Good afternoon. Thank you very much, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO
Dr. Baden, when we broke for our lunch recess, I was asking you to consider the superficial cuts on Mr. Simpson's hand. My question in that regard is, do you have any opinion as to how long it would take for those superficial cuts to stop bleeding?
I want to now direct your attention to your observations and conclusions of Nicole Brown Simpson on the night she was murdered. I want to first ask you, did you examine all the material to come to a conclusion as to whether or not there was a struggle between Nicole Brown Simpson and her assailants?
Did you examine the neck area in photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson and see four different stab wounds?
It was a grouping or cluster of stab wounds on the left side of the neck, but they were of different orientation. It wasn't rapid fire. The position of the knife and the skin changed during the course of the stab wounds.
For purposes of explaining to the jury "Different orientation," could you just try to paint a picture in words for them?
Well, if a weapon, say a single-edged weapon is stabbed into somebody very rapidly and the victim is not moving, then a very tight grouping of stab wounds all oriented in the same direction, since the weapon and the hand tends to be oriented in the same direction, can occur and can indicate a very rapid striking of a person who isn't moving, and that can be an interpretation sometimes of stab wounds.
Were you able to come to any conclusion regarding injuries on Nicole Brown Simpson's hands?
And could you describe for the jury what those injuries resulted from in your opinion?
In my opinion, they represent what's been described previously as defensive type wounds that occurred while she was attempting to ward off blows or blows with a weapon.
And in your opinion, would those injuries cause a bleeding of her palm areas of the hand?
I want to direct your attention now to blood under the fingernails of Nicole Brown Simpson. Are you familiar with cases where a victim has scratched at and clawed an assailant?
And do you have an opinion as to whether or not that type of reaching out and scratching of the skin that would result in blood would also result in a scraping of the skin on the part of the perpetrator or perpetrators?
In this case, there's evidence that Nicole Brown Simpson had blood under her fingernails.
If that blood was the result of her scratching out at an assailant or assailants, would you expect that she would also have skin under her fingernails?
Well, just from experience, when scratching occurs during a struggle, wounds can open up on the skin of the assailant, of the scratched person, but the skin is often pushed to the side, a little blood comes under the fingernails and it is very unusual to find the skin from a perpetrator underneath the fingernails of a victim even though we often look for it. It is much more common--well, it's uncommon also to find assailant's blood, but that's more common, appreciably more common that finding assailant's skin.
If that blood was not the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson, would that indicate to you that there would be injuries on someone else?
There was some discussion by Dr. Lakshmanan about the state of consciousness of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you recall that testimony?
Is it your opinion, doctor, that prior to the time Nicole Brown Simpson's throat was cut, that she was unconscious?
My opinion is that Miss Simpson struggled for some period of time with the assailant during which time she received various stab wounds including the stabs--the injuries to the hands. And when she suffered the fatal cut wound of the neck, her neck was above the bottom staircase. It was at least 18, 20 inches off the ground because much of the spurting blood from the cut through the carotid arteries went in that direction, toward the top of the first staircase and the riser on the second staircase, so that in my opinion, she wasn't lying unconscious on the ground. She was--her neck was above that level when she was cut.
KEY QUOTESo is it your opinion, doctor, that the contusion that you discovered in the tissue at the Coroner's office of Nicole Brown Simpson's part of the brain, that the injury that caused that did not result in her being unconscious?
Yes. That would be my opinion. Such an injury can or cannot be associated with loss of consciousness. One needn't lose consciousness, and I think the position of her neck at the time that she forcefully bled from the carotid arteries that were cut would indicate she was not unconscious on the ground, but was at least somewhat higher.
In order--in the order of occurrence of the stab wounds to--and injuries to Nicole Brown Simpson, do you have an opinion as to when her throat was slashed?
Yes. I agree with Dr. Lakshmanan's interpretation that that most likely was the final injury she received and she would have lost consciousness within seconds of suffering that cut wound because of the marked decrease in blood flow to the brain. The brain would have been deprived of oxygen and she would have lost consciousness.
