[At the end of the above motion hearing, testimony resumed with Dr. Werner Spitz.
BMHR 1716]
Before you become certified as a forensic pathologist, you must be certified
with the American Board of Pathology in either anatomic or clinical pathology.
Most people are accredited in both. I did search to see if Dr. Peretti was listed by
the American Board of Pathology as having been certified in forensic pathology.
He was not. (BMHR 1717).
Looking at the body of Michael Moore (Exhibit 48Q) I see a pattern on the
ABSTRACT 150
right shoulder. The pattern is shown in other photographs including 48I. The
pattern is all part of one event. It is inconsistent with a tool like a serrated knife.
This seems to look like the paw of a large animal. (BMHR 1721-22). There are
also scratches that look to me like animal mutilation.
Photograph 48I also shows the left upper eyelid, the left nostril, and the
ridge of the nose, all of which show injuries reminiscent of animal predation. They
are not consistent with beatings with fists or sticks. (BMHR 1722-23).
The subject of animal predation was covered in the 1993 and 2006 editions
of my book. What you have here is characteristic of animal predation.
Looking at further autopsy photographs pertinent to the victim Moore, I do
not see the kinds of injuries consistent with beating with a stick, or with fists.
What I see is consistent with the kind of environment that they were found in.
In the 48 series exhibit, photographs 48M and 48L do show areas of the
skull that are fractured. The bony part of the skull is indented. 48N shows that as
well. Looking at the types of fractures, particularly where one meets the other, you
can see where one fracture was stopped by the other, and there are marks that are
consistent with tooth marks. I can show them better with a pen. (BMHR 1733-
34). These injuries are not like those that might be caused by a hammer.
Moreover, an 8-year old’s skull is a lot more resilient and has a lot more fibrous
ABSTRACT 151
tissue in it than that of an older person. Where you see fractures in a skull like this,
there is an element of tearing. You would not see that in an older person. (BMHR
1735-36). If you look at the injuries that are on the body, you see claw marks from
some kind of a large animal that might be able to go into the water. To better
understand that, you have to look at the overlying skin, and I am showing the
Judge the totality of the injuries to the head to demonstrate my point.
My opinion is that all three boys died of drowning. (BMHR 1738).
The process of drowning involves among other things the absorption of
water in the blood stream. The absorption of water dilutes the blood stream, and
there is an imbalance of the chemicals in the blood. There is more pressure in the
blood stream as a result of that, and a drowning victim often bleeds more from the
same injury than someone who was injured similarly but died of a different cause.
(BMHR 1739-40).
My view is that the fractures that I found on the skull are likely postmortem,
because the skin that is associated with them did not bleed significantly.
Looking at the injuries to the victim Moore’s face, my opinion is that he
shows a number of injuries, including those to the left eyelid and other areas that
are consistent with the kinds of injuries that are inflicted by aquatic or marine
animals. (BMHR 1741). A number of types of animals will do this.
ABSTRACT 152
Autopsy No. 330 is related to further photographs in Exhibit 48 beginning
with 48R. Just looking at the initial photograph, you can see the artifacts of
drowning when water mixes with protein in the airways which causes foam. There
are nibbles on both eyelids and what I take to be biting on the left cheek. There is
a rough area on the left cheek which is from an animal biting that area and licking
it with a rough tongue. Dogs and cats have those kinds of tongues, perhaps other
animals as well. (BMHR 1744). These injuries to the eyelid of Autopsy 330,
which is Mr. Branch’s number, are similar to those of Mr. Moore.
Looking at the injuries, which in my opinion you need to look at as a group,
I view the injuries to the lips as consistent with those that would have been caused
by an animal. (BMHR 1745). I don’t see injuries looking at what you are showing
me, including 48R, that is consistent with a beating and a knifing. (BMHR 1745).
There is a close-up of the left cheek, which is Photograph 48T. These are
not knife wounds. Looking at other photographs in this series, including 48U
which shows the body further down and 48V which shows the left side of the face,
all of these are injuries sustained after death. I am not sure about superficial
scratches, but the significant injuries, gouging type and bites, are not bloody.
These look like tooth marks from an animal. (BMHR 1748-49).
Animals that would have claws or nails of some sort, dog, perhaps a turtle, I
ABSTRACT 153
don’t know that I can distinguish the type of animal would have likely made these
injuries.
