The transcripts of the Grand Jury testimonies about the shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.

  • Good morning. It is Thursday, November 13th at 9:26 a.m. This is Kathi Alizadeh of the prosecutor's office, Sheila Whirley is present, all 12 grand jurors are present, as is the court reporter. And I apologize, we're kind of getting a late start. We have our first witness in the morning here. We've had to meet with him a bit and he's reviewing some materials right now and then we had a discussion briefly before going on the record this morning about scheduling and about what might be in store for today. And then for the dates in the future that you have already given us and so with that being said, we'll just start the day and Sheila will take the first witness of the day who is Dr.

  • He's looking at some photographs, so he needs just a few more minutes.

  • All right. We'll go ahead and pause the recording. of lawful age, having been first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the case aforesaid, deposes and says in reply to oral interrogatories, propounded as follows, to-wit:

    EXAMINATION

  • Good morning, Doctor.

  • Good morning.

  • And I just want to reiterate on the record for the grand jurors that we had already talked about, you know, that you're not supposed to discuss anything that we talk about here in the grand jury, correct?

  • And that even any fact which the foreperson mentioned, any fact or thing that may come to your knowledge that you've discussed here at all.

  • That wouldn't be discussed outside of these four walls.

  • All right. With that bit of introduction we've met, I'm Sheila Whirley, Kathi Alizadeh is here, the jurors and the court reporter, tell us a little bit about yourself, Doctor. We know you're a pathologist, correct?

  • Are you a forensic pathologist?

  • What exactly --

  • Sheila, for the record, I don't think he said his name. We haven't had him introduced.

  • We had talked a little bit about that, I guess I skipped that step.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Please introduce yourself and say your name and spell your name? A

  • And in the future what I'm going to try to do and that's probably why I skipped asking, I'm going to refer to you as doctor and not use your name for many reasons.

  • Okay, thank you.

  • Getting back to forensic pathology. What does that mean?

  • Pathology is one of the 24 specialties in medicine, like OBGYN, dermatology, surgery, pathology is a specialty that deals with finding out what's wrong with the body as opposed to treatment.

    So we're the doctors in the hospital who run the laboratory to see what the blood count is, what the PSA is, what the liver chemistries are and tell the treating doctors if there is evidence of liver disease or kidney disease or prostate problems, and that's the pathologist's role in the hospital communicating with doctors who are treating patients.

    Also, the pathologist's role is looking at biopsies, you know, breast biopsies, skin biopsies, to tell the treating doctor what kind of condition, cancer, not cancer, something else. And then the treating doctor does the treatment.

  • So there are a number of divisions in pathology. The biggest division is hospital pathology. Where the pathologist looks at the biopsies, do autopsies, find out what's wrong with the patient, look at the chemistry of the body.

    And there are separate examinations, board examinations so that in all 24 fields, so that a patient looking for a doctor can tell whether the dermatologist has passed his boards or not and all the specialties have to do you have to show the right training in the medical school, the right training in the residency program and pass various exams. And if so, then one is a diplomate or board certified physician, and that's of importance for others to know the extent of expertise that person has before going to the doctor.

    Pathology has three big divisions that I'm involved with. One is anatomical pathology, which has to do with the anatomy of the body. That's where autopsies, looking at biopsies under the microscope and tissues under the microscope, is evaluated to see what the anatomical structure of the body is and what's normal or not, that's anatomical pathology.

    Second division will be clinical pathology, which has to do with the chemistry of the body to see what's the blood count and the urine testing, et cetera, which gives us information about body function or organ functions.

    And that's the prime role in hospitals, anatomical and clinical pathology. Forensic pathology goes a step further to look into unnatural deaths, accident, suicide, homicide.

    92 percent of people in the country die of natural diseases cancers, stroke, heart disease. And that's the expertise of the hospital pathologist, clinical pathology, anatomical pathology.

    8 percent die of accident, suicide, homicide and that's specialized training of forensic pathologists. The general in this country there is something like 900,000 physicians, maybe 20,000 are pathologists, less than 400 are forensic pathologists that deal with unnatural death and that's where the forensic pathologist comes in.

  • Is that your current occupation?

  • Where are you licensed, Doctor?

  • I'm licensed in New York State.

  • And have you served as a medical examiner in New York State?

  • How many autopsies would you say that you have performed as a forensic pathologist?

  • More than 20,000.

  • Okay. And you are certified, of course, in forensic pathology?

  • I'm certified in anatomical pathology, clinical pathology, forensic pathology, this is about my background. I served as medical examiner in New York City for 25 years, including the role of chief medical examiner in New York City. And then I transferred to the State of New York and I was chief forensic pathologist for the New York State Police for some 25 years.

    Recently retired, and I'm in private practice of forensic pathology.

  • How many years total would you have in experience?

  • More than 50 years.

  • Okay. Have you any experience, are you a toxicologist also?

  • No, I'm not a toxicologist who specializes in finding drugs, but all forensic pathologists have to be experts in interpreting what the toxicologist finds. So the toxicologist's role is largely chemistry and finding drugs, finding quantities, how much of the drug is present, but it is really the physician, medical doctor who interprets the results and sees how it affects any illness the person has or affects what treatment should be given.

  • And where did you receive your training, your training in pathology?

  • Started out with a bachelor of science degree at the City College of New York. Medical degree at New York University School of Medicine in Manhattan, New York, and trained in pathology at Bellevue Hospital and at the office of Chief Medical Examiner in New York City.

  • I didn't ask you to bring your CV with you today, would you happen to have a CV of your training experience with you?

  • I don't think so, but I could get it to you this afternoon.

  • That would be great that we can count on that to get that later.

  • So tell us, you already told us how many autopsies you performed, tell us exactly what is an autopsy?

  • Autopsy is a systematic external and internal examination of the human body to determine any abnormalities that might be present and any information that might be useful in determining cause of death of how a person died.

    An autopsy will include taking specimens for toxicology, for DNA, for microscopic examination to look at tissues. So that the autopsy can provide a lot of information about cause of death and the circumstances around death.

  • We're here today because of the shooting of Michael Brown and we've asked you to come before us because you actually did what sounds like was a private autopsy on Michael Brown; is that correct?

  • That's correct.

  • You were aware that he had a first autopsy that was performed by St. Louis County?

  • Medical Examiner's Office in St. Louis County.

    Do you recall when you would have done your autopsy, what date that would have been?

  • Yes, it was Sunday, I came on Sunday around August, hold on a second. About August 17th, I guess, August 17th of this year.

  • August 17th?

  • That would have been a Sunday.

  • Okay. And he actually died on August the 9th is our information?

  • So the County had performed an autopsy a week prior to you performing your autopsy; is that correct?

  • How did you get invited to do that autopsy, or how did you examine become involved in that?

  • As I recall, I was called by an attorney for the family, Mr. was the attorney for the family, and he called me and asked if I could come and do a second autopsy.

  • And now that you are in private practice, how long have you been in private practice?

  • Well, part of being a medical examiner, my 50 years starting in New York City was to do private practice in addition to medical examiner work in part because traditionally medical examiners always work for counties and always got paid less than other doctors, they make up on it, you can do some private work. So I do private work also, but since 2012, I think, I've been doing more private work when I retired from the State Police.

  • And does that consist of you doing second autopsies generally?

  • Or additional autopsies?

  • It generally consist of reviewing records.

  • However, it also includes doing second optionies, doing first autopsies, and testifying about the findings sometimes.

  • Now, and you mention money, so that kind of prompts me to ask this question. Were you paid to do this autopsy concerning Michael Brown?

  • No, I am doing this pro bono and about a third of the work I do is pro bono.

  • How do you make that decision what's going to be pro bono?

  • A lot of that is how much, whether the family can afford it or not. If an autopsy is indicated, then I would work it out if they can't afford to pay anything, do it for pro bono and that involves a lot of work for families and for institutions, some institutions.

  • You have to pay for the expenses of the travel and the hotel here or the family pay for that?

  • Urn, my expenses coming and going is paid for by the attorneys. They pay for that, yes.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Where did you perform your autopsy at?

  • It was the funeral home where the body was removed from the Medical Examiner's Office, if I recall, the Lane Funeral Home who had been hired by the family to do the burial services.

  • Was the body embalmed when you made contact with the body for the first time?

  • Yes, when I saw the body on Sunday, the 17th, the body had already been embalmed.

  • Does that affect your finding in any way?

  • It does have an affect. I prefer to do autopsies without embalming. One, it interferes with a lot of toxicology if that were needed because the embalming process changes the chemical makeup of the body.

    But also it changes the way injuries look, the embalming process is largely formaldehyde, replacing blood in the body, does change the appearance of the wounds on the body and so to that extent.

  • Did you feel that you were able to look at the body, and I'm sure I'll ask you in a minute, all the documents and information that you have viewed or inspected to come up with your findings, did you feel that you were able to make an accurate finding though based on even the body being embalmed already?

  • I thought I could make an approximate finding.

  • I could tell bullet holes.

  • For example, but some bullet holes may be difficult to tell entrance or exit after the body is embalmed. And certain injuries are diminished in appearance because the embalming process takes out color from the body, it causes the color to be gray in the body, more so than during life.

  • Tell us what information, documents or things that you inspected to come up with your finding, and you did not write a report. You just recently viewed some things that were necessary; is that right?

  • Yesterday I viewed a lot of materials that are important in arriving at conclusions. So what I'm telling you today incorporates much of what I saw yesterday.

  • Tell us everything you viewed to come to your conclusions?

  • Initially, initially, I do the decedent, Mr. Brown, who had already been autopsied, that also changes, the autopsy itself can change appearance of injuries and wounds, especially things that are removed from the body. Obviously, bullets are removed. We can't see where the bullets wound up, but we see the spaces where they were.

    The organs are dissected, there are changes in appearance of wounds just on the basis of the first autopsy and the embalming adds onto it.

    So I asked at the beginning, and yesterday I was able to see the following of those. Went to the Medical Examiner's Office, very courteous and professional. They have photographs and x-rays, they took a lot of x-rays.

  • What do the x-rays help you with?

  • The x-rays show what the body looked like before the autopsy was done. The x-ray was taken before, about 30 x-rays or so. They show fractures that were there because sometimes during an autopsy the person doing the autopsy causes fractures, necessary to open up the chest cage and things.

  • And so the x-rays are the best indicator where the bullets are, can see right where the bullets were, which bones were intact and which bones were fractured before the incisions were made.

  • The autopsy is done with two incisions. One for the chest and abdomen, and one for the head.

    And that, so that was helpful. There were x-rays and photographs. The photographs, though, at the Medical Examiner's Office were all after the first autopsy was done. That is after the autopsy sutures and all and went from the Medical Examiner's Office to the police department and there was able to view the autopsies (sic) the police took and they took many photographs of the body before the autopsy was done. They were extremely helpful.

  • We have some of those photographs.

  • Yes, I went through some that might be helpful.

  • And that answered a lot of questions I had as to entrance, exit, closeness of the gun at the time of discharge.

    I also looked at clothing, the clothing was very important. Clothing is always, the two most important to the hospital pathologist, 90 percent, 95 percent of pathologists in the country, hospital pathologists, the most important part of an autopsy is internal organ, the heart, the brain, the lungs, kidneys, they're important, that's where natural diseases occur.

    To the forensic pathologist the most important is the skin, that's where we see all patterns of injury, we see forensic evidence, trace evidence, blood, hairs, fiber, semen, saliva, that can be on the outside of the body.

    And the skin, the clothing is part of the skin to us because the clothing and the skin contain patterns of injury, gunshot powders, cut wounds, and also trace evidence.

