hey what's up tall dark and handsome everything I'm not talking about producer Steve no oh sry must be Dr Wolf Time Dr Wolf Time Dr Wolf time we love Dr Wolf ladies love Dr Wolf so anyway he is the Reconstruction expert that axon Jackson brought in nice to stomp what's his name Trooper Paul Trooper Paul into Oblivion the amazing Trooper Paul yeah Jes we're going to listen to his uh explanation of the Reconstruction of the accident all right that's said it is ARA known both nationally and internationally is it recognized as a as a leader in accident reconstruction issues yes as the Director of accident reconstruction at ARCA do you specialize in both accident reconstruction and the human factors that are associated with such reconstruction were necessary yes can you give me a synopsis of the professional discipline of what is accident reconstruction I think a simple definition in my mind would be the application of physics engineering science and and Mathematics to Collision events I always like to think of it as if you you open up a puzzle box and you dump the pieces out and you've got a bunch of pieces and you're trying to piece get together the evidence to see how everything fits to get a clear picture and what is the application of human factors to that process so to give you an example of of human factors in the field of accident reconstruction um so I do a lot of nighttime visibility and conspicuity work so to give you an example of that let's say a driver is driving down the road at night there's a pedestrian that's crossing the road so we want to have an understanding based upon that pedestrian's clothing the headlights of the vehicle any potential artificial Lighting in the area when does a driver recognize that individual on the roadway and then we can also look at literature to have an understanding of how do drivers respond based upon the hazard they're presented with so there's different response times depending on the hazard so it's going to be different for pest crossing the roadway or a driver responding to a a a vehicle suddenly stopping in front of them pause that for a second reconstruction sounds good holy smokes dude he sounds like a very intelligent man dude he sounds like he's very very smart and very educated even though even though it was a simple explanation it confused me I'm not gonna lie let's roll do you investigate and reconstruct both um passenger vehicle issues commercial vehicle issues uh motor vehicle pedestrian issues all of the above yes I see all types of accidents and how long have you been doing this work with ARA a little over seven years now what education training and background qualifies you to perform the duties that you've just described for the jury back in 2012 I received a Bachelor of Science and Engineering from James Madison University along with a minor in mathematics some of my courses while at JMU inced included courses in physics Statics Dynamics kind of mathematics Material Science along with your other engineering Sciences uh subsequent to my my undergraduate degree I then went on to the University of Delaware to pursue my PhD in electrical and computer engineering with a concentration in electromagnetics and photonics the highest degree that you do hold sir I have an associ degree and what uh administration of justice Trump he just got Trump bro my IQ just went up 100 points I swear to God you have as it reles to accident Construction in addition to the formal education the PHD certainly so in addition to to my my undergraduate degree in my PhD I I've continued to take courses through Northwestern University and crash reconstruction um some of those courses have included human factors lighting I've taken courses on uh electronic vehicle data photogrammetry uh threedimensional laser scanning so I've continued to take courses subsequent to to graduating how many cases uh would you say in your experience in your career have you reconstructed or attempted to reconstruct you you or your team members um I don't actively track that if I had to estimate at this point in my career it would probably well over a thousand and how many of those thousand I know you have a number specific but how many of those thousand would you say involved pedestrians as well several hundred as I mentioned earlier probably 30% excuse me a great deal of my work is is in the field of lighting and visibility so there's a direct correlation between between time of day and pedestrian incidents we see a rise uh in the evening and night hours just due to drivers having difficult uh difficult ability even recognize individuals so I I see a lot of pedestrian collisions in my case work done testing or research as it relates to the kinematics and the between pedestrians kinematics absolutely so we do a number of tests at ARCA to look at the interaction between pedestrians and vehicles one of the ones I know I did most recently where we were evaluating a vehicle essentially rolling over a pedestrian so we wanted to understand the vehicle Dynamics as well as the interaction between The Pedestrian and the road surface so we conducted testing at ARCA to evaluate that as an Accident Reconstructionist doctor do you or have you studied uh or tested the forces that are at play between objects objects interacting a human being interacting with a vehicle for instance yeah absolutely part of what you do yes sir describe that so we use hybrid instrumented dummies at ARCA for our testing so if that's if we want to have an understanding that an occupant in a vehicle the forces that they might experience or for for any matter for uh again if it's an instance where you have something that ends up falling on on someone's head and you want have understanding of the forces involved in that we perform testing with with hybrid dummies as you should now yes um you've been qualified in other courts to testify as an expert in the area of accient reconstruction is that right yes sir um you were not hired by the defense in this case correct that is correct at the time you did your expert review Dr Wolf uh and your consultation uh you and I had never met that's correct you did not who I you did not know who I was I did not you never met miss little no Mr unti no matter of fact You' never heard of this case that's correct um you were hired he's coming in blind dude not connected in any way to the defense is that right correct and not connected in any way to the Commonwealth is is that right correct so your analysis and your conclusions and your opinions are completely independent of the defense and the Commonwealth in this case is that right objection I object your honor sustain Mr Jackson you can ask differently ask it differently were you and your team asked to undertake a review for purposes of AC accident reconstruction of the case that's now pining before the court yes sir was your team asked to do this by the agency that ultimately retained you not us that's correct um who at ARA was assigned to the team who would ultimately undertake this job of accident reconstruction it was myself Dr Andrew wrencher and Scott Klein what was Dr wrench's role in this case as it distinguished from your role in the case certainly so Dr wrencher is a biomechanical engineer and ultimately he assessed whether or not there was a mechanism for the injuries of Mr John O'Keefe and what was your focus if he's talking about the injuries to Mr O'Keefe what was your focus in your reconstruction and your analysis I I would simply say it was looking more at the damage to the vehicle okay so in terms of your team and the the responsibilities of each of the team members you were more focused on the damage to the SUV Dr richler was more focused on the injuries suffered by Mr oef correct I think that's that's a fair character characterization although with the cave that we worked together as a team so we weren't isolated kind of in those areas you know not speaking to each other we certainly work one took the car one took the body yeah were you provided or did youw certain materials uh in furtherance of your consultation in this matter yes what were you provided uh we were provided photographs of the incident location we were provided photographs of the Lexus uh there were a couple of incident reports that we received um I could look at my report for the full list but those are the on you can go ahead and do that doctor the with you yes sir um I have a copy of it is this faster sure few may I sure see how easy cord is when you don't have to lie it just flows you just spit it out it just flows yeah it's very easy because you're just telling the story this is awesome he's anme s uh subject matter expert right we callme well most people call how many categories of materials were you provided provided it would be a approximately 10 uh could you list those off of the jurist please it would be the Norfolk SPD homicide death report the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of State Police crime scene report ocme dispatch removal report photographs of the incident location videos of the incident location photographs of the 2021 Lexus L you don't see on the video is where he says these were all written in crayon Ral report from the 2021 Lexus 570 report of autopsy and autopsy photographs that's some against CRS no based on these data that you were provided were you able to satisfactorily to your mind satisfact engage in the consultation that you were hired to do yes and come up with some opinions and conclusions based on scientific certainty yes yeah did you rev seene photographs of the alleged in yes sir what information were you able to glean or gather from your review of the photographs from the scene specifically so from those photographs I was able to identify there was fragments of transparent uh red clear plastic there also appeared to be pieces of chrome and black plastic I also observed what appeared to be glass fragments along with a black drinking straw did you also review some videos yes uh that was having seen maybe a leaf blower correct it appeared to be daytime yes okay uh what did you note about the photography at the scene of the items that were being photographed well I think one thing that comes to mind is it was a little bit difficult to follow the evidence so to speak so typically when I go out and do an inspection especially of a of a fresh incident let's say I've got a debris field or I've got tire marks um what I like to do is is kind of Step into the scene if you will where you take uh Global Perspective shots and then you step into a specific piece of evidence so that you can at a later point in time identify where that evidence is I noted that in a lot of these photographs I didn't see a whole lot of that stepping in it was essentially just zoomed right into where that evidence is but not really having a great understanding of where was it relative to all the other especially right spatially correct why your crime scene is Big you make it big yeah lots of photos thousands of photos materials that you described for the court um did you get an understanding of what the Commonwealth's theory of the cas is specifically Mr O'Keefe was struck by the Lexus SUV objection sustained I object your honor did you come to understand that uh the allegations before the court were that Mr oie was struck by the vehicle objection I object your honor sustained ask it to differently Mr Jackson Jim car you got to ask it differently did you perform an accid reconstruction specifically focused on determining whether or not damage to the Lexus was consistent with hitting Mr O'Keefe also focused on whether or not the injuries to Mr o'e were the result of being hit by a vehicle yes okay um he even drinks water normally during your analysis did you note the damage