It is possible that some of the injuries may have occurred, particularly those
to the lips, when there was still some blood pressure.
Looking at the totality of the evidence, I see no chipped teeth or defects that
would be consistent with a punch to the lip or mouth area.
Looking at the area in the back of Mr. Branch’s head near the spinal column,
I do see evidence of some degree of force, some kind of solid object that caused a
bruise. The abrasion that covers the area is irregular, and it is rough. It is not
entirely consistent with a tree branch, particularly because right next to this area is
where some kind of animal both bit and licked the tissues. (BMHR 1755-56).
Looking at some of the injuries to the top of the head, I do not see evidence
of a significant blow to the head. I do see what in my opinion, especially when the
scalp is reflected, as shown in Exhibit 48AA, what appear to me to be tooth marks.
This is not a post-mortem injury. It does have a hemorrhage underneath it. It
could have been sustained when this person was in the process of dying. (BMHR
1758-59).
It is possible that a person who dies by drowning would have been rendered
unconscious before drowning.
ABSTRACT 154
There is an area of the skull that shows a fracture, but it is unusual. It is not
consistent with strangulation or with some kind of a fall. There are no related
injuries. (BMHR 1762-63). The area that is fractured here is very difficult to
reach. It is very deep, and it is concealed from the surface of the body.
Looking at another picture of this same person, Photograph 48CC shows the
left side of the chin. I do not see a stab wound, a cut or a gouging here. It is hard
to tell exactly when this would have occurred, but there is no bruise discoloration.
However, there is also no cut in the tissue made during the autopsy that would
assist us in identifying a hemorrhage. (BMHR 1765).
I agree with Dr. Peretti’s signing off Mr. Branch as a drowning death. I
don’t believe that I see any injuries that I would associate with a loss of
consciousness. I do not see a wide array of man-made injuries here. (BMHR
1766).
Dr. Peretti did not find any hemorrhage in the area of the ligatures which
would tend to mean that the victim was not fighting against the bindings. (BMHR
1769).
Photograph 48DD corresponds with Medical Examiner No. 331 (Mr. Byers).
This person’s face shows injuries on the tip and bridge of the nose, and superficial
scrapings in the left upper eyelid. There are some triangular shaped bite marks.
ABSTRACT 155
Some of the injuries are like those found in Mr. Branch. The photographs show
evidence consistent with drowning. Photograph 48E shows an area of mutilation, a
tearing of the genitalia. This was not done by a knife. It shows claw marks.
(BMHR 1770-71).
Looking at these further photographs I do not find any evidence that he was
beaten. I do see evidence that he was mutilated after death, including the edges of
the scrotum and penis, in what would appear to be claw marks. (BMHR 1770-71).
Looking at the close-up shots, including 48FF and 48F, I see no evidence of knife
wounds. I see claw marks, and irregular wounds that are inconsistent with what a
knife would do. A knife would leave a sharp surface. Looking at the photograph
you can see that the skin was pulled off of the penis and you see the tearing of the
tissue, and numerous claw marks, tooth marks, and bite marks around this whole
area.
Having handled knives and cutting instruments with around 60,000 bodies, I
can tell you that this is not caused by a sharp instrument like knife or scissors.
(BMHR 1772-73). I see some puncture wounds in the crotch area.
I cannot tell you whether a grapefruit gives a proper illustration of how a
body would be affected by a knife. I have never used one. I have used pig skin or
pig bones for reconstruction. I would not use a grapefruit. (BMHR 1774-75).
ABSTRACT 156
Photograph 48LL shows some claw marks, some scraping marks, which are
also shown in 48MM and 48G. You can see where some of the epidermis is
missing. These are all post-mortem injuries. (BMHR 1777).
Looking at the injury to the top of this person’s head, 48GG, I do not believe
that shows a stab wound. First, it does not go into the bone. Second, the skin on
the top of the head is extremely thin. It does not look like a cut, it looks like a tear.
Autopsy number 331 is Mr. Byers. He is the person we are talking about.
His face, which is depicted in Photographs 48C and D, does not appear to me to
have been the subject of a beating. (BMHR 1779). I don’t see anything here that
is consistent with a knife wound.
To me the injuries that I see are not consistent with the application of a full
force blow by somebody who is 16 or older. (BMHR 1782-83). I see injuries that
to me are consistent with bodies being addressed by animals that may be moving
them around.
