"The only cause of (Lisa's) death is dehydration" -- Doug Crow
Robert S. Minton
A couple of excerpts from Doug Crow's memo to State Prosecutor, Bernie McCabe
on June 9, 2000.
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/deaths/lisa_mcpherson/crow000609.txt
"After reviewing the original slides which are of much better quality and the
preserved tissues, Wetli (forensic pathologist Charles Wetli ) *1* is
confident that the clot is post mortem and not the cause of death. While the
popliteal thrombus may be ante-mortem, it is very recent and in any event it
did not contribute to the cause of death and could not have been 17 days old."
"Therefore the only cause of death is dehydration. Wetli is comfortable
relying on the vitreous tests to establish the severity of dehydration as that
type of evidence is routinely used by medical examiners in deciding cause of
death. He has no detailed opinion as to how symptomatic Lisa would have been as
that is more the province of clinicians. He does not believe ketones would be
an issue in a dehydration case."
*1* Crow consulted forensic pathologist Charles Wetli who had initially been
selected by Wood as a consulting expert, but did not get involved in the case
at that time. Wetli was Chief Deputy Medical Examiner in Dade County and is now
the head Medical Examiner for Suffolk County New York.
"I have been engaged in a review of the evidence supporting the criminal
charges against CSFSO since Chief Medical Examiner Joan Wood notified us that
she had changed the death certificate from undetermined to accident and that
she had removed dehydration and bed rest as causes of the pulmonary embolus
which killed Lisa. The amended death certificate also listed "psychosis" and
"history of traffic accident" as factors that contributed to the death but did
not contribute to the thromboernbolism. I have reviewed the evidence on which
our case is based, reviewed the extensive materials submitted to Dr. Wood by
the defense as well as additional materials submitted to us, have done
extensive medical research, and have reviewed the case with our existing
experts as well as new forensic and clinical experts. I have also reviewed the
depositions of Calvin Brandt and John Coe from the parallel civil case, and
have fully considered them to the extent they support or undermine the
conclusions of Dr. Wood and the underlying forensic basis for the charges."
"We initially began this lengthy and time consuming investigation into Lisa
McPherson's death based upon the Medical Examiner's insistence that it was
caused by criminal negligence, specifically the failure, individually or
collectively, of her caretakers to respond to the obvious and life threatening
dehydration which caused her death. When we concluded that individual criminal
charges could not be pursued, we nonetheless felt compelled by the facts
developed in our investigation and by the Medical Examiner's conclusion to
pursue corporate charges. We filed a charge of practicing medicine without a
license, which we decided should not be pursued as a single but independent
charge, only as an adjunct to the primary charge of felony neglect of a
disabled person."
"Only because this conduct was the proximate cause of serious injury did we
perceive it as meeting the legal and constitutional prerequisites to prosecute
a religious corporation claiming constitutional and statutory protection.
Similarly, our ability to prove to a jury that Lisa's injury or death resulted
from the defendant's wrongful conduct supported our belief that successful
prosecution was likely and that the commitment of the resources required to
bring the responsible persons or entity to justice was merited. Thus, given the
issues in the case, correlating the defendant's conduct with serious harm to
the victim, even if not an element of both charges, was viewed as a legal and
factual prerequisite to prosecution."
"While nothing in the review has caused me to believe that the central premises
behind the prosecution are erroneous, our ability to establish these necessary
facts beyond a reasonable doubt has clearly been compromised. The changes to
the death certificate and autopsy report are on their face seriously damaging
to our underlying theory of prosecution."
"While Dr. Wood is an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable expert who is a
formidable witness when defending. a valid position, her inability to
coherently explain her decision even under benign questioning by me is
completely perplexing. Because of Wood's admission of a serious forensic error,
her illogical and unfortunately inconsistent justifications of her decision to
change the death certificate and autopsy report, the inconsistency between the
changes made in the death certificate and the forensic basis for our charges,
her continuing equivocation on issues central to the criminal case, and the
very real possibility that the cause of death listed by the Medical Examiner's
Office is incorrect, I have come to the conclusion that presentation of the
Medical Examiner's current testimony to a jury will create a reasonable doubt
on crucial forensic issues. When combined with existing problems in the case,
it is my recommendation that we should not continue to pursue the prosecution."
Bob Minton