Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveAndrew Rentschler - Direct (Part 2)
700 linesCOURT CLERK: Do not do that today. All persons have any business before the honorable Beverly J. Cannone, justice of the Norfolk Superior Court and for the county of Norfolk. Draw near. Give your attendance. You shall be heard. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Court is now open. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Miss Read. Good morning, jurors. JURORS: Morning. I 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 yesterday? Yes. 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 yesterday? Everyone said no or shook their heads. Thank you. Can we have Dr. Rentschler again, please? Doctor, I remind you you're still under oath.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Good morning.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Are you ready, doctor?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, your honor. Thank you, your honor. Dr. Rentschler, good morning.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Good morning.
MR. JACKSON: Yesterday when we last left off we were discussing materials that you had been provided to review, and you described much of that material in furtherance of your answer that you were asked to review certain data and undertake certain testing as it relates to testing that was done by Aperture. Correct.
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you prepare a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the analysis and methodology in your review and testing of this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you bring that with you today?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did indeed.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, I have a flash drive I'd like to have marked as next in order.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Is there an objection?
MR. BRENNAN: Not for identification.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So it's marked for identification. Thank you. That'll be KK — K for ID. Let me know whenever — pardon me. Let me know whenever you're ready, Dr. Rentschler.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Sure. Should you want me to bring up the PowerPoint?
MR. JACKSON: If you could bring up the first slide. Let's start with that. Let's see here. There we go. Is this representative of the PowerPoint that you prepared for presentation for the jurors?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Are there several blank slides — just sort of placeholder slides — as we walk through your analysis that the jurors will see?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There are. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's talk about — first of all, what was the purpose of your investigation? What did you seek to undertake?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So the purpose of my investigation in this matter was to evaluate the evidence and particularly as it pertains to the alleged theory of what occurred in this case.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. I'm going to strike that answer. Ask the question again.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Did you seek to undertake an analysis of Aperture's testing or part of their testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: All right. With regard to that testing, what was the reason that you undertook to analyze Aperture testing?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ultimately, were you in receipt of a PowerPoint presentation and a report from Dr. Judson Welcher?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did you have an opportunity to review that PowerPoint presentation in whole?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to look at his report and read his report and review his report?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you undertake an analysis based on his reporting and his PowerPoint presentation?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. I want to see you both at sidebar for just a minute, please.
MR. JACKSON: May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Did you undertake to review analysis and testing that was done by Aperture as reflected in the PowerPoint that you reviewed as well as the report that you received?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did ARCCA, yourself included, undertake testing based on your review of the testing by Aperture?
DR. RENTSCHLER: We did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Tell me — what was the biomechanical analysis? That's the second point on your PowerPoint. What was the biomechanical analysis that was undertaken after you reviewed the Aperture reports and Aperture testing? What did you undertake to do?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So I touched on this yesterday a little bit. A biomechanical analysis — there are certain steps that you have to do to actually perform a biomechanical analysis. First of all, you have to determine what the injuries are. What are the diagnosed injuries? Second, you have to determine what happened to the individual. So in this case, what would have happened to Mr. O'Keefe? His kinematics — how would his body move? Was it contacted by anything? Was it contacted by the Lexus? If so, what forces were produced on the arm, on his body? Were they sufficient to cause the injuries that he sustained? And in this case, it's a little more involved. We have — was he hit by the car? What happened after that? Did he somehow move into the yard?
DR. RENTSCHLER: And then did something happen in the yard to actually cause the skull fracture? So in order to determine if that's what actually occurred in this case, you have to look at each of those three separate events and you have to evaluate that from a biomechanical analysis by looking at the force, looking at the kinematics, looking at human tolerance and determining or attempting to determine what happened. Now, if you try to determine what happened, not only do you have to prove that that was the case and the facts support that that's what occurred, you also have to eliminate all other possibilities. Because if you're saying this is how it happened, not only do you have to show that that's true.
JUDGE CANNONE: Next question. And I'm going to strike that. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Is there an element of differential diagnosis that goes into biomechanical analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There is, absolutely.
MR. JACKSON: Explain that for us, please.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Let me demonstrate. So there are several peer-reviewed articles that I reference. Is this slide number two, by the way?
MR. JACKSON: This is slide number two. Correct.
DR. RENTSCHLER: This is injury reconstruction — biomechanical analysis of accidental injury — and that sets forth the methodology that I just described. It's well written about, well reviewed in peer-reviewed articles. This is the method you need — if you're going to opine on biomechanics, this is the method you need to do, the steps you need to go through in order to provide an actual opinion.
MR. JACKSON: And describe that method just a little bit further. Does that include testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That includes testing.
MR. JACKSON: And does that include both lab testing and field testing if it's possible?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Explain that. In fact, let me — let me get through here. You know, I just had a couple examples here. This third slide — another reference about biomechanical analysis. Again, it's all throughout the literature, very well established how to do this. Now, it's all based on the scientific method. Okay? And the scientific method — which was really established back in the 1620s — this tells you how to do a proper scientific analysis. So you have an observation, you observe something. So in this case, you might say, "All right, there are superficial abrasions to Mr. O'Keefe's arm and there's a shattered tail light. Are those two things related?" Well, the first thing you do is you research the topic area. You look through the literature. You find or look for any examples of that happening.
MR. JACKSON: You see if there's any reports or peer-reviewed articles written about this very occurrence. Can you actually demonstrate that if your arm hit the tail light, the tail light would shatter and cause those abrasions? If this occurs or is a common occurrence, it should be in the literature — you should be able to find information about it. Then you form a hypothesis. Either you say, I think this injury is related to hitting the tail light, or it's not. Whichever one you choose, that's where you then start to go into your experimentation. You have to develop tests to get data to actually back up your hypothesis. So if I said, well, I think the injury's related to it, what would you do? You would go and you would test it. You would get an arm.
MR. JACKSON: In this case, we got a Hybrid III dummy arm and we got an exemplar vehicle and we hit the vehicle with the arm — or we hit the arm with the vehicle — we ran into it to determine what's going to happen when that occurs. Do we get the right circumstances, the right loading to actually occur in that case? And then you go back and you analyze that and if your results don't match up with your hypothesis, you have to re-evaluate. You have to go back and see — if we don't get that type of injury, if we don't get the kinematics or the force associated with what we see, you have to re-evaluate if your hypothesis or what you think happened is actually true or not. So you have to continuously go through this process. And that's what experts do. That's how you perform an analysis.
MR. JACKSON: And that's what's important. You know, I have three kids. I have a nine-year-old who's actually —
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to ask you to wait for the next question.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Okay. Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Was there an example that you could use — sort of a real-world example — that you might want to use to explain some or part of the scientific method?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There is. Yeah. I would like to explain an example of what's important with that. So I was going to say — I have three kids. A nine-year-old who's actually turning 10 today. Happy birthday, Kai. And I have two older ones.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. We're going to stop this. Another example. Go ahead. Less — —editorializing, minus all the personal—
DR. RENTSCHLER: I'm sorry, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: Go ahead.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Details matter. Okay. Details in an investigation matter and details matter here. You need details. You have to explain how things happen. Okay? You as an expert, I can't come in and just say—
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. It needs to be more question and answer.
MR. JACKSON: Why do details matter?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Because your opinions have to be based on the facts and the evidence. Yes. Because that's what determines your conclusions. I can't come in and say I think—
JUDGE CANNONE: Next question.
MR. JACKSON: What if you don't have all the details and facts?
DR. RENTSCHLER: If you don't have details, if you haven't performed a proper analysis, then you can't come to a conclusion that something happened. You can't depend just on your experience. You have to have the analysis, the evidence, and the details to come to a conclusion in a case.
MR. JACKSON: How do you best get details to come to a conclusion in a case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: You need research. You need peer-reviewed articles. You need evidence. You perform testing. You have to demonstrate what you think happened is a) possible and b) actually did occur. And in order to do that, you need hard evidence to demonstrate that that's what actually occurred in this case.
MR. JACKSON: Do you get that through both lab testing and field testing?
JUDGE CANNONE: The form. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Can you get that in lab testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely.
MR. JACKSON: Can you get that in field testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: You can get that in field testing as well. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are those integral to an analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: They are. If you don't have any other evidence, if you don't have research, if you don't have peer-reviewed articles showing or demonstrating what happens, you have to formulate — you have to get that evidence. And the way to do that is through field testing. If you have no other evidence and no other source of information to provide that type of evidence.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next slide. Did you undertake — and this is a placeholder — did you undertake the scientific method in this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was the hypothesis of the incident that you utilized in furthering your analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So the first part of this event is contact between Mr. O'Keefe's arm and the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Could you describe for the jurors what hypothesis you used based on your review of the information you got from Aperture?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Sure. So the hypothesis that I looked at — Aperture's testing and report indicates that Mr. O'Keefe had his arm out at a 90° angle—
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What do you see? By the way, where are these from? These two slides.
