| Deputy Medical Examiner Dr. Roy's redacted 3-23-1990 deposition |
| March 23, 1990, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner (CME) Ronald Roy’s deposition
was taken at the law office of James Mitchell & Jed Davis in Augusta. His deposition was transcribed and video
recorded. I didn’t attend Roy’s deposition because Popkin advised me against it, saying he believed it would
be too traumatic for me. This was the only deposition I didn’t attend. I now wish I had attended the deposition, regardless of how traumatic it would have been.
Deputy CME Roy’s deposition began with him saying that he had “ training in psychiatry and forensic pathology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario” and had “functioned as the deputy medical examiner as a forensic pathologist for the last eleven years in Maine.” Roy said he had performed approximately 175 homicide autopsies in 11 years and guessed he would have testified in grand juries, probable cause hearings, bail hearings, and actual trials about 150 times. Maine Fire Marshal Wilbur Ricker said in his 42 years as fire investigator, he had testified in courts as an expert witness hundreds of times. Deputy CME Roy was deposed on March 23 and our trial date was scheduled for May 11th. But 49 days before trial Dr. Roy left the United States and returned to Canada. After Roy left, without consulting me, my attorney took upon himself to hire a company to excise more than three-fourths of Roy’s video deposition getting it ready for trial. (All paid for with funds from my account.) The complete deposition was 40 pages, consisting of 986 lines. A total of 785 lines were deleted. I have both versions of Dr. Roy’s testimony, the one the jury heard—and the one the jury didn’t hear. All the jury heard was video testimony with only a sliver of Dr. Roy’s deposition testimony that supported the State of Maine’s position that there was no trauma to Mike's body and that he died of carbon monoxide. And to top it off eleven days before trial the Maine Attorney General's office hired my attorney and he walked out on me What the Jury did hear Popkin: "Dr. Roy, I am Michael Popkin, the attorney for Leola Cochran. (page 3) What the jury did not hear “in the case of Leola Cochran versus Paul Pollard and Owen Pollard; and I am here taking your deposition today. Have you ever had your deposition taken before?" Roy: “Not in this fashion, no.” What the Jury did hear Popkin: “On February 24th, 1981, you went to Lucerne-In-Maine to perform an investigation of a death?” (Page 6) Roy: “To examine the scene, yes.” Popkin: “Okay. And what was the first thing that you recall about what took place at that time?” Roy: “...It was difficult to identify a body at the scene until it was pointed out to us, and then we were able to recognize a badly charred body lying on its stomach near the front of the building. ...The body appeared to be lying on its stomach, and it was still within the confines of the building, what would probably be a porch area.” Popkin: “Now, what did you do at the scene?” (page 7) Roy: “Really did very little beyond just that preliminary examination. There really was not much we could do. The remainder of that sort of scene belongs to the fire marshal. The body was removed to the morgue.” Popkin asked Dr. Roy what was done “at the medical examiner’s office to investigate this death.” (page 8) Roy: “Well, the body was taken to the morgue at Kennebec Valley Medical Center, and the next morning I further examined it externally to determine the extent of injury that had occurred. The internal organs were examined. The trachea was examined for evidence of soot. Blood was collected for toxicology testing." What the Jury did not hear “The jaws were removed for further dental identification. Dr. Ryan and myself had briefly charted the fillings to see if they were compatible with the information we had and we felt they were, so we were going to proceed with more definitive identification beyond this. We felt that it probably was Michael Cochran, and we wanted a dentist to confirm this.” “Now, you said you felt it was probably Micheal Cochran at the time of the autopsy. Could you tell me what you based that on at that time?” “Mainly the comparison of the dental work with the chart.” “Okay. You were provided with a [dental] chart [Exhibit #10 & #11] of Michael Cochran’s history at that time,” Popkin said. “I don’t know if we had it at that time. What we did was chart it. I cannot specifically recall the details. It was quite a long time ago. But the fillings were charted, and most likely were compared over the phone with the dentist’s charts. He might have – I suspect what happened, he read them to us and we compared them and said this is probably who it is.” “When you say that you suspect that is what happened, was it your routine to proceed that way?” “At the time it was. Now we try and obtain all of these records when a person is reported missing so we have them on hand right at the time of the examination.” What the Jury did hear “I would like to show you what has been marked as Roy Deposition Exhibit #1 and ask if you could