thought in the past if you find them it helps you make a determination of drowning versus something else. i think the literature discredited that. i think there is very little you can do to try to differentiate out drowning versus other causes. but do you know what? this is a murder one case, if the claim is drowning if it s everywhere these diatomes why not test the bone marrow? say do you know what? we ve got a little evidence here, it s some evidence of drowning? they didn t do that. what does that tell you? you know. you know, have you to, you know when you asked for a test you have to be ready to understand what those results are. since basically it s a field that is somewhat discredited people do not understand what particular result would mean, i think it s pretty much useless i think for the prosecution and if the defense decided to have this done, and have it tested and find
you make a determination of drowning versus something else. i think the literature has discredited that. i think there s very little you can do, particularly with skeletal remains to differentiate out drowning versus other causes. judge jeanine: doctor, if this is a murder one case and the claim is drowning, even if it is ubiquitous, if it is everywhere these die tomorrows why not at least test the bone marrow and say we got a little evidence it may not be a lot but some evidence of drowning. they didn t do that, what does it tell you? you have to when you ask for a test, you have to be ready to understand what those results are. since basically it is a field that is somewhat discredited, people do not understand what a particular result would mean. it is useless. useless for the prosecution. and if the defense decided to have this done, and have it