Dr. Baden, you recall yesterday when at the beginning of the cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about whether you were trying to mislead the jury about your opinion with respect to one or more perpetrators?

I think so, yes.

And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more than one perpetrator?

Yes, I remember.

Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

What is your opinion?

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.

Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a bunch of questions about whether certain things were possible.

How do you interpret that term, possible, in terms of whether it's something likely or not?

In terms of an expert testifying to various opinions, does that standard really have much meaning at all?

I think it doesn't have any meaning as far as giving opinion to agree with the possibility except that the jury or the judge understands that that kind of an opinion has a lot less weight in my -- in my -- in my opinion, has much less weight, in my opinion, than opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, 95 percent, or more likely than not being 51 percent.

And how about when you're asked the question whether something is consistent with something else, what does that mean?

It depends on the circumstances. But consistent with something, consistent with could be consistent one percent or could be consistent 50 or 60 percent.

So would you agree that we're asked questions about whether something is possible or whether something is consistent with something else that you're not being asked any kind of question about your quantitative assessment of whether that happened or not?

That's correct. It's not an opinion of whether it happened that way, but whether there's any chance that it might have happened that way.

Now, Mr. Medvene asked you some questions yesterday about your background.

Did we talk about your entire background when I asked you questions?

No, you didn't go much into my background.

We left a lot of that out, didn't we?

Yes.

Now, you went from the New York City Medical Examiner's Office to the New York State Police in 1985, '86?

'85, '86, yes.

And Mr. Medvene asked you some questions about whether you were fired.

You weren't fired, were you?

No, I was never fired.

In the late 70's did you have a dispute with Mayor Ed Koch of the City of New York?

Yes.

And describe that dispute.

I was -- when I was chief medical examiner in the City of New York which is that I had been working in the office since 1960, deputy chief medical examiner since 1966, and in 1978 I was appointed chief medical examiner. And I had a dispute with one of the five district attorneys we work with and with the Mayor as to the independence of the medical examiner's office.

What was the -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

And that led to my being demoted to being back to deputy chief medical examiner.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the independence of the medical examiner's office, specifically listed a complaint from one district attorney in New York City which has five counties; Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island -- each county has a district attorney and there's one medical examiner for five counties, and one of the five district attorneys felt I wasn't a team player and I wasn't cooperative in giving evidence to help in the prosecution of cases.

They wanted you to testify in a couple of cases to something you didn't agree with; isn't that correct?

That is correct.

And you refused, didn't you?

That's correct.

Now, you were also asked about your billing in this case.

Your understanding is that Mr. Simpson has no funds at this point?

Objection, relevance, materiality.

Sustained.

You can ask him about his billing.

I'm sorry?

You can ask him about his billing.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Okay.

Mr. Medvene asked you a question about changing your billing in a high-profile case.

You work on high-profile cases all the time, don't you?

Not uncommonly, yes.

And it's -- incidentally, when was the last time that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office asked you to consult with them on a case?

Objection, relevance, materiality, outside the scope.

Overruled.

Past month.

They contacted you yesterday?

Sent some stuff yesterday, yes, some autopsy report.

Now, why don't you tell the folks on the jury, we didn't cover it yesterday, some of your teaching positions.

Objection, outside the scope.

Overruled.

I have -- I have various appointments to teach in medical schools, law schools and criminal justice schools on a part-time basis, aspects of forensic medicine, forensic pathology, and forensic science, which include, presently, visiting professor of pathology at Albert Einstein School of Medicine, adjunct professor of laboratory medicine in pathology at Albany Medical Center, and I teach some terms as visiting professor at John Jay School of Criminal Justice and New York Law School in New York.

And I hold various other teaching positions, all of which are part-time, for medical students, law students and the police in training.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Have you won many awards that we never even talked about yesterday?

I've received many awards, yes.

Now, you were asked some questions about the Geraldo show on November 11.

At what point was your appearance scheduled for the Geraldo show; how long before that?

Objection, relevance, materiality.

Overruled.

About a week or two before I appeared.

And who scheduled it for you?

It was scheduled through HBO, Home Box Office television program.

And what was supposedly the reason for the appearance?

The reason for the appearance was to talk about and publicize a special program on autopsy that HBO had just completed.

And that program features you, primarily?

I was the consultant.

This is a third in the series, every year there's a new one, and it has to do with how you use forensic science and investigation of injuries and death, and yes, I'm featured in it.

Incidentally, in any of those three specialties, will any of Dr. Spitz's cases be featured?

Objection, relevance, materiality.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, you were asked questions yesterday about -- with respect to your opinion about more than one perpetrator, and you were asked questions about shoe prints at the crime scene, correct?

