PROCEEDINGS: October 19, 2000
Before: Judge Donna Jo McDaniel
By Mr. Markowitz: counsel for Charles Goldblum
By Mr. Broman: counsel for the Commonwealth
Witness: Cyril H. Wecht, M.D. having been first duly cautioned and sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Q. (Markowitz) State your name, please.
A. Cyril H. Wecht.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Physician specializing in anatomic, clinical, and forensic pathology.
Q. Do you presently occupy any positions in the government of Allegheny County?
A. Yes.
Q. What position is that?
A. Coroner of Allegheny County.
Q. How long have you been Coroner of Allegheny County?
A. Since January 1, 1996. Previously, for ten years, from 1970 to 1980, and four years as a chief forensic pathologist in the Allegheny County Coroner’s office from
Q. Would you describe your education after high school?
A. Four years University of Pittsburgh, Bachelor of Science degree, 1952. Two years medical school, University of Buffalo, School of Medicine, then the third and fourth years at Pitt Medical School, with an M.D. in June ’56. Year of general rotating surgeon.
THE COURT: Can we qualify Dr. Wecht as an expert in the area of forensic pathology? If there are other areas that you wish to qualify, you may also proceed on those areas, but at least in forensic pathology.
MR. BROMAN: No, your honor, I was given a curriculum vitae before the hearing yesterday, and I have no problem with that up to 1977, when he would have been testifying as an expert.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q. Dr. Wecht, let me show you what I have marked as Exhibit 1. Is that your curriculum vitae?
MR. BROMAN: What Exhibit number?
Q. 1.
THE COURT: I thought C.
MR. BROMAN: I thought C. 1 came in yesterday.
THE COURT: It was No.2, the affidavit, and it was admitted.
Q. I offer – Exhibit 1 into evidence.
MR. BROMAN: Only to the relevance of anything beyond 1977.
THE COURT: It would be admitted.
Q. Dr. Wecht, are you familiar with what we generally call blood spatter analysis?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe for the Court essentially what that is in general?
A. It has to do with hemodynamics, moving blood produced by some open laceration, tear of a blood vessel causing blood to emanate from the human body, the direction, the configuration, the physical location in relationship to a body or some incident of trauma, an assault, accident, whatever it might be, the combination of all of those things. In relationship to the body, and in many instances the kind of instrumentality that may have
been used, the position of any third parties or sometimes even inanimate objects, et cetera, are all then put together, correlated for the purpose of arriving at some conclusions and opinions regarding what may have happened to have produced that outflow of blood. So we study all of those things in relationship to the human body in forensic pathology.
Q. Do you hold yourself out as having greater knowledge of blood spatter analysis or hemodynamics than lay persons?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is the basis of your knowledge?
A. This kind of a study is an integral part of forensic pathology. I studied this during my last two years of residency in courses at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology when I was in the United States Air Force.
More fully, however, with the commencement of my fellowship and formal training in forensic pathology at the medical examiner’s office in Maryland, ’61 to ’62. Of course, going to scenes, seeing bodies, working with, of course, senior forensic pathologists and my chief and people under him there at the medical examiner’s office in Baltimore.
Since 1962 or to the present time, 38 years, I have had countless — I don’t know certainly in the hundreds, if not in the thousands, of instances which I have gone to scenes or I have studied photographs taken at scenes as well as diagrams, charts, and other narrative descriptions of those things. Goes back a long time. As a matter of fact, I recall quite vividly when I became medical legal consultant to the district attorney’s office of Allegheny County and served as assistant district attorney, ’64 into the summer of ’65, about a year and a half, one of the very first cases was going to a scene of a shooting with then district attorney Robert W. Dugan.
A man had been shot and there was a question of whether or not it was a suicide or a homicide. Blood spatter evidence there at the scene on the walls in the room which he was found — I remember that because the district attorney and his chief went with me and we drove in the car and then they took me home. That is why I remember it so well. So this is the kind of a thing that we do, and we do frequently in cases involving the
Coroner’s office.
Q. And you often have to analyze blood spatters on a body?
A. Yes. Let me say for the, sake of completion, we do do this in conjunction with criminalists who work in the forensic science laboratory division of the Coroner’s office, and we do it sometimes in conjunction with the homicide detectives, the City of Pittsburgh or the County of Allegheny, but we the forensic pathologist have to correlate all of this and fit it into our final determinations. We happily and unhesitatingly reach out for additional input from other people. I don’t want to suggest to you that we don’t have such people around. Every large metropolitan medical/legal investigative office or forensic science laboratory should have and does have such individuals, but it is the ultimate responsibility of the forensic pathologist to make these kinds of determinations. We have been doing this for many, many years. Indeed this subject was presented by me and by experts that I invited as members of the faculty at nine seminars funded by the LEAA in the early seventies at the Allegheny County Police Academy in North Park, so we were well aware of this and discussed these things on those occasions at extremely well-attended seminars by not only local law enforcement, but people who came from all over the state, and by the time we were into our second year, we had people wanting to come
from New York, Ohio, and West Virginia.
Q. So the record is clear, by these things you mean blood spatter analysis?
A. Yes. That is what we are talking about. Or blood.
Q. I would offer for voir dire.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. BROMAN:
Q. You stated, Dr. Wecht, that you first studied blood spatter evidence in the Air Force?
A. On a few occasions we had a couple of suicides on base, and then at courses at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which I went to in 1960 and 1961. It was part of the overall subject material. It was not the sole subject; it was part of a week-long course in each of those two years given by the military forensic pathologists.
Q. In ’61 and ’62?
A. 60 and ’61. I was in the service from 1959 to 1961, and these two courses, I think, were in the late winter or early spring of ’60 and ’61.
Q. And who at that time were the experts who were conducting scientific experiments on blood spatter evidence?
A. Well, at that time there were different forensic pathologists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and there were civilians whom they brought in to teach. I remember the civilians quite well because they were the leaders in the field, Dr. Milton Halpern from New York City; Dr. Joseph Spellman from Philadelphia, Dr. Richard Ford from Boston; Dr. Geoffrey Mann from Virginia and Dr . Russell Fischer, who later became my chief
from Baltimore. Those are the civilians. I don’t remember the military people. The ones I do remember were actually contemporaries of mine, so I don’t think they were faculty at the time.
Q. And had they published treatises, these individuals?
A. I think everybody whom I mentioned has published some textbooks, others articles. I know that Geoffrey Mann had a textbook from the Commonwealth of Virginia medical examiner’s office; Dr. Halpern’s classical textbook with colleagues at the New York City medical examiner’s office ; others published many papers . I don’t know that Spellman and Ford had textbooks.
Q. And these were all published before 1977, to your knowledge?
A. Yes. The books to which I referred were published before that time.
Q. Now, you stated you do things in conjunction with homicide detectives, were you referring to post-1977 or pre-1977?
A. Both. We worked closely with them. We receive. calls, of course, from them; sometimes they from us,
and it is a collaborative effort at the scene. And then they come to the autopsies to be in attendance and then in
cases that have ongoing investigations and so on, there may be subsequent visits, a review of evidence, so
these are the contacts that we have with them. Ultimately, of course, also at the trials of such cases.
Q. Are you referring to forensic pathologists going to the scene or criminalists?
A. Both. The criminalists go more frequently. I hesitate to say 100 percent of the time. It is 100 percent of
the time when, of course, our office is contacted and such a request is made. The forensic pathologists go less
frequently. They go in cases where there is a specific request where we think it is a complicated, potentially
controversial kind of a situation; then the forensic pathologist will go.
Q. Have you yourself, Doctor, conducted experiments under a controlled situation with human blood and
its results as far as splatters?
Page 4 of 26
A. No. I have not conducted any original or basic research myself.
Q. Okay. Are you familiar with an individual by the name of Herbert MacDonell?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with the publication Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood, which
was published in November 1971?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with what the author’s opinion is as far as to be qualified as an expert on blood stain
patterns?
A. No.
MR. MARKOVITZ: Could I see that before the witness is shown that.
THE COURT: Yes you may.
Q. Highlighted section there, Doctor. Would you mind reading that. Please. MR. BROMAN: I have no
further Honor .
