Shenanigans with the Autopsy Report
The original autopsy report consisted of 32 pages. The original 32 page document was initially entered into evidence. At the end of the trial, just before the evidence went to the jury portions of the autopsy report were redacted by the request of the prosecutor. The document that finally went to the jury was reduced to 12 pages.
In addition, there were pictures taken during the course of the autopsy, which were not included in the original autopsy report. What were the pictures of? Lauren’s body showing scrapes and scratches along the length of her body and on her extremities. The prosecution’s case has hinged on the lack of scratches and scrapes on Lauren’s body. Yet, pictures of these very wounds were omitted from the autopsy report making this a most unscrupulous omission! The prosecution has said that Lauren’s fall could not have been an accident because if she had fallen accidentally she would have had more injuries in the form of scrapes and scratches on her body and extremities. However, autopsy photographs showing precisely the injuries the prosecution claims are missing ARE ACTUALLY BEING WITHHELD FROM EVIDENCE.
The way these were brought into evidence is of particular interest as well. The medical examiner was brought in to testify on a day he wasn’t scheduled to do so. The prosecutor requested that he be allowed to testify that day and the judge agreed. He said it was the only day he had available. Mark Geragos was not prepared for the ME that day. He called his office and asked to have a courier deliver those pictures to the courthouse immediately. At nearly the end of the day, with only minutes left before the court day ended the courier arrived. Mark Geragos showed the pictures to the medical examiner and asked him to tell the court what the marks in question were. The medical examiner conceded they were scrapes and scratches found on Lauren’s body. He admitted they were along the entire length of her body and on her extremities. However, he insisted they were insignificant. Insignificant? How can any of her wounds be insignificant in explaining what happened to her that day? Where did those scrapes and scratches come from, the thin air? Every single wound which supports Cam's account that Lauren had fallen accidentally should have been allowed into evidence.
An autopsy consists of pictures and an examination. The prosecution should not be allowed to cherry pick through that record and choose only those portions that support the story they are trying to weave! Scrapes and scratches to Lauren's extremities are exactly what the prosecution contends were lacking. Yeah, they were lacking all right! They were left out of the autopsy report!
Shortly after the defense expert, forensic pathologist Dr. Janice Ophoven, MD began her testimony the prosecutor called for a lengthy sided bar. After a delay which lasted considerably more than an hour the judge and attorneys came out from the back. Did testimony resume? No! Prosecutor Craig Hum, Detective Jeff Leslie and Dr. Ophoven had a powwow at the end of the hall. The prosecutor and Dr. Ophoven sat down on a bench while detective, Jeff Leslie stood over them. Detective Leslie postured above Dr. Ophoven in an intimidating manner, as if he were interrogating a criminal. Why would the detective treat Dr. Ophoven in such a manner? Defense attorneys were not present. Dr Ophoven leafed through her notes and documents while discussing them with the prosecutor. As they did this, Dr. Ophoven removed a number of documents and placed them in the back of her folder. Judging from the gestures of the two parties, it appeared that Dr. Ophoven removed those items at the prosecutors prodding. When testimony finally resumed Dr. Ophoven did not mention the pictures which had been omitted from the autopsy report; those pictures which depict the very injuries which the prosecution claims are missing, the missing injuries which the prosecution has built their case around.
If those pictures were withheld from evidence, what else is being withheld that could defend or even exonerate Cameron Brown? And, why would Judge Mark Arnold (presumably) side with the prosecution and allow important evidence such as these pictures to be omitted from the testimony?!
In addition, there were pictures taken during the course of the autopsy, which were not included in the original autopsy report. What were the pictures of? Lauren’s body showing scrapes and scratches along the length of her body and on her extremities. The prosecution’s case has hinged on the lack of scratches and scrapes on Lauren’s body. Yet, pictures of these very wounds were omitted from the autopsy report making this a most unscrupulous omission! The prosecution has said that Lauren’s fall could not have been an accident because if she had fallen accidentally she would have had more injuries in the form of scrapes and scratches on her body and extremities. However, autopsy photographs showing precisely the injuries the prosecution claims are missing ARE ACTUALLY BEING WITHHELD FROM EVIDENCE.
The way these were brought into evidence is of particular interest as well. The medical examiner was brought in to testify on a day he wasn’t scheduled to do so. The prosecutor requested that he be allowed to testify that day and the judge agreed. He said it was the only day he had available. Mark Geragos was not prepared for the ME that day. He called his office and asked to have a courier deliver those pictures to the courthouse immediately. At nearly the end of the day, with only minutes left before the court day ended the courier arrived. Mark Geragos showed the pictures to the medical examiner and asked him to tell the court what the marks in question were. The medical examiner conceded they were scrapes and scratches found on Lauren’s body. He admitted they were along the entire length of her body and on her extremities. However, he insisted they were insignificant. Insignificant? How can any of her wounds be insignificant in explaining what happened to her that day? Where did those scrapes and scratches come from, the thin air? Every single wound which supports Cam's account that Lauren had fallen accidentally should have been allowed into evidence.
An autopsy consists of pictures and an examination. The prosecution should not be allowed to cherry pick through that record and choose only those portions that support the story they are trying to weave! Scrapes and scratches to Lauren's extremities are exactly what the prosecution contends were lacking. Yeah, they were lacking all right! They were left out of the autopsy report!
Shortly after the defense expert, forensic pathologist Dr. Janice Ophoven, MD began her testimony the prosecutor called for a lengthy sided bar. After a delay which lasted considerably more than an hour the judge and attorneys came out from the back. Did testimony resume? No! Prosecutor Craig Hum, Detective Jeff Leslie and Dr. Ophoven had a powwow at the end of the hall. The prosecutor and Dr. Ophoven sat down on a bench while detective, Jeff Leslie stood over them. Detective Leslie postured above Dr. Ophoven in an intimidating manner, as if he were interrogating a criminal. Why would the detective treat Dr. Ophoven in such a manner? Defense attorneys were not present. Dr Ophoven leafed through her notes and documents while discussing them with the prosecutor. As they did this, Dr. Ophoven removed a number of documents and placed them in the back of her folder. Judging from the gestures of the two parties, it appeared that Dr. Ophoven removed those items at the prosecutors prodding. When testimony finally resumed Dr. Ophoven did not mention the pictures which had been omitted from the autopsy report; those pictures which depict the very injuries which the prosecution claims are missing, the missing injuries which the prosecution has built their case around.
If those pictures were withheld from evidence, what else is being withheld that could defend or even exonerate Cameron Brown? And, why would Judge Mark Arnold (presumably) side with the prosecution and allow important evidence such as these pictures to be omitted from the testimony?!
