Thank you very much, your Honor. Perhaps--we are not going to need these charts, your Honor.
Thank you very much, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO
And as I understand your testimony, you can tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were victims of a homicide?
And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these victims died as a result of stab wounds?
And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these individuals bled to death?
You cannot tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what time they died?
In fact, all of your expertise lends you to the opinion that a layperson could give, that they were last seen alive at 9:00, that they were found dead at 12:15, and that is the range of death; isn't that correct?
And with all of your training, experience, education, reading all these books, you cannot tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people were responsible for the deaths of these two people?
I--I said that one person could have done it with one single-edged knife in my testimony.
Can you tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people are responsible for these homicides?
Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many different weapons were used to accomplish these homicides?
I already opined saying that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries, but with reasonable medical certainty, I cannot exclude a second knife.
Can you exclude other types of sharp instruments within a reasonable medical certainty?
Could you expand on what you mean by "Other types of sharp instruments" before I--
In your range of this vast experience, are there any other types of sharp instruments that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty could or could not have caused these injuries?
I would like you to be specific, what type of sharp instruments because I want to know what type of instrument you are talking about. I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments.
Are there any sharp instruments that you are aware of that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainly could have caused these injuries?
The main sharp instruments which I think could have caused these injuries is a--could have caused all the injuries was a single-edged knife. I already opined that.
Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a double-edged knife could not have caused most of these injuries?
I said that most--some of the injuries could have been caused by a double-edged knife, but a double-edged knife could not have caused all the injuries.
Could three single-edged knives and a double-edged knife have caused all the injuries?
Could three single-edged knives and two double-edged knives have caused all the injuries?
Could three single-edged knives, two double-edged knives and a broken piece of glass have caused all the injuries?
I don't see--there's no evidence of any glass pieces on the bodies which I could see or--and also, the wounds look more like a more sharp instrument like a knife.
Are you saying a sharp broken piece of glass could not have caused any of these injuries?
So after eight days, there's only about four facts that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that can help this jury in reaching an opinion?
Isn't it true, doctor, after eight days on the stand, there's only four facts you can testify to within a reasonable degree of medical certainly based on your education, background, experience as to how these two people died?
I've already discussed the findings. I've discussed my opinion that they were significant stab wounds to both the victims. I opined that the significant wounds on the body were caused by a single-edged knife. I think that's an important opinion which I have given. I have said that some of the other incised wounds could have been caused by a single-edged or double-edged knife which you cannot exclude with medical certainty. So I think I've been very clear that at least in most of the significant stab wounds, there's clear evidence that it was a single-edged knife. But your questions were more general wherein I indicated some of the wounds or most of the wounds, incised wounds, it was difficult to tell what type of weapon it was, wherein the stab wounds--the wounds we see on--some of the significant stab wounds on Miss Simpson and also on Mr. Ron Goldman, it was definitely a single-edged knife; and with reference to some of the incised wounds also, it would favor a single-edged knife rather then a double-edged knife, even though I cannot totally exclude it, especially the neck wound on Miss Simpson, it would favor a single-edged knife because of the bridge of tissue on the left side which I have discussed a few days ago. So I think I have given some direction. I won't say totally, but I think I have clearly established the cause of death in these two decedents. I also think I have given evidence which supports my opinion on the single-edged knife theory. And it seems medically, I can't exclude a double-edged blade. I think it seems illogical that you have all the significant wounds caused by a single-edged blade, and you bring up the theory of a double-edged blade causing some of the not so significant wounds. So I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it.
Well, you came to us because you have expertise above and beyond an average person in a specific field of medicine and science; isn't that correct?
My question to you was a simple one. Can you tell us with that expertise within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both victims?
No. My question--I want you to listen to this question very carefully. Can you tell us as a doctor, as a scientist and as the Chief Medical Examiner of one of the largest counties in the United States that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you will put your reputation on the line that one single-edged weapon was responsible for all the injuries to both victims in this case?
No, he's not on vacation. I told you he's working every day in the Coroner's office.
The same time when Mr. Kelberg announced that he's not going to call him as a witness because Monday at 9:30, I thought they were meeting with him because that was the morning I was giving a lecture in Ventura. So that's the same time when you knew--I knew he was not testifying.
You would expect, as the person who is in charge of this medical office, that a doctor who performed the autopsy who is not sick, not on vacation, not doing other things that would prevent him from coming to court, would in fact be a witness; would you not?
Is that your practice; that the doctor who does the autopsy, if available, testifies?
Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. It's not within the province of the Coroner's office to determine who testifies and who does not.
Is it the practice of the Coroner's office that you supervise that the doctor who performed the autopsy, when otherwise available, testifies?