Now, there was a suggestion in the testimony by Dr. Lakshmanan that Nicole Brown Simpson was lying on the ground unconscious and that a shoeprint was placed on her back by the assailant. Do you agree with that conclusion?
I disagree with that conclusion because there's nothing in the photographs or on the dress or on the body that to me looks like a shoeprint, that when Dr. Golden did the autopsy, he specifically says that there's no injury in that area and the little purple discolorations that are present that were referred to when--on the boards as a shoeprint, in my opinion, to a reasonably degree of medical certainty, is just the way blood settles after death and the variations in how the body changes after death. She had been laying on her back for many hours prior to the taking of that photograph. And my opinion is that there's no evidence at all to indicate that that's a shoeprint on the back. If a shoeprint were placed down hard enough to cause bruises and an imprint on the skin, given the circumstances, the setting, the soil, the area of struggle that had gone on in that narrow area where Mr. Goldman was found, there would also have to be some imprint of the soil or dirt or blood on the clothing and on the back also that wasn't present either.
Is there any way an expert medical examiner could have performed any further type of test at the autopsy to confirm the cause of the discoloration?
Oh, surely. If there was any hint to Dr. Golden or to the other--remember, there were Miss Ratcliffe, there were criminalists, there were all the technicians, there were many people who were present and who saw the back. If any of them had thought there was a bruise or--a bruise in the nature of a shoeprint or any kind of bruise, a simple incision at the time of the autopsy could have distinguished between the normal settling of blood after death, the lividity that's been spoken of, which is a settling of blood in blood vessels, the blood vessels are all intact as opposed to a bruise where there's hemorrhage outside of the blood vessels, and a simple incision by Dr. Golden would have shown whether or not there was a bruise present. We--medical examiner doesn't normally do that unless there's reason to make incisions because of the care and sanctity of the body, but Dr. Golden clearly states there's no bruise there in his autopsy report.
--that one way that Nicole Brown Simpson could have been killed was that the perpetrator had a shoe on her back, pulled her hair up, hyperextended her neck and slit her throat, and the evidence of this was that there was no blood in her lungs.
Your Honor, I object. That misstates Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony. I ask to be heard at sidebar.
Did you hear Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony regarding Nicole Brown Simpson being on the ground unconscious, having her hair pulled back, her neck hyperextended and her throat slit? Did you hear that testimony?
Well, he described it and supported it by the fact that there was no sucking of blood into the lungs, aspirating blood.
In your opinion, is there any way a responsible medical examiner could offer that opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty?
I think Dr. Lakshmanan is responsible in general terms, but I think that--I disagree with that opinion. I think it's a wrong opinion.
Umm, whether or not a victim sucks blood into his or her lungs--in this instance, Miss Simpson didn't and Mr. Goldman did--depends on a stab wound going through the windpipe--opening up the windpipe or the mouth area so that blood can get in and then the person living long enough to inhale it. Inhalation of blood into the lungs is aspiration. And that could happen with the neck flexed or with the chin against--almost against the chest. Has nothing to do with the hyperextension of the neck. It has to do with whether there's bleeding into the airway, air passage area, and whether the person lives long enough to be able to inhale the blood and nothing to do with hyperextension.
We have now gone through a series of questions on a general category of discussion as to whether or not in your opinion Nicole Brown Simpson struggled with the perpetrator or perpetrators of this crime. Based on what you have told the jury, do you have an opinion as to whether or not she was in fact engaged in a struggle prior to her death?
My opinion is, she struggled with the assailant or assailants prior to succumbing when her neck was cut.
And why is it your opinion that there was a struggle between Nicole Brown Simpson and her assailant or assailants prior to the time she died?
Well, because there were about nine or 10 stab wounds and cut wounds on her body before she suffered the fatal injury because there were cut wounds on her hands in a defensive manner and because the stab wounds on the neck, the four or five stab wounds on the neck were of different positions, indicating motion between the weapon and the skin, which is typical in a struggle, and that she suffered no--no incapacitating injury until the final cut wound of the carotid arteries. Up until that point, she--there was no reason for her to be unconscious and not to struggle except for the bruise on the brain. And that will knock some people out and some people won't lose consciousness. It certainly could cause a person to fall downward.
