All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
All right. Dr. Lakshmanan, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
However briefly. Let the record reflect that Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand. Good afternoon, doctor.
Thank you for returning with us this afternoon. And doctor, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
Doctor, I want to do a little more follow-up regarding the two juries that you talked about at the end of Friday's testimony which are reflected--are demonstrated in photographs G-51 and one of which is better shown in a close-up in G-53 and these are the injuries which Dr. Golden originally described, in essence, as one wound going in where we have injury no. 1 by your designation of G-51, and exiting what you have as injury no. 2 and also nicking the ear which you have described, I believe, as injury no. 3 of that photograph; is that correct?
And again the Court was correct, I don't think you get to sit very long. If you could step to the board and perhaps bring the pointer that is behind you--
Doctor, your opinion, as I believe you testified last week, was that these are separate sharp force injuries, injuries no. 1 and no. 2; is that correct?
And as I recall your testimony also, injury no. 2 is described by you as entering in the area shown in the photograph where Dr. Golden describes it, in essence, as exiting; is that correct?
What leads you to form the opinion that that is where the knife entered rather than the knife exiting?
That is because of the appearance of both the wounds. If you had a knife which entered here on the left side of the neck, (indicating), and came out here at this point behind the ear, (indicating), when this ripping of the skin is caused you would expect more cutting of the skin on this part, that is the outer part of this wound, which really doesn't show any cut in the depth wound. It only shows mostly like a bridge going. The cut is mostly on the surface. As I already mentioned, this is a complex wound caused by different penetrations on a preexisting cut or it could have been a separate penetration without a preexisting cut, but in my opinion this is a separate wound, (indicating), this is a separate wound, (indicating). This wound to the left ear could be related to this wound as I explained I think two days ago, and the--also the directions are different for--which supports my opinion.
For the record, your Honor, when the witness was initially talking about the appearance of the surface cutting, he was referring to injury no. 1 of G-51, and when he was referring to the direction, he was referring initially to injury no. 2 and then back to injury no. 1. May the record so reflect?
Doctor, in your review of the evidence in this case, did you also review testimony given by Dr. Golden before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on June 20th of 1994?
And inviting counsel, if they are so inclined, to page 114 of the grand jury transcript, and in particular beginning line 1 of that page and continuing on to page 115, and on to page 116, doctor, did you review this testimony from Dr. Golden?
"Question: I'm focusing now on the injury which appears to be a rather large hole in the left side of the neck." And you interpreted that, doctor, to refer to what is described as injury no. 1; is that correct, of G-51?
And the answer is "Yes." "Question: Approximately how large was that particular wound? "Answer: That wound was three inches in length. It was a gaping, as you can see, wound, and after putting it together it was three inches in length, tapering as you--if you taper it here, tapering where I indicated towards the back of the neck where it involves just the skin.
"Question: Would you describe that wound as a cutting wound or stabbing wound or both? "Answer: Well, it appears to be a combination of stabbing and cutting wounds. "Question: Now, it appears to be a deep wound and I can see why you call that a stabbing wound. Can you tell us why it is that you also described that as a cutting wound? "Answer: Well, first of all, it is very wide, so it is compatible with a narrower blade that is also cutting the skin. Also, it appears to taper into that area which indicates that this may have been a slicing component also. It is a stab wound. It goes into the neck and connects with another wound behind the left ear which is at a distance of approximately four inches from that first wound." Doctor, you interpret that last reference to be to what is described as injury no. 2?
Incidentally, these questions you read were from a Deputy District Attorney from the name of Mr. Conn, C-O-N-N?
Continuing the answer: "So it appears that it is at least four inches deep. "Question: So what you are saying is that this wound going into the neck is connected to this wound coming out on the left side on the back side of the left ear? "Answer: Yes. Of course I can't unequivocally say which one came first. It also appears that the one on the lower neck came first, but it is also possible that it came from downward and came out, depending on how the neck was held, but they do connect. "Question: And there also appears to be in this photograph an injury to the ear where the ear is cut." And did you interpret that, doctor, to refer to this injury, I believe you described it as injury no. 3 of photograph G-51?
And continuing on in the question: "Can you determine at all whether that injury to the ear was part of the--of one continuous movement from the neck into the back of the ear and then up to the ear? "Answer: Yes. I made an assumption by placing a rod or probe along the entire length there. They all connected up. So it is possible that one stabbing motion caused all three of those, which would make it about a six-inch long wound. In other words, from here, if I include this earlobe cut --correction, not earlobe but the ear cut--if the ear cut and this and this are all connected, there is approximately a six-inch long stabbing wound and that is the completion actually of the testimony regarding the relationship if any between these." Doctor, in your opinion is Dr. Golden's testimony in that area an erroneous opinion?
