About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Full cross-examination of ARCCA expert Andrew Rentschler in Karen Read trial from CBS Boston, published November 1, 2026. The transcript contains 16,975 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Facts matter, don't they? They do, yes, sir. You said it many, many times, facts matter. Isn't that correct? It was details, but facts matter, too. Do details matter, doctor? They do. They're critical, aren't they? If you want to prove that something happened a certain way, they're critical, yes,..."
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Facts matter, don't they? They do, yes, sir. You said it many, many times, facts matter. Isn't that correct?
[00:00:08] Dr. Rentschler: It was details, but facts matter, too. Do details matter, doctor? They do.
[00:00:13] Speaker 1: They're critical, aren't they?
[00:00:15] Dr. Rentschler: If you want to prove that something happened a certain way, they're critical, yes, sir.
[00:00:19] Speaker 1: When you were talking to the jury and giving opinions about where Mr. O'Keefe Meyer fell or not fell, you were discussing where Mr. O'Keefe was lying on the side of the yard, weren't you?
[00:00:32] Dr. Rentschler: Where he came to rest. Came to rest. Well, approximately, we don't know the exact position, but yes.
[00:00:37] Speaker 1: You said 10 to 20 feet, didn't you? I believe so, yes. You said that three times, 10 to 20 feet. Do you think Mr. O'Keefe was 20 feet from the roadway?
[00:00:49] Dr. Rentschler: Well, from, I think he's maybe 10 feet, but 20 feet is from, if you're hit by the car, you need some distance to travel. He couldn't travel just horizontally or perpendicularly. So it would be at least 10 to 20 feet if you look at the total distance. You have no idea where the point of impact was in this collision, do you? Nobody does.
[00:01:10] Speaker 1: I'm asking you, not nobody. Yeah. You, excuse me, sir.
[00:01:14] Speaker 3: So let, go ahead and ask the question.
[00:01:16] Speaker 1: Dr. Rentschler, before this jury, have no idea where the point of impact was of this collision, do you?
[00:01:25] Dr. Rentschler: That's correct. There's no evidence.
[00:01:27] Speaker 1: Could you play exhibit two, please? When you were given your estimate, 10 to 20 feet, Dr. Rentschler, did you ever see this photograph before or part of this video? I'm sure I have. Well, when you say you're sure you have, are you guessing or have you seen it or not seen it?
[00:01:45] Dr. Rentschler: I'm sure I've seen this before, yes.
[00:01:47] Speaker 1: So you've seen this before?
[00:01:48] Dr. Rentschler: Yes.
[00:01:49] Speaker 1: And when you looked at this video, did you look at the street and look at the area where Mr. O'Keefe was? Sure, yes. Sure?
[00:01:57] Dr. Rentschler: Yes.
[00:01:58] Speaker 1: 20 feet, Dr. Rentschler?
[00:02:01] Dr. Rentschler: The way I explained it to you, yes, sir, 10 to 20 feet. Details matter, don't they? They certainly do, yes, sir.
[00:02:07] Speaker 1: Can you take that down, please? Did you speak to anybody today, before you testified, about Dr. Welcher's testimony in court?
[00:02:20] Dr. Rentschler: I did not today, no, sir.
[00:02:22] Speaker 1: Before today, did you speak to anybody about Dr. Welcher's testimony?
[00:02:27] Dr. Rentschler: I did not, no, sir.
[00:02:28] Speaker 1: At any point, did anybody discuss certain issues with you today that they said would be particularly important?
[00:02:36] Dr. Rentschler: I don't believe so, no, sir.
[00:02:37] Speaker 1: When you began your testimony yesterday, before you even finished your credentials, you began talking about your work with the NHL and how important it was to use a 50% hybrid degree dummy. Do you remember that testimony?
[00:02:52] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes, sir.
[00:02:54] Speaker 1: And you hadn't even finished your credentials yet. Was it brought to your attention that there was an issue in the testing because you or Dr. Wolfe, or you and Dr. Wolfe chose to use a 50% dummy?
[00:03:08] Dr. Rentschler: Not at all, no, sir.
[00:03:09] Speaker 1: In your preparation for your testimony, was it discussed at all that at the beginning you should get ahead of the issue and talk about the 50% dummy?
[00:03:18] Dr. Rentschler: I didn't know it was an issue, no, sir.
[00:03:19] Speaker 1: Well, you know that the 50% dummy represents somebody who's 5'9", correct?
[00:03:25] Dr. Rentschler: Approximately, yes, sir.
[00:03:26] Speaker 1: Approximately 173 pounds?
[00:03:29] Dr. Rentschler: 171, 172, somewhere around there.
[00:03:31] Speaker 1: And Mr. O'Keefe, how much did he weigh?
[00:03:34] Dr. Rentschler: Uh, 216, I believe.
[00:03:36] Speaker 1: How tall was he?
[00:03:37] Dr. Rentschler: He was 73 inches, I believe.
[00:03:39] Speaker 1: So that is not a representative height and weight for Mr. O'Keefe, is it?
[00:03:45] Dr. Rentschler: That height and weight? No, sir.
[00:03:47] Speaker 1: And so if you were making projections or analysis based on limb weights, they would be inaccurate if you didn't make adjustments, correct?
[00:03:57] Dr. Rentschler: Well, they would certainly, the force on the limb would be less if you use a lighter limb. So if Mr. O'Keefe is heavier than the hybrid 3, and I use a hybrid 3, the forces I calculate would be an underestimate of the actual force acting on his body.
[00:04:12] Speaker 1: If you didn't make an adjustment, but you relied on the numbers from the test 3, the hybrid 3 dummy, ultimately the conclusions would be off, wouldn't they?
[00:04:25] Dr. Rentschler: They would be an underestimate. Yes, the actual forces would be higher.
[00:04:28] Speaker 1: And so did you make any conclusions, or did you know that when Dr. Wolf did his tests using the hybrid 3 dummy, he didn't make any adjustments?
[00:04:42] Dr. Rentschler: What do you mean? What adjustments would he make? You get the acceleration, but the acceleration's not going to change, and that's what we utilize. Then you can scale the weight of the body, but I'm not sure what he would have made adjustments for.
[00:04:53] Speaker 1: When you looked at the ratio, force and mass, if you use a lighter weight, mass changes, doesn't it?
[00:05:01] Dr. Rentschler: If you use a light, sure, yes.
[00:05:03] Speaker 1: And that changes the force equation, doesn't it?
[00:05:06] Dr. Rentschler: That can, yes.
[00:05:08] Speaker 1: And so when you were discussing yesterday at the beginning of your testimony about the 50% dummy, had that issue been raised with you? No, sir, it had not. You had testified before, hadn't you? In this case? Yes. Yes, sir. And you knew there was a sequestration order?
[00:05:27] Dr. Rentschler: Prior? Yes. Yeah, I didn't discuss the case with anyone, no, sir.
[00:05:32] Speaker 1: Well, you didn't discuss it with anybody, you said?
[00:05:35] Dr. Rentschler: I did not, no.
[00:05:36] Speaker 1: Before you testified last year, you were receiving information from your employer about issues and testimony in the case.
[00:05:46] Dr. Rentschler: The party that retained us told us things. I didn't break any sequestration. They were the ones in contact with the court. So it was my assumption that whatever they were telling me was allowed by the court. They were the client. I didn't discuss anything with them or tell them anything. But, yes, they told us certain things.
[00:06:03] Speaker 1: Before you testified on the road last year, you were getting updates from your employer about details of this case, weren't you?
[00:06:12] Speaker 4: Section 9, there'll be a question.
[00:06:15] Speaker 3: Maybe we can approach briefly.
[00:06:33] Speaker ?: Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question.
[00:09:14] Speaker 1: Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question.
[00:09:32] Dr. Rentschler: Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question.
[00:09:55] Speaker ?: Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question. Section 10, there'll be a question.
[00:10:24] Speaker 1: Did you testify under oath that they did inform me, yes, about testimony and situations and events that came forth in the event that I was not aware of?
[00:10:36] Dr. Rentschler: I don't know. They told us about evidence. I don't know if it was specific to who testified to what, but they told us certain things, certainly, yes. What I just said to you, are those your words, sir? I have no idea. I mean, if that's what's in the record, I assume it is.
[00:10:59] Speaker 1: Would you agree it certainly helped you prepare?
[00:11:04] Dr. Rentschler: It helped me prepare? Yes. It didn't make a difference to my analysis or conclusions.
[00:11:09] Speaker 1: It made no difference at all?
[00:11:10] Dr. Rentschler: It did not. No, sir.
[00:11:12] Speaker 1: Would you agree it helped you understand what was going on during the trial?
[00:11:17] Dr. Rentschler: I don't think it made a difference at all, no. It doesn't change the facts that I evaluated or the analysis I conducted or the conclusions I came to.
[00:11:27] Speaker 1: And so as you sit here today, you are denying that that information certainly helped you prepare?
[00:11:36] Dr. Rentschler: How did it help me prepare? It didn't change the opinions I offered. It didn't change what was in my report or what I'm opining to or testifying to today. It hasn't changed anything I've ever testified to.
[00:11:49] Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you a very specific question. I want you to give an very specific objection vote.
[00:11:53] Speaker 3: So just go ahead and ask the question.
[00:11:56] Speaker 1: Are you denying that receiving that information certainly helped you prepare?
[00:12:03] Speaker ?: Are you denying that?
[00:12:04] Dr. Rentschler: I don't honestly, I can't remember. It didn't change my opinion. I don't see how it would help me prepare. I remember there was evidence about trace DNA found that we didn't know before. That didn't change my opinion then. It doesn't change my opinion now. It doesn't have anything to do with my opinion.
[00:12:20] Speaker 1: Details matter, right, sir? Details can matter.
[00:12:23] Dr. Rentschler: Details matter.
[00:12:24] Speaker 1: So let's talk about the details. Sure. Are you denying that receiving that information certainly helped you prepare? Are you denying it?
[00:12:33] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow it.
[00:12:35] Dr. Rentschler: I don't think that it did. It's been a year, but certainly it didn't change any of my opinions or what I opined to. It didn't change anything with my testimony.
[00:12:44] Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you one more time. I'll ask you a different question. Are you receiving that information from your employer? Are you denying it helped you understand what was going on during the trial?
[00:13:00] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow that.
[00:13:03] Dr. Rentschler: I don't even think that it did. I don't understand it. I understood what was happening. I understood what the theory was. So saying that there's trace DNA doesn't change anything. It doesn't affect what my understanding of the trial was or what was happening or what allegedly occurred.
[00:13:19] Speaker 1: When you were traveling out to testify last year, you had phone conversations with the defense, didn't you?
[00:13:32] Dr. Rentschler: I think I had like two phone conversations, two or three. I agree. So that sounds like a yes. You did. Yeah. There was one right before my qualifications, my voir dire, where I talked to Mr. Jackson. And that was it. Other than that, I think it was just planning and scheduling.
[00:13:49] Speaker ?: Okay.
[00:13:50] Speaker 1: Was there any discussion on how you could portray yourself as independent?
[00:14:01] Dr. Rentschler: I don't believe there was.
[00:14:02] Speaker 1: You don't believe.
[00:14:03] Dr. Rentschler: Yeah. There was no need to.
[00:14:05] Speaker 1: There was no need to. That's not the question. Details matter. Was there any attempt that you--
[00:14:13] Speaker 3: So the objections sustained, I'm going to strike that, folks. Okay. Questions, Mr. Brennan.
[00:14:20] Speaker 1: Was there any attempt in your conversations to portray yourself as independent as far as your arrangements were concerned in coming out here?
[00:14:30] Dr. Rentschler: No, I don't think so because there was no need to because it was independent.
[00:14:33] Speaker 1: When you had conversations with the defense, did they offer to give you transportation assistance getting here?
[00:14:42] Dr. Rentschler: They provided a ride to and from the airport, yes.
[00:14:45] Speaker 1: Did you tell the defense that you prefer to take an Uber so that it would appear independent to a jury?
[00:14:55] Dr. Rentschler: No, because I didn't take an Uber. I took their ride. If I wanted to appear independent, then I would have taken an Uber.
[00:15:02] Speaker 1: Did I have a conversation about that you were thinking about taking an Uber?
[00:15:06] Dr. Rentschler: It didn't even cross my mind, sir.
