0:00

You know how to book flights

0:02

and hotels. All you're missing is

0:05

a tool to plan the travel

0:07

experiences you'll have once you arrive.

0:09

That's why you need Viator. Book

0:11

guided tours, activities, excursions, and more

0:13

in one place. To make your

0:16

trip truly unforgettable. Viator has over

0:18

300,000 travel experiences to choose from.

0:20

Everything from simple tours to extreme

0:22

adventures. And all the niche, interesting

0:24

stuff in between. So you can

0:27

plan something that everyone you're traveling

0:29

with will enjoy. Real traveler reviews

0:31

give the inside scoop from people

0:33

who've already been on the experiences

0:35

you're considering. So you can plan

0:38

with confidence. Free cancellation helps you

0:40

plan for the unexpected. And 24-7

0:42

customer support means you can travel

0:44

worry-free. Download the Viator app now

0:47

and use code Viator10 for 10%

0:50

off your first booking in the

0:52

app. Find travel experiences for you.

0:54

Do more with Viator. Some

0:58

people just know the best rate for you

1:00

is a rate based on you with Allstate.

1:03

Not a rate based on Terry who keeps and

1:06

makes the car behind them. Oh

1:09

no, they're about to... Save

1:13

with DriveWise and the Allstate app and only

1:15

pay a rate based on you. Time

1:26

is a luxury for us, especially if

1:29

you're a mom. That's why we need

1:31

a skincare routine that's easy, fast, and

1:33

gives us results. Plus, what if your

1:35

products had thousands of five-star reviews? Were

1:37

natural and affordable? Well, say hello to

1:39

Dime Beauty. Dime Beauty is clean, high-end

1:42

skincare that is affordable, and it really

1:44

works. Not sure where to start? I

1:46

highly recommend the Work System. It's

1:48

everything you need in one powerful package.

1:50

Take out the guesswork with a proven

1:52

routine that includes a gentle yet effective

1:55

cleanser, a super skin toner, two incredible

1:57

serums, and two luxurious moisturizers. See

1:59

what everyone is raving about? Dime

2:01

has over two million happy customers,

2:03

and their product reviews are literally

2:05

five stars. And right now, through

2:07

Monday, Dime has their Spring Into

2:09

Savings sale. Get 25% off site-wide.

2:13

Go to dimebeautyco.com for

2:15

25% off every product

2:17

on the site. That's dimebeautyco.com for 25%

2:19

off. But

2:21

hurry, the Spring Into Savings

2:23

sale ends Monday. Go to

2:25

dimebeautyco.com. This

2:28

is continuing coverage of the trial of

2:30

Karen Reid from The Hidden Killer's podcast

2:32

and true crime today. Now back to

2:34

the courtroom. Jack, your exclusion is

2:36

the highest form of punishment. It's the highest

2:39

form of sanction that the court has available

2:41

to it. Just to put a

2:43

fine point on it, it is a dire, dire

2:45

remedy. And I know the court has mentioned two

2:47

or three times, I'm finding a violation of rule

2:50

That sounds as if the court is suggesting or

2:54

has inferred that we did something wrong. We didn't

2:56

do anything. Because the court learned. I didn't reach

2:58

out to her. She reached out and said, hey

3:00

look, I've got some experience with this. I asked you

3:03

that the other day though and I was told

3:05

that you reached out to her through an intermediary.

3:07

I wasn't told she reached out to you through

3:09

an intermediary. I know that there's a difference.

3:12

What I was trying to get at is this somebody who read

3:14

about this case and said, you know, I want to be part

3:17

of that. That's what I was trying to get at. I think

3:19

it was pretty clear, Mr. Jackson. Go ahead, continue with your argument.

3:21

Okay, I did not misrepresent anything. I didn't

3:23

say that. I take offense at the court's tone. You're

3:25

saying, yes, you did say that. You just said that.

3:28

You said, I just heard the testimony and it's not

3:30

what I said the other day. I know a

3:32

person in Los Angeles DA's office. I received

3:34

a text message from that person saying there's

3:36

someone who reached out to me who said

3:39

I might be able to elucidate on this

3:41

controversy concerning the dog bite. I then reached

3:43

out to her. So when you asked me

3:45

who reached out to whom, I reached out

3:47

to her through an intermediary, my friend in

3:49

the DA's office back in Los Angeles County.

3:52

So maybe it wasn't clear what I was

3:54

looking for. I think it was clear. Go ahead,

3:56

continue with your argument on this. requires

4:00

a sanction if in fact the

4:02

attorney has done something wrong. In other

4:04

words, it connotes the

4:06

idea that we're doing something by actively

4:09

hiding evidence or holding back evidence or not

4:11

providing evidence that you know you're going to

4:13

use at some point in an effort to

4:15

take a tactical advantage and the sanction for

4:17

that is exclusion. I've never met this woman.

