go back to part 7



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.


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.


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.


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 --


THE WITNESS: I can't say it is or it isn't. I don't know.


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?


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


Q Well, in the customary practice over in District Six in Pinellas County. MS. CARLUCCI: If you know.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:


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?



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.)

go to part 9

go to main Lisa page