[00:15:08] Speaker 1: And then after you testified, did you stay independent?
[00:15:14] Dr. Rentschler: What do you mean independent?
[00:15:16] Speaker 1: Well, did you have any bias more than you?
[00:15:19] Dr. Rentschler: Any bias?
[00:15:20] Speaker 1: Bias, yes.
[00:15:21] Dr. Rentschler: What do you mean? Did I have any bias?
[00:15:23] Speaker 1: Well, after you testified, where did you go?
[00:15:26] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I was waiting for my ride and to get back to the airport, they had to take other people and so they were having a lunch afterwards and they said, come have a sandwich and then your ride will take you to the airport. So I went and I had a ham sandwich.
[00:15:40] Speaker 1: You had a ham sandwich. Did you testify at some point that after you had something to eat, you just stood in the corner?
[00:15:48] Dr. Rentschler: I did. I sat at a table, ate and then went over and literally stood in the corner waiting for my ride. When you sat at the table and ate, did you just eat your ham sandwich or did more go on? I ate. People were talking. I really didn't talk much at all.
[00:16:04] Speaker 1: Did you listen?
[00:16:06] Dr. Rentschler: Well, certainly I'm sure I did, sir.
[00:16:08] Speaker 1: Did you laugh along?
[00:16:09] Dr. Rentschler: I assume if something funny was said, I probably laughed.
[00:16:12] Speaker 1: Did you talk about your testimony?
[00:16:15] Dr. Rentschler: I don't. At this point, I don't even remember.
[00:16:18] Speaker 1: Let me alert you to something. When you were there at the luncheon, did you see a camera proof?
[00:16:24] Dr. Rentschler: I believe I did. Yes, sir.
[00:16:26] Speaker 1: Filming and documenting, right?
[00:16:29] Dr. Rentschler: There were a lot of cameras. Yes.
[00:16:31] Speaker 1: Did you know that you might have been on some of that footage?
[00:16:34] Dr. Rentschler: That's fine. I could care less.
[00:16:36] Speaker 1: Okay. So do you think maybe you were talking about the case and their answers and laughing it up a little bit?
[00:16:43] Dr. Rentschler: I have no idea. Possibly. You were involved in conversations with the defense attorneys, were you? What do you mean conversations, sir? I had just gotten done testifying. I was having lunch. Whatever was spoken about at the table, I'm sure I heard. You know what a conversation is when someone speaks to you and you answer.
[00:17:02] Speaker 1: Sure. Did you have conversations with some of these folks?
[00:17:05] Dr. Rentschler: Sir, I can't remember conversations I had last week, let alone a year ago. So I probably did, but I have no clue what we would have talked about.
[00:17:15] Speaker 1: Do you remember accolades you might have been receiving because you had given certain answers to the then prosecutor on the case and laughing about the answers?
[00:17:25] Dr. Rentschler: I have no idea.
[00:17:27] Speaker 1: Do you remember?
[00:17:28] Dr. Rentschler: I can't remember last week what I had for lunch last Tuesday. How would I remember a conversation from over a year ago?
[00:17:34] Speaker 1: Do you remember when you were having conversations with some of these folks and you were laughing about when the prosecutor asked you about other evidence like DNA? You had a response while the physics doesn't change? Do you remember anything?
[00:17:53] Dr. Rentschler: I don't specifically remember that. No, sir.
[00:17:55] Speaker 1: How long were you at the table eating your ham sandwich with the folks there enjoying the event?
[00:18:03] Dr. Rentschler: How long do you think that went on for? I honestly don't know. Ten minutes? How long does it take you to eat a ham sandwich? Ten minutes?
[00:18:10] Speaker 1: And after you finished your ham sandwich and then you told us you stood in a corner, you got a ride back to the airport?
[00:18:18] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes, sir.
[00:18:19] Speaker 1: After you got back to the airport, ultimately your company billed the defense for your time preparing and traveling and testifying?
[00:18:31] Dr. Rentschler: I believe they did.
[00:18:34] Speaker 1: Well, you wrote your bills down, didn't you? You wrote your time down?
[00:18:40] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I wrote my, I don't know who gets billed to it. I think it was actually, I wrote my time down and it was the same time code for the original employer that we had. I'm not involved in billing. I don't know who the bill goes out to. I just put my time in and do my work.
[00:18:53] Speaker 1: Do you know that the defense paid that bill?
[00:18:55] Dr. Rentschler: I have no idea if they paid it or not.
[00:18:58] Speaker 1: And then I would have a new contract with the defense. Or I should say you have a contract with the defense, don't you?
[00:19:04] Dr. Rentschler: I assume ARCA does. Again, I'm not involved in that. I don't do any part of the financials. I just do my job.
[00:19:10] Speaker 1: Do you keep your billing?
[00:19:12] Dr. Rentschler: I enter my billing every week, yes.
[00:19:14] Speaker 1: Do you know how much you've been paid so far in this case?
[00:19:17] Dr. Rentschler: I haven't been paid anything. I'm a salaried employee for ARCA. I have no idea how much ARCA's been paid.
[00:19:23] Speaker 1: How much has ARCA been paid because of your work so far? I have no idea.
[00:19:27] Dr. Rentschler: I'm not involved in the financials, sir.
[00:19:29] Speaker 1: You have no idea how much time, how much compensation your company is going to get for the work that you've done and continue to do on this case? You have no idea?
[00:19:38] Dr. Rentschler: That's not my concern. It's not my department, so I don't. Is that a no? Yeah, that's a no, sir.
[00:19:44] Speaker 1: Now, when you communicated with the defense, you texted, didn't you? When? At any point. There were some texts, yes. And at some point there was a court order for you to bring a copy of your text? I believe so, yes. Well, when you say you believe so, details matter. Yeah. Do you know whether there was a court order for you to bring your texts?
[00:20:11] Dr. Rentschler: I believe there was, yes. Did you comply with that court order? I complied with, yes, with whatever I had. Did you have any of the text messages? I don't believe so.
[00:20:22] Speaker 1: What happened?
[00:20:23] Dr. Rentschler: Well, there were like two text messages about where I could get my ride and what time. And so after that day, like I do many times, I'd probably erase those texts.
[00:20:33] Speaker 1: When you say probably, did you delete the text that you had with the defense last year during the trial?
[00:20:40] Dr. Rentschler: Again, I had like two texts about scheduling, and I'm sure I deleted them like sometime around that time like I do with most texts.
[00:20:48] Speaker 1: Did you ever use Signal?
[00:20:50] Dr. Rentschler: I did not, no, sir. Why not? I have no need to. Why would you have a need to?
[00:20:57] Speaker 3: Objection. I'm going to allow it.
[00:20:59] Dr. Rentschler: I wouldn't have a need to. That's why I said I don't use it. What's Signal for? It's for, I think, for encrypted messages.
[00:21:08] Speaker 1: Do any of your colleagues use Signal to have conversations with their clients? Objection.
[00:21:14] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow that, that you're aware.
[00:21:17] Dr. Rentschler: I have no idea what my fellow employees or cohorts do. One of your fellow employees is a gentleman by the name of Dr. Wolf.
[00:21:26] Speaker 1: Yeah? You worked very closely with him on this case, didn't you? I've worked with him on this case, yes, sir. And working with him on this case, were you aware of his habits of whether or not he uses encrypted apps like Signal? Yes, you know.
[00:21:38] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow it.
[00:21:39] Dr. Rentschler: I'm not aware of Dr. Wolf's habits. No, sir.
[00:21:42] Speaker 1: When you worked on this case when you began, you worked with a gentleman by the name of Mr. Klein?
[00:21:54] Dr. Rentschler: Scott Klein is another engineer at ARCA that worked on the case, correct? And you worked with Dr. Wolf? That's correct, yes. You worked as a group? Well, I mean, we all worked on the project together. I'm located in the Pittsburgh office, and Mr. Klein and Dr. Wolf are in the Philadelphia office. So we didn't physically work together, but we worked on the same project, obviously.
[00:22:16] Speaker 1: When you first began your testimony yesterday, you said that you were restrained in what you could do. Do you remember that testimony? I do, yes. And when you said you were restrained, were you attempting like a preemptive strike because of certain things you didn't do to try to ward off any questions about that suggestion?
[00:22:35] Speaker 3: Sustained.
[00:22:36] Speaker 1: Let me ask it this way. Were the rules different regarding your initial investigation for you as opposed to Dr. Wolf?
[00:22:45] Dr. Rentschler: I don't know that they were. I don't believe they were.
[00:22:49] Speaker 1: Did Dr. Wolf have free reign to do whatever he wanted?
[00:22:54] Speaker 3: Objection.
[00:22:55] Speaker 1: Sustained. Were you given free reign to do whatever testing you wanted? I don't believe we were, no. You though, were you? Was I? Yes, were you given free reign to do whatever testing you wanted?
[00:23:10] Dr. Rentschler: I mean, there were there was budgets and we had to stay within certain values. So I wouldn't say I was given free reign because I couldn't do whatever I wanted. Can anybody tell you what tests you could or couldn't do? I don't think there was a list of specific tests or not, but you would discuss what would be done or what we could do and what the cost of those tests would be.
[00:23:33] Speaker 1: Were you free to suggest any tests that you wanted to?
[00:23:37] Dr. Rentschler: I'm assuming I could suggest whatever I wanted to. Sure. Were any of your suggestions denied? I can't remember. I don't know that they were. I mean, we had a very, what we were constrained is what the client wanted to know. And so we tailored our tests to do that and tried to keep the budget and the cost of what we did in our analysis down for that very purpose. Could you have suggested crash tests? Probably could have suggested whatever I want. Did you suggest crash tests? Honestly, I don't know. I mean, it might have been brought up, but pretty sure that would not have been within the budget, so. I want you to be detailed. I don't want you to guess.
[00:24:21] Speaker 3: So without that, Priya, go ahead and just ask the question, please.
[00:24:26] Dr. Rentschler: Did you suggest doing crash tests last year? I can't remember. We obviously didn't, but I don't know if that was brought up or not. Do you, since your memory is difficult.
[00:24:39] Speaker 3: Suggestion. Sustained. Okay.
[00:24:42] Speaker ?: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[00:26:41] Speaker 1: Thank you. Do you remember things, do you write them down? That's one of the ways you can do it, sure. Do you do it? Do you write down things so you don't forget? Depends what it is.
[00:27:22] Dr. Rentschler: You provided a CV, which is a resume.
[00:27:43] Speaker 1: You provided a CV, which is a resume? That's correct, yes. Resume outlines your education? Yes, sir. Areas of specialty? Correct. And then it highlights your accomplishments as far as the focus of your specialty or the focus of your profession, what you like or what you do a lot, right? Some of it, yes, sir. So, for example, you have a number of publications at a peer review. Correct. And peer review publications mean that you've written something that's been evaluated and considered by other experts in the industry and have been adopted or recognized, correct? Well, that it's been published, yes, sir. You have a long list of peer-reviewed articles dating back to 2003. Is that correct?
[00:28:42] Dr. Rentschler: As I said yesterday, most of my peer-reviewed articles are all written when I was in graduate school. Correct.
[00:28:48] Speaker 1: Have you had any peer-reviewed articles since 2003? Probably not, no. And your peer-reviewed articles, 2003, deal with the evaluation of selected electric-powered wheelchairs?
[00:29:02] Dr. Rentschler: That was one of them, yes, sir.
[00:29:04] Speaker 1: And the next one, intelligent walkers for the elderly? Correct. And the evaluation of fatigue life for three types of manual wheelchairs? Yes, sir. Evaluation of a pushroom-activated power-assisted wheelchair? Correct. Displacement between the seating surface and hybrid testing dummy during transitions with the variable configuration wheelchair?
[00:29:32] Dr. Rentschler: The hybrid three, yes, sir.
[00:29:34] Speaker 1: Assessment of manual wheelchair ride?
[00:29:37] Dr. Rentschler: Correct. In fact, I was looking at forces and accelerations on the body.
[00:29:41] Speaker 1: Fatigue life of two manual wheelchair cross-braced designs? Yes, sir. Evaluation of selected ultralight manual wheelchairs? Yes, sir. Augmentation of 100-key ISO wheelchair test dummy to accommodate higher mass?
[00:30:00] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, sir.
