Ellen Riemer — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)
495 linesJUDGE NEWMAN: You may call your next witness.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, the state calls Dr. Riemer.
The witness, ELLEN RIEMER, M.D., was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Take a seat on the witness stand. If you will, state your full name again, please, and spell your last name for the record.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. It's Dr. Ellen Riemer, R-i-e-m-e-r.
MR. WATERS: Just to advise, if everybody could seal the monitors please. If the media would be advised of that.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Dr. Riemer, I just want --
MR. WATERS: Just a moment.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: Dr. Riemer, I don't know if I'm necessarily even going to put them up on the screen. I am going to show you some images, and I know you have already seen these, and I don't want to belabor the point and I want to move quickly. But just very quickly, you've been previously qualified as an expert in this trial in Forensic Pathology. Is that correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And you've done how many autopsies? Remind the jury, please.
ELLEN RIEMER: Around 5,500. Since I was last here, I've done a few.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: You actually conducted the autopsies of Paul and Maggie in this case?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. I did both the autopsies at the request of the Colleton County Coroner, who called MUSC Forensic Pathology requesting autopsies on two individuals that died under his jurisdiction. I was not asked by the prosecution to perform an autopsy. It was an independent autopsy.
MR. WATERS: Your autopsy is independent. You're not hired by the prosecution or law enforcement or anything like that.
ELLEN RIEMER: No. It's just at the request of the coroner.
MR. WATERS: All right. You've had a chance to hear the testimony of the pathologist for the defense that testified yesterday?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. WATERS: All right. I want to ask you a couple of general questions, and then specifically to some of the conclusions that that individual reached. Just very quickly, with skin tags, can you tell me the reliability of that in determining directionality just as a general matter?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. Well, you know, we look at these things, but just like every other thing at -- you know, finding at the autopsy, we take it in the context. So, sometimes skin tags support your findings, and sometimes they're not really so reliable. So, you know, skin tags don't tell you necessarily the direction of a wound, especially going through very soft tissue.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you a couple of the exhibits that have been previously introduced in this particular case. I'll be very careful with these. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibits -- Defense Exhibits 159, 160, and 161. And if you could take those out and just tell me if you recognize those, and then please be mindful of the direction in which each individual is presented.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes, I've seen these.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what are those images of?
ELLEN RIEMER: They're autopsy photographs of Maggie.
MR. WATERS: All right. You heard the testimony of the defense pathologist who testified yesterday that the directionality of the injury to the side of Maggie's head with the associated injury to the breast and the abrasion actually was coming from the top down as opposed to -- when I say top down, as if somebody standing upright as opposed from going towards the bottom of the body up, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes, that's right.
MR. WATERS: All right, and can you please look at the images that you have and explain to the jury your conclusions, and why that defense pathologist is incorrect -- who didn't conduct the autopsy to begin with -- why he is incorrect?
ELLEN RIEMER: Okay. Well, do you want me to show the photos?
MR. WATERS: You can. And let's just go ahead and put them up on the screen. If you could step down, please.
MR. WATERS: If that's okay with, Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: First I'm going to show Defendant's Exhibit 160.
MR. WATERS: Are we secure? Are we good?
MR. WATERS: And that's Defense 160. And, Dr. Riemer, if you could, again, explain to me your specific findings and how they relate to the testimony from yesterday.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. So, we have the abrasion on the shoulder clavicle area. And then we have an entrance defect in this left side of the face. And you can see a hole, it's a hole, and it's a defect in the left temporal lobe, which is included in my autopsy report. That could only have happened from that being an entrance wound.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and you mentioned during your testimony the concept of a diastatic fracture. Does that in any way relate to your conclusion in this regard?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. The diastatic fracture is when there's a separation of skull bones along suture lines, which form during -- which solidify during childbirth. And usually it takes a lot of intracranial pressure to fracture the skull along the suture lines.
MR. WATERS: All right, and does that relate to the conclusion that this had to be an entry wound?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. Well, that's a finding. That doesn't prove that this is an entrance wound, but what I do, I have a path through the left temporal lobe, and there's a -- you know that -- and that is the -- that was associated with the diastatic fracture because of the increased pressure wound.
MR. WATERS: All right, and one of things you're telling this jury is you, who actually --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection. Leading.
MR. WATERS: Were you actually able to observe a hole associated with an entry wound when you physically performed this autopsy?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. I physically performed the autopsy. And the way I determine direction is I have a hole below the left ear, which went into the brain, and so that's not going to happen in the opposite direction. And I understand that people can look at pictures. Does not -- that's like a two dimensional view, but doing the autopsy makes certain information available to the pathologist that is not available to an individual not performing the autopsy. And I have that information in my report, which was not, you know, not -- which was, I guess, overlooked or something.
MR. WATERS: Overlooked by the defense pathologist.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes, I'm sure.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you now Defense Exhibit 161. And there was some testimony from the defense pathologist about trying to determine directionality from this particular image. And can you please tell the jury why that pathologist is wrong?
ELLEN RIEMER: All right. Well, you know, when we have tears of the skin -- and this is a lot of tears of the subcutaneous tissue, especially in a very soft area of the body where there's a lot of fat, there's a lot of stretching, and it doesn't necessarily -- we can move the tissue of the breast and sort of -- you can either get the points to go in two different directions. This is not very impressive. It's not even really worth observing any of the -- any of the skin tags. It's really very nonspecific. And I think he has a very good imagination for -- for seeing that in this. And it's -- you know, skin tags can be there. Sometimes they support your findings, sometimes they don't support it, but they don't take the place of determining the path of the wound by actually following it through the body.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you finally what's been marked as Defense's 159. And is this also a representation, sort of a hole that you determined and were able to physically observe as an entrance wound on the side of Maggie's head?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's talk a little bit about Paul. And you heard the defense pathologist and their subsequent expert talk about there being a contact wound to the top of Paul's head. Is that correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: That's what he said.
