CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. FRANK PERETTI BY MR. VAL PRICE
Defense Exhibit Number E6 is a Kershaw knife, K-E-R-S-H-A-W. This appears to be a lock blade folding knife. (TR 1865)
I made a comparison with this knife E6, and compare that with some of the wounds that I found on Chris Byers. This is a serrated knife. Some of the wounds that have the smallest serrated patterns could have been inflicted with a knife having this type of serration. This particular knife may have caused some of the small wounds on the buttocks of Chris Byers shown in Exhibit No. 71. (TR 1866)
This picture is of the buttocks region. Law enforcement officers ask the crime lab to test for certain, to perform certain tests on pieces of evidence. I received that particular lock-knife from the Genetic Designs Laboratory in North Carolina. It was mailed to me directly. There were instructions by Detective Gitchell of the West Memphis Police Department to compare that knife with some of the wounds. There appears to be some type of red fabric inside that knife. (TR 1867)
I opened it up, and I noted that there was a piece of red fabric in there, and I properly submitted it to the appropriate section of the crime lab. There were items that I took at the time of autopsy that I sent to the appropriate sections of the crime lab. (TR 1868)
The last sentence on Page 2 of James Michael Moore's autopsy indicates that a strand of fabric-like material was clenched in the left hand. (TR 1869)
FP1 was the number that was assigned by the Trace Section to this particular fabric that I took out of the hand of Michael Moore. This the only fabric that was sent to them on the -- based on my autopsy of Michael Moore. (TR 1870)
It was received on May 7th, 1993. The bodies were sent to the crime lab wrapped in some type of white sheet. A laboratory case number was assigned to each -- all three of the bodies. The medical examiner's section has one number, and the rest of the crime lab has another number. On Christopher Byers, the laboratory case number was 93-05718. (TR 1871)
On May the 11th the white sheet that Christopher Byers was wrapped in was sent to the trace evidence section. The trace evidence number was FP-10. -"FP" stands for my initials. On page number 2 of the autopsy of Christopher Byers, I found several old scars on the body of Christopher Byers. A three-quarter inch old scar was present on the right forehead region, generally in this area here. A one-quarter inch old scar was present adjacent to the bridge of the nose. (TR 1872)
An old hypo-pigmented scar was present on the front of the chest. It's on the midline of the chest. These were the only old scars. On the injuries on the back of the left
buttocks was a one-half by one-quarter inch bruise, or contusion. And there was a one and three-quarter inch linear abrasion, or scrape. Possibly either of those could have been consistent with a belt spanking. On the back of the right buttocks, there was two very faint contusions or bruises that measured about one-half by one-half inch. (TR 1873)
CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. FRANK PERETTI BY MR. PAUL FORD
I graduated from medical school in 1984. I have been a licensed physician since 1984. I began my -- I did my training from 1988 to 1989 in Maryland, and then from 1989 to the present date, I have been practicing forensic pathology. I have been in the State of Arkansas since August of 1992. As an employee of the Arkansas State Crime Lab. I am not the Chief Medical Examiner. There are two other forensic pathologists who work in the medical examiner's office. We work together from time to time. (TR 1874)
In my career, I have performed well over twenty-five hundred autopsies. The first year I was in Arkansas, I performed about 500. And this year, I don't know how many, but it has been well over a hundred, some on children. The majority were adults. Some of those adults been the victims of beatings, similar to the beatings that occurred in this case. Some of those autopsies have been for abusive or sexual assault. (TR 1875)
When I was in Rhode Island, I as the medical examiner went to every crime scene. In Arkansas, no one has ever
called me to go to a crime scene. I am routinely called upon and I am qualified to render opinions as to the manner of death. I am routinely called upon to give opinions as to the cause of death and is a part of my normal job, on a daily or weekly basis. There was no evidence of strangulation. If you were to find evidence of strangulation, you would expect to find injuries to the strap muscles of the neck, the muscles of the neck and the larynx, hyoid bone. (TR 1876)
A hyoid bone is a little bone called the hyoid bone, and it is shaped like a "U," and that sets above the larynx, and it is connected to the larynx by muscles. I found no damage to the hyoid bone. No damage to the larynx and no damage to the strap muscles. I found no exterior evidence on the neck of strangulation. There were a few little abrasions, or scrapes, on the neck, but no evidence of strangulation. I made an attempt to determine whether or not there were sperm cells present. I did a rape kit in an attempt to determine whether there had been oral sex or anal sex. (TR 1877)
When we do a rape kit, we take the swabs, we swab the inside of the mouth, the lips, and the back of the mouth. Then we swab on the female, the vaginal area; and on the male, the anal area. We try to get all around the lips and as far back as we can to swab up against the linings of the mouth. And in the anus, we try to go up as far as we can around the anal orifice region to make sure that we pick up any material that was there. We make a glass slide, and we send it to the
serology section of the laboratory. And they look f or the presence of sperm. It was done in this case. (TR 1878)
There was no sperm detected. I may be wrong, we would have to check with a serologist, that if it is positive for sperm, they will run the P-30. P-30 is looking for the antigen for the sperm to see if there is any detection of any sperm or acid phosphatase. I don't know if P-30 was run. I would have to check with the serology report. Injuries to the mouth of three boys could be caused by a punch or by slap or by something firmly being placed over the mouth. (TR 1879)
The contusions, the superficial cuts inside the lips may be caused by a gag, but not the cutting wounds on the outside of the lips. A gag would cause those type of injuries to the inside of their lips. Sometimes you may see damage to the tongue. Other times the tongue, you may not. If the penis or object was inserted into the mouth and it was forceful, I would expect to see some injuries. If the penis was inserted way back into the back of the mouth, I would expect that you should find some injuries. (TR 1880)
But then again, you may not. There are a lot of factors involved, the side of the penis, how forceful the sex is, and things of that sort. If the oral sex was forceful enough to cause those bruises on the outside of the mouth, I would think you would expect them to also cause them on the inside of the mouth. The only damage I found inside their mouths was some superficial bite marks on one of the boys inside the cheeks.
But there was no injuries noted to the back of the mouth. Based on what I have seen in my examination of these boys, and based on my experience and my training, and based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, it is difficult to give an opinion that these boys were not forced to perform oral sex. They have injuries that are consistent with that, you know. They had the ear injuries. They had the mouth injuries. It could be another modality how those injuries were sustained, but we see those type of injuries in people who are forced to perform oral sex.
But then again, there are no injuries to the back of the mouth. And one way you can explain that is that -the mouth wasn't totally opened, the teeth were clenched.
They had injuries that we normally see in people who are, especially children, especially the ear injuries, who are forced to perform oral sex. Injuries to the ear, they can also be caused if those boys are tied up in the fashion that they are and if someone wants to grab them and pull or pick them up, that can cause those same type of injuries. (TR 1882)
I submitted it to the serology section of the laboratory, and they examine them and they issue a report and no semen was identified in all three boys. In my experience, someone who is forcibly sodomized, I have always seen injuries to the anal and vaginal regions. and you expect to find lacerations, contusions and abrasions. Hyperemia is reddening of the
mucosa, congestion. If a capillary is filled with blood, that would be hyperemia, more blood than normal. It's that the vessels are filled with blood. Part of that depends on its position. (TR 1883)
A hemorrhage is when those small microscopic capillaries break. I examined them and made microscopic efforts to determine whether or not there was hemorrhage to the anal areas. On the slides I took, there was no hemorrhage identified. So if one did conclude that there was any -- there was not enough force to break and damage a microscopic capillary. There was no injury noted to the anal-rectal mucosa. And in my experience and in my training, if someone was sodomized, I would expect to find injuries. In a child, definitely, and that was not found. I found the injuries on the ankles and the feet to which the ligatures, where they were tied. I found no evidence of being tied with a rope. (TR 1884)
There was some abrasions there, maybe can't put a pattern to them. There were no foreign fragments such as wood fragments, glass or debris in the wounds. If someone were to be hit with a stick like this that had bark that just crumbled and it comes a part, I would expect there to be some evidence of that left behind in the wounds. Unless it was washed off being in the water. I think I would expect to find some fragments. I found no fragments on any of the three boys. I testified that some of these injuries could be caused by being
hit with an object of this size. (TR 1885)
The same injuries also be caused by a baseball bat. A baseball bat would have a different type of pattern of injury, but you could get a similar pattern. A baseball bat could clearly cause a skull fracture and could clearly causes a bruise to the top of the head. So could a rolling pin or a flat part of a shovel. There is any number of things that has -- hundreds of items that could be wielded as a weapon to cause these types of injuries. A piece of wood, a two-by-four could have done it. (TR 1886)
Or a broom handle, a mop handle, a shovel handle, or objects similar to that appearance, such as a tire iron. Even possibly a jack handle or flashlight. There is any number of items, hundreds of items located in almost any household that could, be wielded as a weapon to cause the types of injuries you saw. I am not telling this jury in my opinion those are the murder weapons. Objects such as this type are consistent with causing those type of injuries. I never said these objects caused those injuries. (TR 1887)
These sticks went directly to the trace section of the laboratory. And after they were through looking for trace evidence, they were submitted to me; so, all the analysis on these sticks were done by the trace section of the lab, not me. Both of the knives have serrated edges. The only way a serrated knife can leave a pattern is if it is rubbed across the skin. If you have two knives, this knife, for example,
and this knife here, and you would stab someone, by looking at the stab wounds, the both, both knives go in straight down, you cannot tell the difference if a straight-edged knife did it or a serrated knife did it because they both have similar appearance. The only way you can tell a serrated knife has been used is by looking for the serrations that rub across the skin. (TR 1888)
If that serrated knife was used, the elasticity of the skin, the angle that the blade is being used, and the reaction of the body that's being scraped, all three of those factors can make the abrasion pattern different from the actual serrated pattern of the knife. If the serrated pattern of one knife has a one-eighth gap, and then a one-quarter-inch, one-eighth and then one-quarter inches or three-eighths inch and a half an inch, whatever the pattern is, those three factors could make two knives with obviously different serrated patterns cause the same type of injury. Any serrated knife could cause these kinds of injuries that you saw, but if you have a larger serration, you usually differentiate that more from a smaller serration. But, if the bodies do move, there will be distortion on the skin. (TR 1889)
I hate to use the word "speculation," but you can see the pattern. You can tell the difference between a small serration and a large serration. And sure, there are distortions when the skin is moved like the elasticity of the skin. I never said that knife caused those injuries. I said
a knife of this type, of these types are consistent with causing those types of injuries. But I never said that these two knives sitting here caused those injuries. Any number of knives that have serrated patterns -- any number of them could cause these injuries. Any number of items that have these diameters could cause those other injuries. (TR 1890)
State's Exhibit 70C is the genital region. Here on the thighs, you can see all the superficial gouging type wounds and some of them are deep. They go into the soft tissues. This is all this area around here on the thighs. Now, here, this red area here. This is the shaft of the penis, and here is where the scrotal sac and testes should be. So, what we have is that the skin overlying the penis, the head of the penis, has been carved off. It's gone. It's not there.
Around here, this large opening here, are multiple cuts. Here's the large cutting wound around here to cut this out. This is the cutting here, and the red is the shaft of the penis. (TR 1891)
His penis has been not cut off, the skin has been taken off the penis. A man's penis has glands in it, and those are contained in the shaft of the penis. When you get to the head of the penis, the glands stop. And in this case, the skin off the penis was actually dissected off. The glands in the shaft of the penis are relatively intact. I would think it would take some skill and precision to do that. Well, I don't know if it would take someone who had some medical knowledge. (TR
Someone who had some knowledge of anatomy. If this was to be done, this dissection where the skin is cut off, that would take a very sharp instrument, such as a razor or sharp knife. If I were asked to do this back in medical school in gross anatomy, it is not something I think I could do in five or ten minutes. I would think it would take you longer than five or ten minutes in my lab with a scalpel. (TR 1893)
It would be difficult to do it in the dark. It would take longer than if you were doing it in your lab under ideal conditions. It would be very difficult to do in the water. If I were in the water and it was dark, it would take even longer. If I were doing it in the dark, in the water, with mosquitos all around me, that would make it even much more difficult. I would think it would really be a tedious task to do it in the dark, in the water, with mosquitos all around. It would be a very tedious task for a skilled pathologist. (TR 1894)
The boy who was mutilated who has just been described, that he bled to death, he exsanguinated. He bled to death along with his other injuries. My autopsy reflects that the internal organs were pale. They become pale when the blood is gone. People have a little bit more than five pints of blood. If you pour out five pints of blood out here on the floor, it would make a big mess. (TR 1895) You could clean it up, but not very easily. It's not easy to clean blood. Blood soaks
into the ground, blood soaks into wood. The homicide we are talking about I would agree that this could have happened in one of three ways, in the water, on the bank there by the side of the ditch, or it could have happened somewhere else. I agree with those are the three possibilities of how this could have happened. It would be very difficult for it to happen in the water.
