All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
All right. Dr. Lakshmanan, would you please resume the witness stand.
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
You are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your direct examination.
Good morning, doctor. Doctor, I just want to cover a couple of areas that we touched upon yesterday, the first area dealing with a difference of opinion you hold from that of Dr. Golden concerning the time when those two superficial incise wounds, injuries numbers 1 and 2 of photographs G-37, were received by Mr. Goldman. Do you recall that testimony yesterday?
And you testified, as I recall, that you had reviewed certain crime scene photographs which caused you to believe that those superficial incise wounds were received early on and were part of control wounds inflicted by a taunting or threatening perpetrator on Mr. Goldman; is that correct?
And that Dr. Golden, in his testimony in front of the grand jury, had indicated his opinion that those wounds appeared to be inflicted closer to the time of death due to the absence of hemorrhage; is that correct?
Yes, but I supported my opinion with the statements he made in his autopsy report, which indicates that there is hemorrhage in the soft tissues underlying these wounds, which would indicate that there was blood pressure present when these wound were inflicted. And that is why I opined that they were antemortem wounds and I also gave an opinion that they are consistent with being control wounds which would have happened during the earlier part of the struggle, which is what I feel happened.
But--and doctor, from what you just said, did you feel that there was an inconsistency between the material that had been included by Dr. Golden in his protocol regarding this hemorrhage that he observed and included in his description and yet his opinion being that these were wounds that were inflicted at or about the time of death rather than before death?
Your Honor, for the record, perhaps in front of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, may I ask that this photograph that is a small rectangular-shaped photograph be marked as 358-B, as in boy.
Doctor, let me show you photograph 358-B. Did you review, among crime scene photographs, this photograph in an uncropped fashion?
In other words, you saw the full photograph and this has been cropped, as I understand, pursuant to the order of Judge Ito?
Is there something of significance shown in that photograph on the issue of when those two superficial incise wounds were received in relation to when Mr. Goldman died?
Yes, the appearance of the wounds itself, the coloration, taken in conjunction with the descriptive report which we have in the autopsy, supports the opinion that these are antemortem wounds because there is--you can see the hemorrhage in the tissues, in the margins and also underlying the--the superficial areas of the cut. You see there are areas of the cut which are deeper than the areas of the cut which are not so deep, and in the not so deep areas you can clearly see the discoloration which you get with hemorrhage underlying the tissue which has been confirmed in the autopsy report of Dr. Golden when he did the autopsy. So this photograph especially you can see very clearly in the upper wound and also in portions of the lower wound on the right side of the photograph, and I have no doubt that these are antemortem wounds based on the description of the autopsy report and the appearance of these photographs, the way they are presented to me.
Another matter, doctor, just to finish up before we go back to the hand area, let me put up board 4G from our collection from 357, I believe, and invite your attention--with the Court's permission could the doctor step down again, please?
I want to invite your attention, doctor, there is an area I noticed that has not been circled or addressed in some fashion by us. Do you recognize what is written in this area of this--this is roman numeral II form of no. 22?
Yes. This refers to the cut of the ear and the length of the wound as six inches and this is the sharp force injury and it says, "If ear involved." This refers to this wound on the left side of the neck which in Dr. Golden's original autopsy report indicated that if this left neck wound exited behind the left ear and also cut the left ear, the total length of that wound would be six inches. That is what this refers to.
Doctor, in essence, is this referring to what you described as injury no. 1 of G-51, this fatal sharp force injury stab wound, injury no. 2 of G-51, the somewhat linear in appearance wound behind the ear running down the neck, and injury no. 4 of G-51, a nick to the area you called the pinna, P-I-N-N-A, of the ear?
So the overall reasoning, according to Dr. Golden, you assumed that was all one injury with the neck going--I'm sorry, the knife going in the injury no. 1 area and coming out the area of injury no. 2 and then nicking the ear in the process, would be six inches?
Your Honor, for the record, on this form let me circle this area of information and I will write "G-51 inj. numbers 1, 2 and 4." Doctor, I would like to get back to a discussion of the hand injuries and see if you can identify in the protocol any of them that are described and to deal with the diagrams and the addendum. And for the record, with Mr. Fairtlough's assistance, we have been able to append a flap, I'm not sure it is--we may have to have it held--we have appended a flap which includes then the photograph that was described as G-34. And let me write "G-34," incidentally, on the board underneath the photograph. And also we have appended, with apparently some kind of photo mount, the photograph that was G-25 which I don't know that I have a marker--I think we could take care of it at a later time so that will be identified--but for the record we will do that.
