The autopsy report further documented that emergency medical intervention included cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the use of EKG pads, a nasogastric tube, an endotracheal tube, an intravenous line, and a Foley catheter, used to drain urine. This intervention occurred at the hospital. Additional information, documented in the report, was that there was blood drainage from Leslie’s nose and ears. His fingernails were short and contained no foreign material or any evidence of trauma. This account is consistent with the fact that Leslie was not a violent person and, from all accounts, did not attempt to even scratch or harm the officers in any way. His movements were to fight death. He wanted to breathe, so he could live. I was also told that there were particles of mud and grass in his nostrils, which is consistent with eyewitness reports that Leslie’s head was pushed facedown into the dirt.
Because of our mistrust of the law enforcement system in Chattanooga, and based on suggestions from trusted community advocates, we felt that we needed an autopsy examination independent of Chattanooga. Our mistrust of their police department in dealing with police brutality allegations was based on perceptions developed over fifty years of residency in Chattanooga. We just knew too much about how the department operated. We were also influenced by the fact that there had been a controversial murder investigation in Chattanooga that had led to the victim’s body being exhumed. I did not want to risk having to remove Leslie’s body from his grave. So, we asked attorney John Wolfe to assist us in making arrangements for a second autopsy.
Payment of $2,000 was required for the second autopsy. We were fortunate that we could afford this expense. Some families have to forgo an independent autopsy because there is no time to raise the money. You either have it right then or you don’t. Also, there was some urgency in getting this second autopsy completed because of the need to set a date for the funeral in Chattanooga. We were required to sign an autopsy permit form. On this permit form, which Dwight and I signed on January 7, five days after Leslie’s death, there was a question asked: “What do you, as the next of kin, wish to learn from this autopsy?” Dwight’s written response was “What caused our young son to die?”
Summary of Autopsy Report from Dr. Bruce Levy
On January 8, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., the second autopsy was conducted in Nashville by Dr. Levy. The official report, dated January 26, 2004, was received on April 7, 2004, by attorney Wolfe. In the summary of the case statement, the last notation written by Dr. Levy reported, “While the ruling as to manner of death is best left to the responsible medical examiner, in this case I agree with the ruling of Dr. King in classifying this death as a homicide.”24
Dr. Levy’s report was divided into three sections: the external, internal, and microscopic examinations. I won’t overburden this recounting with all of the details of his findings, but I will provide some summaries to give a sense of the similarities between the two reports, as well as some statements unique to Dr. Levy’s conclusions. In the first sentence of the report, Dr. Levy described Leslie as a well-developed, well-nourished black male, measuring seventy-one inches whose appearance is consistent with the reported age of thirty-seven years. He further documented that Leslie’s body weight was 232½ pounds, which was far from the 300 pounds publicly reported by Police Chief Dotson.
Dr. Levy reported numerous injuries in the external examination. There were abrasions and contusions on the right side of the face, although there were no skull fractures. To avoid confusion, here are some definitions: an abrasion is an injury caused by a grinding or rubbing away by friction; a laceration is a torn or ragged wound; and a contusion is an injury to tissue, without laceration.25 There was a contusion of 3 × 2 inches on the right side of the chest, beneath the right nipple. I was surprised by this level of detail in the measurement of injuries, never having had any reason to read an autopsy report before. But after Leslie’s death, we faced many situations that were foreign to me. There were eight contusions on the left lateral aspect of the abdomen and multiple superficial abrasions and lacerations on Leslie’s lower back. Dr. Levy reported multiple rib fractures involving the left ribs, numbers 1 through 10. There were also fractures to the right ribs involving numbers 2 through 7.
Included in Dr. Levy’s external examination were details of blunt force injuries to the extremities. Beginning with the right side of Leslie’s body, there were multiple superficial injuries of both arms and legs. Contusions were numerous, including those found on the right shoulder, right upper arm, right forearm, and the right wrist. On the right hand, there were abrasions on the third and fourth fingers. Further injuries of the right extremities included abrasions of the thigh, right knee, the mid-portion of the calf, and a linear abrasion near the ankle. The left extremities sustained injuries as well. There were contusions on the upper arm, forearm, elbow, and the wrist. There was a contusion on the left thigh, near the groin. There were three other contusions on the left thigh. Additionally, there were five abrasions near the knee, as well as another abrasion on the anterior aspect of the left knee. It is important to remember that, prior to Leslie’s interaction with four Chattanooga police officers, there is no evidence that he had any of those injuries. I continue to maintain that he was brutally beaten, without cause.
Dr. Levy noted that Leslie’s skull was without fracture and that there were no abrasions, contusions, or lacerations on the scalp. There were no injuries to the tongue. I thought it was interesting that the larynx and trachea, related to the respiratory system for breathing, were noted as absent, thus unavailable for Dr. Levy to examine. To my knowledge, the location of those missing parts remains a mystery. When Dr. Levy examined the lungs, he noted that there were slight black pigment deposits. This was of no surprise to me, because Leslie was a smoker. As for the cardiovascular system, there were no noted abnormalities, and the cardiac values were noted as normal. Dr. Levy did not state that Leslie had an enlarged heart.
