What you know, alibiers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty Lies and Alibis. I'm Gigi. It's Wednesday, May 21st. We are going to recap yesterday's testimony, which would have been day 19. Let's jump right in. Still on the stand, Shannon Burgess from Aperture. The defense is on cross and points out the Commonwealth did not ask him about his

supposed education and the witness did not bring it up either. The defense says a forensic

examiner must prioritize accuracy and reliability in the criminal proceeding we're in. Then they

move on to the slideshow that shows all of the powering on and

off events for Karen's SUV. The witness says all times are correct down to the second. The defense

says that none of those are accurate at all and not down to the second. The witness says you're

wrong. The defense says all of the relevant

events you described in your presentation occurred on January 29th and not January 30th. Your

timeline crosses into midnight on January 30th. The witness acknowledges the date is wrong,

but says the times are still accurate to the second.

The defense says to mitigate the inconsistencies you analyze yesterday between independent clocks

is your position that forensic methodology recommends cross-referencing time stamps for

multiple sources to identify discrepancies

and, when possible, leveraging time anchor events that contain both system time stamps and

external physical events to identify and correct timing discrepancies, the witness says yes.

The defense talks about how they discussed the scientific method and how that's designed to

prevent bias from infecting the analysis and how experts should never selectively gather and

interpret evidence to confirm a pre-existing belief

while neglecting evidence that contradicts those beliefs.

He asked the witness if he agrees and the witness does.

The defense says that's called confirmation bias and it would be improper.

The witness says yes.

...