All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

Thank you, your Honor.

Doctor, yesterday, you were talking about--on direct examination, if I can find my--talking about Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony concerning, as he described it, a mottled area of ecchymosis along the right side of the back area of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you recall talking about that in your direct examination?

Yes, I do.

And, doctor, would it be accurate to say on your direct examination, you said, no. 1, in your opinion, that's not a shoeprint that is present there?

I said it's not an ecchymosis, it's not a bruise, no. 1. No. 2, it's not a shoeprint, but it's not even a bruise.

And you said in fact that it was lividity although you didn't use the term "Lividity." Isn't that what you said?

Well, I said it was a form of lividity. That is, the postmortem settling of blood in the way the body settles after death, the blood settles after death depending on what the body is lying on.

All right, doctor. Let me read to you from the real time transcript, page 9, and ask if this is what you said in response to Mr. Shapiro's question. Let me just put it in context on line 13. "Question: There was 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? "Answer: I disagree with that conclusion. "Question: And why do you disagree with that conclusion, sir?

"Answer: I disagree with that conclusion because there's nothing in the photograph 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 there's no injury in that area, and the little purple discoloration is that are present that were referred to when--on the boards as a shoeprint, in my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, is just the way blood settles after death and the variation is in how the body changes after death. "She had been lying 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." Was that your answer, sir?

Now, doctor, lividity is the settling of blood to dependent parts of the body, right, sir?

No. It isn't settling of blood. The blood doesn't move after death. What happens, Mr. Kelberg--let me--hear me out for a second.

Doctor, I'm listening, believe me.

The blood stays right where it is. The blood doesn't move after death. After the heart stops--and that's why the stab wounds in the lung are significant. After the heart stops, blood stops moving around the body. But the red blood cells settle down wherever they are just as in a blood bank when we give blood. When we give blood in a blood bank, the blood comes out all red. And after a few minutes, the red cells, which are about 50 percent, red cells, white cells, the platelets, then settle to the bottom by gravity. That's what happens after death. The blood settles. It doesn't move.

And, doctor, it settles in the dependent portions of the body, right?

It settles all over the body. All over the body when we die, the red cells settle down to the bottom of the blood vessel, and we see it in the dependent portion.

And dependent portion would be the portion which is lower?

Lowest to the ground, yes. Yes, sir.

And, doctor, if that finding that you see is lividity on her back and her body had been in that condition from roughly 10:15 or 10:30 until perhaps 10:30 the next morning when the body was moved by Coroner's representatives, you would expect to see this purplish discoloration on the part of her back which is the lowest part of the back, correct, sir?

Objection. Misstates the evidence.

Overruled.

Yeah. Just as you say, 12 hours later, 10:30 P.M. to 10:30 A.M., Miss Simpson's laying in one position, back up, the lividity would be toward the ground.

Your Honor, I'm going to have a photograph to display. Can we--

Your Honor, he's not finished. Has he finished the answer.

Comma, but when the body is moved--how's that? But when the body is moved, just as if you took the blood in the blood bank in the--in the--that's being donated, if you turn it upside down, the blood now goes the other way around. So when the body--and this is the problem with waiting so long after the body was found for the autopsy because they waited until the next day, once Miss Simpson's body is put on her back, different position now, brought to the medical examiner's office, put into the cold crypt where--for 24 hours and then during that time, the picture's taken, the lividity shifts. It's a shifting of the lividity. So now we see mottling on the back when it wasn't mottling on the back at the scene.

Doctor, you have previously written that lividity becomes fixed within eight to 10 hours, haven't you, sir?

In about that time, lividity becomes fixed, yes.

And if--

But it vary--all these things are variable.

And if her body was not moved for 12 hours, wouldn't you expect it more likely that whatever is seen in the form of purplish discoloration in an area of the body which had been a dependent portion at the time the body was moved reflected fixed lividity?

Uh, no. When the body is moved--may I just explain? The fixed lividity part of it is, after about eight or 12 hours, the blood vessels start breaking and the blood seeps out of the blood vessels and that--so now that part of it is fixed. It doesn't move around when it shifts. But if the body is put on its back, a secondary lividity develops in time. And I think what we see on Miss Simpson is a secondary lividity consistent with the position she lay in for a long time in the Coroner's office before the photograph was taken.

Now, your Honor, I would like to use the photographs. So I think you need to cut the feed.

Mr. Bancroft.

Yes, your Honor.

Thank you.

By the way, doctor, did you review the testimony of Mr. Bodziak, the FBI criminalist who testified regarding a shoeprint impression in that area of the back that you claim does not show a shoeprint impression?