So it's your opinion that you could not offer an opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether or not that contusion would cause unconsciousness?
I want to direct your attention now towards the murder of Ronald Goldman and, again, focus the overall attention on whether or not in your opinion there was a struggle. In that regard, was there any evidence of wounds on the hands of Ronald Goldman?
There were stab wounds on the hands again in a defensive manner, called defensive wounds by Dr. Golden, and there were bruises on the backs of the hands and the knuckles and the fingers of the hands.
Is it your experience that defensive wounds in an assault by a knife would generally cause injuries to the victim's palm and not cause cuts to the tops of the hands?
Does the fact that there were no cuts on the back of the hand indicate that Mr. Goldman did not make a fist?
It does not--in my opinion, has no indication that he didn't make a fist or didn't attempt to use a fist in a protective or offensive manner.
If there was an opinion offered that because there were no cuts or bruises beyond one knuckle, that that would mean that there was no attempt to strike the assailant, would you agree or disagree with that proposition?
In the area where Mr. Goldman had defensive wounds on his hands, would they bleed a lot?
Now, there was evidence that there was an injury to a knuckle on Mr. Goldman. Did you observe that?
And if that injury was caused by striking a person, do you have an opinion as to whether or not it would leave a mark on the person who was struck?
Yes. I have an opinion that it's likely that a mark would be left, but it's not absolute. Not every punch leaves a mark, but it certainly would indicate that it landed with force on the person that it struck.
Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that injury was caused by moving back and hitting your knuckle or on Mr. Goldman hitting his knuckle on a tree?
Do you have an opinion as to whether it occurred by Mr. Goldman backing up and hitting his knuckle on a wrought iron fence?
A lot of force is involved and a great deal more force can be generated by punching forward with the hand than by flailing backwards against a fence. There's not enough force generated and it's kind of purposeless motion. This is typical for injuries in punching somebody and which medical examiners, doctors see not uncommonly, and it would be very odd to have it against a wrought iron fence. It would have to be a fence that was punched with the same degree of force that you'd punch a body, and that's hard to do by flailing backwards.
There--the evidence has shown that there were numerous or multiple stab wounds on Mr. Goldman. Did you count the number of stab wounds that he had?
Yes, I did. There are more than 22 stab wounds of various kind. In addition to the 22, there's some other clustering of wounds that could be individually called stab wounds and maybe one could have 30 stab wounds. But at least 22 depending on how one counted them.
Yes. They came from different directions, some front, some back, some from the side.
Now, is there any evidence that Mr. Goldman attempted to kick his assailant or assailants?
And what evidence have you found in that regard of Mr. Goldman kicking his assailant or assailants?
The evidence would be that I believe on his right shoe, there's a cut on the top of the shoe near the toe area, which is not proof that he kicked at somebody, but is indicative of that.
And did you examine when you went to the police department the shoes and see photographs of the shoes that Mr. Goldman was wearing?
Photograph--do you see a photograph that shows the cut on the shoe of Mr. Goldman?
And then perhaps--I don't know. Do you have a magnifying glass that might be helpful to see?
Thank you. Would you come and, with the Court's permission, just demon--show to each juror where--
Yes. Actually, Dr. Baden, why don't you in the middle of the jury box just point out what it is you are referring to, directing their attention to.
Your Honor, the only difficulty I have, this page has four apparent photographs. It appears that they're using one photograph and that's the one that's marked for identification. I would ask that--
There's a little horizontal cut up on the right shoe near the inner tip is what I was referring to (Indicating).
We just need to put it up and print it. All right. We'll use the printout as 12--1316. Proceed.
Based on what you have just testified to, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Ronald Goldman struggled with his assailants or assailant?
And what is the basis for your opinion that there was a struggle prior to the time he was killed?
The basis for my opinion is that he had multiple cut wound injuries over different parts of the body, front and back, face and neck, chest and abdomen which occurred in different positions, that he had injuries on his hands indicative of protected, defensive, offensive wounds, that the blood on his clothing, the jeans especially shows that he was standing for time enough from the bleeding from the neck, the left jugular vein, to flow out of the--out of the cut down the left side of his body, down the jeans, staining the jeans and into his shoes, which takes time. The crime scene also is indicative of a struggle with a lot of disturbance of the soil and earth in the area that he collapsed and died and I think that the cut on the shoe is also indicative of a knife coming across that shoe at some point indicative of a struggle.
You have just told the jury that Mr. Goldman's jugular vein was cut and blood would ooze from that.
No. He had no injury to his vocal cords or his body that would have prevented him from calling out, screaming, making words or--neither did Miss Simpson. She also was able--had no--no injury that would have prevented her from crying out.
KEY QUOTEIn your opinion, was Mr. Goldman capable of screaming before his jugular vein was cut?
In your opinion, was Mr. Goldman capable of screaming after his jugular vein was cut, but before death?
If there was an assailant who had his hand over Mr. Goldman's mouth to prevent him from screaming, would that necessarily leave any identifiable marks that would be seen at autopsy?
Covering the mouth and even the nose with a hand, as you say, would not cause any injury that could be seen at autopsy.
A hand or a choke-hold type with the forearm would prevent somebody from screaming, yes.
Would a choke hold or a hand on the throat leave any noticeable injuries that would be seen at the autopsy?
Now, I want to go back now and specifically direct your attention to the jugular vein cut and focus the jury's attention, if I might, on that. You've described that cut as causing blood that would ooze; is that correct?
If a person is cut in the jugular vein and the blood is oozing, is the person still capable of standing?
If there's blood that came down onto the right side of the shirt as a result of a cut on the jugular vein on the left side, would that have any effect on your opinion as to whether or not there was a struggle?
In viewing this injury to the throat, do you have an opinion as to how long Mr. Goldman could have been standing after that injury?
In my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, after the jugular vein was cut, from the time of the cutting until he would collapse because of blood loss could be many minutes.
If a person is brought promptly to a hospital, the jug--as opposed to the carotid arteries, which incapac--which caused--the injury which caused the death of Miss Simpson which caused rapid bleeding very quickly and cuts off blood--oxygen going to the brain, the veins, the jugular vein is a low pressure system and it's bringing blood back to the heart, and it bleeds very much more slowly and it would take many minutes of bleeding from the jugular vein to lower the blood pressure enough so a person would even get woozy and fall to the ground. At that time, the person would still be alive.
I'm getting--I'm almost finished, your Honor. I mean they had a long time on this.
And what does that indicate to you in relationship to what position Mr. Goldman was at?
At the time of the thigh wound, he was still standing because the blood was going still downward together with the blood coming down from the left side of the neck.
Yes. There were two stab wounds to the right side of the chest that caused lacerations in the right--the lower part of the right lung.
And did you observe a stab wound on the side of his abdomen that pierced his aorta?
Yes. There was another stab wound on the left side of the abdomen that went from left to right through the aorta about an inch and a half above the belly button.
Would you describe for us, please, what the aorta is and where it's located in the body?
The aorta is--remember from biology days--the main blood vessel that brings blood with oxygen from the heart to the rest of the body. As the heart pumps out blood, the blood comes up the aorta, 20 percent goes up to the head and brain and the other 80 percent goes downward to all the other organs and muscles of the body. The aorta is the largest blood vessel in the body and carries that 80 percent downward.
Well, what it refers to is bleeding inside the body and bleeding outside the body. It doesn't--either way has the same effect on cardiac function. If the blood gets out of the blood vessels, then it's not available to go to the brain, the kidneys and the other parts of the body. So in that sense, it doesn't matter whether it bleeds inside or outside if it's going to go out of the blood vessels.
Now, my question to you is, on the jugular vein, would that cause external bleeding or internal bleeding?
External. Bleeds outside the body, and that's the blood that came, trickled down the chest and down the--to the left shoe, the left side of the body.
External bleeding, and that's bleeding on the ground, on a perpetrator, on--outside the body.
The chest and the aorta are internal bleeding, bleed inside the body, and the body captures that blood so it doesn't get lost, but it's not useful blood.
Do you have an opinion as to which came first; the cut of the jugular vein or the stab wounds to the chest?
