Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveDaniel Wolfe - Redirect/Recross
720 linesCOURT OFFICER: All persons having any business before the Honorable Beverly J. Cannone, Justice of the Norfolk Superior Court, for the County of Norfolk, [unintelligible] draw near, give your attendance, and you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Court is now open. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Good morning again, counsel. Good morning, jurors. So, we appreciate your patience. We were in here trying to streamline things, so we got a lot of work done this morning. So, thank you. I do have to ask you those same three questions. Were you all able to follow my instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left here on Friday? Everyone said yes or nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes and nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left here on Friday? Everyone said no. [To witness:] I'll remind you you're still under oath. All right. Good morning.
DR. WOLFE: Good morning.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Dr. Wolfe, thank you for joining us again this morning. I'd like to draw your attention to a picture. May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Show you that photograph.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were shown this photograph last week. Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: By Mr. Brennan?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize the photo as the same photo that you were shown last week?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Under questioning by Mr. Brennan?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what does that appear to be a photo of, just generally?
DR. WOLFE: It appears to be a photo of the test dummy from the 29 mph impact test.
MR. JACKSON: Does that appear to be a true and accurate photograph of the condition of the dummy following that 29 mph crash test?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: With the court's permission, I'd like to enter this as next in order, please. If you could hand that to the clerk. Exhibit 218. Permission to present, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is this the photograph?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, first of all, what caused the damage?
DR. WOLFE: Well, let's start with the most basic.
MR. JACKSON: Which arm is this? Left or right?
DR. WOLFE: This is the left arm.
MR. JACKSON: What position was — you called this the dummy Rescue Randy? Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What position generally was Rescue Randy upon impact during this test?
DR. WOLFE: He was oriented such that the right side of his body and his right arm would be contacted by the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: What caused the defects and the damage to the sweatshirt as we see it here?
DR. WOLFE: That was due to the interaction from Rescue Randy sliding on the pavement surface to his position of final rest.
MR. JACKSON: Is that sometimes called road rash?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any road rash in any other place on Rescue Randy in this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: Doesn't appear so in this photograph. No.
MR. JACKSON: Can we highlight the face? What about there? Sorry, I thought you were talking specific to the clothing.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, as I mentioned on Friday, there were signs of road rash to the body of the dummy itself on the face and on the torso and arms.
MR. JACKSON: Can we zoom in on this sleeve a little bit? Do you see any staining on the sleeve as well as the defects, the holes and the tears?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is that staining from?
DR. WOLFE: Again, just from that sliding contact with the pavement. So it's likely debris and kind of a film from the pavement surface being deposited onto the material.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to John O'Keefe's sweatshirt that you reviewed photographs of, did you see any other defects other than the right arm and the fact that it was cut off of him medically?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Any other indication — or any indication whatsoever — of anything that you see consistent with road rash?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let's go back to the full frame. There's a second image I'd like you to take a look at. If we could have the lights for just a second. You recognize this?
DR. WOLFE: It's a little — Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How do you recognize it?
DR. WOLFE: It is the backside of the test dummy from the 29 mph full-on impact test.
MR. JACKSON: Which arm is featured in that photograph?
DR. WOLFE: That would be the right arm.
MR. JACKSON: Move that into evidence as next in order, your honor, with court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. 219, permission to display.
MR. JACKSON: Does that appear to be the right arm of Rescue Randy as he's face down?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that following the impact?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were you shown this photograph by Mr. Brennan on cross-examination?
DR. WOLFE: No, I was not.
MR. JACKSON: Can we highlight the right sleeve just a little bit, please? You see that defect in the sleeve?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you also see some artifacts above that defect, above and to the left?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you tell what those are?
DR. WOLFE: They appear to be fragments from the back window of the test vehicle when it shattered.
MR. JACKSON: Does there appear to be any additional — let's go back to the full frame. Does there appear to be any additional defects on that particular sleeve?
DR. WOLFE: There appears to be some material transfer likely from the pavement and also some road rash.
MR. JACKSON: Does that appear to be transfer from the pavement?
DR. WOLFE: I think that might be a shard of glass from the back window.
MR. JACKSON: What was the condition of the back window after this test?
DR. WOLFE: It was completely shattered.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The defect that we're looking at, that large gash — was that from road rash, sliding on the pavement?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If we can go back to the full frame, please. I'd like to show you one additional photograph. Do you recognize what's depicted in that photograph?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is it?
DR. WOLFE: It is the front side of the test dummy from the 29 mph full-on impact test.
MR. JACKSON: Does that appear to be a true and accurate depiction of the condition of Rescue Randy in that sweatshirt after that 29 mph impact?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Move for the admission of that photograph, your honor, as next in order.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. 220, permission to display.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe what we're looking at in this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: This is mainly showing the upper body of the test dummy from the 29 mph impact test, showing the road rash to the front side of the body.
MR. JACKSON: Were you shown this photograph on cross-examination?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: What caused the holes in the bodice of the shirt? In other words, the part that covers the chest and the torso.
DR. WOLFE: After the impact, the dummy was projected and sliding on the pavement surface. So again, this is consistent with the front side of the body sliding, making sliding contact with the pavement, creating those abrasions and holes and again that asphalt material transfer that you see on the front.
MR. JACKSON: Can you go back to the full frame, please? Do you see additional road rash? Take a look at his right arm. You see additional road rash on Rescue Randy?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. On both the fabric and the arm itself.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Go back to full frame. And can you see his face as well in this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are those the chin and nose defects that you saw?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are the defects in the shirt that you see here consistent with the condition of the shirt of John O'Keefe as you saw in the photographs?
DR. WOLFE: It is inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach? Yes. Another photo that I'd like to show you. Do you recognize — I'm sorry. Do you recognize what's depicted in that photograph?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is that? We can take this down.
DR. WOLFE: It is the rest position of the test dummy after the 29 mile per hour impact test.
MR. JACKSON: Were you shown this on Friday?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a true and accurate depiction of the condition of Rescue Randy, just from a different angle, after that 29 mph impact?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Move for the admission of that photograph.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. 221.
MR. JACKSON: Permission to display that photograph, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is this an overview of the entire body of Rescue Randy after that impact?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at his torso, the exposed portion of his torso. Do you see road rash on his exposed torso?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you also see the road rash that you earlier described on the bodice of the shirt, the front of the shirt?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what about — let's go back to the full frame. Is there also road rash on his jeans?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: We could go back to full frame. Have you ever heard the phrase "knocked out of your shoes"?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Where are the dummy's shoes?
