Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO
And what is your educational background that qualified you to attain that position?
Well, I received a bachelor of sciences degree from the city college of New York in 1955 and a medical degree, Md. degree, from New York University school of medicine in 1959.
I was senior class president, Phi Beta Kappa, editor in chief of the newspaper and I was essentially the valedictorian. I spoke at the commencement for the students.
From there I went to New York University medical school, which is also in manhattan.
Upon graduation where I received the medical degree, I then did an internship residency, chief residency, at Belleview Hospital medical center in New York City, which is associated with at that time New York University school of medicine, also Colombia Presbyterian school of medicine.
Well, my first two years at Belleview hospital I was an intern and resident in internal medicine under the training of Dr. Dickinson Richard, Dr. Andre Cornon, who had just won the Nobel prizes in medicine for their work on heart and lung disease, and I specialized in that.
So this is internal medicine, heart and lung, something which you are not specializing in now, but which you have a background in?
After those two years--two years in internal medicine, I then switched over to pathology internal medicine I treated live people and in pathology I tried to find out what was wrong with people by various tests, autopsies, blood tests. In pathology--I stayed in pathology from--for the next four years being resident, chief resident in pathology, fellow at Belleview hospital, and finished my training in pathology in 1965.
Yes. While--while a resident physician at Belleview hospital, beginning around 1960 when I was licensed to practice medicine in New York state, I moonlighted--I worked for the medical examiner's office on a part-time basis as an assistant medical examiner for the city of New York, which is much like the Coroner medical examiner system in Los Angeles. And on completion I stayed there the four years--five years, and on completion of my training in pathology at Belleview, my official training, I then became a full-time medical examiner for the city of New York.
And the appointments that you had in New York, were they made by any specific person or persons?
In New York City it worked as part of at that time--at that time as part of the civil service system, that it was--the initial entry positions of part-time position when I was at Belleview hospital, and then my first appointment was at the discretion of the chief medical examiner, Dr. Milton Helpburn at that time, and then all the subsequent positions are by examinations and merit in the civil service system of the city of New York.
Will you tell the jury about the subsequent appointments, how they came about and what positions you have held.
Yes. I remained as a full-time medical examiner, junior medical examiner, associate medical examiner, and then I was appointed about the end of 1960's, around `69, `68, as deputy chief medical examiner city of New York. I remained in that position for about nine years and then was appointed from a civil service list as chief medical examiner for the city of New York, and I remained in that position for a year and reverted back to deputy chief medical examiner in the city of New York.
The circumstances were that the mayor at the time, Mayor Koch felt--wanted somebody else to be chief medical examiner and accumulated certain statements from the five District Attorneys in New York City--unlike most cities, New York City is one city and five counties, which is just a reverse usually, and there is Brooklyn and Manhattan and Bronx, Staten Island.
We call them boroughs, but counties, actual counties, as opposed to Los Angeles County which has a lot cities. New York City is one city that has a lot of counties, and each county, each borough, has a District Attorney, but there is one chief medical examiner that handles all five boroughs, so at the time, after I had been chief examiner for a year, mayor Koch asked for opinions from the five District Attorneys, four of whom were very pleased with my work and one of whom, the District Attorney of manhattan, umm, felt I wasn't a team player and felt I shouldn't be chief medical examiner.
And this is something that you have spoken about freely and in fact have written about published in material?
Now, you say about being a team player. What in your opinion is the role of a medical examiner, an independent medical examiner?
My opinion is that a medical examiner, chief, has to be an independent finder of scientific facts and truths, regardless of where those findings lead. We speak as much for the Defendant as for the Prosecutor. We speak as much for the doctor as for the patient. That we speak for the dead person and we are supposed to find in any death as much information that can properly determine how a person died and then answer--anticipate answering any questions that might arise later, whether criminally or civilly, or by the family. The family has a right to know how a loved one died, so the medical examiner, although working in a political system, which is a problem, has to remain an independent scientist and independent physician and be impartial to any sides that might be concerned in how a person died.
KEY QUOTEIn the course of your career in New York as a medical examiner, did you come in contact with Dr. Lakshmanan?
In the mid-seventies, I guess, 1977, `78, around that time, Dr. Lakshmanan did what I had done ten years earlier and he was kind of--he moonlighted--he was a pathology resident in one of the hospitals in New York City and he would do extra work in the medical examiner's office and under my supervision, as I had done when I was a resident at Belleview hospital, so he was a moonlighting pathologist learning about forensic pathology in New York City.
