17TH- DR. PETERSON/EXAMINER

1456
1 THE COURT: Before you go into that, do you wish to
2 voir dire on his qualifications?
3 MR. GERAGOS: I do not, Your Honor. Thank you.
4 THE COURT: He'll be allowed to testify as an expert in
5 pathology, then.
6 MR. HARRIS: Q. Doctor, starting with that particular
7 autopsy, can you describe for the Court what it was that you
8 observed when you started?
9 A. Well, the -- that particular autopsy, in the
10 morning, presented from Richmond, and the first observation
11 was simply to examine the history that I had. And there
12 wasn't much. The history was simply that of a body found on
13 the shore.
14 The first step would have been the external
15 examination. And, typically, the external exam is directed
16 towards evidence of clothing, possessions, that sort of
17 thing. Well, of course, in this case, there weren't any,
18 since it was a fetus. There was some material associated
19 with the body, however, and the one portion that I described
20 specifically was some plastic tape. And what I found was a
21 loop and a half, one and a half loops of plastic tape around
22 the neck of the fetus. There was a knot near the left
23 shoulder --
24 MR. GERAGOS: May I just interrupt for one second?
25 He appears to be looking from a report. May I just see
26 what it is that he's --
27 THE COURT: Go ahead. I assume that's the same report
28 that you've provided to the parties, Doctor?

1457
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Have you seen that before, Mr. Geragos?
3 MR. GERAGOS: I have, Your Honor. I just wanted to see
4 what it was -- it appeared he was -- I couldn't tell if he
5 was reading from it or if he was just using it to refresh
6 his recollection.
7 In any case, I would ask that when he's testifying,
8 that if he is referring to the report or reading from the
9 report, that he specify that as opposed to just reading from
10 it.
11 THE COURT: Let us know, Doctor, if you need to read
12 from the report or refresh your recollection or you're
13 testifying from memory.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
15 MR. HARRIS: Q. Doctor, before we get back into that,
16 I just want to go through that point. When you were done
17 with performing that particular autopsy, did you write a
18 report to document your findings and observations?
19 A. The way it works at that office, we actually
20 dictate before and after the autopsy with a hand-held unit.
21 There are some notes, organ weights, taken on a dry-erase
22 board during the autopsy. But my practice is to dictate the
23 external exam, then do the autopsy, and then dictate the
24 internal exam at the same time then as the autopsy.
25 Q. And when that's all done, is that converted into
26 the report that you have before you?
27 A. It is. They have a transcriptionist at the office
28 there who does that work.

1458
1 Q. All right. So going back to -- you were starting
2 to describe what you found associated with the body of
3 Conner Peterson.
4 A. And I'm referring back to the report now. And I
5 was talking about the loops of tape. Again, one and a half
6 loops of plastic tape there around the neck, there was a
7 knot near the left shoulder, the skin beneath the tape was
8 not injured, and there was approximately a two-centimeter
9 gap between the tape and the neck.
10 Q. Now, you noted in your report, and you just stated
11 in your testimony, that there was no damage beneath the tape
12 on the skin and that there was a gap. What does that mean
13 from the forensic pathological point of view?
14 A. My opinion was that this tape, this loop likely
15 existed elsewhere, and the association between the tape and
16 the body was coincidental.
17 I always forget if it's flotsam or jetsam, but I
18 believe the tape would have been one of those things and
19 simply ended up on the body.
20 Q. Did you make any other notations or observations
21 about the condition of Conner Peterson?
22 A. Conner was decomposing, in general terms. He
23 weighed 1160 grams. The crown -- again, back to my report
24 now, Your Honor. I'm sorry.
25 The crown-heel length was 48 centimeters. The
26 crown-rump length was 32 centimeters. The skin was quite
27 soft, in general, in keeping with decomposition.
28 I think an alternate appropriate term in a case like

1459
1 this would be maceration, which is an effect on tissue
2 soaking in fluid.
3 There was no extra skin or dead skin on the skin
4 surface. The obstetrical term for that is vernix. There
5 was no vernix on this body. Occasionally on a freshly born
6 baby you'll see vernix. There was none on Conner.
7 The other changes I found were essentially those of
8 decomposition and immersion. For example, the --
9 externally, I could tell that the bones that formed the
10 skull that were not yet fused at a baby of this age were
11 overriding. That typically happens as a brain liquefies.
12 There was a tear near the right shoulder that exposed
13 skeletal muscle and the structures beneath. That tear
14 actually extended onto the abdominal wall and portions of
15 the small and large intestine protruded through that tear.
16 Now, as I examined that tear, there was no scalloping, there
17 were no curved marks around the edges. So, again, to my
18 eye, it was an indication that that was simply from the
19 tissue falling apart or perhaps being pulled apart due to
20 tidal action, it wasn't due to animal feeding, which was one
21 of the changes that I was trying to rule out.
22 Other than that, a portion of colon did protrude from
23 the anus, and that was about the extent of the external
24 examination. The rest of it would have been internal.
25 Q. And did you conduct the internal examination?
26 A. I did.
27 Q. What did you find?
28 A. To make a long story short, internally there were

1460
1 no specific changes of either congenital abnormality or
2 disease.
3 The organs, in general, were soft and liquefied, in
4 keeping with decomposition. In fact, two specific sets, the
5 spleen and the kidney, I couldn't even weigh them, because
6 they were liquefied right where they were.
7 There was more liquefaction inside the right side of
8 the chest as opposed to the left because of the tear that I
9 mentioned. So I believe that was more opened to the
10 environment.
11 But aside from that, there was no evidence of
12 congenital defect, there was no evidence of internal
13 disease, and the changes that I observed were simply those
14 of decomposition and immersion.
15 Q. And to put that in lay people's terms, no
16 abnormalities or no congenital defects, what does that mean
17 in terms of a fetus being viable or not?
18 A. The way I would put this one would be there were no
19 internal or external defects that would have been
20 incompatible with life.
21 In other words, I could not say that this child could
22 not have been live born based on some pre-existing
23 abnormality or disease process.
24 Q. Now, you mentioned earlier that this was a fetus.
25 Does a fetus usually have an umbilical cord?
26 A. Well, again, it depends on where the baby is in the
27 process. The fetus always does, unless there's some other
28 congenital abnormality there.

1461
1 In this case, there was a portion of normal-appearing
2 umbilical cord present. It only measured half a centimeter,
3 though, and the edge was rather ragged.
4 Q. What does that mean if it's ragged?
5 A. I think it just fell apart or pulled apart, it was
6 not cut.
7 Q. Did you conduct an autopsy later in the day on the
8 same date of April 14th on a body that was subsequently
9 identified by stipulation to be Laci Peterson?
10 A. I did.
11 Q. Can you describe to the Court the condition of that
12 body?
13 A. I'm also referring, Your Honor, to my report as we
14 go through these details.
15 In the case of Laci, x-rays were taken at the office
16 prior to my arrival. So I reviewed those x-rays, looking
17 specifically for evidence of foreign material, such as
18 bullets, blades, that sort of thing. There was no such
19 evidence.
20 It was possible to see mineral deposit on the outside
21 surface of the body. As it turned out, that was associated
22 with clothing. And that was essentially the next step.
23 As I first approached the body, I received it in the
24 prone position, which is a little bit unusual. Normally
25 they come in on their back. But I believe this is how the
26 body was recovered.
27 And at first note, much of the body was absent. What I
28 had to examine was the torso, I had portions of both upper

1462
1 extremities, I had portions of the lower extremities,
2 however, the head and neck were absent, the forearms and
3 hands were absent, and the left lower leg, the tibia, the
4 fibula and the foot, those things were all absent. So what
5 I had was the rest to deal with.
6 There was clothing in place on this body. The clothing
7 consisted of an underwire brassiere. There was a label on
8 that, and on the label it said Bali, B-A-L-I, and there was
9 also a number, 3630. There was a letter C on there, and
10 following the C, a fraction, 40 over 90.
11 So the brassiere was in place, it was intact, it was
12 secured by two hook-and-loop-type fasteners, and, as best I
13 could tell, had not been disturbed.
14 The additional clothing consisted of khaki-colored
15 trousers. There was a label in the trousers, and the brand
16 was Motherhood. The size label was S for small.
17 Beneath the trousers, there were panties. There was a
18 label on the panties that read Jockey and the number seven.
19 The back of the panties, the buttock portion was absent, but
20 the elastic band, the leg band portion remained around each
21 upper thigh. The -- I should get back to the trousers for a
22 second.
23 There was a -- there was a peculiar shredding kind of
24 effect to those trousers. The legs were basically reduced
25 to thread, and within those threads, the calcification, the
26 stone-like material I mentioned earlier, was deposited.
27 Additionally, there was some duct tape, and where I
28 found that was sticking to the front waistband of the

1463
1 trousers. I actually first saw it on the back of her body,
2 because, again, she came in prone. But where it was
3 actually stuck was on the front of the waistband.
4 Aside from that, the button closure of the trousers was
5 intact, the zipper was intact, and there were cloth draw
6 cords inside. Those were also intact. And the front of the
7 panties -- I mentioned the buttocks was absent. The front
8 portion was also intact there.
9 And that was pretty much it for the clothing.
10 Q. Now, with regards to this duct tape that you
11 described, you indicate that you first saw it when the body
12 was face down, and when it's turned over, it was attached to
13 the pants. Was this a short or a long piece of duct tape?
14 A. I didn't put a measurement in my report.
15 I saw it on the left thigh when she was in the prone
16 position, and then when we rolled the body over, it was
17 stuck to the trousers' waistband, but I don't have the
18 length recorded.
19 Q. So it was something that went from basically the
20 front around the thigh or --
21 A. Around the thigh, yes.
22 Q. Now, you indicated that there was -- besides -- let
23 me try it again.
24 Other than the clothing, did you continue doing an
25 external examination of this particular body?
26 A. I did.
27 Q. Did you find anything of note or anything of the
28 absence of note?