There are some fractures here that we have previously discussed, in the
skull. One of them is a radiating fracture. (BMHR 1786-87). It was caused by
some kind of blunt trauma. But I have no evidence of injury to the brain or to the
membranes of the brain. To me it seems like a post-mortem injury. (BMHR
1787). Mr. Byers died of drowning in my opinion. All three boys died of
ABSTRACT 157
drowning. (BMHR 1789). I disagree with Dr. Peretti’s view that he died of
multiple injuries. (BMHR 1790).
I also disagree that there is any evidence of sexual assault on these young
men by a male. There is no evidence of sodomy. I don’t see any abnormal
dimensions.
In my view, a qualified forensic pathologist would not have found a valid
scientific basis for evidence of sexual assault here. (BMHR 1792-93).
In addition to the book I edit, there would have been other American books
available in 1993 and 1994, including Dr. Adelson’s The Pathology of Homicide.
Bernard Knight would also be an expert whose works were available.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MICHAEL BURT
I am aware that Dr. Peretti has written a letter dated May 30, 2008 [Exhibit
49] that references me as a defense pathologist. I am aware of the contents of the
letter.
It is true generally that as a normal part of an autopsy process tissue samples
are taken from various wound sites. (BMHR 1796). In a case like this, you would
take representative sections. You would then prepare a microscopic slide. You
look at the tissue and you can assess whether there is hemorrhage. That helps you
understand whether the wound was inflicted before or after death. (BMHR 1797-
ABSTRACT 158
98). According to Dr. Peretti’s report in the Moore autopsy, his microscopic slides
were prepared from tissue in the area of the ligatures, the wrists and ankles. With
Mr. Moore he found no hemorrhage around the right wrist, but he did find
hemorrhage around the right ankle. Similarly, he found some hemorrhaging in the
left ankle. He found none in the anus and rectum. However, he took no slides
from any of the injuries that could be characterized as animal predation. (BMHR
1801-1803).
Similarly, in the Branch autopsy, he found no hemorrhage in either the right
ankle or right wrist, or in the left ankle or left wrist, under the ligatures. There was
no slide taken for any potential animal predation injuries in Mr. Branch.
With Mr. Byers, there are no hemorrhages found in the microscopic slides.
There were some bacterial colonies found in the slide of the penis (where there was
a degloving injury). There were no slides taken of the other areas of injury. Thus,
when Dr. Peretti wrote in his letter that the samples demonstrated hemorrhaging
indicative of ante-mortem injury and not post-mortem injuries, the autopsy reports
do not indicate the preparation of any microscopic slides that would corroborate
that statement. The statement makes no sense in view of the content of the autopsy
report. (BMHR 1807-08).
I examined the tissue slides made available to me and none of them changes
ABSTRACT 159
my opinions regarding the animal predation.
As to Dr. Peretti’s third criticism concerning his physical examination of the
genital area injuries to Mr. Byers, and a description of bridging of the soft tissue,
and wounds indicating the use of a sharp instrument, is an interpretation I disagree
with. First, his statement is incorrect. In part this is because Dr. Peretti is incorrect
that you do not necessarily have bridging in circumstances of a bite wound by an
animal. In order to have bridging you need crushing of the skin as well. (BMHR
1809-1812).
Reviewing page 833 of the Misskelley trial transcript, I disagree that this is
some kind of knife wound. You see that there is skin missing on the left cheek,
there is tissue torn out. It is animal predation. (BMHR 1811-1812).
In the Byers autopsy where Dr. Peretti opines that there are multiple gouging
injuries, I believe that this is consistent with predation. The scrotum has been
pulled away. A knife does not leave a ragged edge like that. There is a picture in
Dr. Knight’s book that I can show that depicts a scrotum that is bitten off like the
one here. (BMHR 1813-1814). Having heard Dr. Peretti’s testimony in response
to a series of questions about a child being grabbed by both ears in relation to Mr.
Branch, I am disturbed by the fact that there are no injuries on both ears. Also, the
entire left side of the face was involved in trauma from biting and licking. The
ABSTRACT 160
opinion he gave sounds “like voodoo”. (BMHR 1816). I recall first seeing these
photographs, I was told nothing about them, and was told to call back with my
views. I called back without hesitation and said these were animal predation.
(BMHR 1817).
