The Article 32 investigation was called to order at 0856, 14 June 2007.

IO: This hearing is called to order.

Ms. E. A. Rouse, U.S. Air Force, was called as a witness by the prosecution, was sworn, and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Major Erickson:

Q. Ma'am, could you please state your full name and spell your last for the record.

A. Elisabeth Rouse, R-O-U-S-E.

Q. Ma'am, you were currently a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And you are on active duty?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Where is your current assignment?

A. I am currently assigned to the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.

Q. What is your primary duty there?

A. I am an assistant professor of pathology.

Q. Give the IO an idea of what exactly is pathology.

A. Pathology is the portion -- aspect of medicine, the study of disease both in the hospital and in the forensic arena, which is my area of speciality, but all areas diagnosing disease states from tissue and body fluids, both in the laboratory as well as biopsy samples in the hospital.

Q. Besides being a professor of pathology, are there any other duties you perform while you are there?

A. Yes. I am a Regional Medical Examiner from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's office.

Q. What are some of the duties of a medical examiner?

A. The Armed Forces Medical Examiner's office has the jurisdiction over all cases that fall under federal jurisdiction. We investigate medical legal death investigation of members of active duty and other individuals that fall under federal jurisdiction.

Q. And as a medical examiner, do you perform autopsies?

A. Yes. Performing an autopsy is the major portion that the medical examiner performs, along with the other duties as well.

Q. We have already entered your curriculum vita into the record. So we're not going to have to go through your whole educational history. There is one thing I wanted to ask you about. That is your residency. Where was your residency at?

A. I did any residency in San Antonio at Wilford Hall Medical Center and Brooke Army Medical Center in anatomic and clinical pathology.

Q. Who was your mentor while you were there?

A. At that time that was general pathology. I think you are referring to my fellowship.

Q. Yes.

A. Which was the year following in forensic pathology, Dr. Vince Dimiao. He is the chief medical examiner of Bear County.

IO: Ma'am, we are recording this. And we're going to have to transcribe it. You are speaking a little fast, especially for these type of words. Maybe if you slow down a bit.

WIT[LtCol Rouse]: Certainly.

Questions by Major Erickson continued:

Q. With regards to your forensic pathology fellowship, what did they entail?

A. A fellowship is a year or more of training after residency. And it is an area of specialty within the field of pathology. I did my fellowship in forensic pathology, which is that area of pathology dealing with public interests and the law, cases that are public interest to be investigated for determining the identity of the deceased, cause and manner of death, and to be an integral part of the medical legal investigation for law enforcement and other parties.

Q. Now, with regards to forensic pathology, how long have you been in that field?

A. I did my fellowship in the year 2000 to 2001. And I have been a regional medical examiner since that time. For three years, I was the first chief deputy for the Armed Forces Medical Examiner beneath the Chief Medical Examiner, and doing forensics full time. The other years, it's been an additional duty.

Q. During that time period, about how many consults have you performed?

A. Consults? Well, consults are involved in many ways. We review other peoples' cases, we co-sign cases, we also get cases where there is not an actual autopsy but they are just reviewing the investigation and the report. And at this point, that would number in the several thousands.

Q. How many autopsies have you performed?

A. Approximately a thousand.

Q. Ma'am, do you remember when you were first asked to be a consult on this Haditha investigation?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. When was that?

A. I would have to look back at the notes. We were contacted by NCIS. I travelled to Tampa Florida to review the information they had. I would have to look at my notes to get the month and year.

Q. That's fine. Do you recall if there was any autopsies performed in the Haditha investigation?

A. No, there were not.

Q. So you were called on as a pathologist. You did a pathology consult on that case?

A. Yes. I reviewed the material that was available to the investigators at that time.

TC[Maj Erickson]: Permission to approach, sir?

IO: You may.

TC[Maj Erickson]: I am handing the witness what has been marked as Investigative Exhibit 56. Ma'am, if you could please, turn to page -- and the page numbers are – if you see the bottom of the page, it say "Investigative Exhibit 56." And it will say "page 1 of 9." I want you to turn to page 7 of 9.

WIT[LtCol Rouse]: Yes.

Questions by Major Erickson continued:

Q. We're going go through this document for the IO. Does this document look familiar to you?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. What is this document?

A. This is a consultation report I prepared for the NCIS investigators to assist in their investigation.

Q. If you go to page 9 of 9. Is that your signature?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Back to the first page of that exhibit -- sorry, page 7of 9. Can you tell us what in particular this pathology report addressed, which incident this addressed?

A. This was designating the site that had been designated by NCIS as house number 4. I would have to refer to other paperwork to give you the GPS location of that house. But that was by all accounts labeled house number four in Haditha City.

Q. And house number four involved the death of what? Do you remember?

A. There were four males that were killed by reports. And I have the names that were given to me of those individuals as well as the reported ages.

Q. Throughout the report, how did you refer to each one of those?

A. Initially, at the top part of the report, I state their names and reported ages. Photographs were reviewed. And numbers had been written on the forehead or hands or upper body parts of some of the individuals. In this case, I believe all four were numbered. It is numbers 21 through 24. So I referred to those victims by the number that was written on the body.

