Pathologist: Patricia Wlasiuk didn't drown
NORWICH – A doctor who performed the autopsy on Patricia Wlasiuk took the stand in her husband’s murder retrial Wednesday, claiming in his professional opinion, she was murdered, not drowned in an accident.
The second half of the day’s testimony was dominated by the prosecution’s pathologist, Dr. James Terzian of Binghamton, who performed Patricia Wlasiuk’s autopsy in 2002.
According to Terzian, the injuries Patricia sustained happened prior to entering Guilford Lake and “the mechanism of death” was consistent with smothering and/or crushing.
“I just knew that at a glance it was not a violent accident. It was easy to see,” Terzian said.
Peter M. Wlasiuk, 39, is accused of murdering his wife, Patricia, 35. Her body was pulled from Guilford Lake around 1:15 a.m. April 3, 2002, after what appeared to be a truck accident.
Terzian, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on April 4 and then again on April 10, testified he believed Wlasiuk smothered his wife at their Oxford home.
The doctor said his findings compelled him to believe that Patricia’s cause of death was “asphyxiation due to suffocation caused by pressure placed over her chest, neck and mouth.” During his testimony, the prosecution displayed photographs of the deceased, taken at the autopsy, to the courtroom on a projector.
Terzian said Patricia sustained the following injuries prior to her death: multiple scrapes on the right eyebrow, a scrape outside the right eyebrow, bruising on the upper lip, bleeding on the inside of her lip, six scrapes on the left side of the chin, severe bruising below the left earlobe, bruising on the right shoulder, a scrape on the left shoulder, bruising on the right kneecap, scrapes on the right hand side of the upper back, a red contusion on the right hip on the backside, and blood out of the left ear.
“These are not consistent with a low-impact collision, and when I first examined the body I thought she had been involved in a much more violent, high-speed vehicle accident,” he said.
The pathologist said the some of the injuries were the result of “blunt trauma,” indicating the victim may have been struck prior to the accident.
Patricia Wlasiuk’s sternum was also broken, and Terzian said he assumed it was a result of CPR performed at the scene. However, after consulting with another forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, he realized the injury occurred while blood was still flowing. Terzian indicated that Patricia’s body may have been crushed. “But not by the accident,” he said.
Terzian testified that all of Patricia Wlasiuk’s wounds had blood flow at the time they happened, meaning they occurred antemortem, or before death.
Defense Attorney Randel Scharf questioned Terzian on why his preliminary pathology report on April 3 and the death certificate signed by the doctor listed drowning as the cause of death.
“It’s just a preliminary report to authorities to let them know where you are and what I’ve got so far. It’s not a final report,” he said.
Terzian testified he found no water in Patricia Wlasiuk’s lungs and explained that drowning was a very challenging cause of death to determine because the body has no biological signs detectable through modern pathology that conclusively indicate the diagnosis. He said it was often a diagnosis that required exclusion of other factors before being made.
“Some have water in their lungs, and some people don’t,” he said.
However, it is rare, Terzian said, and in the thousands of bodies that he had examined in three decades of medical experience, he has only seen one case of “dry drowning” where a victim drowned and did not have water in their lungs. “That case, too, turned out to be a homicide,” added Terzian.
District Attorney Joseph McBride asked Terzian, “Do you have an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not she (Patricia Wlasiuk) was dead when she went into the water?”
Terzian said he believed Patricia was already dead and was then asked to explain to the jury why.
“The fact that she had the plant material (burdocks) in her hair and on her clothing which she didn’t get from the water and didn’t get from the bank where she was pulled out; and the fact that she had a series of wounds on her body that were not consistent with the circumstances around the scene where the body was taken out; and the fact that she didn’t have water in her lungs and didn’t have any other major injury to explain her death. So she had to be dead with burdocks on her body when she went into the water,” said Terzian.
Scharf challenged Terzian’s hair comparison use in the grand jury indictment that was solely performed by visual examination. He noted that the doctor incorrectly recorded Patricia’s eye color at the autopsy. “That was a visual-only examination, too, right?” asked Scharf.
Prior to Terzian taking the stand, Sheriff’s Detective Gerald E. Parry Jr. resumed his testimony from Tuesday where he admitted a handful of errors regarding the documentation and seizure of evidence. Scharf was again critical of the Sheriff’s Department’s operations surrounding the gathering of evidence from the Wlasiuk residence on April 8, 2002.
The defense had Parry remove and present the burdock “murder bush,” as Scharf called it, because it was the one plant that investigators claimed showed signs of a struggle and contained the victim’s hair.
On cross-examination, Parry said the evidence had only been opened twice before; once when it was examined by the defense prior to trial in July 2008, and once Monday afternoon. The bush had been broken into many pieces and the court recorded that it was put in the container in large sections. Parry said he was not the one responsible for storing it in such a fashion.
“This evidence here today is not in the same condition as the day it was seized?” asked Scharf, to which Parry responded, “That’s correct.”
On re-direct examination, McBride asked, “Isn’t it true that after six years, evidence, especially a burdock plant, can deteriorate?” Parry answered, “Yes, sir.”
A jury convicted Wlasiuk of murder in January 2003, but that decision was overturned on appeal in August 2006.
Broome County Court Judge Martin E. Smith is presiding over the case and testimony resumed at 8:30 a.m. Thursday.
The second half of the day’s testimony was dominated by the prosecution’s pathologist, Dr. James Terzian of Binghamton, who performed Patricia Wlasiuk’s autopsy in 2002.
According to Terzian, the injuries Patricia sustained happened prior to entering Guilford Lake and “the mechanism of death” was consistent with smothering and/or crushing.
“I just knew that at a glance it was not a violent accident. It was easy to see,” Terzian said.
Peter M. Wlasiuk, 39, is accused of murdering his wife, Patricia, 35. Her body was pulled from Guilford Lake around 1:15 a.m. April 3, 2002, after what appeared to be a truck accident.
Terzian, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on April 4 and then again on April 10, testified he believed Wlasiuk smothered his wife at their Oxford home.
The doctor said his findings compelled him to believe that Patricia’s cause of death was “asphyxiation due to suffocation caused by pressure placed over her chest, neck and mouth.” During his testimony, the prosecution displayed photographs of the deceased, taken at the autopsy, to the courtroom on a projector.
Terzian said Patricia sustained the following injuries prior to her death: multiple scrapes on the right eyebrow, a scrape outside the right eyebrow, bruising on the upper lip, bleeding on the inside of her lip, six scrapes on the left side of the chin, severe bruising below the left earlobe, bruising on the right shoulder, a scrape on the left shoulder, bruising on the right kneecap, scrapes on the right hand side of the upper back, a red contusion on the right hip on the backside, and blood out of the left ear.
“These are not consistent with a low-impact collision, and when I first examined the body I thought she had been involved in a much more violent, high-speed vehicle accident,” he said.
The pathologist said the some of the injuries were the result of “blunt trauma,” indicating the victim may have been struck prior to the accident.
Patricia Wlasiuk’s sternum was also broken, and Terzian said he assumed it was a result of CPR performed at the scene. However, after consulting with another forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, he realized the injury occurred while blood was still flowing. Terzian indicated that Patricia’s body may have been crushed. “But not by the accident,” he said.
Terzian testified that all of Patricia Wlasiuk’s wounds had blood flow at the time they happened, meaning they occurred antemortem, or before death.
Defense Attorney Randel Scharf questioned Terzian on why his preliminary pathology report on April 3 and the death certificate signed by the doctor listed drowning as the cause of death.
“It’s just a preliminary report to authorities to let them know where you are and what I’ve got so far. It’s not a final report,” he said.
Terzian testified he found no water in Patricia Wlasiuk’s lungs and explained that drowning was a very challenging cause of death to determine because the body has no biological signs detectable through modern pathology that conclusively indicate the diagnosis. He said it was often a diagnosis that required exclusion of other factors before being made.
“Some have water in their lungs, and some people don’t,” he said.
However, it is rare, Terzian said, and in the thousands of bodies that he had examined in three decades of medical experience, he has only seen one case of “dry drowning” where a victim drowned and did not have water in their lungs. “That case, too, turned out to be a homicide,” added Terzian.
District Attorney Joseph McBride asked Terzian, “Do you have an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not she (Patricia Wlasiuk) was dead when she went into the water?”
Terzian said he believed Patricia was already dead and was then asked to explain to the jury why.
“The fact that she had the plant material (burdocks) in her hair and on her clothing which she didn’t get from the water and didn’t get from the bank where she was pulled out; and the fact that she had a series of wounds on her body that were not consistent with the circumstances around the scene where the body was taken out; and the fact that she didn’t have water in her lungs and didn’t have any other major injury to explain her death. So she had to be dead with burdocks on her body when she went into the water,” said Terzian.
Scharf challenged Terzian’s hair comparison use in the grand jury indictment that was solely performed by visual examination. He noted that the doctor incorrectly recorded Patricia’s eye color at the autopsy. “That was a visual-only examination, too, right?” asked Scharf.
Prior to Terzian taking the stand, Sheriff’s Detective Gerald E. Parry Jr. resumed his testimony from Tuesday where he admitted a handful of errors regarding the documentation and seizure of evidence. Scharf was again critical of the Sheriff’s Department’s operations surrounding the gathering of evidence from the Wlasiuk residence on April 8, 2002.
The defense had Parry remove and present the burdock “murder bush,” as Scharf called it, because it was the one plant that investigators claimed showed signs of a struggle and contained the victim’s hair.
On cross-examination, Parry said the evidence had only been opened twice before; once when it was examined by the defense prior to trial in July 2008, and once Monday afternoon. The bush had been broken into many pieces and the court recorded that it was put in the container in large sections. Parry said he was not the one responsible for storing it in such a fashion.
“This evidence here today is not in the same condition as the day it was seized?” asked Scharf, to which Parry responded, “That’s correct.”
On re-direct examination, McBride asked, “Isn’t it true that after six years, evidence, especially a burdock plant, can deteriorate?” Parry answered, “Yes, sir.”
A jury convicted Wlasiuk of murder in January 2003, but that decision was overturned on appeal in August 2006.
Broome County Court Judge Martin E. Smith is presiding over the case and testimony resumed at 8:30 a.m. Thursday.
dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.
Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far
jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.
So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that
Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks