All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. Doctor. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may resume concluding your direct examination.
Doctor, again, with the Court's permission, would you step to the board, and let's pick up with respect to these injuries to the hands.
And I think we're now on to, if there is an injury no. 3 of G-29, we're at that stage.
Yes. The injury no. 3 is an area of abrasion injury to the palm of the hand in the middle finger and near the tip of the middle finger, there are about three abrasions there, one, two and three, and they measure approximately quarter inch by 1/16 inch and 3/8 inch and quarter inch by 1/16 inch, and that's injury no. 3.
Do you have an opinion, doctor, as to the manner in which injury no. 3, these series of abrasions, were received?
That's a nonspecific blunt force injury and it could be from scraping against any rough surface.
Let me pull the board down this way so we can see the injury. And if Mr. Lynch can turn to page 5. Doctor, does that description in item 14 of page 5 accurately describe in your opinion what you have described as injury no. 3?
No. It has been described collectively here, but actually there are--you can see three separate abrasions, but in the same area. So the report described abrasion collectively rather than individually.
Well, you can see the--there are some areas where they oppose each other, but they look like three separate areas of injury.
Now, doctor, in your opinion, is it a mistake on the part of Dr. Golden to have described these in the addendum "Collectively" rather than to see them and describe them as individual abrasions?
And his mistake--I assume you find it to be a mistake of not including it in the protocol and a mistake of not diagramming it?
If Mr. Lynch could, because I think he's going to have a better chance maybe in blue, outline that area on the board, the addendum 10-G and then write out at the side, if you would, please, "G-29, inj. 3." And if you could write in quotation marks "Collectively."
If we could ask Mr. Lynch then to take down the addendum. Let's go to--is there an injury no. 4 in the photograph of the palm of the left hand, G-29?
All right. Let's go to--I think we then talked about G-26 and then we had this smaller photograph that is B-25.
Injury no. 1 is the contusion to the back of the hand with a small abrasion which is punctate overlying it.
Doctor, is this again the same kind of contusion with punctate abrasion identified earlier on photograph G-32 in the area of the knuckles of the fingers?
And is your opinion concerning the source for that abrasion contusion the same as you opined regarding the source or sources for the abrasion contusions to the fingers as seen in G-32?
In your opinion, doctor, is it inconsistent, however, with the source being a blow from Mr. Goldman's clenched fist to the face of the perpetrator?
KEY QUOTEAnd point out, if you would, please, where on page 4, no. 4--page 12, no. 4 of board 0G.
It's here on the last line, the last sentence of page 12, no. 4, there's a fresh bruise on the dorsal surface of the left hand surrounding a punctate abrasion.
I'll outline that in red and we'll write in "G-26." And is it also seen in G-25, doctor, the small photograph or is it covered by the card?
All right. Doctor, is there some writing that goes along with this injury diagram?
Yes. It says "Fresh bruise hemorrhage" and it says here--I'm sorry--one and a quarter inch by one inch. One and a quarter inch by one inch and "Punctate abrasion."
And has Dr. Golden specifically diagrammed the abrasion to be in the center of what he has diagrammed to be the bruise?
All right. Let me circle this area in red and out at the side, "G-26 inj. no. 1." Anything further on that?
No. 2 is the linear abrasion which is situated between the base of the index finger and the wrist which here this is about three-quarters of an inch in length in my measurement and it's also diagrammed and described.
Doctor, is there any significance to you in the appearance of that linear abrasion?
The same plant type environment which I described earlier in the crime scene photographs, the branches or one of them can do that kind of abrasion.
It's--it's described in actually paragraph 2 here (indicating), and you can see it here on 3/4 inch long skin abrasion terminating 1/8 inch nondescript punctate abrasion, and this is the abrasion which is--
--this is the abrasion which is diagrammed here and this is the punctate part of the linear abrasion.
What is the significance, if any, to there being a punctate part of a linear abrasion?