For the same reasons that you described with respect to how the addendum came to reflect a change to two separate wounds?
Is this a mistake, doctor, that you consider significant to you in evaluating the big ticket questions?
KEY QUOTENow, doctor, I don't believe we finished evaluating any injuries of G-51 beyond injuries 1, 2, 3 and 4; is that correct?
Can you take us through what, if any, additional injuries you see in that photograph and then we will go through a description of each and any additional information and then we will go to the protocols and so forth on those.
Yes. There is also a cut to the left earlobe. There is a cut to the left ear here, (indicating). This is a cut abrasion to the--part of the ear behind the ear canal. There is a triangular abrasion to the left side of the jaw. There is another linear interrupted cut to the left angle of the jaw here, (indicating). And there are some smaller abrasions to the left side of the chin which would complete all the injuries in this photograph.
Have you again arbitrarily numbered these additional injuries that you have just described as numbers 5 through whatever the last number would be for--
All right, doctor. Let's go individually, if we can. Injury no. 5 in photograph G-51 is which injury?
And in your evaluation were you able to determine the instrument or nature of how that cut was inflicted?
And doctor, from what you saw, were you able to say whether or not it was only from a single-edged knife or could it have been from either a single-edge or a double-edge?
Because it is just a cut, and as I mentioned earlier when we discussed in general about sharp force injuries, you cannot tell the difference when you just have a cut.
From your observation of it and any review of Dr. Golden's protocol information, how deep was that cut?
It is a cut to the earlobe, so it is just a cut. It is not--depth has not been described.
Doctor, are you able to determine whether that injury was received before death, at or around the time of death or after death?
And in those you saw what was of significance to you on this issue of whether or not that was received before death?
Because you have evidence of blood over the area and also the reddish appearance which is antemortem.
Doctor, is there anything about the position of that cut that gives you any information regarding the relative position of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator?
Now, doctor, this is a different cut than the cut you previously referred to as injury no. 4; is that correct?
Injury no. 4 is to the edge of the ear. This cut is to the side of the ear behind the ear canal there.
Your Honor, may the record reflect that this new injury no. 6 is slightly to the left and below what was previously described as injury no. 4.
Now, doctor, again, are you able to determine when in relationship to the time of death that injury was received?
Are you able to differentiate between a single-edge or a double-edge knife for that particular sharp force injury?
Because it is only a cut and the same reasons I gave earlier, when you just have an incise wound you cannot differentiate between a single-edge or a double-edge.
In your opinion are both injuries 5 and 6, however, injuries which could have been inflicted with that same single-edged knife that you said approximately would have to have a six-inch long blade?
Doctor, are you able to offer information, from your review of that injury and any other material concerning the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that sharp force injury was received?
I think I heard you say he has not diagrammed it in any of the available diagram forms?
Does that mistake have any significance to you in evaluating things like cause of death?
Or whether one knife could have caused all of the sharp force injuries that Mr. Goldman and Ms. Brown Simpson received?
Because as I mentioned earlier, it is only a cut and it could have been caused by a single-edge or a double-edge and really does not have any significant impact on all the items we just discussed and is not a fatal wound.
Injury no. 7 is a linear abrasion, measurement 3/8 of an inch in length, and it is behind the left ear canal.
All right. Let me slide over one more time just briefly. Would you point that out again for us.
Your Honor, where the witness has pointed, this injury no. 7, the abrasion, is to the left and below what has been described as injury no. 6, the cut to the ear.
What is it about the appearance and characteristics that led you to that conclusion?
Now, do you have an opinion as to what source or sources could have inflicted that linear abrasion?
One source could have been the dull edge of the knife could have caused the same wound--the same stroke which caused this cut could have just scraped the superficial part of the skin here, (indicating).
And how in your opinion could that same knife have created that abrasion as it created the cut that is injury no. 6?
Because you could have had the cut and then the knife movement could have also caused the cut abrasion.
For the same reasons that you just expressed for the failure to diagram injury no. 6?
Your Honor, may the record reflect that the doctor has pointed to something which appears to be almost in the immediate center of the photograph and does appear to be triangularly shaped with the point of the triangle facing the top of the photograph.
It is a triangular-shaped abrasion which is a blunt force type injury.
KEY QUOTEIt is triangular in shape and it is not a cut. It looks more like an abrasion.