Yes. I teach aspects of medical work, forensic medicine, forensic pathology, at a number of institutions. I am presently visited professor of pathology at Albert Einstein school of medicine in New York City, a adjunct professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Albany medical center in Albany New York. I've just completed a visiting professorship as John Jay school of medicine--John Jay school of Criminal Justice which teaches law enforcement persons and gives a degree in law enforcement. And I am on the faculty or have been on the faculty at New York University school of medicine, Colombia physicians and surgeons school of medicine. In all these capacities I do teaching in--part-time teaching in forensic medicine; some are courses, some are just lectures.
The students are either medical students, law students. I have been a professor at New York law school. Medical students, law students, house staff residents and law enforcement personnel.
There has been a lot of expert witnesses who have testified about professional associations. Would you share with the jury any professional associations that you belong to and any positions you have held within those associations.
Yes. I'm past president of the society of medical jurisprudence, past vice-president of the American academy of forensic sciences, a fellow in the college of American pathology and other organizations that pertain to what pathologists and forensic pathologists do.
Yes. I attend meetings of associations, I run conferences on forensic medicine which I am supposed to do next week.
Regarding publications, has any of the things you have studied and taught in your field been published?
Yes. I have published some eighty articles or been co-author relative to medical examiner work, mostly drug abuse, alcoholism, which I was interested in especially when I was in New York City. I have written a number of chapters in textbooks and I have been author of a book on alcohol, drugs and violent death. I edited a textbook on forensic medicine, legal medicine that was published in japan.
Atlas of legal medicine, which is the first English book in forensic medicine in japan in the 1960's that I am aware of. And I recently did write a book meant for explaining to the public what medical examiners do called unnatural death, confessions of a medical examiner.
Well, it goes into some of the--the investigation that I have been involved with that I thought could be informative as to how medical examiners should function and on how bad the system is in general in the United States.
Excuse me, gentlemen. Doctor, if you would, would you allow Mr. Shapiro to complete asking the question before you start to answer, because the court reporter is having some difficulty.
My thoughts are and were that medical--the investigation of unnatural death in this country is really a national disgrace, that most jurisdictions, not--not Los Angeles, but in the United States, most jurisdictions, untrained people investigate homicide and accidents and suicides, both from an investigation at the scene point of view, which are often done by a funeral director, and from an autopsy, which is usually done by a hospital pathologist who is super on natural death, heart disease, cancer, stroke, but have no training in gunshot wounds and automobile accidents and suicide, which leads to lots of errors that occur around the country.
Did you also talk about that in book your background and what attracted you to the field of forensic medicine?
I think in general I commented, I wrote about how initially when I went to NYU medical school and Belleview hospital I trained to be a real doctor and treat people who were sick, and while at Belleview hospital, because of the coincidence that at Belleview was where the medical examiner's office for New York was situated, when I used to come down and see deaths that had occurred at Belleview from heart disease and cancer, I would see often the Coroners, medical examiners, investigating deaths of auto accidents and suicides and homicides, and Belleview at NYU at that time, and still, was a mayor institution investigating natural disease which I was very--I had a number of professors who were Nobel laureates. And when I saw in the medical examiner's corner that there was very little interest on investigations by academic medicine into violent death, which involves about seven or eight percent of deaths--all other deaths would be natural deaths or suicide--and I just felt that by going into forensic pathology, I could contribute more to preventing suicide, drug addiction, alcohol, even homicides, than by being another person trying to cure cancer. So that is--it was just a coincidence of my being at NYU where the medical examiner's office was situated that turned me on to forensic pathology and, umm, where I have been for the past forty years.
As a young doctor did you find something exciting about the field of forensic pathology?
Oh, I think initially it was exciting to hear something on the radio about somebody dying and somebody being killed and coming into the autopsy room and seeing the individual there and seeing how the doctors were able to, within an hour or so, figure out a puzzle, a puzzle as to why somebody died. And with the proper investigation work proper autopsy, with proper evaluation and with experience, magic occurred. The human body gave forth secrets that permitted the answering of a lot of questions, mostly for the family, because the family is most concerned about the dead body, but also for insurance companies and hospitals and law enforcement. We saw that if a hospital made a mistake, we would notify the hospital and try to correct them so they wouldn't make the same mistake again, and it was all very exciting. The media attention initially was very exciting, that the people paid attention to this and the daily news and other things, but the media rapidly wore off.
