Thank you, Your Honor.

Dr. Werner Spitz.

WERNER SPITZ, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

And, sir, if you'd please state and spell your name for the record.

Werner Spitz, S-P-I-T-Z.

Werner is W-E-R-N-E-R?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

What's your profession?

I'm a medical doctor and I'm a pathologist and forensic pathologist.

What is a pathologist?

A pathologist is a physician who has done a residency in the subject of pathology and specialized in the field where tissues and body fluids are examined for the purpose of diagnosis.

And if a person should die in a hospital, such a pathologist may do an autopsy on such an individual at the request of the family.

And what is a forensic pathologist?

A forensic pathologist is a -- or a forensic pathologist's sub-specialty of pathology, where specialization is in the area of death and death from injury or suspected injury, and interpretation of wounds in general.

What is your educational background that qualifies you to be a forensic pathologist?

I graduated from medical school in 1953; I did an internship and a residency in pathology of five years.

I then did another residency in forensic pathology. I took the American Board of Pathology Examinations in 1961 in New York, in pathology and hospital pathology, and in '64 or '65 in forensic pathology, in Washington.

And I worked in forensic pathology following my residency in Maryland, at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Baltimore. I worked there for two years.

I then went to West Berlin in Germany and worked at the Department of Legal Medicine which is the same as the coroner's office or medical examiner's office, in West Berlin for two years and three months.

And then I came back to Baltimore and was an assistant medical examiner at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for Maryland for several years.

I then was promoted to be the deputy chief medical examiner for that office. During that time, I was appointed as assistant -- Associate Professor of Pathology and Forensic Pathology at Johns Hopkins University and at the University of Maryland, within the department of pathology.

I left Maryland for Detroit, Michigan in 1972, to assume the position of chief medical examiner for the County of Wayne, which is a Detroit suburb, and held that position until 1988, in October.

During this time and to the present time, I'm Professor of Pathology at Wayne State University School of Medicine.. And I'm a professor of chemistry in the Windsor -- in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, which is across from Detroit, where I teach forensic toxicology to students at the department of chemistry.

When I came to Michigan, I also served and still serve as pathologist for the County of Macomb, which is north of Detroit.

And as of 1988, I'm also pathologist for the County of Monroe, which is south of DetroitN.

You had mentioned, Dr. Spitz, that I believe you were board certified in particular areas?

Yes; I'm BOARD certified in anatomic pathology and in forensic pathology, by the American Board of Pathology.

What does it mean to be board certified?

Board certified means to have undergone a period of training under supervision in an accredited institution, such as one that would be accredited for such training by the American Board of Pathology and the accreditation committee of the American Medical Association in Pathology that is five years in forensic pathology. That's an additional year.

Have you written various publications dealing with the subject of forensic pathology?

Yes. I've written and published 90 scientific papers which were published in medical journals, and I have published a textbook in forensic pathology, which I edited and authored in large part, which was published originally in 19 -- in 1972, and has since been republished in an expanded version in 1980, and again in 1993.

And the title?

The title is Medicolegal: An Investigation of Death.

And did you both edit and write chapters in that book?

I'm the editor of the book. And I have written approximately, I would say, 60 or 65 percent of it.

And did you write any chapters in that book that deal with trauma?

I think most of the chapter dealing with trauma, I wrote, which means gunshot wounds, and stab wounds, and shotgun wounds, and asphyxiation, and child abuse, and traffic accidents, and drowning, and maybe some others.

And where, to your knowledge is that textbook used?

That book is used worldwide. It's the largest English book on the market right now. It's used worldwide; it's used extensively in -- in medical schools, in law schools, and by police academies, by lawyers who deal with this kind of work.

Are you currently spending any portion of your time writing or editing various books or articles in the area of forensic pathology and injury?

Objection. Relevance. Stipulate to qualifications.

Overruled.

I'm in the process of collecting material for a fourth edition. It takes about three years to do this. And the book should really be updated every seven, eight years.

You licensed to practice medicine in various states?

Yes, I'm licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, Michigan, of course, and all the common market countries in Europe.

Have you been appointed to any United States governmental commissions that were involved in the investigation of death?

