forensics. this really becomes a case about science, doesn t it? if the science didn t work, if the jury didn t understand it or didn t buy into it, it was gonna be a not guilty. dr. diane scala barnett, the coroner who had performed the autopsy on dana s exhumed body told the jury she d been able to get a better look at dana s skull than the first coroner. i saw separate fractures and the pattern of fractures only after the bone was cleaned. there were three impact patterns, three distinct patterns. and what would have caused those? a beating. a beating? some sort of bludgeoning instrument absolutely. unknown, was used? absolutely. but there s no question there were three impact sites on the skull? no question. and this was not at all consistent with falling out of a car. not at all. not in my experience. y shaped incision reporter: it was gruesome testimony for brittany to sit through. the one thing i wasn t prepared for as much but i toughed it ou
reporter: and if the crux of the prosecution s case was the science, the defense was more than happy to make this a case of dueling science. you knew early on it was going to be a battle of science, expert versus expert? yes. reporter: and if weighty resumes counted, the defense expert maybe had the edge. he d performed or supervised more than 62,000 autopsies. his name? dr. werner spitz. i m not sure there s a better cv for a forensic pathologist that you could find. the brain. reporter: renowned for his work in historic cases like the jfk assassination and more recent sensational cases like casey anthony, dr. spitz had even written the textbook for pathologists, and he disagreed with everything the coroner had to say. dr. barnett s opinion was that these fractures that you see in this photo were caused by three different impacts. do you agree with that opinion?
forensics. this really becomes a case about science, doesn t it? if the science didn t work, if the jury didn t understand it or didn t buy into it, it was gonna be a not guilty. reporter: dr. diane scala barnett, the coroner who had performed the autopsy on dana s exhumed body told the jury she d been able to get a better look at dana s skull than the first coroner. i saw separate fractures and the pattern of fractures only after the bone was cleaned. there were three impact patterns, three distinct patterns. and what would have caused those? a beating. a beating? some sort of bludgeoning instrument absolutely. unknown, was used? absolutely. but there s no question there were three impact sites on the skull? no question. and this was not at all consistent with falling out of a car. not at all. not in my experience. y shaped incision reporter: it was gruesome testimony for brittany to sit through. the one thing i wasn t prepared for as much but i t
the morning, pounding on doors, trying to get them to call someone to come help her. putting yourself at the scene? correct. reporter: and if the crux of the prosecution s case was the science, the defense was more than happy to make this a case of dueling science. you knew early on it was going to be a battle of science, expert versus expert? yes. reporter: and if weighty resumes counted, the defense expert maybe had the edge. he d performed or supervised more than 62,000 autopsies. his name? dr. werner spitz. i m not sure there s a better cv for a forensic pathologist that you could find. the brain. reporter: renowned for his work in historic cases like the jfk assassination and more recent sensational cases like casey anthony, dr. spitz had even written the textbook for pathologists, and he disagreed with everything the coroner had to say. dr. barnett s opinion was that these fractures that you see in this photo were caused by
happened. what evidence was there of murder? and here was the heart of the prosecution s case the forensics. this really becomes a case about science, doesn t it? if the science didn t work, if the jury didn t understand it or didn t buy into it, it was gonna be a not guilty. reporter: dr. diane scala barnett, the coroner who had performed the autopsy on dana s exhumed body told the jury she d been able to get a better look at dana s skull than the first coroner. i saw separate fractures and the pattern of fractures only after the bone was cleaned. there were three impact patterns, three distinct patterns. and what would have caused those? a beating. a beating? some sort of bludgeoning instrument absolutely. unknown, was used? absolutely. but there s no question there were three impact sites on the skull? no question. and this was not at all consistent with falling out of a car. not at all. not in my experience. y shaped incision