Michael Baden.
Thank you.
MICHAEL BADEN, the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment on Monday, December 16, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
With reference to the sock or socks, Dr. Baden, that you referred to yesterday as having looked at, is it correct, sir, that you did not examine the socks?
And you wrote on that day, you were doing an analysis, or you were reviewing, or an inventory of certain items of evidence?
And would you agree, sir, that it's certainly possible when you saw the socks, because of the conditions, that you just overlooked or missed any blood that might have been on them?
Thank you, sir.
Would it be correct, sir -- I notice you have some -- and it's fine that you do -- I notice you have some things in front of you. What are they?
I just have the report of the -- my visit to the laboratory that you're referring to, and two autopsy reports, in case some questions come up, I can answer them more quickly.
That's fine.
Is it fair to say, Dr. Baden, that from your review of the autopsy reports, the tissue, the material that you examined at the coroner's office, that's all consistent with one assailant having committed both of the murders?
-- of the autopsy photos, the tissues, the other material you examined at the coroner's office, that those things that I've just referred to, were all consistent with one assailant having committed both murders?
Your Honor, I'm going to object. The question is -- is vague and improper to ask him to consider just some things and not consider --
He's asking him to consider just some things and not everything that went into his opinion. And it's irrelevant unless he's allowed to consider everything that went into his opinion.
And are you aware, sir, of the testimony that it is anticipated Dr. Lee will offer at this trial, that other than the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints that were at the scene of the murder, there was only one other shoe print he could identify on the walkway; and he was not able to say whether or not that shoe print was placed there some date after the murders. Are you aware of that?
Now, assuming that Dr. Lee's testimony would be that, other than the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, the one pair of size 12 bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, he observed one shoe print on the walkway, but did not know when that print was placed there; and he observed that on June 25, is it correct, sir, that the facts available to you are consistent with one assailant having committed the murders?
Yes or no, sir?
No, sir. Because if Dr. Lee has anything to say, he'll tell this jury in testimony that's going to be read or shown to this jury.
So putting aside your discussions with Dr. Lee, which I'm sure if relevant, he'll tell this jury, and making the one assumption that I just told you about Dr. Lee's testimony, he only observed one pair of bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints on his examination; and he saw one other shoe print; and didn't know when it got there.
Is it your testimony, sir, that, based on the facts that you know of as a medical doctor, as someone testifying here, that the facts are consistent with one assailant having committed the murders?
Yes or no, sir?
Thank you, sir.
Now, is it also true, sir, that it would be your testimony that all of the knife wounds inflicted in this double murder are consistent with having been delivered by one knife?
Yes or no, sir?
Isn't it true, sir, from your experience, in face-to-face struggles between a motivated killer with a knife and a defenseless victim, that the victim could have the kind of injuries Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman sustained, and there would be no wounds on the assailant?
If I remember the question properly, yes; that is, the perpetrator need not have injuries, need not suffer injuries.
And while the perpetrator, as you said, in a struggle such as was sustained by Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman need not suffer injuries, isn't it, true, sir, that if the assailant had his left arm around one of the victims in the course of attempting to slash that victim's throat, in your experience, it is certainly possible that the victim could have attempted to scratch and pull away the assailant's arm from her throat?
You would agree that that's certainly a possibility, would you not, sir?
And certainly, the answer would be the same if the assailant, instead of having his left arm around Ms. Brown's throat, had his arm around Mr. Goldman's throat, your answer would be the same; that it would certainly be possible for the victim to attempt to remove the assailant's hand and scratch the hand in the process; isn't that correct?
Now, you saw Mr. Simpson and examined his left hand on June 17 of 1994; is that correct, sir?
Yes, and Dr. Faerstein, a psychiatrist.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. May I have a spelling for Dr. Faerstein, please.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) And, Dr. Baden, you were aware at the time of the examination, that Dr. Huizenga, on the 15th, had observed three cuts, one of which had an A and B portion, and seven abrasions on Mr. Simpson's left hand, are you not?
Dr. Huizenga told you that?
At some point, I knew that, but I'm not sure that I knew that at the time that I came there.
At some point later, we discussed the findings. But I don't -- I didn't discuss it before I made my examination.
Now, is it accurate, sir, that after examining Mr. Simpson, he told you he received certain of those marks on his hands while he was still in Los Angeles on June the 12th, preparing for his trip to Chicago?
