glass that you depict as having been held by Mr. O'Keefe at the time of the alleged impact. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: Well, you're mixing a couple things.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, no. Dr. Welcher, if you can just answer my question. I need to rephrase it. I will. I'll ask it a different way, please. You have no basis as you sit here today to conclude that the glass on the bumper came from a drinking glass connected to Mr. O'Keefe. Do you?
MR. WELCHER: Well, we have a picture of a broken glass at the scene. So, I wouldn't say we have no basis. We don't necessarily have enough to conclude it's from it, though.
MR. ALESSI: You had depictions in your testimony with Mr. O'Keefe holding a glass, correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: My question is, you have no evidence to show at all — and I'm talking evidence, testing information — you're saying you have no evidence that shows that the glass on the bumper is not the same glass as you showed on your slides as being found supposedly at the scene. You have no test evidence that that's the same glass, do you?
MR. WELCHER: So again, the one I have at my testing obviously was not the same glass. We have pictures of a broken bar glass in the snow near where Mr. O'Keefe's body was. We have glass fragments on the rear of the bumper. That's the extent of my knowledge on the correlation between those two.
MR. ALESSI: So, you said you reviewed the reports and testimonies of various Commonwealth representatives, correct? That's in your report. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: In the initial report, right?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And some of those reports included forensic scientists who work for the Massachusetts State Police.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. I believe that's correct.
MR. ALESSI: And as you sit here today, it's your testimony that you don't know whether in any of the reports of the Massachusetts State Police, there is an answer to the question of whether there's any connection at all between the glass found in the snow and the glass on the bumper.
MR. WELCHER: I recall it being inconclusive.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, so you recall that the testing was inconclusive.
MR. WELCHER: I don't remember what testing they did, but for example, when they put the tail light fragments back together, they were able to — the fragments were from the tail light. I don't think they attempted to do that with the glass.
MR. ALESSI: Assume that there has been testing of the glass on the bumper and assume that that testing conclusively determines that the glass on the bumper is not the glass that was found in the snow. Okay, assume that. Okay, how would that affect your analysis?
MR. WELCHER: I'd want to know where the glass came from, but we still have a whole bunch of other elements. So, I don't think it would affect the end results.
MR. ALESSI: So, would it have any part in your analysis — with my assumption that the glass on the bumper is not the glass that's associated with the broken glass that was supposedly found in the snow?
MR. WELCHER: Yes. I mean, we always want to have as much answers — or as many answers — as possible. So, I would want to know if we could figure out where it came from.
MR. ALESSI: And wouldn't the fact — assuming that the test results show there's no connection, meaning the glass on the bumper is different from the glass in the snow — wouldn't that be contrary to your theory of what happened in some way?
MR. WELCHER: It depends on when the glass was actually broken. The glass was in his hand. At least that's the testimonial evidence I have seen. So, it depends on whether it's broken from contact with the rear of the vehicle or broken with contact on the ground.
MR. ALESSI: Assume that the glass on the bumper is not the glass that was found in the snowbank. Doesn't that — at least in part — contradict your hypothesis as to whether there was contact by the Lexus with Mr. O'Keefe at 34 Fairview?
MR. WELCHER: So if you recall all my slides, nowhere did we discuss that in my slides. So no, it wouldn't contradict it. I would want to know where that glass came from.
MR. ALESSI: But you didn't seek that information, did you, sir, in your analysis to determine where the glass came from?
MR. WELCHER: Of course I did. I read the reports about it.
MR. ALESSI: But you sit here and you say you don't know the answer. There's steps you could have taken to get that answer quite easily. Couldn't you have, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Not me. That's a material science expert.
MR. ALESSI: You've been communicating with Lieutenant Tully, haven't you?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: You couldn't have asked Lieutenant Tully that question?
MR. WELCHER: To my knowledge, he's not a material science expert.
MR. ALESSI: But could he have told you the result of testing on that glass on the bumper and whether it was in any way associated with the glass found in the snow? Wouldn't that have been an easy question to ask him — just, has there been testing and if so, what's the results?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, yes. But my knowledge from reading the reports was it was inconclusive.
MR. ALESSI: But you didn't read all of the reports, did you, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Apparently not.
MR. ALESSI: Let's turn to another topic. Laser scans. Part of your analysis involved conducting laser scans of portions of One Meadows Avenue, the house of Mr. O'Keefe. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Those laser scans were used at least in part to answer the question of whether the collision between Miss Read's SUV and Mr. O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse at One Meadows at approximately 5:07 a.m. on January 29th, 2022 caused the right rear tail light of the Lexus to break. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And in that analysis, inches literally matter. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: You want to get it as accurate as possible.
MR. ALESSI: And the reason why inches matter is — and we're going to get to this — you tried, and you did it in your slide presentation on direct, you tried to see whether the Lexus lined up with the Traverse such that there could be a break of the tail light. That was part of your analysis. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: So the main part of the photogrammetry was to determine the speeds and the angles and the degree of overlap on the vehicles, and then we also looked at the damage from the video — or actually it's just where the snow was knocked off the rear of the Chevy Traverse — and document the height of that.
MR. ALESSI: You said the main part. I don't want to engage in semantics. I want to go to my question: isn't part of the laser scan analysis to determine whether or not those two vehicles align sufficiently such that the tail light of the Lexus could break coming into contact with the Chevy Traverse? Wasn't that part of your analysis?
MR. WELCHER: At least in part. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. And in that analysis, inches literally matter, correct?
MR. WELCHER: It can, depending on which way you're going — inches.
MR. ALESSI: So, the ring camera at One Meadows — you're familiar with that ring camera, right, at One Meadows? That ring camera at One Meadows was used as part of the laser scan process that you and your firm Aperture performed at One Meadows on October 2nd, 2024. Do I have the date correct?
MR. WELCHER: I believe so. But the videos were not literally used during the laser scans. We took the laser scans, the video, combined them together in a process called photogrammetry.
MR. ALESSI: Okay, let's get this down to the fundamentals. Your honor, if we could publish the exhibit with regard to the ring camera.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. What exhibit is it?
MR. ALESSI: I've got — Dr. Welcher, you recognize that ring camera as being at One Meadows. You discussed it, as a matter of fact, on your direct testimony, correct?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Now, that ring camera was utilized as part of your laser scan process. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: It was used. So, you're confusing laser scan and photogrammetry. The video and the laser scanners are together used in the photogrammetry. The camera and the laser scans are not used necessarily with each other.
MR. ALESSI: Was that ring camera used for any part of your work?
MR. WELCHER: Absolutely. The photogrammetry.