I didn't review his testimony, but I did ask this morning Mr. Blasier to see if he could pull it up on his little monitor there, and I read a paragraph from it this morning.

Doctor, do you consider yourself a pattern injury analyst with the same kind of background and experience and expertise as Mr. Bodziak?

Objection. Compound.

Overruled.

No. I considered myself a different kind of pattern injury expert. I would claim expertise on patterns on skin, and I think Mr. Bodziak was in error in his transcript that I read when he referred to some discoloration on the skin as an ecchymosis. An ecchymosis is a bruise in which--due to a blow. There is no bruise due to a blow on the back of Miss Simpson as Dr. Golden clearly states and as the photos show.

Now, first of all, Dr. Lakshmanan said it was a bruise. Isn't that what he said?

If he did say that, I think he's wrong.

Well, you were here for that testimony, weren't you, doctor?

I was here, yes, but I just don't remember specifics.

And if he used--

To the extent that Mr.--that Dr. Lakshmanan--who I have a great deal of respect for. But to the extent that Dr. Lakshmanan says that there's a bruise and an injury to Miss Simpson's back, to that extent, I disagree with that.

Your Honor, I'm going to put up 354.

Your Honor, may I walk through?

Yes.

And perhaps, doctor, could you step down?

May I come up?

You may.

And may I borrow the pointer, your Honor?

You may. Mr. Kelberg, make sure that Dr. Baden's voice can be heard by the court reporter the way you have it situated.

I will, your Honor.

Dr. Baden, showing you from this exhibit CS11, do you see the picture showing the body of Nicole Brown Simpson as it was found by the police?

Is this working? No.

I think you just have to keep your voice up.

Keep your voice up.

Uh, yes, I do.

And likewise--likewise, CS12?

Yes.

Now, doctor, the area that's in question regarding this mottled ecchymosis for lividity is the area along--just under the dress in the area of the right side of the back, is that correct, where I'm pointing now?

Yes.

And you would agree, would you not, sir, that this is not the dependent portion of Miss Brown's Simpson's body for the purposes of blood settling lividity showing, correct, sir?

That's correct. As the body lays.

And, sir, looking at the photograph CS11, would you agree that the left side of Miss Brown Simpson's face is the dependent portion of her face which is in that photograph?

Yes.

And that would be the area also where you would expect to see the lividity as this settling process occurs correct, sir?

Yes. To the areas that aren't pressed out by being against the floor. That is, lividity can't develop where there's compression of the skin because compression squeezes out the blood and that would lead to a paleness. There has to be blood in the area to settle.

Now, sir, if in fact your opinion--well, let me withdraw the question. Is it your opinion--are you saying to a reasonable medical certainty, sir, that at the time Miss Brown Simpson's body was moved by Coroner's representative, the lividity was not fixed after this 12-hour period?

Umm, what I'm saying is that there's a variation to all of these findings. That's why we don't have a good time clock as for how long somebody's been dead. But after 12 hours, in most people, there would be a fixed lividity in the position that's lowest to the ground as you're showing here.

My question to you, doctor, was, are you saying to a reasonable medical certainty that the lividity 12 hours after the murders was not fixed in the position that Nicole Brown Simpson's body is seen in CS11 and CS12 when the representatives from the Coroner's office moved the body?

We can't see the lividity. The lividity is always in the place in the body you can't see because it's always downmost. My recollection is that when the Coroner's representatives moved the body, they said the lividity was fixed, so that when they turned the body over, they would have seen underneath it lividity, redness or purpleness that, if they pressed on it with the finger, it wouldn't go away. But I would assume that's what happened. But--as I recollect.

And if that were the situation, are you saying then, based on that and your knowledge of the process for lividity becoming fixed, that 12 hours after the murder, to a reasonable medical certainty, you believe the lividity was fixed in the positions represented by the body as seen in CS11 and CS12, sir?

No. What I'm saying, in most people, it would be fixed. I think in Miss Simpson, if I recollect correctly from the Coroner's notes when he went to the scene, doesn't Miss Ratcliffe also say it's fixed? I believe so. Under those circumstances, yes, I would agree that it was fixed.

And if it's fixed, doctor, then you would not expect to see lividity in this area that we've been talking about, the upper--I'm sorry--the right side of the back below the dress, correct, sir?

That's correct. The lividity would be on the bottom, not the top in this position. The problem is, she's now moved into a different position.

But if the lividity is fixed, sir, it will not cause a shifting of the coloration as there can occur if the lividity is not fixed; isn't that correct, sir?

No. That's absolutely wrong. That's the problem. When the body is moved, there's fixed lividity in one spot and then a secondary lividity comes up in the other spot. A secondary lividity will always develop if the body is left in the new position long enough as Miss Simpson being put on her back and kept for the next day--the autopsy wasn't done promptly. It was a day later. All that time, she's lying on her back to the opposite--the other way, and a secondary lividity will develop.

Doctor, isn't one way that lividity is used to help people solve crimes, the process that until lividity becomes fixed, if the body gets moved so that--let me use myself as an example. If I were found laying on my back and I had been in a different position when I had been killed, such as on my stomach, if I had been kept on my stomach for 12 hours or more, you would expect to see lividity on my stomach, correct, sir?

The way you're putting it, that is, if you were to die on your stomach and 12 or 15 hours later, I come along and I take you and move you to the rooftop and put you on your back, a good detective or District Attorney like yourself would come in and say, hey, there's lividity on the front of the body because that's fixed. Therefore, that person had to die face down. You're absolutely right. And the body has been moved. But it doesn't work the other way. The lividity stays on the bottom, but--on the front of the body, but it now will develop on the back if you aren't found for 12 or 24 hours. Then you get lividity on both sides. But still, it shouldn't be present on the front. And that's where the detective people get involved. Should not be present on the front.

Now, doctor, let me show you from our board 355, the area in question is on photograph b--and I think you're going to have perhaps step around so the jurors can see. The area in question that we were looking at from the crime scene is this area where I'm circling on B9, correct, sir (Indicating)?

Yes, sir.

And, sir, your opinion is that's secondary lividity?

Yes, sir. Absolutely.

And so if the body were on the back, you would expect to see that lividity across the back, wouldn't you, sir?

It depends how the body is laying. You see, Miss Simpson lay on her back in her dress, and the dress in transport got torn, so that the--the part of the dress in the back is now in a different position than it was at the scene. She is laying on her back. She's laying on wrinkled clothing. Also, for the purposes of the photograph at least, there's something propping up her back right in that area in order to take the photograph. Something is propping or some kind of an object is tilting Miss Simpson over so--for the camera purposes. Taking all that into account, there are many different kinds of imprints and settling of blood that can happen in the 24 hours after she's moved. And the bottom line is, when Dr. Golden and all the people who were there doing the autopsy looked at the back, they specifically say there's no bruise there, there's no injury there.

That answer is stricken.

I'm sorry, your Honor.

The jury is to disregard. Did you call Dr. Golden?

No, I did not.

Next question.

Thank you, your Honor.

Dr. Baden, let me show you from board 352--and in particular, photograph CS13, a facial shot of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you see that, sir?

Yes.

And is there lividity on the face of Nicole Brown Simpson, sir?

Not in these photos. You see there's a little bit of redness around the lip. But part of the problem with photographs--and that's why it's important to be doing the autopsy--is, there's no lividity on Miss Simpson that's much--identifiable. And that has to do with cameras and flashes and how the film is developed and things like that. But she looks rather pale and she has some lividity around the left side of her mouth and lip. I can't tell if the lack of lividity is due to the fact that she had a pressure point on the cheek, so there's no blood, or whether it's the camera. But she had some settling of the blood.

Doctor, where you see what appear to be lividity is particularly consistent with how her face is found in the photograph CS11 and CS12; is it not, sir?

Well, there's not much of it. You see, normally, if she's laying face down, you get a whole purple color to that side of the face, and that's not really present there.

You don't believe there's a whole purple color on the whole side of Nicole Brown Simpson's left side of the face?

I think there's some around the lip area. A little bit. A little bit. It's hard--a little bit.

Well, doctor, if in fact that is lividity found where you would expect to find it given how her body was found at the crime scene, wouldn't you agree that it makes it far less likely that what you say is lividity that is seen in an area that was not a dependent part of the body as the body lay at the crime scene is simply wrong?

No. I disagree. I think what we're looking at in the back is a secondary lividity. It didn't happen at the scene. It happened while she was on her back in the Coroner's office for 24 hours or so.

Doctor, did you ever see these photographs that were used during the course of Mr. Bodziak's testimony, 399?

No, I did not.

And, sir, I gather then whatever paragraph you may have read of Mr. Bodziak's testimony did not include his analysis that he did as he used these photographs in his testimony?

Mr. Kelberg, you're going to have to move--

I know. I'm trying to--

Mr. Lynch, would you assist Mr. Kelberg?

Thank you, your Honor. And I apologize.

I did not read that testimony. But to the extent that it's based on his interpretation that those are bruises, he's wrong.

And Dr. Lakshmanan's wrong?

