Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel.
MR. KELBERG: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Miss Chapman, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Mr.--
MR. KELBERG: Kelberg, your Honor.
THE COURT: --Kelberg and Mr. Lynch--I know all these names. I will get them--Mr. Darden. Mr. Fairtlough is with us as well. Mr. Cochran, I suspect we need to wait for Mr. Shapiro.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Let me check in the hall, your Honor.
THE BAILIFF: He is right here in the hall, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We have now been joined by Mr. Shapiro along with Dr. Wolf. Good morning, counsel.
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: I will give you a second there to get seated.
MR. SHAPIRO: I apologize.
THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?
MR. SHAPIRO: No, your Honor. We are ready to proceed.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg?
MR. KELBERG: I agree, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And counsel, I have asked the support staff to provide the doctor with a wireless microphone to make his presentation clearer to all of us, since he is constantly turning away from somebody who needs to hear his testimony, and we will see how that works. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lakshmanan, would you please resume the witness stand, please.
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: The record should reflect that Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Kelberg. Good morning, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. And good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The jury: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I believe we are going to go back to the photo, back to People's exhibit 355, to finish up some photographs of the hand and other areas of Nicole Brown Simpson, so again with the Court's permission, if we can--
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, we did correct the entry on photograph B-23 of exhibit 352 to reflect that it is the right rather than the left side of the head.
THE COURT: All right. Noted for the record. Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, we also corrected exhibit 354, I believe it is the crime scene board, to show that the photographs were taken on June 13, 1994, rather than `95, as originally depicted.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, can I see that just briefly?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Doctor, why don't you take the pointer with you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: I believe, doctor, we were talking yesterday about B-31 and B-12 with respect to the palm side of the right hand; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, was there anything further that you needed to discuss with respect to any findings with respect to the palm surface of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any photograph on this board, exhibit 355, showing the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Photograph B-1 shows the back of the right hand.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you normally expect, at the time of the June 14th, 1994, photography process, that a photograph similar in nature to the photograph B-29, showing the back of the left hand, would have been taken of the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Was any such photograph taken?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able, from your examination of photograph B-1, to see anything of significance with respect to the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is some blood staining, but one can also see a small abrasion on the right index finger which has been addressed in the report.
MR. KELBERG: Just to set the correct sequence of events, the photograph B-1 was taken on June 14th?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is this one of the first photographs that would have been taken in the course of the autopsy process?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How can you tell that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because this is the--the decedent is clothed and this is the first paragraph we take in the Coroner's office.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does this photograph represent fairly and accurately the condition of Nicole Brown Simpson as you saw her initially on June 13th, the day earlier?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: More or less.
MR. KELBERG: What is the more and what is the less?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because I saw her when she was lying on her back on the gurney when she was brought to the office. Right now she has been propped up on her side.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, even though I think you have a wireless microphone provided by the Court, you may be dropping your voice and it is still I think somewhat difficult to hear you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Otherwise it is the same person and the dress is--the clothing is the same which I saw on June 13th.
MR. KELBERG: On June 13th did you examine the back of the right hand to see whether or not there were any injuries, wounds or matters of consequence to you as a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't do a detailed examination of the body. I only saw the major wound which is the neck which has been discussed, and my purpose was to just to get an idea about the two decedents who are brought to our office and also assign the criminalist to examine the remains and assign a medical examiner. I didn't examine in detail.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the abrasion that you identify on the back of the right hand, again its located as seen in photograph B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on the right index finger here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Can you be any more specific where on the right index finger that abrasion--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on the base of the right index.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you will remember to wait until I finish my question, I will try and remember to wait until you finish your answer, and I have a feeling the court reporter will be very happy with both of us.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, where on the index finger?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The base of the right index finger here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Base," could you point on your own, showing it to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the area that you see in that photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Somewhere here, pointing to my index finger here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, where the finger appears to join the hand.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, that abrasion, are you able to tell from an examination of the photograph as to whether it was received before, at or around the time of or after death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was an antemortem abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: By the appearance and color, because I examined it with a magnifying glass.
MR. KELBERG: By the way, you had a magnifying glass I think over the last couple of days that you have pulled out. Is a magnifying glass one of the tools of the trade of a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How is it used by a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When you examine wounds, when you examine photographs, it is sometimes--not sometimes--it is a good habit to look at the wounds carefully. This way you see any minor--any minor irregularities on wound margins, and also if the wound is small, it helps you to understand the features better.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from what you observed in that abrasion on photograph B-1, do you have any opinion as to the manner in which that abrasion was received by Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a nonspecific blunt force trauma.
MR. KELBERG: Which means what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is a blunt force injury. It doesn't have any pattern, it doesn't have any specifics to it. It could occur in the same manner the abrasions to the left hand happened, contact with any rough surface.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does that abrasion play any consequence in any of the big picture questions that you have been asked to evaluate and about which you have testified to during the course of your presentation here?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as long as we are on this photograph B-1--in fact, before I move to that other area, did Dr. Golden address that abrasion in any way in his original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram it in any way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Does it also get addressed in any addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any--anything that you observed of significance between the description in the protocol and the diagram and the photograph showing the actual abrasion B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The diagram accurately reflects the injury, but the description, it was erroneously described as ring finger.
MR. KELBERG: Let me take the photo down and let's go and see the actual protocol and diagram. I don't think we are going to lean this up against here. This is one we have to move back, if we could ask counsel and the doctors to switch places with us.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: We are going to put up 0B and 4B from our group 349, your Honor.
THE COURT: Noted. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where in the protocol is there any reference to that particular abrasion on the index finger on the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 7.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here on paragraph no. 4.
MR. KELBERG: And that is a two-line paragraph and it talks about the dorsal surface. From our discussion, I guess on Tuesday, "Dorsal" is another word for the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, with a red pen or marker I will outline that two-line paragraph and on the right margin I will write "B-1."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that an accurate description of the location of the abrasion that you also identified in the photograph B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: What is wrong?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says "Ring finger" but it should be the index finger.
MR. KELBERG: And what I will do for the record then, your Honor, is with the blue marker I will circle the words "Ring finger" on the second line of the paragraph that is already circled in red on page 7 of the form 12.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, inviting your attention then to the board with the 23 form, do you see any entry there that goes along with the abrasion you identified from the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. On the right upper quadrant in the back of the right hand you can see the abrasion to the right index finger.
MR. KELBERG: Can you make out what is the writing from Dr. Golden regarding that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is "Reddish brown abrasion."
MR. KELBERG: And where the doctor has circled in the schematic in the upper right quadrant of this form, I have circled it in red and with a line going to the side I will write "B-1"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And that is 1/16 inch punctate abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 1/16 inch punctate abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: Is that an accurate description from your observation of the blunt force trauma abrasion on the index finger as seen in photograph B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you describe it as a mistake for Dr. Golden's autopsy report to reflect the ring finger as having this 1/16 inch punctate abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a mistake in his dictation, but in his documentation it is not a mistake because it has documented it properly.
MR. KELBERG: The mistake in the dictation, is that of any significance on any of these big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further about that particular finding?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, doctor, was there seen by you in the photograph any abrasion to the back of the right hand at the base of the ring finger as Dr. Golden's protocol actually says?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And then I think we are done with these and we will go back to the photographs. I'm sorry, so we don't move counsel, there is something I can take care of while we have these. You will excuse me just one second, doctor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I just wanted to briefly return to the entry that reflected B-24 and B-23, the sharp force injury that was to the head area of Nicole Brown Simpson, referring to the one that is seen in both of those photographs, B-24, B-23. Do you recall that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And you recall testifying that there had been an addendum addition made to reflect that Dr. Golden had described it in the diagram in one fashion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: But the dictation had it in a different form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And the addendum then corrected it to reflect what the diagram actually showed; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you review testimony given by Dr. Golden at a preliminary hearing in this case in which he was asked questions about the dimensions of that particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And inviting Court and counsel, if you all want to crowd around, I have it here, to page 70 of the preliminary hearing transcript, beginning at line 7 and going through line 18.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you review the following testimony: "Question: Now, Dr. Golden, there were two other wounds you observed with regard to Nicole Brown Simpson's scalp; is that correct? "Answer: Yes. There was a cutting wound or stab wound superficially right in the posterior parietal. In other words, lower down here on the right side of the lower scalp. This was a one and one-half inch in length superficial wound only going in 3/8 inch to one and one-half inches, a non-fatal wound, and there was a small amount of hemorrhage associated again that occurred before death. It was an antemortem injury." Doctor, did you review that testimony?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Is there an error in that testimony, in your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is the error?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He used the same information which was on the protocol when he gave the testimony.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say "The same information," specifically which information, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 6, item 6.
MR. KELBERG: The dimensions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And you have testified yesterday those dimensions were not the actual dimensions; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I believe you then testified that the addendum report contains the actual correct dimensions with the change?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, does this mistake in Dr. Golden's testimony affect in any way your ability to answer any of the big ticket questions that you've reviewed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now I think we are back to the photos.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. You are going back to 355?
MR. KELBERG: Correct, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: One last question about the back of the right hand as shown in B-1. Doctor, is there any significance to you in the fact that you observed only one 1/16 inch punctate abrasion at the base of the index finger in the area of the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is the significance of that observation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same reason I gave yesterday, that there seems to be a paucity of Defense wounds in the hands of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson which would again support my opinion that she was rapidly incapacitated or incapable of resistance when she was assaulted.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want to take your attention back to June 13th, the first day that you saw the body of Nicole Brown Simpson. Were you present for a discussion about whether or not something called a sexual assault kit should be taken in this particular case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't play a part in the discussion, but we didn't take a sexual assault kit.
MR. KELBERG: Did you in fact give a concurrence to the determination not to take a sexual assault kit?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't give a determination, but I didn't feel it was necessary.
MR. KELBERG: And did you express that view?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I expressed that view later, but I didn't think it was indicated.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you are going to have to keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't think it was indicated.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, why did you not--first of all, let's define what is a sexual assault kit?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A sexual assault kit is the process by which you gain evidence from the genital area, oral area, rectal area, to document that there is any evidence of sexual assault which would indicate--you basically look for evidence of seminal material in these areas. Also look for evidence of injuries which could have been from a sexual act which resulted in injuries.
MR. KELBERG: Why did you not feel that it was appropriate or necessary to take a sexual assault kit in the case of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: She was fully clothed, the intimate apparel were in place.
MR. KELBERG: The intimate apparel being what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The panties. They were not in disarray. There were no evidence of any injuries to the thighs, which I could see, and basically the appearance did not indicate a necessity to do a sexual assault kit and I did call our criminalist and he also did not feel it was necessary to do, to take a sexual assault kit, because they didn't take any. And later during the autopsy Dr. Golden also did not see any injuries to the genital area and there was no indication for taking a sexual assault kit.
MR. SHAPIRO: Move to strike what Dr. Golden saw or didn't see as hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. That answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard that portion of the answer regarding what Dr. Golden said or saw.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden include in the autopsy protocol, the form 12, any material regarding an examination of the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: And we will look at it as to the specifics, but if you could summarize what that information was, please tell us.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically there was no injuries observed.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, did you examine the panties for any evidence of tearing, cutting, anything whatsoever that would appear, other than the normal appearance of a pair of women's panties?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: What, if anything, did you observe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I examined--as I mentioned earlier, I had an opportunity to see the panties first in this appearance when it was on Miss Simpson and later on June 22nd when the evidence was viewed with the Defense pathologist, Dr. Wolf and Dr. Baden, who are here, and at that time ultraviolet light was also used, the panty was carefully examined. There was no evidence of any fluorescence which would indicate a seminal stain. There was a fluorescence from frayed material and that--and also there was no visible tears which could be seen, so basically the panty appeared intact except for some fraying and the fluorescence was not as we could seen from seminal stains.
MR. KELBERG: When you saying "Fraying," doctor, what do you mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Fraying from fibers in the material because of wear and tear. You get some fibers of wear and tear and these fibers flourescence because of the material from which the panties are made from.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience as a forensic pathologist can you estimate for us how many cases of rape/murder you have seen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A significant number of cases. Either I have seen them during my autopsies, I have done several dozen strangulation cases myself, plus I have supervised cases.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say "Supervised," can you estimate approximately how many homicide cases were handled by your office last year that included evidence of the victim being sexually assaulted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't have the numbers off the top of my head. I have to get the numbers for you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience have you ever seen a situation where a woman was raped by the murderer, and to rape the woman her panties would have had to be removed so the penis could be inserted in the vagina and ejaculation could occur, and then before the murderer committed the murder the panties were put back on the victim and put back on in the appropriate position with no evidence of tearing or any disarray as you've described was the condition of Nicole Brown Simpson's panties?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. That is an improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have not seen any cases like that. The cases where the clothing has been put back on, they are--at least the cases I have seen they have been put back on improperly and there is always evidence of--evidence of assault which you can see.
MR. KELBERG: What do you mean by "Evidence of assault that you can see"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You will see blood staining and you will--because of the trauma involved and also the zipper--the pant would have been put back in a wrong fashion, the zipper in the back instead of being in the front, the panty could have been put back on upside down. So what I'm saying is I have not seen a case where the assault has taken place, the person has been murdered and where the clothing is in the condition where we see Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's clothing to have been when we see these photographs.
MR. KELBERG: Would your answer be the same if the sexual assault were changed from one of rape involving penetration of the vaginal area to one of sodomy for penetration of the anal area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same--actually in sodomy you would expect to see definite injuries because you will see evidence of anal lacerations which were not described. There was no--you will find evidence of bleeding and that is also not seen.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion is there any basis, from all of the material you have reviewed in this case, now taking you beyond June 13th and to today's date, which would cause you to have changed your opinion that it would have been appropriate to have taken a sexual assault kit in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I still feel it is not indicated and I would not have recommended it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does--may I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there a manual that is put out by your office to be used by your investigators called a "Physical evidence policy and procedures manual."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, there is.
MR. KELBERG: And basically is the last manual, full manual that was published, published in August of 1987?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Who is--if there is one or if there are more, who are the authors of this manual?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The procedures for physical evidence collection started somewhere in the early eighties and I think the manual was compiled by one of our senior criminalists at that time under the direction of the chief of laboratories at that time. And I think the manual came in place sometime in `88 I think, in `88--`87 or `88, the first date--it was--
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was first issued on February 4th, 1988.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to invite your attention--I can show Court and counsel--to page 8.1--I shouldn't have given the manual over to you, doctor. I lost my place. Hang on one second if you would, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: 8.13.1 on a page starting with the heading "Sexual assault evidence." Is this in fact what your manual indicates is to be a process or procedure followed in your office under "Definition: Evidence collected in the genitals, body orifices and other body surfaces for the purpose of determining if a sexual act may have occurred and who may have participated in that act," then a heading called "Collection, packaging and submission guidelines": "Evaluation for sexual assault evidence shall be made whenever the investigation indicates that a sexual act, whether non-consensual or consensual, may have occurred in association with a death by other than natural causes, whenever identification of the last sexual partner may be of value to the investigation, whenever elimination of sexual activity may be of value to the investigation or when a person involved in the investigation requests that such evaluation be made.
"It shall be the responsibility of the assigned Coroner's investigator and supervising investigator on duty to determine when sexual assault evidence evaluation is required and to notify the criminalistics laboratory staff as soon as possible. The assigned Deputy Medical Examiner may also request sexual assault evidence evaluation if the need has not been previously recognized.
"The body shall not be processed in any manner that might alter or destroy the sexual assault evidence until examined and released by the assigned criminalist. If the decedent has died in a hospital and the hospital or police record indicate that sexual assault evidence was collected antemortem, a criminalist shall be requested to verify the collection and determine if additional evidence collection is indicated.
"Evaluation for and collection of sexual assault evidence shall be made by a Coroner's criminalist. The assigned criminalist shall determine what evidence to collect based upon evaluation of the reported circumstances, the decedent's sex and body condition and personal observations. The prepared evidence kit materials shall be used for sexual assault evidence collection whenever feasible." And then it goes on as to the forms to be filled out and the processing. Is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And was that in fact a policy in your office in June of 1994?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you, in your opinion, follow that procedure in making a determination that a sexual assault kit was not needed in this particular case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion does a sexual assault kit assist you, as a forensic pathologist, in establishing a range for time of death that would be between nine o'clock in the evening and 12:13 in the morning, nine o'clock June 12th, 1994, and 12:13 in the morning, June 13th, 1994, when Officer Riske first found the bodies?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because just by finding evidence of seminal material or sperms it doesn't necessarily mean that they died between that time.
MR. KELBERG: In fact, is it a matter that is handled in a standard forensic pathology text regarding aging of death based upon the presence of something called motile sperm?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There are two issues which are done. One is motile sperms.
MR. KELBERG: First of all, what is motile sperm?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When you get the vaginal aspirate you look under the microscope to see whether there is motility to the sperms because sperm are motile.
MR. KELBERG: What is motile, motility?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Motility" means the sperm will be able to move around, even--are able to move around and that is how after an intercourse takes place the sperm are able to reach the fallopian tubes and fertilize the ova, so that is a normal process which the sperms are capable of physiologically.
MR. KELBERG: And even after a person dies, if you take a sample from the vaginal area and you are looking for sperm, you can microscopically see sperm moving around?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What, if any, significance does the presence of moving term have on the issue of when the ejaculation occurred?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would--you can see motile sperms, the average is less than--up to four hours, but people have seen motile sperms up to sixty hours, but generally the average is four hours.
MR. KELBERG: So four hours before time of death you can still see motile sperm?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no, no.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. If an ejaculation, four hours before death and a sample taken after death, you may still see motile sperm on average?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. The motility of the sperm is for four hours and that could go on up to sixty hours and so it has nothing to do with the death process itself. It is the sperm itself. It is a different--
MR. KELBERG: I understand, but if we put in context of a person dies sometime after there has been ejaculation and you are looking at a slide to look for moving sperm, would it be accurate to say that if you see moving sperm it means that on average that sperm could have been placed inside the vaginal tract as much as four hours before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That could be one conclusion, depending on that the sample being collected immediately after death and you see motile sperms, then that could be one conclusion. But I said there is variability to this and it can go on up to sixty hours they are seeing motile sperms.
MR. KELBERG: So if you were trying to evaluate whether Nicole Brown Simpson died between 10:15 in the evening on June 12th and eleven o'clock in the evening on June 12th, would the presence--just assuming hypothetically there had ever been motile sperm collected and seen--would the presence of motile sperm have permitted you to make that evaluation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, you cannot estimate a time of death from that, especially for such a narrow time frame, and even if it is not a narrow time frame I would not estimate a time of death from presence of sperms because you have so much variability in it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there another aspect of seminal fluid which may have some value in giving a range for when the ejaculation occurred versus when the sample was obtained?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. There is another test which you can do chemically, it is for acid phosphatase, it is an enzyme which is present in your prostatic secretions, and then you ejaculate. Prostatic secretions are mixed with your ejaculation, and if you calculate the amount of acid phosphatase and they are measured in what is called Bodansky, B-O-D-A-N-S-K-Y, units, and if you have a level between 10 and 30, it would indicate that the intercourse took place before--shortly before the specimen was collected.
MR. KELBERG: What is a short time when you are using these units?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is not defined because you can find up to several hours, but usually you don't find it more than 10 to 24 hours after that. I mean, you don't get a high level. You need to get a level of 10 to 30.