1464
1 A. Well, due to the nature of the body, the typical
2 practice for autopsy is to perform an external examination
3 and then open the body and do the internal examination. And
4 normally that's approached in a step-wise fashion. We do
5 use the standard Y-shaped incision, examine the organs in
6 the chest and the abdomen, ultimately open the head.
7 Well, unfortunately, in this case, most of those things
8 were absent. There was neither head nor neck to examine.
9 In terms of the chest, the skin, the tissue beneath the
10 skin, the fat, the muscle, all that was absent, and the
11 collarbones, the clavicles, the breastbone, the sternum, the
12 ribs were all exposed. So pretty much with respect to the
13 chest, there was simply skeletal structure, there was no
14 internal content. So the organs that you think of as
15 normally being in the chest, the lungs, the heart,
16 et cetera, were all absent.
17 In terms of the -- from the waist down, beginning at
18 about the level of the bellybutton, or the umbilicus, the
19 skin was absent, the fat was still present, and the fat had
20 undergone a peculiar postmortem change called adipocere.
21 It's a soap-like substance that's formed when fat is soaked
22 in cold water. So the fat had become adipocere.
23 Other than that, externally, the external genitalia
24 were unremarkable, there was no evidence of injury.
25 As I further examined the extremities, again, much of
26 the skin, subcutaneous tissue was present on the upper arms
27 and on the thighs, but the joints were exposed. And as I
28 examined those joints, there was no evidence of specific

1465
1 injury there. What I was looking for, of course, was
2 evidence of tool marks. So, for example, if these
3 extremities had been cut off, there might have been marks on
4 the bones, such as, say, a saw blade or a knife might leave.
5 There were no such marks. Neither was there evidence of
6 chewing.
7 I should also mention that beginning at the level of
8 the umbilicus, the abdominal wall was absent upward. So,
9 again, the bones of the chest were exposed and a portion of
10 the abdominal soft tissue was absent down to about the level
11 of the umbilicus.
12 And that was the external examination.
13 Q. Did you -- even with the condition of the body, did
14 you conduct an internal examination?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. And what did you find?
17 A. There were a couple things internally. Probably
18 the most remarkable was that the -- much was missing.
19 Again, the organs within the chest were absent, most of the
20 organs within the abdomen were absent. No liver, spleen,
21 kidneys, pancreas, intestines. All those things were gone.
22 What was present, however, was the uterus. And the
23 uterus was still in normal anatomic position, its
24 attachments to the pelvis were still intact. I measured it
25 at 23 centimeters. And once I took it out, it weighed
26 263 grams.
27 Of note was the fact that it was quite thin, measured
28 two millimeters in thickness at most -- again, I'm back to

1466
1 my report, Your Honor.
2 And the fundus, which is the top part of the uterus,
3 which is what they feel to assess, I guess, gestational age,
4 one of the assessments for gestational age, the uterus at
5 that point was essentially abraded away and torn. Again, no
6 evidence of cut marks, no evidence of other specific tool
7 mark that I could identify, but the wall there was thin, and
8 it had been more or less rubbed away, and it was empty.
9 Down at the base of the uterus, in the pelvis, the
10 birth canal was closed and appeared normal.
11 There were some bony injuries that I could examine
12 internally. There was some fraying of right rib number nine
13 and the inner portions of the bone were exposed. There were
14 also fractures on the sides of left ribs five and six. To
15 my eye, I could not say with any confidence whether these
16 were antemortem or postmortem fractures, so I simply
17 described them.
18 And that was basically the extent of the internal
19 examination.
20 Q. And with regards to the description of the uterus,
21 there's kind of an assumption there. What you're
22 describing, what does that mean in the medical sense?
23 A. My opinion is is that that uterus was intact at the
24 time that this body was deposited in the water or ended up
25 in the water, however it did, and, essentially, I believe
26 that Conner was in that uterus, and that with time --
27 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Motion to strike. It's
28 speculation and there's no foundation.

1467
1 THE COURT: Overruled. I believe he has the expertise
2 to say that. You'll obviously be able to cross-examine him
3 and try to convince me otherwise.
4 THE WITNESS: And with the time and tidal action and
5 animal feeding, as the abdominal wall wore away, eventually
6 the upper part of the fundus of the uterus wore away, and at
7 that time, the fetus was released.
8 MR. HARRIS: Q. So let's -- I want to back up.
9 The point that I was trying to clarify is from your
10 examination of this body, could you tell that this person at
11 some point in time was pregnant?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And that was based on what?
14 A. This was the size and extent of the uterus.
15 Q. And that there was no signs that there was a
16 vaginal birth?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. So that with the stipulation that this is Laci and
19 Conner, Laci is pregnant with Conner, and at some point in
20 time Conner comes out of that uterus, can you describe to
21 the Court how you believe that that happened?
22 A. Again, it depends a lot on knowing how bodies act
23 in the water, and essentially because --
24 MR. GERAGOS: Which is precisely why there's an
25 objection. No foundation.
26 THE COURT: Overruled.
27 MR. HARRIS: Q. Doctor, let me stop you there. Let's
28 go back for a second. We'll make sure we're clear about

1468
1 this.
2 The experience that you've had as a forensic
3 pathologist, have you ever examined bodies that have been in
4 the water?
5 A. Many.
6 Q. Can you give the Court some background about that?
7 A. Well, I guess a lot of it had to do with being in
8 training and then being in practice on one coast or the
9 other.
10 When I was on the East Coast for my fellowship, I spent
11 three months at the Medical Examiner's Office for Maryland,
12 which is in Baltimore, on the coast. And then my practice
13 in San Diego, being in the Navy, we also received many
14 bodies out of the water.
15 In terms of range, I've seen bodies that are
16 essentially fresh, say, somebody has just jumped off a
17 bridge, all the way to bodies that have been in the water
18 for months and months and have been skeletonized, and pretty
19 much anything in between.
20 So, again, it's as to being on the coast, but I've
21 examined many, many bodies out of the water.
22 Q. So with that background, you're starting to explain
23 to the Court what you saw of the bodies and what that meant
24 to you.
25 A. Essentially, a body that's free to move in the
26 water or float is gonna float face down. It's the center of
27 gravity issue. And it has to do with the fact that the
28 extremities are rather heavy, and they simply are gonna hang

1469
1 down.
2 So when a body is in the water, if left to its own
3 devices, so to speak, it's gonna float in the prone
4 position.
5 The other thing to know is that bodies tend to sink.
6 At some point, they tend to float up. And this depends on
7 postmortem change, gas formation, that sort of thing.
8 So bodies typically spend at least some of their time
9 near the bottom and some of their time near the top.
10 Now, if they're near the bottom, they're open to effect
11 by physical phenomenon, such as tides, currents, those sorts
12 of things. And a body will then be pulled over the bottom
13 structures, rocks, sand, whatever else might be down there.
14 These sorts of things tend to be destructive. And when I
15 use the term in my report "tidal action," that's what I had
16 in mind, that it's simply that abrasive-type action on the
17 body that's going to cause some of the changes that I saw.
18 I believe that given time, and given the pattern on
19 this body, it's consistent with that particular position,
20 that prone position, and it's consistent with those portions
21 of the body being more acted on than the posterior portions
22 of the body.
23 So the forearms were absent, the lower leg was absent
24 on the left. How come? Because those portions were hanging
25 down and were more subject to that damage.
26 Again, the uterus, the pregnant uterus relatively
27 heavy, the body still face down, the anterior abdominal wall
28 and that upper portion, that fundus of the uterus, also

1470
1 exposed to that type of damage.
2 So to me, it goes together in an intellectual way to
3 explaining why I saw more damage there and why I saw this
4 particular pattern.
5 In terms of the condition of the bodies, comparing the
6 two together, what I had to reconcile was the fact that
7 Laci's body showed evidence of animal feeding, showed
8 evidence of these external changes associated with exposure
9 to the environment, Conner's didn't so much. Conner was
10 decomposed, and, again, another reasonable term would be
11 macerated, but there was no evidence of animal feeding.
12 There was the one tear in the shoulder, but there wasn't the
13 extensive damage that we saw on Laci.
14 And as I tried to reconcile these two things, the
15 condition of Conner's body and the condition of Laci's
16 uterus, it made intellectual sense to me that his body was
17 relatively protected by the uterus up until the end when the
18 abrasion took away that portion of the uterus and allowed
19 his body to be released.
20 Q. Based on what you saw from Laci's body, you were
21 briefly describing about how the environment affects the
22 legs and the feet. Does the marine environment have effect
23 on causing disarticulation?
24 A. It certainly can. There are, obviously, animals in
25 the marine environment that will feed on a body. Down near
26 the bottom, there are shellfish, crabs, lobsters, that sort
27 of thing that will produce these sort of nibble marks.
28 Again, though, there were no specific chew marks on her

1471
1 body. As I examined the joints that were available for
2 examination, there were no tool marks, there was -- there
3 were no bite marks either.
4 So could these disarticulations that I saw have been
5 caused by large animal feeding, shark feeding, something on
6 that order? I suppose it could have. I don't have any
7 particular positive evidence to say that they were, though.
8 Q. The condition of the remains of Laci, is that
9 consistent with other bodies that you've seen in the Bay?
10 A. Sure.
11 Q. When you were -- you had talked earlier when you
12 were describing the clothing of Laci about something,
13 mineralization. What did that mean?
14 A. What I saw in the trousers that have been more or
15 less reduced to thread down around the upper legs, there
16 were round, smooth, round to oval deposits of stone.
17 I'm not a mineralogist, I'm not an anthropologist, but
18 it was quite heavy --
19 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. No foundation.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 THE WITNESS: These were discrete deposits.
22 Again, as I tried to consider what possible mechanism
23 might have been involved there, I thought about, again, how
24 a body acts in the water, how it tends to submerge and then
25 resurface. And I think if this happened over a period of
26 time, with alternate layers of wetting and drying, it could
27 have account -- it could account for minerals building up as
28 I saw here.

1472
1 MR. HARRIS: Q. Did you observe any marine activity
2 associated with the body as well?
3 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation. Vague
4 and unintelligible.
5 THE COURT: Sustained. It's vague. Marine could mean
6 a lot of things.
7 MR. HARRIS: I'll try to be more specific.
8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.
11 Q. Okay. When you were done with the autopsies of
12 both Laci and Conner, did you stop there? Did you also seek
13 assistance of anyone else?
14 A. I would say there were actually two separate sets
15 of assistance sought. The first was to forward bone and
16 tissue from both of these bodies for DNA analysis, and that
17 was done that same night.
18 The second was to bring a anthropologist up for
19 consultation, being that an anthropologist is more of an
20 expert in skeletal analysis than I am.
21 Q. And did you do that in this case?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Who was it that you consulted with?
24 A. The consultant was Dr. Alison Galloway.
25 Q. And did Dr. Galloway provide you with a report?
26 A. She did.
27 Q. And have you reviewed her report?
28 A. Yes, I have.