DR. RENTSCHLER: These two slides are from the PowerPoint presentation that Aperture provided.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So you didn't create these.
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did not. No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Describe the angle of the arm in the left photograph with the drinking glass in the hand.
DR. RENTSCHLER: So the angle of that arm is approximately 90 degrees. The other photographs in the PowerPoint demonstrate that for someone the same height as Mr. O'Keefe, the arm would be about 90° with an individual standing erect. That's what was demonstrated in their PowerPoint.
MR. JACKSON: Do you note anything in that — in their PowerPoint, the Aperture PowerPoint — related to the clothing worn in that left photograph?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, they have the surrogates wearing a hoodie or a sweatshirt, which is the exact same type and brand that Mr. O'Keefe was found wearing at the time of the incident.
MR. JACKSON: Did that play a part in your overall analysis? The fact that the individual — the surrogate, as you use the name — was adorned with the same type of sweatshirt that was found on Mr. O'Keefe.
DR. RENTSCHLER: It did. Yes. I mean, that's one of the details that we have to look at. Details matter. So we look at the clothing that was worn and the evidence found with respect to that actual sweatshirt.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to stay with that for a second. Why is that important? Why would the clothing matter?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, because that tells us — that gives us evidence of what may or may not have occurred. Mr. O'Keefe was wearing the sweatshirt at the time of this alleged incident. So if there is contact between his sweatshirt and that rear vehicle — the tail light from the Lexus — there would likely be evidence of that. And we have to look at that sweatshirt to see the condition of that sweatshirt, if there's evidence on that sweatshirt, and be able to pair that or match that up with what happened on the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Is that part of a normal biomechanical analysis — to evaluate clothing of the body as well?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely. Especially when you look at automobile pedestrian impacts.
MR. JACKSON: Why?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Because clothing tells you — or can tell you — how the impact occurred, where contact occurred between an individual and the vehicle, what part of the vehicle, what part of the individual. So it either may or it may not, but it can give you very important clues about what may have occurred during the incident.
MR. JACKSON: Is that part of the normal methodology that's utilized in the field of biomechanical analysis, especially as it relates to pedestrian motor vehicle incidents?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It absolutely is. Yes. Look at the damage to the clothing. If you compare it up to the vehicle, to the ground, to other sources — it's another tool, another detail and part of the evidence that allows you to try and determine what occurred.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have experience in reviewing clothing of individuals that may have been involved in vehicle pedestrian incidents?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How often has that played a part in your biomechanical analysis, the methodology that you employ?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It happens quite often when we look at automobile pedestrian impacts. That's really one of the steps that you need to do. You need to look at the clothing. You need to look at that evidence and see if that matches up with any other evidence in the case.
MR. JACKSON: Would it be a proper methodology to just ignore the clothing in a vehicle pedestrian incident?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It — it would be. Yes. I mean, it's really one of the basic — one of the first things you should do.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. My question was, would it be proper if you just wholly ignored it?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, it would be improper. It would not be proper. It would be improper if you just ignored it.
MR. JACKSON: Getting back to the slide at hand. And we're on slide — just to stay coordinated — is this slide seven?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You've talked about the left photograph. What is the right — the short video?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this short video is what I refer to as the paint transfer test that was performed by Aperture. And what they did was take a surrogate the same approximate height and weight as Mr. O'Keefe and had him stand behind a subject — an exemplar Lexus, the same year, make, and model — and they put paint on the rear tail light cover on the fender, and then they backed it into the surrogate's arm. And the reason for this is they attempted to show that where the paint contacts the arm, it's the same area where the superficial abrasions were on Mr. O'Keefe's arm.
MR. JACKSON: Did you utilize these photographs and videos from the Aperture report in conducting and building the field testing and/or the lab testing that you ultimately undertook?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What's depicted in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this is from the Aperture report. And the third conclusion is that the location and orientation of the lacerations on John O'Keefe's right forearm and arm are consistent with the geometry and the orientation of the right tail light on the Read 2021 Lexus LX570.
MR. JACKSON: How did you interpret the phrase "geometry"?
DR. RENTSCHLER: To me, geometry just means shape. So the way I interpreted this — this is the one test that was performed with respect to the tail light. This is the only test I saw that Aperture performed involving the tail light and the arm — is that with this paint transfer test, they concluded that the area where the paint was transferred onto the arm is consistent — the same shape and orientation — as apparently the lacerations found on Mr. O'Keefe's forearm.
MR. JACKSON: Did this test, in your opinion, establish force multipliers that were exerted on the tail light?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It has nothing to do with force. It doesn't describe the force exerted on the tail light or on the arm. It doesn't describe how the arm would have moved as it hit the tail light. It doesn't describe how the tail light would fracture. It doesn't describe how you would actually get the lacerations on the arm. Again, all this does is — and I made an error there. This report — and you can see the slide says "laceration." Mr. O'Keefe did not have lacerations on his arm.
MR. JACKSON: What did he have?
DR. RENTSCHLER: He was diagnosed with superficial abrasions.
MR. JACKSON: Is there a difference between a laceration and an abrasion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There's a distinct difference, both biomechanically and medically. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that an important distinction?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is — the first step of the biomechanical analysis is to identify the injuries, and you have to take the diagnosed injuries identified by a medical doctor. So it's superficial abrasions. To put "lacerations" on — that's simply incorrect.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll strike that.
MR. JACKSON: Would you describe the injuries on Mr. O'Keefe's arm as lacerations?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Would they be more properly described in another way?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It would be. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What's that other way?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So they've been diagnosed as superficial abrasions. And an abrasion occurs when there's rubbing or scraping of the skin, and it just rubs away the top layer — the epidermis of the skin. Now a laceration is an actual jagged ripping or tearing of the skin, which gets down through the epidermis into the dermis. So abrasions take much less force. They're less severe than what a laceration actually is.
MR. JACKSON: In a biomechanical analysis, if it's done properly, is it proper to get the — is it important to get the proper injury to the body as a foundation to the entire analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's core to the analysis because you're trying to determine how an injury occurred. You have to know what that injury is. You have to have the correct injury to be able to evaluate it.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next slide. This is a placeholder. I want to ask you a little bit while this is up. We can turn the lights up. First step in the analysis — what is the first step of the analysis after you determine the injuries, the type of injury?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So in this step after you determine the injury, what we want to do is we want to look at the physical evidence. So we have the abrasions on Mr. O'Keefe's arm and we have the sweatshirt that he was wearing at the time. So the first step in any investigation is to determine: does the evidence from the arm match up to the evidence on the sweatshirt?
MR. JACKSON: Did you undertake that analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that indicated in a slide a little bit later on in your PowerPoint?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's go to the next slide, please. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this explains the injuries. And this is — on the left side, that is the diagnosis from the autopsy. The right side is from the hospital. And you can see it says blunt impact injuries of head and extremities, abrasions and lacerations. The laceration is on the back of the skull, on the back of the head, where the occipital skull fracture is. When you look at the extremities, everywhere where it talks about the extremities, it's superficial abrasions. So the first step in a biomechanical analysis, you review the medical records, determine exactly what the injuries are. And you can see there's a picture of the actual abrasions. Those are the documented injuries, or abrasions, to Mr. O'Keefe's right arm.
MR. JACKSON: Are these acceptable sources? Let me ask you this. What are the sources that are reflected on this slide that you referred to or you relied on in coming to your opinions and conclusions regarding Mr. O'Keefe's injuries to his right arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Again, the left side is from the autopsy report from the medical examiner, and then the right side is actually from the Good Samaritan Hospital where Mr. O'Keefe was taken.
MR. JACKSON: Are autopsy records, hospital records, medical records acceptable sources for biomechanists to rely on in determining or coming to opinions and conclusions?
DR. RENTSCHLER: They are. They are the sources you go to to determine what the injuries are. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review the entirety of the medical records as well as the entirety of the medical examiner's file? Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see reference to any fractures that were noted on Mr. O'Keefe's right arm — either his arm, his forearm, or his hand?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No. There were no diagnosed or references to fractures on any part of his right arm or hand.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to ask Mr. Woll to display a couple of exhibits — the X-rays. Okay. So he's going to take over the TV screen. That's okay, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: This is an exhibit that was marked yesterday. I want to say 226. I may be wrong, your honor. I'll get the right nomenclature in just a second. This is one of three exhibits that was introduced yesterday. Do you recognize what's depicted on this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's the X-ray of Mr. O'Keefe's right hand taken January 31st, I believe.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review this in furtherance of your analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Was it part of the medical records?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It was a series of X-rays. It was attached — it was part of the medical records that were provided to me and that I reviewed in this matter.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Just for the record so I can clarify — this is Exhibit 229A, A as in apple. Have you looked at X-rays before?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Have you interpreted X-rays in furtherance of your analyses in years past?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, during my biomechanical analysis. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are you trained to look at X-rays and determine whether there are fractures, hairline fractures, broken bones, things of that nature?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I've been doing this for 20 years. In graduate school I worked with surgeons and doctors to look at X-rays.
MR. JACKSON: Is that part of the normal methodology that biomechanists undertake in furtherance of injury analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is part of what we normally do. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Would it be an important part of a biomechanist's ultimate analysis and conclusions as it relates to an injury analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It would be, and especially in this case if we're talking about impact to the arm and the hand. Very important to determine — as I said — not only what the actual injuries are, but what injuries did not occur.
MR. JACKSON: Would it be appropriate to come to any opinions and conclusions in an injury analysis if you were to ignore X-rays, if they existed?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No. If X-rays exist, you need to review them. You need to determine what they represent and what injuries either did or didn't occur. You absolutely need to look at them.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see any injuries represented, or any defects represented, in this X-ray of Mr. O'Keefe's right hand?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do not. No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe what you do see, or what you would expect to see if there were injuries — broken bones, torn ligaments, things of that nature, swelling — what would you expect to see?
DR. RENTSCHLER: You could actually see the fracture lines on the bones. They are evident along the hands, or along the ulna and the radius. Any dislocations — you'd see a difference in the space at the joints between the bones. A dislocation — there would be an increased space, or even a decreased space if there's compression of the joints: the interphalangeal joints, the metacarpophalangeal joints, the wrist joint. There's no indication on these X-rays of any fractures or any trauma or any type of injury to the bones or the joints.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to 229B, B as in Bravo, with the court's permission?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see what's depicted in this photograph?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I can. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What is this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this is an X-ray. The forearm — it shows the ulna and the radius, which are the two bones in the forearm.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see any defects, injury, trauma to these bones or anything associated with those bones?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do not. And when you're viewing this on the software to look at the X-rays, you can actually adjust the contrast — so you can adjust the brightness and the darkness — and it allows you to go through the whole range to better evaluate whether there are any fractures. This is a little bright, so when you're looking at this you would actually decrease the contrast a little bit.
MR. JACKSON: In terms of your review of this particular photograph, what did you note in terms of trauma or injuries at all?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did not note any indication or any signs of trauma or injury to the forearm or to the wrist in this case.
MR. JACKSON: If we could go to 229C, C as in Charlie. What are we looking at in this photograph?
DR. RENTSCHLER: This is the right humerus — the right upper bone of Mr. O'Keefe's right arm.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review this in furtherance of your analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note any defects, trauma, injuries at all with regard to — I'm sorry — the bone, the humerus?
DR. RENTSCHLER: The humerus. I did not. No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What about the joints associated with the humerus — top or bottom?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did not note any injuries or damage to either the elbow or the shoulder joint.
MR. JACKSON: What is your opinion and conclusion, having reviewed all three of these X-rays, with regard to the condition of Mr. O'Keefe's right arm — starting from the arm, the forearm, and the bones in the hand?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There's no indication of any type of acute injury from the X-ray to Mr. O'Keefe's right arm, either his hand, his forearm, or his upper arm.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. We can take that back. If we can go back to your PowerPoint — can we go to the next slide, please? Maybe see if I can start backing on it here. Okay, there we go. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So again, this is the hoodie or sweatshirt that Mr. O'Keefe had on at the time of this alleged incident.
MR. JACKSON: Did you consider these photographs in conducting your injury causation analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What role did these photographs of Mr. O'Keefe's hoodie play in your injury causation analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this shows the hoodie, and it was inspected by the police department, and it was noted — as you can see on the right sleeve by the triangles — there were nine different punctures or holes noted in the sleeve of the sweatshirt.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please. What are we looking at in these series of photos? So let's move to sidebar for a minute and just bring your PowerPoint.
JUDGE CANNONE: Jurors, I apologize that took so long, but it was necessary to do rather than sending you out.
MR. JACKSON: Give me a couple of moments. Okay. Dr. Rentschler, my eyes aren't good enough to see the upper right-hand corner. What slide number is this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Number 12.
MR. JACKSON: Number 12. Thank you. Did you look at these photographs and consider these photographs in furtherance of your ultimate conclusion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to slide 13, please? Did you also look at and consider these photographs in coming to your ultimate conclusion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to slide 14, please? Did you look at and consider these photographs in coming to your conclusions and opinions regarding this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can you move from slide 14 over to slide 18, please?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Can I switch through real quick?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Yep.
DR. RENTSCHLER: So — 18. Let's go to 18.
MR. JACKSON: What are we looking at in slide 18?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this is Mr. O'Keefe's right arm at autopsy and they're holding up a ruler to demonstrate the size and dimensions of the abrasions.
MR. JACKSON: And what are the yellow indicators?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Those are indicators I added based on the length of the ruler to show the approximate size, length and width of those abrasions.
MR. JACKSON: Was it important in your biomechanical analysis to measure and denote all the injuries?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It was. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you actually count the number of injuries on Mr. O'Keefe's arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How many injuries did he have? How many distinct and separate injuries did Mr. O'Keefe's arm present, conservatively?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I counted 36 different superficial abrasions on his right arm.
MR. JACKSON: And did you go through all the photographs in an effort to count and distinguish one abrasion and one defect on his skin from another?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And you said conservatively 36 separate abrasions. Correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: What does that mean in terms of the mechanism that you would expect to cause that abrasion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, you need 36 different points of contact with the — to get through the sweatshirt and get to the skin to actually cause abrasion to the skin. 36 different separate points of contact to the skin.
MR. JACKSON: How many defects? Remind us how many defects were noted by the crime lab in Mr. O'Keefe's right sleeve?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Nine defects.
MR. JACKSON: Can you scroll to slide 22 quickly, please? What is this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: This is a slide again from Aperture from their PowerPoint. It's the only slide, the only photo, the only indication of the hoodie that I found in their analysis. And it also has pictures showing — looks like they try to line up the top of that tail light cover —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see there's some sort of marking on that lower left photograph with some yellow lines?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How did you analyze that marking?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I analyzed that — it goes through the part of the tail light cover and then goes through part of the upper arm of the surrogate. And there's a parallel line to it — a little bit — in a V-shape. There's a parallel line below it.
MR. JACKSON: How did you analyze that line?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I analyzed that as — is apparently the — showing that the area of the tail light —
MR. JACKSON: Not "apparently." What did you — how did you interpret that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I interpreted that that represents that that area of the tail light corresponds to the area of the upper arm, and there's a red dotted line around the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Correct. What — how did you interpret what that represents?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That was the part of the tail light that fractured —
MR. JACKSON: Did you put any of these lines on there or are these all from Aperture?
DR. RENTSCHLER: These are all from Aperture. I did not put any of those on there.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see the small — it's horizontal — I'm sorry, it's vertical — photograph of Mr. O'Keefe's arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note anywhere in the Aperture report a denotation of the number of abrasions — counting the number of abrasions on Mr. O'Keefe's arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There's no denotation, no indication that the number of abrasions were ever counted. No sir.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, based on your review of all of your testing, did you come to an opinion or a conclusion as to whether or not the abrasions on Mr. O'Keefe's arm are consistent with striking the right rear tail light of the Lexus?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what is that conclusion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That they're inconsistent with striking the tail light or being produced as a result of contact with the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Why did you come to that conclusion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There's a number of reasons that I came to. First of all, the abrasions — the numbers don't correspond to the number of holes —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you consider, without counting the number of abrasions and the number of holes — did you consider the abrasions?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you consider the sweatshirt?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Was that an important part of your analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It was. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What else did you consider?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I considered that it was not possible to line up 36 different abrasions with con —
JUDGE CANNONE: So I'm going to strike that answer. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, if he could finish his answer. He was about to say contact with the tail light.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah. So ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. What did the 36 abrasions — conservatively — and their interaction with the tail light have to do with your ultimate opinion and conclusion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, that — you have to — if those abrasions came from contact with the tail light, you have to be able to correlate them and line them up with contact — 36 different contacts from the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: And ultimately, based on your understanding of Aperture's review and the photographs that you saw, you were presuming — based on Aperture's testing — that Mr. O'Keefe was wearing the hoodie. Is that correct? PROSECUTION: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. —unintelligible—
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask it this way. There's a photograph in the Aperture report that we're looking at with blue paint on an arm. Right. Correct. Is that your understanding, or did you test that Mr. O'Keefe could have been hit wearing short sleeves?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No.
MR. JACKSON: What did you test? What was your presumption and assumption in your testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That he was wearing the hoodie that was found on him at the time, with the nine holes in the right sleeve.
