The Community Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment  
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 169
Reply with quote  #1 

SOURCE:

http://www.acandyrose.com/05302002Depo-RobertStratbuckerMd.htm



00001

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2 ATLANTA DIVISION

ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF,

4 Plaintiff,

5 CIVIL ACTION FILE

vs.

6 NO. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)

7 JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY and

PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY,

8 Defendants.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10 

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

11 

ROBERT ALLEN STRATBUCKER, M.D.

12 

13 May 30, 2002

11:02 a.m.

14 

1025 Howard Street

15 Omaha, Nebraska

16 

Alexander J. Gallo, CCR-B-1332, CRR

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

00002

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

2 On behalf of the Plaintiff:

3 (via telephonic means)

4 DARNAY HOFFMAN, Esq.

5 Law Offices of Darnay Hoffman

6 Suite 209

7 210 West 70th Street

8 New York, New York 10023

9 (212) 712-2766

10 On behalf of the Defendants:

11 JAMES C. RAWLS, Esq.

12 ERIC P. SCHROEDER, Esq.

13 Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, L.L.P.

14 Sixteenth Floor

15 191 Peachtree Street, N.E.

16 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

17 (404) 572-6600

18 L. LIN WOOD, Esq.

19 MATTHEW WOOD

20 L. Lin Wood, P.C.

21 2140 The Equitable Building

22 100 Peachtree Street

23 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

24 (404) 522-1713

25 Also Present: J. Rollins, Videographer

00003

1 Deposition Robert A. Stratbucker, M.D.

2 May 30, 2002

3 (Defendants' Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 and

4 Exhibit-3 were marked for identification.)

5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the

6 beginning of videotape No. 1 of the deposition

7 of Robert A. Stratbucker, M.D., M.S., Ph.D.,

8 P.E., being taken on May 30 of the year 2002

9 in Omaha, Nebraska.

10 Counsel will now introduce themselves.

11 MR. WOOD: My name is Lin Wood. I

12 am one of the attorneys for the defendants John

13 and Patsy Ramsey. With me from my office is

14 Matthew Wood, legal assistant.

15 Go ahead, Derek.

16 MR. BAUER: Derek Bauer with the law

17 offices of Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy in

18 Atlanta, also on behalf of Patsy and John

19 Ramsey.

20 MR. RAWLS: Jim Rawls from Powell,

21 Goldstein in Atlanta on behalf of John and Patsy

22 Ramsey.

23 MR. HOFFMAN: I am Darnay Hoffman

24 appearing on behalf of Chris Wolf by

25 teleconference phone in New York City.

00004

1 MR. WOOD: Everybody good to go?

2 MR. HOFFMAN: Ready to go.

3 MR. WOOD: This will, in fact, be

4 the deposition of Dr. Robert A. Stratbucker, an

5 individual who has been identified as an expert

6 witness for the plaintiff Chris Wolf in this

7 case and who has submitted a Rule 26 Expert

8 Witness Report.

9 The deposition is being taken

10 pursuant to agreement of counsel and pursuant to

11 an amended notice of deposition which is dated

12 May 16, 2002, which I have marked for purposes

13 of identification, Darnay, as Defendants' Exhibit

14 1.

15 MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, Lin.

16 MR. WOOD: And the deposition will

17 be taken for all permissible purposes under the

18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including

19 discovery, cross-examination and, if appropriate,

20 use as evidence at trial.

21 All objections except as to the form

22 of the question or the responsiveness of the

23 answer will be reserved until the time of trial,

24 hearing, or other formal use of the deposition.

25 Are those stipulations agreeable with

00005

1 you, Darnay?

2 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, Lin, thank you. 

3 They are agreeable to me.

4 ROBERT A. STRATBUCKER, having been

5 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as

6 follows:

7 EXAMINATION

8 BY-MR.WOOD:

9 Q. For the record would you state your

10 full name for the record, please, sir?

11 A. Robert Allen Stratbucker.

12 Q. And there are a host of appropriate

13 initials after your name. You are a medical

14 doctor among other degrees that you hold; am I

15 right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And I will address you as Dr.

18 Stratbucker, which is appropriate.

19 Dr. Stratbucker, I've introduced

20 myself to you. I'm Lin Wood and along with

21 Mr. Rawls and Derek Bauer, we represent John and

22 Patsy Ramsey, the parents of JonBenet Ramsey who

23 was murdered in December of 1996 in Boulder,

24 Colorado. You understand that, don't you?

25 A. Yes.

00006

1 Q. And you understand that you have

2 been retained as an expert witness for an

3 individual named Chris Wolf, who is the

4 plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging libel filed

5 against Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey that pends in the

6 federal court in Atlanta, Georgia. Do you

7 understand that?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. When were you retained in this case,

10 sir?

11 A. About eight months ago.

12 Q. Can you date that for me with --

13 A. Well, I would have to check my

14 record to be precise about it.

15 Q. If you would do that, I would

16 appreciate it. I would like a precise date.

17 A. Well, the most precise date I can

18 give you is February 26 of this year, 2002,

19 which is the date of my report; however, I was

20 engaged prior to that. And the precise date of

21 that I can only estimate. I would say it was

22 about two months prior to that. It would be

23 about eight months ago.

24 Q. So you dated -- your best date, it

25 would be December 2001 or January 2002?

00007

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you recall the manner in which

3 you were first contacted?

4 A. I was contacted by telephone by Mr.

5 Hoffman.

6 Q. Let me tell you that I understand

7 that you are an extremely busy expert for Mr.

8 Hoffman, and I understand that you had to do a

9 fair amount of juggling of your schedule to

10 change this deposition from the date of the

11 28th, I believe, to today, the 30th to

12 accommodate my desire to do some family things

13 over the weekend. I appreciate that.

14 How many depositions have you given

15 this month?

16 A. This month I have not given any.

17 Q. How many court appearances have you

18 made this month?

19 A. None this month.

20 Q. How many active cases are you

21 presently engaged in as an expert witness?

22 A. Probably four.

23 Q. And what do you do with your time

24 other than your consultant work as an expert

25 witness?

00008

1 A. Well, I maintain a part-time medical

2 practice. I am retired from full-time medical

3 practice at this point. And I have a number

4 of other biomedical engineering type enterprises

5 that I am involved in, principally a

6 development, research and development company of

7 my own which does development of medical

8 devices, diagnostic and therapeutic medical

9 devices.

10 And, for example, over the last

11 month, I have had occasion to be in Mainland

12 China for probably three weeks and other travel

13 related to that activity.

14 Q. What type of diagnostic and

15 therapeutic medical devices have been developed

16 by your company?

17 A. Cardiologic, primarily.

18 Q. So there is no misunderstanding, what

19 do you mean in lay terms when you say

20 cardiologic?

21 A. Devices that relate to the diagnosis

22 of heart disease and therapeutic devices that

23 relate to the treatment of heart disease.

24 Q. You have served as an expert witness

25 in civil litigation in the past as well as

00009

1 criminal matters; is that true?

2 A. Yes, I have.

3 Q. Give me your best estimate, Dr.

4 Stratbucker, I am not trying to hold you to a

5 precise figure, but give me your best estimate

6 as to the amount of money, gross revenue that

7 you received in the year 2001 in your capacity

8 as a consultant/expert witness in civil or

9 criminal litigation.

10 A. I would say $75,000.

11 Q. How are we doing this year, 2002?

12 A. About on -- about average, about the

13 same.

14 Q. How long has that figure been about

15 the average, $75,000 a year?

16 A. I would say it is higher now. It

17 has been increasing over the years; but as an

18 average, I would say for a good ten years,

19 probably.

20 Q. Are you on a regular retainer as a

21 consultant/expert for any company?

22 A. I have been with some companies and

23 now with different companies.

24 Companies are acquired, and those

25 things change from time to time; but it has

00010

1 been a relatively constant average.

2 Q. As we sit here today, what company,

3 or companies, pays you a regular retainer to

4 serve as a consultant/expert witness?

5 A. Within this last month, we have

6 managed to negotiate a contract with the

7 Department of Defense, which is actually

8 channeled through TASER International in Phoenix,

9 Arizona, a research project for the Marine

10 Corps. And that is a sizable research program

11 that I am very much involved in and one of the

12 reasons I have been so tied up this month.

13 Q. Are you paid by check from the

14 United States Treasury or are you paid by check

15 from TASER International?

16 A. I am paid by check from TASER

17 International. They are the fiscal repository

18 for the grant funds.

19 Q. And that only came up within the

20 last month?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Let me hand you what has been marked

23 for purposes of identification to your deposition

24 as Defendants' Exhibit-2.

25 And also while you are looking at

00011

1 that, let me hand you what has been marked for

2 purposes of identification as Defendants'

3 Exhibit-3 and ask you to just look through

4 those. A couple of quick questions to ask you

5 about them.

6 A. All right.

7 Q. In fact, Defendants' Exhibit 2, that

8 is a true and correct and complete copy of the

9 Rule 26 expert report that you have prepared,

10 signed, and submitted in this lawsuit, true?

11 A. It is nearly complete. I noted in

12 one of the copies that's here that there was a

13 page missing out of the autopsy report that is

14 contained in this. And I have supplemented that

15 with a page from another source.

16 Q. Page 4 was missing from your report?

17 A. Page 4 was missing, yes.

18 Q. With the addition of page 4 of the

19 autopsy report on JonBenet Ramsey, does, in

20 fact, Defendants' Exhibit 2 represent a true and

21 correct and complete copy of your Rule 26 Expert

22 Witness Report?

23 A. Yes, it does.

24 Q. And you stand by your report; do you

25 not, sir?

00012

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. Is there anything that you would

3 like to change in that report before we question

4 you about it today?

5 A. No.

6 Q. You also, as part of that report,

7 have supplied us with a copy of your most

8 recent CV, your curriculum vitae; have you not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And it is a true and -- I was

11 impressed with the thoroughness of it. You even

12 went back to age 19 when you were working at

13 WOW TV or radio, the Johnny Carson Show. It's

14 very thorough in terms of describing your

15 professional endeavors and work experience; is it

16 not, sir?

17 A. I hope it is, yes.

18 Q. And you intended it to be; did you

19 not?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So that we can go there and we can

22 find out where you worked professionally, right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. We can find out who you worked for

25 in terms of your professional endeavors; can we

00013

1 not, sir?

2 A. I think you can, yes.

3 Q. Do you stand by that CV as being

4 complete and accurate?

