Q. Dr. Dillon, the Jury heard testimony yesterday from Mr. Gerald Richards, a retired FBI agent and former Chief of the FBI laboratories Documents Unit. You are aware of that?
A. Yes, I was here when he testified.
Q. And were your findings in your examination consistent with the findings that he also witnessed?
A. Yes, they were basically consistent in terms of which signatures could be attributed to a single writer and which signatures of that name were not written by the same person.
Q. And did you do your work independently of the work that former Agent Richards did?
A. Yes, I received materials in California and had no conversations with the other document examiner in this matter until two days go when we sat down and each of us presented our findings and found that we had reached substantially the same conclusion.
Q. Now Dr. Dillon, you have some slides with you that you could show the Jury concerning the work that you did?
A. Yes, I do. This shows an example of the condition that I received these documents in. It is a Meriwether Lewis signature and as one dated 4 January—excuse me. Meriwether Lewis signature simply to illustrate the scratches and other marks that are in the vicinity of the signature.
This is an intercomparison of signatures and I don’t believe that is in focus, there we go. And the bottom three signatures were written in my opinion by the same individual while the top signature was written by a second individual. That is the signature which appears on the so-called Gilbert Russell statement that is supposedly given to Jonathan Williams.
Q. That’s the statement where Gilbert Russell was telling the President about the circumstances of Meriwether Lewis’ death.
A. Yes, that’s correct. And it is my opinion that signature was not signed by the person that signed the remainder of the signatures. I did not intend in the presentation of these slides to go through all of the details, but there are significant differences including the exclusion of the middle initial of the name which is always in the Russell signatures that I have connected to both the first and last names.
(Next Slide.) This is the same document, the upper signature being a signature of Jonathan Williams in an unrelated matter from a Manuscript Collection and the bottom signature being the signature that appears at the bottom of the Russell statement with an accompanying explanation of the nature of that statement. That bottom signature if it is J. Williams as it appears to be simply an initial was not in my opinion written by the same person who wrote the James Williams Document of 1810.
Q. This is the same document that is the Major Russell Statement about the circumstances of Lewis’ death?
A. It is. And both of these slides represent signatures which have had the scratches removed and represent the best representations I can obtain of those signatures. Though certainly the signatures that I looked at in both of the laser printouts and on the screen of the computer are somewhat better than the reproduction that is possible through projection of the slides.
Q. Would it then be a reasonable probability that if Major Russell made such a statement that was witnessed by Mr. Williams, that the copy of that which historians have relied upon was written by some third party, not by Russell and not by Williams?
A. Yes, that is a fair assumption.
Q. Go ahead.
(Next Slide.)
A. This is an example of the Gilbert Russell signatures as they were obtained from the documents. And you will notice all of those horizontal dark lines that go through there imply represent scratches on the microfilm and this is very common when dealing with archival material because this is the manner in which researchers are presented with this material, they use a microfilm viewer and over time the materials become exceedingly scratched and it is one for the purpose of preserving the original or copy of the document that is in the archives.
(Next Slide.) This is an example of a Meriwether Lewis signature showing in addition to the markings of—extraneous markings, which have occurred either over time through the folding of the document. The fact that if you will notice on this document that there appears to be faint vertical writing, that is the writing on the opposite side of the page. And we are not dealing with the original, so we don’t know what is on the other side of the page. And when we say something is a letter, normally people think of a letter as something that has gone through the postal process.
At this time in American history letters, the envelope of the letter, the envelope and the letter were the same piece of paper. It was simply the manner in which the item was folded and it was addressed on one of the blank sides of any of the pages. And if we had originals of these, the problem of determining the origin of the document would be assisted in some fashion by the possibility of postal markings indicating the points of origin and points of receipt.
And even such information as the amount of money which was necessary for the postal process if they went through the Postal Service. This is approximately forty years before stamps were even used in this country. And this type of signature is the type of signature which I attempted just to show in greater detail by removing some of the material. And in this case it was not possible to remove the entire crease that goes through the name of Lewis.
Could I have the next one please? (Next Slide.) This is a comparison of all of he Meriwether Lewis’ signatures which I received. All of these signatures of various dates all agree internally while some variation is shown. The signatures dating from 1801 through shortly before Meriwether Lewis’ death all agree.
My examination revealed no deterioration in these signatures. If the signatures were undated there would be no manner n which anyone could organize these to show any progression of time with the signatures. They’re essentially—they essentially vary with extreme—in extremely narrow range.
Q. Could I ask you a question about that slide? Does that slide now include the signature on the letter that he wrote to the President shortly—that he purportedly wrote to the President shortly before his death?
A. Which letter would that be?
Q. I’m referring to the letter that has sometimes been referred to as a rough draft?
A. Oh, yes. That does, see the letter of the 16th and that is the—on the right hand side of the screen and is the first of the two signatures on the right-hand side of the screen. Those are the last two dates of Meriwether Lewis’ writings, the 16th and 22nd.
Q. The last two are the ones on the right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you see no degradation or deterioration of his signature shortly before his death?
A. No. Actually the quality of those signatures in the form we received these is actually superior. The definition is actually superior to many of the other signatures.
Q. I take it this display of Meriwether Lewis’ signatures do not include the writing of Meriwether Lewis on the Will copy?
A. I did not assume that that was a Will. I assumed from what the documentation I had that that was a copy of something out of a clerk’s book.
Q. Made by a clerk?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to make sure the Jury understands that this does not include the so-called signature on the so-called holographic Will?
A. Yes.
Q. You took the will to be a copy?
A. But it does include the signature in 1901 [sic] for the appointment of his attorney even though the remainder of that document was not written by his hand.
Q. You mean 1801?
A. 1801, yes.
MR. CORONER: May I ask a question right here? Is it your opinion that these seven signatures were signed by the same person?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
MR. CORONER: All seven by the same person?
THE WITNESS: Yes, all are by the same person in my opinion.
BY GENERAL PHILLIPS:
Q. Okay, go ahead.
A. May I have the next slide?
(Next Slide.)
A. I spoke of lack of change of the signature. I also looked at the extended writing and rather than try to show paragraphs from the various letters I simply here have taken the closes that are used before the signatures in four locations. And we have the abbreviation “Obedient” used here in all of these, and the abbreviation for “Servant, Your Obedient Servant” and “Obedient and Very Humble Servant”.
All of these for example were written in 1809, all represent documents dated in that year. And there is no observable variation in that writing throughout that period, and that includes the last two letters bearing the Meriwether Lewis’ signatures.
Can we have the next slide? (Next Slide.) But I in the course of going through each of these, I compared that handwriting which made up the body of the letters to determine if there was anything within the body of the letters which would indicate any deterioration of the signatures, and anything which would indicate any difficulty on the part of writer in completing he writing. There is no change among the writings that I have that determined that all the signatures are by one person to indicate that in the body of the writing there is anything unusual about the writing.
Some authorities would attribute certain mental states to be reflected in writing. In order for anyone to make such a determination there has to be a change in the writing, and I find no change in the writing of these letters at all.
I have in the course of my work done experimental work and observed the work of individuals under the influence of alcohol for instance, which does markedly often affect writing, sometimes with not particularly high levels of alcohol. There is none of that type of change within any of this writing. The writing does not vary from letter to letter.
Now one of these letters does, the letter of the 16th does contain a number of corrections. But in reading the text of those letters, those corrections appear to be corrections to either clarify or more greatly emphasize the statements that are made in the sentences rather than to correct some err in the grammar or wording of the sentences.
Q. You are referring now to the letter from Governor Lewis to the President, James Madison?
A. Yes.
Q. There is nothing in that letter that you think indicates a mental or physical abnormality comparing it to his other writings from earlier time?
A. I don’t purport to be able to diagnose mental state from handwriting, but if mental state can be diagnosed from handwriting the handwriting has to change. You have to have a change and be able to demonstrate some difference in the handwriting. And my examination does not indicate any differences in the handwriting throughout the period in which all of the signatures agree.
Q. Do you agree with the opinion expressed by the FBI Agent that that letter appears to be a rough draft?
A. It could very well be a rough draft. One however would have to—should have more writing of the writer during that period to find out what his habits were. But frequently people of position would have a clerk write the final draft of an important letter and simply sign it. And often—and we don’t know frequently when we look at archival material if we’re dealing with a letter that was actually mailed to the person it was addressed to or it was simply a file copy retained by the writer or it happened to be a draft that was made for a clerk to reproduce.
Q. Thank you. Go ahead. Dr. Dillon?
A. And I believe the last two are simply two more of these letters written, this is one written on 16 of September of 1909 {SIC}, it does have corrections.
Q. 1809?
A. Excuse me, 1809. 16 September of 1809, and it does have corrections. But again as I previously testified, these corrections are the nature of either greater clarification or greater emphasis. And the final letter is the last letter in the series which does again show the same quality of writing, although this one has virtually no corrections in it.
