15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The four monochrome laser printer
17 images you refer to in your report, Rule 26
18 report, are the four monochrome laser images
19 that have been marked for purposes of
20 identification as Defendants' Exhibit 3; am I
21 right?
22 A. Yes. I think that is correct.
23 Q. Let me hand you what has been marked
24 for purposes of identification to your deposition
25 as Defendants' Exhibit-4 and ask you to take a
00027
1 moment, Dr. Stratbucker, and ask you to review
2 that letter, and I have some questions for you
3 about that letter.
4 A. All right.
5 Q. Are you familiar with that letter,
6 sir?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What is the date on the letter?
9 A. January 16, 2002.
10 Q. Five months ago?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Flip to the signature page, sir. Is
13 that, in fact, your signature?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. And you wrote that letter, as
16 indicated on it, in your capacity of being the
17 medical director for TASER International, Inc.;
18 did you not?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Dr. Stratbucker, would you like to
21 take a moment and reflect on your testimony
22 given today under oath and give me the truth
23 about your involvement as the medical director
24 for TASER International, Inc., please, sir?
25 Straightforward, without equivocation. Because
00028
1 we have got some explaining to do; do we not?
2 A. I don't think so.
3 Q. Well, why don't you clear it up
4 because I've heard you earlier testify under
5 oath that you have never represented yourself
6 out to be the medical director of TASER
7 International, Inc. prior to two weeks ago; and
8 I have that letter where you have, in fact,
9 represented yourself as such five months ago.
10 And I would like to find out how I am not
11 either understanding you or whether you have
12 been candid with me about your role, financially
13 and otherwise, with TASER International, Inc.,
14 who just happens to be the manufacturer of the
15 Air TASER stun gun which is one of the issues
16 in this case. So why don't you explain that to
17 me, please.
18 A. I will be happy to, and I won't say
19 anything different than I've already said. And
20 that is that the official pronouncement of the
21 company that I was the medical director of TASER
22 International did not occur until two weeks ago.
23 There had been discussions about it
24 prior to that. And because of the urgency of
25 this particular case in having a resolution, I
00029
1 think I authored this thing and put my name on
2 it as medical director. But I have not
3 received any money as medical director, and I
4 have not received a notification by the company
5 that I am, in fact, a medical director. So I
6 would have to say that this letter represents a
7 kind of an interim activity.
8 And I don't know that I would have
9 accomplished anything by having said I am the
10 medical director pro tem or something of the
11 sort to author this letter and give it an air
12 of officiality.
13 I am not making any cover-up or
14 anything of the sort. What I told you is
15 exactly the state of affairs of my association
16 with TASER.
17 Q. Well, where did you get -- I mean,
18 this isn't an interim letterhead; is it? This
19 letter is written on the letterhead, both a
20 cover, first page with full address, and the
21 other pages --
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. Excuse me.
24 -- with the TASER International logo
25 and address. Where did you get that stationery?
00030
1 A. Well, as you well know surrounded by
2 computers as you are here today, you can make
3 letterhead at the drop of a hat. So I think
4 that letterhead actually came from an e-mail
5 file that I then amended or added to in order
6 to make a letter out of it.
7 Q. You came up with this letterhead for
8 TASER International on this letter?
9 A. Yes, I have that letterhead on my
10 computer. I can turn out a --
11 Q. I am sorry?
12 A. I can turn out a letter with
13 letterhead under my own resources.
14 Q. Is that the TASER International logo?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How did you get that?
17 A. The same way I have all these
18 photographs on my computer. That is --
19 Q. Well, who sent it to you? Somebody
20 had to send you the logo.
21 A. I am sure that TASER sent it to me.
22 Q. When?
23 A. I couldn't tell you right now. I
24 could check my computer to find out when.
25 Q. Sir, you gave this report in federal
00031
1 court in Atlanta, Georgia, and you knew at the
2 time that there were contentions that you were
3 going to be addressing that involved the Air
4 TASER stun gun manufactured by TASER
5 International, true?
6 A. No, I don't think that is true at
7 all. I didn't -- there has been no evidence
8 produced, to my knowledge, that there ever was
9 an Air TASER involved in this case at all.
10 Q. Listen very carefully.
11 A. That's is somebody's imagination,
12 maybe; but it is not any evidence available.
