Your Honor, defense calls Dr. Michael Baden.
MICHAEL BADEN, M.D., was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:
You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Sir, if you would, please, when you're ready, state and spell your name for the record.
A forensic pathologist is a physician who specializes in determining how people die from -- from unnatural causes, and who is trained in determining how injury affects the living or dead person. That's to distinguish the forensic pathologist from the general pathologist, which -- whose expertise is to determine disease and abnormalities that are natural, from doing various tests: Looking at tissue under the microscope, or doing chemical tests.
And the pathologist -- forensic pathologist, hospital pathologist doesn't treat living patients, but gives information to the surgeon or the dermatologist, or the internist, who does the treatment.
Yes.
I received a bachelor of science degree in 1955 from the City College of New York, and then a medical degree, an M.D. degree in 1959 from New York University School of Medicine. I then was an intern and resident, initially specializing in internal medicine, and then resident and chief resident in pathology at Bellevue Hospital Medical Center in New York City. And finished my training at Bellevue as a fellow in pathology, 1965.
Yeah. Internal medicine -- there are about 25 specialties in medicine; pathology is one, internal medicine is another.
Internal medicine is that specialty in medicine that treats illness in nonsurgical ways.
Yeah.
While a resident doctor at Bellevue Hospital, I became a part-time medical examiner for the City of New York, which is similar to medical examiner/coroner in -- in Los Angeles.
And in that position, I did autopsies on persons who died of, potentially, unnatural causes; went to scenes of death; and stayed as a part-time medical examiner from 1960 to 1965.
When I finished my training at -- as a resident doctor at Bellevue, I then became a full-time medical examiner for the City of New York, and stayed in that office until 1985, holding various positions, including that of Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York.
Since 1985, I have been Director of Forensic Sciences for the New York State Police. But I'm here in a private capacity, not as a representative of that agency.
Now, during the course of your experience, have you -- have you had any clinical experience?
If so, tell us what that is.
Yes.
Clinical experience, being the treatment of living patients, was my initial area of specialization. And I was initially starting to specialize in internal medicine. And I did that at New York University Medical School, and Bellevue Hospital, and Columbia Presbyterian School of Medicine, until I entered the pathology program and became an -- have been acting as a pathologist since 1963, about.
With your clinical experience, have you had experience with people who have had stab wounds or other traumatic injuries?
Yes.
As an intern and resident and medical student at Bellevue Hospital, New York City, which is the major hospital for trauma then and now in Manhattan, I admitted, treated, diagnosed, assisted in operations on many people, hundreds of people who had injury and trauma and who survived.
And those injuries and trauma, are they similar types of injuries that you -- we have seen in this case?
Board certification is a means that's been established largely since World War II, to permit patients to know whether a physician who holds himself or herself out as a specialist, has all the requisite training to be a dermatologist or a pediatrician or whatever.
And the various specialties have boards that set criteria. The criteria, in general, consists of having successfully graduated from an accredited medical school, having successfully completed a residency program in that specialty, in the -- in an approved hospital in the United States, and finally, having passed various examinations at the end of that program, written, oral, and treatment examinations.
Upon successful completion of those examinations, the individual is then a diplomat of that specialty, or board certified in that specialty, and can hold himself or herself out as a board-certified surgeon, pathologist, radiologist et cetera.
I'm certified in three areas, in three fields in pathology.
First one was anatomic pathology. And that has to do with the evaluation of any abnormalities that might be present in the structure or anatomy of the body, such as determined by looking at a biopsy under the microscope and seeing what it is, cancer or not cancer.
Also, part of that entails doing autopsies to determine what abnormalities were present. And this looks at the actual structure, to see if the liver looks abnormal, if the brain looks abnormal. And that's anatomic pathology.
Secondly, I'm certified in -- board certified in clinical pathology. And clinical pathology looks at the chemistry of the body. The clinical pathologist is often the director of the laboratory at the hospital, the lab that does urine tests and blood tests, and determines if the cholesterol is high, if the sugar is high, et cetera, and gives that information back to the treating doctor to incorporate in evaluation of what's wrong with the patient.
These are living patients.
And the third area that I'm certified, which is really the area that I do 95 percent of my work, is forensic pathology.
And forensic pathology really specializes in unnatural conditions that affect the body, as opposed to natural conditions that 99 percent of pathologists are involved with stroke, heart disease, cancer.
All parts of the hospital pathologist's expertise includes accident, suicide, homicide, drug overdose is part of what the forensic pathologist specializes in, and part of -- that's part of -- the pathology part of it, the forensic part of it, is also -- includes the ability, training to give testimony, and to give evidence in hearing procedures so that other people can understand what our findings are.
In addition to your professional positions that you told us about, have you been appointed to any -- by any government agencies to --
Yes. That is, I've been appointed to a number of committees and subcommittees by various mayors of New York City, when I worked there: Committees on drug abuse, child abuse, alcoholism, areas that a medical examiner sees a lot of in an urban area.
On a state level, I have been on various appointments by the governor to be on committees and commissions that examine health care and all deaths that occur in prisons, lock-ups and jails throughout New York State. I'm appointed to a similar commission that evaluates all health care and causes of death -- evaluate causes of death of persons who die in mental institutions and mental hospitals throughout New York State.
On a federal level, I was appointed, back in the late 1970s, Chairman of the Forensic Pathology Panel for the United States Congress Select Committee on Assassination that was charged with the responsibility of reevaluating the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.
I was chairman of both panels to look into the -- the pathology and the causes of death of President Kennedy.
And similarly, I was chairman of the panel to look into the death of Dr. Martin Luther King.
On a -- on a federal level, I have served on various commissions and committees to teach aspects of forensic medicine and forensic pathology in South American countries: Panama, Equador, Columbia.
About three years ago, I was a member of a four-member team that went to -- to the Ural Mountains in Russia, arranged by the U.S. State Department and the Russian government to examine remains that were thought to be those of Czar Nicholas, Alexandria, and the Romanoff family that was murdered in 1918, and possible skeletal remains had been recovered.
I've been a member of -- requested by the Singapore government, Philippine government, West Bank, Gaza Strip, human rights groups; Canadian government to do autopsies, examine causes of death, read autopsies in matters that have come up in those countries.
Yes, I've served as a consultant to various district attorneys' offices around the country, including that of the District Attorney in Jackson, Mississippi. About 1991, 1992, I was asked by that district attorney's office to do a reautopsy on the body of Medgar Evers, who was a civil rights leader who was murdered in 1963. And there had been a couple trials at that time that were hung juries. And new evidence had come forth, and I was asked to do a reexamination.
I did that reexamination and then did testify at the subsequent murder trial.
You indicated that you've consulted with D.A.'s offices throughout the country. Have you consulted with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office on occasion?
A few times I was consulted by them to testify and to reevaluate the death of John Belushi, to evaluate and testify in the cases involving a Dr. Boggs, recently, who was involved in a murder trial.
I've also been retained -- in fact, in this very courthouse, I testified relative to the death of -- involving Christian Brando, Marlin Brando's son, a few years back. That was for the defendant.
The Boggs case that you mentioned, were you testifying as an expert for the Los Angeles D.A.'s office, at the same time you were a defense expert in this case?
At the time of the criminal trial in this case, when I testified -- I was testifying in the criminal trial -- I did testify two different times across the hall as an expert for the Los Angeles District Attorney, on their behalf in a homicide trial, yes which involved actually three -- in total, three different defendants.
During the course of your professional experience, can you break down the number of times that you worked for the prosecution versus the defense, just approximately?
Well, in general, all my official work as Medical Examiner in New York City, as Medical Examiner for the State Police is almost entirely evaluating and being called to testify by the prosecution.
In my private practice -- and I'm permitted, since working with the New York State Police, to have a private practice, because my job with the state police -- New York State police is not full-time in that capacity. I do private consultations both for -- for prosecution and defense attorneys.
It works out, possibly, about 60 percent for prosecutors' offices, for 40 percent in defense matters.
In my private practice.
But in me official capacity, which 90 percent of my work over the years has been done, officially as the medical examiner for New York City, as the Medical Examer for the state police that's -- 99.9 percent, I'm called by the prosecutor's office to testify.
Now, can you give us an estimate of how many autopsies you think you've done over the years?
Now, during the course of your professional experience, how often do you go to a crime scene?
Oh, when I was in New York City, almost all the homicides that I would be involved with, I would go to the crime scene.
Since working for the state police, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
Yes. The crime scene is extremely important for the forensic pathologist and for the police investigators.
I'm sorry. (Indicating to small spill.)
That wasn't a Freudian slip.
I've known Dr. Spitz for a long time, and I have the greatest respect for him. I think he's excellent. I think we disagree on some matters at issue, but he's an excellent forensic pathologist.
You're aware he's testified in this case on many of the same issues that you testified to in the criminal case?
I was called by the attorney for Mr. Simpson, Mr. Robert Shapiro, on the night of June --
Thank you very much. (Bailiff hands paper towels to Dr. Baden.)
June 14, 1994.
I came to Los Angeles on the 16th -- that is a Thursday -- arrived Thursday, late afternoon, from New York City.
And can you describe briefly the amount of time that you spent working on the criminal case?
Yes.
I spent a lot of time. I spent about two or three weeks, initially, review -- going through the crime scenes, of course -- the crime scenes: The Bundy scene, the Rockingham scene; going to the medical examiner's office; going to the Los Angeles Crime Lab; consulting with the attorneys.
I would say over the 1994 -- two-year period of time, 1994, 1995, I spent more than 70 days in Los Angeles, alone, and then I did a lot of work in New York City.
Dr. Spitz indicated that his charge was $3,000 a day.
Do you have -- is your $1500 a day fee, is that a governmental fee? Is it some other --
Well, presently, my normal fee would be $2500 a day, or up to $3,000 a day, depending on the situation.
But in this matter, since I'd worked out an arrangement with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, and the John Belushi matter and in the Boggs matter, to charge them $1500 a day in the cases I worked with them, I thought it was only fair that I would charge the same to Mr. Simpson.
Now, the 70 days that you spent at $1500 a day is approximately $105,000; is that approximately what you received in the criminal case?
No. I only charged for the time that I had to come here to -- to Los Angeles. I didn't charge for reviewing materials in New York City.
KEY QUOTEDuring the course of your preparation for your testimony in the criminal case, did you review all the autopsy reports?
Did you review all of the testimony in the various proceedings that related to the pathology, forensic pathology issues?
Well, I reviewed from previous proceedings, Dr. Golden's testimony, the doctor who did the two autopsies.
I was present and reviewed Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony in the criminal trial. I reviewed all the documents that were created at the time of the autopsy, including going down and making more sections and looking at the tissues that were retained in formaldehyde and making additional sections from those.
I did not do a second autopsy but I did review everything that was retained which included tissues made -- Meant to make microscopic sections and also I reviewed all the tissues that were retained for toxicology purposes to be sent to the laboratory for chemical analyses.
Now, have you also reviewed the testimony of Werner Spitz, both in deposition and in this civil case with respect to the issues that you testified to in the criminal case?
Yes. That is, I did examine all the physical evidence that was available at the medical examiner's office. All the clothing from both parties.
All the trace evidence that was available in the Los Angeles crime lab. Whatever microscopic sections were available and all the photographs that were many, many photographs taken of the crime scenes and related to the homicide investigation and I did go to the various -- to Bundy and to Rockingham a number of times and examined those areas.
Yeah. I arrived on June 16th, which is Thursday, late Thursday, and made arrangements with Mr. Shapiro at that time, and Dr. Henry Lee, who came with me, who also arrived that -- that evening, to examine Mr. Simpson the following day.
And we did meet with him the following day, the following morning, to evaluate him for -- first to take samples of hair, to take samples of blood, to take samples of urine. And in the process of that, we're told that the District Attorney's office had decided they were going to arrest him.
Now, during much of the time that you worked on this case, were you also working with Dr. Henry Lee?
And are the opinions that you testified to in the criminal case, and the ones you'll be testifying to here today, are they based on all of the information you've reviewed about this case?
They incorporate all of the information that I reviewed, all the evaluations I did, and all of the -- and after discussing the matters with other -- with Dr. Golden, Dr. Lakshmanan and, Dr. Lee.
Incidentally, when you were examining physical evidence, was -- one of the items that you examined was the white envelope with the glasses that had been found between the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?
Yes. On the first time I went to the Los Angeles Police Department Crime Lab, there were about 57 items of evidence, and one of those items was a white envelope that contained eyeglasses with the name Nicole -- Ms. Simpson on them, or that would identify to me as being the eyeglasses that were being returned to Mrs. Simpson.
There were two lenses. They were separate. I examined them. There was a frame and two lenses, separate. Everything, in fact, intact, nothing broken.
The following January, when we were -- When I was next able to review that evidence, when it was brought to my office in Albany, New York, and I reviewed the evidence with Dr. Lee, Dr. Wolfe, who was also present, one lens was missing. I don't know what happened to it.
Now, I want to ask you some questions about your examination of Mr. Simpson on the 17th of June.
