Marie Russell - Cross (Part 1)

MR. BRENNAN: May I?

MR. BRENNAN: Good morning, doctor.

MR. BRENNAN: I had asked you yesterday if your opinions regarding the wounds on Mr. O'Keefe's arm changed between when you testified last year and then the more recent hearings that we've had over the past four or five months. Do you remember that question?

MR. BRENNAN: And when I asked you that question, I asked if you had help with your report, and you told us that there was a woman who helped you with your report.

MR. BRENNAN: When I asked you about the identity of the person who actually helped you, I asked you if it was one of the attorneys and you had said no.

MR. BRENNAN: May I approach, your honor?

MR. BRENNAN: [Exhibit] 24. May I ask questions? Thank you. You had testified on December 22nd, 2024 in this case. I believe it was that date.

MR. BRENNAN: And when you testified back in December of 2024, do you remember I asked you who it was that had assisted you with your report?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, I'm going to show you a page from the testimony. This is from the hearing. And I asked you, line 21, page 207, "Did anybody help you write this report?" And what did you say?

MR. BRENNAN: Then I said, "Okay." And you answered, "No, I wrote the report." And then finally, I asked, "Who helped you with your report?" What did you tell us?

MR. BRENNAN: And Mr. Alessi — is that the attorney who asked questions on direct examination?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And so, did Mr. Alessi help you with your report?

MR. BRENNAN: Is your memory different now than it was last December?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you think you would have testified to that if it was inaccurate?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you have any help trying to describe methodology?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you have any help talking about differential diagnosis?

MR. BRENNAN: And so after that report was written, is there any reason why some of your opinions have changed?

MR. BRENNAN: When you testified at the hearing last year, June 21st, 2024— Did you express that you couldn't say with 100% certainty what type of animal, in your opinion, caused those wounds?

MR. BRENNAN: If it's your recollection, I'm happy to show you what you testified to. You want to see it again?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. By the way, between last night and today, did you get any advice from anybody suggesting you should ask for a transcript when I asked you a question? Did that advice come your way?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, did you have any advice last night about that?

MR. BRENNAN: Who told you last night that you should always ask for a transcript when I'm asking you questions?

MR. BRENNAN: So, did you and Mr. Alessi — you know there's a sequestration order, don't you?

MR. BRENNAN: A sequestration order that you're not supposed to discuss the case at all with anybody?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you know that the sequestration order mandates that you not discuss anything about the case from when you start your testimony until you end your testimony? You know that, right?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you understand the sequestration order mandates that you're not supposed to speak to people, including the attorneys, about this case overnight? Did you understand that?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, did you understand that you weren't supposed to? Is what I'm asking. Did you know that's a violation of the sequestration order to speak to the attorneys overnight?

MR. BRENNAN: So, did you meet with Attorney Alessi last night?

MR. BRENNAN: How was it that you had a conversation with him?

MR. BRENNAN: You drove together?

MR. BRENNAN: So, did you commute to and from court together with Attorney Alessi?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Who else was in the car when you left court yesterday? The driver?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, you just said that you spoke to Attorney Alessi yesterday, and I'm trying to figure out when was it that you were having conversations with Mr. Alessi relative to the sequestration order that you're under?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So, you and Attorney Alessi drove to court with the limo driver.

MR. BRENNAN: Who was in the limo with you and Attorney Alessi on the way to court today? Just you two?

MR. BRENNAN: Just you two? What else did you both talk about other than that you should ask for a transcript every time I ask you a question?

MR. BRENNAN: Was it a long conversation?

MR. BRENNAN: The entire ride here, there must be more you spoke about other than just the sequestration order.

MR. BRENNAN: But I'm talking about this morning when you did speak about the case. What else? Not about the Red Sox or the weather. What else did you talk to Attorney Alessi about this morning other than you should ask for a transcript every time I ask you a question?

MR. BRENNAN: About this case?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm sorry, but I'm asking about this case.

MR. BRENNAN: I want to know what all the discussions were between you and this attorney today or last night about this case.

MR. BRENNAN: Well, there must have been some context. He didn't just turn to you talking about the weather and say, "Hey, you should ask for a transcript." You must have been talking about something.

MR. BRENNAN: Fantastic. But this morning about your testimony, what did he tell you? Did he tell you this morning you should be honest?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Does anybody need to remind you to be honest when you testify?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. What else did he talk about? How did it come up? "Hey, by the way, ask for transcripts."

MR. BRENNAN: Well, it was just moments ago it happened because you just got to the court. You can't remember the context of the sage advice of attorney Alessi?

MR. BRENNAN: You have any memory issues?

MR. BRENNAN: May I approach?

