(BY MR. BAKER) Now, as we were saying, Dr. Spitz, on the anatomical summary, if we look at Nicole Brown Simpson, the first indication of cause of death is a transection of left and right common carotid arteries, correct?
And if we look at Ronald Goldman, the primary cause of death listed, No. 1, sharp force wound of neck, left side with transection of left internal jugular vein and that was listed first in the Ron Goldman autopsy report, correct?
All right. And did it -- is it correct, the custom and practice of autopsy surgeons in listing in the anatomical summary, the cause of death is that the primary cause of death is listed first, true?
You'll have plenty of time, sir.
Now, in terms of your full reconstruction of the murders of June 12, 1994, and you did do a full reconstruction, in your own mind, did you not, sir?
I mean, if I did not do a full reconstruction in encompassing other disciplines. I'm a forensic pathologist. I did a full reconstruction from my angle?
Let me read what you told us on Friday afternoon on page 126 of volume 11 of your testimony on Friday. Starting at line 14 (Reading:)
" ... You did a full reconstruction of how these murders took place in your mind, and you're willing to sit here and tell us about them?
"A. Yes."
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you didn't qualify anything about your area of expertise when we asked you the question about full reconstruction, true?
I don't know that that's true because I don't know what comes in the sentences before and what comes in the sentences after.
If the question is fingerprint analysis or shoe print analysis or hair and fibers or DNA, I'm no expert in those -- in those areas. It goes without saying. There's a lot of things people say when they talk that isn't qualified. But it is certainly evident that I'm not an expert in areas in which I haven't had training.
And you've had training, I take it, sir, then in timing of the infliction of wounds and reviewing a murder scene, to determine whether or not the estimate -- Strike that.
Whether or not your time periods would fit within the parameters of what actually occurred at the time the murder took place, true?
Didn't ask you whether it was the only reason you go to a crime scene, sir. I said, have you had training where you attempt to assimilate all of the information of the crime scene to determine whether or not these estimates or -- strike that.
Not these estimate, these absolute timeframes you gave this jury were, in fact, accurate when pragmatically compared to what occurred at the crime scene. You had training in that, sir?
Well, in other words, sir, you gave this jury, on direct examination Friday morning, some pretty concrete timeframes within which all of these wounds were inflicted to these two human beings, true?
And my question to you, sir, is: Have you had any training in looking at all of the elements of a crime scene, so that these absolute timeframes that you gave this jury on Friday can be compared to the crime scene and what actually occurred to determine whether or not your time periods are, in fact, accurate in --
Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence that you have to go to the crime scene.
Okay. Sustained. That's a multifaceted compound question that is starting off on one track and ending on another.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, let me ask you this question in terms of the injuries. We were talking about Ron Goldman on Friday in doing the accident, the -- not the accident, the reconstruction of the crime scene, correct?
And you -- I -- you have not seen any of the photos that were of the closed-in area, correct?
I had not seen these pictures. I'd seen other pictures of the same areas but these pictures, I had not seen. The other pictures, I would say, show the same area. But these very pictures, I have not seen.
Okay. Now, I showed you a picture in the upper right-hand corner, and -- on Friday and you couldn't tell us whether or not you thought that that was blood 'cause you just didn't know, correct?
The upper right-hand corner -- what's that chart number, please, Phil.
MR. P. BAKER: 1342.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, I put that, Monday, on the monitor, put a close-up picture of that on the monitor and you can tell us whether you believe that this is, in fact, blood of Mr. Goldman?
I'm talking about dripping down off of that horizontal bar into the dirt area in front of the concrete stone, whatever it is?
All right. And for a person to have bled in that particular manner, the person has to be above it, correct?
Bled down on that horizontal bar, true?
Would you agree that the person who left the blood there, had to be above the area where the blood is dropped on the horizontal rail of the fence and then puddles into the dirt area.
Objection. Asked and answered. The witness said he's not a blood splatter expert and he wasn't put on for that purpose.
You can answer yes or no. He testified in direct examination with regards to blood flow.
The origin of this blood could be from a higher level. It could be from the same level.
(BY MR. BAKER) It's going to take some period of time for that blood to accumulate on the horizontal bar as well as to accumulate in the puddle areas that are about -- in the center of the TV monitor. You would agree with that?
Everything takes time. There's nothing in life that doesn't take time. The question is: How much time, but it takes time. It takes time. Everything we do takes time.
KEY QUOTENow, if you would come over, I want to point out on 1342, the middle picture on the left-hand side and ask you if you have looked at that area where there is a hole that is approximately 12 inches by 12 inches, maybe 8 to 10 inches deep?
And I want you to further assume that Detective Lange came into this courtroom and said that hole, more likely or not, in his opinion, was made during the struggle that culminated in the death of Ron Goldman. Now --
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, do you have an opinion as to whether or not you can dig that hole, and you can have the blood that is indicated on the TV monitor, now, would that take over five seconds?
