I am a retired physician and forensic pathologist. I was active in those fields
for forty years. (BMHR 2824). I retired as Chief Medical Examiner for the State of
ABSTRACT 272
Arkansas in the end of June, 2004.
I graduated from medical school in 1959. I had a fellowship in legal
medecine and toxicology in Kentucky for a year. I then was with the Medical
Examiner’s office in New York for 2 ½ years. I then was in Chicago as a deputy
coroner’s pathologist. After that, I was in Dallas County as an Associate Medical
Examiner. I then served as Chief Medical Examiner in Rhode Island for 17 years.
That was followed by 13 years as Chief Medical Examiner for Arkansas. (BMHR
2825)
I trained with Dr. Michael Baden in New York when Dr. Milton Helpern
was the Chief of Pathology. I also have known Dr. Vince Dimaio for many years.
I knew his father when I was in Dallas. I also have been acquainted with Dr.
Werner Spitz and had contributed a chapter to his most recent book. (BMHR 2866)
I worked under the tutelage of Dr. Charles Petty in Dallas at the Medical
Examiner’s office in Dallas. They had new facilities there I was there. I also know
Dr. Bernard Knight, and have lectured with him. (BMHR 2867) I have qualified as
an expert in pathology in all of the jurisdictions that I worked in. [Dr. Sturner was
qualified as an expert at BMHR 2868]
At the time of the report that the three victims in this case had been taken to
the crime lab for autopsy, I was in Memphis as an Examiner for the National
ABSTRACT 273
Association of Medical Examiners. My recollection is that I returned to Little
Rock, and had seen the three victims on autopsy gurneys and had gone through “at
least the significant injuries” on each body. (BMHR 2869-70) I don’t recall
exactly what stage of the process Dr. Peretti was in at the time. I don’t know that
he had anything written at that time. I did a gross assessment of the injuries on the
three bodies. I don’t recall seeing the microscopic slides. I signed off on the final
reports.
I did review Dr. Baden’s testimony in this case. His autopsies were properly
done, in part because we both had a good teacher. We used to go to homicide
scenes in New York, because environment is very important. (BMHR 2871-2).
You know more at autopsy when you do that.
I dealt with the issue of animal predation when he had been in New York
City. We used to get bodies that has been the subject of predation by dog and cats,
and other animals as well. There were cases of rat bites. In Dallas I saw wild
animal bites.
I do remember that at one point the subject of a possible human bite mark
had come up in this case.
My understanding of the time line of death here is that the victims were last
seen about twelve hours before their remains were found. So, they were killed
ABSTRACT 274
somewhere in that window.
I know that the subject matter of animal predation has come up in
connection with these Rule 37 hearings. I was not at the meeting that Dr. Peretti
attended with the various defense experts before this hearing. I had some contact
with Dr. Baden at one point. We discussed personal matters, and then we discussed
that injuries to all three boys in this case could have been animal predation, and not
pre-mortem stab wounds. (BMHR 2875).
At the time, I recalled the autopsies. I knew that one of them had been
signed off as death due to multiple injuries, and the other two as death by
drowning. I agreed with that. (BMHR 2875) Mr. Byers did not show signs of
drowning, but he had multiple skull fractures and other injuries. I had come to
these conclusions based on my own observations.
You could argue the point of taking tissue samples from the wounds, like
that to the face of Steve Branch, either way. It was not necessary to determine
cause of death, but it might have been beneficial. It might have helped with the
issue of time of death. The histology studies that we had indicated that some
wounds may have been cause around time of death, and some after. (BMHR 2877)
To me, the injuries to Mr. Byer’s inner thighs had some fresh blood in them,
and that would qualify them as antemoretem or perimortem injuries. I reviewed the
ABSTRACT 275
histological slides of Mr. Byers penis, and there was fresh hemorrhage, and also
some ghost cells of bacteria there. The fresh blood cells are indicative of
antemortem or perimortem injuries. (BMHR 2880)
The injuries to Steve Branch’s face, around the mouth seemed to me to be
perimortem or antemortem as well. I thought that there was evidence of more than
one impact to him, given the findings at autopsy.
I think that I heard about the discussion about the possible bite mark with
Dr. Dougan after the fact. My opinion was that the injury to Steven Branch’s check
came from some kind of cylinder, something that was could be used to pound. I did
not view those injuries as animal predation. (BMHR 2884) The findings about his
pallor were important because they reflected blood loss.