And what is the reason that you have been told that Dr. Golden is not going to be called to testify?
Well, the same reason which was outlined here. They felt that I presented evidence in a manner which the jury can understand, and they didn't want to repeat the testimony again. This is my understanding from what was told in court right in front of all of us because I was not aware he was not going to testify until Monday morning when it was announced in court, and that's the truth.
So this is the type of case that doesn't require any type of special expertise from a medical examiner? Is that what you meant to mean by bread and butter?
What I meant by bread and butter was, this is the kind of case board certified forensic pathologists in our office can do easily because of the experience and expertise they have, because of the number of cases we do. And this type of case is no different than any one of our routine cases, and I already told this court that we do about two thousand murders a year.
That is correct. But we have some doctors in training. So they will be supervised when they do this case.
And of those doctors who are qualified to do this type of case, this is something that you would say is routine and takes place almost on a weekly basis?
And how much time do you allow for your doctors to prepare for testimony in a bread and butter case?
Well, it depends if--the doctor's testimony on his or her case depends on the complexity of the case. Sometimes they have pretrial meetings with the doctor, and then they testify. So it will be a couple of hours depending on the complexity of the case. I can't just give an arbitrary time because it will be on a case-by-case basis.
Well, you are responsible for the budget and you are responsible for managing your office; are you not?
I'm not responsible for the budget. The budget is in the hands of the director of the committee which happened in 1990. I'm only responsible for professional responsibility of the office and Coroner functions.
No. I'm responsible for the management of the medical division, not for the whole Coroner's office because they split the functions so that the doctor doesn't have to worry about the nonprofessional aspect of the office.
Regarding the professional aspect, which is testimony, does that come under your jurisdiction?
And you liked to use the term "Range" in direct examination. Can you give us a range for what you would expect a board certified forensic pathologist to spend in preparation for a bread and butter case similar to this?
Similar to this? Couple of hours of review of the case and discussion with the D.A. There are several important areas we need to address whenever we prepare a case, and those areas would be addressed in preparation and any other ancillary material that needs to be studied would need to be done. For example, you may need to review the hospital records if the person was hospitalized. So would say anywhere from a few hours to up to eight hours, depending on what type of case. Some cases may not take that much time, should only take one or two hours to prepare and come to court. But a complex case of this manner, maybe few hours.
Yes. And the preparation was involved with a lot of other factors because the time I gave also included all the other coordination I had to do with the case with reference to different Prosecution requests because everything was channeled through me so that one person was directing all the coordination of the requests on this particular case. But I did prepare for a long time because I had to independently review the photographs, prepare charts and have an independent opinion on the case. Yes, I did prepare for several--for hundred plus hours if you include all my reading time and other factors on this case.
This is correct, but I included other hours too because I had given a printout I think to the D.A.'s office--and you also have it--of the time spent because the auditor control maintains the time spent on these particular two cases for the county.
Yes. Yes. From the beginning. And of course, I can't count the time I spent reading.
I said some of the preparation was on my own time, but some of it was on county time too.
I have to look at the log of the days I come early. I mean in my situation, being a department head, all my time is always county time because I'm on call for the county anytime they need me. But if you look at working hours, which is 8:00 to 5:30, the days when we meet to discuss the case would be on county time.
Well, I got the impression on direct examination that you were doing this on a kind of pro bono basis, that you were not being compensated for this and you were just doing this because you felt it was the right thing to do. Is that incorrect?
That is incorrect because I think you misunderstood probably, and maybe I can state the answer so that everybody could understand clearly. This case took a lot of time. Some of it was county time when I was coming to work, but I had to come early some days to meet the D.A. Or to prepare exhibits. And what I meant by my own time is the time I spent taking the case papers home to review it, study it, review the literature as we discussed all the various literature we reviewed. So some of the time is county time. So pro bono means the time which was not regular working county time. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm on call for the county 24 hours a day. So if you want to count my own time as also county time, that would be counted as that.
Last--I mean actually ever since the cases had transpired, I have been talking to the D.A. And your office on some occasions on--at different time intervals, and everything is in the log. We can--I can retrieve the log and we can go over it if you want to do that. I have some times there of all the times I spent, which I've recorded it.
Do you remember when you became directly involved with the District Attorney in this case?
Soon after autopsies. Ever since the log--I can look at the log, and I need that to refresh my memory to give you date by date what kind of conversation took place with each agency. I had to deal with LAPD, I had to deal with your office. I have to look at the log before I can answer that question. If you want me to retrieve it, I'll be happy to retrieve it from one of my boxes, and we can go over it.
I don't want to spend eight days going over your log records. So can you give us your best estimate of when you became involved with some member of the District Attorney's office?
