go back to part 6

[Begin of Volume II]


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.


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.


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?



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


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 --




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.


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.


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.


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.


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 --


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 --


MR. WEINBERG: I don't know if you can copy slides, though. It doesn't look like they copy very well.


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.

go to part 8

return to Lisa page