Go back to previous page
Forum URL: http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi
Forum Name: Ramsey evidence
Topic ID: 46
Message ID: 2
#2, 3 Stratbucker deposition
Posted by jameson on Aug-26-02 at 07:56 PM
In response to message #1

10 A. Well, they certainly aren't -- they
11 would have been incidental to the main testimony
12 having to do with the marks. Because I
13 meticulously went over those photographs with my
14 measuring apparatus and so forth to get the
15 dimensionality, and I don't remember seeing this
16 photograph.
17 I don't -- it might have been --
18 there was a huge collection of photographs. I
19 don't have -- represent that I saw every one of
20 them. But as a matter of fact, I concentrated
21 my efforts on two or three, at the most, of
22 all the photographs that were in evidence there.
23 (Defendants' Exhibit-8 was marked for
24 identification.)
25 Q. (By Mr. Wood) Before I leave
00051
1 Defendants' Exhibit 7, the marks that I am
2 pointing out to you on the shoulder of the
3 victim in the Jackson case, you do not deny,
4 sitting here today under oath, sir, that you may
5 have identified those as stun gun marks at the
6 trial in North Carolina?
7 A. I have no recollection of having
8 identified those marks. Those marks do not --
9 I already told you, I don't think I ever saw
10 that picture.
11 Q. Did you ever find any stun gun marks
12 on the victim's neck or left shoulder in the
13 Jackson case?
14 A. I don't -- there were marks
15 extending up on the thorax; and, of course, most
16 of the marks of the main concern were in the
17 inguinal area. But I remember searching for
18 some marks outside of the inguinal area and the
19 area of primary focus to establish scale factors
20 for the actual computation of two distances in
21 those photographs.
22 Q. Defendants' Exhibit 8?
23 A. That one looks familiar, yes.
24 Q. Where are the stun gun marks on the
25 victim on that photograph, sir?
00052
1 A. These --
2 Q. You can take your pen and circle
3 them, if you like.
4 A. Circle them, you say?
5 Q. Yes, sir. Circle and just initial
6 the stun gun marks that you found there.
7 A. Well, I have circled two, two marks
8 there, that are possible candidates. But in my
9 testimony I had very carefully dimensioned and
10 calibrated the photographs. And, of course,
11 this has no such measuring and calibration. I
12 have a recollection that those two marks might
13 have been marks that I had identified as stun
14 gun marks, but I would have to -- I would have
15 to say that the nature of that case was such
16 that the stun gun marks were, in most cases,
17 far more mechanical than electrical because of
18 the way the stun gun was employed. And there
19 were only a few, actually, on the victim's body
20 that were of such a character to rule out the
21 possibility that there was a lot of excoriation
22 of tissue and actual tissue damage due to the
23 actual mechanical effects of the stun gun probes
24 on the skin when the thing is used as a ramrod
25 or a rongeur to actually force increased
00053
1 conductivity to the body by means of pressure.
2 Q. Does the contract that TASER
3 International has recently been awarded by the
4 United States Government involve the purchase by
5 the government of stun guns?
6 A. The specific nature of that contract
7 is confidential.
8 Q. Does TASER International manufacture
9 anything other than stun guns?
10 A. Not anymore. They had a product at
11 one time which was an electrically operated car
12 theft preventer, and they no longer make that.
13 Q. To your knowledge, are they about to
14 start making a new product other than a stun
15 gun?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You have in your file a spiral small
18 pad. On the second page of that you have the
19 name Fleet White.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What caused you to write Fleet
22 White's name down there?
23 A. Well, I suppose that -- this looks
24 like some notes I made in conversation with a
25 student at the University of Michigan State by
00054
1 the name of Mary McCullough. And I don't know
2 Fleet White at all. This looks like Mr.
3 Hoffman's telephone number. And why I wrote
4 that down, I don't have any idea. But that is
5 -- these are some telephone notes that I took
6 probably in the course of a telephone
7 conversation with Mary McCullough.
8 Q. You did not rely on your review of
9 photographs at NBC in coming to your conclusions
10 in your Rule 26 report; did you, sir?
11 A. I am not quite -- I don't
12 understand.
13 Q. You told us everything in your Rule
14 26 report that you -- Matters Considered: I
15 have examined the following documents as part of
16 my examination and report.
17 And you listed the autopsy report,
18 and you listed four monochrome laser printed
19 images purporting to be renditions of the crime
20 scene and autopsy photographs most commonly
21 attributed to Detective Lou Smit?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You didn't say anything about
24 anything you saw at NBC; did you?
25 A. No. What I saw at NBC was a
00055
1 hurried mishmash of stuff that was not very well
2 provided, ill provided; and I really had
3 difficulty making any sense out of what they
4 showed me.
5 Q. Do you know who at NBC you were
6 dealing with?
7 A. I can't remember the man's name.
8 Nightline was the program.
9 Q. That would be ABC.
10 A. Well, I am sorry then. It is
11 Dateline.
12 Q. Dateline?
13 A. Dateline, yes.
14 Q. Was there some idea that perhaps
15 they might do a segment involving you that Mr.
16 Tuttle wanted them to do?
17 A. No, no. The purpose of it, as told
18 to me over the telephone in North Carolina that
19 caused me to come to New York, was that NBC
20 was wanting to do a counterpoint on the Couric
21 presentation that had occurred that previous week
22 or maybe earlier that week and that they wanted
23 someone else outside, an expert, to review the
24 pictures and render an expert opinion on them
25 that was outside of the group that had already
00056
1 been involved. And that is why they apparently
2 contacted me.
3 Q. And that was never done, in terms of
4 your involvement after the --
5 A. Well, I actually was -- I actually
6 was on the air for a very brief period of
7 time.
8 Q. Talking about what case?
9 A. Talking about the Ramsey case.
10 Q. On Dateline?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What you were shown was not, as you
13 described it, you had difficulty making any
14 sense out of what they showed you on NBC?
15 A. Yes. They showed me some cropped
16 video presentations of what were alleged to be
17 some new evidence or new photographs that had
18 not yet been seen, I think maybe from Mr.
19 Smit's collection. And they wanted to know if
20 I thought they looked like stun gun marks on
21 these photographs that they presented on a
22 monitor. Now, they had other photographs
23 around, but the ones that they wanted me to
24 comment on and which they took my video
25 deposition, essentially, was based on some
00057
1 electronically presented photographic material
2 that were some spots that they wished to know
3 if I thought they looked like stun gun marks.
4 And I, in the brief time that I was
5 on there, I said that I really --
6 Q. Couldn't say?
7 A. -- couldn't say.
8 Q. Could have been stun gun marks?
9 A. Yeah, might have been.
10 Q. You were not in a position to --
11 A. Might have been.
12 Q. Might have been?
13 A. Might have been. Couldn't say.
14 Q. In fact, the marks on JonBenet's
15 back, as you state in your written notes here
16 that are part of Defendants' Exhibit 6, could
17 have been made by, your words, a conventional
18 sharp pointed stun gun, true?
19 A. Possible, yeah.
20 Q. You don't rule out the use --
21 A. Well, the dimensionality of stun gun
22 marks is extremely important. If you are going
23 to make any causative relationship, you have got
24 to know --
25 Q. The distance?
00058
1 A. -- the authenticity -- well, you
2 have to know the photographic authenticity.
3 Because in this day and age with photographic
4 manipulations by computer, you can do anything
5 you want to. You can make --
6 Q. You bet.
7 A. -- anything look like anything.
8 Q. You bet. And the fact of the
9 matter is you never have been provided with
10 photographic evidence from the autopsy
11 photographs or the crime scene evidence
12 photographs that you were able to reach a
13 conclusion on in terms of the distance between
14 the marks on JonBenet's back; isn't that true,
15 sir?
16 A. Well, in cases that I have
17 testified --
18 Q. Please answer my question. My
19 question is not cases you testified in before.
20 The fact of the matter is you have
21 never been provided with photographic evidence
22 from autopsy photographs or the crime scene
23 evidence photographs from which you were able to
24 reach a conclusion in terms of the distance
25 between the marks on JonBenet's back; isn't that
00059
1 the truth?
2 A. That is the truth, yes.
3 Q. Yes, sir. You haven't seen the
4 photographs from the autopsy that have the
5 coroner's scale on them; have you, sir?