MR. BRENNAN: Since you've asked for the transcript, I have it for you. Dr. Russell, this is June 21st, 2024. I had asked you whether you expressed that you couldn't say with 100% certainty. You agreed with my answer, so there's no need to try to refresh your memory. But we're going to show it to you because you asked. Take a look at line 16. Is that now consistent with the questions I asked you and the answer that you gave — that you were less than — that you couldn't be 100% certain?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you want more time with the transcript?

MR. BRENNAN: Has anybody else talked to you about your testimony today overnight, Dr. Russell?

MR. BRENNAN: When you testified last year, same transcript that we just looked at, do you remember when you gave your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you said that you thought the wounds were from an animal, possibly a large dog, on that same date?

MR. BRENNAN: May I see the transcript?

MR. BRENNAN: Pursuant to attorney Alessi's advice, let me approach.

MR. BRENNAN: I approach.

MR. BRENNAN: 23. June 21st, 2024.

MR. BRENNAN: June 21st, page 23, line 14. Will you read the question based on everything we've discussed today? Is it your opinion based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty these injuries were from an animal attack, possibly a large dog? What did you say?

MR. BRENNAN: Thank you. Got that back.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Thank you. When you gave your opinion, not this year, last year, you agreed when you were assessing the wound, you used the word or adopted the word possibly, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Sure. That sentence. Sure. Go right ahead.

MR. BRENNAN: I'm sorry. Okay. Then — I'm sorry. Please rephrase the question. When you were asked about your opinion last year, not this year, last year, about whether to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the injuries were from an animal attack, possibly a large dog — you agreed with that characterization, a large animal, possibly a dog, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: When you were on direct examination, there were tons of questions about this word methodology. Do you remember all those questions you were asked — in June? Yesterday?

MR. BRENNAN: Yesterday. Okay. Yes. And when you were asked about methodology, was that an attempt to try to explain that you weren't just looking at an abrasion and guessing or eyeballing it? You were trying to suggest some type of scientific or medical process to give some type of certainty to your opinion.

MR. BRENNAN: When you talked about methodology yesterday, you talked about your experience in methodology with knife wounds and gunshot wounds. Correct?

MR. BRENNAN: But there was no methodology whatsoever regarding looking at a photograph and then identifying whether that is consistent with dog bites.

MR. BRENNAN: When you describe methodology, you were asked by attorney Alessi whether or not you've engaged in that methodology regarding dog bites. Did you agree that there is really no methodology regarding dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: When you use the word methodology regarding dog bites, there isn't something specific you're looking at as if you were looking at a fingerprint. There are points of comparison. You don't do that, do you?

MR. BRENNAN: Is there?

MR. BRENNAN: So there is no source, there is no recognized community, there's no certification, there is no recognized method in identifying a superficial abrasion as a dog bite. Isn't that fair to say?

MR. BRENNAN: How about published standards? Are there any published standards whatsoever — any regarding claims that a superficial abrasion is a dog bite? Are there any published standards by any organization?

MR. BRENNAN: No published standards. There is nowhere you can point to where the so-called methodology that you were telling the jury yesterday is a readily accepted standard in the dog bite community. You can't point to anywhere, can you?

MR. BRENNAN: Let me ask you the question again, Dr. Russell. Can you point to one place where there is a readily accepted standard in the dog bite community for identifying dog bites? One article, one journal, one book. Can you point to any?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm going to ask you the question one more time before I approach. Can you point to one place — one — where there is a readily accepted standard in the dog bite community for identifying dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: And so with no readily accepted standards in the dog bite community, no defined methodology, when you look at a photo like you do of John O'Keefe's arm, you're just eyeballing it based on your personal experience with dog bites rather than relying on some type of scientific foundation that has been published and accepted in the community.

MR. BRENNAN: Isn't that fair to say, Dr. Russell?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm not talking about a stuffy nose or a broken leg. We're talking about dog bites here. So let's focus on dog bites. If you can indulge me, doctor — regarding dog bites, since there is no standard practice, there is no accepted methodology, and since there are no accepted and approved guidelines, you are essentially simply looking at a picture, a photograph, and just using your past experience with treating dog bites as the basis for your opinion. Isn't that fair to say?

MR. BRENNAN: When you say coming up with a methodology, are you saying that you're creating your own methodology — that you're the person who has the standard and nobody else? Is that your position, Dr. Russell?

MR. BRENNAN: There is no standard in the medical community relative to differential diagnosis and pattern recognition as it relates to dog bites. Not other areas of medicine — dog bites. There is no accepted methodology, is there?