MR. ALESSI: I just need to be able to finish my question, sir. Was that ring camera used for any part of your work at One Meadows on October 2nd, 2024?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And it was used for what purpose?
MR. WELCHER: In the photogrammetric process, to establish the position and dimensions of various things in the video. So then we could go back and overlay the vehicles and track the tracks in the snow, as well as look at the damage to the vehicles.
MR. ALESSI: Right? So this was used
MR. WELCHER: To as a basis, not the only one, to establish dimensions of the other work that was done in analysis at One Meadows. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: You can take that down, Mr. Woll. You know that the Ring camera at One Meadows in existence when Aperture did the work on October 2nd, 2024 was different than the Ring camera that was in existence on January 29th of 2022, the date where you went through to see if those two vehicles align. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: The cameras are different. That is correct.
MR. ALESSI: And you know that the cameras are different and you knew that as part of your analysis. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Did you document the differences between the two cameras as part of any work performed at One Meadows?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And did you measure any differences there might have been between the location of the new Ring camera from the older one that was in existence on January 29th of 2022?
MR. WELCHER: No, what we did is used the current Ring camera in conjunction with the old Ring camera and with the laser scans, we're able to again map the points onto the scene. That's why I showed you the report from the photogrammetry software that reported our error.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, my question was just measurement, not your process. Did you measure the difference — where the old camera was and where the new camera was.
MR. WELCHER: No, it was angled slightly more to the right though.
MR. ALESSI: How would you know that if you were not retained on January 29th of 2022? How would you know where the original angles were?
MR. WELCHER: Because when you look at the first camera, the one on January 22nd, it's here. The new one is slightly over to the right.
MR. ALESSI: That's an eyeball approximation analysis. That's not a measurement. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Well, I don't know that we actually measured it, but we accounted for it and corrected for it. But you can see, for example, what the original one shows, for example, to the left-hand side, compare it to what the new one shows to the left hand side, and it's angled more to the right.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, you have experience with Ring cameras, correct?
MR. WELCHER: I do.
MR. ALESSI: And I think a lot of members of the public have experience with Ring cameras. You can move just the camera portion ever so slightly and change significantly the angle of the camera — what it captures. Just a small turn potentially, right? Even a millimeter turn can make a change. A 2 millimeter, a one inch can make a significant change with regard to what the camera captures. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Sure.
MR. ALESSI: Good. So, did you measure whether the newer camera that was present on October 2nd, 2024 was installed to the left? And I'm talking — measure to the right, to the top or the bottom relative to the camera that was there on January 29th of 2022.
MR. WELCHER: So, we solved for the camera position.
MR. ALESSI: I'm asking if you measured, sir.
MR. WELCHER: No, we didn't measure.
MR. ALESSI: So, let's talk about some other differences with regard to cameras and Ring cameras. Different Ring cameras can have different levels of distortion. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Potentially.
MR. ALESSI: Well, are you saying that all Ring cameras have the same level of distortion?
MR. WELCHER: No. But again, they're mass-produced. So, you could have some that have the same exact distortion. You could have some that have different. And you don't know the comparative distortion between what I'm just going to now refer to as the old Ring camera that was there January 29th, 2022 and the camera that you saw in October 2024, which I'll refer to as the new camera. You don't know the difference in the distortion between those cameras as you sit here today, do you? So, we know enough information that if the distortions had been different, our errors would have been too high. And so the fact that our errors are within acceptable — what's called an RMS error — we know that the distortions are similar enough to give us accurate measurements.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, that is speculation. That is not data. That is not a measurement. You didn't measure the distortion, sir, did you?
MR. WELCHER: We didn't have the old camera to do it. We didn't, but we had images from the old camera. And then when we get images from the new camera and solve those camera properties and then overlay data from the old images to the new images with the point clouds, if that distortion is too great, we will have too high of errors in our project, which is why I showed the error report from the photogrammetry process to show that we have checked for that and documented that our errors are in an acceptable range so that we have confidence in our results.
MR. ALESSI: You do not have information from the manufacturer of Ring. You didn't present it and you don't have it as to what is the acceptable level of distortion for the analysis that you did, do you, sir?
MR. WELCHER: [unintelligible] You have that from Ring and I don't have it for Ring, but I don't need it from Ring.
MR. ALESSI: So now let's go to — if cameras have different levels of distortion, that would change the analysis in reconciling the difference between their angles. That's a pretty straightforward proposition, sir, wouldn't it?
MR. WELCHER: So it depends on how much difference it is, but we have accounted for that with—
MR. ALESSI: Which model of the Ring camera was present at One Meadows on January 29th, 2022? Which model?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know. I'd have to go look through the data.
MR. ALESSI: I'm not going to take up the time to have you look, but do you really believe you've got the model of the Ring camera that was in existence on January 29th of 2022?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know. I need to look.
MR. ALESSI: Was it presented in your direct testimony? Did you, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I did not.
MR. ALESSI: So, do you have the model of the Ring camera that was present at One Meadows on October 2nd, 2024?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: So, you don't have even the model for either one of them?
MR. WELCHER: Nope. But we have videos from both of them and scans of the scene.
MR. ALESSI: So now let's talk about another aspect of Ring cameras. They have mechanisms, as I was talking about earlier, that allow the user to adjust the camera angle. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And do you know whether there was a difference in the camera angle between the two cameras?
MR. WELCHER: Yes. As we already discussed, there was a slight difference in the angle.
MR. ALESSI: But you don't have a measurement of that, right, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I — correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay.
MR. WELCHER: But we accounted for it.
MR. ALESSI: So wouldn't a difference in models of Ring cameras be relevant at all to your analysis of trying to reconcile any differences between them?
MR. WELCHER: So if you have video from both of them and you have laser scans with three-dimensional geometry of the scene, you can go in and it's called a reverse camera analysis and solve for the distortion properties. The scans give you the real-world dimensions. So once you know the real-world dimensions, you can then go in and solve for the camera lens properties based upon the real-world distortions. So for example, if there's a little bit of bending at the end, the laser scan data will show that and you can correct for that, knowing information about the laser scanner.
MR. ALESSI: I'll ask—
MR. WELCHER: I'm sorry, I thought you finished, sir.
MR. ALESSI: I'm going to ask the question again because it's a narrow question. Wouldn't knowing the difference in the models be relevant — it's all I'm asking. Wouldn't it be relevant to your analysis of reconciling the differences to them? Wouldn't it be relevant?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: So, you think the different models are irrelevant to any process you [unintelligible] at?
MR. WELCHER: It's irrelevant. So, the analysis of the video itself is more important than the models.
MR. ALESSI: I'm not asking if it's more important. I'm just asking — would it be relevant?