6 A. I haven't seen -- I have seen
7 photographs that have scales on them, but I
8 don't have any way of knowing whether those
9 scales are legitimate, whether they were actually
10 done at the time of the autopsy, whether they
11 were fabricated in some fashion or another. I
12 have no way. The chain of custody, which I am
13 so familiar with in evidence that I have been
14 involved with before, has never been presented
15 to me in any contiguous and defensible fashion.
16 Q. And the four monochrome photographs
17 that you relied on in filing a Rule 26 report,
18 you don't know where these came from; do you?
19 A. Well, I know they came off the
20 internet.
21 Q. And you don't know what generation
22 copy was on the internet; do you?
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. I mean --
25 A. That is why I didn't rely on them.
00060
1 Q. You didn't rely on these?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You only relied on the autopsy
4 report?
5 A. I only relied on the autopsy report.
6 Q. You were familiar with the Boggs
7 autopsy report before you testified in that
8 case; weren't you?
9 A. Yes, I was.
10 Q. That was done by Dr. Michael
11 Doberson; wasn't it, sir?
12 A. The autopsy report?
13 Q. Yes, sir.
14 A. Well, I think he participated in the
15 autopsy report. I don't know whether he
16 actually signed off on it or not. I know he
17 participated in it.
18 (Defendants' Exhibit-9 was marked for
19 identification.)
20 Q. (By Mr. Wood) Look at your Rule 26
21 report for me. The introduction page, probably
22 the third page, Expert Witness Report, February
23 26 2002. Do you see it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. "Counsel for the plaintiff Chris Wolf
00061
1 in the above case has retained me as an expert
2 witness. I have been asked to examine the
3 12/27/96 Boulder County Coroner's Autopsy Report
4 of JonBenet Ramsey along" --
5 And I assume "with" was meant to be
6 in there.
7 A. Yeah, the --
8 Q. It says "along the," but it should
9 say "along with the PowerPoint presentation of
10 Detective Lou Smit."
11 Have I read that correctly?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You have never reviewed the
14 PowerPoint presentation of Detective Lou Smit;
15 have you, sir?
16 A. Not in any form that I could attest
17 to its authenticity.
18 Q. Page 3 of your statement in your
19 Rule 26.
20 A. Page 3? Yeah. Go ahead.
21 Q. It says under Opinion:
22 I have reached the following opinion:
23 A comprehensive examination and review of
24 JonBenet's autopsy report and Detective Lou
25 Smit's PowerPoint presentation.
00062
1 Let me ask you again -- Mr. Smit's
2 PowerPoint presentation is on CD-ROM -- you have
3 never seen it; have you?
4 A. I never have seen this. I have
5 never had the CD-ROM in my possession.
6 Q. No, sir. You never have seen his
7 PowerPoint presentation. That is the truth;
8 isn't it, sir?
9 A. No. I have seen things that were
10 represented as his PowerPoint presentation.
11 Q. By whom? Represented by whom?
12 A. By NBC, by lines on the internet, by
13 websites that traffic in this information. It
14 is wherever you want to look you can find this
15 stuff.
16 Q. You have never seen the digital
17 crime scene photographs as they exist in Lou
18 Smit's PowerPoint presentation, that generation
19 of photograph with that level of clarity; you
20 have never seen them, have you, sir?
21 A. My recollection is that the NBC
22 network claimed that that's what they had.
23 Q. They had a video image from the
24 television show?
25 A. They had a video image from Lou
00063
1 Smit's PowerPoint presentation.
2 Q. And you are just not comfortable
3 sitting around and giving an expert opinion
4 based on photographs that you don't really
5 yourself have any level of comfort with in terms
6 of knowing if they are authentic or not; do
7 you, sir?
8 A. That is right. But I have a
9 tremendous amount of reliance on the autopsy
10 report.
11 Q. Absolutely. I understand that.
12 Let me just hand you Defendants'
13 Exhibit-9. You recognize that as a photograph
14 of Mr. Boggs taken after he had been exhumed.
15 Here is the --
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. In fact, on Defendants' Exhibit 9,
18 you testified in the Boggs case under oath,
19 right?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. And it was your opinion that the two
22 marks on Mr. Boggs as shown on Defendants'
23 Exhibit 9 were caused by a stun gun, true?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And would you circle for me on
00064
1 Defendants' Exhibit 9 the two marks that you
2 testified under oath were stun gun marks?
3 A. Well --
4 Q. If you would just circle them for
5 me, please, sir.
