Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your direct examination.
Doctor--if Mr. Fairtlough can bring back exhibit 365--we're on page 2, I believe we're on item 11. And does that refer to what we were discussing yesterday? And we also discussed it with respect to the Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy of the initial request for an H screen and your decision to order a C screen, toxicological screen in each of those cases?
Item 12, did you discuss earlier in your testimony regarding flouroscopy as a form of x-ray?
And, doctor, in your opinion, would flouroscopy have been desirable in this case as Mr. Siglar's letter indicates?
No. I think in stab wound cases, x-rays are better because if at all there are going to be any fragments of the knife, it's better seen on an x-ray than fluoroscopy. But sometimes flouroscopy can help. But I would prefer to have an x-ray of an area because even if the fluoroscope doesn't show it sometimes, you'll see it on the x-ray because flouroscopy doesn't have the resolution, fine resolution of an x-ray.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, did you also testify, however, that no x-rays were taken, for example, of the skulls of either victim?
And we asked you questions about whether in your opinion there was any indication that the blade of the knife had broken off in the course of any of the infliction of the sharp force injuries. Do you recall that?
Objection, your Honor. Obviously if they didn't do the test, they couldn't find evidence.
Oh, that refers to, in the week following the autopsy, there was request for photographs from our office because there's a grand jury hearing on the case, and our machine was not functioning. You know, after the earthquake, we had some problems with our printer and processor and now we have a new photographic equipment available. And basically we requested--I requested LAPD to cooperate and make the prints for us. So we made a one-print set for us and one-print set for the grand jury hearings. And what Mr. Siglar is referring to is, he feels that the prints could have been made by sheriff than LAPD. So it's just a matter of which agency you choose, and to me, it doesn't make any difference because LAPD were nearby, they were handling the case on these two decedents and I requested LAPD.
Oh, 14, "Photographic prints could have been available to assigned pathologist prior to review of the medical protocol." This is a procedure which is--which is being at least done on some of the cases wherein the pathologist looks at the photographs before the protocol is signed to see for any problems we may have with reference to injuries not being described or also to see whether the injuries which have been described are correct.
And is there some delay in the normal course of your business about getting the photograph with respect to your requirement to have the protocol dictated within 24 hours of the completion of the autopsy?
That--that is correct. But right now, we have the new equipment that just came. Following the earthquake, we got a new piece of equipment wherein you can have contact prints available one hour after the photography is done. So what I'm trying to do at the current time is to have some contact prints available to the doctors before they even do the autopsy to make sure that all the injuries are photographed. And this again is a laborious procedure and there are--we're trying to do it, but it's not been very successful. But that's the goal.
Contact prints, the print is the same size as the negative. So you have one strip with all the photographs taken on the case so the doctor knows which areas have been photographed. This is something new we are trying to do in our office.
Oh, that refers to the--to have bottles made depending on what kind of case you're dealing with reference to toxicology samples. If you have a suspect that's suicide, you make all the specimens available--I mean the containers available for a full tox collection because you like to have liver samples, stomach contents, bile, urine so that you can correlate the blood levels with the tissue levels and support your diagnosis or don't support your diagnosis of suicide.
Is there anything about this observation by Mr. Siglar that affects your ability to evaluate the evidence in these two autopsy cases?
No. I think the decision on what specimens to collect is the--is decision of the medical examiner. It's a medical decision. You are to use it intelligently to decide what you want done in a particular case. So this would apply because we do have residents coming into our office who work under supervision, and this is something which is already in place. We do a full tox on certain types of cases and certain types of cases we just collect blood like in traffic accidents, I already mentioned we collect blood and urine, depending on the nature of the case.
KEY QUOTEThat is just a statement. One of the diagrams was not available at the time of initial release of documents and it was released to the Defense team when I met them on June 22nd. It was one diagram form which was misplaced and later retrieved and presented to all parties concerned.
Doctor, was this a type of diagram such as we've been using in the course of the discussion of these two autopsies?
Doctor, can you identify--obviously we know who the middle name is--the first and third names, where the copies?
Mr. Hernandez is the director of the department. He's in charge of all non-physician operations. Mr. Scott carrier is the public information officer.
And if Mr. Fairtlough can put on a single page that is the last part of this exhibit 365. And, doctor, in general terms, what is this document?
This is the notes taken by Gary Siglar during the medical examiner's meeting on June 23rd, `94, and these notes were used by him to generate that letter which we just discussed.
So these handwritten entries then relate to what is later included in the listed 16 items in the letter to Mr. Hodgman?
I don't think we--I'll leave it up to the Court if the Court wishes the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to have an opportunity to read it.
Doctor, item 7--incidentally, just initially, this appears to be a shorthanded version of the items. For example, looking at item 2, it appears Mr. Siglar has handwritten "Looky loos," and in the current document, item 2 is "Preventing uninvolved employees from observing decedents should have occurred." Is this again to be a shorthanded method of note taking?
Oh, I'm sorry. You're correct. Item 9. And perhaps Mr. Fairtlough could raise that. We're going to talk about, as part of time of death, this issue of when your office was notified, when Miss Ratcliffe went and so forth. With respect to the sexual assault entry here, doctor, what if anything different than what we discussed with you on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of taking a sexual assault kit in this case of Nicole Brown Simpson is referred to in that entry?
I have one other area of inquiry before talking to you, doctor, about time of death, and we raised it earlier dealing with Claudine Ratcliffe, your investigator, who went to the Bundy location, and it concerns the issue of taking blood samples of some form from a back of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you recall that general area?
And you testified I believe already, even today, that when the body arrived at the Coroner's office on the 13th of June, you asked Mr. Mahanay, one of your criminalists, to take blood samples from two areas of Nicole Brown Simpson's body as reflected on the appropriate evidence log; is that correct?
Mr. Lynch, could you take one of the easels just very briefly and put it in the location where we used the photographs?
Doctor, first of all, do you see the area where you asked Mr. Mahanay to take samples from when you saw the body at your offices on June 13th?
He made the determination which areas to take. I think he took the right thigh and calf area, these blood samples.
All right. Referring to photographs CS11 and the area of the right leg where you're pointing and down further below the knee; is that correct?
I want to invite your attention both to the back of Nicole Brown Simpson as seen in CS11 and the back of Nicole Brown Simpson as seen in CS12. Do you see what appears to you to be blood on the back of her body?
Would you have expected Claudine Ratcliffe to have taken any action at the scene to have that blood collected?
If she had seen it and she felt it was important, she would have asked it to be collected.
Doctor, would you have considered it significant in any way that--such that you would have expected her to have had action taken to obtain those samples?
Because you don't have any injury in that area and you have blood drops there, and this could be blood drops falling off a weapon which could reflect the blood of the decedent, could be the blood of the--in this case, we have a second victim. It could have also reflected if the perpetrator had some injury, which can happen sometimes, and the perpetrator's blood. So it could be--it's good to collect and see whose blood it is.
Does the failure--and there was no effort made by Miss Ratcliffe to have that collected as far as you understand; is that correct?
Doctor, is the failure to have that collected a matter which causes you to be unable to determine the issues you have been talking about for the last week or so?
Doctor, is the absence of that evidence such that you cannot form opinions as a forensic pathologist with respect to the cause of death?
Is there anything about the absence of that evidence which prevents you as a forensic pathologist from determining whether a single-edged knife caused each and every one of the sharp force injuries you identified in the course of your review?
Doctor, is there any significance without that evidence to your ability as a forensic pathologist to determine how long it would take to cause all of these injuries on these two people?
Again, this evidence would not have any bearing to those conclusions or opinions I rendered.
Doctor, is the absence of that evidence of any significance to you as a forensic pathologist in ascertaining whether one person armed with a single-edged knife of approximately 6-inch length, tapered at the tip could have killed both of these human beings?
Again, this evidence collection would not have had any effect on my opinions on those hypothetical--I mean those issues that you brought up.
In your opinion, could the evidence have--if taken have been helpful to you even if it does not prevent you from answering the questions I've asked?
If it had been collected, it would be one more piece of information which is available. If it's the blood of Miss Simpson, then it would reflect that the blood drops are hers and falling off the weapon, and that would also support my opinion that the perpetrator was in the back, from the back lifted the head which was face down and cut her neck.
And if, for example, it was blood that was tested and found to genetically match blood drops found along the walkway leading to the back of the property and which further matched genetically to that of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, would that have been helpful to you also in evaluating whether one perpetrator could have killed both of these two human beings in a brief, swift and violent attack?
KEY QUOTEIt would suggest--if that blood sample matched the perpetrator, it would suggest that at least one perpetrator was involved with this--with this evidence.
As a brief follow-up to that, doctor, in the investigators' manual which you talked about on sexual assault kits, and inviting counsel to page 6.0.1 under "Field evidence procedures," is this what your investigators are instructed to do?
Again, doctor, referring to page 6.0.1, is this part of what your investigators such as Miss Ratcliffe are instructed to do at scenes like the Bundy location? Under "Field evidence procedures." "It is recognized that each death scene is unique and that the proper procedures for examining the decedent for evidence and the order of implementation of those procedures are dependent upon the circumstances of a particular case. "Coroner's personnel conducting an investigation at the scene of a death shall communicate and cooperate with investigative personnel from the investigating police agency to determine the best manner in which to proceed." Is that part of what they are instructed to do?
And one other manual. Doctor, is there something called an "Operations Bureau manual"?
Yes. That is the manual which is used by the investigations division of our office, their procedures.
And now inviting counsel under "Field investigations", and I'm not sure of the page, but it has a reference 230. Is this part of what your investigators like Miss Ratcliffe are informed to do? "When a death is reported to this department and is under our jurisdiction and the decedent is at the location of death or at the place discovered, a Coroner's investigator will be assigned and dispatched to conduct the death investigation." Further on: "Field investigators are responsible for maintaining the integrity of a death scene including information and evidence. They coordinate their investigations with investigators of other agencies also having jurisdiction of the scene. They functionally supervise other Coroner employees at a scene including any personnel charged with the responsibility of transporting the body."
And dropping further down to a part under the word, "Evidence": "Coroner's investigators coordinate their investigations with police officers or members of other investigative agencies so as not to mishandle or contaminate evidence in which all may be interested. When the Coroner's investigator determines the need to have a Coroner's criminalist respond to the scene for the purpose of collecting trace evidence or evidence of sexual assault, they will protect the scene until the criminalist arrives. In these instances, the criminalist will collect all evidence associated with the decedent." Are those instructions that are given to your investigators such as Miss Ratcliffe?
Now, doctor, let me move into my final area of inquiry dealing with the issue of time of death. And let me begin, if we could, please, with a brief review of the legal requirements regarding notification of the Coroner's office when a body has been found. Doctor, are you familiar with various statutes in the government code and the health and safety code that pertain to this issue of notification of the Coroner?
Let me invite your attention, if I could, please, to several sections of government code starting with a section of section 27491 of the government code under the heading "Duty to investigate and determine cause of death" in the fifth full paragraph: "Any funeral director, physician or other person who has charge of a deceased person's body when death occurred as a result of any of the causes or circumstances described in this section shall immediately notify the Coroner. Any person who does not notify the Coroner as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor." Is that one of the sections of which you are familiar pertaining to the duty to notify your office?
And obviously this type of situation, of two people killed in a manner suggesting a criminal homicide, would be one of the areas covered by this statute; is that correct?
And when it says, "Funeral director, physician or other person," you understand that to include police officers; is that correct?
Your Honor, I'm going to move to strike the last part of that answer as calling for a legal conclusion.
And as I was saying, dropping down to 27491.2: "A. The Coroner or the Coroner's appointed deputy, on being informed of a death and finding it to fall under the classification of deaths requiring his or her inquiry, may immediately proceed to where the body lies, examine the body, make identification, make inquiry into the circumstances, manner and means of death and, as circumstances warrant, either order its removal for further investigation or disposition or release the body to the next of kin." Is that another section of which you are familiar regarding the responsibilities of the Coroner's office?
And, doctor, would it be accurate to say that your office has the responsibility over the body itself?
Now, let me invite your attention under one more section of the government code 27491.3 under "Control of premises where body found," subsection C, the middle of that subsection as follows: "At the scene of any death, when it is immediately apparent or when it has not been previously recognized and the Coroner's examination reveals that police investigation or criminal Prosecution may ensue, the Coroner shall not further disturb the body or any related evidence until the law enforcement agency has had reasonable opportunity to respond to the scene if their purposes so require and they so request. Custody and control of the body shall remain with the Coroner at all times. Reasonable time at the scene shall be allowed by the Coroner for criminal investigation by other law enforcement agencies with the time and location of removal of the remains to a convenient place to be determined at the discretion of the Coroner." Is that another one of the sections of which you are familiar?
And, doctor, how does this section affect the relationship between your people, including your investigators like Miss Ratcliffe, and police investigators such as Detectives Lange and Vannatter?
Basically, our office investigators cooperate with the police agencies if they require more time to collect evidence at a scene. That is one aspect of the government code which you just alluded to, that is 27419.3(C) indicates that. But the notification also is responsibility of the police department to call us as soon as they have a death.
And that's what I want to next discuss with you. Doctor, given the resources your office has, do you automatically respond at the time you are notified that there is a body found by a police agency which believes the body is the product of a criminal event?
The way it works is, when they notify us, the inquiry is when they give us a time when we can come and pick up the remains because they might not have finished their criminal investigation and evidence collection, because we have limited resources of our personnel, because we like to go to the scene and do our investigation and bring the remains back to our office as soon as possible. And as we discussed earlier, if necessary, the criminalist will be called and evidence collection by our criminalist from the body may take place at the scene also. So it is a situation where we need to plan our response to a crime scene. So we like to be notified when a death is recovered--when a death is discovered rather, and the response will depend on what kind of investigation is being conducted by the law enforcement agency so that we can plan our response so that our investigators don't spend time there waiting for evidence to be collected. And this is something where communication helps to have a kind of situation where both agencies conduct their responsibilities in a manner which is fit so that the criminal investigation of a particular crime doesn't suffer.
Doctor, in the course of reviewing materials for this case, have you become aware of two telephone conversations between a police detective from the Los Angeles Police Department named Detective Phillips and two employees of the Coroner's office, one, Mr. Willis, w-I-l-l-i-s, and one, Mr. Heath, h-e-a-t-h?
Yes. I had the opportunity to read the transcript. As you know, all calls coming into the Coroner's office are recorded, and I had a chance to read the transcript of that recorded information which came to our facility with reference to those communications between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Willis and later Mr. Phillips and one I think Mr. Heath of our office.
Doctor, assuming that there's been testimony in this court that the bodies were first observed by a Los Angeles Police Department officer by the name of Riske at about 12:13 A.M. on June 13th, 1994 and that the first call by the police to your office occurred at 6:49 A.M. or about six and a half hours later on the same date, in your opinion, doctor, was that timely notification to you as required by the sections that we've just reviewed?
Doctor, in your review of these materials, have you attempted to form an opinion regarding the estimated time of death for Nicole Brown Simpson?
Have you also attempted, from your review of these materials, to form an estimated time of death for Ronald Goldman?
And before I ask you if you have in fact formed such opinions and what they are, let me first ask you, in your opinion, doctor, has the delay of six and a half hours with respect to the first notification and the fact, as we've already seen, that liver temperatures were not taken until approximately 10:40 and 10:50 A.M. on June 13th as documented in our exhibits 298-A and B, those form 1's, has that set of circumstances, doctor, caused you to be unable to form an opinion regarding the estimated time of death in each case?
And further, doctor, if by some fortuitous work of faith, you had been with Officer Riske on June 13th at 12:13 A.M. on June--on that date with whatever bag of medical paraphernalia you would use for ascertaining the medical information from which you form an opinion as to cause of death, in your opinion, would you under those circumstances have been able to determine whether the death occurred at 10:15 P.M. on June 12th rather than 11:00 o'clock on June 12th?
Would you be able to exclude any time period between 10:15 and 11:00 o'clock on June 12th if hypothetically you had been fortuitously with detective or Officer Riske at 12:13 and had done whatever you are able to do medically to make such determinations?
Now, doctor--and we're going to go through why you hold that opinion; is that correct?
Let's start with, what is your opinion with respect to the estimated time of death for Nicole Brown Simpson?
I cannot tell exactly at what time she died, but she--obviously the--I have taken all the factors into consideration. I can't pinpoint exactly what time she died between 9:40 and 12:40 when the body was discovered. But based on--based on the perimeters which were evaluated, that is liver temperature, rigor, livor, et cetera. But the only thing which would favor--and there's one more factor which one can take into consideration, which would include gastric emptying and contents which show that there were identifiable food fragments in her stomach at the time of autopsy, identified as rigatoni and black olives, et cetera, which would reflect that--and also, I was told information that she ate the dinner somewhere between 8:00 and 8:15 that evening. Just using that, it would favor death took place between 10:00 and 10:30, but that again would not be a definite answer because that factor of gastric emptying and gastric digestion has so many variabilities to the process. So the bottom line is, I can't narrow time of death between 9:40 and 12:13, which is the discovered time of the bodies, with precision more than what I've discussed.
And, doctor, is the factor--let me withdraw the question if I might. Doctor, I want you to focus solely on medical factors and not on any information you may have received in the form of, for example, a documented telephone conversation between Nicole Brown Simpson and her mother at about 9:35 in the evening of June 12th and a documented call by Nicole Brown Simpson after that call to her mother or that call from her mother to the Mezzaluna restaurant. I want you to set that aside and focus solely on medical bases for forming an opinion on time of death. Have you an opinion--
I'm sorry. The jury is to disregard the last deletion of factual circumstances, some of which are not in evidence yet. Let's just focus on the medical issues.
