Price: Dr. Peretti, I would like to show you what's been marked for identification purposes - defense exhibit number E6. This is a kershaw knife, K-E-R-S-H-A-W. And does this appear to be a lock blade folding knife?
Peretti: Yes.
Price: Let me go ahead and - Judge, if I could approach the witness?
The Court: Alright.
Price: I want you to take a look at that knife. Doctor, did you make a comparison with this knife - E6, and compare that with some of the wounds that you found on Chris Byers?
Peretti: Um - yes, I did.
Price: Alright. Is - does that knife appear to be a serrated knife?
Peretti: Yes, this is a serrated knife.
Price: Do you have an opinion if some of the wounds you found on Chris Byers were consistant with wounds which would have been caused by that type of serrated knife?
Peretti: Well, some of the wounds that have some of the smaller serrated um - patterns um - could have been um - inflicted with a knife having this type of um - serration.
Price: Alright. Dr. Peretti, I would like to show you what's already been introduced in evidence as uh - state's exhibit number 71C. Which is a photograph, I believe of the buttocks area of Christopher Byers. In looking at that picture, are some of the smaller wounds - the ones that you're referring to that could have been caused by that particular knife.
Peretti: This knife may have caused some of the smaller wounds.
Price: Is that in this picture shown right here?
Peretti: Yes, um -
Price: In the buttocks region?
Peretti: Yes.
Price: And Dr. Peretti when you are sent pieces of evidence do law enforcement officers ask the crime lab to test for certain - to perform certain tests on pieces of evidence?
Peretti: Um - yes, that's correct.
Price: Did you recieve that particular lock knife from the Genetic Designs laboratory in North Carolina?
Peretti: Yes, it was mailed to me directly.
Price: And were there instructions by the - Detective Gitchell with the West Memphis police department to compare that knife with some - with the wounds?
Peretti: I believe so, yes.
Price: Alright Dr. Peretti, I'd like for you to look on the inside of the knife - the blade portion. Uh - does there appear to be some type of red fabric inside that knife?
Peretti: Um - yes, there is.
Price: Alright. Were you ever asked by the West Memphis police department to uh - to send that to the trace evidence section to have them test that fabric?
Peretti: What happened was, the knife came to me and it should have went directly to the trace evidence section. But I opened it up to see what was in the package 'cause I didn't know what was in the package and I saw the knife - I opened it up um - I took a fast look at it because I didn't want to handle it 'cause I wanted the trace evidence section to look at it first. Um - I opened it up, 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.
Price: Alright. Dr. Peretti were there other items of evidence that you examined that was sent off to other sections of the crime lab?
Peretti: Well, there were um - items that I took at the time of autopsy that I sent to the appropriate section of the crime lab.
Price: Alright. Do you have the report of Lisa Sakevicius with you that - she's got a number of reports, this particular one is an elevan page report dated um - June 29th 1993.
Peretti: I may have it, I may not.
Price: If you don't, I've got my copy, but if -
Peretti: - It would probably be easier if I look at your copy.
Davis: Excuse me Mr. Price, I hate to interrupt you, but I anticipate - only thing I can anticipate is when he's asking about a report generated by another member of the crime lab that he's going to start asking questions regarding that report and obviously, your Honor, we intend to have that witness present in here to testify and if there's questions to ask her -
The Court: Ok. I'm gonna limit you to anything based upon that report upon which he would have taken action that would relate to any scientific endevour he made himself and not one conducted person in the crime lab.
Price: That's fine, your Honor. All I'm going to ask him about evidence is that he sent to other parts of the crime lab. I'm not going to ask any results from Dr. Peretti.
The Court: Alright.
Price: Uh - Dr. Peretti, do you recall if there - on the autopsy of uh - James Michael Moore - on page number 2 -
(pause)
Price: Alright, on page number 2 - under the paragraph description of injuries, does the last sentence indicate that a strand of fabric-like material was clenched in the left hand?
Peretti: Yes, that's correct.
Price: Ok. To your knowledge, was this fiber sent on to Lisa Sakevicius - who's with the trace evidence section of the crime lab?
Peretti: Yes, it was.
Price: Alright. I would like to approach the bench to show you her report to look at the - each item of evidence that was sent from either um - the police agencies or from your part - the medical examiner's division to other crime lab sections is assigned a particular number?
Peretti: That's correct.
Price: To keep track of it?
Peretti: That's correct.
Price: Alright. If I could approach the witness, your Honor?
The Court: Yes.
Price: Was FP1 the number that was assigned to this particular fabric that you took out of the hand of Michael Moore?
Peretti: That was the number assigned by the trace um -
Price: - By the trace section?
Peretti: - The trace section.
Price: To your knowledge, was this the only fabric that was sent to them on the - based on your autopsy of Michael Moore?
Peretti: On Michael Moore, yes.
Price: What - and does that indicate the date that it was sent to the trace evidence section?
Peretti: Um - yes, it was recieved on May 7th, 1993.
Price: Alright. (mumbles) Alright Dr., do you recall if when the bodies were actually sent to the crime lab, if the bodies were wrapped in some type of white sheet?
Peretti: Yes, they were wrapped in a white sheet.
Price: Ok. Do you recall if the white sheet that Christopher Byers was wrapped in - and I - let me back up. A laboratory case number was assigned to each - all three of the bodies?
Peretti: That's correct.
Price: And actually, there's um - the medical examiner's section has one number and the rest of the crime lab have another number?
Peretti: That's correct.
Price: Ok. And on Christopher Byers, do you recall if the - or do you know if the laboratory case number was 93-05718? It might make it easier if I just approach the witness, your Honor.
The Court: Yes.
Peretti: Yes, that's correct.
Price: And do you recall if on May the 11th, the white sheet that Christopher Byers was wrapped in was sent to the trace evidence section?
Peretti: Um - it was sent to the trace evidence section.
Price: And according - the number the trace evidence assigned to the white sheet, would that be FP10?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Price: And does - does the FP stand for forensic pathologist?
Peretti: No, it's my initials - Frank Peretti.