MR. WATERS: All right, and you, of course, have already testified during your direct testimony that there's no way for this to be a contact wound, but now you have specific observations about the defense's conclusions.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. Well, you know, I didn't think it was necessary for me to point out every feature, physical feature of the wound that demonstrates that the entrance was to the top of the left shoulder and then went into the left side of the head before exiting the top of the head. Now, before I go on, I do want to say that I agree with the book that keeps being brought up: that when there is a contact shotgun wound to the head, there is massive gas expansion within the cranial cavity, within the skull. And what that does, it doesn't just create a hole with some, you know, bones. This was -- I understand this was, like, the most severe thing you have ever seen, and you probably can imagine that the damage to the head couldn't be any worse, but a contact shotgun wound to the head with the associated gas expansion to the skull would not have, you know -- his face was basically intact.
We would have had tears of the skin, and his eyes would have been either displaced from the orbital bones -- the orbital bones were intact. Any time there's massive gas build up within the cranial cavity from a contact shotgun wound to the head, which the book does say, is when we have the worst gas expansion. The entire face -- he would have not even had a face left. I mean, it sounds like -- I know what you saw was awful, and it was absolutely awful, but the damage would have been a lot worse. He would have had -- like the sides of his head would have gotten -- he would had -- you know, his entire face would have been split open. Because there's no way all of that gas expansion could occur and not cause fractures of these delicate bones in the face. His forehead was even still there. So, you know, it is -- I agree with the book, that a contact shotgun wound would cause severe gas expansion and damage to the head. What we have here is not consistent with a contact shotgun wound to the head. The damage to the head would have been much worse, even though this was already horrible. Okay. That being said, there are photographs here.
MR. WATERS: Yeah, and I'm going to show you what's already been admitted into evidence as State's 486. And if you could, Doctor, just talk a little bit about this image as it illustrates what you're talking about with the face, but also, if you could talk -- go ahead and talk about with the face, and then I want to talk about shoulder a little as well.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. There's, like, no skin torn apart in his face. His eyes are still in the correct locations. You know, it's hard to imagine that, you know, anything can be worse than a hole at the top right side of the back of the head. But in my twenty-plus years of experience doing autopsies and seeing contact gunshot -- contact shotgun wounds to the head, which are associated with massive gas expansion in the skull, this entire face, he would have had tears, you know. Eyes would have been either hanging down or lost or blown out. There's no way that this -- these features are consistent with a contact shotgun wound to the head.
MR. WATERS: All right. Now, there's been some -- there was some discussion by the defense pathologist about shaving the top of the head for stippling or checking for stippling, and can you comment on the necessity of that in your actual autopsy that you conducted for the jury?
ELLEN RIEMER: Okay. So, you know, he also said that sometimes we actually don't see the soot at all, and if Dr. Riemer had shaved there, she would have had the opportunity to see this. So, suppose I didn't see soot or I did see soot. First of all, I'm confident there would not have been soot because this -- the features of this wound are not consistent with a shotgun wound to that location. First of all, the damage to the head and the face would have been far more severe than it was. And then also the wounds to the shoulder and left side of cheek have all the features of entrance wounds.
MR. WATERS: All right, and one of the things discussed by the defense experts was sort of the large sort of oblong shape of the shoulder. Can you explain how that does not contradict your findings of that shot coming this way that we see this injury here? And I'm going to actually put up Defense Exhibit 162 to illustrate what we're talking about.
ELLEN RIEMER: All right. Well, you know -- so, we've got basically an oblong wound here, and that's because the wound is entering at an angle along the top of the shoulder. It's not hitting the shoulder at a perpendicular angle. So, we -- it kind of is grazing along the top of the shoulder. Okay. Now, is this -- okay, and so actually, you know, he did say -- he said that the pellets are going down. Okay. Well, if you look at it as an entrance wound, they're actually going up, so it depends where you're looking at it from. If he's thinking that this is an exit wound, that this is -- you know, we're at the end of the wound path, then it would look to him as if the pellets are going down. But we can see this is actually an entrance wound for a few reasons. First of all, if it were an exit wound, do you remember all of those pellet exhibit wounds on Paul's left arm that came from the chest? The pellets are not just going to stop in the shoulder. There's, like, no resistence there.
The pellets are going to continue going until they exit the left side of the arm. Okay. So, they don't just stop there. The reason they're here is that's because they started there. Okay? In addition, you see all of this white material here on the edge of the entrance wound? That's styrofoam packing material that's between the pallets, you know. So, the pellets are contained within wadding, and there's styrofoam packing material between, and that would never have been deposited there. So, I did not think it was -- when I was telling you the direction, my determination of the direction of this wound, I did not have to necessarily -- it was my, you know, my expert -- I'm an expert at determining -- forensic pathology includes establishing the direction of the wounds. And because of all of these things, this was my determination. Okay, and now, there's another feature of this photograph.
Do you see that this -- this coming into the left side of the -- this is what I determined, left side of the cheek, and we've got all sorts of abrasions around here. Now, it doesn't have the classic -- you know, what we saw on Paul's chest had that -- those little petals, so we knew that the wadding was starting to open up. But in this case, there was wadding that was probably open as well, so we have some pellets already starting to come out. You know, they're not -- it's not entering within the wadding, but the wadding was going along and entering there. We don't have all of this abrasion around the left side of the cheek -- the chin/neck area, and that's consistent with -- we don't -- we're not going to have that abrasion if it's coming out. It's going to push the skin out. We're not going to have an abrasion, so, you know, all that we have -- and, you know -- but even common sense, we have that styrofoam packing material on the outside of the arm.
In my determination, this went up, through the left cheek, out the right side of the top of the head. If it were a shotgun entrance wound contact to the head, I don't care whether -- there's no -- there's no way his entire facial bones and skin -- his ears would have been flopped down. There's so much gas expansion that the damage to his head would have been much worse. So, that's based on my experience for doing this. And, you know, I just don't know how -- I didn't mention that styrofoam packing, but that's from when the pellets are coming in. And he said, oh, you can see they're going down. That's because he's looking from above, so he -- but if you look at where I believe and I determined by doing this autopsy that entrance wound is, it's actually going up. So, it depends which side of the pellets you're looking at. And just logically, if this was an exit, the pellets wouldn't have just stopped there. They have a huge amount of energy. They're going to continue through the arm and have individual pellets. They wouldn't have all just been concentrated like that. So, you know, we can use our powers of logic, which I think, you know, we all have to understand how this is an entrance wound that exited the right side of the top of the head.
MR. WATERS: Dr. Riemer, having specifically -- and you can take a seat now. Thank you very much. Having specifically addressed the specific criticisms of the defense pathologist, in your expert opinion, having actually done the autopsies in this case, is there any way that could have been a contact wound to the top of the head?
ELLEN RIEMER: No.
MR. WATERS: All right, and having addressed the specific concerns of the -- and testimony of the defense pathologist as it relates to Maggie, is your conclusion still that the shot went in the direction as you described before this jury?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. I disagree with his conclusions.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Thank you very much, Dr. Riemer. Please answer any questions that the defense counsel may have.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Dr. Riemer, good to see you again.
ELLEN RIEMER: Hello.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you took pictures, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: I took pictures. I wish I took more pictures now, but I took pictures.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry, what --
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. I would -- wish I took more, even more pictures.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So do we. So, you made notes which you converted into an autopsy, of course.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. It's a standard operating procedure.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah, yeah, I know. And so -- and that's done so that somebody else can look at your work and see if they agree or disagree with you because --
ELLEN RIEMER: No. The notes are, are work product for me while I'm preparing, doing my examination. I don't always -- I take notes, I write numbers, but that is really for me so I can incorporate findings into to an autopsy report that I'm going to write. And I don't write it the same while I'm at the table. I need to go in -- maybe I'm going to do it the next day, that night. So, you know -- but it's not done -- you know, people say, oh, can I have the copy of the autopsy diagram? Well, these are not autopsy diagrams that are meant for other people to look at, and sometimes they're not even completely accurate because I mark things on the outside of the body that later on during the course of the autopsy I determine -- I'm, like, oh. Well, that's what that is. And it may not be what I initially wrote down. But by the time the autopsy is over, I put it all together. And that -- a diagram or notes do not necessarily reflect everything, you know, that I concluded.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you still have your notes in this case?
ELLEN RIEMER: They -- I imagine they would be in the file, but as I told you, this is -- this is -- my notes are not necessarily the conclusion that I came to.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you produce them to the State?
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't know what I did. I did -- personally -- yeah. If they were asked for, I'm sure I did.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you produce them to us?
ELLEN RIEMER: No. I don't think -- I don't remember producing them at all. I don't have a request for those notes in my file.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But those notes would be your present sense impression as you're doing the autopsy, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, they can have a lot of things written down on them.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But we don't know because we didn't get them, right?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, they're not important. What's important is they're my notes. They're for me. They're an aid to the pathologist to -- so if -- even if I thought something initially, and then I -- after I -- while I do the autopsy, by the time I get to the end I could disagree. I don't necessarily go back and change the diagram. I'm not -- it's my work product. It's for me, to aid me in writing my autopsy report. It's not for public view. It's not a -- it's not a statement of my conclusions.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Did you review those notes before your testimony previously or today?
ELLEN RIEMER: No.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, you just go with your report.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I reviewed my report, correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, but you don't go back and look at your notes.
ELLEN RIEMER: No.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, let me ask you some basic questions here. You previously testified that the muzzle of the shotgun for this wound here that goes through his neck and out the top of his head was about 3 feet away.
ELLEN RIEMER: That would be about right.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now, you're familiar with this page from -- I believe you described it --
ELLEN RIEMER: Oh, yes, I've seen it many times.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and as you, see the gas comes out, right, in the first shot.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And then actually there's sort of a blowback of gas as the -- we can see right here, the projectile, which is the pellets are extruding from the barrel, right? I mean, the gas pushes the pellets out.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, there's gas expansion and that helps propel the pellets, yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
ELLEN RIEMER: I agree with the book. This was not a contact shotgun wound to the top of the head.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Well, the book doesn't say that. But what the book does say is that as the pellets come out, at some point they begin to -- the container opens and the pellets expand, or move out in a pattern, a circular pattern, that becomes bigger as the -- the further away you get, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes, and that's what we have here. But this is actually demonstrating specifically a contact shotgun wound to head. But we do have splaying outward of the pellets. We can see on the left shoulder they're fairly clustered together because they're first starting to be released from the wadding, and they did spread out. We have some of them down in the neck, some of them in the brain, and so they are spreading out. I don't see how, you know, you're -- yes, it's a respected treatise, but this is specific to a contact shotgun wound to head. This is what this is describing.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Really?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, it's -- you know, it doesn't matter. I can look at my photos. I can look -- if you're going to talk about theory, the photos --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Doctor --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I would ask you --
MR. WATERS: I would ask him to allow her to complete her answer --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I would ask you to tell the witness to be responsive. She is going on a diatribe --
MR. WATERS: I object.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Excuse me, I'm asking the Court to instruct her to answer the question as specifically as she can. She goes off on tangents and --
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I object --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Harpootlian. You may continue answering the question.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you remember what the question was?
