🔧 Credentials and Purpose

Matthew DiSogra is an accident reconstruction expert from Delta V Forensic Engineering, specializing in vehicle data recorders and infotainment system data.

His role was to analyze previous expert reports (Shanon Burgess and Dr. Welcher) and clarify clock alignment and timing surrounding vehicle and phone events.

📊 Event Timing Analysis

DiSogra’s Focus was on TechStream Event 1162-2, which recorded vehicle data triggered by a strong acceleration in reverse right about the time John O’Keefe became incapacitated.

Trigger time: 12:31:38 AM
End of event: 12:31:43 AM
Phone lock: 12:32:09 AM

DiSogra emphasized that everything should be referenced from the trigger point, not the end time, and that misalignment leads to inaccurate conclusions.

🕵️ Clock Drift, Time Adjustments, and Variability

Key critique: Burgess and Welcher’s original reports used the end of the event as the reference point, which could make the phone lock time seem earlier than it was by up to 5 seconds.

DiSogra claimed that adjusting for known offsets (like clock drift or key-on lag) still results in the phone lock happening after the vehicle event.

There was a three-second lag noted when turning on the car (based on an exemplar vehicle), but Burgess did not apply it in his analysis. DiSogra did both with and without it, showing a wider time gap when applied.

📈 Report Versions and Revisions

January vs. May reports: The January Burgess report used phone calls for clock alignment. The May version used a three-point turn maneuver as a shared timestamp anchor.

DiSogra claims methodologies changed in May’s supplemental report, and his PowerPoint incorporated those revisions.

📋 Scenarios and Variability

DiSogra identified 30 possible scenarios of phone lock timing vs. vehicle data:

• 27 scenarios: phone lock after the event
• 3 scenarios: phone lock before the event
• Some scenarios were simultaneous
• No best practice exists for aligning clocks without established standards, so all scenarios are equally weighted.

❤️‍🩹 DiSogra Critiques Prosecution Witnesses Burgess and Welcher

DiSogra raised several concerns about the methodology used by both Burgess and Welcher. Regarding Burgess, he criticized the failure to test all possible offsets, including variations with and without the known three-second lag in the vehicle data. Burgess also neglected to conduct additional vehicle testing that could have validated or challenged his assumptions. DiSogra argued that a scientifically rigorous analysis would have explored a broader set of combinations and scenarios.

As for Dr. Welcher, DiSogra took issue with both his methodology and the presentation of his findings. He claimed that one of Welcher’s slides was misleading, particularly in its framing of the timeframe. Welcher referred to activity occurring “within 26 seconds” of the event, which DiSogra interpreted narrowly as “after” the incident—when, in fact, the data might have supported interactions that occurred before the event window closed. The critique seemed aimed less at the data itself and more at the clarity and objectivity of its interpretation.

😢 Cross Examination Drama

DiSogra’s cross-examination was, in a word, brutal. It became glaringly apparent that he had no formal training or experience in analyzing phone data. He admitted that he had performed no independent testing and had never analyzed the full dataset himself—instead relying on other experts’ reports. In particular, he relied on Burgess’s May report.

When pressed, DiSogra couldn’t explain why the vehicle’s infotainment system logs some calls but not others, nor how iPhones interact with that system—an alarming gap given the phone-centric nature of his testimony. In fact, DiSogra openly acknowledged that he has no expertise in iPhones whatsoever. His wheelhouse lies solely in TechStream data analysis, which significantly narrows the scope of his authority.

Perhaps most damaging was his omission of six entries in his analysis that bore simultaneous timestamps—data points that could potentially challenge his conclusion. As the cross-examination wore on, DiSogra appeared visibly flustered, frequently sighing, eye-rolling, and showing signs of irritation. Attorney Brennan, conducting the cross, did not let up—relentlessly pressing him on inconsistencies and highlighting the superficial depth of his analysis. By the end, it was clear that DiSogra’s confidence had taken a serious hit.

⚖️ Final Impressions

DiSogra presented himself as someone trying to be more precise, but undermined his own credibility by relying on secondhand data and failing to apply basic best practices (like testing multiple scenarios).

Admitted there’s no conclusive method to determine if the phone lock occurred before or after the vehicle event with certainty.

Yet, the overall takeaway is that in most scenarios, the phone lock happens after the vehicle event, which may help the defense with resonable doubt if the jury finds this witness more credible than the prosecution witnesses. 

Related Articles

Related