Q. Is this also an 1809 letter?
A. Yes, that is one of 22 September of 18 0 9.
Q. This one was even later and closer to his death?
A. Yes, that’s the last dated document that I was provided as a potential letter by Meriwether Lewis.
Q. You find this writing to be consistent with his earlier writings?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. No degradation or deterioration?
A. No significant changes at all during the writings throughout the period.
GENERAL PHILLIPS: Thank you. Dr. Dillon. Mr. Coroner?
BY MR. CORONER:
Q. The slide right before this, what was the date of that letter’
A. 16 September of 1809.
Q. That is the letter to James Madison?
A. Yes, that’s correct, yes.
Q. Could we go back and look at that a second, back one slide. Is that bottom line where it say—it looks to me like it did say, “Your Obedient and Very Humble Servant,” and “Very Humble” is marked out.
A. Yes, I believe on this next page has the closing on it with the signature. And I believe we are providing the copies I used to the Jury, is that correct.
Q. Yes, we have them.
MR. CORONER: Any other questions?
EXAMINATION
MR. TURNBOW:
Q. You ran a scan on these documents in your computer to remove lines that you thought were extraneous. Could any those lines be relative to determine whether or not Lewis executed the documents?
A. No, this is a routine procedure which I do. And if I feel there is any question about whether a mark or a line is actually related to the writing, if there is any question I leave it in. I only remove those where I can see the scratches going across the screen or some diagonal angle to the writing.
Q. I believe the documents we have are copies that were not scanned?
A. Yes, you have what I was originally provided with.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. CORONER:
Q. Is it pretty well customary for two document examiners to work together like this—not together but with you on the same case?
A. It is not unusual to have more than one document examiner. I didn’t know until I came here to testify that both document examiners in this manner had looked at the same material and would talk about the same material.
Q. So you have done this before as far as someone else working on the same case?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it unusual for you to agree as closely as you have?
A. No. It is not unusual to agree. Hopefully that would be the usual.
MR. CORONER: Any other questions? Thank you, Dr. Dillon.
***WITNESS EXCUSED***
GENERAL BAUGH: Our next witness will be Dr. Reimert T. Ravenholt.
Having been first duly sworn was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
GENERAL BAUGH:
Q. Mr. Tate, with your indulgence, and Members of the Jury with your indulgence, I’m trying to read you matters for expedience that have been provided to me about Dr. Ravenholt’s background. He was born in Wisconsin. He received a medical degree from University of Minnesota, a Master’s in Public Health Degree from the University of California. And has had extensive research, administrative and teaching experience in Epidemiology, Public Health, population and Family Planning.
He was an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, U.S. Public Health Service for Disease Control, Atlanta, 1952 to 1954. He was Director of Epidemiology and Communicable Disease Control, Seattle-King County Health Department, 1954-1961. He was an Epidemiology Consultant in Europe for the U.S. Public Health Service, American Embassy, Paris, France, 1961-1963; Associate Professor of Preventive Medicine, University of Washington, 1963-1966; Director Office of Population, U.S. Agency of International Development, Washington, DC, 966-1980; Director of World Health Surveys, enters for Disease Control, Rockville, Maryland, 980-1982; Assistant Director for Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, Maryland, 1982-1984; Chief, Epidemiology Branch, .S Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, 1984-1987; Director of World Health Surveys, Seattle, Washington, 1987-1993; President currently of the Population Health Imperatives in Seattle, Washington.
He also researched extensively and published more than 150 scientific reports on epidemiology, preventive medicine, population and family planning. Smoking and health was also one of his topics. Publications include Tobacco’s Global Death March; Taking Contraceptives to the World’s Poor; America’s Battered Child Plague; and Triumph and Then Despair which deals with the subject matter of your inquest.
For 14 years, Dr. Ravenholt directed the Global Population Program for the U.S. Agency of International Development. It was one of the world’s foremost population programs, providing then half of all international population program assistance ($1.3 billion) during those years.
Notable honors received include distinguished Honor Award of the Agency for International Development “In Recognition of His Distinguished Leadership in the Development of Worldwide Assistance Programs to Deal with the Challenge of Excessive Population Growth”; the Hugh Moore Memorial Award from the Population Crisis Committee and the International Planned Parenthood Association Award for “Innovation and Vision in the Population Field”; and the Carl Schultz Award for the “Distinguished Service to the Field of Population and Family Planning.”
Q. What is the particular area of expertise that you bring to this Inquest today, Dr. Ravenholt?
A. Well, let me first say, Professor Starrs and the District Attorney Joe Baugh and Paul Phillips, the Coroner Richard Tate, Members of the Jury and the descendents of Meriwether Lewis, I’m happy to be here in Tennessee. And I thank Professor Starrs for inviting me even though he came to somewhat different conclusions with respect to the death of Meriwether Lewis.
Q. Let me stop you just a second—has he sworn in?
A. Yes, I was sworn.
Q. Excuse me for interrupting.
A. Although we may differ somewhat with respect to the diagnosis, we agree very hardily with his Voltaire quote “To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth”. And it is in that quest for the truth we are gathered here in Tennessee close to where Meriwether Lewis died.
And I must say that when Professor Starrs invited me and said we would be staying close to his monument here in some little place along the Natchez Trace, I thought we might be staying in tents or something. But I am impressed that Hohenwald is a lovely community of more than three thousand people, and has offered us the most generous southern hospitality. With that said—
Q. I hope ABC News got that.
A. Let me return to your question, Mr. Baugh, which was—
Q. What is epidemiology?
A. What is epidemiology? Well epidemiology comes from the word epidemic which comes from the two Greek words, epi and demos meaning upon people. Something which descends upon people and historically it referred particularly to infectious diseases that swept through communities and these were epidemics and so forth. Epidemiology is the study of that.
But during my lifetime the application of Epidemiology has been enormously broadened to where now it is understood to be the study of the distributions and determinants of disease in human population. Disease of any kind, lot just infectious but chronic, traumatic—
Q. What is the difference in Infectious and chronic?
A. Sometimes they’re the same. You can have a chronic infectious disease.
Q. Define those terms for me?
A. Pardon?
Q. Define those terms, what do you mean by infectious?
A. Infectious, we refer to the entry of an organism which multiplies in the body. And is in tuberculosis and leprosy and quite a few diseases, this may cause a chronic disease but—
Q. Chronic being what?
A. Chronic means that it last a long time. And many of these such as cardiovascular disease for example may be chronic but not due to infection, though it can be.
Q. Epidemiology apparently includes both infectious disease and traumatic?
A. Yes, it is the whole matter of occurrence of diseases in human population. And let me say that I was fortunate following my internship in the Public Health in San Francisco, I entered the Epidemic Intelligence Service of the U.S. Public Health Service in Atlanta, Georgia which was then a rather embryonic organization but it has grown and it is a—the Center for Disease Control more commonly known as CDC is a preeminent organization of the world dealing with epidemiology and disease control. There is nothing to match it in the world. And much of that is done is with WHO and so forth is done actually by ex-EIS CDC personnel.
Q. Do you have an interest in Meriwether Lewis other than that generated by this particular Inquest or contact with Professor Starrs?
A. Well, my involvement has come somewhat accidentally but due to a combination of many things.
Q. Tell us about it.
A. I grew up in a farm in Wisconsin of Danish heritage. My four grandparents came from America and my father’s father came over as a Danish immigrant and he went to Montana to the gold fields in 1874-1876. And although he died long before I was born, my father used to tell me stories about him and his experiences in Montana.
That may have got me—in fact when my Grandfather left the gold fields in the summer of 1876, left Helena, he went to Fort Benton, the head of navigation. He was expecting to catch a steamboat there but there was no steamboat for the reason that this was the summer of Custer’s Last Stand and General Crook and Miles and others had come in after that. And they were congregating a great Army force down on Yellowstone River and all the steamboats were diverted up the Yellowstone instead of the Missouri.
So my grandfather, a German and a Yankee bought a row boat and went down from Fort Benton all the way down to Bismarck, North Dakota. So I used to hear stories about this from my father.
Q. Does part of the area of expertise you have in epidemiology deal with neurosyphilis?
A. It deals with it and—
Q. Tell us what it is.
A. Neurosyphilis is that disease caused by the invasion of the central nervous system by the syphilis spirochete, technically known as Treponema pallidum. It is kind of a little organism, sort of a cork screw like a microscopic organism.
Q. Is it single celled or multi-celled?
A. Yes, it is single organism, yes.
Q. And how is it transmitted normally?
A. It is ordinarily transmitted by sexual intercourse. And has of course been a great scourge in the history of civilization.
Q. Has there been some sort of controversy about the origin of syphilis, whether it is a North American disease or American Continent disease or an European disease?
A. Yes, there is usually controversy about just about everything and not just about that because it is has been such a historically disastrous disease. But I’m interested that Meriwether Lewis in his diaries came to an accurate observation when he was on the Continental Divide with the Shoshones saying that he had concluded then from the information he had obtained along the way and from the Shoshones that venereal disease, both Louis Veneri syphilis and gonorrhea were American diseases.
And that is actually true, that Europe did not know syphilis until March 1493 when Columbus and his sailors returned to the Iberian Peninsula. The captain of the Pinta was very seriously ill with syphilis when they arrived back and he died shortly thereafter. And the Court of Ferdinand and Isabella were indeed told this was a disease from the Indies as they called them, which was very prevalent there but not as severe there is it is among the Caucasians in Spain.
Q. So it is your opinion as a medical practitioner that this disease could have existed in North America long before it existed in Europe?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there strains of this disease which the Indians seemed more immune than Europeans?
A. To syphilis in general they were perhaps more resistant because the least resistant people had already died off from it.
Q. Are you familiar with the general works of Meriwether Lewis? I mean, the diaries, the historical record concerning Lewis?
A. Yes. Let me just say how I happened to get into this. In 1988 there was book published by David Lavender entitled The Way to the Western Sea. An interesting historical thing and I got a copy of that and read it considerably with interest. And that tells the story from especially from St. Louis to Astoria, Oregon and back again. But it ends just on the 23rd of September when they returned to St. Louis.
But it tells of the stories along tie way and I remember reflecting as I finished that book, well, my God, the biggest problem that the Corps of the Discovery had on this three year trip to Pacific and back was venereal disease. I was not thinking of Lewis at that time.
Q. What gave you that opinion?
A. Then a year later I happened to run across A Biography of Meriwether Lewis by Richard Dillon, an excellent biography, and I read that, and that biography does not stop when they get back to St. Louis but it tells what happened subsequently. Especially what happened in his final weeks and days and hours. And as I read that it came through to me as clear as could be, this poor fellow died of neurosyphilis.
I have had very wide and diverse experience with all kinds of infections. I’m one of few perhaps that has diagnosed and treated diphtheria, typhoid, I have investigated smallpox in West Germany, Yorkshire, Wales, Stockholm, typhoid epidemics there and so forth, malaria, I have seen and all of these diseases. And syphilis too, I have diagnosed and treated.
Q. What are the symptoms of this disease, this infection that you would look for?
A. Well, syphilis has three phases. The first is what we call the primary phase. From the time of sexual intercourse to the occurrence of the lesion. And that lesion is ordinarily on the genitalia. And it is called a chancre. It is a sore; it is a fairly indolent long lasting sore. And it ordinarily takes at least ten days from sexual intercourse until the occurrence of the chancre. That is the first phase.
The second is the secondary phase which usually begins about a month after infection, and which afflicts especially the skin and mucous membranes. And this is the secondary syphilis.
And then the third phase is the attack of the spirochete upon the internal organs, upon the cardiovascular system, the central nervous system, the bones, the spirochete can attack any tissue in the human body. So it has always been a diagnostic puzzle for practicing physicians. Patient can come in complaining of almost anything and it may end up being syphilis.
But some forms are quite distinctive. The gumma, the occurrence of small tumors responding to the syphilitic organism, and cardiovascular disease. And to some extent the osseous disease and also the attack upon the central nervous system whether it be upon the spinal cord or upon the cerebrum. These are quite distinctive.
And I should just read what a person with syphilis, the kind of disease, symptoms they may have. Because I went back to some of the old books, especially those published before penicillin.
Q. Let me ask a question before you start off with that. I’d like, if you see those symptoms, to correlate those with what you have read about the last six weeks of Lewis’ life that may verify your diagnosis, if you don’t mind?
A. Well, possibly I should leave it to then and come back to that.
Q. However you think would be best to present it?
A. Well let’s talk about for the moment, let’s say if he developed syphilis, where did he develop it. And just take it through that and then come to the more natural disease.
Q. That’s fine?
A. As I said, it was in reading the biography by Richard Dillon with his details about the final days and hours, that it occurred to me this must be neurosyphilis, paresis is the specific term. This was 1990. And I told my wife, you know, I think I know what killed Meriwether Lewis and I am going to research it. I was busy remodeling and doing other things and it went along until 1993 but then I finally said if I’m ever going to do this, I better do it now.
I spent that winter researching. And fortunately there are many excellent books for this. There is of course the excellent general book published in 1814 on this to which Jefferson provided something. Then there are the books at the end of 19th century, especially the one by Professor Thwaites at Wisconsin in 1904. But the first biography really is the one by Richard Dillon in 1965.
But more recently there has been a tremendous effort to gather all the diaries together at the University of Nebraska, Gary Moulton and his staff have published a humongous collection of these diaries, there are now nine volumes and there are still going to be two more.
And I happened to get a hold of these and when I began to, I bought a set of these and this enabled one to trace through the whole expedition of what preceded it and what went on and so I traced it and I would say that before the expedition, Meriwether Lewis lived at the White House with Thomas Jefferson for two years. And he was in apparent excellent health or he would not have been given the mission. And there was no hint of such disease when he went to St. Louis and there was no hint of it in the first year when they traveled up the Missouri River to Fort Mandan and wintered there.
We know there was syphilis at Fort Mandan because indeed Lewis and Clark mentioned this, and the sexual intercourse of the crew with the natives there but I don’t think Lewis himself nor perhaps Clark had intercourse with the Indians at that time. They were very busy directing this and all kinds of activities and so forth.
Then in the spring of 1805 they proceeded up the Missouri and for four months they didn’t meet another Indian. The only Indian was Sacagawea, the wife of Charbonneau, the interpreter for those four months. And they didn’t meet until they got to the source of the Missouri on the Continental Divide, and just over it into Idaho when they met the Shoshones there.
And actually I spoke to the Lewis and Clark Heritage Trail Foundation at their annual encampment at Missoula, Montana two years ago in August of 1994. And indeed I met Mr. and Ms. Anderson, the relatives of Lewis there, that the Lewis and Clark buffs have such an encampment every summer, every August somewhere along the trail from St. Louis to Astoria, and it has been going on many years now.
And after that I went to Helena and then I went down and up the Jefferson and Beaverhead River to the Lemhi Pass and crossed over the Pass, the Lemhi River and along that to where Sacagawea was born. And I took some pictures and I will show those if I may.
(Slide Presentation).
Some of you will recall that when Lewis on the 12th of August of 1805, he and his three companions were nearing the end of the Missouri—
Q. Where were those pictures made, Dr. Ravenholt?
A. These are made just short of the Summit, the seventy-three hundred foot summit of the Continental Divide. And I happened to be alone that day and had to set my camera to do it. And I did what McNeil did, I bestrode the Missouri River. There is the source of the Missouri River here between my legs. I think you can see that there, you see the beginning of the Missouri River.
Q. Right.
A. And the other two show the scenery. This sign post, “Sacagawea Memorial Camp, 12 miles, Lemhi Pass, 12 miles.” This was 12 miles from the Lemhi Pass. And the Reservoir Lake Camp, that was actually Camp Fortunate—
Q. Is this where he met the Shoshone Indians?
A. I’ll come to that.
Q. Let’s kind of—we don’t have a terrible amount of time, we need to kind of come to the point of your—
A. In the next one I will show you exactly where he met—which was the birth place, of Sacagawea and the Shoshones. Here, actually here is on the top of the Lemhi Pass there is signs there. And this is looking south from there. Over here at the left, this is looking back from the Lemhi Pass back into Montana. And then down here we are—where the stone is, this is the Shoshone Meadows along the Lemhi Pass. It is a lovely meadow that stretches for a half a dozen miles along the Lemhi
Q. Is this where Lewis met the Shoshone Indians?
A. This is where he very probably obtained his syphilis infection. This is the birth place of Sacagawea and the Shoshones, this as their traditional encampment on this meadow. And this is the Lemhi River which is a lovely mountain stream along there.
Q. What sort of symptoms did you first see after this meeting?
A. Yes, well I was interested where could he have gotten the syphilis, when could he have gotten it and so forth. And I saw no obvious source or place or likelihood until the nights of the 13th and 14th of August when he was staying—they had met the Shoshone Chief Cameahwait who is the brother of Sacagawea. And they established friendly relationships with the Shoshones to the extent that Chief Cameahwait sent one of his assistants ahead to setup the tent for, a buffalo hide tent for Meriwether Lewis.
Actually they only one leather tent right then because the Arikaras had attacked them the previous year and had taken or destroyed the rest of their tents. And that was no doubt pitched on this meadow along the Lemhi River there. Those two nights, the nights of the 13th and 14th, they were there, Lewis and his three companions were there. Clark and the rest of the Corps of Discovery were back at Camp Fortunate back on the Beaverhead River across the Pass. And Lewis mentions that there was partying going on and he made some very significant entries.