Q And would you also agree with me, Doctor, that it would be highly improbable for the amount of blood that these injuries would have caused, if they fell on the bank, to wash all of that away? (TR 1896)
MR. FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I have got to enter an objection. Dr. Peretti has indicated he did not go to the scene, was not familiar with the scene, and I don't believe he is really in a position to give an opinion based upon the question that Mr. Ford has given to him.
MR. FORD: Your Honor, this is their doctor. This is their expert. He has indicated he is a forensic pathologist, that that's their job. That's their duties. Obviously, he knows about blood and how blood works. And I am asking him for his opinion.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow him to testify as to the quantity of blood. But you are asking a question, I think, that goes beyond his expertise. He didn't go to the scene. I don't know if he knows the type soil, the absorption rate of fluids.
Doctor, are you prepared to give an opinion on that?
THE WITNESS: I don't know the absorption rate of blood at the scene and in soil. But I just would like to clarify one fact for the Court, that I am not a prosecution witness. The crime lab is an independent agency. We don't work for the defense. (TR 1897)
We don't work for the prosecution. We are an independent agency; so, I'd just like to clarify that.
MR. PRICE: Judge, if I may interject, the fact that he is an expert witness, the fact that we have had earlier testimony at this trial that there was no blood found at the crime scene is a factor that the doctor can also take into consideration since he is an expert witness.
THE COURT: Well, if he can take that fact, apparently you --
MR. FORD: Just let me rephrase my question.
THE COURT: All right.
Based on my skills, my education, my training as a forensic pathologist, the experience that I have had over the years, with my knowledge of the amount of blood that was lost from not only Chris Byers but these other boys -- they will bleed as well. With the amount of blood that you would expect from those injuries, it would be quite difficult to clean up that amount of blood at a scene in the dark. (TR 1898)
So of the three possibilities that I agreed with you on, in the water, on the bank, or somewhere else, the most
plausible is it happened somewhere else, of those three. What I understand, the scene is bloodless, the information that was provided to me. I don't know if I am interpreting that information correctly. I just think it is difficult to have injuries of this nature without having any blood. I would question that about the blood unless it happened in the water or it happened at some other place. I stated that I couldn't do this in the water personally. I have had an opportunity to review the coroner's reports and read them. (TR 1899)
I examined the bodies and made my findings. I remember the prosecutor asked me about generalities about the time of death yesterday. We have had multiple discussions. I can't pinpoint a number. A half a dozen would be fair. Based on my skill, and my training, and my experience, and my review of the bodies themselves, the information contained in the coroner's report, taking in all of the factors of the environment, manner of death, I can give you an estimate of a range. (TR 1900)
With the bodies being in the water it makes it much more difficult, especially with the fact that the lividity fixing, being fixed compared to being unfixed, you know. Based, I assume you are asking me to base my opinion just on that one factor in the coroner's report.
Well, given a very wide-open range for the fixation of the lividity, you know, calculating back, it is very, very difficult to do just based on lividity alone. But, you know,
based on the other factors that I would have to take into consideration, you could say that the lividity was fixed up to 12 to 15 hours. It could be longer, and it could be shorter (TR 1901)
In my opinion based on what I have read, my opinion as to the time of death, it would be a very, broad range between 1:00 and -- 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., Thursday, May the 6th. That opinion is based upon the facts that I know. Determination of the time of death is more of an art and not a science. And it's very subjective. And I am going by one fact that was put in the report. I wasn't at the scene. I didn't have the opportunity to review, to examine the bodies at the scene. But, based on the information that I have, it could be a little shorter. It could be a little longer. That's my opinion, in that range. (TR 1902)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. FRANK PERETTI BY MR. BRENT DAVIS
I told Mr. Fogleman when he came to my office that it would be difficult to give an accurate estimation as to the time of death. I said the best thing to do would be to have the coroner, based on what he has in his report. I told you at that time that I could not give an accurate estimation to time of death based on one factor alone. In that coroner report, the only factor I had was one. That one factor was lividity. I am familiar with an author, Vincent DeMayo. Vince and I are on a first-name basis. (TR 1903)
This book on forensic pathology is an accepted text
the field. I have read that portion of Dr. DeMayo's book regarding the estimation of the time of death. He is a noted forensic pathologist. There is a portion that indicates how significant lividity is in making a determination at the time of death. I will read the sentence regarding the single factor of lividity in terms of estimating a time of death. There are two sentences. It says, "Fixation can occur before eight to 12 hours if decompensation is accelerated, or at 24 to 36 hours if delayed by cool temperatures. (TR 1904)
Thus, the statement that rigor mortis becomes fixed at eight to 12 hours, is really just a vague generalization." Dr. DeMayo, a renowned forensic pathologist, indicates that eight- to 12-hour time period is just a generalization. One of the factors which would throw that off would be the cooling of the body. The estimate of the water temperature was approximately 60 degrees. I don't know if that would mean that if the bodies were immediately submerged in water, that they would cool by degrees just like that, but they would cool. We would see a significant cooling simultaneously with their bodies, or nearly simultaneously with their bodies being submerged. (TR 1905)
The book says livor mortis is not very important in determining the time of death. Livor mortis is more important in determining the position of a body. When determining time of death, you look for two other factors, or you need two other factors to even make an estimate, algor mortis and livor
mortis, which is body temperature and body stiffness. Without the three factors or information regarding three, any estimation would be very difficult to estimate. The coroner's report reflects he didn't make any determinations as to rigor. The reason was because to do that would require him to manipulate or mess up the bindings that were binding the children. (TR 1906)
For the rigor mortis in the extremities. So he couldn't make that determination as to that factor, in the extremities. To determine algor mortis, you would need, the best thing would be to take a rectal livid temperature. To take a rectal temperature could possibly affect evidence of a sexual or sodomization of the children. I didn't have that information to work with. I did indicate yesterday that there were no mosquito bites or any such bites on the children. The sexual mutilation, basically, the skin was peeled off the penis and the head of the penis was removed, along with the scrotal sac and testes. (TR 1907)
I believe I saw a photograph of where the crime scene occurred as far as the configuration of the ditch bank, what the ditch bank is like, what the creek banks are like near the water. There was one weapon used on these three boys that was a sharp object such as a knife.
MR. FORD: I am going to object to the leading. This is his witness. He is leading his witness in an effort to rehabilitate him.
THE COURT: He is an expert witness. Go ahead. overruled.
MR. DAVIDSON: We join in that objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
There was one weapon that was a sharp object such as a knife. One weapon that would be consistent with the size of a broom handle. (TR 1908)
And another injury caused by a weapon that is large and blunt. My testimony is not that these two particular items caused the injuries, but I found injuries consistent with three different type weapons. No sperm was detected was detected either in the anal area or the mouth of the children. The effect of the bodies being submerged in water, number 1, and anal dilation of the anus, the water would enter into the body cavities, and it could wash the sperm away. (TR 1909)
When we talk about serrations, we are basically talking about same the thing as saw teeth, like on a saw. If you take a saw, you move it back and forth, you are not going to be able to tell that that is a serrated injury. It just going to be a straight-line cut. If you take a saw and say slap it down across your arm, you are able to see where the teeth or the points of that saw come in contact with the skin. The injuries that I determined that were serrated, those are not injuries where the blade moved. They are injuries of the blade rubbing up against the skin. One way that you would see serrated patterns would be if the serrations were dragged
crossways across the skin. And if the serrations were slapped down on the skin, then you would also see a serrated pattern. (TR 1910)
But if the serrations are moved, you end up with a straight line. The smaller the serration or the distance between points, then the less distance you have to move that knife to end up with a straight-line incision. I familiar with medical literature regarding injuries from sodomy to small children which indicates that there may not be any lacerations inside the anal area. There is literature to that effect. The injuries that you look for inside the anal area would be consistent if there was forced penetration of a large object. (TR 1911)
With attempted anal penetration, you would not expect to find the lacerations unless the object did not enter into the anus. Lack of sperm both in the anal area and the mouth, would indicate ejaculation. There could be sexual assault and sexual attack without the presence the sperm. The lacerations and the degree of trauma to the anal area would be based on the size of the penis or object if the person was sexually attacked.