    At the police headquarter building was able to look through and see all of the many photographs that were taken by the police and in the body in the virgin state for us. Having not been washed or touched or anything and the clothing.

  • The clothing, the x-rays, the body, you actually saw the body?

  • Did you review the reports from, well, from Dr. 's report?

  • I'm sorry, about a week or two ago I was sent a leaked report, a leaked autopsy.

  • What did you call it?

  • That means it wasn't officially, it wasn't officially released. I'm always concerned about leaked information as to how accurate it is. And yesterday when I went to the Medical Examiner's Office, I was provided with an official copy with the gross autopsies, the microscopic studies and toxicology, which turned out to be pretty similar to what had come out before, but the family still has a copy too. If I may interject.

  • I'm sorry, if you may what?

  • Interject about the family. The reason that I was called by Mr. , you know, a week later rather than right away, sometimes families are concerned about a death, they want a second autopsy, they don't trust the first one necessarily, they call the next day. The reason that there was a week delayed as explained to me is that the family had been waiting for some information about the death, cause of death, for example.

    And also I find, in all our work as medical examiners when we see next of kin and whether it's everyday work or situation like this, one of the questions the family often has is did he suffer, did my loved one suffer in dying.

    One of our job as medical examiners is explain what happened and to try to make it as less suffering as possible, make them feel a little bit the art of being a medical examiner.

    In this incident they hadn't heard anything, they read the stuff in the newspaper. The reason I came down was to do my examination because they didn't know they were going to get information as to cause of death. They know he was shot, they didn't know how much he was shot and where he was shot. To this day they still haven't received a report. I got it yesterday, the family hasn't gotten an official report so that's one of the reasons why families get a second autopsy. I'm a great believer in media transparency, that's another topic.

    So when I met with the family that was the first question was, did he suffer. I explained when that, one of bullet wounds in the top of the head went through the brain, that immediately caused him to lose consciousness. So that made them feel a little better he wasn't laying around in pain.

  • Then I gave my opinion about at least six, there was a press conference that occurred the next day, that there were from what I could see at least six bullets struck the body.

  • We're going to get to that.

  • Even though I hadn't had all the new information, I'll paraphrase it, that's the kind of information I could give.

  • Since you have gotten some additional information as recent as yesterday, that doesn't change your opinion as to how many shots the body received though?

  • No, I think that in going over everything, my opinion now is that there were seven bullets that struck the body.

  • We'll go through that in just a minute. So you did get a chance to review the medical examiner's report and also the toxicology report; is that correct?

  • And there was a microscopic skin --

  • Microscopic slides.

  • Slides, go ahead.

  • Of the skin. Microscopic slides of the skin of the hand wound.

  • You determined it was a hand wound?

  • Well, yes, but they told me that.

  • Someone told you it was a hand wound? You didn't make that determination? In your opinion was it a hand wound?

  • Yes, yes. Slides, you know, are labeled, so that, and the only slide because that was the only slides they took.

  • They didn't do microscopic examine of the heart, lung, all of that, which is usually done. The only sections that they make slides out of was the right-hand wound.

  • We have photos of that?

  • And some tissue that was taken from the car, the police car.

  • Did you look at all of that?

  • Okay. Were you given access to what you needed in order to come up with your findings and conclusions?

  • All right. I'm going to let you look at some photographs. And I'm going to does you some questions while you are looking at the photographs and these are photographs that you thought might be helpful in you explaining the injuries to Michael Brown, correct?

  • Okay. Let me ask you before I go into the photos, did anyone assist you with your, with the autopsy?

  • Who assisted you?

  • There was a young man named

  • Is he also a medical examiner or a doctor?

  • No, no, he was a person that had been hired before I got there, it was days before I got there. Who was an assist to the autopsy. Everybody in an autopsy needs an assistant, often the funeral director to help move the body and things like that.

    And in this instance they had engaged, I'm not sure what this young man who was to assist.

  • Because you didn't hire him, he wasn't someone on your team that you brought in?

  • Had you met him before?

  • Not that I recall. He brought a photograph that about ten years ago when he was a student, not medical student, at the University of Kansas and I came to the University of Kansas to do an autopsy in some controversial matter that he was a student, had worked summers at the medical examiner's office there and he was there. I signed a picture for him and he brought the picture and to remind me, he was, I think, a college student at that time.

  • But I had never worked with him or anything.

  • I see. So let's go back to the funeral home that Sunday. Was it early in the morning when you went to the funeral home that Sunday to do the autopsy?

  • I came in early morning by plane from New York and I guess it was 11:00, 12:00, 1:00 when I started the autopsy. I was picked up at the airport in St. Louis and brought down to the funeral home and shortly thereafter, began the re-autopsy.

  • Re-autopsy. How long do you think that re-autopsy took?

  • Oh, probably about four hours or so, plus or minus an hour, take a few hours.

  • When you first saw the body, what condition was it in? I know it was embalmed, I mean, was it ready for autopsy or was, go ahead.

  • The body had been, the body had been in the funeral parlor long enough to be embalmed, so it had been there for a few days. The body was on a table, one of the embalming tables in the funeral parlor similar to autopsy tables ready for re-autopsy.

  • What does that look like when you say ready for re-autopsy?

  • I think it was, I don't recall specifically, a sheet over the body, a white sheet. When I removed the sheet, the body was on the metal, the top of the autopsy table and nude.

  • Was it sutured or not?

  • The body was sutured. There are two incisions that are made in an autopsy, one is what is called the Y shaped incision. It goes from left shoulder down to the breast bone and the right shoulder down and then down to the pubic area. When it is opened up, it permits examination of the chest organ, the heart and lungs, the abdominal organs, which --and then that's sutured up afterwards. And then there is one incision, second incision is made from back of the, ear to ear, the back of the head that permits removal of the tissue of the skin to bend them forward and take the brain out and examine the brain.

    And then when these sutures are, when these incisions are sewed up, this is universal.

  • In other countries as well. When the incisions are sewed up, one can present the body to the family, clothing covers the chest incisions, and a pillow will cover the back incision so that in the normal course, one can tell by looking at the remains and paying respects whether an autopsy has been done or not.

  • When you saw the body for the first time, it was sewed up, so you had to open it to do your autopsy?

  • Did you do that yourself?

  • So what things did your assistant do?

  • He helped moved the body and to turn the body so that I could see the back. Usually this is the kind of things that funeral directors do when you go to a funeral home.

  • And there's no special requirement and that he also then, he had seen the body before it was embalmed, you know, when it came there and he gave me, told me what it looked like before the embalming. I think he had some pictures of that, but I don't recall specifically.

  • He was interested in trying to work out the different bullet tracks, which gave me some opinions about.

  • But you made the determination of the bullet tracks?

  • Can I interrupt you for a minute. What you said that, who was interested in determining the bullet tracks, is that Mr.

  • Yes, he was a very enthusiastic young person. He was making suggestions to me, well, this bullet track that went in the head on the top and things like that, but my opinions are my own.

  • Sure. I just didn't hear who you said.

  • , he was the only one there besides myself, and also he could photograph. He had a camera and he took photographs of the autopsy while it was being performed.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Do you feel that your autopsy is independent of St. Louis County's autopsy or how would you categorize it?

  • It is independent of it sure, but I review what I could tell from the examination what St. Louis County Medical Examiner's Office had done. They had done a thorough examination and by examining, you know, status of the organs, all the organs have been dissected and placed in a plastic bag at the time and the bullet tracks were still apparent.

  • They weren't removed, the bullets were removed, but not the bullet tracks.

  • So tell us what you did as you performed your autopsy and then we can maybe go through some photos if that's helpful or we can wait on the photos, so kind of tell us what did you do first when you arrived there?

  • What I did first was examine the outside of the body. And to examine the head, the front, the back is important to make sure that there was, there wasn't any kind of injury or perforation of the back that could be overlooked if one doesn't look at the back.

    Then a second autopsy often is easier than the first because the incisions have been made, the ribs have been cut through, the skull bones have been cut through to get to the brain. So in one sense it is easier, of course, it doesn't tell you as much as the first autopsy necessarily. Because the first autopsy has changed things around a bit.

    So in this situation, when I review the internal organs, they're pretty normal in appearance for the age and his build and all.

    There were bullet perforations of the right lung that then coincided, correlated with gunshot wounds on the outside of the body. A large part of the autopsy had to do with reconstructing what the bullet wounds were, where they entered, where they exited, and then to my interpretation two bullet wounds could have been reentry wounds. I couldn't be certain about those until I saw what the official autopsy showed, which is one I received recently, yes.

  • And the photographs. So that was a large part of what I did is to determine the nature of the gunshot wounds and the direct entrance, exit, directions and the closeness.

  • That's what we certainly want to know about.

    So you open the body and you inspected the body for injuries and wounds, gunshot wounds and photographs were taken?

  • First thing I did, the biggest time was spent looking at the outside of the body.

  • Outside of the body?

  • Before opening up the inside.

  • Before we talk about any of the gunshot wounds, let's talk about other potential injuries. You may or may not have seen them. Did you see any bruising to the body, like bruises on the knees or anywhere on the body, did you note any bruising?

  • Can you tell us where you noted the bruising?

  • Well, I thought the significant bruising was around the right eye. He had a lot of bruising, I'm still not clear about how it developed, above the eye and on the side and below the right eye. In addition to the gunshot wound that went through the eye.

  • So you think the bruising had nothing to do, not nothing to do, was not from the gunshot wound that you are discussing?

  • No, there was a gunshot wound, I'm sure the people are familiar better than I am than what I'm talking about right now. There was one gunshot wound of entrance just right of the forehead or so and that went down and caused a lot of damage, went downhill through the eye and the orbit.

    In addition to that, there was scraping abrasions around the eye, bullet wounds don't cause scraping abrasions, rubbing abrasions against something.

  • That prompts me to ask you, did you get any information as to the fact of what happened, did you get any witnesses' versions of what occurred during this shooting?

  • I did read an occasion when up in New York the controversy that was going on in Ferguson, some people, the hands were up, some people said he was charging the officer, so I was familiar with the controversy.

  • Did you hear that he fell face forward once he has shot in the head, did you hear that?

  • I would assume that bullet wound in the head causes immediate lost of consciousness and ability to stand upright. So he would have fallen after being shot in the head, yes.

  • So if he fell face forward, would that account for the bruising that you are referring to or you don't think, tell us what you think?

  • I don't know. Probably, and to this day I don't know. Maybe I should have gone over to the scene to see the composition of the roadway that he fell on.

    But usually falling face down, for example, causes bruising of the nose. The face is kind of protected. We have, people normally, normal person falls face forward instinctively put their hands out to protect themselves.

    When somebody loses consciousness or somebody is drunk, you see this in people who are drunk, they can fall face forward and not instinctively protect themself. And then the bruising in the prominences of the face, the nose gets most of the damage.

    The eye sockets don't, they are recessed a bit. So I think that by falling face down, and then falling face down you get ruptured blood vessels and bruises being black and blue marks. Abrasions being scrape marks on the skin, like your child falls down and skids along some ground, they can get scrapes.

    The scrapes are different than black and blue marks. There were scrapes here. So it happen to rub against something, it is rubbing of the outer layer of the skin. I don't think that would have occurred from an unprotected fall. And the nose was not that damaged either.

  • Just because you lose consciousness doesn't mean you fall immediately, it's just crumbled to the ground is more common, you crumble down and fall. Different ways of falling and that it was more scraping, not clear why.

  • What about bruising to his, did you see any bruising on his wrists or his arms?

  • I saw one of the wrists had a little bit of a bruise that I'm not sure what it was caused by. Looks like he had something around the wrist that caused a linear abrasion of some kind. I didn't think very significant.