And it happened, he thought, somewhere in his home on Rockingham before he left for Chicago; is that correct, sir?
Is it correct, sir -- Is it correct, sir, that it was your opinion that the injuries on Mr. Simpson's hand could have been the result of a struggle between Mr. Simpson and another human being?
Yes or no, sir?
(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, in discussing fingernail marks yesterday, doctor, you said, did you not, that one of the reasons you did not believe certain -- a certain mark or marks you were shown were not fingernail gouge marks, was because none of the fingernails had the skin of the assailant under them; is that correct?
You were asked sir, can you tell us why, in your opinion, that couldn't be a fingernail gouge mark. And in part, didn't you say, sir, none of them had skin on them?
Didn't you say that, sir?
I'm going to object. If he's reading part of an answer, he should read the whole answer.
That's not the reason that I don't think they're fingernail marks.
However, if there were skin under them, of course, that would be a different situation.
Sir, my question was: Do you now recall, in answer to a question, whether, in your opinion, certain marks could be fingernail marks?
You said in part, none of them had skin on them.
Do you remember using those words?
That might be an aspect to it, but that's not the reason that I don't think they're fingernail marks. Because to get --
Is it true, sir, that if a victim, during the course of being attacked, scratches their assailant, you would not expect to find the skin of the assailant under the victim's fingernails?
That is an accurate statement?
I think that's true. It happens occasionally, but that's very unusual to happen that way, in my experience.
Now, I'm going to put on the screen, Dr. Baden, certain of the marks on Mr. Simpson's hands. And this one is, I believe, 715, what we call number 2.
(Exhibit 715-2 displayed on
the Elmo screen.)
(BY MR. MEDVENE) And that's the -- now I'm going to --
Now, those marks that you see on top of Mr. -- those marks are on the top of Mr. Simpson's hand; is that correct?
And those could be fingernail marks, could they not?
They're curved; they're gouged; and they're certainly consistent, you would say, with fingernail marks. Is that true, sir? Yes or no?
I didn't ask you if you asked him about other things.
You didn't ask him about these marks that could be fingernail marks; you didn't ask him about those?
You've done this a lot of times, and I want you to answer my question, if you would. Your counsel will ask you his questions.
Dr. Baden, let's go in steps again.
You said they could be fingernail marks?
No. You asked me if it's possible it's fingernail marks.
Yes, it's a tenth of one percent possibility that they're fingernail marks.
I didn't ask him about them.
KEY QUOTEDr. Baden, you said yesterday, by the way, did you not, in your testimony, nothing about one-half of one percent; but you said yesterday in reference to these very marks, that they could be fingernail marks, did you not, sir?
Isn't that what you told the jury, yesterday?
They could be anything. They could be anything.
I did not think then or now that they were fingernail marks, but they could be anything.
They're abrasions. Like, I have one on my finger here, just a little crust. I can't tell what caused it.
They're consistent with somebody having their fingernail and causing that mark, aren't they, sir?
And this is a little -- this is tissue, and here's tissue (indicating to photo). I think this looks more like a paper cut kind of thing.
It wouldn't be a knife wound, would it, because that would cut it clean and be a different pattern?
No, I think that sharp -- this is a sharp wound. (Indicating to Elmo screen.)
One of the possibilities is a knife wound or some kind of a more jagged knife, not a sharp, very sharp knife. I think it's something -- it's something that cuts the skin.
No, no. When I asked him about the cut wounds that -- the wounds that broke the skin, this, this, and the others, the other two I think, he indicated to me he didn't know where he had gotten them, but he had gotten blood on his hand after rummaging through his car, looking for the cell phone and while at his house. He noticed blood, but he didn't quite know how that happened.
Now, Mr. Simpson got these wounds, he told you, at his house the night of the murders, and -- somehow, rummaging in his car, with his car phone.
Now, Dr. Baden, did you ask him to look at his car phone to see if there were any rough edges, points sticking out, sharp objects that could have cut his hand in those two places?
Yes or no, sir?
(Continuing.) -- that he told me he had -- he saw blood on his hands, and he had somehow cut himself while in the house and rummaging around.
He didn't tell me that these were those cuts. I misstated that. He said somehow he cut himself; he didn't know where. He saw blood. He had rummaged for his car phone, and that there was -- it was dark. The light was out. And he thought he might have cut himself there or someplace else.
