Those are -- all of those marks that you've circled, Dr. Spitz, are about the size of the head of a pin or less, right?
I don't know. I can't tell you whether they're the size of a head of a pin or less, depending on the pin. I suppose there are pins with little heads and big heads.
There's no scale on this. I could say that they are small, but I cannot tell you how small they are.
And in virtually -- as I understand your testimony, virtually every cut, abrasion that you saw on Mr. Simpson's hand, it's your opinion, was caused by a fingernail, correct?
And this obviously was a sharp fingernail because they're very little cuts and they're not broad-base cuts, right?
You understand the question?
What was it, a pointed fingernail that skipped across the top of Mr. Simpson's hand that caused that?
All right.
Now, in terms of your opinions relative to these fingernail marks, there was absolutely nothing found under Mr. Goldman's fingernails that matched anything having to do with Mr. Simpson, correct?
And the only thing that was found under any fingernail in this case, was found under the fingernail of Nicole Brown Simpson; and that genetic marker matched neither Mr. Simpson nor Mr. Goldman nor anyone that was knowledgeable to be at the crime scene, true?
KEY QUOTEObjection. Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor. Move to strike about the genetic markers.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, Dr. Spitz, as I understand it, you have spent considerable time on this matter, have you not?
Now, you would agree you're well compensated for your forensic pathology testimony, correct?
Objection. Calls for conclusion, Your Honor. I mean vague, ambiguous, "well compensated."
I don't know if my testimony's well compensated or not. This is my fee schedule; this is what I bill, whether I'm billing one party or another party.
Objection. Vague, ambiguous as to what point in time, Your Honor, before or after an opinion has been drawn.
I don't know if that's the right way of putting it. You don't take sides; you interpret the evidence.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, let me read what you told the Detroit News on October 17, 1994. Quote: "Invariably, the forensic pathologist will take sides."
Do you recall saying that?
(BY MR. BAKER) You have -- while they're looking at that, you have -- you have given a lot of interviews to various media relative to the O.J. Simpson case, have you not, Dr. Spitz?
I don't know where I've been quoted. Those I read, I can tell you, but then, many I didn't read.
All right.
Now, in terms of this case, you would agree that you were taking sides relative to the plaintiffs' position in the case, correct?
All right.
And you wouldn't be taking sides, correct?
You just, in looking at the evidence, giving your best independent judgment of what that is, true?
I believe that I looked at the evidence in this case and interpreted it the best way I know how.
Fair enough.
Now, you told the -- let me get the name of the paper correct -- The Detroit News --
Your Honor, this is out of context. The two sentences before -- put it in context. It's unfair to ask it this way. The witness says --
But he's reading from a document unfairly. He's -- if you could look at the document.
(BY MR. BAKER) You told the Detroit News on October 17, 1994, in talking about the O.J. Simpson case, "Invariably, forensic pathologists will take sides, who are not part of the prosecution at all. We work in an adversarial system. Some other expert is going to come in and try to challenge us."
That's what you told the Detroit News, correct?
Okay.
Have you ever indicated to the Detroit News or The Free Press that you've been misquoted?
Excuse me. He's making a speaking objection and you're making a speaking response. I don't think it's helpful to anybody.
Objection's overruled. Let's get on with it and finish this.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, in this case, you talked about being -- being part of the select committee to investigate the assassination of JFK and Martin Luther King. Do you recall that?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, let's talk just a little bit about you were retained in January, February of this year?
And from that day to this day, have you prepared a single note relative to this case, Dr. Spitz?
Not one single piece of paper, you will agree, that you have prepared relative to this case, correct?
KEY QUOTEI don't know. I suppose it varies. And there is no complete agreement, I don't believe, in that regard. I would say, I would estimate maybe eight quarts.
And in this particular case, you are of the view that Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson died or -- strike that.
There was 15 seconds or less between the first and the last wound, correct?
