From: "Walsh-Haney, Heather" <hwalsh@fgcu.

edu>
Date: April 2, 2015 at 12:00:06 AM EDT
Subject: Answers to Ms. Payne's Questions
Dear Ms. Payne,
In order to answer your questions, it is best for me to reply by explaining my role as a District 21
Medical Examiner consultant and the general case processing procedures as they were known to me. I
was a consultant for the medical examiners office from December 2005 through the end of 2007. In
2008, Dr. Rebecca Hamilton formally notified me in writing that she no longer required the pro bono
forensic anthropology consulting services that I performed for her office.
During the time I consulted for her office, I would become involved with casework at the
medical examiners request. Sometimes that would involve a phone call or, on days when I was already
there, a medical examiner might ask me to evaluate a case for him/her. For example, I may have been
asked to examine the remains while the medical examiner conducted the autopsy; I may have evaluated
radiographs to help the medical examiner establish an identification; or I may have analyzed skeletal
remains in their infectious-decomposition room. The medical examiner or medical examiner investigator
would let me know if the analysis needed to be done quickly and if a written report or verbal
assessment was needed. Depending upon the complexity of the case, the examination may have been
brief, or have taken days, weeks, or even months.
The logging-in and logging-out of human remains or associated physical evidence was never
part of my responsibilities. When I was contacted to look at a specimen or case, I would arrive and the
remains would be brought to me by a medical examiner investigator or medical examiner and I would
conduct the examination in the infectious-decomposition room. After I was done with my analyses, all of
the remains were left in the infectious-decomposition room within the medical examiners facility. If the
analysis was done while the medical examiner was conducting the autopsy, I would bring the remains
back from the infectious-decomposition room to the medical examiner while the autopsy was still going
on in the main morgue. But in the case of nearly complete skeletal remains, the remains were brought
to me and I would work on them (almost always with 1 to 3 of my FGCU graduate students) in the
infectious-decomposition room. I would explain my findings to the medical examiner and/or medical
examiner investigator and the skeletal remains were left in the infectious-decomposition room for the
medical examiner investigator to return to the evidence room. I never retrieved or returned any case
materials, including bones, to the evidence room because that was not my responsibility. Rather, that
procedure was done by medical examiner staff.
You question regarding why Alexis Sosas remains were in the medical examiners evidence
room: I do not know because that would never be my decision to make. The bones that are retained and
the types of examinations that must be done are decisions made by the medical examiner. At the time
that the remains for this case were brought to the medical examiners office, to be best of my
recollection, the remains had been mixed with charred metal and other objects (e.g., pieces of a vehicle
and other non-biological items). I was asked to determine which of these fragments were human and to
separate them from the other objects. I may have also been asked to examine or evaluate what
appeared to be injuries. But again, the decisions concerning retention of Alexis Sosas remains within the
evidence room were not up to me.

With regard to the administrative procedures at the medical examiners office, consultants do
not fill out intake forms or other forms that have to do with information provided by the family or
funeral home. To the best of my knowledge, these are administrative procedures normally assigned to
the medical examiners office staff. I certainly never had access to those systems. And, as indicated in
Brett Hardings report he inquired with the administrative staff why those remains would be listed as
a donation and they stated that it must have been a mistake. Then Harding indicates that
he changed to computer designation back to (1) for burial.
Regarding your final question, since I was not present at the time Harding prepared his report, I
do not know what remains he observed at that time and cannot be sure. I do believe he may be
referencing a medical-quality, store purchased skull that was used in a Santeria ritual that was a case
under the jurisdiction of Medical Examiner Barbara Wolff and the Lee County Sheriffs Office. At that
time and now, my opinion was/is that the skull was consistent with a medical-quality, store purchased
Santeria ritual specimen. Those types of human remains (from medical supply houses that are ritually
used) cannot be repatriated. Rather, they tend to be used for educational purposes in K-12 or university
settings or they are placed in medical examiner or law enforcement evidence rooms. However, I did not
remove the specimen because the appropriate paperwork from the medical examiner was never
generated and given to me to sign. Because I did not sign the medical examiner generated paperwork it
would not be possible to donate the skull to FGCU for teaching purposes. Therefore, I did not remove
the specimen from the District 21 Medical Examiners office or evidence room. Again, I am not entirely
sure that Santeria case was the osteological remains Harding references in his report because I did not
lay eyes on the remains or other types of physical evidence that were stored in the medical examiners
evidence room. However, I never removed that specimen from the medical examiners office or
evidence room. I can only assume it is still there under the custody of the medical examiner.
I also do not recall having a conversation with the medical examiners or their staff about the
retention of Alexis Sosas remains. Because the turnover of remains to the family is within the exclusive
purview of the medical examiner I would not expect them to ask me regarding that decision and they
certainly would not leave the decision to me.
Lastly, I am compelled to ask whether you have spoken with Dr. Hamilton or her associates or
staff regarding this issue? If there are, in fact, remains that were not returned to the family after the
October 23, 2007 report, then such a decision would have to have been made by those individuals.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain these matters to you.

Sincerely,
Heather Walsh-Haney, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
BS & MS Program Leader
College of Arts and Sciences
Department of Justice Studies
Merwin Hall
10501 FGCU Blvd. South
Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565
Office Phone: (239) 590-7693