I don't know which -- there were four different cuts, these two and two others (indicating). He didn't specify to me which -- what occurred at the time. I'm saying something happened, according to what he told me.
That's okay.
So -- So that I have it correctly, he was -- I don't want to misstate this.
Are you saying he was rummaging around in his house in the dark in -- with the car phone?
No. What I recollect in my discussion with him on that day, he said he was rummaging around in the car in the dark. He went out to the car to get -- he was looking for his car phone, and he was rummaging around. He then was in the house. And at some point, he noticed blood on his left hand --
(BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm going to move to another area, if I might.
Would you agree, Dr. Baden, that there's no question that a motivated killer could have inflicted the injuries that Ms. Brown sustained very, very quickly?
Those knife wounds could have been very rapid; would you agree with that?
Well, in conjunction with the motions that Mr. Medvene made, I don't think it's ambiguous.
And my question is, could somebody, intent on killing Ms. Brown, have inflicted those wounds very quickly, sir? Yes or no?
Objection. Misstates the evidence. There's more than stab wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson.
The problem I have is "motivated and intent on." Those are different issues. I can't read motivation and intent on.
Any killer -- any killer could have rapidly inflicted the cut wounds, stab wounds and the bump on the head, quickly. Yes, it could happen very quickly. But I can't tell if they're motivated or not.
Let's talk about that a little bit.
As a man with your 30 years or so experience, would you say that the killer was motivated to kill?
In looking at the wounds that show he virtually slaughtered Ms. Brown by severing the major vessels of her neck, would that appear to you that he was motivated to kill her, sir?
Overruled.
I think this witness can answer the question. You're trying to ascertain what is motivation and accidental.
Overruled.
I don't know what you mean by that, as all killers are motivated to kill their victims; and they're all terrible. And dying -- being murdered is terrible, whether it's ten wounds or one wound. It's terrible.
-- Mrs. Simpson died of a cut wound to the neck that cut through the major arteries of the neck.
Slaughtering an animal is intentionally cutting through the arteries of the neck.
I don't know if this was an -- if the murderer intentionally cut the arteries in the neck.
This seems like a lot of stab wounds, a lot of cuts on the person, which happened to cut the carotid arteries, yes.
Did -- was there, sir, a large neck wound that Ms. Brown suffered that went around to the spine? Was that --
No question the person meant to kill her by slashing her throat, is there, Dr. Baden?
Are you saying maybe just giving her a warning?
No, I'm not saying. "Slaughter" is not a medical or pathological term; may be a legal term, may be a public term.
Whoever killed Ms. Brown, killed her by cutting through her neck and cutting her carotid arteries.
I don't -- "slaughter" is not a term that I've ever used.
And she would have lost consciousness from the carotid artery cut within ten seconds or so; is that not true?
Yes, I believe so. Once the carotid arteries are cut, she still could be conscious for five, ten seconds, and then lose consciousness.
Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Let's talk about Mr. Goldman.
Is it true, sir, that the assailant, with a large knife, could inflict a number of stab wounds on Mr. Goldman's body very rapidly, with very rapid thrusts of his knife, into Mr. Goldman?
You would agree with that, would you not?
The issue you raise, as I understand it in your testimony, is not that the wounds could be inflicted very quickly, in a matter of seconds; but the issue you raise is how long does it take for the blood to pour out, so that Mr. Goldman became incapacitated, unconscious, and die. Is that a fair statement?
It's partially fair. It's partially fair. There's another aspect to it: The fact that there was no bleeding from the chest, the two chest wounds, and the aortic wound.
All right. We're going to talk about that.
You told this jury yesterday about the wounds to the left jugular vein. Do you remember that?
And it was your testimony, as I understand it, that the blood from the left jugular vein flowed all the way to Mr. Goldman's shoes, and that's what -- took whatever time you say it took him to be unconscious and then die; is that correct, sir?
The time it took him till he collapsed to the ground; that is, he was upright for a few minutes, then he collapsed to the ground. And then I can't tell the time from the clothing.
Okay.
Is it true, sir, the left jugular vein is -- could you point it out to the jury, point it out?
It's right next to the carotid artery that we feel a pulse out in the neck (Witness indicates to his own neck). That is, on both sides of the neck, there's an artery that we take a pulse.