Sometime in--I think the autopsies took place in June, and there was questions with the grand jury. I had to get involved with the District Attorney for the release of the photographs actually, and then I had a conversation with Miss Clark, and then in July, I had had a letter bomb scare in my office. At this time, I was in contact with the D.A.'s office. So I recall it very clearly chronologically, all my contacts with the D.A.'s office and any agency I have on the case.
Did you spend more attention on this case because there were reports in the media that were very critical of your office?
Were you aware of any criticism of your office during the time that this case was pending in the court system?
I mean, there was some criticism of the office from after the preliminary testimony and also even--especially after the preliminary testimony.
I mean, when you have criticism of the office, it does affect the head doctor there because it's our office. We are being criticized. We work hard. We try to do our best, and when people criticize us, it affects me also because it's our office. We work as a team as I told you.
Not correct--I mean, correct mistakes in the sense--could you explain your question a little better, what you mean by "Correct mistakes"?
You've testified to how many mistakes would you guess--would you estimate were made in this case--
There are several mistakes. For example, you can start, first mistake I noticed was when the brain contusion was observed by me.
Can you give us an estimate of how many mistakes you believe were made in this case?
A dozen plus at least if you add all of them. More than that if you count even the typographical mistakes and mistakes like boxes being not marked off, and if you count all of them, there are several mistakes.
KEY QUOTEWhen the brain contusion was not described, I was concerned. And that's how--I met with Dr. Golden, who had already testified to the--at the grand jury, and he pointed out some additional omissions which we discussed, and that's how the addendum was prepared to correct the mistakes, what we were aware of.
Did you do an intensive review at that time to look for any other mistakes that could be important?
I did a review, but not an extensive review. I was mainly looking at whatever I could see at that time. I did more of an intensive review in preparing for testifying and preparing of the charts. So I would say intense means what I did in the last few months. But initially, I did review the case and we did make the addendum. He did discuss the addendum with me, and as I already discussed in the testimony, there was some changes to the opinions and--but my role in the addendum was also in the format of the addendum.
As the Chief Medical Examiner, don't you have a responsibility to the victims and to the victims' relatives and loved ones to make sure that a proper autopsy is done?
And when mistakes are made, don't you have a responsibility to do an intensive review immediately to correct those mistakes?
Don't you also have an obligation to somebody who is accused to make sure that as good a job as is medically possible be done?
And don't you have an obligation to correct mistakes immediately and look for errors?
We do that as soon as I ever find out about a mistake and it is a mistake, and I'm the first person to accept it and I always direct my doctors to correct it. And if there's a change of cause of death, we call the family and tell them that. At least all the cases--I'm aware of whenever there's a mistake, as I told this Court and this jury, we have to identify any mistake first to accept it.
I've not filed any reports except for the knife report I made, which I examined four knives presented to me by LAPD, and the other report which has been put in evidence as this chart, which I played a role in developing.
Have you filed any supplemental report to correct all the errors that you have found in this autopsy?
We could do that, but I thought we already presented the evidence in court. And we can do that.
I don't plan to do it because I was testifying here and the whole proceeding being televised and we have the--my charts which I introduced in evidence. But I could do it.
So you don't believe you have an obligation to the victims in this case to file a report that correctly reflects the autopsy in this case?
We have issued an addendum already. I met my obligation correcting the first mistakes we were aware of. These other smaller mistakes we just talked about, for example, in Goldman's, these abrasions, were not described in the addendum, and several other mistakes, we have not issued an addendum as yet. And as I said, it can be done, but--and I'll be happy to do it.
You saw photographs of the deceased Nicole Brown Simpson with numerous blood spots on her back; did you not?
If those blood spots were properly preserved and analyzed and if they did not turn out to belong to Nicole Brown Simpson, to Ronald Goldman or to O.J. Simpson, would that be something that would be important to you?
Not as far as a cause, not as a big ticket item in the understanding I have of what the big ticket items are.
Well, it's not a term used in forensic pathology. It was used by the District Attorney in this particular case. And so repeating all the main reasons which I could testify on, to make it simpler, he used the term "Big ticket item," but it's not a term used in forensic pathology.
Your Honor, actually that misstates I think the testimony. It's more in the form of my questions.
Other than the cause of death, which we've already agreed that you can testify to with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and the manner of death, what are other items that you think you would view as being important mistakes in an autopsy?
In this case, do you think it would be important to take blood off the back of a decedent?
And would you describe that as something that could affect the outcome of your opinion?
Not my opinion on the cause of death, manner of death or what issues I testified to.
Well, you offered an opinion as to the size of the person who's responsible for this killing--these killings; did you not?
