Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Lakshmanan is again present before the Court. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may continue concluding your direct examination.
Doctor, again with the Court's permission, would you step back to the easel, and we'll go back on this 21 form and see if we can identify-- I want to be sure--I think actually we need the other--yes, I'm sorry. We need the other--the 7G board that has the skeletonized schematic. We've identified by marking in red in a designation of G-10, injury no. 1, two areas of this diagram, and then I think, doctor, you had pointed out another area in the lower right-hand corner of this form that refers to injury no. 1, but I want to be sure. So can we again slowly go through what additional entries if any on this form refer to that fatal stab wound, injury no. 1 of G-10?
We went over the portion of the seventh rib which was injured by the injury no. 1 as it entered the chest cavity. This part of the diagram on the left side on the--shows some markings with reference to the right fourth rib area wherein the stab wound ended (indicating), and the description of that injury to the right fourth rib is reflected in the lower partion of--lower portion of the diagram, posterior right fourth rib, 3/4 inch cut, and then--
Keep your voice up if you would, please, doctor. Is this some form of diagram by Dr. Golden concerning his observation in that area?
And in general, doctor, is that a shape that you would find consistent with a single-edged knife such as you identified had to have been the source of that fatal stab wound?
Because it's just a cut on the posterior surface of the rib. You cannot make any determination from that. And then you have two wounds to the right lower lobe of lung, which indicates that those are entering portion and a exiting portion that is--it was a through and through type of wound to the right lung.
All right. And you've just pointed, before you moved backwards, to another area, and I'm not sure you've interpreted that writing for us, if you can.
It says plural superficial--I can't read this word here, but basically it refers to these defects in the right lower lobe of lung.
All right. Then for the record, I'll take the blue marker and mark this area of writing that the doctor has just outlined, circle it in the blue and write at the lower left-hand margin "G-10, inj. no. 1."
Yes. Also, this inscription here, the right lower part of the diagram, also reflects to the same injury.
It shows the direction right to left, back to front and the length of the wound track to be 4 inches.
Striking chest wall, and I think this is--says posterior probably reflecting to the right fourth rib posterior aspect.
I'll circle that area in blue as well and write "G-10 inj. no. 1." What else, doctor?
This part of the diagram reflects the entry portion of injury no. 2 (indicating), goes to the right eighth space and back to front direction, and I can't read this particular inscription here, but basically this reflects the information pertaining to injury no. 2.
Has Dr. Golden made any kind of diagrammatic entry on the right form of the skeleton--skeletonized human form to represent that second stab wound, that fatal stab wound injury no. 2?
All right. Let me circle that area in blue and I'll write out at the side "G-10" or actually at the top "inj. no. 2." And the written description that the doctor just referred to a moment or so ago, I'll circle in blue and make a line connecting back up to where the actual wound is drawn in on that same diagram. All right, doctor. Have we covered all of the entries? It seems to me we have some information here.
That refers to the stab wound to the left flank. It reflects stab wound going through skin "Subcu" and iliopsoas muscle and aorta. So that refers to the left flank wound.
I think you're going to have to, if you could, please, spell out the muscle that it went through.
So while we've got this up, let me circle this area in red, and I'll write "G-8." Is there any more than the one--I believe you described that as a fatal stab wound, did you?
Is there more than one injury? I just want to find out if there's any need to designate an injury--
Now, you mentioned that there were other injuries or findings in the photograph G-10, and I believe one of them you indicated was a sharp force injury as well; is that correct?
Yes. I call it injury no. 3 and it's a 3/8 inch sharp force injury which is superficially located to the--mainly running superficially on the skin of the right flank.
For the record, it appears to be in the center of the body that's depicted in the photograph and about an inch or so above the top edge of the blue photographic identification card?
It's a sharp force injury which superficially--it's a superficial injury. It's not deep. It did not penetrate the abdominal cavity.
Given its superficial nature, is this one of those sharp force injuries where you cannot by the form tell whether this is due to a single-edged knife or a double-edged knife?
But is it consistent again with this same hypothetical approximately 6-inch long single-edged knife blade tapering at the tip?
Excuse me. Dr. Baden, could I ask you to--you're standing in front of the court reporter.
Is that superficial sharp force injury, doctor, described by Dr. Golden in the protocol?
Are you able to determine when in relationship to the time of death that injury was inflicted?
Is there anything of significance to the--to you--may I withdraw the question? Are you able to tell anything with respect to the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator from what you see in that particular sharp force injury?
Is there anything else that you wish to bring to our attention regarding that sharp force injury?
It's on page 9, no. 3. It's located here (indicating), page 9, no. 3, stab wound to right flank. This whole description applies to that.
Doctor, in your opinion, is this an accurate description of what you see in that photograph?
Let me just outline this in red on our protocol, page 9. This is "G-10 inj. no. 3," which I've written in the left margin.
And you're pointing to an area. Is there some kind of squiggly line slightly above and to the right of it as you look at the diagram?
No, no. This one is the sharp force injury. This is just the first one, no. 3 next to it (indicating).
So this is what you've just identified as injury no. 3 of G-10, where I'm pointing?