4:19

First time I laid eyes on her was

4:21

during the process after she flew out here to

4:24

engage this this uh quality of process. She indicated

4:26

I could potentially provide some information about this controversy

4:28

concerning dog mites. I then sent her materials. I

4:30

talked to her. I sent her materials. I found

4:33

her incredibly credible. I found her to be experienced

4:35

and I found her to be knowledgeable in this

4:37

very specific area which is rare. There's not that

4:39

many people who have published doctors who have published

4:42

in the area of dog mites. It's specific. So

4:44

I thought it makes sense for me to reach

4:46

out to her and talk to her which is

4:48

exactly what we did and within a couple

4:50

of days literally almost counted by the hours

4:52

of me receiving her information. We then had

4:55

a discussion amongst ourselves. Is this somebody that

4:57

we want to then present on the defense

4:59

side on the defense case when we turn

5:01

the information over to Mr. Ryle. I understand

5:03

that it was well into the trial but

5:05

it's that's not a fault of ours and

5:07

I don't think the sanction of exclusion is

5:11

necessary or appropriate to punish Ms.

5:13

Reed from having an experienced witness

5:15

testify in rebuttal to ultimately what

5:17

Dr. Squirtie Bello and the Commonwealth

5:20

is going to present in their case

5:22

and she that's what she's going to do.

5:24

She's going to present contrary evidence for an

5:26

alternative theory of where those injuries came from

5:28

to a person. Everybody on the Commonwealth side

5:30

who can elucidate about this has said those

5:32

injuries come from a tail line including Mr.

5:34

Paul yesterday. We have contrary

5:36

evidence and Ms. Reed should be entitled to

5:38

present that evidence even though it came late.

5:40

It didn't come late by any fault of

5:43

ours and I don't believe that the Commonwealth

5:45

has made out a prejudice that they can't

5:47

overcome. It's late. Obviously Mr. Lyle is a

5:49

skilled lawyer. There's nothing to say that can't

5:51

or hasn't been able to prepare

5:54

for the cross-examination or for

5:56

an exam and examination for jury and I

5:58

just don't think exclusion is appropriate. All

6:00

right, so the second part of this argument,

6:02

and I'll start with the Commonwealth first. So

6:05

in your motion to exclude, you

6:07

also raise a Daubert type concern.

6:10

So Mr. Lally, is there portions,

6:12

if I permit her to testify,

6:14

are there portions focused specifically on

6:17

part of her opinion where she

6:19

says, I guess the

6:21

defense expects her to be able to say

6:23

she will testify that these injuries are inconsistent

6:25

with having been struck by a vehicle, road

6:27

rash or scratches from broken glass or tail

6:29

light material? I think

6:31

you have an uphill battle on that

6:34

part, Mr. Jackson, but Commonwealth, what do

6:36

you say, if she testifies, what should

6:38

she be able to testify to? And

6:40

don't just say nothing, I'd want some

6:42

input. No, no, if the court were

6:44

permitted to test the doctor to testify, your

6:46

honor, what I would submit would be permissible

6:48

testimony from a legal standpoint,

6:51

as a factual questions in

6:54

regard to that. But from a legal

6:56

standpoint, I

6:58

think the court could permit her to testify

7:00

as to the injuries that she observed, her

7:03

work in history in that area,

7:06

observing prior injuries

7:08

related to animal attacks and

7:10

whatever consistency she believes that

7:13

they have with that. I do

7:15

not think it would be proper to allow this

7:17

witness to testify or opine anything about the

7:20

inconsistency with

7:23

regard to pedestrian injuries.