MR. JACKSON: With the nine holes in the right sleeve.
JUDGE CANNONE: Watch the form of the question, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Let's go to the next slide, please. What is this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: These are — the top two and bottom right slides are from the Aperture PowerPoint.
MR. JACKSON: How did you interpret — the top — I'm sorry, the two photographs on the right? The parallel lines and the red lines in that slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: The parallel lines correspond to an area of the fractured tail light, and then the red dotted line corresponds to an area of abrasions on Mr. O'Keefe's upper arm, and there's a red arrow pointing to part of the fractured tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Again, this is the paint test. This is the only test that was conducted by Aperture to look at the tail light and the arm in this case and the interaction between the two.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note whether in all of Aperture's data that you reviewed there was any measurements to determine whether the abrasions were consistent with contact with the Lexus?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. There were no measurements at all taken with respect to that test. No measurements with respect to where the contact happened on the car or on the arm itself. There was no indication of where that blue paint extended on the surrogate's arm — say from the wrist up to where the laceration or the abrasions would have occurred.
MR. JACKSON: Is that important?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It's very important.
MR. JACKSON: Why?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Because you can't say that the area where the blue paint is corresponds to the area of the abrasions if you don't take measurements. If you just eyeball it, all you can say is — by eyeballing it, it looks approximately the same. But that's not scientific. You can't come to an actual conclusion that where that paint covers the arm is where those abrasions actually were. They could lie outside, they could lie forward, they could lie above that painted area. You can't say with any scientific certainty that that area of paint corresponds to where the abrasions are.
MR. JACKSON: In this motion video and the still photograph to the left in slide 24 — is that what we're on?
DR. RENTSCHLER: 24. We are. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What did you note with regard to the positioning of the surrogate's arm — I think that's Mr. Welcher — as it relates to the tail light and the back of the SUV?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes — the positioning of the arm in the photographs as well as the one test that was performed. The arm is approximately 90° — level, in line with the rear tail light of the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Did you seek to do any testing approximating the positioning of the arm as you saw it — as you interpreted it — in the Aperture data?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What were you seeking to determine when you did your testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, if we want to determine whether the orientation and the position of the abrasions on the arm correspond to the tail light, you have to have the arm in the position that you claim it struck the tail light and then look at the abrasions. Because if you're looking at orientation and the direction of the abrasions, you can't look at how they exist with the arm. The only pictures of the arm — of the abrasions — are with Mr. O'Keefe's arm extended, but that's not how he would have had it. According to the test, it would have been at a 90° angle.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Rentschler, were there any peer-reviewed articles cited in connection with Aperture's paint transfer tests?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was not provided a single peer-reviewed article with respect to the paint test or any indication of any test or article looking at arm contact with a vehicle or a tail light cover.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to slide 25? What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: In this slide, the picture on the far left is the photographs provided from the autopsy in hospital with Mr. O'Keefe's right arm fully extended. Again, those are the only photographs we have.
MR. JACKSON: What about the photograph in the middle and to the far right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: What I did was actually take that arm and then rotate the forearm to put it in a position that it would be in as demonstrated by the paint test — with the arm at approximately 90°.
MR. JACKSON: What was the import of this undertaking?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, if you look at the paint test and the way the arm's at 90° and having the car come and essentially contact and push the arm out of the way — that's going to give you or tell you the directionality or the direction of the abrasions. Because if you have your arm at a right angle and the vehicle comes and pushes and slides against it on that forearm, you would expect those abrasions to be horizontal, to be in line with that forearm. Are they? They're not. You can see some of them are vertical, some of them are angled, some of them it's hard to tell what the directionality is.
DR. RENTSCHLER: But if your arm again is being struck and pushed this way, as it's pushed and as the car goes by, if this would occur in this manner, you would expect those abrasions to be horizontal in the direction that the vehicle is actually traveling.
MR. JACKSON: When you say horizontal, do you mean horizontal from the elbow to the wrist?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct. Or parallel. Yes. With the forearm.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to slide 26, please? This is yet again the same video that we saw earlier?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is correct. This is the paint test video. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what has to happen in order for the paint in this test to reach the upper forearm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, in this case to reach the upper forearm, there has to be contact between the forearm and the tail light cover.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What is this slide showing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Again, this shows — you can see on the right, I added arrows to show the directionality of the different abrasions on the forearm. They simply do not line up with the type of kinematics or the type of motion shown in the paint test — again, of the arm getting pushed out of the way and the car traveling past. If there were going to be abrasions from the fractured glass as it moves along, again, it would be lengthwise parallel to the forearm.
MR. JACKSON: If the arm was positioned as it was indicated in the paint test done by Aperture, would you expect to see this pattern of injuries on Mr. O'Keefe's arm if in fact it contacted the tail light, and if in fact it was abraded by the tail light?
DR. RENTSCHLER: You would not. You can't get, for instance, horizontal abrasions on the upper arm and somehow get vertical and angled abrasions on the forearm. The kinematics don't work out to actually produce those types of injuries.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So again, this is the paint transfer test and it demonstrates there were no measurements taken. So we don't know the exact size or location of that paint or of the lacerations. And you can see the photograph on the right basically shows that after doing the test, a picture of the right arm was put next to it and basically eyeballed to say it's the same. Well, it's only approximately the same area.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, I'm going to strike that. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see any measurements, any tape measures, any laser measuring equipment, anything like that in that right photograph?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Nothing. No types of measurements whatsoever.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? This is on the left the same video that we've seen several times?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: What are we looking at on the photograph on the right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So on the right it is the video of this test taken from the side of the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Did you notice anything of note in this angle of the paint transfer test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. I slowed this video down, and so as you can see as it starts out — and you'll see this — the vehicle starts to slowly back. So there was no photograph showing the position of the arm in the back of the car. The video is from the side, and the top video — you can't tell where the arm is positioned against the tail light. But whatever position it's at, you can see as the car backs up here, look at the elbow and the upper arm. If the car backed directly in this direction, there would be no contact with that elbow or the upper arm. And remember, this test is to show where the paint would transfer and if that correlates to the lacerations.
MR. JACKSON: So you mean — before you start the video — when you say there would be no contact with the elbow or the upper arm, you mean the biceps area and from the elbow up?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Is that based on the photograph on the right and the positioning of the surrogate?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Exactly. You can see right now if the car just backed directly straight back, it would not contact the elbow or the upper arm.
MR. JACKSON: Before you play the video, what did you note from the angle on the right of the video? What did you note just before the car starts to make contact with the surrogate? What did you note?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So, in order to get that pattern on the arm, right as the car contacts the arm, the surrogate pushes his elbow forward, leans into the car against the light, and then rolls off.
MR. JACKSON: Can you play that for us, please? Did you see what you were describing in that video?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. And I can slow it down so you can see — even at this point as the car approaches it would not contact the elbow or the bicep. So as it comes in, watch the elbow all of a sudden shoot in. Surrogate turns his arm in and then leans against the light cover. So this is not indicative of someone standing there and having a car back into their arm. In order to get that pattern of paint on the arm, someone would have to stand there and, as the car approached and contacted their arm, they would have to actually push their arm forward and lean into it to get that paint pattern.
MR. JACKSON: Is that in your view proper scientific testing—
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Let's move to the next slide, please. What is this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: And so this is that same event. And you can see I slowed it down even more just so you can see the actual movement of the elbow and the upper arm to get that pattern.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Can we move to the next slide please?
DR. RENTSCHLER: This is slide 30.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to 31.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, this is 31. I'm sorry. 31.
MR. JACKSON: What conclusions or opinions did you reach after reviewing the totality of the results of the paint transfer test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: What all it can show is the approximate area of where the arm was covered in paint as the surrogate jammed his elbow in and rolled against the tail light cover. So, it tells us nothing about what may have actually occurred, how the lacerations — or the abrasions — were produced. It doesn't talk about the kinematics of the arm to actually cause those abrasions. All it does is just say under this specific condition, if someone was to stand there and then shoot your elbow forward and lean in, you would get paint on this part, this approximate part of your arm — because we don't even have any measurements for it. That's the only thing that test demonstrates. And that's the only test that was conducted to look at the interaction between the arm and the Lexus in this case.
