IIRC, the
certified forensic pathologists that testified at the Rule 37 hearings (Spitz, Baden and others), although disagreeing about
precisely what animals predated on the bodies, all agreed on two things - some sort of animal predation was involved and no knife, including the infamous Lake knife of grapefruit fame, was involved in the
murders. IOW, none of the serious wounds on the bodies were caused by the Lake knife or any knife, despite the prosecution's lame attempt (and grapefruit abuse) to prove otherwise.
Spitz
Looking at photo 48 E, I see remains that show mutilation of the gential area. The scrotal sac has been torn off. It is not cut off. Looking at photo 48 F, I see areas where the skin has been rubbed off. 48 G shows the same phenomenon, and you can see where there is a tearing off of the scrotum. You see three marks on the posterior, parallel marks. You can see where the skin is discolored, and drying. Had a lawyer come to me with these photos in the 1990s, I would have asked for distant and close up shots, and then I would have looked at the close ups, like 48 G, and I would have said that this is post mortem animal mutilation. If you look at the missing area of the scrotum, and of the gouge marks, and areas where the upper surface of the skin is missing, and looking at the linear scrapes and other marks on the extremities, large animals, dogs for example, do this kind of thing. The scrotum is loose. I can show you a picture like this from a publication. The scratches that you see are left by an animal like a dog. The scratches all go in the same direction.
More Spitz
Looking at the body of Michael Moore (Exhibit 48Q) I see a pattern on the right shoulder. The pattern is shown in other photographs including 48I. The pattern is all part of one event. It is inconsistent with a tool like a serrated knife. This seems to look like the paw of a large animal. There arealso scratches that look to me like animal mutilation. Photograph 48I also shows the left upper eyelid, the left nostril, and the ridge of the nose, all of which show injuries reminiscent of animal predation. They are not consistent with beatings with fists or sticks. The subject of animal predation was covered in the 1993 and 2006 editions of my book. What you have here is characteristic of animal predation.
Baden
In some of the photographs, you can see areas where the skin has been rubbed away from the left side, plus penetrating wounds that are very shallow that are consistent with animal activity, not wounds caused by a knife. Steve Branch had wounds to his face that showed small punctures and abrasions. A number of the wounds show no bleeding into the tissues which would be post-mortem predation or necrophagia. I have seen injuries like this in my own practice. I cannot be specific about what animal might have caused the injury, but my view is that the injuries I saw were consistent with animal activity. I did review the affidavits of Shawn Ryan Clark and Heather Hollis, who explained that they had been swimming in the ditch and had seen alligator snapping turtles in it. I would not purport to identify specific animals that might have inflicted the injuries. I would defer to forensic veterinarians. They could have been turtle injuries, there were scrape marks that might look like turtle claw marks, and there might have been dogs or other animals. Some of the injuries on the bodies are triangular and consistent with my experience with the sorts of triangular injuries caused by snapping turtles. In my view, the knife that was depicted as the murder weapon, which is shown in Exhibit 48N did not inflict any of the injuries that I observed. Also, the use of a grapefruit in closing argument to mimic the skin of a body was “awful”. The most common way to mimic human skin in a replication is the use of pig skin.
Souviron
There are a number of injuries that can be made by animals, and I have brought a number of exemplars along. This included exemplars of dog; shark; dog activity that looks like something else; knife wounds that are erroneously identified because the actual mechanism of injury was a dog.
