Bob Minton wrote:
> Original PDF document on web at www.xenutv.com/lisa/crowdroppings.pdf
> To: Bernie McCabe
> From: Douglas E. Crow
> Date: 6/9/2000
> Re: Review of Evidence in State v. Church of Scientology Flag Service
> Organization, Inc.
[snipping the lengthy document's text] Here's a brief summary of what I got from this very useful document. For starters, it isn't in legalese. It has some medicalese. First, there was nothing obviously wrong in any way with Lisa's autopsy procedures or the testing procedures and results. Charles Wetli, a forensic pathologist and consultant now Chief Medical Examiner of Suffolk County, NY, and earlier the same for Dade County, concluded: "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." Robert Davis was an assistant medical examiner under Joan Wood. He did the original autopsy, which showed clearly a picture of severe dehydration supported by various tests as well as numerous eyewitness accounts from people who had seen Lisa. He changed his story in a court deposition in early 1997 in such a way as to subject the autopsy findings to serious question. Early this year Joan Wood similarly made a drastic change. Both now say that the blood clot in Lisa's leg was the cause of death and both downplay or even deny dehydration. Crow details quite a bit of the loss of credibility of both Davis and Wood, inexplicable by any good reason other than some unknown C of S influence on them. He makes it clear that any case (no matter how compelling the substance) built on their testimony would be easily shot down by the defense. Crow details every medical/pathology line of attack that the C of S has raised or might raise in the future against the autopsy results, and for each one he has mustered compelling arguments. The case he has made will not go away. It's also clear to me that McCabe and Crow continue strong in their resolve to see justice done here. The document makes clear that they had no good choice but to "nolle prosequi" given the fact of the two examiners losing credibility. The document here didn't come from someone who had caved in to Scientology -- had they caved in, they would never have done so by cogently stating these arguments here. As I've said before, this is not a win for the C of S. Ed