DR. WOLFE: Still on his feet.
JUDGE CANNONE: Watch the form of the question.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. What was the — tell us one more time. What was the speed of this impact?
DR. WOLFE: This was a full-on 29 mph impact.
MR. JACKSON: We can take that down. Yes. Take a look at that photograph and tell me if you recognize what's depicted in it.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is that?
DR. WOLFE: It is the back of the test Lexus after the 29 mph impact test.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a true and accurate depiction of the condition of that Lexus following that 29 mph impact? And I should be more specific — it's post the 29 mile per hour impact, the collision that caused the damage to Rescue Randy that we've just been looking at. Not just the arm.
DR. WOLFE: Understood. Thank you. Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Move for the admission of that photograph.
JUDGE CANNONE: 222, permission to display that.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Is this the rear of — the photograph that we were just talking about?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. And this is the condition of the vehicle after that rearward impact with Rescue Randy. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did the subject vehicle — the subject vehicle photographs that you looked at — were those consistent or inconsistent with this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: Those photographs were inconsistent compared to the test.
MR. JACKSON: Was there anything consistent about the shirt that you were shown on Friday — the left sleeve that you were shown on Friday — with John O'Keefe's actual sweatshirt? Was any of that consistent — correct? Was that consistent or inconsistent, now that you've seen all the photographs, with the condition of the shirt that John O'Keefe was wearing on January 29th?
DR. WOLFE: The test clothing was inconsistent compared to that of John O'Keefe's.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. You were asked on cross-examination several times about the weight of the Hybrid III arm. Do you recall that series of questions?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked how much lighter the Hybrid III arm was than the statistical estimate arm. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: I want to make sure we're clear about this. The Hybrid III arm is the physical arm that you attached to the ATD and did testing with. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The statistical estimate arm is something in the ether, right? It doesn't exist.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: How would you describe a statistical estimate arm?
DR. WOLFE: It's probably from taking a sample of the population and getting an average and a high and a low.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's not — is that a physical arm you can touch and feel?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Do you have any information, based on everything that you've reviewed, at all about the actual weight of John O'Keefe's right arm?
DR. WOLFE: Nothing in terms of a weighed measurement of the arm. No.
MR. JACKSON: What was the percentage that Mr. Brennan gave you in terms of how much lighter the Hybrid III arm was than the statistical estimate arm that he gave you?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, I think the percentage was 26%.
MR. JACKSON: Did you calculate that yourself or did you take Mr. Brennan's word for it?
DR. WOLFE: I took — I believe I took his word for it.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall what the weight of the Hybrid III arm was exactly?
DR. WOLFE: 9.38 lb.
MR. JACKSON: What is the difference — if you can calculate, what is the difference between 11 — well, what was the statistical estimate arm number that Mr. Brennan gave you?
DR. WOLFE: I think I heard him say 11.8, but I also think he said at one point 11.6. So I'm not sure of the final number he landed on.
MR. JACKSON: Does 11.86 sound right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's use 11.86. Do you have a calculator with you?
DR. WOLFE: I do.
MR. JACKSON: With the court's permission, could Dr. Wolfe use a calculator if he needs to?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. What's the difference between 11.86 and 9.38, just in raw numbers — just the difference between those two?
DR. WOLFE: Subtract.
DR. WOLFE: Okay. 9.38... 2.48.
MR. JACKSON: Does that mean there's a 2.48-pound differential between the statistical estimate arm, the heavier arm, and the 9.38 arm from the Hybrid III?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, that's the difference in pounds.
MR. JACKSON: All right. How would you calculate — what's the proper way to calculate how much lighter, in terms of percentage, the 9.38 arm is?
DR. WOLFE: You would want to do a percent difference calculation. Divide 2.48 by 11.86.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. — Mr. Jackson. How
MR. JACKSON: Would you tell the jurors how you would calculate that percentage difference?
DR. WOLFE: You would subtract 11.86 minus 9.38, and then you would divide by the sum of those two divided by two — the average of them.
MR. JACKSON: Can you do that calculation?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what's the number?
DR. WOLFE: 23%.
MR. JACKSON: Not 26%?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is 23% smaller or larger than 26%?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Let's move on from that, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: What is the number that you get if you were to divide 2.48 by 11.86, in percentages?
DR. WOLFE: 21%.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Was the Hybrid III arm 21% lighter by that calculation than the 11.86 estimate arm?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: On cross-examination, Mr. Brennan asked you several questions related to the kinetic energy formula. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you reference that formula in some of your answers?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're looking at something that's been identified — a document identified as Exhibit XXX. Do you recognize that?
DR. WOLFE: Oh —
MR. JACKSON: You're not looking at it. Not yet. You see it now?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize what that is?
DR. WOLFE: It is the formula for kinetic energy.
MR. JACKSON: With that, your honor, may we display the formula? We don't have to cut the lights — I think it'll be very obvious.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can we bring the lights back up and see if that's visible? Can you still see that, Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, is that okay?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You said this is the formula for kinetic energy, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked a series of questions about whether the weight differential in the Hybrid III arm would make a significant or material difference in your testing as it pertains to the velocity of the vehicle that you were testing. You remember those questions?
JUDGE CANNONE: Watch the moment. Ask a different question. Just foundationally —
MR. JACKSON: Were you asked about the weight differential of the Hybrid III arm?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were you also asked about whether it would make a material difference to the testing if you didn't adjust for the velocity?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What was the question that was posed to you about the weight of the Hybrid III arm versus the velocity of the testing — that there would somehow be an influence on —
DR. WOLFE: I think wanting to make a reduction to the velocity of the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Does that make mathematical sense to you?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to that point.
MR. JACKSON: Would that 2.48-pound weight differential of the arm have a material difference in the testing that you undertook?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Why is that?
DR. WOLFE: Well, to start, that's one of the reasons why we went above and beyond the 24 mph — to impart significantly more kinetic energy to the arm. So if you look at that equation, it's a quadratic equation because you're squaring the velocity. So if you double the velocity, you quadruple the amount of kinetic energy. So you get a significant increase from small changes in speed because of that speed differential.
