About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Worst Cross Examination in Legal History - Ends Karen Read Case from Microdots Clips, published November 14, 2026. The transcript contains 14,874 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"What you are about to see as a hired gun special prosecutor face the expert witness he fears most. He spent nearly a year doing everything in his power to prevent or limit Dr. Rentschler's testimony with very little success. All in preparation for this moment in time. Also worth noting, heading..."
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: What you are about to see as a hired gun special prosecutor face the expert witness he fears most. He spent nearly a year doing everything in his power to prevent or limit Dr. Rentschler's testimony with very little success. All in preparation for this moment in time. Also worth noting, heading into today, the Commonwealth's case was already on life support after a string of strong defense witnesses. By the end of this session, it would be dead. Roll the tape.
[00:00:44] Speaker 2: Before you testified last year, you were receiving information, not from the defense, from your employer, about other witnesses' testimony.
[00:00:59] Dr. Rentschler: During the event, weren't you? I don't know if they told us about witness testimony. They told us about certain evidence. I had no contact with the court, with the prosecution, with the defense. I had no idea what was going on. We were retained by a certain organization, and they contacted the court. They were in talks with the court about, I guess, what we could or couldn't do. Anything I got was from that organization. I had no idea what was going on.
[00:01:26] Speaker ?: I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on.
[00:01:54] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:02:05] 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.
[00:02:18] Speaker 2: What I just said to you, are those your words, sir?
[00:02:22] Dr. Rentschler: I have no idea. I mean, if that's what's in the record, I assume it is.
[00:02:27] Speaker 1: Watch here as the judge allows Brennan to ask essentially the same question seven times.
[00:02:34] Speaker 4: Would you agree it certainly helped you prepare?
[00:02:38] Dr. Rentschler: It helped me prepare? Yes. It didn't make a difference to my analysis or conclusions.
[00:02:43] Speaker 2: It made no difference at all?
[00:02:44] Dr. Rentschler: It did not, no, sir.
[00:02:46] Speaker 2: Would you agree it helped you understand what was going on during the trial?
[00:02:52] 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.
[00:03:01] Speaker 2: And so as you sit here today, you are denying that that information certainly helped you prepare? How did it help me prepare?
[00:03:11] 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. It hasn't changed anything I've ever testified to.
[00:03:23] Speaker 5: I'm going to ask you a very specific question and I want you to give it a very specific objection
[00:03:28] Speaker 6: mode. So just go ahead and ask the question.
[00:03:30] Speaker 2: Are you denying that receiving that information certainly helped you prepare?
[00:03:39] 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. There was, 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.
[00:03:55] Speaker 2: Details matter, right, sir?
[00:03:58] Dr. Rentschler: Details can matter.
[00:03:59] Speaker 2: Details matter. So let's talk about details.
[00:04:01] Dr. Rentschler: Sure.
[00:04:02] Speaker 2: So you're denying that receiving that information certainly helped you prepare. You're denying it.
[00:04:08] Speaker 6: I'm going to allow it.
[00:04:10] Dr. Rentschler: Yeah, 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.
[00:04:19] Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you one more time. I'll ask you a different question.
[00:04:23] Speaker 1: It's the same question asked for the seventh time.
[00:04:26] Speaker 2: Receiving that information from your employer. Are you denying it helped you understand what was going on during the trial?
[00:04:37] Speaker 6: I'm going to allow that.
[00:04:40] Dr. Rentschler: I don't even think that it did. I don't understand that. 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.
[00:04:56] Speaker 1: The Commonwealth's biggest problem, other than their total lack of evidence and credible expert testimony, is that Brennan comes off as underhanded and deeply untrustworthy. His nasally high-pitched voice and awkward mannerisms make him feel more like a cartoon villain than someone you'd look to for the truth. Human nature leans towards siding with those we like and relate to. And Brennan is anything but relatable. In stark contrast, Dr. Rentschler presents as calm, credible and genuinely likable. A true authority you can trust. The next example makes this dynamic crystal clear. Brennan questions Dr. Rentschler about his direct testimony regarding the x-rays of John's right arm, attempting to suggest that Rentschler misrepresented the medical examiner's diagnosis as his own. But Rentschler responds with a clear, straightforward explanation, one the entire courtroom can grasp. Everyone, except Brennan.
[00:05:48] Speaker 2: 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 erasions, correct?
[00:06:00] Dr. Rentschler: That's the diagnosis, yes, sir.
[00:06:02] Speaker 5: Any of those wounds of puncture in your mind?
[00:06:06] Dr. Rentschler: I don't make medical diagnoses, so I'm not going to comment on that, sir.
[00:06:10] Speaker 2: Well, you talked about x-rays and injury. I know you don't make medical diagnoses, but you were very careful to be detailed about what this was. Not a laceration, right?
[00:06:22] Speaker 4: It is a superficial erasions.
[00:06:24] Dr. Rentschler: That was what was diagnosed by the medical records, yes, sir.
[00:06:27] Speaker 5: And you were very careful to make that distinction when you were critiquing Dr. Welch, weren't you? Sustained.
[00:06:33] Speaker 2: And so you also looked at x-rays, didn't you? Yes, sir.
[00:06:39] Speaker 5: And when you look at them, did you try to get the impression that you've read them, even though you're not a doctor and you can interpret them? Sustained. Were you trying to interpret them for us?
[00:06:49] Dr. Rentschler: No, it was actually interpreted by the medical examiner that there were no acute injuries.
[00:06:53] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:07:03] 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.
[00:07:17] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:07:27] 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 diagnoses was no fracture, no acute injury, and that's certainly consistent with looking at the x-ray itself.
[00:07:49] Speaker 2: 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 or were you doing a certain kind of-- Just sustained. Were you doing any kind of analysis yourself when you were sharing with us what those x-rays showed or didn't show?
[00:08:05] 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.
[00:08:14] Speaker 2: Are you giving us your opinion or are you regurgitating what you read in a report?
[00:08:20] 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?
[00:08:30] Speaker 6: Sustained in that point.
[00:08:32] Speaker 1: Hank Brennan seems to be truly unaware of how poorly he comes across. His problem isn't that he's not intelligent or lacks skills. He's simply not a likable person, at least from what we've seen in this trial, rendering him his own worst enemy, and a gift to the defense. However, it's only a short time later that the wheels come off, and Hank Brennan drives the whole thing straight into a ditch.
[00:08:55] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:09:21] Dr. Rentschler: I doubt that it shatters exactly the same way.
[00:09:25] Speaker 2: It has a lot of different variables, doesn't it? It could. It depends on a number of different equations, doesn't it?
[00:09:33] 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. I was asking you if you have seen...
[00:10:00] Speaker 1: Every step forward Brennan thinks he's making just gives the witness an opportunity to poke more holes in his case. The doctor is able to dodge every jab and punch Brennan back square in the nose. And when it happens again, Brennan snaps.
[00:10:14] Speaker 2: In cases that when plastic breaks, it breaks differently.
[00:10:19] 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, sir.
[00:10:28] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:10:37] 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?
[00:10:46] Speaker 2: No, it's not funny.
[00:10:48] Dr. Rentschler: No, it's not funny.
[00:10:49] Speaker 2: Okay.
[00:10:50] Speaker 6: So, I'm going to strike the comment. Next question. Next question, Mr. Brennan. No more comments.
[00:11:00] Speaker 1: This judge refuses to ever admonish the Commonwealth, yet is on a hair trigger with the defense. Brennan, undeterred by her warning, will do it yet again, and Jackson is forced to call it out.
[00:11:13] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:11:47] Dr. Rentschler: I didn't specifically count, no. We looked at contact to the sleeve and to the dummy itself.