5 A. It might have a typographical error

6 here and there, but --

7 Q. We will forgive that.

8 A. -- for the most part, it is accurate

9 and complete.

10 Q. Well, you say for the most part. 

11 Is there any part, other than typographical

12 errors, that you have some concerns about in

13 terms of it being accurate and complete?

14 A. Only that I think it has not been

15 updated for about -- I had it retyped, but I

16 didn't update it in preparation for this

17 deposition because of some requirements of the

18 type of display, the font size and so forth. 

19 When I did that, it changed the pagination and

20 so forth of the thing. It is different than

21 it was. But I did not update it to include,

22 for example, the items that I've just testified

23 to in connection with the Marine Corps and some

24 of the things that have happened within the last

25 few months.

00014

1 Q. I want to get those updated. So

2 tell me, other than -- and you say the Marine

3 Corps. Is that the Department of Defense

4 deal --

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. -- that's channeled through TASER

7 International?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. And that has been only in the last

10 month, right?

11 A. Well, it has been in preparation for

12 a long time. But, I mean, it is a research

13 and development contract that has been in

14 preparation for well over a year, but the award

15 had only been made within the last month.

16 Q. Anything else that you want to add

17 to your CV in terms of updating it other than

18 the Marine Corps, Department of Defense, TASER

19 International contract that you've just described

20 for me?

21 A. Well, there are a number of other

22 items that I referred to in connection with my

23 travels and so on. I am actively pursuing

24 those. Those are -- for example, there is a

25 proposition outstanding with a major Chinese

00015

1 company to take on the manufacturing of a device

2 that I have developed here in Nebraska and have

3 got patent coverage and trademark coverage on

4 and so forth which lends itself to manufacturing

5 in the Chinese economy. And I have been very

6 active in the development of that line of

7 activity.

8 Q. What is that device?

9 A. It is the -- the trade name of it

10 is an Omnitrode, O-M-N-I-T-R-O-D-E. It is a

11 specialized piece of actual apparatus that a

12 patient wears in order to supply a very

13 comprehensive and complete line of cardiac data

14 to a computer system that in turn does various

15 kinds of pattern recognition, data compression

16 and so forth on the signal. It is integrated

17 into a complete system.

18 My colleagues in Houston have been

19 working primarily on the electronic aspects of

20 it, and I have been working on the front end

21 or data acquisition aspects of it for a number

22 of years, and I am very actively involved in

23 that.

24 Q. So we have the Omnitrode and we have

25 got the contract with the government through

00016

1 TASER International. Any other things that you

2 need to give me to make sure that we have

3 updated your CV before we leave here today?

4 A. Those are the principal technical

5 aspects of things, and I still maintain a number

6 of local business enterprises that take up a

7 significant amount of my time. We happen to be

8 sitting in one right now.

9 Q. The bank?

10 A. Well, the building.

11 Q. You own this building?

12 A. Not the bank, but the building that

13 the bank is in is a building where I rent

14 space and operate some commercial enterprises.

15 Q. You do your fruit and vegetables

16 deal on Saturday, still?

17 A. That's right.

18 Q. Your dad Herman, right?

19 A. Exactly right. Thank you for being

20 so perceptive.

21 Q. You still work in the land? I know

22 you went back in, what, '91, to help him out?

23 A. That is correct, yes.

24 Q. And do you still do that?

25 A. Very much so.

00017

1 Q. Still do the corn, half yellow, half

2 white?

3 A. Yes. Still deal with people in

4 Georgia for plants and so on.

5 Q. Good for you.

6 You recognize, Dr. Stratbucker, from

7 your involvement as an expert witness what your

8 role is; do you not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. How would you describe your role as

11 an expert witness in the litigation?

12 A. Well, I describe my role as being

13 somewhat similar to my role as a teacher for

14 most of my professional life. And the purpose

15 of an expert witness is to teach the judge

16 and/or jury, the court, on matters which may be

17 unfamiliar with them and to make it possible to

18 properly assess evidence and so forth in the

19 face of unfamiliar, particularly high technology

20 sorts of things.

21 Q. Areas of expertise that are generally

22 considered to be beyond that of the knowledge of

23 a lay person?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And one of your roles, and I think

00018

1 you view it as an important one, is to educate

2 the court, the jury, on scientific information?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. You also are called on, you

5 recognize, to take a certain set of facts and

6 to render opinions from those facts, true?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And you recognize that as an expert

9 witness it is not your role to create facts; am

10 I right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You are not and would not

13 misrepresent facts or mislead anyone with respect

14 to the facts upon which you give your opinions,

15 true?

16 A. That is very true.

17 Q. And you are not taking sides here;

18 are you, sir?

19 A. No.

20 Q. I mean, you come into this dedicated

21 to the concept of your role is to be fair,

22 right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. To be honest, right?

25 A. Correct.

00019

1 Q. To be unbiased and objective, true?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And if I were to present you with

4 factual information, photographic or otherwise,

5 and you felt like the information that I have

6 presented you with established that JonBenet

7 Ramsey had marks on her body that are consistent

8 with the application of a stun gun, you wouldn't

9 hesitate to say that; would you, sir?

10 A. If I -- if it is all as you just

11 represented, that is correct. If all of the

12 evidence that you are referring to is

13 scientifically defensible, I would not have any

14 reservations about it, no.

15 Q. You do not have any agenda here,

16 hidden or otherwise; do you, sir?

17 A. No, sir, I do not.

18 Q. How much money does TASER

19 International pay you each month?

20 A. It's difficult to say because we are

21 just embarking on this now for the first time;

22 and I bill my time at a hourly rate, which

23 happens to be $125 an hour. And I have yet

24 actually to submit a bill. I need to do that

25 in the next probably day or two to finish out

00020

1 this month, which is the first active month of

2 this program.

3 Q. So you have never received any money

4 from TASER International?

5 A. No.

6 Q. They don't pay you in your job as

7 medical director for TASER International?

8 A. Well, that is a very recent

9 description or title. And, in fact, I have not

10 been paid a cent for that up to this point. 

11 Now, I have some anticipation that that will

12 change, particularly since the Marine Corps grant

13 or contract, actually, was approved.

14 Q. How recent has that title been

15 bestowed upon you, Medical Director for TASER

16 International, Inc.?

17 A. Well, I think it has been talked

18 about now for a couple of months. As to

19 whether it was a proper designation of the kind

20 of activity that I will be involved in, I have

21 actually commenced over the last probably 60

22 days to take on the role of an on-call medical

23 advisor, medical director, if you will, to

24 handle problems that come up in the field

25 related to their devices that they market, the

00021

1 TASER in particular.

2 And because I have -- I thought when

3 I finished and retired from medical practice

4 that my on-call days and weekends and nights and

5 so forth were going to be freed up some, but I

6 have now jumped right back into the fire from

7 the frying pan, I think, carrying a full-time

8 pager so that I can be reached at a moment's

9 notice and that sort of thing.

10 Q. By TASER International?

11 A. Yes. Well, by -- and by -- and

12 their customers.

13 Q. Well, let me, because you indicated

14 that you had talked about the title for a

15 couple of months and as to whether it was a

16 proper designation that you will be involved in

17 or not.

18 Just plain and simple, do you hold

19 the position as the medical director for TASER

20 International, Inc., the manufacturer of the Air

21 TASER stun gun?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. How long have you held that

24 position, sir?

25 A. I would say, to be precise about it,

00022

1 it was formally announced at a meeting in Las

2 Vegas two weeks ago.

3 Q. Is that when you took on the role,

4 two weeks ago?

5 A. Well, I haven't been paid yet, so I

6 don't know whether -- if it means I got a

7 check from them, I haven't got a check from

8 them.

9 Q. Sir, it doesn't mean whether you got

10 a check from them or not. You have a number

11 of degrees. You are an educated man. You

12 have been a businessman all of your life. It

13 is a simple question.

14 When did you become the medical

15 director for TASER International, Inc.? Two

16 weeks ago, two months ago? Tell me.

17 A. Oh, I am not sure that I can say

18 that I am even yet because I don't have cards. 

19 I don't have any -- I don't have an official

20 statement from them. I don't have a letter. 

21 I don't have anything other than the

22 presentation of myself as the newly appointed

23 medical director of TASER International at their

24 big annual meeting here a few weeks ago in Las

25 Vegas.

00023

1 Q. So you would not have --

2 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, may I ask you a

3 question?

4 MR. WOOD: No. Ask me a question?

5 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. Are you asking

6 him when he actually began performing any duties

7 as a medical director for TASER?

8 MR. WOOD: I am not. I am asking

9 him when he became the medical director for

10 TASER International, Inc., period. That's my

11 question.

12 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you.

13 Q. (By Mr. Wood) So you would not

14 have represented yourself as a medical director

15 for TASER International, Inc. until two weeks

16 ago when the announcement was made in Las Vegas,

17 right?

18 A. It certainly would have been an

19 unofficial or in the context of being that that

20 was a discussion that was ongoing and it was

21 highly likely that it would occur.

22 Q. But it had not occurred prior to two

23 weeks ago?

24 A. Prior to two weeks ago, it had not

25 occurred.

00024

1 Q. And you had not, as Mr. Hoffman

2 suggested a good question, you had not taken on

3 any actual job responsibilities as the medical

4 director until two weeks ago; is that true?

5 A. The job responsibility --

6 Q. Is that true?

7 A. That is true, yes.

8 Q. And you don't know how much they are

9 going to pay you for that job; do you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. How much?

12 A. They proposed to pay me $1,000 a

13 month as a retainer. The other activities will

14 be over and above that.

15 Q. And what about stock options, do you

16 have any stock options in TASER International,

17 Inc.?

18 A. No, I don't.

19 Q. Do you own any stock in that

20 company?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Have you been made any promises that

23 you would receive any such benefits --

24 A. No.

25 Q. -- from being associated with them?

00025

1 A. No, I have not.

2 Q. Have you ever had any stock options?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. In TASER International, Inc.?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Tell me about those.

7 A. I was compensated by stock option

8 exclusively for work that I did for them several

9 years ago on animal studies for their device. 

10 Those options matured and were executed.

11 Q. You purchased the stock?

12 A. Yeah. And I purchased the stock,

13 and I sold the stock. Actually I divided it

14 up amongst my relatives is what I did with it.

15 Q. How many shares of stock are we

16 talking about?

17 A. About 3,000.

18 Q. How much profit did you make on that

19 sale, gross?

20 A. About $40,000.

21 Q. $40,000 gross profit on the sale of

22 the stock of TASER International, Inc.?

23 A. Over the exercise price, yes.

24 Q. Over the exercise price. TASER

25 International, Inc. stock, right?

00026

1 A. Right.

2 (Defendants' Exhibit-4 was marked for

3 identification.)

4 Q. (By Mr. Wood) Defendants' Exhibit-3.

5 Let me have back No. 2.

6 A. You want three?

7 Q. I want No. 2. I want you to look

8 at No. 3.

9 In your Rule 26 report, you

10 indicated that you had examined the nine-page

11 autopsy report, correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And you had also examined four

14 monochrome laser printer images, correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. The four monochrome laser printer

17 images you refer to in your report, Rule 26

18 report, are the four monochrome laser images

19 that have been marked for purposes of

20 identification as Defendants' Exhibit 3; am I

21 right?

22 A. Yes. I think that is correct.

23 Q. Let me hand you what has been marked

24 for purposes of identification to your deposition

25 as Defendants' Exhibit-4 and ask you to take a

00027

1 moment, Dr. Stratbucker, and ask you to review

2 that letter, and I have some questions for you

3 about that letter.

4 A. All right.

5 Q. Are you familiar with that letter,

6 sir?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What is the date on the letter?

9 A. January 16, 2002.

10 Q. Five months ago?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Flip to the signature page, sir. Is

13 that, in fact, your signature?

14 A. Yes, it is.

15 Q. And you wrote that letter, as

16 indicated on it, in your capacity of being the

17 medical director for TASER International, Inc.;

18 did you not?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. Dr. Stratbucker, would you like to

21 take a moment and reflect on your testimony

22 given today under oath and give me the truth

23 about your involvement as the medical director

24 for TASER International, Inc., please, sir? 

25 Straightforward, without equivocation. Because

00028

1 we have got some explaining to do; do we not?

2 A. I don't think so.

3 Q. Well, why don't you clear it up

4 because I've heard you earlier testify under

5 oath that you have never represented yourself

6 out to be the medical director of TASER

7 International, Inc. prior to two weeks ago; and

8 I have that letter where you have, in fact,

9 represented yourself as such five months ago. 

10 And I would like to find out how I am not

11 either understanding you or whether you have

12 been candid with me about your role, financially

13 and otherwise, with TASER International, Inc.,

14 who just happens to be the manufacturer of the

15 Air TASER stun gun which is one of the issues

16 in this case. So why don't you explain that to

17 me, please.

18 A. I will be happy to, and I won't say

19 anything different than I've already said. And

20 that is that the official pronouncement of the

21 company that I was the medical director of TASER

22 International did not occur until two weeks ago.

23 There had been discussions about it

24 prior to that. And because of the urgency of

25 this particular case in having a resolution, I

00029

1 think I authored this thing and put my name on

2 it as medical director. But I have not

3 received any money as medical director, and I

4 have not received a notification by the company

5 that I am, in fact, a medical director. So I

6 would have to say that this letter represents a

7 kind of an interim activity.

8 And I don't know that I would have

9 accomplished anything by having said I am the

10 medical director pro tem or something of the

11 sort to author this letter and give it an air

12 of officiality.

13 I am not making any cover-up or

14 anything of the sort. What I told you is

15 exactly the state of affairs of my association

16 with TASER.

17 Q. Well, where did you get -- I mean,

18 this isn't an interim letterhead; is it? This

19 letter is written on the letterhead, both a

20 cover, first page with full address, and the

21 other pages --

22 A. Yeah.

23 Q. Excuse me.

24 -- with the TASER International logo

25 and address. Where did you get that stationery?

00030

1 A. Well, as you well know surrounded by

2 computers as you are here today, you can make

3 letterhead at the drop of a hat. So I think

4 that letterhead actually came from an e-mail

5 file that I then amended or added to in order

6 to make a letter out of it.

7 Q. You came up with this letterhead for

8 TASER International on this letter?

9 A. Yes, I have that letterhead on my

10 computer. I can turn out a --

11 Q. I am sorry?

12 A. I can turn out a letter with

13 letterhead under my own resources.

14 Q. Is that the TASER International logo?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. How did you get that?

17 A. The same way I have all these

18 photographs on my computer. That is --

19 Q. Well, who sent it to you? Somebody

20 had to send you the logo.

21 A. I am sure that TASER sent it to me.

22 Q. When?

23 A. I couldn't tell you right now. I

24 could check my computer to find out when.

25 Q. Sir, you gave this report in federal

00031

1 court in Atlanta, Georgia, and you knew at the

2 time that there were contentions that you were

3 going to be addressing that involved the Air

4 TASER stun gun manufactured by TASER

5 International, true?

6 A. No, I don't think that is true at

7 all. I didn't -- there has been no evidence

8 produced, to my knowledge, that there ever was

9 an Air TASER involved in this case at all.

10 Q. Listen very carefully.

11 A. That's is somebody's imagination,

12 maybe; but it is not any evidence available.

13 Q. We will talk about people's

14 imagination a little bit later on, but I didn't

15 ask you that. Let me go back and restate my

16 question.

17 At the time that you submitted this

18 report in federal court in Atlanta, Georgia, you

19 knew at that time that there were contentions in

20 this case that you were going to be addressing

21 that involve the Air TASER stun gun manufactured

22 by TASER International, true?

23 A. No, not true.

24 Q. You didn't believe that there was

25 any contention made by the Ramseys that an Air

00032

1 TASER stun gun might have been used on their

2 daughter? You didn't know that at the time you

3 gave this report; did you?

4 A. Yes, I knew that there was talk

5 about that. There has been talk about it on

6 national television, for heaven's sake. You

7 would be hard pressed to not know that.

8 Q. So you did, in fact, know at the

9 time that you submitted this report in federal

10 court that there were issues in this case

11 involving the possible application of an Air

12 TASER stun gun to JonBenet Ramsey, which stun

13 gun was manufactured by TASER International,

14 true?

15 A. I have known that there was a

16 contention that an Air TASER, because of its

17 geometry, met some of the requirements of

18 spacing and so forth; but I also know that no

19 such Air TASER has ever been found other than

20 by purchase by somebody who had maybe even a

21 vested interest in all of this to cause the Air

22 TASER to be implicated. But the Air TASER was

23 not implicated by being a piece of evidence in

24 this case.

25 Q. Sir, I am going to get to your

00033

1 opinions. But I am going to get an answer, if

2 I could, please, to my question whether it is

3 true or not.

4 Isn't it true, sir, that at the time

5 you submitted your Rule 26 report in federal

6 court in Atlanta, Georgia you knew that there

7 were issues in this civil litigation involving

8 the Air TASER stun gun manufactured by TASER

9 International? Is that true or not?

10 A. Well, it is true that I had heard

11 such stories, but it is not true that I used

12 the Air TASER as any foundation for my report.

13 Q. You did not use the Air TASER stun

14 gun as any foundation for your report; is that

15 your testimony?

16 A. I did not use the Air TASER as any

17 evidential foundation for my report.

18 Q. But you knew that there were issues

19 raised about the Air TASER?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. Don't you think, sir, that you had

22 an obligation and a responsibility in your

23 report or in your curriculum vitae to inform the

24 court and inform the jury about your connection

25 with TASER International, Inc.?

00034

1 A. Well, I think if you look through my

2 curriculum vitae, you will see references to

3 TASER International in my vitae that has been

4 around for a long time.

5 Q. I am going to give you an

6 opportunity in a moment to look through there

7 and show me where there is any indication in

8 that curriculum vitae about your involvement or

9 employment or consultant's role with TASER

10 International, Inc. But before we do that,

11 don't you agree with me, sir, that that should

12 have been clearly disclosed to the judge,

13 ultimately if necessary to the jury and to the

14 involved lawyers in this case?

15 A. No, I don't think it should be.

16 Q. Why not?

17 A. Well, because it is all -- its

18 involvement is all hypothetical and imaginary. 

19 It is not -- it's not -- there never has been

20 a TASER involved in this case to anybody's

21 knowledge that is other than just a supposition

22 or an invention.

23 Q. Or an opinion by an expert?

24 A. Or an opinion.

25 Q. By an expert, right?

00035

1 A. Which expert might you be referring

2 to?

3 Q. Well, maybe I am referring to the

4 one that Mr. Hoffman referred to when he said

5 that we were going to have one of your former

6 colleagues and coauthors rebut your opinion in

7 this case. You know Michael Doberson; do you

8 not, sir?

9 A. Indeed I do, yes.

10 Q. Yes, sir. And you have respect for

11 him; do you not, sir?

12 A. I certainly do, yes, sir.

13 Q. And have you been supplied by Mr.

14 Hoffman with the Rule 26 report of Dr. Michael

15 Doberson, a forensic pathologist and the coroner

16 and medical examiner for Arapahoe County,

17 Colorado?

18 A. I only recently received it, but I

19 do have that in my possession.

20 Q. When did you recently receive it?

21 A. I would say maybe a month or two

22 ago. A month ago probably.

23 Q. From Mr. Hoffman?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Why is it not in your file materials

00036

1 here this morning?

2 A. Well, I think it is.

3 Q. Well, I haven't been shown it.

4 A. I have no reason to not -- the only

5 copy I have is a fax copy, which is not a very

6 legible one.

7 Q. So if I understand -- is that

8 something you can find for us during a break,

9 perhaps?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Am I hearing you, sir, that you are

12 telling me that you don't think that in all

13 candor you should have disclosed your

14 relationship with TASER International because it

15 is your opinion that an Air TASER stun gun was

16 not used on JonBenet Ramsey? Is that what you

17 are telling me, sir?

18 A. Could you ask that question again,

19 please?

20 Q. Yes, I will be glad to restate it.

21 Are you telling me that you do not

22 believe that candor and full disclosure required

23 that you inform the court of your relationship

24 with TASER International because in your opinion,

25 an Air TASER stun gun was not used on JonBenet

00037

1 Ramsey? Is that your explanation as to why you

2 didn't have to disclose that to the court?

3 A. Well, it is not the explanation I --

4 I can't imagine anything that I have ever done

5 that could be construed as trying to hide the

6 fact that I have no connection with the Air

7 TASER company.

8 And I have testified as an expert in

9 many court proceedings in which the issue of

10 whether or not I had any business connection

11 with Air TASER had -- could have colored my

12 opinion in any way, shape or form. That is a

13 subject which, you know, all lawyers would love

14 to dance on. And it is certainly, if anything,

15 it may be a slight oversight on my part; but

16 it is by no means a subterfuge or cover-up or

17 anything of the kind. I am happy to tell you

18 anything and everything that you wish to know

19 about my association with Air TASER.

20 Q. Well, we are going to get all that

21 out today.

22 A. All right.

23 Q. Do you know Mr. Tuttle?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Air TASER, TASER International?

00038

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Was TASER International formerly known

3 as Air TASER?

4 A. Yes, it was.

5 Q. And you were back and forth with Mr.

6 Tuttle by e-mails in 2001, I believe, with

7 respect to Lou Smit's, former Homicide Detective

8 Lou Smit's presentation on the NBC series; were

9 you not?

10 A. I think I did correspond with him,

11 not because he arranged it, but because of this

12 connection with Air TASER came up quite

13 spontaneously. I had no idea where it came

14 from with -- between myself and NBC.

15 Q. You think you corresponded with, sir,

16 or did you correspond with him?

17 A. Well, I did correspond with him.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. I did correspond with him.

20 Q. And you were corresponding with him

21 on the question of whether or not Mr. Smit was

22 right, scientifically or otherwise, about his

23 belief that there were marks on JonBenet's body

24 that were consistent with the application of an

25 Air TASER stun gun, right?

00039

1 A. I -- I am sure there must be some

2 wording in there in some correspondence or

3 e-mail or whatever about that -- on that matter,

4 yes.

5 Q. And the reason that you are sure is

6 because it is there, you remember doing it, in

7 2001, right?

8 A. Yes. Uh-huh (affirmative).

9 Q. So in 2001, you are getting back and

10 forth e-mails and discussions with Mr. Tuttle at

11 Air TASER or TASER International, Inc. about

12 whether one of that company's stun guns might

13 have been used on JonBenet Ramsey; and then you

14 represent in January of 2002 that are you the

15 medical director for TASER International, Inc.;

16 and you have previously done work that at least

17 enriched you by some $40,000 from stock options

18 that were exercised and subsequently sold. And

19 you don't think that coming into this case to

20 give a Rule 26 report as an expert witness in

21 federal court that you had any responsibility,

22 an obligation professionally to disclose your

23 relationship with Air TASER or TASER

24 International, Inc.; is that your testimony, sir?

25 A. No, that is not my testimony.

00040

1 Q. Well, what is your testimony?

2 A. My testimony is that I did not and

3 still do not view it as a requirement anymore

4 than I would have to disclose the fact that I

5 have had associations with other stun gun

6 companies over the years and done practically

7 the same kind of thing for them that I have

8 done for Air TASER.

9 If, for example, this one, which is

10 made in Taiwan and is prominently displayed in

11 the work that Dr. Doberson and I did in

12 Colorado several years ago, I didn't disclose

13 the fact that I did a test for this company on

14 their stun gun to determine its electrical

15 characteristics.

16 Q. Did you get involved in some civil

17 litigation as an expert witness that involved

18 that particular stun gun?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. And you didn't disclose in that

21 litigation that you had worked for this company

22 in the past?

23 A. I did not disclose -- I probably

24 presented the report that I did for them as the

25 kind of evidence that usually is required in

00041

1 those cases.

2 Q. Sir, you have a history of not

3 disclosing information about your relationship

4 with certain electronic firms?

5 A. No, I don't have a history of any

6 such a thing.

7 Q. Well, you were -- there were two

8 attempts to fire you from the faculty at the

9 University of Nebraska Medical School because you

10 refused to disclose your relationship as a

11 consultant with Marquette Electronics, true?

12 Is that true --

13 A. Attempts.

14 Q. -- or not, sir?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. Is that the truth?

17 A. Right. That is the truth, yes, sir.

18 Q. Yes, sir. And ultimately you --

19 A. They didn't succeed, but it was the

20 truth.

21 Q. Well, they didn't succeed, if you

22 want to be technical --

23 A. Because they were wrong. They

24 didn't succeed because they were wrong.

25 Q. Let's talk about why they didn't

00042

1 succeed. They didn't succeed because they were

2 not allowed to fire you for one year after you

3 had been called back on active duty to take the

4 place of a doctor here at the base who had

5 gone over in Desert Storm --

6 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

7 Q. -- and there was a law that said

8 you can't fire somebody within a year of their

9 being called up for active duty. That's why

10 they didn't succeed; isn't that the truth, sir?

11 A. That's a pretty good reason; isn't

12 it, sir?

13 Q. It's not because you acted properly

14 in refusing to disclose your consultant

15 relationship with Marquette Electronics?

16 A. It turns out that my consultant

17 arrangement with Marquette Electronics was, in

18 fact, totally legitimate and totally sanctioned

19 by the University.

20 Q. Who tried to fire you twice because

21 you wouldn't tell them what you were doing?

22 A. No. They tried to fire me for a

23 totally -- totally other reasons but --

24 Q. What were the reasons?

25 A. -- used that reason mistakenly and

00043

1 erroneously as an acceptable reason.

2 Q. Why did they want to fire you, then? 

3 Why don't you tell us that?

4 A. Well, I will be glad to tell you

5 that.

6 Q. Please do.

7 A. The department chairman of the

8 Radiology Department, University of Nebraska

9 College of Medicine, was under the gun from the

10 dean to perform in research and development. 

11 The Radiology Department had, over the years,

12 come out dead last amongst the various competing

13 departments in the medical school for research

14 funds.

15 And the department chairman, I think,

16 thought that because I had known the founder of

17 Marquette Electronics since the day he started

18 the company in Milwaukee and that the chairman

19 was, in fact, a Milwaukean by birth, that I

20 would be a possible vehicle to attract corporate

21 funds for the department to finally make some

22 kind of showing in the area of research support

23 for the Department of Radiology.

24 When I accompanied the department

25 chairman to Milwaukee to see if we could, in

00044

1 fact, get some corporate funds to support the

2 research activities in the department, the

3 president of Marquette said to me privately, he

4 said: I wouldn't put my hard earned money in

5 that department for anything. He said: I

6 don't like that guy, and I don't think the

7 University has the capability of coming up with

8 any kind of results for my funding. So he

9 turned thumbs down on the project.

10 The dean was unhappy about it

11 because the department chairman had told him he

12 was in for a big surprise because Stratbucker

13 was going to come up with a bunch of research

14 money for the department. And that resulted in a

15 scramble to try to figure out how to save the

16 department chairman's job, and I ended up being

17 the scapegoat for the whole thing on a

18 subterfuge, basically an invention of what was

19 called conflict of interest. He said I had a

20 conflict of interest with a company and that was

21 why they were terminating me from my job.

22 I apologize for the digression in

23 totally unrelated matters here, but you seem to

24 be interested in it, so I --

25 Q. I am interested in everything that

00045

1 you have to say, sir, because my clients, you

2 understand, are being sued for $50 million by a

3 lawyer and a plaintiff who allege that Patsy

4 Ramsey brutally murdered her daughter; and you

5 are their expert. And I am interested in

6 everything about you. So don't hold back.

7 A. It sounds like you have got it all

8 well in hand, so.

9 Q. We haven't gotten to the tip of the

10 iceberg?

11 A. Well, then let's go then.

12 Q. We are going to go. But I am going

13 to let you now take a moment, and I am going

14 to let you look through your CV while we take

15 a brief recess, and you are going to find for

16 me the references to Air TASER or TASER

17 International that you said were there indicating

18 your involvement with that company. And also if

19 you would get Doberson's report for us.

20 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, I don't know how

21 you are set up out there. Is it possible for

22 Dr. Stratbucker and I just to consult for a few

23 minutes during this break?

24 MR. WOOD: Absolutely.

25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, we are

00046

1 off the record at 11:02 a.m.

2 (A recess was taken.)

3 (Defendants' Exhibit-5 was marked for

4 identification.)

5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, we are

6 back on record at 11:39 a.m.

7 Q. (By Mr. Wood) Dr. Stratbucker,

8 prior to preparing and signing your Rule 26

9 report, I am correct that the only photographs

10 that you had seen that were represented as being

11 crime scene or autopsy photographs of JonBenet

12 Ramsey were the four monochrome photographs set

13 forth in your report and identified in this

14 deposition as Defendants' Exhibit-3; is that

15 true?

16 A. I think that is true, yes.

17 Q. It is also true that you had not

18 ever reviewed any color photographs of the crime

19 scene or of the autopsy with respect to JonBenet

20 Ramsey prior to signing and submitting your Rule

21 26 report, true?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You have -- I am going to hand you

24 Defendants' Exhibit-5 and ask you if you would

25 take a look at those documents real quick.

00047

1 Have you had a chance to review

2 Defendants' Exhibit 5?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Prior to preparing your Rule 26

5 report, you had not, in fact, ever seen the

6 color photos that are represented as being crime

7 scene or autopsy photographs of JonBenet Ramsey;

8 had you, sir?

9 A. I saw some photos when I was in New

10 York City at the invitation of NBC to render an

11 opinion on some photographic material. It must

12 have been in August, I think it was, probably

13 July or August of last year. And there were

14 photographic -- there were color renditions of

15 those pictures at that time that I had only

16 then for the first time seen in color. It

17 could have been that those were shown to me at

18 that time.

19 Q. You don't know; do you?

20 A. I don't remember. I don't remember

21 that I saw color photographs of the ones you

22 just saw at my office or anyplace like that.

23 Q. Who arranged for you to go to New

24 York at the invitation of NBC?

25 A. That came about by -- I was

00048

1 testifying in a murder trial in North Carolina,

2 the so-called Richard Jackson case. And the NBC

3 network, through some source or other, learned

4 that I was there and made contact with me at

5 that -- actually in North Carolina as the trial

6 was ending. I was finishing my testimony. And

7 they asked me if I could change my travel plans

8 and come to New York City directly from North

9 Carolina, which would have been last, I think it

10 was in July maybe, July or August.

11 Q. Do you think Mr. Tuttle might have

12 been involved in speaking with NBC?

13 A. He could have been.

14 Q. Was the idea --

15 A. There were very few people who knew

16 I was there at the time.

17 Q. Tuttle knew?

18 A. Maybe Tuttle did know, yeah. That

19 is possible.

20 Q. Did you go to NBC to look at

21 specifically the JonBenet Ramsey case?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That would have been July of 2001?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I have your testimony from your

00049

1 trial in the Jackson matter. Did you testify

2 truthfully in that case, sir?

3 A. I certainly did.

4 Q. Do you stand by each and every

5 statement that you made in that testimony under

6 oath with respect to stun gun marks?

7 A. Yes.

8 (Defendants' Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7

9 were marked for identification.)

