By Alana Bleimann
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Expert witness Doctor L. was directly examined for four hours in San Francisco County Superior Court Dept. 16 Thursday by both Assistant District Attorney Julia Gonzalez and Assistant Public Defender Aleem Raja in the alleged stabbing trial of Jeffrey Eble.
With the jury selected days before, doctor expert witness, Judge Eric R. Fleming, ADA Gonzalez, APD Raja, and the jury were the only individuals in the courtroom, just one day after the defendant was rushed to the hospital complaining of intense upper eye pain.
Raja was “prepared to go forward without him [defendant Eble]” after the ambulance was called and prepared to ask the expert witness questions about his profession.
Doctor L. was first questioned about a victim’s clothing and the ways in which one can determine the “mechanism of injury” or the item used to inflict the injury.
The doctor explained his history working as an instructor in trauma at Fort Bragg and as an ER physician across the state of California.
Additionally, he has developed new trauma treatments and medical device development across the world in cities such as Paris and London, but in the city of San Francisco Doctor L. worked at Mt. Zion, CPMC (California Pacific Medical Center), and Stanford Hospitals.
“I have about 225 patents covering 20 to 30 devices,” Doctor L. told the jury.
He also has an extensive history in criminal testimonies since the early 90’s.
By working closely with injury-tested animals, such as dogs, goats, and pigs, Doctor L. said he was able to gain knowledge about “what sorts of injuries these objects caused,” thus giving him credibility to speak to the jury about the victim’s wound.
The way one’s clothing is torn or ripped is important in understanding what kind of device was used during the time of the injury, the doctor explained.
On the clothing, he looks for the shape of the defect, the direction of the defect, if there is any blood around it, and the shape of the rip or tear. If a knife was used, the doctor explained, then this would indicate usage of a knife. “The shape of the hole is important,” he stated.
Public Defender Raja proceeded to show a large image of the victim’s wound to the jury and to the doctor.
Doctor L. immediately stated that he saw bruising located just above the open wound which “indicated there was force applied to [the] tissue.” He also indicated that the wound is “an oval hole rather than a linear cut.”
Specifically, the doctor described the wound as being 2cm-4cm deep “curved linear…stab wound” meaning that it is linear but it also has curves, giving it an oval-like appearance.
Additionally, there was a lot of redness surrounding the wound that was “likely from the tape” that was holding the gauze down. This was not related to the injury itself, the doctor strongly confirmed.
Any form of bruising can also tell someone about “velocity and shape of the object that caused it [the injury].” The doctor claimed that the wound pictured “suggests that whatever object caused the bruise…was moving in an upward direction and was dull as opposed to sharp.”
He also explained that there was clear “evidence of some pulling and stretching” of the surrounding skin and “the tissue was stretched around the object.”
Prior to this day, Doctor L. had never examined the victim nor ever saw the wound.
The jury trial is expected to be ongoing for the rest of the week.