Yes.

Let's talk about your basis for saying that it's more likely than not that there was more than one perpetrator.

What information do you have about shoe prints that goes into that opinion?

The information I have is there's evidence of more than one type of shoe print at the Bundy crime scene, and on the envelope in which the eyeglasses were found at the crime scene, and also on the jeans that Mr. Goldman was wearing, and other shoe prints in the walkway leading up to the gate, outside the gate.

The shoe print that Mr. Medvene was asking you about Dr. Lee's testimony, tell us about that shoe print; when did you observe -- did you observe that personally?

Yes.

And when was that?

About the first week of the -- after the -- in the week following our examination of Mr. Simpson on June 17, just before he was arrested, just before he was taken into custody or arrested, Dr. Lee and I and the other doctors examined Mr. Simpson, and the following week we went to the various scenes, the Bundy scene in particular, and examined the walk and the area for evidence.

And in one of those first reviews, when we went to the scene, there was evidence of -- remnants of bloody shoe prints, and Dr. Lee and I looked at them together, and he did blood tests. He has a little kit to do tests, presumptive blood tests. And there was one print there that didn't match the other prints.

And it tested positive for blood?

And that tested positive for blood, yes, tested positive in a presumptive test for blood.

Let me show you Exhibit 717.

And you mentioned shoe prints in the walkway area in front of Bundy.

Now, can you see -- actually, let me show you 2214 first. And I apologize for this picture.

Dr. Baden, do you see the --

Yes.

Okay.

Is that consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe print?

It's a shoe print.

Objection, lack of foundation.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Consistent with a shoe print?

Objection, lack of foundation Your Honor.

As to shoe print, overruled.

Yes.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is that one of the shoe prints you were talking about when you just answered my prior questions?

Yeah. This isn't one that I looked at with Dr. Lee, this is one I took into account in answering your previous question.

And let's look at 717.

What was that exhibit?

2214.

Back on out.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Then this one --

What exhibit is this?

714 I believe.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, is this another indication of a shoe print.

What did you call this? What did you call this.

MR. P. BAKER: It's 717. It's also marked as 2257 I believe.

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Yes, sir.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is this one of the ones you observed as well on the pictures?

In the picture, yes.

Let's back that out so we can see where that is.

(BY MR. BLASIER) And that appears to be a number of feet out toward the Bundy walkway, correct?

Yes.

And describe what you observed about those shoe prints that go into your opinion about the number of perpetrators?

The two shoe prints are in clotted blood. That is, the shoe print was made after the blood had congealed, so that after bleeding had occurred from Mrs. Simpson, and it indicated that there was movement in and walking around within a few minutes of Mrs. Simpson's collapse.

Well, you say within a few minutes, what -- can we estimate that to any degree of particularity?

Yeah. It would -- the blood remains pretty liquid, like water, for a few minutes and if you stepped into blood one or two or three minutes after it was shed, the blood would just -- it's like stepping into water, it would not leave a permanent impression.

So in order for this permanent impression to remain there, the blood would have had to have clotted sufficiently to maintain its shape without liquefying, you know, disappearing, and that would take at least three to four to five minutes of clotting.

That would be after the blood had a chance to get down this far in the walkway, correct?

As it was traveling down and after, yes.

And that would take some time as well?

Yes.

THE COURT REPORTER: One more time, that current exhibit?

MR. P. BAKER: 2257.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Incidentally, when you examined or looked at the socks; you were prevented from actually examining them, weren't you?

I was not permitted to pick them up or to examine them in any way other than to view and inventory the evidence that was there; I'd say about 59 pieces of evidence.

And it was Detective Vannatter that refused to let you even touch anything, correct?

He was the one who told me that I couldn't -- we couldn't examine, touch anything or photograph anything.

Now, do you recall this morning, during cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you a couple of questions where he used a hypothetical where he had his arm around his neck; do you remember that?

Yes.

If either of the victims in this case had a perpetrator's arm around their neck as Mr. Medvene demonstrated, what would happen if the perpetrator tried to cut the neck with the right hand?

Well, so long as an arm, or any object, was present on the neck, that would interfere with the ability to cut the neck.

Cut the arm first, wouldn't you?

Yes.

Now, with respect to the fingernail -- the absence of skin under a person's fingernails that may have scraped the perpetrator, is it your opinion that you usually don't find skin?

That's correct.

You can find blood, can't you?

That's more frequent than skin.

And what's another mechanism by -- when somebody is scraped with a fingernail, what do you expect to see on the skin?

A scratch, a scratch mark.

And what happens to the person's skin, is it transferred to the fingernail or does it stay on the person that's being scratched?

It can stay -- usually stays on the victim being scratched. It's like being scratched by a cat or some other animal. The skin is pushed aside.

Is that -- is that what's called an evulsion?

It would be called an evulsion. It's a very minor evulsion. An evulsion would be a tearing of the skin. This would be a very minor tearing of the skin, yes.

Now, you were asked about blood on Mr. Goldman's clothing.

Let's talk about his shirt first.

Well, let's talk about the ground first.

Is it your understanding that Mr. Goldman's body was allowed to lie on the ground for 10 hours before anybody collected it?

Yes, at least that.

What happens to blood in dirt?

It would be absorbed and it would not be possible to distinguish blood from dirt after a period of time. Certainly, the majority of whatever blood gets into dirt would be absorbed or made unrecognizable --

Now --

-- over a 10-hour period of time.

Now, is it true that if there was internal bleeding, however, especially with no wound to the abdomen, had there been massive internal bleeding, that would be apparent to the autopsy surgeon?

Absolutely.

And incidentally, is one of the reasons why a medical examiner should go to the scene as early as possible, is to evaluate some of these other evidentiary issues about rates of bleeding and that sort of thing?

Yes.

Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman's shirt and his jeans, tell me, in your opinion, what's the difference between his shirt and his jeans with respect to when you would expect to find blood soaked into one versus the other?

The amount of blood that soaks into clothing varies on how tight the clothing is on the body, varies on the fabrics, some fabrics are more absorbent than others, and also varies on the position of the individual, invariably, during the struggle or -- when somebody's being injured, it's unusual for the person to stand in the anatomic position at attention. The person is making all kinds of motions to get out of harm's way or to defend oneself.

So that bleeding is not a direct linear line from the top to the bottom. It may vary depending on looseness of clothing, fabric, and on the position, whether the person's leaning forward, leaning backwards. And there's no predictable pattern for any kind of bleeding in that regard except that blood has to follow the law of gravity, that it goes downward.

Now, is the fact that there is no straight line from Mr. Goldman's neck wounds straight down his shirt, indicative of him struggling after that neck wound, moving around a lot?

It would be supportive of that, yes.

Now, you were asked some questions about the jeans.

Do you recall being shown one picture of Mr. Goldman lying on a table?

Yes, sir.

You actually have examined the jeans themselves, have you not?

Yes.

And let me show you next in order.

2269.

Does this appear to be a pair of Mr. Goldman's jeans?

Yes, that -- I think it's too close.

Can you back out a little.

Back up a little.

Yes.

Let's move to this area up here.

Does this appear to be blood at the very top of Mr. Goldman's jeans?

Yeah. That is the top side of the jeans. There is blood in the fabric going above the belt line.

And?

In the front.

And?

On the side.

Where is the thigh wound with respect to Mr. Goldman's jeans?

I think it's about four or five inches below the pocket, as described in the jeans, to my best recollection.

Can you back out a little, Phil.

MR. P. BAKER: Sure.

(BY MR. BLASIER) So we're talking about well below the area where the blood starts on Mr. Goldman's jeans?

Yes, it would be below the screen.

Now, would you expect the person wearing jeans, if they were struggling, would you expect the jeans to move around a lot like a shirt might?

Surely, it could, especially if there's no belt tightening. As I recall, there was no belt, so the pants would move in unpredictable ways during a struggle.

Would you expect them, however, to absorb more blood because they're tighter on the skin and closer to the skin?

Yes.

Now, let me show you next in order.

2270.

2270.

Is this a picture of Mr. Goldman's shoes?

Yes.

And this is blood that is saturating his left shoe, correct?

Could that be focused a little bit better. I can't --

Yes. There's blood soaking the left shoe.

Now, how far, approximately, would it be from the thigh wound down to the shoe?

Possibly around two feet. Or --

And is it your opinion that Mr. Goldman would have to be upright for his shoe to get saturated in that way, whether it's from the neck wounds or the thigh wound?

Yes. Whether it's the thigh wound or the neck wound, the flow of blood is going to be downward by gravity, so it would indicate an upright position.

Now, you were asked about whether there was evidence of an accumulation of blood around the jugular vein cut.

Would you expect to find an accumulation of blood around that area?

No. The -- There was a little bit of blood on the cut but there's no space for the jugular vein to accumulate. It's like cutting one wrist, if the blood flows right out onto the skin and doesn't pool anyplace in the body.

Now, your testimony with respect to -- let me show you another picture.

Could we mark next in order.

