All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Dr. Huizenga, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Robert Huizenga, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
And good afternoon, doctor. Doctor, I wanted to move to this area of your examination of Mr. Simpson on June 15th regarding evidence of any bruising. Do you recall being asked questions about that by Mr. Shapiro on direct examination?
Would it be accurate to say that you carefully examined Mr. Simpson for any evidence of a contusion on his body? Is that a fair statement?
Now, was that examination of the same thorough and completeness that you originally stated your orthopedic examination was?
The bruise exam was extremely thorough. The hand exam in terms of drawing pictures was not because we had detailed pictures of the hand and so I wanted the pictures to suffice for that. But I realized that the pictures would not show the bruises. So I spent a lot of time with the bruising and the skin whereas the hand, basically we got the majority of our pictures there.
Doctor, why then draw anything with respect to the hands if you felt that you had photographs that adequately documented any hand injury in the way of cuts?
I think mainly just to look at the joints and to try to get an idea which joints were swollen and see if that corroborated with any other orthopedic things since I basically wanted to circle those just so I would have those for my orthopedic exam.
I'm going to get into the hand-drawn hand outlines in just a moment. But would it be a fair statement that after your thorough and complete examination of Mr. Simpson for any evidence of contusions that you found that he had sustained none? Correct?
And is it accurate to say that in response to Mr. Shapiro's further questioning, that if he had sustained blunt force trauma on June 12th, you would have expected to see some evidence of that in an examination conducted roughly two and a half days later on June 15th? Is that what you said?
In other words, a person can receive a blow and not sustain a contusion as a result of that blow; isn't that true, doctor?
And there's been testimony here from Dr. Lakshmanan about something called a glancing blow where the full force of the blow is in fact not received by the recipient, and in such circumstance, one would not expect to see a contusion. Would you agree with that?
Let me invite counsel again--this is to the real time transcript. Make sure I have the--page 346.
You were asked to describe the area of his right upper extremities, shoulder, biceps, et cetera, and you were asked the question: "Was there any evidence of any recent contact?" And your answer was: "No, there was not." Do you recall that question and that answer, doctor?
And in fact, would it be accurate to say that your testimony with respect to all areas that you examined was that you saw no evidence of any recent contact to Mr. Simpson in the areas examined? Is that correct?
Now, you said this afternoon though that he could have been the recipient of contact and not have had evidence of a contusion at the time of your examination. Isn't that what you've said this afternoon?
If there wasn't a major impact and you don't have bleeding, you don't have edema, correct, you wouldn't see anything.
But, doctor, your answer on direct examination was, there was no evidence of recent contact. You did not limit it to contact of sufficient force to cause a contusion; isn't that correct?
Doctor, in your original answers to Mr. Shapiro in which you said there was no evidence of recent contact, you did not limit that to contact with sufficient force to cause a contusion; is that accurate?
KEY QUOTENow, doctor, I want to ask you to assume hypothetically that there's been testimony again from Dr. Lakshmanan in which he evaluated blunt force trauma to the hands and arms of Ronald Goldman and that in the opinion of Dr. Lakshmanan, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that Mr. Goldman ever struck the perpetrator of the murder with a direct blow. Ask you to assume that hypothetical, okay?
And perhaps, could I have Mr. Lynch's assistance, your Honor? I need to set the easel up here just to show one board of photographs.
And, doctor, with your--with the permission of the Court, would you please step down to this photographic exhibit. This is exhibit 361, and the title of it is "Blunt force trauma, sharp force injuries and defensive wounds to the left and right hands of Mr. Goldman." I want to ask you to assume that these photographs fairly and accurately represent the condition of each area photographed of Mr. Goldman's body at the time of the autopsy conducted on June 14th, 1994. Have you ever seen these photographs before?
Now, doctor, I want you to assume hypothetically that Dr. Lakshmanan said with respect to photograph G26 that the injuries he sees to the back of Mr. Goldman's left hand do not reflect a blow delivered to the perpetrator and that in fact what appears to be a contusion near the wrist of the left hand has what is described by Dr. Lakshmanan as a punctate abrasion in the center of it. Ask you to assume all of that.
And further to assume--and I'm going to get another board of photographs, if I could just briefly do so. Exhibit 359. Excuse me, doctor. That exhibit 359 shows the area of crime scene where Mr. Goldman's body was found. It's entitled "Possible sources for Ron Goldman's blunt force trauma injuries." Have you ever seen these photos before?
Now, doctor, I want you to further assume that Dr. Lakshmanan said from his examination of the environmental surroundings of 875 south Bundy and the blunt force trauma to the back of Mr. Goldman's left hand, it was his opinion that there were sources at the crime scene to reflect that Mr. Goldman had flailed his arm backwards to avoid attack and had sustained the blunt force trauma in a defensive effort to just protect himself. Ask you to assume that as well. Okay? You have to answer audibly. I'm sorry.
And that again, in the opinion of Dr. Lakshmanan, this evidence of blunt force trauma to the back of Mr. Goldman's left hand did not suggest that Mr. Goldman had struck whether a direct or indirect blow on the perpetrator. Do you understand that hypothetical?
Now, with respect to--and it's photograph--if Mr. Lynch would help me--G32 that shows the back of the right hand of Mr. Goldman. And that with the exception of what appears to be a contusion, doctor--do you see a contusion near the middle finger at the base of where the middle finger joins the hand?
Do you see that? With the exception of that contusion, it was Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that all of the other injuries are inconsistent with a blow being struck, direct or indirect, on the perpetrator by Mr. Goldman and are consistent with, again, flailing both arms now, both right and left backwards and coming in contact with rough surfaces such as the bark of a tree, such as a metal fence that has irregularities from the paint and so forth. Do you have that understanding?
And further, that with respect to that one area of contusion, it was Dr. Lakshmanan's considered opinion that that did not reflect a blow delivered to the perpetrator because taking into account its location as inconsistent with where you would respect to see a contusion if there had been a fully directed blow, that is, you would expect to see a contusion in other areas of the joints of the hand, that with respect to the appearance of punctate abrasions centered on other contusions on the right hand in the center, which--the far photograph, doctor--suggesting again that there had been contact made with a hard surface, that at the point of contact had a rough aspect to it to create the punctate abrasion, that all of that series of injuries was consistent with flailing and not a direct blow being delivered.
Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point in time. This is not a question. This is a lecture.
And further, doctor, that Dr. Lakshmanan testified it would be illogical for a person who is being attacked by a knife to try and deliver a blow like you delivered on the stand earlier today because it would bring the victim closer to the knife rather than further away. And further, that Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion was that this contusion was not evidence of a blow because there was no evidence of defensive cuts on the back of either the right or left arm of Mr. Goldman, which he would have expected to have been inflicted if Mr. Goldman tried to block the knife with his arm in an action of punching. Ask you to assume all of that, okay? With that said, we can take the photographs down and I'll get to the question. Understanding that hypothetical set of circumstances, doctor, would it be accurate to say that your examination showing no evidence of a contusion to the body of Mr. Simpson was fully consistent with Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony as I offered it in the form of that hypothetical?
Objection. This is beyond this witness' expertise. He is called as an internist, not a forensic pathologist.
And further, doctor, if you assume that Dr. Lakshmanan said that even if one assumed that that one contusion on the right hand that I pointed out does not have a punctate abrasion on it represented contact in the form of a blow between Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator, that a glancing blow would not leave necessarily evidence of a contusion on the murderer, assume that hypothetically, that would be fully in accord with your own testimony this afternoon in that area, correct?
And in fact, you can have evidence of trauma on the victim from the effort to deliver a blow without having concomitant evidence of a contusion forming on the recipient of the blow depending on the angle of force; isn't that correct?
That's a very tough question and I would have to research the literature. That's really over my head in terms of whether that's possible or not.
Doctor, this would be an area for an experienced forensic pathologist more than a doctor with your expertise and background. Is that a fair statement?
Now, doctor, I want to move to the hand examination. And you have--I asked you before we started if you could take out your rough drawing.
Doctor, would it be of extreme difficulty to you if we marked your original as an exhibit and gave you a copy back for your file?
Only because it's in pen and I think it's going to be a little easier maybe for us.
Your Honor, could this document--it has writing on both sides--be marked as People's exhibit 514?
And I'll write it in red to differentiate from the writing that's on 514 at the bottom side that has the "L" which I assume represents the left hand. Mr. Fairtlough, if you would put that up on the--I think the other way around. And if we could--let me give the doctor a copy that you previously provided to me.
Doctor, does that appear to be a true and correct copy of the document that we have up on the elmo?
Well, just to begin with, the "L" at the top of the diagram represents this is the left hand, correct?
Now, if we'll move down, you've got--even a little more--okay. Let me start with the last word at the bottom that says "Clubbing." Do you see that?
And you previously testified on direct examination that--in fact, I think in your report, exhibit 507, made a finding of clubbing; is that correct?
Doctor, would it be accurate to say clubbing is a situation, if you look at a profile of your fingernail, normally one sees the fingernail is lower towards the finger as it goes towards the wrist than it will be at the center and at the tip of the fingernail where we clip our fingernails?
Correct. Normally the nail from the nail bed angulates slightly upward, and clubbing, you take an initial downward path and scoop down.
In other words, it's filled up at the lower part where the nail bed begins if you will?
Correct. At the nail bed, that becomes--when looking at the finger longitudinally, that's the highest point. And then the nail basically starts curving downward where if you all look at your own nails, you can see there's a slight angulation upward of a normal nail.
Now, doctor, I've put on the elmo with Mr. Fairtlough's assistance one of the exhibits from 1249, which I believe you testified on Friday represents the ring finger of Mr. Simpson's left hand; is that correct?
Now, Mr. Fairtlough's ahead of me. He's got an arrow just about where I'd like it. Is this a photograph that in your opinion demonstrates the phenomenon of clubbing?
And would you--you said it--normally it starts and it's a downward angle; isn't that correct?
Does that appear to if you, if Mr. Fairtlough will move to the left, where the nail bed begins--
And, doctor, if you believe that that is clubbing, how severe a case would you describe that as being?
You don't rate clubbing. I certainly have never heard of any rating system for clubbing. Either it's kind of a yes or no answer.
Well, doctor, would it be of some assistance if in fact what you found was--let me withdraw the question if I might. You've seen cases, have you not, doctor, of clubbing where it's clear that the--there's a sponginess material, whatever it is, that has raised the area where the nail bed begins much higher than we see in Mr. Simpson's finger in this photograph so that the angle is much more pronounced. Is that a fair statement?
There are different levels of clubbing, yes. I'm not aware of a prognostic significance of that. So that's why--I didn't--
If a rheumatologist said that if that is clubbing, it's of minimal significance, would you agree with that assessment?
Would you agree--I'm not sure you've answered my question--that it would be of minimal significance, this degree?
I think that clubbing is a yes or no phenomena to the best of my knowledge, and I may be off in left field. But no, I'm not aware of a significant versus a nonsignificant clubbing in terms of looking at it. Certainly when you see somebody with clubbing, a lot of people are just born with it and it's of no significance whatsoever. Occasionally it represents some other type of disease, occasionally pulmonary, occasionally some other type of disease. So I think if you have clubbing, you make a note of it and you look into possible causes without saying gee, that's a minimally significant clubbing, let's forget it as compared to gee, that's a significant clubbing, let's really work that up. So no, I'm not aware of that differentiation.
Doctor, if we could have Mr. Fairtlough put back now what we're looking at, that exhibit 514 I believe it is, and again the left hand. On this hand-drawn sketch, you wrote information regarding three cuts that you identified to the left ring and middle finger of Mr. Simpson; is that correct?
And, doctor, did you identify all cuts that you saw by naked eye examination on June 15th to those fingers?
You were asked on direct examination about three cuts. Do you recall that testimony?
How many cuts in total did you identify on June 15th, 1994 to Mr. Simpson's left hand, wrist, arm?
He had basically a--the third cut there on the fourth finger had two components. It was one laceration, but on this initial picture, there's--mainly, if you look at the spacial relationship, there's--it looks--basically I put one slash there, and it looks like it's not basically representing the inferior portion of what I kind of call the 3-B part of that laceration.
That stayed that way basically because immediately on dictating my report after 48 hours and sending it in, I, to try to be a little bit more clear, transferred these pictures over to two right hands. And there was a--it was a stereotypic mistake. In other words, the--the right hand, I put the starting left cuts. And basically, I could see immediately that that was incorrect. But obviously I didn't want to change any of the records, and so I kept this picture the same as well as the other description as well.
Your Honor, may I ask Mr. Fairtlough to put from exhibit 507 this drawing that is marked page 440.
Now, doctor, this is the form that you subsequently transferred the information to?
And basically, we're looking at an outline, dorsal and palmar, of a right hand, but you are using this to represent a left hand; is that correct?
And would it be accurate to say that what you have diagrammed on the second finger, the index finger--
In other words, you would put whatever is identified there--and if Mr. Fairtlough has the identifying carrot. And Mr. Harris is going to help us out. Thanks very much. If Mr. Fairtlough will move it down to the left of that, please, that line right there.
It's accurately placed, but it should be elongated. I basically put a shorter laceration there than what was in fact there waiting for the pictures to return.
The injury it is to reflect is to the ring finger of the left hand; isn't that correct?
The ring finger of the right hand would be--if Mr. Fairtlough would move the carrot directly horizontal and over one more--that is the ring finger of the right hand; is it not?
--on the correct finger, recognizing this is a right-hand drawing for a left hand--
Thanks, Mr. Harris. I think we're going to ask Mr. Fairtlough to come back to exhibit 514.
With respect to your rough drawing, you do have it located, do you not, on the ring finger of the left hand?
What did you write down with respect to any description of that particular injury? And if you can't read it from--I'm talking about writing down on this.
I gave you a copy. That's why if you need to take a look at it, if you can't--Mr. Fairtlough, maybe you can zoom in a bit.
"Partially healed edges with heme in-between edges of cut and below paper cut--"
I want to be clear. Just what you started to read, doctor, that doesn't refer to the index finger injury, does it? That refers to the injury on the middle finger; isn't that correct?
Okay. Let's start--now, you're going to tell us what you wrote for the ring finger, left hand, correct?
No. The index--the third finger left hand is sliced angulated injury about one sonometer.
All right. Is that to reference what would be the lower injury diagrammed to the far left of this particular diagram?
In fact, don't you have an arrow--do you not have an arrow--and, Mr. Fairtlough, if you'll--down, down, Mr. Fairtlough, to the right, to the right. Right there--that is the area, is it not, doctor, where you diagrammed in what you defined as an injury to the left ring finger?
The paper-cut slice angulated injury is discussing that lesion the distal part of the third finger.
So where it says "Paper cut," that paper cut--and you see how the "T" of "Cut" is just above the arrow that is pointing to the area of the injury on the left ring finger. Do you see that?
Is it your testimony, doctor, that "Paper cut" there does not refer to that injury on the left ring finger?
All right. Now, "Paper cut" then refers to the injury to the middle finger; is that correct?
And now if Mr. Fairtlough could move the diagram so maybe we can center on--thanks, Mr. Harris. Let's start--I want to start with the paper cut if we could, Mr. Fairtlough. Drop down if you would, please. Now, what did you then write with respect to this--down a little, Mr. Fairtlough, with the arrow, please. For that injury. You notice you have again a carrot sign pointing to it?
But in fact, when Mr. Shapiro asked you on direct examination the cause of that particular injury, you said it was due to a sharp object, correct?
When I initially saw the wound, it was sliced so clean, that was what came into my head initially, and I did jot that down. Absolutely.