Could we show the middle -- the cut on the middle finger, please.
MR. P. BAKER: This is photograph 715.
This is a photograph that I believe I took of Mr. Simpson's hand, left -- left hand.
This would be the middle finger (indicating).
This would be the ring finger (indicating).
And this would be a ruler that I used.
And in the middle of the photograph is the knuckle. The knuckle -- not the knuckle, the middle of the index -- of the middle finger, with a healing laceration on the top of the joint.
Now, do you have an opinion on whether that particular wound could have been caused by a fingernail?
My opinion then, and my opinion now, is that it was not caused by a fingernail, by somebody's fingernail.
KEY QUOTEWell, it's a deep, irregular cut. And it was my opinion, and is my opinion, that it was cut by some sharp, irregular object.
One object that was raised to me as being a jagged piece of glass, which certainly be able -- would cause that kind of injury, could cause that kind of injury, or a very jagged knife could also cause that, not a sharp knife, possibly could cause it.
My opinion, after going over this and consulting with Dr. Lee, was that it was most likely broken glass.
And we'll get into more detail in a minute, but you share the opinion that those wounds were caused by a sharp knife, correct?
Could the kind of -- the sharpness of the knife that caused those wounds on the victims have caused this cut?
No. In my opinion, the knife that caused the wounds on Mr. Goldman and Mrs. Simpson, was a sharp knife or knives. It was some -- one or more knives that caused those were sharp.
And this is irregular. (Indicating.) This was an irregular wound that -- and that was the reason that I thought it was most likely caused by glass.
KEY QUOTEI've never seen a fingernail gouge mark produce a long -- that long and deep a wound on somebody. Even cats and animals create scratches, but not deep gouges. And that, in addition, which -- when I examined in the Los Angeles Coroner's Office the nail clippings from Mrs. Simpson, for example, there -- they were all intact; none of them were damaged. None of them had skin on them, but none of them were damaged. And she had long, artificial fingernails.
Whereas, none of them were injured in any way.
Mr. Goldman had very -- didn't have any fingernails; they were clipped; they were very close to the skin.
My impression was, after looking at the fingers of the decedent, and after looking at this wound, that it was not a -- a scratch, but that it was some kind of an irregular, sharp object. And that -- that's what my opinion was and is today.
Have you heard anything since you gave your opinion in the criminal case to change your mind about that?
Now, on the 17th, you examined Mr. Simpson's hand.
Did you observe this second area that appears to be a cut?
Yeah. There were two other breaks in the skin that I observed. One was on the inside of the same finger, and another was on the opposite portion of the ring finger, the fourth finger. There were two additional healing cuts or tears in the skin.
Let me show you -- this is also part of 715.
Does this appear to be that second cut that you're talking about?
Yeah. This is the cut on the inside of the fourth finger, also of the left hand of Mr. Simpson, a photograph taken on that Friday morning, the 17th I think.
Do you have an opinion on whether the cut that's depicted in this picture could have been caused by a fingernail gouge?
No, I didn't think at that time, nor do I think now, that any of these are fingernail marks.
And fingernails cause abrasions with different kinds of marks, in my experience, than what is on Mr. Simpson's hands in these photographs, and what I saw with my own eyes back on June 17th.
Yeah. I -- I don't have an independent recollection, but I think this photograph was taken by Dr. Lee.
That's my finger holding the ruler.
And they certainly do show crusted, superficial abrasions. They weren't cuts; they were broader abrasions.
Yeah, they're very small.
This is an inch between the two lines. This is -- it would be a third of an inch, maybe, in diameter.
And when I examined -- well, they're there.
They don't look --
No, in my opinion, they're not caused by fingernails, they're caused by rubbing against something, friction, abrasion, when skinning one's knees, when one rubs off the top layer of the skin and it crusts over.
Let me show you another part -- another picture from that next series.
It's a little hard to see.
Do you see the very small abrasions?
Those could be. There are lots of things that could cause those two, and it's possible that fingernails could cause that.
But that wasn't my opinion; but it's possible.
Dr. Baden, do you have an opinion now -- Withdrawn.
You examined the two scenes involved, the autopsy, and all of the evidence that you've described, in order to form opinions with respect to what might have happened at Bundy at the time of the murders, correct?
Yes; that is part of what a forensic pathologist does, is to try and utilize examination of living and dead victims to reconstruct what happened at the time of the injury, yes. And that was one of the areas I was looking into.
Now, you're familiar with Dr. Spitz's testimony in this case, where he provided a very detailed specific recitation of his opinion on how he thought every wound was inflicted and in what order.
(BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, you reviewed Dr. Spitz's testimony as to his opinion as to how the murders took place?
And in your opinion, as a forensic pathologist, do you have an opinion as detailed as Dr. Spitz's, based on the evidence that was presented in this case?
In my opinion, in this case, one can't get as detailed as Dr. Spitz had gotten. That are -- there are times you can get detailed if there are eyewitnesses, and we're able to use the autopsy findings to see if they support one version versus another.
But in a situation like this, where there were no eyewitnesses, I don't think it's reasonable to give a blow-by-blow description with any accuracy.
KEY QUOTENow, have you formed an opinion with respect to the number of perpetrator or perpetrators that might have been responsible for these murders?
My opinion is that -- it's based on all the evidence and all the circumstances -- that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.
KEY QUOTEBecause it's very difficult for a single perpetrator to control two victims at the same time in a public place, whether in an apartment or closed-off area.
It would not be, in my experience, possible to reliably prevent people from yelling, screaming, asking for help, from escaping from doing -- taking many evasive actions, that were not done here in a public place, with people walking around outside.
So it's my opinion, it's more likely that there's more than one perpetrator.
Incidentally, did you observe any wounds on Ronald Goldman that would have prevented him from hollering out during the course of whatever struggle took place?
Neither victim was incapacitated or unable to call out for help prior to losing consciousness.
That even though the neck was injured in both said individuals, the vocal cords and the voice box were still normal. So even in a two-second struggle, people can yell. One can yell help five times in a second or two seconds or three seconds.
So there was nothing structurally in the victim to prevent either one from yelling for help until the time of loss of consciousness.
As to Nicole Brown Simpson, the large neck wound that she had that went around to the spine, would she be able to holler out at that time?
No, because the neck wound went through the top part of the larynx. It didn't injure the voice box; it didn't injure the vocal cords. So even though the very top of the epiglottis, the -- which is sort of back of the throat -- was cut, the other aspect -- the other parts of the voice box was not.
However, my opinion would be that when she suffered that cut, that was the same time that she suffered the cuts to the carotid arteries. And when she suffered the cut to the carotid arteries, she would have lost consciousness in ten seconds or so.