All right. Let me circle that area in red, left side, and I'll write out to the side "G-10 inj. no. 3." Anything further with respect to that injury, doctor?
All right. You also testified that there were other findings you made reviewing this photograph G-10. What are those findings?
There are some postmortem abrasions between injury 1 and 2 and 3 here (indicating) and--
Doctor, in your opinion, can those postmortem abrasions be due to the manner in which the body was transported from the Bundy location to the Forensic Science Center, the Coroner's office?
As one--one possible scenario. The other possible scenario is him lying on the right side rubbing--with the clothing rubbing against the area. There are many possibilities for that postmortem abrasion.
If the body is not moving and Mr. Goldman for all intents and purposes is dead or actually is dead and his body is in that position that's shown in 43E, the photograph in our 362 collection, can you still have that kind of postmortem abrasion occurring even if the clothing is not moving against the body?
No. Because of the clothing pressure itself, you can have sometimes abrasions on the skin surface.
From the right side. It's just a postmortem abrasion. It's difficult to specify how it was caused.
All right. Any other injuries-- first, let me ask, does Dr. Golden describe this in the protocol?
And is there some writing that you associate with Dr. Golden's diagrammatic representation?
Yes. It says "Postmortem"--I can't read this, but basically I think refers to that marking there (indicating).
Then I'll circle this area in blue that you've just outlined, and I'll write below it "G-10, inj. no. 4." Anyplace else it's diagrammed?
There's also area of postmortem abrasions below the right--and below the injury no. 2 in the right chest.
Are you able to differentiate hypothetically the causes for that, such as transportation versus pressure from clothing?
Basically, would your answers be the same regarding that as they were for the injury no. 4 postmortem abrasions?
He--he has diagrammed some shading here (indicating) near the no. 2. And the line which reads "Postmortem" reflects both those areas. So I'm not sure whether he diagrammed that collectively with this other postmortem abrasion which we have here.
Why don't we write "No. 4"--after no. 4, we'll write "No. 5" and put a question mark because of your uncertainty. Is that accurate, doctor?
All right. Let's go back then to G-8 and discuss in greater detail this fatal aortic stab wound.
G-8 shows the stab wound entering the left flank, and this wound measured in my measurement 5/8 inch by 3/8 inch in the gaping state, but it's part of the body which is--which has a curvature to the area. So the measurement in the protocol is 3/4 of an inch in length.
Is this one of the areas of the body where you obtained a measurement different than Dr. Golden's and where the difference in measurement from his may be attributable to the process of photographic measurement?
This particular stab wound entered the abdominal cavity, went through the iliopsoas area, which is a muscle in the back of the abdominal wall.
Would you turn towards the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and point out where this wound is actually?
Went to the ilipsoas muscle, then struck the aorta one and a quarter inches above where it divides into two branches. And there were two defects in the aorta, two half-inch defects in the aorta and there was bleeding from this injury which resulted in accumulation of blood in what is called the retroperitoneal area, that is in the back side of the abdomen, and also there was some blood accumulation in the abdominal cavity.
Because of the injury to the aorta, which is a large blood vessels--largest blood vessel in the body, and injury to this structure will result in bleeding and rapid loss of blood pressure and death.
Doctor, in this position that Mr. Goldman's body is found as shown in photograph 43E of our collection 362, is this area of the body not a dependent part?
And is that of some significance to you-- let me rephrase the question. Would you expect--where would you expect the blood to go? You said the retroperitoneal cavity and the abdominal cavity; is that correct?
Would this be the kind of wound like the chest wounds which could drain out of the body if the wound was in a position where gravity could result in the blood flowing down out through the stab wound itself?
You would not expect this in the abdominal wound. And the only reason I said that in the chest wound also is because of the fractures of the--I mean the stab wound having gone to the rib which would have created a defect. But in this wound, I would not expect it. Usually in such wounds, the bleeding is more internal than external.
And Dr. Golden in his protocol, did he quantify the amount of blood he observed in the course of the autopsy in the areas where you believed bleeding would occur as a result of that fatal stab wound?
Yes. He said there was hundred cc blood in the abdominal cavity in addition to the bleeding he described in the retroperitoneal area, which was not quantitated.
It's a fairly--fairly large area, the area in the back of the abdomen. Actually, it extends all the way from the--above the kidney area down below including the pancreas and other structures in the back of the abdomen.
From Dr. Golden's description of the hemorrhage in that area and his quantification of the hemorrhage in the abdominal cavity, do you have an opinion when in relationship to the attack itself that abdominal aorta fatal stab wound was incurred?
As I opined earlier, I think it occurred during the middle of assault, but it definitely occurred I would favor after the thigh wound which occurred earlier than the abdominal wound.
Doctor, how rapid a response from the body would you expect from that fatal stab wound?
Could you explain your question further? What do you mean by "Rapid response"?
In a mechanism as a result of that stab wound, what if anything does the body do to try and preserve life?
Basically, as I told you, there is a part of your nervous system which is involuntary and it's called the sympathetic nervous system that comes to play so that-- because of the loss of blood, the body tries to maintain the blood pressure at any cost, and this involuntary nervous system is brought into play so that the vessels constrict in the other parts of the body so that--and also, the blood coming into the heart from the venous system is also increased so the blood pressure is maintained. So the body tries its best to maintain the blood pressure in this manner until you lose 2/5 the volume. That is the blood volume is five liters. Once you've lost approximately two liters, you will go into shock.