KEY QUOTEAnd your testimony on Friday on direct exam was, the absence of a rough edge would be more consistent with a knife. It was the presence of a rough edge on one of the injuries that led you to favor glass over a knife for that other injury; isn't that correct?
Both glass and knives can have smooth cuts. However, if you have a sharp cut, there's no way of knowing. On that case, part of the reason why I thought that that was more consistent with glass was the fact that the wound appeared to me to continue directly over to the adjacent fourth index finger and that it was difficult, after I really sat down and thought about it, for me to--to believe or to think that this cut which seemed to continue over, it seemed more consistent with some type of irregularly-shaped object, sharp object than a knife to be able to cause both of those seemingly related lacerations if in fact they were related.
Doctor, my question though to you was, on direct examination in response to Mr. Shapiro's question, you differentiated glass over a knife because of the rough edge of one of the cuts; isn't that correct?
And your testimony here is that this other cut, this one you initially describe as a paper cut does not have a rough surface, correct?
Doctor, did you try and age each of these injuries to form an opinion as to how old the injury was?
I really did not. I have a mental picture of it, and obviously much more important, I wanted to rely on the pictures that were taken.
Well, doctor, your visual examination was the best examination. Pictures may be distortions in some respect. They may not, but they may be, right?
I think pictures are going to tell this pretty accurately. I would certainly hope.
I don't really consider myself a pathologist to age injuries, but I mean, if you want my opinion, absolutely. I mean, I--I attempted to see if the ages were relatively similar, if the erythema around the borders was similar, if the amount of clot inside, the degree of scabbing was similar. And it was difficult because the cuts were so dissimilar. One of them, the fascia cut on the third proximal interphalangeal joint, was a slice injury and there was a significant amount of blood and heme there. The laceration on the distal third finger, which was the very smooth one, was wide open without anything inside. It was more superficial and it was totally clean, the edges were not touching. As you well know, a wound heals much more quickly when the laceration goes in perpendicular to the skin surface. And these were beveled or angulated lacerations. But it did appear to me that there was some continuity because right this smooth lesion, it came right over into this third--what I call the cut 3-B came right seemingly over in one fell injury and it seemed like some sort of sharp object caused both of those, and it made it a little bit more difficult in my mind to think that it was a knife although certainly I never said that it couldn't be a knife. I said that it seemed more consistent with glass.
But you said it was more consistent with glass because of the rough edge of that injury, correct?
The rough edge of the injury, putting them both together, they seem to be a similar injury.
Did you assume all of the injuries you saw on his left hand were incurred at the same time?
I didn't make that assumption. And certainly, as I've described, the wounds had different entry marks and it was very difficult. Certainly not something that I have any expertise in in terms of exactly dating them. And that's why in my mind, I was just to see Mr. Simpson. I requested that the pictures be taken and that all these legal issues be handled by a qualified forensic pathologist because I knew full well that that wasn't something that I was going to be able to testify up here in front of Court on because that's not what I do for a living. And when I made these drawings, I had no intention of answering any of these questions because I assumed I would not be an expert and that I just wanted to make sure the pictures represented what I had remembered. And I feel in that case, they are.
Did you tell Mr. Shapiro that you did not consider yourself an expert in identifying these kinds of injuries?
In dating them I think is what I said. In terms of exactly timing, this is not something that I do as part of my practice. In terms of looking at a wound and without, as you say, making the assumption that the patient is lying to me, exactly go back and date it somehow, whether it's carbon dating back centuries or back days, that isn't something that I do for a living, and I don't even pretend to offer any more than a sidewalk consultation on that.
Well, doctor, though as part of your training in the emergency room that you relied upon in being able to differentiate knife cuts from glass cuts, you would be involved in the same process with respect to when you got the injury. You ask the patients if they're conscious, able to talk, "When did you get it," right?
And you also are in a situation where people will come, after you've put in some sutures, to see how the wound is healing; isn't that correct?
And that would be in situations where you would know based on patient history when the wound was inflicted, right--
And then you would know what's the condition of the wound at the time you're looking at it the next visit, right?
