Full cross-examination of forensic analyst Shanon Burgess on Day 19 of Karen Read trial

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: so i'll remind you you're still on the road thank you good morning good morning [00:00:15] Speaker 2: all right mr lassie whenever you're ready thank you your honor morning mr burgess morning on your [00:00:27] Speaker 3: direct examination yesterday your experience was brought up in questions correct correct on your direct examination your certifications were brought up in questions correct incorrect there was no discussion in your direct examination about having certifications in celebrite and magnet forensic axiom did i miss you know if i misheard your question it was uh i asked about certifications i'll repeat it sir in case case i misspoke on your direct examination your certifications were brought up in questions correct yes correct however on your direct examination no questions were asked of you at all about your supposed education correct correct and you did not bring up your educational background at all correct direct examination correct correct a friend a forensic examiner must prioritize accuracy correct correct a forensic examiner must prioritize reliability correct correct both are important correct it's criminal proceeding we're in correct correct and therefore accuracy and reliability are especially important in a criminal case as opposed to a civil case correct i think they would be equally important in both but yes but they're certainly important in a criminal case correct and accuracy and reliability are especially important when seconds and minutes matter as they matter and as you testify to in this case correct correct correct you testified yesterday that the events on the timeline contained in your powerpoint presentation that was displayed yesterday and presented to the jury were accurate your words several times down to the second correct correct for the lexus yes for the lexus you said they were accurate down to the second correct correct correct let's take a look at your powerpoint presentation that you discussed extensively before the jury yesterday mr wool could we please bring up slide 32 of the presentation uh mr burgess discussed with the jury yesterday and your honor with your permission to publish okay thank you mr burgess uh pick your pick your screen sure is this a true and accurate representation of your analysis of miss reed's lexus vehicle traveling to 34 fairview road and the o'keefe residence yes according to your timeline miss reed's vehicle powered on at 12 12 12 36 a.m on january 30th correct correct correct now is your timeline on this slide accurate down to the second as you stated in your direct examination yesterday for the power on and off events yes yes uh could we go to slide 33 please mr wolk and we're going to go through a handful of slides sure mr burgess just give you a heads up is this a true and accurate representation of your analysis of miss reed leaving the o'keefe's residence at 5 0 7 a.m yes it is and according to your timeline miss reed powered honor vehicle at 5 0 7 46 a.m on january 30th 2022 correct correct correct is the time on this slide accurate accurate down to the second as you stated in your direct examination yesterday yes according to the lexus yes if we could go mr woke to uh slide 34 please and these are all your slides correct sir correct they are prepared them yes is slide 34 a true and accurate representation of your analysis of miss reed we're going to be traveling to the Dayton residence at 12 25 0 1 a.m i'm sorry 12 25 0 1 p.m 12 35 0 1 correct i'm sorry thank you 12 35 and according to your analysis miss reed powered on her vehicle to travel to dighton at 12 35 0 1 p.m on january 30th correct yes that's correct and is the time on this slide accurate down to the second as you stated in your direct examination yesterday yes slide 35 please mr wool is this a true and accurate representation of your analysis of miss reed's vehicle being towed by the massachusetts police vendor from her parents residence in Dayton yes it is and pursuant to your our timeline that you created here miss reed's vehicle was powered on at 4 11 p.m on january 30th 2022 and towed to the canton police department correct correct correct is your timeline on this slide accurate down to the second as you stated in your direct examination yesterday yes this time stamp is uh slide 36 please please mr wolf is slide 36 a true and accurate representation of your analysis of miss reed's vehicle arriving at the canton police department yes it is and pursuant to the timeline you created miss reed's vehicle powered off at 5 36 42 p.m on january 30th 2022 correct objection objection i have this okay is your analysis down to excuse me is your analysis on slide 36 accurate down to the second as you stated in your direct examination yesterday yes according to the lexus yes according to the lexus yes in point of fact mr burgess none of the five timelines that we just reviewed from your presentation are accurate at all and certainly not down to the second am i right or am i wrong you are wrong are you aware and if we could go back to the first slide which is slide 32 and we'll look at each of them quickly are you aware that all of the relevant events in the timeline you described in your presentation in these slides actually occurred on january 29th 2022 not january 30th 2022 do you know that [00:09:12] Speaker 4: this is january 30 30th 2022 that's january 29th correct it's january it's january 29th [00:09:24] Speaker 3: 2022 and in terms of january 30th i want to go back i want to go back and make sure it's it's very very clear in your presentation they actually occurred on january 29th 2022 correct [00:09:46] Speaker 4: the night of the the night of the uh incident yes can i have a moment your honor please yes thank you [00:10:10] Speaker 3: mr burgess mr burgess once that timeline crosses into midnight it's january 30th not january 29th correct correct yes it is january 30th yes so act in actuality these five timelines as you testified to them yesterday are not accurate down to [00:10:34] Speaker 4: the second correct because you got the wrong date well parlance yes but but yes they are still accurate [00:10:41] Speaker 3: to the second but the date these five time let's see let's pursue this these five timelines are exactly 24 hours off from the time where the event actually occurred correct [00:11:01] Speaker 4: no so these events occurred on january 30th [00:11:06] Speaker 3: if i misspoke and said the 29th yes okay you understand my point yes i do the core basis of your job your role in this case is to reconcile time discrepancies as you say down to the second correct correct but your discussion of the timeline on each of these slides on each of these key events is incorrect correct no it's not incorrect so your discussion of the applicable date you're saying as you described it yesterday and interpreted this timeline was correct is that [00:12:04] Speaker 4: what you're saying now this timeline is is correct but my question is your discussion of it yesterday if if i misspoke and said the 29th then yes i misspoke on that yes and that was your testimony yesterday what [00:12:17] Speaker 3: you spoke about yes let's turn to a different topic lights up uh if we could and thank you for taking that down mr will your uh actually to mitigate the inconsistencies that you analyzed yesterday between independent clocks am i correct that your position is that forensic methodology recommends cross-referencing time stamps from multiple sources to identify discrepancies and when possible leveraging time anchors to identify and correct timing discrepancies do i have that right yes you do yesterday we talked about the scientific method you recall that sir i do and how it's designed to prevent bias from infecting the analysis you recall that as well yes i did and yesterday you agreed that experts should never selectively gather and interpret evidence to confirm a pre-existing belief while neglecting evidence that contradicts those beliefs correct correct and in in doing that is called confirmation bias which you said you understood yesterday right that is correct