Wolfe described controlled tests; cross-examination examined how their conditions differed from a person.
What the record shows
The testing used supported or suspended dummy configurations and compared damage and movement with the case materials.
Cross-examination addressed arm mass, body configuration, selected speeds, and support conditions. Wolfe defended the conclusions drawn from the experiments.
The Boston Globe reported taillight breakage during ARCCA's 24 mph arm-impact test.
Breakage alone is a different question from whether an experiment reproduced the case. Wolfe disputed the correspondence between the tests and the vehicle damage; Rentschler disputed the injury pattern and movement. Welcher's paint demonstration addressed possible contact locations, but it did not measure the forces in a high-speed strike. The competing results must be read with the test configuration and the outcome being compared.
Limits and disputed context
The experiments did not record O'Keefe's actual posture or an active elbow swing. No unverified speed-specific test identifier is supplied here.
S40: Wolfe presents ARCCA tests in the retrial
Daniel Wolfe testimony; tests, damage, and comparisons
Open publisher sourceS41: Wolfe cross-examination about test configurations
Cross-examination concerning dummy characteristics, support, and test assumptions
Open publisher sourceS57: June 6 retrial coverage
1:01 p.m. update: 24 mph test.
Open publisher sourceS12: Rentschler: collision testing and cross-examination
ARCCA testimony
Open publisher source