Opinion ID: 1906124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The older brother may have caused the fatal injury while roughhousing with Little Jim.

Text: Dr. Ronald L. Reeves, an eminently qualified pathologist with substantial experience recognizing child injuries and child abuse, and Dr. Everett Havard, an equally qualified forensic pathologist, gave testimony refuting Law's theory that the subdural hematoma which caused Little Jim's death could have been inflicted during rough playing between Little Jim and Robert. The defense raised the possibility that the fatal blow may have come when Robert knocked the younger boy off his feet, causing Little Jim's head to strike a barbell. Dr. Reeves testified that not only would the wound caused by such a fall be significantly different from those found on the body of Little Jim, but there would be insufficient force behind such a blow to cause the fatal injury. The doctor testified that [i]t's very unusual ... and rare for a child to sustain any type of injury falling ... we're talking about a child who is only 36 inches high . .. [s]o the maximum fall is a tumble; it's just falling, and even if it accelerated the type of impact that you get, [falling] even against an object would not give us significant injury... . So no, I don't think that's a plausible explanation. Both doctors testified that in their opinion the death was a homicide. Dr. Reeves testified it was his professional opinion that the death was the result of a brutal beating. This and other testimony of the pathologists clearly contradicts the hypothesis that the fatal injury could have been caused by roughhousing between the children.