that would be improper to do that correct yes it would re it would um raise the the specter if not the reality of unreliability if that occurred correct uh it could yes and it could also lead in to errors in forensic analyses correct correct let's take a look at your your january uh 30th report sir okay and this is um your first report your second report being the may 8th report in your january 30th report you did not issue any opinion or conclusion with regard to the timing of what you call the tech stream event 11 62 2 in your january 30th report did you no i did not you didn't even mention either the phrase text stream event or the phrase 11 62 2 in your january 30 2025 report did you no i did not but in your that january 30 2025 report you did evaluate the variance between the lexus infotainment system on the one hand and mr o'keefe's iphone data on the other correct correct in fact in that report the january 30th report you compared the call logs on miss reed's lexus infotainment system with the call logs on mr o'keefe's iphone in order to evaluate whether there was a variance correct correct correct and do i have it correct in your report that it's the position that the time stamp call log data specifically the recorded calls between miss reed and mr o'keefe along with the infotainment power event logs were analyzed for what you called uh clock skew by cross-referencing them against other independent data sources right no so that would have been [00:16:24] Speaker 4: comparing the time stamps from mr o'keefe's iphone with the time stamps from miss from the defendants lexus [00:16:31] Speaker 3: right right correct yes yes um right to miss reed's lexus correct and a forensic comparison of of these data sets was aimed to identify time stamp discrepancies correct correct to identify potential clock skew correct correct and put a potential clock drift that could impact event reconstruction correct correct all this stated in your january 30th report right correct uh your honor may i have this marked as the next exhibit in order for identification yes sure [00:17:55] Speaker 2: you have this marked as exhibit bbb for id thank you [00:18:13] Speaker 3: may i present to the witness your honor yes thank you mr burgess i am presenting to you what has been marked as exhibit b bbb for identification i'd ask you to take a look at it sir and then pick your head up when you've had a fair opportunity to take a look at it okay sure do you recognize uh that document sir i do [00:18:41] Speaker 4: what do you recognize that document to be sir sure so this is a a graph that i put together that is comparing time stamps call time stamps from the infotainment module with mr o'keefe's iphone and is that [00:19:03] Speaker 3: uh exhibit bbb for identification in your january 30 2025 report yes it is and did you create that chart that is depicted in exhibit bbb for identification yes i did and is that a fair and accurate representation of of the information that you discussed in page 33 of your january 30 2025 report yes it is i offer exhibit bbb for [00:19:38] Speaker 2: identification into evidence your honor if we can introduce the whole report to put it in context [00:19:56] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Your Honor, at this time, I offer Exhibit BBB into evidence. Okay. Is it the 189? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:22:08] Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:22:17] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:22:17] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:22:18] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:22:21] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:22:24] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:22:32] Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Burgess, I have re-presented to you what is now Exhibit 189 in evidence. I ask you to, once again, take a look at it. And if you need further time, please take it, sir, and then pick up your head when you've had a fair opportunity to look at that document. [00:22:54] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:22:55] Speaker 3: Okay. Despite claiming the purpose in your January 30 report of, quote, "identifying timestamp discrepancies, potential clock skew, and clock drift," you did not compare the time of the three-point turn between the infotainment system in the Lexus SUV and Mr. O'Keefe's phone, did you? Not at that time, no. Instead, instead, you identified the potential variance by analyzing various calls on the infotainment system of the Lexus versus Mr. O'Keefe's phone. O'Keefe's phone, correct? Correct. This data, this data in that exhibit captures a precise moment in time that is easily compared between the two devices, correct? Correct. It does. So, your honor, may Mr. Wolk please publish this exhibit? Okay. So, this data just to reestablish captures a precise moment in time that's easily compared between the two devices, correct? Correct. Now, according to your own table, there are potential offsets of reading in the far right-hand column, two seconds, one second, two seconds, one second, eight seconds, 16 seconds, and 21 seconds, correct? Correct. And yet, and yet, you failed to apply this variance to the infotainment time on the Lexus associated with the TechStream event 1162-2, correct? Correct. May I explain? I will proceed along. I'm sure if Mr. Brennan has questions and wants you to explain, he may choose the answer. to do that. This is simple arithmetic, is it not? It's either an addition or a subtraction, the offset, correct? Correct. And yet, in your initial report on January 30th, 2025, you did not take that final analytical step, did you? [00:25:57] Speaker 4: No, because these clock variances do not apply to that time frame. [00:26:02] Speaker 3: But you didn't take, you know what analytical step I'm talking about, correct? [00:26:07] Speaker 4: No, I don't. I don't believe so. [00:26:10] Speaker 3: We'll come back to it. We'll come back to it. I want to go focus on your opinion. What you did do, as I understand it, in your January 30th report. Sure. So, in your opinion, we can take, leave that up for a moment, please, because I want to see if we need to show the contrast. With your honor's permission, will you leave it up just a little bit longer? Yes. In opinion number five, and please feel free to look at your January 30th report. Sure. You indicated only this. The difference between the Lexus infotainment and Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone ranged between 8 seconds and 16 to 21 seconds during the period between 5:21:36 AM and 5:30:31 AM on January 29th, 2022. Do I have that correct? [00:27:14] Speaker 4: Yes. Between 5:21 and 5:30 AM. [00:27:17] Speaker 3: Yes. Now, what I'd like to do is, and we can take that down. Thank you, Mr. Woke. Let's talk about what information you learned after you issued your January 30th, 2025 report. Or, at the time of that report, you received and reviewed a copy of a portion of your colleague's slide presentation and report at Aperture, Dr. Judson Welcher, correct? [00:27:54] Speaker 4: From a presentation by Mr. DeSogre. Yes. [00:27:58] Speaker 3: Correct. Well, I understand you want to add Mr. DeSogre. Objection. My question is... Objection. Sustained. Okay. Yes, Your Honor. [00:28:10] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:28:11] Speaker 3: I'm focusing on the, what would you like to call it? Do you call it a slide presentation you prefer of Dr. Welcher? Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. We can... I want to use whatever parlance you're comfortable with. Yeah, slide. Slide's fine, yeah. Slide. So the slide presentation of Dr. Welcher that he submitted the same day you submitted your report on January 30th, 2025. And in that, he analyzed the timing of the 1162 to what he calls an infotainment event, you call a tech stream event, correct? Well, can I see the slide we're talking about to clarify? Absolutely. Absolutely. Could we publish what is in evidence of what is 188? Okay. [00:29:06] Speaker 5: And I'm also... [00:29:07] Speaker 3: May I approach, please? Yes. At your request, I want to give you... Sure. That, you know, if we have 188, we'll just give them the actual marked exhibit. You know what we'll do? We'll use the slide if you need an exhibit. We'll pull the exhibit as you move it along. Please publish, Mr. Wolk. Now, if we could enlarge the text. We don't need the map, so make that as large as you can, please, Mr. Wolk, in the relevant portions. All righty. You're aware that according to Dr. Welcher's analysis, as depicted in this slide in evidence, the 1162-2, what he calls an infotainment trigger, that you call a tech stream event, right? Correct. So, the 1162-2 tech stream event occurred at 12:31:38 a.m. on January 29, 2022, correct? Correct. And that's when it began, right? [00:30:33] Speaker 4: That's when the trigger threshold was met, yes. [00:30:35] Speaker 3: That's when the trigger threshold was met. Correct. You -- we can take that down now, Mr. Wolk. You also testified yesterday that you reviewed Mr. Wiffen, Mr. Ian Wiffen's January report, which established a timeline of the last interactive events on Mr. O'Keefe's phone, correct? Correct. Your Honor, could we please publish Exhibit 39, which is in evidence? [00:31:22] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:31:23] Speaker 3: And we could go to slide 82 and have 83 available, if we can enlarge the applicable sections. And what I'm going to ask you, Mr. Burgess, is to see whether these events are consistent with your memory of what the applicable events are. Do you see the column biometric device unlock with face ID event at 12:32:04 a.m.? Yes. Now, that's after the 12:31:38 a.m. 11:62:02 TechStream event that's in Mr. Welcher's slide, correct, that we just saw? [00:32:13] Speaker 4: Correct. The unadjusted Lexus clock, yes. Time stamp. [00:32:17] Speaker 3: So -- but it's -- I'm going to repeat the question. The 12:32:04 a.m. device unlock with face ID event is after the 12:31:38 and 12:31:43 11:62:02 TechStream event that is stated in Dr. Welcher's report, correct? Correct. Correct. Now, do you see the lock event which occurred at 12:32:09? Yes, I did. That is also after the 12:31:38 to 12:31:43 TechStream event, correct? [00:33:13] Speaker 4: Yes, the unadjusted time. [00:33:16] Speaker 3: Correct. That 12:32:09 a.m. Lock event is after the 12:31:38 to 12:31:43 range that is stated in Dr. Welcher's report, correct? Correct. Correct. From the Lexus clock. So, the -- if we could go back -- and we're going to toggle back, with your honor's permission, between these two slides for the next couple questions, if we can go back to and enlarge Dr. Welcher's slide. Correct. That 12:31:38 to 12:31:43 time period is what your colleague, the licensed engineer, Dr. Welcher, chose in his slide analysis as the last user interaction, according to him on John O'Keefe's phone, correct? That's what he chose. [00:34:31] Speaker 4: Yes, the 12:32:09, yes. [00:34:34] Speaker 3: Now, if we could go back to the -- and zero in, please. [00:34:51] Speaker ?: Correct. [00:34:52] Speaker 3: Now, but even Mr. Wiffen's report establishes additional activity on Mr. O'Keefe's phone after the event chosen by Dr. Welcher, correct? Correct. And, in fact, Mr. Wiffen identifies a, quote, "lock event" that occurred 26 seconds after the 11:62:02 text stream event identified by Dr. Welcher at 12:31:38 to 12:31:43, correct? Correct. Correct. [00:35:42] Speaker 4: Using the unadjusted clock. [00:35:43] Speaker 3: I would like -- does Dr. Welcher at all use the words "unadjusted clock" in his slide, sir? No. Okay. And what I'd like to do is ask you a question about whether, in fact, Mr. Wiffen identifies a lock event that occurred 26 seconds after the 11:62:02 text stream event at 12:31:38 to 12:43, as stated in your colleague's report, Dr. Welcher, the slide presentation. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Do you know whether a lock event on an iPhone requires human interaction? Typically, yes, it would. Is it just typically or does it? Well, it does. [00:36:43] Speaker 4: And, in this case, specifically, I believe it was via the lock button. Correct. [00:36:48] Speaker 3: But this specific instance, the lock, it requires somebody, a human being, to actually press a button on the side, correct? [00:36:58] Speaker 4: Unless it's auto-locking, yes. It requires a button press, yes. [00:37:01] Speaker 3: Do you have any reason to believe that the iPhone of Mr. O'Keefe had an auto-locking function on it, sir? No. [00:37:09] Speaker 4: As I said, he used the lock button. [00:37:11] Speaker 3: Right. If we can enlarge that, do you see the end of health event 36 steps that we talked yesterday that was covering a distance of over 84 feet? Do you see that occurring at 12:30 to 16:00 a.m.? I don't believe we talked about that yesterday, but yes, I do see that. [00:37:34] Speaker 4: Do you see it? I do, yes. [00:37:36] Speaker 3: And that's also after the 12:31-38 to 12:31-43 TechStream event, identified by your colleague, the licensed engineer, Dr. Welcher, in his slide, correct? Correct. Now, finally, do you see the entry pocket state detected at 12:33-14 a.m.? Do you see that, sir? I've got you. [00:38:10] Speaker 2: Sustained. [00:38:15] Speaker 3: Do you know what a pocket state is, sir? [00:38:16] Speaker ?: I do know what a pocket state is. [00:38:16] Speaker 3: Do you know when the pocket states occurred on the iPhone of John O'Keefe pursuant to your analysis of his phone? I do not. You didn't analyze pocket state detections on Mr. O'Keefe's phone? No, I did not personally. Do you believe pocket state detected data? Well, let me just go back and confirm. So, you didn't analyze with any source pocket state detection information with regard to Mr. O'Keefe's phone. Is that correct? That's correct. If you look back and summarize for each of the ones you did look at and analyze that you just testified. Every single one of those that we just discussed, those user interaction events, occurred after Dr. Welcher claims a collision occurred as represented in a text stream event of 11:62-2 at 12:30-133. Correct? Objection. Do you understand, let's, if we can go back please to Dr. Welcher's slide. Highlight the text again, please, Mr. Wolfe. Do you understand that Dr. Welcher is correlating the infotainment trigger 11:62-2 with an alleged collision? Do you understand that? Objection. [00:40:30] Speaker 2: Let's come to Sybach, please. [00:40:35] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:43:05] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:43:35] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:46:05] Speaker 3: Thank you. And if you could re-enlarge the applicable section that we've had up before. Thanks for your patience, Mr. Burgess. You have reviewed this slide, you have reviewed this slide and this specific data in this slide previously, correct? Correct. And you, I just want to, Mr. Wolk, just go back to the slide so we're clear on what this is. So this slide, so this slide here is what you're saying, you've reviewed this slide, and you've reviewed this slide prior to your testimony in this court, correct? And did you, and you considered this slide as part of your analyses that you have performed and testified about, correct? Yes, you've reviewed this slide, right? Yes, I've reviewed this slide, and you've reviewed this slide, right? And then I'd like to ask you, every single one of the user interaction events that we talked about, steps, lock, etc., occurred after Dr. Welcher's, what he calls an infotainment event, which you call a text stream event. In the range of 12-31-38 to 12-31-43, correct? [00:48:16] Speaker 4: I would agree that, yes. [00:48:19] Speaker 3: So the answer is yes? With the caveat. I'm sorry, you hadn't finished. Please finish your answer. [00:48:24] Speaker 4: Yes, with the caveat that user interaction only applies to the device lock, steps, and the pocket state are not duplicative of user interaction, per se. [00:48:36] Speaker 3: Let's just assume that is the case. Let's then just focus on what you consider to be a user interaction, which is device lock, correct? Correct. And the device lock event that you agree is a user interaction, we could go back to that just so we have clarity. The lock event that you agree is a user interaction occurred at 12-32-09, according to Mr. O'Keefe's phone, correct? Correct. And that 12-32-09 time period, we could go back to Dr. Welcher, is after, it is after the end of the text stream event, dubbed as 11-62-2, correct? Correct, according to... In that 26 seconds... I didn't finish my question. I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:49:44] Speaker 2: So go ahead, finish your question. Don't answer Mr. Ferguson until the complete question. [00:49:49] Speaker 3: And that event lock, even according to Dr. Welcher's own words in his own slide, occurs 20 seconds after the end of the text stream event, 11-62-2, correct? Of the unadjusted clock, yes. May I have a moment, Your Honor? [00:50:18] Speaker 2: Yes. Do you want the lights on, Mr. Lesnar? [00:50:20] Speaker 3: I'm good, Dominic. And so to repeat my... To alter it, hopefully to make it a little clearer. So according to Dr. Welcher, the licensed engineers, your colleague at Aperture, his slide that he has here, the last O'Keeffe cell phone event, the lock, occurred within approximately 26 seconds after the end of the text stream event, dubbed 11-62-2. That's what's stated there, correct? Correct, according to the unadjusted clock. You keep adding according to the unadjusted clock, but do the words according to the unadjusted clock appear anywhere in that slide, sir? No, they do not. We can take that down and, with the court's permission, turn the lights back on, please. Yesterday, you stated that you reviewed a presentation by another expert, Mr. DeSogra, who reviewed the findings of your January 30th report. Do you recall that, sir? Yes, I do. In fact, in your May 8th, 2025 report, your second report, your first being the January 30th report, you only cite two new sources of data that you reviewed before making your conclusions, correct? Correct. May I have a moment, Your Honor? [00:52:17] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:52:25] Speaker 3: May I approach, Your Honor? [00:52:26] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:52:34] Speaker 5: I'm going to need to be part of the comments as well. [00:52:47] Speaker 2: All right. [00:52:47] Speaker ?: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. [00:57:02] Speaker 3: May I proceed, Your Honor, and approach the witness? Yes. Thank you. I'm going to present to you two documents, each of which is marked for identification. The first is Exhibit CCC for identification. That is one slide out of what is marked as Exhibit DDD for identification. And Exhibit CCC is one page out of Exhibit DDD for identification. And I'd ask you, sir, to take a look at those documents and reference either one. And please let me know, sir, when you've had a fair opportunity to review those documents so I can proceed with questions about them. Sir, can you please read the exhibit designation on the entire slide presentation? On DDD. Pardon me? On Exhibit DDD. And that's triple D as in David? Correct. So, in Exhibit DDD, is that the March 5, 2005 PowerPoint presentation of Mr. DeSogra that you spoke about extensively yesterday? Yes, it is. And, sir, before you came to court yesterday, did you review and consider the Exhibit DDD for identification? Yes, I did. And as a matter of fact, you spent considerable time with regard to Exhibit DDD before you came to court yesterday? Correct. And, in addition, isn't it the case that your testimony yesterday is that Exhibit DDD, the March 5, 2025 slide presentation of Mr. DeSogra was part of the reason why you created your May 8, 2025 report, correct? Correct. May I approach, Your Honor? [00:59:51] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:59:53] Speaker 3: May I approach, Your Honor? Your Honor, I offer Exhibit DDD, I'm sorry, Exhibit CCC into evidence, and do not offer Exhibit DDD at this time. [01:00:13] Speaker 2: Okay. The witness just spoke of DDD, so why don't you have him just say what CCC is before we put it in? [01:00:21] Speaker 3: I will do so, Your Honor, thank you. Mr. Burgess, is Exhibit CCC a slide page out of Exhibit DDD? [01:00:35] Speaker 4: Yes, it is. [01:00:36] Speaker 2: Okay, now it'll... [01:00:37] Speaker 3: Thank you for that, Your Honor. I now offer Exhibit CCC for identification into evidence. Yes. And I also hand back to Madam Court Reporter Exhibit DDD for identification. [01:00:54] Speaker 2: Exhibit 190. [01:01:03] Speaker 3: And, sir, do you have, before you read the three letters, please, just so we're on the same page in that exhibit? [01:01:14] Speaker 4: Uh... [01:01:14] Speaker 3: The other one that's in... [01:01:17] Speaker 2: Thank you. [01:01:18] Speaker 3: The one page? [01:01:23] Speaker 4: Yes. Uh... Exhibit 190. [01:01:26] Speaker 3: And that's the entitled to all possible combinations? Yes, it is. So we'll refer to that as Exhibit 190, okay? Okay. Have you had a fair opportunity to refresh yourself on that one-page chart? Yes, I have. Your Honor, may I please publish Exhibit 190? Yes. And if we could enlarge it, um, without... I think, Mr. Wolk, we can obscure for the moment the all positive on the right and come back to that as needed. Thank you. Now, Mr. DeSogra, who is an expert for the defense, took the data points you evaluated in your January 30, 2025 report, and simply performed the last step in your analysis that I was referring to in previous, correct? [01:02:42] Speaker 4: Correct. For a lot of data points that do not apply for the time of the accident. [01:02:49] Speaker 3: I understand you may have a view as to whether they apply or not. I'm just trying to understand what you understood he did. [01:02:57] Speaker 2: Again... I'll repeat. [01:02:59] Speaker 3: Yes, Your Honor. [01:02:59] Speaker 2: So we'll strike the comment part and just a question, please. [01:03:01] Speaker 3: I'll repeat and just go to the question. So you understand that Mr. DeSogra took the data points that you evaluated in your January 30, 2025 report and simply performed the last step in your analysis, correct? [01:03:24] Speaker 4: In my report, in addition to Dr. Welchers. [01:03:28] Speaker 3: Right. In addition to Dr. Welchers. Correct. Now, what I want to do is just elucidate the columns and their meaning. So the column on the right equals the number of seconds, and it's the far right, the number of seconds between the end of the 1162.2 TechStream event that in the slide of Dr. Welcher is ending at 1231.43, and the lock event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone that's occurred at 1232.09, correct? Correct. And that's your understanding of that column as well? Correct. Now, even taking your colleague Dr. Welchers' assumption that the last user interaction on Mr. O'Keefe's phone occurred at 1232.09 a.m. on January 29, 2022, is Mr. DeSogra demonstrating in this chart that by using the clock variance that you calculated in your January 30 report, there are no circumstances where the trigger event of 1162.2 occurs before the lock event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone. Objection. After. [01:05:01] Speaker 2: Sustained. There's one part of your question that needs to be omitted. [01:05:05] Speaker 3: In terms of this chart, do you agree that the methodology and application of it of Mr. DeSogra is that Mr. DeSogra took the last user interaction data point of Dr. Welcher in his slide of 1232.09 and applied the clock variance that you calculated in your January 30 report? Do you agree that that's what Mr. DeSogra did? No, I do not. What do you believe Mr. DeSogra did here? [01:05:54] Speaker 4: Well, so the math is correct. So when he's trying to adjust clock variances between the two devices, that math is correct, but he's applying incorrect adjustments. [01:06:07] Speaker 3: I understand. But what I'm trying to get at is just what you understood Mr. DeSogra did in this chart. Correct. I did understand, yes, what he was trying to do. And so do you agree, based upon what Mr. DeSogra did as represented in this chart, there are no circumstances where the 1162.02 tech stream event occurs. Well, let me have you describe what you believe Mr. DeSogra is doing with regard to comparing, based upon this chart, the 1162.02 tech stream event of Dr. Welcher with the lock event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone. [01:07:07] Speaker 4: Sure. So he's trying to adjust the clock from the Lexus to the Mr. O'Keefe's iPhone clock, but he does that inaccurately. [01:07:15] Speaker 3: Well, I understand your comment. My question, sir, is this. What do you understand Mr. DeSogra is doing with regard to this chart? Do you understand what he is doing in this chart? Correct. I'd just like you to state what it is you understand he is doing. Sure. So he's trying to adjust timestamps. He's trying to adjust timestamps. In adjusting timestamps, do you agree that Mr. DeSogra makes the point with this chart that there are no circumstances where the 1162 trigger occurs before the lock event on John O'Keefe's phone? Yes. [01:07:58] Speaker 2: Sustained. Can I have a moment, Your Honor? Sure. [01:08:01] Speaker 3: Let me see if I can clarify this in my question. Sure. Do you believe, do you understand that what Mr. DeSogra is doing in this chart is he is showing numerically and arithmatically that there are no circumstances where the text stream event 1162-2 occurs after the lock event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone? Abjection. [01:08:47] Speaker 2: I'm going to allow it in that form. [01:08:50] Speaker 4: So, yes, I understand he's trying to show that. Right. [01:08:54] Speaker 3: Well, he did more than try. Isn't that what he, by his math, that he is demonstrating? Gotcha. [01:09:03] Speaker 2: I'm going to allow that. [01:09:05] Speaker 3: Yes, but it is inaccurate. I understand. But that's, again, the question is, is that what he demonstrates using this chart? Yes. And what he demonstrates is that, Mr. DeSogra demonstrates, that there are no circumstances where the 1162-2 trigger event occurs after the lock event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone, correct? Yes, inaccurately. So, I'm asking what Mr. DeSogra demonstrates in this report, and isn't it correct that Mr. DeSogra, using this math, Mr. DeSogra demonstrates and concludes that there are no circumstances where the 1162-2 TechStream event occurs after the lock event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone. [01:10:10] Speaker 2: Objection. I'm going to allow that. Does that demonstrate that? [01:10:14] Speaker 3: Yes, inaccurately. Okay. I'm going to move on, Your Honor. I'm going to move on. And this methodology and approach of Mr. DeSogra is simply math that he's using, correct? [01:10:34] Speaker 4: No, it's not simply math. [01:10:36] Speaker 3: Well, let's go to the clock variance values in the middle column on that chart. You see that, sir? Yes, I do. Those are, as of March 5 of the date of this, that this column was created, nothing in that middle column is new, is it, that data? [01:11:03] Speaker 4: Yes. Some of that data is new. [01:11:07] Speaker 3: Well, the source data upon which it is created is not new, is it? No, it is not. All right. [01:11:14] Speaker ?: All right. [01:11:14] Speaker 3: So the source data of that column, it's not new? Correct. And the middle column uses your data points from your January 30th report, correct? No, not all of those are. But it does use some of the data from your January 30th report, correct? [01:11:37] Speaker 4: Yes, it is. [01:11:41] Speaker 3: Is the reason that you did not take that final analytical step that we've been talking about in your January 30th report, and this is a question, is the reason you failed to take that final analytical support, or excuse me, final analytic step we've been talking about in your January 30th report was because you knew if you did that, that if you calculated the actual time of the 1162 to TechStream event, based upon your own methodological analysis of the clock skew, there would always be continued interaction on Mr. O'Keefe's phone after the TechStream event? [01:12:29] Speaker 4: No. [01:12:31] Speaker 3: So you deny that? [01:12:33] Speaker 4: Yes. [01:12:39] Speaker 3: Did you keep your January 30, 2025 report purposefully vague by merely noting a clock skew without engaging in any further analysis, such as tethering that clock skew, or otherwise connecting it to the TechStream event in Dr. Welcher's slide presentation? No, I did not. Switch to another topic. Take that down. Thank you, Mr. Grobe. After reviewing, and I'm going to identify three timelines. After reviewing the timelines, you reviewing, the timelines presented by Dr. Welcher, one, Mr. DeSogra, two, and Mr. Ian Whiffen, three, all of which established that the 1162 to TechStream event occurred before that last user activity, the lock on Mr. O'Keefe's phone, you then decided to issue a new report that would become dated May 8, 2025, correct? Objection. [01:14:01] Speaker 2: I'm going to allow that. [01:14:12] Speaker 3: Well, before you issued that report, isn't it correct that you had reviewed the time data of Dr. Welcher in the slide that we've been reviewing? Not before that time, no. You had not looked at Dr. Welcher's slide with a TechStream event 1162.2 and a time for that before issuing your May 8th report? [01:14:40] Speaker 4: No, yes, before my, sorry, misheard you, yes. That's my question. [01:14:45] Speaker 3: So, would I, would I, let me just ask it through a question. Sure. So, it is correct that before you issued your May 8th, 2025 report, that you had reviewed that slide of your colleague Dr. Welcher on 1162.2 that establishes the TechStream event as 1231.38 to 1231.43, correct? Correct. You reviewed it before your May 8th report. Yes. You also reviewed before your May 8th report the slide presentation of Mr. DeSogra, correct? Yes, I did. And before you issued your May 8th, 2025 report, you also had reviewed the January 2025 report of Mr. Wiffen, correct? Correct. Each one of and all of those three established that the 1162.2 TechStream event occurred before the last user activity on Mr. O'Keefe's phone. Correct? [01:15:56] Speaker 2: I'm going to allow it if that's what, let's see what the answer is. [01:16:00] Speaker 4: Using either unadjusted timestamps or inaccurately adjusted timestamps, yes. [01:16:05] Speaker 3: Let me ask my question again, and if it's not clear, please let me know. Sure. After reviewing what we've discussed prepared by Dr. Welcher, Mr. DeSogra, and Ian Wiffen, each and all of which established that the 1162.2 TechStream event occurred before the last user activity on Mr. O'Keefe's phone, you then decided to issue a new report that would become dated May 8th, 2025. Is that statement I just made correct? Yes, that is correct. Now let's take a look at your May 8th, 2025 report. You departed in your May 8th, 2000. Did you, sir, do you have that report in front of you? I do, yes. Do you need a moment to look at it, or are you ready to take questions? No, go ahead. Thank you. You departed from your analysis, let's start it this way. In this May 8th, 2025 report, you departed from your analysis in your January 2025 report to reach a conclusion that would attempt to put the 1162.2 TechStream event after human interaction with Mr. O'Keefe's phone, correct? [01:17:42] Speaker 4: No, I did not depart from my original report. I clarified. [01:17:48] Speaker 3: Okay. So you didn't depart from it, but you, in your May 8th report, but your position is you clarified it. Correct. But isn't it correct that in your January 30, 2025 report, you did not address at all whether the 1162.2 TechStream event occurred before or after the last user event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone, correct? Correct. But you did that in your May 8th report, correct? Correct. You don't call that a change, sir? No, sir, I do not. You call that a clarification? I do. In your January 2025 report, you compared call log entries between the infotainment system on the Lexus and Mr. O'Keefe's iPhone to determine a potential variance, correct? Correct. And call logs are discrete points in time that are fairly easy to compare? Correct. Now, in your May 8th, 2025 report, you abandoned the call log analysis from your January 30th, 2025 report, correct? No, I did not abandon it. But you did depart from it, at least in some respects, correct? [01:19:28] Speaker 4: I did not depart from it. I used another method. Okay. [01:19:36] Speaker 3: So, you used another method. [01:19:39] Speaker 4: Correct. [01:19:41] Speaker 3: In your May 8th, 2025 report, you opined, as I understand it, that the call log variance has been ignored because, in your words, this offset is measured approximately five hours after the time of the alleged collision and cannot be assumed to apply to other time frames as stated in the initial report. Do I have that right? Yes. Now, please show me, show the juror, in your January 30th report where you ever made that statement. [01:20:23] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:20:53] Speaker 4: So, that would be, it's not worded exactly like that, but that would be in conclusion five. [01:21:08] Speaker 3: And conclusion number five is on page 37 of your January 30, 2025 report, correct? Correct. And your position is that it's the same statement as in your May 8th, 2025 report? [01:21:56] Speaker 5: Because that's my question. That is correct. [01:22:02] Speaker 3: In your May 8th, 2025 report, instead of applying the offsets from the call logs, which are discrete points in time that are fairly easy to compare, as you stated just moments ago, you decided to use, in your words, quote, approximate time of the three-point turn as your anchor between the two devices. Do I have that right? Yes, you do. Isn't what you did and we just discussed a classic example of confirmation bias, which is to be avoided in science? [01:22:46] Speaker 4: No, it is not. [01:22:47] Speaker 3: So, you believe that that is not confirmation bias? No. Choosing the three-point turn as the independent data source is the only way you could ever get the TechStream event to even possibly occur after the lock event on Mr. O'Keefe's phone, correct? And that adjustment is the only thing that can be done to get the TechStream event 1162-2 to occur after the lock on Mr. O'Keefe's phone, correct? Correct. And that's only because it's not a pinpoint in time, it's an amorphous range that can only, in your words, be approximated, correct? [01:23:55] Speaker 4: No, that is because it is the only time adjustment in that time range that can be applied. [01:24:01] Speaker 3: So, it's your view that that's the only one that can be applied, but it is, and even what you're using is, in your words, an approximate time, correct? Correct. Isn't the shortcoming, sir, in your analysis that you ignored the additional user activity on Mr. O'Keefe's device that occurred after the lock event? Yes, I can. Isn't the shortcoming in your analysis, sir, that your analysis ignores the additional user activity on John O'Keefe's device, his cell phone, that occurred after the lock event? [01:24:54] Speaker 4: No. [01:24:55] Speaker 3: Well, let's take a look at events that, you tell me if I'm correct or not, occur after the text stream event 1162-2. Sure. So, do you recall our discussion yesterday about the Apple Health data event of 36 steps covering a distance of over 84 feet? Do you recall that? Yes, I do. And do you recall that that occurred at 1232-16? Yes, I do. And that's after the text stream event of Dr. Welcher that he put in his slide, correct? Correct. Do you also recall a Doppler pocket state detection at 1233-14? Do you recall that? Yes, I do. And that is almost an entire minute after the 1162-2 text stream event that is identified by your colleague, the licensed engineer, Dr. Welcher, in his slide presentation, correct? [01:26:11] Speaker 4: Correct, and neither one of those are user interaction. [01:26:14] Speaker 3: I understand your, well, but let's just take one of them. Sure. And that is the Apple Health data event of 36 steps covering a distance of 84 feet at 1232-16. Would you agree that those steps covering that distance is human activity at least? Would you agree that's human activity? Yes. Thank you. Let's take a look at opinion number seven in your initial January 30th, 2025 report. And, sir, tell me when you had a fair opportunity to locate that. [01:27:03] Speaker 4: Okay. Okay. [01:27:10] Speaker 3: You concluded to a reasonable degree of containment module power on events were on average recorded three seconds after the ignition release. After the ignition release or finger off, correct? Correct. That means that your own testing requires an offset of minus three to account for a delay in the power on of an infotainment system, correct? Correct. That increases, increases the time between the tech stream event 1162-2 and the iPhone lock event by three seconds, correct? Correct. You testified about this same three-second discrepancy yesterday during your direct examination in connection with your January 30th, 2025 report, correct? Correct. However, however, however, you did not mention this offset of three times, should be three seconds in your May 8th, 2025 report, did you? No, I did not. [01:28:44] Speaker ?: No, I did not. [01:28:44] Speaker 3: Can I explain? Mr. Brennan may have questions for you with regard to that. So, nowhere in your May 8th, 2025 report, did you include the three-second offset that you discussed in your January 30th, 2025 report, did you? Correct. And, in fact, sir, nowhere, nowhere in your May 8th report, do you even discuss why you're not addressing that three-second, do you? [01:29:26] Speaker 4: I do not discuss it, but that offset is adjusted within the adjustment that we do with the three-point turn. [01:29:32] Speaker 3: I understand my question is simply, if there's no discussion in your May 8th, 2025 report, how or why you're not discussing that three-second offset, correct? [01:29:46] Speaker 4: Correct. [01:29:55] Speaker 3: I've got a next section, Your Honor, if you would like me to move into it. [01:29:59] Speaker 2: So, why don't we keep going? [01:30:01] Speaker 3: Okay. Sir, a TechStream data event like 1162-2 does not – well, let me back up this way. You're – you testified on direct that you're involved in accident reconstruction. That's part of the work that you do, sir? [01:30:19] Speaker 4: No, that is not part of the work that I do. [01:30:21] Speaker 3: Well, let me clarify then. Do you, sir, do you at all understand whether there's an issue as to whether a collision actually occurred in this case? Do you understand if that's an issue? Objection. Objection. [01:30:38] Speaker ?: Objection. [01:30:38] Speaker 3: Obsistine. Sir, do you have any understanding about what Dr. Welcher in his slide presentation was addressing in context with this case? Do you understand it? Objection. [01:30:58] Speaker 1: I have no idea what your colleague, Dr. Welcher, who is working on the same case. Dr. Welcher, who is working on the same case. [01:31:11] Speaker 4: Generally, yes, but I cannot speak to it. What do you generally understand? [01:31:16] Speaker 3: I cannot speak to it. What do you generally understand? I got you. Sister. What understanding do you have after reading Dr. Welcher's slide presentation? [01:31:31] Speaker 2: Sustained. [01:31:33] Speaker 3: Do you have any understanding? Can we approach your honor? Sure. [01:31:51] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. May I proceed, Your Honor? Yes. Thank you. Thanks for your patience, Mr. Burgess. Yes, sir. I would like to go back to the line of questioning I was starting. [01:39:36] Speaker 3: And that is, I would like to discuss with you, and I'll start with your conclusion. [01:39:56] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:39:57] Speaker 3: And I'm going to reference your May 8th, 2025 report, sir. Okay. If you could turn to the conclusion section of your report, which is on page seven. And I'm going to start with, and I may just end with, we'll see, conclusion number one. Please take a fair opportunity to read that. Pick your head up when you have concluded that fair read. [01:40:37] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:40:38] Speaker 3: Now, that paragraph one states, under conclusions, you say the following can be stated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. One, as noted in my initial report, the only call logs that can be used to compare and synchronize the clocks between Ms. Reed's Lexus and Mr. O'Keefe's iPhone. Are those occurring between 5:21 a.m. and 5:30 a.m., which occur approximately five hours after the collision. Do you see that, sir? I do, yes. Now, what I'd