[00:11:53] Speaker 2: You never counted the broken pieces in each experiment?
[00:11:56] 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.
[00:12:04] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:12:25] Speaker 7: I don't allow it.
[00:12:28] 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.
[00:13:04] Speaker 2: Now that you've shared your opinions, can I get back to my question?
[00:13:07] Speaker 6: Sustained. So, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brent, I'm going to see counsel at taillight.
[00:13:16] Speaker 1: This is Judge Beverly Kanoni losing control of her courtroom. So much so that the lead defense attorney had no choice but to call her on it in front of everyone, including the jury. It's difficult to make out his exact wording, but sounds like he says, "I'm asking you to admonish counsel." Instead of doing so, she calls a lunch break, and the topic is never brought up in open court again.
[00:13:37] Speaker 2: Dr. Rentschler, you wrote a report back in February 2024?
[00:13:50] Dr. Rentschler: That's correct, yes, sir.
[00:13:52] Speaker 2: And in that report, you provided a number of opinions, didn't you?
[00:13:56] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes.
[00:13:58] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:14:13] Dr. Rentschler: I believe that's correct, yes.
[00:14:15] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:14:44] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, soft tissue referring to ligaments and tendons of the elbow and shoulder, correct, and the wrist.
[00:14:50] Speaker 2: And so you're saying not superficial abrasions but in the arm?
[00:14:57] Dr. Rentschler: 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.
[00:15:13] Speaker 2: And 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?
[00:15:26] Dr. Rentschler: There are no MRIs that I'm aware of, no sir.
[00:15:28] Speaker 2: And x-rays wouldn't fairly depict some of those internal injuries that you're referring to, would they?
[00:15:35] 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.
[00:15:42] Speaker 2: And a crash test dummy is different than a person, isn't it?
[00:15:46] Dr. Rentschler: Certainly it is, yes.
[00:15:47] Speaker 2: No muscle? That's correct. No ligaments? That's correct. The crash test dummy does not react or respond like a human being?
[00:15:55] Dr. Rentschler: Well, it does to a certain extent, yes.
[00:15:58] Speaker 2: 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? There can be.
[00:16:14] Dr. Rentschler: That's why you have to look at the acceleration and the force and that's primarily what the ATD is utilized for.
[00:16:20] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:16:38] Dr. Rentschler: No, of course they're not the same, no sir.
[00:16:41] Speaker 2: You were speaking about references earlier. You did have a chance to see Dr. Welcher's report, didn't you?
[00:16:47] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes.
[00:16:48] Speaker 2: And in his report there were a number of references, weren't there?
[00:16:52] Dr. Rentschler: There were different references, I think maybe 26 within his report.
[00:16:56] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:17:06] 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.
[00:17:39] Speaker 2: When you read his report and saw his references, did you look up the references?
[00:17:43] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes, sir. Okay.
[00:17:45] Speaker 2: And when you were saying earlier that there was only one reference, you were referring to the paint test, correct?
[00:17:51] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I was referring to there's only one reference specifically with respect to automobile pedestrian impacts.
[00:17:58] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:18:23] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I didn't read any because they weren't referred to in his report for his actual opinions in this case.
[00:18:28] Speaker 2: Do you know whether or not he considered those references or whether he read those references?
[00:18:33] Speaker 6: I wouldn't allow that.
[00:18:35] 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.
[00:18:43] Speaker 2: So you don't know what he considered or thought, do you?
[00:18:46] Dr. Rentschler: I know what he cited to and he referenced to in his report and PowerPoint. That's the extent.
[00:18:50] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:18:57] 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 there.
[00:19:04] Speaker 2: How many references were in your May 7th report?
[00:19:09] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I think there were 26, I think.
[00:19:27] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:19:36] Dr. Rentschler: Well, they support the opinions or the methodology or both with respect to what I've offered in this matter.
[00:19:43] Speaker 2: The reason why you put a cite in is suggesting that it supports whatever proposition you're footnoting on that.
[00:19:48] Dr. Rentschler: To some extent or the methodology or some information pertinent to that opinion, yes, sir.
[00:19:53] Speaker 2: Regarding crash test dummies and prediction and soft tissue injury, you provided three sites, didn't you? And soft tissue injuries? Yes.
[00:20:04] Dr. Rentschler: Can you show me where that, it says that, sir?
[00:20:08] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:20:21] Dr. Rentschler: Yes. And which one was that again? I just want to make sure. What was the number?
[00:20:25] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:20:47] 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.
[00:20:54] Speaker 2: 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, in 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?
[00:21:25] Dr. Rentschler: No, it didn't, and that's not what I did in this matter.
[00:21:29] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:21:53] Dr. Rentschler: No, sir, it looks at, it tells you certain ways to look at sharpness and how lacerations are caused.
[00:22:00] Speaker 2: This is titled, Skin Tissue Cutability and its Relation to Lacerations Severity Indices. You know that, you cited that.
[00:22:09] Dr. Rentschler: That's correct, and it looks at specifically, I think, laminated glass and its ability to cut the skin.
[00:22:14] Speaker 2: 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.
[00:22:35] Dr. Rentschler: Is that correct? Right, to look specifically at laminated glass and the cutability of that type of glass.
[00:22:41] Speaker 2: 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? Well, 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?
[00:23:04] Dr. Rentschler: Oh, I did not evaluate that, no. Not in that manner. No, sir. No, sir. And then you cited...
[00:23:11] Speaker 1: Dr. Rentschler is a senior biomechanist and director of biomechanics, human factors. He knows that Brennan is way out of his depth just by the way he's awkwardly asking questions. You can see Rentschler is well aware of this by his expression.
[00:23:26] Speaker 2: And in 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?
[00:23:47] 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.
[00:23:53] Speaker 2: 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.
[00:24:04] Dr. Rentschler: I mean, for that sake, it doesn't say it's inappropriate either.
[00:24:07] Speaker 2: 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 were 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?
[00:24:52] Dr. Rentschler: There is a lot of literature with respect to the hybrid dummy, yes.
[00:24:56] Speaker 2: 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? Would you agree with that?
[00:25:23] Dr. Rentschler: 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.
[00:25:30] Speaker 1: Brennan is completely lost. First, he allowed Dr. Rentschler to openly state that the prosecution's expert citations were essentially worthless. Then, in a clumsy attempt to impeach Rentschler's own sources, he fails to land a single legitimate point, grasping instead at irrelevant details. He seems bizarrely fixated on Rentschler's use of 50th percentile crash test dummies, as if that alone might undermine him. Never mind that using them is standard practice in scientific testing. And it gets Brennan nowhere.
[00:26:04] Speaker 2: Do you have any source that says it's suitable for determining superficial abrasions?
[00:26:09] Dr. Rentschler: I do not, no, sir.
[00:26:11] Speaker 2: You have no other sites whatsoever supporting that proposition, which led inevitably to one of the opinions you gave to this jury. True?
[00:26:19] Dr. Rentschler: 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.
[00:26:26] Speaker 2: Now, you've talked a lot about Dr. Welcher's pain test.
[00:26:33] Speaker 1: What you're about to see can only be described as remarkable. One of the most stunning cross-examination blunders imaginable. For the next 11 minutes, Brennan fixates on getting Dr. Rentschler to admit that the Commonwealth's expert never claimed to be conducting a reenactment of John O'Keefe's injuries. But in doing so, Brennan unintentionally proved something far more damning. The Commonwealth has no clear theory, no coherent explanation, and no real evidence for how John O'Keefe was killed. Which is, as we know, their burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
[00:27:06] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:27:21] 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.
[00:27:59] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:28:12] 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?
[00:28:33] Speaker 2: I think we understand your perspective is that 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?