Yes. Dr.--we're looking at the same photos, and Dr. Golden in this instance is correct.

Now, you say Dr. Golden specifically said there was no bruising in that area of the body; is that--

As I recall, he said there's no injury. Injury includes bullet wounds, stab wounds, cut wounds, bruises, ecchymosis, black and blue marks, all included in the term "Injury."

Mr. Kelberg, can he resume the witness stand, please?

Yes. I think so. And then I'll--

Thank you. Sorry.

All right. Both of you take a deep breath and slow down.

I'm trying to get him out of here by noon, your Honor.

Thank you, sir.

Proceed.

Thank you, your Honor. May I approach?

We'll break at 10:30.

Doctor, let me show you from page 3 of Dr. Golden's autopsy report on Nicole Brown Simpson--

I forget the exhibit number. I'm sorry, your Honor, but I think it will be self-evident from a review of the transcript.

We've seen several pictures of it.

Yes, sir.

And in that, he is describing: "No recent traumatic injuries are noted on the chest or abdomen, tan lines are seen on the lower abdomen, bathing suit, the genitalia are that of adult female with no gross evidence of injuries, examination of the posterior surface of the trunk--" and that's what we're talking about, correct, sir?

Yes, sir.

"Of the posterior surface of the trunk shows some excoriations compatible with postmortem injuries on the upper back, right side, on the medial aspect of the right scapula and on the lateral aspect of the right scapula compatible with that of insect bites." And then he goes to talk about the scapula, and he says: "Otherwise, the lower back and the remainder of the posterior aspect of the body shows no evidence of recent injury." That's what you're referring to, correct?

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

And in reviewing Dr. Golden's autopsy protocol, did you find that Dr. Lakshmanan did, that there were numerous errors as to findings and omissions?

Uh, I don't--I didn't find as many errors as--I don't consider the errors the same as Dr. Lakshmanan did. I think the errors were different kinds of errors, not responding to the scene in a timely fashion, et cetera. But I don't consider a 16th of an inch difference on a stab wound an error.

Well, sir, did you find from listening through the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan that Dr. Golden failed to record a number of injuries that were in fact documented by photographs?

Yes. Minor injury--minor nature I think.

Well, sir, if he failed to do that, isn't it also reasonable to infer that his recitation of no recent trauma to the posterior trunk may in fact be another mistake that he made?

No. I don't think it's fair to infer that. It doesn't look like a bruise to me.

May I have just a moment, your Honor?

Doctor, you said something about the dress of Nicole Brown Simpson being torn during transport?

The dress was torn between the crime scene and its collection at the Coroner's office, yes.

Well, sir, what is your source of information for that?

When Dr. Wolf and I examined the dress in the Coroner's office, the--the catch, what do you call it, the place where the straps are--come together was torn.

Did you review Detective Lange's testimony that he gave earlier in this trial regarding the condition of the dress?

No.

If he testified to this jury that the dress was already torn at the crime scene, that would be inconsistent with your understanding of how the circumstances occurred for that dress to be torn, correct, sir?

No. Because the photographs that you just showed show the clasp--I'm sorry. I forget words. The clasp on the dress in the photos you showed is intact. When we examined the dress at the Coroner's office, the clasp was torn. Now, I--that's the only part of the dress I'm referring to.

All right. You're not referring to the rip in the zipper area?

No. No. I'm just referring to the clasp. And the reason the clasp is important, because that can kind of come down to the back area, and if she lay on the back area, that could cause indentations or marks. And there were other marks on the back, you know, indentation marks that you showed to me.

Doctor, yesterday, you also were asked questions by Mr. Shapiro regarding contusions, the brain contusion in particular. Do you recall that testimony, doctor?

Yes, Mr. Kelberg.

And you were asked by Mr. Shapiro on page 13--I'm sorry--page 14 of the real time transcript, question beginning on line 10: "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?" And your answer was: "That's correct."

Yes. I agree with that.

And so this is an area where you would not want to give a possibility opinion because it would be, in your opinion, speculative and misleading to the jury to do so because you could not offer an opinion to a reasonable medical certainty; isn't that correct?

No. Not quite. What I tried to say was that that brain contusion in and of itself doesn't tell us whether somebody loses consciousness or not--consciousness or not. There's a bruise to the head. If in conjunction with other evidence at the scene, there's evidence that the person lost consciousness, then that could be a reason for it. At the same time, if we knew what part of the brain that bruise was, we'd have a better sense of whether it was near a vital structure or not. And we don't know that because it was not observed at the time of the--of the autopsy.

There is an addendum in which Dr. Golden identifies the area that he removed from the brain where that bruise was seen; isn't that correct, sir?

Yeah, but that's--that's not reliable I think because he didn't--he thinks he remember--see, he didn't remember it the time he dictated. And then what, 10 days later or 20 days later, when it's pointed out to him, he says, well, I have a recollection it was from the right side of the--that's possible, but it's either right side or left side. So, you know, it's 50 percent accuracy.

Doctor, does that reflect that Dr. Golden did an excellent job at the autopsy?

No. I didn't say--he didn't do an excellent job, no. He--there are a number of deficiencies, but I--I think that not everything he observed is wrong, Mr. Kelberg.

Now, doctor, so you did say that you could not offer an opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether or not the contusion to the brain that is seen in that photograph, which we can bring out if needed, would cause unconsciousness for Nicole Brown Simpson?

That's correct, yes.

But you also were asked earlier by Mr. Shapiro the following; were you not? And let me get the page number. 8, starting on line 17: "Question: So is it your opinion, doctor, that the contusion you discovered in the tissue at the Coroner's office of Nicole Brown Simpson's part of the brain, that that 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 the neck at the time that she forcefully bled from the carotid artery, that--" and I can't make it out. The word appears to be "That were automatic." "--would indicate there was not unconscious on the ground, but at least somewhat higher here." You were referring to the position of her head vis-à-vis the time when the last incise stab wound was inflicted to the neck. Isn't that what you wear talking about, the position of the head?

Yes.

That position of the head has nothing whatsoever to do with at the time she's in that position you believe she was in, she was conscious or unconscious, does it, doctor?

It does have a bearing on it because if she had lost consciousness and was unconscious lying on the ground--and then we had a visual image, an awful image of the perpetrator coming over, grabbing her hair from behind and cutting her throat while on the ground--that would be consistent--that would be indicative if she was unconscious lying on the ground. But then the blood on the steps wouldn't match. Her neck had to be--Miss Simpson--higher up than lying on the ground. And if her neck were higher up, if she were bent over or if she went on her knees or if she was struggling, that would indicate that she was conscious. So that's how I was trying to correlate, the bruise on the brain would be more consistent with unconsciousness if she was lying flat when the last cut was given to her neck. In my opinion, when the last cut was given, she was higher up, and that indicates she was not conscious.

Doctor, is it your understanding that a dog went through--

That--that she was--that she was conscious--that she was conscious. I'm sorry.

Is it your understanding that a dog may have come through the crime scene and contaminated the pattern of blood that may have existed at the time the killings occurred?

Objection, your Honor. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

Sustained.

Doctor, a person could be unconscious and laying on the steps at the same time; isn't that correct?

In general. A person could be, yes.

And unconsciousness doesn't mean that there's no blood pressure, does it, sir?

No, no. You could have blood pressure and be unconscious. Certainly.

And do you recall Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony regarding that last fatal stab incised wound that he thought it significant that there were no additional cuts along the margin of the wound, indicating that Nicole Brown Simpson was incapacitated at the time that that injury was inflicted because if she were not, you would expect her to struggle in some fashion to avoid the obvious consequences of that injury being inflicted. Do you recall that testimony?

I recall that testimony. I think it's just wrong. That's wrong. Most homicidal cut wounds to the neck are single slices or double slices without any kind of marks around it. I mean the usual homicidal cut wound to the neck is--with struggle is just a slice in the neck and it's--

Well, doctor, how many--

And you don't get hesitation wounds around homicidal cut wound marks.

Doctor, how many of those--first of all, do you rely on any study of unconscious people who are killed by sharp force injuries to support your opinion?

Mr. Kelberg, as a forensic pathologist, I have to include all of what I know, my training, my experience, my--what--my reading. Not every--human beings are not able to be studied like worms or something. We can't do controlled studies of feeding somebody and then killing them--of a human. We can't do controlled studies of cutting people's necks. This is my experience as a forensic pathologist. And I don't think anybody's done--necessarily done a study, but certainly there's been lots of papers written about multiple cut wounds in suicides. But I--I know of none that say there's multiple cut wounds in a homicide when the person struggles.

In a suicide, the person is going to be conscious in order to inflict the wound, right?

Yeah, but it's a different mindset. The person is conscious, yes, and is gradually getting up nerve to make the fatal cut. So there are hesitation wounds. But there are no hesitation wounds in homicides in the normal course.

Your Honor, I was going to move to a different area. Does the Court wish to take a recess?

Let's do that. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid morning recess at this time. Remember all of my admonitions to you. We'll take about 15 minutes. Dr. Baden, you can step down. Let me see counsel without the court reporter.