That's a suture wound, which is totally different than a gaping wound that's had bacterial infestation and that is cut at a variety of angles and that has totally different appearances in all of these cuts and has totally different healing qualities, different rates of epithelialization, different rates of wound contracture, and all these are very difficult issues unless you've, you know, studied pictures and really made a science of this, which I certainly have not.
Well, doctor, is it your testimony that you have never, in your emergency room moonlighting over the years you've identified, never been dealing with patients who have the kind of cuts that you saw on Mr. Simpson's left hand at various stages of healing? Is that your testimony, sir?
No. I have seen cuts at every different stage of healing, but I have not made a mental note, is this a cut one day old, two days old, three days old, four days old or five days old. That's a very tight call, and short of evaluating a wound for its need or appropriateness of suturing, apart from evaluating a wound for its infectious or noninfectious nature, a part from evaluating a wound for foreign bodies inside, in terms of dating it exactly, I don't think that that's something that I feel comfortable doing. I think that I have seen a lot of people who I thing were answering truthfully say I got cut by a knife slicing the bagel this morning or I got cut by glass washing the dishes in the sink, and I feel I have a general idea, a pretty good idea after all those years of recognizing the difference between glass and knife. And I think it comes down to--and again, this may be oversimplified--if there is a lot of erratic shaggy edges, then it's probably not something perfectly sharp like a surgical blade or a razor blade or a knife. If there's some jagged edge, then it's more likely some other type of irregular, but very sharp material.
Doctor, if Mr. Simpson's hand was moving at an angle to the instrument inflicting the injury, that could account for the roughness or shagginess of the edge; isn't that correct, sir?
If you are slicing with a knife and you move suddenly, you'd have to--in order to get a beveled edge, of course, you have to move smoothly, but you could get one or two large movements theoretically.
Now, doctor, I want you to assume hypothetically the following, and you tell me whether any of your findings would be inconsistent with this. In fact, let me withdraw this. Did you ask Mr. Simpson when he got any of these injuries, when as in time he got any of these injuries?
Again, I think that this is maybe going to come as a shock to you, but I was asked to see him because of acute anxiety, situational problems and to evaluate to make sure that medically, he was okay. I took careful pictures of the hands. I asked him how he got the lacerations, which he said he got cut by glass. I did not ask him the time. I didn't ask him whether or not he committed this crime. I didn't go into those items. That was for different people. He had a whole different set of people evaluating those things. This was not something where I saw myself as somebody that was going to be sitting here defending him in court. I was really seeing him as a doctor, taking pictures of anything abnormal that I saw and not really evaluating him so that at some later date, I would sit here to protect him or do anything else in a legal vein along the lines you're asking me currently.
And this is taken during the course of the subsequent examination in which you were involved; is that correct?
Let's just put it up on the elmo. If we could bring it up just a little, Mr. Fairtlough, so we could see--just for clarification, looking to the left, that's Dr. Baden, correct?
Looking to the right in the foreground with the glasses, that's you; is that correct, doctor?
And is that Mr. Simpson's right hand that appears to be resting on Mr. Or Dr. Baden's left palm?
Now, doctor, was this part of the more complete examination of the hands for injuries?
I was really seeing him as a doctor, taking pictures of anything abnormal that I saw and not really evaluating him so that at some later date, I would sit here to protect him or do anything else in a legal vein along the lines you're asking me currently.
When I initially saw the wound, it was sliced so clean, that was what came into my head initially, and I did jot that down. Absolutely.
Doctor, in your original answers to Mr. Shapiro in which you said there was no evidence of recent contact, you did not limit that to contact with sufficient force to cause a contusion; is that accurate?
That is an area for an experienced forensic pathologist more than a doctor with your expertise and background. Is that a fair statement? ... That's a fair statement.
I requested that the pictures be taken and that all these legal issues be handled by a qualified forensic pathologist because I knew full well that that wasn't something that I was going to be able to testify up here in front of Court on because that's not what I do for a living.