[00:30:01] Speaker 1: And so you would agree that all of your peer-reviewed articles deal with wheelchairs?
[00:30:08] Dr. Rentschler: Well, wheelchairs and the kinematics and kinetics forces associated with propelling wheelchairs and injuries associated with that, yes, sir.
[00:30:16] Speaker 1: Do any of them deal with pedestrian collisions? No, they don't. You've written a book chapter? Yes, sir. Smart technology for aging? Yes, sir. And again, nothing on pedestrian accidents? That's correct. Expanded abstracts? You've written a few? I have, yes, sir. Suffice to say, dealing with wheelchairs?
[00:30:48] Dr. Rentschler: And assistive technology, that's correct, yes, sir.
[00:30:51] Speaker 1: Any have to do with pedestrian collisions?
[00:30:54] Dr. Rentschler: I don't believe so, no.
[00:30:58] Speaker 1: Looking at your CV, you can note any area of specialty you'd like, correct?
[00:31:08] Dr. Rentschler: You can put down whatever you like, I suppose, sure. Sure.
[00:31:12] Speaker 1: Have you listed any specialty as pedestrian collisions?
[00:31:17] Dr. Rentschler: Well, not specifically. That actually falls under impact, biomechanics, biomechanical injury causation. So I didn't list it specifically, but it certainly falls under the actual expertise I perform.
[00:31:42] Speaker 1: Now, doctor, when you worked with Dr. Wolf, did you have a chance to look at his report? I did, yes. If you saw anything in the report that was off or mistaken, would you have an opportunity to discuss that with him? I'm sure I would, yes, sir. Did you find anything about his report that was wrong as far as data?
[00:32:06] Dr. Rentschler: I don't recall. If I did, I probably would have talked to him, but I don't recall. You and Dr. Wolf were collaborating together, weren't you? Yes, sir.
[00:32:16] Speaker 1: And when you collaborate, you relied on each other's data at the time, didn't you? To some extent, yes. Some things Dr. Wolf did, you relied on ultimately for your interpretation and your conclusions. I did, yes. Did you write a report and talked about the acceleration of the ATD, the test dummies, regarding its hands and arms? I did, yes. When you wrote your report talking about this very specific data, do you remember what you determined was the acceleration for the ADT right hand at 29 miles per hour? How many G's that was?
[00:33:02] Dr. Rentschler: Let's see. Accelerations for the right hand. Page six. Yeah, it looks like 863 G's.
[00:33:13] Speaker 1: And when you were comparing data with Dr. Wolf, if something was different or off, would you correct it? I'd talk to him about it, sure. Okay. Did you ever talk to him about his collection of data regarding peak acceleration that the arm and hand experienced by the 29-mile-per-hour collision?
[00:33:34] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I think that 863 is from the CFC 1,000 hertz low-pass filter. And in his report, he used a lower number from a 180 hertz. So they're both accurate numbers. It's just how you actually filter the data. So you know what I'm talking about, right? Oh, I do, yeah. And I ended up using a lower number than when I did my calculations.
[00:33:59] Speaker 1: Could we have Exhibit 1, please? You've talked a lot about this photograph. Do you see it? I do, sir, yes. And you described, well, you didn't describe, you read that these were superficial operations, correct?
[00:34:25] Dr. Rentschler: That's the diagnosis, yes, sir.
[00:34:28] Speaker 1: Any of those wounds of puncture in your mind?
[00:34:31] Dr. Rentschler: I don't make medical diagnoses, so I'm not going to comment on that, sir.
[00:34:35] Speaker 1: Well, you talked about x-rays and injury. I know you don't make medical diagnosis, but you were very careful to be detailed about what this was. Not a laceration, right? It is a superficial abrasion.
[00:34:49] Dr. Rentschler: That was what was diagnosed by the medical records, yes, sir.
[00:34:52] Speaker 1: And you were very careful to make that distinction when you were critiquing Dr. Walter, weren't you? Yes.
[00:34:58] Speaker 3: Sustained.
[00:34:58] Speaker 1: And so you also looked at x-rays, didn't you?
[00:35:03] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, sir.
[00:35:03] Speaker 1: And when you look at them, did you try to give the impression that you've read them, even though you're not a doctor and you can interpret them? Yes, I'm sustained. Were you trying to interpret them for us?
[00:35:14] Dr. Rentschler: No, it was actually interpreted by the medical examiner that there were no acute injuries.
[00:35:17] Speaker 1: So when you were giving all that information to the jury about the x-rays, was that your personal opinion, or were you just regurgitating something you had read?
[00:35:27] Dr. Rentschler: That was the medical examiner's opinion, but certainly you can look at the x-rays and see that there are no actual fracture lines or space displacement between the joints. But it's the medical examiner and his diagnoses that I rely upon.
[00:35:42] Speaker 1: So when you were going through an explanation of all these different photographs and x-rays, you weren't trying to portray that you were giving your own personal opinion about it?
[00:35:52] Dr. Rentschler: I don't give diagnoses, but if there's no fractures on an x-ray as diagnosed by an MD or physician, you can look at the x-ray, and then you can see why there are no fractures. You can look at the x-ray and see where the fractures are if there's a diagnosis. So the diagnosis was no fracture, no acute injury, and that's certainly consistent with looking at the x-ray itself.
[00:36:14] Speaker 1: So when you were looking up the x-ray and holding it up, was that just a prop? I mean, were you simply just regurgitating what you read in the report? Were you doing a certain kind of analysis yourself when you were sharing with us what those x-rays showed or didn't show?
[00:36:30] Dr. Rentschler: The analysis is that there's no fracture or acute injury, and that's what the medical diagnosis is, and that's what the x-rays showed.
[00:36:39] Speaker 1: Are you giving us your opinion, or are you regurgitating what you read in a report?
[00:36:45] Dr. Rentschler: That is what the medical diagnosis is, that there's no fractures and no acute injuries. That's what the medical opinion is. So you're regurgitating what's in the report?
[00:36:55] Speaker 3: Sustained enough.
[00:36:57] Speaker 1: Did you see any MRIs?
[00:37:00] Dr. Rentschler: I don't believe any MRIs were taken or performed. In x-rays, does it depict deep, soft tissue damage? Normally, it does not depict soft tissue damage, no. How about muscle tears? No, it does not. How about tendon tears? Not normally, except you can see laxity in the joints if there is tendon or ligament tears. Normally, you can see laxity in the joints, but it doesn't show the ligament or the tendon itself. Nerve injuries? No, sir. Avulsion fractures?
[00:37:31] Speaker 1: Yes, sir. People sometimes get MRIs to see if there's a fracture that doesn't appear in an x-ray. Yes?
[00:37:40] Dr. Rentschler: Sometimes. X-rays are the best for looking at bony fractures. MRIs, looking at soft tissue injuries.
[00:37:46] Speaker 1: Speaking of wounds, you've cited a number of references, a number of materials in your reports, haven't you? I have, yes, sir. And one of them that you've cited is forensic cathology. Yes, sir. This is a legitimate source to you, correct? Yes, sir. And you've relied on it for at least part of the basis of your study or opinions.
[00:38:09] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I relied on it because it speaks and looks at the difference between, for instance, a laceration and an abrasion.
[00:38:16] Speaker 1: A person could be struck by a motor vehicle and not indicate any bruising to that area, wouldn't you say?
[00:38:27] Dr. Rentschler: At what speed, what part of the vehicle were they contacted, what part of the potty were they contacted? It depends on the amount of force associated with that. There's a number of variables involved.
[00:38:37] Speaker 1: Does the absence of a bruise indicate that there was no blunt force trauma to the area?
[00:38:47] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow it. Can you answer that?
[00:38:50] Dr. Rentschler: Well, the absence of a bruise, can you repeat that again? You're talking about bruising. Yes.
[00:38:56] Speaker 1: Does the absence of a bruise necessarily indicate there was no blunt force trauma to an area?
[00:39:04] Dr. Rentschler: No, you have to look at all the evidence and you have to look at the force. If there's 4,000 pounds of force applied to the body or to the arm, then certainly you would expect a bruise. And if there's no bruise, then you would have to question if that impact or contact actually occurred. You don't just look at that by itself in isolation. You look at all the variables and facts involved with the case to determine if an injury occurred.
[00:39:27] Speaker 1: Have you ever seen collisions where more than one person was hit or struck by the vehicle? Multiple pedestrians, you mean? Yes. Yes, sir. And have you ever seen in a collision where the vehicle is going the same speed when it hits multiple different people, there can be multiple different injuries?
[00:39:49] Dr. Rentschler: That is so vague, and you'd have to go back and look at a specific case, look at the injuries, look at the vehicle, look at the people. You can't just say, is it possible this could occur. You have to look at a specific case and demonstrate that that could actually happen.
[00:40:04] Speaker 1: Well, I'm not asking this possible. I'm asking your experience. I'm going to allow that. Have you ever been involved in evaluating multiple pedestrian crash where there are multiple pedestrians hit by one vehicle and they sustain different or, in some cases, no injuries? Does that ever happen in your study?
[00:40:28] Dr. Rentschler: Sure, because it depends where they're hit and what part of the body they're hit on, what the force is for that hit. The people aren't going to be hit the same multiply by one vehicle. You can certainly have multiple people in different types of injuries.
[00:40:40] Speaker 1: Have you seen people hit by a vehicle at a particular speed and have certain injuries, and then you've seen other cases where people who are hit by a vehicle at a similar speed but have no injuries? Have you ever seen that?
[00:40:55] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow it.
[00:40:56] Dr. Rentschler: So what do you mean by injuries?
[00:40:58] Speaker 1: Have you ever seen, in any of your cases, a pedestrian hit at a certain speed and have injuries in another case where you look at whether there is a similar type of collision with different injuries?
[00:41:14] Dr. Rentschler: So, again, do you mean abrasions, laceration, fracture? Do you mean same cards? It's not something that you look for and compare between cases. You'd have to go back and actually study the cases and look at the details.
[00:41:28] Speaker 1: Having experience in pedestrian collisions, you can't think of a similarity between cases as far as vehicles and speeds and totally different injuries occurring.
[00:41:38] Speaker 3: Yes. I'm going to allow that. Can you?
[00:41:41] Dr. Rentschler: I don't believe I've ever seen a case where two people were hit with the same car at the same speed, with the same force, with different injuries. I don't even know if you can correlate that.
[00:42:02] Speaker 1: Looking at exhibit one, have you done any study about the directionality of glass or broken plastic? What do you mean by directionality? About when something shatters, how it shatters. Does it shatter the same every time or when plastic shatters, does it shatter differently? I mean, it certainly depends on the impact. Do you have any studies where plastic shatters exactly the same way on different impacts?
[00:42:28] Dr. Rentschler: I doubt that it shatters exactly the same way.
[00:42:31] Speaker 1: It has a lot of different variables, doesn't it? It could. Depends on a number of different equations, doesn't it?
[00:42:40] Dr. Rentschler: Well, it depends on the testing you do. If you want to see how it shatters, and if you're claiming that it shattered in a certain way to cause a certain injury, if you don't have any peer-reviewed evidence, if you don't have any research, then you have to do the testing because you can't just say, well, it's possible it could shatter this way and cause that injury. That's not conclusive. You can't use that to come to an opinion about what happened. Oh, that wasn't what I was asking you.
[00:43:04] Speaker 1: I was asking you if you have seen in cases that when plastic breaks, it breaks differently.
[00:43:12] Dr. Rentschler: Well, sure. I mean, the testing we've done here, the taillights covers fractured differently, and we didn't get any contact. So I have personal experience just with this case alone.
[00:43:21] Speaker 1: We'll get to the contact. When you looked at all the tests you did, the plastic broke differently in each and every case, every experiment, didn't it?
[00:43:30] Dr. Rentschler: Sure, it's broken like that. And I've never seen a case where you get these types of abrasions. I didn't ask you that. Is that funny? It's not funny. Okay.
[00:43:42] Speaker 3: So I'm going to strike the comment. Next question. Next question, Mr. Brennan. No more comments.
[00:43:53] Speaker 1: When you did your experiments, the sizes of plastic that broke were different in each experiment, weren't they? They were, yes. The number of breaks in each experiment were different, weren't they? They were, yes. The angles of the break changed from piece to piece, experiment to experiment, didn't they? I'm sure they did. Did you watch the videos and watch the damage and take a look and count how many pieces broke in each experiment?
