Rebuttal to lG report
INTRODUCTION
In early June of 1996,I receiveda documentpreparedby the Office of the InspectorGeneralof the
Departmentof Defense. This report was sentto severalUnited Statessenators,as well as various
departrnentswithin the defenseestablishment.A statementby Eleanor Hill, the Inspector General
of the DOD, was appendedto the report and servedas an ominous introduction. She stated,
"This is a final reply to your letter regardingour review into the deathof Colonel JamesSabow,
US Marine Corps."
This report must not be allowed to be a "final reply". If there exists any semblanceof truth and
justice in the Washington establishment,then the investigation of the murder of this devoted
American and careerMarine Corps officer must be removed from the control of the Defense
Departmentand be madethe absoluteresponsibilityof a specialSenateor House sub- committee.
The OIG report is blatanfly flawed, not simply becauseof inadvertent mistakes, but due to a
transparentattemptby the defenseestablishmentto cover-upthis premeditatedmurder. The
complicity of the IG in the cover-upof theseeventsleadsto speculationof their agenda.
In a face to face meetingwith SenatorTom Daschle,I offered to meet with JusticeDepartment
officials, including the FBI, and personallyanswerany questionsthat they or their expertswould
poseto me, regardingany and all of the evidencethat I possessedrelating to Colonel Sabow's
death. I had confidence in the scientific methods that I employed and I felt the samesurety in the
conclusionsof the expertsthat I consulted. Mine was a spirit of cooperationand I tried to dispel
any feeling of confrontation.
However, no matter how often I literally beggedfor such a meeting, I was rebuffed. As more
evidencewas gatheredand more witnessescameforward, it seemedas though there was even a
greatereffort to prevent such a meeting. But the facts remain the sameand no matter how they are
manipulated,the evidencewithstandsthe most rigorous scrutiny. Actually,I relish this dialectical
argument,for it stimulatesfurther analysisof the facts, which resultsin a greaterunderstandingof
the truth surrounding the events of Colonel Sabow's death.
Rebuttal to lG report
With the issuesthat I haverepeatedlyraised,why is it that the matterhasnot beenshiftedto the
Department
of JusticeandtheFBI? Tifle 18,UnitedStatesCode,Section1111,doespermitFBI
investigationof certainhomicideson a FederalGovernment
reservation.Yet, I havebeengiven
contradictoryinformationaswell asconfrastinginformationfrom the sameagenciesat differing
times. Mr. Collingwoodof the FBI hasvariouslyinformedme thatthe FBI hasnojurisdiction,
that they havereviewedthe evidenceandhavefound no evidenceof foul play andthat they can
only reviewa caseof this natureif theyhadbeeninvitedto by theNCIS. Representatives
of the
NCIS,theFBI andtheDepartrnent
of Defensehavegivenme somanydifferentexplanations
of
why theycan't reviewthe mannerof death,why theydo or do not havejurisdictionoverthe caseo
andevenwhethertheyhaveor havenot reviewedthecase,thattheycan'tkeepit straight,even
amongthemselves!However,ratherthanquestiontheir motivesat this time,my effortswill focus
on factswhich prove,beyondanyrationaldebate,thatColonelSabowwasmurderedandthathis
murderwasmaliciousandpremeditated.
***
Whensuperficiallyreviewed,the OIG reportseemsto standon its own merits,sincea hostof
"experts"arequotedwith statements
that seemto corroboratethe OIG findings of suicide.
However,given morecarefulanalysis,it will becomeapparentthattheindividualexperts
consistently
contradictthemselves
andeachother. In addition,it seemsthattheseexpertshave
beengivenerroneous
informationon whichto basetheiropinions,for themostbasicfactsof
physiology,forensicanalysisof gunshotwoundsandbloodstainevidence,andbasicx-ray
interpretationareviolated.
Indeed,I havetalkedwith manyof the expertswho havebeenquotedassupportingthe conclusion
of suicideandtheyhavevehemenflyprotestedasto beingmisquoted,or havingtheir statements
takenout of context. Somehaveevenbeenbadgeredby the DefenseDepartmentinto offering
alternativetheories,usuallyby beingaskedif therecouldbeanypossibilityof "suchandsuch"
happening.The alternativeexplanations
wouldbe offeredashighly unlikelypossibilities,but then
theywouldquotedby the DOD asbeingthe conclusions
of theseexperts.
Furthermore,the OIG report ignoresblatantly obvious evidencethat makessuicide impossible.
For instance,the palms of the victim's handswere coveredwith blood, yet there was no blood
on the shotgunsupposedlyheld by the victim in the act of shootinghimself. And not one of the
victim's fingerprints was presenton that weaponeven though he would have had to handlethe
Rebuttal to IG report
weaponwith bothhandsoverandoveragain,in the actof removingthe gunfrom its case,loading
it, andthengraspingit with onehandwhile dischargingit with the other.
It is apparent
thatthe OIG speaksex cathedra andwantsno dissentingresponse.Hence,the
"final reply" statement
of EleanorHill.
The OIG reportrequiredby law wasto be an objectiveanalysisof the availableevidenceandif
nocessary
therewasto be a searchfor newevidence.Yet, the investigators,
insteadof simply
gatheringevidenceandanalyzingit, contactedexpertssomeof whom I hadconsulted, andmade
openattemptsto havethemchangetheir opinions.rThis behaviortaintsthe IG reportandmakes
the entiredocument,"suspect"if not oufright,fraudulent!
Whatfollows is a carefulanalysisof the statements
of the OIG andits experts.Many of the
statements
ascribedto theseexpertsaresoludicrousthatI doubtthatthe statements
wereevermade
or thattheyweretakenout of contextand,hence,lack anyvalidity. In my analysisof the
evidence,on occasionI usedtextbooksthatwereauthoredby the OIG experts,but which statethe
exactoppositeof whatthesesameexpertswerepurportedto havestatedin theirassessment
of the
mannerof deathof ColonelSabow.
t(*t(
The HARD EVIDENCE
has beenpresentedin many documentsthat I provided to the
Departmentof Defense,the Secretaryof the Navy, the FBI, the OrangeCounty Coroner's Office,
the OrangeCounty District Attorney's office and to various membersof Congress.
What follows is a summary of this evidence,how the OIG deals with the facts, how they
contradictthemselves,how they simply ignore evidencethat is simply too difficult for them to
distort, and how the OIG dwells on material that has no bearingon the issueof mannerof death,
and done so, in an attempt to disfract the readerfrom the hard facts. Then I analyzethe evidence
with the strictestattentionto scientific methodsthat are possible.
John David Sabow. MD
lDr. Kent Remley,Univ.of Minn.,Dept.of Neuroradiology.
Dr. DavidRubinstein,
Univ.of Colorado,
Dept.of Neuroradiology.
Dr.JackFeldman,
UCLA,Chairman
Sciences.
, Dept.of physiological
Rebuttal to lG report
EVIDENCE
Blood in the Lungs
ArrfolsyRenort:"...therightlungweighs970grams.Thereis a largeamountof aspirated
blood in theright lung parenchyma.Sectionof the majorbronchiandtracheashowsmucosal
congestion.The lumen has a large amount of aspirated blood...".
OIG Renort'
(page9) Dr. Singhaniastated" it is difficult to differentiatehemorrhagefrom
aspirationwithin the lung"..." therecouldbe bloodgoinginto the respiratorypassages
through
gravity..."
(page10)" Namewithheld"2examinedthe autopsyreportandphotographs
and
alsothetissuesavedin this case,andstated,"I canidentifythereis thehigh partof the spinal
cord...Icanseesegments
of cervicalcordfrom the first cervicalvertebrae,
C-1 throughC-4,
higherthanthat,you will haverespiratoryfailureandvery rapiddeath.But if thatwasintact,asit
wasin this case,it is possibleanatomically-andit wasstill connected
to lowermedullawherethere
areevenhigherconcentration
of fibersinvolvedin respiration-thatbreathingwasstill possible."
"N'!V" funherstatestherewasa gapingdefectthroughthe oral cavity." Therewasa lot of blood.
Thesestructuresarevery vascular,"... " a lot of bloodwaspooledbackthere...the gravitational
effectsendsit down,theexplosiveforcesendsit down...fromthetremendous force of this
shotgun wound.n'
(page12)Thebaseof the skull wasdestroyedformingan opencavityto thethroat
thatwouldallow bloodandbrainmatterto flow directlyinto thelungs,especiallysinceit is not
knownhow long Col. Sabowmay haveremaineduprightin the chair." Further,...itwould have
takenonly onegaspof breathto fill the lungsasthey wereor that it may havealsobeenan
"electricaldischarge
in thebrain"causingan involuntarydrawingin of thebreath."andalso,
"blood poolsdownwardafterdeath..."
(page13)Dr.DiMaio states,"thatthequotes(in his books)weremerelygeneral
observationsthat have no bearing in this case." And later,"eventhoughCol. Sabowhada
severeiiury to thehead,oneor two gaspsof breathwouldproducethe sameeffect." And then,
"the heartcouldgo on beatingfor someminutesafterdeath,causingsomeleakageof bloodinto the
lungs."
(page15)Dr. Blackbuornestatedthatwhena personis shotthroughthebrain,he
z"Namewithheld" will be referred to as NW in the future.
4
Rebuttal to lG report
goeslimp. He opined that the amount of blood in the lungs was "fairly dramatic" and would
indicate that somebreathingeffort was present. He later states, "there was a small portion of
medulla and spinal cord noted in the foramen magnum,which indicatesthat there was enough
reflex breathing to aspiratethe blood. The fact that Col. Sabow may have been breathing after the
gunshotwound could not be ruled out." Then, "...the injury on the tonguewas major traumaand
had somethingto do with the shotgunwound..."
(pages15, 16 17)Dr. Feldman, "...has conductedresearchinvolving mammals,
not humans,and hasno formal medical training or medical degree." He was asked whether he
had consideredthe heart beating a minute or two following the wound." He statedthat he had, but
the autopsyreport statedthat the blood was aspirated. Even the OIG refers to footnote #10 "...the
lumen (tracheaand bronchi)hasa large amount of aspirated blood. .. "
Facts:
The lumensof the major breathingtubeswere filled with blood- The lung parenchymaitself was
filled with blood. Sincethere was no diseaseof the lungs or injury to the chest,the only possible
origin of the blood was a bloody sourcefrom above. The heart could have pumped and pumped
long after the shotgunblast, until there was no blood left in the body, but it could not have caused
the trachea,bronchi and lungs to be filled with blood, for the mouth and headof the victim were
much lower than the lungs and neck structures. In the position in which the body was found,
gravity would have drainedthe blood out the mouth and noseand onto the ground in front of the
victim's face. Sincethe only bloody wound was of the palate,the tongue and the nasopharynxand
sincethe victim was laying on his right side with his headtipped down and lower than his neck,
the victim could only fill his lungs with blood by active and vigorous breathing. However, after a
suddenand massivedestructionof the brainstem,especiallythe medulla and pons,the victim
cannotbreathe, not even a single breath. Furthermore,the blood found in the right lung alone
was between450 and 500 grams by weight and one unit by volume. This is a massiveamount of
aspiratedblood and would requirea prolongedbreathingeffort. The victim was filling the lungs
with a viscousfluid with a high specific gravity, not merely air. And the victim was breathingthis
into the lungs againstgravity. Furthermore,it must be obvious,that the victim could not have
remainedsitting upright in the patio chair after the shotgunblast for a 12 gaugeshotgunwithT tlT
shot,exerts amuzzle energy of I77I ft-lb. which would have propelledthe then flaccid body
backwards,in the direct line of the long axis of the barrel of the shotgun.The victim would have
beenblown backwardsand to the left and this would have occurredimmediatelv.
The crime scenephotographsclearly depict Col. Sabowlying on his right shoulderwith his head
hanging down to the ground. There can be no mistakeabout this configuration and site of the
Rebuttal to lG report
wound in relation to the rest of his body. In this position, the victim's mouth was the most
dependentor lowermost part of his body and in contactwith the ground. So gravity could not
accountfor any blood in his lungs or breathing passages.Conversely, gravity
would have
bathed his head in a large pool of blood flowing from his mouth, if the heart had
continued
beating effectively.
But after the suddendestructionof the brainstem,(not simply
a strokeor closedheadinjury that may injure a portion of brainstem),the heartdoes not
continue to beat in anything resembling a normal rhythm. There is an instantaneous
ventricular fibrillation, bradycardiaor cardiacarrest. Hence,there is little or no blood flow, for
there is a lack of effective pumping. The crime scenephotosclearly show that there was almost no
blood in front of the victim's face.3 The blood that was presentwas under the right ear.
The idea that one can breathe,even take a single gasp,after a shotgun,whose muzzleis virtually in
touch with the brainstem,and then discharged,is grossly in error. Dr.Blackbourneis quoted as
stating that there was enough medulla and spinal cord remaining in the foramen magnum, so that
reflex breathingcould not be ruled out. This is absurdand I doubt that he made such an effoneous
statement.Every medical studentknows that with a suddendisintegrationof the brainstem,there
is an instantaneousand total cessationof all activity below the level of transection. This means
voluntary activity, reflex activity, and autonomic activity. Not even one gasp could occur after
that gunshot wound.a
The spinal cord is the "final common pathway" for the breathingimpulsesthat originate in the brain
and brainstem. If the brainstemis destroyed,there are no impulses to travel through the spinal
cord to the musclesof respiration. There is no respiratorycenterin the spinal cord that could
accountfor, even, refexive breathing.Furthermore,with any suddenmassiveforce applied to the
brainstemor spinal cord, there is immediateand total cessationof all electricalactivity below the
level of that trauma. This includesall motor, sensoryand autonomicor vegetativeactivity.s With
a massiveexplosion of the brainstem,in which the brain tissueis vinually vaporizedor macerated,
their is instantaneousdeathwith no possibility of eventhe slightestbreathor gasp. Even if there is
a piece of medulla remaining below the level of the destroyedbrainstem, there still is total
neurologic silence. All electricalactivity below the level of the destructionis renderedimmediately
and totally silent. Hence,when such a destructiveevent occursto the brainstem,the victim is
killed instantaneouslvand all musclesare immediatelv renderedflaccid.
3Referto crime scenephotographs
4@Woodbury,Towe,W'B.Saunders,Co.1971,Chapter8,Transection
of the HumanSpinalCord,p. 2O7,
5@icine.Murray,JohnandNadel,Jay,W.B.SaundersCo.1994,p205?10.
Rebuttal to lG report
Furthermore,
underthesecircumstances,
unlessthe victim wasforcefullyheldin anupright
position,he wouldimmediatelycollapsein a flaccidheap.Furtherrnore,
if thekilling force
generated
a largekineticenergy,aswastruein this case,this energywouldbeappliedto thevictim
andpropelthevictim in a trajectorythatcanbecalculated
by thelawsof physics.
However,theirown NIS report,datedJan.30,1991,
listsanddescribes
thephotostakenat the
photois designated
autopsy.Thereferenced
as(AA) andis describedas:"SUPERIORVIEW OF
THE BASE OF THE SKULL SHOWINGMULTIPLE FRACTURESOF THE BASAL FLOOR
AND DISINTEGRATION OF THE SUPERIOR END OF THE SPINAL CORD (END
WHICH LEADS TO THE BRAINSTEM).(boldusedfor emphasis)Their very own reports
refute their own conclusions!
b r a in s t e m
spinalcord
Understandingthe terrnbrain dealh, will elucidatethe subjectfurther An individual is assumedto
bebrain dead whetthe subject'sbrainstsmis not functioning.6 This most frequently occurs
without massiveinjury to the brainstemitself, but ratherit is most often secondaryto a metabolic
disease,stroke,brain tumor or brain infection, such as meningitis or encephalitrs.Brain death,
where there is a suddenand massivedestructionof the brainstemdirectly, resultsnot only in a
suddenand completeloss of all brainstemfunctioning but it also causesa total collapseof the
systemiccirculation ( blood pressure).7This is due to the suddendestructionand withdrawal of all
central autonomic control. There may occur sporadic cardiac beatsor fibrillation but no effective
cardiacpumping takesplace. Furthermore,there is a suddenand completeloss of peripheral
vasculartone. The resultantsituation is as if, there were no remaining blood vesselsin the body.
Indeed,someof the excessweight of the lungs may have beenfrom edemafluid. But remember,
this fluid is not hemorrhagic (not blood) but a clear transudate(fluid).8 The incised lungs
revealeda hemorrhagic,frothy fluid. Funhefinore, if the blood in the lungs was somehemonhagic
fluid from heartfailure, shock lung or neurogenicpulmonary edema,both lungs would be equally
affected. The lungs like the kidneys are duplicatedorgansand are not in anatomicalcontactwith
6lbid., p.26.
Tsninal-f,.faUga
Errico,Bauer,Waugh,J.B.LippencottCo. 1991, p438,439.
8lbid. p. 439.
Rebuttal to lG report
eachotherexceptby theairways.
R
L
Hence,therecannotbe a transferof fluid from oneto the other,irrespectiveof the gravitational
forcesasa resultof the bodyposition. If thevictim wasfoundon his right side,therecouldbe
settlingof fluid in the dependantright sideof the right lung, but therewould alsobe an equivalent
settlingof bloodyfluid in the dependent
right sideof theleft lung. Hence,this would resultin an
essentially
equalincreasein the weightof eachlung. To clarify this further,if thelung fluid wasa
resultof the catastrophicheadwoundanda brain-lungreflex, therewould be an equalvolumeof
this fluid in eachof the lungs. True,it would settlein the dependant
areasof thelungs,whichin
this casewouldhavebeenthe right side,for thevictim wasfoundlying on his right side. But
nevertheless,
eachlung would havean equal volume of thisfluid - settlingin theright sideof the
right lung andin theright sideof theleft lung.
A somewhatsimilar situationexiststo furtherdispelthe "gravity" theoryofferedby the DOD. If
thebodysomehowwasproppedupright,long enoughfor bloodto haveleakeddowninto the
lungsby gravity,bothlungswould haveroughlyan equivalentquantityof this blood. However,
onceagain,this wasn'tthe case.The weightof the right lung was970 grams,asoppossed
to the
left whichwas44Ograms!
Undestanding
thetermbrain death,helpsclarify whatmusthaveoccurred-An individualis
declaredbrain deadwhenthe subject'sbrainstemceases
to function. Thosefunctionsthatare
controlledexclusivelyby thebrainstemand,whichwhenabsent,indicatelossof brainstem
activity,arethoseof respiration(breathing),eyemovementandpupillaryreactions,gagreflexand
skeletalmuscularactivity andtone,excepyfor spinalreflexiveactivity. In addition,thereare
profoundchangesin the cardiovascularsystemwhich may be complexandvariable. However,
sufficeit to say,that with brain deathwhich includesbrainstemdeath,thereis a lossof effective
function.
cardiovascular
In summary,at thepreciseinstantwhenthevictim wasshotandthe brainstemdestroyed,
he was
wasbrain dead. Therewasno breathingandno circulation.In truth,thebodywasbrain
Rebuttal to lG report
absent, for the shotgunblastwhichwasvirtually right up againstthe brainstem,disconnected
that
braintissuewhichremainedabovethebrainstemfrom theentirerestof thebodvbecause
theshot
literallyobliterated
theentirebrainstem.
Thenan expertstatescorrectlythat," thesestructures
arevery vascular.."He thenfollows that
"gravitationaleffectssendthe blooddown , the explosiveforcesendsit down...tremendous
force
of the gunshotwound. But apparentlythatexpertdoesnot know basicanatomy.Immediately
connected
to this bloodyareais theesophagus not thetrachea.Thelarynxwith its epiglottis
tendsto protectthetrachea,bronchiandlungswhile thereis a directconduitfrom this bloody
woundby way of the esophagus
into the stomach.Yet the autopsystates" the stomachhasa small
amountof pinkish-brown
gastriccontents.No blood whatsoever,
wasfoundin the stomach.
So
"gravityandtremendous
explosiveforces"apparentlydidn't haveanysignificance
in placingblood
in ColonelSabow'sstomach.Thenhow did they play anyrole in placingbloodin the lungs,a
muchmoresequestered
organ?
Blackbourne
statesthataftera shotlike thevictim received"he goeslimp." DMaio opinesthat
Sabowmay havetakena few breaths.Someotherexpertwonders,"how long Col. Sabowmay
haveremaineduprightin the chair." - It becomesquitedifficult to refutethis documentwheneven
the"experts"can't keeptheir storiesstraightor perhaps,theyneversaidanysuchthing or were
misquoted.
A 12-gauge
shotgunshellloadedwith No.7 1/2shotandtraveling at t220 fVsechasa total muzzle
energyof l77l ft-Ib., almostthat of a .30-30rifle.e Unlike rifle bullets,however,shotgunpellets
rarelyexit the body. Therefore,all the kinetic energyis fiansferredto the body aswound.ing
effects.l0This amountof energywouldtendto launchthe body , makingit impossiblefor the
victim to remainin the chairin anyposition.Furthermore,
thevictim wouldhavebeenlaunched
backwardsandto theleft, with the gungoingin the oppositedirection.Thepositionof thevictim
layingon his right sidewith the gununderhim is inconsistant
with theNIS theory,thatthevictim
wassiftingin a light tubularpatiochair,holdingthemuzzleof theshotgunin his mouthwith his
left hand,with the butt endof the gunon theground,lateralto his right foot andthendepressing
thetriggerwith his right indexfinger. Obviously,in thatscenario,the victim wouldhavebeen
knockedbackwardsandto theleft, certainlynot slumpedon his sideto theright andlayingon top
of the gun.rl
gDiMaio,Vincent,
CRCP re s s1, 9 8 5 ,p . 1 8 3 .
Strglg16
J4lquggl5,
tolbid.
p. 183.
1l Referto crimescenephotographs
9
Rebuttal to IG report
This certainlyis not a complexsubjectandis basicknowledgeto anypersonwith a medicaldegree
and,for thatmatter,for anyonewith commonsense.To denythesemostbasicfactsandpropose
alternativeexplanations
thatareso absurd,clearlyexposes
theintentof thoseindividualswho were
orderedby law to investigatethe deathsof a numberof military personell.
*****
Extent of Brain Destruction
OTGReport'
(page9) "Dr. Singhaniaadvisedusthatthebraincouldaccuratelybe describedasbeing'distorted'
ratherthan'pulpified'."
Eaf,ll
The autopsyon page4 states," ...thebraintissueis massivelylacerated...there
is complete
separationof both lobesof the cerebellum(sic). Thereis markedlacerationandfragmentationof
thecerebellar
tissue.No intact brainstem could be identified because of massive
laceration...( later)no intactcerebellar
corticaltissueis noted.No intact brainstem,including
midbrain,pons,or cerebralpeduncleis identified.Only a smallportionof themedullaandspinal
cordis notedin theforamenmagnum...there
is massivefractureof the base(skull)..."
Therecordspeaksfor itself! Therewasa bit morethan"distortion"of the brain. Sucha statement
is grosslymisleading.Any forensicpathologistknowsthatwith a contactor nearcontactwound
of thehead,thereis theproductionof overthreegallonsof hot explosivegases,in additionto the
pelletsandwadding,thatis forcedinto the skull cavity- This resultsin "cavitation"of thetissue.
And sincetherewasno exit woundat all, theentireenergyof the blastwasdissipated
within the
skull itself,resultingin thetotal destructionof thebrainstem,in additionto renderingany
remainingbrainsubstance,
functionless.
High velocity woundsof the headare especiallydestructivebecauseof formation of a
temporarycavity within the cranialcavity. The trrainis enclosedby the skull, a closed,
rigid structurethat can relieve pressureonly by "bursting."-p.45,
The severityof a woundis directly relatedto the amountof kinetic energylost in the
tissue,not the total energypossessed
by the bullet. If a bullet penetatesa body-i.e.does
not exit- all the kinetic energy will be utilized in wound formation.-p.45.
10
Rebuttal to lG report
The gas produced by combustion of the propellant can produce internal injuries as severe
as or more severe than injuries produced by the missile. Gas-produced injuries are most
severe in the head because of the closed and unyielding nature of the skull. In contact
wounds of the head from shotguns, large quaotities of gas entering the skull produce
massive blow-out fractures with extensive mutilating injuries. (in this casp the lack of a
blow-out fracturemakes the mutilation of the brain even worse). - p. I l0
Contact shotgun wounds of the head are among the most mutilating firearms' wounds there
are. p.183.
Most contact shotgun wounds of the head ...result in evisceration of the supratentorial
portion of the brain. This is true whether the entrance is in the temple or in the
mouth...the author has seen numerous cases in which no pellets exited. Almost
invariably, such wounds are inflicted in the mouth. Even though no pellets exited, there
are massive fractures of the skull and pulpification of the braia. - p. 185.
In contact wounds, where one is dealing with the effects of both the pellets and the gas,
there may be near disintegration of the organs. -p. 199
{gtpSbg1.$lgqd!.
Vincent J.M. Di DiMaio, MD , CRC Press, 1985)
OTGRenort'
page 13. " Dr. DMaio said that the quoteswere merely generalobservationsthat have no
bearing on the ruling as to the mannerof deathin this case."
Facf:
What I have quotedfrom DiMaio's text are anything but "generalobservations"but ratherrepresent
hard facts and not simply opinions. These samestatementsare present,as such,in any reputable
forensic text dealing with this subject. They must and they do apply in this case! Theseare not
opinions but representthe accumulative knowledge of hundreds of international forensic experts
that embody thosefacts upon which criminal investigators,worldwide, basetheir investigations.
Even more obviously, they representcommon sense.
Swelling of the Back of the Head
OTG ReFort'
(page 9) Dr. Singhania was asked to examine a photograph. She said, "...it's (the head) supported
by the head block...portions of the right side of the head were a bit
11
more
swollen than the left
Rebuttalto lG report
side." Sheattributedthis partiallyto how the bodywaspositionedon the headblock...shestated
theskull bonewasbrokenandcouldhavebeenpushingout or just giving theeffectthat sidewas
swollen. Shesaidthatshedid not seeanythingexternalto correspond
with anykind of impactto
thebackof thehead,asallegedby Dr. Sabow. (Page11)"What is very importantis the
negative,the absence
of anytrauma...There
wasno evidenceof traumaexternallyon thehead..."
weak,not ableto
and"...you'vegot to incapacitate
the victim...insucha way-i.e. semicomatose,
respond...Ihaveno evidencefor that.I haveno morphologicalevidence."(Page12) NW (name
withheld)discussed
the bulgingon the backof Col. Sabow'shead,"it wasclearlymadeby the
blast.","...theblastblewbrainandbits of boneto thatarea.
Eas,L
The photostaken both at the crime sceneand at the autopsy,very vividly, show massiveswelling
of the right occiput, a contusion aboutfive inches in diameterand about an inch in depth. This
just did not give an "effect" of swelling. It clearly was massiveswelling. Furthermore,autopsy
photos clearly show a massiveblood clot immediately underthe swollen areaof the headand
which turned out to be immediately over a massivelydepressed skull fracture. Furthermore,this
clot was documentedand describedin great detail in the NIS report that was dated,"Jan.30,1991".
The NIS report of the autopsy photos statethat there is "a massive hemorrhagebetween the scalp
and the skull" in the right occipital areawhich is the areaof the swelling and is over the depressed
skull fracture. The x-rays show the depressionof the bone, not the bone protruding outward, as
suggestedas a possibility by Dr. Singhaniaand NW(name with held). Remember,NW statesthat
the bulging was "clearly" from the blast. Furthermore,not one bone spicule nor any shotgun
pellets were presentin the swollen areaas proved by viewing the skull x-ray. The depressedskull
fragment was immediately under this massiveswelling which was devoid of any thing but blood
clot.
SpecialAgent Cheryl Baldwin, the chief NIS caseofficer in this investigation,statedthat at the
crime scene,sheobservedswelling at the back of Col. Sabow'shead. Capt. J. G. Bowe when
conductingthe secondJagmaninvestigation,askedBaldwin, "...could it appearas if someone
had...thatthe body had been struck on the head,and it was swelling?" She answered,"That's
correct.It would have appearedthat way to someonenot at the autopsy."l2 So, Baldwin is quoted
as observingthe swelling of the headat the sceneof the crime, long beforethe victim was moved
to the coroner's office and long before the headwas placedon "blocks." Furthermore,she
wasn't at the autopsy!
l2lnterview by Capt. J.G. Bowe,USMCof specialAgent CherylBaldwin,NlS,DEC.11,1991
12
Rebuttal to lG report
At 10 AM, on the morning of the deathof Col. Sabowandjust thirty minutes after shefound her
deadhusband,Sally, the widow of the victim, was interviewed by the NIS.13 She statedthat as
sheknelt next to the deadbody, shefelt and saw a large swollen areaat the back of her husband's
head.
In the official crime scenereport of the NIS is the following statementdescribing the Colonel as he
lay deadon the grass- 'oThe posterior surfacesof the headand neck appearedto be swollen." 14
At the top of that page is a citation of the name of the victim and the time and date of the NIS crime
ls
sceneinvestigation.
TITLE: V/Sabow,JamesEmeryColonelUSMC (deceased)
CCN: 22 Jan9t-l lET16-0021-7HMA
This is six hours before the victim was moved to the coroner's office!
So it's clear that Cheryl Baldwin, Sally Sabow and the investigatorsfor the NIS, saw the swelling
at the back of the head long before the body was ever moved from its position on the grassand
long beforethe headwas handledor the headplacedon "chocks".
In the swelling,therewas a hugeblood clot, seenso vividly when the scalpwas incised. This is
exactly what is describedby the DiMaio brothersin their text on forensic pathology. The
DiMaios also point out, that there frequently is no "abrasion" present even though
there is massive blunt force trauma. Subsequently, they warn that wounds due to
blunt trauma to the head are "frequently
sw ellin g ".
not visible externally unless there is
'.A contusionis an areaof hemorrhageinto soft tissuedue to rupture of blood vesselscausedby
blunt trauma...A contusionmay be differentiatedfrom an areaof livor mortis (discolorationof
dependentareaon a corpse).In a contusion,blood has escapedinto the soft tissuesand cannot be
wiped or squeezedoutnas in an areaof livor mortis."lT "Deep bruises(contusions)may not be
13USNavallnvestigativeService,lnvestigativeAction: Examination
of victim at crime scene and at
coroner's facility,
14USNaval lnvestigativeService,lnvestigativeAction: Examinationof victim at crime scene and
at
coroner's facility,
15USNaval lnvestigativeService,InvestigativeAction: Examinationof victim
at crime scene and at
coroner's facility,
l6uPT" refers to estimatedtime
17EArcl$g..ealtrglg$a,
DiMaio,D., DiMaio,V., CRCPress,1993, P.93-98.
13
Rebuttal to lG report
visibleexternallyandmaybe discovered
only on incisingthe softtissue." "Scalp bruises are
frequently not visible externally unless there is swelling", statetheforensicexperts,
theDiMaio brothers.lsThentheycontinue,in their chapteron contusions,"Contusions,asdo
of a
indicatethatblunt force hasbeenappliedto a particulararea,"and"absence
abrasions,
of an abrasion,however,doesnot indicatethattherewasno blunt forceto
bruise,just asabsence
thatarea."Theypointout thatusually,"the greatertheforce,the greateris thecontusion."
The evidencein thedeathinvestigationof ColonelSabow,coincideswith everythingstatedby the
DMaios in theirtext. Yet, Dr. VincentDiMaio is quotedby theOIG asstatingtheexactopposite,
in all his opinionsaboutColonelSabow'sdeath.The questionmustbe askedasto "why" the
DiMaioswouldpublisha text on forensicpathology,thenviolate,literally,all the principleson
whichtheirtext is based.Certainlyit follows,thatit is possiblethattheseexpertsnevermadesuch
statements
to the OIG or that their opinionsweresotakenout of contextthat theyhaveno
relevance.
blastblew bits of boneto that
Oneexpertsaidthattheswelling"wasclearlymadeby theblast...the
area."However,the X-raysshowconclusivelythatnot onesplinterof boneandnot oneshotgun
pelletwaspresentin the swollenarea.In fact,just the oppositeoccurred.Underthe swellingis a
largebloodclot, underwhichis a largefragmentof bonedisplacedinwardly,with thefragmentof
bonelying well insidewhatthenormalcontourof the skull shouldbe. This fragmentis directly
oppositeto thedirectionof the shotgunblast,makingit impossibleto havebeencausedby the
blast. Expertsat the University of Minnesotafrom both the deparfinentsof Neurosurgeryand
Neuroradiology
statethefollowing:
1. The right occipital skull fracture was related to blunt force inflicted locally to the right
posterior skull base-occipital region
2. (not applicable here)
3 . The fracture could not have occurred as a direct result of the gunshot wormd.
4 . The degreeof soft ti ssue swelling . . . the blunt force to the head occurredprior to death. (ed.
also the absenceof pellets in this swollen area)
5. The fracturecould not have occurredas a result ...of fallins etc.1e
One of the most damagingdocumentsconfronting the "official version" of whetherthere was
186i4e. se
lgRemley,Kent 8., MD, Report of interpretation of X-ray of Col. Sabow,April 2, 1996. Also includes
opinionsfrom colleaguesattending a combinedconference(neurosurgeryand neuroradiologyon
3/27 /96.
14
Rebuttal to IG report
traumato the backof ColonelSabow'sheadwasfrom anofficial interviewconductedby theNIS.
Oneof thefirst individualson the sceneafterthevictim wasfound,wasa MarineEMT. This EMT
told somebodythatColonelSabowhada large bulge behindhis right ear. Thatpersonmadeit
clearto the NIS that because
of this bulge.--"someone
couldhavedisabledCol. Sabowfrom
behind(with a blow to the head)prior to the weaponbeingplacedinto Col. Sabow'smouth,to
makehis deathappeara suicide."20
* * t(* x
Bloodstain Evidence
QICr;.(page11) '"The gunshotresidueon the left hand...this is supportive of selfinfliction." "...unlessthey planted his hand there and shot at the sametime...plus (there was)
appropriatespatteron the adjacentsurfaces,is supportiveof self-infliction". (page 13) DiMaio
statedthat after seeingthe depositson the hand of the victim in a photograph that this indicated that
the left hand "was in close proximity to the muzzleat the time of discharge". He then added,"this
was consistentwith Col. Sabow's left hand graspingthe muzzle at the time of discharge." "...No
one could have stagedthis event as a suicide". Then Dr. DiMaio was askedto explain how it could
be that Col. Sabow had blood on the palm of his left hand,left forearm and also on the right hand
and forearm without any on his torso or any on his legs. He statedthat "there was no defect in the
headand the blood had to exit someplacebecauseof the pressure,so that the only place to exit was
the mouth and nose." He continued,"If Col. Sabow was leaning into the shotgun,with his left
hand supportingthe m'zr.le and the right usedto dischargethe weapon,the blood would most
likely ar!.over the gun ratherthan go straight down. " Then the OIG stated,"the lack of blood on
the front of the clothing did not botherhim with a relatively intact headsuchas in this case."
(pages13 & 1,4)DIvIaio said that Sabow could not have beenknocked
unconsciousand then shot while he was on the ground for "the material coming out of the nose
and mouth in an arc would have landed on the body. He added , "in fact, theseobservationsmore
or less prove that Col. Sabow could not have beenon his back when he was shot. becausethe
body was free of blood splatter."
20usrutsInvestigative
Report,Jan.30,1991 TIrLE: v/ sabow,JamesEmery/col. usMc
15
Rebuttal to lG report
Facts'
First of all, Dr. DMaio apparentlydid not look at the crimescenephotos,
whichshowCol. Sabow
layingon his sidewith his handsin front of his face. He wasnot
lying on his back.