As to the injuries to Christopher Byers, I did review the testimony that they
had a “serrated...quality” to them. (BMHR 2885) My opinion was that the injuries
to him are not characteristic of animal predation. They look like incised, gouged,
penetrating wounds. Some are antemortem wounds that may have leeched out in
the water - perimortem might also be correct. (BMHR 2887)
CROSS EXAMINATIONBY JOHN PHILIPSBORN
I have co-authored a paper with Dr. Michael Baden. He is an excellent
forensic pathologist. I know Dr. Spitz as a well-known authority in the field. The
ABSTRACT 276
same is true of Dr. Di Maio. I would consider all of their opinions to see where
they stood in relation to my own. Experts can have differences of opinion. (BMHR
2890)
I am not familiar with Dr. Joseph Cohen, or that he had testified in the
Echols Rule 37 , and that he was a New York Assistant Medical Examiner. It is
my opinion that pathologists in that office would have seen cases of animal
predation in his professional experience.
I do not believe that I made any notes in connection with my examination of
the bodies. I did a kind of “curb-side consult” (BMHR-un-numbered page between
2891 and 2892) It was Dr. Peretti’s case.
Had I been asked to testify at trial, I would have expressed the view that it
was a cylindrical tool that had left an imprint on the left cheek of Mr. Branch. I
don’t recall ever being approached by a defense lawyer in the case about that
subject. (BMHR 2892) My view was that the lesions on Mr. Branch’s face were of
an unusual shape and I thought it was some kind of a pipe that made them.
I agree that it is helpful for a forensic pathologist to consult with a certified
forensic odontologist. They are usually on staff in major offices. (BMHR 2893-4)
In my own professional experience, it has been very unusual to have seen a
removal of genitalia as in Mr. Byers’ case. I might have seen only one other case in
ABSTRACT 277
Chicago.
I agree that it is a reasonable practice in a case for qualified forensic
pathologists to review autopsy reports, histological slides, photographs of the scene
and photographs of the autopsy to arrive at opinions about the case. It’s done all
the time. I have done private consultation. It is not uncommon in my experience for
the defense to have hired its own pathologist to review a case.
In the eastern jurisdictions that I worked in, the law required a pathologist to
got to the scene, and in New York we were on call to do so. There are advantages
for the pathologist on a case to go to the scene prior to rendering the ultimate
opinion in a case, and in a number of states it is a regular procedure. (BMHR 2896)
I don’t recall having been told of the lab’s identification of animal hairs as
having been found on the bodies by Dr. Peretti at the time, but I have heard about
it. It might have been helpful for me to know that before signing off on the
autposies. (BMHR 2897)
I have encountered some bumps as an administrator in Rhode Island, and I
would have expected to be asked as a witness about my supervision issues. Also,
had I been asked, I would have confirmed that at one point I stated that I performed
an autopsy when it had actually been performed by someone else. (BMHR 2898)
Back on the autopsies in this case, Dr. Peretti and I thought there might
ABSTRACT 278
have been an element of sexual assault in the matter. To me, it was more likely
there was no sexual assault. (BMHR 2899)
I agree that is is important for pathologists to be clear on what they could
opine with reasonable certainty and what is merely possible. (BMHR 2900)
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MICHAEL BURT
I think I spent about an hour looking at the bodies. I performed no
procedures. I don’t think I looked at all of the injuries. I would not have seen all
injuries, but would have looked at ‘regional injuries’. I don’t recall having been
asked to look to see if there was any human bite mark on the bodies. (BMHR
1901) I don’t recall looking to see if there were bite marks on the inside of the
mouths.
I looked at the slides that were prepared and at the re-cuts. In the Moore
case, I agree that there were no microscopic signs of hemorrhaging. In the Branch
autopsy, there was also no sign of hemorrhaging. Only one of the five or six slides
had fresh hemorrhaging, although I know that Dr. Spitz disagrees with that view.
(BMHR 2906)
I was one of the authors of a publication entitled Common Errors In
Pediatric Pathology. (BMHR 2906) I recall that we referenced a work by Dr.
Janice Ophoven from 1992. (BMHR 2907). The publication addressed post
ABSTRACT 279
mortem issues in victims of this general age. Dr. Ophoven is an excellent
pathologist.
I was never asked to critique the testimony of defense pathologists given in
this hearing. I reviewed a couple of bits of their testimony. I didn’t see anyone who
was bent on making personal attacks on Dr. Peretti. I agree that the article of mine
that you mentioned notes that you have to be careful not to misinterpret findings to
be evidence of sexual assault. (BMHR 2909) I also agree that in the article I note
that pathologists should employ iron staining on old and new wounds so as not to
misinterpret them. (BMHR 2910) Someone who does not have pediatric forensic
training may misinterpret findings. (BMHR 2911)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY KENT HOLT
I would have told Dr. Peretti if I had seen a particular pattern to the injuries.
I did not see evidence of animal predation. (BMHR 2912)
ABSTRACT 280