Doctor, assuming that Mr. Goldman had sustained no injury prior to the fatal abdominal aorta stab wound, how rapidly would you have expected him to have died?
The abdominal aortic wound, you can die within a few minutes, but even less than a minute, depending on the amount of blood lost from those defects. These are big defects in the aortic wall described by Dr. Golden. He said half an inch defects in aortic wall.
KEY QUOTEAnd, doctor, assuming that Mr. Goldman had received other stab wounds such as to the chest before that aortic stab wound--and is that your opinion; that he in fact had received those before the aortic stab wound?
Assuming he received the chest wounds, the two fatal chest wounds and the neck wound, the left neck wound, which I believe is injury no. 3 of G-37, injury no. 1 of G-51, before that fatal aortic stab wound, what effect if any would those wounds have had on the length of time you would have expected Mr. Goldman to live once the aortic stab wound had been inflicted?
It would definitely diminish the amount of time required to go into shock because you already lost so much of the blood volume. As I told you, the blood volume in the body is fixed. If you already lost blood from the neck wound, lost blood from the chest wound and also from the thigh wound--and I already told you if you lose two liters, you go into shock in a normal person. The aortic wound, when it was inflicted, you already lost blood from these other sites. So naturally, the time frame which it would take to go into shock is narrowed, not increased.
And, doctor, do you have an opinion as to a minimum period of time which must have passed from the time the aortic stab wound was inflicted, assuming these other wounds that I've described were inflicted before the aortic stab wound, for Mr. Goldman to have died?
I--I think I opined this earlier. He would have died--I would expect him to die within five minutes after these injuries were inflicted and even earlier.
Two, three minutes, because you're talking about major injuries to the jugular vein, the lung, the aorta, and you'll bleed fast and go into shock rapidly. It doesn't take much time to lose two liters of blood from all these sites to go into shock.
KEY QUOTEAnd, doctor, again, from the quantification that Dr. Golden provides in his protocol regarding the abdominal cavity blood that is found, does that give you some indication as to how long after the aortic wound was inflicted Mr. Goldman lived?
It doesn't help that much because he--the quantity we have is only in the cavity. I do not have an estimate of how much blood is in the retroperitoneum. So you cannot really give an estimate on how much blood loss occurred from that particular wound.
Do you consider it a mistake on the part of Dr. Golden not to have attempted to quantify and report that effort on the retroperitoneal area where hemorrhage was found?
It's difficult to quantify the retroperitoneal area, but he--it could have been--you could have described the extent of the retroperitoneal hemorrhage.
What effect if any does his failure to do that, if you describe it as a mistake, have on your ability to answer these big ticket questions?
Even if you had given it measurement, it would be difficult to--to estimate the volume of blood clots in the retroperitoneum unless you take--if you have tissues which you can weigh without the blood clots. It's very difficult to estimate it.
And, doctor, other than--I gather this is of some importance to you in assessing how long Mr. Goldman may have lived from the time that aortic stab wound was inflicted; is that accurate?
Well, I already told you it won't take much time to go into shock after the aortic wound. So it will help to better define a time, but really, the total time frame you're talking about is not long.
And other than that, would such a quantification have assisted you in identifying whether a single single-edged knife caused all of the sharp force injuries?
Or have assisted you in identifying the relative positions of the perpetrator and Mr. Goldman at the time that aortic sharp force injury was inflicted?
Or in identifying from the appearance of the wound the type of knife that inflicted such an injury?
From the appearance of the wound as I--I couldn't see the edges properly for this wound from the photographs very clearly, but the description of Dr. Golden is that the posterior edge is forked and the front end is sharp. And based on that, it could be a single edge if it's a straight penetration, which would support a thick edge, thick blunt edge because of the forking. The other possibility is, if it's a double edge, you cannot exclude some twisting.
To break this down a bit, doctor, from your review of the photograph, the photograph is insufficient to define with sufficient clarity for you the ends of the stab wound on the surface of the body?
So in this particular instance, you are referring to Dr. Golden's description of the ends of that sharp force injury, that stab wound in his report?
And based upon what Dr. Golden reports, then this is one of these forms where you cannot differentiate between a single-edged knife and a double-edged knife; is that correct?
And, doctor, you've already indicated that a single-edged knife could be consistent with this and all the other wounds; is that correct?
I lost my train of thought for just a moment. If I may have a moment, your Honor.
From Dr. Golden's description of the stab wound itself and the ends of it, are you however able to determine that it is consistent with a single-edged knife?
And from a description given by Dr. Golden, are you able to determine whether the length of the stab wound, that is the depth of the stab wound in the body is still consistent with an approximately 6-inch long tapering blade?
Is this diagrammed by Dr. Golden as well as described? You've indicated he described it I believe in the protocol?
Let's take the protocol first because you've indicated there's some quantification in the abdominal cavity and so forth. Where in the protocol, doctor?
It's on page 10, no. 5. Page 10, no. 5, the whole five paragraphs under item 5 that reflects the description of the stab wound.
And let me box that in in red on page 10 of the protocol, 0G, and I'll write "G-8, abdominal aorta." Now, doctor, would you point out for us, please, where there is the quantification made by Dr. Golden?
We have to start with line 8 under paragraph 2 under item 5, page 10 (indicating). "Two perforating half an inch wounds are seen in the wall of the aorta with surrounding para-aortic hemorrhage. In addition to the retroperitoneal hemorrhage, including hemorrhage into the mesocolon, approximately hundred cc--hundred ml of liquid blood is found free within the peritoneal cavity."
Let me outline this--actually not outline, but let me underline "Approximately 100 ml of liquid blood is found free within the peritoneal cavity." Is "Peritoneal cavity" a fancy way of saying the abdominal cavity?
And, doctor, what if any significance is there to you in the observation by Dr. Golden that there are--and I'll underline this--"Two perforating 1/2 inch wounds seen in the wall of the aorta"?
It could mean two things. You have the--the aortic--aorta is a tubulous structure. So the knife went through the tubulous structure. It could have gone in and out through the--both walls of the tube. So you could have two defects that way. The other possibility is that the knife could have been withdrawn and reentered in the same area of the aorta. I mean not in the same area. In a different area of the aorta in the same vicinity.
If that had been the situation, doctor, would you have expected Dr. Golden to see separate wound paths at least for some distance to show that the knife had been withdrawn some distance and then replunged to create the second perforation in the aorta?
It will be difficult to study two different tracks in the retroperitoneal soft tissues. It's not like going through a solid organ. So it would be very difficult to ascertain that in an area where's there so much soft tissues where you cannot really define a track because you have so much hemorrhage in the margins.
Now, according to this same paragraph, Dr. Golden described the path--referring to the path of the stab wound; is that correct, doctor?
--as from left to right and slightly back to front. What if any significance does that have--and I'll underline that for the record. What if any significance does that have to you in ascertaining, if you can, the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that abdominal aorta fatal stab wound was inflicted?
It could have been--there are different possibilities again as I said earlier. One possibility is that the perpetrator was in the front of Mr. Goldman on his left, slightly to his left side, and with a knife in the right hand, plunged the knife straight in a left to right direction and in this manner (indicating).
All right. And for the record, Dr. Lakshmanan with his right hand appearing to hold a knife, made a thrusting kind of a sideways motion.
Doctor, do you want to demonstrate, if you would, using me? What are the alternatives, right-handed and left-handed?
For the record, Dr. Lakshmanan and I are face-to-face. With his right hand, he's taken the ruler, and the ruler appears to be perpendicular to the side of my body where the stab wound would be located.
Yeah. This is a straight penetration. But as I told you, you could have dynamics in this and it may not necessarily be that the plunge took place in this manner because the body of the victim could be turning this way and it could be just a straight plunge this way too (indicating).
Left-handed situation, it would have to be--the perpetrator would have to be more on the left side like this, in this manner, being the back of the victim, or the perpetrator could also be on the side, on his side facing the--I mean the victim could be on--the victim's side could be facing the perpetrator's knife in this manner, but little more, the victim being turning so that he could have back to front, left to right direction (demonstrating).
In the first demonstration, Dr. Lakshmanan was directly behind me, shifted a little to the left of center of my body, and the second demonstration--if Dr. Lakshmanan could get back into position so I'll accurately describe the second demonstration you were just doing, doctor?
Dr. Lakshmanan is almost to the left of my left side of the body. He's holding the ruler to represent a knife in a manner in which the contacting portion of the ruler is forward of the back of the ruler which is in Dr. Lakshmanan's hand about a 45-degree angle to the horizontal.
Doctor, we've done this demonstration with the two of us standing. Is there anything from your review of the material which requires Mr. Goldman to have been standing at the time that fatal stab wound to the aorta was inflicted?
No. The only thing I want to bring up is that when I examined the shirt of Mr. Goldman, there's no defect directly corresponding to that wound on the left side of the shirt. There were two defects in the back of the mid portion of the shirt. So if the shirt was not covering that area when this stab wound was inflicted, then he need not necessarily be standing up. He could be on the ground wen the stab wound was inflicted. But if there was the possibility that the defects in the back of the shirt, one or both of them correspond to this defect on the side of the abdomen, then it would reflect that there was movement of the shirt on the body surface if that penetration took place through the shirt.
And, doctor, could those defects in the back of the shirt that you described--I gather you did not see a corresponding sharp force injury to the back where those wounds would be--where those defects would be in the shirt?
Would it be accurate to say that the knife could have penetrated the shirt to create the defects in a situation where there was movement by Mr. Goldman such that the knife never came in contact with Mr. Goldman's body?
Yes, we do. It's just--you don't see the wound itself, but it's in this area here (indicating).
And may I ask, Mr. Fairtlough, is there a marker that will mark on the photograph unobtrusively?
I'm going to put an arrow in this area somewhere here this region (indicating).
Is it permanently a fixed one, your Honor? I'm just concerned if it might come off.
This area here. That's where the stab wound is in the left flank. Little bit lower. Yeah, that's fine. Little bit lower (indicating). You can't see it because it's slightly on the posterior curvature of the torso.
Does that, where you're pointing, doctor, then show the very same fatal abdominal stab wounds that you have identified in G-8?
Now, doctor, in looking at the area in 43E, is that area covered by Mr. Goldman's shirt if you can tell?
Doctor, is there anything inconsistent with Mr. Goldman having been in a position on the ground with his shirt not covering that area and the perpetrator reaching down with a right hand and inflicting that fatal stab wound to the abdominal aorta?
I can't exclude that possibility. It's--it's--there's nothing inconsistent in that statement.
And if that was done, doctor, would it be accurate to say that you would still expect the bleeding to be internal rather than outside of the body?
Yes. And of course, the wound should have been inflicted when Mr. Goldman had blood pressure to cause all the bleeding which it caused.
And in your opinion, that was in fact the case, that he had a beating heart with sufficient blood pressure?
Before we go, doctor, to the--I think we've taken care of the protocol. Have we taken care of the diagrams that show that abdominal aorta?
We'll get that up in just a moment. Before we do, doctor, is there anything further you wish to add concerning the wound itself as it appears in either photograph G-8 or in G-5?
All right. Let's see if we can then get the protocol. We can put it up right here. Doctor, is it also diagrammed in 21, one of the 21 boards?
Why don't we take care of that one while Mr. Lynch is going to put the other one up on the easel. Was going to put the other one up on the easel with the photo. I'll do that.
It says stab wound abdomen transfers--the length of the track is five and a half inches and went through the abdominal aorta one and a quarter inches proximal, P-R-O-X, to bifurcation.
And, doctor, just--there appears to be some waving line around the circled area to the left of what I thought you pointed out as the diagrammatic representation of the aortic stab wound. Am I correct that this area is the diagrammatic representation of the aortic stab wound (indicating)?
Let me circle that in red. And what if anything is represented by the area to the left that has that waving black line?
Well, I think that's just a deletion of something he drew and it doesn't reflect this injury.
All right. Then let me circle the description in the two areas that are covered by that, and I'll make a line out to the side of the lower right-hand area of G-8 and G-5, and I'll write "Abdominal aorta." Is that accurate, doctor?
Here (indicating). This particular area here reflects and it says, "Stab wound to the abdomen, left to right, retroperitoneal iliopsoas area."
Yes. And actually, it continues here also (indicating). It reflects the 3/4 inch length of the stab wound of the skin surface, the direction left to right, back to front. And again, it reflects that the injury to the aorta took place proximal, one and a quarter inches proximal to the bifurcation, and you have hundred cc blood in the peritoneal cavity.
Well, he describes the stab wound itself, and I think he's trying to point out the--that one end of the wound is sharp and one end of the wound is forked.
And what does this--and I'll have the record hopefully corrected to indicate what I've been pointing to. What is this where I'm pointing to, which is just above what you were just describing? What does that refer to?
I--I--he's got some kind of diagrammatic notation here, but mainly he says it's a transversely oriented wound, which means it's horizontal, horizontally oriented, which we already saw in the photograph.
I believe you indicated Dr. Golden described one end of the stab wound as being forked?
No. It's just some notation there. I can't really make that diagnosis from that notation.
All right. So all of this area here, all of this area here (indicating) all relates back to that stab wound, the aortic stab wound; is that correct?
All right. Let me circle all of that. Does the no. 5 go along with that information?
All right. So I've circled that area in red and I'll write "G-8, G-5, abdominal aorta." Doctor, as long as we have this form up, 20, there is something written in, several things that appear to be written in on the corresponding left side of the form. What are those representations?
This would reflect the site of liver temperature puncture (indicating). They puncture the abdomen to get the liver temperature. And "PM" means it was done postmortem. And this is the liver temperature procedure conducted by Miss Ratcliffe, which Dr. Golden is reflecting as he saw as a mark on the body when he examined the body.
Let me circle that area, and I'll just write in "Liver temp probe." Would that be accurate?
Yes. And this "45H" means that this stab wound to the abdomen was 45 inches above the heel. So this also should be included with this discussion (indicating).
All right, doctor. Is this, where I'm pointing to right how, the location of that abdominal aortic stab wound?
So I will circle this additional information you just indicated and I will draw red lines to the actual wound itself that's diagrammatically represented, circle that in blue, and out at the side, write "G-8, G-5, abdominal a wound." Doctor, why would doctor--let me withdraw that. Is it a common practice at your office that more than one diagram form would be used to include information for the very same injury such as we have here, 21-III and 20 being used for the abdominal aorta?
Well, Dr. Golden could have--I mean, to answer that question, sometimes more than one diagram is used to reflect the same injury because we have diagrams which show the anatomical location better.
Is there anything in your opinion which is inappropriate for Dr. Golden to have selected these two forms to include for the information of the abdominal aorta fatal stab wound?
All right. Let's-- now, doctor I think you indicated that the abdominal aorta stab wound was the only injury which you discussed from photograph G-8; is that correct?
And just for orientation, is this Mr. Goldman's left hand that is laying alongside the area of the body in G-8?
And you've already indicated where the abdominal aorta wound on the body is located. What other findings have you made from reviewing this photograph? And, by the way, this is a cropped photograph; is that correct?
And is that because in essence, you would need a full five foot, nine inch photograph to accurately represent a life-size depiction of this area of Mr. Goldman's body?
That is correct. Nearly five feet nine inches because the photograph would view portions of the body, not the whole body.
All right. Now, would you tell us what your findings are that are seen in that photograph?
I already described the flank wound which is seen, which is seen in G-8. You also have an abrasion in the left shoulder blade area and you have an abrasion in the radial aspect of the left wrist.
All right. From your observation in this photograph, is this an antemortem abrasion?
Doctor, from your review of the environmental surroundings that we saw in the earlier photographs, are any of those surroundings a potential source for that abrasion?
There are several sources which could cause it. Any rough surface could cause it.
It could. But remember that we also have the shirt interspersed between the skin and the inflicting object.
And what effect if any does the shirt interposing between the object and Mr. Goldman's skin have on how that abrasion can be created?
You cannot--you don't see a pattern. So it would be very difficult to say which object did that particular blunt force.
Collectively and individually, any significance on any of the big ticket questions you've been reviewing and testifying about?
Now, let's talk about this injury--you said something about the radial aspect of the left hand; is that correct?
Your Honor, below the base of the thumb at the wrist level the doctor is pointing.
Answers the same regarding these mistakes as they just were to the mistakes regarding the shoulder blade abrasion?
Are you able to determine from that photograph a source or sources for that abrasion?
Is any of the environmental surroundings--are any of the environmental surroundings seen in the photographs from Bundy potential sources for those--for that abrasion?
It could be any rough surface which the hand rubbed against or the surface rubbed against the hand to cause that injury.
Now, I want to ask you, doctor, briefly about, in the photograph, you'll notice in the title of the document of the board the word "Lividity" appears at the end. Is there something that you see in photograph G-5 that represents to you lividity?
Yes. You can see it actually in G-10 also. You see it in the right shoulder area, distinct discoloration, and also in the right flank area, you can see distinct coloration. And if you look at the lower part of G-10, you can see this pink discoloration, which is related to the same right side, and that all would be consistent with lividity.
And, doctor, again, we'll talk about this in much greater detail with the time of death discussion. But in general terms, "Lividity" is?
Is a postmortem draining of blood to the dependent parts of the body due to gravity and causing discoloration of the skin surface.
Doctor, assuming Mr. Goldman's body was found in the position it is seen in photograph 43E and that the body remained in that position more or less until around 10:30 in the morning of June 13th, 1994, is that position one which is consistent with the location, this area, the pinkish discoloration that you just identified in both photos G-5 and G-10?
If you look at the thigh here and the arrows going towards the waist area here, and actually you can't see the right side of the body very well because you have the fern plant in front of the body. But basically, the right side of the flank is in contact with the ground. And that's a different part of the body in that position (indicating).
And is a consistent position to having the draining show up at the time of autopsy by the pinkish discoloration you've identified in these two photos?
Have we completed your discussion of all of the photographs of Mr. Goldman's autopsy that we are using in this presentation?
Have we discussed with respect to those photographs all of the entries in the protocol?
Now, doctor, there are some other records which were produced in the course of the Goldman autopsy, and I want to begin by putting up our board which is 11G. And we'll take down the protocol. And I'm also going to put up in just a moment--should have started at the other end--the form 15, 16 which is our board 1G. And let me get the corresponding identifying paper documents. Our form 15 is a part of exhibit 356-B. There are two of those form 15's, and the--what appears to be the toxicology report is our exhibit 356-P as in Paul. Doctor, again, are these two documents, the toxicology report, and there are several pages I believe, and the form 15, forms which are produced in the ordinary course of the Coroner's office operation?
And is each of such employees under an obligation to complete these records at or about the time of the events which are recorded in each of the documents?
Now, let me invite your attention--and I'm going to see if we have some pins still left. I don't know if we have them. I don't think we do. Let me hold this back. On the form--
Doctor, this form, is this completed by Dr. Golden in the course of performing the autopsy of Mr. Goldman?
And there appears to be an entry at the top concerning time and listed as 10:30. What does that reflect?
And with respect to witnesses, again, like the Nicole Brown Simpson form 15, has Dr. Golden indicated that there were two witnesses, Detectives Vannatter and Lange?
On the right side of the document again in this area preprinted of toxicological specimens collected, did Dr. Golden indicate that such specimens were in fact collected?
He said he collected blood from the right chest and bile, and there's nothing else reflected in the--this particular 15, but he had collected stomach contents.
Doctor, I think you testified last week that according to Dr. Golden's records, there was insufficient heart blood to collect as a result of which the alternative of using blood in the chest was collected?
Now, you say stomach contents were saved. This was something you asked Dr. Golden to do after you learned he had not saved the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson; is that correct?
And yet on this first page of the form 15, that box for stomach contents does not appear to be checked; is that correct?
This is a form I think you testified last week also, it's a multi-page form; is that correct?
Let me flip the page just briefly to go to what appears to be a second form 15. Is this identical in all respects with respect to--with the exception of the box for stomach contents?
