Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveDaniel Wolfe - Direct
1,238 linesCOURT OFFICER: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons having anything to do before the Honorable Beverly J. Cannone, the justice of the superior court holding in Dedham within and for the county of Norfolk. Draw near. Give your attendance and you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This court is in session. Please be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Miss Read. And good morning, jurors. So, happy Friday. I do have to ask you those same three questions. Were you all able to follow the instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left yesterday — day before? Everyone said yes and nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into the case? Everyone said yes and nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left the other day? No. Everyone said no. I understand we have a witness this morning. [unintelligible] Yes. Dr. Daniel Wolfe. Okay. But we'll see how — thank you. [unintelligible] Yes. Good morning.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, sir, we're going to try and keep the air conditioning on this morning. So, I'm going to ask you to speak really loudly into that microphone. And Mr. Jackson, you do so as well, please.
MR. JACKSON: Of course, your honor. Dr. Wolfe, could you please state your entire name and spell your last name for the jurors, please?
DR. WOLFE: Daniel Michael Wolfe, last name spelled W-O-L-F-E.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, what do you do for a living, sir?
DR. WOLFE: I am the director of accident reconstruction at a company known as ARCCA. A-R-C-C-A.
JUDGE CANNONE: And I'm going to start right off the bat getting really comfortable with that microphone. It's adjustable. Pull it right close to the area of your chin. It's really loud in here.
DR. WOLFE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, you said you work for ARCCA. What is ARCCA?
DR. WOLFE: ARCCA is a forensic engineering consulting firm. We have a variety of disciplines. Accident reconstruction, which is the group I'm a part of, biomechanics, failure analysis, and crashworthiness.
MR. JACKSON: And you said that your title again one more time — the director of the accident reconstruction team. And what sort of contracts does ARCCA normally engage in routinely?
DR. WOLFE: So in addition to our forensic consulting work, we have — going back in time, we've dealt with doing contracts with the Department of Defense where we designed energy-absorbing seats for MRAP vehicles — mine-resistant armored protective vehicles — where these vehicles were going over explosive devices and the energy from those explosions was going through the vehicle into the occupant. So ARCCA designed energy-absorbing seats to help mitigate the injuries in those types of incidents. We also do work for the National Hockey League. I myself am part of that work — it has to do with scanning and analyzing player pads, but we certainly do impact testing and help set guidelines for player safety.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to those MRAP vehicles, was that contract for the Department of Defense for the United States government?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: For the military?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Is ARCCA both nationally and internationally recognized as a leader in accident reconstruction?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Does ARCCA have a reputation — or let me ask it this way: does ARCCA entertain or engage both domestic and international contracts and clientele?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As the director of accident reconstruction, do you specialize in anything other than just accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Anything having to do with human factors. Yes. So my other specialties, in addition to accident reconstruction, are lighting and human factors.
MR. JACKSON: What is — give us a 25-word overview of human factors. What is that?
DR. WOLFE: So to give you a good example of that — and again this is a case that I commonly see — let's say you're driving down the road at night. It's an unlit roadway. You're relying on your vehicle headlights to see the roadway ahead, right? And you've got a pedestrian that is entering the roadway and you want to have an understanding, based upon the lighting conditions, how much sky illumination there is, their clothing — right? — when would a driver recognize that individual on the roadway? So that's where it starts from the vision aspect of human factors. Then we get into driver response, right? So the driver is presented with a hazard. So how do drivers typically respond? What are their actions and how long does that take to avoid and initiate a reaction? That's human factors.
MR. JACKSON: Can you do the same thing and give us an explanation for accident reconstruction just in the broadest sense? What is that discipline?
DR. WOLFE: I think a very simple definition of accident reconstruction is the application of physics and engineering science to collision events.
MR. JACKSON: What role do you take as the director of accident reconstruction for ARCCA as contracts come in or engagements come in?
DR. WOLFE: Well, my scope in cases can vary greatly. As I just mentioned, I could have a case where I'm assessing the conspicuity of a pedestrian and a driver's response time. It could be a 50-car pileup on a highway and I'm trying to figure out a sequence of events. It could be a rear-end collision where a seatback has failed in the vehicle and the occupant has sustained injuries and we want to have an understanding of the crush, the damage, the forces. So again, it can vary case to case.
MR. JACKSON: Do you engage in reconstruction or attempt to engage in reconstruction of all sorts of passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What about motorcycles?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Bicycles?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Involving pedestrians and sometimes involving no pedestrians?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I see all types of collisions.
MR. JACKSON: How many cases, if you have a number in mind, have you been a part of in terms of engaging in accident reconstruction broadly?
DR. WOLFE: That's something that I don't track, but I've been with the company now for over eight years. So at this point, if I had to estimate, it's well over a thousand at this point.
MR. JACKSON: What education, training, and background do you have that allows you to perform the duties that you've described for these jurors in terms of accident reconstruction and human factors analyses?
DR. WOLFE: In terms of — are you looking at additional training for your — let's start with your education.
MR. JACKSON: I want education, training, and background, but we can do them in order.
DR. WOLFE: Okay, yeah. So we'll go back to 2012. I received a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from James Madison University, along with a minor in mathematics. Some of my courses included physics, statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics — your engineering sciences. Subsequent to that, I then went on to pursue my PhD in electrical and computer engineering with a concentration in electromagnetics and photonics. So my coursework while doing my PhD included opto-electronics, semiconductor physics — basically how to guide light on semiconductor devices.
MR. JACKSON: Did you write a dissertation to get your PhD?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was the subject matter broadly of the dissertation that you drafted?
DR. WOLFE: So my dissertation focused on a technology called smart glass. So you may have seen this technology where if you've seen a pane of glass that is transparent, somebody flips a switch and it goes opaque — that's a type of smart glass technology. So my PhD involved developing a new type of novel — what we coined optofluidic smart glass. So we are using geometric structures that we've optically designed to create a very reflective surface or medium, if you will. And then through the introduction of various fluids, we can then modulate the amount of visible light and electromagnetic energy that is passing through or being reflected. So not just visible light, but also energy that you can't see.
DR. WOLFE: As part of that process, I ended up prototyping these structures with a 3D printer that was capable of printing 3D-printable polymers. And as we kind of got towards the end of my work, we looked at how we could scale this up on a larger scale. We ultimately ended up researching and ...doing tests with a material known as polymethylmethacrylate, which is PMMA, or acrylic.
MR. JACKSON: What relevance does PMMA play in terms of this case?
DR. WOLFE: So with respect to this case, the outer lens and the clear plastic diffusers of the tail lights on the Lexus are comprised entirely of polymethylmethacrylate, or that PMMA material —
MR. JACKSON: The same material that was the subject of your dissertation?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: What additional training and experience do you have as it relates to accident reconstruction beyond your B.S. and your PhD?
DR. WOLFE: So certainly the eight years of work that I've had at ARCCA has certainly trained and taught me a lot over the last eight years. Like I said, I've seen hundreds of collisions, all different types of accidents. But in addition to that, I've continued to take courses through Northwestern University in crash reconstruction, human factors and lighting, heavy vehicle forensics, heavy vehicle EDR downloads, Bosch data retrieval and black box downloads, photogrammetry. So, a number of continuing education courses.
MR. JACKSON: Are you accredited as a traffic accident reconstructionist?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: By whom?
DR. WOLFE: An organization known as ACTAR.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a nationally recognized organization?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What does that stand for?
DR. WOLFE: ACTAR. The Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstructionists.
MR. JACKSON: Are you trained in photogrammetry?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is photogrammetry generally?
DR. WOLFE: So photogrammetry is the science of extracting and measuring information in a photograph. So you don't actually have to physically inspect something to be able to get information about its measurements or where things are spatially. You can do that from a photograph alone.
MR. JACKSON: Is that an accepted methodology in the field of traffic accident reconstruction to use photographs and/or videos without actually having been at the scene during the course of the crash?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. Very common.
MR. JACKSON: You mentioned Bosch. What is the Bosch crash data retrieval analysis? What is that generally?
DR. WOLFE: So, generally most modern vehicles on the roadway now have what's called an airbag control module, more commonly known as a black box, which can contain crash-specific data in a collision.
MR. JACKSON: Are you a member of any professional societies?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe those for us please?
DR. WOLFE: So, I'm a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers, the National Association for Professional Accident Reconstruction Specialists, the Illuminating Engineering Society, and the Optical Society of America.
MR. JACKSON: Is it fair to say that you've authored a number of peer-reviewed papers in the field of physics and/or accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe that for us?
DR. WOLFE: So, my most recent publication in the field of accident reconstruction deals with vehicle control history records. Publications prior to that were focused primarily on my dissertation PhD work.
MR. JACKSON: I think you testified that you have dealt with probably over a thousand different types of cases. Are you able to estimate of those thousand different types of cases dealing with accident reconstruction, how many of those or what percentage of those have involved pedestrians?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know if I can give a percentage. I would certainly say it's the majority of my case work. As I mentioned earlier, given one of my specialties being in human factors and lighting, there's a direct correlation between time of day and pedestrian collisions. We certainly see a rise as sky illumination drops and the illumination levels go down. We're having to rely on artificial light sources. So, given that occurrence happens in nighttime hours and low illumination, like I said, I certainly see many pedestrian accidents.
MR. JACKSON: What types of pedestrian impacts have you been involved with in terms of your analysis or evaluations?
DR. WOLFE: All different types. Everything from pedestrians being run over, running into the side of vehicles, being hit by the front of a vehicle, a vehicle backing up in a parking lot into a pedestrian. So I've seen it from all sides of a vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: What is kinematics? Can you describe that or explain that phrase or term?
DR. WOLFE: I think a simple definition would just be the motion of an object or a body.
MR. JACKSON: Have you done any testing as it relates to kinematics and the interaction between pedestrians and motor vehicles?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How many times have you engaged in such an analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Numerous times. We frequently and routinely do testing at ARCCA.
MR. JACKSON: You mentioned ARCCA has several different disciplines within it. What are some of those different disciplines in addition to accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: So as I mentioned we have biomechanics and crashworthiness and there's a few others. And I will note that it's very common in our casework that we will work together as a team. So to give you an example of that — I mentioned earlier about that rear-end collision. So let's just say we have a rear-end crash and there's crush and there's damage to the rear of the vehicle, and the seatback failed which caused the driver to ramp up in the seat and ultimately hit their head on something and sustain an injury. So I myself as a reconstructionist will analyze the forces, the speeds, and the severity of the crash.
DR. WOLFE: The biomechanist will evaluate the mechanism for the injury based upon those crash forces, and the crashworthiness expert may analyze: okay, is there a better or stronger seat that may have held up in this crash.
MR. JACKSON: Is it normal for you as the director of accident reconstruction at ARCCA to work with others in the other disciplines that are housed under the umbrella of ARCCA?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a normal process for you?
DR. WOLFE: Very common. Yes. As a matter of fact, it probably would be uncommon if you didn't do that.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
DR. WOLFE: Depending on the kind of case, but yeah, certainly wouldn't be uncommon.
MR. JACKSON: Tell me about the testing that you've undertaken to determine forces that are at play in a given accident or an impact.
DR. WOLFE: Okay. So to give you maybe a simple example — let's just say we have a sideswipe type collision where two vehicles sideswipe each other and a front bumper gets torn off or deflected essentially, and there's some deformation to it. We can do testing at ARCCA to determine how much force it takes to bend that material so that we get the deformation that we have. That would be a good example.
MR. JACKSON: Is there a specific type of testing or is there varied types of testing that you've done and undertaken to determine the forces — for instance, in your example — the forces at play in that sideswipe collision?
DR. WOLFE: Yeah, absolutely. Again, as part of the test we would be measuring the forces. We'd be measuring the displacement. We'd be able to calculate acceleration and things of that nature from that test data.
MR. JACKSON: Do the tests that you undertake — are they generally accepted methodologies in the field of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What are quasi-static tests?
DR. WOLFE: So, a quasi-static test would be like the example I just gave you where the bumper would be stationary, right? And now we're pulling on it to determine how much force it takes to bend it. So that'd be an example of a quasi-static test.
MR. JACKSON: So, that test specifically is determining or attempting to determine the amount of force necessary to deform a bumper, for instance, in the way that it's seen after an impact?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Or any other body panel?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And on the human side, there are forces at play, I'm assuming, in terms of injuries that are sustained by pedestrians in the accident reconstructions that you've done involving pedestrians?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have experience in evaluating whether damage to a vehicle is consistent with a proposed scenario or set of facts?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Describe those circumstances for us. What are the circumstances in which you're trying to determine whether or not the damage fits a proposed scenario?
DR. WOLFE: So, a case that commonly comes across my desk is we have two very different versions of how an accident unfolded according to party A and party B. And we have a set of evidence in terms of the damage to the vehicles, maybe some roadway evidence. So we can look at that objective evidence, utilize physics, maybe some calculations, determine whose version is most consistent based upon the damage and the roadway evidence.