MR. WELCHER: No, I don't believe it'd be relevant.
MR. ALESSI: Now, let's go to another aspect of the cameras. Are there key parameters in a camera that the software needs to know? Focal length?
MR. WELCHER: It is.
MR. ALESSI: Is imaging size something that is an important parameter in a camera?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Are sampling characteristics an important parameter in cameras?
MR. WELCHER: Can be.
MR. ALESSI: Is the principal point — you understand that concept, sir? Is that an important parameter in a camera?
MR. WELCHER: Define how you're using principal point.
MR. ALESSI: Sure. A principal point of an image is the point where a camera's direct line of sight — called, as you may know, the optical axis — intersects the image plane. Does that sound familiar?
MR. WELCHER: Mhm.
MR. ALESSI: So isn't that the image's mathematical center, the principal point?
MR. WELCHER: More or less. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: And for high accuracy photogrammetric work, it's important to know if the lens is mounted centered over the image sensor, due to the small manufacturing variances. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Could be important.
MR. ALESSI: And if the principal point is the center of the image, that's relevant. So doesn't that affect the mathematical calculation of the light ray geometry?
MR. WELCHER: It could.
MR. ALESSI: So the variance in manufacturing between cameras is a known issue. Do you agree?
MR. WELCHER: I do.
MR. ALESSI: There's small manufacturing variances that affect one of the key components of the fundamental parameters of the camera, namely the principal point. Right.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Did you perform the camera calibration of the camera in place in October of 2024?
MR. WELCHER: Yes. So within photogrammetry we calibrated the photogrammetric analysis to the camera.
MR. ALESSI: Did you address the principal point in that calibration? Do you have documentation that you addressed that important factor, the principal point?
MR. WELCHER: So the checking of the RMS error in the software takes into account — sums up all the potential errors in the measurement, which would include that.
MR. ALESSI: Okay, sir, you know the importance of all of these topics because the output of all the work Aperture did at One Meadows — almost all of it springs from that camera. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Uh, it starts there. It — okay, it starts there. And if the starting point is wrong, then where you go from the starting point is going to be at least potentially wrong. Correct?
MR. ALESSI: Potentially. Would you agree that Ring cameras have a swiveling mechanism so that the user can adjust the camera angle?
MR. WELCHER: Some do.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know whether the camera that was in existence on January 29th, 2022 had a swiveling mechanism?
MR. WELCHER: I believe it did.
MR. ALESSI: Believe. Do you know?
MR. WELCHER: I do not know for a fact. But those style of Ring cameras on the surveillance have adjustability that includes angle.
MR. ALESSI: But you don't know whether the camera that was there, the specific camera on January 29th, 2022 had a swiveling mechanism or not. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And do you know whether the camera that you saw in October of 2024 had a swiveling mechanism on it?
MR. WELCHER: It did.
MR. ALESSI: And where did you document the fact that it had a swiveling mechanism?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, I think we have photos of the camera.
MR. ALESSI: Did you document it in writing? And did you document the tolerance of the swiveling mechanism?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: Let's go to— and, again, all of the— this camera that you use is the starting point for your laser scan and photogrammetry process. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: All right. Let's go to another topic. On your direct testimony, as I recall, you stated essentially from various information that you lined up in the video— and we're talking about the lining up of the Lexus with the Traverse. And this is at One Meadows. And so as I understand what you did, sir, is you took what are called point clouds, 3D images, created them for the Lexus. You took 3D— created 3D images, synonym point clouds, of the Traverse, and then you attempted to line them up to determine, among other things, whether they would align sufficient so that the Lexus could line up and potentially hit the Traverse such that the tail light of the Lexus could be broken. Was that at least part of your analysis?
MR. WELCHER: That was part. There was more.
MR. ALESSI: So you showed a slide, a few slides, and with your honor's permission, what I'd like to do is to start with slide 90.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Do you have any problem with Dr. Welcher keeping his printed copy that he was using?
MR. LALLY: I have no problem with the printed copy, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, I'm sorry, what slide again?
MR. ALESSI: 90. [unintelligible] Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Does that slide— that's part of your presentation— depict the view from the top of the Lexus on the right and the Chevy Traverse on the left?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And is that depicting contact between the two vehicles?
MR. WELCHER: It is.
MR. ALESSI: Now let's zero in for a closer look. And that is a contact point. Am I correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. I mean there's multiple points. There's more than one point, but it shows more clearly the contact between the two vehicles.
MR. ALESSI: Now, if we could— the next— and that is number 91, Mr. Woll. So, your honor, 91. I think these are just going to go in order for a few and I'll keep announcing them. So, this is 91. Same vehicles, just a different viewpoint. Is that correct, Dr. Welcher?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: This and the next slide— I just want to stay with this one. I just ask the question, does it show the contact?
JUDGE CANNONE: Right. So, go ahead and answer now.
MR. WELCHER: This slide and all the other slides, we're trying to show the angle of contact, but because it's a two- dimensional image, you lose some perspective. For example, here you're seeing the chrome piece on Mr. O'Keefe Chevrolet, which is on the right. You're seeing it obviously behind where the Lexus is. So, we were trying to show it at a whole bunch of different angles to try and illustrate the degree of closeness or lack thereof.
MR. ALESSI: All righty. So, thank you. Is it correct that on your direct examination you said, in sum and substance, we looked at the degree of overlap and there's only about a 2 to 3 mm of overlap between the vehicles. Is that what you recall saying on direct?
MR. WELCHER: That is correct.
MR. ALESSI: And that you stated that that supposed two to three millimeters of overlap was insufficient to cause the tail light of the Lexus to contact the rear of the Chevrolet. Do you recall saying that?
MR. WELCHER: That's correct.
MR. ALESSI: Now, I would like you to look at that. This is from your slide presentation. Is that not showing contact between the two vehicles?
MR. WELCHER: Oh, it absolutely is not. What you're seeing is a portion of the vehicle that is behind the area. Keep in mind the angle— the Lexus is angled off to the left. So the area that you see here is actually in this case in front of where the tail light is. This is why we tried showing it from a whole bunch of different angles because when you try and take a two-dimensional image and look at it, you see stuff in the background. So— and again this is why in the computer we overlaid them, looked at the measurements— you know, in the computer where you don't have this— we have the three-dimensional measurements, and it does not hit.
MR. ALESSI: Where did you show in your slide presentation what you just said? That it doesn't show an overlap— so where it shows a contact, it definitely contacted.
MR. WELCHER: I'm sorry, Mr. reporter, down below here.
MR. WELCHER: It does not show a contact here. So to answer your question, all the next slides were our attempt to do that. So all the next slides is your answer.