  • Is that something you can tell whether that bruise occurred contemporaneously with all of these injuries or is this looking like an old bruise. I know most doctors say it is difficult to date a bruise. Did it look like something that happened contemporaneously with all the injuries?

  • It could have, but it could have been there for a day before or something, not a week before.

  • We can't tell a few minutes before death or a day before death by just looking at it. Sometimes under the microscope we can tell. But we could also, some of these injuries can occur after death, you know, when the person is put in a body bag and tied up in the body bag just so it doesn't move, that can leave patterns also on the dead body so.

  • I don't know how those little bruises happen.

  • Did you see any bruising to his neck area?

  • Okay. I mention the knees, I don't know if you gave me an answer, did you see any bruising to his knees.

  • I don't recall, I don't think there was any significance.

  • I know that's mentioned in the autopsy protocol.

  • Okay. So let's look at some of the photos and you can tell us, first of all, you thought there was 17 shots that he received?

  • Seven different bullets that struck him.

  • Okay. Tell us about that?

  • As oppose to bullet tracks. One of the tracks was a graze of the biceps of the arm and that came across the arm and didn't do any significant damage to Mr. Brown and it is very difficult to be able to tell direction from that. It was not close to, medical examiner is one to two feet or less.

    That is, we can tell distance, usually up to a foot or sometimes two feet, a foot and a half by the amount of powder that's distributed with the bullet.

    Beyond that, we can't tell two feet from 20 feet or 40 feet, you know, shot from 40 would be the same marks and from 3 feet from a medical examiner's point of view.

  • So depending on the ammunition and the weapon discharged, 12 inches to 18 inches away because then you see some powder, but as you get further away the powder spreads out, so that's how we judge closeness.

  • Were any of the gunshot wounds that you observed, would you consider any of those close range shots?

  • Yes, the one in the hand is close.

  • And you determined that that is an injury from a gunshot wound?

  • How did you make that determination?

  • Well, I could tell, you know, when I first saw the body that's a typical graze injury of the tissues of the palm of the hand because graze injuries will look different depending.

  • The hand in any of those photos?

  • Yes. If I may do it this way.

  • Tell me which one you like me to put up first.

  • This is the only one that was close. These are the photographs that I looked at, these are your photographs. I looked at these for the first time yesterday afternoon and they are very helpful in this regard.

  • Okay. So we'll put those up. These are from Grand Jury Exhibit Number 7. And the first one that I'm going to put on the Elmo, we call it, is, this is Number 75.

    There's a laser pointer.

  • Can I just get up? If I can just go here if that's okay.

  • I'll just put that over here in case you need it.

  • This is a photograph taken by the police after the body, after the hand has been washed. Now, when I saw this photograph, the hand, it was all gray and washed off and embalmed. And I could tell it was a gunshot graze just like the wound on the right biceps muscle, but not direction and not distance.

    In this photograph in looking at the print, which is sharper, there is some powder here around one edge of it. And it is an interesting photograph, can I see the next one?

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Sure. Want me to put that on there for you?

  • Yes. There is an interesting pattern that can happen here.

  • Can you turn it the other direction?

  • Thank you. You see what happens in a graze wound is that the tearing of the skin tells you direction. So inverted Christmas tree.

    The fact that these are going upwards would indicate that the entrance is down here and going in this direction. Because of, if you see this Christmas tree this way and upside down Christmas tree is going that way, that's how the tissues tear when there's a graze wound in areas of some loose tissue that's in the palm of the hand kind of thing.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) So the entrance where it entered is tighter than where it came out, it starts to spread?

  • Yeah, but it is these things that tells.

  • It goes in here and there is some on the print, there is a little bit of blackish, tiny bit of blackish coloration, and that's what the medical examiner found on the microscopic. It was interesting when I look at it, after the embalming because body gets washed and all of that, I couldn't see any powder.

    When the medical examiner looked at it in the fresh state, he didn't either because he puts in the autopsy that there's no gunshot powder and then I didn't see any gunshot powder, he sees it under the microscope.

    When I look at this now and there's a little blackening there that I think is not due to any artifact, that's really blackening due to some powder.

    So that the weapon, the muzzle was near to this within a few inches, it wasn't contact, but within a few inches in my opinion at the time of discharge.

  • Can you tell by that injury where the shooter and the person who was shot, what their positions were?

  • I can tell that the weapon, the muzzle of the weapon, in all of the reconstruction that medical examiners do, tell the muzzle of the weapon and the place the bullet enters where it is. So the gun had to be somewhere around, you know, that kind of a line, but I can't tell, we can't tell from an autopsy whether the hand is going forward or pulling backward or standing still. We can't tell whether the gun is going forward or backward. All we can say at the instant of firing, I would say roughly six, four, five, six inches away, the weapon was a few inches away at the time of the discharge and struck. I wasn't able, I can't tell, the fingers could have been open or not open.

    But at this point the bullet would have gone at this point cut through the muscles here, and that's one of the things that would be important in reconstructing, which I couldn't get, I tried to, is the examination of the car was there a bullet in the car or a bullet imprinted in the vehicle to see if we knew where the bullet struck, then we get an even better lining up of what happened.

  • Okay. There's two more photos, I don't know if they are helpful.

  • Yes, they are.

  • This is Number 40, I'm saying this for the record, this is 49.

  • I thought that maybe in this photo there's a little better, a little blackening between the ridges, you can see the ridges in the skin and some little black soot deposit. That's what comes out of the bullet because when the bullet comes out, it is an explosion that pushes the bullet out and any explosion you get powder. You get carbon, soot carbon, and burned and unburned gunshot powder fragments.

  • It is your opinion

  • This is essentially powder, so the heavy, and the powder would stay up until about four, five inches and then it goes away.

  • Say that one more time, I'm trying to visualize.

  • When powder comes out of the muzzle of the gun, it goes for four or five inches and then it will dissipate. And the heavier tattooing would come from burnt, unburnt granules, not carbon. The blackening is carbon or soot.

  • That's in your opinion that's what this is?

  • Go ahead.

    You said you can't tell if the hand or gun is moving in or out or whatever?

  • That's correct.

  • Can you tell angle, somebody sitting or standing by this?

  • I can't tell sitting or standing, but I can tell, see what I would say is that --

  • You can tell which way it is going?

  • It is coming from this direction to this direction. What I can't tell is whether anybody was sitting or standing, no, that's all I can relate to is the weapon, the gun and the target. And I can't because the wrist is so mobile see, it could be held upside down, sideways, all kind of different things. How it was being held I can't tell, but the fact that, so all we're doing is the muzzle to where the bullets land, the last one there.

  • Yeah, this is Exhibit Number 42.

  • Did it show, yeah, that one. This is how the photograph was taken by the police before the hand was washed and there is a lot of blood around here, that this wound does cause a lot of bleeding, a lot of little capillaries and blood vessels there.

    And that became important in looking at the clothing. Why does he have blood on his clothing, you get shot and you get shot multiple places and glass. If this happened very quickly, he wouldn't really have time for blood to stop dripping out of any of the wounds he had and he would have collapsed immediately. And I think the blood on his clothing and the drops of blood, dripping of blood on his clothing, which is the lower part of the shirt, the upper shirt is a lot of blood, his pants or the shorts that he was wearing have a lot of blood drops on it. And the socks he has on he had a lot of blood, had blood drops on it. So that he was bleeding, the only place he could have been bleeding from is this area from here.

    My opinion is whatever happened after incurring that wound, he was able to have blood from here drip onto his pants and clothing and his socks in whatever he was doing, walking or whatever he was doing or running.

  • Were you able, based on your examination, to tell which wounds happened first and what sequence of shots, what the sequence was?

  • The only thing I can say this was the first wound. I cannot tell the other sequence.

  • Why do you think this was the first wound?

  • Because of the bleeding that occurred when he left the car and that he had incurred the wound in the car just from the history and that.

    At some point he received the other wounds, the wound in the head would have been, would have caused him to lose consciousness.

  • And be fatal?

  • However that's probably the last, to next to last. If his head was down and would indicate because in order for the wound to be inflicted in the head, top of the head, the muzzle of the weapon has to be, this is kind of the wound in the top of the head.

    Now that could be somebody is up here in the ceiling and shoots down, they can give me that. If I'm lying on the ground and the muzzle of the gun I can get that, or if we accept the position of the shooter, you can't tell unless you know the position of the shooter.

    If he's standing up, as appears from what I've read, assuming that, then his head would have to be down so that the shooter would have to be able to fire at the top of his head.

    And if he's down and he fired three fast, quick shots, which could occur before he falls to the ground, he would have one in the head, one in the forehead that goes down through his jaw and one in the chest that all occur with three quickly fired shots.

    So even though he crumbles, starts falling immediately on the one in the head, and probably could have been the last shot, if three shots were gotten off, it could be done before he falls to the ground and he would be in a position with his head down for those three shots to occur.

  • But they would have been very quick.

  • Do you have any information about how long this incident occurred from the time that he encountered the police officer to lay dead in the street?

  • It was quick, but I don't know.

  • I don't have any information.

  • If you want to come back and sit down you can.

    Could you go back to the second, I notice something in the second photo you put up.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Okay.

    On the tip of his thumb looks like an indentation. Can you incur anything from that, be the barrel of the gun?

  • No, the barrel of the gun at this point I would expect more soot, well, I can't tell. The indentation I think is more postmortem. You can't say it happened before death because the body is moved, the skin, as I said, we find most common when tied up in the body bag or so, marks on the skin occur just from pressure, postmortem pressure can

  • 48 show up like that. And we can't tell what's before or afterwards, but I can't tell.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Let's talk about the shots one at a time and you prefer to stand there?

  • Yeah. If you are going to do that, I put it so that the top one.

  • I may have messed up your order.

  • That's okay. The way we usually do it, way we do it in New York, with multiple gunshot wounds, we will describe the wounds and number them from the top down.

  • That doesn't in any way signify the order of shots, because usually we can't tell the order of shots. So the number one that was, I think also was in the autopsy report.

  • You kind of describe the head shot already, correct?

  • And they've seen that shot, so is there anything else you want to say about that?

  • You can show it for a second.

  • Okay. That's Photo Number 99.

  • And just that, even the head shot, even they had to take the hair off to show it, it didn't show any powder around it, which would be another indication that it was a distance away for what it's worth.

  • Okay. I don't know if you want to tell me.

  • This one would be a good second. This is the second going down.

  • All right. This is Number 95. Let's see, I'm not sure, is that a better way to look at it or should I do sideways?

  • You know, put it sideways please, the other way.

  • So he's on his back.

  • Now if you put it up a little up there. Thank you.

  • When you get a chance.

  • You have a question?

    Whose photographs are these?

  • These are all photographs I saw for the first time yesterday that were taken by the St. Louis Police Department who came to the Medical Examiner's Office and the police took them all, not the medical examiner, the ones I looked at initially were medical examiner photographs I said, and that was after the autopsy had been done. So the police were there and they took all of these photos before the autopsy was done.

  • These are out of that packet of photos, Grand Jury Exhibit Number 7.

  • Now, in this one, can you turn that front light out. This is a bullet wound of entrance, and again, no powder around it. More than 18 inches away. Can't tell how much more, and the bullet track, thank you, came down through the orbit, the eye and caused some fractures and exited down here through the jawbone on the side. So that was also, see, that would have lined up, as I tried to figure out if he were bent over to have the top of the head and then a parallel line going down and exiting here. And when I spoke about the abrasions, see the nose is pretty good. If he fell down and he got the injuries to the body, they should be more prominent on the nose and on both sides of the forehead, not just on one side of the forehead. And I don't know, these look like superficial scrape marks. They can happen sometimes, I don't even know if after the body is on the floor and people in the course of removing the body to the body bags, pull the body because the person pulling the legs is stronger than the person holding the head, they can cause some scraping damage, but this is more than usual so I'm not sure why.

