Doctor, to continue, when approximately did you first hear the term "Colombian necktie"?
From some pathologists--I don't recall--actually sometime ago because I've never seen a case of that.
No. Before that when I was in the New York area and also in meetings. But I've never seen a case myself.
Doctor, you have been at the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office in one capacity or another since when? A `78.
Have you ever seen the following kind of case? A victim's neck slashed from ear to ear with the tongue of the victim drawn through the fatal incised stab wound that I've just described as if to reflect a necktie position?
And in your capacity as the Chief Medical Examiner for the County of Los Angeles, you see cases other than ones you are personally handling?
And you see cases that your other medical examiners are handling on a routine basis?
Doctor, before I get into chain of custody, let me cover a few other areas concerning Dr. Golden. Since the arrest of Mr. Simpson, did you become aware of other cases where on review, Dr. Golden had made mistakes?
Was one of the cases--actually two cases--involving individuals by the name of Gaye and Phillips?
One was a female victim and one was a male victim. Both were in a vehicle when they were victims of a gunshot wound--I mean firearm injury. The lady was in the driver's side. The male was in the passenger side. And the lady, Dr. Golden reflected that the gunshot wound entered in the right arm and exited in the back of the chest, but later, he amended the certificate to reflect that the gunshot wound entered the back of the chest and came out on the right arm. So that is the summary of that case.
I'm sorry. Before you go to the next part, would it be accurate to say that Dr. Golden mischaracterized the entrance and exit wounds of those--of that gunshot case?
And the amendment that was done, was that done before you became aware of this case as a possible mistake by Dr. Golden?
Dr. Golden did the amendment. I think--I forget the exact date, but much later.
And approximately when did you first become aware of this case as a case of a possible mistake by Dr. Golden?
Now, doctor, you were going to say something more I believe regarding the Gaye and Phillips cases; is that correct?
That's correct. The other gentleman who was a victim of the same incident was also shot in the chest. He had an entrance in the back and exit in the front, and Dr. Golden properly characterized the gunshot wounds as far as the entrance and exit went, but he failed to recognize the range of fire for the entrance wound in the back. There was a--evidence of additional injury in the back near the entrance of the gunshot wound, which would place the range of fire to be at close range rather than a distant range, and that was a mistake which had to be corrected, and it was corrected last year.
The amendment was issued under my direction because an order had been issued at that time.
And did you initiate that amendment after someone brought to your attention this case as a possible case of mistake by Dr. Golden?
But this case also arises out of a 1990 incident, the same incident as the one that you previously described?
Now, doctor, in your opinion, were the mistakes that you've described of a mischaracterization of entry and exit wounds and a mischaracterization of the distance between the gun and the body at the time the shot was fired matters that were significant mistakes by Dr. Golden?
Medically, they were significance because the range of fire is important, and also the direction of fire is important. But as far as the cause of death goes, there was no impact.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, have you told us in summary the circumstances of those two cases as cases of mistakes by Dr. Golden?
Yes. I just gave a brief summary. The mistakes were mainly in interpretation of characteristics of the entrance and exit in one and the interpretation of the range of fire in the other case.
Did you also become aware of a case involving Dr. Golden, a decedent's name of Manley Hall, H-A-L-L?
There, the issue was whether he identified the presence of a thyroid gland. The person in question had had a thyroidectomy by history in the past and he had described the presence of a thyroid gland. But in this situation, we did have the neck organ saved. So--which we evaluated. And based on the history and the absence of the thyroid gland in the neck organs, an amendment to the report was issued. This is one of the amendments issued.
My initiative in the sense that at the request of the attorney of the families, it was a person in the family who brought this to our attention.
Yes, based on the information provided because apparently he--this gentleman had a thyroidectomy many years ago, 40 years ago. So I requested for the hospital records before we issued the amendment, which could not be obtained because of the long time interval since the surgery and the death. But the attorney provided a declaration reflecting her attempts to obtain those records, and based on the review of the neck organs, which were available, and the information provided and also review of the medical records which indicated that this particular person was on replacement thyroid therapy, I believe--Dr. Golden and I felt that there was sufficient information to issue the amendment regarding this aspect of the case.
I'm sorry. In essence, did Dr. Golden say that the patient or Mr. Hall, the decedent, had a thyroid gland when in fact the thyroid gland had been surgically removed 40 years earlier? Is that the essence of the mistake?
Was that mistake in your opinion significant to your evaluation of the case as a forensic pathologist?
No. Because we had the neck organs available and there was no evidence of any injury or anything. So there's no question of any other factor in the case.
Now, doctor, at some time after the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, were you approached by a gentleman by the name of Sam Donaldson from ABC news?
I was accosted by him while I was entering my office one morning when I was coming to work. Yes.
KEY QUOTEWould you describe, please, the circumstances under which you were, to use your term, "Accosted" by Samuel Donaldson?
There's going to be a statement that Dr. Lakshmanan made to Mr. Donaldson under the circumstances, and the circumstances are relevant to the nature of the statement that was made.
I was accosted by him while I was entering my office one morning when I was coming to work.
Medically, they were significance because the range of fire is important, and also the direction of fire is important. But as far as the cause of death goes, there was no impact.
In August last year when there was an episode on prime time.