Burgess participated in commencement ceremonies, per a commencement document found online, (page 51 to be exact) suggests that he’s close to completion. The University of Alabama declined to comment, citing “privacy law considerations”. Honestly, if I were Burgess, I’d knock that last stretch out over a long weekend and save myself the next cross-examination migraine.

What’s baffling is the prosecution didn’t head this off at the pass. They could have presented his course hours, relevant classes, or that impressive “700+ hours of training” section (which has oddly disappeared from Aperture’s site). Another missed opportunity from the Commonwealth.

And here’s a fun fact: Aperture Group lists only two digital forensic experts that they employ. They have 80-100 experts and based on a quick dive, all the profiles that I checked have at least a bachelor’s degree. So yes—this detail matters, at least to jurors already weighing Burgess’s credibility.

The 1162 Key Cycle Confusion

The key cycles labeled 1162-1 and 1162-2 were linked to two critical maneuvers recorded by Karen Read’s Lexus: a three-point turn just before arriving at the Alberts’ home, and the reverse maneuver during the time John O’Keefe was allegedly struck.

In the first trial, Trooper Paul presented a convoluted chart on key cycles that left jurors—and social media—utterly baffled. This time around, Brennan wisely steered clear of the topic. Whether Welcher will delve into it remains to be seen, but for now, key cycles appear to be a tactical no-fly zone.

However, when Alessi pressed Burgess about the 1162 key cycle events that are expected to feature in Mr. Welcher’s upcoming testimony, Burgess admitted he hadn’t addressed them in his original report. Instead, he added a supplemental report—mid-trial on May 8—claiming he did so of his own volition, after reviewing a claim made by defense witness Mr. DeSobre.

Alessi argued that this “supplement” amounted to a changed analysis. Burgess pushed back, insisting it was merely a clarification.

Burgess remained in his lane, stating he couldn’t speak to Welcher’s report—a line of questioning that led to an eight-minute sidebar. Alessi abandoned this line of questioning, and the court reminded us: referencing another expert’s unpresented report is taboo.

The Alessi Ambien Hours: Cross-Examination or Cure for Insomnia?

Alessi’s Accusations and the “Vague Report” Angle

Alessi insinuated that Burgess intentionally kept his January 30 report vague. Burgess calmly denied this, noting he had submitted a supplemental report on May 8, 2025, during the trial—transparently, without objection or drama. This update included additional time offsets but, notably, didn’t mention a crucial -3 second ignition-to-infotainment offset.

When Burgess asked to explain the omission, Alessi cut him off.

As a juror, that’s suspicious. What doesn’t Alessi want the jury to hear?

Apple Health Data and Human Activity

Burgess clarified the distinction between human activity and user interaction. While Apple Health recorded 84 steps at 12:32:16 and Doppler detection occurred at 12:33:14, he emphasized that these were not “user interactions” but still evidence of activity. The defense may use this later to bolster a timeline.

Gaffney’s Report and SD Card Drama

Alessi also grilled Burgess over a misinterpretation of Miss Gaffney’s report, though Burgess had already owned up to the mistake. Worth noting: Gaffney herself destroyed an SD card during testing. Pot, meet kettle?

Getting Lost in the Tech Stream

A good portion of the cross veered into slumber-inducing tech charts and terminology—data points from this mysterious Matthew DiSogra, (a defense expert who hasn’t testified), tech stream triggers, infotainment power-on events, and more.

If your brain glazed over, you weren’t alone. Even Burgess was seen yawning at this point. Alessi’s convoluted questioning likely left jurors puzzled rather than persuaded.

Redirect: Cleaning Up the Crossfire

During the redirect, Shanon Burgess clarified several points raised during a withering cross-examination. Prosecutor Adam Brennan established that Burgess followed sequestration rules and had not reviewed or discussed any trial testimony before taking the stand.

Likely the most contentious issue involved Burgess’s educational background as outlined above. Under redirect, Burgess testified that he never claimed to have completed the degree. He attributed outdated information on his LinkedIn profile to a lack of updates and emphasized that his qualifications were never intentionally misrepresented. He also noted that Aperture employs 80–100 expert witnesses and that he has no involvement in managing the firm’s website or his own company website profile.

Brennan established that in the digital field, formal degrees are not always required. To underscore this, Brennan invoked famous college dropouts like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and Steve Jobs. Despite objections, Burgess listed some of the numerous certifications he holds, over 700 hours, which reinforced that his technical expertise comes from professional training rather than traditional academics.

Turning to the forensic protocols, Burgess explained that his analysis identified missing infotainment system data that were overlooked by defense expert Maggie Gaffney. He testified that discovering missing data is a normal part of the forensic process, especially when modules do not yield all expected information through standard tools like Burla. Unlike software-based tools, some modules require physical disassembly or chip-off procedures to retrieve deeper layers of data, including timestamps, GPS history, and infotainment activity.

The redirect also addressed a moment during cross where the defense suggested that Dr. Matthew DiSogra had to correct Burgess on a misunderstanding about gigabytes versus gigabits. Burgess firmly denied this, stating he caught the error himself while preparing an October 17 supplemental protocol. That protocol, and a subsequent May 8 report, were both produced in response to DiSogra’s analysis. Burgess emphasized that he never alters his findings to suit the side that hires him and that he simply reports what the data shows—no more, no less.

Burgess sharply criticized DiSogra’s methodology and claimed that the defense expert used incorrect assumptions to synchronize devices. According to Burgess, DiSogra made the mistake of comparing phone times between Karen Read and John O’Keefe’s iPhones instead of referencing the Lexus’s internal clock. DiSogra’s report characterizes that John locked his phone AFTER the 1162-2 trigger event, the reverse maneuver, indicating that John was still interacting with his phone. Burgess states that the time is miscalculated and that the trigger event occurred around the same time John locked his phone.

A most compelling time data discovery was a 5:30 AM phone call from Karen to John O’Keefe’s phone that showed John’s phone paired with the Lexus. This supports the theory that Karen Read returned to 34 Fairview early that morning before driving to Jen McCabe’s home. Because Bluetooth syncing can occur automatically when a device comes into range, the car would have registered the call even if O’Keefe was no longer alive, so long as his phone was still powered on. That syncs with her arrival at Jen McCabe’s home at around 5:35am, which is about a six-minute drive from 34 Fairview, according to Google maps.

When Brennan asked Burgess what his concerns were with DiSogra’s report. Brennan stated that his analysis was misleading to the jury. An objection was raised and overruled, allowing him to repeat his assessment.

Perhaps a most important strategic move by Brennan is that he brilliantly impeached two defense witnesses before they even testified or presented their analyses. Brennan highlighted inconsistencies and methodological weaknesses in the defense’s forensic strategy. This alone may have been a win for the prosecution. 

Related Articles

Related