[00:44:27] Dr. Rentschler: I didn't specifically count, no. We looked at contact to the sleeve and to the dummy itself.
[00:44:33] Speaker 1: You never counted the broken pieces in each experiment?
[00:44:36] Dr. Rentschler: I did not. There was no need to. Not a matter if there's a need, did you? I did not. No, sir. Okay.
[00:44:44] Speaker 1: You had talked quite a bit about Dr. Welcher's test with the paint, so I want to ask you some questions about that. Were you ever under the impression that Mr. Welcher – you can take that down, please? Were you ever under the impression that Dr. Welcher was trying to reenact the actual collision when he did that blue test?
[00:45:05] Speaker 3: Injection, Your Honor. I'm going to allow it.
[00:45:08] Dr. Rentschler: Well, that was the only test he performed, and he referenced that test for his opinion that the position and orientation of the lacerations are consistent with the taillight cover. So if that test was not intended to signify or demonstrate the position of the arm, he has no evidence to say the position and orientation of the arm in the lacerations, which are abrasions, are consistent with the taillight cover. That's the only test he did. So if it doesn't represent that, it's really meaningless in his analysis and conclusions.
[00:45:45] Speaker 1: Now that you've shared your opinions, can I get back to my question?
[00:45:48] Speaker 3: Sustained. Sustained. So, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brent, I'm going to see counsel at Saibau.
[00:46:05] Speaker 1: Dr. Rentschler, you wrote a report back in February 2024? That's correct, yes, sir. And in that report, you provided a number of opinions, didn't you? I did, yes. Do you remember if you opined or had the opinion that the injuries on Mr. O'Keefe's arm would not result from impact with a non-damaged tail lamp cover?
[00:46:34] Dr. Rentschler: I believe that's correct, yes.
[00:46:36] Speaker 1: And the amount of force required to fracture the tail lamp cover would result in extensive soft tissue and likely bony injury to Mr. O'Keefe's right arm? Correct. And so your opinion back in 2004 was that if a person's arm were to cause the damage to that taillight on that Lexus, you would expect to see extensive soft tissue and likely bony injury?
[00:47:05] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, soft tissue referring to ligaments and tendons of the elbow and shoulder, correct, and the wrist. And so you're saying not superficial abrasions but in the arm? Yes, when you look at it and you can see from the testing we did for this case, for this round, that the arm extends and you have contact with the arm. You would expect at those speeds damage to the tendons and the ligaments, the elbow, the shoulder, likely the wrist.
[00:47:35] Speaker 1: In the x-rays that we looked at or that we saw and you offered the words of the medical expert, there is no MRI studying any ligament damage, is there? There are no MRIs that I'm aware of, no, sir. And x-rays wouldn't fairly depict some of those internal injuries that you're referring to, would they?
[00:47:56] Dr. Rentschler: As I described before, it can show laxity of the joint, but it normally doesn't show the actual soft tissue damage itself, no, sir.
[00:48:04] Speaker 1: And a crash test dummy is different than a person, isn't it?
[00:48:08] Dr. Rentschler: Certainly it is, yes.
[00:48:09] Speaker 1: No muscle? That's correct. No ligaments? That's correct. The crash test dummy does not react or respond like a human being?
[00:48:17] Dr. Rentschler: Well, it does to a certain extent, yes.
[00:48:19] Speaker 1: There are differences? Certainly there are, yes. And so when you're looking at a crash test dummy, you can agree that there are significant differences between what you might see on the dummy's arm and what would maybe happen to a human being's arm on the inside.
[00:48:35] Dr. Rentschler: There can be. That's why you have to look at the acceleration and the force, and that's primarily what the ATD is utilized for.
[00:48:41] Speaker 1: But focusing on the actual observation of the arm, you would agree, doctor, that looking at a crash test dummy arm is not comparable to actually looking into a human being's arm with an MRI and seeing if there's any damage on the inside?
[00:48:59] Dr. Rentschler: No, of course that they're not the same. No, sir.
[00:49:02] Speaker 1: You were speaking about references earlier. You did have a chance to see Dr. Welcher's report, didn't you? I did, yes. And in his report, there were a number of references, weren't there?
[00:49:13] Dr. Rentschler: There were different references, but I think maybe 26 within his report.
[00:49:17] Speaker 1: In addition to his references, you were sent a number of gigabytes of information, weren't you? I was, yes. And in those gigabytes, there was different references to different materials, wasn't there?
[00:49:28] Dr. Rentschler: Well, first of all, there were only 26 references in his report that he cited to for his opinions. There was material contained within the batch of documents that they sent over. There was a bibliography or CV of different papers that he had submitted, I think 20 pages of papers that weren't referenced in the original report. And the most recent paper in that auto-ped packet was from 2004. Most of them were from the 60s and 70s. But there was an additional packet of information.
[00:50:00] Speaker 1: When you read his report and saw his references, did you look up the references?
[00:50:05] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes, sir. Okay.
[00:50:06] Speaker 1: And when you were saying earlier that there was only one reference, you were referring to the paint test, correct?
[00:50:13] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I was referring to, there's only one reference specifically with respect to automobile pedestrian impacts.
[00:50:19] Speaker 1: When you looked at his references, sir, did you have an opportunity to read any of the articles? I did, yes, sir. And many of them are peer-reviewed? Yes, sir. In addition, when you looked at the 20 pages of materials he sent over that were not in his report, how many references did you read out of those 20 pages of references that he offered?
[00:50:44] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I didn't read any because they weren't referred to in his report for his actual opinions in this case.
[00:50:49] Speaker 1: Do you know whether or not he considered those references or whether he read those references?
[00:50:55] Speaker 3: I wouldn't allow that.
[00:50:56] Dr. Rentschler: He didn't cite to any of those references in either the PowerPoint presentation or in his report. That's the knowledge I have of whether he reviewed those. So you don't know what he considered a thought, do you? I know what he cited to and he referenced to in his report in PowerPoint. That's the extent.
[00:51:12] Speaker 1: The question is, you don't know what he was referring or reading or relying on other than what was in his report cited, correct?
[00:51:18] Dr. Rentschler: Well, right. If he referred to the other articles, yes, certainly other articles in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, he may have, but they don't really pertain to what happened in this case. How many references were in your May 7th report? I think there were.
[00:51:36] Speaker 4: Let's see.
[00:51:48] Speaker 1: 26, I think. Those 26 references, are they offered in your report to suggest some type of support for the proposition that you're promoting in the report?
[00:51:58] Dr. Rentschler: Well, they support the opinions or the methodology or both with respect to what I've offered in this matter.
[00:52:04] Speaker 1: The reason why you put a site in is suggesting that it supports whatever proposition you're footnoting on that, correct?
[00:52:10] Dr. Rentschler: To some extent or the methodology or some information pertinent to that opinion, yes, sir.
[00:52:15] Speaker 1: Regarding crash test dummies and prediction in soft tissue injury, you provided three sites, didn't you?
[00:52:24] Dr. Rentschler: In soft tissue injuries? Yes.
[00:52:27] Speaker 1: Can you show me where it says that, sir? Footnote 11 of your report, Mr. O'Keefe's right arm kinematics during impact with the Lexus are inconsistent with producing the documented cuts damage to his right sleeve as well as the abrasions to his right arm. Did you write that?
[00:52:43] Dr. Rentschler: Yes. And which one was that again? I just want to make sure.
[00:52:46] Speaker 1: What was the number? You cited footnotes 24, 25, and 26. Yes. And when you cited 24, 25, 26, did any of those three sites, in fact, those are the only sites that you cited for that proposition, correct? Yes, sir. So your entire basis of sites is limited to those three articles or three papers, yes?
[00:53:09] Dr. Rentschler: For reference, it's not, the testing obviously proves differently, but yes, for that one comment there, those were the three that were provided, yes.
[00:53:16] Speaker 1: Starting with number 24, when you looked at 24, did it ever suggest, in this paper, did it ever suggest that it was appropriate to use a crash test dummy and the material of a crash test dummy to make an analysis or determine whether or not there would be documented damage to someone's skin? No, it didn't, and that's not what I did in this matter. In this article you cite, supporting the claim that you made, there is nothing in here that would suggest that a crash test dummy is appropriate to use in making that determination, is there? There is not, no, sir. In fact, in this article, it gives you details on what actually should be used to make that analysis, doesn't it?
[00:54:14] Dr. Rentschler: No, sir. It looks at, it tells you certain ways to look at sharpness and how lacerations are caused.
[00:54:21] Speaker 1: This is titled Skin Tissue Cutability and Its Relation to Lacerations Severity Indices. You know that, you cited that.
[00:54:30] Dr. Rentschler: That's correct, and it looks at specifically, I think, laminated glass and its ability to cut the skin.
[00:54:35] Speaker 1: Number 24 in your site, correct? Yes. And it tells you three types of skin were examined and used for this type of study. Post-mortem human skin from two different body sites, cameos leather, and Napa goat skin.
[00:54:57] Dr. Rentschler: Is that correct? Right. To look specifically at laminated glass and its cutability of that type of glass.
[00:55:02] Speaker 1: And the reason why the study is giving those suggestions is because a crash test dummy's arm and fabric, the way it's made, is different than how real skin would respond. Yes? Oh, it is different, sure. Yeah. And I didn't do that type of comparison. You did not do any comparisons with any of the suggestions in the site that you cited in support for your proposition, did you?
[00:55:26] Dr. Rentschler: Oh, I did not evaluate that. No, not in that manner. No, sir.
[00:55:30] Speaker 1: And then you cited number 24 or 25. You cited a book, Forensic Pathology, correct? Correct. And in this forensic pathology book, in the entire book, it never suggests that crash test dummies are appropriate to use when making this type of analysis, does it?
[00:55:53] Dr. Rentschler: Correct. And that's why I would not do that type of analysis with respect to lacerations. That's not what my analysis involves, sir.
[00:55:59] Speaker 1: My question was, nowhere in that book does it say that crash test dummies are appropriate for analyzing skin lacerations on a collision, does it? Sure. I mean, for that sake, it doesn't say it's inappropriate either. And then you also cited an article, your third article, understanding the acute skin injury mechanisms caused by player surface contact during soccer. Did you cite that? I did, yes. And again, there's nothing in there that talks about the use, the appropriate use of a crash test dummy when you are trying to support the proposition that someone's arm is consistent or inconsistent with producing cuts and damage in a collision. That's correct. Are you aware of literature relative specifically to the use of the hybrid three crash test dummy, which was used in this case?
[00:56:59] Dr. Rentschler: There's a lot of literature with respect to the hybrid dummy, yes.
[00:57:02] Speaker 1: Have you ever heard of the person by the name of Stanley Bacatus? I don't recall that I have. Okay. How about Harold Mertz? Isn't he a leader in the field with crash test dummies? He is, yes. Would you agree that we also do not believe the current instrumented arm configuration is suitable either for prediction of soft tissue injuries?
[00:57:27] Dr. Rentschler: Would you agree with that? Well, for laceration, sure. It shouldn't be used for that. It shouldn't be used in that manner. That's why I don't use it in that manner.
[00:57:37] Speaker 1: Do you have any source that says it's suitable for determining superficial abrasions?
[00:57:43] Dr. Rentschler: I do not, no, sir.
[00:57:45] Speaker 1: You have no other sites whatsoever supporting that proposition, which led inevitably to one of the opinions you gave to this jury.
[00:57:53] Dr. Rentschler: True? No, not true. That's a misrepresentation of what I performed, the testing that I performed, and the results that I analyzed in this case.
[00:58:01] Speaker 1: Now, you've talked a lot about Dr. Welcher's pain test. You don't have any information that Dr. Welcher ever claimed that his test was intended to represent exactly how Mr. O'Keefe's arm was when he was hit, do you?
[00:58:21] Dr. Rentschler: Well, the evidence I have for that is that in his report, he says that the orientation and position of the lacerations are consistent with the orientation and position of the taillight cover. And then right under that, he has reference to that test that he performed. So, again, if he didn't intend to do that, then there's no evidence that he can provide with respect to the arm impact at all. That's the only test that was performed to look at the arm and the taillight cover. If it doesn't represent the actual position, then apparently he has no idea how the arm was positioned or how it was impacted. Let's get back to my question. Yes.
[00:58:59] Speaker 1: Is there anything where Dr. Welcher has informed you or written that he is intending to represent the actual arm angle of John O'Keefe when he was hit by Alexis?
[00:59:13] Dr. Rentschler: Again, I just described what he has in his actual report. So, he didn't write specifically that that's what it's intended to do. It seems he's inferred that. And, again, that's the only test that he's performed or referred to in this case. You inferred that? Inferred that that's how he believes that the arm was positioned?
[00:59:34] Speaker 1: I think we understand your perspective is that it's the only test he performed. But what I really want to get at is your conclusion, your assumption, that Dr. Welcher was suggesting that there was a specific arm angle that occurred in this case that he was identifying. You don't see that anywhere in his report.
[00:59:55] Dr. Rentschler: Well, it would be pretty odd if the one test he ran didn't actually represent what he thought happened. I don't understand what the value of that would actually be.
[01:00:03] Speaker 1: Did Dr. Welcher ever represent that he was trying to describe the actual body position of John O'Keefe when he was hit?
[01:00:12] Dr. Rentschler: Actually, he doesn't state that. He states very little in his report or in his PowerPoint. He demonstrates through the video of his arm like that and contacting it, and then he holds his arm up to a picture of Mr. O'Keefe's right arm to compare and apparently demonstrate that it's in the same area. But, again, he doesn't actually state that opinion. He doesn't state any opinions that the contact actually occurred, except in one point, and has no evidence or foundation for that.
[01:00:41] Speaker 1: Would the answer to my question be no?
[01:00:43] Dr. Rentschler: You would have to ask Dr. Welcher, I suppose. But if it's not, again, then I'm not sure what that test actually accomplished or represented.
[01:00:52] Speaker 1: You've made assumptions and then have given opinions to this jury based on your assumptions, haven't you?
[01:00:59] Dr. Rentschler: I've evaluated the evidence in the one test he ran. If that's incorrect, well, then I would have to correct my opinion and my assumption and say that not only is the test not actually show what occurred, but he hasn't performed anything to actually link the arm contact to the taillight cover. If it doesn't represent that, if it doesn't represent that, you're right, I'd change my opinion that there's no evidence, no analysis, no conclusion whatsoever.
[01:01:26] Speaker 1: I'm going to try to make my question a little clearer. Is there anything in the report where Dr. Welcher has stated that the arm angle in the demonstration was in any way an attempt to replicate exactly how Donald Trump's arm was when he was struck by a license?
[01:01:45] Dr. Rentschler: I don't believe anything's written in the report with respect to that, no.
[01:01:49] Speaker 1: Is there anything in the report, Dr. Welcher, anything, that states Dr. Welcher was stating or claiming that he knew the body position of John O'Keefe when he was struck? Yes.
[01:02:07] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow that.
[01:02:09] Dr. Rentschler: So, no, I guess there is no opinion or conclusion that he knows how Mr. O'Keefe was actually positioned at the time of this alleged incident. You're correct.
[01:02:17] Speaker 1: Do you know whether Dr. Welcher has been clear that he does not know? Let me say this a different way. You would agree, Dr. Welcher has never stated in his report that he can identify the speed at which Mr. O'Keefe was struck by a collision?
[01:02:39] Dr. Rentschler: He does not state what he thinks the speed is. That's correct.
[01:02:43] Speaker 1: He never states how far, if at all, Mr. O'Keefe was thrown after the end of the collision.
[01:02:51] Dr. Rentschler: That's right. He does not.
[01:02:52] Speaker 1: When you don't know the speed, you don't know the body position, when you don't know the angular body at the time of collision, you cannot replicate a collision with crash test dummies to a reasonable degree of scientific surgery.
[01:03:12] Dr. Rentschler: Well, you're right. You can't prove that that actually occurred. That's the basis. Yeah. If you don't have the information, you can't replicate what happened. You can't state to any conclusion of accuracy what actually occurred if you don't have the evidence.
[01:03:28] Speaker 1: So if you were to do a crash reenactment, but couldn't state to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, this replicated the actual collision, that wouldn't be scientifically reliable to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, would it?
[01:03:48] Dr. Rentschler: Well, if you perform a test and you state this is what I tested and this is the angle, then you can certainly say these are my conclusions. But if you don't know the throw distance, if you don't know the position, then you're correct. You can't actually come to a conclusion that it didn't occur. If you don't know how something occurred, how can you conclude that it actually occurred? It scientifically makes no sense.
[01:04:13] Speaker 1: So if an expert does a crash test and they can't determine to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that it replicates the actual collision, you would agree that would not be a reliable test to present to a jury, don't you?
[01:04:43] Speaker 3: I'm going to... I'm going to... I'm going to... I'm going to...
[01:04:44] Speaker 4: I'm going to...
[01:04:45] Speaker ?: I'm going to...
[01:04:46] Speaker 3: Very briefly. Very briefly.
[01:05:13] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. In reading the reports, in evaluating the PowerPoint, would you agree there is no statement by Dr. Welcher ever? In anything that you reviewed? In reading the PowerPoint, would you agree there is no statement by Dr. Welcher ever?
[01:07:28] Speaker 1: In anything that you reviewed, that he is claiming or stating that his pain test was supposed to be a reenactment? Identifying the details of how Mr. O'Keefe was standing, moving, or holding his arm at the time of a collision. He did not state that, that's correct. So when you've made your criticisms, that you've got to be a collision, that you've got to be a collision, that you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision.
[01:08:02] Dr. Rentschler: And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision.
[01:08:04] Speaker 1: And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision.
[01:08:26] Dr. Rentschler: And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision.
[01:09:10] Speaker 1: And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. And you've got to be a collision. That states he is trying to represent. The exact posture. Movement and stance of Mr. O'Keefe. When there was a collision. It's not anywhere in there. Where he where he stated that. It's not stated.
[01:09:42] Dr. Rentschler: I'd be curious to find out what that. If that wasn't the intent of the test. I'd be curious to see what the actual intent was. Is the answer no. It's not in there. I think I just said that at the beginning of my answer sir. I'm going to ask you again. Is the answer no. Is the answer no. The answer is no.
[01:09:58] Speaker 1: When you do crash tests. You have a controlled environment. In some respects. Don't you. You do. Yes sir. You get to control some. Or sometimes many of the variables. Don't you. You can. Yes. Real life sometimes is described. In your world is chaos. Right.
[01:10:17] Dr. Rentschler: I suppose it could be under certain circumstances.
[01:10:20] Speaker 1: Testing is limited to the variables that you produce. But real life. Sometimes has variables. You can't predict. Isn't that fair to say.
[01:10:28] Dr. Rentschler: It's possible. Yes. Is it more than possible doctor. I don't know. Is it. What. I'm asking you. It depends on the situation and the certain variables. It depends on the case. It's. It could be possible. Yes.
[01:10:40] Speaker 1: You see in cases where. The variables are impossible to predict. Where the what. Variables. Have you had cases. You've had many cases. You said. Have you had cases where variables. Are impossible to predict.
[01:10:53] Dr. Rentschler: It. It depends. I mean. If you. It depends on what you're looking at. And if you. Want to conclude that something happened. And this is how it occurred. You have to look at those variables. If you can't control for those variables. Then it's possible. You can't prove that it actually happened. So yes. If you're doing a certain test. To prove something. You have to look at how those variables. May affect it. But. There's basic information. You have to know. To perform that type of an analysis.
[01:11:17] Speaker 1: So. My question again is. Are there scenarios. Where variables. Are impossible. To predict.
[01:11:25] Dr. Rentschler: There could be. Yes.
[01:11:27] Speaker 1: Have you had cases yourself. Where there are variables. That were impossible. To predict. To predict. I suppose.
[01:11:35] Dr. Rentschler: I probably have. I mean. It depends. If you don't know. What happened. Sure. Then you don't know.
[01:11:42] Speaker 1: Those variables. Necessarily. How many cases. Have you done. On pedestrian accidents. Done. Hundreds of cases. So you have a good. Background and basis. To know. Whether or not. There are variables. That sometimes. You can't predict. Don't you. Sure. As I said. It depends on the case. When you did. The crash tests.
[01:12:02] Speaker ?: In this case.
[01:12:02] Speaker 1: Did you actually do them. I was not. No sir. So you're relying. In part. On Dr. Wolf's work. I am. Yes. If Dr. Wolf. Made mistakes. Would that affect. Your conclusions. It depends. What mistakes. They are. When you. Had. Had.
[01:12:24] Speaker ?: Or when.
[01:12:24] Speaker 1: Dr. Wolf. Had.
[01:12:26] Speaker ?: The crash test.
[01:12:26] Speaker 1: Dummy. In test. E and F. On a forklift. You remember those. I do. Yes. When it's on the forklift. It does not allow. The crash test. Dummy. After being struck. To move. To be thrown. Does it.
[01:12:41] Dr. Rentschler: Yeah. Actually. If it's a force acting on it. It will move. It will like a pendulum. You'll see which direction. It moves. If there's a forward force. It will move. It'll swing forward. Or sideways. Or backwards. It can move.
[01:12:54] Speaker 1: Well my question isn't. Direction. It's. Can it. Show the throw. Can it throw. Or move. The crash test dummy. In it's natural course. After the collision. To a resting spot.
[01:13:05] Dr. Rentschler: No. In those tests though.
[01:13:07] Speaker 1: There wouldn't be any throw. If a. Crash test dummy. Is restrained. By a forklift.
[01:13:14] Speaker ?: It does not allow. The crash test dummy. To be thrown. Does it. Assuming. There is. Throw. That's correct. It doesn't. It doesn't allow. An observation. Of the crash test dummy. To turn. Or fall. Does it. It doesn't allow. An observation.
[01:13:27] Speaker 1: Of the crash test dummy. To turn. Or fall. Does it. It. Assuming. There is. Throw. That's correct. It doesn't. It doesn't allow. An observation. Of the crash test dummy. To turn. Or fall.
[01:13:43] Speaker ?: Does it.
[01:13:43] Speaker 1: No.
[01:13:44] Dr. Rentschler: It does not. Well.
[01:13:46] Speaker ?: No.
[01:13:46] Dr. Rentschler: Actually. It turns. Sure. I mean. It can spin. How about fall. No.
[01:13:53] Speaker 1: And a crash test dummy. Would just fall down. Anyway. In place. In place. Electric. Electromagnetically. And when the collision. Happens. Then the dummy. Can move. Have you seen that.
[01:14:05] Dr. Rentschler: I have.
[01:14:06] Speaker 1: Yes.
[01:14:07] Speaker ?: Have you seen.
[01:14:08] Speaker 1: Excuse me.
[01:14:09] Speaker ?: Crash test.
[01:14:10] Speaker 1: Have you seen. Crash test. With crash test dummy. Where there is a light.
[01:14:14] Speaker ?: I'm sorry.
[01:14:14] Speaker 1: Have you seen. Crash test.
[01:14:16] Speaker ?: With crash test dummies. Where there is a light string.
[01:14:18] Speaker 1: And somebody cuts the string. Moments.
[01:14:20] Speaker ?: Before the impact.
[01:14:20] Speaker 1: Or a second. Before the impact.
[01:14:22] Speaker ?: I have.
[01:14:22] Speaker 1: Yes. That wasn't done.
[01:14:24] Speaker ?: In this case.
[01:14:24] Speaker 1: Was it. What. It wasn't. It wasn't.
[01:14:28] Speaker ?: It wasn't.
[01:14:28] Speaker 1: It wasn't. Necessary. Was that done. In this case. It wasn't.
[01:14:33] Dr. Rentschler: I'll speak slower. A little clearer. If you answer my question. I just did answer it. I said. It wasn't. When.
[01:14:40] Speaker 1: The crash test dummy. Is held. By a forklift. And the car hits it. It doesn't. Replicate the drag. That the car will have. On the crash test dummy. As it would a real. A real person. Does it? You can see. If there's any drag. Because it's on.
[01:14:55] Dr. Rentschler: Like a pendulum. So if there's any drag. Pushing it forward. It's going to sway. That way. It's going to move the dummy. It's not going to move it. The distance that it actually would. If there was any distance. It would move it. But you can actually see the motion. And you can see in the testing. The 24 mile an hour testing. There was no motion. Which is not unexpected. For that type of a test. There is a difference. Between a crash. On center of mass. And a fender vault. Isn't there? There is. Yes.