MR. JACKSON: Is that an accepted methodology in the field of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In other cases in which you've undertaken such an engagement to determine whether or not the physics or the physical evidence matches a particular scenario or is inconsistent with that scenario — have you been able to ultimately reach conclusions and opinions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in those cases?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that normally what you're seeking to ultimately come to — an opinion or a conclusion about those scenarios or circumstances?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are your opinions and conclusions based on your education, your training, the background and experience that you've explained to the jurors?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is it also in furtherance of the scientific methodologies that you employ in order to come to those opinions and conclusions?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And are those generally accepted in the scientific and accident reconstruction community as a proper methodology to come to opinions and conclusions of that nature?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Have you been qualified in other courts to testify in the area of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's talk about how you began your work in this particular case. When you were initially retained in connection with this case, were you hired by the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you know who we were?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, may we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: You can ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Sure. Were you hired by anybody affiliated with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: At that time, did you know any of the names of the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: At the time that you were hired or engaged in this case, did you even know the name Karen Read? Did you know any of the names or of any of the parties?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: [unintelligible]
PARENTHETICAL: [gap: approximately 4 minutes of audio missing]
MR. JACKSON: When you were initially hired to look at the facts and circumstances of this case, did you do so independently? In other words, were you given a series of facts and a series of data and asked to just look at these facts and look at this data and make a determination about accident reconstruction in this case?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What were you asked to do specifically?
DR. WOLFE: It was to look at that evidence that we were provided and determine whether or not the damage to the vehicle was consistent with the injuries to Mr. John O'Keefe.
MR. JACKSON: At the time that you were asked to engage in this independent analysis, were you provided information or data?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who at ARCCA was assigned to the team that would ultimately engage in this particular analysis?
DR. WOLFE: It was myself, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, and Dr. Kline.
MR. JACKSON: Describe what the materials were that you were provided in your initial assessment of this case.
DR. WOLFE: Could I refer to my report with the court's permission? Would you like me to just go in order from the materials reviewed?
MR. JACKSON: That would be fine.
DR. WOLFE: The Norfolk SPDU homicide death report. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of State Police crime scene report. OCME dispatch removal report. Photographs of the incident location. Videos of the incident location. Photographs of the 2021 Lexus LX570. Photographs of recovered evidence. Crash data retrieval report from the 2021 Lexus LX570. Report of autopsy. Autopsy photographs. And there were a few other items there, but those were generated internally.
MR. JACKSON: There were about 14 things that were listed in terms of categories of information that you were provided, or ARCCA was provided. Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: A little less than that, because some of those, like I said, were internally generated. But yes.
MR. JACKSON: Why were you provided that data? What's the reason why it's important for you to get certain data as you begin your analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Well, we wanted to have an understanding of — or ultimately the entity that retained us wanted to have an understanding of — what the evidence was that we would need to reconstruct this.
MR. JACKSON: Did you get enough information to engage in a thorough analysis, an accident reconstruction, in terms of the initial request by the entity that hired you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. In terms of our scope, yes, we had sufficient information.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to review photographs of not only the Lexus involved, but John O'Keefe's body?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you use those photographs in furtherance of your analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you use the reports detailing scenarios or possible scenarios in further analysis?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, I don't believe any of the reports indicated any type of theory or understanding of how the accident occurred.
MR. JACKSON: Were you asked to determine whether or not certain scenarios could be possible?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall them giving us any scenarios to evaluate. They essentially left it in our hands. Here's the evidence. What do you think happened?
MR. JACKSON: That was an open question?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Did you engage in an analysis that basically allowed you to think of any scenario?
DR. WOLFE: I think that's fair. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In your initial analysis, did you note damage to the vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Describe the damage. Let's start with the vehicle. Describe the damage that you noted in furtherance of your analysis.
DR. WOLFE: The primary damage was to the right rear tail light on the quarter panel section. The majority of the outer red lens was broken and shattered, as well as some of the underlying components and diffusers that are underneath that outer layer, as well as some damage to the back portion of the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Can I stop you right there? When you say the outer lens material and some interior material as well was damaged, describe that in detail for us.
DR. WOLFE: So the outer lens is red and it's about 5 mm in thickness, and it basically encompasses the majority of that quarter panel tail light. And then there's a small segment that is clear that is for the turn signal indicator, which is yellow. Underneath that 5 mm thick red lens, there are additional diffusers that run along the bottom. There are two rows of those, I believe, and then they also go up vertically on the side, and those are clear, and I think the thicknesses of those are about 3 mm.
MR. JACKSON: Is 5 mm of PMMA — have I got that right?
DR. WOLFE: PMMA — you'd call it acrylic. That's the more common name, easier for me.
MR. JACKSON: Is 5 millimeters of that acrylic, that outer lens material — is that considered thick or thin in terms of what we'd see on a tail light?
DR. WOLFE: I would describe that as a pretty thick piece of plastic. By no means — if you take a segment of it and try to bend it, it's not going to bend.
MR. JACKSON: In addition to that outer tail light material, that acrylic, in terms of the information that you received, did the interior acrylic also have damage to it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Those clear diffusers — again, there were two rows of those, and they also went up vertically. Those were shattered and broken as well.
MR. JACKSON: Was that important to you in your ultimate analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note any superficial scratches or dents anywhere on the tailgate area or the lift gate area?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, there was a dent and some paint chips above the lift gate tail light assembly. So again, next to that quarter panel tail light, there's another assembly that is on the lift gate. And there was a small dent and some paint chips at that area. There was also on the wraparound section of the bumper cover as it's going from the rear to the right side. There were some superficial scrapes in that area.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note any other damage or deformation to the Lexus? Deformation in the tail, the lift gate, the bumper, anything like that?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Is it common in a vehicle-pedestrian collision that there is some sort of bumper deformation associated with a vehicle-pedestrian incident?
DR. WOLFE: That can certainly occur. If a pedestrian is in a normal upright position, you can certainly get displacement of the bumper.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any displacement or panel deformation on the Lexus?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Is it more common that there's panel displacement or deformation if the collision is above, say, 10 or 15 miles an hour?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: During your review of all the investigative materials, did you note any items of evidence that were recovered or claimed to have been recovered on the bumper itself?
DR. WOLFE: I recall there were two or three apparent glass fragments.
MR. JACKSON: What's the significance of that? Let me ask it differently. Is there any glass in the tail light assembly?
DR. WOLFE: Can you repeat that question for me?
MR. JACKSON: May I ask that again?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is there any glass in the tail light assembly?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any shattered glass anywhere on the Lexus? Meaning panes of glass, the back window, quarter panel windows, anything like that?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any understanding at that time of what the Commonwealth's theory of the case was when you began your initial analysis?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any indication of what the Massachusetts State Police theory of the case was based on the investigative reports that you had received?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you perform an accident reconstruction analysis to determine whether or not the damage to the Lexus, that tail light housing material, was consistent with an interaction with a pedestrian?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Specifically, did you perform an accident reconstruction to determine whether the damage to the Lexus was consistent with an interaction with John O'Keefe based on the injuries that you were aware of?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you evaluate whether the investigative theories regarding — let me ask it a different way. Did you consider the possibility of Mr. O'Keefe's head striking the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you consider the possibility of Mr. O'Keefe's arm striking the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you entertain the possibility that Mr. O'Keefe's center of mass, his body, struck the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Before we get into the initial testing, were you able to come to opinions and conclusions concerning those things that I've just mentioned?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you also entertain the possibility that a drinking glass could have damaged the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were these some of the things that were left open to you to decide yourself?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you later provide all of those opinions and conclusions in a report to the entity that hired you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is your understanding that those reports were then later supplied to both sides here in this case?
DR. WOLFE: That was my understanding. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you testify about those initial testing opinions and conclusions at a proceeding last year?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's talk for a second about that initial testing that you conducted in connection with this case. When approximately did you begin your testing? And I'm going to phrase it as your initial testing, the testing that you testified to about last year. When did you start that initial testing?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, it would have been late 2023 into early 2024.
MR. JACKSON: I want to talk about the drinking glass first. Did you become aware that there was a drinking glass that was found at the scene?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what was the testing that you sought to determine as it relates to the drinking glass and the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: So looking at the evidence, as I mentioned earlier, when we're looking at that quarter panel tail light, we have an isolated region of damage. And looking at the additional evidence in terms of a broken drinking glass at the scene, we wanted to do testing to determine if a small object or projectile such as the drinking glass could induce damage that was consistent with that we saw on the subject Lexus.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to reach an opinion and/or conclusion as it relates to whether or not there is a possibility that the drinking glass or a drinking glass could cause the type of damage that you saw on the Lexus?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Given everything else in your investigation, are you concluding that the glass was responsible for the tail light damage?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: However, you did seek to determine whether it was possible?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: I'll ask it a different way, your honor. What testing did you undertake in furtherance of answering that specific question? Could the glass damage the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Right. So we designed a pressurized cannon that was capable of firing the drinking glass into the tail light at various speeds. We aimed for speeds of 30 and 40 miles an hour. Our achieved speeds were at 31 and 37 miles per hour. And we found that in the 37 mph impact — and again, this is to emulate or simulate an individual throwing a drinking glass — the purpose of the cannon, if you will, was to be able to hone in on a speed precisely and obviously aim for that target. So it just served as a means of getting that projectile to the tail light in a means that we could measure it.
DR. WOLFE: And what we observed in the 37 mph test is that we got damage that was generally consistent with that of the subject tail light, and that there was a large portion of the outer lens that was shattered and fractured, as well as the underlying clear plastic diffusers and chrome piece.
MR. JACKSON: Tell me a little bit about the methodology that you undertook — the scientific methodology — in building that pneumatic cannon and aiming that glass directly at the tail light.
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. So as I mentioned, it was a customized cannon, if you will. It had a barrel that was capable of fitting a rocks glass or an old-fashioned drinking glass in it. And that's a glass that has a thinner sidewall, if you will. I think the glass was about 3 inches in height or so, maybe 3 and a half inches, with the bottom portion being solid glass or just a thick piece of glass. So we were able to design a kind of a holder for it, if you will — almost, you could really think of it as stuffing an actual cannon with a cannonball. So we literally would put the drinking glass in the cannon. There was a pressurized vessel behind that that we would open up a valve rapidly, and when it was set to a certain pressure, that would determine the exit velocity that it would leave the barrel at.
DR. WOLFE: And we were able to aim that device into the tail light at those specified speeds to be able to determine what the damage pattern would be when we fired that glass.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able in this scientific experiment to control for aim and trajectory?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to control for velocity or exit speed of the glass?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to control for damage patterns as it pertained to both the glass as well as the tail light at which it was aimed?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that we had control over that. Ultimately, physics takes over after that interaction occurs. I can't influence how that material is going to perform or how the glass will break, per se.
MR. JACKSON: A poor question on my part. Did you undertake to memorialize the damage pattern that you saw on the tail light and the glass as the glass was projected into the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you do that through photographs?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: High-speed video?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And all of that was memorialized in your report?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'm handing you two photographs — or two 8-and-a-half-by-11 documents that contain two photographs each. Can you take a look at those two documents and tell me if you recognize those?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You mentioned that one of the tests that you performed was at 37 miles an hour?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you mention the velocity at which the other test was done?
DR. WOLFE: If I didn't, it was 31 miles per hour.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So 31 and 37. Do you see those two documents in front of you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does one of them represent the 31 mph test and the photographs associated with that, and an extracted frame from the high-speed?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And does the other one represent the other test — the 37 mph test?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If we could take those one at a time. May I approach one more time?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: If I could ask that these be marked as next in order, one at a time. 31 mph test, handed to the court. So there's no objection?
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Okay. [Exhibit] 213.
MR. JACKSON: And the second document represents the 37 mph test.
COURT CLERK: [Exhibit] 214.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry — Prosecution exhibit 213.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Is this the photograph that was just marked as exhibit 213 that's in front of you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you explain to the jurors what they're looking at?
DR. WOLFE: So on the left part, you are looking at a frame from the high-speed video just after the contact with the tail light. On the right, you're looking at the post-damage to the tail light after the glass had been fired into it.
MR. JACKSON: And if we could look at the next exhibit, with the court's permission?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: And what are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: Same thing on the left. Again, this is the 37 mph test — the glass striking just in the area where the bottom of the turn signal indicator is, so right where it meets the red portion of the lens and the clear portion of the lens. That's about where the impact point was. You could see that a large portion of the outer red lens cover is missing and fractured. The clear portion of the outer lens to the turn signal indicator is also fractured, as well as the underlying clear diffusers in that assembly.
MR. JACKSON: Would your testing in both of these scenarios — the 31 mph test and the 37 mph test — represent an accepted methodology for controlling for aim, velocity, impact, and those issues as it relates to testing of this sort?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, we were able to control those variables.
MR. JACKSON: And is that an accepted methodology in the field of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: When you finished your testing, were you able to make a determination as to whether or not either one of these velocities — the 31 mph velocity or the 37 mph velocity — were consistent with the damage that you saw on the subject Lexus, which is the 2021 Lexus belonging to Miss Read?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. From the 37 mph test, we are getting damage that's generally consistent. As I mentioned, we have portions of the outer lens missing, the underlying diffuser. There was also some fracturing on the back side of the assembly. So again, we observed damage that was generally consistent with that of the subject tail light.
MR. JACKSON: And that was the 37?
DR. WOLFE: The 37.
MR. JACKSON: What about the 31 — didn't have enough energy to create that damage? So, were you able to conclude in your opinion whether or not the velocity of that glass hitting the tail light would have to be somewhere in the vicinity of 37 miles an hour — well above 30 mph?
DR. WOLFE: Well above. And it certainly could have been above 40 mph per se. I mean, we may have actually blown out more of the outer lens had the speed increased.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any information in the data or documents that you reviewed associated with this case — for instance, that John O'Keefe had a pneumatic cannon with him out there?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Based on this series of tests, were you concluding that the damage on the tail light conclusively was the product of a glass being hurled into the tail light?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Were you concluding, or did you opine, that the damage to the tail light came from a drinking glass?