MR. ALESSI: We're going to go to those next slides. So— just to be clear— you're saying that that depiction does not show any contact between the tail light of the Lexus and the Chevy Traverse.
MR. WELCHER: So, the upper tail light— just to be clear, because the lower tail light is much closer.
MR. ALESSI: Well, it's not only much closer, it's in contact, isn't it, sir?
MR. WELCHER: Uh, it's very close. It's probably within an inch of being in contact.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, so you're— you state that even the lower part of the tail light is not making contact.
MR. WELCHER: So, it's again— maybe there's a photo we could show, or a scan— that is on the rear of the vehicle and it contacts on the corner, which is just around. So maybe like an inch or so in front of it on the corner.
MR. ALESSI: I'm just going with what you presented in your slide. Well, let's go to the next slides— and sir, I will determine which slides we go to on my questioning.
MR. WELCHER: I'm just hoping to answer the question.
MR. ALESSI: Let's go to— Mr. Woll, the next slide. There we go. In your presentation, my question is zeroing in. Are you saying that that slide does not show contact between the tail light of Miss Read's Lexus and any part of the Chevy Traverse?
MR. WELCHER: Yeah, absolutely. It's exactly what it shows. You can see a little better here. Again, we tried all these different angles, which is why all these slides are in there, but you can see some of the geometry of the light, this structure. And again, remember I said the Chevy kind of curves in as it goes up a little bit.
MR. ALESSI: Let's go to the next slide. 40.
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. ALESSI: Yes, please. Is it working? That's exhibit 41.
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. ALESSI: Because— slide 41— [unintelligible].
MR. WELCHER: No, I have a question because that's not my slides.
MR. ALESSI: So, Mr. Lally, is this exhibit number 41 or is this from the PowerPoint?
MR. LALLY: Okay. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: So, I'm putting this up because I want to show an actual photograph of that tail light and I would like you, sir, to focus on the quarter panel tail light in each. Do you see a jutting out of the quarter panel tail light in that photo? Do you see it jut out?
MR. WELCHER: So, I don't know if you and I are talking the same thing. There are little fins here.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. Now, what I'd like to do is to go back to the depiction we were just looking at. And that depiction doesn't show the jutting out, does it?
MR. WELCHER: No, it— it does. Those are actually more on the side of the vehicle. You can't see them in this image.
MR. ALESSI: Correct. You can't see them.
MR. WELCHER: Hold on a second. I wasn't finished. But they— they are 100% there. We actually did special hand scans with a hand scanner of the tail light to put it back on to the vehicle.
MR. ALESSI: You say they're 100% there, but you can't see it in that depiction, can you? The jutting out that you could see in the two-dimensional one we just saw. You can't see it.
MR. WELCHER: I can't see who's behind that wall because it's being blocked by something. I can't see beyond the side of the tail light because it's on the side. I can't see. It's being blocked.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, my question is simple. You cannot see the jutting out of the tail light in this depiction, can you?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Now, let's go on to the next question in this topic. You could have easily— easily solved what you consider to be the issues you had with trying to show it lining up. Couldn't you, sir? You had an easy solution for that.
MR. WELCHER: Uh, I took the best solution. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
MR. ALESSI: 3D images, correct?
MR. WELCHER: I did.
MR. ALESSI: You could have shown and measured 3D images to get almost the exact contact point and almost the exact dimensions, if you had just used the 3D images that you had available to you. Isn't that correct?
MR. WELCHER: That's exactly what we did. When I went through the video analysis, I showed you how we overlaid the point clouds, the 3D scans on top of each vehicle. So, we took the— I'm sorry, let me— We took the vehicles.
MR. ALESSI: Just don't interrupt. Your honor, he keeps referencing my hand and saying I'm doing something when I'm not. And I think that's distracting to the jury.
MR. WELCHER: I'm not interrupting it.
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Hold on. Let the witness answer the question.
MR. ALESSI: I am. I'm just holding my hand like this, your honor. He keeps saying that I'm doing something.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Alessi, please. All right. Go ahead. Finish the answer.
MR. WELCHER: Again, in the photographic analysis, I showed the video. I showed how we overlaid the point cloud on top of the video. That proves that the way we solved it— correct camera characteristics— matches. Otherwise, that would be distorted. We overlaid the scans of the Lexus into the photogrammetric analysis. We overlaid the scans of the scene into the photogrammetric analysis. We overlaid all that stuff into the analysis. We did exactly what you're suggesting.
MR. ALESSI: You could have easily addressed this issue by the following. If you really believe there was no contact or not sufficient contact, you could have produced a graphic that shows a gap between the two vehicles. A graphic, couldn't you?
MR. WELCHER: That's not a graphic.
MR. WELCHER: What is that?
MR. ALESSI: Sir, I get to ask the questions and you are to answer them subject to the judge's ruling. So my question is: couldn't you have created a graphic that would have better shown — sorry — better shown the issue that you are creating or talking about today? That's my question. Couldn't you have created a graphic?
MR. WELCHER: We did. We created a whole bunch of graphics.
MR. ALESSI: You called what we just saw a graphic. Yes. Well, if there's a gap, why isn't there then something that shows a clear gap?
MR. WELCHER: Because when you have the angulation of the vehicles, you have perspective. When you're looking at it, even if you do a top down, you see everything projected onto a single flat plane. So, you can't tell the height of things. So, when you see things in this dimension, you can't necessarily see depth of things. So you lose — in two-dimensional images, you lose one dimension depending on which way you're looking. That's why I showed it from all these different angles to try and show exactly what you're saying. We had graphics to do that. 3D images allow you to show perspectives for 360 degrees. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: That is correct.
MR. ALESSI: So, none of what you presented in your slideshow shows the contact points from 360 degrees, does it?
MR. WELCHER: I don't understand your question. Are you asking if I showed it at every single — I went through 360 slides that showed it at every single degree?
MR. ALESSI: Sir, let's move on. I think I've made the point.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to strike the comment.
MR. ALESSI: Dr. Welcher, let's go to the next topic and keep with these two depictions. Are these two images point clouds or 3D images?
MR. WELCHER: Those are one and the same thing. Yes. I would use them as synonyms.
MR. ALESSI: Which term of the two do you want to use? Point cloud or 3D images.
MR. WELCHER: Both are fine. It's a 3D image composed of points, which —
MR. ALESSI: So let's just call them 3D images so we can do this more quickly. The Lexus and the Chevy Traverse that are depicted there are both 3D images of those vehicles. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, did you do these scans and did you personally create these images?
MR. WELCHER: No, one of the assistants at Aperture did.