I don't know how big the hole is. I don't know. I'm not an expert in hole digging. I don't base an opinion on the hole digging. I have really no opinion about whether that hole existed -- preexisted, existed or was done after the fact. I have never seen the hole. I don't know what it is.
Well, but you never took that into account in asking, for your opinion and conclusion, that within 60 seconds, the first wound was inflicted on Ron Goldman and until the last wound was inflicted on Ron Goldman, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) The hole and the blood splatters and the -- that are on the photo on the monitor, did you take those, just those two elements into consideration in arriving at your opinions and conclusion that it was 60 seconds from the first wound to the last on Ron Goldman?
I took into consideration, the blood that I saw. I did not take into consideration the hole.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you didn't take into consideration the blood you saw on the horizontal bar of the fence, on the north end of the caged-in area because you didn't know it was blood on Friday; isn't that true?
I took into consideration everything that I thought was blood in the -- in that general area.
(BY MR. BAKER) Do you know where it is in terms of taking into consideration, your opinions that it took 60 seconds from the first to the last wound on Ron Goldman?
These blood splatters were taken into consideration, although at this moment, I cannot tell you where this is. I looked at the scene. I looked at other pictures of the scene. I got a very excellent idea of what the scene looked like. I went to the scene a couple of times and I studied the scene.
My opinion in regards to the length, to the duration of the altercation with both individuals has not changed one iota and will not change unless there is new evidence that comes in.
Where was the first wound? Where was Mr. Goldman standing when the first wound was inflicted on Mr. Goldman?
I think Mr. Goldman was probably in the area, in the general area in which he was eventually found dead.
Also in the general area in which she was found, the picture I just showed you, was a picture of the front gate which you believe was open.
Now, does that indicate to you that there was blood spatter from Mr. Goldman, who was standing near the front gate at the time the first wound was inflicted upon him, rather than over in the dirt area or the closed-in area.
Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence in testimony of exactly where he was standing. He didn't say he was standing where Mr. Baker said he was standing.
Overruled. But I'll sustain the objection because this witness didn't say the gate was open. He made a reference to the gate being either open or unlocked.
I said the gate was opened but qualified it by saying unlocked. I didn't say that the gate was ajar. You didn't ask me that.
Did you believe that Mr. Goldman was standing on a tile walkway at the time the first wound was inflicted?
He may have. The area is so small. It is six by four feet, so if you'd like me to show you what six by four feet is, I'd be glad to do that, if somebody has a tape measure.
The area is actually nine by four feet, when you put the tile area in it as well; isn't that true, sir?
I'm talking about the area of altercation with Mr. Goldman. I'm not talking about the area, the areas that are adjacent. I'm talking about the area of the -- area in which Mr. Goldman met his -- met his death.
Let me you ask you a question so that we're clear. The reason that we're concentrating on the area of six feet by four feet, is it's your view that Mr. Goldman did not incur any wound while he was on the tile area, only while he was on the tile area which is six feet by four feet, true?
Yes. Let me just say that I am not certain whether he was standing near the tile or off to one side of the tile or to the other. But the area, where he incurred his injuries is the six by four feet.
So, in other words, the area in question is this area here, a little less than this area here because it only goes to here. This is --
Then three the six feet dimension is what I'm trying to get at. The six feet dimension you're talking about, is from the walkway to the fence on the north side, correct?
Yes. The east side. All right.
In terms of your analysis, Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, never came into contact with each other, correct, met?
(BY MR. BAKER) They never had physical contact with each other at any time during the murder scenario, true?
I believe that -- I believe this, from my understanding, the way I understand the scene, but I am not the one and only in this case giving opinions.
So from my angle, from the way I see it, based on injury and injury pattern and understanding of the scene from my angle, that's my opinion.
All right. Now, that's -- you read Dr. Lakshmanan testimony in the criminal trial, in preparation for your testimony before your deposition on August 16, 1996, correct?
Objection, Your Honor. It's not relevant. It also misstates the record. Also compound.
(BY MR. BAKER) In any event, sir, you read and reviewed his testimony so that you would have some semblance of what his thoughts were, correct?
And, well, let me ask you to go back just a minute. Did you -- did you believe that any of the wounds to Mr. Goldman were, could be classified as a taunting wound?
No.
There are no taunting wounds. Taunting mean, torture-like wound, if that's what you mean.
Let me go back a minute.
You believe that the wound to the left side of Nicole Brown Simpson's neck, those were all wounds that were made in anticipation or in attempts, rather, to make the fatal wound that was ultimately made, correct?
The slashing wound from left to right that cut both carotid arteries?
Yes. Those wounds on the left side of her neck, the four stab wounds, the slash across the neck, the stab wound on the head were all done in an effort to kill her.
And -- but my question, I hope, was a little more specific than that. That the wound, the four wounds to the left side of the neck that are under the left ear, you testified, I believe, Friday were all made after Nicole Brown Simpson was being held -- and do you need a picture, Doctor?
