EXPERT WITNESS—Ann Burgess

From the author of the critically-acclaimed true crime account, A Killer By Design (the inspiration behind Hulu's original docuseries, Mastermind), a groundbreaking look into the crucial role played by expert witnesses in the most high-profile criminal cases, based on Dr. Ann Burgess’ personal experiences within the criminal justice system.
Written through Burgess’ singular lens of compassion and lived experience, Expert Witness pulls back the curtain on some of the biggest cases in the last thirty years—from Bill Cosby to the Menendez brothers to Larry Nassar—to reveal the deeply human stories behind the trials that have captivated a nation. The book explores the role of expert witnesses in high stakes court cases, offering first-hand accounts and never-before-seen interviews with attorneys, victims, and offenders.Expert Witness places listeners inside the mind of the nation’s most prominent courtroom expert, following Burgess as she takes on one seismic case after the next. Throughout the narrative, each case deepens the listener’s understanding of the art and science of expert testimony, taking listeners from the women’s movement of the 1970s to the #MeToo movement of today—one of the largest social reckonings in recent history. At its core, Expert Witness is a story of empowerment. It’s a story of compassion and the ever-increasing need for individuals to stand up and speak truth to power or to popular opinion. And it's ultimately a story of how revolutionary one voice can be. EXPERT WITNESS: The Weight of our Testimony when Justice Hangs in the Balance—Ann Burgess

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
You are now listening to True Murder, the most shocking
killers in true crime history and the authors that have
written about them Gaesy, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker VTK. Every
week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host,

(00:30):
journalist and author Dan Zufanski.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Good evening from the author of the critically acclaimed true
crime account A Killer by Design, the inspiration behind Hulu's
original docuseries, Mastermind comes a groundbreaking look into the crucial
role played by expert witnesses in the most high profile

(00:59):
criminal cases. Based on doctor Anne Burgess's personal experiences within
the criminal justice system. Written through Burgess's singular lens of
compassion and lived experience, Expert Witness pulls back the curtain
on some of the biggest cases in the last thirty years,

(01:20):
from Bill Cosby to the Menendez Brothers to Larry Nasser,
to reveal the deeply human stories behind the trials that
have captivated a nation. The book explores the role of
expert witnesses in high stakes court cases, offering first hand
accounts and never before seen interviews with attorneys, victims, and offenders.

(01:46):
Expert Witness places listeners inside the mind of the nation's
most prominent courtroom expert, following Burgess as she takes on
one seismic case after the next. The narrative each case
deepens the listener's understanding of the art and science of
expert testimony, taking listeners from the Women's movement of the

(02:09):
nineteen seventies to the Me Too movement of today, one
of the largest social reckonings in recent history. At its core,
Expert Witness is a story of empowerment. It's a story
of compassion and the ever increasing need for individuals to

(02:30):
stand up and speak truth to power or to popular opinion.
And it's ultimately a story of how revolutionary one voice
can be. The book that we're featuring this evening is
Expert Witness, The Weight of our Testimony when Justice Hangs

(02:52):
in the balance, with my special guest, psychiatric nurse, professor
and author and Burgess. Thank you very much for this
interview and welcome to the program. And Burgess, thank you
very much.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
Dan happy to be here.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
Thank you so much, and congratulations on this new book,
Expert Witness. Let's talk about that. You are a leading
forensic and psychiatric nurse who worked with the FBI for
over two decades. Currently, you're a professor at the Boston
College Canal School of Nursing and you live in Boston, Massachusetts.

(03:31):
And this book is co written by Stephen Matthew Constantine.
Also you wrote a Killer by Design with Stephen as well.

Speaker 3 (03:42):
Yes, I did.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
In the chapter the Rise of the Expert Witness, you
talk about that there's nothing more absolute than a courtroom.
It's the biggest stage for the biggest cases, with the
highest stakes. What do you write is the purpose of
the trial? What is it all? Always come down to
tell us about the singular goal that you have and

(04:06):
tell us about the phrase that you've taken as a
personal mantra.

Speaker 3 (04:12):
Yes, well, the purpose in the courtroom is obviously not
necessarily obviously, but to seek truth. You have always had
a conflict. There are two sides, and they often say
very opposite things. So the expert witness and that they
can have an expert witness on both sides. So it's

(04:35):
a matter of pacing information before a jury that you
hope will make a difference. That my goal in bringing
it is to bring forward what I call the nursing science.
Nursing because that's my background, my discipline. But where are
we at and understanding the matter before the court? So

(04:59):
that's my main goal there is you've got to you're
sworn in. You have to tell the truth, and I
tell the truth if you will, from the perspective of
the case that I have been working on. So and
it can be for either the defense side, or it
can be for the prosecution side if it's in a

(05:21):
criminal matter, or it can be for the plaintiff and
for the defense if it's in the civil arena.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Tell us how with your background as a psychiatric nurse,
how you in the early seventies first came to want
to be an expert witness.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
Okay, I never wanted to be an expert witness. I
didn't really realize in the beginning, way back in the
seventies just what that entailed. But I was asked to
help in the very first case I had was a
great case, and I happened to be speaking at a conference,
and after the conference, the two attorneys came up and

(06:03):
said they had this case and would I be interested
in looking at it and letting them know what my
opinion was. That's really how it started. Then, that was
back in nineteen eighty. So I did not realize that
this case would necessarily go to court. They don't all
go to court. In fact, many of the civil cases

(06:26):
end up being settled. It's called being settled, and so
you don't have to go into court, but you always
have to prepare in case it doesn't settle and the
two sides need to meet up in this courtroom. So
that was my initiation, if you will, back in nineteen
eighty and after that, because the issue of rape was

(06:47):
becoming quite a front burner type of issue, certainly in
the women's movement and for Congress. They had just established
a National Center for the Prevention and Control of Rape,
So all of those things were converging at a time
when I was doing had really just done the research

(07:07):
on the rape victim and that was with Linda Holmstrom
while I was at Boston College.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
I guess you're talking about the research project that was
focused on understanding the emotional and traumatic effects of rape
and sexual assault.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
That's correct. It was really we started to be the
voice for the victims that they didn't have a voice.
Nobody was speaking for them. When I say we, that's
Linda Holmster on myself, and she knew that was going
to be an issue. So that's what we focused on,
seeing one hundred and forty six people over a one
year period into a large city hospital to hear about

(07:46):
why they were there with the what is called the
chief complaint of rape.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
You're right that this case with Jane demonstrated many of
the biases and the difficulty in people coming forward, wanting
to come forward to and then the prosecution, the dismal
prosecution rate of anybody being prosecuted for rape or sexual assault.
But you said the things changed culturally back in when

(08:16):
Connie Francis, a famous singer, was raped in their own home,
So you talk about Jane also being at that apex
of the time in culture when people looked at victims
of rape and sexual assault much differently.

Speaker 3 (08:37):
Absolutely, absolutely that was what That was one of the
important things in the case with Jane, even her family.
It wasn't just citizens, you know, every citizens, but it
was the family and couldn't understand why she couldn't get
over it. That was the other big part of working
with victims, because we followed them and people would can't

(09:00):
you just get over this? And we realized that we
had something here that was far more than people understood.
And that's what we tried to bring forward in my case.
I brought it forward in the courtroom is whenever I
had a case and I was called to do it.

Speaker 2 (09:17):
So tell us a little bit more about Jane's case
and in your involvement in the case itself.

Speaker 3 (09:26):
Yeah, James's case was very, very instructive for me. It
was one of the first of course that and I
got the case, not necessarily because of the project we
were working on, but because of a detective, a detective
Rufo who knew of the work that we were doing
at Boston City Hospital. They had taken Jane to a
different hospital and he said that you really need to

(09:50):
talk with this person, me who has been working with
rape victims, and so he put me in touch. He
had returned from Boston back to New Jersey, so we
first met over a phone call. But the other important
part of Jane's story is because I've looked at and
that's what expert witness reports on what has happened to

(10:12):
the three men that raped her. Doing a follow up
what thirty some years later to see how Boston treated
and followed through on a case that was essentially a
gang rape. Jane had been just moved into Boston. She
was here for a new job. She was all excited,
had a new apartment of Beacon Hill, a very very

(10:34):
fine area in Boston, and she had friends that were
expected to come overs right after Thanksgiving and she was
expecting friends. And two o'clock in the afternoon there was
a knock on her door and she really thought it
was her friends. Opens the door and in March these
three young men and for the next couple of hours

(10:55):
put her through a grueling rape and throw her in
the closet, threatened that they'll kill her, etc. Et cetera.
Then when they leave, she does call the police. The
police send their patrol officers over, they take a report,
and they luckily report it right back to the precinct.

(11:18):
Then they send over the detective and what the detective
learns is what solves the case for them. It's something
that I learned about. He said as Jane was telling
her story that the men called for a cab and
he said, do you know what kind of a cab
And she said, they said, a brown cab. Well, we

(11:38):
happened in the city of Boston. Have cab company that
was called Brown and was Brown that did it? He
said he had not had that information from the patrol officers.
So immediately got on the phone and luckily got the
cab driver who remembered the three men taking a cab
and where he dropped them off, and that was the

(12:01):
beginning of solving the case.

Speaker 2 (12:04):
You did something to literally support Jane and to show
her that there were people that believed in her and
were ready to stand up and support her. What did
you do at this trial?

Speaker 3 (12:19):
Right? Yeah, at this trial, I was not there as
an expert witness. I was there because I had been
working with her and providing some kind of counseling for her,
and I realized that this was going to be an
important step for her, and I wanted support more than
just my support. So I had all of my students
at the time, I was teaching a course, and I all, uh,

(12:43):
when Jane was there and I was there, and all
my students were there sitting very very carefully right in
the courtroom. So that was a good experience, not only
for me obviously for Jane to have that support, but
the students too.

Speaker 2 (13:00):
As a result of this trial, what did you decide
to do? What did you feel you necessary for you
to become.

Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well? Because of this Jane, I stayed in touch with
her and she did move back. She hadn't totally moved out.
She was staying with friends, and she would come to
my class in dactymology and became So it was support
not only in terms of counseling, which I would do individually,

(13:32):
but she had an opportunity to hear about other types
of victim situations, and she would speak up in class.
She told the students about her experience, and I've had
her several times come back and talk about her experience,
and I think that's a very important learning experience for

(13:53):
students to hear from victims directly, because it's rare, certainly
back then and even today, that victims will admit that
they had an experience of a sexual assault or a
rape or whatever.

Speaker 2 (14:08):
Let's jes this as an opportunity to stop to hear
these messages. Now, you write that you knew that you
had to establish yourself as an official expert witness to
really help people out like Jane in the future at court.

(14:29):
And then you write some time after you had heard
about the Menendez murders and you didn't know anything about
it till you got a call from a friend, John Conti,
April nineteen ninety. Tell us who he was and what
was the nature of the call.

Speaker 3 (14:48):
Sure, well, John Conti at the time, I knew him
as a colleague. He was at the University of Chicago originally,
and he became the editor of a journal called Journal
of Into Personal Violence. And so I had been working
with him around that and we stayed in touch. We
would go to conferences, etc. And so he called me

(15:09):
one day and started talking about this Menendez case, which
I did not know anything about. And he finally said,
I think, in desperation, will go down to your local
store and get a copy of People magazine and he
can read all about it. And I did, and of
course People Magazine had their own twists to the case.
And he said, if you're interested, I'll give your name

(15:30):
to Leslie Abramson, who was the attorney that was monitoring
or leading the Eric Menendez. John had already signed on
to Lyle Menendez's case, and Leslie was still looking for
an expert on that one. Now by then, of course,
this was the nineties, and I had had a fair
amount of experience, but certainly not in a high profile

(15:53):
case like this turned out to be.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
You had to look at this case. Why were you
interest did once you found out some details? Well?

Speaker 3 (16:03):
I was interested because in talking with John, I said, well,
what was the motive? I said, this talks about their
greed and their money, wanting money, et cetera. And I said,
this sounds like kids that have any money that they want.
They had open credit cards and access to money. And
that's what John agreed. He said yes, because he couldn't.

(16:25):
He was trying to figure out the motive too. So
we took in our opinion money was not the primary thing.
I said, something like this, where it's a double paraside case,
highly unusual that two siblings would murder their parents, both parents.
I think there's only a well, maybe one hundred cases

(16:47):
total in the whole history of that. So I said,
got to be something in the family, something's going on
in this family that would cause such violent reaction in
these two. And so that's where we began to put
our interest is to find out more about the families.
And John actually had he had by that time gone

(17:10):
to New Jersey, interviewed many of the cousins and found
out that there was a pretty odd kind of way
that they treated the brothers, and that was essentially from
the father, Jose Menendez. So by the time I started
interviewing Eric, I had an idea of a motive certainly

(17:30):
was not just over money. And he said in the
first there was a week prior to the shootings that
was pivotal, absolutely pivotal in this case. And he said
it started on a Tuesday when he had planned to
go to uc San Francisco, and the father said, no,

(17:53):
you're going to go to UCLA. It's right here in
town and you can. I'll get you a moped and
you can ride back and forth and you will be
here at night, not going to stay in the dorm.
And that was a jolt for Eric. He thought he
was going to be able to get away. Now. The
brother lyle had had plans. He was leaving in that

(18:16):
next week to go back to the East Coast. He
was at Princeton. I think, yeah, at Princeton, and so
both I thought it was interesting that both brothers had
plans to lead. When they say, well, why didn't you
just leave, you know, the prosecution said that the point
was they had planned to leave, but not leave because
of exposing any of the of the incense that was

(18:38):
going on, but to get away from the family. So
that's where we put together and began to find out
what was actually going on.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
It's very interesting that you employed a certain psychological technique
in order for you to get Eric to be able
to reveal the details of not only before the murder,
but during the actual murder itself.

Speaker 3 (19:09):
Yes, I did. I had used drawings or sketched whatever
you want to call him, primarily with younger people as
a way because they have more difficulty expressing themselves or
talking at length, so to speak. So I would have
them draw what happened. And it was a way not
to lead them in any way. You don't want to
lead them. You don't want to say, well, now, so

(19:31):
and so did something to you. Can you draw that? No,
just say what happened in such an incident. So I said,
I'm going to try that with Eric, because I've got
to spend all this time with him, and if he
you know, he just I can't tape record and I
didn't want to just sit there and take notes. So

(19:52):
I brought in some magic markers and paper. I had
them uncuff him. So that he had access to that,
and I I said, let's just go through this week
that you just told me about, and let's draw it.
Have you draw it, and then we can go back
and forth. I can say, well, now you said this
happened on Tuesday. Now what happened on Thursday? Or what

(20:13):
happened on Wednesday? And then you get to the Sunday,
of course, which is when the shootings occurred. And I
was able to use that, and I was amazed at
how he drew, not being a part therapist, of course,
but I could certainly see that there was a lot
to these drawings. And he did sixteen of them, and