Q. So you think that was the time that he could have had contact with the women of the Shoshone Tribe?
A. Yes.
Q. And what symptoms did you see after that time?
A. Indeed I was very—actually this would have happened on the 13th and 14th of August. Significantly Lewis wrote several things just a few days later. On the 19th of August Lewis wrote as follows:
The chastity of their women is not held in high estimation, and the husband will for a trifle barter the companion of his bed for a night or longer if he concedes the reward adequate. Though they are not so importunate that we should caress their women as the Sioux were, and some of their women appear to be held more sacred than in any Nation we have seen. I have requested the men to give them no cause for jealousy by having connection with their women without their knowledge which with them strange as it may seem, is considered as disgraceful to the husband as clandestine connections as a similar kind are among most civilized nations. To prevent this mutual exchange of good offices altogether, I know it impossible to effect, particularly as on the part of our young men who some months abstinence have made very polite to this tawny damsels. I was anxious to learn whether these people had the venereal and made Inquiry through the interpreter and his wife, that is Sacagawea. The information was that they sometimes had it, but I could not learn their remedy. They most usually died with its effects, his seemed strong proof, these disorders; both gonorrhea and Louis Veneri are native disorders of America.
Q. So when did you see symptoms?
A. Then as I said ordinarily there is an incubation period of ten days before syphilis. But he was writing this just a few days after. Now if he or any of his three companions had developed gonorrhea, that could have triggered this sort of thing. But the first symptom suggestive of syphilis was an entry by his on the 19th of September, about a month, a little over a month later. When Lewis wrote that breakings out or eruptions of the skin have also been common with us for sometime.
This matter of cutaneous lesions, secondary lesions, I suspect that Lewis just when he wrote this, he didn’t quite realize the full significance of that, that is the first. And then in succeeding weeks Lewis became very severely ill. For about two weeks he was having great difficulty. Clark wrote:
Captain Lewis scarcely able to ride on a gentle horse which was furnished by the Chief. Several men so unwell they’re compelled to lie by the side of the road.
And on September 27th, he again said:
Captain Lewis very sick, nearly all the men sick.
And on October 4 he wrote:
Captain Lewis still sick but able to walk around a little.
But then for three months Lewis stopped writing in the Diary. So his illness apparently continued, and Clark had to do all the writing and they never said why or they never said—
Q. How did they treat these illnesses on the trail?
A. The main treatment of syphilis at that time was Mercury. It was actually begun almost immediately after syphilis arrived in Europe in March of 1493.
Q. How was that treatment taken, carried out?
A. The first treatment with Mercury is as an ointment, to rub it on the secondary lesions. And because Mercury is so toxic, ordinarily if you rubbed it on secondary lesions, direct contact with the spirochete is, it would quite quickly cure the secondary the lesion would cease to fester.
But of course many of the lesions are internal and for this they took Mercury orally, and Mercury was the main treatment and they took large quantities of Mercury over a period of time. Ordinarily when they took a course of Mercury they would do so for a month or more. And they would take Mercury by mouth several times daily until it caused copious salivation, the sign they were getting too much was copious salivation, and then they would cut back. And Lewis had indeed taken substantial quantities of Mercury along on the voyage apparently anticipating something like this.
Q. There were other diseases that were epidemic out there, tuberculosis, influenza, malaria, how would you differentiate the symptoms of syphilis from those diseases?
A. Well, we don’t know that there was any malaria there at that time. I looked particularly through the diaries. With malaria ordinarily it is a fairly recognizable disease because it causes such acute attacks of chills followed by fever and followed by sweats and this is on a periodic basis every third day or fourth day and there is no suggestion of this in the diaries during the trip. And I don’t know about the tuberculosis. I didn’t see any indication of chronic coughing and all that on it and I don’t
Q. What causes tuberculosis?
A. Well, the microbacterium tuberculosis is a bacteria that causes tuberculosis.
Q. What causes malaria?
A. The plasmodium, the protozoan plasmodium, a number of species like vivax, also falciparum. Falciparum and malaria indeed does have a central nervous system phase where it is quite deadly and it kills. But the progress of that, the episodic kind of progress and the symptoms are quite different I think from what we saw.
Q. Explain the differences?
A. Well, at least once that I became aware of during the years that I was dealing with Africa and Asia and so forth, it does not have the kind of capacity within my experience, one did not see this curious craziness, insanity as a result. One saw progressive neurological dysfunction leading to death in the case of falciparum. But not this curious episodic attacks of insanity which then tops and they occur later.
Q. Now you said that is a symptom of syphilis that you have insanity and then it tops—
A. This is a symptom of neurosyphilis or paresis. And I must say I have not gone as deeply into this until I got interested in Meriwether Lewis and read a lot of the literature in this, including the excellent text by Dr. Osier from 1892, who was perhaps the most accomplished diagnostician at the time.
Q. What do you mean by paresis?
A. Paresis refers to the attack of the spirochete on the cerebrum.
Q. What are the symptoms of the attack of the spirochete on the cerebrum section of the brain?
A. Of course there are general symptoms of fever and general illness but it is, particularly this matter of progressive deterioration of the highest central nervous system function.
Q. Thought disorder?
A. Yes, thought disorder, and a very particular one is the increasing loss of judgment, of good judgment, which is a distinctive thing. I just want to read this because I went through some of these older books that had gave—
Q. While you are looking for that I believe that you have provided the Members of the jury with copies of the article that you wrote about that?
A. Uh-huh.
GENERAL BAUGH: And I’d like for you—we will make one of those, a copy, for our purposes in this hearing, in the Inquest, and we will also make a copy of your curriculum vitae, a copy, an exhibit rather to the Inquest.
(EXHIBIT NOS. 3 & 4 MARKED AND ENTERED.)
BY GENERAL BAUGH:
Q. Go ahead and read it to us.
A. Neurosyphilis is most frequently encountered among the higher intellectual types. Alcohol, mental exertion and emotional strain are mentioned as predisposing causes. The relation of the paretic, the person with the paresis, to the other members of society is almost diagnostic of the disease. There is often a loss of memory for recent events, although past events are fairly well recounted. There will be slight or even flaring mistakes in his business correspondence, subjects will creep in that have nothing to do with the business at hand. And letters will often take on a frivolous character where business itself is of a serious nature. Mistakes in business will have been found to crept into this man’s dealings for quite a while before recognizable symptoms appear.
The depressed or introspective type in this type of paresis, the symptoms are apt to come on quite suddenly. The patient becomes melancholy and often has ideas of self destruction. In distinction to the other types he often realizes what his trouble is, and sees his vitality becoming less day by day. Unfortunately this realization of his condition stimulates his notion of self destruction. While these people are as a rule harmless to other members of society, they are quite often successful in doing damage to themselves.
It fits Lewis. I mean, William Clark and Thomas Jefferson commented on his depression. Well, if you had syphilis you would be pretty depressed too, especially if it were recurring and progressive.
Q. Let me ask you about this. Of course Lewis died 187 years ago. Would there be evidence in his skeletal remains that could confirm or verify your hypothesis about his infection?
A. To that I can’t be completely definitive but I share very much with Professor Starrs the desire that a thorough look be taken. I think there are two things that might be discovered among the skeletal remains of Meriwether Lewis. The first thing that you look for would be is there any Mercury in the skeletal remains. Because if he were taking substantial quantities of Mercury late in his illness I would suspect some of this would remain and though leaching might have taken it out during the forty years before they put the monument on top.
Q. How are heavy metals carried in the body, simulated in the body, where are they?
A. Certainly, bone is one of the places depending on when they were taken and what they are.
Q. So there may be Mercury in the skeletal remains, the bones?
A. Pardon?
Q. There may be Mercury in the bones itself, is that correct?
A. I would expect there may be some residual Mercury.
Q. And what else?
A. The other is of course with modern technology and our capacity to identify with great specificity whatsoever by the DNA. If Meriwether Lewis had substantial osteitis, meaning the spirochete was attacking the cartilage or bone in his latter, last part of his life, this would have stimulated inflammatory responses and perhaps new bone and so forth. And among that might very well be some treponema pallidum DNA.
If one finds that then of course that is highly specific indicating that he did at least have syphilis of the bone. And by inference he probably also did of the central nervous system in view of the symptoms.
GENERAL BAUGH: That is all the questions I have, Mr. Coroner.
MR. CORONER: Anyone of the Jury have any questions?
EXAMINATION
BY MR. BORKLOW:
Q. Would the large intake of mercury—could that not cause neurological results?
A. Yes, in recent decades we think more about because we are so familiar with some of the problems like Japanese from mercury exposure and so forth. But certainly in the old literature the treatment of syphilis, this seemed to be much less of a problem as far as a serious type of problem. It was a very common treatment; but there was not this awareness of the sort of the large side effects that might occur, because they really took it until copious salivation came, and this was on into the 20th Century that they did that.
Q. How would the mercury, in what form would it have been taken by mouth?
GENERAL BAUGH: His question was what form would mercury be taken—by mouth?
Q. In other words not pure mercury itself?
A. They took of course a number of things. They took for example, Calamine is a mixture of a mercurous fluoride and they took that sometimes as a purgative. I didn’t see just what the full composition of the mercury pill they took is. It no doubt was mixed with a variety of things, but I didn’t see that in the diary. But they had Calamine too and what they called Galip, Pyorubin drug and they had Rush’s Pills which may have much to do with the death of Sergeant Floyd in 1804, because if he had appendicitis and they gave him Rush’s Pills, they probably insured that he would have a ruptured appendix.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. TURNBOW:
Q. You said one of the diseases was tuberculosis?
A. No, Mr. Baugh asked about it but I have no knowledge of tuberculosis among them at that time.
Q. But one of the symptoms of tuberculosis would be a cough, persistent cough?
A. Usually respiratory and usually there is chronic coughing and there is nothing in the diaries to indicate that.
Q. On page 376 of your report January 31st of 1806 Lewis says Bratton has an obstinate cough.
A. Okay, that may be but I don’t know. But I was not impressed. Usually with tuberculosis and especially progressive tuberculosis, it gets worse and one didn’t see that sort of thing. But I would not be surprised if some of them did have link to a tuberculosis infection. And I can’t say that Bratton, even though his main complaints were referenced to his back and even though they were greatly benefited by a steam bath. I can not say with respect to the cough but no doubt they had coughs from a variety of causes.
Q. Would they have fever with tuberculosis?
Q. And on May 24, 1806 it mentioned sweats, body sweats. I was curious—sometimes in epidemiology don’t you try to determine a disease by disproving other diseases to show no way could they have had other diseases?
A. Yes, and of course in modern times in technological, competent circumstances one does many things. But you have to keep in mind the Lewis Expedition was a half a century before the advent of bacteriology, before Pasteur and the whole modern diagnostic measures and so forth.
Q. Can you rule out any other disease?
A. No, I’m sure they had—no, they had many diseases. And so I think one reason I come back to this, I have had such broad—for example Clark as they were ascending, they had repeated difficulties with boils and carbuncles, beyond the Great Falls, Clark would have gone forward with Lewis there on the 12th, at the end of the Missouri but he was laid up with at tumor of the ankles.
Well as it happens many years when I was in Seattle, I did extensive research first on hospital acquired staph infection that became epidemic during the fifties. But then I became aware there were non-human sources of staphylococcus disease and one summer I had a veterinary student help me and we did a study of staphylococcus infection among meat animals and meat workers and published on this. And in fact I think I have one in my briefcase.
And so I know I can recognize staphylococcus disease and boils and so forth, what they are. It would be very difficult I think for a young epidemiologist coming in who has not had experience with many different diseases to be able to sift out one set of symptoms and signs from the others.
Q. Is syphilis the only disease that could have produced these symptoms?
A. Let me say that one always—one is always aware that there are substantial overlaps between what various specific microorganisms can do. But Lewis’ terminal illness and the course of the episodic febrile by attacks of the craziness and insanity is highly, to highly indicative of paresis, I think we can say that the nature of his illness was, pathognomonic is a medical term, pathognomonic. So highly characteristic one can make a strong presumptive diagnosis from it.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. BOULDIN:
Q. Isn’t it true that syphilis has been known as the great imitator?
A. Right, this is what I mean. It could attack any tissue in the body and it did so. For centuries it was a huge problem until the advent of penicillin in the late forties.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. FLYNN:
Q. Doctor, we are going to make one assumption, in other words, we are saying Lewis didn’t have any problems before he went on the expedition. It looked like he developed it on the expedition, or he was infected on the expedition, 1803 to 1806—somewhere along the line he was infected. But would you say that the disease evolve to that first stage where you go crazy in just six years to the time of his death?
A. Yes, there is still among the medical profession, many who think of neurosyphilis and paresis as being a late result of syphilis. And I had to go into this quite specifically and deeply because when I published this article in the Journal of Epidemiology, there were a couple of physicians that questioned that. And sent me back additionally to that and actually I published that as a follow-up to that, if I have it with me. And I can give you this, I can put it in the record.
But in fact what happened was that as soon as penicillin emerged in the forties and it was found to be remarkably effective against syphilis, every new case of primary or secondary or early or late syphilis received the penicillin treatment and that ordinarily with a cure as a result. But in the fifties and sixties and seventies, occasionally someone who had gotten infected in the twenties or thirties before penicillin and not received the treatment would develop that.
And here again so many years have gone by and I have had so many experiences because in 1953 when from the Epidemic Intelligence Service, I was assigned to the Ohio Department of Health. The Ohio Department of Health was doing an intensive campaign against syphilis, and they recruited me one time to help them down in Gallipolis on the Ohio River.
I spent my time doing lumbar punctures to get samples of cerebral spinal fluid from people that had a positive Wassermann Test. They screened with Wassermann Test, blood test, and those are positive and then we did follow-up cerebral spinal fluid examinations and those received extensive penicillin treatment and I forgot about that until I did this.
But the thing is that the Center for Disease Control in recent years—just a year or three years ago—stated that the central nervous system syphilis can occur anytime after the initial infection. And I went back to read Dr. Osler’s book from 1892, The Principles and Practice of Medicine, which is the most famous, and he says that it may occur within several months.
In other words there is not any compelling reason why neurosyphilis can not occur quite rapidly just as cardiovascular, it can hold for six years and stop in progressive things. It is the same thing with AIDS. AIDS has an average incubation period of ten years but some people have very rapid progress even through the central nervous system inversion with the HIV virus.
GENERAL BAUGH: Is this a good time to take a break, Mr. Tate?
GENERAL BAUGH: Thank you. Dr. Ravenholt.
THE WITNESS: Just at the end, after the break, I would just like to read something in conclusion.
GENERAL BAUGH: I think he will want to take you before the break.
THE WITNESS: Let me just finish that then. In my conclusion I wrote as follows: The fabric of evidence that syphilis acquired during the explorative trip to the Pacific Coast was the underlying cause of Lewis’ death includes these threads: (1) Lewis was in excellent health when he set forth up the Missouri River; (2) several Indian Tribes suffering from syphilis were encountered; (3) sexual intercourse with women of these tribes by Corps members was frequently urged by the Indians and was commonplace; (4) several corps members, probably at least eight, did develop syphilis; (5) when encountering the Shoshoni Tribe at the Continental Divide, Lewis had both a propitious opportunity and a compelling need for sexual intercourse; (6) a few weeks later he developed an illness which became severe and disabling for several months, but the nature of which was not described; (7) for some months in 1807 following his return from the expedition he was incapacitated by illness, the nature of which was not divulged; (8) during 1808-1809 he developed a progressive illness afflicting his central nervous system and diminishing his judgment faculties; (9) his terminal months were characterized by progressive, episodic, febrile illness, with severe mental and behavioral disorders highly characteristic of paresis; (11) Lewis himself recognized he was suffering from progressive disease likely to be fatal; (11) Thomas Jefferson and William Clark readily understood his death.
Just to talk a little about the last days as he came in, should I do that before we—
GENERAL BAUGH: I think if they don’t have anymore questions, your time is about up.
THE WITNESS: Well, I think I must say as he came to Fort Pickering, leaving St. Louis on the 4th of September he proceeded by boat down the river. And on the 11th perhaps at Cape Girardeau or New Madrid he made out his Will. When he arrived at Fort Pickering, Chickasaw Bluffs or Memphis he was in very bad shape and crews said that he had attempted to commit suicide twice and they had restrained him.
He was in very bad mental shape for five days and then he recovered rather fully according to Captain Russell. And then he stayed there until the 29th of September and Captain Neely came there and Captain Neely took over from—Major Neely took over from Captain Russell and they proceeded southeast toward the Natchez Trace actually toward the Chickasaw Agency which was located between Tupelo and Houston.
They went there and they rested several days and then they proceeded North on the Natchez Trace to the Tennessee River. And though I have but I won’t take the time, I have the slide, the key thing to this was the Colbert’s Ferry along the Natchez Trace which had come into operation. And George Colbert was apparently a half breed and his brother Levi had an inn near the Colbert Ferry and they ferried over there on the 8th or 9th. They proceeded North to Dogwood Mudhole which is just eighteen miles south of the monument here and there they stopped there the night and in the morning two horses were loose.
Now some might say that this was just accidental but I’m an old farm boy and I do a lot with horses. And putting myself in Lewis’ skin, Lewis as he came down the river realized they were keeping watch on him and at Fort Pickering they kept intensive watch. And Major Neely was keeping watch on him and how do I get Major Neely off my back, just slip a couple of the horses, particularly Major Neely’s. And I suspect that Lewis may very well have done that to separate himself from Major Neely.
He then went on the 18 miles to Grinder’s Stand and when he got there, he had asked—his servant came up and he asked him for powder. Apparently Major Neely had made sure his pistols were not loaded during that time, traveling, because indeed he was wary of him. But there was powder in the canister on Pernia’s horse apparently. And he got that and during that evening he loaded his pistols and then he went on. He was acting very peculiar, walking up and down and talking to himself like a lawyer talking to—
GENERAL BAUGH: We all know how peculiar that is.
THE WITNESS: And then there were two cabins joined by a dogtrot there at Grinder’s Stand. And Ms. Grinder put him up in one cabin and she bedded down with her two children in the other cabin which was the kitchen. She was nervous because of this peculiar acting person. And then about 3:00 a.m. she was halfway awake and she heard a gun report and a thud of something falling and then a little bit later another report. And then a little later, moans and groans and Lewis crawled up asking for help but she was terrified.
She was too terrified to go out and help him and he existed until morning. At dawn she sent her two children to the barn to get the two servants, Pernia and the other servant, and they came up and Lewis was still awake and still alive. And he commented that he had done the business and to get help, that he asked his servant for water. And he also asked him to shoot him and he died shortly after.
Now I say this in some detail because anybody who says this was murder has to say well Ms. Grinder was a liar and they also have to say that Pernia, Lewis’ trusted servant who no doubt told—Major Neely came several hours later, told him about it as well as Ms. Grinder and went on with Major Neely to Nashville. They didn’t know what was going on because Major Neely gave Pernia fifteen dollars and various things to take on to Thomas Jefferson.
And the servant who was the Mulatto, Lewis trusted free servant, went on then to Thomas Jefferson and no doubt gave Thomas Jefferson a detailed account of what he knew from that night including what Ms. Grinder had related. And following that Thomas Jefferson, William Clark, Lewis’ mother, Lucy Marks, all of them were fully accepting that this was suicide. There was never any indication that they faulted in the knowledge this was suicide.
In conclusion I would say that I’m not a Virginian but I side fully with the Virginians in this matter, Thomas Jefferson, William Clark, Lucy Marks, Lewis brother Ruben, who was a physician, and also with Ms. Grinder and Captain Neely and Alexander Wilson that this was a case of suicide.
And to say otherwise I think brings unnecessary dishonor upon Ms. Grinder. The chance of her being able to concoct the story such as she told out of the full cloth, I think it is absurd, you know, in the middle of the night in a little cabin, how are you going to concoct a story like that and have it verified by Pernia and everything else.
I conclude wholeheartedly that it was a sad case of suicide. But understandably the thing was until you put syphilis in the equation it is not quite understandable because Lewis was an extraordinarily able, well directed person, why did he commit suicide.
EXAMINATION
BY GENERAL BAUGH:
Q. Dr. Ravenholt, do you have any statistics on the number of people that suffer from tertiary syphilis in their lives by suicide?
A. Not really, of course it is a long time ago. And since penicillin there is not very many.
Q. Now I understand it would not be many?
A. But it was common during the 19th century.
Q. Do you have any statistics on how many people say with immune deficiency, AIDS, end their lives by suicide?
A. No, I don’t think it is as common in AIDS. The cerebral component of HIV infection is not as prominent in AIDS as it was in Syphilis.
Q. You think that—
A. Let me say this—
Q. You think that judgment, that reduction in their judgment ability with syphilis added to the increased likelihood that you would have suicide?
A. Yes, and let me say this. I learned additionally as I have researched this, it has to do with, you know, insanity in the United States. In the 19th century, in the first half of the 20th Century every principal population in the United States, be it county or city, had an insane asylum where they put people who were insane. Then in the 1950’s mysteriously the population in the institutions for the insane went rapidly down in the U. S. And this is fully understandable because a large portion of those in the institution for the insane were syphilitics. And they were—some of them went through a more protracted course and somebody had to take care of them.
In fact I would say this, our legal definition of insanity and how someone might be absolved from crime because they were insane was really based on syphilis. Because when somebody got syphilis, spirochetes destroying the brain, they didn’t just go slightly insane, they went fully insane. They went crazy; they really could not take care of their selves. Now the lawyers I would submit—
Q. If we don’t conclude now I think that they’re going to think we are insane so—
Q. If you could go ahead and conclude now, we need to go to a break?
A. In recent decades, you know, in every—in many, many trials somebody imparts a definition of insanity which is far and far removed from what actually was at play when this was put into law.
GENERAL BAUGH: Any other questions? Thank you, Dr. Ravenholt.
***WITNESS EXCUSED***
(WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)
GENERAL PHILLIPS: Mr. Coroner and Members of the Jury, I will ask Dr. Bass to step up to the podium. Again, in the interest of time I have the privilege to present to you Dr. William M. Bass, III. His curriculum vitae will be presented to you and it goes on for some 21 pages. He is a graduate of the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky and University of Pennsylvania, holding, B.A., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees.
He is board certified in forensic anthropology. And he has as you might imagine extensive teaching experience. I might say that I realize that most of you are familiar with Dr. Bass given the fact that he has done forensic work in Tennessee for many years, including work in Lewis county and Hickman county and counties in this area, including recent cases.
But in his teaching experience he has taught at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Nebraska, the University of Kansas and of course culminating in his Professorship at the University of Tennessee where he was head of the Department of Anthropology from June of 1971 until his semi-retirement in May of 1992. We have no intention of allowing Dr. Bass to retire completely.
He is now of course Professor Emeritus and Director of the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee. He has extensive research experience having done research for the Smithsonian Institution, the University of Nebraska, the National Science Foundation, and the National Geographic Society among others.
He has received extensive grants and fellowships from among others, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Nebraska, University of Kansas, National Park Service, National Science Foundation and again the National Geographic Society.
Members of the Jury and Mr. Coroner, Dr. Bass has been honored extensively. He received the Outstanding Teacher Award from the University of Kansas during his tenure there. At the University of Tennessee he was the Alumni Distinguished Professor in 1978. He was the Macebearer at the University of Tennessee in 1985-86 which is the highest honor that the University of Tennessee infers on any faculty member.
He has received the American Academy of Forensic Science Physical Anthropology Award; he was National Professor of the Year named by the Counsel for the Advancement and Support of Education in 1985. As you will recall he was honored at a Joint Session of the Senate and House of Representatives of Tennessee in 1986 for his outstanding contribution to Higher Education and Forensic Science. He received the Distinguished Lecture Award of the National College of District Attorneys; he has been a distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Iowa and Jacksonville State University.
You will recall that he received the Alexander prize from the University of Tennessee in 1993. And he received the highest award given by the American Academy of Forensic Science in 1994, which is the Distinguished Fellow Award. I might say that is the same award that Professor Starrs has received, although Professor Bass received his first.
He has had a book dedicated to him dealing with skeletal biology. He has had an issue of the Journal of Forensic Sciences dedicated to him. He has been a consultant to the Medical Examiners of the State since 1971. A consultant to both the Law Enforcement Academy of Tennessee and the FBI since 1973. He has been a consultant to both the United States Air Force and United States Army. He is a veteran having entered service in 1951 and being discharged in 1953. He is presently on the Editorial Board of the American Journal for Forensic Anthropology, the Journal of Forensic Science, and the Forensic Science Review. He is on the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Members of the Jury, he is widely credited by Forensic Scientist with being the Father of Forensic Anthropology in the United States. Many of, or most of the outstanding forensic anthropologists of the country have been trained by Dr. Bass. His publications will be submitted to you, there are a hundred and ninety-four entries in his list of published articles dealing with forensic anthropology. I submit to you to take an oath and render expert testimony in this case, Dr. William Bass.
Having been first duly sworn was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY GENERAL PHILLIPS:
Q. Dr. Bass, it is true is it not that your heart is big orange?
A. Yes, since 1971 that’s correct.
Q. Now Dr. Bass in your work as a forensic anthropologist have you had the occasion to examine skeletal remains which have been buried for long periods of time before now?
A. Yes, sir. I have had extensive experience in the excavation and analysis of prehistoric skeletal remains.
Q. You have heard the recommendation of the geologist to you that the site of the Meriwether Lewis Monument and the assumed burial site is favorable in general from the standpoint of a geologist for there being remains that you could examine; you are aware of his opinion?
A. Yes, I participated in the ground penetrating radar research that was done there in 1992 with the geologist, Dr. Stephens.
Q. Do you agree from the standpoint of your perspective as an anthropologist and archaeologist, it is a favorable site?
A. Yes, it is a favorable site. Not only—well, it is a favorable site because of the building of the monument. And in the 1930’s, the increase of dirt that was put around the monument. As far as protecting of the skeletal remains, if you’re looking at it logically, you would expect that the skeleton would be in a fairly good state of preservation.
Q. If the skeleton was to become available for a forensic anthropology examination, could that be conducted near the site with a field laboratory; could that be done?
A. It could. It would be better if it were done in a standard laboratory like the one we have in Knoxville. However it can be done in the field, I have done this many times.
Q. Would the lab of the University of Tennessee be available for examination if that should become appropriate?
A. Yes, it would.
Q. But should the Park Service stipulate that the examination be done closer to the site, it could be done in a field laboratory?
A. Yes, it can be done in a field laboratory. I think what you are asking, not only the analysis of the skeletal remains but you certainly want to x-ray all the material as Dr. Ravenholt was talking about. If there were mercury taken by Lewis, there should be evidence of this either in the bone or as the body decays, as soft tissue decays, there should be evidence of this in the dirt underneath the body. So you would want to take careful samples if you did it in the field, this certainly can be done.
Q. It could be done by forensic scientist in the field if that should be needed?
A. If that is a stipulation, that is really no problem.
Q. Now Dr. Bass you understand that the primary issue and controversy here is the manner of death of Meriwether Lewis?
A. Yes.
Q. I take it you would be concerned as an anthropologist with the identity of the remains as well; would you not?
A. Well, we have a situation in which we assume that Meriwether Lewis is buried under the monument or near the monument, but there are also other burials there also. I think, you know, in science you want to be accurate. You want to be exact, and I think the first thing that you would want to do if you found a skeletal under or near the monument, you would want to make sure it was indeed Meriwether Lewis. You would not want to do all this analysis and then somebody down the road say hey, they dug up the wrong individual.
Q. Could you determine the age of the person—
A. Yes.
Q. —represented by the skeleton?
A. Yes. What you would do in a situation like this, you have a skeleton and the police ask me to do this all the time, age, sex and race, what is the stature, what you determine as the individual that would allow me to make an identification and also allow you to determine the manner of death. And this can be done.
In Meriwether Lewis’ case he was a thirty-five year old individual. You would look at such things as all the maturity indicators would be complete, the teeth, the enclosure of epiphyses, the long bones, in other words, he is now a mature adult. And some of you are not going to like this, you really in biology reach your peak at about age 21 and any of you older than 21, it is all down hill from there on.
And so what you are doing then is you are looking at degenerative changes. You are looking at osteoarthritic changes, build up of bone around joint surfaces. And you should be able to certainly identify him on the basis of age.
On the basis of sex the best area to the look at is the pelvis. Most of you have noted that females have broader hips than do males. If you have not, and you want to notice this, you can do it now in the name of science, but women are called upon to bear the young of the species and they have broader hips. And in Meriwether Lewis’ case there should be fairly narrow hips.
The skull should have muscle markings as should the long bones. He had just returned from a long two year trip to the Pacific Coast where he walked or rode most of the way. And he would be in good physical condition. This should be evident in the skeleton.
The ancestry or race of the individual can be told from two different areas. From the skull, particularly the face, he should have a narrow nose, should have a face that comes to a point along the midline. He should have dental characteristics that would indicate he is Caucasian or white. The distal end of the femur, the knee, recently I had a doctoral student who has been able to determine with ninety percent accuracy if we had only the distal end of the knee, we can tell if he was Caucasian or not. All of those things I think you would do as a standard examination.
Q. You could determine a lot of circumstantial evidence then as to whether or not this was Meriwether Lewis?
A. Yes, I feel confident about that. This is something we do all the time.
Q. What can you tell us about the practicality of excavation at this site. You have examined the monument, you are familiar with the methods of anthropologist and archaeologist, can this site be excavated in such a way to exhume and examine the remains and not damage the monument. And return to its—to the condition that it is now?
A. Yes, I think this could be done. I won’t say fairly easily but certainly I don’t think it raises any major problems. I think what you would do in a situation like this you could come in from the side with a tunnel. Most of the time you see graves that have been excavated, you look at a view looking down on the grave. Actually this is not the best way to excavate the grave.
A better way is particularly if your grave is fragile, if the bones are fragile, beginning to decay away, if you come down on top of the grave, you have the dirt, you are removing the dirt, and that dirt tends to fall back on the bones and you keep sweeping or taking a paint brush and removing the dirt.
One of the better ways of course if you went in from the side, this would put you coming into the burial from the side of the burial and this would give you a place to pull your dirt down and away from the skeleton without damaging the skeletal remains. I think it is something that can be done, has been done and is certainly a feasible project.
Q. You think it is very feasible?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now Dr. Bass, you said that you would expect from your examination of the site, you would expect bones of the—probability is that bones would be in good enough condition for examination, is that correct?
A. Well, we hope so. You never know until you look. As a matter of fact you and I have sat here the last day and a half listening to all of this information, and I hope that you feel somewhat like I do, that I felt like clapping after every one of these experts gave their testimony. You have listened to some very, very good information. Something that you really could not get to read, but we were able to put together here to look at this situation.
You would assume given Tennessee, given the amount of water and given the PH of the soil, you would assume that there would be bones remaining there because he was buried for about thirty-nine years before the monument was built on top of him. Building the monument over the grave really is not only a good thing for the general public, but was an excellent means of protecting the skeleton from further decay that you would get from a normal cemetery situation in Tennessee.
Then of course in 1930’s the WPA or CCC comes along and adds dirt to the area, this again is protecting the bones. The skeleton is my understanding of reading the literature, looking at the monument, when the monument was built the skeleton was opened and there is no indication that there was any major deterioration to the material. And given the two events that occurred since that time, I think the material if you are looking at it logically which is what you have to do at this stage of the game, you would assume that the skeleton should be there and we hope in good enough condition to answer many of the questions or all of the questions that have been raised at this Inquest.
Q. Do you think that you and other Forensic Scientist could answer a lot of these questions if the skeleton is in good condition?
A. I think we could, yes. Having dealt with prehistoric material that covered this range in the early 1880’s and so forth, I think you could certainly tell if the skull had been impacted by bullet. You could tell the direction the bullet was going, if it is true that there was a grazing wound and the brain was exposed, this certainly should be there on the skeletal remains. If there was a shot through the chest, ribs don’t hold up as well as the bones of the skull because they are not as dense but it should be there. Entrance and exit wounds should be something that would not be too difficult to interpret.
X-ray, you are being shot in this case with a lead ball. As lead goes through bones we get what is called lead wipe. You get this even today with people being shot. You always x-ray the material and you can see the lead wipe going through there. The possibility of a lead ball still being there is excellent. There was no indication in the early literature that these balls go through, they may, the one through here probably did. But, you know, certainly the evidence of the lead wipe would be there.
Q. Does even syphilis show up on the bones?
A. Syphilis will show up on the bones. I’m not sure it will show up in the four to five year period that Dr. Ravenholt is talking about, but it is a possibility. Syphilis appears on bones in two different areas. If your tibia which is the bone between your knee and ankle, what is known as a saber shin, is very common with people in advanced stages of syphilis.
Dr. Ravenholt was talking a little bit ago, maybe of the attitude of the individual would indicate that there may be some inflammation to the brain. Well, this inflammation probably also would attack the bone. So what you would get on the inside of the skull or maybe on the outside, but more likely inside, you would get areas on the bone that would show this inflammation. The attack of bone by the spirochete that causes syphilis, so yes, that should be there.
Q. So there are many things that could be told if the skeleton is in good condition?
A. As a matter of fact I think the ultimate of all of this is, if you don’t look at the skeleton, now this is assuming if you look at and decide there is only dust, which I doubt there is only dust, but if you don’t look at the skeleton you are not going to answer the questions that have been brought up.
Q. As a forensic anthropologist do you recommend excavation? A. Absolutely, this is the only way to solve the problem we have is to excavate and look at it.
GENERAL PHILLIPS: Mr. Coroner, do you or members of the Jury have questions?
EXAMINATION
BY MR. CORONER:
Q. You’re talking about tunneling in from the side to get to the grave site. In the examination of the cemeteries there at the monument what was the closet grave to what is believed to be Meriwether Lewis’ grave site, do you remember on that?
A. General recollection, don’t put this in concrete.
Q. I understand?
A. I think there is a grave of a woman who is identified only about six to ten feet away from the edge of monument. There may be another one there. I’m going back four years now and trying to tell you what is there. The ground penetrating radar which goes down and you have the base of the monument is bigger than what you see there because essentially three or four feet of dirt was added on the mound. I think Professor Starrs showed a picture of the mound earlier.
Q. Right?
A. But to the best of our ability ground penetrating radar shows something underneath the mound. You don’t know if it is a vault or whether it is a burial but it tends to be something there.
Q. I guess what I’m asking is, is there a probability that you are going to have to disturb any other graves?
A. I don’t think so. We know from the ground penetrating radar where the other burials are and I don’t think you have to go through—you would not have to go through any of those to get in under the monument.
MR. CORONER: Other questions?
EXAMINATION
BY MR. TURNBOW:
Q. Can you answer the question of what would have to be done to protect the monument itself from any movement or shifting or damage during the excavation process?
A. Well, you are getting—the question was could I comment on what would have to be done to keep the monument from shifting and so forth. I’m not an engineer, since I will probably be the individual going down there, I hope they do a good job of holding the thing up. I don’t want to end up under that thing permanently. I don’t think that you need a great big—you don’t need a highway through there to get underneath the thing. I think you could get into it, be able to work in a space that you would not materially alter the monument. I would much rather talk to an engineer who knows more about that than I do but I have gotten down in tunnels and things before, we didn’t disturb what was above us.
MR. CORONER: Any other questions?
(No response.)
MR. CORONER: Thank you. Dr. Bass.
***WITNESS EXCUSED***
GENERAL BAUGH: Mr. Coroner, I understand we have two people, Mr. Starrs and Dr. Juice that want to address the Jury. We made that known to you and you said that you do want to hear them. And they understand the time constraints that you have, so Mr. Starrs?
