Karen Read Trial - Take 2

Asked if it's correct he learned from an affidavit of a defense expert those errors before he submitted his supplemental report, he says he doesn't remember the timing he'd have to go look at his documents. He believes he "submitted the supplemental report before he received the protocol from the defense expert."

Asked if he's certain of that, he immediately says "no I'm not certain of that." Asked if it's true the expert for the defense submitted his affidavit before he submitted his supplemental report, he says he doesn't know one way or the other correct.

Asked if the defense expert is Matthew DeSobra, if he knows that name, he says he does. Asked if he's read his affidavit, he says he has. Asked if he would agree that DeSobra pointed out these misinterpretations in the affidavit that he read, he says that's correct.

Going now to his January 30th 2025 report, Alessi asks if it's correct that he wrote "that at the time of the incident, Birla (the blackbox software) did not offer support for the infotainment and telematics modules removed from the Lexus, but has since released updated software that allows it to read similar modules that are in vehicle acquisitions" he says that's correct.

Next he's asked about the MMU containing the SD card that wasn't retrieved by the first Commonwealth expert. He says it's true he didn't retrieve any data from the SD card not already retrieved by the previous expert. Agrees she missed nothing of value.

He's asked if he knows how much the Commonwealth has paid Aperture to date for his work on the case, he does not. Asked if he has any involvement at all in knowing what the contract is between Aperture and the Commonwealth, he does not.

PS here's his page on the Aperture website. Still up, still links to his CV, but his LinkedIn has been privated.

It still shows a degree he doesn't hold under "education".




Asked if he ever talked to anyone from Aperture about how much Aperture was being paid in this case. He says no he hasn't.

Asked if he could make an estimation, he says he couldn't off the top of his head. Asked again he's if he never had any conversation about the fees the Commonwealth is being charged by Aperture, he says that's correct.

(Kinda unbelievable.)

He's asked who at Aperture is in charge of knowing how much they've charged the Commonwealth, he says that would be the accounting department.

Asked if Dr. Welcher from Aperture would know, he says he could potentially know (about who at Aperture was in charge of contracts and fees besides "the accounting department.")


(Dr. Welcher is another of the Commonwealth experts. Here's his page on the Aperture website. Hopefully he didn't pad his CVs and LinkedIn too.)

He's asked if his analysis in this case was not strictly limited to data and science, he says no, it was strictly limited to data and science.

Asked if the Commonwealth requested that he review numerous materials in connection with his analysis in this case, he agrees he reviewed numerous materials.

Asked if he reviewed the January 29th 2022 CARS report by Trooper Paul. He says he didn't. Asked if he knows what a CARS report is, he says he doesn't.

YES Trooper Paul report!

Asked if he knows that a CARS report was prepared by Trooper Paul for this case. He doesn't. He's asked if there was a Collision Analysis and Reconstruction report in a case, if he'd want to see that document as part of his review of materials, he says no, not for his analysis.

Asked if he's familiar with Collision Analysis and Reconstruction reports written by law enforcement in cases, he says he's vaguely familiar yes. Asked if he's ever used one in his analysis at all, he says "I have seen them yes."

Asked if in seeing them, he'd ever read any of them. (LOL)

He says yes he has read them. Asked if he's ever considered a CARS report as part of his work at Aperture, he says not specifically a CARS report from law enforcement, "we do routinely see crash reports but I think what you're referring to is something else."

Asked if he's aware of a supplemental CARS report by Trooper Paul of the MSP dated July 24 2024. He says he's not. Asked if he knows whether Trooper Paul is part of the MSP reconstruction team, he doesn't know that. Asked if he knows whether Trooper Paul is part of the reconstruction team in this case, he says he does not.

He's asked if anyone told him to avoid reviewing a CARS report in this case, he says no, nobody did. Asked if he did review the 2024 testimony of Trooper Guirino in the first proceeding, he says he did looking for specific data yes.

Asked if that's not really science and data is it, it's testimony. He agrees it is testimony. Asked if he did review evidence beyond science and data in this case after all, he says "that is common yes."

(Just a few minutes ago he said he strictly reviewed the data and science in this case. Right at the top of this post.)

Asked if, having reviewed Trooper Guirino's testimony, he therefore is aware of the theory he proposed in the first proceeding, Burgess says "I am not, so, specifically I reviewed Trooper Guirino's testimony for information related to the infotainment and telematics modules."

Asked if he read all the testimony, he says no, he would have skimmed it. Asked what would be the purpose of skimming it, he says he was only interested in the previously mentioned information. Asked again for clarification, if he would skim the testimony, looking for what he's focusing on, and as he sits here today he has no memory of what the theory of the Commonwealth was in the first proceeding, he says not from that testimony no.

Breaking: in related news, 3 conspiracy charges, 2 witness intimidation charges, and 1 picketing charge against Aiden Kearny (turtleboy) have been dismissed. That's the case in which the same DA that's going after Read attempted to shut down his free speech when he started blowing the whistle on the sketchy shit going on in this case. He was arrested previously by Tully, Proctor, and Bukhenik, our heroes of the first amendment.

I fell asleep watching Emily D. Baker's livestream of the trial today. She woke me up with saying "What the ****??" at the expert who says he has a BA but does not.

Asked if he reviewed certain things in Trooper Guirino's testimony, Burgess agrees that's correct. Agrees he testified extensively on direct about the iPhone of John O'Keefe. Agrees he testified a lot about location data on O'Keefe's phone.

Asked about whether he read Trooper Guirino's claim that the last - Brennan objects, sidebar.

After the sidebar, Alessi shows a document to Brennan, then publishes it for the witness. He asks if Burgess can review the document and let him know when he's ready for questioning. After a short review, he says he's ready. He is asked if the exhibit contains location data information. Brennan objects. Bev say she'll allow that. He says it does.

He is asked if he considered this part of Trooper Guirino's testimony in any review he has done in this case, he says no he did not.


Asked if knows who Tully is. He says yes, he's the one who hand delivered the infotainment and telematics modules.

Agrees that's the one that contains the SD card. Says he was approached to put the devices back in the Lexus to attempt an in-vehicle data acquisition on December 7th 2024. Agrees he reinstalled all the modules for in vehicle acquisition in an attempt to unlock the SD card data.

Agrees the exemplar Lexus SUV he tested first was purchased by Aperture. Says it is "similar" to her SUV so he calls it an exemplar.

Asked if he successfully reinstalled and tested the 2 modules for an in-vehicle unlock and acquisition on the exemplar, he agrees just for an acquisition, not unlock.

Asked if in this case with regards to the actual Lexus, he was unable to successfully reinstall and test the infotainment and telematics systems, he agrees that's correct.

Asked if he was able to get the infotainment backlight and faceplate to illuminate, but in his words "the infotainment system did not respond as expected." He says correct.

Josie said:

I fell asleep watching Emily D. Baker's livestream of the trial today. She woke me up with saying "What the ****??" at the expert who says he has a BA but does not.

Click to expand...

I keep refreshing his page on his employer's website. I can't imagine how much longer he will have a job. And it's a BS not BA.

ASHES said:

I keep refreshing his page on his employer's website. I can't imagine how much longer he will have a job. And it's a BS not BA.

Click to expand...

BS, of course. Half-asleep.

Asked if instead of an in-vehicle acquisition, he removed the SD card and attempted removing data directly from it, he says correct.

Asked if Lexus locks sd cards in it's system, he says they do yes. Asked if Lexus thought it was appropriate to access those cards, they would be unlocked, he says he doesn't know. Brennan objected but he already answered and Bev says let it stand.

Asked if he has any citation to any scientific literature, where what he did to the Lexus has been done, he says no not on that specific model which is why he did the exemplar testing.

Asked again, so there's no scientific literature where it states that the methodology that he used with this Lexus model is an appropriate methodology at all, he says "there is literature that addresses the methodology uh in other um other ways but not specific to this Lexus correct."

Asked again, "There's no literature, at all, stating that the methodology that you used for this Lexus is the appropriate methodology to use for this Lexus model, correct?"

Burgess says "there is no literature about this appropriate Lexus model correct."

Gotta wonder what internal monologues are going through the commonwealth attorneys' heads during this cross.

Going back to his initial report/protocol/proposal of January 30th 2025. Asked if it contained the language "general timeline analysis" that he said could impact "event reconstruction." Burgess agrees that is correct.

Asked if the January 30th 2025 report doesn't address a collision, he says that's correct, it's not mentioned in his report. Asked if, as a matter of fact, his 1/30/25 report doesn't even use the word collision, he says that's correct "because I'm looking at data from the infotainment and telematics modules."

Asked again, "but that report doesn't contain the word collision does it," he says "I believe it does, in the background portion uh which would be on page 2 or 3, which would just be restating the - if you don't mind can I look at my report?" Alessi tells him to go ahead.

He flips through the report. Looking for a collision.


After some review, he says "So I apologize, the word that was used was 'incident.'"

Alessi: "Right. But you don't use the word collision at all in your 1/30/25 report"

Burgess: "That is correct."


Phew, another tough nut cracked.

He's asked to keep that report handy.

He's asked if that report doesn't detail in any way what he is now calling the "timing" of the text string event, he agrees it does not.

Asked if in his January 30th report he referred to it as an incident, and in his May 8th report he referred to it as a text string event, he answers that that would be referring to two different things.

Alessi "Right, but did you use the parlance 'text string event' at all in your January report?"

Burgess "No I did not."

He is asked if he's using it now. "Correct." He says. Asked if we're talking about the same event, he says "Correct."

Asked if his analysis and conclusions were limited on his January report, to generally identifying a clock skew between Read's infotainment system and O'Keefe's phone, he says that is correct.

Asked if on January 30th 2025, he engaged in no further analysis to determine exactly when the 1162 text string event that he now talks about occurred, he says correct.

Asked why not, he says because he wasn't asked to. He was just asked to look at the general timeline and consistency of the timestamps.

He agrees he was never asked in January 2025 to engage in analysis about when precisely the 1162 text string occurred.

Asked if his goal in January 2025 was to determine the correct timeline of events relative to this incident. Says "It was my goal to determine the data from the infotainment and telematics modules that were missed (but not actually missed because it was his error 3 times) in the initial download and create a timeline and consistency of those timestamps."

Alessi "So your goal was to create a timeline correct?"

He says correct.

Asked if the timeline, among other uses, was for his colleague Dr. Welcher to use in his analysis, he says that is correct.

Asked if that meant he knew not only his own purpose, but also what his work would be used for by Dr. Welcher. He says he knew it was going to be provided yes.

Asked if he's ever talked to his colleague Dr. Welcher about this case at all, he says "Vaguely yes."

Asked how many times, he says a handful. Asked about the general nature of the discussions about the incident they're both working on, he says identifying what was found on the modules and explaining the data to him.

Asked if Dr. Welcher ever told him what he was doing with the data, he says that Welcher was using it to reconstruct a timeline.

Asked if it was for reconstructing a timeline, and picking a time for what he now calls a text string event, he says correct, for a timeline.

Asked if he knew Welcher was going to use his January 30th 2025 analysis of the 1162 text string event, to try to pinpoint the time of that event for his timeline, he says correct.

Asked if he knew Welcher used that data to select a specific range for that 1162 text string event, he disagrees with the use of the word select, but understands what Alessi is saying. Alessi asks him what word he would use. He says he would say 'based on the data, he's identifying the time approximately when that event would've occurred.'

Asked if he knows the purpose of 1162 text string event in the analysis performed by Welcher, he says he doesn't.

Asked if he performed his analysis and all that stuff he testified to on direct examination without knowing what Dr. Welcher was going to do with the data, he says sorry he misspoke, it would be to put a time and date of when that text string trigger would have occurred.

Alessi says exactly, so he knew what the purpose of his work was relative to Dr. Welcher's, he says correct.

Asked if the 1162 text string events are important aspects of the work of Aperture in this case, he says yes it is.

Asked if anyone from the Commonwealth asked him in his 1/30/2025 report, to not talk about his work on the 1162-1 and 1162-2 text string events, he says no. Asked if he didn't discuss them in the report, he says that was not part of his report correct.

Asked if he did delve deeply into that in his May 8th report, in the middle of this trial, he says "correct."

Weirdly, he doesn't seem at all affected by the entire country knowing he lied about his credentials for years.

Josie said:

Weirdly, he doesn't seem at all affected by the entire country knowing he lied about his credentials for years.