13 Q. We will talk about people's
14 imagination a little bit later on, but I didn't
15 ask you that. Let me go back and restate my
16 question.
17 At the time that you submitted this
18 report in federal court in Atlanta, Georgia, you
19 knew at that time that there were contentions in
20 this case that you were going to be addressing
21 that involve the Air TASER stun gun manufactured
22 by TASER International, true?
23 A. No, not true.
24 Q. You didn't believe that there was
25 any contention made by the Ramseys that an Air
00032
1 TASER stun gun might have been used on their
2 daughter? You didn't know that at the time you
3 gave this report; did you?
4 A. Yes, I knew that there was talk
5 about that. There has been talk about it on
6 national television, for heaven's sake. You
7 would be hard pressed to not know that.
8 Q. So you did, in fact, know at the
9 time that you submitted this report in federal
10 court that there were issues in this case
11 involving the possible application of an Air
12 TASER stun gun to JonBenet Ramsey, which stun
13 gun was manufactured by TASER International,
14 true?
15 A. I have known that there was a
16 contention that an Air TASER, because of its
17 geometry, met some of the requirements of
18 spacing and so forth; but I also know that no
19 such Air TASER has ever been found other than
20 by purchase by somebody who had maybe even a
21 vested interest in all of this to cause the Air
22 TASER to be implicated. But the Air TASER was
23 not implicated by being a piece of evidence in
24 this case.
25 Q. Sir, I am going to get to your
00033
1 opinions. But I am going to get an answer, if
2 I could, please, to my question whether it is
3 true or not.
4 Isn't it true, sir, that at the time
5 you submitted your Rule 26 report in federal
6 court in Atlanta, Georgia you knew that there
7 were issues in this civil litigation involving
8 the Air TASER stun gun manufactured by TASER
9 International? Is that true or not?
10 A. Well, it is true that I had heard
11 such stories, but it is not true that I used
12 the Air TASER as any foundation for my report.
13 Q. You did not use the Air TASER stun
14 gun as any foundation for your report; is that
15 your testimony?
16 A. I did not use the Air TASER as any
17 evidential foundation for my report.
18 Q. But you knew that there were issues
19 raised about the Air TASER?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Don't you think, sir, that you had
22 an obligation and a responsibility in your
23 report or in your curriculum vitae to inform the
24 court and inform the jury about your connection
25 with TASER International, Inc.?
00034
1 A. Well, I think if you look through my
2 curriculum vitae, you will see references to
3 TASER International in my vitae that has been
4 around for a long time.
5 Q. I am going to give you an
6 opportunity in a moment to look through there
7 and show me where there is any indication in
8 that curriculum vitae about your involvement or
9 employment or consultant's role with TASER
10 International, Inc. But before we do that,
11 don't you agree with me, sir, that that should
12 have been clearly disclosed to the judge,
13 ultimately if necessary to the jury and to the
14 involved lawyers in this case?
15 A. No, I don't think it should be.
16 Q. Why not?
17 A. Well, because it is all -- its
18 involvement is all hypothetical and imaginary.
19 It is not -- it's not -- there never has been
20 a TASER involved in this case to anybody's
21 knowledge that is other than just a supposition
22 or an invention.
23 Q. Or an opinion by an expert?
24 A. Or an opinion.
25 Q. By an expert, right?
00035
1 A. Which expert might you be referring
2 to?
3 Q. Well, maybe I am referring to the
4 one that Mr. Hoffman referred to when he said
5 that we were going to have one of your former
6 colleagues and coauthors rebut your opinion in
7 this case. You know Michael Doberson; do you
8 not, sir?
9 A. Indeed I do, yes.
10 Q. Yes, sir. And you have respect for
11 him; do you not, sir?
12 A. I certainly do, yes, sir.
13 Q. And have you been supplied by Mr.
14 Hoffman with the Rule 26 report of Dr. Michael
15 Doberson, a forensic pathologist and the coroner
16 and medical examiner for Arapahoe County,
17 Colorado?
18 A. I only recently received it, but I
19 do have that in my possession.
20 Q. When did you recently receive it?
21 A. I would say maybe a month or two
22 ago. A month ago probably.
23 Q. From Mr. Hoffman?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Why is it not in your file materials
00036
1 here this morning?
2 A. Well, I think it is.
3 Q. Well, I haven't been shown it.
4 A. I have no reason to not -- the only
5 copy I have is a fax copy, which is not a very
6 legible one.
