Showdown after prosecution's major crash reconstruction

Summary

Summary of Podcast Episode: "Showdown after Prosecution's Major Crash Reconstruction"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential
• Host/Author: NBC10 Boston
• Description: Nightly coverage of the Karen Read murder trial and her allegations of a cover-up over the killing of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe.
• Episode: Showdown after prosecution's major crash reconstruction
• Release Date: May 29, 2025

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "Showdown after Prosecution's Major Crash Reconstruction," NBC10 Boston delves deep into the second full day of testimony in the Karen Read murder trial. The focus centers on the prosecution’s key witness, Dr. Judson Welcher, and the defense’s strategic cross-examination aimed at discrediting his findings regarding the fatal collision involving Officer John O'Keefe.

Prosecution's Testimony and Crash Reconstruction

The prosecution presented a significant crash reconstruction theory asserting that Karen Read's SUV collided with Officer John O'Keefe, leading to his death. Dr. Judson Welcher, a pivotal expert witness for the prosecution, provided detailed analyses supporting this theory.

• Dr. Judson Welcher (00:17): “It is consistent with the collision.”

Welcher's testimony included simulations and scientific data asserting that the injuries sustained by Officer O'Keefe were consistent with being struck by a vehicle identical to Karen Read's Lexus.

Defense's Cross-Examination Strategy

The defense, led by Attorney Robert Alessi, conducted an extensive cross-examination of Dr. Welcher to undermine the prosecution's case. Alessi focused on highlighting gaps and potential biases in Welcher's methodology.

• Robert Alessi (03:22): “Robert Alessi went item by item, picking apart Welcher's testimony from the day prior, pointing at information that he says Welcher did not consider.”

Key areas targeted included the age of the data used in Welcher’s analysis and the lack of specific information about the collision's dynamics, such as the exact body position of Officer O'Keefe at the time of impact.

• Robert Alessi (04:21): “Are you aware that the currently understood most common injuries as a result of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions are injuries to the lower extremities?”
• Dr. Welcher (04:32): “It wouldn't surprise me if that's accurate.”

Alessi also questioned the validity of the "blue paint test," a simulation performed by Welcher's firm, Aperture:

• Robert Alessi (05:32): “You didn't do a blue paint test with the vehicle going at 20 miles per hour, correct?”
• Dr. Welcher (05:38): “That is correct. I was not going to hit myself with the Lexus at 20 miles an hour.”

Key Rulings and Legal Implications

Before testimony commenced, Judge Kanone issued a critical ruling limiting Dr. Welcher's testimony:

• Judge Kanone (12:37): “Dr. Welcher can testify that the data he downloaded and analyzed and the damage to the Lexus is consistent with Ms. Reed's vehicle being in a collision. ... however, he may not testify that Ms. Reed's Lexus collided with Mr. O' Keefe because that conclusion is not based on the application of reliable scientific methodology.”

This ruling effectively restricted Welcher from making a definitive connection between the vehicles, emphasizing the jury's role in drawing ultimate conclusions.

Expert Analysis and Perspectives

NBC10 Boston’s legal experts provided in-depth analysis on the effectiveness of the defense’s cross-examination and the potential impact of Welcher’s testimony:

• Glenn Jones (09:09): “I don't think this was Alessi's best day. ... He got so caught up in the weeds and in that complicated engineering thing.”

• Michael Coyne (07:16): “He was just as strong as the Commonwealth needed him to be and stood up fairly well on cross.”

Coyne noted that despite the rigorous cross-examination, Welcher maintained the integrity of his findings, reinforcing the prosecution’s narrative.

Financial Transparency and Ethical Concerns

A significant point of contention arose regarding the financial arrangements of Aperture, Welcher's firm, in purchasing a replica of Karen Read's Lexus for crash simulations:

• Dr. Welcher (20:58): “We paid for the Lexus. ... we’re selling it and charging the commonwealth the difference in the price.”

• Michael Coyne (21:36): “It is very unusual, highly unusual for the government to have spent so much money purchasing a $60,000 plus Lexus and then putting it through all of these extensive tests.”