I did not offer an opinion as to the size, but I agreed with the hypothetical size given for a particular scenario. I never said what the size of the victim--I mean what the perpetrator was, but I agreed on the hypothetical when presented in a particular format which I believed fit the scenario for the hypothetical which was presented.
Who requested that you spend a hundred hours in preparing for testimony in this case?
Nobody requested it. Because I had to understand the case fully. It was sent--I was asked to be a witness. I felt it's my obligation to understand the case completely. I have other responsibilities in the office and I had to also study the case in detail, all the photographs and do independent measurements of the photographs to have some reliability and to all the measurements taken in the case. And I spent hours because I was asked to testify and I wanted to do my best and tell the truth to this jury as I see it in this case and give my opinion independently as to what I felt is the cause and manner of death and if I can opine on the nature of the weapon from what I see, how the injuries occurred from what I see, how soon they died from what I see, and that's what I did. And nobody told me to spend so many hours. I did it on my own so that I could be better educated to give the best opinion to this jury.
Every case I testify. I try my best to be as knowledgeable about the case and know as much about the hospital history if they're hospitalized. And this has been my philosophy since I joined the Coroner's office, and ever since I've been a medical doctor, I try to do the best on every case I testify on.
Would you say it's fair to say that in other cases that you testified on this year, that you have spent a hundred hours of preparation for testimony?
No. That is not a fair statement because other cases did not take that much time, depending on what was the issue involved.
Well, this is a bread and butter case. Is there something more simple than a bread and butter case?
As I already explained what I meant by bread and butter, for my certified pathologists.
For example, just a few weeks ago, I was asked to testify, then we didn't have to testify. But I reviewed the whole case, and it took a couple hours.
And let me ask you this, doctor. How many times this year have you testified when the doctor who did the autopsy was available?
How many times last year did you testify when the doctor who did the autopsy was available?
How many times since you've been the Chief Medical Examiner for the County of Los Angeles have you testified when the doctor who did the autopsy was available?
I don't recall a particular instance. Most all the times I've testified is when the doctor is--correction. I've testified I think once or twice as a reinforcement to my doctors who already testified, but to answer your question, no.
Did anyone discuss with you that they were embarrassed by Dr. Golden and didn't want him to testify?
No. That is not what was said to me. I mean, they said that I was going to testify and give my opinion and Golden also is going to testify. Nobody told me Golden was not going to testify.
Were you aware that the District Attorney tried to find Coroners around the country to come in and testify in this case?
Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. I would ask for an admonishment.
Was there a discussion of other Coroners coming in to testify in this case with you?
Did you contact anyone on behalf of the District Attorney's office to offer testimony in this case?
No. I just gave the two names as I mentioned to Bill Hodgman when he called me.
Are you aware of requests made to individuals to ask them to come review this case and testify?
Your Honor, I'm going to object. I don't like to interrupt in the middle of the question, but this line of questioning calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.
When you were called to testify, were you aware that other people had refused to testify?
Who--tell us what lawyers from the District Attorney's office you spent time with preparing for your testimony.
That was last year, and there was a possibility that I might testify. But actually, my full preparation for this case was more with Mr. Kelberg ever since February of this year when I knew I'm going to be--most likely be testifying, and this was in February or late February. Again, I'd have to go to my chronology of my log to tell you the dates and time when these meetings started taking place.
No. These are the two attorneys from the District Attorney's office who were involved with the Coroner's testimony.
Did you prepare with anyone else other than the two people in any way for testimony in this case?
He's a trial lawyer, trial consultant who gives lectures on how to behave as a witness.
To all the department personnel as part of training for the office because we have many people from our office who testify in court. And this is something new we started since last--this year I think. I don't actually recall the date, but he gave a lecture for our office.
No. We have seminars also in our office. We've had the D.A.'s office, we've had the public defender's office. I have a CME program in my office, continuing medical education, wherein our doctors get training, and we have had it for--on an on and off basis. The last time we had a long session with the D.A.'s office was sometime in 1990 or `91 when we had several D.A.'s from the District Attorney's office and I think the public defender's also come and talk to us on court testimony. And so this has happened in the past.
Your Honor, could I just ask please for Mr. Shapiro to wait for Dr. Lakshmanan to finish before starting?
Basically Mr. Tuno talked about the demeanor of a witness, how to testify, how to present yourself, et cetera. It is not--
His business was as a trial consultant, and his expertise was in helping witnesses to present themselves and how to project themselves in the courtroom.
KEY QUOTEWell, he taught our employees to talk louder, to be forceful when you talk, et cetera.
Well, I attended the meeting, but I've been testifying long before Mr. Tuno came to give this lecture. I've been testifying for years for the Coroner's office. For 18 years, I've been testifying for the Coroner's office on different cases. So I have had enough experience in testifying. But you always learn. Whenever you go to lectures, you always learn a point or two and you try and use whatever is useful to better your presentation.