As I told you, this is a nondescript blunt force trauma. And let's assume that the hypothetical situation is, you have a small branch or sharp--not--semi-sharp, not sharp branch which strikes the portion of the skin. And you can get a punctate part of the abrasion caused by that, but when the hand moves, the branch will be drawing against the particular surface of the skin causing the linear appearance adjoining the punctate part.
Now, doctor--I'm sorry. Is it just that one sentence of item 4 of page 12 starting with "On the dorsal surface"?
And is there a description given by Dr. Golden along with the diagram of the linear abrasion with the punctate?
Length 3/4 inch skin abrasion. Then he says, abrasion 1/8 inch punctate, which is the lower part here (indicating).
In your opinion, do these entries both on the protocol and on the diagram accurately describe and diagram that injury?
All right. Let me outline those, please, in red on page 12 of the protocol, and I'll write "G-26, inj. no. 2" is it, doctor?
All right. And I'll do the same over here and write out at the side "G-26 inj. no. 2." Anything further on that?
Yes. No. 3 is abrasion which is described as "W" shape in the knuckle area at the base of the middle finger here (indicating).
Is the appearance of it described as a "W" shape--first of all, is that an accurate description of it?
Yes. If you look in the magnifying glass, you can see the middle limb of the "W", but if you look at it just from a distance, you can see it looks like a "V".
Doctor, is there any significance to you of the "W" shape in forming any opinion if you have concerning the source or sources for that particular injury?
It's a--it's a--it looks like a particular pattern, but I can't really tell a source for it. It's a nonspecific type of blunt force abrasion injury. It could be related to the same environment we discussed regarding the branches and the plant material there, but I can't really pinpoint a particular source to it.
It's on page 12, no. 4. If you look at the first sentence, it starts--it's a long sentence on item 4, paragraph 2. There is an irregularly configured abrasion of the proximal knuckle of the left middle finger, apparently 3 linear half an inch abrasions converging at the center having a configuration of the letter "W". They're all superficial skin abrasions.
Just for the record, you've left out a few words as you've read portions of that description; is that correct?
Yes. It's described here "Superficial abrasion" and it's diagrammed and described there.
Is that an accurate diagram, a diagrammatic depiction along with description in that 23-II?
Let me outline that area then in both the protocol--I'll do that in blue. I'll write out at the right side "G-26 inj. no. 3" are we at, doctor, injury no. 3?
Okay. And I'll circle the same area you outlined in the upper left quadrant of 23-I and II in blue and write "G-26 inj. no. 3." Anything further about no. 3?
Injury no. 4 is a punctate abrasion adjacent to the "W" abrasion I just described, and that has been diagrammed, but not described in the protocol.
I want to be sure--I'd like you to circle if you would, doctor, in red, what you believe to be the diagrammatic depiction of this injury.
And you've done that in red, and this is described by you as injury no. 4 of G-26?
Now, doctor, is this another depiction of that "W" shaped abrasion that you saw and outlined for us earlier on II?
Yes. What he has done is, he diagrammed it in that diagram and again diagrammed it in this diagram, and in this diagram is included a measurement of each limb, half an inch.
All right. I'm going to circle that in blue on I, form 23, and out at the side, I'll write "G-26 inj. no. 3." Is that correct, doctor?
And the area that--I'm sorry--that you circled-- this is actually injury no. 4. I believe I made a mistake.
All right. Your Honor, for the record, I wrote no. 2. May I have the record reflect I'm taking the blue marker and covering over the no. 2, and in red I'll write the no. 4?
No. 5 is a small abrasion the--as you can see, the base of the little finger here, very small one (indicating).
It's the same, similar nonspecific blunt force trauma, same kind of scenario which can cause them as I discussed earlier like the environment.
Yes. And this is a quarter inch by 3/16 inch abrasion with a mild contusion near the base of the back of the index finger right here (indicating).
All right. Now, you're pointing--that's our G-25. Is that injury seen in both G-25 and G-26?