Q. And those numbers you got from those photos?

A. Yes. That was with reviewed photographs.

Q. And you didn't perform autopsies on any of these four individuals?

A. No.

Q. Ma'am, you stated earlier that you went down to Tampa, Florida to review all the stuff the investigators compiled at that point. Give the IO an idea of what you were working on.

A. They had put everything together in a large notebook that had tabs, photographs, Iraqi death certificates that were translated, some interview statements of the Iraqi -- primarily, Dawoud translated statements by that individual, and then a collection of death-scene photographs that were taken. I was told by the Marine Corps Human Exploitation Team members and other sources. There was also some video footage that was reviewed at the Haditha morgue.

Q. To your understanding, did Dawoud interpret a portion of the stuff you are reviewing? Who is Dawaad?

A. I would have to look back at exactly who he was. He was an Iraqi national that I believe was present. I would have to look at the report to his exact status. Like I said, the Iraqi death certificates and medical records that were all translated.

Q. Now, if we go through your report and you see item number four in page 8 of 9.

A. I'm sorry. Can you --

Q. Sorry, page 8 of 9, if you look at item number four at the bottom of the page.

A. Yes.

Q. It says "evaluation of Iraqi death certificates translated." What information did those death certificates provide to you?

A. When I examined those, they were translated to English. The original documents would have been in Iraqi. And they indicate various spellings of Iraqi male names and their ages, I believe, and designates a cause of death as all having been shot, or shots plural, in the head, which in this case is consistent with the photographic evidence.

Q. The first page you report, again, page 7 of 9, item paragraph 2, materials reviewed. Let the IO understand exactly what these materials review were. The NCIS forensic briefing folder is particularly what I'm concerned with.

A. That is a large three-ring binder where they compiled and collated all the material that they felt would be relevant for my review. Copies of the photographs were in there on photographic paper and not digital images, as well as typed statements -- like I said, the translated death certificates, the statements from the Iraqi morgue, and some of their initial provisional reconstruction that they had at that time.

Q. Now, in paragraph 2, it also says "Iraqi medical reports translated." Do you recall if this particular house had any Iraqi medical reports?

A. I would have to review. I don't recall medical reports on these victims that was reviewed for the whole -- that folder had all the events in Haditha. It was not specific to house four. So the entire packet was reviewed looking at all cases.

Q. Again, you already told us paragraph 4 was the evaluation of Iraqi death certificates. If there were Iraqi medical reports, would you have referred to them in this report?

A. Yes. I was trying to -- Particularly in other houses -- trying to match up by name and age and gender who different victims were. So I was referring back. I would have to look at that again to be certain that there were not medical reports on these four victims. But I don't recall that being contributary.

Q. Ma'am, I am not going to have you recreate your analysis of every photo you saw, but I am going to show you four photos.

TC[Maj Erickson]: Sir, with your permission, I am handing the witness Investigative Exhibit 61, 62, 63, and 64.

IO: Okay.

Questions by Major Erickson continued:

Q. Ma'am, if you start on paragraph 3, page 7 of 9 in your report, it says "examination of the photographs." You did a forensic pathology consult based solely on reviewing the photographs and written documents. Is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that normal in your profession?

A. Ideally in the majority of our cases, we would perform an autopsy, we would examine the scene, it would be a complete investigation. There are certainly times when we are reviewing situations either where the autopsy report -- the autopsy was performed some time ago, so we're looking at reports and available photographs. There are occasions where a body is not available for an autopsy examination. So at those times, we would review what is available.

Q. Throughout your report, you make reference to terms like stippling, intermediate range, terminology like that. Give the IO an idea of what stippling is.

A. When testing range of fire for gunshot wounds, there are certain interactions. We're looking at the distance of the firearm from the victim. If the broad category are contact where the end of the firearm is in direct contact with the skin of the victim, loose contact, close contact where you are slightly away, and then intermediate is the range from inches to several feet where products of combustion impact the body. And there is material and changes in the body from that interaction where we can appreciate.

Once you get beyond several feet, we call it a distant or indeterminate range because we cannot ascertain the difference between, for example, 5 feet, 15 feet, 30 feet, because at that point, just the projectile is interacting with the body. No other products of combustion or discharge from that weapon are going to interact with the body.

Q. Ma'am, are you familiar with the range in which stippling or gunshot residue would deposit on a body for a 9-millimeter handgun?

A. Ranges vary with each weapon and the ammunition condition of the weapon. But there are well established ranges beyond which material would not be deposited.

Q. What is that range?

A. In general rules, contacted persons where there is a certain point of contact, actually soot is deposited. Stippling is where there are actual abrasions on the body that does not wipe off. Soot wipes off. The stippling is where certain particles actually hit the body and cause small abrasions. If the weapon is close to the body, those will be in a very narrow, tight range. As the firearm moves away from the body or that distance is decreased, the stippling broadens and those particles no longer hit the body.