DR. WOLFE: No. I gave an opinion that the damage was generally consistent with that in the test compared to the subject tail light, but only in the circumstance where the glass is being hurled at 37 mph.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Under what circumstance did you determine that it was consistent with the drinking glass?
DR. WOLFE: The purpose of the test was to do a test to evaluate or simulate somebody throwing a drinking glass at the tail light. So that's what that test was to demonstrate.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Let's turn to another test that you undertook regarding the head injuries that you became aware of. Did you become aware of in the data that you received that Mr. O'Keefe had suffered head injuries to the back of his skull?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What sort of testing did you do to determine whether or not and under what circumstances that head injury may be connected or associated with the damage to the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: We performed a drop test with a Hybrid III. So that's an instrumented anthropomorphic test device to be able to measure the accelerations on a head form and observe the damage to an impact to the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: What is an ATD?
DR. WOLFE: Anthropomorphic test device. So it's a device that's commonly used in our field and it's certainly approved by the federal government to evaluate crash forces and occupant kinematics, or I should say occupant crash forces. So it's a device that reconstructionists and biomechanists typically use or commonly use to be able to evaluate, like I said, whether it's forces in a motor vehicle or let's say you have something being dropped on somebody's head or an impact to somebody's body part, right? We can use that instrumented dummy to evaluate and measure the acceleration in the forces.
MR. JACKSON: Another word or another phrase often used in association with ATD devices are crash test dummies.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Why was it important to do a drop test?
DR. WOLFE: So, we wanted to have an understanding, based upon the fact that Mr. John O'Keefe had a skull fracture to the back of his head, whether or not a direct impact between the tail light and the back of his head could have caused that skull fracture.
MR. JACKSON: What did your testing indicate?
DR. WOLFE: When we did the test, the impact to the tail light was at 15 mph and we observed that the damage to that tail light was significantly more than the subject tail light at the 15 mph speed. Furthermore, it did not generate, according to my colleague Dr. Rentschler, enough forces to cause a skull fracture.
MR. JACKSON: So ultimately, what was your conclusion related to the tail light potentially striking John O'Keefe in the head at above 15 mph?
DR. WOLFE: From a damage perspective, it was inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: Inconsistent.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: Did you consider temperature and control for temperature in any of your testing?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Why is that important?
DR. WOLFE: Well, that will affect how — you know, we've talked a lot about that acrylic material of the lens. That will certainly affect how it fractures. So, we absolutely controlled the temperature during these tests.
MR. JACKSON: How did you control for temperature?
DR. WOLFE: So, we had them sit overnight in chest freezers to get them to the desired temperature, which for our original set of testing was at 28 degrees Fahrenheit. We then rapidly moved them to our test fixture, and then they were fired almost immediately after that.
MR. JACKSON: And when you're talking about them, you're talking about exemplar taillights, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are those exact replica taillights that you would find on the 2021 Lexus SUV?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: After your testimony in the first proceeding last year in the spring of 2024, were you ultimately contacted by the defense in this case?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: When were you contacted by the defense? I know that I had reached out to you. I believe it was in February of this year, because I think I saw some things in the media and was just wondering what was going on.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Just a date.
DR. WOLFE: I don't know if I could give a specific date. If I had to estimate, sometime in February or March, probably.
MR. JACKSON: Were you still under contract with the other entity that hired you? At some point you and I spoke, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that was — you believe it was February of 2025?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Had we spoken at all between the end of your testimony at the proceeding last year and February of 2025?
DR. WOLFE: No, that was the first time.
MR. JACKSON: Did I ask you anything about retaining you?
DR. WOLFE: Not at that time. No.
MR. JACKSON: At some point subsequent to that initial discussion in February of 2025, did we have another discussion about the potential of retaining you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Tell me about that. When was that?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, it was sometime in March. And we were trying to figure out —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Next question, please.
MR. JACKSON: Did I ask you if you were available to be retained by the defense?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Okay. Dr. Wolfe, so ultimately in March of 2025, were you hired by the defense?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Were you asked to do anything or to review anything from the Commonwealth and any of their experts in relation to testing that was undertaken by them regarding the Lexus and Mr. O'Keefe?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What were you asked to do?
DR. WOLFE: My understanding is that we were asked to review and evaluate the report and analysis conducted by Dr. Welcher.
MR. JACKSON: Did you receive Dr. Welcher's reports?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you receive his raw data?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you receive his 140-plus page PowerPoint?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And did you undertake a review of all of that data in order to evaluate that data?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What methodology did you undertake at that juncture, before you began any testing — just your review process? What methodology did you undertake in terms of your review of his evaluations and his opinions and conclusions?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think when reviewing his report and his analysis, I look to his opinions and then I look to what is the basis and the foundation to those opinions, right? How did he ultimately arrive at those final conclusions? So I'm looking for the methodologies that he followed, what testing did he do, what type of experiments, what type of data analysis, ultimately to provide that opinion.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, did you prepare a PowerPoint presentation in furtherance of memorializing your review and opinions and conclusions of his evaluation and testing?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you bring that with you today?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have that with you on your computer, or are we going to run the PowerPoint?
DR. WOLFE: It's on this computer up here, with the court's permission.
MR. JACKSON: Could Dr. Wolfe present his PowerPoint presentation?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, I have a thumb drive that I believe represents the PowerPoint. Do we have this marked?
COURT CLERK: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is this coming into evidence? All right. So, we'll mark it for identification. We can mark it for identification for the time being and discuss it. Marked for identification.
MR. JACKSON: May I proceed, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, do you see what's displayed or presented up on the TV screen?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have with you, by the way, just a matter of housekeeping, something called a spotlight?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Something that can — spotlight that. Yep. Okay. I may ask you to employ that, or I may take it from you at some point as we're discussing this. Do you recognize what's on the screen?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is this?
DR. WOLFE: This is my PowerPoint with just the first page, the title.
MR. JACKSON: If we can move to the next slide, please describe what we're looking at in this slide.
DR. WOLFE: This is from Dr. Welcher's PowerPoint presentation, slide 121, in which he's indicating that there are lacerations on John O'Keefe's right arm and forearm, and he's indicating in this slide that the location and orientation of the lacerations on John O'Keefe's right forearm and arm are consistent with the geometry and orientation of the right rear tail light of the Read 2021 Lexus LX 570.
MR. JACKSON: In coming to your opinions and conclusions — and I know this is a mouthful — did you consider the opinions and conclusions of Dr. Welcher in conducting your analysis and your ultimate testing?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you rely on Dr. Welcher's report and his PowerPoint in reaching your conclusions and opinions ultimately in this case?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I relied on — certainly, I utilized them to have an understanding of what his basis was for his opinion and what his opinion was. Ultimately, at ARCCA, we did our own independent testing to evaluate that.
MR. JACKSON: So, just to be clear, I'm not asking Dr. Wolfe if you agreed with his opinions and conclusions. I'm simply asking did you rely on those in order to come to your opinions and conclusions? Did you incorporate them?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to —
MR. JACKSON: Did you agree ultimately with Dr. Welcher's opinions and conclusions?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You certainly were aware of what his opinions and conclusions were.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Before — Mr. Jackson, on that one, were you aware of Dr. Welcher's opinions and conclusions?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are some of those opinions and conclusions represented in your PowerPoint?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are some of them represented on this slide in your PowerPoint?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that this slide indicates that the location and orientation of the lacerations on John O'Keefe's right forearm and arms are consistent with the geometry and orientation of the right rear tail light. Correct.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Are the injuries to John O'Keefe's arm lacerations?
DR. WOLFE: That would be an opinion for my colleague Dr. Rentschler.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever heard the phrase abrasion?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In your opinion, are the injuries to John O'Keefe's right arm — better described as lacerations or abrasions?
DR. WOLFE: I don't have an opinion on that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Slide number two, please. Based on your review of Dr. Welcher's reports and his data, what testing did Dr. Welcher undertake or conduct?
DR. WOLFE: So, he did — initially it appeared that he did a static test, if you will, just demonstrating — holding his right arm out adjacent to the rear tail lights on the right side of an exemplar Lexus to demonstrate his theory of how the arm contacted the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: What is a static test?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sustaining that. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson. And I'm going to strike that. What testing did you note that Dr. —
MR. JACKSON: Welcher did with regard to this particular photograph? What is a static test?
DR. WOLFE: Well, in a static test, neither the arm or the vehicle is moving. It's just — he's aligning his right arm adjacent to show how his arm aligns to the geometry and the dimensions of the Lexus.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher appear to be wearing similar clothing as John O'Keefe was wearing on January 29th, 2022?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any significance or purpose for that in your opinion in this test?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you identify any limitations with regard to this sort of testing undertaken by Dr. Welcher?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it's very basic in that the only thing that this demonstrates is that you can get your right arm to align with the tail light. Beyond that, it doesn't tell you anything with respect to what happens to the arm when it makes contact with the tail light. What's the motion of the arm? What's the damage to the tail light? What's the acceleration of the arm? What are the forces on the arm? So, it doesn't answer any of those other questions. The only question it answers is: does the arm align with the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that John O'Keefe is 6'1".
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Is the only person — let me ask you a different way. Can only a six-foot-one person align their arm with the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: No. The arm is adjustable. So certainly people of different heights could also meet that alignment as well, just by pivoting your arm a little bit.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: How would you describe the ability of somebody 5'7", 6'3" being able to align their arm with the tail?
DR. WOLFE: Just changing the orientation and the posture of your arm.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any scientific significance in your opinion of this particular test?
DR. WOLFE: Again, other than just demonstrating that it aligns with it, no, nothing beyond that.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So this is an extracted frame from one of his dynamic tests in which the vehicle is moving at about 2 mph into his arm, making contact with his hand, his forearm, and his elbow.
MR. JACKSON: What is a dynamic test as it relates to a static test?
DR. WOLFE: So that's when something's in motion, and in this instance, it's the Lexus moving at about 2 miles per hour into his arm.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher explain what the purpose of this test was?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, I think it was to demonstrate that when his arm makes contact with the tail light, he observed paint transfer in the general location where there were the abrasions or the lacerations on his arm.
MR. JACKSON: Did he appear to paint the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: He did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see that Dr. Welcher appears to be wearing an orange t-shirt?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What is he wearing?
DR. WOLFE: Appears to be an orange t-shirt.
MR. JACKSON: Is that similar to what was described as John O'Keefe having worn that night on January 29th, 2022?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is there any significance to wearing that t-shirt?
DR. WOLFE: Not that I can think of. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note any or identify any shortcomings with this particular test?
DR. WOLFE: Well, much like the static test, again, it leaves the door open to all those questions, right? Doing this at 2 miles an hour doesn't tell you anything about what happens at 10, what happens at 15, what happens at 20, right? In terms of what are the collision forces, what's the damage, how does the arm move, what would the expected injuries be, right? This dynamic test as well as the static test doesn't answer any of those questions for us.
MR. JACKSON: Is this test from Dr. Welcher considered a force calculation?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of him making any type of force calculations or measuring accelerations or anything of that nature. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher conduct any testing to determine whether the damage to Miss Read's Lexus was consistent with the striking of an arm of a pedestrian?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of any impact testing that he did. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher conduct any testing to determine the forces necessary to cause the damage to the tail light of Miss Read's vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: Not that I'm aware of. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher conduct any testing to determine the forces necessary to cause the injuries to John O'Keefe's arm?
DR. WOLFE: No. Not that I'm aware of.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher provide any opinions as it relates to the speed of the subject Lexus at the time of the alleged incident?
DR. WOLFE: No. From reviewing his report and his PowerPoint and analysis, I could not find anywhere in it a specified speed or even a range of speeds.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher provide any opinion as it relates to the forces experienced by the tail light in such an impact?
DR. WOLFE: Not that I'm aware of. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher provide any opinion at all as it relates to the post-impact trajectory or movement, if you will, of John O'Keefe's mass or his body subsequent to the alleged contact?
DR. WOLFE: No, not that I'm aware of.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. Do you recognize this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is this?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is something that you probably have heard, and certainly I've discussed already, but this is looking at the right rear corner of the subject Lexus, specifically in the area of the damaged right tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Did you consider this photograph in coming to your opinions and conclusions?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What, if anything, of significance did you note about this tail light other than the fact that it's damaged?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I'm going to jump to the next slide, if you will. So this — now the tail light obviously has been removed from the vehicle. So, what's important here is looking at what damage we have to this tail light. What components were damaged in this alleged interaction. So we're looking at the clear diffuser — at the bottom, it is fractured and missing. Same with the ones on the vertical side. The majority of the outer red lens is also missing and fractured. And then on the back side, we also have some damage in terms of some fracturing to that black plastic. And there's also a chunk of plastic missing on the top portion of the tail light as well.
MR. JACKSON: I want to ask you a couple of questions about that diffuser. If you could focus your attention on this area. Describe for the jurors what they're looking at in terms of the diffuser. What is the diffuser?
DR. WOLFE: Right. Let me see if this — so, the diffuser is right where my mouse is. There's a clear diffuser that runs along the bottom, and then there's another diffuser that runs along here, and then it also goes up vertically. Same here on the bottom one that also goes up vertically. So, this piece was missing and fractured on the bottom, along with the vertical portion. The chrome piece here, you can see, is also fractured and damaged. And then the kind of second tier, if you will — that clear diffuser was also fractured and broken on the upper section as well.
MR. JACKSON: Was that of significance to you in your review of the damage to the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Why?
DR. WOLFE: Well, because that tells me that we have to have enough force and energy to break — we talked about earlier that 5 mm thick red outer lens. We have to have enough force to be able to get beyond that, to now start penetrating into the interior components of the tail light, to get to those clear diffusers, and certainly cause damage to get induced out the back end of the tail light as well.
MR. JACKSON: May I have just a moment?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, did you bring with you an undamaged tail light exemplar?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, it's up here with me.
JUDGE CANNONE: It's up there.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, I was just looking for it. Yeah, thanks for nothing. Describe what it is that you brought with you.
DR. WOLFE: So, I brought a two-part assembly. What I did is I 3D printed a bracket so that I could mount the liftgate tail light assembly as well as the quarter panel tail light assembly. And these are undamaged, in sort of manufacturing specs.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Yes. May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. You have it with you up there at the witness stand.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Could you retrieve that with the court's permission?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. If you could remain standing for just a quick second.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize what that is?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that what you just described?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Describe it one more time for the court and the jury. What is it that we're looking at right here?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is an exemplar set of tail lights from a 2021 Lexus LX570. On my left side here, this is the liftgate tail light assembly, and it's attached to the quarter panel tail light assembly. And I will note it's not normally like that. Obviously, you can't have a connector, else you wouldn't be able to open the liftgate. But I've printed a bracket back here so that these can remain as one unit.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, with the court's permission, I'd like to have that marked as next in order.
JUDGE CANNONE: That coming into evidence?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, if possible.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that okay? Okay.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: This might be clunky.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. Just have a tag perhaps put somewhere on, maybe the lip side. And is Dr. Wolfe going to use it for his testimony now?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Give it back over there, please. Chrissy, just give it to him.
COURT CLERK: Thank you. 250. Yes, ma'am.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Dr. Wolfe, you indicated that there was a 5 mm area of acrylic covering the diffusers.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: What I'm knocking on is the 5 mm acrylic.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Both on the quarter panel part that you just pointed to as well as the liftgate part.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson, why don't we give that back to the witness and let him do it instead of you?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Can you see through that lens material into the diffuser that you've just been describing?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. So, as I mentioned earlier, in this area here, there's a diffuser that's running along the bottom.
MR. JACKSON: So, Dr. Wolfe,
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to ask you, do not have that so close to reporters.
DR. WOLFE: My apologies.
JUDGE CANNONE: Use the other side of the witness stand.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, your honor. So along the bottom, is that the clear diffuser that runs along and then goes up vertically? And then on the second tier, there's also a clear diffuser that runs along here and then goes up vertically. And you might be able to see it — it kind of looks like there's little dots on it. So that's what I'm referring to in terms of the diffuser that's underneath. And that again, so you have that outer material that's 5 mm roughly in thickness and then those diffusers are about 3 mm in thickness underneath this.
MR. JACKSON: Could you make a determination — and you can go ahead and have a seat? Well, actually, you may not want to. Could you make a determination of the space or the gap between the outer acrylic area and the internal diffusers? If you could just estimate that gap.
DR. WOLFE: If I had to estimate, I'd probably estimate around an inch, maybe inch and a half.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You indicated that something was of significance to you in this photograph about the diffusers on the subject tail light. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Describe — now that you're holding that — what was it that was of note to you, Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: So as I mentioned, we have damage not only to this outer thick portion, but it was enough force and energy to then penetrate deep enough to fracture the underlying diffusers that sit below this outer surface, and certainly enough force then to work its way back through — by inducement — into the backside. And ultimately there was a top portion of the tail light that was also fractured up here.
MR. JACKSON: Was all that significant to you in your review of the subject tail light material?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You can go ahead and put that away.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So that can't go back there because it's in evidence. So why don't you take it — I was just going to store it there until he's finished with his testimony and then we can give it to the [unintelligible]. Okay. However you want to do it, your honor.
MR. JACKSON: I have no problem.
JUDGE CANNONE: Take it. Is he using it still for his testimony?
MR. JACKSON: Not right now.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Thank you, your honor. Okay. May I continue?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide? What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: This is a collection of photographs that depict various fragments from the right rear tail lamp assembly of the Lexus. And I will note — I'll try to spotlight it — there are a few fragments in this photograph that are glass fragments which, as I discussed earlier, there's no glass in the tail light. So these did not originate from the assembly. But altogether, from what I recall, there's about 50 fragments, I believe, that were counted — or so, maybe a little less than that — from the right tail light.
MR. JACKSON: If we could go to the next slide please. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So, these are photographs depicting the sweatshirt or hoodie that Mr. John O'Keefe was wearing on the night of the alleged incident.
MR. JACKSON: And what was the role that this played in your analysis ultimately?
DR. WOLFE: Well, so one of the things that I noted — and I can go to the next slide — is there were a series of small punctures or holes in the sleeve, on the right sleeve of the sweatshirt, in varying sizes. I think some as small as just a few millimeters. Again, I think there were maybe 10 or 12 — I think I recall — on the right sleeve of that sweatshirt.
MR. JACKSON: If we could go back to the larger photo, the previous slide. Do you see the right sleeve denoted on the photograph to the right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In your review of these photographs, what was the significance of the triangular sort of arrows or markers?
DR. WOLFE: I believe those were to annotate or draw attention to those holes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The defects in the right sleeve.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Can you count those for us, please?
DR. WOLFE: On the photograph on the right, I believe I see a total of nine.
MR. JACKSON: And what about the photograph on the left? Just the right sleeve area.
DR. WOLFE: Nine as well.
MR. JACKSON: If we can go to the next slide, what are the arrows pointing to in these photographs?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is basically the previous shot, but what appears to be closeups of some of those evidence markers.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated some of the sizes. What were some of the smaller sizes of those defects, those holes?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, like I said, I think it was around 3 to 5 millimeters, maybe some of the smaller ones.
MR. JACKSON: How big is 3 mm in inches?
DR. WOLFE: It'd be around probably around like an eighth of an inch or so.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What are you describing when you write the word "fundamentals"?
DR. WOLFE: So I want to discuss some very basic concepts that I hope will kind of resonate as we go through the PowerPoint, so that you have an understanding of the underlying physics and what I'm talking about.
MR. JACKSON: Can you go ahead and describe the role of an accident reconstructionist and the fundamentals that an accident reconstructionist undertakes when performing the kind of testing that you performed?
DR. WOLFE: So as I mentioned earlier, when I was describing what a simple definition of accident reconstruction is — it's the application of physics and engineering to collision events. So I want to go through some very basic elements of that so that you have an understanding of the physics.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So, this might be something you all remember back from high school physics. But even though it's been around since the late 1600s, we still use these laws today. So what we're looking at here is I've done is just describe Newton's laws very simply. And again, you might be familiar with these. So for instance, if we're talking about Newton's first law, an object at rest tends to stay at rest and at a constant speed unless it's acted on by an outside force, right? So if my arm is just here, it's just going to stay there until I give it a push or a pull. When I do that, that's going to induce an acceleration. So that's when we get into Newton's second law, where if I apply a force to a mass, I'm going to cause it to change its speed — it's going to accelerate.
DR. WOLFE: And then Newton's third law, basically the law of reaction, indicates that when I push on my arm, there's also an equal and opposite force going back to my hand that I'm pushing with.
MR. JACKSON: What role did these three very fundamental laws of physics play in your reconstruction, or your ultimate opinions and conclusions following your accident reconstruction in this case?
DR. WOLFE: So when we're talking about the concept of acceleration — what you will see in the dynamic test that we did and conducted — we measured the acceleration of an arm when it's impacted by a tail light. If we know the mass of the arm and we've measured the acceleration, we can use Newton's second law, which is force is equal to mass times acceleration, to calculate what that force is applied on the arm — which ultimately you will hear from my colleague Dr. Rentschler to talk about that.
MR. JACKSON: Is that broadly considered a force analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What role did force analysis — your force analysis — play in the accident reconstruction that you undertook in this case?
DR. WOLFE: Well, there's certainly going to be a correlation between the impact speed and the damage that we see. The higher the impact speed, the greater the force. So from my perspective, I was interested in the speed and the force to look at what's the observed damage to the test tail lights that we did.
MR. JACKSON: Do you think that's fundamental to an accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did Dr. Welcher engage in any force analysis with regard to John O'Keefe's arm and the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Not that I'm aware of. No.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move to the next slide, please. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So don't be too afraid — this is some really simple equations that I want to show you. So that first one, delta V. What do I mean by that? That simply just means — you can think of delta as "change in" — so change in velocity. So if you look at that equation, the change in velocity: really simple. If I've got an object that's initially — V-naught is initially at zero miles per hour — I hit it and it's now moving 10 miles per hour. That means it underwent a change in speed of 10 miles an hour and is moving at that velocity. Acceleration is essentially how quickly did that velocity change occur. Did it go from zero to 10 miles an hour in a split second, or did it go to 10 miles an hour over a few seconds?
DR. WOLFE: So depending on the timing — how quickly that change in velocity occurred — will determine what the acceleration is. And as I've already mentioned on the previous slide with Newton's second law, we can then take that information about acceleration and apply it — if we have a known mass — to calculate what the force on that object is.
MR. JACKSON: How did these math equations — delta V, acceleration, force — what role do they play in terms of the accident reconstruction here in this case?
DR. WOLFE: Well, they're extremely fundamental, and I think as we go through the PowerPoint you will have an appreciation and understanding of what these concepts are. You'll see that I have plotted graphs with acceleration that shows the rate of that change in speed over time. You will see graphs of delta V — so the change in speed of the arm as it's being impacted by the tail light, and then ultimately we can calculate the force of that impact to be able to assess whether or not there's a mechanism for the injuries. As I mentioned, that'll be my colleague Dr. Rentschler who will discuss that.
MR. JACKSON: Can I ask you about delta V specifically — like to focus on that for a second. Is that okay?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: When you say that equation suggests or dictates that an object that is struck by another object with mass moves up to the same speed of the object that struck it — describe that in a little bit more detail in colloquial terms, if you will. Sixth grade terms.
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry. Can you — — can you rephrase the question?
MR. JACKSON: Probably not. Because I don't understand this. If an object — does delta V describe the circumstance in which you have an object that may be at rest and struck by another object moving — is that calculating the speed at which the object that is struck moves to the same speed as the object that struck?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Just ask him a simple question. Let him answer.
MR. JACKSON: Easier said than done. Sure. Can you describe in more conversational terms what delta V is describing in terms of mathematics?
DR. WOLFE: Right. So let's just give an example specific to this case. If the arm — if the majority of the arm is struck by a 6,000 lb vehicle moving, let's say, at 20 mph, that arm will experience a change in speed. It'll go from zero up to about 20 mph due to that impact. So that would be the change in speed. If my arm is at rest — stationary — is impacted by a 6,000 lb vehicle, it's going to change its speed up to roughly what that impact speed is.
MR. JACKSON: And what about acceleration? What are you describing — or what is math or physics describing in that equation — in terms of the time it takes for that arm to now move from zero to 20?
DR. WOLFE: Right. So that's how quickly that change in speed is occurring. So to give you maybe an example you're more familiar with: let's say you're driving down the road, you come up, you see a red light at the intersection, right? You're going to get on the brakes slightly and your vehicle is going to change in speed — it's going to slowly decelerate. Let's say you're driving and a deer jumps out in front of you. You've got to slam on the brakes, right? You're going to change your speed much quicker. So that's an example of two different rates of acceleration — one where you're mildly braking, you're going to coast down slowly, versus a sudden emergency in front of you like a deer.
DR. WOLFE: You're going to slam on the brakes and your speed change is going to happen much quicker with that acceleration rate.
MR. JACKSON: Are there circumstances in which the acceleration can be from zero to, say, 20 mph in milliseconds?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. When we're talking about impact durations, especially of this nature, yes — we're not talking about the impact occurring over a second, two seconds. That's extremely long. Even a duration of a couple hundred milliseconds in the context of this is considered long.
MR. JACKSON: And then of course the force calculation is associated with the delta V and the acceleration calculations. Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In what way? What are we looking at in terms of that — a little bit more complex calculation?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. So if you look at the bottom equation there where I have force is equal to mass, and then that top component is the change in speed — that delta V, v1 minus v-naught, divided by the change in time, t1 minus t-naught. So if you substitute in that equation, that's delta V over delta t, which is acceleration. So there's a relationship between all of these equations.
MR. JACKSON: And did all of these equations assist you in coming to determinations and opinions and conclusions concerning this case?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are these normally accepted methodologies in determining acceleration, force — all the force dynamics or impact dynamics in an accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. They are the core of physics.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: Scientific method.
MR. JACKSON: What does that mean?
DR. WOLFE: So the scientific method is a process that scientists typically use to be able to reach conclusions. And so you could think about it in this case — we make an observation, right? We have injuries to the arm, we've got a damaged tail light. So let's try to do some research to figure out — has anyone done testing with that, right? Has anyone hit an arm with a tail light? See what happens. See what the forces are. And then we start to make a hypothesis — it's kind of an if-then statement. If the arm contacts the tail light, does the tail light break? Does it not break? What's the hypothesis there? And at least my understanding of reviewing Dr. Welcher's work, it appeared to be that his hypothesis —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Did you review — well, let me ask a different question. Going back to the calculations previously — the delta V, the acceleration, the force calculations that you described to the jury — did you see anywhere in any of Dr. Welcher's reports or his data that he undertook those core calculations?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to the scientific method, did you see whether or not Dr. Welcher followed this scientific method as you're explaining it to the jury?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What did you note, or what opinions or conclusions did you come to about the scientific method, if any, that Dr. Welcher did or did not undertake?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review Dr. Welcher's entire database — in other words, all the reports, all the raw data, and his PowerPoint?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did he undertake the scientific method as you know it?
JUDGE CANNONE: Continue to describe the scientific method as you know it and as you employ it.
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So again, from reviewing Dr. Welcher's report, he indicated —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. I want to see you at sidebar.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, may I inquire, your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, where are we on the chart? I've lost my place.
DR. WOLFE: I think hypothesis.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Let's describe, if you would please, what role hypothesis plays in the general scientific method.
DR. WOLFE: So generally, it's like I said, it's an if-then statement. So if you make a statement — if the arm contacts the tail light, then the tail light will shatter, right? So you want to do tests and experimentation and analyze that data to see whether you can accept or reject that hypothesis.
MR. JACKSON: And what's the next stage?
DR. WOLFE: So, as I mentioned, after hypothesis, once you've determined what your hypothesis is, you want to test with experimentation, analyze that data — and that certainly may be an iterative process that you do multiple times — to then be able to draw a conclusion from that analysis and testing.
MR. JACKSON: What's the next stage?
DR. WOLFE: To basically report those conclusions and findings.
MR. JACKSON: Why is it important to report those conclusions and findings?
DR. WOLFE: Well, so that you can determine whether you can accept or reject the hypothesis that was put forward earlier. You have to analyze the data following the testing that you undertake.
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
DR. WOLFE: Like I mentioned, I think it's an iterative process, because certainly you could do one test and it may not be clear what the answer is at that point. So you may have to do additional tests to basically parametrically evaluate your hypothesis.
MR. JACKSON: Did you undertake this scientific method with regard to your reconstruction or your testing in this case?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you observe this
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see this undertaken anywhere else?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you look for testing in Dr. Welcher's evaluation — all of his data?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you find any?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Other than the static blue paint test?
DR. WOLFE: That was the only test. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any force dynamics testing?
JUDGE CANNONE: That's leading, so you can get to it without that.
MR. JACKSON: What about any other testing — anything else that we've talked about? Do you see anything else done in Dr. Welcher's work as it pertains to an analysis of the tail light and the damage and the forces?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move on to the next slide. Did you actually undertake testing in furtherance of the scientific method?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move on to the next slide and you can describe what we're talking about. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So you're looking at a test matrix of the various tests that we conducted at ARCCA. I could go through them one by one if you want.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask you foundationally — was your testing directed toward determining whether or not the scenario proposed in Dr. Welcher's report was consistent or inconsistent with what you would find ultimately?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Was your testing specifically designed to determine whether the damage to Ms. Read's vehicle — her Lexus — was consistent with the scenario that was proposed by Dr. Welcher?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained too. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: What was your testing? What were you engaged in in terms of your testing? What were you trying to find out?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think it was — again, we talked about earlier about that hypothesis, right? My understanding was Dr. Welcher indicated that the arm contacted the tail light, but there was no analysis or testing to determine what's the expected outcome of that. What's the damage to the tail light?
JUDGE CANNONE: So you answered the first question. I'm striking that second part. Ask
MR. JACKSON: Another question. Was there anything else?
DR. WOLFE: I think simply put, it's to find out what happens when you impact an arm with a Lexus tail light at various speeds. What happens?
MR. JACKSON: What was your understanding of Dr. Welcher's hypothesis?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have an understanding of Dr. Welcher's hypothesis?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, what were you trying to find out through your testing?
DR. WOLFE: As I mentioned, I think it was to determine when you impact a tail light at 10 mph, 15 mph, 25 mph — what happens to the tail light? What's the expected damage? What happens to a sweatshirt when it makes contact with that? What happens to the fragments? How does the arm move? What's the acceleration of the arm? What's the change in speed of the arm? And certainly, as I mentioned, my colleague Dr. Rentschler will discuss what are the expected injuries in that type of impact.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any of those questions answered in Dr. Welcher's report?
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: What did you see in terms of Dr. Welcher's report as it relates to those types of questions?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, did you undertake a methodology to perform the testing to answer the questions that you've just explained needed to be answered for this jury?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Describe that, please.
DR. WOLFE: So we started out — we kind of worked at this incrementally, right? We didn't start right off the bat with utilizing an exemplar Lexus going right into an ATD or a test dummy. We wanted to start in the laboratory to have an understanding of what happens at a range of speeds. In this instance, in our first two tests, between 10 and 17 miles per hour — what happens? What kind of damage do we observe? At 10 miles an hour, do we even break the light? At 17, what kind of damage do we get? What kind of accelerations do we get? And then we moved up to full-scale vehicle impact testing.
MR. JACKSON: Is that methodology that you just described generally accepted in the field of accident reconstruction and in the broader field of engineering?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. Everything from utilizing an instrumented test dummy to using an exemplar vehicle to all the data acquisition systems that we had in the laboratory as well as the vehicle — all of that is generally accepted technique in the field of accident reconstruction to evaluate what we did in this case.
MR. JACKSON: And are those techniques also supported by peer-reviewed articles in scientific literature related to accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you rely on this methodology that you've just described to render opinions and conclusions as it relates to this case?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Have you relied on that same methodology in rendering opinions and conclusions in other courts?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next slide, please. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So we've gone over this before, but this is looking at the exemplar vehicle that we utilized for the latter part of our testing. You're looking at — again, just annotating — where the liftgate tail light is, as well as the quarter panel tail light.
MR. JACKSON: When you say exemplar vehicle, what is this SUV that we're looking at?
DR. WOLFE: It's the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. So it's a 2021 Lexus LX 570. Same weight, same geometry, same as the subject vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Is this a picture off the internet or do you actually have access to this truck?
DR. WOLFE: We have access to that vehicle. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And ultimately, what testing did you undertake specifically as it relates to this particular vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: We did full-scale vehicle testing with the vehicle driving into an ATD arm, as well as an ATD arm attached to a dummy, and then a full-on impact to a test dummy.
MR. JACKSON: Did you assess the damage to the right tail light after these various tests?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, after all of the tests.
MR. JACKSON: Did you assess the acceleration and quantify the forces that were involved?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you assess the material and textile damage to the clothed ATD?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, did you conduct lab tests in an effort to answer some of these questions as well?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you've already mentioned this, but you've utilized in your testing the exemplar vehicle to the fullest extent that you felt necessary.
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely.
MR. JACKSON: Were you hampered or hindered in any way in terms of damaging the vehicle or utilizing the vehicle in any way that you wished?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next slide, please. What are tests A and B? What are those laboratory tests?
DR. WOLFE: So these were the initial two tests that we did to get an idea of starting to test this hypothesis. As I mentioned, we weren't sure at 10 mph what would happen to the tail light. We wanted to see what would happen at 17 mph with the arm. So again, it was to evaluate from a starting point what happens in this interaction, based upon how Dr. Welcher had his arm oriented in his PowerPoint and analysis.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What is this?
DR. WOLFE: So you're looking at a photograph of our lab setup. You can see on the left side is our Hybrid III anthropomorphic test device. To the right is a linear impactor. And this is something we already have in-house — we built it years ago for our testing that we do for the National Hockey League, looking at what are the accelerations on an impact to a goalie wearing a helmet. We use this same device for that type of testing to measure head acceleration. So we applied this same linear impactor to be able to project, if you will, or accelerate the tail light at a known speed into the ATD arm.
MR. JACKSON: What are some of the instrumentation that you use in addition to the mechanical impactor? What instrumentation did you use to track the data?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So you can see — let me get my pointer — see where I am here. So at the top here, there's a blue camera here, there's another blue camera here. So these are our high-speed cameras. And you'll see there's a bunch of lights around those — that's just because the frame rate's so high, and it's only sampling a very, very short amount of time, so you have to have a lot of light when you do these high-speed tests. So we have the high-speed cameras running. We have an accelerometer mounted to the ATD arm here on the other side. And there are also a couple of other cameras that were documenting this overall.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to the next slide, please? What are we looking at in these photographs?
DR. WOLFE: So this is looking at — and not to be confused, this wasn't the arm position when the impact occurred, this is just showing you the setup. On the left is just kind of an overall shot. And then on the right, right here is a uniaxial accelerometer. That's going to measure — we talked about that term earlier — the acceleration. So that's going to measure how quickly is this arm changing its speed. What's the acceleration of the arm as it's impacted?
MR. JACKSON: Does that accelerometer put into motion some of the mathematical formulations that you talked about earlier?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move to the next slide, please. Tell me about these photographs.
DR. WOLFE: The importance of this is more specifically looking at the right photograph. It might be a little bit hard to see, but we wanted to get the same exact sweatshirt or hoodie for the testing, to evaluate: if the tail light breaks, is there a mechanism for the fragments to penetrate and cause holes in the sweatshirt, as were observed in Mr. John O'Keefe's sweatshirt?
MR. JACKSON: Next slide. Were you successful in finding the exact replica sweatshirt?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. And I will note, as I mentioned, I know it probably is hard to see, but the material blend on the sleeves is the exact same — they are 60% cotton and 40% polyester.
MR. JACKSON: Was it important in your mind to maintain consistency with the data that you had received concerning John O'Keefe's clothing?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. I think we wanted to try to control as many variables as we could.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move to the next slide, please. Test A. Describe test A for us, please.
DR. WOLFE: So you're going to see a series of photographs and then videos, but test A was mounting a preconditioned tail light on that linear impactor to accelerate it into the Hybrid III arm, to again evaluate the damage to the tail light and the acceleration to the arm.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move to the next slide, please. What are we looking at in these photographs?
DR. WOLFE: So you're looking on the left at a photograph just before the impact test was conducted. On the right, you're looking at a thermal image that is depicting the temperature profile of the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Describe that thermal image.
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. Your Honor, may I refer to my notes?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
DR. WOLFE: So what I did is I analyzed the profile of the temperature down in this area. And when we look at that segment — that lower portion here where contact was made — the average temperature in that area was about 34°, with a minimum of about 33°.
MR. JACKSON: How did you get that exemplar tail light down to around freezing?
DR. WOLFE: So all of the tail lights that we tested were preconditioned overnight in a freezer.
MR. JACKSON: Why was that important?
DR. WOLFE: It's my understanding that at the time this allegedly occurred, the ambient temperature was 31°F. So, as I mentioned earlier, there is certainly a correlation between how plastics perform in cold weather. So we wanted to take that variable into account in our testing — to precondition them down to temperatures that were consistent with the time of the alleged incident.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: So this is a video. Do you want me to go ahead and play the video?
MR. JACKSON: Tell us what we're about
DR. WOLFE: To see and then I'll ask the court's permission. So you were looking at a camera that is mounted above the entire setup. If you look at the top portion of this video, you will see the tail light. Part of it's covered by the high-speed camera. But what will happen is the linear impactor will fire and the tail light will be accelerated up to 10 miles per hour striking the clothed ATD arm.
MR. JACKSON: With the court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, let's go ahead and play the video.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What is this?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is also a video, but with the high-speed camera. So, it's the high-speed camera that's looking top down at the arm. So, you will see when the video plays, you will see the tail light enter from the left and contact the arm. And I will note that this is essentially slow motion. So it's not happening in real time. So you'll see the tail light slowly moving, but it's actually in reality moving at 10 miles per hour.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Go ahead and play that. Can I ask a question now that that's played? How did you mount the tail light to the accelerator? That linear accelerator, right?
DR. WOLFE: So, we had to get a little bit creative there because you may have observed this when we had the physical assembly out earlier. The back of that, it's not some nice clean surface that we can just bolt on. So, what we had to do is 3D print a bracket that we could bolt on to the linear impactor, and we used a polyurethane expanding foam to be able to marry those two together so that we could then bolt it on to the linear impactor to use it for this test.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any debris from that foam mounting mechanism?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, there's a few flakes you can see of that polyurethane foam off the backside kind of going into — being dispersed there.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. With regard to this particular 10 mph test, what did you note in terms of the damage to the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: It was very minimal.
MR. JACKSON: And what did you note in terms of any damage at all to the hoodie?
DR. WOLFE: There was none.
MR. JACKSON: We go to the next slide, please. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is looking at a side view. So, same test, just looking at it from the side. And similarly, you'll see the tail light come from the left and impact the arm.
MR. JACKSON: If we could play this please. What did you note in terms of deflection of the arm, the test arm?
DR. WOLFE: Well, the arm essentially — and we'll see this in the data later — it reaches a common velocity with the tail light. Based upon the portion of the arm that was contacted, again, consistent with how Dr. Welcher has it oriented, it will become accelerated up to 10 mph roughly.
MR. JACKSON: Over approximately what period of time is that arm accelerated up to 10 miles per hour along with the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: We'll see it on the data plots. I think it's about 10 milliseconds or so.
MR. JACKSON: How long — do you know how long an eye blink on average takes?
DR. WOLFE: Off the top of my head, no, I don't. Probably pretty quick.
MR. JACKSON: Somewhere around 250 milliseconds. Does that sound right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move to the next slide, please. What are we looking at in this series of photographs?
DR. WOLFE: So, these are extracted frames from the high-speed video that we just saw on the previous slide. Basically showing just at contact, just after contact, and then post contact. So you can see the kinematics of the arm and how the arm is moving.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's move to the next slide please. What is this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: So this is photographs taken of the tail light after the 10 mph test. I will note that there was a couple small fragments of the clear portion of the assembly, the outer lens that was missing from that turn signal area towards the left here. There was a couple fragments missing and then there was some small fracturing here in that area.
MR. JACKSON: How would you describe the damage to the tail light at the 10 mph test?
DR. WOLFE: If I may go to the next slide, I think it might —
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
DR. WOLFE: So this was the totality of that damage at 10 miles per hour. I would describe it as minimal and superficial.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Next slide, please. What is this?
DR. WOLFE: So this is the photograph that I just showed you compared to that of the subject tail light so that you can have a side-by-side comparison of the test tail light compared to that of the subject.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to reach any opinions and conclusions about whether the damage to the subject tail light is consistent with striking an arm at 10 miles per hour?
DR. WOLFE: It's inconsistent in my opinion.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. This is still test A. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to reach any opinions or conclusions as to whether or not the damage to Mr. O'Keefe's clothing is consistent with being struck by the tail light at 10 mph?
DR. WOLFE: What I observed from the test is that there was no mechanism to create any of the holes that we observed on the subject sweatshirt.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As well as the former opinion that you just gave us?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this graph?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is a graph that shows — roughly there. On the next graph, you're going to see a 24 millisecond window. So, what I want to show you on this graph is what does that look like over a full second so you can have an appreciation of just how quickly this is occurring. As you mentioned earlier, I think your comment about a blink of an eye — this is even shorter than that. We're looking at, as you'll see on the next graph, again, it spans over just a few milliseconds. So that yellow tick that you see in the middle there, what I've done is I've plotted that over a full second. So 1 second is equal to 1,000 milliseconds. So if we go 500 milliseconds to the right, 500 milliseconds to the left, this whole graph represents 1 second in time. This impact duration is occurring very quickly.
MR. JACKSON: 1 second. Is that reflected from the beginning of the graph to the end of the graph? That's representative of 1 second. Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. So starting at this y-axis all the way to here is 1 second in time with our impact duration happening over just a few milliseconds.
MR. JACKSON: And this was at 10 miles per hour?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this graph?
DR. WOLFE: So we're looking at the acceleration, or the change in speed over time — that parameter that we discussed earlier. So what you can see is that as the arm is impacted, we had the accelerometer mounted on the inside portion of the forearm, if you will. You see that it starts to accelerate, right? Because it's changing its speed and then it starts to level off after the impact has subsided, basically, and it's reached a common velocity.
MR. JACKSON: What do we see in terms of the G forces that the arm is subject to?
DR. WOLFE: So the peak is occurring right around here at about — looks like just over 6 milliseconds — and the peak acceleration is just over 130 Gs.
MR. JACKSON: And what does that mean? What is a G?
DR. WOLFE: So a G is acceleration due to gravity. So if we're being held down by 1G, you could think of it as basically a multiplication factor — it's 131 times the acceleration due to gravity.
MR. JACKSON: And the next slide please. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. WOLFE: So this is again that concept that we talked about earlier — delta V. This is the change in speed. So if we do some math to the previous data that we collected — it's a technique called integration — we can actually add up all of that acceleration to determine what speed did the arm get up to. And when we do that calculation to this data, what we see is that initially at the impact, the arm's at rest — Newton's first law. And then we impart a force on it in terms of the tail light impacting it. It's going to cause the arm to accelerate and change its speed. So, as I noted earlier, it's essentially going to reach a common velocity with the impact force based upon how Dr. Welcher has the arm oriented. And we can see that it's a tick over 10 mph at just over 10 milliseconds.
DR. WOLFE: So, that means that the arm in a 10 millisecond period is going from zero up to about 10 miles per hour, which was the speed of the impact.
MR. JACKSON: And 131 times the force of gravity is exerted on the arm at the same time.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to that point.
MR. JACKSON: Where does gravity play into this? What is the 131 Gs? Where is that force exerted?
DR. WOLFE: So that is the acceleration that the arm experienced as a result of that impact. So that's how quickly it was changing in speed.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Let's go to the next slide. So, is this a good place to take the morning recess?
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, folks. We'll take a recess. I just want to see counsel regarding just scheduling, please.
COURT OFFICER: All right. All rise.
COURT OFFICER: Court is back in session. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Are you all set, Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. Before Dr. Wolfe — before we get into laboratory test B, I failed to ask you: were you compensated, or was ARCCA paid following the proceeding last year for any of the time?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Last year?
DR. WOLFE: Last year. Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know how much that was?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, I think it was around $20,000.
MR. JACKSON: Was ARCCA paid by the defense for your initial testing? Okay. The initial analysis, which you talked about earlier this morning. Was ARCCA paid by the defense for any of that?
DR. WOLFE: No. Not the report, testing, none of that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What were you paid for last year related to the first proceeding?
DR. WOLFE: My time to appear at the proceeding.
MR. JACKSON: Travel, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Travel, testimony. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. What about now? Have you been paid any additional sums by the defense specifically for your undertaking that you're testifying about today?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: About how much have you been paid?
DR. WOLFE: I think when I spoke to accounting, I think they indicated it was around $50,000.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's talk about laboratory test B, as in bravo. If I may have just a moment, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: What was different about lab test B as opposed to lab test A?
DR. WOLFE: The tests were essentially identical aside from the speed increase, going from 10 up to 17.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let's take a look at the next slide. Just so I'm clear, Dr. — I want to make sure I'm on the same slide as you. Is this slide 35 pursuant to your notes?
DR. WOLFE: This is slide 36.
MR. JACKSON: 36. Got it. Okay. We could be a little bit more brief, I think, because is this similar to the 10 mph test just with increased velocity?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: What about the purple-hued tail light on the right? What is that?
DR. WOLFE: So, again, that is a thermal image depicting the temperature profile of the right — excuse me, right tail light that was tested. And the — I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: I was just going to note that the average temperature profile of the tail light here in this test was approximately 30°F. Is that below freezing?
DR. WOLFE: It is. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the ATD — the test dummy, if you will?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is it also clothed?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: With a —
DR. WOLFE: You may notice a difference in the sweatshirt color. We put on a new sweatshirt in this test.
MR. JACKSON: Was it also an exact replica of the sweatshirt at issue worn by John O'Keefe? I'll ask it a different way. How did it compare to the sweatshirt that was worn by John O'Keefe?
DR. WOLFE: It was made by the same company and had the same material blend as the previous test and the one that John O'Keefe was wearing.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So, this will be a video. You will see, much like you did in the other one, where the tail light will be accelerated up to 17 mph, impact the arm. And one of the things you'll see is actually an artifact of the test, if you will, where the tail light — due to the fact that the impactor stops at the end of the stroke — that force actually causes it to decouple from that polyurethane foam that we use to adhere the two.
MR. JACKSON: What do you mean by "decouple"? What does that mean?
DR. WOLFE: So, as I mentioned, once the linear impactor reaches the end of its stroke, it stops instantaneously. And the force of that stop — where we adhered the two together — just caused it to detach, basically break away. So, in essence, it doesn't matter, because we only care about that — remember, we're talking about that short duration of time, that 10 milliseconds. So, once it breaks, it's already reached a common velocity to the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can we go ahead and go to the next slide, please? What do you note about this impact?
DR. WOLFE: So, one of the things you'll see is kind of that dust cloud that you see. Again, that's all the particulates from the expanding foam that we use. So, that's kind of what you see in the background there, kind of going over kind of the arm and the tail light there.
MR. JACKSON: Do you note more damage or less damage to the tail light at 17 mph versus the 10 mph test?
DR. WOLFE: There is more damage. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next slide, please. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So, you're looking at a top-down view from the high-speed camera. You'll see the tail light enter from the left, impacting the arm at about 17 miles per hour.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, go ahead and play it. Can you describe the decoupling? Is that shown here?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. So, as you can see, where the two are basically married together — right? It's kind of actually coming back together now. So, that bond that we had — right? This is the most effective way that we could mount it to the impactor. It just became detached due to the force of that impactor stopping at the end of the stroke.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Next slide, please. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So, in this slide, you're looking at another high-speed video. This is just a side view. Again, you're going to see the tail light enter the frame from the left, impacting the arm at 17 mph.
MR. JACKSON: Is this in slow motion as well?
DR. WOLFE: This is in slow motion, correct. Not real time.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What do you note in terms of the deflection on the arm?
DR. WOLFE: The arm, as we saw in the previous one, is accelerated up. So, it's moving now at roughly a common velocity with what the impact speed was.
MR. JACKSON: And what did you note about the damage to the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: It was more significant than the 10 mph test — which again there was very minimal damage — whereas several fragments of the red outer lens fractured, as well as the clear lens.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, next slide. And what is this depicting?
DR. WOLFE: This is extracted frames from the previous video, just showing right at contact, during contact, and post-contact.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What is this a photograph of?
DR. WOLFE: This photograph is depicting the damage to the tail light at the conclusion of the test, where again it's missing fragments of the outer red lens. I will note that the interior diffusers and plastic components are intact in this test.
MR. JACKSON: When you say "intact," what do you mean?
DR. WOLFE: They are not damaged or broken at all. Correct. At all.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What is that a picture of?
DR. WOLFE: Another photograph showing the tail light post-test. Again, no damage to the underlying diffusers in terms of being cracked, shattered, or broken.
MR. JACKSON: And what did you note in terms of the damage to the outer acrylic — the red piece?
DR. WOLFE: It broke into a few fragments, and I think on the next slide I depict those in a photograph.
MR. JACKSON: Let's take a look at them. What is that?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is a photograph depicting the collection of the fragments post-test. I will note there's about — there's one clear piece, one red piece, another clear piece, and there is one more red piece in this bag. So, the outer lens broke into approximately four pieces in the 17 mph test. And I'll point out one other thing, just because you can see it in the photograph. This is that 3D-printed bracket that we used to bolt it onto the linear impactor, with the foam on the other side that mounted it to the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you for that. Next slide, please. What is this a picture of, or pictures of?
DR. WOLFE: This is a side-by-side comparison showing a depiction of the 17 mph test impact to the test tail light, comparing it to that of the subject tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to reach any conclusions or opinions as to whether or not the damage to the subject tail light on the right is consistent with striking an arm at 17 mph?
DR. WOLFE: It's inconsistent from a damage perspective.
MR. JACKSON: What's the basis of that opinion?
DR. WOLFE: The test that I've just showed you all was the testing that we've just talked about, conducted in accordance with the scientific literature and generally
MR. JACKSON: ...accepted methodologies that you've earlier described?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is the damage to the right rear tail light consistent with striking John O'Keefe's arm at 17 miles per hour?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Slide 45, please. What is this?
DR. WOLFE: You're looking at photographs post-test of the sweatshirt that the ATD was wearing at the time of the impact.
MR. JACKSON: Is this the 17 mph impact?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note any defects in the fabric of the right arm?
DR. WOLFE: There were no punctures, holes, or fraying of the material during this impact test.
MR. JACKSON: Based on this testing that you conducted in this case, is the damage that you saw on the shirt that John O'Keefe was wearing consistent or inconsistent with the shirt on the ATD?
DR. WOLFE: It was inconsistent compared to the sweatshirt that Mr. John O'Keefe was wearing.
MR. JACKSON: Based on that, do you have an opinion or a conclusion as to whether or not the damage on Mr. O'Keefe's clothing was consistent with being struck by the right rear tail light at 17 mph?
DR. WOLFE: It is inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What is this graph depicting?
DR. WOLFE: So, going back to these terms that we've talked about, this is the acceleration trace of the 17 mph impact test. And you can see that we reach a peak of acceleration at around 5 milliseconds. And that's at about almost 270 G's.
MR. JACKSON: You said 270 G's, correct? Or 217?
DR. WOLFE: 270.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Did that have any significance on your analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was that?
DR. WOLFE: Well, we can use that to estimate— obviously we can integrate that to get the speed, but we can also estimate the force applied to the tail light with that information.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What is the delta V as it relates to the 17 mph lab test?
DR. WOLFE: So you can see again the arm initially at rest is accelerated up, increasing in speed, and then reaches just about 16 miles per hour. So reaching nearly a common velocity with the tail light at about 8 milliseconds in time.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. Did you conduct additional tests other than the two lab tests that we've talked about?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Describe just in general, and then we'll talk in more specifics. What were the tests that you undertook after the lab tests?
DR. WOLFE: So, we conducted two tests with a suspended ATD arm that was impacted by an exemplar 2021 Lexus LX 570. We then conducted a test where the arm was then attached to a test dummy, and then our final test was a full-on impact to a test dummy.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to slide 48, please? What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. WOLFE: This is the exemplar 2021 Lexus LX 570 that was utilized during this test program.
MR. JACKSON: Was this the same vehicle that was utilized in all the tests C, D, E, and F?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If we could go to slide 49, the next slide. What's depicted in this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: Well, so there are a number of things here. I'll try to point them all out. So obviously the— we talked about just now the Lexus here, the exemplar vehicle. We have a forklift that was hoisted up that ultimately was suspending the arm. I think I have an additional photograph that shows it close up, but the arm was suspended from the forklift at the correct height to interact with the tail light. We have our high-speed cameras set up under this umbrella. There's another one over here. Another thing you'll note is we brought out the chest freezer when we were installing these in the Lexus to again keep them at that steady state temperature for as long as possible.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move on to the next slide. What are we looking at in this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is the approximate position that we plan to have contact occur in these tests. As you can see, the forearm is in contact with the liftgate and the quarter panel tail light, along with the elbow.
MR. JACKSON: Why did you choose this configuration for the arm, the forearm, the hand, the elbow?
DR. WOLFE: It was based upon my review of Dr. Welcher's work and what he did through his static and dynamic test, or paint test, that this is how the arm was roughly oriented when the alleged contact occurred.
MR. JACKSON: What were you trying to replicate in positioning the arm this way as it relates to the SUV?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think as I stated earlier, it was to understand— you know, okay, let's get beyond just simple geometry aligning things. What happens to the arm? What are the accelerations? What's the damage? We want to answer some of those other questions that Dr. Welcher didn't answer.
JUDGE CANNONE: Does this— I'm going to strike the last part of that answer.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: Does this configuration align with your understanding of Dr. Welcher's alignment of the arm as it relates to the vehicle? COUNSEL: May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Robert. May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let's go to the next slide. It's maybe self-explanatory. What was the speed of your first test out in the field?
DR. WOLFE: 15 mph.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in these two photographs?
DR. WOLFE: So, on the left is a photograph of the installed preconditioned tail lights just after the install, and on the right is a thermal image of that. And if I may just point out with the temperature. Uh, so one of the things you may see here is that due to the reflective chrome here, this is just an artifact of that being really reflective. So when we look at the average temperature profile of the tail light for this test, the average was approximately 17° F for the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Was it important in this testing to account for the temperature variance of the tail light assembly?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, absolutely. And I will note we certainly strive to maintain that. One of the things you may see in this photograph on the left are these pellets on the ground. And that is due to the fact that during the installation process, one of my colleagues was positioned adjacent to the tail light fixtures applying a compress of dry ice to help mitigate any heat transfer during the install process.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move on to the next slide. What are we looking at in this overhead view?
DR. WOLFE: Uh, this is a drone video. So you're going to see the Lexus accelerate from left to right, impacting the hybrid suspended arm in the area where you could see the can, or the umbrella.
MR. JACKSON: Can you use your spotlight and orient us— where are the vehicles and the testing locations?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. So the Lexus is starting here. You will see it accelerate in reverse with the hybrid arm suspended in this area here.
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, is that in real time or slowed down? Sped up?
MR. JACKSON: Is this a video or just a still shot?
DR. WOLFE: This is a drone video.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go ahead and play that.
DR. WOLFE: This is in real time.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, next video, please. What is this?
DR. WOLFE: This is a camera that was mounted on top of the forklift that was suspending the arm.
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. JACKSON: Did you see the impact area? It's quick, right? What did you mean when you said more of a sideswipe or a clip?
MR. JACKSON: Is this a still shot or is it a video?
DR. WOLFE: It's a video.
MR. JACKSON: What is the orientation of that arm as it relates to the vehicle that we'll see?
DR. WOLFE: So, it will make contact with the tail light. Although I will note in this test, ultimately the contact ended up being more of a clip or a sideswipe in this test.
MR. JACKSON: Go ahead.
DR. WOLFE: So, I think the next couple videos will help demonstrate that.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move on to the next one. What are we looking at in this video? I'm sorry, in this photograph.
DR. WOLFE: So, this is going to be a high-speed, or slow-mo, video. You're going to see the Lexus come in from the right and then move across the screen to the left. And you'll see contact occur between the tail light and the arm.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can you explain for the jurors, using this video, what you meant by more of a sideswipe or a clip?
DR. WOLFE: Right. So, this is where the hand and the wrist are kind of in the area of the quarter panel tail light. And then a portion of the forearm in contact with— I'm sorry, the wrist and the hand in contact with the liftgate portion of the tail light. And then the forearm is more in contact with the quarter panel tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can we move to the next slide? And what is this angle?
DR. WOLFE: This is— yeah, same test, just a different angle with the high-speed cameras in slow motion.
MR. JACKSON: And this is at 15 miles per hour, correct?
DR. WOLFE: 15 miles an hour. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Can you explain for the jurors given the fact that this is suspended, does that have any impact on the ultimate analysis or reconstruction, rather than being attached— effectively, mass is mass?
DR. WOLFE: So whether we have an arm that is suspended or attached, again, the arm is on a joint, right? So the arm can accelerate freely of the rest of the body, right. So if anything, even if it is attached to the body, there may actually be some additional force associated with that just because there could be more mass attached to it.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Okay, let's go ahead and play this video. Can we go to the next slide, please? What are we looking at in these three photographs?
DR. WOLFE: So, you're looking at, starting from left to right, just at contact, and then just after contact, and then post contact. So, as I mentioned, you can see that in this first one at contact— again, the hand and the arm aren't positioned as far out as on the previous test. And the hand is in the area— and the wrist— of the liftgate tail light, with part of the forearm in contact with the quarter panel tail light. And as you saw in the video, essentially the arm just kind of moves out of the way of the vehicle as it comes by.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Next slide, please. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: This is a photograph of the test vehicle subsequent to the test, depicting the — I'll say lack of damage to the tail lights.
MR. JACKSON: Describe what you did see in terms of damage or lack of damage on the tail light.
DR. WOLFE: There was no damage or fracturing to the tail lights.
MR. JACKSON: Describe the orientation of the arm in this particular test that you said was more of a sideswipe. What was the orientation of the arm to the tail light in terms of how much of the arm touched the tail light? It's probably a clunky question, but I think you understand it.
DR. WOLFE: I don't know if I could break it down — I think just qualitatively speaking, like I said, it appears to be the hand and the wrist and kind of the lower portion of the forearm, maybe to the mid forearm or so.
MR. JACKSON: So nothing on the upper arm making contact. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Nothing on the upper arm. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If we can move past this slide and onto the next slide. What is this depicting?
DR. WOLFE: So this is depicting the test tail lights of the 15 mph impact into the hybrid arm, compared to that of the subject tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any notable damage at all on the exemplar tail light following Test C at 15 mph?
DR. WOLFE: The only thing there may have been was some very slight abrasions, maybe, to the plastic, but there certainly was no breaking or fracturing of the lens assembly.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to reach any opinions or conclusions as to whether the damage to the subject tail light is consistent with striking an arm at 15 miles per hour in this test?
DR. WOLFE: It was inconsistent, even in a sideswipe. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Was that testing that we just saw done in accordance with scientific literature and generally accepted methodologies in the area of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is the damage to the right rear tail light of the subject vehicle consistent with striking John O'Keefe's arm at 15 miles per hour in a sideswipe configuration?
DR. WOLFE: It's inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to the next slide, please? What are we looking at in this graph?
DR. WOLFE: So you're looking at the hand acceleration over time. You can see that because, as you saw in the previous video and slides, the hand initially made contact with the tail light — so that gets accelerated up first. So we're getting peak accelerations in this test for the hand of about 254 Gs. And yes, over a period of about a little over 6 seconds — or sorry, 6 milliseconds or
MR. JACKSON: so. What was the arm, or the appendage, outfitted with to determine the data on this graph?
DR. WOLFE: Right. So if you think back to the lab testing that we did — because we didn't have, and again this is kind of why we did the testing incrementally as we went about it — but in the lab test, we didn't have a way to mount the lift gate assembly to also evaluate that interaction. So when we moved outside to the full-scale vehicle testing, we had a liftgate tail light, obviously the full vehicle. So we also instrumented the hand with an accelerometer, as well as the forearm. So we were able to measure the acceleration of both the hand and the forearm in these tests.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to the next slide, please? And what are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So this is — excuse me — the acceleration of the arm. So you can see that it reaches a peak around 5 milliseconds, at about — looks like just under 200 Gs.
MR. JACKSON: And the next slide — what's depicted in this graph?
DR. WOLFE: So this is doing again the integration of the acceleration data for the hand, to determine what speed did the hand get accelerated up to. And you can see that at the onset of this it's at rest. It's impacted and then gets up almost to 15 miles an hour in 4 milliseconds. Ultimately does reach — at about 18 milliseconds — it does reach that 15, but it's nearly at 15 at contact.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. The next slide, please. And what is this delta V showing us?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is showing the change in speed of the arm. And again, because the hand and the wrist were more of the central impact to the ATD arm, this ultimately saw less acceleration, therefore less of a change in speed. So at around 6 milliseconds — well, roughly actually about 1 millisecond after it started to increase in acceleration — it's at about 5 miles an hour.
MR. JACKSON: Is that reflected in the fact that the arm pivoted?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. There's some rotation going on, so it's not translating or accelerating.
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. JACKSON: Do your next slides show — there you go. The suspended arm. What are we looking at here?
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Can we move to the next slide, please? Test D. What was the speed that you undertook in Test D, as in delta?
DR. WOLFE: So this is a 29 mph impact into the suspended hybrid arm.
MR. JACKSON: We move to the next slide. What are we looking at in this series of photographs?
DR. WOLFE: So on the left is my colleague again compressing the tail light while we install the upper tail — the liftgate tail light — to again try to maintain that steady-state temperature. Over here on the right is the thermal image of the tail light after the install. So the average temperature of this tail light during the test was approximately 17° F.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. Staying with Test D, what is this depicting?
DR. WOLFE: This is a drone video showing a top-down perspective of the test, with the Lexus starting on the left-hand part of the screen, accelerating in reverse into the suspended hybrid arm over here at the location of the forklift.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, if we can watch this video, please.
DR. WOLFE: So, this is a video camera that was positioned on top of the forklift, looking down at the arm. So you'll see the vehicle move from bottom to top as this video plays.
MR. JACKSON: By the way, Dr. Wolfe, what are the purple and white lines that we see — [unintelligible]? I'm sorry, I was talking over that. Sorry — what are the purple and white lines that we see?
DR. WOLFE: So those are guidelines to help. I will note that this is kind of like a needle in a haystack. It's very hard to hit this small of a target. So they just served as a guideline to reference as we're accelerating rearward into this.
MR. JACKSON: Is this in real time?
DR. WOLFE: This is in real time. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What's the speed that the vehicle is entering the frame at?
DR. WOLFE: 29 miles per hour.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. What happened to the arm in terms of its suspension?
DR. WOLFE: It actually gets ripped off from the mounting location.
MR. JACKSON: Is there a reason you believe physically that that arm was ripped off from the suspension tethers?
DR. WOLFE: Well, certainly there was enough force to break the tie lines to the forklift.
MR. JACKSON: Was there a test value of those tie lines?
DR. WOLFE: I think they were rated at 150 pounds.
MR. JACKSON: What does that suggest in terms of the force that was exerted — just before we get to the other testing — the force that was exerted on the arm to tear off the tie lines?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it indicates that the arm saw at least 150 pounds of force.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, next slide, please. What are we looking at in this video?
DR. WOLFE: So this is going to be a slow-motion video. You'll see the Lexus accelerate in reverse, making contact with the arm. And again, this is the 29 mph impact test.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Next slide, please. And what is this?
DR. WOLFE: This is a video — a high-speed video, so slow motion — of Test D at 29 miles per hour into the ATD arm that is suspended. So you'll see the Lexus enter the frame from the right and impact the arm.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Was this strike more reflective of what you were attempting to replicate?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, this was a more central impact to the arm. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Next slide, please. And what is this?
DR. WOLFE: So this is a high-speed, or slow-motion, video depicting Test D at 29 mph, just a different perspective than the previous video.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Next slide. And what are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is extracted frames from the high-speed video. Starting from left to right, this is roughly at first contact, with the majority of the hand — well, the hand and majority of the forearm — in contact with the liftgate tail light, with a portion of the elbow in contact with the quarter panel tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Can I stop you right there, on that far left frame? Does that fairly replicate what you were attempting to approximate in terms of the orientation of the arm versus the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. More of a central impact compared to that first test at 15.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Is that more or less consistent with what you saw in Dr. Welcher's test, where he had his arm in that still shot associated with the geometry of the car?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is this consistent with what you were trying to replicate after your review of Dr. Welcher's report?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Can I ask it differently? What were you trying to replicate, or why were you trying to replicate this, at the 29 mph test in this particular orientation?
DR. WOLFE: We were trying to see, based upon Dr. Welcher's orientation, what happens to the arm in terms of the acceleration and the damage to the tail light at that configuration at contact.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, next slide please. What are we looking at?
DR. WOLFE: So this is a photograph depicting the damage to the liftgate tail light as well as the quarter panel tail light.
MR. JACKSON: And what do you note in terms of that damage?
DR. WOLFE: So on the liftgate tail light, a significant portion of that thick 5mm red outer lens is fractured and broken off. The underlying diffusers are still in place. There was a small crack in — I believe it was the upper diffuser here. The quarter panel tail light had the clear section damaged, with the outer lens missing, along with some fragments from the outer the same post-test. We did not make any observations with respect to any fraying, holes, or punctures to the material of the sleeve.
DR. WOLFE: It was inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: What's the basis for that opinion, Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: The results of this test.
MR. JACKSON: And was that testing conducted in accordance with the scientific literature and generally accepted methodologies in the field of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is the damage to the right rear tail light consistent with striking John O'Keefe's arm at 29 miles per hour? When I say the tail light, the right rear tail light, I mean of the subject vehicle.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. In that form.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to your opinion concerning whether the subject tail light is consistent with striking an arm at 29 miles per hour, do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What is depicted in this graph?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is looking at the acceleration of the hand in the 29 mile per hour impact test with peak accelerations close to 800 gs at 2 milliseconds.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this graph?
DR. WOLFE: This is the acceleration of the arm reaching uh peak acceleration of about 500 gs.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated 800 gs in the last graph. What's the difference — what's the difference in the delta between the 500 and the 800? Between the hand and the arm. Understood. Which one suffered — or was subject to 800 gs?
DR. WOLFE: That would be the hand.
MR. JACKSON: And which one was subject to the 500 gs?
DR. WOLFE: That would be the arm.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this graph?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is looking at the change in speed — what speed the hand got up to as a result of the impact. So we can see that in about 3 milliseconds the arm is moving nearly at almost 25 mph, and then a little bit later — again, this is still very quick in time — at about 14 milliseconds it's at about 30 mph.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide please. What's depicted in this graph?
DR. WOLFE: So this is looking at the change in speed of the arm as a result of the contact. So starting here at about 2 milliseconds, the arm accelerates up to — by 8 milliseconds, we're at about 35 mph. And you may be wondering why we are getting more speed than what the input was. And that's because you get a phenomenon known as restitution. Basically there's an elastic collision between the two where you can get almost a bouncing effect. So when you have something that weighs 6,000 lb striking something that's much much lighter than that, it can actually cause it to accelerate up to a greater velocity than the impact speed.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. Test E, 24 mph impact test. What is that?
DR. WOLFE: So this is a 24 mph impact test to uh the ATD arm attached to a test dummy.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. Why did you utilize 24 miles an hour for this test?
DR. WOLFE: So, it's my understanding that this is the upper end. There is a triggering event of — I believe it's 11622 — and I think at the end of that data, the speed is approximately 24 mph. So, we did a test at the end point, if you will, in that data set.
MR. JACKSON: What is this photograph showing in terms of the orientation of the arm and the hybrid test dummy or ATD?
DR. WOLFE: So the orientation is to depict again the orientation that Dr. Welcher indicated in his static and dynamic test to show what happens when that ATD arm that we had is attached to a test dummy and is struck at 24 miles per hour.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. And what is this?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is a thermal image of the tail lights just after the install with the average temperature at just over 33°F.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide. And what are we looking at?
DR. WOLFE: So, you're looking at a top-down drone video with the Lexus here on the left that will accelerate uh in reverse up to 24 miles an hour striking the ATD arm.
MR. JACKSON: Let's watch that, please. Next slide. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is a top-down video from the top of the forklift or where the uh arm is suspended attached to the dummy. So, you're going to see the vehicle enter from the bottom uh going to the top of the screen.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide. What is this view?
DR. WOLFE: It's just another perspective. This is a slow motion video where you'll see the Lexus in reverse. I think this one actually has kind of a long buildup before it starts here.
MR. JACKSON: Could we go to the next slide, please? And what is this?
DR. WOLFE: So, this is a perspective from the high-speed camera. So, a slow motion video with the Lexus reversing into the ATD arm at 24 miles per hour.
MR. JACKSON: Before you play this, Dr. Wolfe, I failed to ask this. It may be obvious. After each of the tests — C, D, E, F — uh, were you replacing the tail light with new exemplar tail lights that had been uh temperature accounted for?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Every test had a new set of quarter panel tail lights uh, as well as liftgate tail lights. And even in the test — uh, the 50 mph test — where the tail light was not damaged, we still put on new tail lights. We did not repurpose or reuse any of the tail lights.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. If you could play this for us, please. Next slide. In this configuration, was the ATD outfitted with the hoodie that you've earlier described?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: At the time you outfitted the ATD with the hoodie in this configuration before this test E, did you confirm that the sleeve, the right sleeve, was damaged or undamaged?
DR. WOLFE: After this test? No. Before — before — it was undamaged before the test.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. WOLFE: So this is still frames from the high-speed. So starting out on the left here just at contact — so the uh forearm making contact with the liftgate tail light, and then the upper part of the forearm and the elbow making contact, a direct hit into the quarter panel tail light. The middle here is just after contact, and on the right is post contact.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Next slide please. What are we looking at in this video — or in this picture?
DR. WOLFE: So this is an overall photograph depicting the tail lights subsequent to this test at 24 miles per hour. I will note that there is no damage to the liftgate tail light. Uh and then there is damage to the quarter panel tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Is there any damage to the internal diffusers on this tail light?
DR. WOLFE: So if I go to the next photograph if I may please. So you can see here uh there is this kind of thicker — it's actually not a crack. So I'm looking at the clear diffuser here with the dots that you see — this um line that you see kind of opaque. I don't know if you've got a laser pointer to
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Just so there's no confusion. Thank you.
DR. WOLFE: So the line right here — that's part of the assembly. So that's just a part of how the plastic is molded. There is a very small crack right here in the underlying diffuser. But all of the remaining part of the diffuser — in terms of this portion here and here — are all intact. And same with this portion of it.
MR. JACKSON: What about the chrome piece that's running between the diffusers?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe that was damaged during this test. No.
MR. JACKSON: And what about the clear uh acrylic toward the top left of that tail light housing?
DR. WOLFE: Uh it was partially fractured but not the entire uh outer portion of it.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide please. What is this uh depicting?
DR. WOLFE: So this is a photograph depicting the quarter panel tail light subsequent to the 24 mph impact test with the ATD arm compared to that of the subject tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Based on this test, were you able to reach any opinions and conclusions as to whether the damage to the subject tail light is consistent with striking John O'Keefe's arm at 24 miles an hour?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. In that form.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to reach any opinions or conclusions as to whether the damage to the subject tail light is consistent with striking an arm at 24 miles per hour?
DR. WOLFE: Based upon the test results, it's inconsistent with striking an arm.
MR. JACKSON: Why — on what do you base that opinion?
DR. WOLFE: I base it upon the test results that I've shown in terms of the video and the data acquisition.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe that in a little bit more detail?
DR. WOLFE: So during this test, we had the instrumented hybrid arm um outstretched from the test dummy with the accelerometer on the hand and the forearm. We had data acquisition on the vehicle monitoring the speeds of the vehicle. We accelerated that vehicle into the arm at 24 miles an hour to conduct a dynamic impact test to collect data certainly about the acceleration that the arm experienced but then also make observations about the damage that we observed to the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion that we've just discussed uh to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And were your tests conducted in accordance with methodologies that are generally accepted in the field of accident reconstruction in this particular test cycle?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this series of photos?
DR. WOLFE: So, these are photographs depicting the test clothing. Again, prior to the test, there were no holes or damage to the sweatshirt. That was the same post-test. We did not see any — make any observations with respect to any fraying, holes, or punctures to the material of the sleeve.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any damage whatsoever observed on the right sleeve of that ATD?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in terms of this graph?
DR. WOLFE: What you're looking at in this graph is the acceleration of the hand, reaching a peak acceleration just after 10 milliseconds of approximately 435 Gs.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide. What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: This is the acceleration of the arm during this 24 mph impact test, reaching peak Gs of about 300 at 4 milliseconds.
MR. JACKSON: And the next slide — what is this delta-v graph showing us?
DR. WOLFE: This is showing the change in speed of the hand as a result of the impact, ultimately getting up to approximately 24 miles an hour, which again is the impact velocity of the Lexus.
MR. JACKSON: And how fast did it get up to 24 miles an hour?
DR. WOLFE: In about 10 milliseconds or less.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. And what is this delta showing us?
DR. WOLFE: This is showing the change in speed of the arm, going to just over — looks like about 22 miles per hour — at about 10 milliseconds.
MR. JACKSON: So a total window of time of about 8 milliseconds to get up to that 22 mph speed or so?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Next slide, please. By the way — another question on that. When the ATD was oriented in Test E — as in Echo — standing with its right arm out and the impact was on the right arm, what happened to the mass of the body of the ATD?
DR. WOLFE: It rotated.
MR. JACKSON: Was it projected at all off to the side?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Was it projected rearward?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Was that rotation expected based on your experience?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is the 29 mph impact test — Test F?
DR. WOLFE: So this was a test that we conducted with what's known as a Rescue Randy — a test dummy. That was a full-on impact to the right rear corner of the Lexus. Let's take a look at the next slide, please.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to Test E — if I could — I want to go back to that test even though we're looking at this one. With Test E, was that reflective of a direct impact on the arm itself?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Right in the area of the elbow to the quarter panel tail light, as opposed to a sideswipe on the arm?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Did you undertake to test a direct impact on the body in this test — of the Rescue Randy dummy?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What are we looking at here?
DR. WOLFE: So this is the intended impact configuration with the Rescue Randy suspended here by the forklift, and again positioned in the path of the profile at that right rear corner.
MR. JACKSON: How much does this test dummy weigh?
DR. WOLFE: Approximately 200 lbs.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: So this is a video. We had a little bit of a false start, so our high-speed cameras weren't triggered. But thankfully we were able to pull our surveillance video to get at least an overall video of the test taking place.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let me ask you that — did you intend to have high-speed video, just like you've had in every other test?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What went wrong?
DR. WOLFE: Just a miscommunication between the driver and the rest of the test engineers.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. False start. Okay. Was the tail light housing reassembled for this test?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, it had a preconditioned new set of tail lights on it.
MR. JACKSON: And other than the tail light damage that you rotated through in your testing C through F, was there any other inherent damage to the liftgate that existed when the exemplar vehicle was received by you?
DR. WOLFE: When it was received, no — it was in good condition. No defects or damage.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What are we going to expect to see in this video?
DR. WOLFE: In this video, you'll see the Lexus come from right to left, strike the Rescue Randy, and then you'll see the Rescue Randy projected and slide on the ground.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can you play that one more time, please? Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this series of photographs?
DR. WOLFE: So this is an extract from our VBOX software and data acquisition system. On the top you'll see the video; on the bottom is the data. This is another feed that we had of video — this was triggered, so we do have data from this perspective. What you'll see is my colleague move away from the assembly with the dry ice, and then the vehicle will accelerate in reverse.
MR. JACKSON: That was my question — the blue, that's dry ice?
DR. WOLFE: Gloves. Yeah, you can't touch dry ice with your bare hands. So he's wearing gloves. He's capturing the thermal images now.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. And what are we looking at in this?
DR. WOLFE: These are extracted frames from that video you just saw from the data acquisition system. On the left is just before contact between the test dummy and the Lexus. On the right is just at contact.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. And what are we seeing in this series of photos?
DR. WOLFE: This is during the collision sequence. The body has now loaded into the liftgate and the back window. What you're seeing here is the back window shattering. And this is just a split second later in time where again the body is continuing to move with the vehicle as it's contacted.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide. And what is this?
DR. WOLFE: This depicts the post-impact damage to the rear of the Lexus. The rear window is completely shattered. There's deformation and crush to the liftgate section of the vehicle. The bumper step was popped out, and then there was some minor fracturing in the bumper cover at the lower level.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note anything regarding the internal components of the exemplar tail light, even at this direct impact?
DR. WOLFE: The tail light — as you can see — blew out the outer lens cover. I believe parts of the clear diffusers were actually still in place. I think the lower one might have been fractured here, but I think the upper one was still in place at 29 mph with a direct impact.
MR. JACKSON: Did the exemplar tail light exhibit the same type of damage to the diffuser as the subject tail light?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not sure I understand your question.
MR. JACKSON: More or less damage in this photo to the diffuser specifically than in the subject tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think there was more in the subject tail light. As I mentioned, I believe the top diffuser on this was damaged.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Okay, that was my question. And is there another slide at the back end of this one?
DR. WOLFE: That's it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. We can have the lights. Dr. Wolfe, you conducted tests at what miles per hour? Tell me the sequence.
DR. WOLFE: It would be 10 mph, 17 mph, 15 mph, 29 mph, 24 mph, and then a full-on hit at 29 mph.
MR. JACKSON: Regarding all of the tests you conducted, what did you observe with regard to the damage, if any, to the internal components of the quarter panel tail light — and I'm talking about the chrome pieces and the diffusers?
DR. WOLFE: It was less in all of the tested tail lights than that of the subject tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Did you reach any opinions or conclusions as to whether the damage to the right rear tail light of the subject 2021 Lexus is consistent with an impact to John O'Keefe's right arm during a high-speed reversing maneuver?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained in that form. Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Did you reach any opinions or conclusions as to whether the damage to the right rear tail light of the subject vehicle is consistent or inconsistent with an impact to a right arm during a high-speed reversing maneuver?
DR. WOLFE: It was inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: What's the basis for that opinion?
DR. WOLFE: All of the test data that we did from the laboratory testing, moving up to full-scale vehicle testing — all of the collected data in terms of the photographs, the observations, all the acceleration data collected.
MR. JACKSON: So all of the testing that we've walked through in this PowerPoint — that was based upon generally accepted and peer-reviewed methodologies in the accident reconstruction community? Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, based on your experience, training, and education?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you reach any opinions or conclusions relating to the punctures and holes in the hoodie that you saw — related to John O'Keefe?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have an opinion or conclusion as to whether the damage you saw to the hoodie related to John O'Keefe is consistent or inconsistent with an impact from the right rear tail light of the subject SUV?
DR. WOLFE: It was inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: And what do you base that opinion on?
DR. WOLFE: Based upon all of the impact testing that we did with the clothed ATD arm in the laboratory as well as the field.
MR. JACKSON: In any of the testing that you did, did you ever see tail light pieces cut, puncture, or fray the sleeve of that hoodie?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: The exemplar hoodie, I should say?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you reach any opinions or conclusions as to whether the rear tail light of the subject SUV was involved in a center of mass strike of a pedestrian at a high-speed rearward maneuver?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is your opinion?
DR. WOLFE: That the damage to the subject Lexus is inconsistent with a center of mass hit.
MR. JACKSON: What do you base that opinion on?
DR. WOLFE: The testing that we conducted in that last test that you just saw.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, Dr. Wolfe?
PARENTHETICAL: [gap in transcript — approximately one hour of testimony not present in this chunk]
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. That's all I have.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Is this a good place for a break, or do you want to get started? [unintelligible] Jurors, why don't we let you have your lunch? Okay. So we'll come back. Ready to go at 1:30.
COURT OFFICER: All rise in court, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Recess until 1:30. [unintelligible] All right. So, counsel, we have a juror that needs to leave at 3:45. So we're going till 3:45 today.
COURT OFFICER: All right, please put it back in session. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, jurors, we are going to stop today at 3:45. All right, Mr. Brennan.