MR. JACKSON: Did you reach any opinions and conclusions regarding whether the physical evidence is consistent or inconsistent with the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe's right arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what is the basis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: The basis is looking at the number of laceration — or the number of abrasions on the arm — as well as the orientation and direction of those abrasions, and they don't correspond to how the arm would interact with the vehicle if it was at a right angle and struck by the rear of that vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, doctor?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to the next slide, please? Actually, slide 33. If I may have just a moment, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did any of the testing that you saw — in terms of the paint transfer test or any other testing included in the Aperture report and the Aperture PowerPoint presentation — indicate that there was any consistency or any results consistent with Mr. O'Keefe's right arm being struck by the tail light causing 36-plus abrasions to his right arm while wearing the sweatshirt with nine holes in it?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, that's sustained. You have to ask that differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Did you determine, based on the testing by Aperture, whether or not the paint transfer test was consistent with Mr. O'Keefe's arm being damaged by the tail light at speed?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What is that conclusion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That does not represent that at all. The evidence from that test — again — it only puts paint on the arm. So, in no way does that determine or demonstrate how, if the arm struck the tail light cover, how the tail light cover could shatter, how the movement of the arm could interact with the cover to produce those abrasions.
MR. JACKSON: Did you—
DR. RENTSCHLER: I'm sorry. There's just no evidence of that. There are no steps taken to demonstrate how, or if, that's even possible. Would that actually occur in a case like that? First, you have to show it's possible. I saw no peer-reviewed articles, no research data, and the only test that was done that links the injuries to the tail light cover is this paint test.
MR. JACKSON: Is that the paint test in which the arm was leaned into the car — in which the elbow was shot forward and then the arm and upper arm was leaned into and against the cover? Doctor, did you also go on to further your injury causation analysis by performing impact tests to evaluate the kinematics involved?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe that for us, please?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Sure. So one of the steps involved in the biomechanical analysis is the kinematics, the motion. So we need to look at the motion of the arm. If the arm hit the tail light cover, the tail light cover fractured and you got abrasions, you need to be able to show that. You need to look at how the arm would actually move if it was struck by the vehicle. I've seen no — again, no peer-reviewed articles or research to demonstrate that. So what you need to do then is do testing to look at how the arm would actually move and whether it's possible to create those conditions to actually get that injury.
MR. JACKSON: Did you use an ATD Hybrid III arm for testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: We did. Yes. We used a 50th percentile male ATD Hybrid III arm.
MR. JACKSON: Is the use of that Hybrid III arm accepted in your industry in terms of testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, it certainly is. As I said yesterday, it's the gold standard for testing. And the arm itself is used just for that very purpose. In fact, there's a number of studies — they use the 50th percentile arm to look at airbag deployment. One of the issues with airbags for the driver is it comes out of the hub of the steering wheel. So if you're steering and you're turning your car and you hit something and the airbag goes off, what happens? It blows right into your forearm and it can actually cause fractures. We see that quite often. So they perform testing with the 50th percentile arm to look at the forces and acceleration on the arm as airbags go off. Very similar to if your hand was — if the arm was hit by the back of the car and propelled forward.
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's very similar to having an airbag deploy. Actually, this would probably be more severe. An airbag's almost like a giant pillow enveloping the arm. And here we have an SUV actually contacting the rear of your arm.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please?
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. What's depicted here?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this was testing done at 15 miles an hour. So this is with the Hybrid III arm, suspended so that it was actually impacting the right rear of the Lexus as the Lexus was traveling at 15 mph.
MR. JACKSON: Was there acceleration that was noted on the arm? Force and acceleration?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was, on both the arm as well as the hand. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was the result of the damage to the tail light based on this test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So in this test there was actually no damage. As you can see, it catches kind of the hand and the forearm. And if you want to describe it as kind of a glancing blow — there was not enough force at 15 miles an hour on this glancing blow to actually fracture the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Is the position of this arm relative to the SUV consistent or inconsistent with the original spot that the surrogate in the paint test was standing as it related to the SUV?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It's consistent. We lined it up so it's consistent with that original location so that it would not impact the elbow or the upper arm. So at that position, if there's impact to the arm at 15 miles an hour, it doesn't cause the tail light to fracture. And it's also important to look at the kinematics. If you look at the acceleration data below, that hand and arm is accelerated — the hand is accelerated up to the speed of the vehicle in about 2 to 4 milliseconds. How long does it take to blink your eye? 250 milliseconds. It takes a quarter of a second to blink your eye. So this occurs — if your hand is hit at 15 miles an hour by a car, it's going to be accelerated up to the speed of the car about 50 times faster than you can blink.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? And what are we looking at in this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this is lab testing at 17 miles an hour. So the housing and the cover was basically propelled into the forearm of the dummy at 17 miles an hour.
MR. JACKSON: What was the acceleration that was noted on the arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So when you look at the arm, the acceleration here is almost 300 g's.
MR. JACKSON: What does that mean to us?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So, 300 g's — if you look at weight, if you say the weight of the arm is 10 pounds, 300 g's means there's 3,000 lbs of force acting on that arm.
MR. JACKSON: Is that enough to break a bone?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It's more than enough to break a bone.
MR. JACKSON: Is that enough to fracture — I'm sorry — to tear ligaments?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What about the bones in the hand? Are those stronger, or the same resistance as the bones in the forearm? Are they more delicate?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, the bones in the hand are — as you can imagine — much weaker because they're much smaller. When you look at the carpal bones, the metacarpal bones, the metacarpophalangeal joint — which is basically your knuckles — they are much smaller and it takes much less force to fracture your hand bones compared to your ulna or your radius.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next slide, please. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this is a 24 mph impact with the arm of the dummy contacting the rear tail light, and it shows you the motion — the dummy, suspended, shows you the motion of the dummy, and again the force and acceleration. Now, the right video I put in because that's real-time video. We've been showing the low-speed, but look on the right. This is the actual speed of 24 miles an hour. That's what it looks like if you have your hand out and it's struck by an SUV.
MR. JACKSON: Is the arm accelerated — do the same physics apply? Is the arm accelerated up to the speed of the car in milliseconds?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is. Yes. It's all about weight, right? Because you have a 6,000 lb car and you have a 10 lb arm. Whatever speed that car is going, your arm, your hand, whatever is sticking out there is immediately going to get accelerated up to the speed of that vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: The video on the right is in real time. Like you said, it's — it's sped up in milliseconds. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Is the Hybrid III that's used in this test — is that suspended from above?
DR. RENTSCHLER: The dummy in this test is suspended from above. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Like a pendulum, barely touching the ground. Is the dummy connected to the ground in any way?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, its feet are barely touching.
MR. JACKSON: What would happen if there were forces applied to that dummy that went perpendicular to the travel of the vehicle? What would happen to the dummy?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, the dummy would swing out like a pendulum in that direction.
MR. JACKSON: Based on your review of the test that was done, the 24 mph test, were there forces on that dummy that were perpendicular to the car such that the dummy would swing out or be forced out or be propelled out away from the car?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No. There were no forces from the testing, and it's simple physics. Your center of mass of your body is basically at your umbilicus, or your belly button. So in order to move the body, you have to apply a force at that part of the body. If your arm is struck, it's not going to move your body appreciably. All it's going to do — your arm's like a moment arm — it's going to spin you around. Could there be some motion forward or backward if you take a step? Possibly, but the center of mass of your body isn't going to move. You have to get struck by the vehicle to have the body actually move in a specific direction.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What is this showing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this is a slow-mo of the overhead from the real time. It was a GoPro that was recording that real-time video, and this is a slow motion of that video.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. As you see the vehicle contact the arm, what happens to the arm as it's being contacted in those milliseconds where it's being accelerated up to 24 miles an hour?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, the arm is accelerated up and pushed away from the body. So whatever part of your arm or body is contacting the car, that's going to be pushed forward away from the rest of your body. So not only is it loading the arm with an impact force as it strikes the arm and the hand, but then it's actually stressing the joints, too. It's like ripping — imagine having a car come and 3,000 lbs of force pulling your arm forward at the elbow, at the shoulder joint. It's putting a lot of force and pressure on that appendage.
MR. JACKSON: What's the G-force for the 24 mph impact?
DR. RENTSCHLER: G-force. Let me see exactly.
MR. JACKSON: Could you pause that video for a second? I want to ask you a couple of questions about it as well.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Let me see exactly what that G-force was.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you need to refer to something?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes. My report, with the court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Thank you. So at 24 miles an hour, for the arm, the acceleration is 302 g's, and for the hand it's about 435 g's.
MR. JACKSON: Does that translate to over 4,000 pounds of pressure?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, for the arm, it's close to 3,000 — if you say a 10 lb weight. And for the hand, that can be anywhere from 800 to about 1,600 lbs of force acting just on the hand itself.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Can you back this up a couple of frames?
MR. JACKSON: Pause it where I ask you. One more frame back. One more back. Right there. What's happening physically to the right arm at the point of impact?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So there is a force on the hand, on the forearm where it contacts. Now your arm just isn't going to hit and the force be distributed evenly across the entire part of the arm. That's not how your arm is actually articulated. Even if it was — again, that's similar to an airbag deployment where at these levels you would get fractures. But it hits the hand. Now, if Mr. O'Keefe's holding a glass at the time of this impact, think about that. What happens is you're holding a glass, it exposes the knuckles. So if you're holding a glass and your arm's at 90° angle and the car comes back and hits your hand, it's going to strike right on the knuckles. The force is going to be applied right at that joint. And then it's gonna likely hit along the forearm back near the elbow.
MR. JACKSON: What's the shape of that arm in this still photograph?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, it's somewhat of an abnormal shape because the arm should be level with the body. The forearm should be even with the shoulder, but you can see as it gets pushed forward, it's accelerating that forearm away from the arm and the rest of the body.
MR. JACKSON: Does that abnormal shape suggest anything to you in terms of what you would expect regarding the bones in that arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Again, there's thousands of pounds of forces acting on the arm and also on the joint itself, not just the arm — the bones we have to consider and how much force to fracture. But think of the elbow joint and think of the shoulder joint. It takes much less force to dislocate an elbow than it does to actually fracture it.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any evidence based on your review of the medical records, including your review of the X-rays, any evidence of any dislocation?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was no evidence or indication or diagnosis of any dislocations or fractures to the arm at all. Fractures or broken bones at all.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Nothing.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go forward another frame? And at this point, the arm has already been struck and accelerated. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see the tail light material?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. It's basically now broken. Is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. It has now been fractured. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Let's go one more frame forward. And the tail light material — did you make note of that in this frame?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What direction is that tail light material going relative to the vehicle?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It's going forward.
MR. JACKSON: And where is the arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: The arm has been pushed away. Now, you have to remember, as that arm if it contacts and fractures the tail light, it's not exposed to the fractured pieces that still exist on the tail light itself. Because those pieces that fracture haven't gone anywhere because they're against the arm itself, and then as the arm moves away, the pieces then move with the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Are the tail light pieces upon fracture moving at the same speed as the arm upon contact?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a matter of physics?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is a matter of physics. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is there any possible way for the broken pieces of tail light to out-accelerate the arm upon contact when the arm's being deflected away from the vehicle?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is not — I don't believe it's physically possible. That was not demonstrated in our testing and I've never seen that demonstrated in any peer-reviewed articles. Now, you can see here again also the light and the fragments are being propelled forward. So, you also have to consider where Mr. O'Keefe was found. He was found in the yard about 10 or 20 feet from the road. There was no exact measurements, but if you look at the motion of the tail light, it's going forward. Now, if Mr. O'Keefe has to move diagonally to the top left of that corner and he's not hit with the center of mass, he can't get to where he ends up before the tail light fragments have already gone forward and been deposited on the ground. Average running speed is like 4 to 6 miles an hour.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Even if this SUV is going 10 miles an hour, the lights fracture. They're dispersed on the ground. And then Mr. O'Keefe somehow ends up to his point of rest. But you wouldn't find the fragments on him because they've already been pushed forward, come to rest before he even has a chance to get to where they find him.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next slide, please. What is this slide showing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So, this is just frames taken from that actual video showing the interaction from the top left. Then you go down to the bottom left and then the top right and the bottom right — just shows you the progression of the contact and the movement of the arm.
MR. JACKSON: Is the bottom left frame the same frame that you stalled on just a second ago at my request showing the deformation of his right arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Next slide, please. And is that just a closeup of the same?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's just a closeup of the same. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Next slide. And is this a final closeup of the arm after it's been deflected out of the way?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. Yes, sir. Does this also illustrate what you just described in terms of the trajectory of the broken tail light fragments? It does. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see any defect at all in the right sleeve of that hoodie?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There is no defect in that right sleeve of the dummy.
MR. JACKSON: Was the dummy's sleeve examined following this test? Closely examined up close rather than just a photograph?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It was examined and photographed. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any defect in that right sleeve at all?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No defects at all were noted in that sleeve. No.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we seeing here?
DR. RENTSCHLER: This again shows some of the photographs taken of the sleeve and the arm to show that there's no defects whatsoever. And it shows the damage to the Lexus. And again, at 24 miles an hour, not only do you get damage to the tail light on the fender there, but you also get damage to the tail light on the lift gate.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any damage on the tail light of the lift gate in the subject SUV?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was not. No.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this video?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this was at 29 miles an hour with a suspended Hybrid III arm. Was the arm in the relative orientation that you saw depicted in the paint transfer test by Aperture? It was. And in fact in this one there's actually contact. We moved it in so that you would get contact with the elbow and the upper arm as well. So it's in the position after Dr. Welcher moves his elbow in and rolls his shoulder into the tail light cover. We evaluated that position with this test.
MR. JACKSON: And do you see any damage to the lift gate tail light based on this test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There's extensive damage at this speed. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What damage would you expect to see to the arm itself at this speed and in this orientation?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yeah, at this speed — I mean, we're talking 4,000 lbs of force on the forearm, and with the hand, 1,400 to probably 3,000 lbs. Well above levels where you would get fractures.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this slide — these two photos?
DR. RENTSCHLER: This was the final test that was conducted using a dummy and it was impacted at 29 mph and this was a center of mass impact.
MR. JACKSON: Why was it important — Dr. Welcher, Dr. Welcher — Dr. Rentschler, why was it important to do a center of mass test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Because if we have an auto-pedestrian impact and you want to see where the pedestrian ends up, you have to evaluate how they were impacted by the car. In order to have the pedestrian move any substantial distance, it has to be hit at the center of mass. Again, it has to be hit at that belly button area to propel the body in a certain direction depending on the speed and direction.
MR. JACKSON: If there's no center of mass impact, how does someone get to the point of rest?
DR. RENTSCHLER: You can't correlate a sideswipe where the arm gets contacted and say if someone ends up 20 feet away, there's no way to correlate that that arm impact caused them to somehow move 20 feet away. It wouldn't be as a result of the actual incident. It wouldn't be a result of the impact pushing their body in that direction.
MR. JACKSON: From a physics standpoint, is it reasonable to believe that your arm could be struck — just your arm could be struck as it's out in front of your body — and you could be propelled backward, say 7, 8, 10, 12 feet as a result of that strike?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, it's not reasonable. That's not physically possible. And you look at the arm itself and we're talking about the injuries and the abrasions compared to fractures. So if Mr. O'Keefe's arm was hit at 24, 29 mph, and there were only abrasions, what this would suggest is that if the tail light doesn't cover or fracture, you can have your arm hit at 24 miles an hour and you wouldn't have any injuries at all, which from a biomechanical standpoint doesn't make sense. If the claim is that the fractured tail light's the only thing —
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sustaining the objection to that. I'm going to strike that portion.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Jackson, let's go to the next slide. What are we looking at in this video?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So here's the video showing that strike at 29 mph with the center of mass impact to the dummy.
MR. JACKSON: What's the import of this particular test? Why was this important? And what did you conclude following this impact test, the center of mass impact test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There are a couple of reasons. A, it shows there was extensive damage to the rear of that Lexus. So if you had a center of mass hit, you would have had damage to the lift gate, to the fender, to the sheet metal — you would have substantially more damage than what we had in this case. And secondly, which I believe is just as important, it shows the post-impact trajectory of the dummy. So again, if you're struck on the corner by the Lexus, the dummy goes straight back in line with the vehicle. There's no force and no direction to actually cause that dummy to move off into the side of the vehicle. So you can't be hit center of mass with a vehicle going straight back and somehow end up 10 or 20 feet to the side of where the vehicle is traveling.
MR. JACKSON: So in this circumstance, would you expect the tail light material to be distributed straight back in the same center line as the vehicle is traveling?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, absolutely.
MR. JACKSON: Would you also expect the body to be struck and move in the same center line as the vehicle?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. What about the body? What directionality would you expect on a center mass hit?
DR. RENTSCHLER: The body's going to move in the direction that the vehicle is moving. That main direction, that main force moving straight back, the body is going to move primarily straight back.
MR. JACKSON: Did you reach an opinion or a conclusion regarding whether the right arm kinematics are consistent with fracturing the tail light cover and sustaining the abrasions that you saw on John O'Keefe's arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is that opinion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is my opinion that it is not consistent with contacting and fracturing the tail light cover.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to the next slide, please? Could I have just a moment?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: On what do you base your opinion that you just told the jurors?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Looking at the kinematics of the arm, it's inconsistent with the evidence we have with the actual abrasions to the arm, the evidence on the sweatshirt, and that at these speeds, you would likely expect fractures — and certainly to the hand and likely to the ulna and the radius and the forearm if your hand or arm was struck by the rear of the SUV.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to slide 48 please? What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: This was a study where they used an impactor and they contacted the dorsal or top part of cadaver hands and they looked at the force that was exerted and they looked at how many fractures were produced as a result of that.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review scientific literature regarding hand injuries under this sort of impact loading? Is this representative of that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide please. What is this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this shows the position and this is taken directly from the Aperture paint test. You can see the position that Dr. Welcher had his hand against the tailgate right at the time of impact and you can see that the contact areas correspond to the areas of the hand that were actually tested in this case.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide please. What is this showing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this shows the forces produced during the test as well as the forces produced during our testing. And maybe the next slide here — actually better if you look at the knuckles, which are the blue middle region, and then the metacarpal bones, which are the lower one. So for the metacarpophalangeal joint — the knuckles — on average, it took 397 pounds of force to fracture that joint. Well, the 15 mph test produced a minimum of 483 lb. And more realistically, that's just with the hand weight. There's going to be more weight because it's attached to the wrist. More realistically, it's twice that. So it's around 900 lb of force.
