AFFIDAVIT OF GLENN M. LARKIN M.D.
This affiant, after being duly sworn states that:
I am over twenty-one years of age, and a native of Charlotte North Carolina.
I am a retired Forensic Pathologist, licensed in North Carolina to practice medicine since 1968 under North Carolina medical license number 15960. A copy of my resume is attached.
A Forensic Pathologist is a medical doctor, specializing in pathology (the study and identification of the structural and functional changes brought about by disease and injury), who bridges the gap of medical and scientific evidence from the laboratory to the court room to help a trier of fact determine the truth in a legal matter. His scope of practice often goes beyond the scene or autopsy room in the investigation to determine the facts surrounding an unwitnessed or unnatural death.
Pre-trial, trial and post-trial documents, including police reports, forensic reports, and motions procured from the case file of post-conviction attorneys were scanned by INTEGRATED SCANNING OF
I have reviewed the autopsy, police and laboratory reports relative to the above captioned case as well as the trial transcript, at the request of the petitioner, Patrick Swiney (hereinafter known as Swiney). The report below represents my review and analysis to my best knowledge and belief as a forensic pathologist to a reasonable medical and scientific certainty on the limited subject matter presented to me.
The documents I reviewed contain very poor “Xerox” copies of a few photographs of the crime scene and gunshot wounds. I have not seen the original photographs; therefore my conclusions are based upon the documents at hand and are subject to change upon review of the actual crime scene and autopsy photographs in this case.
The index in the transcripts indicate there was a video made of the crime scene that may fill the gap made by the lack of a written material reported. For example: Among the documents sent to me were reports by police personnel and EMS personnel. In these reports, there is no complete report of what any policeman found at the scene of this double murder. Sergeant Fox, who was a latecomer who did not see the crime scene in its pristine state, wrote the closest to a scene investigation report. It is standard police procedure to write a detailed report of what was seen, what was found, and what was retained in a narrative form. In the police reports I studied, I found each of the reports grossly inadequate in this crime scene investigation, which I detail later on in this report.
These police reports, to which I will be referencing in this report, were prepared as follows:
Sgt. Richard Fox (Police report)
Sgt. Jim Walters (3 Police reports)
Sgt. Leonard Griffin (Police report)
Lt. Tom Smitherman (Police report)
Lt. Stanley Oliver (Police report)
Lt. Matherson/P. Harris/E. Harris (2 EMS Reports)
Based on my review and analysis of the foregoing documents, it is my opinion as a forensic pathologist that the investigation into the deaths of Betty Swiney (hereinafter known as Betty) and Ronald Pate (hereinafter known as Pate) fell far below the minimum standards of an adequate investigation. My reasons for this conclusion follow.
I. The time is out of Joint.
In the Swiney case, there is a minor interval that the crime could have occurred according to the State’s case. Because of this binding constraint, the timing of the deaths and its aftermath has to be as accurate as possible. Yet, there is no record that anyone attempted to estimate the time of death by the usual medical means: i.e., the presence or absence of algor mortis, rigor mortis, livor mortis, and decompositio mortis. As noted below, there are discrepancies between police reports and trial testimony in the time of arrival at the crime scene by various participants. My conclusion is that the murders took place earlier than officially alleged by the State.
Marie Bates, the thirteen-year-old daughter of Pate provides the glue that ties the State’s case together. She and her mother Judy Bates specifically state times around which the State builds its case.
According to Marie Bates, she ended a telephone conversation with her father Pate at about 9:25 p.m., so that makes Pate alive at 9:25 p.m. [R-735]
It is alleged by the state that when Judy Bates, Marie’s mother, called Pate at 9:30 p.m., a “man’s voice with a southern accent” [R-738] answered the telephone: She never identified that voice as Swiney. If she were able to identify him as the voice on the telephone, the state would have used that to put him at the scene after the murders. Since the State did not have this witness identify the voice as that of Swiney we can conclude that the State knew she would not identify him as the voice. In Central Alabama, it is not unusual to have a Southern accent, therefore, this testimony implies a conclusion that is impossible to make.
Assuming arguendo, that Swiney was the shooter, that he answered the phone and spoke to Judy Bates, at 9:30 p.m.; the following important inconsistency in the state’s theory becomes evident:
According to the transcripts the following are alleged to be facts:
1. Pate was still alive at 9:25 p.m. [R-735]
2. Swiney was the voice behind the 9:30 p.m. telephone call by Judy Bates to the Swiney house in Saginaw. [R-738].
3. Swiney’s sister Robbie Carter made the 911 emergency call to the Alabaster police department.
4. Swiney drove from the crime scene to his sister’s house and told her to make the 911 call, [R-421, R-422, R-552, R-868, R-875].
5. Swiney was present when Robbie made the 911 call, which is generally accepted to have been made at 9:30 p.m. [R-421, R-422, R-396, Griffin police report].
6. It took the police 10 minutes to drive from the crime scene to Robbie Carter’s residence. [R-553]
According to the state’s case, Swiney was at the crime scene and at Robbie Carter’s house at the same time (9:30 p.m.). However, according to the laws of physics currently known it is impossible for a human being to be in two physical locations at once.
7. At 9:30 p.m. Swiney was allegedly in the Saginaw house talking on the phone, telling Judy Bates that, “they are gone” [R-738, R-894].
8. However, at 9:30 p.m. Swiney was at his sister’s house 4 miles and a 10-minute drive away. [R-421, R-422, R-552, R-868, R-875].
9. Swiney’s sister, Robbie made the call to 911 — give her about two minutes to make that call — and then she and Odelle Swiney (Swiney’s mother) drove the ten minutes to Saginaw.
10. Sgt. Leonard Griffin and Officer Mike Wilder, of the Alabaster police department were dispatched at 9:30 p.m. and arrived at the Saginaw crime scene at 9:33 p.m. [R-396].
11. Griffin and Wilder were the first police officers to arrive at the crime scene in Saginaw. [R-923].
12. According to testimony Robbie and another woman, who was later identified as Odelle Swiney, were inside the Saginaw house when Sgt. Griffin and Officer Wilder arrived at 9:33 p.m. Robbie was sitting in the living room with the lights out (Prosecution at R-925).
This means that in order to be at the crime scene at or before 9:33 p.m., Robbie Carter and Odelle Swiney would have had to leave her home in Alabaster no later that 9:23 p.m., AFTER Swiney had arrived at her home, which is seven minutes before Judy Bates made her phone call at 9:30 p.m. and heard Swiney’s voice on the telephone (Prosecution at R-937). The timing in the State’s case is not physically possible and could not have occurred in this manner!
According to the transcripts, civilians were at the crime scene before the police arrived (i.e., Robbie Carter, Odelle Swiney, the granddaughter). There is no record of these civilians being interviewed during this so-called investigation. For example:
[Griffin at R-397]
A. When I arrived, one of our officers was right in front of me that arrived also and I went to the door. Of course, being dispatched there, I knew there was a shooting there. I used - - - got the granddaughter and I sat there with her and the doorjamb looked like it had been broken or somebody had knocked in the door or pushed the door in. The door was standing open so much - - -
MR. CAMPBELL: Let the record reflect that the witness is indicating somewhere between one foot and one and a half feet.
A. I looked in and I could see a lady on the floor and a person and that is when I told the officers that were with me that was when we went and checked the house and to see if there was anyone in there.
Q. Who was the officer with you?
A. Officer Mike Wilder.
COMMENT: Prosecutor Campbell doesn’t even try to find out more about the witnesses who were there, and this sort of questioning-in-avoidance-of-truth appears throughout the transcripts, which negates the entire purpose of the adversarial principle of producing the facts of a case. For example: Who is the “granddaughter”? My review of the documents suggests that the granddaughter may be 13-year old Marie Bates, but if this is true, then the above testimony puts Marie Bates at her home with her mother Judy Bates, talking to Swiney on the telephone and at the crime scene at the same time, while Swiney was also at his sister’s house during the 911 call.
COMMENT: Notice also that Griffin testified that he saw a “lady on the floor and a person”. Who was this other person? Robbie Carter was already identified as being in the den with the lights out when Griffin arrived on scene (Griffin police report dated 12/11/87 page 1, last paragraph).
These continued anomalies are quite alarming with regard to the adequacy of this investigation. For example:
Q. Who all was present when you walked up to Swiney at Robbie’s house? (Prosecution asking Lt. Stanley Oliver at R-555).
A. Deputy Walters and myself and Pat’s mother Ms Swiney and Robbie Carter. I want to say maybe one or two other folks were there, but I don’t recall. [R-555].
COMMENT: Lack of recollection 18 months after the crime occurred is to be expected but Oliver should have had his report to refer to while testifying at trial. If he didn't notice or recall whether there were two or more civilians in the crime scene that ineptness is inexcusable in proper conduct of an investigation.
Conclusion:
In totality, the sum of the lack of evidence gathered, being greater than each piece of evidence not gathered, makes it appear to this writer that Swiney was their man and that was all the they needed to know, so the police had no reason to look any further or gather any real evidence that would tell them what really happened that night.
II. EVIDENCE OF POLICE MISCONDUCT
Officers Griffin and Wilder at the crime scene first:
These two officers were dispatched at 9:30 p.m. (according to their statement) and arrived at the crime scene at 9:33 p.m. Griffin and Wilder entered the house first. These two officers were in a position to describe the scene in its pristine state. They did not.
Consequently, after the paramedics performed their job, the scene was distorted—This is perfectly proper—preserving life comes before any other considerations. No record had been made of the original scene except that which was made in the paramedic reports. These are not revealing except to state that Pate’s and Betty’s bodies were rolled over [R-399].
Conclusion:
Without the preservation of the pristine crime scene, there is no way to properly and accurately evaluate what happened. It is possible to determine that the paramedics turned the bodies over so that they were face up, but it is now not possible to describe the exact position of the bodies before the paramedics performed their work. Since there were civilians in the house before the police arrived, it is impossible to determine what, if anything was disturbed prior to police arrival. Since the civilians who were at the crime scene were not deposed for the record, it is impossible to make a sound judgment as to what occurred on the night of the shootings.
Officer Griffin’s report:
Griffin, who was the first officer on the scene, writes only five short paragraphs pertaining to the scene: Among other salient facts he notes that:
He and Walters arrived at scene at 9:33 p.m.
The front door exhibited signs of forced entry door open about a foot.
COMMENT: This implies that killer(s) forced their way in front door. Swiney could have entered via the kitchen door or with a key. There is no evidence that Betty changed the locks to her house.
Two people were lying on the floor.
He checked the house for people and a weapon, found none, made a complete search of the house and then he let the medics into the house.
COMMENT: Griffin and Wilder were the only two policemen to see the scene in its pristine state (except for Robbie Carter, and Odelle Swiney – whom they found in the house.) It appears that they did not question either of these civilians bout what they initially saw.
Griffin and Walters turned the scene over to Sgt Thomas of Shelby County Sheriff’s Office.
COMMENT: Remarkably, this is the total extent of police officer Griffin’s report in a high profile murder case, where a former police officer was already considered a suspect, with whom Griffin was acquainted [R-393], (Officer Richard Fox police report dated 12-10-87: “Briefed by Sgt. Walters, who stated that both victims had been shot and that there was a suspect.”). Only Griffin and Walters had the opportunity to view the crime scene in its pristine state. Officer Walters’ police reports do not describe the crime scene at all. Yet Walters states that there was a suspect (and his name was former officer Patrick Swiney).