(20:33):
they really tell the story of that week just before
the shootings. And I felt that that I didn't know
whether they would be used in quart or not, and
they decided that they wouldn't. I remember Leslie saying, well,
these look to juvenile. They'll make fun of them. And
I thought to myself, Well, the point that they look

(20:55):
juvenile is the point, right, that's the main point of
how they felt, how regressed they felt in this. And
the parents had this looming much exaggerated size compared to
the to the brothers of how he drew them, and
so there's a lot in there. I later have had

(21:15):
a art therapist look at them because I thought I'm
not one, but let's see what she could do, and
she really pretty much confirmed. We have since actually run
it through chat ID to see what the chat would do,
what AI would make of these drawings verbal of course,
the verbalization, because he would write on the drawing what

(21:39):
was going on. So we had some very interesting dialogue
between he and the brother, the mother, the father.

Speaker 2 (21:49):
You were hired to try to explain how these people
could kill their parents, regardless of anything, but you also
wanted to explain rape trauma syndrome, or Leslie wanted you
to explain rape trauma syndrome. So how with the rape
trauma syndrome, how do you explain how these people were

(22:11):
able to kill their parents and why?

Speaker 3 (22:14):
Sure, Well, by the time of the trial, which would
now be ninety I think nineteen ninety two, the shootings
occurred in eighteen nineteen eighty nine, so it was about
three years later. But what was going on then and
that I was involved in with my team, is of

(22:34):
the decade of the Brain is what they called it.
A lot of research money was going into understanding the
brain and how it worked, especially in high stress situations.
So what I was able to do is to take
we actually had a paper out just about that time
to explain where in the brain it's called the Olympic

(22:55):
system houses the important areas that control your thinking, that
control your emotion, that can control a lot of what
is important in terms of actions. And so I use
that to explain the new research. And I also they

(23:15):
were doing the study on the apple c snail. Now
I took a lot of backlash on that, but it
proved itself because it has a very similar nervous system
as we have, and they were doing very interesting exhibit
or research on that. So I use that to explain

(23:37):
why and how they were finding these areas in the
brain and the Olympic system that could account for people's actions.
And that's what I explained, the Olympic system. I also
use the analogy to a computer of how information goes
in and what happens when it doesn't get processed, when
it doesn't get quote, if you will, using a word

(23:59):
of process, and so I use those two. I have
used those in other times that I've testified, and if
you read my trial testimony, of course it's in there.

Speaker 2 (24:12):
You say that there was a parallel trial going on
of sorts, with the court, TV playboy reporter Robert rand
taking the side of the prosecution and Dennis Dunne taking
the sign of the defense, and so opposing views on

(24:32):
this trial. While the trial was going on.

Speaker 3 (24:36):
Yes, there was a lot of media obviously a lot
of media coverage and the LA whichever times. I don't
know which paper it was, but they had these two
opposite sides, and I'll never forget the dominic. Dunn took
me aside after I was testifying and said he wanted
to talk with me because he was beginning to maybe

(24:59):
doubt some of his position that this was all for
money and greed and that kind of thing, and he
was listening rather intently to the testimony about what would
cause someone to be in such fear. What I was
trying to explain, and the rape trauma syndrome does, is
that the reaction that victims have to a threatening situation

(25:22):
of fear is what can produce them to act in
ways that seemed counterintuitive. So it was unfortunately what happened
is another high profile case the came up and so
he didn't get it we never got a chance to
exchange how that meeting that he wanted to have, but
I always thought it was interesting that he did approach

(25:43):
me and want.

Speaker 2 (25:44):
To talk about it. You write about the verdict in
this case after Eric testifies. The jury is split in
believing Eric's testimony. Tell us about that, Yes.

Speaker 3 (26:00):
And I got that information from Hazel Thornton. Hazel Thornton
was number eight as a juror in the first men
in this trial Eric's team. And so she said that
what they did and when they went into the jury
room for the very first time, she said, it was
really wrong what they did. They asked everybody to raise

(26:20):
their hand and whether they were for murder one or
whether they were for the I think the other was
a lesser charge, obviously, And she said all of the
men put their hand up for murder one, all of
the women for the lesser charge. And she said it
never varied from them all of their deliberations. And she

(26:43):
said it would have been much better if they had
had a paper ballot or something so that people wouldn't
necessarily see what gender was doing what vote. But right
from the start, the men did not believe. They believed
the secution obviously, whereas the women felt that there was

(27:04):
the possibility they could understand sexual assault, they could understand fear,
and they could understand that the behavior, even though it
was what called imperfect, it was an imperfect defense that
it might not make sense to people listening the case,
but to the two brothers it did, and that was important.

(27:25):
I think the gender bias was very clear right from
the start. So of course in the second trial they
took out any testimony to a motive.

Speaker 2 (27:38):
And you talk about judge Wiseberg sort of his bias
was very evident in the trials.

Speaker 3 (27:45):
I felt it was in reviewing the case, and I
thought a lot of other people did too. I've seen
some writings to that effect, is that it seemed unusual
to remove expert witnesses because he didn't believe them. Well,
that was really the jury, in my opinion, that was
the jury's call. This was not a bench trial where

(28:10):
the judge could make his own decision.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
It also demonstrated that, strangely or not strangely, that in
the nineties there was this sort of general it seemed
to come from the judge and just in general, that
the idea, the notion that men could be abused. Not
so believable that men could be abused by their father.

