Mr. Baker, what the autopsy report says, the autopsy report makes reference to the aorta wound.
The wound to the aorta and the blood flow.
What the question is: Doesn't the autopsy report indicate certain findings and isn't that, in your experience, what the autopsy surgeon found?
This witness knows more on what the autopsy surgeon found 'cause he actually spoke to them this morning.
Your Honor ruled in a vacuum that he could not make reference to the conversations with Dr. Golden. It would be unfair to ask this witness what doesn't the autopsy surgeon indicate, X, when the witness knows from conversations with the autopsy surgeon the significance of what he wrote and why he wrote what he wrote.
And what I'm saying is I think Mr. Baker's opening the area, which is fine, but the witness ought to be able to answer within -- if it's within Mr. Baker's question, what he learned from the autopsy surgeon as it's pertinent to Mr. Baker's question.
In other words, the autopsy report says certain things. Dr. Spitz interprets them certain ways and formed certain conclusions. He then spoke to the autopsy surgeon who confirmed, as I understand it, Dr. Spitz conclusions.
What Mr. Baker I think is trying to elicit is the autopsy report doesn't say everything that Dr. Spitz is saying, and isn't it true that the autopsy surgeon, in affect, doesn't believe what Dr. Spitz is saying, which is untrue; based on Dr. Spitz's conversation with the autopsy surgeon.
So what I'm saying is we think Mr. Baker has opened up the area of Dr. Spitz conversation with Dr. Golden.
I don't understand what he's talking about. In an autopsy report, in the anatomical summary, every -- and the autopsy report list the most important first. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about any conversation he had with Golden whatsoever.
Well, as I said before, you can ask him about this particular autopsy report. We haven't established that there's a national uniform autopsy protocol.
We're not -- the purpose of this is that No. 1 on the list, in the anatomical summary and then is in virtually every autopsy, is the primary cause of death, this and this one. It's the severance of the internal jugular vein for Ron Goldman. There's some evidence because that -- because of the order and that's all I'm going -- then I'm moving on.
I don't think you've opened up to any avenue to Dr. Golden. If there's something that's contradicted in the autopsy report, maybe you might consider Dr. Golden as a rebuttal witness. But at this point, I don't see how I can permit this witness from testifying as to his conversations about Doctor -- with Dr. Golden after his deposition.
But if what he's trying to elicit is that Dr. Golden felt that the aorta wound had no significance and there was no bleeding, that's not accurate.
He's trying to establish that the autopsy report says what it says in the order in which it says.
There's no problem with that. But he's asking, as a background question, doesn't the person writing the report -- wouldn't ordinarily do A, B, and C.
You can't rehabilitate his opinion on the autopsy report from a conversation that was had after the deposition.
KEY QUOTEWhat Mr. Baker I think is trying to elicit is the autopsy report doesn't say everything that Dr. Spitz is saying, and isn't it true that the autopsy surgeon, in affect, doesn't believe what Dr. Spitz is saying, which is untrue; based on Dr. Spitz's conversation with the autopsy surgeon.
You can't rehabilitate his opinion on the autopsy report from a conversation that was had after the deposition.
No. 1 on the list, in the anatomical summary and then is in virtually every autopsy, is the primary cause of death, this and this one. It's the severance of the internal jugular vein for Ron Goldman.