ARCCA's original federal work and subsequent defense-funded work were separate stages.
What the record shows
ARCCA's original testing and report were commissioned through a federal investigation. Its experts later testified in the first trial.
February 2025 reporting described a dispute over defense communications and compensation. In June testimony, Wolfe distinguished the original federal work from later payments by the defense for time, travel and additional work.
Limits and disputed context
Who retained an expert does not by itself establish the validity of the methods or conclusions. Compensation and disclosure questions must be assessed separately from the testing. This record does not state the outcome of a separate federal investigation.
Claims connected to this record
We examine defense arguments and broader inferences separately. Each heading is a paraphrase of the proposition being tested, not a quotation or a finding. The source account comes first; our reasoning is labeled. Missing evidence is not automatically evidence that an event could not happen.
These claim assessments cover the criminal trials through June 18, 2025. Later proceedings are covered separately in After the Verdict. These are selected assessments, not an exhaustive trial record. Most sources are trial reporting; a passage check does not authenticate original evidence. Several reports may describe the same testimony, and measurements from one phone are not independent witnesses. Rejecting a proposed cover-up mechanism does not establish a collision or guilt.
ARCCA's federal involvement establishes an official cover-up finding
Broader inference about agency conclusions, distinct from ARCCA's actual expert opinions.
Why the claim is raised
ARCCA's initial work was federally commissioned. Its experts offered substantial opinions challenging a vehicle-strike explanation.
Strongest evidence or missing support
Federal retention is not an agency finding about another crime. Collision analysis does not identify a person who planted evidence or establish a coordinated cover-up.
Our reasoning
We evaluate the experts' conclusions on their methods and evidence, not on an implied agency endorsement of a different theory.
Limits and strongest remaining objection
Rentschler's injury and motion opinions remain a serious challenge to a vehicle strike. Distinguishing them from an agency finding does not answer the biomechanics. Later defense funding also does not invalidate the work.
S38: ARCCA retention and expert-disclosure proceedings
Discussion of original federal retention and later defense work
Open publisher sourceS40: Wolfe presents ARCCA tests in the retrial
Daniel Wolfe testimony; tests, damage, and comparisons
Open publisher sourceS12: Rentschler: collision testing and cross-examination
ARCCA testimony
Open publisher source