MR. BRENNAN: You mentioned that you have this strong interest in dog bites. Let me borrow a phrase. Do you think you had any confirmation bias when you got into this case?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, you definitely wanted to be in this case. You weren't sought out. You sought the case.

MR. BRENNAN: And you said you had a strong interest in dogs, and that is one of the reasons you wanted to get involved in this case. Isn't that fair to say?

MR. BRENNAN: On your ride over here today, were you instructed that when I ask a question, rather than answer it, give a long explanation about something else?

MR. BRENNAN: I would like to put up an exhibit of Mr. O'Keefe's arm, and I want to ask you some questions about it. You and I have had many conversations about Mr. O'Keefe's superficial scratches before, haven't we?

MR. BRENNAN: And would you agree looking at these, they are superficial abrasions. Do you agree with that characterization?

MR. BRENNAN: When we last spoke, just for background to remind ourselves, we broke these into separate parts so we could discuss them by number just for the sense of clarity. And we discussed this as wound number one. Do you remember that grouping number one?

MR. BRENNAN: Number two.

MR. BRENNAN: Number three.

MR. BRENNAN: Four.

MR. BRENNAN: Five.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So as we go through, I'm going to identify them by number. That wasn't done by anybody else. It was just during our discussion so we can have clarity. Is that fair?

MR. BRENNAN: Is it fair if I refer to this as one, two, three, four, five, six?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. When you testified on June 18th of 2024, last year, when you came in, you were asked questions before the actual hearing. You were asked questions about this particular superficial abrasion, weren't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember when you were first giving opinion testimony about this specific abrasion, wound number one? Do you remember saying that you thought it was either teeth or nails?

MR. BRENNAN: I will give you the transcript. And as I'm doing that, let me ask you — do you remember your testimony about what you actually said? Do you remember your testimony for each specific day?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm going to bring your transcript up to remind you, but if you have an opinion, it shouldn't change, right? It should always be the same generally.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So let me ask you, before we talk about what you said at the beginning — what is this from? Teeth or nails?

MR. BRENNAN: So when you say they could be either — if you have a methodology and you have a certain standard where you can identify something based on a standard, there wouldn't be so much uncertainty, would there? You'd be able to look at this, consider the methodology and either come to an opinion whether it was teeth, nails, or something totally different, right?

MR. BRENNAN: Are you saying that nails of a dog are so similar to the teeth that you can't tell the difference between them when you're looking at a wound?

MR. BRENNAN: Are you able, as the premier expert in the United States on dog bites, to tell the difference between teeth and claw nails of an animal when you're looking at a wound? Individually?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, when you first started testifying in this case, you never suggested you had to look at everything in totality. You were giving opinions regarding individual wounds. Isn't that fair to say?

MR. BRENNAN: It wasn't until I began asking you questions and you had inconsistent answers that you've now changed — rather than identifying individual wounds, now you're saying you can't identify individual wounds, but you can tell in totality.

MR. BRENNAN: So today, before we get to your testimony — you're saying this could be either teeth or nails, but you think it's probably teeth.

MR. BRENNAN: How probable? Do you think it's certainly teeth to a reasonable degree of medical certainty? You're not sure. What is the value of your certainty or lack of certainty about what caused this wound?

MR. BRENNAN: What is a reasonable degree of medical certainty? That what?

MR. BRENNAN: Teeth. Okay. When you first testified, your position was it could have been teeth or nails. That is different than saying, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, teeth. Isn't it?

MR. BRENNAN: When you first testified, you didn't qualify it as a small possibility, did you?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, you answered. Do you remember when you were asked about it and you answered? You talked about that it was a pattern close to the shoulder with parallel marks. Do you remember?

MR. BRENNAN: Mm-hmm. Right. That they're superficial. You agree with that still?

MR. BRENNAN: And did you say they were consistent with teeth and nail marks?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Nails on a dog oftentimes or most times are horseshoe-shaped, aren't they?

MR. BRENNAN: You don't think that nails on a dog in your studies have a horseshoe shape?

MR. BRENNAN: And so to get back to my question — you're saying that this could have been caused by dog nails.

MR. BRENNAN: Do you know or do you think that the teeth in a dog are different shapes and sizes?

MR. BRENNAN: When you testified the first time and you said that you thought it was teeth or nails.

MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember testifying a couple days later in front of a group of people and you again iterated that this could be teeth or claw marks? That was your testimony last year. Teeth or claw marks, right?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you testify at that prior proceeding last summer that this could have been teeth or claw marks?

MR. BRENNAN: May I approach?

MR. BRENNAN: When you first testified on June 18th, doctor, you were asked questions trying to identify what you thought that wound was. And this is your June 18th, 2024 testimony. On page 37, line seven, the questions begin. And you were asked what you thought they were. You can read any part you want, but line seven would be a starting point.