DR. RENTSCHLER: But what these tests show is that the force produced on the hand as represented by the PowerPoint from Aperture, even at 15 miles an hour and likely below that, you would expect to get fracture of the hand bones — of the knuckles, metacarpophalangeal joints, and the metacarpal bones — if you contacted the rear of that vehicle at that speed.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any indication in the X-rays you saw or the medical records that you reviewed that Mr. O'Keefe's hand was damaged in such a way that you would expect?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There were no indications whatsoever of that. No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: This was a test where they actually looked at the force on the elbow. So, this is a direct longitudinal force against the elbow. Now, there's no indication of exactly the test — the paint test has the arm horizontal, but there's no indication or evidence of whether maybe it would be angled or if it's straight horizontal. But even if your arm's angled a little bit at the point of impact, the forces again on the right are what we determined from our testing and those are minimum. Again, that's just with the forearm. If you include the entire arm, it's about twice that. So even at 10 miles an hour, you're going to have 600 to 1,200 lb of force acting on the arm.
MR. JACKSON: Is that enough to break it?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's enough. If you strike the elbow, that's more than enough to actually fracture the different bones of the elbow.
MR. JACKSON: If an arm was hit at that speed with those forces, would you expect the X-rays to show no trauma, no broken bones, no fractures, no hairline fractures?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I would not expect that. No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are we looking at in terms of this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So these are just more articles that I referenced and they look at impact force on the forearm. So the ulna and the radius — it takes just to have a transverse blow right against the bone, it takes about 1,100 to 1,200 lb of force to cause a fracture. We're at that level already at a 10 mph impact.
MR. JACKSON: What about a 24 mph impact?
DR. RENTSCHLER: At 24 we're at 1,400 to 2,800 pounds of force.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any trauma on John O'Keefe's arm that was suggestive of an impact of that nature, of that size, of that force?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was no trauma. There were no fractures. There wasn't even an indication on the arm of where it would have contacted the vehicle. So, if there's fracture at the tail light, there's going to be a force at that point on the arm where it actually contacts the tail light and causes that. Right? There's going to be a force riser to cause that damage. There was no bruising. There were no lacerations. There was nothing at the alleged point of contact which would indicate an impact that produces thousands of pounds of force on the arm. No evidence of it whatsoever.
MR. JACKSON: You just mentioned this in your answer, but I want to ask a little bit further. We've talked a lot about bone fractures and ligament damage, etc. What about bruising in any of these tests? Would you expect to see bruising, at least bruising all over the arm at the points of contact?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely. Bruising occurs when the blood vessels just below the skin are ruptured and it causes blood to flow into the arm.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any indication that John O'Keefe suffered even a minimum amount of bruising on his arm at all?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No indication of any amount of bruising whatsoever on the forearm.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. And let's go to the next slide. I think we want to jump to slide 50. What slide are we on?
PARENTHETICAL: [unidentified]
MR. JACKSON: : Is that 53?
PARENTHETICAL: [unidentified]
MR. JACKSON: : This is 55. Let's go to the next slide. There we go. That's what I'm looking for. What are you looking at here?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this again is from the paint test and it shows — you know, even as the arm gets pushed in, the vehicle is not in line with the center of mass with Dr. Welcher here. So it's not a center of mass impact. And this is important because we've looked at the arm and we've looked at the kinematics and the force and whether that's consistent with what happened and the injuries. The next step is to look at what happens if the arm gets hit. How does Mr. O'Keefe end up where he does in the yard? That's post-impact movement or trajectory of the body. You have to evaluate that. If you want to link all these events, if you want to link the head injury to contact with the car, you have to know what happened in between. You have to know the details. And so the next part was to evaluate that.
MR. JACKSON: Is there any indication in any of the testing that you did or any of the review of the medical records of John O'Keefe, including the autopsy records, all of the autopsy records, the X-rays, and the hospital records — any indication that John O'Keefe was struck center of mass?
DR. RENTSCHLER: None whatsoever. No, no indication at all that he was struck center of mass.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have an opinion or conclusion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty about whether he was struck center of mass?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do.
MR. JACKSON: And what is that opinion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I don't believe that he was. The evidence indicates that he was not. If he was struck center of mass, imagine that you're getting hit at the pelvis. You're getting hit on the thigh. You're getting hit at the knee. And then the body's being propelled forward. Your arm would actually get pushed into your body, into your ribs, into your torso. You would have very significant and substantial loading to your body — initially the right side of your body as that impact occurred. And there's no evidence whatsoever that that occurred.
MR. JACKSON: Switching to a glancing blow — a blow of just the arm, not the center of mass, but just the arm. Do you hold an opinion and a conclusion as to whether or not a glancing blow or a blow to the arm only would propel Mr. O'Keefe 7, 8, or 10 feet perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do.
MR. JACKSON: What is that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It would not be possible. Our testing demonstrates that. The peer-reviewed articles demonstrate that. I've seen no evidence anywhere in this case that would suggest or even indicate that if you get a glancing blow or a sideswipe blow that somehow would produce enough force to push you 8 to 10 feet into the yard. I don't believe it's possible. I've seen no research that would indicate that would occur.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to the next slide, please? And let's go to the next slide. Let's keep going. Okay. What are we looking at in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this slide — it's a paper that describes how to evaluate vehicle-pedestrian impacts and how someone moves in the projection of that body.
MR. JACKSON: Did you seek to analyze a wholesome understanding of whether it was possible that Mr. O'Keefe was hit on his lower extremities?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Why did you do that? Why was that important?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, because with automobile-pedestrian impacts, the lower extremity — your legs, your ankles, your knees — that's the most injured part of the body during automobile impacts. So if he's going to be impacted at that speed, especially at center of mass, there's likely going to be injuries to his leg, to his knee. The bumper lines up with the knee. That's one of the most commonly injured parts, as the bumper pushes into the knee, fractures the tibia, the fibula, or damages the knee joint.
MR. JACKSON: Did John O'Keefe suffer any injuries to his lower extremities suggestive of a vehicle impact?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No. I believe the only injury was a half-centimeter abrasion on the outside of the right knee.
MR. JACKSON: Could Mr. O'Keefe have suffered a half-centimeter abrasion on the outside of his right knee by being struck by an SUV at 24 miles an hour?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I don't believe so. I don't see how those kinematics would work — sustain.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that injury was from being struck by an SUV at 24 miles an hour or somewhere around 24 miles an hour?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do.
MR. JACKSON: What is that opinion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do not believe that injury is consistent with being struck by an SUV at approximately 24 miles an hour.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did Mr. O'Keefe suffer any other injuries to his legs or his lower extremities other than that small— how big was it? How many centimeters?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Half-centimeter abrasion.
MR. JACKSON: That small half-centimeter abrasion. Did he suffer any other injuries to his lower extremities indicative of being struck by a vehicle?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I don't believe so. No.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go to the next slide. Taking a look at the photograph on the right. Concentrating on that for a second. How did that SUV get in that condition?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That was by striking the dummy at 29 miles an hour, and that was a center-of-mass hit with the dummy.
MR. JACKSON: Were you able to review photographs of the subject SUV — Ms. Read's SUV?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did her SUV suffer or suggest any kind of damage anywhere close to this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No. The only real damage was to the outer tail light cover — on the fender itself was fractured.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. We've seen this — this is the video that was the center-mass impact?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: The photograph that we just saw previous — what relationship does that photograph have to this field test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That was the condition of the SUV after it struck the dummy here at 29 mph.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What are we looking at in this series of diagrams?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this is some more recent testing that was done. And this test compared impacts between a small sedan and an SUV, and it's looking at damage or injury to the legs as a result of this type of an impact. And these impacts were actually conducted at a speed of 24.7 miles an hour. They used cadavers — people who donated their bodies to science — set up the cadavers and struck them at just about 24 miles an hour.
MR. JACKSON: Did this support your opinion and conclusion concerning the lower extremities of Mr. O'Keefe and the possibility that he was hit by an SUV at speed?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It does. If I can go to the next slide, it actually— So this shows you for the SUV — it's the last column on the page there. The last three columns are the injuries associated with the SUV strikes. There's fractures to the pelvis, left knee injury to the ACL, the MCL, fracture of the tibia and fibula. There's extensive damage to the legs of all three of the cadaver subjects that were struck at 24 miles an hour with an SUV.
MR. JACKSON: Did Mr. O'Keefe show any signs of any of these injuries?
DR. RENTSCHLER: He did not. No.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. What are these photographs and diagrams on the right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this was taken from the PowerPoint from Aperture. And so it shows — the medical diagram shows the one-half-centimeter abrasion. And if you look at the picture on the left of the surrogate, you can see — so the bumper would line up from the knee all the way up to the pelvis. So a vehicle at a speed of 24 miles an hour, if it impacts that knee or that leg, it's not going to produce only a half-centimeter abrasion. It's going to get the leg and it's going to cause significant damage to the knee and to the leg itself.
MR. JACKSON: When you say from the knee to the pelvis, are you talking about the width — or the height of the bumper itself being from the knee to the pelvis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Would that be the contact area that you would expect if there was even a glancing blow to the knee and the hip?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. You can see on that picture there where that bumper — the rear corner of that bumper where the bottom reflector is — it extends from the knee all the way up to the pelvis.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? What are these diagrams?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Again, these are just reports — peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that auto-pedestrian impacts result in lower extremity injuries and fractures.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review all of these peer-reviewed articles that you've told the jurors about — these academic articles — in furtherance of coming to your opinion and conclusions?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see any reference in the Aperture report that you reviewed, and the PowerPoint slides that you reviewed, that the concomitant peer-reviewed articles were sought in the paint transfer test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No.
MR. JACKSON: Or cited there?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was only one article that was cited in that report with respect to automobile-pedestrian impacts.
MR. JACKSON: Did it have anything to do with the paint transfer test?
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
DR. RENTSCHLER: It did not. No.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. And let's keep moving until we get to the— Yes, there we go. What does that slide depict?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this is the opinions that were offered in the Aperture report. And if you look at the top number four, it says the totality of the evidence is consistent with the right rear corner of the Read Lexus again impacting John O'Keefe and Mr. O'Keefe striking the rear — posterior aspect of his head on the frozen ground. And when you look below that, it basically has the references or the support for that one conclusion.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see you both sidebar for a minute. Dr. Rentschler.
MR. JACKSON: Um, can we move to slide—
JUDGE CANNONE: Just a moment. Slide 70, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: That's what I was— seventy. Thank you. I wish my eyes were better. Slide 70. Let me restart it here. Thank you. Okay. What are we looking at in slide—
DR. RENTSCHLER: This is slide seven— yes. — indicates the head is the most commonly injured body region in pedestrian impacts.
MR. JACKSON: And what significance did that reference have in your analysis?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, that's not accurate. This article was written in 1979, and the first modern SUV, the Jeep Cherokee, wasn't manufactured until 1984. So this is an article that's 46 years old that doesn't actually relate to this type of an impact. And that's the only peer-reviewed reference with respect to automobile-pedestrian impacts that was cited in the entire Aperture report.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to slide 71? Do you recognize what's depicted in this slide?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is depicted here?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this was the Hybrid III — this is the 50th percentile Hybrid III, the same dummy that we utilize — and Dr. Welcher performed a test where—
MR. JACKSON: Can I interrupt you?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: So this ATD — anthropomorphic test device — was not a 95th percentile test device?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It was not. No.
MR. JACKSON: Is it 50th percentile?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It was the 50th percentile. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that the same — the exact same sized ATD that ARCCA utilized in all of its testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It was. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And to get the forces on the head, Dr. Welcher scaled the acceleration results based on the weight, which is what I was talking about yesterday. You scale the results from the 50th percentile. That's exactly what Dr. Welcher did in this case. Is that an appropriate way to adjust for the size of an ATD?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It absolutely is. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Go ahead.
DR. RENTSCHLER: So this test — what he did — he took a 50th percentile dummy, stood it up, and then let it drop backwards and strike its head on a concrete surface.
MR. JACKSON: Next slide, please. By the way, Dr. Rentschler, did the last slide include a video?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe it did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go back? I'm not sure — it's on the slide — that's just a screenshot.
DR. RENTSCHLER: I see. I see.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So let's go back to that slide for just a second. I thought this might be the video of it.
DR. RENTSCHLER: No. So in the lower portion of the center of the screen, you see Dr. Welcher holding the ATD.
MR. JACKSON: Is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review a video of what happened next? This is not the video, but did you review the video?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Describe for the jurors — since we don't have access to the video — what did you see happen from this point forward?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So Dr. Welcher releases the dummy and the dummy just falls rigidly backwards, almost like a tree, and impacts the concrete.
MR. JACKSON: Can we jump from your PowerPoint to a video that I have and ask you if you recognize it — with court's permission?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is the video in evidence?
MR. JACKSON: It's in— it's in Dr. Welcher's PowerPoint.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is it before the jury? Is it in—
MR. JACKSON: It is. Okay. Okay. Uh, do you recognize this?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes. Is this— just looks like the same screen? Basically the same thing that you just took a screenshot of.
MR. JACKSON: It is. Yes, sir. Okay. If we could play the first couple of seconds of the video and pause it. As that video began to play, did you recognize this as being the same video that you reviewed earlier?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And did you utilize this in coming to your opinions and conclusions in this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Let's go ahead, with the court's permission. Can we play the video? Thank you. What did you see? Describe what you saw
DR. RENTSCHLER: In this video. So, this is a passive rearward fall of the ATD dummy. So, just releasing and letting it fall. Obviously, it's a dummy. There's no musculature. There's no response to that dummy. So this is what would happen if a rigid individual just fell backwards onto a concrete surface.
MR. JACKSON: Can we see it one more time, please? I'm going to ask you one other question. I'm going to ask you to take note, doctor, of the impact location. Did you see that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What kind of surface is that— uh, that floor? If you could tell.
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe it indicates it's a concrete surface.
MR. JACKSON: Concrete floor. Did you notice if the falling backward like that, the dummy slid across the floor or was propelled across the floor? Anything like that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It did not. It just dropped and angled backwards and hit directly on the floor.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let's go to the next slide. I'm sorry. Uh, if we could revert back to your PowerPoint and if you could pull up slide— I think it's 72. Let me— uh, every time we do that I have to restart the PowerPoint.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Why did you include this video one more time in your PowerPoint here?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Because again, this is the [unintelligible] test which indicates the position at least that Dr. Welcher had himself at to get the impact with the tail light cover. And notice again, so it's not a center of mass hit. It hits his arm and then he slides by. So if that were to occur, he would rotate or move to the left. So if Mr. O'Keefe did that and he somehow ends up falling backwards rigid directly onto his head, he's going to have to rotate at least 270 degrees and then stop and then fall directly backwards onto his head there. There's no explanation of the kinematics.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to the end of that. I'll strike the end.
MR. JACKSON: Do the kinematics support what you just suggested? Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to form.
MR. JACKSON: What do the kinematics support?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see you at sidebar for just a minute. Jurors, we'll be taking our break.
MR. JACKSON: May I continue?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Dr. Welcher— Can I do that again? My goodness. Uh, this is Dr. Welcher in the video. Correct.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. I was staring at that. I apologize. Uh, Dr. Rentschler, based on your review of the video in which Dr. Welcher is positioned, as well as the drop test that you saw, as well as the discussion of the body placement where you discussed the body placement— do you have an opinion as to whether or not the testing that you reviewed from Aperture is consistent or inconsistent with John O'Keefe being struck by the vehicle, propelled perpendicular backward, say 7 to 10 feet, and falling straight back onto a hard surface, as depicted in the drop test?
DR. RENTSCHLER: The testing is inconsistent with those types of kinematics or that type of scenario.
MR. JACKSON: On what do you base that opinion, sir?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's based on the testing that was performed, the evidence available in this case, and the kinematics of how somebody would move post-impact after being struck by an SUV.
MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go to the next slide, please? May I have just a moment, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Finally, Dr. Rentschler, uh, do you have an opinion— or did you reach a conclusion— whether the biomechanical evidence in this matter is consistent or inconsistent with Mr. O'Keefe's right arm being impacted by the subject 2021 Lexus 570, resulting in a backward fall leading to the head injuries that he suffered?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what is that opinion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: My opinion is that the evidence is inconsistent with Mr. O'Keefe being struck on the right arm by the SUV and then moving laterally into the yard and falling backward onto—
MR. JACKSON: —and you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. That's all I have.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So, now we'll take our break, folks. We'll see you in about 20 minutes. Please rise for the jury. This court is in session. Please be seated. All right, Mr. Brennan.