On the outside of that artery, closer to the skin is the jugular vein. We can't feel the jugular vein because it doesn't have a pulse, but it's right there. It's about half an inch under the skin.
Now, is it accurate, sir, that in your words, there was surprisingly little blood found on Mr. Goldman's shirt?
Is that and accurate statement, sir?
As I sit here, my best recollection, there was blood on the shirt. I wouldn't characterize it now as surprisingly little. It was blood.
Oh, oh, um, it might be. I mean, the amount of blood -- a small amount of blood can cause stains, yes. A few ounces of blood could all -- could be all that's on the shirt, yes.
I don't think that's surprisingly little, because it all doesn't get absorbed.
I'm sorry. 41360.
I'd like -- I'm going to read from the middle of the answer which talks about the shirt --
Well, I just purport to read everything that has to do with the shirt, Your Honor.
And the amount of -- I'm reading at line 14.
"And the amount of blood on the shirt, seen on the shirt, doesn't account -- it's a very, you know, three ounces of blood, at most, and on the shirt fabric. And that's all accountable on the left side of the neck. "God bless you, Ms. Clark. "From the left side of the neck, that -- and surprisingly little blood on the shirt. "
Did you give that answer on a previous issue?
I can't tell if -- if this shirt -- if the shirt is toward the normal position, and not inside out, then this would be the left side. (Indicating.)
Yeah.
But at this point, when this photograph is taken, there's more blood on the right side than the left side.
And there appears to be, you said, surprisingly little blood on the shirt.
If the blood is coming from the left side, the left jugular vein, there certainly is no soaking of the shirt on the left side; isn't that correct, Dr. Baden?
Yes or no, sir?
That wasn't compound. He just said if the blood came from the jugular vein on the left side, is that a lot of blood or not a lot of blood.
Well, this is -- there's soaking of some blood in there, but it's not soaking as on the right side. But this soaking occurs after he's collapsed and he's on the ground.
All right, sir. So we're talking -- you've talked to us about gravity and what happens with gravity. And you talked to us about the oozing from the vein.
And if the blood was coming from the left jugular cut and traveling down the shirt on its way to the shoes, for whatever reason, you don't see it on that photo; isn't that correct, sir?
Yes or no?
Blood can come down and not get -- for two or three minutes and not get onto the shirt very much.
And then when I lay down on the ground, it sits there for ten hours on the ground.
Is it your theory that you're going to tell this jury, with reasonable medical certainty, that this blood you're talking about that oozed out slowly from the left jugular vein, somehow made its way across the shirt, basically, without being absorbed, and then made its way wherever it went?
Certainly, because the shirt isn't the skin, it -- it goes down. And when I say "slowly," we're talking about a few minutes. It goes down from the jugular vein, on the skin, down to the pants, and -- or where the belt is. And it doesn't necessarily soak into the shirt, except in portions where the shirt is against the skin. And it's only a couple minutes' exposure, few minutes' exposure.
So we have it on the right side but not the left side. It wouldn't necessarily soak into the shirt on the left side, but it would soak into the -- somehow, some blood from in here came on the right side?
The right side soaking is while he's laying on his right side for ten hours, before the body is removed. And then while he's transported down to the -- to the L.A. mortuary, until the -- the clothing is removed.
So most of this soaking, 95 percent of the soaking, occurs after he collapses.
Well, there is -- there's a lot of blood. If you or I had this much blood on our shirt right now, we'd be concerned about it.
Well, let's talk about that.
You made some reference to the abdomen.
That shirt, you're aware, was pulled up on Mr. Goldman's body, and his abdomen was exposed between where the shirt was pulled up and his belt line; is that correct, sir?
Yeah.
Now, is it true, sir, that you have previously testified that you did not see on the skin, a trail of blood along the upper edge of the left side of the body going down to the belt line; isn't that true, sir?
Okay.
So, we have whatever blood we have or don't have on the left side. Then we don't have any trail from where the shirt stops and the pants begin. And then we have a certain amount of blood in the pants. Is that correct, sir?
Yes.
And as I recall, there was some blood from the left flank wound that went horizontally down.
If I may, I'm talking from the first photographs.
I don't know if anybody looked before they took the first photograph, because there were a lot of things going on before the photographs were taken.
So whatever happened or didn't happen, we're working with what you know, to give your opinion. And where we are so far is, we have whatever blood we saw or didn't see on the left side of the shirt. We then do not have a continuous trail --
Now -- and incidentally, there was no notation made anywhere of blood or any particular amount of blood on the abdomen; isn't that correct?
From your review of the photos, you and Dr. Wolfe, there was no notation made in those notes of any blood found caked on Mr. Goldman's abdomen, as contrasted with his buttocks, for example; isn't that true?
I don't know what you mean by "buttocks." It's whatever the report is. But we have the photographs as the best evidence.
When you say you don't know what I mean by -- by buttocks, isn't it true, sir, that in an examination that you made of the evidence --
I'd have to review that. But that was at Albany Medical Center, yes, when they sent us the material.
(Continuing.) Oh, this is referring to the -- to the blue jeans, not to the skin.
Okay. I'm sorry; I misunderstood.
Yes, that there was -- there was dried blood on the buttock areas of Mr. Goldman's blue jeans, yes.
But no reference to any dried blood on the skin area, abdomen area, between where the shirt is pulled up and the belt line; is that correct?
What those notes are, descriptions of the clothing, as we're including the -- the clothing, not of the photographs. The photographs are permanent documentation by themselves. But that's just the jeans that we're talking about. We handled it and looked at it.
Is it also true, in terms of blood, we know we have about three ounces on the shirt. You told us, is it true, that in the neck area, there's no swelling or discoloration internally that would demonstrate any massive bleeding in the neck or chest?
Yeah. There was a little bit of hemorrhage in -- from the soft tissues around the jugular vein, but no accumulation of blood in that area; yes, sir.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, would it be -- first, in terms of the thigh wound, Mr. Goldman suffered a wound to the thigh; is that correct?
Not an exceptionally vascular area. There are blood vessels in every part of the body. It would have been around where I'm pointing, a few inches below the pocket of the jeans.
I didn't ask you if it was exceptionally vascular. Like, when we cut our finger, it bleeds?
Is it true, in terms of figuring out where the blood came from, that the blood on the left pant leg appears soaked, in contrast to whatever blood we saw on the left side of the shirt?
Isn't that a correct statement, sir?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) That blood from the jugular vein is going to go down -- is going to go the left side of the shirt and leave that amount of blood.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) And leave off that amount of blood, (indicating to photo) and then somehow when it makes its way to the pants; it's going to soak in that fashion. This same blood. Is that what you're telling us? Yes or no.
Well, did you do -- you didn't do any analysis of the -- you have anything in your records that you did an analysis of a garment and the absorption ability of that shirt, did you?
Now, what you're telling us is, there was this trail of blood from the left jugular vein, not soaking the shirt, somehow making its way over the skin, where we also don't have any blood --
(Continuing.) -- And then getting to the pants, the same jugular vein blood, and soaking the pants.
Is that your testimony? Yes or no, sir?
Restate it.
There's been no testimony about blood being on the stomach or not being on the stomach.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) You've told us previously, sir -- remember when we asked that there was no trail of blood -- strike that.
When Mr. Goldman was found, you observed the pictures with the shirt pulled up, showing a portion of his abdomen prior to his -- his pants, correct?
And you told us a few minutes ago that there was no trail of blood observed on the portion of his abdomen that was exposed between his shirt and his belt buckle, right?
Okay.
Now, let's go back to the question.
Are you telling us, then, that this blood came from the left jugular vein, did not soak the shirt, did not leave any blood caked on the portion of the abdomen that was exposed, and then soaked the left side of his thigh?
Is that your testimony?
Let's take a ten-minute recess.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
It's not my opinion, but it could have happened that way, yes.
I don't know what you mean by 'slaughtered.' ... Whoever killed Ms. Brown, killed her by cutting through her neck and cutting her carotid arteries. I don't -- 'slaughter' is not a term that I've ever used.
You asked me if it's possible it's fingernail marks. Yes, it's a tenth of one percent possibility that they're fingernail marks.
Yes. Because the bleeding -- the fabric and tightness of the garment against the skin.
Are you telling us, then, that this blood came from the left jugular vein, did not soak the shirt, did not leave any blood caked on the portion of the abdomen that was exposed, and then soaked the left side of his thigh? Is that your testimony?