Did you not testify on Friday that the wounds that were made to Nicole Brown Simpson, under her left ear were made while she was in a position with the assailant, left arm around her stretched back and the wounds were made like with four stabbing wounds and then a slash across her neck from left to right. That's what you testified to; was it not, sir?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now is it your view then, that the assailant that had one knife that was single, single sharp-sided knife that made all five of those wounds in very rapid succession, the four underneath the left ear and the slash that ultimately severed the carotid?
It is my opinion that all the wounds were inflicted with a knife, consistent or compatible with a single-edged sharp knife.
Didn't ask you that question. Maybe it was a poor one, I apologize.
Is it your testimony that those four wounds underneath the left ear were made with this compatible single-edge knife and they were a precursor, they were made all in rapid succession just prior to the lashing wounds from left to right across Ms. Brown Simpson's neck that turned out to be fatal?
Now, the one directly under Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's ear has -- the blunt part of that wound is vertical and towards the ear lobe, true?
I've -- I have looked at the diagram. If you like me to I'll be glad to explain to you why I'm saying, no.
Your view of the photographs, you believe, is better evidence of the angle of the cuts than the diagram of the autopsy surgeon who made the diagram, correct?
There's no reason for Mr. Baker to talk like this or behave like this, Your Honor.
(BY MR. BAKER) Your view then, Dr. Spitz, is that you're looking at -- a photograph is more reliable than the drawing made by the autopsy surgeon at the time he did the autopsy, correct?
Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, in your -- in your view of reconstruction of this, Mr. Goldman was -- Was in the caged-in area at the time this 15 second attack took place on Nicole Brown Simpson, right?
And, is it your view, based upon your reconstruction of this, that he just stood there during that period of time?
He didn't run, he didn't yell, he didn't do anything? He just stood there for the 15 seconds while Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was being attacked?
Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence that Ronald Goldman was there at the time her throat was slashed and it's outside the scope.
(BY MR. BAKER) You just indicated that your opinion was that Mr. Goldman was present during the time that Nicole Brown Simpson was attacked and murdered; isn't that true?
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you not -- well, let me get it.
Page 131. This is your testimony from Friday (reading):
"... And then it was your opinion and your reconstruction that you had done, in your mind, sir, that Mr. Goldman was in the closed-in area during that 15 second altercation.
"A. I think it possibly was."
Is that your testimony, sir?
Yeah. Yes, my testimony that he was either there for that time or for part of the time, I don't know if he was there for all of the 15 seconds. I have my thoughts that he was there for the entire duration. And besides, I don't know that the altercation with Ms. Brown took 15 seconds. I always said 15 seconds or less.
And during this 15 seconds or less, when Mr. Goldman probably was in the -- in the area, did he attack the attacker in your reconstruction of the event, sir?
And if he attacked the attacker, most certainly the assailant would have had some bruises, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, if he attacked the assailant, in your scenario, sir, the assailant -- if Mr. Goldman came in through the gate, the assailant had his back to Mr. Goldman while he's at the initial stages of the attack, true?
Well, did you -- Was it your view of the event that Nicole Brown Simpson was the person who took off the glove of Mr. -- of the assailant?
I don't know who took off the glove. I know the glove came off, but I don't know who took it off.
Well, where did all of these fingernail gouges come from, did they come from Nicole Brown Simpson or did they come from Ron Goldman or did they come from somebody else?
Sir, you have testified that every mark on the pictures of Mr. Simpson's was, in your view, made by a fingernail?
Thank you.
Now, you testified that every one of those marks on his hands was, in fact, a fingernail gouge mark, correct?
Now, when you say gouge, you're using the wrong term. If I'm to qualify the fingernail marks, they are fingernail marks of three different types. They are gouges, too. But they are not all gouges.
Okay. But in any event, sir, those fingernail marks are not going to be made from somebody wearing a glove. You would agree with that?
Now, I take it that in doing your careful analysis, you noted that and went down and reviewed the fingernail clippings of Ron Goldman at the County Coroner's Office, County of Los Angeles, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) I agree.
You didn't look at any fingernail clippings of Ron Goldman to determine whether or not he even had fingernails that could have produced any gouge marks on Mr. Simpson, did you?
Objection, Your Honor. Assumes a fact not in evidence, that there were fingernail clippings taken.
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you attempt to find out the length of Mr. Goldman's fingernails to the -- to determine whether or not he could have made any gouge marks in Mr. Simpson's or any other assailant?
And did you find that his fingernails were of inappropriate length to make any gouge marks in Mr. Simpson's?
Mr. Goldman had short fingernails. I have short fingernails.
My fingernails are approximately those of Mr. Goldman's. Would you like me to show you how this works?
Mr. Baker, I'm not going to have any gouging of flesh out in my courtroom.
KEY QUOTEI wasn't going to do it, but what I would like to indicate to you, and I'll show you. I can show it to you on me rather than on you because I know when it hurts and when to stop. On you, I don't know when it hurts.
So therefore, let me say what happens. When you fight for your life and you dig in deep, without concern of whether it hurts or didn't hurt, you push back the top of the flesh of the fingers and the fingernail suddenly becomes much longer. Now. Having said that, if you want to, I'll show you what I mean.
The fingernail gouge marks are made by Ron Goldman. Is that your opinion or do you have an opinion as to who they were made by?
I'm not able to look at the fingernail marks and say who made them, obviously. I can say that Mr. Goldman could have made them, Nicole Brown could have made them.
Well, let's talk about her fingernails for a minute.
What about her fingernails?
Did you examine anything that indicated what type of fingernails she had on the night of the murder?
I don't know what you call them. There's a name for this, I know, but I don't know the name.
You would at least agree that the only genetic marker that was found under any fingernails of either victim was a genetic marker inconsistent with Mr. Simpson's, true?
No, I -- I cannot really answer this with yes or no because there are -- there is no analysis ever made of Mr. Goldman's fingernails. There is a record in the report in the autopsy report --
-- We can't talk about evidence that wasn't processed. We don't know what it is; isn't that true?
I'll withdraw the question.
The only genetic marker that was found under any nails was a genetic marker inconsistent with Mr. Simpson's, true or untrue?
Do you want to change the answer? I didn't ask you what you wanted to say. I asked you if you wanted to change the answer.
The other change I want to make is that it really doesn't concern me whether there is anything under the fingernails or not and I'll elaborate on that in a minute if you let me.
And I -- To indicate to you that when the fingernails of Ms. Brown were examined, there was a red substance on them, which was believed to be blood.
And there is no typing of blood to match Mr. Simpson from Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails, true or untrue?
Thank you. You've answered the question then if that's what you -- Now, I want to ask you, sir, from the front gate around item No. 119, you can tell that there's this metal meshing here that a -- that's a gate?
There was blood on the front gate. I showed you that picture which had the label of item No. 116 on it a few minutes ago. You want to see that again?
So we had blood on the front gate, that would appear from these photographs, at least, when we were taken to be in an open position, correct?
We had, as we go around the area to the east side where Bundy is, out on the east side, we had more blood smears. We then have a hole in the northeast corner, correct?
We have a pager that has been dropped or flung in the area behind the fence on the north side, actually onto the adjacent property, correct?
In that you mean in that little space here or under the fence, there's a little level under the fence that you see over there on that picture where the pager may have been found.
It's indicated in this diagram. I think that's a photograph exhibit outside the fence. I think that's supposed to be a symbolic depiction thereof.
And then we had Mr. Goldman lying on the right side, correct?
And that indicated to you that there was a struggle that took place in that closed-in area that you measured off, four feet by six feet, correct?
And actually, would you agree or disagree that a forensic pathologist can only indicate the minimum time it takes to inflict wounds, but it can never indicate the maximum time?
I don't necessarily agree with that. You can indicate what you believe is a reasonable estimate for a minimum time and you can indicate what, within reason, may be the range of something taking.
And it is because of that, that I said that the injuries to Mr. Goldman took a minute and maybe less and the injuries to Ms. Simpson, Ms. Brown took 15 seconds or less.
15 seconds is a maximum time and a minute for Mr. Goldman is a maximum time. So I beg to disagree with you there.
Okay. So in your view, based upon the wounds itself, you can extrapolate that regardless of whether a hole was dug, regardless of whether keys were flung, regardless of whether an envelope is between the two victims, regardless of whether a pager is flung, regardless of whether Mr. Goldman had a bruise on his hand, that regardless of pools of blood and regardless of blood going down the pant leg of Mr. Goldman; that you can opine that all of those wounds were inflicted first to last within less than 60 seconds, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) You answered the question, Dr. Spitz.
Now, let's examine, did you ever physically, in person, examine the clothes of Mr. Goldman?
All right. Now, you have testified that the thigh wounds to the left thigh did not bleed very much because what we have in our -- in the thigh area of our body is, we have the quadriceps muscle is that true; and we don't have a major artery until we get behind the femur, correct?
So in other words, when Mr. Goldman suffered the wounds in the left thigh, you certainly didn't think that that was a wound?
Let me just say, because I don't want to go on the record as having said that the arteries are in the back, because that's not 100 percent true. I didn't say that.
Now, Dr. Spitz, you, in terms of your analysis of this case, believe that the left thigh wounds did not bleed very much, correct?
The left thigh wounds did not bleed very much when compared to the other wounds. The left thigh wounds entered a different type of tissue so as compared to the other areas in the body, like the aorta and other places, that thigh wounds bled very little. But as we know, it was enough to stain the pants and it was probably enough for some of the blood to go on the ground.
Well, let's talk about that a little bit.
Where was the thigh wound in terms of it's relationship between, let's say, the knee and the pelvis?
If the Court -- if the Court please, may the record indicate Dr. Golden is pointing to his --
Excuse me, Dr. Spitz is pointing to his left leg, approximately how -- below your belt, Dr. Spitz.
Let's take a 10 minute recess. That's Dr. -- that's Dr. Spitz's leg that was measured. (Break.)
Well did it make any difference, the number of wounds he had, in arriving at your opinions that he all the wounds from first to last were inflicted in 60 seconds?
Yes. It made a difference in my -- My decision. My determination was that the all these wounds were very likely inflicted in less than a minute.
But you didn't think it was necessary to count the wounds to come, to any conclusion that they were, in fact, inflicted in 60 seconds or less, right?
And relative to the all of the blood in the caged-in area, that we have been talking about, did you make a determination whether or not there was any blood on the plant, the plant life that was in the closed-in area?
I did not make any determination, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was blood on the plant life.
Now, the blood from the thigh wounds certainly did not travel towards the waist of Mr. Goldman. You'd agree with that?
Now Mr. Goldman's left pant leg was thoroughly encased with blood, was it not, from the waist on down?
(BY MR. BAKER) I apologize. What I want you to look at, sir, is the left pant leg, and then answer the question again, sir, if, in fact, the left pant leg is encased in blood from the waist on down.
MR. P. BAKER: This is 860.
No, it's not, because some of it is a shadow. Because I have a picture of the same area that shows it differently.
MR. P. BAKER: No. 38.
Yes it went down on -- on the leg and this shows that the pants are not drenched, as you say, and my picture doesn't show it's drenched either and it came down, ran down on the boot, yes.
THE COURT REPORTER: What number is that, please?
MR. P. BAKER: That is 860.
(BY MR. BAKER) The levis, the blood came down the levis, the Levi's more likely than not were at this area over the boot and because there's no blood here, and then bled into the boot area and was absorbed by the canvas portion of that boot, correct, sir?
And there is that bleeding pattern, you would agree, is totally consistent with the internal jugular vein being severed in this man as one of the first wounds of the altercation, true?
All right. Now, in terms of the amount of blood that is shown in that photograph, sir, Mr. Goldman was upright for a period of time in excess of 60 seconds, true, after the bleeding started?
Is it your testimony that all of the blood that we see in that photograph is from the thigh wounds?
At least most of it, if not all of it is from the thigh wounds. And as far as -- it's 60, more than in a minute of him being upright, I disagree that it took longer than a minute and I disagree that he was necessarily standing for that duration. But much of the time, held upright.
All of the area above the -- what would be right about the pocket, left pocket. All of that blood cannot be caused, we would at least agree on that, by the wounds of the thigh, correct? Gravity has not been repealed?
Gravity hasn't been repealed. All of the blood above the pocket area, is going to be caused by the internal jugular vein bleeding from this man while he is in the fight, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your analysis of the altercation, did Mr. Goldman attempt to kick the attacker?
Mr. Goldman did not attempt to kick the attacker. Mr. Goldman used his left leg as a defense weapon.
That's how he got the wounds to the -- to the thigh. That's how he got the wounds to the hands. That's how he got the wounds to the flank.
Now, in your -- and you're sure, as you sit her now, that Mr. Goldman was -- had his left leg extended in the air and he was attacking or warding off an attacker who was to his left side, correct?
You just demonstrated to us, sir, that you had your left leg extended and you had your hands extended out to the left, did you not?
No.
I don't know. Maybe I did -- my opinion is that he exposed his left side to the assailant and went like this (indicating).
If I'm showing a -- stretching my arms out to the -- to the left so be it, like this --
I can further tell you that at that time the attacker was jabbing the knife this way (indicating).
He was jabbing it right at him. He had all of his weight basically on his right foot, correct?
Now, look at the TV monitor and tell the jury, if that is not a cut, fresh cut in his right boot, that was made at the time of the attack, and you can tell that because it's a fresh cut from a knife, true?
Well, I didn't hear right or left or both. When you were demonstrating twice to the jury, I heard you say that the reason that he was attacked on the left side, that the left thigh wounds and the left flank wounds was, he was attacking or warding off his attacker who was to his left side?
No. No. No, that's not what I said. I said at the time that he sustained, that was the question, that he sustained the wounds in the thigh, he went like this (indicating.)
Later on, or before we -- he may have done the same with the right leg except at that moment when he did that, he did not get a wound on the thigh or elsewhere.
Where was he, in the closed-in area when he was warding off the attacker with his left thigh?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms -- In terms of your examination and determination of where everybody was in this reconstruction.
If in fact the internal jugular vein was the first vein severed, and if, in fact, it bled down his left side and down his pants and down into his boot, you would agree that he would still have the ability to fight off an attacker for a period of time, five minutes or longer, true?
Are you asking, if I may, so I can understand the question, are you asking me whether with a severed jugular vein, he could still fight for five minutes?
Is that what you're asking me?
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, if in fact, he had the severed internal jugular vein, he could then have fought off his attacker at the front of the gate, could he not?
He could have fought off his attacker as he went into the dirt and closed-in area where the keys and the envelope were found, could he not?
And he could have continued to fight and kick at his attacker during the time period that the -- that the struggle took place, correct?
And he could have actually taken a swing or hit his attacker during that period of time, could he not?
And this picture is a little rough as well. Mr. Goldman had substantial bruises on his right hand, didn't he?
