Elena

Now, maybe after everything came out about Burgess's credentials, or lack thereof, should we say, people might be skeptical of anyone from Aperture, but it does seem to me that Welcher is actually qualified. You know, he has his PhD. It's in biomedical engineering from USC. And on direct examination, Dr. Welcher testified about three main topics.

Now, maybe after everything came out about Burgess's credentials, or lack thereof, should we say, people might be skeptical of anyone from Aperture, but it does seem to me that Welcher is actually qualified. You know, he has his PhD. It's in biomedical engineering from USC. And on direct examination, Dr. Welcher testified about three main topics.

Now, maybe after everything came out about Burgess's credentials, or lack thereof, should we say, people might be skeptical of anyone from Aperture, but it does seem to me that Welcher is actually qualified. You know, he has his PhD. It's in biomedical engineering from USC. And on direct examination, Dr. Welcher testified about three main topics.

The first had to do with data that he recovered from Karen's SUV. He said that the event data recorder, or what we might know as the black box, it didn't show any collision on the night of the incident. But he said that that doesn't actually mean that the car didn't hit John, because the black box generally only records collisions between two cars, not a car and a pedestrian.

The first had to do with data that he recovered from Karen's SUV. He said that the event data recorder, or what we might know as the black box, it didn't show any collision on the night of the incident. But he said that that doesn't actually mean that the car didn't hit John, because the black box generally only records collisions between two cars, not a car and a pedestrian.

The first had to do with data that he recovered from Karen's SUV. He said that the event data recorder, or what we might know as the black box, it didn't show any collision on the night of the incident. But he said that that doesn't actually mean that the car didn't hit John, because the black box generally only records collisions between two cars, not a car and a pedestrian.

He also testified to a specific trigger event on that car around 12.32 a.m. During this event, he determined that Karen's car went forward 34 feet and then accelerated as it backed up 53 feet. And at the end of that 10-second maneuver, he said the car was at 74% throttle and moving at at least 23 miles an hour.

He also testified to a specific trigger event on that car around 12.32 a.m. During this event, he determined that Karen's car went forward 34 feet and then accelerated as it backed up 53 feet. And at the end of that 10-second maneuver, he said the car was at 74% throttle and moving at at least 23 miles an hour.

He also testified to a specific trigger event on that car around 12.32 a.m. During this event, he determined that Karen's car went forward 34 feet and then accelerated as it backed up 53 feet. And at the end of that 10-second maneuver, he said the car was at 74% throttle and moving at at least 23 miles an hour.

Now, using the clock-syncing analysis done by Shannon Burgess, Dr. Welcher then calculated the time of this backup maneuver to be between 12.32 a.m. and four seconds and 12.32 a.m. and 12 seconds, which she says is within the window when John's phone was last used.

Now, using the clock-syncing analysis done by Shannon Burgess, Dr. Welcher then calculated the time of this backup maneuver to be between 12.32 a.m. and four seconds and 12.32 a.m. and 12 seconds, which she says is within the window when John's phone was last used.

Now, using the clock-syncing analysis done by Shannon Burgess, Dr. Welcher then calculated the time of this backup maneuver to be between 12.32 a.m. and four seconds and 12.32 a.m. and 12 seconds, which she says is within the window when John's phone was last used.

Now, I did find this area of Dr. Welcher's testimony to be credible, but it's also worth noting that a good part of his conclusions rely on that analysis from Burgess. So if you don't believe what Burgess said last week about syncing clocks, we might have a sort of snowball effect and we have to start questioning some of Welcher's conclusions.

Now, I did find this area of Dr. Welcher's testimony to be credible, but it's also worth noting that a good part of his conclusions rely on that analysis from Burgess. So if you don't believe what Burgess said last week about syncing clocks, we might have a sort of snowball effect and we have to start questioning some of Welcher's conclusions.

Now, I did find this area of Dr. Welcher's testimony to be credible, but it's also worth noting that a good part of his conclusions rely on that analysis from Burgess. So if you don't believe what Burgess said last week about syncing clocks, we might have a sort of snowball effect and we have to start questioning some of Welcher's conclusions.

Then Dr. Welcher's second main area of testimony takes us back to that ring camera video that shows Karen pulling out of John's driveway to look for him at around 5 a.m. on the morning of the incident. That's the video that shows her bumping John's car with her right taillight.

Then Dr. Welcher's second main area of testimony takes us back to that ring camera video that shows Karen pulling out of John's driveway to look for him at around 5 a.m. on the morning of the incident. That's the video that shows her bumping John's car with her right taillight.

Then Dr. Welcher's second main area of testimony takes us back to that ring camera video that shows Karen pulling out of John's driveway to look for him at around 5 a.m. on the morning of the incident. That's the video that shows her bumping John's car with her right taillight.

And of course, it's the defense's position that that's when she broke the taillight, not five hours earlier when allegedly crashing into John. But Dr. Welcher disagreed. He testified about the great lengths he went through to analyze that rain camera video, and that included tracking the cars frame by frame, enhancing the video, and using this like laser grid type system. It was a lot.

And of course, it's the defense's position that that's when she broke the taillight, not five hours earlier when allegedly crashing into John. But Dr. Welcher disagreed. He testified about the great lengths he went through to analyze that rain camera video, and that included tracking the cars frame by frame, enhancing the video, and using this like laser grid type system. It was a lot.