10 Q. (By Mr. Wood) So we can stay in

11 order, let me just ask you, Defendants' Exhibit

12 6 consists of three pages of handwritten notes

13 and some e-mail correspondence that you provided

14 me this morning out of your Wolf v. Ramsey

15 file, true?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. That is your handwriting on the

18 first three pages?

19 A. Yes, it is.

20 Q. Let me show you what has been marked

21 as Defendants' Exhibit 7 and ask you if you are

22 familiar with that photograph from your testimony

23 in the Jackson trial?

24 A. No, I am not familiar with that

25 photograph.

00050

1 Q. Did you identify stun gun marks on

2 the body of the victim in that case on the

3 left shoulder?

4 A. I -- yes, I think it was on the

5 left shoulder. But this photograph was not one

6 that I ever recall seeing.

7 Q. Are those the marks, though, in the

8 left shoulder that you identified as stun gun

9 marks?

10 A. Well, they certainly aren't -- they

11 would have been incidental to the main testimony

12 having to do with the marks. Because I

13 meticulously went over those photographs with my

14 measuring apparatus and so forth to get the

15 dimensionality, and I don't remember seeing this

16 photograph.

17 I don't -- it might have been --

18 there was a huge collection of photographs. I

19 don't have -- represent that I saw every one of

20 them. But as a matter of fact, I concentrated

21 my efforts on two or three, at the most, of

22 all the photographs that were in evidence there.

23 (Defendants' Exhibit-8 was marked for

24 identification.)

25 Q. (By Mr. Wood) Before I leave

00051

1 Defendants' Exhibit 7, the marks that I am

2 pointing out to you on the shoulder of the

3 victim in the Jackson case, you do not deny,

4 sitting here today under oath, sir, that you may

5 have identified those as stun gun marks at the

6 trial in North Carolina?

7 A. I have no recollection of having

8 identified those marks. Those marks do not --

9 I already told you, I don't think I ever saw

10 that picture.

11 Q. Did you ever find any stun gun marks

12 on the victim's neck or left shoulder in the

13 Jackson case?

14 A. I don't -- there were marks

15 extending up on the thorax; and, of course, most

16 of the marks of the main concern were in the

17 inguinal area. But I remember searching for

18 some marks outside of the inguinal area and the

19 area of primary focus to establish scale factors

20 for the actual computation of two distances in

21 those photographs.

22 Q. Defendants' Exhibit 8?

23 A. That one looks familiar, yes.

24 Q. Where are the stun gun marks on the

25 victim on that photograph, sir?

00052

1 A. These --

2 Q. You can take your pen and circle

3 them, if you like.

4 A. Circle them, you say?

5 Q. Yes, sir. Circle and just initial

6 the stun gun marks that you found there.

7 A. Well, I have circled two, two marks

8 there, that are possible candidates. But in my

9 testimony I had very carefully dimensioned and

10 calibrated the photographs. And, of course,

11 this has no such measuring and calibration. I

12 have a recollection that those two marks might

13 have been marks that I had identified as stun

14 gun marks, but I would have to -- I would have

15 to say that the nature of that case was such

16 that the stun gun marks were, in most cases,

17 far more mechanical than electrical because of

18 the way the stun gun was employed. And there

19 were only a few, actually, on the victim's body

20 that were of such a character to rule out the

21 possibility that there was a lot of excoriation

22 of tissue and actual tissue damage due to the

23 actual mechanical effects of the stun gun probes

24 on the skin when the thing is used as a ramrod

25 or a rongeur to actually force increased

00053

1 conductivity to the body by means of pressure.

2 Q. Does the contract that TASER

3 International has recently been awarded by the

4 United States Government involve the purchase by

5 the government of stun guns?

6 A. The specific nature of that contract

7 is confidential.

8 Q. Does TASER International manufacture

9 anything other than stun guns?

10 A. Not anymore. They had a product at

11 one time which was an electrically operated car

12 theft preventer, and they no longer make that.

13 Q. To your knowledge, are they about to

14 start making a new product other than a stun

15 gun?

16 A. No.

17 Q. You have in your file a spiral small

18 pad. On the second page of that you have the

19 name Fleet White.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. What caused you to write Fleet

22 White's name down there?

23 A. Well, I suppose that -- this looks

24 like some notes I made in conversation with a

25 student at the University of Michigan State by

00054

1 the name of Mary McCullough. And I don't know

2 Fleet White at all. This looks like Mr.

3 Hoffman's telephone number. And why I wrote

4 that down, I don't have any idea. But that is

5 -- these are some telephone notes that I took

6 probably in the course of a telephone

7 conversation with Mary McCullough.

8 Q. You did not rely on your review of

9 photographs at NBC in coming to your conclusions

10 in your Rule 26 report; did you, sir?

11 A. I am not quite -- I don't

12 understand.

13 Q. You told us everything in your Rule

14 26 report that you -- Matters Considered: I

15 have examined the following documents as part of

16 my examination and report.

17 And you listed the autopsy report,

18 and you listed four monochrome laser printed

19 images purporting to be renditions of the crime

20 scene and autopsy photographs most commonly

21 attributed to Detective Lou Smit?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You didn't say anything about

24 anything you saw at NBC; did you?

25 A. No. What I saw at NBC was a

00055

1 hurried mishmash of stuff that was not very well

2 provided, ill provided; and I really had

3 difficulty making any sense out of what they

4 showed me.

5 Q. Do you know who at NBC you were

6 dealing with?

7 A. I can't remember the man's name.

8 Nightline was the program.

9 Q. That would be ABC.

10 A. Well, I am sorry then. It is

11 Dateline.

12 Q. Dateline?

13 A. Dateline, yes.

14 Q. Was there some idea that perhaps

15 they might do a segment involving you that Mr.

16 Tuttle wanted them to do?

17 A. No, no. The purpose of it, as told

18 to me over the telephone in North Carolina that

19 caused me to come to New York, was that NBC

20 was wanting to do a counterpoint on the Couric

21 presentation that had occurred that previous week

22 or maybe earlier that week and that they wanted

23 someone else outside, an expert, to review the

24 pictures and render an expert opinion on them

25 that was outside of the group that had already

00056

1 been involved. And that is why they apparently

2 contacted me.

3 Q. And that was never done, in terms of

4 your involvement after the --

5 A. Well, I actually was -- I actually

6 was on the air for a very brief period of

7 time.

8 Q. Talking about what case?

9 A. Talking about the Ramsey case.

10 Q. On Dateline?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What you were shown was not, as you

13 described it, you had difficulty making any

14 sense out of what they showed you on NBC?

15 A. Yes. They showed me some cropped

16 video presentations of what were alleged to be

17 some new evidence or new photographs that had

18 not yet been seen, I think maybe from Mr.

19 Smit's collection. And they wanted to know if

20 I thought they looked like stun gun marks on

21 these photographs that they presented on a

22 monitor. Now, they had other photographs

23 around, but the ones that they wanted me to

24 comment on and which they took my video

25 deposition, essentially, was based on some

00057

1 electronically presented photographic material

2 that were some spots that they wished to know

3 if I thought they looked like stun gun marks.

4 And I, in the brief time that I was

5 on there, I said that I really --

6 Q. Couldn't say?

7 A. -- couldn't say.

8 Q. Could have been stun gun marks?

9 A. Yeah, might have been.

10 Q. You were not in a position to --

11 A. Might have been.

12 Q. Might have been?

13 A. Might have been. Couldn't say.

14 Q. In fact, the marks on JonBenet's

15 back, as you state in your written notes here

16 that are part of Defendants' Exhibit 6, could

17 have been made by, your words, a conventional

18 sharp pointed stun gun, true?

19 A. Possible, yeah.

20 Q. You don't rule out the use --

21 A. Well, the dimensionality of stun gun

22 marks is extremely important. If you are going

23 to make any causative relationship, you have got

24 to know --

25 Q. The distance?

00058

1 A. -- the authenticity -- well, you

2 have to know the photographic authenticity. 

3 Because in this day and age with photographic

4 manipulations by computer, you can do anything

5 you want to. You can make --

6 Q. You bet.

7 A. -- anything look like anything.

8 Q. You bet. And the fact of the

9 matter is you never have been provided with

10 photographic evidence from the autopsy

11 photographs or the crime scene evidence

12 photographs that you were able to reach a

13 conclusion on in terms of the distance between

14 the marks on JonBenet's back; isn't that true,

15 sir?

16 A. Well, in cases that I have

17 testified --

18 Q. Please answer my question. My

19 question is not cases you testified in before.

20 The fact of the matter is you have

21 never been provided with photographic evidence

22 from autopsy photographs or the crime scene

23 evidence photographs from which you were able to

24 reach a conclusion in terms of the distance

25 between the marks on JonBenet's back; isn't that

 
 

 

0
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 169
Reply with quote  #2 

00059

1 the truth?

2 A. That is the truth, yes.

3 Q. Yes, sir. You haven't seen the

4 photographs from the autopsy that have the

5 coroner's scale on them; have you, sir?

6 A. I haven't seen -- I have seen

7 photographs that have scales on them, but I

8 don't have any way of knowing whether those

9 scales are legitimate, whether they were actually

10 done at the time of the autopsy, whether they

11 were fabricated in some fashion or another. I

12 have no way. The chain of custody, which I am

13 so familiar with in evidence that I have been

14 involved with before, has never been presented

15 to me in any contiguous and defensible fashion.

16 Q. And the four monochrome photographs

17 that you relied on in filing a Rule 26 report,

18 you don't know where these came from; do you?

19 A. Well, I know they came off the

20 internet.

21 Q. And you don't know what generation

22 copy was on the internet; do you?

23 A. No, I don't.

24 Q. I mean --

25 A. That is why I didn't rely on them.

00060

1 Q. You didn't rely on these?

2 A. No.

3 Q. You only relied on the autopsy

4 report?

5 A. I only relied on the autopsy report.

6 Q. You were familiar with the Boggs

7 autopsy report before you testified in that

8 case; weren't you?

9 A. Yes, I was.

10 Q. That was done by Dr. Michael

11 Doberson; wasn't it, sir?

12 A. The autopsy report?

13 Q. Yes, sir.

14 A. Well, I think he participated in the

15 autopsy report. I don't know whether he

16 actually signed off on it or not. I know he

17 participated in it.

18 (Defendants' Exhibit-9 was marked for

19 identification.)

20 Q. (By Mr. Wood) Look at your Rule 26

21 report for me. The introduction page, probably

22 the third page, Expert Witness Report, February

23 26 2002. Do you see it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. "Counsel for the plaintiff Chris Wolf

00061

1 in the above case has retained me as an expert

2 witness. I have been asked to examine the

3 12/27/96 Boulder County Coroner's Autopsy Report

4 of JonBenet Ramsey along" --

5 And I assume "with" was meant to be

6 in there.

7 A. Yeah, the --

8 Q. It says "along the," but it should

9 say "along with the PowerPoint presentation of

10 Detective Lou Smit."

11 Have I read that correctly?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You have never reviewed the

14 PowerPoint presentation of Detective Lou Smit;

15 have you, sir?

16 A. Not in any form that I could attest

17 to its authenticity.

18 Q. Page 3 of your statement in your

19 Rule 26.

20 A. Page 3? Yeah. Go ahead.

21 Q. It says under Opinion:

22 I have reached the following opinion: 

23 A comprehensive examination and review of

24 JonBenet's autopsy report and Detective Lou

25 Smit's PowerPoint presentation.

00062

1 Let me ask you again -- Mr. Smit's

2 PowerPoint presentation is on CD-ROM -- you have

3 never seen it; have you?

4 A. I never have seen this. I have

5 never had the CD-ROM in my possession.

6 Q. No, sir. You never have seen his

7 PowerPoint presentation. That is the truth;

8 isn't it, sir?

9 A. No. I have seen things that were

10 represented as his PowerPoint presentation.

11 Q. By whom? Represented by whom?

12 A. By NBC, by lines on the internet, by

13 websites that traffic in this information. It

14 is wherever you want to look you can find this

15 stuff.

16 Q. You have never seen the digital

17 crime scene photographs as they exist in Lou

18 Smit's PowerPoint presentation, that generation

19 of photograph with that level of clarity; you

20 have never seen them, have you, sir?

21 A. My recollection is that the NBC

22 network claimed that that's what they had.

23 Q. They had a video image from the

24 television show?

25 A. They had a video image from Lou

00063

1 Smit's PowerPoint presentation.

2 Q. And you are just not comfortable

3 sitting around and giving an expert opinion

4 based on photographs that you don't really

5 yourself have any level of comfort with in terms

6 of knowing if they are authentic or not; do

7 you, sir?

8 A. That is right. But I have a

9 tremendous amount of reliance on the autopsy

10 report.

11 Q. Absolutely. I understand that.

12 Let me just hand you Defendants'

13 Exhibit-9. You recognize that as a photograph

14 of Mr. Boggs taken after he had been exhumed. 

15 Here is the --

16 A. Yes, yes.

17 Q. In fact, on Defendants' Exhibit 9,

18 you testified in the Boggs case under oath,

19 right?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. And it was your opinion that the two

22 marks on Mr. Boggs as shown on Defendants'

23 Exhibit 9 were caused by a stun gun, true?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And would you circle for me on

00064

1 Defendants' Exhibit 9 the two marks that you

2 testified under oath were stun gun marks?

3 A. Well --

4 Q. If you would just circle them for

5 me, please, sir.

6 A. This is not the photograph that I

7 used at trial, so I don't know --

8 Q. Was it this one? Was it this one?

9 A. I can't -- I -- I can't tell you. 

10 It is likely that these are the two that I

11 identified.

12 Q. Circle the ones that are likely the

13 two that you identified under oath in that trial

14 as stun gun marks. Circle where I can see it,

15 please, sir.

16 Circle, circle. You circle it in

17 the other one.

18 A. And this one.

19 Q. All right. Were you aware that in

20 the Boggs autopsy report, Dr. Doberson had

21 initially described those two marks that you

22 have just circled as abrasions?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You have no degree as a forensic

25 pathologist; do you?

00065

1 A. Well, I still carry an appointment

2 in the Department of Pathology at the University

3 that we discussed awhile ago.

4 Q. Do you hold yourself out as a

5 qualified forensic pathologist?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. How many autopsies have you done?

8 A. I haven't done one for probably 25

9 or 30 years.

10 Q. My question was how many autopsies

11 have you performed, sir?

12 A. Probably ten in my lifetime.

13 Q. And with your -- I am going to hand

14 you this photograph that is contained as part of

15 Defendants' Exhibit-5. I have no idea what

16 generation that is in terms of where that

17 photograph was obtained, but I do know for a

18 fact that it at least is a copy of some

19 generation of one of the autopsy photographs of

20 JonBenet Ramsey. And you concluded that that

21 mark was not caused by a stun gun, that large

22 red mark that we see on the photograph, the

23 right side of her neck which actually is the

24 left side, right?

25 A. Yes.

00066

1 Q. Right, the big one that you looked

2 at. Correct?

3 A. The roughly triangular shaped one.

4 Q. Whoever said that was a stun gun

5 mark?

6 A. I don't know that anybody ever did.

7 Q. You said that in your report.

8 A. These are the only -- the only marks

9 on the body that were available to even remotely

10 resemble a stun gun mark in somebody's

11 imagination are the ones that I took as

12 candidates. So that is why I took this as a

13 candidate. It was called out by the pathologist

14 who did the autopsy as an abrasion and as were

15 all the other marks called out as abrasions.

16 Q. Just like the mark on Mr. Boggs had

17 been called an abrasion by Dr. Doberson?

18 A. Well, that is a totally different

19 matter. That is totally unrelated.

20 Q. In your opinion.

21 A. Boggs case -- well, no. In his

22 case too.

23 Q. You are not talking about Dr.

24 Doberson's?

25 A. Yes.

00067

1 Q. You think that -- have you talked to

2 Dr. Doberson about that?

3 A. Not since we testified in court

4 together on the matter.

5 Q. Maybe you want to just refresh

6 yourself by discussing the Boggs matter with Dr.

7 Doberson before you testify under oath about

8 what he thinks about that case today. I make

9 that suggestion to you.

10 Can you tell me what caused that

11 mark on her?

12 A. I have no idea.

13 Q. That's right. It is not within your

14 realm of practice to make those kinds of

15 decisions; is it?

16 A. Well, I know it is not a stun gun.

17 Q. You can tell me what you say it is

18 not, but you don't have any idea of what it

19 was caused by; do you?

20 A. Well, I wouldn't say I don't have

21 any idea.

22 Q. Those were your words, sir, I'm

23 sorry, not mine. You said I have no idea. Is

24 that true or not?

25 A. This is an abrasion.

00068

1 Q. Do you have an idea --

2 A. I can tell you what an abrasion

3 is --

4 Q. Sir, excuse me.

5 A. -- by definition.

6 Q. You said I have -- I said, can you

7 tell me what caused that mark on her. Answer: 

8 I have no idea.

9 Did you just testify truthfully or

10 not? What is the truth? Do you have an idea

11 or --

12 A. I don't have --

13 Q. Do you not have an idea?

14 A. -- much of an idea. I have an idea

15 that it is not a stun gun mark.

16 Q. Nobody ever said it was, sir.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Just like nobody ever said that the

19 scratches on her legs were stun gun marks.

20 A. Okay.

21 MR. WOOD: Just about done, Darnay,

22 before the recess.

23 Q. (By Mr. Wood) From page 2 of your

24 Rule 26 report, I just want to see. It says

25 under Matters Considered: The autopsy report

00069

1 includes in relevant part specific references to

2 four widely separated parts on the body bearing

3 skin lesions described as abrasions, skin sites

4 which have been viewed by some as being evidence

5 of application sites of an electric shock

6 generator known variously as stun guns or

7 TASERs.

8 Have you read that with me?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I've read it correctly?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Who, when you filed this report in

13 federal court in Atlanta, Georgia, who were you

14 referring to when you said that someone had

15 viewed Site B and Site D as being evidence of

16 application of a stun gun?

17 A. Well, these were --

18 Q. No. Answer my question, sir.

19 A. Well, let me answer you.

20 Q. Who were you referring to? Well,

21 tell me who they were. With respect to Site B

22 and Site D, who were you referring to when you

23 said some had viewed those sites as being

24 evidence of the application of a stun gun? I

25 want to know the names of the people that you

00070

1 say said that.

2 A. Well, I can't tell you the names.

3 Q. Tell me who they are generically.

4 A. Generically?

5 Q. Yeah.

6 A. The producer of the NBC show that we

7 were talking about.

8 Q. That is who you were referring to?

9 A. That is one of the places where

10 I --

11 Q. Well, who else with respect to Site

12 B and Site D?

13 A. Those were -- those were sites that

14 have been mentioned in communications, for

15 example, that I have monitored over the internet

16 and in other areas. But especially they are

17 the only specifically defined skin markings that

18 Dr. Meyer, the autopsy pathologist, calls out in

19 his autopsy that could conceivably be considered

20 to be stun gun marks.

21 Q. Is the some that you are referring

22 to is some producer that you don't know the

23 name of at NBC?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And then some unknown or

00071

1 indescribable monitoring of conversations on the

2 internet about this case?

3 A. I mean, you have gone over all my

4 records and so forth. You see that there is a

5 considerable evidence or information derived from

6 internet sources on this case, which was one of

7 the ways that I came by these photographs in

8 the first place.

9 Q. None of which you've mentioned in

10 your Rule 26 report?

11 A. None of which I relied on. I

12 didn't rely on them. But now you are --

13 Q. Sir, why were you -- you were

14 monitoring the discussion of the JonBenet Ramsey

15 case on the internet; weren't you, sir?

16 A. Not very avidly, I must say.

17 Q. Why?

18 A. Because I didn't ascribe very much

19 credence to it.

20 Q. You had never seen the photographs. 

21 You had never seen the photographs that you say

22 as an expert you have to see before you would

23 professionally render an opinion; isn't that the

24 truth, sir?

25 A. Well, if you read my --

00072

1 Q. Excuse me, sir. Isn't that the

2 truth?

3 A. Say it again, would you, please?

4 Q. Let me read it back to you.

5 A. Okay. Read it back to me.

6 Q. Listen carefully.

7 The truth is, you had, when you say

8 you didn't ascribe very much credence to the

9 theory of stun gun usage on JonBenet Ramsey, you

10 had never at that point in time laid eyes on

11 any crime scene or autopsy photograph that you

12 say as an expert you would have to see before

13 you would professionally render an opinion, true?

14 A. I don't think that is entirely true,

15 no.

16 Q. Well, what part is entirely false?

17 A. Well, the part that you couldn't,

18 from a well done autopsy narrative such as we

19 have here, implicate a stun gun from the

20 dimensions and the nature of the marks and so

21 forth as called out by the autopsy physician.

