|
IN THE COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the Estate of LISA McPHERSON, Plaintiff, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY d/b/a CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., Defendant. May 15th, 1997 10:04 a.m. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT D. DAVIS, M.D. The above-styled cause came on for hearing before me, Julie L. Weston, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at Large, at the time and place above indicated for the purpose of taking testimony. APPEARANCES: KENNAN G. DANDAR, ESQ. MORRIS " Dandar & Dandar Attorney for Plaintiff Sandy Weinberg Attorney for Defendant LEE FUGATE, ESQUIRE DR. JOHN R. FEEGEL, ESQ. Co-counsel for Defendant ANNE F. CARLUCCI, ESQUIRE Cranshaw & Carlucci Attorney for Dr. Davis Also present: Ben Shaw Rick Spector Videographer INDEX PAGE DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINBERG 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DANDAR 176 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINBERG 257 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 265 (Court reporter's note: All exhibits referred to herein were retained by Mr. Weinberg) MR. WEINBERG: This is the deposition of Dr. Robert D. Davis taken pursuant to a subpoena served on Dr. Davis and pursuant to a Notice of Deposition. It's a deposition being taken in the case of Dell Liebreich versus the Church of Scientology, and present today for the Church of Scientology are John Fegel, Lee Fugate, myself, Sandy Weinberg, and Ben Shaw, and present for Dell Liebreich is Ken Dandar. The deposition at Mr. Dandar's notice is being videotaped, as well as the court reporter. If you could swear in the witness, I'd appreciate it. MS. CARLUCCI: Mr. Weinberg, would you identify that I am in the room? MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I apologize. And also Dr. Davis has with him Anne Carlucci, who is his counsel, and who has provided her offices for us to take this deposition in -- MS. CARLUCCI: Thank you. MR. DANDAR: -- her new offices, actually. MS. CARLUCCI: Yes. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Could you state your name for the record, please. A My name is Dr. Robert D. Davis. Q And how are you currently employed? A I'm employed by District Seven of the state medical examiner's system, which is to say Volusia County. Q And you are a what? A I'm an associate medical examiner. Q Okay. Very briefly, could you describe your background that qualifies you to do what you're doing now, including your education and training? A Okay. Following graduation from medical school, which was the University of Oregon, I had a rotating internship at Philadelphia General Hospital. Following this, I had a four-year residency at the University of Vermont in anatomical and clinical pathology. Following that, I was in the United States Navy as an active reservist stationed in Pensacola. Following that, I was in -- was in practice doing general pathology in Naples, Florida, for a period of about a year. Following that, I was in North Miami at North Miami General Hospital doing the same thing for a period of roughly a year. Following that, I returned to the west coast, having come from there, and I was the pathologist and chief of pathology at a small hospital in Spokane, Washington, and I held that position for some eighteen years. During that period of time, I was elected chief of staff and I was on the board of trustees. During my education, I took and passed boards in anatomical pathology, clinical pathology and subspeciality areas of pathology; specifically, blood banking and forensic pathology. At this time, I do forensic pathology. Q And you were trained -- you actually did some training in forensic pathology or as a medical examiner in Texas; is that right? A That's correct. Q And where was that, exactly? A That was at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences under Dr. Petty and that's -- physically, that's adjacent to Parkland Hospital. Q Right. And you have your certifications. What certifications do you have so far as -- A I just mentioned them. Q Oh, those are the ones that you just mentioned. A Yes, sir. Q Now there came a point when you were hired by the District Six medical examiner, is that right? A There came a point? Q In time. A Yeah. Q You went there and that was in 1991, approximately. A Yeah, right. Q And you stayed there until -- A Just about this time last year. Q So May of 1996. A Yeah. Q And starting in or about May of 1996, you were employed over here? A That's right. Q Okay. You were doing the same thing in District Six as you are here, associate medical examiner? A Hmm-hmm. Yes, sir. Q And approximately how many autopsies have you performed over the years? Any idea? A Oh, boy. That's going to have to be a range, and I think it's -- I want to stay conservative. I would say at least twenty-five hundred. Q Okay. Now did you perform the autopsy of Lisa McPherson? A Yes. Q And did you do that on December 6th, 1995? A To the best of my recollection. Q Okay, well, I'll get a report here. Let me show you what I'll have the reporter mark as our Exhibit One. Now this has been provided to us by the medical examiner in District Six. It's entitled Report of Autopsy. It contains a number of pages, including an amended page four, which has been added recently, but let me show you this, ask you if you can identify it and if it indicates when the autopsy was done by you. THE WITNESS: Okay. Could you repeat the previous question that Mr. Weinberg asked about the date? BY MR. WEINBERG: Q What I had asked is did you perform it on December 6th, 1995. A Yes, on the 6th. Q Okay. Now did you -- do you recognize any of the document I have shown you, which is Exhibit One? A This is the format for this particular office relative to -- relative to the way that we do autopsies, and in glancing at this, this is -- in just looking at this, this is, to the best of my recollection, similar to the work product, at least initially, on Lisa McPherson. Q Okay. Now if you look at this document, I'm going to turn to the second page and there is what is entitled a Protocol -- A Yes. Q -- which begins on the second page and runs for four pages? A Hmm-hmm. Q Now do you recognize the Protocol? A Yes. Q Did you prepare the Protocol? Did you dictate the Protocol? A Well, I didn't -- this is not my work product. I didn't sign this case and I don't know that I can give you an absolute answer relative to everything that's in that Protocol. The person that signed it would be the one to answer the question as to the material present within that report. Q All right, now, when you were in the office -- A Yeah. Q -- you performed the autopsy yourself; is that right? A Yes. Q After performing the autopsy, you dictated a draft of a Protocol; is that right? A A draft, yes. Q Is that right? A A draft. Q The draft of the Protocol is in a form similar to what is contained in Exhibit One? A Similar. Q Right. Is it identical? A I couldn't say. Q Do you know where the draft is? A No, I don't -- I'm not certain that I do. Q Okay. I'm not trying to be difficult. Let me see if I understand this. When an autopsy is performed, after it's done -- A Yes. Q -- the person that has done the autopsy typically dictates notes from the autopsy, which would be referred to as a Protocol; is that right? A Well, different forensic pathologists may do things in different ways and I wouldn't want to leave the impression that the way I do things is the way that everyone does it. I ordinarily take notes and then dictate from my notes. Q Is that what you did -- A And, yes, I do -- I do it after I get through with the case. Q Is that what you did in this case? A Yes. Q Okay. In addition to the Protocol, which is the body of the report that describes the observations and findings from the autopsy, is there typically a cover page that sets forth various conclusions that accompanies the report? A You mean similar to this? Q Yes. A Yes. Q Okay. In this case, did you dictate a draft of a cover page for the autopsy? A I usually do. I don't have an independent recollection with regard to this particular case, since the main thing that needs to be done is to get the Protocol dictated, so, you know, I can't say I have an independent recollection of having categorically done that, but I ordinarily do. Q Is there in any reason why you would not have done a draft of a cover page with regard to this autopsy? A No. Q Okay. let me show you what we'll have the reporter mark as Exhibit Two. MS. CARLUCCI: Are we going off for a minute? (WHEREUPON the proceedings were in recess from 10:17 a.m. until 10:18 a.m.) MS. CARLUCCI: Thank you. MR. WEINBERG: Okay, are you ready? BY MR. WEINBERG: I have now handed you what we've marked as Exhibit Two and let me ask you if you recognize Exhibit Two as a draft that you prepared with regard to the cover page for the Report of Autopsy? A That's -- that is quite consistent, yes -Q Okay. Now -- A -- as a draft. Q Right. Now in this -- on this document, there is some handwriting. Do you recognize the handwriting? A Yes. Q Is that your handwriting? A Yes. Q And do you know when you put that writing on there? Any idea? A As for an exact time and date, no, but, ordinarily, it would probably be at the time that the case was fresh in my mind, i.e., to say around the time it was dictated and/or the Protocol comes back to me after it's been typed up. Q Okay. And does that say, Rule out malnutrition, "slash" dehydration "dash" vitreous? A Yes. Q Now have you had an opportunity, before your deposition, to review Exhibit One, which is the Report of Autopsy? A Yes. Q Okay. And, specifically, did you read the Protocol? A Yes. Q And does it appear any different? I'm talking about the Protocol -not the first page, but the Protocol, itself -- does the Protocol appear any different than what you dictated -- what you recall dictating back in 1995, i.e., have there been any changes -- any meaningful changes made to them? A I'm not sure that I can give an unequivocal answer to that. Can I look at this? Q Sure. Now there is one page -- A Yes, there is a difference. Q -- that has been amended. A I didn't amend it. Q No, I understand that. There are two pages here. There is one page that is the original page four right there -- A Yeah. Q -- and then there is an amended page as noted on the bottom. A I had nothing to do with this. Q With the writing on the bottom. A I had nothing to do with -- Q With the amendment. A I had nothing to do with this writing and I don't independently recall the change of the two pages. Q That's understandable, because there's already been testimony, in this case, from Mr. Bedore that this change of page four was not done until 1997. There was an additional test run. A Oh, okay. Q So I mean, what I'm really asking you is, if you look at the original Protocol as indicated by this document, Number One -- A Uh-huh. Q -- does that appear to be substantial similar to what you dictated back in 1995? MS. CARLUCCI: If you know. THE WITNESS: It appears to be, yeah. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. Now who -- do you recall, in this case, dictating the Protocol, after the autopsy was completed, from your notes? A In -- I think it's safe to say that in my career I have essentially always dictated after the Protocol. I mean -- I'm sorry -- dictated after I completed the autopsy. Q Okay. And do you make hand-written notes or are they notes in a tape recorder? A No, hand-written. Q And where are those notes, do you know? A No. Q Okay. Are these detailed notes? A In my particular case, my format is quite detailed and has got essentially four pages. Q Is it like a form that you fill in? A Yeah, and it's a form that I picked up while I was a resident. Q Okay. If you take Exhibit One as your guide here, can you tell us who -- how did you get to be assigned to do this autopsy, do you know? A The way things worked in our office was that different people had -we essentially had a rotation and I was on a rotation at the time that this case came along and, therefore, it was my case. Q There was no special assignment to you as opposed to someone else? A Oh, no. Q Did you receive any special assignment to you as opposed to someone else? A Oh, no. Q Did you receive any special instructions with regard to this particular autopsy? A No. Q Did you have any discussion with Dr. Wood before you performed the autopsy with regard to this particular autopsy? A Not that I recall. Q Did you have any discussions with the police before you performed the autopsy of Lisa McPherson? A Not that I can recall. Q Can you tell from the Protocol what time the autopsy was done; what time of day? A We used a twenty-four-hundred-hour o'clock, so at 11 a.m. Q And how long did this autopsy take? A Oh, I don't know. Q Do you have a recollection? A No. Q Do you remember this autopsy? A In -- I think, in doing autopsies, certain things may cross your mind about a particular autopsy, but if you ask the question do I remember the entire autopsy and the particulars of each individual aspect, I don't know that I can answer that. Q That wasn't my question, because I can't remember what I did yesterday, you know, thoroughly, but you have some recollection of performing this particular autopsy. A Yes. Q The medical records indicate that Ms. McPherson died the evening before at around 9:30, 9:30 on December the 5th. MR. DANDAR: Objection; that's not supported by any facts, in this case; lack of predicate. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Is there any particular reason why this autopsy was not performed until thirteen or fourteen hours after the death? A Well, ordinarily, in that particular office, the policy set by the chief was that if a person expired, then -- say during the evening or after hours -- okay -- after hours when there weren't the support personnel that were there during the day, it would be the next day. Q You don't have any specific recollection what the reason for the delay was, but the experience was, is that if the death happened after five o'clock, then it might get done the next day; is that typically what would happen? A Yes, that's right. Q Who was present at the autopsy? You indicate on your Protocol, I believe, don't you? A Yes. ID tech, John Grubb, of the sheriff's office. Q And yourself, obviously? A Myself and there would have been an autopsy assistant. Q And so John Grubb was not the autopsy assistant? A Oh, no. Q And what is an autopsy assistant? A The autopsy assistant will help with regard to a variety of difficult tasks, it it's necessary, to -- I mean, to keep things orderly and clean, et cetera; to do things that I may ask him to do, et cetera. Q What was the purpose of John Grubb being there? A I don't know. You'd have to ask John Grubb. Q I'm asking for your recollection. A I don't honestly recall. Q What role do ID technicians from the sheriff's office play during autopsies, if any? A Ordinarily, they are people that will take, oh, things like trace evidence, things like hair and/or whatever may be present and if there's any -- if there's any evidence, the -- that may be turned over by the pathologist, he will turn this over to a representative from the sheriff's office, ordinarily, in cases in which there is -- in which there can be a variety of circumstances. If the cause of death is not -- is immediately obvious -- okay -- or if there's any question about anything, then that person can receive information and/or evidence which could be recovered, say, from a particular body or whatever. Q Now do you have -- was there any evidence whatsoever that was retrieved or taken by Mr. Grubb to be present for the autopsy? A No. Q Okay. Now do you remember who the autopsy assistant was? A We had -- no, I don't remember which of the two. We had two guys. Q Do you remember what their names are? A Claude Stodgel (phonetic), I think was one, and the other guy's name escapes me. I don't recall his name. Q Did you perform the entire autopsy? A Certain things are -- at least in that office -- were delegated as a matter of routine, and to my independent recollection -- I don't specifically recall, in this case -- but such things as obtaining vitreous, such things as obtaining urine or blood in some cases, which is a part of the autopsy, can be delegated to these people -- Q These -- A -- but it would be under my authority. Q These are technician-type people? A That's right, but they're there under my authority. Q You are the -- you were the medical examiner that performed the entire autopsy; is that right? A Yes. Q Okay. Did you do all the sections? Do you know what I mean? A All the sections? Q All the cutting in the autopsy. A Yes. Q You did all that? A Yes. Q You made all the incisions? A The so-called Y-shaped incision, I don't personally recall. I mean, that's when you open the body, but I mean that's just to open the body. Q Did Dr. Wood participate in the autopsy? A I don't recall her presence, but I just don't recall one way or the other. Q If another medical examiner had assisted in performing the autopsy, that would be something that you would typically have noted in your Protocol? A Yes. Q Okay. And your Protocol -- A And I -- and -- well, I'm sorry, go ahead. Q And your Protocol, in this case, does not note that any other medical examiner or associate medical examiner participated in the autopsy, other than yourself, does it? A No, but they can drop into the room from time to time. They can -- you know, there's nothing that precludes that, but, performance, no, I performed the autopsy. Q Was this autopsy treated any different by they District Six office than others that you had participated in? A Than any others? Q Do you know what I mean by that? In other words, was this given special attention? special treatment? special interest? A Any time -- I'm speaking now for myself -- any time I have a case where I am -- well, let's just take an example. If there's a straightforward gunshot wound to the head, it's observed, this, that, the other thing. I go ahead and do the routine autopsy and so on. In a case in which -- in which I wasn't -- I didn't feel comfortable necessarily with the information I had -- okay? -- then -- treat it differently? No. I wouldn't treat it differently, but my awareness I think would be -- would he heightened; that's all I can say. Q My question, on this case, was this -- was this a routine autopsy? A Yes. Q Now you said that John Grubb from the sheriff's office was at the autopsy. Was anybody from the Clearwater Police Department at the autopsy? A Okay. First of all, you have to realize I didn't -- I mean, I didn't sign this, and per what's said here, but the person that did sign it, there's no evidence that somebody else was. Q Do you have any recollection of speaking with a Clearwater Police Department representative prior to doing the autopsy? A Not that I recall. Q Okay. Do you recall conversations with the Clearwater Police Department during the period after the autopsy? A The police -- well, specifically recall conversations, no; however -well, no. Q No? Were you told, either before or after the autopsy, that Lisa McPherson was a scientologist? Did that come up? A Yes, it did. Q Did it come up before the autopsy? A Yes. Q And how did you learn that she was a scientologist, do you recall? A We have investigators that interface on our behalf with appropriate people, be they hospital authorities, police, or whatever. Q So one of your investigators told you? A Well, what they do, they make notes, see, and ordinarily, we go over the notes that they make prior to doing the autopsy. Q So the notes indicated that she -- that Lisa McPherson was a Scientologist? A per my recollection, yes. Q Okay. Did you discuss either -- did you discuss with Dr. Wood before the autopsy that Ms. McPherson was a scientologist? A Not to the best of my recollection. I mean, I didn't have any reason to prior to anything. I mean, I didn't have a knowledge base, as a pathologist, if you see what I mean. Q Did you have discussions with Dr. Wood after the autopsy regarding scientologists or scientology? A No, I recall -- no, not that I can recall. Q Do you recall any remarks by Dr. Wood regarding scientology or scientologists? A Not as a specific thing. She -- I think everyone has ideas about things, but I don't recall any specific comments, no. Q Do you recall that Dr. Wood has made disparaging remarks regarding scientology? A She may have. I don't -- she -- I guess -- I wasn't sought -- I'm not -- I wasn't the kind of person to which she would seek things out and so I don't honestly recall. Q Did it seem to make a difference to Dr. Wood that a scientologist or scientologists had something to do with this particular autopsy? A Not to the best of my recollection. Q Now when you do a Protocol, you try to be as thorough and accurate as possible; is that right? A Attempt to. Q In fact, I mean, that's what you described as the techniques which you sort of designated on your own probably from the training down in Texas, is that your notes are very detailed as to what you see and observe in an autopsy; is that right? A Not totally. The notes are essentially pretty much an exact copy of the format from Dallas, so I mean -- I guess where I'm trying to modify your question, so that I can be exact, is that I didn't extensively change the format; the format is Dallas's. Q The bottom line is, it's thorough and it attempts to identify everything that you consider to be important from your observations of the autopsy? A That's what I try to do. Q And would you be particularly careful and thorough when there is law enforcement interest or presence during the autopsy? A I think I would go through the same format in the same way that's present here and there may be a greater or a lesser degree of information that would be present on all of my Protocols. Q Okay. If you go to your Protocol -- and let's assume for a moment that what you have there is substantially similar to what you dictated. By the way, is it your experience that there would be any material revision to Protocols that are are dictated by medical examiners? A Mine, there certainly is. Q Excuse me? A Mine, there certainly is, yes. Q And the reason is what? A Well, when -- okay. When I have the information that I feel I need -okay? -- I will go ahead and plug that in. For instance, when I get through dictating the four pages, there's certain things that I don't have, okay? I don't have the things that, for instance, you mentioned on page four largely, okay? Q The lab data. A Yeah, and the microscopics, the toxicology and that stuff, and that can relate in -- and then at the same time, at that point -- okay? -- I try and handle a particular case or a piece of paper as infrequently as I can so it doesn't clutter things up. In other words, if I have a quarter of a case, I'm not going to sit down and go through a quarter of a case, because then I've got to go through it three or four more times, if you follow me. Q No, do I follow you. Let me change the question a little bit. When you dictate a Protocol with regard to your external examination, your observation of what the body looked like when you get there, typically what you dictated is what would end up in the autopsy report. Someone isn't going to change that; right? Is that right, for the most part? A Not necessarily. Q Okay. A That's -- Q Someone would go back who wasn't even present and change your depiction of your observations of the body? MR. DANDAR: Objection; lack of predicate. MR. WEINBERG: Go ahead. THE WITNESS: It depends on who -- you know, if someone signs something, I have no way to know that may or may not have been done. I can't say that person X wouldn't change or alter something. I'm not saying it did or didn't happen. I don't know. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right, well, look at the External Examination. You had a chance to review that today or whenever you prepared for it. When you began the autopsy, you found a white female who you described as normally developed; is that right? A Yes. Q And you described her as, quote, average nutritional status; is that right? Is that what you said? A That's what this says. From my own independent recollection, I don't recall having used the -- having said that. I mean, I -- you know -- but, I don't -- I think that leads back to the question of "can things be changed" and yes, they can be changed. Q Well, what does -- when you use the words "average nutritional status", what does that mean? When a medical examiner uses those words, what does that mean? A Okay. What it means to me is that a particular person is not at extremes; in other words, massively obese or emaciated. Q That would be a person that would be well-nourished; right? A person of average nutritional status would be a person that was well-nourished; right? A Yeah, I think so. Q Okay. Now in describing the external examination here, if you look at that first paragraph of the Protocol, you do not say in there that her eyes are sunken, do you? MS CARLUCCI: I'm going to put an objection of the record. This is Anne Carlucci for Dr. Davis. I just need to make sure that the record is clear that we have not been provided a copy of Dr. Davis' original Protocol. He's not had an opportunity to review it prior to this deposition. he's not seen it since he left the medical examiner's office in District Six, and if he is asked questions regarding the particular Protocol of the final autopsy report which was authored and signed by someone else, I want it clear that the record should reflect that he has not had an opportunity to review his original document and compare it with the particular final document and any opinions that he offers with regard to this final document have to have that proviso on them. He has no idea what his original Protocol said, other than from his independent recollection. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, let's go to page four. MR. DANDAR: And he doesn't have any original notes or anything? MS. CARLUCCI: That is correct. Everything was sent back. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Let's go to page four; the original page four -- okay -- as marked at the bottom. See that? A Original page four. Q Right. At the top of that is the end of the four-page Protocol, okay? Go back four pages and you'll see that the Protocol starts on page one and ends at the top of page four -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- all right? And at the bottom, right after it says, "The brain is retained". there are three initials, RDD "colon" ME. Now who is RDD? A That's me. Q And who is ME? A Marian Espisito. Q Okay. Now does that indicate that you dictated those four pages before that? Is that what that indicates? MS. CARLUCCI: I'm going to renew my objection to that question. We've already put on the record that he did not author this piece of paper and whether or not there have been any alterations from the original Protocol, we have no way of knowing. MR. WEINBERG: Anne, I mean, I don't want to get into an argument, but I don't know how you can say he didn't author this -- the original Protocol. MS. CARLUCCI: We don't know. We have no way of authenticating that that's the original Protocol. MR. WEINBERG: That's what I'm trying to do here is show him his initials. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you know why your initials would appear at the end of those four pages? A Anybody's initials can appear. I think the key thing is who signs the case. Q Well -- A I mean, because -- I mean -- Q Well, let's do it another way. You're not saying you didn't dictate a Protocol, are you? A No. Q You're not saying that you didn't dictate a section called External Examination, are you? A No. Q You're not saying you didn't dictate a section called Evidence of Treatment; is that right? A No. Q And you're not saying you didn't dictate a section called Evidence of Injury; is that right? A That's right. Q Or a section called Internal Examination; right? A That's right. Q Or Central Nervous System or Urinary System or Genital System or Hepatobilary System, Gastrointestinal Tract, Lymphoproliferative System, Muscolskeletal System or Miscellaneous. You're not saying you didn't dictate sections entitled that; is that right? A That's right. Q And you do recall also dictating a section called Brain After Fixation a period of time after you originally dictated a draft of the Protocol; is that right? A Hmm-hmm. MR. DANDAR: That's a yes; right? MR. WEINBERG: That's a yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And you also remember dictating a section called Microscopic Description with regard to the lung. You remember doing that, too, don't you? A Yeah, I believe so. Q Okay. So it is -- so what you're not -- you're not saying that you didn't dictate a detailed Protocol with regard to what you did as the medical examiner on the autopsy of Lisa McPherson; is that right? A That's right. Q Okay. And you have looked at this four-page Protocol, at least the pages that end with the sections that have your initials in it, and from looking at them, they appear similar to what you dictated; is that right? MR. DANDAR: Object to the form of the question. His initial only comes a the very end of page four. MR. WEINBERG: No, the end of page four and then under Microscopic Description on page four. MR. DANDAR: Well, correct, both on page four. MR. WEINBERG: That's what I said. THE WITNESS: Again, rephrase the -- repeat the question. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Yeah. The Protocol that you -- the draft of the Protocol that you dictated is similar in form and content to this document that I've put in front of you; is that right? A It is similar in form, and as for the word "content", I didn't sign this and I don't know that there may or may not have been alterations. Q You don't know whether there are any alterations. A No. Q Is there anything, from reading through the Protocol, that you can recall has -- was different when you first dictated it? Different in substance. I'm not talking about commas or quotation marks. A I can't. I really can't recall. Q Okay. Now did you indicate in your Protocol that your observations were that Ms. McPherson was severely dehydrated? Did you indicate that in the Protocol that you drafted? A I -- to my recollection, I had a question of that and when that -- at least the way I do things if I question it -- there are certain studies that can be done. Q Okay. Now did you, in your Protocol that you dictated, indicate -what are the indications of dehydration; severe dehydration that you would find in doing an examination of a body? A I think that's a function of a particular pathologist. I know a number of people that use the word "turgor", which is basically looking at the skin. I don't use that, because it's a clinical term. The -- I prefer, if I can, to refer to Hippocratic facies, and the reason is because there are multiple aspects to that. Q Yeah. Well, what's Hippocratic facies while we're at it? A Okay. First of all, "facies" refers to a particular facial appearance and it's a gaunt look, if you will. The skin is tight -- okay? -- to palpation or to feeling. You don't feel an abundance of soft tissue. The orbits, which is to say the rims around the eyes are prominent, okay? The globes or eyeballs tend to be sunken. The cheek bones are prominent. Right here -- (indicating) -- okay? The cheeks tend to be sunken and the jaw -- mandible or jaw bones tend to be prominent. And, as i say, to me, the word "gaunt" is a -- perhaps a word that lay people can relate to. Q What else do you expect to find -- would you expect -- what I'm asking you is, what would you expect to find in an autopsy from observation of a person who would be characterized as severely dehydrated? A That -- okay -- for one thing. You said "what else." Certainly if there's crusting; for instance, if things -- if there's drying that is -- in other words, if secretions from organs or say -- for instance, say, from the nose or the mouth, if there's no obvious liquid and it appears dry, that would cross my mind. Q What else? A Those are the things that would alert me predominantly -- okay? -- to go ahead and raise that question, and in terms of - and I think, with those things, that would be enough, for me at least, to raise the question and to follow. If there were appropriate things that I could do from a supportive standpoint with regard to the autopsy, i.e., other tests, I would attempt to have those done. Q Now in a person that was severely dehydrated, would you expect that, upon examination, the tissues and organs inside the body would be sticky, not smooth and glistening? A That's possible, but, again, that's - to me, that's subjective. Q Did you note any stick, not smooth and glistening organs of Lisa McPherson? A To my independent recollection on my draft, I don't really recall. Q If you found organs that were not smooth and glistening, in other words, that were sticky -- do you understand what I mean by a sticky appearance? A Yes. Q -- you would have noted that in your Protocol? A Having noted these things externally would certainly alert me to the condition of possible dehydration and malnutrition and would have been probably, to me, of sufficient importance that I would have emphasized that over stickiness of capsules or of things like that. Hippocratic facies, for instance, is far more obvious, in my opinion, than what you're talking about. Q Well, but what -- there are degrees of dehydration, I take it; is that right, Dr. Davis? A There's degrees, yes. Q Right. Dr. Wood, earlier this year, went on national tabloid television and said, to a national TV audience, with regard to Lisa McPherson, that, quote, This is the most severe case of dehydration I have ever seen. Now was this the most severe case of dehydration that you, Dr. Davis, had ever seen? MR. DANDAR: Objection. There's another improper predicate. We don't know at what point in time you're asking this witness at what time he saw dehydration compared -- MR. WEINBERG: Are you objecting to the form of the question? MR. DANDAR: Just a minute. MR. WEINBERG: Well, fine, object to it and let's go on. MR. DANDAR: -- as opposed to when Dr. Wood made that comment, at what point in time. MR. WEINBERG: That's not a proper objection. If you want to make objections to form, fine, and then we'll go on and ask them. MR. DANDAR: I made my objection. MR. WEINBERG: Fine. You don't have to make a speech. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you understand my question? A Yes, My style is not to use superlatives. I find -- to me -- so, I'm trying to answer your question, okay? Q All right. If you had believed that this was the most severe case of dehydration you had ever seen, that would have been prominent in your autopsy Protocol, would it not? A The -- the things that I emphasize are the Hippocratic facies, which are associated with significant dehydration and malnutrition; those are the things that I look at, and, to me, they are associated with -- I prefer to use the word "significant", perhaps. I don't want to get into -- go beyond that. Q Well, is there a reason why you would not use the word "dehydration" in your protocol? A I think you can -- I think you can -- again, that can be subjective, and I think you need a combination of different things to come to a particular conclusion in terms of say a front page, if you will. Q Well, I don't know -- I don't quite understand that. A person that is average of -- of average nutritional status would not be suffering from malnutrition, would they? A Here's -- Q I mean, could you just answer that question and then explain it? MS. CARLUCCI: If you can. THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure that I necessarily can give a black and white answer to that. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q As to whether a person who is of average nutritional status was suffering from malnutrition? A I would, again, refer to what I do recall dictating and putting in my draft, Hippocratic facies; that, to me, was a prominent thing because it has a variety of components to it and it, to me, is a flag to perhaps look at other things. Q Did Dr. Wood discuss with you before going on national tabloid television? A No. Q Did she seek your support with regard to whatever opinions she was going to express on national television? A No. Q Did you watch the show? A Yes, I did. Q Did you discuss, at any time while you were still in the ME's office, with Dr. Wood your opinions with regard to the manner of death and/or cause of death of Lisa McPherson. A No. At the time I left, the question was in the air, as far as I was concerned. Q What question was in the air? A As to what you just asked me. Q What is the -- what is the descriptive term "manner of death"? A Okay, "Manner of death" is what can be expressed or what is expressed on the death certificate and can consist of a variety of different situations. Q Which are? A Listed in -- and no particular order -- natural; suicide; homicide; accident; undetermined. Q Okay. A I mean, those are -- yeah, that's what I recall. Q Okay. You did not reach a conclusion as to the manner of death in this case? A I did not. Q Well, did you discuss with Dr. Wood what the conclusion ought to be? A No. Q Did Dr. Wood -- did you overhear any discussions where Dr. Wood set forth her opinions as to the manner of death? A No, I didn't. Q Okay. Were you leaning toward one of the five? A No. There were -- I take signing that death certificate very seriously and there were aspects to the case that I did not have and so I didn't feel that I could be responsible, and I take that very seriously and -- Q Did you tell -- I'm sorry, go ahead. A Well, I mean, that's it. Q Did you tell that to anybody? A Tell that to anybody? Q Did you tell Dr. Wood that you weren't prepared to sign out the death certificate? A Yes. Q And what did she say? A Oh, I don't recall. I don't think there was a particular -- you know, I don't honestly recall what she may or may not have said. She did not discuss the case with me and - but I didn't have circumstances, in particular, okay? I didn't have circumstances surrounding the case that would help me to the extent I needed it or I felt I needed it to be able to give a manner of death. Q Well, what circumstances did you need? A At the time I left the office, the police were involved and I did not have a police report. At the time I left the office, as I recall -- and I don't recall the exact specifics, but there had been some material in the press and the -the press is not my bible. I -- and the potential for innuendo, the potential for implications, the potential for a variety of things that could affect the manner just were not available at the time I left that office. Q Well, was -- were you urged to make a conclusion as to a particular manner of death by the police? A No. Q Were you urged to make a conclusion as to a particular manner of death by Dr. Wood? A No. Q Was any pressure put on you to reach a particular conclusion in this case? A I don't mean to be -- people don't tend to put pressure on me. Q So the answer is no? A No one put pressure on me -- okay -- to do whatever. Q What I'm really asking you is, is was there -- did some friction or tension arise between you and either the police or Dr. Wood as to what should be done with the conclusions on this autopsy? A No. The case was not signed out when I left. Q Because you wouldn't sign it out. A I didn't have the circumstances. It wouldn't be fair to the case and I'm not going to sign a death certificate when I don't know what's going on. Q How long can one hold a death certificate or an autopsy before it's signed out? A A death certificate can always be pending -- okay? -- and what I would usually do, if I had any question about anything -- and this would include such things, say, as getting back microscopics or what have you -- I would "pend" the case, and while I don't -- while I don't specifically recall, I probably "pended" this case, so -- Q What's that mean, "pended"? A "Pend" means pending something. It means pending investigation, okay? It could mean pending receiving microscopic slides. It could be pending other tests -- okay? -- serologic tests, which is a bit way for saying looking for certain kinds of antibodies; a variety of things. Pending a bunch of things. Q Well, you figured out, during your autopsy, what killed Lisa McPherson, didn't you? A No. Q Didn't you conclude that she died as a result of a pulmonary embolism? A Oh, I think -- I think that I had impressions, but I mean that is the reason, okay? The -- okay. How can I phrase this? The wording of this front sheet is mandated by the chief medical examiner, okay? Q Yeah. A Now I have nothing to say about -- like say, for instance, this? Q This Final Anatomic Diagnoses? A That's correct, see. Now by comparison, where I was trained and the way I would do it, would be to use the word "provisional", okay? Q Hmm-hmm. A When I first came there, I did that, and I was told, We don't do that; don't do that in that office, but that's -- I didn't like that. Q Now looking at Exhibit Two, is this a document which you prepared? A It's got my -- this is my handwriting here. When you say "prepared" -- Q It's got your initials at the bottom of that Final Anatomical Diagnoses -- A Yeah. Q -- right? A Yeah. Q Now -- A Now, but your question. I don't recall doing something like this in any case. Q You mean writing a circle on it? A Yeah. Q Well, someone may have done that after, but I'm just asking about the typing on this document, which is, other than the background information, what's typed on the document is "Final Anatomical Diagnoses", thromboembolus left main pulmonary artery, thrombosis of the left popliteal vein, multiple old and recent hematomas, extremities, and abrasion of the nose. A Hmm-hmm. Q Now -- did I read that correctly? A Yes. Q Now, what did you typically, when you would prepare the Report of Autopsy, once you started abiding by whatever Dr. Wood wanted in this office, what would end up under the Final Anatomical Diagnoses? I mean, what goes there? A Okay. What goes there is the combination of the findings, i.e., the autopsy and the ancillary parts. We alluded previously to a variety of different kinds of tests. Okay, those are the findings, and then there are, if appropriate, the circumstances, which is to say the history surrounding the particular situation and then correlation of that. In addition, at least in my case, at that point, I would do the proofreading that you were questioning previously, okay? Q All right. Not if you go to the final report that Dr. Wood signed off on, you'll see that those same Final Anatomical Diagnoses that you -- A Excuse me. Q -- I'm sorry -- dictated are there and then in addition she adds "severe dehydration." A Hmm-hmm. Q Do you see that? Yes? A Hmm-hmm. Q Yes; is that right? Yes? A I'm sorry. Yes. Q Yes. Okay. You did not add "severe dehydration"; is that correct? A That's correct. Q Okay. Now, also, on the final Report of Autopsy, your draft has nothing for manner of death or immediate cause of death; is that right? A That's right. Q Hers says, "Manner of Death, Undetermined"; right? A That's right. Q And what does that mean to a medical examiner when you put "manner of death, undetermined"? A I can't -- I don't want to be put in the position of speaking for all medical examiners. Q Well, your experience in District Six. A Okay. I strive to come to a conclusion amongst any of the other four if I can, okay? "Undetermined" will occur, and it may vary from office to office, maybe three to five percent, I'd say, maximum. I would hope other offices don't exceed that. And what it may come down to is that you just cannot make a distinction amongst the other possibilities that I previously alluded to -- okay? -as to the cause of death -- I'm sorry -- as to the manner of death. Q Now, eventually, then, in this case, would you have had to have chosen one of the five if you had stayed at the office and been responsible for signing out? A I would eventually, yes. Q And if you can't conclude what it is, then you put "undetermined"; is that what "undetermined" is? A I can't speak for that, because I'm not privy to what transpired historically at that office. Q I'm talking about you. MS CARLUCCI: He's not asking you about -- this -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I'm talking about you. If you can't figure out what it is, then you put "undetermined"; is that what you do? A If I can't figure it out. Q Okay. Now was there any discussion with law enforcement as to how you were leaning regarding the manner of death? A No. Q Was there any discussion with Dr. Wood as to how you were leaning with regard to the manner of death? A Not that I recall. Q Did you write any memos in the file reflecting your opinions or leanings with regard to the manner of death? A I may have. I don't recall, specifically. Frankly, I just -- I honestly -- honestly don't recall. Q Do you recall any discussions in the office between people in the office and law enforcement as to what the manner of death ought to be? A Not formal discussions at all. The police from all jurisdictions frequently come by to discuss cases. Q I'm talking about this case, though. A In this case, I recall no format discussions. Off-the-wall opinions, everybody can have an opinion, but, I -- Q I don't know what a formal discussion with the police is. What I'm asking you is, is any discussions that you can recall with people in the office and people from the Clearwater Police Department as to the manner of death and the cause of death, in this case? A I think there -- I think there probably were, but I didn't have sufficient information for me to feel comfortable with regard to differentiating amongst the remaining four. Q Four manners you're talking about. A Yes. Q Now what do you recall the discussion consisted of with law enforcement concerning the manner and/or cause of death? A Law enforcement does not get involved unless the death is, quote, suspicious, unquote, and that can cover a whole spectrum of different things, okay? And, casual conversation only I think may have related to the fact that there were questions that were unanswered, particularly with regard to circumstances. Q What were those questions and what were the circumstances? A I think there was concern -- well, I don't really specifically recall. i do recall they had some questions, but as to what exactly they were, I'm not quite sure. Q Who is "they"? A Oh, I don't recall. Q From the Clearwater Police Department? A I don't know how many police there are in the department, you know, but, I mean, all over the place. There's cops also from different jurisdictions floating by. Q Well, that's what I'm asking you -- A I mean, I'm not sitting there taking notes on who -- I mean, I don't -- you know, you don't have time to do that and still do your job. Q Well, did Joan Wood have some questions that she raised with you regarding facts or circumstances? A She -- not with me, no. Q Well, in -- A I mean, I had -- you know, I was waiting for circumstances. Q That's what I'm trying to get at. Waiting for what circumstances? A I would liked to have had a formal police report, okay? I would have liked to have felt perhaps -- perhaps a greater degree of documentation concerning what happened to her, you know, when she was -- I guess from the time she was seen in -- or had this minor auto accident until the time of pronouncement of death. Q Did you ask for information? A I think that -- I, personally? No. Stuff went through the chief. Dr. Wood was the chief. And I feel that -- in other words, I didn't initiate a call to the police and ask them for anything. What I'm to say, is that she was the -- she's the chief of the department and if there were any things that were set up ordinarily, she would do it and it may well be behind closed doors. I don't know. Q Did you ask Dr. Wood to request documentation from the police? A I didn't feel that I needed to. I expressed to her the fact that I did not have it and couldn't sign it out until I got it. Q Was that in a personal conversation with her? A Oh, it may have been in the hall; it may have been wherever. I'm not sure. Q Did you tell her what you needed in order to be able to sign it out? A I mean, she could figure that out. I mean, that's like me telling you, you know, what comes after A, B, C. Q Did you do any investigation -- did you have any investigation done by anyone in the office -- A No. Q -- regarding the circumstances. A No. Q Why not? A Well, why would I? Q I'm asking you. I mean, you said you needed information to sign out the case. You all have investigators; correct? A Well -- okay -- yes, we have investigators, but their investigation is, to an extent, associated with intake of information. It also can be associated with other situations and I don't personally recall, one way or the other, whether or not I asked an investigator perhaps -- okay? -to try and get any additional information. I just don't recall one way or the other. Q Maybe you can try to explain it to me, because I'm a novice and you've obviously been doing this for a long time -- THE WITNESS: Excuse me, can I use the little boy's room? MS. CARLUCCI: Let's take a break. (WHEREUPON the proceedings were in recess from 11:26 a.m. until 11:35 a.m.) BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Let me show you what I've marked as Composite Exhibit Three, which are the documents that you produced pursuant to your subpoena today. (Witness reviewing documents) MR. WEINBERG: That's the order; right? MS CARLUCCI: Yes. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. WEINBERG: All right, now, for the record, I'm just going to identify these. This is a composite document. Dr. Davis turned them over this morning. The first document is a Report of Autopsy. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q On this document, if I can just share it with you, Doctor -- A Sure. Q -- there is a post-it which says, "To Dr. Davis from Larry Bedore", and the document would indicate that it was faxed to you on December 23rd, 1996? A At some point -- and I don't honestly recall the exact date, but it was in December of '96 -- there were, on two consecutive days, two phone calls to our office and I don't honestly recall -- I'm not sure whether this was sent initially and then the calls or vice versa. he might just have faxed this and then the calls came or -- Q Who were the calls from? A From Dr. Wood with Larry Bedore in her office. Q And what -- can you describe for us what took place in those calls? A Well, one, they were initiated, as I think I said, by them; number two, to the best of my recollection, she said for me not to talk with anyone. She expressed concern that this case and I had looked at that and I commented to her that I noted that she signed it, and I believe it was Mr. Bedore that said and -- something to the effect that I was also involved, and I pointed out that I had not had a conversation with her from the time I left that office, except for a DNA meeting with occurred in St. Petersburg in which I passed her and said "hello" and those were the only words I had had. I had not been consulted on the case and I didn't sign the case and I said as much. And, in essence, Mr. Bedore alluded to my also being involved. Well, I did the -- you know, I did the autopsy, but I didn't -- you know, I think I explained to you the level of my absence of knowledge as of the date that I left that office relative to the circumstances -- okay? -- so, I had -- I felt -MS. CARLUCCI: What was the conversation about? THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay, then she -- then I think it was the second day that she told me -- or on the second phone call, that's what I mean, which occurred the next day -- that she was sending me my personnel records and this also -- I mean, Mr. Bedore was in the room. I don't know who else may or may not have been in the room, but she frequently would have Mr. Bedore in the room when she was talking, and I believe he alluded to the fact that would I like to -- Well, first of all, I want to make a distinction. She told me -- okay? -- she didn't say Do you want your personnel records? She said, I am sending you your personnel records, period -- okay? -- and I -- a little hard for me to figure that out. I mean, I had been over there employed for I don't know how long, but, regardless -- And then I believe it was Mr. Bedore who said, Would you also like to review the slides on Lisa McPherson? So I said, If you want to send them and you're going to send this -- you've decided you're going to send it, you can send them. After that conversation, I tried to add the thing up and I just -- it just -- it didn't sound right, and I believe it was the next day that a FedEx thing came addressed to me; it was brought in by the secretaries at the front desk and was given to me and I put it in my office and I did not open it. Okay. The office is locked at night. We have magnificent security in our building. I won't -- but it's beautiful. What I'm saying is, the office -- okay -- and the entire building is -- I mean, you -- it's very secure. Okay. Within the next couple of days -- and I don't recall exactly when -- I still had not opened this, and I took this and I discussed the case with Dr. Reeves -- Dr. Reeves is the chief here -- and I told him what had transpired, and he said, Fine. He took the -- he took the package and he put it in his office and he put it in a locked drawer; that package was never opened. So that, basically, is pretty much what I recall. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Was there some more conversations with Dr. Wood after you put the package in the locked drawer? A No. Q Did you send the package back? A Yes. Q And was there some conversation with Dr. Wood about it getting back? A My attorney handled the situation in cooperation with the office, including such things as, but perhaps not restricted to, conversation with Dr. Wood's attorney, making it very specific that, one, we were sending that package back unopened; two, we were not accepting or verifying or making any conclusions as to what was or was not present in the package, not knowing that; number three, that this was going to come back via courier, okay? A courier came one evening around 6:00 and this guy -- you know, he was a regular cabbie, okay? He wasn't a courier, he was a cabbie, and this was the decision made, correct me if I'm wrong, I guess by Dr. Wood or her attorney -- I don't know -- anyway, but I'm sure he hadn't been through the third degree like he was there. He had his picture taken. He had -- you know, they had him make a signature thing. They had a copy of his driver's license. They had him make a statement that, as far as he could see, it hadn't been opened and all this other stuff, and all this was videotaped. Q The bottom line is, you eventually sent the stuff back; is that right? A Yeah, I sent the thing back without touching it. Q Through the cabbie. A Yeah. Q Okay. Now let's go back to how this started, and it started by a series of phone calls from Dr. Davis. A Excuse me? Q I mean, from Dr. Wood, I apologize. A Yeah, please do. Q A series of phone calls from Dr. Wood to Dr. Davis; right? A Yeah. Q And you said, first, that she expressed -- that is, Dr. Wood expressed that she had some concern about this case? Did she -- what did she -- can you articulate -- A She told me not to talk to anybody about the case; not to talk to any of the parties involved; not to talk to -- and then we went down the line -- not to talk to -- and this is in no particular order, because I don't recall the exact order -- okay -but not to talk to the police; not to talk to the paper; not to talk to the state's attorney; not to talk to the scientologists; not to talk to the family. Don't talk to anybody. Q Did she say why? A She said she was concerned about the case. Q Did she say what her concern about the case was? A She felt it was a very high profile case and could -- here again, I want you to understand this is paraphrasing. Q I understand. A Okay, I mean -- Q Your best recollection of the sum and substance of what she said. A Yeah, okay. Q High profile case and -- A Yeah, and controversial case. Q Did she explain further what was high profile and what was controversial about it? A She was worried -- Okay. I think she was concerned with regard to -- MS. CARLUCCI: Doctor, not what you think; what she said. THE WITNESS: Okay. What she said? All right. I hate to do that. She had recently bought a home and she told me this -- I mean, I knew she bought the home -- but she bought a home from the scientologists or from a person who was a scientologist. She was having her home scanned or debugged, or whatever the word is, to have some private guy go in and make sure there aren't any things around. She advised me to do the same. I just -- I mean, I'm somewhat paranoid sometimes about some things, but, anyway, that's what she said. I think those were her concerns. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did she express any other -- did she make any other statements either in that conversation or in the following conversation about scientologists or scientology? A Okay. First of all, I have had no other conversations with her. Q Well, there were two that you described. A Okay, I'm saying since then. Q Okay. A She was -- she was I guess fearful and I guess she was concerned. Q Well, did she make -- well, let me just say this -- A Yeah. Q -- until last December or when these articles appeared in the newspaper, I didn't know -- A Two things. Q Okay. A There are two Decembers. Which December are you talking about? Q Since December of 1996, when -- A Oh. Q -- when the articles that are in this package of material that I'm about to show you, that you've turned over today, appeared in the newspaper, I didn't know scientology from a -- from anything else. I'd never represented anybody in scientology. I'm just here doing this case. A Okay. Q Obviously, there are a lot of implications from something where there is a criminal investigation in addition to a significant legal case; it's very important. It's important to Mr. Dandar and it's important to the Church of Scientology. A Hmm-hmm. Q I know that, from what you've described, that you felt like you were put in a difficult position by these phone calls from Dr. Wood -- at least that's the sense of what I get from you -- but it really is important to us and to Mr. Dandar that you be as depictive and complete as possible in your description of the best that you can recall that Dr. Wood and Mr. Bedore said in those calls as they relate to this case and scientology, all right? Can you be -- you know , you've now described what she said about debugging the house. What else did she say in those conversations, or did Mr. Bedore say, that -- of significance? A Okay. She said that scientologists were unpredictable and that there may be reason to have -- be fearful concerning them. Q Fearful for your life, you mean? A Just to be fear -- no, she didn't mention "life." She said just to be fearful concerning them. Q Okay. What else did she say? A To the best of my recollection, that's it. I want to perhaps -- I mean, I was not comfortable with having been called, okay? I'm not sitting there making notes -- okay? -- and I'm not trying to be -- I mean, I've told you what I recall. Q This was an unusual conversation for you; is that correct? A Yes, I think it's fair to say it's unusual. Q Have you ever had the chief medical examiner call you and tell you not to discuss the case with the police? A No. Q Now I had asked you earlier, but I'll ask you again, in light of this conversation. While you were in the medical examiner's office over in Pinellas County handling this case, or any other case for that matter, do you recall occasions where Dr. Wood or people in her office made comments regarding scientology or scientologists? A I recall -- and again, you know, I don't recall the exact situation, but there was concern that if -- and I'm trying to think of the drug -- if there was a case where -- and the name escapes me now, but it's a common psychotherapeutic drug -- okay -if you follow me. Okay. If that drug had been found by us -- okay? -- she was concerned that the press would know about it before we had issued a report, okay? And again, I'm not saying that she personally enunciated these particular things, but it was -- I think there was concern that there may have been some manner in which this got out perhaps from our office. Q But did this relate to the Lisa McPherson case or -- A Oh, no, no,no. No, just generically. Q But is it related to scientology? A Yeah. Q In the conversations that you had with Dr. Wood in the December of 1996 time frame that you've just testified about, did she make any pejorative -- do you understand -- A Yeah, I understand. Q -- comments about scientologists or scientology? A I have described to you what she said. Now I think you can put that in your own frame and you can interpret -- okay, I'm sorry. Q What was her and Mr. Bedore's -- how would you characterize the manner in which they were speaking to you? I mean, for example, were they -- I mean, was this -- A I think they felt that -- well -- Q How did you interpret it? A I was uncomfortable with it. I didn't like it. Q Did you feel threatened by them? A By them? Did I think they would hurt me? Q No. No. No. No. I didn't mean that. You suggested that Mr. Bedore, before the first conversation, said "You're also involved." A Yes. Q Well, did you take that as some sort of warning or a threat or how did you take that? A I didn't like it. Q And why didn't you like it? A Because I didn't sign the report. Q Well, did you get the impression that they were trying to get you to sign off on whatever Dr. Wood had signed off on? A As I -- to repeat, Mr. Bedore volunteered to send me the slides. He volunteered for me to make any changes and/or additions that I might with to on the report -- okay? -- and then I have these phone calls, and yes, I would interpret that as trying to get me involved. Q Was there any particular issue with regard to the autopsy that they wanted you to focus on or they were focused on? A Not that they enunciated. Q Okay. Did they express why they were concerned about the autopsy; I mean, other than what you've said, which is "This is a high profile case." Was there something about it that concerned them? A No. Q Is this typical conduct for Joan Wood's office, this sort of thing that you've described? A That's a hard question for me to answer, and -- I mean, a lot of things occur behind closed doors, you know, that I'm not privy to, and the way I envisioned myself and the way I worked there is that I had my cases, I did my cases and that's what I looked at. I'm not a politician, see. If I had to live -- make a living as a politician, I'd be out on the street. Q You'd be there with me. A Yeah. Q You said that Dr. Wood told you that she was sending you your -- a copy of your personnel file. A That's correct. Q I take it no one's ever told you that they were sending you a copy of your personnel file before; is that right? A That's correct. She also said she had been advised to do that. Q By? A You're going to -- I'm not sure whether she said -- got specific of -- you know, I'm -- I'm just not sure, but she said -- she did say that she had been advised to send me my personnel file, number one; and number two, no, no one else has ever done that. Q Is it -- whether you can remember the person's name, is it your impression that it was a lawyer that advised her? the police that advised her? I mean, what - A I would think a lawyer. Q Okay. Did you -- what did sending your personnel records by Dr. Wood have anything to do with the issue of the autopsy of Lisa McPherson? A I can't put myself in her head and I really truly can't. I mean, that's a very difficult thing for someone to do. Q I can concur with that. A Well, I didn't -- okay. Q I spent two days taking her deposition, Dr. Davis. I understand what you're talking about. MR. DANDAR: Move to strike -- MS CARLUCCI: Do you know or do you not know? MR. DANDAR: -- unresponsive. MR. WEINBERG: Go ahead. MR. DANDAR: Go ahead. THE WITNESS: What was the question again? Repeat the question. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q What did sending your personnel records to you by Dr. Wood have to do with the issue regarding Lisa McPherson's autopsy? A I don't know. Q Did you feel that this was somehow pressure being applied to you? Is that how you took it? A No. No, I didn't. I mean as far as I could see, I wasn't even -- I wasn't involved. I mean, I had been gone from that office for five months. I was no longer a member of that office. I had nothing to do with this case, okay? I had signed out -- okay? -- because I felt it and -- a moral -- Q "Signed out"; you mean left? A No, I, morally -- Okay. When I left, there were -- and I tend to keep my cases tight and close -- okay? -- so I keep them relatively up-to-date. So I had signed out, because I felt it was right, some twenty-four cases; all of them from 1996, okay? Q Hmm-hmm. A Now then, relative to the staff, in particular, at -- between District Six and District Seven, we -- it was certainly a cooperative arrangement and I don't know whether I legally had to do that, but I felt that morally, I did, and I went ahead and signed them out. I -- that's what I did. Q Okay. But you didn't sign out the Lisa McPherson one. A No. Q And did you -- I know we've talked about this, but I just want to make sure, in light of the conversation with Dr. Wood - A Okay. All right. Q -- did you not sign it out because Dr. Wood wouldn't let you sign it out? A Oh, no. No. No. No. Had nothing to do with that. Q You had a file put together on Lisa McPherson? A No. Q Was there an office file on Lisa McPherson? A No. What are you talking about now? I mean, at what point in time are you talking about? Q Over in the ME's office in Pinnelas County, is there some sort of file folder that would be the file folder for the Lisa McPherson autopsy? A Well, there should be. Q And what should be in that file folder? A Oh, pretty standard things. The invest notes, say, from investigators, which follows chronologically what goes on. A That would be your investigators or the police investigators? A Our investigators. Q Okay. A Okay? The particulars on the case, such as the time that the case came in, how it was brought to us, the accessioning of the case -- in other words, giving it a particular number and designation -- those sorts of things; then, say, if there were clothing or if there were other things that came in with the body, these would be enumerated; these would be documented -- okay? and then the autopsy Protocol itself, once that was completed. Once that was completed, if there were -- if it were a case that, say, was a legal case or a case in which the police were involved, if there were evidence that was turned over, what the evidence may have been; to whom it was turned over; their signature; my signature, if it were my case -- okay? -- and that's called the Evidence Sheet; what special tests, if any, were ordered. Q Slides? Histological slides? A Well, it was up to me to make the slides -- okay? -- and I made the slides. As for that being a part of -- well, that is -- that is part and parcel -- okay -- of a particular case. It can vary with the case from essentially having no slides -- okay -- to having a room full of slides. Q In this case, there were some slides. A There were some slides, yeah. Q And there was a -- they were slides, but they were also a paraffin block? A Oh, yeah, that's where you get the slides. Q Okay. A Make the slides off the paraffin blocks. Q And then there were photographs? A Yes. Q And there would be what's called a tissue cup or something where some parts -- A Yeah, that's the gross tissues. Q Okay. Was there anything else generally that would be at the medical examiner's office while you were there with regard to Lisa McPherson? A Anything -- anything that would represent a suspicious death in which -- or a death in which the police were involved in any manner or form -- let's suppose there's an accident. The police get called to the accident, okay? They fill out a form and that's going to be present in there, you see? Q Your notes of the autopsy should be there? A Yeah. Q Was Prozac, by the way, the drug you were thinking of? A Prozac, yeah. Q Okay. A Yeah, it was. MS CARLUCCI: Why don't you change -- MR. WEINBERG: Why don't you change your tape. I'm going down the hall for a second. This is a short second. (WHEREUPON the proceedings were in recess from 12:11 p.m. until 12:14 p.m.) BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Were these phone calls from Dr. Wood and Mr. Bedore somewhat intimidating to you? Do you understand what I mean by that? A Not really, no. I mean, I don't know why they -- why would they be intimidating to me? Q Well, I'm asking you the question. I don't know. A Well, I don't know, either. You don't know, I don't know, you know. Q Did they suggest that they were concerned that you wouldn't agree with what she had signed out -- off on the report? Was that the suggestion? A I didn't care what -- Q No, I'm not telling you what you cared. Was the suggestion that somehow they were concerned that you might not agree with their final conclusions? A They never enunciated anything with regard to my agreeing or not agreeing with regard to it, and if I disagreed, I would have disagreed. Q Okay. A And it -- but I mean, I didn't really care, see. I wasn't a party, you know. I had nothing to do with it. Q Now this fax came in on December 23rd? A Yeah. Q That would have been at or about the time that these calls took place? A The calls may have taken place later than that. Q Okay. A They may have. Q In this first document that appears in this stack of documents, which is medical examiner Report of Autopsy, there are certain -- there is certain handwriting on here -- A Yeah. Q -- and underlines. Did you put that on there? A Asking about a hundred percent of these? Q Well, no. I mean, your recollection is -- I'm sure it didn't come in with that on it, because those look like those were applied after the fax got there. A Yeah, actually -- okay. Referring now to page one -- I guess that's the only page -- I'm sorry -- and the -- page six, that's my handwriting. Q Okay. Can you read your handwriting for me? A It's perfect handwriting. Of course, I can read it. Q What about up in the corner up there? A Okay. I've got down, Pronounced December 5th, '95, at 9:51 p.m. Q That's when she would have died then. A Yeah, when she was pronounced. Q Okay. Now what's this here? A "Dehydrated" with the word underlined. Q Okay. Anything else? A Well -- Q And then there's -- did you say there was some other writing or not? A Yeah, I think on the last page there was -- Q What's that say? MR. DANDAR: What page are we on? THE WITNESS: We're on page six. MS. CARLUCCI: If you look at the fax numbers way up in the top corner -- MR. WEINBERG: Why don't you look at this. This may be a better copy. What's that say? MS. CARLUCCI: They're all identical. THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. What my handwriting says here is, "Wrong by my history." Okay, "HX" is an abbreviation for "history." "Question" -- that means I have a question in my mind, see? -- Dr. -- or "question" Anderson, M.D. and the thing that's blocked out there should be "licensed in Florida, now in Colorado, anesthesiologist." And, you know, I don't -- MS. CARLUCCI: That was the question. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q What does that mean? Where did that come from? A I don't know where. At that point in time, there was something that made me question whether this was the proper last name. Q Oh, I see. okay. A See? Q All right. A And -- okay. Q All right. Now this case history, which is at the back of this first exhibit, Defendant's Exhibit Three, it says, "Case history, Lisa McPherson", with your writing on it. You prepared that case history? A I prepared the case history. Well, I prepared it from the invest notes; from the investigator's notes. Q Okay, and do you know when you prepared it, approximately? A No. Q Okay. These were from the investigator of the medical examiner's office. A That's right. Q Okay, now, at the bottom of the -- toward the bottom of the page, it says, "Apparently, there was some problem in communication between our office and Officer Perez. The deceased had been associated with the scientologists." A Hmm-hmm. Q Okay, now -- period. My question is, what is the significance -- why does that get into a case history? In other words, that somebody is a scientologist as opposed to being a Southern Baptist or -- A All I do -- what -- okay. The policy of that -- of this particular office, is that the pathologist shall dictate -- okay? -- his own case history, okay? Now, I was an associate pathologist -- okay? -- Q Okay. A -- and I didn't do that in Dallas and I don't do that here, okay? Q Hmm-hmm. A This is an abstract of information that was present and was put into the invest notes by the investigators. Q Okay. A And do what I do is, I go through and I take the information that's there and I put down the information that's there in the particular thing. Q I understand. Now what -- do you know what the significance, if any, was of the fact that Lisa McPherson had been a scientologist to the investigators and/or the medical examiner back in December of 1995 when she died? A Not -- no, I don't. Q Okay. A But it was of -- you know, I mean, somebody put it down, otherwise, I wouldn't have written it. Q That's what I'm asking. Do you know why somebody -- I mean, did anybody explain to you why that was significant enough to be written down? A No. Q Okay. Now -- now the last sentence says -- last two sentences -"Because of the passing of several hospitals, and independent investigation is being set up by the Clearwater Police Department", and then it lists two detectives; and then it says, There may have been a history of a religious rite, which is quotes, associated with the scientologists concerning a purification involving vitamins and minerals, although this information -- it says "at this" is questionable. "At this time", it probably means, is questionable. A That's a typo or something. Q Right. What is that all about; a religious rite? Where did that come from? A Again, the invest notes. Q Same answer, then. It came -- it's not something that you produced. A Oh, no. Q Did you have any conversations about -- with anyone about this whole religious rite thing? A No. Q Is this your -- is this your comment, "at this time questionable", or is that from the invest notes, as well? A That's from the invest notes. Q Okay. Now -- A You know, I mean. I'm trying to think about the way I write things and the way I do things and so on. If there's some degree of the question expressed, then -- or some degree of uncertainty expressed -- the I will go ahead and put it in there. Q Okay. Now this case history says, There was, quote, no evidence of injury or trauma, period, end quote. The deceased had, quote, petechiae P-E-T-E-C-H-I-A-E -- end quote, all over her. A Yeah. Q Is that correct, that there was no injury of -- no evidence of injury or trauma and that she had petechiae all over her? MR. DANDAR: Object to the form as to time. MS. CARLUCCI: Go ahead, if you can answer. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I assume this is written with regard to a woman that you saw for the first time when you were doing an autopsy of her; right? A Oh, yeah. Q Okay. A Yeah. Q All right. A I don't recall having seen petechiae, and in terms of evidence -- you know, I've got evidence of injury already in there, you know, as for evidence of injury, at certain times, certain things can be put under different areas. Like, say, you know, is crusting on the nose evidence of injury? I don't know if it is or not, but it might be put, say, there as opposed to a general external exam. Q Right. A See what I mean? But as I recall, I had something down there about some bruises on the legs and stuff like that. Q Okay. Is this you -- these are your sentences? A Yeah. Q It is you -- A That's my taking -- that's -- because I was told to; because the whole office has to do that. Q No, I understand, but you didn't put in here "no evidence of injury or trauma" because somebody told you that there was no evidence of injury or trauma. You put that in there because that was your observation at the time? A No. No. No. Just the opposite. The "invest" have got their information. Part of the reason -- okay. MS. CARLUCCI: Wait. Is there a question? THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: I guess he was explaining something that I didn't really understand. MR. WEINBERG: Q So all you're doing is abstracting what is in the -A That's right. Q -- investigator's notes. A That's right. Q All right. Okay. We'll go to your Protocol in a few minutes and we'll talk about that -- those bruises that you noted. MR. DANDAR: Can we get a definition of petechiae? I mean, do you mind? MR. WEINBERG: We could. THE WITNESS: okay. Petechiae are essentially punctate small areas of hemorrhage and they can be associated with a variety of different things, and I could go through a differential for you of the things that they're associated with, but sure as shootin' I'd leave something out, and so -but there can be a variety of different things that they can be associated with. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q But it is a -- it's bruising-like -A Much smaller. Q -- imaging? Much smaller. A It's punctate, like, say, the point of your pen there, see; that's a petechiae. Q Would it be red, usually? Kind of reddish? A Oh, yeah. Q It could be associated with an infection? A Can be. Q Some trauma? Can it be associated with trauma? A It's possible, but, usually, you have larger bruises that you'll call -- and the big medical word is "ecchymosis" or things like that. Q Okay. A Contusions, stuff like that. Q Okay, now, the -- the -- what is also apparently was faxed to you on that day, on December -- well, was all this stuff in here, which are -Certificate of Death; that was also faxed to you by Dr. Wood's office -- A Yeah. Q -- on December 23rd? That was a certificate that you had not done; is that right? A Certainly is correct. Q And then they also faxed you an investigative follow-up; is that correct? A That is the first page of the invest notes. MS. CARLUCCI: Was that faxed to you as part of the package? THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you know why they faxed you the first page of the investigative follow-up? A No. Q Do you know why they faxed any of this stuff to you? A See, I can't put myself in her head. I don't know why she did that. You know, you'd have to ask her that. Q Is this what you used to dictate your summary; the first page? A Well, in a given case, you would use all pages that were available. In some cases, there might be more; there might be less. There might be a greater number of entries. If -- you know, it could go on for five, six, pages. Q Who is DLC? A That's Cary. And Cary is the -- Q That's his last name? A Yeah, and he's the -- he's the -- Scot Cary. he's the chief investigator. Q All right, so it appears that Scot Cary, even though his initials are DLC -- A I'm sorry. Let me -- I was incorrect about that. DLC is the individual who put these in -- put these notes in and I may be incorrect with regard to -- because his first name was Scot. I may be incorrect as to who that particular individual is. Q This is somebody in the office, though. A Oh, yes. Q Okay. And -- and -- and what this -- and this first entry, which is -I won't go over them all -- but the first entry is December 5th of '95, has notations like "decedent has petechiae all over her" and there is no injury "slash" trauma; that's where you would have gotten that for your case? A Yes, this is where I would have gotten it and this was as a result of, as it says here, "Telephone call" -- from whoever. Q Would have been a nurse at the hospital. A Yeah. Q Okay. Now it appears that they also faxed you copies of some newspaper articles that ran in the Tampa/St. Pete area regarding the death; is that right? A Hmm-hmm. Q Now there's some writing on this; is this your writing on this article? A Yes. Q Can you read what that says? MR. DANDAR: What article are we on? MR. WEINBERG: It's the second article. MS. CARLUCCI: Page ten at the top. MR. WEINBERG: Right there. MR. DANDAR: Okay. THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Okay. Okay. I have up here, and it crossed my mind, apparently, in reading this or the previous page -- I think there might have been a -- because it looks like this is a two-part article -- may have been. A question to myself apparently alluding to someone named Andrew as a scientology spokesman. DOA and NPR Hospital -- dead on arrival -- and then the question to myself, "What about DOA at Morton Plant?" BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. What did you mean by that? A Morton Plant is physically closer that is NPR and what I didn't know and what I was asking her -- one of the other reasons that I didn't -you know, now, in retrospect, I think it's -- well, at any rate, I just -- I couldn't understand going to that particular hospital. Q Right, but you had to have those questions back when you were in the office having done the autopsy; right? This didn't just occur to you a year later. A No. Q Okay. You agree with what I just said. A Yes. Q Okay. And had those discussions been had with Dr. Davis or Mr. Bedore before you had left the office? A You mean Dr. Wood? Q I'm not doing too well. MS. CARLUCCI: This is Dr. Davis. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Had those discussions been had with Dr. Wood or Mr. Bedore while you were still in the office as to what hospital they -- A I really don't recall. It may well have. I just don't recall. Q Okay. Amongst the records that were sent to you is -- by fax last December, is a December 16th, 1996, letter from Dr. Minkoff to the medical examiner -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- which I take it you had not seen until it was faxed to you. A That's right. Q Now what this letter says is that "When I got a copy of the autopsy report, there was a crucial fact that was omitted from your findings. At the time, I thought the issue was settled, so I did not contact you." Then it goes on and it says "If you recall, two days after Lisa's death, we discussed the case." Did you have a discussion with Dr. Minkoff after Lisa's death? A I don't recall, myself, a personal discussion with him, and, ordinarily, if I personally have a call, I would put that, myself, in the invest if I have something that relates to that, okay? It may be that he talked with the medical examiner's office, okay? The other thing, too, that you didn't -- I mean, no one has ever written me a letter saying, Dear Medical Examiner, okay? I've got a name. When I -- Q No, but you were gone. This was a letter written in December of '96 to the medical examiner, okay? In other words, this is six months after you've left. MS. CARLUCCI: Answer whatever question he poses. THE WITNESS: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q What the letter says is that -- it suggests that a couple of days after the death in 1995 -- A Okay. Q -- that the doctor talked to someone in the medical examiner's office with regard to a finding, he said, from a blood culture of Staph aureus. Do you have any recollection of that? A He may have. I don't know. Q Okay. And then it describes that history and it sends a copy of the blood culture. A Okay. Q Do you have any recollections of receiving information from New Port Richey Hospital that their lab had done a blood culture and found positive for Staph aureus on Lisa McPherson? A There was -- yeah, there was discussion of blood being recovered from the blood -- I'm sorry -- Staph aureus being recovered from the blood of Lisa McPherson. Q And did you -- A -- with the office. I don't recall exactly who. Q Did you do anything with that with regard to the autopsy? A This came and the first I saw of this was December 16th or December whatever the date is. Q Right. Right. What I'm asking you, you said that you recall that there was some discussion in the office back when you were in the office about a positive blood culture. A No, this is after the fact of the autopsy. Q Right, but within a few days of the autopsy -- right? -- or a week? A Oh, I don't recall. You know, to be honest with you, I don't. I really don't. Q Since things were still pending, do you recall -- A Could have been months, as far as I know. Q By the time you left, it was still pending; everything was still pending; right? A Yes. Q Did you do anything while you were still there with the information concerning the Staph aureus and if not, why not? A Well, no, I didn't do anything with it and the reason I didn't was, is I think -- I think I mentioned this before -- there are findings and circumstances and there were -- I had a lack of circumstances and I don't -- I usually won't go over a case forty or eleven times if I can go over it once and I knew I couldn't sign the case out absent the circumstances which I did not have, at that point in time. The data was not going to be lost from the file. Information was not going to be lost from the file. There'd be nothing that you could really do, at that point in time, relative to that situation. I mean -- Q Okay. A You -- okay. Q No, I -- and then you don't know why, once you left when the autopsy reported was finalized, why Dr. Wood did not make references to the blood culture that had been received from, from Dr. Minkoff? You don't have any way of knowing. A No, I haven't talked to her. Q When you did your autopsy, did you make any sort of examination for evidence of an infection? A In a living individual -- well, if you see internally certain things, you might be suspicious of an infection, but I didn't see any evidence of, say -- I guess, again, about petechiae. I didn't see internally any petechiae. I didn't see anything that particularly would have turned me on to that. Q Okay. The last documents in this package are your correspondence with Mr. Bedore and Dr. Reeves' correspondence with Mr. Bedore about this FedEx thing that we've already talked about. A Yeah. Q Plus a copy of the judge's public records opinion -A Yeah. Q -- in the public records case. All right. Now we've talked about the manner of death, and if you look at the autopsy report in front of you -- A Yes. Q -- or the Report of Autopsy, we've talked about the manner and how you had not reached a final conclusion, because you were waiting for information as to the manner, but what about the immediate cause of death; had you reached a conclusion as to the immediate cause of death by the time you left? A Not absent circumstances, and -- I mean, the circumstances are all important, in my mind, in this case -- okay? -- and I think that it is -as a function of circumstances, you could look at more than one manner of death and I didn't have the circumstances. Q Okay. Without belaboring it, because I'm really -- I don't understand. A You don't understand what? Q I don't -- let me explain. I really don't quite understand what the circumstances were that you're looking for that you need in order to reach the conclusion as to the manner and cause of death. A Okay. Q Give me some examples. MS. CARLUCCI: You've already done this. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I don't know. I -BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Can you give me an example or two examples? A I think the question is relatively innocuous. Q Okay, go ahead. A Okay. Any time a patient is in a facility -- okay -Q Like a hospital. A -- a hospital, an ACLF, a nursing home -- what have you -- records are obtained, they're kept and so on. Okay. Those were not forthcoming, number one; number two, to the best of my recollection, there still was -- okay -- number two, there was not an explanation of the distance to different hospitals; number three, there was not a hospital record, such as -- okay? -- that I had seen from New Port Richey where she was pronounced. If someone comes to an emergency room, they come into an emergency room, and if they're dead on arrival, they have a standard sheet that goes like this, that or the other thing. If that's present, it's not present in my records, okay? In other words, you'll have the name of the hospital at the top. You'll have, you know, the date and time of admission; the examination by the physician; nurse's observations; standard things such as vital signs, we call them; blood pressure, pulse, respirations -- those types of things and so on. Q Anything else? A Those are the main things, but -- Q Did anything prevent your office from getting the New Port Richey Columbia Hospital records? A Okay. I was doing a number of cases and I believe I requested them to request the records, to the best of my recollection. Q For example, because remember this investigative follow-up that we looked -- that we looked at in this file that you turned over today, talks about your investigator had a conversation with Barb, the nurse, from Columbia, saying, ER reporting the apparent natural death of this female. The decedent was taken to the ER from Clearwater. They talk about resuscitative measures which failed, indicating that they had worked on her. She was intubated, and it goes on. I mean, obviously, there was some work that happened and, in fact, we've now seen a hospital record that Columbia -- A Okay. MS CARLUCCI: There's no question. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q My question is, at some point before you left, didn't your office have the hospital records from New Port Richey? A I don't recall having seen them. Q Was any request made -- you said there was no record from any hospital, but I guess what you're talking about is wherever she'd been before. A That's right. Q Was any request made for records from where she had been before by you? A By me, no. Q Do you know if anybody requested records? A I believe that the -- and again, I can't swear on this, but I mean there's the medical examiner's aspect and then there's the, quote, investigative aspect by the investigative wing, who happened to be the police, and I believe -- I believe that the police requested it, but I hadn't seen it. Q Did they show you copies of investigative interviews that the Clearwater police did in December of 1995? A Not that I recall. Q Do you recall -- A I don't recall. I really don't. I mean -- okay. Q Do you recall any -- I'm not suggesting they did, okay? I'm just asking if they did. A Yeah. Q Do you recall any conversations with the police officers while you were still there as to what their investigation was showing, if anything? A No, I just recall we didn't have -- we didn't have information that I felt I needed. Q Well, would you need information from a hospital to make the determination that the immediate cause of death was from a pulmonary -from a large pulmonary embolism, which is located in the autopsy? A What you get is that you get date and time and action, doctor's orders, et cetera, et cetera, et ceter, to various degrees. In other words, in a nursing home or an ACLF or someplace where you're taking care of people, you're going to have documentation of what transpires, okay? Q Hmm-hmm. A Now you're going to probably have a greater degree of nurse's notes, say, in a nursing home and a much lesser degree of physician involvement as compared to, say, a hospital in which an operation is done or, say, if a patient's in ICU or something like that, and that's what I'm talking about, is -- and that -- and, yes, that can certainly affect how you would call a manner of death. Q Well, I'm putting manner aside now. I'm asking you about the immediate cause of death, which is what -- which I take it, as opposed to manner, is what actually killed somebody; right? A Yeah. Q And in this case, Dr. Wood, when she signed this out, said that the immediate cause of death is a pulmonary embolism. She had more technical terms, but it's a pulmonary embolism; right? A Right. Q You don't disagree with that conclusion, do you? A I neither agree nor disagree, because I'm not privy to the information. Q Okay. You located a large pulmonary embolism in your Protocol; is that right? A I located an embolism. Q Okay. Well, if you'll refer to the lung section, whatever section it is. A The Respiratory System. Q Yeah, the Respiratory System, you note a well-established thrombus, which is mutlifocal. MS. CARLUCCI: Again, these are not established that these are his notes. It has not been established. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you recall that that's what you located? A I recall that there was a -- it was there, yeah. Q And even though you refer to it as a thrombus, basically, is there a difference between a thrombus and an embolus? A Yes. Q Was this really an embolus that had located here from somewhere else? A It was -- based upon examination of the remainder of the body, there was a thrombus -- okay? -- in the left popliteal vein, and given those circumstances, then this is consistent with an embolus arising from that area. Q Now an embolus is essentially something -- a thrombus that moves? A Breaks off. Q Breaks off? Now a pulmonary embolism -- A Yeah. Q -- it can cause sudden death? A It can. Q Okay. The pulmonary embolism which you found in your autopsy here was large enough to have cause a death; is that correct? A It could. It could. It's -- you're getting away from cause and manner into mechanisms and mechanisms are things that, you know, you can get a professor of medicine to talk about, but it can. Q Pulmonary embolisms are life-threatening? A They may be. Q All right. Pulmonary embolisms can occur in hospitals and often do, don't they? A Yes. Yes. Q Pulmonary embolisms can be fatal to people in hospitals, can't they? A Yes. Q Pulmonary embolisms result from a thrombotic condition somewhere else in the body, typically; right? A Embolism, yes. Q A thrombotic condition is what, Doctor? Q It's a clot that's in a particular area attached to a particular portion of the vascular system; typically, veins. You can have what they call a mural thrombus of the heart, which could be the right side of the heart. You can have it in the extremities. You can have it, say, in the pelvis, and so on. Q Thrombus -- thrombotic conditions sometimes result from trauma; is that right? A They can, yes. Q In other words, I get hit in some extremity or I break a bone, that could lead to a thrombotic condition; is that correct? A It could. Q Okay. And once you have a developed thrombus, you are at risk of it embolising. A It's possible. Q Okay. Thrombuses (sic) are not easily detected, are they? A No, that's too broad a statement. It's a function of the locale, size, et cetera, in some cases. Q And the patient. A And the patient, yes. Q So that if a patient were a person that was intelligent and alert, not drugged, you know, not medicated in a hospital, he may be -- he or she may be able to feel a sensation that would lead a doctor to examine whether or not there's a thrombotic condition -- A Yeah. Q -- is that right? A Yes. Q But if a patient were psychotic, mentally disturbed, you may not have that kind of cooperation from a patient what would allow a doctor or someone to identify a thrombotic condition? MS. CARLUCCI: We're getting a little far afield from his area of expertise, so I want to alert you to maintain your opinions to your area of expertis, Doctor. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Is that correct? A Psychotic people would be psychotic. Q What I'm saying is, a person -- part of the way in which to identify a thrombus is to get cooperation from the patient, right? A You always have a combination of a history and a physical. Okay. The history is what the patient tells you, which may or may not be true. If the person is psychotic, by definition he's crazy, okay? If he's crazy, what he says, who knows what it means, okay? That does not preclude the physician doing an examination which may or may not show a thrombus. Q You found a thrombus or remains of a thrombus behind the left knee -is that correct? -- A Yeah. Q -- of Lisa McPherson. A Yeah. Q There's no way you could tell -- is there? -- that the embolus that ended up in the pulmonary artery actually came from the thrombus that you found behind the left knee. A No. Q Okay. But you suspected that it had from you -- from the fact that you didn't find any other evidence of a thrombus; is that right? A That's correct. Q Okay. You don't -- you couldn't determine from your examination or an autopsy what actually caused the thrombus; is that right? A No. In an individual case, there are a number of variables that come in and as to saying in a particular patient, no, you can't be specific. Q Okay. The -- you did locate various bruises and contusions and mehatomas as noted in the report of -- in the Protocol; is that right? A Hmm-hmm. Q And, in fact, if you refer to the Protocol in the autopsy report, you will see in the area of Extremities, at the bottom of the page, that you note, "Old, blue-green/brown areas of discoloration consistent with old hematomas are present on the medial aspect of the left thigh over a greatest area measuring two and a half inches and to an extent, over areas a half and inch and three quarters of an inch." A Hmm-hmm. Q Do you see that? What's that mean in English? A Okay. First of all, it must be said that the aging of hematomas is a matter of difference of opinion amongst different forensic pathologists. There are some people that, with good reason, may say that you cannot age one for sure. Others will say, Well, if it's greenish brown and if you've got some purple and yellow spreading, it's going to be old, and there's reason for that, too; that's hemosiderin that's spreading. To me, these looked, quote, old,unquote, as opposed to recent, in which case it would be red/purple, the margins would be sharper and I wouldn't see yellow spreading from the sides. Q Now when you say "old", are you referring to a couple of weeks; is that what you're referring to? A That can vary with the age of the patient, but ordinarily, say with a patient this age, that could be, say, seven to ten days. Q Or more? A Or more, yeah. Q Okay. Now -- and then you described various other contusions, some of which, in light of the color, you would have concluded were more recent that the older ones; is that right? A They may have been. Q Okay. THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I have to use the john again. (Whereupon the proceedings were in recess from 12:57 p.m. until 1:08 p.m.) BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now we were in the process and the midst of talking about thrombotic conditions and emboli -- A Hmm-hmm. Q so let me go back to that for a moment -- and we had discussed your finding, as indicated in the autopsy report, of a thrombus behind the left knee in the popliteal vein, correct? A Hmm-hmm. Q You need to say "yes." A Yes. Q Yes. And also your finding of an embolism in the pulmonary artery in the lung; is that right? A Yes. Q Which lung was that? The left lung; correct? A I'm getting paranoid about looking at which report. Yes. Q When you say "multifocal", what's that mean in English? A Okay. In English, that means it's in several different spots, okay? If it were -- that's in distinction to -- to a word "diffuse", which means it's everywhere all over the place. For instance, if you had -- oh, say, if you were painting this room and you had a bunch of little kids painting it and they had a whole bunch of splotches here, there, everywhere, the paint would be multifocal. If you had a professional painter paint it, by the time he got through, the painting would be diffuse. It would be ubiquitous; it would be everywhere; it's all-encompassing. "Multifocal" means you find it in several different spotty areas. Q And, in this case, the thrombus -- I mean, the embolus that you have found in the left lung, was that in a position to have killed Lisa McPherson; caused her death? A That is -- that's possible. I don't know that I would -- I could say that it did. I do recall and it is in the report that it's partially occlusive and what that means is that blood can get around it, okay? Q Right. A See? Now the lung, just like other organs, lives, if you will, on blood, see, so it can get around it, so the question is a little hard to answer not knowing her previous state -- Q What -- A As to whether this would have been the cause of death or not. Q Did you find anything else during the autopsy that you believed could be the cause of death as opposed to this well-established what you call thrombus or embolus which is multifocal in the left lung? A As a function of circumstances, that could be a cause. The other thing that could be a cause could be predominantly dehydration, as a possible cause; however, to be dogmatic of one versus the other, to me, is a little difficult. Q Now -- A In other words, that could be a red herring. See what I mean? Q The dehydration. A The dehydration could be a red herring. Dehydration I think is -- again, you have to appreciate, I don't run the lab, see, so -- but if you were to ask me a question in a vacuum, it might be easier to answer with regard to dehydration. Q What do you mean by that? A Do you understand what I'm saying? Q No, I'm in a vacuum right now, because I don't understand what you mean by that. A If we separate -- if we separate Lisa McPherson -- okay? -- from the question you just asked about dehydration -- okay? -- then I might be able to relate to your question with regard to dehydration. Q Because? A Because I don't have the circumstances. Q So I mean, if you had -- if you had information, for example, that Lisa McPherson was drinking protein shakes and water and stuff like that, is that the kind of circumstances you're looking for? A No, I'm looking for you just to possibly -- well, I think dehydration was significant. I don't know that I can be unequivocal relative to it versus a thromboembolism as an immediate cause of death. Q All right. When you originally drafted the front page -- A Yeah. Q -- you had not included dehydration, but you had indicated a hand-written note, Rule out malnutrition "slash" dehydration. A That's correct. Q Did you ever conclude that process; ruling it out? A I got various vitreous studies amongst others, okay? Q Right. A I -- and I say "amongst others"; in other words, we did a variety of different studies. Q In addition to the vitreous studies, what studies did you do that would have anything to do with malnutrition or dehydration? A At one point, there was a question of meningitis raised and I did a cisternal tap, and that's a big word for saying like getting spinal fluid, and I submitted this for serological studies, which, again, is a big word for looking for antibodies to particular organisms, and these came back negative, okay? Q Hmm-hmm. A Now I felt that, based upon those studies and my gross and microscopic examination of the brain, that there was no meningitis. I mean, you asked about other studies; that's an example of other studies. Q Right, but you had referred -- I thought we were talking about dehydration and you said that you did this vitreous study and then you said "other studies". Were there any other studies that had to do with dehydration? A The vitreous are the predominant ones, and I must say I don't have -- I don't have any independent recollection of why urine was listed on the -- Q That was done a year later. A Oh, okay. Q The urine was done after you left. A Oh, okay. Q I'll show you the results, but, see -- A Oh, all right. Q -- this is an amended page four, so the page four that existed at the time the report was released in October, was the one that says "original page four" that has no urine on it. A I gotcha, okay. Q Which leads me to a question. Why didn't you do a urine analysis? A The -- I feel -- well -- and I think that the literature backs it up -that it's vitreous that you use to look for dehydration. I mean, the problem -- and you can run into a variety of problems in urine and part of the problem is you don't know when that urine got there. You don't know how long it was there. Urine comes from the kidneys and the function of kidneys is largely to concentrate, which is a big word for saying it sucks stuff out and puts it in much greater amounts, so that it's very easy to over-interpret urine and it is not as easy to over-interpret vitreous. Q Now do you do vitreous exams every time you do an autopsy -- do you take vitreous fluid every time you do an autopsy? A Yes. Q So that's -- A I direct it to be taken. Q So that the fact that you took vitreous fluid in this autopsy was because that was your routine in ever autopsy. A Yes. Q Okay. Do you have it analyzed in every autopsy? A Yes. Q And when you have it analyzed, where do you send it? Is there a particular place you send it? A The chief at this office chose a particular lab and -Q This is Wuesthoff -- A This is Wuesthoff -- yeah, Wuesthoff. Q -- Memorial Hospital? A Yeah. Q Who took the vitreous fluid samples? A I have no independent recollection in this particular case, though, ordinarily, this is taken -- I think I mentioned when we first started this -- this is one of the things that ordinarily is done by the autopsy assistant under my direction. Q During the autopsy? A Yes. Q Do you actually have to remove the eyeballs from the eye? A Oh, no, no, no. What you do, you take a needle and you stick it in the side of the eye and you suck out the fluid with a syringe. See what I mean? Q Right. You don't use a "vacutainer" or do you use a "vacutainer"? A I don't -- you know, I don't personally use one and I don't -- no, no. I would have a concern about too much pressure relative to the lining of the eyeball. What you want is the fluid; not to suck up the retina, see. I mean, that's the stuff that's the lining around the outside. You don't want to get a bunch of tissue. Q You don't want to contaminate. A That's right. Q Do you have any specific recollection, independent recollection, of who did the taking of the vitreous in the Lisa McPherson -- A No. Q -- autopsy? A No. Q Do you have any recollection as to actually how it was taken? In other words, taken with a syringe or a "vacutainer" or do you have a specific recollection of that? A No, I don't. Q Do you have a specific recollection as to whether it was done gently as opposed to with some force? A Well, you don't attempt to do it other than gently. I mean -- Q Do you -- A -- you know. Q Do I understand you to say that, typically, you do not do the actual taking of the fluid? A That's right. Q Okay. have you ever done it? A Oh, yes. Q Do you take it from one eye or both eyes? A I take it from both eyes. Q And is the fluid maintained in one container or two separate containers, do you know? A No. Ordinarily, it will come out, at least the way I do it, I'll take the fluid and there may be minuscule changes of one versus the other, but, ordinarily, I'll get the material from one and then I'll go get it from the other. Q Separate containers. A In the -- essentially in the same syringe. Q Oh, in the same syringe. I'm sorry. How was her fluid stored at the medical examiner's office? A Ordinarily, what we'll do is cool that. To get the specifics, I don't have an independent recollection, but there -- and, again, I can't speak to what their -- to what a procedure manual would have or would not have relative to your questions. Q How quickly is the fluid sent to the lab after it's taken? A That's a function of the time of day and the time of delivery -- I'm sorry -- the time of pick-up and I believe they would pick it up in the afternoon. Q Does it -- is it typically sent to the lab shortly after -- for examination, shortly after it's taken? I mean whether it's a few hours or a day, but within the immediate time frame of the sample being taken? A Yeah, we try and have standardized care of the specimens, be it vitreous or whatever else in terms of -- in terms of like say toxicology or what have you in a standard manner. As for your question on "typically", I think that -- I don't know that I can really answer that question. I think perhaps the director of the lab would. Q Does it make any difference in the final results, the validity of the final results, whether the sample has been sent immediately to the lab or a period of time, weeks or months has passed? A Oh, weeks or months, yes. Q And what's the difference that it makes? A Well, certain values can fall off and certain values can be altered and we'd probably have to go to a textbook with regard to the numerical variation of whatever it was. I don't know that I can answer it in greater detail. Q So it is you -- as a medical examiner, you want the vitreous fluids to be analyzed by the lab as quickly as possible after they were taken. A As soon as reasonably possible, yes. Q And -- all right. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit Four. Now the first page of that, I think, is the meningitis thing that you -- A Oh. Q Lab results; right? A Yes. Q And the second page, I believe, is the vitreous results -- A Yes. Q --right? And if you look at the second page, you will see that -- you will see the various results with regard to the vitreous fluid on Lisa McPherson; is that right? A Yes. Q Now can you see when that test was actually run? A Run date, 12/01/96. Q 12/1. what are you looking at? A I'm sorry. 02 -- I'm sorry - 02/01/96. Q February 1st, 1996? A Yeah, right. Run date -- or run time 12:43. Q Now can you look at all the other writing on that and do you understand what it means? A Hmm-hmm. Q Can you explain it to us? Before you get to the results. I'm talking about above the line. A Oh, above the line. Okay. I think the best way to answer this is that I can relate back to my experience when I was in a lab -- in a hospital lab myself, and I will -but I believe what I say to be correct. Okay, it's got the name of the lab at the top. It says Wuesthoff Memorial NPR lab -- and I'm not sure what "NPR" stands for. It says "live". I'm not sure what "live" means. It says page one, as indeed the previous page, which is interesting. It, beneath that, has got the patient's -- oh, probably an accession number; it's got the patient's name; it's got the account number. Some places will commingle accounts with accession numbers; apparently, this place doesn't. It's got the location and my guess would be that this refers in terms of this medical examiner's office, District Six. Q Okay. A Okay, it's got the unit number, I guess, although I can't be sure what "U" stands for. ST-68348. It's got the Social Security number, I'm assuming; there's none listed. It's got her age and sex; it's got the status. Q What's that mean, "reg"? A I would guess regular refrigeration, but I mean that's something else you'll have to get. It's got another reg -- Q Or is that -- "REC"; is that "received", you think? A It could be? Q Okay. A If it is, it's a misprint, because it's a "G." Q Okay. A You see that? Q Right. But that says 1/30/96; is that what it says? A Yes, it does. Q Okay. And then it's got the results under that. A That's right. Q All right. Do you know why it took until February 1st, 1996, to do the analysis of the vitreous? A No. Q Okay. Now did you actually receive these results? I mean, you viewed these results while you were in the medical examiner's office? A Yes. Q Okay. And this was part of you notation on Exhibit Two, which is, Rule out malnutrition "slash" dehydration "hyphen" vitreous -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- right? So this is the vitreous and these are the results; is that right? A If you're going to do a quality control flow, I'm telling you this is what the report says. I'm not telling you that this is -- I mean, I don't know what transpires. It is -- you know, it's possible for things to happen. I don't know. This represents -- I don't know that this represents this particular -- I don't know how anybody would for sure. Q What you're saying -- I think what you're saying is that you don't know whether the sample might have been in some way degraded or contaminated or whatever; is that correct? A Well, that and/or -- Q Confused with somebody else's sample. A That's possible, yes. Q When you got these results, you questioned some of them because of their high values, did you not? A Yes. Q And did you discuss that with Dr. Wood? A Yes. Q And did you tell her that you had never seen values this high? A I told her that with regard to the urea nitrogen, i hadn't recalled seeing a value that was that elevated. I try to avoid words like "never" and "always" if I can. Q Okay. A So I think my inclination -- and, here again, it's not an independent recollection, but I'm not sure that I'm going to say "never" or "always", you know? I think that can get you in trouble. Q Okay. You don't recall having seen readings that high before; is that right? A I don't recall on the urea nitrogen, no. Q And they were so high that you questioned whether they were valid, did you not? A Yes. ?Q And you told that to Dr. Wood; is that right? A Yes. Q What did she say, if you recall? A I don't recall. I mean, I was the one -- it was my case, so I asked to have it checked again. I believe I asked to have it -- I believe I asked to have it checked again. Q All right, but did you have any way to check things like whether the sample was originally contaminated or not? You had no way of checking that, at that point in time, did you? A No. Q I mean, the fact that the lab got these results, it wouldn't surprise you, if they ran it again, they'd get the same results. A No. Q Right. If the sample was contaminated the first time, the results would be invalid the second time, as well; right? A That's right. Q Okay. Well, did Dr. Wood seem concerned about your concerns as to the validity of the test? A Yeah, I think she was concerned. Q All right. Did you all discuss any other ideas that you all would have to scientifically verify whether there was, you know, severe dehydration? A I think I gave you my best opinion of the urine, okay? Vitreous, really, is your best bet and to be candid with you, I'm not sure that I know other ways, at that point, absent what we have along with the urine, but at the same time de-emphasizing the urine relative to the vitreous. Q Did you do any research once you got these results as to whether -particularly, on the urea nitrogen -- as to whether anybody else had ever found readings that high? A We had a situation in which, for a variety of reasons, it was -- there was no -- well, it was difficult, and I had a bunch of other cases and I knew information I did not have -- I think we've been through this before and so -- Q I just asked you a simple question. Did you do any research? A No. Q Okay. the results were such that you were not prepared to draw any diagnostic conclusion from the vitreous results; is that right? A By itself? Q Yes. ?A No. Q No, you were not; is that correct? A That's correct. Q Did you have any discussion with Dr. Wood as to why there had been a two-month delay or almost a two-month delay in the submission of the vitreous results to the lab -- MR. DANDAR: Object to the form. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q -- I mean, the vitreous fluids to the lab? MR. DANDAR: Object to the form. Q Do you understand the question? A Yeah. I don't recall them, but I was concerned myself. Q At the time, you were concerned. ?A Yeah. Q Do you recall some discussion with anybody in the medical examiner's office as to what happened; why they had not been sent? MR. DANDAR: Object to the form -- MR. WEINBERG: What's wrong with the form? MR. DANDAR: -- assumes facts not in evidence. You're showing him a lab report that's a recheck, a retesting, rather than showing him the original one. MR. WEINBERG: I'm showing him what the medical examiner's office was ordered by the court to give us, Ken, and this is what they gave us. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, did you -- if I understand your testimony, you recall, back when you were in the office, being concerned that there had been a delay between the samples being taken and the samples being tested; is that right? A No, I was concerned about the level of the sample -- my concern was the level of the sample of the urea nitrogen in particular. Q I understand. A Okay? Q And as a result of that concern, you were -- you were trying to figure out what may have gone wrong; is that right? A I just did not see -- well -- that was a very high value. Q Okay. I thought I heard you say that there was some discussion in the office about there being a holdup between the samples being taken during the autopsy and being sent to the lab. A I don't believe I said that. Q Okay. A I mean, I don't believe I said that. Q Okay. MS. CARLUCCI: Are you at a breaking point to get the food in here? MR. WEINBERG: YEAH. MS. CARLUCCI: Let's go off for a minute and get our food. (WHEREUPON the proceedings were in recess from 1:35 p.m. to 1:57 p.m.) BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now referring to Exhibit One, which is the autopsy Protocol, I had shown you, at the bottom of it, it indicated a series of hematomas present in the medial aspect of the left thigh? A (Nods head up and down) Q Do you see that? A Yeah. Q Now the medial aspect of the left thigh is pretty much in the center of it? A No, it's in the inner aspect. I's here (indicating). Q Oh, inside -- A Yeah. Q -- the thigh. A Yeah. Q Okay. So it would be sort of in the crotch. A Yeah, or if it's in the -- it depends on where the thing is there, see? If it's high, it's in the crotch; if it's low, it's down by the knee. Q Can you tell me where those are? Can you read them to me? A It's over the medial aspect of the left thigh; that's all the detail I went into. Q Do you recall if it was high in the crotch or low toward the knee? No, but -- well, no, I don't. Q How big are those bruises there? Can you -- I mean -- A Let's see. Q -- in English. I mean, I've read this, but I don't know what all that means. A Yeah, right. Okay. The intensity of these vary, but generally speaking, one was two and a half inches and the other was a half to three quarters of an inch. Q Those are pretty -- would you call those fairly -- the two and a half inches a fairly large bruise? A Everything's relative. I mean, I don't know what you mean by "large." Q Okay. That kind of bruise that you saw, which you described as old, but that kind of a bruise that you saw, is that consistent with some sort of trauma? A Yes. Q And a bruise like that is consistent with -- I mean, one can get bruises like that from traumatic evens like automobile accidents; is that correct? A Any blunt force can give you a bruise. Q So the answer was yes? A Yes. Q Now trauma to an extremity is a common cause for creating a thrombus? A It might be associated with it. Q Now the thrombus like the one that you found behind the left knee of Lisa McPherson -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- can a thrombus like that spontaneously break off? A Yes. Q And can a thrombus like that, when it spontaneously breaks off, cause instant death? A Well, you haven't -- Q Want me to define "instant death"? A It depends on what happens to the thrombus once it breaks off. Q All right. If you -- if the thrombus in the left popliteal vein breaks off, it is possible for that thrombus to travel into the pulmonary artery in the lung; is that right? A That's correct. Q And if it travels to the pulmonary artery in the lung and lodges there, that can cause instant death. A It can. It's possible, yes. Q And what is it about lodging in the lung in the pulmonary artery that causes instant death? A It, ordinarily -- well, if you take a person who is -- who is -- who would say be otherwise, quote, healthy, unquote -- say a young woman, or something like that, with no other problems -- if we had say a major thrombus to the extent that it greatly cut down the blood supply to the lung, that would mean that there's less blood going to the lung, there's less blood that can be oxygenated and then returned to the heart, and that can be associated with what should properly be called a dysrhythmia; a lot of people call it arrhythmia, but it's -- an arrhythmia is a total absence of rhythm, whereas a dysrhythmia can flow to a variety of things, including an arrhythmia -- but, at any rate, that is one possible mechanism. Another one is if you get a truly massive dislodging of a thrombus, it can produce what's called a, quote, saddle, unquote, embolus, which is to say that it comes up and it essentially forms a fork-like thing that occludes totally the arterial trees of both lungs and so that there's no blood flow. Q So that would cause sudden death? A Yes. Q Okay. How large was the thrombus that you located in the -- behind the left knee? A Oh, it was -- well, I didn't measure its -- I didn't measure its size, but it was -- I mean, it was there to be observed. We didn't have a free flow of blood. We had a clot there. Q Did you section the thrombus up behind the left knee? A I believe I did, but I can't -- to the best of my recollection, I'm not sure that that was done or not. Q Are there two ways of doing a section? I guess what I'm asking, on occasion, you would cut into something just to see how it cuts; is that right? A Yeah. Q And then -- then you would also take a piece for the paraffin block slide and all that, as well? When you say "section", what do you mean? A Okay, ordinarily -- ordinarily, I guess the only way I can answer your question is to say what I would do, would be to make a cut through it and the underlying vessel and then to make the sections narrow enough or small enough -- okay -- so that it could be put in a thing we call a cassette and the cassette then could be submitted for a microscopic exam. Then if you were fortunate enough to have significantly more tissue, you could excise that tissue and you could throw it in your -- well, you could put it in the gross cup. Q Do you recall what you did, in this case? A No. Q Would there be any reason for you to have sectioned the embolus that you found in the pulmonary artery and not section the thrombus that you found behind the left knee? A In most cases, I believe I would section both. Q And -- A Or at least would have the vein, if necessary, in the gross cup. Q And we'll be able to determine that when we actually see what the slides were of? A I'm sorry? Q We'll be able to determine that when we get access to the slides and the gross cup? A The -- okay. that may or may not be possible. If, for instance, we don't have -- if, for instance, there's a small section of -- or say it's a fairly small vein where the section is taken in the lung and you don't see pulmonary tissue around it, then it's hard to make a distinction between that and a vein that would be behind the leg. Do you see what I mean? Q Did you age either the thrombus in the leg or the emboli in the lung? A I don't believe I did,no. Q Is it possible to do that? Can you do that? A In my opinion, you can do that certainly with well-established thrombi -- okay -- with old ones. Okay. With more recent ones -- in other words, ones that, as you said, may cause sudden death -- okay -- over something like that --- that, to me, is very problematical and it is -- it's possible -- it's possible, in recent thrombi, to either over-call or, in other words, to be mistaken. Ordinarily, I will try and look at whether the clot is readily shed, and if you will, from the arterial tree or the arterial area, and if it comes up very readily, then that is post-mortem, after death; whereas if there's a little degree of adherence, it may well be ante-mortem. The well-established ones are easier than the more recent ones. Q You described -- well, how did you describe this one? A Okay. "For showing loosely adherent blood to the endothelium of the underlying vessel. Focally, a layer of fibrin is present at the endothelium blood interface." Okay, that would be -- at least we have some degree of reaction between the vessel -- okay -- and the clot. Q Which means? A Which would mean that that is relatively more recent -- okay -- that a, quote, old, unquote; but, again, bear in mind, the old can -particularly, if the patient's asymptomatic; it could have been there for months or something like that. Q And the more recent might be indicative of what I've been referring to as sudden death. A Yeah, up to hours. Q Now if you go to page two -- A Yeah. Q -- of the report, under the Respiratory System, you describe the -- it is a partially occlusive well-established thrombus which is multifocal. What did you mean by "well-established thrombus?" A My gross impression was it was well-established. When I had the microscopic, I could not establish that. Q It appeared more recent? A It appeared more recent, yeah. Q And the microscopic is at the end of the report when you actually looked at the sections under the microscope; is that what I understand? A That's right? Q That's the more accurate way of making the determination? A Of age, yeah.? Q And the reason to age an embolus or a thrombus is what? A That's a good question. We do it, you know. MR. WEINBERG: After four hours, you know, I've got to get in one good question -- THE WITNESS: I know. I know. MR. WEINBERG: -- what the hell? THE WITNESS: The reason to do it is because of the fact that if you see something that could be significant -- okay -- ordinarily, you'll go ahead and take a section of it. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. A At least a gross section of it. Q Did you -- do you recall discussing with Dr. Wood your findings with regard to the pulmonary embolism? Do you remember talking to her about that? A I don't specifically remember that, no. Q Did Dr. Wood show any more interest in -MR. WEINBERG: Well, strike that. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you recall whether there was any effort to age the thrombus found behind the left knee as opposed to the embolus found in the lung? A I don't independently recall. Q Would one be able to go through the same process as you did with the embolus and look at the thrombus behind the left knee under a microscope to make some determination as to how long it had been behind the left knee? A That could be -- it could be possible, but, again, I think that -- I think you've got to -- that you're looking at a range, you know? Q Like what? A Well, as you know, there can be overlap as a function of say, a microscopic appearance, in particular. Q You mean a range of days? A A range of hours -- yes, a range of days. Q Okay. What can cause a thrombus to become an embolus? A Okay, first of all, it can occur spontaneously; just the regular meaning of the word "spontaneous." Q It just happens. A It can just break off because it's going to break off. You can have some kind of trauma. You can bump it. You can be in a situation where you're particularly prone to thrombi and you can have so-called propagation of a thrombus, in which case it moves, the clot itself can move, particularly if it moves proximally, or moves up. And then there's -- from that standpoint, there can be a difference in the potential for dislodgement between areas of the thrombus. Q Okay. You could not tell from your examination, both during the autopsy and microscopically, what caused the thrombus to move? A No. Q Now going to the first page of the autopsy report -- A You mean of Dr. Wood's report? Q Yeah. The -- yeah. Not the one with your notes on it, but the one that says Report of Autopsy and it's got Manner of Death, which we've already talked about, "Undetermined"? A Oh, okay, one distinction here. Q All right. A You're not talking about page one? Q No, I'm talking about the cover page, how about that? A Front sheet. Q Front sheet. A All right. Q Just to make this clear, you didn't discuss with Dr. Wood, before she signed out this report, as to the manner of death? A That's correct. Q She didn't clear with you the final conclusion that the manner of death was undetermined. A No. Q Sow it says "Immediate Cause of Death, thromboembolism left pulmonary artery." She didn't discuss that with you, either, before she signed this out; is that right? A That's correct. Q And then she says, "Due to thrombosis of the left popliteal vein." She didn't discuss that with you, either; is that right? A No. Q Then she has, "Due to bed rest and severe dehydration." Did she discuss that with you before she signed it out? A No. Q Now -- now, what are the due to's for? What's the purpose of that? A Oh. That is a -- okay. At least in the format that Dr. Wood has, this is a correlation, if you will, with a standard death certificate; in other words, the standard death certificate will be just like this. Q You need to -- that doesn't get picked up on the -- A Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, it'll be Immediate Cause of Death and then it'll be due to something else; due to something else. In some situations, there may be no need for other due to's, see. If I shoot you in the head and you fall over dead, then the immediate cause of death is a gunshot wound to the head, see, and there's no real reason to do anything else. If we do an autopsy and we find that you've got bad lung disease but you've got a clearly fatal head injury, your immediate cause of death still is the gunshot wound to the head. Q Now, let's take the first one, "Due to thrombus of the left -- how do I pronounce that? "Popliteal"? -- A "Popliteal." Q -- popliteal vein." Am I correct that you did not make a final determination that the pulmonary embolism was as a result of a thrombosis in the left popliteal vein; is that correct? A That's correct. Q Then she has "due to bed rest." A Hmm-hmm. Q Do you see that? A Yes. Q Did you discuss bed rest with Dr. Wood? A Yes. Q And what was the nature of that discussion or those discussions? A Okay. The -- if a person is relatively bedridden or relatively immobilized, that can set the stage, if you will, for a possible thrombosis occurring, particularly in the lower extremities. Q And the way to avoid that is to periodically get up and move? A If you're -- if that's possible and/or have a co-consult -- and, again, this is getting back to what Ms. Carlucci had pointed out; I'm perhaps somewhat out of my field -- but, basic physical-therapy type things. I don't think they still use foot boards, but something to try and get -- to avoid prolonged passive stasis, if you will, or just leaving it sit there. Q What is "prolonged passive stasis"? What are we talking about? A In other words -- Q How long? A "How long." A range, again, I'd say days. Q I mean, people go to sleep at night and that's eight hours. You're not talking about that. A Oh, no. No, no, I'm not talking about that. I'd say days. Q I mean, like a week you mean, something like that? A I wouldn't want to say less that a week or longer than a week. I'd say days. Q If a person is ambulatory and gets up and moves around -- A Yeah. Q -- that is the way to avoid the problem with being immobile; is that right? A That would certainly -- that would certainly be a way to minimize the potential -- okay? -- for at least generating a thrombus from the standpoint of bed rest. It still does not preclude, of course, the spontaneous thing. Spontaneous is just spontaneous. But, yes, to answer your question, if we were looking at that for the pathogenesis or -- which is another way for saying how it develops -- if a person were able to move, then that should certainly minimize the risk. Q Now you said you had discussions with Dr. Wood about this. The nature of the discussions were what? She asked your opinion and you gave her that or did she have an opinion on bed rest? A No, the thing we had was that this individual was under care within a facility and we weren't sure exactly what the nature of the care was in the facility. Q What did you do, before you left, to ascertain the nature of the care in the facility with regard to the issue of bed rest? A Okay. I'm going to have to -- okay. I did nothing, but I want to make a distinction here, and I'm not sure that all forensic pathologists will agree with this, but I see people as being in boxes or categories, if you will, okay? Now my category is to look at and to do forensic pathology. My category is not to be a policeman; it's not to be a state's attorney; it's not to be an attorney. Q Quincy. You're not Quincy. A Well, no. Okay? Q Okay. A Okay. But if you understand what I'm saying -Q I do. A okay. Now if they want to ask me a question in my field, I'll do everything I can to help them, but I don't go out to generate investigation on -- I mean, I'm not trained to do it, number one. Q That's fine. What evidence was there that you were aware of, either before you left or after you left, to indicate that a cause of death was due to bed rest of Lisa McPherson? Any? A No. No. Q Now, there -- A There was -- I had -- well, the -- our functional history was that this person -- okay -- was under the, quote, care of the facility and that really is all I knew. It was not my job -- okay -- as a medical examiner to go on out and find out why this, that and the other thing. Q There are certain observations that might be made during the physical autopsy that would indicate that someone had been confined for long periods of time to a bed; is that right? A Oh, if -- Q Am I right? A If you get very long periods of time or if you get a debilitated person, you certainly can have things like -- the common word is bed sores or decubitus ulcers or things like that. Q You didn't find about of that on Lisa McPherson, did you? A No, I did not. Q Okay. What other things might you find -- might one find in an autopsy that would be indicative of excessive bed rest, for lack of a better word, since that's the one that Dr. Wood used. A I don't know. Q Do you know of any witness who has -- who indicated that Lisa McPherson had been confined to a bed for some extended period of time? Do you know of any witness? A No. Q Do you know where this cause came from? A Which cause? Q Bed rest. Do you know where that came from? A First of all, I'm not positive and it may have been -- I mean, if you see on my draft, it's not there, okay? It may have been -- well, I have no independent recollection. Q Okay. A I just don't, okay? Q Okay. Now she also has on here, "Due to severe dehydration" -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- do you see that? Did she discuss that conclusion with you before she signed off this report? A No. Q Do you know what she based that conclusion on that the pulmonary embolism was due to severe dehydration? Do you know? A She didn't discuss it with me. Q Okay. As you sit here today as a well-trained medical examiner who actually did the autopsy in this case, can you say with any degree of medical certainty that the pulmonary embolism in this case was caused by bed rest? A I don't know what caused it. Q And you -- I take it you can't say with any degree of medical certainty that it was caused by severe dehydration, either; right? A As I said, I don't know what caused it. Q Okay. A That's neither a yea or a nay, okay? Q I understand. No, it's actually -- it's an answer to the question. A Okay. Q All right. Now, we're making some progress here. The -- THE WITNESS: Just a break. (WHEREUPON there was an off-the-record discussion) THE WITNESS: Anyway, go ahead. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now you saw that Inside Edition show that Dr. Wood appeared on; correct? A Yes. Q And you recall from that show that Dr. Wood said that she thought that Lisa McPherson had gone without liquids from five, she said, to ten to seventeen days. Do you remember that statement or one like it? A The exact particulars -- I mean, if that's what you say she said. I remember seeing the thing and, yes, there was some kind of statement like that. Q Well, here's what the -- the transcript says -- the reporter says, "Five days, you think, she went without liquids." "Dr. Wood": "I think five to ten is reasonable; it may have been seventeen"; that's her statement. Now my question to you is, did she -- did Dr. Wood discuss that conclusion with you before she went on Inside Edition? A No. Q Can a competent, well-trained medical examiner like yourself predict how long someone went without water before they died? A I can't. Q You cannot? A I can't. Q And did you tell Dr. Wood, at any time while you were employed in the medical examiner's office, that you believed that Lisa McPherson had gone without water for any specific period of time? A No. No. I can't determine the specific period of time. Q "Specific period of time"; is that what you said? A Yeah, I can't tell you that. Q Okay. Now did Dr. Wood ever ask you to reach a specific conclusion with regard to the manner of death or the cause of death? Did she ever ask you that? A No. No. Q Or did the police ever ask you that? A No. Q Did the police ever tell you what their theory was as to how and under what circumstances Lisa McPherson died? A To the best of my recollection, you know, I don't recall anybody specifically coming over and telling me what they thought the situation was. I think that there was an expression, again, informally, of frustration, but, no, I don't recall. Q What kind of frustration? A Well, they -- okay, and, again, to paraphrase, and, again, just from what I roughly recall, and I can't name people or names or whatever, but I think that they felt that they weren't getting information they felt they needed. Q From the church? A Yes, and it may be also -- and, again, you've -- well, okay. I'll stick with the question. Q Where was the information not coming from, as you understood it? A Well, certainly not from the church. Q Any other source? A I think I told you before, I had not seen and was not aware of the -- of what I would call a hospital report from New Port Richey and if it were available, I didn't know of it. I mean, do you understand what I'm saying? Q Yes. I don understand. Have you ever been interviewed by the police? A No. Q Have you ever been interviewed by the -- somebody from the state attorney's office with regard to your findings? A No. Q -- or the police. Have you ever -- A No. Q Now in addition, during this Inside Edition show, Dr. Wood made the following observation: Quote, I spent some time in court, as you can imagine, and so I'm very careful with my wording, and my wording would be this: From the time that Lisa McPherson died backward twenty-four to forty-eight hours, she was unconscious. "Reporter": "Comatose unconscious?" "Dr. Wood": "Yes." Now do you remember seeing Dr. Wood say those things in the Inside Edition show? A That was some kind of thing she said similar to that. Q Now can a competent medical examiner, well-trained, accurately predict the level of a person's consciousness before death from conducting an autopsy? A I'm going to answer that by just simply saying that I can't and -- MS CARLUCCI: That's an answer. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you know of anybody that can? MS CARLUCCI: Yes or no. THE WITNESS: Not that I know. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. Now prior -- at any point in time, did you discuss with Dr. Wood her statement that or belief that Ms. McPherson had been unconscious in a coma for a period of time? A No. Q And you never said anything like that to Dr. Wood, I take it; right? A No. Q For someone or for you to have -- to draw a conclusion like that, would that be pure guesswork? A I wouldn't say -- I wouldn't say things in that manner, number one; number two, if I were concerned about something, I would give a range; and number three, you know, I'd probably have to get some -- I mean, just me -and this is not saying anything with regard to some other doctor -- but I don't feel that I have, as a pathologist -- I'd probably have to talk to a clinician and find out their -- their observations with regard to caring for patients. I don't care for live patients, see, and it -- I -- that's just it. Q Did you find anything in your autopsy that would allow you to determine the level of consciousness of Ms. McPherson twenty-four to forty-eight hours before her death? A No. Q Okay. Now Dr. Wood also pronounced on the Inside Edition show that Lisa McPherson had cockroach bites on her body. Do you remember a reference to that in either watching the show or reading some of the media following the show? A Yes. Q Okay. Now did you conclude from your autopsy Protocol -- A Excuse me, this is not my autopsy Protocol. Q Well, did you conclude from the autopsy or did you determine in the autopsy that Lisa McPherson had cockroach bites? A No. Q Did you discuss, at any time, with Dr. Wood cockroach bites in relation to Lisa McPherson? A I don't recall it, and -- Q Do you know of any situation in which a cockroach has bitten a living active adult? A Active? Q Yeah. A I don't know much about cockroaches, so I can't -- but, I guess it's possible. Q Do you know what a cockroach bite looks like? A I know what animal activity looks like, quote, unquote. Q Do you know how Dr. Wood could say such a sensational thing on nationwide television? A I didn't tell her what to say. I didn't tell her what not to say. I didn't -- MS. CARLUCCI: Do you know or don't you know? THE WITNESS: I don't know. MS. CARLUCCI: Thank you. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now in your -- in the protocol that's here -- you know, and why don't you take a look at it -- on the bottom of -- in the Extremities section -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- you -- let's just say it is described that there are several crusted confluent dark brown lesions consistent with, quote, insect "slash" animal bites, end quote. Do you see that? A Hmm-hmm. Q Now you were not diagnosing an insect bite or an animal bite in the autopsy Protocol; is that right? A No. No. That -- see if you read that, that says "consistent with." Q That's what I'm asking you. A It doesn't mean absolute. Q Okay. A I mean -- okay. Go ahead. Q What you saw would also be consistent with an abrasion, as well, wouldn't it? A Yes. Q It would be consistent with a scratch and scabbing. A Yes. Q Okay. You did not make a determination that there were any actual insect bites, regardless of what kind of insect bites, on Lisa McPherson; is that right? A That's right. Q Now on the Protocol -- A Yeah. Q -- okay? -- if you go to the Head and Neck -A Under Dr. Wood's Protocol; right? Q Right. If you go to the -- A Okay. Q -- to the Protocol, it says, in the first sentence of Head and Neck, "One quarter inch drying abrasions are present at the tip of the nose." Do you see -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- and then it says, "Crusted blood is present at the nares." A Hmm-hmm. Q Now are the drying abrasions and blood on the nose, which were observed during the autopsy, are those also consistent with an intubation and CPR that she received at the ER? A That's -- I can't rule that out. Q Okay. A I -- Q So it could have -- A Yeah. Q -- is that right? A Yeah. Q You are aware that she was intubated. A Yeah. Yeah. Q Okay. Now -- A As I think I said once before, you can put different things under different areas and it may prove -- you know, sometimes it can be arbitrary as to where you put something. I'm sorry, go ahead. Q Okay. Now you also note, or somebody notes, Crusted blood is -- I mean "Crusted blood dried material is present within the mouth, on the lips." Do you see that? A Let's see, "Crusted brown dried material is present within the mouth, on the lips", yes. Q That might also be consistent with a process that went on in CPR in the emergency room; correct? A Ordinarily, I guess I would expect dried material on the buckle; that means cheek; inside the cheeks. I wouldn't expect -- I wouldn't expect that, but I would probably have to defer that question, say, to an emergency room physician or specialist in that kind of thing. Q What happens in the emergency room is not a gentle process. A Hmm? Q What happens in the emergency room is not a gentle process. A Oh, no. Q It can cause bleeding; abrasion. A Oh, yes, yes. Q Okay. In fact, when the body comes to you, it had still, in places, various -- A Yes. Q -- things that were placed in it during the emergency room process; right? Is that correct? A That's correct. Q Okay. Now crusted brown material, what we've just talked about, that sort of thing is also consistent with somebody that is dead, too. I mean, you can see things like that in dead people just from the dying process. You know what I mean? A I know what your statement is. I'm not that impressed that unless there's been a relatively long period of time between death and the first observation, that you're going to have a change in say the liquidity, or lack of it, of body fluids. Q Well, is -- eleven or twelve hours, is that a long period of time, or thirteen or fourteen hours? A Under preservation, which -- I wouldn't consider that a particularly long time, no. Q Now prior to the autopsy, did you have any understanding regarding Lisa McPherson's mental status at the time of her death? A "Mental status a the time of her death." No, I did not. No, I didn't. MS. CARLUCCI: Let's take a break. (WHEREUPON the proceedings were in recess from 2:38 p.m. until 2:44 p.m.) [Begin of Volume II] BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Dr. Davis, did anyone advise you that Lisa McPherson was severely mentally disturbed just prior to her death? A Not that I recall. Q Did anybody advise you that Lisa McPherson was psychotic? A Not that I recall, no. Q Did anyone advise -- I'm sorry -- did anyone advise you that in the several weeks before her death, that Lisa McPherson engaged in conduct which led to self-inflicted injuries? A No. Q Did anybody tell you that Lisa McPherson in the days -- in the several weeks before her death punched walls, kicked walls, scratched herself, bit herself and did other self-inflicted injuries to herself? A You said the days before her death? Q Yes. Few weeks before her death? A I believe I had heard something about hitting walls. I don't recall the other. Q Now, during the -- you Protocol, you identified a number of abrasions, contusions, bruises, over Lisa McPherson's body, mostly on her extremities; is that right? A It was Dr. Wood's Protocol. Q In you -- when you did the autopsy, you observed -- A To the best of my recollection, yes. Q Okay. Now none of these hematomas, bruises, abrasions that you saw were life-threatening, were they? A No. Q You did not observe any life-threatening traumatic injuries, did you? A No. Q You did not observe any broken bones, did you? A No. Q You did not observe any torn tendons, ligaments or muscles, did you? A No. Q You did not observe any ruptured organs, did you? A No. Q In fact, all of the organs, with the exception of the lung, the left lung in which you found a thrombus, were without any disease -- correct? -or injury. A Any grossly observable, as I recall, from my Protocol, and I've got it in front of me -- all I've got in front of me is the one that was signed by somebody else, but, as I recall from mine, yes. Q The distributions -- the distribution of the injuries that you observed, particularly on the knuckles -- and if you look at this Protocol, it may refresh your recollection -- particularly on the knuckles of Ms. McPherson, are consistent, are they not, with -- and are in a consistent pattern with punching something. A They're consistent. Q Let me show you -- if you recall, we had a Public Records Act request in which we requested all the photographs and various things from the autopsy and we had litigation over it, and what was ordered/produced was a few, but not many, of the pictures, but there were six photographs that were produced to us and that's Photograph Number 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, and these are pictures basically of the hand. I just want you to take a look at the hand and, particularly, the bruises and abrasions on the knuckles, and ask me if that -- and tell me if that -if what you see here is consistent with a pattern of punching. (Witness reviewing photographs) THE WITNESS: Could be. MR. WEINBERG: I'm just -- these are -- I think these have been properly identified, because these have the medical examiner photo numbers on them, but I'm going to mark this package as Exhibit Five. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now -- now if the evidence in this case shows, which I expect that it will, that Lisa McPherson, before her death, was severely mentally disturbed and was scratching herself, biting herself, punching objects, kicking, hitting the walls and generally flailing about, are the injuries that you observed, the hematomas and the abrasions and the bruises, consistent -- would they be consistent with that description? A Talking about over days? Q Yes. A They're consistent with that, yes. Q Okay. Now am I correct that one cannot establish by autopsy whether someone is psychotic or not? A There's no way that I know of. "Psychotic." Q In other words, they have a mental disease. A I understand what you're saying. Yeah. The -- there are certain kinds of degenerative-type situations that are probably pretty uncommon and would represent a very definite minority, in which case you might see some changes, but if you use the word "psychotic" as all-encompassing, I think the answer has to be that I don't know of any. Q Now the Protocol that is marked here as Exhibit One, which Dr. Wood signed off on and which indicates a, you know, a description of the autopsy that you did, if you go to page one, page numbered one -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- it describes -- and we reviewed this before in the first, second and third sentence -- "confluent dark brown lesions consistent with insect/animal bites." Now I just want to make sure I understand -- and you've already said that that would also be consistent with some sort of an abrasion -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- or scab or something like that. Now, let me -- if you look at these photos again -A Okay. Q -- is the Picture 21 and Picture 22 above the wrist, is that what is being described there? A Yes. Q And what do you see in Picture 21 and Picture 22 could also be an abrasion or a scab; is that right? A Yes. MR. DANDAR: Could we hold that up, so we can get that on camera what he's pointing to? MR. WEINBERG: Yeah, he can -- MR. DANDAR: It's not going to be on the record what he's pointing to. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, it's very prominently displayed in Picture 21 and 22 in the area above the wrist; that dark brown right here. MR. DANDAR: I know. Let the doctor point to it is what I'm asking. MR. WEINBERG: I'm pointing to it right there and right there. THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. CARLUCCI: Point, if you want to point, Doctor. THE WITNESS: This would be from the back. There and -- let's see -- and I think right here. MR. DANDAR: Right above the ruler? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did you section any -- did you section that particular -A No. Q -- spot -- A No. Q -- above the wrist? A No. Q No? Did you section any of the bruises? A Oh, I'd have to refer. Q Let me refer you to the second page, this right here. Why don't you just read what I -- "On section these lesions in common lack an underlying" -- A Oh. Okay. Q You've got to read above that. A I did from the feet where there's lesions described, also. Q And lesions, again, being abrasions or bruises? A Abrasions of -- it could be abrasions. Q And when you sectioned it, does that mean that you actually made a slide of it or does that mean you just cut into it? A It means I cut into it and I got a section from it. Q Okay. And when it says that there is -- you found that "these lesions in common lack an underlying hemorrhagic base even centrally", does that mean that they weren't very severe bruises? A I would tend -- if there's a recent bruise and if you cut into it, you can see a hemorrhage underneath it. Q So when you say -- A If it's somewhat older, blood tends to be reabsorbed and your likelihood of getting bright red blood that's sharply demarcated that then goes to normal-appearing subcutaneous tissue is much less. Q When you say that the under -- the "common lack of an underlying hemorrhagic base", would that suggest that it was more superficial? A It could suggest superficiality and perhaps being somewhat older. Q Now were these lesions that you saw, would they also have been consistent with self-inflicted trauma? A There's a lot of things things can be consistent with and I wouldn't say they would be inconsistent. Q Okay. Now did you or Dr. Wood say in -- on page one of the Protocol, quote, consistent with insect "slash" animal bites? A I believe those are the words -- I mean, that's the way I would phrase it. Q "Consistent with." A Yes, "consistent with" as opposed to being dogmatic. Q Now the Internal Examination, if you'll turn to that -- and we've already talked about a lot of that. If you go through everything but the Respiratory System, essentially what you found is nothing abnormal -- is that right? -- in the internal exam? A No. If you look at the bottom under Miscellaneous, on page three, just before Brain After Fixation. Q That's the thrombus? A Yes. Q Okay. So your findings of abnormalities were two; one was the embolus in the lung and the second was the thrombus behind the left knee; is that right? A That's right. Q Now you found that the -- you found no hematomas in the skull -- is that right? -- or no subscapular hematomas? A No subscapular hematomas, right. Q The urinary system appeared to be functioning; is that right? A I wouldn't phrase it that way. Q What do you mean, "The renal arteries are patent"? A "Patent", that means they're open; that means they're not closed, okay? And as to implying function, as a result of morphology -- "morphology" being a big word for "structure" -- I don't know that the two necessarily have to follow. Q You did not -- A But I mean, I am not saying -- you know, I'm not impressed with the description of the urinary system. Q You didn't observe any renal failure. A No. Q You did find some urine in the bladder? A A very small amount. Q And that was retrieved? A Yes. Q And the outer surface of the kidneys was not sticky -- is that right? -was smooth? A Yeah. I don't -- Q Okay. There didn't appear to be any problems with the liver; is that correct? A I wasn't impressed with the liver. Q Now the gastrointestinal tract, you opened up the stomach; is that right? A Hmm-hmm. Q But you did not open up the -- you did not open up the small intestine or the colon? A I looked at those externally. You're right, I didn't open them. Q Now is there a particular reason why you didn't open up the large and small intestines? A I ordinarily will look at those externally and I didn't find -- if i don't see anything grossly, I don't tend to open them. I don't tend to run them. Q You don't know whether there was any food in them or not; is that right? A That's right. Q Now the thirty cc's of what you described as thick, green viscid bile in the stomach, are you describing -- or whoever did this -- are they describing a bile-like substance as opposed to bile itself? A I'm not sure if that's a mis-print or what exactly that -- exactly what that is. Ordinarily, I will put the gallbladder under the Hepatobiliary System. I don't put it down -- you know, I don't put the gallbladder under the gastrointestinal Tract. Now different people can put things different places, but I don't tend to put it there. Q Put another way, it's unlikely that the green -A Thick, green viscid material is not bile. Q In the stomach, it would not be bile, would it? A No. Q It would be something that would have been ingested through the mouth; is that right? A Oh -- Q At least pert of it. A Well, first of all, if there's no food mentioned -- okay? -- then thick, green viscid material -- "viscid" is just a word for "thick" -- with the stomach is essentially nonspecific. Q Did anybody tell you, for example, that she -- that Lisa McPherson was primarily eating protein drinks and the like? Did somebody tell you that? A No. Q And did you or anyone test this green fluid found in the stomach? A I don't recall having tested it. Q Was it preserved? A I don't have an independent recollection if it was or wasn't. Q And the gastrointestinal tract, those organs -- the external surface of those organs were smooth and glistening; is that right? A I didn't see any gross abnormalities, but, by the same token, I apparently don't place the same emphases on, quote, stickiness that -- i don't know -- maybe your consultants do. I'm not sure. I think, as I told you, I put more emphasis on the Hippocratic facies and so on, because it's -- anyway, go ahead. Q Okay. You took photos of the body or somebody did that for you? A They do that for me. Q And is that of every part of the body? Do you know how may photos there were? A I don't recall offhand how many photos there were, no. Q Okay, but you examined them afterwards or not; the photos? A Once again, I will try and have a case cross my desk as few times as possible. Q Okay. A And each time I get a new piece of date, I'm not going to re-review the whole case, you know, because we got one additional piece of data, when I know full well that there's crucial material to the extent that I can't sign the case out. Q Okay. I'm not challenging that. A Okay, yeah. Q I just was asking you. A All right, yeah. Q You also preserved these sections in paraffin blocks; right? I mean, you took -- A Preserved what? Q You took certain sections that were made into slides; is that right? A Yes. Q Do you remember what -- what you made slides of, specifically? A Oh, I don't know. Lung. I would -- I'm not -- you know, I'm not quite -- Q Dr. Wood, in producing documents to us, produced the document I'm about to show you, which will be the next exhibit -- A Oh, all right. Q -- and I guess this a copy of what she purportedly sent you and you Federal Expressed back to her, but by looking at that photocopy, can you tell what these sections are of? A No. No, I can't. Q I'm glad you can't, because I couldn't, either. A Huh? Q I'm glad you can't, because I couldn't, either, but -A No. I mean -- MS. CARLUCCI: Okay. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. What she sent you was not this, though. She sent you the actual slides? A Huh? Q Do you believe that she sent you the actual slides? A How would I know? I didn't open the thing. Q I mean, what did she tell you? A What did who tell me? Q When they called you up and said they were sending you the slides. A Well, Mr. Bedore asked me if I wanted to have or if I wanted the slides to be sent and I said, If you want to send them, send them. Q okay. but I mean, you -- obviously, it would have had to be the slides, because this wouldn't -- a photograph -- a photocopy wouldn't do you any good; right? You can't tell anything from a photocopy -- A Oh. Q -- correct? A But that doesn't mean that necessarily what someone else says was in a package was in there. I have no idea -- MS. CARLUCCI: That's not the question. MR. WEINBERG: That's not the question. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The question is, you, Dr. Feegel and no one else can make heads or tails out of a photocopy of slides; right? A I sure can't. Q Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because I couldn't. Let me show you -- MR. WEINBERG: Have this marked as Exhibit Seven. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q This is another document that was produced to us by the medical examiner and these, apparently, were tests that were run long after you left, and, particularly, I want you to look at not the first page, because that's the vitreous fluid, but to look at the second page, which is a, as I understand it, a urine test; is that right? A Hmm-hmm. Q Now do you know why, in January of '97, which is just a few months ago, the medical examiner's office would be running a urine test with regard to Lisa McPherson? A They never communicated with me. I have no idea. I mean -MS. CARLUCCI: You answered. THE WITNESS: Okay. I can speculate, but I don't know. MS. CARLUCCI: No, you can't. THE WITNESS: Okay, I can't speculate. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And you've already commented on the -- on your views of the accuracy of urine tests vis-a-vis vitreous fluids. A Yes. Q Okay. Okay. Now have you been interviewed by any member of the press with regard to this case? A No. Q Is it your belief that all of your notes with regard to all of the autopsies that you did at District Six were kept in the autopsy file? A Yes. Q Be any reason to throw away your notes? I'm not talking about this case. I'm talking about any case. A Yeah, I understand your question. I don't -- I'm not in a -- I don't know if that's legal. Q okay. It's probably not. A Huh? I said it's probably not -A Well -- Q -- but I'm just asking. A Yeah. Q You don't know of any good reason to throw away your notes. A No. Q Now do you -- before -- when you're called on to testify in a case with regard to an autopsy that you've done, among the things that you review would include the autopsy report, your notes, photographs, slides and other documents in the file; is that right? A As a function of a particular case, yes, and as a function of a particular case, emphasis to a greater or lesser extent on one or more of those things, if you understand what I'm saying. Q Yes. A The only exception perhaps to that might be the fact that I attempt to -- you know, I go through my notes thoroughly and that's reflected, you know, ordinarily, in what I try and dictate for the Protocol and so it may be a rather cursory glance at the notes, because it's redundant. Q Is law enforcement present -- is there a law enforcement presence that is prominent in Dr. Wood's office? Do you understand what I mean? A I understand it. Yes, I understand it. You know, that's a hard question to answer. I think certainly, as a function of the case, when it's appropriate, the -- they're there and I guess that's the majority of the time when I would expect to see them. Q Did Dr. Wood -- while you were there -- A Yeah. Q -- did you observe that she had a propensity to make a finding with regard to a case that conformed with the law enforcement view of the case? A No, I can't say that. I can't say that I saw that. Q Did Dr. Wood criticize your work at all with regard to Lisa McPherson? A No. Q Did Dr. Wood challenge at all your conclusions with regard to your findings concerning Lisa McPherson? While you were there, I'm talking about. A I didn't have conclusions. It was not a concluded case. MR. WEINBERG: Hold on a second. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Other than what you testified to about -- your best recollection of the words that were spoke, did Dr. Wood explain to you why, in December of 1996, she was calling you with regard to the case of Lisa McPherson? A I believe the signed-out report -- the signed-out report and I'm trying to make a distinction in my own mind between conclusions I may have drawn having received this just recently -- okay? -- and I don't recall her specifically giving me a particular reason, so that's the best I can recall. Q I mean, clearly, Exhibit Three indicates that on December 23rd, 1996, you received a thirty-page fax -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- from Mr. Bedore or Dr. Wood's office, which included the Report of Autopsy; right? A Yes. Q I mean, it was actually singed out -- A Well, that's to the best of my recollection. I don't recall -- you know, it's possible and I -- you know, she could have sent me just -- well, it's the first time I received say thirty pages of anything, but it's possible that the Protocol came separately earlier and that this was -- this is redundant and then the rest of the stuff came later. Q But you don't have that other -- I mean, this is all you have in your file is what I've got here; right? A Yeah, I don't have anything else. Q And each of these pages have this fax mark on the top, which indicates that it came in on 12/23/96; correct? A I didn't look at each of the pages. Q No, but the first thirty pages are -- if you look at them. Actually, twenty-four pages. A Oh, well, whatever you say, you know. Q It's whatever you gave me. What you gave me was twenty-four pages. A I gave you what we had. Q Okay. A Or my attorney did. I didn't give you anything. My attorney gave it to you. MR. WEINBERG: Hold on one second. Those are all my questions. Thank you, Doctor. Thanks. THE WITNESS: You sure? MR. DANDAR: I have -- MR. WEINBERG: Those are all my questions at this time. Thank you very much, Dr. Davis. THE WITNESS: All right. MR. WEINBERG: Yeah, I mean, obviously, we have -- just so you understand, we have made a valiant effort, both by request of Dr. Wood and through a public records lawsuit, and, ultimately, through a request to the prosecutor, as well, to obtain the entire file with regard to the autopsy of Lisa McPherson, but, unfortunately, all we have received is essentially what you've seen today, which is obviously only part of the file as you've described it. So once we have an opportunity to see the entire file, I'm sure that there will be some other questions, but we've asked for the photographs and they didn't give them to us and we asked for the slides and they didn't give them to us and we've asked for your notes and they didn't give them to us, so we've done the best we can today. Thanks. MS. CARLUCCI: Let me go ahead and put on the record, in light of what you've just said, Sandy, if indeed at some point in the future, you're able to obtain further records and, in particular, any work product of Dr. Davis, please contact me -- MR. WEINBERG: I will. MS. CARLUCCI: -- if you'd like to make arrangements to possible either get written questions or possibly have another deposition session -- MR. WEINBERG: Well, what I intend to do is, because I know you're representing him, is I would contact you -- MS. CARLUCCI: Great. MR. WEINBERG: I don't know if you can copy slides, though. It doesn't look like they copy very well. MR. DANDAR: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: All right. MR. DANDAR: My name is Ken Dandar and I represent the Estate of Lisa McPherson and I do have some questions. Are you ready to go or do you need a break? Ready to go? THE WITNESS: We'll probably need a series of additional breaks -MR. DANDAR: Okay. THE WITNESS: -- but, at this time, I don't. MR. DANDAR: I'll try to be a lot faster. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DANDAR: Q In your autopsy, did you discover any evidence of diarrhea? A Diarrhea is a clinical term that describes frequency of passage of loose stools. Q And? A It's a clinical term. Q Okay. A It's a clinical term. It's frequency of passage of loose stools -- okay -- so that what you would -- it would be historical. Q Did you receive any historical information concerning any alleged massive diarrhea? A I believe there was -- I believe either in -- and, again, I'm not sure where; whether it was -- could have been from newspapers or something -but it -- there was some mention of vomiting and diarrhea. I'm not -- I don't -- I just don't honestly recall what the source was. Q Are you saying, as a medical examiner, it's impossible to determine whether or not the body that you're examining had experienced massive diarrhea prior to death, like within twenty-four hours prior to death? A The way you phrased your question, there can be a variety of different causes, and, in some causes, you can find changes and in other -- and in other situations, the patient may not have things wherein you can clearly establish it, so I don't like the word "impossible." Q Okay. Well, wouldn't you -- in order to see if someone had experienced massive diarrhea, wouldn't there be some sign of that on the colon? A Not necessarily, because diarrhea may be associated with a situation in which there can be disease in other areas or higher, more proximal, if you will, to the colon itself, so it's hard to give an absolute answer to that question. Q Well, when you opened up the stomach and looked inside and just saw this green fluid -- A Yeah. Q -- was there any evidence there that this person had -- Lisa -- had experienced diarrhea? A I couldn't say one way or the other. Q Okay. The reason why I'm bringing all this up is because part of this -the files from your office, page 18 of the fax, which we already talked about a little bit, the letter from Dr. David Minkoff off December 16th, 1996, talks about "a clinical history of sudden deterioration, massive diarrhea and shock fit this picture, in addition to pulmonary embolus and other findings you've described." Did you receive any case history -- and we already went through the case history that you dictated -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere in the case history is there any mention of massive diarrhea that you found through the investigative notes. A I don't recall, myself, having received that, just like I don't recall having spoken to Dr. Minkoff. Q Did Lisa McPherson look septic to you when you were doing the autopsy? A "Septic." A person can be septic and -- or could have been septic, have sepsis as a cause of death, and really not show much externally or internally. Alternative-wise, the -- mentioned sometimes you can see things like petechiae and so on. Q You didn't see any petechiae. A I didn't see any. Q Would the petechiae disappear over time while the body is being refrigerated? A I wouldn't expect that, no. Q Okay. Did you see any purpura? A No. Q Would purpura disappear over time while the body is refrigerated prior to autopsy? A I wouldn't expect that. Q Did you see shock? A You don't see shock. Q I don't think so. A Shock is -- Q I agree with you. A Shock is -- shock is a clinical term that you get when you take somebody's blood pressure when they're lying on the floor, see? I mean, it's not -- it's not a -- it's not a pathology term. Q Within your expertise and experience, have you seen people die because of diarrhea? A Yes. Certainly more so as a clinician rather than as a - not clinician, but I mean as a hostpital-associated pathologist rather than as a forensic pathologist. Q Over what period of time? A A "kiddy" can die from Staph enteritis over a period of eight to twelve hours. Q You say a kidney? A A "kiddy." A little kid. Q A little kid, I'm sorry. A Okay? Q All right. A There's a whole spectrum of time changes. You can die conceivably over a period of days. You can die -- you'd have to get particular. Q Well, let's talk about Lisa McPherson -- A Okay. Q -- all right? someone that's thirty-six years old. A Okay. Q Over what period of time would she have to experience continuous diarrhea in order to die from diarrhea? A Just diarrhea alone? Q Right. MR. WEINBERG: You mean -- MS. CARLUCCI: Be certain you stay within your area of expertise. THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. DANDAR: If you know. MR. WEINBERG: You're saying diarrhea as a result of cholera? As a result of some disease? What are you asking, Ken? MR. DANDAR: No, diarrhea, period. I don't know what it's caused by. I didn't get there yet. Let's just go with diarrhea first. MR. WEINBERG: I object to the gross vagueness of the question. I mean, diarrhea can be, as I understand it, indicative of all kinds of conditions, some of which I imagine can be more fatal than others. MR. DANDAR: Okay. Here's -- I'll rephrase the question, Doctor. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Did you see any evidence that Lisa McPherson's death was caused by diarrhea, which may have been caused by anything else? MR. WEINBERG: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: One, no. I did see changes that I thought were consistent with dehydration and dehydration, in turn, can be associated with a variety of things -- a variety, okay? -- which may include that; beyond that, Ms. Carlucci is correct, I am not a gastroenterologist. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay. All right. Now did you read this Minkoff -- Dr. Minkoff's letter of December 16th, 1996? A Yeah. Q Is he trying to direct you onto how your opinion should come out of this for the cause of death? MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, I object. Dr. Davis left the medical examiner's office in May of 1996; that letter is dated December of 1996, so that letter is not directed to Dr. Davis; it's directed to the medical examiner and it was sent to Dr. Davis, as I understand it from his testimony, by Larry Bedore and Joan Wood after all this publicity, so I object to the form of your question. MR. DANDAR: All right. I'll rephrase it. You're right; it's not directed to Dr. Davis, per se. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Do you take it, from the letter addressed to "Dear Medical Examiner" by Dr. David Minkoff on December 16th, 1996, as an attempt by him to direct a finding as to the cause of death? MR. WEINBERG: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: I don't know what was in his mind when he wrote the letter. I mean, I -- MR. DANDAR: Okay. THE WITNESS: I can't say it is or it isn't. I don't know. BY MR. DANDAR: Q All right. Now was there any evidence of a staph infection when you conducted the autopsy? A The -- okay. I found nothing that I felt would cause me to think of Staphylococcus aureus at the time of autopsy, period. Q And you did check for meningitis; correct? A Oh, yes. Q And why did you do that? A Because there was a question at some -- in some place, you know, and you're asking -- I'm not sure if it was in the -- in the invest notes or where it was of meningitis, but, frankly, a thing like meningitis in a -in an autopsy case is a much easier thing to -- okay -- to rule in and/or out than say a possible staphylococcal septicemia -- okay? -- sepsis, in other words -- some ten, twelve, fourteen hours after death. Q Which has nothing to do with the death then. MR. WEINBERG: EXCUSE ME? BY MR. DANDAR: Q Would that have anything to do with the death? A What? Q The staph? MR. WEINBERG: That's not what he said. He said to make a determination fourteen hours after death as to whether there was a staph that contributed to the death -- MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry. MR. WEINBERG: -- is what he said. MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: That's all right. MR. DANDAR: I must have been reading another note while you were talking and I apologize. THE WITNESS: That's all right. MR. DANDAR: Okay. Wait a minute. Q You found no evidence of a staph infection; correct? A I found nothing that I could say was -- that I could document for a staphylococcal infection. Q Okay. And if you had, you would have documented that. A It's difficult to document sepsis in someone who is dead for that long a period of time. There is -- it just is. Q If someone died of sepsis, could you document it? A Frankly, there's two things I'd suggest. One would be a question to an infectious disease person, however, I can tell you this, that sepsis is a diagnosis much more easily made in a living person or a person in a peri-mortem period -- okay? -- and that, again, can be variably defined, but basically what it is, is the time shortly before death, at the time of death or shortly after death, and by "shortly", I'm talking about say a number of minutes, maybe, up to -- well, I'll say several minutes. Q Why did you -- on your cover page on your draft, why did you -A Let me get my draft. Q Exhibit Number Two. A Okay. Q Why did you write in or put in "rule out malnutrition/dehydration"? A Because of the Hippocratic facies and because of the unclear nature in my mind of the crusting that I mentioned in a number of places, and, again, this was prior to my having any vitreous results. Q Are the vitreous results consistent with dehydration? A Profound -- they're consistent with significant dehydration. Q And is the crusting that you noted in the Protocol consistent with findings of dehydration? A The crusting is, to me, a nonspecific kind of thing and is of some value. You know, in a hierarchy of things, I don't know that I'd put it foremost. Q Okay, but it's just another factor that you consider? A Yeah. Q What about the bloody chin that you noted on the autopsy Protocol? A To me, that's nothing. I mean, that could be -- it's an observation of a -- well, let me see. Okay. On the Protocol signed by someone else, under Evidence of Injury, are a couple of abrasions. I mean, that's nonspecific; it's superficial. I wouldn't attach major importance to it. Q What about the crusted brown material on the lips and mouth? A That could be -- that could be associated with dehydration. Q As well as the crusted dry material on the eyelids? A Could be. Q Now is the bloody chin evidence of injury? A Minor injury. Q And what about -- what is "hooded congestion" on the left side of the face? A Okay. Basically, that is a thing that can help you relative to a thing that we call -- at least I use that term -- in terms of lividity, if you will, and lividity is settling of blood and it's of help -- historically, it's supposed to be of help in terms of determining the time of death. To me, it can help that way, but it also can help relative to the position the person was in. Q What factors help the physician or the examiner determine the time of death? A Time of death is very difficult, in my opinion. It is, generally speaking, much easier the more recent -- or the shorter the time period between death and its determination. In terms of factors, one, none of them are perfect; two, I guess they would include, arguably -- quite arguably -- temperature; particularly, this can be misleading if a patient is febrile and/or hypothermic at the time of death -- okay -- but ordinarily, temperature can be one. Presence or absence of rigor mortis -- okay -- which is stiffening of the limbs, extremities and so on. Presence or absence of livor mortis and whether or not it blanches. "Blanching" is a big word for pushing and seeing if you can push the spot out. And then for the short term, for the very short period of time, potassium in the vitreous, okay? After a period of ten to twelve hours, in my opinion, it's worthless. Several people are of the opinion that vitreous is totally worthless, regardless of vitreous potassium, regardless of when you do it; however, on a number of cases I've seen where I know the time of death -- okay -- like say an accident, something like that, a fatal accident, and go ahead and get it, there's a decent correlation up to ten or twelve hours. Q And the body in refrigeration, does that extend the period of time to study the potassium in the vitreous fluid? A It can, but it's not in a linear kind of manner. In other words, "linear" means you can't draw a line and find the thing sitting out there so it's that helpful. Q Okay. What about in the case of Lisa McPherson, would the potassium levels that were found in the vitreous fluid be of any significance to you? A I'd have to review them. Just a minute here. Q Okay. A Again, that's a -- that's sort of a borderline level and I suppose you could argue that that's -- that could be -- and when I say "borderline", again, I think I gave a range of about ten to twelve -- okay? -- after that point, to me, it's non-linear, so that -- so that it could -- in other words, the curve could fall off, the curve could steepen, the curve could go straight, and so -- so I would prefer not to try to interpret that vitreous potassium. Q Okay. Now the Hippocratic facies that you described before of the sunken eyes and -- let's see. Wait a minute. Let me find exactly how you described that. The -- how the skin looks; if it's dried out or supple; the gaunt look; the tightness of the skin; the orbits around the eye; orbits are prominent; the eyeballs are sunken; the cheekbones are prominent; the cheeks are sunken; the jaw bones are prominent. You found all of those indications in order for you to come to the conclusion of Hippocratic facies in Lisa McPherson? A I thought that, yeah, to -- and I believe that the picture of the face -- and, again, I -- and the pictures I was shown, that was not amongst them, okay? I'm talking about -- Q Of the face? The Face? A I did not have -- what I'm saying is, today -Q Right. A -- okay -- I've not seen a picture of the face. Okay. At the time, I described a Hippocratic facies, and so, to a varying degree, those -- those various findings would be present. Q And are those findings consistent with the findings of the vitreous fluid in reference to showing dehydration -- significant dehydration? MR. WEINBERG: Objection, because the doctor's already said he challenges the validity or he has doubts about the validity of those findings, so I object to the form of that question. MR. DANDAR: I object to your objection; that's not even in the record. I'm going to get to that pretty soon. MR. WEINBERG: What do you mean it's not even in the record? MR. DANDAR: That's your words in the record; that's not the doctor's testimony. MR. WEINBERG: Well, we can go back and look at it. It is his testimony. MR. DANDAR: We will. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Well, let's just go with it right now, Doctor. A Okay. Q Do you challenge the lab report, in this case, on the vitreous fluid? A That's a tough question. I think it's a question that requires some degree of -- of what? -- of explanation. Part of this is based upon my time as a hospital pathologist, but I think that any time that you have a value which is -- is -- any way you want to word it -- phenomenal or outstanding or very, very, impressive, it is incumbent upon the laboratory director to -- and/or what happened proximal to it and distal to it -- in other words, before and after it -- to do what essentially is the -- the null hypothesis, which is a big way for saying we're going to assume there's a mistake and then we're going to set out to disprove it, if you follow me, okay? So you -- in my opinion, this series of data is very impressing and I think that that kind of study should be done and i don't know if it was done. I don't know any particulars about that, and so it's very hard for me to answer your question. Q Okay, let's stop right there. Let's start from the beginning then. She died -- or proclaimed she was dead of arrival at new Port Richey Hospital -- A Yeah. Q -- on December 5th of 1995. A Hmm-hmm. MR. WEINBERG: Object, I object to that, because there's nothing in the case that says that she was dead on arrival. You know that there's there's some dispute as to that. BY MR. DANDAR: Q All right. Well, she was either dead on arrival or as the Number Two man in scientology testified to, she was dead inside the hotel -- MR. WEINBERG: All right now, Ken. No, Ken -- (Attorneys talking simultaneously) MR. WEINBERG: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. I move to strike that and I also object, and you know darn well that that isn't correct, but what you know is, is that -- is that -- is that there -it's certainly not been established in your case that Lisa McPherson was dead on arrival; that there is evidence in your case that she received CPR and emergency room treatment for twenty-one minutes when she got to the hospital -- all right? -- so if you want to say that, that's fine, but if you start -- if you start with this nonsense that isn't in the record, then I have a right to object to it because it's not in the record. BY MR. DANDAR: You have a right to object to the form -- MR. WEINBERG: That's what I'm doing. BY MR. DANDAR: -- but not -- not chastise me, okay? MR. WEINBERG: Well, I do, when you make that last statement -BY MR. DANDAR: State your objection. MR. WEINBERG: -- because then I will chastise you for that, because you know that that was -- you know that that was a cheap shot and you know all you're doing is trying to sensationalize this and that's why you have this camera here, so -- you know, so that you can play games, like the St. Pete Times, but if you want -- if you want to restrict yourself to the facts, as opposed to making outlandish statements, then -- then that's fine. MR. DANDAR: Listen, I started my cross-examination at about twenty minutes after 3:00 and it's now quarter to 4:00, so keep going until you tell me you're done chastising me and I'll ask some more questions. MR. WEINBERG: Well, if you continue to say things like you just said about the Church of Scientology, I will chastise you. Go ahead. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Doctor, your autopsy was performed on December 6th of 1995; correct? A Yes, sir. Q Okay. You supervised the extraction of vitreous fluid from the two eyeballs of Lisa McPherson; correct? A Yes, sir. Q And those were the vitreous -- the fluid was put in the same syringe for both eyeballs; correct? A Ordinarily, that's the way we do it, yes. Q Okay. And then what happens to to? A Ordinarily, the material is -- well, what we need to do is to check the procedure, but, as I recall, it is centrifuged and then it is put -- is refrigerated and then when the people come by to pick it up, it's give -it's given to them. Q Now the fact that it's refrigerated, why is it refrigerated? A I have to tell you that I don't consider myself an expert -- okay? -- Q You'll defer -- A -- with regard -- Q -- to the experts on that ? MR. WEINBERG: Can he finish his answer, Ken? THE WITNESS: I'm not going to categorically defer to anyone, because if I don't have the circumstances, and I was there in the office, and I don't know at what time what particular expert, quote, unquote, may have said whatever, then I'm not going to defer to anybody. I mean, categorically, I'm just not going to do it. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Well, there isn't any. I just -- I didn't know what you were going to say. i just wanted to -- A I'm just saying I'm not -- I'm not a sub-expert -- there are people, I think -- well, I know of one individual -- but there are people who have a particular interest in sub-areas -- okay -- of forensic pathology, and -but, even there, to just say you're going to defer to a particular person because he's that person -- Q I thought that's what you were trying to say, but I was jumping the gun. A Okay. Q Let me start over. So after it's taken out of the eyeballs and put in the syringe, then it goes into a test tube and refrigerated in your office? A You'll have to check -- you know -MS. CARLUCCI: If you know. THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MR. DANDAR: Q You don't know because it's been so long or -A Well, I don't recall -- Q Okay. A -- to be honest with you. Q All right. That's fine All right. How soon then does the lab person come over and pick it up? MR. WEINBERG: In this particular case or typically? BY MR. DANDAR: Q Well, in the customary practice over in District Six in Pinellas County. MS. CARLUCCI: If you know. BY MR. DANDAR: Q If you know. A I'm not sure that I know; however, I believe that -- well, I don't know for sure and this is something you would have to check with the. You'd have to check that out. I think that's the most honest answer. Q Okay, that's fine. Do you recall approximately how long it takes, when you were in Pinellas County, how long it takes to get the lab results back for vitreous fluid? A It was my impression that it was -- it wasn't as -- it wasn't as long; that was my impression. Q Was it a couple of weeks? A It could be. Q Could it be as much as a couple months? A There could be a time range, I -- Q Okay. Now the fact that it's refrigerated, is it refrigerated when it arrives at the laboratory, as well, if you know? A That's what I was trying to say about the quality control aspect. See, that all comes into quality control from -- MS. CARLUCCI: Do you know, Doctor? THE WITNESS: No, I don't know. MR. DANDAR: Okay, that's fine. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Now the lab report that you have that's dated February 1st of 1996, which is marked as an exhibit -- MR. DANDAR: What exhibit number is that? MR. WEINBERG: Four. MR. DANDAR: Four? Okay. BY MR. DANDAR: Q -- does that not say that that lab report is a recheck, a retesting of the vitreous fluid? A No, it doesn't. Q What does the word "rechecked" mean next to "urea nitrogen"? A That means that urea nitrogen alone was rechecked. Q Okay. And when was it rechecked? Can you tell by that document? A I can't -- no, it would require speculation on my part. Q Okay. And when you talked about being received by the lab on January 30th of '96, is that also speculation, since it doesn't say -- use the word "received" next to that date on the top right-hand corner? A Yes. Q So we really don't know what that date means, do we? A That's right. Q While you were there until you left in May of '96, did you see these -recall seeing these lab reports? A Yes. Q And do you recall seeing how many? A What do you mean "how many"? Q Well, how many lab reports came in on the vitreous fluid? A All these that are on your page whatever it is. Q Well, this is just one page. A Okay. Let me -- MR. WEINBERG: So it's clear, Ken, that's all the medical examiner's office gave us and they were ordered to give us what they had on it; that one page. THE WITNESS: I saw these results. I saw the laboratory data. BY MR. DANDAR: Q And you conferred with Dr. Wood about the results because they were so high? A I mentioned them to her, yes. Q Okay. Was there any -- did anything happen as far as proving or disproving that they were accurate at that time? A Not at that time. I had -- no, no, not that I know of. Q Well, this was your autopsy. If you -- A Well -- Q -- questioned them, didn't you do anything about it? If you questioned that these may have been inaccurate, I just wanted to make sure, did you start any type of procedure to make sure that it was done correctly? A From my own standpoint, the -- I didn't have all of the data and I didn't -- I'm trying -- I believe that -- I'm trying to think. I have no independent recollection as to whether or not Wuesthoff was called or not. Q What type of reputation does the Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital laboratory have? MS. CARLUCCI: If you know. BY MR. DANDAR: Q If you know. A See, that's a tough -- I mean, I might not like her because of her shoes. You know what I mean? Q You're referring to your attorney? A Yeah. Q Okay. A And -- MS. CARLUCCI: Thank you for clarifying that. THE WITNESS: Well -- you know, I don't know that I can answer your question. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay. All right. Well, isn't it true that if you had a suspicion that the vitreous fluid was somehow mishandled or not tested appropriately, that you would have gone back to make sure that that was corrected? A When they say "checked" -- okay? -- they initiated that check on their own and that was the one value that was just horrendous. Q And that's the urea nitrogen. A That's correct. Q And they rechecked it and it came back with the same results. A They came back with the same results; that's what that means to me. Q All right. Do you know, within your area of expertise, how the findings of urea nitrogen could be inaccurate with vitreous fluid? A I'm not an expert of vitreous. I would -- yeah, I'm not an expert on vitreous. Q Okay. What is a normal -- for a person that has no dehydration, what is a normal urea nitrogen reading? A Okay. You mean vitreous urea nitrogen. Q Vitreous urea nitrogen, yes. A Okay. It's different because there is a normal blood urea nitrogen, okay? There are no, quote, normal values for vitreous, okay? There are to-be-expected ranges perhaps in different things, all right? I believe, and I'm trying to recall now, I think Spitz and Fisher would put that you can see fatalities in people with urea -- with a vitreous urea nitrogen of someplace like around a hundred and twenty to a hundred and forty; that's ballpark. Q Okay. A That's an estimate. Q So three hundred is extremely high. A It is quite elevated. Q Now in order to rule out a mistake being made in the laboratory or before the laboratory that would cause an unusually high reading of urea nitrogen, wouldn't you, after rechecking it and it comes back the same reading, wouldn't you then start comparing that finding with the urine finding, with your own physical findings on the anatomical autopsy, to see if they're all consistent with one another? A I think I explained to you about -- at least my opinion with regard to urine, okay? With regard to this, that level was markedly elevated and that would correlate with a Hippocratic facies and external drying that I noticed. The -- anyway, that's about as much as I can say. Q All right, so when this comes back rechecked at three hundred for urea nitrogen, did you still disbelieve that and start to do some other type of investigation or some other type of testing again to make sure that that was an accurate reading? A Within our laboratory, as I recall -- and I don't recall the particular person who assisted me on the case -- but I believe I did make sure that we had had no problems recently with regard to the mechanics of handling vitreous urea nitrogen. Now that's a generic kind of thing. You know, that person's not going to remember going back a particular kind of a particular patient, you know, but I have to accept that. With regard to -- and I think I told you before about the urine, I just -I'm not as impressed with urine findings. Q Who was the person that extracted the vitreous fluid from Lisa McPherson? A Well, it was the autopsy assistant. Q And who was that? A As I told you, we had two. Q Oh. A One's name is Claude Stodgel and the other is -- I forget what his name is. Darren or something like that. I forget his -- Q And when you went back and looked to see if you had other abnormal findings with vitreous fluid, at that time frame, were there any other problems in collecting vitreous fluid and transporting it to the lab? A Not that I had discovered, no, and -- but on the other hand, the findings frequently that we'll get on the tests are -- that they are frequently ordered -- okay -- you know, we'll get this in, say, cases of possible dehydration. We may get it in cases of diabetes. MS. CARLUCCI: You answered the question, Doctor. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: When you say "get this", you mean results? THE WITNESS: No, not synonymous with this, but you can find abnormalities, and so, you can have degrees of correlation. BY MR. DANDAR: Q If someone -- if Lisa McPherson did, in fact, have the three hundred level of urea -- vitreous urea nitrogen as evidenced by this lab report, would she be conscious? MR. WEINBERG: Object to the form of that question. MS. CARLUCCI: If this is outside your area of expertise, do not answer. MR. DANDAR: And all my questions are geared that way. If you feel it's outside your area of expertise, just tell me and we'll go on. THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you're going to focus on the vitreous, what I would -- I guess I would be interested in people who were -- who were acknowledged to be experts and then -- then I think that's -- I would certainly -- certainly listen to those people. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Is there any significance in your notes where you mention that she's five foot none and only weighs a hundred and eight pounds? A To me, that can -- you know, some people who are five foot nine can be very, very slender, like Ms. Carlucci here. You can have other people that are five foot nine and weigh two hundred pounds, but, arguable, a person that's five foot nine and weighs -- how much? I forget how much this was; whatever she weighed -- Q One 0 eight. A -- one 0 eight -- could conceivably have lost a significant amount of weight. Q Is that why you put down the question to rule out malnourishment? A No, I think I went through that. I think -- I think there's -- there are multiple factors. The Hippocratic facies -- I mean, there's no perfect way to do this -- okay? -- but the -- I was impressed by the Hippocratic facies. I was impressed by the dried crusted material and the weight was something to possibly consider. Q Okay. Now Dr. Wood, in her deposition, stated that she participated in some degree to the autopsy; do you recall that? A I really don't. Q Okay. Is it because you know absolutely she didn't do it or because it's been so long? MR. WEINBERG: Is that the only two choices he has? MR. DANDAR: The only two I can think of. THE WITNESS: I don't recall her participating in any of my autopsies. BY MR. DANDAR: Q ALL RIGHT. A I mean -- Q Okay. Have you performed or participated in on any other autopsies involving members of scientology? A Well, I'm sure that I have and -- but -MS. CARLUCCI: Is the answer yes or no? THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Do you recall any? A I recall one very unfortunate case. Q Which one's that. A There was a young boy, eleven or twelve years old, who was riding his bike over a causeway and it was raining and it was in the morning and he got hit -- I forget whether he went off the sidewalk into the road or whether a car came up and hit him -- anyway, he got catapulted off of his bike; hit the -- not the guardrail, but the handrail and was catapulted off into the water and was later recovered, as I recall, from the banks of the causeway. Q Yeah, I remember that. How long were you in the Pinellas County medical examiner's office. A About five years. Q Okay. And your leaving had nothing to do with the Lisa McPherson case, correct? A No. Q Okay. In the Protocol, the words are used "average nutritional status" and I believe you said that's not your words; am I misunderstood or am I correct that -- A I use those -- I use those words, but I -- I -- well, in this thing that is not my Protocol -- Q I understand. A -- okay? -- those are words that are present and -- Q Are those words inconsistent with the Hippocratic facies that you found? A I feel they are when you take into consideration the -- yeah, I think they are. Q Okay. So could that have been just a scrivener's error; some type of mistake? MR. WEINBERG: Just calls for rank speculation. MR. DANDAR: As far as you know. MS. CARLUCCI: If you know. MR. DANDAR: If you know. MR. WEINBERG: How would he know? MR. DANDAR: He can tell us. THE WITNESS: "A scrivener's error." What do you mean? MR. DANDAR: A writing error? MR. WEINBERG: You mean, the pen just sort of said "average nutritional status" and it appeared there? Come on. MR. DANDAR: Q No, a writing error from you -- A I don't know. I have no idea. Q Okay, excuse me. You said you make notes and then your notes are typed up or do you dictate your notes? A I dictate my notes and then the dictation comes back. Q Do you make notes in shorthand or abbreviations? A There are -- not shorthand; sometimes abbreviations. I don't know shorthand. Q Okay. A Sometimes abbreviations. In a good share of cases, since you've got this whole thing, four pages of it, I'll make little check marks. Q As far as you know, are your -- the taped dictation kept in the file as well as your notes? A I have no idea. You'll have to ask the secretaries. Q Okay. All right. While you were at the medical examiner's office in Pinellas up to May of '96, do you know whether or not the investigators, including the police investigators, had a difficult time talking to members of scientology to find out the circumstances -- as you've used the word before -- what was going on with Lisa McPherson up to the time she arrived at the Columbia New Port Richey Hospital? A I'm sorry, repeat your question. Q Okay. A The investigators at our office -Q Well -- A -- that was proximal to our involvement at all. Q After your involvement. MS. CARLUCCI: Let him ask the question. THE WITNESS: Right. Okay, go ahead. BY MR. DANDAR: Q My question is after the autopsy -- A Yeah. Q -- did you ever become aware that the investigators or the police investigators were having a difficult time talking to members of the Church of Scientology who were talking care of Lisa McPherson prior to her arrival at the Columbia New Port Richey Hospital? A There were newspaper -- the -- I don't have an independent recollection. there was both stuff in the newspaper and there were notes -- our investigators. I'm not aware that our investigators were that actively involved, at that point, but I don't have an independent recollection of which of the different possibilities it would be. Q You stated that you could not sign off on this and indicate a cause of death and manner of death, because you did not have the factual information of what happened to Lisa McPherson prior to her arrival at the new Port Richey Hospital; correct? A That's correct. Q Is that unusual in your line of work? A After a period of time, very frequently, a choice has to be made by a medical examiner as to whether -- I mean, he may not have all the facts he's like -- okay -- and all the facts may not be available, but he may be coerced -- he may be forced in the interest of time and the desire to get adequate specimens, et cetera, et cetera, to go ahead and do an autopsy with incomplete information. I guess I would say that it was unusual over that period of time to not have more information that at least I was privy to. Now if there was more information on this case -- I mean, there may have been information that I wasn't privy to, but I mean from my standpoint, usually we would have the vast majority of information that we needed, and this is an estimate, but I'd say certainly within a week. Q Are you privy to the investigative follow-up that's part of this exhibit you provided to us? A The -- I certainly am not privy to anything after having left the office and I don't recall having -- as I said, having gone over that in great detail, because, as I said, the circumstances weren't there and I had nothing to do with the police. Q Well, on the investigative follow-up at 2355 hours on December 5th, 1995, it says that, "We are now working on a homicide." Did anyone tell you that? A Well, if that's what they say in the notes, that's what they say in the notes. MR. WEINBERG: Ken, hold on a second. BY MR. DANDAR: Q No, my question is, did anyone -- MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, let's read it right, now. It says, "TC to Barb, Columbia NPR ER, told her we are going to call PASO and will need to call her back as we are working on a homicide now." Now that doesn't say, Ken, that this is a homicide. THE WITNESS: No, it doesn't. MS. CARLUCCI: There is no question. MR. WEINBERG: You know what I'm saying? That doesn't -- well -- that doesn't say this case is a homicide; it just says they're working on a homicide. MR. DANDAR: Well, this is in the file of Lisa McPherson, so I don't know what other case it could be possibly talking about. BY MR. DANDAR: Q But did anyone tell you, on December 5th or December 6th, or, in fact, or any time thereafter, that the Lisa McPherson case was a homicide? A No. There was no definite -- if there had been definite information, the case would have been signed out, and -- okay. Q Okay. THE WITNESS: I want to take a -- I've got to go to the john. MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right. (WHEREUPON the proceedings were in recess from 4:14 p.m. until 4:24 p.m.) BY MR. DANDAR: Q How long does it usually take to get like the serologic tests back or the slides and things like that? A It would depend. On the slides, if we just do regular stains, I'd say maybe a week, ten days. There's a degree of variability because we are secondary to their hospital work load. In other words, their in-house stuff that they've got to do, they'll do and that work load will vary, so that sometimes we can get them in two, three days; sometimes, it could be two weeks. Serologic tests vary, also -- boy, I don't know. You know, in the majority of cases, I don't get all this stuff. I mean, there's no need for me to consider these when I look at the differentials, so I don't get these and I don't exactly have in my mind exactly how long it takes. Q Could there have been a delay in getting back the results of the vitreous fluid because of the Christmas holidays, New year's holidays, things like that? A Anything's possible. Q Okay. did you look for or try to test for the presence of Thorazine? A We have a thing called a toxicology report, toxicology screen, and as a phenothiazine derivative, or i believe in that subgroup, that should have shown up on the toxicology report. Q What did show up on the toxicology? A Let me look here. Benadryl in the urine and nothing in the blood. Q Is there any explanation for Benadryl in the urine? A I'd have to be a specialist on the metabolism of Benadryl. Benadryl is a -- frequently is an anti-allergic; anti -- anti-allergic kind of medication, predominantly, but I don't -- I don't know any particular reason why it would -- you know, why it would be there. Q Okay. Do you know that, in sufficient quantities, Benadryl can help someone sleep? A Yeah, if -- if you're -- as a function of why you're staying awake, you know. The thing that's important here, when I look at this, is that you've got drug quantitation values -- Q Right. A -- and you've got nothing under there in terms of the -- see, in terms of the blood. Now if it's -- if it's not in the blood, it isn't going to be functioning within the body, if you see what I mean. Q Okay. A It's sort of like the bladder is outside -- I mean, it's inside the body, but it's sort of outside the body; it's a container there sitting there just holding this stuff. Q All right. Does your Protocol test for things like chlorhydrate? A Boy, I think you'd have to ask -- you'd have to ask the toxicologist. Q Okay. MS. CARLUCCI: Ken, give me a second. (Brief recess) MR. DANDAR: All right. back on the record. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Now, while you were at the medical examiner's office, until you left in May of '96, did you have access to any records kept by the Church of Scientology that concerned the care and treatment of Lisa McPherson before she went to the Columbia New Port Richey Hospital? A I didn't -- you know, the file on Lisa McPherson was there -- okay? -and the file presumably contains everything that's present in a particular case. In other words, we make a file, you know, when we start off. Q Right, but I'm not talking about the records that your office generates. I'm talking about did you ever become aware that there were records kept by the Church of Scientology from the moment of her -- left -- the moment she left Morton Plant Hospital until the moment she arrived at the Columbia New Port Richey Hospital about seventeen to eighteen days later. A No, I didn't. Q Did you ever hear anyone talk about it? A I think there was concern that -- not concern expressed by me, because I was busy doing all kinds of cases and I had other cases and so on and so forth, but I think that there was some concern about the fact that such records were not -- we hadn't seen any records. Q Okay. Now isn't it true that a person who has a thromboembolus in the left main pulmonary artery does not necessarily die from that -- A That's right. Q -- because the other lung is just fine. A Well, if the other lung is just fine. I mean -- but there can be a number of reasons why they might not die, yes. It's not obligatory that you're going to die because you've got an embolus to your lung, unless it's a saddle embolus. Q On the Final Anatomical Diagnoses prepared by Dr. Wood - A Yeah. Q -- do you disagree with any of those diagnoses? MS. CARLUCCI: If you have an opinion. Q If you have an opinion. A I didn't sign this report. I don't have an opinion. Q Okay. If we change the word "severe" to "significant" dehydration, would that change your no-opinion status? MS. CARLUCCI: If you have an opinion, Doctor. THE WITNESS: Boy, you know -- MR. DANDAR: Let me rephrase it. THE WITNESS: Those words are -- the other thing, too, on your previous question -- BY MR. DANDAR: Q Which one? A About these final -- I wouldn't have included "abrasion of the nose." I mean, to me, that really doesn't add anything. Q Well, could that abrasion of the nose and the bloody chin be evidence that she was struck by something or someone? MS. CARLUCCI: Doctor -- THE WITNESS: I don't know. MS. CARLUCCI: -- do not speculate. THE WITNESS: I don't know. It could be - BY MR. DANDAR: Q Assuming that the vitreous fluid readings are correct as well as you diagnosis of the Hippocratic facies, would Lisa McPherson be in a physical condition prior to her death to have been banging on the walls? MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the form of the question. MS. CARLUCCI: If you know. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Say within forty-eight hours of arriving at the Columbia New Port Richey Hospital. MS. CARLUCCI: And if it's within your area of expertise. THE WITNESS: Yeah. I -- I get uncomfortable with regard to time frames. MR. DANDAR: Okay. THE WITNESS: -- and I just -- MR. DANDAR: Okay, that's fine. All right. BY MR. DANDAR: Q You were asked on direct examination if the abrasions, contusions, hematomas, hemorrhaging that you noted in your record and as shown to you on these photographs were consistent with someone -- with Lisa McPherson flailing her arms and legs, hitting the walls, et cetera, and you said, yes, it could be. My question is, could it also be consistent with someone striking her? A It's possible. You know -- MS. CARLUCCI: You answered. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Do you know who the investigators were, in this case, that you reviewed their records and dictated the case history? A I had the -- I had the -- I'm sure the information -- I feel badly that I don't recall the initials "DLC", number one; number two, the last note that is here is on the 6th and I think it's -- I think it's quite reasonable to think that there -- there were further notes, so I -- you know, I wish I could tell you. On the "DLC", you may have to -- well, anyway, that's it. Q Okay. All right. On page ten of your records that you've provided, page ten being the fax page number, you wrote out on the margin, "What about dead on arrival at Morton Plant" -- A Yeah, someplace in her - yeah, well -- MS. CARLUCCI: Doctor, there's no question pending. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. BY MR. DANDAR: Q My question is, why did you write that? A Well, I'm, not quite sure -- I'm not quite sure of the time of death and my knowledge from where -- you know, I mean, I was in that area and I don't have a direct street knowledge -- in other words, I didn't really have anything -- in other words, I didn't really have anything -- I know roughly where the scientologists place is, I know roughly where Morton Plant is and I know roughly where New Port Richey is, and I -- and I guess I wrote that as a question, you know, what was the status, you know, of this individual during the time of the ride. Q Why did you write in "Morton Plant"? A Well, because that's a fairly large hospital; it's close to the scientology area. Q So did you write that down because it didn't make sense to you why they would go all the way out to New Port Richey when Morton Plant is a few blocks away? MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form. THE WITNESS: It crossed my mind. I don't know MR. DANDAR: Okay. BY MR. DANDAR: Q I apologize if I asked you this before, but when you observed the body of Lisa McPherson, did she look septic? MR. WEINBERG: You already asked that, Ken. THE WITNESS: I don't know how you could tell if a person's septic or not. MR. DANDAR: Can you tell if a person who is alive is septic as opposed to one who's dead? A By virtue of symptoms and various different laboratory studies that we have, yes. Q Okay. Did you -- do you have a specific recollection that you requested the New Port Richey Hospital records? A I personally did? Q Right. A No, I believe that I questioned and asked someone to follow up and get us those records if we could. Q Would there be -- A And when i say "someone", I mean one of our investigators. Q Okay. A I don't recall, you know, perhaps which one. I just -- I just didn't recall having seen them, which didn't mean that they weren't there; it just meant I didn't see them. Q Well, I'll have that marked as an exhibit, but here are the New Port Richey Hospital records -- A Oh, all right. Q -- and I was just curious, maybe by looking at them, you can remember if you've seen them before. -- MR. WEINBERG: Why don't you mark them? MR. DANDAR: That's fine. Go ahead. MS. CARLUCCI: There's no question. MR. WEINBERG: I mean, this is what you say are the New Port Richey Hospital -- I mean, you're not asking him to identify these, since he never saw them; right? MR. DANDAR: Well, I'm just asking to see if maybe he has seen them. I just want to see if he recollects them or not. MR. WEINBERG: Why don't we just put an exhibit tag on those? MR. DANDAR: Sure, go ahead. Put it on there, Plaintiff's One. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. (WHEREUPON the aforementioned document was received and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit One) MS. CARLUCCI: And you'll recall, the question simply is whether or not you recognize those or have seen them before. MR. DANDAR: The first four pages, you can skip; that's a subpoena. There you go. MR. WEINBERG: Is the question whether he saw these or not? Is that the question? MR. DANDAR: That's the question pending. THE WITNESS: I don't recall having seen these. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay. A I do recall this lab stuff. Q And how do you recall that? I mean -- MR. WEINBERG: Wait, just so the record's clear, you're pointing to a blood culture, lab report -- THE WITNESS: A report. MR. WEINBERG: -- on the -- on the -- is this on the Staph aureus; is that what you're talking about? THE WITNESS: Well, of course, maybe I was a little premature. MS. CARLUCCI: Ken, may I just ask you to clarify your question. Is this whether or not Dr. Davis saw these documents prior to complete -- his leaving -- MR. DANDAR: Right. MS. CARLUCCI: -- service at District Six? THE WITNESS: I don't recall having seen the entire chart, no. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay. Do you recall the blood work -- I mean, the blood culture work prior to leaving District Six? A I don't recall that, either. I do recall -- I do recall that that stuff -- as I remember, the stuff came to me over here with Minkoff's stuff. Q The fax? A This -- Q Yeah, was that part of the big fax that came in? A Yeah. Yeah. Q All right. Is the blood culture lab report at New Port Richey significant to you as a medical examiner in this case? MS. CARLUCCI: Now, Doctor -- THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. CARLUCCI: -- I'm going to caution you -THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. CARLUCCI: -- regarding giving any opinions on those medical records you've just been handed for two reasons; one, you have not had a chance to scrutinize them; two, you do not have any knowledge as to what transpired after you left the medical examiner's office and whether there's other peripheral information that may interact or contradict or in any way influence your reading of those medical records, so I caution you to speculate in any way. MR. WEINBERG: And before you answer, if -- Ken, if you could like identify what -- in that package, what lab report you're asking him him is of any significance to him, because, I mean, it's a big package. MR. DANDAR: Well, I believe there's only one or two pages -THE WITNESS: There's three pages. MR. WEINBERG: Three pages of it -- MR. DANDAR: Okay. THE WITNESS: Two -- a preliminary culture, a final culture and then there's a sensitivity page. MR. DANDAR: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: Is that what you're asking him? All three of those? MR. DANDAR: Right, all three. THE WITNESS: Okay, I don't recall seeing any sensitivities. That's your page three of this. MR. DANDAR: Okay. THE WITNESS: Relative to the others, I believe what I saw was the one that gave Staph aureus as what finally grew out. BY MR. DANDAR: Q And does that have any significance to you as a medical examiner? MS. CARLUCCI: This is in retrospect BY MR. DANDAR: Q In retrospect. A Okay. I don't know that I can necessarily answer that for the reasons that were given before, or the statements from Ms. Carlucci, plus the fact that there is a -- I'm not sure of -- in my own mind of the life status of this individual at the time that the blood was drawn. I'm not -- Q What does that mean? A Well, I'm not sure if this was the -- if the individual necessarily was -- let me glance at this again. I'm just -- in reading that report -- Q The first page of the ER? A Yeah. I'm just -- I'm not sure what her status was on arrival at the hospital. Q Is that because there's significant information missing from that report? MS. CARLUCCI: Again, Doctor, I'm going to instruct you to be careful not to speculate. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: I object to the form, as well. THE WITNESS: There's a point insofar as I have not thoroughly reviewed this whole thing. BY MR. DANDAR: Q So you can't -- A Understand what I'm saying? Q You can't answer the question because you haven't reviewed the whole thing? MS. CARLUCCI: Well, and Doctor, do you know whether anything is missing from that record? THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. DANDAR: Q As a medical examiner, in order to determine the time of death, would you like to know the temperature of the victim upon arrival at the hospital? A As I said, time of death is difficult. The temperature can represent one parameter and it would be taken into consideration, but I think -- at least I -- I don't come down to a point of minutes in terms of times of death. MS. CARLUCCI: Is the temperature significant? THE WITNESS: -- unless, say, there's an observed homicide; I shoot him or something. MS. CARLUCCI: Doctor, the question was, would the time -- the temperature at the time of death, or prior to the time of death, be significant, yes or no. THE WITNESS: Could be. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay. What about blood gasses? A Could be. Q What about electrolytes? A Again, they could be. Q Are these -- MR. DANDAR: All right, let's go ahead and switch tapes. (Brief recess) MS. CARLUCCI: "Would you want to know about electrolytes." MR. WEINBERG: Your last question was electrolytes. MR. DANDAR: He answered that question; right? MR. WEINBERG: Right. MR. DANDAR: Okay. BY MR. DANDAR: Q All right. Those type of things of seeing the New Port Richey records or seeing blood gasses or temperature or electrolytes and things like that, are those some of the circumstances that you are looking for before you can come up with a manner or cause of death? A Only in a very limited and partial way. Q Okay. you note in the autopsy report that Lisa's eyes were open. Is there any significance to that? A It's on my check list. Q Okay. But does it matter that her eyes were open? A Probably not. Probably something I can eliminate in the future; come right down to it. MS. CARLUCCI: Assuming those were your words; correct, Doctor? THE WITNESS: Yeah, if they were my words. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Now you said before that the finding of an embolus may be a red herring. Could you explain that? A I think we went through, to an extent, to a fairly large extent the fact that an embolus may or may not me an immediate cause of death, number one; number two, that an embolus may be present in a person who could be even asymptomatic, in other words, with no symptoms and/or have symptoms, but is still certainly alive. Q Based upon what you know now, are you able to say or not say that the embolus was the cause of death for Lisa McPherson? A Well, first of all, I didn't say that, okay? This was signed by somebody else -- Q Correct. A -- okay? Secondly -- so to me, I think I would ask that person that. Q Okay. A But, no, I don't think I can. Q Okay. You talked about the director of the lab. Were you talking about the director of the lab at the Wuesthoff Hospital or the medical examiner's office? A I don't know in the context of what the question is. I mean, what was the rest -- what was the rest of the question? Q We were talking about vitreous fluid and talking about how you extract it from the eyes and then there was some conversation about the director of the lab. A Oh, okay. Of necessity, since this would be a situation in which both our office -- when I say "our", I'm referring to District Six, at that point in time -- to the extent that that was involved and the extent that Wuesthoff was involved, it would be -- and in the interest of really looking at true quality control, you would have to include the directors of both labs, and they would do their own appropriate things in their own labs and you follow it through with that null hypothesis; and then once you've gone through that, with everything you've gone through, you know, you disprove everything, then -- then your finding takes on more significance. Q Do you know who the director of the lab was at -- is there a director of the lab at the examiner's office? A I believe, yeah, Dr. Wood is. Q Dr. Wood is? A Yeah. Q Okay. A I mean, Dr. Wood supervises an individual -- again, I'm going back to what I recall from May 10th -- okay -- so I don't know if things have changed; however, as of that time, there was a fellow, I believe, who had a master's degree, and -- but Dr. Wood was the head of the lab. Q Is there any reason why -MR. DANDAR: Strike that. BY MR. DANDAR: Q In December of '95 -- A I'm sorry, '95. Q In December of '95, did the District Six office send all of their vitreous fluid and urine samples out to the Wuesthoff Hospital? MR. WEINBERG: If you know. BY MR. DANDAR: Q If you know. A What? Q Back in December of '95 -- A Yeah. Q -- did all of the lab samples, all of the vitreous fluid samples from the cadavers, victims, that you did autopsies on, go out to the Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital lab for testing, or only special cases? MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to any other lab; is that what you're saying? BY MR. WEINBERG: Q As opposed to any other lab or in-house. A Well, I can tell you there was no -- there was no vitreous done in-house -Q Okay. A -- okay? -- and you would have to check with them with regard to that, but I don't -- I can't think of why you'd split those. Q Right. I don't know. A So -- Q I'm just -- A I just don't know. You're going to have to check with them Q Did District Six, as far as you know, back then, use any other laboratories besides Wuesthoff? A You mean for -- well -- Q Vitreous -- A Not that I know of. Q Okay. Do you know if the vitreous fluid back in February of '96 was rechecked the same day or was it rechecked several weeks later? MS. CARLUCCI: If you know. THE WITNESS: I don't know. MR. DANDAR: Okay. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Is it within your -- and if I already asked you this, I'm sorry -- but is it within your area of expertise to tell us what can affect the level reading of vitreous -- in vitreous fluid of urea nitrogen? A There's a whole variety of different things, but, once again, I think experts on vitreous would be perhaps more encyclopedic in their answers and then find there's something that's left out. Q Was the Protocol in Lisa McPherson's case any different than any other case where you extract vitreous fluid, as far as you know? A No. Q Was her vitreous fluid refrigerate within what time frame after it was extracted? MR. WEINBERG: If you know. BY MR. DANDAR: Q If you know. A I don't know. Q What would be the customary practice back then? A I don't know -- I don't know for certain. I would certainly say by the -MS. CARLUCCI: If you don't know -- THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know for certain. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay. Was it longer than -- if you know, was it linger than three hours? A I don't know. Q Okay. MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me one second. Can we go off the record for one second? (WHEREUPON there was an off-the-record discussion) MR. WEINBERG: Okay. MR. DANDAR: All right? BY MR. DANDAR: Q As you sit here today, you don't recall anything unusual happening with the way the vitreous was extracted, stored and picked up and returned by the Wuesthoff Hospital laboratory. A I don't recall anything. Q All right. Now in reference to this embolus, you said that it was rather significant and you did not it that there was no total occlusion. A Hmm-hmm. Q That means the blood kept flowing. A Or flowed around it. Q All right. So if the blood kept flowing, that would not be a cause of sudden death, would it? A That's not necessarily true. Q For what reason? A You'll also notice it was multifocal, which means to say that it was present in more than one area, okay? If the combined effect of the decrease of the flow as a result of say -like, say, a series of dams on the river -- okay? -- if the net result of that is that it slows down to a trickle -- okay? -- then, sure, it can cause death. Q Any evidence of that? A What's that? Q Is there any evidence that it slowed down to a trickle? A Well, "trickle" is a bad word, perhaps. There was evidence that the blood was able to get around these areas. Q You note in your records the left arm had crusted drying areas. What's the significance of that? MR. WEINBERG: Where is that in the report? MR. DANDAR: It's on his Extremities section where all the crustiness is noted. MR. WEINBERG: Oh, you mean where it says "crusted confluent dark brown lesions"? MR. DANDAR: Right. THE WITNESS: Okay. On this report, that I didn't sign, that could be -- that could be a combination of contusions and/or animal activity or it could -- it could be an abrasion. BY MR. DANDAR: Q What's the significance of saying it's crusted? A Crusted -- well, crusting can be seen in drying areas -- okay? -- in an area that appears dry. Q Is it crusted because it's -- is it made up of dried blood or is it made up of something else? A A lot of times a, quote, crust, unquote, is expressed, what they call serous material, and that's sort of like -- okay, if your blood clots, the stuff that sits on the top, okay? MR. WEINBERG: Is that like a scab? I'm sorry to interrupt -- THE WITNESS: Yeah, it can be stuff that's expressed; sort of watery stuff that's expressed and then can dry. But I mean, I'm not positive, exactly, the nature of those lesions and that's the reason I used the word "possible." BY MR. DANDAR: Q Now you said, on direct examination, that when you used the word insect "slash" animal bites, that may also mean abrasions or contusions? A Yea. Ordinarily -- yes. Q Well, why would you use those words "insects/animal bites", and then also, in the same paragraph, use abrasions and contusions; isn't there some difference to your terminology? A Sometimes you can see -- well, for instance, the things on the chin -- okay -- to me, were abrasions. They didn't look anything like possible animal or insect bites or anything like it. Q Okay. A And so just because something's in a differential, doesn't mean that everything has to include that differential. Q Assuming that you used the word to mean what you saw, insect "slash" animal bites, do you normally find that on someone who's been -- who died suddenly or someone's who's been dead for awhile? MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the form of the question -- THE WITNESS: You know -- MR. WEINBERG: -- as to any assumptions. THE WITNESS: -- I guess that would depend on where the person is, the nature of the insects, how hungry they were -- a whole bunch of different variables. I don't know the answer to your question. BY MR. DANDAR: Q A right. And am I correct in saying that, as you sit here today, you do not have an opinion, based on reasonable medical probability, that Lisa McPherson died from sudden death. A From "sudden" death. Q Right. MS. CARLUCCI: Doctor, you've not formulated any opinions -- THE WITNESS: Yeah, see, I don't have -- I don't have all of the circumstances. MR. DANDAR: All right. I just wanted to clear that up. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Doctor, if -- can an emboli or embolus develop if someone is in bed and is just physically unable to get out of bed? A Sure. Q And over a period of -- what? -- several days? A Yes, and/or it can be spontaneous as we were describing before. Q Do you know of any studies on the effects of significant dehydration in reference to a person's ability to walk and communicate? MS. CARLUCCI: Is that out of your area of expertise, Doctor? THE WITNESS: It really is and the word -- also the word "significant" is open-ended. MR. DANDAR: Okay. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Now we discussed, on direct examination, your understanding of why Dr. Wood would call you twice and then send you, either before or after those calls, these thirty page of faxed documents in December of '96. A Hmm-hmm. Q Which -- did Dr. Wood express at all or imply at all that she wanted you to be up-to-date and prepared on all aspects of the autopsy in the even that you were either deposed or interviewed? A Dr. Wood did not, no. Q Did Mr. Bedore? A He alluded to it. He alluded to the fact that I was -- I had been involved in the autopsy and that was what he said. Q Okay. So in that conversation, did you get the feeling that they wanted to make sure that you knew all the lab reports and diagnoses or findings of the autopsy so that you would -- in the event that you were deposed or interviewed, you would know what the results were? MS. CARLUCCI: Don't speculate. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay. A I mean, first of all, it was never said. Q Okay. A Okay? Q Well -- A Yeah. Q My exact words, maybe not, but that's why I said -A Right. Q -- your understanding or impression. A Okay. Q You didn't have that understanding or impression; correct? A I don't know. I wasn't comfortable with the whole thing. Q Okay. Has anyone threatened you? A No. Q Has anyone called you at home or your office and given you any type of feeling that you need to be concerned about this case? A No. No. Q Has anyone been following you? A Oh, God, I don't know. I don't look around for people to follow me. Q Okay. A I mean, you know, if I see somebody that's a nice -- well, forget it -- but -- MS. CARLUCCI: You're going to get yourself in trouble. You better stop there. THE WITNESS: I better shut up. MR. WEINBERG: One can only hope; right? MS. CARLUCCI: Really. THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay, so no one's called you to discuss this -- A No. Q -- except -- except the time that Dr. Wood or Mr. Bedore called you back in '96. A That's right. I discussed it -- yes, that's correct. MS. CARLUCCI: Let me correct you. It was in '97. It was this year. MR. DANDAR: Oh, okay. BY MR. DANDAR: Q So the telephone calls are in '97 and the documents were faxed to you in '96? A That's -- I mean, she's my attorney and she's been through this. MS. CARLUCCI: As I recall, Ken, just to clarify, he wasn't sure when the calls came, but I want to refer you to the rest of the package which corroborates some telephone calls that took place in, I think, January and February of this year, so I don't want you to think it's just in '96. That package will corroborate other phone calls. BY MR. DANDAR Q Dr. Davis, your name appears on the autopsy because you conducted the autopsy, and as you sit here today, is it your testimony that you have no earthly idea why Dr. Wood or Mr. Bedore sent you all of the autopsy reports and lab reports as well as the original slides? MR. WEINBERG: Other than what he's already said? BY MR. DANDAR Q Other than what you've already said. A Not that I can answer -- MS. CARLUCCI: -- Don't speculate. THE WITNESS: -- without speculation. I mean - BY MR. DANDAR Q When Dr. Wood said she bought her house from the scientologists and had her house scanned, did she indicate whether or not she found anything? A First of all, she said she was going -- she was going to have it scanned -- okay? -- Q Okay. A -- and I have not spoken with her because I really don't care. MS. CARLUCCI: You're done. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DANDAR Q Okay. A But I'm sorry if I left the impression that that already had been done. Q Okay. A That was not -- I mean -- Q That's why I'm asking these questions to clarify things. A All right. Q Again, what's the definition of "hooded congestion"? A Oh, it's -- first of all, I'm not sure that everybody uses it. I got that when I was in Dallas and it seemed to me like a fairly good description of, say, congestion, or what looks like congestion of the head and neck, and, actually, is a combination of congestion and lividity. Q Okay. Now can you put that in layman's terms? A Okay. When you die, wherever you fall, the blood is eventually going to accumulate in the dependent parts of your body, except for your buttocks and shoulders, and that's going to be white. I between those areas, where the skin is not suffering pressure effects -THE WITNESS: Can you get me some coffee? Do we have any coffee -- MS. CARLUCCI: We can get some made. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm getting tired. MS. CARLUCCI: Stop your answer. THE WITNESS: Oh. MR. DANDAR: Sandy, could you pull out the right arm photo that you showed the doctor, Exhibit Five? MR. WEINBERG: Yeah. Showing him Photo 22 and 21, I think are the two. MR. DANDAR: Okay. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Photo 22, Doctor, if you could just hold that up and point it to -- no, hold it just in front of you, so you can look at it, and then point it to the camera. You mentioned -- MR. WEINBERG: I think you can put it down. MR. DANDAR: Well, I've got it right here. BY MR. DANDAR: Q You mentioned that there are -- quote, Mixed contusions and insect-appearing bites vary in greatest dimension from zero point two to zero point six centimeters are present over the dorsal aspect of the right hand. Is that the dorsal aspect of the right hand depicted in the photograph in front of you? A Hmm-hmm. Q Could you show us the photograph and point to that area? A (Witness complies) "Dorsal" means "back." Q Now are those -- what you described in -- or what the Protocol describes as "mixed contusions and insect-appearing bites", can you point to the insect-appearing bites? A Well, yes, realizing that this is signed by someone else - Q That's why I called it -- said the "Protocol." A The -- Okay. The -- Q Turn it this way, please. There you go. A Okay. There is no vital reaction -- okay? -- around these small little areas here. A vital reaction is a reaction in which you get a reaction like you've got here; a little circumference of say, for instance, a blood-like area surrounding this little ulcerated area -- Q Right. A -- okay? Now these -- this is consistent with an ante -- with an ante-mortem or -consistent with. Q Right. I understand. Go ahead. A Okay, consistent with an ante-mortem type of injury in which there's a sufficient circulation to be able to have a reaction to this. In contrast, this is consistent -- these are consistent -- okay -- the little brown crusted area with nothing around them and very small are consistent with -- okay? -- animal activity "slash" -- you know, if you want to say insect bites; I guess you could. If you want to say roach activity, to me they're a little bit small, but, again, that's subjective. Q Okay. What about the area above in the wrist area? A Okay. Now this is, again, an area where you're not seeing any vital reaction around this, see? Q What does that mean again? A "Vital" again means what it did before -- see? -- and - Q Sorry. A -- and that was that the person -- well it does. Q I'm sorry. A Okay. It means that there's no -- that there's no hyperemia, if you will, which means sort of like a little blood reaction, because of the blood circulating to whatever could have hit this, if it were a hit, when the patient was alive. Since there's none of that and since this looks a little bit bigger, this could be associate with either a -- you know, it could be consistent with an abrasion, in which it's old, or it could be consistent with insect "slash" roach activity; it could be consistent with it. Q Could it be consistent with Lisa trying to fight against any type of restraint? A Okay. This thing here, if that had occurred say perhaps, oh, days earlier -- okay? -- the reason, again, being, right here, I'm not seeing any vital reaction around this thing. Q So what are you saying? A Well, then it could be an abrasion. Q Could it have been -- A And you're asking about the restraint. Q Right. A And so the restraint implies -- you understand what I'm saying? Q No. A Okay. Q I don't. A Okay. Your question was could it be consistent with a restraint and what I'm saying is if the restraint were on several days previously -- Q Right. A -- okay? -- and perhaps there was a vital reaction, which now is not there -- okay? -- then that could be consistent. Q Okay. Now on the right-hand side of that picture, if you could hold it up again, I believe -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that's the trunk area of her body; correct? A Well -- Q Upper -- A -- that's her buttocks and upper thigh on the right side. Q Is that the hip? A Well, that's her -- Q I notice that there's a huge, what I'll just say, a purplish area. A Yeah. Q Can you put that out -- on the camera and tell us what that is? A Well, there's more than one area -- Q I know. A -- okay? Right here is a purple area and -- okay. Q Turn it just a little bit this way. There you go. A Okay. Right here is sort of a purple area here? Q Right. A Okay. Right here is an area -- is a nice area, this one. This has got some green/brown stuff coming off from the side. See that? Q Yeah. What does that mean? A Okay. A section through here, if we stain it for iron, is going to show some hemosiderin, okay? Q And what does that mean? A And that suggests or is consistent with an older bruise, and I think I told you before that aging of bruises can be difficult, particularly recent versus old. For instance, on this thing right here, if I were pressed by someone, I might have a hard time being dogmatic -- well, first of all, I think you have a hard time being dogmatic about the aging of these things, anyway -but, this could have been -- this could have been an old bruise with a superimposed recent one, because it's reddish-purple in the center, but on the other hand, the margins are irregular and you do see some irregular areas of yellow-green, so it could be a combination. Q That -- A But I'd equivocate a lot more on this than I would on this. Q Okay, and can that be consistent with being kicked? A Any kind of blunt force, see. I mean -- and by "blunt force", I mean that in contrast to sharp force. Q Right. A Okay? Q Okay. And Photograph Number 21 - A Yeah. Q -- is that, again, just a close-uper -- close -- listen to me; it is late -- is that a closeup of the picture we just looked at? A Yeah, except the buttocks is out of focus. Q Okay. A The buttocks and thigh are out of focus and there's less seen there and there's no point in focusing on an -- I don't know what you're -- Q The hand. I'm talking bout the hand; is that just a -- A Yeah. Yeah. Q -- a better description of the other -- A I don't know if it's any better. Why do you say "better"? Q It has -- it's closer in view. More of the hand is shown or the arm? A Yeah, if that's what you want. Q Okay All right, that's all for that. A Okay. MS. CARLUCCI: Hold on a second. I'm going to get some coffee. (WHEREUPON the proceedings were in recess from 5:17 p.m. until 5:21 p.m.) BY MR. DANDAR: Q Doctor, is there any significance that you did not find any food whatsoever in Lisa McPherson? MR. WEINBERG: Food? MR. DANDAR: Food. THE WITNESS: Yeah. There -- MR. WEINBERG: You mean, where he looked in the stomach - MR. DANDAR: Yeah, where he looked. MR. WEINBERG: -- as opposed to the large and small intestine? THE WITNESS: Food has got what they call an emptying time and that is predominantly a function of the size of the meal, but also, to an extent, the nature of the meal -- okay? -- and that emptying time can vary from say, ballpark, as little as a half hour up to two and a half to three hours of a massive meal of say solid food, and once it's emptied, it's emptied, and there's going to be nothing there except mucus and some of that can be bilous. BY MR. DANDAR: Q If, in fact -- I am correct in saying that you don't hold a lot of, in your personal opinion, weight in urine tests? A In what? Q Urine tests, to you, are not that significant? A No. No. No. Urine tests are of considerable value from a qualitative standpoint -- okay? -- in my opinion, okay? >From a quantitative standpoint, no, they are not as valuable say, for instance, as the blood is and the vitreous is, and -- but the urine can be quite valuable for say something that may have transpired as long as a month ago. For instance, marijuana can show up, you know, three weeks or so after a guy may have had a cigarette and that will be present in the urine, but not in the blood. Q Well, I want you to assume that, since you weren't there, that Dr. Wood had a urine test done in order to rule out any mistakes being made or that may have -- or alleged to have been made in the vitreous fluid examination. A Hmm-hmm. Q Do the urine test results on amended page four, are they consistent with the high levels of the vitreous urea nitrogen and sodium? MS. CARLUCCI: Understanding this calls for speculation and this is a hypothetical question. THE WITNESS: Hmm-hmm. MR. WEINBERG: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: I'd have to have their published normal range to be able to answer your question. BY MR. DANDAR: Q Okay. A And I'm not seeing -- I'm not seeing a parenthesis with -- now, as I say, there can be quite a bit of variability. Q Okay. While you were with District Six, did you have a fairly professional, normally professional relationship with Dr. Wood or did you two always either disagree with each other or -- or most of the time just business-as-usual agree? You know what I'm saying? Was there -- A Yeah. Q -- anything going on there? A I certainly respected her authority as the director of the office, number one; number two, as an administrator, particularly since I realized my own, as I was saying a few minutes ago, feelings that I wasn't there and realizing it was necessary to have an administrator. She relied heavily on me during the time I was there for microscopics; that was, to me, understandable. That's been true, in terms of forensic pathology, in most places I've been and I would attribute that to the fact that during my clinical practice, I'd be looking at slides every day, see? And a good share of forensic pathology, one, is not associated with looking at slides every day. Okay, two, you don't see the spectrum of things you might see in a clinical practice and you just don't have the frequency of looking at things. There certainly were times where, you know, there'd be disagreements, but I've never been in any place where, given the situation, you wouldn't have some degree of difference. If there weren't a situation where, from time to time, there were some differences, I think you ought to be a little suspicious about that. You know what I mean? Q Okay. A I mean, I don't know about you lawyers and everything, but -- Q We always agree on things. A Yeah, you always agree on everything. Everything's right; right? Q Now, I don't need to get into your -- the personal, in detail, but did you leave because you had a better offer over here in Volusia County or did you leave because you just had enough of Pinellas County or was it time to move on or -- A I think there were a combination of things. I -- one thing, I get more pay over here; for another, I thought that there was -- just seemed to me like Pinellas, Pasco, that area, there just were getting too many people per unit area and just too many people packed in there -- Q Right. A -- and I just -- I didn't like that and I wanted to get out. Q Now that you're over here, do you still get called upon to testify in cases that you worked on -- A Yes. Q -- in Pinellas County? A Yes. Q Okay. So you still have an ongoing professional relationship with Dr. Wood? A No. When I say "no", that needs some degree of explanation. I don't know if it was a legal thing or not, but i felt a moral obligation to finish up my cases, and so I finished -- there were something like twenty-four cases at the time I left and so I finished all twenty-four of them -- see? -- and I did that within a period of two, two and a half months. So -- when I say "finished", I would get all this stuff we were talking about and varying things and I'd look at the slides, I'd look at the toxicology, what was relevant, I'd look at these other things, and then I'd go ahead and I'd sign the case out. And -- well, actually, we'd dictate the thing and send it back over there and then they dictated -- they'd type it on their format, send it back to me and I would sign it on their format, okay? Q When you say "send it back to me", you're over here in Volusia County? A Yeah, right -- Q Okay. A -- see, and that way, they would have it according to their format when the case was done. Q Okay. A So I mean, there was a -- there's been a spirit of cooperation between the two offices, but I had no reason to necessarily talk with Dr. Wood, as I said, about anything -- Q Okay. A -- see, and all the cases were signed out with the exception of one. Q That's Lisa's case? A That's right. Q Okay. And you already explained that. A Yes. MR. DANDAR: All right. That's all the questions I have. MR. WEINBERG: I have just a few. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Taking your last statement first, when you left the office, you had approximately twenty-four or twenty-five outstanding cases? A Yeah. Q And while you were in Volusia County in the medical examiner's office, you signed out twenty-four of the twenty-five outstanding cases; is that right? A Now, when I was in Volusia -- when I've been in Volusia, yeah, I signed out twenty-four of the twenty-five, right. Q Right. Which means that you had done approximately twenty-five autopsies over in Pinellas, then you left, and -- and while you were gone from Pinellas, the Pinellas people sent you whatever you needed to -- A To finish the cases. Q -- complete and you completed those cases, signed them out and they were published; correct? A "Published"? Q Or whatever. They were filed. A They were archived. Q Archived. And the only one of your outstanding cases that they did not do that with is the Lisa McPherson case. A That's correct; that's the one I sent back. Q Okay. Now -- well, the material you got from Dr. Wood you didn't get until December 23rd, 1996 -- correct? -- that's what the fax shows. A Yeah. Q All right. Well, Dr. Wood issued that report -- signed out that report in October of 1996. A Okay. It may well be that -- well, you pushed -- you pointed to all that stuff. You know -- MS. CARLUCCI: There's no question pending. THE WITNESS: Okay, I'm sorry. All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now -- MR. DANDAR: I thought that was a question, though. MR. WEINBERG: It's okay. I'm trying to get it done. MS. CARLUCCI: I'm sorry if there was. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q At the time you left the medical examiner's office in Pinellas County, you had access to the histologic slides that had been done from the Lisa McPherson autopsy; correct? A Hmm-hmm. Q You had access to the photos that had been taken; correct? A Hmm-hmm. Q You had access to the results from the vitreous tests; correct? A Yes. Q You had access to the Protocol that you had dictated; correct? A To the draft, yes. Q But with all of that, you were still unable to reach -- to make final conclusions as to the manner or cause of death; is that correct? A That's right. Q Do you know anything else that Dr. Wood had at the time she signed out the report in October of 1996, other than what I've just described? A I had -- I wasn't in the office. I wasn't privy -- Q Is the answer no, you don't know of anything else? A That's right. I know of nothing else. Q Okay. All right. Now you were asked a few questions about diarrhea and you said that's a clinical -- A Yeah, frequency or -- Q -- condition. Now diarrhea can lead to weight loss; is that correct? A Yes. Q Diarrhea -- significant diarrhea could cause one to become somewhat dehydrated; right? A Yes. Q I mean, when someone's suffering from cholera - A Yes. Yes. Q -- dehydration can kill you; right? A Yes, that's right. Q Diarrhea can lead to the absence of food in the intestines. A Yes. Q Diarrhea can lead to rapid weight loss; correct? A Yes. Q And it could lead to -- to rapid dehydration. A Yes. Q Now you were asked a lot of questions about being septic or sepsis. What is septic? A That means the presence of an organism in your bloodstream that's infecting you -- okay? -- and its significance is that it's severe in the sense that being in the bloodstream, the blood circulates to all the organs of the body and, therefore, all organs of the body are exposed to the particular organism, if not involved. Doesn't necessarily mean that all of them are involved, but that's, in distinction, say, to something like pneumonia which might be a localized infection, say, with regard to your lung, but it's not in your bloodstream, so it doesn't spread all over the place. Q Okay. And as I understand it -- and if I understood what you said, it is more difficult on -- in an autopsy to determine whether the person on the table had been suffering from some sepsis as opposed to making a determination through a laboratory test that one had a meningitis condition; is that what you said? A Yes, that's correct. Q You didn't exclude anything, other than meningitis, in this case. It did appear that she did not have meningitis -- is that right? -- from the lab tests? A Well -- Okay. Realizing, once again, I'm not privy to everything else, I didn't feel -- and we went through this; your question about the nature of the bruises, okay? I didn't feel that I could implicate, particularly after the autopsy, sufficient physical trauma, per se, and then, of course, you can -- you know, you can speculate about the mechanism of where that trauma could occur from. It could occur from being self-inflicted, it could occur from someone else inflicting upon you, it could be an accident, et cetera, et cetera, but I didn't feel that I saw significant injury, other than relatively superficial, to implicate that as a cause of death. Q So that if one had been beaten up, for example, by -- you know, by a mugger or something like that, you would more typically find something more severe, like broken bones or ruptured organs of -- or, you know, deep hematomas. A Sure. Q -- or actually cuts. A If they died. I mean -- you know. It doesn't mean that a person couldn't be beaten and still have those kind of things, but I don't know that I could implicate the bruises that I saw as being adequate to cause death. Q Okay. Now do you know what the purpose of Dr. Wood and Dr. -- and Mr. Bedore's phone call, fax and FedEx to you was in December and/or January of 19 -- A No. No, I don't know. Q Okay. With regard to the -- was it as a result of that contact that -that you got counsel? A What? Q Was it as a result of the contact from Dr. Wood and Mr. Bedore in -- at the end of 1996 or early 1997 that caused you to get counsel? Is that what caused you to get counsel? A I would say the predominant cause was -- well, no, it wasn't. Q Now you indicated that -- you called it "emptying time", as far as identifying, you know, something in the -- A Hmm-hmm. Q -- intestines or the stomach. I take it that they emptying time for a liquid is less than the emptying time for a solid. A Yes. MR. WEINBERG: That's all my questions. Thanks. MS. CARLUCCI: Anything else? MR. WEINBERG: I don't think so. Not right now. MR. DANDAR: No, I have nothing else, at this time. THE WITNESS: All right. MR. WEINBERG: Well, we haven't got the file and I don't know what - MR. DANDAR: That ends the deposition. The time is 5:42. (THEREUPON the testimony was concluded at 5:42 p.m.) |