6 A. This is not the photograph that I
7 used at trial, so I don't know --
8 Q. Was it this one? Was it this one?
9 A. I can't -- I -- I can't tell you.
10 It is likely that these are the two that I
11 identified.
12 Q. Circle the ones that are likely the
13 two that you identified under oath in that trial
14 as stun gun marks. Circle where I can see it,
15 please, sir.
16 Circle, circle. You circle it in
17 the other one.
18 A. And this one.
19 Q. All right. Were you aware that in
20 the Boggs autopsy report, Dr. Doberson had
21 initially described those two marks that you
22 have just circled as abrasions?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You have no degree as a forensic
25 pathologist; do you?
00065
1 A. Well, I still carry an appointment
2 in the Department of Pathology at the University
3 that we discussed awhile ago.
4 Q. Do you hold yourself out as a
5 qualified forensic pathologist?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How many autopsies have you done?
8 A. I haven't done one for probably 25
9 or 30 years.
10 Q. My question was how many autopsies
11 have you performed, sir?
12 A. Probably ten in my lifetime.
13 Q. And with your -- I am going to hand
14 you this photograph that is contained as part of
15 Defendants' Exhibit-5. I have no idea what
16 generation that is in terms of where that
17 photograph was obtained, but I do know for a
18 fact that it at least is a copy of some
19 generation of one of the autopsy photographs of
20 JonBenet Ramsey. And you concluded that that
21 mark was not caused by a stun gun, that large
22 red mark that we see on the photograph, the
23 right side of her neck which actually is the
24 left side, right?
25 A. Yes.
00066
1 Q. Right, the big one that you looked
2 at. Correct?
3 A. The roughly triangular shaped one.
4 Q. Whoever said that was a stun gun
5 mark?
6 A. I don't know that anybody ever did.
7 Q. You said that in your report.
8 A. These are the only -- the only marks
9 on the body that were available to even remotely
10 resemble a stun gun mark in somebody's
11 imagination are the ones that I took as
12 candidates. So that is why I took this as a
13 candidate. It was called out by the pathologist
14 who did the autopsy as an abrasion and as were
15 all the other marks called out as abrasions.
16 Q. Just like the mark on Mr. Boggs had
17 been called an abrasion by Dr. Doberson?
18 A. Well, that is a totally different
19 matter. That is totally unrelated.
20 Q. In your opinion.
21 A. Boggs case -- well, no. In his
22 case too.
23 Q. You are not talking about Dr.
24 Doberson's?
25 A. Yes.
00067
1 Q. You think that -- have you talked to
2 Dr. Doberson about that?
3 A. Not since we testified in court
4 together on the matter.
5 Q. Maybe you want to just refresh
6 yourself by discussing the Boggs matter with Dr.
7 Doberson before you testify under oath about
8 what he thinks about that case today. I make
9 that suggestion to you.
10 Can you tell me what caused that
11 mark on her?
12 A. I have no idea.
13 Q. That's right. It is not within your
14 realm of practice to make those kinds of
15 decisions; is it?
16 A. Well, I know it is not a stun gun.
17 Q. You can tell me what you say it is
18 not, but you don't have any idea of what it
19 was caused by; do you?
20 A. Well, I wouldn't say I don't have
21 any idea.
22 Q. Those were your words, sir, I'm
23 sorry, not mine. You said I have no idea. Is
24 that true or not?
25 A. This is an abrasion.
00068
1 Q. Do you have an idea --
2 A. I can tell you what an abrasion
3 is --
4 Q. Sir, excuse me.
5 A. -- by definition.
6 Q. You said I have -- I said, can you
7 tell me what caused that mark on her. Answer:
8 I have no idea.
9 Did you just testify truthfully or
10 not? What is the truth? Do you have an idea
11 or --
12 A. I don't have --
13 Q. Do you not have an idea?
14 A. -- much of an idea. I have an idea
15 that it is not a stun gun mark.
16 Q. Nobody ever said it was, sir.
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. Just like nobody ever said that the
19 scratches on her legs were stun gun marks.
20 A. Okay.
21 MR. WOOD: Just about done, Darnay,
22 before the recess.