MR. KELBERG: Are there values actually given in a forensic pathology text, such as a Spitz and Fisher edition that we used with a couple of photographs earlier in your testimony?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you recall off the top of your head what those values are?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 10 to 30 and I think--
MR. KELBERG: 10 to 30?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --Bodansky units.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. And translating into a time frame of--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Up to--it favors that the intercourse took place just before you--you obtained the specimens.
MR. KELBERG: What is "Just before" defined in the text?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If somebody had coitus just before that.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: By the way, doctor, if there is motile sperm, is there something that is non-moving sperm that can be seen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because what happens is the motility is due to the tail of the sperm and you can lose the tail after certain time and you only see the heads of the sperms, and that you can see for a longer time because they can be there in the vaginal area.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is the time frame during which you can see the presence of non-moving sperm, that is, time of ejaculation to time of sample collection?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The--the non-moving sperm depend on the state of decomposition of the body. If the body is not decomposed, they have found sperms in frozen bodies even after a week. It depends on whether the decomposition is postmortem deterioration of the body. If that take place also, these tissues can deteriorate.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, inviting your attention, if I could, to pages 790 and 791--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --of Spitz and Fisher's third edition, have you reviewed that material?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: Has that material been relied upon in any way by you in forming opinions regarding the time frame regarding the acid phosphatase determination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I don't know if you want to take a look. Does this refresh your memory with respect to any specific--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says: "Values ranging from 10 to 30 Bodansky units suggest rape occurred shortly before death rather than intercourse five to ten hours earlier."
MR. KELBERG: And other than that does it define what "Shortly before" is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And is there any literature of which you are aware which is a scientific study of the relationship between Bodansky units of acid phosphatase levels and confirmed times between ejaculation and time of death and sample collection?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not in--not reviewed other literature.
MR. KELBERG: Or are you aware of any such?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There must be information in the literature which I have not reviewed.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "There must be," are you aware of any?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, taking all this into account, in your opinion would a sexual assault kit from Nicole Brown Simpson have been of any value to you as a forensic pathologist in either identifying the killer or killers of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (No audible response.)
MR. KELBERG: Multiple question. Any value to you in identifying the killer or killers?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And in identifying the specific time of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not as to each?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because--just because there was evidence of--let's assume there was consensual sexual intercourse because we don't have evidence of assault here, even then it doesn't mean that person is the--is the person who did these murders. Now, coming to time of death, I have already mentioned that there is--this time ranges. When we discussed for the sperm and acid phosphatase, you cannot estimate a time of death from that.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, have you taken into account in any way nonmedical observations such as evidence that may have been presented in this case regarding telephone records and telephone calls between Nicole Brown Simpson and persons such as her mother?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Mezzaluna restaurant?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: You have reviewed that material?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not reviewed. I am aware of the material.
MR. KELBERG: And with respect to subsequent contact between Nicole Brown Simpson and the Mezzaluna restaurant?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I am aware of that also.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything of which you are aware which leads you to believe, from a forensic pathologist standpoint, that there was a sexual assault of this woman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, is there anything further with respect to photograph B-1 that has not been covered?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is also blood staining of the left side of the face which would go along with the blood loss from her neck wounds which I discussed earlier.
MR. KELBERG: And that is all fully consistent with what you have seen in the crime scene photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I just have a sip of water.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Anything further on photograph B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me invite your attention now back to a photo that you briefly used in conjunction with photograph B-31 and that is photograph B-12. Do you see that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What are we looking at in that particular photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We are seeing four small abrasions arranged in the right shoulder region. Of course you are still seeing the cut wound which I described in the right ring finger. In addition, we have a small scar in the right posterior shoulder area. We also have a smaller abrasion, reddish brown in color, adjacent to the scar in the back of the shoulder, and I have the measurements.
MR. KELBERG: Could you get your wound chart which is our exhibit I believe 350?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. B-12 the measurements are--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up remember, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The abrasion which is next to the scar here is 1/8 of an inch and the scar itself is 3/8 of an inch by 3/16 of an inch. This is all my measurement from the one-as-to-one photographs. The four pink brown abrasions on the shoulder range from quarter inch by 1/8 inch, half an inch by 1/8 inch, 1/8 inch and quarter inch by 1/16 inch, so those are the measurements and they are--have been described.
MR. KELBERG: When you say they have been described, have all of the injuries that you have described now in B-12--we have already covered the aspect of the right hand--have all of these injuries been described by Dr. Golden in his original autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but--yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is the "But"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has described them as postmortem excoriations.
MR. KELBERG: We are going to get to the board to show that specifically, but is a term "Postmortem excoriation" of significance to you as a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would indicate that he felt it was a postmortem injury.
MR. KELBERG: What is an excoriation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Excoriations are the term which you can use for an abrasion. Basically the skin surface has been peeled off.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion is it a postmortem excoriation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the--the appearance of the injury looks perimortem in the shoulder area, which is pinkish brown, and rather antemortem, and the one on the back of the shoulder blade is antemortem also.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from the appearance of these abrasions, do you have an opinion as to the manner in which they were inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are nonspecific blunt force injury. They don't have any pattern to them and they are not fatal.
MR. KELBERG: Are they of any significance in your opinion as to any of the big ticket issues that you have reviewed in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Can you determine how long Nicole Brown Simpson's heart was beating after she received those abrasions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Within a few minutes or even less than a minute.
MR. KELBERG: And is there any way to be definite with respect to that timing from what you see in the photograph B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Before we move to the board, doctor, is there anything else seen in this photograph that you wish to discuss?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Perhaps we can all switch positions and we will move this board.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, we are putting up 0B and 2B from our 349 collection.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, can you tell us where in the protocol there is any entry reflecting any of these abrasions that you have described from photograph B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 3.
MR. KELBERG: Please show us where there is such an entry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Indicating). Paragraph 1 line 4, "Examination of the posterior surface of the trunk."
MR. KELBERG: How far does that run, doctor, to cover what we are looking at?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Up to line 8.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, where Dr. Lakshmanan has outlined with the pointer, I'm going to take a red marker and enclose that area and I will write at the side "B-12."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, excuse me. Dr. Golden has included the terms, "Compatible with ant to insect bites." As a forensic pathologist does the term "Excoriation" have some correlation with being caused by ant or insect bites?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that is a term which is used to--by some physicians to describe if they do see ant and insect bites.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion are those abrasions which you have described as antemortem, rather than postmortem as described by Dr. Golden on page 3, due to ant or insect bites?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the appearance have more reddish brown or pinkish brown in color which would indicate that they happened during life and I don't think they are postmortem excoriations.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you also examine, from the crime scene photographs, our board 355, the area of Nicole Brown Simpson's back which in the photograph B-12 contains these abrasions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: What did you examine that area of the back for with respect to this issue of ant or insect bites, if you did that examination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did the examination to see whether there was any ant activity on the body, no. 1. No. 2, also confirmed the appearance of the wound which was the same appearance as I see it in these photographs. You can see it in the right shoulder area very well.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience as a forensic pathologist, with respect to ant or insect bites, is it your experience that ants or insects operate individually?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: How do they operate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In large groups.
MR. KELBERG: And do you--do you expect to see, if there is a photograph at the crime scene of the body at a time when ants are inflicting this kind of postmortem excoriation, to see evidence of that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would see evidence of ant activity if it was present.
MR. KELBERG: Why don't we finish with the diagram and then we will get to the photograph by moving it out when we move the diagram down. This diagram form 20, does it contain any reference to this same aspect that is covered in page 3 or on page 3, the excoriations?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Right in the right posterior shoulder area here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And there is some entry along the right side of what appear to be several diagonal lines?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It shows the--that there are post--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That there are abrasions present and it says "Appears postmortem."
MR. KELBERG: Where you have outlined that, doctor, with your pointer, I will circle in red and write "B-12" on our board form 20.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor in the photograph I belief you identified areas beyond what is shown in this diagram as an area of abrasions, antemortem abrasions; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that other area or are those other areas shown on figure 20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a small abrasion right here, (Indicating), in the shoulder blade area, which was not diagrammed.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Here," let me just circle that--is this the area, doctor, (Indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes. That's fine.
MR. KELBERG: It is not fine, if it is not accurate--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just a dot of an abrasion; it is not a big one.
MR. KELBERG: I will circle the area in general and I will write "B-12" in blue on form 20.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that at least circling the area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, no. 1, is this a mistake in your judgment for Dr. Golden to have determined that this was a postmortem excoriation or abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a mistake to call it postmortem when it is antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: Is it a mistake to attribute the source of the abrasion or excoriation to ant or insect bites?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it a mistake not to have fully diagrammed, on a form such as 20, the totality of the abrasions seen in photograph B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Individually and collectively, doctor, do any of these mistakes by Dr. Golden have significance on any of the big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because these are very small abrasions and sometimes you can fail to document them when you have a case with so many injuries to document, but they have no significance to the cause of death and manner of death or the--to explain further detail as to the weapon or bleeding patterns, et cetera.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further for photograph B-12 that we need diagram 20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: I'm going to take down diagram 20 and I'm briefly going to pull out exhibit 355.
THE COURT: That is 355?
MR. KELBERG: I believe so. I can't see. The exhibit number is on the front.
THE COURT: Lower right-hand--
MR. KELBERG: It is either 54 or 55. It is 354 Mr. Lynch tells me.
THE COURT: 354.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: This is going to be up so briefly we are going to have counsel moving very quickly back.
MR. KELBERG: But doctor, do you see in this photograph, CS-11, the area of the back which is seen also in B-12 and which contains the abrasions that you have identified?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This photograph doesn't show it very clearly, but this is the area where we are looking at in that photograph. I have seen other photographs where there is better outline.
MR. KELBERG: Let's try CS-12 on the same exhibit.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the area here, (Indicating). I have seen a better picture than this.
MR. KELBERG: All right. A photograph that we are not using; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in looking at these two photographs, CS-11 and CS-12, and the photograph that you have reviewed, do you see any evidence of ant or insect activity on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not on the photographs.
MR. KELBERG: Is that of significance then in evaluating whether in fact the source of those abrasions is due to ant or insect bites, as indicated by Dr. Golden in his protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I'm sorry.
MR. KELBERG: Is it of significance to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question? I'm sorry, I didn't catch it.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me slow it down. Is the absence of evidence of ant or insect activity in the area of the back shown in the three photos, the two here and the others that you reviewed, of significance to you in assessing the source of those abrasions seen on the back in photograph B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In what way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The absence of it would indicate to me that there is not--not--there is no ant activity at the time these photographs were taken.
MR. KELBERG: And if there had been a source for these abrasions from ant activity, would you expect them to be present in these three photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would expect them to be present.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Why don't we take this down. We are going to be right back to that page 3 of the protocol, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Lynch, you can leave that one there.
MR. LYNCH: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, because this page has a reference, I want to go back again to the B-1 photograph and the issue of a sexual assault kit and invite your attention to the first--I'm sorry--second full sentence on page 3, the sentence that is immediately above the outlined box for B-12. Is that one of the entries that you reviewed in Dr. Golden's protocol concerning the issue of trauma to the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Would you read to us, please what would is said in that sentence?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "The genitals are those of an adult female with no gross evidence of injury."
MR. KELBERG: I will outline that in blue on the posterboard size and write "B-1" on the right hand margin.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor is there a specific area of the protocol that discusses an examination of the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It should be in the latter part of the protocol under genital--urogenital system.
(Brief pause.)
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 12, page 12 of the protocol.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, there is an entry "Genital system," parenthesis, "Female," close parenthesis. What does this refer to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This refers to the internal examination of the genitalia of Miss Brown Simpson.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red, that block of sentences, and I will write out the side "B-1," right side "B-1."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you translate this into lay person's terms, what these observations mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The information is that: "The uterus, tubes, and adnexa are anatomic." That means the internal genitalia which are the uterus, fallopian tubes and the ovaries are normal, normal position and normal appearance. "The cut surface of the uterus shows no lesions and a thin light brown endometrium."
MR. KELBERG: First of all, what is a lesion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Le--
MR. KELBERG: Lesion. What is a lesion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Lesion is looking for your abnormal pathology because you can have--in the uterus you can have, common thing is fibroid, you can have a fibroid uterus. That is not present. There would be what's called adenomyosis which is presence of endometrial tissue in the muscle of the uterus. That is not present. You can see it grossly, so that is what is meant by "Lesion" when you are looking at the uterus and you are looking for vast abnormal pathology and that is not there. And the endometrium is thin light brown. That means the person--reflects the description of the endometrium which it is in the stage of the endometrium in what is called the stage after--grossly it would mean that it is not in the secretor stage or the proliferative stage.
MR. KELBERG: I--let me shortcut this by asking is everything normal with respect to that aspect of the internal examination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. How about the last sentence?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "The vagina has its normal mucosal surface and no lesions or injuries are evident," and it is self-explanatory. There was no pathology seen and there was no injury in the vagina present.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience in examining cases of rape/murder, does one normally expect to see some kind of injury or lesion in the vaginal area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You may see in some cases.
MR. KELBERG: And in some you may not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this particular entry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else to--which I need to discuss.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's take this one down.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Is this 355?
MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. We are back to that.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor is there anything further to discuss on B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let's move then, if we could, please, to B-11, the photograph which is immediately to the left. What are we looking at in that photograph, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the back of the right side of the neck you see a u-shaped abrasion which is more well-defined in its lower--in one limb of the u, which is the lower part which is on the lower part of the u, the u being horizontally oriented. And this abrasion, which you see, is also interrupted. That means you have space of intact skin between the points of abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: Does the interruption of an abrasion have any significance to you in evaluating how an abrasion such as this comes to be received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the--yes. Basically the object or surface which caused this injury was coming in intermittent contact with the skin's surface. That would be one interpretation.
MR. KELBERG: Can you explain what you mean by "Intermittent contact"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Umm, if you go back to B-5, I think you can--
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, remember, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: B-5 doesn't show. The clothing has been taken off. If you look at the dress in B-1, there is a neck strap here, (Indicating), which holds up and that strap had a hook--there is a hook to that strap in the back, and one possible source for this abrasion could be from that strap during the--at some point when Miss Simpson was--
MR. KELBERG: I just wanted you to have an opportunity, doctor--I won't put the board up. The crime scene photos, 354, does that show what you are attempting to--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It shows it in b--CS-12.
MR. KELBERG: Let me put up exhibit 354 then and ask you to please show us what it is you are trying to use as an example of an interrupted abrasion source?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This strap you can see it here just below her hairline in the back of the neck, it is a thin strap which is part of this dress.
MR. KELBERG: And how does that come into play if--assuming that is the source?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If--
MR. KELBERG: --to create this interrupted abrasion that you have seen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: At some point the strap would have been pulled backward to rub against the skin's surface there and could it have been one possible source for it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to determine whether this abrasion was received before death as an antemortem abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is an antemortem abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance, the reddish brown color and the features I described.
MR. KELBERG: Does it have any significance, in your opinion, to any of the big ticket questions that you have talked about and reviewed for this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it doesn't play a part in the cause of death or manner of death or the other issues I discussed already; bleeding patterns, evaluation of sharp force injury. It is a nonspecific--I mean it is a nonspecific blunt force injury.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address this in his protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did, but he didn't describe it as u-shaped, but he has addressed it.
MR. KELBERG: Would you have expected him to describe it as u-shaped based upon what you see in the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but the other limb of the u is very faint, so if it is not looked at closely, you may interpret it as a linear abrasion rather than u-shaped.
MR. KELBERG: A linear abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Meaning?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Straight, because you don't see the other limb as clearly as the other--the lower part of the u.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden diagram this particular abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has.
MR. KELBERG: And is it addressed in any way in an addenda?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything, before we move back then to see the protocol and the addendum--I'm sorry, protocol and diagram--about photograph B-11?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: Did you ask someone who acts as a consultant to your office to look at this particular abrasion for an interpretation as to possible bite mark?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Who did you ask to look at this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Vale is our forensic odontologist.
MR. KELBERG: Vale, V-A-L-E?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, Gerald Vale.
MR. KELBERG: And what is a forensic odontologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He is--a forensic odontologist is a dentist who specializes in forensic work and their role would be in identification of decedents by comparing the dental remains. The other function is they help in bite mark evaluations.
MR. KELBERG: What is bite mark?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Bite mark is the mark left on a body surface by the bite of another person, and what the forensic odontologist would do would examine the mark, take what is called an exemplar of the mark using certain material and also have that available in case they have a potential suspect to compare, they will examine the suspect's teeth and see whether there are features which match with the mark which is seen on the body.
MR. KELBERG: In this particular case was Dr. Vale asked to evaluate this abrasion as a possible bite mark after the autopsy had been completed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not after the autopsy was completed. It was only later when the body had already been released and much later, actually in September sometime in `94.
MR. KELBERG: When I said "After," I meant literally after, at any time after, but it was after; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in essence the body was not available for Dr. Vale to personally examine?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: But was Dr. Vale provided both with the type of photograph we are looking at in B-11 as well as the life-size photographs that you have reviewed of the same area for evaluating this issue?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He reviewed the original photographs and then he requested one-as-to-one photographs. He requested to examine the clothing. And all this was arranged for Dr. Vale who then gave his opinion on this particular injury.
MR. KELBERG: Did he in fact issue a report to your office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Is Dr. Vale, in his consulting role as a forensic odontologist, considered an employee of the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did he in fact submit his report on a form like we have seen in these other forms that there is a specific number used by the Coroner's office in the course of its official responsibilities?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What kind form is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a consultant form, form 13, which is used for this purpose.
MR. KELBERG: Now, is there anything else preliminarily to discuss on B-11 before we look at the protocol, the diagram and Dr. Vale's reports?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He did not think it was a bite mark.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: Motion as to strike as nonresponsive, calling for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Your answer was he did not think it was a bite mark?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: From the photographic review.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And Mr. Kelberg, 10:30.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: We are going to be using, your Honor, 0B, I believe that is 2B and 10B from our 349 collection.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let's start with the protocol itself. Where is any entry from Dr. Golden concerning this u-shaped abrasion you have identified in photograph B-11?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 3.
MR. KELBERG: Page 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where is the entry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He actually has included in the same paragraph because he has used the upper back, right side and medial part of the scapula and he refers to upper back in diagram 20 to this area here, (Indicating), so that is where he has documented it.
MR. KELBERG: All right. First of all, would it be accurate to say that he has in this paragraph on page 3, that we have already outlined in red as B-12, he has incorporated a description of both the B-12 blunt force trauma and what is seen by you in the B-11 photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. So what I will write is on--by B-12, I will also write "B-11" in blue by the box.
MR. KELBERG: But there is a separate entry, is there, doctor, on form 20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He has marked it in the back of the right neck area and he has called them antemortem, red brown and he also says "Appears antemortem"--"Ante, abrasion, red brown" and he has marked it here. This is the same injury.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Both where I'm pointing--I don't want to mark it until I'm clear--where I'm pointing, first of all, here, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. This abrasion description could apply to this one, but he has marked it separately as "Am" also, antemortem, so this could reflect for this and this, but in both he has also given notation being ante, a-n-t-e, antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Is it in your interpretation this entry in the right-hand corner reflects--I'm sorry--refers to these two somewhat diagonal lines?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me circle that in blue and I will write B-12--"B-11," excuse me.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, when you were testifying a moment or so ago, you said he didn't describe it as a u-shaped?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is the basis on that--on which you testified to that, the fact that in the diagram they appear to be in line with each other?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion is it a mistake for Dr. Golden not to have shown that abrasion to be a u-shaped abrasion as you see it in the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already thought I discussed it. The upper part of the u is very faint, and if you do not perceive it, you may describe it as a linear as he has done.
