All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated.
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
All right. 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.
Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Kelberg. And Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your direct examination.
Dr. Lakshmanan, again with the Court's permission could you step down, and let's finish, if we can, please, going through the injuries that are in the photograph G-55. I believe we stopped, if I'm not mistaken, with the protocol and diagrams through injury no. 2; is that correct, the curva linear?
The injury no. 3 is this confluent area of abrasions in the right cheek area which I have described in the morning right here, (indicating).
Would you indicate, please, doctor, where it had been diagrammed, and what, if any, description has been provided? Mr. Lynch could perhaps move back this way?
This is the area of abrasion injury which he has diagrammed here on the left lower quadrant of 22-III and he has described the description here "One and a half by 3/4 inch abrasion reddish brown" belongs to this area here and also this description here applies to this area of injury.
Mr. Kelberg, would it be better to move the microphone in the doctor's tie? Would that be a better location for it?
The right cheek area. This says, "Poorly circumscribed area of abrasions one and a half inch by 3/4 inch." "Poorly defined," rather.
Doctor, does is writing in any way at all to correspond at all to what you have described as jury no. 3?
So before I start marking with a permanent marker, would it be accurate to include this area?
I have circled that area in the lower left quadrant and I will write "G-55 inj. no. 3."
Does Dr. Golden then describe that confluent area of abrasions, doctor, in his protocol?
Let's look at injury no. 4 then if you would identify it first from the photograph?
Injury no. 4 includes these abrasions around the right eye, including a triangular area of abrasion.
From what you just told us a few moments ago, I gather there was some indication in 22 roman numeral III?
Yes. You can see some of the abrasions diagrammed there, but also--that is only--that is only diagrammed where you see it, 22-III, right there, (indicating).
From looking at the photograph or any other photograph can you approximate the total number of such abrasions around the eye?
About three of them there. Three of them there, in all the photographs I have seen.
He correctly labels them as abrasions here, (indicating), abrasions, abr. In the description they were included under the--he just called them areas of the superficial wounds in the description of an item 4 of page 6, so it is not a--it reflects what he has diagrammed there.
So what you were just pointing to, doctor, under item 4, page 6 of the autopsy protocol where we have already written in "G-55 injuries 1 and 2 but per Dr. L abrasions not cuts," that description includes, in your opinion, the description of injury no. 4?
And although Dr. Golden has annotated the diagram to reflect multiple abrasions, he has in fact written a description that describes them as a superficial wound varying from one-half to one inch?
Let me circle that area in blue just to set it off from what we've already outlined in red. Circle that on the protocol. I will write out at the side "G-55 inj. no. 4, but see diagram"--
The last line here, (indicating), he has described the triangular abrasion which you see in the photograph as triangular. "Right lower eyelid as triangular in appearance," page 2 no. 3 last line.
It is right there. There are other photographs which show it well, but in that photograph that is in evidence it shows it right here where I'm pointing and below the right eye, (indicating).
That is on G-55, your Honor, and appears to be the injury which is closest to the lower part of the right eye.
I will outline this area also on the addendum in blue and circle it and out at the side write "G-55 inj. no. 4."
All right. Let's take the addendum down and ask you, if you would, please, to move to injury no. 5.
Injury no. 5 I have collectively labeled as injury no. 5 all the five sharp force injuries to the right cheek and area, and I measured them rating from 5/8 inch, 3/8, quarter inch, 5/8 inch and quarter inch respectively when measured in a counterclockwise direction; one, two, three, four, five.
Doctor, this is the series four of which, in your opinion, overlay the confluent abrasions shown as injury no. 3?
Yes, in 22-I, right here in the left lower quadrant, and he has labeled it, all five, "Superficial incise wounds of skin of right cheek," one, two, three, four, five.
Before we get to the report, there appears to be some writing to the right of the schematic. Is that--does that associate itself with these five superficial cuts?
Let me circle this entire area then and I'm going to ask you, doctor, when I'm done doing that, if you could, after I--to the side I'm going to write "G-55 inj. no. 5."
Would you point out very slowly, and I will circle in red, the five cuts as diagrammed by Dr. Golden.
All right. Let me shorten that circle and I will cover what I should have in a second and out at the side I will write "No. 2 of 5."
Doctor, which is the one of these five that, in your opinion, does not overlay the area of the confluent abrasions?
Yes. He addresses it as page 6, item 2. This whole paragraph refers to that, (indicating).
Is that an accurate description of what you see in the photograph G-55 concerning this injury or series of injuries?
Doctor, in Dr. Golden's description, the last sentence, he says: "They are superficial" these five wounds, "Involving the skin and associated with a small amount of cutaneous hemorrhage." Doctor, is that information of assistance to you in assessing whether those five cuts were inflicted before death, at or around the time of death or after death?
It would--to me it would indicate that they happened before death because you must have blood pressure to have hemorrhage in the soft tissues.
KEY QUOTEAnd the cutaneous hemorrhage would be into the soft tissues as you define that term?
No. 6 is already we discussed. That is the wound to the right ear which goes to the temporal bone.
Is there any aspect of the addendum that addresses the last series of injuries no. 5 that we have not gone into yet?
So as far as you are concerned, doctor, have we completed a discussion of the facial injuries in G-55?
Doctor, if you want to take the stand for just a brief moment and sit, I want to ask you some questions about some testimony, and I'm focusing now, doctor, strictly on injury 5, this series of five superficial cuts, four of which you say overlay the confluent abrasion area that is injury no. 3. In part--as part of your review, doctor, did you review Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony concerning this area?
Your Honor, there would be an objection based on the fact that this is all hearsay testimony.
The objection is premature at this time. The question was did you review the testimony? Yes, I did. There has been no question.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, and inviting Court and counsel's attention to pages 81 and 82 and 85 of that preliminary hearing transcript and 86, I should say, was this part of the information you reviewed, doctor, questioning by Mr. Hodgman: "Now, doctor I realize that there are more lesser wounds that were not indicated on your diagram, but I would like to move ahead now to the lower left hand figure on People's 27 for identification, and sir, you observed, during the course of your autopsy, five wounds to the right side of Mr. Goldman's face; is that correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And it appears that we have four of those five wounds marked in red on that lower left-hand figure on People's 27 for identification; is that correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Now, would you in brief describe those wounds for us, sir. "Answer: Okay. Referring to my notes, these were superficial cuts, varying in orientation involving the skin of the right cheek and they varied from approximately one-half to one inch in maximal length. "Question: And these five wounds, sir, were not fatal; is that correct, in and of themselves? "Answer: Correction. Yes. I said one-half. It is okay. Referring to my protocol, they were small cuts. They varied from one quarter inch in length to 5/8 of an inch in length, the superficial cuts to the right side of the cheek. "Question: All to the right side of the cheek; is that correct? "Answer: Yes." And before I read the next question and answer, doctor, is this a reference to what you have described as injury no. 3, the area of the confluent abrasions?
It would--to me it would indicate that they happened before death because you must have blood pressure to have hemorrhage in the soft tissues.
That is a speaking objection as well. Proceed, Mr. Kelberg.
The objection is premature at this time. The question was did you review the testimony? Yes, I did. There has been no question.