The defense attempted to question the propriety of Aperture’s expenses, suggesting potential biases due to financial incentives. However, both prosecution and defense analysts largely dismissed these concerns as standard operational costs, albeit unusually high.

Judge's Ruling and Its Impact

Judge Kanone’s ruling curtailed Welcher from making direct statements linking the collision to Karen Read and Officer O'Keefe. This decision aimed to preserve the jury's role in determining the case's outcome without overstepping judicial boundaries.

• Jason Monahan (12:37): “So basically everything that Welcher testified on direct is in except for that last comment... you just can't place Karen Reed and John o' Keefe together.”

Legal experts debated the appropriateness of the ruling, with general consensus affirming the judge's discretion:

• Michael Coyne (13:26): “It's within the judge's discretion. ... they can't opine on the ultimate issue.”

Defense's Position and Future Strategies

As the trial progresses, the defense plans to introduce their expert witnesses from ARCA, aiming to refute the prosecution’s crash reconstruction theory. These experts, Doctors Daniel Wolf and Andrew Rentschler, will present alternative analyses suggesting that Officer O'Keefe's injuries were inconsistent with being struck by a vehicle.

• Jason Monahan (10:55): “Once the prosecution rests, the defense... is expected to call ARCA... they testified that John O' Keefe's injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle.”

Prosecution's Continued Advocacy

Despite the defense's attempts to undermine Welcher’s credibility, the prosecution remains confident in their case, emphasizing the scientific and physical evidence that ties the collision to Karen Read’s vehicle.

• Michael Coyne (20:04): “If she's convicted, it'll be based on her statements and the science that's now been tied together.”

Conclusion and Upcoming Developments

The episode concludes by highlighting the ongoing battle of expert testimonies, with both sides preparing to present compelling scientific evidence. The next phases of the trial are expected to intensify as defense experts challenge the prosecution's reconstruction, potentially swaying the jury's perception of the case.

• Glenn Jones (14:13): “He gave us a plausible narrative... they might find that very credible.”

Listeners are encouraged to stay tuned for further developments and expert analyses in subsequent episodes of "Canton Confidential."

---

Notable Quotes:

• Dr. Judson Welcher (02:16): “Or a impact with Mr. John O' Keefe. It is consistent with the collision.”

• Robert Alessi (04:21): “Are you aware that the currently understood most common injuries as a result of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions are injuries to the lower extremities?”

• Judge Kanone (12:37): “... he may not testify that Ms. Reed's Lexus collided with Mr. O' Keefe because that conclusion is not based on the application of reliable scientific methodology.”

• Michael Coyne (20:04): “If she's convicted, it'll be based on her statements and the science that's now been tied together.”

---

Final Notes:

This episode of "The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential" provides an in-depth look into the pivotal moments of Dr. Welcher's testimony and the defense's strategic attempts to challenge the prosecution's case. With high-stakes legal maneuvers and expert analyses, the trial remains a compelling narrative for listeners seeking comprehensive coverage of this high-profile case.

Transcript

[Jeff Lewis]

Hey, this is Jeff Lewis from Radio Andy Live and Uncensored. Catch me talking with my friends about my latest obsessions, relationship issues and bodily ailments. With that kind of drama that seems to follow me, you never know what's going to happen. You can listen to Jeff Lewis Live at home or anywhere you are.

[SiriusXM Announcer]

Download the SiriusXM app for over 425 channels of AD, free music, sports, entertainment and more. Subscribe now and get 3 months free offer Details Apply.

[Indeed Announcer]

You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. Stop struggling to get your job post seen on other job sites. Indeed Sponsored Jobs help you stand out and hire fast. With Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster. According to Indeed data, Sponsored Jobs posted directly on indeed have 45% more applications than non sponsored jobs. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com podcast just go to Indeed.com podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.

[Monday.com Announcer]

Dear old work platform. It's not you, it's us. Actually, it is you. Endless onboarding, constant IT bottlenecks. We've had enough. We need a platform that just gets us. And to be honest, we've met someone new. They're called Monday.com and it was love at first. Onboarding. Their beautiful dashboards, their customizable workflows got us floating on a digital cloud nine so no hard feel, but we're moving on. Monday.com the first work platform you'll love to use.

[Jeff Lewis]

NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you. Tonight, back on the stand, a second full day of testimony for the prosecution's final witness. Whether that is consistent with a collision.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

Or a impact with Mr. John O' Keefe. It is consistent with the collision.

[Jeff Lewis]

But this time the defense got their chance to cross examine him.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

Ask me about the opinion of a medical examiner.

[Michael Coyne]

I'm not a member.

[Glenn Jones]

Only one person at a time.

[Jeff Lewis]

How the defense worked to poke holes in his findings. But was this approach effective? Plus a key ruling from the judge.

[Glenn Jones]

The jurors are as well positioned to draw or reject the inference as is the expert.

[Jeff Lewis]

Our legal experts break down the importance of her decision. Canton Confidential the Karen Reed murder trial starts now. For the second straight day, we saw only one witness take the stand. The difference today was who got to ask questions of Dr. Judson Welcher. Good evening, I'm Glenn Jones.

[Jason Monahan]

And I'm Jason Monahan. Today the defense got their chance to cross examine Welcher. Robert Alessi had the job to do that today and spent the day crossing him. Melody Mendez has been covering it all from the courthouse in Dedham. Melody.

[SiriusXM Announcer]

J.C. glenn, look. Robert Lessee went item by item, picking apart Welcher's testimony from the day prior, basically pointing at information that he says Welcher did not consider. When coming up with potential theories. He focused on what he didn't have versus what he did. Take a look. Robert Alessi started his cross focusing on the importance of being objective, asking Dr. Welcher about confirmation bias. When someone selectively gathers evidence to confirm.

[Monday.com Announcer]

A theory, an example of confirmation bias.

[Jeff Lewis]

Is.

[Monday.com Announcer]

Not considering alternative hypotheses.

[SiriusXM Announcer]

Alessi narrowed in on Welch's testimony that John o' Keefe wouldn't necessarily have had any broken bones or injuries to his lower extremities after potential impact with Reed's suv. But later in the day, Lessee pointed out the report Welcher used about common injuries and pedestrian strikes is 46 years old.

[Monday.com Announcer]

Are you aware that the currently understood most common injuries as a result of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions are injuries to the lower extremities?

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

It wouldn't surprise me if that's accurate.

[SiriusXM Announcer]

Over and over again, Alessi focusing on key data Welcher did not have, like John Okeefe's body position when he was allegedly hit. Information that in his own testimony about the differences between injuries from sideswipes versus direct impact, Welcher noted would be of crucial importance.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

Pedestrian impacts and how you move post impact are very sensitive to your exact body position.

[SiriusXM Announcer]

Walter. Multiple times on the stand today acknowledging that key piece of data missing, like in this exchange about the height of the spoiler on Reed's suv.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

We don't know his exact body position at the point of impact, nor do we know the exact position on the ground. So which is part of the reason why I haven't tried to exactly simulate this.

[SiriusXM Announcer]

But keep in mind, fewer than 24 hours ago, the doctor testified about dressing like O' Keefe, buying a replica of Reed's car and doing a simulation, something he called the blue paint test. Alessi took aim at another missing component of that test.

[Monday.com Announcer]

You didn't do a blue paint test with the vehicle going at 20 miles per hour, correct?

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

That is correct. I was not going to Hit myself with the Lexus at 20 miles an hour.

[Monday.com Announcer]

You could have done other tests where the vehicle was going at 20 miles per hour if you used a crash test dummy. Correct.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

You could have done that if you use the right crash test dummy. And then to set up the test, you have to know everything about the parameters. And so again, pedestrian impacts are so very sensitive to initial angles. If I were to do a test and it was off a tiny, tiny bit and we got some different results, I would be in here having to defend it. Well, your own testing didn't show it. Point is, we don't have enough information to be able to conduct that testing.

[SiriusXM Announcer]

Now, nearing the end of the day, I want to mention this because this was very important, but Alessi pressed Judson on findings that he says reed's SUV went 87ft in reverse. 87ft, that's the distance between bases on a baseball diamond. 87ft in reverse at 24 miles per hour in the dark, in a blizzard, and didn't collide with any other vehicles or leave the road. And keep in mind, there were up to 16 people inside the Albert home at any given time throughout the course of that night. So vehicles outside on that small street, as you can imagine. J.C. glenn, back to you, Melody.