  • You prescribed linear and/or scraping a relative motion between his face and whatever object he scraped against. If he had his head down and in a charging motion, meaning he had a motion toward the officer, when he fell with his final shots, could that have caused, I mean, that type of abrasion.

  • Yeah, but then it would be most prominent on the nose.

  • What if his head was turned?

  • Also, there would be the object, the sand or dirt would be incorporated in it. This looks like a very clean, this is before he was washed and this looks all very clean. The blood is still dried here so.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) I think the juror said what if his head was turned like on that side, what if it was turned toward the right side?

    Head down and turned?

  • It's possible, I've not seen this extensive from that, but I don't know what the composition of the ground is either, so that's possible. If he would have fallen square on his face, you would expect to see something on the nose?

  • If there wasn't damage to the nose, that applies he didn't land on his nose first, he had to land on one side or the other?

  • If he would have fallen square on his face, you would expect to see something on the nose?

    If there wasn't damage to

  • If it was caused by his landing, yes.

  • August 9th was a very, very, very hot day here. So could it possibly be the ground was hot and from the impact of the fall?

  • It's possible, it's possible. But it would require movement. Just lying there on the ground wouldn't cause the scraping abrasions, it's possible, it's possible.

  • We have another question?

  • It is kind of prominent for that.

  • I'm going to go back with what you said if he would have fallen. Michael is a very big guy.

  • We do know that he fell, with this impact, we know that he fell face forward.

  • My understanding of his question is if he fell face forward, wouldn't there be something on his nose, disregarding these, wouldn't there be something on his nose that indicated he fell face forward?

  • Yes, but then he added on the question what if it was just on his right side.

  • If he fell face forward, straight on, there would be something on his nose?

  • Some sort of an abrasion?

  • So if he had his head down and his head turned, that would lead us to a conclusion that the abrasions would be on the side of his face instead of the nose?

  • Which is where these are?

  • On the right side, yes.

  • Just so you are clear, you turned your head to the other side.

    I don't know my right from my left.

  • Because the injury is to the right side of his face.

    Right.

  • Yeah, if he fell on his right side and he moved forward you get certain abrasions. He also has cuts here, some of these are not just scrapes, but they're lacerations.

  • They don't come from the gunshot wounds?

  • No, they don't come from the gunshot wound. the gunshot wound goes deeper and through the eye. If they came from the gunshot wound, the gunshot wound would be more to the outside.

  • Even if it was grazing?

  • This one is going into underlying soft tissue, so that it is underneath this.

  • It is underneath the skin there and in order to graze you have to be on top of the skin. And this one went deep enough to go through the eyeball and come out down here.

  • Okay. You don't know what to make up of it then?

  • I'm not sure why. I think the thing that puzzles me is the combination of factors. That some of it could be by scraping somehow, but not all of it. And if this were say a blow to the face causing laceration, it normally wouldn't cause a scraping wound. So it is some complex reason.

  • Doctor, the top could be a small fragment, bone fragment that could do that?

  • Bone fragments can protrude through the skin, but in this instance it didn't, the bone fragments were largely the lower portion of the orbit and there was no bone fragments that were protruding. And that's the value of what the police did is that they took these photographs before any changes were made by the autopsy or by the embalming. And I think that's an interesting point, the bone fragments. I don't think it was caused by bone fragment, the fragmentation was lower down.

  • Anybody else?

    I have one more. Earlier you said that you would have to see the structure of where he fell to determine if any of these could be

  • You mean if it were gravely, or if there were rocks in the road?

  • That could affect it. And what I should say to you, when we do autopsies in our line of work, we try to answer as many questions and issues that we can. We often, there are findings that we can't explain. So that even issues like the cause here, I can't really explain it. And that, that often happens in autopsies, you explain the major ones that answer the question, but not everything.

    And there are other experts that is a gravel expert, they have gravel experts might have a better idea or somebody doing experiments on injuries to skin, which are very difficult to do now because it needs appropriate approval by boards that you can't do experiments on people that hurt people. However, they can do it on pigs and animals sometimes and there may be somebody around who is an expert on that, but it would be more able to answer the questions on that surface with the human skin. It is very similar to pig skin, would develop these injuries just from contact with the gravel falling with a certain force.

  • But again, that's a value, it doesn't indicate the cause of death, but it is a value in what happened to him.

    Now, the exit is here and then if I might see the one difference I think I have with the official report is.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Number 86?

  • The other side, please, the other side around.

  • I'm sorry, there we go.

  • They don't train you how to do that in law school, I guess.

  • I'm just not paying close enough attention.

  • What I would say here the bullet wound, they do everything nowadays these machines, bullet wound comes down through here and as I repositioned the head and all and look at all the additional photographs. I think the bent head that is right on top of the clavicle here, the collar bone, this bullet goes through here and this is a reentry wound. It looks to me like a reentry wound.

    I think the way the medical examiner put it down as a separate entrance. So in that regard I have one less bullet that struck Mr. Brown than the medical examiner did, but it doesn't change anything substantially except for forensic pathology point of view. I think the bullet exits here, goes into here, hits the clavicle, hits the lungs and stops.

  • bullet that's going straight, the one that went through the head went through a lot of thick skull bone and a normal, which is another indication that it was kind of a spent bullet by the time that it goes through here and into the lung, which is right next to it, it has already lost most of its power. So that I think is reentrance that I think would be the difference in the way we organize the tracks.

    Here is the third bullet wound of the chest that I thought might be a reentry when I did the autopsy, but I think turns out with all the additional information I agree with the medical examiner that's an entry wound.

    So you have the head, the face, the facial one coming out here and this pretty much all could be within a foot or two if fired rapidly. Whether that was the last bullet wound or not in the head.

  • Okay. So far from what you've described in the photos we've seen, this would be, you talked about three entry wounds, three bullets?

  • Well, actually, yes. The head, the face, I'm not counting this one, this is a reentry.

  • When I look at it close, it also has markings of a reentry. It is not quite as round as an entry wound would be. And this one would be three, three of the bullet wounds and these are the wounds, these are the wounds where bullets were recovered it turns out.

    The bullet was recovered here from the side of the face, right side through the brain from the side of the face and was recovered from within the autopsy of the head.

    The second bullet comes through the face into here and then is recovered in the area of the lung, and the third bullet here comes in here and largely goes through causing a fracture of the eighth rib.

    See up here is the third rib and this by the eighth rib and is found, goes through the eighth rib and the lung, the lower portion, this upper lung or lower lung on the right and it is found next to the eighth rib in the back.

    And what we found in the second autopsy is that it was the incision made in the back, not through any injury as it was an incision made to recover that bullet.

    In order to recover the bullet in the back, it was underneath the skin, they had made some incisions at the time of the first autopsy and that all comes into how we have to examine bodies when there is a re-autopsy. We inferred that there was a bullet taken out, but I didn't see the photos until yesterday.

  • And it certainly didn't look like any injury, he was shot in his back anywhere; is that correct?

  • No, no, he was shot here and it went to the back.

  • So there was no injury to his back?

  • That's right, no injuries to the back.

  • Okay. All right.

  • The issue comes up with the arms, yes.

  • When you were describing the jaw.

  • I want to make sure I understand. We're talking about three bullets, but four bullet wounds because you consider one to be a reentry.

  • When you are describing that reentry wound from the jaw, you had your head like this. (indicating)

  • So based on where it is in the jaw and it reenters in the body, it is pretty safe to say that the head, it was like this?

    (indicating)

  • Not like this, but like this. (indicating)

  • But that would still present it would be with the skin of the jaw next to the clavicle, the inside, you can feel your collar bone, but right next to it so that that trajectory could occur.

  • The reason I ask that question is because I think having your head like this versus just falling forward, it is going to show what you're doing more, do you understand what I'm saying?

  • I see what you're saying. I'm not sure of the interpretation you have is as good of interpretation as I have, but it would be that the chin would be, if the chin were not right next to it, bullet coming out of the chin would have gone into a different place.

  • What I'm saying is though that if he were simply falling forward, his head would be more lax?

  • Yeah, yes, I think that at the time he was shot his right side of his chin of the jaw was against the collar bone near the midline at the time he was shot. I can't tell from that whether he's going forward, going backwards, whether he's standing still, I'm just saying that.

  • To explain that as a reentry wound and his head is that way, if that's not a reentry wound and it is separate bullet wound, his head could have been either or --

  • If it is not a reentry wound, then it is a separate bullet wound and that bullet was recovered, those are the three that were recovered.

  • That comes out of his right jaw, is that straight line from the entry point to the exit point out that jaw through his skull a straight line or did it move as it traveled around his eye?

  • No, pretty much a straight line. The facial bones and the orbit bones, they're thin bones and essentially when the bullet goes through, stays within 5 or 10 degrees, it doesn't go around further than that in this kind of a setting. Especially a larger caliber bullet. We sometimes see funny things with a .22.

  • People shot in the eye, right around the skull, no exit wound sometimes?

  • No, this is a straight wound and it winds up that way in probing it.

  • All right. You got another one?

  • So those are the three or four.

    Now, we have the more complicated ones.

  • Okay. This is Photo Number 78. Is that the way you want it, Doctor?

  • Yes, thank you.

  • This shows the graze, the graze and that's a bullet that struck, even though it didn't cause any damage, a bullet that struck the body and as far as we know it struck the body and disappeared. It is not in the body and I didn't see anything in the clothing that would indicate that it landed there.

    The clothing, unfortunately, the T-shirt he was wearing, short sleeves, so it just goes up to around here. So in long sleeve shirts we could see more of an entrance and exit in clothing that would be helpful.

  • Did you see any gun powder on the clothing at all?

  • Nothing on the clothing. No gun powder on the clothing and from what I gather the police didn't either.

    And this is an entry wound from the front, the upper arm is, you've been told about the anatomical position, the imaginary anatomic position that medical examiners' use. In autopsies, body, palms forward at attention, all measurements are done that way.

    It is very rare that victims are that cooperative, so you can tell exactly what happened because the body is mobile and in this situation, if this is front anterior, the bullet came in near the top and came out the back, that's a front. In and out gunshot wound of the upper arm. This is a graze wound and I think the next one shows the controversial one.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Okay. We'll do this one and then we'll take a break. Number 83, is this the right way, Doctor?

  • Yes, that's good, thank you.

  • What's interesting here this is.

  • Should I bring it down a little bit, I don't know if that will help or not.

  • What's interesting to me is that, you know, the blood, nothing has been washed off. This is the entrance behind and the exit, and this bullet went through a bone in the forearm. The ulnar bone, the two bones in the arm, the radius and ulnar. The ulnar is kind of underneath the pinky and the radius is on the other side.

    This went through the radius, the x-rays that show little fragments of metal and the fracture of the radius bone. Partly, that's why there's such a big exit wound, it is wobbling and it had destroyed some bone.

    But this is the entrance and this is the exit and this is from behind. Now it went from back to front.

    Now, it could be standing at attention, going back and front, could be arms up, could be arms way up, would have the same thing. It could be if the arm is in front, since the arm is mobile, if I put my arm like this, it could come in the back of the arm and come out the front. And in that situation it would have to reenter into the body, which we don't see, which we don't see.

  • Why do you see that as controversial?

  • Well, as to whether he was shot, people say from the back, no injuries to the back, but I interpret that as being from behind.