Conclusion:
My review of the police reports raises several important questions in this case that beg for scientific and medical analysis of the crime scene and forensic evidence, which I have not been provided. From what I have read so far Swiney couldn’t have been the shooter – primarily because he wasn’t there at the time stated by the prosecution, and also because of the pattern of careless evidence gathering. In my opinion and in the curriculum for Crime Scene Investigations, in the very least, if there were an unbiased interest in solving this crime, Griffin and/or Walters could have and should have ordered that the crime scene remain pristine, notwithstanding the work the paramedics had to do, until the police investigators and forensic team arrived to properly document the scene for forensic evaluation and crime reconstruction. The fact that the police already had a suspect, does not mean that that suspect is automatically guilty, to the point where adequate crime scene investigation is forgone, such as in this case.
Officer Smitherman’s report:
Lt Tom Smitherman submitted an Alabama Uniform Incident report with the barest outline of what allegedly happened, and says, “see supplement report for further details.” In the supplement, he called Dr. Embry about the autopsies and wrote down info from that conversation regarding bullet wounds and bullets found.
Although two bullets were retrieved from Pate, only four (4) of the six (6) or seven (7) bullets fired into Betty were recovered. Bullets “C” and “F” as subsequently labeled by Dr Embry were never found.
COMMENT: In a closed environment, such as the house in Saginaw Alabama, these bullets should be retrievable after a diligent search, unless the killer(s) found them and took them as they left.
Officer Fox’s report:
Sgt Fox arrived at the scene at 10:07 p.m. He wrote about 1-˝ pages on an incident report, stating inter alia:
White female’s body lying on her back inside the front door.
White male [on floor] – head toward the kitchen.
COMMENT: This is a significant finding: if as the state alleges, Pate was shot first in the neck, through the kitchen window, he would have fallen in his tracks, unable to move from a sitting position at the kitchen table [R-989]. According to Fox’s sketch, his feet were in the hall between the kitchen and living room. Since he could not move after the paralyzing wound to his neck, he was standing where his feet were, and not sitting on a chair at the kitchen table when shot. There is no evidence that the paramedics moved his body to check it out, they only rolled it over, so the body must be considered as found where he fell.
COMMENT: No one determined if there was a clear line of fire from the putative window perforation and where Pate was standing. There is also no indication from any of the reports I reviewed that glass fragments were found either inside the house or outside of the house from the window.
COMMENT: If there is not a clear line of fire, Pate was not shot through the window as claimed by the state.
Suspect Swiney was already arrested.
Fox and Smitherman, who came late to the scene, made a rough sketch of the scene, took some measurements, and observed perforation in kitchen window.
COMMENT: The “rough sketch by Fox would be perfectly acceptable if it were accurate as far as it goes, and should at least be demonstrative. The sketch made by Sgt Fox is not accurate; Betty’s body is rotated 90 degrees from the body seen in the poor photographs included in the evidentiary package I received.
COMMENT: The front door is in the wrong place to make Betty’s placement accurate.
COMMENT: The reference point on which to take measurements could have been better placed to form a better gestalt of the scene. Rectangular coordinates would have been less confusing. With Betty out of position relative to the door, the measurements that place her body are not accurate.
COMMENT: In order for the cartridges casings (called “hulls” by Fox) to have been found were they are indicated on the sketch, either the killer(s) placed them there deliberately, or the rifle with its ejection port had to be located in a limited area. The cartridge casing ejection pattern of an AR-7 expends ejected casings from the right side of the barrel, and slightly forward toward the weapon’s muzzle. If the weapon were the AR-7 rifle this ejection pattern places the killer(s) in a specific location when the shots were fired.
The investigation team did not perform this analogy. The importance of such an analogy would be to determine the relevance of assuming that the murder weapon was the AR-7 rifle, and not a .22 caliber pistol, for example.
COMMENT: The bullet that allegedly perforated the windowpane would have taken glass substance with it — a plug the size of the bullet at least.
HIGGINS: “Reconstructing the glass revealed that it had at one time existed as one piece and had a hole 9/16 inch by 1 inch in greatest dimensions. This hole is
consistent with a bullet hole and was made from the surface marked to the outside inside.”[Exhibit #6 - Examination of Firearms Evidence - Rule 32 petition].
COMMENT: The term “Consistent with” is the lowest form of certainty next to “possible”, a degree of certainty that may be acceptable in worker’s compensation cases, but not in a capital murder case.
COMMENT: A shot through a window implies that an amount of glass was separated from the windowpane. Where did this glass go? NONE of the crime scene investigation reports indicate that any glass fragments were found or even sought, either inside or outside of the house. As mandated by the laws of physics if the glass came from a perforation caused by a bullet fired from the outside of the home there would be glass fragments somewhere.
COMMENT: The autopsy report I received does not disclose that gunshot wound “B” in Pate’s neck contained any glass fragments adhered to the bullet or in the wound track.
Fox and Smitherman indicated that they noticed a perforation in the kitchen window, which they interpreted as being caused by a bullet fired by the suspect. They stopped their search at about 1:20 a.m. and left the house unsecured, protected only by yellow police tape, and no police officers to enforce security [R-428]. Fox returned the next day (11 December) in the “a.m.” to retrieve both the screen and windowpane for analysis.
COMMENT: Who knows what happened between the time the yellow tape was placed around the home and when Sgt Fox returned the next morning?
Conclusion:
As mandated by the laws of physics if the glass came from a perforation caused by a bullet fired from the outside of the home there would be fragments of glass somewhere. The lack of any trace evidence of glass seriously questions Higgins’ statement that the bullet that struck Pate in the neck came through a window.
The rest of the Police reports received by me do not pertain to the events at the scene, and are therefore not discussed. However it must be underlined that other evidence listed on the trial transcript index, such as a video and photographs were not made available to me. Should these missing materials be made available to me, it might cause a change in my conclusions.
THE CRIME SCENE INSPECTION
Police reports indicate that Walters (and others) made an inspection of the house, and took many photographs, including an unmade bed and the victims’ shoes lined up in the bathroom across the hall from the unmade bed [Fox’s crime scene sketch mentioned above for location of bedroom and bathroom]. Further, with sexual overtones involved in this case, the bedclothes would have been a good source of seminal stains (“the wet spot” might be evidence that Betty and Pate copulated which would have confirmed Swiney’s testimony regarding adultery) [R-909]. This was apparently never considered, due to
ignorance on the part of the investigators, indifference, or because of orders from higher up. Whatever the reason, it was a sign of a poor investigation.
It was alleged that Betty was cooking some soup and cornbread, and that the soup was still warm when the investigators arrived. This was supposed to be for her son and his “cousin”. [Prosecution at R-988] If they were expected for dinner at the time of the shootings, where were these two boys at 9:00 p.m. then? Why were they not located and questioned by the police? In my opinion, these numerous incongruities severely weaken the confidence in Swiney’s conviction.
THE AUTOPSY REPORT Lack of early determination of rigor mortis at scene
At no place in the material received by me is there any statement concerning the presence of the four horsemen of death: rigor mortis, algor mortis, livor mortis and odor mortis. The medical examiner had an investigator present, as was the coroner, and neither they nor a detective on the scene apparently even thought of making an observation concerning these parameters. This is inexcusable—that someone did not make this determination. When Dr. Embry made his determination of rigor mortis, that was after a night in the cooler, and the stiffness described had no probative value.
THE FINGERPRINT REPORTS
There is no mention anywhere of dusting for fingerprints in any report, except a dusting of the AR-7 rifle that was the alleged murder weapon. Since Swiney lived in that house for several months, his fingerprints would have no probative value that he was at the scene. However, finding fingerprints that were not Swiney’s, not Betty’s, not Pate’s, not a policeperson, or paramedic who may have contaminated the scene, would have extreme evidentiary value even if not identified. If these murders were a “contract”, the killer(s) would probably wipe their prints clean. Not taking fingerprint evidence throughout the house, especially of the telephone (see I – Time out of Joint above), is indicative of sloppy crime scene investigation, indifference or ignorance of what to look for.