[00:28:55] 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.
[00:29:02] Speaker 5: Did Dr. Welcher ever represent that he was trying to describe the actual body position of John O'Keefe when he was hit?
[00:29:11] 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.
[00:29:41] Speaker 5: Would the answer to my question be no?
[00:29:43] 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.
[00:29:51] Speaker 2: You've made assumptions and then have given opinions to this jury based on your assumptions, haven't you?
[00:29:59] 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 tail light cover. If it doesn't represent that, you're right, I'd change my opinion that there's no evidence, no analysis, no conclusion whatsoever.
[00:30:26] Speaker 8: I'm going to try to make my question a little clearer.
[00:30:30] Speaker 2: 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 E.s arm was when he was struck by a license?
[00:30:45] Dr. Rentschler: I don't believe anything's written in the report with respect to that, no.
[00:30:48] Speaker 5: 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?
[00:31:06] Speaker 6: I'm going to allow that.
[00:31:09] Dr. Rentschler: I'm going to allow that. 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.
[00:31:17] Speaker 2: 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 collision.
[00:31:39] Dr. Rentschler: He does not state what he thinks the speed is, that's correct.
[00:31:42] Speaker 2: He never states how far, if at all, Mr. O'Keefe was thrown after the end of the collision.
[00:31:50] Dr. Rentschler: That's right. He does not.
[00:31:52] Speaker 8: When you don't know the speed, you don't know the body position, and you don't know the end or the body at the time of collision,
[00:32:02] Speaker 2: you cannot replicate a collision with crash test dummies to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Well, you're right.
[00:32:12] Dr. Rentschler: You can't prove that that actually occurred. That's the basis. Yeah. So. If you don't have the information, you can't replicate what happened. You can't determine, you can't state to any conclusion of accuracy what actually occurred if you don't have the evidence.
[00:32:27] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:32:48] 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? Scientifically makes no sense.
[00:33:18] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:33:46] Speaker 6: Very briefly.
[00:33:48] Speaker ?: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
[00:34:19] Speaker 2: In reading the reports and evaluating the PowerPoint, would you agree there is no statement by Dr. Welcher ever 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.
[00:34:50] Dr. Rentschler: That's correct.
[00:34:51] Speaker 5: So, when you've made your criticisms, that you've done testing regarding Dr. Welcher, you don't have any evidence, any statement by him that he was trying to reenact the actual collision.
[00:35:07] Dr. Rentschler: When I did that, there's one test with the arm like this. That's the only evidence that was presented in his opinion or in his case. I evaluated that. I have not seen any other explanation of what happened or how it occurred. Specifically, Dr. Welcher said in his report on page nine, he said, "I have conducted an accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering analysis of this matter." If he did not recreate how he was positioned, if he did not determine the speed of impact, if he did not determine how Mr. O'Keefe's body moved, if he did not determine where he ended up, then he did not conduct either an accident reconstruction analysis or a biomechanical causation analysis. He did nothing of the sort. Other than your opinion, let's get back to my question if I could. I believe I answered at the beginning of that, sir.
[00:36:01] Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you again. My detailed question is, there is nothing in…
[00:36:08] Speaker 1: Karen quietly looks to Elizabeth Little.
[00:36:11] Speaker 2: Dr. Welcher's report, or any of his presentation, that's…
[00:36:17] Speaker 1: Jackson glances over acknowledging that he can't believe Brennan is hanging himself so efficiently. And David Iannetti can't believe it either. And is shocked that Brennan is completely unaware that he is undermining the entire case.
[00:36:31] Speaker 2: He states he is trying to represent the exact posture.
[00:36:37] Speaker 1: Jackson then says to Karen that Rentschler is doing incredibly well, and Karen agrees.
[00:36:42] Speaker 2: Is there any movement and stance of Mr. O'Keefe when there was a collision? It's not anywhere in there where he stated that, is it?
[00:36:52] Dr. Rentschler: It's not stated. 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.
[00:36:58] Speaker 2: Is the answer no, it's not in there?
[00:37:00] Dr. Rentschler: I think I just said that at the beginning of my answer, sir.
[00:37:03] Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you again, is the answer no? The answer is no. 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 as chaos, right?
[00:37:26] Dr. Rentschler: I suppose it could be under certain circumstances.
[00:37:30] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:37:38] Dr. Rentschler: It's possible, yes. Is it more than possible, doctor? I don't know, is it? I'm asking you. It depends on the situation and the certain variables. It depends on the case. It could be possible, yes.
[00:37:49] Speaker 2: Have you seen 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?
[00:38:03] Dr. Rentschler: 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.
[00:38:27] Speaker 5: So, my question again is, are there scenarios where variables are impossible to predict?
[00:38:35] Dr. Rentschler: There could be, yes.
[00:38:37] Speaker 5: Have you had cases yourself where there are variables that were impossible to predict?
[00:38:44] Dr. Rentschler: I suppose I probably have. I mean, it depends. If you don't know what happened, sure, then you don't know those variables necessarily.
[00:38:51] Speaker 2: How many cases have you done on pedestrian accidents?
[00:38:55] Dr. Rentschler: I've done hundreds of cases.
[00:38:57] Speaker 2: 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 in this case, did you actually do them? I did not, no. Were you even there when they happened? 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?
[00:39:28] Dr. Rentschler: It depends what mistakes they are.
[00:39:30] Speaker 2: When you had or when Dr. Wolf had the crash test dummy in test E and F on a forklift, do 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?
[00:39:50] Dr. Rentschler: Actually, if it's a force acting on it, it will move. It will like a pendulum. So, if there's a force acting on it, you'll see which direction it moves. If there's a forward force, it will move. It will swing forward or sideways or backwards. It can move. My question isn't direction.
[00:40:05] Speaker 2: It's, can it show the throw? Can it throw or move the crash test dummy in its natural course after the collision to a resting spot?
[00:40:15] Dr. Rentschler: No. In those tests though, there wouldn't be any throw.
[00:40:18] Speaker 2: If a crash test dummy is restrained by a forklift, 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? No, it does not.
[00:40:35] Speaker ?: Well, no, actually it turns, sure.
[00:40:36] Dr. Rentschler: I mean, it can spin. How about fall? No. And a crash test dummy would just fall down. Anyway.
[00:40:41] Speaker 2: You've seen crash test dummies where it is held in place electromagnetically and when the collision happens, then the dummy can move. Have you seen that?
[00:40:56] Dr. Rentschler: I have, yes.
[00:40:57] Speaker 2: Have you seen, excuse me. Have you seen crash test with crash test dummy where there is a light, I'm sorry. Have you seen crash test with crash test dummies where there is a light string and somebody cuts the string moments before the impact or a second before the impact? I have, yes. That wasn't done in this case, was it? Well, it wasn't. It wasn't necessary. Was that done in this case?
[00:41:24] Dr. Rentschler: It wasn't. I'll speak slower and a little clearer. If you answered my question. I just did answer it. I said it wasn't.
[00:41:32] Speaker 2: When 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 person, does it?
[00:41:47] Dr. Rentschler: You can see if there's any drag because it's on 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.
[00:42:10] Speaker 2: There is a difference between a crash on center of mass and a fender vault, isn't there? There is, yes. 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?
[00:42:40] Dr. Rentschler: I mean, it depends on what you're trying to replicate. And it depends looking at the injuries or how someone was positioned. So if you know how they were positioned, you can try and replicate that. Yes.
[00:42:49] Speaker 2: Could I have 59 of Dr. Rentschel's PowerPoint, please? In your PowerPoint, you cited an article, Vehicle Pedestrian Collisions Validated Models for Pedestrian Impact and Projection, correct? Yes. And you put snippets up on the board? Yes. Okay. And these snippets talk about an engagement with the pedestrian and the vehicle? Correct. Is there a reason why you took out a piece of that article that falls between those two paragraphs?