And for the next series of injuries that we're going to look at, are we starting at the base of the first finger and working our way towards the nail of the first finger?
I'm sorry. And is it accurate to say that G-25, the smaller photograph, shows more fully each of those injuries?
That's a quarter inch by 3/16 inch abrasion with a mild contusion near the base of the index finger.
Is that something that in your opinion is consistent with being caused by a flailing and coming in contact with a rough surface like a tree?
Just says "Punctate abrasion" there. "Punctate." Doesn't say "Abrasion." Just says "Punctate."
Is that a completely accurate description of what you see in the photograph as injury no. 6?
Let me circle this area in red in the upper left quadrant, and I'll write "G-26, 25 inj. no. 6." Would it be a mistake to characterize it only as a punctate abrasion?
He has described all the injuries to the index finger collectively as one sentence in page 4--I mean page 12, no. 4.
Would you show us using the photograph what Dr. Golden has described collectively?
He has described the injuries to the different part of the index finger. You have an abrasion contusion. Let's go to G-25. You have abrasion contusion at the base of the index finger, one of the proximal interphalangeal joint, and then you have two abrasions distal to it on the middle phalanx.
Is it a mistake in your judgment for Dr. Golden to have described these, as you pointed out on page 12 of the protocol under item 4, described them collectively rather than individually?
Well, it is a mistake in the sense that he has not described them individually, but he has addressed them.
The abrasion part of it is accurate, but as I told you, the injury no. 7 also has a contusion underlying it.
How about diagramming? Before we mark in any fashion this collective description, has injury number--I think we're up to no. 6.
I have 8 and 9 after that, and I've already shown them on the G-25 distal to no. 7.
He has indicated that that is areas of abraded--I mean brown--I mean red abrasion in the back area there.
Doctor, would it be accurate if I were to circle this entire area (indicating) to then describe what you are describing as injuries nos. 7, 8 and 9?
Yes. Actually all this would also include that because he says "Multiple red brown abrasions" and he says quarter inch by 3/8 inch. That's a maximum dimension he gives it, reddish brown, and all this area would be included.
He says that this will be the three knuckles of the index finger. He calls them, each of them a knuckle, the interphalangeal joints.
And I can not make out, can you, the words that appear above the word "Knuckle" that you were just pointing to?
So now, doctor, I want--before I draw, I want to be sure I'm accurate. Would all of this information refer then to what you've described as injuries 7, 8 and 9?
And in the upper left quadrant diagram 23-I, I'll write "G-26, 25, injs. No. 7, 8 and 9," doctor?
And in the protocol itself, doctor, this first paragraph refers to what you have described as injuries 6, 7, 8 and 9?
I'll outline that in red, and out at the side, "G-26, 25, injs. No. 6, 7, 8 and 9" with an arrow touching the box. Anything further regarding these injuries, doctor?
Yes. Because if it's just an abrasion, you'll just have a scrape against a rough surface. But if it's an abrasion contusion, it would be an impact of the hand against that surface which has a different connotation as to the mechanism of injury.
KEY QUOTEAnd when you say an "Impact," doctor, would that be in your opinion consistent with a hand that is moving with force in a backward direction by Mr. Goldman coming in contact with the rough surface like the tree and backing away from the assailant?
There is--I described one more injury in G-26. There's a small abrasion above the abrasion contusion that we've described here, and this is a 5/16 inch by 5/8 inch contusion--I mean abrasion.
And for the record, on G-26, it appears that the area of the injury that is closest to the hand is in contact or covered if you will by a margin of the photographic identification card?
It could possibly be reflected by this abrasion injury here (indicating), but it's difficult to decide whether if you really--
This diagrammatic marking here could represent that. I'm not sure whether that's what it was representing.
I can't read--it says 3/4 inch by half inch, and I think that refers to more the triangular abrasion above it, not to that marking.
And there also appears to be some writing down below where the schematic of the left hand ends. Does that refer at all to that same area?