MR. KELBERG: Would you expect him to perceive it in a meticulous examination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And if he failed to perceive it and failed to record it, are those mistakes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Any significance to them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reason?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further as to protocol and that diagram for this particular abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let me put up--why don't we take down the--I'm sorry. Dr. Lakshmanan wants to add something; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He didn't describe it--he described it as antemortem in the diagram, but here he has included it as a postmortem.
MR. KELBERG: So again, on page 3, and let me outline in blue, the words "Postmortem injuries," within that box referring to B-11 and B-12, that would be different than how he has actually described it on the form used at time of autopsy, at least for this particular what you say is a u-shaped abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and he has recognized it as being antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: According to his diagrammatic entry; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in your opinion that is accurate, that it is antemortem?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further on that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Lynch will take down the protocol and we will substitute--
THE COURT: Do you want to just put it on top of the--
MR. KELBERG: I'm not sure. Can we put it back up? I don't know what the weight of this particular easel is.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in looking at this, are you familiar with this particular type of form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In general what is this type of form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a consultant report by the odontologist--it is a consultant report and here we have an odontology consultant report.
MR. KELBERG: And this is one of the reports received by Dr.--from Dr. Vale?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is this a report that is expected to be completed at or near the time of the events which he is describing in the report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is this report kept in the ordinary course of the official business of the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, in essence, what does this say?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That he has examined the mark on the back of the right side of the neck, he has examined certain other marks in the lower right back, and he has reviewed a lot of photographs and he--this is the point when he examined initially and then he wanted some--wanted someone, as to one photographs and clothing, to examine, and he has given a follow-up report after this one.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from your testimony, does this report discuss evaluations of things besides this u-shaped area that we have been talking about in photo B-11?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And matters which we have not yet discussed in one or more photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. What part of this September 9, 1994, report specifically refers to an evaluation of the u-shaped abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Photograph a.
MR. KELBERG: And I will outline that in red on page 1 of the September 9th form 13 and write "B-11" out at the side.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, at the bottom where it says initialed by G.L.V., that is Dr. Vale?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: You mentioned something about providing life-size one-to-one--as you described, one-to-one photographs, life-size photographs and an opportunity to look at the dress of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that is what Dr. Vale has included in this report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and he also requested my criminalist, Mr. Steven Dowell, to look at these injuries--these photographs and the clothing.
MR. KELBERG: There is also a second signature that falls below Dr. Vale's on this form. Who is Dr. Anselmo?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He is the core director of the School of Dentistry at USC, but he is also another of the forensic odontology consultant who works for our office.
MR. KELBERG: In the same manner that Dr. Vale does?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, flipping to a third page, this appears to be another form 13, this time dated September 14, 1994. What is this document, if you are familiar with it, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is the document which Dr. Vale prepared after reviewing the clothing in the LAPD lab and also the one-as-to-one photographs, and he generated a report.
MR. KELBERG: And what part, if any, of this report is discussing the u-shaped abrasion and possible source or sources for it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The second paragraph in the conclusion section of form 13 signed on September 15, `94.
MR. KELBERG: This entire paragraph, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I will write "B-11" after I have outlined in red.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you read what Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell have included in that paragraph in the report.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Regarding on the mark on the back of the neck, right side. It remains our opinion that this is not a bite mark, after having considered the possibilities of a bite in the vertical axis and in the horizontal axis. We do not exclude the possibility that the hook on the neck strap caused some or all of the mark, noting some similarity between the shape of the hook and the upper portion of the mark."
MR. KELBERG: You have examined the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson that is described in this report, have you, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, based upon Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell's report and based upon your evaluation of all of the materials you have reviewed, do you have an opinion that is any different from the opinions expressed in that paragraph as to the source or sources for that u-shaped abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I think we are done with this and this may be an appropriate time.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess, mid-morning recess at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss this case among yourselves, form any opinions the case, conduct any deliberations or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we will stand in recess for fifteen minutes. All right. Thank you.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Let's have the jurors, please, Deputy Magnera.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And Mr. Kelberg, do you have your next exhibit ready?
MR. KELBERG: For the next part of the examination, very briefly on that, and then we will go back to the photographs, your Honor.
THE COURT: How much more do you anticipate on Miss Brown Simpson?
MR. KELBERG: I hope to finish by the noon hour.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm sorry, your Honor, I didn't hear that.
THE COURT: He indicated he hoped to finish the brown Simpson autopsy by the noon hour.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And doctor, would you resume the witness stand. Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as long as we had the protocol up, I wanted to just quickly go over another aspect of Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony, and inviting Court and counsel to page 7 one and lines 7 through 19--
THE COURT: Mr. Lynch could you move this exhibit back because it is blocking juror no. 1.
MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, your Honor, one of the bailiffs was kind enough to point out to us there may be some difficulty by one or more of the jurors in seeing the easel board that would be closer to the door used by the jury. Obviously we can move these in any manner that will give everyone a full view.
THE COURT: All right. Any jurors--I'm confident all of our jurors know by now that if they can't see anything, all they have to do is raise their hand. All right.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, we have up on the easel page 7 of the protocol and I want to invite your attention in particular back to that photograph of B-31 regarding the ring finger versus the index finger. Do you remember that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And as I recall from your testimony, Dr. Golden, in his protocol, inaccurately describes that particular injury as being to the right index finger rather than the ring finger. Is that a correct recitation of your testimony?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in reviewing Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony did you review the following questions and answers from page 71: "Question: Now, doctor, during the course of your autopsy as performed on Nicole Brown Simpson's body did you notice any injuries to her? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Tell us about that, sir. "Answer: Referring to my notes, my autopsy notes, protocol, to refresh my memory, on the index finger, on the right index finger there was a 5/8 inch long cut of the skin adjacent to the distal knuckle. It involved the skin only and it had a tangential cut. I would indicate that it was shelved, it didn't go in straight, was an oblique cut which would indicate a shelving or tangential cut." Have you reviewed those questions and answers, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion did Dr. Golden make a mistake in that testimony regarding the location of that particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: In essence did he repeat in his testimony the mistake that is in the typewritten portion of the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And again, is this mistake of any significance on the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if we can get our photograph exhibit back, 355.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I now want to invite your attention to a photograph that is designated B-9 on exhibit 355.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What are we looking at in that photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is evidence of a blunt force injury to the right lower back and there also appears to be an evidence of a dress impression above it, below the right shoulder blade area.
MR. KELBERG: When you say a dress impression, are you referring to any specific garment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the black garment Miss Brown Simpson was wearing.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this the other aspect of the back of Nicole Brown Simpson which was evaluated by doctors Vale and Anselmo and your criminalist, Mr. Dowell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And discussed in their reports that we have seen and we will see again with respect to this area on the form 13's?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to move first to this area. You said there is evidence of blunt force trauma seen in the photograph; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Would you outline the area that you see.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And with the pointer you are making a circle that is an area directly above the top horizontal portion of the measuring card and it is up approximately an inch and a half to two inches from that same area when you look at it on the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: Is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And keep your voice up, please, doctor. What are we looking at with respect to that blunt force trauma?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We are looking at an area of patchy contusion injury measuring about three and a half inches in the horizontal axis whereas on the photograph it is on the site-to-site measurement and two and a quarters inches in the vertical axis that would be in the photograph in our up/down configuration and it is mottled and patchy.
MR. KELBERG: What does "Mottled" mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That means there are areas of skin which does not show contusion and there is areas of skin which show the contusion.
MR. KELBERG: Is that of significance to you as a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is--even though it is evidence of a blunt force injury and that would indicate that the blunt force which caused the injury had an uneven surface.
MR. KELBERG: What do you mean by an "Uneven surface"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you remember the scalp contusion that we discussed yesterday on the right side of the head, there was one rounded contusion and here this--in this particular contusion, (Indicating), it is not continuous contusion. There is areas of interruption and that would favor being an irregular surfaced object which caused this blunt force injury which resulted in this bruising of the right lower back.
MR. KELBERG: What source or sources could be the responsible agent for that kind of blunt force trauma as we see it in this photograph, B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: She had the dress in between the injury and on the skin surface and the force which caused the injury, so naturally the dress would be an intermediate object which would prevent getting a specific pattern. There is no specific pattern. One example could be an uneven--I mean, a shod foot like a sole of a foot could do it or even a fist with--but with a fist you need more--several impacts.
MR. KELBERG: Let's back up for one second. The dress that Nicole Brown Simpson was wearing, as seen in the crime scene photographs, was covering the area of the body that is shown in the photograph B-9 with this mottled contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, could you slide me the board that is directly there.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: And let's see if we can do this. For the record, your Honor, I've pulled our exhibit 355 out just enough so we can still see the photograph B-9 and I have covered the rest with our exhibit 354.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have, as I told you, the impression of a dress in the lower right back below the shoulder blade area, and if you look at crime scene photograph 12 you can see that that area corresponds to the upper margin of this dress in the back portion of the dress, so this area of bruising is below that dress line in this region here, (Indicating). So this is what I meant by that the dress was interposed between the blunt force which caused that injury and the skin surface, so it does not allow you to be specific about a pattern, because a dress would be an interfering kind of object between the blunt force and the skin.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you indicated that one possible source for that appearance of a mottled contusion would be the sole of a foot or a shoe I think you said?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A shod foot I said.
MR. KELBERG: How would that--assuming hypothetically, that is the source, how can that create that kind of appearing contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The shoe has a rubber sole with irregular surface because you can have different patterns to the sole of the shoe, like a waffle pattern, which is one of the common patterns you see on a shoe's undersurface. What will happen is if somebody causes blunt force injury with a shod foot to the back, the protrusions of the undersurface of the shoe could leave marks like this, it could, but you cannot really specify that it is the shoe. It would be difficult.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you hold yourself out as an expert in shoe patterns?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Do you hold yourself out as an expert in shoe comparison?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And so as a forensic pathologist, in talking about a possible sole of a shoe as a source, you are not attempting to specify any specific shoe in this case; is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Or specify any type of shoe; is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, how is it, assuming it is a shoe, that the contusion can be created? What are the forces at play that result in this kind of mottled appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Umm, what happens is when you get forcible compression of the soft tissues of the--I'm just giving the same possible sources. I'm not saying that is the source. Let's just take that as an example.
MR. KELBERG: I understand. Hypothetically?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Hypothetically. Because of the uneven surface of the shoe, because of the waffle pattern, you have ridges and grooves in the shoe's surface, so what will happen is when you get compression of the body by such a surface, the skin will get pinched between the--into the areas where there are grooves, or not grooves--in a waffle pattern it would be the depressions--and that would result in the bruising of those areas which was affected by that part of the shoe. And you may have areas which don't have the bruising because of the raised part of the shoe.
MR. KELBERG: What do you mean by "Compression"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Compression" means the soft tissues are compressed against--by the force of the shoe. Underlying this you have the lower rib cage and it is actually below the rib cage and the soft tissues there.
MR. KELBERG: Hypothetically, doctor--
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, there would be an objection. Motion to strike that testimony as being purely speculative and not based on any special knowledge. The doctor has admitted he doesn't possess--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor. I'm not sure there was a question. I believe I was starting it.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, hypothetically speaking that the source for that blunt force trauma is a shoe, how in your opinion, can that compression take place? What does the shoe have to be doing in order to create the compression that leaves this kind of mottled appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be a kick, it could be continuous compression of the body, like standing on a person.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say "Standing," the person who is doing the standing putting--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Naturally it would be one shoe, one shod foot on the body and one shod foot on the ground.
MR. KELBERG: And the short food--short?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Shot food.
MR. KELBERG: Shod foot. A foot that is wearing a shoe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Assuming that situation of one foot wearing a shoe on the body, does the person whose foot it is have to place the person's weight--transfer the person's weight to the leg and down to the foot and down to the shoe so that weight is being applied to the back, hypothetically, of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How long a process does that require in order for you as a forensic pathologist to expect to see the by-product of that compression?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is basically just like any other means. I mean, you get crushing of tissues, the vessels get crushed, and you get leakage of blood, and as long the pressure is strong enough to cause that bleeding, you will see a bruising.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, doctor, is this bruising bruising which was received before the death of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to a minimum amount of time between the cause for that blunt force trauma and the actual stoppage of the heart action for Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You need blood pressure. So as long as there was blood pressure you would have the bruise, so it could be a few minutes before the final loss of blood pressure.
MR. KELBERG: Can it be less than a few minutes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be less and few minutes, too.
MR. KELBERG: As I asked you before, what in your opinion would be a minimum amount of time that Nicole Brown Simpson's heart must have beaten between the time whatever source created that blunt force trauma was applied and the time when she died?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The bleeding would start immediately after the blunt force trauma, so if--let's say this blunt force trauma took place a minute before death, you could see it a minute before death.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, does the rapidity with which the appearance of the blunt force trauma will be seen depend in any way on the force that is being applied?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There are two factors when you come to the back portion of the body where there is more deeper tissues. The force will become a factor. You will see it immediately after the force. Sometimes the force may not cause the injury to the superficial tissues, it will show the injury more to the deeper tissues and that may not be seen right away, but we will--for that you need the person to live longer so that you can see the bruising on the surface.
MR. KELBERG: How much longer?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A few minutes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does--is one component of the concept of force something known as mass, m-a-s-s?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the weight.
MR. KELBERG: And so basically if we assume hypothetically that the source is a person with a shod foot, would it be an accurate statement of a concept of physics that the greater the weight of the person, the greater the force that is being applied?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Weight will be a factor, yes.
MR. KELBERG: And as a factor is it accurate to say that the more weight that is being applied, the more force that is generated?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Assuming, hypothetically, doctor, that the source is the shod foot of an individual who weighed 210 pounds, in your opinion, would that weight be sufficient top create the type of mottled contusion that is seen in photograph B-9?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. No foundation for his expertise in this area.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could cause this bruising.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this area of bruising described by Dr. Golden in his protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is this area of bruising diagrammed by Dr. Golden in any of the diagrams available?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is this area of bruising addressed by Dr. Golden in his addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is each of those failures by Dr. Golden, in your opinion, a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Taken singularly or together do these mistakes affect or have any significance on the big ticket issues like cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Manner of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Whether a single six-inch long single-edged knife blade caused all the sharp force injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Whether one person killed these two human beings?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: The blood flow pattern?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: The time to die?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Any other of these issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because this is a nonspecific blunt force injury. We discussed a hypothetical situation, because it has nothing to do with the cause of death. It happened when the person was alive. It is an injury and it doesn't affect the big ticket issues you just discussed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, give us, if you can, any other examples of possible sources for that type of mottled contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I said, it could be a repetitive blunt force from a fist, closed fist, and you could get bruising, because there are multiple areas of bruising here, and by repeatedly hitting the area you could get bruising also of a similar nature.
MR. KELBERG: Because you have raised that as a possible source, doctor, could you help me by taking the exhibit down, and could I ask Mr. Lynch to give me exhibit 352, please, the original set of photographs. And doctor, could you pull that down just a bit. You had mentioned, in looking at the contusion to the scalp, the right side of Nicole Brown Simpson, that one possible source was the rounded end of a knife; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And also, let's see if we can do something similar by--again we are going to try and show both B-9, your Honor, from the one board and what is B-20. If the jurors will excuse my leaning over, I can't quite see--B-20 of board 352. A rounded end from the knife as one source, but you also mentioned it could be due to a fist; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if a fist had been used for either of these two types of injuries, blunt force trauma, would it necessarily follow that the person--let's assume it is the same person--that the person's fist would show evidence itself of injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessarily.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the forces coming from the fist, which is in this--in this situation this skin is being compressed by the broad surface of the skull.
MR. KELBERG: This skin is the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The scalp skin, B-20.
MR. KELBERG: We will try and remember, doctor, to not talk on top of each other.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Apologize to the Court.
THE COURT: Not me; it is the court reporter.
MR. KELBERG: Well, indirectly then to the court reporter through the Court.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Go forward with your answer, I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The bruising to the right side of the head, the--if it was from a fist, you have the underlying bone here, which is a larger surface, and you would get bruising when the right side of the head is struck because the skin and soft tissues are crushed between that and the fist force which is being applied.
MR. KELBERG: The bleeding to what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To the soft tissues of the skin of the scalp on the right side of the head.
MR. KELBERG: Would you expect to see bruising to the part of the fist that comes in contact with the area of the scalp?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessarily.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the force involved you may or may not see the bruising to the person's hand, because you don't have the same underlying broad bony surface which you have underlying here for the tissues to be crushed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume for the sake of argument that it was a human fist rather than a rounded or smooth edge end of a knife, but the fist was a hand wearing a glove so that it was a gloved fist rather than a closed bare fist. Would that have any impact--that is probably a poor choice of words--would that have any affect, in your opinion, on whether the fist itself would show evidence of having struck the head.
MR. SHAPIRO: Vague as to the type of glove.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The glove would be a buffer for the hand or the fist which is causing the injury, so there will be less--less probability of the fist ever having any injury perceived on the skin's surface.
MR. KELBERG: How does the glove acting as a buffer prevent injury being seen to the fist that has come in contact with the area of the scalp where the contusion is seen in B-20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you have the layers of the glove itself which act like a cushion to the skin's surface of the fist.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would the same apply to this issue on B-9 if a fist had been used to be the source for that blunt force trauma?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, you said, as I recall your testimony a moment or so ago, that it would require more than one blow from a fist to create the mottled contusion that you see in B-9; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why, in your opinion, would it require more than one?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the multiple small contusions you have here, (Indicating), I would--my--and I would--because of the--you are talking about a closed fist. To have these multiple contusions I would expect for that to happen, more than one blow to have been struck on that area if it was a fist which caused that.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say that the smaller--that the largest area of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson which is going to have impact will be dictated by the largest area of the fist which comes in direct contact with that body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: So if it is a small area of the fist that comes in contact, the area that will show blunt force trauma will correspondingly be small?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That also would be a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: And is there such a thing as a glancing blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is a glancing blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A glancing blow is one where the--let's assume the fist was the--was being used to deliver the blow. The entire fist does not impact the area being struck, only a portion of the fist hits the area being struck, so that would be something like a glancing impact. And you will see that in--you can see that sometimes in the street fighting or boxing where the entire blow doesn't go to the person, just a small portion goes to the other person in the fight, because the head moves or the--or the person withdraws so the fist doesn't deliver the entire impact that it was intended to deliver.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if a glancing blow is involved, can a glancing blow, nevertheless, leave evidence of blunt force trauma to the body where contact is in fact made?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: If it is a glancing blow, does that have some affect on the probability that the fist itself will show evidence of having made such contact?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It may or may not show it, because as I told you earlier when I discussed the scalp contusion and also this area of injury, you may not see injury on the fist and it doesn't mean that it didn't cause the injury, but sometimes you do--you may see some bruising also.
MR. KELBERG: If it is a glancing blow in the concept of the laws of physics, is the force that is being transmitted a lesser force than the force that is transmitted if the blow is a direct blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be also a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: And if the force is less, does that affect the likelihood that the fist will show evidence of the blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct also. The fist would show--I mean, there is less chance the fist will show injury.