22 Q. But you don't think there is an

23 autopsy physician, sir -- taking you back to

24 your sworn testimony in North Carolina, you

25 don't think there is a pathologist or an autopsy

00073

1 physician that is capable of identifying a stun

2 gun mark; do you?

3 A. I don't say that they need to be

4 capable of identifying a stun gun mark. They

5 need to be capable of making accurate

6 measurements and then citing some menu of

7 possibilities that those accurate measurements

8 could refer to.

9 Q. Sir, do you know that, in fact,

10 there are crime scene photographs of JonBenet

11 Ramsey and autopsy photographs of JonBenet Ramsey

12 made by the Coroner's Office, Boulder County,

13 that, in fact, contain a very legible scale with

14 respect to the marks on her face and her back? 

15 Are you aware of that fact?

16 A. It has been alleged that that is the

17 case. I don't know that the autopsy photographs

18 that you are referring to are official. I

19 don't know that they are official in any way.

20 Q. Well, let me suggest to you, sir,

21 that they are.

22 A. Well, you could suggest it.

23 Q. Well, don't you think that before

24 you put your professional reputation on the line

25 that you might want to look over and say, you

00074

1 know, there are some allegations that there are

2 some photographs out there that show by scale,

3 taken by the coroner, the distance apart of

4 these marks and before --

5 A. But I don't know that.

6 Q. Excuse me, I am not through. Excuse

7 me.

8 You heard it. It was alleged. 

9 Don't you think you might have wanted to say

10 maybe I should see those before I go into

11 federal court in Atlanta, Georgia with a Rule 26

12 affidavit giving an opinion that there is no way

13 these are stun gun marks?

14 A. No, I don't.

15 Q. You don't need that kind of

16 information; do you?

17 A. It would be nice if it were

18 available and it were provable and reliable.

19 Q. You relied on solely photographs in

20 the case in North Carolina, and you denied

21 relying in any part on the autopsy photograph --

22 I mean the autopsy report; didn't you, sir?

23 A. And there was an impeccable chain of

24 custody in those photographs --

25 Q. Hello. There is an impeccable chain

00075

1 of custody that exists with respect to the crime

2 scene photographs and the autopsy photographs of

3 JonBenet Ramsey. And if you really do monitor

4 the internet, sir, check it out. Lou Smit, as

5 acknowledged by the Boulder District Attorney's

6 office, had on his CD-ROM PowerPoint presentation

7 that you claim you had comprehensively reviewed

8 in your Rule 26 report --

9 A. No, I didn't say comprehensive.

10 Q. Excuse me.

11 -- he has those photographs

12 authenticated as the crime scene and autopsy

13 photographs by the Boulder District Attorney's

14 office.

15 So Lou Smit, you will concede, has

16 got one heck of a lot better photograph of

17 JonBenet Ramsey than anything you've ever looked

18 at on the internet or these monochrome

19 photographs that you claim to have relied on in

20 this case. Can we agree on that, sir?

21 A. No, I won't agree to it. I have --

22 you may say that, but I have no way of proving

23 that.

24 Q. Why don't you go read the record

25 that was filed in the courthouse in Boulder

00076

1 County?

2 A. Well, I will be happy to.

3 Q. It seems to me, sir, that there is

4 an awful lot you don't know about this case. 

5 Could you concede that at least?

6 A. I think there is an awful lot about

7 this that most people don't know, including you.

8 Q. I am not asking you about most

9 people because most people -- excuse me. Most

10 people didn't come into federal court and sign a

11 Rule 26 affidavit. You did.

12 A. All right.

13 Q. And I am asking you, will you

14 concede that there is apparently an awful lot

15 that you do not know about this case and what

16 happened to this little girl?

17 A. No, I won't concede that.

18 Q. So you got it all?

19 A. I have no reason to.

20 Q. You've got it all?

21 A. No, I did not say I have it all. 

22 You said I have it all.

23 Q. What efforts have you ever made to

24 try to get the crime scene photographs?

25 A. Well, one of the efforts that I made

00077

1 was to make a special trip to New York City to

2 try to find out whether or not --

3 Q. To go up with NBC for Mr. Tuttle?

4 A. Mr. Tuttle had nothing to do with

5 it.

6 Q. Mr. Tuttle knew where you were. Mr.

7 Tuttle is with Air TASER. And you know that

8 Mr. Tuttle -- you know this, sir.

9 A. Well, you are telling me now for the

10 first time.

11 Q. Excuse me.

12 A. Thanks very much.

13 Q. You know --

14 A. I appreciate that.

15 Q. You know -- if we have time, we

16 will see whether we do or not, I'm going to

17 tell you a lot of things you apparently don't

18 know.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. But I'm going to tell you one thing

21 that I think you do know. Bill Tuttle does

22 not want his Air TASER stun gun associated with

23 the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It is just not

24 good public relations. And you know that for a

25 fact; don't you, sir?

00078

1 A. No, I don't know that. We have not

2 discussed that. I don't any -- that is your

3 invention, not mine.

4 Q. How do you know it is my invention?

5 A. Well, you just stated it.

6 Q. How do you know where I get it

7 from? I mean, so far I haven't been inventing

8 anything when I come up here and start showing

9 you your sworn testimony, which we will go back

10 to, where you said that there is not a coroner

11 or medical examiner in the country that is

12 capable of identifying a stun gun mark, that you

13 are the only one.

14 A. Oh, well, you show me where I said

15 that.

16 Q. Sit tight.

17 Page 1109 of your sworn testimony,

18 recross-examination by Mr. Belser.

19 Question: Doctor, you are saying

20 that no forensic pathologist anywhere in this

21 country who did the autopsies for the state and

22 the crime labs and the prosecutor, none of these

23 people have enough expertise like you to

24 recognize a stun gun mark?

25 Answer: They didn't.

00079

1 Question: And you are the only

2 expert that can do that, not the doctors who

3 look at the bodies, but you with your

4 transformations on the photograph; is that what

5 you are telling the jury?

6 Answer: I think that's correct,

7 yes.

8 A. Well, in that case it was correct,

9 yeah. The autopsy --

10 Q. Did you testify to that, sir?

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 MR. WOOD: We are going to take

13 that recess, Darnay? But I have one question. 

14 I want to make this clear, if I could.

15 MR. HOFFMAN: We can make the recess

16 and then when you come back, I'm going to talk

17 on the record.

18 MR. WOOD: Let me just ask this

19 doctor one question.

20 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.

21 Q. (By Mr. Wood) And I really, Doctor,

22 could care less what you base this on. It can

23 be your trip to NBC. It can be your

24 monitoring of the internet. It can be your

25 monochrome photographs. For all I care, it can

00080

1 be based on the Stratbucker Children's Trust.

2 Are you accusing my client Patsy

3 Ramsey or my client John Ramsey of criminal

4 involvement in the murder of their daughter

5 JonBenet? I want you to answer that question

6 for me under oath.

7 A. Accusing them?

8 Q. Yes, sir.

9 A. No.

10 Q. You don't have the slightest idea

11 how this child died; do you?

12 A. Probably as good an idea as anybody

13 else, which is not very much.

14 Q. Why did you choose professionally,

15 for free, pro bono, to team yourself up with

16 Chris Wolf in a lawsuit that says that my

17 client murdered her daughter?

18 A. Well --

19 Q. Pro bono.

20 A. Yeah, pro bono is correct, yes.

21 Q. You bet.

22 I don't even need an answer to that

23 question. We'll take a recess.

24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, we are

25 off the record at 12:27 p.m..

00081

1 (A recess was taken.)

2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, we are

3 back on the record at 12:47 p.m.

4 MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you very much. 

5 I am going to address this, of course, to Lin

6 Wood and to Jim Rawls because they represent the

7 counsel for John and Patsy Ramsey. And I

8 certainly acknowledge Mr. Bauer's important role

9 in the case.

10 Let me take an opportunity to --

11 MR. WOOD: Hey, Darnay, don't --

12 MR. HOFFMAN: -- due to the

13 testimony of the deposition today and to

14 consider not only the witness but also the

15 testimony from the witness and looking at it in

16 relation to my theory of the case, I have

17 decided at this point to withdraw Dr. Robert

18 Stratbucker as an expert witness in this

19 particular case with the understanding, of

20 course, that this testimony, of course, can be

21 sealed if counsel for the defense would like

22 that and there will certainly be no either

23 public reference to any of Dr. Stratbucker's

24 theories to this Rule 26 report, to any of the

25 things that he stated today, any conversations

00082

1 he may have had with me formally or informally,

2 or any other communication involving his theory

3 of whether or not stun gun -- a stun gun was

4 used on JonBenet Ramsey.

5 MR. WOOD: Well, let me say this on

6 behalf of the Ramseys. We do not seek for

7 this testimony to be sealed. I mean, we don't

8 have any plans to use it.

9 I mean, the bottom line is with no

10 conditions whatsoever, do you formally and

11 unequivocally withdraw Dr. Stratbucker as an

12 expert witness in this case?

13 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, I do, formally

14 and without any conditions.

15 MR. WOOD: And, likewise, will you

16 stipulate that under no circumstances will you

17 reengage him in any fashion with respect to the

18 Wolf v. Ramsey case in the future?

19 MR. HOFFMAN: Absolutely. I will

20 not reengage him in any way.

21 MR. WOOD: With that stipulation,

22 then there is obviously no reason for us to

23 continue the deposition today. So the

24 deposition is terminated in light of the

25 witness' withdrawal by counsel for plaintiff.

00083

1 Thank you very much, Darnay.

2 Anybody need to add anything else?

3 MR. HOFFMAN: I want to thank

4 everybody for their cooperation, and I want to

5 thank Dr. Robert Stratbucker for making himself

6 available today.

7 And, Doctor, I will speak to you

8 later this evening or tomorrow.

9 MR. WOOD: Hey, Darnay.

10 BY MR. HOFFMAN: Gentlemen, thank

11 you very much --

12 MR. WOOD: Hey, Darnay.

13 MR. HOFFMAN: And we are now, I

14 think, probably at the end of our deposition

15 period, and we will be positioning ourselves for

16 summary judgment. And I don't know how you want

17 to proceed with the Daubert hearings --

18 MR. WOOD: Hey, hold on a second.

19 MR. HOFFMAN: -- if there are going

20 to be any, but we can work that out.

21 MR. WOOD: Darnay, why don't we go

22 off the record now and let's just chat for two

23 seconds.

