Medical examiner says death occured two to four days before examination
Dr. Cynthia Gardner - the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Emily Anderson - said in court this afternoon that it is her opinion that Emily Anderson died two to four days before Gardner performed the autopsy. The autopsy occurred on Jan. 8, 2006, a day after Emily's body was discovered. However, in answering one of Eric Bellas' questions, Gardner said nothing in her findings excludes the date of Dec. 29 as the date of Emily Anderson's death. Dubs asked several times, though, if Gardner still has the opinion that Emily's death was two to four days before the examination and each time Gardner said, "Yes." Gardner quoted the cloudiness of the eyes, which typically occurs just a few days after the death. She also mentioned the green coloration around the skin of Emily Anderson's face. Gardner says that typically occurs within two to four days of death.
When Gardner told the Caldwell County Sheriff's Office her findings and opinion that death occurred two to four days before the autopsy, Gardner testified investigators wanted to know if she was certain of that. Gardner said she certainly can't remember the conversation, but she does recall the talk about the time of death lasted a bit longer than other homicide autopsies. She suggested they call her boss, the chief medical examiner for North Carolina, for further questions or opinions.
Right before the day was over, the jurors were excused for a brief break. The defense wanted to call into evidence a rape kit. Gardner collected several items from Emily Anderson. The ME's office does not test those rape kit samples. Gardner testified she turned over the rape kit to the Caldwell County Sheriff's Office, who would be responsible for having those tested.
However, the sheriff's office's evidence (which includes the rape kit) is locked up here at the Gaston County Courthouse and the person with the key apparently was not available to unlock the evidence room. The attorneys agreed on allowing the judge to inform the jury of the results of that evidence. Judge Cayer told the jurors that Gardner collected a rape kit. She turned the kit over to the Caldwell County Sheriff's Office. A known blood sample of Emily Anderson was the only part analyzed from that rape kit, and the remainder of the rape kit was not analyzed.
You should have seen some angry faces on a few folks in the courtroom. I wasn't sure if they were mad that the sheriff's office didn't examine the rape kit or if they were mad because at one point (without the jury there) Bellas said the entire rape kit was submitted to the SBI for testing, or maybe they were upset with both. Bellas later confirmed that only a sample of blood was analyzed. Why the entire kit was not tested is beyond me. Seems very important, considering the woman was missing for nine days. Maybe I am wrong.
The day kicks off again tomorrow at 9:30. Check back in around 11 for the first morning update.
When Gardner told the Caldwell County Sheriff's Office her findings and opinion that death occurred two to four days before the autopsy, Gardner testified investigators wanted to know if she was certain of that. Gardner said she certainly can't remember the conversation, but she does recall the talk about the time of death lasted a bit longer than other homicide autopsies. She suggested they call her boss, the chief medical examiner for North Carolina, for further questions or opinions.
Right before the day was over, the jurors were excused for a brief break. The defense wanted to call into evidence a rape kit. Gardner collected several items from Emily Anderson. The ME's office does not test those rape kit samples. Gardner testified she turned over the rape kit to the Caldwell County Sheriff's Office, who would be responsible for having those tested.
However, the sheriff's office's evidence (which includes the rape kit) is locked up here at the Gaston County Courthouse and the person with the key apparently was not available to unlock the evidence room. The attorneys agreed on allowing the judge to inform the jury of the results of that evidence. Judge Cayer told the jurors that Gardner collected a rape kit. She turned the kit over to the Caldwell County Sheriff's Office. A known blood sample of Emily Anderson was the only part analyzed from that rape kit, and the remainder of the rape kit was not analyzed.
You should have seen some angry faces on a few folks in the courtroom. I wasn't sure if they were mad that the sheriff's office didn't examine the rape kit or if they were mad because at one point (without the jury there) Bellas said the entire rape kit was submitted to the SBI for testing, or maybe they were upset with both. Bellas later confirmed that only a sample of blood was analyzed. Why the entire kit was not tested is beyond me. Seems very important, considering the woman was missing for nine days. Maybe I am wrong.
The day kicks off again tomorrow at 9:30. Check back in around 11 for the first morning update.
posted by THE HICKORY DAILY RECORD at at
5:02 PM
11 Comments:
OK, I know the tide is against me here. There seems to be overwhelming support to convict Mr. Anderson on this forum. But come on:
"...that Emily Anderson died two to four days before Gardner performed the autopsy."