Is this an injury that you inspect with your magnifying glass to make these kind of determinations as to is it is an abrasion versus a cut or laceration?
That is correct, because with a magnifying glass you are able to see. If it is due to a sharp force injury you will see the splitting of the skin.
Are you able to determine when in relationship to death that injury was received?
Doctor, would you consider it a mistake on the part of Dr. Golden not to have described it initially and not to have diagrammed it initially?
Doctor, is there anything else about that--oh, I know I wanted to ask you, do you have any opinion, from your review of the material, as to what source or sources could have caused that particular triangular-shaped abrasion?
It is a blunt--nonspecific blunt force trauma. As I told you earlier, if you look at the scene, there are some branches which are cut--cut plant branches, some of them could have caused this kind of injury.
I think we are going to look at that again when we look in more detail at G-55; is that correct, doctor?
Interrupted means there is areas of skin which are intact in the line of--in the line of path of injury.
May the record reflect that the injury described as injury no. 9 by the doctor--this is injury no. 9, correct, doctor?
--appears to run at a 45-degree angle and appears to begin approximately halfway between the bottom of the ear and the left jawline and runs diagonally in a downward direction toward the back of the neck.
When the doctor was talking about interrupted, in looking at the photograph there appears to be a reddishness part to the line and then it becomes pale for a short distance and then reddish again, pale again, reddish again, pale and slightly reddish as it tails off in the photograph in the lower right-hand side.
Now, doctor, in talking about abrasions, I'm not sure you discussed what a cut abrasion is. You talked about other kinds.
Umm, a cut abrasion is where a dull edge of a knife can cause a wound on the skin's surface. Not necessarily--it mainly scrapes the surface of the skin, but the margins will be sharp because it is caused by a sharp instrument's dull edge and that is a little different from another linear abrasion where you do not necessarily have the clean-cut appearance to the margins. And if you see it in a magnifying glass you can tell the difference.
Doctor, in talking about a dull edge, are you talking about a specific type of knife that creates that kind of interrupted abrasion, a cut abrasion?
It could, but the--the knife has to be drawn perpendicular to the cutting edges. The tip has to be drawn across the skin's surface, but I would favor the former to the latter.
For the same reason I mentioned earlier, because this would--this would have a more linear appearance than the other one, but it is difficult to differentiate.
Are you able to tell in any way, from what you see and have reviewed, the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator to result in this particular injury no. 9?
Because it is an injury which is in an area which could have been either the perpetrator could have been in the front or the back.
Injury no. 10 is a faint abrasion which you can see running from the--below the left ear downwards here, (indicating).
And doctor, is that seen also--if we could move up to G-53, is that seen in that photograph as well?
Your Honor, for the record, may the record reflect that the injury no. 10 is a linear abrasion pointed out by the doctor in both photographs G-51 and G-53, appears to be, as you look at the photograph, to the left of injury no. 2 in G-51, running in the same direction as G-51's injury no. 2 and terminating short of where injury no. 2 in G-51 terminates?
The appearance, and as I told you, I examined all these injuries with the magnifying glass also in the photographs.
Did you measure from the life-size one-to-one photographs to determine the approximate length of that abrasion?
It is a nonspecific blunt force linear injury, and as I told you, there are some branches and plant stalk which could have resulted in that kind of injury.
I think this might be an opportunity, if Mr. Lynch could help me out to put up a diagram.
Doctor, did you find, in your review of the protocol and a diagram, that Dr. Golden had some injury associated with this same general area as injury no. 10 but which, in your opinion, is not the same injury that you have just described and which you see in those photographs?
The next. 22-II, I think, if I remember right. No, 22-III. Yeah. That is the one right there, 22-II.
Let me get out of the way. First of all, what is it that you see on diagram 22 roman numeral ii that you believe is associated with the same general area as that injury no. 10?
This one and 1/8 inch cut that says, "Incise wound superficial," one and 1/8 inch long behind the left ear.
Doctor, where you have indicated with your marker I'm going to circle and I will write "G-51" and I'm also going to write "G-53" and I will put in quotation marks, "Cut." Doctor, if Dr. Golden described this as a cut, in your opinion, he has inaccurately assessed what the injury that you see as an abrasion actually is; is that correct?
Yes, and also this is a diagrammatic representation. All I could see in that area was this linear abrasion I just described. I didn't see any cut.
In your opinion, is it a mistake to opine that that is a cut rather than an abrasion?
Is it significant, however, as a mistake, on your ability to determine any of these big ticket questions?