MR. ALESSI: So, you're speaking about what somebody else did at Aperture.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. They were doing it at my direction. For example, the Lexus scan — I showed the photographs — you can see the gentleman that works at Aperture, Mike Morelli, was scanning them for me while I was doing the rest of the inspection. And then the hand scanning of the rear tail light was done by another engineer. I was out there with him doing it, taking measurements. And then same thing with the Chevy Traverse.
MR. ALESSI: My question is: you didn't do the creation of these 3D images, did you?
MR. WELCHER: The individual images. No.
MR. ALESSI: All right. So, let's go to these individual images. These are 3D images. Is that your testimony?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Let's look at the tail light. Okay. That's not a 3D image. That's a Photoshop, isn't it?
MR. WELCHER: Nope.
MR. ALESSI: Oh, so it's your testimony that that tail light is a 3D image.
MR. WELCHER: That absolutely is a 3D image. The way you can tell is when you get — I'm sorry — when you get up near the chrome, because lasers don't like shiny objects, you start to get a scatter. So, see all these dots here? If that was a photo, you wouldn't have these dots.
MR. ALESSI: Let's go to the Chevy Traverse. Mr. Woll, zero in on the cont—. There's grain on that tail light — in the tail light. That's a 3D image of the tail light, isn't it, sir?
MR. WELCHER: They're both 3D images.
MR. ALESSI: Well, I just want to stay with one. That tail light is a 3D image. And one of the ways you can tell is because it's got all that grainy material on it. Correct.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Now, let's go back, Mr. Woll, to the Lexus. Let's now go to the bumper.
MR. WELCHER: But do you want me to explain the difference?
MR. ALESSI: No.
MR. WELCHER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: I would like to go to the bumper. Do you see any — the predominance of any grainy image on the bumper?
MR. WELCHER: There's a little bit. So, for example, when you get near edges, it has a hard time with edges.
MR. ALESSI: I'm sorry. The bumper cover, right? See the bumper cover up above? This whole thing is — this whole thing is the bumper cover. That's the step pad. That's the rear body panel or the rear deck lid.
MR. WELCHER: I'm talking about the step pad, sir. Just the step pad of the bumper.
MR. ALESSI: Are you asking about just from here to here?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: The bumper step. Can we zoom in on it?
MR. WELCHER: Pardon me.
MR. ALESSI: Can we zoom in on it?
MR. WELCHER: Sure.
MR. ALESSI: Do you see?
MR. WELCHER: Yeah. I see graininess.
MR. ALESSI: Let's go over to — right. Right in here. You can see it all through here. You see it through here. I'm talking about the step pad, not the entire bumper. I'm just talking about the step pad.
MR. WELCHER: Right.
MR. ALESSI: So, your testimony is that — can you zoom in more? That that's —
MR. WELCHER: You would like it zoomed in?
MR. ALESSI: Yes, sir.
MR. WELCHER: Sure.
MR. ALESSI: Your testimony is that that is a 3D image, not a photoshopped step bumper cover. Is that correct?
MR. WELCHER: So, we have mapped the color over the 3D scans. We used two separate scanners. If you recall, when I got out to Ms. Read's vehicle, that tail light was gone. So, we had to replace the tail light.
MR. ALESSI: Talking about the bumper cover, not the tail light.
MR. WELCHER: Okay. I'm explaining the process.
MR. ALESSI: I'm just asking about the bumper cover, not the process. So, focus your answer on the bumper.
MR. WELCHER: That is a laser scan.
MR. ALESSI: So, your testimony is the step part of the bumper cover is a 3D image from a laser scan and it's not a Photoshop. That's your testimony.
MR. WELCHER: Absolutely.
MR. ALESSI: And you didn't perform the work for the 3D — the bumper step — you didn't do that work to produce that depiction, did you, sir? Somebody else in your firm did it.
MR. WELCHER: So, this is all done at my direction. The engineers that work for me — I'm telling them what to do. I'm not the one punching the keys. That's my direction. I need you to do this, this, this, this, and this. Use the hand scanner. Go scan the light. I need to put this back in because it was missing when we got to it. So, no, I'm not punching the keys.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. to Mr. Woll Over, please. No, we — don't need to back up. Mr. Welcher, isn't it correct that 3D images allow for proper and most accurate measurements as opposed to 2D images? Is that a correct general statement?
MR. WELCHER: Generally, yeah.
MR. ALESSI: Okay, that's my question. So, let's go to the next topic. Let's talk about hydraulics on the Lexus SUV. What type of hydraulic system does the Lexus SUV have?
MR. WELCHER: So, it has a mechanism. I believe it's actually pneumatic. It's an air-based system that raises it up and down.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know what the name of that system is, sir?
MR. WELCHER: No, not off the top of my head.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know how it works specifically?
MR. WELCHER: Well, I know generally that there's a button on the interior where you can raise and lower the ride height.
MR. ALESSI: And is that the extent of your knowledge of that system on the Lexus?
MR. WELCHER: No. Again, I know when you park it, it'll drop down the ride height. When you adjust it for different roadway conditions, it'll change the ride height.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know what the height tolerances are? In other words, the lowest to the highest.
MR. WELCHER: I believe it's around an inch and a quarter. At one point in time, I measured it. I don't remember off the top of my head.
MR. ALESSI: So, you believe it's an inch and a quarter — how do you apply the inch and a quarter?
MR. WELCHER: I recall the total being like an inch and a quarter, but I measured it at one point in time. I just don't remember off the top of my head.
MR. ALESSI: Would you be surprised to hear that the tolerance is five inches on that vehicle?
MR. WELCHER: I would be surprised. I don't recall it being that much, but I would need to double check.
MR. ALESSI: Assume that the manual as well as other information supports that the tolerance is 5 inches, and that specifically the vehicle can be raised 3 inches high and it can be lowered 2 inches. That's the basis for the five. What was the suspension height of Ms. Read's Lexus that you used for your accident reconstruction analysis out front at 34 Fairview between 12 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on January 29th, 2022, to determine whether it was possible for the spoiler on the back of the Lexus to make contact with the eye of Mr. O'Keefe, if it was even possible. What did you use for a measurement of the suspension?
MR. WELCHER: We matched the measurements from when the vehicle was tested, I believe on February 1st at the Canton Police Department.
MR. ALESSI: What match did you make?
MR. WELCHER: So, we aligned the bottom of the tail light, actually the sheet metal right below the tail light. So, we adjusted the height of the Lexus to match that.
MR. ALESSI: Did you in any place document what level the Lexus was at at the time of any testing, meaning the suspension? Did you document at all?
MR. WELCHER: Yes.
MR. ALESSI: Where?
MR. WELCHER: Slide 107.