He had some bruising. I wouldn't say -- I wouldn't call that substantial. He had a lot of cuts and he had a lot of scrapings.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 878.
The bruises on the middle knuckle and the knuckles, those are substantial bruises, are they not?
I am not sure whether they're from hitting at an attacker or whether they are from hitting the ground or from hitting the wall or from hitting the fence, or from hitting the tree. There is abrasions in there as well. There's a little abrasion in this area and here. I am not certain, exactly what he hit. He hit something.
Doctor, let me ask you the question again.
Those bruises are consistent with Mr. Goldman hitting his attacker somewhere on his body, regardless of when you know, specifically, whether he did or not, would you agree with that? True?
But we know at least one thing, he wasn't fighting the fence, he was fighting his attacker, don't we?
And in fighting his attacker, it is not inconsistent for Mr. Goldman to try to have hit his attacker. You would agree with that, this is a fight for his life; is it not?
Thank you. Take that down, please.
Now, did you review any of the photographs of Mr. Simpson's that were taken on the 15th or the 17th day of June 1994 other than his hands?
Did you see any bruises on Mr. Simpson's body that would be consistent with having Mr. Goldman attempt to hit him with a hand that produced a bruise such as we have just put on the board?
I'm saying -- you are asking; is there a bruise? I say there is a bruise and if there's a bruise, it's consistent.
Okay. And did you see -- well, strike that.
Now, in terms of the marks that you say of Mr. Simpson's, are all these fingernail marks. These you testify to these are quasi cuts, correct in your deposition?
Page 55 line 7. (Reading:)
"Q. Do you have an opinion on the amount of bleeding that would have occurred in the time that wounds was inflicted until it closed?
"A. The amount of bleeding.
"Q. Or the type of bleeding.
"A. What do you mean by type?
"Q. How much bleeding would there have been?
"A. Not much.
"Q. Why do you say that?
"Q. (sic) Because these are not cuts; they are, for lack of a better term, quasi cuts. They're cuts by a blunt, semi-blunt object, which is a fingernail. A fingernail is not sharp, a fingernail has measurable thickness necessary and it crushes the skin and it causes more damage inside than outward. So therefore you have a lot of swelling and probably some pain associated with it."
That's what you said; is it not?
And so you don't believe that Mr. Simpson's, if it was him who was the attacker, would have bled, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) In your view, there would not -- There would have been no bleeding, correct?
We're talking, sir, about what you have characterized in your testimony as every one of the cuts on his left hand being a fingernail, crush type, semi-blunt injury?
And so I take it, sir, that if these crush type semi-blunt injuries, which cause more damage inside than outward, Mr. Simpson would not have been bleeding, right?
They probably would have all bleed, but not instantaneously.
In a crush, if you let me explain, the tissue, as the term implies or indicates, is that the tissue is crushed and if blood in the bottom bellows up, comes up, it needs to overcome the crushed area of tissue which is crushed down.
It takes a few seconds for that to happen. So -- and furthermore, if the hand is down, it may bleed a little sooner. If the hand is up, it will take a little longer.
We all know that when we cut ourselves, if you raise the extremity, the bleeding may even stop.
If you put it down, the bleeding will come.
They are -- there are gouges in the side. Those will bleed. There are fairly deep fingernail marks along the inside and the outer surface on the back of the -- I think it's the ring finger or the middle finger.
Those injuries will bleed. Those were fairly deep injuries. In fact, there's one picture of the one on the middle finger, which bled, which it is still bleeding when the picture was taken, which is many hours later.
(BY MR. BAKER) You told the jury, and demonstrated to the jury that that was in the webbing of Mr. Simpson's hand. And you actually got out of your chair and pointed to the webbing of his hand, did you not, sir?
And you meant to do that, Dr. Spitz, because you meant to have the victim pulling down on his hands and grabbing him in the web of his hands so as to cause those particular cuts, right?
No. I meant to do that because that was my opinion at that time where these -- this one and that gouge -- These two are gouges, where they were situated.
I subsequently, as you remember, corrected it and said that I was wrong and repeat now that was wrong and that the actual injuries were in the extension of the little finger if I'm not mistaken.
You went outside. You talked to Mr. Medvene. You talked to Mr. Petrocelli and they told you, you were wrong on this photograph. That this photograph was not in the web at all. This photograph was under the -- The what's this, the distal aspect or what is it called?
No. Mr. Medvene or Mr. Petrocelli did not tell me. I made a mistake. Mr. Medvene or Mr. Petrocelli, or one of the other gentlemen told me.
Whether -- I would like to see the picture, another picture which will tell me better where these injuries are located.
Now, you want to go back -- move to strike as nonresponsive -- and see if you can answer my question.
(BY MR. BAKER) My question was, sir, that you can see the wrist bone in that photograph, right?
And it doesn't make sense that somebody's hand is underneath and around back in here when they could pull their hand all the way over into the webbing. That's why you wanted that photograph to be in the webbing because you are partisan advocate as you sit in this witness chair?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms, did either of those cuts produce a drop of blood, in your opinion, sir?
Mr. Baker, I don't know that they have coagulated on this picture. There's a crust over this one and a crust over there. I would have to be a wizard to tell you how many drops of blood came out of that and I am not a wizard.
It depends, as I indicated to you earlier, it depends on whether the arm -- I'm not talking about a laboratory now, I'm talking about whether the arm is down.
The practical thing, like grandmother has taught us, if you put the arm down, it's going to bleed. So don't put it down, put it up. It will stop.
What's the coagulation time? I didn't ask you about when you put the arm down or when you put the arm up, what's a normal coagulation time?
And so if Mr. Simpson or any assailant gets gouged, there's going to be a coagulation of those cuts in a very short period of time, correct?
No. I didn't say that. I said that is not in a laboratory. I said if the arm is down, it will bleed longer. If the arm is up, it will bleed less or not at all.
Well, but certainly those cuts are not going to take any three, four, five minutes to coagulate before they quit bleeding, are they?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you wouldn't anticipate that any of these blunt force, alleged fingernail marks would produce a trail of blood ten minutes later, would you?
Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence, that something happened ten minutes later. There's no evidence of that.
(BY MR. BAKER) As I understand the scenario that you believe occurred, sir, is it your belief that these gouge marks were made by Nicole Brown Simpson, and you demonstrated to us on Friday the position that she was in, correct?
I don't know if I said that Nicole Simpson necessarily inflicted these or that Ron Goldman inflicted these or that both of them inflicted these.
I cannot tell you. Or that one inflicted one and the other one was inflicted by somebody else. I did know that I said that I cannot tell who inflicted the fingernail marks.
And you don't know if the fingernail marks were inflicted by anybody on June the 12, 1994 to Mr. Simpson's, hands, do you?
Yes, I do know. I have -- mean, I have some ideas about that. I don't know if I know to tell you I was there and saw how they were being inflicted. But I have reasons that I can give you why I think that these are fingernail marks sustained which is consistent with the timeframe of this altercation.
And that was your testimony, in fact, when you had your deposition taken on August 16, 1996 there -- that there is no such thing as a typical fingernail mark and testified that every one of these was a typical fingernail mark; isn't that true?
No. You answered the question, Dr. Spitz.
Now in terms of the reconstruction of this case, did you then determine after -- Well, strike that.
Your view was that Ron Goldman was upright when he got stabbed in the left flank and it was either the first cut or very early on, right?
And was he standing, then, with his back to the assailant by the front gate where we have blood?
He was standing with the left flank exposed to the assailant, the way I told you earlier when I showed the raised leg --
Have you ever looked at -- At photographs of him while he was in the closed-in area after his demise, and the blood pattern coming out of that wound in the left flank?
And you would agree that if this was a very early-on flank wound, the blood from that flank wound would go down Mr. Goldman's side and there wouldn't be wounds going, blood going across his back and down to his right side, correct?
You don't understand the question?
Okay. The flank wound is one of the first wounds. The blood from the hemorrhage from the track of that wound is going to come out the wound and it's going to go down his back towards his waist, true?
He's lying on his side and flank wound is inflicted before he expires. The blood will emanate from that wounds and it will go across his back from left to right. You would agree with that?
Apologize. I'm having some trouble locating that photograph.
Now, we'll come back to that as soon as we find that. Did you get it?
MR. P. BAKER: No, not yet.
(BY MR. BAKER) In terms of your scenario, then, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, after the attack on the Nicole Brown Simpson, never came in contact with each other, correct?
I don't want to rush you, but you said two hours and I'm waiting. So let's get on with it.
(BY MR. BAKER) In terms of the clothing of Nicole and Ron Goldman, in your scenario, he comes in the gate. She's attacked, then he is a attacked, correct?
They never touch each other; isn't that true?
(BY MR. BAKER) And you don't have an explanation why there is transfer of blood between Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, that there are 11 separate transfers of blood, on one clothing and the other clothing, correct?
Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. There's no facts to support that, none.
(BY MR. BAKER) I want you to assume that after the murders, and there was an analysis done of the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, there were 11, at least 11 separate transfers of blood from one clothing to the other clothing. That is contrary to your professed scenario of how these events occurred, true?
If the Court, please, lack of relevance. Objection, and there are no facts to support that, Your Honor, that we know of.
Overruled.
Ladies and gentlemen, a hypothetical question is one where the attorney possessing the hypothetical, sets the question up. And if later the evidence does not support that hypothetical, then you must consider the answer that he elicits from the witness in view of the fact that the basis for the hypothetical was not established.
Okay. Everybody understand what that means?
That means the basis for that question, we allow the lawyer to ask the question supposing that he's going to be able to prove something about that at a later time. If he doesn't prove it up, then the question and the answer is no good or you can give it the weight to which it's entitled, subtracting out the hypothetical evidence that was not proved. Okay?
My opinion of this is that it supports my conclusion that there is a single assailant with a single weapon.
Because if there is a transfer, then there is others, of course. There is blood of one victim on the weapon and then there will be blood on the same weapon from the next victim.
Doctor, You, if that were true, there would be minuscule -- that is small amount of blood transferred because it would only be blood transferred by the knife, correct?
I cannot discuss that. I am not an expert in blood spatter. I have no expertise. I have no training. I have not read about it and I think that if I'm going to go into the detail of how much is enough, I will be misleading you and the jury and the judge.
Let's just talk about simple physics for a minute.
If you say that -- That 11 transfers of blood from -- a hypothetical: 11 transfers of blood from clothing of one to the other, in fact is made by a knife, they would be the blood of one victim taken to the blood of the next victim only on the knife, correct.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your view of this particular case, and your 60 seconds and 15 seconds, were you of the opinion that there was any noise made whatsoever while these vicious and violent attacks were going on?
What else happened in the other minute and 14 seconds?
Any noise whatsoever that occurred, in your opinion, sir?
I am not aware of noise. I am only aware of that noise which I've heard about, which I've read about. I'm not aware of other voice noise. I don't think there's need to be -- for a need for other noise. These people were busy.
Well, isn't it true, sir, or do you know that when somebody is being attacked, they commonly scream? They commonly yell?
Yes, that is true. But somebody would have to explain to me how Nicole Simpson could scream with her throat cut because when you utter sound, what you are doing is bringing air from the lung through the airway. Her airway was severed.
So how would she bring air over the vocal cords.
Well, she only had, in your view, less than 15 seconds. But Mr. Goldman had, in your view, 60 seconds plus. He was there while, for the 15 seconds or thereabouts when Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was being murdered. And he said -- if he said anything at all, "hey, hey, hey," which took about one second, right?
Objection, Your Honor sustained the last objection. That's where this question is going.
(BY MR. BAKER) Your view, Dr. Spitz, is that the L.A. County Coroner's Office bungled everything they did in this case; isn't that true?
You relied for your opinions on the photographs in the autopsy report of the L.A. Coroner, County Coroner who you believe bungled everything that they did in this case, correct?
You may ask a specific bungle, but I'm not going to go through this whole scenario of going through the coroner's reports in terms of bungle.
(BY MR. BAKER) You told the Los Angeles times on or before October 8, 1995 the following, quote "the O.J. case has vastly exposed the inadequacies of that department," unquote.
Sustained. It's irrelevant. You may ask about this killing and these killings and the findings.
(BY MR. BAKER) You said that, "I don't believe for a minute that the verdict would have been different if the Coroner's Office had done everything by the book and they bungled everything."
Sustained. The jury's to disregard that. Court made a ruling and attorneys continue to ask the same question. Counsel you're not to do that.
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you believe that the L.A. County Coroner's Office bungled the autopsy report?
Your Honor, let me go to another area while they're doing that.
Now, Dr. Spitz, your view is, of course, that this aorta was severed and I believe within a very short period of time, Mr. Goldman would have been incapacitated, correct?
Well, let me -- let me read what you testified to on Friday at page 147, volume 12, lines 25 discussing the wounds, flank wounds. (Reading:)
"Q. And if this were the first wounds, Mr. Goldman would be incapacitated within a matter of seconds. Would you agree with that?
"A. Probably.
"Q. Because what happens is, if this is the first wound, you have an enormous loss of blood in the -- in terms of blood recirculating to the heart and then being pumped up to the carotid arteries to put oxygenated blood to the brain, correct?
"A. Well, he would lose consciousness there (sic) very quickly because the brain would not get, although it would get blood, it would not get enough blood."
(BY MR. BAKER) The brain is very susceptible to oxygen deprivation. That's what you testified to on Friday?
All right. And so, if Mr. Goldman -- and you've testified that that wound was either the first or very near the first wound he incurred, that is the wound to the abdomen, correct?
If that's the impression I get, it is an early-on wound. I believe that the defense wound on the leg, on the hands occurred earlier. It is in my view the first of the major wounds --
Well, let me read to you what you said in your deposition, sir. (Reading:)
The sequence of the injuries to Mr. Golden -- page 24, line 22 -- I believe is that the injury to the posterior abdominal area is either first or very early on.
We'd like to have a page reference also. The time Mr. Baker read from the trial at page 147. He neglected to read the remainder of the answer which concludes at the top of page 149, which was part and parcel of that inquiry Your Honor. And I object to this and we ought to have time beforehand to know what he is reading so the jury is not misled.
Excuse me, Mr. Baker, if you're going to read from anything, I think it is required of you to notify the opposing counsel as to what you're going to read.
Everything takes time. There's nothing in life that doesn't take time. The question is: How much time, but it takes time. It takes time. Everything we do takes time.
My opinion in regards to the length, to the duration of the altercation with both individuals has not changed one iota and will not change unless there is new evidence that comes in.
Gouge me.
I'm not going to have any gouging of flesh out in my courtroom.
I am not certain, exactly what he hit. He hit something.