 Prior to bringing the jury into the courtroom, Judge Thomas Harris
asked the prosecution and defense if there were any items that
needed to be brought before him without the jury present.
Jonathan Wright, of the state's attorney's office,
said he wanted to discuss certain items of evidence that he wished to
enter in the morning session but the defense had objected to.
Wright said there were five photos taken during the autopsy of 2-year-old Lucas Alberts that
Jay Elmore and Jeff Page would like to have
removed from the evidence list.
When asked about the reason for removing them, Wright said the defense attorneys felt the photos were too gruesome to show.
Harris looked at the photos and had additional conversations with
Elmore, who stated that he believed the graphic and gruesome nature
of those particular autopsy photos could serve to prejudice the
jury.
After some discussion on how to proceed, Harris did throw the
photos out, but he left the door open for Wright to request they be
entered again if the attorney felt the witness was not able to
offer a complete testimony without them.
When the jury was called into the courtroom, questioning began
with Dr. Bruce Demont, the emergency room doctor who first attended
to Lucas Alberts at Abraham Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Lincoln on
the morning of Aug. 23, 2009.
With the direct questioning being conducted by Ed Parkinson, Demont
spoke about the morning Jody Alberts arrived at the emergency room
carrying her son in his arms.
He said that the mother had been upset and crying as she came in,
saying, "Something is wrong."
Demont said the child was limp, unresponsive and
pale in his mother's arms. He said the child was not crying or
making any kind of movement in his body, and Demont quickly realized
the child was in serious condition.
Dermont said that in examination, the little boy's eyes were fixed
and dilated, but he was breathing on his own and had a blood
pressure.
Parkinson asked about the significance of the eyes being fixed
and dilated, and Demont told him it was a strong indication of a
brain injury.
Demont was asked what the procedure was for such an injury, and he
said that because ALMH is not a trauma center, his role in the emergency
room is to attempt to stabilize a patient and prepare him or her
for transfer to a more qualified facility, which is what he did with
the Alberts child.
Parkinson asked if a CT scan was performed at ALMH and if Demont
had drawn any conclusions as to what was wrong with the child. Demont said his conclusion was that the little boy was suffering
from a serious head injury.
When Parkinson finished with the witness, Harris asked if Elmore
or Page wished to cross-examine. Elmore said they had no questions
for the witness.
The second witness for the prosecution was Dr. John Scott Denton,
the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Alberts on
Aug. 25, 2009.
Under the direct questioning of Wright, Denton offered an
explanation to the jury of what an autopsy is and how it is
performed. He talked about collecting a history of the event that
led to death from those who had accounts of it, and then working to
see if the physical evidence matched the accounts.
Wright asked Denton what history he had collected in the case of
Lucas Alberts. Denton indicated that information he'd received was
that the child was fine when his mother left him with the defendant
on the evening of Aug. 22 and that Lucas was a healthy, normal
little boy.
Denton was informed of the incident with the child falling into
the rat cage in the home of Ty Cline and was told that when the
mother returned home that night, she did note a bruise on her
son. The mother reported in the history that the next
morning she found her son unresponsive, in that she was unable to
wake him.
Wright then turned to a series of photos, which he presented to
the jury via a projector, and asked Denton to go through the
findings of the autopsy through the photos.
Denton identified for the jury areas of discoloration that were
the end effects of death. He explained how pooling of blood
caused discolorations that looked like bruises. He then pointed out
to the jury, via the photos, the areas on the child's body where such
pooling had occurred, and he clarified areas that were actual injuries
sustained before death.
Denton spent a great deal of time focusing on the left side of the
little boy's face, from his cheekbone to just below his jaw.
He talked about the size of the marks on the face, referring to
them as approximately three-fourths to 1-inch wide and 2 1/2 inches long. He stated that the pattern of the injury indicated it could have
been a patterned object or the fingers of a hand.
Wright asked about the statement, and Denton said that from what he
observed, the marks on the child were "most consistent with fingers
pushing against the cheek."
Denton went on to say, "I used my hand, and it matched
perfectly.'
Wright asked if Denton had seen and examined the rat cage. Denton
said that he did, but that the openings between the wires on the
cage and the cross wire that held the cage in shape were not consistent
with the pattern on the boy's face.
Denton continued explaining his autopsy, repeating much of
the same information that was given by Dr. Channing Petrak on
Thursday, who was present at the autopsy.
Denton did offer an additional note regarding some marks on the
little boy's upper foot, near his big toe. He noted two straight
lacerations, very short and with very little distance between
them. He pointed out that those two marks were consistent with the
pattern of the rat cage.
He also said that in his exam he had determined that not every
bruise on the little boy was recent. He explained coloration of
bruises and pointed out a few that were what he considered to be not
recent injuries, but aged at least a day longer than the others.
Denton also discussed at length the internal autopsy and spoke
about the bleeding in the subdural layers of the brain, the swelling
that would have occurred and the extensive brain damage that can
come from bleeding into the brain.
He noted that the child also had retinal bleeding in both eyes,
optic hemorrhaging. In addition, internal investigation of the
bruising below the jaw on the boy's face indicated that his larynx, or
voice box, was also severely bruised.
Denton was asked to expand on this, and he said it was an
indication of strangulation. He also noted that the bleeding in the
eyes was another strong indicator of blunt force trauma as in the
child hitting a floor or wall.
Denton was questioned about lucid intervals, a term that been
brought up by the defense in the testimony of Petrak.
Denton was asked if Lucas Albert would have had any lucid
intervals. Denton said that it was possible for a short while. He
was then asked about symptom-free intervals, and if Alberts would have
experienced that. Denton said he wouldn't have; symptoms would
have been almost immediate.
[to top of second column] |
Denton was then asked what those symptoms would have been. Denton
recounted they would have included first crying in pain, becoming
dazed, lethargic, looking wobbly but awake, then getting sleepy, and
finally sleep.
During Wright's questioning he brought back information that the defense had begun with
on Thursday, then stopped at the
prosecution's objection.
In 2003 Denton and another doctor wrote an article about a single
incident in Chicago where a 9-month-old child had sustained a severe
head injury and lived 72 hours, only to be found dead in its sleep
in the morning.
Wright asked how that case compared with Alberts, and Denton replied
that it compared "like apples to oranges."
Denton said the first difference was in the history collected. In
the case of the child in Chicago, three people
provided the history of the child and the accident, and all three
agreed. He noted that the story told in the history fit with the
death.
Wright asked if the Alberts story fit, and Denton said it did
not.
Wright also asked if Denton believed that Lucas Albert died due
to a short-distance fall, Denton said he did not.
Wright then asked Denton if Albert's death was caused by abusive
head trauma. Denton responded: "Yes. It was consistent with
inflicted head injury."
Cross-examining for the defense was Elmore, who first asked about
the remarks Denton had made about a hand causing the bruising on the
boy's face. He asked if Denton had included that information in his
autopsy report. Denton said he had not.
Denton had earlier commented of the curvature of the bruising.
Elmore asked if that was in the report, and Denton said "no."
Elmore also asked if Denton had specified that the boy's injuries
did not include his ear. Denton replied "yes," and Elmore questioned
that. Denton explained that it was included by omission. Had the ear
been a part of the facial injury, he would have noted that, but
because it was not, he did not.
Elmore asked, too, about the marks on the foot and if Denton had said
in his report that they were from the rat cage, Denton said he didn't.
Elmore asked if Denton measured Ty Cline's hands. Denton replied,
"No."
The balance of Elmore's questioning of Denton went much the way
his questioning of Petrak went on Thursday. Elmore used articles
published by a Dr. Plunkett, Dr. Gilliland and the case study
Denton co-authored to work toward establishing that the injuries
sustained by Lucas Alberts might have occurred at a time
when he was not in the care of Cline.
In redirect, Wright asked questions to dispute the
articles. Going through specific sections at Wright's urging, Denton
read sections that proved there were discrepancies or inconsistent
information.
He noted the discrepancies in the information, such as not all the
accidents in the Plunkett playground study were witnessed by more than one
person, and in several accidents the length of fall was not precisely
documented.
Referring to the article by Gilliland about a lucid interval, Wright noted that in
six of 12 cases studied, the child had been reported as "not normal"
after the accident, even though he or she was lucid.
When Elmore came back for a second cross-examination, he began by saying that
Denton had criticized his fellow experts, Plunkett and Gilliland.
Denton responded, "No, I answered the questions."
In the afternoon session of the trial, four witnesses were on the
docket to testify.
Amber Bensen, who said she was a former girlfriend of Cline, said
she had received a text message from Cline between 6 and 6:30 p.m.,
while she attended a Peoria Chiefs game on Aug. 22, saying that Lucas had hit
his head and wouldn't stop crying. She told Wright and confirmed in
cross-examination from Elmore, that she received no other
information from the text outside of that the child had hit his head.
Vicki Buckles-Shroyer, a next-door neighbor, was called to the
stand by Wright. She initially said that around 10:30 p.m. she walked
her dog down the alley and that every light in the apartment was on.
Elmore at cross-examination asked if she was refuting her time of 11:15 given
before the grand jury, and she agreed with Elmore that it was 11:15
approximately rather than 10:30 as she had just testified. Elmore
asked if she saw anyone in the apartment or if Cline's vehicle left
during the night, and she said "no" to both questions.
Wright then advised the court that he would not call the other
two
witnesses.
It was at this time that Judge Harris read to the jury
the document confirming the chain of evidence in regard to blood
samples taken from the carpeting and from Lucas Alberts. He advised
the jury that the document explaining the collection and protection
of the evidence by the Lincoln Police Department and the Illinois State
Police crime lab was to be considered as evidence in the case.
With this document read into evidence, the prosecution rested its
case.
Judge Harris told the jurors that the defense's first witness,
Dr. Schuman, would not be able to testify until Tuesday, giving the
jury a day off on Monday. He pointed out to the jury that it is
difficult to have experts come to testify without some delays, as
they are very busy people, and to not read anything into the delay.
The trial will resume Tuesday at 9 a.m.
[LDN]
|