Q. So if I say intermediate range, what is that range?

A. The general range is from, like I said, probably six inches -- typically six to about 18 or 24 inches. Some stippling with some weapons may be a few inches further. Tests can be performed on a firearm to get an exact range.

Q. How about an M-16 rifle?

A. That would be similar. Again, you are talking about the end of the firearm, not the person operating it, which would be different, like, from the end of the weapon. Like I said, intermediate in general is six to eight inches probably to 24 or 36.

Q. Ma'am, how many consults have you been involved with that included an M-16 service rifle?

A. I would not be entirely sure. Certainly over – since the Iraqi conflict began, we do autopsies on all active duty service members that are killed in conflict. Not many have M-16 wounds. Certainly, there are AK-47s and other high velocity, cylinder-type weapons. M-16 rounds would be slower, but I have certainly seen cases. I really couldn't give you a number.

Q. Would you say it is more than ten?

A. I have seen more than ten cases, probably less than 50.

Q. How about a 9-millimeter?

A. That in certainly, particularly in the civilian sector, is a more common weapon. So that is something I have seen in my training. I have seen civilian cases in San Antonio. Certainly 9-millimeter wounds were fairly common. And in the military, again, M-16s and 9-milimeters were commonly suicide cases where service members are using their own weapons. So several hundred, certainly.

Q. Again, I want to make sure we get all the terms that I didn't know what they meant and I had to ask you. So on page 7 of 9 if you look at the second to last sentence on that page, the second to last line where it starts with "his eyes just to the left of midline." What exactly does that mean "left of midline"?

A. When we're doing an autopsy report or forensic photographs, to orient as we're giving a description of the injuries, we use what we called standard anatomic position. So that is the body of the person outright, laying flat, front or anterior. Then we use midline, which would be a line right from the center down the nose. And that would be anterior midline.

If we're talking about hands or legs, we also use midline just as a reference point. When you are performing an autopsy, you like to give several different discrete reference points and measurements so you can get a three dimensional localization of where exactly that defect or injury is on that person.

So this is in reference to the midline and then the left of that individual.

Q. Okay, ma'am. I am going to ask you to look at Investigative Exhibit 61. It is the first picture I handed you.

A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen that picture before?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Is this person referenced in paragraph 3A of your report?

A. Yes, if you look on his forehead in red, the number 21is written. I refer to him as victim number 21, paragraph A of bullet 3.

Q. You mentioned he has at least two gunshot wounds in your report. He has at least two gunshot wounds to the head with one entrance gunshot wound?

A. Yes.

Q. In this photo, can the IO see where you are referring to two gunshot wounds?

A. It is difficult to see in this photograph due to the copying of it and the actual -- a glossy -- a digital photograph would be easier to see. What I am referring to is between -- basically, between his eyebrows just below on the bridge of his nose, there is an entrance wound. Like I said, in this photograph, it is hard to delineate, at least my copy here. And that the nature of that defect -- circular defect with an abrasion leading from it would indicate an entrance gunshot wound. Over his left ear, the left part of his head is an exit wound.

You can slightly see it in this picture. With that entrance, the defect -- again, it is difficult in this picture and with the carpet. But back in the ancipital region, there is an apparent exit wound with some brain matter. Like I said, this photograph you can just barely see it on the left towards the back of his scalp.

That would be a defect coming in just medial – medial being towards the center, lateral towards the edges -- medial to his left eye on his nose exiting the back of his head.

Then he also has a large gaping exit wound of the left side of his head, which is sort of in where his ear had been. We don't see the entrance for that defect. It is not visualized in this photograph.

Q. Ma'am, in your report, you said there is no soot or stippling surrounding this wound or any of the wounds on this particular individual?

A. That is correct.

Q. With the absence of soot or stippling, can you determine a range?

A. We would call that an indetermined or distant range, meaning it is greater than several feet.

Q. Ma'am, if I could direct your attention to the gentleman's left hand laying across his chest.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see his left middle finger?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. That appears to be a fragment of tissue, most likely bone. It is very square. The edges are square to rectangular, which bone, when it breaks up skull fragments, tend to often get that cubed fragment. It could be other biological material, brain matter. Like I said, the edges are very square and seems to be resting upon that finger.

Q. Did you consider whether or not that was a defect?

A. We certainly did. If he had a defect of the finger, you would actually have a loss of tissue, a blowing apart. It wouldn't have the square geometric edges that that has.

When you look at the photograph, it really appears to be resting on top of it. There is some slight shadowing beneath it like it's actual tissue on top of that hand rather than a defect in the finger itself. A gunshot wound wouldn't be very circular in shape. This is a very square fragment.

Q. Ma'am, I am going to ask you to go to another photo, which would be Investigative Exhibit 62. That is the individual identified in your report in paragraph B.

A. I am having a little trouble with this photograph. Is he 22 or -- yes, he is 22. Yes, that would be B.

Q. Ma'am, once again, in this photo, you observed no soot or stippling either. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in any of the photos that you looked at during your consult, did you see any soot or stippling in this particular?