For the same reasons I alluded to earlier, because it is only a superficial injury. It didn't have anything to do with the cause of death or my ability to characterize the wound or my ability to determine that it is a single-edge or a double-edge or my ability to interpret fatality from an injury, the bleeding patterns, because it is a superficial injury. So really it didn't have an impact as far as the big ticket items we have been discussing on every other injury so far.
The measurement that is provided there of one and 1/8 inch is different than your measurement of one and one-half inch?
That's correct, but also my orientation is a little different because the abrasion I diagrammed as--not diagrammed--I perceived from the photograph is parallel to the injury here. This looks as it is running from the attachment of the earlobe backwards into the skin--the back of the neck.
Doctor, let me put up again the photograph--let me actually hold it down a bit so that we can see the orientation as seen in the photograph. And I would ask you, if you can, please, to diagram on form 22, let me give your the blue marker--can you diagram in there the orientation you believe accurately reflects the orientation of the abrasion itself?
Your Honor, for the record, Dr. Lakshmanan has made three dash lines within that area of red that I just circled in the upper right quadrant diagram for form 22. And what I'm going to do is draw with a blue line out to the side and write "G-51, G-53, injury, inj., no. 10."
Doctor, I think you mentioned Dr. Golden had some information in the original protocol referring to this cut; is that correct?
It is on page 4, here, (indicating), lower paragraph: "Also in the left postauricular region, transversely oriented, extending from the auricular attachment laterally to the scalp is a one and 1/8 inch linear superficial incised wound." Last four lines of paragraph 3.
And where Dr. Lakshmanan has just pointed that out and read it, I will outline that in blue on page 4 of the protocol which is our board 0G. And I apologize, 4G was the board for the form 22.
I will write out at the side "G-51, G-53" and I will write the word "Cut," C-U-T, in quotation marks.
Now, doctor was there any description or additional information provided by Dr. Golden in the addendum referring to the cut versus the abrasion injury no. 10?
Let me put up the photo one more time because I want to focus this time on G-53 and invite your attention, if I could, to where I'm pointing now, is this same abrasion, injury no. 10; is that correct?
And there appears to be some discoloration right at the upper end of that injury that is not seen in the angle of the photograph G-51. Do you see that, doctor?
It is just a blood clot there behind the ear which has not been washed off and that is what this discoloration is, a blood clot remaining there in spite of all the washing and cleaning before the photographing.
Does that blood clot have any significance to you in being able to form an opinion as to whether what you described as an abrasion, injury no. 10, was in fact a cut as Dr. Golden described it?
There is no cut there, and this blood clot is probably related to the cut on the earlobe.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, do you consider it then a mistake for Dr. Golden again to have addressed in his protocol this particular item as a cut?
Is the area that Dr. Golden describes as being the area where the cut is observed visible in both photographs G-53 and G-51?
Injury no. 11 is superficial irregular abrasions--actually 11 and 12 below injury no. 8 on the inferior chin here, those abrasions here, (indicating), and here, (indicating). This is 11 and 12 respectively. You have some faint abrasion itself which are nonspecific.
And 12 is an area which is a bit below and a little to the right of the triangular-shaped abrasion; is that correct?
These are nonspecific superficial abrasions and could be related to the same type of plant material contact I discussed earlier regarding the linear abrasions.
Doctor, are you able to determine again whether these are inflicted or received before death?
Because of the same reasons I gave earlier, these are very superficial injuries. They have no significance to the cause of death. They do not interfere with my ability to discuss the nature of the sharp force injuries or the bleeding patterns or any of the other issues I have discussed before previously.
Doctor, are there any other injuries that are in photograph G-53 that we have not discussed?
Before--and I included, I'm sorry, by omission, but I intend to include it, G-37 before we put up the protocols and so forth to show which are the diagrammed injuries and described injuries, I wanted to come back just briefly to one of the injuries you described in G-37 as I believe a cut below injury no. 2, the superficial incise.
Abrasion, I'm sorry. In talking with you this afternoon you brought some additional information to my attention. I think you said last week that it could be caused by a fingernail?
Is there additional source or sources that you believe it would be important to know?
If it is a rough glove, the glove also could do the same type of abrasion.
KEY QUOTEYes. It is an abrasion injury. I just gave one example the other day and I gave another example today.
The same kind of movement which I discussed that day, gloved finger can also cause the same type of abrasion when these threatening cuts were made.
Doctor, then let's go to the protocols and the addendums and the diagrams for the other injuries of G-51 that we have not discussed. Why don't we start--we had gone through injury 4, I believe you said, so should we start with injury no. 5? I think you said that that was addressed?
Yes, injury no. 5 is on the protocol and it is on page 4 here, (indicating). It is the linear triangular size wound of the inferior portion of the left earlobe.
(indicating). It is there and here, this G-53, it is on the left earlobe here, (indicating), and G-51 you can see it in the left earlobe here and this is the description here on the protocol, (indicating).
Let me outline that in red on page 4 of board 0G and that is going to be "G-51 inj. No. 5."
He has diagrammed accurately the left earlobe of an inch wound and you can see it here.
Does this writing that appears above what appears to be a horizontal line have anything to do with that particular injury no. 5?
It is magnified demonstration of the same injury to show that it is a cut to the earlobe.
Where the doctor has indicated on the form in the lower right-hand quadrant, I will circle it in red and I will write "G-51 inj. No. 5."
All right. Let's separate, if we could, first of all, point out for us, if you would, which is injury no. 6?
Injury no. 6 is the cut to the left ear behind the ear canal. You can see it also in G-53 and in G-51. The linear abrasion is behind the ear canal in G-53 and you can also see it in G-51.
Let me outline that in red on page 7 of this board and I will write "G-51 inj. No. 6."
And then the next sentence refers to--in this same subgroup refers to injury no. 7?
Injury no. 8 is the triangular abrasion to the angle of the jaw which is this one here, (indicating), which I described earlier, and it is also seen in G-51 and 53.
It is not in the protocol, it is not in the diagram, but it is on the addendum, page 4, no. 9.
"On the left side of the jaw at the angle of the mandible there is a triangular shaped brown abrasion measuring maximally 1/4 inch."
The linear cut abrasion which I have described earlier just above the triangular abrasion in G-51 and in 53.
And your Honor, on that same page then I will outline it in blue and on the left side I will write "G-51 inj. No. 9."
It is in 22, no. I. You can see it here, (indicating), right here, (indicating), between the lower left neck, sharp force injury, and the left postauricular sharp force injury is a linear cut abrasion.
It says here, "Three and a half inch interrupted incise wound superficial," arrow pointing to that, so that would be injury no. 9.
What the doctor has just pointed, your Honor, I will circle that area in the lower right-hand quadrant diagram of 22-I.
No. 9, I'm sorry. I will write no. 9. While we are here, doctor, I don't think we actually outlined injury no. 2, that is that one that we talked about that is part of the continuation of injury no. 3 of G-37, injury no. 1 of G-51 or whether, as you opined, it was a separate wound. Is that this area here, (indicating)?
You can see it here. It says, "Two inch incise wound superficial" right here, (indicating), and this is the part of injury no. 2 which we discussed earlier under the photograph description.
Doctor, there appears to be some writing above what you just read. Does that refer to this particular injury as well?
It says--actually this part of the six inches is the location of the--of this incise wound, actually, of injury no. 3, and the direction is--also refers to the injury no. 1 actually, so--
I'm sorry, doctor. If you will keep your voice up. Let's break this down. Six inches refers to what?
It refers to that is below the ear area here, (indicating), and refers to this particular injury no. 1 of g--
Okay. So we will circle that as well and just include it with a line down to that same area that is already labeled.
All right. Let me circle that and just have that connect up with the six-inch circle entry.
And this "Border wavy," all this belongs to the injury behind the ear, all of this, (indicating).
I understand that, doctor. I'm talking about the writing that appears above "Border wavy"?
I will circle that injury all in blue in the same form, lower right-hand quadrant and I will write "G-51 inj. No. 2."
Doctor, is there anything else regarding G-53 that we have not discussed with respect to its appearance in G-51?
No, except that for the wound behind the ear there is a 7/8 component which is described in the addendum and it is seen in the photograph, which would be the penetrating part of the stab wound as I discussed.
That will be in page 2, no. 4, here. It is covered in the addendum but not in the original protocol.
And the component, is that of significance to you in deciding that that is an entry area for a second sharp force injury rather than an exit associated with injury no. 1?
One last thing comes to my mind, doctor, regarding injuries numbers 1 and 2 as seen in photograph G-37. And again, as part of your review of the grand jury testimony by Dr. Golden, did you find Dr. Golden made reference to those two particular superficial incise wounds?