7:26

I don't think any proper foundation has been laid

7:28

for there, whether it be

7:30

through experiential knowledge

7:32

in relation to that or any

7:35

sort of specialized training or knowledge or

7:38

anything to do with that. Anything

7:41

from a forensic pathology or anatomical

7:43

pathology perspective, I think should also be out

7:45

of bounds and excluded with regard to this

7:48

witness. She's certainly a very experienced

7:50

emergency room physician. So

7:52

anything in relation to that, I

7:55

think it's permissible. But as far as the experience

7:58

when it comes to motor vehicles. crashes or

8:00

pedestrian crashes of which the court is well aware

8:02

there are a litany of different types

8:05

of interactions a pedestrian can have with

8:07

a motor vehicle in a collision sequence

8:10

and simply saying well there was no injury

8:12

so it couldn't have been a motor vehicle

8:15

collision is just plain wrong and

8:17

not backed up by science or anything else

8:20

that this witness can testify to from

8:22

the very limited experience she has in

8:25

that realm. So if the

8:27

witness were able or permitted by the court

8:29

to testify I would submit that

8:31

her testimony should be relegated to simply what

8:34

if any opinions her experience obviously and then

8:36

what if any opinions she draws with regard

8:39

to the causation of the injuries

8:41

on the right arm as

8:44

it pertains to consistency there

8:46

but I venture to guess that it's

8:48

likely that those are probably also going

8:50

to be in her opinion consistent with

8:52

many other causes beyond that if

8:55

she's being reasonable. All right Mr. Jackson. I'll

8:57

submit your honor I have

8:59

no issue with I have no issue

9:01

limiting her testimony to the animal attack

9:04

issue the dog attack issue I didn't

9:06

as court noted I didn't spend any

9:08

time I think I may have asked

9:10

one question to the motor vehicle incident

9:12

I have no problem with her testimony

9:14

to dog bite aspect and not motor

9:16

vehicle aspect I wasn't planning on going

9:18

into that aspect anyway I've got another

9:21

pathologist who's been exacted that. You did go

9:23

through it with her and it's on your

9:25

disclosure. It is but I have no

9:27

problem editing. So why

9:29

is it on the disclosure or what

9:31

the Commonwealth turned over that she viewed

9:33

all reports associated with Chloe's bite history

9:35

in the UC Davis DNA testing why

9:37

is that in there because we sit that

9:40

in a drop box we said everything in a drop box

9:42

and I assume that she reviewed it she must not have

9:44

seen it or opened it or reviewed it. That's

9:46

what we said to everything that's in the disclosures. If

9:49

she's permitted to testify you led her through

9:52

quite a bit today you won't be able

9:54

to I mean she struggled with

9:56

to what degree of certainty she held

9:58

an opinion she struggled that

36:00

they have to pass. And part of that

36:02

involves running the vehicle into a wall at

36:04

35 miles an hour, hitting it from behind

36:07

rollover type impacts. And they have these crash

36:09

test dummies in those vehicles. So we perform

36:11

a lot of testing for different cases and

36:13

situations where we put that dummy in the

36:15

vehicle and we evaluate the safety system, whether

36:18

it's the lap and shoulder belt, or if

36:20

it's the airbag, or the seat belt pretensioner,

36:23

determine how to make the car safer. And

36:25

part of that is looking at the force

36:27

that's exerted on that dummy. Because there's tolerance

36:29

values. We know how much force it takes

36:31

to cause specific injuries. So we want to

36:33

make sure in certain instances, at certain speeds

36:36

or impacts, that if someone's in

36:38

an accident, the force acting on, say, their

36:40

head or their neck or their chest is

36:42

going to be below these established tolerance values.

36:45

Speaking of how much force it takes to

36:47

cause an injury to a human body, have

36:49

you engaged in any testing or published in

36:51

the field of auto-pedestrian incidents? Yes,

36:54

I've been involved in a number of studies

36:56

where we're looking at auto-pedestrian type impacts. Again,

36:58

a lot of times we'll utilize the crash

37:01

test dummy, where we'll set it up and

37:03

we'll actually have it struck by different vehicles

37:05

or different objects. To look

37:07

at the response of the body, it's

37:09

very important if you're talking about an

37:11

auto-ped type impact, you have to know

37:13

the configuration of the pedestrian, the vehicle

37:16

where they hit on the vehicle, whether

37:18

it's a projection type impact, a wrap,

37:20

a fender vault. It really all depends

37:22

on how the person's positioned and the

37:24

amount of force and speed involved in

37:26

that type of an impact. And staying

37:28

with that for a second, that basic

37:30

subject matter, have you also engaged in

37:32

studies related to slips and falls where

37:34

somebody might fall from a standing position

37:36

and injure themselves, even through their head,

37:38

shoulders, whatever, and those kinds

37:40

of injury impacts? I have, yes. And one

37:42

of the issues we look at there is

37:45

a lot of people fall, especially elderly people.

37:47

So we want to look at what types

37:49

of forces are being produced. You look at

37:51

hip fractures. If you slip and fall backwards,

37:53

head fractures. So we're trying to determine how

37:55

to prevent those falls from happening and also

37:58

create devices or products. that can help actually

38:00

prevent injuries if someone does take a fall.

38:02

Dr. have you been retained as an expert

38:04

in the area of biochemical engineering and human

38:06

factors in the past? I have, yes sir.

38:09

May I approach your own? Yes.

38:12

Can you take a look at that document and tell me if you

38:14

recognize it? This is a list

38:16

of my deposition and trial testimony. Dr. I provided

38:18

that to the court this morning. Yes, I appreciate

38:21

it, I had a chance to look at it.

38:23

Okay, that's about, I don't wanna go through everything,

38:25

that's about a 14 page document, is that correct?

38:27

That's correct, yes. Let me just ask it this

38:30

way, how many times do you think you've been

38:32

qualified as an expert in field, or testified as

38:34

an expert in field of biomechanics, biomechanical engineering? I've

38:37

testified probably over 150 times in

38:39

numerous state, federal, civil, and criminal

38:41

courts throughout the country. Your Honor,

38:44

move to, I'm sorry, may

38:46

I approach? Yes. The purpose is, Your

38:48

Honor, I'll ask that this document be marked. Sure.

38:51

I just wanted to follow up on you. Thank you.