  • I know there's some controversy as to whether or not he was shot while his back was to the officer.

  • That's a question that we have.

  • Does this support that?

  • This would support from being shot from behind. It didn't hit his back, but from behind. There are other ways if this arm could be moved in other directions, you can twist your arm around and that has to be taken into account, but there isn't any kind of mark, bullet wound on the chest that would support that. And so much of it becomes, which eyewitnesses are better and that's, that doesn't come with medical school.

  • I guess within the bowels of reasonable medical certainty or in your opinion, you're saying that this injury to this forearm could have occurred with his hand up?

  • Or with him running and someone shooting him from behind, or not running, someone shooting him from behind?

  • I'm saying at the time of the shooting the gun was pointed at the back of his arm, that's all. Where his arm was depends on what other information you have.

  • This is from behind from a forensic point of view.

  • Any questions?

    Pretty much the same situation in the hand, you can get an idea where the gun was positioned, the trajectory of the bullet, but you can't really determine the positioning of the limb?

  • You're right, at the moment of fire.

  • A limb can go through, within a second, go like this. All I can say is at the instant of firing it is almost an instant it could go through, the bullet, the muzzle was pointing at the back.

  • Doctor, you testified, and I'm wondering if this was just an error, that you just said that the radius was fractured?

  • I'm sorry, I meant the ulnar, the ulnar.

  • I wanted to clarify.

  • The radius, I was just pointing out attached to the side of the thumb, thank you, and the ulnar is on the pinky.

  • And that concurs with Dr. 's opinion that the ulnar was fractured, correct?

  • Yes, thank you.

  • Could the difference is a police officer not being exactly behind Mr. Brown, but on the side, he could have struck here?

  • You mean beside you?

  • The policeman.

  • If he was positioned this way to the gun.

  • Exactly. If the police are here and I shoot, that don't mean that he shoot from the back.

  • That could be from the side, but then you see once that bullet comes out, it would strike something if it is there. If it is this way.

  • He's running and he's doing this with his hand, you move the arm when you run and the police was right there, it could strike here and get out from there? (indicating)

  • That's possible. That would show the same thing in the autopsy as with the hands up or the hands around

  • Or could be like this?

    (indicating)

  • That is possible too?

  • You're not going to find any other thing on the body because the bullet is going to go

  • Any other questions? I know you probably need a break, maybe the doctor does too. We'll do that now. I'm not sure of the time. 11:04, so let's just take a break.

    (Recess)

  • So we're back on the record.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) So, Doctor, tell us how many wounds have we gone through so far? You thought six to seven.

  • I think we're gone through eight wounds and seven bullets tracks.

  • Okay, all right. And tracking, when you say bullet tracks, when you say tracking, what did that mean, first of all?

  • Examining injuries to the body caused by bullets.

  • Even though some of these injuries are less important than others.

  • Are you able to tell like where the shooter was in relation to the person that shot by looking at wounds?

  • In my opinion of the seven bullets that struck Mr. Brown, five came from in front of him, the one in the biceps can't tell, the one that, of the seven bullets that struck, one was in the hand, which I think based on the, my review of the histology and all, came while his hand was in the car.

    One came through the upper arm biceps graze wound, can't tell which direction. And one came from behind the right forearm, which could have come from behind, the others were from in front of him, the weapon was pointed at his front at the time of discharge.

  • Okay. Any questions on any of that?

    We'll look at another. This came out of Grand Jury Exhibit Number 7, photograph is Number 6. And let's see, which way, Doctor, the other way?

  • Yes, the head by three o'clock, thank you. The reason I'm showing this, I did examine his clothing yesterday at the police building and was impressed, which I haven't realized it that there were drops of blood that had come from drippings from above. And there was some on the socks, which you can see closer if you look at the socks, drops of the socks.

    There had to be a time, from the time that Mr. Brown was injured and bleeding until he collapsed where the blood was coming from above. And the only place I could figure out it came from was the hand.

    So that after he takes his hand from the car, he is dripping blood that goes, there's also some on the shirt, but that has a lot of blood that developed after he was on the ground because the body kept oozing blood while he's laying face down after he's dead. And so there's a lot of blood that occurred after he died, but these drops of blood all came while he was alive and to me had some significance about this occurring while he was going away from the car.

    I can't tell from this how far away from the car he was, but he did not leave that car without realizing that he had suffered an injury to the hand. Whatever psychological effect that has on people, he knew he was bleeding, he knew he had a gunshot wound to the hand.

    And the skin on the car matches coming from here. So that I think that, whoever examined the car, they did a very fine job to find a piece of tissue on the car because it had already dried and all, when he takes the hand out of the car after it's injured, it goes against, it leans against the car, wherever that was taken from, I don't know which part of the outside it was and then he continued in a way that depends on eyewitnesses and all.

  • In your review of all the information to come up with conclusions, did you determine whether or not Michael Brown was right or left handed?

  • No, I didn't determine that from the autopsy.

  • Did you determine it from any other source?

  • I think I was told he was right handed, I'm not sure. 85 percent of people are right-handed, but I don't know, I didn't determine.

  • Okay. And if, as you described the wound to the hand as occurring in close range, not contact, but close range while his hand was inside of the car. And it would have bled quite a bit, would we, should we expect to see a lot of bleeding in the car?

  • I would expect that there would be blood in the car, plus blood on the weapon, you know, that drops of blood came out and blood along the trail, blood drops coming down don't only land on the socks, they would land on the ground and it would depend on how carefully the scene was examined to look for a blood trail, especially in hot weather.

    One of the things about hot weather it does things to blood and all on the ground that makes it harder to identify. And that kind of a trail can be helpful in determining how far he went.

  • But you know that from the position of the body, I don't know the distance, I've heard all kind of distances.

  • But it would be your opinion that the majority of the bleeding that would have occurred before he fell to the ground came from the hand?

  • Yes, there was no other place that he would be bleeding from. Once he goes down on the ground, he's bleeding from the head and from the chest and that would accumulate with time. So that's why we see a lot of it on clothing on the upper shirt. But that happened after he collapses.

  • So when he's shot, let's kind of go through it. He's shot, there's a gunshot wound to the hand, there's a gunshot wound to the forearm?

  • That comes later, yes.

  • That comes later. Because, I believe, you said it is your opinion that the gunshot wound to the head would have been last; is that correct, to the top of the head?

  • The three of them happen in rapid succession and certainly he would lose consciousness on the top of the head.

  • All three of those are in the head region; is that correct?

  • One in the head, one above the eye and one around the level of the nipple on the right chest.

  • Okay. So those are the three?

  • Yeah, because they lineup pretty good if there was somebody shooting rapidly.

  • Okay. My question to you is twofold, one is, once he received the shots, all the shots that you examine except for the head shot, and maybe it cannot be separated, I don't know. Would he still have been mobile?

  • On his feet and able to run or charge at an object?

  • I think that certainly the arm shots, the arm shots would not prevent him from being mobile and running front or back or whatever. And the one in the lower chest wouldn't necessarily slow him down, but the one in the eye, you know, that goes through his right eyeball would, could make him lose consciousness because it does have lines of force going through the brain tissue and all, but not necessarily.

  • So he could have been, now whether he could be running or, you know, or walking or whatever, would vary from person to person. In fact, some people if they're shot once in the arm might faint, I guess he wasn't the fainting kind.

    So how people react to gunshot wounds is a different thing, but from the anatomy point of view, he would have been able to be conscious and theoretically, but for the bullet wound in the head, could have been treated and survived if he went right to a hospital or something.

  • And the wounds that are around the right, you said there was one to the chest area, correct?

  • And you don't think he would have been bleeding much from those wounds?

  • Before he collapsed?

  • He would be bleeding internally, but not outside because bleeding usually, internal organs are injured internally and then they will spill outside. When he collapses, the blood will start coming out after he collapses. I'm sorry.

  • No, that was the question that I had because I was wondering, I said why, I mean, this is a big guy, I'm quite sure the volume of blood in his

  • Is more than normal.

  • I know when I went to the doctor to get a flu shot, she stuck me and I didn't bleed. She said you have good elasticity in your skin and I thought maybe that's why he's not bleeding.

  • That's true. We see this a lot with knife wounds, even in the heart. The knife goes in and goes out and most people, the skin and fat tissue will immediately close up, you know, there isn't a hole left. It is a slow process for bleeding to occur through the body.

    Superficial cuts on the hand bleed very much, and this is sort of a superficial cut because there's no skin there to come together from elasticity, so that's why cut wounds bleed more than bullet wounds because the bullet goes in and the skin elasticity and the outer most tissue underneath it close it up.

    So when he is shot in the front, the blood doesn't start to come out right away. It could in a few minutes, but he collapses to the ground. And you can see in the head, there wasn't blood matting the hair, although there was bleeding that came out.

    I can see in the scene photograph there was some blood coming out gradually from the top of the head, but it went downward and didn't mat the hair up. It wasn't a massive amount, it was a small amount.

    So that I think that in the normal course you get very little blood coming out if a person collapses right away before death occurred in this case, because of that final shot.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) You said you had some training or education in toxicology and that's part of your total package as a medical examiner?

  • Forensic pathologist.

  • As a pathologist from looking at it. Did you look at the toxicology report in this case?

  • Was there anything about the result of that toxicology that in your opinion would affect how he would have reacted, his behavior once he was shot, if you are?

  • A very topical question. Yeah, marijuana is not a drug, it is a group of about 18 different chemicals. So that it isn't like taking a barbiturate or cyanide, which is just one chemical, marijuana has all kind of different chemicals where it is grown, the fertilizer, the water supply. The one that is most active is the Delta-9, tetrahydrocannabinol, THC. He had some of that in his blood. And that could affect, could have affected him, however, it is a relative small amount and how it affects somebody varies. Some people can have hallucinations with a lot of marijuana, other people just go to sleep. During the '30s, 1930s, there was terror of marijuana that it made everybody go crazy, it doesn't make people go crazy. That's why the laws have been so strict on it, but now it is coming into more legal status in some places. Marijuana is kind of unpredictable, some people can take marijuana and do funny things and other people are just perfectly normal with it. The problem, marijuana from the toxicology point of view, marijuana gets into the soft tissues and fatty tissues in the body. So even though I smoked a joint two days ago, I might still have little bits coming out today into the bloodstream, or even studies have done for three or four weeks as it's released from the fat. So the amount of marijuana he has could cause abnormal behavior, but usually doesn't. The best indicator of that would be what his behavior was in the time period before and I try to look at that and you see the incident with the cigars, where he took the cigars or the little cigars. Would that in any way be affected by marijuana I think is a guess. Was he walking the street because of marijuana? That isn't usually what happens with marijuana, but it could be and it is too variable. If all of us smoked the same amount of marijuana, we would all act differently. Most of us would just feel very nice about it, somebody might not feel very bad about it and some people may go to sleep and somebody might do something that he wouldn't normally do, but that's, but it was present, but he did take it within a day or two.

  • Dr. , he indicated that the amount of Delta 9-THC

  • He indicated in his testimony that the amount of Delta 9-THC that he had in his blood compared to the way it is broken down, not just in the urine, but in the blood was not consistent with just a little bit of an amount. He indicated that given, if you look at the whole picture and not just the 12 nanograms and when it was done, that it would indicate that it was a larger amount than just a little bit amount of marijuana, would you agree with that?

  • Well, it is definitely evidence of smoking marijuana. The problem is whether it is 12 or five or 20, it affects people differently and a lot of it has to do with how, what do you call it, how used to it, how often a person has taken it before. If you take it more often, it has less of an unpredictable affect.

    It could have been a factor in his behavior, but the best measure of his behavior is what he was doing all day. Was he acting different than he usually did, for example, and that would be for friends and relatives or witnesses who saw him during the day. Was shoplifting cigars a great departure from his usual behavior.

    So great of a departure that one could say he was influenced by the marijuana or did he do that sometimes when he didn't have marijuana.

    It is interesting that no other drugs were found and no other medications were found. I couldn't find if he had been taking any other medications that he had stopped taking.

  • Why is that interesting to you?

  • Because if he was supposedly taking some medications for weight or for emotional disturbance or for sleep or so, and under a medical directive we should see it in his bloodstream. With the toxicology and the toxicology can tell us if somebody is taking drugs you are not supposed to take, like marijuana, or some they didn't take drugs that they should have taken.

    Suppose somebody is on antipsychotic medication and there is none in his toxicology, that would indicate he wasn't taking his medication, that could be a reason for his behavior.

    So toxicology, everything it has and everything it doesn't have has significance, and in this instance, I think marijuana is significant that he smoked marijuana, but 99 out of 100 people taking marijuana aren't going to get in a fight with a police officer over it in my experience.

  • Can I just clarify something here, Doctor, your credentials are as a forensic pathologist, although you have a working understanding of toxicology, you are not a toxicologist, correct?

  • You're not a toxicologist?

  • No, that's correct.

  • You are not a pharmacologist?

  • That's correct.

  • I would imagine you've never been qualified as an expert in either of those fields in any court of law in the United States, correct?

  • No, that's not true because we often have, we're an expert in interpreting toxicology and there was for about five years I directed a toxicology laboratory in New York City.

  • My question is though, you are not a toxicologist or a pharmacologist, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And although you might look at the reports or the results that a toxicologist has come up with you, yourself, cannot perform those tests, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And so you rely on a toxicologist to come up with his findings and then you may or may not find that has any significance in your findings, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • But the affects, the findings of a board certified toxicologist, you are relying on the findings of Dr. in this case, correct?

  • On the findings, yes.

  • So your statement that 99 people out of 100 wouldn't attack a police officer, what's that based on?

  • Based on 20 years I worked with drug addicts, on the board of directors of a number of drug and alcohol programs in New York City. While 25 years I was in New York City as medical examiner, deputy medical examiner and then chief medical examiner, we did lots of autopsies on drug users, because we got a lot of autopsy findings in that regard. I was on the board of directors and worked closely interviewing and treating drug addicts, mostly heroin addicts and alcoholics, in different communities.

    And all of them there was an issue about marijuana because even back 20 years ago, is marijuana the gateway drug to further and more severe drug abuse, which was the general feeling as far as the federal laws went.

    And one of the things in talking to drug addicts and working with drug addicts, I found that marijuana did not play a significant role in their behavior except for one fact, and one fact is the significant fact was because it is illegal, the person in contact with the seller was also in contact with people who sold other drugs. They were more vulnerable to heroin, barbiturates and other things not because of their behavior, because they were in contact with people who sell illegal drugs and made them more vulnerable to it.

    So in my opinion working with addicts clinically, as well as autopsy findings, I think that marijuana is not any worse than alcohol.

  • To clarify, Doctor, you're testifying as to an expert opinion today, are you testifying today that you have been qualified in a court of law as an expert in toxicology?

  • Not as an expert in toxicology, the common way I'm qualified is an expert interpreting what the alcohol level means. Half the cases we do involve alcohol, either the unnatural deaths and homicides and often we're asked to interpret the, not to do it, I'm not a toxicologist, absolutely, I'm not an expert in toxicology, but I think all forensic pathologists have to be experts in interpreting drugs in the body. Is it enough to cause death.

    An example, we do an autopsy and the result can come back high level of barbiturates or no barbiturates and yet from the history of the autopsy we determined he died by a barbiturate overdose. The toxicologist would say how can you diagnose a barbiturate overdose. Because we do the autopsy, we see that over the five days he was in the hospital, the barbiturate overdose that brought him there got metabolize. By the time he dies, he has no barbiturates in his body, even though the cause of death is a barbiturate overdose.

    There is a difference between what the toxicologist is an expert in finding the marijuana, absolutely, I don't do those tests at all.

  • Do you disagree they are experts in how drugs affects the behavior or how drugs affect the human body?

  • Yes, that's how the drugs affects the body is a medical knowledge, not a toxicologist. And the reason I'm a forensic pathologist, certainly in New York get qualified to talk about that is because the judge decides hey, you're an expert in finding that it is a .02 or .5 or .3 alcohol, but we're going to have the doctor interpret what that means.

    And I think a pharmacologist is a little different, a pharmacologist gets more into the affects of the body, but toxicologists are trained in chemistry. And the smart ones get to know about the affects on the body, but not from training, that's just from common sense, as I'm talking from common sense.

  • Does anybody have any questions?

    Doctor, I seen that each person in medicine not two plus two is four, every person is different.

  • Maybe 12 nanograms of marijuana is not enough for her, but it is enough for me and I got a big reaction. We don't know what happened when Mike Brown, we don't know if he took those 45 nanograms an hour before and that's the reason he tried to fight with the police, we don't know.

  • Yeah, I agree very much it affects people differently.

  • You can't say that not happen because it is impossible the amount of marijuana he has in his body. I'm sorry,

  • No, no, no, you bring up an important point. That the same amount of a drug affects people differently. And I'm just saying in my experience, I've written books about drug abuse, drug abuse in general beyond from my experience with heroin addicts and alcoholics in treatment programs and I'm just, I just think that if somebody on ectasy or was having hallucinations on LSD might fight with a police officer. Somebody on heroin would go to sleep before fighting with a police officer, somebody on marijuana, I haven't, it affects people differently. I think the chances of somebody taking marijuana and fighting with a police officer and just explaining it on that basis, that might be relative for other reasons why he fights with a police officer, but that's not been my experience.

    I'm not an expert in finding marijuana, but I think I'm an expert in dealing with people who have spent a lifetime in smoking marijuana in these different programs.

  • Do you have any information about Michael Brown's history of drug use?

  • Not specifically, but I think the answer that was being brought up is that, you are better at me in this, what were people saying, how was he acting before this episode would be a better indication of affects of marijuana because marijuana doesn't let you spend the day doing what you always do and then suddenly pop off and do something very different.

    If you are on marijuana and you are going to act out, you do it right away while it is at its peak. Then they can do things, but that would be my experience.

  • So that's just based on your experience?

  • Yes, and my reading of the literature on that.

  • Going back to when you first started the testimony today, you said the Brown family attorney reached out to you, what did they specially ask you to do or in what role did they ask you to take?

  • Yeah, the person who reached out was the attorney and he said the Brown family, I specifically remember this because it is not surprising in some way. That the mother and the father, it's now been a week, they don't know why their son died and they had other questions. And they're concerned that they might not, they have been told it might be weeks or months before they are given any information while it is being completed.

    So they wanted an autopsy largely to find out what, why the son died except besides reading speculations in newspapers. And also I find out when I sat down with the family, I came, I sat down with them first, what all families do they want to know, did my son suffer, you know. Did he die right away, and that was the issue.

    The issue wasn't did he get shot by the police because that was pretty obvious, but the issue was what happened, how many times was he shot, did he have pain and suffering because that was the issue. And principally because they thought they weren't going to be able to get this any other way, to this day they haven't gotten it any other way.

  • Let me interrupt here. So, Doctor, you're unaware, I imagine, that my office did provide a copy of the Medical Examiner's Report in late October to the family's attorney?

  • I didn't know that, I thought that the family's attorney October, that's not far, I was told that they had a copy from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch or something.

  • Well, so you are basing this on stuff that other people have told you, correct? So if I were to tell you our office provided an official copy of the Medical Examiner's report in late October to the attorney for Michael Brown's family, whether the attorney gave it to Michael Brown's family or not, I have no information about that, but you're unaware then that we actually provided that report to the attorney in late October, correct?

  • Until about a week or two ago.

  • Late October, it is now the 13th.

  • Yeah, I didn't realize, I wasn't told that.

  • And in your experience as a medical examiner in the State of New York, I imagine there were a good number of cases that you were involved in that involved criminal investigations, correct?

  • You understand the need at times for an autopsy findings to be kept, not made public initially while an investigation is still ongoing, would you agree that there is a, might be a need or a reason that investigators might not want to disclose that type of information?

  • Yes. It might be valid or not. As a medical examiner, see we are put in the middle, medical examiners should be an independent scientist.

    Dealing with patients, our concern is when we do autopsies, we are doing for the family and for the society in general, we always have to relate to the family. I spent a few years in internal medicine before going into pathology and that's what's important.

    So I have found in New York that many times when there have been encounters with correction officers in jail, we had riots in jails and encounters with police, that the sooner you're able to tell the family what happened, remember we do an autopsy and 95 percent of the information is obtained within the day of the autopsy. We then wait for the toxicology, histology, which is usually not necessary legally.

    Somebody shoots somebody or gets in a car accident and is drunk, we'll call that a homicide, for example, a homicide. They wait on the autopsy report that we don't, that we don't wait for everything to come through. Even though that every shooting, every homicide there is a toxicology on, but if somebody was shot yesterday, they'll come out tomorrow and tell you what the cause of death is even though everything is not completed.

    So just from my experience as a chief medical examiner is that the sooner that this information is given out, it calms everybody down because one of the things I saw happening with the family here and many other families, whenever somebody dies in an encounter with the police, they immediately often don't trust the police. And then if the medical examiner doesn't release the finding right away they feel, as happened here, that the medical examiner is covering up for the police, and that has to be dealt with. As a physician, I have to deal with that with the family.

    Now, sometimes it's a value to not release information because you are going to get information, you don't want people to know what happened and you don't want people to make up stories.

  • For example, I saw the police officer stand over Michael Brown's body and shoot him in the back, in the head as he laid face down in the pavement, that couldn't possibly have happened based upon your findings, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • So wouldn't it be important that maybe those findings would be withheld from the general public so that witnesses who may come forward and report having witnessed this incident, the police may be able to determine the veracity or credibility of that witness if they report something that we know the findings do not support.

  • Yeah, that can happen. However, see in the old days the way we did things was the mantra is you got to find, interview all the witnesses, knock on doors, telephones, whatever in the first 48 hours. And you got to get all the stories locked down in the 48 hours and that was the police mantra, or shoe leather.

    Now oftentimes we're going to wait a little bit until all the DNA and the other tests come through before we interview people during the time they can also make up stories.

    In answer to your question, I think that if the procedure is to interview people right away, and then the autopsy findings can be released within two or three days after that, it covers both bases. I just think in my experience with families, that the transparency in situations where families don't trust what's going on.

    When we have seen riot situations in New York City, in Harlem, or specific ones, I'm thinking about the fact that we said yes, the death of the innocent person was caused by a police bullet and not by one of the snipers. Immediately calms things down. They are going to continue, they know we're not going to cover it. I don't know, that's my feeling as a physician.

    : I'm trying to stay on topic. I have a question for you and I know we have a time crunch as well. In regards to, we have been here quite awhile already, my question is going back to the question I just asked you. You kind of explained why the family reached out to you.

  • So it seems to me when they reached out to you, you started an investigation of your own, would you say that's truthful?

  • Yes, within my expertise.

  • Sure. In addition to your role as a forensic pathologist to examine the body, you began investigating on your own; is that correct?

  • Well, that was primarily what I did was examine the body and they asked certain questions about his death.

  • So how did you do that investigation, outside of examining the physical body, how did you investigate?

  • That's my investigation is examining the body and finding out from the family what kind of medical problems the person may have had and any history that would be pertinent to interpret the autopsy findings, but it was essentially doing the autopsy.

  • You said you found a leaked copy of an autopsy?

  • Say that again, I'm sorry?

  • You said you viewed a leak autopsy, how did that come to you?

  • I think the lawyers send me something from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

  • Is that a credible resource?

  • I didn't get the autopsy until yesterday but I was leaked, there was an autopsy leaked. I think I may have even gotten it from the internet. An autopsy was leaked, it looked pretty good. I couldn't rely on it until I saw it yesterday when it was given to me by the medical examiner's office.

  • You viewed this leaked autopsy report prior to your autopsy of the body?

  • No, no, there was no autopsy. I spoke to , the chief medical examiner, who I have known for quite a while, and been told I was doing it. We invited anybody from the office to come down to see. I think it is always better if the person that does the first autopsy is also present at the second autopsy to make sure everybody is on the same page. We invited them down, they couldn't come down. I was hoping to speak with her about the results of the first autopsy when she got authorization from the prosecutor's office, we didn't have that conversation.

  • I'm sorry, I don't think my question was answered, I can rephrase it. Did you view the leaked autopsy prior to conducting your autopsy?

  • I thought I answered it. There was no leaked autopsy until a couple weeks ago. There was no autopsy, I didn't review any autopsy findings prior to my autopsy and the autopsy leaking I'm talking about was from two or three weeks ago.

  • Sure. So you said you got things off the internet?

  • I got the leaked autopsy on the internet.

  • Okay. So you never searched the internet for any other information?

  • You provided us a lot of information today then, I don't believe someone could just evaluate based on looking at a body. You made assumptions that his hand was in the car, I don't know how you would have known there was a car unless you are just looking at the body --

  • I read the newspaper.

  • Let me finish. You said there were drops of blood on his hands and socks that had to have come from his hand. You said that you knew he knew he was bleeding, Michael Brown, when he left the car. You said you've heard all kind of distances that the shooting occurred, you said that he, Michael Brown, could have been treated and survived if he received immediate medical attention.

    I mean, these are all things that seem to me to be assumptions or things that you've gathered from either talking to other individuals or looking on the internet and doesn't to me seem factual or based on your role as a forensic pathologist.

  • An autopsy can never be evaluated in a vacuum, we always have to have other information that we get from various sources. Somebody falling out of a window will have the same injuries, whether he was pushed, whether he jumped and committed suicide or whether he fell accidently. No autopsy can interpret all by itself because all kind of different reasons why injuries can occur. What I receive, the information I received initially was what the lawyers had told me and what I read in the New York Times about, you know, rioting in Ferguson. I don't get stuff off the internet. I got the autopsy report, which is just three weeks ago or something, but I think it is unreliable, I agree with you, until you get an official one. I read about the disputes that were going on. I read about how there was a leak about the FBI reporting that there was Brown's blood DNA in the car. I could say that that injury to the hand was consistent with that, that's all, not that it happened that way, but other people are doing other investigations in their expertise. Any autopsy report, hospital, medical examiner, forensic has to include lots of other information, some of which are gotten from police, some from lawyers, some from family. None of which can automatically be adopted as true just to see how it correlates with the autopsy report.

  • I just asked, you know, we're all here to find the truth.

  • We are just trying to figure out what is fact and what is written on the internet or in a newspaper, we are here for the truth.

  • I'm not, I'm not, what you call it, relying on the internet. The reason I mention the internet is because when the autopsy report was, we've been waiting, the family has been waiting for the autopsy report and finally there was an announcement that the autopsy report had been released. And talked with the lawyer and said it wasn't released in the normal course, it was what he called leaked through the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

    He sent it to me and I read it, you know, it looked good but it's still, as you said, I'm not going to rely on it as being the true thing unless I knew it was the true thing. And there were other things you mention that the clothing, for example, I saw the clothing. I examined the clothing, and the drops of blood on the clothing and sometimes we can find droplets of blood to be very useful in our examination and it showed that it was coming from above the pants and down to the floor and that the only thing I could find that would go along with it would be the cut in the hand.

    Yeah, as far as some things are, yes, I rely, I'm assuming certain things are correct, which may or may not be correct. Distances may not be correct, how he was behaving may not be correct, and your ability to gather information of what his actions were and how he was behaving in the hours before this episode is the best indicator of the affects of marijuana than what I'm raising, you know, in different forms. But I just think that medical examiners always have to take other things into consideration.

    And the best example of that, the biggest obligation we have is to issue a death certificate. And the medical examiner, coroner's job that he's responsible for, he or she has to certify the name of the person through various means, make sure it is the right person on the death certificate.

    Cause of death and manner of death. Cause of death we find from the findings at autopsy, gunshot wounds, heart attack, cancer. The manner of death, natural, accident or suicide, we are always relying on other people's information.

    Falling out of the window, was he washing the window at that time depends on some other information that may or may not be reliable. So the manner of death, the accident, suicide, homicide, always faces the problem that you raise.

  • Doctor, you are not a blood spatter expert?

  • That's correct.

  • And you know you testified that in your opinion the blood on the pants and the socks came from the hand because it came from above and dropped downward?

  • Wouldn't you agree with me that the injury to the face, gunshot wound that traveled through the face, lacerated the eyebrow area, it ruptured his eyeball?

  • If he were in this position, blood could have spattered from that facial injury onto his shorts and socks; is that right?

  • It's possible in the seconds before he fell to the ground that could have happened, some of that could have happened, yes.

  • You can't tell when those spatters happened, correct?

  • Other than there were lots of spatters, that they have been in between his getting an injury and to his falling to the ground and he couldn't have gotten that much blood on his pants and socks just from a bullet wound that enters the scalp, went through the eyeball, some blood can come out and collapses to the ground. If he was standing after that shot, then with his head bent over it could have happened.

  • And you indicated also that if that hand wound, which you said was bleeding excessively, I'm sorry?

  • Bleeding, bleeding.

  • Bleeding a lot you said?

  • Bleeding a lot.

  • Bleeding a lot. But at any rate, the injury to his forearm, okay, the right forearm?

  • We don't know when that occurred, if that occurred up at the car, if that occurred sometime later in the incident, correct?

  • If that occurred up at the car, that injury could have been the source of the blood spatter on his clothing, correct?

  • If his blood is in the car, comes from the car and his blood is on both on his pants and is like, yeah, it could have covered, following the injury to the hand in the car, yes.

  • So, I mean, you really can't conclude anything from the fact that other than the blood that was on his shorts and socks came from the body of Michael Brown and that they came after he had been injured by a gunshot wound. Injured with a gun, is that fair to say?

  • I think I agree with everything you say. I think also that the only way I could correlate it if it came from the hand, but that would be my opinion. It could come from any part of his body that was bleeding long enough for that blood to come out, yes, I agree with you.

  • And if there are witnesses that say when I saw him get shot they saw blood spray come off his head?

  • That could have caused the spatter that was on his socks and his pants?

  • Yeah, I think the witnesses saw blood spatter when the head was struck would be consistent with what happens when somebody's shot in the head with a bullet, but very little spatter occurs there because blood could have come out, but it wouldn't cause all of the blood, it could cause some of the blood.

  • Okay. Go ahead.

    You did say that the hand wound, I guess because of the way it is superficial or the way the bullet would have hit it, it would have bled more?

  • Compared to the --

  • To the bullet hole, yes. I think the issue that somebody brought up was even bullet holes quickly, the elasticity quickly closes up for a little bit, so you get some blood. You see it in a rapid camera that some blood comes out, not as much that comes out of the cut surface of the hand. Bullet wounds in the hand is, this one is like a cut wound, it didn't go in and seal up, it is a long graze so that a lot of blood vessels were exposed in the hand and caused bleeding.

  • I have a question, I'm kind of curious about the original autopsy, so you did get a chance to see it?

  • I saw the photographs from the original autopsy. Most of these are the ones you looked at, the police took.

  • Did you ever see the report?

  • Then I saw recently the report, the autopsy report, yes.

  • So how did the one that you said that was leaked, how did it compare to the original one that you saw.

  • It was the same, it was the same. The leaked autopsy report was the same as the final one, but as was brought up, it is not as reliable. Sometimes things get leaked and changes are made, but in this instance the leaked autopsy was the same as the official autopsy.

  • I have two questions. We have heard testimony from two different agencies that have performed autopsies. We had St. Louis County and the Department of Justice or the Department of Defense. They both come in and go over their autopsies in great detail and their findings. Is there any reason that we should question the validity of those, of those findings?

  • Well, I think, I'm not sure. I know what I seen in the autopsy report from St. Louis County. I haven't seen anything about the federal autopsy report. As far as I could see with the St. Louis County autopsy, the findings are the same. It is the interpretation we get into that can differ depending on experience and other things. For example, whether or not the bullet wound in the clavicle or up by the shoulder by the collar bone is a reentry or not. As a forensic, we can disagree forensically, doesn't make any difference in the scheme of things, except it ads a bullet that struck the body. So from my experience, I would interpret it as a reentry wound rather than an entry wound, but it really doesn't make any difference in the overall interpretation of what happened. I don't know if, I think as far as the toxicology goes, I think the issue that was brought up by the attorney was that there are toxicologists who are very good at finding toxicology, and an interpretation of how long the drugs last in the body. They are very good how long the drugs lasted in the body, for example. And that would have, uh, what do you call it, many more importance than a medical examiner's interpretation, but I think that the point you are in a position to do much more than we can is finding out his behavior during the day. If marijuana has caused his behavior to be different than usual, that can best be determined by other observations by people that you've taken testimony from during the day and marijuana if I smoke it now, if I start acting bizarre it would be very quickly. You know, if I'm normal behavior for the next four hours, I'm not suddenly going to do something to act differently when the level of marijuana has gone down considerably, that's all.

  • My second question is, we can agree you're a pretty high profile person, and you've been in the news and on the news and interviewed a lot, do you recall a conversation that you had with when you mentioned to her that the presence of marijuana in Michael Brown could have led him to act crazy was the actual word that you used?

  • I did say that, yes, it can, but it is unlikely. And the sentence we are talking about it would be right away and it is unusual, but it can in the whole spectrum. Most people wouldn't have too much affect on, some would have a very soothing affect, you know. Medical marijuana and things like that can make people feel better who are dying of cancer and things like that, and some people can act very unusual and crazy, but that's very unusual. But I think you got it right.

  • Anybody else?

    You know we have a copy of the Department of Defense and we have a copy of St. Louis County. I'm still baffled by what you see, I don't have anything that shows me in writing so we can compare what, what your findings are. So what are the differences?

  • Well, number one --

  • I mean, we are already after 12.

  • That's okay. I know number one, that I'm giving you an opinion in great part depends on what I saw yesterday. I couldn't give an opinion, as I said a long time ago, until I saw the autopsy photographs, what the body looked like before the autopsy was done, you know, which these photographs that you see are all from that time, which are very significant. I couldn't see the x-rays, the clothing, were all important to me in arriving at particular opinions. As far as the autopsy, and then I will now write a report, but I couldn't write it yesterday, I will write a report on the basis of my finding. As far as I could see from the St. Louis report, I don't know the other report, we agree with everything except that reentry wound.

  • You agree with everything except the reentry?

  • In the autopsy report is there, I don't know what the testimony has been, but is there something particular that you think --

  • No, and that is my question. My question is, you have made statements to the press about how your findings are different than ours and now--

  • I have not made such statement.

  • So the press is wrong?

  • Of course. I am told one thing, I'm told that the USA Today had an article about me. I have no idea what it said, but I find often, especially in forensic, that what they say they often misconstrue things.