A. On these four victims, I do not believe any had any evidence of soot.

Q. So is distance of the shot, was that able to be determined with this victim?

A. I would assess them all as indeterminate or distant range of fire.

Q. Now, ma'am, in the first victim that we looked at in paragraph A and this victim in paragraph B, could you determine what caliber weapon fired the bullet wounds in these victims?

A. Not without examination of the body and the scene and actually looking at the tissue and the wounds. From the photographs, I would not make that determination.

Q. That is why there is no determination in your report with regards --

A. Exactly.

Q. I am going to ask you to go to Investigative Exhibit 63. Is this the person you referred to in paragraph C of your report?

A. Yes.

Q. Once again, we have no range with regards to this victim?

A. Yes. In this photograph, it is difficult to truly appreciate much about the apparent defect. But there does appear to be blood and a dark area. I refer to it as the entrance wound and blood from his ear. But we're not visualizing the actual defect as well as some of the others.

Q. And you couldn't tell which caliber weapon was responsible for this particular gunshot wound?

A. No.

Q. The last one I will have you look at is Exhibit 64. I think this is the person you referred in paragraph D of your report.

A. Yes.

Q. Ma'am, were you able to determine what caliber weapon fired this shot?

A. There is another photographs -- the other photographs that show this victim's defects -- from this angle, this photograph we're primarily appreciating the exit wound, which is the large gaping defect of the left side of his head and forehead. Another shot shows the entrance wound. And his entrance wound would be what we call an atypical entrance wound.

When a projectile goes through what we call an intermediate target going through something else, the properties of that projectile travelling through the air and how it interacts change. The bullet begins to tumble. It interacts, may deform. And then when it impacts the body, that entrance wound will have slightly different features, and sometimes their range and how atypical that appears. And his was an atypical wound consistent with some sort of intermediate target. So the fact that it appears atypical, I again would not speculate on the actual caliber of the projectile.

Q. So if a bullet were to pass through a door before it hit a person, would that make it atypical?

A. Yes, it certainly would; it certainly could.

Q. What did you think with the large expulsion of brain matter and skull on this victim? Did that --

A. Certainly, that would favor a high velocity. Again, without the range and examining the scene, I would back off on making a very definitive statement.

Q. Did you have anybody look at your work prior to the publication of this report?

A. Prior to the publication?

Q. A peer review process?

A. On this case, since this was for NCIS, this was not reviewed. Since that time, certainly others have reviewed it.

Q. Who has reviewed your work?

A. Dr. Dimiao has.

Q. And does Dr. DiMaio have any experience in gunshot wounds?

A. Yes, he does. He has extensive experience, including the author of the primary text on gunshot wounds as well as text in forensic pathology. I think he would be considered most likely -- certainly the United States expert, if not the world expert, in gunshot wounds.

Q. Going back to Investigative Exhibit 61, that middle finger of the left hand of that victim, what was Dr. DiMaio's opinion on whether or not that was brain tissue?

CC[Mr. Myers]: I know I can't object. But this is an attempt to boost by using an out-of-hearing expert. I think that is not a good idea generally speaking. I just want to alert the IO to that fact.

IO: Thank you.

WIT[LtCol Rouse]: He concurred that it was most consistent with tissue.

Questions by Major Erickson continued:

Q. Ma'am, as you sit here today, have you received any other additional evidence with regards to this particular incident?

A. I believe some -- I don't believe any additional photographs from house four have been received. I have seen some additional photographs from that initial packet. But I do not believe any were pertaining to house four.

Q. Have you received any evidence or any material that would change your opinions in this report?

A. Not to this point, no.

TC[Maj Erickson]: Thank you, ma'am. Defense will have some questions for you.

CC[Mr. Myers]: We're going to need a little set up time, if I could, sir.

IO: I will just ask a couple of questions.

CC[Mr. Culp]: Fair enough. Sure.

IO: Then we will take a break and get you set up.

EXAMINATION BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER

Questions by the investigating officer:

Q. If I am to understand your testimony at this point, Colonel, it is that you believe, based on your photographic examination, all these individuals were shot from a distance of more than 24 inches?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that's why the lack of stippling is significant in your findings?

A. Yes. With a correct that other objects that come in between the projectile and the body can block the stippling, even clothing. So you can have a closer range of fire if there is an item that blocks that sort of stippling from entering the body. The majority of these are on the head that we visualized. Certainly, all victims could have be more defects that are not visualized in the photographs. But unless there was cloth or something over their head at that time, it would block the soot or stippling. These would all be classified as indeterminate range or distant range gunshot wounds.

Q. In reviewing the information you provided in addition to these photographs, was there any indication that there were these wounds on these individuals that were not to the head?

A. I can only speak from the photographs that I saw. I do not believe -- the Iraqi death certificates indicate shot or shots to the head. Certainly in an autopsy, we would remove the clothing, do a full examination, external, internal of the body. Without that information, I can't --

Q. So you had no information of an examination of these individuals beyond the injuries that are obvious in the pictures to the head?

A. Correct.

Q. It may seem obvious, but these injuries that are shown in these photographs, exhibit 61, you describe two different injuries to the head.