And inviting counsel to page 120 of the grand jury testimony and beginning questioning by Mr. Conn of the District Attorney's office on line 8 through line 20 with the answer, doctor, did you review this testimony: "Question: Now, the wounds that we looked at so far, which are People's 6, 7 and 8, the injury to the neck here, can you tell us anything about the time that those wounds may have been inflicted? "Answer: Well, the two deep wounds on each side of the neck occurred before death. There is extensive bruising along or in the tissues. The two wounds across the larynx, those superficial ones, don't have as much bleeding." Let me stop at this point, doctor. Did you interpret that testimony to refer to injuries numbers 1 and 2, that is, the two wounds across the larynx?
Continuing, as I said: "The two wounds across the larynx, those superficial ones, don't have as much bleeding. I think that it is possible that they occurred on or about the time of death. In other words, when blood pressure had dropped considerably. In other words, maybe later on in the--or during the assault or the sequence." Doctor, in your opinion is Dr. Golden's opinion one which is medically sound concerning those two superficial incise wounds?
My opinion is that they occurred when he had blood pressure, one, was there is dermal hemorrhage described by Dr. Golden in the report itself. No. 2, when I reviewed the crime scene photographs, we have definite evidence of bleeding from those wounds.
Was the presence of dermal bleeding of significance to you in deciding when in relationship to the time of death those two control superficial incise wounds were received?
That would indicate that Mr. Goldman had blood pressure when those wounds were inflicted and that would--because to have bleeding in the dermis you need to have blood pressure.
Doctor, in forming your opinion that those two superficial incise wounds represented control type of injuries--I think you talked about threatening, as the perpetrator is threatening or taunting I believe may have been the words you used?
--in your opinion did that indicate that those were, if not the first two, very close to the first two injuries received by Mr. Goldman?
Because they are control cuts. As I told you, they run parallel. They railroad track like. And I also pointed out to you the cut above the wound which would favor that they occurred earlier when the victim was in close proximity and held immobilized by the suspect.
Is there anything else you wish to add to your assessment of Dr. Golden's conclusion regarding those two superficial incise wounds?
Nothing else, because the dermal hemorrhage has been described in the report. The crime scene photographs indicate they are antemortem when they happened during life.
They are on page--page 5, no. 3 and 4. No. 4, it says, "There is a small amount of dermal hemorrhage" and no. 3 it says, "Small amount of cutaneous hemorrhage is evident."
Where the witness has indicated, your Honor, on or about our 0G page 5 of the protocol--
Does Dr. Golden's opinion, which you describe as not medically supported, constitute a mistake, in your judgment?
Does it have any significance to you in forming any of your own opinions on these issues?
Yes. The presence of hemorrhage indicates it is antemortem and would go along with my opinion that they probably occurred earlier in the struggle and they were threatening wounds.
Is the fact that in your opinion his opinion is a mistake, does the mistake aspect have any significance to you?
Yes. And as I told you, the crime scene photographs do show bleeding in the wounds.
Doctor, can we move back now, I think we are--we still have some injuries, G-55, G-40 and G-50 to describe; is that correct?
Could we start with photograph G-55 and I'm going to save for a later time a discussion of the head area, but at this point I want to focus, if we could, please, on what appears to be some kind of discoloration area that is to the right of that major sharp force injury you described last week that is also seen in G-40.
It is a 5/8 inch stab wound and that is located in the right side of the neck, (indicating), and that is the main description of that injury.
Doctor, is this the same sharp force injury that we see in the lower right-hand corner of the cropped photo G-50 up here in the corner?
Yes. Here, this is a more closer up photograph of the same injury. You can see the ends of the wound better defined. You can tell whether it is a sharp end or a blunt end. You can see that the front of the wound is sharp and the back of the wound is slightly forked, and this measured I think 1/16 inch in width.
Now, doctor, is this also seen in the lower right hand neck area in photograph G-40?
This larger penetrating type wound in the back of the right side of the neck which continues or is in conjunction--seen in conjunction with injury no. 2, which is that long superficial cut in the lower neck which we called this injury no. 2 in G-37.
Let's focus then on injury no. 2 for a second, as seen perhaps most clearly, as you said, in G-50. Are you able to determine the type of instrument that could have made that injury, that sharp force injury?
Are you able to determine whether it is a single-edged or it could be either a single- edge or double-edge?
It could be a single-edge or a double-edge knife. It could be a single-edge knife with a blunt edge which caused the forking of the wound.
Going back to that chart we did I think the second day you were testifying regarding the correlation between types of knives and the kind of wounds and their appearances on the surface, do you recall which of the types--
It is no. 3, no. 3, the lower portion which had the forking on the top. This wound is similar to that.
Is it, however, doctor, your opinion that that approximately six-inch long blade that you talked about that is a single-edged knife could be the source for this sharp force injury, this stab wound injury no. 2?
It could be, because you see--the wound has been only described as two inches in-depth and it communicates with injury no. 1, and so it would be more toward the tapering part of the knife.
They share a common path with this wound, (indicating), which is injury no. 1 in G-40, I think.
If we could go perhaps to G-55, does this perhaps show most clearly the relationship on the body between the injuries--injury no. 2, this stab wound you have just been talking about, and what is that other sharp force injury, and I'm not sure which designation you gave it, I believe you said injury no. 1 of G-40?
Yes. This gives a better orientation. This wound is in front of injury no. 1 of G-40 and it is behind the right terminal portion of injury no. 1 of G-37 which is one of the superficial cuts to the front of the neck which we discussed earlier.
Did Dr. Golden address in his original protocol both injury no. 2 of G-40 and injury no. 1?
He described them as communicating and he described them as being possibly entrance and exit of one wound, but in the addendum he describes them that they could be separate wounds.
In the original protocol, let's put that up then and see what he said and follow up with the specific questioning.
Let's see if we can--without impaling Mr. Lynch, if I hold this and I watch myself with Mr. Darden and Miss Clark, what page I'm sorry, doctor?
Before we turn the page, Mr. Lynch, if you could give me a marker to the right of my notebook and let me outline this. As the description starts, doctor, is Dr. Golden referring to injury no. 1?
He is actually starting with injury no. 2. If you go on, I will show you the next page.
All right. Well, let me outline it then and so this is going to be "G-40 inj. Numbers 1 and no. 2."
And I will put also "G-55 and G-50" and that would be "Injury no. 2, inj. No. 2."
He actually starts describing as a complex wound and then he says: "The initial wound present is present on the right side of the neck over the sternocleidomastoid muscle, three inches below the right auditory canal measures 5/8 of inch in length."
All right. And let me underline "After approximation of the edges measures 5/8 inch in length" and I will write out on the left border "G-40 inj. No. 2."
Then he says that: "The wound path is through the skin and subcutaneous tissue without penetration of injury of a major artery or vein."
Let me stop you there. Does that have significance to you in evaluating whether either injury no. 1, as you describe it, or injury no. 2, as you describe it, are fatal wounds?
"The direction of the--the direction is front to back and upward, for a total wound path of two inches and the wound exits on the right side of the back of the neck, posterior to the right sternocleidomastoid muscle where a two-inch gaping long incise wound is evident on the skin."
Let me stop you at that point. I'm going to underline the part about the direction that you have just read.
And would it be accurate where it says, "And the wound exits on the right side of the back of the neck," that Dr. Golden is referring to what you've described as injury no. 1?
And he says that: "Superiorly there is an one-inch incise wound extension and inferiorly there is a two-inch long superficial skin extension inferior toward the back of the neck." It is reference to this cut here, you see here, (indicating).
Doctor, you may be blocking the view of some of the juniors on that end. Would you point out again, please.
This one inch is one going to the back and this two inches is the one going here toward the base of the neck, toward the base of the neck here, this one, (indicating), which is actually part of six-inch wound injury no. 2 of G-37.
Here he says a two-inch extension here, (indicating), going inferiorly toward the base of the neck, and this is the one-inch extension to the back of the head.
Would it be accurate to say then that where he is describing inferiorly there is a two-inch long extension that actually he refers to injury no. 2 of G-37?
All right. Let me mark that in and I will outline that so that this is "G-40 inj. No. 1."
Doctor, in essence, and let me hold this out, hopefully without hitting anybody, in essence has Dr. Golden done the same thing with regard to injuries numbers 1 and 2 of G-40 that he did with respect to injuries 1 and 2 of G-51, that is, he has described them as all part of one wound?
Because he has described this smaller 5/8 inch wound exiting in the back here, (indicating). I think they are separate wounds because you need to explain this cut abrasion which is going above the wound.
Which would only--which is part of injury no. 1 of G-40. You can see it here better, but I only concurred the knife was penetrating there, rather coming out, because there had to be a separate entrance and that could be a separate entrance sharing injury no. 2, could be a separate entrance.
Doctor, is this a mistake on Dr. Golden's part to have formed the opinion that he expressed in the autopsy on page 5?
Is this a mistake which you consider significant to you in forming any of your opinions on cause of death, manner of death, single-edge knife, single perpetrator, bleeding and so forth?