So, doctor, if you'll point carefully to the area which possibly refers to this injury.
All right. Let me circle that in red. I'll write out at the side "G-26, 25 inj. no. 10" is it, doctor?
It's on page 12, no. 2. All the injuries to the left forearm have been described, including the triangular one which we just discussed, and no specific mention of this particular one, but this paragraph would include all the injuries in the forearm.
Doctor, if you could look to the photograph to the left of G-26--and I can't see the number at the moment.
That's again a nonspecific blunt force injury which could have been caused by the environment which is present on the Bundy drive.
Again, this could be a branch. You know, as I told you, there are branches which have been cut and there are stalks there; and when you have the forearm rubbing against one of those stalky branches or the stalks of the branch, you could have this kind of abrasion.
All right. And you've already pointed out, apparently it was diagrammed by Dr. Golden?
All right. Let me try and include that as well. Does this "Abr" refer to anything, doctor?
I'll include that then in the circled area on form 21-I and I'll write at the side "G-21"--and I'm sorry, doctor--injury no. 1? The triangular-shaped injury is which number according to your--
I'm sorry. Injury no. 2. I'll write that in. All right. Let's finish. What other blunt force injuries are included collectively by Dr. Golden in this paragraph item 2 of page 12? If you could go to the photographs and show us.
He has also addressed this linear abrasion above the triangular abrasion of the left forearm in G-21, and that is also diagrammed here, and he has addressed it in the protocol here as a 3/4 inch in length abrasion (indicating).
Let me outline that first on the protocol in blue, and I'll write "G-21 inj. no. 3."
And I also have--you have to address this 3/4 inch by half an inch triangular abrasion as injury no. 2 of G-21.
All right. I'll do that in red then on the protocol, same page. And that's going to be "G-21 inj. no. 2"; is that correct, doctor?
And then over here where you pointed out--before I circle, doctor, is this the area that refers to that injury no. 3?
Yes. Yes. This particular abrasion. But my concern is whether the measurement here--it says 3/4 inch by half an inch and again says 3/4 inch by half an inch--whether one of the 3/4 inch applies to this measurement.
All right. Let me circle this area in red. On the outline of the schematic, I'll write "G-21 inj."--this is no. 3?
Well, he has described them fairly accurately, the triangular abrasion and the linear abrasion. So they're not mistakes per se.
Is a fairly accurate description a satisfactory description in your judgment, doctor?
Well, it's a--the triangular abrasion has been described properly and the linear abrasion has been described.
That's correct. Because you have another abrasion there which has not been addressed, but he says that there are multiple abrasions in the forearm. He has not addressed them individually.
Well, this is the same area which we had a question mark whether it was injury no. 10 of G-26. It could also represent injury no. 1 of G-21 because there's only one marking there for both those injuries.
All right. Let me then add under the description previously given on the diagram board the word "Or G-21 inj. no. 1" with a question mark.
Is their relationship as shown in that photograph, G-26, of significance to you in forming any opinion as to how they were incurred?
No. They're nonspecific blunt force injury. I can't make any inference on that.
Anything further with respect to this collective group that's in this paragraph item 2 of page 12 of the protocol?
So in order to complete this item, let me circle the no. 2 and indicate collectively which injuries, doctor?
Let's--we talked yesterday briefly about G-20, doctor, and you talked about this interrupted abrasion. Do you recall that?
There's also a smaller abrasion just above the--in the region of the elbow area, and I've already discussed this complex interrupted abrasion in the left arm and the smaller abrasion above it and--
The interrupted abrasion you talked yesterday about, the clothing getting folded is one basis that you end up with this situation?
Now, what about this abrasion that you describe as being below the photographic card in G-20?
Just to conform to the wound chart, which is our exhibit 351, of G-20, which is injury no. 1?
Injury no. 2 is this--the three portions to the left arm area. Three--an abrasion, just three portions to it, and then injury no. 3 is the top most one.
Yes. G-23 shows the left forearm and shows the inner aspect of the left forearm and also shows the left nipple area. So I have described two injuries. The other injuries seen in this photograph have already been addressed. You have the abrasion behind the left distal forearm, which was juror no. 10 of G-26. We have the smaller abrasion here, which is injury no. 1 I think or--yeah--injury no. 1 of G-21. Yeah. Injury no. 1 of G-21. So barring that, we have an abrasion of the ulnar aspect of the left wrist and you have this abrasion here, the left nipple (indicating).
Doctor, I want to be clear in my own mind. You're saying that that is the nipple of the left breast?
He described it as two bruises in his protocol description, but it's not a bruise. It's more--and he says it's not abraded. You can clearly see it's an abraded injury with a peeling of the skin.
How can you see that it is clearly abraded and Dr. Golden on the other hand describes it as fresh bruises?
I can only say what I see here. This is peeling of the skin, which is a flap of skin like any other abrasion like you saw in the little finger here where the skin flap has been peeled off. And you can see the peeling of the skin right here (indicating), and the injury itself is an abrasion injury.
Doctor, would you say that normally it is better to see the actual wound on the body than to review it photographically?
Doctor, in your experience, do you find that a review of injuries on the body yields a more accurate identification than one drawn from photographic identification?
Looking at the body definitely helps because you have a 3-dimensional look at the injury. And also, you can make incisions to see the depth of the bruising and other--the ability to do other examinations to better define the injury. But in a photograph, you can clearly interpret what the injury appears to be, that is an abrasion or contusion, without difficulty, but you may not be able to tell how deep the bruise is because you can't cut--it's only a 2-dimensional view. It's not a 3-dimensional view and you don't have the additional ability to study the injury in more detail.
Doctor, I believe you testified several days ago that you routinely review cases performed by other medical examiners in forming independent opinions to testify where those individuals, for example, have left your office or on vacation; is that correct?
And that's the same process also available for Dr. Wolf or Dr. Baden; that is, they weren't there to examine the bodies either; is that correct?
What leads you to believe that there is an entry there that concerns injury no. 1 of G-23?
It's--it's two discolored areas on the--I mean two markings on the diagram on the same area where the injury is present, and there is some notations here which also have been darkened, but the measurements here have been dictated here in the--in the body of the autopsy report (indicating).
You can see this to be 3/8 inch by 3/8 inch and then half an inch by half an inch.
From just looking at the diagram, doctor, and your experience in the office and its customs and practices and those of Dr. Golden, can you offer any explanation as to why this area is darkened?
Well, I--I--one explanation would be that he diagrammed the injury and then he maybe went back and didn't want it mentioned or didn't think it was the right area, then he went back and thought it was the same area. I just have to give my feeling on what happened. I can't tell really what happened.
But the point is, it is as it is on the diagram and the description is as it is on the protocol.
Doctor, is it accurate if I circle this entire area? And I don't know. Is this area to refer in your opinion to that injury?
It would reflect the same area because it says "Skin" and it says "Dermis" there.
And is that in your opinion something that is in consideration in describing that injury of no. 1 of G-23?
Let me circle this information in red, the lower left quadrant, and I'll write "G-23 inj. no. 1," and I'll write or I'll outline on the protocol of this item no. 5 and write "G-23 inj. no. 1" and I'll write-- doctor, in your opinion, this is an--this injury is an abrasion, not a contusion?
Well, it's an abrasion as far as the skin surface goes, and it looks like an abrasion and not an abrasion contusion.
All right. And I'll write "Per Dr. L., abrasion, not contusion." Is that accurate, doctor?
Is there any other injury of G-23 which you identify from that photograph that we have not discussed?
Do you have an opinion as to the circumstance under which that abrasion contusion was received?
And would your answers about that be the same as they have been concerning all other contusion abrasions seen in the hand photographs?