A. Yes.

Q. Would you be able to determine with any medical certainty whether one of those injuries would have been a fatal wound?

A. There appears to be brain matter from both defects, which certainly -- when a gunshot wound to the head enters the brain cavity and there is expulsion to the brain, there is a high degree of lethality with that.

Q. So it would be your medical opinion that either one of those wounds would have been a fatal wound?

A. Most likely, yes.

Q. Last question, just for my own identification. When you say left of the midline of a person, is that as you view them or on the person's body?

A. On the person's body.

IO: Let's take a break. And I will let the defense set up their presentation.

The Article 32 investigation recessed at 0930, 14 June 2007.

The Article 32 investigation was called to order at 0950, 14 June 2007.

IO: This hearing is called to order.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Questions by Mr. Myers:

Q. I would like to examine some foundational questions with respect to your examination of what date was made available to you. Did you have an opportunity to read the entire report of forensic reconstruction done by the NCIS?

A. At that point, when I initially began my review, it was a provisional reconstruction.

Q. Now, as part of your examination, were you made aware of the fact that the Iraqi members of the family who survived reported finding 11 shell casings in and about that area?

A. It may have been mentioned in one of the reports I read.

Q. And that those shell casings were both 9-mil and M-16?

A. I recall hearing both were found in that area.

Q. Were you made aware that the one person who examined the body most proximate in time to their death reported that there were in fact torso wounds?

A. I am not aware of that reference.

Q. The autopsy from the hospital in Iraq, do you know if that death report was in fact an autopsy?

A. I was not aware of any autopsies being performed on these victims -- or at least I have not seen any autopsy reports or autopsy photographs.

Q. Did you know or did you inquire as to whom actually performed that examination at the hospital?

A. I would have to look at the records I have as far as who filled out the Iraqi death certificates.

Q. Did you attempt to speak with anyone associated with these death reports?

A. Not with the Iraqi death reports, no.

Q. You say that you relied in part upon these reports. But what you relied upon was merely their written conclusions?

A. Predominantly, my opinion is based on the photographs. But I read the available information.

Q. But facially, it appears as though the Iraqi reports served to exclude torso wounds. Would you not agree with that?

A. There is no mention of torso wounds in the Iraqi death certificates that I examined. I cannot speculate how complete their examination was as far as being inclusive of all the injuries or not.

Q. With respect to soot or stippling, what you have testified to, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the soot or stippling must have emanated from the barrel of whatever weapon was fired from a distant greater than two feet.

A. When I say two feet, it is a range. But approximately two or three feet greater than that.

Q. I simply took the outer range you provided.

A. I understand.

Q. So are you telling us that this would exclude a shot fired at very close range to the forehead, as I am demonstrating?

A. There is no evidence of that on the body. If something is between the firearm and the body, it can block the soot or stippling. But there is no evidence of that.

IO: As you were demonstrating, you placed your index finger on the forehead of your assistant.

CC[Mr. Meyers]: That is correct.

Questions by Mr. Myers continued:

Q. And there is, therefore, no evidence of fire taking place within zero inches and 24 inches?

A. No evidence in the photographs that I examined.

Q. And believe me, I recognize the limitations of these photographs. I don't intend to insult you on the notion that these photographs provided you with all the information a pathologist would require. But we can say that, is that correct, that there is no indication of that from zero inches to 24 inches based upon the photographs that shots were fired?

A. Correct. There is no evidence in the photographs.

Q. Now I would like you to take a look with me at the photo that is about to come up on the screen, which I believe is Exhibit 60. Do you see it?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you prefer to have that document before you? Do you have it?

A. I do not have this one.

CC[Mr. Meyers]: I will approach, if I may. It is Government Exhibit 60, Your Honor.

IO: The photograph is page 10 of 60.

Questions by Mr. Myers continued:

Q. Have you seen that photograph previously?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. All right. What I would like to do is have you identify that person, which the forensics report suggested was in the doorway of the room. Do you see that person there?

A. I would -- as far as the placement of the victims with the doorway, I would have to refer to a room sketch and the other reports. The photograph, I do not know – I am not oriented at this point that --

Q. That's fine. I would like to examine a few points with respect to this photograph that you have with regard to this individual who is labeled number 22.

A. All right.

Q. With respect to the wound that occasioned his death, I believe you indicated -- and I am pointing to a point below the left nostril and approximately, on this document, about a half inch from the left nostril and almost medial. Is that the wound you were referring to when you referred to the entry wound in your direct testimony?

A. There appears to be. And you can see it just below the person on his left side. It is circular, dark defect that is consistent in several photographs that is consistent with a gunshot wound.

Q. Is that the wound that I just identified as being slightly to the left of the left nostril?

A. Yes.

Q. And I believe it was your testimony -- or did you testify -- as to where that exit wound was?

A. We do not see, I believe, in any photographs the back of his head.

Q. But would you anticipate in your expertise -- within the scope of your expertise, that a wound would be on the other side of the head, that is to say the rear of the head?

A. Yes. The projectile would move in a straight line, depending on the angle, would exit somewhere on the back half of the body.

Q. And therefore, if there was any brain matter or the like, it would be behind him?

A. Yes. If it perforated the head.

Q. I wonder if you could explain to me this rather large quantity of blood over the right torso and covering the chest cavity on the right.

A. Certainly, if he is in an upright position when the wound is sustained, blood could emanate from it. It also could be blood and brain matter from other individuals around there. He also may have wounds that are obscured by the clothing of his torso.

Q. Forgive me. If I could just stop you there. That's the point I wish to make. This amount of blood that we have just seen and described could quite easily have come from a torso shot, could it not?

A. It certainly could. If you look at his chin, it seems to be downward. And that appears to be in a downward aspect. But there's certainly -- without examining the skin of his torso, I cannot comment on the wounds of his torso.

Q. As you know, when there is a torso shot that invades the lung and chest cavity, bleeding from the mouth and nose can be precipitated virtually instantly, can it not?

A. Sorry?

Q. When there is a chest cavity wound, bleeding from the mouth and nose is not an improbable consequence?

A. Correct.

Q. We could easily conclude that a torso wound is associated with number 22?

A. We could speculate, yes.

Q. Now, I would like to turn, if I could, to the blow-up of 22. This is the same individual on a close-up. Once again, I point to this entry to the left nostril. Is this the one that you are referring to?

A. Yes. That has a circular nature that is consistent with an entrance gunshot wound.

Q. Do you see anything here which would suggest an entry wound in this region?

A. There appears to be biological material. I cannot appreciate defects in the clothing to go beyond that. There appears to be -- it appears to be coagulated blood and biological material.

Q. It could be, again, from a torso shot?

A. I do not know the origin of that blood. I cannot speculate that.

Q. Can you go back to the first photo. I would like you to take a look now at this man's right arm. In the forearm area, what do you see there on his right forearm area?

A. Again, he has biological material. There also appears to be skull and brain fragments on his arm.

Q. Is it possible that he could also have a wound on his arm?

A. Certainly, the clothing could obscure any number of things.

Q. All right. Thank you very much. I would like to turn now, if I could, to the second individual. Now this individual is individual number 21 and, as you know from the forensic report, was behind the door. This wound of the left ear, you aren't telling us, are you, that you believe the brain matter and disintegration of the left ear is the result of a 9-millimeter exit wound?

A. From this photograph alone, I cannot determine the caliber of the weapon.

Q. Let me ask you a few fundamental questions about --

IO: We're looking at exhibit 61?

CC[Mr. Meyers]: Yes. It is exhibit 61.

Questions by Mr. Myers continued:

Q. The exit wound associated with an M-16 in flight hitting the brain, have you seen those wounds before?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What is the typical evolution of the exit wound?

A. It usually is a large gaping defect with an expulsion of brain matter and skull fragments in an explosive type of --

Q. Have you ever seen a 9-mil that is not an oral shot, a 9-mil from the distance of greater than two feet hit the brain cavity?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And what is, generally speaking, the result of that?

A. Typically, it is a smaller type of a defect. However, without appreciating the entrance, if the bullet is atypical, if it's going through something, the characteristics change.

Q. Well, is there anything in the forensic report to suggest with respect to this wound that there was any intervening superseding object?

A. I would have to refer back to the forensic report whether he was near the door or where his reported position was. I am not --

Q. So if there was nothing, then what you just said would be meaningless?

A. I would certainly still say it would be more consistent with the higher velocity. But without appreciating the entrance wound, I would not make a determination based on this photograph alone.

Q. Let's take a look at the finger. All right. Did anyone within your organization or anyone who was associated with the examination of this finger, to your knowledge -- that is to say NCIS or any other entity who examined this photograph -- did any person conclude that the finger was the direct result of being impacted by a bullet?

A. Not that I am aware of.

Q. Let's take a look at the finger. Are you aware of what Lance Corporal Sharratt has said about the second man he encountered?

A. No, I am not.

Q. You haven't looked at his version of the facts?

A. I have not read those interview statements, no.

Q. I ask you to look up and to the right of the finger here, here, and here.

CC[Mr. Meyers]: I am now pointing, Your Honor, to an area that is directly above the printing and specifically above the letter A and D.

Questions by Mr. Myers continued:

Q. Do you see this?

A. There appears to be some dark spots.

Q. Well, if the man behind the door were holding and racking an AK-47, and this bullet hit the finger and the magazine behind it, and that bullet splintered, could these be bullet holes derived from a splintered bullet?

A. I would have to examine the photograph. From this quality of this image here, I cannot ascertain whether that is dry blood. I do not see anything that indicates there are actual defects in that clothing. So I cannot say what those spots are.

Q. And how do you account for the blood here on the upper-right torso?

A. Certainly, he has extensive head trauma, which head wounds bleed prolifically. And if he is upright for any period of time, it could come down. Bodies could also be moved. And certainly, blood can continue to pool and seep.

Q. And he also could have a torso wound?

A. Yes.

Q. You say that this finger demonstrated a geometry that is suggestive of this flap being derived from something other than the finger itself. Is that correct?

A. It appears to be. I would say it is most consistent with a fragment of the skull or biological material. It appears to be -- like I said, it is a geometric shape. It appears to be laying on top of the finger.

Q. Doesn't it also look like the finger is simply splayed?

A. Again, I am going by the lines and the edge. It is a very geometric. I would say in my opinion, it is more consistent with something being on top of the finger.

Q. Did you know or were you told that all of these bodies were moved between the time they were shot and the time these pictures were taken?

A. I know in the whole incident, a number of the bodies were moved. And some were visibly moved between photographs. In this house, I do not actually know the extent of movement of the bodies.

Q. But it is your testimony that this body, if moved, somehow miraculously retained this piece of bone on this finger?

A. Certainly, biological material is somewhat adherent. If he is moved, it could be his or somebody elses. It could have been projected there from some other -- I do not know the origin of that material. It also could be something from the --

Q. Now, you suggested that the wound, by definition, would be circular in nature?

A. An entrance wound is circular in nature unless it is atypical.

Q. Well, it is not circular in nature, is it, if the skims along the surface of the finger and continues on?

A. Then we call that a tangential wound. It can make a trough-type -- as we appreciate -- it is hard to see in this photograph; but along his nose, there is an abrasion.

Q. I understand. But this wound on the finger is equally consistent with a trough, is it not?

A. I don't appreciate a trough type would be linear with a curved bed to it where it is grooved out. I don't appreciate that in the photograph.

Q. With respect to this individual, either the shot that causes the evulsion of the brain or the shot that appears, I believe you said, between the eyes. Is that --

A. Yes. There appears to be -- and I can't appreciate it very well in the quality of this image. But looking --

Q. But you have the picture before you?

A. Again, this is also a photocopy. In the original, you can see a grooved defect consistent with an entrance gunshot wound.

Q. I would like to now move to the next individual. This is number 23. And it is Exhibit 63. What can you tell us about this individual?

A. He is supine on his back. There is blood emanating from his right nostril region going downward. And there is blood beneath his head. There is also blood coming -- and you can see it pooling in his left ear, which is consistent with head trauma, a skull fracture. Blood will commonly come from the ear. And his has his right arm up-stretched over his head.

Q. I would like you to examine the left auditory canal. Tell me where you can demonstrate that there is blood coming out of the left auditory canal.

A. There is blood pooling. You can see that blood --

Q. I can see that blood. But where is the evidence that there is any blood derived from the left auditory canal?

A. Catching tangentially. It appears to be in the ear. The most likely source of the blood on the ear would be from that ear canal.

Q. Is there any evidence in your mind that this man was shot in the torso?

A. In this photograph, we do not see any defects. On the other photograph, you see some of his lower abdomen. And in these pictures, you do not see evidence of it. Again, we're limited by the photographs.

Q. There is, however, significant blood pooling in the torso region?

A. Yes, on his back.

Q. Distal, yes --

CC[Mr. Meyers]: The region I am pointing to, Your Honor, is in the left lower quadrant of the image.

Questions by Mr. Myers continued:

Q. Would you agree this darkened area on his clothing is blood?

A. It is certainly consistent with blood.

Q. Is there another possibility that the torso was invaded?

A. Certainly. It could also be, depending on his position, from the head, the defect.

Q. Now I would like to show you the last photo. That is Exhibit 64. Can you tell us about this man?

A. Again, he is lying on his back. He is visualized in a couple of different photographs. He has a large gaping defect of his left forehead and side of his head. In another photograph, we actually can appreciate his right cheek. And those are consistent with an atypical entrance wound.

Q. So it is your belief that an atypical entrance wound, for example, if the bullet -- in the forensic report, if the NCIS agent said this man was found inside a closet, what would have caused this entrance wound to be atypical would be perhaps the closet door?

A. Certainly.

Q. As the round goes through the closet door, it took on a different configuration, entered the man, and then exited in this region where we see the evulsion of the brain. Correct?

A. Sure.

Q. Now, is there the slightest possibility, ma'am -- and I say this with all due respect -- is there the slightest possibility that this is a 9-millimeter round that caused this?

A. It certainly -- I would say more consistent with a high velocity type weapon. Again, when it is atypical, there are different forces transmitted, tumbling, defamation of the bullet, and the transfer energy is different.

Q. This is simple physics, isn't it? This is simply how much momentum you can transfer. And if you lose some MV when you go through the door, the MV you got left is less. And that small round just isn't going to do that. Guys in combat know that, don't they?

A. Not typically, it would not do that, no.

Q. So in recognizing, once again, with all due respect for your profession and what you do, you really don't know how many rounds were fired?

A. No, I do not.

Q. You don't know where they impacted, except generally you can point to a few of them?

A. In some photographs, definitive wounds are visualized.

Q. There could have been torso shots as a result of this?

A. Certainly.

Q. And we know for absolute certain that no one in that room was shot at a closer range than two feet.

A. We don't see evidence of it. Again, intermediate targets, the closet for example, would block that evidence.

CC[Mr. Meyers]: If I could for a moment. Thank you, Your Honor. Nothing further.