to the vehicle yes sir describe that please uh so the primary damage was to the right tail light uh it appeared to be fractured with the majority of the lens cover so that that clear and red plastic covering missing from it uh in addition to that uh to the if you're looking at the back of the vehicle to the left of that um in the area above the uh there's also another tail lamp assembly on the lift gate uh so above that ass there was a small dent along with some paint chips on the bumper more so on the wraparound section as it kind of Curves around to the right side of the vehicle there appeared to be some superficial scratches as well in that area was there any other damage or deformation that you were able to glean uh from your review uh the photogrametry damaged to the Lexus the bumpers the panels the quarter panel the the sheet metal anything like that no the rest was remarkably intact is it common in vehicle pedestrian collisions that there's some sort of bumper displacement and or deformation that's concominant to that absolutely assuming a pedestrian is positioned in a normal upright position you certainly would expect to see uh damage to the bumper in a lot of cases what happens is you know the bumper is just clipped on so again the force of that impact will often times cause the bumper to kind of become um unmounted or unclipped you certainly could see deformation to body paneling such as the lift gate or the quarter panel as well is that especially true at higher speeds meaning above 15 M hour or so oh absolutely yes was there any for consistent so in the 70s right cars were made out of steel oh yeah right you hit somebody there's not going to be no damage man they just hose the blood off the car and resell it right but these newer cars are designed to absor absorb the impact right yep and what they do is the bumpers pop off because those clips are designed to break right instead of causing more damage to the vehicle yep right now if it's too big of an impact that impact that shock wave is going to go through the rear quarter panel and buckle those are designed to absorb the impact as well correct right so what he's explaining is that there should be more than what there was correct right and it's not happening and we all know that right so we all know that these cars are designed to absorb impacts mhm yep so the ction armor like fixed and to me he's describing what it sounds like if she hit him the hand is up high with the glass which explains why it's in the center y little deformation there the bumper hitting his leg okay but a leg in pants even just a leg in shorts it's not going to leave scratches yeah it's not going to scratch the paint on a car it's not yeah so interesting any kind of pedestrian interaction that you saw no it was again it was really confined to just the tail light a very isolated portion of the vehicle Like Somebody went yeah during review and your investigation did you note uh information concerning items that were supposedly found on the bumper yes what was that glass I believe it was noted there was two apparent glass fragments located on the top bumper cover what's the significance of the presence of those items or the lack of materiality of those items your view well again I think this going back to the the scene evidence uh again we knew that there was glass fragments what appeared to be from a drinking glass um at the scene of the alleged incident is there any glass consistent with the glass that was supposedly found on the bumper in the tailight housing the tailight mechanism anything from the car from the Lexus that would account for that glass okay I think I understand so the the tail light itself does is not comprised of any glass it is all plastic so it it that damage or I should say that glass on the top bumper cover could not have come from the right tail light now based on your review of the information that that was provided to you did you undertake any testing of that vehicle I'm sorry any testing concerning uh the damage to the vehicle yes sir all right can you describe what that testing was so we performed uh again this is with Dr wrencher and I working together on this again we performed uh projectile testing to the tail lamp uh with a drinking glass as well as a hybrid head form test it what was let's take those one at a time the that's like one1 how would you describe the the drinking glass you're right basic cly so uh again from our review of The Evidence we knew that we had an isolated portion of damage to Lexus confined to the the tail so we know that we're dealing with potentially a small object that could have created that looking at again the evidence in terms of the scene photographs we know that we have a damaged drinking glass at the scene in the vicinity of the fragments of the tail light so the theory that Dr renchler and I put forward is potentially an individual through this drinking glass at the back of the Lexus causing the tail light to fracture that makes sense make sense getting back to that testing and I interrupted your flow uh you were looking at whether or not the glass could have produced the damage to the rear tail light that you saw correct correct and what did you do in further of making a determination about whether or not that was possible certainly so myself and one of our our lab technicians at ARCA we designed and developed a pressurized air cannon so it was capable of firing a projectile such as a drinking glass at the tail light sobers building back there Cannon but it had a a barrel um and then there was a valve that would open rapidly and directly behind that was a pressurized vessel uh and depending on the pressure the PSI of that vessel kind determin essentially the speed at which that that glass would be projected into the tail light so you literally built a c PR cool test y yeah pretty awesome yeah he he learned that