MR. ALESSI: Can we have slide 107, Mr. Woll? And then if you could zoom in on the lower photograph, the gentleman with the blue shirt. Zoom in a little more, please.
MR. WELCHER: So, if I may, we matched the bottom of the sheet metal here to photographs when it was at the Canton Police Department.
MR. ALESSI: Sir, my question is where did you document whether the suspension was at zero, whether it was +3 or minus 2? Where did you document that?
MR. WELCHER: Right here.
MR. ALESSI: And what are the numbers of the documentation of that?
MR. WELCHER: I don't know. We were matching the photos. So I don't care what the numbers are. I care that the height is the same.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. So I just heard you say, if I heard correctly, you don't care what the suspension is at. Is that your testimony?
MR. WELCHER: I don't care what the suspension number is as long as the heights match.
MR. ALESSI: I understand. I understand. So what was the suspension height of Miss Read's Lexus at 5:07 a.m. on January 29th, 2022 while at One Meadows and colliding with the Chevy Traverse? What was the suspension height then?
MR. WELCHER: We assumed it was the same as when it was at the Canton Police Department.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. You assumed, but there's no measurement like was just on that depiction. There was no note that said, "Okay, we're doing this very important and inch-sensitive measurements to see whether the tail light on the Lexus makes contact with the Traverse," but there's no measurement and no documentation of what the suspension height was at One Meadows. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: So we took the closest measurement in time to the One Meadows event, which is when it was at the Canton Police Department. That was the best information we had.
MR. ALESSI: Well, that information isn't very good because the vehicle had to go from Canton to One Meadows. And when the vehicle drives, the way the suspension system works, it's automatic. When you go above 20 miles an hour, the suspension comes up. And when you turn off the vehicle, it goes down so you can get out easier. So it would be improper to assume that the suspension at One Meadows would be the same at another location.
JUDGE CANNONE: Was there an objection?
MR. LALLY: Yeah.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead and answer, please.
MR. WELCHER: That's the extent of the information we had. We had it when it was at the Canton Police Department. We matched that height. Sorry, sir. I
MR. ALESSI: Understand. But actually, you brought up a good point. It's going so slow when it's backing up that it wouldn't raise up. So the static position when it's backing up would be the static position. But it wouldn't be going back up from the Canton Police Department to One Meadows. It wouldn't be going back up when it's going in other locations, sir.
MR. WELCHER: Right. It would be driving forward. It had to get from point A to point B.
MR. ALESSI: Right. But as you pointed out, when you turn it off, it drops down and then you turn it on and then once you go above 20, as you indicated, it goes up. But when she's backing up, she never goes more than a couple miles an hour. So it's going to be at the same position as when you start, which is approximately the same position when it's off at the Canton Police Department a couple days later. Do you know whether the suspension system locks when there is testing of the infotainment system? Whether the suspension—
MR. WELCHER: I don't know.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Let's go on to the next topic. You're aware of the vehicle — excuse me, your honor. Thank you. I want to go — I'm changing topics to go back now to Fairview, 34 Fairview. You don't know what the suspension ride height at 34 Fairview was on January 29th, 2022, do you?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: So therefore, if you don't know what the suspension height was — because of course you weren't out, you weren't there on January 29th, 2022 — you therefore, there's no measuring stick, as you say. You assert that you would have accounted for it in your methodology. So you don't have the suspension height for that key day, do you, sir?
MR. WELCHER: I only have it two days later.
MR. ALESSI: All right. So when you talk about key measurements such as the spoiler on the top of the Lexus and the inches that are important as to whether things such as is there a contact with the eye, you don't have some data that would be relevant to that calculation. The some data being the suspension height of the Lexus at that time, do you?
MR. WELCHER: So we have some data. We have photos of the vehicle 2 days later. We don't know the exact height outside because as you alluded to, we don't have a measurement on January 29th of it, but we do have it 2 days later. That's the source of the measurement.
MR. ALESSI: You don't have the suspension height or the setting of the suspension of the Lexus that existed on January 29th, 2022. Do you?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Now let's go on to another topic within the 34 Fairview on January 29th of 2022. I'm not going to go over them, but you asserted various measurements, height, width with regard to the Lexus, correct?
MR. WELCHER: It wasn't just for the spoiler at the top.
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Correct.
MR. ALESSI: And for all those other measurements that you talked about, you did not have the suspension height and the suspension setting of the hydraulic system of the Lexus on January 29th, 2022. Did you?
MR. WELCHER: So the hydraulic is only going to affect the vertical dimensions. It doesn't change anything left to right. And it doesn't change anything down the side of the car.
MR. ALESSI: Understood. But for the vertical measurements that are affected by vertical, you didn't have the suspension height of the Lexus system on January 29th, 2022.
MR. WELCHER: Again, I only know what it is 2 days later.
MR. ALESSI: So now let's go on to vehicle control history. Sir, you understand what I mean by vehicle control history, the TechStream information? Are you aware of what is called the Bosch crash data retrieval system in Lexus vehicles?
MR. WELCHER: Of course, we showed it on my slides.
MR. ALESSI: And the Bosch crash data retrieval system in Lexus vehicles is sometimes referred to as the black box.
MR. WELCHER: No, you're mixing up two things. So the Bosch is like the tools.
MR. ALESSI: That's a question, sir. So can you answer that with a yes or no? Is the Bosch crash data retrieval system the black box on Lexus vehicles?
MR. WELCHER: I just wanted to repeat it so we can — I didn't hear — with the objection.
MR. LALLY: You objected. I'd like him to be able to finish his answers.
JUDGE CANNONE: So the question was just asked. Can you answer that question?
MR. WELCHER: No, it doesn't make sense.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Next question. I'm going to ask the question, sir. The Bosch crash data retrieval system in Lexus vehicles — you're familiar with that? Are you familiar with it?
MR. WELCHER: There is no such thing in the Lexus. Lexus does not have a Bosch crash data retrieval system. No.
MR. ALESSI: Have you read the report of Trooper Paul? Yes. The May 2023. Does that report not use the exact words "Bosch"? Do you — let me ask this. Do you recall —
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. ALESSI: Let's go to the VCH system in Lexuses. Is the VCH system intended by Lexus as a diagnostic tool for their technicians — Lexus technicians — to assist in vehicle repair and maintenance? Is that what it is created for?
MR. WELCHER: That's their stated purpose, right?
MR. ALESSI: And is a synonym for VCH "TechStream"? Is TechStream similar — like, Bosch is the hardware and software to access the black box data. TechStream is the software to access, for example, the pre-collision system, the PCS system and the VCH, which is the vehicle control history. So TechStream is it, which does a lot of other stuff but does access that information. You just mentioned Bosch, didn't you, sir?
