Crimeatorium
Part 2: Illinois vs Bradley Yohn | The Horrifying Attack on Christine Lohman Schmitt
Mon, 28 Oct 2024
Christine Lohman Schmitt was a 77 year old wife, mother, grandmother and great grandmother. She loved Christmas, wine, and Star Trek, but most of all, she loved her family. Christine studied at the Sorbonne in Paris, and went to the London School of Economics. One night in 2021, Christine's life was changed in the most horrific way, when a man and a female accomplice terrorized her first in her car, then in her home.The following is the trial of Bradley Yohn, who decided to represent himself, and in doing so, made a mockery of the court system.A month after the attack, Christine, who also went by Tina, lost her life.The pain, indignity and fear Christine faced is nothing short of shocking, listener discretion is advised.The next part will be released tomorrow.Music:Tim Kulig (timkulig.com)Titles: Crimeatorium Intro composed by TimLicensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0997280/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1Support:Donations are appreciated, if you would like to help support the show, use the link below and buy me a burrito and a Diet Pepsi:http://Ko-fi.com/crimeatoriumFor $3 a month, you can support this show on Patreon, in return you will receive ad free, early, and bonus episodeshttps://www.patreon.com/crimeatoriumIf you like the podcast, please share it on social media and with friends, and take a minute to leave a review for Crimeatorium on Spotify, Podchaser or Apple Podcasts.Contact:[email protected] you for listening!Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/crimeatorium9009/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
to be recalled in the future. But, Mr., any other questions at this time, Mr. Young, from this witness? I do. I do. That year, around Christmas, do you recall being given the items of evidence from the Adams County Sheriff's Department?
No. No hammers or tools?
No. You're sure about that? Objection, Your Honor. I asked if you'd sort this all out or not. Let me have some redirect. Just two questions, Your Honor. All right. Let's go ahead and do that then. Sir, your wife didn't go into specific details about her sexual assault or rape with you, did she? Specific details aren't a great detail, fair to say. No.
Did she feel ashamed about what had happened to her? Yes. And she didn't want to go to the hospital because she was ashamed of what had happened. Is that fair to say? I object, Your Honor. I withdraw the question, Your Honor. The question is withdrawn. The jury should disregard any further recross based upon the questions just asked. Mr. Young? No, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Jones. No step down.
Thank you. Mr. Jones, when you're ready with your questions. Thank you, Your Honor. Can you tell me your name, please?
Jacqueline Oglesby.
Can you get your little duck closer to that?
Jacqueline Oglesby?
There we go. All right. Everybody here, okay. Ms. Oglesby, can you tell me what you do?
I'm an AR nurse at Blessing Hospital, and I specialize in SANE. Well, let's talk about that. You say you're curious about what SANE is. Tell me what SANE is. I'm a sexual assault nurse examiner. I do exams on patients who have been sexually assaulted.
I want to talk to you about November 9th, 2021. Were you working in the emergency rooms that night? I was. When you were working in the emergency room that night, was there an occasion where you met with or conducted an exam of recursion that you would be questioning?
I did.
Can you tell me about what time she was coming?
It was about 8 o'clock.
Later? Yeah.
When you do a thing in general, can you give me a general sense of what the first step you do as a sexual assault, how do you come up with what she said?
Going in, meeting the patient, building that rapport so that they trust you to do their exam.
In this case, what was the first thing you did after you met with this woman? What was the first step you took before you moved in?
Just assessing her immediate injuries.
And when you met with her and talked with her, not asking what she, but when you met with her and talked with her, were you able to see if she was crying and seemed to accept what her emotional state was?
Yeah, it appeared to me that she was in shock. She didn't really have too much emotions going on, I guess.
A slap, a stack, if you will.
Yeah.
Then you looked at her physical injury.
Is that right? That's right. Did you also document those physical injuries? I did. Both in paper form and photographically?
Correct. Did you take several photographs that reflected those injuries that you observed on November 9th, 2001? I did. I'm going to hand you what you marked as 19 through 32.
And I ask you to take a moment and look. Have you seen those photographs? I have. And are those photographs, the photographs that you took, they documented the injuries that you observed? They are.
