Evidence of Murder (22 page)

Jeff Ashton addressed his next witness. “Would you please state your name and your position?”

The tall, well-structured, dark-skinned man, best described as an authoritative person, said, “I’m Shashi B. Gore, chief medical examiner of District Nine, Orange and Osceola Counties, Florida.”

When asked, Gore outlined his medical education. “Basic medicine and surgery in Bombay, India. I completed my baccalaureate in medicine and surgery and pursued it with pathology, microbiology, in 1963, University of Bombay. Further on, I specialized in forensic pathology and toxicology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1969. I’ve been working as a medical examiner or associate for the last eighteen years.”

The audience shifted in their seats, impressed with the doctor.

Ashton continued his examination. “Are you qualified as an expert to give opinions in the area of forensic pathology, in Florida?” Gore answered affirmatively.

After a short exchange with defense counsel, Judge Perry accepted Dr. Gore to render opinions in the discussed field.

Ashton’s questions revealed that Gore responded, when summoned, to the Disney site of the body, on June 12, 1997. The ME said that he had the body removed to the special mortuary facility for the autopsy, during which he supervised the taking of pictures of various aspects of the procedure. He had the pictures produced as slides to be presented here. After Gore confirmed that the slides showed the remains as they appeared when the ME arrived at the scene, Ashton asked the doctor to describe the findings to the jury.

The courtroom grew still at the sight of the slides, and there were more than a few gasps. The Larson and Thomas families held each other’s hands for comfort as they steeled themselves for the dreaded ordeal ahead.

John Huggins stared curiously at the slides, his face totally expressionless.

Ashton asked Dr. Gore to explain what the picture slides showed. Pointing to the first one, the doctor said, “This is the basic picture, the first one we take normally as a routine practice, which tells the name of the victim as well as the time and the number.

“This is for identification of the site only. You can see on this area the growth of some vegetation.”

The next slide, Gore explained, “was the picture we took that shows the left leg and part of the foot.” He stated, “It does not show any peculiar pattern of injury.”

He took the next picture after the remains were moved to the morgue. Gore noted, “It shows the front of the face. This is what we call an identification shot.” He pointed out, “Unfortunately, the body was not identifiable because of the decomposition changes.”

The jury reacted with quiet shock as they viewed the beaten, battered, unrecognizable face of the young woman. The Larson and Thomas families averted their eyes, but not quickly enough, to avoid seeing their beloved wife and daughter’s last agonies. Tears filled their eyes, but they hung on grimly.

Moving to the next slide, Dr. Gore explained clinically how “it shows the torso complete, the breasts, the abdomen and part of the neck and chin.” He pointed out a reddish area on the left breast region, “which is different from the area with no injuries.” He suggested, “There could have been some injury prior to death.”

Ashton, with the curiosity of a nonmedical expert, asked about the difference in appearance before and after death.

Gore responded in great detail, explaining antemortem (before death) and postmortem (after death) trauma.

With a change in slides, Dr. Gore stated, “This gives a complete idea of what happened.... This is the genitalia, the thighs,” he indicated, pointing out specifically, “this area shows definite evidence of antemortem injury, antemortem trauma.” He moved his head, silently conveying the sad situation he was presenting.

Ashton asked the doctor, “What type of antemortem injuries do you think would cause that?”

After thoughtful consideration the doctor responded: “As common sense . . . one would expect this could be as a result of sexual intercourse or molestation or attempt at sexual intercourse.”

The audience whispered comments; the jury seemed visibly shaken by this information.

Gore elaborated, pointing to the slide. “This is the posterior end, the buttocks; this is the anus, the perianal region.”

Prosecutor Ashton, trying to bring the attack Carla Larson suffered into sharper focus, interrupted to ask, “Are there any internal injuries to the sexual organ?”

“No.”

Jeff pressed, “So what you see is the external?”