A. “It is the author’s opinion that before anyone is qualified to render expert testimony on the significance
of bloodstain patterns, they must have conducted a variety of experiments under known conditions using human
blood, preserve their results as standards for reference and have made a detailed study of these standards. ”
Q. You have not done that?
A. No, I haven’t.
MR.BROMAN: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
MR MARKOWITZ: I will ask that the Court accept Dr. Wecht as an expert in the field of blood spatter
analysis.
THE COURT: Mr. Broman?
MR. BROMAN: I don’t believe he is Your Honor, but given the fact that this is a remand for the hearing,
given the fact that the standard to become an expert in Pennsylvania is rather low, I don’t know that I have much
of an argument.
THE COURT: Doctor Wecht will be accepted as an expert.
Q. (Markowitz)You were a Coroner when George Wilhelm was murdered on February 9, 1976?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not personally supervise that case as a forensic pathologist, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you were also the Coroner when Zeke Goldblum was tried and convicted of that murder before a
jury in August 1977?
A . Yes.
Q. Did any of the investigating police officers or detectives consult with you personally on the Wilhelm
murder?
A. No, not that I have any recollection of, nor that I had any recollection of a few years ago when I was
first contacted by another legal counsel representing Mr. Goldblum prior to your involvement in this matter.
Q. Did anyone to your recollection from the district attorney’s office consult with you on the Wilhelm
murder?
A. No.
Q. Is the Coroner’s office in Allegheny County an independent office or an arm of the prosecution?
A. It is an autonomous independent office. I have made a very big point countless times in writing and speeches and discussions that our Coroner’s office, and in my opinion, any medical/legal investigative office in
the United States, medical examiner or Coroner, is not an and should not be an arm of the prosecution’s office. It
is an independent office; it is a medical forensic scientific embodiment for the community.
Q. As such, is your office open to inquiry or consultation from either prosecutor, police or defense lawyers?
A. Yes, it is. And I hold the same pattern for myself in my· consultations, so to speak, and performance
of autopsies for Coroners in adjacent counties for whom I do autopsies. Whenever a defense attorney calls, of
course, I refer them to the district attorney’s office of that county, making it clear that I have no problem, and that
I will be happy to discuss my autopsy findings with them but I want to make sure that all bases are touched first.
Q. And is it unusual for defense lawyers or defense experts in a homicide case to consult with you on a
case?
A. No. I don’t want to represent that it is done always or most of the time, but it certainly is not unusual. I
think it should be done a lot more, but that is my own thought. I can’t reach out to everybody and invite them, but
it is not infrequent. It is not rare. And probably, you know, in recent years — well, there is no question it has
become now more of a frequent thing as people have come to learn a lot more about forensic science.
A. Do I know what?
Q. Do you know who defended him?
A. I think it was Attorney David Rothman. I know from the records.
Q. Did Mr. Rothman ever discuss this case with you.
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did Mr. Rothman ever try to obtain your testimony in this case?
A. My testimony?
Q. Yes?
A. No.
Q. Have you reviewed certain materials with this case?
A . Yes.
Q. Can you describe some of the materials that you reviewed?
A. There is the original autopsy report. There were then portions of the transcript of the trial from several
witnesses, Dr. Joshua Perper, then chief forensic pathologist in the Allegheny County Coroner’s office who
supervised the autopsy, which was participated by him and our then fellow in forensic pathology, Dr. Fombi
Mallick.
There were autopsy photographs; there were summaries of some police investigative reports and
crime lab reports. I subsequently received, by the way, reports that have been obtained from other experts, joint
report by Dr. Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf, a separate report by Dr. Henry Lee. There was a real problem
with regard to the review and study of all documents and records in the case because of the absence of such
materials from the Allegheny County Coroner’s office when I made the inquiry to see what not was there.
Q: The Coroner’s file in this case is missing, is it not?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Without explanation?
MR. BROMAN: Objection, Your Honor. This issue was attempted to be raised and Superior Court said it
could not be raised.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q. Dr. Wecht, let me show you — I don’t know if the Court wants me to mark this. This is just a portion of the trial transcript.
THE COURT: · You need not, I think.
Q. I’m referring to Page 1247 or — I’m sorry. Yes, 1247.
A. You mean 1217.
Q. It looks like a four.
A. It is a four. 1247.
Q. 1247 of the original trial transcript, which includes the testimony of Detective Ron Freeman. In
particular, the last question and answer of that page, which goes on to the next page. Could you just review that
to yourself for the moment?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that testimony describe the blood spatter that was found on the dashboard of the victim’s
vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, based can a Coroner give an opinion as to who actually assaulted and committed a murder?
A. In certain situations, you might be able to, with additional information. If you mean by looking at a
body only, no, you can only get sometimes an idea categorically, but not as to the identity of an individual.
Q. But based on your review of the testimony in this case and the other documents in this case, do you
hold an opinion with reasonable medical certainty as to whether Mr. Goldblum inflicted the fatal stab wounds on
George Wilhelm?
MR. BROMAN: I am going to object to the question.broad nature of that question. If he is asking Dr.
Wecht if he is assessing — if he is going to ask him about forensic evidence in the case, that is one thing, but to
ask him about somebody’s testimony and whether they are going to assess that and what have you, I don’t think
that is forensic evidence. I think at that point he is commenting on the credibility and assessing credibility under
Seese (phonetic), I think that is impermissible.
THE COURT: I agree to some degree, but I think Dr. Wecht can still render his opinion if he wishes. So
you may answer, Doctor.
A. Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, I have an opinion.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. It is my opinion, based upon the forensic scientific evidence, the physical evidence and other related
information in this case from my perspective as a forensic pathologist that Mr. Goldblum was not the individual
who stabbed Mr. Wilhelm on this occasion.
Q. Dr. Wecht, is part of that conclusion based on certain forensic evidence in the case? For example, is
part of that conclusion — is your conclusion based partly on the evidence that Hr. Miller testified that there was
blood on his clothes, that he had disposed of those clothes, and that Mr. Goldblum’s clothes, as identified by Mr.
Miller and seized by the police, had no blood on it?
A. Yes. That is part of it, because of the multiplicity and nature of the wounds sustained by Mr. Wilhelm,
including the significant so-called defense wounds, which clearly then indicate a struggle, a discussion at that
position of the two individuals to some degree, I find it very difficult to develop scenario in my mind whereby an
individual who is inflicting all of these wounds on the victim would not get blood spatter back on to his clothes,
him being the assailant. And based upon the information that you just set forth in your question with which I am
familiar with the records, I therefore find it highly implausible that Mr. Goldblum was the individual who wielded the knife that inflicted these wounds on Mr. Wilhelm.
Q. And is your conclusion and your opinion also based in part on the evidence, forensic evidence, that
gloves which were recovered near the scene of the crime containing blood that was of the same type as the
victim’s blood, that those gloves contained arm hairs or hand hairs that were consistent with Mr. Miller’s hair but
not consistent with Mr. Goldblum’s or the victim’s?
A. Yes. I am aware of that evidence. And that, too, is inconsistent with Mr. Miller’s statement, as I recall,
that Mr . Goldblum wore gloves. Mr. Miller’s hairs were found in the gloves, not Mr. Goldblum’s, so if anybody
wore the gloves it obviously then was Mr. Miller, unless somebody wants to suggest that the hairs were planted
there.
THE COURT: That is only in California, Dr. Wecht.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. I certainly am not suggesting it here .
A. (Continuing) So yes. That is part — that is a piece of the overall puzzle or fabric.
Q. In fact, there was no forensic evidence linking those gloves to Mr. Goldblum?
A. Not that I am aware of.
Q. Is your opinion also based in part on the testimony elicited at trial that on the day after the murder,
when the police visited with Clarence Miller, they observed on him fresh scratches on his arms and on his face,
and that there were no scratches or other signs of struggle observed on Mr. Goldblum?
A. Yes. I will not say that that would be considered in my first category of medical and forensic scientific
evidence, but it certainly is a finding of relevance.
Q. You consider that part of the mosaic?
A. Yes. This is not something to be ignored. If there were other explanations, it is for other people to elicit
and ascertain and evaluate them, but following this kind of an obvious struggle, the presence of scratch marks
on one of two individuals who possibly may have murdered the victim and the absence of such scratch marks on
the other individual is a relevant and significant finding.
Q. Now, turning your attention now finally to the blood spatter, and you have the testimony of Ron
Freeman who described the blood spatters on the dashboard.
THE COURT: So that we are clear, this is the blood spatters on the dashboard?
MR. MARKOVITZ: Yes, ma’am.
Q. What did you find was the significance of that blood spatter testimony?
A. First, the fact that there is blood in that location on the dashboard. Second, that it had a left to right
directionality. Third, that they would appear to have been what we call medium velocity blood spatters. These are
the kind of spatter one finds in what we call a casting off, as when one is wielding a weapon repeatedly.
This man, Mr. Wilhelm, sustained 25 stab wounds overall. I don’t believe that all of these were
inflicted in the automobile, but many were. So that you had, obviously by definition, multiple strikes by whoever it
was that was wielding the knife, so the directionality as ascertained by the tail; the medium velocity of the castoff;
the presence of the multiple stab wounds; the absence of a gaping laceration on the scalp or elsewhere that
might have been caused by some blunt force instrument to suggest some other physical etiology; source of
these wounds ultimately then correlated with the known and, as far as I understand it, incontrovertible positions
of the three individuals in the car, Mr. Miller in the driver seat, Mr. Wilhelm in the right front passenger seat, and
Mr. Goldblum in the back seat directly behind Mr. Wilhelm, putting all of these things together, those blood
spatters therefore have great significance.
The significance is that these wounds are entirely consistent with and buttress and support the conclusion that a person sitting to the left of Mr. Wilhelm is wielding the instrumentality. That would explain the presence of these blood spatters on the dashboard in front of Mr. Wilhelm. If Mr. Goldblum, sitting in the back, were inflicting the wounds, I don’t see how blood spatters then would be up in the front of the dashboard with a
left to right directionality.
Q. Just so the record is clear — maybe I misheard — but Mr. Wilhelm was seated behind the wheel of the
vehicle, correct, the victim?
A.Yes.
Q. And Mr. Miller was seated at the right front passenger seat?
A. Yes. Did I say?
Q. I’m not sure if you did or not. I may have misheard you. Now, the tails of the blood spatter you say
indicate a left to right movement, and by that I assume you refer to a movement from the position in front of the
driver over toward the passenger side of the car?
A. Yes.
Q. And the tails would have been pointed in that direction?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you, mean by medium velocity?
A. Well, gunshot wounds are high speed velocity. Medium velocity is the kind of things you see with
these cast- offs as with somebody wielding any kind of a weapon instrumentality. Could be a knife, it could be
something else.
And these are differentiated from the kinds of blood spatters that you might find if you sever a high
pressure artery like the carotid artery, so we talk about high speed, low speed and medium velocity. Low velocity
would be like if you — I have a little cut or I started to just bleed on me a little bit if I drop some blood here and
you saw it on the floor, you would say that would be on a low speed, a dropping, or if I put my hand over here
(indicating) and it went on to the judge’s desk, then that would be low velocity. There is no speed.
Q. When, if you can answer this question, when an assailant stabs a victim, would you normally expect
the path of withdrawal from the victim to be the same as the path or roughly the same as path of the stabbing. If
you could look at me for just a moment, Doctor, if I was to stab somebody like this, would I also pull out like this
generally or if I was to’ stab somebody like this, would I not also generally pull out like that?
A. Yes. The motion of the arm whether it be the entire, arm from the shoulder or a forearm would be
essentially in the same and, not to the specific degree.
That just follows anatomy as one reaches back. That could be somewhat different with moving
assailant and moving victim. I am stabbing you here and you’re running and I am running after you, it certainly —
with two people seated in the front seat of a car, it would be my opinion that the reverse movement, so to speak,
of the arm would essentially follow the arc or pattern in the air, if one could envision that of the arc that was
produced when the arm struck out to cause the wounds.
Q. Let me show you, Dr. Wecht, what I have marked as Exhibit 3.
MR. BROMAN: Your Honor I’m going to object to this Exhibit. This is the one that Mr. Markovitz showed
me this morning. This is a summarization of things Dr. Wecht has said and the best evidence is Dr. Wecht. This
type of document —
THE COURT: Well, I haven’t seen the document so it is almost impossible for me to make a ruling.
MR. BROMAN: Very impossible.
MR. MARKOVITZ : Well, if I can have him identify it, then I will show it to the Court, you can rule.
THE COURT: Fine.
Q. Dr. Wecht, Exhibit J summarize the forensic bases of your conclusion that Mr. Goldblum did not stab Mr. Wilhelm?
A. Yes. In succinct, topical fashion it does.
THE COURT: Did you author this, Doctor?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not, Your Honor.
MR. MARKOVITZ: It is a demonstrative.
THE COURT: I will allow it for limited purposes.
Q. Dr. Wecht, based on your review of the materials in this case, your study of those materials, is there
any physical or forensic evidence to indicate that Charles Goldblum participated in the assault of George
Wilhelm in any way?
A. Not that I am aware of, from my review of the autopsy report and the various records and the portions
of the transcribed testimony of the individuals involved and so on. I cannot think of any definitive, tangible,
medical, physical, forensic, scientific evidence that would permit me, from a forensic scientific perspective, to say
that Mr. Goldblum inflicted these wounds on Mr. Wilhelm.
Q. And is there any physical, forensic, tangible evidence that Mr. Goldblum acted as an accomplice in
the murder of George Wilhelm?
A. That answer I think is in the legal arena really.
Q. I’m just asking you about physical and forensic evidence.
A. Well, the answer is the same, yes. But it is not for me to intrude on her Honor’s domain here. Are you
asking me from a forensic pathology standpoint? No. The same answer that I gave a moment ago would be
applicable here.
Q. You have just gone through some testimony about blood spatter and how you analyzed and relate the
blood spatter in the Wilhelm vehicle. Was this knowledge available in 1977?
A. Yes, it was. As a matter of fact, it is interesting that the district attorney showed me professor Herbert
MacDonell’s treatise. Herb MacDowell was the individual that I had down to lecture on all nine occasions, three
seminars a year as I recall with LEAA funds, as well as on subsequent occasions.
In addition to those seminars right here in Allegheny County, attended by a large number — I can’t tell
you everyone; I don’t know but a large number certainly of the homicide detectives from both the City of
Pittsburgh and the County of Allegheny. We were also dealing with these things in the Coroner’s office. Part of
our teaching and training programs with our fellows, fellowship having been established in 1971, these were
things that were being written about and discussed in the national and international forensic scientific literature.
I was, as I recall, the district attorney asked me the treatise to which the district attorney referred, I
think he said, was published in 1971, which I thought it was around that time because I know that Herb was – he
had a federal grant and so on, so it goes back to those years.
By the way, Professor MacDonell deserves a great deal of credit for the work he did; he is not the
originator of this. He himself has referred to, and I remember personally hearing from him, about how he and his
wife traipsed through places in Germany looking for original articles that went back to the 19th century on blood
spatters and stuff, so it’s been around.
Q. But the opinions that you have given today, had you been called as a witness in Mr. Goldblum’s trial
in 1977, would you have given those same opinions to that jury?
A. Yes, I can’t think of anything which is modern day technology, nor can I think of anything that I have only come to have knowledge of and experience within the past 23 years that permits me to express opinions today that I could not have expressed back then in 1977. That everything we have talked about really is very, very basic.
Q. Now, just turning to a different subject for a moment, you described briefly some of the wounds
suffered by Mr. Wilhelm. And I think you mentioned he was stabbed or cut in some manner approximately 25
times and that there were defensive wounds: he suffered wounds, did he not, to the front and back of his torso?
A. Yes.
Q. To the front and back of his head?
A. Yes.
Q. His hands, his arms were cut.
A. Yes.
Q. This pattern of wounds, do you have an opinion with reasonable certainty as to whether that is more
consistent with being attacked by one man or is it more consistent with being attacked by two men?
A. In my opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as I think about these wounds
on the individual, I would definitely lean toward one individual inflicting all of the wounds. I don’t see anything
here that would cause me to think that it was likely that two people were doing this.
