You're aware that the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found, in that dirt area over to the right, as you face the condominium facing west is about six feet by four feet, correct?
And the area where Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's body was found would add another 36 inches to that width and would be approximately the same length, so would add another three feet by four feet, correct?
And during the -- we have on the -- on the monitor, sir, a diagram of that area.
Now, at the time the killing of Ms. Simpson was taking place, and you say, with her confronting the assailant in front of her, whatever happened after that, that caused her to fall and strike the right side of her head and her mouth. And then the assailant, getting behind her and then the four stab wounds on the left side of the face?
Neck, pardon me. Preceding the fatal wound to the neck that, in your opinion, took less than 15 seconds, right?
Okay. And then, was it your opinion in your reconstruction that you had done, in your mind, sir, that Mr. Goldman was in that closed-in area during that 15 second altercation?
I really don't know that he was, but I think he probably was; or was arriving at that time.
Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
You actually don't know 'cause you certainly weren't on the north side of the fence, looking. This is your opinion based upon your reconstruction; is it not?
Yes. My reconstruction is primarily based on wounds and not on the overall field of criminalistics.
Well, Dr. Spitz, I take it that before you come into court, you raise your right hand and swear under penalty of perjury that you're going to render your opinion, that you want to take into account, every piece of information that you can so that your opinions are as accurate as possible, true?
No. My oath relates to my giving truthful testimony to the best of my ability, based on my area of expertise.
KEY QUOTEI take it, before you come in here and tell this jury that the whole struggle took a minute and 15 seconds or less, you want to review and analyze all of the information that is available to you so that you can render the best possible opinions that you have, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, Dr. Spitz, in terms of the gate, that is the front gate, sir, do you know whether that gate was locked or unlocked before you rendered the opinion that Mr. Goldman was in the closed-in area at the time the altercation with Nicole Brown Simpson took place?
Objection, Your Honor. It misstates his testimony. He didn't say he was in the area or not. He said he didn't know.
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you just tell us, sir, that your best opinion was that you believed Mr. Goldman was within the closed-in area that you've depicted, by both the dirt and the walkway at the time the altercation took place with Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and the assailant or assailants?
Yeah. Do you believe that Mr. Goldman was in that area when that altercation and struggle and ultimate demise of Ms. Brown Simpson took place?
Excuse me. Objection calls for conclusion, lack of foundation. Witness said he wasn't there. He's just testifying from wounds.
Overruled. The witness testified on direct examination as to certain conclusions and defense has a right to cross-examine him.
I personally believe that he may have been there, but I'm not basing that opinion on any scientific evidence or any material evidence that I really have. My area of expertise are injuries.
KEY QUOTEAll right. Now, but you've opined here not only about injuries. You opined about how long it took to get the injuries. You've opined about what angles the assailant was. You've opined about how the knife wounds were inflicted. And you weren't there when you opined about all of those things, correct, sir?
No. No, all I did -- I testified to is appearance of injury, types of injury, how injuries were inflicted, how long it took to inflict the injuries, how much blood was lost from injuries, and this kind of thing.
Every time you want to characterize my testimony, you'd have to submit that it is -- my testimony intended to convey information about wounds; about injuries, not whether who was present or how long interaction took place before the first wound was inflicted. That, I do not know.
Now, sir, did -- the gate was locked and Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson had to open the gate to allow Mr. Goldman in the gate. They would have been approximately how far from each other, if Mr. Goldman's inside the gate an Nicole Brown Simpson is down from the first step where her body was found.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, in terms of -- you've testified as to where you thought the assailant was. You've testified as to you thought the assailant was in front of, behind. You've testified that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed first because if she wasn't killed first, she would run away.
Those are all your opinions, correct?
And in your opinions, and you sure don't know whether Nicole Brown Simpson were to run away or not, do -- you weren't there and you've never met her; isn't that true?
And you've testified that the assailant was in front and then around behind, and you weren't there and you don't know whether the assailant was or wasn't in front of her, do you?
Yes, I do know that he was in front of her when the hand wounds were inflicted. And I -- when I say -- let me repeat when I say in front of her, I do not mean at a 90-degree angle or parallel to her. What I mean is somewhere in the front semi-circle.
And you don't know that it took any 15 seconds from the first defensive wounds, to the last because you weren't there, isn't that true, sir?
I know -- that's not the best way to say it. I know that to sustain these type of injuries that Ms. Simpson had would take less than 15 seconds.
Okay. And that -- I mean you sat up here and you demonstrated umpf, umpf, umpf about three times with your hand and, you know, do you, Dr. Spitz, that's how fast the assailant did it because you were there and you saw him, right?
(BY MR. BAKER) You don't know, sir, how fast the wounds were inflicted, do you, now, do you?
Would you just answer my --
Now, let's, in terms of your opinions relative to Mr. Goldman, as I understand it, sir, you believe that the wounds to the left flank was either the first wound or very early, correct?
And that is the wounds that entered the left flank, and we'll put the diagram --well, let me, wait a minute. I apologize.
Let's talk a little bit about the anatomy of a human being. In the anatomy of a 25-year-old young man, we have, as you described, the peritoneal cavity where you have the intestine, you have the large intestine, the small intestine, you have the duodenum, spleen, and that is --
And the organs contained therein -- are called the -- or the area is called the peritoneal cavity, true?
Now, in the retroperitoneal space -- Phil, you want to put up that side-view, if you can?
From the retroperitoneal space, we have -- that's a side-view and it shows -- (indicating to TV screen) -- This would be the lungs up in here and the thoracic lungs and thoracic cavity, right where I'm pointing, with the red?
You know, this is -- I have some difficulty with this picture because this is over simplification of the anatomy for a high school student.
And that space, the retroperitoneal space is relatively dense. You would agree with that?
I mean it's filled with fat, muscle, kidneys, correct?
There is no, like, cavity, there. It is all solid?
Well, it's not -- It contains -- It contains, yes, fat; a little fat. I mean, Ron Goldman didn't have a lot of fat. It contains loose tissue. I don't know how to describe --
No, the back muscles that we know as back muscles, those strong muscles that allow us to lift, those are outside of that. Those are behind there. The muscles that I showed surrounding the vertebral column, those were on my diagram.
Okay.
Now, the density of the area, the retroperitoneal area is more dense, that is, in terms of space for blood to accumulate than the peritoneal cavity, you'd agree with that?
I'd be happy to.
In terms of, let's just call it space, there is more area for blood to accumulate if there is blood bleeding in the peritoneal cavity than there is in the retroperitoneal space. You would agree with that?
Okay. And would you further agree, sir, that in terms of blood loss and blood leakage that blood being a fluid, follows the normal fluid dynamics of any fluid, that is; it will take the path of least resistance. You would agree with that?
All right.
Now, the thing that we know about the flank wounds to Mr. Goldman from the autopsy -- by the way, sir, you did rely upon the autopsy report and the work of the L.A. County coroner's office in arriving at your opinion and conclusions in this case, did you not?
As I understand it, you correct me if I'm in error, you did not view any piece of evidence, would that be true?
Well, Yes, I did view evidence. I think the autopsy report is evidence. I think the photographs are evidence.
I think that it is evidence that, with everything else I reviewed to get it such in my mind that I would see totally clear, I also called Dr. Golden and -- who did the autopsies and talked it over with me.
I want to talk to you about -- a little bit about, you didn't review any physical piece of evidence. I mean, you looked at the reports. You looked at the photographs. But as far as reviewing, for example, the tissue that you showed us in one of the photographs, you didn't review that tissue, did you?
Okay. All right.
Now, in terms of the drawing that is on the board, this exploded area is a little bit inaccurate. Because it shows a space between the aorta and this would be the lining of the peritoneal cavity or the peritoneum, correct?
Well, it's not -- it's inaccurate and not inaccurate. It's the peritoneal, as I testified right over the aorta. It dresses the aorta. It is practically -- it's not adherent, but it lies against it.
Right here, there is a small space because I wanted to show how -- (Indicating to drawing showing aorta) -- I want to make it clear that the arrow goes through -- I thought it was clearer this way.
Fine. Then all I'm trying to get you to agree with me, and I think you have, is that the peritoneum, that is the lining of the peritoneal cavity, lies adjacent to the aorta?
In the autopsy property -- property of Mr. Goldman, in the photo that you showed us, there is a one-half inch measured by Dr. Golden, a one-half inch entry wound, and a one-half inch exit wound, right?
So -- and the wounds where it perforates the aorta, is five-and-a-half inches from the entrance wound which is three-quarters of an inch, true?
So what we have is we have a knife that is at least five and a half inches long. We have a knife that has a blade that probably goes at least a half inch wide and was a half inch wide at the end of the blade, correct?
When it went through the aorta, that blade had, of necessity, to go through the peritoneal lining, did it not?
You mean the tip of the blade had to go through the peritoneal; is that what you're asking me?
The blade entered and put a slice or a rent to use your medical terms, in the peritoneum at the same, virtually simultaneously with entering one side of the aorta, coming out the other side of the aorta and having the peritoneum lining adjacent to it, right?
Okay.
Now, in terms, sir, of your construction of this being the first wounds, you were of the view that that was the first wound and that as you testified, that the whole incident took somewhere around a minute, right?
Objection, Your Honor. Misstates the evidence. He didn't say it was the first wounds necessarily, he said the flank wound was the first wound or the thigh wound, I think.
(BY MR. BAKER) The sequence reading from your deposition page 24, line 22, of injuries from Goldman, I believe is that the injury to the posterior abdominal area is either first or very early on?
Okay.
Now, if that -- this -- if that was true, when you had the perforation of the aorta -- Phil, will you put up the circulatory system, if we can, on the monitor?
(BY MR. BAKER) As I understand it, and I agree, you have more education than I do, the blood, after it leaves the heart, goes on the arch, comes down the aorta and bifurcates into the femoral arteries, right?
And the blood pressure in the aorta is at a minimum. The blood pressure that the human being would have, that is if it was -- if that human being was frightened and it was up to 200 over 140 at the time that the heart pumped, the left side of the heart pumped, you would have 200 milliliters of pressure in the aorta before the knife went through the aorta, correct?
And if, in fact, the knife went through the aorta, then went through the other side of the aorta, and went into the peritoneum, you would have to agree, because you just testified that the density of the tissue in the retroperitoneal space is greater than the density of the tissue in the peritoneal cavity, that the first place blood would go is into the peritoneal cavity, true, sir?
If the Court please, we object. The question's compound and it assumes facts. He made a statement.
He's asking an anatomical question. If it's incorrect, the doctor can tell him it's incorrect.
No, sir, I don't think I testified about density of tissues in the retroperitoneum versus the peritoneum.
I said that there is loose tissue in the retroperitoneum in the abdominal cavity. They are --
In the abdominal cavity, there are all kinds of organs. I don't know that anybody ever measured the density of the retroperitoneal content versus the density of the abdominal content.
(BY MR. BAKER) Just let me ask you to assume hypothetically, sir, hypothetically, let's just assume that the contents of the retroperitoneal space are denser than the contents in the peritoneal cavity. Let's further assume that the rent or cut into the aorta goes in one side, out the other side into the peritoneal cavity.
You would agree, that if that is true, the blood would go into -- more blood would go into the peritoneal cavity than would go into the retroperitoneal space?
If this were the first wound, Mr. Goldman would be incapacitated within a matter of seconds. You would agree with that?
Because what happens is, if this is the first wound, you have an enormous loss of blood in terms of blood recirculating to the heart and then being pumped up the carotid arteries to put oxygenated blood to the brain, correct?
Well, he would lose consciousness very quickly because the brain would not get, although it would get blood, but it would not get enough blood. The brain is very susceptible of oxygen deprivation.
And, Doctor, you're certainly familiar with some people get what they call positional hypotension; that is, people with low blood pressure stand up and they start to faint, correct?
Well, it's presumably true; isn't it? Okay.
In other words, so Mr. Goldman, upon being inflicted with this right flank pain -- right flank wound, I'll strike it again.
Left flank wound that goes through the aorta, is going to have an immediate loss of blood pressure and an immediate -- and by immediate, I mean within five or ten seconds, he is going to have a -- he's going to know that something's seriously wrong. He's going to go semi-conscious and then within ten seconds, he's going to be down on one knee. And within 15 seconds, he's going to be down. You would agree with that?
Well, let's go through, now, the wounds to the -- if the fatal wounds -- if the sequence is the wound to the internal jugular vein, Mr. Goldman would have the ability to fight for a period of time. You would agree with that?
And the reason he would have an ability to fight for a period of time is because, as you suggested earlier, the veins are not under the same pressure as the arteries, true?
And, in fact, he could fight for ten or 15 minutes with the internal jugular vein severed, correct?
I don't know if he could fight for ten or 15 minutes with the internal jugular severed, but he could continue being active and doing things for some time.
Okay. I don't want to be -- to go as far as to say 15 minutes.
Phil, put up the diagram, please, of the closed-in area at the Bundy crime scene.
And have you seen the -- Thank you.
MR. P. BAKER: That's exhibit 867 on the screen and exhibit 1342 on the board:
Were you aware that there was blood smears on the whole of the gate right at the commencement of the closed-in --
Am I aware there are some blood splatters.
All right.
I'm not aware of large volumes Of blood. I'm aware of some blood splatters and I mean, in terms of quantity that's an insignificant amount of blood. But in terms of other values, in terms of other points to -- for the use of these splatters for reconstruction of the events here for criminalists that I'm not aware of.
Well, so I'm to understand then, Dr. Spitz, that in arriving at your opinion, that Ron Goldman from the first wounds to him being incapacitated and in route to death, was one minute or thereabouts, you never looked at photos in the closed-in area; is that true?
Yes. And that is based on the wounds and not on the area where the body was found -- the bodies are found other than what I gleaned when I went to the scene.
Okay. Now, would you be kind enough, sir, to go over and look at the top two photographs on the right and tell me if you see blood pooling?
For example, the top photograph on the right, if you see blood pooling the right, sir?
And you don't have any -- well, strike that.
Do you think that is indicative that there was a significant amount of blood that was in that closed-in area that got in the dirt, and then when he was struggling and fighting for his life in the closed-in area got on his boot?
If this is blood, I don't know where this blood came from and if blood could have got on him in the area where Nicole Simpson was.
There is blood on the photo of this shoe. That's what -- I don't know that it is, but if you tell me that it is, then I have to believe you.
My oath relates to my giving truthful testimony to the best of my ability, based on my area of expertise.
I personally believe that he may have been there, but I'm not basing that opinion on any scientific evidence or any material evidence that I really have. My area of expertise are injuries.
Well, that's about my level of education.
Yeah. My testimony is one minute or less. And that is based on the wounds and not on the area where the bodies are found other than what I gleaned when I went to the scene.
I've never seen it before so I cannot tell you.