In Session: Sidebar  « Back to Blog Main
May 27, 2009

Medical examiner familiar to In Session viewers

Posted: 12:15 PM ET

CAPE MAY COURT HOUSE, New Jersey–To loyal In Session court watchers, if the name of forensic pathologist Charles Siebert Jr., M.D. seems familiar, it is because he has played a major role in one of our live trials in the last few years..

Dr. Charles Siebert on the witness stand

Siebert was the medical examiner at the center of  our 2007 live trial in Florida involving Martin Lee Anderson, better known as the "Boot Camp" trial out of Panama City, Florida.

Anderson, 14, was serving time at one of Florida’s boot camps because of his problems with the law. On the first day of camp, as Anderson was running around the track, he started to collapse. Prosecutors in the case said that guards at the camp, thinking he was faking it, pushed him to keep going and forced the young man to keep him running. Anderson eventually collapsed on the field, and died at a local hospital.

In that case, Siebert, who performed the initial autopsy on the young man, found much internal bleeding and a sickling of red blood cells. He determined the cause of death of 14-year-old Anderson, who was African American, as a natural death caused by complications from sickle cell trait.

Prosecutors made a rare move and brought in another medical examiner who countered Siebert’s conclusions, saying it was the guards and nurse on duty who caused Anderson’s death, by recklessly disregarding a risk of death or seriously bodily injury to Anderson. The second medical examiner, however, could not determine an official cause of death.

Renowned forensic pathologist Michael Baden observed the second autopsy on behalf of Anderson's parents and agreed with the new conclusion that the death was a homicide. The case went to trial with the defense relying on Dr. Siebert's autopsy report and the prosecution relying on the second autopsy report.

The defendant guards at the boot camp were ultimately acquitted of aggravated manslaughter of a child. Many believed it was because of Siebert’s findings, along with the lack of an official cause of death in the state's case.

Following the trial, Siebert’s conclusions, although viewed as extremely controversial by people outside of the medical community, were upheld by other forensic pathologists in this country.

–Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

Filed under: Uncategorized


Share this on:
Jennifer   May 27th, 2009 12:24 pm ET

This country needs to becareful. We are always so quick to blame our police force for anything that does not go our way. What next? Do we ban all police chases in case there is a possible accident? Do we expect the police to stop the chase long enough to stop at a stop sign or a signal light. We are giving the criminal to go ahead to speed away because, before long, all chases will be outlawed. Again another blow against crime fighters and a green light for the criminal. Where is the true blame in this accident? It lies with the criminal who was fleeing the state trooper. We blane the trooper for doing his job but fail to blame the criminal who is causing him to do his job. Becareful America, before long there will be no law and order.

donna   May 27th, 2009 1:59 pm ET

I have to disagree with Jennifer. The police must slow down when they approach any intersection. They must be cautionous. Just like an ambulance, they slow down. I feel bad for both parties and dont know if this was a criminal act, but what would of happened if it wasnt a state trooper who blew that stop sign, would we be still having this discussion? One other detail, the state police must and should be aware of this area because they patrol it, so he should of known about this stop sign. And remember, the speeder did stop, so the trooper should of seen his brake lights. My heart and prayers go out to the family of the girls and the state trooper. This is a no win situation on both sides.

colleen   May 27th, 2009 2:08 pm ET

I do believe troopers disobey the law because I have driven the parkway from the beginning till the end I live at exit one and just to go to a mall you have to drive the parkway and I have many a times been passed by a trooper going in excess of 80 mph they are human also and just as we could lose control so can they ,but I do think 20 yrs. in very extreme of a punishment he was in his right mind not drunk or on drugs and I'm sure a lesson was learned I feel very much for the family of the beautiful girls involved.I do think he should lose his job .

barbara mcgrath   May 27th, 2009 2:31 pm ET

would it not be more reasonable to assume that the driver is inately familiar with all traffic signs and would expect to find a sign at the intersection where the accident occurred? it appears that the town is somewhat responsible for the accident.

Jan   May 27th, 2009 2:33 pm ET

Just because Higbee is employed as a Policeman, doesn't give him the right to act careless and use his power as if he were God. He knew the intersection was a bad one, and that a stop sign was there, as all the officers did. TruTV anchors talk about what a good and just person Higbee is – just very little about the poor dead girls and the grief the family is going through – I think the Officer should be punished by doing some time in jail. Also why in the name of justice would an officer chase a speeder without lights and the siren going – Everyone that was in the area could have gotten out of the way.

.

Beatrice   May 27th, 2009 2:53 pm ET

Shouldn't it be "innocent UNLESS proven guilty....not UNTIL.
UNTIL sounds like a foregone conclusion.. eg..until the clock strikes 12..it will happen sooner or later. UNLESS seems much more appropviate.
Agree?
Beatrice

elise   May 27th, 2009 3:07 pm ET

Regarding the Higbee trial... if this police dept did not prohibit its officers from high-speed vehicle pursuits, then Higbee was performing within the guidelines of his job and this trial is a waste of taxpayers’ money and a terrible miscarriage of justice if he is convicted. And it bothers me that the judge is so blatantly condescending toward the defense, sure seems that he's playing to the camera.

elise   May 27th, 2009 3:22 pm ET

I have to amend my comment... didn't realize he wasn't using lights & siren. If police are required to use these warning devices when in pursuit of a suspect or responding to an emergency, then he should face consequences the least of which would be losing his job.

Ken   May 27th, 2009 3:48 pm ET

NJ 39:4-91 requires that emergency vehicles have an audible signal (bell, siren, exhaust whistle) during an emergency call but, interestingly, police vehicles are exempt from the statutury requirement of "at least one lighted lamp displaying a red light..." The statute also specifically does "not relieve the driver of any authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall it protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others." In this case, while I have not heard the testimony, it seems that vehicular homicide is a stretch, but perhaps not reckless driving. Perhaps it is the prosecution's way of 'looking tough" while knowing that a jury may likely not convict on such a high charge.

Christopher Butts   May 27th, 2009 4:11 pm ET

Why haven't we heard about the Rights of Jacqueline Beckers being Denied the right to react DEFENSIVELY as we are ALL told when driving a Motor Vehicle...BUT FOR Trooper Higbee's DECISION to take away HER RIGHT OF WAY at the intersection....she MAY HAVE been able to avoid....THE OTHER DRIVER (in this case Higbee)..

tony   May 27th, 2009 4:13 pm ET

This is in response to Donna,you said what if it wasn't a trooper.Well my nephew was killed last Wed.because a motorist ran a stop sign.He was issued a ticket for failure to yield right of way.He said he felt terrible but my nephew is still dead.Just as Trooper Higbee feels terrible for the deaths of the two girls.It was just a horrible accident,not a crime

Lisa   May 27th, 2009 4:51 pm ET

This judge should be sitting on the left of the prosecutor. He is more like a co-council for the prosecution. No fairness for the defense in this court.

Butch   May 27th, 2009 8:17 pm ET

It sure seems like the judge has a problem with state troopers. Has anyone looked at the judges past ? There's something wrong not letting the jury know all the facts on the changes of the intersection.The judge is taking this case in my eye's too personal.There's something wrong!

Yurt   May 28th, 2009 8:58 am ET

The judge is doing his job ensuring a fair trial.. The defense council is really taking a risk by going against the judge's orders as seen by yesterdays footage.. The defense lawyer will be lucky not to have an official complaint filed after the case concludes..

dave   May 28th, 2009 9:56 am ET

no sound on the trooper trail

Stephen   May 28th, 2009 10:06 am ET

Why is there no audio, just video, this morning?

Jason   May 28th, 2009 10:11 am ET

Why isn;t there audio today for the trial????

Charles   May 28th, 2009 1:20 pm ET

Why is there even a trial? Put the blame where it belongs, on the pursued not the pursuer, the Supreme Court decided this a long time ago. It's the bad guy that caused this whole scenario, not the Trooper.

Kathy   May 28th, 2009 1:21 pm ET

In response to "tony" I agree I have know people with relatives mowed down & all they get is a slap on the wrist. Why are they trying to make an example out of this tooper? It is a horrible accident. Definitly changes need to be made about pursuit issues. I also think if these girls were obeying the law & not out driving with their permit this might have been avoided. I am not blaming the girls I am just saying things played out ,it is no one persons fault. I pray for the family of the lost girls & the trooper & his family.

Charles   May 28th, 2009 1:25 pm ET

How come the news hasn't checked in to the background of the bad guy or is it he is unknown because after he caused the crash he wasn't found.

Kathy   May 28th, 2009 1:32 pm ET

Was I mistaken or did the speeder testify for the defense. I thought I saw somthing to that effect. If so how ironoic is that the guy who initially put things in motion testifies. Crazy!

T Ruth   May 28th, 2009 1:59 pm ET

Jean,

Robert Higbee did not set up or lie in wait using his radar. Please stop mistating fact. He utilized moving radar not stationary radar. Go ask the Middle Township Police, Cape May County Sheriff or New Jersey Statet Police present and ask them the difference. There are huge differences in the operation of this equipment and what else he would have been doing at the same time, ie driving. It thus becomes another aspect of complex operations of multi-tasking that is required of theis trooper by his duties.

ben   May 28th, 2009 3:12 pm ET

The 1st responder, Chief Newman, is an EMT. He testified on Wednesday. He should have been asked: Question, did he stop at all lights/signs in his responsing drive to scene? His answer may have shown that a typical emergency person will most likely disregard a sign IF he/she SEES (preceives)no danger.

Judy   May 28th, 2009 3:22 pm ET

Oh boo hoo...............don't worry people the trooper will get off. I do hope because of his bad deceisions that he no longer will be behind the wheel of a state trooper car. I also hope that this case changes the way all police cars proceed threw intersections. For heaven sakes, they should at least slow down. I wouldn't want me or my family approaching an intersection with the police screaming threw a stop sign and endangering us.

Higbee knew that the intersection was controlled by some form of stopage. He just felt that the traffic rules didn't apply to him because he was "closing the gap" on a speeder going 15 miles over the speed limit. He was not chasing a kidnapper or rapist. He stated that he wasn't even sure if he was going to stop the speeder or not. He had a duty to PROTECT AND SERVE the citizens on the road that night. He failed in his duty and should at a minimum lose his job.

Lisa   May 28th, 2009 4:08 pm ET

This accident happened at 10 pm. I dont know how anyone would expect an officer to know who is driving the car before stopping them. Its night, the speeder himself said his lights were not fully on, and was clocked at 65. (He could have slowed down before seeing the officer and looking at his speedometer). Officers routinely pull over speeders and find the driver has broken another law.They do not know if the person is fleeing from some other offense or if they have a gun etc. If the speeder had been a hard nosed criminal would anyone "blame " the officer for pursuing him. He has no way of knowing until the car is actually pulled over. Officer Higbee was following all the rules nj has in place for pulling over a speeder. His focus was on the speeding car. He missed a stop sign, a tragic accident happened. None of the other witnesses saw the girls van either. The young girl should not have been driving on a nj permit without a 3 year licensed driver. The other sister should have worn a seatbelt. All very unfortunate circumstances that contributed to this horrible ACCIDENT. Jail is for rehabilitation, this officer does not need to be there. Jail is for punishment, this officer is punished, he has to live with this the rest of his life. He is remorseful, he appologized. Nothing will bring these girls back. Only an added tragedy if he is found guilty.

john   May 29th, 2009 4:18 pm ET

was the trooper found guilty? i missed the shows this week. thx

amanda lynn   May 29th, 2009 10:28 pm ET

this case really pulls on my heart strings and some of your comments make these wreckless police chases seem justifiable, and they just are NOT ! my little brother was killed in a car accident many years ago due to a florida highway patrol officer exceeding safe speeds and failing to yield at an intersection. cop or not, EVERYONE must drive safe. even to this day i have severe anxiety anytime a cop drives anywhere near me. they need to be held to the same standards as every one of us when it comes to respecting road signs. chasing a speeder is not worth the risk of running a stop sign and killing two beautiful girls. my brothers life was cut so short and no matter how many years pass, i still have to think about how unnecessary his untimely death was. i do not necessarily think the cops deserve criminal charges, but these incidents need to be stopped. it is sad the trooper higbee has to be the guinea pig, but hopefully this case can open up the eyes of all law enforcement officers. the fact that they are trained to enforce the law does not put them above the law, they too must obey it. we need to change the way at which police are authorized to pursue individuals and thus prevent these tragedies from EVER happening again.

Dave Green   May 30th, 2009 3:40 pm ET

The other witnesses have testified that they did not look in the direction of the van. That does not mean that van with it's headlights on(the headlight switch has been verified by testimony to be on) was not on a dimly lit road at night easily visible. It was easily visible if you actually look. Seatbelts are not even an issue. The officer did not even glance in that direction. That is criminal negligence, not an added tragedy. Guilty.

Ellen In Ohio   June 2nd, 2009 4:46 pm ET

Having been a juror on a case against a Police Officer who WAS and IS not guilty, in my opinion, I believe I can look at all sides of this case with an open mind. Also, keep in mind, this WAS an accident. It does not matter that Higbee is an officer of the law. *IF* any person committed these actions, the Police would throw the book at the citizen and forget about them. The courts would do and say anything to put "John Q Public" into prison for murder. THIS alone should take the precedence in this case, as it should in any case. Once this trial is over, IMHO, a civil suit should be brought against any and all assets that may be available to the families' SHAME SHAME on the system for the lies. DOUBLE SHAME on Higbee for the lies. YOU belong in prison, just like you and your fellow officers would do to "John Q Public"!

donna   June 3rd, 2009 10:25 pm ET

This is to response to Tony. I am very sorry for your loss. I do totally agree that this is a terrible accident. I assumed wrong when i spoke in my previous comment about it being a different situation if it wasnt a police officer. Again, my condolences go out to you and your family.

Leave Your Comment


 

Comments are moderated by CNN, in accordance with the CNN Comment Policy, and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Also, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments will be posted.


subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

Sidebar takes you behind the scenes of the day's legal headlines with breaking news and in-depth analysis from In Session's anchors and correspondents.

Contact us
  • Questions or comments? E-mail
In Session Team
Jean Casarez
Correspondent
Jean Casarez
Beth Karas
Correspondent
Beth Karas
Mike Brooks
Law Enforcement Analyst
Mike Brooks
Midwin Charles
Legal Contributor
Midwin Charles
Sunny Hostin
Legal Contributor
Sunny Hostin
Powered by WordPress.com VIP