Prior to that injury, was there anything that would have prevented her, from an injury standpoint, from screaming?
No. During, whatever preceded the cut wound across the neck, whatever time there was, no reason that she could not have called out for help or yelled in some way. Whatever time interval there was, there was some time interval, because there were cuts on her hands. She had defensive marks on her.
KEY QUOTEWe'll talk about that in a little more detail in a minute.
Do you have an opinion with respect to the number of weapons that were involved inflicting the wounds to the two victims in this case?
Yes. I think that it could -- it could be one single weapon, if it was shaped properly, that could have caused the wounds to both individuals -- the wounds to both individuals -- individuals.
But certainly, much of the findings would be equally consistent with two weapons, that there are descriptions and photographs in the -- of the stab wounds, somewhat -- some are double-edged, some are single-edged.
That doesn't mean necessarily that you need more than one weapon, but it would be consistent with a double-edge weapon, as well as a single-edge weapon.
So, is it your opinion that you can't say that it was only one weapon? It could be one; it could be more?
I want to ask you if you have an opinion with respect to -- given the wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, what sort of blood would have resulted on the perpetrator or perpetrators who were involved in this struggle?
In my opinion, again, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, when Nicole Simpson's neck was -- was cut so that she bled from the carotid arteries, that blood needn't have gotten on the perpetrator if he were behind her.
But in the course of the struggle with Nicole Simpson and with Ron Goldman -- there was a considerable struggle, in my opinion with Mr. Goldman. The very fact that both had stab wounds and injuries to the hands that bled, would be, in and of itself, a reason that blood would get on the perpetrator, from bleeding hands, in the course of combat. So my opinion would be that there would be blood on the perpetrator's skin or clothing.
There were wounds that -- on both victims that are absolutely alluded to as defensive wounds.
For the record, we have a compilation of pictures, that of Mr. Goldman's hands, which include 384, 385, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Dr. Baden, could you step down here briefly.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Blasier. Are you calling that a number.
(BY MR. BLASIER) Could you point out to the members of the jury, the basis for your opinion that the defensive wounds were -- would have bled on the perpetrator?
Yes.
I think on the 384, the first one, the right hand -- yeah, right hand -- there's a stab wound right between the base, between the first and the second -- the second or third fingers, that seems to have a sharp edge on the side. That's a double edge which goes into the underlying skin, which is very vascular, lots of small blood vessels in that area.
And I think in the course of a struggle, blood would be oozing at some rapidity from that stab wound.
And in addition to that, there was a stab wound on this same hand, as seen in 1998, in the palm of the hand, which would also is be in a vascular area that would bleed.
And on the left hand, which is 1986 -- 1996, below the pinky, there's a cut wound on the hand, which would also -- all of which go down into the underlying blood vessels. So all of those would have bled during a struggle. And if the hand came in contact with the clothing or person of the perpetrator or perpetrators, would leave some blood on it.
Now, looking at 1997, could you tell us about the wounds indicated on the back of Mr. Goldman's right hand; what could have caused those?
Yeah, there are bruises on the back of Mr. Goldman's right hand, the black-and-blue marks, which are due to blunt-force trauma, due to the fact that the back of the hand came in contact with an object, and is typical, in my experience, with punching injuries, if somebody's punching somebody else.
These bruises kind of curve on the back of the hand, the knuckles and the joint of the fingers in the places that are present in this photograph, which is 1997.
Now, Dr. Baden, would you agree that in addition to the wounds on the hands, that there was a tremendous amount of blood at this crime scene, the Bundy scene?
Now, did you examine -- again with respect to the issue of how long the incident took place -- did you examine Mr. Goldman's clothing to attempt to add weight to your opinion?
Yeah.
In order to try and determine how long Mr. Goldman was standing up after he started to bleed, the clothing examination would be very helpful in arriving at an opinion in that regard. In addition, the clothing is important to see if there's any evidence of a struggle: Tears in the fabric, torn buttons, are some ways in which clothing can tell us how much of a struggle was going on.
Yeah. There was considerable amount of blood when I saw the clothing in the medical examiner's office about a week later. The blood was all dried in the photographs of the crime scene. The blood was not as dry as when I saw it later on. But in looking at the crime-scene photographs of the clothing and examining the clothing at the coroner's office the following week, there was a great deal of blood present on the shirt and on the -- on the jeans, the pants that Mr. Goldman was wearing, particularly on the left leg, the left leg and lower extremity of the blue jeans that he was wearing at the time that he was murdered.
Yes.
I don't think you have the whole thing on the -- yeah. If you make it a little smaller, I think you'll get the context better.
Yeah, this -- this is a photograph of Mr. Goldman as he lay in the crime scene when -- before the body was moved.
Yeah.
If I may, this is Mr. Goldman's back against the -- the metal fence, the blue -- blue jeans going down to the white shoes, the ankle-high boots or shoes. And what impressed me in this photograph, and when I examined the clothing subsequently, was a great deal of blood that had soaked down from the top of the jeans into the -- to where it ended by the shoes, and that blood further soaked into the left shoe.
-- and your description of the blood-soaked shoes -- did your examination of one of Mr. Goldman's shoes confirm it was blood-soaked?
Now, Dr. Spitz testified that, in his opinion, some of that dark area was shadow.
In your opinion, after looking at the pants, was that blood?
Yeah.
I think, in fairness to Dr. Spitz, it's hard to tell from the photographs, which are not so distinct on the Elmo, what's shadow and what's dark blood.
But clearly, in my opinion, all of that dark area on the jeans was dry blood when I examined the -- the clothing at the medical examiner's -- at the coroner's office.
Let me show you 2168.
Does this appear to be part of the jeans that showed a continuous stain from top to bottom?
Yes.
I'm a little disoriented here. But this would be the jeans. And the dark was -- was -- yes, the dark is dry blood extending down into the left shoe that he was wearing.
And this is a photograph taken after Mr. Goldman was removed from the crime scene. (Indicating.)
Now, did you observe anything about Mr. Goldman's shoes that indicates that he was engaged in a struggle?
Well, apart from the blood that was present on the shoes, which turns out was my -- in my opinion, evidence of a struggle, there was also a cut on the top of the right shoe, what I interpreted as a fresh cut, which, in my opinion, was entirely consistent, or appeared to -- appears, to me, to have occurred at the same time that the stab wounds occurred.
Now, I want to ask you about some of the specific wounds, now.
There was an indication of a bruise to Nicole Brown Simpson's brain, correct?