1473
1 Q. Do any of her findings or any of her notations kind
2 of coincide with what you're talking about?
3 A. I believe, in general, our reports are coincident
4 in the sense that we talk about the same presence, the same
5 absence, the same changes of immersion, including the
6 adipocere formation, the same estimate with respect to time
7 in the water. I don't find any particular disagreement
8 between her report and my reports.
9 Q. Let me ask you about that.
10 What is your estimate of time in the water for these
11 bodies?
12 A. I would simply say months.
13 Q. And Dr. Galloway's?
14 A. Dr. Galloway, with respect to Laci, said three to
15 six months and --
16 MR. GERAGOS: There will be an objection. No
17 foundation. Hearsay. I understand he's an expert, but he's
18 already testified that he's not an expert in this particular
19 area, and for --
20 THE COURT: And expert can also consult with others and
21 get input. So the Court will allow that. Overruled.
22 THE WITNESS: In her report, Dr. Galloway said three to
23 six months in the marine environment for Laci.
24 In terms of Conner, her statement, and I'll read it
25 from her report, is, "The postmortem interval of the infant
26 is consistent with that of individual A," that was Laci,
27 "however, the body of individual B," Conner, "was more
28 protected from environmental degradation."

1474
1 MR. HARRIS: Q. And in lay people's terms, is that
2 pretty much what you've already described about Conner being
3 protected by being in the uterus?
4 A. It is.
5 Q. With the conditions of the bodies that they were
6 in, were you able to make determinations as to cause of
7 death?
8 A. My cause of death specifically was undetermined. I
9 was not able to.
10 Q. Now, do you go through a process of attempting to
11 rule anything out as you go through this process?
12 A. Very much so. And that's the search for other
13 objects in the body, such as bullets, it's the search for
14 injury, that sort of thing.
15 In this case, I think there were a few reasons that
16 made that more difficult. Certainly, the fact that so much
17 of the body was missing made it difficult.
18 But with respect to the body that was present, there
19 was simply nothing there. There weren't tool marks. There
20 weren't bullets. There weren't other evidences of injury.
21 So once all was said and done -- and, by the way, the
22 toxicology was also not helpful.
23 Once all those things were done, I simply had no
24 anatomic or chemical cause of death, and, under those
25 circumstances, I was left with little choice but to deem the
26 death undetermined.
27 Q. Now, with regards to going back to Conner, did you
28 make some type of determination of his age at the time of

1475
1 his death?
2 A. I did. The measurement that I am accustom to
3 making, that would be typical for a forensic pathologist to
4 do, is simply measuring body length, and that can be either
5 crown-heel length, the measurement from the top of the head
6 to the heel, or crown-rump length.
7 Based on those two measurements, the estimated
8 gestational age for Conner was nine months.
9 Q. And did you find that to be what you were doing
10 there, the measurement from the crown to the rump, to be
11 accurate under the circumstances that you were looking at?
12 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Vague.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 THE WITNESS: My opinion was that that was not a
15 particularly accurate measurement, and the reason is that
16 this body was soft and decomposing. As tissues decompose,
17 they tend to expand. And as tissues expand, in a case like
18 this, that can affect the entire body.
19 So my opinion is is that the crown-rump length is
20 something that I could measure, but in terms of trying to
21 come up with an accurate estimate of gestational age, there
22 were more accurate ways to do it, and, in fact, I relied on
23 Dr. Galloway for that measurement.
24 MR. HARRIS: Q. Did you have Dr. Galloway perform
25 measurements of Conner Peterson?
26 A. Well, she did it as part of her professional
27 expertise. I didn't require it, I didn't ask her to do it,
28 but she simply did it.

1476
1 Q. And what was her estimate?
2 A. Dr. Galloway's estimate was 33 to 38 weeks
3 gestational age.
4 Q. Now, you use the term "gestational." What does
5 that mean?
6 A. In other words, how long has the baby been
7 developing in the uterus. It would be the time from
8 fertilization until, in this case, 33 or 38 weeks later.
9 Q. Is that different than a term for lunar birth?
10 A. There are different ways of estimating gestational
11 age based on the starting point, and it all has to do with
12 at what point does the menstrual cycle stop because of
13 fertilization, and that is sometimes -- that can sometimes
14 be difficult to determine.
15 So Dr. Galloway mentions different types of age
16 assessment in her report. She mentions lunar age based on
17 the 28 lunar cycle. Based on that measurement -- again,
18 this is nothing that I typically deal with, but according to
19 her report, pregnancy lasts 280 days, or 10 lunar months.
20 I'm accustom to talking about the solar calendar, about
21 32 days per month, a 9-month pregnancy. And, again, based
22 on crown-rump length, this would be a 9-month pregnancy.
23 Based on the measurements that she did, 33 to 38 weeks.
24 And, of course, 9 months is in that range.
25 MR. HARRIS: People have no other questions at this
26 time.
27 MR. GERAGOS: May I inquire?
28 THE COURT: Mr. Geragos?

1477
1 CROSS-EXAMINATION
2 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Can we start with the -- you said the
3 manner of death was undetermined?
4 A. I said the cause of death was undetermined.
5 Q. Okay. How about the manner of death?
6 A. In the Coroner's jurisdiction, it's not part of my
7 job description to determine manner. Manner of death is
8 determined by the Coroner.
9 In this case, I know that the Coroner determined
10 homicide was the manner of death.
11 Q. Did you originally -- I thought I heard Mr. Harris
12 ask you that you did both of these autopsies in the same
13 day?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Okay. Did you do Conner's autopsy first?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you remember -- do you have -- do you have a
18 separate report for each of those?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. Okay. Those are in front of you?
21 A. They are.
22 Q. The first one, Conner's, is dated what date?
23 A. The date of the autopsy is April 14th, beginning at
24 8:10 in the morning.
25 Laci is April 14th, beginning at 6:30 in the evening.
26 Q. Okay. Do you know if at the time that you did
27 Conner's autopsy whether or not Laci had been found?
28 A. I don't know.

1478
1 Q. Do you remember whether there were other people
2 present at the time of the autopsy of Conner?
3 A. There were.
4 Q. Okay. Do you know if there was a Detective
5 Villalobos present at the time of the autopsy?
6 A. As far as I know, only Officer Jeff Soler was
7 present during Conner's autopsy.
8 Q. Okay. Did you at one point -- well, wasn't -- was
9 Captain Dean present at all during that autopsy?
10 A. Captain Dean was in and out. She typically doesn't
11 attend autopsies. She runs the office.
12 Q. And she does, though, during the autopsies come
13 down -- and there's two separate autopsy rooms that are on
14 the ground floor there. She will come down and poke her
15 head in during times of the autopsy, will she not?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Now, during the time that you were doing the
18 autopsy, did you comment -- well, were there any other
19 detectives present besides Jeff Soler?
20 A. I don't remember.
21 Q. Okay. Did you make some comment that it was --
22 that there was some evidence that the child may have been
23 born alive?
24 A. As I said earlier under direct examination, I
25 believe my summary was that I could not rule out live birth.
26 Q. Okay.
27 A. Now, I do not have specific evidence to prove live
28 birth. But based on the anatomic findings, I could not rule

1479
1 that out.
2 Q. Okay. And I'm just asking specifically, did you
3 remark when you found -- or when you were examining Conner
4 that there was some evidence that the child may have been
5 born alive? I'm asking if you made that comment during the
6 autopsy?
7 A. Well, my memory isn't good enough to quote myself.
8 I couldn't say. I know -- I know what my conclusions are.
9 As far as the table talk at that time, I simply don't
10 remember.
11 Q. Okay. There also was no umbilical cord attached
12 whatsoever; is that correct?
13 A. Well, no, there was half a centimeter that remained
14 attached.
15 Q. Approximately how long is a half a centimeter?
16 A. Quarter of an inch.
17 Q. Okay. Isn't that consistent with the length of the
18 umbilical cord after a live birth, whether it's removed
19 through cutting or torn off, after a live birth, isn't a
20 quarter of an inch approximately the length of the umbilical
21 cord after a live birth?
22 A. I'm not an obstetrician, and, you know, I really
23 can't comment as to where -- how much of a stump they would
24 leave.
25 I've got two sons, and I know how much they had left
26 on, and it was a bit longer than that, because the clamp has
27 to be fit. But I would hardly call that a statistically
28 valid sample either.

1480
1 Q. Okay. It's not inconsistent with live birth, the
2 fact that there was no umbilical cord present and that it
3 was only a quarter of an inch, by your estimate, protruding;
4 isn't that correct?
5 A. Well, you -- you said there was no umbilical cord
6 present, and then you said there was a quarter inch.
7 Q. Quarter of an inch present is what was there. The
8 cord itself, all that remained was a quarter of an inch. If
9 you want to talk anecdotally, what we would call a
10 bellybutton, that's basically what was left; isn't that
11 correct?
12 A. Well, there was a quarter inch of umbilical cord
13 protruding beyond the skin. And perhaps the easiest way to
14 answer your question, I hope I'm hitting the target for you
15 here, is that based on the length of the umbilical cord, I
16 could neither rule in nor rule out live birth.
17 Q. Okay. Now, you said that there was in addition to
18 that a -- I want to kind of accurately quote you, that you
19 had a -- and this would have been taking you fast forward to
20 after you completed Laci's autopsy, that there was a
21 significant difference in the decomposition between the two
22 bodies; isn't that correct?
23 A. There was a significant difference in the
24 condition. They were both decomposed. The differences tend
25 to be other things, what was present, what was absent, those
26 kind of environmental changes.
27 Q. Okay. Is it a fair statement that Conner's
28 condition was such that you didn't believe that Conner could

1481
1 have been in the water in an unprotected environment for
2 more than a couple of days?
3 A. That's a fair statement.
4 Q. Okay. And is it a fair statement that the reason
5 that you believe that was because of when you touched the
6 skin, the condition of the skin, your visual analysis of the
7 lack of significant decomposition or degradation of the body
8 itself?
9 A. I think the factor that I consider more than
10 anything else was a lack of animal feeding. There must have
11 been some protection so that that was avoided.
12 Q. Okay. Is it a fair statement that because of the
13 size of Conner, that one would have expected that if he was
14 in the water for more than a couple of days, that he would
15 have animal feeding?
16 A. I don't think the size particularly applies there.
17 I think a body in the water will tend to attract animals for
18 feeding purposes regardless of size.
19 Q. Okay. Now, were you given -- you said when Conner
20 came in you were not given a whole lot of information. Is
21 that a fair statement?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Okay. At that point, you did not know that this
24 potentially was linked to Laci Peterson, Conner was; isn't
25 that correct?
26 A. That's correct.
27 Q. Okay. Did you, when examining Conner, make the
28 remark or something to the effect that, "This baby may have

1482
1 been born alive, we may have a mother in distress out there,
2 we should do something about that"?
3 A. That doesn't sound like something I would say.
4 Q. You didn't make that remark to --
5 A. I don't think so.
6 Q. Okay. Now, did they tell you, "they" being the
7 detectives -- I assume that -- who reported to you the
8 information? Was it only Jeff Soler, or did Detective or
9 Sergeant England also give you information?
10 A. With -- I think with Conner's autopsy, pretty much
11 the information came from Officer Soler.
12 Q. Did you later find out that there was a bag that
13 had been found that also had some duct tape on it in the
14 vicinity of where the two bodies were recovered?
15 A. You know, I heard that probably as much through the
16 media as anything else. I was not privy so much to that
17 type of information officially.
18 Q. Okay. The tape that you found around the neck of
19 Conner, that had been knotted; isn't that correct?
20 A. Well, there was -- yeah, there was a knot in the
21 tape near the left shoulder.
22 Q. Were you able to determine what kind of a knot that
23 was?
24 A. I didn't try to take it apart. I would leave that
25 to a criminalist. So it was simply a matter of removing the
26 evidence intact and handing it off.
27 Q. Okay. Did you cut it?
28 A. I think I cut it around the neck. I don't

1483
1 remember.
2 Q. Now, the -- if I were to tell you that the piece of
3 nylon -- or nylon is probably not accurate, but it's a piece
4 of tape, for lack of a better word, was cut when delivered
5 to the criminalist, would that refresh your recollection as
6 to the fact that you had to cut it to get it off?
7 A. That's how I would typically remove something
8 around the neck, cut it, but away from the knot.
9 Q. Okay. Now, you said that it was -- that there was
10 a area that was, I guess, removed from the skin of
11 approximately -- was it two centimeters?
12 A. That was a gap between the tape and the neck.
13 Q. Okay. Now, can we be specific about that gap? Was
14 that two centimeters all the way around or two centimeters
15 when you would pull it taut?
16 A. That was pulling the tape so that it was firm
17 against one side of the neck, and then measuring the gap
18 between the tape and the other surface of the neck.
19 Q. Okay. And is it also a fair statement that you
20 could not easily lift that circle of or loop of tape over
21 the top of the head?
22 A. You know, I don't remember trying that, probably
23 out of concern for damaging the body.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. I chose to cut instead.
26 Q. Okay. Is it a fair statement that the neck,
27 Conner's neck was substantially thinner than the measurement
28 of the crown of the head?

1484
1 A. Well, again, it was -- it was hard to do a
2 crown-of-head measurement, because the brain had liquefied
3 and the skull plates were overriding. Certainly, in a
4 normal baby, that's true. And a decomposed baby, not so
5 much, the head was collapsing.
6 Q. Okay. In a normal baby, the difference between the
7 circumference, if you will, of the neck and the
8 circumference of the head is more than two centimeters;
9 isn't that correct?
10 A. I think that's likely.
11 Q. Okay. In fact, it's generally in excess of five
12 centimeters difference between the crown and the neck; is
13 that correct?
14 A. It's not a measurement that I'm accustom to taking
15 at autopsy. I couldn't say.
16 Q. Okay. There was also, when the baby was brought
17 in, was brought in on a -- I guess kind of laid out on a
18 white towel; is that correct?
19 A. I think it was on a sheet, and that was inside the
20 body bag.
21 Q. Okay. And there was debris that was also present
22 on the baby; isn't that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Were you told about where the baby was
25 found?
26 A. I was told -- I mean, the baby was found ashore, is
27 what I was told.
28 Q. And were you told that the baby was found ashore a

1485
1 certain amount of distance in -- or beyond where the rock
2 jetty was?
3 A. I think ultimately I discovered that by looking at
4 some scene pictures. I don't recall if I knew that at the
5 time of the autopsy, though.
6 Q. Okay. When you looked at the scene pictures, did
7 you make a visual determination as to how far inland, if you
8 will, from the jetty the baby was?
9 A. Well, I can see the baby wasn't in the water and
10 the baby was ashore. Perspective is a difficult thing.
11 And, again, it simply wasn't a major concern for me.
12 Q. Okay. Now, if you had known that there had been a
13 bag that was found that had some duct tape on it, and you
14 did know, 20/20 hindsight, so to speak, you did know that
15 there was duct tape that was found on Laci, and you saw this
16 tape, if you will, around the baby's neck, would that have
17 also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a
18 bag and this tape that was around the neck having been
19 looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the
20 water, the baby would have been in a protected environment?
21 Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that
22 you saw of the baby?
23 A. In terms of the first part of your question, the
24 details about the duct tape and the bag, I really can't
25 speak to that. I think the implication is that that's even
26 the same tape or the same duct tape. I have no way of
27 knowing that.
28 I think what I can get to, though, is would it have

1486
1 been possible for something else to protect this baby aside
2 from Laci's uterus? I think that's possible. Based on the
3 condition of the two bodies, I don't think it's likely, and
4 it certainly isn't my top choice.
5 But if we assume that somehow he was removed through
6 that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned
7 earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment,
8 and if we further assume that he was released from that at
9 about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's
10 possible.
11 Q. Okay. And is one of the reasons why that's
12 possible, because you saw no damage underneath the tape so
13 that if the tape was placed on over a bag, that would be
14 consistent with not showing any kind of damage under --
15 around the neck; isn't that true?
16 A. Well, no, I mean, the problem was, again, all I can
17 comment on is what I saw. There was no bag around the head
18 of the body. There was simply that tape. I think that the
19 reason that there was no damage is that the tape was not put
20 on in life or that there was simply too many changes of
21 decomposition to effectively observe that.
22 Of course, when there's damage applied to the neck of a
23 living person, that can be accompanied by internal damage,
24 bleeding in the muscles, fracture of the hyoid bone, damage
25 to the thyroid cartilage, this sort of thing you see in
26 strangulation cases. There was no such damage here.
27 Q. And that's -- and did anybody show you the pictures
28 of when or the specific location of where Conner was found?

1487
1 A. I believe I saw pictures of the scene. I don't
2 remember -- in fact, I think I even saw a picture of the
3 body at the scene, yeah.
4 Q. Okay. Did you see in the body at the scene that in
5 addition to the tape around the neck, that there also
6 appeared to be a piece of plastic that was kind of strewn
7 from the neck area?
8 A. I don't remember seeing that.
9 Q. Okay. The other area that you were describing to
10 Mr. Harris regarding the -- I guess the injuries to Laci, so
11 to speak, both you and Dr. Galloway talked about multiple
12 rib fractures; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And in your report, I believe you identified
15 that there were rib fractures to the left number five and
16 six and to the right number nine; is that correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Now, when she did her examination, she referred to
19 I believe the fifth and the sixth ribs show, she called it,
20 perimortem fractures; isn't that correct?
21 A. She did.
22 Q. Okay. Now, can you describe what the difference
23 between a perimortem fracture is and a postmortem fracture?
24 A. Sure. A postmortem fracture is one that occurs
25 after death. An antemortem fracture would occur before
26 death. A perimortem could be either.
27 Q. And based upon what she saw -- and you had
28 indicated also, I think, that one of the reasons that you

1488
1 had some hesitation about -- I mean, you had estimated a
2 nine-month gestational age, you were worried about the
3 expansion of tissue because the body had been in the water,
4 presumably had been in the water; is that correct?
5 A. Well, the body was decomposing, put it that way.
6 Q. Okay. But you did do x-rays on this -- on the
7 baby; isn't that correct?
8 A. No, I didn't record them in my report. I don't
9 think so. I don't think we did x-rays on that body. They
10 may have been done afterwards.
11 Q. Okay. What if I were to tell you that there --
12 they have an x-ray machine there in the Contra Costa morgue,
13 don't they?
14 A. They have both kinds, dental and regular.
15 Q. Okay. And there are x-rays that have been produced
16 to both sides, the defense and the prosecution. Have you
17 ever looked at the x-rays?
18 A. I don't think so.
19 Q. Okay. You did call in Dr. Galloway, however, and
20 Dr. Galloway specifically said that she would need to take
21 bone measurements; isn't that correct?
22 A. Well, Dr. Galloway -- she and I didn't discuss what
23 her procedure was going to be.
24 Q. Okay. Now, the -- did you ever talk to a Detective
25 Grogan from the Modesto PD?
26 A. I'm looking at my list of folks that attended
27 Laci's autopsy. He's not on that list. And, frankly, I've
28 had so many discussions between then and now, I couldn't

1489
1 tell you for sure.
2 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Detective Grogan -- and it
3 looks like he interviewed you on Monday, April 14th, at
4 about 3:15. Is that -- I know you probably talked to a
5 number of people regarding this case. But did you ever tell
6 him that the baby was a full-term male infant with advanced
7 stages of decomposition?
8 A. That's just what I described in the report.
9 Q. Okay. Did you tell him that the umbilical cord was
10 approximately a half a centimeter long, and you're unable to
11 state for certain whether the umbilical cord had been tied
12 at one point along the ragged edge of the umbilical cord or
13 if the umbilical cord had been attached and came off as part
14 of decomposition?
15 A. I don't recall saying that. I could certainly
16 speak to that issue.
17 Q. Well, let me just take it step by step.
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. Let me see if this refreshes your recollection.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Okay? Does that refresh your recollection as to
22 whether you told Detective Grogan on the -- that would have
23 been the very afternoon of the autopsy of Conner and before
24 you did the autopsy of Laci?
25 A. It was the afternoon of the day in which I
26 autopsied Conner in the morning and Laci in the evening.
27 Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection as to
28 whether you told him you're unable to state for certain

1490
1 whether the umbilical cord had been tied at one point?
2 A. It does.
3 Q. Okay. Now, did you also tell Detective Grogan you
4 could not say for certain whether the child had been
5 stillborn?
6 A. Again, same thing I've been saying and I said in my
7 report.
8 Q. Okay. And that you also could not tell for certain
9 whether or not the child had gone through the birthing
10 process?
11 A. Correct. Same thing.
12 Q. Okay. There is also -- I think you were
13 specifically asked, and this would have been one of the ways
14 I believe that you could determine if the child was born,
15 was to examine or to do some tests with the lungs; isn't
16 that correct?
17 A. No. I think -- I hope, anyway, what you're
18 referring to is a float test?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. Okay. The float test has been held up as a test to
21 determine live birth, with the idea being that if a baby is
22 stillborn, the baby's never had a chance to draw a breath,
23 and in that case, the lungs are heavy and simply will not
24 float in water.
25 On the other hand, if the baby is live born and has
26 drawn breath, lungs are expanded, there's air in there, and
27 then they'll float.
28 The problem is that there can be postmortem gas

