Narrator/Reporter (3:26)

At the higher speed. Wolf says the glass shattered the taillight in a way that was remarkably similar to the one on Reed's vehicle.

Dr. Daniel Wolf (3:35)

What we Observed in the 37 mile an hour test is that we got damage that was generally consistent with that of the subject tail light and that there was a large portion of the outer lens that was shattered and fractured.

Narrator/Reporter (3:47)

But he was clear this wasn't a definitive conclusion, just a possibility.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan (3:53)

Were you concluding or did you opine.

Narrator/Host (3:56)

That the damage to the taillight came.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan (3:58)

From a drinking glass?

Dr. Daniel Wolf (3:59)

No, I gave an opinion that the damage was generally consistent with that in the test compared to the subject taillight.

Narrator/Reporter (4:07)

Next, Wolf tackled the fatal head injury. Could o' Keeffe's skull fracture have come from hitting the taillight? To find out, Wolf performed a drop test simulating the force of a head hitting the taillight at 15 miles per hour.

Dr. Daniel Wolf (4:23)

Furthermore, it did not generate, according to my colleague Dr. Rentschler, enough forces to cause a skull fracture.

Narrator/Reporter (4:30)

The damage on the car didn't match the trauma on o' Keeffe's head. Wolf didn't draw a final conclusion, but he did present an alternative theory. And in a trial where the defense's burden isn't to prove what happened, but only to show what might have happened, that alternative may be enough. But possibility cuts both ways. Because while Wolf cracked open one door for the defense, he may have also opened another doubt about the defense's own narrative and whether his testimony helped more than it hurt. From the moment Dr. Daniel Wolf took the stand, expectations were sky high, especially among Karen Reid's supporters. But to some observers, like Rich Showenstein, the reality was more complicated.

Rich Showenstein (Legal Analyst) (5:22)

Karen Reid's supporters think they're the bestest, smartest, most handsomest, most independent experts in the history of trials and in the world. They're not. They're ordinary, run of the mill expert witnesses. They come from an expert witness shop, of which there are thousands across the United States. They're perfectly fine witnesses. They have perfectly fine qualifications, they do a perfectly fine job, but they are not God's gift to expert witnesses.

Narrator/Reporter (5:59)

Wolf's credentials weren't in question. His credibility wasn't under fire. But his impact. That's where opinions diverge.

Rich Showenstein (Legal Analyst) (6:08)

I had to check and make sure I knew which side he was testifying for because he put on an animated demonstration of how a guy could get hit, clipped by the back of an suv, sustain injuries to his arm, spin around without any bruises on his body or his legs, all the things the defense had been questioning. Dr. Wolf demonstrated with a better demonstrative than the government had how that could happen. And I don't for the life of me know why they demonstrated that with his testimony.

Narrator/Reporter (6:43)

According to Showenstein, it wasn't just what Wolf said, it was what he showed.

Rich Showenstein (Legal Analyst) (6:49)

The One takeaway from Dr. Wolf's testimony is, oh, you could get clipped by an SUV and not really get a bunch of bruises and broken bones. That could happen.

Narrator/Reporter (6:59)

And while Wolf's overall opinion leaned against the prosecution's car strike theory, Showenstein says it wasn't the slam dunk some had hoped for.

Rich Showenstein (Legal Analyst) (7:09)

The general tenor of his analysis is that this isn't consistent with an auto collision. And I've investigated a lot of auto collisions in my life and I, I know what they look like and they don't look like this. So I think there was plenty in his testimony that was supposed to be supportive. I just don't think it was that compelling. And I think it came with a huge negative.

Narrator/Reporter (7:36)

And that negative, it arrived during cross examination. Dr. Wolf's testimony didn't end with his canon tests or drop experiments because after the defense wrapped their carefully calibrated presentation, prosecutor Hank Brennan got to his feet. And what followed wasn't physics, it was theater. Wolf's job was to cast doubt on whether Karen Reed's Lexus caused John o' Keefe's injuries. But Brennan tried to flip the narrative, not by attacking the science, but by turning the jury's attention to something else. John O. Keefes sweatshirt.

Rich Showenstein (Legal Analyst) (8:16)

Brennan decided in what I think was a spur of the moment decision to cross Dr. Wolf because there were holes in the back of O' Keeffe's sweatshirt.

Narrator/Reporter (8:28)

To make his point, Brennan physically walked over to a display case holding the sweatshirt. He pulled it out, framed, preserved, and put it in front of Dr. Wolf.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan (8:39)

Did you ever consider what? Whether there were holes in Mr. O' Keeffe's sweatshirt other than the right arm?

Dr. Daniel Wolf (8:47)

Well, I know that there was cutting to the.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan (8:50)

May I approach and retrieve the exhibit arm from there?

Narrator/Reporter (8:54)

The questions kept coming, fast, specific and accusatory.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan (9:00)

Did you ever look at the back of the sweatshirt to see if there was any holes to the back of the sweatshirt other than the right arm? And you formed your finger?

Dr. Daniel Wolf (9:07)

I don't recall.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan (9:09)

Take a look at the back. Do you see other holes on the back of Mr. O' Keeffe's sweatshirt?

Dr. Daniel Wolf (9:16)

It appears I see one hole.