ELLEN RIEMER: No. That's your question.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Is this series of shots from the book depicting a contact wound? I think that's what -- understand --
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yes. Okay. So where -- if you'd step down here, show me, please, where the contact is with the body or the head. Here, let me give you this pointer.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, the contact would be at the first area.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right here?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, what's it contacting?
ELLEN RIEMER: It's not -- it's just a theoretical depiction. It's a theoretical --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Is that what the book says?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I don't recall the exact -- why don't you read it to me.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, why don't you tell me. Is that a contact wound?
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't know what is. This?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's a shotgun.
ELLEN RIEMER: That's a shotgun.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's a shotgun being fired. Those are the pellets coming out.
MR. WATERS: Object, Counsel is testifying.
ELLEN RIEMER: I think, you know, this is -- this is a book, you know, showing, showing the series of steps after a shotgun is fired.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: If this --
ELLEN RIEMER: But it has nothing to do with what I found in the body, and does not help me determine the direction of the wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: All right. So --
ELLEN RIEMER: And I'm not going to describe to you -- you can read it in the book. I don't remember what -- how he says all of this.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The book isn't testifying. You are. You've testified that depicts a contact wound, yes?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I don't, you know, I don't know what this is depicting. It could be that this is a contact wound. I don't know where you're going with this.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, here's where I'm going. Is that barrel in contact with anything?
ELLEN RIEMER: It's not in contact with anything. It looks like it's just blowing into the air.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and you had --
MR. WATERS: Let me stand on the other side, please.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's fine.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And your testimony is that barrel is at least 3 feet away from Paul's shoulder. Is that correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: It could be. You know, depending on the weapon it could be. It's not closer than 2 feet because we don't have the stippling, but we do have packing material.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So as we see here, these pellets are beginning to separate. Is it your testimony that those pellets have separated when they hit Paul's shoulder at all?
ELLEN RIEMER: There is -- they are starting to separate. We don't have the complete, you know, widening of it. They're still relatively clustered together, but they're not as close as they would be if they were still contained within the wadding.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now at 2 feet, is there any gas left, or is it all dissipated like this picture shows?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, you know, what we have here, if there was more gas, if it was a contact wound to here --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: It's not a contact --
ELLEN RIEMER: I understand.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor --
ELLEN RIEMER: The gas -- you know, you're wanting me to say yes or no --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yes or no.
ELLEN RIEMER: -- and I can't because I have the knowledge to explain how this relates to examining the body. I don't give theoretical talks or -- you know, I don't start looking up in this book while I'm doing an autopsy. I use my practical reasoning and my experience and knowledge of that.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: If, if there had been gas in the wound when it hit his shoulder or his neck, would you expect to find some physical manifestation of that?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, there would have been, you know, a lot more expansion, shoulder expansion. This was fairly contained on the left side.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you would -- your testimony is it would have been little or no gas going through his shoulder to his neck.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, there was always some gas, but it's not the kind of gas that we get in contact shots.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Exactly. So -- and let me -- you can go ahead and take the stand again, please.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry, it's going to take a minute to get -- no, not that one. Paul.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll have you go to the jury room for a break. Please do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Doctor, you may step down. Please do not discuss your testimony with anyone. We'll take about 10 minutes.
(A break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. You may continue.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry. I've got it right here.
CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Doctor, I would ask you to look at this photo and tell me if this is one of the photos from your autopsy.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. That's all I need. Thank you.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I would offer this Defense Exhibit Number 195 into evidence, please.
MR. WATERS: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 195 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, could we put that up on the screen, please? And before I lose it, let me hand this to you. Thank you.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, what are we looking at here?
ELLEN RIEMER: Do you want me to come -- oh, here it is.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No. Just tell me what it is.
ELLEN RIEMER: So, this is an entrance shotgun wound to the left shoulder area.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and you a moment ago said something about packing material. What is packing material?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. So, there is foam that is frequently within -- between pellets --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry. Just a moment.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I can't hear her because of the noise coming through the door. I apologize, but I just need to understand what she's saying. I apologize. May I begin?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The packing material, let's start over again. Tell me again.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. So, it's frequently present in the wadding along with the pellets that sort of help keep them together.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So the wadding -- you've got the powder, wadding, shotgun pellets, and are these -- is it in the pellets or is it closer behind it in the wadding?
ELLEN RIEMER: It's within the wadding.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and you indicated you saw some packing material.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, that is very consistent with, you know, with a little bit of packing material that would -- as we have pellets going into the shoulder, and some of the packing materials are depositing on the skin.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And is this a picture of the packing material?
ELLEN RIEMER: There is -- there is some of the white material, yes, on the skin, correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you note that in your autopsy report?
ELLEN RIEMER: No, it's just a general observation.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Is it important it was there?
ELLEN RIEMER: It didn't matter to me whether it's there or not, but it does reinforce that it is an entrance wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But you concede it was not in your autopsy report.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, all of the totality of my findings I -- I don't always write every little thing in my autopsy report. I can go on, you know -- it could be 50 pages, an autopsy report. I include the findings, my determinations, and I could have mentioned it, but I did not.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And why not?
ELLEN RIEMER: Because it's not always necessary to mention that kind of thing.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Is it evidence of anything?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I do believe that that supports an entrance wound, although it's -- I don't -- I'm not -- I don't require myself to see it in order to make that determination.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But you agree with me it supports your conclusion, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you didn't put it in your autopsy report.
ELLEN RIEMER: That's correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Would it be in your notes?
ELLEN RIEMER: No.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So -- and could you step down here and show me what the packing material looks like? And there's a pointer over there behind you. You probably want to stand over here so the jurors over there can see it.
ELLEN RIEMER: This is what I believe to be consistent with a packing material.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And did you remove any of that to be analyzed or forensically examined?
ELLEN RIEMER: No, I did not.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and while we're looking at this picture, you can see -- actually see some shot in there, right?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And that shot is -- is that -- I mean, that's pretty -- that area right there is much wider than this entrance wound in his cheek, is it not?
ELLEN RIEMER: The -- yes. This entrance wound is larger than this entrance wound here. And I believe I actually went over this last time. Frequently there is an enlargement of the wound as it goes along, but in this case we have a wound going along the top of the shoulder, so it's going to be oblong. As it enters the left neck area, it's entering more at a right angle perpendicular to the jaw, so it's going to appear smaller, and that has nothing to do with spreading of pellets.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Well, let's ask -- we'll pursue that a little bit more. You see that pellet that's clear, it's there --
ELLEN RIEMER: This pellet?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, and then you see a pellet above it. Do you see that right --
ELLEN RIEMER: Where?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right -- let me put my glasses on. Is that a pellet?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. It may be a pellet, yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, we have -- if you would step back just a little bit so this juror can see? We have pellets coming in like this, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, you know, they're all -- they're kind of banging against each other. We have -- the wound track is from left to right, and we do have pellets that are in there. They didn't continue -- they stopped in there, so they're not all continuing through.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. How many pellets were captured in his shoulder?
ELLEN RIEMER: I captured -- I don't know how many I captured. I collected a sampling of the pellets that were along the wound path.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But you took x-rays.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. But, you know, that doesn't -- that's not necessarily the total amount because some of them, you know, exited. Some were in the brain. So, the x-rays were taken without the brain and the head where the brain is.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, but you did -- they did send you the brain.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you take x-rays of the brain?
ELLEN RIEMER: No.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Why not?
ELLEN RIEMER: I didn't take x-rays of the brain --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And the reason is --
ELLEN RIEMER: -- because I determined that that wasn't necessary for me at the time.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: To support your conclusion.
ELLEN RIEMER: I didn't take x-rays of the brain. I guess hindsight is always 20/20. I could have taken x-rays of the brain. I could have taken more photos. I could have taken a photo of the brain at the autopsy. I did not. And I would have liked to, but, you know -- I can tell from the examination of the body that I had an entrance wound on the left shoulder and it's exiting at the top of the head. It's not a contact wound to the top of the head. That's my determination.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, but the reason you didn't take x-rays of the brain was you'd already reached your conclusion, correct? That you didn't need it because this was an entrance wound.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I did not because I felt comfortable with my determination.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And decided, therefore, not to take x-rays of the brain.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I don't always take x-rays of every organ. I was comfortable I would be able to recover some elements of the brain, and it wasn't necessary to show the spread.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: How many cases have you been involved in where the brain literally exploded out of the head, I mean, that weren't suicides?
ELLEN RIEMER: Where the brain exploded out of the head?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, as the book describes it.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I think that the determination that an entrance wound to the top of the head contact range, all of that gas expansion would not have -- the brain would not have escaped that. It would have -- there would have been a defect cavity, or fragmentation of the brain, which was not there. You can see the brain actually --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you remember what my original question was?
ELLEN RIEMER: What was your question?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. My question was how many cases have you done an autopsy of a contact wound to the top of the head which wasn't a suicide?
ELLEN RIEMER: Very, very few.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Less than one?
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't remember exactly, but it's not a -- usually contact shotgun wounds -- usually contact shotgun wounds are suicides.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And typically it's on the mouth.
ELLEN RIEMER: They can be under the chin --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Under the chin.
ELLEN RIEMER: -- in the mouth. Sometimes they're to the side of the head. There are people that do shoot themselves on to the top of the head as well. And I can't recall exactly if I, you know, if I remember any of this.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: On all of those cases, did the brain explode out of the cranium?
ELLEN RIEMER: No.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you would agree me that, that, that the way that a -- well, strike that. Let's go a little bit further with where we're going here.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Could you put up the x-ray of the shoulder, please? You can go ahead and take your seat and testify from up there.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Can you tell us what this is?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes, they are -- they are pellets. And I have his shoulder, you know, kind of out when I take the wound. We have some pellets remaining in the shoulder area. We have some disruption of the shoulder tissue here, some of the bone, and then we have some -- we actually have this less -- we have more spread. They're more spread out as they're going closer to the neck.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, there are pellets in the top of the arm, in the shoulder? Where is this, right up in here?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and then there's additional pellets it looks like down below that like near his ribs, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: That's because it's starting to spread, yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And it's starting to spread to get to this place right here that --
ELLEN RIEMER: What place?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Is this where the -- I mean, is this --
ELLEN RIEMER: Now it's in the neck.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: It's in the neck. Okay.
ELLEN RIEMER: And I indicated that I recovered -- it's going -- it's over here. Then some of it is actually in the trachea as well. So, that's the windpipe of the neck. So, we have some in the neck. This is the chest area. It did not go into the chest.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Let me see another x-ray, please. What was that exhibit? I'm sorry. I didn't announce it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 112.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: 112. Okay. Let me see the next x-ray.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and where is that?
ELLEN RIEMER: That is the top of the left shoulder and the left arm.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Can you see a number of pellets there?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That would be right in this area right here?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Next. I think there's one more x-ray.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and are there any pellets here, or are those the same pellets that's down there at the bottom --
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah, but we have -- you can see -- there are pellets here. You can see them in the head. There's some pellets in the head. The brain is not within the cranial cavity, but we do see some of the pellets ended up over here on the right side. See R for right. There's the hole at the top of the head, and some of the pellets are -- they're spread out on the right side of the head.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: How many?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I can see there's three here --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Three?
ELLEN RIEMER: -- on the right side of the head, yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So if I took -- well, how many pellets are there in a shot -- 12 gauge shotgun shell? And these are used primarily for duck hunting?
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't know; I don't know the answer to that. I am an expert at examining human bodies and determining the injuries that occurred, and, you know, I don't know how many pellets would be. When I took my boards, I may have had to actually know that, but I don't know -- this is not -- I don't use this information in order -- you can ask your ballistics expert.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, we did, and I think they said something like --
MR. WATERS: Objection, Your Honor.
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't really know the answer to that. I'm not going to disagree with the ballistics expert. I do have a trajectory at an exit wound on the right side of the back of the head.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: How many pellets were in the body?
ELLEN RIEMER: I did not count them. I just create -- collect a representative sample of it. I just -- I don't collect all of them, and I don't count all of them.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And we know you don't know how many were in the brain because you didn't x-ray the brain, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: That's correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But if there were 70 pellets or 75 pellets in his shoulder, his chest, and his neck, and hypothetically there were anywhere between 135 and 160 pellets in the normal duck shot, I mean, there's 40 pellets that travel on, for the sake of argument, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I don't really --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I mean, use my math.
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't feel comfortable answering these questions because it's not -- the specific ballistics are not my area of expertise.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm not going to ask you about ballistics.
ELLEN RIEMER: I'm really not comfortable answering them. I examine human bodies and come to my determinations based on the wounds. And I can see I was correct, that this is a shotgun wound to the left shoulder that's going up to the right side of the head. And questions about numbers of -- I really don't want to just -- I can't answer that because, you know, I don't know everything. I'm an expert. I'm a physician. I'm an expert at examining human deceased individuals determining cause and manner of death.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Let's go back to the original question, and I assume --
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't know the answer to the shotgun -- how many pellets there would be.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: We're not asking you how many pellets. But if there's 75 pellets, let's do some math here. This is simple math.
ELLEN RIEMER: Okay. I can do math.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. 75 pellets we can count in the body, chest, the neck. And there's anywhere from 135 to 165 pellets in the normal duck shot, 12 gauge shot.
ELLEN RIEMER: Right. So 75 plus 60, that would be 135. And then what did you say, 70 or 80?
ELLEN RIEMER: Okay. 75. So we started with 75, plus 75 is 150. So that's your answer if your question is -- you're asking me to do the math?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, if -- my question is this. After those pellets have gone through the shoulder and hit bone apparently, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And then they go through the neck, do they hit more bone there?
ELLEN RIEMER: There was an -- there wasn't -- there was some damage to the cartridge of the trachea. It was in the tracheal wall and some muscle. You know, there's not a lot of, like, bone in the neck. The only bone really in the neck --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
ELLEN RIEMER: -- is the spinal column.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, I guess what I'm saying, when you were talking about Maggie a moment ago and you talked about a shot that I think grazed her skull, you said there was a lot of inner cranial pressure. Is that right? That created a lot of inner cranial pressure?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So I'm trying to figure out, and maybe you can help me. Your testimony is there was enough from the less than half the load that goes through to -- I mean, was it one place it hit? Was it -- it had to go through the brain still?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. Well, you know, I didn't say that less than half of the load went through. Some of it may have actually exited the top of the head, I don't know, but it went into the brain. I did not x-ray the brain, and so I don't know exactly how many, but we can tell that this is the direction.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Was the brain macerated?
ELLEN RIEMER: No, it was largely intact. There was some maceration at the base of the brain where it was torn from the brainstem. Okay. The brain went up and -- torn from the brainstem, but it was pretty much surprisingly intact, you know, from a shotgun wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Have you looked at the crime scene photos?
ELLEN RIEMER: I really didn't look at the crime scene photos with any kind of, you know, attention.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So -- but you are aware that the brain was catapulted out of his head, probably hit the ceiling, and then landed outside?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I could tell from examining the body that the brain catapulted out of the head because I -- we see the brain and a hole consistent with the brain leaving it.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Can you and I agree, and based on your testimony when you previously testified, that there would not be -- that the gas from 2 or 3 feet away would not travel through the arm, travel through the neck, and then go into the brain?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, there's a lot of material that's going through. And plus we have got fragments of the brain, the skull of the base of the brain that can also -- there's a lot of energy going in that direction. Whether it's gas or not, it is energy from portions of, you know, ammunition propelling in that direction. So, you know, whether you want to call it gas or whether it's other things, I really don't know the theoretical explanation. I'm sure it's in the book.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: It is.
ELLEN RIEMER: But I examine the bodies, and I make the determination on direction and the type of injury from examining the human body.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The book seems to indicate that the primary cause for an explosion such as this, the brain exploding out, is the gas. You would agree?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, you know, I think each case is a little bit different. And the kind of gas that would cause the head to explode would also -- I mean, there are -- I don't -- I think the book is talking about gas -- gas in a contact shotgun wound. So, what is your question about the book? I would actually have to refresh my recollection because I don't really read the -- I haven't read the book in a long time, but I know what I've seen on the body.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: If I quote this to you -- and I can show it to you: The gas entering the closed chamber of the head expands rapidly, adding to the pressure waves acting on the bony framework of the skull. The only way for the skull to relieve the pressure produced is to shatter.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you agree with that?
ELLEN RIEMER: That actually must be describing a contact shotgun wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: It is.
ELLEN RIEMER: Okay, because that really makes sense for a contact shotgun wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And your reasoning for this -- the same phenomenon to happen without the gas is --
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, we've got injury coming from beneath. The skull is, like I told the jury, that is not shattered. We do have some horrible injury, but the shattering of the skull, much of it is still up intact. We don't have shattering of every bone. We don't have shattering of the face. So --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Why didn't you shave the head?
ELLEN RIEMER: Why didn't I shave the head?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right. Were you looking for any -- if much of the skull was still there --
ELLEN RIEMER: I -- look, my determination -- I didn't shave the head because I was confident that that was an exit wound on the right side of the top of the head. It wasn't necessary for me to shave an exit wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So -- but if you would have shaved the head, and again, apparently you had already come to your opinion by this point, you could have seen whether it was soot or stippling or any distortion around, or taken samples of the hair to determine whether or not there was any sort of GSR in it, which would be more consistent with a contact wound --
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, no. GSR can just be in -- we know gunshot residue can deposit in -- you know, I'm not like -- ballistics is not necessarily my strongest suit, but I know that GSR can deposit, you know, within a few feet of somebody. It doesn't have to indicate a contact wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, did the shot penetrate the jaw bone?
ELLEN RIEMER: It went through the -- through that area. I believe it may have went underneath the bone.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, it did not connect to the bone, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Are any of the pellets that you see in the shoulder the left shoulder, heading down instead of up?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, you know, there is probably kind a billiard ball effect when these things are going through, and there could be some, you know, directionality that's -- but I didn't make that determination because it wasn't important to me to --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: To see which way the pellets were going?
ELLEN RIEMER: -- make that determination. I -- what?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: To determine which way some of the pellets were heading?
ELLEN RIEMER: I can tell from the entirety of my finding at the autopsy. I did not have -- the thing is, if you look at something like, you know, a post card photograph, that doesn't necessarily tell you the whole story. I did my autopsy. I viewed all of the wounds. I, I was confident in the direction of this wound path. And I'm not trying to a say, oh, well, which direction are the pellets going? I can see that there's -- the entrance wound was to the top of the left shoulder, went through the left -- the left side of the neck, and out the top of the head.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And how many pellets made it through the brain to the skull to fracture the skull? How many pellets?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, there were some pellets in the brain. I don't know how many.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Because you didn't x-ray it.
ELLEN RIEMER: Correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, since you don't count the number of pellets, tell the jury, please, how you know how many pellets hit the skull and fractured it, and allowed this eruption to occur.
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't know how many pellets. I never said that I did.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No, no, I didn't said you say it. I just want to know if you know.
ELLEN RIEMER: I don't know the answer to that.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And it's not important to you.
ELLEN RIEMER: It really doesn't matter. It's really very theoretical. I examined the bodies, and I made my determination based on examination of the body.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Is it true that an autopsy report should be able to be read by an independent pathologist to come to a conclusion?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have it when you're ready, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Are you ready? How about put that up for us, please.
JUDGE NEWMAN: So, these -- this noises --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry, sir?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Some strange noises. Who's talking? You're questioning the witness. Proceed.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm asking Doug to put up Exhibit Number --
JUDGE NEWMAN: I didn't hear you talking. I heard -- you were questioning the witness, and then a strange voice comes from --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Oh, I apologize. What's the exhibit number?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: State's 487.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, how about step down here, please? And get the pointer for me, please. And stand over there, please so, the jury can see. So, you indicated there were -- I asked you if you shaved the head. You said no. You said there wasn't -- I think your words were there was enough of the skull there to determine what happened. Is there?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I know this is an exit wound from examining the entirety of the findings and I did not make -- I did not need to shave the -- shave the hair. That was my opinion and determination at the time of the autopsy.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yes, ma'am, we understand that. But what -- did you look at this to confirm or question your opinion, or had you already come to your opinion?
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I always question myself during the autopsy. It's not just -- I look at every -- take a long time to look at everything before I reach a conclusion. And so the totality of the findings here told me this was an exit wound. The brain came pretty much intact. It was propelled at the top -- out of the top of the head. I believe and I am confident that the -- this is an exit wound, and I did not do further investigation to rule out an entrance wound because I was confident it was not.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you just said you did not -- you were confident, and you did not look further because you were confident you were right.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, I looked at it. In fact, I took a photograph of it, and this is consistent with an exit wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: With a what?
ELLEN RIEMER: Consistent with an exit wound. The brain came out of that defect. If it were a shotgun entrance wound, there would be a lot more destruction of the head.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And, again, you've only -- you've never seen a contact wound to the head that wasn't in a suicide case.
ELLEN RIEMER: You know, I don't honestly remember. That --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you don't remember -- let me just rephrase. You don't remember having a case involving a contact wound to the head that wasn't a suicide case. You just don't remember.
ELLEN RIEMER: I may have. It's possible. I don't -- I did not survey -- I may have seen one where somebody was shot at point blank range with a shotgun and the entire head is gone. So when I get that kind of -- you know, when -- if it was a contact, whether it's suicide or homicide, the entire head would have been basically blown off.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And so in every case -- well, there's no reason for us to go there because you've never seen -- you don't remember ever seeing a case where there was a contact wound and -- to the back of the head --
MR. WATERS: Objection. Asked and answered.
ELLEN RIEMER: I think it's honestly whether it is self inflicted or inflicted by somebody else, the features of the body are going to be the same. So, that's my answer. And I can't -- whether I remember it or not, I've done a lot of autopsies. I don't necessarily remember how many, or if I've done one. But I imagine people are shot at close or contact range with a shotgun and a contact shotgun, whether it's by a suicide or a homicide, the entire head would have been basically blown apart. This just -- this is a tear, and I know it's terrible. It's probably the worst thing you've ever saw, but there would have been a lot more damage with a contact shotgun wound. And that's my professional opinion based on my experience. If other people disagree with me, that's fine. I don't have to convince them. This is my determination based on my education and multiple years of experience doing autopsies and being a forensic pathologist.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I think in your testimony, whenever that was weeks ago, you conceded that reasonable pathologists can differ, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. I think a reasonable -- I said -- you asked me if a reasonable person. You didn't actually ask me if a reasonable pathologist. You asked me if a reasonable person could have a different opinion. And I remember that because I was sorry that I didn't say, well, of course reasonable people can think that, but a reasonable pathologist could also think that but I would disagree with that. I don't think all opinions -- a reasonable pathologist could have an opinion like that, but I think it would really be wrong.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. You can go ahead and take the stand, please.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Have you discussed any -- have you met and discussed with Dr. Kinsley -- Kinsey, Kenny Kinsley -- Kinsey about his findings?
ELLEN RIEMER: I did -- I did meet with him once when I -- a couple of weeks prior to the autopsy. I really never -- or prior to this trial I met with the prosecution's team, and I would have been available to meet with you if you called me as well. But I -- you know, Ken Kinsey was responsible for the crime scene. You know, what he had to say was -- I really wasn't -- I had already written my autopsy report, I already came to my decision, my determinations based on my examination of the body, and whatever it was. It was, you know -- he's going to do the crime scene. So, I don't remember having any specific conversation.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You don't remember talking to him about vectors and where the blood spatter would have gone?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. Well, he asked me. He said do you know anything about this? And I said that's your department. I really am not a blood spatter expert. So, I had no -- nothing to offer, and I really didn't encourage listening to it because it wasn't that -- it's not my area.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And let me say a couple of things. One is you indicated that you did not put that packing material in your autopsy report, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And today is the first time you've ever said anything about packing, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Secondly, am I -- let me just sort of summarize this and see if we can get this over with. There are certain things you did not do in this autopsy because you concluded it wouldn't be helpful in reaching your conclusion, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: I agree with that.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Like no x-ray of the brain.
ELLEN RIEMER: It would have been -- I, I did not x-ray the brain, right.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and there were -- and you -- your belief is that the shotgun wound to the shoulder being so much bigger is because of the angle?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and then it narrows down to -- you would concede there's a hole in his neck.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Shotgun starts out wider. The shot starts out wider. I think we've confirmed than.
ELLEN RIEMER: The defect on the shoulder --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
ELLEN RIEMER: -- is wider because it's kind of going across the shoulder, so it's going to create a defect on the shoulder that's wider than something entering in a right angle, or perpendicular. So, that's -- and I think that makes sense to me. It's consistent with what I've seen in more than twenty years of my practice, and there wasn't anything that seemed odd about that.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you would concede you're not a ballistics expert.
ELLEN RIEMER: I know the kind of ballistics -- some forensic pathologists know a lot about ballistics. I know probably an average amount.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and so when you say it started out wider and then came down to this hole, have you discussed that with any ballistics expert?
ELLEN RIEMER: It doesn't require -- that's forensic pathology. That's damage to the body. I don't need to be ballistics expert. And I've done enough autopsies on shotgun wounds to make that determination without requiring additional ballistics knowledge.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But we can see that shotgun starts out -- the shot starts small and then the pellets expand?
MR. WATERS: Objection. Asked and answered, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is sustained.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Why are there no shot -- why there's no shot in his cheek if it's expanding? Why is there no pellet holes here?
ELLEN RIEMER: Because the -- probably that -- we have some wadding going in there --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Probably?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yeah. I think that is consistent with the wadding. And there are -- you know, there's some pellets remaining in the wadding as well.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The wadding going where?
ELLEN RIEMER: You know, that's an entrance wound. Okay? It's a -- entering perpendicularly. Why do we have -- the pellets did not terminate in the cheek. They continued upward.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But a number of them terminated in the shoulder.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: In the chest up here, right?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And then --
ELLEN RIEMER: Not the chest, the neck.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Then they --
ELLEN RIEMER: Not the chest.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry?
ELLEN RIEMER: Not the chest, the neck.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But the neck, up the shoulder and upper neck, right?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And then, I mean, have they stopped expanding here so the cheek isn't -- I mean, one of those pellets is --
MR. WATERS: Objection. Asked and answered and to the form of the question.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's been asked and answered. I sustain the objection.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you say these x-rays are consistent with your opinion.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Beg the Court's indulgence.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Oh, let me ask you one question about the Maggie wound. Your position is that the tags don't indicate anything.
ELLEN RIEMER: Well, they, they, they are not determinative. They're something to look at, but the tags on the rest are very nonspecific. They're not very good tags. We happen to have nice tags on the back of the skull. Frequently the tags are more reliable when the skin is tighter over an area.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, on Maggie you're saying one shot is going up and the other one is going down.
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Doctor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. WATERS: Just two questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: 5,500 autopsies you said, correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: Yes. And since I was here last, maybe I've done another dozen, so over 5,500.
MR. WATERS: And you rely on practical observations of actually observing the body. Is that correct?
ELLEN RIEMER: That's correct. I mean, I do my autopsies, and based on my experience and knowledge as a forensic pathologist I know about bodies, examining the bodies, that's what I rely on.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Those are two questions. Do you have more?
MR. WATERS: May I -- I have just a couple more, Your Honor.
MR. WATERS: In your opinion, is there any way Paul's face would have remained intact if he would have suffered a contact wound from the top of the head?
ELLEN RIEMER: No.
MR. WATERS: And in your opinion, is this obviously a wound in this direction as you've --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection Your Honor. Repetitive. She's testified five times that's her opinion.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is sustained.
MR. WATERS: Nothing further, Your Honor.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you. Nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. You may step down.
ELLEN RIEMER: Okay. Thank you.
(The witness exited the stand.)