Any objection?
No, they are.
People's Exhibit 19, string 32 will be admitted without objection.
The first photograph I want to put on the screen is People's Exhibit 19. And looking at People's Exhibit 19, can you tell us who that's a photograph of?
Christine Lohman.
Is that how she looked when you saw her in the evening hours? It is. You talked about some injuries, and I first want to talk about bruising. Did you notice a bruising on her body? I did. Was there bruising in multiple locations?
There was.
I use the word fresh bruising. Do you know what I mean when I say that? A recent bruise. A recent bruise. In your training experience, have you been able to tell the difference between bruises that are relatively recent and bruises that are days and weeks old? I am. The bruising that you observed on Christina Longman on November 9th, did the bruising appear to be recent or false? It did.
The bruising that you saw on Christina Longman, did you take a photograph? I did. Here on Exhibit 20, we have a photograph of Ms. Longman's knee, is that correct?
That's correct.
And can you tell us what we observe in that photograph?
It appears to be a fresh bruise on her knee.
In the center part underneath?
Yes.
People's Exhibit 21. We have photographs of Christine Malone with his left hand. Is that right? Correct. Can you tell us what we're looking at here and what you noticed in your sexual assault examination?
It appears that she had fresh bruising on her hand.
Talking about discoloration, bruising from the bottom of the hand to the top and then across the top of the hand. Correct. And even on the left side of the left hand. Correct. People's Exhibit 22, also a photograph that you took showing both the left and right hands of Christina Lohman. Correct.
And again, can you tell us what you noticed in your examination of her left and right hand and her left forearm?
There was fresh bruising to all parts.
Again, looking at discoloration of her right hand and up to her right wrist and her left hand. Upper left forearm, fair to say.
That's correct.
Was the bruising contained to her upper body or was there bruising on her lower body as well?
There was bruising on her lower body as well.
Exhibit 23 shows both the left and right knee of Christina Lohman. We saw a close-up of the right knee already. Here is the left leg. Can you tell us what you noticed in your training experience as a sexual assault nurse examiner?
There was bruising to the Knee as well.
Both. Both of them.
And again, that bruising appeared in your transcripts to be relatively... Correct.
Was there also...
bruising and injuries to the patient's, to Christina Lohman's buttock. There was. The next slide is going to be a black slide because of the nature of the photograph. It's Fecal Exhibit 24, if we ever go out to look. Do you feel people's Exhibit 24 is correct? Correct. It's a photograph of Christina Lohman's buttocks and upper part of her thigh, should we say? Is that right? Correct.
Sorry, there's a court report you've got to see, sir. And that photograph shows a bruising and abrasions to other legs of the body. Is that fair to say? That's correct. Governor, if I could have the bailouts approach the jury based on the nature of that photograph and pass that to the jury.
Yes. Publish that directly through juror observation fashion photo.
So you're on People's Existence 25, the lower part of Christina Lowen's thighs, backside of her thighs.
If I may, I'd like to object real quick. For the previous time, I had copies of 24 and 26. I spoke to Ms. Keck earlier, telling her that the numbers were changed on them. And she took the copies I had, and I have not been given copies back since to observe.
So she sent copies of these photographs, and she sent these, mentioned these photographs, and she said she sees them. And first step, we took those to him at one point and showed us these photographs. And there's no one searching for these. She knows it's photographs, and she sees them.
Your Honor, that's irrelevant right at this moment. I'm entitled to have that here at the moment. I've had them for the last year until just about an hour and a half ago. I'd like to view them too. I'd like to view them, but I need to. Well, Mr. Young, I'm going to overrule your objection.
You've already not objected to the introduction of those exhibits here for purposes of trial, and you can observe what's on the screen with Mr. Jones and the witness as they testify. And if you need those exhibits, they will be available for you during cross-examination to use yourself. The lesson from the objection is overruled.
And page exhibit 25, bruising on both the the upper backside of Christina Lohman's thighs on both the right and left side, I'm afraid to say. Correct. And is the bruising contained on the interior of both the right and left thigh?