How does the prosecution explain this?
"...the remainder of the rape kit was not analyzed."
She was alive a few days earlier and no rape kit DNA testing was performed? Why not?
You have to admit something is wrong here. Is everyone still convinced Mr. Anderson did this crime?
How many men go to a dinner party and have no idea where their wife is??? Seems suspious.
my husband has no idea where i am half the time. i don't know where he is either.
not so strange if they were supposed to meet there.
Well, when I read this I was shocked! ....two - four days? Where was she the other 6-8 days? Tied up in the barn? I might add the Prosecution and Investigators may need to watch CSI to see just how it's done
My husband would go to a dinner party with me missing. He would just assume I was late and would turn up.
I am less and less convinced that Jerry did it.
Did you ever notice that CSI is fiction? Ask any real-life investigator and they will tell you how much harder shows like CSI have made their job. If my husband went to a dinner party not knowing where I was, I would divorce him assuming he hadn't killed me first.
My hubby would also never attend a party without me by his side or at least knowing my location. Seems Jerry wasn't worried as to Emily's where abouts. All I meant by CSI is: it's a VERY informative show. Alot of common sense investigation and covering all of the bases. You have to admit there were things that even I (as a private citizen) would have thought about doing. Like keeping the video tapes from the area.
I guess it's easy for those of us outside the loop to figure out what we'd do differently. I think if I were Dubs and Campbell and wanted to use the "hunters in the area" as part of my defense, I would have put forth a great effort to actually find someone who would admit to hunting in the area at that particular date and time. If I were a juror, I don't think I would fall for that one without proof there was hunters in the area or that Dubs tried to find out if there were. If there's no proof of those things, then that part of the defense would certainly not cause reasonable doubt in my mind. I mean there COULD have been someone target shooting, someone killing an ailing animal, or someone cleaning a gun that accidentally discharged....but those people could be found if that were the case.
I have to agree with you tinkerbell. I believe I would have kept the video tapes too.
I agree with you eureka, finding the hunters would have been good for Mr. Anderson, but not finding them is hardly evidence he killed his wife.
What about this other white elephant sitting in the room, doesn't it destroy the prosecutions theory of what happened if Emily was alive 5 days after she disappeared?
And that is from the prosecution's witness.
With evidence like this, I don't understand why charges were even brought against Mr. Anderson. I think with this new information everyone should start locking their doors again because a killer is still out there.
Allison,
I never said that not finding hunters was evidence he killed his wife. However, the fact that these potential hunters were not found or possibly even sought would make me see right through Dubs little lawyer tactics if I were a juror. Her suggestion with lack of proof would not cause me to have reasonable doubt.
As for the ME's testimony, you're forgetting some of the testimony. Though Dubs asked the ME three times (for emphasis) if it was her opinion that Emily died two to four days before the autopsy, Bellas asked her once if there was anything that she found that excluded Dec. 29 as a possible date of death and she said NO.
"Bellas asked her once if there was anything that she found that excluded Dec. 29 as a possible date of death and she said NO."
I think though that Bellas is playing semantics. The ME says the death most likely occurred 2 to 4 days ago. Does that 100% rule out 11 days ago?
No, the nature of the tests performed speak nothing with 100% certainty as to what happened. That is just the nature of these tests. They are not what is known as exclusionary in nature. Bellas could have asked if the tests allow for Emily dying on Christmas day and the answer still would be yes. Even though we know that is not true. This is just the nature of non-exclusionary tests. I think the Bellas question was an underhanded trick by the prosecution to befuddle the jury. And it works sometimes.
It does bother me in this case and others that prosecutors sometimes display the human frailty of needing to be right. They are hell bent on convicting someone even if they eventually uncover evidence showing the person didn’t do it. A need to save face at all costs. Even if a man’s life is on the line. Look at the Duke Lacrosse case. Scary.
But I think you have to apply the reasonable man rule. What conclusion would a reasonable man draw. The ME is an unbiased professional trained to make these determinations for a living. In her view the death occurred 2 to 4 days earlier. A reasonable person would then conclude the death occurred in that time frame.
You can't pick and choose the testimony you like and don't like. Believing signals from a beer drinking dog, but not believing testimony from the ME is not what a reasonable man would do.
Remember, the prosecution must make its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Does testimony that Emily most likely died 2 to 4 days earlier create such a doubt? I think it does.
Post a Comment
<< Home