MR. JACKSON: Did you do a test with just the Hybrid III arm contacting the tail light at 24 mph?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you also do a test with that Hybrid III arm contacting the vehicle at 29 mph?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to talk about those two tests. Can you explain to the jurors what they're looking at? I want to start with going from left to right. What does the E sub-k mean in that formula?
DR. WOLFE: So that stands for kinetic energy, which is the amount of energy that an object has when it's in motion and has a velocity to it.
MR. JACKSON: What is the 1/2 on the other side of the equal sign?
DR. WOLFE: Just a constant.
MR. JACKSON: And what does the m as in Mary stand for?
DR. WOLFE: So that would be the mass — in this case, the mass of the arm.
MR. JACKSON: And what's the v as in Victor?
DR. WOLFE: That would be the velocity of the arm as it's accelerated.
MR. JACKSON: Why is there an exponent at the top of the V?
DR. WOLFE: Because you're squaring that — so you're basically multiplying the velocity times itself, velocity times velocity.
MR. JACKSON: Is this a formula that's traditionally used in accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, it's very common.
MR. JACKSON: Is it sort of one of the foundational formulas? When did you learn this formula?
DR. WOLFE: Probably back in high school physics.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to ask you, if you wouldn't mind, to walk the jurors through a calculation dealing with the 24 mph test, using the 11.86-pound statistical arm as an assumption of the weight of the arm.
DR. WOLFE: Okay.
DR. WOLFE: May I have a pen and paper?
MR. JACKSON: May I approach? I have a pad here too, if that's easier — whatever.
MR. JACKSON: If you assume the mass of 11.86 — that's the statistical arm weight — and you assume the V for velocity is 24 miles per hour — I don't care about the units, doctor. Just assume 11.86 and 24. Can you calculate this quadratic equation?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What do you get? I want to do it step by step. What's the result of squaring 24? So again — you're not concerned about the units. I do not want to talk about units. Just —
DR. WOLFE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: If you mention the word "joules," my head will explode.
DR. WOLFE: I didn't know if you wanted — yeah, Newton meters, foot-pounds —
MR. JACKSON: Okay, stop. So immediately — 24 squared, correct, is 576.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you always in this calculation do the square first?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What's the first thing that you do in solving for this equation?
DR. WOLFE: You would want to square the velocity, but it's ultimately all going to be multiplied. But yes, you would square the velocity — multiply by itself.
MR. JACKSON: What's the next step, after you get 576? Again, assuming we're not concerned about units.
DR. WOLFE: You would multiply by the 11.86.
MR. JACKSON: Can you do that for me and tell me the answer?
DR. WOLFE: How many decimal places do you want?
MR. JACKSON: Two.
DR. WOLFE: 6,831.36.
MR. JACKSON: What's the next step?
DR. WOLFE: Once you get that number, you would multiply by 1/2 or .5.
MR. JACKSON: Can you do that for us, please?
DR. WOLFE: That'd be 3,415.68.
MR. JACKSON: What does that represent in terms of the energy into the tail light? I realize that we're not dealing with the proper units, but does that represent anything as it relates to the energy that's imparted on the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: That would be the energy to the arm.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's being transferred. Understood. 3,415.68. Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that was at what miles per hour?
DR. WOLFE: 24.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move to a different equation. Now I'd like you to presume different numbers.
JUDGE CANNONE: I don't know what the question is.
MR. JACKSON: Can you do the same calculation using the 9.38-pound arm that you actually used in your testing for the mass?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And can you use the velocity of the actual test you did — of 29 miles per hour?
DR. WOLFE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: And same thing — not worried about units. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: What's the first thing you do in solving that equation?
DR. WOLFE: So you square the 29 miles per hour — you will get 841.
MR. JACKSON: What's the next thing you do?
DR. WOLFE: You multiply by 9.38.
MR. JACKSON: What's the number?
DR. WOLFE: 7,888.58.
MR. JACKSON: And what's the next thing you do in the equation?
DR. WOLFE: You multiply by 1/2 or 0.5.
MR. JACKSON: And what's that final number?
DR. WOLFE: 3,944.29.
MR. JACKSON: That would be the number — the amount of energy imparted on the arm at 29 —
DR. WOLFE: 29 miles per hour.
MR. JACKSON: So — ask it differently. What is that 3,944.29 number? What does that mean in terms of the kinetic energy?
DR. WOLFE: That would be the kinetic energy that the arm has if it were moving at 29 miles per hour and weighed 9.38 pounds.
MR. JACKSON: One final calculation. What is the percentage difference between 3,944.29 and the other calculation, 3,415.68?
DR. WOLFE: So in terms of a percent difference — again, when you're subtracting the two and then dividing by the sum divided by two, so that's basically the average of the sum — it is 14% difference.
MR. JACKSON: Which of the two tests — the two energy equations that you just did — which represents the higher kinetic energy imparted to the arm? The 24 mph test, that's the hypothetical, or the actual test at 29 mph? Which one?
DR. WOLFE: The 29 mph speed with the arm weight of 9.38.
MR. JACKSON: What does that mean, Dr. Wolfe? In terms of the testing that you did with the lighter arm — the 9.38-pound arm at the 29 mph test — as it compares to the hypothetical 24 mph test?
DR. WOLFE: It would be more force and more energy in the 29 mph impact test.
MR. JACKSON: Even though you used a lighter arm —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What was your opinion and conclusion as it pertained to the subject tail light using the 29 mph test? Was that consistent or inconsistent with the damage that you saw on the 29 mph test?
DR. WOLFE: It was inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. That's all I have.
MR. BRENNAN: May I, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Good morning, doctor.
DR. WOLFE: Good morning.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you have a chance to speak to anybody from the defense this weekend?
DR. WOLFE: Not over the weekend? No.
MR. BRENNAN: After you left here Friday?
DR. WOLFE: On Friday, I let them know that I was returning back home, and then I let them know last night that I had arrived.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Did you receive any new information or have any conversation before you came in today?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, when we asked you about weight last week, you did not go into any calculations about the difference between the standard arm 11.86 and the 9.38, did you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe we did. No.