Are there such areas appointed by different governmental agencies that are known as commissions that are formed to investigate deaths?
Yeah. At different levels of government groups can be set up to try and assist in dealing with all kind of problems, when these bodies get involved in deaths, where deaths occur, because lots of things happen without deaths and often a medical examiner will be called in as part of the group. In this regard I have been on commissions.
Well, let me ask you some questions in that regard: Let's start first with the state level. Are there commissions on the state level that you have been involved with?
Would you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury about the state commissions and the highlights of those commissions.
Yes. I'm a member of the New York state commission that investigates all deaths that occur in prisons and police custody in New York state. One of the reasons this commission is set up is because it is often very difficult for a locality, for a borough, for a county to investigate itself, so that the state, after the Attica deaths, Attica prison uprising in the early 1970's where there were a lot of complaints about how prisoners were treated by guards, governor Rockefeller set up a five-member commission to examine all health care and all deaths that occur in custody. And I have been the forensic pathology member of that group since, some twenty years now.
Yes. Each--it is a five-year term so I have been appointed by governor Rockefeller and reappointed by Governor Carey, by Governor Cuomo and I will be up shortly for a new governor, but it is appointed by the governor with the approval of the legislature. The legislature acts on it. It is a non-paid position, but it is--has a lot of authority to examine health care. We have over a hundred thousand people in jail--in jails in New York state--to make sure that it is done properly.
The governors in New York that you mentioned, are they members of both political parties, both democrats and republicans?
Yes. I have been appointed by both, democrat and republican, and I am not political I think.
There was another commission that was established about ten years after this--I'm sorry.
The Judge is looking at me and he wants me now to ask you to wait until I finish the question.
Umm, there is a similar commission that was where the governor appoints people, physicians, lawyers, mental health workers, to examine all medical care and all deaths that occur in mental hospitals throughout New York state, and I'm a forensic pathologist member of that commission, so we look into how people are treated while alive and to make sure that the investigations into how they die is done properly or we do our own investigation.
Just as there are state commissions, are there international commissions that have been formed by international groups?
Yes. There are more and more international requests for assistance in investigating deaths around the world that may be controversial in the local--in the police where the persons dies.
Well, I have been requested by various groups to do autopsies, reautopsies in other counties, yes.
Would you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury just the highlights of some examples of work you have done on the international level.
Yes. Eventually about a year or two--a year ago, I went with a group of American scientists to Croatia to identify persons who died in the current Serbo-Croatian conflicts, by autopsy and DNA techniques. I have been over to at--at the request of various human rights groups, to the Gaza Strip and to the West Bank in Israel to investigate prisoners, Palestinian prisoners who died in Israeli jails and do autopsies there. I have been over about three years ago to--at the request of the U.S. State Department and the Russian government, to Russia to examine remains that had been found that were thought to have been the Romonoff family and Nicholas and Alexandra and Anastasia, people who were murdered in 1918 at the time of the communist revolution. And I have been to many countries to do teaching and training in how to do proper forensic investigation into violent deaths, in Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, at various governmental requests.
Does the United States government form commissions to investigate deaths of a high-profile nature?
Would you point out to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the highlights of commissions that you have been appointed to by the United States government.
The highlight would be I was asked to be chairman of the forensic pathology panel of the United States congressional select committee in assassinations at the end of the 1970's that was formed to investigate the deaths of president John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. And there were two panels; one to investigate the death of president John Kennedy and one to investigate the death of Dr. King and I was the chairmen of both for the pathologist investigation.
Yes. The reports were generated, we had to give our findings and in a public congressional committee.
And did you make findings regarding your opinion, from a forensic pathologist's point of view, of the death of president John F. Kennedy?
And did you, as chairman of your committee, make recommendations to the United States government as to the cause and manner of death of the killing of Dr. Martin Luther King?
Yes, and it goes further, and some of the--the causes of death are pretty obvious. It goes into certain aspects of the death, how close was the weapon, the trajectory of the bullet wounds. The least important thing that a medical examiner does is determine the cause of death in 95 percent of the cases, because in 95 percent of homicides there is blood coming out of the skin and the police are super at tracing the blood back to the home, the body, and determining if it is a gunshot wound or a stab wound or a baseball bat. Our--for a medical examiner to confirm the obvious, that president Kennedy died of a gunshot wound, doesn't contribute much. The medical examiner is supposed to contribute other information to the cause of death, protect evidence, take the right sections, tissues, documentation, protect trace evidence. So there--the cause of death is usually the least important part of what we are doing.
And would you describe to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the purpose of the examination of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King?
Yes. Yes. Dr. King died of a gunshot wound of the right cheek that then went into the chest and lung and caused damage to the spine also, a single rifle bullet wound, and that was pretty straightforward. But an issue had arisen that because there was under the microscope little black dots under the microscope in the skin of the entrance wound, that this was though by some to be a close contact wound, because when a bullet comes out of a weapon, this was a rifle, powder come out with the bullet and the powder can go up to about 24 inches, and if we see powder on the skin, that means the weapon was pretty close. If we don't see powder, it means further away. And although James Earl Ray had been identified as the shooter from a hundred yards away, his discharge, his shooting of the weapon should not have left any powder on the skin, so there was an issue about somebody being closer to Mr. King, Dr. King. And what we were able to do ten years later is go down to Memphis, Tennessee, get the slides, get the material, look at the scene of death that the site of death occurred and actually take out the little pieces of black material that was in the skin and have it analyzed in the laboratory.
And it turned out that these little black dots were not powder from a gun, but were little fragments of lead from the tip of the lead bullet that was fired. The bullet that was used to kill Dr. King was a rifle bullet with a soft nose lead meant for big game hunting and little fragments of lead had broken off and gave the appearance of it being gunshot powders from a close contact--close discharge. And our commission was able to show that that wasn't true and that took away that aspect of congress' concern that there was a mistake made in the investigation into Dr. King's death.
In that regard you said that you did an examination ten years later. Is that part of your training and part of the science, that you can, with expertise, come in and evaluate things relating to death some significant period of time later?
Yes, yes. A forensic pathologist is trained not only to do autopsies and to interpret autopsies, but also to examine and interpret what other persons do to examine remains that may be as with the Romonoff family eighty--seventy years old, to review what other pathologists have done, as with Dr. King or with president Kennedy. We reviewed the president Kennedy material and were able to do that fifteen or twenty years later, 25 years later. Sorry, sorry, sorry. 16 years later--`63 to `78, sorry, and that is the purpose. The purpose of a medical/legal autopsy is not only to make findings, but also to document the findings so that others later on can come and review the material. I know when I do an autopsy on somebody who has been shot, for example, that the--they may have another pathologist coming for the other side to review the material because this may come to court, so it is very common for medical examiners to review each other's work. And we are obligated, as part of the forensic autopsy, to document everything by photographs, by microscopic slides, by x-rays, by toxicology and by the written--the dictated record, so that somebody else can come later on and independently make his or her own judgment and that is what an autopsy is. It is a documentation of findings, so we can come back twenty, thirty, fifty years later and still arrive at opinions as to how things happened.
In the course of your career could you estimate for the jury how many autopsies you have personally performed?
Over the years I have performed going back to 1955, I guess when I started out in medical examiner's office as a volunteer, over 20,000 autopsies.
Many times that number. When I was medical examiner of New York City we performed--the office performed something like seven or 8000 autopsies a year and there were about eight physicians doing autopsies and we would do a thousand or more than a thousand autopsies each year.
You've told the jury of the major cases that you have reviewed. Can you approximate how many cases of autopsies you have reviewed that were performed by others?
Umm, I--over the years there would be many hundreds, thousands of autopsies--just autopsies, not the remains?
When I was medical examiner commonly there would be eight autopsies going on at a time and commonly review thousands of autopsies each year that other doctors did.
Are you frequently called upon, as a consultant, to review findings of others in the field of medical examination relating to death?
And as a result of those investigations is it more common to be called as a witness or more common not to be called as a witness?
It is more common, once I have given my opinions and reviewed, not to be called as a witness.
And in fact, is it not--is it more common that you do not agree with the side that called you to do the investigation?
It is more common that I would disagree with some significant aspect of the theory of whichever side has asked me to review the case, so it is more common for me to disagree than to be in agreement.
How many times have you testified as an expert--as an expert witness in your field, approximately, again?
Many hundreds of times, maybe a thousand. Counting grand juries it would be well over a thousand times, many hundreds of times.
Now, you have told us that the majority of your work has been work for governmental agencies. Does that mean that primarily you are called by Prosecutors to render testimony?
