All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel, that Dr. Michael Baden is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Kelberg. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your cross-examination.
I'm going to do my best, your Honor. Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen and Dr. Baden.
THE JURY: Good morning.
Dr. Baden, with the Court's permission, I would like you to step back to the easel.
And, doctor, you were talking yesterday about--you used the term "Cluster," did you not, to refer to four sharp force injuries to the left side of Nicole Brown Simpson's neck?
Are in fact the last two, if arbitrarily we say no. 1 is the one closest to the ear and no. 2 is the next one down towards the bottom of the photograph, no. 3 the one below that and no. 4 the one below that, are 3 and 4 oriented the same way, sir?
I can't tell without reapproximating the edges because I can't tell which side is sharp and which side is blunt or if both sides are sharp from that photograph alone.
Well, did you review Dr. Golden's autopsy report in which he describes the sharp and blunt ends?
If it will expedite matters--and you want to stand there for just a second? Thank you.
--of the autopsy report--again, I don't have the number--on to page 6. Doctor, is that the area of the report that deals with those stab wounds?
All right. When you say--doctor, let's start with item 4, injury 4, lower one of these four. Do you see that, doctor?
So from just left to right of the photograph, the blunt end is to the left side of the photograph, the sharp end is to the right side of photograph B18, correct, sir?
Now, if we go to the one above that, sir, we'll call it stab wound no. 3, how does Dr. Golden describe the sharp and blunt ends of stab wound no. 3?
Going toward the front of the neck, although this doesn't quite have the same--it doesn't look that way the way it is. However, I haven't seen it reapproximated, but he describes both sharp ends going toward the ear. And of course, if he had photographed it and done it the way Dr. Spitz suggests, then I can make an independent judgment. If you're asking me to adopt what Dr. Golden says, he describes both of these as--as--to go--the sharp end going towards the back.
And if his description is accurate, then those two stab wounds are oriented in the same direction; are they not?
Yes. Those two--if what he says is correct, those two are oriented in the same direction.
And incidentally, just in looking at the photograph, do you see what appears to be a sharp end with respect to stab wound no. 4, sir?
Does that mean that you appear to see a sharp end to the right side of stab wound no. 4?
I can't see it, but I'm trying to visua--I'm trying to visualize it with the skin reapproximated, and my sense of seeing stab wounds before is that if this were reapproximated, I think there'd be a sharp end toward the ear. It doesn't look that way to me with no. 3, but I can't--I will adopt what Dr. Golden says. Dr. Golden says both of these have dull ends to the front and sharp ends to the back.
And if that's the case, those two could be inflicted at basically the same time with Nicole Brown Simpson under some form of control; isn't that correct, sir?
There's no suggestion of control. There's just a suggestion of two rapid stab wounds that could be done rapidly with the lower one going much deeper than the upper one. They're going to different depths.
Doctor, isn't it of any signifi--is it of any significance to you, doctor, that you have two stab wounds close together and which are oriented in the same direction in assessing whether or not the victim was able to move at the time those wounds were inflicted?
Not from just two. I mean, in the course of a struggle, two stab wounds can be inflicted during motion. If all four were in the same spot, the same depth, the same orientation, it would be more of a--two don't make up a cluster.
Well, how about stab wound no. 2? In fact, that's an incise wound, isn't it, sir, because its depth--no. 2 is the small one, doctor.
Yeah. You can't say that it--that's an incise wound. That could be a tip of a knife going in.
By definition, an "Incise wound" is one where the injury on the skin surface is greater than the depth of the penetration; isn't that correct, sir?
If it's long enough. All puncture--what you're saying is, all puncture wounds with--with screwdrivers, with ice picks, according to your definition, would be--could be called incise wounds. No. I think this is a puncture, that it could be a cut or could be a stab.
It's a superficial wound, whatever you want to use as a term to describe it; isn't that correct, doctor?
He doesn't indicate how deep it goes, but it seems to be--doesn't go very deep. So you can't--it could be the tip of a knife.
And so from that, you can not tell which may be the sharp end and which may be the dull end for that particular injury, correct, sir?
Well, if it were reapproximated and the tip of a knife--some knives, you can tell a sharp and a blunt and some you can't because some knives come to a tip with a blunt edge and some knives come to a tip with both edges being sharp.
Now, doctor, you can not exclude, can you, to a reasonable medical certainty that injury 2 is in fact a stab wound inflicted with the knife in the same orientation as 3 and 4, can you, sir?
So it is consistent with the physical findings that you could have three of these stab wounds along that left side of the neck being in the same orientation with respect to the knife and the neck at the time each of them was inflicted, correct, sir?
Theoretically possible. But usually if a person is not moving, the idea of a controlled situation that you raise, if the person is not moving and the perpetrator and the victim staying the same position for the three stab wounds, then you'd expect them to be similar in width, they'd be--the knife would go in in similar depth in all three. The fact that all three are so different in size suggests that the weapon goes in, if it's the same weapon--it could be two different weapons--would go in at different depths, and that's against--that part of it would be against the control wound.
Doctor, did you examine all of the autopsy materials, including the photographs, to assess the kind of knife which could inflict each sharp force injury identified?
Doctor, are you telling this jury to a reasonable medical certainty that a single single-edged knife approximately six inches long tapering at the tip could not have caused all of the sharp force injuries seen in both Nicole Brown Simpson and in Ronald Goldman?
Objection to the form of that question to the word "Could." The doctor's already explained the meaning of that word.
Depending on the shape of the knife. A knife with certain kinds of characteristics that comes to--that's partly double edged and partly single edged could cause the injuries in both persons. However, there are lots of different kinds of knives that can cause it also. One can construct a knife that could accommodate all the different kinds of stab wounds, if what--if that's the question you're asking me.
Doctor, would a single-edged knife six inches long--you heard Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony, didn't you, about the kind of knife that in his opinion could have caused all of the sharp force injuries? Do you recall that testimony?
Well, what do you recall with respect to his opinion as to the kind of single-edged knife which could have caused all of the sharp force injuries received by Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?
I don't recall the specifics of what Dr. Lakshmanan said. Umm, I think he said that there was a single knife six inches long, single-edge could cause it. That's possible. That's possible.
All right. Doctor, my question to you is, in your opinion, are you saying to a reasonable medical certainty, that a single single-edged knife approximately six inches long with tapering at the tip and the width and depth of the blade as described by Dr. Lakshmanan could not have caused all of the sharp force injuries? Are you telling that to this jury?
Trying to understand your question. I think that a knife in a certain construction with certain kinds of double edges at the tip, at the distal one inch with double edge could conceivably cause those injuries, yes. Yes.
Doctor, are you saying that the kind of knife described by Dr. Lakshmanan, tapering at the tip, approximately six inches long, single edged with the other dimensions of width and depth as he described could not to a reasonable medical certainty have caused all of the sharp force injuries seen in the photographs and described in the autopsy reports?
What I'm trying to say, Mr. Kelberg, is, I don't recall the measurements that Dr. Lakshmanan gave. But what I'm saying is that a knife could be configured with a certain width, a certain thickness, a certain blunt edge, sharp edge, double edge in some--it has to be double edge in the distal portion of it--could be configured that could account for all of the different stab wounds and cut wounds.
Doctor, did you--you took copious notes, didn't you, of Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony?
Doctor, did you find from your review that this stab wound no. 4 could only have been inflicted with a single-edged knife, not a double-edged knife as Dr. Lakshmanan testified?
I can't say that because I don't--this kind of a stab wound, no. 4, could be inflicted by millions of different knives that are in existence, and if it were--the edges were approximated and a photograph were taken so that other--others could look at it--this is trust me. You're saying trust what somebody observed--yes, it's--it's possible that that's the way you say it. But I'd have to adopt and agree with things that were seen by other people that I can't see.
And if it's a blunt end and a sharp end, it can only be a single-edged knife; isn't that true, doctor?
Umm, probably. There are exceptions. But probably. And--but part of it also is how deep it went. See, in this side of the neck, the spine bones are very--are very--near the surface (Indicating), so that a stab wound that went into--if these are all the same knife, this goes in a lot deeper than the top two and it should have hit bone, it should have hit the cervical spine, and an x-ray would have been very valuable in making sure--the only way to know if--the knife it is is if the tip of the knife broke off in the spine, and that just wasn't done.
Doctor, did you find that the two chest wounds to Ronald Goldman were wounds which are consistent only with a single-edged knife as Dr. Lakshmanan also testified?
Umm, I'd have to look at that. I think that there were single and double and a blunt edge. So then it would be a single-edged knife.
All right. Doctor, before I move to that, I want to ask you if you agree with Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony that whether or not the stab wound no. 1, stab wound no. 3, stab wound no. 4 along the left neck of Nicole Brown Simpson, whether any one of those injuries actually struck the left carotid or left internal jugular vein, one would expect significant bleeding nevertheless just from the depth of those stab wounds as described by Dr. Golden in his report. Do you recall that testimony?
I recall that Dr. Golden dictated that the left internal jugular artery was cut through. It transected. That's--I can't see that.
Well, actually, didn't he say that there is an overlap between the area of path or 1, 3 and 4 and the area of pathway for the major stab incise wound that we talked about earlier today? Isn't that what he actually said in his report?
Yeah. He says that there's an overlap of some of the stab wounds. But on the photographs that you have before the jury, there doesn't appear to be an overlap.
But maybe there's an overlap underneath the skin. But usually by "Overlap," there'd be a cut wound through the left carotid artery and then stab wound through the left carotid artery. If this--if the major cut here, if the major cut here went into the carotid artery, it has to sort of go underneath the skin toward the carotid artery, which is unusual (Indicating).
Doctor, in your career, how much money have you made when you reviewed cases where you only had photographs and materials on paper and not the actual autopsy to review it?
There are many cases. Most cases in private consultation that forensic pathologists look at, we look at photographs and documents and dictated reports.
My question was, how much money have you made in your career from doing those cases, sir?
Doctor, in the Boggs' case, you were relying on a photograph to differentiate a color suggesting cyanosis from a color suggesting lividity. You relied on such a photograph, didn't you, sir?
That was one of the--one of the many factors I relied on. I also relied upon the observations of people who responded--first responded who said he was blue, and the blueness was in the front of his body and he's lying on the back of his body, just what you pointed out.
And, doctor, in that testimony, you never were--you never mentioned concerns with the colorimetry spectrum, for example, that it may not actually reflect the colors of the people depicted or person depicted, did you, sir?
Mr. Kelberg, you are misinformed. Mr.--the detective, Mr. MacKenzie and Detective Perkins, who were the people who investigated that case, who presented it for your office made 30 different reproductions from the one single negative to see all the different variations in color that occurred when the negatives develop differently. Part of the problem that we addressed, Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Perkins addressed, you take a negative like this and you can develop it in 30 different ways to show different patterns of color on the skin; and we did that at great--great time and effort in the Boggs' case.
If you had concern about the color presentation, sir, you had access to the negatives, didn't you?
Do you make a request that you have the negatives reproduced with varying shades of color to assist you in your review?
So when Mr. Shapiro was questioning Dr. Lakshmanan about the color of the photographs, in your opinion, that was irrelevant from the standpoint of Dr. Lakshmanan's ability to evaluate these photographs. Is that your testimony?
Doctor, let me keep you here, if I could, please. Let me ask Mr. Lynch to turn this--I think we're going to--going back to 355 I--354, doctor, as I understand your testimony regarding this unconsciousness or lack of unconsciousness, you are relying upon the blood that is seen on the step above the body, is that correct, where you believe Miss Brown Simpson's head must have rested?
And the riser being the riser that would go from the walkway to the first step and the riser that would go from the first step to the second step; is that correct?
And the riser, we can see the bottom of the riser in the photograph CS11 at the top of that photograph, correct?
Now, doctor, assume hypothetically that Nicole Brown Simpson was struck on the back of the head in the right parietal area, temporal parietal area where Dr. Golden says he saw the contusion to the brain, that she was stabbed four times as indicated along the left side of the neck in the photograph we were just looking and that she was then disabled and bleeding from those wounds with her head in the position of the second--the first step above the walkway and that the perpetrator then moved from Nicole Brown Simpson to deal with Ronald Goldman and then came back to inflict what you and Dr. Lakshmanan agree is the last sharp force injury that killed her, the stab incise wound to the neck. Do you understand that hypothetical, doctor?
Doctor, from the stab wounds 1, 3 and 4 to the left side of the neck, that can produce the blood that you see on that step; can it not, sir?
Well, doctor, you say that an expert should not offer an opinion that you can not give to a reasonable medical certainty. Is it your testimony that you can not offer an opinion on this to a reasonable medical certainty?
Mr. Kelberg, I'm saying that the expert is at your mercy. The expert--I have to answer your questions. I think it is wrong if all that is asked is possibilities, because then everything I say is yes, everything I say, yes, it's possible. If you're asking for an opinion, I have to go more than just a one percent possibility. And what I'm saying here is that I'm not persuaded--there's no evidence that the force--the three stab wounds on the left side of the neck cut through any vital structures. That's not--that's not indicated.