Now, sir, will you put that -- Phil will you put that card -- well, never mind.
You would agree, Dr. Spitz, that the way the human body functions, is that for us to survive, we have to have oxygenated blood to every part of our body, right?
And what occurs is that the heart pumps blood in a closed system, if there aren't any cuts or vents, if you will, in any part of the cardiovascular system, true?
And what occurs is, as we inhale, we send oxygen down into our lungs; the oxygen transfers and goes into the blood through the lungs, and is pumped from to the various parts of every part of our body, true?
And if, in fact, we do not get oxygenated blood to our body for a period of time, that tissue that is deprived of oxygenated blood will become necrotic or gangrenous and die, true?
There -- excuse me. Though, that is only partially correct, because what happens if you don't get oxygenated blood to every part of the body, as you say, the whole body is going to die. And then once it dies, then we become gangrenous or decomposes, you might say, but it's not that, as we are alive, little bits and pieces of us start falling apart. That's not how it works.
Well, Doctor, let me just see if maybe we can get on the same wavelength.
If I take and put a tourniquet around my arm at the forearm level and tighten it so as to preclude oxygenated blood flow from going through there, the first thing that will occur is, everything posterior or distal to the tourniquet is going to turn blue, correct?
No, it's not going to turn blue; it's going to turn white. It's only going to turn blue if you obstruct the veins. If you obstruct the arteries and you put a tourniquet on the arm, then you will obstruct the arteries; it's going to turn white because it's not going to get any blood.
Well, I agree with you; I don't think it is, because it's got oxygenated blood in it.
In any event, Doctor, let me move on.
The blood customarily is depicted -- our arterial blood flow is red in your medical circles, is it not, and blue when it's on the venous return, correct?
And what occurs is that, after the oxygenation has been used to nourish the various tissues in the body, the unoxygenated blood flows through the veins, back to the lungs, to be reoxygenated and pumped again by the heart, correct?
And when that occurs, if we take and have a situation where we are frightened, scared, at the risk of losing our life, a couple of things happen to the human body, do they not?
One is that the heart rate increases dramatically, true?
The other is that the blood vessels constrict; that is, the aorta and the vessels that feed not only the aorta or the vessels that feed various parts of our body constrict, so that to pump more blood quicker to the various areas, true?
There is a constriction which raises the blood pressure. The amount of blood that flows remains the same.
What happens is, there's a regulatory system in the body, and that regulatory system provides no constrictions, which at the same time increases blood-vessel pressure. So the amount of blood that comes out is the same when you are scared or not scared.
Doctor, that's actually exactly what I was getting at.
If you take a person that has a blood pressure and -- let's talk about systolic pressure, okay, because that's the pressure when the left side of the heart pumps and the blood is then pushed through our body, correct?
And if the systolic blood pressure is 110, that means that the blood pressure will hold up a column of 110 millimeters of mercury, true?
And that is the pressure that will increase during a time of fright or when the victim is afraid, correct?
And so you can get a blood pressure over 200 at the time that you are, in fact, frightened?
Now, the blood pressure, when there is a cut in the enclosed system that we, as human beings have, that keep the blood inside of our bodies, if it is then severed, that blood, especially in an area such as the carotid arteries, comes out of the human body with great force, does it not?
It comes out with great force; however, at the same time, as you correctly indicated a minute ago, there is constriction of the artery. So it doesn't come out with a whole lot more force than it would have if the blood pressure were lower.
Doctor, if we take a hose and we use a three-quarter-inch hose, and we have a volume of water going through that hose, and we reduce it to a half-an-inch hose, and put the same -- increase the pressure by 50 to 100 percent, the amount of water coming out into that hose is going to almost double. In other words, by that, I mean the distance that that water will arc from the exit of the hose until it hits the ground; you would agree with that?
No doubt. But the hose hasn't got a regulatory mechanism, nor have I ever known of a hose that was scared.
KEY QUOTE(BY MR. BAKER) Be nice to me, now.