Price: Ok. Alright. My next question deals with the um - the autopsy on Christopher Byers. Uh. On page number 2 of the autopsy of Christopher Byers, the top paragraph dealing with the internal description - probably midway in the paragraph um - there's - you made some references to some old scars. You see that?
Peretti: On the external description?
Price: Uh - yes sir.
Peretti: Ok.
Price: If I can approach - this section right through here.
Peretti: Yes, ok.
Price: 3/4, this part - alright. Did you find several old scars on the body of Christopher Byers?
Peretti: Um - yes, I did.
Price: Alright. And where did you see these scars? Would you just describe them?
Peretti: Sure. A 3/4 inch old scar was present over the right forehead region - generally this area here. And a 1/4 inch old scar was present uh - adjacent to the bridge of the nose - generally in this direction here. An old uh - hypopigmented scar was present on the front of the chest, um - just on the midline of the chest. Those were the only old scars.
Price: That you noticed. Alright. Um - Dr. Peretti, there's been testimony introduced in this trial that on the day of the murders, Christopher Byers recieved a spanking um - was there any evidence that you could tell from the - your examination of his body that there was any type of bruises or abrasions on the buttocks area that may have been caused by some type of spanking that he recieved that day?
Peretti: Well, on the - the injuries on the back of the left buttock was 1/2 by 1/2 - excuse me, a 1/2 by 1/4 inch bruise or contusion and there was a 1 and 3/4 inch linear abrasion or scrape.
Price: Would either - excuse me, would either of those be consistant with a belt spanking?
Peretti: Possibly.
Price: Ok.
Peretti: On the back of the right buttock, there were two very faint contusions or bruises. Um - they each measured um - about 1/2 by 1/2 inch.
Price: Alright. One moment, your Honor.
The Court: Is that comeing from outside, Dale? If it is, tell them to be quiet out there.
(pause)
Price: Alright. Nothing further, your Honor.
Ford: Dr. Peretti, how long have you been a doctor?
Peretti: Well, I graduated from medical school in 1984.
Ford: Ok. And um - how long have you been a licensed forensic pathologist?
Peretti: Well, a licensed physician since 1984. I began my um - I did my training from '88 to '89 in Maryland. Then, from '89 to present date, I've been practicing forensic pathology.
Ford: Ok. And how long have you been in the state of Arkansas?
Peretti: Since August of 1992.
Ford: Ok. And has that always been as an employee of the Arkansas state crime lab?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Ok. And your duties - are you the chief medical examiner?
Peretti: No, I'm not the chief medical examiner.
Ford: Ok. How many other forensic pathologists work in the medical examiner's office?
Peretti: There's two others.
Ford: Um - do ya'll work together from time to time?
Peretti: Oh, yes.
Ford: Ok. Um - tell this jury about how many autopsies you've performed.
Peretti: Me personally?
Ford: Yes sir.
Peretti: Here in Arkansas?
Ford: In -
Peretti: - In my career, or -
Ford: - Yes, in your career.
Peretti: Well, in my career - well over 2500.
Ford: Ok. And since you've been in the state of Arkansas as a medical examiner here, how many autopsies have you performed?
Peretti: Well, um - the first year I was here I performed about 500. And this year, I don't know how many, it's been well over 100.
Ford: Ok. Um - many of those autopsies been on children?
Peretti: Some children, the majority are adults.
Ford: Ok. Have some of those adults been the victims of beatings?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Similar to beatings that occurred in this case?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Ok. Have some of those autopsies uh - been for victims of sexual assault?
Peretti: Yes, that's correct.
Ford: Also Doctor, during your experience uh - and training as a pathologist, have you gone to crimescenes?
Peretti: Well, when I was in Rhode Island, the medical examiner went to every crimescene.
Ford: Ok. Um - since you've been in the state of Arkansas have you ever been called upon to go to a crimescene?
Peretti: Noone's ever called me to go to a crimescene.
Ford: Ok. Let me ask you some questions, Doctor, about some of the injuries. Ok. But before I do that, are you routinely called upon and are you qualified to render opinions as to the manner of death?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: And are you routinely called upon to give opinions as to the cause of death?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Is that part of your normal job?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: You do that on a daily or weekly basis?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Was there any evidence of strangulation?
Peretti: There was no evidence of strangulation
Ford: If you were looking - if you were to find evidence of strangulation, you would expect to find injuries to the strap muscles of the neck?
Peretti: Yes, the muscles of the neck and the larynx and the hyoid bone.
Ford: Is that - now tell the jury what the hyoid bone is.
Peretti: Well, we have our larynx which is uh - our voice box. And the adams apple, as people routinely refer to it, is the larynx region. Uh - above the larynx is this little um - bone called the hyoid bone and it's shaped like a "U" and that sits above it - sits above the larynx and it's connected to the larynx by muscles.
Ford: Is - the hyoid bone acts as a center piece of some sort - like suspension, things are connected to it to form a - a rigid structure that is not based out of bone. Is that correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. So now, you found no damage to the hyoid bone?
Peretti: No sir.
Ford: No damage to the larynx?
Peretti: No sir.
Ford: No damage to the strap muscles?
Peretti: No sir.
Ford: No exterior evidence on the neck of strangulation?
Peretti: No, there were a few little abrasions - scrapes on the neck, but no evidence of strangulation.
Ford: Doctor, did you make an attempt to determine whether or not uh - there were sperm cells present?
Peretti: Yes I did. I did a rape kit.
Ford: Ok. Now would that include both an attempt to determine whether there had been oral sex or anal sex?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. Tell the jury when you do this rape kit, what you do with swabs. Tell them what you do.
Peretti: Well, what we do is, we um - we take the swabs - we swab the um - the inside of the mouth, the lips, and the back of the mouth. Then um - we swab on a female, the vaginal area. And the male, the anal area.
Ford: Ok. And how deep down into those cav - those oral or anal cavities in these three boys was that swab placed?
Peretti: Well, in the mouth we try to get all around the lips and as far back as we can to um - we rub the swab up against the um - the linings of the mouth. And in the anus, we try to go up um - as far as we can around the anal orfice region um - you know, to make sure we pick up any material if it's there.
Ford: Ok. Do you then microscopically examine those swabs to determine whether or not there are sperm cells present?
Peretti: What we do is um - we make a glass slide and we send it to the serology section of the laboratory and they look for the presence of sperm.
Ford: Ok. And was that done in this case?
Peretti: Yes, it was.
Ford: Alright. Was there any evidence of sperm cells?
Peretti: There was no um - sperm detected.
Ford: Would - would the crime - would the serology department of the crime lab also routinely run a test for P30?
Peretti: Um - I believe that the procedure is um - I may be wrong, but you would have to check with the serologists - that if it's positive for sperm, they'll run the P30.
Ford: Ok. Tell the jury what P30 is.
Peretti: They're looking for the um - the antogen for the sperm. To see if there's any detection of the sperm or acidphosatates.
Ford: So, they're - that's prostate fluid?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Ok. Now, was a P30 test run on the slides made from these boys?
Peretti: I don't know if a P30 was run. Um - I would have to check the serology report.
Ford: Now, you testified yesterday about some of the injuries to the mouth -
Peretti: - Yes.
Ford: - Of these three boys. You testified that that - those injuries could be caused by a punch?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: By a slap?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: By something firmly being placed over the mouth?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Could these injuries have been caused by a gag?
Peretti: Um - the injuries - the contusions um - and the superficial cuts inside the lips may be caused by a gag. But not the cutting wounds on the outside of the lips.
Ford: Ok. So, some of the wounds would be - are consistant with being caused by a gag?
Peretti: A gag would cause those types of injuries to the inside of the lips, yes.
Ford: Now, if you found um - bruising to the exterior of the mouth - the lips, from forced oral sex wouldn't you also expect to find damage to the tongue?
Peretti: Well, sometimes you may see damage to the tongue. Other times, uh - you may not.
Ford: Alright. Would you expect to see some sort of damage on the inside of the mouth - to the uvula or to the hypofarynx, to the epiglaudis, to the tonsils?
Peretti: If the uh - penis or object was inserted into the mouth - and it was forceful, I would expect to see some injuries.
Ford: Ok. So if you - so if there was forcible penetration - to force an 8 year old boy to perform oral sex, are you telling this jury you would expect to find damage on the inside of the mouth?
Peretti: If the penis was inserted um - way back into - in the back of the mouth, I would expect - you should find some injuries. But then again, you may not. And alot of factors are involved - the size of the penis, you know - how forceful the sex is, things of that sort.
Ford: Alright. If the oral sex was forceful enough to cause those bruises on the outside of the mouth, wouldn't you expect them to also cause it on the inside of the mouth?
Peretti: I - I would think so.
Ford: Ok. Did you find any evidence of damage inside their mouths?
Peretti: The only damage I found was some superficial bitemarks. Um - on one of the boys - inside the cheeks, but there was no um - injuries noted to the - to the back of the mouth.
Ford: Ok. Those that you would expect to find?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Ok. Doctor, based on what you have seen in your examination of these boys, and based on your experience and your training, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty isn't it your opinion that these boys were not forced to perform oral sex?
Peretti: Well, that's - that's a difficult - they have injuries that - that are consistant with that - you know, you have the ear injuries, you have the mouth injuries. Um - like I said before, it could be another modality how those injuries was sustained, but we see those type of injuries in people who are perfor - uh - forced to perform oral sex. But then again, there are no injuries um - to the back of the mouth, and one way you can explain that is if the uh - the mouth wasn't totally open - the teeth were clenched.
Ford: Are you telling these - this jury that in your opinion - based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, these boys were forced to perform oral sex?
Peretti: No. I'm saying they have injuries con - that we normally see in people who are - especially children, especially the ear injuries, um - who are forced to um - perform oral sex.
Ford: Ok. Now those injuries to the ears, they could also be caused if those boys are tied up - in the fashion that they are, and if anyone wants to grab 'em and pull or pick 'em up - they could - that could cause those same type of injuries. Could they not, Doctor?
Peretti: Yes, if you grab someone by the ears, yes.
Ford: Any - just - you don't have to be grabbing them any certain - you could just grab 'em and they're going to cause these injuries that you observed, is that correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Did you examine the swabs of their anal and rectal cavities for presence of sperm?
Peretti: What I did, I submitted to the um - the serology section of the laboratory and they examined the -
Ford: And well -
Peretti: - And they issue a report.
Ford: Were there sperm cells present there?
Peretti: No. No semen was identified in all three boys.
Ford: Ok. Now if someone is forcefully sodomized, would you expect to find injuries to their nus and rectal areas?
Peretti: Uh - in the cases that I've um - in my experience, I have always seen injuries to the um - anal and vaginal regions.
Ford: Would you expect to find lacerations?
Peretti: Um - yes.
Ford: Uh - contusions and abrasions?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Would you expect to find, microscopically - evidence of hemorrhage?
Peretti: There should be hemorrhage there, yes.
Ford: Ok. There was some discussion yesterday about hyperemia.
Peretti: Yes, it's reddening of the uh - mucosa.
Ford: That's just red, isn't it?
Peretti: Congestion, yes.
Ford: Red. If a capillary is filled with blood, that would be hyperemia - more blood than normal?
Peretti: Right. It's just that the - the vessels um - are filled with blood um - part of it depends on - it's positional.
Ford: Ok. And hemorrhage is when those small microscopic capillaries break?
Peretti: That's right.
Ford: Ok. Now, did you examine them and make microscopic efforts to determine whether or not there was hemorrhage to the anal areas?
Peretti: Yes, I did.
Ford: And was there any hemorrhage?
Peretti: Well, in the slides I took there was no hemorrhage identified.
Ford: Ok. So it's - one can conclude that there was not enough force to break and damage a microscopic capillary?
Peretti: That's correct. There was no injury noted to the um - anal rectal mucosa.
Ford: And in your experience and your training, if someone was sodomized you would expect to find injuries?
Peretti: In a child - definately.
Ford: Ok. And that was not found?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Did you find any rope burns?
Peretti: Well, I found the um - the injuries on the ankles and the feet, what the ligatures - where they were tied.
Ford: But did you find any evidence of being tied with a rope?
Peretti: Uh - no.
Ford: No evidence of being tied with a rope?
Peretti: No. There were some abrasions there um - maybe um - I - I can't put a pattern to 'em.
Ford: Now Doctor, did you examine the uh - any of the wounds to see if there were wood fragments?
Peretti: There were no foreign bodies such as - such as wood fragments, glass or debris.
Ford: So, if someone were to be hit with a stick like this that had bark that just crumbled and comes apart, wouldn't you expect there would be some evidence of that left behind in the wounds?
Peretti: Um - yes, unless it was washed off being in the water.
Ford: Ok. But you would expect to find those - some sort of wood fragment left behind?
Peretti: I think I would expect to find some fragments.
Ford: Did you?
Peretti: No.
Ford: Any fragments?
Peretti: No fragments.
Ford: On any of the three boys?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Now, you testified that some of these injuries could be caused by being hit with an object of this size, is that correct?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Could those same injuries also be caused by a baseball bat?
Peretti: Baseball bat have um - a different type of pattern of injury, but you could get a similar pattern.
Ford: And a baseball bat could clearly cause a skull fracture, couldn't it?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: And it could clearly cause a bruise to the top of the head?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. And so could a rolling pin?
Peretti: Oh, yes.
Ford: Ok. The flat part of a shovel?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: There's any number of things that have - hundreds of items that could be willed in as a weapon, that could cause these types of injuries?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. Now, you also indicated that something of this diameter could have done it, is that also correct?
Peretti: That and I believe I stated a piece of wood - a 2x4.
Ford: A 2x4.
Peretti: - Could do that.
Ford: A broom handle?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: A mop handle?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: A shovel handle?
Peretti: Objects similar to that appearance, yes.
Ford: A tire iron?
Peretti: Sure.
Ford: A jack handle?
Peretti: Possibly.
Ford: A flashlight?
Peretti: Sure.
Ford: So there's any number of items - hundreds of items located in almost any household that could be willed as a weapon to cause the types of injuries that you saw?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Are you telling this jury in your opinion, those are the murder weapons?
Peretti: No. I never said that. I said, objects such as this type are consistant with causing those type of injuries. I never said that these objects caused those injuries.
Ford: Ok. Did you examine those sticks yourself for evidence of blood, skin tissue, clothing fibers? Did you look at that - make an eyeball gaze of it?
Peretti: Well, I believe what happened was the um - these two items here went directly to the trace section of the laboratory. And after they were through doing - looking for trace evidence, they were submitted to me. So, all the analysis on these objects here were done by the um - the trace section of the lab, not me.
Ford: Ok. Let's talk about those knives, ok. Both of these knives have serrated edges - do they not, Doctor?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. And I believe you stated previously, under oath that um - serrated edges can leave behind a pattern?
Peretti: Yes. The only way a serrated knife can leave a pattern is if it's rubbed across the - the skin. If you have um - two knives - this knife for example and this knife here and you were to stab someone, you - by looking at the stab wound, if both knives go in say um - straight down, you can not tell the difference if um - a straight edge knife did it or a serrated knife 'cause they both have similar appearance. The only way you can tell if a serrated knife has been used is by looking for the serrations that rub across the skin.
Ford: Ok. Now Doctor, if that serrated knife is 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? Can it not?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. And so if the serrated pattern of one knife has a 1/8 gap and then a 1/4 inch and 1/8, and 1/4 inch or 3/8 inch and 1/2 an inch - whatever the pattern is, those three factors could make two knives with obviously different serrated patterns cause the same type of injury - is that correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. So basically, any serrated knife could cause these kind of injuries that you saw?
Peretti: Well -
Ford: - Is that correct?
Peretti: - That's correct, but if you have a larger serration - you know, you can usually differentiate that more from a smaller serration, but it's correct that the bodies do move and there will be distortion on the skin.
Ford: So really Doctor, to get right down to it - to say one knife caused an injury over another knife caused an injury, based on a serration pattern - it really calls for some sort of speculation, doesn't it?
Peretti: Well, I hate to use the word speculation, but um - you know, you can see a pattern. You know, you can tell a difference between a small serration and a large serration. And sure, there are distortions when uh - the skin is moving due to the elasticity of the um - of the skin.
Ford: Ok. Are you telling this jury that this knife caused those injuries?
Peretti: No. I never said that knife caused that injury. I said a knife of this type - of these types, are consistant with causing those type of injuries. But, I never said that these two knives sitting here caused those injuries.
Ford: Ok. Any number of knives have serrated patterns - any number of them could cause these injuries, could they not?
Peretti: Um - yes.
Ford: Just like any number of items that have these diameters could cause those other injuries?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. Now, let me turn to an area Doctor that - that uh - is not real pleasant, but it's important, ok. So that everybody can have a clear understanding of what happened. Try to - as detailed as possible, although it's unpleasant - please describe the genital mutilation of Chris Byers.
Peretti: May I um - use the photograph?
Ford: Yes.
(mumbling)
Peretti: It's 331.
Ford: 331?
Peretti: Yes, it's the autopsy number.
Ford: I'm just going to hand you the whole stack, Doctor.
Peretti: There's one photograph um - right there.
Ford: Ok, and if it would help you -
(pause)
Peretti: Do you want me to approach or do it from -
Ford: Yeah, you can - if you'd like - if you think it would be easier, you can step downand show the jury.
Peretti: Now the question was to explain the injuries again?
Ford: Explain the genital mutilation.
Peretti: Ok. I believe um - state's exhibit um - 70C and 69C show it uh -
Ford: - Ok.
Peretti: Ok. State's exhibit 70C is the um - the genital region. Here on the thighs you can see all these superficial uh - gouging type wounds. And some of them are deep, they go down into the soft tissues. This is all this area around here on the thigh. Now here - this red area here, this is the uh - the shaft of the penis and here is where the scrotal sac and testes should be - and they're missing. So what we have is that the skin overlying the penis and 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. It was - appears to be um - large cutting around here to cut this out. Um - this is the cutting wound here and the red is the shaft of the penis.
Ford: Alright. Thank you, Doctor. You may retake the stand. Let -
Peretti: (mumbles)
Ford: No, you can hold on to it.
(pause)
Ford: In laymen's language - that I understand, with respect - his penis is, has not been cut off - has it?
Peretti: No. The skin has been taken off the penis.
Ford: Now with respect to anatomy, a man's penis has glands in it - does it not?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: And those are contained in the shaft of the penis?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. And when you get to the head of the penis, the glands stop?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. And in this case, the skin off the penis was actually dissected off?
Peretti: Was taken off, yes.
Ford: Ok. Uh - and the head of the penis was taken off?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: But the glands in the shaft of the penis are undamaged, are they not?
Peretti: That's relatively intact.
Ford: And basically it would take some skill and precision to do that, wouldn't it?
Peretti: I would think so.
Ford: Ok. And it would take someone who had some medical knowledge, wouldn't it Doctor?
Peretti: Well, I don't know about that. Someone who had some knowledge of anatomy.
Ford: Some anatomy knowledge, ok. Doctor, if you were to uh - if this was to be done - this dissection, where the skin is cut off - that would take a very sharp instrument, would it not?
Peretti: Um - I think it would.
Ford: Ok. Such as a razor?
Peretti: Or a sharp knife.
Ford: A very sharp knife?
Peretti: Um.
Ford: Ok. Doctor, if you were to do this for - let's say you were back in medical school in gross anatomy, and you were asked to do this - or now, with the skill and precision and knowledge that you take - how long would it take you to do that?
Peretti: That's a difficult question. Um - it would take me some time. It's not something I think I could do in 5 min - in 5 or 10 minutes.
Ford: It would take you longer than 5 to 10 minutes?
Peretti: I would think so.
Ford: And that's at - in your lab?
Peretti: I would think so.
Ford: With a scapel, is that correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Now Doctor, if we added to the equation that you were in the dark - could you do this in the dark? You Doctor, could you do it in the dark?
Peretti: I would be difficult.
Ford: And if you were doing it in the dark, wouldn't it take you longer than if you were doing it in your lab - your ideal conditions?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Ok. Could you do this in the water? You Doctor, could you do this in the water?
Peretti: I think it would be very difficult to do.
Ford: Ok. And if it was - you was in the water and it was dark, it would take even longer. Is that correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. And if you were doing it in the dark, in the water, with mosquitos all around you would that make it even much more difficult?
Peretti: I would think so.
Ford: If not impossible?
Peretti: Well, I don't know about impossible, I - I think it could get done.
Ford: Ok. But it would - it would really be a tedious task to do it in the dark, in the water, with mosquitos all around - wouldn't it?
Peretti: I would think so.
Ford: It would take you - it would be a very tedious task for you - a skilled pathologist?
Peretti: It would.
Ford: Ok. Now Doctor, you testified yesterday that uh - Chris Byers, and that's the boy who was mutilated that we've just been describing - that he bled to death, is that correct?
Peretti: I believe there was - I said that he extinguinated, yes.
Ford: Ok. Is that, for us who don't know - that are not doctors, is that bleed to death?
Peretti: Um - yes and -
Ford: - Ok.
Peretti: - Along with his other injuries.
Ford: Ok. Now didn't - doesn't your autopsy reflect that the organs are pale?
Peretti: Um - yes.
Ford: The internal organs?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: And that means - they become pale when the blood is gone from it, is that right?
Peretti: That's correct.
Ford: Ok. Now isn't it true Doctor that people have 5 - about 5 pints of blood?
Peretti: A little more than that, yes.
Ford: Ok. Um - now if I poured out 5 pints of blood - out here on the floor, it would make a big mess - wouldn't it?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: And it would be almost impossible to clean up, wouldn't it?
Peretti: Oh, you could do it, but not very easily.
Ford: It would be very, very difficult - wouldn't it?
Peretti: It's not easy to clean blood.
Ford: Ok. Does blood soak into the ground?
Peretti: Um - yes, it does.
Ford: Ok. Would blood - would blood soak into wood?
Peretti: Oh, yes.
Ford: Um - Doctor, with this - with this homicide we're talking about here today, would you agree with me that this could have happened in one of three ways? These injuries could have happened in the water, these injuries could have happened on the bank there by the side of the ditch, or it could have happened somewhere else. Would you agree with me that those are the three possibilities of how this could have happened?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Ok. Now would you also agree with me that based on what you saw - that was done to these boys, that it would be highly improbable for it to happen in the water?
Peretti: It would be very difficult.
Ford: Ok. And would you also agree with me Doctor, that it would be highly improbable for the amount of blood to have been - that these injuries would have caused to - if they fell on the bank, to wash all that away?
Fogleman: Your Honor, I've got to enter an objection. Dr. Peretti has indicated he did not go to the scene. He is not familiar with the scene. And I don't believe he is really in a position to give an opinion, based on the question that Mr. Ford has uh - given to him.
Ford: Your Honor, this is their doctor. This is their expert. He has indicated he's a forensic pathologist, that that's their job - that's their duties. I'm - he knows about blood and how blood works. And I'm asking for his opinion -
The Court: I will allow him to testify as to the quantity of the blood, but you're asking him a question I think goes beyond his expertise. He didn't go to the scene, he didn't uh - I don't know if he knows the type soil, the absorbtion rate of fluids, I - Doctor, are you prepared to give a statement on uh - or an opinion on that?
Peretti: Well, I don't know the absorbtion rate so - of blood at the scene um - in soil. But I would just like to clarify one fact for the court that I am not um - a prosecution witness. The crime lab is an independant agency. Um - we don't work for the defense, we don't work for the prosecution. We are an independant agency. So, I would just like to clarify that.
Price: Judge, if I could interject. Judge, Dr. Peretti is an expert witness. The fact that we've had earlier testimony in this trial that there was no blood found at the crimescene, is a fact that the Doctor can also take into consideration - since he is an expert witness.
The Court: Well, if he can take that fact that apparently you're -
Ford: - Let me rephrase my question.
The Court: Then alright, rephrase your question.
Ford: May I rephrase my question. Dr. Peretti, based on your skill, your education, your training as a forensic pathologist, the experience that you have had over the years, with your knowledge of the amount of blood that was lost from not only Chris Byers but these other boys who've had some pretty - they're going to bleed as well, won't they?
Peretti: Oh, yes.
Ford: Ok. With the amount of blood that you would expect from those injuries, do you have an opinion as to whether or not you could clean up that amount of blood at a scene, in the dark? Do you have an opinion as to that?
Peretti: I think it would be quite difficult to do.
Ford: So of the three possibilities that you agreed with me on - in the water, on the bank, or somewhere else - the most plausible is that it happened somewhere else, of those three. Is that correct?
Peretti: Well in a hypothetical situation, if there's no blood - from what I understand the scene is bloodless, in the information that's been provided to me. I don't know if that's - if I'm interpreting that information incorrect. I - I just think it would be difficult to have um - injuries of this nature without having any blood. I mean, that's - I would question that, about the blood. Unless it happened in the water or it happened some other place.
Ford: Ok. And you again Doctor said that you couldn't - you couldn't do this in the water?
Peretti: Personally, I don't think I could.
Ford: Dr. Peretti, I want to move now to a new area. Probably the most important area of this trial. Did you have an opportunity to review the coroner's reports?
Peretti: The reports, yes.
Ford: That the coroner reported?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Ok. And you read them?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: And you examined the bodies?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: And made your findings?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Ford: And I noticed yesterday that the prosecutor asked you about time of death. Remember him asking you about time of death?
Peretti: Yes, The generalities yes.
Ford: He asked you the generalities. How many times have you talked to the prosecutors in this case? From the beginning up to now.
Peretti: We have had multiple discussions. I can't pinpoint a number.
Ford: A half a dozen?
Peretti: I would say that would be fair.
Ford: Dr. Peretti, based on your skill, and your training, and your experience, your 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 - do you have an opinion as to the time of death?
Peretti: The only opinion I can give is like I explained yesterday, I can`t tell you that someone died at 10:00 or 2:30, um - the only thing I can do is give you um - an estimate of a range.
Ford: Alright. And what is that range doctor, if you have one?
Peretti: Well, with the bodies being in the water it makes it much more difficult. Um - you know, especially with the fact that the lividity um - fixing, um - being fixed, um - compared to being um - unfixed. You know, based - I - you're - I'm assuming you're asking me to base my opinion just on that one factor in the coroner's report.
Ford: I`m asking you to base it on what you know, your experience, your training, your information that you have evaluated in this case. What time doctor, in your opinion is the range that these boys were killed? What time?
Peretti: Well, given a very wide-open range for the fixation of the um - 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 in consideration, you could say that the lividity would fix up to um - 12 to um - 15 hours. It could be longer, and it could be shorter.
Ford: Well, what is the time doctor? What time is that range?
Peretti: Well, what time are you asking me to -
Ford: - I'm asking -
Peretti: - No - to calculate from, from the time the bodies were found or the time the coroner pronounced them?
Ford: I`m asking you to tell this jury, in your opinion - in your opinion, based on what you have read, what is your opinion as to the time of death? What time?
Peretti: Well, based on what I know, it would be um - as a very, broad range - between 1 and -- 1AM and - you know, 5-7 in the morning.
Ford: 1AM to 5AM Thursday, May the 6th.
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Dr. Peretti, is that opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty?
Peretti: It`s based on the facts that I know. As I stated um - yesterday, determination of the time of death is more of an art and not a science. And it's very subjective. And um - I'm just 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 - you know, based on the information that I have - I mean, it could be a little shorter. It could be a little longer.
Ford: But that is your opinion though, isn`t it doctor?
Peretti: That's my opinion - that range.
Ford: Thank you. Your honor, I pass the witness.
Davis: Now Dr. Peretti, at one point when Mr. Fogleman and I went to your office, we asked you based on the information contained in the coroner's report, could you give an accurate estimation as to the time of death. And what did you tell us?
Peretti: I told him it was very difficult to do, that I think the best person would have been to have the coroner - based on what he has in his report.
Davis: Ok. Did you in fact not tell us at that time that you could not give an accurate estimation as to time of death based on one factor alone.
Peretti: That`s right.
Davis: Ok. And in fact, in that coroner report, the only factor you had was one - correct?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: And in fact, that one factor was lividity - was it not?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: Ok. Are you familiar with an author, Vincent DeMayo.
Peretti: Yes I am.
Davis: And in fact, you and Vince are on a first-name basis, correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: And is this book on forensic pathology an accepted text in the field?
Peretti: Yes it is.
Davis: Ok. And I`ve got marked there for you doctor, a section regarding the estimation of the time of death. Does it indicate - first off, have you read that portion of Dr. DeMayo`s book?
Peretti: Yes I did.
Davis: And He`s a noted forensic pathologist, correct?
Peretti: Yes.
Davis: Does it indicate in there - is there a portion that indicates how significant lividity is in making a determination of the time of death?
Peretti: Yes, there is.
Davis: Ok. And what does it say regarding - in single factor of lividity, in terms of estimating the time of death?
Peretti: Did you want me to read the sentence?
Davis: Yes sir, I think it`s on the second page.
Peretti: 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. Thus, the statement that rigor mortis becomes fixed at eight to 12 hours, is really just a vague generalization.
Davis: Ok. So, Dr. DeMayo - a renowned forensic pathologist, indicates that that 8 to 12-hour time period is just a generalization - correct?
Peretti: That`s correct
Davis: And one of the factors which would throw that off would be the cooling of the body, correct?
Peretti: That`s correct
Davis: And I believe that you indicated in the coroner`s report - or it`s indicated in the coroner`s report that the estimate of the water temperature was approximately 60 degrees, is that right?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: And that would mean that if the bodies were immediately submerged in water, that they would cool by 38 degrees - just like that. Correct?
Peretti: Well I don`t know about just like that, but they would cool.
Davis: Ok. And we would see a significant cooling simultaneously with their bodies, or nearly simultaneously with their bodies being submerged?
Peretti: Yes.
Davis: Ok. In that book - I forgot to ask you - on the next page there`s a portion I have highlighted, and I would like you to refer to that - read that statement for us doctor.
Peretti: It says: livor mortis is not very important in determining the time of death.
Davis: Ok, would you agree to that statement?
Peretti: Well, livor mortis is more important in determining the position of a body.
Davis: Ok. And the truth of the matter is, 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 rigor mortis, which is body temperature and body stiffness.
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: And without the three factors - or information regarding the three, any estimation would be very difficult, correct?
Peretti: It`s a difficult thing to do - the estimating.
Davis: Ok. And in this particular instance, the coroner's report reflects he didn't make any determinations as to rigor. Correct?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: And the reason was, because to do that would require him to manipulate or mess up the bindings that were binding the children.
Peretti: For the rigor mortis in the extremities, yes.
Davis: Right. So he couldn't make a determination as to that factor?
Peretti: In the extremities, yes.
Davis: Ok. And to determine algor mortis, you would need - the best means would be to take a rectal temperature, correct?
Peretti: Rectal or liver temperature, yes.
Davis: Ok. And to take a rectal temperature could possibly affect evidence of a sexual or sodomization of the children, correct?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: Ok. And so that wasn`t done either. So you didn't have that information to work with, correct?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: Ok. And you did indicate yesterday that there were no mosquito bites or insect bites on the children. Correct?
Peretti: That is correct.
Davis: Now as I understood your testimony - the sexual mutilation, basically the skin was peeled off the penis and the head of the penis was removed?
Peretti: Along with the uh - scrotal sac and testes.
Davis: Right. And you aren't familiar with the area out there, where the crimescene occurred as far as the configuration of the ditchbank - what the ditchbank's like, or the creekbank's like near the water, or any of that sort of information?
Peretti: I believe I saw a photograph of it.
Davis: Ok. Now Dr. Peretti, let me talk - Mr. Ford asked you about these weapons - if you could say positively that those weapons caused the injuries. And if I understood your testimony yesterday, there was one weapon used on these three boys that was a sharp object such as a knife - correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: Ok.
Ford: Your Honor, I want to object to the leading. This is his witness - he's leading his witness in an effort to rehabilitate him.
The Court: That's an expert witness, go ahead.
Ford: Is my objection overruled?
The Court: Overruled. Yes.
Davidson: We join in that motion, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled, go ahead.
Davis: So there's one weapon that's a sharp object such as a knife?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: Ok. One weapon that would be consistant with the size of a broom handle, correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: And yet another injury caused by a weapon that's large and blunt?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: So, even though your testimony is not that these two particular items caused the injuries, you found injuries consistant with three different type weapons - is that correct, Doctor?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: Mr. Ford also asked you if there were any findings of sperm either in the anal area of the children or in the mouth - on the mouth swabs of the children.
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: And it's my understanding that you didn't find evidence -
Peretti: No sperm was detected.
Davis: Ok. Now what would the affect of bodies being submersed in water - number 1, and anal dilation - of the anus, what would the affect of that be on the loss of evidence such as sperm in a case like this?
Peretti: Well, the water would enter into their body cavities and it could wash the sperm away.
Davis: Now, you talked about the serrations caused by - or the serrations patterns of these knives. And just - when we talk about serrations, I think that's a word that kindly - I don't know what it conjures up in people's minds, but we're basically talking about the same thing as saw teeth - like on a saw?
Peretti: Yes.
Davis: Ok. And if you take a saw and you put the - the saw across here and you move it back and forth, are you going to be able to tell that that's a serrated injury? Or is it just going to be a straight line cut?
Peretti: A straight line.
Davis: Ok. Now if you take that saw and say, slap it down across your arm - not cut, but slap it down. Are you then going to be able to see where the teeth or the points of that saw come in contact with the skin?
Peretti: Yes, you would.
Davis: Ok. Now would you - the injuries that you determined were serrated, those are not injuries where the blade moved - is that correct Doctor, as far as moving back and forth on the skin?
Peretti: No, they're injuries of the blade rubbing up against the skin.
Davis: Ok. And so one way that you would see serrated patterns would be if the serrations were dragged crossways across the skin, correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: Ok. And if the serrations were slapped down on the skin then you would also see a serrated pattern?
Peretti: Yes.
Davis: Ok. But if the serrations are moved like this, you end up with a straight line?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: And the smaller the serration, or the distance between points to the less distance you have to move that knife to end up with a straight line incision, correct?
Peretti: That would be correct, yes.
Davis: Ok. Mr. Ford asked you about whether or not there was uh - any signs of physical injury uh - to the - and I don't know what's the proper scientific term is, but inside the anal area - lacerations.
Peretti: Right.
Davis: And you indicated there weren't.
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: Are you familiar with medical literature regarding injuries from sodomy to small children which indicates that there may not be any lacerations inside the anal area?
Peretti: There is literature to that fact, yes.
Davis: And the injuries that you look for inside the anal area would be consistant if there was forced penetration of a large object, correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: Ok. And so attempted anal penetration - you would not expect to find the lacerations, correct?
Peretti: If the object did not enter into the um - anus, yes.
Davis: Ok. And as far as the lack of sperm both in the anal area and in the mouth - all the sperm would indicate would be ejaculation, correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: There can be sexual assault and sexual attack without the presence of sperm, correct?
Peretti: That's correct.
Davis: And I believe I understood you to say that the lacerations and the degree of trauma to the anal area would be based on the size of the penis - if the person was sexually attacked?
Peretti: Penis or object, yes.
Davis: Your Honor, can I have one minute?
The Court: Yes.
(pause)
Davis: Doctor, one question that I neglected to ask. Yesterday you were referring - and I don't recall now, but there was one of the boys that you indicated had a round type circular abrasion to the forehead with a - what was - it looked like, kindly another abrasion in the center.
Peretti: Yes sir.
Davis: And you said that was consistant with a belt buckle?
Peretti: You see that type of injury - it's a belt buckle type injury.
Davis: Ok. And that was to the boy's forehead?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Davis: Ok. Now Doctor, just once again so I understand it. In this estimation that you gave Mr. Ford as to the time of death, that was based on only one factor, is that correct?
Peretti: Based on - you know, when they were last seen, when they're found dead, and what was found - the lividity, when the coroner arrived at the scene.
Davis: Ok. But your opinion was not based on all those factors, it was based on only one thing - lividity, correct?
Peretti: Well, the lividity and the two factors that I just mentioned because I`m going to have to take them into consideration.
Davis: In other words, they couldn't have died before they were last seen or after they were found.
Peretti: That`s right.
Davis: Ok. And the only medical factor that you based it on was lividity, correct?
Peretti: That`s the only factor yes.
Davis: And that was information that you obtained out of the coroner's report?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: Ok. Now in your day-to-day business as a forensic pathologist, if you had - if you were presented with the one factor of lividity, would you feel - and no other information in terms of body temperature, amount of rigor, anything of that nature - if you were presented with that, would you feel comfortable in making estimations regarding time of death.
Peretti: I wouldn`t be too comfortable with just that one factor, lividity.
Davis: Did you have reason to question the accuracy of some of the information contained in the coroner`s report? And I realize that`s a difficult question to put to you but did you have reason to question it?
Peretti: The um - the coroner's report wasn't written to the standards that it should have been written to.
Davis: Ok. And after you had received the bodies, did in fact, the coroner contact you requesting information concerning the condition of the body to put into his report?
Peretti: He wanted information, yes, that`s correct.
Davis: And was it your conclusion that he had failed to get the information that a coroner would normally get prior to sending the bodies to your office.
Peretti: That`s correct. I don't um - I'm not being critical of anyone in particular, but it is the - Arkansas has a coroner system and it is the coroner's responsibility when they go to the scene to provide us with a report. Um - they are the ones at the scene. They are the ones making the evaluation - you know, based on the - some of them, the limited experience that they have. Um - I don't - 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 that - they're supposed to do that at the scene. And that is being very dishonest 'cause 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 - you know, a coroner's report that day handwritten out or something faxed us that day. Um - 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. But as far as any particular facts uh - pertaining um - to a body, such as lividity - settling of the blood, or the rigidity - the rigor mortis, I don't provide them with that information.
Davis: And the - his reference in his report to lividity, determining whether lividity is present or whether blanching occurs is a judgment call. Isn`t it doctor?
Peretti: On his part. He did the examination. You know, I don't - I am not being critical of the coroner here in this county. I don't know his degree of um - expertise or training um - when it comes to making these um - determinations.
Davis: But that's - basically we're talking about a degree of discoloration, correct?
Peretti: The blanching, yes.
Davis: Ok. And with a body that's lost a lot of blood, the lividity would be very pale or it would be very slight at best - correct?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: Ok. And so we are talking about your estimation was based on the one factor that he provided to you, that was a judgment determination on his part.
Peretti: That`s correct.
Davis: Ok. And this is the same individual that contacted you after the bodies were received to get information to fill out his coroner's report.
Peretti: Well, I don't want to say he wanted the information to fill out the coroner's report. I don't want to imply that. But he wanted information. So. But I didn't give it out. So whatever - what he was going to do with that information, I don't know.
Davis: No further questions your honor.
The Court: Anything else?
Ford: Dr. Peretti, I believe you indicated that uh - Dr. DeMayo and you are on a first-name basis.
Peretti: Oh, yes.
Ford: Before you got up here and testified here today, were you aware of that language in that book?
Peretti: Um - Yes I was.
Ford: You knew that it existed before you gave your opinions.
Peretti: That`s correct.
Ford: Ok. Do you - do doctors agree with everything from doctor to doctor, or are there differences in opinion?
Peretti: There`s always a difference of opinion.
Ford: Ok, Now your.....
Peretti: In most cases.
Ford: Now, do the coroner reports indicate what the temperature of the water was? Does it?
Peretti: Um - do you have a copy of that? I have it -
Ford: I`ve got one, just as second......Approximately here, Doctor. Does it indicate there um - what the temperature of the water was?
Peretti: It says um - approximately 60 degrees.
Ford: And did you know that? Were you aware of that fact?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: When you gave your opinion here today?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Ok. And did you take that into consideration?
Peretti: I took that into consideration, yes.
Ford: And Doctor, did you also take into consideration your experience?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: And all of the knowledge that you have gained over the years of being a pathologist.
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Ok. And you also told me earlier Doctor that there were um - you took into consideration factors like how hot it was that day.
Peretti: The ambient temperature.
Ford: The air temperature.
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Ok. You took that into account. You took into account the water temperature?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Took into account when they disappeared?
Peretti: Yes sir.
Ford: Took into account when they were found?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Ford: Took into account the cause of death?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Ford: Took into account the manner of death?
Peretti: That`s correct.
Ford: Um - you also indicated that you had um - two other doctors that you worked with?
Peretti: Yes.
Ford: Ok. And did you discuss your opinion with them?
Peretti: We discussed it.
Ford: Ok. And do they concur your opinion?
Peretti: Uh - they're in agreement.
Ford: Pass the witness.
The Court: Anything else?
Price: Nothing further, Judge.
Davis: Judge, just one question. In the coroner's report that you referred to, which provided the one factor upon which your opinion is based - did it - was there any differentiation between the lividity in either of the three boys or did it - in his report indicate they were all the same?
Peretti: Um -the reports indicate they're all the same.
Davis: Ok. And based on your knowledge of physical reactions of the body upon massive blood loss, that doesn`t seem to make much sense does it - when one boy bled to death and the other boys had minimal bleeding, you would expect there to be a difference in the lividity.
Peretti: Well, in the coroner's report it just states um - lividity blanches um - with pressure, I believe that`s how it`s phrased. Um - it doesn't mention the amount of lividity, where the lividity is. Um - We are building a house starting with the roof and not with the foundation. So um - you know, it just says lividity blanches with pressure. I don't know where he's measuring that from um - what part of the body. I have no idea. It would be best to ask him.
Davis: No further questions your honor.
Price: Judge, I - Doctor, would there have been blood on the clothing if the bodies - boys would have been beaten with their clothes on?
Peretti: Um - I would um - believe - I would assume you would find blood on the - on the clothing.
Price: Nothing further.
Ford: Nothing further, your Honor.
The Court: Last chance. Alright, you`re free to go Doctor - thank you very much.