Q. Now, I take it you have worked with the police on many hundreds, if not thousands, of cases?
A. Yes.
Q. There was testimony in this trial with regard to the blood spatter, that the police never measured the
spatter and never photographed the spatter. Do you consider that to be acceptable police work?
MR. BROMAN: Objection. This is yet another issue which was raised…
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q. If I can just have a moment, your honor, Your Honor.
(Whereupon an off-the-record discussion was held.)
Q. Dr. Wecht, again considering for a moment the nature, location and extent of the wounds in the victim,
are those wounds, from your point of view as a forensic pathologist, would that be consistent or inconsistent with
the idea that Mr. Goldblum held the victim while Mr. Miller stabbed him, and also keeping in mind what·you
testified to earlier with regard to the lack of blood on the clothes?
A. Well, it is indeed the lack of blood on Mr. Goldblum’s clothing, I believe, more than any other fact that I
can think of that would lead me away from a conclusion that Mr. Goldblum was holding Mr. Wilhelm while Mr.
Wilhelm was being stabbed by Mr. Miller. I can’t think of anyone in which I can rule in or rule out somebody
holding someone at least not in this case, no sense discussing other things they are not applicable here.
I would then just add this. Once the wounding commences with such severity at this and this amount of
bleeding and so on, it is my opinion that there would be no physical need for the victim. to be restrained I believe
that he becomes significantly and seriously incapacitated by this kind of an onslaught; however insofar as your
question is concerned, the only thing I can point to have a physical nature would be the absence of blood and, in
fact, then that becomes an even greater consideration than it was in the context of an earlier question.
The earlier question had to do with the stabbing and that kind of juxtaposition hypothetically of Goldblum
to Wilhelm. The holding of a victim who is now being stabbed and who is bleeding and so on would lead, in my
opinion, to closer, more protracted juxtaposition and is much more likely to produce a transfer of blood from the
victim to the individual holding him.
Q. Dr. Wecht, there was testimony at the trial that the scratches on Mr. Miller which were found by the police the day after the murder — they saw him the day after the murder — which I referred to earlier were never photocopied or analyzed by the police. Do you have an opinion as to whether that is acceptable police-work?
MR. BROMAN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Just to make the proffer, so to speak, Judge, the reason that I am asking this question as well as the
previous one that was objected to is because I believe that Dr.Wecht has the qualifications to be able to give an
opinion on the quality of the police work and could have given that opinion to Mr. Goldblum’s jury.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Q: Begging the Court’s indulgence one last time.
THE COURT: All right.
Q: Just to fill out that proffer, so I can do a complete job, my client’s position is that Mr. Rothman was
ineffective for failing to present that type of testimony, that is, testimony regarding the quality of the police work to
the jury.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Markovitz, the objection is sustained.
Q: Thank you, Judge. That is all I have of this witness.
THE COURT: Okay. Cross-examination.
MR. BROMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BROMAN:
Q. You indicated, Dr. Wecht, in assessing the forensic evidence here, that there were different levels of
importance to you?
A. Yes, I said something about certain things have more forensic scientific substance than others.
Q. And you had said the scratches were not in the first level, so they weren’t …
A. Yes. I will not place them, for specific example, at the same level as the blood spatter evidence.
Q. And probably this is a stupid question, but you don’t number these levels?
A. No, I don’t. I just said that here today for the first time in this case in response to Mr. Markovitz’s
question.
Q. Just wanted to make sure I’m being thorough. Now, as to the scratches, you’re aware that there was
testimony by Mr. Miller that they came from his cat?
A. Yes. I recall reading or hearing that somewhere.
Q. And if I’m not – – if I’m correct, weren’t there fingernail scrapings which came back negative in this
case?
A. Yes. I think that that was — again, it is my recollection from the records .
Q. Now, you stated in regards to stab wounds coming into the body and the blood coming off the
weapon as opposed that kind of cast-off, that if the person moves it wouldn’t necessarily — the presumption of
being able to follow that line of direction would presume the person hasn’t moved?
A. Yes. Not with total immobility and complete fixed rigid positioning of a victim and an assailant, but I
was just contrasting a situation in which somebody might start stabbing me and I can run around this courtroom
everywhere to the different situation where two people are in the front seat of a car.
Q. But there could be movement in the car as well?
A. Could be certainly some limited movement of the parts of the upper body.
Q. Back in 1977 and ’76, I believe in your affidavit you incorrectly or perhaps it is a typo stated the homicide occurred in ’77?
A. The homicide was in 76 and the trial, I think, was in ’77. I’m sorry. Thank you for the correction.
Q. It may have been a typo.
A. Then no other attorney has pointed that out. Thank you.
Q. Just wanted to make sure we had it clear. Back then your chief forensic pathologist was Dr. Perper.
A. Yes.
Q. Was he appointed by you as chief forensic pathologist?
A. Yes.
Q. How many forensic pathologists in addition to yourself and Dr. Perper would there have been in the
office at that time?
A. We had one person who was a trainee, a fellow in forensic pathology, so not — well, just that. A
trainee. And we had two or three people who were part-time, and I don’t recall — I know that one of them did
become Board certified in forensic pathology later, but I don’t think was yet at that time. I’m simply not sure.
And I think that there was one other person who was a full-time trained forensic pathologist, so myself,
Dr. Perper, another person, a trainee, then two or three people part-time with some hands-on, practical
experience in forensic pathology.
Q. Okay. The assignments to autopsies back then, did it happen to be pretty much a matter of who was on duty?
A. Yes . They rotated the call.
Q. You were aware of this case back then, were you not, Dr. Wecht?
A. Yes, I’m sure that I was.
Q. It was a rather famous case or well-known case?
A. I have no specific recollection, you know, where were you when John F. Kennedy was killed, that kind of thing, but I certainly knew of the case. Of course I did.
Q. Did you review your autopsy — when Dr. Perper would come up with a protocol, would you review that
in the autopsy report as part of your job?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not?
A. No.
Q. You state in Paragraph 13 of your affidavit that when the — do you have a copy?
A. Yes.
Q. That when the case is assigned to another pathologist such as the case here, that you would have
been notified of a request for information and would have had input into the request for information and opinions.
A. Would that have been — are you talking about written requests were you when John F. Kennedy was
killed, that kind of thing, but I certainly knew of the case. Of course did.
Q. Did you review your autopsy — when Dr. Perper would come up with a protocol, would you review that
in the autopsy report as part of your job?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not?
A. No.
Q. You state in Paragraph 13 of your affidavit that when the — do you have a copy?
A. Yes.
Q. That when the case is assigned to another pathologist such as the case here, that you would have
been notified of a request for information and would have had input into the request for information and opinions.
Would that have been — are you talking about written requests there?
A. No. very few – less such requests are in writing than come in telephonically or by personal visitation. I
wasn’t differentiating here. The answer to your question is that whatever the request form is, by letter or by
phone, my people then as today will tell me they got a call from a defense attorney and so on and they wanted to
know what I think and so on. Because we have to be certain that the information we share is that which has
been generated by us.
We do not divulge – it is not our responsibility, nor our right, nor would it be ethical and I think even
legal for us to give copies of things generated by others such as police and sometimes the district attorney’s
office or something like that. We can only talk about what we have done, what we have generated and produced
in our office.
Q. Have you talked with Dr. Perper to ascertain whether or not Mr. Rothman informally inquired of him
regarding this case?
A. I’m sorry.
Q. Did you inquire of Dr. Perper whether or not Mr. Rothman had informally made any questions to him
or of the like regarding his autopsy?
A. No. I have no recollection of any such discussion.
Q. Dr. Wecht, do you remember reading Dr. Perper’s testimony that he testified he could not tell which of
the 25 wounds were inflicted first?
A. Yes .
Q. Would you agree with that?
A. Yes .
Q. Okay. Inside the vehicle, Dr. Wecht, would you agree with me that in close quarters like that, that it
would be more difficult to have what you determined to be a mid-velocity cast-off, specifically referring to the
weapon that was used?