Now, doctor, In terms of the -- when a person is killed, after the person is deceased, we don't bruise; you would agree with that?
That is only partially correct. If I may explain.
Yes, we do not bruise. However, if there is an injury that causes blood vessels to rupture, like in a case of a -- what would have been a black-and-blue mark, but is not because the individual is dead, blood still runs out of the injured blood vessels. And because of the pressure, even though little of the gravity of the blood, it will somehow percolate into the environment, into the area of this injury.
So although there is no bruising -- the word "bruising" would be incorrect to use -- but there would be some blood outside of a blood vessel, which is the equivalent of a bruise in the area of damage.
All right.
And you have, as I understand it, read and reviewed the autopsy reports in some detail of both of the victims in this case, have you not?
And as I understand it -- strike that.
Let me ask you this: You seem to have pretty certain opinions on exactly how these events occurred. And I want to know -- tell us, Doctor, how long before the first wound was inflicted did the altercation take place?
How long before the first wound?
When you say "first wound" what do you mean, major wound, or do you mean a defensive-type, scratch-like, superficial wound or any wound?
Okay. So I want to be clear, then, that you have no idea how long the assailant or assailants were in the area where the murders took place before there was a first wound?
I have -- I only can make a judgment for the duration of the period that involves injury and incapacity and death, but not what occurred before there was contact.
Okay. So the answer to my question is, you don't have an opinion as to how long the assailant or assailants was in the area where the murders took place before the first wound was inflicted on whoever it was inflicted on, right?
Okay.
Now, your view, as I understand it, is that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed first, right?
And your view is that the reason she was killed first is because if she wasn't killed first, she would have run away, right?
That's what you testified to in your deposition, true?
Okay.
So -- and you believe from the first wound to the last wound was 15 seconds; and that given a lot of time, you think it's actually possibly less than that, true?
And you are aware, of course, that Nicole Brown Simpson had a bruise on her forehead in the upper portion of the head, that went into brain tissue, correct?
So she was certainly alive at the time that that bruise was inflicted, because bruises are not inflicted after the person's deceased; I think we've already agreed on that, correct?
Well, this particular bruise, I agree with you, because there is an injury to the adjacent brain.
And your view relative to that particular bruise is that it didn't cause her to be unconscious, nor was she severely subconscious, correct?
No. My opinion about that bruise is that it could have dazed her. I cannot really make a definitive judgment --
-- of how intense that bruise is.
The bruise, in and of itself, is not of the kind that would necessarily cause loss of consciousness or severe subconsciousness, that is, where she is still conscious, but barely.
I could not make a judgment on that.
I would rather think that the bruise was not of such magnitude, but it could have significantly dazed her to the point where she would lose her footing.
Well, you testified when we took your deposition, that it may not have affected her at all; it may have dazed her some.
Now, this bruise was inflicted, in your opinion, before there was any wounds to her body, true?
No; I don't know specifically when that bruise occurred. It just as well could have occurred as a result of striking the ground, and that the slashing of the neck followed, because I'm nearly certain that the slashing of the neck followed that bruise.
Well, now, the slashing, as I understand it now, she had a couple of defensive wounds on her hands; is that right?
And your view, of course, Dr. Spitz, is that when those wounds to her hands were inflicted, the assailant was behind her, right?
Oh, okay.
So the assailant was in front of her at one time; and within 15 seconds, the assailant is behind her, has stabbed her four times in the face and slashed her throat; and this is even before she has any contusions at all, true?
Well, in your opinion, when the assailant or assailants are in front of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson, did she have the contusion to her head that may not have affected her at all, or may have affected her, or may have caused her severe subconsciousness?
I'm asking you, sir: When the assailant or assailants were in front of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and she got these defensive wounds to her hands, had she already incurred the bruise to her head and brain?
I doubt that, although it's not impossible.