MR. P. BAKER: 22 --

71.

2271.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Does this appear to be another picture of Mr. Goldman's jeans, the back side of them.

May I?

Yeah, this is the label on the right buttock area, so this is the back side of the jeans.

So the left side would be at the bottom of the picture?

Yeah, this is the left side facing 6 o'clock.

And this picture seems to indicate a continuous stain from the top to the bottom.

Is that consistent with your observation of the actual jeans?

Yes, going from the very belt line.

Now, again, would you expect that to be an absolute straight line or could there be some breaks in that because of bunching of the jeans?

Yes, there could very well be breaks. I don't see a break here but there could be breaks.

Now, the wound to the -- the jugular vein, are there things that happen once that wound is inflicted, other than just bleeding?

Yes.

Describe what would go on with the body, what could go on in addition to that wound bleeding?

When the wound is transected, as happened here, that is complete separation of the top part and bottom part of the jugular vein, the top part continues to bleed as the blood is continued to be pumped up into the head through the aorta and the carotid arteries, which are intact, the bottom part doesn't have blood in it so it sucks air into the heart, and that's another reason that that occurs when the internal jugular vein is cut. So that also happens.

It's hard to interpret it from this autopsy because the autopsy was done some 36 hours later and there's no mention as to air in the heart.

Now, when you testified to your opinion about an approximate span of time between the infliction of the neck wound and the wound to the aorta, were you talking about specifically the time that Mr. Goldman would be upright as opposed to being lying down, or are you talking about the combined period of time?

I'm talking about the amount of time it took for the heart to stop pumping effectively, the heart to stop, failing as a pump.

So that would include the time he's standing up and the time he collapses until the heart beats so feebly that when the aorta is cut and when the lungs are cut, not much blood is pumped out.

And these are both areas that if any of us in this room were stabbed in those areas, we would pump out one or two quarts of blood very quickly.

Now, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about the wound to the aorta and bleeding into the retroperitoneal space, and he also described a tip of a knife going into the peritoneum.

What was the size of the wound that went into the peritoneum in this case?

A half an inch.

And is that considerably larger than a tip of a knife?

It would have been the front portion of the knife that went through the aorta, and it would be more than just a tip, yes.

Now, you were asked some questions about an aneurysm.

There was no aneurysm in this case, was there?

No, there was no aneurysm.

Now, can people that are -- that are wounded in the back, with the aorta being severed or cut without the peritoneal space -- peritoneal sack being cut, what would happen there?

If a person, and this happens on our streets, is stabbed in the back, and the aorta is cut in the back and not in the front, then the bleeding -- and there's no other injury to cause impairment, then the bleeding would be into the retroperitoneal space, as occurs when somebody has a ruptured aneurysm that Mr. Medvene referred to, and in those circumstances, as the blood infiltrates the retroperitoneal space, the space behind the aorta, it builds up pressure, and what's called a pseudoaneurysm, false aneurysm, because the blood clots around the aorta, it's got tissue pressure. These tissues are harder to infiltrate than a space like the peritoneum or the thoracic cavity, and these people usually live long enough to get to a hospital, be operated upon and oftentimes survive.

So a stab wound in the -- that does produce hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal space, is not nearly as harmful as one that goes into the peritoneal cavity because once a stab wound goes into the peritoneal cavity, as I tried to illustrate with the plastic bag yesterday, there's a big space there with no counter pressure that just fills up with a great deal of blood, and those people who have bleeding from the front of the aorta into the peritoneal cavity have a much poorer prognosis, they don't do as well. They often don't live to get to a hospital.

If it's only in the retroperitoneal space, many of these people are operated upon and are salvaged.

Now, the 100 to 200 cc's of blood that Dr. Golden found in the abdominal cavity, this is a relatively small amount, is it not?

Yes, as is the blood in the right chest cavity is also a small amount.

And incidentally, it's routine in an autopsy to record those kinds of things?

Absolutely, yes.

And just so the record is clear, describe again what your opinion is with respect to the state of Mr. Goldman at the time the aorta wound was inflicted?

My opinion when the aorta wound was inflicted is the same as my opinion when the two lung wounds were inflicted, the heart was not beating effectively, the heart was failing as a pump, so it wasn't pumping blood effectively through the body or through any of the blood vessels, and that's why very little bleeding occurred.

And that would take a certain period of time that you've estimated after the neck wounds would have been inflicted for his body to have bled out enough to lower his blood pressure and produce that small volume of blood?

Yes. In order for the stab wounds to the aorta and to the lungs to bleed very little would have required, that's where I get into these numbers, a good -- a good 10 minutes from that point, he's on the ground a good 10 minutes before, so that the heart can no longer pump.