1491
1 formation in the lung due to decomposition. And we know
2 that this case was a decomposed case. By the same token, in
3 my autopsy experience, just to see what would happen, I've
4 tried floating lungs in stillborn babies, and occasionally
5 they'll float. I don't have an explanation for that beyond
6 specific gravity, but I know that's the case. So I would
7 not rely on the float test.
8 Q. Well, did you tell Detective Grogan that the lungs
9 were small and wet and no determination if the child had
10 ever taken a breath could be made based upon the
11 decomposition?
12 A. We're saying the same thing. In other words,
13 decomposition can mask a number of things.
14 Q. Well, isn't what you're saying is that you couldn't
15 do the float test because of decomposition? Isn't that what
16 you told Detective Grogan?
17 A. Well, no. I don't do the float test. I do not
18 believe the float test is reliable or helpful, and in some
19 cases it can be misleading.
20 Q. Well, then, I'm a little confused. Why were you
21 telling him that the lungs were small and wet and no
22 determination if the child had ever taken a breath could be
23 made if you don't do a float test?
24 A. The lungs were small and wet, that's true. No
25 determination could be made based on those lungs, that's
26 true. That test -- that comment you're reading there
27 doesn't refer to the float test.
28 Q. Well, no determination if the child had ever taken

1492
1 a breath could be made based on the decomposition doesn't
2 refer to the float test?
3 A. I don't do the float test.
4 Q. Well, then what were you talking about?
5 A. I was answering a question.
6 Q. You were answering a question to Detective Grogan
7 about the float test, even though you don't do the float
8 test?
9 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence
10 and calls for speculation.
11 MR. GERAGOS: I'm just asking a simple question. I'll
12 rephrase it.
13 Q. Please tell me what you were responding to, what
14 were you referring to when you said the lungs were small and
15 wet and no determination if the child had ever taken a
16 breath could be made based on the decomposition?
17 A. I'm referring to determination of live birth versus
18 stillbirth and the fact that I can't do that based on those
19 lungs. That's all.
20 Q. Now, the specifically the -- Dr. Galloway did a
21 measurement or a series of measurements of various bones of
22 Conner's; isn't that correct?
23 A. She did.
24 Q. Okay. And then she compared those bone lengths, if
25 you will, to various charts that she lists in her Appendix
26 A; is that correct?
27 A. That's what I read in her report, yes.
28 Q. Okay. Do you have Appendix A in front of you?

1493
1 A. I do.
2 Q. Okay. Do you see where the -- she's got various --
3 first of all, she has a chart where she talks about the what
4 appears to be five different, separate bones that she
5 measured in a variety of ways; isn't that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And then she lists specifically what the
8 measurement was in the next column and then the measurement
9 itself numerically; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Then she takes and compares to two different
12 scales. One is Fazekas and Kosa, Forensic Fetal Osteology;
13 is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the other is referred to as Sherwood's Fetal
16 Age, Methods of Estimation and Effects of Pathology; is that
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now, based upon Fazekas, which is
20 F-A-Z-E-K-A-S, she went through and listed the bone length
21 and how many weeks it appears that the baby -- or the age of
22 the baby was; isn't that correct?
23 A. She does.
24 Q. Okay. She lists for the first three measurements
25 all fall within the range of 36 to 38 weeks; is that
26 correct?
27 A. That's correct.
28 Q. She lists the -- is it parietal cord height at 40

1494
1 weeks?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. She goes through and lists the other three
4 remaining measurements of the parietal from 34 to 36 weeks;
5 is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And she then takes the right frontal and does
8 cord -- the same thing again with those four measurements;
9 is that correct?
10 A. She does.
11 Q. And she comes out to 38 to 40 weeks, 34 to 36, 36
12 to 38, and 34 to 36 respectively; is that correct?
13 A. That's the chart, yes.
14 Q. Okay. Nowhere on her chart anywhere does she go --
15 does she find anything as low as 33 weeks; isn't that
16 correct?
17 A. I don't see any number on that chart lower than 34
18 weeks.
19 Q. Okay. And, in fact, the majority of the estimates
20 are 35 weeks or higher; isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, she also -- and I don't want to get outside of
23 your area of expertise. Is it a fair statement that your --
24 you consider yourself a forensic pathologist?
25 A. I do.
26 Q. Okay. Do you have any special expertise in the
27 estimation of fetal age?
28 A. No.

1495
1 Q. Okay. Is one of the reasons that you asked
2 Dr. Galloway to come in is to make some estimation as to the
3 fetal age?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And was that because you didn't feel all
6 that comfortable with it?
7 A. Well, again, as I said, it's not my particular
8 expertise, and based on the condition of the soft tissue, my
9 opinion was that one could produce a better estimate on firm
10 tissue, that is, bone.
11 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the baby was --
12 that there were any other tests that were done on the baby
13 or that could have been done on the baby that would have
14 determined whether or not the baby was live birth?
15 A. There are -- there are no other tests that I know
16 of.
17 Q. Do you know if the -- did you go and consult any of
18 the literature as to the changes that take place in a fetus
19 between the 32nd week and the 39th or 40th week to determine
20 whether or not this baby had in fact developed well beyond
21 the 32nd week?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. Did you -- nobody, neither you nor
24 Dr. Galloway, estimated this baby's age at 32 weeks; isn't
25 that correct?
26 A. That's correct.
27 Q. Okay. Now, there are --
28 THE COURT: Very much longer?

1496
1 MR. GERAGOS: I've got quite a bit longer.
2 THE COURT: Let's take our recess here. Ten minutes.
3 (Recess: 10:53 a.m.)
4 --oOo--
5
6
7

1497
1 November 17, 2003, at 11:07 a.m.
2 --o0o--
3 THE COURT: Everyone's present except for Defendant
4 Peterson.
5 You may continue the cross-examination, Mr. Geragos.
6 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you, Your Honor.
7 I have a number of pictures, and as we did before with
8 the other pictures, I'd like to just mark these for
9 identification so the witness and the Court can see them.
10 I'm not going to move them into evidence, because I don't
11 want to get into a situation where they're ever released.
12 And I have eight pictures total. I could do them as one
13 number with the subsets A through and make that easier.
14 THE CLERK: Doesn't matter.
15 MR. GERAGOS: Or one letter, I should say.
16 THE COURT: Just to make the record clear, let's start
17 with DD and work our way through eight slots.
18 (Four photographs were marked
19 Defendant's Exhibits DD through GG,
20 inclusive for identification.)
21 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Okay. And DD, have you ever seen
22 this photo, what appears to be out at the Richmond area
23 where the baby was recovered?
24 A. I don't remember seeing this one specifically. I
25 may have.
26 Q. Okay. In this one, it appears that that tape is
27 wrapped around the neck, and then in addition to that,
28 there's a -- the baby is intertwined with what appears to be

1498
1 plastic as well, all surrounding the baby; is that correct?
2 A. It looks to me like that's the tape that we
3 discussed earlier with the knot near the left shoulder.
4 Q. Right.
5 A. The material over by the left arm to my eye looks
6 like more tape. It's hard to say from the perspective,
7 though.
8 Q. It would appear to be some kind of a plastic
9 substance -- is that a fair statement? -- or some kind of
10 translucent substance?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Now, on EE, is this how the baby appeared
13 when it was brought in for you to take a look at?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Now, on this photo, there is this tape that
16 is, lack of a better word, looks knotted around the neck and
17 the shoulder and then it wraps around the front chest area
18 as well?
19 A. I don't recall it wrapping around the chest. I
20 guess it would depend on how you laid the body out.
21 Specifically, there was a loop around the neck, and this may
22 have been loose here. I think it was.
23 Q. Okay. I've got what appears to be a series of your
24 pictures or somebody's pictures from the autopsy, which
25 looks like in all of them they're wrapped across the front,
26 around the neck, and then under -- what would it be? -- the
27 left arm and then knotted back behind the neck; is that
28 correct?

1499
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Okay. That knot there appears to be a knot like a
3 bow tie knot, isn't it?
4 A. Well, it's hard to see what's the side of it, but I
5 think that's the knot that I described, though.
6 Q. Okay. Now, also on the first picture which we
7 marked -- let me go ahead -- let me make this EE I've marked
8 and FF. Both of those have what appear to be a black
9 substance that's over the left ear that looks like a piece
10 of, to the untrained eye, I suppose, a piece of electrical
11 tape or something, doesn't it?
12 A. It wasn't tape. I think it was kelp. There's
13 plenty of vegetable material associated with the body, and I
14 believe that was just more vegetable.
15 Q. You see where the ear is folded over as well? Once
16 the -- whatever that substance was, once it's removed, the
17 ear appears to be folded over.
18 A. It's the same between the -- well, this is FF.
19 Q. And then I'll mark this as GG.
20 A. So the ear hasn't changed position between those
21 two pictures.
22 Q. That's correct. That's what I'm asking you. It
23 appears that, once whatever that was is removed, that there
24 is a discoloration on the baby's body as well right where it
25 was?
26 A. Sure.
27 Q. Is that correct?
28 A. Yes.

1500
1 Q. Looks like almost an adhesive substance that's been
2 left there; is that correct?
3 A. I wouldn't go quite that far. There's certainly a
4 discoloration there, though.
5 Q. Okay. And the discoloration goes across the side
6 of the head. Now, it appears -- and this is what I was
7 asking you before. It appears that there is, in these
8 pictures, FF, EE and GG, that it was on a white sheet,
9 towel, whatever you want to refer to it; is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Okay. That was saved for Laci so that all of the
12 material here was -- that was on the baby, including you
13 call it kelp, although it does appear -- I guess the best
14 description of it is looks like a rectangular black
15 object --
16 MR. HARRIS: I have to object as counseling testifying.
17 The witness can speak for himself.
18 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Describe it for the record.
19 THE COURT: He can ask a leading question. It's
20 overruled.
21 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Okay. It's a rectangular black
22 object that appears to be adhered to the side of the head;
23 isn't that correct?
24 A. It's -- whatever that black substance is, it
25 certainly appears adhering to the head.
26 Q. Okay. Did you save that? Do you know if that was
27 saved?
28 A. I don't know what happened to that.

1501
1 Q. How about the towel and all of the debris that's
2 here? Do you know if that was saved?
3 A. That's not part of what I do. So --
4 Q. Whose job is that?
5 A. That would be up to the criminalist.
6 Q. Okay. Who was the criminalist working on this
7 case?
8 A. That would have been Officer Soler from Richmond.
9 Q. Do you remember -- does this refresh your
10 recollection at all as to how you got the tape off the neck
11 of the baby and around? Because it goes around the neck and
12 it also goes under the arm and then it's knotted back in the
13 back. Do you know how you got that off?
14 A. Well, the funny thing is in this scene picture
15 which is DD, it's not around the chest and the arm.
16 Q. Well, it appears it is right there.
17 A. Well, I don't want to argue with you, but there's
18 tape around the neck here. The majority appears to be over
19 by the arm, whereas now here it's more associated with the
20 chest. That could have been simply a transportation issue.
21 Q. Well, right here it appears that it goes right
22 across the chest and under the arm in the picture, doesn't
23 it?
24 A. Well, that's the neck right there and we already
25 agree there's a loop around the neck.
26 Q. Right. Then we see right here what appears to be
27 tape going -- that same tape going --
28 A. I'm not seeing that. I think that's a limit

1502
1 probably of the picture and our eyes' resolution.
2 Q. Okay. Well, is it a fair statement that what
3 you're seeing right here in FF appears to be represented
4 right here and there's much more plastic, or whatever that
5 is, where the baby's left arm is?
6 A. Well, yeah, I think -- we're seeing it in two
7 different ways, and I'm not trying to argue with you. All
8 I'm seeing is more of the same by the arm that's around the
9 neck. I believe there's a connection there -- see where I'm
10 pointing at right there?
11 Q. Uh-huh. Yes.
12 A. That leads over to this. I believe we're looking
13 at the same material here. It's just been moved in position
14 from here to here.
15 Q. Is there anything in the picture that shows that
16 there's a connection?
17 A. Well, again, that's what I think is right there on
18 top of the arm and maybe right there.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. Hard to say, though, based on this picture.
21 Q. Okay. Based on the picture, you did not get all of
22 the other material that was at the scene. Isn't that a fair
23 statement?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Okay. Now, the -- leave these right here, if I
26 could.
27 THE COURT: While he's looking for that and you have
28 the pictures right there, you just indicate this is a tape

1503
1 around the neck. Can you describe the tape? The width? Is
2 it electrician's tape? Plastic tape? Is it sticky tape,
3 not sticky?
4 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's clear plastic. As I
5 recall from taking this off the baby, there was nothing
6 particularly sticky anymore.
7 THE COURT: But did it look like tape, the type that
8 you use to tape something or is it --
9 THE WITNESS: A lot like wrapping tape, Your Honor,
10 boxing tape.
11 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.
12 Q. Now, if I could move over -- I was asking you
13 before, and I didn't have the pictures handy, so I'll jump
14 back to where I was before the break.
15 The multiple rib fractures, your -- your ability to
16 determine from the rib fractures what had -- whether they
17 were antemortem, postmortem, perimortem was limited; is that
18 a fair statement?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you describe the rib fracture, what you've
21 referred to in shorthand as "left 5"?
22 A. I'm referring to my report now.
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. And the sentence at the end of the second to the
25 last paragraph simply reads, "There are lateral fractures of
26 left ribs 5 and 6."
27 Q. Okay. Did you -- were you able to -- when you say
28 "lateral," what do you mean by that?

1504
1 A. Some were within the line of the armpit is what I
2 call lateral. The front of the armpit is called the
3 anterior axillary line. The back of the armpit's posterior,
4 and anywhere between those two lines is lateral.
5 Q. Okay. Was there a way for you to determine whether
6 or not the fracture appeared to be from one side to another,
7 for instance? Was the -- where did you observe the fracture
8 on the rib?
9 A. I'm not quite sure if I understand your question.
10 Q. Was there -- you said under the armpit, and I'm
11 asking you if you can get more specific.
12 A. No.
13 Q. You can't?
14 A. (Negative headshake.)
15 Q. How about to 6? Same?
16 A. Same thing. Same sentence.
17 Q. And for 9?
18 A. What I said there again was referring to the
19 report, "The distal margin --" the end margin "-- of right
20 rib number 9 appears frayed, with exposure of the inner
21 cortex and medulla," the inside of the bone.
22 Q. Okay. Now, Dr. Galloway has the left fifth rib
23 fractured approximately six centimeters from the vertebral
24 end. Do you remember reading that?
25 A. Yeah, I see that.
26 Q. She also had that consistent with an in-bending
27 force. What does that mean?
28 A. I believe when she -- well, again, you'd have to

1505
1 ask her. When I read, to my eye, "in-bending" means
2 pressure from the outside pushing in.
3 Q. And she says that she characterized that as a
4 transverse fracture. Do you know what that is?
5 A. Sure. It's fracture from one edge to the other.
6 Q. Okay. The left sixth rib is fractured
7 approximately ten centimeters from the vertebral end; is
8 that correct?
9 A. That's what she says.
10 Q. Okay. Also -- that also is consistent with what
11 she describes, Dr. Galloway describes as an in-bending
12 force; is that right?
13 A. That's what she says.
14 Q. Okay. Then the right ninth rib she says shows
15 abrasions on the sternal end of the bone. Can you show for
16 the Court where the sternal end of the bone would be of the
17 right ninth rib?
18 A. The sternum's the breast bone. Sternal end would
19 be toward the center of the chest.
20 Q. Now, you did not want to, in response to
21 Mr. Harris' questions, estimate the time in the water, if
22 you will, to be anything more than months; is that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And is it a fair statement that you're unable, as
25 you sit here today, based upon your examination and based
26 upon Dr. Galloway's, you're still comfortable with all you
27 can say is months?
28 A. I am.

1506
1 Q. Okay. As short as 30, 60 days, or do you not want
2 to even specify a number of days?
3 A. I prefer to leave it at months.
4 Q. Okay. And the -- nothing about Dr. Galloway's
5 examination of Baby Conner would change your opinion that
6 the baby could not have been in the water unprotected for
7 more than a couple of days; is that correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Okay. Now, you also told Mr. Harris that there
10 were things that were missing or absent in your autopsy
11 diagnosis: Organs; is that correct?
12 A. There were organs missing, yes.
13 Q. Okay. And that included the heart and the lungs?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The -- it included the head and the neck?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Now, also -- how about the grand uterus?
18 A. Grand?
19 Q. I'm sorry. The gravid uterus?
20 A. That was present.
21 Q. How about the fetus and the placenta?
22 A. The uterus was empty.
23 Q. Okay. But you have a statement here, number 2,
24 that indicates on your autopsy diagnoses, the gravid uterus;
25 fetus, placenta and umbilical cord were absent. Is that
26 correct or incorrect as written?
27 A. There's a semicolon after "gravid uterus."
28 Q. Does that mean that it was absent or not absent?

1507
1 A. The uterus was present. The contents of the uterus
2 were absent.
3 Q. And the cervix you said was intact and closed; is
4 that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And even though you don't have the expertise in
7 gynecological or there is a -- you don't consider yourself
8 to be an expert in gynecological matters, you think that's
9 consistent with not being a vaginal delivery; is that
10 correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Okay. Did you also determine or do a toxicology
13 test? I think you'd referred to that when you were talking
14 to Mr. Harris?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And the results of that toxicology test
17 also, I think, you indicated were not very helpful?
18 A. Correct. Not -- at least not in terms of cause of
19 death.
20 Q. Okay. They did show caffeine present in -- or in
21 levels that could be detected by the tissue samples?
22 A. In the skeletal muscle of Laci, yes.
23 Q. Okay. Are you aware of how long caffeine would
24 have to be -- or would remain present within the skeletal
25 muscle tissue? Is that what -- what was tested for the
26 caffeine?
27 A. Skeletal muscle.
28 Q. Okay. How -- how long will traces of caffeine in

1508
1 detectable levels remain in the skeletal muscle tissue?
2 A. Postmortem?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. I have no idea.
5 Q. Okay. How about antemortem?
6 A. Well, that might be hard to find volunteers to
7 test. I've never seen normal limits for skeletal muscle
8 caffeine.
9 Q. Have they ever -- there's been no study that you're
10 aware of or somebody who's tested that or done any kind of
11 correlation --
12 A. Not and lived.
13 Q. Based on -- obviously nobody's volunteering, but
14 I'm saying based upon a war time study or anything of that
15 nature.
16 A. Not that I'm aware of.
17 Q. Okay. Now, when you said the wall of the uterus is
18 markedly thin, and you said approximately two millimeters in
19 thickness at most; is that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Okay. And was that all the way through or all the
22 way along, or was that at its thickest point?
23 A. I measured it in several different locations, and
24 the thickness to my eye ranged from nothing to two
25 millimeters.
26 Q. So there were parts there was nothing?
27 A. Sure. Up near the fundus where it was absent.
28 Q. Okay. Was there any kind of evidence of -- you

1509
1 used the term "scalloping" at the ends of the uterus?
2 A. As I described there, I said it appeared abraded
3 and friable, which means soft and crumbly. I did not see
4 specific evidence I could point to and say, yes, this must
5 be animal feeding, and that's where I would use the term
6 scalloping.
7 Q. Okay. You saved the uterus; is that correct?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. And when you were doing the autopsy, did you
10 tape-record your -- as you were going along?
11 A. Well, as I said earlier, I would -- I tape-recorded
12 the external examination, and then I did the autopsy, and
13 then I tape-recorded the internal examination.
14 Q. Okay. And do you still have that tape-recording?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What did you do with it?
17 A. Well, that tape gets turned in to the office. It's
18 transcribed and eventually recycled.
19 Q. Okay. The -- did anybody ever show you these
20 photographs, which I think were also taken by Detective
21 Soler.
22 I'll mark these. I think the last one was GG. So
23 starting with HH.
24 THE COURT: Is that right, Jennifer?
25 THE CLERK: I go up to KK.
26 THE WITNESS: GG.
27 MR. GERAGOS: Right.
28 THE COURT: They're already marked?