in math class yeah J uh tell me can you tell trtic cannon that would fire the drinking glass certainly so we performed uh two different tests in terms of speeds the the target speeds were 30 and 40 miles per hour why was that well so with consultation with Dr wrencher he indicated that that is a a reasonable speed at which an adult male or an individual for that matter could throw a drinking glass at the tail light well I think we we wanted to have an understanding is when a projectile such as a drinking glass interacted with the tail light would we get damage on the test tail light that yeah with that of the subject tail light understood So based on your your your theory were you able to approximate the damage on the tail light yes describe that for us so as I mentioned we we ran two tests the the target speeds were at 30 and and 40 mil hour and there was a little bit of variability in terms of what our Target was and and what we actually achieved so the achieved speeds were at 31 mph and 37 mph so there's depending on how the glass leaves the the barrel and some of the rotation can affect some of the speed uh or ultimately the the end result speed to that so um what I will say though is that with the 37 mph uh projectile into the tail light we noted and observed that there was damage that was consistent with that of the the subject tail lamp and that the test tail lamp had the majority of the uh outer lens uh fractured and missing broken into pieces as well as some some underlying damage to some of the internal components as well okay pause it for sex so do you think let's say they got a little domestic argument okay probably could have right or not even at let's let let's say not even that okay she's well I'm not going in you go have fun she backs up hits him right she was dagnabbit right like this hits him that's that caus the death dagnabbit she takes off he tosses it yeah right could be could be yeah wow and throwing a glass 40 mil an hour no you can can you glass yeah yeah 40 seems fast doesn't it seem fast seems fast no well you can go from 30 to 47 right you could throw it pretty easily you could you could you could throw you could throw it 40 mil I was a pitcher in high school I think my fastest was about 88 89 all right so there you go but I was like 15 flexible then now be like 20 I can't even throw anymore and pick up your arm after I tail light using a Pneumatic cannon firing a glass at 37 mph directly at tail light correct correct all right uh and that would also shatter the the glass too correct correct did you do any testing about whether or not that damage to the tail light could be produced by a person simply holding a glass and being hit by the car driving in Reverse that's a great question we didn't do any testing to that and and primarily because again if if we're looking at the the arm and its to total length right we again we only have a a narrow damage pattern which on the tail light if you think about where um the kind of where it meets the the lift gate into where it starts to wrap around to the side of the vehicle that's only about 6 and2 in in width all right yeah when you comp into the tail light the tail light was static in other words it was not going to move it was immovable at that point correct correct all right so the glass is hurling through the air at 37 mph and hits the static object that's resisting and that smash is what produced ultimately the tail light damage that you were able to replicate is that right yes if a person were holding mhm in his hand the glass and the tail light were to hit that hand the hand would not remain stack correct objection I object your honor well the car was she there 24 miles hour right so if the tail light were to to the tailight would have make contact with a person holding a glass would that replicate what you did in terms of you're firing a glass into the tail light other words are they are they apples and apples no I don't think it would be the same okay why not at all well as I mentioned earlier um again the the damage to the the back of the Lexus again is confined to just that roughly again when we're talking about the tail light itself that six and a half inch section in width right so it's inconsistent with the total length of the arm and certainly from discussion with Dr wrencher inconsistent with the injuries to the arm there you go everything in your investig that your investigation was revealed concerning the this testing uh are you saying that the tail light was damaged by John O'Keefe holding a drinking glass that was hit by an SUV objection I object your honor you in all the the information that you were provided you you were not provided anything that suggested that Jon oef threw a glass at the tail objection I object your honor I have a feeling we're GNA see a lot of him thank you what information if any were you provided that suggested that J oef threw a glass at the taight no information what information if any were you provided that suggested that joh o'keef may had a Pneumatic cannon with him that night I'm I'm not aware of any information regarding that we're going to go with he definitely did have one of those Jackson's pissed well he's doing great this guy is awesome testing concerning a a drop test is that right correct yeah ni you tell us about that drop test testing certainly so uh again through discussion with Dr wrencher it was my understanding that Mr O'Keefe had a skull fracture on the the back of his head so we wanted to do an evaluation of the interaction between the back of a head in this case we used the again talking about that instrumented dummy again we used the instrumented hybrid head form to perform a drop test to evaluate the forces of an interaction between a tail light from the Lexus and uh the human head say what what height did you choose to do to perform this drop test 7 and 1/2 ft why' you choose that height well if you if you calculate it through physics uh and the acceleration due to gravity that would equate to an impact speed of 15 miles per hour at that height and what was the significance of 15 miles per hour well that that was essentially kind of a starting point for us if you will so I will tell you that in Reverse 15 M hour is is fast um I don't know your speedometer pulling into your driveway reversing into it into a parking stall uh most people probably don't go more than than five miles an hour or so so 15 miles an hour is fast especially when we're talking about uh it's my understanding it was nighttime uh there was Winter conditions potentially wet or icy roads so again that speed is going to be what I would say on the high end for going in reverse 24 mil hour also in addition uh to to with respect to kind of just the the nature of that speed um it's my understanding through discussion with Dr wrencher that at 15 miles an hour you start to see significant injuries uh to the human body when it makes contact with with a vehicle um and I think one last point is that we needed to pick a speed where again this is kind of just us brainstorming where we would have damage to the tail light right it would fracture it but it wouldn't completely obliterate it so we knew if we choose chose a speed for instance of of 40 m hour We're know we know we're going to completely essentially explode the tail light but if we do you know 1 M hour we may not do anything to it right so we kind of had to pick a middle ground to to again cause makes sense yeah smart man smart what was your conclusion with following that testing what was your conclusion with regard to uh whether or not it was consistent or inconsistent with the damage to the truck and the tail light was consistent or inconsistent with making contact with J O's head at her above 15 miles hour so strictly speaking to a damage perspective the 15 mph interaction between the hybrid head form and the the test tail amp produced significantly more damage than that of the subject vehicle so that that again the damage the the subject tail subject tail light was less than that of the test tail light so if we were to if I were to ask you whether or not there would be more or less damage to the tail light if you increase the speed to 24 mil hour what is your conclusion well you're talking about significantly more kinetic energy so if you just think about it from uh again a kinetic energy standpoint you know kinetic energy is equal to 12 time the mass and the velocity squared so if you're squaring that velocity and you're going from 15 up to 24 miles hour you're going to get a significant amount of of more energy associated with that probably I could pull up my calculator but you're probably looking at two and a half more times energy than than the 15 mph test which means 2 and a half more times the damage to the tail light certainly which you did not see in your view of the materials correct correct so what is your opinion or conclusion as to whether or not the damage to the tail light was caused by striking John's head from a damage standpoint uh it was inconsistent yeah Bo ship gears back to the injuries that you saw I was like can you repeat that again arm right arm during the course of your investigation did you there more and investigate uh the injuries to his right arm yes sir what's the width of the of the tail light uh specifically from where it meets the lift gate on the to the to the left side I'm sorry 8 Ines to the six didn't he say six six to eight to the right so yeah as I mentioned earlier that is about six and a half inches it again it starts to wrap around to the right side so really it's even though the tail light continues it's not projecting out on the back end more it's again wrapping around so in terms of the the width that is facing the rear if you will it's about 6 and2 in and you noted that there was a dent in some paint chips that you identified above the lift gate correct correct how far away from the right side of the vehicle were those scratches and that deck approximately 20 in what was the significance of that that distance well again if it to to go back to your your question about I think if somebody was holding a drinking glass right uh and their arm was extended to cause that damage or if it's it's theorized that those dents and chips were from that again the the thing that sticks out to me is that you have essentially the Lexus tail light so ask another question what is the what's the significance of he objected the whether or not there was witness between the dent and the tail light other words that 20in area was it dented was it formed in any way so in terms of again if we're talking about again looking at the back of the vehicle and we go to kind of where that right tail lamp just meets the lift gate as I mentioned there's another lamp assembly on the liftgate itself there's also a a chrome uh trim piece above that and then certainly the body paneling to the liftgate itself and and I think what what stood out to me is that between that dent and the the fracture tail light there was no observable damage to that area which I would have expected had an arm been positioned there can you calculate or could you calculate or did you calculate the amount of force that be required to strike a person just only on the outstretched portion of his arm uh in order to project him a number of feet for instance 30 ft in One Direction or okay I just want to make sure I'm objection I can't wait to hear this take a distance out of it break it down okay okay I'll ask you the same question but without the 30 fet get him Jackson get him was there were you able to calculate or could you calculate um the force that would be required to strike a person on his outstretched arm hard enough to spin him around and project him a number of feet if you're talking