Speaker 3 (28:34):
Yeah. I think that was the important point, is that
it wasn't just the general theme of men getting sexually abused,
but it was the particular issue of a father having
sex with his son. But I thought felt that the
certainly Eric and Lyle did explain it. That was the

(28:54):
other thing is they had those two brothers on the
stand for extensive amount of time and they were very clear.
I felt that if you, I think it was almost
ten days that Eric had to testify, that's a long
time or a prosecutor to try to make a point

(29:15):
and didn't obviously didn't make the point because half of
the jurors did not buy in to their motive.

Speaker 2 (29:25):
It's very interesting when you fast forward to just recently
in the new developments in the Menendez trial and the
effort to have them released. Very interesting in the cultural
attitudeal shift since then.

Speaker 3 (29:42):
Yes, thirty five years has made a difference, and I
think it The case only came into view about five
years ago and I got a call from another college
in the area saying, were you be one of the
experts in the Menendez case? And we have a group
they had a whole group that were banding together to

(30:05):
try to see if they could bring some vision to
this case and a new vision. And I didn't realize
that there was this kind of movement among young people,
college students that they wanted to revisit the case, and
that of course led to I think one of the
docum or two of the documentaries on the case, and
eventually did bring it obviously to the district attorney out

(30:29):
in LA So thirty five years can make a difference, Now,
did it make a difference. I was very interested to
see whether in the parole hearings they would be they
would vote for a nineteen ninety two version or a
nineteen ninety version, or whether they would this parole hearing

(30:50):
group would pick a twenty twenty five position. And you
know what the verdict was in both cases, says they
use interestingly enough their past behavior in jail in prison
as their criteria their main criteria.

Speaker 2 (31:11):
Yes, very very interesting. Let's use this as an opportunity
to stop to hear these messages. Now, another very important,
high profile and historic trial and case. This is in
the chapter you write dismantling of America's Dad and Andrea constant,

(31:33):
thirty one year old, January two thousand and four. Bill
Cosby gives her a couple of pills and says these
will help you relax. Tell us about Rosalind Watts and
your conversation with her and hearing about the news of
America's dad and his downfall.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
Yes, Rosin Watts was a colleague of mine when I
was at the University of Pennsylvany, and we would often
talk about cases. We had a little group we often
talk about cases, and the Cosby case had come up,
and it was known that she had dated Bill Cosby,

(32:15):
so we were very interested, I especially in how she
was looking at this case. And she was very firm
and not believing that this could have happened. She knew
him from high school, I think had gone to a
dance with him, and she just was adamant that this
could not have happened. There must be something that woman,

(32:38):
that victim must not be telling the truth. Well, as
time went on and more and more information came out,
she finally came around to us saying, and she worded it,
that was not the Bill Cosby that I knew in
high school, and I believe it. You know, people can change,
and so he finally did say that, but she never

(32:58):
said he was a thing but a gentleman back then.
He wasn't into drugs. He wasn't into any of the
behavior that we saw or we heard about, certainly from
Andrea I heard when I had an opportunity to interview her,
or from any of the other multiple I think about
thirty five women that came forward. It was very clear

(33:20):
that he had a really a ritual, if you want
to call it, that to what he would do with
the women did not vary from that, and had many,
many victims, and they were all afraid to come forward
except Andrea.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
You were in June twenty sixteen, you got a call
from Andrea, a Constance attorney. They needed a consulting expert,
someone who could talk to Constant and give a professional
assessment of her overall mental health.

Speaker 3 (33:52):
Right I did. And Andrea flew down from Canada she
lived in Canada at the time, and I interviewed her
and wrote a report what had happened and how she
had what certainly from a standpoint, what her symptoms were.
But this had followed Don't forget back in two thousand

(34:14):
and three or four, the original complaint chief complaint.

Speaker 2 (34:23):
You say, in that time period, that expanse of time,
dozens of women had come forward to accuse them of
sexual assault. You say, culminating in something like a widespread
cultural shift where victims were being supported rather than belittle.

Speaker 3 (34:40):
Right in that time period, Sure, that was a good
a decade. And so with Andrea coming forward, and that
happens a lot, or not a lot, but certainly happens
in cases where it's a high profile case. I'm thinking
of cases of professional people where they will publish because
they can published that so and so has accused so

(35:03):
and so of a sexual assault, and others who have
experienced that will come forward. And that's exactly what happened. Now,
this was an unusual type of a sexual assault because
the victim was usually unconscious of some type, whether given
alcohol or in Andrea's case, it was three blue pills

(35:26):
that I think later were identified and said these pills
are going to relax you, and they did, but they
relaxed her to the point where she lost consciousness. So
she then wakes up and of course doesn't have much memory.
So it was hard for those women to come forward
because they didn't have as much memory as someone who

(35:47):
obviously didn't lose consciousness.