In other words, it's on the insides of both of them.
That's correct.
Here on equals 26, it's going to be a blank screen off the screen again.
It's a photograph of the Christian alumnus showing abrasions and bruising and discoloration.
Again, based on the sensitive nature of that, we'd ask the bailiff to approach and show that to the jurors. All right. We'll proceed in the fashion as suggested. And so goes the element of the fact. Welcome to People's Exhibit 19.
When you were speaking with Christine Lomath and talking with her, did you notice anything about her mouth, specifically if there was blood in her mouth?
There was.
And did you take photographs of the interior of her mouth as well? I did. When you looked in her mouth, did you discover that there were significant injuries to the inside?
I did.
In your training as a nurse and the years that you've been a nurse, have you seen chemical burns before? I have. The burns in Ms. Lohman's mouth, did it appear to be chemical burns to you? It did. People's Exhibit 27, it's just a photograph of the insides of Christina Lohman's mouth on November 9th, 2021, when you performed a sexual assault examination.
It is. The black and red areas, is that blood?
Yes.
Again, People's 28, is that a different view of Christina Lowman's, the interior of her mouth?
It is.
Again, we're able to better visualize the clotting on her mouth and then the fresh blood at the back of her throat. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Again, the interior of Christina Lowman's mouth on November 9th, 2021, showing blood.
The clotting and the abrasions and the turns on the inside of her mouth. Is that right?
That is correct. Here, do we see the roof of her mouth, Christina Lemons? No.
That's correct.
And again, the black clotting and the fresh abrasion.
That's correct.
And the fresh. Ms. Oglesby, did you also examine Christina Lemons' vagina?
I did.
And in examining her vagina, did you know there's injuries to her vagina? I did. In fact, was there a three linear tears approximately one centimeter long?
Is that correct? Yeah, that sounds correct.
And also a one by one or one centimeter by one centimeter abrasion and a three centimeter by two centimeter abrasion. Bleeding.
That's correct.
Did you also attempt to perform a cervix exam on this woman?
I did.
Were you able to complete that?
I was not.
Is that because it was too painful for her?
That is correct.
When you were able to perform what you were able to perform on that cervix exam, did you notice stringy clots in the vaginal wall?
I did.
Can you tell me what that means, stringy clots in the vaginal?
When I was able to open up the speculum as much as I could, there was clotted blood from some sort of injury to the vagina. Yeah.
And Peoples 31 and 32, those are photographs of the examination of Christina Lemon's vagina during the sexual assault examination. Yes. And those show the abrasions and the tears that you three are seeing. Correct. Based on the nature of 31 and 32, we're not going to publish them on the Screaming Dice, but we will publish the jury and publish them in that manner.
If the exhibits 31 and 32 will be published to the jury as suggested. Ms.
Oblesby, when you accepted that examination from Christy Allen, was she wearing an adult gift that time? She was. When you, did you move that thing?
I did.
And did you place it into evidence?
I did.
When you observed that defense, did you notice any blood on that as well?
Yes, there was a lot of blood on the defense.
You're familiar with the term sexual assault, yeah?
Correct.
Did you perform a sexual assault in this case?
I did.
We're going to hand you what's been marked as people's exhibit number one.
Do you recognize that? I do. And is that the sexual assault kit that you collected on November 9th, 2021 from Christina? It is. Count it again. Number one, be admitted again. Any objection? No, Your Honor. As long as we can introduce 0506, the defense copy, which is also a secondary patient consent form. It's also the top of that box, which is attached to that. It's a completely different one.
Sirs, I'm going to object at this point. The court asked us if there was an objection to the introduction, not for commentary about other pieces of evidence.
And so, Mr. Young, there's no objection to the admission of people's exhibit number one. You will have a chance to cross-examine and attempt to introduce the exhibits you believe are relevant. And so we'll take that up when it's your turn. Mr. Jones. Thank you, Your Honor.
I think I just want to make sure that adults, the pants, that just something where she was wearing that when she came into the emergency room when you were first there. Correct. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. All right. Any cross-examination, Mr. Young? Yes, Your Honor. Yes, most definitely. I'll just be cutting for company. In reference to, I'll start out with a sex assault kid.
In reference to the sex assault kid, you do a number of procedures in that sex assault kid, right? That's correct. There's a number of options or steps you should take in order to fulfill a complete sex assault, true?
I do it based on the patient's needs and wants.
In this case, you did several different pages. Questionnaires, notations, bruises, among the statements, apps described by patient historian, methods used by assailants or assailants, post-assault hygiene activity, patient medical history for forensic lab among general exam.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
When you do a sexual assault kit, which I believe is called an ISPE or ISPSEC, a sex assault evidence collection kit, there are several steps to that kit, right? Correct. And one of them would be a general exam. Correct. And you would examine the... Declarence body, per se, you would overlook them if they happen again. Correct. And you notate them injuries, obviously, right? Correct.
And on 11-9, did you notate the injuries of CL with Sloan? I did. Do you have a copy of that present? I do. Could you... possibly go to page six of step two it is a general exam continue i'll start there generally or normal as this normal procedure i would think you would notate all physical markings trauma markings descriptions right to the best of my ability the best of your ability can you uh
You've notated some markings here today on a screen and with the state's attorney. Can you read off the notations that you made in this general exam on the continued page?
Bruising to the dorsal side of the left hand, pain to the tailbone.
I'm going to object. He's asked the witness to read. If he wants her to read, then she should be given the opportunity to answer the question and read what he said.
I've lost it. In the objection, you may answer that question.
bruise, four centimeters by three centimeters to the inner left buttock, redness to the right knee, and bruising to the left knee.
And as you said, you're a professional. Obviously, you can determine what bruising is, recent, prior, old, right? Sorry? You stated just a few minutes ago that number four, which you notated as redness to the right knee. You stated that that was a bruise minutes ago.
Redness and bruising sometimes can look similar.
they, they can. Um, but you did in the exam on 11, nine, you know, 10 minutes written express. Correct. And, uh, as far as number one, bruising to dorsal side of left hand, that would be the top, right? Correct. And, uh, Number two, you described as, well, excuse me, CL probably described to you as pain to the tailbone area, right? Correct.
And number three, you obviously stated four centimeters by three centimeters. That's approximately the size, right? Not too big. It's not an inch wide, an inch in diameter, right? I'm going to object your honor, an inch is a little bit more than two centimeters, so four centimeters would be more than an inch. Excuse me, you're right. I apologize. I worded that wrong.
Number five, bruising to the left knee. That is correct, true? Yeah. Ms. Oglesby, you put an in-depth description on number three, and that was a bruise to the inner left buttock. Is there a reason that you did not put an in-depth size description on number one and number five?
There's not.
And if you look at the picture, you obviously still have a number five. I believe that was... Just for the record, I don't think she has her pictures in front of her. Send the bell if you need her to make sure she moves on. So if you go to, I believe it is number 23, it shows the needs. Yes, yes ma'am, the needs.
And if you observe the left knee, could you give a brief description of maybe the size of that to the best of your knowledge based on your professionalism?
I'm unable to recall due to the size of the picture.
But can you, I mean, as far as the picture you have in your hand, it's very obvious. Could you give a brief description of maybe what it covers, the length?
It covers the lower part of the knee.
The lower part of the knee. Pretty much the whole knee, correct?
The lower part of the knee.
I'd like to step over to... the statement on step two, page two. I understand you've got a redacted statement there in your hands, possibly. I've been given three redactions myself. If you look at that redaction,
Judge, I want to be clear. We haven't introduced anything, and what she has is an unredacted version of her report.
An unredacted record. There should be no redactions on the report in the witness's hand you're referring her to. If you would go down to the lower center part of the page, I believe it'd be about eight lines up. It says, he then... Judge, I'm going to object at this point.
This is here, sir. If he wants to get into this... We didn't get into this specifically because he had objected earlier.
So we want to get into everything that this patient told this nurse. We can do that.
But then the rule of completeness is we're going to get into all of it. So it's up to the defendant. If he wants all this in, that's fine.
But he's not going to pick and choose different lines in there. All right, well, it's not going to direct court on how we're going to get into things, Mr. Jones, but I would suggest we take a 10-minute recess until 2.30. We'll have the jury excused to the jury assembly room and he will address this issue and objections outside of the hearing of the jury.
That is going to do what's called opening the door. Yes, sir. And under the rule of completeness, if you open the door to part of that, that means you open the door to all of that. And that may include everything that would otherwise be inadmissible as hearsay.
Okay, and so I wanted to caution you and at least make you aware of that, but before you open the door, if you go down this line of questioning the way you were attempting to proceed, the state is going to be able to introduce that entire report. Your Honor. Okay. Yes, sir. As it stands, the state has already crossed the testimonial line. They crossed the testimonial line with Mr. Smith.
right now. Yes, sir. I apologize. I did make myself clear. I didn't mean to try to introduce the unredacted statement. I wanted to assure myself and Ms. Oglesby that she did have the redacted statement so that only the open statements could be used. Was there a redacted statement or the unredacted statement? The Okay. Those are redacted ones with the black lines. All right.
So if you go outside and question this witness beyond what is basically not been redacted, then that's going to open the door for the state. So I just wanted to caution you of that before you went down that path.
Yes, sir.
All right. And so we'll finish with the recess. If anybody needs to use the facilities, the court will be in recess, and we'll get the jury back in here promptly at 2.30 and resume with your questioning, Mr. Young. Your Honor, if I may, I object to an issue here. To what? I object to a state's attorney going up to witnesses who are on a stand and whispering for me.
I wasn't whispering in what this is. I was getting a people's exhibit sticker. I'm thanking the court reporter for getting the exhibit sticker.
I apologize if I'm wrong, but it appeared to be as if he said something misaudibly. Court reporter, I'm kidding right there. All right. So, anything said in the courtroom is on the record, Mr. Young, so we're on the way. Please jump, please ride. Ms. Oglesby, did you take a medical history of Gigi Clarence?
I did.
And are you aware of some of her existing medical history?
I don't have that record in front of me.
Back to the... Back to the... The bruising, or I should say general medical, general exam continued. You stated that you generally notate all bruises or issues with the person's body when these complaints are made. However, here you've only stated bruises. Three bruises and red marks.
We heard a little while ago you spoke of several different bruises up and down the arm, to the lower legs, underneath the buttocks. Is there a reason for that? The reason that you did not notate all of these marks, they were fresh marks?
This was a very complex case and I documented it to the best of my ability.
I'd like to go to page three of acts described by a patient or a story. Can I pause there for a moment? When you notate these issues, per se, these happenings, these descriptions, you have to be, what's the word for it? Exact, maybe, where you take down what a declarant said, correct? Correct.
It's a victim, yeah.
Victim, declarant, victim. You take down what they say. You don't normally, for lack of a better word, mess up and mark something that says it's true, right?
What are you referring to?
Well, if you go down penetration of anus, it is the second subject under acts described by patient slash historian on page three of step two. Penetration of anus. It says by penis, finger, and object.
Correct.
Object, it was not marked here what the object was. And you have a section off to the right that says what.
That means the patient did not disclose to me what the object was.
Did you maybe ask her?
I don't recall.
Okay. And that is the anus. That is the rear end.
If you would go to page seven of step two, and that is the genital exam. You go down to anal exam, and it says patient declined. No obvious bleeding from rectum. It's clear, right? There's no obvious leading you were the one that analyzed that and examined that? Correct. As you did also examine the labial maneuver genital exam area up in the top left box, that is the vaginal cavity, correct?
The outer entrance to the vaginal cavity?
Correct.
And you noticed bleeding?
I did.
So it must be a To be penetrated by penis, finger, and object in the anal area, the anal calves, them are the descriptions CL put forth, correct?
I was unable to assess the rectum fully for the patient.
I understand. Them are the claims she placed forth, correct?
That she was penetrated anally.
By penis, fingers, penis, finger, and object.
That is correct.
There was no bleeding.
There was no obvious bleeding. I was unable to fully assess the rectum. There could have been bleeding that I was unable to assess.