38:53

Have you ever testified in criminal court as

38:55

an expert in biomechanical engineering? I have, yes.

38:58

How recently have you testified in criminal

39:00

court? Well, actually, just recently I've testified

39:02

twice. The end of May, I think May 31st,

39:05

I testified in McKean County, Pennsylvania.

39:07

For the prosecution, it was a

39:09

case where the defendant was accused

39:11

of beating his girlfriend to death,

39:13

and basically said that she

39:15

fell down the steps. So my testimony

39:18

involved determining how her injuries occurred, and

39:20

that they were entirely inconsistent with what

39:22

would have happened during a stair fall.

39:24

What about another case? And then about

39:27

a week after that, around June 6th

39:29

or 7th, I testified in Cambria County,

39:31

Pennsylvania, again, for the prosecution, for another

39:33

homicide case where the defendant

39:35

was accused of essentially beating his wife

39:38

to death, and then said that she

39:40

actually fell backwards and struck her head,

39:42

caused a skull fracture on the side

39:44

of the sink. So my testimony, again,

39:46

pertained to looking at the injury mechanisms

39:48

and determining that his story of her

39:50

falling back and striking her head on

39:52

the sink, it's inconsistent with the injuries

39:55

and the type of force that would have been

39:57

exerted in that case. In both of those murder

40:00

cases, you were hired. retained by the prosecution

40:02

in the case, not by the defense, correct? That's

40:04

correct, yes. You made your opinions further into the

40:06

prosecution's case and she's not the defense case and

40:08

she's not. That's correct, yes. With regard to this

40:11

case, you were asked to look at several items.

40:13

We've already gone over those in other testimonies,

40:15

so I won't belabor that. You were asked to

40:17

look at several items, correct? I was, yes. Ultimately,

40:19

based on that series of information,

40:22

that universe of information that you were provided,

40:24

see if you could come to an opinion

40:26

inclusion concerning the incident before the court and

40:28

then correct? That's right, see

40:30

if I could determine what happened, how the injuries

40:32

occurred, and the events leading up to and during

40:34

that process. Without going into your conclusions and opinions,

40:36

were you able to come to your conclusions and

40:38

opinions to a reasonable scientific circumstance? I was, yes,

40:41

sir. You were not hired by the defense, by

40:43

me or anybody on the defense side in this

40:45

case, correct? That's correct, I was not. You were

40:47

not consulted with or hired by the Commonwealth either?

40:49

I was, that's correct, I was not. There was

40:51

a completely independent agency, is that right? I just

40:53

correct, yes, sir. Before this morning, have you and

40:55

I ever met? No, sir. And we've never talked

40:57

about, you and I have never talked about the

40:59

substance of your opinion, incorrect? We have not, that's

41:01

correct. You did reduce those opinions illusions in conjunction

41:03

with your team to a report, is that right?

41:05

I did, yes. And your understanding is that report

41:08

was made available both in the different, the defense,

41:10

and the Commonwealth in this case, is that right?

41:12

Yes, sir, that's correct. I have no... Okay, Mr.

41:14

Lally. Thank you, Your Honor. Good

41:20

guess. Just a few questions for you, sir.

41:23

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, sir. Now, with relation

41:25

to your work in this instance, in this

41:27

case, were there any limitations as far as

41:29

confidentiality or anything that were put on you or any

41:32

of your routines? What do you

41:34

mean by confidentiality? Of course, who, what, where,

41:36

and how you discuss what you did. Well,

41:39

yeah, I mean, certainly we just discussed with who

41:41

we were retained by in this case. I don't

41:43

believe I discussed the case with anybody else except

41:45

for my cohorts. We were also involved in the

41:47

case. And so my question, sir, more is geared

41:49

towards, at some point you were made aware that

41:51

your report and your findings were made available to

41:53

both the prosecution events in this case, correct? I

41:55

was made aware of that, yes, sir. And when

41:58

you were made aware of that, was... Is

42:00

there any limitations on given to you as

42:02

far as who you discussed your report, your

42:04

findings, or anything with? Yeah,

42:06

basically given the direction or the request

42:08

that I don't actually discuss the substance

42:11

of my opinions or my report with

42:13

anybody aside from who we were originally

42:15

retained to work for. Now, may I

42:17

approach your own question? Yes. Sir,

42:20

I am going to show you the first couple pages of

42:22

your report specifically right down the bottom. There's

42:24

a list of items 1 through 14. I ask you to do those with

42:26

one hand. Okay. Is that

42:28

the totality of information that you and

42:30

your firm were provided with in reference

42:33

to what you did in this

42:35

case? I believe it was, yes, sir. So

42:37

nothing beyond that list of 14 things did

42:39

you have occasion to look at, review, or

42:41

have any opportunity to see at

42:43

any time? Well, aside from we did do testing

42:45

in this case, so we did do other work.