MR. WELCHER: So Bosch is not in the Lexus. You use Bosch stuff sold by Bosch — Bosch software and hardware — and you walk up to the Lexus with all the Bosch stuff and plug it in and download the event data recorder, the EDR, the black box.
MR. ALESSI: That was my problem. There is no Bosch stuff in the Lexus. I understand, sir. That was going to be the question that I was trying to get to but you've explained it so I don't have to ask the question. Let's go to the VCH database that you say the stated purpose is to assist technicians at Lexus in vehicle repair and maintenance.
MR. WELCHER: So I didn't say that was the stated purpose. I'm saying that's what Lexus or Toyota says is the stated purpose. It's being used in litigation all the time. All I know is that's what Lexus and Toyota says. But again, it came about right when we started seeing all the sudden accelerations in the Toyota vehicles.
MR. ALESSI: So my question is, is the VCH database specific to Toyota and Lexus vehicles?
MR. WELCHER: So it's not a database, it's software. Is the software specific to Lexus and Toyota? Those particular acronyms are. Yes.
MR. ALESSI: I want to move to another topic and we are almost finished. We have just two more topics, sir. How common were VCH events when Miss Read owned the Lexus in 2022? Do you know the ownership period of Miss Read with respect to the Lexus? Do you know how long she owned it?
MR. WELCHER: I have that documentation. I do not know off the top of my head.
MR. ALESSI: Do you have an approximate?
MR. WELCHER: No, I mean it was a 2021 vehicle. Our accident's January 29th, 2022. I did get that information.
MR. ALESSI: Do you know how many VCH events were associated with the Lexus of Miss Read?
MR. WELCHER: I did not count them. I have them all. I was only focused on the ones around our time period.
MR. ALESSI: Exactly. But do you have the number of events? Do you know how many there were?
MR. WELCHER: I can get it for you.
MR. ALESSI: How long would it take, sir?
MR. WELCHER: 3 minutes.
MR. ALESSI: Why don't we come back to it?
MR. WELCHER: Okay.
MR. ALESSI: And we'll see if it's — how about I start this so that we don't have to wait for it to boot up and then when we come back it's ready to go. You okay with that?
MR. WELCHER: That's all you're looking at, sir. Thank you.
MR. ALESSI: And then pick your head up, please, so I can finish these two. Go ahead. So how often were VCH events recorded on the Lexus before January 29th of 2022?
MR. WELCHER: Man, I have to pull this data up.
MR. ALESSI: Fair enough. Fair enough. I assume that's going to be in what you're also pulling up.
MR. WELCHER: That's the goal here.
MR. ALESSI: Would the number be about 15, 15? Does that sound right to you?
MR. WELCHER: Let's see. One, two.
MR. ALESSI: There's 18. So, your records show that there were 18 VCH events recorded on Miss Read's Lexus.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Before the subject event. Did you conclude that any of those events other than the 1/29/22 were a collision?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: Now, let's go to reverse recorded events. Can you tell how many of those 18 events were reverse recorded events? And you know what I mean by reverse recorded events?
MR. WELCHER: Yes. The vehicle going in reverse.
MR. ALESSI: How many of those events were the vehicle going in reverse? And this is before—
JUDGE CANNONE: He asked you, is this before?
MR. ALESSI: Yes. I'm sorry.
MR. WELCHER: Oh, I would have to pull up the PCS file.
MR. ALESSI: Could you start that and I can continue on with the questioning?
MR. WELCHER: I got to— So, the PCS file is— I have a second laptop that has— here's what I'm going to do.
MR. ALESSI: That's not important for me to keep going and get through it. So, let's just stay on the events. Only one of all of those events, those 18, are you concluding that there was a collision associated with them?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. Just one.
MR. ALESSI: No, all those 18 are before the collision— is it nine or 19?
MR. WELCHER: No, no. I'm saying— I understand what you're saying, but for all the other events that are recorded, you're not— other than the January 29, '22— you're not concluding that any of those were collisions. Correct. I didn't look at them. They were so far mileage away from everything.
MR. ALESSI: But you're not concluding— even though they were so far away and you didn't look at them— you don't conclude from the information you have that any of them were a collision.
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: Okay. Let's go to 5:07 a.m. on January 29th, 2022 at 1 Meadows, the home of Mr. O'Keefe. Okay. There was a collision between Miss Read's 6,000-lb Lexus and Mr. O'Keefe's approximately 4,500-lb Chevy Traverse. That's undisputed. Correct. They collided. They made contact. They touched. Right. But the actual collision at 1 Meadows did not register the recording of an event on the Lexus VCH system. Did it?
MR. WELCHER: Correct. It's too minor.
MR. ALESSI: So, however, you want this jury, sir, to conclude that the glancing blow that you contend occurred at 34 Fairview Road by the same 6,000-lb Lexus in contact with a mere 216-lb man did register an event on the Lexus. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: No, the impact didn't register the event. As I pointed out, the trigger— the trigger was from when the accelerator pedal went to 30%. The TechStream does not register crashes at all. Rather, excessive acceleration, excessive steering, excessive braking— things like that, things that would be part of the maintenance system. So, the TechStream will never register an event even if you hit a wall at 100 miles an hour— necessarily. And it'll cause fault codes and things like that, but that's not what it does. The trigger here was transitioning into reverse and then gunning the accelerator pedal in reverse. And so when it went from 30 up to 74% throttle, once it went over 30 in that transition, that's what triggered the TechStream.
MR. WELCHER: It had nothing to do with— and that's why I'm telling you I don't know when in that event the impact occurred because the TechStream doesn't tell you that.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you. That is exactly my point. The TechStream information doesn't tell you when a collision occurs, does it?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: It's all the questions I have at this time, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Why don't we take our morning recess?
PARENTHETICAL: [recess]
COURT OFFICER: Thank you. Please be seated. Court is in session.
JUDGE CANNONE: Redirect, Mr.—
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you. Good afternoon.
MR. WELCHER: Good afternoon, Mr. Brennan.
MR. BRENNAN: You were asked some questions— actually, it's morning, but yes— you were asked some questions about the ring video from 1 Meadows, which was John O'Keefe's home, and you were asked whether you're aware if the cameras had changed over time. The fact that the camera was replaced, does that in any way affect your opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty about your conclusions relative to that touching between the cars?
MR. WELCHER: Absolutely not. It would have shown up as increased error when we overlaid the point clouds onto the photos— or the point clouds onto the video. If it was an error, it would have showed an error.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you have any concern whatsoever that any of the information from the scan is in any way tainted, compromised, or inadequate?
