Russell said she has “much experience” with dog-inflicted wounds and observed or treated “at least 500” dog bites during her time at the hospital in Los Angeles. She also said she’s published and edited publications on dog bite wounds. As far as car crashes, Russell said she’s treated hundreds, if not thousands, of patients injured in vehicle collisions.
She said she arrived at her opinion on O’Keefe’s injuries in part by relying on her training and experience, but also by reviewing case materials such as O’Keefe’s autopsy report and medical examiner Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello’s
prior testimony. Alessi asked Russell why she ruled out a motor vehicle collision as a potential cause for O’Keefe’s arm injuries.
Prosecutors are aiming to keep defense dog bite expert Dr. Marie Russell off the stand when Karen Read stands trial again next year.
www.boston.com
Yeah, I watched Russell’s testimony in full again on a big screen so I could see the pictures better.
Changing my opinions here with these edits.
Yes, Russell would be an expert for sure based on her background and experience- and having seen thousands and thousands of skin injuries.
I also saw the cross- where she was asked if she measured the dog’s mouth or took a mold. She said it wasn’t necessary. In cases I’ve seen where human bites are involved- they take a mold of the mouth and do measurements.
The attorney who did the cross was a horses rear.
Maybe a connection between the dog and the bites it would have been more convincing. In the cross they bring up a report that questions the validity of forensics bite evidence- she says the science is questionable when trying to identify the biter. So, when asked if she took a mold or such when she had access to the dog, she said she did but did not think it was necessary.
Russell explains it well, says the wounds are consistent with a large animal- large dog, as are the tears in the clothing. She chooses her words carefully- used the ME report and photographs. She doesn’t just say they are consistent- she says she is confident those injuries came from a large animal bites and scratches.
So then if JO was attacked by a dog we still do not know if it was the German Shepard Chloe.
We know Chloe was described as not friendly to strangers.
My guess is they can’t connect those injuries to the Albert’s dog. No dog DNA- on clothing or in the wounds? That is amazing to me- a puncture wound would push saliva way deep- dog DNA should be in the wounds and on clothing. But there is evidence the clothing was not stored correctly so maybe any evidence was compromised?
Evidence tampering can always come up with missing evidence- because of the taillight issue. So- we are at a logical impasse.
Hmm, so it seems it is likely he was attacked by an animal!
IMO
