#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.
|