If he shot himself while sitting in the chair, his entire
body would be exposedbetweenhis arms,
and his mouth would be directly over his chest,torso, thighs
and legs. The gush of blood would
have to soak all of thesebody partsif he was shot in the
sitting position. And how doeshe
account for the fact that both forearms and the palms of
both hands are bloody without the
intervening body being bloody? Even more amazingis
the lack of an explanation as to how their
was no blood on the shotgunthat was, supposedly,
herd by thesebloody hands.
"Blood is one of the most significant and frequently
encounteredfypes of physical evidence
associatedwith the forensic evidenceof deathand violent
crime," saysSfuartH. James. He adds,
"the circumstancesand natureof violent crimes
frequently producea variety of bloodstainsthat,
when carefully studiedand evaluated...mayproduceinformation
of considerablevalue to assistthe
investigatorwith the reconstructionof the scene." "The
proper interpretationof bloodstain
evidencehas proved crucial in numerouscaseswhere
the mannerof deathis questionedand the
issueof homicide, suicide,accident,or natural death
must be resolvedin a criminal or civil
liti gation or proceeding.,'21
The photographstaken by the NIS at the crime scene
and those taken at the morgue provide
invaluableevidencethat has beentotally disregarded
or purposelyignored. ..No other type of
investigationof blood will yield so much useful information
as an analysisof the blood distribution
patterns'" The failure to considerbloodstain
evidencewhen it is presentrepresentsa serious
omission in an investigation.22
There is one photo that if properly evaluatedliterally
tells the whole truth! It showsthe victim
laying on his right side with his headhanging down
on the ground next to his shoulder. His arms
are bent at the elbows and his handsare a few inches
in front of his face and mouth. spattered
blood is seenon the front of his left forearm and
the palm of his left hand. Lesserblood splatteris
seenon his right hand and forearm. The left arm is
crossedslighfly over the right arm with the left
palm directly in front of his mouth. There is no
blood seenon the victim,s chest,legs or feet.
2l
Eckert,WilliamG. and James,Stuart H,
CRUCE
Press,I 993, page 1 1.
zzlbid.page
12,13.
16
RebuttaL
to IG report
There is blood presenton and aroundthe right shoulder. There is a feint trail of blood on the
ground betweenthe victim's mouth and left hand. A tubular patio chair is tipped over the buttocks
of the victim.
There is only one logical interpretationof this photo. The victim was shot while he lay in the exact
position depictedin this photo. The blood shot out of his mouth and splatteredhis left palm and
forearm. Note: There is no blood on the back of the victim's left forearm or hand. One photo
taken at the crime scenewhile personnelare elevatingthe left arm, showsa relatively straight
margin of blood spatteron the ulnar side of the left forearm.This is a classicexampleof blood
spattermaking contact with the ulnar aspectof the arm as it rested on a flat surface,in this casethe
ground.On the radial side of the forearm, clearly visible blood tracks are present The crossed
forearmsblocked further splatterof blowback blood from staining any areasbelow the forearms.
The ulnar side of the right hand was coveredwith blood becausehe was laying on his right side
with the little finger side of the right hand closestto the mouth while the thumb side was shielded
by the ground. Note: Blood would cover the thumb and index finger on the right hand and the
back of the left hand and forearm if the victim shot himself in the mouth while sitting in the chair.
In addition , there would have beena greatamount of blood splatteroccurring over his stomach
area,thighs and feet, no matter how "it arcedover the gun barrel." And if blood arcedover the
barrel, how did it get on the left hand which supposedlywas holding the banel in the mouth? And
sincethe photosclearly show the palm of the left hand coveredwith blood but having no blood on
the back of the left hand,was he holding the banel with the back of his hand in a reversedgrip?
And where did this magic arcing blood land? It didn't land on the gun, nor his clothes,and the
photos show no blood on the grassby his waist. And try to explain the blood patternson the left
forearm, without having the left arm lying on a flat surface,while the victim's mouth, which had to
be the sourceof the blood, was positioneda short distancefrom the ventral aspectof the forearm
and in a straightline with the arm and aiming straightat it. The arcing blood theory hardly
deservescomment,exceptto exposeits absurdity.
How could there be gunpowderresidueon the back of the left hand? The questionshould be,
"How could there be gunpowderresidueon the back of the left hand if there was no blood on the
back of the hand?" DiMaio allegedly saysthat this residuehad to be a result of the victim holding
the muzzle in his mouth with his left hand. ff this were so. and the blowback residuestainedthe
hand,how could the hand have escapedthe blood that would havejust as violently shot back out
with thesegases?The 12 gaugedouble baneled shotgunmore than filled the victim's mouth. In
fact the gun was fired with the muzzle pressedagainstthe soft palate in the extreme rear of the
mouth- " a contactwound", so statesthe autopsyreport. Obviously, with this gun in this location
17
Rebuttal to lG report
there was no possibleway that a personcould fire this weaponsitting in a chair and not cover his
hands,torso, legs and the banel of the gun with blood. In fact, it would have beennearly
impossiblefor the victim lying in the position in which he was shot, not to have residueon the left
hand. Futherrnore, the paucity of blood indicatesthat the victim was deador near deadwhen he
was shot.
Indeed,the victim had to have beennear deathor alreadydeadwhen the shot was fired. The small
volume of blood presentat the crime sceneand on the victim, attestto this. With the victim's
handsin front of his face, as is representedin the crime scenephotos, the gunshotresiduecould
stain the back of his hand. However, there is anotherexplanation! The MS recordedvirtually the
entire "investigation" at the crime sceneon a VCR. This recordingclearly documentsthe NIS
forensic specialist,Burt Nakasone,with his gloved handsopening the breechof the weapon,
removing the spentand unspent12 gaugeshotguncartridges,then without changinghis gloves,
immediately graspingthe victim's left hand with the samehand he usedto removethe shellsfrom
the shotgun. This video recordinghas a time marker on the tape which eliminatesany possible
explanation(such as that the recording was intemrpted while Nakasonewas changinghis gloves)
that could be offered as an excusefor the conduct of this agent.
,<rr*
Fingerprint Evidence or Lack Thereof
Curiously, there is little said in this OIG report about the fingelprint issue. There was a glaring
lack of the victim's fingerprints on the weapon. The official explanationin the Jagmanreport was
that the heat generatedby the single shot bumed the prints away or that becauseCol. Sabow had
"shavedand showered"using soapor detergent,there were no body oils on his handsto make any
prints. Capt. JosephBowe, statedthat he interviewed a fingelprint expert,Deputy Fred Freiberg
of the San Diego Sheriffs Departmentwho, allegedly, madethesestatements.a When Gene
Wheaton askedFreibergif he said thesethings, Freibergdenied it and becameangry that he was so
flagrantly misquoted.
Dr. Martin Fackler, a wound ballistic expert, stated,"the theory for the lack of fingerprints being,
that the barrel of the weapon gets so hot that any fingerprints on it would be burnedoff--is simply
Z3Resultsof lnterview, Deputy Fred Freiberg,
Date prepared:l2 Dec. 1991
18
Rebuttalto IG report
absurd...thebarrels are not even hot to the touch."24
Furthermore,Col. Sabow showeredimmediately after awakening at5:45 A.M., following which
he fed the dogs, made coffee and drank two cups, retrievedthe newspaperand then read a portion
of the paper. He watchedtelevision from his leathereasychair, and engagedin at leastfive
separatephone conversations.All of this activity occurredafter his shower,making the theory of
pristine handsaccountingfor the absenceof fingerprints, not only invalid, but ridiculous. The
"experts" also statethat Col. Sabow was so desperateand so distraughton the morning of his
deaththat in his despairhe shot himself. It is common knowledge,that in such an emotional state,
one has a markedincreaseof bodily secretionswhich would increasethe likelihood of there being
fingerprints all over the shotgun. After all, the victim had to load the gun, after openingthe
chamber,then closeit. Even before that, he had to removeit from the gun case. Then he would
have had to carry the gun from a back room through the house,opening and closing severaldoors
on the way. Then after securingthe dogs in the garage,he would have had to have walked to the
patio, lift the patio chair with one hand , still gripping the gun with the other, after which he would
have steadiedthe gun in his mouth, graspingit with his left hand and then dischargedthe gun after
reachingdown with his right hand.
And why wouldn't there be fingerprints all over the gunstock? Certainly, the heat of the shot
wouldn't have melted them away. He certainly would have handledthe stock if he removedthe
weaponfrom its case,carried it through the house,openedand closed severaldoors,loaded the
weapon,moved a chair to the lawn and then positionedhimself to eventually shoothimself.
If this were the case,Colonel Sabow's prints would have,literally, coveredthe weapon! And his
blood-coveredhandswould have left blood smearsall over the banel!
x*t<**
Noise From the Gunshot
Again, the OIG doesn't deal with this, even though the Jagmaninvestigationdid. In that
document, the theory was that there was so much air traffic that it muffled noise from the shotgun
Z4statement of Dr. Martin Fackler,M. D., FACS, Pres.,InternationalWound
BallisticsAssociation,
June 16,1994.
19
Rebuttal to lG report
blast. I pointedout thattherecordsfrom theair traffic controltowerdocumentthatit wasjust the
oppositecase.Therewereno planedepartures
between8:32and9:03thatmorning. Sinceit has
beendocumentedandconcededthat the deathoccurredduringthat time frame,their explanationfor
thenextdoorneighbornot hearingthe blastis absurd.Landingstakeplaceon a distantairstripfor
purposes.Only departures
noiseabatement
occuron the"east"runway, which could
theoretically,muffle the shot.
***
Depfessed Skrrll Fractrrre
qe
(page 18) We interviewed Dr. Remley, a neuroradiologistat the University of Minnesota. DrRemley said, " I was under the assumptionthat Dr. Sabowhad provided all the information
availablein the case." Then the DOD sentbetween75 and 80 photographs,the autopsyreport and
a video of the crime sceneto Dr. Remley. They, then, quote Dr. Remley as statingthat, "I believe
that it is possible that the depressedskull fracture may be the result of the shot in conjunction
with a fall..."
(page 19) The OIG also interviewed Dr. Rubinstein,a neuroradiologistat the University of
Colorado, and they quote him as follows, "Dr. Sabow may have taken my conclusionsout of
context." He is quotedas saying that he couldn't be surewhetherthe depressedskull fracture
occurred before the shotgun blast or after. The OIG report statesthat the AFIP (Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology)concludedthat the depressedskull fracture was typical of what would be
expectedafter the skull was so massivelyfractured and then put on an autopsytable or otherwise
handled.
Fact:
Dr. Remley, of the University of Minnesota,Departmentof Radiology, reviewedthe skull x-ray
and the autopsy photograph with the entire neuroradiology departmentand three senior
neurosnrgeonsat a "combined conference".In his letter dated Apil2,l996,the
consensus
opinion was that the victim received external blunt force trauma to the back of the skull prior to his
being shot in the mouth with a shotgun. The conclusionsdictatedin that report were not just those
of Dr. Remley, but were the "unanimous" conclusionsarrived after careful study by six University
of Minnesotaneurosciencespecialists.2sDr- Remley told me that he was urged to reconsiderhis
opinion and after much pressure"allowed that there was a remotepossibility that the depressed
Zsuniv.of Minn.,Depart.of Neuroradiology,
letter by Kent Remley,M. D., Apr. 2, 1996
20
Rebuttal to lG report
fracture could have resultedfrom a causepostulatedby the DOD but that he still made it clear to
them thatthis possibility still remainedvery remoteand that his written opinion was the most
probable scenario.
He was sent other material for review. This included two other x-rays which did not clearly show
the depressedfracture becauseof the particular positioning of the skull, sevenfyto eighfy
photographstaken at the crime scene,corps and also a video of the crime scene. Thesematerials
except for perhapsthe two other x-rays, had no applicability to the matter at hand. Dr. Remley is a
neuroradiologistand not a forensic scientist. His areaof expertisehas nothing to do with video
shotsof the colonel's house,the backyard,etc. Furthernore, the opinions statedin the letter he
signedwas a consensusopinion and not the opinion of one person. If the OIG was conducting
their investigationobjectively and honestly,then they would have requesteda review of the caseby
all thoseexpertswho were involved in renderingtheir opinion. When Dr. Remley indicatedthat he
was reluctantto changeany of the conclusionsor review the other material,Nancy Sundervan,the
DCIS agentinvolved, statedto Remley that if he didn't comply, shewould lose her job. It was
even suggestedthat he fly to WashingtonDC to hearthe government'sside of the story.
Dr. Rubinsteinfrom the University of Colorado,statedvery clearly that "it is highly unlikely that
the shotgunblast causedthe depressedskull fracture." He demurredan opinion as to the exact
timing of this fracture which fracture, he states,"is typical of blunt force trauma."
When one examinesthe skull x-ray in conjunction with the autopsyphotos of the occipital swelling
and reflectedscalp,you realizethat positioning of the skull for the autopsyor any other handling
could not possibly have causedthe depression. The x-rays show no bone fragments or
splinters and no pellets in the areaof the swelling. There isohowever, a large blood clot
under the scalp and directly over the fracture. The clot being totally devoid of bone splinters and
shotgunpelletscould not have beena direct result of the shotgunblast. Yet, it clearly had to have
beena factor in the causeof the skull depression. So if the swelling of the scalp was presentand
the blood clot was presentunder that swelling, and the depressedskull fracture was under the clot,
the clot would have actually protectedthat areaof skull that was shown to be severelydepressed.
So no matter how carelessthe handling or positioning of the headafter death,the depressionof
that fracture could not have beena result of that handling. Rather,sincethe swelling and the blood
clot had to have beenpresentprior to the handling, the areaimmediately under that areawas
protectedfrom further damageor depression.
