Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Doctors: Diabetes played no role in boy's death

By Sue Lindsay, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 6, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Related Stories

More Local News

More stories »

A trio of doctors on Tuesday rebutted the defense contention that Chandler Grafner died of undiagnosed diabetes.

The 7-year-old died May 6, 2007, of dehydration and starvation, prosecutors said, after being kept in a locked closet in the dark without food and water.

Jon Phillips, his guardian, is on trial for first-degree murder in his death.

Dr. Joel Haas, an expert in pediatric pathology from Seattle, said there was no question that Chandler died of starvation and dehydration, and that diabetes played no role in the boy's death.

He said Chandler was emaciated and that his organs weighed two-thirds of what they should have. The boy's tissues were atrophied and his bladder contained less than a teaspoon of urine, indicating severe dehydration, Haas said.

Hass said Chandler had been without food and water for at least four days and "probably a lot longer."

He also said that Chandler was "far, far below" the 5th percentile on growth charts for his age. According to court records, the boy weighed 34 pounds when he died.

"Half of all 3-year-olds weigh more than he did," Haas said.

Chandler's pediatricians, who treated him from his premature birth to age 6, said he was a "perfectly healthy child" who never showed any signs of diabetes.

"He was small and thin throughout his whole life, but he was basically a healthy boy and thriving," said Dr. Rudy Schmiedt.

Dr. Kenneth Kutalek recalled Chandler as a giggly child who liked to run around people's legs.

Schmiedt was the last pediatrician to see Chandler before his death. He said Phillips brought Chandler in with a cold, fever and sore throat on July 5, 2006. At that time, Chandler weighed 38.5 pounds.

Defense attorneys contend that Chandler died from ketoacidosis, a complication of diabetes, but Kutalek, who said he has treated many such patients, said Chandler had no sign of diabetes and no family history of it.

Asked if patients with ketoacidosis look like Chandler did in photos taken after he died, Kutalek replied, "Not even remotely like that, including those who died."

The doctor said Chandler looked as if he had no muscle mass left, "more like a concentration camp victim."

Phillips told police that he gave Chandler nebulizer treatments with his half-brother's asthma medicine, something he said was suggested by Chandler's doctors.

But Schmiedt said he never suggested that and generally did not think that was a good idea, especially since Chandler had no history of asthma.

Haas, too, said he found no indication of diabetic ketoacidosis.

He also discounted a lab test done in support of the ketoacidosis theory. Haas said the lab that performed the test is not certified or accredited by the College of American Pathologists.

"I thought that test was nonsense," Haas said.

At a glance

* On trial: Jon Phillips

* Charges: First-degree murder and child abuse resulting in the starvation death of 7-year-old Chandler Grafner

* Tuesday developments: Jury hears testimony from Chandler's pediatricians and a pathologist who is an expert in the cause of death in children. All three say there was no evidence of diabetes in Chandler. The defense contends that Chandler died from ketoacidosis, a complication of diabetes.

* Expected witnesses today: More experts.

Comments

  • August 6, 2008

    6:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    hdfresh writes:

    The defense attorneys better come up with a better defense than that. Come on, you have 3 accredited doctors saying the same thing where diabetes is not a factor in his death like we all thought at the beginning of this trial.

  • August 6, 2008

    7:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HollyGoLightly writes:

    I'm curious to see what the defense will present when they have the stand. I'm also curious to see what Berry's defense will be when her trial starts. I wonder if she will turn on Phillips and blame him or will she use the same diabetes defense.

  • August 6, 2008

    7:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fiesty writes:

    Before Scott shows up, I'd like to point out that the defense was only doing their jobs- the diabetes was probably all they could come up with. I just hope it's not used as grounds later for incompetent counsel, or some other such nonsense. I'm sure the public defender that was assigned hates them just as much as we do, but is only doing their jobs.

  • August 6, 2008

    8:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    CDee writes:

    Oh ,I see the "poor me, I had a bad childhood defense" coming on.

  • August 6, 2008

    8:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jtriska writes:

    Oh yes! One more step closer until Phillips is getting cornholed in prison. Yeah CDee, I can see that one coming around the corner as plan B for the defense as well. "Phillips' dad was mean to him and that's why he didn't feed his child. Since he wasn't cared for as a young man, he never learned how to care for a young man." Something along those lines. These defense attorneys are scum.
    Rest In Peace Chandler.

  • August 6, 2008

    8:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    MsValeriah writes:

    Earlier in the trial, someone suggested that the defense attorneys came up with the diabetes thing because they really didn't want to get Phillips off and knew that it was a lame defense. I think that might be a clever way of "defending" this monster without really defending him.

    Phillips just should have pleaded guilty to begin with. He's toast, and hopefully by now, he knows it. My wish is that the prison people won't isolate him and the boys in the big house will have their way with him day in and day out for the rest of his miserable life. After stealing his food from him so he doesn't get to eat. Ever.

  • August 6, 2008

    8:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jtriska writes:

    Oh, and fiesty, I just read your post. "Just doing their jobs" is no excuse for having the lowest, $Kum-$ucKing form of employment known to mankind. Are you sure the defense was appointed to this case, or were they hired to take this case? Anybody know? There is not enough money in the world to get me to defend any monster such as this. So why on earth would anybody pursue a career where you could end up defending child murderers? Cantor's career is over after this. How many people are going to want his services after he's know as the guy who was just "doing his job" to free this monster. Again, not for all of the money in the world. I'd rather have bamboo chutes stuffed under my eyelids than have a career such as this.

  • August 6, 2008

    8:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ClarenceDarrow writes:

    Only one thing is certain; before this trial is over, jtriska can be counted on for another dozen or so variations on his patented Bubba/prison rape comment.

  • August 6, 2008

    8:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    buffsblg writes:

    Valeriah, I know one of these attorneys and he would never present a "fake" defense to get their client convicted. I do not know what evidence they have to support the diabetes theory, except that they have endorsed a medical expert and apparently a lab test also supported the theory. It will be up to the jury to decide who to believe.

    Before the day starts with Scott's repetitive "all lawyers are prostitute's" rant, remember a few things. The decision whether or not to plead is not the lawyers, but the defendant's. In a case like this where no plea offer was made the defendant has the right to plead not guilty and essentially say "prove it" rather than just go off to prison for life. That is why we have trials. In that situation the defense attorney has the difficult job of trying to present whatever defense can be put together. In this case there may be a difference of medical opinion as to the cause of death. There is also the issue of whether the death was intentional or knowing or more "reckless". Even if the defendant's actions caused the death, the jury will need to decide his mental state in order to choose what charges to convict on and that may have a significant impact on sentencing length.

    The key here is that the jury gets to decide: not the prosecution, not the judge, not the defense attorneys and not the various blowhards on the message boards. We trust twelve citizens to hear all the evidence and render a decision. Other cultures do it differently, but this is the one we have relied upon since the first days of the Nation. The prosecution, the judge and even the much despised defense attorneys all play a role in trying to get to a just result. The system is far from perfect and there are persons of poor judgment and questionable ethics in all roles. However, despite the flaws, it is a system I trust far more than the others I have seen and read about.

  • August 6, 2008

    8:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SeekKnowledge writes:

    jtriska, Yes, the defendant's attorneys were assigned. They are Alternate Defense Counsel, which is, in effect, part of the Public Defenders system in Colorado. Berry is using a Public Defender, and because there would be a conflict of interest in representing both defendants, Phillips was assigned an ADC attorney. These two are good men and EXCELLENT attorneys. They've been assigned a horrible and very taxing job that is taking it's toll on them in more ways than most folks understand. They are doing the best job they can; and they don't have an secret agenda of providing a bad defense so Phillips doesn't get off. In defending this man, as guilty as he may be, they are upholding a system which is meant to protect you, me and everyone else. Despite the ill will you project, this will not hurt their careers. Finally, no one is stopping you from stuffing bamboo chutes stuffed under your eyelids.

  • August 6, 2008

    9:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SeekKnowledge writes:

    My apologies for my last comment to jtriska. It was uncalled for and lent nothing of worth to the discussion. I'm sorry... My apologies, also, for the several typos in my last post. I'll try to remember to proofread next time.

  • August 6, 2008

    9:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    MsValeriah writes:

    Buffsbig: Just so you know, my intent in repeating that supposition by another poster was to defend the defense attorneys against their detractors, i.e., jtriska and scott and their ilk. Theirs is truly a miserable task, having to defend this horrid monster who is so obviously guilty. But you're right. an ethical attorney wouldn't deliberately "throw" a trial like that. I apologize for the suggestion.

    I'm just eager to see Phillips get his just punishment. No fate he could suffer would be horrible enough to make up for what he did to poor Chandler.

  • August 6, 2008

    9:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jtriska writes:

    Yes, they are excellent attorneys. I have actually had the pleasure of being defended by Cantor himself. He got my case thrown out. I made a house payment or two for him about 6 years ago. I'm better now. The meds work great, and the a-hole that started it is finally on solid foods. I guess alot of people, such as myself, are just so angry that this monster even gets his day in court, and any little glimmer of a defense to perhaps free this maniac just compounds the anger. I am just anxious to see this guy fry A.S.AP

  • August 6, 2008

    10:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    buffsblg writes:

    valeriah

    I know that you were just repeating, not supporting, that comment. This case is so emotional and difficult that it does tend to bring out the worst in some posters.

    In response to jtriska's rant, these attorneys were court appointed and are doing this for an hourly rate much less than what they can and do earn in private practice and about 1/10th of what they could make representing rich defendants like Nacchio or the Enron guys.

    Attorneys do this type of work because they believe that whatever the case, the process only works if everyone has the chance at a fair trial, and that includes a good defense. Yes the majority of person's accused are guilty of something, but that does not end the discussion. Even guilty clients often have mitigating factors that society may consider. More frighteningly, there are innocent people in jail all over this country: some due to corruption, some due to incompetent defense representation.

    If a guilty person goes to trial and is convicted, then the system works, but only if the jury heard all the evidence, fully considered the facts and then made a decision based upon the law. Without defense attorneys that will not and does not happen. Darren Cantor is a smart ethical and moral person and anyone accused of a crime would receive his best efforts and would be fortunate to have his help. He does not have to do this work, he does it out of a truly heroic belief that even bad guys deserve a fair trial.

    I know that guys like Scott do not believe in that system and instead favor a lynch mob mentality where he gets to be judge and executioner. I would only point out that when that system has been used, the innocent have often been the victims.

    If Phillips is guilty of this horrific crime, I have not problem with him never seeing the light of day. I am however willing to be patient for a few days to let the jury do their job.

  • August 6, 2008

    10:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    CDee writes:

    Buff
    If the jury does find him guilty can we THEN go to the lynch mob mentality?

  • August 6, 2008

    10:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    buffsblg writes:

    no cdee, as much as I emotionally would love to see teh ehads people convicted of this type of crime on pikes outside the courthouse, the system still needs to work and civilization still applies. Having visited various prisons in this state, I am satisfied that if guilty a very ong prison term is sufficient.

  • August 6, 2008

    11:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jlong writes:

    I would just like to say that I think this is the saddest thing I have heard in a long time. The terrible things this innocent child went through gives me chills. What really irks me is that Chandler was taken away once befor so why didn;t Jon just say "hey I don;t want the kid anymore place him somewhere else". It leads me to believe he wanted to abuse Chandler. Its just so disgusting I cant imagin what that man or his girlfirend were thinking. They both desearve the death penalty for what they did to that poor little boy.

  • August 6, 2008

    11:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jb10 writes:

    I do think this pathetic excuse for a man is guilty and I have been following this story very closely. My heart breaks every time I read a story. However I would like to know why social services is not being held accountable for their roll or lack there of in this case. The child was in the system and that system and/or some one in the system failed him. He was out of school for some time and not checked on by social services? It had been months since he was looked in on, why? In the testimony the one lady wondered why she hadn't met with him when he was there about the ear incident. Seems to me they had their "internal investigation" and that was that. I think an "external investigation" is called for. It just seems to me that he was not looked after closely enough by a system that was supposed to protect him from exactly what took place. Not only that but this is not a secluded case, I believe 13 children have died over a period of time of a year (maybe 2 years). All while in this system. To me that is a problem!

  • August 6, 2008

    2:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    randeg1 writes:

    I am glad you are reporting details on this trial as I will wait in anticipation what the jury will say about this. It looks like though that the boy was not cared for based on the results of the examinations instead of dying from diabetes ketoacidosis as the defense claimed.

    http://www.free-symptoms-of-diabetes-... (If you want to visit, just click but if it doesn’t work, copy and paste it onto your browser.)