[Jason Monahan]

Let's dive deeper into Robert Alessi's Cross of Dr. Welcher. We're joined now by NBC 10 Boston Chief Legal analyst Michael Coyne, as well as former prosecutor Margaret McLean. Margaret, welcome to the team.

[Glenn Jones]

Thank you.

[Jason Monahan]

Thank you for being here. We are going to go into Alessi and the questioning that he had for Welcher about the work he conducted. Let's take a listen to another portion of that.

[Monday.com Announcer]

But it's also possible that under your theory that a collision occurred, that that arm could have been impacted any part of the back of the vehicle. That's possible, isn't it?

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

That's not probable?

[Monday.com Announcer]

No, I'm asking, is it possible?

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

Anything is possible. I don't deal in possibilities, I deal in probabilities. It's not probable.

[Monday.com Announcer]

But you don't know exactly where the point of impact was.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

So within the range of the light and the exact angle of the hand? No, I don't.

[Jason Monahan]

Okay, so this is much different than how the defense responded to the prosecution's last expert witness, which was the brain surgeon, Isaac Wolf. He spent just a couple of minutes, asked a couple of questions, and he was done. So this has been all day today. We're not done. He's going to continue again tomorrow. So my question to both of you is why wouldn't the defense on this just let their experts come up to refute what they had to say? Their experts are arca. Let them come up and say, here's our version of it. Because what happened today was a lot of Alessi pushing and for their witness to say, but you don't understand the science. So it was almost like going back and forth between two people who would not agree that they don't understand the material.

[Michael Coyne]

Because this is the Commonwealth's last and most critical witness. And what he's done is tied all of that data that we heard earlier on and the cell phone battery and all the science together and now pretty emphatically has said that her vehicle struck John O' Keefe at 12:30 or so and obviously then contributed to his death. This is a crucial witness. I think he was just as strong as the Commonwealth needed him to be and stood up fairly well on cross.

[Jeff Lewis]

Did you find that Alessi could poke any holes into what was this expert witness's theory?

[Glenn Jones]

Well, I, first of all, I don't think this was Alessi's best day. He went around and around and around with the witness. He got complicated. He's going head to head with an engineer and I think he should have made his small points. Right. And then, you know, sit down after that. For example, I really like the area where he talked about the berm. He said to the witness, well, you didn't step onto the property and you didn't account for this 4 inch berm and that was very good. So saying, well, when you did, he should have gone on and said, well when you did your tests, that could be 4 inches. So there goes all your calculations, throwing it out. Instead he got so caught up in the weeds and in that complicated engineering thing. And yes, I agree with you. Wait for the ARCA witnesses and they'll say whatever he wants them to say.

[Jason Monahan]

Let's talk more about that. We're going to go to Dr. Welcher. Quite possibly, as you mentioned, the most important prosecution witness. Once the prosecution rests, the defense, as we know, will get their chance to present evidence. They're expected to call ARCA that I mentioned the Reconstructionist, Doctors Daniel Wolf and Andrew Rentschler, both central figures in the first trial, both hired by the federal government as part of an investigation into the case. They testified that John o' Keefe's injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle. Take a listen.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

I didn't have enough evidence based on what I was provided and even looking at the additional evidence that I became aware of after the fact, there's still still no evidence. I mean, you can't deny the science and the physics as to what would have happened if he was struck by the vehicle. So anything past that, you have to somehow overcome that hurdle, which is very difficult to do.

[Jason Monahan]

So can you explain the strategy? I mean, expert against expert seems like a pretty clean way to go versus, as you were saying, all the minutiae that Alessi got into today?

[Glenn Jones]

Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's what he should do is just wait for his own experts. The one thing I will say though, as far as Dr. Welcher, maybe Alessi did a good thing in that many people thought that Welcher came across conceited and a total jerk. So maybe the jury won't like him as a result.

[Michael Coyne]

And that's a possibility. And, you know, oftentimes you have dueling experts. And so the question at the end of the day becomes which one are they more likely to believe? And the cross examination on Acker is going to be pretty brutal. They've destroyed all their documents. She gave Attorney Brennan of voir dire already with respect to a lot of it. If you think he's good on redirect, which he is. He is very good on cross examination.

[Jeff Lewis]

Well, let me ask you one specific question about Dr. Welcher. Did he repair for the prosecution the potential damage done by Shannon Burgess?

[Michael Coyne]

I think so, so far. Now, I think we'll see some of that cross examination about Burgess tomorrow when they finish up. But I do think he's restored some respectability to the company by showing what his findings were and then staying strong throughout what is a pretty vigorous cross examination by a skilled advocate. I just think I agree that he got in the weeds today. I don't think you Cross examine a PhD in mechanical engineering and physics about physics.

[Jeff Lewis]

Right.

[Jason Monahan]

Let's go down to a key ruling from Judge Kanone that happened before testimony even began. Today. She announced her decision away from the jury. Take a listen.

[Glenn Jones]

Dr. Welcher can testify that the data he downloaded and analyzed and the damage to the Lexus is consistent with Ms. Reed's vehicle being in a collision. In addition, Dr. Welcher can testify that Mr. O' Keefe's injuries are consistent with his having been struck by a Lexus that is physically identical to Ms. Reed's Lexus. However, he may not testify that Ms. Reed's Lexus collided with Mr. O' Keefe because that conclusion is not based on the application of reliable scientific methodology.

[Jason Monahan]

So basically everything that Welcher testified on direct is in except for that last comment that he made, because it's Alexis, it's John o' Keefe. You just can't place Karen Reed and John o' Keefe together. That's the ruling. Is it the right one?

[Michael Coyne]

Yeah, it's within the judge's discretion. What she's afraid of, or what the law says is that you don't want to invade the province of the jury. They can't opine on the ultimate issue. Now, there's some technicalities there. So what she did is she said you can testify that it is consistent with being struck by Ms. Reed's vehicle. And that's just what he did. You just can't say that in his opinion, that's exactly what happened.

[Jeff Lewis]

Well, I suppose, Margaret, a point we should not overlook is that perhaps this witness, in two trials made the best effort to lay out the narrative connected to the prosecution's theory. I mean, up until now, there have been so many questions around what the injuries are, what speed the car was moving at. He gave us a plausible narrative.

[Glenn Jones]

He certainly did. Especially with the lacerations on Okeefes arm. So many people think it's the dog bite, but he using the blue paint, the jurors may think that's very effective because that blue paint was in the area where those lacerations were. So they might make. They may find that very credible.

[Jeff Lewis]

All right. It's going to come down to the battle of the experts on accident reconstruction. Thank you very much. Margaret McLean, welcome to Canton Confidential. It's so great to have you here, Michael. You'll be sticking around. We never let you go far. Coming up, who paid for Aperture to buy a replica of Karen Reid's car? That's the question many of us have been asking. What Dr. Welcher is now revealing about the purchase. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial. Don't miss any of the Karen Reed murder trial. Get the full recap of what happened in court, expert analysis, and what we could see next. This is coverage you won't see anywhere else. Canton confidential, weeknights at 7 on NBC 10 Boston.

[Indeed Announcer]

Pandora makes it easy for you to.

[Jeff Lewis]

Find your favorite music. Discover new artists and genres by selecting.

[Indeed Announcer]

Any song or album, and we'll make.

[Jeff Lewis]

You a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.

[Dr. Patrick McGrath]

What if I told you that right now millions of people are living with a debilitating condition that's so misunderstood, many of them don't even know that they have it? That condition is obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD. I'm Dr. Patrick McGrath, the chief clinical officer of NOCD. And in the 25 years I've been treating OCD, I've met so many people who are suffering from the condition in silence, unaware of just what it was. OCD can create overwhelming anxiety and fear around what you value most, make you question your identity, beliefs and morals, and drive you to perform mentally and physically draining compulsions or rituals. Over my career, I've seen just how devastating OCD can be when it's left untreated. But help is available. That's where NOCD comes in. NOCD is the world's largest virtual therapy provider for obsessive compulsive disorder. Our licensed therapists are trained in exposure and response prevention therapy, a specialized treatment proven to be incredibly effective for OCD. So visit nocd.com to schedule a free 15 minute call with our team. That's nocd.com.