1510
1 MR. GERAGOS: Yeah, I marked DD, EE, FF and GG. So
2 I'll just start at H.
3 (Defendant's Exhibit HH was marked for
4 identification.)
5 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Did you ever see this photograph that
6 Detective Soler took or this bag itself which appears to be
7 lying on the table in the autopsy area?
8 A. I don't recall seeing the photograph. At this
9 point I can't remember the bag. It was likely it was there.
10 I just don't remember.
11 THE COURT: Is that one marked II?
12 THE WITNESS: HH.
13 MR. GERAGOS: HH. And then I'm going to mark the next
14 one II.
15 (Defendant's Exhibit II was marked for
16 identification.)
17 MR. GERAGOS: Q. It appears that the bag was brought
18 into your autopsy there and placed on one of these sheets
19 again, like every thing else was placed; is that correct?
20 A. It's not in the autopsy area. It's the wrong kind
21 of floor. So wherever this was taken, it wasn't in the
22 autopsy room, which I think explains why I didn't remember
23 seeing them. That's concrete floor.
24 Q. Okay. You don't know if this was taken out in that
25 little antechamber area before you go into the rooms?
26 A. The scale room?
27 Q. Yes.
28 A. That's got the same poured kind of floor. This

1511
1 could have been out in the garage, I guess. It's not
2 autopsy room or foyer floor.
3 Q. Anybody bring these over -- bring you over and show
4 you these two pictures?
5 A. I don't remember seeing them.
6 Q. Okay. The one piece of rectangular black substance
7 that was off -- that was on the ear, did you actually take
8 that off?
9 A. I don't remember taking that off. I don't
10 specifically remember that piece of material at all.
11 Q. Okay. The -- and you don't remember it? You don't
12 remember taking it off. And you're looking at the pictures
13 here. Is that an accurate picture, though, of how the baby
14 looked when you saw the baby on the 14th?
15 A. I believe it is.
16 Q. Okay. You do remember, however, taking off the
17 tape around the neck and around the arm; is that correct?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. But you do not remember taking off the -- what I
20 referred to as a black substance off of the ear?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you talk to Captain Newman or Officer Opdyke on
23 the day of the autopsy?
24 A. I don't remember those names, but I would never
25 trust my name memory. I may have.
26 MR. GERAGOS: Okay. Thank you. I have no further
27 questions at this time.
28 THE COURT: Mr. Harris.

1512
1 MR. HARRIS: Thank you.
2
3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
4
5 MR. HARRIS: Q. Doctor, just to kind of go in reverse
6 order, you were talking about you have no specific recall
7 about this black item that was on or near the ear, but you
8 do have a specific recall about this tape that was about the
9 flotsam and jetsam around the neck. So I want to go back
10 through that a little bit.
11 You were shown one of the photographs, and there was a
12 discoloration under that black item?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was that a purple discoloration?
15 A. It looked purple to me, as best as I could tell
16 from that picture.
17 Q. Now, in a body that was as decomposed as Conner's
18 would you expect to have seen purple something that might
19 give the appearance of bruising?
20 A. As decomposition progresses, bruising, whether
21 internal or external, becomes harder and harder to discern.
22 Typically it wouldn't be that violet purple color anyway.
23 In the case of Conner, knowing what shape his body was in, I
24 would have been surprised to be able to see any kind of
25 bruising at all.
26 Q. Now, that violet purple color, is that much more
27 consistent with the iodine in kelp?
28 A. That's what I was thinking.

1513
1 Q. Now, with regards to your practice of collecting
2 things from the body, you told us about you went through the
3 process of removing the item from the neck. If you thought
4 this was electrical tape at the time on Conner's ear, would
5 you have collected --
6 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. He's just testified he
7 doesn't even remember seeing it on the day it took place.
8 THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes a fact not in evidence.
9 MR. HARRIS: Q. Doctor, do you have a standard
10 practice for collecting artifacts at the time of an autopsy?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. If you were to believe that particular item that
13 was on Conner's ear was an artifact instead of an organic
14 component, would you have collected it as part of your
15 standard practice?
16 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Assumes facts not in
17 evidence. He just stated before he saw the picture today,
18 he doesn't even remember it.
19 THE COURT: Overruled. I'll allow him to testify to
20 that.
21 THE WITNESS: I would have.
22 MR. HARRIS: Q. Would you have, as part of your
23 standard practice, turned that over to the criminalist
24 that's employed there?
25 A. Or more likely I would have simply asked the
26 criminalist to take it at the time. He could have removed
27 it from the body as long as I was there pointing it out to
28 him.

1514
1 Q. Now, you were asked a lot of questions and shown a
2 number of photographs about that tape, regardless of where
3 the tape was at, whether it's across the chest, by the arm,
4 or whatever, did Conner's body indicate any evidence of
5 trauma from that tape?
6 A. No.
7 Q. In your professional opinion, does that tape have
8 anything to do with his cause of death?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You were shown the appendix and asked to go through
11 the numbers of the appendix of Dr. Galloway's report. Is
12 there a portion of her report where she refers to that
13 appendix?
14 A. There is.
15 Q. And, in fact, doesn't she in that portion of her
16 report where she refers to the appendix explain why the
17 numbers are different?
18 A. She does.
19 Q. And what's the difference?
20 A. Well, I believe the appendix simply lists charts
21 that might be available for anybody to review. Once she's
22 considered those charts and her measurements and applied her
23 expertise, that's where her estimate of 33 to 38 weeks comes
24 from.
25 Q. Does she refer in her report that the charts are
26 from European charts and, therefore, they're not applicable
27 to --
28 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

1515
1 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 MR. HARRIS: Q. -- not applicable to US babies?
3 A. She comments on the two papers and notes from her
4 report that they appear to run below published standards for
5 contemporary US populations. She doesn't use the specific
6 term "European," but she does contrast with US population.
7 Q. Then she expresses her opinion as that being the 33
8 to whatever weeks it was?
9 A. She does.
10 Q. She also indicates that that's because there's a
11 kind of plus or minus factor?
12 A. Oh, sure. There's always a range for this kind of
13 estimation.
14 Q. Now, to go back to -- you were asked a number of
15 questions about Conner about whether you had said he was
16 full term or born alive or stillborn.
17 Is it -- let me try this a different way. When you
18 look at that particular question, is it more appropriate
19 just to look at Conner individually or to also look at the
20 other autopsy, and that being of Laci?
21 A. Well, let me tell you the process that I went
22 through. When I approached Conner, of course, I had no idea
23 at that time that he had any connection to Laci at all.
24 This was simply a body washed up on the shore; and the
25 typical forensic pathology question in that type of case
26 was: Is this a stillborn baby or a live-born baby? If it's
27 a stillborn baby the issue simply is one of body disposal, I
28 guess. If it's a live-born baby, that makes it a whole

1516
1 different type of issue. So the question I typically
2 attempt to address in that type of case is: Was this baby
3 born alive or was he not? And that took place that morning,
4 and that was really the sum of that case.
5 Only later when I had the opportunity to perform Laci's
6 autopsy, and then even later when it become clear that those
7 two bodies were intimately connected, did the other thinking
8 come into place. At that point we're trying to consider
9 where that body was, how it was protected, why the states of
10 decomposition are different. At the time of Conner's
11 autopsy, no, it was simply a matter of stillborn versus live
12 born.
13 Q. Okay. So if we look at the bodies together,
14 talking specifically about that, you've indicated that you
15 don't claim to have an expertise in obstetrics, but have you
16 performed autopsies on women before?
17 A. I have.
18 Q. A number of times?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And with regards to the autopsy of Laci, in this
21 particular case, was this -- was Conner born vaginally?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So if he wasn't born vaginally, that kind of leaves
24 only the other alternative that he's not born vaginally;
25 correct?
26 A. That's my opinion.
27 Q. Okay. And from what you saw, was there any sign of
28 an incision or cut that Conner would have been removed?

1517
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. So if there was no cut or incision, Conner
3 came out through some other process?
4 A. He did.
5 Q. And your opinion of that process is?
6 A. That it was a combination of tidal effect, animal
7 feeding and decomposition which ultimately gave Conner exit
8 through the uterine fundus.
9 Q. Now, you were asked about possibility of Conner
10 being in some kind of bag or something like that, and you
11 were saying it would assume a number of things, but it's
12 also possible.
13 A. (Affirmative nod.)
14 Q. Was Conner's decomposition and Laci's
15 decomposition, not the states of the body, but the
16 decomposition itself similar?
17 A. It's almost two different processes. With the
18 infant, I've used the term "maceration." That can even
19 happen in the uterus. So if a baby dies in the uterus and
20 then is still in the uterus for, say, several days, the same
21 process occurs. And it's simply taking tissue and letting
22 it soak in fluid, and whether that's a baby in amniotic
23 fluid in the uterus or a baby in ocean water, I believe it
24 would be relatively similar.
25 But they were -- they were both decomposed, but one was
26 simply more protected than the other. I think in terms of
27 stage of decomposition, if, hypothetically, you had that
28 infant sitting in ocean water but protected for a

1518
1 several-month period, you might see similar changes. I
2 don't think it would have been quite -- I think it would
3 have been more, though. I think it's hard to create that
4 level of protection outside of the uterine environment.
5 Q. Now, in terms of the decomposition of Conner,
6 you've described to us that his brain was almost in a
7 liquefied state?
8 A. It was.
9 Q. And his internal organs?
10 A. Same problem.
11 Q. So the decomposition was significant enough that
12 his insides were starting to liquefy?
13 A. That's correct.
14 MR. HARRIS: People have no other questions.
15
16 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
17
18 MR. GERAGOS: Q. The specific findings of Dr. Galloway
19 were an age assessment ranging up to 38 weeks; isn't that
20 correct?
21 A. Yes, she said 33 to 38 weeks.
22 Q. Right. And that was -- she had -- and that was
23 just based upon measurements of bone lengths; isn't that
24 correct?
25 A. Well, it was based upon measurements of bone
26 length, several bones, though.
27 Q. That's what I mean. She wasn't looking at anything
28 besides just the size of or the particular measurements of

1519
1 bones; isn't that correct?
2 A. That's correct. I mean, that's what
3 anthropologists do.
4 Q. Right. So the -- the question of whether or not
5 this was a full-term infant, when you looked at the baby
6 that morning, your professional opinion was that the -- that
7 the baby -- that it was possible that the baby had reached
8 full term; isn't that correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Okay. And you estimated that, based on the size,
11 that the baby may have reached full term; isn't that
12 correct?
13 A. Based upon the crown-rump and crown-heel lengths.
14 Q. Okay. And, specifically, when I asked you the
15 question about whether the baby had been in some other
16 environment, you are just -- you're hypothesizing and trying
17 to reconcile what you see to be two conflicting or two
18 disparate, if you will, sets of circumstances: The
19 decomposition in the baby or the maceration of the baby and
20 the decomposition of Laci. Isn't that correct?
21 A. I am going to try to get to the question there, I
22 think. Yes, I'm looking at her state of decomposition and
23 what's missing and what's been fed on, his state of
24 decomposition with no such feeding and so forth, and trying
25 to figure out how could that be that these two bodies could
26 be in such a different state. That's true.
27 Q. Okay. And one of the things that's a little
28 perplexing is that the internal organs of Laci are all

