(BY MR. MEDVENE) Were you terminated, sir, from your job as medical examiner in New York City in approximately 1985, sir?

That's not true.

I can explain to you what happened, but that's not true, as you say it.

Were you terminated at that time, sir?

No, absolutely not.

You left the job at that time?

In 1985 I left --

Excuse me, sir.

My question is did you leave your job as medical examiner of New York City in 1985?

I left it to take a better job, yes, in 1985.

You were asked to leave, were you not, sir?

No, absolutely not true.

You mentioned work with the state police.

Is that work about 20 hours a week, sir, roughly?

It's a half-time job, but it's 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

Is it on average about 20 hours a week, sir?

I have to put in at least 20 hours a week, but it permits me to do private practice. That was the arrangement I made with the state, yes.

And your testimony here today has nothing to do with that job, it's completely in your private capacity as a retained consultant; is that right?

That's true, yes. Absolutely.

Fair to say that you make four plus times as much money working as a consultant and testifying as you do in that other job?

Objection, irrelevant.

Overruled.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that a correct statement?

I make appreciably more income in my private practice of forensic pathology than with my pay from the New York State Police. That's true, yes.

Now, you've told us you were paid over $100,000 in connection with your function in this case, and that was up through what time, sir?

Up from June of '94 until the present time, that encompasses two and a half years or so.

Now, since the criminal trial was over, have you been paid anything?

No.

Have you billed anything?

No.

Is it your intention to work for free, to continue on the case?

No, I intend to submit a bill.

And how many hours have you spent, sir?

I've spent a lot of hours, but I'm not billing for the hours that I was in New York City.

Do you treat this case because of the high profile nature of it, in terms of billing practices, somewhat differently than you handle your other cases, sir?

No, I am billing less in this matter because of the inability of the defendant to pay money.

Now --

As happens not infrequently in my private practice.

Now, you spent, in addition to your 70 trips to Los Angeles --

No, 70 days.

Excuse me. 70 days in Los Angeles. Your expenses were paid, I take it?

Yes.

And in addition to that time, you spent some several hundred hours talking to Mr. Shapiro by phone; is that correct, in terms of discussing the case in its various details?

I spent several hundred hours reviewing the case and looking at photographs and talking to Mr. Shapiro, but -- and being on the telephone and consulting on the matter, but I did not bill for the time that I was able to function from my office in New York.

You had -- no, I wasn't asking about billing right now, I was asking you if it isn't true, sir, that in addition to the time here, you spent several hundred hours talking to Mr. Shapiro about various aspects of the case?

I think several hundred hours should include time spent in New York City. I don't think I spent several hundred hours on the phone with Mr. Shapiro.

I did spend a lot of time talking on the phone. I don't think that much, but I did spend more than that time reviewing records, reviewing testimony, reviewing photographs and the discussions with Mr. Shapiro.

I read you, sir, from page 41021 of the criminal trial transcript, and I will start at line 15 when Mr. Blasier has it.

4102 --

I can read the whole section if counsel wants, but I intend now to read you the part about the hours on the phone.

Starting with which line?

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, which line?

15.

I think you need to read the whole answer and the question. I have no objection to that.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Well, I think this is the portion -- it's a long answer. I'd suggest that Mr. Blasier read it all. I'm going to read the part about the hours.

No, I object to him reading part of an answer. He's got to read the whole thing and a question.

I'll read the whole thing if, Your Honor, wants me to. I was just --

I shouldn't have volunteered.

41020, and I will read the whole thing.

(Reading:) Q. Were you able to -- Did

you follow and listen to all of his

testimony in this case? Yes, I did.

This is at line 11.

Yes, I believe so.

--- with you and

Mr. Cochran and associates in reviewing

and going over and trying to interpret

the medical and scientific evidence that

I would have knowledge of and

interpreted in the light of the

questions that lawyers have and other

information that was being gathered and

developed by Dr. Lee and others.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) And now the portion I wanted to read you. At line 15.

(Reading:) And I spent hundreds of hours on

the telephone with you from New York

City over the time reviewing evidence

and materials.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Does that refresh you, sir, that in addition to the 70 days in Los Angeles, and what you described as doing, you spent hundreds of hours with Mr. Shapiro on the telephone going over various aspects and strategies to develop in the case?

