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: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas. The People are represented by Mr. Kelberg, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Darden, and Miss Clark. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jury to join us? Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor, to follow up on several matters that we briefly discussed last evening. First of all, I have informed Mr. Shapiro, and Dr. Lakshmanan has had a chance to as well, the document or documents in the category, I should say, because this is not evidence that we are aware of that any specific such document exists, but Mr. Hernandez, who is the director at the medical examiner's office, had no independent recollection of seeing any such document, but he was at home when he was contacted last night. He is checking this morning and he will contact us, and if he has them by about 9:30 or ten o'clock, 10:30 break, Dr. Lakshmanan will call him, because he was going to check through the records of which he is the custodian and has them to see whether any such type of document exists.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: The second order of business, we have been talking about other people's mistakes for about six or seven days. It is appropriate I think for me to talk about one of my own with respect to exhibit 363. The Court will recall in that short portion of the Primetime Live broadcast that there was left in the audio portion a statement made by Mr. Donaldson as he is chasing after Dr. Golden about an alleged gun incident. Undoubtedly the Court recalls that the Court was the recipient of much paperwork and heard much argument regarding the admissibility of any such incident. It was a motion in limine filed by Mr. Lynch and myself to exclude such evidence from cross-examination in the event Dr. Golden testified. The Court issued its ruling, I have it here on April 7 of 1995, and if nothing, should, out of an abundance of caution, basically I'm asking the Court to reinforce that that is its ruling in spite of my error in not verifying that that portion of the tape had been excluded or excised. I point out, first of all, that the Court's ruling indicated that the remark only had relevance with respect to potential bias on the part of Dr. Golden. And I don't know if the Court needs a copy of its ruling. I have a copy if the Court needs it, but the Court did not rule that it was admissible on the issue of Dr. Golden's competency, but only that it might be relevant on Dr. Golden's potential bias on the issue of the Defense. And the Court went on to find under section 352 that there were so many uncertainties with the incident itself, no. 1, whether it was directed to these Defense counsel and how the incident occurred and so forth--

THE COURT: No, I recollect the details of the argument.

MR. KELBERG: All right. That there is nothing about the incident which is relevant to Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony which deals with Dr. Golden's competency and about which there was a statement made by Dr. Lakshmanan in that interview regarding Dr. Golden's competency. So I would ask the Court to reaffirm that its ruling stands, that my mistake has not in some fashion "Opened the door" to make what the Court found to be inadmissible suddenly admissible. That is the first aspect of my motion in limine I made this morning.

THE COURT: So let's assume that I agree with you that that should not have come in. What direct remedy are you seeking?

MR. KELBERG: My remedy is I don't believe we can excise that statement from the disk and say, gee, it was never played before this jury. What my remedy would be is to provide a second copy of the exhibit which has had excised from it that statement, and in the event the jury wishes to hear that exhibit, 363, what they would hear would be the same exhibit but with that one statement excised. I don't think that any reinforcement of that information needs to be made at this point to the jury. It is obviously why I didn't make any effort to stop the tape and raise any issue as to admonishment regarding it as the tape was being played. So all I recommend, as a remedy, would be to order our office to make a second copy of the exhibit, but one which has excised that one statement and only that one statement, have it marked as exhibit 363-A, and that will be the one that will be offered in evidence, I assume, by Miss Clark or Mr. Darden at the conclusion of the People's case when all of the evidence admissibility questions will be litigated. At least I assume that is when that will occur, so that is the remedy I suggest.

THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, sir.

MR. SHAPIRO: The Court will recall that prior to the Sam Donaldson interview being played the Court invited counsel to side bar and the Court warned Mr. Kelberg that this may not be something that should be shown and the Court indicated that you would sustain our objection to showing it. We indicated that we had no objection to showing it and Mr. Kelberg indicated that although it was not his preference, he had been told by others in his office to show it. Second, the Court rules were violated in that this tape was never previewed before your Honor and myself before showing it, although I have seen it and I had no reason not to have it shown, because it does exactly what the People have said throughout this trial, it talks about the truth, about really what happens in the Coroner's office and what happens when fine reporters investigate problems that for some reason the Coroner does not want to investigate themselves, and even when pointed out, they don't want to investigate it. So this is no different than anything else that takes place in a trial. We are professionals, we are bound by rules of conduct, and on occasion there are questions that come out that if you had your chance to edit them, I would like to have them withdrawn and not have them considered. That is exactly what took place here. Further, I didn't want to press the issue of bringing up the incidents with Dr. Golden's gun, and after it was brought up, we didn't have any specific knowledge that it was directed towards any attorney. However, following your Honor's suggestion in the past, we did a Lexis search last night regarding Dr. Golden and we found an article August 12th in Newsday which in summary says: "As Dr. Golden left the courthouse, after being cross-examined by Robert Shapiro, Golden pounded the walls of the elevator and cursed Shapiro muttering `why did he have to ask me that question? Why did he have to ask me that question?'"

Then they go on to report: "The gun incident followed." There was a subsequent report that the comments were actually not only directed towards lawyers for Mr. Simpson, but directly towards me, and I will give the Court and counsel a copy from Lexis of that story from Newsday. So it is our strong feeling that the People had this piece of tape, they elected to show it. After it was shown it appeared to me that Miss Clark directed Mr. Kelberg to the problem that was raised and that is when it became an issue. And the fact that there is no coordination or lack of coordination should not be held against Mr. Simpson. Here is the story from Newsday. May I give this to your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. SHAPIRO: Can we ask Miss Robertson--

THE COURT: I will have Miss Robertson make a copy for both sides.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Any other comment on that issue, Mr. Shapiro?

MR. SHAPIRO: No, your Honor. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: I would like to respond, your Honor. Your Honor, I never take exception to counsel employing hyperbole and I certainly understand why the federal courts do not allow cameras in the courtroom to cut down on the hyperbole of counsel, but I take great umbrage when counsel misstate the facts. Let me state the facts as to that side bar conversation. The facts were that the Court wondered whether there was going to be an objection made to it. The Court never indicated the Court would sustain an objection or not because the Court was unaware of the contents of that particular episode.

THE COURT: The Court's comment was, "Mr. Kelberg, where are we going with this?"

MR. KELBERG: I believe the Court is absolutely correct in that, and I think the Court will acknowledge that I told the Court the content of what I expected the program section to show. Mr. Shapiro was asked, in essence by the Court, as I recall it, if he had any objection. Mr. Shapiro indicated he had no objection. The Court basically said, fine, and then we were going to proceed. Now, with respect to some representation that I was given instructions on playing this, let me set the record very clear, your Honor, if it hasn't been made clear already. When I am in court representing the Prosecution with witnesses, nobody tells me what to do from my office. I am our lawyer in Court. It is my judgment, it is my theoretical considerations that go into the tactics that I entertain in presenting testimony. And I can guarantee Mr. Shapiro and I can guarantee this Court that Ms. Clark had absolutely no input into any decision as to whether this would or would not be played. The decision was mine, mine alone, and I have no regrets whatsoever about doing it and I have no doubt that the evidence would have been admissible had Mr. Shapiro, as his first area of cross-examination, gone into Dr. Lakshmanan's assessment of Dr. Golden's competency in performing these autopsies. This jury has a right to know that Dr. Lakshmanan made a comment that I also believe he rues having made to Sam Donaldson, and I must say I believe this jury will see the kind of ambush tactics employed by Mr. Donaldson and find that if that represents sound journalistic practices, then there is a definite problem with the way the fourth estate practices its profession. Now, with respect to a conversation with Ms. Clark, let me point out my conversation with Miss Clark was with respect to the limited amount of time we had left yesterday afternoon, and I indicated to Ms. Clark I had various alternative pieces of evidence which I could play, and because I don't know what her schedule is and whether she can stay until a quarter to 6:00 or not, I wanted her to know what was available and she indicated that she would prefer that we play this incident. I said fine, because quite frankly, your Honor, it is either yesterday afternoon or it is this morning, and to my way of thinking, it makes no difference whatsoever. I have a plan in my mind as to how the evidence will be presented, and as long as I present that evidence, to me it makes no difference at all, so to accommodate Miss Clark's request, and in full agreement with her request, I played the tape at the time I did. I find it most interesting that Mr. Shapiro, instead of posturing for the camera, would have focused on the argument I made to this Court a moment ago, that he might have tried to respond to the issue, is this relevant to any issue regarding Dr. Lakshmanan? And the answer I believe has to be taken as tacit acknowledgment by him that it is not, because the Court found it was relevant, if at all, to bias. Now, Mr. Shapiro is relying upon a newspaper article, which of course is hearsay, reporting an alleged incident with Dr. Golden in the elevator.

THE COURT: I am not relitigating that aspect.

MR. KELBERG: All right. As far as--

THE COURT: The only issue is what do we do with 363? So why don't you confine your comment to that, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: With 363 my suggestion is, as I indicated--Mr. Shapiro has offered no alternative suggestion--I merely indicated a belief that the portion should be excised to conform with the Court's ruling, marked as 363-A, and that would be admitted. But on the other hand, I will tell you right now, Judge, the alternative remedy, keep it as is. They want to hear it, let them hear it. They send a question out, hey, do we have any evidence about some gun incident? The answer is going to be a big n-o and you are not to infer or speculate about any such evidence. Either way it is fine with me, I don't care, but I came down here because I made a mistake, I wanted it brought to the attention of the Court. I wanted the Court to handle it in an appropriate manner and that is the purpose behind that. So either alternative is fine with me, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: There is a second aspect to the motion, not to the tape itself, but as to the two incidents, the Gay Phillips incident. Mr. Shapiro has indicated at the side bar also last night that he believes evidence of the legal significance of Dr. Golden's mistakes are fuel for fodder or fodder for the cross-examination of Dr. Lakshmanan. As the Court will recall, I asked Dr. Lakshmanan whether or not there was any medical significance to Dr. Golden's mistakes dealing with entrance/exit wounds and dealing with the range of fire in the two cases. Dr. Lakshmanan indicated that they were significant mistakes and he testified in his opinion why they were. The question is what is the legal ramification that flows from each of those? The legal ramification is irrelevant to the issue of the medical significance because the whole thrust of this evidence goes to the significance or lack of significance of any mistakes Dr. Golden has made in the course of the autopsies he has performed.

THE COURT: Let's assume that to be true, though. Isn't it fair game for the Defense to then argue that point during closing argument, that given these medical mistakes, obviously they are going to have a legal consequence if they are believed by the trier of fact and if they are in fact false or not true.

MR. KELBERG: It may well be a legitimate argument to suggest that many things can flow from medical mistakes of significance, and I would not find it inappropriate to argue in the abstract, keeping in mind there would be no evidence, because I am indicating to the Court my belief that such evidence is inadmissible as irrelevant, 352, calling for speculation, outside the expertise of this witness and a number of other grounds.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Kelberg, I am not inclined to entertain much more of this argument. At this point it he is premature. You haven't finished your presentation. I don't have an indication that the Defense is going to offer that.

MR. KELBERG: All right. I just want to alert the Court then because I would ask for a ruling in the event Mr. Shapiro intends to go into that area on cross-examination of Dr. Lakshmanan.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: And I have nothing further then, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. The Prosecution is ordered to prepare an alternative exhibit 363 which will be designated 363-A. It is to include the entirety of what was played yesterday, with the exception of the comments regarding the gun incident. The Court still finds that subject to 352. All right. Let's have the jurors.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Actually let me modify that. I want both a video VHS of 363 and 363-A, since we won't be able to provide the jury with a laser disk player.

MR. KELBERG: Just the VHS?

THE COURT: VHS.

MR. KELBERG: The 363-A and the 363 modified as b?

THE COURT: 363. We will substitute a videotape for a laser disk as 363, unless you want to donate to the Court a laser disk.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Doctor.

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Dr. Lakshmanan is on the witness stand again. And Mr. Kelberg, is that some of your material there?

MR. KELBERG: Oh, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Good morning again, doctor. Sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your direct examination.

MR. KELBERG: I have every expectation of doing so, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have a series of documents. I've marked them by pen, but for the record may I mark them?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: These deal with chain of custody documents. As 364-A, an autopsy evidence collection log dated June 14, 1994.

(Peo's 364-A for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-B, an evidence log for the Goldman, Ron, autopsy.

(Peo's 364-B for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-C, an evidence log for the Simpson, Nicole, autopsy.

(Peo's 364-C for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-D, a document entitled "Drop-box log."

(Peo's 364-D for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-E, a document which talks about cassettes prepared in the laboratory by DME and contains many other entries.

(Peo's 364-E for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-F, a one-page document with the handwritten entry at the top "Toxicology log."

(Peo's 364-F for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-G, a similar-appearing document but this time with more writing in the middle and with the date of May 10 that appeared in the upper left-hand corner of the page excluded.

(Peo's 364-G for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-H, a seal concerning blood obtained before embalming in the Goldman autopsy.

(Peo's 364-H for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: And as 364-I a similar document for the Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy.

(Peo's 364-I for id = document)

THE COURT: All right. They will be so marked.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have blow-ups which counsel I believe will stipulate are accurate blow-ups. Mr. Shapiro?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry.

MR. SHAPIRO: May I just have one minute?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor. May we approach for a moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we are going to--

THE COURT: We are at the side bar. Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: We are going to interpose an objection to hearsay evidence regarding chain of custody through records as not being the best evidence, and ask that a proper foundation be laid for all evidence items regarding chain of custody.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, under I think it is City of Sonoma versus Grant W., official business records may be used to establish chain of custody. I will lay a foundation that each of those documents is an official record, that the entries are made by employees of the Coroner's office at or about the time of the events recorded. And counsel is actually referring to the best evidence rule under proposition 8. The best evidence rule no longer applies. It superseded the federal law by 352, if in some fashion the jury is misled by these documents, but a foundation can easily and will easily be laid with respect to these falling within 1280 of the evidence code as official records.

THE COURT: All right. I will take the objection as a continuing objection at this point. It is, although, premature since nothing has been offered yet.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

THE COURT: I will take this as a continuing objection because I suspect they are going to try to lay a foundation for business records.

MR. KELBERG: Exactly.

MR. SHAPIRO: Need I make a foundation objection or will the Court rule?

THE COURT: Assuming--you can make an objection after he has laid a foundation, if you feel it is inadequate.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Just for the record, it is official records, not business records.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Kelberg, you may proceed.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. And Mr. Fairtlough is going to be helping me out with the elmo.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: But first of all, doctor, let me show you the documents I just marked as exhibits 364-A through I.

(Brief pause.)

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms are you familiar with these--those documents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I am.

MR. KELBERG: In general terms please describe what each of those documents is.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 364-A is the autopsy evidence collection log. This is the log to reflect the--which specimens were collected during autopsy, and that is reflected on the current cases being discussed. And then this log is--when the specimens are received in the toxicology lab, it is marked off by the person receiving the specimens in the lab saying they received the specimen, they put their initials, and then they keep a copy and a copy is sent back to the autopsy area.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that document a true and correct copy of the particular autopsy evidence log from the two cases of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries which are made on that document entries made by employees of the Coroner's office acting in their official duties as such employees?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries which they make entries which are made at or near the time of the events which are recorded in that document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Perhaps instead of going forward to the next one, could Mr. Fairtlough put that document up on the elmo and let me show you the blow-up--and I'm not sure we got a stipulation yet. Mr. Shapiro, will you stipulate that we have blow-ups that correspond identically, except for size, to the documents which have been marked as 364-A through I?

MR. SHAPIRO: So stipulated.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again with the Court's permission, if you could step to the board with the pointer and tell us what is the information that is contained in this document pertaining specifically to the Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson autopsies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is the autopsy evidence collection log. The date of this log was June 14, 1994. You have 5135 is the Coroner's case number that belonged to Mr.--the number given to Mr. Ron Goldman. Golden is the medical examiner. This is the verifying forensic technician.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Verifying forensic technician was George McDowell.

MR. KELBERG: George who?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: McDowell.

MR. KELBERG: Can you spell his name for the record?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: M-c d-o-w-e-l-l.

MR. KELBERG: What is he supposed to do by initialing that document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He checked that these specimens were collected during the autopsy. The specimens collected on Mr. Goldman were blood, stomach contents, bile, a histo jar, that is the storage jar with the tissues and formalin and typing blood and these initials are J.M., which is the--Mr. Murillo who is the technician in the toxicology lab. When this log comes up he initials saying that he received it and checks off there, too.

MR. KELBERG: Can you spell Mr. Murillo's last name, please?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: M-u-r-I-l-l-o. So that belongs to Mr. Goldman's autopsy. Unfortunately due to the copying this is a little bit dark here. Thinks 5136 here, Dr. Golden. And this belongs to Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's specimen collection. They collected blood, urine, the storage jar which contains the tissues, and the typing blood and again the same initials indicating Mr. Murillo received it in the toxicology lab.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that a document of this nature prepared for each day of the year concerning all autopsies performed at your offices?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is the initial chain of custody of specimens collection at the autopsy room, and then I gave you the next stage which is the toxicology lab, wherein a person receives it and signs off on it, so you call a chain of custody from the autopsy room to the toxicology lab. And I already discussed the form 15 which is the initial log saying the doctor did collect it, he initials the 15th, so so far we have got the chain of custody for these specimens.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, why don't you, if you wouldn't mind, please, just stay where you are--and by the way, your Honor, I have marked these big boards correspondingly to the small paper exhibit by adding an extra letter, so this one is 364-AA to correspond to the blow-up of 364-A.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Peo's 364-AA for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me put up now the blow-up that has been marked as 365 double B.

(Peo's 364-BB for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: In general terms what kind of document is this one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the master evidence log for the--which records the collection of any physical evidence; hair samples, type blood, et cetera, for the department. Usually the investigator initiates this when the evidence collection starts. This particular exhibit refers to Mr. Ron Goldman's evidence log maintained by the Department of Coroner. As you can see the Coroner's number is here, 5135, and--

MR. KELBERG: Is there an individualized evidence log kept for each case handled by the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, there is, and what this card will reflect is the--when a particular piece of evidence was obtained, the date, the person obtaining it, how long it was in our custody, and also if it was released, the date of release and the person who obtained that specimen from us will be recorded also.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries which are made on this document made by employees of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In the course of their official responsibilities with the office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do the entries reflect events that occurred at or near the time of the entries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, can you take us through the specifics of what this document shows?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I already mentioned that this particular exhibit belongs to the evidence log of Mr. Ron Goldman. We will start with the typing blood swatch.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Typing blood swatch. This refers to a swatch which is made on every case where typing blood is obtained. It was done by Mr. Adrian Dersidan, D-E-R-S-I-D-A-N, and it was made on June 15, eight o'clock.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Dersidan is an employee of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And it was received in the evidence room by Mr. Siglar--Mr. Siglar who is our senior criminalist who is also in charge of the evidence area of our office. And it was released to Mr. Phil Vannatter of LAPD, robbery/homicide, by Mr. Siglar, on June 15 at 8:45.

MR. KELBERG: Next entry, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The next entry, this is for the typing blood which was--which I discussed so far. This just indicates that the swatch was made.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the released material is what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The typing blood.

MR. KELBERG: Is that in some kind of container or is that--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Test-tube, the tube.

MR. KELBERG: So that tube, with whatever blood was in it, was released to Mr. Vannatter?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. The next entry then?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then we have the hair kit. I discussed this I think on Tuesday last week. Miss Claudine Ratcliffe obtained the hair samples from Mr. Ron Goldman, put it in the drop-off box, which I mentioned, on June 13th in the afternoon at 1440.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that that mailbox like device?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then Mr. Patino retrieved it from our drop-off box in the evidence--and took it to the evidence room on June 15, `94, at seven o'clock. And as we discussed earlier, Mr. Grandis of LAPD SID retrieved it from our office from Mr. Patino on June 24 at 9:30.

MR. KELBERG: The next entry, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The next entry is the clothing. The clothing, as you recall, Mr. Goldman had shirt, pants, shoes and socks. As I discussed earlier, on June 13th--I'm sorry--June 14th the photographs were taken. During that time the clothing was removed and I--if you recall, it was Mr. John Marsden who was our autopsy technician, forensic photographic technician, who took the clothing off. It was done on June 14th at 8:40. As I mentioned earlier, this clothing is dried and when it is completely dry Mr. Patino retrieved it, kept it in the evidence room on June 20th, `94, and Mr. Grandis took custody of the clothing from our office from Mr. Patino. And Mr. Grandis works for LAPD SID and that was done on June 24th at 9:20 in the morning. And of course this just refers to this evidence here, that only the whole blood--the blood was released to Mr. Vannatter.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, you are referring to that initial entry under "Typing blood"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Referring to the whole blood in the tube that you've already described?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes. Then the typing blood swatch, as I mentioned earlier, was made by Mr. Dersidan on June 15th. Mr. Siglar got custody of it, of the swatch, at three o'clock in the afternoon because it has to dry. And then that was released to Mr. Grandis of LAPD SID on June 24th at 9:20. The fingerprint card, palmprint cards, as you recall, the fingerprints and palmprints were obtained by Mr. Jacobo of our office. It was obtained on June 13th, the day the remains were brought to our. Mr. Patino received those cards on June 15th in the evidence room and it was released to one Mr. Dube of LAPD by Mr. Patino on June 16th, 1994, at 8:45. The liver temperature thermometer which was used to obtain the liver temperature on both the decedents was kept in our custody on June 22nd by Mr. Mahanay. He calibrated the instrument that day. And Mr. Siglar has it in custody since February. It has not been released. It is still in our custody. That was the thermometer that was used to obtain the temperature.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me put up what I will ask to be marked as our 364 double C, a blow-up of the small document.

(Peo's 364-CC for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: And it appears to be a similar one to 364 double B, except it refers to refer to Nicole Brown Simpson instead of Mr. Goldman. Would you take us--first of all, let me ask you, in general terms, is this the same kind of document as the previous exhibit, 364 double b?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And would your answers be the same with respect to the manner in which this document is created and retained by the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The investigator starts the document and then it is kept in the evidence room of the Coroner's office.

MR. KELBERG: And the entries again are all made by employees of the Coroner's office in their duties as employees?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: At or near the time of the events recorded?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Take us through what this document shows, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again we will start--again this belongs to Miss Nicole Brown Simpson. Typing blood was received in the lab in the evidence room on 15--actually both the typed bloods were collected by Dr. Golden at autopsy and in the evidence room Mr. Siglar signs off on it, released to Mr. Vannatter the same day, of LAPD, at 8:45 in the morning. The fingernail kit was processed by Miss Ratcliffe on June 13th at 1340 hours, received in the evidence room by Mr. Patino from the drop box on June 15th, released to Mr. Grandis on June 24th at 9:30, Mr. Grandis of LAPD. Hair kit, Claudine Ratcliffe obtained it on June 13th, 1340. Patino receives it in the evidence room from the drop-off box on June 15th, and this specimen was also released to LAPD on June 24th. As you recall, the clothing worn by Miss Simpson was a dress and a panty. Recovered by our photographer, John Marsden, at seven o'clock on June 14th during the photographic autopsy process. The dry clothing was recovered by Mr. Patino on June 16th, released to the same Mr. Grandis of LAPD on June 24th. The liver thermometer, I already addressed this. One thermometer was used and it is in our custody. The blood scrapings, as you recall, was obtained by our criminalist from the right thigh and right calf of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson. This took place on June 13th and they were placed in evidence and retrieved from the box by Mr. Patino on the 15th and released again to the same LAPD person, Mr. Grandis, on June 24th. The finger and palmprints obtained by Jacobo on June 13th when the body came in. Patino retrieved it from the evidence room on June 15th, released to Mr. Dube on June 16th at 8:45. The typing blood swatch made by Mr. Adrian Dersidan on June 15th, received by Mr. Siglar the same time, released to Mr. Grandis on June 24th of 1994 by Mr. Patino.

MR. KELBERG: Just to clarify, you said received by Mr. Siglar the same time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The afternoon.

MR. KELBERG: The same date but a different time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me show you then--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Let me take this one down and give it to Mr. Lynch and put up what I would ask to be marked as 364 double D as blow-up.

(Peo's 364-DD for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, is that going to affect the elmo? Is that too high?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: We need to lower it a little bit.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, move it forward?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Move it forward or lower it a little bit.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms are you familiar with this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is the drop off log sheet which is kept to the--next to the mailbox which we discussed last Tuesday.

MR. KELBERG: The purpose of this document, in general terms?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Is to record who dropped off what evidence in the drop off log--I mean the drop-off box and to record it.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries that are made on this document entries made by employees of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is the document kept in the course of the official duties of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are the events recorded on this document by the Coroner employee ones which reflect acts occurring at or about the time of the events recorded?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Take us through this document as it pertains to these two autopsies.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. We will start--5135 belongs to Mr. Ron Goldman. And this refers to Miss Ratcliffe dropping off the hair kit which was collected on Mr. Ron Goldman and you can see her initials here, (indicating), on 5135, which is the case number for Miss Brown Simpson. A fingernail kit was processed, a hair kit was processed which was also collected, some physical evidence of the bloodstains, scrapings taken by Mr. Mahanay, and all these samples were dropped off by Miss Ratcliffe. She also indicated that she had placed the evidence log card, because you know they generate--they--they start the evidence log sheet, so that was also made available.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before you go further, I just want to be sure, is that a reference to, for example, I don't know if I've got the one for Goldman or the one for brown Simpson, but is that the document you are referring to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see, Miss Ratcliffe starts off the document and that is--that is what is recorded there.

THE COURT: All right. That was the log as to Mr. Goldman.

MR. KELBERG: It was 364 double B. Thank you, your Honor. Let me just outline this area where you have just been discussing.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I gather this document is used for a number of different cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It is just a drop-off box and a log to show what specimens or evidence was dropped off. And then, if you go lower down on the same sheet, 5136 and 5135, 5136 belongs to Miss Simpson and 5135 to Mr. Ron Goldman.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This reflects the drop off of the fingerprint and palmprint cards. The prints were taken by Mr. Jacobo but the drop-off log indicates that it was dropped off by one Mr. Mettin, M-E-T-T-I-N.

MR. KELBERG: Was Mr. Mitten an employee of your office at the time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He was a volunteer.

MR. KELBERG: A "Volunteer" meaning what, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: People who volunteer to work for our office.