  • So if you are referring to articles I haven't seen, I can't answer that. I'm telling you that the only thing I said to the press was initially, way at the very first day, I did the autopsy and the next day the family had a press conference. And I said as a basis of my findings, I find no evidence of powder on any of the gunshot wounds and that they were all distant, beyond one or two feet away at the time of discharge. Now, yesterday, I looked at slides, I looked at things and sure enough, I looked at pictures that one photo shows it nicely to me of the hand that there is powder and I indicated at the time you recall very careful to say that, these are preliminary, these are not my final opinions. And if I get more information, and essentially I didn't get that much information until yesterday, when I went through the thing, but I would think that yes, I was mistaken. There is powder, gunshot powder on the hand. But, and I think that the only thing that's different was whether we both agree that there was a gunshot wound in the back, one was in the back, the others were in the front, there is no difference.

  • The reason I ask that is because you did mention you got some of your information from the New York Times. I just wanted to point out for the record the information that we do get from the media can be skewed. There is very little that's correct about it. So I just wanted to make sure that you know.

  • You're absolutely right, but the information I get you see is different kind of information is a lot of turmoil in Ferguson, there are people making all kind of charges. That there's a problem with the interpretation, that's the information that I get. I don't get, I did say that if, in my opinion, if the leaked report that there's blood from Brown in the car, then that would be good evidence that his hand was in the car. Then that would be good evidence at the time he was bleeding, that kind of thing, if. But all the ifs canceled out when I see what the work was. I agree with you, what's in the newspapers are not reliable.

  • They are not reliable for forensic work and the news media, if you haven't figured out, like to create problems. It isn't to say A, B and C, everybody says A, Band C, that's not news. But to say he says A and he says Z, that sells newspapers.

  • One other question and then I promise no more. Do you do every autopsy you are asked to perform for a family?

  • So what's the determining factor.

  • The most important factor is will the autopsy make a difference. Is it important, is it important, because often families want autopsies out of curiosity and that may be okay, but I wouldn't go out of the way to do such an option. I do about, I do many less, I'm asked to do lots of autopsies and I will do the autopsy where I think that an autopsy or re-autopsy would be significant for the family or for the society.

    When we do autopsies on homicides, we have two things, one is the family and two is society. Society has a right to know what happened to somebody who's murdered and how to prevent it or catch the bad guy to do it. So that we have both of those and sometimes that comes into conflict as the prosecutor said that sometimes telling the family, which is important, comes in contact with the investigation from the public as far as giving information out to the bad guy to make up stories or something.

  • Just for the record, and this is it, it is not really a question. You had mentioned that there was one shot from the back and I didn't want it to be misconstrued that you were saying he was shot in the back, you are talking about you talk the forearm.

  • Back of the right forearm, yes.

  • Can I just mention that, as I say, this isn't my first rodeo in Missouri, I've been here before, I've investigated, I just recently, a year or two ago, talked to the St. Louis Major Crime Unit, which works with Illinois, nearby Illinois. I spent a lot of time in Columbia, Missouri investigating unexplained deaths in the Harris S. Truman Veterans Hospital, I've been involved with a number of investigations in veteran hospitals where medical personnel may have intentionally killed patients. And I've lectured to the Missouri Highway Patrol and things like that. We always, medical examiners are coming to some jurisdictions, always work under the guise of being carpetbaggers, and to a certain extent we are carpetbaggers coming from away, but I've been accepted in other situations as reasonable in Missouri. So I hope what I may have may have sounded unreasonable isn't as nutty as it might sound. It is just after 50 years in this business, one isn't afraid to give opinions.

  • I'd like to know if you know, what is the reason that a lawyer from Michael Brown's family don't give you official copy of the autopsy, why what is the reason?

  • This is the first I've heard. I don't speak frequently to the lawyers, this is the first I heard that they were given the official autopsy before it came out in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

  • I didn't say it was before it was leaked, I just said it was in late October.

  • I think I heard the I got the leak copy somewhere around late October also. I didn't know that, I'll ask them. If I've been under the assumption that the family, it wasn't released. Normal people can't interpret autopsy reports once the autopsy is released, you need a physician to interpret what it all means, all the different organs and bodies and medical terms. So I expect that once it was released, I would be asked to explain it to the family and I wasn't asked to explain it to the family until later on.

  • Giving you the copy is not released to the press, it is a lawyer, who has the official copy. What is the reason they don't give you the copy, I don't understand that?

  • I don't know, I'll have to ask him.

  • It don't seem correct to me, but that is my opinion.

  • Let me clarify, Doctor, where did you get, I know you said you saw the copy on the internet?

  • No, I said probably. I got a duplicate copy was sent to me.

  • Do you know who sent it.

  • I think it was an attorney or it was a newspaper reporter wanting me to comment on it or something. It was emailed, something was emailed to me. I think it was from the reporter, from the attorney, but that was from St. Louis Post-Dispatch release, which I agree with the gentleman, it is interesting, I'm not going to take it as gospel.

  • Did Mr. Brown's parents ever say in your questioning of them that he had like a childhood behavior problem or anything like that?

  • He did not. I spoke to the mom and dad. One of the questions I wanted to know, the purpose of the autopsy is any surgical or medical conditions, and as far as I was told, was perfectly healthy. I know sometimes families, especially when they're grieving, just say that and without necessarily thinking about it or anything. So as far as I know, as I stand here today, sit here today, as far as the autopsy and toxicology would show, I see no evidence of prior medical conditions or that he was under any treatment for medical conditions.

  • Anything else? I think that's it, Doctor. We appreciate you coming.

    (End of the testimony of Dr. . )

  • Good afternoon. It is November 13th, 1:05 p.m. We took actually a really nice short lunch break. So we have our next witness here is ready. Previously, I said we would maybe play her taped statement first because she was eating lunch, but she's done. We'll go ahead and put her on and then play her statement, it is about 20 minutes.

    I also did tell you, I can't remember if it was Tuesday or Monday, but one of the grand jurors, do we know if , the physician's assistant, had said she had taken a sample that was then going to be tested.

    So I informed you that we had those results and that they were negative for drugs and alcohol. I asked if you wanted me to call somebody to testify about that, you indicated you didn't need a witness to say that it was negative.

    I'm going to just pass out copies of those reports so you can review that, Grand Jury Exhibit Number 96.

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 96 marked for identification.) of lawful age, having been first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the case aforesaid, deposes and says in reply to oral interrogatories, propounded as follows, to-wit:

    EXAMINATION

  • At this time I'm going to ask the court reporter to pause the recording, and then he will continue to take down what's being said.

    Could you state your name, please? A

  • And, can I call you

  • The reason, one of the things that as the foreperson said when he swore you in and the second part of the oath you seemed a little confused about. What he said was in taking that oath, you have to promise not to talk about what we talk about in here today.

  • Okay. I kind of figured that's what it was.

  • After you leave here or even the fact that you were here and testified, shouldn't be mentioned to anybody, okay?

  • Not even my employer?

  • You can tell your employer that you were subpoenaed to the grand jury, but the fact that you gave testimony about what you saw and everything, it is best that you just not say anything, okay?

  • And because of that and the nature of your eyewitness testimony, the court reporter is taking down what's being said. I had you identify yourself and do you spell

  • common spelling?

  • And then what's going to happen here is in a moment we're going to begin the audio recording again for you to tell what happened.

  • But because we're going to keep your identity unknown to the general public in the event that this gets released at a later date.

  • We are going to refer to you after we begin the recording, we're going to refer to you as Witness Number 64, okay?

  • I will try to avoid using your name or anything like that.

    Also, before we start the recording, we don't want you to necessarily disclose anything that might be, somebody might be able to figure out who you are or where you live or anything, so I'm never going to ask you your address. You can just say the general location of where you live, I live in the City, I live in North County, I live in South County, I live in Illinois or something, okay?

  • And then also, just for the sake of them understanding, before we begin the recording, on the day that this happened, you were in a car with some people; is that right?

  • And who were you with?

  • My mother, my dad and my sister and my

  • Okay. And your dad is ?

  • And your mom is ?

  • And your sister is

  • And your ? A

  • Okay. And so when we begin the audio part of this again, if you could just refer to my mom, my dad, my sister, rather than using their names, it will help us not to have to like go back later and try to take that out, okay?

  • . Court Reporter, if

    So you will start that again.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Okay. Ma'am, you previously identified yourself, to the grand jurors, and how old are you?

  • And whereabouts do you live?

  • Did you grow up in ?

  • Okay. You're here, you're aware that you are here because you were in the Canfield Green Apartment Complex on August 9th and witnessed something; is that right?

  • And do you live in the Canfield Green Apartments?

  • Did you ever live in the Canfield Green Apartments?

  • What were you doing there that day?

  • I was on my way to go visit

  • So were you in a vehicle when you witnessed something?

  • And who was driving the vehicle?

  • And was there anyone else in the car with you?

  • My dad, my sister and

  • And , we have already said,

    , correct?

  • And is your sister an adult?

  • And so do you recall about what time you drove into the Canfield Apartment Complex on that day?

  • You said you were going there in part to visit, you were going there to visit ?

  • Does she live in the complex?

  • Have you been to her apartment in the past?

  • And, ma'am, I'm going to show you a map, which is marked Grand Jury Exhibit Number 25. And can you see it from where you are sitting there if I put it here?

  • As a matter of fact I can. It is marked with a number,

  • Okay. So you see a number of a building that says

  • So just in general, do you recognize this to be the streets and the buildings that make up the Canfield Green Apartment Complex?

  • So when you drove into the complex that day, did you come in from the east side or did you come in from the west side? Do you remember what major street you were on?

  • West Florissant.

  • So if West Florissant is over here.

    (indicating)

  • You can't see it in this map?

  • So from West Florissant you turned onto Canfield Drive?

  • And did you begin to drive into the complex?

  • Okay. And here is a laser pointer.

  • So if you press that right there you can see, it will put a red dot on the map.

    So just with that red dot, show me the apartment where you were going to?

  • Right there. (indicating)

  • And so when you were in the vehicle, what kind of vehicle is it?

  • You can't remember the make?

  • No, I can't.

  • So your mom was driving and your dad was where in the car?

  • He's in the passenger seat.

  • In the front?

  • Where were you in the car?

  • I was right behind my mom.

  • And then what about your sister?

  • She was sitting next to me right behind the passenger seat, right behind my dad.

  • Okay. And then how about where was ?

  • was sitting behind me. Q

  • The seat that's in the , is that a seat or is it seats?

  • It is seats.

  • And are they right next to each other or is there a space between the two seats?

  • There is some space.

  • So there's nobody that sits in that middle part?

  • And so when you, and your mom was driving; is that right?

  • Do you recall what you were doing right before you heard or saw something that drew your attention?

  • Playing Candy Crush.

  • And were you playing on your phone or on a different device?

  • On my phone.

  • Do you recall what everybody else in the car was doing, your mom was driving, right?

  • Driving, I think the rest of us might have been on different devices just playing games, I don't know. I was playing Candy Crush.

  • Okay. So were you playing just on your phone or were you and your sister playing together?

  • Just on my phone.

  • And so as you came into the complex, was it, you recall this being a Saturday?

  • I couldn't tell you. I don't remember exactly which day it was.

  • Okay. Do you remember it being light outside?

  • Yes, it was daytime.

  • And sunny, not raining or anything?

  • Yeah, sunny.

  • When you came into the complex, where was your mom's vehicle when you first heard something?

  • Right here, about right here.

  • So you have the laser pointer on Canfield Drive, correct?

  • Which direction was your car going?

  • It was pointed this way. We turn right up on this lot.

  • So your vehicle was traveling, if I run my finger along here?