Conway hearing narrows witnesses, spotlights GPS data dispute and expert testimony

The Conway Police Department review hearing on the administrative investigation into the April 13 mass shooting included repeated challenges over the relevance of dozens of potential witnesses and the technical interpretation of GPS and camera timestamps.

Attorneys for the parties pared a long witness list during the hearing, arguing some expected witnesses would be redundant with video evidence already in the record. The city objected to several citizen and towing‑service witnesses as cumulative; the hearing officer and commissioners allowed a mix of witnesses while accepting many recordings and documents as proffers for the administrative record.

Counsel discussed specific witnesses who worked at the scene or later were involved in towing and vehicle removal: Shelley Young and Blake Pappara of Helton’s Wrecker Service were identified as people who filmed vehicle removal and who saw crowd size as towing began; counsel for the appellant argued their live testimony would repeat video evidence and eyewitness accounts already before the board.

A focal point of dispute was presentation and interpretation of location and timing data. The city’s investigator, Lieutenant Tom Kennedy, provided a timeline assembled from three systems — officer GPS, in‑car video clocks and radio logs — that did not share a single synchronized timestamp. Counsel and commissioners discussed the offsets among systems (roughly seconds to tens of seconds) and whether that created gaps that required further expert analysis.

The appellant offered Mark Nelson as a forensic data expert to analyze GPS and geolocation files, speeds and braking events. Nelson’s proponents described him as an experienced data‑systems engineer who builds software for security and data forensics; opponents said he lacks a formal degree or certification in geographic information systems and geolocation mapping and signaled they would challenge his qualification to offer expert opinion in that specific field. Commissioners decided to admit Nelson for voir dire of his qualifications, noting the board would weigh his expertise and give his testimony whatever weight it merited.

Evidence management featured several procedural decisions: the review board accepted an "award packet" (exhibit 48) by stipulation rather than subpoenaing witnesses to explain commendations; several items were proffered — admitted into the record for completeness but flagged as not relied upon in deliberations. The board and counsel also flagged how binders provided to commissioners contained materials not yet formally admitted and reminded members to rely only on admitted exhibits when making factual determinations.

Chief issues raised during evidence arguments included whether testimony from towing operators or dispatchers would add materially to time‑stamped video evidence; how to treat GPS log entries that lacked badge identifiers or showed timing gaps; and whether witness testimony that simply echoed content visible on video would be cumulative and therefore unnecessary. Commissioners repeatedly balanced the hearing’s length against the potential value of marginal eyewitness detail.

What remains: The board heard multiple technical presentations and ordered a limited set of witness examinations and video plays. The dispute over the admissibility and weight of GPS analyses and the qualifications of proposed experts is likely to shape how the board interprets the timing and sequencing of officers’ actions during the April 13 incident.