Narrator/Reporter (9:19)

Brennan suggested those holes pointed out how Okeefes body may have interacted with the pavement or the car. Physical evidence. He implied that the defense had overlooked.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan (9:31)

When you were forming your opinions that the collision would be inconsistent to damage to Mr. O' Keefe's sweatshirt, did you consider that Mr. O' Keefe may have fallen or landed on his back?

Dr. Daniel Wolf (9:44)

In looking at those holes, they're inconsistent with road rash. And again, to get those kind of holes, you have to have prolonged sliding contact on a rough surface.

Narrator/Reporter (9:54)

According to the defense, the holes weren't caused by a fall. They weren't caused by a car. They were made later by the state's own criminalist during lab processing. Which meant in their version of the story, Brennan had just implied something to the jury, something that wasn't true at all. In response, the defense erupted.

Rich Showenstein (Legal Analyst) (10:18)

Alessi, who I think only has one speed when he's arguing a motion full throttle, stands up like, this is the most outrageous thing that's ever happened in a courtroom. And he wants a complete man mistrial. Because Brennan has misrepresented the sweatshirt, the.

Narrator/Reporter (10:37)

Mistrial motion didn't fly. Instead, Judge Kanoni issued a curative instruction. She told the jury that the holes had no bearing on the case, but the visual that had already landed. And to some, the moment was a misstep. Not by the prosecution, but by the defense.

Rich Showenstein (Legal Analyst) (10:57)

I didn't understand the request for a mistrial at all. You have two options there. One, you can get up on redirect and you can pull the sweatshirt back up and you can say, hey, Dr. Wolf, did you know all those holes were only made by police when they were investigating this matter? And you could have embarrassed Brennan in front of the jury by doing it that way. That's the way I would have done it. I would have embarrassed Brennan, who made a mistake right in front of the jury. Do you see this that the prosecutor was asking you about? He was asking you like, these holes were made at the time of the accident. That's not true, is it, Dr. Wolf? These holes have nothing to do with the accident. There are no holes on the back created by the accident. Isn't that true? You could absolutely do that, or you could ask for a curative instruction, which is what happened, which is the judge says, hey, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, those holes were not caused by the accident. So we just want to clarify that with you. Either of those two solutions totally fixes the problem. It's not a matter for a mistrial.

Narrator/Reporter (12:06)

Instead of capitalizing on the error in real time, the defense took the fight behind closed doors. And with that, the drama around the sweatshirt ended. But the damage, if any, might have already been done for the defense, Dr. Wolf was supposed to bring clarity. But as the jury weighs his data, they may also be weighing something else. Confusion. As the dust settled from the sweatshirt showdown, one thing was clear. Dr. Daniel Wolf May have opened the door to reasonable doubt, but he didn't close it behind him. His testimony raised questions, but it didn't fully answer them. And now the defense is turning to someone who just might enter. Dr. Andrew Rentschler. Wolff's colleague at ARCA and the man responsible for the most technical piece of the defense's forensic argument. Biomechanics. Where Wolff focused on the what. The taillight damage, the glass projectile, the measurable force. Rentschler is expected to focus on the how. How a body moves, how injuries occur, how impacts translate into trauma. His job, to take Wolff's scenarios and ground them in human anatomy. Bone, tissue, torque, rotation, fall dynamics. In Rentschler's view, the numbers told a clear story.

Dr. Andrew Rentschler (13:36)

We took a head form, a head from a dummy, basically, that's instrumented with accelerometers, and we dropped it onto a tail light, covered cover to attain a speed of 15 miles an hour. And so that would be comparable to the vehicle striking the head at 15 miles an hour. I concluded that the acceleration wasn't sufficient to produce enough force to cause a skull fracture at 15 miles an hour.

Narrator/Reporter (13:58)

He says the speed the prosecution has alleged couldn't have caused the fatal skull fracture John o' Keefe suffered. In his expert opinion, the physics didn't add up. It wasn't just unlikely, it was impossible. But he didn't stop there.

Dr. Andrew Rentschler (14:16)

When you look at the position and configuration of the occupant, it really wasn't possible to get a skull fracture by hitting the taillight and not sustain any other significant fractures. So my findings with respect to the skull or the occipital skull fractures was that it likely did not occur as a result of contact, specifically with that tail light cover on the rear passenger side of the Lexus. Generally speaking, looking at the arm, how it would contact the car and subsequent movement and interaction with the light cover, my opinion was that the injuries would be inconsistent. Or the injuries that Mr. O' Keefe sustained on his right arm and didn't sustain would be inconsistent with actual interaction with the tail light.

Narrator/Reporter (14:59)

Rentschler's testimony didn't introduce a brand new theory. It reinforced one the defense had been building for weeks. But in him, they had a witness who could tie it all together. Not just that. Karen Reed's SUV didn't do this. Something else or someone else did. And with that, the defense rested its case. Next week, closing arguments will give each side one last chance to speak to the jury directly, challenging the other's narrative and framing all the evidence. The trial is finally barreling towards its dramatic conclusion, and with it, the verdict that will seal Karen Reid's fate. Will the jury reach a unanimous decision this time around? We'll find out soon enough. For Long Crime, I'm Kristin Thorne.

Narrator/Host (16:04)

Follow Karen in the Wondery app. You can binge the entire series early and ad free right now by joining Wondery plus in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify.