Dr. Joseph Lawrence Cogan is the Forensic Pathologist who performed the autopsy, Aug. 30,1995. Dr. Cogan works for the Cook County Medical examiner's Office, works part time on cases for Kane County and he mainly works in the field of "Subarea of Pathology" - meaning that he works with police officers, law enforcement officials of various types and prosecutors to determine deceased individuals' cause of death and injuries. He testified in court approximately 400 or more times concerning his findings, and 90 to 95% of which has been for the prosecution - making him a bias expert paid State witness.
In order to establish their unfounded theory of intentional murder, the State called Dr. Cogan to testify totally against his findings reported in his very own autopsy report, simply to obtain a conviction for murder instead of involuntary manslaughter, aka, an accident.
THE INJURIES WHICH UNFORTUNATELY
CAUSED RACHELS' DEATH WAS THE FALL DOWN
THE FLIGHT OF STAIRS
(INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER) BUT THE STATE, WIth THE
HELP OF DR. COGAN, WANTED
TO ESTABLISH MURDER BECAUSE OF THE INJURIES
RECEIVED AFTER DEATH.
NOTE:
Postmortem means, after
death: Antemortem means, before death:
Hemorrhage means, bleeding.
(In a postmortem state the body witl not hemorrhage.)
Dr. Cogan testified that "the injuries could have been from the result of a fall " but since he was earning a living from testifying for the State, he opted an opinion most favorable to the State's theory - that the injuries were intentionally inflicted.
Dr. Cogan had listed many of the injuries in his autopsy report as occuring postmortem, but that wasn't suitable or in line with the State's unfounded theory that the injuries were intentionally inflicted - thereby making this case a murder. So, Dr. Cogan testified in complete contradiction to his own autopsy report:
On cross examination, my attorney asked him'
Q. And it says (in the opinion section of the autopsy report) in total, "other injuries appear remarkably free of hemorrhage That means no blood, right? "Free of hemorrhage means no blood?
A. Free of hemorrhage, it could be either free or little blood.
Q. That's what that says?
A. Yes.
Q. And may have occured closer to the time of death or after death. It says that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And may have occured closer to the time of death or after death. It says that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So when you wrote your report, it was your opinion, based on your examination of the body of Rachel Dameron, that those injuries were -- occured postmortem, is that right?
A. No!
Q. All right. So when you say here that they occured closer to the time of death or after death, and you refer specifically to 'certain' injuries, you don't mean they occured after death, even though that is what it says?
A I think that's a misinterpretation
of this particular section of the autopsy.
The first question the jury should have asked themselves, 'how can Dr Cogan misinterpret his very own opinion within his autopsy report?
What the jury didn't realize was: the State didn't want to inform them of the fact that some of the injuries occured after death ("postmortem") like Dr. Cogan had originally stated in his autopsy report. Instead, the State made an effort to inflame the emotions of the jury by getting Dr. Cogan to change his opinion to make this unfortunate accident appear more like an intentional murder
How can Dr. Cogan misinterpret
his own report? Its absolutely impossible to do so, especially in a matter
in which I face execution. The only reason why there is any misinterpretation
is due to the fact that he was changing his opinion to support the State's
theory.
We called the highly acclaimed Dr. Robert H. Kirschner to explain or make some sense out of Dr. Cogan's misinterpretation. Dr. Kirschner is a former Deputy Chief Medical Examiner for Cook County (formerly Dr. Cogan's Superior), and who currently works at the University of Chicago Department of Pathology and Pedeiatrics, and is a Senior Forensic Consultant for Physicians for Human Rights.
Between these two Forensic Pathologists, Dr. Kirschners' expertise is far more superior, and he could have taught and lectured Dr. Cogan.
Dr. Kirschner described an autopsy report as being divided in many parts: extended and internal findings, a place for listing all injuries (only if the case invloves trauma as this one), which are listed at the time of the autopsy, a listing of the cause of death, and often an opinion at the end by the pathologist which may relate to the circumstances of death and/or other interpretations of the findings.
Dr. Kirschner testified
that "the opinion is supposed to represent those interpretations that could
be made with a reasonable degree of Medical Certainty regarding the findings
of the autopsy report, and that is the usual standard that one would use
in writing an opinion in an autopsy report. One can certainly speculate
or engage in stream of consciousness,
but such opinions are
not placed into this section of the autopsy report.
IN FACT, WE USUALLY REFRAIN
FROM ANY KIND OF SPECULATION BECAUSE IT HAS NO
PLACE IN AN AUTOPSY REPORT
OR PREPARiNG THE AUTOPSY OR INTERPRETING THE
FINDINGS.
After carefully examining all the documents concerning the autopsy with corresponding photographs, Dr. Kirschner testimony clearly indicates that Dr. Cogan was correct in his original findings listed in the opinion section of the autopsy report.
And, Dr. Cogan can not have it both ways because if his trial testimony was correct (changed 3 yrs after his autopsy) it would mean that he falsified an Official Legal Document - the Autopsy Report with findings he knew was incorrect.
I was found guilty of
murder based upon Dr. Cogans' changed opinion, simply because the State
wanted a murder conviction instead of involuntary manslaughter. How convenient
for an election year.
| Return to Tony Dameron's Homepage |