It refers to that course of testimony. Also with Mr. Lynch's help, if we could set up the two easels.
And your Honor, we are going to be dealing with 0G, 10G and a diagram--Mr. Lynch, I'm going to ask that the addendum just be kept down here, if we could, please, and I will ask you to put up--this is our board 5G that appears to have a series of forms outlining the hand, again all from exhibit 357, your Honor.
Doctor, again, with the Court's permission, can you step down, and yesterday we did not get into the specifics of where each of these injuries are, if they are described, et cetera, so I would like to do that now. Let's start if we could going photograph by photograph, doctor. I believe you started yesterday with photograph G-35?
Let's take those injuries and go through the process of the protocol, the diagram, the addendum.
Yes. G-35 shows a 5/8 inch cut in the web between the index and middle finger of the right hand on the palmar aspect.
That is present in the palmar aspect of the hand, of the right hand, near the base of the thumb, and it measures--a y-shaped wound, and it is addressed in the protocol. It is addressed in the diagram. It was accurately defined in the reports and there was no addendum report prepared.
Keep your voice up, if you would, please, doctor. As I recall, you said those were the only two injuries you observed in photograph G-35?
And is it accurate to say that the injury that is seen in photograph G-34 is injury no. 1 that you have discussed in G-35?
That is correct. There were--the only reason the wound looks a little more gaping and bigger is because the index finger and the middle finger have been pried open so that the wound can be better visualized.
This is--on page 11, no. 1, is the injury no. 1 and page 11, no. 2, is injury no. 2.
And your Honor, I'm going to outline in blue each of these, write at the side "G-35 inj."--I'm sorry, is it 35?
"Inj. no. 1" and another one I will outline in blue and that is going to be "G-35 inj. no. 2," and I will also, for the G-35 no. 1, write semicolon "G and G-34" and a line underneath that to separate.
Doctor, are those descriptions in your opinion that are provided by Dr. Golden accurate on those two injuries?
The right lower quadrant you can see both the injuries, incise wound, length, 3/4 inch, length half-inch deep, subcu. This wound is a y-shaped wound, depth is 1/4 inch and half-inch dimensions.
Doctor, you have to keep your voice up if you would, please. Injury no. 1--first of all, just circle the area, if you would, that is covered by that?
For the record, your Honor, I will circle that same area in blue on that area of the lower right quadrant. I will write "G-35 inj., no. 1, and G-34."
And doctor, is that handwritten entry that you just read basically the same as what appears in the dictation?
The same diagram of the right hand, in whole area here is injury no. 2, (indicating).
Doctor, is this little inverted y, what appeared to be an inverted y of some significance to you?
Where you have circled that area, let me do the same with the blue and I will write down at the bottom "G-35 inj. no. 2."
Doctor, there appears to be some writing to the left of the schematic and some lines that run from that writing. What is that?
Do you agree with Dr. Golden's assessment that injuries 1 and 2 are in fact Defense wounds?
Let me just circle that and in blue and I will put a line running to each of the two areas that we have previously just circled.
All right. Let's go back then, if we could, I believe the next photograph you looked at was G-34; is that correct?
All right. Let's try and take them individually and cover the protocols, diagrams, addendums as we go so that we don't--at least I don't get lost. Let's start with what you have arbitrarily numbered injury no. 1.
Injury no. 1 is an abrasion to the ulnar aspect of the right wrist here, (indicating).
We are on page 11 board 0G. Let me outline this and I'm going to write "G-32 inj. no. 1" and see if we can flip the page.
All right. Let me outline that again and I will write the same information, "G-32 inj. no. 1."
Doctor, is Dr. Golden's description in his protocol accurate, in your opinion, of that particular abrasion?
All right. Doctor, would you identify where on that particular item--and I will get the board number designation when we pull it down, your Honor.
Right here. It is a diagram that is 3/4 inch by half an inch ulnar red brown not patterned abrasion, this injury right here, (indicating), the whole injury.
I'm sorry, there is an actual diagram on some part of the body to show what it is that Dr. Golden is referring to?
For the record, your Honor, then I will circle this area on 21-I and write "G-32 inj. no. 1."
And actually this also would belong to the same injury because it is in the distal forearm wrist area.
All right. I will circle that and I will connect these two areas with a solid blue line.
Injury no. 2 is 5/16 inch by 1/16 inch abrasion over the back of the right wrist and I'm pointing to it right here.
You are pointing in the upper right quadrant to an area. Is there some writing that you associate with that entry?
I can't read this particular letter here, but this is "Superficial" and "Half an inch" and these injuries are--
Where the doctor has just outlined with the pointer, your Honor, I will circle that in blue and write "G-32 inj. no. 2."
Doctor, in your opinion was it a mistake for Dr. Golden not to include a description of that injury in his protocol?
And is there any reason he should have addressed it in the addendum, given that he did not describe it in the protocol?
Injury no. 3 is a 3/4 inch by one inch contusion to the right hand knuckle at the base of the middle finger here, (indicating), and let's see--
Before we go to that, doctor, just one follow-up on this. You testified yesterday that it was of significance to you that the original--in deciding whether or not Mr. Goldman's hand had been closed into a fist and delivering a blow, that the only contusion you saw, without a punctate abrasion centered over the contusion, was to that knuckle; is that correct?
Can you point out which other knuckles you would have expected to see a contusion if in fact Mr. Goldman had delivered a direct blow to the face, for example, of the perpetrator?
Doctor, you indicated that you had reviewed, among other material, literature from a sports medicine publication on boxing injuries; is that correct?
Have you also, as part of your training and experience, studied blunt force trauma injuries received to hands of people who have struck faces of other individuals?
From that have you formed opinions as to the kind of injuries in the form of blunt force trauma contusions one expects to see when a fisted hand delivers a direct blow to the face of another human being?
In your opinion why--withdraw that frame of the question and frame it this way: Point out where you would have expected to see additional areas of contusion, if any, had Mr. Goldman's hand been closed into a fist delivering a direct blow to the face of the perpetrator?
I would expect to see contusion in the adjoining knuckles and also the adjoining portion of the phalanges, which we don't see here. We only see localized to one knuckle here, (indicating). And the other issue is also that the other injuries in the other fingers show to be abrasion contusions, so the only pure contusion is to one knuckle, which seems a rather unusual. If it was a closed fist which delivered a direct blow to a person, I would expect to see more injuries to the other knuckles, especially the fourth and fifth knuckles and the adjoining--adjoining proximal phalanges. You see, after all, the closed fist is like this, and if somebody is going to give you a direct blow, you would expect to see injury on this knuckle, adjoining knuckles and the adjoining phalanges. And this particular hand only shows a bruise to a knuckle without any abrasion on it, and of course the other injuries show abrasion contusions which do not follow the pattern you see in such a scenario.
KEY QUOTEYou don't expect to see the abrasion on top of the contusion from a blunt force trauma from a fist to the face of another human being?
And that I think you indicated is part of the basis of your opinion as to why you also believe it was from a flailing into some of the trees and surrounding areas where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
That is correct, and I also indicated yesterday that the lack--the lack of sharp force injuries to the back of the hands favor that opinion, because the sharp force injuries, as we discussed, are onto the front of the hand, and further, there is no other sharp force injuries which I could see in the forearm either.
Doctor, let's go to the protocol. Where is injury no. 3, that contusion, addressed?
No. 3, second sentence: "On the proximal knuckle of the right middle finger is a one inch by 3/4 inch bruise with no overlying abrasion."
Let me outline that then on board 0G and I will write to the side "G-32 inj. no. 3."
Yes. And it is here on 23-III, right here, (indicating), same knuckle, "Fresh bruise, one inch by 3/4 inch" and you can circle it.
You have outlined it with your pointer. Let me ask, before I circle it, there appears to be a circled area with some squiggly lines inside, the circle and a line running horizontally to the outside of this handwritten entry. What is this circled area with the wavy lines to reflect?
It is diagrammatically depicting the injury that you see in the photograph and which has been dictated as such on the protocol and that is the measurement there, (indicating).
All right. Let me outline that then, this upper right quadrant with the board 2-3 and I will write out at the side "G-32 inj. no. 3."
Injury no. 4 is 1/32 inch punctate abrasion in the base of the right index, which is a small one right here, (indicating).
And I think we are going to lose our easel in just a second, if we could have a moment, your Honor.
Doctor, in your judgment, all mistakes by Dr. Golden not to have described, diagrammed or addressed in the addendum?
Individually or collectively of any significance to you on the big ticket issues?
