It's difficult to tell without visual but in the first part of yesterday's testimony I think he refers to a box on the front of the vehicle in the Mitchley video, which he says one explanation could be computer noise but he doesn't think so because he sees it in several different frames (or wtte).
He gets to the vehicle being underground but I'm wondering if in cross-exam it might emerge that he is treating the illumination on the back of the truck as Merritt's rear running light and not a reflection off the latch which is a lower point. I would assume though that the prosecution would have been able to work with him on that possibility, so maybe there was a different reason they didn't use him. I can totally see why the prosecution would not want to do an experiment with the actual truck, because it's impossible to recreate the exact lighting conditions of the night in question. Who knows what other lights were illuminated in the neighborhood that night. I've heard so much testimony about the truck now that I can't remember which testimony it was, it may have been Stutchman's, but they referred to street lights, neighbouring houses with porch lights and security lights etc, even (IMO - not testimony) the truck may have had a stick on reflector in February 2010 which was not there in 2014 when it had been sold and painted.
Like this one -
JMO
