Before the jury entered the courtroom this morning…
👉Defense Attorney Alessi argued to allow him to question the CW’s expert witness — Judson B. Welcher — about Trooper Paul’s analysis/report of the SUV techstream data. Alessi claimed that Welcher relied on Trooper Paul’s report to form his analysis, therefore he should be allowed to question him on it.
(*Trooper Paul was the first expert to analyze the vehicle data after the SUV was seized from the defendant. He has not testified this trial.).
👉Defense also wanted to question Dr. Welcher about the Medical Examiner’s autopsy analysis despite that she already testified.
👉Prosecutor Brennan argued back that if the defense team wants to discuss another witness’ report and testings, they need to call that witness to the stand. He affirms that despite what the defense is claiming, Welcher did not rely on Trooper Paul’s analysis. You can’t have a witness testify through another witness to avoid calling them to the stand.
👉Judge found that the defense’s request was improper, and denied it.
ON THE STAND TODAY:
Judson B. Welcher (Accident Reconstructionist and Biomechanics Engineer)
This was Welcher’s third and final day on the stand.
The defense continued their cross-examination, which was followed up by a very brief redirect and recross. Today was a half day in court.
TRAVERSE AND LEXUS COMPARISON
Defense Attorney Alessi posts one of the laser-scanned photos Welcher took of Karen’s SUV next to John’s Traverse and suggests that the taillight is touching the traverse. Welcher vehemently disagrees. He says this is one photo of many photos they took to capture both vehicles near one another for a full 3D analysis.
The traverse (right) is actually in front of the Lexus to the right despite the optics in that photo. Welcher says if the defense shows the following images on the slide, they will see the orientation of the cars more clearly. (Alessi does not do that).
Defense questions if the 3D imagery scans were “photoshopped”, and Welcher said no. The colors (and pixelated appearance) that presented are part of the laser 3D scan.
😬AWKWARD MOMENT: An odd moment occurred during the testimony when Defense Attorney Alessi got upset that the witness motioned to let him finish his answer before interrupting. Alessi cried for the judge and said the witness was accusing him of doing something with his hand. The witness never once mentioned Alessi’s hand during the entire testimony. It was bizarre.
GLASS PIECES
Defense questions Welcher over the several pieces of glass shards that were not a mechanical match to the cocktail glass (but were an instrumental match).
Welcher reaffirms that there are several variable unknowns to the accident, and one of them is if John threw the glass at Karen’s SUV before she reversed into him, or if it shattered in his hand, etc.
Welcher says that despite the variable of those glass shards, the totality of evidence still points to a vehicular-pedestrian accident. It doesn’t change the conclusion.
RING CAMERA
Defense questions Welcher about the Ring camera at John’s property. The family upgraded the RING camera at some point after John had passed away. Welcher says he is aware.
Defense asks if he accounted for the change in RING cameras (including a swivel) when doing a laser scan of the driveway. Welcher says the RING video footage was not used during the laser scans. They are added to it afterward in a process called photogrammetry.
THE LEXUS DATA
Defense asks Welcher if he knew the suspension height of Karen Read’s SUV for the date of John’s death. Welcher says he has the height data from two days after the incident.
Welcher is asked if the techstream data states when a collision occurs. No, it has to be inferred by other data points.
ON REDIRECT:
Prosecutor Brennan asks, “The fact that the RING camera was replaced, does that any way affect your opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty about your conclusions relative to that touching between the cars?”
Welcher says, “Absolutely not. It would’ve shown up as increased air when we overlay the point clouds onto the photos or the point clouds onto the video. If it was an error, it would have showed an error.”
Do you have any information that the suspension at any point was changed? Welcher says no.
Dr. Welcher describes what distribution of load is again, and why it matters in regard to an impact…
“So you have to look at the distribution of the load when you're talking about the failure. So when you look at the failure loads, it depends on what you're doing it with. If I hit you with a five pound two by four or a five pound pillow, they're both five pounds, but you'd much rather get hit by the pillow than the two by four.”
Prosecutor asks, “When you were communicating with members of the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office, did you ever use encrypted apps like signal to communicate?”. Welcher says no.
(This question was clearly strategic to pre-highlight the fact that the defense team not only deleted around 100 texts between themselves and the ARCCA experts, but they also requested that the encrypted Signal app be used for communications. This will surely come up on cross-examination when the ARCCA duo take the stand.)
After three grueling days on the stand, the attorneys finish their questioning with Dr. Welcher. It ended with some light-hearted laughter by people in the courtroom when the judge said he was free to go and Welcher responded surprised, “Oh my God. Thank you!”. 😂
VIDEO CLIP PLAYED:
AFTER this clip ended, the jury got to hear those magical words…
The Commonwealth rests their case. 📣
Court ended early, and the defense will begin their case tomorrow.