MR. STARRS: I did want to point out even though I’m from big city, the outskirts of a big city, and my manners have left me, I should have thanked everyone and I want to take this very short opportunity to do so. I want to thank everyone here assembled and indeed all of those who are touched by being here and by reporting to them what you have heard and seen. Where are my manners when I point this out. The cordiality, the warmth, the courtesy, we have all been shown is something that I will take back to Virginia with me.
But in addition to that I want to point out the fact I want to thank the relatives who have taken the time and interest to be here representing not only themselves but so many other relatives that are overwhelmingly in support of my position that there is need through scientific means to resolve this dispute over the death of Meriwether Lewis.
I don’t want to let the opportunity pass to let it be known that my first order of business in any exhumation is to consult with the relatives. If the relatives had in any way, shape or form had disagreed with my proposal or my point of view or my attitude that we could not get a concurrence with, I would not be here today. I would not be doing this at all. And that is a matter that occurred in the past in the Lizzie Borden attempts and the relatives said no, and I said, no.
These relatives are informatively and almost unanimously in support of this project. In addition I would not be going forward if this were only a project for the purpose of the analysis of remains. By the analysis of remains we are preserving the remains. These remains, yes, I consider to be in sufficient condition for analysis today. But they will not always be in that condition. It is important to recognize that the heritage of Meriwether Lewis is such that we must preserve not only the dignity of the person of Meriwether Lewis but the remains of Meriwether Lewis.
And therefore after the analysis, carefully, and in a dignified way conducted, we would then put him into a vault that would remain intact, impermeable to the weather for centuries to come. You would be preserving him for the erosion that is going on now on a day-to-day basis. This is something therefore that has a two-fold objective, not only for the analysis but or the preservation of what we see.
In addition to that I want to point out everything we would do would be highly dignified. We do not intrude on other remains and everything we do is entirely dignified. We do not allowed scurrilous publicity and otherwise. Of course, we would observe anything and everything that the National Park Service would require of us. I’m sure their requirements might not even reach the requirements of our own individual scientific requirements. I thank you very much.
GENERAL BAUGH: Dr. Guice, would you like to come forward?
DR. GUICE: Thank you, can you hear me? My brief remarks will be something anticlimactic, after that wonderful statement by Professor Starrs. Indeed after hearing Dr. Bass’ calm and marvelous testimony I started not to stand up again. However, I realize today that we have press available who were not here yesterday. And as I listen to Dr. Ravenholt’s wonderful presentation because he is a man who is very powerful in his conviction and a good speaker, I felt compelled to read to you a just a few words and I won’t take but a minute or two of your time.
These words were written in the summer of 1994, they’re from an article of mine published last summer. And it is the portion of my article that deals with his article and as you recall, right before he sat down, he took a piece of paper out and he read to you a summation of the article which I also have in my article. And I want to read to you the last five or six assertions that he makes and I want to read to you about two sentences from my article and then I’m going to sit down.
I don’t want to wear the Jury out. I have taught some ten thousand students in my life and I have never had students listen to me as attentively as these people are doing today, and it has been a thrill. I am reading my summation of his article.
For some months after 1807 after his return, he was incapacitated, incapacitated by illness. In 1809, 1808-1809 he developed a progressive affliction of the central nervous system; (9) during his last moments of 1809 he suffered during his last months, months of 1809. He suffered from a progressive, these are his words, a progressive, episodic, febrile illness with severe mental behavior disorder highly characteristic of paresis; (10) he recognized he was suffering from a fatal illness; (11) Thomas Jefferson and William Clark understood when he killed himself. I’m still quoting. Ravenholt concludes his article with a summation of my reviews of suicide against people that died from syphilis.
Many of Ravenholt’s assertions are highly speculative, I’m speaking now, highly speculative, and I say this for the benefit of the relatives here. I don’t think we have any conclusive evidence of the type of behavior that Dr. Ravenholt asserts in his article. Many of Ravenholt’s assertions are highly speculative and not sustained by medical evidence. Many causes other than syphilis could account for the symptoms cataloged by Ravenholt from the Journal of Lewis and Clark. And even if one concedes that Lewis was infected with syphilis, it is highly unlikely although it is indeed possible, highly unlikely that the disease would have advanced as quickly as Ravenholt contends. I want to thank you for being such wonderful listeners. I want to thank the people for their hospitality and thank you again for this brief moment to respond.
GENERAL BAUGH: Thank you, Dr. Guice. Mr. Coroner, I believe that concludes our proceedings as far as the evidence is concerned.
MR. CORONER: This Jury has expressed to me they’re very appreciative of the attendance of the relatives of Meriwether Lewis and at this time would like to give any of them that might like to make a statement to this Jury an opportunity to do so. If there are any of the relatives of Meriwether Lewis that has a statement they’d like to make to the Jury at this time, we would ask you to make yourself known so we might be able to hear that. Dr. Anderson.
GENERAL BAUGH: Dr. Anderson, rise your right hand. (Witness Sworn.)
DR. ANDERSON: I’d just like to first thank the Jury and the attorneys and everyone who has come to this inquest. And the State also, I have never seen any event go off so well and according to plan. And I think that shows an awful lot of expert planning on the part of Professor Starrs and many others.
I have heard about Uncle Meriwether ever since I was four or five years old. But I think I have learned at least as much as I already knew from this Inquest. I’m delighted that so many people here are interested in the cause of death. And I as a physician have been twice as interested as any of the rest of you are. I love facts, I love truth. I don’t like speculation. I don’t like conjecture and I can’t see any other way to do it to get the facts than to examine the bones.
I was trained in pathology too. I have done many, I know about what you can find. And I’m all for it and I again want to thank you for giving me the chance to be here and to speak to you.
MR. CORONER: Is there anyone else from the family?
(No response.)
MR. CORONER: General Baugh and General Phillips, on behalf of this Jury I would also like to add to the statements that were made by Dr. Starrs, I think that this has been a very informative event. I have to be totally honest in telling you in the beginning I was not at all sure what I was in for the previous two days. I have been intrigued by those that have come to testify. On behalf of this Jury I would like to thank the District Attorney’s Office for your help in carrying out these proceedings. You have been very helpful.
And I would like to make a comment to the Press. It has been—I have had some previous dealings with the Press and I guess what I want to say today is thank you for your courtesy. The Press has been very courteous in every move they have made and I really appreciate that. We have had numerous telephone calls, even last night the press was calling and every single reporter that I myself or anybody on this Jury has talked to has been very courteous and we thank you for that. Usually you will find a bad apple somewhere and I know he is out there, we just have not found him yet. Thank you very much for your courtesy.
Also we need to say thank you to the National Guard Armory for allowing us to use this facility in that our local courthouse was occupied the last couple of days and we were not able to use that facility. They have made us very comfortable, they have lent their help and we thank you for doing that. And also our local police and Sheriff’s Department that has been here with us guarding us and protecting us from all you bad people, and we thank them very much for doing that. They didn’t have to do that and I do remind you that everybody that is involved here, there is no one here being paid, so we thank them very much for doing that.
And also I myself personally I would like to say thank you for the Jury, for giving their time and for the hours that are ahead of us in deliberation. I know there has been a lot of careful consideration already given and there is going to be in the deliberation process.
General Baugh, at this time the Jury will go to the Jury room and we will take some thirty minutes and then report back to you as to what our next step is going to be.
GENERAL BAUGH: Very well, Mr. Coroner.
(Jury Deliberations began at 11:42.)
(WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)
GENERAL BAUGH: The Jury has informed me they are going to recess an hour and come back in an hour and go into further deliberations.
(WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)
GENERAL BAUGH: We have a verdict.
(Whereupon the jury rendered its verdict in open Court at 1:36 p.m., and the following proceedings were held.)
MR. CORONER: After deliberation this Jury has submitted the following report to myself as Coroner of Lewis County. I would first of all like to read to you the report of the Jury and act accordingly: The report reads: To the Coroner of Lewis County this 3rd day of June 1996; This decision was rendered by Jury convened into the matter of the death of Meriwether Lewis.
Whereas the following decisions were made by unanimous agreement.
Number One: There is very little tangible evidence for this Jury to base a credible ruling as to the matter of murder or suicide.
Number 2: Because of the importance of the person in question, to the history of Lewis County, we feel exhumation is necessary for closure in this matter.
Number 3: We further request that it be taken into consideration that exhumation be carried out with an examination being done on-site. And that the remains of Meriwether Lewis not leave the site of Meriwether Lewis Park.
Number 4: That the remains be returned in a timely manner to the same grave site for which they were exhumed.
This is the Jury’s Verdict. As far as their deliberation, as Coroner, I have received this verdict and I have accepted it and so order it to be.
(WHEREUPON THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED.)
I, DONNA BUFORD, Court Reporter and Notary Public at Large, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were transcribed by me at the time and place set out in the caption hereto and I certify that the foregoing is a true record of the testimony given by the witness at that time.
I do further certify that I am neither of kin, counsel, nor interest to any party hereto.
Date_______________________________
____________________________________
Donna F. Buford, Court Reporter, and Notary Public at Large, State of Tennessee
My Commission Expires: July 14, 1997