When did you become aware that this was going to be a significant case for the Coroner's office?
Well, every case is significant. But what do you mean by significant? In the sense--
Well, perhaps then, this case would you say would just fall into the same realm as all the other cases, no more important, no less important and significant?
Well, I can't say that. We've obviously given a lot of importance to this case. It's obvious from my spending time and coming here to testify and all the attention that this case has been getting. So in that manner, this case has had a giant impact on our office because it has taken away a lot of personal time involvement and also financially has taken a lot, has had an impact on our department.
KEY QUOTEWhat is it about the autopsies of the two victims in this case that caused them to have such special attention?
Well, not really much about the autopsies other than the areas which have been addressed. It is just the attention that this case is getting and the multiple requests from both your side and the Prosecution, on different demands placed on the office for reports, photographs, additional photographs, specimens to inspect, slides to be cut. You know, if I look at the chronology, I could go over the various demands placed on the office. And then, other ramifications also are there for this case. Just not the case itself.
Well, you said when it came time to assign it, that you wanted to assign somebody special to this case for the autopsy; did you not?
No. I said I wanted a senior certified pathologist, and Dr. Golden is considered a certified forensic pathologist.
Didn't you give us a list of three others that were seniors that you wanted to first do this case?
Well, I would have preferred them to do the case if they were available, but I picked the next pathologist who was capable of doing the case. And in my opinion, at that time, Dr. Golden was capable of doing the case and he has done the cases.
Well, seniors also do bread and butter cases. My chief of medicine just two days ago did a couple of--I mean one autopsy and numerous other examinations because I'm here and we had a shortage of doctors. So everybody in my office does a lot of work, my seniors, my regular pathologists. So when I ran down the list, I was just trying to tell you who are the experienced pathologists we have in the office. And I already mentioned we have 12 certified forensic pathologists. So I just went down the list who were available, and any one of my certified pathologists is competent of handling this case.
It was just a case that came in. It was a routine case, and whoever happened to be available was going to get it.
Was there anything unusual about this case that caused you to take special attention to whom it would be assigned?
It was brought to my attention that one of the victims was the former wife of Mr. Simpson, and I knew there would be a lot of attention on the case. So I just wanted to make sure one of my certified pathologists did it. And I determined that this was a case that I needed someone who was available for three days. That was Dr. Golden. That is why I assigned the case.
Well, because somebody had to look at the bodies when the bodies were brought to our office, which was the 13th, and Golden was working that day. We needed the person to do the autopsy, which was the next day, which was the 14th. And being two homicides in the case, more time is needed, and you never know the complexity of the case until you start the autopsy. The doctor who was doing the case must also be available to work all three days, and that is one of the only reasons--is one of the reasons I assigned the case to him, because he's available all the three days. And also, whenever we have a case that is complex, I always go and talk to the doctor and ask him whether he's willing to do the case. And Dr. Golden was willing to do the case, and that's how he got assigned the case.
Any double murder with multiple sharp force injuries is complex in the sense that there are multiple injuries to be documented and take time to do them.
Well, we do a lot of complex cases every day in my office. If you come to my office, I can go over the list and show you the complexity of each of the cases done by my doctors every day. We have cases of multiple gunshot wounds and multiple stab wounds, blunt force trauma. So complex case in the L.A. County Coroner's office is bread and butter case because each of my fellow pathologists have done a lot of these cases, and for them, it's a case which they do every other day. It's not like something which is unusual.
Is it your practice to go down and look at all bodies when they come in for autopsy?
I try and do it whenever there's an important case. For example, today, if I had been working in the office, there was a kid who was apparently mauled by three dogs I heard on the news. And if I was working today, I could have gone and seen that case. Depending on what the case is. It is not that it is a particular--relates to a celebrity that I go and see the case. If a case requires my presence to see the body, I go and look at the body, and I do it routinely. I do rounds whenever it's possible, time permitting, to go look at what kinds of cases is going on, and I try and keep on top of whatever is going on in the office because--I'm also available to all my doctors. For example, on Monday, they I came back from the lecture, I stopped in my office. And they I came to my office, the first thing I was asked to look at was a homicide case by one of my doctors. I went down, looked at the case, gave some suggestions, got a criminalist. So what I'm saying, it's an ongoing process. I went down, looked at the body, saw the injuries with the doctor, got the criminalist to look at the case. I don't want to go into specifics of the number and all, but just wanted to tell you that I am the Chief Medical Examiner for that office. He's one of the experienced pathologists there. And I'm always available to my doctors for any expertise they believe I can offer them, and this is why I'm there. So I do it on a routine basis, but yes, in this case, I did come down and look at the bodies on the 13th and I was the one who assigned the cases.