7 Q. So if I understand -- is that
8 something you can find for us during a break,
9 perhaps?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Am I hearing you, sir, that you are
12 telling me that you don't think that in all
13 candor you should have disclosed your
14 relationship with TASER International because it
15 is your opinion that an Air TASER stun gun was
16 not used on JonBenet Ramsey? Is that what you
17 are telling me, sir?
18 A. Could you ask that question again,
19 please?
20 Q. Yes, I will be glad to restate it.
21 Are you telling me that you do not
22 believe that candor and full disclosure required
23 that you inform the court of your relationship
24 with TASER International because in your opinion,
25 an Air TASER stun gun was not used on JonBenet
00037
1 Ramsey? Is that your explanation as to why you
2 didn't have to disclose that to the court?
3 A. Well, it is not the explanation I --
4 I can't imagine anything that I have ever done
5 that could be construed as trying to hide the
6 fact that I have no connection with the Air
7 TASER company.
8 And I have testified as an expert in
9 many court proceedings in which the issue of
10 whether or not I had any business connection
11 with Air TASER had -- could have colored my
12 opinion in any way, shape or form. That is a
13 subject which, you know, all lawyers would love
14 to dance on. And it is certainly, if anything,
15 it may be a slight oversight on my part; but
16 it is by no means a subterfuge or cover-up or
17 anything of the kind. I am happy to tell you
18 anything and everything that you wish to know
19 about my association with Air TASER.
20 Q. Well, we are going to get all that
21 out today.
22 A. All right.
23 Q. Do you know Mr. Tuttle?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Air TASER, TASER International?
00038
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Was TASER International formerly known
3 as Air TASER?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. And you were back and forth with Mr.
6 Tuttle by e-mails in 2001, I believe, with
7 respect to Lou Smit's, former Homicide Detective
8 Lou Smit's presentation on the NBC series; were
9 you not?
10 A. I think I did correspond with him,
11 not because he arranged it, but because of this
12 connection with Air TASER came up quite
13 spontaneously. I had no idea where it came
14 from with -- between myself and NBC.
15 Q. You think you corresponded with, sir,
16 or did you correspond with him?
17 A. Well, I did correspond with him.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. I did correspond with him.
20 Q. And you were corresponding with him
21 on the question of whether or not Mr. Smit was
22 right, scientifically or otherwise, about his
23 belief that there were marks on JonBenet's body
24 that were consistent with the application of an
25 Air TASER stun gun, right?
00039
1 A. I -- I am sure there must be some
2 wording in there in some correspondence or
3 e-mail or whatever about that -- on that matter,
4 yes.
5 Q. And the reason that you are sure is
6 because it is there, you remember doing it, in
7 2001, right?
8 A. Yes. Uh-huh (affirmative).
9 Q. So in 2001, you are getting back and
10 forth e-mails and discussions with Mr. Tuttle at
11 Air TASER or TASER International, Inc. about
12 whether one of that company's stun guns might
13 have been used on JonBenet Ramsey; and then you
14 represent in January of 2002 that are you the
15 medical director for TASER International, Inc.;
16 and you have previously done work that at least
17 enriched you by some $40,000 from stock options
18 that were exercised and subsequently sold. And
19 you don't think that coming into this case to
20 give a Rule 26 report as an expert witness in
21 federal court that you had any responsibility,
22 an obligation professionally to disclose your
23 relationship with Air TASER or TASER
24 International, Inc.; is that your testimony, sir?
25 A. No, that is not my testimony.
00040
1 Q. Well, what is your testimony?
2 A. My testimony is that I did not and
3 still do not view it as a requirement anymore
4 than I would have to disclose the fact that I
5 have had associations with other stun gun
6 companies over the years and done practically
7 the same kind of thing for them that I have
8 done for Air TASER.
9 If, for example, this one, which is
10 made in Taiwan and is prominently displayed in
11 the work that Dr. Doberson and I did in
12 Colorado several years ago, I didn't disclose
13 the fact that I did a test for this company on
14 their stun gun to determine its electrical
15 characteristics.
16 Q. Did you get involved in some civil
17 litigation as an expert witness that involved
18 that particular stun gun?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. And you didn't disclose in that
21 litigation that you had worked for this company
22 in the past?
23 A. I did not disclose -- I probably
24 presented the report that I did for them as the
25 kind of evidence that usually is required in
00041
1 those cases.
2 Q. Sir, you have a history of not
3 disclosing information about your relationship
4 with certain electronic firms?
5 A. No, I don't have a history of any
6 such a thing.
7 Q. Well, you were -- there were two
8 attempts to fire you from the faculty at the
9 University of Nebraska Medical School because you
10 refused to disclose your relationship as a
11 consultant with Marquette Electronics, true?
12 Is that true --
13 A. Attempts.
14 Q. -- or not, sir?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Is that the truth?
17 A. Right. That is the truth, yes, sir.
18 Q. Yes, sir. And ultimately you --
19 A. They didn't succeed, but it was the
20 truth.
21 Q. Well, they didn't succeed, if you
22 want to be technical --
23 A. Because they were wrong. They
24 didn't succeed because they were wrong.
25 Q. Let's talk about why they didn't
00042
1 succeed. They didn't succeed because they were
2 not allowed to fire you for one year after you
3 had been called back on active duty to take the
4 place of a doctor here at the base who had
5 gone over in Desert Storm --
6 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
7 Q. -- and there was a law that said
8 you can't fire somebody within a year of their
9 being called up for active duty. That's why
10 they didn't succeed; isn't that the truth, sir?
11 A. That's a pretty good reason; isn't
12 it, sir?
13 Q. It's not because you acted properly
14 in refusing to disclose your consultant
15 relationship with Marquette Electronics?
16 A. It turns out that my consultant
17 arrangement with Marquette Electronics was, in
18 fact, totally legitimate and totally sanctioned
19 by the University.
20 Q. Who tried to fire you twice because
21 you wouldn't tell them what you were doing?
22 A. No. They tried to fire me for a
23 totally -- totally other reasons but --
24 Q. What were the reasons?
25 A. -- used that reason mistakenly and
00043
1 erroneously as an acceptable reason.
2 Q. Why did they want to fire you, then?
3 Why don't you tell us that?
4 A. Well, I will be glad to tell you
5 that.
6 Q. Please do.
7 A. The department chairman of the
8 Radiology Department, University of Nebraska
9 College of Medicine, was under the gun from the
10 dean to perform in research and development.
11 The Radiology Department had, over the years,
12 come out dead last amongst the various competing
13 departments in the medical school for research
14 funds.
15 And the department chairman, I think,
16 thought that because I had known the founder of
17 Marquette Electronics since the day he started
18 the company in Milwaukee and that the chairman
19 was, in fact, a Milwaukean by birth, that I
20 would be a possible vehicle to attract corporate
21 funds for the department to finally make some
22 kind of showing in the area of research support
23 for the Department of Radiology.
24 When I accompanied the department
25 chairman to Milwaukee to see if we could, in
00044
1 fact, get some corporate funds to support the
2 research activities in the department, the
3 president of Marquette said to me privately, he
4 said: I wouldn't put my hard earned money in
5 that department for anything. He said: I
6 don't like that guy, and I don't think the
7 University has the capability of coming up with
8 any kind of results for my funding. So he
9 turned thumbs down on the project.
10 The dean was unhappy about it
11 because the department chairman had told him he
12 was in for a big surprise because Stratbucker
13 was going to come up with a bunch of research
14 money for the department. And that resulted in a
15 scramble to try to figure out how to save the
16 department chairman's job, and I ended up being
17 the scapegoat for the whole thing on a
18 subterfuge, basically an invention of what was
19 called conflict of interest. He said I had a
20 conflict of interest with a company and that was
21 why they were terminating me from my job.
22 I apologize for the digression in
23 totally unrelated matters here, but you seem to
24 be interested in it, so I --
25 Q. I am interested in everything that
00045
1 you have to say, sir, because my clients, you
2 understand, are being sued for $50 million by a
3 lawyer and a plaintiff who allege that Patsy
4 Ramsey brutally murdered her daughter; and you
5 are their expert. And I am interested in
6 everything about you. So don't hold back.
7 A. It sounds like you have got it all
8 well in hand, so.
9 Q. We haven't gotten to the tip of the
10 iceberg?
11 A. Well, then let's go then.
12 Q. We are going to go. But I am going
13 to let you now take a moment, and I am going
14 to let you look through your CV while we take
15 a brief recess, and you are going to find for
16 me the references to Air TASER or TASER
17 International that you said were there indicating
18 your involvement with that company. And also if
19 you would get Doberson's report for us.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, I don't know how
21 you are set up out there. Is it possible for
22 Dr. Stratbucker and I just to consult for a few
23 minutes during this break?
24 MR. WOOD: Absolutely.
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, we are
00046
1 off the record at 11:02 a.m.
2 (A recess was taken.)
3 (Defendants' Exhibit-5 was marked for
4 identification.)
5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, we are
6 back on record at 11:39 a.m.
7 Q. (By Mr. Wood) Dr. Stratbucker,
8 prior to preparing and signing your Rule 26
9 report, I am correct that the only photographs
10 that you had seen that were represented as being
11 crime scene or autopsy photographs of JonBenet
12 Ramsey were the four monochrome photographs set
13 forth in your report and identified in this
14 deposition as Defendants' Exhibit-3; is that
15 true?
16 A. I think that is true, yes.
17 Q. It is also true that you had not
18 ever reviewed any color photographs of the crime
19 scene or of the autopsy with respect to JonBenet
20 Ramsey prior to signing and submitting your Rule
21 26 report, true?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You have -- I am going to hand you
24 Defendants' Exhibit-5 and ask you if you would
25 take a look at those documents real quick.
00047
1 Have you had a chance to review
2 Defendants' Exhibit 5?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Prior to preparing your Rule 26
5 report, you had not, in fact, ever seen the
6 color photos that are represented as being crime
7 scene or autopsy photographs of JonBenet Ramsey;
8 had you, sir?
9 A. I saw some photos when I was in New
10 York City at the invitation of NBC to render an
11 opinion on some photographic material. It must
12 have been in August, I think it was, probably
13 July or August of last year. And there were
14 photographic -- there were color renditions of
15 those pictures at that time that I had only
16 then for the first time seen in color. It
17 could have been that those were shown to me at
18 that time.
19 Q. You don't know; do you?
20 A. I don't remember. I don't remember
21 that I saw color photographs of the ones you
22 just saw at my office or anyplace like that.
23 Q. Who arranged for you to go to New
24 York at the invitation of NBC?
25 A. That came about by -- I was
00048
1 testifying in a murder trial in North Carolina,
2 the so-called Richard Jackson case. And the NBC
3 network, through some source or other, learned
4 that I was there and made contact with me at
5 that -- actually in North Carolina as the trial
6 was ending. I was finishing my testimony. And
7 they asked me if I could change my travel plans
8 and come to New York City directly from North
9 Carolina, which would have been last, I think it
10 was in July maybe, July or August.
11 Q. Do you think Mr. Tuttle might have
12 been involved in speaking with NBC?
13 A. He could have been.
14 Q. Was the idea --
15 A. There were very few people who knew
16 I was there at the time.
17 Q. Tuttle knew?
18 A. Maybe Tuttle did know, yeah. That
19 is possible.
20 Q. Did you go to NBC to look at
21 specifically the JonBenet Ramsey case?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That would have been July of 2001?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I have your testimony from your
00049
1 trial in the Jackson matter. Did you testify
2 truthfully in that case, sir?
3 A. I certainly did.
4 Q. Do you stand by each and every
5 statement that you made in that testimony under
6 oath with respect to stun gun marks?
7 A. Yes.
8 (Defendants' Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7
9 were marked for identification.)
10 Q. (By Mr. Wood) So we can stay in
11 order, let me just ask you, Defendants' Exhibit
12 6 consists of three pages of handwritten notes
13 and some e-mail correspondence that you provided
14 me this morning out of your Wolf v. Ramsey
15 file, true?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. That is your handwriting on the
18 first three pages?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. Let me show you what has been marked
21 as Defendants' Exhibit 7 and ask you if you are
22 familiar with that photograph from your testimony
23 in the Jackson trial?
24 A. No, I am not familiar with that
25 photograph.
00050
1 Q. Did you identify stun gun marks on
2 the body of the victim in that case on the
3 left shoulder?
4 A. I -- yes, I think it was on the
5 left shoulder. But this photograph was not one
6 that I ever recall seeing.
7 Q. Are those the marks, though, in the
8 left shoulder that you identified as stun gun
9 marks?