MR. BRENNAN: In fact, when you testified last week, at the end of the day, you were asked questions by attorney Jackson about the weight of that arm. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you were asked about the weight of the arm, attorney Jackson asked you — you were asked a lot of questions about the difference in the weight of the arm, about 11.8 lb statistically as it relates to Mr. O'Keefe versus 9.4 lb. Do you remember him asking you about that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you were asked whether you were aware whether anybody had measured the weight of John O'Keefe's right arm. And you responded, "I'm not aware of that." Do you remember that testimony?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And then you were asked questions about whether or not his arm was 11.8 lb. "Are you aware of anybody ever just weighing just his arm?" And you said no. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And finally, you were asked, "What is that based on, 11.8? Where did that come from?" Remember what you said?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I don't know.
MR. BRENNAN: Remember you answered attorney Jackson and you said, "I don't know where that came from." Right?
DR. WOLFE: Right.
MR. BRENNAN: Referring to — "I don't know what source you pulled that 11.8 from." And so you were suggesting that that is just a number pulled out of thin air. Right? Was that a surprising estimate, 11.8, to you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that it was surprising. I just — I don't know what your source is for it.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, when you engage in accident reconstruction, you never just take somebody's limb and sever it and throw it on a scale, do you?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not usually doing that part of the analysis. No.
MR. BRENNAN: No. So, when you're relying on body weight and different parts of the body, there are strong statistical studies that give you a guide, isn't there?
DR. WOLFE: I would agree with that. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, the numbers don't just come out of thin air. If you're doing a study and you have to figure out damage to an arm or a foot or a leg and you have to come to an estimated value or weight, you have to get that information from somewhere, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: I would agree. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't just make it up out of thin air. You have to find a resource, a reliable vetted resource. True?
DR. WOLFE: I would agree.
MR. BRENNAN: And that's what you do in some instances?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, in this case, you chose an arm that was 9.38 pounds. Where did you get the support that a 6'1, 216 lb man will have an arm that weighs 9.38 pounds? Where did you get that from?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it's conservative from the standpoint — if you think about one of the equations we talked about last week, force is equal to mass times acceleration. So, if we take the acceleration data from our test and we multiply it by a lighter mass, the 9.38 lb, it's less force to the arm. So now if you want to increase the mass of the arm, you're now talking about a greater net force to the arm. So it's conservative from a force perspective.
MR. BRENNAN: Put aside your story about the force perspective. My specific question is —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask the question.
MR. BRENNAN: I'll ask you again, doctor. Tell us where you got the 9.38 pound value from when considering a 6'1, 216 lb man. Where did you get that from? So you could be statistically accurate.
DR. WOLFE: It is the mass of the Hybrid III arm. We saw the photograph that depicted the weight. Again, how you account for that when you're doing the force calculations is you would utilize the acceleration data that we measured and then you would apply a different mass — in this case, a heavier arm. And I will note it's the same thing that Dr. Welcher did in his drop test with the Hybrid III head. He ultimately measured the acceleration of the head. Then to calculate the force, he adjusted the mass according to Mr. John O'Keefe's mass of his head.
MR. BRENNAN: So for the third time, I'm going to ask you just a very simple question. [unintelligible] it down for me if you can. Okay, doctor, where did you get the source to legitimize using a 9.38 lb arm for a person that's 6'1, 216 pounds? Where is your source to say that arm is validated for use at that size? Where is that?
DR. WOLFE: Again, it's the weight of the ATD arm — that is what the 50th percentile arm weighs. As I mentioned, in our field, it's accepted to utilize the acceleration data and then you adjust the force based upon an increase in mass.
MR. BRENNAN: Is that your answer?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Mr. O'Keefe's body weight and size does not put him in the 50th percentile like the 9.38 arm. He's closer to the 95th percentile. Isn't that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And there is in fact a 95th percentile crash test dummy, isn't there?
DR. WOLFE: There is. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Yeah. You chose the 50th percentile, which is shorter.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Weighs less.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And the arm weighs less.
DR. WOLFE: True. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: The truth is you have absolutely no study, no paper, no article that supports using a 9.38 arm for a 216 pound man who's 6'1. You have not one reference, not one study you can offer us right now, do you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't agree with that because again, if you look at how Dr. Welcher did it, he used the 50th percentile in his drop test with the head and to calculate the force he adjusted for Mr. John O'Keefe's mass of the head. Same thing is done in this instance with the lighter arm. We adjust for that in the calculations. So you
MR. BRENNAN: — have one paper, one study? I know the answer to this, but let me ask you: one paper, one study to support that it is appropriate to use the 50th percentile 9.38 arm for a person who is 6'1, 216 pounds. I won't ask you again, but if you can answer this once for me — do you have one paper, one study? I'll take out the commentary. Can you answer that? Answer that question, please.
DR. WOLFE: Sorry. Can you repeat the question?
MR. BRENNAN: Give me a name, an author. One paper, one study that supports using a 9.38 arm, 50th percentile, when you're doing a crash test for somebody who's in the 95th percentile, who weighs 216 pounds and they're 6'1. One paper, sir.
DR. WOLFE: I don't have a paper because Dr. Rentschler is addressing the forces and the injuries to the arm.
MR. BRENNAN: You talked about how you would come up with the number 11.8 like it was something that is curious or foreign to you, right?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. BRENNAN: Are you confused how the number 11.8 would come up?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
DR. WOLFE: I'm not confused. I just — I don't know your source for it.
MR. BRENNAN: When you do studies, would you agree that the head has a similar weight to the arm and that the weight of an arm would be about 5.48% of a person's body weight?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sure that there are various studies out there that talk about that — that could be one particular study.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, let's talk about one study. What do you think? You're the engineer. You're the expert. When you're weighing an arm by percent, what is the percent of the arm of the total body weight?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know as I sit here today off the top of my head.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm sorry?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know as I sit here today off the top of my head.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, if you don't know the percent of body weight of the arm compared to the whole body, how would you ever come up with a number for the arm?
DR. WOLFE: Well, from the work that I've done with Dr. Rentschler in this case dating back to last year, it's my understanding that his calculation for the arm was approximately 11 pounds.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you're relying on somebody else's study. You're doing an independent assessment of the evidence and you're relying on other people's math. Is that what you're telling us?
DR. WOLFE: I don't agree with that because as I've mentioned numerous times, Dr. Rentschler and I worked as a team on this case. You can't separate the reconstruction part from the biomechanical part. It's an integral part that works together.
MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree that the arm is — statistically vetted — about 5.48% of the total body weight? Would you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: It sounds about right, but again I don't have the percentage off the top of my head.