There was a bruise; that is, when I examined the tissues that were stored in the medical examiner's office -- and it is usual and customary at the time an autopsy is done to take a little bit of tissue for possible further examination under the microscope -- and when I went to the medical examiner's office, I was able, through the courtesy of Dr. Lakshmanan, to examine the tissues that were in the formaldehyde and preservation. And included in that bottle was a section of brain removed from the time of autopsy from Mrs. Simpson that did contain on it a very prominent bruise, a damage and hemorrhage on the outside of the brain.
It had not been described in the -- all the protocol, so it was not present in the autopsy description prior to our finding it.
I looked at it, with Dr. Lakshmanan being present, and he then had the autopsy report amended to include that.
Now, did you also observe information in the autopsy report with respect to a bruise on Nicole Brown Simpson's scalp, in the area of that bruise to the brain?
Yes.
Dr. Golden, when he prepared the autopsy report on Mrs. Simpson, did note, I believe, on the right side of the top of the -- on the right side, on top of the scalp, a distinct bruise to the skin when he -- he viewed and reviewed the brain injury, it was his recollection, and he so amended his report to indicate that his best recollection, the bruise on the brain was also on the right side, right under the -- the scalp tissue, and he had forgotten to include that in his report. So he amended it.
There was no skull fracture, just a bruise on the scalp and a bruise on the underlying brain.
Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that bruise could have been caused by Nicole Brown Simpson falling down onto the pavement?
Assuming that Dr. Golden's recollection is correct, I have no reason to doubt it. It would be a typical bruise for direct blow to the head.
In general, when the brain is bruised, it's different patterns of injury, depending on a direct blow to the brain -- to the forehead, versus a falling blow to the head. When there's a direct blow to the head, as by a baseball bat or whatever blunt object, there's an injury on the skin and there's an injury on the brain immediately under it. And that's called a coup injury, c-o-u-p-e(sic). And that's to indicate that it is a stationary -- a blow to a stationary head.
When a person falls and injures the head, because our brains are encased in a thin layer of water -- the spinal fluid encases our brain -- when our head strikes something, we fall, the brain is jarred and strikes the other surface, so that the scalp injury may be on the back of the head, but the brain injury will be opposite, on the front of the head. That's called a contrecoup injury.
And that helps the pathologist reconstruct, at the time of an autopsy, whether the injury was due to a fall or due to a direct blow, which sometimes is of importance.
And in this instance, my opinion would be that the nature of the blow -- the coup nature of the blow would indicate that Mrs. Simpson was struck with a blunt object on the top of the head, and that this caused the direct bruising of the brain underneath.
And this opinion is further supported by the nature of the wound. The -- the injury to the scalp is near the top of the scalp, and it's not a likely place to be injured during a fall.
Usually, during a fall, it's more to the side.
So my opinion is that Mrs. Simpson, at some point during her struggle, was struck in the forehead with a blunt object.
Now, did you -- from the autopsy report, can you tell us approximately how many wounds, in your opinion, were inflicted on Nicole Brown Simpson prior to the fatal neck wound?
About ten cut and stab wounds. There could be more, because -- depends how one distinguishes the wounds. There are about ten wounds prior to the fatal neck wounds.
They were on both sides of the body. There was a clustering of four on the left side of the neck, in addition to the stab wound, to the cut wound. But the knife that caused those stab wounds were in different directions. The blood was in varying directions, so that -- and there were injuries to both sides of the body, different kinds of blunt force and stabbing injuries, which indicated to me that it was part of the struggle.
For the record Exhibits 1407 and 1411 from this morning are by reference to Case Number BA097211.
(BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, the first week that you were out here after the murders in June of '94, did you and Dr. Lee and others inspect some of the physical evidence that had been collected?
Detective Vannatter seemed to be in charge of the operation, and Dr. Kestler, who was the chief criminalist there, was also there.
Was one of the items that you requested to examine a pair of socks that supposedly had been found on Mr. Simpson's bedroom floor?
Yes. I believe that was item 13 out of the -- of the evidence that we -- that was then at the crime lab. And I did look at them.
I was not permitted to touch or photograph any evidence. It was more of a documenting what was there, according to Detective Vannatter.
And I did look at the socks. I didn't touch it; I didn't handle the socks.
Now, I want to ask you some questions about the length of the incident in this case, that resulted in the murders.
Now, would you agree that the question of how long a period of time elapsed, from the time the perpetrator or perpetrators got to the scene and left the scene, is a different question from how long it took to inflict various wounds?
And in terms of looking at wounds after -- after a homicide, are there certain things that you can infer from the nature of the wounds as to the sequence of wounds?
Sometimes we can get information as to sequence of wounds, and certainly we can distinguish and autopsy the degree of injury each wound causes, which may be helpful in determining what was first and what was last, and whether the person could have yelled or struggled or -- and how long the person could be conscious after receiving certain wounds.
Now, you used an analogy with me the other day about a boxing match to try and illustrate this idea.
In a boxing match, one can wind up at the end as -- a recent boxing match, with a boxer having many injuries on the face, tears, lacerations, and bleeding points and all.
As a medical examiner, I can determine the minimum length of time it took to get those injuries, but I can't tell the maximum length of time the same injuries any boxer has at the end of nine rounds, 27 minutes could be incurred in one or two minutes. So I could say these injuries took at least a minute or two minutes with a blunt object, a fist or a gloved fist, to produce; but I can't tell if there were time periods in between the injuries.
Exactly. I could say that there are injuries, but I can't tell if it lasted one round or ten rounds.
Now, I want to ask you some questions about the wounds to Mr. Goldman and how this fits into the idea of how long the perpetrator or perpetrators were on the scene, as a minimum.
Do you have that in mind?
Now, what is your opinion as to the --
Well, let me ask you this: Do you agree that both victims bled to death?
And is bleeding to death from a -- from a knife wound, for instance, different than when one is struck with a blunt object or shot?
Yeah.
In deaths caused by shootings or blunt objects, baseball bats, or an automobile accident, when there's crushing injuries to organs, damage to organs -- bullets through the brain or crushing injury to the chest and heart, can cause death by direct organ damage. And loss of consciousness immediately by direct organ damage, direct brain damage, or heart damage.
In stabbings or cuttings, incapacity, impairment, and death doesn't result from direct organ damage, as in these instances, but from loss of blood. It's the bleeding that causes incapacity and death, not the damage to the organ.
So that when somebody is stabbed, as Mr. Goldman was, and/or cut and stabbed, he is not immediately incapacitated, necessarily, depending how rapidly the blood flows out, and also depending on whether an artery is injured or a vein, because they have different rates of blood flow, and depending on the size of the blood vessels and where the blood vessel is. Blood vessels near the surface of the skin, the wrists -- blood vessels to the wrists, for example, will bleed more profusely than the same size blood vessels that may be in muscle which is -- contracts; the blood collapses the blood vessel.
So, in stabbing and cutting injuries, as opposed to blunt force and shootings, it's the hemorrhage and bleeding that causes gradual incapacity, depending how quickly the blood flows, unconsciousness, and then death. And those are all different periods of time.
Because even once we lose consciousness from bleeding, we may still -- the heart can still pump, and a person be technically alive for five or ten minutes after loss of consciousness, 'cause the heart doesn't need as much -- much oxygen, where the brain needs a great deal of oxygen, and causing unconsciousness.
Now, do you have an opinion with respect to the principal wound that caused Ronald Goldman's death?
In my opinion -- and this was my opinion when I first reviewed the autopsy findings, and in agreement with what I felt interpreted was doctor -- the opinion of the person who did the autopsy, the main source of bleeding and the main vessel that was injured that caused Mr. Goldman's death was the cut jugular vein, the internal jugular vein, which is right next to where the carotid artery.
We feel for a pulse in the neck; we feel the artery. Right next to it is the internal jugular vein. And this was severed, cut through completely, as found by Dr. Golden when he did the autopsy on Mr. Goldman. And that's my opinion as to the principal reason for cause of death.
In the autopsy report, would you agree that that's the first wound that's listed by Dr. Golden?
Yes.
It is customary and traditional that whenever we do an autopsy -- we find many abnormalities in the body, many abnormalities that are of interest but not caused -- do not immediately cause death. And the most important abnormality related to the death is customarily listed first. And is -- is customarily listed first. And the listing of the abnormalities are done in an order that roughly approximates how significant it was in leading to the cause of death.
Now, can you describe what kind of bleeding would result from the wound to the neck, to Mr. Goldman?
As opposed to the wounds that Mrs. Simpson suffered with the carotid arteries, were cut, which bleed very rapidly, these arteries were not injured in Mr. Goldman. He suffered a severance, a cutting through of the internal jugular vein. That's the main vein in the forehead that brings blood back from the brain and from other parts of the head, back to the heart. And that is a large blood vessel that bleeds slowly. It bleeds profusely, but slowly, when it's severed.
Because it's near the skin, it bleeds externally. Essentially, blood vessels under the skin, near the wrists, and in the neck, will bleed externally, outside of the body, because there's no compartment for the blood to go into.
And would it be blood from that wound that would or could account for the blood on Mr. Goldman's shirt?
In my opinion, the blood oozing from the cut left internal jugular vein is the blood that continued down the shirt and down the blue jeans into the shoe. Because blood, like water, flows by gravity. And if Mr. Goldman is standing up, it will flow from the cut, the severed jugular vein in the neck, downward to the shoes, so long as he is standing, more or less upright.
And once he's on the ground, it will then flow horizontally and not downward.
And the speed with which the neck wound would bleed, did you say whether or not that would be fast or slow, or how would it relate to it in terms of timing?
It would be slow, especially compared to the carotid arteries, which was the cause of Ms. Simpson's death, which is very rapid, because the arteries are pumping blood under a very high head of pressure. And the pressure in the jugular veins are very low. But there's a lot of blood that comes back. All the blood that goes up to the carotid arteries has to come back through the jugular veins.
Even though it's bigger and under less pressure, there's a lot of blood coming back into the heart through the jugular vein.
Yes.
Arterial bleeding, what we refer to when we do a blood pressure -- when we have a blood pressure 120 over 80, we're measuring the head of pressure in the arteries, and the areas are the arm -- in the arteries of the arm; and venous pressure would be more about 3, 4, or 5, compared to 120 over 80 in an artery.
Well, there were three other stab wounds that struck vital organs.
Mr. Goldman suffered about 22 to 30 stab wounds or cut wounds, depending how each one is counted. Only four of the stab wounds injured a vital organ; the others were on the surface of the skin and the hands.
One of them cut the internal jugular vein; three, a vital organ. Two of them entered the right chest and the right lung -- the lung is a vital organ -- and one entered the left side, the left flank, and went from back, forward through the aorta. The aorta is about an inch and a half above the belly button, in that area where the aorta is.
And all of those are vital organs.
But only -- only the jugular vein bled.
Now, would you agree that the testimony of Dr. Spitz, that all of these injuries were inflicted in about a minute, depends upon his conclusion that it was the wound to the aorta that was one of the earliest -- were the first wounds?
And would you agree that, of necessity, if that was an earlier wound, there would be massive bleeding in the peritoneal area?
Yes.
Yes, that would be my opinion, strongly my opinion. That is, if any of us in this room were stabbed in the aorta or stabbed in the lung, we would have massive internal bleeding very quickly, as long as our heart was beating. And that massive bleeding would continue until the heart became feeble and couldn't beat effectively. But we would wind up with a -- two quarts of blood in the right lung area, one or two quarts of lung -- of blood in the abdominal cavity, some blood in the peritoneal space.
Now, what was the finding of Dr. Golden with respect to blood in the chest area or the lung area?
As I recall, there were -- in the right chest area, there was about 100 or 200 cc's -- that's about 6 or 7 ounces, at most -- of blood around the left -- around the right lung.
And that is a very small amount for a stab wound to the lung.
That would indicate -- and I agree with Dr. Spitz's interpretation of that -- that when the two stab wounds occurred in the lungs, in the right lung, the heart was not beating effectively; it was --
In effect, the heart is just a pump; the only job is to pump blood around the body. And normally, if a healthy person is stabbed in the lung, within a few minutes, the whole lung cavity would fill with blood.
This did not happen to Mr. Goldman. So this would reasonably be interpreted, and I -- it's my opinion and Dr. Spitz's opinion, as I read his testimony, that that indicated that he was -- Mr. Goldman was not -- the heart was not functioning properly. He was near to death at the time of those stab wounds.
Is it accurate you can conclude from that, those two wounds to the chest were probably toward the end of sequence of wounds?
That's right. Because the heart continues to beat, even after the brain is dead, and after the body is not able to function, because it doesn't need much oxygen.
And it would represent feeble, passive bleeding. That is, I say passive bleeding. Even after death, every death, even after the heart stops, if we stab a body when we do an autopsy, some blood flows out that's already in the blood vessels. There's no pumping of new blood, but there -- blood will flow as we do an autopsy.
In this instance, about 100, 200 cc's of blood could passively come from the lungs if the lungs were stabbed as the person was dying, or even after death.
Now, would you agree that Dr. Spitz's opinion with respect to the aorta wound was based on his concluding that there were approximately two quarts of blood in the retroperitoneal space?
Now, let's take a look at exhibit -- I think it's 2025, Plaintiffs' Exhibit.
And, Doctor, could you tell us if this is an accurate drawing of the aorta and the peritoneum?
May I approach?
Thank you.
The drawing is diagramatic. It's a diagram; it's not an accurate drawing.
It indicates the peritoneum, which is like a thin cellophane, a very thin plastic. That's one layer or two layers thick, that lies over the back of the abdominal cavity. And it covers the aorta. It's right against -- there's no space between the peritoneum and the -- and the aorta.
So that on this cross-section of the body that is shown in this exhibit, the back bone is up by 12 o'clock; that's the spine bone in the back. And the spine goes about halfway through the body.
And the green space -- it's not really green -- it's just the lining. The lining is the -- lining the whole peritoneal cavity and all of the intestines in this very thin membrane which lays directly on top of the aorta, that lays against the spine.
See, the aorta itself touches the spine. It lays on the spine. And it's covered in the front and sides by the peritoneum, so that if something happens inside, the peritoneum cavity -- suppose somebody gets appendicitis. The appendix lays in here. (Indicating.) They get peritonitis that stays in this area; it doesn't go back because this membrane prevents it from spreading to other part of the body.
I took this from lunch, if I may, a plastic bag. It's thin as plastic (indicating to a plastic bag.)
It would be a plastic lining of everything. My hands might be the intestines. And so the intestines lay within this sack. And the sack is -- there's no space in it; there's no air in it. It just lays on top of all of the organs: The liver, the spleen, the intestines. They're all covered by this membrane.
And the back side, where my left index finger is, would be the aorta. Again, the spine, if I might use this.
Now, we'll use that a little more in a second.
But on the diagram, you see where there's an indication of a knife going through the aorta and subsequently going through the peritoneum?
Is this misleading in a sense, that the size of the tear in the peritoneum is smaller than the size of the aorta?
To that extent, it would be. That is, if the stab wound in the back is a half an inch, as Dr. Golden described in the autopsy, and it's a half an inch on the way out to the front, it would also be a half an inch through this thin membrane, because the membrane is just -- is as close to the aorta as this. (Indicating.) This plastic is around my finger. Anything going through my finger will cause the same hole in the plastic as it would in the skin of my finger, because it's right on top of it.
Can you describe what would happen in a person who suffered a wound such as this, where that wound was one of the first wounds that they suffered?
In other words, they were still pumping blood and had a regular blood pressure, maybe a higher blood pressure.
A stab wound of the abdominal aorta is very serious and will bleed very profusely. Any of us here who suffered such a stab wound would have a belly filled with blood. The abdominal cavity filled with blood within a few minutes.
What's filling up is from -- since the stab wound goes through the peritoneum, the blood would come out from the aorta, through this membrane. And whereas I would have -- the intestines would be in the sack. As the blood filled the sack, the sack would get bigger and bigger. The abdominal cavity -- the abdominal cavity can expand.
So, like somebody -- most common thing is an alcoholic who gets ascites and gets a lot of fluid in this space. The abdominal cavity can get very big because the peritoneal sack can expand a great deal. And this is what happens when there's hemorrhage into the peritoneal space. This sack just enlarges and enlarges and accommodates all of the blood that accumulates.
Now, in this instance, there would be bleeding into the space and back into the -- around the aorta, which is called the retroperitoneal space. Behind the peritoneal here, another peritoneum. This is behind the peritoneum. However, the retroperitoneal space isn't really a space; it's filled with fat and soft tissues, so that the blood can bleed backwards into that space, but that space kind of seals itself off and causes what's called a pseudo aneurysm, because it's one of those hemorrhages that are increasingly common as we get older and have aortic aneurysms, and mini aortic aneurysms that occur to men in about the 70s or so, and they'll rupture back here behind, and this space will fill up. But it compresses the aorta and slows the bleeding down, so that person can get to a hospital in timely fashion and get operated upon.
But in this instance, there would be hemorrhage both into the back and into the front at a very rapid rate if the heart was functioning properly.
About 100 -- again, about 100, maybe 200, he says, different cc's. Four, five, six ounces of blood in the peritoneal cavity and peritoneal sack, which is, again, a very small amount.
And what does that tell you with respect to Mr. Goldman's state of health at the time that that wound was inflicted?
At the time I examined the autopsy, and my testimony previously, my opinion now is, I interpret the small amount of blood in the peritoneal cavity the same way as the small amount of blood in the right chest cavity: That all three of those wounds were inflicted at a time when Mr. Goldman's heart was not beating effectively and not functioning properly. Undoubtedly, when he was unconscious, and very little bleeding occurred as a result.
If this were the first wound, I would expect quarts of blood to be in the peritoneal cavity and in the retroperitoneal space, neither of which was found by Dr. Golden at autopsy, nor testified to at any of the previous testimonies by him or by Dr. Lakshmanan, his boss.
Do you recall Dr. Spitz's testimony, that he concluded there was two quarts of blood in the retroperitoneal space, based on a picture of a piece of tissue?
Objection to the question. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dr. Spitz did not say there were two quarts in the retroperitoneal cavity.
(BY MR. BLASIER) Incidentally, Dr. Baden, you actually examined that piece of tissue, did you not?
Yes. But I use quart and liter to be the same -- essentially the same.
They were quart and liter, about the same. Yes, I examined this. This is one of the pieces of tissue that Dr. Golden removed at the time of the autopsy and put into the formaldehyde bottle in which he preserved tissues, which is customary.
And this -- a small piece -- this is -- there's an inch ruler. And this is about a little more than an inch in either direction, I guess, or two inches.
This is the inside of the aorta after it was opened up. The aorta is a round tube. And look, what is done at the time of the autopsy is, the tube is cut open from the front, in this instance. And this is the back of the aorta.
In this area where there are lines is one area of stabbing, a cut through the back of the aorta. And then there was -- would have been another area -- it's not quite clear -- in the front. That's where the knife came out. And each was measured by Dr. Golden to be about half an inch.
It's at most, about two inches in greatest dimension, and it's about three-eighths of an inch thick or so.
What did you say from observing the tissue itself, with respect to the amount of blood in that tissue?
This tissue -- this is not a blood clot around it. It looks dark around it. And I felt it. I looked at it, this is fatty tissue that's been infiltrated with blood; that is, hemorrhages from the stab wound has bled into the fatty tissue that's normally present in the back of the aorta, because there's no space.
Those white areas on the diagram are not spaces; it's all solidly packed with muscle tissue and with fatty tissue. And this is the normal fatty tissue that has been infiltrated by the aorta bleeding into it.
And this tissue is in the retroperitoneal space; that is, it's in the tissue behind the peritoneal lining. And this is what happens whenever there's a stab wound.
Dr. Golden, in the autopsy report, describes all of the stab wound tracks in the lungs in the -- in the flank, in the jugular vein, the stab wound tracks in Ms. Simpson, as having hemorrhage around the stab wound track, because whenever there's a stab wound, blood vessels are broken, and a little bit of blood always accompanies the passive bleeding that goes along with a stab wound.
So the appearance of this tissue is blood that you would expect to find along a wound path, which is described that way in Dr. Golden's autopsy, correct?
Now, Dr. Golden, also in his autopsy, described various areas where there was bleeding, did he not?
Well, he described various quantities of blood, such as in the lungs and in the peritoneum?
And can you conclude in figures, about how much blood is in the retroperitoneal space from this small piece of tissue?
No. No. All you can conclude is that there was hemorrhage along the stab wound track, which would be present. This would be present whether there was bleeding into the retroperitoneal space or whether it wasn't. And clearly, hemorrhages into the retroperitoneal space is very obvious at an autopsy.
It sits there for the pathologist to see when he does or she does the examination. And no retroperitoneal hemorrhage was described, except for the hemorrhage that occurred along that wound tract that goes from the back to the front, through the aorta. If you'll note that there, the kidney and the pancreas, adrenal gland are all in that retroperitoneal space. And there's no blood described about any of the organs, except for a small amount next to the adrenal gland.
KEY QUOTENow, in the autopsy protocol, where does the description of this wound to the aorta appear in terms of the sequence of wounds?
Oh, it's the first wound listed in the anatomic -- in the diagnoses, after the autopsy is completed, is the cut wound of the internal jugular vein.
May I look at the autopsy report?
In the next grouping of -- of wounds, number 2 are stab wounds of the chest, abdomen and left thigh, which is not distinguished as to which bled more or less. And it lists with resultant hemothorax. That's the 200 cc's of blood around the right lung and hemoperitoneum -- that's blood in the peritoneal cavity, also about 100 cc's. Those are listed.
He does not say in this report, and this conclusion doesn't mention the retroperitoneal hemorrhage.
Had there been massive bleeding in that area, would that be something that should be in the report?
Now, assuming that, as listed in the autopsy report, the wound to the neck of Mr. Goldman was one of the first or the earliest wounds inflicted -- have you that in mind?
Do you have an opinion on how long it would take from the time, given the rate at which that wound would bleed, between that wound and the wound to the aorta?
And I've expressed it previously.
My opinion is that, once this wound was inflicted in the neck, causing complete transection of the internal jugular vein, Mr. Goldman was able to stand up at the -- and to continue struggling for perhaps up to five minutes, until he lost enough blood to lose -- to get dizzy and to collapse because not enough oxygen and blood was going to the brain.
This is supported by the path of the blood down the -- the left side of the clothing to the shoe. It takes time. It would take that much time for the oozing blood from the neck to reach the shoe that Mr. Goldman was wearing.
At that point, at some point, about five minutes or perhaps a little longer, he would collapse, would not be able to stand up. And at that point, any blood coming out would go sideways, wouldn't go down anymore, either from his neck or from the thigh.
He also had a stab wound in the left thigh, blood from that stab wound could have contributed to the blood adherent to the blue jeans, but again, as long as he was standing up, because it has -- blood goes down by gravity.
At that point, when Mr. Goldman would collapse, he would then -- the heart would still be beating. He'd still be alive. And if he were stabbed at that point, there would be very little bleeding from the lungs and from the aorta.
So what is your estimate of the total time that it would take from -- forgetting whether he was struggling all this time -- but how much time would it take between the neck wound and the last wound, if that's the wounded aorta?
My opinion would be that once the neck wound was incurred and he started bleeding, he would be able to stand up for a few minutes, plus or minus five minutes, maybe three minutes or four minutes, or five minutes, and then he would collapse. And he would stay that way for five or ten minutes longer, until the heart would stop beating completely.
During that time period, if he were stabbed, then there would just be a trickle of blood, as was present in the lungs or the aorta, as found in Mr. Goldman's autopsy.
So as best you can opine, what is the range of time that we're talking about in terms of the time between the neck wound and the aorta wound?
I think between the first neck wound and the final aortic wound, I think the aorta -- my interpretation is that the wound to the flank and aorta was the last wound, because it matches the final position he was in, that he was found lying on his right side, with the left side exposed upwards. And if somebody stabbed him in that position, the stab wound would go from the left flank down into the -- to the aorta. And the time interval between the jugular vein until the aorta would not have bled anymore, is at least five or ten minutes, possibly a little longer.
No, he's not struggling the whole time. He stopped struggling, effectively, pretty quickly after a few minutes -- after a few minutes of bleeding. But he can stand up until -- he did manage to stand up until the blood from the jugular vein got down to his shoes, because once he collapses, the blood no longer goes down to his shoes.
So is it accurate that this interval you've given, this five- to ten-minute, does not count how much time the perpetrator or perpetrators might have been on the scene before the next wound was inflicted, as well as after the wound to the aorta?
That's right. I can't factor into this with the information I have, how long the perpetrator or perpetrators were there before the neck wound was -- was inflicted. And I can't factor in how long the perpetrator or perpetrators remained there after the stab wound in the flank.
But somehow, there had to be a delay between the jugular vein cut and the stab wound to the flank of at least five or ten minutes -- at least five or ten minutes, so that when the aorta was stabbed, it did not bleed very much.
Okay.
Doctor, one final area:
When you examined Mr. Simpson on the 17th, a bunch of pictures were taken of him, correct?
And did you review the part of Dr. Spitz's testimony where he described that as a fresh bruise?
It shows the mark around this area, there was -- he had -- Mr. Simpson has lots of marks on his body.
Your Honor, at this time, I would ask that Mr. Simpson be allowed to remove his shirt so Dr. Baden can examine his left arm.
My opinion is that -- it's based on all the evidence and all the circumstances -- that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.
My opinion then, and my opinion now, is that it was not caused by a fingernail, by somebody's fingernail.
No.
In my opinion, in this case, one can't get as detailed as Dr. Spitz had gotten. There are times you can get detailed if there are eyewitnesses... But in a situation like this, where there were no eyewitnesses, I don't think it's reasonable to give a blow-by-blow description with any accuracy.
I could say these injuries took at least a minute or two minutes with a blunt object, a fist or a gloved fist, to produce; but I can't tell if there were time periods in between the injuries.