This is the Hidden Killers podcast with Tony Bruske and continuing coverage of the case against Karen Reid.

All right. Good morning, everybody.

All right. Good morning, everybody. All right, so Dr. Welch 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 on January 29th at 1232 a.m.

Because he's a qualified expert and his opinion is based on reliable methodology appropriately

applied.

In addition, Dr. Welchard 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,

because this opinion is based upon, among other things, his experimental work

that came into evidence without objection as to scientific methodology and application.

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.

The problem here is not that the opinion concerns the ultimate issue because in Massachusetts

that's not a bar to admissibility.

Rather, it is that Dr. Welter, the expert, is drawing an inference based upon more than scientific method.

His opinions set the stage for argument and a permissible inference to be drawn by jurors through the application of their sound judgment to the opinions

that they find credible. But the jurors are as well positioned to draw or reject the inference

as is the expert. That is, the inference is not compelled by the application of any scientific

method. So that's the rule one. All right, so the jurors are

lining up. We should have them momentarily.

Thank you for the way, off of that.

Okay.

...