[00:43:32] Dr. Rentschler: I don't think so, no. Those are the most relevant parts.
[00:43:36] Speaker 2: Did you cut out the part 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 impact may be sufficient to prevent head contact as the body rotates sideways 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 purposely?
[00:44:06] Dr. Rentschler: Oh, yeah, I did, sir, because this isn't a frontal impact with a sedan over the fender of the hood of a sedan. This is with the back of an SUV, so it's completely different.
[00:44:15] Speaker 2: You've cited many, many sources where it talks about front end collisions 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, isn't there?
[00:44:31] Dr. Rentschler: That's correct, and that's why 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. That's why you do a fender vault or you flip onto the hood or you flip over the top of the car. So, yeah, it's completely different and doesn't pertain to, allegedly, what occurred in this case.
[00:44:57] Speaker 1: We're well into the second half of the session, and Brennan still hasn't landed a single punch. Dr. Rentschler deflects every challenge with ease. His answers not only hold up, they actively strengthen the defense. By this point, you can feel Brennan losing steam. There's less energy, less fight in his tone, and a growing sense that he knows it's over. Unfortunately for him, the annihilation of his case only gets worse.
[00:45:24] Speaker 2: So 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?
[00:45:32] Dr. Rentschler: That's correct, yes.
[00:45:33] Speaker 2: Right. E, are you considering E a center of mass collision?
[00:45:37] Dr. Rentschler: Which was E, the 24?
[00:45:39] Speaker 2: 24 miles per hour.
[00:45:40] Dr. Rentschler: No, it didn't hit the center of mass of the dummy, it just hit the arm.
[00:45:42] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:45:53] Dr. Rentschler: Nobody knows. I don't think his arm was even impacted by the car, so no. I don't know the position of the arm at impact, because it wasn't hit by the car.
[00:46:00] Speaker 2: You don't know the angle of his body at impact, do you? The alleged angle.
[00:46:06] Speaker ?: So, ask the question again.
[00:46:06] Speaker 2: Okay.
[00:46:07] Speaker 6: You have no information about the angle of Mr. O'Keefe's body.
[00:46:20] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:46:38] 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.
[00:46:45] Speaker 2: When you talked about force equations with this jury, you cited a number of pieces of literature, didn't you? I did, yes. When you cited the literature, you cited all literature regarding concentrated forces, didn't you? No, that's not true. There's a difference between concentrated and distributed force, isn't there?
[00:47:06] Dr. Rentschler: Yeah, I talked about that on my direct, yes, sir.
[00:47:08] Speaker 2: When you showed your slides, for example, the hand. Yes. Can we see slide eight, please? Okay. Let's try slide 56. You would agree with me, doctor, there's a difference between a concentrated and a distributed load, wouldn't you? I would, 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?
[00:47:54] Dr. Rentschler: Well, that was the load at the center of mass. And so, you can evaluate that on a distributed load. You look at acceleration and you look at bending moment. So, you can do both.
[00:48:02] Speaker 2: When you gave your charts and numbers, was that based on concentrated or distributed load?
[00:48:07] Dr. Rentschler: No, that was based on the distributed load with respect to the center of mass of that arm and where the accelerometer was. But this was not a center of mass impact? We're assuming a center of mass is the most dispersed impact. So, if we want to concentrate it, then we look at a focal point. And you can do that with a hand. But center of mass acceleration and distributed across the entire arm, that's where it's the least amount of pressure. If we're talking about force over area. And that's what I evaluated in this case.
[00:48:38] Speaker 2: When you gave your demonstration about the hand with 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 larger, wider object, isn't there?
[00:48:54] Dr. Rentschler: Well, it depends on what it's contacting. And certainly not a difference when you look at the size of that impactor and the size of the knuckles and the metacarpal bones. So, for example, if somebody took a book and hit somebody off the forehead, it may or may not leave a mark.
[00:49:11] Speaker 2: 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?
[00:49:24] Dr. Rentschler: Well, soft tissue, 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 that's being applied.
[00:49:35] Speaker 2: Now, you said in your differential diagnosis you considered all evidence. Did you say that on direct examination?
[00:49:41] 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?
[00:49:57] Speaker 7: I'm going to allow it. I'll strike it.
[00:50:01] Speaker 2: Did you consider Apple healthcare data? No, sir. I'm going to allow it. Did you consider phone temperature, battery temperature data? I'm going to allow it.
[00:50:13] Speaker 7: It has nothing to do with biomechanics, sir.
[00:50:16] Dr. Rentschler: I'll ask again.
[00:50:17] Speaker 2: Did you consider it? I did not, no. You said it would be improper to ignore evidence. Are those your words?
[00:50:25] Dr. Rentschler: For a biomechanical analysis, yes, sir.
[00:50:28] Speaker 2: Have you been to the scene of an accident before or a collision? I have, yes.
[00:50:34] Dr. Rentschler: Do you know what a debris field is?
[00:50:36] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. And you've seen in your videos, E and F, there's debris fields after the collision and the taillight breaks, isn't there? So first of all, there's debris in the yard.
[00:50:48] Dr. Rentschler: 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.
[00:50:57] Speaker 8: Can you hear my questions about the debris field?
[00:51:02] Dr. Rentschler: Yeah, and I think it's in a...
[00:51:03] Speaker 8: Excuse me, sir.
[00:51:04] Speaker ?: Excuse me, sir. In a collision, have you seen debris fields?
[00:51:07] Speaker 1: I have, yes. Have you seen debris fields where a taillight was shattered? I have, yes. Have you seen debris fields where a taillight was shattered? I have, yes. In fact, in your video, yes or no, after the collision, you can see the debris field where
[00:51:20] Dr. Rentschler: a taillight was shattered.
[00:51:22] Speaker ?: I have, yes.
[00:51:23] Speaker 8: In fact, in your video, yes or no, after the collision, you can see the debris fields where the taillight was shattered.
[00:51:34] Speaker 5: I have, yes. In fact, in your video, yes or no, after the collision, you can see the debris fields where after the collision in video E and F, there are debris fields, aren't there?
[00:51:46] Dr. Rentschler: There are at a certain point. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
[00:51:50] Speaker 5: And so when you are looking at your studies, do you consider debris fields?
[00:51:57] 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 taillight.
[00:52:10] Speaker 1: Dr. Rensselaer is a man of science. He knows with scientific certainty that there was no automotive collision with John O'Keefe. Therefore, he also knows for sure that the taillight fragments were planted.
[00:52:22] Dr. Rentschler: It has nothing to do with the injuries or the position or the movement of an individual. Can I be taken to 73, please?
[00:52:29] Speaker 1: Brennan knows he can't make any more snarky comments without Jackson calling him on it. So decides instead to rudely cut off Rensselaer as he's still speaking.
[00:52:51] Speaker 2: Do you see that, sir?
[00:52:52] Dr. Rentschler: I do.
[00:52:53] Speaker 2: Do you know what that is? It looks like possibly part of the taillight cover. Is that an alleged part of the taillight cover? Or do you think that's part of the taillight cover, sir?
[00:53:03] Dr. Rentschler: I don't know specifically. It might be part of the actual taillight cover.
[00:53:07] Speaker 2: Well, 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 taillight shard recovered from the front yard area of 34 Fairview Road? Did you consider that?
[00:53:23] Dr. Rentschler: Well, was that part of the one that was recovered by a leaf blower or not?
[00:53:29] Speaker 2: When you were doing your ample study, sir? Yes.
