(Judge) [inaudible] your commitment to this case.
Dr. Ross was on the stand Friday afternoon,
as you recall, and I don't think we finished
her examination on the State's case.
- I'll let you all proceed. - (female attorney) Thank you, Your Honor.
Dr. Ross, when we broke on Friday, we had been discussing, basically,
your first steps in this case and what you were asked to do
and I believe you testified that in September, you had received
the remains of Laura Ackerson.
(Dr. Ross) That is correct.
(female attorney) And at that time, you had been asked to undergo
or to render an opinion with regard to a trauma examination
of her skeletal remains.
- Is that correct? - That is correct.
(female attorney) And you had testified about observing
various dismemberment sites based on the remains that you received.
Yes.
(female attorney) May I bring the skeleton around and ask Dr. Ross
a few questions?
- (Judge) Sure, you can do that. - (female attorney) And may she step down?
(Judge) She may. Certainly.
(female attorney) At this time, If I could also have published
on the screen, State's exhibit A509, which is Dr. Ross' reports
- (Judge) Sure. - which have obviously been reduced.
(female attorney) Dr. Ross, you stand before the jury now with the skeleton,
also this part of your report that's up on the screen-- this is what you prepared
to illustrate what you observed with regard to the dismemberment sites.
Is that correct?
That is correct and that was meant to illustrate exactly
where the sites of dismemberment were conducted on Laura Ackerson.
And what we can see here, based on that diagram as well,
is that both her arms were removed at the site of the upper aspect
of the humerus, which is your upper arm bone right here.
Her head was also taken off at the fifth cervical vertebra,
which is the fifth neck bone on the way down
around this area right here.
She was also dismembered-- the lumbar vertebra in this area, as well,
as well as in the upper aspect of her femoral bone.
And in the picture that we saw also on Friday, this is the area
that we were looking at with the cut marks here.
So, she was bilaterally dismembered here, and she was also bilaterally dismembered
on the lower part of the leg bone right here as well.
(female attorney) And those conclusions that you reached were all as a result
of being able to examine the skeletal remains that you received,
which had cuttings that had been performed by the medical examiner's office in Texas.
Is that right?
That is correct.
(female attorney) And so you again were able to distinguish in the areas
that you described the difference between where the medical examiner had made a cut
and the difference between the dismemberment site itself.
Is that right?
Yes, that is correct.
(female attorney) And you've pointed out that the photograph that you testified
earlier on Friday about where we saw the 14 teeth prints.
- Yes. - Would you point out again the area?
It was in this area.
I can't remember what side it was, but it was in this area right in here.
You see that? And then you see the femoral head here.
So, it was at the point where she was dismembered up here
where the greater trochanter is.
(female attorney) And, again, that was a larger bone that was not
as fragile, that you were able to make some conclusions?
And it has a thicker cortical bone, which is what we need--
the compact bone versus that spongy bone we talked about.
(female attorney) And at some point later in this investigation,
as far as your report, you used a particular bone to make some comparison
using a pig proxy.
Yes.
(female attorney) While we have the skeleton here,
can you point out that area?
Yes. We use the pig proxy, because, No. 1, it's the best proxy
for a human model that we have and that's both in clinical settings
and in non-clinical settings, so it's been well known to use--
pigs are the best proxy for us.
So, the one we received from Miss Ackerson, we had received
a femur-- and, again, this is your femur right here--
after we had initially investigated, after this report, and that femur
had been retained I believe by the medical examiner in Texas.
And then we received that later, and it had some really good markings
on it that we were able to compare.
Those striations-- remember that we talked about,
where you can actually see the etchings of the saw on the bone--
and we were able to examine those on Laura Ackerson
and then what we did was we were provided by Detective Faulk
a Skil reciprocating saw with various blades in there,
and we tested those blades on the pig proxies and then compared
those marks to those found on Miss Ackerson.
- (female attorney) And which bone? - It's on the femur.
- (female attorney) Okay. - Yes, it's on the femur.
(female attorney) And as part of this initial submission
and the examination that you conducted initially,
you've also indicated that you observed an injury to the bone in the neck.
Yes, I did.
(female attorney) Can you describe the injury that you observed in that area?
The injury was on the fourth cervical vertebra,
so if you count from the top, it would be right in here,
and it was on the anterior aspect of the body of that vertebra
and it was right in the middle of that body
and it was what we call a "stab wound."
So, it was a stab mark to the body of that vertebra.
(female attorney) When you use the term "stab wound," what distinction
are you making when you use that terminology.
That terminology is based on when we have sharp force trauma.
So, a cut wound would be a wound longer than it is deep
and it would be cutting action, cutting motion.
A stab wound is deeper than it is long.
So, meaning you were stabbing.
So, the depth would be deeper than it is long based on a cutting motion.
(female attorney) And you indicated that you observed
that on the fourth cervical vertebra.
On the fourth cervical vertebra, yes.
(female attorney) And the vertebra that were present with the head
or the skull went down to the fifth cervical vertebra.
Yes, and at the fifth cervical vertebra, you could tell that it had been cut
at that point and that's where the head had been removed -
on the fifth cervical vertebra.
(female attorney) The cut you observed with regard
to the fifth cervical vertebra, how is it different than the stab wound
on the fourth cervical vertebra?
Multiple fracturing, cuts versus stabs, and, because these bones
are relatively small in the upper neck area,
and those fractured quite a bit.
So, that was the distinction between the stab and the cutting.
(female attorney) And explain the stab in terms of the cutting,
is that wider than it is long?
Yes, it is longer or wider than it is deep.
(female attorney) Thank you. You can return to the stand.
(Judge) Okay, sure.
(female attorney) With regard to the stab wound that you observed
to the fourth cervical vertebra, did you take a photograph
of that particular area of Laura Ackerson's remains?
I did.
(female attorney) And did you include that as part of your report
to illustrate your findings and what you observed?
Yes, I did.
(female attorney) With regard to that stab wound, is this the photograph
that's up on the screen now from your report illustrating
the stab wound?
It is.
(female attorney) And do you have the laser pointer up there?
I think you've got it boxed off,
but is that...?
Yes, it's this area right here where you can see
that there is a stab wound right here, and this is using
a high-powered microscope, so you can see the morphology
of that stab wound.
(female attorney) And can you explain
why you would use the high-powered microscope?
(Ross) Well, one of the reasons why we use it is to look
at the morphology and also to see if we can establish
whether it was a single-bladed knife, a serrated knife, or a double-bladed knife
and we were able to establish here-- if you see this area right here
and you see this right here-- based on the current literature
on types of instruments used, it is consistent with a serrated knife.
(female attorney) With regard to the stab wound--
and you've indicated that this was consistent
with a serrated knife-- did you see any other areas
of the skeletal remains that showed any stabs or stabbing
from what you were seeing?
(Ross) Not on the remains that I received. I did not.
(female attorney) Did you undertake to kind of examine the cut marks
that you observed on the various remains or various bones
of Laura Ackerson's remains and make any conclusions
with regard to the cut marks that were different from the stab wounds?
- (Ross) Yes. - (female attorney) Can you describe that?
(Ross) We went through, as the one that we observed on Friday, we tried
to establish the teeth per inch that was used
to cut the remains of Laura Ackerson.
And also there was on the tibia, the anterior proximal portion,
which I believe is the following image after this, you have this right here,
and this is generally called a "persistence mark."
We call them "persistence mark," because the perpetrator is persisting
on cutting, they're not hesitating.
So, "hesitation marks" would refer to an individual that's hesitating.
But when we're dealing with issues of dismemberment,
they're called "persistence marks."
And these kind of marks will tell you a lot.
What we look at is the wall of each bone and the base of that cut
that doesn't go all the way through the bone.
And that is called a "kerf," K-E-R-F, and that kerf will give us information
as to if it's a saw-- for example, the squared off edge at the bottom,
that tells us that it is a saw that was used versus, let's say, a knife.
A knife would have a V-shaped bottom or kerf wall.
So, those are the types of things that we utilize.
(female attorney) And so the kerf wall is actually a kerf--
you've used here "kerf floor"--
(Ross) Yes.
(female attorney) That refers to the mark in the bone itself?
(Ross) That refers to the mark in the bone and the floor is the bottom of that mark
and the walls would be the sides of those marks.
(female attorney) That gives you information with regard to,
as you just testified, the type of instrument that would've been used
to make those tool marks or markings on the bone?
(Ross) That is correct.
(female attorney) You describe the persistence mark
and I believe you have "false starts"--
(Ross) "False starts" is also another term to use, yes.
(female attorney) What about these marks leads you to be able to make conclusions
with regard to hesitation or persistence?
(Ross) Generally, hesitation marks are referred
to in situations of suicide,
but when you're dealing with situations of dismemberment, the perpetrator is,
again, attempting to either conceal or dispose of the remains
in a certain way, so their persisting or they're called "false starts,"
because they attempt one form to dismember the body, it doesn't work,
and they attempt in a different spot.
(female attorney) Based on what you observed,
did you see multiple false starts?
(Ross) My recollection is that I didn't see that many.
But then again, we did not have the complete set of remains
of Laura Ackerson.
(female attorney) With regard to the information that you did have
and that you were able to glean from the examination
of Laura Ackerson's remains, did you make some conclusions
with regard to the type of instrument that would have made the saw marks?
(Ross) Yes.
(female attorney) Can you describe what conclusions you reached?
(Ross) I discussed it was based on the kerf floor--
it was based on all the TPI
and based on the conclusions that we had,
I had initially observed that it could have been
a hand-powered versus a mechanical-powered, however,
there's a paucity of research that has been done in these types of cases
and my recommendations were to test the reciprocating saw,
and that's when we went ahead and tested that with the pig proxies.
(female attorney) So, at the point before you even knew
about the reciprocating saw, you had made some conclusions
that you believed that this, in fact, was a saw that was used--
(Ross) Yes.
(female attorney) At that point, you didn't know
whether or not it was mechanical or power.
(Ross) Correct. Yes.
Were you able to-- based on the teeth per inch or TPI,
were you able to rule out a number of possible saws that could've been used?
(Ross) I believe we were able to rule out several saws based on the TPI.
(female attorney) At this point, after you've had these remains
and had your opportunity to examine the various sites and look under
the microscope, was it your opinion that two different tools had been used
with regard to Laura Ackerson's remains and the evidence that was left?
(Ross) Yes, one was based on the stab wound on the cervical vertebra
that was very different than what was used to dismember her body, which was a saw.
(female attorney) And was there anything about the saw marks on her remains
that indicated to you that it was more than one saw or different saws?
(Ross) In many of her remains that we -- I think we could clearly state
that it was most likely one saw that was used, however, it's possible
that more than one was utilized, but, again, we did not have
the full set of remains.
(female attorney) At a later time, did you receive information
that a reciprocating saw had been discovered as being purchased
around the time of Laura Ackerson's murder?
(Ross) Yes.
(female attorney) Can you describe a reciprocating saw and how that works?
(Ross) A reciprocating saw is a mechanical-powered saw
and it has blades that reciprocate in and out and leave certain striations.
(female attorney) After learning
that that may be relevant in this case, [inaudible] about what could be done
from that point forward?
Yes, I recommended that we be provided with the same brand and type
of reciprocating saw as was found in evidence.
Also with the same blades, numerous blades that came
with the reciprocating saw and other blades that I believe
had been purchased.
And we recommended also to test that saw on our pig proxies.
(female attorney) And so was a Skil reciprocating saw provided to you
by Detective Faulk?
Yes, it was.
(female attorney) And you've indicated you also received the blades
that came with that saw as well as an additional blade
that had been purchased separately.
Is that right?
That is correct.
(female attorney) May I approach Dr. Ross?
Dr. Ross, this is State's exhibit 511.
Do you recognize this?
Yes, I do.
(female attorney) What is this?
This is the Skil reciprocating saw that was provided to me for comparison.
(female attorney) Is this a saw that requires being plugged in?
Yes.
(female attorney) OK. And there are two blades
that are taped to the top of this.
Yes.
(female attorney) Are these the blades that came with this saw?
Yes.
(female attorney) Did you make notes to be able
to recognize those blades in terms of the numbers that are on them?
Yes, the numbers are listed in my report and also the type of blades
that were used, which is a wood-fast blade.
Also handing you what has been marked for identification as State's exhibit 512.
Yes.
(female attorney) Know that?
I do. This was the additional blade
that was used as well and this was the all-purpose blade.
(female attorney) And so at the time that Detective Faulk came to you,
he provided you with the Skil saw, which is State's exhibit 511,
as well as an additional blade, which is State's exhibit 512.
Correct.
(female attorney) The Skil saw came with the two blades
that are taped to the top of the box.
Yes.
(female attorney) The saw you received, did it appear
to be brand new?
They were all brand new.
I had to actually open the packaging.
(female attorney) I move
to introduce new evidence, State's exhibit 511 and 512.
(Judge) [unintelligible] received.
(female attorney) And Dr. Ross, after receiving the saw and the saw blade,
can you describe for the jury the process you went through at that point?
Yes, at that point we tested the two types of blades; so the Skil saw came
with two of the same type of blade, which was the wood blade
and the all-purpose blade as well.
So, we tested both those blades on the pig proxies and then what we did -
we also tested them using a model - we didn't deflesh the pig bones at first.
We wanted to be as consistent as it was, for example,
to real life scenario where she would have been dismembered
with all her tissue, so we did the same thing with the pig bones.
We actually cut through tissue and bone using what we called -
remember we discussed wet versus dry bone -
to make sure that the bone was wet and would be an appropriate comparison.
After that point, then we processed the remains in order to take off
the tissue and in order to be able to examine them under
the microscope and make our comparisons.
(female attorney) And did you eventually record your findings,
your [unintelligible] State's exhibit A510,
which has previously been entered into evidence?
Yes.
(female attorney) And what were the results of you findings?
The results of our findings were that the all-purpose saw
were not consistent with the saw marks that were found on Laura Ackerson.
However, the saw marks produced by the wood-fast saw were consistent
with the cuts and the striations found on Laura Ackerson.
(female attorney) And in terms of the Skil saw that you were provided
and you were using to make your comparisons in this case,
are there multiple speeds that are available?
Yes, yes there are multiple speeds with the actual reciprocating saw.
So, we also tested the speeds.
At what point could you get through the tissue and get to the bone
and make those cuts?
And we found that it was a speed five setting
with the wood-fast saw.
(female attorney) How far do the speeds go?
I mean, was that toward the upper end or do you recall?
Probably mid-to-upper I would recall.
Yes.
(female attorney) What you found
was the one of the blades that had actually come
with the Skil saw matched the marks that you saw on Laura Ackerson's remains.
Yes.
(female attorney) This was the femur bone--
Yes.
(female attorney) --that you had to compare.
Yes and that was the second bone that we had received after
the first examination.
(female attorney) And was that an area where you had had a good,
a wide enough and detailed enough area to really see these striation marks?
Yes, it was good compact bone that we could examine the striations.
(female attorney) You indicated you made a comparison
under the microscope.
Did you attach a photograph magnified
to illustrate your findings with regard
to the marks you observed on the pig proxy with the saw blade that came
with the Skil saw at speed five to Laura Ackerson's remains?
Yes, that's correct.
(female attorney) Your Honor, may I publish A510
with regard to this photograph?
- (Judge) You may. - (female attorney) This is your report.
Yes.
The first photograph that you have up on the screen - you actually have two.
Do you have your report there?
(Ross) I do.
What are we seeing in this first photograph?
(Ross) What we're seeing here, these are the remains of Laura Ackerson
and what we are examining here, as you can see, you see these striations,
these are the striations that we would use as comparison.
This right here is adipocere.
Adipocere or another crude term for it is "waxy fat."
So, when you are exposed to a wet or moist environment, your fatty tissues
will turn into this waxy fat or adipocere.
So, this is all we're seeing here.
This is not part of the examination that we're making the comparison to.
But what you should look at here are these striations.
This is the blade, the all-purpose blade that was provided.
As you can see, it's much wider
than the striations that were observed on Laura Ackerson.
(female attorney) So, that lower part that's identified as "pig proxy,"
those striations were made as a result of using the second blade
that did not come as part of the Skil saw.
(Ross) That is correct.
(female attorney) Dr. Ross, can you explain what's shown here
on this second set of photographs?
(Ross) This is that same photograph of Ms. Ackerson and this down here
is the comparison of that wood-fast blade
and as you can see, it's a match to what we had up here.
(female attorney) That bottom photograph
with the pig proxy was the photograph that was taken of the part of the pig leg
that had been dismembered using the Skil saw as well as the blade
that came with that Skil saw at speed number five.
(Ross) Correct.
(female attorney) You identified that blade in your report
as the one that matched, which is the one that is the wood-fast blade.
(Ross) The wood-fast blade.
(female attorney) The number of that blade?
(Ross) Let me go back to my report.
It is 94061.
(female attorney) That's all I have.
(Judge) Do you have questions?
(male attorney) Yes.
Good morning, Dr. Ross.
(Ross) Good morning.
Let me ask you first, when you received the remains
from Dr. Radich,
did you receive only bone, bone tissue?
There was bone and I believe there was some tissue,
because some of the containers had formalin in them.
But there was some with tissue, but mostly bone.
(male attorney) Did it become necessary in your testing that the flesh be removed?
I did not macerate any remains for this case.
(male attorney) Now, the bone that you examined, how would you describe
the human bone in the sense of its density?
Well, it depends on what site you are looking at.
So, we have heavier bones, such as the femora,
they would be more dense than in other areas.
Whereas, you would have a less dense area if it would have more spongy
or the honeycomb structures.
(male attorney) And do bones that are dense, such as the femur,
would you agree that it's difficult
to saw those bones in half
using a reciprocal saw?
I don't know; I don't generally saw bones with reciprocating saws,
so I'm assuming it would depend on the person,
on where on the bone, because you have various areas.
(male attorney) Would it add to the difficulty
of dismembering a body
that the flesh was still on the bone?
That also depends.
We were able to do it with speed five
and a certain type of blade.
We were not able to do so with the all-purpose blade.
(male attorney) You were not able to saw
with the all-purpose blade?
Yes, we weren't able to do it adequately with the all-purpose.
That was a lot more difficult.
(male attorney) But you were able to do it with the wood-fast blade.
That's correct.
(male attorney) How many different portions of the remains
were provided to you?
- Of Miss Ackerson? - (male attorney) Yes, ma'am.
There were a number of portions provided in the first test
and then on the final examination where we compared these remains,
I believe it was just one femur.
(male attorney) Once you had those remains in your possession,
I take it that the next thing you would do would be to examine the striations
on the portions of the bones that were dismembered.
Am I correct?
Correct.
(male attorney) And that's one of the photograph's that you've shown
is the photograph taken of the striations on the femur.
Yes.
(male attorney) Now, you also said
that in order to determine
the type of saw
that was used to do the dismemberment, that it was necessary to use a pig proxy.
- Yes. - (male attorney) Discuss that process.
It was necessary to use a pig proxy, because we did not have
and we don't advocate using human cadavers for these types of studies,
because of ethical issues, so pigs are the best proxy
to use in these types of situations.
(male attorney) Do you start with a live pig?
No. (chuckles)
(male attorney) Describe for me, if you will, the differences between
the blood vessel system of a pig and a human.
That I don't know.
(male attorney) I take it you received a pig that has its flesh on its bones.
Correct.
(male attorney) How long had it been, in this instance, since the pig
that you used had died?
He was fresh killed.
(male attorney) Did you attempt to saw through the flesh of the pig
with the reciprocating chainsaw?
We removed his forelimbs and hind limbs
and those were the ones that we actually used for the test.
(male attorney) You sawed through the flesh in order
to get through the bone.
Correct.
(male attorney) Did it create debris?
- Did it create debris? - (male attorney) Debris.
We did it outdoors.
So, we were wearing full personal protective equipment.