Speaker 2 (35:50):
You write about trauma being an expert, you say, trauma
fractures a person's sense of self. It creates a split.
There's the person who existed before for their trauma and
the person who now exists because of their trauma.

Speaker 3 (36:05):
Yes, so that's the way I would understand it and
what they would tell me. So I was just trying
to explain it to people because they would often say
why can't they just go on? Why can't they say, oh,
that was a bad situation, Especially when it's a known offender.
I'm not talking about stranger type situations. And stranger type situations,

(36:27):
people generally can believe it because they can't find any
way to blame the victim. Well, they can. They can say, well,
she shouldn't have been out walking, or she shouldn't have
been doing wearing clothes like this, or something of that nature.
But on some of these cases where the offender breaks
in victim is sleeping, that's very hard for people to
dismiss as that it was somehow the victims fall. Unless

(36:51):
they can say, well, the window was open or your
door was unlocked, they still will try to find some
way to diminish the importance, and so I felt it
was so because the victim, literally with Dross, has major
changes in their thinking and especially about the self, the

(37:11):
fracturing of the self. They get into some of the
same problems of did I do something wrong? The self
guilt can be a huge issue, and the shame and
the embarrassment is another emotion that can prevent victims from
coming forward. So I felt in talking about what it

(37:32):
does to the individual would be a way to try
to reach people, to tell them how serious a sexual
assault can be to the person's image of themselves and
to their reason for or not coming forward.

Speaker 2 (37:49):
You talk about people being reluctant to come forward and
tell police about what has happened, and then you write
about that constant despite having the DA Bruce Caster say
that there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence, she was

(38:09):
disappointed but undeterred, and she wanted to file a civil lawsuit,
and she did in July twenty fifteen. Can you tell
us about sort of her ability to be able to
get past that dejection and then file this lawsuit trying
to get justice for the crimes from Bill Cosby?

Speaker 3 (38:30):
Yes, Well, Andrew, there was a unique person. Don't forget.
She was a sports She was a tall basketball player
who had been in sports and had scholarships for sports.
So she was very strong and she was very brave,
and so she was not going to take this. She
wanted to do it not for herself, but for all

(38:53):
of the victims that she knew. And this was in yeah,
this was twenty sixteen. There was some movement on going
about understanding rape and understanding sexual assault. So I think
that her ability to move the field forward was so

(39:16):
important and it did. It really was the start of
the quote me too movement when others could come forward too.
I think there was a New York The New Yorker
had a cover of all of the little faces of
the women that had come forward. So they were not
afraid anymore, and they were willing to put their experience

(39:41):
on the line, if you will. So I handed to
Andrea to be able to do that. She was very
very important in winning the case. She didn't went it
right away. There were actually two trials in one and
it wasn't until the second trial when they judge allowed
other prior complaints to be able to come forward, and

(40:04):
that was helpful for the jury. But still had trouble
just believing one person they could understand when it was
multiple victims.

Speaker 2 (40:15):
Very interesting in this book was the idea that Cosby
was subjected to a four day deposition, but in that
deposition because he thought it would be sealed and the
public would never hear about it. He told of extra
meritive affairs. He testified to drugging women with queludes and
using his celebrity status to stop allegations from surfacing, and

(40:38):
sending hush money to pay off multiple victims.

Speaker 3 (40:42):
That's all true. He said that he was under oath.
He never thought it was going to come out. I
think that was the sticky point, if you will, And
it wasn't until they were that changed and the ruling
came that they could use it when it all came out.
I think that was important of how they try to

(41:04):
cover up a good example of how offenders, especially high
profile offenders. We've seen other cases, of course across the
country since then, what they will do to cover up,
and a lot of money can be paid to silence victims.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
That Jesus has an opportunity to stop to hear these messages.
When you talk about high profile there is the case
that you were involved with with someone named Larry Nassar
tell us what was what's the takeaway from this case
involving Larry Nasser.

Speaker 3 (41:39):
Well, the Larry Nasser case was very important because he
was a professional. He had his a doctor degree and
he would in these athletics and these he targeted young
adolescent girls and they would say stretch them and doing

(42:00):
some of their activities, and he would say, well, I
have a special way that I can fix that, and
so he would do essentially what we would understand is
a pelvic exam on the young girl. And they would
be horrified at it, but they because he said he
was a doctor and he could fix it that they

(42:22):
went along with it. Now some didn't and they didn't
go back to him, but many of them did. I
think he had hundreds of victims over time, and so
that was a good example of a professional that can missuse,
criminally misuse if you will, a procedure to satisfy his

(42:43):
own sexual proclivities. So that was a hard case because
you had young young women at the time, and I
saw some the one I think I put in the
book she went back to him I think two or
three times, and of course felt terrible and anguished over it,

(43:04):
and until it finally came out, was thinking that something
was wrong with her. There's your self image that gets
kind of split and fractured in any of these cases.
You know why am I feeling this way? He is
a doctor, he knows what he's doing, etc.

Speaker 2 (43:18):
Etc.

