Your Honor, plaintiffs' call Dr. Dutton. Dr. Donald Dutton.
DONALD DUTTON, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Goldman, was duly sworn and testified as follows:
You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Sir, if you would, please swing that microphone under your chin.
Thank you.
And would you please state and spell your name for the record.
Donald George Dutton. D-O-N-A-L-D, G-E-O-R-G-E, D-U-T-T-O-N.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:
I'm a research psychologist with a specialty in forensic psychology and specifically in spousal violence.
Dr. Dutton, have you ever testified or -- I'm sorry -- qualified in court before as an expert on family violence issues?
One's a continuation of a project that develops profiles of abuse perpetrators, looks at what their psychological profile looks like.
And the other is a study that we're currently doing on men who have been convicted of spousal homicide. These are men who are federally incarcerated.
We are attempting to ascertain if there's any sort of common pattern in the modus operandi of the killing, if there's any common factors that would characterize spousal killings, if there's any kind of psychological profile that relates to either the modus operandi or other characteristics of the killing.
Are you prepared in this case, Dr. Dutton, to render an opinion regarding factors that are characteristic of spousal homicide?
There is a substantial body. There's in the neighborhood of 40 separate research papers, and several books have been written on the topic.
Yes. As a matter of fact, I've got some of them here.
One of them is called Homicide_In_ Families by Ann Goetting, G-O-E-T-T-I-N-G.
One of them is called Femicide: Politics_of_Woman_Killing by Joe Radford and Diana Russell.
One of them is called When_Battered_Women Kill, by Angela Brown.
And there's a compendium of research here called Lethal_Silence_2000,_The_Source_Book_on_Fatal_
Domestic_Acquaintance_and_Stranger_Aggression, that is an edit book that has 40 plus chapters on various forms of violence, including chapters on spousal homicide and spousal violence.
There's at least three. One is called Violence_in_Victims; one is called Journal Family Violence, and one called the Journal of Western Violence. They are either exclusively or predominantly concerned with issues of family violence.
Yes. American_Journal_of_Orthopyschology , criminology journals, from time to time, will have articles on spousal homicide. The_New_England_Journal of_Medicine and the Journal_of_the_Medical_Association have recently published articles on spousal homicide.
Do many of those articles and journals and books discuss factors that have been found to -- in research to be present -- to be characteristics of spousal homicide?
Yes. There's an international family -- family violence research conference held annually at the University of New Hampshire that's been held since . In addition to that, there's -- the International Family Law Conference frequently has discussion of issues on family violence.
The American Society of Criminology presents research papers on family violence and spousal homicide.
And the American Psychological Association also does the same.
And there's a Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, which is called Psychology and Law, which is a especially interested in issues of spousal violence.
You said you formed an opinion regarding certain factors that are characteristic of spousal homicide?
Well, I examined the research literature that -- all of the empirical studies that had been developed, which really examined the circumstances surrounding the deaths of women, and in many cases compared that to nonintimate homicide cases, and tried to ascertain what factors characterized or stood out when one was examining intimate homicide or an "intimate femicide," as it's sometimes called.
Intimate homicide means any homicide that occurs in a relationship where there's been an emotional or sexual intimacy between the perpetrator and the victim.
And intimate femicide refers to the same thing, but where the victim of the homicide is a woman.
Are your familiar, Dr. Dutton, with the research methods used in literature that you reviewed, to render your opinion, to form an opinion?
Well, the actual process of looking at both archival -- using archival interview methods to study perpetrators has been in use since the '30s. The specific application to spousal homicide and issues having to do with intimate violence is new. We're -- because most of the research on intimate violence really began in 1970s.
Okay. Do the people who do the research, including yourself, in intimate homicide, use the same methods of research that have been used since the '30s?
And are those the research methods that you're familiar with?
Are those generally accepted in the field of research psychology?
They're generally accepted. They're published in the research journals. And in order to be published in a journal, it has to pass peer review. If it's not an acceptable method, it wouldn't get published.
Well, in terms of examining spousal homicide, what you usually do is, to start with a known group of offenders, and to obtain all the archival material that's available, which means all of the police records, coroners' records, any kind of medical or psychological or psychiatric records that would be in that man's file.
And wherever possible, to go back and talk to what is called a "proxy" for the victim. That is someone who knew the victim well and could speak to the circumstances that were occurring in the relationship between the offender and the victim prior to the victim's death.
And in the peer reviewed articles that you discussed in the journals, is the research methodology routinely laid out?
Yes; it has -- you have to describe your methodology in order for the article to be published.
And, Dr. Dutton, is it generally accepted in the field of family violence that there are certain factors that are indeed characteristic of spousal homicide, or intimate homicides, rather?
(BY MR. LEONARD) It sounds to me like you're testifying as an expert on homicide; is that right, or you plan to testify?
Well, I'm testifying on a form of family violence, which is an extension of other forms of family violence, but it's still an extreme form of family violence, called homicide.
Are you attempting to -- to tell this Court that you will be testifying at the trial as an expert on homicide?
(BY MR. LEONARD) Well, you testified at your deposition that you weren't an expert on homicide, you were an expert on spousal homicide. Do you remember that?
Okay. But what you're intending to do here is, you're intending to take the stand, and as I understand it, testify as to a pattern or profile of spousal homicide, correct?
If you do take the stand and I have the pleasure of cross-examining you, you'll agree that you're not an expert in anything but spousal homicide, right?
Well, I don't know what else I can say. I'm an expert in spousal violence, and that includes spousal homicide.
And I would just like to add one thing to that: In examining the characteristics of spousal homicides, one compares them to nonintimate homicides.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Well, that puzzles me. Because in your deposition, I tried to do that. Do you remember?
I asked you questions about -- you mentioned something about wound appearance or use of a knife or something. Do you remember that? Do you recall that?
Okay.
And I asked you, "Well, wait a minute. Aren't there -- isn't that kind of weapon used in other types of homicides?"
Do you remember that question?
And you said, "I can't answer that. I'm not an expert in anything but spousal homicide."
Do you remember that, sir?
How are you going to be of any help to this jury if you can't answer something as basic as that?
Excuse me.
Well, at this point, it would appear to me that, based upon the offer that the plaintiff has made, the Court has not the foggiest notion of what this witness's testimony is going to be and would tend to exclude.
KEY QUOTEI can have him, if you like, Your Honor. That's what I should do, probably, is have him testify about the factors that he identified as there -- that have been characteristics of spousal homicide.
The reason I mention that at this point is, Mr. Leonard has intimated, by his question to this witness, something about use of knife and appearance of injury. And I'm at a loss as to what the proffered testimony is going to be, re factors -- characteristics of spousal homicide.
Can you tell us, Dr. Dutton, what factors you have determined are characteristic of spousal homicide?
Well, if we EXAMINE the research literature, we find, for example, that one factor that's characteristic of spousal homicide is a previous violence of -- previous history of violence in the family between the eventual perpetrator and victim of the homicide.
In fact, it magnifies the risks by a factor of eight. That's one of the characteristics or one of the factors that I will be testifying, or I'll been describing.
Another factor is descriptions of jealousy that come out of the reports and in the literature reports that -- where the perpetrator's described as jealous to the point of obsessing over the eventual homicide victim.
Another factor is an estrangement, which is a major risk factor. Most women who are killed are killed, first of all, by a man that they knew in an intimate relationship during the first two months of estrangement.
That's pretty well established in at least five or six separate research articles, including one of the books that Lenore Walker has written, Terrifying_Love, where she talks about that being an especially dangerous and risky time.
That's right.
So, we'll be testifying about all of those particular issues.
And then, of course, there is an issue that I think Mr. Leonard was alluding to, the use of overkill, and whether or not the pattern of killing is one that -- well, it's described in the literature as being excessive, as more than is required to dispatch or kill a victim. So there's numerous stab wounds or numerous blows or numerous shots fired. So it's what's called a rage killing.
Okay. Have you found it -- has the literature found -- and has your research found that stalking is one of the characteristics?
Stalking and threats are two other -- two other aspects that have shown up and been described in most of the risk assessment lists that are checklists, that are made to determine lethality.
So stalking and threats would both be important. And stalking, of course, is important because it indicates a kind of obsession, where the perpetrators are unwilling or unable to let go of at relationship with a subsequent victim.
Is there a general acceptance in the family violence community that the notion -- that these factors are characteristics of spousal homicide?
Do you recall at page 117 of your deposition, answering the following questions?
Starting at 9: (Reading):
"Now, you talked about overkill, and by that you mean -- Describe that. What do you mean by that?"
Your answer: "Well, there's a number of Stab wounds; the judgment being it's more than sufficient to kill someone.
"Basically that's it."
Next question (reading):
"Now, each of these, what you've just described as factors in homicide, spousal homicide, obviously, they could be factors in other types of homicide.
"I mean, there are, for instance, serial murderers around that use a particular MO, where they will stab the victim multiple times.
"A. I'm not an expert on that."
(Reading:) "Q. You're not aware of any other types of -- are you aware, in general, of other types of homicides?
"A. I'm aware. I'm not an expert."
(Reading:)
"Q. I'm asking you -- obviously, there are other types of murders and other motives and other types of perpetrators where this MO could be seen at the victim's home, right? ... Overkill as you describe it, correct?"
(BY MR. LEONARD) At that point, Mr. Gelblum interjects and says, he's already said he's not an expert in other kinds of homicide. And you agreed with that. Do you remember that?
Okay. Now, my question is: If you're not an expert on other kinds of homicide, how can you make the comparison between spousal homicide, as you've described it, at least the profile of spousal homicide, and other types of homicide?
How can you do that and how can you testify to that in front of this jury?
First of all, you're talking about one of several factors you've outlined here, which is the modus operandi.
Secondly, in most of the research articles that I'm referring to, there are, in fact, specific comparisons made between spousal homicide and other forms of homicide.
I am able and willing to comment on the conclusions drawn by the people who did that research.
Now, you will -- you will acknowledge that what you're doing is, you're going to sit there and you're going to describe the typical pattern that you believe exists in spousal homicide, and just leave it at that; and that will be the end of your testimony, correct?
I wouldn't characterize it that way. I would say that I'm going to summarize the findings of a number of independent researchers, which shows several prevalent characteristics that are associated with spousal homicide.
Okay. And again, you're not able to make comparisons between other types of homicides because you're not an expert.
No, I didn't say that. I said that there are comparisons that are made in the literature by other people who do, in fact, compare spousal and other forms of homicide in that literature, and that I could make those differences, those comparisons explicit.
Are you familiar with an article -- I think you mentioned in your deposition, prediction of homicide of and by battered women, by Jacqueline Campbell.
It's one study of many. I don't think it's necessarily one of the better empirical studies.
It's something you relied on -- at least that's what you testified to in your deposition -- something you relied on in rendering your opinion?
And is it fair to say that in each and every one of those cases, you were called as an expert on the question of the mental state of a defendant who had already been identified; is that true, sir?
In other words, either for the defense that was asserting a battered-woman-syndrome defense, correct?
You've never -- you've never been permitted to testify, based on your pattern or your profile, as to the issue of whether or not a defendant did the crime, that is, the identity of the defendant; isn't that correct, sir?
Objection. No foundation as to permit it. Irrelevant whether he ever tried to do that.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Do you agree with this proposition:
It is not appropriate for formal prediction -- strike that.
That the notion of danger assessment or risk assessment, okay, is not appropriate for formal prediction as in court sentencing situations, in its current state of development.
Do you agree with that or not, sir?
I think that the whole issue of prediction is a red herring and is irrelevant. And what I -- what goes on in court has nothing to do with prediction, and an event has already happened.
What you're trying to do is match up the characteristics of that event with known characteristics of a similar event; you're not trying to predict something.
It's a little misleading because it talks about a profiler, describing a set of prevalent and frequently occurring characteristics that attend upon a particular kind of activity.
(BY MR. LEONARD) And you want to -- you want to present the profile to the jury, but you don't want to give an opinion as to whether or not the profile applies to this case; is that your intention?
(BY MR. LEONARD) You talked about a profile. Does the situation in this case fit the profile?
Doesn't look right. The printout doesn't look like -- right. It's not what I heard.
The question was, do the facts of this case, as you understand it, fit the profile that you have in your mind as to spousal homicide? That's the question.
Okay. Would you agree that one of the significant factors is the use of a weapon in a prior abusive incident?
Do you agree with that, sir?
I want to know if, when you sit in front of this jury and you describe what you think is a pattern, that it's fair; that it actually applies to this case. Because otherwise --
Objection. It's not a question. He's making a speech. It's argumentative. It's irrelevant to this hearing. There's very narrow issues in -- on this hearing. This isn't one of them.
Okay.
A number of witnesses that I read, reported Nicole Brown Simpson describing threats being made to her by O.J. Simpson.
Okay. So if Cora Fischman doesn't testify at this trial that there were threats made, what would you say about that, sir?
If none of the people who testified "there were threats made," testified at the trial, then, we couldn't apply it.
Okay. And it wouldn't be fair to sit in front of a jury and talk about factors or part of a pattern that aren't applicable to the case; do you agree with that?
(BY MR. LEONARD) How did you determine, sir, that you could even sit on the stand and talk about a pattern of spousal abuse if you're not applying it to the facts in the case?
Tell me how you did that.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, can you testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the factors that you've identified are applicable to this case?
I'm basing it on the domestic violence books from the criminal trial. I'm basing it on interviews that I made personally with Dennis Brown, Judith Brown, Bruce Jenner, Giaconda Redfern.
I'm basing it on testimony that was given at the criminal trial. I'm basing it on depositions that were given by O.J. Simpson, statements of him -- by him. And I'm basing it on that material.
And when you do that, sir, you're making an independent judgment as to the veracity of these statements or as to the fact that some of the statements aren't credible; isn't that right?
Objection, Your Honor. It's beyond the scope of what this witness is being offered for. He is only being offered to describe the factors that exist.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Again, you have never been permitted to testify in a court of law about factors relating to spousal homicide when the issue was the identity of the perpetrator of a murder; is that correct, sir?
Have you ever been asked to testify on that subject before in a court of law and been turned down?
Well, at this point, it would appear to me that, based upon the offer that the plaintiff has made, the Court has not the foggiest notion of what this witness's testimony is going to be and would tend to exclude.
History of family violence, jealousy, estrangement, stalking, threats, overkill.
Yes. [All of the significant factors apply to this case.]
I'm basing it on interviews that I made personally with Dennis Brown, Judith Brown, Bruce Jenner, Giaconda Redfern.
Most women who are killed are killed, first of all, by a man that they knew in an intimate relationship during the first two months of estrangement.