MR. BRENNAN: That was your first testimony last year.

MR. BRENNAN: And then did you testify a couple days later and again repeated the same opinion, teeth or nail marks?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm asking if you remember.

MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember after you worked on your report and submitted your report?

MR. BRENNAN: After your consultations, do you remember changing that opinion regarding number one? Do you remember changing that opinion?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember changing from either teeth or possibly claw marks to being very specific, claiming that it was definitely teeth marks?

MR. BRENNAN: Are there different types of teeth in a dog?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. The pointy teeth, the big ones — those are called canines.

MR. BRENNAN: And the smaller ones are —incisors.

MR. BRENNAN: There are six incisors in a healthy dog on the top and bottom between the canines.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Did you, when you testified subsequently to the original proceedings, did you change your opinion from teeth or claw marks to specifically teeth, and even more specifically, canines?

MR. BRENNAN: I do, but I'm going to ask you the question. Do you remember changing your testimony from teeth or nails to being very certain that it was canines — not just teeth, canines — that caused that wound?

MR. BRENNAN: You had never said that the canines caused these wounds before you filed your report ever, did you?

MR. BRENNAN: And so after you did your report, you shifted from teeth and nails to canines. Do you remember that?

MR. BRENNAN: No one would ever refer to a dog's nails as canines, would they?

MR. BRENNAN: That would be inaccurate, wouldn't it?

MR. BRENNAN: So when you testified December of 2024, you didn't say nails could have caused this wound. You didn't say generally teeth. You said canines.

MR. BRENNAN: Did you have any new information about photographs that would help you change your opinion from teeth and nails to canines?

MR. BRENNAN: You say more certain. You had never said canines before — ever — until that recent hearing. Isn't that true?

MR. BRENNAN: Upper. Upper or lower canines?

MR. BRENNAN: And if it's upper canines, you testified previously that the point of entry would be here at the bottom and the dog would pull this way. That's what you testified to.

MR. BRENNAN: Dr. Russell, you don't recall that you said that the bigger circles are the point of entry. The dog pulled this way, and then I asked you how could a dog pull this way when the arc is like this — the dog's mouth would have to be in backwards. Do you remember that conversation we had?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember that conversation? You said that the point of entry would be the bigger circle, pulled this way. And then I questioned how could a dog's arc look like this if the teeth went that way?

MR. BRENNAN: Remember that conversation we had? Okay. And so, inevitably, when you look at this part of the wound alone, have you expressed an opinion that you're unable, on its own, to tell whether this was caused by a dog?

MR. BRENNAN: Taking any of these — any of these alone — let's start with number one. Haven't you expressed an opinion that taking this alone you would not be able to say that was from a dog bite?

MR. BRENNAN: So if Mr. O'Keefe's arm only had this wound and nothing else. By virtue of what you're telling us, you would not be able to offer an opinion that this was consistent with a dog bite.

MR. BRENNAN: In fact, you've testified about this very issue before. If this was the only wound on Mr. O'Keefe, number two, you would not be able to say that the injury is consistent with a dog bite.

MR. BRENNAN: I'm going to go through all of these just so we're clear. Same thing with number three. You've provided opinions on this before. If you look at this wound alone in isolation, you would not be able to say that it came from a dog bite.

MR. BRENNAN: Four.

MR. BRENNAN: Four. Same. Looking at the wound alone, you would not be able to say it came from a dog bite.

MR. BRENNAN: Same for five and same for six.

MR. BRENNAN: Now, when you testified before your recent testimony, you never had that qualification. When you came into court, you were saying that when you looked at these wounds individually, you were saying that you could identify as a dog bite.

MR. BRENNAN: Number two, what caused this wound, Dr. Russell?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So you're using words like "could" and we're talking about a reasonable degree of medical certainty. So when you look at this wound here, you said that you are — sure or not sure — what caused this wound.

MR. BRENNAN: I want to go through each of these wounds separately so we understand what you actually recognize with the methodology and what you don't. So looking at wound number two, based on whatever methodology you've been using, are there any signs, indicators, objective criteria you can look at and tell us this is or is not a dog bite based on this methodology you have?

MR. BRENNAN: No.

MR. BRENNAN: You said on this first wound you thought this was from the canines. Those are the big upper teeth, is what you're claiming, right?

MR. BRENNAN: And you're saying today it starts here at the base and goes up. Is that your position today?

MR. BRENNAN: Correct. Okay. And these two scratches, they're linear — just like these are linear, aren't they?

MR. BRENNAN: But you have a problem with these, because if these are the canines, you see the spacing there?