Yes; I was appointed years ago to a committee that was put together by Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller, investigating the assassination of President Kennedy.

Three years later, I was again appointed to the committee of the House of Representatives investigating the assassination of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Among your duties as a forensic pathologist, do you, on a regular basis, determine the manner and cause of violent death?

Yes, I do.

Do you frequently make such determination in cases where you have not performed the autopsy?

Yes, I do.

Can examinations of the cause of death and circumstances surrounding the cause of death be done months and years after the death occurred?

Yes, it can.

And how is that done?

Well, it -- it is based on material that is generated at the time, and -- unless, of course, there is a re-examination of the body -- but mostly -- by far, mostly it is done on materials, such as an autopsy report or results of various analyses that were generated at the time of the incident in question, and that can be examined at any time.

That generally include pictures?

Photographs, autopsy reports, results of various analyses.

Is it customary in your field of work for one forensic pathologist, on the basis of autopsy reports and pictures, to review the work of another forensic pathologist or an individual who performed the autopsy?

That is very common, yes. These materials that are generated are really largely generated for the purpose of enabling to provide a permanent record, for whatever purpose, which includes review by others.

In the course of your career, approximately how many autopsies have you performed?

Many thousand. I wouldn't be -- I couldn't tell you. But many thousand.

Have you also --

I've been in the work for 43 years.

Have you also supervised thousands of autopsies?

Yes, I have. Because back in Maryland, I was in charge of the training program, which means that pathologists came to do a residency and were trained for the purpose of becoming forensic pathologists.

Of course, when I was chief medical examiner, as chief medical examiner, I would supervise the residents and teach -- teach them and prepare them for the board examination.

Do you still do autopsies yourself?

Yes, I do.

Approximately how many a year?

I do between 300 and 350 autopsies a year at the present time.

Are you presently called upon as a consultant to review the findings of others in the field of medical examination relating to death?

Yes, I am.

Are you called by plaintiffs' attorneys, prosecutors, as well as defense counsel, to see if you will consult with them?

Yes. I get called by attorneys representing both sides in civil cases, that is, plaintiff and defendant, and in criminal cases, both defendant and prosecution. Q. On occasion, in connection with your consulting work, are you required to testify in court?

Occasionally. Mostly -- many times I evaluate a case and will testify in court. Many times I get consulted and will not testify in court. Maybe because I don't have the same opinion as the referring party and maybe for some other reasons, which I don't know.

Other than your official duties that you told us about for the Counties of Macomb and Monroe, can you estimate approximately what percentage of your time, when you do testify, is on behalf of the plaintiff and/or the defendant?

You mean in all cases put together, criminal and civil?

Yes. Other than your work for the Counties of Macomb and Monroe.

I would say that probably somewhat more in favor of the defense in criminal cases. In civil cases, maybe the same.

In your experience, do you always give an opinion that sides with the side that hired you?

I'm going to object. That's leading and suggestive.

Overruled.

No. Many -- many times what transpires is, I get a phone call, then subsequently I get a file, and I review the file. Then I call up with my opinion, or I write an opinion letter; and many times, I don't hear again.

Other times, I am called back or a letter comes back, "thank you very much," and they pay my fee who -- for whatever I generated and I never hear from them again after that. And other times I may hear from them and have to come to court and testify or give a deposition.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Have you testified many times in court as an expert?

Yes, I have.

And the majority of those times, did you personally do the autopsy?

No.

And incidentally, were you present when the autopsy was done in this case?

No, I was not.

Can you tell us, in terms of your time you spend on business now, in your work as a doctor, what percentage of your time is spent in the area of academics, what percentage of your time is spent doing autopsies, and what percentage being a consultant in matters involving violent death?

As a crude approximation, I would say it might be safe to divide this as a third -- a third.

When you're called as a consultant by one side or another, do you have a customary charge or fee?

Yes, I do.

And how much do you charge an hour?

I charge $300 an hour for office work.

And is that your charge in this case?

Yes.

And you also charge a fee when you travel out of town and go to court?

Yes, I do.

When were you initially hired or retained, approximately, in this matter?

Sometime early this year. I think it was January of 1996.

And did you review certain material?

Yes, I did.

Could you tell us what material you have reviewed in connection with giving the opinions that you intend to offer this morning?

I have reviewed the coroner's book, the coroner's documents generated, to include the coroner's investigation, autopsy reports, autopsy pictures, scene pictures. I've gone to the scene myself. I've reviewed the police reports. I've reviewed various diagrams that accompany the autopsy reports. I may have reviewed other things. I don't remember.

You review testimony of individuals?

Various testimony, yes. I've reviewed various previous court trial testimony.

All right. Let's go to this specific case now, if we can, Dr. Spitz.

Based on your review of the material, do you have an opinion as to the cause of death of Nicole Brown?

Yes, I do.

And what is that opinion?

Nicole Brown died as a result of blood loss.

Blood loss coming from where?

Coming from a large wound of the neck, severing the carotid arteries and other vessels.

Could you describe for us the nature of her injuries?

If you can, group them.

Nicole Brown had some superficial injuries of the hands. She had an injury to the top of her head. She had four stab wounds, ranging from approximately an inch or an inch and a quarter in diameter, because it's a gaping wound, to one that is maybe estimated at an eighth of an inch. Then two others of intermediate size, entering, but not -- entering the skin and tissues underneath, but not causing any major damage.

And then a slash across the neck running from left to right, which is a devastating slash, causing severage of the carotid arteries and other vessels, cutting through the voice box, separating a part of the voice box. In other words, cutting the voice box in two and entering the -- the -- the bone of the -- the vertebral column. Going through -- of course, on the way, it would have had to go through the tube through which we swallow, the so-called esophagus.

May I approach, Your Honor, with your permission, to get a board?

Go ahead.

Your Honor, may I move over there to see what he's talking about during the examination?

I apologize, ladies and gentlemen, for the pictures.

Approach the witness, Your Honor?

You may.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, I'm going to ask you certain questions about a board that we put up for the jury. It's titled now "Defensive Wound to Ms. Brown." It's No. 375.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) So if you look AT 375, it has all the photos in it, including ones that are on or not on the board?

Yes.

And if --

Counsel, may I just --

I'm fully aware of that.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) I think the best way to do this, Dr. Spitz, is, could you first tell me from the exhibits in front of you that are 375, what they show in general in terms of blunt-force trauma or defensive wounds?

And then I'm going to ask you, with the Court's permission, just to come up to the board, because I'm not going to place them on the TV screen.

If you could, just demonstrate to the jury what these photos show. Would that be all right?

Yes.

All right.

So if I just go through the injuries depicted in -- and describe them.

I might say that there is a scraping, in a crude way of saying, approximately the size of quarter coin on the back of the left shoulder in it -- the level of the shoulder blade. And it's a scraping, which means that it's not a blow, not a cut. It's a rubbing, where the upper layer of the skin has been rubbed off and it dried and it appears brown.

Then, of course, then there are -- then there is a scraping on the back of the neck, also, in a -- occurring in a similar way. Then there are some scrapings on the back of the right shoulder and over the right shoulder blade, not very large. Not very impressive.

Then there are rubbings up against a cement or stucco wall or floor or ground. There is a scraping on the back of the right elbow, all again of similar size, also from rubbing against a floor, cement floor or a stucco wall or -- or some kind of object that had that kind of structure.

Are these photos that you're looking at, but that are not on the board?

They're not on the board.

When we get to the ones on the board, if you could, if you wouldn't mind, with the Court's permission, coming down and just pointing out, when you discuss the photos that are on the board.

On the back of the left hand and over the knuckle of the ring finger -- I'm sorry.

Yes. On the back of the left hand, over the knuckle of the left ring finger, there's a scraping. And there's a small scraping on the back of the ring finger in the level of where normally we'd wear a ring. And it may be an eighth of an inch or so.

Then it looks like it's circular. Then on the back of the middle finger, approximately a quarter of an inch forward of the joint -- of the joint -- of the furthest joint on my hand, that would be about (indicating to his own finger), about here, is a linear mark not -- not a scraping, but it looks like it's a somewhat deeper, little, superficial tear of the skin.

The next picture.

Excuse me. The next one is 2002 -- I'm sorry.

I might just tell you about the following picture, too.

The following picture is 2023.

These two pictures show only that there are no injuries. These are just the palm of the hand and the fingers, showing no damage.

Next, sir, I'm going to ask you about -- and you can wait here, if you want. (Counsel displays a new photo board.)

(BY MR. MEDVENE) This is a little rough, I'm sorry -- "Entitled Sharp Force Injuries and Blunt-Force Trauma To Head Face and Neck of Ms. Brown."

Dr. Spitz, I'm going to ask you some questions about sharp force injuries. And I hand you a number of pictures that include Exhibits 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2014 -- excuse me -- 2016, 2024, 2014 and 2010.

And I have on the board what's been marked 2013, the picture to the left. And that's 2015 and 2013, which is the picture to the right of Ms. Brown and showing her neck.

Could you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the Court about the sharp force injuries and blunt-force trauma that you observed both with respect to the pictures on the board and the pictures not on the board.

If I may go through the pictures not on the board first.

Yes, that's fine.

May I have the witness stand here. Would that be okay?

Yes.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Turn around, if you don't mind. Don't display the pictures.

On the top of the head, somewhat to the right --

To the right is a stab wound, and it's got a little extension, a superficial extension running from it. It is a stab wound that I know from the report -- the picture doesn't obviously show that -- that it does not enter the -- it does not go through the skull. It goes to the skull, but it doesn't go through the skull, and there's no injury into the brain underneath.

There is another wound in the head, somewhat more to the back, also a stab wound, also a wound that does not go into the bone. It just goes into the skin -- to the skin in the scalp and through the scalp, but not into the bone. It does not penetrate.

And subsequently there are -- there is another one, a relatively small -- it is, I would say, -- maybe it's less than half an inch long, and it is superficial. And it, again, didn't go into the bone. It just involves the scalp. It is behind the left ear, somewhere behind the -- I'm sorry -- behind the right ear, somewhere where my finger is showing.

May the record show that Dr. Spitz is pointing his finger at approximately 5 o'clock on the back side of his head.

On the -- I think it is the right side of the head, somewhat up above ear level, there's a bruise. And the bruise is, I would say, maybe an inch, maybe a little more than an inch in diameter.

And I think it's -- I think -- I say -- I think because the picture is so close, that it's difficult to know exactly, but I think it's somewhere up here on the scalp, there's a bruise.

Let the record show Dr.` Spitz was showing the area at the top of his head, about 3 o'clock.

There is -- in the next picture, there is a piece of -- a portion of brain tissue. And this is a portion of brain tissue that was obviously taken from the brain, and it shows bruising. It shows a black-and-blue mark, if you will, in the brain, in the surface of the brain.

And I am not sure whether it is from under the bruise that I just described in the scalp, or whether it is from an opposite area.

The reason I'm saying this is because the brain in the skull is like jello in a cup. And when you rattle it very sharply, the brain strikes; or when you inflict a blow to it, the brain moves and strikes the skull under the blow, and then it moves opposite and strikes the inside of the skull on the opposite side.

So I don't -- either way, it would get a bruise. So I don't know whether it's from under the bruise that is in the scalp. In other words, from the bruise that was caused by a blow, or whether it is a bruise of the brain from the opposite side, when the jello, or the brains, went and hit the inside of the skull.

On the right side -- I'm sorry. On the left side of the neck, below the left --

I'm sorry, Doctor; could you identify, please, the number of the photo you're looking at when you're making these descriptions.

I don't know the numbers.

This photo was on the board. It's 206.

I don't want to interrupt you, Doctor.

On the -- okay. It's 2015.

Thanks so much.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Okay.

This picture, 2015.

The one next to it is 2013.

Okay.

2015 shows four stab wounds arranged in a vertical orientation, meaning one IS closer to the ear, one below that one, below that one, and one on the bottom.

They are in a vertical line, up-and-down line. Bottom part is the one that I described earlier, which I said is approximately an inch to an inch and a quarter and it's gaping. That's why, because it's gaping. It is -- it is wide open and it looks round, but it is a stab wound.

Then above it is a smaller one, and then above that one is a tiny one, which is maybe an eighth of an inch, and would correspond to the tip of a blade.

And above that one is the fourth stab wound, which is approximately, I would say, an inch and a half below the ear.