Yeah. My work principally is working, as most medical examiners do, work for a governmental agency, either the city or the state, and in that regard, in all of my official work, I would be called by the Prosecutor's office, but in my private capacity not the same.
Regarding cases that you have been called to testify by Prosecutors, could you give the jury some highlights of cases that you have participated in as a witness for the Prosecution?
Yes. I--I was recently a witness for the Prosecution--for a Prosecutor of Jackson, Mississippi, in the reinvestigation of the death of Medgar Evers who had been a civil rights leader who had been killed in 1963, shortly before Robert Kennedy was shot, the same year, and 29 years later we were able to exhume the body to learn information and that lead to trial last year, went to trial and a result thirty years later last year in--31 years later.
Any other cases that would be highlight cases outside of the County of Los Angeles that you have testified for the Prosecution?
Umm, yes. I have been a witness for the Prosecutor's office in Detroit recently, in Detroit, Michigan, in a case in which a young man, Malice Greene, died by being subdued by police, and there was an issue of whether he died because of police action or because of cocaine drug use, and I was an expert for the Prosecutor in that area. I have been an expert for the Prosecutor in Lancaster County and a number of times in Pennsylvania exhuming--just exhumed the body of a child that has been dead for some ten or fifteen years with a case of possible child abuse, and the body has just been exhumed and the Prosecutor--further investigation is being done in that regard. So medical examiners commonly deal with bodies that have--deaths have occurred some time before.
Regarding the County of Los Angeles, have you been contacted by Prosecutors from the District Attorney's office of the County of Los Angeles in the past?
And would you share with the ladies and gentlemen of the jury highlight cases that you have been contacted to investigate on behalf of the People of the County of Los Angeles by the District Attorney's office?
Yes. I think the first contact was in the death of John Belushi in the early 1980's where I was an expert for the District Attorney's office in Los Angeles, testified in the grand jury, testified at the trial, relative to the cause of Mr. Belushi's death, because there were drugs on board and a criminal trial resulted in which I testified for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.
He is still there and he's a wonderful District Attorney. As I understand, yes, he is still with the District Attorney's office.
Yes, yes, Michael Montagna. And then around the same time I was involved in the investigation, reautopsy of a death of a young athlete, a football player in Los Angeles County, Ron Settles, who died in a police precinct in Signal Hill. He had been a well-known football star at the university, and initially I was called by the attorney for the family, Mr. Cochran, Johnnie Cochran, this was back in 1983, and later on was taken on also as an expert in the reautopsy and exhumation by the District Attorney in Los Angeles County whose name was Mr. Gil Garcetti.
He was one of the assistant District Attorneys, and various physician--physicians present who came--I was at that time on sabbatical--on a leave of absence from New York City, and I was working in Suffolk County and I and Dr. Weinberg, the chief medical examiner, did the autopsy and Dr. Tom Noguchi, who was at that time the chief medical examiner in Los Angeles, came representing the People of Los Angeles, and Dr. Werner Spitz, whose book has been brought forth by Mr. Kelberg, was the expert who was hired by the Signal Hill Police Department or PBA. And so all of us, some fifteen years--twelve years ago, were in a little autopsy room for about two days and resolved the issue that in my opinion that Mr. Settles had not died of suicidal hanging, as was initially thought, but that he died at the hands of another.
And did Mr. Garcetti testify in a deposition as to the quality of your performance on behalf of the District Attorney?
And to your knowledge was he asked questions about your competence and capabilities?
More recently have you been called upon by the Los Angeles District Attorney in the last five or six years to offer testimony and consultation regarding any high-profile homicide case?
Would you explain to the ladies and gentlemen the circumstances and the case involved.
There is about six years--it started about six years ago where a Dr. Boggs, B-O-G-G-S, was involved with the death of a person in his office in Glendale. And because of the investigation of Detective Perkins of Glendale, a scheme arose whereby three persons were thought by the Prosecutor--by the detectives to have engaged in a complicated scheme to insure each other for one and a half million dollars and then have a dead body--or kill somebody--misidentified and collect the proceeds. And this happened with one body, and in the investigation by the police department it turned out that the person had been misidentified. And I came down to review the autopsy findings. I was asked by the District Attorney's office of Los Angeles to come to Los Angeles to go to the medical examiner's office to review the cause of death, because the cause of death was listed as a heart attack of some type, and that didn't make sense with the history that was obtained. So I reviewed it and went over the record. It was my opinion that this young man had been suffocated, died of homicidal suffocation. A trial was held back about five, six years ago. Dr. Boggs was convicted and recently the--
How did you come to get involved in the consultation and later testimony for the District Attorney's office regarding the Prosecution of Dr. Boggs?
Move to strike, your Honor, calling for hearsay, lack of foundation or speculation.
Sustained. Rephrase the question. I think that the fact that he was contacted by the District Attorney to offer testimony in a case speaks for itself.
Well, I appreciate that, your Honor, but I think it becomes very significant if we could approach.
While you have been working on the O.J. Simpson case have you been called to testify in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office in this very building on this very floor?
Yes. After Dr. Boggs was convicted, the two other associates were--disappeared and were hard to find and the District Attorney's office and the police department did find them in the past year or two, one through the Oprah Winfrey program in Sardinia, where he had gone with a lot of money from the initial insurance scam, and they were brought back here and brought to trial in this building in a courtroom down the hall in the past two months or so, and they have been on trial and the trial just ended last week. The trial ended and a verdict just came back on that.
Yes. There was testimony from a Coroner who had done the autopsy again in Los Angeles and then--and I testified twice actually in that case on direct and on rebuttal in that case.
Mr. Albert MacKinzie, also a terrific District Attorney in Los Angeles District Attorney's office.
Now, was that done as part of your outside practice away from your paid position with the State of New York?
And do you charge the same rates to Prosecutors and to the District Attorney's office as you do to private clients like myself who retain your services for consultation and evaluation?
Yes. That I will be paid $1500 a day--I will charge $1500 a day plus whatever the expenses are.
And that is the same whether or not you are called by the L.A. District Attorney or you are called by myself?
I was called by you around midnight on June 14th of last year. I received a call, a telephone call while I was in New York City.
I think I arrived on the 16th. May I just check my notes? On the--June 16th I arrived in Los Angeles.
And were your services offered to the Los Angeles Police Department to aid them in their investigation?
Your Honor, may I approach the witness, please? We have a copy of a letter that was sent to Detective Vannatter.
I object on relevancy and 352. The letter is from Mr. Shapiro offering whatever services he may wish to offer. This does not go to either qualifications or lack of bias at all. It goes to merely a tactic by Mr. Shapiro on behalf of the Defendant and therefore its probative value is clearly outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect. We don't know what Mr. Shapiro's motives were. Mr. Shapiro may well have realized that they would never accept such an offer and in fact we then would have to put Mr. Shapiro on the stand for cross-examination. He may well have done this as a tactical matter to try and gain advantage in the event Mr. Simpson were charged and Dr. Baden were a witness and Dr. Baden can then be made to be the neutral objective individual, because after all, he offered his services in this case to the Prosecution to help solve this case. So this is not an offer from Dr. Baden. This is in fact a potential tactical decision by the lawyer for Mr. Simpson. So I urge the Court under 352 that its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. It is clear that Dr. Baden has worked for the Prosecution in cases, including our office. He has worked for the Defense in cases. This does not add to his appearance and objectivity.
Your Honor, I think everyone would agree that at the same time this letter was sent, another letter was sent as a result of the same meeting which would show our sincerity in this endeavor where we offered that O.J. Simpson take a lie detector test and that the results be admissible in the courtroom. That was also turned down and I think that is an absolute demonstration of our good faith in this regard. Also, but this goes--what this goes to demonstrate is not so much qualifications, but one of the issues I must, if your Honor rules in favor of Mr. Kelberg that we shouldn't go into this on bias--
--that we shouldn't go into this on bias, is that Dr. Baden has spent a tremendous amount of time out here on this case and part of it was at the insistence of Mr. Simpson, that he cooperate with the police so that they could in fact do everything that is humanly possible to find out who the real killers were in this case, and to aid them with the finest investigators in the country. And so a lot of the expense that may be used as impeachment went to this purpose and that is the reason for this line of inquiry.
All right. I'm going to sustain the objection to this letter because it includes references to polygraph.
What I'm going to suggest--my recollection, Mr. Shapiro, is that during the course of your cross-examination of Detective Lange that he was asked did the Defense offer to--
So this matter is already in the record, that the services of Dr. Baden were offered to the police department. That is already--and it is not disputed. My concern here is that Dr. Baden says my understanding is that his services were offered. He doesn't have personal knowledge.
He is very well aware of it. We discussed this and I asked him specifically whether or not he would cooperate and he said Dr. Lakshmanan, he calls him Lucky, was a student of mine, I would be more than glad to come in and help them in any way. Dr. Lee said would he open his laboratory to the LAPD.
All right, all right. Hold on. So you can bring out the fact that he was willing to cooperate with Dr. Lakshmanan, he had no difficulty, but given his answer, I mean, you can go into that.
May I point out, your Honor, that this is after the autopsies have been completed. I also understand from Miss Clark that Mr. Shapiro's reference with respect to the polygraph letter is not accurate. I know you have a one attorney one witness rule. I am not in a response to respond to that, but Miss Clark advises me--
I am indicating that this letter will not be used in front of the jury but you can ask questions around the area.
Dr. Baden, were you willing to continue with the Los Angeles County corner in their investigation?
And did you make a request to review the bodies of the decedents, Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson?
No, because when I arrived on the 16th the bodies had been released to the families.
Were there limitations placed on what you could and could not do in what you felt was necessary for a complete and thorough examination?
Well, I was able to see photographs of the remains. I was not able to discuss the findings with the medical examiners involved in the autopsy. I was not able to see the remains.
KEY QUOTEWas your request to see the remains done prior to the time that Nicole Simpson was buried and laid to rest?
Now, regarding your participation as a consultant in this case, were you asked to do a complete and thorough comprehensive examination?
I have done it to the best of my abilities and best of what was available to me to review.
Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury approximately how many days you have spent on this case in California alone?
And were you also present during the eight-day direct examination of Dr. Lakshmanan?
Were you able to--did you follow and listen to all of his testimony in this case?
In addition to those times, what other times have you spent generally in preparing for your evaluation and opinions in this case?
Well, I spent time when--with Dr. Lee on arriving in Los Angeles immediately the--the next morning examined Mr. Simpson for any forensic evidence, any injuries, any medical or scientific findings that might aid in the evaluation of what happened and how it happened. I did spend time in the Coroner's office with Dr. Lakshmanan reviewing records and photographs. I did spend time in the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory with Dr. Kestler and others reviewing evidence. I did make a few trips and examinations of the crime scene at the Bundy location and at evaluation and examination at Mr. Simpson's home in Rockingham. I did review evidence that was sent to Albany Medical Center for review in February of this year. Much of the evidence was made available to the forensic scientists for the Defense for review. I did visit the crime laboratory in March of `95 in Los Angeles to review additional materials. And in addition to that, I participated in many, many conferences in Los Angeles with you and Mr. Cochran and associates in reviewing and going over and trying to interpret the medical and the scientific evidence that I would have knowledge of, and interpret it in the light of questions that lawyers have and other information that was being gathered and developed by Dr. Lee and others. And I spent hundreds of hours on the telephone with you from New York City over the time reviewing evidences and materials.
We have spent a lot of time reviewing books, authorities, reviewing the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan and other testimonies that--that forensic pathologists would have input into or have some knowledge of.
Have you reviewed every note, memorandum and report done by the L.A. County Coroner's office regarding the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson?
Have you reviewed every photograph taken by the Los Angeles County Coroner's office of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson?
Have you reviewed every photograph taken by the Los Angeles Police Department of the crime scene at Bundy and of O.J. Simpson's residence?
Have you reviewed investigative reports from personnel of the Los Angeles County Coroner's office?
And do you feel that you are qualified to make an opinion as to the findings of the Los Angeles County Coroner's office as to whether or not you agree or disagree with those?
Yes, I feel that I have opinions and am sufficiently informed to be able to make opinions relative to findings of the Los Angeles Coroner's office.
And do you feel that you have had enough information, enough time and enough data to make your opinion available to this jury regarding evidence that you have qualifications as a forensic pathologist to do?
Were you instructed--well, strike that. When you--did you, in your initial observations at the Coroner's office, find any errors or omissions that were significant and important regarding Nicole Simpson and any injuries she might have suffered that were not listed in the autopsy report.
Where were you able to do this, what was the date, time and circumstances surrounding it?