Dr. Levy provided detailed descriptions of his findings of the various body systems. The cardiovascular and respiratory systems were examined thoroughly, as well as the digestive and endocrine systems. His conclusive findings in examining those systems were reported as unremarkable. He further reported that, aside from the injuries noted in the external evaluation, the musculoskeletal system was also unremarkable.
According to Dr. Levy, the cause of death was cardiorespiratory arrest during violent struggle in the setting of an acute combined cocaine and ethanol intoxication. Dr. Levy was unable to conduct an independent toxicology analysis, because certain organs were placed in fluid, which would have voided any accuracy of lab tests. I asked the funeral director about this and was told that those organs were placed in the fluid to decrease odor. I believe there was another motive, but I had no proof. Dr. Levy concluded his report with a section titled “Summary of Case.” In that section he mentioned that, although the wording of the cause-of-death statements (i.e., his and Dr. King’s) were somewhat different, the opinions and conclusions were essentially indistinguishable. He further stated that deaths under similar circumstances are classically referred to as “excited delirium.”
“Excited delirium” is used more often by police departments and medical examiners in an attempt to explain why some people suddenly die in police custody. It is a controversial diagnosis. However, I have seen no evidence whereby excited delirium could explain the broken bones and bruises on Leslie’s body. It is important to note that excited delirium is not recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychological Association as a medical or mental health condition. It is used by police as a means of whitewashing excessive force and inappropriate use of control techniques by officers during an arrest.26 Furthermore, according to Theresa Di Maio, author of Excited Delirium Syndrome: Cause of Death and Prevention, delirium is characterized by disorientation, a disorganized thought process, and disturbances in speech. When that mental state involves violent behavior, it is called excited delirium.27 There is no menti
on of excited delirium in the final sentence of Dr. Levy’s report. His written conclusion from his report is as follows: “While the ruling as to manner of death is best left to the responsible medical examiner, in this case I agree with the ruling of Dr. King in classifying this death as a homicide.”
Summary of Autopsy Follow-up Meeting with Dr. King and the Family
Our church pastor, also a Hamilton County commissioner at that time, was instrumental in helping us to get a meeting with Dr. King. On February 16, 2004, Dr. King agreed to meet with the family to discuss the outcome of his preliminary autopsy report. I can easily remember that date, because it was my birthday. I guess fate can be cruel sometimes, because that meeting was not a welcome birthday gift, and it certainly was not happy. Dr. King’s assistant was also present. Dwight and I were joined at the Forensic Center by my aunt Louise; her sons, Spencer and Ronald, and Ronald’s wife, Dollie; Dwight’s sister, Terry; his brothers, Herman and Michael; and Michael’s wife, Kathy.
Dr. King began the meeting with some prepared statements, some of which I determined to be propaganda. He said that he was independent and did not deal with political pressure, and that his first responsibility was to be open and honest with the family. He continued his statements by saying that he did not favor any group, including the police. According to his remarks, the media sometimes stirs up controversy, and that we should not believe everything we hear.
Because I was aware that there had been police officials present at Leslie’s autopsy, I asked if that was a customary practice. Dr. King stated that he allows them to attend for training purposes. But according to verbal feedback from police officials, the persons present were veteran police officials with years of tenure with the Chattanooga Police Department. These were not junior officers in training. I also asked whether other individuals were allowed to be present during an autopsy. Dr. King responded, “That is at my discretion.”
In that meeting, Dr. King reviewed his findings, page by page and tissue by tissue. His descriptions were very thorough and graphic. Although I wanted to run from the room, I just sat there with tears streaming down my face. As Dr. King talked, I could visualize every injury inflicted upon Leslie’s body, feel his pain, and hear his screams. It was as though I was an eyewitness to his homicide.
Conflicting Information, Unanswered Discrepancies, and Remaining Questions
The report submitted by the Office of the Hamilton County Medical Examiner said that the decedent collapsed after a fight with the police. Based on eyewitness reports and police testimony, Leslie did not fight with the police. He was still breathing and trying to move his head to the side, while already facedown on the ground, with hands double-cuffed behind his back and police officers on his body. This description is clearly very different from his being involved in a fight and collapsing.
That same report from the county medical examiner stated that Leslie expired in the emergency room. Another document completed by Erlanger Hospital personnel reported that Leslie was dead on arrival (DOA), which would be consistent with eyewitness reports. People at the scene stated that Leslie was dead when his body was removed from Central Avenue. With a DOA assessment, why did the hospital medical providers hook him up to life support? Subsequently, why did they take him off life support without permission from family members? It was always my understanding that once a patient was put on life support, family members would be involved in the decision to remove that support. In a private meeting that Dwight and I had with two police detectives on January 12, 2004, the detective supervisor in charge of the investigation admitted that Leslie died at the scene. That admission was consistent with eyewitness reports.
Meeting with Police Detectives in Charge of the Investigation
I will refer to these detectives as Detectives One and Two, with Detective One being the supervisor. During the first week of Leslie’s death, Detective Two requested to meet with us at the Police Services Center. We rejected his initial suggested day and time for the meeting because we were too busy. We had a son to bury. We were also not eager to participate in what we believed to be their cover-up activities. We did agree for a meeting at a later date.
Detective One facilitated the meeting. He began by stating that our first meeting with the police had turned out to be more of a public meeting than a family meeting, as they had requested. We told him that everyone in that first meeting was a family member except our pastor. We further explained that maybe he had a different concept of family. We reminded him that this meeting was requested by the department. Detective One then stated that the meeting with the family was a courtesy. As you might imagine, this angered us. I quickly responded that I disagreed, that it was not a courtesy; it was their responsibility to meet with the family. I think it is accurate to state that, beginning at that point, the meeting did not go well. There was no foul language, but it was certainly not cordial. We were angry and, in my opinion, Detective One was arrogant and rude.
After only a few minutes with the detectives, Dwight and I determined that it was a mistake to meet with them, and the discussion was definitely a waste of our valuable time. They started the conversation by telling us that they had talked to a number of people to try to determine what Leslie’s day was like. It was interesting that they seemed to have no interest in talking with Leslie’s brother and sister-in-law, who had been with him at the beginning of his day, prior to their leaving Chattanooga for their drive back to Chicago. Who did he see that day? Who did he talk to that day? Where did he go that day? Those were the type of questions for which they had been seeking answers. It was immediately clear to us that they were trying to build a case against Leslie.
Their investigation, as they called it, was a waste of taxpayer dollars and an insult to us. I was totally amazed, and I could not see how any of their actions or concerns addressed the fact that Leslie had died after their officers had manhandled him. All of the things they reported to us had no relationship to his death. The people they had talked to or who had talked to Leslie or seen him earlier on the Friday of his death were not the persons who killed him. His homicide was not caused by conversations. According to the detectives, they had talked to several people on Martin Luther King Boulevard, which was near where Leslie had died. None of those people had any connection to Leslie’s death. There was no mention that they had spoken to the police officers who had been at the scene. In fact, I said to them, “You are acting as though there is some unknown killer on the loose, like Jack the Ripper or something. That is not the case. We know who killed Leslie.” We wanted to know what they were doing to work toward justice for Leslie and mandate accountability of those responsible for his murder. Getting that answer was the only reason we had agreed to meet with the detectives that week, which was, obviously, still a very busy and stressful time for us.
Detective One started talking about the autopsy. We didn’t mention any of the things that Dr. King had told us. We let him talk as much as he wanted. Because he was in the room when the autopsy was being done, we believed that he might give us some critical information that we had not already heard. Interestingly, he avoided mentioning the injuries that were very traumatic to the body. In fact, he made some false statements. Here are some of the statements he made: there was hemorrhaging in the right eye; abrasions to the body; no broken bones; minor abrasions were on the back; there were three to ten rib fractures on each side, but no hemorrhaging to the ribs; rib injuries could be caused by the fall; no neck compression; there was an enlarged heart, but no heart damage; he was diabetic; no external or internal damage to organs; and there was no trauma to the body. One would have to wonder how he would have described injuries to a body as a result of trauma.
For this meeting, Dwight and I had agreed that I would be the primary spokesperson and he would take the notes. The following summary is taken from his written documentation.
Loretta: I noticed that the newspaper reported that Leslie had te
n DUI arrests. I believe this to be false. We would like to see those arrest reports.
Detective One: There weren’t ten DUI arrests. We found records of only two. They can’t be released until the investigation is complete.
Loretta: Why wasn’t a Taser used instead of physical contact?
Detective One: The pepper spray did not affect him. There was no Taser available.
Loretta: Why are you interested in tracking his day? We are concerned about the time period of the incident and his death.
No reply.
Loretta: Why is there erroneous information about this incident put in the paper?
Detective One: I am working on my thirtieth year. I do not read the papers. So much is out there. I don’t know what was put in the paper.
Loretta: Leslie did not weigh 300 pounds. He weighed approximately 232 pounds. Where did you get the 300 pounds?
Detective One: We made a mistake. We did not weigh him.
[Note: This was a strange answer because Detective One was at the autopsy. He had previously stated, during the meeting on January 5, 2004, that he knew Leslie’s weight.]
Dwight: Did our son have a pulse after he stopped moving?
Detective One: He did not have a pulse.
Dwight: Are you saying that he was flat-lined at the scene?
Detective One: He was flat-lined at the scene.
Loretta: Is it customary for the mayor to show up on the scene of an incident?
Detective One: Yes, he often goes to the scene when arrests are made.
Loretta: How can this be, because if he did that with routine arrests, how would he have time to be the mayor? Arrests are happening all the time and all over the city simultaneously.
Detective One: I don’t keep the mayor’s schedule.
Excessive Use of Force Page 3