The picture also shows a vast gaping wound, deep wound on the -- as a continuation of a horizontal superficial cut, which goes from the level of the ear on the neck towards the right, and towards the right end in a vast cut that involves primarily the right side of the neck. And it starts -- the big cut starts right here; and the horizontal superficial cut starts in the level of the ear.

Can you tell, Dr.` Spitz, from the photographs when you have a weapon, whether the assailant was in front of or behind Ms. Brown when he slashed her throat?

The assailant was in back; and the slash runs from left to right.

Could you -- with the Court's permission, could you just demonstrate on me quickly how that would happen.

May the record show that Dr. Spitz' left hand is across my chin and his right hand is to the left of my neck, looking forward.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) And the wound would be delivered how?

The wound would be delivered, superficial deep --

Let the record reflect that his elbow is about at the left jaw of Mr. Medvene, and that his left hand extended beyond Mr. Medvene's face for a distance of approximately five inches.

Doctor -- correct, Doctor?

I didn't --

I was describing where your left hand was in holding Mr. Medvene.

My left hand is somewhere on the face. I didn't particularly concentrate.

Describe where you put it, sir.

I put it -- I put it roughly across the middle of the face.

Thank you, sir.

The next picture, I believe, is 2013, you said?

(BY MR. MEDVENE) 2013.

1013 (sic) shows the gaping edge of the same wound that I just described, the gaping portion of the wound that I just described, which starts roughly in the level of the left angle of the mouth, and then goes all the way to just below the right ear, which is not shown on this picture, but is shown on another picture.

That the wound -- this gaping wound runs upward to the right and ends in the level of just half an inch below the right ear.

The picture further shows an area which looks like it may be a -- may be bruised on the left side of the mouth, the outside, the lips, here.

And below that, looks like there may be a bruise -- a bruise, black-and-blue mark in this area. About -- together, but somewhat bigger than a silver dollar. There are --

Any other photos you haven't described?

Yes. There is a photo that I did not describe that I mentioned, but I didn't -- it's not displayed -- is the photo that ends -- that shows this gaping wound, ending just below the right ear.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr.` Spitz, how soon, in your opinion, after the encounter with the assailant began, was Ms. Brown's throat slashed?

I object to the vague, ambiguous -- I mean, is he -- is the question asking from the first wound until the wound of the throat being slashed, or is he asking for the first encounter with the assailant until --

Clarify your question, please.

Yes, Your Honor.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, from the first mark or wound on Ms. Brown, to the slashing of the throat, do you have any -- do you have an opinion on how long it took before the assailant slashed her throat?

And what do you -- what do you base that on?

On the nature and number of the injuries, and on the recognition that it takes seconds to inflict four stab wounds, or even less than seconds; and it takes a very brief time, indeed, again, seconds or a second, perhaps, to slash the throat.

I mean, how long does it take to make a -- wielding a knife and cutting into flesh, regardless of the depth? If the knife is sharp, it will just penetrate.

And how about whatever stab wounds there are on the neck; how long does that take?

Seconds.

Show me, please.

I will stand up here, then. The height is maybe a bit better.

From your examination, do you have an opinion which way the blood would flow from the neck when Ms. Brown's throat was slashed?

In order to tell you which way the blood would flow, I would have to tell you that she was bent forward. She was -- may I use you again?

(Continuing.) She was bent forward, and this was done in this way.

She was bent further downward, and the blood then would run downward, would run downward. Some of it would run forward, but most of the blood would run to the ground.

Thank you.

Would the blood, in your opinion, be in large quantity on the assailant?

(Continued.) As this occurs, that -- the cutting occurs, the cut occurs very rapidly. The hand holding the blade moves away from the source of the bleeding, so the body of the victim shields the assailant, and the bleeding occurs after the hand has moved away.

If the left arm that's holding is above the injury, as it would have to be, the bleeding is forward and downward and not upward.

Where's the blood coming from?

The blood is coming from the two carotid arteries, which are each the diameter of your little finger, which is very big for an artery, and from branches of the carotid artery, and to a significant lesser extent, from severed veins.

Is it coming under pressure or --

Okay. The Court will take a ten-minute recess.

Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion.