SUB-HEADING: "Erin Moriarty is a “48 Hours” correspondent. Here, she
weighs in on the case of Melissa Calusinski, a former Illinois day care
worker convicted in the death of a toddler in her care. Moriarty
investigated the case in the episode, “The Fight for Melissa.”"
GIST: "On Nov.15, 2011, a handsome, well-spoken doctor took the stand in a Lake County, Illinois criminal courtroom and swore to tell the truth. Today, more than five years later, there is a key witness who says that the doctor may not have kept that promise. The doctor is Manuel Montez. In 2011, he was a part-time pathologist who would often do autopsies for the Lake County Coroner’s office. By his own count, at that time, he had already performed 3,000-4,000 autopsies during his career and testified numerous times in court, but always for prosecutors, never the defense. Dr. Montez was asked by the state to appear as rebuttal witness at the murder trial of Melissa Calusinski. Calusinski, a twenty-five-year-old teacher’s assistant at a daycare center, was on trial for the murder of Ben Kingan, a child who died nearly three years earlier. The facts of the case were in dispute: the state argued that in January, 2009, Ms. Calusinski threw the 16-month-old toddler on the floor in frustration, causing a skull fracture and massive bleeding in his brain. They had the defendant’s confession, obtained after a nine-hour interrogation. The defense, however, told the jury there was no murder or deliberate act at all. Calusinski’s attorneys argued Ben Kingan died of a re-bleed of an earlier head injury suffered at the daycare center before the defendant even worked there. About that confession? The defense maintained it had been coerced. With medical experts on both sides contradicting each other at trial, prosecutors asked Dr. Montez to sew up their case as the last witness, the final voice the jury would hear before determining a verdict. The addition of Dr. Montez to the witness list just two weeks before trial came as a surprise to defense attorney, Paul Deluca. Dr. Montez was not the pathologist who did the two autopsies in the case. He played only a minor part in the investigation when he was called in to do what he described as a “curbside consult,” which meant looking through the case file, photographs and reports in the Kingan case and checking the work done by the first pathologist. On the stand, Dr. Montez told the jury that, as part of that “consult,” he examined the baby’s body. Although he took no notes and prepared no report at the time, he said that he had clear recall of the event that took place nearly three years earlier. “What I found was significant trauma, violent trauma to the head,” he told the jury. Dr. Montez was certain that the child had suffered a skull fracture. “Below the layer of the scalp…was an inch long through and through fracture of the skull itself,” he said. He knew, he said, because he had touched it. “I took the gloves off because I wanted to touch the fracture itself to make sure it was fresh because it looked fresh to me,” he said. Dr. Montez could not have been clearer about the fracture. He went on to say, “The other thing I did I took the skull and moved it...what I was able to do is move it, and I saw that fracture itself.” And again, when asked by the Assistant State’s Attorney Cristen Bishop, “You told us that you were able to actually touch that with your bare hands?” Dr. Montez answered, “correct.” He also told the jury that he had examined the child’s brain and had seen for himself where the massive bleeding had taken place. That testimony, says defense attorney Deluca, devastated his case,
but what Dr. Montez said afterwards was most damaging. He told the jury that an injury like that could only be caused violent act, “a tremendous external force...impacted to the head.” Paul Deluca told me later that his client’s fate was sealed with Dr. Montez’ testimony. Melissa Calusinski was convicted of murder and is serving thirty- one years in prison. The question that Paul Deluca and many others are asking today is did Dr. Montez tell the truth that day? A new witness has come forward to claim the doctor did not. This summer, almost five years after Calusinski’s trial, and after potentially exculpatory evidence surfaced, she was granted an evidentiary hearing in her quest for a new trial. At that hearing, Paul Forman, a former deputy coroner, took the stand for the defense. Forman is the same deputy coroner who, according to Dr. Montez’ testimony at the 2011 trial, assisted him during the examination of the child’s body. However, Forman told this court that Montez’ s curbside consult only involved examining documents and photographs, not the child himself. Under oath, Forman testified that Montez couldn’t have examined or touched a skull fracture because he never physically examined or touched the child’s body at all. Forman also contradicted another part of Montez’ s