like you to do is to go back in your report. Same report? Yes, sir. [01:41:15] Speaker ?: Same report. May 8th. And I'd like you to turn to page three. [01:41:18] Speaker 3: Okay. And if you could go to the fourth full paragraph that begins with two events near the time. And let me know, sir, when you're there. And if you could read that paragraph, pick your head up after you've had a fair opportunity to read it. [01:41:30] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:41:30] Speaker 3: Okay. [01:41:31] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:41:31] Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Now, you state two events near the time. Okay. And let me know, sir, when you're there. And if you could read that paragraph, pick your head up after you've had a fair opportunity to read it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Now, you state two events near the time of the collision. We're recorded by the Lexus system, as identified by Dr. Welcher and referenced by Mr. DeSogra. The first event, labeled Tech Stream Event 1162-1, is associated with a three-point turn on Cedar Crest Road. The second event, labeled Tech Stream Event 1162-2, is associated with a reverse maneuver on Fairview Road. These events will be referenced below for clock synchronization analysis. The time stamps associated with these two events are based on a combination of the Lexus infotainment power on event and Tech Stream time count. Did I read that correctly, sir? Yes, you did. So, in the same paragraph, am I correct, that you're discussing a couple of Tech Stream events, 1162-1 and 1162-2? Yes. And you are talking about that Tech Stream event in the same paragraph as you're talking about an alleged collision, correct? Correct. And in your paragraph of your conclusion that we were referencing, conclusion one, is this paragraph part of the basis for that conclusion one? Is this sort of like some predicate analysis for conclusion number one? No. No. No, it is not. So, your view it has no relationship whatsoever to conclusion one? No. Correct. So, let's go to your discussion of a collision and a Tech Stream event. Let's go back to paragraph three. You see, you mentioned the word "collision" in paragraph three, correct? [01:43:59] Speaker 4: I do not. [01:44:03] Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I just had paragraph three, I meant page three, sir? Yes, page three. Page three, that paragraph we were just looking at. Yes. [01:44:12] Speaker 4: Sorry, yes, I do say "collision." You see the word, use the word "collision." [01:44:14] Speaker 3: Yes. And, again, that term is used in the same paragraph as you're identifying Tech Stream event 1162-1. Where did you get the basis to use the word "collision" at that part of your report? [01:44:40] Speaker 4: That would have been from crash reports. And whose crash reports? The Massachusetts State Police. [01:44:48] Speaker 3: So, you used Massachusetts State Police reports to discuss allegations of a crash, collision? Yes. Do you state anywhere in your May 8th report that you used those reports at all? Do you list it in your references? No, not in this report, no. And as a matter of fact, this is the first time, right this previous moment, that you are mentioning those reports at all, correct? [01:45:33] Speaker 4: No, those were mentioned in my initial report. [01:45:36] Speaker 3: But I'm talking about your May 8th report. Yes, sorry. Yes. [01:45:40] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:45:41] Speaker 3: So, your statements, and I want to clarify this because this is the ultimate topic I want to go to. Your, it is not your conclusion that every Tech Stream data event means that there is a collision. Do you, sir? No, that is not my conclusion. No, that is not my conclusion. So, isn't it correct that you can have Tech Stream events and they're not collisions? Yes, you can. And isn't it a fact that a Tech Stream event, sometimes called a trigger event, is not like an airbag type deploying, correct? Correct. They're just, and we're going to get to this later, it's just something that happens with a Lexus vehicle that can cause the vehicle to register a Tech Stream event, correct? Correct. And some people refer to Tech Stream event as a trigger, correct? Correct. But, there's many things that can happen with a vehicle that can cause a trigger, correct? Correct. We will come back to that. So, you would agree, again, that a Tech Stream trigger event does not mean that there was a collision, correct? Correct. A Tech Stream data event doesn't mean that airbags were deployed, correct? Correct. A trigger data event doesn't mean that there was a vehicle impact, correct? By itself, no. Correct. By itself, it doesn't mean, correct? Correct. [01:47:24] Speaker ?: Correct. [01:47:25] Speaker 3: So, a Tech Stream data event merely refers to Lexus' practice of capturing real-time data from applications databases and not devices and transporting that data for immediate processing and storage or for real-time analysis and analytics reporting, correct? [01:47:50] Speaker 4: I don't think I understand your question. If you could rephrase. [01:47:56] Speaker 3: Sure. A tech stream event merely refers to Lexus's practice of capturing real-time data from applications and databases. Is that correct? [01:48:08] Speaker 4: I would not call it applications and databases, no. What would you call it? So from various sensors or other modules on the vehicle. [01:48:16] Speaker 3: Okay, so it's Lexus's practice of capturing real-time data from various sensors and modules on the vehicle, right? Correct. [01:48:25] Speaker 2: Why don't we stop here, Mr. Lessie? Yes. All right, Mr. Lessie, whenever you're ready. [01:48:36] Speaker 3: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Burgess. I'm going to pick up, sir, where we left off. A tech stream trigger event does not automatically mean there was a collision, correct? Correct. A tech stream data event doesn't, without more, mean an airbag deployed, correct? Correct. A tech stream data event merely refers to Lexus's practice of capturing real-time data from applications and databases, correct? [01:49:31] Speaker 4: Sensors and other modules. [01:49:32] Speaker 3: That's right, you said that earlier, sir. Sensors and modules. You reviewed the raw tech stream trigger events on Ms. Reed's vehicle, correct? No, I did not. Oh, you did not? [01:49:53] Speaker ?: No. [01:49:54] Speaker 3: Do you understand whether, do you have an understanding whether Mr. DeSogra reviewed those events in his March 5, 2025 report? I do not. So, you did not review the raw data for tech stream trigger events on Ms. Reed's vehicle, and you did not, therefore, perform any analysis of that data as you sit here today, correct? [01:50:32] Speaker 4: Correct. That's out of what Dr. Welcher provided. [01:50:36] Speaker ?: Right. Okay. Are you aware that there were approximately 30 tech stream trigger events in an eight-month period on Ms. Reed's vehicle? [01:50:50] Speaker 3: No, I'm not. So, assume the data shows that in the mere eight-month period that Ms. Reed owned her vehicle, the Lexus in question, there were 30 tech stream trigger events. Assume that. You would not conclude that there were 30 collisions in that eight-month period, would you? [01:51:36] Speaker 4: No, I would not. [01:51:40] Speaker 3: Would you agree, sir, that there were actually two triggers on January 29th? Yes. And the first trigger that you referred to of 11-62-1, that was not a collision, was it, sir? [01:52:03] Speaker 4: Without reviewing the data, I don't know. [01:52:06] Speaker 3: Well, as you sit here today, you have no basis to state that the 11-62-1 trigger was a collision, do you? No, I do not. And in fact, didn't you refer to that as a three-point turn? I did, yes. And you didn't mention in your direct testimony when you talked about the three-point turn anything about a collision, did you? No, I did not. And as you sit here today, there's no fact or data that you have to conclude that there was any supposed collision associated with that 11-62-1 three-point turn trigger event, correct? [01:52:48] Speaker 4: Correct. [01:52:48] Speaker 3: A trigger event can occur on a Lexus