And after you looked at the bodies, did you give some thought to actually supervising the autopsy yourself because you knew public attention would be focusing on this case?
No. I had absolute trust in my doctor. I mean my philosophy is, they I hire a board certified forensic pathologist, I'm not there to spoon-feed them. I am there to help them if they need my help. For example, on Monday, they I came in, this particular forensic pathologist asked me to look at the body. I went and looked at it. If Dr. Golden had asked me, "Dr. Lakshmanan, I need your help, come and help me," I would have gone and helped him. And if I was not available, I would assign a second pathologist. So it is my pathologists' prerogative to call me or ask for additional assistance because they are certified pathologists. They've been hired to do the job and I have confidence in actually all my employees to do the job they a job is needed to be done. And if they need my help, I am there. If I can't offer them help, I'll get one of my assistants to help them. I have 12 doctors working in my office in different areas of expertise. Whenever we need any help, we're the first to provide it. And if it's not available in out office, I get the expertise from outside.
Did anyone--has anyone told you that Dr. Golden's findings were not consistent with the D.A.'s theory of this case?
And you've read his criteria at the preliminary hearing for exact time of death; did you not?
And you're aware that his criteria for the exact time of death on at least three different criteria put the time of death after 11:00 o'clock; are you not? Did he not testify to that?
And you are aware that's inconsistent with the D.A.'s theory as to they these homicides took place; are you not?
What do you mean by "Inconsistent"? That is, could you tell me what they said because I don't know what the theory is. Could you tell me the theory again?
That the murders took place between 10:00 and 11:00 and not between 11:00 and 12:00, is that what you are referring to?
I don't know what their exact theory is, but the time frame we are looking at is between 10:00 and 11:00.
So if Dr. Golden testified at the preliminary hearing on three criteria that the time of death was after 11:00 o'clock in his opinion, wouldn't that be inconsistent with the D.A.'s theory?
Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence and misstates what in fact Dr. Golden did testify to at the preliminary hearing.
Are you aware of what Dr. Golden testified to and what finding he came to recording time of death?
And he did--he testified under oath at your direction that he was asked to come up with a time of death; isn't that correct?
And he testified at the preliminary hearing under oath that in his opinion, based on the different criteria that you've gone through, that the time of death was after 11 o'clock; did he not?
Objection. Misstates the evidence. I would ask to be heard at sidebar with the court reporter.
Did he offer an opinion, if you calculate it out, as to the time of death being after 11:00 o'clock?
He offered some opinions, but if you're going to go into that, I would like to refresh my memory looking at the preliminary testimony before I answer exactly because I don't want to give time, numbers which are not correct. So I want to read the preliminary hearing testimony and then--or you can read it out because I have read it and I can say whether I agree.
Well, you are aware he concluded on some criteria that the time of death was after 11:00 o'clock; are you not?
Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Also calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.
Are you aware of, doctor--well, you read his preliminary hearing transcript and you are telling us you don't remember what he said?
I recall some numbers, but as I said, if you have the transcript, I'd like to refresh my memory, and we can look at it and then I can discuss it further at that point.
How much time did you spend reading the transcript of Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony?
I think I read it once a few weeks ago and once a few months ago, but not recently except they the D.A. During my direct examination read out excerpts, I think certain injuries which I gave my opinion on those injuries.
We'll go back to that they we have some more time, and I'll ask you to refresh your memory perhaps if we don't finish today in that area, if that would be appropriate, your Honor, rather than take the time now.
You testified that you had gone to the scene of the crime twice, once in November of last year and once in February; is that correct?
Not February. I think it was April of this year if I recall. I have to look at the dates.
And you said that they you looked at the photographs, the area seemed much larger than it did they you went to the scene?
Doesn't that demonstrate the importance of a medical examiner having to go to the scene?
Wouldn't it be important to go to the scene as quickly as possible before it's disturbed or changed?
It would have been important, and if he wanted to go to the scene after the autopsy, I would have not objected to that. He could have gone to the scene.
Shouldn't somebody go to the scene before findings are made in an autopsy and conclusions are reached?
As I told you earlier, our doctors don't go to the scene on every case. Our investigators gather the information and the doctor uses the information for purposes of autopsy. If the doctor wants to go to the scene, the doctors could go to the scene on an individual case-by-case basis where they feel there's indication to go to the scene. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a homicide case. It could be a possible suicide case, somebody who jumps off a clip, and they'd like to go look at the area. So depends on the situation. So it is not a routine practice for the doctor to go to the scene unless the doctor feels it's indicated to go to the scene.
Well, why would it not be indicated to go to the scene in June they the crimes took place and become indicated to go to the scene in November and in April, almost a year after the crime took place?
As I told you, there was a possibility I could testify. So I went to look at the scene in November. But they I knew that I am going to testify and I reviewed the case in my mind, I had to clarify the environmental factors which would play a role in the--in the injuries which I discussed with this jury in the last few days. So I went to do an in-depth study of the scene myself to study the environment better and also so I had a better idea about the relationship of the various structures and the environment so that I could render the best possible opinion based on my education and experience with the autopsy findings I reviewed. So that is why I went to the scene again in March of this year. The November was just a preliminary review of the scene, but this March was a detailed review of the whole scene area because I didn't know that I'm going to be testifying at all until towards the end of last year--this year that I will be testifying.
Doctor, isn't it true that no matter how much time you spent at the scene in November and how much time you spent at that scene in March, there is no substitute for not going to the scene June 13th?
In your capacity as the Chief Medical Examiner, do you perform autopsies yourself?
I do whenever it's necessary, but I don't do that many autopsies myself. I mainly supervise and evaluate the work of others, supervise some cases or for teaching purposes, but not that many.
Few weeks ago, I did three cases with the residents wherein I played a part in the dissection also.
Last year, some cases, but I don't recall the exact date. I don't do that many autopsies.
I'd have to look at my statistics. As I told you, that I'm mainly available for supervision. So I don't do many autopsies myself at this time.
How often does your office prepare one-to-one photographs for the purpose of courtroom testimony?
We prepare one is to one photographs in cases where--this is about the first time I prepared it for testimony on one of my cases because I didn't do the autopsies on these cases.
Is it better procedure to measure wounds on the decedents or to measure wounds on a photograph?
I already discussed this during my testimony. It is better to do the measurements on the body. But next to that, this is a process which has its own limitations. I already discussed that. And barring that this is the next best procedure which was available to me at the time, I wanted to look at all the injuries. So I--we got one-to-one photographs made.
Whose measurements are you relying on for the measurements of the wounds on the actual decedents' bodies?
Dr. Golden's measurements. All I did was to see whether my measurements were the same as the one is to one photographs, if it has any significant difference given the limitation of the process with Dr. Golden's measurements and given the limitations of the process. If there's no significant difference, it would indicate that Golden's measurements were reliable and some of the injuries where the photographic review permitted good interpretation--for example, a photograph would give interpretations where the measuring card is next to the injury, the photograph is taken at right angles to the injury. I found that the description, the measurements corresponded. So the photographic review helps to support and give reliability to the measurements which was taken at the time of autopsy. So that way, the photographs helped, but there's no question that the best way to see the measurements is to do the measurements at the time of photography.
Why would you spend so much time looking at photographs to remeasure injuries if in your opinion, they were not important?
The reason I did this, some of the injuries was not described by Dr. Golden in the original report. In the addendum, he--he reviewed photographs and gave measurements, and I just wanted to make sure that--since those were not described in the original report, I wanted to make sure that in the one is to one photographs, the measurement matched the measurements done on the regular photographs and I--given my measurements in the chart which I generated for the court, I played a role in generating for the court. And so basically, it would help to give reliability to the measurement from the photograph of the injuries which were not addressed in the original report and those which were in the diagram also like, for example, in Miss Brown Simpson, the palmar cut, in Mr. Goldman, the cuts to the back of here (indicating). I'm just giving you some examples which were not described. So since the addendum was prepared without the help of one is to one photographs, the one is to one photographs supports the best possible way to measure those wounds, next best to measuring the wounds on the body.
He measured it from the photographs. But you can measure it from the photograph--even a regular photograph. All our photographs have the blue card, and you take the measure with the blue card and apply it to the wound measurement. But that is not as good as a one is to one photograph since these measurements were made--I'm talking about injuries which were not described. The one is to one photograph would be a better reflection for measuring, easier to measure because the blue card is the actual blue card size which is used on the one is to one photographs.
Yes. Because being a certified pathologist, that's important. And if you look at his description, he has done it. He has described his--his process pretty clearly.
Just by working with him for 15 years, I know he does autopsies and he does the measurements.
Well, autopsy technician could be there to help him, but usually the doctors do the measurements themselves.
But you don't know whether Dr. Golden did it or whether the technician did it, do you?
Well, he didn't tell me the technician did the measurements. Because if the technician helped, he would have put it down in the report. Mainly in our offices, doctors do the measurements and record it. And from all the handwriting in the reports and the diagrams, it's my understanding that he did the measurements.
Well, that's my understanding. I was not there. I told you that I was not in the autopsy room when he did the autopsy.
Well, not for the "Y" incision because sometimes the technician can help you with the autopsy process. That's why the technician is helping you.