MR. KELBERG: When they volunteer to work for your office are they considered employees in the sense that they have responsibilities as if they were being paid employees to do certain things that are the responsibilities of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and they work under the supervision of the staff supervising them.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline this area that you have now been describing. I will do that in red also.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else about this particular document that pertains to these two cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board that I would ask for the record to be marked 364 double E.

(Peo's 364-EE for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: A blow-up of the smaller document.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what kind of document is this?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This reflects the histopathology evidence log wherein the tissue jar, which is generated at the autopsy, containing the specimens from the autopsies. They are received in the histopathology area, which is a separate section of the laboratory division, and a chain of custody is maintained for the histopathology specimens. And basically you have a reflection of how many jars there were, whether any microscopic sections were submitted, the date they were submitted and duplicates were made, et cetera.

MR. KELBERG: If you will keep your voice up, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The hold jar was received on Mr. Goldman, the number is here, Coroner's case number, on June 14th. The name of the DME is here. One jar was received on Goldman and Miss Simpson each, and on Miss Simpson microscopic section was cut.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is that category that is described at the top, "Cassettes prepared in the laboratory by DME"? What does that category refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That refers to when you--when you take a microscopic section, you take a piece of tissue and put it in what's called a cassette, which is then submitted and that is taken to a processing laboratory where it goes through a process wherein the tissue is made into what's called a paraffin block, wherein a histopathology technician can take sections of that tissue, thin sections, so that tissue can be studied under the microscope. And this process is what is done in the histopathology laboratory and a cassette is--this particular column refers to if microscopic sections were--were done. And on Miss Brown Simpson, but not on Mr. Goldman at that time, one section of the brain was submitted on July 1st, I discussed it briefly during my testimony, and then the slides that are available on July 12th and returned August 2nd back to the lab, and this refers to the same slide which--which came to me--

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This date--this says 2/1/94 and it should be `95. In February of this year, I think when we wanted to make duplicates for the Defense to send it to the--in February of this year to Albany we made some duplicate slides of the brain slide and that is reflected on the 28th here, two slides were made. And originally I sent the original slide to Albany and it came back, and when I got the duplicates I mailed it to Dr. Baden, so that is what is reflected here and this log is not--this is a copy of a log which is not really up to date, because in May of this year we cut additional sections at the request of the Defense on both the cases, a total of 16 cassettes were cut, nine on Miss Brown Simpson, if I recall, and seven on Mr. Goldman, and the current log in our office should reflect that having taken place. So what I'm saying is this log is a permanent log in the Coroner's office. Any additions or entries which are made at a later date, a few days later, will be maintained in the same log sheet, so that is a chain of custody of what sections were taken at what time as long as we have custody of the specimens.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you examined all of the slides that have been prepared in this case, including the most recent series of slides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And that was part of your preparation before testifying?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let me just outline again in red the areas that refer to the two cases before the Court and the jury.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else, doctor? Do you want to add something?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, no question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have we not covered some aspect of the chart to this point?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What aspect have we not covered?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, an entry which has not yet been made on this particular copy of the log when Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's jar was originally examined by the Defense pathologist and myself on June 22nd, the spine specimen and the laryngeal specimen of the same jar.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Were in the same jar, but now we made an additional jar to keep the specimens because we made some additional examinations goes. As you recall during my testimony about Miss Simpson, we had the evaluation by our criminalist on the laryngeal specimen and spine specimen, and as I recall, we also did x-rays on the spine specimen. So originally we put it in a separate jar, so we have two jars on Miss Simpson and one on Mr. Goldman. I just wanted to reflect that also and that will complete this chart.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, I would ask that this first page of this blow-up series with the toxicology log handwritten entry be marked as 364 double F.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: To correspond with the paper document.

(Peo's 364-FF for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, is that going to interfere?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms can you tell us what this document is?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the internal toxicology specimen log. As I recall, you saw the autopsy specimen log sheet wherein the log comes up. The toxicology technician signs off that he received the specimen but that log sheet goes back to the autopsy area. He just keeps a copy. So a new log is maintained in the toxicology lab and this is the internal toxicology log with reference to the specimens on each Coroner's case. And this particular document refers to both our cases. 5135 is Ron Goldman. We received blood sample. They also received stomach and bile.

MR. KELBERG: All right. You have got some letters that you've just been pointing to. Can you tell was those letters refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: June 15th "S" means stomach and "B" means bile.

MR. KELBERG: Is that a common designation used by personnel in your office to refer to such things?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and it is the same as to Joe Murillo, M-U-R-I-L-L-O, who received it in the lab, and 5136 is the blood specimen on Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, plus we got urine sample received, "U" stands for urine, and of course the--don't worry about the date here. We use old books so that we don't--I mean, we use the same books, but the dates are different.

MR. KELBERG: I was going to ask you, this document has up in the left-hand corner the date "May 10." Is that the date that refers to the entries that appear on this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no, no. The date is the correct date here. I just said that we use an older book because we have some books available, so we just use it. But the key thing is the date of entry for each specimen.

MR. KELBERG: And these numbers that appear to be stamped in vertically starting with 005127, I believe, in the upper left-hand corner, what do they refer to, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are the different cases which have specimens for that day, because you know in the Coroner's office, our case assignments go from the no. 1 for each year to the end of the year, so this particular day on June 14th and 15th all those case numbers are the ones which were processed in our office.

MR. KELBERG: Is this document prepared in advance with respect to those pre-stamped numbers?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it was--to a certain extent it is, but the entries are all made as the specimens are received.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries then made by employees of the Coroner's office in the course of their official responsibilities?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And are the entries to reflect acts or events which occurred at or about the time the entries were made?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else regarding this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline, if I could, please, in red, the areas that you were just identifying.

MR. KELBERG: Is that an accurate circling of the area you have just been describing, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me flip on this chart--and your Honor, I ask that this blow-up be marked 364 double G to correspond with the paper document.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 364-GG for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is this document we are looking at?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is it same only the only thing is there are more entries made here with reference to--to what happened to these samples, as you recall, February of this year, I think February 17th or 18th of this year the Defense wanted specimens sent to Albany. And I was in Seattle and we coordinated the release of those specimens. Basically I think a sample of blood sample from each blood bottle was sent to Albany, and also I sent stomach contents on Mr. Goldman which was available for the Defense pathologist to examine. So in that particular day I communicated with the D.A.'s office, who in turn communicated with the Defense attorneys. We communicated with--I communicated directly with Dr. Baden, and we had what specimens they needed. And all these entries reflect the removal of the specimens from the lab, transmission to Albany and then back and when they were received, so a chain of custody is maintained at all times of any specimen in the Coroner's office, and it shows that we have a very good chain of custody in our office.

MR. KELBERG: Please take us through that chain of custody as reflected by the entries here, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As you can recall, this part I've already discussed, and this aliquot of blood and stomach contents of Mr. Goldman.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what does the word "Aliquot" mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Aliquot" just means just a small amount.

MR. KELBERG: Just a sample?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We didn't give the whole sample because that was agreed on by Dr. Baden and myself, what they needed, and then it was released by Mr. Gary Siglar to Brian Hale of L.A. County District Attorney's Office on February 17 at 4:45 and it was returned by our chief of laboratories, Joe Muto, on February 21, 1995 at 1500. That is the stomach contents was returned. The blood sample we sent they retained, and then we also put an indefinite hold on all the specimens we have on these particular two cases.

MR. KELBERG: Is that indicated in this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it says "Hold" and this hold has been there since July of last year.

MR. KELBERG: Does that terminology have a special meaning in the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it does, because you know we do 6000 autopsies and 3000 examinations a year so we have retention time for every specimens. We cannot retain them indefinitely. But in a particular case if a request is made for a hold, then we retain it, and that is what it reflects, so otherwise these specimens get discarded on the retention time schedule maintained by the Coroner's office.

MR. KELBERG: And does that complete a discussion of the entries that have been added on this document 364 double G to refer to the chain of events for the release and subsequent return of some but not all of the materials sent to Dr. Baden in Albany?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Again, doctor, any of the additional entries, would these be entries made by employees of the Coroner's office in the course of their official duties?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And made at or about the time of the events which are recorded in the document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me flip the page. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Try to flip the page.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor--and I would ask, your Honor, the record reflect a designation of 364 double H for a blow-up of the single-paged document?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 364-HH for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms are you familiar with this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I am.

MR. KELBERG: What is this one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a label which is on every blood bottle where a blood sample is obtained from a particular decedent. It has got two layers. One layer is left on the bottle. The outer layer is taken off in the toxicology lab. And this is the copy of the label of the blood bottle which was on Mr. Ron Goldman, 5135 Coroner's case number.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, there is--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, there is a stamp here, pre-addressed stamp.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And the number is again handwritten here, and it also says here--I mean, first let's start here. The autopsy was done on June 14th. The sample was obtained at 11:30 by Dr. Golden. He initials off the bottle here that he took the blood sample, and that is the way we know that he has seen that the sample belongs to that particular person. And as you recall, this blood sample was--the label was removed by Mr. Joe Murillo of our toxicology lab as part of maintaining the evidence on this particular case.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All entries made by Coroner employees?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: At or about the time of the events recorded?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In the course of their responsibilities as employees of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me flip to a document, your Honor, I would ask to bear the designation 364-II.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: A blow-of the smaller single-page, doctor.

(Peo's 364-II for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, this appears to be a similar kind of form to the one you were just talking about. Is that an accurate assessment?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is the difference between this form and the one we were just looking at, double h?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This belongs to Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, 5136. This is a pre-stamped imprint card information, handwritten case number again here, (indicating), blood sample was obtained by Dr. Golden June 14th, 9:30 in the morning. Mr. Murillo received the blood sample on June 15th and Dr. Golden has initialed it. It is upside down but I.G. Here June 14th, so that authenticates that he took the blood sample of this particular person on that particular date.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again all entries made by employees of the Coroner's office in the course of their official responsibilities?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: To reflect acts or events that occurred at or about the time of the entries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: I think that does it for this area. You may retake the stand, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: (witness complies.)

MR. SHAPIRO: There will be an objection based upon our comments at side bar.

THE COURT: All right. Noted. Overruled.

MR. SHAPIRO: And a motion to strike.

THE COURT: Yes. Under 1280 of the evidence code.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment to get a document, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, following the meeting on June 22nd, 1994, with doctors Baden and Wolf, was a document prepared by Mr. Siglar in your office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What was the purpose of that particular document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't know which particular document you are referring to, because we--we made some minutes during the meeting. I had some handwritten notes and Siglar had some handwritten notes and it was later transcribed. I had kept a copy of the transcript, copy for both Prosecution and Defense.

MR. KELBERG: Let me find the document, again, your Honor, with the Court's permission.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have what appears to be a three-page document along with a one-page handwritten form 42. The document is dated July 28, 1994. It appears to be a letter from Mr. Siglar to Mr. Hodgman of our office. May it be marked collective as exhibit 365?

THE COURT: 365.

(Peo's 365 for id = 3-pg document)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me show you this series of documents. I will take the other exhibits away. Are you familiar with this letter and the one-page form 42 notes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In general, doctor, what is this letter, this July 28th letter from Mr. Siglar to Mr. Hodgman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a letter sent by Mr. Siglar to Mr. Hodgman based on his request regarding our weekly meeting of the DME's on June 23rd. This letter was sent out when I was not--I had not seen the letter before it was sent out, but I have a copy of it, because I was on vacation at that time. It reflects some information which was discussed in a DME meeting which we had in our office on June 23rd of `94. And do you want me to go into the contents of the letter?

MR. KELBERG: Yes. In general first and then we will put it up on the elmo so the ladies and gentlemen of the jury will have an opportunity to read it.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They discussed the different issues pertaining to the two cases which are being discussed in trial and we are going to put it up on the elmo so we can discuss each item as we go through--as you put it up on the elmo. But what happens was after the DME meeting on June 26th, they also discussed it in a meeting of the forensic technicians, and these are internal department meetings, but I think somehow the information went to the press and then we were asked about these--this information and that is how the District Attorney's office wanted to have information--input on this information and that is how this letter came about.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate as a summary that the information pertains to possible mistakes or errors in the Coroner's office that relate to these two cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And that--

MR. SHAPIRO: I would object to the form of the question, "Possible."

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Why don't I just put it up on the elmo.

THE COURT: All right. This will be People's 365?

MR. KELBERG: It is, your Honor, and let me start with page 1.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Why don't we just start at the top, Mr. Fairtlough, and focus it in so that the ladies and gentlemen of the jury will have an opportunity to read it. And your Honor, I would ask that the jurors have an opportunity to read the letter and Mr. Fairtlough can move it at any time appropriate from the Court's perspective down so all paragraphs of each page can be read.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. 984, can you read that?

JUROR NO. 984: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

JUROR NO. 984: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Let's move the letter.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: May I inquire before I move to page 2 then, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, this summary listing on this page, six items, starting with item no. 1, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As you recall on Tuesday, I--last week, I showed you where the homicide cases are normally stored. That is in that crypt area where there were different levels where the gurneys could be placed. I also showed you on Tuesday a separate area in the Coroner's office, the third autopsy room with closed--where there are locked doors available. Basically this refers to that--placing certain types of cases where there is a lot of interest to place them in a more secure area in a locked crypt. That is what he is trying to refer to here.

MR. KELBERG: Was there any security for the bodies of these two decedents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: All bodies are in full security because they are in the Coroner's office in the cold crypt area and nobody can enter it unless you are a Coroner's employee. And what is meant here is little more security, locking the bodies in a secure area, that is what it means. It doesn't mean that the bodies are not secure. Everybody body in the Coroner's office is secure in the cold crypt area which I already showed all of you on Tuesday last week. If you want, you can show the photographs again and we can explain this a little better.

MR. KELBERG: I think we can recall that particular location. I would rather try and get through this list of items if we could, doctor. Item no. 2, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Preventing uninvolved employees from observing decedents should have occurred. Again, this is a personal opinion expressed I think by--

MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a personal opinion expressed. Basically in the Coroner's office we have visitors, volunteers, we also sometimes have people coming to watch autopsies, especially medical students and other pathology staff. And what is meant by this is if you keep the decedents secure, only the person who is responsible for the particular case will be able to visualize the--to view--not visualize, view the remains because they are the only persons who need to be involved with the particular case. This is what is meant by this sentence.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, were any personnel not directly involved in the autopsies in that location of no. 6, that table no. 6 where you've testified the autopsies were performed during the course of those two autopsies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: My recollection is the detectives were there. As I told you, I went there twice briefly. I was not there all the time, but the detectives were there and Dr. Golden was there. And of course you see we have six autopsy stations there, and autopsies are going on at every station, so you have pathologists there, forensic technicians, and if some of them are homicides, you are going to have the detective of those decedents there, and if it is an in-custody Defendant, you are going to have other personnel there. And it depends. I can't tell you all persons who were there, but all persons who are there in the autopsy room are all persons working on a case or have to be there for some reason. And the other personnel who--who could be in the corridors would be the cleaning personnel, if at all there were any there that day. I don't know.

MR. KELBERG: How about item no. 3? We have already talked about the fact that the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson were not saved and you've testified as to the reason why you asked Dr. Golden to save the stomach contents of Mr. Goldman. Beyond what you've already testified to is there anything else that concerns item no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing. It is a factual statement. We didn't save Nicole's stomach contents.

MR. KELBERG: Is item no. 4 something you have also testified about when we were looking at the form 15 on the autopsy forms for Mr. Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is just that he collected the bile, everything is recorded properly, but the only thing is on the bottle the urine box was marked and not bile.

MR. KELBERG: Item no. 5, I believe we had testimony when we were doing the photographs of the Coroner's office, we also looked at photographs of various kits including the fingernail kits for--or kit for Nicole Brown Simpson. Is there anything beyond what you've already testified to that concerns item no. 5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: What about item no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item no. 6 is--refers to when the clothing is dried, the correct procedure is to place each item of clothing in a separate brown paper wrap--to wrap them separate. On June 22nd, when Dr. Baden was there to see the evidence specimens, we found that Nicole Brown Simpson's panty and dress had been wrapped in the same envelope and that is what this refers to.

MR. KELBERG: And what, if any, significance, from a forensic pathologist standpoint, is there regarding having the panties and the dress wrapped together?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is the same person's clothing, and as you recall the scene photographs, the dress was overlying the panty when--if at all, if there was any blood staining there, it was already in contact. It is not a correct procedure, so that is a mistake, but as far as the significance in this particular case, I don't think it has much significance, because the clothing was put together only after it was dry, and it happened and it is recorded.

MR. SHAPIRO: Motion to strike, nonresponsive, calls for speculation, the last portion only.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the last portion?

THE COURT: The last portion of the answer was nonresponsive.

MR. KELBERG: Could I have a moment to look at that?

THE COURT: Yes. The jury is to disregard the last comment regarding the significance of this. That was nonresponsive to the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you evaluated, as part of your preparation before testifying, the significance, if my, of putting those two pieces of clothing together?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is the significance, if any, for having done that?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation, also goes beyond the expertise of this witness.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Already--I said already they were laced together and the clothing was already dry. What I'm trying to say is this: I don't see anything new that would have occurred even if they had been placed together that any new evidence would be transferred to each other because they belonged to the same person. That is what I meant.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about item 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Could we have Mr. Fairtlough put the first portion of page 2 of this exhibit on?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: I think Mr. Fairtlough would be benefited by having page 2.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: May I inquire, your Honor?

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, item 7, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is self-explanatory. Apparently a reporter was in our lunchroom without our knowledge and that is an indication for the security for the building, and that again states a fact which apparently happened.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where is the lunchroom? First of all, is your building a building of more than one floor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have--we have two buildings.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you were describing the physical layout of the Coroner's office.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have two buildings in the Coroner's office. We have the 1102 building and the 1104 building. The 1104 building the medical building, the lab building and the autopsy areas. It has got four floor; a basement, a service floor, a first floor, second floor.

MR. KELBERG: Where is the lunchroom located in the 1104 medical facility?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have lunchroom in two of the floors; on the first floor and the second floor, and this refers to the first floor lunchroom.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, on what floor are the autopsies performed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The service floor.

MR. KELBERG: In order to get to the service floor, how is one able to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a secured floor you need a key to get to the service floor or one of the Coroner's employees has to personally take you down there. You cannot go to the service floor without a key.

MR. KELBERG: Keys handed out to persons other than employees of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Do all employees of the Coroner's office have keys which allow access to the service floor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Only those employees who need access to the service floor.

MR. KELBERG: They would include whom?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The doctors, the technicians, the lab personnel, the investigators.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about item 7?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: What about item 8?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item 8 refers to trying to have a response team from the Coroner's office on certain types of cases wherein you have a team of a pathologist, a criminalist and an investigator and transport to go to a scene. Well, that is just a situation which we do sometimes when we have the necessity to do it.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this a wish list to some degree?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have the resources to do that in every case that is recommended?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, leading and suggestive.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what resources would be required in order to do that recommendation in every case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would need more--

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, irrelevant, 352.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would need more personnel in each division to--

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You need more personnel in each area so that you have them available, because in our office many of the employees wear different hats. For example, our criminalist is also our toxicologist. Pathologist need for autopsy but he also has to go to court, so if you have more staff, you can have the luxury of sending people to every scene, but it is not practical.

MR. KELBERG: And you already, I believe, have testified last week regarding whether in your opinion it would have made any significant difference on the issue of the Coroner visiting the Bundy location at the time the bodies were still there?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about item 8?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: How about item 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item 9 refers to the Coroner's office not having been allowed access to decedent by LAPD for ten hours.

MR. KELBERG: We are going to discuss that I believe when we talk about time of death, correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's go to item no. 10.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This refers to--there was a request for valve procurement on Miss Brown Simpson and that is a routine procedure in our office wherein, as you know, organs for transplant is--is obtained from--from different people in the familiar. If the family agrees to donate the organs and usually the--certain organs are removed from individuals where such permission is obtained, and our office is quite cooperative with all the organ procurement agencies as long as it doesn't interfere with our cause of death determination and injury interpretation. In this particular instance this refers to heart valve donation being allowed by the Simpson family. And when it was brought to my attention, I denied it in the night and in this particular case and that is what this refers to.

MR. KELBERG: Why did you deny it, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because heart valve donation is an intrusive process because I would prefer that the DME is available to be there, the medical examiner who does the autopsy to be there when the valve is taken. And you know, any organ procurement has to be done in a particular time frame. You can't just do it anytime and use the valve, and there was a time frame constraint here. The doctor assigned was Dr. Golden, because remember, on June 13th assigned the cases to him. This request was brought to my attention in the night the evening of June 13th and apparently one of my assistant doctors had given permission but he asked the organ procurement agency to contact me, and I at that time told him no, because Dr. Golden was not the one who was going to be there, they had got another doctor there who was--because as I told you, in our office we like a doctor to watch the procedure so that he knows exactly--or she knows exactly what was being done, because you open the chest, you take the valve, so you have to collect the blood sample properly, so there is a lot of procedures involved in this. So I made the medical decision, since Dr. Golden was not available in the night to go to this procedure and they had already got another doctor there and I felt in the best interest of the department that this procedure not be carried out and that was my decision.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, should I do one more or stop?

THE COURT: Let's take a break here. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess for fifteen minutes. And Miss Fitzpatrick, can I talk to you, please.

(Brief pause.)

(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 counsel and Defendant are again present, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Kelberg for these purposes. Mr. Kelberg, you had something?

MR. KELBERG: Very briefly. I have informed Mr. Shapiro that Mr. Hernandez from the Coroner's office called. He found no such memorandum from the District Attorney's office concerning Dr. Golden. He did a record search. And then Dr. Lakshmanan tells me that apparently you had talked to Mr. Hernandez as well.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: That was the same information he had received.

THE COURT: Apparently--apparently Mr. Shapiro had some information to the contrary, that there was some--some of these items in existence.

MR. KELBERG: The form--Mr. Shapiro was going to show me a form which I am familiar with that's in the DME manual that is a suggested form to be used. But as to any completed form specifically with reference to Dr. Golden, the information is as I've indicated for the record. If Mr. Shapiro has something else, I will be glad to go back and search it out further.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, we do, your Honor. We would ask the Court to direct Mr. Kelberg's attention to the case of George Wilson McGowan, M-C-G-O-W-A-N. The information that's been furnished to us is that there were direct orders issued by the Judge in that case to the District Attorney to notify the Coroner directly about errors that had taken place, and that resulted in a capital murder case being abruptly ended and the Judge making a finding of factual innocence.

MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Shapiro has a Coroner's case number, it would certainly--

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Perhaps we can just pull that file in its entirety.

MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan has that number also.

MR. KELBERG: Apparently he doesn't.

MR. SHAPIRO: He reported it to a reporter from the Los Angeles Times on--

THE COURT: Well, we need the Coroner's case number so we can get the file.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I am going to get that right now. We're inundated with a mass of documents. So if the Court would bear with me for a moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SHAPIRO: We believe these were in response to Mr. Ralph Framalino's inquiry from the Los Angeles Times and it's referring to case no. 90-09679.

MR. KELBERG: And does the Court wish Dr. Lakshmanan to call Mr. Hernandez at this moment?

THE COURT: Yes. I'd like that to be available to the Court hopefully before the noon hour so counsel can have the opportunity to review the file, because I suspect it may be fodder for cross-examination.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, I have asked Dr. Lakshmanan to call Mr. Hernandez and have the entire case file with that number brought to the courtroom hopefully before the noon hour.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg, do you have all the other exhibits handy that you need to proceed with?

MR. KELBERG: At the moment I do, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: I can't think of anything I can do without the witness.

THE COURT: Well, is there another member of your staff who can make this phone call on his behalf?

MR. KELBERG: If Dr. Lakshmanan can give Mr. Lynch the phone number, Mr. Lynch can certainly make the call.

THE COURT: Please, since the Prosecution has another hour and eight minutes.

MR. KELBERG: Well, your Honor, I hope the Court will understand the need to perhaps have a short period of the afternoon devoted to the completion of the time of death material since that appears to have been made a major issue, and I think the jury should have the benefit of as much information on it as scientifically as is available for their consideration.

THE COURT: Well, we spent a lot of time on relative minutiae.

MR. KELBERG: Unfortunately, your Honor, my perspective in minutiae was raised long ago, and it's only at this point that we have an opportunity to show everyone it is minutiae.

THE COURT: Well, I just want to express to you my concern about undue consumption of time.

MR. KELBERG: I understand. I have one short area other than the one that we are discussing right now before I get into time of death.

THE COURT: All right. 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. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your direct examination.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor--if Mr. Fairtlough can bring back exhibit 365--we're on page 2, I believe we're on item 11. And does that refer to what we were discussing yesterday? And we also discussed it with respect to the Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy of the initial request for an H screen and your decision to order a C screen, toxicological screen in each of those cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else to add to that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Item 12, did you discuss earlier in your testimony regarding flouroscopy as a form of x-ray?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And have you discussed what was or was not done in the form of x-ray?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, in your opinion, would flouroscopy have been desirable in this case as Mr. Siglar's letter indicates?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I think in stab wound cases, x-rays are better because if at all there are going to be any fragments of the knife, it's better seen on an x-ray than fluoroscopy. But sometimes flouroscopy can help. But I would prefer to have an x-ray of an area because even if the fluoroscope doesn't show it sometimes, you'll see it on the x-ray because flouroscopy doesn't have the resolution, fine resolution of an x-ray.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you also testify, however, that no x-rays were taken, for example, of the skulls of either victim?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: And we asked you questions about whether in your opinion there was any indication that the blade of the knife had broken off in the course of any of the infliction of the sharp force injuries. Do you recall that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, is there any evidence to indicate that that had occurred?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. Obviously if they didn't do the test, they couldn't find evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor--

THE COURT: That was a speaking objection, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, anything further about item 12?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item 12, no.

MR. KELBERG: Item 13, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Oh, that refers to, in the week following the autopsy, there was request for photographs from our office because there's a grand jury hearing on the case, and our machine was not functioning. You know, after the earthquake, we had some problems with our printer and processor and now we have a new photographic equipment available. And basically we requested--I requested LAPD to cooperate and make the prints for us. So we made a one-print set for us and one-print set for the grand jury hearings. And what Mr. Siglar is referring to is, he feels that the prints could have been made by sheriff than LAPD. So it's just a matter of which agency you choose, and to me, it doesn't make any difference because LAPD were nearby, they were handling the case on these two decedents and I requested LAPD.

MR. KELBERG: How about the next item? What does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Oh, 14, "Photographic prints could have been available to assigned pathologist prior to review of the medical protocol." This is a procedure which is--which is being at least done on some of the cases wherein the pathologist looks at the photographs before the protocol is signed to see for any problems we may have with reference to injuries not being described or also to see whether the injuries which have been described are correct.

MR. KELBERG: And is there some delay in the normal course of your business about getting the photograph with respect to your requirement to have the protocol dictated within 24 hours of the completion of the autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That--that is correct. But right now, we have the new equipment that just came. Following the earthquake, we got a new piece of equipment wherein you can have contact prints available one hour after the photography is done. So what I'm trying to do at the current time is to have some contact prints available to the doctors before they even do the autopsy to make sure that all the injuries are photographed. And this again is a laborious procedure and there are--we're trying to do it, but it's not been very successful. But that's the goal.

MR. KELBERG: What is a contact print just so we'll understand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Contact prints, the print is the same size as the negative. So you have one strip with all the photographs taken on the case so the doctor knows which areas have been photographed. This is something new we are trying to do in our office.

MR. KELBERG: How about the next item, item 15?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Oh, that refers to the--to have bottles made depending on what kind of case you're dealing with reference to toxicology samples. If you have a suspect that's suicide, you make all the specimens available--I mean the containers available for a full tox collection because you like to have liver samples, stomach contents, bile, urine so that you can correlate the blood levels with the tissue levels and support your diagnosis or don't support your diagnosis of suicide.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything about this observation by Mr. Siglar that affects your ability to evaluate the evidence in these two autopsy cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I think the decision on what specimens to collect is the--is decision of the medical examiner. It's a medical decision. You are to use it intelligently to decide what you want done in a particular case. So this would apply because we do have residents coming into our office who work under supervision, and this is something which is already in place. We do a full tox on certain types of cases and certain types of cases we just collect blood like in traffic accidents, I already mentioned we collect blood and urine, depending on the nature of the case.

MR. KELBERG: Next item, item 16?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is just a statement. One of the diagrams was not available at the time of initial release of documents and it was released to the Defense team when I met them on June 22nd. It was one diagram form which was misplaced and later retrieved and presented to all parties concerned.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was this a type of diagram such as we've been using in the course of the discussion of these two autopsies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about item 16?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, can you show us the rest of that page, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Next page, please, Mr. Fairtlough.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Maybe we could lower it so we can see.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you identify--obviously we know who the middle name is--the first and third names, where the copies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Mr. Hernandez is the director of the department. He's in charge of all non-physician operations. Mr. Scott carrier is the public information officer.

MR. KELBERG: And if Mr. Fairtlough can put on a single page that is the last part of this exhibit 365. And, doctor, in general terms, what is this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the notes taken by Gary Siglar during the medical examiner's meeting on June 23rd, `94, and these notes were used by him to generate that letter which we just discussed.

MR. KELBERG: So these handwritten entries then relate to what is later included in the listed 16 items in the letter to Mr. Hodgman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: I don't think we--I'll leave it up to the Court if the Court wishes the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to have an opportunity to read it.

THE COURT: Let's give them an opportunity to at least get a flavor for what it is.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: If I could inquire just briefly while we're showing this portion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, item 7--incidentally, just initially, this appears to be a shorthanded version of the items. For example, looking at item 2, it appears Mr. Siglar has handwritten "Looky loos," and in the current document, item 2 is "Preventing uninvolved employees from observing decedents should have occurred." Is this again to be a shorthanded method of note taking?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, looking at item 7, the "Late call out, liver temp/sexual assault"--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You mean 9, item 9?

MR. KELBERG: Oh, I'm sorry. You're correct. Item 9. And perhaps Mr. Fairtlough could raise that. We're going to talk about, as part of time of death, this issue of when your office was notified, when Miss Ratcliffe went and so forth. With respect to the sexual assault entry here, doctor, what if anything different than what we discussed with you on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of taking a sexual assault kit in this case of Nicole Brown Simpson is referred to in that entry?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing further to add.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, do you wish to give the jurors--

THE COURT: No. I think we've seen this now.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough.

MR. KELBERG: I have one other area of inquiry before talking to you, doctor, about time of death, and we raised it earlier dealing with Claudine Ratcliffe, your investigator, who went to the Bundy location, and it concerns the issue of taking blood samples of some form from a back of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you recall that general area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And you testified I believe already, even today, that when the body arrived at the Coroner's office on the 13th of June, you asked Mr. Mahanay, one of your criminalists, to take blood samples from two areas of Nicole Brown Simpson's body as reflected on the appropriate evidence log; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He took blood samples from two areas.

MR. KELBERG: And that's reflected in the appropriate evidence log, correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, I want to talk to you--

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Lynch, could you take one of the easels just very briefly and put it in the location where we used the photographs?

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, again with the Court's permission, would you step down.

MR. KELBERG: This is exhibit 354, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, do you see the area where you asked Mr. Mahanay to take samples from when you saw the body at your offices on June 13th?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He made the determination which areas to take. I think he took the right thigh and calf area, these blood samples.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Referring to photographs CS11 and the area of the right leg where you're pointing and down further below the knee; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: I want to invite your attention both to the back of Nicole Brown Simpson as seen in CS11 and the back of Nicole Brown Simpson as seen in CS12. Do you see what appears to you to be blood on the back of her body?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Would you have expected Claudine Ratcliffe to have taken any action at the scene to have that blood collected?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If she had seen it and she felt it was important, she would have asked it to be collected.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you have--

MR. SHAPIRO: Motion to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you have considered it significant in any way that--such that you would have expected her to have had action taken to obtain those samples?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it had been seen, I think it should have been taken.

MR. KELBERG: Why?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you don't have any injury in that area and you have blood drops there, and this could be blood drops falling off a weapon which could reflect the blood of the decedent, could be the blood of the--in this case, we have a second victim. It could have also reflected if the perpetrator had some injury, which can happen sometimes, and the perpetrator's blood. So it could be--it's good to collect and see whose blood it is.

MR. KELBERG: Does the failure--and there was no effort made by Miss Ratcliffe to have that collected as far as you understand; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was not collected as far as all the evidence logs we show.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the failure to have that collected a matter which causes you to be unable to determine the issues you have been talking about for the last week or so?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the absence of that evidence such that you cannot form opinions as a forensic pathologist with respect to the cause of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's nothing to do with the cause of death.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything about the absence of that evidence which prevents you as a forensic pathologist from determining whether a single-edged knife caused each and every one of the sharp force injuries you identified in the course of your review?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This evidence has no bearing on that conclusion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any significance without that evidence to your ability as a forensic pathologist to determine how long it would take to cause all of these injuries on these two people?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, this evidence would not have any bearing to those conclusions or opinions I rendered.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the absence of that evidence of any significance to you as a forensic pathologist in ascertaining whether one person armed with a single-edged knife of approximately 6-inch length, tapered at the tip could have killed both of these human beings?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, this evidence collection would not have had any effect on my opinions on those hypothetical--I mean those issues that you brought up.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, could the evidence have--if taken have been helpful to you even if it does not prevent you from answering the questions I've asked?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it had been collected, it would be one more piece of information which is available. If it's the blood of Miss Simpson, then it would reflect that the blood drops are hers and falling off the weapon, and that would also support my opinion that the perpetrator was in the back, from the back lifted the head which was face down and cut her neck.

MR. KELBERG: And if, for example, it was blood that was tested and found to genetically match blood drops found along the walkway leading to the back of the property and which further matched genetically to that of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, would that have been helpful to you also in evaluating whether one perpetrator could have killed both of these two human beings in a brief, swift and violent attack?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would suggest--if that blood sample matched the perpetrator, it would suggest that at least one perpetrator was involved with this--with this evidence.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further about that issue, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: As a brief follow-up to that, doctor, in the investigators' manual which you talked about on sexual assault kits, and inviting counsel to page 6.0.1 under "Field evidence procedures," is this what your investigators are instructed to do?

THE COURT: Excuse me just a second. Mr. Shapiro, do you have that available?

MR. KELBERG: I can walk over and show it to him. It might be quicker.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, Judge. I appreciate it.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Again, doctor, referring to page 6.0.1, is this part of what your investigators such as Miss Ratcliffe are instructed to do at scenes like the Bundy location? Under "Field evidence procedures." "It is recognized that each death scene is unique and that the proper procedures for examining the decedent for evidence and the order of implementation of those procedures are dependent upon the circumstances of a particular case. "Coroner's personnel conducting an investigation at the scene of a death shall communicate and cooperate with investigative personnel from the investigating police agency to determine the best manner in which to proceed." Is that part of what they are instructed to do?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And one other manual. Doctor, is there something called an "Operations Bureau manual"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is the manual which is used by the investigations division of our office, their procedures.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: And now inviting counsel under "Field investigations", and I'm not sure of the page, but it has a reference 230. Is this part of what your investigators like Miss Ratcliffe are informed to do? "When a death is reported to this department and is under our jurisdiction and the decedent is at the location of death or at the place discovered, a Coroner's investigator will be assigned and dispatched to conduct the death investigation." Further on: "Field investigators are responsible for maintaining the integrity of a death scene including information and evidence. They coordinate their investigations with investigators of other agencies also having jurisdiction of the scene. They functionally supervise other Coroner employees at a scene including any personnel charged with the responsibility of transporting the body."

And dropping further down to a part under the word, "Evidence": "Coroner's investigators coordinate their investigations with police officers or members of other investigative agencies so as not to mishandle or contaminate evidence in which all may be interested. When the Coroner's investigator determines the need to have a Coroner's criminalist respond to the scene for the purpose of collecting trace evidence or evidence of sexual assault, they will protect the scene until the criminalist arrives. In these instances, the criminalist will collect all evidence associated with the decedent." Are those instructions that are given to your investigators such as Miss Ratcliffe?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, let me move into my final area of inquiry dealing with the issue of time of death. And let me begin, if we could, please, with a brief review of the legal requirements regarding notification of the Coroner's office when a body has been found. Doctor, are you familiar with various statutes in the government code and the health and safety code that pertain to this issue of notification of the Coroner?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. In a general way.

MR. KELBERG: Let me invite your attention, if I could, please, to several sections of government code starting with a section of section 27491 of the government code under the heading "Duty to investigate and determine cause of death" in the fifth full paragraph: "Any funeral director, physician or other person who has charge of a deceased person's body when death occurred as a result of any of the causes or circumstances described in this section shall immediately notify the Coroner. Any person who does not notify the Coroner as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor." Is that one of the sections of which you are familiar pertaining to the duty to notify your office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And obviously this type of situation, of two people killed in a manner suggesting a criminal homicide, would be one of the areas covered by this statute; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And when it says, "Funeral director, physician or other person," you understand that to include police officers; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, let me drop down to 27491.2 under--

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to move to strike the last part of that answer as calling for a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: And as I was saying, dropping down to 27491.2: "A. The Coroner or the Coroner's appointed deputy, on being informed of a death and finding it to fall under the classification of deaths requiring his or her inquiry, may immediately proceed to where the body lies, examine the body, make identification, make inquiry into the circumstances, manner and means of death and, as circumstances warrant, either order its removal for further investigation or disposition or release the body to the next of kin." Is that another section of which you are familiar regarding the responsibilities of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, would it be accurate to say that your office has the responsibility over the body itself?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Not the police agency?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Now, let me invite your attention under one more section of the government code 27491.3 under "Control of premises where body found," subsection C, the middle of that subsection as follows: "At the scene of any death, when it is immediately apparent or when it has not been previously recognized and the Coroner's examination reveals that police investigation or criminal Prosecution may ensue, the Coroner shall not further disturb the body or any related evidence until the law enforcement agency has had reasonable opportunity to respond to the scene if their purposes so require and they so request. Custody and control of the body shall remain with the Coroner at all times. Reasonable time at the scene shall be allowed by the Coroner for criminal investigation by other law enforcement agencies with the time and location of removal of the remains to a convenient place to be determined at the discretion of the Coroner." Is that another one of the sections of which you are familiar?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, how does this section affect the relationship between your people, including your investigators like Miss Ratcliffe, and police investigators such as Detectives Lange and Vannatter?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically, our office investigators cooperate with the police agencies if they require more time to collect evidence at a scene. That is one aspect of the government code which you just alluded to, that is 27419.3(C) indicates that. But the notification also is responsibility of the police department to call us as soon as they have a death.

MR. KELBERG: And that's what I want to next discuss with you. Doctor, given the resources your office has, do you automatically respond at the time you are notified that there is a body found by a police agency which believes the body is the product of a criminal event?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The way it works is, when they notify us, the inquiry is when they give us a time when we can come and pick up the remains because they might not have finished their criminal investigation and evidence collection, because we have limited resources of our personnel, because we like to go to the scene and do our investigation and bring the remains back to our office as soon as possible. And as we discussed earlier, if necessary, the criminalist will be called and evidence collection by our criminalist from the body may take place at the scene also. So it is a situation where we need to plan our response to a crime scene. So we like to be notified when a death is recovered--when a death is discovered rather, and the response will depend on what kind of investigation is being conducted by the law enforcement agency so that we can plan our response so that our investigators don't spend time there waiting for evidence to be collected. And this is something where communication helps to have a kind of situation where both agencies conduct their responsibilities in a manner which is fit so that the criminal investigation of a particular crime doesn't suffer.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in the course of reviewing materials for this case, have you become aware of two telephone conversations between a police detective from the Los Angeles Police Department named Detective Phillips and two employees of the Coroner's office, one, Mr. Willis, w-I-l-l-i-s, and one, Mr. Heath, h-e-a-t-h?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I had the opportunity to read the transcript. As you know, all calls coming into the Coroner's office are recorded, and I had a chance to read the transcript of that recorded information which came to our facility with reference to those communications between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Willis and later Mr. Phillips and one I think Mr. Heath of our office.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, assuming that there's been testimony in this court that the bodies were first observed by a Los Angeles Police Department officer by the name of Riske at about 12:13 A.M. on June 13th, 1994 and that the first call by the police to your office occurred at 6:49 A.M. or about six and a half hours later on the same date, in your opinion, doctor, was that timely notification to you as required by the sections that we've just reviewed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your review of these materials, have you attempted to form an opinion regarding the estimated time of death for Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Have you also attempted, from your review of these materials, to form an estimated time of death for Ronald Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And before I ask you if you have in fact formed such opinions and what they are, let me first ask you, in your opinion, doctor, has the delay of six and a half hours with respect to the first notification and the fact, as we've already seen, that liver temperatures were not taken until approximately 10:40 and 10:50 A.M. on June 13th as documented in our exhibits 298-A and B, those form 1's, has that set of circumstances, doctor, caused you to be unable to form an opinion regarding the estimated time of death in each case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: And further, doctor, if by some fortuitous work of faith, you had been with Officer Riske on June 13th at 12:13 A.M. on June--on that date with whatever bag of medical paraphernalia you would use for ascertaining the medical information from which you form an opinion as to cause of death, in your opinion, would you under those circumstances have been able to determine whether the death occurred at 10:15 P.M. on June 12th rather than 11:00 o'clock on June 12th?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Would you be able to exclude any time period between 10:15 and 11:00 o'clock on June 12th if hypothetically you had been fortuitously with detective or Officer Riske at 12:13 and had done whatever you are able to do medically to make such determinations?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor--and we're going to go through why you hold that opinion; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Let's start with, what is your opinion with respect to the estimated time of death for Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I cannot tell exactly at what time she died, but she--obviously the--I have taken all the factors into consideration. I can't pinpoint exactly what time she died between 9:40 and 12:40 when the body was discovered. But based on--based on the perimeters which were evaluated, that is liver temperature, rigor, livor, et cetera. But the only thing which would favor--and there's one more factor which one can take into consideration, which would include gastric emptying and contents which show that there were identifiable food fragments in her stomach at the time of autopsy, identified as rigatoni and black olives, et cetera, which would reflect that--and also, I was told information that she ate the dinner somewhere between 8:00 and 8:15 that evening. Just using that, it would favor death took place between 10:00 and 10:30, but that again would not be a definite answer because that factor of gastric emptying and gastric digestion has so many variabilities to the process. So the bottom line is, I can't narrow time of death between 9:40 and 12:13, which is the discovered time of the bodies, with precision more than what I've discussed.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, is the factor--let me withdraw the question if I might. Doctor, I want you to focus solely on medical factors and not on any information you may have received in the form of, for example, a documented telephone conversation between Nicole Brown Simpson and her mother at about 9:35 in the evening of June 12th and a documented call by Nicole Brown Simpson after that call to her mother or that call from her mother to the Mezzaluna restaurant. I want you to set that aside and focus solely on medical bases for forming an opinion on time of death. Have you an opinion--

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I am going to move to strike that narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Have you an opinion--

THE COURT: I'm sorry. The jury is to disregard the last deletion of factual circumstances, some of which are not in evidence yet. Let's just focus on the medical issues.

MR. KELBERG: Have you formed an opinion as to a range during which the death of Nicole Brown Simpson occurred?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That could occur anywhere between 9:00 and--just on medical facts, if you give a range as anywhere between 9:00 and 12:45.

MR. KELBERG: And we'll go through those medical facts. Do you have an opinion from the medical facts alone as to an estimated range for the time of death of Ronald Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would be the same.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, when forensic pathologists evaluate cases for time of death, do they attempt to provide a specific time or do they attempt something else?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They always give an estimated range because the perimeters you use to estimate time of death are rough perimeters and there's--you cannot be precise in giving a precise time of death. You always give an estimated range with a plus or minus of three hours for a particular time which you estimate the death should have taken place because you always have to give the range because the factors you use have so many variabilities in built in them themselves. So if you take those variabilities of the factors you use and apply them to a particular situation, you can only give an estimated range. You cannot give any precision to a particular time like 10:15 or 10:20. It's very difficult.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in preparing for this area of your testimony, have you reviewed medical literature on the subject of estimation of a range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is one of the materials you reviewed a book called, "The estimation of the time since death in the early postmortem period," by Henssge H-E-N-S-S-G-E, Knight, K-N-I-G-H-T, Krompecher, K-R-O-M-P-E-C-H-E-R, Medea, M-E-D-E-A, and Nokes, N-O-K-E-S?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I referred to that book, yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact, have you read this book?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I read the book to areas which apply to the pathologists.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, when did this work come out?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This year, 1995.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, to your knowledge, is this the first book devoted entirely to this subject, the estimation of the time since death in the early postmortem period that is published in English?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you familiar with who these people are, Henssge, Knight and so forth?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Perhaps if Mr. Fairtlough could just put the face of the book up on the elmo and then the doctor can tell us who these people are.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Henssge is the--works for the institute of forensic medicine at the University of Essen in Germany.

MR. KELBERG: University of what, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Essen, e-s-s-e-n. Mr.--

MR. KELBERG: What kind of institute is that if you're aware?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a forensic institute. I have not been there, so--it's a recognized forensic institution.

MR. KELBERG: And the next name, Dr. Knight?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Knight is the Professor of Forensic Pathology at University of Wales School of Medicine in Cardiff in the United Kingdom.

MR. KELBERG: Before you go beyond his name, doctor, is one of the materials you also reviewed a chapter regarding "Estimation of time of death found in a forensic pathology text" with the name Bernard Knight, "Forensic pathology"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is this a 1991 text?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is this kind of text?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a textbook of forensic pathology addressing different issues in forensic pathology used by pathologists and other forensic scientists to have information pertaining to that particular medical specialty.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, is Dr. Henssge recognized as one of the leading researchers in the area of estimation of time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He has--he has done a lot of work in this area and he--actually his nomograms, which we will be discussing later, has been developed taking some variable factors involved in the cooling of the body and that nomogram, which we will be discussing later, will give you a tool, a tool to apply certain findings you--you--you have when you examine a body, and when you apply it in a nomogram, you can come up with an estimated range. And again, it's an estimated range. It's not a time of death with precision.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is Dr. Knight a preeminently recognized forensic pathologist?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He's well known in the forensic community. He has written this textbook. He also edits the other book, Keith Simpson.

MR. KELBERG: And I was going to ask you about that. Is there another forensic pathology text that you reviewed the chapter on "Estimation of time of death" entitled, "Simpson's--" obviously no reference to the Defendant--"Simpson's forensic medicine, 10th edition", Bernard Knight?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the edition date of this, doctor, is 1991?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is this--are both of these books with Dr. Knight as the editor considered as recognized medical text in the area of forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. How about if we--do you know any of the other names?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Medea is known. He always writes papers with Dr. Henssge. Dr. Medea is from the University of Koln, K-O-L-N, in Germany.

MR. KELBERG: And is Dr. Medea one of the recognized researchers in the area of "Estimation of time of death"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Most of the people by Dr. Henssge has his name also.

MR. KELBERG: Are you familiar with the other two names, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just when I read the book, Mr. Nokes works for the University of Wales, Cardiff. He's I think the engineering--I think he's in the engineering department.

MR. KELBERG: And actually if we could ask Mr. Fairtlough to put the title page up. It has references to each of these people and I think we'll find it's Dr. Nokes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: MD, doctor, stands for what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Medical doctor.

MR. KELBERG: Are you familiar with what MRCP stands for?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It stands for the member of the royal college of physicians, and usually that's a diplomat given in England and--

MR. KELBERG: How about the other designations for Dr. Knight? Are you familiar with what they mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: FRCPATH is Federal Royal College of Pathologists. DMJ is Dipomat Medical Jurisprudence, Pathology. Barrister is also a lawyer.

MR. KELBERG: And dropping down to--it is Dr. Nokes; is it not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I'm sorry. I--but he does work for the engineering department.

MR. KELBERG: At the University of Wales in Cardiff?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in reviewing this material, have you considered its contents in forming opinions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. As I told, I only reviewed portions which applied to pathologists. There's a lot of material there which is for mostly mathematicians, statisticians which is--which I didn't pay attention to.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact, is that part of the preface by Dr. Knight for people who are not inclined towards higher levels of mathematics? "For those non-medical readers, including lawyers and police detective officers, as well as the many doctors who are unfamiliar with more advanced mathematics and physics, some parts of the text can be avoided in favor of the more practical sections, which summarize the best current methods and indicate the limits of accuracy."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And have you done that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you relied at least in part on the information you have read in this book?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And as part of the material that you have relied upon in part, has the following been included from the preface? "Though very many papers have been published on the subject, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first book in the English language to be devoted to the estimation of the time since death. "As the historical review will indicate, the problem of determining the postmortem interval--" and is that a fancy way of saying how long a person has been dead?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: "--has exercised doctors and scientists for at least a century and a half, yet accuracy still remains beyond our grasp. "This book does not pretend to solve this ancient difficulty, but offers a series of monographs by different authors, which address various aspects of the problem. "Particularly in relation to temperature-based methods, the opinions of different authors will be seen to vary, but this lack of consensus is familiar to all those working in forensic medicine." Part of what you referred to, considered and relied upon, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And further, doctor, did you refer to, consider and rely in part on the following from the general introduction by Dr. Knight? "The importance of estimating the time since death must have been appreciated for centuries, probably millennia. Even in the most unsophisticated societies, when homicides took place, the community would inevitably have correlated the location and movements of the prime suspects with the apparent time of death, however crude that comparison might have been, to test what would later become the Defense of alibi. "Little has changed from those early days, except that their data acquisition equipment was merely the back of a hand to test the coolness of the corpse's skin, and their eyes and nose to evaluate decomposition. We now have multichannel thermometry with thermo-couples sensitive to a fraction of a degree, enzyme methods, vitreous chemistry, muscular reactivity and several other avenues for collecting data. Regrettably, the accuracy of estimating the postmortem interval has by no means kept pace with the enormous strides made in technical sophistication."

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach the bench, your Honor?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, part of what you have read, considered and relied upon?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And further, doctor: "It is not only the Defense of alibi that has such relevance to the estimation of the postmortem interval in criminal deaths. In the earliest stage of many criminal investigations, before any suspect is questioned or charged, a knowledge of the approximate time of death is vital if the investigating officers are to direct their inquiries in the appropriate direction. The relationship of the time of death to other events, to persons in the vicinity and to those who could not have been in the vicinity, will automatically channel investigative efforts along certain lines. When several suspects are being considered, the best estimate of the time of death forms a primary screening procedure to eliminate some putative killers, who could not have had access to the deceased at the material time, and may strengthen suspicion against others whose movements coincided with the estimated time. There is thus a heavy responsibility upon the doctor who offers an opinion as to the probable time of death. If he or she is significantly in error, the investigation may be dislocated at its earliest and perhaps most vulnerable stage. "The onus is therefore upon the doctor to provide a range"--and the word "Range" is italicized. "--of times within which he or she thinks the death occurred, which is as accurate as is justified in the circumstances. Even more importantly, it must not be so unreasonably precise as to exclude incorrectly the true time of death, as this may provide a false alibi for one or more suspects.

"To offer an unreasonably accurate time of death is worse than providing such a wide range of times that the police derive no help from it. In the latter situation, they at least then know that they have to use other methods in their investigation, but to mislead them by some outrageously precise time runs the risk of their excluding the true culprit, as well as falsely implicating an innocent party. "Unfortunately, it is often the least experienced medical witness who tends to offer the most accurate estimate, not having seen enough cases to appreciate the many pitfalls and fallacies in the process. Certainly, with all the methods available up to the present time, the opinion of any doctor who offers a single"--and the word single is italicized. "--time of death, instead of a range or one who includes any fraction of an hour, instead of a whole hour must be viewed with considerable skepticism." Doctor, have you read, considered and relied in part on that information in forming your opinions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you also reviewed chapters from a book that you have previously identified, Spitz' and Fischer's "Medical legal investigation of death, 3rd edition," edited by Dr. Spitz and dated 1993?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Have you also reviewed the materials related to estimation of time of death from another text called "The pathology of homicide" by Lester Adelson, A-D-E-L-S-O-N, dated 1974?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: By the way, are both of these books considered recognized forensic pathology textbooks?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, they are.

MR. KELBERG: Also, doctor, have you reviewed two other books with respect to their chapters dealing with the estimation of the time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: One of which is called "Gradwohl's, G-R-A-D-W-O-H-L'S, Legal Medicine, 3rd Edition," dated I believe it's 1976?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And something called "Modern legal medicine, psychiatry and forensic science" by Curran, c-u-r-r-a-n, and others dated 1980?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And also, doctor, have you reviewed specific individual medical articles concerning the estimation of the range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And in particular, articles going to this issue of the use of stomach contents as a means of estimating the range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, with those preliminaries aside, I have a series of boards that I want to go through with you on this subject of estimation of the range for time of death.

MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, the first board, which is called, "Factors commonly used to estimate range for time of death," I ask to be marked as People's exhibit 366.

THE COURT: 366.

(Peo's 366 for id = board)

MR. KELBERG: And I think Mr. Fairtlough can put that one up on the elmo. I'm not sure--your Honor, I don't know--for the jurors convenience, if we can put it on the elmo and have it as a board. Prefer that?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Fairtlough has broken this one down. So we'll see parts of it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, it might be more convenient for you if you might step down, with the Court's permission, to the board.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is the information conveyed on this exhibit?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This exhibit mainly shows the various factors which are used in the estimation of time of death and the range of time of death, and the physical chemical factors is one, chemical factors is two and other associated factors. In physical chemical factors, one is algor mortis.

MR. KELBERG: What is algor mortis?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is the postmortem cooling of the body. The other way of putting it is loss of warmth of the body.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is algor mortis considered, among all the available techniques medically, the most reliable means of estimating the range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is the most common method used in our office and other jurisdiction in this country.

MR. KELBERG: What's the next entry then?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Rigor mortis, and that is the phenomenon of postmortem stiffening of the muscles which follows a period of primary flaccidity.

MR. KELBERG: What does primary flaccidity mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the muscles are not stiff. They're relaxed. Just after a person dies, if you lift their arms up, it won't be stiff. It will be just flaccid, relaxed, better word to use. And the stiffening process is due to chemical changes which involves the proteins in the muscle fibers. Do you want me to go into detail in each one?

MR. KELBERG: I think we're going to see that when we discuss in specific terms rigor mortis. So perhaps that we'll finish in general terms.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Livor mortis is the draining of blood in--by gravity into the vessels of the dependent parts of the body after the circulation has ceased, that is after your heart has stopped beating, and causes a discoloration in the skin which is not subject to pressure. So in the area where the body is in contact with the ground, you won't have a coloration because the pressure would have pressed on the vessels and so blood cannot accumulate in the vessels.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that a part of what you discussed yesterday in looking at the position of Mr. Goldman's body and some discoloration that you saw in one of the photographs, I believe it was G-5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. If you'll continue.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then we have chemical factors wherein you take some vitreous humor from the eye, estimate the potassium level in the vitreous humor. And the vitreous humor is that part of the eye--it's a substance found in the back of the eye behind your lens and in front of what is called the retina. It's a gel-like substance which is present in everybody, and you remove the material and you send it for analysis for this chemical potassium. And we'll discuss this in detail later. Associated factors, one is the stomach contents. Then of course, the other one is--which is--a factor which is independent verifiable evidence of when the victim was last seen or heard alive.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, that last factor, B, is that in your opinion a medical factor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It's more information, which is not a medical factor, but is a factor which is important. If somebody saw somebody alive and you feel by your--this range, that they were dead already, it doesn't make sense. So you have to use--be intelligent and use all factors which are important, which can be verified--the important thing is, verify the evidence, just not hearsay. That is, you have independent verification that somebody saw and there's evidence for it.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as an example, assuming there's been evidence received concerning a telephone bill showing a conversation between the mother of Nicole Brown Simpson and Miss Brown Simpson at 9:35 in the evening of June 12th, 1994, would that factor narrow your estimated range for time of her death from the 9:00 o'clock to 12:30 or 12:45 that you testified earlier would be the range based upon the medical factors?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would have verified that the mother did speak to Miss Simpson or just the phone bill?

MR. KELBERG: No. Assuming that such a conversation occurred.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If the conversation can be confirmed, then that would be an important factor which would narrow the estimated range which is used, just not the telephone bill.

MR. KELBERG: And assume, for example, that Mr. Goldman was seen at the Mezzaluna restaurant after 9:30 in the evening and he left the restaurant--assume there's been testimony in this case that he left the restaurant approximately 10 minutes to 10:00 that evening and assuming that that is an accurate observation, would that be another factor which would be useful to you in narrowing your range for the time of his death down from 9:00 o'clock to 12:30 to 12:45?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further in general terms about this board, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let me switch to a different board.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, we actually have a series of boards that deal with algor mortis, and let me just get the total number. There are four boards with written information and two graph boards. May they collectively be marked as exhibit 367? And as we go through them, I'll make them A, b and so forth.

THE COURT: A through whatever.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

(Peo's 367 for id = series of boards)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, starting with what I'd ask to be 367-A, algor mortis temperature, what does this board show?

(Peo's 367-A for id = algor mortis temp.)

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This shows the details of this method of estimating the range of time of death.

MR. KELBERG: Let's start at the top. You've defined it I believe; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to item 2. What is this concept "Core temperature"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the inner body temperature in the core of the body. That would be the--you take a temperature of the liver or the rectum or the brain, depending on which organ you use to obtain the temperature. That would be the central part of the body and that will be the--reflect the true temperature of the body because the skin surface does not really reflect the true temperature of the body. That is why when you go to a doctor, they put a thermometer in your mouth and take the temperature of the person.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your office, is there a general procedure or protocol as to the location from which this core temperature will be obtained?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We take in our office the core temperature from the liver. The investigator makes a small incision in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen and then passes this thermometer--this is a liver temperature probe. It's about four and a half inches long and you have this dial which is about one inch in diameter, and the tip of the probe is the temperature sensitive instrumentation which will give a digital readout of the body temperature, which is--at the time this procedure was done and usually the investigator, before doing this, will also take the ambient temperature, that is the temperature of the surrounding--where the body was found to get that temperature first, which is just for placing the thermometer so that you don't touch the tip. As I told you, the tip has the electronic sensitive accruement to read out the temperature. So you keep it free and you get the ambient temperature. And then five minutes later, you do the body temperature and you get the printout--I mean the digital readout of the body temperature. And that is how the core body temperature is obtained in our office, and we have some guidelines for that, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Why has your office selected the liver over any other location in the body?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if you use a rectal temperature, you may interfere in a case where you need to collect sexual assault. It may interfere with the collection process because you want to take this temperature as soon as the Coroner's office gets to see a decedent because we want to get the temperature as soon as possible so that we have an idea to give a better estimated range because in estimated range of time of death, the further the time is away, the estimated range also gets wider. The brain is not used because you have to do an intrusive procedure which is not feasible. So in our office, we use a liver temperature, which is an easier procedure, can be done by all our investigators, and we have some guidelines when they should do it. Basically we do it in all our unwitnessed deaths and homicide cases or there are several deaths in one scene to see--especially if it's the whole family who died, who died first, it helps sometimes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I'm--please finish. I'm sorry.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have guidelines, we have procedures when it should be done.

MR. KELBERG: Is there any reason beyond interference with possible sexual assault evidence why you do not use the rectum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The other reason is, you need to have the temperature--thermometer probe at least 10 sonometers in the--in the--into the rectum so that you have an accurate reflection of the core body temperature. So that is again a situation where you have to--it's more like a medical procedure to put a probe into the anal-rectal area, and this is a much simpler procedure wherein you just have to put a probe in the liver which is right below the right coastal margin of the chest wall.

MR. KELBERG: If you are using the rectum as the source for core temperature and you don't insert it properly, will the temperature you obtain be one which you can reliably use in formulating an estimated range for the time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, because you'll get a particular number which may not really reflect the core body temperature, and naturally this will throw--throw off your estimated range.

MR. KELBERG: How difficult is it to hit the target, for lack of a better term, where the target is the liver?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's much less chance that you will miss the target. The liver is a huge organ sitting on the right side of the upper abdomen, and the probe will strike the liver because our investigators are trained to do that.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I don't know where you wish to break. I have a chart I was going to put on the elmo now.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the lunch hour at this time. Please remember all my admonitions; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we'll resume testimony at 1:00 o'clock. All right. We're in recess.

(At 12:00 P.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 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. The Defendant is again present with his counsel. The People are represented. The jury is not present. Counsel, is there anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to join us?

MR. KELBERG: Not from the People, your Honor.

MR. SHAPIRO: No, your Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: 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. Doctor.

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, we were talking about how core temperature is measured and you have told us about the liver and the rectum and you mentioned the brain. From your own experience and review of any literature do you have an opinion as to whether the core temperature from each of those sources is identical?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, the brain--

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, no, you have no opinion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have an opinion.

MR. KELBERG: What is that opinion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The brain temperature would reflect the core temperature the best, and the degrees would correspond better with the postmortem--as a postmortem interval progresses. The rectum would be the next in line and liver is compatible to the rectal temperatures.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the brain is the best?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, is better than the other two because it reflects more of the core temperature.

MR. KELBERG: Is there a--well, actually let me ask Mr. Fairtlough to put a graph on the board. This is from page 30 of Henssge's text. Ask if this is material that you referred to, considered and relied upon in part in forming opinions regarding the estimation of the range for time of death? And if Mr. Fairtlough could just pull it back just a little so that we can see the bottom of the graph as well. Little more. Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough. Doctor, what does this graph represent?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This shows the temperature drop in relationship to postmortem interval and you see the graph for each area being used to see the drop in temperature. The no. 3 refers to the rectal temperature which is between the liver temperature which is no. 4, and brain temperature is no. 5.

MR. KELBERG: I'm going to ask if Mr. Fairtlough can--he has got the arrow.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there is a legend that Mr. Fairtlough is pointing to which has a number corresponding to the source for any particular temperature reading; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And then we have three different and distinct lines to represent the relationship between the time in hours following death and the temperature as measured; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In looking at the diagram, doctor, the uppermost line is from which source?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The liver.

MR. KELBERG: And I don't know if Mr. Fairtlough can perhaps put a big "L" or something associated with that line.

MR. KELBERG: And the middle line corresponds to what source, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The rectal.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough didn't like his initial "L." And could we put an "R," Mr. Fairtlough, in some form.

MR. KELBERG: And then the bottom one, doctor, refers to what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The brain temperature, brain.

MR. KELBERG: Could Mr. Fairtlough put a "B." And your Honor, I will ask when this is printed out, if we could, please, to have this marked as exhibit 367-B, as in boy.

THE COURT: People's 367.

(Peo's 367-B for id = computer image)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from this photograph does it appear that the actual temperature recorded in relationship to the time since death differs depending upon the source used?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does this difference between rectal, liver and brain as the source affect how precise one can be, given that you are using one source, the liver, rather than all three sources?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is one of the main problems in this kind of estimation of time range since death, because your variability in what kind of method you used to gauge the body temperature.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, are you done with the book?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, going on in this first chart, you've got the--you've got the probe identified and I think you have already told us that is the type of instrument used.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact is this a photograph, two photographs of the actual probe and dial that were used--that was used with respect to the liver temperatures of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to item 3, talking about how range for time of death is calculated based on the measurement of core temperature. Before we get to what is described as "Assumptions required to apply formula," are there various approaches mathematically that are used to use temperature as a basis to estimate a range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What are those approaches, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically in--in the past there has been a formula which has been used by Moritz, I think, where they used to take the time interval between death and the temperature which is obtained. And let's say that the temperature you obtained is for assumption 80, and you assumed the normal body temperature to be 98, you have an 18-degree difference. They used to divide it by 1.5 and you have a one and a half degree drop per hour after death and--but this formula didn't take into account the plateau phase that you have after death wherein the temperature really doesn't drop soon after death. This is a period, depending on where the temperature is taken from, you may or may not have a period of time when the temperature may not drop, so there is that variable fact to which doesn't--this formula doesn't take into account. There is one other formula which has been used in the past, and there have also been other formulas which have been used, but this other group of people, Marshall and Hoare, they have a chart wherein you can use that chart to estimate the range, so there are different formulas which can be used. I alluded to one particular nomogram earlier of Henssge which he has taken some of the variable factors, factored it in in the graph to estimate, so bottom line is it is still a statement of range. It doesn't give you a precise estimate of the data.

MR. KELBERG: For the benefit of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the reporter, I don't believe we picked up, at least I didn't, the name that you associated with the first formula?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Moritz, m-o-r-I-t-z.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, doctor. Now, doctor, the formula you described of roughly 1.5 degrees per hour, is that a formula that in your opinion yields a precise period for the postmortem interval to the time when the temperature was measured?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It is just an estimated range. So let's take the example I gave you, 98.6, 1.5 degrees an hour, and let's assume that the temperature you take when you see the remains to be--at that time to be 80 degrees. You are talking about 18 degrees and you divide it by 1.5, you are talking about roughly for twelve hours, and so you cannot assume--let's say the 80 degree temperature was taken at 1:00 P.M. in the afternoon. You cannot tell that the person died at 1:00 A.M. using that formula, because of the variable factors, one of them being the plateau phase, and no. 2, the postmortem drop in temperature doesn't occur at a constant rate, because there is variability to the drop in temperature itself and the formula you use assumes that the postmortem temperature is going to drop at a constant rate and it doesn't happen that way, because you have environmental factors which can play a role, like wind and where the body is. The clothing on the body can play a role. There are a number of variable--variables in the environment, on the body itself, clothed or not clothed, where the body is in contact, also the preexisting disease process in the body. There are so many variables in this so you really can't use this mathematical formula to say this is the time of death. There is going to be variability in the time you get. And you are to couch your opinion keeping these variable factors in mind and always give an estimated range, because you can't be precise in estimating a time.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in this section, "Assumptions required to apply formula," does each of the forumlas you've described make an assumption as to what the actual core temperature was of the decedent at the moment of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. What we do is usually everybody thinks everybody has got a normal temperature, 98.6, and as I just gave you in my example, that may not be the case, so the first assumption which may be wrong is that assumption that the body temperature was 98.6 when the person died, and that may be the first assumption which would be wrong.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you are not physically with the decedent at the exact moment of death and at the exact moment of death take the decedent's core temperature, is there any medical way of which you are aware that the actual core temperature at time of death can be determined?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Does that assumption limit the preciseness with which one can estimate a range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How so?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because even in a normal person you can have variability in the temperature. You may have a higher temperature in the afternoon than in the morning and that variation is .5 degrees just in an individual variation. And also the normal temperature for different populations. If you take a population of persons, you have a variability in--in the temperature. If you take about a hundred people and you measure their body temperature, of course excluding the individual variability, you will see variability in the normal body temperature. What is one person's body temperature may be 37, another person's may be 36.5 and there is a variation which is known in the population also.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have been using numbers some of which are 98.6 and others which you have just said like are 37.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have to clarify that.

MR. KELBERG: Would you please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 98.6 I'm using the temperature when you use Fahrenheit which is one method of determining temperature, and the other one is 37 degrees, I use for centigrade which is the other method of measuring temperature.

MR. KELBERG: Centigrade; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is there a standard formula that is used to convert temperature that is expressed in Fahrenheit to centigrade and visa versa?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact in going through these materials have you attempted to identify temperatures by both centigrade and Fahrenheit?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In the book, this book by Henssge and the others, is it primarily referring to centigrade readings?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is that the standard temperature scale used in Europe?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your own experience have you found that people have different normal temperatures?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: That is, if you took my temperature and your temperature and temperatures from other people, that we would not necessarily, even if we were all healthy and this was our normal temperature, we would not necessarily have the same temperature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How does that occur? What can cause different people to have such differences?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that could be their normal body temperature and also the time you take it, you could be taking it at a time when they have their individual variability in temperature. As I said, that in a normal day you may have variability in your temperature. Mornings are usually lower than afternoons and then also certain times of the month, especially in the female population, you have temperature rise during the menstrual period, so depending on which phase of the month or what day and even time, you can have variability between persons. I just gave you some examples.

MR. KELBERG: Is this based on your own experience?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and also reading the literature on this.

MR. KELBERG: Let me invite your attention and ask if this is part of what you read, considered and relied in part on in forming your opinions from page 10 of the Henssge book under "Body temperature at the time of death." "It is very difficult to specify a normal body temperature as this value can vary considerably between individuals. Rectal temperatures in a group of healthy subjects can vary between 34.2 and 37.6 degrees centigrade with a mean of 36.9 degrees centigrade." Doctor, are you familiar with the term, "Mean," m-e-a-n, as it is used in this sentence?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What does that mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That will be the average temperature if you--if you take the hundred people and you take a temperature and you do a standard deviation graph, it will be the mean which you get for the hundred people, the average, average temperature.

MR. KELBERG: Let me continue: "Rectal temperature is often referred to as `deep central temperature' similar in value to that of the brain, heart, lungs and abdominal organs." Is that part of what you read, considered and relied upon?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is the liver considered an abdominal organ?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Continuing on: "Many factors influence body temperature. Most individuals show a diurnal rhythm in witch the body temperature fluctuates plus or minus .5 degrees centigrade around the person's normal mean temperature. These cyclic patterns persist regardless of activity or disease states." Again part of what you read, considered and relied upon?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and I already discussed it.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is the effect, if any, on the preciseness of being able to estimate a time of death based on temperature if you cannot know in fact what the person's normal temperature is and if you cannot know in fact where within a range, due to the diurnal cycle, the person's temperature is on a particular day?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you are relying on a particular temperature and you do not know these other variable factors, naturally your estimation would be off by a couple of hours, so naturally your estimated range may not be accurate because the data you are using is not accurate.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board and I just lost--could I ask Mr. Fairtlough to help me out for one moment?

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: I'm going to move this easel up, if we can get the other easel out.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, I have a board entitled "Some limitations to the preciseness of estimating postmortem interval, PMI, from body temperature measurements." May this be marked as exhibit 367-C.

THE COURT: 367-C.

(Peo's 367-C for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: And a second board "Relationship between postmortem interval, PMI, and body cooling" as D.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 367-D for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. And thank you, Mr. Fairtlough.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me put up this board C, and again with the Court's permission ask you to step down. Doctor, if you could use the pointer for just a second so I can show you what area I want to have you discuss. There appears to be an area here marked 99.7 degrees Fahrenheit, 37.6 degrees centigrade and an area down below 93.6 degrees Fahrenheit, 34.2 degrees centigrade, and there appears to be a lighter blue rectangle that is covering the distance between those two indicated areas. Do you see that?

THE COURT: Excuse me. No. 165, can you see the chart?

JUROR NO. 165: Up above I can.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is represented by that lighter blue area in this chart 367-C?

THE COURT: 367-C?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It basically represents the range of values for normal core temperature in living human beings as found in the literature which we just discussed. This is a chapter by Nokes on a study where he has done and found this variability in several people. He measured the core body temperature and they range from 34.2 centigrade to 37.6 centigrade. The range is pretty wide. I think the variability in my experience is more within a degree of 98.6 either way if you take the average normal population.

MR. KELBERG: Average normal temperature in your experience is one degree Fahrenheit either way of 98.6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And so that would have a range between 99.6 and 97.6 degrees Fahrenheit, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, just employing the 1.5 degree per hour cooling rate that you indicated with that initial formula, what does the difference between having a 99.6 normal temperature have versus having a 97.6 temperature have?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because let's take the same example I gave, 80, let's say the liver temperature you take is 80. If you had 99.7 as the real core temperature, the drop of temperature is 20 degrees and you decide by 1.5, just take the rough formula, you get the number of 13 hours. But let's take the 97.5, take the same example of 80 degrees and you divide by 1.5, I'm just giving the rough example we discussed, and you divide by 1.5, you come to a number of hours as 11 and a half. And just in the simple example you see there is a one and a half degree variation in your estimation and again that is not a precise time of death, but there is a difference in the calculation just using the simple formula we just used.

MR. KELBERG: I think you may have misspoken. Did you say one and a half degrees and intend to say one and half hours?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: One and a half degrees. I meant one and a half degrees an hour.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Is the difference, though, between the example you gave of 80 with 99, roughly, 6, and 80 degrees and 97.6, a difference when you get between 13 hours and 11 and a half hours?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: One and a half hours.

MR. KELBERG: One and a half hours?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. If you could just--is it in fact correct medically to say that a person may not have in fact what is a normal core temperature due to illness or any other factors at the time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is another factor one must keep in mind, because if somebody has preexisting diseases, like thyroid disease or hyperthyroidism, they may have a higher temperature than what is normally expected or they have an infection, they have a fever from a flu, the temperature would be higher. So when you make an assumption that somebody had a normal temperature and when you find the body has already cooled off, that variable factor you may not be able to speculate unless you have obvious pneumonia or meningitis at autopsy.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Unless you have some obvious infection even at autopsy, like pneumonia or meningitis.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you. Doctor, let me put up this next board, 367-D. Let me just put it up here for the moment and ask if in general terms you are familiar with what is shown in this?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let's start with the blue dash line and there appears to be a legend indicating that this is a rectilinear curve. Is that what that is?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This graph assumes that the temperature drops at a constant rate after somebody dies and this is--this photograph would represent the rough formula which I just alluded to earlier.

MR. KELBERG: The one and a half hour drop?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and that doesn't happen that way.

MR. KELBERG: I misspoke. A one and a half degree drop per hour. What is represented here, if any, which accurately at least in a qualitative sense represents the reality of the drop in temperature in relationship to the time since death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The red graph, the red line, which is more like a sigmoidal curve, would represent the real correct type of temperature drop which you would normally see, because after death you have a phase when the temperature may not drop because of heat produced by dying tissues or intestinal bacteria and the temperature may even go up after death sometimes. But then the temperature doesn't drop at a constant rate, as is reflected in the blue line, but rather it is a slow process depending on the various other factors which affect the temperature drop which we will be discussing.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there is a yellow line with arrows on this graph. What does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That refers to a period after death wherein really the temperature has not dropped and this is called the plateau phase which is due to this postmortem--could be from heat production. And also really, you touch the skin surface, you will find the skin surface is cooler than the core body temperature, so it takes time for the inner body temperature to equilibrium with the skin temperature before the temperature starts dropping. So there are a number of reasons for this plateau phase, but one of them is alluded to, postmortem heat production.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, both from your review of the literature and in your own experience, is there any way to determine with reasonable medical certainty whether, A, there will be a plateau stage?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, we cannot determine it because the plateau phase can be anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours and you cannot really estimate how long a plateau phase lasts in a particular person.

MR. KELBERG: That was my second question. If you get out to a scene and you find a body and a probe shows a core temperature of 98.6--which you have indicated is the assumed normal core temperature at the time of death, correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you assume that to be the normal core temperature.

MR. KELBERG: And the formulas make that assumption, do they not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, they do.

MR. KELBERG: If that is the situation, doctor, can you tell how long that temperature has been at that level on a plateau?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You cannot tell, but using general experience, plateau usually lasts anywhere from two to four hours depending, but you cannot be specific.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, what is the effect, if you cannot tell whether you have a plateau that is only a stage lasting a few minutes, as you indicated in your earlier answer, or goes two to four hours? What is that variability's impact on your ability to be precise with respect to the estimation of the range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is obvious that you cannot be precise from what we just discussed, because you have the same temperature for two to three hours, and how could you use it to estimate a time to be precise in those three hours? You can't.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me invite your attention back, if I could, to the 367-C and let me borrow the pointer for one moment. Assuming, hypothetically, you have a deceased individual and at the time the Coroner's investigator takes a core temperature reading the core temperature reading is 98.6 and assuming further that this person has experienced a temperature plateau, as you have already testified, is there any way medically that you would be able to tell where along this yellow line of the plateau stage you are actually at when you drop down to try to evaluate how long it has been since time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I won't be able to.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, let me ask you now to assume in a different situation that you have an individual and the investigator takes a core temperature reading of 97.5 degrees Fahrenheit. First of all, doctor, is that within the range of your own experience as to variable difference from what is the expected, normal temperature of 98.6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Assuming that you have such a temperature reading, doctor, is there any way you can tell, and assuming further that that is the person's actual core temperature at time of death--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.

MR. KELBERG: --just assuming, is there any way you can tell, with respect to that individual, where along that person's plateau stage you are at?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't make that estimation--

MR. KELBERG: Now--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: --because--

MR. KELBERG: Go ahead.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the same explanation that I gave for the 98.6.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, would it be correct to expect that if a person had a 97.5 degree normal core temperature at time of death, that that person's cooling curve will appear different than the cooling curve for a person who had a 98.6 degree Fahrenheit temperature that was the normal core temperature at time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, they would have.

MR. KELBERG: And is that represented in this graph by two different red lines?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, assuming hypothetically you have a person who is found dead and the Coroner's investigator takes a core temperature reading of 97.5, is there any way that you as a forensic pathologist can tell whether that reading of 97.5 represents the person's actual normal core body temperature somewhere along the plateau or rather represents that the person had a higher temperature at time of death, but that the body has cooled from, for example, 98.6 to 97.5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't tell the difference, and the problem is, if you assume the former, you are going to give a longer estimate as a range between the time--range for the time of death. And if it is really the latter, you are giving an incorrect answer.

MR. KELBERG: Well, let's start with the assumption that it could be the person's normal core body temperature, actual core temperature at time of death, 97.5. If you obtained that temperature reading by your investigator, where along that person's cooling curve could you possibly be in terms of how long since the person died?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would be in the green zone.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if you assume it was the person's body temperature at the time the investigator took the core temperature, but that in fact the person's actual core temperature at time of death was this assumed normal 98.6, where would you be on that person's cooling curve?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would be in this dotted line area, (indicating), so the time of death estimate makes it actually longer.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is there any way medically that you can--let me withdraw the question and ask it preliminarily this way: Would it be accurate to say, doctor, that the distance in time of hours from this axis point where the vertical and horizontal axes met to the dotted line--

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, I don't think the jurors at the end of the box can see what you are pointing at there.

MR. KELBERG: No, Mr. Fairtlough, we are--you had the right chart the first time. Let me--

THE COURT: You are going to have to raise that chart up.

MR. KELBERG: How about I bring the chart over here and perhaps with the elmo the jurors will be able to see it more clearly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: May I move the podium, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if I could ask you to come over here--actually I think--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is what I thought.

MR. KELBERG: --it would work better if you stand on that side and I will try and stand on this side. Again, what I was starting to ask you is would it be accurate to say that in the situation where we are assuming the 97.5 degree reading actually reflects a cooling of the person's body from the reading at time of death of 98.6, that the time in hours since the time of death is going to be longer as represented from the distance where the two axes meet to where the dotted line is, then the time in terms of hours from time of death, if in fact this temperature that is obtained of 97.5, was the person's actual body temperature at time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, medically, is there any way that you can tell whether you are--at this point where I'm pointing there is an intersection of the vertical dash line and the horizontal solid line--that is the time since death or you are at this point where the end of the green box applies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't tell medically at which point it is.

MR. KELBERG: And would it also be the case that you cannot tell whether you are at the point where the dotted vertical line meets the horizontal axis for time since death and any point between the origin of this graph where the vertical and horizontal solid lines meet and where the end of the green vertical box is?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also correct.

MR. KELBERG: If that temperature of 97.5 was truly the person's core temperature at time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how does this situation affect your ability to be precise with respect to the estimated range of time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the reason I said from the beginning, it is an imprecise science and you can only give an estimated range, because if I use the assumption that the normal body temperature is 98.6, I'm going to estimate more number of hours since death. And if the true picture is actually that the temperature was 97.5 and I was seeing it at this point in the plateau phase, that means the hours since death was after shorter time frame than what I estimated when I made this original assumption which we all make usually that the body temperature is always 98.6.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Plus also you are to keep in mind--the plateau phase always in mind, which is a variable fact to which you cannot pinpoint saying that it is going to be two hours all the time or a few minutes all the time or three hours all the time.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if we assume further, based on your own experience and Dr. Nokes' literature citation, that a normal core temperature can actually and above 98.6, and for example as you said, as much as a degree above, 99.6, how would that affect the difference, if the person's true normal core temperature at time of death was 99.6, the reading obtained by your investigator is 97.5, where is this horizontal line going to intersect with the cooling curve for the person with that higher normal temperature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: For this I will draw an imaginary cooling curve. The cooling curve will come like this, something like this, and it will be somewhere here, (indicating), which is in the same area, but you also have a longer estimated time interval estimated since death.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, would that create a wider window, if you will, within which you cannot with preciseness pinpoint the actual time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: If you would like to retake the stand and I can take this board down.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: (witness complies.)

MR. KELBERG: Let me just take this one down so we can see if there is any additional information that we need to cover.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, these sub-parts of 3B, basically this is what you've already told us about?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Your Honor, I have another board entitled "Algor mortis continued." May this be marked as 367-E?

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 367-E for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: And basically, doctor, have we covered 3C?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we have.

MR. KELBERG: And d?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have covered--we have covered 1 and 2 and 3, I briefly covered it, but we could go over it.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Before we go over that, I want to also ask you if in your review of the literature this was included in the material you read, considered and relied at least in part on in forming opinions about the inability to determine the actual normal core temperature from page 74 of Dr. Knight's forensic pathology book affecting the cooling curve initial body temperature. "This cannot be assumed to be 37 degrees centigrade and in fact is incapable of being measured in retrospect." "Retrospect" meaning going back to the time of death; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, improper foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Continuing on. "Not only is there a difference between the rectal, liver, brain axillary"--what is axillary, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Axillary" is the armpit temperature.

THE COURT: Counsel, let me see you at side bar.

MR. KELBERG: With the reporter, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. May I continue?

THE COURT: With alacrity.

MR. KELBERG: I will, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: You have already defined what an axillary is, doctor. "Mouth and skin temperature in the living person, but the absolute values vary from person-to-person and from time to time even in health."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: That was part of what you read, considered and relied upon in part?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, what do you want to tell us about the factors which may affect the plateau?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Position of the body. If you take a temperature from the skin you are going to have a difference than when you take it from the rectal area.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The difference where you take the measurement, and environmental temperature is if the outside temperature is very cold and there is also wind factor, you are going to cool the body much faster than if it is just in a stationary average temperature conditions. It depends on the clothing, what the person was wearing. Somebody is wearing heavy clothing, they are going to cool slower than a person who is nude. And size of the body, the larger body takes a longer time to cool than the smaller body.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board in this series as 367-F, I believe.

(Peo's 367-F for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have we basically done what is on this board with respect to the graph that we had out earlier?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we have.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. Does this accurately summarize, if you will, what we have just been describing with that graph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And I have another board, your Honor. May this be marked as 367-G?

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 367-G for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, again, sub-part 3(D)1, have we covered this area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we have. That was the third graph I drew--

MR. KELBERG: Imaginary graph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: With the higher temperature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. Now, dropping down to sub-part 3(E), what is this information intended to convey?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Some of the factors I mentioned in the first photograph which affect the plateau phase also affect the temperature loss. One of them is the weight and the surface weight ratio. Children cool faster than adults. The posture of the body, if you are in a fetal position, you cool slower than a person who is in a spread-eagle type of position. Like somebody whose arms are spread out and legs spread out would cool--would cool faster than a person who is in a fetal position.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, could you keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In a fetal position, I said.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you remember the photograph showing the position of Nicole Brown Simpson's body at the time it was found on the sidewalk--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: --the walkway, I should say, of the Bundy location?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How would you describe that position?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: She was on her left side with the hips flexed a little bit and her knees flexed. She was, I would say--not in a semi--slightly bent position than what is meant by somebody lying just flat on their back.

MR. KELBERG: And does that position then have an affect, as you have described this area, on how the rate of cooling will occur?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: To a certain extent, yes. But it is not as if she was lying--she was not in a fetal position, per say, but she also had just a thin dress and panty on and that will also have an affect.

MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, doctor, is there any scientific formula that tells you, if you have this specific position for the body, then the cooling is affected in the following manner, versus another specific position, or are these all just relative terms that can impact the ultimate determination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are just relative terms. There is no scientific calculation for this. Then the lack of clothing or presence of clothing, what type of clothing, all will have an affect on the cooling. Obesity, which is--is the--this would have an affect and obese people cool slower. Emaciation is a term used for people who are malnourished and who are very thin, they could cool faster. Edema is water accumulation in the body, either from disease or--and that would have a factor in the rate of cooling. And environment temperature is whether the outside temperature is freezing temperature or warm temperature. Suppose the body is found in a very hot summer type environment, the body will not cool as quickly as it normally does in an environment where the temperature is lower, because after all, the cooling depends on the difference between the body temperature and the outside temperature.

MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, doctor--I'm sorry, are you--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah.

MR. KELBERG: I was going to ask you, doctor, are you able to determine, under circumstances where a body may have been--a person may have been killed at a particular time but the body is not found for record, let's say, two hours, are you able to determine whether there has been a change in temperature so that even if you take a temperature reading of the environment, the ambient temperature at the time the body is found, it may not reflect accurately what the environment temperature has been during that two-hour period?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, because you can have a temperature drop of five degrees in those two hours, and when you take the temperature, the environmental temperature could be 70 degrees but actually at the time of death the environmental temperature could be 80 and that will make a difference, too.

MR. KELBERG: All right. What else, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Of course I've already discussed wind factor and also hypothermia is the body temperature being lower than normal, and that would be like somebody's temperature being 94.5 or 95 degrees Fahrenheit, and so if the lower body temperature, you had a lower body temperature to start with, that will also affect the rate of cooling.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any way, again hypothetically, a person is killed at a particular time, two hours later the body is found, is there any way to determine what the wind was, whether there was wind, what the velocity of the wind was, the direction of the wind during that entire two-hour period?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No way to find out, but if it is in an urban area like Los Angeles, you could call the meteorological department and get some idea about the environmental conditions, but it may not necessarily reflect the environment conditions at the place of death. They would give you the environmental conditions for the general area.

MR. KELBERG: For example, doctor, in your own experience as a forensic pathologist have you found that a location where a body is going to be investigated by someone like Ms. Ratcliffe, some areas are windier, draftier than other areas, even though they are basically located very close to each other?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: And does that also affect the preciseness with which one can estimate time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else on this chart, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, while I'm going to change charts, I do have a series of certified documents from the U.S. Department of Commerce dealing with weather observations from Santa Monica, California, and some other locations that are not relevant to this case, but they included it all in one package. They are for the date of June 12, 1994, and June 13th, 1994. May this collectively be marked as People's exhibit 367-H, H as in Henry, and I have shown counsel what these are?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

THE COURT: People's 367-H.

MR. SHAPIRO: We have no objection.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 367-H for id = weather records)

THE COURT: This has the Santa Monica airport reading?

MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, let me put up another board that I would ask, your Honor, to be marked as 367-I, "Algor mortis continued." And for reference, this starts with "F. Henssge's nomogram."

(Peo's 367-I for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: And while I am marking things, your Honor, I also have two other charts; one bears a temperature time of death relating nomogram for ambient temperatures up to 23 degrees centigrade. May that be marked as 367-J?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 367-J for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: And a similar looking document--

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm sorry, may we interpose an objection for the underlining on the chart?

THE COURT: The underlining on the chart.

MR. KELBERG: I think this was part of what we had discussed earlier, your Honor.

THE COURT: Correct. It is noted and it is overruled.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: And another chart, your Honor, is a similar-looking chart except the title is "Temperature time of death relating nomogram for ambient temperature above 23 degrees centigrade."

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: As K, I believe.

THE COURT: K.

(Peo's 367-K for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, what is Henssge's nomogram? What is that all about?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically Henssge developed this chart using mathematical calculations. Just going to briefly discuss it. Developed this chart based on mathematical calculations taking into consideration variability such as the environmental factors, the--also the body weight, clothing, where the body is found, et cetera, and developed a nomogram which pathologists could use if rectal temperatures are obtained. And using the rectal temperature you obtained at a particular time, and also of course the other variables which we discussed, some factoring in has taken place when this nomogram has developed, what it does is it gives you a graph which pathologists could use to get an estimated range.

And even using this, he has developed two graphs. One is for one below 23 degrees centigrade for which he has had experience, but for the graph which he used for the temperature above 23 degrees centigrade, which was discussed earlier, he used the data from some studies done in Sri Lanka by Desaram, D-E-S-A-R-A-M, wherein the ambient temperature is much higher in Sri Lanka than where Henssge did his studies. But what this graph does is if you have a particular temperature of a person, if you know the weight, if you know their--what other--whether they are wearing clothing, what type of clothing, et cetera, using the graph, you will be able to give an estimated range. If you also know the ambient temperature, the average ambient temperature--and he found that even using the graph with all the data, he found that the 95 percent conference level had a variation of three hours plus or minus of the estimate you give for a particular weight, so this graph you can use for different weights. And you have two graphs; one for where the temperature is above 23 and one below 23. Still the minimum--the minimum variation when you estimate was up to three hours.

MR. KELBERG: And according to--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 2.8 hours, which is three.

MR. KELBERG: All right. And "Plus or minus" means what, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Let's say you estimate it is from the graph, you get a number of 14 hours and you are to add plus or minus 2.8 hours to that 14 hours. Let me put it in perspective. Let's say that the rectal temperature, which this graph is mainly meant for, not for liver temperature, the rectal temperature is a number, let's say, 85 or 86. Then using the graph you find that the time interval since death is ten hours, let's assume, but still the range is plus or minus 2.8 hours, and let's assume that you took the rectal temperature at two o'clock in the afternoon. By calculation you know it is ten hours since the time you took the rectal temperature, plus or minus 2.8 hours, which would put it at 2:00 A.M. that morning, plus or minus 2.8 hours, which would really be an estimated time of death between 11:20 the previous evening all the way to 4:40 the next morning, if you use this formula.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, just so we will have both identified, the first one that I marked as I, I believe, 367-I, the one up to 23 degrees centigrade, 23 degrees centigrade, doctor, have you computed that into Fahrenheit temperature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can. I have not done it at this time, but I can convert it.

MR. KELBERG: All right. If I ask you to assume, and I could ask the Court to take judicial notice, I believe, that it is approximately 74 degrees Fahrenheit, 73 point--Mr. Lynch with his calculator is rapidly printing out the information.

MR. LYNCH: 73.4.

MR. KELBERG: 73.4. Could I ask the Court to take judicial notice of that?

MR. SHAPIRO: We will stipulate to that.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, if 73.4 is 23 degrees centigrade and I want you to assume, based on Ms. Ratcliffe's ambient temperature reading at ten o'clock, 10:30, actually 10:40 in the morning, that the temperature at the Bundy location was 70 degrees, and further, I want you to assume, if I can find my paperwork again, from our exhibit from the weather bureau, that the recorded temperature, the last recorded temperature they have for June 12th, actually into the morning hours of June 13th, is 63 degrees, and the first recorded temperature they have following that for June the 13th at 1:46 in the afternoon is 64 degrees, doctor, given that hypothetical set of circumstances, would this be the nomogram to use, that is, the ambient temperature is below 73.4 during the entire period?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, again, what is the narrowest range that this nomogram provides using temperature as a basis for estimating time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 2.8 hours, plus or minus.

MR. KELBERG: And if you were out with Officer Riske at 12:13 in the morning and you took a rectal temperature and employed Dr. Henssge's nomogram, what is the narrowest range that you could give based upon this formulation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Plus or minus 2.8 hours.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, to your understanding is this the most sophisticated mathematical approach to an attempt to take into account all of the various factors that you have been talking about in estimating time of death based upon temperature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And just I think you've identified it, but just so we will have it for the record, the other nomogram is for temperatures above 23 degrees; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And under that circumstance, doctor, what is the narrowest range that is provided for a temperature determination for range of death, time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same, plus or minus 2.8 hours.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, on the board that was up before we went to the nomograms, there is a quotation from Dr. Knight's book that he edited, Simpson's 10th edition?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again is that something that you've read, considered and in part relied upon?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do you agree with that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: Do you agree that it is impossible to back calculate with any accuracy to the time of death taking into account the many variables using temperature estimations?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do you also agree that temperature estimations provide the best means of estimating the postmortem interval?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: To give an estimated range, yes.

MR. KELBERG: And do you also agree that both doctors, such as yourself, and the police, must be aware of the large errors involved, especially when using such estimates for important forensic purposes, such as breaking the alibi of a suspect in a criminal death?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, improper question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you relied in part on that observation in formulating range rather than a specific period for the time of death of these two individuals?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further, doctor, on temperature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board. May this be marked as 368-A. Entitled "Rigor mortis body stiffening."

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 368-A for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think earlier today you told us a bit about what rigor mortis is; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And have you reviewed various literature, as well as your own experience, in forming opinions, if you have any, on how long it takes for that particular observation to be seen?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The--if you--if I use all the information I have gained from the literature and my own experience, normally rigor mortis usually develops in all the muscles at the same time, but you best perceive it in the facial muscles and usually you start developing rigor in about three to four hours after death. It starts to be fully developed in about nine to--nine to twelve hours, and it persists anywhere from 24 to 36 hours until it passes away when decomposition sets in. This is just an average based on all the review of the differences in the literature as to when it starts, how long it lasts and when it disappears. And rigor mortis itself is due to the stiffening of the muscles due to enzymatic changes in the muscle due to a decrease in certain enzymes called ATP. What happens is the muscle proteins, which are mainly actin and myosin, bind to form a gel-like binding which results in the rigidity, so there is a variability described in different books. There is a legend for this--each box where this range is given from.

MR. KELBERG: Let me get that legend, doctor, so we can identify your sources. Your Honor, I have another board called "Rigor mortis continued" and Mr. Lynch is going to set up an easel. May this be marked as 368-B.

THE COURT: 368-B.

(Peo's 368-B for id = chart)

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The legend is self-explanatory. It refers to--a corresponds to the book, Claus Henssge's book, and G corresponds to Warner Spitz' book. We reviewed this literature just to show that each book gives a different time range for starting of the--or rather when rigor mortis is detectable. They give a range for when the rigor mortis becomes complete and you have one other board I think which shows--

MR. KELBERG: I'm going to get to that in a moment, but I wanted to ask a few questions before we move to the next board. First of all, doctor, is there a difference between physiologically the body starting this process that is called rigor mortis and the time when it can be detected by someone such as a Claudine Ratcliffe?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Umm--

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as a forensic pathologist do you have an opinion as to when the body starts the process that is described as rigor mortis?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. The body starts the process after death, but you start detecting it when this enzyme I told you, ATP, goes down to 85 percent of the normal, and it is fully detected when it goes to 15 percent normal, but of course this is research material, so even though it starts soon after death, you can detect it by feeling the muscles. Initially I told you the muscles are relaxed. You start feeling to be stiff. That is, you will find that if your arm is in a flexed position, if you try to extend it, you will see that there will be resistance to extend the arm, but whereas if you examine the body soon after death, you will be able to move the arm easily and that is the relaxed flaccid situation. So detectability is when you can perceive the process, whereas development of the process starts after death.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you testified that it starts in all muscles of the body, is that accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, both voluntary and involuntary muscles of the body.

MR. KELBERG: However, is it detectable in certain kind of muscles before it is detectable in other kind of muscles?

MR. SHAPIRO: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can detect it easier in the jaw muscles and facial muscles earlier than the other muscles, and then you can see it in the limb muscles next.

MR. KELBERG: Limb?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Limb means the upper extremities and lower extremities.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where is that the case that you can first see it in the jaw and other muscles before--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because these are smaller muscles and you can see the jaws--lockjaw, and it is easier, and the larger muscles take time--more time to detect.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what significance, if any, does it have to you, from this review of the literature, that there is a range provided that differs from literature to literature on the ability of a forensic pathologist to use rigor mortis to precisely determine the time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The problem with this method is one, the--the range in the development, and no. 2, once it is developed--let's assume it is fully developed when you see the person. You can't tell--you can say that probably developed in twelve hours, but you can't tell until it passes away what time frame you are seeing the body in. For example, somebody dies at--let's assume that it develops fully in twelve hours and somebody dies at 1:00 A.M. in the morning and you see the body at 2:00 P.M. that afternoon and rigor is fully developed, and let's assume that you don't see him at 1:00 P.M. but you see him at 8:00 P.M. and you just see rigor mortis, the rigor mortis which is fully developed will be fully developed at 8:00 P.M. and have the same appearance as when it was fully developed at 8:00 P.M. and you won't be able to tell what time it really was. All you can see that at 8:00 people else dead at least more than twelve hours but you can't tell exactly when he died.

MR. KELBERG: Does the body, at some point after death, return to a condition which for all intents and purposes would appear to be the identical condition exactly at the time of death concerning this muscle reaction?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. When the body starts decomposing and deteriorating, this stiffness will start passing away because of enzyme changes and putrefaction and again it will start getting flaccid, but you can tell the difference from a forensic pathology, because you will have early signs of decomposition of the body when that happens because you will have greenish discoloration. The other factor of course is--which is a very rough parameter is whether the body is warm and cold. If you have a warm body which is stiff, you know, that warm body which is flaccid, you know it is earlier part, from a cold body which is decomposing, and early decomposition and flaccid, you can tell the difference very easily.

MR. KELBERG: Could you also basically stay with the body for some period of time to see whether or not the rigor is increasing in intensity or getting less in intensity?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is difficult to estimate that also.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think you were talking about the rigor becomes complete meaning what, fully fixed? Is that a term that is used?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Fully fixed, and when you try and extend a flexed arm, you will have a lot of resistance in doing it and in breaking the rigor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, recalling exhibits 298-A and B, those form 1 documents completed by Ms. Ratcliffe, do they reflect her assessment of the degree of rigor at roughly 10:40 and 10:50 in the morning on June 13th with respect to the two individuals?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: She indicated that both the bodies were in full--full rigor. That means the rigor was fully established when she saw the bodies.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, going back to this hypothetical of the coincidence that you would be with Officer Riske at 12:13 in the morning, what would be the circumstance that you would find which would indicate the least amount of time having past since time of death to 12:13 as it pertains to rigor mortis?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If there is no rigor present and the body is still warm, it would indicate that the death occurred probably within four hours before Officer Riske saw the body. But if he saw some stiffness developing, then you are into a time range between three to nine hours when it is developing, so you won't be able to pinpoint a particular time. You can only give a possible range.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the combination of rigor, the absence of rigor, if hypothetically you had been with Officer Riske at 12:13, you saw no evidence of rigor and you got a core temperature reading of 98.6, the assumed normal temperature, would that permit you to form an opinion as to range for time of death of these two human beings which would be narrower than the 2.8 hours plus or minus that Dr. Henssge's nomogram provides for temperature alone?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I won't be able to narrow it down further.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board in the rigor series. May this be marked as 368-C, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 368-C for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you indicated that the rigor remains for some period of time and then starts to fade away, if you will?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that what item 4 is intended to refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. A, B, C, D shows the literature from where this data was obtained and you can see that there is a range when rigor--how long the rigor persists and when it disappears. For example, if you take Henssge's book, it says the persistence is anywhere from 24 to 96, mean of 57, and for disappearance is anywhere from 24 to 192, mean of 76, and you can see the variation between that and Spitz' book where it says the persistence is between 12 to 24 hours and then it passes from 24 to 36 when it starts disappearing. And in my experience this seems to be more--more what happens, but I have not seen--this can also happen, depending on what temperature the body is found in.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, Dr. Lakshmanan pointed to first the item G, which is the Spitz reference as the one more consistent with his experience and then to the Henssge item a as the one that can also happen.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, what significance, if any, is it to you that again there is this discrepancy between the various literature you've reviewed on these issues of persistence and disappearance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it shows the variable factors which have been discussed and your variability in the development, persistence and disappearance--disappearance of the process. And there are factors affecting rigor itself which would play a role in this process and in the development process.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, what are those factors and how do they impact?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If somebody has had strenuous physical activity before death, they would develop rigor, much faster than a person who has had not much activity. If it is a hotter temperature, rigor develops earlier. If it is a colder temperature, it develops slower. Physical condition of the decedent, depending on the muscular development of the decedent, there is a difference in the development and disappearance of the rigor. And cause of death, if it is electrocution, rigor develops earlier. Also poisonings, like strychnine, you can develop rigor earlier, so there are a lot of variables.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are there any scientific charts or formulas which attempt to quantify in specific terms of hours or minutes how each of these variable factors should be calculated into the determination of the rigor impact on the period since death determination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There are no scientific calculations.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the last entry on that board, is that again one of the materials that you have read, considered and in part relied upon?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion is rigor mortis the most uncertain and unreliable of these factors that you use medically to determine a range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further, doctor, you wish to add about rigor mortis?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have a board entitled "Livor mortis, hypostasis, blood settling." May this be marked as 369-A?

THE COURT: 369-A.

(Peo's 369-A for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is this board all about?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This discusses the definition of livor mortis which I have discussed already.

MR. KELBERG: Before you run too quickly to item 2, there are three different terms starting that item 1; livor mortis, lividity and the term hypostasis. Is there any difference, and if so, what is the difference between those three terms?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are used synonymously.

MR. KELBERG: If you continue then.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have already defined is basically draining of the blood in the dependent part of the body after circulation has ceased and causing discolorations in the parts of the body which are not under pressure. And this again is a review of onset and when it is fully perceived from the literature and you can see that this is a range that you can be perceived anywhere from thirty minutes to four hours when it starts to be seen, and the average seems to be about twelve hours when it is maximum in development. One of the things we do in our office is when you have an area of discoloration, you try and give pressure to that area. If the discoloration blanches, it would indicate that it is in a phase between onset and maximum. Because once you don't get blanching, it would indicate that some of the discoloration has become permanent, due to either leaching of the blood or breakdown of the blood cells leaving a discoloration. That is one theory. The other theory is that the blood gets thicker in the area of where the dependent pooling has taken place which results in a more permanent discoloration, so the usefulness of this is if the body position is turned after death by a perpetrator, then the--you could have a new position in which the discoloration will develop, depending what part of the body was the dependent part.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, could you use me as an example and just basically indicate how livor mortis or hypostasis can be of benefit in assessing this issue of movement of the body between time of death and time the body is found?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay. If Mr. Kelberg was on his back and assume he is no more--

MR. KELBERG: All right. I'm sure there are many who would like that to be the case.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: --and he has been lying on his back for more than twelve hours, by this definition you get discoloration on his back because he is lying on his back. But let's say that Mr. Kelberg didn't die a natural death, but was--something else happened to him and the perpetrator comes back after a day and Mr. Kelberg has not yet been discovered, but then decides to move his body to a different position, and let's say he has been now placed face down instead of his back. The livor which develops in the back will still remain because it has already become fixed, and you may or may not get new livor developing on the front because, as you know, there could be still some blood left, liquid, which could pool on the front also, but the livor which has become permanent in the back will be there, which would give a pathologist, if a change of position has taken place, some indication that some body movement or change in body position has taken place several hours after the livor became permanent.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as an alternative what happens if I start out on my back at the time I've been killed and somebody comes and decides to turn me over onto my stomach during the period between the time of onset and before the time the livor becomes maximum or fixed as you've described it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then you will get it in the new position in which you were placed and you may or may not have any livor on the previous position you were in, because the livor is not permanent.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I--let me ask you, first of all: What significance, if any, does it have to you, from your review of the literature and your own experience--let me ask preliminarily, in your own experience is there variability in the period for the onset of livor mortis?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. In my experience you usually start developing within a few hours, three to four hours, but it is usually fully developed in ten to twelve hours, but it is one of the least reliable among all the three parameters we have discussed so far in estimating time of death.

MR. KELBERG: What is the significance, if any, from the variability between the literature sources that you've reviewed on the preciseness within--with which one may estimate a range for time of death based on livor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The problem is it is not reliable because it can persist until the body starts decomposing and you have the same problems as you have with rigor and little more--less defined process than rigor, because you can start developing it at four hours and you will have a difficult time giving an estimated range just purely based on livor mortis, and especially if any change in body position has taken place.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what does item 3 on this board refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The--this refers to a condition which one should be aware of that if you have blood loss or the person is anemic from natural disease process, they naturally will not develop the same intensity of livor mortis as a normal person would.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you describe the condition of Nicole Brown Simpson as a case involving extensive blood loss?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There was significant blood loss, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Would you describe a case such as Mr. Goldman's as one involving extensive blood loss?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In those two cases what would be the affect of that blood loss on the ability of yourself, for example, had you been there at 12:13 with Officer Riske, to detect onset of livor mortis even if the body had been in that position for several hours or more?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, they did have livor when we saw the body at 10:00, but at 12:15 it is a difficult situation. You may or may not have seen any rigor at all.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, if you saw--would it be accurate to say that if you detected no livor, that using that factor alone, that would be the condition showing the least amount of time having past from the time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be partly correct, because if the significant blood loss had played a major role in that livor developing, that conclusion may not be totally correct.

MR. KELBERG: I want to get to that aspect as a follow-up, but I want to start just in the abstract sense, forgetting the cause of death for these two human beings for just a moment and just assuming that they are dead, would it be an accurate statement to say that a condition in which there is no livor mortis detected on the body at 12:13 would be the condition which would reflect the passage of the least amount of time since death, using that factor alone?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: And then, doctor, can you differentiate the absence of livor as being due to simply not enough time having past in the usual situation from livor which would have developed except for the extensive blood loss sustained by each of these human beings?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You won't be able to tell the difference.

MR. KELBERG: And how, if at all, does that impact on your ability to provide preciseness to the time of death based upon this factor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, it brings up the primary issue I brought up earlier during this discussion. You cannot be precise.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, hypothetically again, if you had been with Officer Riske at 12:13 and you saw no livor mortis, you saw no rigor mortis and you detected a body temperature, core body temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, would you be able to provide a more precise range for the time of death than what Dr. Henssge's nomogram of plus or minus 2.8 hours indicates?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: I have another board, your Honor, "Livor mortis, hypostasis"--

THE COURT: If I hear another reaction from the audience, there are some people who are going to be leaving the audience. Proceed.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Your Honor, I have another board "Livor mortis" I would ask to be marked as 369-B, as in boy.

THE COURT: Quickly.

(Peo's 369-B for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again is the information on this board information from the medical literature which you have reviewed, considered and relied at least in part on in forming an opinion regarding the use of livor for a range of death determination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it your opinion that the use of livor mortis or hypostasis in estimating the time of death is of little evidential use?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it your opinion that as an index of time since death that livor is even more unreliable than rigor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, just for the record, exhibit 298-A and b had a determination made by Claudine Ratcliffe as to a degree of livor observed; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And what was the recordation by her with respect to each of these two human beings?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: She said the livor was fixed.

MR. KELBERG: Which would indicate to you what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Fully developed.

MR. KELBERG: And in terms of your experience indicating an approximate range of how long before time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: --she--

MR. KELBERG: From time to death, I'm sorry?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It usually develops in ten to twelve hours.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further on livor mortis?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board entitled "Vitreous humor potassium level." May that be marked as People's exhibit 370?

THE COURT: 370.

MR. KELBERG: And I believe that 370-A will be required.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 370-A for id = chart)

THE COURT: Was such a test done in this case?

MR. KELBERG: No, it wasn't.

THE COURT: Let's be quick about this.

MR. KELBERG: It will be very quick, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you've identified earlier what a vitreous humor potassium level is?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where is that obtained?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does your office on a routine basis take vitreous humor samples?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We take it only on cases where the suspected or metabolic cause of death is diabetes keto acidosis or diabetes mellitus and we also obtained vitreous humor when we want to study electrolytes for dehydration, but we don't collect it for estimating postmortem interval and estimating a potassium level for that purpose.

MR. KELBERG: Why not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because one, this test is not very useful when you live in an environment where the environmental temperatures are higher, because it has been shown in the literature that you have a higher potassium level, which is the environmental temperature is higher after death, and the--the results you get have wide range when you calculate using some formulas which are available to calculate the time interval since death using the potassium level, so it is not very reliable.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is the temperature level which is usually considered a level below which the potassium level from the vitreous humor may be of some benefit?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 50 degrees Fahrenheit usually in more temperate climates.

MR. KELBERG: In fact, was this test developed by a forensic pathologist in Minneapolis, Minnesota, using cases from the winter climate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does this board accurately reflect factors that affect the reliability of potassium levels in vitreous humor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, just briefly, I have one more board in the vitreous area as 370-B, as in boy.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 370-B for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, your attention to 5-A and B, are those two different formulas that are used to calculate postmortem interval from potassium levels?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And if you had a reading of potassium and you used the two formulas, would you end up with a different result?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, you would.

MR. KELBERG: Does that impact on the reliability of this technique for estimating time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it does, and you can see that there is a wide range which you get and also it has an impact on when you take the sample in relationship to when the death occurred, because if you have a longer postmortem interval, the range of estimate is wider, compared to if the time of death--time of death was--if the potassium was taken closer to the time of death.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, just briefly, if you could explain if you took a sample of vitreous humor in a case where in fact the person had died within a 24-hour period of the sample being taken, what is the range that one must employ to accurately use this test to determine a period for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have a range between plus or minus six hours to plus or minus twelve hours, and if it is over 24 hours, I mean--up to a hundred hours postmortem, you will have a range of 9.5 hours plus or minus 40 hours.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the last information on that board, is that part of the material you read, considered and at least to a degree relied upon in forming a policy in your office regarding whether or not vitreous humor potassium samples will be taken?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This material is a new material. The policy in the office has been there for a long time. We don't do vitreous humor potassium levels.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the very bottom quotation, is that part of the material you reviewed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is in fact that information consistent with your understanding of this test's reliability?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And that is a basis for why your office routinely does not take vitreous humor potassium samples?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct and this--this edition is a newer edition and it only reinforces our preexisting policies of not doing vitreous potassium to estimate time of death.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further on vitreous humor potassium?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board entitled "Gastric stomach contents." May this be marked as 371-A?

THE COURT: 371-A.

(Peo's 371-A for id = chart)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, item no. 1 asks the question or poses the issue of what do you look for at autopsy concerning stomach contents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We look at what the contents are, the volume, and if there are any medications, they would look for any medications, and basically that is what is done in our office. And you record the information you have obtained from these observations.

MR. KELBERG: We saw with your earlier testimony, and if I could have just a moment, your Honor, to pull out two from the previous exhibits--

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: I am just searching for the autopsy protocol for Nicole Brown Simpson. I believe I have it, and--I do. This is exhibit 349, the blow-up of the forms, I believe, 15 and 16. I will verify that. Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, you testified as to Dr. Golden's handwritten entry on that form 16 regarding the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that the kind of thing you would expect the medical examiner to do as part of an autopsy in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor you also--let me just throw up the protocol which is board 0B of 349, and flip first to page 10 just to show we are going to be dealing with the gastrointestinal system and then one more page regarding the protocol description of the stomach contents. Do you recall that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your office you have I think testified that the usual practice is for the medical examiner to dictate this autopsy protocol which is subsequently transcribed; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact did you provide Dr. Golden's original dictation tapes for these two autopsy protocols to us?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The copies of those tapes, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have a tape. May this be marked as exhibit 370-B?

THE COURT: This is a transcription of the protocol?

MR. KELBERG: It is the actual--

THE COURT: Dictation?

MR. KELBERG: Right.

THE COURT: Let's append it to the protocol itself.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Then the actual paper--you want it appended to the 8-and-a-half-by-11 page exhibit?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Which is going to be exhibit 34--

THE COURT: We will figure that out.

MR. KELBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Shapiro, have you had access to this and you have heard it?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 344-A(1) for id = cassette tape)

MR. KELBERG: And had Fairtlough I believe has the mechanism set up. Just before he plays it--

THE COURT: We are cued to the right spot?

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Lynch assures me of this.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: The pressure is on Mr. Lynch.

THE COURT: Miss Fitzpatrick, do we have audio available?

MS. FITZPATRICK: (nods head up and down.)

MR. KELBERG: Before it is played, doctor, I want you to listen and listen to whether or not there is a difference between what Dr. Golden dictates and what the actual protocol, the typed protocol in this paragraph says.

(At 2:42 P.M., People's exhibit 344-A(1), an audiotape, was played.)

MR. KELBERG: May we stop, your Honor. Mr. Fairtlough--I think Mr. Fairtlough turned the tape over and is playing the wrong side.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: We are now going to start with the gastrointestinal, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed. Let's have a little more volume on that, please.

(At 2:42 P.M., People's exhibit 344-A(1), an audiotape, was played.)

(At 2:44 P.M. the playing of the audiotape concluded.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you recognize the voice of the person dictating that information?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Who is that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Irwin Golden.

MR. KELBERG: And is that dictation a tape that is produced in the ordinary course of Dr. Golden's responsibilities as a Deputy Medical Examiner at the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: And is that a tape that is made by Dr. Golden at or near the time of the events which he is describing in the dictation?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you hear some additional information dictated by Dr. Golden on that exhibit that is not transcribed on page 11, first paragraph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He dictated saying that after "Rigatoni" he said "Fragments of black olives and spinach" and the "Black olive" is missing in this transcribed report.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I on this document, between the words "Rigatoni" and "Fragments of apparent spinach" write "Fragments of black olives," and I will put that in quotation marks.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, in looking at the handwritten form 16 do you see an entry on the handwritten form--with the Court's permission if Dr. Lakshmanan could just step to where the board 16 is--do you see a handwritten entry which reflects "Black olives"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here, "Pasta, rigatoni and black olives."

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, doctor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-afternoon recess at this time. However, Mr. Kelberg, just for the record, we are going to mark the actual cassette tape as 344-A(1).

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you. And we will take a 15-minute recess. All right.

(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 without the jury. Counsel, two things. Normally, I ask for a stipulation before we play an audiotape, and I had forgotten to do that, a stipulation that the court reporter need not attempt to take down what is on the tape. Could I get a stipulation on this matter? Did we lose Mr. Shapiro? There he is.

MR. SHAPIRO: We'll stipulate.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg?

MR. KELBERG: Certainly, your Honor.

THE COURT: Also, the policy of this Court is to require transcripts of any audiotapes that are played for the jury. So I'm going to direct the Prosecution to file with the Court by close of business Friday a transcript of the portion of the tape that was played to the jury, but that should not be too difficult.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, is there any need to provide a transcript of any portion other than that paragraph?

THE COURT: No. Just the portion that was played to the jury.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey, are you standing for a reason?

MR. BAILEY: No, your Honor. I'm preparing to split.

THE COURT: Good to see you again. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I am standing for a reason, your Honor. Just minutes ago, we were given the amended motion of the Defense which now adds conceivably to the original motion filed.

THE COURT: The one that's set for Friday afternoon?

MS. CLARK: That's correct, your Honor. In light of the fact that they have still not given us the completed motion--this is an amended motion. They intend to amend it again with declarations, but not until tomorrow. And due to the fact that both Mr. Darden and myself will be presenting witnesses after the completion of the Coroner's testimony, I'm going to ask the Court to put over the hearing on this motion so that we are given time to respond to it and to absorb the additions to it that are being made at the last minute.

THE COURT: Well, let's see what the declarations are before we make that determination, keeping in mind that I also have to read these things and do the research and read the responses.

MS. CLARK: Correct. I mean, we have to be able to read the declarations and perhaps respond in writing to them with our own declarations. So I mean--

THE COURT: All right. I'm not going to make a determination about continuing that hearing. I would like to get that on and off as soon as possible. So let's see what's filed. If it is something extensive, perhaps I will agree with your position. If it is not extensive and can be dealt with in a rather quick fashion, I think we should do so. Okay. But let's see what's filed, okay? All right.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have looked through the materials from the box from the District Attorney's office concerning this incident. I found nothing that correlated with the type of information Mr. Shapiro was seeking. Mr. Grace, obviously from what information he's provided to both Mr. Shapiro and me, has given no indication that such a document exists. Mr. Shapiro, we've given access to the District Attorney file with Mr. Grace standing next to him to confirm for himself what is there. I hate to keep Mr. Grace, but I do have a motion. If Mr. Shapiro intends to get into this area--because the bottom line is, there's nothing there. And not only is there nothing there, but there's also the issue of the admissibility, even the circumstances of the legal outcome separate and apart from the medical issue of significance.

MR. SHAPIRO: We respectfully disagree that there's nothing there. I just went through the entire--through part of the file very, very quickly, and we find a statement here that is inconsistent with the correction of the autopsy report by Dr. Golden.

MR. KELBERG: And this document is a document which is an internal memorandum, recommendation and appraisal of special circumstances. What Mr. Shapiro is seeking is information that was sent to the Coroner's office and to the attention of any individual at the Coroner's office. That is not what this is.

THE COURT: Sounds like a special circumstances memo.

MR. KELBERG: It is an amendment, if you will, summarizing the change in circumstances, your Honor. And again, I--my belief is, this is a matter that should be handled in other than the public eye. We have given Mr. Shapiro unprecedented access to look through our file without any claims of privilege so he can verify for himself. But Mr. Grace has personally told us that no such document exists.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I think there's additional information here beyond what Dr. Lakshmanan has testified to regarding the findings of Dr. Golden and the significance, and I will read them into the record if you like or I will offer them at sidebar if you like.

THE COURT: All right. How about we do that at sidebar first to see what it is--

MR. SHAPIRO: I think that's proper.

THE COURT: --when we get to that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

THE COURT: Have you had enough time, Mr. Shapiro, to peruse the file in that matter?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, I have, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Are you ready to proceed?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. We're ready. May we get copies of these, your Honor, or just have Mr. Grace hold these?

THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you have one of the staff members make copies for me.

MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, Mr. Grace has kindly consented to sticking around for the rest of the afternoon in the event we get to this.

THE COURT: And I take it, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Grace is going to remain in case there's any other questions?

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. We appreciate that.

MR. KELBERG: And I assume Mr. Shapiro will not inquire. I will finish very shortly.

THE COURT: Yes, you will.

MR. KELBERG: I know. I understand, your Honor. But I do understand also that Mr. Shapiro will not ask any questions regarding this matter until there has been a determination by the Court.

THE COURT: He'll ask to approach at the time we get to that portion in cross-examination. All right. Let's have the jurors, please. And, counsel, we're going to 5:00 o'clock today. And, Mr. Shapiro, will you require some time to change over for cross-examination?

MR. SHAPIRO: No, your Honor. We're ready.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Doctor. Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in talking about stomach contents from this board, item 2 discusses factors affecting stomach emptying. Would you take us through how those factors affect stomach emptying?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A, if it's a liquid, it empties much faster than solids. Liquid empties from the stomach anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour, but solids can vary anywhere from two to three to four or five hours depending on what type of solid food is eaten. The nature of the food, if it's a fatty food, it takes more time to empty from the stomach than carbohydrate.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Doctor, rigatoni, is that, to your understanding, a form of pasta?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in the scheme of the types of foods and how the stomach empties, is that the type of food which takes longer or shorter relatively speaking to empty from the stomach?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a carbohydrate. It would empty earlier than fatty foods, but actually pastas are mixed, depending on the sauce that is used.

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The sauce will be a factor, size of food particles. The stomach, usually one of the functions is to reduce the size of the food particles by churning. So if you take larger fragments, they would take a longer time to empty because to empty from the stomach, the food particles must be made into smaller pieces, then go into the intestine.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me interrupt for a moment if I could. Can you explain in general terms how the stomach operates, if you will, so one gets food in and where that food goes once it's in the stomach?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The stomach has several functions. One is the mechanical function, which is the churning of the food, breaking down the food particles into smaller fragments and then passing it on to the intestine for further digestion. The other is absorption, that is absorbing some part of the food content. And this would apply to certain liquids like alcohol can get absorbed in the stomach. Then it also has digestive functions. It produces two substances, both acid and also the enzyme pepsin which is--plays a part in protein digestion.

MR. KELBERG: Plays a part in?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Protein digestion. And it's also got hormone function, produces a hormone called gastrin, G-A-S-T-R-I-N, which helps the process of digestion. So it's got several functions, and one of the functions is reducing the food particle size so it can go into the intestine where further digestion takes place. Another factor that affects stomach emptying is how well you chew the food. So naturally, if you don't chew the food adequately, the food particles are larger. That's a variable factor here, that those particles will take a longer time to empty from the stomach. If you chewed the food well, then you would have smaller particles in the stomach which would empty faster. Then you have the volume of ingested food. If you take a big meal, it's going to take a longer time to go to--from the stomach rather than if you take a small meal which will empty faster. And of course, factors built into it would be the size of the food particles and the extent of mastication and the type of food that is eaten, whether it's pasta, fatty food or just simpler food material like pasta with tomato sauce, Alfredo or more fatty stuff.

MR. KELBERG: Pasta Alfredo?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Fettucini Alfredo. Alcohol beverages, that has a factor. If the concentration of the alcohol is more than 30 percent, that will have an inhibitory means delaying the stomach emptying.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before you go to the next factor, assuming hypothetically that at dinner at the Mezzaluna restaurant on June 12th, 1994--

MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, I anticipate there will be evidence concerning this introduced. So I understand that there are no facts in evidence at this stage, but they will be offered.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. KELBERG: --that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's party had alcohol from bottles of alcohol which contained approximately 12 percent alcohol by volume and 12.5 percent alcohol by volume, doctor, assuming that hypothetical, sir, is that the kind of alcoholic beverage that in your opinion would slow down the digestive process?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It would be more the hard liquor alcohol that has more higher concentration of alcohol which is reflected by this statement here.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, assuming hypothetically that a person drinks the alcohol on an empty stomach at least initially, would that alcohol be considered as you've indicated under subpart A, the kind of liquid that passes from the stomach within 15 to 30 minutes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be the--that would--what would happen to the alcohol because being a liquid without food, it would be, one, absorbed partially from the stomach and also, it would be rapidly emptied into the intestine within 15 to 30 minutes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, the next factor, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Drugs. There are certain drugs which delay stomach emptying, some drugs which hasten stomach emptying. Drugs which would delay stomach emptying would be some of your narcotic drugs, some drugs which you use for blood pressure, et cetera. Drugs which would hasten stomach emptying, one of the common drugs is valium. It will hasten stomach emptying. Then of course, emotional stress is a factor that should be kept in mind. If somebody is preparing for their testimony the next day, they don't--the stomach will take a longer time to empty when you have fear or emotional stress and/or excitement.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before you--I don't know if you intended to add something. I didn't mean to--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I just started to explain what the stress--I just gave an example.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this stress that is a factor that slows down stomach emptying stress that must exist at the time of eating and thereafter?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me ask you hypothetically. Nicole Brown Simpson eats dinner at the Mezzaluna restaurant on June 12th, 1994 and leaves the restaurant between 8:30 and 9:00 o'clock, and during the course of her eating at the restaurant, she has no sense that her death will ensue sometime later that evening and that it was a casual affair with no observed unusual emotional stress. Would that be a situation which would impact this factor with respect to the stomach emptying time?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: From the statements you gave in your question, that would not be considered like what is stated here. This is stress and fear from, as I gave an example, like preparing for an exam or preparing for testifying in court, you know.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, alternative hypothesis. Assuming that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were both, without warning, very suddenly and very violently attacked and killed in circumstances which resulted in their bodies being found as they were and with the stomach content being as observed and indicated in Dr. Golden's reports, is that the kind of stress--you would describe that as stress I assume, emotional stress being sustained by the victims during whatever short period of time my hypothetical assumes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that the kind of stress that plays any impact on the stomach emptying process?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. That's just as a rapid type of stress where there's acute event--acute event of trauma and death. So that would not play a role. This is more a prolonged process which is preexisting at the time of eating and following the eating which plays a role in the delay of stomach contents emptying. By the same token, if we had somebody who has an injury and--had a head injury and they were lying from the effect of the head injury in the hospital, then that can cause delay in stomach emptying because of the--that being more subacute and chronic even, which can play a role.

MR. KELBERG: How about the other factors, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: H, people who are older, the stomach empties slower. Body build again is a factor which is kept in mind. Exercise, moderate exercise. After moderate exercise, it accelerates or hastens stomach emptying. But if you have exhaustion, you can have delay in stomach emptying. Natural diseases. People who have diabetes and certain other medical conditions can have delays in stomach emptying because of the effects of the disease process on the nervous control, of stomach emptying. Extreme environmental temperatures. Extreme cold or heat can have an effect on stomach emptying. Usually they can cause delay. So lots of variability to stomach emptying, from the variable factors I just discussed.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in the process of digestion, in looking at item 3, it indicates continuation of the chemical process of digestion; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there more than one process that takes place in this overall concept of digestion of food?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I already described a few of them. When the bigger food particles are broken down into smaller particles for absorption into the stomach, there are many enzymatic changes which digest the food, which is the chemical part, which is the hydrochloric acid plus also the pepsin which becomes--which plays a part in a little bit of the digestion of the stomach. So that kind of chemical process of the softening of the food can take place even after death, but the mechanical process won't take place after death.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how does the chemical process take place after a person is dead?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you still have the chemicals which are already in the stomach so the emptying process can take place.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if there is--and incidentally, let me ask you, is this opinion of yours as expressed in item 3 one which is consistent with literature that you have reviewed on this subject?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, what would be the effect if one wanted to estimate the time of death based upon stomach contents if in fact after a person dies, the chemical processes of digestion continue?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: What will happen is, you'll have a more--let's say the particles are already broken down to a certain extent before that because mechanical functions don't continue after death. You will have a gross, that is external appearance as far as more digested state than was at the time of death if the chemical process had continued.

MR. KELBERG: And what is the impact of that if any on the time period one would conclude is the time period between the meal having been eaten and the time of death if there is in fact this postmortem continued process?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If that process did take place, then it would be overestimation rather than underestimation because you would think the food is digested more really when some of the chemical digestion is taking place after death than when it happens before that. So you always overestimate the time interval rather than underestimate.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about item 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: I think we're done with this board, and I have another one, 371-B.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 371-B for id = board)

MR. KELBERG: Entitled "Gastric stomach contents continued" and it starts with a box "Variability in reported stomach emptying times."

MR. KELBERG: And may I have just a moment with Mr. Fairtlough?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as part of your review of literature for your testimony, have you in fact reviewed some of the same materials that you've already described to ascertain if there is variability reported in the literature on how long it takes the stomach to empty its contents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. There has been a lot of variability in the emptying of the stomach contents and the--some of the references we already discussed. And also, I reviewed some articles wherein there have been studies in living people using radioactive devices to measure food material and variability in the emptying process of the stomach. They've also done ultrasonographic studies on emptying of the stomach, and there seems to be not only variation between different persons for the same food, but also, there seems to be difference in the same person on different times the food is taken. So you have differences in the stomach emptying time.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from the literature you reviewed, would it be accurate to describe part of the study as the same person is provided the same meal at two different times, and through whatever technique, like ultrasound or radioactive devices, the time for the stomach to empty is measured and you get two different times for the same individual with the same meal? Is that accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in general terms, some of the literature that you reviewed besides the text literature, is one of those an article by Louie G. Bolandi, B-O-L-D-N-D-I, and others entitled, "Measurement of gastric emptying time by real time, ultrasonography"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That's one of the articles I reviewed. And they studied several people, some normal and some with dyspepsia. And they gave them a pasta meal and they studied whether--how quickly they would empty if all were normal people. The average emptying time was nearly--I am going to give the hours instead of minutes there--four hours plus or minus half an hour. But those who had the preexisting condition of disease process, the emptying time was six hours plus or minus one hour. And that is that study.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before you go further if you were going to go away from the Bolandi study, it was a study which used as the test meal pasta?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Such as what has been identified by Dr. Golden in the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson, pieces of pasta?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And just so we can have some information here, the Bolandi study, was that a 1985 study, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It was in the--I think the general of gastrology I think.

MR. KELBERG: And the emptying time was four hours plus or minus?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Half an hour average, and this was for the normal people they studied.

MR. KELBERG: The healthy people?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, on that board, I've written "Bolandi-pasta-four hours plus or minus 30 minutes."

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, have you in the other materials you've reviewed found that there are different times given as generalizations for the emptying time of the stomach contents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What are the ranges if you can provide us?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The Adelson book describes, if it's a light meal, it empties within two to three hours, if medium, three to four hours, and heavy meal, in five to six hours, and then the average emptying time given in some books is three to four hours.

MR. KELBERG: If I may have just a moment. I wanted to get Adelson's book.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: And may I approach again?

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to invite your attention to page 182 of Adelson's textbook. Is that what you reviewed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And does that refresh your memory as to the specifics of the Adelson text on stomach emptying times?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What does it indicate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The light meal empties within one and a half to two hours, medium meal within three to four hours and the heavy meal is about four to six hours.

MR. KELBERG: Let me write in, "Adelson, one and a half to two hours," abbreviated, "Light meal." Three to four hours, doctor--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: --medium meal?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And I'll abbreviate "Medium" and otherwise, "Three-four, medium meal." And heavy meal, five to six?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Four to six, yeah.

MR. KELBERG: And I'll do the same, except now write "With heavy meal." And, doctor, does Adelson's text provide any definition for what is a heavy meal or a medium meal or a light meal?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you also reviewed Spitz and fisher?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And what if any information from there were you provided on stomach emptying times?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Says about three to four hours. And if you see identifiable fragments, it indicates that the meal is taken within two hours of.

MR. KELBERG: May I approach again, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me invite your attention to page 30 of the Spitz and fisher book, 3rd edition, and ask if you would read to yourself the last paragraph on the left column of page 30 continuing over and see if that refreshes your memory as to the specifics of Spitz and fisher.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It describes the same light meal, medium meal and heavy meal, but the reference is also for the same as Adelson.

MR. KELBERG: Spitz and fisher cites Adelson's times there, one and a half to two hours and so forth--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: --as the variable time for time of death--I'm sorry--for stomach emptying?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. So let me write under Adelson, I'll write, "Spitz and fisher" with an "And" sign. Now, doctor, did you also review Dr. Knight's forensic pathology text with respect to stomach emptying time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And as part of the material--and I'll be very brief, your Honor. As part of the material you read, considered and relied in part upon, is this part of that? "It was assumed that the physiological process of digestion of an average meal lasted some two hours. This is based on the consumption of a test meal of gruel, however, hardly a representative example of a moderate mixed diet. "Moreover, the subjects of the experimental work were healthy and presumably free from sudden stress during the experiment. More elaborate description of digestion times of varying foods have been drawn up, but they have dubious value of--as an example, have great variations over Modi, M-O-D-I, who gives four to six hours for a meat and vegetable meal and six to seven hours for a farinaceous--" is that a cereal, doctor, like material?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: "--meal. "Adelson states that the stomach begins to empty within 10 minutes of swallowing, that a light meal takes--leaves the stomach by two hours, a medium meal takes from three to four hours and a larger, heavy meal takes four to six hours." Is that part of what you read, considered and in part relied upon?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: One last entry. "Even if one accepts an," quote, "Average," unquote, "Gastric transit time--" is that a funny way of saying emptying of the stomach?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the sentence?

MR. KELBERG: Yeah. "Even if one attempts an average gastric transit time."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is an amount of time which food will take to pass through the stomach.

MR. KELBERG: "Even if one accepts an average gastric transit time of an," quote, "Average," unquote, "Meal as being of the order of two to three hours, the assumption that death took place within this time before death can only be valid if the death was quite sudden and unexpected with no stress, no prodromal event," prodromal meaning anticipating event that is coming in advance of the ultimate demise?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And continuing: "What is valid is the nature of the last meal which may be helpful in establishing the time of death. If it was known to the investigators that the deceased person ate a certain type of meal at a certain time, whether it be chicken curry or green beans, the identification of such food in the stomach would be persuasive evidence that he died after taking that food and that it was his final meal before any other substantial food was taken." Again, part of what you read, considered and in part relied upon?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, let me for the record--I'll write in, "And he says two to three hours assuming an average," and I put that in quotes, "Meal"; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In this case, given Dr. Golden's description of the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson's stomach pasta and so forth, would the very finding of those identifiable fragments have any significance to you on estimating a time of death based strictly on that finding?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would help you to give a time frame which would be favored. But as I told you, we do not really know how much Miss Simpson ingested in the restaurant because what we see is what we have remaining in the stomach at the time of death. Of course, the items being seen at the time of death is the identifiable rigatoni, black olives and spinach. So keeping that factor in mind--and also, we do not know how well the food was masticated, if it was well masticated or only partially masticated.

MR. KELBERG: Is that a funny way of saying chewed, how well chewed it was?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. So that's a factor that we don't know. We still have identifiable fragments. Keeping those variabilities in mind, it would indicate that death took place possibly within two hours of ingestion of the last meal if you know--when the completion time of the meal is known. But again, this is not with absolute certainty you can say that is the time she died. You would favor that given this literature, but I would be unable to say this is the time she died.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you look at the bottom of this particular board, there is a quotation from Dr. Spitz' book, that's the book in front of you. Is that also part of the material you read, considered and in part relied upon in forming these opinions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that consistent with your own experience; that if you are able to identify by naked eye inspection the contents of the stomach, that it indicates or at least favors that the person died within two hours of last eating?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, assuming hypothetically that Nicole Brown Simpson did visit the Mezzaluna restaurant on the 12th of June, 1994, arriving at about ten to 7:00 and that she did leave between approximately 8:30 and 9:00 o'clock and in fact, according to one witness' testimony, about 8:45ish, but was in that period of time, a bill was opened by the server, and one hour and 14 minutes later, the bill was closed, indicating that no further food or beverage was ordered by any of the members of the party, and assume further that Miss Brown Simpson completed her meal, including a rigatoni dish, before actually leaving the restaurant, that is, some period of time passed from the time that she last ate her pasta until the time she set foot out the door, how if at all is that set of hypothetical circumstances useful to you in taking Dr. Golden's findings from the stomach contents and offering, if you can, an opinion regarding range for time of death?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Improper hypothetical. Assumes at least three facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, there are so many variable factors. We discussed them even in the stomach contents. Based on the fact that the food is identifiable and present, given the literature data, it would suggest that she probably--if the meal is completed by 8:00 or 8:15 you said?

MR. KELBERG: I said hypothetically that the bill was opened between the time of her arrival ten to 7:00 and closed sometime before she left between 8:30 and 9:00, but that the time period between the opening of the bill and the closing of the bill was purported to be an hour and 14 minutes.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: So with that information, it would be fair to assume that probably the meal was completed around 8:00 o'clock or 8:30 maximum because the bill was completed by then. Then using these rough perimeters which we discussed and variable factors, it would suggest that she probably died within 10:00 and 10:30. But there's so much variability to this, we only suggest time. I won't say that's the time she died, but it would favor that.

MR. KELBERG: And that, doctor, is if you wanted to use the stomach contents at all as a means of estimating the range for time of death; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do you wish to use the stomach contents at all as a means of estimating the range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a factor which can be used. But as I told you, there's so many variabilities. And especially, we don't know how much she ate, how well she masticated it and how much has already passed on to the intestines. Keeping that in mind, I can only say it favors that she died within two hours based on this factor, but it's just an estimate, which is not really pinpointing to time of death.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your review of the Henssge 1995 book describing in detail the techniques available to estimate a range for time of death, is there any reference to the use of the stomach contents of a human being to form that estimated range?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Can I have just a moment with--

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if Dr. Golden had saved the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson, in your opinion, would you be any better able to differentiate a time of death of 10:15, from a time of death of 11:00 o'clock than you are with the information that you have and your education, experience and training as a forensic pathologist?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: By saving it, you would not have any more information than you had before. As I told you, there's no medical value to save it other than, as I pointed out, that I asked Goldman's stomach contents to be saved for this issue.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want to just briefly conclude by discussing with you Mr. Goldman's stomach contents. Do you recall the testimony that you gave concerning Dr. Golden's report of his stomach contents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything about his stomach contents that is of use to you in identifying a range of death time estimate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, his stomach contents was only, if I recall, 200 cc's, and you could barely identify some spinach fragments. You have the same variable factors you are dealing with, and I will not be able to use that to estimate any range at all.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any way in your opinion medically that one can use Mr. Goldman's stomach contents and the stomach contents as described by Dr. Golden of Nicole Brown Simpson to correlate the time of death range for the two individuals?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You cannot use that factor for doing such an estimate.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, of the part that we went through with Dr. Golden's dictated tape, indicates that contents, approximately 500 ml--and I think you testified earlier 500 ml is equivalent of 500 cc's?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And approximately 36 ounce, a ladle's worth?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: The "L." In terms of how the literature describes the time it takes to have a meal pass through the stomach, is 500 cc's in your opinion a light meal, a medium meal, a heavy meal, an average meal? What is it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have to be careful when you make those kind of judgments because of several other factors. You do not know how much liquid was ingested with the food. When Miss Nicole Simpson took the food, you don't know if she took water with it. That's a factor. You also have juices which are secreted by the stomach. As you know, the stomach normally secretes gastric juice which mixes with the food. So that factor is there. You also have sometimes some regurgitation of material from the duodenum also into the stomach in some situations. So may include the digested food material which is remaining, any ingested liquid. So you have all these factors. So I really can't say whether it's a big meal, medium or light. Definitely not a light food, but a lot of material favor being a medium meal, but I want to bring up all these other factors of the liquid which is ingested, gastric juice which is secreted before I make an opinion on this.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, we started this area of your testimony asking you if you had formed opinions regarding the range for the estimated time of deaths of these two human beings, and you gave testimony. Having reviewed through the subsequent testimony all of these various factors that we have done, are you any better able to narrow the range from your 9:00 to 12:30 or 12:45 range that you gave when we started this testimony?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you use all the perimeters--but I did mention if you do use the factor of identifiable food fragments with the variable other factors, it would suggest that death took place probably within two hours for Nicole. But again, it's very difficult to be specific because of all the variabilities in all the factors we are evaluating.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, if you wanted to give information and subsequent testimony in an effort to see Mr. Simpson convicted on the topic of time of death, could you have used the stomach contents to suggest, if you wished, that the range was closer to 10:15 than 11:00 o'clock?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Improper question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you ever indicate in any report or was any report generated by Dr. Golden which suggested that the time of death range should be narrowed so that 10:15 was consistent and 11:00 o'clock was not?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Compound.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, did Dr. Golden ever provide any report which indicated from his review of the materials, that the time of death was consistent with 10:15 and not consistent with 11:00 o'clock?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did not.

MR. KELBERG: Have you provided any kind of report that would indicate the time of death range would include 10:15 and exclude 11:00 o'clock?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: And as you sit here today, doctor, have you in your own mind the ability--using all of your knowledge, experience, training and literature, do you have the ability, even if you had been at Bundy at 12:13 in the morning, to have narrowed the range for time of death to exclude 10:15 and to include 11:00 o'clock or vice versa?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: I have no further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor. Perhaps--we are not going to need these charts, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you have enough water, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I need some more water.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson. Doctor, let me have your cup, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Dr. Lakshmanan.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon.

MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, you've been on the witness stand for approximately eight days?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.

MR. SHAPIRO: And as I understand your testimony, you can tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were victims of a homicide?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these victims died as a result of stab wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Sharp force injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these individuals bled to death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: You cannot tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what time they died?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, all of your expertise lends you to the opinion that a layperson could give, that they were last seen alive at 9:00, that they were found dead at 12:15, and that is the range of death; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's what I opined also, between 9:00 and 12:30.

MR. SHAPIRO: And with all of your training, experience, education, reading all these books, you cannot tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people were responsible for the deaths of these two people?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I said that one person could have done it with one single-edged knife in my testimony.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people are responsible for these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many different weapons were used to accomplish these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already opined saying that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries, but with reasonable medical certainty, I cannot exclude a second knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you exclude other types of sharp instruments within a reasonable medical certainty?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you expand on what you mean by "Other types of sharp instruments" before I--

MR. SHAPIRO: In your range of this vast experience, are there any other types of sharp instruments that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty could or could not have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like you to be specific, what type of sharp instruments because I want to know what type of instrument you are talking about. I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any sharp instruments that you are aware of that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainly could have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The main sharp instruments which I think could have caused these injuries is a--could have caused all the injuries was a single-edged knife. I already opined that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a double-edged knife could not have caused most of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that most--some of the injuries could have been caused by a double-edged knife, but a double-edged knife could not have caused all the injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could two single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and a double-edged knife have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and two double-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives, two double-edged knives and a broken piece of glass have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't see--there's no evidence of any glass pieces on the bodies which I could see or--and also, the wounds look more like a more sharp instrument like a knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying a sharp broken piece of glass could not have caused any of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a possibility in some of the wounds.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could a razor blade have caused some of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: On incised wounds, it's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: So after eight days, there's only about four facts that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that can help this jury in reaching an opinion?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, after eight days on the stand, there's only four facts you can testify to within a reasonable degree of medical certainly based on your education, background, experience as to how these two people died?

MR. KELBERG: That's argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and it's vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already discussed the findings. I've discussed my opinion that they were significant stab wounds to both the victims. I opined that the significant wounds on the body were caused by a single-edged knife. I think that's an important opinion which I have given. I have said that some of the other incised wounds could have been caused by a single-edged or double-edged knife which you cannot exclude with medical certainty. So I think I've been very clear that at least in most of the significant stab wounds, there's clear evidence that it was a single-edged knife. But your questions were more general wherein I indicated some of the wounds or most of the wounds, incised wounds, it was difficult to tell what type of weapon it was, wherein the stab wounds--the wounds we see on--some of the significant stab wounds on Miss Simpson and also on Mr. Ron Goldman, it was definitely a single-edged knife; and with reference to some of the incised wounds also, it would favor a single-edged knife rather then a double-edged knife, even though I cannot totally exclude it, especially the neck wound on Miss Simpson, it would favor a single-edged knife because of the bridge of tissue on the left side which I have discussed a few days ago. So I think I have given some direction. I won't say totally, but I think I have clearly established the cause of death in these two decedents. I also think I have given evidence which supports my opinion on the single-edged knife theory. And it seems medically, I can't exclude a double-edged blade. I think it seems illogical that you have all the significant wounds caused by a single-edged blade, and you bring up the theory of a double-edged blade causing some of the not so significant wounds. So I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you came to us because you have expertise above and beyond an average person in a specific field of medicine and science; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: My question to you was a simple one. Can you tell us with that expertise within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both victims?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, excuse me. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: That one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both of the victims.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my opinion. I said it could have caused--

MR. SHAPIRO: No. My question--I want you to listen to this question very carefully. Can you tell us as a doctor, as a scientist and as the Chief Medical Examiner of one of the largest counties in the United States that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you will put your reputation on the line that one single-edged weapon was responsible for all the injuries to both victims in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is Dr. Golden sick?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He's still working in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is he on vacation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he's not on vacation. I told you he's working every day in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he was not going to be called as a witness and you were?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Compound as well.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he wasn't going to be called as a witness?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same time when Mr. Kelberg announced that he's not going to call him as a witness because Monday at 9:30, I thought they were meeting with him because that was the morning I was giving a lecture in Ventura. So that's the same time when you knew--I knew he was not testifying.

MR. SHAPIRO: You would expect, as the person who is in charge of this medical office, that a doctor who performed the autopsy who is not sick, not on vacation, not doing other things that would prevent him from coming to court, would in fact be a witness; would you not?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Argumentative and irrelevant.

THE COURT: It's argumentative.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your practice; that the doctor who does the autopsy, if available, testifies?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. It's not within the province of the Coroner's office to determine who testifies and who does not.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question again?

MR. SHAPIRO: Is it the practice of the Coroner's office that you supervise that the doctor who performed the autopsy, when otherwise available, testifies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what is the reason that you have been told that Dr. Golden is not going to be called to testify?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same reason which was outlined here. They felt that I presented evidence in a manner which the jury can understand, and they didn't want to repeat the testimony again. This is my understanding from what was told in court right in front of all of us because I was not aware he was not going to testify until Monday morning when it was announced in court, and that's the truth.

MR. SHAPIRO: On how many occasions has Dr. Golden testified in criminal court?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Many times.

MR. SHAPIRO: How many? 10?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. Hundreds of times.

MR. SHAPIRO: And as result of that testimony, have people been convicted to your knowledge?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Has he testified in cases where people have ended up being convicted of murder?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, ask to approach the sidebar.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.

MR. SHAPIRO: You refer to this as a bread and butter type of case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is one of the types of cases we do routinely in our office.

MR. SHAPIRO: So this is the type of case that doesn't require any type of special expertise from a medical examiner? Is that what you meant to mean by bread and butter?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: What I meant by bread and butter was, this is the kind of case board certified forensic pathologists in our office can do easily because of the experience and expertise they have, because of the number of cases we do. And this type of case is no different than any one of our routine cases, and I already told this court that we do about two thousand murders a year.

MR. SHAPIRO: So any one of the I think about 17 or 18 doctors you employ could do this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. But we have some doctors in training. So they will be supervised when they do this case.

MR. SHAPIRO: And of those doctors who are qualified to do this type of case, this is something that you would say is routine and takes place almost on a weekly basis?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I mean daily, we get cases of stab wound and sharp force injury.

MR. SHAPIRO: And how much time do you allow for your doctors to prepare for testimony in a bread and butter case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it depends if--the doctor's testimony on his or her case depends on the complexity of the case. Sometimes they have pretrial meetings with the doctor, and then they testify. So it will be a couple of hours depending on the complexity of the case. I can't just give an arbitrary time because it will be on a case-by-case basis.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you are responsible for the budget and you are responsible for managing your office; are you not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not responsible for the budget. The budget is in the hands of the director of the committee which happened in 1990. I'm only responsible for professional responsibility of the office and Coroner functions.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you responsible for the management of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I'm responsible for the management of the medical division, not for the whole Coroner's office because they split the functions so that the doctor doesn't have to worry about the nonprofessional aspect of the office.

MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the professional aspect, which is testimony, does that come under your jurisdiction?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it does.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you liked to use the term "Range" in direct examination. Can you give us a range for what you would expect a board certified forensic pathologist to spend in preparation for a bread and butter case similar to this?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Similar to this? Couple of hours of review of the case and discussion with the D.A. There are several important areas we need to address whenever we prepare a case, and those areas would be addressed in preparation and any other ancillary material that needs to be studied would need to be done. For example, you may need to review the hospital records if the person was hospitalized. So would say anywhere from a few hours to up to eight hours, depending on what type of case. Some cases may not take that much time, should only take one or two hours to prepare and come to court. But a complex case of this manner, maybe few hours.

MR. SHAPIRO: And in this case, you testified you spent 200 hours in preparation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And the preparation was involved with a lot of other factors because the time I gave also included all the other coordination I had to do with the case with reference to different Prosecution requests because everything was channeled through me so that one person was directing all the coordination of the requests on this particular case. But I did prepare for a long time because I had to independently review the photographs, prepare charts and have an independent opinion on the case. Yes, I did prepare for several--for hundred plus hours if you include all my reading time and other factors on this case.

MR. SHAPIRO: You testified 200 hours, did you not, on direct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is correct, but I included other hours too because I had given a printout I think to the D.A.'s office--and you also have it--of the time spent because the auditor control maintains the time spent on these particular two cases for the county.

MR. SHAPIRO: So you have a log of every meeting when it took place and how long?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes. From the beginning. And of course, I can't count the time I spent reading.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you testified that this was done on your own time at no cost to the county?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said some of the preparation was on my own time, but some of it was on county time too.

MR. SHAPIRO: How much was on county time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have to look at the log of the days I come early. I mean in my situation, being a department head, all my time is always county time because I'm on call for the county anytime they need me. But if you look at working hours, which is 8:00 to 5:30, the days when we meet to discuss the case would be on county time.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I got the impression on direct examination that you were doing this on a kind of pro bono basis, that you were not being compensated for this and you were just doing this because you felt it was the right thing to do. Is that incorrect?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is incorrect because I think you misunderstood probably, and maybe I can state the answer so that everybody could understand clearly. This case took a lot of time. Some of it was county time when I was coming to work, but I had to come early some days to meet the D.A. Or to prepare exhibits. And what I meant by my own time is the time I spent taking the case papers home to review it, study it, review the literature as we discussed all the various literature we reviewed. So some of the time is county time. So pro bono means the time which was not regular working county time. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm on call for the county 24 hours a day. So if you want to count my own time as also county time, that would be counted as that.

MR. SHAPIRO: You didn't work on this case 24 hours a day, did you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you start coming in contact with the District Attorney in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Last--I mean actually ever since the cases had transpired, I have been talking to the D.A. And your office on some occasions on--at different time intervals, and everything is in the log. We can--I can retrieve the log and we can go over it if you want to do that. I have some times there of all the times I spent, which I've recorded it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you remember when you became directly involved with the District Attorney in this case?

MR. KELBERG: Just for the record, your Honor, I assume Mr. Shapiro is referring to me.

MR. SHAPIRO: No. With anybody from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Soon after autopsies. Ever since the log--I can look at the log, and I need that to refresh my memory to give you date by date what kind of conversation took place with each agency. I had to deal with LAPD, I had to deal with your office. I have to look at the log before I can answer that question. If you want me to retrieve it, I'll be happy to retrieve it from one of my boxes, and we can go over it.

MR. SHAPIRO: I don't want to spend eight days going over your log records. So can you give us your best estimate of when you became involved with some member of the District Attorney's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Soon after the autopsies.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who was that that you first became involved with?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Sometime in--I think the autopsies took place in June, and there was questions with the grand jury. I had to get involved with the District Attorney for the release of the photographs actually, and then I had a conversation with Miss Clark, and then in July, I had had a letter bomb scare in my office. At this time, I was in contact with the D.A.'s office. So I recall it very clearly chronologically, all my contacts with the D.A.'s office and any agency I have on the case.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you ever become actively involved in the autopsy of this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I never was actually involved in the autopsy of this case.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you spend more attention on this case because there were reports in the media that were very critical of your office?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: I thought he brought it up and played a tape.

THE COURT: Focus on what's in evidence.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were you aware of any criticism of your office during the time that this case was pending in the court system?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I mean, there was some criticism of the office from after the preliminary testimony and also even--especially after the preliminary testimony.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did that affect you in any way?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I mean, when you have criticism of the office, it does affect the head doctor there because it's our office. We are being criticized. We work hard. We try to do our best, and when people criticize us, it affects me also because it's our office. We work as a team as I told you.

MR. SHAPIRO: You wanted to correct mistakes immediately; did you not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not correct--I mean, correct mistakes in the sense--could you explain your question a little better, what you mean by "Correct mistakes"?

MR. SHAPIRO: You've testified to how many mistakes would you guess--would you estimate were made in this case--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't--

MR. SHAPIRO: --by people who were under your direction and under your supervision?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There were several.

MR. KELBERG: Objection. That's compound, "Direction" and "Supervision."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Under your direction.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There are several mistakes. For example, you can start, first mistake I noticed was when the brain contusion was observed by me.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you for a number. I don't mean to be rude, but--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I haven't counted all of them.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you give us an estimate of how many mistakes you believe were made in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A dozen plus at least if you add all of them. More than that if you count even the typographical mistakes and mistakes like boxes being not marked off, and if you count all of them, there are several mistakes.

MR. SHAPIRO: When you first became aware of a significant mistake, did it concern you?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: When the brain contusion was not described, I was concerned. And that's how--I met with Dr. Golden, who had already testified to the--at the grand jury, and he pointed out some additional omissions which we discussed, and that's how the addendum was prepared to correct the mistakes, what we were aware of.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you do an intensive review at that time to look for any other mistakes that could be important?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did a review, but not an extensive review. I was mainly looking at whatever I could see at that time. I did more of an intensive review in preparing for testifying and preparing of the charts. So I would say intense means what I did in the last few months. But initially, I did review the case and we did make the addendum. He did discuss the addendum with me, and as I already discussed in the testimony, there was some changes to the opinions and--but my role in the addendum was also in the format of the addendum.

MR. SHAPIRO: As the Chief Medical Examiner, don't you have a responsibility to the victims and to the victims' relatives and loved ones to make sure that a proper autopsy is done?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And when mistakes are made, don't you have a responsibility to do an intensive review immediately to correct those mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We did do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Don't you also have an obligation to somebody who is accused to make sure that as good a job as is medically possible be done?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And don't you have an obligation to correct mistakes immediately and look for errors?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do that as soon as I ever find out about a mistake and it is a mistake, and I'm the first person to accept it and I always direct my doctors to correct it. And if there's a change of cause of death, we call the family and tell them that. At least all the cases--I'm aware of whenever there's a mistake, as I told this Court and this jury, we have to identify any mistake first to accept it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed a report in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A report in the sense--what kind of report do you mean?

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any reports in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've not filed any reports except for the knife report I made, which I examined four knives presented to me by LAPD, and the other report which has been put in evidence as this chart, which I played a role in developing.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any supplemental report to correct all the errors that you have found in this autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We could do that, but I thought we already presented the evidence in court. And we can do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can and I--

MR. SHAPIRO: The question is, do you intend to?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. I don't think the witness finished the answer.

THE COURT: Yes. Finish the answer, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't plan to do it because I was testifying here and the whole proceeding being televised and we have the--my charts which I introduced in evidence. But I could do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: So you don't believe you have an obligation to the victims in this case to file a report that correctly reflects the autopsy in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have issued an addendum already. I met my obligation correcting the first mistakes we were aware of. These other smaller mistakes we just talked about, for example, in Goldman's, these abrasions, were not described in the addendum, and several other mistakes, we have not issued an addendum as yet. And as I said, it can be done, but--and I'll be happy to do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: When are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: After the trial, after the testimony is over.

MR. SHAPIRO: You think that's proper, a year later, to file a report after the case is over?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: It's argumentative. You want to rephrase the question?

MR. SHAPIRO: I'll just go on. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. SHAPIRO: You saw photographs of the deceased Nicole Brown Simpson with numerous blood spots on her back; did you not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: If those blood spots were properly preserved and analyzed and if they did not turn out to belong to Nicole Brown Simpson, to Ronald Goldman or to O.J. Simpson, would that be something that would be important to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it would indicate that somebody else's blood is on the body.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you describe that as a big ticket item?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not as far as a cause, not as a big ticket item in the understanding I have of what the big ticket items are.

MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't the big ticket the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is that a term that you use in forensic pathology, "Big ticket item"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it's not a term used in forensic pathology. It was used by the District Attorney in this particular case. And so repeating all the main reasons which I could testify on, to make it simpler, he used the term "Big ticket item," but it's not a term used in forensic pathology.

MR. SHAPIRO: How often have you used that term testifying before?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I never used it and learned a new term when I came to this court.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is that something you're going to continue to use?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, actually that misstates I think the testimony. It's more in the form of my questions.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Other than the cause of death, which we've already agreed that you can testify to with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and the manner of death, what are other items that you think you would view as being important mistakes in an autopsy?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. Are we talking about this case? Objection as irrelevant.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: In this case, do you think it would be important to take blood off the back of a decedent?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If the person observed it and seen it and knew the significance of it, yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And would you describe that as something that could affect the outcome of your opinion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not my opinion on the cause of death, manner of death or what issues I testified to.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you offered an opinion as to the size of the person who's responsible for this killing--these killings; did you not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did not offer an opinion as to the size, but I agreed with the hypothetical size given for a particular scenario. I never said what the size of the victim--I mean what the perpetrator was, but I agreed on the hypothetical when presented in a particular format which I believed fit the scenario for the hypothetical which was presented.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who requested that you spend a hundred hours in preparing for testimony in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nobody requested it. Because I had to understand the case fully. It was sent--I was asked to be a witness. I felt it's my obligation to understand the case completely. I have other responsibilities in the office and I had to also study the case in detail, all the photographs and do independent measurements of the photographs to have some reliability and to all the measurements taken in the case. And I spent hours because I was asked to testify and I wanted to do my best and tell the truth to this jury as I see it in this case and give my opinion independently as to what I felt is the cause and manner of death and if I can opine on the nature of the weapon from what I see, how the injuries occurred from what I see, how soon they died from what I see, and that's what I did. And nobody told me to spend so many hours. I did it on my own so that I could be better educated to give the best opinion to this jury.

MR. SHAPIRO: And I take it that's what you do in every case you testify?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Every case I testify. I try my best to be as knowledgeable about the case and know as much about the hospital history if they're hospitalized. And this has been my philosophy since I joined the Coroner's office, and ever since I've been a medical doctor, I try to do the best on every case I testify on.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say it's fair to say that in other cases that you testified on this year, that you have spent a hundred hours of preparation for testimony?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. That is not a fair statement because other cases did not take that much time, depending on what was the issue involved.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, this is a bread and butter case. Is there something more simple than a bread and butter case?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: A bread and butter case as an every-day case you told us; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I already explained what I meant by bread and butter, for my certified pathologists.

MR. SHAPIRO: How many times did you spend preparing for the last time you testified?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: For example, just a few weeks ago, I was asked to testify, then we didn't have to testify. But I reviewed the whole case, and it took a couple hours.

MR. SHAPIRO: Couple hours?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Plus I had to review charges, I had to review independent report on it.

MR. SHAPIRO: And let me ask you this, doctor. How many times this year have you testified when the doctor who did the autopsy was available?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Never.

MR. SHAPIRO: How many times last year did you testify when the doctor who did the autopsy was available?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Never.

MR. SHAPIRO: How many times since you've been the Chief Medical Examiner for the County of Los Angeles have you testified when the doctor who did the autopsy was available?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't recall a particular instance. Most all the times I've testified is when the doctor is--correction. I've testified I think once or twice as a reinforcement to my doctors who already testified, but to answer your question, no.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did anyone discuss with you that they were embarrassed by Dr. Golden and didn't want him to testify?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. That is not what was said to me. I mean, they said that I was going to testify and give my opinion and Golden also is going to testify. Nobody told me Golden was not going to testify.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were you aware that the District Attorney tried to find Coroners around the country to come in and testify in this case?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. I would ask for an admonishment.

THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was there a discussion of other Coroners coming in to testify in this case with you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who discussed that with you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The--Bill Hodgman, the prosecuting attorney.

MR. SHAPIRO: And were other Coroners suggested by you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who was suggested?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I suggested Joe Davis of Miami. I suggested Charlie Hirsch of New York.

MR. SHAPIRO: Anyone else?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Those are the two I respect highly and I suggested.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was anyone else suggested by anyone else?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think--

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase.

MR. SHAPIRO: To your knowledge, was anyone else suggested to testify in this case as Coroner?

MR. KELBERG: Still calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was there any attempt to contact anyone else to testify in this case?

MR. KELBERG: Calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you contact anyone on behalf of the District Attorney's office to offer testimony in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I personally did not contact anybody.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you cause anybody to be contacted?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you suggest to have anyone contacted?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I just gave the two names as I mentioned to Bill Hodgman when he called me.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know if anyone else declined to testify in this case?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Calls for hearsay, lack of foundation, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you aware of requests made to individuals to ask them to come review this case and testify?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: How are you aware of that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because I was told that Mr. Kelberg--

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Move to strike the answer. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: "I was told that." All right. Ask another question. I'll sustain the objection.

MR. SHAPIRO: And were you told that other people?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I don't like to interrupt in the middle of the question, but this line of questioning calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did anyone discuss with you that--

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have to object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Calling for hearsay.

MR. SHAPIRO: When you were called to testify, were you aware that other people had refused to testify?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who--tell us what lawyers from the District Attorney's office you spent time with preparing for your testimony.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Initially, I spent time with Mr. Bill Hodgman and--

MR. SHAPIRO: When was that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That was last year, and there was a possibility that I might testify. But actually, my full preparation for this case was more with Mr. Kelberg ever since February of this year when I knew I'm going to be--most likely be testifying, and this was in February or late February. Again, I'd have to go to my chronology of my log to tell you the dates and time when these meetings started taking place.

MR. SHAPIRO: No one else other than Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Kelberg?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. These are the two attorneys from the District Attorney's office who were involved with the Coroner's testimony.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you prepare for testimony with anyone who is not a lawyer?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you prepare with anyone else other than the two people in any way for testimony in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. But I remember a seminar in our department which they had.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who gave it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Mr. Tuno gave a seminar on court testimony and witnesses.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who is Mr. Tuno?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He's a trial lawyer, trial consultant who gives lectures on how to behave as a witness.

MR. SHAPIRO: And who did he give this lecture to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: To all the department personnel as part of training for the office because we have many people from our office who testify in court. And this is something new we started since last--this year I think. I don't actually recall the date, but he gave a lecture for our office.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, that's started since this case started, didn't it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: You never had anybody come in and help you to testify before, have you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. We have seminars also in our office. We've had the D.A.'s office, we've had the public defender's office. I have a CME program in my office, continuing medical education, wherein our doctors get training, and we have had it for--on an on and off basis. The last time we had a long session with the D.A.'s office was sometime in 1990 or `91 when we had several D.A.'s from the District Attorney's office and I think the public defender's also come and talk to us on court testimony. And so this has happened in the past.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was this person an expert in forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. No.

MR. SHAPIRO: What was this person's expertise as you understood it?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, could I just ask please for Mr. Shapiro to wait for Dr. Lakshmanan to finish before starting?

THE COURT: Yes, please. Thank you.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically Mr. Tuno talked about the demeanor of a witness, how to testify, how to present yourself, et cetera. It is not--

THE COURT: The question was, what was this person's expertise in? Forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not expertise in forensic pathology, your Honor.

MR. SHAPIRO: What was his expertise, if any?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: His business was as a trial consultant, and his expertise was in helping witnesses to present themselves and how to project themselves in the courtroom.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he tell you how to talk?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, he gave the lecture. He said how to present yourself.

MR. SHAPIRO: How do you present yourself? In what manner?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, he taught our employees to talk louder, to be forceful when you talk, et cetera.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you take that course?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I attended the meeting, but I've been testifying long before Mr. Tuno came to give this lecture. I've been testifying for years for the Coroner's office. For 18 years, I've been testifying for the Coroner's office on different cases. So I have had enough experience in testifying. But you always learn. Whenever you go to lectures, you always learn a point or two and you try and use whatever is useful to better your presentation.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you become aware that this was going to be a significant case for the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, every case is significant. But what do you mean by significant? In the sense--

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, perhaps then, this case would you say would just fall into the same realm as all the other cases, no more important, no less important and significant?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I can't say that. We've obviously given a lot of importance to this case. It's obvious from my spending time and coming here to testify and all the attention that this case has been getting. So in that manner, this case has had a giant impact on our office because it has taken away a lot of personal time involvement and also financially has taken a lot, has had an impact on our department.

MR. SHAPIRO: What is it about the autopsies of the two victims in this case that caused them to have such special attention?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, not really much about the autopsies other than the areas which have been addressed. It is just the attention that this case is getting and the multiple requests from both your side and the Prosecution, on different demands placed on the office for reports, photographs, additional photographs, specimens to inspect, slides to be cut. You know, if I look at the chronology, I could go over the various demands placed on the office. And then, other ramifications also are there for this case. Just not the case itself.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you said when it came time to assign it, that you wanted to assign somebody special to this case for the autopsy; did you not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I said I wanted a senior certified pathologist, and Dr. Golden is considered a certified forensic pathologist.

MR. SHAPIRO: Didn't you give us a list of three others that were seniors that you wanted to first do this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I would have preferred them to do the case if they were available, but I picked the next pathologist who was capable of doing the case. And in my opinion, at that time, Dr. Golden was capable of doing the case and he has done the cases.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why would you want a senior to do a bread and butter case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, seniors also do bread and butter cases. My chief of medicine just two days ago did a couple of--I mean one autopsy and numerous other examinations because I'm here and we had a shortage of doctors. So everybody in my office does a lot of work, my seniors, my regular pathologists. So when I ran down the list, I was just trying to tell you who are the experienced pathologists we have in the office. And I already mentioned we have 12 certified forensic pathologists. So I just went down the list who were available, and any one of my certified pathologists is competent of handling this case.

MR. SHAPIRO: So nothing special that you did in assigning this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was just a case that came in. It was a routine case, and whoever happened to be available was going to get it.

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Misstates the testimony, argumentative.

THE COURT: Argumentative. Rephrase the question, please.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was there anything unusual about this case that caused you to take special attention to whom it would be assigned?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was brought to my attention that one of the victims was the former wife of Mr. Simpson, and I knew there would be a lot of attention on the case. So I just wanted to make sure one of my certified pathologists did it. And I determined that this was a case that I needed someone who was available for three days. That was Dr. Golden. That is why I assigned the case.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why did you feel this case needed three days?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, because somebody had to look at the bodies when the bodies were brought to our office, which was the 13th, and Golden was working that day. We needed the person to do the autopsy, which was the next day, which was the 14th. And being two homicides in the case, more time is needed, and you never know the complexity of the case until you start the autopsy. The doctor who was doing the case must also be available to work all three days, and that is one of the only reasons--is one of the reasons I assigned the case to him, because he's available all the three days. And also, whenever we have a case that is complex, I always go and talk to the doctor and ask him whether he's willing to do the case. And Dr. Golden was willing to do the case, and that's how he got assigned the case.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you determine this was a complex case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Any double murder with multiple sharp force injuries is complex in the sense that there are multiple injuries to be documented and take time to do them.

MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't complex opposite to bread and butter?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, we do a lot of complex cases every day in my office. If you come to my office, I can go over the list and show you the complexity of each of the cases done by my doctors every day. We have cases of multiple gunshot wounds and multiple stab wounds, blunt force trauma. So complex case in the L.A. County Coroner's office is bread and butter case because each of my fellow pathologists have done a lot of these cases, and for them, it's a case which they do every other day. It's not like something which is unusual.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is it your practice to go down and look at all bodies when they come in for autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I try and do it whenever there's an important case. For example, today, if I had been working in the office, there was a kid who was apparently mauled by three dogs I heard on the news. And if I was working today, I could have gone and seen that case. Depending on what the case is. It is not that it is a particular--relates to a celebrity that I go and see the case. If a case requires my presence to see the body, I go and look at the body, and I do it routinely. I do rounds whenever it's possible, time permitting, to go look at what kinds of cases is going on, and I try and keep on top of whatever is going on in the office because--I'm also available to all my doctors. For example, on Monday, they I came back from the lecture, I stopped in my office. And they I came to my office, the first thing I was asked to look at was a homicide case by one of my doctors. I went down, looked at the case, gave some suggestions, got a criminalist. So what I'm saying, it's an ongoing process. I went down, looked at the body, saw the injuries with the doctor, got the criminalist to look at the case. I don't want to go into specifics of the number and all, but just wanted to tell you that I am the Chief Medical Examiner for that office. He's one of the experienced pathologists there. And I'm always available to my doctors for any expertise they believe I can offer them, and this is why I'm there. So I do it on a routine basis, but yes, in this case, I did come down and look at the bodies on the 13th and I was the one who assigned the cases.

MR. SHAPIRO: And after you looked at the bodies, did you give some thought to actually supervising the autopsy yourself because you knew public attention would be focusing on this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I had absolute trust in my doctor. I mean my philosophy is, they I hire a board certified forensic pathologist, I'm not there to spoon-feed them. I am there to help them if they need my help. For example, on Monday, they I came in, this particular forensic pathologist asked me to look at the body. I went and looked at it. If Dr. Golden had asked me, "Dr. Lakshmanan, I need your help, come and help me," I would have gone and helped him. And if I was not available, I would assign a second pathologist. So it is my pathologists' prerogative to call me or ask for additional assistance because they are certified pathologists. They've been hired to do the job and I have confidence in actually all my employees to do the job they a job is needed to be done. And if they need my help, I am there. If I can't offer them help, I'll get one of my assistants to help them. I have 12 doctors working in my office in different areas of expertise. Whenever we need any help, we're the first to provide it. And if it's not available in out office, I get the expertise from outside.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did anyone--has anyone told you that Dr. Golden's findings were not consistent with the D.A.'s theory of this case?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, nobody has told me that.

MR. KELBERG: Well, that's okay. Withdraw the objection.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Sorry.

MR. SHAPIRO: You read the transcript of Dr. Golden's testimony; did you not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you've read his criteria at the preliminary hearing for exact time of death; did you not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you're aware that his criteria for the exact time of death on at least three different criteria put the time of death after 11:00 o'clock; are you not? Did he not testify to that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He used the rigor, livor and liver temperature, yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you are aware that's inconsistent with the D.A.'s theory as to they these homicides took place; are you not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: What do you mean by "Inconsistent"? That is, could you tell me what they said because I don't know what the theory is. Could you tell me the theory again?

MR. SHAPIRO: You don't know what the D.A.'s theory is in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That the murders took place between 10:00 and 11:00 and not between 11:00 and 12:00, is that what you are referring to?

MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you if you know what the D.A.'s theory is in this case.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't know what their exact theory is, but the time frame we are looking at is between 10:00 and 11:00.

MR. SHAPIRO: So if Dr. Golden testified at the preliminary hearing on three criteria that the time of death was after 11:00 o'clock in his opinion, wouldn't that be inconsistent with the D.A.'s theory?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence and misstates what in fact Dr. Golden did testify to at the preliminary hearing.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you aware of what Dr. Golden testified to and what finding he came to recording time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm aware of what he said on the preliminary testimony.

MR. SHAPIRO: He did that under oath; did he not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And he did--he testified under oath at your direction that he was asked to come up with a time of death; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And he testified at the preliminary hearing under oath that in his opinion, based on the different criteria that you've gone through, that the time of death was after 11 o'clock; did he not?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Misstates the evidence. I would ask to be heard at sidebar with the court reporter.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he testify as to what the time of death was?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he offer an opinion, if you calculate it out, as to the time of death being after 11:00 o'clock?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, with respect to the, "If you calculate it out."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he offer opinions as to hours they time of death occurred in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He offered some opinions, but if you're going to go into that, I would like to refresh my memory looking at the preliminary testimony before I answer exactly because I don't want to give time, numbers which are not correct. So I want to read the preliminary hearing testimony and then--or you can read it out because I have read it and I can say whether I agree.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you are aware he concluded on some criteria that the time of death was after 11:00 o'clock; are you not?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Also calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you aware of, doctor--well, you read his preliminary hearing transcript and you are telling us you don't remember what he said?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you read the preliminary transcript?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know what was said regarding time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I recall some numbers, but as I said, if you have the transcript, I'd like to refresh my memory, and we can look at it and then I can discuss it further at that point.

MR. SHAPIRO: How much time did you spend reading the transcript of Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think I read it once a few weeks ago and once a few months ago, but not recently except they the D.A. During my direct examination read out excerpts, I think certain injuries which I gave my opinion on those injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: We'll go back to that they we have some more time, and I'll ask you to refresh your memory perhaps if we don't finish today in that area, if that would be appropriate, your Honor, rather than take the time now.

THE COURT: We could save some time if we do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SHAPIRO: You testified that you had gone to the scene of the crime twice, once in November of last year and once in February; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not February. I think it was April of this year if I recall. I have to look at the dates.

MR. SHAPIRO: In any event, you went sometime this year and once at the end of last year?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In November of last year.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you said that they you looked at the photographs, the area seemed much larger than it did they you went to the scene?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: Doesn't that demonstrate the importance of a medical examiner having to go to the scene?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did Dr. Golden ever go to the scene?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. SHAPIRO: They did he go to the scene?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He came with me this year whenever I went, that same day, he came with me.

MR. SHAPIRO: This year?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Wouldn't it be important to go to the scene as quickly as possible before it's disturbed or changed?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would have been important, and if he wanted to go to the scene after the autopsy, I would have not objected to that. He could have gone to the scene.

MR. SHAPIRO: Shouldn't somebody go to the scene before findings are made in an autopsy and conclusions are reached?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you earlier, our doctors don't go to the scene on every case. Our investigators gather the information and the doctor uses the information for purposes of autopsy. If the doctor wants to go to the scene, the doctors could go to the scene on an individual case-by-case basis where they feel there's indication to go to the scene. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a homicide case. It could be a possible suicide case, somebody who jumps off a clip, and they'd like to go look at the area. So depends on the situation. So it is not a routine practice for the doctor to go to the scene unless the doctor feels it's indicated to go to the scene.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, why would it not be indicated to go to the scene in June they the crimes took place and become indicated to go to the scene in November and in April, almost a year after the crime took place?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Are you asking that question with reference to me or Dr. Golden?

MR. SHAPIRO: You.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, there was a possibility I could testify. So I went to look at the scene in November. But they I knew that I am going to testify and I reviewed the case in my mind, I had to clarify the environmental factors which would play a role in the--in the injuries which I discussed with this jury in the last few days. So I went to do an in-depth study of the scene myself to study the environment better and also so I had a better idea about the relationship of the various structures and the environment so that I could render the best possible opinion based on my education and experience with the autopsy findings I reviewed. So that is why I went to the scene again in March of this year. The November was just a preliminary review of the scene, but this March was a detailed review of the whole scene area because I didn't know that I'm going to be testifying at all until towards the end of last year--this year that I will be testifying.

MR. SHAPIRO: Doctor, isn't it true that no matter how much time you spent at the scene in November and how much time you spent at that scene in March, there is no substitute for not going to the scene June 13th?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's better to go to the scene soon after death. That's correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: In your capacity as the Chief Medical Examiner, do you perform autopsies yourself?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I do whenever it's necessary, but I don't do that many autopsies myself. I mainly supervise and evaluate the work of others, supervise some cases or for teaching purposes, but not that many.

MR. SHAPIRO: They was the last time you personally did an autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Few weeks ago, I did three cases with the residents wherein I played a part in the dissection also.

MR. SHAPIRO: Preliminary to that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Last year, some cases, but I don't recall the exact date. I don't do that many autopsies.

MR. SHAPIRO: How many autopsies did you do last year?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'd have to look at my statistics. As I told you, that I'm mainly available for supervision. So I don't do many autopsies myself at this time.

MR. SHAPIRO: How often does your office prepare one-to-one photographs for the purpose of courtroom testimony?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We prepare one is to one photographs in cases where--this is about the first time I prepared it for testimony on one of my cases because I didn't do the autopsies on these cases.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is it better procedure to measure wounds on the decedents or to measure wounds on a photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already discussed this during my testimony. It is better to do the measurements on the body. But next to that, this is a process which has its own limitations. I already discussed that. And barring that this is the next best procedure which was available to me at the time, I wanted to look at all the injuries. So I--we got one-to-one photographs made.

MR. SHAPIRO: Whose measurements are you relying on for the measurements of the wounds on the actual decedents' bodies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Golden's measurements. All I did was to see whether my measurements were the same as the one is to one photographs, if it has any significant difference given the limitation of the process with Dr. Golden's measurements and given the limitations of the process. If there's no significant difference, it would indicate that Golden's measurements were reliable and some of the injuries where the photographic review permitted good interpretation--for example, a photograph would give interpretations where the measuring card is next to the injury, the photograph is taken at right angles to the injury. I found that the description, the measurements corresponded. So the photographic review helps to support and give reliability to the measurements which was taken at the time of autopsy. So that way, the photographs helped, but there's no question that the best way to see the measurements is to do the measurements at the time of photography.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why would you spend so much time looking at photographs to remeasure injuries if in your opinion, they were not important?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The reason I did this, some of the injuries was not described by Dr. Golden in the original report. In the addendum, he--he reviewed photographs and gave measurements, and I just wanted to make sure that--since those were not described in the original report, I wanted to make sure that in the one is to one photographs, the measurement matched the measurements done on the regular photographs and I--given my measurements in the chart which I generated for the court, I played a role in generating for the court. And so basically, it would help to give reliability to the measurement from the photograph of the injuries which were not addressed in the original report and those which were in the diagram also like, for example, in Miss Brown Simpson, the palmar cut, in Mr. Goldman, the cuts to the back of here (indicating). I'm just giving you some examples which were not described. So since the addendum was prepared without the help of one is to one photographs, the one is to one photographs supports the best possible way to measure those wounds, next best to measuring the wounds on the body.

MR. SHAPIRO: How do you know Dr. Golden measured all the wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He measured it from the photographs. But you can measure it from the photograph--even a regular photograph. All our photographs have the blue card, and you take the measure with the blue card and apply it to the wound measurement. But that is not as good as a one is to one photograph since these measurements were made--I'm talking about injuries which were not described. The one is to one photograph would be a better reflection for measuring, easier to measure because the blue card is the actual blue card size which is used on the one is to one photographs.

MR. SHAPIRO: How do you know Dr. Golden did all the measurements? That was my question.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the autopsy?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Because being a certified pathologist, that's important. And if you look at his description, he has done it. He has described his--his process pretty clearly.

MR. SHAPIRO: How do you know he did them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just by working with him for 15 years, I know he does autopsies and he does the measurements.

MR. SHAPIRO: You don't know if anyone else was there to help him with this autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, autopsy technician could be there to help him, but usually the doctors do the measurements themselves.

MR. SHAPIRO: But you don't know whether Dr. Golden did it or whether the technician did it, do you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: My--

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. I would ask that the witness have an opportunity--

THE COURT: But it's a restatement of the same question. You may answer the question.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: My understanding is that he did the measurements.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know that for a fact?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, he didn't tell me the technician did the measurements. Because if the technician helped, he would have put it down in the report. Mainly in our offices, doctors do the measurements and record it. And from all the handwriting in the reports and the diagrams, it's my understanding that he did the measurements.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who did the "Y" incision on the two decedents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's my understanding he should have done it also.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you sure of that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's my understanding. I was not there. I told you that I was not in the autopsy room when he did the autopsy.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, he was supposed to do it, right?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And if he didn't do it, there would be something wrong, correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, not for the "Y" incision because sometimes the technician can help you with the autopsy process. That's why the technician is helping you.

MR. SHAPIRO: But that should be recorded somewhere, shouldn't it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, depends because the autopsy technician's name could be recorded if they played a significant part in the autopsy process. But the autopsy technician in an autopsy routinely removes the neck, and if the autopsy technician helped to remove the neck organs and open the head to remove the brain, that's not routinely recorded, but it's an understanding of the office. So my understanding is that he did the measurements. My understanding is there is an autopsy technician helping him. My understanding is, I do not know what role a particular technician plays in the autopsy assistance process. So--

MR. SHAPIRO: I'm sorry. From the 200 hours you spent reviewing this case, you can't tell us who performed the incision on these bodies to begin the autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I understand it was Dr. Golden, but am not a hundred percent sure who helped him with the process. But I think it was Dr. Golden.

MR. SHAPIRO: So you do not know who the technician was?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: One of the technicians was George McDonald. But the photographs indicate there was a Mr. Taylor there helping Dr. Golden with the autopsy process because he took the photograph at that time.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who removed the organs from the bodies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Golden and the autopsy technician, but I can get that information by looking at the log sheet if you want. But I don't recall exactly the name of the technician who was involved in all the processes of the case.

MR. SHAPIRO: With all the mistakes Dr. Golden made, how do you know he didn't make mistakes in measurements?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, as I told you, some of the case photographs where I looked at the one is to one photographs and compared his measurement--just to give you a perfect example, 5/8 inch wound here on the right side of the neck of Mr. Goldman, the measurement he gave and the measurements I took, everything matches. The description matches. The measurements of the wounds which has been given on some other wounds also matches. So I think his measurements are very reliable.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who measured the decedent, Mr. Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is my understanding Dr. Golden did the measurement.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he do that correctly?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: With the wounds he described, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection to the use of this document as calling for hearsay, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: I don't know what the document is.

MR. SHAPIRO: May I ask a question?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SHAPIRO: May I approach the witness, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us what that document is, sir?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, again, objection. Calling for hearsay, lack of foundation. This is a photocopy of something, which would require hearsay.

MR. SHAPIRO: It's from the murder book, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the driver's license of Mr. Goldman.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you testified that the measurements of Mr. Goldman were five feet nine inches tall or 69 inches; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the measurement given by our office by Mr. Jacobo who took the measurement.

MR. SHAPIRO: What does Mr. Goldman's driver's license says his height is?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Excuse me. Hearsay. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The height here, California driver's license, six feet.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would this be a nice time to take a break, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We'll stand in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning. Doctor, tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. Thank you. All right. We'll stand in recess.

(At 5:00 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, June 15, 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 Wednesday, June 14, 1995

Volume 167 pages 31884 through 32176, 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 167 pages 31884 - 32176

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday June 14, 1995 A.M. 31884 167 P.M. 32009 167

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 167 (Resumed) 31905bk (Resumed) 32011bk 32119s

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 167 (Resumed) 31905bk (Resumed) 32011bk 32119s

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

363-A - videotape (Not marked on the record) (Redacted from 363 videotape)

364-A thru 364-I - 31900/01 167 Coroner's documents consisting of autopsy evidence collection log, evidence log for Ron Goldman, evidence log for Nicole Brown Simpson, drop-box log, toxicology log, label entitled "Blood obtained before embalming" for Mr. Goldman, and label entitled "Blood obtained before embalming" for Ms. Simpson

364-AA thru 364-II - 31909/33 167 blow-ups of Coroner's documents consisting of exhibits 364-A thru 364-I

365 - 3-Page document 31936 167 dated July 28, 1994, Department of Coroner form 42

366 - Chart 31999 167 entitled "Factors commonly used to estimate range for time of death

367-A - chart 32004 167 entitled "Algor temperature"

367-B - computer image 32013 167 of graph with 3 red markings

367-C - chart 32024 167 entitled "Some limitations to the preciseness of estimating postmortem interval (PMI) from body temperature"

367-D - chart 32024 167 entitled "Relationship between postmortem interval (PMI) and body cooling"

367-E - chart 32038 167 entitled "Algor mortis"

367-F - chart 32041 167 entitled "Algor mortis continued"

367-G - chart 32041 167 entitled "Algor mortis continued"

367-H - documents 32047 167 certified climaticdata reports for the dates of June 12 and June 13, 1994

367-I - chart 32048 167 entitled "Algor mortis continued"

367-J - graph 32048 167 entitled "Analysis of algorithms in actual cases"

367-K - graph 32049 167 entitled "Temperature-based methods I"

368-A - chart 32055 167 entitled "Rigor mortis body stiffening"

368-B - chart 32057 167 entitled "Rigor mortis continued"

368-C - chart 32063 167 entitled "Rigor mortis continued"

369-A - chart 32066 167 entitled "Livor mortis blood settling"

369-B - chart 32073 167 entitled "Livor mortis hypostasis"

370-A - chart 32074 167 entitled "Vitreous humor potassium level"

370-B - chart 32076 167 entitled "Vitreous humor potassium level"

371-A - chart 32079 167 entitled "Gastric stomach contents"

371-B - chart 32101 167 entitled "Gastric stomach contents continued"

344-A(1) - cassette tape 32081 167 audiotape of Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy by Dr. Golden