Frank Sheridan — Direct/Cross/Redirect

DR. SHERIDAN: Good morning.

DR. SHERIDAN: IT will. Okay.

DR. SHERIDAN: Is it working?

DR. SHERIDAN: My first name is Frank and the last name is Sheridan, S-H-E-R-I-D-A-N.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. I noticed that. Okay. Yes. Okay.

DR. SHERIDAN: I am a physician and my specialty is forensic pathology and neuropathology but most of my career has been primarily forensic pathology.

DR. SHERIDAN: Nothing. I'm retired.

DR. SHERIDAN: Okay. Iwas the Chief Medical Examiner for San Bernardino County, California, and I was in that position from 1991 until 2017. That's when I retired from that position, but I stayed on on a part-time basis for another few years to help out because the office was understaffed. But a few years ago, 2021 or '22 -- I've lost track of the time -- I finally stopped altogether.

DR. SHERIDAN: I'll pull myself closer to it, I guess. Yes. Okay. Is that better?

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. I was born and raised in Dublin, Ireland and I had all my initial education there including primary school, secondary school and then premedical school at the university I was at, the University College of Dublin, Ireland, which is part of the National University of Ireland system. So I did my premed and medical school training there, and I graduated from medical school in 1971. After that, I did a one-year rotation internship, as it's called, of medicine, surgery and some psychiatry, as well. That was a requirement for all doctors for licensure. So that's basically my initial education. Should I go on with my C.V. or not?

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, in the years after medical school, I wasn't in training anymore. I was working in Africa, actually, as a medical officer. And that wasn't training. That was a job. And I was there for three years in Central Africa, and I was a general medical officer with various duties that included some teaching but also seeing patients. So I did that for basically three years. I then returned to Ireland, and I speak the next two years -- we're now talking about, by the way, the years I'm about to mention are 1976 to '78. Sol was back in my home country, Ireland, and I spent those two years doing research and lecturing in pharmacology. Pharmacology is the study of drugs and how they act in the body. And I did that back at the same university where I had originally trained for medical school. So then in 1978, I came to the United States initially to the University of Oregon and I spent the next almost three years doing research there and lecturing in the field of genetics.

It was during the time that I was there that I decided to do forensic pathology. So starting in 1980 -- let me think for a second -- 1982, I then had to start a residency program in pathology. And the first part of that, the first year of that, was in Loma Linda University Medical Center in Southern California. I then had to interrupt my residency training, and I had to go work in family practice for a year. This was because I was going through the immigration system of the United States, and they required that people in my position work for a year in family practice in a manpower shortage area as they designated it, an area where there weren't enough doctors. So I did that ina place called Yucca Valley, Y-U-C-C-A, Valley, California but then after that year I returned to the residency program and continued on at Loma Linda University Medical Center. And this training was called anatomic pathology which, in a way, you can think of it as general pathology. It involves autopsies.

It involves surgical pathology, looking at slides from surgery. It involved a few other things, as well. And so I was doing that there at Loma Linda. Then from '86 to '88, I went to Los Angeles County USC, which stands for University of Southern California. So LA County USC, as it's generally known, for two years of training in neuropathology, neuropathology being disease and injury of the brain, spinal cord and so forth. So that was from '86 to 88. And then in 1988, I went to the coroner's office, as it was then called. It's now a sheriff coroner's office. But, at that time, it was a coroner's office in San Bernardino. I did my one-year required training in forensic pathology there. When I finished that year, I stayed on at the same office. And then at 1991, I was appointed chief medical examiner for the county. And, as I mentioned earlier, I was in that position up until 2017. I am board certified in anatomic pathology which I mentioned before is general pathology, ina sense; also neuropathology as I mentioned about the brain and the spinal cord primarily, and then finally forensic pathology.

DR. SHERIDAN: I am, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: That's correct. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. I still do some teaching, actually. First of all, I'm on the staff of Loma Linda University Medical Center, the place where I did my initial training, and I give lectures ona regular basis there to the pathology residents like I used to be myself. In addition to that, for a long time, for about 20 years, actually, up until COVID, I was also giving annual or actually twice a year courses on forensics at the University of California, Riverside Extension, as it's called. And I did that, as I said, for essentially 20 years, I think. That stopped with COVID. So I haven't been doing that since the beginning of the COVID epidemic. I've also given annual lectures or not lectures or courses, three-day courses, to the California Criminalistics Institute, which is part of the forensic system in California. And then in addition to that, I was associated with another university for awhile but that sort of lapsed. That is basically it. I give occasional lectures at or actually at least one a year at various other places, just individual lectures. I'm a visiting lecturer, in other words, at community colleges and even high schools, actually. I forgot to mention one more thing. For two years, I was a visiting professor at a university in China in Hangzhou -- I don't know if I'm pronouncing it correctly -- but Hangzhou, H-A-N-Z-G -- whatever. It's a big city in China, and I was there for two years, two different years, I mean, giving courses on forensic pathology.

DR. SHERIDAN: Of societies? Yes. I've been a member, although I've let it lapse recently intentionally. But I've been a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners for many years. I'm also a member of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and also the American Forensic Institute or the AFSS, the American Academy of Forensic Science.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes, but not recently. When I was working, I was too busy to publish. But yes. I did author a few papers earlier on in my career, one of which -- it wasn't in neuropathology but it was urology more than, well, it was actually neuropharmacology. And then I did author another paper that was related to my forensic pathology work, organ donation, organ and tissue donation for transplantation. Those are the two main ones, but there were a couple of other lesser papers.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. As chief medical examiner, I had some administrative responsibilities, fortunately, not too many, because there were other people to do it. But most of my responsibility there was supervising the medical part of the coroner's office, in other words, the autopsy section, and I was supervising other pathologists. But I was also working full-time doing autopsies, myself. So I spent most of my time, actually, performing autopsies, but I did have, as I said, administrative roles supervising colleagues. And, of course, aS a medical examiner, as forensic pathologist, I frequently had to testify in court, rather like I'm doing now. So that was another part of my duty.

DR. SHERIDAN: It's between 12 and 13,000. I think it's closer to 13,000.

DR. SHERIDAN: In courts, yes. Yes, about over 400 times.

DR. SHERIDAN: Over 400.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes, I did. I reviewed quite a lot of materials.

DR. SHERIDAN: Okay. I reviewed the autopsy report on this case. Along with that, there was the neuropathology report which was separate. There was a toxicology report. There were autopsy photographs. These were all of primary importance to me, all these things. I also reviewed the complaint in this case, outlining, in other words, the basic details of the case. I reviewed photographs taken at the scene, the scene of death, of Mr. O'Keefe; photographs of the vehicle that was allegedly involved in his death; photographs of the decedent, himself, before the autopsy while he was at the hospital, the Good Samaritan Hospital. And there was also some videos of the scene of death. I also saw the death certificate, a document by SERT, S-E-R-T; police reports from the Canton Police Department. Am I missing anything? I don't think so.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Yes, it is.

DR. SHERIDAN: These injuries that you're looking at here on the arm are abrasions, which are friction injuries, basically. We classify them under the general category of blunt force injury, but these particular ones are abrasions, the abrasions being where the outer layer of the skin, the epidermis, as it's called, has been scraped off. These are friction injuries, essentially.

DR. SHERIDAN: These injuries were sustained before death. We call them antemortem, A-N-T-E, mortem meaning before death. And that's based primarily on their color. And you have to take other things in consideration, but that's the bases of it. If these had been postmortem, they would have more yellowish-orange color, usually yellow.

DR. SHERIDAN: I will do my best. My voice is not as strong as it used to be.

DR. SHERIDAN: Okay.

DR. SHERIDAN: I would say, in general, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: That's fine.

DR. SHERIDAN: Involved in pedestrian vehicle --

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Well over 100.

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, I mean, if you take motor vehicle accidents in general, they'd be probably nearly a quarter of my total number of autopsies. So in other words, that would be close to 3,000. Yeah. That's about right.

DR. SHERIDAN: Hum?

DR. SHERIDAN: I can answer it, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Okay. The question was, to be precise? Can you rephrase it? I mean, I said, yes, I can answer it; but I can't remember exactly how you phrased it.

DR. SHERIDAN: If you mean struck in that part of the body, on the arm directly --

DR. SHERIDAN: -- I would say, no, it doesn't look like that at all.

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, if you are hit by a vehicle, whichever part of your body is hit, if it's a significant impact at all, you're going to get bruising, and we don't have any bruising here. We just have linear, what I'd call linear abrasions without any bruising. So that does not look to me at all remotely like an impact from a motor vehicle.

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, as I just said a second ago, primarily a lot of bruising. And that's what we don't see here. You might see -- well, depending on the circumstances, you might see other things like a fracture or fractures. But you would at least expect bruising.

DR. SHERIDAN: Animal attacks in general, yes. Quite a few, actually. When I say "quite a few," it's not an enormously common event, but I've done probably at least a dozen or so involving deaths where an animal was involved one way or another.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes, I have. A few.

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, I'd have to just refresh my memory out of the blue here. But, first of all, I had a number of cases, three or four, I think, over the years involving children, primarily children, who were killed by feral dogs and the dogs attacked the kids, the kid, and killed them. So I had that a few times. But then I've also had cases where an animal or a dog, particularly, was involved but wasn't the actual cause of death, so to speak, but they were involved in something that was happening and left some traces of their activity in the form of bite marks or scratch marks.

DR. SHERIDAN: Are they consistent with what?

DR. SHERIDAN: I would say they are, yes. I'm not 100 percent sure, but my initial reaction when I saw this photograph was that it was probably an animal or most likely I would say a dog, scrape marks with paws, Possibly also a bite mark from the teeth, as well, possibly. I'm not 100 percent sure. I didn't get a chance to analyze it right there on the spot, so to speak. But my basic impression is that these are consistent with marks caused by say a dog using his paws or claws, if you want to put it that way and possibly teeth, as well.

DR. SHERIDAN: I don't really see one.

DR. SHERIDAN: Actually, in a sense, they are all consistent with scratch marks in sort of the more generic sense of whether it's the paws or the teeth. They are going across the skin rather than going straight into it. So all of these marks are generally consistent with if you want to call them scratch marks. I don't know if this will work on the screen, but you've basically got what looks like this one pair there and possibly a third one and one in the middle. There are two very clear parallel marks there with another one fainter in the center. Then going closer to the elbow, you've got another two or three, whichever way you look at that. At the elbow, itself, you have -- that's that part of the elbow there is what I would think is the most likely candidate here for a bite mark, which is it has something of the configuration of the outline of teeth. And then the ones on the forearm are a little bit less obvious, but they are still consistent in general with, I would say, claw marks and/or maybe from the teeth.

DR. SHERIDAN: I'll try.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. I do not think so.

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, as I think I have already mentioned before, one thing that's not there that should be there given that scenario is there should be bruising, at least bruising, if not perhaps even more than that but bruising for sure. Secondly, just the appearance of these injuries, they are pattern, if you wanted to call it that. The way they're distributed doesn't seem to fit the idea of the rear of a vehicle being the impacting object.

DR. SHERIDAN: You could. There would be other factors involved as to -- it would depend on a lot of things but it's possible, yeah.

DR. SHERIDAN: To the head?

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: There were a few minor injuries on the face but the major injury and, indeed, the main cause of death was an impact to the back of the head, slightly to the right of the midline of the back of the head and where there was a laceration. A laceration is another type of blunt force trauma, but this is -- a laceration is where the skin has actually opened up or is split so you get bleeding from a laceration. So there was a laceration, as I said, in the back of the scalp in what's called the occipital area and beneath that, when the skin was moved away as part of the autopsy, there was extensive bruising, hemorrhage, in other words, in the scalp at that same point. There was a fracture that started at that point in the scalp but traveled all the way forward to the frontal areas of the scalp. So you have the impact to that site is clear because, as I said, you've got the laceration. That's where the impact was. So you have the impact with the scalp hemorrhage there and the skull fractures.

Then the brain, itself, had injuries, Significant injuries. First of all, there was bleeding on the surface of the brain, and that's very common in Situations like this. But, in addition to that, there were extensive bruises, contusions is the real word, actually, but they are essentially bruises of the brain substance, itself, and they were in several different parts of the brain, including the frontal areas which are near the forehead and also the temporal, which are towards the side, more or less. And then there was also hemorrhage deep inside the brain in what's in the ventricles, which are open areas in the center of the brain. All of these things were described in the neuropathology report, and you can see them in the photographs that were part of the neuropathology report as well as the autopsy. Because of or as a result of, I should say, the injury to the brain, the brain began to swell. And that's what it usually does after major trauma.

And, as a result of the swelling, you had what was called skull herniation, where the brain -- if you want to think of it this way, the brain is trying to expand but it can't because the skull is around it. So it begins to put pressure, pushing, especially downwards, towards the top of the spinal cord. And, eventually, as happened in this case, it's quite clear from the photographs, the brain herniated downwards at the brainstem, particularly, herniated downwards. And this would have been the final straw, so to speak. That's what would lead to respiratory failure and death. So this was a fatal injury, for certain.

DR. SHERIDAN: Once this injury occurred, once this impact occurred, Mr. O'Keefe would have been unconscious. He would still be capable of breathing for a while until that brain swelling took over and pushed the brainstem down. But immediately at the point of impact, he would have been unconscious for sure.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. He would have been unconscious completely.

DR. SHERIDAN: I'm sorry. I didn't quite get the question.

DR. SHERIDAN: Like, for example, falling onto the grass?

DR. SHERIDAN: No. I don't think so. If there is a fall involved here, and there could be, it would be onto a hard surface. But the grass -- as I understand from all the material I reviewed, there was also some snow. So that might even cushion the impact even a little bit more. But, even without the snow, grass is basically too soft for somebody falling and hitting their head on it to get the injuries I've just described.

DR. SHERIDAN: What significance do I place on what?

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, as you put it there, it's a rather general question. But, I mean, when you are doing an autopsy, you obviously want to see what is there and what's not. And everything can be relevant, including absent things. Now, in this particular case, there are a number of features of things that are absent that are important. I've already alluded to one and that is on the arm. If that was an impact from the vehicle, I would expect bruising. Do you want me to continue?

DR. SHERIDAN: But if Mr. O'Keefe was struck with -- it depends, obviously, on what part of the body is involved. But if a vehicle hits you, whether it's the back of the vehicle or the front, you're going to have -- as long as it's not going extremely slowly, if it's going at any speed at all, any significant speed, it's going to cause at least bruising. In this particular case, one of the things that struck me was that there was a distinct absence of bruising on the torso, you know, the chest, abdomen, hips, whatever. And, also, in most cases that I've ever been involved in where a person, a pedestrian, was hit by a vehicle, there are injuries on the legs, including fractures, which are very common on the legs. So the absence of all of these things in this case, I think, is important.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Many, many times.

DR. SHERIDAN: Gosh. I have no idea. It's been a lot. I mean, I've done -- I said earlier between 12 -- over 12, maybe 13,000, a lot of autopsies. Of those -- I'm only giving you estimates here, but over a thousand would have been homicides. Of those, probably maybe a fifth or about 200 would have involved blunt force trauma instead of, for example, a firearm or something like that. And, in those cases -- yes. Okay. So all of those and other cases involving homicides involving sharp force may have evidence of a struggle, as well. So it's in the hundreds.

DR. SHERIDAN: In a general sense, they can be. They could be, yes. He had -- I alluded to it just briefly before, but the head injury, the major head injury I've described. But he also had a laceration over his right eyelid. He had some scrape marks on his face. He also had some bruises on the back of his right hand which that kind of injury on the hands can be what we call a defensive injury, in other words, an injury that occurs when you're protecting yourself and you're hit either with another fist or with a hard object and you're protecting yourself. So I would say that some of these findings are just consistent -- mentioned are consistent with the possibility of a physical altercation. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Good morning.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. I forgot to mention the knee, but yes. There were injuries in those places, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: I did not perform myself, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. I'm going by the photographs and the autopsy report. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Look at whose medical records? Mr. O'Keefe's?

DR. SHERIDAN: I looked at the medical records from Good Samaritan Hospital where he was pronounced dead. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: I did look at those. Yes. I thought I mentioned it earlier.

DR. SHERIDAN: To his left arm? No. I don't think so. No.

DR. SHERIDAN: No.

DR. SHERIDAN: That's correct. Uh-huh.

DR. SHERIDAN: That's correct, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: I did, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: I do. Ido agree with her, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: I did, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. There were photographs taken during the neuropathology examination which were independent confirmation for me of the things described in the report. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: No, they were not.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes, in general. As I mentioned, I think, when I was answering the question about the cases I've done involving animals, I try to divide them into two groups because there is an important difference. Some of those cases were cases where the animals were responsible for the death, itself. As I said, a bunch of feral dogs in one case in particular. Another was a case where it wasn't a whole bunch of them but there were two dogs, large dogs. And they killed the victims, children. So those individuals had multiple injuries, including deep bite marks that were fatal, particularly in the neck area. But they also had -- and I'm stretching my memory a bit because it's a while since I did these cases. But I do have a general recollection that in at lease -- in those cases, I should say, in addition to the fatal injuries, there were also some nonfatal things like paw marks and I can't remember the distribution, though, on the body.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. The ones with the animals caused the death. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear the last part.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Antemortem. Well, actually, in one of the cases that comes to mind, the marks appeared to be postmortem, and this person was actually a homicide victim. And they were lying outdoors and their own dog -- this was according to police who came on the scene. When they arrived, there was a dog that turned out to be the victim's own dog was pawing at the body, but the person was dead. But, in another case that I can think of, scratch marks from dog paws were antemortem, and they were confined to one place only. I'm trying to remember what part of the body. In this case, I had to testify later on. Yeah. This case that I'm thinking of now, the paw marks were limited to just one location. I can't remember exactly where they were, though, whether it was the leg or the arm. I can't remember.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. In the second case, they were antemortem. So, in other words, there's postmortem and antemortem. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Basically the posterior.

DR. SHERIDAN: That's correct. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: That's correct. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: That's correct. I can't.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. But, if I had to try and if I said --

DR. SHERIDAN: Yeah. I have no idea.

DR. SHERIDAN: Only that when he was still alive. Yeah. But, other than that, no. And they are fresh looking. They look like they happened very shortly before death.

DR. SHERIDAN: Minutes to hours, I would say.

DR. SHERIDAN: I mean, I'm talking just based on the injuries, themselves, alone, leaving anything else out. You can't time injuries as exactly as you might think from CSI or one of those television programs. But they are generally fresh, for sure. But just looking at those on their own, I would have to say minutes to hours, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: I'm not sure. In relation to what?

DR. SHERIDAN: I'm not sure that I remember that, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: I wasn't aware of that. I must have missed it.

DR. SHERIDAN: I'm sorry? I don't think I understood that question.

DR. SHERIDAN: Am I aware that there was a dog there?

DR. SHERIDAN: I was informed there was, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. I didn't know that.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. I don't believe I was.

DR. SHERIDAN: I didn't write a report as such, but I signed a declaration early on in my involvement in this case.

DR. SHERIDAN: I'm sorry. What was that?

DR. SHERIDAN: I didn't think it was January. However, there was only one. So whatever you have.

DR. SHERIDAN: That were found in Mr. O'Keefe's what?

DR. SHERIDAN: I don't remember that specifically.

DR. SHERIDAN: Like I said, I don't remember that particular part.

DR. SHERIDAN: I was asked -- I asked about that, myself. But I think the answer I got was no.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. I don't remember that.

DR. SHERIDAN: You're talking about a hair sample now?

DR. SHERIDAN: No. I didn't have that.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Uh-huh.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes, I did.

DR. SHERIDAN: I did. Yes. Uh-huh.

DR. SHERIDAN: I remember seeing the pictures of the glass fragments, but I don't remember any more specifics than that.

DR. SHERIDAN: A what?

DR. SHERIDAN: Yeah, although it's not a term we use all the time. But, however, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. You have to have some lateral movement, as well, though, to get an abrasion.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Mostly the front, uh-huh.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yeah. I think they were all -- I actually have done a couple of cases where children were hit by the back of a reversing vehicle. This is in the days before they had the rear videos on cars that they have now. So those cases were impacts against the back of the vehicle. But most of the pedestrian cases are, yeah, as you say, they are front or the vehicle hitting the person.

DR. SHERIDAN: I remember reading that, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: It varies a lot from one case to another. Sometimes you get virtually no information about the accident because some of these cases I've done, some of them were witnessed and some weren't. Let's put it that way. Yeah. So when they weren't witnessed, when the person is just found later or sometime afterwards, you wouldn't have necessarily any -- the vehicle would typically not be there. These would be hit-and-run type of situations. And so in those cases, you wouldn't have all of that kind of information. So it varies.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yeah. Absolutely. But, like I said, in those nonwitness cases of pedestrians, I might be given the information that it's probably a pedestrian fatality from a car.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Uh-huh.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. That can have a big effect on how the body reacts to the impact.

DR. SHERIDAN: Most of them were, yeah. I mean, they were the ones that involved being backed over and they were children. I can't remember the exact distribution of their injuries except the vehicle went right over them. I do remember that. But, to answer your question -- maybe I'm wandering in my mind. So can you ask me again?

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Uh-huh. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: That's right. Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: I can't remember.

DR. SHERIDAN: Not off the top of my head, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. It depends on the exact position of the victim at the moment of impact. And, of course, it could be a lot of different things. The victim could be facing the vehicle. They could be sideways on. They could have their back. But you're going to see bruising somewhere in that area, in one of those areas, either on the back, the side, whatever, or the front. I would expect to see bruising, significant bruising.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. But I'd expect bruising for sure. I mean, whether you get fractures and so forth would depend on -- or, for that matter, internal injuries, depends on a variety of factors. But you're going to get bruising for sure.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes, small bruising. It looked like two, possibly three almost confluent or close together bruises.

DR. SHERIDAN: I vaguely remember that, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: That, I don't remember.

DR. SHERIDAN: You mean on different occasions?

DR. SHERIDAN: I think that's the most likely explanation for these, yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: It's more than once. When I had the laser pointer here, I think I pointed to roughly, what, one, two, three, four different areas. So it looks like the ones on the lower forearm or on the forearm, I should say, are harder to figure out. But it looks like four, maybe five separate --

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. That's correct.

DR. SHERIDAN: They don't look remotely like that to me.

DR. SHERIDAN: In my opinion, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: Uh-huh.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. I mean, even if there was a small coating of ice, I wouldn't change my opinion based on that, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes, it could. Uh-huh.

DR. SHERIDAN: If all that happened, yes, and onto asphalt or something like asphalt, yes, if, indeed, that's what happened. But, like, for other reasons, I don't think that is what happened.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes.

DR. SHERIDAN: The skull injury rather than the brain.

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, yes. But no. I mean, let's be clear about this. I mentioned the fractures earlier on that came from the back and went all the way towards the front of the skull, including what are called the orbital plates, which are the bones, the parts of the frontal bone, that are right over the eye sockets. And the bone there is very delicate. It is the thinnest part of the skull. Anyway, the photographs and the autopsy report clearly show that the fracture involved that on each side, both orbital plates, in other words. And it's that fracture -- it's not the brain, itself, but it's that fracture which leads to the bleeding that causes the black eyes, if you want to call them that way.

DR. SHERIDAN: Well, the orbital plates in a sense are part of the eye sockets. But they are the upper; they are the roof.

DR. SHERIDAN: There were no fractures that appeared to be coming from the front, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: Broken blood vessels were?

DR. SHERIDAN: Oh, the eye. Yes. I couldn't hear. I just couldn't hear what you said. No. As far as I know, the eyes were clear. The eyes, themselves, were clear.

DR. SHERIDAN: The eyelid laceration, don't forget, is in the same area where you have the other injury and it's a little bit hard to figure out how much of that black eye could even be from, related to the laceration because you've got two possible explanations for the black eyes. One is the skull fracture I already mentioned. But that doesn't rule out his getting an impact, as well, on the front. But I can't -- there is no way to separate them.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. Well, the main one that I was relating to when I spoke about the altercation question was the laceration on the eyelid. That's not related to the head injury that we're discussing. So it's a separate injury, and it is from some kind of blow to the front.

DR. SHERIDAN: If it was, indeed, a laceration as it was described, then, no, because lacerations by definition, although this is a term that's often misused, by the way, even by some doctors, but a laceration by definition is an open wound caused by blunt force, not sharp.

DR. SHERIDAN: I find that hard to imagine. I find that very hard to even conceive of.

DR. SHERIDAN: To me, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: I don't know. But, I mean, I heard there was an animal somewhere around the place, a dog. I think you mentioned the dog earlier.

DR. SHERIDAN: No. I wasn't there, obviously. All I can say is what I've already said. But I don't know any more than that.

DR. SHERIDAN: Not that I'm aware of, no.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. I saw the photograph before.

DR. SHERIDAN: It shows the decedent's knees taken from the right side, but you can see both knees.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. Uh-huh.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. This has been mentioned before. It's an abrasion.

DR. SHERIDAN: Yes. That's it, yes, in that area.

DR. SHERIDAN: Very well. Thank you, Your Honor.