Injury no. 5 is a linear diagonally-running abrasion half an inch to the back of the right index next to the small abrasion I just described. It is on the back of the right index here, (indicating).
So we are working our way along the length of the first finger towards the nail area; is that correct?
Yes. Same page, 12, fourth sentence here, (indicating), on the--it says: "There is a linear diagonally half an inch reddish brown abrasion."
Yes. It also includes the bruising you see there near the--on the proximal phalangeal joint.
Doctor, do you identify that bruising as a separate injury or is that, in your opinion, a part of injury no. 5?
I described it as a separate injury, but it could have been part of the same force which caused that other injury there.
As long as we are here, is the next injury by your numbering system injury no. 6, what is described here as the fresh bruise?
So if I outline this entire sentence, would it be accurate to say that this concerns G-32, inj. numbers 5 and 6; is that correct?
And where--is there an area where it is actually drawn in in some fashion on the schematic?
You can see it being drawn in right here on the index finger here has a linear thing and then you have the bruise next to it.
And is there any written description provided by Dr. Golden for that particular--this would be injuries 5 and 6?
It says: "Half an inch by half an inch reddish brown abrasion and fresh bruise." And then he has also diagrammed the abrasion here, (indicating), length, half an inch separately, which corresponds to this, so actually the description for this injury would include this handwriting here and this handwriting there, (indicating).
Would it be accurate to say, doctor, that this handwriting on the left of the first finger refers to what you have described as injury no. 5, the abrasion?
And what Dr. Golden has written as fresh bruise is referring to what you described as injury no. 6?
For the record, I will circle in red this entire area that Dr. Lakshmanan has just talked about. On the upper right quadrant diagram of 23 roman numeral III, I will write "G-32 inj. numbers 5 and 6."
And again this would be in keeping with a numbering system, if you will, where you are going along the length of the index finger, the first finger, excuse me, towards the nail; is that correct?
It is a discolored area on the nail which is a scraping and it measures 3/8 of an inch in area, and I'm pointing to it here, (indicating).
This, doctor, again a photo you reviewed, life-size photo, for your purposes of measuring?
Are you able to tell, doctor, whether that injury occurred during the circumstances of this incident on Bundy on June 12th or whether it occurred at some earlier time?
It is difficult to say when you have a nail injury, because the nail injuries, unlike skin injuries, do not leave a reaction and there was no hemorrhage which I could see, so I can't tell when that happened, but taking in conjunction with the other injuries, it probably could have happened at the same time, but I can't tell.
Because as I told you, it has no bearing on the cause of death, my ability to discuss the sharp force injuries, what type of weapon, the bleeding patterns or any of the other issues which I have addressed previously many times on the injuries.
KEY QUOTEInjury no. 8 is a 1/8 inch abrasion over a pink contusion just above the base of the right middle finger, right here, (indicating).
Is this one of these abrasion contusions you were referring to as being the cause, in your opinion, from contact with a rough surface like the tree?
Yes, but the--in the original protocol he has addressed it as an index finger but actually it is the middle finger. He has diagrammed it correctly.
All right. Let's see exactly what has been done here. Why don't we start with the diagram.
Yes, right here, (indicating). You can see it as right here, the middle finger, you have an abrasion in the middle, which is 1/8 inch here, and you can see bruise half an inch by half an inch width abrasion, so this whole area reflects the injury no. 8 which I just showed you in the photograph there.
Doctor, has Dr. Golden specifically drawn diagrammatically on the outline of the hand, and in particular the middle finger, to show that this is in fact an abrasion sitting in the middle of this contusion?
Yes, he has. He has very accurately described it. You can see the abrasion in the middle which is dense compared to the rest of the injury here.
Where you have just pointed, the area of the abrasion, I'm going to circle that in red and then I'm going to circle the entire area that you have just described in blue, and make a line going to the top of the diagram and write "G-32".
It is actually on page--third sentence, and injury no. 8 should be the middle finger, but just an error here with the index finger. It says "Index finger" here, (indicating).
All right. First of all, is there an entire sentence to refer to what you've identified as injury no. 8?
All right. Let me outline that in red and write to the right "G-3 2 inj. no. 8." And in your opinion, doctor, the identification of the finger as an index finger is an error on the part of the Dr. Golden?
Let me circle or underline the word "Index" in blue within this area and then I will draw a line in red out to the side and write "Should be middle, see diagram."
Doctor, is this mistake of indicating "Index" rather than "Middle" of any significance to you on the big ticket questions?
Injury no. 9 is a small 1/8 inch abrasion just a little bit away from the injury I just described on the middle finger. It is a little more distal.
Yes, here, (indicating), and he has drawn a line and shown it accurately so that he has--
Yes, he does, and that has been described accurately here. After the semicolon which we just described it says: "Just distal to the middle phalange of the middle finger is a one-inch nondescript abrasion."
Your Honor, first of all, on the diagram that Dr. Lakshmanan was outlining with the pointer, I will circle in red and I have a very short line reading "G-32 inj. no. 9."
And then, doctor--and your Honor, for the record, I will outline the rest of that sentence and put a line out to the side, "G-32 inj. no. 9." Anything further on that injury, doctor?
Injury no. 10 is a 1/8 inch abrasion overlaying the contusion near the middle of the ring finger here, (indicating).
Doctor, is this again one of these abrasion contusions which in your opinion is due to contact with a rough surface like the tree?
And inconsistent with what kind of abrasion--I'm sorry--what kind of blunt force trauma you would expect if a blow from a closed fist of Mr. Goldman to the head or face of the perpetrator?
All right. Let's stop with the part that is injury no. 10. You tell me where it stops.
"Half an inch by half an inch bruise on the right ring finger surrounding two punctate abrasions approximately 18 inch in maximal diameter."
Let me outline that in red and I will write to the side on the left "G-32 inj. no. 10."
While we are here then, what does the rest that have sentence refer to, or paragraph?
That refers to the fifth finger, but he has included injury no. 11 which we saw in my description--in my description in the same sentence.
Injury no. 11 is a punctate abrasion which is next to the injury no. 10 in the photograph. You can see it here, (indicating).
Doctor, would it be accurate to say that you see on that finger two punctate abrasions?
I described as injury no. 10 and I described the other abrasion as injury no. 11.
And then for the record, your Honor, where Dr. Golden has written "Two punctate abrasions," I'm going to box that in blue and write down below "G-3 2 inj. numbers 10 and 11."
It is diagrammed as the ring finger properly. It describes a bruise. It describes the two abrasions which are punctate 1/8 inch, and the whole area you can reflect that they were present, injury 11 and 10 of photograph G-32.
And has Dr. Golden actually diagrammed on this form the appearance of the punctate abrasion?
Yes, he has. You can see them here, one, and the other one here, (indicating), on the bruise itself.
And in the area I circled I will write "G-32, inj. numbers 10 and 11." Anything further about those two injuries, doctor?
Yeah. 12 is the small abrasion to the ring--I mean to the little finger here, (indicating).
Yes, it is, and it is the last sentence here on page 12, no. 3, paragraph 3, last sentence.
Let me outline that in blue and I will write "G-32 inj. no. 12." Is this also diagrammed, doctor?
Doctor, is the source or sources of that abrasion consistent with the environmental surroundings you saw on those photographs?
Let me circle that area, I will do it in blue, on the chart, and I will write out at the side "G-32 inj. no. 12."
Doctor, in your opinion has Dr. Golden, with respect to each of the injuries that you have seen in the photograph, G-32, and which he describes in the protocol, with the exception of the wrong finger on the one injury, which is injury no. 8, has he accurately described each of the injuries?
And in your opinion has he accurately diagrammed, as to those that he has diagrammed, all of the injuries you see in that photograph?
All right. Doctor, let's go then--I believe we move next to G-28, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct?
And then G-29, both of these are photographs of the palm surface of the left hand?
G-28, I went over the sharp force injuries to the base of the thumb and the base of the little finger here, (indicating), not base actually, it is more on the palm of the hand near the same area as the base of the little finger, and we also discussed an abrasion to the tip of the left thumb and we also discussed a linear abrasion to the base of the left--left thumb.
Doctor, is that abrasion or those other abrasions, I think you talked about abrasions that can be inflicted if Mr. Goldman attempted to grab the knife and the knife rotated against--
Not this abrasion, (indicating). This is a scrape type abrasion which could be--it is nonspecific.
That abrasion, for the record, is the one that appears to be near the end on where the nail is of the thumb on the palmar surface, though, correct?
No. Even this linear abrasion could have a--it is a nondescript linear abrasion which could be from a rough surface.
Rough surface from the plant material, trying to hold it or trying to brace yourself.
Not in the main protocol, it is not described on the diagram; it is only addressed in the addendum.
I think we have the addendum right here, board 10G, if we could put it over the protocol for just a second.
Page 5, no. 16. Number here, "Distal phalange of the left thumb, 3/8 by 1/16 abrasion."
Is this an accurate description, in your opinion, of what you see in photograph G-28, injury no. 1?
Doctor, again, would these be mistakes on the part of Dr. Golden not to have addressed it originally in the protocol?
Injury no. 2 is that linear abrasion in the base of the thumb here, (indicating). You can see it here running.
Page 11, no. 3. Right here, page 11, no. 3: "Palmar surface of the left hand, the web of the thumb, there is a 3/4 of an inch cutting wound involving the skin and subcutaneous tissue, quarter inch deep with hemorrhage in the margins. This is comparable with the Defense wound," the whole paragraph.
Doctor, is this paragraph, in its entirety, in your opinion, accurate in its description and opinion as to the type of injury that injury no. 3 of G-28 is?
Let me outline that on our board 0G. I will do it in red and I will write out at the side "G-28 inj. no. 3."
All right. Would you identify, please, for us, where it is diagrammed and what, if any, writing is associated with it?
It is diagrammed at the base of the thumb. It says: "3/4 inch incise wound, web of thumb, skin subcu quarter inch deep hemorrhage."
Let me circle the area on 23-I, again board 5G, and I will write "G-28 inj. no. 3."
Is the diagram and the description along with it accurate, in your opinion, doctor?
It also shows the portion of the sharp force injury to the palm I discussed earlier, but I have described it under G-29 actually.
On G-29 I started with the--this same wound which I discussed in G-28. It is injury no. 1 in my description, and it is 5/8 of an inch in length and it curves in its ulnar aspect here, (indicating), and--
Let's get the addendum. I think we will switch here for just a second. Let's put this up on this side.
No. 13 says: "Palmar surface of the left hand, ulnar aspect, transversely oriented wound, 5/8 inch in length."
Is this an accurate, description, in your opinion, of what you see in that photograph?
Okay. Injury no. 2 of photo G-29. Let me take this down, if I could, please. I got the photo.
Injury no. 2 is located on the little finger and you see it here. It is a 3/8 inch by quarter inch abrasion in my measurement of the one-as-to-one photograph with the skin being peeled off with a flap of peeled skin seen here. I'm pointing to it, (indicating).
Is the fact you see a flap of peeled skin of significance to you in identifying how that injury came to be inflicted?
As I mentioned earlier yesterday, I felt that it could be related to this cut in the left palm of the hand when the knife was--there was an attempted probable grabbing of the knife and with the knife turning, this skin could have been peeled off. That is one way it could have occurred, because if you look at the flap of the skin, it looks like very thin flap which has come off of the surface.
Is the direction of the flap of some significance to you in evaluating the direction of the force which has created that abrasion?
Yes. It would mean two things: Either the skin moved in a fashion towards the wrist, the hand moving in this manner, (indicating), on the--
Downward. Or the force which caused it moved upwards to the tip of the finger to peel the skin in such a manner that you have a flap of skin toward the distal aspect of the finger.
For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan used his right hand to move upward against the left palm of his--I'm sorry, the palm of his left hand.
15, yes. It says: "The volar surface of the left fifth finger shows a superficial brown abrasion with a 3/8--measuring 3/8 of an inch by 3/8 of an inch with portions of avulsed skin."
Is this an accurate description, in your opinion, of the injury no. 2 or is it injury 2 or 3?
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess, mid-morning recess. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, allow anybody to communicate with you or conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will take a 15-minute recess. All right.
I would expect to see contusion in the adjoining knuckles and also the adjoining portion of the phalanges, which we don't see here. We only see localized to one knuckle here. And the other issue is also that the other injuries in the other fingers show to be abrasion contusions, so the only pure contusion is to one knuckle, which seems a rather unusual. If it was a closed fist which delivered a direct blow to a person, I would expect to see more injuries to the other knuckles, especially the fourth and fifth knuckles.
I have no doubt that these are antemortem wounds based on the description of the autopsy report and the appearance of these photographs, the way they are presented to me.
Because as I told you, it has no bearing on the cause of death, my ability to discuss the sharp force injuries, what type of weapon, the bleeding patterns or any of the other issues which I have addressed previously many times on the injuries.
I take it not very subtle hint.