[00:53:38] Speaker 8: What I'm asking you is, when you were looking at all the available evidence, did you look at this photo of this alleged taillight shard on the front line of 34 Fairview Road? Were you aware of it? No.
[00:53:52] Dr. Rentschler: Oh, I was aware that 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 of that 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 to what you're attempting to conclude.
[00:54:23] Speaker 2: Do you have any evidence in your biomechanical studies how this alleged piece of taillight shard ended up on the front line of 34 Fairview?
[00:54:31] Dr. Rentschler: I don't.
[00:54:32] Speaker ?: No, sir.
[00:54:32] Dr. Rentschler: I didn't evaluate or investigate that.
[00:54:34] Speaker 2: Could I have exhibit 76A, please? Did you see this photograph, sir? I do, yes. Is that part of a red taillight shard or an alleged piece of a taillight shard? It looks like it, yes. Did you consider this in your biomechanical studies that this taillight shard was found in front of 34 Fairview Road?
[00:55:01] Dr. Rentschler: It 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? Did you consider this, sir? There was none, so no, I did not consider that.
[00:55:15] Speaker 2: Do you know how this taillight shard got there? How it got there?
[00:55:21] Dr. Rentschler: Yes. That wasn't part of my analysis. There are certainly different possibilities of how that actually occurred. Exhibit 990.
[00:55:27] Speaker 2: Do you know what that is, sir?
[00:55:39] Dr. Rentschler: It looks like part of the light assembly.
[00:55:41] Speaker 2: Mr. O'Keefe's hat? Oh, that's his hat. Did you look at this photograph? Oh, that's his hat.
[00:55:45] Dr. Rentschler: I see now, yes.
[00:55:46] Speaker 2: Did you know he was wearing a hat that night? I did, yes. And did you consider how that hat ended up on the ground in front of 34 Fairview? No, sir.
[00:55:56] Dr. Rentschler: That was not part of my 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, 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? Well, I have no idea. I haven't seen any evidence of how it got there, and frankly, it's immaterial to a biomechanical analysis.
[00:56:23] Speaker 2: Do you have a theory you want to share with us about planting evidence? Is that what we're getting at, sir? By the way, the x-rays you looked at earlier, when's the first time you saw those?
[00:56:36] Dr. Rentschler: I saw those when I was on the case initially for the first trial. No mention in your report about reviewing those? It says I reviewed medical records and reports. That's how I actually word in every report I have. I just put generally that. It refers to medical records and reports, which includes x-rays, MRIs. Exhibit 74, please.
[00:56:59] Speaker 1: Here Brennan is implying that Dr. Rentschler intentionally left the x-rays out of his report. Why? Because the defense caught Brennan hiding those x-rays from his own expert, likely out of fear they'd prove John's arm injuries weren't from a collision. If Rentschler had mentioned them, their expert might have found out and changed his opinion. So now Brennan is accusing Rentschler of helping hide it to set the trap that he fell right into.
[00:57:30] Speaker 2: Have you seen this photograph?
[00:57:33] Dr. Rentschler: I have, yes. Okay.
[00:57:35] Speaker 2: In your studies or your testing, did you determine how Mr. O'Keefe's shoe ended up near the curb? No, sir. Exhibit 201A, please. Have you seen this photograph before? I don't know that I have. Have you ever seen any container that had taillight shards that matched the defendant's Lexus? That were removed from his sweatshirt and his shirt? Have you ever seen any container holding those?
[00:58:25] Dr. Rentschler: I haven't. Well, I believe there was evidence collected like that. Yes. Okay. Could we have 201E, please?
[00:58:37] Speaker 2: Have you seen this photo?
[00:58:40] Dr. Rentschler: I believe I have seen that, yes.
[00:58:42] Speaker 2: Do you understand those are taillight shards matching the defendant's Lexus, the broken taillight? Yes. That were recovered from Mr. O'Keefe's sweater or shirt?
[00:58:53] Speaker 6: Objection. I'm going to allow that. I'm going to allow that. Did you consider that?
[00:58:57] Speaker 7: No. You can reformat it. Otherwise, I need to see the place. I'll try.
[00:59:02] Speaker 2: I'd rather try to reformat it than come sidebar. Okay. Did you know that taillight shards were collected after Mr. O'Keefe's sweatshirt and T-shirt was scraped? Objection.
[00:59:21] Speaker 6: Objection. I'm going to allow that. I need to see the place. Jurors, this will be brief.
[00:59:27] Speaker 2: In your extensive study of the detail of 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? 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. Okay. Did you do any analysis how these broken taillight shards got into Mr. O'Keefe's clothes? No, I did not.
[01:00:17] Dr. Rentschler: 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. You are based on what's possible.
[01:00:37] Speaker ?: I'll try again. Okay. When you look at these taillight shards that were projected, that's the problem.
[01:00:37] Speaker 7: Go ahead, Mr. Brody. When you look at these taillight shards that were consistent with the break in Ms. Leeds' Lexus. .
[01:00:40] Speaker ?: Okay.
[01:00:40] Speaker 7: I'll try again. Okay. When you look at these taillight shards that were projected, that's the problem.
[01:00:52] Speaker ?: Go ahead, Mr. Brody. When you look at these taillight shards that were consistent with the break in Ms. Leeds' Lexus. Did you consider how they got into Mr. O'Keefe's clothes?
[01:00:53] Speaker 8: When you looked at these taillight charts that were... Objection.
[01:00:57] Speaker 6: Go ahead, Mr. Brennan.
[01:01:02] Speaker 8: When you looked at these taillight charts that were consistent with the break in Ms. Weed's Lexus, did you consider how they got into Mr. O'Keefe's clover? Objection. Same objection.
[01:01:17] Speaker 6: I understand the objection. Word it differently. Start with the different one.
[01:01:23] Speaker 8: Yes, Your Honor. You see these pieces of broken plastic, don't you? I do. And you understand that these were found in the scrapings of Mr. O'Keefe's clover?
[01:01:37] Dr. Rentschler: I do.
[01:01:38] Speaker 8: And you understand that these broken pieces of plastic are consistent with the taillight in Ms. Weed's Lexus? I do, yes. In your studies in the inaphnates, did you make any determination how these pieces of broken plastic, but it was still a piece of broken?
[01:02:00] 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.
[01:02:56] Speaker 1: The implications here are staggering. Without saying it directly, Dr. Rentschler is essentially indicating that every photo on the screen shows planted evidence, suggesting the entire case is a fraud, and that many of the Commonwealth's witnesses are either lying or completely wrong. Once the collision has been debunked, a very long set of falling dominoes follow.
[01:03:17] Speaker 2: 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?
[01:03:46] Dr. Rentschler: I believe so, yes.
[01:03:48] Speaker 2: 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?
[01:03:58] Dr. Rentschler: Well, if that's what you're telling me, then...
[01:04:01] Speaker 2: I don't want you to rely on me. If you didn't see them, it's okay.
[01:04:04] Dr. Rentschler: I don't recall if I saw those or not.
[01:04:06] Speaker 2: Have you seen this picture?
[01:04:07] Dr. Rentschler: I don't recall seeing it, no.
[01:04:09] Speaker 8: Now, looking at this photograph and seeing these broken pieces of plastic under a microscope with fires near the plastic, is that something you would want to consider in your analysis, performing your opinion whether or not there was a collision between Ms. Reed's car and Ms. Roeke?
[01:04:34] Dr. Rentschler: Again, if you can't do a proper biomechanical analysis, then that evidence is not consistent. If 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.
[01:05:26] Speaker 8: Can you see with your eye that parts of those broken pieces of plastic are sharp?
[01:05:33] Dr. Rentschler: They look sharp. If you disagree, do you think they're not sharp? I don't have an opinion as to that, sir. Take a look.
[01:05:42] Speaker 5: Objection. Sustain. If you look at that to me kindly, can you tell me whether you think those pieces of broken plastic are sharp? Objection.
[01:05:50] Speaker 6: I want to allow that.
[01:05:53] 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 eye. Let's go back to 20D.
[01:06:04] Speaker 2: Perhaps that can help. Not under a microscope. If you pay 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?
[01:06:22] 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.
[01:06:54] Speaker 2: Do you think some of those sharp pieces, if they were lodged in Mr. O'Keefe's sweater, could cause an abrasion?
[01:07:05] 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.
[01:07:19] Speaker 2: 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? In video E, the arm that is sticking straight out, who determined that angle, Dr. Wolff?
[01:07:51] 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.
[01:08:08] Speaker 2: When you say we, did you have input on the positioning of that, or did Dr. Wolff do it?
[01:08:14] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I had input into how we were going to position it. It would probably be both of us, I would say.
[01:08:20] Speaker 2: So, you and Dr. Wolff chose to position the arm straight out, correct?
[01:08:25] Dr. Rentschler: In that test, we did, yes.
[01:08:28] Speaker 2: Is there a glass in Randy's hand?
[01:08:31] Dr. Rentschler: There is not, no.
[01:08:33] Speaker 2: A drinking glass, no? No. In any of your studies, did you have a drinking glass in Randy's hand?
[01:08:40] Dr. Rentschler: We did not have a drinking glass in the dummy's hand, no.
[01:08:43] Speaker 2: And you see when the taillight is shattering, those red things falling down. What are those?
[01:08:52] Dr. Rentschler: Those are part of the taillight.
[01:08:54] Speaker 2: Continue a little bit, please. Stop. Did you count how many taillight pieces broke?
[01:09:03] Dr. Rentschler: We didn't count the taillight pieces. We counted how many punctures or holes there were in the sweatshirt, which was zero.
[01:09:11] Speaker 2: 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?
[01:09:20] Dr. Rentschler: Well, we conducted a number of tests. It may look somewhat different, sure.
[01:09:26] Speaker 2: If you conducted this test and moved the arm angle, not another test, this test, but you moved the arm angle, do you expect that the break would look different?
[01:09:36] Dr. Rentschler: That the break would look different?
[01:09:37] Speaker 2: Yes.
[01:09:38] Dr. Rentschler: 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.
[01:09:43] Speaker 2: You do not know how John O'Keefe was standing that night, do you? Well.
[01:09:50] Speaker 7: Objection.
[01:09:50] Speaker 6: I'm going to allow that.
[01:09:54] Speaker 2: You do not know how John O'Keefe was standing that night, do you?
[01:09:57] Dr. Rentschler: If he was standing, if the impact occurred, then no, nobody knows how he would have been standing.
[01:10:03] Speaker 2: You would not know what his arm angle was, would you? No. You would not know the exact speed of any vehicle that hit him that night, would you?
[01:10:14] Speaker 6: Objection. Sustained.
[01:10:20] Speaker 2: The debris, the broken taillight, is that traveling in a consistent or a different direction?
[01:10:29] Dr. Rentschler: What do you mean consistent or different?
[01:10:31] Speaker 2: Is it all going in the same direction or is it going in different directions?
[01:10:34] Dr. Rentschler: No, there's some spread to the debris.
[01:10:36] Speaker 2: 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?
[01:11:07] Dr. Rentschler: If the dummy fell right there, no, they would not be.
[01:11:10] Speaker 2: 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?
[01:11:44] 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.
[01:11:54] Speaker 2: 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 curve?
[01:12:12] 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. Can you continue, please?
[01:12:23] Speaker 2: Can you see the feet, doctor?
[01:12:25] Dr. Rentschler: Yes.
[01:12:26] Speaker 2: Are they twisting?
[01:12:28] Dr. Rentschler: They are, yes.
[01:12:29] Speaker 2: Is that because of the rotation of Randy after he struck?
[01:12:32] 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.
[01:12:49] Speaker 2: And after being contacted by a vehicle enough to break the light, could it cause a person to stagger backwards?
[01:13:00] 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 don't, can't say it's impossible, but there's no evidence of that.
[01:13:18] Speaker 2: Could a person stumble backwards after being hit?
[01:13:23] Speaker 7: I'm going to allow that.
[01:13:25] Dr. Rentschler: What do you mean by backwards? Because you'd be spinning. So what direction is backwards?
[01:13:30] Speaker 2: Could a person get their foot caught on a curb, a sneaker come off, and then stagger backwards and fall on their head? Objection, Your Honor.
[01:13:38] Speaker 1: Rentschler lets out a snicker as Brennan tosses out wild theories with no evidence to back them up. At this point, the cross-examination has become a full-blown joke. Why Brennan keeps going is anyone's guess. He's been at it for hours, doing nothing but harming his own case, yet he keeps dragging out the disaster he's made for himself, severely lacking the instinct to know when to quit.
[01:14:04] Speaker 6: I'm going to allow that.
[01:14:08] Dr. Rentschler: I don't think he even got hit by the car, sir. That's not what I'm asking.
[01:14:37] Speaker 8: I've heard that.
[01:14:38] Speaker 5: I'm asking if he did somersaults into the front there.
[01:14:40] Dr. Rentschler: No, there's no evidence of what he did.
[01:14:44] Speaker 5: Your Honor, I should come to Ibarco quickly before I start. Okay.
[01:14:50] Speaker 2: Could I have Exhibit 166, please? Did you see this photograph, sir?
[01:15:06] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes.
[01:15:08] Speaker 2: And do you see the cut on Cyril Key's nose, the left side of his nostril? I do. 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?
[01:15:35] Speaker 6: Objection. I'm going to allow that. I'm going to allow that. You are. So, hold on.
[01:15:45] Speaker ?: Sure.
[01:15:47] Speaker 6: Let's get an answer, Dr. Mitchell. Your objection's noted, Mr. Jackson.
[01:15:51] Dr. Rentschler: I was aware there was some piece of material allegedly pulled from the nose, yes.
[01:15:56] Speaker 2: Allegedly pulled from the nose? Yes.
[01:15:59] Speaker 5: Okay.
[01:15:59] Speaker 2: And that alleged piece of material, were you aware that it was perhaps a piece of glass or a broken plastic?
[01:16:06] Speaker 6: Objection. Are you aware of that? You are, because it's not the evidence. That is not the evidence. So?
[01:16:14] Speaker 1: Jackson's objection is to the use of the word glass, stating that it's not in evidence.
[01:16:20] Speaker 6: Glass. Hold on, Mr. Jackson. I can reword it. Okay.
[01:16:26] Speaker 2: You're welcome. Are you aware of that object that was pulled from Mr. O'Keefe's nose, what material that was?
[01:16:36] Dr. Rentschler: I believe it was glass.
[01:16:39] Speaker 2: Did you want to know in your assessment about collision, where that came from?
[01:16:45] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I did evaluate that. And it's actually entirely inconsistent with coming from an impact with the vehicle.
[01:16:57] Speaker 2: Can we have Exhibit 52A, please? Do you know what that is, Doctor?
[01:17:06] Dr. Rentschler: It's hard for me to see from here. I believe that's the drinking glass. A drinking glass.
[01:17:16] Speaker 2: Do you know where that is in relation to where Mr. O'Keefe was found?
[01:17:20] Dr. Rentschler: I believe it was found in the vicinity of where he was found.
[01:17:24] Speaker 2: And could I have Exhibit 195, please? Do you recognize that?
[01:17:34] Dr. Rentschler: That is another photograph of the drinking glass, yes, sir.
[01:17:38] Speaker 2: 197A, please. Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:17:46] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir.