Speaker 3 (43:19):
So it really confuses the young victim. And as I said,
they were all pretty much young adolescent victims. One of
them I talked to it was years later. Don't forget
that she was well in her thirties and this has
happened when she was like twelve or thirteen. That's a
long time to harbor as much emotion as the person has.

(43:43):
And that's what you find in some of these what
we call prolonged cases.

Speaker 2 (43:50):
In the Duke University lacrosse case very interesting if we
were compare it to so or the case spoke about
with Jeanne and her rape case. Tell us about the
Duke University lacrosse case, and again what it was demonstrated.

(44:11):
What was demonstrated with that case.

Speaker 3 (44:12):
Well, in that case, it really tore apart the whole university.
This was two exotic dancers that were invited to perform
and be paid at a bachelor party type and for
the lacrosse team, and these two. One of the two

(44:33):
came forward to say that she had been raped. What
that set in motion was the lacrosse coach I think
got fired. I know eighty or so faculty came forward
with a petition letter to say that this was outrageous
that was going on and for the president to do something.
They had a lot of dissent over this case. And

(44:58):
what actually turned out is that when I looked at
the case, I know that I was going to be
on one of the reed Seligmann's team. They divide up
the three defendants. Each one has their own team, and
he was clearly able to show with evidence on his
cell phone that he had left that this was not

(45:21):
anything that he had done. Others were able to do it.
But went on for a whole year. The families were
just I remember speaking with the families. They were beside
themselves with this. It ruined the young men, they had
to drop out of school. And then finally it turned
out I had to figure out how I was going
to testify because the rape trauma syndrome. Was it going

(45:44):
to be used as the reason that this victim We'll
call her a victim was able to say that she
was raped, and we couldn't. I couldn't go on the
stand and say she was lying because I didn't know
necessarily that I had to be able to explain it
and was prepared to. There was interesting information about her

(46:05):
psychiatric history where she had had a young fourteen year
old had had a gang rape by three men against
same kind of thing, and could this be a flashback
kind of phenomenon that could be explained? And I felt
it could be. However, it all the case and then
all fell apart with the prosecutor finally he hadn't even

(46:28):
talked to the victim, he had misled the victim, he
had misled the media, and so the case slowly disintegrated,
and it's only been recently, maybe in the last couple
of years, where she finally has been able to say
how she lied about the whole thing, and that was
publicized obviously for that, But that was a case of

(46:49):
false accusation, clear and simple.

Speaker 2 (46:53):
You write about an offender named Charlie Scott, a very
prolific perpetrator, convicted violent serial rapist. How were you brought
on to understand the likelihood that he would reoffend. Well,
it was.

Speaker 3 (47:08):
Brought on in the Charlie Scott case with actually with
another profiler from the BSU who was going to be
talking about Charlie Scott from a different angle. He's worked
before he joined the FBI profiling group, had been to
evaluate for court offender, so he had that part to do,

(47:29):
and I was going to be talking about from the
victim's standpoint. And this was the case at that time
for that trial where Charlie Scott was amazing in terms
of an he can call him an escape artist. He
had managed to escape from all these federal jails in
very interesting ways. I think it's in the book. But

(47:50):
at any rate, the one case that I had interviewed
the victim didn't come up because they couldn't get her
to testify. It later comes up years later where an
outstanding warrant was issued for him, And that's the case
that after he has been parolled because of these first

(48:11):
infractions where they did have some statement, he is pulled
back in and she does testify and now he's in
prison again for that particular case. And I marvel at that,
and I think that's so important to understand that the
system does work in if you have I guess enough patients.

(48:34):
But it can work, and people are able. Officers are
able to find some of these cases that are years
in it over and then still bring them to victim
to justice. And that was a great case for Charlie Scott.
He had originally gotten into the army. There's a military
case into the army by using his sisters a social

(48:58):
security number. I mean, he was just a classic, I
guess we would call a classic psychopath that was able
to manipulate. He even became a bounty hunter and I
have a video of him arresting someone that he was after.
So he was like a chameleon. He kept changing things

(49:19):
and he had a very creative background, if you will.
But he also had a lot of victims and so
we were able to bring justice for the victims. So
that was very very good.

Speaker 2 (49:30):
You called him a confidence style offender and you were
there to assess his risk for reoffense. What were some
of the reasons you gave for his likelihood of reoffending.

Speaker 3 (49:45):
Well, certainly all of his escapes. You know, he climbed
up into the ceiling and came across in the ventilation
ceiling in one of the prisons that's how or jails
that's how he got out, and also how he some
of the things I just said is creative background, but

(50:05):
the FBI profile was able to of course give much
more substance because he had access to some of the
records that I wouldn't necessarily have access to.

Speaker 2 (50:16):
You're also right that part of this was the delayed
reporting phenomena itself with a confidence style.