MR. KELBERG: And if the glove is over the fist when all of this is taking place, does that act as an additional basis as it is used as a cushion to lessen the likelihood that any evidence would be seen on the fist, that the fist had come in contact with the body of another person?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else about the blunt force trauma in B-9 or the B-20 contusion area involving this possible source as a fist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Lynch could take 352 back.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor are there more sources that you consider a possibility other than a fist or a shod foot for the mottled contusion in B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be multiple blunt force from the base of the knife as we discussed, the rounded part of the knife. Somebody was jabbing at the right lower back, that would be another source.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan, as he was saying those words, first with his left hand making multiple--
THE COURT: Sweeping motions.
MR. KELBERG: --sweeping motions, thank you, and with his right hand to a much lesser degree something similar on the right side.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, anything further about that area of mottled contusion before we discuss in a little more detail the other area that you described of your findings in B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And we will go, when we complete the photo itself, back to the protocol and so forth. Tell us more about this dress impression.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This dress impression is located about two inches above this mottled bruising and it measures two and a quarters inches on the site-to-site axis of the photograph and it is a dress impression.
MR. KELBERG: Is this something, in your opinion--withdraw the question. Are you able to determine from its appearance when in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson that impression was made?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't determine that.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because there is no--it is--there is no reaction to this dress impression. It is just an impression of the skip, and I can't tell whether it happened before death or after death.
MR. KELBERG: And is your inability to make that determination of any significance on any of the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And this was another area that was evaluated by Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Was that area described by Dr. Golden in the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Was that area diagrammed by Dr. Golden in the original diagrams?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Was that area addressed by Dr. Golden in his addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Each of those a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Singularly or all together are these mistakes of any significance on the issues we have already outlined many times?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons that you gave with respect to the same failures concerning the mottled contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further before we go to the reports from Dr. Vale and Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowel?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: May we switch positions then, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, we are putting up again 10-B, our board 10-B from exhibit 349.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I'm sorry, you don't get to sit very long. Would you identify--again this is the first of the two odontology reports from the doctors, vale, Anselmo and your criminalist, Mr. Dowel; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Can you identify for us, please, which portion of this first report deals with the dress impression area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Photo d, mark on the right back inferior scapula and the paragraph corresponds to that.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to outline in blue the area just identified by Dr. Lakshmanan and I will write "B-9" and I will write "Dress impression" in the left hand margin.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there is an area immediately below that that I have just outlined dealing with a lower back contused area. Is that area different than the area we were just looking at in B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is that next paragraph to reflect the contused area we were looking at?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And what else, if anything, on this first page of the September 9, 1994, report, refers to the mottled contused area that we saw in B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: With the red marker I will outline that paragraph and to the right I will write "B-9 contused area."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there appears to be another paragraph immediately under the one I have just outlined. Does that refer to something that we have not discussed yet?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And which is shown in another photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Is there anything further on this first page of the September 9, 1994, report, that deals with anything seen in photograph B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: By the way, doctor, the study based upon a review of the material listed, something called "Duplicate at scenes" appear to be Polaroids. Were these in fact two Polaroid pictures taken by Claudine Ratcliffe of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson at the scene?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And you indicated, I think when you were first testifying, that would be standard procedure for the investigator to do?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything on page 2 of this odontology report that refers to photograph B-9's contused area or dress impression?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He requested that we obtain the clothing so he could look at it and he also requested one-as-to-one photographs which was provided.
MR. KELBERG: And for the same reason that you have already described with respect to the u-shaped abrasion, I think it was in photograph B-11?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. If we could flip now to the September 14, 1994, report.
MR. KELBERG: Is there an entry in this report from Drs. Vale, Anselmo and Mr. Dowell concerning the findings in the areas that we have been talking about in photograph B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is the first paragraph after the heading "Conclusions" which refers to the dress impression.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you please, for the record, read what the conclusion is as indicated in this one paragraph which I am outlining in blue and writing "B-9"--"B-9" on the outside right margin of the page?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Regarding the injury on the right back inferior to scapula, we conclude that the markings in the area were clearly made by the slide fastener, hook and adjacent portions of the decedent's dress. The at-scene photographs show the back of the dress"--
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me interrupt you. You must read as the words appear there. I think you used the word "Photographs" and the word appears to be "Photos."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. "The at-scene photos show the back of the dress twisted to the right side. There is an excellent match between the a-shaped marking and the tab or the handle of the slide fastener. Also, the hook corresponds well to the position and shape of corresponding marks on the skin. Significant areas of the dress are photographed. Also, there appears to be a pattern similar to the pattern of the tape or fabric adjacent to the slide fastener (zipper). We think the mark was likely made postmortem or recent antemortem, since the dress was off center."
MR. KELBERG: I think you added a couple of the's doctor but, other than that, is that an accurate representation of the contents of that paragraph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: First of all, doctor, you reviewed these two reports, did you not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Took them into consideration in forming any opinion regarding what we were actually seeing in the photograph B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do you disagree in any way with the conclusions expressed in this report from doctors vale, Anselmo and Mr. Dowel?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: I am done with that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I believe we have two photographs still left to discuss on this exhibit 355. One is in the middle row at the far right which appears to be B-28 and one which appears at the top left B-5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Can you see if we can discuss these together and then see whatever we need to see in the way of protocols, diagram and the addenda. Why don't we start with B-5, the upper left corner photograph. What are we looking at in that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The photograph shows the upper back of Miss Simpson and you can see an abrasion over the left shoulder blade area.
MR. KELBERG: The abrasion that you see, do you have an opinion as to when it was received in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was an antemortem abrasion so it happened before her death.
MR. KELBERG: Again, from the appearance you are able to form that opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does this abrasion play any significant role in the cause of Nicole Brown Simpson's death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine the manner in which that abrasion was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a nonspecific blunt force injury. It could have been from a contact from a rough surface. I can't say a particular source.
MR. KELBERG: And are you able to say in any fashion the mechanism that such contact with a rough surface occurred?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have been an impact to a rough surface or a rough surface just rubbing against that area.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Dr. Golden describe this particular abrasion in his autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram it in any of the diagram forms available?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Was there any aspect of it addressed in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion was there any reason to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it was correctly diagrammed and described.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further that you wish to bring to our attention regarding that particular antemortem abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let's move then to the photograph B-28. What are we looking at in that photograph, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You are looking at the lower right arm and right forearm. You can see the whole right forearm, (Indicating), and the elbow region of Miss Brown Simpson, the back of the elbow region, and you see an abrasion there.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine when in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson that abrasion was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That abrasion occurred before her death.
MR. KELBERG: This again based upon its appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to tell us the source or sources for such an abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It is a nonspecific blunt force trauma.
MR. KELBERG: In essence would your answers regarding how that abrasion may have been obtained be the same as your answers just given on the abrasion in photograph B-5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address in his original protocol that abrasion in B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram in any of the available diagrams that abrasion seen in B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did he address in his addendum that abrasion seen in photograph B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did.
MR. KELBERG: Would you describe his failure to have a description in the protocol and to have a diagram--a diagrammatic representation of that abrasion in one of the diagram forms available, each to be mistakes by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Singularly or collectively, do those mistakes have any significance on any of the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For all the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Before we move to the board, is there anything further about photograph B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You can see the forearm and there seems to be no injuries observed on the back of the right forearm also.
MR. KELBERG: What is the significance, if any, of the absence of any apparent injuries in that area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same reason I gave for the paucity of Defense wounds. The forearm area would be one area where the person would use to ward off any attack and the absence of injuries would indicate also rapid incapacitation or not having the capability to resist.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further with respect to B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Perhaps we will take the photo board down and finish up with the protocols on these two photographs.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where in the protocol is there a reference to the abrasion that you described in photograph B-5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 3.
MR. KELBERG: Where is the reference to that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the paragraph 1 it is on line 8. It starts saying: "An abrasion over the left scapula measures 3/4 of an inch by half an inch and is reddish brown in color and appears antemortem."
MR. KELBERG: While I hand Mr. Lynch our board 2B, I will outline in blue that entry on page 3 and I will write on the right side "B-5."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the description given here by Dr. Golden, in your opinion, an accurate description?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, on the diagram form 20, there is an entry by Dr. Golden regarding that same abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on the right back view diagram. It is here, (Indicating), and he has given the measuring here, "3/4 inch by half an inch scapula abrasion antemortem" and here he says, "Antemortem red brown" and all of this would apply to the injuries seen in B-5.
MR. KELBERG: With the red marker I will circle that area, doctor, on the form upper right quadrant and I will write "B-5." I don't know if we need to move this. I think this was the easel that was not clearly visible. I don't know if there is any problem.
THE COURT: Why don't you proceed and if I hear anything from the jurors we will--
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as long we have there form up, I want to invite your attention to the other side of the diagram which appears to show the outline of the human body looking at the front of the body, and what appears to be some kind of circle and a line going down beyond the right hand area. Are you familiar with what is shown in that part of the diagram?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a notation by Dr. Golden to indicate the postmortem liver temperature puncture done by our investigator.
MR. KELBERG: I think you briefly alluded to this on Friday, that a liver temperature would be taken. I think you indicated, they were 82 degrees in the case of both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Is that an accurate recitation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: This particular entry then is to reflect what is left after the device used to make that measurement is removed from the body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else about this diagram we need to discuss?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, you indicated, doctor, that there was an entry in the addendum to refer to the B-28 abrasion; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And we are putting up b--8B, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where on the addendum do you find some reference to that abrasion from B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 3 item on page 1 it says: "There is a 5/8 inch by quarter inch abrasion of the lateral aspect of the dorsal aspect of the right elbow, the bottom side irregular."
MR. KELBERG: "Dorsal" meaning back?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I think you may have left off the word "Brown" before abrasion.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, brown abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: I will outline that in blue and mark "B-28". Mr. Lynch has refreshed my memory.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that an accurate description as you examined the photograph B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. My measurement was a little different from the--
MR. KELBERG: What was your measurement?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is only a 1/16 inch--my measurement was 11/16 inch by 3/16 inch.
MR. KELBERG: 11/16 is 1/16 inch more than a 5/8 inch measurement?
MR. SHAPIRO: So stipulated.
MR. KELBERG: I think we may need that stipulation. I think Dr. Lakshmanan said no.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Half an inch is 8-BY-16 and my measurement is 11-BY-16, which is 3/16 inch long.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Dr. Golden had it listed as 5/8?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Maybe I don't need the stipulation, but I will accept it anyway. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Let's move on.
MR. KELBERG: The other measurement you had was 11/16 by--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 3/16.
MR. KELBERG: So that is 1/16 more in both respects from what Dr. Golden has listed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 1/16 more in the length and 1/16 less in the width.
MR. KELBERG: Is that difference in measurement, in your opinion, something that can be due to the limitations of human eyes examining the same photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there any significance as to that difference on any issue that you have reviewed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Maybe we can take those down. May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to cover another of the form 13 reports on our board--Mr. Lynch?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm sorry, the board number--
THE COURT: 10B.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. 10B, and if Mr. Lynch could turn that to--no, I'm sorry, flip the page to what will be a page after--after the second odontology report. Two more pages to be flipped, I believe, Mr. Lynch.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think you may be able to remain seated--I'm not sure if you can see it on--doctor, are you familiar--this is a form that is entitled "Radiology consult." Are you familiar with this particular form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a same form but used by different consultants. This is a radiology consultant report on the case.
MR. KELBERG: And in general what is this a report of?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a report of the x-ray appearance of the spine specimen removed during autopsy from Nicole Brown Simpson by Dr. Golden.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment? If Mr. Lynch will take down the other--
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. This is 352?
MR. KELBERG: It is, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to invite your attention back to photograph B-16 which you have previously testified about. Does this area depict something that relates to what this report, Dr. Boger's report, is talking about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This photograph B-16 as, I discussed yesterday, shows the cervical spine injury, C-3 spine injury related to this large incise/stab wound to the neck, and you can see it here, I'm pointing to it. And this portion of the spine was dissected and saved during the autopsy process, so that spine was examined by x-ray at a later stage and Dr. Boger did that examination of the x-rays on November 14, `94. A report was generated.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, doctor, is it, Boger?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Boger, B-O-G-E-R.
MR. KELBERG: Dr. Boger is a specialist in radiology?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is he basically operating in the same fashion that Dr. Vale operates for the Coroner's office when Dr. Vale is practicing forensic odontology?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: So this is a report that is kept in the ordinary course of your official business?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And Dr. Boger is expected to make this report at or near the time of the events which he is describing in the report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in looking at item 1 under "Findings," what does Dr. Boger report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He indicates that: "There is no visible metallic or other radiopaque foreign body present within the specimen."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if the knife which in your opinion caused this fatal major stab/incise wound had broken in any fashion, the tip or any portion of the knife had broken on contact with the third cervical spine, would you have expected a finding such as made by Dr. Boger?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it had been broken and the tip was left in the spine, it will usually be stuck to the bone and you would see it if it was broken during that process.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, in your opinion this was the last sharp force injury received by Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: You have pointed out, from looking at this board, that she received three sharp force injuries to her head area; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And shown in photograph B-23, B-24 and B-26; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if there had been any breaking of the tip of the knife or portion of the knife blade in inflicting one or all of those sharp force injuries, would you expect the appearance of the stab wound/incise wound that is seen in B-16 and B-13 and the left side of it in B-18 to appear as it does?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if the tip is broken, I would expect to see some kind of more irregularity to the margins than what we see in this stab wound/incise wound.
MR. KELBERG: Does that serve--the absence of that serve as some basis--do you want to add something? The doctor is holding up a finger. You must want to add something.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Also the internal structures were examined, the spine, the epiglottis, the spine. It looked like a clean cut and it was studied by our criminalist.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Studied," was this material that you also studied?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I looked at it and I also asked our criminalist to look at it.
MR. KELBERG: In other words, this was material that was saved at autopsy by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And on June 22nd, 1994, was it examined by you along with Drs. Wolf and Baden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in looking at this tissue that had been removed, what was the significance to you of the findings as to how the cutting had been done?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was a clean cut and that is why I opined yesterday that it was a major single incise stab wound which caused this massive injury to the neck. And I do not think a broken knife could have caused such a clean injury all the way without any evidence of some kind of irregularity to the skin surface and also the deeper part.
MR. KELBERG: And you also indicated that you asked your criminalist, Mr. Dowel, is it, to look at this material?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And did he issue a report as well?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you testified perhaps Tuesday that no x-rays were taken of any areas other than the third cervical spine area; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and that, too, the cervical spine x-ray was only taken after the specimen was removed from the body. It was not taken when the portions of the bone were in-situ.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, given the finding by Dr. Boger of no visible metallic or other radiographic foreign body in the sample or specimen x-ray, given your findings from reviewing the appearance of this major stab/incise wound in the three photographs, 13, 16 and 18, given your findings from your independent review of the tissue which was removed by Dr. Golden and later examined by you, do you have an opinion as to whether the knife that was used to kill Nicole Brown Simpson broke in any fashion in the body, including the skull or any other part of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, in the course of the lethal assault?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: You have no opinion or you have an opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have an opinion; yes, but it didn't break during the process.
MR. KELBERG: And the basis for that is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically because my opinion is this is the last wound and I said that, and also the appearance of the other stab wound to the left side of the neck, they all have uniform configuration which you would only--you would get when you have a knife which is intact with an intact tip, so there are other injuries which will support that opinion.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, assuming, hypothetically, that the killer using this single-edged knife that you have described in general dimensions inflicted this last incise/stab wound to Nicole Brown Simpson after she had been incapacitated as you previously testified and after the murderer or killer moved away from Nicole Brown Simpson and murdered or killed Ronald Goldman and then came back to inflict this last fatal stab/incise wound, would you expect then that Mr. Goldman's autopsy findings would not show any evidence of a broken knife?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled, subject to connection.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: My answer would be that the knife would have been intact when Goldman's injuries were inflicted.
MR. KELBERG: And if the knife were intact when Mr. Goldman's injuries were inflicted would you expect to see any evidence of a broken knife in any portion of his body at autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We would have expected to see a broken knife if it had hit any skeletal structures. His wounds did fracture--we will go into it, I'm sure--did fracture one skeletal structure, did hit, was the right seventh rib in one of the stab wounds to the chest--let me just recall--and he had two, three small cuts to the head. Other than that, there was no other bony structure I recall at this time which that knife--the knife which caused those injuries would have struck. And given your hypothetical, that this last wound on Miss Simpson occurred after the Goldman--Mr. Goldman was killed, I would have to opine that based on the features of this large incise stab wound the knife was not broken.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have a couple of more brief reports. I don't know what the Court wants to do.
THE COURT: Let's take a break.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. all right. Doctor, you may step down.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Thank you.
(At 11:59 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1995 1:05 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Dr. Lakshmanan, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: And let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The jury: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: Dr. Lakshmanan, there's some additional information on this consultation report form 13 from Dr. Boger. You covered the finding no. 1. What is finding no. 2 concerning?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Regarding a small bone fragment which was displaced by this sharp force injury to the third cervical spine.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Displaced," what does that mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was cut away from the portion of the vertical body, but it was still in--in--in contact with the body because there was tissue still holding it with the body of the vertebra.
MR. KELBERG: And this action of cutting it away is due to the knife that is inflicting this fatal wound; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And what is Dr. Boger evaluating this fragment for?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He's just describing it in detail radiologically, what was seen in the radiograph.
MR. KELBERG: In lay terms, can you summarize what his finding is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically, the lower border of the vertical body was cut and a piece of the bone was displaced by this cut.
MR. KELBERG: What, if any, significance does, first of all, the fact that there is this fragment have on your opinions concerning the nature of this sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It further reinforces that it's a sharp border which made this cut of the bone because the edges are smooth and straight.
MR. KELBERG: Sharp--I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a sharp instrument like a knife that caused this injury. That's what it reinforces.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else of significance that you wish to discuss regarding Dr. Boger's consultation report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, if I can just flip the page. Doctor, now we have another document. Are you familiar in general terms with this report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the forensic analysis report, which I alluded to earlier, conducted by our senior criminalist, Mr. Steve Dowell, on the laryngeal specimen as well as the vertebral specimen which he looked at.
MR. KELBERG: Does Mr. Dowell specialize in any particular area of criminalistics?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He specializes in tool mark analysis and helps the department try to compare a potential tool which caused a potential mark on a bone to see whether that tool was the tool which caused that mark on a particular bone.
MR. KELBERG: Approximately how long has Mr. Dowell been with the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: At least more than a decade.
MR. KELBERG: More than a decade?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And how long has he been specializing in this area of tool mark analysis?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Around the same time.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you summarize for us in lay terms what Mr. Dowell did and what his findings if any were?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He examined the--both the cervical spine and the laryngeal specimen which included the thyroid, hyoid area looking at the margins of the cut to see whether there's any foreign material, to see whether there's any fibers--I mean--and he recovered some foreign material from the margins of this laryngeal specimen. He also looked at the margins to see whether it was clean cut and if it was from a sharp instrument. So that is basically his examination. And if you turn to the next page, he did recover some material from the specimen.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Is this first page to discuss what he in fact saw in the course of any examination of the cervical vertebra?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He discussed in detail the injury which we discussed earlier, giving its dimension, giving its angle and also indicating its appearance.
MR. KELBERG: Let me just, if I could have a marker, indicate that this relates, does it not, doctor, then to these photographs, B-13, B-16 and B-18?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I've written that on the right margin of the first page. Anything further on the first page?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. This is the laryngeal specimen he examined and there recovered--he examined the margins as I mentioned earlier. It was caused by sharp force injury. And he recovered a dark colored fiber on the cut margin of the epiglottis. And he also recovered some light gray metallic material which was seen on the surfaces of the larynx. This both were recovered on October 4th, `94, and it was done with the help of LAPD criminalist.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, were those materials described in the quotation marks "Dark colored fiber" and "Light gray metallic material" both of them saved at the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. We released it to the crime lab for analysis.
MR. KELBERG: The crime lab, being the Los Angeles Police Department?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And then he makes a conclusion that the defects he saw in the larynx and spine are consistent with sharp force injury, and here he says that if they do get a suspect tool, he'll make further comparisons of this sharp force injury.
MR. KELBERG: In his discussion, in his conclusion, there is a line saying there is no, quotes, specific unquote, information in the marks to suggest a, quote, specific, unquote, configuration for the tool other than a tool that fits with constraints placed on the tool by information on other marks as described in the autopsy report. Can you summarize in lay terms what that means?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically he--he--his--my reading of this report will be that the injury he saw, the larynx, is consistent with the same sharp force injuries we saw in the rest of the report which I've already discussed.
MR. KELBERG: And then the paragraph continues, however a, quote, general, unquote, class of tool apostrophe--I'm sorry--parentheses s, closed parentheses, can be described, and if a suspect tool is located, considerable comparison may be done between features of the suspect tool and the above material. First of all, is the material that is referred to the material that is described in items 2 and 3 under paragraph b of page 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be one conclusion.
MR. KELBERG: Was that your conclusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, when Mr. Dowell used the term, quote--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The other conclusion is also, they could make comparison to tool itself with regarding to the margins of the wound.
MR. KELBERG: And the margins of the wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the larynx and in the spine.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And, doctor, with reference to Mr. Dowell's use of the term general, unquote, class of tools, does that have meaning to you with respect to any limitations placed on the forensic pathologist in identifying a specific knife on the basis of the findings made by Mr. Dowell and Dr. Boger?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would mean that if you have a suspect weapon, it would be--there would be other similar weapons of the same class because any instrument which has the same sharp edge could cause similar injuries of this nature.
MR. KELBERG: Is this conclusion an indication of a limitation to the ability of a forensic pathologist to identify a specific knife rather than a general class of knives such as a single-edged knife of approximate dimensions based upon the findings made by Mr. Dowell and Dr. Boger?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further to be covered with Mr. Dowell's report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, while we're talking about the neck area, there's one additional form.
MR. KELBERG: This is board 6-B, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, I'll ask you if you would, please, to step down.
(The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: And let me invite your attention to the second of the 20-H forms. This is the form that appears to depict the schematic of the human body with the human skeleton shown. Are you familiar in general terms with what is shown in this particular diagram?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the diagram used by Dr. Golden to document the cervical spine injury which he saw, and I showed him the photograph B-16 or B-13, and he has diagrammed the injury to be the C-3 area, body of C-3.
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Body of C-3.
MR. KELBERG: What is the body? What does that mean medically?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The spine is made up of different pieces of vertebra, and each vertebra has a part to it which is called the body of the vertebra, which is the front of the vertebra. And that is what is meant by the body of the vertebra. And the wound on the spine--the body of the vertebra was three-quarters of an inch by quarter inch deep and it was transverse, that is horizontally oriented. C-3 is the third cervical, and he's repeated it here, body of C-3. And the most--he also indicates that the spinal cord is negative. That is the injury did not go into the spinal cord, it only ended in the spine.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, on this form, I'll write in with the blue marker B-13, B-16, B-18.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does there appear to be something to the left as you look at the diagram to the left of the schematic of the front of the body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Can you make out what that is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It's a difficult handwriting to read there.
MR. KELBERG: You're unable to make it out?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Anything further with respect to this form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Now, we're going to put up two boards, your Honor, 1-B and 9-B, from our collection.
THE COURT: Thank you. (Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you could step down.
(The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: And let me invite your attention to--again, this is board 1-B and form 15. And I want to discuss now any samples that were preserved by Dr. Golden at autopsy for toxicological analysis, from what you've said before, for drug, alcohol, screening purposes. Does this form 15 show what if anything was preserved by Dr. Golden from the Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy for that purpose?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He saved heart blood and urine as is indicated on the right side on the toxicological specimens collected.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that box area that you were pointing to on form 15. Does he also indicate the type of analysis that he wishes to have performed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He requested a "H" screen, which is a screen which we use for homicide cases.
MR. KELBERG: And you've indicated an area that I'm now circling also in red on the form 15; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, let me invite your attention, if I could, please, to this other board that is 9-B. And page 1 of this board has some kind of printed document dated 6-21-94. Are you familiar with this document, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a toxicology report.
MR. KELBERG: And in general, how is this type of document produced in the course of the Coroner's office operation with respect to a sample submitted such as Dr. Golden has indicated on the form 15?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The specimen submitted at autopsy is logged in by the toxicology section. The canary copy--if you remember what I said, it's a four-layer document, the 15. The canary copy goes to the toxicology laboratory. Based on the request by the doctor, the toxicology laboratory will retrieve the specimen and run the specimen for the drugs requested. "Head screen" normally would refer to the drugs listed in this report, alcohol, methamphetamine, cocaine, narcotics and PCP. So these drugs were tested for based on the request of Dr. Golden on June 14th.
MR. KELBERG: And is this report generated following any such testing by employees of the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it generated at or about the time of the events which are recorded on the document as having been the test results?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Are you familiar--there's a column--a number of columns. Let's start in the far left-hand side of this first page. And it describes a column for "Tissue," and underneath, there appears to be a series of entries, all with the same word, "Blood." What does this reflect?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would reflect the specimen which was analyzed for that particular test.
MR. KELBERG: And this--in this case, this would be blood taken from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: The next column then is for what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the analysis requested, which would be the drugs which are included in that "H" screen.
MR. KELBERG: And the next column?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would indicate the drugs which are analyzed, which would basically be the drugs which were requested.
MR. KELBERG: What is "Ethanol," which appears to be the first word under that column?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's alcohol.
MR. KELBERG: Is that drinking alcohol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well--yes. It's alcohol which is present in the wine and other liquors people drink.
MR. KELBERG: And if we move to the next column, there's something, "Level found." In general terms, what is that column to reflect?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is to reflect two things. One, the amount--if the drug is present, and if it's present, how much is present.
MR. KELBERG: There appear to be after the first entry two initials--two letters, "ND," "N" as in Nancy, "D" as in dog, that is repeated for a total of five entries. Does "ND" have some meaning to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It means not detected. And there is a legend and a key in the bottom portion of this report that says "ND" means not detected.
MR. KELBERG: The next column--and I'll get back to the specific number that's found as the first entry, but let me move to the next column under "Assigned toxicologists." And for those five "ND" entries, the same initial and last name appears, L. Mahanay. Is this the same Mr. Mahanay that I believe you described earlier, was a criminalist who was asked to take some bloodstain samples from the, I think you said thigh area of Nicole Brown Simpson at the Coroner's office on June 13th, 1994?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And how long has Mr. Mahanay been working for the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Over 13 years.
MR. KELBERG: How long has he been a toxicologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Same amount of time.
MR. KELBERG: And then the last column deals with date analyzed; and as to Mr. Mahanay's entries, it appears that the date is the same, June 21st; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is that date--is that date intended to reflect when the tests have been completed and reviewed by the toxicologist assigned?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me move back then to the top entry for the ethanol and start with the assigned toxicologist, J. Park, p-a-r-k. Who is--I don't know if that's a Mr. Or Ms. Park?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He's another toxicologist in our office who's been there for many years.
MR. KELBERG: And the date analyzed would reflect the date that Mr. Park is to have analyzed the blood sample submitted for the presence of alcohol in this case finding drinking alcohol, ethanol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in the "Level found" area, there appears to be some entry. Does that entry have any meaning to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That would signify that alcohol was present and the amount was .02 gram percent.
MR. KELBERG: Perhaps if you'd like to retake the stand.
(Witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: As part of your training as a forensic pathologist, do you learn about the concept of alcohol being drunk, absorbed by the body and reflected on testing in blood samples taken from the body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Briefly, can you describe what your training and experience is in that regard?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically, we do the alcohol testing routinely in all our traffic accident fatalities, which is a requirement by the law in the State of California, and the legal limit for being under the influence is .08 grams percent. And we also--the other exposure to alcohol-related deaths is people who have the syndrome of alcoholism who are found dead and without any medical attendance. We do autopsies on them, and we would determine what the fatal level of alcohol was if alcohol played a role in their death. The other situation would be somebody who goes for a party and they drink a lot and the young person who has not taken much alcohol in the past and consumes a lot and then dies from it. In that case, the alcohol intoxication is also analyzed. So our role in the alcohol analysis and interpretation would be mainly in quantitative interpretation. I'm not an expert on the effects of alcohol per se.
MR. KELBERG: Are you, however, trained to evaluate, number one, what happens within the body to the alcohol that is imbibed? That is, you drink a drink of alcohol, let's say wine for example. What happens in the body to that alcohol that's in the wine?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's absorbed from the stomach itself, some portions of it and portions of the intestine and then it's taken to the liver and metabolized by some enzymes in the liver, and some of the alcohol also is excreted into the urine. And that is briefly the metabolism of alcohol.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the alcohol that is going to be absorbed by the system primarily absorbed in the intestinal area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And the alcohol initially, however, ends up in the stomach if it's drunk in the appropriate manner; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How quickly does alcohol move from the stomach into the intestines?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Being a liquid, if it's not--it will be within very short time, within 20 to 30 minutes, should be going to the intestine. But also, as I said earlier, portion of it can be absorb in the stomach.
MR. KELBERG: Absorbed directly into the system through the stomach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, are you also--withdraw the question. In order to detect a blood level of alcohol, must the alcohol have been absorbed either in the stomach or in the intestines?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is there a time frame in general terms for alcohol to be absorbed from the time a drink is drunk until the time it is absorbed in the intestines as well as the stomach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Usually you see a blood level within an hour after drinking.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you also familiar in general terms with the relative concentration of alcohol as it is contained in various kinds of drinks?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A rough idea, because you have variation in different wines, the concentration of alcohol. You have variation in the different hard liquors, the concentration of alcohol. So you need to know the specific type of alcohol ingested to know the exact concentration. For example, port wines will have 20 percent alcohol in it. Some regular house wines will have 10 percent alcohol in it. Your hard liquors like whiskey will have 40 percent, which is 80 proof. So it varies. So you need to know what type of alcohol was consumed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does the level that is detected in Nicole Brown Simpson, .02 percent, have meaning to you if you assume the following circumstances? That Nicole Brown Simpson visited the Mezzaluna restaurant at approximately 10 minutes to 7:00 on the evening of June 12th, 1994; that she left that restaurant sometime between 8:30 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. with some testimony saying that she left about 8:45ish; that in the course of being at the restaurant, a bill was opened by the server, and from the time the bill was opened until the time the bill was closed, meaning that no additional food or beverage had been ordered, an hour and 14 minutes passed within this time frame of 10 to 7:00 arrival and the time frame then of leaving 8:30 to 9:00, 8:45ish; and that assume further that Nicole Brown Simpson during that time had up to two glasses of a wine from a bottle provided by the restaurant, of a typical California wine, and that Nicole Brown Simpson died at approximately 10:15 P.M. on June 12th, 1994. Given those circumstances, does a level of .02 percent have any significance to you in saying whether or not that is consistent with that set of circumstances?
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm going to object. This is an improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Sustained on the basis of foundation.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, approximately what percentage of alcohol is absorbed from a single glass of house wine?
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm going to object. Again, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A significant percentage will be absorbed from the stomach and the intestine. And I'm not an alcohol metabolism expert and I'm only going to give you some general knowledge which I have in the field. So a glass of wine can cause a level of anywhere from .02 to .03 depending on the concentration of the alcohol in the wine and other perimeters--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --and other--other perimeters associated with it, depending on the concentration of the alcohol in the wine.
MR. KELBERG: All right. So--
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, there will be an objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you in fact--you don't practice it as a regular part of your practice as a forensic pathologist to analyze the rate of absorption of alcohol from drinks in the human body; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: But do you in fact have experience and training as part of your training to be a forensic pathologist in your practice in knowing about that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, I have general idea about the knowledge about the alcohol metabolism, and my experience and expertise is mostly on levels which cause death. And I already told you that I'm not an expert on explaining the effects of alcohol in the body.
MR. KELBERG: And I'm not going to ask you about the effects of alcohol. But in understanding levels of alcohol, do you have training as to the rate at which the blood alcohol will show itself from drinks that are imbibed by the decedent?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In a very general manner. As I told you, a glass of wine can cause a level of .02 to .03 if the alcohol level in the wine is about 10 percent. And the metabolism of alcohol is if--in an average person, would be .015 percent per hour if--if the person does not continue to drink. And based on that, you can make some calculations. But I would not want to offer an opinion on that because I'm not an expert in that field.
MR. KELBERG: I understand, doctor. But just talking the general terms of a .02 to a .03 blood alcohol level associated with a single glass of 10 percent alcohol house wine; is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And if somebody had two glasses of that--first of all, does the weight of the individual have some bearing on what the blood level will be of the alcohol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The weight would have, the amount of alcohol you take would have a bearing, the concentration of the alcohol would have a bearing, what food was ingested with the alcohol would have a bearing because--so a lot of factors are there. And also what other effects you have on the emptying of the stomach would have a bearing. So there are many factors which have to be taken into consideration before you offer an opinion on this kind of question.
MR. KELBERG: And I'm asking you in general terms. I'm not going to ask you an opinion specifically. In general terms, a glass of wine as described can result in a blood alcohol level of a .02 to .03; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And how long does it take in order to get that blood alcohol level, assuming a person doesn't take more than the one drink?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. We're talking about rate of absorption?
MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Within an hour.
THE COURT: All right. We've asked that question three times now.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you mentioned something about metabolism. What do you mean by that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the rate at which the alcohol is digested by the body, and that I gave as an average rate of .01--.015 grams percent per hour.
MR. KELBERG: So when you say "Metabolize," would that translate into a lowering of the blood alcohol level by that amount, assuming the person doesn't drink any more than the one drink?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And is a .02 percent level, as found in the alcohol specimen submitted on behalf of Nicole Brown Simpson, a level which can be used by you with your experience to assess how many drinks Nicole Brown Simpson had from the time of approximately 7:00 o'clock until the time of her death?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I don't have the expertise to go into those details.
MR. KELBERG: There are other people who do?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. There are people who specialize in alcohol metabolism who can give a better opinion on this aspect of the analysis than me.
MR. KELBERG: And would the same apply as to the burn-off rate as to the specific individual; that that would be a matter that can be determined with an appropriate expert who focuses on that area of science?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. No foundation that he knows.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion--one final area. Let me withdraw that. We're going to talk about stomach contents and time of death later on; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is one of the aspects I understood you to say, that alcohol may have an impact on stomach emptying?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that something that is within your area of expertise?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that something on which you have reviewed literature in forensic pathology text?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that material that you have read, material which you have relied upon in forming a part of the basis for any opinion you may hold with respect to the impact of any blood--any alcohol--excuse me--on the stomach emptying process?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In general, doctor, what level of alcohol is required to have any significant impact on the rate of stomach emptying?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The information I read is 30 percent alcohol can have an impact on dealing, emptying of the gastric contents.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say 30 percent, are we talking in the same types of percentage terms as .02 that's up there or what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You're talking about 30 percent alcohol content of the liquor consumed.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further with respect to this first page of the toxicological analysis, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing further, no.
MR. KELBERG: Let me flip the page. Now, what is this second document? It appears to be dated August 31, 1994.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is an extension of the toxicology screen I had requested in June, in end of June to--on the blood--on the blood of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson.
MR. KELBERG: And, first of all, why did you request these additional tests?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just to complete the toxicology screen because it was a head screen. I just want to make sure there were no other drugs in--present in the blood like basic drugs, phenothiazines.
MR. KELBERG: What are phenothiazines?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Phenothiazines are tranquilizers like chlorpromazine and tranquilizer drugs.
MR. KELBERG: Chlorpromazine?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That's right.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have to keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Chlorpromazine.
MR. KELBERG: In the tissue column, there appear to be two blood entries, but also an urine entry. Do you see that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Was this part of what you requested?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in the level found, the letters "QNS" appear; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What do they stand for?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Quantity not sufficient for doing analysis.
MR. KELBERG: And what does that mean, quantity of urine is insufficient to do the analysis?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Again, we see an assigned toxicologist for each of the tests that are requested. We've already covered Mr. Mahanay. Who are Mr. Muto, and I'm not sure if that's Mr. Or Ms. Budd, B-U-D-D?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Mr. Budd is another senior toxicologist in our department who has been there over 15 years. Mr. Muto is the chief of toxicology in our department.
MR. KELBERG: And does "ND" indicate the same thing it did before, that none was detected as to the drugs that were being analyzed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Or the drugs for which the analysis were being done?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else about this particular document, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to move our 1-B board over and flip to the form 16. Let me just get a marker if I could, please. On this particular form, doctor--let me start actually in the upper right-hand corner where there is--appears to be the preprinted word "Brain" and the letters "Wt" and then some entries underneath that. In general terms, doctor, what is that area of this form to encompass?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The--records the weight of the organ, and also, if there's any pathology, they enter the pathology there.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as you recall from yesterday, you talked quite a bit about a brain contusion seen in photograph B-33. Would you expect if Dr. Golden had seen that brain contusion, that there should be an entry somewhere around this upper right corner of form 16 to reflect that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is the failure to have entered some kind of indication of that brain contusion a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessarily because some of my doctors don't enter it there, but they enter it in the diagram containing the brain. But in this case here, they indicated no injuries on the brain diagram also. So I would say it's a mistake.
MR. KELBERG: Would your answers be the same as to the significance of this mistake to the questions that were asked about the significance of him writing "No injuries" on the form 29 regarding the brain?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to drop down to the mid portion of form 16, and there appears to be the word "Stomach" and then some entries underneath that and there also appears to be some writing to the right of it.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Starting with "Stomach," what is that particular entry on the form, a preprinted entry on the form intended to encompass?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It--it reflects the contents of the stomach, and he has described the contents.
MR. KELBERG: Is that in fact what you expect from one of your forensic pathologists conducting an autopsy in a case such as Nicole Brown Simpson; that the contents of the stomach will be examined and that there will be a description of the contents provided in this area of form 16?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What did Dr. Golden write with respect to the contents of the stomach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He wrote the contents was 500 cc of stomach contents with pasta and he has mentioned rig--rigatoni and he's also mentioned spinach as some of the contents of the stomach.
MR. KELBERG: And is there an entry between the pasta/rig and the spinach that you've indicated?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says black--can't read the letter there.
MR. KELBERG: Olives perhaps?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could be olives.
MR. KELBERG: What's underneath what you've identified as the word "Spinach"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Leaves."
MR. KELBERG: And is there a second word after the word "Leaves"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Conter--it says C-L-U--can't read that properly.
MR. KELBERG: Can't make that out; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this what you would expect to see with respect to a description of any stomach contents observed by Dr. Golden in the course of the autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Retake the stand for a second and let me just outline that in blue on the form 16.
(The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: And I'll outline the area of the brain, your Honor, and for that, I'll write B-33 to reflect the photograph to which it may refer.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does your office in its medical examiner's manual have a protocol to be followed regarding stomach contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To describe the contents is important, to describe it in volume.
MR. KELBERG: And referring to page 63 of the same manual that we talked about I think earlier today on section--I'm sorry. Not this manual. We talked about it yesterday on homicides. Page 63 under gastrointestinal system, does it say the following? "The esophagus in its mucosa should be described. The contents of the stomach should be noted and the mucosa described. The duodenum, small bowel, appendix, colon and rectum should be described. The bowel should be opened in all homicide cases, and in other cases where appropriate, the pancreas should be described." Is that what the manual indicates?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is that what you expect?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, first of all, how is the stomach contents examined in the course of an autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When you open the stomach, you look at the contents and describe what the contents are, and you also, if you're going to save them, you collect them in the appropriate containers which I showed earlier on Tuesday.
MR. KELBERG: How does one examine the stomach contents? Is it while it's in the stomach or after it's been removed from the stomach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Usually you can--you can examine a portion of it in the stomach, but also you take it out and then examine it.
MR. KELBERG: I believe you testified on Tuesday when we were looking at the tray of instruments that an instrument is provided for the measurement of the contents of the stomach; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that instrument?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Some--the ladle.
MR. KELBERG: And how is the ladle used to measure the contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Each ladle is about six-ounce ladle. So that's one way you could measure it.
MR. KELBERG: A six-ounce ladle translates I think you said 500 cc's. What are cc's?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a--cubic centimeters.
MR. KELBERG: And how can you relate 500 cc's to a six-ounce ladle?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: An ounce is about 30 cc's or six ounces about 180 cc. So about three ladle's worth.
MR. KELBERG: Of stomach contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, now, on June 13th, when you examined or at least saw the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, was any police officer from the Los Angeles Police Department present with you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: On June 13th?
MR. KELBERG: June 13th.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did you receive any information on June 13th as to what if anything Nicole Brown Simpson had eaten at Mezzaluna restaurant on June 12th, 1994, between the hours of 10:00 to 7:oo at night and roughly 8:30 to 9:00 at night?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: On June 14th, did you see Dr. Golden performing any aspect of the autopsy of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What did you see?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I went down to see whether--whether he was doing the autopsy, but actually I--he was almost completed with the autopsy when I saw him.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, when you went down--I think you indicated with these forms that Detectives Lange and Vannatter were listed on the form as witnesses to the autopsy. Do you know those two gentlemen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. They are detectives who investigated this crime.
MR. KELBERG: Did you see either of those two gentlemen in the area of where the brown Simpson autopsy was being conducted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you talk with either of those two officers?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--not in the autopsy room that day. I don't recall talking to them in the autopsy room.
MR. KELBERG: Did you receive any information on the 14th of June from any source whatsoever as to what if anything Nicole Brown Simpson had eaten at the Mezzaluna restaurant in the time frame I gave in the earlier question?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, on the 14th of June, did you have a conversation with Dr. Golden regarding the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: How did that come about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--when I went down, as I told you, he was almost completing the autopsy, and I asked him did he save the stomach contents, and he said no.
MR. KELBERG: Why did you ask him that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I just asked him because he's--because--I asked him whether he had saved it because it's an useful item to save if you think there's a medical value to it. But in this case, I thought we should save it because of the nature of the cases we were dealing with so that it will be available for anybody else who wants to examine it. Because the policy in our office is only to examine the contents and describe it and describe the volume, not to save stomach contents unless it's needed for toxicological purposes.
MR. KELBERG: Let's break down your response and do some follow-up questions. Doctor, first of all, in what circumstance or circumstances do you believe that the stomach contents itself can have value to you as a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: For us, the value would be to--to save it would be for cases where there's a drug overdose where you suspect suicide wherein you will have a drug level of a drug in the blood and you'll want to see how much of medication is left in the stomach which will support your opinion as to whether it was a suicide because you'll have so many tablets of the medication left in the stomach and you'll also have a high level in the blood. The other reason we save stomach contents in drug overdoses, we--sometimes the person might have ingested a drug and you may identify the tablets and your routine screen may not pick up the drug. So then you can analyze the medication in the stomach and then go backwards to check the same substance in the blood. So we principally save stomach contents in cases of drug overdose wherein we can correlate for the purposes of manner of death, as I indicated, and also sometimes assist us in the process of determining the cause of death wherein you do not find the drug in the routine drug screen.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would another circumstance in your opinion dictate saving the stomach contents if food poisoning were a suspected source for the person's death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be another reason why we would save it, in case you have a person who has had either bacterial food poisoning or poisoning from any other drugs as I mentioned.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, when you were asking Dr. Golden whether he saved the stomach contents, did you entertain in your own mind that Nicole Brown Simpson may have died from a drug overdose?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did you entertain in your mind that Nicole Brown Simpson may have died from food poisoning from a restaurant she visited on June 12th, 1994?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or from eating food of any type from any source whatsoever?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why did you raise the subject then?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because I felt that given the nature of the case, it would be good to save the stomach contents so that if anybody else has questions as to our findings, we'll have it available for their evaluation.
MR. KELBERG: What do you mean about the nature of the case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because by the 14th of June, I had been informed of the--the high profile nature of these cases.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you ever heard the term "Defensive medicine"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: As to the practice of forensic pathology, what does "Defensive medicine" mean if anything?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To--to save sometimes specimens even if you're--it's not indicated medically so that it's available if any other person wants to look at a particular specimen. In this particular case, that's what it would apply to.
MR. KELBERG: Is it something akin to covering your backside?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, you could put it in that way if you want to put it.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, it's not a matter of how I want to put it. Is that what your thought process was on June 14th?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, as a result of that thought process--and let me withdraw the question for a moment if I might. Doctor, does judgment have any role in the practice of forensic pathology?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What role does judgment have?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because in--"Judgment" is a term you--I mean "Judgment" comes with years of experience and you know that in certain cases, you may need to do a little more than what is necessary in other cases, and that's what you would refer to as "Judgment."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say that the safest way one could cover your backside in the practice of forensic pathology is to save absolutely everything that you come in contact with in the course of the autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that very practical?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in fact, have you reviewed literature in recognized forensic pathology text dealing with what is a suggested ideal protocol for the handling of stomach contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And have you considered and relied upon that in forming any opinion as to whether the practice at the Los Angeles County Coroner's office should be to save the stomach contents in every criminal homicide case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I reviewed the literature, and based on our own experience, we only save it when it's needed.
MR. KELBERG: Have you also relied in part on what you have read as a suggested ideal protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is one of the materials you have read in this area again from Spitz and Fisher's medical legal investigation of death, third edition on page 29 as follows? "An ideal postmortem evaluation protocol of the rate of gastric emptying should include: "No. 1, a description of the nature, amount, size and condition of the stomach contents; "No. 2, a microscopic examination of the contents if the contents are difficult to identify or are partially liquefied by the digestive process; "3, an examination of the small intestine for undigestible markers, for example, corn kernels, tomato peels to see how far ahead certain digestive foods travel; "4, a toxicological examination of both blood and stomach contents for drugs and alcohol; "5, an evaluation of the prior medical and psychological status and related medications and drugs." is that what you read and is that in part what you relied upon?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does that ideal protocol mention anywhere saving the stomach contents at all?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Does it mention saving the stomach contents to protect your back side in a high profile case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Dr. Golden describe on form 16 the volume that he found in the stomach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he describe the contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: And did he describe in his protocol--
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: This is 0-B, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: More water, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. Mrs. Robertson, aqua. Page 11?
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, inviting your attention to page 11 of Dr. Golden's protocol, do you find there a description by Dr. Golden of an examination of the stomach contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And before you have to answer another question, I think we have a cup of water for you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: What has Dr. Golden included as a description on page 11 for the stomach contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Examination of the gastric contents reveals approximately 500 ml of chewed semi-solid food in the stomach. Recognizable food particles are identified as follows: Pieces of pasta appearing to be rigatoni, fragments of apparent spinach leaves; and the remainder chewed, partially digested nonrecognizable food material."
MR. KELBERG: And what you just read, let me outline in red, and I'll write the words "Stomach contents" words at the top on the blow-up, page 11. Doctor, you indicated 500 cc, cubic centimeters. The report actually indicates ml. Is there some relationship between cc's and ml's?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They're the same.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, from the description given by Dr. Golden, he has indicated recognizable food particles. Is this to represent a naked eye identification of the stomach contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And according to the ideal postmortem evaluation suggested in Spitz and Fisher, a microscopic examination of the contents is in order in this ideal evaluation protocol if the contents are difficult to identify; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Or are partially liquefied by the digestive process; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Given--
THE COURT: Go ahead. Go ahead. No. I'm just concerned because the doctor is obscured by the exhibit.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Still.
MR. KELBERG: Still obscured, your Honor?
THE COURT: Still.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. I'll take this down. Still?
THE COURT: Well--all right. Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, given the description by Dr. Golden of the stomach contents, in your opinion, was there any basis under this ideal protocol to have a microscopic examination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you can--you have recognizable food fragments there and he has clearly identified them as rigatoni and spinach and there's no necessity for a microscopic examination.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, assuming that there's been testimony in this Court from a server at the Mezzaluna restaurant that Nicole Brown Simpson on the night of June 12th, 1994 had rigatoni as part of the food that she had at the restaurant, does it appear that Dr. Golden has accurately described that in his protocol?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. No foundation. May we approach?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, there is in this ideal--and let me ask a couple of clarifying questions. When someone suggests an ideal protocol, does that mean that something less is not reasonable, a protocol that is less complete is not reasonable?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: What does "Ideal" mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Ideal" means what--what one would like to have in a particular situation, which is complete.
MR. KELBERG: And takes into account nothing about limitations of resources?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Limitation of resources is a different factor in this--because limitation of resources will prevent you having what is sometimes ideal.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: But you also have to take into consideration what is medically necessary in our office.
MR. KELBERG: And what I'm asking is, is there a distinction between what may be medically necessary and what may be ideal if you had unlimited resources and the best of all possibilities available?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. If you had unlimited resources, we could save everything on every person we autopsy. But we have to use our medical knowledge and then do what is necessary on every case we handle in our office, only do things which are medically necessary.
MR. KELBERG: And how does judgment enter into the exercise of that decision-making process?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Judgment--as being the Chief Medical Examiner for the county, I felt in my judgment from years of experience, that some cases, you need to do a little more even though it's not medically necessary. And sometimes, even though we don't do it on every case, we may have to do it because you like to have certain results available even though you know it's going to be of no use.
MR. KELBERG: And in this case, did you make a judgment on June 14th that because this was a high-publicity case being followed by the media, that it would have been safer to save everything even if there was not a medical indication for doing so?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that the exercise of medical judgment in your opinion, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: What is it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In this particular situation, it was my--no. In this particular situation, it was my judgment to ask him to save it. That's why he saved it on Goldman. I asked him to save it on Goldman's autopsy.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact, did Dr. Golden save the stomach contents of Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did you feel there was any medical reason to save the stomach contents of Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why did you ask him to do that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same reason I gave you earlier. Because I felt it's good to have the specimen available in case we need to have it available for the--any other person who wants to evaluate it or if there was a suspect who was found so that a different person may have a need to evaluate it.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, just a couple more questions on this ideal protocol that call for an examination of the small intestine for undigestible markers, for example, corn kernels, tomato peels to see how far ahead certain digested foods travel. What does that mean, if anything, to you as a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Some food material like nuts and corn kernel, which you just mentioned, don't get digested in the stomach and they're difficult food material to digest and they pass through the intestinal track, and that can be sometimes used to determine when the last meal was eaten if you have a person who has died. Normally, the stomach empties in anywhere from--depending on the amount of the meal a person has taken, from two hours to four hours depending on what was eaten. And if you have particles which are not digested in the stomach, you can find that they reach to the lower portion of the small intestine called the ileocecal value in about eight hours. So--
MR. KELBERG: I think the reporter would like for you to spell ileocecal valve.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I-l-e-o-c-e-c-a-l value. So what is being discussed here is, when you open the intestinal track, you can see where the location of these undigested corn kernel and nuts are present. But for this, you need to tie the intestine in different segments to make sure that when you remove the intestine from the body, they don't mix up and you have a correct evaluation and not an incorrect evaluation.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, for nuts or similar kinds of difficult to digest materials to pass into the intestines, would you expect that, assuming they had been eaten at the same time as what's identified in Dr. Golden's summary of the stomach contents, that that would have passed as well, passed into the intestines?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: We're going to talk in much greater detail about the time of death issue and the use if any of stomach contents for that. But for our present purposes, doctor, is there anything else about your discussion with Dr. Golden regarding the stomach contents that we have not discussed as to why you did it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else. It was just my instruction to him to save Goldman and when I found he had not found Nicole's stomach contents.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the last factor in this ideal protocol calls for an evaluation of the prior medical and psychological status and related medications and drugs. I assume of the decedent?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does that have any application to this case of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because she didn't die from a drug overdose and there's no indication that she was on drugs when we did the autopsy and the toxicology screen is also negative.
THE COURT: 2:30.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And the toxicology screen is also negative.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else regarding the autopsy of Nicole Brown Simpson that you feel that you should bring to the attention of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that we have not discussed to this point?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: I'm going to change now, your Honor, into another series of materials. I think I may have some questioning that will carry us through to when the Court wishes to break. I'm not positive.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: So then we can move during the break.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before we move into the autopsy of Ronald Goldman, I want to ask you a few questions about this process that you have undertaken in reviewing all of the autopsy materials in both cases. Doctor, is it an uncommon experience for you to review autopsy materials in cases for which you were not the actual autopsy surgeon?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's not at all uncommon in my capacity.
MR. KELBERG: How does this come about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I review cases and close cases for doctors who are no longer with the department. I review cases for case--for purposes of court testimony taken in conjunction with photographic review for doctors who have either passed away or no longer are with the department so that the department responds to the needs of the criminal justice system as far as testimony goes for forensic expertise, forensic pathology expertise. We--I--I also--I review files whenever I get queries from law enforcement agencies.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. When you get--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Queries.
MR. KELBERG: Inquiries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Inquiries from law enforcement agencies, from families of the people who have died. So you have to review these files for various reasons. And I've done depositions for--on reports of other physicians. And so basically there are many reasons why I do this quite commonly, reviewing other doctor's reports and review photographs. Sometimes the doctors close the case and there will be questions raised and I have to review the whole file and the photographs and microscopic studies to look into some new information brought to our attention and reopen the case. So there are many reasons why I have to evaluate the case.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you approximate how many times you have testified as a forensic pathologist on a case for which you were not the original autopsy surgeon?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Hundreds of times.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you ever had to spend the kind of time that you have spent in this case when you have done this similar process in these other cases?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is the process nevertheless--setting aside the amount of time, is the process you have undertaken here any different than the process you undertake in these other cases when you are called to testify on a case for which you were not the original autopsy surgeon?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The process is no different. You have to go through the same process. You have to review the report, you have to review the photographs. And sometimes if the report doesn't have the medical--let's say somebody who has been hospitalized, we need the medical information, you need to look at the medical information. So the process is not different. But here, I have to do a certain few other--some other work in addition to what I normally do.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience of testifying in cases for which you were not the original autopsy surgeon, have you reached independent opinions from any opinions expressed in any report from the actual autopsy surgeon which was different than the original autopsy surgeon's opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Is this for testimony or is it for changing the cause of death and manner of death? In what context do you want me to answer that question?
MR. KELBERG: First of all, in the context in which you review these cases where you will be testifying for the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsy, do you have as a reason for doing so the need to independently, that is on your own, from your review of the materials, form opinions on issues like cause and manner of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And have you done that process where at the end, your opinion differed from any opinion expressed by the actual medical examiner who performed the autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Sometimes it's happened.
MR. KELBERG: Is there any feeling that you have that what you are really doing is merely puppeting an opinion that was expressed in a report from the actual medical examiner rather than being an independent assessment by you of these issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I make an independent assessment. My opinion most of the time will concur with the opinion of the medical examiner. If my opinion is different, I state my opinion. If my findings are different when I do independent review of photographs as I've done in this case, I have given you my independent measurements and opinion. I have couched my opinions based on what I can support with my independent review. And as I told you earlier when I came to this court, I'm here to tell the truth as I see it and anything I review.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the process you have undertaken in this case and these other cases where you were not the original autopsy surgeon similar in nature to what forensic pathologists who are retained by people charged with crimes do when they evaluate issues of forensic pathology in a criminal homicide case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, we're going to move into the autopsy of Ronald Goldman.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have a series of exhibits I'd ask to be marked. May I have just a moment with Mr. Shapiro, please?
THE COURT: You may. Would this be a good place to take a break?
MR. KELBERG: Any time the Court would wish to do so is fine.
THE COURT: I mean, do you need time to arrange your exhibits and reorganize the boards?
MR. KELBERG: We will need to use the ones we have been using to the back and get the ones that have been to the back to the front.
THE COURT: All right. Given the number and size of these exhibits, perhaps we should take the break now.
MR. KELBERG: Whatever you wish.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a--our 15-minute recess, our first 15-minute recess for the Thursday afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. We'll stand in recess for 15.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at sidebar. Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Kelberg.
MR. SHAPIRO: We're--I want the record to reflect objections to hypothetical questions that have been asked, that Mr. Kelberg will ask a question and then get an answer if something is possible or if it could be, and then he will put in the hypothetical as if it is a fact. For example: "Could this injury be caused by a shoe? "Yes.
"Now, assume the shoe was worn by a 210 pound male." We believe that is highly improper and prejudicial and want the record to reflect that. Regarding the hypothetical of rigatoni, the Court has in evidence a bill from the restaurant which does not indicate any rigatoni was served to anybody at that time, and, no. 2, there is no evidence that I am aware of that any waitress has offered any testimony about rigatoni. There is testimony that a waitress heard somebody else say that rigatoni was served, and that would be foundation based on hearsay.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: In reverse order, that testimony came at a time when I don't think I was involved with this case. But from a legal standpoint, I believe this objection to it being hearsay is a tad bit late to have any significance and that the jury may consider it for the truth of the matter asserted because of the failure of counsel to object to it on any appropriate ground, assuming it was objectionable, no. 1. No. 2, the bill does in fact reflect a pasta. Mr. Shapiro I'm sure is familiar with pasta having different types of shapes and content, and rigatoni is not a dish. It is a type of pasta. So that if you order a dish, having ordered many dishes from places like Viva La Pasta, has 500 zillion selections of different pasta dishes, when I order a no. 40, they will ask me, "And do you want it with spaghetti, linguini, rigatoni, fettucini," and I'm sure I left out a few of what they offer. As far as a practical matter, Mr. Shapiro is wrong with respect to the bill. With respect to the hypotheticals, your Honor, there is nothing improper with any hypothetical that I have posed. Of course, this is an untimely objection. If counsel didn't make the objection when the question is asked--
THE COURT: No. He did.
MR. KELBERG: I'm not sure he did with every one. But on a more fundamental point, it has been made clear to the jury with my hypothetical, assuming for the sake of argument, that this was done by a shoe worn by a person of 210 pounds, and then I'll ask whatever I asked, and he's certainly--if Mr. Baden wants to come in and deal with these, he will, and we'll deal with him on cross-examination. But as far as any impropriety, I submit to the Court there is none.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I further state just briefly in response, the bill indicates the type of pasta as penne, which is a type of pasta, not a sauce for a pasta. And second, we believe the Court's rulings are very--that Mr. Scheck's hypotheticals were all objected to and all sustained by the Court.
THE COURT: Well, that's not true, Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: Not all, but many were sustained based on the grounds that they assume a fact not in evidence and not assuming arguendo. So I wanted the record to reflect that.
MR. KELBERG: I would like to point out one other thing. No. 1, my hypotheticals are based upon circumstances from which the evidence permits the inference that the circumstance exists. No. 2, even if that were not true, I don't believe Mr. Scheck cited the Court to a case that is a venerable, but still California Supreme Court decision in People versus Busch, B-U-S-C-H, 56 Cal. 2D.--I don't recall the page number--which has as one of its propositions the right of a cross-examiner to offer a hypothetical not based on circumstances in the evidence to test the credibility and qualifications of the expert. I raise this not because I'm here to say Mr. Scheck got a bad ruling, but to indicate that if I have to--I love being down here with the Court and counsel, but I would be very happy if I finish these two witnesses and I am not to be seen in this case again. But if I have to be seen in this case again, it will be as a cross-examiner, and I will submit to the Court that that is the law on cross-examination. I will also submit to the Court a different view on 721(B) because no one has indicated--
THE COURT: Well, counsel, we're here to hear his record. We're on a recess now.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
THE COURT: He's made his record. He's made his objection.
MR. KELBERG: McGarity is a civil case, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. I know.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Doctor. Let the record reflect all our jurors have now rejoined us. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, before beginning the actual questioning, I have a series of exhibits I ask to be marked with the following designations: I have an 18-page autopsy protocol form 12 that I ask to be marked as exhibit 356-A, and I'm going to staple that for the convenience of the clerk.
THE COURT: All right. 356-A.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment? Yes. 356-A.
(Peo's 356-A for id = aut. Report of RG)
MR. KELBERG: And I'm going to ask Mr. Lynch to mark on the last page of these subexhibits what the exhibit identification is so hopefully it will be easier for your clerk. I have, your Honor, what appear to be two form 15's which I ask collectively to be marked as 356-B. And actually I'll do the writing on the back. I think it might be a little faster.
THE COURT: All right. 356-B.
(Peo's 356-B for id = two form 15's)
MR. KELBERG: And for the purposes of identification, one appears to have the box for stomach contents unchecked. One appears to have the box checked. A one-page form 16, your Honor, that I would ask to be marked as 356-C.
(Peo's 356-C for id = one-page form 16)
MR. KELBERG: Two form 20 diagrams, which bear respectively the identifying notation at the bottom right-hand corner, roman numeral I and roman numeral ii, collectively as 356-D as in dog.
(Peo's 356-D for id = two form 20 diagrams)
MR. KELBERG: Similar series of form 21's, only roman numerals I, ii and iii, and ask that they collectively be marked 356-E.
(Peo's 356-E for id = form 21 documents)
MR. KELBERG: A similar series of form 22 documents with roman numerals I through iii, three pages collectively, as f, 356-F.
(Peo's 356-F for id = form 22 documents)
MR. KELBERG: A series of form 23 diagrams also with three of them, roman numerals I, ii and iii, collectively as g, 356-G.
(Peo's 356-G for id = form 23 diagrams)
MR. KELBERG: A form 20-F as in Frank as 356-H.
(Peo's 356-H for id = form 20-F)
MR. KELBERG: A form 20-H as 356-I.
(Peo's 356-I for id = form 20-H)
MR. KELBERG: And this h is a form that shows the four different views of the human skull. A 20-G, which is the one showing the skull from the top exterior and the internal view, as 20-J--I'm sorry. 20--356-J.
(Peo's 356-J for id = form 20-G)
MR. KELBERG: A form 24 as 356-K.
(Peo's 356-K for id = form 24)
MR. KELBERG: A form 20-H--this is the form with the human skeleton outlined--as 356-L.
(Peo's 356-L for id = form 20H)
MR. KELBERG: A form 42, stab wound chart, as 356-M as in Mary.
(Peo's 356-M for id = form 42)
MR. KELBERG: A five-page autopsy report addendum report, which is for the first four pages a mixture of typing, handwriting, and the last page, what appears to be all handwriting, as 356-N as in Nancy.
(Peo's 356-N for id = addendum report)
MR. KELBERG: A five-page July 1, 1994 typewritten autopsy report addendum report as o, 356-O.
(Peo's 356-O for id = addendum report)
MR. KELBERG: A two-page series of toxicological analysis reports, one dated June 21, 1994, one dated August 11, 1994, collectively to be marked, your Honor, as 356-P as in Paul.
(Peo's 356-P for id = toxicology reports)
MR. KELBERG: A form 42-A appearing to bear the signatures of Dr. Vale and Dr. Anselmo and a corresponding form 13, typewritten, bearing their signatures collectively, your Honor, as 356-Q.
(Peo's 356-Q for id = form 42-A)
MR. KELBERG: And finally in this series, your Honor, the form 1 and the form 2, the form 1 appearing to be identical to the 3--I'm sorry--293-B as in boy form, but without any redaction, but collectively as 356-R.
(Peo's 356-R for id = forms 1 and 2)
MR. KELBERG: May they be so marked?
THE COURT: So marked.
MR. KELBERG: Also, your Honor, I have a series of boards that I would ask collectively to be marked as exhibit 357 and designated on the back of each board similar to what we were doing with the brown charts from 0-G through 13-G.
(Peo's 357 for id = boards)
MR. KELBERG: Counsel, will you stipulate that these charts, exhibit 357, are exact replicas of the exhibits 356-A through r, with the exception that they are blow-ups?
MR. SHAPIRO: So stipulated.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the various materials that I described as exhibits being marked 356-A through r, have you reviewed all of those documents with respect to an evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the death of Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: Have you also reviewed one-to-one photographs, life-size photographs that were obtained from the negatives for photographs made on June 14th, 1994 as part of the original autopsy process?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Have you basically reviewed all of the available medical information on the Ronald Goldman autopsy for the purposes of reaching, if you can, independent conclusions on a variety of issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And do those issues include the cause of Mr. Goldman's death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: The manner of Mr. Goldman's death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Whether one single-edged knife could have caused all sharp force injuries to Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: The source or sources for any blunt force trauma found on Mr. Goldman's body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Whether one person killed Mr. Goldman as well as Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: The blood patterns, that is the flow of blood expected from any injuries sustained by Mr. Goldman in the course of his death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And on the issue of how long Mr. Goldman lived from the time of receipt of any first injury until the time of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Have you been able to reach independent judgments on all of these materials?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, just as, again, kind of big ticket approach, what is your opinion, independent opinion to a reasonable medical certainty on the cause of Mr. Goldman's death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He died of multiple sharp force injuries.
MR. KELBERG: Which resulted in what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Resulted in bleeding, loss of blood and death.
MR. KELBERG: And when you described in acknowledging a lay term I posed, "Bleeding to death," when describing the cause of Nicole Brown Simpson's death, would the same apply to the death of Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you form an independent opinion regarding the manner of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Death in the hands of another, homicide.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you form an opinion as to whether a single single-edged knife could have caused all of the sharp force injuries received by Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: What is that opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries and sharp force injuries in Mr. Ron Goldman.
MR. KELBERG: From your evaluation of all sharp force injuries, can you exclude the possibility as to some of those sharp force injuries that a double-edged knife may have been involved?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons that you have expressed with respect to the Nicole Brown Simpson issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you see, however, any evidence that there was in fact a second knife which was not this single-edged knife you described as being a possible weapon for all of the sharp force injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You mean if I saw any injury which would reflect unique characteristics for such a weapon?
MR. KELBERG: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you also evaluate the circumstances available to estimate a range for time of death for Mr. Goldman's death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have a board of photographs that--six photographs, sharp force injuries, blunt force trauma to the face, neck and right shoulder of Mr. Goldman. May this be marked as exhibit 358?
THE COURT: 358.
(Peo's 358 for id = six photographs)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before I reach for that exhibit, in your analysis of all the materials, did you find, first of all, that Dr. Golden was the autopsy surgeon? Did you find that he was?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: You knew that of course?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you find that Dr. Golden made a lot of mistakes in the course of the autopsy of Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he made mistakes.
MR. KELBERG: A lot of mistakes, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you evaluate each mistake that you identified?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: For the purpose of assessing its significance if any to each of the issues that we've posed here today?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to whether, singularly or taken collectively, any of the mistakes that you attribute to Dr. Golden for the Ronald Goldman autopsy have any significance on any of the issues we've identified?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Your opinion is--I'm not sure if the no--I may have lost track of the question myself. Is the no, that you have no opinion or is the no, your opinion is that it has no significance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: My opinion is, it has no significance to my opinion on the cause of death, what type of weapon could have caused all the injuries and other issues which were discussed earlier.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, we're going to, much like we did through the course of the Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy, ask you to explain your reasons for finding that there is no significance from any or all of these mistakes by Dr. Golden on these issues that you've identified. Now, with that, doctor, let me start with exhibit 358. And again, with the Court's permission, could you step to the easel.
(The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, all of these photographs from exhibit 358 are photographs that were taken on June 14th, 1994 in the course of the autopsy process for Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I want to invite your attention again, much like the photographs on Miss Brown Simpson, there are designations. They're somewhat faint with a letter, this time g instead of b, and a numerical designation afterwards for each of the photographs. Do you see that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, is the title of this board accurate with respect to what is shown in the collective group of photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me invite your attention first, if I could, doctor, to photograph G-37. I'll point to it from here.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just--
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, don't forget, doctor. And, doctor, I'm not sure if you may be blocking any juror's view if you get in front of the board. You can use the pointer. G-37 is the photo I'm pointing to now.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: First of all, doctor, what in general terms is shown in that photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The photograph shows the neck area and facial area of Mr. Goldman. The neck is exposed by a little bit of the extension of the neck, and you can see evidence of sharp force injuries in the neck. I'll address them one by one. There's also a sharp force injury to the right collar bone area. The sharp force injuries I just alluded to include--
MR. KELBERG: Let me interrupt you before you start in just--no. 1, is something being done by someone with the Coroner's office for the purposes of the photography to make the area more exposed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. We have a--we have a head block there to--
MR. KELBERG: You have a head block there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here, the block underneath the neck.
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The block underneath the neck to show the neck area better so that the injuries could be well documented.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, could we start, please, if--you've indicated I think already you prepared a wound chart--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --for Mr. Goldman much like you prepared a wound chart for Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And does this wound chart serve to identify each and every injury, wound or finding that you have made on all of the photographs you have reviewed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in your review of photographs, did they include photographs that are not included in the array of photographs that the jury will see?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And again, we have some photographs, for example, the one in the upper right-hand corner, G-50, that has obviously been cropped. That is pursuant to the order of Judge Ito?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: But you have reviewed in the one-to-one photograph, the life-size photograph, the actual full photograph; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, does this form that you've prepared--
MR. KELBERG: Which is our exhibit I believe 351, your Honor? Is that--I want to be sure we mark the wound chart for Mr. Goldman. I thought we did at the time. If I can have a moment, I can check.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Yes, we did.
MR. KELBERG: Does this wound chart also identify where, if at all, as to each injury finding and so forth, Dr. Golden made some entry in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Or made some designation in one or more of the diagrams?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Or addressed some aspect in an addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me start then, doctor--oh, also, last thing--I'm sorry--preliminarily. Did you include then an overview of your findings, not just a description, but your findings in the last column under "Comment"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And did you also indicate as to each sharp force injury whether it could only be caused by a single-edged knife or that it could be caused by either a single-edged or double-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have done that also.
MR. KELBERG: Now, let us start, if we could, with G-37. And let me invite your attention--is the area of the photo that I'm using my finger to trace what you have described as injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a superficial incised wound to the front of the neck, measures approximately three inches in length and about--and gapes in width up to 3/16 of an inch in the photograph.
MR. KELBERG: As an incised wound, its length is greater than the depth of penetration?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It's a shallow incised wound.
MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden describe this superficial incised wound in his original autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he does.
MR. KELBERG: Does he diagram this superficial incised wound in one or more diagrams?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He does.
MR. KELBERG: Is this addressed at all in any addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He does address it in the addendum.
MR. KELBERG: Before we get into the why's of all of that, are you able to determine, doctor, whether that superficial incised wound was inflicted before death, at or around the time of death or after death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was before death.
MR. KELBERG: Why are you able to say that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the bleeding in the tissues which one can see and also the appearance of the wound.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this superficial incised wound a nonfatal wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is it consistent with being inflicted with a single-edged knife such as you described the knife in general terms would have to be for the Nicole Brown Simpson sharp force injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before we get into the protocols and so forth on that wound, I want to invite your attention to an area underneath that where I'm tracing now (Indicating). Is this an area you have described as injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's another incised wound which is below the injury no. 1 I just described. And this photograph only shows a three-inch portion of it because this wound extends not only from the left side of the neck all the way to the right side of the neck, but this photograph only shows a portion of the front of the neck.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this also an ante mortem superficial incised wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it also nonfatal?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to offer an opinion as to how long Mr. Goldman lived from the time that that wound was received, no. 1, at a minimum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: How long he lived after the infliction of this injury?
MR. KELBERG: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was not a fatal wound, but you're asking me in taking the context with all the fatal wounds or--
MR. KELBERG: Well, let me ask it this way. Is there any way you can determine from merely the appearance of the wound, a minimum length of time that Mr. Goldman must have had a beating heart from the time that that incised wound was inflicted until death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have been just within a minute before his death. He could have had--he could have had the wound and as long as he had blood pressure, it will have this appearance. It's only a superficial wound.
MR. KELBERG: Would the same apply to injury no. 2, the lower incised wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, I want to invite your attention, if I could, please doctor, to the photo to the right and slightly below photo G-37, which has the designation G-55. Do you have see that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do you see in G-55 any aspect of injury no. 1, the higher superficial incised wound that we saw in G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we do.
MR. KELBERG: What do we see in G-55?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 1 is seen in the front of the neck here, a portion of it. Actually the end here is seen here in this photograph here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: For the record, what you pointed to initially was what is the right side end of injury no. 1 as seen in G-37 and the equivalent aspect of the injury on G-55; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do you see any aspect of injury no. 2, the lower incised superficial wound in photograph G-55?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see it continuing right and continuing all the way, and it seems to end in a larger stab/incised wound of the right side of the back of the neck here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And you're indicating an area that is perhaps half an inch above the top border of a blue photographic identification card in photograph G-55?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, with respect to that second lower incised wound, inviting your attention to photograph G-40, the photograph that is just to your right, do you see another aspect of that particular wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see that wound ending in this larger stab/incised wound of the back of the right side of the neck. You can see it ending here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And is that area where it is ending and the stab wound that you've indicated, G-40 somewhat in the center of the photograph, is that the same wound seen in a fuller context as what appears on the left side of the--I shouldn't say the left side. It's the right side of the neck, but it's the left side of the photograph of G-55?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, inviting your attention over to this photograph, which is to the left side of the photograph board, G-51, do you see either the upper or the lower superficial incised wound in that photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see a portion of the superficial incised wound no. 1 above the large injury of the left side of the neck.
MR. KELBERG: And that large injury on the left side of the neck seen in G-51, is that also seen in G-37, the photo to the right?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And would you point to it again?
(The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, you're indicating what appears to be a gaping wound about in the middle of the photograph and on its right margin. Doctor, is there any significance to you in the relative appearance of the two superficial incised wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that significance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They look like controlled cuts on the front of the neck, which would indicate to me that the--Mr. Goldman was at some--at some point in the altercation, was immobilized and there were control cuts applied to his neck because they are parallel and they seem to run in a left to right--seem to run from one side of the neck to the other.
MR. KELBERG: What is it about a parallel nature--"Parallel" meaning in the same direction?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are adjacent to each other and parallel to each other. That is, they have the same axis, horizontal axis in the neck. If you look at it, you can see that both of them are running like a railroad track adjacent to each other.
MR. KELBERG: Why is that significant to you to indicate a control type set of injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because one, the lower wound is a longer wound, if you take all the measurements, is about six inches long. You have a--two wounds which are linear, superficial, parallel to each other, which would indicate that Mr. Goldman was held and immobilized, and these cuts were made and there's no struggle at that point because of the appearance of the wound. That would be my opinion on that two wounds.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if I can slide under here, and if you would use me as Mr. Goldman and use yourself as the perpetrator, can you indicate the relative position you believe is demonstrated from these two superficial incised wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: One position would be holding him in some manner like this (Demonstrating) and putting your knife in front of the neck and running the knife parallel. It would be like some kind of threatening cuts.
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan with his left arm had it around my upper chest area, bent at the elbow and with his--
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, doctor. Could you put your right arm back where you had it?
(The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: And with the right arm, where did you have that?
(The witness demonstrates.)
MR. KELBERG: And with his right arm extended in front about the middle portion of my neck, and then moving the right arm, appears to be as if holding an object, pulling it towards the right side of my neck.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The other factor which supports this theory is these two small nicks above and the abrasion below the second injury you see here (Indicating) which we can discuss and--because that would also indicate that the knife was in the front--
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you'll turn, please.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --the knife was in the front of the neck and the tip of the knife also caused a smaller cut you see above the superficial cut which I just described as injury no 1 here, and there's also a smaller abrasion below the larger cut in the front of the lower part of the neck (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if--and you used the term Mr. Goldman was immobilized at the time--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: At least temporarily during the time when these incisions were made.
MR. KELBERG: Immobilized meaning what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He was held tight so he couldn't move so that these control cuts could be made.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you have an opinion in the relative course of the events when those two superficial incised wounds, injuries 1 and 2, were received by Mr. Goldman relative to the time of his death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Given--
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would favor that they occurred earlier during the altercation because you have other wounds which are more serious wounds and they were--caused death in a rapid manner. Once we discuss all the wounds, you will see that quite a few of his wounds struck certain vital structures which resulted in bleeding and death rapidly after that without medical treatment. So this would have occurred earlier in the struggle.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if Mr. Goldman were physically able to move about to try and avoid a sharp force injury such as is seen in injury no. 1 or no. 2, would you expect to see the parallel nature of those two injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There would be other cuts and it won't be so parallel and linear as we see it in this photograph and all the three photographs we have studied so far.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the nicks that you were pointing out, I'm afraid I did not get a chance to actually see very clearly.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There's one nick here, but of course this is an abrasion. We're talking about this nick here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, where Dr. Lakshmanan is pointing is to an area above injury no. 1 and it is more towards the left side from the midline of the neck under the chin.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And where he said "Not this," I think he said the word "Abrasion," he was referring to some discoloration apparent in the photograph which is below the lower injury no. 2 in about the center of that injury.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And I've labeled these as injury no. 3 and no. 4 for my evaluation of the photographs in my photographic evaluation description.
MR. KELBERG: 3 being this cut?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This cut and 4 being this abrasion below this--other superficial cut. So to recapitulate, you have injury no. 1, which is the superficial cut in the upper part of the front of the neck. You have injury no. 2, which is the lower wound, which is parallel like a railroad track I mentioned earlier. You have no. 3, which is a smaller cut above injury no. 1, which is on the left side of the front of the neck, and you have a smaller abrasion here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything about the appearance of the--either the ends or the margins of injury no. 1 that assists you in forming an opinion that it is a control type sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is no additional cuts there. They--and looks like these are threatening cuts.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Like this is something that you--you threaten somebody when you do this kind of injury. You can see these types of injuries when someone is being immobilized and you're threatening them that you're going to do bodily harm to them when you do this kind of injury.
MR. KELBERG: And is the same answer applicable to your examination of the edges, margins and ends of injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was injury no. 3, this cut, addressed by Dr. Golden in the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Was it diagrammed by Dr. Golden in any of the available forms?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Was it addressed in any way in Dr. Golden's addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Injury no. 4, what you've described as an abrasion in the area below the incised wound that you've marked no. 2--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm sorry. I labeled as injury no. 4 the smaller one, and this is injury no. 5 (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: All right. You initially had indicated that the cut was injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And that has--go ahead.
MR. KELBERG: And the abrasion was no. 4?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: But, in fact, for the purpose of our exhibit 351, your wound chart, you have actually labeled the cut as injury no. 4?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And the abrasion as injury no. 5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is injury no. 2? I'm sorry. Injury no. 3.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 3 refers to this larger wound in the left side of the neck, which is described better in G-51.
MR. KELBERG: And we'll get to that momentarily. Doctor, with respect to the cut which is now you say injury no. 4--I'm sorry--did Dr. Golden describe that in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or diagram it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or address it in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And the abrasion no. 5, injury no. 5 described in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Diagrammed anywhere?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Addressed in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: All mistakes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Any significance singularly or collectively to any of the big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to offer an opinion as to how Mr. Goldman sustained the abrasion that you have identified as injury no. 5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That could have been from the--just a scratch from the tip of the knife. That's one possibility. And the other possibility is, when he tried to during the struggle, there could have also been a scratch injury.
MR. KELBERG: Scratch injury in what manner, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: From the person who is perpetrating the act, he could have scratched that area, the small abrasion here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: If, again, you use me as representative of Mr. Goldman and yourself as representative of the perpetrator, how is such a scratch injury inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Underneath the second wound, when you're doing it with this part of the thumb and you're holding the knife this way, you can have--that can also happen (Demonstrating).
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, Dr. Lakshmanan took the same position as previously described, but this time with his right hand, he had the back of his thumb pressing against that area of my neck and drawing it across to the right side of the neck, your Honor.
THE COURT: Noted. Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, both injuries 4 and 5 are ante mortem because of the manner in which you've described you believe that they were received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: As to cause of death or any of the other issues, do they have any significance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me--as long as you had injury no. 3, is injury no. 5 the last injury that you have identified on G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. There's one more stab wound, I mean a cut to the right clavicle area.
MR. KELBERG: I was going to say, why don't we take care of that. Is that injury no. 6 there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's an incised wound to the right clavicle area.
MR. KELBERG: Can you point it out again for us, please?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Indicating.)
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan is pointing to the lower left corner area of G-37 and to an area that is just immediately below the left edge of the blue paper that is seen behind the neck.
THE COURT: Yes. Approximately an inch from the scale card.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is that injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a stab/incised wound of the right clavicle area.
MR. KELBERG: Is it an ante mortem sharp force injury in your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the appearance of the wound and the other features you see there.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that area of the body an area that would normally have been covered by the shirt that you told us I think yesterday you examined at some point, the shirt worn by Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you find a corresponding defect, using your term I believe, in the shirt for that particular sharp force injury that you've described as injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Does that surprise you in any way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. The shirt was pretty loose over Mr. Goldman. So the shirt could have been retracted at some point during the struggle when this wound was inflicted.
MR. KELBERG: And if that--retracted in the sense of pulled away from its original position?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: If that had occurred, then would you expect to see necessarily the defect be in the area where if the shirt were worn normally, the shirt would be covering the area of injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: You would expect not to see it there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I won't expect to see any defect in the clothing if that's what happened, and we don't have a defect in the clothing when we examined it in detail this year and last year. Correction. This year.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me ask you then if there's anything else you want to tell us about initially injury 1, injury 2, injury 4, injury 5 or injury 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing other than what we already discussed, and injury no. 6 was discussed in the diagram and protocol of Dr. Golden.
MR. KELBERG: By the way, doctor, all of these sharp force injuries, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, are they all sharp force injuries that could have been caused by the same single-edged knife that you described as a knife which could have caused all of the sharp force injuries received by Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, let's talk, if we can, about what you have described as injury no. 3.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Let me get my notes here.
(Brief pause.)
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a larger incised stab--it's a complex sharp force injury to the left side of the neck. And in the one is to one photograph, I measured this as three inches in the horizontal axis, that is on the side-to-side axis of the photograph, and in the gaping state, it measured nearly 15/16 of an inch. In the vertical axis, that is the up down area of the photograph, it's a complex wound. There seems to be a cut in its lower margin here in its--in the left side of the photograph in the margin--lower margin near the left side of the photograph.
MR. KELBERG: This is photograph G-51.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In G-51. And there's also a linear abrasion which is one and a half inches long which extends below the complex injury which I just described. The outer aspect of this injury on the right side of the photograph G-51 shows a forking injury with an abrasion in-between. It's a very complex injury.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, is it a fatal sharp force injury in your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This injury hit the internal jugular vein.
MR. KELBERG: And is that the same vein that you described with respect to both the left and right sides of Nicole Brown Simpson and that major stab incised wound that you have testified in your opinion was the last sharp force injury she received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Was there evidence that the left side carotid artery was impacted by that sharp force injury, that stab/incised complex wound that you have identified as no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: What causes such a complex wound to be in your opinion a fatal stab wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The bleeding from the vessel, from the internal jugular vein.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you have an opinion--setting aside all other injuries that may have been received prior to the time that injury was received, do you have an opinion as to how long at a minimum Mr. Goldman would remain alive? Let's start with just that. Would remain alive.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: With an internal jugular cut and heavy bleeding and if there's no medical treatment, you could die sometimes immediately if you have an air embolism. But if--but if the normal course of event is bleeding and death, they could live for up to 15 minutes to half an hour depending on without medical treatment and the wound continues to bleed and they don't seek medical treatment.
MR. KELBERG: What's an "Air embolism"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Air embolism," because it's a large vein, the vein can sometimes suck air into the--into the venous channel, and that can enter the heart and cause obstruction to the blood flowing from the right side of the heart, and that would result in death.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there a difference in your opinion as to the minimum amount of time Mr. Goldman would live from such a fatal stab wound as from the amount of time such a wound in and of itself would take to incapacitate him from attempting to resist any further injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He would be able to--he won't be incapacitated until he goes into shock. And for him to go into shock, he--as I discussed earlier, for anybody to go into shock, you need to lose 2/5 of your blood volume rapidly. And yesterday, I discussed the blood volume of the body is about five liters. So you have to lose two liters of blood rapidly to go into shock. So until the time he goes into shock from that wound, assuming that's the only wound in your hypothetical situation, he will be able to be conscious and resist.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any diminishment in the effort that can be made by Mr. Goldman to resist even though he's in some sense able to resist prior to the time he becomes unconscious from loss of 2/5 of his blood volume?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As blood pressure drops because of blood loss, naturally he will become weaker. So as time progresses, his ability to resist would decrease.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you have an opinion in the relative sequence or scheme of injuries received, sharp force injuries received by Mr. Goldman, as to where this injury no. 3 came?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This could have come in the earlier or mid portion of the altercations because we have two other injuries which are more--which are also serious injuries. He has a stab wound to the left abdomen which struck the aorta in two places, and you also have stab wounds to the right chest, which hit the lung. And those injuries without medical treatment would have caused him to become in shock within a very short time, within a minute or two. So if you take that in context with this wound, this wound could have occurred during that--concurrently or earlier than those wounds. It could be either way. These are all serious--these are the three serious wounds he has which would cause loss of blood pressure. And among the three wounds, the aortic wound would be most significant in bleeding and more rapid loss of blood pressure than the jugular vein, which would take a longer time to lose blood pressure when you compare it to the big large aortic, which is in the lower part of the abdomen. So--and since I said that the aortic wound could cause loss of blood pressure in a minute, the jugular vein injury if it had occurred within a minute before the aortic injury, it could cause significant bleeding also.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as a big ticket type of question, do you have an opinion as to a minimum amount of time it would take for a properly motivated, physically fit human being with the element of surprise to have inflicted all of the sharp force injuries and blunt force trauma received by Mr. Goldman?
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you considered from your review of all of the evidence the number of sharp force injuries sustained by Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And considered the nature of what the body's reaction would be to those injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And have examined all of the blunt force trauma received by Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Have examined by physically being at the 875 Bundy location any environmental sources like trees?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Trees, brushes--not brushes. Excuse me--bushes, fences, gates, anything of that nature which might be a source or sources for that blunt force trauma?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: And have you evaluated a minimum period of time such a human being who is motivated, armed with a single-edged knife such as you described in approximate terms, could have inflicted all of those injuries on Mr. Goldman?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor--I'm sorry. Doctor, assuming that a single person perpetrated all of these sharp force injuries on Mr. Goldman and assuming that as a result of the lethal assault by that single individual on Mr. Goldman, he sustained all of the blunt force trauma you identified and assuming that that single perpetrator was six foot two, 210 pounds, motivated, in a rage, with a knife with a six-inch blade, can you form an opinion as to the minimum amount of time necessary under that hypothetical for that person to have inflicted these injuries?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SHAPIRO: May we approach?
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the--
THE COURT: Yes, with the court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we would object to the propriety of the hypothetical that's been proffered in that it clearly is saying, assume Mr. Simpson did this, and that is expressing an opinion of counsel. It is not based on any evidence and it has no relevance to the hypothetical whatsoever.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, if the Court looks at case such as People versus Phillips, which is I think 121 or 122 Cal. App. 3D., regarding hypothetical questions asked of experts regarding whether the Defendant could have done certain things, in this case, a murder of a child, the Court will find that there is no impropriety in doing so. These are hypothetical circumstances. Mr. Simpson's name has not been used. There are inferences within the record from which the jury can find they exist, and so each of the circumstances of this hypothetical--and the doctor is being asked assuming that these hypothetical circumstances are true, how long this struggle may have taken.
THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. There is no evidence whatsoever that this was done by one person. His opinion is, it could have been. His opinion is, it also could not have been. So far, the doctor's testimony cannot exclude any human being on the face of the earth who is capable of holding a knife and committing these acts. And there is no evidence of motivation or rage. In fact, just the opposite. The evidence that we showed of Mr. Simpson on the video shows a very calm individual.
THE COURT: Why don't you take out the "Rage" part of it. But I think there is evidence in the record that would support--if you believe the blood evidence, that would support an inference that it's the Defendant at the scene. There's also a single set of footprints that would support the inference that there was only one assailant involved. So I think there's enough facts in the record that would support Mr. Kelberg's hypothetical. But I do find the "Rage" part of it to be not supported by the record at this point.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, could I ask the reporter to read the hypothetical back and eliminate the reference to the "rage"? Because if I try and reframe the question, being human, I will not get it reframed in an identical fashion with the one exception of the Court's ruling. And I believe it would be a better way.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: To comply with the Court's--if the reporter can in fact read it back without that part.
THE COURT: Let me just--
MR. SHAPIRO: We would object to the term "motivated."
MR. COCHRAN: Could we hear it up here?
THE COURT: Let me have--we are charging first degree murder. Leave the "motivated" out of there. I was just asking Mrs. Robertson to check with 165 because he was coughing and wiping his eyes, and I just want to make sure--
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Let's have the court reporter read back the question.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: The bailiff indicates the jurors want to take a break. The jurors want to take a break.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. We're going to take a short recess. Please remember all my admonitions to you, and we'll call you back in about 20 minutes.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I'm sorry, before the jurors come out--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --I believe I can ask the questions from the screen with that one phrase left out, and is my understanding a correct understanding that the question without that phrase, the objection has been overruled?
THE COURT: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Doctor, would you resume the witness stand. Mr. Kelberg, you may resume with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: If I may just temporarily stand in front of the monitor so that I can reread the question--
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KELBERG: --to the doctor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I'm asking you this hypothetical question: Doctor, assuming that a single person perpetrated all of the sharp force injuries on Mr. Goldman and assuming that as a result of the lethal assault by that single individual on Mr. Goldman he sustained all of the blunt force trauma you identified, and assuming further that that single perpetrator was six feet two, weighed 210 pounds, was armed with a single-edged knife with a six-inch blade, approximately, as you have previously described, can you form an opinion as to the minimum amount of time necessary, under that hypothetical set of circumstances, for that person to have inflicted these injuries on Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Within a few minutes and even--and I said even within a minute it is possible, because he has certain number of sharp force injuries which could have been inflicted in that short time.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, in a set of circumstance such as I gave, and if in your opinion they could all have been inflicted and received in less than a minute--is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Less than a minute is--yes.
MR. KELBERG: --how long would it have taken for Mr. Goldman to have been physically incapacitated from those injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: After receiving the injuries how long would he be--I mean, how long it would take to get incapacitated?
MR. KELBERG: Before he was physically incapacitated?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I said, after the infliction of these injuries he would be rapidly incapacitated especially because of the aortic injury, the lung injury and the jugular vein injury which all would have been inflicted in this short period of time. You are talking about several major structures which are going to bleed, and he would go into shock very soon without medical treatment.
MR. KELBERG: Rapidly under a circumstance of all of these injuries being received within less than a minute, "Rapidly" means what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Within a minute he would have been into shock, especially also talking about other sharp force injuries in the left side of the neck--I mean, the right side of the neck and the back, so to answer your question, all these sharp force injuries, which are of a certain number, they could have been inflicted within a minute, I said, and also he could have gone into shock within a minute after that.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, what is the minimum period of time that Mr. Goldman lived from the time the lethal assault began?
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the form of that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Without medical treatment he would have died within five minutes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor--and with the Court's permission again, can we ask the doctor to approach the photographs?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Dr. Lakshmanan--Dr. Lakshmanan, in describing injury no. 3, as seen in the photograph G-51, you mentioned a number of findings, including something about the tail end of the wound and so forth. I would like you to clarify, if you would, in some fashion, each of those findings and what they signify to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I described this injury as a complex injury which has this forking on the left side with an abrasion in between. The reason I said it is complex is it is not just a straight stab wound. There could have been an incise wound prior to this wound which could have been extended into--into as a stab wound. There has been also some twisting involved, so really it is just more than a simple stab wound or a simple incise wound. It is a complex wound. There are numerous processes which could have been taking place. And this wound was created--
MR. KELBERG: You said--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --this could be from either the movement of the weapon or the movement of the victim.
MR. KELBERG: Is this an example of that schematic illustration no. 3, if you remember back to I believe Tuesday, with what you looked for in the form of wound patterns on the body in trying to identify single-edge or double-edge knives?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the forking that you described, what, if any, significance does that have to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that is why I said there could have been an incise cut, a stab, then another cut here, so really this fork will not really reflect the weapon itself, because that is why this wound could have been caused by either the single-edge or a double-edge weapon.
MR. KELBERG: But is it a wound which is consistent with that same single-edge knife that you have talked about as being consistent with causing all of the sharp force injuries both to Nicole Brown Simpson and to Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you also mentioned--did you say something about an abrasion around the margin?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. There is a linear abrasion extending from the margin of--the lower margin of the wound.
MR. KELBERG: Would you point that out again? I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: For the record, again, your Honor, this is on the lower edge of the wound as seen in photograph G-51.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is the significance, if any, of that finding?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, there would be the stabbing and cutting process is a dynamic process with the victim moving and the assailant stabbing, so when the knife is withdrawn, or the assailant--the victim pulls--tries to withdraw from the assailant, the knife which comes out can draw out like an abrasion in the margin.
MR. KELBERG: Again using myself as Mr. Goldman and yourself as the perpetrator, can you indicate how the knife can do that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When the knife is penetrated and it is coming out, you can get a linear abrasion as the knife draws across the skin, either by the victim pulling away from the weapon or the weapon as it is being withdrawn draws across the skin.
MR. KELBERG: And the part of the weapon that draws across the skin, we talked about if it is a single-edge knife it has a blunt and a sharp edge. What edge is doing that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The blunt edge.
MR. KELBERG: And if it is a double-edged knife, obviously it is a sharp edge either side?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Either side, no. If it is a double-edge it will be the tip which can draw an abrasion, but usually you expect a cut also, but here is only an abrasion, so the tip of a double-edge also could do an abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, so the abrasion, in and of itself, is not a basis on which you can say it is a single-edge knife versus a double-edge?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would favor a single-edge, but you cannot really exclude a double-edge.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, Dr. Lakshmanan was in front of me--actually I think the Court may recall this better than I do, because I shouldn't have asked the question--
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, your Honor, your Honor.
(Juror no. 984 exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel with the court reporter, please
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We just had another juror have to get up and leave and she appeared to be having a hard time, from the expression on her face.
MR. COCHRAN: From what I saw was that she was pointing toward the bailiff, and she is the one who is always jovial and smiling, and she seemed as though she was close to tears and she started pointing to the bailiff and she went like this, for the record, (Indicating), the time out sign like a "T." So may I suggest, your Honor, this may be--let's see--may be a time to end it today.
MR. KELBERG: You know, your Honor, with an evening's rest, it might be easier for the jurors.
THE COURT: It has been a long day.
MR. KELBERG: It has been a long day.
MR. COCHRAN: Tough day for these folks.
MR. KELBERG: Judge, I would go until midnight if it was a matter of just doing it, but I think that it's tough stuff for any group of people to have to listen to for any period of time.
THE COURT: Robert, you are--
MR. DARDEN: Does the board have to be that close to the box?
MR. COCHRAN: Look at alternate no. 2.
MR. SHAPIRO: I don't think this jury can concentrate.
MR. COCHRAN: Look at 1386, your Honor, and she had her eyes closed.
THE COURT: 165 is--
MR. KELBERG: We can't move the board back.
THE COURT: All right. Let's call it a day.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Let me wait until 984 returns.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Actually, doctor, you can step down.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Juror no. 984 returns to the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a long day and we are going to take a recess at this time. We also have a shorter day tomorrow. If you recollect, we will be concluding tomorrow at 11:45 in the morning. Please remember all of my admonitions. Do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, nor form any opinions about the case. Don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. All right. See you tomorrow. We will stand in recess.
(At 4:17 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Friday, June 9, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California,)
Plaintiff,)
vs.) no. BA097211)
Orenthal James Simpson,)
Defendant.)
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Thursday, June 8, 1995
Volume 163 pages 31062 through 31295, inclusive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 163 pages 31062 - 31295
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Thursday June 8, 1995 A.M. 31062 163 P.M. 31177 163
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 163 (Resumed) 31066bk (Resumed) 31180bk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 163 (Resumed) 31066bk (Resumed) 31180bk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
356-A thru 356-R - 31241/46 163 18-page autopsy protocol for Ronald Goldman--94-05135
357 - 14 charts 31246 163 entitled "Autopsy reports" - 0G thru 13G enlarged replica of exhibits 356-A thru 356-R
358 - Chart 31250 163 with 6 photographs entitled "Sharp force injuries/blunt force trauma to face, neck and right shoulder of Mr. Goldman"