vehicle by a whole host of possibilities, correct? Correct. You could maybe slam on the brakes and cause a trigger event? That is one possibility. You could have just unusual driving. You could be going at a speed or doing something else that has nothing at all to do with a collision, correct? That is correct. And in fact, there are almost countless events that can occur that can cause a trigger event in a Lexus vehicle? [01:53:36] Speaker 4: So I don't know the exact count of what type of triggers there are, but yes, there are a number, yes. [01:53:48] Speaker 3: So back to the 11-62-1 three-point turn trigger event. On your direct examination, you just referred to events surrounding that as a three-point turn, correct? [01:54:04] Speaker 4: Correct. [01:54:06] Speaker 3: And yet that three-point turn registered as a trigger event, right? Correct. Are Lexus SUVs trigger happy? I do not know, sir. As you sit here today, none of the information in that black box that you referred to on your direct testimony indicates that there was a collision on January 29th, does it? Not by itself. Not by itself. Correct. And it doesn't occur that none of the information in that black box indicates that there was a collision on anything without more, correct? Correct. I'd like to now turn to a different topic, sir. In your direct examination, you referenced a Ms. Maggie Gaffney. Do you recall that? Yes, I do. And wasn't part of your reference that she did with respect to the Lexus SUV? Yes, it was. And for instance, you criticized her for failing to extract the micro SD card from the circuit board during the initial chip off, right? [01:55:45] Speaker 4: So I did criticize for not identifying the micro SD card and subsequently not downloading it. Yes. [01:55:52] Speaker 3: And on direct, you even tried to lay at her footsteps, if you will, your bits, bytes misinterpretation on her by claiming that you assumed, quote, a competent expert, close quote, would not have overlooked a relevant chip. So you became confused how about how there could be data missing. Is that a fair characterization? [01:56:18] Speaker 4: No, it is not. [01:56:20] Speaker 3: Did you at all try to use as a justification for your misunderstanding of bits and bytes that it was her work? [01:56:37] Speaker 4: Her word? Her work. Her work. Yes, her work. So it was the, you know, overlooking of the SD card. Yes. [01:56:44] Speaker 3: Right. So you did try to lay at her footsteps part of the reason why you misinterpreted the bits and bytes that we discussed yesterday. Is that correct? [01:56:57] Speaker 4: No, that is not correct. [01:56:59] Speaker 3: Okay. So you would agree, then, that the bits and bytes misinterpretation that you and I discussed yesterday had nothing to do with the work of Ms. Gaffney, correct? [01:57:14] Speaker 4: So in part, but that was my mistake, yes. [01:57:18] Speaker 3: All right. All right. I'm trying to understand which is it. Is it Ms. Gaffney's work had some part in your misinterpretation of bits and bytes, or her work had no part in your misinterpretation of bits and bytes? Some part. So you do attempt to lay some blame on Ms. Gaffney for your misinterpretation of bits and bytes, correct? [01:57:43] Speaker 4: No, I'm not trying to blame anyone. [01:57:47] Speaker 3: Okay. In your January 30, 2025 report, are you consistent with your criticism of Ms. Gaffney? [01:58:06] Speaker 4: As I recall, I believe so, yes. [01:58:11] Speaker 3: In fact, you yourself provided the explanation for why the micro SD card was not extracted during the original chip-off, didn't you? [01:58:24] Speaker 4: Yes, that it was overlooked. [01:58:25] Speaker 3: Right. So if you could please turn to page 5 of your January 30, 2025 report. Okay. And, sir, when you get there, if you could let me know, and I will then proceed with questions. [01:58:46] Speaker 4: Okay. [01:58:51] Speaker 3: So you do attribute to Ms. Gaffney, in your report, some responsibility for this micro SD card not being extracted during the original chip-off. Is that correct? [01:59:09] Speaker 4: Yes. [01:59:11] Speaker 3: So let's go to page 5 of your report, sir. And bear with me. I want to get you the exact location. I don't have it exactly, but I want to quote it. Your Honor, may I have a moment to get the exact quote? Sure. Thank you. [01:59:53] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:59:53] Speaker 3: Thank you. [01:59:55] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:00:53] Speaker 3: Thank you for that, Your Honor. I now have it. Mr. Burgess, if you could turn to page 5, as I was referencing, and go to the third full paragraph. If you could look about two-thirds of the way down the far right, do you see the word where it starts with at? It's the paragraph beginning when examining vehicle systems. Yes, I do. Yes, I see it. And do you see the at? Is it the very far right of that paragraph? Yes. So it says, at the time of the incident, Burla, and Burla is what? [02:01:41] Speaker 4: Burla is a company that offers and develops forensic hardware and software for vehicle modules. [02:01:48] Speaker 3: Right. So at the time of the incident, Burla did not offer support for the infotainment and telematics modules removed from the Lexus, but have since released updated software, indicating similar modules are supported via in-vehicle acquisition. According to Burla, currently, there are two known and documented modules within the vehicle that have the capability to store data. The infotainment module removed from Ms. Reed's Lexus is consistent with the MMU documented by Burla and has been identified as containing an internal micro-SD card not acquired during the initial chip-off acquisition by Ms. Gaffney. Did I read that correctly? [02:02:40] Speaker 4: Yes, you did. [02:02:41] Speaker 3: So as you stated, Burla is the organization that you described, which for the purpose you did, I'm not going to repeat it on direct examination. If I could sort of put in layman's terms and see, you tell me if this is correct. To make it easier for non-technical people. To make it easier for non-technical people, as you put it, to extract data from a vehicle, correct? Correct. You describe in your January 30, 2025 report that at the time of the initial chip-off, Burla did not provide support for the information contained on the micro-SD card, correct? [02:03:26] Speaker 4: No. So I think you're misreading that last sentence, and I can clarify. [02:03:31] Speaker 3: Can you read the last sentence, sir? [02:03:33] Speaker 4: I can. So the infotainment module removed from Ms. Reed's Lexus is consistent with the MMU documented by Burla and has been identified as containing an internal micro-SD card not acquired during the initial chip-off acquisition by Ms. Gaffney. [02:03:49] Speaker 3: So my question is, did or did not Burla, at the time of the initial chip-off by Ms. Gaffney, provide the technical support to address the information contained on the micro-SD card? [02:04:08] Speaker 4: No, Burla did not and does not. [02:04:11] Speaker 3: Good. That I wanted to... That was my identification of the micro-SD card, correct. So it was not until after the initial chip-off that Ms. Gaffney participated in that Burla updated their software to be able to identify the types of data contained within the micro-SD card on the Lexus circuit board. Is that correct? No, that's incorrect. So Burla didn't do anything new after the initial chip-off with its software? [02:04:49] Speaker 4: Sure. So Burla released new software after the initial chip-off that addresses being able to download software via the infotainment module while it's in the vehicle. So that involves plugging a USB in to the vehicle and downloading data. That does not address the micro-SD card on the circuit board itself. [02:05:08] Speaker 3: And Ms. Gaffney did not have, at the time of the initial chip-off, that updated Burla software, correct? Correct. Okay, thank you, sir. Appreciate your questioning. Thank you for answering my questions. That's all I have at this time, Your Honor, but I have a bit to pack up so Mr. Brennan can have a clear podium. [02:05:30] Speaker 2: Go right ahead. [02:05:31] Speaker 3: Thank you. [02:05:31] Speaker ?: Thank you.