A. More difficult than what?
Q. Then if you were out in a less-confined area?
A. Well, everything is relative – it is a relative difference. It is not an exclusionary one.
Q. Maybe I misheard or — the weapon was referred to as this being a knife. You’re aware it is not a knife?
A. It was half of a shears, grass trimming shears.
Q. Single blade shear?
A. Yes. You’re right. I shouldn’t say knife; I should say stabbing or cutting instrument.
Q. And you’re right, there are other things that can cause cast-off besides cast-off from a weapon;
correct?
A. Yes. There are other kinds of things.
Q. For example, if I’m punched in the nose, get a bloody nose and jerk my head, that can cause a castoff
blood pattern, could it not?
A. It is not likely that that would produce blood spatters with equal velocity. This could even be measured
physically, the thrust and withdrawal of an arm compared to the turning of the head after a blow. I don’t think it
would be the same. If you have a real violent, abrupt turn of the head, I hesitate to say it is impossible that you might get some kind of medium velocity, and of course, medium velocity has a range, too. It is not just one single,
fixed speed. But I think it unlikely, but I can’t say it is not possible.
Q. Maybe we can just get away from the word medium velocity. If I am in a struggle, and it’s a violent
struggle and I am bleeding from the nose and I jerk my head, it could leave, would you agree, a left to right blood
pattern if I moved my head in that direction where I would have basically the tail that was described here?
A. I can’t say that it is impossible. I just think it is unlikely.
Q. Likewise, Dr. Wecht, you had testified that there were defensive wounds to Mr. Wilhelm’s hands?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. That would cause one to bleed?
A. Yes.
Q. And there is a violent struggle going on in the car. Could not the cast-off pattern have come from that
defensive wound in the hand going in that direction, left to right?
A. Once again, I will say that it is a possibility I cannot physically exclude, but it is not one that would
seem to be very likely.
Q. Well, you seem to think it is more likely that the cast-off came from the shear, if I am understanding?
A. Yes; that’s correct. That fits in more with the location, the number, the directionality, and the amount of
force that would be associated with these kinds of violent plows.
Q. You say the number. Do you remember how many that were described?
A. No. You mean the actual blood spatters. Gee, no, I don’t have that number.
Q. Okay. This was described in trial as a small amount of blood. I don’t know that they ever did the That
was not a trick question.
A. I don’t recall ever seeing a number.
Q. Okay. Isn’t it correct, when you’re talking about the blood coming off the cast-off from the weapon, is
that what causes that cast-off is when — the withdrawal of the weapon, which you would be talking about here it
is, when you reach the maximum position out, as the hand comes out, the blood comes off it, that had the
maximum arc of the arm corning out of the body with the weapon?
A. Yes. As the arm of the assailant holding the weapon is being withdrawn, then as it comes back, then
that is when that kind of spatter would be produced.
Q. It is the corning to a halt of the hand that would cause the cast-off?
A. Most, I believe, would be produced at that time. You certainly could have some during the course of
there are, but most would be associated with the cessation of the movement thereby resulting in a release, so to
speak, of the blood from the instrumentality.
Q. Did you consider the fact, Dr. Wecht, that the front windshield was not broken or cracked in any way?
A. I am aware it wasn’t cracked or broken, but I don’t know when you ask me did I consider it. I don’t
recall factoring it into any question that’s been asked of me.
Q. When you bring your hand out to the maximum point inside of an enclosed space and you’re talking
about a dashboard right there in front of the window, it might be logical that the hand corning out or the grass
shear might hit that window?
A. No, I think not. No, I think not. You’re in the passenger seat under the scenario that I deem most
plausible, and you have a right hand coming back; you have the dashboard itself as a kind of a barrier to the
window.
The side window is behind you If you came back with great force and went all the way back, you might damage the window, but I don’t see where the window would likely be broken, either front or right side.
Q. Okay. I was — I just wanted to make sure, I was specifically addressing myself to the front window.
A. Yes. But I threw in the right front side for good measure.
Q. Now, do you remember any testimony regarding Clarence Miller having bruises on his hand as if he
would have hit the windshield?
A. No. I just recall the scratches, I don’t think I recall any bruises.
Q. In Defense Exhibit 3 or Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, it states that the dying declaration — do you have that,
Doctor?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Victim in dying declaration identifies Miller as his assailant. That was not forensic evidence, is it,
Doctor?
A. No. I also, in retrospect, the measure — it wasn’t such a measure at the time of going to law school
and I remember dying declarations. Is it forensic science in a hard sense, of course not. Is it part of the overall
picture that we would deal with in evaluating cases, in arriving at opinions especially in the Coroner’s system
where we conduct inquests, and so on and so forth, it would be something. I just happen to believe that the
Anglo- Saxon legal forefathers, they had some great psychiatric minds. Dying declaration, exceptions to the
hearsay rule, makes the most sense to me.
Q. But the fact that it is an exception to hearsay, are you saying that it rises to the level of forensic science?
A. No . It would be something for the Court to deal with. I said in the context of the Coroner’s office, I
would want to know things like that from the homicide detectives and we would, of course, obviously permit that
at Coroner’s inquest that we conduct.
Q. I understand it would be evidence; I am just making clear it is not what we would generally consider.
A. No. It is not hard.
Q. You stated he identified Clarence Miller as his assailant. Do you remember his exact words?
A. I think he said Clarence did this or something like that.
Q. I can show it to you on Page 1528.
A. I think he said Clarence.
THE COURT: Clarence Miller did this to me.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. Clarence did this to me, yes . MR.
Q. That is open to more than one interpretation in this case, is it not, Dr. Wecht?
MARKOVITZ: Objection. It is beyond the scope of his expertise and beyond the scope of direct examination .
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. I think you can rephrase the question, however.
Q. You’re aware that the Defendant, Mr. Goldblum, admitted to being at the scene of a homicide?
A. Yes.
Q. And I don’t mean to be a wise guy with this question, but obviously you were not there?
A. I was not there. That’s okay. I have been accused of worse things .
Q. Just for the record, I was making it clear, so the best you can do is look at this evidence and try to
come up with a theory?
A. Yes. As I would in the consultations that I do in cases sent to me from around the country and in cases in our own office. Of course, it is not mathematics or chemistry or physics; it is part of medical science. We just use our reasoning and experience and training.
Q. Now, you’re aware of — going back inside he Perper’s testimony — as to what could or caused the cast- off?
A. I did read his testimony. Could you tell me specifically what you’re referring to, please.
Q. Okay. There was another weapon recovered in the vehicle, was there not?
A. Yes, there was. I forget something else that — Pipe wrench? The question of whether the wrench was used, yes.
MR. MARKOVITZ: I object to the characterization.
Q. That I don’t know if it was a weapon?
MR. MARKOVITZ : I object to the characterization of a pipe wrench as a weapon.
THE COURT: I think Dr. Wecht sustained objection.
Q. You’re aware that a pipe wrench was recovered from your the side of the vehicle?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And you’re aware that Dr. Perper testified that could have been — could have resulted in a hit to his
head causing a nosebleed?
MR. MARKOVITZ: Where are you referring to, sir? Which part of the transcript?
MR. BROMAN: If you will give me a minute, sir, I will find it. 1565.
MR . MARKOVITZ : Pardon me.
MR. BROMAN: 1565. I will withdraw that. Doctor, if we can refer to Paragraph 21 of your affidavit, you state that the presence of blood spatters on the dashboard establish the stabbing began while he was in the car?
A. Yes.
Q. That would be, of course, subject to the limitations that we have already talked about of possible
nosebleed, possible cast-off from defensive wounds, but I guess it wouldn’t contradict·the defensive wound castoff?
A. Well, yes. And my reading of the·description of the nose wound indicates that that, too, would have
been part of a cutting or stabbing. The nose was severed badly. It was almost transected, so even in talking
about the nose bleed and so on, I think that would be associated with the stabbing as, of course, would the
wounds on the hands.
Q. In Paragraph 3 you again refer to the stabbing and it seems throughout this you’re presuming it was a
stabbing and not a cast-off from, say, a bloody nose?
A. Yes. As we have discussed, that’s right.
Q. Can we agree that the blood in those — the way they are described by Detective Freeman would not
be consistent with an aortic bleed?
A. Aortic.
Q. Aortic bleeding, that would be spurting out?
A. No; you’re right. This is not from the aorta. The aorta is deep inside, and even when you have
complete transection, unless you have a gaping chest wound as from a shotgun or something like that, you’re
not going to have any external bleeding from an aortic wound.
Q. Now, is there any other forensic evidence inside vehicle, Dr. Wecht, which factors into your decision?
Here again, there is a significant inconsistency, it seems.
A. Well, let me think. You asked about the wrench. To me, between what Mr. Miller said and the physical,
evidence. I believe nothing was found on the wrench, hair, tissue, blood, anything like that, and there were no lacerations of the scalp caused by a blunt force instrumentality .
Blunt force instruments produce lacerations; cutting instruments produce stab wounds or incised wounds.
So Mr. Miller, as I recall, said that Mr. Goldblum had struck Mr. Wilhelm on the back of the head with a wrench. A
wrench is a pretty hard piece of equipment. The absence of anything on the wrench and the absence of a scalp
laceration indicate to me jointly that Mr. Miller’s story is false.
So that’s an additional negative kind of forensic scientific evidence, so to speak, that I recall. Let me
think if there is anything else, without repeating. I’m aware, of course, again, it is negative, that Mr. Miller had
acknowledged or admitted that he had disposed of some of his own clothing which was stained with Mr.
Wilhelm’s blood. I don’t have any evidence to evaluate them, but it is forensic scientific evidence in absentia that
I would just factor into the whole scenario, just cited for completeness.
Q. Maybe my question·wasn’t clear. I am referring, at this point, just to inside the vehicle.
A. Inside the vehicle there were blood stains on the…
Q. Let me ask you, on Page 1236 of the trial transcript, do you recall the testimony that there was blood
stains found on the driver side window?
A. Yes. I recall. I don’t remember the page, but do recall that there was blood found — let’s see — on the
outside of the driver’s door, I think, and, well, outside of the driver’s door, and inside of the driver’s side of the
window as I recall. Yes.
Q. On Page 1236, in the middle — there is no lines, Your Honor, it says driver side, the inside window.
And I’m not seeing it, but I think there was on the outside of the door
Q. Okay.
A. of the driver’s door.
Q. Is that not of some forensic significance Dr. Wecht?
A. Is what?
Q. The fact that there is blood on the inside of the driver’s window, is that not of some forensic
significance in reconstructing or attempting to reconstruct what went on?
A. Well, it just fits in with blows coming from the right side and blood from the assailant’s hand, from the
weapon, from the victim’s hand and so on. I don’t recall a description· of the blood that was found there so – and
I don’t have any pictures.
Q. I think there is an description on the next page. Something about horizontal line in here .
A. Yes. The bottom of Page 1237, Your Honor, referring to the blood stains on the inside of the window,
the answer was a horizontal line on the window; no measurements given. Horizontal.
Q. And do you also recall, Dr. Wecht, that there was a description of a blood stain on the inside of the
window directly behind the driver, where Mr. Goldblum was seated?
A. Not specifically. If it is there.
Q. All right. I will show you this.
A. Page 1201, yes, the top of the page, the answer, “On the inside of the window, the back left door or
the door in back of the driver’s seat, there was a small amount of blood on the inside of the window,” a small
amount of blood.
Q. That is the seat where both Mr. Goldblum and Mr. Miller admit that Mr. Goldblum was seated; correct,
Dr. Wecht?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that pretty significant forensically?
A. No. That – first of all, I really don’t know how much – a small amount – and what it looks like, whether
they were just spatters or smudges as from a hand or so on. I just really can’t express much of an an opinion
regarding that without knowing more about it.
Q. But you found the location on the dashboard over to the right to be significant because Mr. Miller was
there?
A. Yes. But in conjunction with the fact that they were clearly spatters with tails, as they are physically
described, that is the big, big difference. I’m not hedging or equivocating here for any reason other than what I
have said. I just don’t know, what did it look like? I mean, there is a lot of possibilities.
Q. Can you rule out that it was from Mr. Goldblum, that Mr. Goldblum got it on his hand in the assault
and it got on the window as he was exiting the vehicle?
A. Can I rule it out? No. There is no physical way I can rule it out. Could it have been ruled out if all
these stains had been collected and typed to determine whose blood it was? Can I do that today? No, I can’t.
Q. Of course not. And at the time, did Dr. Marine work for you?
A. Doctor who?
Q. Marine, if I’m pronouncing that correctly. Marine, chief criminologist. Phillip Marine.
Q. Peter?
A. No. I don’t believe that such a person worked for our office.
Q. Okay. Was the crime lab separate from the Coroner’s then?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You’re aware that he attempted to test the blood and cannot get a type on any of these.
A. I can’t recall. But if you tell me that, I certainly accept it. He said he could not get typing on the blood.
No. I did not recall.
Q. And in fairness, it was tested right at the time of trial or close to it, and he would testify right at the
time that the length of time could affect the ability to I want to make sure clear that your conclusion vis-a-vis the
dashboard and two inside windows is not related to anybody’s particular typing?
A. Not based on anybody’s typing, of course, no. I don’t have such information.
Q. Now, can you say you know if Clarence Miller is right or left handed?
A. No, I may have known this. I kind of think I probably did. In any event, right now, no. I’m not prepared
to say.
Q. To be honest, I don’t know either, but I was curious if you knew. What you’re describing — I will use Mr.
Gilmore seated here as an example. He is seated in counsel table and I am standing next to him. If I understand
your cast-off theory, that this was Clarence Miller; he would be taking the grass shear, stabbing Mr. Gilmore,
pulling it out to the right and the blood spatters go in a left to right direction?
A. Yes, It would be — it would have been the right arm.
Q. Okay. Now, let’s pretend I am seated in the back seat behind Mr. Gilmore, okay. And I reach up with
the same grass shear, stab him and pull it out to the right. Would that not possibly create left to right blood
spatters?
A. You could get some left to right directionality. If you were to hypothesize, No. 1, a reaching forward
and then stabbing inward, then a pulling out that way as opposed to a pulling back. Is it within the realm of
physical possibility as it relates to the range of angularity of our wrist, elbow and shoulder joints? Yes. Is it likely,
in my opinion? No. I see no reason why such gyrations would be necessary.
Q. Is your likely opinion based upon Mr. Goldblum staying seated or, in my example, actually leaning –getting up and leaning forward, bending over the seat and doing it?
A. Well, if you stand him up and lean him forward, then that possibility does become greater; I would
agree with you on that.
Q. Are you aware that Mr. Goldblum testified — calling counsel’s attention to Page 2657. Are you aware
or do you remember reading that in Mr. Goldblum’s own testimony he struck Mr. Miller in the face?
A. Yes, I remember vaguely. I don’t remember the details of that, just a vague recollection.
Q. Okay. 2657.
MR. MARKOVITZ: Could we have the question read back that preceded the citation for the record.
(Whereupon, the reporter read from the record as requested.)
A. Mr. Miller, yes, which is what is set forth here on Page 2657.
Q. I’m sorry for the confusion. Mr. Miller was struck at least once in the face by Mr. Wilhelm, according to
Mr. Goldblum’s testimony?
A. Yes. At least once in the face, that’s correct.
Q. And you have no way of knowing whether or not Mr. Miller got a bloody nose.
MR. MARKOVITZ: Mr. Wilhelm, you mean.
MR. BROMAN: No, Mr. Miller.
A. Whether Mr. Miller got a bloody nose.
Q. When Mr. Wilhelm struck him in the face?
A. No. I would have no way of knowing if Mr. Wilhelm bloodied Mr. Miller’s nose.
Q. Okay. In this particular testimony, it says they were grappling and hitting each other?
A. Yes.
Q. So we have no way of knowing, and you have no way of knowing, if Mr. Wilhelm had suffered a
bloody nose as a result of that?
A. Unfortunately, Mr. Wilhelm sustained such an injury to his nose that we can’t know — I can only tell
you on Page 3 of the autopsy report where Dr. Perper described the stab wound of the lower portion of the nose,
he only talks about a severance and does not talk about any contusion or bruise. So you know there is nothing
here to suggest an additional injury.