23 Q. (By Mr. Wood) From page 2 of your
24 Rule 26 report, I just want to see. It says
25 under Matters Considered: The autopsy report
00069
1 includes in relevant part specific references to
2 four widely separated parts on the body bearing
3 skin lesions described as abrasions, skin sites
4 which have been viewed by some as being evidence
5 of application sites of an electric shock
6 generator known variously as stun guns or
7 TASERs.
8 Have you read that with me?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I've read it correctly?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Who, when you filed this report in
13 federal court in Atlanta, Georgia, who were you
14 referring to when you said that someone had
15 viewed Site B and Site D as being evidence of
16 application of a stun gun?
17 A. Well, these were --
18 Q. No. Answer my question, sir.
19 A. Well, let me answer you.
20 Q. Who were you referring to? Well,
21 tell me who they were. With respect to Site B
22 and Site D, who were you referring to when you
23 said some had viewed those sites as being
24 evidence of the application of a stun gun? I
25 want to know the names of the people that you
00070
1 say said that.
2 A. Well, I can't tell you the names.
3 Q. Tell me who they are generically.
4 A. Generically?
5 Q. Yeah.
6 A. The producer of the NBC show that we
7 were talking about.
8 Q. That is who you were referring to?
9 A. That is one of the places where
10 I --
11 Q. Well, who else with respect to Site
12 B and Site D?
13 A. Those were -- those were sites that
14 have been mentioned in communications, for
15 example, that I have monitored over the internet
16 and in other areas. But especially they are
17 the only specifically defined skin markings that
18 Dr. Meyer, the autopsy pathologist, calls out in
19 his autopsy that could conceivably be considered
20 to be stun gun marks.
21 Q. Is the some that you are referring
22 to is some producer that you don't know the
23 name of at NBC?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then some unknown or
00071
1 indescribable monitoring of conversations on the
2 internet about this case?
3 A. I mean, you have gone over all my
4 records and so forth. You see that there is a
5 considerable evidence or information derived from
6 internet sources on this case, which was one of
7 the ways that I came by these photographs in
8 the first place.
9 Q. None of which you've mentioned in
10 your Rule 26 report?
11 A. None of which I relied on. I
12 didn't rely on them. But now you are --
13 Q. Sir, why were you -- you were
14 monitoring the discussion of the JonBenet Ramsey
15 case on the internet; weren't you, sir?
16 A. Not very avidly, I must say.
17 Q. Why?
18 A. Because I didn't ascribe very much
19 credence to it.
20 Q. You had never seen the photographs.
21 You had never seen the photographs that you say
22 as an expert you have to see before you would
23 professionally render an opinion; isn't that the
24 truth, sir?
25 A. Well, if you read my --
00072
1 Q. Excuse me, sir. Isn't that the
2 truth?
3 A. Say it again, would you, please?
4 Q. Let me read it back to you.
5 A. Okay. Read it back to me.
6 Q. Listen carefully.
7 The truth is, you had, when you say
8 you didn't ascribe very much credence to the
9 theory of stun gun usage on JonBenet Ramsey, you
10 had never at that point in time laid eyes on
11 any crime scene or autopsy photograph that you
12 say as an expert you would have to see before
13 you would professionally render an opinion, true?
14 A. I don't think that is entirely true,
15 no.
16 Q. Well, what part is entirely false?
17 A. Well, the part that you couldn't,
18 from a well done autopsy narrative such as we
19 have here, implicate a stun gun from the
20 dimensions and the nature of the marks and so
21 forth as called out by the autopsy physician.
22 Q. But you don't think there is an
23 autopsy physician, sir -- taking you back to
24 your sworn testimony in North Carolina, you
25 don't think there is a pathologist or an autopsy
00073
1 physician that is capable of identifying a stun
2 gun mark; do you?
3 A. I don't say that they need to be
4 capable of identifying a stun gun mark. They
5 need to be capable of making accurate
6 measurements and then citing some menu of
7 possibilities that those accurate measurements
8 could refer to.
9 Q. Sir, do you know that, in fact,
10 there are crime scene photographs of JonBenet
11 Ramsey and autopsy photographs of JonBenet Ramsey
12 made by the Coroner's Office, Boulder County,
13 that, in fact, contain a very legible scale with
14 respect to the marks on her face and her back?
15 Are you aware of that fact?
16 A. It has been alleged that that is the
17 case. I don't know that the autopsy photographs
18 that you are referring to are official. I
19 don't know that they are official in any way.