It is more than curious that the latent prints on the rifle were not processed. A match to Patrick would have sewn up the case for the state. Since the fingerprint expert did not know before he examined the prints whose prints he would find, but certainly would not be surprised if he found Swiney's prints on the rifle, satisfying a major element of this case--connecting Swiney to the alleged murder weapon as stated in the indictment, that he did not report on his findings is most suggestive of "foreign" prints on the rifle, or that he was told by someone not to examine these latent fingerprints. That plus the lack of GSR detected on Patrick when there should be mountains of it, makes the assertion that Patrick did not fire the weapon extremely strong.
THE BLOOD REPORTS
There is no mention whatsoever of any blood stains under or around either victim. Bloodstain analysis is complex and time consuming, but can help determine the relative positions of the players when shot. Being shot at least six times must have cost Betty
much blood loss, but no recognition of this is made on any written report I received. Blood splatter evidence could have helped determine exactly what happened during the shootings, and place each victim in a certain locus. Betty was shot in the face, which would have caused much bleeding. It is well known that a face shot is indicative of a killer who didn’t know the victim, and not of someone who loved the victim [R-951].
DISCUSSION
A crime scene investigation offers a rich harvest for those investigating the crime, and if properly done, is a truth finding process. A detective working a scene approaches it from one of two directions:
He either has a suspect in mind, and hopes to fit a case around him, which causes him to subconsciously or deliberately filter out evidence that does not fit his theory; or
He may make an intellectually honest attempt to seek the truth behind the crime, search for both inculpative and exculpative evidence, reporting the latter if it shows up.
One common dodge is to exclude looking at or examining pertinent material that is believed to be exculpative, as I believe – from the evidence I received - was done in this case.
Swiney briefly testified that it felt as though he’d been struck in the back of the head and left with no memory of what happened [R-868]. He stated that he felt “dazed”, and slightly confused. In spite of this, no medical examination was offered him; this is contrary to all investigatory thinking, and is inexplicable. A suspect claiming to be hurt requires a medical examination before he is interrogated. Failure to do so risks the rejection of any statement made by the suspect. However, Sgt. Walters’ testimony makes a point of stating that Swiney’s behavior and appearance were not unusual when he was taken in for questioning [R-421]. In context with the less than adequate police reports I reviewed, and in context with the statement by Fox that Walters knew there was already a suspect (Swiney), the validity of this testimony regarding Swiney’s medical condition naturally must come into question.
This crime scene was extremely casually processed and appears to be a “slam-dunk” case that was treated from the start as a capital murder case (see police report by J Walters-12-11-87), with only one suspect considered – the cuckolded husband. While this assumption is justified originally, this case, because of many unusual ramifications, mandated a full investigation, which was not considered by anyone charged with investigating this crime.
There is no detailed crime scene report, no description of what the scene looked like. A crime scene can be one room or a whole football field, depending on circumstances. Much physical evidence was found, but much was either ignored or not recognized.
With at least seven shots by a rifle (not a pistol or revolver) in a closed space, there would of necessity be gunpowder residue on the floor, on the furniture, and on other surfaces. Presence and concentration would allow an estimate of the shooter(s) position(s). If the police arrived 3 minutes after that many shots were fired from Swiney’s AR-7 rifle [Prosecution at R-937], the inside of the house would still smell of gunpowder, however first responders did not note the presence of gunpowder smell. At the time the police arrived at the crime scene (9:33 p.m.), Swiney was 4 miles and at least 10 minutes away after allegedly committing these murders between 9:25 and 9:30. Robbie Carter called 911 at 9:30, got the rifle out of Swiney's truck and placed it on the porch of her house before driving to the crime scene (10 minutes away) to arrive before the first-responders got there.
While Swiney was not entitled to a “perfect” police investigation of the circumstances surrounding his wife’s murder, he was entitled to more than a scavenger hunt designed to convict him. Alternatives such as another person or people being involved in this crime were not even considered.