The mistakes--I assume they are mistakes--did not address it, diagram it or address it in the addendum; is that correct?
Your Honor, I have another board of photographs. May they be marked as exhibit 362?
And this one is entitled "Sharp force injuries to left flank, left thigh and right chest of Mr. Goldman, blunt force trauma and lividity."
Again, doctor, with the Court's permission, if you'll step down--I'm sorry. Mr. Lynch points something out to me and I do want to cover. We left out in our earlier discussion photograph G-55 and the facial area. And, G-55, doctor, is--
How many injuries have you identified to the right side of Mr. Goldman's face that we have not discussed already?
Yeah. You have two types of injury to the right side of the face. You have blunt force injuries and you have sharp force injuries. The blunt force injuries are represented here as scrapes. I'll go over the numbering after I've given my initial description. You have a linear abrasion here, you have a curved abrasion there. You have an area of confluent abrasions in the right check. The linear abrasion and the curved abrasion are to the right forehead, right temporal area. Then there are also abrasions present around the right eye. So these are all the blunt force injuries (indicating).
"Confluent" means they are--there are linear abrasions which are merging with each other in this area of the cheek (indicating).
And then in addition, overlying some of these abrasions in the right cheek area, you have evidence of five sharp force injuries, cuts. You have one, two, three, four and five cuts to the surface of the skin which are sharp force injuries, and four of them seem to overlie the abrasion injury to the cheek, which would indicate that these abrasion injuries occurred before these sharp force injuries to the right cheek area. You also have this--a fifth sharp force injury which is not in the area of the abrasion injury wherein you cannot opine whether it happened before or after. So that roughly describes all the injuries you see in the rights of the face. As I have done with the other injuries, I have numbered them for my convenience, and we will go over them if you want to.
In just a moment. I want to ask just a couple of follow-up questions. The five sharp force injuries that you've described as cuts, four of which you identify as appearing to overlie the area of the abrasions; is that correct?
And from the nature of your observation of those wounds, do you have an opinion as to whether they are all consistent with a single-edged knife with a maximum blade length of approximately 6 inches tapering at the end as you've described?
But from the nature of the form of each of those cuts on the surface of the face, can you exclude a double-edged knife as a source for each of them?
And, doctor, hypothetically, is--well, let me ask a couple of preliminary questions. Then I'll ask a hypothetical. From your examination of that area, do you have an opinion as to whether one or more of those five sharp force injuries was received before death?
How are you able to determine that those five sharp force injuries were received before death?
The description in the report indicates that there is hemorrhage in the tissue.
From your observation of the photographs, are you able to confirm from just that observation that these five sharp force injuries are inflicted before death?
Their appearance also supports that opinion because they are no different from the other antemortem injuries that are present.
Now, the underlying abrasions to the four of the five sharp force injuries, are they antemortem, that is inflicted before death?
The same reasons. The appearance, the reddish brown color and as I outlined before.
Now, hypothetically, doctor, if Mr. Goldman had been disabled from his--by his assailant's attack, but still had a beating heart and the assailant wanted to check to see whether Mr. Goldman was still alive or not and took this knife, and while Mr. Goldman was in a position where the right side of his face was exposed, poked the knife in the area shown in G-55 to basically detect any reaction from Mr. Goldman, would that set of circumstances be consistent with what you see anatomically in this photograph, G-55?
Doctor, from the nature of the observations of these five sharp force injuries which you described as all being antemortem and from the underlying abrasions which you've described as being antemortem, is there anything inconsistent from what you see with a hypothetical set of circumstances of the assailant in an effort to ascertain whether Mr. Goldman is alive poking his face five separate times with the end of the knife?
Doctor, medically, is there anything from what you see in the photograph which permits you to understand or offer an opinion as to the sequence from the standpoint of a scenario separate and apart from the cuts overlying the abrasions to describe how those cuts were inflicted?
Yes. Let's take the one which we have in the right cheek, lower part, which is not in an area of abrasion. It's a superficial puncture type sharp force injury. That could have occurred at the same time since they all have hemorrhage and they all occurred when Mr. Goldman had some blood pressure. It could have occurred at the same time when the threatening cuts took place as a threatening puncture. That particular puncture could have taken place at that time. Now, regarding the other punctures, they're all superficial punctures, and I have no way of knowing exactly why they were done because they really don't have any fatal injury per se from them. They are only superficial punctures, and I would favor that it could be after the fatal injuries were inflicted. It could be--it could have been inflicted to check whether he was still alive or not. That would be one conclusion I would draw also.
Now, doctor, you started to say arbitrarily how you have numbered these particular injuries. Let's start with your injury no. 1 and go through them, please.
Injury no. 1 is the linear abrasion which extends from the right forehead down to the right cheek area. Injury no. 2 is the--
Is there any significance in your judgment from its length and appearance on the question of identifying any source or sources for causing it?
This would again be an abrasion which could be caused by a cut branch or a stalk which could rub against his face in this manner.
Let me--if I can just ask counsel to move slightly aside and get a photograph. And, Mr. Lynch, could you--
We're putting up, your Honor, exhibit 359. Have to find a place for Mr. Lynch. I think he just found one.
Doctor, would you point out again on these photographs of the scene at Bundy the kind of environmental source or sources in your opinion which could have caused this injury no. 1, this linear abrasion?
The face was obviously dragged on a rough surface and other rough surfaces dragged on the facial area. What I'm trying to point out is, if you look at crime scene no. 2 and also crime scene no. 3 and crime scene no. S6, you see areas of where the--there are cuts, stalks of or stumps of a plant, and you have similar cut stumps also available on the branch of the tree here (indicating). And stalks such as that can cause abrasions such as this.
Your Honor, there would be a motion to strike. S photographs were taken in 1995 and there's no foundation that they reflect--
Doctor, I want you to assume that the photographs taken in 1995 fairly and accurately depict the stumps and show these--I want to use the same word you use--the "Shoots" if you will that have grown somewhat, but are basically in the same general condition except for their length as they were on June 12th and 13th of 1994.
There will be a foundation laid by another witness later in this trial, your Honor.
Now, given that hypothetical set of circumstances, doctor, would you please then explain how these particular kinds of shoots can create an injury like that two plus inch laceration--I'm sorry--abrasion, linear abrasion?
The same mechanism I mentioned earlier. When you have a cut branch rubbing against your skin surface, it can cause a linear cut abrasion.
Doctor, as long as I'm holding the board, why don't you take us through injury no. 2 if it relates also to this environmental scene.
Injury no. 2 is the curved abrasion here in the upper part of this linear abrasion here (indicating), in the right forehead area.
Yes. It's separate from injury no. 1 both--though they both meet at a particular area.
And any source or sources from the environmental photographs provided here in 359 which would be a source for that kind of injury, injury no. 2?
Same type of similar source. A branch or cut stalk of a--correction--a stump of a branch.
No. What I'm saying is, you have--I just gave the stumps on the ground level here on crime scene no. 3. We have similar stumps also on the branch of the tree there.
All right. Now, doctor, how about injury no. 3 if it pertains to a source or sources from the environment as shown in these photos?
And in your opinion, are those confluent abrasions consistent with a source or sources from sources seen in the photographs?
There's a similar source as you can see on the crime scene area. The tree's not well seen here. I see it more in the s photographs.
Well, why don't you point out in the s photographs what it is from the tree that can be a source for that confluent series of abrasions.
If you look at the other side of the tree and at the base of the tree area here (indicating), you have similar stumps like you see on the ground level here on CS3. And those branches can represent these kinds of abrasions.
Are those confluent abrasions abrasions which are actually individual injuries that just run together or are they from one overall mechanism causing the total appearance?
I would favor overall mechanism causing a similar appearance because you have several structures there which can cause the abrasion which you see here in the cheek (indicating).