MR. WELCHER: That would be very hard to do. You literally press a button and stand there and watch it and the laser does its thing. So, I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve it. Additionally, again, if it was messed up, once you laid it over on top of the photograph, it would show the difference. So, no, the data is fine.
MR. BRENNAN: Is there any evidence whatsoever that you've seen that any parts of your presentation were photoshopped?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. BRENNAN: You were asked questions about the suspension of the motor vehicle of the defendant's Lexus. Do you have any information that the suspension at any point was changed?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Yesterday you were asked a number of questions about formulas. You took out your calculator and you were asked about different variables. Were those variables hypotheticals or were they related to this specific case?
MR. WELCHER: So they seemed hypothetical. Again, you have to be careful when you're talking about failure forces on biomechanical things. For example, if you impact the hand with a, say, 1-inch narrow metal bar, that's a lot different than if you have a broad, say, plastic tail light or rear body panel. So, when you have distributed loads, you can take much more. I told you guys about sitting on the bed— like how much you sink in. That's an example of spreading your load out. When you spread the load out, you don't sink in as much. So, same thing with forces on your body. If you take this pencil, I don't have to press very hard for it to— to push in. But if I spread it out, I have to press much harder. So you have to look at the distribution of the load when you're talking about the failure.
MR. WELCHER: So when you look at the failure loads, it depends on what you're doing it with. If I hit you with a 5-lb 2x4 or a 5-lb pillow, they're both 5 lb, but you'd much rather get hit by the pillow than the 2x4.
MR. BRENNAN: When you were asked questions about communications— when you would have communications with the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office— did you ever use encrypted apps to secretly hide your communications? Apps like Signal?
MR. WELCHER: No, I don't have any of those.
MR. BRENNAN: So, the form of the question— ask it differently. When you were communicating with members of the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office, did you ever use encrypted apps like Signal to communicate?
MR. JACKSON: Scope, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
MR. WELCHER: No. I mean, I don't even know what that is.
MR. BRENNAN: Would you ever use an encrypted app so those communications couldn't be tracked?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. BRENNAN: You were asked about confirmation bias. You remember those questions?
MR. WELCHER: I do.
MR. BRENNAN: Could I have slide 33 of your PowerPoint, please? Slide 33. Give me a second. You could zoom that in, please. A little larger so we can see it.
MR. WELCHER: I cannot do it with one monitor. You can't do it any closer than that. No, not since I took down. Oh, hold on. Here we go. Which part do you want me to zoom in?
MR. BRENNAN: Miss Gilman can zoom in for you. Sorry. Which part? Miss Gilman's going to do it for you. Oh, there you go. Perfect. If you could zoom in, please. Okay. On shift position signal going forward, then neutral and reverse. Does that data suffer from confirmation bias?
MR. WELCHER: No, that's strictly electronic data.
MR. BRENNAN: When we look over at the vehicle speed— can we go to the left a little bit, down? Vehicle speed ending at 23.61 miles per hour. Does that suffer from confirmation bias?
MR. WELCHER: No. Again, these are direct readings from the vehicle. Again, that speed on this here— you have to correct for the slippage, which I do later on the slide, but that is a direct reading from what the speedometer is seeing.
MR. BRENNAN: Acceleration at the end of that 10-second window, 74%. Does that suffer from confirmation bias?
MR. WELCHER: No, that's a direct reading of a sensor. That's objective information.
MR. BRENNAN: I have no further questions. Thank you. Wow.
JUDGE CANNONE: Anything, Mr. Alessi?
MR. ALESSI: May I, your honor? Yes. Thank you. Dr. Welcher, you were just asked questions about slide 33, which is the slide about TechStream data. You acknowledge that TechStream data— what you have called a trigger— that was on that slide, does not tell you if a collision even occurred. Correct?
MR. WELCHER: Correct.
MR. ALESSI: With regard to the topic of confirmation bias that you were just asked about in slide 33, am I correct that all of the questions that Attorney Brennan just asked you were about data on that slide? Correct. All that's on that slide is data. Correct. Now, he asked more questions than just this slide. But were the questions just about data? On this slide, it was just about data. Correct. But confirmation bias is really aimed at opinions and conclusions and alternative hypotheses. Isn't that what confirmation bias gets at? So, generally, yes. Again, I started this case— go ahead, sir. Go ahead— with the hypothesis that the Lexus didn't contact Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. WELCHER: And so I start what's called the null hypothesis— that it didn't happen. And then I look at evidence to either include or exclude the null hypothesis. So theoretically, my confirmation bias starts with a bias that it didn't happen.
MR. ALESSI: Can you point to one document that shows that you analyzed whether there was no contact between the Lexus and Mr. O'Keefe? Point to one document. Was there one document on
MR. ALESSI: your slide presentation, for example, that analyzed the null hypothesis — as you put forth — there being no contact at all? Was there any slide in your direct testimony?
MR. WELCHER: So remember what I said — we start with a hypothesis, we get more data, we whittle down our hypothesis to the final answer. I mean, I had 130 slides. I suspect I bored some of these people to death already. So I didn't include everything. There are thousands of photographs in here. There was a bunch of testing I did with the Lexus about backing pedestrian detection that, you know, removed certain hypotheses. So if I was able to eliminate a hypothesis, I didn't present—
MR. ALESSI: —it here. Sir, my question is not about all the slides. To answer your question: is there any slide that says "alternative hypothesis" — whatever the label is, whatever the term — that says no contact between the Lexus vehicle and Mr. O'Keefe? Is there any document that you presented to the jury that shows that? Any document where those words are written on it?
MR. WELCHER: No.
MR. ALESSI: And to work through hypotheses — different ones — in confirmation, to see whether there's confirmation bias: have you heard of scientists refer to that as "showing your math," so to speak? In working through hypotheses, documenting each hypothesis and how and why you— —rejected them? Have you heard of that term in the scientific world — "show your math" — with confirmation biases and alternative hypotheses? Just a question. Have you heard the idiom, the phrase "show your math?"
MR. WELCHER: Your question is have I ever heard "show your math?" Period.
MR. ALESSI: Associated with the application of various hypotheses to avoid confirmation bias. Have you heard of that term used in that conjunction?
MR. WELCHER: Not really in that context. It's probably — I understand where you're going with it.
MR. ALESSI: Thank you, sir.
MR. WELCHER: You're welcome.
MR. ALESSI: No further questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: Dr. Welcher, you are awesome.
MR. WELCHER: Oh my god. Thank you. Give me a minute to pack up and I will— —be out of here. I am plugged in.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, thank you. Excuse me. Yes, you can.
MR. WELCHER: Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah.
MR. WELCHER: I'll do this. May I step down?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, you can. Thank you very much.