Current Conditions
76°F - M/SUNNY
Skull of slain baby broken in 9 places
Pathologist testifies in father’s murder trial.
Lancaster New Era
Jan 14, 2009 11:08 EST
Lancaster
By JANET KELLEY, Staff Writer

The forensic pathologist, sitting in the witness stand, snapped his fingers.

That's how fast Savannah Johnson's brain would have swollen after her skull was fractured, Dr. Wayne K. Ross told a Lancaster jury today.

While jurors looked at large color photographs of the 2-month-old baby's head, Ross explained the nine skull fractures and other injuries he noted during the child's autopsy in November 2007.

Savannah's father, Owen Johnson, is on trial in Lancaster County Court, accused of killing his daughter.

Prosecutors allege that Johnson, 25, beat his baby against a coffee table inside his Mount Joy home during a five-minute period when he was alone and feeding the child on Nov. 14, 2007.

Johnson, who is deaf, grimaced as he watched an interpreter relay the pathologist's description this morning.

Several red bruise marks were visible on top of the baby's head, Ross noted, pointing to the picture.

And on the side of her head, Ross said, pointing to another picture, another bruise was clearly visible near her hairline.

But when he performed the autopsy and looked at the skull, Ross continued, he found seven fractures on the back of her head and two more fractures on top.

Additionally, Ross said, he found "eight different areas of bruising to the head."

Defense attorney John I. McMahon has suggested the possibly the baby's mother, Marla Rabenstein, caused the injuries to the child and that there was a communication breakdown with police and ambulance personnel since neither parent can hear.

Both Johnson and Rabenstein have denied hurting their baby.

Before testimony began today, Judge Dennis Reinaker repeated a warning he has issued every day during the trial, telling deaf and hearing impaired spectators not to use sign language to communicate with each other during the proceedings.

Johnson is surrounded by five sign language interpreters.

Two teams of two interpreters use sign language to make sure Johnson is aware of all the discussion and testimony in the courtroom.

A fifth interpreter sits beside him, communicating any questions or comments between Johnson and his defense attorney.

On the night of the incident, Johnson reportedly carried the limp child to Rabenstein, 19, who was in the kitchen. She ran to a neighbor's house for help.

The neighbors called 911 and went to the home to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the child until ambulance personnel arrived.

Testimony from police, neighbors and the child's mother haven't included recollections of Johnson beating the girl — only that he was with her when she became unconscious and unresponsive.

The young parents told police the baby was out of sorts and sleepy all day before she became unresponsive that night.

Assistant District Attorney Karen Mansfield has argued Johnson is the killer because the baby would have gone limp immediately after sustaining bruises and fractures to the skull and a severed spinal cord.

On Tuesday afternoon, Dr. Robert Tamburo, who cared for the infant at Hershey Medical Center, testified the  brain swelling can take up to 96 hours to manifest itself.

During cross-examination from the defense attorney, Tamburo said a prior head injury could have caused the lethargy that was observed by the parents hours before Savannah went into cardiac arrest.

Also on Tuesday, McMahon questioned Mount Joy police Detective Joseph Goody about the way he handled the case.

McMahon suggested that Goody suspected Johnson to be involved in the girl's death before he even arrived at the Johnson home at 495 S. Plum St.

Goody countered that he found out, through phone conversations, that Johnson was the last one holding the child and based on his experience, the last person holding a child in such a case is typically the culprit.

Johnson gave a statement to police and was given back a written version for review. He looked over it, but gave it back before he read it, Goody said.

The detective said the statement was too long to be read in the brief time Johnson looked at it.

McMahon argued Johnson didn't read it because he couldn't.


Staff writer Janet Kelley can be reached at jkelley@LNPnews.com or 481-6026.


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 18 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
QUOTE (jupiter @ Jan 14 2009, 03:23 PM)
Osteogenesis Imperfecta could have been a factor in the fractures, but I'm sure it would have shown up in the autopsy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteogenesis_imperfecta


Not this young. OI would not cause spontaneous fracture, especially not of the skull. Not 9 (NINE!!!) times!

And just FYI - OI does not cause severed spinal cords!!!!!!!!
ceejay
I wonder if the baby may have been accidentally dropped, maybe even before that day?
Maybe they / he were unaware of the severity of the injuries…
Does he have a mental dissability too?
Maybe I’m just trying to not think the unimaginable?

Poor Royal
QUOTE (Poor Royal @ Jan 15 2009, 12:21 AM)
I wonder if the baby may have been accidentally dropped, maybe even before that day?
Maybe they / he were unaware of the severity of the injuries…
Does he have a mental dissability too?
Maybe I’m just trying to not think the unimaginable?


A severed spinal cord would mean total paralysis, and depending on how high in the cervical spine, the child could not breathe.

The "unimaginable" is 9 fractures to the skull and a severed spinal cord. There is no accident that could account for these kinds of catastrophic injuries. Even if dropped, was he dropped 9 times?
ceejay
Something stinks. Which is strange because it's like they sprayed the room with air freshener before someone farted.

The accused can't see those giving testimony because he's surrounded by an army of sign language interpreters who are charged with telling him everything going on in front of his own eyes. All he really needs is one interpreter to tell him what's being said. Two teams, working in shifts? Shifty, says I. Last I heard he isn't blind.

And, um, just how many teams of sign language interpreters are servicing the wife? I know she reads lips, so says the paper, but has she really been declared free of any possible guilt, just 'cause she said so?

Is she even there?

And why, exactly, can't deaf members of the public communicate to each other? How will the accused see them when he is surrounded by an army of people telling him what is happening before his own eyes?

It may just be yet another case of LNP's horrendous reporting skills, but this whole affair reads like a big fat set-up, with someone with "too much to loose" pulling the strings behind the scenes.
citydweller
QUOTE (citydweller @ Jan 15 2009, 12:42 AM)
Something stinks. Which is strange because it's like they sprayed the room with air freshener before someone farted.

The accused can't see those giving testimony because he's surrounded by an army of sign language interpreters who are charged with telling him everything going on in front of his own eyes. All he really needs is one interpreter to tell him what's being said. Two teams, working in shifts? Shifty, says I. Last I heard he isn't blind.

And, um, just how many teams of sign language interpreters are servicing the wife? I know she reads lips, so says the paper, but has she really been declared free of any possible guilt, just 'cause she said so?

Is she even there?

And why, exactly, can't deaf members of the public communicate to each other? How will the accused see them when he is surrounded by an army of people telling him what is happening before his own eyes?

It may just be yet another case of LNP's horrendous reporting skills, but this whole affair reads like a big fat set-up, with someone with "too much to loose" pulling the strings behind the scenes.


Actually, no one attending the trial in the audience is permitted to "communicate" with each other during the trial. You are not permitted to lean over and talk to the person next to you. Just because the deaf aren't talking out loud, their signing is communicating. With deaf witnesses on the witness stand, and signing taking place, there could be witness tampering. And the interpreters are undoubtedly a dot every i cross every t thing where the court is mandated to provide interpreter, but the defense wants their own, and the prosecutor's office wants their own and ... well, you get the point. It is a circus. As usual.
ceejay
Top Ads