1520
1 missing and the baby shows no signs of animal feeding; isn't
2 that correct?
3 A. Well, those are both true.
4 Q. Okay. And you had said that one of the things that
5 there was a combination of factors, including animal
6 feeding, which would -- which you're speculating on or
7 hypothesizing, may have contributed to the lack of her
8 internal organs; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Okay. Where -- what is the internal organ that's
11 closest to where the baby is in the female body when it's in
12 the uterus?
13 A. Well, depending on the size of the uterus, I guess
14 there are any number. The uterus is relatively close to the
15 kidneys, to the urinary bladder, to the ovaries, to the
16 fallopian tubes.
17 Q. Okay. Was the urinary -- was the bladder present?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Were the kidneys present?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Were any of the organs that normally surround the
22 uterus present that you were able to see?
23 A. They were not.
24 Q. Okay. So the only thing that you were able to see
25 was what you've stated, an abraded end of the uterus. The
26 baby had no animal feeding on it whatsoever, and the baby's
27 found with a plastic tape that's knotted around the neck
28 with enough room so that a bag could have been underneath

1521
1 that tape; isn't that correct?
2 A. That's a little --
3 Q. Let me break it down for you.
4 There was enough room between the tape, as it was
5 knotted, that was underneath the -- around the neck and
6 underneath the arm to have put a bag underneath that; isn't
7 that correct?
8 A. I think that would be possible.
9 Q. And clearly the baby was not -- had not decomposed
10 to any extent to what Laci had; isn't that correct?
11 A. Well, he had decomposed. He hadn't been fed on,
12 though.
13 Q. He hadn't been fed on, but he had not decomposed to
14 anywhere near the extent that Laci had?
15 A. Well, I'll accept that. That's fine.
16 Q. Okay. The animal feeding -- did you see any
17 evidence of animal feeding internally on Laci?
18 A. To the extent that organs were absent. There were
19 not -- there were not tooth marks or bite marks; but, of
20 course, there was nothing left inside there aside from the
21 uterus anyway.
22 Q. Basically it was just hollow, wasn't it?
23 A. Basically it was.
24 Q. And the ribs were showing, weren't they?
25 A. They were.
26 Q. Okay. There was absolutely no -- at least on the
27 front portion of Laci, there was no flesh in the area right
28 in the abdomen area; isn't that correct?

1522
1 A. Well, from the level of the bellybutton up, there
2 was none. From the bellybutton down, there was.
3 Q. Okay. And that's where the pants were; isn't that
4 correct?
5 A. Now, I want to make sure I'm absolutely accurate
6 here. There was skin left beneath the pants, that's
7 correct.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. Before the pants was removed, there was no skin
10 visible.
11 Q. Now, if the baby was delivered other than
12 vaginally, traditionally that's a Cesarean; isn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. That's out through the area where there was no
15 flesh left; isn't that correct?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Well, there's specific injuries that are
18 in-bending -- isn't that correct? -- at the fifth and sixth
19 rib?
20 A. There were.
21 Q. Okay. There -- if the in-bending, which is force
22 from the outside going in at the fifth and sixth rib, can
23 you show the judge exactly where that area would have been?
24 A. Left fifth and sixth would be about up here.
25 (Indicating.)
26 Q. Okay.
27 A. I'm trying to count on myself.
28 THE COURT: About the middle of the area.

1523
1 THE WITNESS: Mid-chest, Your Honor.
2 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Okay. That was an area where there
3 was no flesh; isn't that correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Isn't animal feeding accelerated by the presence of
6 a wound?
7 A. Yes, in general.
8 Q. Okay. If there was a wound in that area or some
9 kind of an incision or bleeding, something to that effect,
10 wouldn't animal feeding accelerate in that area?
11 A. Well, again, since there was no soft tissue
12 remaining, what did or did not happen, I cannot say
13 conclusively. As a general statement, sure, injury
14 accelerates decomposition and feeding.
15 Q. As you sit here today, you don't know what
16 happened; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. You're just coming up with basically a hypothesis
19 to try to explain why it is that there was a difference in
20 the decomposition between that baby and Laci?
21 A. And the lack of feeding on the baby.
22 Q. And the lack of feeding on the baby?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
25 THE COURT: Let me ask a question before the
26 prosecution has another one.
27 I want to understand this tape that you said, when you
28 pull it, it's only two centimeters?

1524
1 THE WITNESS: There was a gap, Your Honor. If you
2 pulled the tape snug against the neck, from the direction
3 you were pulling it, measuring from the neck to there, there
4 was a two-centimeter gap.
5 THE COURT: How could that be an item that floated onto
6 the baby if -- I assume two centimeters doesn't get it over
7 the head?
8 THE WITNESS: Simply because the head's deforming and
9 the skull plates were overriding, and that's dynamic
10 process. Depending upon what the baby is brushing up
11 against or washing onto, I see no problem with that
12 happening.
13 THE COURT: Mr. Harris.
14 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
15
16 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17
18 MR. HARRIS: Q. Doctor, to go into that, when you talk
19 about the plates overriding, to use laypeople terms, does
20 that mean that the head has basically collapsed?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, going back to the damage to the ribs, in your
23 experience, have you ever seen C sections that cause
24 breakage to ribs?
25 A. No.
26 Q. I won't ask that.
27 The C section, not just talking about the external and
28 whether you move organs aside, to do a C section, do you

1525
1 have to make an incision or a cut into the uterus?
2 A. You do.
3 Q. Is the uterus -- can you describe it in terms of
4 its strength or lack of strength in terms of other organs?
5 A. It's muscle. It's relatively strong and resistant,
6 and in terms of what tends to be left in a decomposed body,
7 the uterus tends to be pretty hearty compared to the organs,
8 other organs.
9 Q. And when you add this all up together, as you
10 previously said, there's no cut, there's no incision. So do
11 you still stand by your opinion that Conner came about
12 because of the environmental action on Laci?
13 A. That's my opinion, yes.
14 MR. HARRIS: People have no other questions.
15
16 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
17
18 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Let me show you EE again. You
19 answered the judge's question. You said it could have just
20 got on there. So this tape that's on there that's knotted
21 behind the back, this baby would have to -- what? -- be
22 swimming like this, have the tape go over the head and then
23 underneath the arm and be knotted right here? Wouldn't you
24 admit that that is extremely unlikely that this tape would
25 have been wrapped around to be only two centimeters around
26 the neck, to also be wrapped around the arm and just so
27 happen have a bow tie knot right at the shoulder area?
28 A. Well, I would agree it's unlikely that a dead baby

1526
1 would swim but --
2 Q. Would you also agree that it's unlikely that the
3 dead baby would have that tape around it in such a fashion
4 that you had to cut it off as opposed to just pulling it
5 off?
6 A. You know, all I can do is describe the findings
7 there at autopsy. I know how deformable the head is as the
8 brain is liquefying.
9 In terms of how this baby went through rocks, other
10 things that may have happened on its trip to the shore, I
11 can't speak to that. All I know is this tape was there, and
12 there was no injury to the neck, and I believe it would be
13 quite easy to deform the head enough to fit that tape
14 circle.
15 Q. At the same time the arm just so happened to have a
16 tight fit? Wasn't the tape around the arm and the shoulder
17 as well and knotted on the back?
18 A. Well, the knot is the knot that I described about
19 the left shoulder. As I recall, there was only that one
20 knot. This is picture EE. There was another picture that
21 showed the baby at the scene in the grass, where to my eye
22 anyway, that tape was in a different position. So I don't
23 particularly think it was wrapped around the arm or the
24 chest. I know it was wrapped around the neck, though.
25 Q. We had that discussion earlier.
26 A. We did.
27 Q. You don't see the tape. I do see the tape.
28 Here, clearly, when you see the baby, you hadn't --

1527
1 when you made your findings, you hadn't seen the picture I
2 showed you; isn't that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Now I'm showing you the picture that was shown to
5 you at the autopsy, and clearly it's not just looped around
6 the neck; is that correct?
7 A. In this picture, it isn't.
8 Q. In this picture, it's not only looped around the
9 neck; it's looped around the left arm and shoulder?
10 Correct?
11 A. In this picture, it is.
12 Q. It appears to be done so tightly; isn't that
13 correct?
14 A. Well, in this picture, it does.
15 Q. In that picture, that's the way you saw the baby?
16 A. It is.
17 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. No further questions.
18 MR. HARRIS: Just briefly.
19
20 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
21
22 MR. HARRIS: Q. Doctor, does it make any difference at
23 all in terms of your findings how that piece of tape is
24 wrapped around the arm or not wrapped around the arm or
25 depicted or not depicted in those pictures?
26 A. No.
27 MR. HARRIS: Nothing further.
28 THE COURT: You may step down.

1528
1 Who's the next witness?
2 MR. DISTASO: Well, Your Honor, Detective Hendee. I'm
3 not sure, though, if he's arrived yet. He was over at the
4 PD. I thought this would take all morning. We can stop now
5 and start a little early.
6 THE COURT: Start at 1:20, is that okay?
7 MR. GERAGOS: 1:20?
8 THE COURT: Also, if we're going over to tomorrow, we
9 can start at 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock, so let me know which time
10 fits in with the witnesses.
11 MR. HARRIS: That's fine, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: 1:20.
13 (Noon recess at 11:51 a.m.)
14 --o0o--
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24


				*PH Transcript* *17TH- DR. PETERSON/EXAMINER*



	TRANSCRIPTS 1-MARGARITA /AMY \| 2-AMY/SHARON/LEE/EVERS \| 3-EVERS/CROSS \| 4-FBICAM/BROCHINI DIRECT/ \| 5-BROCHINI/CROSS/FBI-CAM/CROSS \| 6- BROCHINI CROSS \| 7- BROCHINI CONT'D \| 8- KRIGBAUM / OWEN \| 9- OWEN CROSS/OSWALT \| 10- OSWALT CROSS \| 17TH- DR. PETERSON/EXAMINER \| 17TH- AFTERNOON= HENDEE \| 18TH- JACOBSON / WRAP