In my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the cut wound to the neck came first.
How long--if you've told us--well, let me ask you this in this way. How long could someone survive after having a jugular vein cut? How long could they survive?
Assuming it's a transection, a cut as in Mr. Goldman, cut completely through, a person with a jugular vein cut could stay alive, not necessarily conscious, for 10, 20 minutes if it's untreated. Much of that time, he might be unconscious.
And how much blood would accumulate in the chest cavity as a result of the chest wounds here? Do you have any way of knowing how much blood accumulated?
Dr. Golden in doing the autopsy, as is appropriate, measured the amount of blood that was in the cavity surrounding the lungs that measures the amount of blood coming out of the right lung, the two of them, the right chest and right lung, and he estimated he said between 100 and 200 cc. It's about three to seven ounces of blood.
Can you tell this jury with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how long it was between the time Mr. Goldman's jugular vein was cut and he was stabbed in the chest?
100 to 200 cc of blood is very small amount of blood to bleed from stab wounds of the lung. So my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty is that when he suffered the stab wounds of the lung, his heart was not functioning properly, he had already--the blood pressure had fallen considerably so that not much blood could flow out of the damaged lungs. So in my opinion, the reason that Mr. Goldman died was because of the blood loss from the internal jugular vein laceration. That was the major source of the bleeding. Even though he had other wounds, none of them bled as much. And that it would have taken about 10 minutes, certainly not less than five minutes for enough blood to be lost, a thousand, 1500 cc of blood to be lost that the lung would not be pumping out blood when the lungs were stabbed because my opinion is based on the fact that when the lungs are stabbed, the heart is not pumping effectively and it would take at least five, 10 minutes for their heart to stop pumping effectively after he started bleeding from the jugular vein.
Could it have been as long as 15 minutes between the time the jugular vein was cut and the chest wounds?
There's so many factors involved, individual factors, it's possible--yes, it could be. Could be.
Do you know when in the struggle in time from the beginning to the time--how much time elapsed before Mr. Goldman's jugular vein was cut?
Yeah. There could have been a struggle going on, hand cuts, other injuries. I can only start dating the length of time to die once the left jugular vein is cut. At some point, the left jugular vein gets cut and then he will bleed slowly for many minutes until his heart can no longer pump blood when his lung is cut.
Was the cut to the chest, which you have told us could have been as long as 15 minutes, more likely 10 minutes and as little as 5 minutes after the jugular vein, was that necessarily the last wound to Mr. Goldman?
If Ronald Goldman began a struggle with his assailants at 10:40 P.M., within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, can you tell us when the stab wounds to the chest would have occurred?
My opinion would be at least five minutes, more likely around 10 minutes after the neck started to bleed.
KEY QUOTESo if the struggle started--just take basic minimum times now. If the struggle started at 10:40, taking into account that there could have been injuries and struggle before the jugular vein was cut and there could have been injuries after the chest, what is the earliest time, the earliest time that he would have been cut in the chest in your opinion?
My opinion is that Miss Simpson struggled for some period of time with the assailant during which time she received various stab wounds including the stabs--the injuries to the hands. And when she suffered the fatal cut wound of the neck, her neck was above the bottom staircase. It was at least 18, 20 inches off the ground because much of the spurting blood from the cut through the carotid arteries went in that direction.
My opinion is that there's no evidence at all to indicate that that's a shoeprint on the back. If a shoeprint were placed down hard enough to cause bruises and an imprint on the skin, given the circumstances, the setting, the soil, the area of struggle that had gone on in that narrow area where Mr. Goldman was found, there would also have to be some imprint of the soil or dirt or blood on the clothing and on the back also that wasn't present either.
He had no injury to his vocal cords or his body that would have prevented him from calling out, screaming, making words or--neither did Miss Simpson. She also was able--had no--no injury that would have prevented her from crying out.
My opinion would be at least five minutes, more likely around 10 minutes after the neck started to bleed... if the struggle started at 10:40, taking into account that there could have been injuries and struggle before the jugular vein was cut... the earliest time that he would have been cut in the chest in your opinion... In my opinion, 10--10:45.