about only an interaction between the arm and and the back of the vehicle no there wouldn't be any projection again if you think about this the arm weighs about again with Mr o'keef would be about 11 lb so you still have you know another 200 plus pounds being held down by gravity and the force is only acting on the arm so essentially the arm would be accelerated but the whole body because the center of mass is not being struck would not be projected yeah just probably break your arm yeah right maybe well not even that because H him like this this way it's going to go this way cuz you hit him with the back of a hand and the rest of the vehicle with exception of the tail light is that consistent or inconsistent with striking an arm an outstretched arm of a human being objection that son of a [ __ ] o o i take a back [Music] opinion they have just a moment your H yes you may Dr Wolf is Hammer this is doing the math head while he was talking he's good as to the am damage that you would expect to see at at 15 mph or above on the tail light if in fact that vehicle were moving it were moving in reverse and were to strike something on a human body for instance an elbow or an AR or an arm objection oh that I'm sorry can you repeat the question probably not that was a long one yeah um from your testing what would you expect to be what would you expect to see in terms of the damage to the right rear tail light if in fact that tail light were to make contact with a part of a human body for instance an elbow and arm elbow or an arm at 15 M hour or above what would the level of damage be as compared to the damage that you actually saw well if if we compare it to uh again looking at the the drop test that we did with the hybrid head which weighs about 10 pounds so again if we're talking about now a human arm that's comparable in that same weight uh we certainly would expect to see a comparable level of force and damage so as I mentioned uh if the arm is outstretched um across the the right tail lamp and into the liftgate section I would certainly expect to see deformation to that body paneling even potentially the tail light um on the liftgate itself and that Chrome piece as well based on the entirety of your investigation uh your entire team's investigation all the testing that you did all the biomechanical testing and the engineering and the physics testing that you did uh in your expert opinion was that tail light damaged by striking joh o from the head objection sustained in your opin whatever was the tail light damaged by either striking Mr from the head or the arm objection sustain yes is ARA known both that was it oh wow well that was abrupt thanks producer Steve that was the end that's the end well we could wrap it up with the tail light yeah so what did we learn from this Paul is stupid Trooper Paul not too bright saying and Dr Wolf damn he uh damn he's a smart man he locked it down dude listen if Jackson's um only he only had to create a little bit of um confusion with the jury right yeah a little bit of Doubt right a little bit of Doubt yeah and by Dr Wolf's explanation I mean detailed explanation and breaking it down to where it's dumbed down to me to where I could have stand it yeah boy I'd be like yeah she's innocent right just because of of of what he saying and how he broke it down like yeah it's not conclusive even by hitting him in the head it's not the same yeah right I think what happened is is that they got a little verbal argument outside and I'm not going in and she accidentally backed him up backed into him she could have and he got pissed and threw the glass like uh Dr Wolf explained and that was a damage and he went inside yeah could be that could be that yeah right or he might not even made ins she might have been like look I got to go and take care of your kids or your sister's kids and you're going to stay here and party and you won't I'm going to go home it's late you know they've already been drinking half the night right like three four hours so maybe she was like I'm done man I'm going home and then yeah could have backed up and bumped them he got mad throw the glass yeah see a lot of that stuff America that's what Trooper Paul his team should have reconstructed that accident just the way Dr Wolf did right right that's that what they did was not abnormal that was normal routine like reconstruction this is what we do it's the same thing we do here in Vegas uh with CSI so that's what Trooper Paul should have done and that that's the way Trooper Paul's testimony should have went you know you know what too though I think you can't say anything to to help TR Paul but I am okay he was training right let hear he was training somebody so he might have been distracted trying to train this person to do things honestly I'm gonna call [ __ ] I'm telling you no I'm saying he still did a shitty job yeah but he could have done a little bit less of a shitty job if he wasn't distracted okay but you're training somebody right you're the fto you got a dead cop yeah that's what I'm saying you shouldn't have a trainy there who cares about the trainee you got a dead cop that's be like you know what just watch me stand or follow me and shut up yeah that's what you that's what I would do he shouldn't have been there especially yeah you got a new guy and you got a huge scene no that's f me shut up yep that's what I'm saying so so all right well Austin yeah we got you yeah even though we're across the country we're looking out we're looking out for you so you're not alone Karen you're not alone we got you yeah so thanks for watching and for those who are still serving have a safe tour Duty please make a difference in someone's life they class you Las Vegas always could you hear my stomach growling yeah I did oh my gosh I'm so hungry 1 Sam 5 and 1 Sam 6 copy of 425 call Copy 1 Sam 5 and Route One Sam six copy in route [Music]