The rectum is common knowledge. The rectum is... a bit smaller in diameter than vaginal cavity and quite a bit more sensitive to expansion or penetration, wouldn't you say?
I'm unable to answer that question.
If I give you a simple scenario, if I try to penetrate this cup with this highlighter here, it's not apt to do any damage, correct? Whereas if I tried to take this small flex pin and try to penetrate this cap, it'd be more apt to do damage because it's small. It's a less expandable area. It's tighter. That'd be a correct assumption based on educational and professional opinions.
I mean, the anus is generally tighter than the vagina. It's smaller.
Again, I'm, I'm unable to answer that question. And you could determinably nail or correct.
I was unable to fully assess the rectum due to the patient's wishes.
I'd like to go to page four of step two. Sorry, I apologize for bouncing around like this. I'm not a natural. If you go to Page four of step two, methods used by assailants. You have categories of weapons, punch, slap, kick, grab, held down, physical restraints, strangulation, bind, and vocal threats or use of ligature.
On weapons,
You marked yes. That's obviously because the victim, as you describe, stated it was a knife, true?
That's correct.
And did she say what kind of knife?
On the paper, it's noted a meat carving knife.
Meat carving knife. Meat carving knife. Thank you.
And punch, slap, kick.
What was that answer for that category there?
It's marked on the exam of no.
She was not slapped or kicked. Grabbed and held down. Did you answer that?
It's marked on the paper as yes.
Thank you. No physical restraints. No strangulation. And no burns. Correct. Chemical burns. We talked about chemical burns earlier on. Mr. Jones here. It's. clearly right here, burn, I would think that would follow your burns of most kinds, right? Wouldn't just be fire burns or gasoline burns of some kind.
I would say that that would be the way that the patient would interpret that when I asked her the yes or no question. Thank you.
And if you go down to the category for post-assault hygiene activity, Down the second one, over to the right, ate or drank? Is that a yes or a no?
Yes, she drank.
And that was previous to coming, obviously previous coming to the hospital, and maybe even at the hospital, true? Correct. And that states bay water, Bailey's on ice. So obviously watering Bailey's on ice.
True. Correct. And you also did a drug facilitated sexual assault.
DFSA. And that category holds subcategories loss of memory.
And that was a no. Correct. Along with loss of consciousness.
nausea, and vomiting, and drug and alcohol use, correct? Correct. No. And so if you proceed on page four of step two, or excuse me, I'm sorry, page five of step two, I want to touch base on pertinent medical issues for forensic lab as it's in your documentation here.
All right.
In pertinent medical history for forensic lab box, it has last menstrual period with a date and sexual contact within three days other than sexual assault. Correct. Correct. And last menstrual period, obviously unknown. 77 years old. True. True. And then you go down to the next sentence, sexual contact within three days other than sexual assault, excluding sexual assault claimed on 11-9-21.
I mean, that would read what box need check mark.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Sexual contact within three days other than sexual assault. Obviously, you had to ask her this box, ask her this information. She stated yes or no in accordance to sexual contact within three days other than the alleged assault, right? Correct. And that was yes.
Yes.
And as to anal contact and oral contact and condom use, them are all three no, correct? Correct. I'd like to touch base on anal contact real quick. She states no, and this is in reference to sexual contact within three days other than sexual assault. We reviewed page seven, the anal exam, and you obviously put patient inclined to obvious bleeding rectum.
I understand this is consensual here in a pertinent medical history for forensic lab. That's consensual. But that does coincide with not having any bargains on anything, correct? I'm going to object to this point. The witnesses multiple times testified that she was not able to complete a complete assessment of the anal exam based on convictions and issues. But she didn't, sir.
All right, so we're going to open with a little objection. Anybody answer? I'll state that again. Hurt in medical history for forensic lab. She states no on anal contact. True. Right. And that would coincide with page seven of anal exam. Patient declined. No obvious bleeding from record. If you didn't have anal sex, you'd most likely not have any marks.
This is outside of the sexual assault.
Yeah. But that does coincide with them, right? No more...
I'm not understanding.
Go ahead. I apologize. I may be worded wrong. I'm a little bit out of tune with this. Continuing on page five in general exam, the beginning of general exam. I'm sorry. I probably should have started this the first time. In the beginning of general exam on page five of step two, it says large area of bloody mucus was surrounding blood. The tachy? Tachy?
The TQI?
TQI. I apologize again. Patient states carpet cleaner was sprayed into her mouth after assault. There are no other descriptions in a general exam. And these are cranial descriptions. Cranial diagram, right?
It's a facial diagram?
And it also shows the head, too. I would say there's no other, I guess you could, in the page eight, it shows the head in general. There's no other markup, it's true.
On the face?
On anywhere on the head. Anywhere on the inside of the mouth?
Nothing that I have noted.
Nothing. Okay. These are very serious accusations, I think you can keep, correct? Correct. And you stated you are familiar with Ruth? Correct. And you're able to tell fresh Ruth from older Ruth? Correct. Could you give reports a brief description of, say, the coloring of fresh Ruth versus the coloring of older Ruth? Who's in the filling already?
Fresh bruising will be more of a dark purple, as in healing bruising will be a brownish or yellow.
And in the pictures, if I make, if I bring the picture of the hand back up on the screen, you see right here, all around here, here, and all around the neck area, that would be considered light yellowing, brownish.
It looks like just her skin color.
I mean, if you say it looks like her skin color, then it should probably appear as if. Judging on that side of the question, if you want to ask your question as a witness, she can do it, but it appears as if it's her skin color, right? Yes. And are these two colors here in this area and this area different?
Based on the lighting of the picture.
Clearly. Or just based on the picture? Yeah.
I'm not understanding what you're asking.
On the lower fingers here, if I use my left hand, on the lower finger here, it seems to be a normal skin color such as white.
And then if you get up here above the knuckle, right here, and back here on the hand, it seems to be yellow.
I think what you're seeing is a difference in lighting in the picture.
22.
Yes. You stated lower knee for bruising, correct?
It just says left knee.
But you, just a few moments back, you stated.
Oh.
By pointing out here, this appears to be, you know, the kneecap right here. You know, the kneecap here. Then you have the lower knee. I'd say it's quite a bit higher up on the knee, the lower, Drew.
It's the knee.
Are you, you can tell them honestly. Are you familiar with the fact that CL had a right total hip arthroplasty?
Hip joint replacement? If you jog your memory. I don't recall.
Do you know what a total hip arthroplasty is? I'm going to object at this point. It seems facts, not evidence. It's the worst question just to ask. I'll overrule. That's If you may answer the question, do you know what a sole hip arthroplasty is?
Yes.
Can you explain that to us, please? Objection. Relevant. Sustained. Sustained. It's obviously a hip replacement, Drew. Objection. Do you have a relevance? I don't know that it was a question.
So, Mr. Young, any more questions for this witness?
Yes, sir. Did you review any other reports other than your doctor's information? Did you maybe review Dr. Finster's reports or the overall reports to come to any other decisions in your termination? No. Mr. Jones, when you're ready with your question. Thank you.
Can you tell us your name, please, and if you could spell your last name?
Ada Kagumba, K-A-G-U-M-B-A.
And if I can get everybody here, I just want to make sure that microphone sometimes works better the closer you get to everybody. Dr. Kagumba, do you have a particular specialty that you practice in?
Yes, obstetrics and gynecology.
And how long have you done that?
25 years.
I want to talk to you specifically about November 16, 2021.
On November 16, 2021, I apologize. On November 16, 2021, did you meet with a patient by the name of Christina? Yes. Was that the first time that you ever met with her? Yes. What was the nature of why she was coming to see you?
For all the follow-ups, what was the reason? It was a follow-up after being seen in the emergency department following a sexual assault.
And you're not talking about what she said to her, but did you talk to Tina about what happened? Yes.
What was her emotional affect? How did she appear to you?
She appeared to be in shock. Describe death. It's as if she was watching something that had happened to her and that she couldn't believe had happened to her. She talked like it happened to somebody. Yes.
Almost like in the third person. Yes. Is that fair to say? Yes. Did you examine her?