Injury no. 4 is the small linear abrasions around the right eye area here (indicating).
Injury no. 5 is--collectively I described all the five sharp force injuries to the right cheek area and I measured them individually in a counterclockwise direction, but I labeled them as injury no. 5.
And other than going through the protocol diagrams and so forth, have we covered a discussion of the facial injuries of G-55?
Yes. So basically you have a blunt force and a sharp force injury to the face.
Why don't we use the time we have to try and go through quite quickly the protocol and diagrams if any and the addendum if any concerning those--
All right. If Mr. Lynch could turn to form 3 of that board. I forget the number of it, but we'll get it.
He diagrams the linear abrasion, injury no. 1, the curved abrasion, the confluent abrasion here (indicating) in the right cheek and the abrasions around the right eye. The only thing is in the diagram for the linear abrasion of the right side of the face and the curved abrasion, he called them cuts, but they are abrasions.
All right. First of all, let's just identify them individually. Which reflects or concerns injury no. 1?
Basically it says 1-3/4 inch in the protocol. You want to turn to the protocol?
Page 6, no. 4. He described them as multiple superficial incised wounds and he described as a 3-inch incised wound in the original protocol the right side of the face extending from the forehead to the cheek, and he also described other superficial wounds half an inch to 1 inch.
Just the appearance, you can tell they are abrasions. And also, if you look at under the magnifying glass, you can see the irregularity to the margins, which would be consistent with an abrasion rather than an incised wound.
In your opinion, is it a mistake for Dr. Golden to have opined that these are incised wounds?
Because of the same reasons I've told before. They don't interfere with my ability to tell you the type of weapon or bleeding effect causing the death, et cetera.
And, doctor, does this paragraph 4 cover more than just injury no. 1 as you've arbitrarily identified them?
Is the same series of answers going to apply that you just gave to your opinion that these are--this is an abrasion, injury no. 1, rather than an incised wound? Will that apply to the same questions if asked of you on this injury no. 2?
Other than injury 1 and 2, is there any additional injury addressed in this item 4?
All right. Let me outline this area of the protocol in red, and I'll write, "G-55 inj. nos. 1 and 2, but per Dr. L., abrasions, not cuts." Is that accurate, doctor?
And then if you would, please, again on the diagram form, which is injury 1 and which is injury 2?
And I'll write, "G-55 inj. no. 1" and I'll write in quotes, "Abrasion." And then if you'd point out injury no. 2, please.
Let me circle that area again on the diagram in red this time, and I'll write out at the side "G-55 inj. no. 2" and I'll also write "Abrasion" in quotes. Is it diagrammed anywhere else, doctor?
Why don't we throw it up here in front of the photographs. Page 2, no. 3, doctor?
Yes. He amended it to indicate that they were all abrasions and he described that the area of abrasion is 4-1/2 inches by 2-1/2 inches and he describes more clearly that one of the abrasions in the right frontal area is curvilinear.
Yes. And he also describes that the longest abrasion extends from the right temple to the cheek 2-1/2 inches in length, and he also addresses injury no. 4 of the right lower eyelid as a triangular-appearing abrasion.
We'll get to that after lunch, but is it your opinion, doctor, that this paragraph now accurately describes injuries 1 and 2?
And let me outline then that area with the exception of the last sentence which you've indicated, doctor, goes to another injury, G-55, and I'll write over at the side "G-55 inj. nos. 1 and 2." Is that accurate, doctor?
Because if it's just an abrasion, you'll just have a scrape against a rough surface. But if it's an abrasion contusion, it would be an impact of the hand against that surface which has a different connotation as to the mechanism of injury.
In your opinion, doctor, is it inconsistent, however, with the source being a blow from Mr. Goldman's clenched fist to the face of the perpetrator? That is correct.
A knife.
Four of them seem to overlie the abrasion injury to the cheek, which would indicate that these abrasion injuries occurred before these sharp force injuries to the right cheek area.