Click to expand...

I like how he deflected the responsibility to Aperture. Like they made him put BS of Mathematics and Business on his bio page.

Asked if he knows that the trial started around April 22nd (not including jury selection which started earlier), he says yes he knows generally around then.

Alessi tells him "Lets do the timeline on this",
Alessi's timeline (all agreed to by the witness Burgess):

• January 30th 2025 Burgess prepared an initial report.
• That report contained nothing about text string event 1162-1.
• That report contained nothing about text string event 1162-2.
• The trial starts April 22nd.
• After the trial started and after witnesses start appearing, he prepares another report May 8th.

He agreed with all of that, up to this point.

In the middle of the trial, he enlarged the number of the variance to the 21-29 second range, bigger than was in the initial report.

He argues on this point, so Alessi says they're going to look and see what he did.

Asked if he said on direct examination that he prepared his May 8th report on his own initiative, he says that's correct.

Alessi says he is going to read him the first line of his May 8th 2025 report. Burgess gets his to follow along.


Asked if he sees where it says "Dear Mr. Brennan" he says he does.

"Pursuant to your request" Alessi asks if 'your' means Mr. Brennan, Burgess agrees it does, "I have completed an additional analysis concerning the above referenced matter. To formulate opinions additional items were reviewed."

Alessi: "This wasn't done under your own initiative, you put in writing you did it at the request of Mr. Brennan, which is it?"

Burgess:
"So that was on my own initiative, this is a holdover, so a copy and paste from my original report."

Asked if he's explaining in his May 8th report, the "pursuant to your request", his language, as a "copy paste" from a previous report. He says "yes I am."

Asked if he cuts and pastes information from one report to another without checking it for accuracy. He says he copies and pastes certain portions.

Asked if he ever reviews what he cuts and pastes to see if it's accurate, he says "Yes."

Asked if he didn't review it this time, he says no, he didn't he didn't think it was significant.

Asked if it's significant that in the middle of a trial that there's a request for a new report, after testimony has occurred in that trial, doesn't he think that's important, Brennan objects, sustained.

Alessi: "Why did you prepare the new report then?"

Burgess: "Sure, so there was a claim from a PowerPoint presentation by Mr. DeSobra (defense expert), of trying to adjust clock syncs or clock making clock adjustments for the synchronization of certain events that was produced in March, upon reviewing that my initial thoughts were to address that in testimony but as I was preparing for trial I made the decision that it needed to be better um addressed in a supplemental report."

Asked if he understands the report he is referring to, is the report of Mr. DeSobra, he says he understands it's his presentation. Asked if he knew that the presentation by DeSobra was merely responding to the work that he (Burgess) did, he says no that's not correct.

Alessi: "So your belief is that Mr. DeSobra's report didn't address at all what you had done?"

Burgess: "Uh, partially yes, but no."

Alessi: "Ok, so let's cover the basics. You agree that Mr. DeSobra addressed at least in part, the work that you had done."

Burgess: "he tried to address yes."

Alessi: "Do you know the date of Mr. DeSobra's report as March 5th, does that sound about right?"

Burgess: "Yes that's about right."

Alessi: "So you had Mr. DeSobra's report that you claim was the basis for you on your own in the middle of this trial, creating and submitting a new report, and you claimed that the basis for that was Mr. DeSobra's report of March 5th 2025?"

Burgess: "Correct."

Alessi: "You waited 2 months to do that?"

Burgess: "Again, my initial thoughts were to address it through testimony-"(interrupted)

Alessi interrupted him, judge asks him to let the witness finish not answering the question. Alessi asks him to just answer if it was 2 months between receiving the DeSobra report and submitting his new one, he agrees it was.

Asked if he generally knew when the trial was going to start, he says he did.

Asked if he thinks it's fair to submit a report without anybody asking him to in the middle of a trial. Brennan objects, Bev sustains.

He is asked if his brand new May 8th report changed his analysis. He says no it didn't change his analysis.

Asked if there were changes to his analysis in it, he says there were 'clarifications'.

Alessi says they're going to address 'clarifications.'

Burgess is asked of in his January 30th 2025 report, he mentioned a text string event at all, he says he did not. Asked if he mentioned collision at all, he says no he didn't. Asked if he mentions both of those in his May 8th 2025 report, he says he doesn't know if he mentioned collision in the new report, he'd have to look.

Asked if he certainly did mention text string events, he says correct. Specifically, text strings 1162-1 and 1162-2, he says correct. Asked if that's a change from his first report, he says "uh no it's not a change. It's a supplement."

He is asked if, by his definition, when you add something to a report, it's not a change, it's a supplement.

Burgess: "That is what it is yes."

He is asked who he spoke to about his May 8th report before he prepared it. He says he didn't speak to anyone about it before he printed it.

Alessi: "So you just prepared it on your own."

Burgess: "I did."

Asked if he had any communication at all with Tully or Bukhenik. He says actually, he did reach out to Tully for a complete set of location data.

Alessi: "So you reached out to Trooper Tully before you wrote your May 8th report."

Burgess: "yes that is correct."

Asked if he was told by Tully the trial had already started, he says no not in that conversation. Asked how many conversations he's had with Tully, he says 5-10 times. He is asked if Tully is an expert at all in digital forensics, he says no.

Agrees he's had 5-10 conversations with him anyway, because he provided information.

He's asked if at any time anyone from the Commonwealth has had a discussion with him about relative to either his January 30 2025 or May 8th 2025 reports, about keeping flexible the timelines for any events in this case, he says no.

Asked if he has had any discussions with anyone from the district attorney's office about his May 8th report. He says yes. Asked when that was, he says May 7th when he reached out to Brennan.

Asked if he says he reached out to Brennan May 7th 2025, he says correct. He's asked if May 7th is before May 8th. He agrees it is.

Asked if before he sent the report in, he spoke to Brennan about it, he says correct.

(That's not what Brennan told the judge, he said it was a complete surprise. Not so complete though.)

Asked what the conversation was about, he says it was just a discussion over the data and what the report said.

Asked if he discussed with Brennan what was going to be in the report regarding data and analysis, he says correct. Asked if he told Brennan he was going to be submitting the revised report the next day on May 8th, he says yes.

Asked if he agreed to a time to submit the report, he says no he didn't. Asked if he told Brennan what time he was going to submit it, he says he didn't.

Agrees he was well along his way on the report on May 7th. He says he told Brennan that. Burgess is asked if therefore Brennan knew when the report was being submitted (May 8th) and how far along he was on it, he says correct.

Asked if he had any other calls with anybody else from the DA's office other than that about the May 8th report. He says he doesn't believe so. Asked about any texts with anyone from his May 8th report, he says no. Asked if he communicated with anyone else about his upcoming May 8th report.

He says "Uh no, I would have provided a copy to Dr. Welcher."

Asked if then Dr. Welcher knew he was working on the report, he says Welcher knew when he submitted it but not whether he was working on it. Asked if Welcher knew he was going to submit the report before he submitted it, Burgess says "Yes I'm sorry yes.”

Asked if Welcher knew what was going to be in the report, he says yes he did. Asked if Welcher supported that he was going to submit a report in the middle of trial, he says he can't speak for Welcher but he knew he was going to submit it.

Asked if Welcher said "don't submit it" or anything like that, he says not off the top of his head. Asked if since he does recall, he thinks it's possible Welcher did comment on that, he says no, Welcher wouldn't have commented on whether he should have submitted it or not.

Asked how many times in his career he's submitted a supplemental or amended report in the middle of trial, he says this is the only one he can recall. Asked how long he's been doing this, says about 10 years, asked if in 10 years this is the first time he's submitted an amended supplemental report in the middle of trial. He agrees with this being the first time he's submitted a supplemental report in the middle of trial.

He's not a fan of the amended word.

Getting close to the end. Less than 30 minutes.

Asked if he knows a person by the name Ian Whiffin. He says he's familiar with the name.

Agrees he's familiar with his report and work in this case.

Asked if he knows whether Whiffin has testified in this trial, he says he doesn't.

Asked if he read Whiffin's report, he says yes he did. Agrees he read it because it was of interest.

Asked if he knows whether he read Whiffin's January 2025 report or his March 2025 report, or is he even aware there are 2. He says he wasn't aware there were 2 Whiffin reports. He says he's referencing the January 2025 Whiffin report.