identify that, please.” (page 9) “That’s a copy of my autopsy report on Michael Cochran.” “All right. Now, could you please tell me what you concluded from your examination at that time?” “I concluded that the cause of death was due to inhalation of products of combustion including carbon monoxide.... That’s based on presence of soot in the trachea. ...There was no evidence of gunshot wounds, stab wounds to the chest, to the trunk or head.” (page 11) “Okay. Now, do I understand you that what you are saying is that there was no obvious cause of death?” “That’s right.” “And did you find any evidence of trauma?” “No.” “Okay. That means no stab wounds, no gunshot wounds?” “That’s right.” What the jury did not hear "Was carbon monoxide something that you could observe at the time of the autopsy in any way?" “One thing that can be done is what is called a carbon monoxide screening test where you dilute some blood and subject it to 10 percent sodium hydroxide and watch for the coloration.... it works very well for us." "Did you find evidence of carbon monoxide in Mr. Cochran's blood then on February 25th?" "I don't recall if I did that test." (page 12) What the Jury did hear "What did you do to determine whether carbon monoxide was present?" "Well – " "At this point let me show you Deposition Exhibit #2 and ask you to identify that.” “That is the toxicology report.” What the Jury did not hear "There is no way to be sure that there is carbon monoxide other than doing the test ...You have to rely on the toxicology results." What the Jury did hear “And could you, please, state what the results were?” (page 13) “Well, it indicates a carbon monoxide saturation of 46 percent, that there is a small amount of alcohol present in the blood, and also detected in the urine were cocaine and nicotine [the percentage of cocaine or nicotine were not reported].” (page 14) “Okay. Now, are you confident that there was no other traumatic injury to Mr. Cochran?” “I cannot rule out that he was not stuck on the head or even that he had a skull fracture.” “I cannot rule out any injuries to his arms or legs or other portions of his extremities that are missing. Obviously, I can’t tell you what happened there. I don’t see any evidence of any penetrating wounds to the head or the trunk.” (page 15) “And this was severe charring?” (page 16) “Yes.” “Now, based upon that cause of death of carbon monoxide inhalation, did you reach a conclusion as to the manner of death?” “No, I could not, not from my autopsy examination or information I had.” Dr. Roy explained that cause of death was what process caused the person’s life to stop and manner of death was either homicide, suicide, accident, natural death, undetermined and some jurisdiction use unclassified. “Did you eventually reach a conclusion in this case as to manner of death?” “Yes, I did.” “And what was that conclusion?” “Homicide.” “And why did you reach that?” “That’s based on the information from the fire marshal’s office that they believe that this was an arson. So on that basis, this would be a homicide.” “In other words, you concluded that Mr. Cochran died as a result of the fire; and if the fire was an intentionally set fire, then the death was a homicide.” “That’s right.” (page 17) What the jury did not hear “Now, let me show you what has been marked as Roy Deposition Exhibit #3 and ask if you can identify that for me.” “Well, it is an extract from the Department of Vital Records of a death certificate.” “Okay. Did you make out the death certificate?” “Yes, I did.” “... does it bear a copy of your signature?” “It has my name on it. It’s not my signature.” “Okay. Let me show you Roy Deposition Exhibit #6 and ask whether you can identify that.” “Yes. That is the death certificate that I filled out on February 25th.” “Okay. Now, just examining it here, on February 25th, you listed the immediate cause as inhalation of products of combustion including carbon monoxide, the cause of death.” “Yes.” “Okay. And let me show you what has been marked as Roy Deposition Exhibit #7 and ask you to identify that.” “This is a copy of what we call a supplemental cause of death which we issue when there is further alteration to be done or amendments to be made to the original death certificate and this one indicates that I have changed item 28(a), the manner, to homicide.” “Okay. Was there any manner that was previously listed?” “...Yes, pending investigation on the original certificate.” “And then by June 1st, 1981, you have changed that to homicide?” “That’s right.” “Now, what, if anything, did you do to continue to pin down the identification of the victim as Michael Cochran?” “... The jaws were removed, and all of this material was sent to a Dr. Seidel, who is a dentist, for further comparison and verification." "And at that point, what was the process that you expected to take place?" (19) "Well, I expected Dr. Seidel to compare the dental charting with the actual specimens, preferably to take postmortem x-rays and compare them with any pre-mortem x-rays that might be available and on the basis of all of these to tell us whether he felt this was Michael Cochran.” “Okay. I’d like to show you what has been marked as Roy Deposition Exhibit #4 and ask if you would identify that.” “This is a report from Dr. Seidel.” “... you have said that the body was severely charred. I would like to represent to you that the fire marshal [Wilbur Ricker] had an opinion that gasoline was probably poured directly on the body from the degree of charring. Would that be something that you would defer to him on?” (page 20) “Well, I don’t know that I could prove that. Certainly in review of several fire cases, I have seen bodies as charred as this where I don’t think that as the mechanism.” “Okay. Did you know in those cases whether the mechanism was the body falling in to and being packed in the embers?” “Well, two of them that I’m aware of where there was damage as severe as this was one in an automobile and the other was in a trailer; smaller spaces.” “Would – in reaching that kind of opinion, the best of the fire and the amount of time that the body was subjected to the heat would be important variables?” “That, I think, is the most important factor in causing a body to be severely charred, is just the length of time in which they are exposed to high heat.” “And someone who was familiar with the actual fire would need to review the history of the event, in other words, the history of the fire how long the fire was burning, how quickly it was put out, factors such as that in order to decide whether it was probable that there was some accelerant poured directly on the body.” “Well, I don’t really know. I am not a fire marshal.” “My question was would you defer to a fire marshal’s opinion on a subject like that?” “Well, he’s entitled to make that opinion. I’m not sure I would agree with it from examination of the body. I would take another approach to prove that.” “Okay. Well, what would be your approach?” “Well, I think the body tissues and possibly the blood should be examined for gasoline itself.” “Okay. And was that done in this case?” “No.” “Okay. So would you know anything at this point to contradict the fire marshal’s opinion in this particular case?” “"I don’t know if there would be anything that would contradict it.” “Okay. You simply don’t have enough information at your disposal to say one way or the other?” “The only answer I have for you in regard to this question is that I have seen bodies in other fires that are as severely charred as this. It is not uncommon.” “...You said there were two fires that you recall?” “Two that I can recall that "I was able to look at photographs of recently and say yes, these are as badly charred as others.” “Now, and how many bodies, burn victims have you seen in your career?” “I wouldn’t know those numbers. I would have to go back and try to count them off over the years. I don’t have that.” “It would be ten or twenty of more?” “Oh, you might be talking around 40, I would guess.” “One thing I would like to ask you generally, though, is that all of these exhibits that we have been looking at, are they copies that that have been made from ... the State of Maine’s medical examiner’s office which we subpoenaed and you brought here?’ “Yes, it is.” Glazier: “Let me just make a general objection, that all of the information from this point on may be information beyond this doctor’s capability to answer, especially where he sent it off to a dentist, I guess, to look at the dental chart; and in the event that becomes a problem, I would object to any further evidence given by Dr. Roy. However, if we agree and it is stipulated it was Michael Cochran who died in the fire, which it most likely would have been, I will waive my objection. We can go into trial without getting this onto the record.” Popkin: "I think we were talking about Deposition Exhibit #4 which purports to be a letter to Henry Ryan from John C. Seidel, a dentist in Portland, dated April 27th, 1981. Again, could you tell me what the purpose of that letter was and, you know, how it came to be written to you or to Dr. Ryan in your office?" Roy: "...[Seidel] indicates that he made comparison of these various specimens and then concluded in his opinion the dental record marked Michael Cochran is that of the specimen in our number ML-81-178, which is our number for the Michael Cochran autopsy." “Let me show you what has been marked as Roy Deposition Exhibit #5 and ask if you can identify that from your file?” (27) “This is the dental identification record which we supply to the dentist. ... Dr. Seidel has charted the dental work done on the jaws removed from the body. So this is postmortem dental charting.” [This report was received at the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office on April 10, 1981. [Sixty-one days after the cremation.] “Now let me show you what has been marked as Deposition Roy #8, there is at least four pages [letters] and ask if you would, please, identify whether it comes from your file and just quickly skim through it and tell me what it is.” Letters: “Yes. These are a series of correspondence. There is three letters from Dr. Ryan and one from Dr. Seidel.” “And this is all in regard to the dental identification of Mr. Cochran?” “That’s right.” (page 28) “Now, did you have some medical records of Michael Cochran that were given to you?” (31) “I have some medical records. I don’t recall if I did anything with them or not.” “Did you at any point make a determination whether it be what you observed at autopsy was consistent or inconsistent with the medical records that you had obtained? “No, I did not.” “Okay. Now, do you know my client, Mrs. Cochran, or have you ever had any dealing with her?” “No, I have not.” “Okay. At any time – she has never spoken to you?” “She may have spoken to me once on the phone. I think that’s about it.” “What do you recall of that phone call?” “Nothing.” “Okay.” “I seem to remember her voice, and that’s about all I can recall.” What the Jury did hear "The sort of evidence that you have been giving here, this is the type of testimony that you have given many times in the courts of Maine?” “Yes.” Examination by Glazier: "Did you notice if this individual that was found by you in the fire; that is, when I say found, you didn't find the body but observed the body, was that by a door way, if you remember?" "Well, I can't really say that I would recognize any doorways at that scene." What the jury did not hear "Have you ever examined a person involved in a fire where gasoline has been actually poured on the person; have you ever done that?" "I have experience with a case of self-inhalation where a person poured gasoline on themselves out of doors and lit themselves on fire." "What was the carbon monoxide in that case?" "I can't specifically recall the level, but I do recall it was not high." "Doctor, but for the information that was given to you by the fire marshal's office, would you have put the word 'homicide' on the amended death certificate?" "No." "There is no question that death in this case was caused by carbon monoxide poisoning?" "I have no problem with that." Re-examination by Mr. Popkin: "The body that you examined was that of a white male?" "Yes." "And was the body much more badly burned on the back, the top?" "Yes." "Since the body was lying on its -- face down, did you find that the back was much more severely charred than the belly?" "Yes." "And the charring on the back at places went right through to expose the pleural cavities?" "Yes." What the jury did not hear “And was there a bit of unburned floor underneath the body?” “I don’t recall. Unless I describe that, I can’t tell you. I don’t know.” “Okay. And you also mentioned somewhere in here that there was some calcine on the ends of the missing extremities. What does that mean?” “Well, that’s a change in the bone where basically the protein content is cooked out as a result of exposure to high heat.” “Do you always find that in fires?” “No.” “Okay. Does that indicate extremely high heat?” “Well, it indicates that the body was in proximity to significant heat as opposed to bodies which might be found in another portion of the house that are slightly charred and have a lot of soot, may have some heat fractures or heat contracture but they generally don’t get calcine. They are not that close to the heat source.” What the Jury did hear Re-examination by Glazier: "And, Doctor, again, as I understand it, this type of problem with the skull expanding out, you have seen that in many other fires?" "Yes." What the jury did not hear "Okay. And those fires, there was no question, I take it, about whether gasoline was poured on the body or anything like that?" "Not that I am aware of." Re-examination by Mr. Popkin: “Just to go back to that last point on this business of determining whether or not gasoline was poured on the body. Would it be important –- first of all, is that a call that you have ever made within your professional experience?” “Yes. I had a homicide fire death, arson, where there was gasoline involved; and gasoline was detected in the tissues, in the blood.” “Okay. In that case, you tested the blood and the tissues directly for the gasoline?” “That’s right.” "Okay. Now, Would you want to know how long the body had been exposed to the heat if you -- what I am asking is if you were trying to make a call directly from the body itself?" "I don't know if that information would mean much to me, first of all; and, secondly, if the heat is high enough, it could be a brief duration but be high enough to produce the same effect." “Okay. Now in terms of stacking your opinion up against that of a fire marshal who had investigated fires uniquely for 42 years and that was their only expertise, would you respect the opinion of the fire marshal who made a professional call on that issue?” “I think it would be a rather neutral thing. He is entitled to his opinion, but I would also point out to him that I have seen other cases of bodies almost as badly burnt as this or as badly burned as this that there was not that suspicion.” “Okay. Thank you.” My attorney only kept the part of Dr. Roy’s testimony that supported the state’s version (Shuman and AAG Thomas Goodwin) of no trauma to Michael’s severely burned body.
Deputy ME Ronald Roy's video deposition: https://youtu.be/X-mdsZgKHg0?si=szoQKzPuT1uopGNM
|