Yes.
Now, you understood that the actual act would have occurred about a week before that, is that right? Yes. When you examined her, did you notice injuries and a state of heat? Yes. Were you also given the opportunity to look at photos that were taken by Nurse Jacqueline Oglesley all on November 9, 2021?
Yes. Specifically, I'm going to hand you some photographs and I'm going to ask you if these are the photographs you had a chance to observe. I've gone through them.
Dr. Kuguba, I want to talk to you first about the injuries to the outside of her body. When you examined her, did you notice bruising in a healing state on November 16th of 2021? Yes. And is it that bruising that you observed consistent with the photographs that you've had an opportunity to observe as far as the locations of those bruises, her hands, her knees, her buttocks?
Yes. Objection. You're off the ground. I don't believe this movement here can base her decision off of other photos that somebody else has taken. She obviously did not take her own photos or do her own assessment of record. Here's a based on another physician's assessment. I am a physician. I'm overruling the objections.
She is simply looking at the photographs and is testifying that the injuries she observed in healing on November 16th were consistent with the injuries that are depicted in those exhibits. And so there's no statement or hearsay that she's testifying about. She's a very photographic picture. Well, the objection is overruled in the answer to the question.
Again, the injuries that you saw with her hands, her knees, the bruising on her buttocks, the inner parts of her body, consistent with what you observed in the photographs you've had the opportunity to see. Yes. And I want to be clear, on November 16, 2021, you were not working at the behest of law enforcement, is that right?
I was not working at the behest of law enforcement.
You were not attempting to collect any evidence? No. You were concerned with your patient's medical history and medical? Yes. You've also had a chance to look at People's Exhibit 31 and 32, showing the Vaginal area of Christina Lohman on November 9, 2021.
Is that right? Yes. Are the injuries that you saw in People's Exhibit 31 and 32 consistent with sexual assault in your medical?
Yes. Thank you, Dr. Tugumba. That's all the questions I have. Do you have any cross-examination questions for this witness?
Your Honor, Just a few. Possibly one or two.
Dr. Anna Kaguba, you did observe, obviously, a week later, what could be potential marks from a sex assault or an assault in general, right? Yes. But they're not definitely from them occurrences, true? Yes. In fact, you have no factual determination that they were, other than one's declarants or one's statement stating that they may have had these issues upon your review of them, right?
The patient told me what happened, and I believed that the injuries she sustained fit with what she told me.
They fit, but they could be from other incidents also. True. They could. Thank you. You're obviously a doctor. I respect your level of profession. The vaginal cavities. Can you tell us a little bit about healing when it comes to the vaginal cavity?
I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
I mean, I'm human being. I don't have a vagina, obviously. But the vaginal cavity is one of the quickest healing parts of my true. I don't know that to be true. You don't know that to be true. But it does heal pretty quickly.
I'm not sure what you mean pretty quickly. Mom.
The marks, when you did your exams, what stage did the marks appear to be as far as the healing state?
Almost healed after a week, yes.
And you've obviously seen sexual assault victims, correct?
Yes.
And if, say, I use this as an example. Say if a person was... penetrated with something the diameter of this cup. The diameter of this cup here is pretty decent size. It's pretty big. If somebody would... Judge, I apologize. I have to object. We're making a record here. He says a cup, and he says pretty big. I think the appellate court's going to want something more definite than pretty big.
You can be more definite in describing for the record what cup you're using. The approximate size, Mr. Yon, will have a clear record per quart. Once again, I take this cup here. The cup's diameter is, I'd say, three, three and a half inches wide. If somebody was to drink by a cup, would that leave excessive markings? and probably most likely not be almost healed a week later.
She wasn't penetrated with a cup. She was penetrated with a penis.
Your penis.
Yes, she told me.
She told you, so that's 100% positive. Almost as if you were there, true?
As her physician, I believed what she told me. That's my job.
You believe it, but it's not a fact, truly.
True.
It's what she told me and what I documented. Thank you. Thank you. No further questions?
No, sir. Not at all. Mr. Jones, any further direct, redirect?
No, thank you, Your Honor.