Asked if he's aware there's just a couple minor differences between the 2 reports, he says he's not aware either way. He's asked to assume there are very minor differences, does he agree they're long and detailed reports, he does agree with that. Agrees that the report contains O'Keefe's phone's location data. Agrees it contains call history, temperature of the battery, timelines, etc.

He agrees there is event data and times that he has used in his report.

He is asked when he received Whiffin's report with regards to O'Keefe's cell phone, he says sometime in January.

Agrees there was location data, health data, phone calls, and a timeline. Agrees he had all that information.

Asked if he had GPS data in that report regarding O'Keefe's phone, he says correct.

Asked if he knows what an SQLite database is. He says he does. Asked if an SQLite database is one of the many databases contained within O'Keefe's iPhone, he agrees.

Asked if he testified on direct examination that he had general knowledge about cell phones, he agrees. Asked if he said he has certification with regards to cell phones, he says correct. Asked if his certifications include being able to read and apply the Cellebrite tool, he agrees that is correct, asked about whether he has certification regarding Magnet Forensics Axiom software, he says correct.

Agrees he's applied those tools before this case and since this case, pretty much frequently, he agrees that is correct.

Agrees he had all that data and knowledge back in January. Agrees he had access to the SQLite database because he had Whiffin's report, he agrees.

Asked if he recalls saying ubder direct examination that one of the reasons he did this supplemental report on May 8th was he got new information or more information about O'Keefe's cell phone, he says yes that's correct.

Asked if he didn't already have that information through Whiffin's report back in January 2025, he says “correct I had the report I didn't have the location data." Asked if didn't Whiffin's report discuss location in a detailed manner, he says yes it did, asked if Whiffin used GPS location data in that report, he says yes he did.

Asked if he had that 4 months ago in January, he says correct. Agrees he read it 4 months ago. Asked if he still submitted a report on May 8th in the middle of this trial, he says correct.

He's asked if he's familiar with Jessica Hyde. He says he is. Says he knows she's working on the case, but that he isn't aware of any of her reports or whether they mention GPS or location data. He's asked if he ever asked for her reports. He says he didn't. Asked if anyone ever told him if his reports were consistent or inconsistent with reports by Whiffin or Hyde, he says "no."

Asked if he watched their testimony in this trial, he says he did not. Asked if he learned of their testimony in this trial. He says no he did not. Asked if anyone from law enforcement or otherwise associated with the Commonwealth e ever provided him with a summary of their testimony, he says no they didn't.

Asked if he had access to Whiffin's report with regards to his analysis and the data from O'Keefe's cell phone back in January 2025, he agrees.

Asked if, having read Whiffin's January 2025 report, he knew the report contains statements about movement and other activity on O'Keefe's phone after the original time period in his own report of January 2025, he says "no, not after the time period, no."

Alessi: "Let's take a look at that."

Changes his mind and says they'll come back to that in a minute.

Asked if he's mentioned he's not the only employee of Aperture that's been hired to represent the Commonwealth, he agrees. Dr. Welcher is also retained,he agrees. Agrees Welcher is a biomechanical engineer. Asked if he knows whether Welcher he's professional certifications,he says he doesn't know. He is asked if Welcher's expertise extends beyond his own. He says it is a different discipline than his yes.

Asked if he's aware Welcher has opined on the timing of the 1162-2 text string event.

I may be saying that wrong, it's hard to tell. I think it's text string, then I think it's tech stream or text stream. Either way, moving on to the answer.

Brennan objects, sustained. He is asked if he knows whether Dr. Welcher opined on the timing of text string event 1162-2 in his January 30th 2025 report, he says yes. Asked so he does know, he agrees. He is asked what the timing of the text string was in the report from Dr. Welcher from January 30th 2025, Brennan objects, sidebar.

Asked if he's aware that Dr. Welcher created a PowerPoint presentation with regards to his work in January of 2025, he agrees that is correct. Asked if he ever discussed that work with Welcher, he says he didn't.

Asked if he ever reviewed any of Welcher's work at any point including up to the point where he's sitting on the stand today, he says he has reviewed the slides that are included in DeSobra's presentation.

Asked if the slides that are included in DeSobra's presentation he is referring to are from the January PowerPoint presentation of Welcher, he says that's correct.

Asked if the slides that are included in DeSobra's presentation of Welcher's discussed that 1162-2 text string event. He says correct.

Asked if he has therefore looked at the slide that Dr. Welcher had in his report regarding the text string event 1162-2, he says correct.

A document is shown to the witness. He says he recognizes the slide. Says it is a slide that states a number of times associated with that text string event.

Asked if he considered this exhibit in preparing his response to DeSobra's March 5th presentation, he says yes he did. It's admitted into evidence. Brennan wants to put the wholesale report in. Alessi says it's 143 pages. Judge says she's going to let this in, but she hasn't decided yet about the whole 243 pages.

After the slide is entered into evidence, he agrees this was the slide he considered in responding to DeSobra's analysis of it.

Asked for clarification, if this is the slide produced by his colleague Dr. Welcher ,he agrees it is. He is asked if he could please read the time that Dr. Welcher states for when the infotainment trigger 1162-2 occurred, he asks if Alessi means text string trigger. Alessi says "you used the parlance text string trigger. Dr. Welcher uses infotainment trigger, but it's 1162-2, you both use 1162-2 correct?"

Burgess says correct, but he thinks that might be a misunderstanding of how he's worded it. Asked if the document says that the infotainment trigger 1162-2 occurred at approximately 12:32:38am, he says correct, and asked if it ended at 12:31:43am, he agrees correct.

Alessi: "So we've got the trigger according to Dr. Welcher, as recently as January 30th 2025, starting at 12:31:38 and ending at 12:31:43, correct?"

Burgess answers correct according to the Lexus clock.

Asked to go down to what it says below. "Per report from Ian Whiffin, O'Keefe's cell phone showed 'most notably, all device lock events, including the final lock event at 12:32:09, were user initiated by the user pressing the side button'", asked if he sees where it says all that. He says he sees it and Alessi read it correctly, with the caveat that that's the iPhone clock. Asked if that's what Welcher says on his slide. He says correct. He is asked if he knows, that in the iphone data reported by Whiffin that was just read, that that Whiffin report Welcher was referencing, contained an end of a health event of 36 steps covering a distance of 84 feet, that ended at 12:32:16, which is after 12:31:43, he says yes. He knows that yes, with the caveat those clocks have not been adjusted.

Asked if he knows there was an end of health event of 36 steps covering 86 feet, that ended at 12:32:16, which is after 12:31:43 he agrees.

Now moving on with regard to the analysis. He agrees Welcher created a report January 30th 2025. Agree that's the same date as his first report. Asked if he's familiar with pocket states in iphones. He says he's familiar through Whiffin's report. (What about all the cell phone certifications?)

He agrees it's correct he read Whiffin's report. Asked if he therefore knows Whiffin stated there was a pocket state detected at 12:33:24am, Brennan objects, Bev strikes the question then tells Alessi to do it the same way. He says he will. Burgess is asked "are you aware of whether Mr. Whiffin has put in the report you read, any timestamp for detecting pocket states of Mr O'Keefe's phone."

He says he is aware of that in the report yes. He's asked if he knows when a pocket state occurs on O'Keefe's phone. Judge asks Alessi to just show him. He says he will it's already in evidence.

He asks Burgess if it would refresh his recollection about the time of pocket states to read the Whiffin report. Burgess says yes.

Now he's being shown part of the (January) Whiffin report.

He's asked about the two pages he has, if the part on the second page under pocket state refreshes his recollection.

Brennan objects, sidebar. After the sidebar judge calls it a day.

To continue tomorrow! (Later today really.)

Cannot believe this guy.

How is Dr. Welcher going to come on after this guy and swear to his findings that rely on this fraud's analysis?

Lawyer You Know called it "the single most embarrassing expert I have ever seen in a trial" in his daily recap.

I'm sure he caught all kinds of things I missed too. (2 hours.)

Most of the trail seems an embarrassment. This is just the latest issue for the prosecution.

daeler said:

Most of the trail seems an embarrassment. This is just the latest issue for the prosecution.

Click to expand...

And yet they push on with fervent enthusiasm. Does it really seem like a good faith seeking of the truth? Doesn't to me when so much deception and lies come from them. Looks more like win at any cost.