[Monday.com Announcer]

You are a senior Vice president of Aperture, are you not?

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

I am.

[Monday.com Announcer]

You would know, wouldn't you, if. If your firm was not getting paid for work since September 23rd of 2024, wouldn't you?

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

No, probably not.

[Jeff Lewis]

Michael Coyne is back with us, and we're joined now by our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell. So that, of course, was Robert Alessi's cross examination of Dr. Judson Walcher. As you saw, he was asking a number of questions as it relates to what Aperture is being paid. Sue, I wanted to just ask you. When I think about the cross examination of Ian Wiffen, the cell phone expert, I kind of know exactly what Alessi was trying to elicit. The same is true for Shannon Burgess here. I'm not so sure the focus here on what was being spent doesn't seem like a key point. In fact, I'm not at all surprised.

[Sue O'Connell]

Well, you know whose fault that is? The witness's fault. And I'll tell you why. There were three questions that Alessi asked at the beginning. The first was, what is the scientific method? I think we all saw that in our very first chapter of every single textbook. Have you been employed by the state? Do you have a contract that took 30 minutes for him to answer? So the reason you're concerned about why should I care about this? Is instead of just answering it, he evaded it. He got very. I said he was very like the trooper who will go unnamed at the moment, you know, trying to avoid answering things that are unimportant. Right. Scientific method. Do you have a contract? Is this your company? How much are you being paid, that should take five minutes. It took almost 30 minutes. And it was just a waste of my taxpayer dollars because he's going to have to come back tomorrow. It's a waste of the juror's time. Right. And he kept just ignoring the judge's direction.

[Jeff Lewis]

No, no, sue isn't the flip of that, though. Why is Robert Alessi asking those questions? He knows the answers to them, and they don't really provide much material.

[Sue O'Connell]

It's a matter that he should just answer them. What's the big deal? He's an expert witness. He gets paid by the state. The same is true for the defense. They're hiring expert witnesses. And Hank Brennan's going to get up and say, are you being paid to be here today, Michael?

[Jason Monahan]

You look like you're ready.

[Michael Coyne]

He's going to be just as evasive. One of the most significant ways you try to impeach an expert witness is the fact that they've been paid to testify. And if you've been paid to testify, you are more likely to lie for the person who's paying you. That's the basic principle. And the more you've been paid, and here it sounds like it's approaching about a half a million dollars, the greater the likelihood he spent too much time on it. And Sue's right. Sue's right in part. He was evasive about it. They all are going to be evasive. Oh, I don't know. They didn't show up for free. Same thing happened with ARCA witnesses in the first case. Oh, I don't know. We weren't being paid. And then, as it turns out, they got paid on July as soon as the case was over. They should just admit it. It's a given. You understand that when you hire these experts, you pay for their testimony. And they would say, you pay for my time and expertise, not my testimony.

[Sue O'Connell]

And it's so relatable to be on the jury and have somebody who owns a company, and you don't know if he's making any money from it. I mean, I totally relate to that.

[Jeff Lewis]

That was sarcasm.

[Michael Coyne]

The bosses are on the phone.

[Jason Monahan]

Dr. Welcher brought up a case from outside of Massachusetts. Massachusetts, about a pedestrian accident where the pedestrian died and had no bone breaks, no broken bones. It really aligned with the prosecution theory of the case. Michael, did it land?

[Michael Coyne]

And it landed with me. It landed with you because that's what everyone has been wondering. How could this vehicle hit him and not cause any broken bones? The picture did it and the illustration you had did it and just the image that he said a couple times, you have a 6,000 pound vehicle hitting a 216 pound man. What do you think is going to give to me? There was a number of pieces like that that helped to solidify the government's case. If she's convicted, it'll be based on her statements and the science that's now been tied together.

[Jeff Lewis]

Yeah, it did feel like a big moment. All right. Dr. Walter testified his company Aperture, bought a Lexus similar to the one owned by Karen Reed in order to perform his testing. Just before that testimony, we got this question from Kate. Who pays for that? Does the Commonwealth? Dr. Welcher addressed that question on a cross examination today.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

We paid for the Lexus. We're keeping it until the trial's over. We're selling it and charging the commonwealth the difference in the price.

[Monday.com Announcer]

Exactly. That was where I was going, sir. So.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

But they're only paying the difference, so. And in theory, if we sell it for more in California, then we'll reduce the bill.

[Sue O'Connell]

Okay.

[Monday.com Announcer]

I don't want to speculate. I just wanted to see what the obligation was.

[Dr. Judson Welcher]

The obligation is the difference.

[Monday.com Announcer]

Exactly. So the obligation is the difference.

[Jeff Lewis]

All right, Michael, I can't resist to ask you two questions on this. First, one, what we just heard there, is that rare or typical? And secondly, isn't there a good chance this vehicle is going to sell for more than it's worth because it was associated with the care and retrial?

[Michael Coyne]

Well, the fact is that, you know, the macabre really does appeal to a lot of people. And so it very well may sell for more than what they purchased it for. It is very unusual. This is in private industry. You would probably likely see this type of money paid on experts and their equipment like this case has done. It's unusual, highly unusual for the government to have spent so much money purchasing a $60,000 plus Lexus and then putting it through all of these extensive tests.

[Jeff Lewis]

Interesting.

[Jason Monahan]

All right, let's talk about the new motion by the prosecution. It was prompted by the testimony of Dr. Welcher's colleague at aperture, Shannon Burgess. Last week on cross, the defense questioned his educational background, pointed out outdated information on his resume. Take a listen.

[Monday.com Announcer]

Is it correct that there you state bachelor of general science in mathematics and business administration, University of Alabama, Alabama Dash, Birmingham, Alabama comma 2024. Did I read that correctly?

[Jeff Lewis]

You did read that correctly. And this was filed in 2023.

[Jason Monahan]

In new motion, the prosecution is looking to avoid a similar situation, saying it wasn't provided with certain documents ahead of time. The motion reads, quote, the effort of providing documents as a witness is being confronted with documents is improper trial by ambush, a violation of Rule 14 and creates needless delay in objections, unnecessary sidebars, and a waste of time for the jury. Michael, prosecution have a point?

[Michael Coyne]

Not here. I think on the Rule 14 violations, generally, they're right. They shouldn't be trialed by ambush. They should disclose this. This one is a little different. They should have known what was out there with respect to his resume and qualifications. Blaming the defendant at this point, to me is not appropriate. They should have figured this out beforehand. They're the ones that picked the witness.

[Jeff Lewis]

Sue, it does seem like an attempt at saving face for the prosecution.

[Sue O'Connell]

Yeah. No, absolutely.

[Jason Monahan]

Or for Mr. Burgess. Yeah.

[Jeff Lewis]

Or that. Yeah.

[Sue O'Connell]

I mean, I hate to project onto the jury, but I imagine there's a couple of people on this jury who hire people. I could tell by the way they were paying attention to this LinkedIn information. So, you know, it's again, it's another little check off a box of something that people might have a doubt about.

[Jeff Lewis]

I remember you said there was a little grimace from some of the jury members who ordinarily are so stoic. So you know that this one left.

[Sue O'Connell]

An impression on your LinkedIn profile.

[Jeff Lewis]

Sue O' Connell, Michael Coyne, thank you very much for joining us once again. If you have questions about this case, keep them coming our way. The email address is on your screen. Canton confidentialbcuni.com we'll answer as many questions as we can.

[Jason Monahan]

And remember to join us every weeknight at 7 on NBC 10 Boston. We'll have a full recap of the latest developments from court, as well as legal analysis. Plus, this week's episodes will be streaming on Peacock starting Sunday. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Indeed Announcer]

Finding the music you love shouldn't be hard.

[Jeff Lewis]

That's why Pandora makes it easy to explore all your favorites and discover new artists and genres you'll love. Enjoy a personalized listening experience simply by selecting any song or album, and we'll make a station crafted just for you.

[Indeed Announcer]

Best of all, you can listen for.

[Jeff Lewis]

Free, download Pandora on the Apple App Store or Google Play and start hearing the soundtrack to your life.