Now, that's modified -- that's also modified by the amount of air that's being sucked into the air (sic), because as the air gets sucked into the heart from the lower portion, it causes an airlock so blood can pump.

And people with transected internal jugular veins have the additional problem of the blood not being able to pass through the heart because of the air, and this causes the heart to beat ineffectively as a pump, and within five or ten minutes the -- the stabbing into the aorta or the lungs will not produce much bleeding.

Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a number of hypothetical questions.

Do you have anyway of knowing whether the perpetrator or perpetrators saw Mr. Goldman breathing or not?

I have no way of knowing that.

Now, what is your opinion with respect to whether he was stabbed in the aorta and in the chest after he had already collapsed on the ground some period of time after the neck wound?

Yeah. My opinion is that when he's stabbed in the right chest area and the left thigh, the heart is not able to pump blood effectively. That would take at least five or ten minutes, you know, from the time of the cut -- wound, and that's where I get confused on numbers, and the stab wounds to the right -- right chest stab wound to -- the right chest would have been first, from the position of the body. The stab wound on the left chest would be the last one, from the position of the body as seen at the scene, but prior to that there would be stab wounds on the right side.

During all this time -- During all this time Mr. Goldman is not conscious, he doesn't feel this, he's not conscious during all this time.

Now, is part of your opinion that you've talked about, deal with -- with the Bruno Magli set of shoe prints that make it appear that somebody went out and came back a second time.

Well, during that time, there -- there are shoe prints in different areas, and part of that is the ones you showed me where there was motion, whoever was there, whether it's one person or two persons, there was motion going on and the -- the congealed or partially clotted blood was stepped into.

But as to the Bruno Magli shoe prints in the back walkway, you take into account Mr. Bodziak's testimony with respect to possibly the perpetrator going out and coming back and going out a second time?

I also considered that, yes.

Now, you were asked questions about the adrenal glands having some hemorrhage.

What does the autopsy report say about that in terms of how much hemorrhage?

Is says in the description in the adrenal gland that -- that there is -- there is a small amount of hemorrhage around the adrenal -- of the left adrenal gland, due to the retroperitoneal hemorrhage caused by the stab wound. So in the course of that stab wound track which was illustrated in that diagram, there is hemorrhage around that stab wound's track, partially passive hemorrhage, and there might have been a small amount of blood pressure at that time, and that hemorrhage got into the -- to the adrenal gland area.

Now, had the wound to the aorta been inflicted early on as Dr. Spitz testified, would you expect to see a small amount of hemorrhage or a large amount?

Well, I expect a large amount. And also, I expect the kidney in that area to be encased in blood because the kidney is right there in the retroperitoneal space, and there's no mention in the autopsy report of any hemorrhage around the kidney.

Now, you were asked questions about your conversation with Dr. Goldman -- Dr. Golden, excuse me.

Did you have a conversation with Dr. Golden after you heard Dr. Spitz's testimony or read his testimony?

Yes.

And did you discuss with Dr. Golden the issue of whether there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space?

Yes.

What did he tell you?

Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

Overruled.

My understanding in talking to Dr. Golden, and I specifically asked him whether there was any additional information he had that was not included in the autopsy report -- his autopsy report about the hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal space, and he reassured me that he sticks by what he says in the autopsy report and what he testified to at prior -- prior testimony that he gave.

And is it accurate that he told you that he did not observe massive amounts of blood in the retroperitoneal space?

Now, Dr. Baden, is it accurate to say, or fair to say, that you're somewhat reluctant to criticize Dr. Spitz; he's a friend of yours?

I don't have --

Objection, relevance, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BLASIER) There is absolutely no basis in the evidence from the autopsy and from any of the observations here that support Dr. Spitz's conclusion with -- there is absolutely no support whatsoever for Dr. Spitz's opinion that the wound to the aorta was one of the earlier wounds and that there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space?

Calls for conclusion, argumentative, Your Honor.

And if I asked you the same question with respect to all of the marks on Mr. Simpson's hand being caused by fingernail gouges, would you agree that that simply is not supported by the evidence?

My opinion is that they're not finger scratch gouges but there's a little more evidence that I would agree with Dr. Spitz is that I can't tell. The little scratches on the back of the hand that were crusted could be from anything. So it's not my opinion they're finger scratch marks, but there's some basis that another person could think they are.

I don't think there's a good basis that there's massive retroperitoneal hemorrhage.

That's all I have, Your Honor.

Anything else?

Yes, Your Honor.

Recross.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: