DAY 31: Karen Read Retrial

Was Dr. Rentschler cherry-picking 'details' in an effort to advocate for the defense?

Andrew Rentschler (Biomechanical Engineer) was the last and final witness to take the stand in this trial. He testified for the majority of the day.

The expert testimony was bloviated with lots of technical jargon, which can actually cause more confusion to us laypersons.

Muddying the clear water is the antithesis of finding truth (a common defense tactic)…

So I did my best to focus this recap on simplifying and bringing clarity to the main points for better understanding.

Let’s dive in.

---

ON THE STAND:

Andrew Rentschler (Biomechanical Engineer)

Dr. Rentschler says in order to come to a conclusion that something occurred, you must have:

1. Details - An individual feature, fact, or known variables.

2. Analysis - To examine something carefully and methodically.

3. Evidence - Proof. Rentschler says evidence is found through peer-reviewed articles, research, and/or testing. If there is no previous research to confirm the theory, then a field test should be done.

THE DETAILS

INJURIES:

• Rentschler says that his opinion from the autopsy x-ray(s) is that there is no indication of any type of acute injury on John’s right hand, forearm, or upper arm.

  • Prosecutor points out that X-rays are not an imaging method to view soft tissue damage, nerve compression, and other internal injuries. Rentschler agrees. An MRI would have needed to be done.

  • Rentschler also concedes that bruising is subjective to different variables.

    🚩Basically, Rentschler concludes that there is no signs of an acute injury (soft tissue damage is acute) despite also agreeing that the x-ray would not show if there was soft-tissue damage and other issues involving nerve compression and/or inflammation.

    

    ---

CLOTHING

• Rentschler says that the arm of the sweatshirt worn on the dummy doll during impact testing did not create holes/tears as seen on John O’Keefe’s sweatshirt. He said it’s improper to ignore this.

  • Prosecutor points out several things regarding this conclusion. The dummy doll used in testing is not a proper representation of a human’s arm in regard to things like: epidermal (skin) and tissue. A human arm is softer density to the touch if you were to push a finger into the arm, whereas a dummy arm is made of hard vinyl. This would cause fabric to respond differently in regard to impact of sharp objects pulling and tearing at different angles.

  • A peer-reviewed article is mentioned by the prosecutor regarding how crash dummy dolls are not suggested for experiments that test for soft tissue damage. Rentschler dismisses this by saying that it doesn’t mention abrasions.

• Dr. Rentschler says that he counted 36 superficial abrasions on John’s arm, and there is only 9 defects on the arm of John’s sweatshirt. He concludes that this means it’s impossible that superficial abrasions can occur under clothing.

  • Rentschler also describes at a different time that superficial abrasions are just ‘rubbing or scraping of the top layer of skin’.

🚩(Sorry, but any parent who has EVER had a toddler — or simply has once been a toddler themselves — knows that running and falling can absolutely cause scrapes or rubbing on the skin under clothing. This doctor was truly irking me with how arrogantly he argued common sense events as impossible/unlikely. His bias was deeply troubling.)

---

BODY MECHANICS & VEHICLE IMPACT

Dr. Rentschler states…

“If Mr. O'Keefe's holding a glass at the time of this impact, think about that. What happens is you're holding a glass? It exposes the knuckles. So if you're holding a glass and your arm's a 90 degree angle and the car comes back and hits your hand, it's gonna strike right on the knuckles.”

(Opinion: Anyone with an a movable wrist knows this is flawed thinking. He doesn’t know how John was holding his glass. If his arm is somewhere around a 90 degree angle, his knuckles do not also have to be aligned straight outward.)

• Rentschler believes that the field test results of the vehicle are inconsistent with the damage to Karen’s SUV.

  (Opinion: Looks pretty dang consistent to me. Especially knowing that a minor deviation of variables will create a slighty different result. Example: No two glasses will break the same exact way when tossed on the ground no matter how precise you try to match it. The mathematical possiblities of outcomes is insurmountable, so claiming the taillight test must occur exactly alike in this accident is just absurd.)

• Rentschler says his opinion that a vehicle impact is inconsistent with John’s body flying back 10-20 feet from road.

  • Prosecutor shows him a screenshot from the police cruiser cam the morning John was found, and asks him if John’s body location looks like it’s 10-20 feet from the road. Rentschler says it’s more like 10 feet, but a vehicle force would make it 20 feet.

  • He is also asked if he knows the point of contact, and Rentschler says. ‘no one does.’

  (Opinion: WHAT? I’m confused if anyone understands his point here please explain to me in the comments. If no one knows where exactly John was standing when hit, how can Rentschler decide that John did not land in the correct distance from the road?)

• Rentschler says that the CW’s expert’s static and dynamic test do not show what the force of impact would be, as well as the direction of abrasion wounds being made.

  • This is true. The testing was done to show the height of the victim and where his body naturally aligns with the right taillight. The pain transfer test was done to see if a vehicle clipping him could impact the same arm area, which it does.

  • The CW’s expert (Welcher) also shares the math behind how much force would occur with different variables, confirming that John did not have to suffer any broken bones in this type of collision.

---

CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE

• Rentschler was asked by prosecution about all the other evidence at the crime scene that he never referenced in his report or direct testimony, including:

  • Field debris of the taillight shards found.

  • Pedestrian’s shoe located at the curb.

  • Pedestrian’s glass cup shards and straw.

  • Shards of small taillight fragments scraped from the pedestrian’s sweatshirt and undershirt.

🚩Despite that Rentschler stated repeatedly on direct examination that ‘details matter’ when analyzing a case, he refused to acknowledge that the crime scene evidence mattered at all.

---

POSSIBLE BIAS

HAM SANDWICH PARTY

• After Rentschler testified in the first trial, he was invited to eat a “ham sandwich” with the defense team and their guests.

• Rentschler says he sat in the corner, and doesn’t recall talking to people. He does say people talked to him, but can’t remember the who or what was said.

• Prosecutor Brennan questions him if he recalls a documentary team of videographers there, and he says yes.

• Brennan says, so you know you were being recorded? Do you recall making fun of Prosecutor Lally and boasting about your verbiage of science and physics?

• Rentschler says he can’t recall conversations from a year ago. He says he can’t even remember what he ate for lunch last week.

Ironically, he remembers the ham sandwich though from the party.

DELETED TEXTS

• Prosecutor asks him what happened to the texts between him and the defense that he was required by the court to hand over, and Rentschler says he deleted them.

• He said they were just basic texts about driving directions, so he got rid of them.

Ironically, Attorney Jackson and the other ARCCA expert also deleted their texts.

ID DOCUMENTARY

Rentschler is asked how he heard about John having a sliver of glass in his face, and Karen pulling it out around 6am the morning John was found.

He can’t remember. Says he saw it somewhere.

Ironically, this clip was aired for the first time on the ID documentary that filmed during the HAM SANDWICH PARTY, and that the ARCCA experts are also in.

---

CLOSING TIME

Guys…

Tomorrow is the BIG DAY. Closing arguments will be made, and deliberations will begin. Say a prayer that truth prevails (whatever that may be) because ultimately truth is what honors victims.

xo