MR. BRENNAN: So if you take 5.48% of a 171 pound man, which is the crash test dummy you were using — the 50th percentile — what do you get?
DR. WOLFE: You said 5.48%?
MR. BRENNAN: Yeah.
DR. WOLFE: Just over 9 lb. Okay. Close to 9.38. 9.37. Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, when you have 216 lbs, 5.48% — 11.8. Does 11.8 sound about right, doctor, by that calculation?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Now, you said you had some confusion about where I'd get that number from — this 11.8. Do you remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And when I threw out that number, is that the first time you heard of that number? The 11.8?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Or 11. Is that the first time you heard of it from anybody? 11 pounds. Is that a new number to you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't understand your question.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you're saying that when attorney Jackson asked you where did Brennan get those numbers from, you said I don't know. Remember that on Friday? Do you know where I get the number 11 pounds from?
DR. WOLFE: 11.8 or 11? 11. As I just mentioned, last year I believe I testified in a previous proceeding that it was about 11 lbs. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Your testimony — 11 pounds. Your prior testimony, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You testified before under oath in this case, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And you testified under oath and you were giving a general estimate about the pounds of Mr. O'Keefe's arm based on your experience and your training. You said it was around 11 pounds. Those are your words, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Under oath.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. You can't delete something that's under oath. Right?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. BRENNAN: And so when you feign confusion on Friday about this 11 lb —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. BRENNAN: So when you answered questions last Friday about wherever this 11.8 lb came from — you weren't so confused about that because you've used 11 pounds before yourself, haven't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. But again, I don't know where you got that 11.8 from.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, we just did the math, didn't we?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And you used the calculator to help you, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: I did. Yes. Calculator works. Yes. Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: You said you wouldn't calculate the difference, but you did. And so, what you just went through in this exercise — you divided that difference, that 2.48 pound difference, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And then you divided it by 11.86. Divide 2.48 by — from the 9.38. Okay. What percentage you get?
DR. WOLFE: 26.
MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree with this statement about the arm and body weight — comparing the weight of the head to the arm? Would you agree that the head and arm are actually almost identical because your arm — just one of your arms including the hand, forearm, and upper arm — is about 5% of your total body weight. So for someone who weighs 216 pounds, that's about 10.8 pounds. Would you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: I didn't do that calculation. So I —
MR. BRENNAN: I didn't ask you. I'm asking if you would agree with that.
DR. WOLFE: Can you repeat the question, please?
JUDGE CANNONE: So ask the question.
MR. BRENNAN: Does the arm weigh the same as the head? Or — the arm does weigh the same as the head, almost identical, because your arm — just one of the arms including the hand, forearm, and upper arm — is about 5% of your total body weight. So for someone who weighs 216 pounds, that comes out to about 10.8 pounds. Would you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: I haven't done the calculation, but if the math checks, then yes. Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree with this statement? The heavier the object, if it gets hit center mass, that's going to be even greater force because that is more mass than just 11 pounds. So, the acceleration is the same for each body part. It just depends on the weight of the body part and how heavy it is to determine the force that's actually exerted on the body. Do you agree with that?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow the question.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. And I think I described that a little bit earlier — if you increase the mass, you multiply it by the acceleration, that's going to increase your force. Force is equal to mass times acceleration, right? So mass has a direct correlation to force.
MR. BRENNAN: You agree?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: So therefore, the heavier the object, if it's colliding at the same speed, will create more force than a lighter object. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: More force on the arm.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. So weight matters, doesn't it, sir?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Force is mass times acceleration. So if the arm weighs the same as the head, you're still going to get the same force. And so inevitably you change the mass, you change the weight, same speed, it changes the amount of force. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: When you did calculations in this case, you never took the estimate of 11 pounds — although it didn't exactly calculate the 5.48 — you never took that 11 pounds and determined the percentage difference between the mass in that arm and the mass in a 9.38 pound arm, did you?
DR. WOLFE: No, I did not.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't include it in any of your PowerPoints?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't explain it to the jury that there's a difference — that weight matters.
DR. WOLFE: Again, that's something that Dr. Rentschler is going to discuss.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm asking you, because you testified, you gave opinions, you got a PowerPoint. Did you explain to the jury about the difference in force when there's a change in weight? When you did all your PowerPoint and calculations, did you break it down for them?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think it was certainly stated. I mean, I know that we went over Newton's second law. Force is equal to mass times acceleration, right? So, if you increase that mass number, it will increase the force.
MR. BRENNAN: When you were putting up your PowerPoints with the speeds, did you explain to us that there's a difference when you change the mass — so that if you used a lighter arm, there would be a difference in force? Did you explain that to us in any of your slides?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I explicitly stated it, but again, that's why we went up to 29 miles per hour to account for that difference in weight.
MR. BRENNAN: Were you trying to inflate the force for the speed of the test so it looked like the collision had to happen at a faster speed to cause a certain amount of damage. Were you doing that intentionally?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't overstate the mass. You didn't use an arm that was 14 pounds. That would have created the opposite illusion, right? You used a weight that was lighter than Mr. O'Keefe's estimated arm, right?
DR. WOLFE: Because again, it goes both ways. If you increase the mass of the arm, you increase the force on the arm. So, there's going to be more force acting on the arm.
MR. BRENNAN: Let's talk about your studies with Mr. O'Keefe's sweatshirt and his arm, and you gave some opinions about what you would expect for damage to his arm. When I asked you on Friday whether you had any support, any vetted journals, learned treatises, any support whatsoever about whether you should use a crash test dummy arm for these types of studies, you didn't have any support on Friday. Do you have any today that you can refer to?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Putting aside the fact that you have absolutely no professional studies or journals to support that you should be using a crash test dummy's arm for these type of tests. Are you aware of the expert literature in this case — that the opposite — you specifically should not use crash test dummies when you're trying to do this type of analysis on clothing and a person's body. Are you aware whether that exists?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of those studies. No.
MR. BRENNAN: As an inquisitive engineer, wouldn't you want to know if there were legitimate studies in your world, in your profession that suggest or state that you should not be using crash test dummies to determine injury to the arm as far as lacerations? Would you want to know that?
DR. WOLFE: I think again you're getting confused between my role and Dr. Rentschler.
MR. BRENNAN: Can I finish please?
JUDGE CANNONE: No. Okay. So no comment. Doctor, answer the question please.