MR. BRENNAN: This is nowhere close, is it?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, we can talk about that in a second. Are you suggesting that these — well, not exact — these two linear abrasions, just like one and two, are you suggesting the canines caused these?

MR. BRENNAN: Which teeth caused those, or which nails caused those? When you testified last year on June 18th, you said that this was either teeth or claws. Can you give us any development of your opinions — whether or not you think that is teeth or claws?

MR. BRENNAN: When you testified on June 18th, you said wound number two — the top two linear abrasions — you believe were either teeth or claws. You shared with us now you have improved your study and have new opinions. Do you have a clearer opinion whether this is teeth or claws?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you have an opinion whether this is teeth or claws, or not — something totally different than a dog?

MR. BRENNAN: When you testified at trial and in that hearing that they were teeth or claws, you changed that opinion as well at the most recent hearings, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Sorry. Worded differently. Okay. Did you testify at a more recent hearing that teeth made these — not teeth or claws, but teeth?

MR. BRENNAN: May I approach?

MR. BRENNAN: May I approach?

MR. BRENNAN: From your December hearing, page 100, line five — when you were asked about that second wound in December and I asked whether you changed your opinion from teeth or claws to just teeth —

MR. BRENNAN: Sure, I'll read it with you.

MR. BRENNAN: Yeah, I think the first part of that paragraph is talking about the first set up there, close to the shoulder. And then this sentence — "but I'm not sure on the second set. So this is the set that's just above the elbow." I said I'm not sure.

MR. BRENNAN: Are You done?

MR. BRENNAN: And so when you first described this wound as teeth or claws, at the most recent hearing, you had a certain opinion that this was teeth, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Correct. Well, it didn't seem like you were leaning. You said these were from the upper teeth. You said it — you said it matter of factly, not with any qualification. Your claim at the last hearing is this was from teeth.

MR. BRENNAN: And today you're saying you don't know if these were teeth or not with 100% certainty. You didn't qualify 100% certainty. You were asked your opinion, Dr. Russell. You were asked, "What do you think?" And you didn't say "without 100% certainty" — your claim. The first time you testified: teeth or claws. Recently, you said teeth. And now you're saying you're not sure?

MR. BRENNAN: Suffice to say, looking at wound 2 alone, you cannot say this was caused by a dog.

MR. BRENNAN: What tooth do you think caused this wound?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you think this in any way could be caused by dog teeth? If you're claiming that this is dog teeth — excuse me. Do you think there's any way these two could be caused by dog teeth?

MR. BRENNAN: The canines are the longer teeth in a dog's mouth, aren't they?

MR. BRENNAN: And when a dog bites, it's very common for the canines to puncture, isn't it?

MR. BRENNAN: Look at the spacing, Dr. Russell. Did you say "scrape" or "strike"?

MR. BRENNAN: Look at the spacing, Dr. Russell. A dog causing these wounds — the canines are not going to have such a dramatic distance between them, because dog canines don't move, do they?

MR. BRENNAN: You think a dog is going to leave a wound with linear abrasions using its incisors as opposed to its canines? Is that your opinion?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever look at the underside of Mr. O'Keefe's arm?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you looked at the photographs of the posterior side of Mr. O'Keefe's arm, did you find anything conspicuously absent from underneath his arm?

MR. BRENNAN: Exactly. What I'm asking is a question I've asked before. When you look at the other side of Mr. O'Keefe's arm, did you notice anything conspicuously absent?

MR. BRENNAN: When a dog bites — I don't care if it's a law enforcement dog or a domestic dog — you know, it's like a lever, a dog's mouth, isn't it?

MR. BRENNAN: The lower jaw is a lever — locks — and that's part of the clamping and pulling process of a dog, whether it's a law enforcement dog or a domestic dog. You know that, don't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Your claim is that there are many, many different dog bites on O'Keefe's arm. Are you suggesting, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that these are a number of different dog strikes, and coincidentally every single one of them lacks any wound to the underside of his arm?

MR. BRENNAN: Your claim is that a dog penetrated the sweater on the top, but the lower jaw did not leave any wounds.

MR. BRENNAN: You're saying "could be" — that's speculation. We're asking you for your medical opinions. Your medical opinions. Do you have any evidence that the dog's lower jaw — you said "maybe upper, maybe" — that the lower jaw, even just once in this whole event, penetrated Mr. O'Keefe's skin?

MR. BRENNAN: Rather than dealing in speculation with "may," can you tell us to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether or not this was caused by a tooth?

MR. BRENNAN: Can you tell us to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether this superficial abrasion — put that back up, please — was caused by a dog, in and of itself, that part only?

MR. BRENNAN: Can you tell us anywhere on Mr. O'Keefe's arm, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, where the lower jaw impacted Mr. O'Keefe, to leave even a scratch?

MR. BRENNAN: And not just individual wounds. I'm talking specifically the lower jaw. Can you point to one wound, one abrasion on that arm where you can say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the lower jaw caused any of those abrasions?

MR. BRENNAN: Let's look at number three, to move along. When you first talked about these wounds, again, is it fair to say that you described that it could have either been teeth or claws?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. I'll bring it to you. You don't remember that testimony?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, do you have the opinion today? And I'm getting the transcript for you, Dr. Russell.

MR. BRENNAN: Do you have the opinion today that those were either teeth or claws?

MR. BRENNAN: What's your opinion today?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, rather than "most likely," we deal with reasonable degree of medical certainty. To a reasonable degree of medical certainty, can you give us an opinion regarding the cause of those marks?

MR. BRENNAN: Can you tell us to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether these wounds were caused by teeth or claws?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever change your mind about the source of these abrasions?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever claim that any of these abrasions were from upper or lower teeth?

MR. BRENNAN: You don't recall if you've ever said that. Let's separate these bottom wounds. Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether these were caused by teeth or claws?

MR. BRENNAN: To a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether these were caused by either dog teeth or dog claws?

MR. BRENNAN: The one near the wrist. You had testified yesterday there are lines in what you believe to be an arc. Correct?

MR. BRENNAN: If there is an arc, and there are two linear abrasions on the outside borders, wouldn't these necessarily have to be the outside borders from canine teeth?

MR. BRENNAN: They're longer than the middle ones, aren't they?

MR. BRENNAN: If this was an arc like you claimed, you think different teeth other than the canines could have caused the outside scratches?

MR. BRENNAN: And you do note the distance between the top and bottom of those wounds compared to the distance in number two and the distance in number one.

MR. BRENNAN: And you have to concede, Dr. Russell, that the same set of teeth, the same canines, could not reasonably have caused this wound, this wound, and this wound, given the distance between the inside and outside.

MR. BRENNAN: This is not a slight difference, Dr. Russell, is it?

MR. BRENNAN: Dr. Russell, the distance here — it's not insignificant, is it?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you measured them?

MR. BRENNAN: And what did you come up with visually?

MR. BRENNAN: What was your measurement for this one?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you note that in the report? Did you measure them? Excuse me. Did you actually take out a ruler, measure them, and document them as you studied these wounds? Did you go through that process during your methodology?

MR. BRENNAN: Why did you go through the process of measuring them if you're now saying that it's inaccurate — after I asked you if you memorialized it? Why would you even do it if you're now saying it was inaccurate?

MR. BRENNAN: In your mind?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. But you never put it on a piece of paper, report notes.

MR. BRENNAN: Why would you even go through the process if you're looking at it and your explanation is it's only a photo — I wouldn't be able to tell. Why would you even try to?

MR. BRENNAN: And if anybody in this room did the same thing, it would be quite obvious, doctor, that the gaps between one, two, and five are dramatically different from each other, aren't they?

MR. BRENNAN: When you testified yesterday, you used the term "differential diagnosis." I want to ask you a lot of questions about differential diagnosis. Do you remember using that term?

MR. BRENNAN: And differential diagnosis was really just a way for you to try to get your opinion to the jury that these injuries were not consistent with the car accident. That's what a fancy way of doing it is, right?

MR. BRENNAN: You're claiming that you can say this is not from a car accident or a car collision. That's what you're trying to say, aren't you?

MR. BRENNAN: If you're going to exclude a cause of the injury — in this case, a collision — you have to know a little bit about collisions, don't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, try. Can you be more specific? If you're going to say that these superficial abrasions could not have been caused by a car collision, you kind of have to understand a little bit about the mechanics of a car collision, don't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you really think— I'm sorry. Did you finish that answer, Doctor?

MR. BRENNAN: Did I cut you off?

MR. BRENNAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Please continue.

MR. BRENNAN: When you first gave that opinion that it wasn't consistent with the motor vehicle accident, it's fair to say you didn't have a lot of information at that time when you first came in and said that. Correct? Specific to this case?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And so in order to rule out a collision causing these wounds, let me ask you — are you an accident reconstruction expert?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever go to any academy for training to receive any type of degree or certificates in car collisions?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you agree that what training you did have was rudimentary?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, not probably. You've used that word before. Wouldn't you say that any training you have had has been rudimentary in terms of accident investigation?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever testified as an expert anywhere in accident reconstruction?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you know what ACTAR is?

MR. BRENNAN: Yes.

