Marie Russell - Cross (Part 1)

MR. BRENNAN: May I?

MR. BRENNAN: Good afternoon, Dr. Russell.

MR. BRENNAN: Dr. Russell, we've met before.

MR. BRENNAN: I've asked you questions before.

MR. BRENNAN: And you've testified before where I've had a chance to ask you about some of your statements and opinions, haven't I?

MR. BRENNAN: Before this case, had you ever testified as an expert in dog bites in any federal court in the United States?

MR. BRENNAN: Before this case, had you ever testified in any state court anywhere in the country as an expert in dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: Other than this case, have you ever testified in a courtroom as an expert about dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: Last year you learned that there was litigation regarding this case, Commonwealth v. Karen Read. Correct?

MR. BRENNAN: You learned a little bit of information about it and it piqued your interest, didn't it?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you know that the case was receiving a lot of attention?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you know that it was on television?

MR. BRENNAN: You spoke to a colleague in Los Angeles, correct?

MR. BRENNAN: A colleague.

MR. BRENNAN: And did you just bring up the subject or did that person bring it up to you?

MR. BRENNAN: When you brought that up, is it because you knew of the relationship between that district attorney and somebody on the defense team?

MR. BRENNAN: You wanted to get involved in this high-profile case, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, you weren't called by anybody on the defense and retained as an expert in the traditional sense, were you?

MR. BRENNAN: It was after you reached out yourself and interjected yourself into this case. True.

MR. BRENNAN: Did you want to get involved?

MR. BRENNAN: Inevitably you got hired by the defense, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: And they paid for your time?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you know that there was a relationship between the district attorney you spoke to in California and somebody on this defense table?

MR. BRENNAN: So, when you spoke to the district attorney, did you have the hope that they would reach out on your behalf to get you involved in this case?

MR. BRENNAN: After you testified in this case last year, you then began to advertise yourself as a dog bite expert, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you take a photograph of you testifying at trial and put it on a website to promote your accomplishments?

MR. BRENNAN: So you took a photograph from your participation in this event.

MR. BRENNAN: And you used that photograph from your participation at this event to try to procure future work, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: When you listed a number of things that you have experience in after this case, you then added that you were an expert in dog bites, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: But after this case and after you took the photograph from this case and after you created this advertising, you then added the fact that you were an expert in dog bites, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Right. After this case, after you participated or volunteered to involve yourself in this case, you then used it as a marketing opportunity, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Undoubtedly, I respect that. But simply, after you testified in this case, you did use your participation as a way to try to garner future interest in cases and income, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you testified in any other court since this case as a dog bite expert?

MR. BRENNAN: You had written a few articles that were peer-reviewed on dog bites back in — is it the 1990s?

MR. BRENNAN: And they involved law enforcement canines?

MR. BRENNAN: And you describe in those articles how a law enforcement canine grabs and holds. Is that the technique they call it?

MR. BRENNAN: Yes. That's what they were trained to do back then. And you would agree that there's a difference between generally the way a domestic dog bites and a law enforcement dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: Since those two articles in 1990, have you authored anything else regarding dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: You had mentioned that you had gone to seminars regarding identification. Now, I had a chance to ask you a number of months ago about some details about training and education you have on pattern recognition analysis as it specifically relates to dog bites. Remember I asked you those questions a number of months ago?

MR. BRENNAN: And I'd asked you if you could give us any specific listed trainings that you had regarding pattern recognition analysis of dog bites, and at that time you did not have any names of any classes or seminars or certificates that you have. You mentioned again today that you have attended seminars regarding dog identification analysis. Do you now know some of those trainings and seminars, and are any of those listed on your CV?

MR. BRENNAN: Over your many, many decades, you did not attend any seminars on pattern recognition analysis of dog bites, did you?

MR. BRENNAN: I only want to talk about dog bites. I know you're well trained and educated. I respect that. But I want to talk about dog bites. You didn't attain any certificates in pattern recognition analysis of dog bites, did you?

MR. BRENNAN: In fact, forensically, have you ever been presented with a wound and been asked to determine whether or not the source of it was a dog bite other than right here in this very case? Have you ever been asked to do that in your entire history?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, the couple times — tell us what stands out. When were you asked, ever over your entire career, to do a forensic evaluation of a wound and identify whether it was a dog bite? When did that happen?

MR. BRENNAN: Never. Never. It just doesn't come up. Okay. And so this is the first shot, the first crack you've had at looking at a photograph and trying to make a determination based just on a photograph whether or not the wound is generated from a particular mechanism, and in this case your opinion a dog bite.