KEY QUOTEIf--if there were--if there were cut wounds to the veins or arteries, there would--there could be bleeding, yes, on that side of the neck.
Well, didn't you originally indicate you thought Dr. Golden in his report said that one or more of those three sharp force stab wounds to the left side of the neck had in fact cut the internal jugular?
That's what Dr. Golden im--sort of implies in the--in the document, but he doesn't track it out that way. And he's saying they're all ending up in a similar position, but there's a lot of space there without blood vessels in it.
Yeah. He says the carotid artery is cut through by--by that incision and then it's joined by these other three stab wounds. But that's all an approximation. So if in fact--what you're saying, if in fact the stab wound to the left side of the neck cut through the carotid artery, could it have caused bleeding, yes.
Uh, if it went through the carotid artery while her heart was functioning and there had an egress, the blood instead of going up and down the carotid artery sheath, came out of the stab wound, yes, there could be a lot of bleeding.
And your opinion is that she wasn't unconscious at that time, isn't that correct, that those four were inflicted?
Umm, that's a different question. What I said was, she's not laying on the ground unconscious when the neck--the final neck wound is inflicted. Could she have been unconscious when the four were inflicted before that, it's possible, but I would think probably not.
Well, doctor, again, you are only obligated you understand to answer truthfully to the best of your ability any question any lawyer asks you here in the courtroom. Isn't that your understanding?
Sir, if you have the belief that you can not answer a question due to a lack of foundation, lack of information, lack of ability for whatever reason, you understand you can give that answer, don't you, sir?
If I can't give an answer, I can't give an answer. But if you're saying is it possible that she was bleeding out of the left side of the neck, certainly it's possible that she was bleeding out of the left side of the neck.
And if that were the case, sir, that would account, would it not, for the blood that is on that first step; isn't that correct?
Doctor, if in fact the left internal jugular and left carotid had in fact been punctured by one or more of those three stab wounds along the left side of the neck that were more than superficial and did in fact cause external bleeding, in your opinion, sir, would that be the kind of bleeding that can account for what is seen on the second step?
It could account for the amount of bleeding, but not the type of bleeding. A puncture to the carotid artery would spurt out and cause more of a spurting on the various steps involved rather than a pooling of blood, which is more typical of venous bleeding. So if you're saying that the internal jugular vein is cut and she's laying in that position for a while, could she bleed out in that fashion from the vein, she could.
Doctor, do you see what appears to be spurts of blood along that second step or the first step I should say above the walkway?
There's some droplets of blood, but that's not the kind of--from a carotid artery spurting out. If my carotid artery were cut here (Indicating), it would go over all the jurors very rapidly because it's under very high pressure. So that could be from cuts on the neck. Yeah, she could bleed from cuts on the neck if her head were on that step.
Now, doctor, do you recall Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony in support of why he believed that her body was down in the position roughly that it is seen in photograph CS11 at the time her hair was pulled back with the left hand and her neck sliced with a knife held in the right hand concerning the absence of blood along certain knuckles of the left and right hands of Nicole Brown Simpson? Do you recall that testimony, sir?
Well, doctor, would you agree that if the last injury inflicted was the stab incise wound across the neck and that wound did in fact cut both the left and right carotid arteries and the left and right internal jugular veins, that there would be immediate and massive bleeding?
I agree there'd be very--within a couple seconds of the neck wound, of the cut wound across the neck, there'd be very heavy bleeding, yes.
And, doctor, do you agree that there is a massive pool of blood around the head and the left knee of Nicole Brown Simpson as seen in photograph CS11?
There's a lot of blood. I wouldn't say it's massive. A lot of blood. I mean, the blood is all very thin. You know, five or 10 ounces could account for that. That's not massive.
Maybe a quart. Maybe a quart would be out there at most. At most. See, blood when it spreads out like that gives the appearance of being a lot more than it is.
Now, doctor, looking at the hands on CS40 and CS39, do you agree that there's an absence of blood on certain of the knuckles of each of those hands?
There's a--not an absence of blood because even in these pale areas, there's blood in the ridges, that one can see in the ridges. It's just--it's not spread uniformly. So I don't--there's some blood in here (Indicating). You can see it with a lens. But it's not as much as--as in the other parts of the hand.
Doctor, you understand this to be the left hand that's shown in CS39 or the right hand?
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm getting the left and right confused. That is the left hand underneath her that has the watch and the ring--some rings on--on the hand. I'm sure--same rings.
And the left hand is the one that we see in CS11 next to what appears to be a left knee; is that correct?
And, doctor, would you agree that on the knuckles of the index and middle finger, there does appear to be a significant area of paleness in comparison to what appears to be the covering with blood on the fourth and fifth fingers, knuckles?
And, doctor, would you opine that that condition is consistent with the hand having been in contact with the ground at the time the blood flows from that stab wound around the hand?
No. No. Not at all. If I--if I were killed and I'm bleeding and I'm dead and there's all kind of blood flowing before my hand gets to the ground, once my hand gets to the ground and stays in that position for 10 hours before it's moved, blood will accumulate in congealic layers. That's--I have a--from an--and goes down on top of a layer of blood that's already there and it will press out some of the blood. So one cannot tell from looking at this whether the blood was present or not present when the hand went into it, no. 1. And, no. 2, she continued to bleed for a while after her hand went into it. So there was blood before, there's blood after and you can not tell after 10 hours whether the hand was on the ground before the blood came down there. I would disagree with that.
All right. Doctor, would you say that at the instant that the injury was inflicted, if the blood flowed and a pool started in front of her head and the hand, the left hand then hit the floor, hit the tile floor, that the hand would be coming in contact--all the knuckles would be coming in contact--the knuckles coming in contact with the surface would be coming in contact with blood?
Yeah. With the variety of blood flow. When the blood is coming down, regulates, there's--eventually congeals, the hand goes down. There's all kinds of ways in which the hand can come down in the area of blood and more blood comes on top of and runs across it. So there's all kinds of considerations one has to take in, and I don't think one can say with any reasonable degree of medical certainty that, therefore, that hand was on the ground before the blood came down.
So to you, doctor, it is of no significance of making that evaluation, that two of the knuckles appear to be heavily stained with blood and two of the knuckles appear to have significant areas without the appearance of blood on the left hand as shown in CS39?
Yeah. The main significance that would have is that when the hands are down, the second and third--the knuckles of the second and third hand protrude more than the knuckles of the fourth and fifth fingers, so that as the blood flows and congeals, the part of the hand that's not pressed against the ground will get more and more blood on it.
And your answer I assume would be the same in interpreting the right hand as shown in CS40?
Depends on the position of the hand and the blood so that--one can easily overinterpret these things, but one can't tell the position at the time of the bleeding--10 hours later, the way the blood has dried.
By the way, doctor, with Nicole Brown Simpson's hands, in particular, the right hand in contact with the area where there's blood, would you expect that her blood would get under her fingernails in that area?
Could. It could. If there's blood around, blood could get under the fingernails certainly, if there's a lot of blood around. But what--and pertinent to your question is, even though a person's neck is cut and blood spurts out and there's a few seconds of consciousness and movement, then a loss of consciousness, but the person can still move while unconscious, and then eventually the heart stops. It doesn't happen instantaneously, the process.
Doctor, do you recall testifying in a case called State versus Brown in June of 1988?
Let me--it's--timothy Brown is the name of the Defendant, and let me pull the transcript for you. A lawyer by the name of Mr. Maynard examined you?
No. No. Maybe if you give me the name of the Defendant--the decedent, it would be more pertinent to me.
I'm sure the decedent's name is in here, if you'll give me a moment. Neil Watson.
I do not have an independent recollection. You don't know the jurisdiction of--is this Albany or New York or elsewhere?
Doctor, let me first invite your attention to a particular area and see if that refreshes your memory at all. Inviting your attention to page 55 and ask if you would, to read to yourself that first paragraph.
All right. Dr. Baden, from your review of that transcript, do you recollect the case?
Doctor, did you see, however, on the first page, that it does appear you are the witness called to testify?
Inviting your attention to page 55 and assuming that this is your testimony, sir, do you agree with what is said there on the first paragraph? "So there are different kinds of head injuries, but the most common reason for rapid death in an auto accident is direct bruising and injury to the brain, and that's I think what this history is most suggestive of, immediate loss of consciousness after blows to the head after remaining unconscious with some--"
"--and remaining unconscious with some question I know from the history as to whether he moaned or didn't moan or made sounds, which I would interpret a little differently than other doctors might." Do you agree with that?
Doctor, do you believe that in different kinds of head injuries, the most common reason for rapid death in an auto accident is direct bruising and injury to the brain?
Do you believe that injuries to the brain cause immediate loss of consciousness from the injury to the brain?
It may or may not. Depends on the degree of injury. I would agree that, you know, deaths in auto accidents are highly due to head injuries and brain injuries, but very severe brain injuries.
Now, doctor, you were asked yesterday about a shoe worn by Ronald Goldman. Do you recall that testimony?
We're looking at what you described as a cut to the tip of one of the shoes of Mr. Goldman; is that correct, doctor?
And, doctor, the question asked of you from page 18 of the real time transcript was: "And what evidence have you found in that regard of Mr. Goldman kicking his assailant or assailants? "Answer: 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." Do you recall that testimony, sir?
Sir, did you say to a reasonable medical certainty you believe that that cut to the tip of the right shoe of Mr. Goldman was inflicted by the knife of the perpetrator who murdered Mr. Goldman?
I said "Indicative," which means more likely than not. It's more than 51 percent, but I--it doesn't--in my expertise, doesn't rise to 95 percent.
Well, sir, didn't you testify earlier on direct examination that experts should not offer opinions that they cannot offer to a reasonable medical certainty, which you defined as 90 or 95 percent? Isn't that what you said?
That--no, Mr. Kelberg. I'm sorry. No, Mr. Kelberg. What I'm saying is that experts should be asked questions by lawyers that require more than just possibility. If you ask a physician any question beginning, "Is it possible," we almost always have to say yes. If you ask me, "Is it more likely than not," that gives a little bit more substance to my opinion. If I can say to a reasonable medical certainty, that gives greater substance to what I think. I may still be wrong, but at least that's my opinion. And this--
All right, your Honor. Let me go to the chest wounds. And I think we're done with that photograph. I--I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you, Miss Clark.
What evidence do you have as to the history of that shoe to know what condition it was in on the 12th of June, 1994, when Mr. Goldman was entering the walkway of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium?
Uh, I don't know the history of the shoe except that it appeared to be in good condition.
Well, sir, you have no idea, do you, when that cut may have been created on the tip of that shoe, do you, sir?
That's not true. It looked like a recent fresh cut without--from the edges in the margins.
Well, doctor, a recent fresh cut in the human body, you can look for bleeding. What do you see that shows you this is a recent cut on a piece of vinyl, canvas or whatever make of material goes into that portion of the shoe?
In looking at it under magnification at Albany medical center in February of 1995 with Dr. Wolf and with Dr. Henry Lee, we could not see any evidence of wearing or foreign material getting into it that would occur over a period of time. Now--of wear. There was no wearing evidence. Now, umm, if you're asking me could it have happened the day before, yes, it could have happened the day before. But from the circumstances of the finding of this cut, from the cleanness, the cleanness of the cut, it's my opinion that it more probably, 51 percent, was indicative of happening during the struggle than before it. But I'm not certain about it.
Sir, did you look for blood, test the surface inside, the external surface of that cut for blood from the tip of a knife which has already inflicted, if it has, stab wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson and/or Ronald Goldman?
I didn't see any evidence of blood. But when a knife is put in and brought out of a body or different knives are, doesn't necessarily have blood on it. But the knives get cleaned off sometimes on coming out of the body and clothing.
There was blood on the sole of this--one of the shoes of Mr. Goldman, wasn't there, sir?
Sir, what kind of specialized tests, if any, did you perform to see whether there was blood--other than naked eye observation, what specialized tests, if any, did you perform on that cut surface to see whether or not you could find evidence that might connect it to the knife that was involved in the attack on Ronald Goldman?
Umm, I looked at it with magnification, and my specialized test beyond that was talking to Dr. Henry Lee, who is my specialized test in this area.
We have worked with--on the same side and on opposite sides in a number of cases over the years, and he is--and even when he's on the opposite side, I would take his opinion better than mine.
Dr. Rieders? Uh, we've over the years worked together on cases and on opposite side of cases, yes.
No. I worked with the Los Angeles Police Department on the Boggs' case and the Los Angeles Police Department before I ever got involved--the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, before I ever got involved, had already consulted with Dr. Rieders. So Dr. Rieders was an expert for your office in this case before I got involved as I recall.
And Dr. Rieders, to your understanding, is another expert, part of the Defense team for Mr. Simpson; isn't that correct?
That's correct. He's a toxicologist. But as far as a criminalist goes, Dr. Lee is the person that I would rely upon and have relied upon even when I was on the opposite side.
Doctor, did you hear testimony or have you been apprised of testimony that a test of the--or of information that a test of the blood on the sole of Mr. Goldman's boot was consistent with a mixture of Nicole Brown Simpson's blood and Ronald Goldman's blood?
I recall such evidence and testimony, but--or evidence at least, but I'm not in a position to evaluate that. That's--that's beyond my expertise.
Would that suggest that the knife, if it was one knife, that deposited that blood in a fly off, cast off manner?
Doctor, let me ask you about the chest wounds again of Mr. Goldman. You testified, as I recall, that you believe the left jugular vein, fatal injury, occurred early on in the struggle, correct?
And you said that at a minimum, five minutes must have passed between the jugular vein injury being inflicted and one or both of the chest wounds being inflicted; is that correct?
Well, just looking at the wounds themselves, yes. Just the wounds without knowing any of the history, yes. In fact, just looking at the wounds, the cut wound to the neck bled actively, but slowly, and the stab wounds in the abdomen, with very little bleeding, could have happened hours later. That's not my opinion, but I'm just saying that's what we could tell from an autopsy. But it had to be at least 5 minutes.
All right, doctor. And that's based upon Dr. Golden's description of the volume of blood in the plural cavity, correct?
Now, doctor, isn't it medically true that blood can seep out of that plural cavity through the hole--pardon me--the holes created by the stab wounds if the body is in a position where those wounds are in the dependent area, that is down as Dr. Lakshmanan so testified?
No. Not usually. See, with a stab wound, as opposed to the cut wound to the neck, the cut wound to the neck continues to bleed in the--in a downward position. But a stab wound to the chest goes through skin, fat, muscle between the ribs, through the ribs in fact, and when the knife is--through clothing. When the knife is withdrawn, it all kind of collapses together. So we do not see normally blood coming out of the chest wounds unless the chest cavity is filled to capacity or near capacity.
Doctor, in your opinion then, Dr. Lakshmanan is wrong when he testified that in his opinion, the stab wounds to the chest which are to the right side of Mr. Goldman's chest could have resulted in seepage from the chest to the environment when Mr. Goldman's body ends up in the position as shown in photograph 43-E of exhibit 362?
Yes. I would disagree with it for a number of reasons. One, if a quart--the chest cavity normally, if we're stabbed while alive, fills up with about a quart and a half, up to two quarts of blood. All that Mr. Goldman showed at the time of the autopsy is described I think 100 to 200 cc's, which are about three to six ounces in the left chest. So if he were alive and the heart were pumping, maybe over a quart of blood would have had to seep out in the position that he's in, which we don't see any blood in the soil and there's no--when the body is removed, there's not much blood in that area to start with. If I may.
Secondly, there's another stab wound to the right side of the abdomen that goes through the aorta, that also didn't bleed, and that one--
Hold on. Hold on. Wait, wait, both counsel. All right. Ask the question again. Proceed.
Yeah. I may--I apologize. I may get my right side and left side mixed up sometimes, and I appreciate Mr. Kelberg correcting it. But the stab wound in the abdomen that goes through the aorta also bled very little and it was about a hundred cc of blood, and that would have massive bleeding and also fill up the abdominal cavity. So that was the basis for my opinion that the stab wounds to the chest and also to the abdomen occurred when the heart didn't have enough blood to keep beating if it was beating, if at all, very feebly. And the amount of blood on the shirt, seen on the shirt doesn't account--it's a very--you know, three ounces of blood at most and--on the shirt fabric, and that's all accountable on the left side of the neck--God bless you, Mrs. Clark--from the left side of the neck that--and surprisingly little blood on the shirt.
Doctor, how did you quantify the amount of blood on the right side of Mr. Goldman's shirt?
Looking--yeah. Looking and handling it. And there is blood on the shirt. I felt it was consistent with the oozing of the blood coming from the jugular vein that was oozing down on the left side, which is what killed--which in my opinion, Mr. Kelberg, is what killed Mr. Goldman, was the oozing from the jugular vein. And that takes time, takes five or 10 minutes to lose enough blood that way as opposed to Miss Simpson, who would lose it in less than a minute.
Now, doctor, your testimony was that the staining of the left pant was due to the left jugular vein oozing the blood over this lengthy period of time. Was that your opinion?
Well, lengthy period, I think 5 minutes is lengthy or short depending on your perspective. But it was--most of it was in my opinion coming from the left jugular vein down the left side of the body down the--the pant leg into the left shoe. In the course of that, there is a stab wound in the left thigh that could have contributed something to it. But there's a lot of blood above it, and that thigh wound would not bleed nearly as much--didn't hit any vital--any blood vessels of note in the report. So it didn't contribute much to the blood. It was mainly the jugular vein that caused it.
And the pocket as seen in this photograph, G2, of the same exhibit is where I'm pointing right now where there's a little whiteness; is that correct?
And, sir, wouldn't you agree that the blood that is on this pant, this left pant is predominantly below that area?
Well, it doesn't work out that way when you lay out the pant. And if you look at 43-E above, you can see how the blood continues up to the waistband, the waistband. So I think that stab wound, Mr. Kelberg, contributes to the blood, but there's blood above it; and the jugular vein, internal jugular vein would bleed much greater than the stab wound in the thigh.
Doctor, do you see a trail of blood along the upper edge of the left side of the body exposed with the shirt above going down to the belt line? Do you see that in photograph--
There's been some testimony in this case as I understand about flying blood and so forth. I just want your view. Can blood that's flowing from a wound go from the clothing and skip over the body and then land on the waistband of the jeans? Can that happen, sir?
Well, it didn't skip over. There's dried blood on the skin. But as the blood goes down the skin, the skin doesn't absorb the blood where the clothing absorbs it. So there's blood that extends that's present on the left side of the chest and that extends up to the area of the jugular vein, and that blood went downward. But it didn't get absorbed by the skin. It doesn't get absorbed by the skin. So it's not nearly as prominent on the skin, but if one looks at it closely, there's blood--there's dried blood there as it is in the jeans and the shoe.
And, doctor, you recall Dr. Lakshmanan saying that the area where this thigh wound was inflicted is a very vascular area even without any major vessel being struck? Do you recall that testimony, sir?
I don't recall the testimony, but I--I would agree there's blood vessels there, but not nearly as much as in the neck. There's no compar--
Oh, there are a few ounces of blood that are adherent to the leg and I--maybe--maybe half a quart could be accounted for, have a liter or half a quart on the clothing and on the shoes at maximum.
That's from looking at the clothing. Jeans can only absorb so much blood because a lot of the blood would go elsewhere, but--would just keep dripping down. So, you know, he had--all of his bleeding is not accounted for by what's in the clothing obviously.
Well, doctor, if in fact, as Dr. Lakshmanan testified, that the blood along the left pant leg is consistent with the thigh wound to the left thigh area and was inflicted very early on in the struggle and that Mr. Goldman was in an upright position at the time that was inflicted, would that change your opinion--if those circumstances were true, would that change your opinion as to the time required for Mr. Goldman to have died from a combination of the jugular vein and the chest wounds and the abdominal aorta stab wound on the left side?
You can't die from five or 10 or 15 or 20 minutes of bleeding from the left thigh wound that doesn't hit any significant blood vessels. I mean, there's a lot of capillaries, and a person can bleed, but won't die from it. The major reason for Mr. Goldman--major reason for Mr. Goldman's death by bleeding is from the jugular vein. All the other stab wounds contribute something to it. Every cut and every stab wound does bleed, can contribute to it, but the major source is the jugular vein returning all the blood that's being pumped, as we sit here, through our brain, it all comes down the jugular vein. That's the major source of the bleeding. The others can contribute to it, but not--not in great quantity.
Doctor, setting aside the jugular vein, the kind of chest stab wounds that we see in photograph G10, how long would it take for a person to bleed to death from those stab wounds?
Oh, umm, taking both stab wounds on the right, his chest cavity could fill up with blood in about--given the autopsy description of the lungs, 10, 15 minutes from the--from the stab wound to the lung. That didn't happen here because it didn't fill up. There was not enough blood to go into the chest cavity. But stab wounds of the lung are certainly treated--every day people get stab wounds of the lung like this, get brought to a hospital 10, 20, 30 minutes later and survive, and then survive.
And how long, sir would it take, forgetting any other stab wounds received by Mr. Goldman, for him to die from an abdominal aorta stab wound such as seen in the photograph G5 along the left side of the body?
Yeah. Dr. Golden describes that as going in and out of the aorta. So it's really one stab wound or two I think half inch cuts of the aorta, and that could cause a rapid filling of the abdominal cavity with blood and death in also 10 or 15 minutes. And again, people get stabbed and do get to hospitals out in the street in the aorta and survive. They'll die quicker from the aorta stab wound than from the lung stab wounds.
Doctor, would it be accurate to say that one could inflict the number of stab wounds seen on the body of Ronald Goldman very rapidly by going as I am going and as Dr. Lakshmanan did with rapid thrusts of a knife against a victim that the perpetrator is motivated to kill with that knife?
Sure. There can be rapid infliction of stab wounds as you indicate, but stab wounds don't cause death. It's bleeding or injury to the organ that causes death, and you have to bleed out enough blood to die. The stab wound itself doesn't cause the death.
Just a couple more areas, your Honor. I don't know how late the Court can go, wants to go.
Doctor, we're looking at a board, exhibit 361, dealing with injuries to the extremities of Mr. Goldman, including defensive wounds as described by Dr. Lakshmanan. You've seen these photographs, haven't you, sir?
And, sir, you testified yesterday regarding a contusion along this knuckle of the right hand as seen in G32, a knuckle of the middle finger, correct?
And that was the contusion or bruise which you described as being consistent with a blow, a fist, a closed fist being thrown against a perpetrator, right, sir?
I think they're all consistent with blows against another person's skin. They're all consistent with that, but that's the most typical.
Doctor, do you recall the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan that there appeared to be punctate abrasions centered on the other contusions seen in that right hand? Do you recall that, sir?
And a punctate abrasion is not caused by a blow struck against a smooth surface, is it, sir?
It can be if there's friction involved. The abrasion we're talking about is a friction burn. So theoretically, I could punch Mr. Shapiro and rub my finger across his--he could punch me better--and rub my finger across the face and get a little bit of a friction. But the rougher the surface, the more likely they'll be an abrasion closely is a good example.
Well, for example, wouldn't the surface of a tree as seen in the environment at Bundy be the kind of hard rough surface that can create contusions with punctate abrasions if the hand strikes such a surface?
If the hand struck the surface of the tree bark with enough force and with a rubbing action, yes, that could cause--I would expect I did look for little pieces of wood or splinter which are not present, which often would be present, not a hundred percent.
Now, doctor, you said yesterday that you didn't think Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion was correct regarding these being--these injuries being received by Mr. Goldman as he's flailing backwards in that confined space in the Bundy walkway area in an effort to ward off the assailant. Have you testified in that fashion?
Yes. I don't think it's--you get these marks against the soft--the smooth surfaces of the gate, the gate poles, which is my recollection of Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony.
Wasn't it also his testimony you get them from rough surface like striking the tree surface?
Tree is more likely to cause abrasion. It isn't just a rubbing. You see, a rubbing alone would cause an abrasion or a friction burn. A punch would cause a black and blue. It has to be a punch and a rubbing at the same time.
That's your opinion because your opinion is, the force of a blow from the hand flailing backwards would be insufficient; is that correct?
The--I know of no studies to have people punch fences. I mean, this is experience, and I apologize that we don't have such studies.
Such studies of actual cases, for example, where it was documented where there was no uncertainty as to how the person received injuries, a person who died, to see what they showed, isn't that what's called an epidemiological study?
No. An epidemiological study is just taking numbers and doing--numbers of what other people do, doing a statistical--epidemiological means statistical.
And statistics can be done with actual cases to see how many people sustain such injuries in the fashion that Dr. Lakshmanan believed, by flailing backwards to avoid a thrust knife?
Yeah. You're absolutely right. Somebody would take this, and what Dr. Lakshmanan says is flailing backwards, they would cause--put it in a study as evidence of flailing backwards. The information we get as medical examiners and that even eyewitnesses have, in a type of a struggle, a murder, a punching are so flawed, nobody's looking for scientific evidence of how knuckles get injured. I would say here that the lack of splintering, the lack of wood and the lack of any blood on the--I didn't see on the tree trunk, but I didn't look at the tree trunk for that either--you know, speaks against his punching the tree in a way to get the--I'd say that the smoothness of the--of the fences is against this. I would say that in my experience, when people are killed and murdered in a struggle, that usually injuries to the hands are caused by defensive or offensive action against the perpetrator. That's my opinion, and I think it's reasonable experience.
Doctor, would you agree that it is natural and reasonable to expect that a person against whom a knife is being thrust to try and back away if possible from that knife?
Sir, if they throw their hand back like I've just done to try to avoid a knife that's been thrust, would you expect the force from that movement to be significant?
That could happen. That's not in my experience how people react when they're being murdered.
Sir, how many crime scenes have you been at when the murder occurred so that you could actually see what people did to try to avoid a thrust knife?
I have been at literally thousands of homicidal crime scenes over the 30 years. I've interviewed people, I've interviewed police officers. We can't get that kind of information. Who's going to see exactly what happened?
--the specific question. Mr. Kelberg, would you take a step back? I think 16--you're shielding 165 out from the exhibit.
Doctor, my question was, how many crime scenes have you been at when the person is actually being killed by somebody coming at them with a knife so you know from personal observation what actually happened?
Now, doctor, would you agree that this one bruise on the right hand of Mr. Goldman is the only contusion without a punctate abrasion on it, on the right hand?
Uh, there's another abrasion on the inside of the back of the ring finger also that doesn't appear to have an abrasion over it.
I think you may have misspoken. I think you said abrasion that didn't have an abrasion.
I'm sorry. It has a bruise without an abrasion, looks like, but I don't--I think these are differences without significance.
Well, doctor, if you struck a blow to the fist of a person, wouldn't you expect multiple knuckles in a direct force blow to come in contact with the person's face?
That may happen, but it's unusual to have uniform hemorrhage on the hands and knuckles. Usually in order to find the hemorrhage, we have to cut underneath the hand and look and examine the hemorrhage underneath the skin, which wasn't done.
Well, do you see any evidence of bruising on any of the other knuckles seen in the photograph of the right wrist or hand?
I see no evidence on the picture, but there may very well be hemorrhage underneath it. That's why we make autopsy incision and look underneath--God bless you--to look underneath the skin of the hand--of the body or hand. That's why we would make an incision into that questionable shoeprint on Miss Simpson's back, is because there are things under the skin that you can't tell from looking at the skin on the outside.
Your Honor, I don't know how long the Court wishes to go. I have probably another 15 minutes or so.
Doctor, assuming that this is the only contusion to the right hand without an abrasion, that is not the pattern one would expect to see, is it, sir, if someone strikes another person with a direct blow of the fist that comes in contact, such as my right hand has just come in contact with your left cheek, with at least three of my knuckles from the middle, fourth and ring finger coming in contact. Isn't that the case, doctor?
Your Honor, may we get a description for the record? The way I saw it was that his second knuckle was the only knuckle that touched the doctor.
Defensive wounds, if I may, is a misnomer because what we're assuming is that he was trying to protect himself during the struggle. We say "Defensive wound" because these are consistent with putting hands up or maybe he was struck on the knuckles or struck on the hands. But one can get the same wounds in--not in a defensive position. I could be laid out and somebody could come and stab my hand and give me the same wounds and it's not defensive. So it's an interpretation. I don't know. On this, I would include all the injuries in the hands as evidence of struggling or trying to protect one's self.
No. If somebody is seen to try to defend himself and get injuries, that would be a defensive wound. But as you indicated, the pathologist rarely sees the action.
Sir, in looking at photo G29 of the same exhibit, you see incise wounds the web of the left thumb and below the area of the pinkie; do you not, sir?
And, sir, that's consistent with, as Dr. Lakshmanan said, Mr. Goldman having his hands up and the knife puncturing it, piercing it, correct?
And also, it is possible that it reflects an effort to grab the knife to prevent the knife from being thrust into the body of Mr. Goldman; does it not, sir?
Defensive wounds. He characterizes them as defensive wounds. I think it's stab wounds.
Now, doctor, aren't there also other wounds on the left hand in the middle finger--
--at the distal end and in the little fin--I'm sorry--the middle finger at the distal end. The middle finger, there is a flap of skin and an abrasion; is there not, doctor?
And consistent with--again, the hand has to be open for those to be inflicted, right?
Well, unless the hand, as you say, grabbed down over the knife blade and closed itself over the knife blade.
Let's look at the right hand, G34 and G35. We're looking at the palmar surface of that hand now; aren't we, sir?
And in fact, isn't there also I believe--all right. Let's start with those two. Again, consistent with having the hand in a blocking action from the knife coming forward?
Consistent with the knife being grabbed by Mr. Goldman to prevent it from stabbing him?
No. That's more stabbing. What the intention is, whether it's intention to block it or to grab the knife, obviously we can't tell that from these findings at autopsy, but it's consistent with protecting himself.
You can't throw a fist with your hand open, can you, sir, throw a punch with a closed fist if you're going to at the same time be receiving these kinds of injuries, can you, sir?
And you recall Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony that the absence of defensive wounds to the upper arms, right and left, the presence of the injuries on the palms, indicating the hand was open, the absence of bruising along any knuckle other than the one knuckle in the right hand except where there is a punctate abrasion, that constellation of contusions with punctate abrasions caused him to form the opinion that Mr. Goldman in fact did not throw a punch that connected with the perpetrator. Do you recall that testimony?
And he also was of the view that you would not expect Mr. Goldman to throw a punch because to throw a punch would bring his body closer to the knife if the knife is being thrust at him at the same time. Do you recall that testimony?
Yes. I think that's silly. That's silly, because if a person is trying to defend himself, he or she may do a lot of things, and most of the time, when a person tries to punch the opponent, they come close to each other. I think here, certainly that's evidence that his hand was open. But the fact that Mr. Goldman's hand was open doesn't mean 10 seconds later, he will make a fist. I mean, having the hand open isn't inconsistent with making a fist at some point.
And, Mr. Lynch, I think you can take those down. Mr. Lynch, I think you can take those photos down. Your Honor, if you give me five more minutes, I think I can finish.
Doctor, I want to show you from the Spitz and Fisher book pages 260, 261, 262, 263 and 264. Would you take a look at those pages, please.
Mr. Kelberg, given the number of exhibits that you have, I'm not optimistic that we're going to finish, and the jury has an appointment this afternoon.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think we're going to finish in the next five minutes.
Well, I'm saying if he has five minutes, I have very little redirect, very little, and the doctor has an appointment out of town if you recall.
Well, I think I can expedite this without using the elmo now, but asking for permission later to put them on, perhaps on Monday, according to the doctor's testimony.
Doctor, the photographs on those pages are photographs put in Dr. Spitz' book to reflect the kinds of defensive wounds commonly seen on people who receive sharp force injuries, stab wounds which kill the person, correct?
No. These are not commonly seen. These are examples of--from the other information that Dr. Spitz had on the cases, were defense wounds, but these are not necessarily common.
And the areas shown, doctor, to start with the photos before we'll put them up, the first photo shows the right arm of an individual, this photo on page 260, with a defensive wound from the knife along the area where I'm pointing right now, doctor, if you'll look, this area right here, correct?
Did you see any defensive wound along the forearm of the right or left arm of Mr. Goldman?
Same situation, showing you photographs on 261, 261, the lower portion of the photo as well, showing defensive wounds to the arm area and the upper wrist area, correct?
Would you agree that the more defensive wounds that are seen, it suggests that the struggle was a longer struggle as you used the term "Struggle"?
Nicole Brown Simpson had injuries to her hands and neck and top of the upper part of the body. I forget how many were on the hands.
In fact, doctor, one of her hands had no evidence of defensive wounds; isn't that correct?
I think you're correct. But the number of defensive wounds, if they are defensive wounds, does not tell how long the struggle goes on. I mean one can't equate the two.
Mr. Kelberg, I think we made the point about the absence of other defensive wounds.
All right. Your Honor, I'm assuming that I've laid enough of a foundation for the other pictures so that I will--
I don't even know that it's necessary since we are talking about absence of wounds in that area.
All right. Doctor, just a couple more things. You testified yesterday regarding these control wounds as described by Dr. Lakshmanan. No. 1, you didn't think they were control wounds, right?
And one of the reasons, you said that you thought that the jugular vein injury came before those, right?
Most--I think that the jugular vein injury could have come be--probably came before because there was almost no bleeding from those cut wounds, yes.
Doctor, would you agree that common sense would suggest that if there's been this struggle that goes on perhaps for five or 10 minutes so that you start with the jugular vein injury and you have five or 10 minutes of bleeding before you get to chest wounds, that it is not logical that somebody would take a knife and carefully put in two superficial incise wounds on the neck of that same person after there's been a battle royale in the form of a struggle? Isn't that logical to suggest?
Murder and struggles are not logical, Mr. Kelberg. If they were logical, there would be fewer of them. And I think that it was dark and the perpetrator wasn't sure that Mr. Goldman was dead, and that's why five minutes later or 10 minutes later, additional stab wounds were made, because Mr. Goldman, while he was bleeding from the neck, would have collapsed to the ground after a few minutes, would have been breathing, and then additional wounds were made on the body while I believe he was lying on the ground, which included the lungs, the aorta, the abdomen and also the neck could have been cut, not intending to be superficial.
As I understand your testimony then, doctor, what you're saying is that even if five minutes passed between the neck wound and the chest wounds, the struggle had ended long before that with Mr. Goldman on the ground and the perpetrator coming back and inflicting these additional wounds to verify that Mr. Goldman was in fact dead. Isn't that what you've just suggested?
What I've said is, by saying that takes 5 minutes for the heart not to be able to act--beat probably doesn't mean that he's struggling all that time. At some point, before the lung stab wounds, Mr. Goldman collapses, and the perpetrator or perpetrators then inflict additional stab wounds because although he's on the ground, he's breathing, he's making noise, and the perpetrator(s), may--may have wanted to make sure he was dead and not still alive.
Doctor, in your experience, is it unusual for a perpetrator who uses a knife to inflict the kind of injuries seen on Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman not to have some minor knife injury that can be inflicted in the course of the struggle?
Oh, it's very common for perpetrators not to have any wounds. I mean, if I have the knife, the likelihood is, I'm not going to get stabbed. I could get stabbed or cut, but most of the time, I don't.
If your hand, your left hand, for example, is in front of an area where you're trying to take the knife and cut the person, you can have your hand cut, can you not, by the knife?
Oh, sure. I could cut myself, and what's that called, friendly fire or something? I could cut myself inadvertently, and that does happen sometimes, but not in the great majority--in the great majority of times, when somebody is stabbing somebody with a knife, the perpetrator doesn't get cut, but sometimes he does.
Doctor, looking at photograph 358-B, does that show the two superficial incise wounds?
And, doctor, you said yesterday that the absence of blood as seen in the photographs suggested to you that those wounds were inflicted later on; isn't that correct?
Yeah. It would suggest. I can't say that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. It's more likely than not, 51 percent, that these cuts on the neck happened while he was dying rather than during the struggle.
Doctor, would you agree that these--this photograph does show blood in both of the superficial incise wound tracks?
Umm, no, I don't see that. I don't see that. It could have--I can't be definite about this. It could have happened during the struggle or near when the heart pumping action is diminished.
I just have one last set of photographs that I had here, your Honor, a moment ago. Your Honor, I need to add to the exhibit 581-A through D a few additional photographs.
Doctor, you recall testifying yesterday what Mr. Simpson told you with respect to a cut on his hand?
May I just make one suggestion? I have less than two minutes of questions, and if Mr. Kelberg has--you have asked him--you've given him time limits, and I'd ask you to enforce those time limits.
No. He told me how long it was going to take and I tried to accommodate finishing this witness. I did not give him a time limit today.
Your Honor, this is the last area. As I said, hopefully five minutes. Your Honor, I can't control the length of the answer.
Well, you just heard the reaction from the jury. We're going to quit now. All right. Let me see counsel at the sidebar.
Doctor, let me show you these additional pictures and ask you to assume again they were taken in Chicago the same time as the ones you saw yesterday.
Doctor, there's a washcloth in one of the photographs, at least one of the photographs that appears to have some blood on it, correct?
And there is a bed sheet I think seen in two of the photographs that appears to have a small area of blood on that; is that correct?
And, doctor, if in fact Mr. Simpson had cut his hand along this middle finger when he was in Los Angeles and in fact he did some kind of action with his hand in Chicago that caused it to rebleed, is the amount of blood you see on the washcloth consistent with that circumstance?
No. I think he would bleed more, but he could have bled, have a little bit on the washcloth, the rest of it cleaned up or something. But he would have bled more than is on the washcloth, but it could have been washed away or cleaned up.
Now, doctor, would you expect bleeding from such a cut along the middle finger to be more extensive if this was cut initially in Chicago than if it were a rebleed, that is a reopening of a cut that had been received in Los Angeles?
I can't give an answer on that. It's highly variable depending on the injury that caused it to reopen.
And, doctor, you have no way of knowing, do you, sir, whether the explanation given to you by Mr. Simpson was the truth or not, do you, sir?
I--it was consistent with the findings, but I have no independent way of verifying it.
Mr. Kelberg, I'm saying that the expert is at your mercy. The expert--I have to answer your questions. I think it is wrong if all that is asked is possibilities, because then everything I say is yes, everything I say, yes, it's possible.
If my carotid artery were cut here, it would go over all the jurors very rapidly because it's under very high pressure.
Even when he's on the opposite side, I would take his opinion better than mine.
Just from 30 years of experience, Mr. Kelberg.