MR. BRENNAN: It's a certification group for collision specialists, accident reconstructionists. Is it fair to say that you're not ACTAR qualified?

MR. BRENNAN: Are you ACTAR qualified?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever gone to a scene of a car collision and done an investigation and written a report and reached a conclusion about the cause of the car collision and the injuries that were related to that car collision?

MR. BRENNAN: It's beyond your expertise.

MR. BRENNAN: Right. Yet yesterday you offered the jury your opinion that these wounds were not consistent with a car collision. Did you offer that opinion yesterday?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm sorry. I didn't want the siren to interrupt you.

MR. BRENNAN: When you offered your opinion to this jury that this was not caused by a car collision, do you know what type of vehicle is in question?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever studied the vehicle to look at the make, model, the height of different things like the bumper, perhaps the tail light? Have you ever studied that in this case?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you studied that before your opinion?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you go and actually look at the photos, do any measurements before you came up with this opinion?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever look at the damage to the rear tail light of the defendant's vehicle and see if it was at a similar or the same height as Mr. O'Keefe if he was standing up? Did you ever do that?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you looked at the photos, did you see that a 6'1" man like Mr. O'Keefe, if he stood, his elbow would be the exact height of Ms. Read's broken tail light. Did you notice that?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you look at photographs of Ms. Read's broken tail light and see if where the break was corresponded closely or directly to the same height as Mr. O'Keefe's elbow and forearm?

MR. BRENNAN: And did you see that it matched up height-wise perfectly?

MR. BRENNAN: You have really no — respectfully — comprehension about the details of the car collision in this case, do you?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you know how slowly or fast this Read's Lexus was traveling on January 29th, 2022, at about 12:32 a.m., right around the time that you think these wounds happened?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you have any knowledge about the surroundings, the outside — whether the ground was soft or frozen?

MR. BRENNAN: How much snow do you understand was on the ground when Mr. O'Keefe's body first landed on that ground?

MR. BRENNAN: Where did you get the information that there was several inches of snow on the ground when Mr. O'Keefe landed? Where did you get that information from?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever seen the videos or the reports that when Mr. O'Keefe was moved from the ground, there was grass and dirt under him?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Not two inches of snow. The ground, the cold, hard ground. Did you see anything that said that?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever looked at Mr. O'Keefe's pants to see if there was any dirt or grass stains on the back of them?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you realize — when you were forming your opinions about the source or the genesis or the cause of these abrasions — did you look at his pants and study whether or not he landed on snow or landed on the hard ground?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever actually look at the pants?

MR. BRENNAN: When you say you didn't see any evidence, are you saying you didn't look, or you looked and you didn't see any?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you look at anything about the photographs — the actual pants themselves? Did you look at them?

MR. BRENNAN: Were part of the photographs that were available for your review and your conclusions of differential diagnosis — was part of that evidence photographs of the back of his pants?

MR. BRENNAN: If you're going to make an opinion about something outside your expertise — that this was not consistent with the collision — wouldn't you want to see as much information as possible?

MR. BRENNAN: We'll come to that, Dr. Russell. Before you gave your opinion to this jury suggesting that Mr. O'Keefe's wounds on his arm were not caused by an impact with the motor vehicle, did you go to the scene of 34 Fairview Road and look around in the corner of the yard?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you look at photographs to see if you could identify the land, the dirt, whether it was flat and smooth or whether it was bumpy, whether there was rocks or debris in that area?

MR. BRENNAN: And you went there and looked at it?

MR. BRENNAN: When you looked at photographs, did they show whether that ground had any bumps or divots or rocks?

MR. BRENNAN: Could you tell from the photos? Were they close enough so that you could see what the makeup of the ground was?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you know that there were bushes right near the area where Mr. O'Keefe was found? Bushes with branches. Did you know that?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you see the bushes in the photographs near where Mr. O'Keefe laid, right where he laid?

MR. BRENNAN: How about next to him on the left? Did you see those bushes there?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you have any understanding or information you could share with us about the angle of Mr. O'Keefe's body at the time of any impact with a motor vehicle?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you know Mr. O'Keefe had other injuries other than just the superficial abrasions on his arm?

MR. BRENNAN: How about on the head? Was there a significant injury?

MR. BRENNAN: When you considered excluding car collision as a source of those wounds, did you consider — have you seen, let me strike that. Have you seen in your history multiple victims of a car collision where they were, sorry, hit by the same car?

MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree with me that if a car ran into a group of people and caused a number of injuries, those injuries to different people could vary wildly from one to another?

MR. BRENNAN: Even if the car was going at the same speed and ran into a group of people, those injuries could be totally dissimilar from one another, couldn't they?