Q. It was virtually cut off his face.
A. Well, it was almost, like, cut in half.
Q. You cannot rule out a bloody nose?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, you state regarding blood on clothes, Dr. Wecht, that it is unimaginable there was not a
significant amount of blood on the individual doing the assault?
A. Yes.
Q. Have there not been beating cases stabbing cases, where there hasn’t been a lot of blood,
depending upon the type of struggle?
A. I can only talk, of course, about cases which I am familiar, and I can only tell you that where there has
been an altercation with some kind of a stabbing or cutting instrumentality resulting in multiple wounds, including
severance of the jugular vein, which is a substantial blood vessel that would produce a significant amount of
external bleeding, plus the bleeding that you would get from the facial lacerations and the hand injuries, the time
that it would take to keep stabbing somebody, I just find it very difficult to understand how there would not be
blood on the assailant’s clothes to a significant degree in more than one location.
Q. The amounts of blood transferred to clothes can depend on a lot of factors, one of which you’re referring to is the type of wounds?
A. Yes.
Q. There are other things — the position of the parties?
A. Yes.
Q. Whether or not more than one person was involved?
A. Yes.
Q. And not necessarily in holding the person, although that is possible, you can’t rule that out here, can
you?
A. I don’t know what you mean by not necessarily holding the person. How would that second individual
be involved other than…
Q. Pushing him back into the ring, so to speak, or something like that?
A. Oh well, yes. Yes. Sure.
Q. Now, you have stated that you consider it forensic evidence — and correct me if I’m wrong; I’m sure
you won’t be shy, that Mr. Goldblum’s admission that there. I’m sorry. Not Mr. Goldblum — Mr. Miller’s admission
there was blood on his clothes you consider to be forensic evidence?
A. I think I said in absentia, a negative nature. Factoring it into the things that we have been talking
about, just your recent line of questions about transfer of blood.
Q. Okay. Now, you stated there were no blood on the clothes seized from Mr. Goldblum.
A. I think, except for a little bit on the left cuff something like that .
Q. We will get to that. You’re aware that the clothes from Mr. Goldblum were not seized immediately at
the scene?
A. Yes, I believe I recall that.
Q. They were seized, in fact, the next day at 7:00 from his wife, based on Mr. Goldblum’s directions?
A. I don’t remember the details, but whatever is contained in the record.
MR. MARKOVITZ: I’m going to object to the form of the question. He may have misspoken.
THE COURT: The record will speak for itself; the objection is overruled.
Q. They were seized the next day. An individual certainly has time to change and disregard their clothes,
as you have said Mr. Miller has?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, the police officer testified that the pants taken from the Goldblum house were freshly creased.
Would that be considered forensic evidence or something different from that?
A. I can’t think of any great significance one way or the other.
Q. Wouldn’t that make it any more likely that they had been worn or not? Is that forensic evidence?
A. Could be. Let’s say somebody says they slept clothing for some period of time or so on. In certain
situations, I wouldn’t say it would never be of any significance. It would be an observation that could in some
instances have relevance. In this particular case I can’t think of any.
Q. Now, another means of keeping blood off yourself, so to speak — let’s refer to these pants. If
someone were to put pants over top of those, then commit or be involved in the stabbing, and then take those
pants off and their overcoat and discard them?
A. You mean both well, I was going to say the upper garments would be perhaps more important even
than the lower one. If you are covered with two garments that you then discard, of course, you know the question contains the answer, then that would prevent blood from going on to the garments beneath them.
Q. And you’re familiar that Mr. Miller testified that is precisely what Mr. Goldblum had done, are you not?
A. I have a vague recollection of that. I don’t remember the specifics.
Q. Refer you to Page 667 of the transcript.
A. Yes, I read this.
Q. So there is forensic evidence, some similar to the evidence that you have cited, about Mr. Miller
having blood on his clothes, that there was blood on Mr. Goldblum’s clothing?
A. Well, the difference is, first of all, there is no blood mentioned here. Mr. Miller says that Mr. Goldblum
put on a second pair of pants and had a top coat. There is no reference to blood on the page I just read, No.1.
No.2, that’s Mr. Miller saying that about Mr. Goldblum. The earlier reference that I made, as I recall — and you
will correct me if I’m wrong — was that Mr. Miller acknowledged himself that he had gotten rid of his own bloody
clothing. This came from his mouth pertaining to his clothing. There is a big difference.
Q. Likewise, are you familiar with Mr. Miller’s testimony that the gloves which were recovered at the
scene had been worn by Goldblum?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you’re not telling me that any time I put on a glove I am necessarily going to leave a hand hair in
there, are you?
A. Depends on how hairy your hands are and probably what the inside of the glove is. Probably in this
case we are talking about knit gloves; am I right? Knit gloves?
Q. I think Mr. Goldblum had knit gloves, but these were different.
A. Different gloves. You know, I can’t be sure with 100 percent certainty. I will ‘say more often than not, if
one were to then lay open, fillet gloves, and spend hours looking for them, more often than not, you would find a
hair from a man’s hand who had worn those gloves, more often than not.
Can I say always, no, because I’m just not sure , but I think that kind of transfer would occur more often
than not, if one were to conduct that kind of examination.
Q. Is there a reason — I guess this is somewhat flippant, but it is somewhat serious, too — is there a
reason by the end of the winter that my hands weren’t bald?
A. Bald?
Q. That all the hair isn’t inside the glove, if it always comes off?
A. Well, my hair doesn’t come back in the summertime, I will tell you that. No. I am not aware — I don’t
know. I don’t think r become less hairy in the wintertime on my hands.
Q. You’re familiar then with the different types of blood that are left as a result of — blood can be left
outside of the body, we will call it, in different ways. We have already talked about cast-offs. There are also
impact spatters; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And impact spatters tend to be smaller, little dots, that type of thing?’
A. Yes.
Q. And we also have transference.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Transference, would you agree with me, tends to be, assuming that there is more blood there
and not just a dot, would tend to be more of what you have touched and a little bigger?
A. Yes. Generally they are going to be, yes, and the smudge category, depending upon how much blood, how much surface of the body and so on, came in contact with the object.
Q. Now, you remember that there was a little speck of 25 blood on Mr. Goldblum’s cuff that was retrieved
from the shirt, retrieved from his house?
A. Yes. As I recall they said an indistinguishable bit of blood on the left cuff is my recollection.
Q. Also as well there was a brownish speck on the tee-shirt, I think. I will show you 1652 and 1653, really
beginning at the bottom of 1652. “One, I think, on a tee- shirt?
A. By one, I think he is referring back to the brownish speck or a tee-shirt. That was not as clear as the cuff.
Q. That’s correct.
A. I’m just going to address the cuff, but thank you for reading that. In reviewing for this today, did you
review Mr. Goldblum’s testimony of how he believed that speck got on his cuff?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. Call Counsel’s attention to Pages 2688 and 2692 of the transcript.
MR. MARKOVITZ: What page was that, Mr. Broman?
THE WITNESS: 2688 and 2692 is what we will be referring to.
Q. All right. Mr. Goldblum states here that he went over to the railing where the body had been thrown over.
MR. MARKOVITZ: Objection to the characterization of thrown over, because there is no evidence
presented at trial as to how the body got over the rail.
THE COURT: I will overrule.
A. He went over to the railing where the body made its way over the railing, and he then stated that that
speck on his cuff may have come when he went over to the railing to look over. That is what I read.
Q. Well, that would be a transfer of a larger smudge, not a smaller impact splatter. Would that not be
more consistent with that?
A. No. That would depend on just how you touch. It could have been a larger stain or smudge, but might
also just be a speck. That would really depend on how much of a contact there was.
Q. If there is blood on the railing and he states he leans on the railing to look over, we are not talking
about a quick bare, tiniest touch; we are talking about somebody leaning on something?
A. You’re assuming then that the leaning is into the totality or significant portion of the smudge, but what
if one just is at the very periphery, they touch one little contour of the stain, then you might just get a touch.
Q. So if you touched — what you’re saying, if I understand this, if you would lean against a speck, that
could transfer a speck?
A. Well, if you lean against a speck, yes, or if you just almost totally miss in the contact of leaning on the
rail, and just get the tiniest, tiniest transfer, which is possible. If you lean into a larger pool of blood, you will get a
bigger stain.
Q. The likelihood of that, the likelihood is smaller that you would just get a speck as opposed to a
smudge, would you agree with me on that, particularly given the amount of blood involved here?
A. No. I just couldn’t give you any percentages on something like that. That is, you know, like when we
are eating or holding a baby or cut a finger. There is so many variations, you almost miss this, whether it is blood
or juice from a sandwich or something. I don’t know what to tell you. That would just be pure chance.
Q. Assuming someone was wearing a coat over and — a sports coat over top of this shirt, and they hit
someone who was bleeding profusely, could that not cause an impact splatter?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Can you rule out that this dot on the cuff was an impact spatter by Mr. Goldblum striking Mr. Wilhelm?
A. I can only go by the description that was given at the time of a brownish speck. It did not appear to
have been described with the characteristics that would have even been suggestive of a spatter pattern.
Inasmuch as the homicide detectives knew what they were looking for and described blood spatters on the
dashboard, so on and so forth, I would think that they would have given more information if they thought — more
description if they thought that it was blood spatter.
I myself can only go from the description on paper today of a brown speck. It doesn’t seem to fit in
with a blood spatter pattern. Also I think they said one, so again, anything is possible. Can you just get one
spatter, yes, at some physical point you might just get one spatter. Doesn’t seem very likely, however.
Q. Finally, Dr . Wecht I appreciate your patience.
A. If I don’t want to be held in contempt of Court, I darn well better be patient.
Q. It is difficult to be patient with thousands of cases. And you’re aware that Mr. Miller, when we looked
at Page 695, said that Mr. Goldblum took his pants off and put them In a plastic bag, the outer pants?
A. I have a vague recollection, yes, harkening back to what you said.
MR. BROMAN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Markovitz, I don’t want to limit redirect; however, if you can keep it brief, I would like to
continue so that I could excuse Dr. Wecht rather than have him come back.
Judge.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MARKOVITZ:
Q. Let’s go. I won’t be very long,
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Let’s go back to using Mr. Wilhelm, if I might, as the victim in this case, and I am Mr. Goldblum
coming from the back seat as here raised by the prosecution in this case now,and stabbing him from behind.
And the motion of my arm is what we would call in baseball a three-quarter’s pitching motion, and the
withdrawing being the same, it would not leave a blood spatter that was found which was essentially parallel to
the ground; would you agree with that?
A. There would be a diagonal intention. I cannot rule out some left to right directionality, which I think is
what I was asked before. I would agree that such a motion is indeed not horizontal; it would have a diagonal
angularity to it .
Q. You’re aware that no blood was found on the windshield of the vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware that no blood was found on the ceiling of the vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. And other than the small spot which is not described on the inside of the rear door behind the driver,
there was no blood found in the back seat of the vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. And you consider that to be tending to be consistent or tending to be inconsistent with the idea that
the: person In the back seat committed the stabbing and then supposedly exited the vehicle and continued the
stabbing outside the vehicle, meaning that he would have carried the knife in his hand to exit the back seat?
A. The absence of all blood from the ceiling and from the rear compartment except for that tiny bit on the
inside of the left side back door, all of that would be very inconsistent with someone sitting or standing or
crouching in the rear compartment of the car behind Mr. Wilhelm and stabbing him in the front of his chest.
Without going back through everything we have talked about, when you think about the arm and think
about the cast-off as the weapon comes back, the absence of blood in the rear of the car and in the ceiling of the
car and so on would be quite inexplicable. Then the getting out of the car and so on, with now a quite bloody
weapon and blood from the victim and so on, the absence of blood in the handles and other parts of the left rear
door, it would be very difficult to explain.
Q. Now, the prosecution during cross-examination here raised to you about the possibility that the blood
spatter on the dashboard came from the nose of the victim. Would the nose — would you expect a cast-off from a
nose? I understand you have explained that you don’t think this cast-off came from the nose, but in terms of the
height of the blood spatter, could you expect – the nose is significantly higher than the dashboard of the car;
would you agree with that? Somebody sitting in a normal position?
A. Yes. Of course, as you sit your head and certainly the nose’s level is higher than the dashboard level.
On a person of average height, it is a different level.
Q. If there was significant bleeding from the nose, would you not expect to find blood I suppose dropped
blood or dripped blood or whatever on the seat the driver was sitting or on the floor where the driver, the front of
the driver sitting position?
A. Yes. If one has a bloodied nose as from a blow then I would expect there to be some evidence of a
dripping. Gravity would see to it that the blood would come down, even from a nose that has been severed as
severely as Mr. Wilhelm’s was.
Q. You’re aware that no blood was found in the locations I just described?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Miller testified at trial that there was no stabbing inside the vehicle. That testimony is belied by the
blood spatter; is that your testimony?
A. Yes. In my opinion, that under any scenario or any variation on whichever theory has been discussed
and presented here today is, I think physically impossible. No matter who did what and how, that there would
have been no stabbing inside the car is forensically, in my opinion, unequivocally ruled out .
Q. Returning for a moment to this small, unidentified blood transfer of some type in the rear door, the
door behind the driver, had that blood been photographed by the police, is it possible that some firmer
conclusion could have been reached about the source of the blood?
A. Yes. Photographs, of course, capture and memorialize something, which is why we take so many of
them at scenes and on bodies and so on.
Q. You’re aware, are you not, from reviewing the materials in this case that the clothing seized from Mr.
Goldblum’s home the day after the murder were the clothes described to the police as being worn by Goldblum
by Clarence Miller; are you aware of that?
A. It is a vague recollection. I take your word for it, if it is there in the record with regard to the — to, Mr.
Markovitz? 1653.
MR. BROMAN: What page are you referring to?
MR. MARKOVITZ: I’m now referring to 1653.
Q. With regard to 1652 , the bottom, going on to 1653, referring now to the spot on the cuff of Mr.
Goldblum’s shirt, that spot is not even identified as being blood is it?
A. No, not by the person testifying. His statement is that, quote, “I imagine it was checked at the lab.” He
giving the testimony — who was he?
Q. Detective Herringer.
A. — did not know and did not state that it was blood.
MR. MARKOVITZ : Nothing further, Your Honor.
MR. BROMAN: I have just a few more.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BROMAN:
Q. Let’s start with Mr. Markovitz saylng that there was no blood. I call your attention to, “This was not
analyzed on the shirt,” Page 1799, Dr. Marine’s testimony down here at the bottom. It goes over into 1800.
A. Yes. By the way, they have their sides mixed up, too. Up above you will see it says on the right sleeve,
and I think we have all been talking about the left. But I just wanted to point that out. It is not nothing that you or I
haven’t spoken off, but you’re right. He did say, “I did determine that it was blood, but there was not enough of
the sample for further analysis.”
Q. Okay. And one final thing, Dr. Wecht, Mr. Markovitz stated that Mr. Miller said he did not see a
stabbing inside the car. Are you aware that Mr. Goldblum himself said he did not see a stabbing inside the car? If
you would like it is 2659, please.
MR. MARKOVITZ: Page number?
MR. BROMAN: 2659.
A. That’s correct.
MR. BROMAN: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Can we excuse Dr. Wecht?
MR. MARKOVITZ: Just one other question.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MARKOVITZ:
Q. That same page, Dr. Wecht, Mr. Goldblum did testify that he saw Mr. Miller who appeared to him to
be striking Mr. Wilhelm inside the vehicle, isn’t that right?
MR. BROMAN: What page are we on?
THE COURT: Same page. 2659, I believe.
A. No, that is not on that page. It is earlier, yes, when we talked about the fighting – yes. Let’s see. 2658,
now, Your Honor, yes. That is when they talked about the striking, yes. He did make that mention of the blows or
striking, yes.
MR. MARKOVITZ: Nothing further.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION MR. BROMAN:
Q. But there is nothing in the striking that indicates it wasn’t fist-a-cuffs.
A. He used the word strike or blow, that’s right.
MR. BROMAN: Okay.
MR. MARKOVITZ: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Thank you, Dr. Wecht. You may be excused.
A. Thank you very much. And thank you, Your Honor, for permitting me to continue.