42:47

Aside from your independent testing, I'm asking as far

42:49

as material provided by whoever employed you, that is

42:52

a sum in total of what you received, correct?

42:54

I believe that would be correct, yes, sir. And

42:56

did you personally review each of those 14 items?

43:00

And I don't fault you or your company for this, though,

43:02

but in the report there's a lot of we, though. What

43:04

I'm asking is, do you personally review each of those 14

43:06

items that are listed in that report? I

43:09

did personally review every, every bit and every page

43:11

of information that was provided in this case, yes,

43:13

sir. And to be clear, just to sort of

43:15

close the loop on this, when it comes to

43:17

those 14 items, were you allowed

43:19

to ask for any additional items, or was it just

43:21

you were limited to this is what you have, go

43:23

home and attend? There may have

43:25

been discussion about if there's other information

43:28

available, but I believe ultimately that we

43:30

rendered our opinions, obviously, just on this

43:32

specific information that was provided to us.

43:34

Now, as far as your opinion in

43:36

your report, when was that issue? February

43:39

12th of 2024. That

43:41

date on the top of the report, the report of February 12th,

43:43

2024, that's when you sent the

43:46

report to the people that attracted you to do

43:48

the analysis in the first. That's correct, yes, sir.

43:50

May I approach? Yes. Thanks,

43:53

sir. Now, am I correct? And

43:55

what I'm trying to ascertain here, doctor, is just

43:57

sort of the different roles that

43:59

you the other members of the team performed

44:02

a reference to this. Am I correct in

44:04

that your primary role in this pertained to

44:06

the sort of biomechanical engineering analysis of sustained

44:08

by Mr. O'Keefe? That would be correct, yes.

44:11

And not to put a final point on

44:13

it, but Dr. Wohl would have been more

44:15

responsible or issues related to the vehicle itself.

44:17

Generally speaking, yes, that would be correct. Obviously

44:20

there's some interaction between damaged vehicle and injuries

44:22

to Mr. O'Keefe, but as far as your

44:24

primary or any opinions contained within this report

44:26

pertaining to injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, those would

44:29

be your correct? Yes, any opinions or information

44:31

with respect to the injuries would be my

44:33

purview and my opinions in this matter, yes

44:35

sir. And can comment on the, so the,

44:38

any opinions related to damage to the motor

44:40

vehicle, those would be opinion, Dr. Wolf, is

44:42

that right? Well, to some

44:44

extent, I mean, certainly I would have

44:46

opinions as well based on the interaction

44:49

or alleged interaction between the body and

44:51

for instance, the vehicle in

44:53

this case, and what damage to both the

44:55

body as well as the vehicle you would

44:58

expect. So I think there's basically some overlap

45:00

between those issues. I wouldn't say that it's

45:02

a complete separation. And so, and

45:04

again, Dr. what your opinions or ultimate illusions

45:07

are, whether they be yours or Dr. Wolf's

45:09

are a combination too. It's all limited based

45:11

on the information and the evidence that you

45:13

see, correct? It certainly is based on the

45:15

information that we reviewed and listed in our

45:17

report, yes sir. Now, as

45:20

far as sort of a mandate or from the

45:22

agency that hired you, were you asked to answer

45:24

a specific question or were you asked to just

45:26

do an analysis based on what sent you or

45:29

how was that put to you as far as

45:31

what you were doing? There

45:33

was a specific request that we were

45:35

asked to perform and to evaluate in

45:38

this case. And specifically what I'm asking,

45:40

sir, is there's an analysis in there

45:42

of whether or not the

45:44

injuries to the back of Mr. Okeet's head

45:46

could have been caused from contact with the

45:48

vehicle. That is part of my analysis and

45:50

opinions, yes sir. And were you specifically asked

45:52

to address or answer that question by the

45:54

agency that hired you? That was one of

45:56

the questions I was specifically asked, yes. Anything

45:59

further? Mr. Jackson. Good to do, Anna.

46:01

Thank you. All right. So,

46:05

regarding the specific request, what were you

46:07

tasked to do specifically? So specifically, overall,

46:09

I was tasked from the biomechanical standpoint

46:12

to determine or see if it's possible

46:14

to determine how the injuries in this

46:16

case occurred. And part of that was

46:18

to determine whether the injuries, the head

46:21

injury and the arm injuries resulted from

46:23

contact with the Lexus in this case.

46:25

Okay. So regarding all of your prior

46:27

testimony, a good deal of it seems

46:30

to be in depositions. Any of those

46:32

in Massachusetts? There's a couple, I believe.

46:34

I've testified at trial in Massachusetts, Middlesex

46:36

Superior Court. Do you

46:38

know where that might be? I do want to

46:40

look at that. I can find it for you,

46:42

maybe a couple of months ago. Was it in

46:45

a criminal case or a civil case? Oh, it

46:47

was in civil case. I think,

46:49

let's see here, I think, yeah. So let's see,

46:51

there was one November 14th, 15th, 2023, Middlesex Superior

46:53

Court. That

46:57

was probably the most recent one. Okay, what number

46:59

is that on there if I wanted to look

47:01

at it? That is number 310. Thank

47:03

you. Is there another Massachusetts case?

47:06

Oh, I'm sure there are because I

47:08

know there's some from earlier in my

47:10

career. Let's see if I can find

47:12

one for you real quickly here. I'm

47:15

going to read this. Connecticut,

47:20

Louisiana. Oh,

47:24

there's 68. I'm

47:26

going to put you at Worcester. Worcester.

47:29

Worcester. Worcester. Is that

47:31

a civil or criminal case, doctor?

47:33

That is a civil case as well.

47:35

Okay. What year was that? Oh,

47:37

that one was 2012. Okay. Any

47:40

others that you think of or you see? There

47:43

may have been a couple others. I don't recall

47:45

off the top. All right, I'll go through it

47:47

more closely. I appreciate you saying this. Absolutely. All

47:49

right, any questions based on my questions? No, thank

47:51

you. All right, you are all set, sir. Thank

47:53

you very much. Thank you, Your Honor. All

48:00

right, so, Mr. Lally,

48:03

I will hear you on your motion. Now,

48:05

we didn't get into the ultimate opinions and

48:07

the basis for that opinion, but

48:09

I'll hear you on your motion. Your

48:12

Honor, essentially what Commonwealth was seeking and had

48:14

been seeking was just in reference to that

48:16

as far as who did what and who

48:18

was responsible for what and what were the

48:20

items reviewed and is that the totality of

48:22

it? There's a

48:24

date on the report, I don't know if that

48:26

was a date as far as when it was

48:28

filed, when it was, opinion was rendered, when that

48:30

was provided, what was provided to them in the

48:32

course of their analysis. So,

48:34

I think very simply what the Commonwealth

48:37

had been seeking for the most part was

48:39

covered today. Okay, all right, I

48:41

have some questions as to the

48:43

scope of the testimony of the

48:45

witnesses. So, Mr. Jackson,

48:47

you intend to have them testify consistently

48:50

with the report, everything covered in the

48:52

report and the conclusions, all four conclusions

48:54

in the report? Mr. Lally, what's your

48:56

take on this? I

48:59

do have an issue with number four. I don't think

49:01

they're qualified to testify to that. I don't think either

49:04

of them is qualified to testify to that. That's more

49:06

of an area of forensic pathology. What do you say

49:08

to that, Mr. Jackson? Number

49:10

four is their opinion is there's currently

49:12

insufficient evidence to determine the cause of

49:15

Mr. O'Keefe's skull or brain injuries or

49:17

the circumstances surrounding your death. That is

49:19

well within the scope of their expertise,

49:21

obviously. I don't think

49:23

I have to be this dead horse. They

49:25

are highly, highly qualified to renew all four

49:27

opinions and if the evidence in their opinion,

49:30

their expert opinion, to a legal degree of

49:32

science and uncertainty, which is what's evidence to

49:34

your body of court, is that there is

49:36

insufficient evidence to determine the cause of Mr.

49:38

O'Keefe's injuries, then that is an opinion

49:41

that they are well within scope, whether

49:44

they can testify. That's their opinion, that's

49:46

their conclusion. Mr. Lally is gonna have

49:48

an expert, Trooper Paul, who's going to

49:50

differ, has differed in that opinion, so

49:52

be it. And I would have

49:54

kept it out, remember? I would have kept out

49:57

any medical part had there been an objection. And

49:59

when you object- I sustain the objection.

50:01

I think we're talking about two different things.

50:03

Apples and Warren just, I didn't, that's

50:05

not, Peter Paul's opinion is that his injury

50:08

or his injuries, I think he

50:10

said variously that it was blunt force could have come

50:12

from the curb, or it was blunt force because the

50:14

road is blunt. That was his opinion

50:16

and he was taken to it. This is

50:18

contrary to that. Both of these individuals have

50:20

come to the conclusion of the opinion, but the

50:22

evidence is insufficient to support that determination. It's

50:25

well within their purview to testify on it. I don't know if

50:27

I may, I don't think that's their actual opinion. I

50:30

initially didn't think of it in these terms as it's phrased

50:32

on the cover page of the report. If you look at

50:34

the actual opinion and the findings. I was looking at the

50:36

last page, are they the same on the front and the

50:38

back? It's, I think the front is a

50:40

little more definitive and concerning.

50:42

The back I think more as to it's

50:44

consistent with the whole multitude of different things.

50:47

So the fact that they, I don't really

50:49

think that's an opinion at all, to be honest with

50:51

you. All right, I'll take a look at this more

50:53

closely, give you a decision Thursday. All

50:55

right, I did not expect it to go this

50:57

quickly. We could have had the jury here, but

50:59

I'm sure you all could use the afternoon to

51:01

prepare. All right, Mr. Lally, let me know Thursday

51:03

if you need, are you ready to

51:06

go forward, at least with your case on Thursday? Oh, yes,

51:08

sure. Let me know Thursday if you

51:10

need additional time. If

51:12

I let these witnesses, if I let Dr.

51:14

Russell testify how that impacts

51:16

our schedule. Absolutely. All right,

51:18

but I don't want that to be a concern of

51:20

yours, how it impacts the schedule. That's my concern, I

51:23

just need to know. All right, so

51:25

anything else? Not for the common. I think that's it,

51:27

thank you. Okay, we'll see you Thursday morning. Good, all

51:29

right. Not

51:54

a raid based on Terry, who keeps... It

51:56

makes the car behind them. Oh

52:00

no, they're about to... Save

52:04

with DriveWise and the Allstate app, and only

52:06

pay a rate based on you. Not

52:09

available in every state, subject to terms and conditions, rating

52:11

factors and savings vary, and in some states your rate

52:13

could increase with high-risk driving. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance

52:16

Company in affiliates Northbrook, Illinois. Smoothie

52:19

King's new lemonade lineup is

52:21

here. Lemonade, lemonade, the Smoothie

52:23

King way. Try a strawberry

52:25

guava lemonade SK refresher. Over ice.

52:28

A power-up in a cup. A power up in a cup.

52:31

Energize. Or a

52:33

blueberry lemonade smoothie. Blend it up

52:35

in your cup. Made with

52:37

real fruit, real juice for a

52:39

real sipping good summer. Yum, yum,

52:41

gotta get some. Smoothie King's

52:43

new lemonade lineup. All for a

52:46

limited time. Who's thirsty? Some

52:49

people just know the best rate for you

52:51

is a rate based on you, with Allstate.

52:54

Not a rate based on Terry, who keeps... and

52:57

makes the car behind them. Oh

53:00

no, they're about to... Save

53:04

with drive-wise in the Allstate app and only

53:06

pay a rate based on you. Not

53:10

available in every state, subject to terms and conditions, rating

53:12

factors and savings vary, and in some states your rate

53:14

could increase with high-risk driving. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance

53:16

Company in affiliates Northbrook, Illinois. So

53:18

the King's new lemonade lineup is

53:21

here. Name and a lemonade The

53:23

Smoothie King Way try strawberry. Guava

53:25

Lemonade ask refresher over ice

53:27

a power up in it

53:30

can energize, or a blueberry

53:32

lemonade smoothie lead it up

53:34

being. Made with

53:36

real fruit. Real juice for a

53:38

real sipping good summer. Yeah yeah,

53:41

Data is no Smoothie Kings New

53:43

lemonade lineup of for a limited

53:45

time. Who. Stars Day. So

53:48

the King's new lemonade lineup is

53:51

here. Name and a lemonade The

53:53

Smoothie King Way try strawberry. Guava

53:55

Lemonade ask refresher over ice

53:57

a power up in it

54:00

can energize, or a blueberry

54:02

lemonade smoothie lead it up

54:04

being. Made with

54:06

real fruit. Real juice for a

54:09

real sipping good summer. Yeah yeah,

54:11

Data is no Smoothie Kings New

54:13

lemonade lineup of for a limited

54:15

time. Who. Stars Day. Smoothie

54:18

King's new lemonade lineup is here. Lemonade,

54:20

lemonade, the Smoothie King way! Try a

54:22

strawberry guava lemonade SK refresher. Yum, yum,

54:25

gotta get some! Made

54:29

with real fruit, real juice, and

54:31

real energy. Who's thirsty? Smoothie

54:34

King's new lemonade lineup is here. Lemonade, lemonade,

54:37

the Smoothie King way! Try

54:40

a strawberry guava lemonade SK refresher. Over

54:42

ice! A power up in

54:44

a cup. Energize!

54:47

Or a blueberry lemonade smoothie? Blend it

54:49

up in your cup! Made

54:51

with real fruit, real juice, for a

54:53

real sipping good summer. Yum, yum, gotta

54:56

get some! Smoothie

54:58

King's new lemonade lineup, all for

55:00

a limited time. Who's thirsty? It's

55:03

time for today's Luckyland Horoscope with Victoria

55:05

Cash. Life's gotten

55:07

mundane, so shake up the daily routine and

55:09

be adventurous with a trip to Luckyland. You

55:11

know what they say, your chance to win

55:13

starts with a spin. So

55:16

go to luckylandslots.com to play over 100

55:18

social casino-style games for free for your

55:20

chance to redeem some serious prizes. Get

55:23

lucky today at luckylandslots.com.

55:26

Available to players in the U.S. excluding Washington

55:28

and Michigan. No purchase necessary. VGW group.

55:30

Void or prohibited by law. 18 plus. Terms and conditions apply.

55:34

Okay, round two. Name something

55:36

that's not boring. Laundry?