I also disagree with Dr. Peretti’s description of there being contusions
associated with abrasions of the upper extremities of Michael Moore. The
microscopy shows that there are no contusions or bruising. (BMHR 1817). I also
disagree with testimony that Dr. Peretti offered that at page 824 of the Misskelley
trial that the wounds we saw were defensive. Looking at the other injuries here I
don’t think that you could say they necessarily are defensive. I think that is a
misleading way to describe them. (BMHR 1819).
Had counsel approached me and asked me about the case, or the illustrations
in my book, I would have been able to consult and testify if asked to do so.
(BMHR 1821).
CROSS EXAMINATION BY KENT HOLT
Normally I do not do microscopy, or microscopic examination, until I have
done the actual autopsy. I might ask for a technician to prepare autopsy slides.
While it is correct that it helps to have actually attended an autopsy, it is not
correct to say that there is no substitute for doing so. (BMHR 1826).
ABSTRACT 161
In going back into the material I had, I did have the autopsy reports; tissue
slides; photographs of various kinds, including some crime scene photographs. [End Volume 7, BMHR 1827, begin Volume 8, BMHR 1828.] I don’t remember
whether I had crime scene reports. (BMHR 1829).
I have never discussed the autopsy with Dr. Peretti. (BMHR 1830).
Reviewing photographs of an autopsy helps me review a pathologist’s
opinions. (BMHR 1831).
I view forensic pathology as being part science and part art. It also involves
knowledge of the subject matter. (BMHR 1832-1833).
I do not believe that animal predation would have masked other injuries like
a stab wound, but I do not think that is the case here. (BMHR 1833-34). My view
is that it is indisputable that the three boys died of drowning. My view is that they
did not die of injuries, but died of drowning. (BMHR 1834-1836). I do not know
whether they were conscious when they entered the water. (BMHR 1836).
My interpretation of the injuries to the head was that first, there is no
evidence of bleeding in the brain. (BMHR 1838). My interpretation is that they
may have been handled by large animals, shaken around. I agree that the boys
were tied up, but I do not know who did that. (BMHR 1839-1840).
I cannot tell you what circumstances they were tied up under, and whether or
ABSTRACT 162
not they were subdued. The injuries that I saw are entirely consistent and
compatible with animal predation and the shaking of the bodies by an animal. The
injuries to the face, to the head, the degloving of the penis, the tearing off of the
scrotum, those injuries are not man-made. I cannot tell you where they occurred.
The penis was not removed, it was degloved. Degloving or mutilation of the
genital area by certain animals is not that unusual. I have an exemplar of it with
me in one of the books I referenced. (BMHR 1842-1843).
Looking again at the picture of Michael Moore in the series of photographs
marked Exhibit 48(o), you can see two semi-lunar injuries that are closely
associated. I do not see any sign that this child died as a result of some kind of
brain injury. The heart continues beating when someone dies of head injuries.
There is no blood consistent with that kind of activity here. (BMHR 1849-1850).
I agree that biting injuries can look like knife wounds, but many of the
wounds here are triangular, some of them are straight. Some of the wounds are
round or semi-round, and irregular shaped. To me they look like the kinds of
wounds you would see inflicted by some kind of carnivorous animal. (BMHR
1853-1855).
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JOHN PHILIPSBORN
I can explain to you how I eliminated human involvement in a number of
ABSTRACT 163
these injuries. The child who had an abraded cheek on the left side. If you look,
there is no clear pattern to the marks. There is no specific kind of distribution. But
they do have certain kinds of shapes. Some look triangular. Even looking at some
of the areas around the head or under the head, there is no evidence of anything
specific that would have caused those kinds of injuries. (BMHR 1859-1861). In
my comments about the injuries to the skulls, I would note that because of the age
of these victims, the skulls are thin. You can see that in the picture. (BMHR
1861).
I agree with the statement, which was written by Dr. Perpher in my book that
post-mortem injuries by various kinds of animal life can cause injuries that
simulate pre-mortem trauma. (BMHR 1862-64). (Whereupon the Court received
Exhibits 46 through 48, including all of the photographs shown to Dr. Spitz
(BMHR 1864).
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MICHAEL BURT
Dr. Knight’s book contains a photograph showing a degloving injury of the
type found here.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY KENT HOLT
I never had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Peretti or to Dr. Sturner about this
ABSTRACT 164