MR. BRENNAN: Some person, unfortunately, could be killed if the car was going fast enough and hit them the right way.

MR. BRENNAN: Another person could have a less severe injury, maybe a broken bone.

MR. BRENNAN: Another person in the same exact collision could have scratches.

MR. BRENNAN: In fact, there are cases, I'm sure you've studied, where people have been hit by cars, thrown airborne, and had no wounds on them at all. Have you seen that?

MR. BRENNAN: Are there instances that you have considered where a person is hit by an automobile, actually thrown, removed from the ground, thrown in the air, and gets up unscathed with no injury at all?

MR. BRENNAN: Correct. So, a car collision can cause wildly different injuries depending on many, many unpredictable factors. Isn't that fair to say?

MR. BRENNAN: When a vehicle is involved, have you ever been involved in treating patients that received injuries from broken plastic or broken glass?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you've seen them, have those injuries differed on a person as far as cuts and abrasions from glass or broken plastic?

MR. BRENNAN: When you were considering excluding car impact or collision as a source of Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, did you consider whether or not Mr. O'Keefe could have been struck on the side of the car in a clip-type event rather than being run over?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you agree that injuries from a sideswipe or from a clip could be much different than a full rear or front impact, being run over?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you do any study in this case when you were thinking about excluding the car collision or impact as the source of Mr. O'Keefe's abrasions — about what his body posture was, how he may have hit a motor vehicle? Did you consider that?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you considered that, what did you conclude as far as Mr. O'Keefe's body movement at the time of any potential impact?

MR. BRENNAN: You were a police officer before you went to medical school, weren't you?

MR. BRENNAN: You had arrived at scenes of many, many car collisions, hadn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: What is often times left behind after a car collides with an object?

MR. BRENNAN: Debris field?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you look at the debris field in this case?

MR. BRENNAN: In the cases that you went to where you saw car collisions, some of the debris that you would find could be broken glass or broken plastic. Isn't that fair to say?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you went to those scenes, you would often find broken glass or broken plastic in a debris field near where the victim was found or laying. Isn't that fair to say?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you were considering excluding car impact or collision in this case, did you take a look at the entire debris field to determine how close or far it was from Mr. O'Keefe's body?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm sorry. Please finish.

MR. BRENNAN: And before you came to your conclusions, did you ask anybody for any more information so that you could make a fair assessment of that information?

MR. BRENNAN: Rather than imagining, did you make any effort to actually seek information so you could identify and evaluate the debris field around Mr. O'Keefe's body that morning?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever, as a police officer looking into car collisions, ever heard the term "knocked out of one's shoes"?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever heard of that as a medical expert?

MR. BRENNAN: I have exhibit 74B, please. In your study, before you gave an opinion excluding an impact or a collision as the cause of Mr. O'Keefe's abrasions on his arm, were you aware of this photograph where Mr. O'Keefe's sneaker was found on the side of the road?

MR. BRENNAN: Correct. Were you aware that it was wedged right up against the curb? Were you aware of that?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you came to your conclusion that the injuries are not consistent with an impact or car collision, was this photograph part of your consideration?

MR. BRENNAN: Exhibit 99D, please. In your study to give an ultimate opinion where you suggest that a car collision or impact was not the source of Mr. O'Keefe's arm injuries, were you aware of this photograph of Mr. O'Keefe's hat found at the bottom of the snow in the corner of that yard?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you see underneath that hat? There was not two inches of snow — it looks like dirt and grass.

MR. BRENNAN: When you gave the opinion that he was on two inches of snow, would it be important to know whether or not he fell directly on the hard ground or on snow?

MR. BRENNAN: Exhibit 73, please. When you were reaching your conclusions, you said you considered some of the debris. Did you see this photograph of a piece of tail light that matches the defendant's tail light of her SUV? Did you consider this piece of evidence that was found in the debris field?

MR. BRENNAN: 76A, please. Same question. Did you consider this piece of the debris field when you were coming to your conclusions that you offered us yesterday?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you consider this picture of plastic from the defendant's rear tail light found at that scene? Did you consider that before you gave your opinion to the jury?

MR. BRENNAN: Would you take that down, please. Would there be any significance in your study, in the foundation of your opinion that a collision or impact did not cause Mr. O'Keefe's wounds on his arm? Was it important for you to determine whether or not the tail light to the defendant's Lexus was broken early that morning?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. When you were considering potential causes of injuries, did you know that the defendant's Lexus rear right tail light was broken, missing pieces?

MR. BRENNAN: Was it important to time when that tail ...light was broken?

MR. BRENNAN: You understand that Mr. O'Keefe was found on January 29th, 2022?

MR. BRENNAN: Early morning hours.