“Internally,” Dr. Gore answered, “there were no tears or lacerations of the vagina or the anus, the rectum.”

Again a wave of whispers drifted through the audience. “Was she raped, or was there an attempt at rape?” they asked each other. The judge rapped his gavel for quiet.

Dr. Gore continued, next showing a slide displaying the hyoid bone, in the front of the neck. “You can see the area of hemorrhage.” He pointed with his marker. “There is evidence of antemortem traumatization, of antemortem injuries. Injuries that the victim received prior to death.”

The doctor went into a long explanation about another slide that showed the insect activity on the body. “The animal activity . . . immediately after the death, they come up there and start taking the pieces of flesh. But you don’t see any reaction,” Gore emphasized, “because there was no life.” Gore stressed that “reaction is very important, because reaction means life.”

The families’ grieving reactions were clearly visible on their faces. Members of the press wondered how long the families could stand to see and hear these awful details.

The ME showed a slide exhibiting the left hand of the victim. He pointed out that the wedding band was clearly in view on the finger, with no major lacerations or abrasions.

One member of the press leaned over to a colleague and said sardonically, “Wonder why he didn’t rip off that ring.” The other answered cynically, “Must have been on too tight and he didn’t have a knife to cut off the finger.”

Ashton, continuing to focus on the brutal attack on the victim, asked, “What you have shown us here in the photographs are all the areas of antemortem injury that you believe exist, is that right?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the body was found,” Jeff asked, “do you recall whether the earlobes for earrings were torn in any way?”

“No.”

“They were not?” Jeff asked in surprise.

“No,” replied the doctor firmly.

Continuing on the same track, Ashton asked, “Were there holes for pierced earrings?”

“Yes, sir” was the positive answer.

Again the reporter whispered to his colleague, “He removed the earrings, not ripped them out.” And the other one answered derisively, “Probably didn’t want to harm the diamonds.”

“Was there anything on the body, other than the one ring that we saw in the photograph . . . the wedding ring?”

“No.”

The prosecutor was subtly stressing the importance of the victim’s jewelry and its relation to this case, and bringing out the fact that the killer took every bit of the victim’s clothing, as well as her jewelry.

Ashton went on, in another direction. “Is there anything to indicate that the body was dragged to the area where it was found?”

Dr. Gore tilted his head and stared upward before answering. “I did not see any drag marks on the body that would have indicated to me linear antemortem, that is before death, scratches, either on the buttocks or on the front of the abdomen or anywhere on the legs. I did not see those.” He paused, and after consideration, added, “The legs were clean and clear.”

“If the body after death was dragged, can that still leave some evidence?” Ashton asked.

The doctor settled back in the witness chair and answered calmly, “There will be some evidence indeed.”

Ashton continued: “Did you see anything to indicate that after death the body was dragged or scratched or abraded in any way?”

“There was no indication,” Dr. Gore affirmed.

Still pressing to establish the facts and leave no doubts, Ashton asked, “Anything to indicate in any way that this body was moved after she died?”

“I did not see any indication,” Dr. Gore answered in a quiet but firm voice.

Ashton stepped back from the podium and in a clear, strong voice asked, “Based upon your examination in this case, do you have an opinion as to the cause of death of Carla Larson?”

The courtroom grew totally silent, awaiting the doctor’s response. “Yes, sir” was the firm, positive answer. “Yes, sir.”

Ashton asked, “And what is that opinion?”

“In my opinion,” Dr. Gore began, aware of how important his answer would be, “the cause of death in this particular case is asphyxiation.” He halted to define what he meant. “That is the common word, meaning depriving of oxygen to the human body as a result of severe neck injury and strangulation. So when that is inflicted, naturally the fresh oxygen to the body is curtailed, and that is the state we call asphyxiation, asphyxia.”

Ashton questioned the doctor: “Is it possible scientifically for you to give a precise time of death?”

Gore shook his head emphatically. “No.”