And can you give us some idea of how this document got generated to have a change by having an "X" in the box to mark stomach contents?
As I told you, there are four copies to this document. The white copy is the file copy and then there's a canary color, yellow copy which goes to the laboratory. The laboratory is where they receive all the specimens. When the canary copy did not reflect the box marked for the stomach contents and they received the stomach contents, the lab marked off the box for that, and you can see the difference in the marking. There's a check done by Dr. Golden, but the "X" is made by the laboratory on the canary copy.
Because it's just an omitting the mark of box. We know he collected the specimen. It has been received in the lab. The lab has documented that it has received the specimen. So it's sort of significance in that manner.
Now, doctor, again, under toxicological analyses ordered, there appears to be a check mark in a particular box. What is that all about?
That is the box marked for "H" and that reflects that we ordered a--he ordered a homicide screen, a drug screen, which we do on homicide cases.
And in this particular document now off of our board, 11G, do we see the product of the toxicological screen of the blood?
What are we looking at on this--the first page is one that is dated June 21, 1994?
The blood which was submitted was tested for alcohol, methamphetamine, cocaine, narcotics, which includes codeine, narcotics, morphine and phencyclidine.
I believe you have already identified from the toxicological records of Nicole Brown Simpson, Mr. Park and Mr. Mahanay. So they are your toxicologists performing these tests?
Alcohol was negative and none of those drugs were detected. "ND" means none detected, not detected.
And there appears to be a second page to this particular toxicological board, this one dated August 11, 1994. What does this represent, doctor?
This is some additional testing which was requested at a later time to complete the "C" screen, which is a comprehensive screen, and this reflects that.
Is there some reason why Dr. Golden has only requested an "H" screen and ultimately a "C" screen was done?
Just to complete the screen to make sure that we don't have any other drugs in the system.
Doctor, would it normally have been the case in a low publicity homicide where the circumstances are all the same with the exception of the identities of the victims and the person arrested for only an "H" screen to have been done?
It's not a question of whether I want to put it that way, doctor. Is that why you ordered it?
If you don't do it in other low publicity cases, then why did you do it in this case?
I just wanted to make sure there was no other drugs which we can test for which was present in the system.
I just did it as I told you already. I don't have a reason for it. I just did it as a judgment call.
Anything further with respect to these two documents on the toxicological analysis?
I want to--for safety sake, let me move this, the first easel, and I just want to get the exhibit identification number. This is going to be--this is 340--I'm sorry. Wrong one. 356-C. Mr. Lynch helps me out. Thank you.
Our form 16 in this case situation, doctor. First of all, does this form show the actual hours indicated by Dr. Golden in which he performed the autopsy, the gross autopsy and dissection of Mr. Goldman?
Yes. In the lower part, you can see that he performed the autopsy between 10:30 and 1300, which is 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
And I think you testified last week that in your opinion, this autopsy should have taken somewhat longer than two and a half hours as indicated by Dr. Golden?
Now, doctor, in this particular form, does Dr. Golden indicate the contents of the stomach which he saved at your request?
He says that 200 cc of partially digested material with pieces of spinach--spinach.
Let me ask Mr. Lynch if he could just circle that area with one of the markers at the witness stand, and let me, while he's doing that, put up the protocol. Doctor, is there a description provided in the protocol for the stomach contents of Mr. Goldman?
And looking at page 15 of the exhibit board 0G, at the bottom where it starts with "Gastrointestinal system," if we flip the page now, does Dr. Golden describe his findings of the stomach contents?
Yes. It's on paragraph 1 of page 16-93, "200 ml of partially digested semi-solid food found in the stomach with the presence of fragments of green leafy vegetable material compatible with spinach."
Let me circle that area. Does Dr. Golden on the form 16 make any reference to the fatal stab wounds he identified in the course of the autopsy?
He describes the two stab wounds to the right lung and says to the right lower lobe and he also addresses the hundred cc blood present in the chest cavity of liquid blood.
Liquid blood. And he also addresses the presence of hundred cc blood in the abdominal cavity in addition to the retroperitoneal hemorrhage here (indicating). And that's from the flank wound.
Yes, he does. The weight is 171 pounds and the height is 69 inches, which is five feet, nine inches.
Doctor, let me show you another board. It's 12G which is in the paper form. It is 356-Q. You testified last week about examination made by Drs. Vale and Enselmo on photographs of the back of Nicole Brown Simpson. Did you also obtain a consultation report from the two of them regarding Mr. Goldman?
And is this form 13 part of the official records of the Coroner's office by these two consultants?
And in summary, what was the result of Dr. Vale and Dr. Enselmo's examination of the photographs?
And flipping the page of this board, do we see in essence the handwritten version of the same report you just described, only that report was on a form 13 and the handwritten part is on a form 42?
I'm just trying to get the designation. I apologize, your Honor, for-- 356-M as in Mary.
Doctor, let me show you the blow-up, which is our board 8G of the exhibit, the paper exhibit 356-M. And I'm sorry. You'll have to get up again, if you would, please. Are you familiar with this document?
This is a summary of the various sharp force injuries on Mr. Goldman, and Dr. Golden did the summary, and basically the document reflects the summary.
Doctor, can you just in general terms indicate what is described by Dr. Golden with this document?
Yes. He has divided the document in various columns. He has given the numbering which he used for his description of the various sharp force injuries, the site where it's located, orientation, whether the stab wound or the sharp force injury was vertically oriented, diagonally oriented or transversely oriented. Vertically oriented means the long axis of the wound was in a head-toe direction. Diagonally means was diagonal to that axis and transverse is an axis which is perpendicular to the head-toe axis, that is this horizontal axis. So that's what he means by orientation. And then this is--"L" refers to the location. The--for the chest wounds, it's the location below the head. For the abdominal and thigh wounds, it's the location above the heel.
I'm sorry. You can obviously understand how that refers to location. But could you explain it to us, why in number 22 refers to some location?
Because it's from the top of the head to the location of the wound on the body where it's located. For example, let's take--let's go across one wound so that it will be better understood. Let's take no. 1, first degree stab wound to the right chest. It's vertically oriented. It's 22 inches below the top of the head, and this is the--from the back, it's--it's situated five inches from the back. That is when the body is laying to the back here, five inches to the front (indicating). The length of the wound is 5/8 of an inch. And this is with reference to the edges. The lower end was the blunt end for that front stab wound if you'll recall, and that's the sharpened, and this refers to the depth of the wound. I can't read it clearly here. And then you have the track which goes to the lung, angle is right to left, and hemothorax. Then the second--
Yes. Then the no. 2 is the right chest. It was diagonally oriented 21 inches below the head, two inches from the back, one and a half inches long, and the blunt end was in the back and the sharp end was in the front, same right to left. That diagram goes on.
Now, doctor, was each of the fatal stab wounds that you've identified, that is the two fatal stab wounds to the right chest, the fatal stab wound to the abdominal aorta and the fatal stab wound to the left area of the neck, is each of those fatal stab wounds described on this chart?
The neck is not. You have the two right chest, the nonfatal right flank, the left thigh, which is not fatal, but significant bleeding, left abdomen, which is to the aorta. And here he has given the orientation of the forking in the back and the pointing to the front as far as the characteristics of the edges. I mean characteristics of the ends of the wound.
And here is a direction here, left to right, slightly back to front, hundred cc of blood in the abdominal cavity, 5 DAPI, which is depth. So it's basically a summary of all the wounds.
Would you have expected Dr. Golden to have included this fatal stab wound to the left side of the neck in this chart review?
Doctor, again, is this a document that is created in the ordinary course of the business of the Coroner's office?
And is it to reflect at a time of or near the observations that are recorded in the document by Dr. Golden?
Yes. And I'd like to point out also that he has given to the forked end, can vary from 1/16 inch to 1/8 inch in width.
Doctor, is a chart like this of any existence to you in forming an opinion such as you indicated you did of general dimensions of a knife that's single edged which would have been consistent with all of the sharp force injuries received by Mr. Goldman?
And in fact, have you reviewed from this chart and all of the other information to form such an opinion?
As I mentioned earlier, in knife wounds, you can only approximate. You need a suspect weapon to compare to the wounds. But given all the measurements I have done in both the cases and the measurements given by Dr. Golden and appearances and the description, I said all the wounds could have been caused by a single-edged knife, but a thick blunt edge up to 1/8 inch in width with a tapering tip and 6 inches long, 3/4 inch wide.
Yes. This is just an approximate estimation because normally knife wounds, as I said earlier, you like to compare a suspect weapon to a wound.
Doctor, before I get into chain of custody documents that refer to both the Goldman and the Nicole Brown Simpson autopsies, is there anything that you want to bring to our attention with respect to the actual findings or conclusions from the Goldman autopsy that we have not discussed?
The one thing I did not show you, doctor, would be the blow-ups of the form 1 and 2 that is on our board 13G. We saw the form 1, I believe it's exhibit 298-B, the redacted version to leave out any home address that might be observed. Those documents, are they also created in the ordinary course of the Coroner's office operation?
And are the entries made made by employees at or about the time of the events which are reported in those documents?
Now, doctor, before I go to the chain of custody documents, I want to ask you about something that Mr. Cochran mentioned I believe several times in opening statement and in some examination of witnesses, in particular, Detective Lange.
Doctor, have you ever heard the term before I may have mentioned it to you "Colombian necktie"?
That's used to describe a type of neck injury wherein you have a slash wound to the neck and tongue is interspersed there.
Excuse me, Mr. Kelberg. I hate to break it up. I have a note from the jurors that we need to take a comfort break. All right. So let's take five minutes. All right.
Two, three minutes, because you're talking about major injuries to the jugular vein, the lung, the aorta, and you'll bleed fast and go into shock rapidly. It doesn't take much time to lose two liters of blood from all these sites to go into shock.
The abdominal aortic wound, you can die within a few minutes, but even less than a minute, depending on the amount of blood lost from those defects. These are big defects in the aortic wall described by Dr. Golden. He said half an inch defects in aortic wall.
When I examined the shirt of Mr. Goldman, there's no defect directly corresponding to that wound on the left side of the shirt. There were two defects in the back of the mid portion of the shirt.
You're a pessimist, your Honor.