No, because he has described the wound which you can make those determinations possibly the one with the 5/8 inch wound and they did not cause death because they did not injure any major vessels, so they don't play a role in the big ticket items which we have discussed several times before.
Doctor, in your knowledge of anatomy are you able to say that Dr. Golden has accurately described the absence of a fatal injury to a vein or an artery in that area?
Because he has described accurately what happened on the left side. If you look at the internal diagrams, he described the internal jugular vein injury and said that the carotid artery was not injured and he has also diagrammed them.
Now, doctor, is--in Dr. Golden's description of the direction, if--because I'm going to have to put this down momentarily before we have an accident here--I want you to keep that in mind, because I'm going to ask you with the ruler--thank you--can you basically use the ruler and again myself to represent Mr. Goldman to give the orientation on the right side that Dr. Golden describes for injuries numbers 1 and 2 of G-40?
And I would like whatever side of mine that you need to be toward the jury box so they will be able to see.
I would like you, if you can, to demonstrate the wound path, the direction as described by Dr. Golden, with respect to these two injuries?
That is injury no. 2 which is the 5/8 inch wound we discussed and it came out here in the back, as this wound here, (indicating), as injury no. 1, and the path in the body was two inches without injury to the artery or vein.
Doctor, if you could just get back into position briefly so we can describe this for the record.
Your Honor, with Dr. Lakshmanan behind me and slightly to my right and holding the ruler in his right hand, he has placed what appears to be about three or four inches of the ruler extending from his right hand against my neck on the right side with the ruler at a downward angle away from my neck and the angle appearing to me to be approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal.
Now, you said, doctor, that--first of all, let's ask if Dr. Golden diagrammed either/or both of what you describe as injury no. 1 and 2?
You see, this is the diagram 22-II, left lower quadrant. This is 2, and you can see the--this is the 5/8 inch wound here, (indicating), and this is the wound we just discussed--
Yes, and this is the two-inch extension which is actually going down here, (indicating), which if you look at the photograph, it really is part of injury no. 2 of G-37.
Before you run further, if Mr. Lynch could hand me the marker? Let's see if we can mark these things as we go. Doctor, what you started with was where I am right now, correct?
And this is that one-inch cut which he describes as going to the back of the neck which you can see in G-40 very well here, (indicating).
There appears to be a lot of writing surrounding this area. Can you give us an interpretation of that writing?
Yes. This is "Sharp force, stab wound, diagonal, three inches below the right ear canal." That is the arrow going downwards. And then this is the a 5/8 inch wound. He has described the forked wound very clearly.
And this is the--this is two-inch long stab wound here, (indicating), and this is one-inch extension. This is the "L" and "1."
This is the L-2, two-inch extension which I interpret as injury no. 2 of G-37.
Let me circle that in red and have it join the line up here where we have a designation of "G-40, injury no. 1."
Doctor, has Dr. Golden accurately described what is seen in the photographs, separate and apart from an interpretation of the correlation, if any, between the injuries?
Yes, but as I told you, the cut abrasion on the surface of injury no. 1 has not been described, which is important for me to opine that it is a separate penetration rather than an exit. That is where this cut penetration you see--I mean, this cut abrasion. You cannot get it in an exit. It has to be a separate penetration there.
How is that inflicted as a separate penetration? Again, if you could use the ruler and use me as Mr. Goldman, demonstrate for us.
When you--as I told you, as a hypothetical, when the threatening cut took place and we--in my hypothetical explanation, and the knife was drawn here, (indicating), and I said a penetration could have taken place at that point and then the sudden movement of the victim while trying to wrestle away, the knife would come out. And then because of the movement of the knife and the body you could get the cut abrasion which favors that being an entrance and not an exit, because you cannot get a surface marking on the skin from an exit.
And so when we were doing a demonstration last week where you instructed me to pull away from you, it is in that pulling away and the twisting process that, in your opinion, one gets that appearance?
Well, before the perpetration itself there could have been movement and you could get a cut abrasion and then the penetration could have taken place, holding the person tighter, so there are different mechanisms. But what I wanted to drive home the point, to see a surface wound like that would favor this is a surface entrance and not an exit.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a 15-minute recess at this time. And remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess for fifteen minutes. All right.
If it is a rough glove, the glove also could do the same type of abrasion.
There is no cut there, and this blood clot is probably related to the cut on the earlobe.
Is this a mistake, doctor, that you consider significant to you in evaluating the big ticket questions?
It is a triangular-shaped abrasion which is a blunt force type injury... there are some branches which are cut plant branches, some of them could have caused this kind of injury.