trial testimony: the examination of the child’s brain. He says that the doctor didn’t and couldn’t have examined the brain because it had been dissected during autopsy the day before. The prosecutors at this hearing questioned Forman’s credibility; they raised doubt about his memory and pointed out discrepancies in details he had given to a state investigator. They also asked him if he suffered from a mental illness. Forman later told us that he had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and depression, which was part of the reason he left the Lake County Coroner’s office in 2011 before Melissa Calusinski’s trial. If Forman’s word was the only evidence that raised doubts about Dr. Montez’s testimony, it might simply be a case of he said/ he said. However, Forman is not the only one. At the time Montez testified at trial, there did not appear to be readable X-rays to confirm or contradict the existence of a fracture, but since then, clearer images have surfaced. Numerous experts, including respected pediatric neuro-radiologist Robert Zimmerman, have looked at the X-rays and concluded there was no skull fracture. So the question defense attorneys are asking today: If there was no skull fracture, what did Dr. Montez see and feel back on Jan. 16, 2009? And how did he examine the child’s brain if it was dissected the day prior? Dr. Montez could have been called to testify at the evidentiary hearing to rebut Mr. Forman’s statements, but he was not. He could have responded to the numerous requests for interviews to explain his words at trial, but he did not. Dr. Montez has remained silent in the face of serious questions about his trial testimony. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing last September, despite the testimony of Forman and Dr. Zimmerman, prosecutors stood by Dr. Montez and their other trial witnesses who said that the child suffered a skull fracture before his death. On Sept. 30, 2016, Judge Shanes denied Melissa Calusinski’s petition for a new trial. Judge Shanes, the same trial judge who had allowed Dr. Montez to testify at trial, did not find Paul Forman credible and rejected his testimony, adding that he himself had observed Dr. Montez at trial and does not believe he perjured himself. Discounting pediatric x-ray expert Dr. Zimmerman’s testimony that the images indicate no fracture, the judge concluded that the images simply aren’t clear enough to make that determination with absolute certainty."
The entire commentary can be found at:
GIST: "On Nov.15, 2011, a handsome, well-spoken doctor took the stand in a Lake County, Illinois criminal courtroom and swore to tell the truth. Today, more than five years later, there is a key witness who says that the doctor may not have kept that promise. The doctor is Manuel Montez. In 2011, he was a part-time pathologist who would often do autopsies for the Lake County Coroner’s office. By his own count, at that time, he had already performed 3,000-4,000 autopsies during his career and testified numerous times in court, but always for prosecutors, never the defense. Dr. Montez was asked by the state to appear as rebuttal witness at the murder trial of Melissa Calusinski. Calusinski, a twenty-five-year-old teacher’s assistant at a daycare center, was on trial for the murder of Ben Kingan, a child who died nearly three years earlier. The facts of the case were in dispute: the state argued that in January, 2009, Ms. Calusinski threw the 16-month-old toddler on the floor in frustration, causing a skull fracture and massive bleeding in his brain. They had the defendant’s confession, obtained after a nine-hour interrogation. The defense, however, told the jury there was no murder or deliberate act at all. Calusinski’s attorneys argued Ben Kingan died of a re-bleed of an earlier head injury suffered at the daycare center before the defendant even worked there. About that confession? The defense maintained it had been coerced. With medical experts on both sides contradicting each other at trial, prosecutors asked Dr. Montez to sew up their case as the last witness, the final voice the jury would hear before determining a verdict. The addition of Dr. Montez to the witness list just two weeks before trial came as a surprise to defense attorney, Paul Deluca. Dr. Montez was not the pathologist who did the two autopsies in the case. He played only a minor part in the investigation when he was called in to do what he described as a “curbside consult,” which meant looking through the case file, photographs and reports in the Kingan case and checking the work done by the first pathologist. On the stand, Dr. Montez told the jury that, as part of that “consult,” he examined the baby’s body. Although he took no notes and prepared no report at the time, he said that he had clear recall of the event that took place nearly three years earlier. “What I found was significant trauma, violent trauma to the head,” he told the jury. Dr. Montez was certain that the child had suffered a skull fracture. “Below the layer of the scalp…was an inch long through and through fracture of the skull itself,” he said. He knew, he said, because he had touched it. “I took the gloves off because I wanted to touch the fracture itself to make sure it was fresh because it looked fresh to me,” he said. Dr. Montez could not have been clearer about the fracture. He went on to say, “The other thing I did I took the skull and moved it...what I was able to do is move it, and I saw that fracture itself.” And again, when asked by the Assistant State’s Attorney Cristen Bishop, “You told us that you were able to actually touch that with your bare hands?” Dr. Montez answered, “correct.” He also told the jury that he had examined the child’s brain and had seen for himself where the massive bleeding had taken place. That testimony, says defense attorney Deluca, devastated his case,
but what Dr. Montez said afterwards was most damaging. He told the jury that an injury like that could only be caused violent act, “a tremendous external force...impacted to the head.” Paul Deluca told me later that his client’s fate was sealed with Dr. Montez’ testimony. Melissa Calusinski was convicted of murder and is serving thirty- one years in prison. The question that Paul Deluca and many others are asking today is did Dr. Montez tell the truth that day? A new witness has come forward to claim the doctor did not. This summer, almost five years after Calusinski’s trial, and after potentially exculpatory evidence surfaced, she was granted an evidentiary hearing in her quest for a new trial. At that hearing, Paul Forman, a former deputy coroner, took the stand for the defense. Forman is the same deputy coroner who, according to Dr. Montez’ testimony at the 2011 trial, assisted him during the examination of the child’s body. However, Forman told this court that Montez’ s curbside consult only involved examining documents and photographs, not the child himself. Under oath, Forman testified that Montez couldn’t have examined or touched a skull fracture because he never physically examined or touched the child’s body at all. Forman also contradicted another part of Montez’ s trial testimony: the examination of the child’s brain. He says that the doctor didn’t and couldn’t have examined the brain because it had been dissected during autopsy the day before. The prosecutors at this hearing questioned Forman’s credibility; they raised doubt about his memory and pointed out discrepancies in details he had given to a state investigator. They also asked him if he suffered from a mental illness. Forman later told us that he had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and depression, which was part of the reason he left the Lake County Coroner’s office in 2011 before Melissa Calusinski’s trial. If Forman’s word was the only evidence that raised doubts about Dr. Montez’s testimony, it might simply be a case of he said/ he said. However, Forman is not the only one. At the time Montez testified at trial, there did not appear to be readable X-rays to confirm or contradict the existence of a fracture, but since then, clearer images have surfaced. Numerous experts, including respected pediatric neuro-radiologist Robert Zimmerman, have looked at the X-rays and concluded there was no skull fracture. So the question defense attorneys are asking today: If there was no skull fracture, what did Dr. Montez see and feel back on Jan. 16, 2009? And how did he examine the child’s brain if it was dissected the day prior? Dr. Montez could have been called to testify at the evidentiary hearing to rebut Mr. Forman’s statements, but he was not. He could have responded to the numerous requests for interviews to explain his words at trial, but he did not. Dr. Montez has remained silent in the face of serious questions about his trial testimony. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing last September, despite the testimony of Forman and Dr. Zimmerman, prosecutors stood by Dr. Montez and their other trial witnesses who said that the child suffered a skull fracture before his death. On Sept. 30, 2016, Judge Shanes denied Melissa Calusinski’s petition for a new trial. Judge Shanes, the same trial judge who had allowed Dr. Montez to testify at trial, did not find Paul Forman credible and rejected his testimony, adding that he himself had observed Dr. Montez at trial and does not believe he perjured himself. Discounting pediatric x-ray expert Dr. Zimmerman’s testimony that the images indicate no fracture, the judge concluded that the images simply aren’t clear enough to make that determination with absolute certainty."
The entire commentary can be found at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/melissa-calusinski-questions-over-trial-testimony-in-case-of-convicted-caregiver/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