Ashton tried again. “Based upon what you saw, is it possible to give estimates as to whether certain dates and times are consistent with being the time of death?”

“Yes, sir.”

The prosecutor asked, “Would what you saw be consistent with Carla Larson dying sometime between noon and one on June 10, 1997?”

“It is not inconsistent with that.”

Ashton continued: “Would, in fact, the potential time of death be much broader than that hour?”

“Yes, sir. That’s the reason that we gave the cause of death that early time, from noon to maybe two or three o’clock. But we can’t be a hundred percent certain. Nobody can, in fact.”

For the record Jeff Ashton had achieved a reasonable time frame of the actual killing.

Bob Wesley rose and strode commandingly to the podium. He initiated a series of detailed questions about antemortem and postmortem trauma, Gore’s record keeping, taking of photographs and how the ME went about making his tests.

The lawyer asked a preponderance of questions, in hopes of countering the accuracy of the medical testimony.

Wesley asked, “Dr. Gore, another test that you performed is to remove a semen sample from the vagina of Ms. Larson, is that correct?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And that was obtained with a swab?”

“Correct.”

“And the purpose of taking that sample was for testing or comparison, correct, sir?”

The doctor agreed.

Wesley asked the doctor the procedure of how the work was done, if he was the person who retrieved the sample or if it was done under his direction. “Was it the standard pathological exam?”

The doctor answered yes.

Strangely, Wesley did not pursue this line, especially since the investigation found that the semen taken from Carla’s body did not match Huggins’s. Testing determined that it was from her husband, Jim Larson.

Wesley asked a series of detailed questions about trauma to the genital area, which Dr. Gore answered fully.

Wesley added, “And there was no trauma to the perianal region, is that correct?”

“That is correct.”

Wesley moved their attention to defensive wounds.

“Doctor,” Wesley asked, “when you examined Ms. Larson’s body, you did not find any broken fingernails, did you?”

When Gore told him that was correct, Wesley continued: “There was no skin or debris underneath the fingernails, is that correct?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Nothing,” Wesley went on, “to indicate that there had been a struggle, that she used her hands to defend herself, is that correct?”

This disclosure brought a buzz of whispers among the people attending: “Where was Wesley heading? Was he implying that Carla didn’t try to fight back? Why didn’t she? Maybe, for whatever reason, she wasn’t able to defend herself?” they asked. Judge Perry rapped his gavel, silencing the noisy comments.

The doctor thought for a moment and then stated, “My findings only tell me that I did not find anything between the nails and the finger beds. Now, whether it was washed off, whether it went off, we don’t know. But my finding is that I did not see anything, any skin tags, blood or fiber.”

“Okay, Dr. Gore, when you do your work, when you go to a crime scene, isn’t one of the procedures that you place bags over the hands of the victim?”

When Gore agreed, Wesley asked, “What is the purpose of placing bags over the hands?”

“The reason is simple. That we should not lose any trace evidence.”

“And that is because your job is to collect, preserve, every bit of evidence, correct? So the hands of Ms. Larson would have been bagged at the scene, correct? Could you have put bags over the feet also?”

“Yes, sir.”

Wesley, satisfied that he made points about evidence, continued asking detailed questions about defensive wounds, blood discoloration, abrasions.

One of the issues that defense raised involved the question of breast cancer, which Ashton vehemently objected to, arguing, “It isn’t relevant to this case.”

After heated discussions Judge Perry agreed.

Despite Judge Perry’s ruling on the breast cancer issue, Bob Wesley continued to bring up irrelevant issues with the clear intention to confuse and complicate the proceedings.

Ultimately Dr. Shashi Gore’s testimony concluded and he stepped down from the stand, obviously tired and glad to be finished.

After Ashton and Culhan gathered their files and papers together and secured them for the night, they went to dinner to unwind from the pressures of the day.

“I don’t know about you, Ted, but I’m bushed,” Ashton said as they looked over the dinner menu.