DR. WOLFE: I wasn't addressing the lacerations or the abrasions to the arm.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, you had photographs and you were opining that you would have expected — or you would not expect — there to be abrasions or cuts on that clothing in your test A and B, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: There were no holes or cuts in the material.
MR. BRENNAN: No, I understand. But you offered opinions. Didn't you offer to the jury an opinion that the abrasions on Mr. O'Keefe's arm were inconsistent with your tests in A and B.
DR. WOLFE: The cuts and holes are inconsistent, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: When you are assessing cuts and holes on clothing, you need to make sure — as a predicate, as a basis — that you're using the right properties. Right.
DR. WOLFE: I would agree with that. Right.
MR. BRENNAN: And so if there was literature directing that you should not use a crash test dummy to assess injury on an arm. Would you follow that instruction or would you do it anyways?
DR. WOLFE: Can you stop saying "injury to the arm"? I was looking at what happens to the material when it makes contact with the tail light.
MR. BRENNAN: A crash test dummy arm is harder than a human arm, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You push a human arm, it's like an indent. You can push in, can't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And that property of pushing in, if a cloth is on it, it is easier for a cloth to tear pushing in than if it's hard, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, do you disagree with that?
DR. WOLFE: Well, the hybrid arm is a vinyl flesh, so it's not rigid.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you disagree with what I just said? Can you repeat your question? Sure. Human arm softer than the hybrid?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes. When you push it, you can push in — much different than the hybrid arm which is stiffer. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: I don't know what you mean by "much different," but there will be a difference. Yes. Well, is it a noticeable difference to you if you push a hybrid arm as opposed to a human arm?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you push a human arm, it indents.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And so if you push with cloth on, the cloth indents.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Which creates an easier — it creates an easier tear in the fabric with less force if you can push in as opposed to a hard arm. Would you agree or disagree with that?
DR. WOLFE: I would agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: So, when you're replicating studies and giving opinions about a person's arm — a real person's arm — using a hybrid arm doesn't seem to be an appropriate standard, does it?
DR. WOLFE: I don't agree with that, because again when the tail light breaks in the test, the arm is now moving with that tail light. So it's again — like we talked about on Friday — you'd somehow have to have those fragments accelerating at a greater velocity to penetrate that.
MR. BRENNAN: We're going to get to that, but I'm talking about the stiffness. Let's get back to the appropriateness of using a crash test dummy. Now, conceding that a human arm pushes different than the crash test dummy. Would you agree that a crash test dummy is not an appropriate tool to use when determining tears in clothing on somebody's arm? Would you agree?
DR. WOLFE: I don't think I would agree with that. No.
MR. BRENNAN: When you used the crash test dummy in test A and B, that was the 50th-percentile dummy.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you considered tears to clothing, you bought a new sweatshirt that was similar to Mr. O'Keefe — an extra-large sweatshirt.
DR. WOLFE: Don't know if I recall the exact size, but I think one of them might have been an extra large. And then you bought a second one that was medium.
MR. BRENNAN: So when you used the smaller dummy, you weren't actually using Mr. O'Keefe's size of extra large. You used a medium sweatshirt.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Because it was a smaller dummy than the size of Mr. O'Keefe. That's why you needed a smaller sweatshirt.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I think it was more or less just what we could get our hands on.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you had an extra large and the medium. You didn't put the extra large on in test A and B, did you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall off the top of my head what sizes were on each test.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Could we show a picture of A to remind Dr. Wolfe? And while she's pulling that up, is ...there a difference between -- see, that's -- that's blue. You see, that's medium.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: So the blue ones that you used for test A and B.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: The smaller crash test dummy than Mr. O'Keefe, the 5-foot-n crash test dummy.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And then when you used Randy and brought him into the scene, you used the extra large, the gray one.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Right.
MR. BRENNAN: So you used a different one because it was a smaller dummy than the size of Mr. O'Keefe.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. We used different sizes. The material blend was the same. This was new.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct. The extra large you put on Randy was new.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you consider the wear and tear on Mr. O'Keefe's sweatshirt? The extra-large sweatshirt he was wearing that night. The wear and tear.
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever consider the differences between a brand new sweatshirt and one that had been worn?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Had you ever had a clothing -- a sweatshirt you used repeatedly, maybe put in the dryer, wears it down. Sometimes you can get holes more easily. Did you do any type of analysis on that whatsoever?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Any type of analysis whatsoever on the age or whether it's stretched the same, anything like that?
DR. WOLFE: No. No variables whatsoever on the sweater. Did you? No.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Does it matter whether or not the sweatshirt is tighter or looser or how it fits the body? Is that any part of your consideration?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever done testing like this before for clothing? In terms of impacting a tail light?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: So this is the first time ever that you've done this type of analysis and offered an opinion in front of a jury, specific to impacting an arm with a tail light.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Before you decided to come in and give an opinion, did you take any study or look at any journals on fabrics?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you consider any of the variables that one would want to consider regarding fabrics before you came in and gave this opinion?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did it concern you when you were coming in to give a professional opinion about something you've never done before, whether or not you were studied in the area before you did it?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think I relayed my observations from the test, right? I certainly explained how we set up the arm, how the arm was closed. You all obviously saw the impact testing to the arm. So I'm relaying my observations from the test that we did.
MR. BRENNAN: Did it concern you that you were coming in to give an opinion on something you have never done before and that you did absolutely no study on fabrics or any of other people's analysis on fabrics in cutting? Did that concern you?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: So you were comfortable just coming in with no experience in this whatsoever without even studying or doing any research. You were comfortable to come in and just throw out an opinion?
DR. WOLFE: No. Again, Dr. Rentschler is going to address part of this. We worked as a team. So there's a synergy between the two of us.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, putting aside the synergy, you're the one on the stand under oath.
DR. WOLFE: Yep. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: You're the one testifying, giving opinions to this jury.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You're the one asking them to rely on your experience and training.
DR. WOLFE: True. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: You're the one asking them to rely on your judgment and your effort to be accurate.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: So when you give the opinion, you have a personal responsibility to support that opinion. Putting aside Dr. Welcher or Dr. Rentschler, you have responsibility for your opinion, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: I would generally agree with that. Yes. Generally, yes.