Speaker 3 (50:25):
Yes, yes, they usually get away with it because they
threatened the victim. I think the victim in this case
was threatened with Victims are usually threatened with a couple
of things. One either they're going to be heard or
injured or killed or something. Or they will threaten the family.
And I always found that the threats to the family
are very frightening two victims and is a something that

(50:47):
the offender capitalizes on. So the delayed reporting, whatever the
reason for the delay, it is used against of course
against the victim when it comes to court. You know,
why didn't it take so long? Why didn't you immediately
come forward? And then the victim is put on the
spot with having to explain why, which you're embarrassed. Was
she afraid they wouldn't believe her, et cetera. So it

(51:09):
places more pressure on the victim, and it is one
more thing the victim has to go through. I always
marvel that victims have the strength to go through, because
the court system for a victim is not easy at all.

Speaker 2 (51:23):
You talk about the in the end of this book,
the deterioration of trust between the juries and expert witnesses
as part of a trend towards broader societal skepticism directed
towards expertise in general.

Speaker 3 (51:40):
Yes, I think that we have to do a better job,
because how can you have an expert on both sides,
you know, one taking one position, one taking the other.
And that's where the issue of science comes in. You
can't just say, well, I think that's the reason. You
have to say in cite some kind of research to

(52:02):
support your opinion. So you give a base, you give
your opinion, and you have to give the basis, and
that's what the jury needs to understand and to go
with because a lot of them I remember in the
Hazel Thornton saying in the Menendez case, I don't believe
any one of the men saying, I don't believe any
of these experts. After all, they're getting paid, And I

(52:22):
thought that was always interesting because they're getting paid too
to be a juror, so that they don't understand that, yes,
they are getting Experts do get paid for their time,
not for their opinion. That's what you want to do.
That if you put time in on a case, that
that's what you get paid for, not the outcome of

(52:43):
what your opinion is.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
What would you attribute this skepticism to something to the
expert witness testimony that has been established, with the guidelines
that have been established, with all the presidents that have
been set, with people like you testifying successfully at trials.

Speaker 3 (53:05):
Why the skepticism, Well, I think a skepticism is because
there is a belief out there and you can talk
to jurors about this that experts will say whatever they
to support the side that they're on. In other words,
if someone has uh is a victim, well I believe
the victim because i'm you know, I'm testifying on the

(53:27):
prosecution side, whereas the other side will say I don't
believe the victim, and et cetera. So the being paid
for the side they're on is something that I think
durors have picked up because they have they have to
in their own mind separate out the experts. And that's

(53:52):
why you have to give your background. You have to
give you why you are an expert, and the judge
has to prove it. Don't forget, the judge roofs the expert,
not the other way around. So there can be situations
where you're not accepted as a expert. I'm sure you
could be a fact witness, but not necessarily an expert witness.

Speaker 2 (54:16):
You also write about how AI might be used for prevention, investigation,
legal proceedings, and possibly rehabilitation to create a more efficient, responsive,
and predictive criminal justice system. How can AI be utilized?

Speaker 3 (54:33):
Well, AI, I think is very going to be very
important in this and we've already taken a step forward
on the use of the drawings that Eric Menendez gave
and we've put the information into the algorithm and ask
the chat to say, if I want you to look

(54:54):
at this as an expert in say mental health, or
I've asked you to look at the as an expert
in art therapy, and you run them. We've run them
and you get two different answers and different reasons. And
that's what we're going to publish because I think that's
very interesting of one way to look at the use

(55:14):
of AI. Now it's only looking at the information you give,
and it's only as good as the information you have.
I just think that this is going to be very important.
We could have asked what would you recommend for rehabilitation?
I never thought of that, but maybe after this I will.
And I think that it's going to be very helpful

(55:34):
because you can ask chat what your question is and
see what they do. They analyze it in a different way,
or do they analyze it in a similar way. We
found that they were too different that Obviously, in the
clinical they were much more clinical and understanding of the trauma,
whereas in the art therapy it was a little bit

(55:56):
different in terms of what their background is on eyes
and color and et cetera.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
How much headway have you seen with your acceptance of
your rape trauma syndrome idea.

Speaker 3 (56:12):
Rape trauma syndrome is what we call a nursing diagnosis,
and it was a subtype. Sometimes it's used as a
subtype of the larger umbrella called post traumatic stress disorder
PTSD because in PTSD you can have a variety of
stressful events. It isn't just rape but it could be combat,

(56:34):
it could be experiencing a natural disaster, it could be
other kinds of traumatic events. And so rape trauma we
define from the original source. It's been accepted in the
nursing diagnosis and it's now being looked at for international relevance.

(56:59):
And I know that a Brazilian researcher is preparing an
article on that and updating. If you will, do you
rape trauma syndrome.

Speaker 2 (57:11):
I want to thank you so much for coming on
and talking about Expert Witness The Weight of Our Testimony
When Justice Hangs in the Balance. I know this book
will be released September seconds all over the world on
Amazon and everywhere else that people will get their books.
I want to thank you so much for coming on
and talking about your book Expert Witness today.

Speaker 3 (57:33):
Thank you, Dan. I'd a pleasure to work with you
this South again.

Speaker 2 (57:38):
That book is going to be released September second Expert
Witness The Weight of Our Testimony When Justice Hangs in
the Balance by Ann Burgess. Thank you so much for
this interview and Burgess and you have a great evening
and good night.

Speaker 3 (57:53):
Thank you Dan, you too, thank you. Yeah,