[01:15:19] Speaker 1: A fender vault. Is a different type. Of collision. Than a center of mass collision. Isn't that true? That's correct. It is impossible. To replicate. All of the different scenarios. With a crash. And a crash. And a fender vault. Is a different type. Of collision. Than a center of mass collision. Isn't that true? That's correct. It is impossible. To replicate. All of the different scenarios. With a crash. Test dummy. On a fender vault collision. Isn't it? I mean. It depends. On what you're trying.
[01:15:46] Dr. Rentschler: To replicate.
[01:15:47] Speaker ?: And it depends.
[01:15:47] Dr. Rentschler: Looking at the injuries. Or how someone.
[01:15:49] Speaker ?: Was positioned.
[01:15:49] Dr. Rentschler: So if you know. How they were positioned.
[01:15:51] Speaker ?: You can try.
[01:15:51] Dr. Rentschler: And replicate that. Yes. Could I have. 59. Of Dr. Rentschel's. PowerPoint. Please.
[01:15:58] Speaker ?: In your PowerPoint. You cited an article.
[01:15:59] Speaker 1: Vehicle pedestrian collisions. Validated models. For pedestrian impact. And projection.
[01:16:03] Speaker ?: Correct? Yes. And you put snippets. Up on the board. Yes. Okay. And these snippets. Talk about. An engagement.
[01:16:12] Speaker 1: With a pedestrian. In the vehicle. In the vehicle. In the vehicle. In the vehicle. In the vehicle. Correct? Yes. And you put snippets. Up on the board. Yes. Okay. And these snippets. Talk about. An engagement. With a pedestrian. In the vehicle. Correct. Okay. Is there a reason. Why you took out. A piece. Of that article. That falls. Between. Those two paragraphs. No. I don't think so.
[01:16:40] Dr. Rentschler: No. Those are the most. Relevant parts. Did you cut out. The part.
[01:16:45] Speaker 1: That says. Some frontal collisions. Are with the corner. Of the vehicle. Where the pedestrian. Is deflected. To one side. Without secondary impact. Of the upper body. With the vehicle front. Alternatively. The transverse. Velocity. Of the pedestrian. At impact. May be sufficient. To prevent.
[01:17:02] Speaker ?: Head contact.
[01:17:02] Speaker 1: As the body. Rotate. Sideway. Off the bonnet. And these situations. Are known. As fender vault. The models. Presented here. Do not apply. To fender vault. Did you leave. That part out.
[01:17:15] Dr. Rentschler: Purposely.
[01:17:16] Speaker ?: Oh yeah.
[01:17:16] Dr. Rentschler: I did sir. Because this isn't. A frontal impact. With a sedan. Over the fender. Of the hood. Of a sedan. This is.
[01:17:24] Speaker 1: With the back. Of an SUV. So. It's completely different. Because that is the. Majority. Of pedestrian collisions. The front end. Isn't it? The majority. It is. Yes sir. And so. There is a difference. Between fender vaults. And a center of mass collision.
[01:17:40] Dr. Rentschler: Isn't there? There is. And that's why.
[01:17:43] Speaker ?: And that's why.
[01:17:43] Dr. Rentschler: You see. A center of mass. You look at the testing. We did. That's the center of mass. Impact. On a frontal impact. Usually. If you're hit. By the front of a car. It doesn't usually get. Your center of mass. You're too tall. Wood.
[01:17:57] Speaker ?: Or you flip over.
[01:17:57] Dr. Rentschler: The top of the car. So yeah. It's completely different. It doesn't pertain. To. Allegedly. What occurred. In this case.
[01:18:05] Speaker ?: So.
[01:18:06] Speaker 1: Let me get back. To my question. When. The tests were done. E and F. F was a center of mass collision. At 29 miles per hour. Wasn't it? That's correct. E. Are you considering. E. A center of mass collision.
[01:18:19] Dr. Rentschler: Which was either. 24 miles per hour.
[01:18:21] Speaker 1: No.
[01:18:22] Speaker ?: That's.
[01:18:22] Dr. Rentschler: It didn't hit the center.
[01:18:23] Speaker 1: Mass of the dummy. It just hit the arm. Exactly. So there is a difference. In this case. You. Don't know. The position of Mr. O'Keefe's arm. At impact. Do you?
[01:18:34] Speaker ?: Nobody knows.
[01:18:35] Dr. Rentschler: The. I don't think his arm. Was even impacted by the car. So no. You don't know. The position of the arm at impact. Because it wasn't hit by the car.
[01:18:42] Speaker 1: You don't know. The angle of his body. At impact. Do you? The alleged angle.
[01:18:53] Speaker 3: So. Ask the question again.
[01:19:02] Speaker 1: You have no information. About the angle. Of Mr. O'Keefe's body. At the time. The defendant's Lexus. Was traveling backwards. On January 29th. 2022. Do you?
[01:19:20] Dr. Rentschler: We have no information. That he was even hit. By the Lexus. So. There wouldn't be any information. On the angle. If his body wasn't hit.
[01:19:28] Speaker 1: When you. Talked about. Force equations. With this jury. You cited a number. Of pieces of literature. Didn't you? I did. When you cited. The literature. You cited. All literature. Regarding. Concentrated forces. Didn't you?
[01:19:43] Speaker ?: No.
[01:19:43] Speaker 1: That's not true. There's a difference.
[01:19:45] Speaker ?: Between.
[01:19:45] Speaker 1: Concentrated. And distributed force. Isn't there?
[01:19:48] Dr. Rentschler: Yeah. I talked about that.
[01:19:50] Speaker 1: On my direct. You showed. Your slides. For example. The hand. Yes. Could we see slide. Eight please. Let's try slide. 56.
[01:20:12] Speaker ?: You would agree. With me doctor. There's a difference. Between. A concentrated. And a distributed. Load. Wouldn't you? I would.
[01:20:19] Speaker 1: Yes. When you gave. Your opinions. In this case. It was based on. Concentrated. Load. Wasn't it? No sir. When you gave. Your force equations. Was that. Distributed. Load. Or. Concentrated. Load.
[01:20:36] Dr. Rentschler: That was. The load. At the center. Of mass. And so.
[01:20:41] Speaker ?: You can.
[01:20:41] Dr. Rentschler: Look at. Acceleration. And you look. At bending. Moment.
[01:20:46] Speaker 1: So you can. Do both. When you gave.
[01:20:49] Dr. Rentschler: Your charts. And numbers. Was that. Based on. Concentrated. Or distributed. Load. No. That was. Based on. The distributed.
[01:21:00] Speaker ?: Load.
[01:21:00] Dr. Rentschler: With respect. To the center. Of mass. Of that arm. And where. The accelerometer. Was. This was not. A center. Of mass. Acceleration. And distributed. Across. The entire arm. That's where. It's the. The least amount. Of pressure. If we're. Talking about. Force over area.
[01:21:21] Speaker 1: And that's what. I evaluated. In this case. With the different. The different. Hexagons on it. Do you remember that? I do. Yes sir. Okay. There's a difference. Between taking. A small object. And putting pressure. On the body. As opposed to a.
[01:21:37] Dr. Rentschler: Larger. Wider object. Isn't there? Well. It depends. The size of that impactor. And the size of the knuckles. And the metacarpal bones. So for example. If somebody took a book.
[01:21:47] Speaker 1: And hit somebody off the forehead. It may or may not leave a mark. But if they use the same. Force. And they took. A high heel. The heel of a high heel. And hit somebody. There would likely be more damage. With the high heel. Than the wood with the book. Isn't that fair to say? Well it's soft tissue.
[01:22:06] Dr. Rentschler: But if the force is the same. You would expect. The fracture to occur. You have to look at. The distribution. You have to look at. The strength. Of the bone. And you have to look at. The overall force.
[01:22:17] Speaker 1: That's being applied. Now you said. In your differential diagnosis. You considered. All evidence. Did you say that. On direct examination?
[01:22:24] Dr. Rentschler: I believe. I don't believe I did. I believe. I considered evidence. For a biomechanical. And accident reconstruction. Analysis. In this case. So you didn't consider. Phone data. Has nothing to do. With biomechanics. Or accident reconstruction. Did you consider. Tech stream data?
[01:22:39] Speaker 4: Yes. I'm going to allow that.
[01:22:41] Speaker 1: I'll strike it. Did you consider. Apple health care data? No sir.
[01:22:47] Speaker 4: Yes. I'm going to allow it.
[01:22:50] Speaker 1: Did you consider. Phone temperature. Battery temperature data? Yes.
[01:22:55] Speaker 4: I'm going to allow it.
[01:22:57] Dr. Rentschler: Has nothing to do. With biomechanics sir.
[01:22:59] Speaker 1: I'll ask again. Did you consider it? I did not. No. Whether it would be. Improper. To ignore. Evidence. Are those your words? For a biomechanical analysis.
[01:23:09] Dr. Rentschler: Yes sir. Have you been.
[01:23:11] Speaker 1: To the scene. Of an accident. Before. Or a collision.
[01:23:15] Dr. Rentschler: I have. Yes.
[01:23:17] Speaker 1: Do you know. What a debris field is?
[01:23:19] Dr. Rentschler: Yes sir.
[01:23:20] Speaker 1: And you've seen. In your. Videos. E and F. Debris fields. After the collision. And the tail light breaks. Isn't there?
[01:23:28] Dr. Rentschler: So first of all. There's debris in the yard. What that's from. Is there a collision? Was there a collision? Where did that come from? Where it was positioned? That's all conjecture. And supposition. Those aren't actual facts. Sir.
[01:23:39] Speaker 1: Can you. Hear my question. About. The debris field. I'm asking. Yeah. And I think it's in a.
[01:23:46] Speaker ?: Excuse me sir.
[01:23:52] Speaker 1: In a. In a collision. Have you seen debris fields?
[01:23:56] Dr. Rentschler: I have. Yes.
[01:23:58] Speaker 1: Have you seen debris fields. Where the tail light. Is shattered?
[01:24:02] Dr. Rentschler: I have. Yes.
[01:24:04] Speaker 1: In fact. In your video. Yes or no. After the collision. In video. E and F. There are. Debris fields.
[01:24:12] Dr. Rentschler: Aren't there? There are. At a certain point.
[01:24:15] Speaker 1: Yes sir. Absolutely. And so. When you are. Looking. At your studies. Do you consider. Debris fields?
[01:24:23] Dr. Rentschler: It depends. On the evidence. It depends. On how it was collected. It depends. If it is accurate. Or reliable. But from a biomechanical standpoint. No. You don't need to look. At the debris field. Or alleged debris field. Of a tail light cover. That has nothing to do. With the injuries. Or the position. Or the movement. Of an individual.
[01:24:43] Speaker 1: Can I have exhibit 73 please? Do you see that sir? I do. Do you know what that is? Looks like. Possibly.
[01:24:59] Dr. Rentschler: Part of the tail light cover. Right.
[01:25:01] Speaker 1: Is that. An alleged. Part of the tail light cover. Or do you think. That's part of the tail light cover sir? I don't know.
[01:25:07] Dr. Rentschler: I don't know. Specifically. It might be part of the actual.
[01:25:10] Speaker 1: Tail light cover. When you studied this case. And you looked at all the evidence. And all these different things. Did you look at these photos. And see. That alleged piece of. Tail light shard. Recovered from the. Front yard area of 34 Fairview Road. Did you consider that? Well.
[01:25:27] Dr. Rentschler: I don't. Was that. Part of the one. That was recovered. By a leaf blower. Or not.
[01:25:37] Speaker 1: When you were doing. Your. Ample study. Sir. Yes. What I'm asking you is. When you were looking. At all the available evidence. Did you look at this photo. Of this alleged. Tail light shard. On the front line. 34 Fairview Road. Were you aware of it?
[01:25:54] Dr. Rentschler: No. Oh. I was aware. That there. There was debris. In the yard. But again. That has nothing to do. With the biomechanical analysis. If you can't prove. That the impact happened. Then. Everything after that. Doesn't actually matter. Does it? Because all that. Is. Would be from something else. So. Unless you prove. The core issue. At this case. The contact. The post impact movement. The head injury. Without proving that. Everything else. Is ancillary. Of what you're. Attempting to conclude. Do you have any evidence.
[01:26:27] Speaker 1: In your. Biomechanical studies. How this. Alleged piece of. Tail light shard. Ended up. On the front lawn.
[01:26:34] Dr. Rentschler: Of 34 Fairview. I don't know sir. I didn't.
[01:26:37] Speaker 1: I didn't evaluate. Or investigate that. Could I have.
[01:26:40] Speaker ?: Exhibit 76A. Please.
[01:26:46] Speaker 1: Did you see.
[01:26:47] Speaker ?: Did you see.
[01:26:47] Speaker 1: This photograph sir. I do.
[01:26:49] Speaker ?: Yes.
[01:26:49] Speaker 1: Is that part. Of a red. Tail light shard. Or an alleged.
[01:26:53] Speaker ?: Piece of a.
[01:26:53] Speaker 1: Tail light shard. It looks like it.
[01:26:55] Speaker ?: Yes.
[01:26:55] Speaker 1: Did you consider. This in your. Biomechanical studies. That. This tail light. Shard.
[01:27:01] Speaker ?: Was found.
[01:27:03] Dr. Rentschler: In front of 34 Fairview Road. Was found. Can you. Give me a precise distance. From where the body. Was found. And where that was found. With respect to Mr. O'Keefe. With respect. To a reference point. This sir. There. There is none. So.
[01:27:17] Speaker ?: I know.
[01:27:17] Dr. Rentschler: I did not consider that.
[01:27:20] Speaker ?: Do you know.
[01:27:20] Speaker 1: How this tail light. Light shard. Got there. How it got there.
[01:27:24] Dr. Rentschler: Yes. That wasn't part. Of my analysis.
[01:27:27] Speaker ?: There.
[01:27:27] Dr. Rentschler: Certainly. Different possibilities. Of how that actually occurred. 990. You know what that is sir. It looks like part of the. The light assembly.
[01:27:44] Speaker 1: Mr. O'Keefe's hat. Oh. That's his hat. Photograph.
[01:27:48] Dr. Rentschler: I see now.
[01:27:49] Speaker 1: Yes. Did you know. He was wearing a hat. That night.
[01:27:53] Speaker ?: I did.
[01:27:54] Speaker 1: Yes. And did you. Consider how that hat. Ended up on the ground. In front of 34 Fairview.
[01:28:00] Dr. Rentschler: No sir. That was not part of. A biomechanical analysis. There's a number of ways. A hat can end up in a yard. Right. Is one of those ways. Being in a collision. With a Lexus. I suppose. That's a possibility. Or someone could put it there. I mean.
[01:28:13] Speaker ?: There's.
[01:28:13] Dr. Rentschler: There's a number. Of different possibilities. As to when. Or how a hat. May appear in a yard. Who do you think. Put it there. I have no idea. I don't. I haven't seen any evidence. Of how it got there. And frankly. It's immaterial. To a biomechanical analysis.
[01:28:27] Speaker 1: Do you have a theory. You want to share with us. About planting evidence. Getting that sir.
[01:28:31] Speaker 3: Yes.
[01:28:32] Speaker ?: This is me. By the way. The x-rays.
[01:28:35] Speaker 1: You looked at earlier. When's the first time. You saw those. I saw those.
[01:28:40] Dr. Rentschler: When we got the. When I was on the case. Initially. For the first trial. No mention. Your report. About reviewing those. It says. I reviewed medical records. And reports. That's how. I actually. Were. In every report. I have. I just put generally. That refers to. Medical records.
[01:28:59] Speaker ?: And reports.
[01:28:59] Dr. Rentschler: Which includes.
[01:29:00] Speaker ?: X-rays.
[01:29:00] Dr. Rentschler: MRIs. Exhibit 74. 4.
[01:29:03] Speaker ?: Please. Have you seen.
[01:29:08] Speaker 1: This photograph. I have.
[01:29:10] Speaker ?: Yes.
[01:29:11] Speaker 1: Okay. In your. Studies. Or your. Testing. Did you. Determine. How.
[01:29:19] Speaker ?: Mr. O'Keefe.
[01:29:19] Speaker 1: Shoe.
[01:29:20] Speaker ?: Ended up.
[01:29:20] Speaker 1: Near the curb. No sir. Exhibit.
[01:29:23] Speaker ?: 201. A. Please. Have you seen. This photograph.
[01:29:28] Speaker 1: Before. I.
[01:29:30] Speaker ?: Don't know. That I have. Have you. Ever seen. Any container. That had. A.
[01:29:38] Speaker 1: A. No sir.
[01:29:40] Speaker ?: Exhibit 201. A. Please. Have you.
[01:29:44] Speaker 1: Seen. This photograph. Before.
[01:29:47] Speaker ?: I.
[01:29:48] Speaker 1: Don't know. That I have. Any container. That had. Tail light. Shards. That matched. The defendant's. Lexus. That were. Removed. From his. Sweatshirt. And his shirt. Have you.
[01:30:03] Dr. Rentschler: Ever seen. Any container. Holding those. I haven't. A lot. I believe. There was. Evidence. Collected.
[01:30:12] Speaker ?: Like that. But I. Yes.
[01:30:15] Dr. Rentschler: Okay. Could we.
[01:30:17] Speaker ?: Have.
[01:30:18] Dr. Rentschler: Two.
[01:30:19] Speaker ?: Zero.
[01:30:19] Dr. Rentschler: One.
[01:30:20] Speaker 1: Do you understand. Those are. Tail light. Shards. Matching. The defendant's. Lexus. The broken. Yes. That were recovered. From Mr. O'Keefe's.
[01:30:31] Speaker 3: Sweater or shirt. Objection. I'm going to allow that. Did you consider that.
[01:30:35] Speaker 4: No. You can reformat it. Otherwise I need to see the person.
[01:30:39] Speaker 1: I'll try. I'd rather. Try to reformat it. Than come sidebar.
[01:30:43] Speaker ?: Did you know.
[01:30:44] Speaker 1: Did you know. That taillight shards. Were. Collected.
[01:30:51] Speaker ?: After.
[01:30:52] Speaker 1: Mr. O'Keefe's. Sweatshirt. And t-shirt. Was scraped. Objection.
[01:30:58] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow that. I need to see the person. Jurors. This will be brief. Thank you. Jurors. This will be brief.
[01:31:33] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you.
[01:32:33] Speaker 1: Thank you. In this case, did you know that these pieces of plastic were removed or scraped from Mr. O'Keefe's clothes, specifically his sweatshirt and his T-shirt? Did you know that? I was aware that samples were recovered, yes. Were you aware that these samples were consistent with the broken taillight of Ms. Leeds' Lexus? Did you know that? Yes. Did you do any analysis how these broken taillight shards got into Mr. O'Keefe's clothes?
[01:33:46] Dr. Rentschler: No, I did not. The first step involved with that would be to actually perform a biomechanical analysis, to look at the movement of the body, how the body was positioned, where it ended up. So without that knowledge, you can't determine exactly how or if those types of shards were deposited there as the result of an actual impact.
[01:34:05] Speaker 4: You know, based on my question, I wonder if I can finish this question, which is when you're judging me to describe, based on the question that is asked. For the same reason I just didn't get it in the sidebar. You just read the format that you need to describe. I'll try again.
[01:34:19] Speaker 3: Okay.
[01:34:21] Speaker 1: When you looked at these taillight shards that were consistent with the break in Ms. Leeds' Lexus, did you consider how they got into Ms. O'Keefe's clothes? Objection. Same objection.
[01:34:46] Speaker 3: I understand the objection. Word it differently. Start with a different one.
[01:34:52] Speaker 1: Yes, Your Honor. You see these pieces of broken plastic, don't you?
[01:34:58] Dr. Rentschler: I do.
[01:34:59] Speaker 1: And you understand that these were found in the scrapings of Ms. O'Keefe's clothes?
[01:35:05] Dr. Rentschler: I do.
[01:35:07] Speaker 1: And you understand that these broken pieces of plastic are consistent with the taillight in Ms. Leeds' Lexus?
[01:35:16] Dr. Rentschler: I do, yes.
[01:35:17] Speaker 1: In your studies in the enactments, did you make any determination how these pieces of broken plastic brought into the steel piece of clothing?
[01:35:28] Dr. Rentschler: No, when you look at those studies, first you have to know how the incident occurred. Then you can look at that and determine, if you want to, how that may have occurred. Because otherwise, there's, again, different ways, different manners in which that may have been deposited on the sweatshirt. Without knowing how this happened, you can't just then look at other evidence and try and predict how it happened. You need the actual evidence to look at the event. This all goes to the event. You need contact with the arm, I guess, apparently, to actually cause this incident to occur. And without that evidence of any of that happening, knowing how the body moved, knowing how it was hit, knowing where it ended up, any conclusions drawn off of information like this is just supposition, because you don't know the movement of the body or the vehicle. It's putting the cart before the horse.
[01:36:34] Speaker 1: Could I have Exhibit 201D, please? Do you understand this is broken pieces of plastic consistent with the broken taillight of the defendant's car? Do you understand that? I believe so, yes. And do you understand this is a photograph of these broken pieces of plastic under a microscope? Okay. Well, I'm asking you. Do you understand that?
[01:37:05] Dr. Rentschler: Well, if that's what you're telling me, then...
[01:37:08] Speaker 1: I don't want you to rely on me. If you didn't see them, it's okay.
[01:37:11] Dr. Rentschler: I don't recall if I saw those or not.
[01:37:13] Speaker 1: Have you seen this picture?
[01:37:14] Dr. Rentschler: I don't recall seeing it, no.
[01:37:16] Speaker 1: Now, looking at this photograph and seeing these broken pieces of plastic under a microscope with fibers in the other plastic, is that something you would want to have considered in your analysis, informing your opinion whether or not there was a collision between Ms. Reed's car and Ms. Reed's car?
[01:37:42] Dr. Rentschler: Again, if you can't do a proper biomechanical analysis, then that evidence is not consistent. You can't determine how it occurred. You can't say that that's consistent with it. You can't just look at certain evidence and not do a proper analysis. If you can't even tell that an impact occurred, you can't look at tertiary evidence and say, well, this proves that it occurred. In order to say from a biomechanical and accident reconstruction standpoint that an impact occurred and here's how it occurred, you have to understand the mechanics and dynamics before it. This could certainly support that finding and those conclusions. But by itself, I don't know of any methodology in any study or peer-reviewed article that says you can just look at alleged evidence and then form an opinion as to whether an impact occurred.
[01:38:32] Speaker 1: Can you see with your eye that parts of those broken pieces of plastic are sharp?
[01:38:39] Dr. Rentschler: They look sharp.
[01:38:41] Speaker 1: If you disagree, do you think they're not sharp?
[01:38:44] Dr. Rentschler: I don't have an opinion as to that, sir.
[01:38:47] Speaker 1: Take a look. Objection. Sister. If you look at that to me kindly, can you tell me whether you think those pieces of broken plastic are sharp? Objection.
[01:38:57] Speaker 3: I want to allow that.
[01:39:00] Dr. Rentschler: I guess they look sharp. I have no idea if they are or not. It's under a microscope. When you actually put things under a microscope, it looks much different, and it is much different than looking at the normal line. Let's go back to 2,0, D.
[01:39:11] Speaker 1: Perhaps that could help. Not under a microscope. If you've paid particular attention to the larger one in the middle that looks like a shark's tooth, do you see that one? Yes. Do you think, doctor, that some of those appear sharp?
[01:39:29] Dr. Rentschler: Some of those appear sharp, could possibly cause a laceration, sure, as opposed to an abrasion. Do you think that any of those could cause an abrasion? I don't think that you could get a consistent level of superficial abrasions along the entire arm of minimal depth of less than half a millimeter through impact with the glass. To have that minimal force on every part of the arm to only cause superficial abrasions would be highly unlikely.
[01:40:01] Speaker 1: Do you think some of those sharp pieces, if they were lodged in Mr. O'Keefe's sweater, could cause an abrasion?
[01:40:12] Dr. Rentschler: It's possible if you had enough punctures and holes in the sweater to correspond with the abrasions on the arm. That would be, I suppose, that could be a possibility.
[01:40:26] Speaker 1: In your testing, not to belabor it, I'm just going to show you one. I want to show you video E. Could we go to video E, please? Stop. In video E, the arm that is sticking straight out, who determined that angle, Dr. Wolff?
[01:40:57] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, well, we positioned it so it would impact in the general area of what was shown in Dr. Welcher's paint test study, which apparently is irrelevant and doesn't show the alleged position of how the arm was at impact. But, yes, we positioned it in that manner.
[01:41:15] Speaker 1: When you say we, did you have input on the positioning of that, or did Dr. Wolff do it?
[01:41:20] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I had input into how we were going to position it. It would probably be both of us, I would say.
[01:41:27] Speaker 1: So, you and Dr. Wolff chose to position the arm straight out, correct?
[01:41:32] Dr. Rentschler: In that test, we did, yes.
[01:41:35] Speaker 1: Is there a glass in Randy's hand?
[01:41:38] Dr. Rentschler: There is not, no.
[01:41:40] Speaker 1: A drinking glass, no? No. In any of your studies, did you have a drinking glass in Randy's hand?
[01:41:47] Dr. Rentschler: We did not have a drinking glass in the dummy's hand, no.
[01:41:51] Speaker 1: And you see, when the taillight is shattering, those red things falling down. What are those?
[01:41:59] Dr. Rentschler: Those are part of the taillight.
[01:42:01] Speaker 1: Continue a little bit, please. Stop. Did you count how many taillight pieces broke?
[01:42:10] Dr. Rentschler: We didn't count the taillight pieces. We counted how many punctures or holes there were in the sweatshirt, which was zero.
[01:42:18] Speaker 1: If you had done this test and changed the arm angle, do you expect the damage would look different as far as the breaks in that taillight?
[01:42:27] Dr. Rentschler: Well, we conducted a number of tests. It may look somewhat different, sure.
[01:42:33] Speaker 1: If you conduct this test and move the arm angle, not another test, this test, but you move the arm angle, do you expect that the break would look different?
[01:42:43] Dr. Rentschler: That the break would look different? Yes. It could look a little different. I mean, certainly the breaks looked a little different in the test, but they were comparable to each other.
[01:42:50] Speaker 1: You do not know how John O'Keefe was standing that night, do you? Well.
[01:42:57] Speaker 4: Objection.
[01:42:59] Speaker 3: No, I'm going to allow that. You do not know how John O'Keefe was standing that night, do you?
[01:43:04] Dr. Rentschler: If he was standing, if the impact occurred, then no. Nobody knows how he would have been standing. You would not know what his arm angle was, would you?
[01:43:15] Speaker 1: No. You would not know the exact speed of any vehicle that hit him. That night, would you?
[01:43:21] Speaker 3: Yes. Sistine.
[01:43:28] Speaker 1: The debris, the broken taillight, is that traveling in a consistent or a different direction?
[01:43:36] Dr. Rentschler: What do you mean consistent or different?
[01:43:38] Speaker 1: Is it all going in the same direction or is it going in different directions?
[01:43:41] Dr. Rentschler: No, there's some spread to the debris.
[01:43:44] Speaker 1: So the pieces don't all fall right in a pile with each other, do they? They do not, no. Can you continue, please? Stop. Do the majority of the pieces land on Randy? No, they do not. And so as they fall, if Randy were to fall, many of those pieces would not be among the immediate area of his body, would they?
[01:44:14] Dr. Rentschler: If the dummy fell right there, no. If the dummy fell right there, no, they would not.
[01:44:17] Speaker 1: Now, the dummy can't fall because the dummy is on a forklift, correct? It's suspended like a pendulum, correct. And you see in your test that the taillight, at what you say is 24 miles per hour, can be broken without the dummy's knees touching the vehicle. Isn't that fair to say? That's correct, yes. You can't tell the full movement and fall of this dummy the way you've set up this test, can you?
[01:44:49] Dr. Rentschler: Well, knowing the physics, you can certainly determine or estimate where it would be, but no, you could release it and it would fall primarily straight down. It would twist and it would fall down.
[01:45:01] Speaker 1: Is there something that could affect the dummy if you let it fall? Is there something that could affect its movement after being hit? Like what? Like, could its feet be twisted and then hit another object like a curb?
[01:45:19] Dr. Rentschler: Well, there's going to be very little lateral movement of its feet, but even if it did, then it would just, it's still going to fall over right where it is.
[01:45:27] Speaker 1: Can you continue, please? Can you see the feet, doctor? Yes. Are they twisting? They are, yes. Is that because of the rotation of Randy after he struck?
[01:45:39] Dr. Rentschler: Yeah, that's the rotation of Randy. And again, as you said, that's not a normal person because there's no normal force acting on the dummy. We just have it barely touching. So a normal individual, you aren't going to twist to that extent because this is a dummy which is suspended with just a little contact on the rim.
[01:45:56] Speaker 1: And after being contacted by a vehicle enough to break the light? Could it cause a person to stagger backwards?
[01:46:07] Dr. Rentschler: I mean, you're making some suppositions here. There's no evidence that that would occur in this case, and not if you're spinning like that. You're not going to stagger backwards first. You're going to spin if you get hit with your arm, as I described in my direct. But is it possible? I can't say it's impossible, but there's no evidence of that. Could a person stumble backwards after being hit?
[01:46:30] Speaker 4: Objection. I'm going to allow that.
[01:46:32] Dr. Rentschler: What do you mean by backwards? Because you'd be spinning. So what direction is backwards?
[01:46:37] Speaker 1: Could a person get their foot caught on a curb, a sneaker come off, and then stagger backwards and fall on their head?
[01:46:44] Speaker 4: Objection, Your Honor.
[01:46:49] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow that.
[01:46:53] Dr. Rentschler: Doctor?
[01:46:54] Speaker 3: Can you answer that?
[01:46:55] Dr. Rentschler: I mean, I guess you could somehow predict or have a possibility of almost anything happening. You could say someone could get hit by a car and do a couple of somersaults into the yard. I mean, there's no evidence of that. So it's just supposition. But I won't say it's impossible.
[01:47:12] Speaker 1: Do you think John O'Keefe did somersaults into the yard at the 34th area? Is that what they're telling us, Doctor?
[01:47:17] Dr. Rentschler: No, I don't think he even got hit by the car, sir.
[01:47:19] Speaker 1: That's not what I'm asking. I've heard that. I'm asking you. Do you think he did somersaults into the yard at the 34th area?
[01:47:25] Dr. Rentschler: No, there's no evidence of what he did.
[01:47:28] Speaker 1: Your Honor has to come side by a quick review or a doctor. Okay. Oops.
[01:47:35] Speaker ?: Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[01:52:05] Speaker 1: Thank you. In your analysis of whether there was a collision with the defendant's Lexus, did you consider or know that there was evidence that a piece of glass or a piece of broken plastic was pulled from Mr. O'Keefe's nose?
[01:52:57] Speaker ?: Objection.
[01:52:57] Speaker 3: I'm going to allow that. I'm going to allow that. So, hold on. Sure. Let's get an answer, Mr. Jackson.
[01:53:12] Dr. Rentschler: I was aware there was some piece of material allegedly pulled from the nose, yes.
[01:53:17] Speaker 1: Allegedly pulled from the nose? Yes. Okay. And that alleged piece of material, were you aware that it was perhaps a piece of glass or broken plastic?
[01:53:27] Speaker 4: Objection.
[01:53:29] Speaker 3: Are you aware of that? Are you aware of that?
[01:53:30] Speaker 4: That's not the evidence. That is not the evidence.
[01:53:33] Speaker 3: So, hold on, Mr. Jackson. Mr. Brennan.
[01:53:39] Speaker 1: I can reword it.
[01:53:40] Speaker 3: Okay.
[01:53:41] Speaker 1: You're welcome. Are you aware of that object that was pulled from Mr. O'Keefe's nose, what material that was? I believe it was glass. Do you want to know in your assessment about collision, where that came from?
[01:54:01] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I did evaluate that. It's actually entirely inconsistent with coming from an impact with the vehicle.
[01:54:12] Speaker 1: Can we have exhibit 52A, please? Do you know what that is, doctor?
[01:54:22] Dr. Rentschler: It's hard for me to see from here. I believe that's the drinking glass. A drinking glass.
[01:54:31] Speaker 1: Do you know where that is in relation to where Mr. O'Keefe was found?
[01:54:36] Dr. Rentschler: I believe it was found in the vicinity of where he was found.
[01:54:40] Speaker 1: And can I have exhibit 195, please? You recognize that?
[01:54:50] Dr. Rentschler: That is another photograph of the drinking glass. Yes, sir.
[01:54:53] Speaker 1: 197A, please. B. And in your assessment, did you know that a piece of glass that fit the broken drinking glass was found in the street area in front of 34 Fairview Road?
[01:55:28] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, sir. Okay.
[01:55:32] Speaker 1: 98, please. A little more, please. Do you know what that is, sir?
[01:55:51] Dr. Rentschler: It's hard for me to tell from back. Does it look like a drinking straw? Okay. The black, that does appear to be a drinking straw, yes. Have you seen that before? I've seen that photograph before. Okay.
[01:56:05] Speaker 1: And do you appreciate that it is in front of 34 Fairview Road? Yes, I believe that's correct. And, sir, in your analysis, in your reconstruction analysis, did you consider the broken glass found there, Mr. O'Keefe's body, the suggestion glass is found in his nose, and that glass that fit the broken glass was found on the street. Did you consider all those things in your reconstruction analysis?
[01:56:37] Dr. Rentschler: Well, my biomechanical analysis, I did consider especially the glass in the nose, yes, and whether that could have been as a result of the impact. A result of what? A result of the impact with the vehicle.
[01:56:50] Speaker 1: When did you find out about the glass from Mr. O'Keefe's nose? When did you learn that? I don't recall specifically. Well, was it before you came and testified last time, or was it before this time?
[01:57:06] Dr. Rentschler: I honestly, I couldn't tell you. I know it was before this time. I don't know when I found out about it. Weeks ago, months ago? Could you turn the lights on, please? I have no idea, sir. You don't know if it was weeks or months ago? I don't remember with that specific piece of evidence when I found out about it. What do you mean you don't remember it? Have you seen it before? Well, I evaluated for, certainly for my report for this case. I don't know if I had known about it prior to that. Is it mentioned anywhere in the report about the piece of glass from Mr. O'Keefe's nose?
[01:57:36] Speaker 1: No, it's not. When you received that information, did someone tell you about it? Did you listen? Did you watch? How did you evaluate this evidence?
[01:57:45] Dr. Rentschler: It might have been in an interview or something that it was pulled from his nose, I believe. So you saw and listened to something? I believe so, or was made aware of it.
[01:57:55] Speaker 1: Just a couple more questions, sir. I had asked you at the beginning of your examination whether you denied that receiving information certainly helped prepare to understand what was going on during the trial. Do you remember those questions?
[01:58:10] Dr. Rentschler: With respect to the trace DNA, correct. Okay.
[01:58:43] Speaker 1: I have testified a few times in this case, haven't you?
[01:59:03] Dr. Rentschler: I have, yes, sir.
[01:59:04] Speaker 1: And you testified recently for a short bit in April, didn't you?
[01:59:07] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes.
[01:59:15] Speaker 1: On April 28, 2025, did you testify in this very courtroom?
[01:59:21] Dr. Rentschler: I believe I did.
[01:59:22] Speaker 1: Under oath?
[01:59:23] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, sir.
[01:59:23] Speaker 1: Like the oath you took today?
[01:59:24] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, or yesterday.
[01:59:26] Speaker 1: Now, when I read this, I'm not attributing this in any way to the defendant's attorneys. I'm going to read you this just for clarity. You were asked, did they inform you about witness testimony? What did you say, sir?
[01:59:46] Dr. Rentschler: They did inform me, yes, about testimony and situations and events that came forth in the trial that I was not aware of.
[01:59:53] Speaker 1: Those are your words?
[01:59:54] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, sir.
[01:59:57] Speaker 1: Page 125, line 7. I'm going to ask you if this is your sworn testimony, sir. On page 125, line 7, I'll read the question. And if this is your answer, you should read the answer. Were you asked, and by calling and raising issues and telling you information, even if you weren't requesting it, it helped prepare you for your trial testimony, didn't it? What did you swear?
[02:00:31] Dr. Rentschler: I said it certainly helped prepare me to understand what was going on during the trial, yes.
[02:00:35] Speaker 1: I have no further question.