MR. BRENNAN: What would -- when would it not be general? Don't you have an obligation every single time you take the stand and give an opinion to be supported, valued, vetted?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. And again, Dr. Rentschler is addressing those abrasions and lacerations which certainly correspond to the material.
MR. BRENNAN: But you didn't wait for Dr. Rentschler. You offered a number of opinions to this jury. You personally, under your name, you came in and presented yourself as an expert in this subject. You did, correct? So putting aside Dr. Rentschler's opinions, do you stand behind your opinions?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And you do that despite the fact you've done no study, no research, haven't vetted and have no authority whatsoever.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You wrote a report back on February 12th, 2024.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: On February 12, 2024, do you remember talking about injuries to the arm and damage to the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Generally, yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay, that's fair. Do you remember writing in the report, "It is significant to note that the injuries have been classified as abrasions and analysis of the autopsy photographs indicates minimal bleeding or lacerations of the dermis"?
DR. WOLFE: So the report that you're referring to is a joint report authored by myself, Dr. Rentschler, and Dr. Kline. So that would have been a portion drafted by Dr. Rentschler addressing the injuries.
MR. BRENNAN: I see. In this report, it has your name, Dr. Rentschler, and another person, Dr. Kline.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, correct.
MR. BRENNAN: But in the report, none of you ever differentiate which opinions you're standing behind or somebody else is.
PARENTHETICAL: [gap: ~9 minutes of content not captured — timestamps jump from 2:09:18 to 2:18:18]
MR. BRENNAN: -- might not penetrate clothing or skin, would you agree -- if your dummy wasn't restrained when the Lexus collides with the dummy -- there'd be continued contact for some time, extended contact between both the dummy and the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Right.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. BRENNAN: I'll move on. Did you agree with that?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you write or endorse that these injuries would not result from impact with a non-damaged tail lamp cover, and the amount of force required to fracture the tail light cover? [unintelligible] You were asked questions about impact with the tail light. And in fact, in one of your answers to me today, you talked about -- after a vehicle collides with a pedestrian, there's continued movement between the vehicle and the pedestrian, isn't there?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And so while glass -- or plastic -- that shatters from a tail light
DR. WOLFE: Well, the arm, as is demonstrated in the test, would be moving at roughly the same velocity as the vehicle.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. And don't you think that the vehicle would continue to drag the arm until the body either was thrown or spun off? Would you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: At some point, they will separate.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes, at some point. But before that -- what I'm asking is, at the collision, when you see all the tail lights shatter, right? Wouldn't the Lexus -- if it continues at that speed, say 24 miles per hour for example -- it would continue to drag with that dummy's arm longer than is shown in those experiments, because the dummy is restrained.
DR. WOLFE: Sorry, could you repeat the question.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Would you agree that if a Lexus is backed up at 24 miles per hour and hits the dummy's arm and the tail light shatters, if the dummy wasn't restrained and moved freely, it would extend the contact between that shattered tail light and the dummy's arm. Would you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: It would move with the vehicle until it got pushed out of the way. Just moved to the side.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. And so what you're saying is it would move with the vehicle but wouldn't touch the vehicle.
DR. WOLFE: Well, in the one test, if you remember, because of the restitution effects, the arm actually reached a speed of over what the impact speed is. So in some instances, it actually might move at a speed greater than the vehicle.
MR. BRENNAN: Fantastic. In some instances, would it move slower and be dragged by the vehicle's broken tail light? Dragged.
DR. WOLFE: I don't know if "drag." Push.
MR. BRENNAN: How about we use the word "push"? Pushed by the broken tail light. Could that happen?
DR. WOLFE: The arm would move with the tail light until it moves out of the way.
MR. BRENNAN: So you're saying it would move with or faster, but never slow down where it gets pushed by the car.
DR. WOLFE: It's moving with the vehicle, sir. I don't understand your question.
MR. BRENNAN: You said the vehicle sometimes moves even faster, suggesting space between the broken tail light and the arm. That's what you're suggesting, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: So it can move faster. Can it ever move slower, and the vehicle pushes and drags against the arm?
DR. WOLFE: I mean, it might be able to move a few miles per hour if it doesn't have as much of a center of mass hit, but it's still going to move out of the way because it's on a joint. Understand?
MR. BRENNAN: Before it moves out of the way, could it be pushed by that broken tail light? That's the simple question I'm asking. Could it be pushing a broken tail light? Just moving adjacent with the tail light. Just moving along.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree with this? If you have an arm struck at 25 miles per hour, significant more damage to the tail light — significant more damage — that tail light shatters, hits, and moves forward into the arm, parts of tail light pushed into arm as vehicle pushes forward and pushes arm out of the way. So the word "push" — would you agree with that general characterization that the broken tail light can in fact push into the arm?
MR. BRENNAN: Excuse me.
MR. BRENNAN: arm? Would you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: Generally, I guess again it would move with the vehicle, the arm together.
MR. BRENNAN: Not move with — I'm asking you if you would agree about pushing. Would you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: As long as we're on the same page about it, it's pushing the arm, but it's with the vehicle. They're moving together. So, but in essence, yes, the arm is being pushed due to the fact that there's a force on it, and the pushing could have that arm in contact with the broken pieces of the tail light if the tail light broke.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct. Just moving at a common velocity. The operative word here is push. And so, would you like to agree with me? Or you could disagree with me? Can the broken tail light push the arm so it contacts and provides force against it? Could that happen?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you were shown those photographs today regarding test F, now you use Randy in test F, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: How tall is Randy?
DR. WOLFE: He's six feet and he weighs 200 lb.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct. So still 16 lb less than Mr. O'Keefe.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct. And you keep referring to Randy as a crash test dummy. Randy's no dummy, right? He's a mannequin.
DR. WOLFE: He is, but he signifies basically what happens when you have 200 lb of mass striking the rear of that vehicle. I don't want to misrepresent Randy. He's not a crash test dummy, is he? Well, it wasn't used for biofidelic purposes. It was to — again — what happens when you have 200 lb of mass strike the vehicle.
MR. BRENNAN: So, when you've been referring to Randy as a crash test dummy, you don't mean to do that. That's a misnomer, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you think that Randy is a crash test dummy?
DR. WOLFE: He's a certified approved crash test dummy.
MR. BRENNAN: No.
DR. WOLFE: And I think I made it very clear that there is no instrumentation on it, right? And one of the reasons why I mentioned that is those ATD dummies are $150,000. So, we're not going to risk impacting it with the Lexus and destroying that.
MR. BRENNAN: I can understand the cost analysis for you, but I want to be clear. He's a mannequin. It's used by firefighters in drills pulling a body dead weight out of a house to replicate certain scenarios. That's what Randy was made for.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: He can be used for those.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. He's not a crash test dummy in the parlance of a legitimate studied crash test dummy, is he?
DR. WOLFE: I don't agree with that because again we use that type of dummy in all different types of tests.
MR. BRENNAN: There's a Hybrid III 95th percentile male which most closely replicates John O'Keefe's size and body, isn't there?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't have that when you did the test, did you?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: When you do crash tests, you can put a magnet — a magnetic control on the crash test dummy so upon impact it releases and is thrown. You could do that, couldn't you?
DR. WOLFE: That is one way.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Right. So that way you don't have to put the dummy on a forklift and then it creates a different scenario than real life.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. That could be one way that you could do it.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. It doesn't impede any roll or drag when the dummy's hit. That's one reason you would do that rather than a forklift.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct. Also, it might show some throw which could lead to other type of damage like holes in clothes.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: But you didn't use the magnet, you used
DR. WOLFE: A forklift because again the purpose of the test was to evaluate — you know, we talked a lot about those time frames, right, that 10-millisecond window — it's to look at from the vehicle damage perspective what happens to the tail light, right, in that interaction, and then ultimately what is the acceleration that the arm experiences in that, you know, 10-15 millisecond window, right? What happens 1 second after? 2 seconds after? Again, that wasn't of concern for me in my analysis.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't use a magnet, you used a forklift.
DR. WOLFE: Right. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And when Randy went for a ride, you didn't expect him to break off the string and slide across the street, did you?
DR. WOLFE: We didn't expect him to.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't expect him to be thrown. You didn't expect the string on the forklift to break and then Randy to go flying. You didn't expect that, did you?
DR. WOLFE: Oh, I certainly expected that.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you expected a throw with that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And the street has hard concrete and it has a lot of irregularities to it, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: It's asphalt.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Yes. In the photos that you were shown today on redirect examination, did the defense show them to you during your direct examination? Any of those?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Miss Gilman, can you pull up that last exhibit with Randy on the ground? I think it's exhibit 221. Okay. And so this is Randy, right, doctor?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Zoom in a little bit, please. What's that red thing near his shoe?
DR. WOLFE: Appears to be a fragment of the tail light.
MR. BRENNAN: Can you zoom out? Could you go back an exhibit to the one before? Could you zoom in? Did you see any tail light fragments on his body or in his clothes?
DR. WOLFE: I can't tell from here.
MR. BRENNAN: Could we have the exhibit before, please? Can you tell from here?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And finding tail light fragments on the clothes after a collision. That's not unique, is it?
DR. WOLFE: Unique? No, it's possible.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, according to this, it's probable.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. In this test, that did occur.
MR. BRENNAN: Could we have exhibit 2011D, please? Do you know what this is, doctor? Did you see this picture in your analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Don't know if I recall that specific photograph.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you know this is taillight shards found in Mr. O'Keefe's clothing?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you consider this photograph during your analysis before you gave your opinions regarding cuts and tears and lacerations?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: You can take that down, please. When you did your analysis, did you know that a drinking straw was found on the concrete on the street in front of 34 Fairview?
DR. WOLFE: Uh, I don't know if it was on the concrete. It might have been on the asphalt, but I do recall a drinking straw.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Did you know that there was a glass found near Mr. O'Keefe? Could you put that up, please? Did you — You talked about cuts and injuries. Um, did you —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. It sounds like it's beyond the scope.
MR. BRENNAN: Very well. When you did test D, did you say the peak acceleration was 780 gs?
DR. WOLFE: Your honor, may I refer to my notes?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Page 11 of your report.
DR. WOLFE: Think I lost an exhibit.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Is that what you described it as for test D?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. The acceleration — we talk about the hand.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. 780 gs.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: 780 gs. Okay. When you did your comparison before you gave your opinions, you showed us a scuff on the exemplar vehicle, photo 77.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Beyond the scope, Mr. Brennan.
MR. BRENNAN: A few more questions, Dr. Wolfe, you showed us holes in Randy's sweatshirt from test F. You remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you talked about what you would or wouldn't expect in a collision as far as holes, and you said something like that was inconsistent with Mr. O'Keefe?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: That's what you said on redirect, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Did you consider whether there were holes in Mr. O'Keefe's sweatshirt separate from the holes in the arm?
DR. WOLFE: Sorry, can you repeat the question?
MR. BRENNAN: When you were making that opinion about consistent or inconsistent, did you ever consider whether there were holes in Mr. O'Keefe's sweatshirt other than the right arm?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I know that there was — there was [unintelligible — cutting —]
JUDGE CANNONE: You may approach and retrieve the exhibit.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Excuse me.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever look at the back of the sweatshirt to see if there were any holes on the back of the sweatshirt other than the right arm, and formed your opinion?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall.
MR. BRENNAN: Take a look at the back. Do you see other holes on the back of Mr. O'Keefe's sweatshirt?
DR. WOLFE: It appears I see one hole.
MR. BRENNAN: Let me get a little closer so you can get a better look. I'll direct you to here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Do you see more than one hole in the back of the sweatshirt?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you were forming your opinions that the collision would be inconsistent to damage to Mr. O'Keefe's sweatshirt, did you consider that Mr. O'Keefe may have fallen or landed on his back?
DR. WOLFE: Well, in looking at those holes, they're inconsistent with road rash. And again, to get those kind of holes, you have to have prolonged sliding contact on a rough surface.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you consider that Mr. O'Keefe may have fallen or landed on his back?
DR. WOLFE: Well, if you just fall and land on your back, you're not going to be sliding to get those abrasions and tearing. And again, those are not consistent with road rash.
MR. BRENNAN: Didn't ask that question. Did you consider — Sorry. Did you consider whether Mr. O'Keefe had fallen or landed on his back?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you know about or consider the multiple holes on the back of his sweatshirt when you came and formulated your opinions?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: You did no studies whatsoever about the damage to the sweatshirt if he fell or landed on the cold hard ground and had broken tail light shards in his clothing. Did you?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: I have no further questions.