I was coming to work that morning. I parked my car, and as I opened my door of my car, I found several cameras and saw Sam Donaldson coming approaching me suddenly and started asking questions on the current cases which I'm testifying to on--and other issues which he brought up like he brought up the issue of what was the 16 pieces of evidence which was a problem and he wanted to know about Dr. Golden per se and also how we had conducted our--the--the--what he felt about the performance of the office on the autopsies on the current two decedents.
And did you later see an episode or a segment of a program with Sam Donaldson that you've described as prime time live which displayed a portion at least of what you've described for us here?
Yes. And that's the episode which brought up these two cases of Dr. Golden from the past, which I was not aware of until that particular episode, and I came to be aware of that.
I have--Mr. Fairtlough apparently has this cued up with the laser, and I would ask at this time if this can be marked--I assume this is marked in some fashion from the laser as an exhibit. So I would ask that it be marked as People's exhibit 363.
By my Kelberg: And I'm going to ask, doctor, if this is what you saw on television. Please start.
While we have it stopped, doctor, do you recognize the two people seen in this scene from this exhibit 363?
Just for the record, would you identify who Dr. Golden is and who the other individual is in this stop of the disk?
Dr. Golden is carrying some papers in his left hand. He's the gentleman on the right side with the glasses and the gray jacket. Mr. Sam Donaldson is holding up some paper in his right hand and is wearing a darker colored suit and he doesn't wear glasses.
Dr. Lakshmanan, when you were talking to Sam Donaldson and you told him that in your opinion, Dr. Golden was a very competent forensic pathologist, did you mean that?
Yes. That was my belief at that time and still is because "Competent" to me means that a person whom has the requirements to do the job. He's a board certified pathologist, he's still working for our office and does his work in a competent manner.
Doctor, after finding all of the mistakes that you've identified for this jury over the course of the last six or seven days in this set of autopsies, after learning of the Gaye, Phillips matter, after learning of the Manley Hall matter, how can you form in your mind an opinion that Dr. Golden is a very competent forensic pathologist?
I agree there I said very competent because I was not aware of those other mistakes.
Doctor, is there a rating classification in the county system where you must on an annual basis rate your employees?
About that--that means they meet the adequate requirements to do the job and there is--it's just above the "Improvement needed" box.
There are only a couple boxes there in the county evaluation. You have improvement needed, you have competent, very good and outstanding.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, were you trying to protect Dr. Golden when you were, to use your term, "Accosted" by Sam Donaldson on August 25th, 1994?
What if anything were you trying to accomplish when you answered Mr. Donaldson's question regarding Dr. Golden?
I was just trying to tell Mr. Donaldson that in my opinion, Dr. Golden is a competent pathologist, he has been working with our office since 1981 and he has done over 5,000 cases, he's always been--he's always handled his cases, the most demanding cases in a competent manner. And, as I told you, I was not aware of these errors which were brought to my attention, but in 5,000 cases, these are some--few errors that have been brought to my attention as long as he's been in the office.
Doctor, how could you justify a statement that your office had done a very good job in the Nicole Brown Simpson/goldman autopsy cases knowing, as you did on August 25th, for example, the missed brain contusion? You knew that, didn't you?
You knew about the mistakes in the one wound versus two wounds to the neck on the right side of Mr. Goldman, didn't you?
And you knew the same mistake, two wounds versus one wound on the left side of the neck of Mr. Goldman, didn't you?
And you have an addendum dated July 1 that indicates a series of mistakes, correct?
Doctor, how could you say to Mr. Donaldson when you were accosted by him that you believed your office had done a very good job in these two cases?
Well, that is my--I mean, first of all, I was taken by surprise when this happened. And no. 2, it was not an intelligent conversation which took place at that time because he suddenly surprised me. But still-- let me put it this way. At that time, I felt that we did a very good job because I felt we met the big picture regarding the cause of death, the manner of death. And really, I couldn't discuss these mistakes with Mr. Donaldson at the time because the case was still in trial and we were not allowed to discuss the case at the time. The reports were not released to anybody. So really, I couldn't intelligently discuss the mistakes which I knew about at that time.
Doctor, do you still feel that way, that your office did a very good job in these two cases given all of the mistakes you've identified and testified about during the course of the last six or so days?
No. I mean I think we still did an adequate job, but I don't think we did a very good job because when I studied the case in detail, I found additional mistakes which we have discussed in the last few days in this trial. I'm not--I would say that we were doing a satisfactory job in portions of the case and less than satisfactory as far as certain portions of the autopsy because of the mistakes which I've already outlined these few days. But still, as far as the big picture goes, I think we did an adequate performance, that the injuries have been documented, they've been photographed, the cause and manner of death has been discussed--I mean have been determined. And as you can see in the last few days, which we have discussed all the findings on both the cases, the significant fatal injuries have been well documented. There have been some omissions in certain other injuries. So I won't say my opinion has changed since then in my detailed review of the case.
KEY QUOTENo. We--as I told you a few days earlier, we want to do the best we can with our resources. As I told you, we are a high-volume office with limited resources. We try very hard not to make mistakes. And in this case, some mistakes have occurred and you all have seen me the last few days. I have nothing to hide here and I went over all the mistakes. But I also pointed out that the significant injuries have been documented and one can easily interpret the cause and manner of death and one can easily interpret the--whether it's from a single-edged or double-edged knife with all the findings we have. But by opinion is no longer that it was a very good job on these two cases, no.
All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the evening. Please remember all my admonitions to you; do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. Thank you very much, doctor. You can step down.
There are only a couple boxes there in the county evaluation. You have improvement needed, you have competent, very good and outstanding.
No. I mean I think we still did an adequate job, but I don't think we did a very good job because when I studied the case in detail, I found additional mistakes.
It was not an intelligent conversation which took place at that time because he suddenly surprised me.
Do you think that your office strives for merely being adequate?