I brought along an exemplar from my collection which I believe resembles the injuries to Chris Byers–you can see these pattern injuries from the paw marks. . . . I have looked at the record of this case, and have reviewed the testimony of officers at the scene in this case who described their walking through the water. Based on my review of the testimony, and of the map of the area, I would not have expected to see actual wildlife in the ditch where the bodies were found after Detective Ridge had walked in the ditch. The area seems to be to be where you might expect to find some degree of wild life there. I don’t know where the bodies were when they were set on by animals. In my opinion, there was a combination of animals involved. I would say turtles would have been likely, as would have a coon or a dog. Looking at the injury to the right shoulder of this young man, in autopsy 329, you see parallel lines consistent with claw marks. There was a question about whether this was done by the Rambo knife. I prepared an acetate tracing of the knife using a one to one measurement, and did the same with respect to the injury. When you place the acetate of the knife over the injury, you can see that it doesn’t fit. This is a common technique that we use in odontology to compare a known to an unknown. This is Exhibit 62. In answer to the Judge’s question, it may be possible that one of the cuts on the body in the area of the scrapes I was talking about could have been made by a knife, but the scratch marks were not, because you can’t get them to match up with the knife. I can’t tell you what kind of an animal exactly. I have read a book on the Amphibians and Reptiles of Arkansas. I also consulted a book called Arkansas Mammals. There are a lot of possible candidates for inflicting these injuries. My first choice would be a turtle or maybe a turtle and a crayfish. There are a number of animals in the books I reviewed that eat dead animals, and that might have been involved. I am aware of two affidavits covering the presence of wild dogs in the area. Looking again at photos of Mr. Moore, autopsy number 329, I am of the opinion that those are animals. I see some blunt force trauma, but other areas of animal activity. Mr. Branch had injuries to his face that look like dogs licked the area. I have seen injuries like that. I also see some injuries that were triangular, like they were made by a turtle. This is post-mortem mutilation. There is no way that a knife could have caused those injuries. You are showing me what was identified as a human bite mark by Dr. David, and I agree with other doctors who have testified that this is not a humanmbite mark. But I don’t understand Dr. Perretti’s identification of indications of bite marks on the cheek, and his lack of consideration of these as animal bite marks. The areas of what Dr. Perretti describes as gouge marks are animal activity. You can see irregular borders of the wounds. There are little half mooned shapes. These are classic bite marks. The wounds to the genital area are also post mortem animal bite marks. The de-gloving of the penis is characteristic of an animal bite mark. That would have been recognized in 1993. Today, you would have swabbed the area for DNA, and human saliva. The other thing to consider if you assume that these are knife wounds is that there would likely have been some injury to the bones. I don’t think that they looked at the bones. I used an acetate of the knife on these marks near the genital injury, and they could not have been made by this knife. I strongly disagree with Dr. Perretti’s testimony in the Misskelley case that ‘a knife’ or in Baldwin/Echols ‘a particular knife’ caused the injuries I am reviewing. I think that someone with the kind of training I have would have testified in 1993/4 as I am testifying now.
Ophoven
With respect to the injuries to Christopher Byers and photographs shown at trial that were described as a close-up of where the penis and scrotal sac and testes should be, in my opinion the response that agreed that this was an area of mutilation was wrong. This is not a close scientific question. This injury did not result from the use of a sharp tool. If you look at the area depicted, you can see that the tissue has been torn. It has not been removed through the use of a sharp object. You can also see little puncture wounds where there is no blood. You can see a number of punctate wounds. Looking at other exhibits that show the close-up of the area as it was shown during the course of the trial, the way the testimony at trial came out the area is described as showing indications of organs that have been carved out, and have cutting and gouging wounds. If you look, you see scalloped edges. This has been torn off. This is pretty basic pathology. You can see that there has been some pulling away of the tissue. It has been torn out. There is no blood in the tissue area and you can see that this is clearly post-mortem. The testimony at trial that there was no evidence of animal activity or insect bites is wrong. This is evidence of animal activity.
Dr. Ophoven, who is a pediatric forensic pathologist, also discussed (in great detail) the evidence (or really the
lack of evidence) of anal penetration, for those who are interested.
Also, Paid, the author of the Manhole Theory, is constantly revising his findings in light of any new information that comes to light. His latest revision is found
here. If you cannot access that site, I apologize or if the link was previously provide, I apologize for the duplication.