[01:17:52] Speaker 2: Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:17:53] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:17:55] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:17:57] Speaker ?: Yes, sir.
[01:17:58] Speaker 2: 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? Yes, sir.
[01:18:12] Speaker ?: Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:18:12] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, sir.
[01:18:13] Speaker ?: Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:18:13] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, sir.
[01:18:14] Speaker ?: Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir.
[01:18:16] Speaker 2: Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:18:17] Speaker ?: Yes, sir.
[01:18:17] Speaker 2: Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:18:18] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:18:30] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found?
[01:18:34] Speaker ?: Yes, sir.
[01:18:35] Dr. Rentschler: Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Do you know where the drinking glass was found? Yes, sir. Okay, the black, that does appear to be a drinking straw, yes. Have you seen that before? I've seen that photograph before. Okay.
[01:18:50] Speaker 2: 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?
[01:19:21] 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.
[01:19:34] Speaker 2: 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?
[01:19:51] 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?
[01:19:57] Speaker 2: Months ago? Could you turn the lights on, please?
[01:19:59] Dr. Rentschler: I have no idea, sir. You don't know if it was weeks or months ago? I don't remember 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 certainly for my report for this case. I don't know if I had known about it prior to that.
[01:20:16] Speaker 2: Is it mentioned anywhere in the report about the piece of glass from Mr. O'Keefe's nose? 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?
[01:20:29] Dr. Rentschler: It might have been in an interview or something that it was pulled from his nose, I believe.
[01:20:35] Speaker 2: So you saw and listened to something?
[01:20:37] Dr. Rentschler: I believe so, or was made aware of it.
[01:20:40] Speaker 2: 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?
[01:20:55] Dr. Rentschler: With respect to the trace DNA, correct?
[01:20:58] Speaker ?: Okay.
[01:21:28] Speaker 8: Yes.
[01:21:43] Speaker 2: You've testified a few times under a row in this case, haven't you?
[01:21:47] Dr. Rentschler: I have, yes, sir.
[01:21:48] Speaker 2: And you've testified recently for a short bit in April, didn't you?
[01:21:52] Dr. Rentschler: I did, yes.
[01:21:58] Speaker 4: On April 28, 2025, did you testify in this very courtroom?
[01:22:05] Dr. Rentschler: I believe I did. Under a row? Yes, sir. Yes, or yesterday.
[01:22:11] Speaker 2: 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.
[01:22:23] Speaker 5: You were asked, did they inform you about witness testimony?
[01:22:28] Speaker 8: And what did you say, sir?
[01:22:30] 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.
[01:22:37] Speaker 4: Those are your words?
[01:22:38] Dr. Rentschler: Yes, sir.
[01:22:39] Speaker 4: 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.
[01:22:58] Speaker 2: And if this is your answer, you should read the answer. 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?
[01:23:15] Dr. Rentschler: I said it certainly helped prepare me to understand what was going on during the trial, yes.
[01:23:20] Speaker 2: I have no further questions. All right, Mr. Jackson?
[01:23:42] Speaker ?: May I inquire?
[01:23:42] Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you. Dr. Rinchler. You were just asked a couple of questions about the trial. I have no further questions.
[01:23:47] Speaker ?: I have no further questions. I have no further questions. I have no further questions. I have no further questions. I have no further questions. I have no further questions. Okay. Okay. May I inquire? Yes. Thank you.
[01:23:58] Speaker 9: Dr. Rinchler, you were just asked a couple of questions about the trial. You were just asked a couple of questions about they provided information about the prior trial, correct? Correct. They is no one, no one associated with the case, correct? That's correct.
[01:24:29] Dr. Rentschler: No one associated with you, and they provided information, and again, it let me know what was going on, but it didn't affect my preparation or my opinions. It in no way changed any of my opinions or what I testified to.
[01:24:43] Speaker 6: Thank you for that. To get through this, I'm going to let you just answer the question.
[01:24:47] Speaker 9: Sorry, Ron. And with regard to -- and I appreciate that. Mr. Brennan asked you a couple of questions about they being your employer. Do you remember those questions at the beginning of this cross-examination? I do, yes. Who is your employer, actually? The actual employer that you work for? ARCA. Okay. It wasn't them. No. It was a client, correct?
[01:25:08] Dr. Rentschler: It was a client, that's correct.
[01:25:09] Speaker 9: A completely separate entity that hired you for that work, correct?
[01:25:13] Dr. Rentschler: That's correct, yes. Thank you.
[01:25:15] Speaker 1: And instead of plainly stating the truth, that his firm was hired by the Justice Department to investigate the Norfolk DA's office, the defense is forced to tiptoe around it. This leaves the jury guessing, opening the door to confusion and potentially false assumptions.
[01:25:31] Speaker 9: You were asked about a fender vault collision. And you said, well, this wasn't a fender vault, right? Correct. What is a fender vault?
[01:25:41] Dr. Rentschler: A fender vault is when you're hit by the front of a car and you're moving across the car. So you're moving across the center towards the driver's side of the car and the car hits you. You go up over the car and you fly over the fender to the driver's side of the car. So you vault over top of the fender.
[01:26:01] Speaker 9: Dr. Richler, where is my, as I stand here, where is my center of mass?
[01:26:06] Dr. Rentschler: Right about your belly button.
[01:26:09] Speaker 9: Right there?
[01:26:10] Dr. Rentschler: Yes.
[01:26:11] Speaker 9: So what would happen if I was hit by a vehicle, front of a collision, and the vehicle struck me below my center of mass?
[01:26:21] Dr. Rentschler: It's going to flip you. Your center of mass will go, you'd go right up, if it was coming right at you and it hits you at your legs, you'd flip right into the hood or over top of the top of the car.
[01:26:31] Speaker 9: Is that what's described in the industry as a fender vault?
[01:26:34] Dr. Rentschler: That is part of a fender vault, yes, but it's at an angle. So instead of going direct back, it's because if the person's walking across and you get hit, you fly kind of back and over the top of the vendor.
[01:26:46] Speaker 9: Did that set of circumstances, physics, have anything to do with your analysis in this case?
[01:26:51] Dr. Rentschler: No, none whatsoever. The profile of the car is completely different, the back of the SUV.
[01:27:01] Speaker 9: You were asked several questions about the debris field in the test F, as in Foxtrot, that -- well, actually you were asked about both, both test E and test F. Test E being the 24-mile-an-hour impact to the right arm of Randy, correct? Correct. You were shown several photographs, exhibits, of very tiny, tiny shards. Do you remember that?
[01:27:40] Dr. Rentschler: I do, yes. I'll get to that in a second.
[01:27:46] Speaker 9: You were also shown some photographs of pieces of plastic that were claimed to have been found at 34 Fairview. Clear plastic, piece of red plastic, correct? That's correct, yes. In your review of all the data in this case, do you know when those pieces of plastic got to 34 Fairview? I do not, no. Do you know how those pieces of plastic got to 34 Fairview?
[01:28:28] Dr. Rentschler: I do not, no.
[01:28:29] Speaker 9: Do you know who put those pieces of plastic at 34 Fairview?
[01:28:33] Dr. Rentschler: I do not.
[01:28:34] Speaker 9: Were you aware in your review of the police reports that none of the plastic that you were shown was found at the time John O'Keeffe's body was discovered and the area was initially searched?
[01:28:58] Dr. Rentschler: That is correct, yes, I was aware of that.
[01:29:01] Speaker 9: You indicated that the cut on Mr. O'Keeffe's nose, the right side of his nose, was inconsistent with coming from the vehicle, correct? Correct. Can you describe why you came to that conclusion?