Again there can be only one conclusionand that is the one offered by thoseneurosurgicaland
21
Rebuttal to lG rePort
at theUniversityof Minnesota.Therewasa bluntforcetraumato the
specialists
neuroradiological
skull fracture,with thatforceappliedto the skull before
skull whichcauseda massivedepressed
he wasshot. No amountof handlingor evenfalling afterthe shot,could accountfor the location
or the severityof thefractureor the swellingof the occiput
F****
Srrmmaryof Hard Fvidence
o
blood in the lungs and breathingpassages
.
extent of brain damageand brainstem destruction
o
swelling of scalpwith underlying blood clot
o
depressedskull fracture under the swelling
o
lack of victim's fingerprints on the weapon
o
bloodstain evidence
r
position of the body on his right side and on top of the shotgun
o
noiseofthe shotgunblast
Other statements by the IG which are totally false or misleading:
. GeneWheatonwas not employedby me. He and I collaboratedon certain issuesbut at no time
did he receivea salaryfrom me . I paid expenseson occasionfor specific trips and provided
transportation.
o
I have been very careful not to get involved with the issue of "extensive covert activity" for it
tendsto disfractfrom the one issuein which I am involved -the murder of my brother
o
The statementsof Mrs. Sally Sabowwere either taken out of context or fabricated. The IG
report on page4, states,"especially poignant were the resultsof two interviews of Mrs.
Sabow..." The first interview was less than thirty
minutes after shediscoveredthe
brutalized body of her husbandand the second,only a few days later. Indeed,it was even
more incomprehensiblefor her to considerthat thosein the Marine Corps could have killed her
husbandthan for him to have killed himself. Since security on the baseat El Toro was even
tighter than usual during the Gulf War, if he didn't kill himself then it had to be madeto look as
if he did and this meantthat he was killed by his "own". That was harderto acceptthan
suicide! But why doesthe OIG think that theseinterviews are so important? Theseinterviews
don't representhard evidence- They cannot alter, in the slightestway, the depressedskull
22
Rebuttalto IG report
fracture, the lungs filled with blood, the lack of fingerprints, the bloody palms with no blood
on the gun, the blood spatterevidenceor any other physical evidence.To purposelydiscredit
thoseinterviews as being "especiallypoignant" is nothing other than a transparenttrick to
distractthe readerfrom the truly important data,the physical evidence.
o
Col. Underwood was interviewed for the very first time by the OIG,when this report was
being prepared.26The IG team askedUnderwood "if he had murderedCol. Sabow" and he
deniedthat he had anything to do with Col. Sabow's death. Did they expectanything
different? But why didn't they investigatewhy he had not heardthe gunshotwhen they now
know that there was no air traffic like it was originally alleged? Or how Underwood
immediately ran to the back gatewhen Sally screamedthat Jimmy shot himself, yet shedidn't
say where he was laying? After all, only minutes earlier, Underwood told Lt. Col. Gary Albin
that Col. Sabow was not at home. Or if he knew that Col. Sabow was away with his wife and
told this to Albin, why did he then tell the NIS that he had a cup of coffee in his hand and was
going over to seeCol. Sabow?Or why Underwood statedto the NIS that he never saw the
shotgunbefore, and denied knowledge of Col. Sabow even owning a shotgun,when it was he
who helped Col. Sabowcarry the gunsfrom the garageto the houseseveralmonths earlier?
Or how he knew his "friend" was deadeven though he only looked at the body from afar? Or
why he told me that his wife was having seizuresall that morning and couldn't have hearda
thing , and yet he told the NIS that he was watching television with his wife when Sally burst
into their house?
.
Why were the shotguncaseand the ammunition box put neatly away, when this "desperate"
man was about to shoot himself?
.
Why was there no suicide note?
Why wasn't Col. Underwood's houseand yard inspectedat the deathscene?After all, this was
supposedlya crime scenenot a suicide scene. Yet the NIS official report statesthat Underwood's
yard was examinedonly from the gatebetweenthe yards and they never even enteredhis home.
*****
Whathasjust beenpresented
is not opinionnor is this mattersimplya dffirence of opinion.
Seldomhasa caseof pre-meditated
murderbeensothoroughlyproved.All thatremainsis for
thosewho by oathhaveswornto upholdandprotectthe mostbasictenetsof our constitution,to
do so. And do so-withdesciveness,
passionandmostlycourage.
zoOfGReport,page 28
23
Response Provided By:
Sara Sabow
7250 North Catalina Ridge Drive
T u c s o n , A ri zo n a 8 5 7 1 8
( 5 2 0 ) s 7 7 -8 s8 8
Subj ect:
Response to final
report of the Office
of the fnspector
General,
Department of Defense re: death of Col Janes Sabow on Jan 22, 1991
Throughout the OIG final
stateroents
were taken conpletely
misrepresents
interview.
and give
my thoughts
r would like
you the true
Page four
of
the
paranoid.r
ny
to
nisquoted
and my
out of context.
The final
report
feerings
focus
intent
orc
I was repeatedly
and
finar
at
the
tine
on some particular
of ny alleged
report
rrin terror,
husband as being
in
report,
statenents.
arleges
that
tt rrpanic strickentr
conversations
individual
career,
did
not
however,
reflect
in the frame of nind
have optinistically
discussed
our
r
described
constant
the report
future
plans
my
and ttmore and more
a man contemplating
that
the
inaccuracies
There was a degree of concern over the turn
husband's
of
of events
and
indepth
suicide.
An
suggests would not
with
me if
he was
a
contenflating
Page five
dld
of the orG final
not believe
that
stated
write
suicide.
needed to
that
'a note.
that
report
I would ever
be said
paraphrased
find
me as saying
that
i
a note because everything
between us had been said.
I did not believe
that
he was in the
Also,
it
is
frame of nind to
Uy intent
in this
statement
open connunication
color
ever-present
my husband as being
we nust
keep
approxinately
corps'
in
mind
his life
of
throughout
in any sort
that
one week after
expranation
reason for
was to describe
at
cause of
abnormal
time
rny husband's
death
that
concern vith
the
However,
Marine
despite
the
remained optimistic
be acquitted
hin
of
the
following
was np
of
after
were
governmentts
death.
I
were flawed
attenpt
to
OIG
of rnind.
interrriew,
There
was no
my husband had devoted
is to describe
final
for
me to
ny husbandrs
to
now believe
that
and self
senring
r attended
his
so strongly.
t1y husband
and that
he would
concerned
when I
church.
report
atternpts
death.
As I mentioned previously,
question
the
to
Marine
interpret
Corps or
my
its
death.
for
light,
investigation
in
arregationsr
would prevail
while
I was questioned
paint
it
I was not at all
ny husbandrs
brought
and
the truth
norning
reason
interpr6tation
facts
accusations
that
at hone that
feelings
Shortly
not to
I took the Marine
corps which we believed
of any wrongdoing.
eight
there
and
t o.
to ny husbandrs frame of nind,
Page
this
death,
when r refer
left
of
frane
as gospel.
me to doubt the organization
honest
our relationship,
of
the
the clear,
this
and
r
report,
began
and conclusion
the
(i.e.
numerous glaring
to
regarding
investigation
being
the
ny husbandts
and its
The investigators
ny husband as an individual
question
conclusion
conveniently
in
a state
of
mind coneietent
physical
that
evidence
ny
Previously,
with
conmitting
hls
was brought
husband
rras
hiE death.
comfortable
overcome the pending
with
with my husband's
Dy husband consistently
In factr
not
did
cornmit
that
suicide.
state
It
of nind prior
to
vowed to challenge
bogus charges.
State of Mzona )
county ot Plma l.a
on
conclusion.
+sA,;
/j,
certaln
accepted the governroent's position
I had reluctantly
nas not consistent
and
After
I became convinced
to my attention,
murdered
cause of death but never felt
sinply
suicide.).
and