Hi K_Z
I was in court all day today. (Please help by correcting my spelling re the medical terminology as your so brilliant at it!) anyhoo, heres my feedback for you...
Ive looked at photos in the news link posted and the comments, and I have to say, in my laymens opinion, they give a poor representation of Cyril Wechts testimony.
I would summarize as follows - Mr Greer was very concise, in fact I was surprised how short his questioning was to be honest, around an hour and a half in total I recall. A considerable amount of time was spent on Dr. Wecht detailing his experience. I can see why. His experience was extraordinary, and impressive. His credentials were quite, well, astounding. Tens of thousands of autopsies in an incredible 60 plus year career. In summary he wrote the book on legal, forensic pathology. No, literally...he wrote it.
Dr. Wecht came across as super professional, with great integrity, and a man who appeared not to suffer fools gladly ( an understatement). He completed or assisted in over 500 autopsies last year alone. Although advanced in years, and sometimes perhaps a little long winded in his replies, he was razor sharp on topic, and obviously knew his subject inside and out ( if you pardon the pun)
Mr Greers questioning was concise, and focused on a few key areas, primarily the 4 SG hemorrhages between the skull and scalp, ( injuries that Dr W stated were IHO due to blunt force trauma, RZ being struck about the head ), also the very deep bruising found in the ribs cartledge ( DR W suggested that this could have been caused by the pressure of an assailants knee) on the right lower side / back, and finally the throat injuries - primarily the croicoid fracture ( being the area below your Adams apple) the damage being caused IHO by manual strangulation before the hanging.
At the end of mr Greers questioning, I felt it was very powerful testimony. This gentlemans experience was so impressive, he was so convincing, The final statement into testimony was from Dr W was that he was convinced by his experience, the autopsy, and his lengthy detailed research ...that RZ was manually strangled and there was a hanging to cover it up.
It was short, sharp, and shocking.
There was a ten minute break and I thought, wow, how on earth do you come back and follow that?
Well, the defense attorney began by focusing almost two hours of questioning on the fact that the copy of the autopsy report Dr W had sent to the defense in March 2017 had a typo on the date ( 2016 instead of 2017) The typo was by Mr Greers office, but next to the date the received stamp from Dr W s office with the correct date. Ok, if you were bored senseless by that sentence...imagine sitting through an hour plus explaining it.
Everyone was sort of looking at each other, bewildered, thinking...why? So what?
Moving on ...then to the fact that the title pages of 1 and 2 were missing from the documents of the second autopsy Dr W supplied. The doctor explained that it had been six years since he wrote the report, he had moved offices and they had destroyed 20,000 plus documents after the move of his offices, so this may explain why they could not locate the first two pages, and they also could not locate the photographs taken of the second autopsy.
Dr W explained everything he had was handed over and the body of the report had all his findings - anyhow, there was nothing to hide or be gained from withholding the two additional pages, he can answer any and all questions as the actual autopsy was fulling covered in the remaining 13 pages. He also explained he was not required to keep the documents, let alone for years and years. The defence went on to question where he looked, if he asked this person, that person, his secretary, his assistant...and on and on about who he asked and where he looked...
The defense spent literally hours and going over, and over, and over....and over, the fact there were two pages missing. Dr Wecht did get frustrated by the same question over and over again, and even the judge was getting frustrated.
The photo with Dr W with his head in his hands seen on the photo gallery was during this time I recall , it was literally like pulling teeth. I can only imagine what the jury was thinking.
IMO, overall Dr W left the defense attorney looking totally inadequate, and no one really knew what it was all about until Dr W finally had a bit of an outburst and said that there was no withholding of documents, or anything like it and it was personally defamatory and insulting for there to be any such suggestion.
Trying to discredit Cyril Wecht, wow, dont go there would be my advice. Its like trying to prove Mother Theresa didnt like the poor.
The defense then went on to ask Dr W if Mr Greer shared the DNA evidence with him. Dr W said no, as he was a forensic pathologist and his area of expertise was not DNA. However, the defense continued to spend what felt like another several hours showing every knot, and highlighting ( again) where RZs DNA was found...on every knot., on every photo. Same question....same reply...
Each time Dr W explained he is not a DNA expert and did not know about where the DNA was or was not found and Mr Greer did not share the information with him and he is not a DNA expert, he is a forensic pathologist.
Dr W was also asked if he felt he should have consulted the Sheriffs dept to discuss why they thought it was a suicide case, wouldnt that have been a good idea? ...and the reply from Dr W was that it would be totally unethical to do such a thing unless ordered by the court or as directed by Mr Greer, and he what would best be described as chastised the defense attorney for not understanding the proper process! I dont poke my nose in the investigations of others. It is ridiculous to suggest I should do so. This is real life, sir, what you suggest you may see in a television show, but not in the real world.... was a typical response.
At one point, the Defence attorney said words to the effect of Am I not correct in saying that if I were to walk into that courtroom door, I could well get a subgaleal scalp hemorrhage such as one Rebecca had?
To which Dr Wecht said Yes, and you would need to be stupid to walk into it once, but very stupid to walk into it another three, separate times...
Everyone giggled except the defence. A moment of levity in otherwise a very tense ( and sad) evidence day.
The only other significant medical evidence introduced by the defence in cross examination was an apparent rope burn to the lower left neck/ upper shoulder area of of the deep furrow on a photo shown in RZs throat.
The defence suggested this was caused by the rope starting lower on the throat and then slipping up the neck, causing the lower ( cricoid ) throat injury. Dr Weight said the mark was clearly a vertical injury, IHO it could not possibly have been the cause of the lower throat injury as the rope would need to be horizontal. He was firm, and (very persuasively) dismissive of the suggestion.
To close proceedings, it appeared to me ( my interpretation only) that a letter Dr Wecht had written to Ann Bremner regarding his thoughts on the case ( in 2011) had been disallowed into evidence due to an apparent, previous objection by the defense. At the very end of the day, Mr Greer attempted to have that brought into evidence to counter the defenses cross examination that Dr W had changed his opinion from his initial findings of undetermined to homicide. They objected strongly, but the judge said that as the defence had spent several hours discussing and referring to the document that accompanied the missing-pages, it was only fair Mr Greer could introduce it.
Then there were more objections as Mr Greer wanted Dr W to read it aloud for the jury. The judge sided with the defense. However, Mr Greer asked for it to go up on the big screen, got his pointer stick...and he read it out aloud himself! Saying is that your opinion Dr Wecht? At the end of each paragraph.
It stated very clearly ( in summary) that Dr W felt that in 2011 after the second autopsy, RZ had been manually strangled and the hanging was likely staged to cover this up, and the investigation should be reopened.
The hours and hours trying to discredit Dr W, and what I saw as an implication of his testimony being changed to garner publicity and for Dr Phil...went straight. down. the. pan.
There was a lot between, but thats the thrust of the day to the best of my recollection. Mr Greer in my opinion had a very, very successful day.
...And Dr Wecht is a very exceptional doctor.
Sorry this is long, hope it gives an insight into my opinion the day for you all.
EDITED to add
Re your question, the defence suggested it was unusual to have a second autopsy. Dr W said there was nothing unusual about it. It was less common, but not unusual. He countered what I saw as an insinuation he was in it for the publicity by reminding the defence that the family had requested the second autopsy and it was done at THEIR request and with their permission. How they chose to go about funding the retrieval and transport of their family members body, in this case by enlisting the help of Dr Phil, was not for him to comment or Judge. He did not charge anything for the second autopsy as he believed it would help the family and they wanted his opinion - as it was THEY who expressly gave permission and wanted it done via their attorney at that time.