I don't know when she sustained the bruise to the head. She could have --
She couldn't have sustained the bruise to the head after the slash to the neck; you'd agree with that?
Because if, in fact, she had incurred the -- sustained a blow to her head after the slash, there wouldn't be a bruise there; you'd agree with that?
Now, we know that's a severe bruise because we know the brain is bruised. It goes -- she's got a bruise an inch square on the top of her head, where she's got the hemorrhagic blood tissue, and then she has brain tissue underneath the skull, whereas the petechiae are also infiltrated with blood?
Okay.
Let me get the autopsy report. I may be totally wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
Okay.
It says there are focal areas of concentrated intercerebral petechiae characteristics of acute cerebral cortical contusion; is that correct?
No. What that means is that the bruise or the contusion in the brain consists of tiny, little gashes. The word petechiae, which are pinpoint size hemorrhages, those are not -- that's not a massive hemorrhage in the brain.
The bruise, one, consists when there is a bruise in the brain, or what we call a bruise in the brain, consists of an area of brain tissue in which are little pinpoint hemorrhages. That's what he means.
It was a subdural hematoma; it was petechiae that had ruptured as a result of the blow that she took to the head, correct?
No, no. The petechiae don't rupture.
When there is a blow to the head from falling on the floor or hitting a wall, there develops a bruise or a black-and-blue mark in the brain.
What is a black and blue mark in the brain?
A black-and-blue mark in the brain is a little area -- or big area, for that matter -- in this case, the size of -- silver-dollar-size area in which there are a lot of pinpoint-size bleedings. And that is what we look at when we say oh, there's a bruise in the brain.
Okay.
Now, that indicated to you in doing your reconstruction of the time frame within which it took for Nicole Brown Simpson, from the first wound to the last wound, being 15 seconds or less, that sometime between the assailant being in front of Nicole Brown Simpson and then subsequently being behind her, that she went to the ground or fell and lost her footing and hit one wall or the other, correct?
Or some other firm thing.
There's a bannister there. I don't know what she hit. She hit something as she may have lost her footing, as she may have been pushed, as she may have fallen because of some other reason, but in that area. And I believe it's here that Nicole's head -- she hit something flat and hard, consistent with paved floor or a wall.
And you saw that in the area where her body was found, there was a concrete stairway directly behind where her body was, correct?
And there was a wall on either side of that stairwell that was rock or concrete or whatever, something of substance, correct.
And she hit something and then went on the right side of her head, as you pointed out, close to the top; isn't that true?
Yeah. And that is not -- if you're going to fall to the right or to the left, that's not where you would normally hit your forehead, is it, right up on the top on the right-hand side?
Doctor, did you look at the pictures in the autopsy report as to where that particularly was? Did you, sir?
No; it's a drawing in the autopsy report on a form, sir. It isn't -- I gave it to you; I'm sorry.
Did you review -- this is -- I guess this is just a form 28. 28, yeah. It's labeled 00049. Okay.
May I request, could we use the photograph rather than the diagram, because the diagram is not as accurate as the photograph.
Can you answer my question, sir?
I said, it is up on the head, certainly above her ear, where she parts her hair?
There is a parting, but the parting is artificial, because the parting is made to get the hair away, so it -- to enable the photograph, because the area needs to be devoid of hair.
This is not where she normally keeps her parting.
Because the -- look at the parting. I cannot imagine that Ms. Simpson would have a parting that's all zig-zag.
And if she, in falling to the side, that type of blow, you would agree that it's more likely than not that Nicole Brown Simpson went all the way down to whatever was beneath her at the time she fell, true?
I cannot tell you whether she definitely struck the stair or the floor or the wall. I -- the bruise does not permit a very definitive conclusion. All that the bruise says is that she could have hit the floor in any one of these areas.
But after she hit it, she went all the way down; in your opinion, more likely than not, Nicole Brown Simpson then went to the area of the walkway where her body was found, that she went all the way down on her hands and was essentially prone on the walkway, it's terra firma, whatever. You would agree with that?
More likely than not, if in the struggle that caused this woman to hit her head on a wall or a concrete step or a walkway, she went all the way down to cause that degree of bruising; you would agree with that?
First of all, this is not a huge bruise. This -- she could have gone all the way down; she didn't have to.
Well, then, I got the impression, sir, from your testimony in the last few hours in the courtroom, that you had done, in your mind, a complete reconstruction of how these murders took place, how these defensive wounds took place, and how these wounds were inflicted, to come up with your opinion that within 15 seconds from the time the first wound was inflicted, Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was deceased or had a fatal wound inflicted on her; and within less than one minute from the first wound of Ron Goldman, he had a fatal wound inflicted in him.
So, is that correct? You did a full reconstruction of how these murders took place, in your mind, that you're willing to sit here and tell us about?
Yes?
Thank you.
Now, let's go through it. After Nicole Brown Simpson is in front of the assailant and has defensive wounds inflicted upon her hands, is she standing in front of the stairs?
Was the assailant directly in front of her when the wounds were inflicted upon her hands, sir?
Do you want to look at the autopsy report again and tell us whether or not you believe that the assailant was sideways of Nicole?
Sideways, meaning -- you asked me whether he stood exactly in front of her.
I don't know that. Maybe he -- there was somewhat of an angle. That's what I'm trying to say. I don't know that the autopsy report indicates that.
Well, you can tell a little bit about how the assailant or assailants and Nicole Brown Simpson were standing by the way the wounds were inflicted, can you not?
And then in your reconstruction scenario, Dr. Spitz, after she takes a couple of defensive wounds to her hands, she then is knocked or loses her footing to the extent that she takes this blow to the head, correct?
Did you know if she was in good shape and worked out and stayed relatively muscular for her size and weight?
All I can -- I don't know if she worked out. I don't know. I don't think she was weight-lifting. I don't know if she took steroids. I doubt it. I can tell you that she was a healthy young woman.
Do you know how easy it would be, for example, if she were standing in front of the stairs, for an assailant to get behind her after the assailant has been in front of her?
That depends on the relative size of the assailant and her. For some assailant, that would be very easy; for another assailant, it may be more difficult.
And then your scenario is that after she's down, she gets back up, at least partially, and the assailant is behind her, right?
I thought you said that she was not unconscious and that the blow to the brain, contusion, may not have affected her at all.
That is a possibility.
But once she is down, it is easy to grab her from behind and to pull her head back and inflict the stab wounds and the slash.
So your scenario is that after she hits the head, she is then down, and the assailant goes behind her and pulls her head back and slashes her throat, right, after she is at that time, let's say, quasi conscious, she's been dazed, is that right, when he's inflicting these?
I think she may have been dazed because of the injury at the sides of her head. And she may have also been dazed because of a blow to her mouth which may be the one that pushed her on over so that she sustained the one -- the blow to the head. And at that moment, it would be easy to grab her by the neck and --
Okay. And you testified earlier today that the reason there were four wounds to her face is because there was so much movement just before the fatal wound was inflicted, that the assailant could not do the job, essentially. And if that's true, Nicole Brown Simpson isn't dazed at all, she's fighting, correct?
Objection. It's a speech and it misstates the evidence; assumes facts not in evidence.
The hose hasn't got a regulatory mechanism, nor have I ever known of a hose that was scared.
Not one single piece of paper, you will agree, that you have prepared relative to this case, correct?
Invariably, forensic pathologists will take sides, who are not part of the prosecution at all. We work in an adversarial system. Some other expert is going to come in and try to challenge us.
The only thing that was found under any fingernail in this case, was found under the fingernail of Nicole Brown Simpson; and that genetic marker matched neither Mr. Simpson nor Mr. Goldman nor anyone that was knowledgeable to be at the crime scene, true?
Yes, I do -- However