CONCLUSION
The objective of a crime scene investigation is to find evidence that will help secure justice. That means inculpatory as well as exculpatory evidence relating to the perpetrator should be sought and analyzed by the crime laboratory. In my review of the documents presented to me I found none of these items properly evaluated in accordance with routine objectivity of a crime investigation. This type of investigation, which I have disclosed in this report as biased and partial, was a surprise to me given the published mission statement by the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences [Annual Report February 1, 2002] that states:
“justice (n): the quality of being just, impartial, or fair – Since its inception in 1935, the State of Alabama’s Department of Forensic Sciences has had as its very core the impartial analyses of evidence. Our unique strategic placement as a separate entity within the Executive Branch has served the state well for over six and one-half decades and is a model to which other crime labs across the country aspire. We are truly grateful that our creators had the foresight to ensure fairness for all suspects by removing political pressures and prosecution/defense bias from our agency.”
Based on my experience of 31 years as a Forensic Pathologist, it is my best opinion to a reasonable medical and scientific certainty that the crime scene investigation relative to the deaths of Betty and Pate fell far below the accepted practice of crime scene investigation. The investigation negated the truth finding process for a quick fix, without even considering other alternatives.
The entire investigation appears to have been biased toward finding Swiney guilty.
The investigators, either through ignorance or through deliberately failing to recreate the crime and attempting to find the truth, ignored pertinent physical evidence.
Some procedural errors like Lt Oliver’s not documenting his arrival at Robbie Carter’s house are totally inexcusable and point to ignorance or deliberate indifference to the mission at hand. Law enforcement officers must take notes to document their actions, especially on a capital murder case. I found the casual approach to solving this crime appalling.
With the investigators assuming a "slam-dunk" mind-set, and for the reasons stated above, it is clear that the on-scene investigation fell grossly below the standards demanded for an adequate investigation in a murder case.
I do swear that the above is accurate and true to my best knowledge and belief as board certified in forensic medicine.
 |
CURRICULUM : Glenn M. Larkin, M D
NAME: Glenn Michael Larkin, M.D., Forensic Pathologist
ADDRESS: 4815 N Sharon Amity Rd
CHARLOTTE NC 28205
TELEPHONE 704-531 2981 x 235
EDUCATION: B A : 1958 — Brandeis University, Waltham MA
M D: 1966 — Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain Belgium
EMPLOYMENT: July 1966 — January 1967
Research Associate
Wrightsville Beach Biomarine Medical Research Laboratory
Wrightsville Beach NC
January 1967 — December 1968
Intern (mixed)
James Walker/New Hanover Memorial Hospital
Wilmington NC
February 1967 — June 1968
Emergency Room Physician
Baby's Hospital
Wilmington NC
January 1968 — June 1968
Resident (Pathology)
New Hanover Memorial Hospital
Wilmington NC
July 1968 — December 1968
Resident (Pathology)
Mallory Institute of Pathology (Boston City Hospital)
Boston MA
December 1968-January 1969
Emergency Room Physician
Cape Fear memorial Hospital
Wilmington NC
January 1969-January 1971- in service with United States Army
January 1971 — July 1973
Resident (Pathology)
Baptist Memorial Hospital
Memphis TN
July 1973 — June 1974
Fellow, Forensic Pathology
Employment (continued)
Allegheny County Coroner's Office
Pittsburgh PA
July 1974—June 1975
(Staff Pathologist
Allegheny County Coroner's Office
Pittsburgh PA
July 1973 — June 1975
Research Associate
Allegheny County Coroner's Office
Pittsburgh PA
August 1975 — July 1979
General Practice of medicine
Charlotte NC
April 1976 — July 1979
Medical Examiner and Regional Pathologist
Mecklenburg County NC (part time)
July 1979 — October 1980
Forensic Pathologist
Allegheny County Coroner's Office
Pittsburgh PA
August 1979 — April 1982
Associate Laboratory Director
May view State Hospital
Bridgeville PA
August 1979 — April 1982
Consultant Pathologist
The Podiatry Hospital of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh PA
February 1980 — April 1982
Laboratory Director
Woodville State Hospital
Carnegie PA
March 1981 — January 1982
Chief Forensic Pathologist and Chief Deputy Coroner
Allegheny County Coroner's Office
Pittsburgh PA
Employment (continued)
July 1979 — April 1982
Consultant Forensic Pathologist for Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Clearview, Fayette, Lawrence, Mercer, McKean, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties, PA, and the Western Federal District of Pennsylvania
April 1982 — August 1984
Deputy Coroner and Forensic Pathologist
Lafayette Parish Coroner's Office
Lafayette LA
April 1982 — August 1984
Consultant Forensic Pathologist for Acadia, Allen, Cameron, Calcasieu, Iberia, Livingston, St Landry, St Martin, St Mary, and Vermilion Parishes and the Western Federal District of Louisiana
September 1985 — present
Private practice of consultative forensic pathology
Charlotte NC and West palm Beach Fl
August 1979 --1990
Associate: Cyril H. Wecht and Associates
Pittsburgh PA
ORGANIZATIONS: Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners
Diplomate, American Board of Forensic medicine
PREVIOUS: Allegheny County (PA) Medical Society
(before retirement) Member American Academy Forensic Sciences (AAFS)
American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP)
Mecklenberg County (NC) Medical Society
North Carolina Medical Society
American medical Association
National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME)
PUBLICATIONS The Battered Child Syndrome, in Warner, and Braen, Management of the Physically and Emotionally Abused— Emergency Assessment, Intervention, and Counseling ,Appleton Century and Croft, Norwalk Connecticut, 1982
The Role of the Forensic Pathologist in Pćdiatric Pathology (English version) , in Mason K, Forensic Pćdiatric Pathology and Medicine,Chapman and-Hall , London 1989
The Role of the Forensic Pathologist in Pediatric Pathology (American version), in Wecht C H, Legal medicine 1989, Butterworth's 1989
The Forensic Autopsy, In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Time of Death, In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Sharp Force Trauma, In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Asphyxia, Hanging and Strangulation, In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Drowning, In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
The Battered Child Syndrome (with update) In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Sexual molestation of Children, In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Operative and Post-operative Death, In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
The Crime Scene . , In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Gunshot and Shotgun Trauma , In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Mechanism of Blunt Force Trauma,In Wecht, C H, The Forensic Sciences, Matthew Bender, New York
Trauma to the Nervous System (in preparation)
Fact certainty Opinion. and Testimony (in preparation)
Identity-- Dead and Alive (in preparation)
LICENSURE: North Carolina: 1967
Tennessee: 1972 (lapsed)
Pennsylvania: 1980 (lapsed)
BOARDS: Passed Forensic Pathology Board in 1977
"Eligible" in Anatomic Pathology
Diplomate American board of Forensic Medicine
Fellow American Board of Forensic Examiners
LEGAL: Testified in over 100 criminal and 30 civil cases in state and federal courts in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Wyoming and Florida (for prosecutor-plaintiff and for defense). Contributed to several capital and non-capital appeals to various courts of appeal and state Supreme Courts
Acted as medical-legal consultant in capital and other cases in Florida and other states
Helped prepare briefs for North Carolina Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit, 3rd Circuit
TEACHING: Lecture Course: Pathology for Pharmacy Students, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh PA, 1974-1975
"Forensic Pathology Laboratory" : University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 1974- 1975
Seminar: Investigation of Death, Allegheny County Coroner's Office 1973-1975
Seminar: Medical-legal Investigation of Fire Related Deaths, Western Pennsylvania Fire-Fighter's Association, Mercer PA 1981-1982
Seminar: Medical-legal Identification in Fire Related Death, Louisiana Fire-fighter's Association, 1983
“The crime scene”, Lafayette Parish police orientation course
OTHER: Helped design forensic laboratory, and medical-legal investigaory system Lafayette LA
Entered United States Army, January 7, 1969; Honorably discharged as Major MC USAR January 7, 1971
References on request
E:\ODDS\My Documents\IMPORTANT JUNK\CV modified SEPT-02.doc
Appendix A – Latent Fingerprints