24 MR. HOFFMAN: All right. Good.

25 MR. WOOD: Let the videographer make

00084

1 his record.

2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the

3 conclusion of tape No. 1 and also the conclusion

4 of the deposition of Robert A. Stratbucker,

5 taken on May 30, 2002.

6 Counsel, we are off the record.

7 (A recess was taken.)

8 (Whereupon, the deposition was

9 concluded at 12:49 p.m.)

10 .

11 .

12 .

13 .

14 .

15 .

16 .

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .

00085

1 DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS

2 Exhibit Description

3 1 Amended Notice of Deposition

4 2 Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert

5 Testimony

6 3 Monochrome photocopies of autopsy

7 photographs

8 4 Letter - January 16, 2002 From

9 Dr. Stratbucker to Chief Ferdelam

10 5 Report entitled "The following exhibits

11 are part of Dr. Robert A. Stratbucker's

12 Rule 26(a)(2) report of February 26,

13 2002"

14 6 Handwritten notes of Dr. Stratbucker

15 7 Laser color copy of photograph from

16 Jackson case

17 8 Laser color copy of photograph from

18 Jackson case

19 9 Laser color copy of photograph from

20 autopsy of Mr. Boggs

21 (Original Exhibits 1 through 6 and

22 Exhibit 9 were attached to the original

23 transcript. Color copies of Exhibits 7 and 8

24 were attached to the original transcript; the

25 originals having been retained by Mr. Bauer.)

00086

1 STATE OF GEORGIA:

2 COUNTY OF FULTON:

3 I hereby certify that the foregoing

4 transcript was reported, as stated in the

5 caption, and the questions and answers

6 thereto were reduced to typewriting under my

7 direction; that the foregoing pages represent

8 a true, complete, and correct transcript of

9 the evidence given upon said hearing, and I

10 further certify that I am not of kin or

11 counsel to the parties in the case; am not

12 in the employ of counsel for any of said

13 parties; nor am I in anywise interested in

14 the result of said case.

15 .

16 .

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .

00087

1 Disclosure Pursuant to Article

2 8(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the

3 Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial

4 Council of Georgia, I make the following

5 disclosure:

6 I am a Georgia Certified Court

7 Reporter, here as a representative of

8 Alexander Gallo & Associates, Inc., to report

9 the foregoing matter. Alexander Gallo &

10 Associates, Inc., is not taking this

11 deposition under any contract that is

12 prohibited by O.C.G.A. 5-14-37 (a) and (b). 

13 Alexander Gallo & Associates,

14 Inc., will be charging its usual and

15 customary rates for this transcript.

16 .

17 .

18 

19 ALEXANDER J. GALLO, CCR-B-1332

20 .

21 .

0
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 169
Reply with quote  #3 
My notes on what I see as the important points:

Page 7 Stratbucker was contacted by phone by Hoffman

Page 8 Stratbucker's Company has developed medical devices for cardiology diagnostics and therapy

Page 9 Stratbucker's gross revenue in 2001 as a consultant/expert witness was around $75,000

Page 10 Stratbucker's Company has a contract with Taser

Page 25 Stratbucker was paid in stock by Taser for some work years ago. Sold for profit of $40,000. A lot about his association with Taser as its medical director 

Page 38 Stratbucker admits he corresponded with Stephen Tuttle in 2001 as to whether Smit was right about stun gun

Page 41 there were 2 attempts by the Uni of Nebraska Medical School to fire him because he refused to disclose his relationship as a consultant with Marquette Electronics

Page 46 Stratbucker only saw 4 monochrome photographs. Never saw any color photos of crime scene or of autopsy

Page ? Stratbucker talks about where Doberson describes the marks as abrasions in his report

Page 77 Lin Wood states that Bill Tuttle does not want his Air Taser stun gun associated with the murder of JonBenet Ramsey and that it is just not good public relations 

Page 79 Lin Wood accuses Stratbucker of basing his opinion on what he found out on his trip to NBC, on his monitoring of the internet, on the monochrome photos

Page 80 Lin Wood states that Stratbucker is appearing pro bono of Wolf.A recess is called

Page 81 Darnay Hoffman says he has decided to withdraw Stratbucker as a witness

 

0
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 169
Reply with quote  #4 

Long before Stratbucker ever gave his deposition Lou Smit made public the his theory of the stun gun on NBC's Today Show. The producers then contacted Stratbucker as an expert on stun guns to make a comment. This is what he was reported to have said.

Excerpt from news article about Stratbucker's criticism of Lou Smit's theory: 

Experts dispute stun gun theory - Former detective focuses on marks on JonBenet's body

Daily Camera
May 2, 2001
Christopher Anderson


Retired Colorado Springs Detective Lou Smit demonstrated his theory Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, which aired autopsy photos of red marks on JonBenet's face and back that Smit says he thinks were caused by a stun gun, possibly an Air Taser. "Stun gun marks are very specific, very specific," Smit said. "Once you know what they look like, it's not hard to distinguish what they are." Smit said evidence of a stun gun is significant proof that an intruder killed JonBenet because the Ramseys did not own one.

Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit`s stun gun theory. Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed. "I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don`t know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said.

 
Yet in an excerpt from a scientific paper authored by Stratbucker and his co-worker:

THE RELATIVE IMMUNITY OF THE SKIN AND CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM TO THE DIRECT EFFECTS OF HIGH VOLTAGE - HIGH FREQUENCY COMPONENT ELECTRICAL PULSES.
Robert A. Stratbucker, Health Tech. Corp., 10744 West Center Road, Omaha, NE 68124, Matthew G. Marsh, Paktronix, 1506 North 59th Street, Omaha, NE 68104 

they state:

"1. Physical Measurements: Most of the devices tested were designed to generate a default arcing condition in the air gap between closely spaced opposing interior projections of the two principal forward facing output terminals which are spaced 50 mm apart. Such arcs only occur when the output transformers feeding the terminals are electrically unloaded and peak potential across the interior probes exceeds the dielectric breakdown value of the air gap. Contacting the skin with the forward probes under almost any orientation or pressure and with virtually any topical condition of the skin significantly loads the output transformer resulting in a lowered output voltage which extinguishes arcing."


Stratbucker and Marsh have clearly described the conditions under which a blue line could appear on the skin. The kind of blue line Lou Smit said he saw between two of the marks made by a stun gun 

 

0
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 169
Reply with quote  #5 

Taser doctor's credibility questioned 

Company's paid medical director denies any bias in research, statements about safety of stun guns

Robert Anglen
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 23, 2005

The credibility of Taser International's medical director is being questioned over concerns that his research was "potentially biased" and that he may have misled a judge about his financial relationship with the company during a high-profile court case.

Robert Stratbucker, who helped lay the foundation for Taser's claims of safety, has written several medical articles on the stun gun and has conducted studies that company officials use to promote the weapon to police departments across the country.

But a Scottsdale research firm is raising concerns about Stratbucker's objectivity, which calls into question the doctor's long-held position that Taser has never caused a death or serious injury. "In the case of Dr. Robert A. Stratbucker, in particular, the evidence of bias is extremely compelling," according to the Gradient Analytics report obtained by The Arizona Republic. 

Stratbucker denied that his financial interests in Taser affected his objectivity, and he called the Gradient report a "piece of trash." "I was raised as a scientist, not a whore," the 74-year-old Taser employee said Saturday from his home in Omaha, Neb. "When it gets down to taking this report apart, they missed by a mile."

Gradient's report comes only weeks after Taser's stock price dropped sharply following revelations that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Arizona attorney general were looking into Taser's safety claims and an end-of-year sale that helped the company meet its annual projections.

The 14-page report focuses on an article about a cardiac-safety study co-written by Stratbucker, published in the peer-reviewed journal Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology and trumpeted by Taser in news releases just over a week ago as evidence of the stun gun's safety.

Taser officials said Saturday that they stand by the safety article and cited Stratbucker's long list of credentials, including degrees in physiology and physics in addition to his medical and engineering licenses. "We are disappointed to see the debate on the safety of our life-saving technology shift from the scientific data to personal attacks on researchers," Taser spokesman Dave DuBay said. 

DuBay also questioned Gradient's ability to evaluate the article. In its report, Gradient questions the way the cardiac study was conducted and the "validity of the results." It says Taser was tested in a setting that did not match real-world circumstances. It said the study, which used a simulated device to shock pigs, does not take into account factors such as drugs, elevated heart rates and conditions such as heart disease.

Those factors have been present in many of the deaths after a police Taser strike. In fact, Taser says those factors, not the Taser, that cause death. Taser has enjoyed remarkable success, going from a family business on the brink of bankruptcy to the nation's largest supplier of stun guns. It has armed nearly one-fifth of America's law enforcement agencies with Tasers and has made millions for investors in the past three years.

Police departments across the country credit the stun gun with reducing the number of police shootings, suspect injuries and lawsuits since arming officers with the stun gun. But an ongoing investigation by The Republic has linked the stun gun to 12 deaths nationwide and the injuries of several police officers.

Gradient co-founder Donn Vickrey said Saturday that he is concerned Taser has misled the public about the safety of its stun guns. "My only bias is finding out if they are misleading investors," he said. "That's not really a bias. I would say it is more of a goal than a bias."

Gradient grades companies on "corporate governance" and sells its findings in reports to clients; the company gave Taser an "F" in its most recent report. The report suggests that cash and options paid to Stratbucker and others who conduct research on Tasers could lead to tainted results.

Taser has acknowledged giving options to Stratbucker. Company officials insist other tests also have found the stun gun safe.

Gradient criticizes Stratbucker, saying he was dismissed as an expert witness in the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case where a Taser might have been used as a weapon.

"He was dismissed after it was shown that he had failed to disclose his relationship to Taser, (that) he had previously been compensated in cash and options by Taser and had ignored pertinent evidence that appeared to indicate the use of a Taser in the killing," Gradient said. The Gradient report cited several pages of testimony from Stratbucker's deposition in the case.

Stratbucker said Saturday that his dismissal in the Ramsey civil case had nothing to do with contradictory statements he made during a deposition. He acknowledged that for years he received options and cash payments from Taser and is now a paid employee of the company. He said he also receives medical benefits from Taser. He acknowledged that some might see this as a conflict of interest, but he said he has not let his compensation influence his opinions and research. "Absolutely not," he said. "I have stated that in my experience, which dates back to the early '80s, I have not seen a death that I would attribute to Taser in a cardiac sense." He also said he would be skeptical about any death being attributed to Taser.

Copyright © 2005, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.