55:39

Ooh, a book club! Computer

55:41

solitaire, huh? Ah,

55:45

sorry, we were looking for

55:47

Chumba Casino. Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-chumba! That's

55:50

right! chumbacasino.com has over 100 casino-style games.

55:53

Join today and play for free for

55:55

your chance to redeem some serious prizes.

55:57

Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-chumba! chumbacasino.com No purchase necessary. Full word

55:59

prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and

56:01

conditions apply. See website for details. Lucky

56:06

Land Slots. You can get lucky just

56:08

about anywhere. Dearly beloved, we are gathered

56:10

here today to... anyone Has anyone seen

56:12

the bride and groom? Sorry,

56:14

sorry, we're here. we were getting We were getting lucky in

56:17

the limo and we lost track of time. No,

56:19

Lucky Land Casino. With cash prizes that add up

56:22

quicker than a guest registry. In

56:24

that case, I pronounce you lucky. Play

56:26

for free at luckylandslots.com. Daily bonuses are

56:29

waiting. No No purchase necessary. Void where

56:31

prohibited by law. 18 plus. Terms and

56:33

conditions apply. Judy was boring. Hello.

56:36

Then, Judy discovered chumbacasino.com. It's

56:39

my little escape. Now Judy's the life

56:41

of the party. Oh baby, mama's bringing home

56:43

the bacon. Whoa, take it easy Judy.

56:47

The Chumba life is for everybody. So

56:49

go to chumbacasino.com and play over 100

56:52

casino style games. Join today and play

56:54

for free for your chance to redeem

56:56

some serious prizes. Hello,

57:05

it is Ryan and we could all

57:07

use an extra bright spot in our

57:09

day, couldn't we? Just to make up

57:11

for things like sitting in traffic, doing

57:13

the dishes, counting your steps, you know,

57:15

all the mundane stuff. That is why

57:17

I'm such a big fan of Chumba

57:19

Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite

57:21

social casino style games that you can

57:23

play for free anytime, anywhere, with daily

57:25

bonuses. That should brighten your day a

57:27

little, actually a lot. So sign up

57:29

now at chumbacasino.com. That's chumbacasino.com. No purchase

57:31

necessary. VTW. Avoid or prohibited by law.

57:33

See terms and conditions. Hello,

57:35

it is Ryan and we could all

57:37

use an extra bright spot in our

57:39

day, couldn't we? Just to make up

57:41

for things like sitting in traffic, doing

57:43

the dishes, counting your steps, you know,

57:45

all the mundane stuff. That is why

57:47

I'm such a big fan of Chumba

57:49

Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite

57:51

social casino style games that you can

57:54

play for free anytime, anywhere, with daily

57:56

bonuses. That should brighten your day a

57:58

little, actually a lot. So sign up

58:00

now at chumbacasino.com. That's chumbacasino.com. No purchase

58:02

necessary. VTW. Void. We're prohibited by law.

58:04

See terms and conditions. Hey guys,

58:06

it is Ryan. I'm not sure if you know

58:08

this about me, but I'm a bit of a

58:10

fun fanatic when I can. I like to work,

58:13

but I like fun too. It's a thing, and

58:15

now the truth is out there. I can tell

58:17

you about my favorite place to have fun. Chumba

58:19

Casino. They have hundreds of social casino-style games to

58:22

choose from, with new games released each week. You

58:24

can play for free anytime, anywhere, and each day

58:26

brings a new chance to collect daily bonuses. So

58:28

join me in the fun. Sign up

58:31

now at chumbacasino.com. No

58:33

purchase necessary. VTW Group. Voidware prohibited by law. See terms and conditions.

58:36

Hello, it is Ryan and I was on a

58:38

flight the other day playing one of my favorite

58:40

social spin slot games on Chumba casino.com I

58:42

looked over at the person sitting next to me and

58:45

you know what they were doing? They were also playing

58:47

Chumba Casino. Coincidence? I think not. Everybody's loving having fun

58:49

with it. Chumba Casino is home to hundreds of casino

58:51

style games that you can play for free

58:53

anytime, anywhere, even at 30,000 feet. So

58:57

sign up now at chumbacasino.com to claim

58:59

your free welcome bonus. That's chumbacasino.com and

59:01

live the Chumba life. No purchase necessary. VTW.

59:03

Revoid. We're prohibited by law. See terms and

59:05

conditions. See terms and conditions 18 plus. I'm Victoria Cash. Thanks for

59:07

calling the Luckyland Hotline. If you feel

59:09

like you do the same thing every

59:11

day, press 1. If

59:14

you're ready to have some serious fun, for

59:16

the chance to redeem some serious prizes, press

59:18

2. We heard

59:20

you loud and clear. So go to

59:23

luckylandslots.com right now and play over 100

59:25

social casino-style games for free. Get lucky

59:28

today at luckylandslots.com.

59:32

Available to players in the US, excluding Washington and Michigan. No purchase

59:34

necessary. law, 18 plus terms and

59:36

conditions apply.