[01:29:16] Dr. Rentschler: Well, if you're standing at the back corner of the vehicle and it strikes the arm, and let's be clear, if nobody wants to say where the arm was or how it was positioned, if they're claiming the abrasions are a result of the fractured taillight, it has to strike the arm. You have to be standing like this. The debris goes forward with the vehicle. So, with your arm like this, it already passes by the person. And if there would be any contact whatsoever, it would be with the right side of the face. The shard can't come out and then make a right turn and then somehow embed itself on the left side of the nose. That's entirely inconsistent with the fracture and how the glass and the cover would actually move.
[01:30:01] Speaker 9: Dr. Rinchel, you were asked a series of questions about a hat. Do you remember that? I do. About some shards of plastic material, correct? Yes. About a drinking glass? Yes. About a drinking straw? Yes. Doctor, if there was no collision, does any of that matter in terms of your biomechanical analysis and your reconstruction in this instance?
[01:30:28] Dr. Rentschler: It does not. Why? Because if there wasn't a collision, it wasn't that debris or those items weren't a result of that impact. You can explain how that got there, I believe, easier than if you can't explain how the impact occurred, if the injuries don't match up. If you can't even prove what happened, then you can't use information or evidence if you have no idea how it got there to try and prove what you don't even know what happened. Scientifically, it makes no sense.
[01:31:00] Speaker 9: Scientifically, the first question that has to be answered is, was there a collision? Sustained, you have to watch the foreman question.
[01:31:07] Speaker ?: Of course.
[01:31:07] Speaker 6: In your expert opinion, based on all of your review of all of the data in this case, all of the testing that you've undertaken, do you have an opinion as to whether or not there was a collision with John O'Keefe?
[01:31:24] Speaker 9: I do.
[01:31:25] Speaker ?: Yeah.
[01:31:25] Speaker 9: I'm sustaining that. You know, I'm just going. In your view, was there evidence of a collision with John O'Keefe?
[01:31:30] Speaker 6: Yes.
[01:31:31] Speaker ?: Sustained.
[01:31:31] Speaker 6: Sustained.
[01:31:32] Speaker ?: In your opinion, were any of the injuries that you saw suffered by John O'Keefe consistent?
[01:31:32] Speaker 6: Sustained.
[01:31:33] Speaker ?: Sustained. Sustained.
[01:31:34] Speaker 9: Sustained. Sustained.
[01:31:36] Speaker ?: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.
[01:31:39] Speaker 9: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.
[01:31:44] Speaker 6: Sustained. Sustained.
[01:31:46] Speaker ?: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.
[01:31:51] Speaker 9: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. No, they are not. I do. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[01:32:10] Dr. Rentschler: Thank you.
[01:32:11] Speaker 9: Thank you.
[01:32:12] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[01:32:15] Speaker 2: Dr. You just said that you do not believe that there was a Fender Vault collision. Could it have been a clip? Could it have clipped Mr. O'Keefe?
[01:32:33] Speaker ?: Yes. Not hit him, hit him, but clipped him.
[01:32:35] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I don't believe that's consistent with the evidence and what occurred. I mean, someone can get clipped by a car, sure, but in this case, no, I don't believe the evidence indicates that's what occurred. The glass. The glass.
[01:32:51] Speaker 2: When you learned of the information of the glass in Mr. O'Keefe's nose, when do you think it was that that glass was pulled from his nose? What date?
[01:33:06] Dr. Rentschler: I think it was the morning when his body was discovered.
[01:33:11] Speaker 2: January 29, 2022? Yes, sir. Somewhere around 6:00, 6:15 a.m. Is that your understanding?
[01:33:16] Dr. Rentschler: Sometime when his body was discovered. That's correct.
[01:33:19] Speaker 2: Do you know or understand that? Did you see any evidence that Mr. O'Keefe had a drinking glass outside of 34 Fairview Road that morning after he got out of the defendant's Lexus? Do you understand that? What do you mean evidence? Drinking glass. Do you hear anything about that in your review about?
[01:33:39] Dr. Rentschler: What evidence would there be? Is there a video or a photograph, you mean, of him holding a drinking glass? Because otherwise there's a drinking glass there, but there's no evidence that he had it.
[01:33:50] Speaker 2: We have a clip, right? Okay. Judge, can I come sidebar? Okay. You were asked about whether or not any plastic taillight shards were found near Mr. O'Keefe's body. Do you know the limits of the search that the Canton Police Department did around Mr. O'Keefe's body, how small of an area they searched when they first went there?
[01:34:21] Dr. Rentschler: I do not know, sir.
[01:34:22] Speaker 2: Did you ever see a video of somebody with a leaf blower blowing snow off the ground?
[01:34:25] Dr. Rentschler: I did see that, yes.
[01:34:26] Speaker 2: And did you see the confined area in which that happened?
[01:34:30] Dr. Rentschler: Well, I mean, I saw the area where he was blowing with the leaf blower.
[01:34:33] Speaker 2: Have you seen any information or evidence whatsoever that the pieces of taillight that were found after that search, have you seen any evidence that they were found in that exact area or were they found in different areas on the law?
[01:34:48] Dr. Rentschler: I'd have to go back and look. I don't recall specifically.
[01:34:50] Speaker 2: So when there was a snow blower or a leaf blower search in that area, there would not be a piece of plastic taillight to find if it was never there, would there be?
[01:35:01] Dr. Rentschler: If it wasn't there, you wouldn't find it? Is that what you're saying? That's what I'm saying? Sure. Okay.
[01:35:06] Speaker 2: Did you notice in the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, most of them are on the right side of his body?
[01:35:14] Dr. Rentschler: Well, we have the abrasions and then a half-centimeter abrasion, and then we have the laceration and scuff on the left side, and then the skull fracture. It's a little bit to the right, but it's mainly on the back of the head.
[01:35:27] Speaker 2: In the bruise on his knee?
[01:35:28] Dr. Rentschler: That's the half-centimeter. It's not a bruise. It's a half-centimeter abrasion, about an eighth of an inch.
[01:35:35] Speaker 2: When you're conducting an investigation or you're doing your analysis and you keep saying the physics and the physics, do you add a little bit of common sense in the equation when you're considering the evidence?
[01:35:48] Dr. Rentschler: Well, you can sit back or step back and look at whether what someone's claiming makes sense in the bigger picture.
[01:35:55] Speaker 2: So when you have common sense and you look at the big picture, it's not just physics. It's considering all of the evidence, right?
[01:36:02] Dr. Rentschler: Well, it depends what you're looking at. Certain parts of it, the biomechanical analysis, you look at the physics. It tells you what it is. I mean, if you don't like it and you don't think it fits, well, sorry, it is what it is. That's the science. So you have to step back. I mean, you can look at the bigger picture if things make sense. You know, if somebody was standing on the side of the road with their arm like this while an SUV backed up at them and they didn't flinch or they didn't put their arm up, that's kind of the smell test bigger picture. That doesn't make sense. But the physics, you can't deny it. You have to accept what science tells you. You can't deny it.
[01:36:40] Speaker 5: That's the line you were laughing about in the documentary is one of your answers that you were all celebrating, isn't it? Objection.
[01:36:47] Speaker ?: Isn't it?
[01:36:48] Speaker 6: Objection. The objection is sustained. I bet you know that it breaks, sir. I could break that.
[01:36:52] Dr. Rentschler: How did... Oh, I don't know. There's no evidence of how it broke. There's no evidence of how it broke.
[01:37:01] Speaker 4: Thank you for other questions.
[01:37:02] Speaker 6: All right. You're all set, Dr. Lynch. Thank you, Your Honor.
[01:37:05] Dr. Rentschler: All right.
[01:37:06] Speaker ?: Thank you, Your Honor.