Well, depends because the autopsy technician's name could be recorded if they played a significant part in the autopsy process. But the autopsy technician in an autopsy routinely removes the neck, and if the autopsy technician helped to remove the neck organs and open the head to remove the brain, that's not routinely recorded, but it's an understanding of the office. So my understanding is that he did the measurements. My understanding is there is an autopsy technician helping him. My understanding is, I do not know what role a particular technician plays in the autopsy assistance process. So--
I'm sorry. From the 200 hours you spent reviewing this case, you can't tell us who performed the incision on these bodies to begin the autopsy?
I understand it was Dr. Golden, but am not a hundred percent sure who helped him with the process. But I think it was Dr. Golden.
One of the technicians was George McDonald. But the photographs indicate there was a Mr. Taylor there helping Dr. Golden with the autopsy process because he took the photograph at that time.
Dr. Golden and the autopsy technician, but I can get that information by looking at the log sheet if you want. But I don't recall exactly the name of the technician who was involved in all the processes of the case.
With all the mistakes Dr. Golden made, how do you know he didn't make mistakes in measurements?
Well, as I told you, some of the case photographs where I looked at the one is to one photographs and compared his measurement--just to give you a perfect example, 5/8 inch wound here on the right side of the neck of Mr. Goldman, the measurement he gave and the measurements I took, everything matches. The description matches. The measurements of the wounds which has been given on some other wounds also matches. So I think his measurements are very reliable.
Your Honor, I have an objection to the use of this document as calling for hearsay, lack of foundation.
Your Honor, again, objection. Calling for hearsay, lack of foundation. This is a photocopy of something, which would require hearsay.
And you testified that the measurements of Mr. Goldman were five feet nine inches tall or 69 inches; is that correct?
That is the measurement given by our office by Mr. Jacobo who took the measurement.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We'll stand in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning. Doctor, tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. Thank you. All right. We'll stand in recess.
Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 167 pages 31884 - 32176
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Wednesday June 14, 1995 A.M. 31884 167 P.M. 32009 167
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 167 (Resumed) 31905bk (Resumed) 32011bk 32119s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 167 (Resumed) 31905bk (Resumed) 32011bk 32119s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
363-A - videotape (Not marked on the record) (Redacted from 363 videotape)
364-A thru 364-I - 31900/01 167 Coroner's documents consisting of autopsy evidence collection log, evidence log for Ron Goldman, evidence log for Nicole Brown Simpson, drop-box log, toxicology log, label entitled "Blood obtained before embalming" for Mr. Goldman, and label entitled "Blood obtained before embalming" for Ms. Simpson
364-AA thru 364-II - 31909/33 167 blow-ups of Coroner's documents consisting of exhibits 364-A thru 364-I
365 - 3-Page document 31936 167 dated July 28, 1994, Department of Coroner form 42
366 - Chart 31999 167 entitled "Factors commonly used to estimate range for time of death
367-A - chart 32004 167 entitled "Algor temperature"
367-B - computer image 32013 167 of graph with 3 red markings
367-C - chart 32024 167 entitled "Some limitations to the preciseness of estimating postmortem interval (PMI) from body temperature"
367-D - chart 32024 167 entitled "Relationship between postmortem interval (PMI) and body cooling"
367-E - chart 32038 167 entitled "Algor mortis"
367-F - chart 32041 167 entitled "Algor mortis continued"
367-G - chart 32041 167 entitled "Algor mortis continued"
367-H - documents 32047 167 certified climaticdata reports for the dates of June 12 and June 13, 1994
367-I - chart 32048 167 entitled "Algor mortis continued"
367-J - graph 32048 167 entitled "Analysis of algorithms in actual cases"
367-K - graph 32049 167 entitled "Temperature-based methods I"
368-A - chart 32055 167 entitled "Rigor mortis body stiffening"
368-B - chart 32057 167 entitled "Rigor mortis continued"
368-C - chart 32063 167 entitled "Rigor mortis continued"
369-A - chart 32066 167 entitled "Livor mortis blood settling"
369-B - chart 32073 167 entitled "Livor mortis hypostasis"
370-A - chart 32074 167 entitled "Vitreous humor potassium level"
370-B - chart 32076 167 entitled "Vitreous humor potassium level"
371-A - chart 32079 167 entitled "Gastric stomach contents"
371-B - chart 32101 167 entitled "Gastric stomach contents continued"
344-A(1) - cassette tape 32081 167 audiotape of Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy by Dr. Golden
I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it.
I can't say that.
A dozen plus at least if you add all of them. More than that if you count even the typographical mistakes.
I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments.
His business was as a trial consultant, and his expertise was in helping witnesses to present themselves and how to project themselves in the courtroom.