MR. BRENNAN: And when you took the photographs, you knew they were dog bites.

MR. BRENNAN: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

MR. BRENNAN: That was it. Okay. So, not when you knew it was a dog bite and you took a photo. I know you have an interest. I'm asking — other than this case, there was never ever a time in your career where you were presented with a photo and asked to give an opinion whether the mechanism of injury was a dog bite, other than this case.

MR. BRENNAN: So this is not a pattern recognition analysis engagement that you have any experience in before this effort.

MR. BRENNAN: You mentioned before and you just mentioned again. So I want to ask you some more questions. You believe that you are uniquely qualified to look at a photograph and give an opinion about the source of the injury.

MR. BRENNAN: Did you just say you're one of the very few physicians in the United States who has both the forensic and the clinical experience to look at a photograph and make a determination on the mechanism of injury?

MR. BRENNAN: You're right. My apologies. Did you say today, and have you said before, that you believe you're one of only a few physicians in the United States who could authoritatively distinguish between causes of wounds when it relates to dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: So, Dr. Russell, from your perspective, as far as you know, you were the only person in the entire United States of America who is qualified to look at a photograph and make a determination whether the wound was derived from a dog bite.

MR. BRENNAN: Do you recognize anybody other than yourself who has this very particular expertise to be able to do this kind of work?

MR. BRENNAN: You were a medical examiner, a forensic pathologist.

MR. BRENNAN: And would you agree there's probably about 900 to 1,000 medical examiners around the country at any given time over a period of time?

MR. BRENNAN: And do you think because they are forensic pathologists, those five or 600 people have the unique qualifications as you do to be able to give an opinion about the genesis of a wound?

MR. BRENNAN: And so you think that of all those forensic pathologists, medical examiners, you think that qualification and experience itself is not enough to qualify somebody to give an opinion on a photograph about the genesis of a wound related to dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever heard of a doctor named Dr. LaPasada?

MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever read any reports by Dr. LaPasada?

MR. BRENNAN: Has anybody ever shared with you any information or opinions of Dr. LaPasada?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, how do you believe that? Who told you?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you know whether or not she has any participation in this case?

MR. BRENNAN: Wow. So, you know, when you're providing accolades — she has maybe some involvement in this case. Do you know that?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you know that she has involvement in this case?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, in terms of who the witnesses are, somebody must have shared her name. Who shared her name with you?

MR. BRENNAN: Who shared her name that she may be a participant in this case?

MR. BRENNAN: So, when you were reviewing this case, did you get materials from any of the attorneys authored by Dr. LaPasada?

MR. BRENNAN: So, when you received materials in this case, you didn't read all the materials the defense gave you.

MR. BRENNAN: What report?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you know whether or not you've received the report or not?

MR. BRENNAN: Dr. Russell, you are meticulous when you look and examine things, right? So, you would know what you've received and what you've read and what you haven't. So, the fact that you're telling us that you saw something with her name on it, can you give us a little more information and share with us what it is you actually received about this Dr. LaPasada? What did you get from the defense?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever ask for it?

MR. BRENNAN: Were you ever told what other people's opinions might be regarding those photographs?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever receive any reports from the defense about what other person's opinions would be in this trial about dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: So when you say non-physician, you're trying to make the point because you think that person might be your opponent in this case.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So why did you qualify him as a non-physician?

MR. BRENNAN: So a medical examiner wouldn't cut it in your opinion.

MR. BRENNAN: So you think a medical examiner has enough experience to come in and give an opinion on dog bites?

MR. BRENNAN: Doctor — just as a qualifier — how about a dog trainer? Would a dog trainer who's not a doctor have the experience in your mind to come in and give an opinion about photographs and the genesis of the wounds?

MR. BRENNAN: How about a non-doctor? As you said, you've made a distinction.

MR. BRENNAN: They're simply a dog trainer. Maybe an uncertified dog trainer — would that person have the qualifications in your mind to be able to look at photographs and determine whether or not the cause of the injury is a dog bite?

MR. BRENNAN: It seems like the standard is now kind of changing a little bit, because when I asked you, you mentioned the other person — you disqualified the person because they weren't a doctor. It seems now in some instances you're willing to accept a non-doctor into your very select group.

MR. BRENNAN: Does qualification for this type of business in your mind depend on who hires you?

MR. BRENNAN: Suffice to say, you've never taken a class in the forensic analysis of dog bites.

MR. BRENNAN: But I'm asking about your experience.

MR. BRENNAN: You haven't, have you?

MR. BRENNAN: You've never engaged in any type of opinion looking at photographs and then had that opinion peer-reviewed by other dog bite experts, have you?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you have any experience in veterinary medicine?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you have any accomplishments, like degrees?

MR. BRENNAN: Now, you've testified a number of times in this case, haven't you?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you testify, you know, there's a court reporter and there are transcripts, correct?

MR. BRENNAN: You originally testified when you first came out and volunteered to testify last year, and there was a hearing before trial, wasn't there?

MR. BRENNAN: You volunteered to come out last year. There was a hearing before you testified at trial, wasn't there?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember that was on June 18th, 2022?

MR. BRENNAN: And then you testified at trial on June 21st, 2022.

MR. BRENNAN: I didn't have the privilege of meeting you on either of those events, did I?

MR. BRENNAN: But since then, we have met.

MR. BRENNAN: And we had a chance to speak at a subsequent hearing on December 12th, 2024.

MR. BRENNAN: And then after that, we again had an opportunity to discuss this on January 7, 2025.

MR. BRENNAN: When you reviewed the case — when you first reviewed it before you testified last year — you had very limited information, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: You had just an autopsy report, photographs from the coroner, photographs from the hospital, an emergency room report.

MR. BRENNAN: The medical examiner file had a toxicology report.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So when you had an opportunity to look at the medical examiner's report, you yourself had been a medical examiner, correct?

MR. BRENNAN: And there's a unique advantage of actually conducting an autopsy as opposed to just looking at photographs, isn't there?

MR. BRENNAN: And if you are actually conducting the autopsy, you firsthand can make observations about injuries, make measurements, and see things that don't always appear in photographs.

MR. BRENNAN: And when you would do medical exams, you had a distinct advantage over people who would later see your work — a written report or photographs — because you were there actually conducting the investigation.

MR. BRENNAN: And it's for that reason that when you've testified before, you have acknowledged that you relied on Dr. Scordi-Bello's report for information.

MR. BRENNAN: Because you didn't have the benefit of doing measurements or looking at depths or anything else firsthand.

MR. BRENNAN: And when you looked at that photograph that you discussed with the jury, you also had a chance to see Dr. Scordi-Bello's report regarding the abrasions on Mr. O'Keefe's arm.

MR. BRENNAN: She described those abrasions as superficial, didn't she?

MR. BRENNAN: She actually gave measurements — 3 cm superficial abrasion on the right medial upper arm, right?

MR. BRENNAN: You not only read that, you deferred to her ability to have a firsthand observation and you accepted that as true, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Multiple abrasions from two to three millimeters and up to seven centimeters on the posterior right arm and forearm.

MR. BRENNAN: Did you read that from Dr. Scordi-Bello?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you accept her finding and observation? And would you agree she was in a far superior position than you when she made these observations and notes?

MR. BRENNAN: That's not what I asked though.

MR. BRENNAN: Did you rely on her ability and firsthand observation of those wounds?

MR. BRENNAN: And did you appreciate or accept the fact she had a superior opportunity to evaluate those wounds firsthand, that you did not have the benefit of?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, did you know that Dr. Scordi-Bello had described them as superficial?

MR. BRENNAN: Did you know that she said there was no depth and no puncture?

MR. BRENNAN: I understand, doctor, but I'm asking you: do you know that her position is that there was no puncture and no depth to those wounds?

MR. BRENNAN: Would you accept that Dr. Scordi-Bello's opinion is that there was no depth and no puncture to those wounds?

MR. BRENNAN: It might not be in the report. I'm asking about any testimony, anything that she's ever said. Would you agree or accept her position that there is no puncture or depth to those wounds?

MR. BRENNAN: Dr. Russell, I read to you the measurements that were in Dr. Scordi-Bello's report. Are you aware that she testified that these superficial abrasions did not have any depth or any puncture?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, would you agree if Dr. Scordi-Bello testified in this court that those superficial abrasions did not have any puncture or depth? Would you agree with that assessment?

MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree that the superficial abrasions on Mr. O'Keefe's arm had no punctures?

MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree that the superficial abrasions on Mr. O'Keefe's arm had no depth? No measurable depth.

MR. BRENNAN: Between the last time you testified and then you testified here today, have you spoken to the attorneys at all regarding the issue of punctures?

MR. BRENNAN: Because you are agreeing today that those superficial abrasions did not have any punctures, right?

MR. BRENNAN: But you in the past have testified very differently than that, haven't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Now, we've spoken many times. I'm going to go through many of those examples later, but we'll do that a little bit later. Dr. Russell, over the course of your many testimonies under oath, would it be fair to say that you have changed your opinions about the superficial abrasions to John O'Keefe's arm many times?

MR. BRENNAN: In the past, when you were describing Mr. O'Keefe's superficial abrasions on his arm, did you give varying and different opinions about the cause of each individual wound area of wound?

MR. BRENNAN: When you first gave opinions, that was before the last proceeding. You came in and you were questioned before you testified in that initial proceeding, right?

MR. BRENNAN: Please, there was a hearing and then there was a proceeding.

MR. BRENNAN: That prior hearing — can we call the first event the prior hearing and the next one the prior proceeding? I'm confused. I don't want to confuse you. I'm just trying to follow the rules. You testified twice last year, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Three times. Okay. The first time you testified was just before the judge.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. When you first testified before the judge, do you remember that you had uncertainty about how each and every one of those wounds was caused?

MR. BRENNAN: And do you remember when you then testified a couple days later at the proceeding that some of your opinions changed from the first time you testified?

MR. BRENNAN: And then when you later met me and we've had a chance to talk over the last two events, December and January, would it be fair to say that your opinions regarding the individual areas of wound changed?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. At some point before or during our conversations in December and January, you wrote a report, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: When you wrote that report, you hadn't written a report before the first time you came in and testified, had you?

MR. BRENNAN: And it was between those hearings in December and in January where you wrote your first report.

MR. BRENNAN: You dated that report December 9th, 2024. Does that ring a bell?

MR. BRENNAN: When you wrote that report, you did not write that report alone, did you?

MR. BRENNAN: You had some help, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, you sent the report back a number of times for review and revisions, didn't you? And some of the language in this report is really not your language. It's the language of somebody who helped you write some of this, isn't it?

MR. BRENNAN: Didn't you agree that you had some assistance with the report? Haven't you testified to that before?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, it was your report, correct?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you write a report it's your words, not somebody else's. Isn't that true?

MR. BRENNAN: But nevertheless you had somebody assisting you.

MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Who's helping you with the report?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, it was this gentleman right here, attorney Alessi, who just asked you questions. He helped, didn't he?

MR. BRENNAN: Was it from his law firm, somebody else?

MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember who was helping you with your report?

MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree that after that report was written, many of your opinions changed?

MR. BRENNAN: In your report, you provide your background.

MR. BRENNAN: And you've been licensed to practice medicine since 1988.

MR. BRENNAN: As a physician?

MR. BRENNAN: And you've been licensed to practice medicine as a surgeon?

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Have you ever practiced as a surgeon?

MR. BRENNAN: If you do stitches, that's considered surgery, isn't it?

MR. BRENNAN: Well, medically speaking, stitches is surgery.

MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Do you have a surgeon's license?

MR. BRENNAN: Now, when you first looked at this case and testified, do you remember when you were looking at Mr. O'Keefe's superficial wounds, you said that you thought they appeared to be consistent with an animal attack?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you were describing animal attack, you were a lot less specific than you were today, weren't you?

MR. BRENNAN: You were less sure about your opinion when you first testified about this case than you provided to this jury today.

MR. BRENNAN: So, when you first testified in this case back in June of 2022, are you agreeing that your testimony was less certain than today?

MR. BRENNAN: When you testified, you didn't say dog attack. You said animal attack at the beginning, didn't you?

MR. BRENNAN: And when you were asked about the cause, you said that it could be bite or scratch wounds.

MR. BRENNAN: So back in June when you were looking at individual wounds, you at that time were unable to differentiate between bite and scratch wounds.

MR. BRENNAN: I understand. But today you seem pretty unequivocal. I want to go back to the beginning and see the evolution.

MR. BRENNAN: I want to go back to identify the evolution of your opinions.

MR. BRENNAN: At the beginning, before your opinion evolved, you started with an opinion that this could have been either bite or scratch wounds, right?

MR. BRENNAN: And if there was actually a methodology where you could identify superficial abrasions and make a determination whether it was from an animal or a dog, there would be something definitive and specific where you could identify a scratch from a bite wound. Wouldn't there be?

MR. BRENNAN: You talked about patterns when you first testified back in June of last year.

MR. BRENNAN: And when you talked about the patterns again, you had some uncertainty whether those patterns were caused by nails, the claws, or could have been caused by teeth. Isn't that fair to say — originally, that was your position?

MR. BRENNAN: In fact, when you first testified, you weren't consistently even saying that it was a dog, or as you say today, dog attack. You were saying in your opinion they were the result of animal bites or scratches. That was what you originally opined, isn't it?

MR. BRENNAN: And at some point you said that it might most likely be a large dog. Do you remember that?