One of the boys that I indicated yesterday had a round type circular abrasion to the forehead that looked like another abrasion in the center was consistent with a belt buckle type injury. (TR 1912) It was to the boy's forehead. As to the time of death, that was based on when they were last
seen, when they were found dead, and what was found, the lividity when the coroner arrived at the scene. My opinion was not based on all those factors. It was based on the lividity and the two factors that I just mentioned I would have to take into consideration. They couldn't have died before they were last seen or after they were found. And the only medical factor that I based it on was lividity, which was information I obtained out of the coroner's report. (TR 1913)
In day-to-day business as a forensic pathologist, presented with the one factor of lividity -- and no other information in terms of body temperature, amount of rigor, anything of that nature, I wouldn't be too comfortable with just that one factor, lividity; making estimations regarding time of death. The coroner's report wasn't written to the standards that it should have been written to. After I received the bodies, the coroner contact me requesting information concerning my conclusion that he had failed to get the information that a coroner would normally get prior to sending the bodies to your office. (TR 1914)
I don't, I am not being critical of anyone in particular. Arkansas has a coroner system. And it is the coroner's responsibility when they go to the scene to provide us with a report. They are the ones at the scene. They are the ones making the evaluation based on -- some of them -- the limited experience that they have.
When coroners call me up and say to me, Doc, what did you find, tell me the lividity and rigor mortis after I already viewed the body, I don't give that information out to them because they are supposed to do that at the scene, and that is being very dishonest because I know what would happen. Reports may get altered to reflect what I am saying because those coroners' reports should come in with the bodies.
When our investigators go to the scene and pick up the bodies, we like to have, a coroner's report, that day handwritten out or something faxed us that day. So I don't give that information out to coroners when they call. If they want other information such as cause of death and type of injuries, I will provide them with that information because they need to know that. (TR 1915)
But as far as any particular facts pertaining to the body, such as lividity, settling of the blood, or the rigidity, the rigor mortis, I don't provide them with that information. The reference by the coroner in his report to lividity, determining whether lividity is present or whether blanching occurs is a judgment call. On his part. He did the examination. I don't, I am not being critical of the coroner here in this county. I don't know his degree of expertise or training when it comes to making these determinations. We are talking about a degree of discoloration, the blanching. With a body that has lost a lot of blood, the lividity would be very pale or it would be very slight at best. My estimation
was based on the one factor that he provided to me that was a judgment determination on his part. This is the same individual that contacted me after the bodies were received to get information to fill out his coroner's report. Well, I don't want to say he wanted the information to fill out the coroner's report. (TR 1916)
I don't want to imply that. But he wanted information. But I didn't give it out. What he was going to do with that information, I don't know.
RECROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. FRANK PERETTI BY MR. PAUL FORD
I believe I indicated that Dr. DeMayo and I are on a first-name basis. I testified here today, that I am aware of that language in that book. I knew that it existed before I gave my opinions. There is always a difference of opinion -- doctor to doctor on most things. (TR 1917)
The coroner report indicates what the temperature of the water was, approximately 60 degrees. I was aware of that fact when I gave my opinion here today and I took that into consideration. I took that into consideration, my experience, and knowledge that I have gained over the years of being a pathologist. I took into consideration factors like how hot it was that day, the ambient temperature, and the air temperature. (TR 1918)
I took into account the water temperature, when they disappeared, when they were found. The cause of death, and the manner of death. I also indicated that I had two other
doctors that work with me. I discussed my opinion with them. They were in agreement with my opinion. (TR 1919)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. FRANK PERETTI BY MR. BRENT DAVIS
In the coroner's report that I referred to which provided the one factor upon which my opinion is based, indicated no differentiation between the lividity in either of the three boys. The coroner's report states lividity, blanches with pressure. It doesn't mention the amount of lividity, where the lividity is. We are building a house starting with the roof and not with the foundation.
It just says lividity, blanches with pressure. I don't know where he is measuring that from, what part of the body. I have no idea. It would be best to ask him. (TR 1920)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. FRANK PERETTI BY MR. VAL PRICE
I believe, I would assume you would find blood on the clothing if the boys had been beaten with their clothes on.