Andrew Rentschler - Redirect/Recross

MR. JACKSON: Okay.

MR. JACKSON: Yes. Thank you, Dr. Rentschler. You were just asked a couple of questions about they provided information about the prior trial.

MR. JACKSON: They is — no one, no one associated with the defense team.

MR. JACKSON: No one associated with you, and they provided information. And again, it let me know what was going on, but it didn't affect my preparation or my opinions. It in no way changed any of my opinions or what I testified to. Thank you. To get through this, I'm going to let you just answer the question. And with regard to—

MR. JACKSON: Mr. Brennan asked you a couple of questions about they being your employer. Do you remember those questions at the beginning of his cross-examination?

MR. JACKSON: Yes. Who is your employer? Actually, the actual employer that you work for?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Wasn't them?

MR. JACKSON: It was a client, a completely separate entity that hired you for that work.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. You were asked about a fender vault collision and you said, "Well, this wasn't a fender vault, right?"

MR. JACKSON: What is a fender vault?

MR. JACKSON: Dr. Rentschler, where is my — as I stand here, where is my center of mass?

MR. JACKSON: So what would happen if I was hit by a vehicle in a frontal collision and the vehicle struck me below my center of mass?

MR. JACKSON: Is that what's described in the industry as a fender vault?

MR. JACKSON: Did that set of circumstances, physics, have anything to do with your analysis in this case?

MR. JACKSON: You were asked several questions about the debris field in the test — F as in Foxtrot — that — well, actually you were asked about both. Both test E and test F. Test E being the 24 mph impact to the right arm of Randy.

MR. JACKSON: And test F, the full front — full rear impact, center of mass impact.

MR. JACKSON: You were shown several photographs, exhibits of very tiny tiny shards. Do you remember that?

MR. JACKSON: I'll get to that in a second. You were also shown some photographs of pieces of plastic that were claimed to have been found at 34 Fairview. Clear plastic, piece of red plastic.

MR. JACKSON: In your review of all the data in this case, do you know when those pieces of plastic got to 34 Fairview?

MR. JACKSON: Do you know how those pieces of plastic got to 34 Fairview?

MR. JACKSON: Do you know who put those pieces of plastic at 34 Fairview?

MR. JACKSON: Were you aware in your review of the police reports that none of the plastic that you were shown was found at the time John O'Keefe's body was discovered and the area was initially searched?

MR. JACKSON: You indicated that the cut on Mr. O'Keefe's nose, the right side of his nose, was inconsistent with coming from a vehicle.

MR. JACKSON: Can you describe why you came to that conclusion?

MR. JACKSON: Dr. Rentschler, you were asked a series of questions about a hat. Do you remember that?

MR. JACKSON: About some shards of plastic material?

MR. JACKSON: About a drinking glass?

MR. JACKSON: About a drinking straw?

MR. JACKSON: Doctor, if there was no collision, does any of that matter in terms of your biomechanical analysis and your reconstruction in this incident?

MR. JACKSON: Why?

MR. JACKSON: Of course. In your expert opinion, based on all of your review of all of the data in this case, all of the testing that you've undertaken, do you have an opinion as to whether or not there was a collision with John O'Keefe?

MR. JACKSON: In your view, was there evidence of a collision with John O'Keefe? In your opinion, were any of the injuries that you saw suffered by John O'Keefe consistent with having been struck by the subject Lexus?

MR. JACKSON: Do you hold that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?

MR. JACKSON: Thank you.

MR. JACKSON: The glass — when you learned of the information of the glass in Mr. O'Keefe's nose, when do you think it was that that glass was pulled from his nose? What date?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Somewhere around 6:00, 6:15 a.m. Is that your understanding?

MR. JACKSON: Do you know or understand — did you see any evidence that Mr. O'Keefe had a drinking glass outside of 34 Fairview Road that morning after he got out of the defendant's Lexus? Do you understand that?

MR. JACKSON: [unintelligible] to you. Did you hear anything about that in your review? What evidence would there be? Is there a video or a photograph?

MR. JACKSON: [unintelligible] Okay. Judge, can I come to sidebar? ~6:35–6:39: Sidebar Do you know the limits of the search that the Canton Police Department did around Mr. O'Keefe's body? How small of an area they searched when they first went there?

MR. JACKSON: Did you ever see a video of somebody with a leaf blower blowing snow off the ground?

MR. JACKSON: And did you see the confined area in which that happened?

MR. JACKSON: Have you seen any information or evidence whatsoever that the pieces of tail light that were found after that search — have you seen any evidence that they were found in that exact area, or were they found in different areas on the lot?

MR. JACKSON: And so when there was a snow blower or a leaf blower search in that area, there would not be a piece of plastic tail light to find if it was never there, would there be?

MR. JACKSON: Is that what you're saying?

MR. JACKSON: Did you notice in the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, most of them are on the right side of his body?

MR. JACKSON: When you're conducting an investigation or doing your analysis, and you keep saying the physics and the physics, do you add a little bit of common sense in the equation when you're considering the evidence?

MR. JACKSON: So, when you have common sense and you look at the big picture, it's not just physics. It's considering all of the evidence, right?

MR. JACKSON: That's the line you were laughing about in the documentary — is one of your answers that you were all celebrating, isn't it?

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

MR. JACKSON: Isn't it?

MR. JACKSON: How'd that tail break, sir? How'd it break that night? How did —

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. No further questions.