Objection. That's not what it says. Is says hundreds of hours on the phone and reviewing evidence and materials.

Answer the question.

Yeah. I --

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Excuse me, sir. Could you -- and it yes or no, just yes or no, sir, if you could.

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

To speaking to Mr. Shapiro and looking at evidence.

Okay, sir.

Now, is that your answer, sir?

Yes, sir.

Now, you've appeared on TV a number of times as an advocate or spokesman for Mr. Simpson, have you not?

No, I haven't.

Well, you've appeared on TV and put forward certain material as to his defense; isn't that true?

No. I appeared -- may I answer the question, Mr. Medvene?

No. If you say no, that's fine, sir.

No.

Is it correct that you have appeared on TV a number of times?

Yes.

And you've given press conferences yourself, and with Dr. Lee, about various aspects of this case; is that correct, sir?

The only press conference that I can remember was at Albany Medical Center when Dr. Lee and I did examine evidence at Albany Medical Center, and it was a press conference just to say that we examined the evidence, not to discuss any aspect of the evidence, and that was because the director --

Excuse me.

-- director of Albany Medical Center wished us to do that. It didn't discuss the evidence, just said yes, we did it.

Well, in addition to that time when you appeared, you appeared a number of times on TV after you first came to Los Angeles, did you not?

In the first week before we were allowed to look at the evidence.

My question --

I did appear on television, but that was before we saw the evidence, any evidence. I wasn't an advocate.

Well, when you say before you saw any evidence, you appeared on programs after you examined Mr. Simpson, did you not, yes or no?

I'm going to object to the relevance of any of this.

Overruled.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or --

You're correct. I examined Mr. Simpson on the 17th of June, and I think I did appear in some television programs up until June 23 or something like that.

And you also were at the coroner's office and examined things at the coroner's office and then appeared on TV; isn't that correct, sir?

I believe we were at the coroner's office around June 23. Once I examined things at the coroner's office I did not -- there may have been one program that was in the works, but I did not otherwise appear on television, as far as I remember.

You appeared on television as recently as a month ago, after Dr. Spitz testified, to give some contrary version on the Rivera show in November this year?

Could you answer that yes or no, sir.

Your Honor, I'm going to object.

And --

You may answer that yes or no.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you answer it yes or no.

No. No, as you asked the question that's not true.

But did you appear on November 11 on the Rivera show, and discuss this very case and the facts of this very case; yes or no, sir, just yes or no?

The date is what I'm -- I'll adopt the date. I did appear on the Rivera show.

November 11. Sir, my question --

I'll adopt your date. I mean I'm not sure about the date. I'll adopt what you say.

I did appear on the Rivera show.

Excuse me, sir.

My question is did you appear on November 11, or some date in November, on Rivera Live along with Mr. Simpson's criminal counsel, Mr. Dershowitz, and others, and discuss the facts of this case?

Could you answer yes or no.

Objection, irrelevant.

You may answer?

You --

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no.

The way you say it is no.

You're not getting it right, no.

Sir, let's see if I can get it right.

Okay.

Was it the day Mr. -- while Dr. Spitz was testifying, you got on TV, on the Rivera show?

Not Rivera Live -- Rivera Live.

Oh, that's what I mixed --

That's one of the things you missed.

It's a different show?

It's a different show. It's the evening show where he talks about this case.

At the evening show where he talks about this case, and you knew he talked about this case, and you got on that show with Mr. Dershowitz and talked about this case; is that correct, sir, yes or no?

Just yes or no.

Yes, as you say it.

Thank you.

And on -- And that was the date when actually Dr. Spitz, to your knowledge, had testified; is that correct, sir?

As far as I can remember, the first day he testified, yes, that night.

You didn't get back on the second day he testified?

It was one day to publicize an HBO special. That's what I was on for.

Move to strike. I didn't ask that.

Stricken.

Sorry.

Now, you gave a bunch of opinions today, Dr. Baden, and you've been doing this long enough to know that there are opinions that are -- that have a certain percentage of probabilities and there are opinions that are only possibilities; isn't that correct?

Yes.

And is it true there's certain magic words that people that testify a lot use, and one of them is "consistent with," is that true?

I'll object to the characterization of the magic word.

Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) One of the words you used was "consistent with"?

I don't think I used the word consistent with in my testimony.

That's one form of opinion that can be held, consistent with.

I try in my -- all my testimony to be beyond a reasonable medical certainty.

You're telling us -- are you telling this jury -- well, let me withdraw that.

What percentage is -- what word did you use, beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty, or with reasonable medical certainty, or would you use them interchangeably?

I would use them interchangeably.

You said, in the past, that's up in the 95 percent category, didn't you?

Or more.

Or more than 95 percent?

Yes.

Right?

Yes, Mr. Medvene.

Do you remember telling this jury that, unlike other opinions, when you threw out this two assailants, that it was more likely than not, and not beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

Did you tell that to this jury, sir, yes or no, sir?

I answered the question that Mr. Blasier asked.

But you knew as a witness -- how many times have you testified?

Many hundreds of times.

And you knew when you answered that question that you were conveying or attempting to convey an impression to this jury that wasn't fair, it was --

No, Mr. Medvene.

-- is that correct, sir?

No, it's not correct.

If you can read back to me the question that Blasier asked, I could -- I answered the question as Mr. Blasier asked it.

Now, you went over --

If you can pull it back and ask it I can relate to it directly.

You went over with Mr. Blasier, did you not, his questions before he asked them to you?

No, no. I had not heard that question.

We haven't even -- hadn't even discussed that in any degree. I didn't know what kinds of questions he was going to ask.

You didn't go over anything you were going to say?

Oh, in general terms, but I didn't know the questions. I tried to listen --

You went --

-- to the way the questions are asked, and I try to answer them accordingly.

You went over in general terms --

We discussed the matter.

Well, when you say you went over in general terms, it's not too complicated a question, one assailant or more than one assailant.

Now, you went over that in general terms with Mr. Blasier, didn't you?

Very general terms.

Well, when you say very general, I can get a hold of that, is it one assailant or two; did you talk about that?

I mean it's not a matter of general terms. You knew that was going to be asked, didn't you?

I didn't know it was going to be asked, no.

Well, you said you talked about it in general terms?

Lots of things we talked about that Mr. Blasier didn't ask me about.

I'm not talking about what he didn't ask you about. I'm talking about what he did ask you about.

And you told us --

I didn't know he would ask that question.

Excuse me, sir.

You told us a few moments ago you talked with Mr. Blasier in general terms. I don't want to misstate it. If you didn't say it, tell me you didn't say it.

Didn't you just tell this jury that you spoke to Mr. Blasier in general terms about the area, was there one assailant or two assailants?

Yes, I think in very general terms.

And you had spoken about it months before with Mr. Shapiro, had you not?

I don't recall that. That may be. If you could refresh -- I don't remember being asked that question at the first trial.

Let's go back to Mr. Blasier.

In terms of what you're conveying and what impression you're conveying to this jury, you would agree that when you testified that if you testified it was your opinion it was two assailants, that was misleading in the sense that you weren't giving that opinion to a reasonable medical certainty, which is really your area, isn't it, Dr. Baden?

No. I can answer things more likely than not.

I can't understand how these two people could have been murdered and not yell out --

Excuse me?

-- unless there were two people there.

Dr. Baden --

That's what I'm --

Dr. Baden, there's no question pending.

I can't quantitate that.

Now, the facts, as you see them, and I won't go through them, but the one set of the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints leading away from the scene, the facts are certainly consistent, are they not, Dr. Baden, with there being one assailant?

You would say that, wouldn't you? Yes or no, sir, not a speech, just yes or no.

No, I find it difficult to put it together with a single assailant.

Now, the only set of bloody shoe prints leaving the scene are size -- the evidence is they're size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints, Dr. Baden.

Now --

No, I don't agree with that. There were other shoe prints that Dr. Lee referred to.

No, he did not refer to other shoe prints, Dr. Baden, and I move to strike that answer, Your Honor.

That's his answer.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) If Dr. Lee withdrew that testimony, and the jury will get to see it, maybe next week if he's now withdrawn that testimony, after the FBI agent have now testified, and all we have, Dr. Baden, is one set of bloody shoe prints going west, as far as your testimony is concerned, and what you know, isn't the scene consistent with one assailant?

I object to the part of that about Dr. Lee's testimony. It misstates the evidence.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Just assume it.

Objection, improper hypothetical.

Why don't you approach the bench a minute.