EXAMINATION BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER

Questions by the investigating officer:

Q. Ma'am, am I correct in assuming you don't read Arabic writing?

A. No, I do not.

Q. One of the death certificates describes the medical death certification as shots in the head and left -- and then it uses the word is "illegible." Would it be your experience in death certificates that if you had shots in the head and you wanted to describe something else, the left would indicate some other place other than the head? Or would you normally describe the head and break it up into quadrants?

A. I do not know what they do in Iraq certainly. Typically, if you are designating head and something, my assumption would be that it would be somewhere else on the body.

Q. In reading this, one could assume that there were shots in the head. And left means some other place if you were following grammar saying there would be another location?

A. I would make that assumption.

Q. The reason I am asking -- I don't know if investigators say shots in the head, and then they start defining what portion of head by left and right.

A. Typically, in the United States, we would describe for the death certificate lethal wounds or wounds that contributed to the death, incapacitating wounds. For example, you could say gunshot wounds of the head and torso.

Q. Would it be fair to say your -- at least the translations of these death certificates would not be in the same standards as you would expect to see on an American death certificate?

A. I do not know anything about Iraqi --

Q. Is it fair to say in the translations you received, the English translations, would be less than what you would expect a typical American death certificate identifying cause of death, there is not as much detail you would normally see?

A. Again, I am having difficulty answering it.

Q. You have done investigations before?

A. Yes.

Q. And in those investigations, have you received death certificates or autopsy reports?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do they generally describe the injuries more than saying several shots to the head?

A. The autopsy report certainly should. Death certificates vary widely. They may even say in the United States multiple gunshot wounds to the head.

Q. So it is your experience that death certificates aren't particularly descriptive. And autopsy are the ones you really need to work off of if you don't have an opportunity to examine the body yourself?

A. Certainly.

Q. So you would not expect necessarily a death certificate to lay out all the injuries or wounds that were on the body?

A. Right. They would be isolating the ones that contributed to the death.

Q. In your experience, what is a death certificate for?

A. In the United States, it was initially intended for public health and statistics for a recording method.

Q. And that differs from an autopsy in what way?

A. The autopsy report relates to the entire examination of the body, the scene, bringing in all the background material. The autopsy is external as well as internal examination of the body, examination of all the organs, weights, measurements. The autopsy report would describe everything about the body, natural disease that may be going on which had nothing to do with the death or may have contributed to the death, identifying marks, tattoos, scars, previous surgery. The autopsy report would be all inclusive, everything that is found on the body, as well as the method of identification of that person, evidence that is collected from the body.

The death certificate is just the demographic information about the individual, who they are identified as, gender, age. And then the medical certifying official, what their opinion as to the cause and manner of death.

IO: Counsel have any further questions?

CC[Mr. Meyers]: Nothing, thank you.

TC[Maj Erickson]: Yes, sir. Just a couple of things for clarification, sir. Sir, permission to approach the witness?

IO: You may.

TC[Maj Erickson]: I am handing the witness what has been marked Investigative Exhibit 86.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Major Erickson:

Q. Ma'am, if you turn to the last page, 5 of 5 of Investigative Exhibit 86 --

IO: I don't have an 86. I have an 81. 81 is the last one in the binder.

CC[Mr. Meyers]: I don't have that picture.

TC[Maj Erickson]: It was introduced after the first day, sir, along with Staff Sergeant Laughner's immunity, sir.

IO: Okay. I just replaced those. Those are the color versions?

TC[Capt Hur]: Do you want this copy, sir?

CC[Mr. Meyers]: I now understand.

IO: I just replaced the bad copies. But I guess we indicated that to be a whole separate exhibit. All right.

Questions by Major Erickson continued:

Q. Ma'am, that last picture, do you recognize that picture?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you were discussing with Mr. Myers and the investigating officer what an atypical wound was. Does this depict that atypical wound?

A. Yes, on his right cheek, just lateral to his mustache. You can see what I describe as an atypical entrance wound.

Q. This is the individual that had that extreme expulsion of brain and skull material out the left side of his head?

A. Yes.

Q. Just for another clarification, on the same exhibit, page 3 of 5, when you look on his left, the left of his nostril, is that the atypical gunshot wound entrance that you speak of --

A. Yes. That is a circular defect, certainly more consistent with atypical gunshot entrance wound.

TC[Maj Erickson]: I just wanted to point those out for the IO so he could see what she was talking about with regards to atypical and typical gunshot wound entries, sir.

CC[Mr. Meyers]: Nothing based on those questions, sir.

IO: Ma'am, are you scheduled to deploy or leave the country any time in the next few months?

THE WITNESS: No.

IO: Do you believe you will be reasonably available to testify at any further proceedings if they would happen over the next few months?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

The witness was excused from the Article 32 proceedings.

CC[Mr. Meyers]: Your Honor, can we take a brief break?

IO: We will take ten minutes.

The Article 32 investigation recessed at 1023, 14 June 2007.

____________________________

Go to the main page  |  Read LtCol Rouse's pathology report here