On June 22nd, 1994, I was authorized to visit with Dr. Barbara Wolf, Dr. Lakshmanan in the Coroner's office, and he graciously made all of the information that he had available, available for us to review, which included not only the photographs, but also, umm, the tissue sample that had been retained from the autopsy, which is normally done in--when autopsy is done, some tissue is retained from the different organs for possible further study under the microscope and these are kept in formaldehyde type solution. We were able to review those tissues that were saved in formaldehyde and we were able to review all of the fluids and tissues that were saved for possible toxicological examination and for examination for drugs. Umm--
Let me interrupt you for a second here and get right to the point. Did you find any evidence regarding any injury to the head area of Nicole Brown Simpson that was not previously recorded or found by the Los Angeles County Coroner's office?
Excuse me. I will move to strike, calling for speculation and compound as to the term "Found" versus "Recorded."
Changing the word "Found" to "Recorded," were you able to discover any omissions that were not recorded by the Coroner's office regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?
In reviewing the tissues that had been saved, the small blocks of tissue, Dr. Wolf and I found a bruise to the brain, a--damage to the brain from some blunt force that had not been recorded.
Because it indicated that Miss Simpson had suffered a blow to the head that caused brain damage and that is significant to a forensic pathologist.
Did you find anything in the area of the neck area relating to the thyroid that had been overlooked?
I'm sorry, your Honor. I'm going to move to strike "Overlooked" again calling for speculation. If the term is "Recorded" I have no objection.
Yes, the--in the course of the autopsy Dr. Golden had preserved a portion of the Adam's apple and windpipe which is the area that is included with the Adam's apple, the Adam's apple area, and on examining that organ that was retained in the formaldehyde, we again found a cut through one of the horns, one of the areas of the Adam's apple that had not been recorded.
Dr. Lakshmanan also made available to us the clothing for examination of both Miss Simpson and Mr. Goldman that were still in the possession of the Coroner's office and we found that there were some mold on Mr. Goldman's shirt, which indicated a growth of mold during that ten-day period. Otherwise we found evidences of stab wounds and trace evidences of blood and material that was present on the clothing that we left for the criminalists to review further.
No. The mold was not present at the time of the deaths on June 13th and had grown there during the ten-day period of time having to do with the conditions under which the shirts were stored. We try to--medical examiners try to preserve clothing so that mold does not grow, and if there is moisture and if the clothing isn't preserved properly, mold can grow and interfere with the proper evaluation of the clothing.
You mentioned that in addition to visiting the Coroner's office in Los Angeles, you also visited the Los Angeles Police Department evidence collection room?
Would you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you were allowed and not allowed to do during that examination.
Yes. We were authorized--you had obtained authorization for Dr. Wolf and I to review the evidence that had been collected up to that point by the Los Angeles Police Department and, umm, we were allowed to look at the evidence, but not to touch or photograph it, and in the presence of I think Miss Kestler, Detective Vannatter and others.
Did Miss Kestler provide to you items of evidence for your examination and review that were a pair of dark-colored men's socks?
In my recollection it was put on some paper to keep it clean and all for examination, yes.
Umm, the frames were intact, but the lenses were loose. They had come out of the--the frame, so I saw two intact lenses together with the intact frames, but they were--the lenses were separate in the same envelope.
There was what appeared--maroon material that suggested that there was blood that was on--dried on one of the frames.
For the purposes of your testimony today, in reviewing the crime scene, in reviewing the findings of the medical examiner, and offering your opinions to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you feel that you need to have the photographs of the autopsy to give your conclusions?
All right. Let's take our mid-morning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you, ladies and gentlemen. We will be in recess for fifteen. Doctor, you can step down.
My opinion is that a medical examiner, chief, has to be an independent finder of scientific facts and truths, regardless of where those findings lead. We speak as much for the Defendant as for the Prosecutor.
The least important thing that a medical examiner does is determine the cause of death in 95 percent of the cases, because in 95 percent of homicides there is blood coming out of the skin and the police are super at tracing the blood back to the home, the body, and determining if it is a gunshot wound or a stab wound or a baseball bat.
The investigation of unnatural death in this country is really a national disgrace, that most jurisdictions, untrained people investigate homicide and accidents and suicides.
I was able to see photographs of the remains. I was not able to discuss the findings with the medical examiners involved in the autopsy. I was not able to see the remains.
In the mid-seventies, I guess, 1977, '78, around that time, Dr. Lakshmanan did what I had done ten years earlier and he was kind of — he moonlighted — he was a pathology resident in one of the hospitals in New York City and he would do extra work in the medical examiner's office and under my supervision.