(male attorney) Did it in a dirty area?
We did it in a field.
Yes, in a research field.
(male attorney) One of the reasons that you do that is because you don't want
to mess up your room with whatever debris is created by the sawing
of the pig proxy, correct?
No, not necessarily.
The reason that we do that is because we're dealing
with a large hog and the best way to carry him out is in the back of a truck
and place him in the field and start at the field site,
but we have conducted comparisons in the laboratory under our hoods.
(male attorney) Could you cut through flesh and bone
using the wood-fast saw?
Yes.
(male attorney) You couldn't cut through the bone and flesh
using the--
We were, but it was more difficult.
(male attorney) I see. OK.
So, once you've done that,
were you then able to put
the various portions of the pig bones under the microscope to determine
the nature of the striations?
That's correct.
(male attorney) And from there, you make the comparison between
the striations on the pig bone to the striations
on Laura Ackerson's femur.
Correct.
- (male attorney) As seen on the board. - Exactly.
(male attorney) Is that there was a match between the fast--
The wood-fast.
(male attorney) --wood-fast saw, but there was not a match
with the other saw.
That's correct.
(male attorney) Was the wood-fast saw used
with the reciprocating Skil saw that you have before you?
Yes.
(male attorney) After you had done
your cutting of the pig proxy in the field,
was it necessary to clean up behind yourself?
Yes, we always clean up behind ourselves.
It's standard practice.
(male attorney) What do you take to clean?
We clean up any kind of biohazardous material,
whether it's blood or tissue or what have you.
(male attorney) Did you clean up blood then?
Yes.
(male attorney) When you cut through the pig vessels,
did it create a spray of blood?
No.
(male attorney) Did it create a spray of tissue when you cut through
the pig proxy tissue?
I don't recall a spray of tissue.
(male attorney) Did the Skil saw jam up with the flesh
as you tried to cut through it?
Not to my recollection.
(male attorney) You also indicated that you found what you describe
as a stab wound on the fourth cervical vertebra.
That's correct.
(male attorney) Was that a stab wound that was created by a knife
with a sharp point?
Most likely, yes, with a serrated knife.
(male attorney) A serrated point.
A serrated blade.
(male attorney) A serrated blade.
Correct.
(male attorney) Is there any way to tell which occurred first: the dismemberment
or the knife wound?
No, there's not.
(male attorney) A moment, Your Honor?
(Judge) Sure.
(female attorney) A couple questions.
Just for clarification purposes, that Skil saw was the same saw
that was used in this.
There weren't other saws used.
It was only the Skil saw provided by Detective Faulk.
(female attorney) And the blades, which have been referred
to as the wood-fast and the all-purpose, those were the (inaudible) same saw
was used, but two different kinds
of blades.
Correct.
(female attorney) And the serrated knife, by "serrated" you mean as you showed
in the photograph--
Yes, it has scalloped edges.
You know, almost like large bread knife that you would cut
that has serrated edges, that's what we mean by "serrated."
- (female attorney) Thank you, that's all. - (Judge) Go ahead.
(male attorney) I have one other thing.
You indicated that you saw that there were some "false starts."
Yes.
(male attorney) What that would indicate, would it not, was that the person
that was doing the dismemberment had attempted
to sever the flesh and bone at that point,
but for some reason wasn't successful?
That's correct.
(male attorney) So, that person would then go on to a second spot
and attempt--
Yes, either in the same spot or another spot and it appeared
it was a different spot.
That's correct.
(male attorney) How many false starts did you see in the area of the femur?
You know, I don't remember.
I don't have that recollection.
(male attorney) Is the femur the hardest bone in the body?
The shaft is pretty hard, yes, but the distal ends are not,
because they are composed of a lot of spongy bone.
(male attorney) So, it would've been more difficult to saw the femur
than the feet, for example.
Well, it depends, because if you do, for example, on the tibia,
that's a pretty hard bone, too, and that's at the point of the ankles.
So, dismembering a body, just in general, is very difficult.
(male attorney) That's all.
Thank you, ma'am.
(Judge) Thank you very much.