Have you formed an opinion as to a range during which the death of Nicole Brown Simpson occurred?
That could occur anywhere between 9:00 and--just on medical facts, if you give a range as anywhere between 9:00 and 12:45.
And we'll go through those medical facts. Do you have an opinion from the medical facts alone as to an estimated range for the time of death of Ronald Goldman?
And, doctor, when forensic pathologists evaluate cases for time of death, do they attempt to provide a specific time or do they attempt something else?
They always give an estimated range because the perimeters you use to estimate time of death are rough perimeters and there's--you cannot be precise in giving a precise time of death. You always give an estimated range with a plus or minus of three hours for a particular time which you estimate the death should have taken place because you always have to give the range because the factors you use have so many variabilities in built in them themselves. So if you take those variabilities of the factors you use and apply them to a particular situation, you can only give an estimated range. You cannot give any precision to a particular time like 10:15 or 10:20. It's very difficult.
Doctor, in preparing for this area of your testimony, have you reviewed medical literature on the subject of estimation of a range for time of death?
Is one of the materials you reviewed a book called, "The estimation of the time since death in the early postmortem period," by Henssge H-E-N-S-S-G-E, Knight, K-N-I-G-H-T, Krompecher, K-R-O-M-P-E-C-H-E-R, Medea, M-E-D-E-A, and Nokes, N-O-K-E-S?
Doctor, to your knowledge, is this the first book devoted entirely to this subject, the estimation of the time since death in the early postmortem period that is published in English?
Doctor, are you familiar with who these people are, Henssge, Knight and so forth?
Perhaps if Mr. Fairtlough could just put the face of the book up on the elmo and then the doctor can tell us who these people are.
Dr. Henssge is the--works for the institute of forensic medicine at the University of Essen in Germany.
It's a forensic institute. I have not been there, so--it's a recognized forensic institution.
Dr. Knight is the Professor of Forensic Pathology at University of Wales School of Medicine in Cardiff in the United Kingdom.
Before you go beyond his name, doctor, is one of the materials you also reviewed a chapter regarding "Estimation of time of death found in a forensic pathology text" with the name Bernard Knight, "Forensic pathology"?
It's a textbook of forensic pathology addressing different issues in forensic pathology used by pathologists and other forensic scientists to have information pertaining to that particular medical specialty.
Doctor, first of all, is Dr. Henssge recognized as one of the leading researchers in the area of estimation of time of death?
Yes. He has--he has done a lot of work in this area and he--actually his nomograms, which we will be discussing later, has been developed taking some variable factors involved in the cooling of the body and that nomogram, which we will be discussing later, will give you a tool, a tool to apply certain findings you--you--you have when you examine a body, and when you apply it in a nomogram, you can come up with an estimated range. And again, it's an estimated range. It's not a time of death with precision.
Yes. He's well known in the forensic community. He has written this textbook. He also edits the other book, Keith Simpson.
And I was going to ask you about that. Is there another forensic pathology text that you reviewed the chapter on "Estimation of time of death" entitled, "Simpson's--" obviously no reference to the Defendant--"Simpson's forensic medicine, 10th edition", Bernard Knight?
And is this--are both of these books with Dr. Knight as the editor considered as recognized medical text in the area of forensic pathology?
Medea is known. He always writes papers with Dr. Henssge. Dr. Medea is from the University of Koln, K-O-L-N, in Germany.
And is Dr. Medea one of the recognized researchers in the area of "Estimation of time of death"?
Just when I read the book, Mr. Nokes works for the University of Wales, Cardiff. He's I think the engineering--I think he's in the engineering department.
And actually if we could ask Mr. Fairtlough to put the title page up. It has references to each of these people and I think we'll find it's Dr. Nokes.
Yes. It stands for the member of the royal college of physicians, and usually that's a diplomat given in England and--
How about the other designations for Dr. Knight? Are you familiar with what they mean?
FRCPATH is Federal Royal College of Pathologists. DMJ is Dipomat Medical Jurisprudence, Pathology. Barrister is also a lawyer.
Now, doctor, in reviewing this material, have you considered its contents in forming opinions?
Yes. As I told, I only reviewed portions which applied to pathologists. There's a lot of material there which is for mostly mathematicians, statisticians which is--which I didn't pay attention to.
And in fact, is that part of the preface by Dr. Knight for people who are not inclined towards higher levels of mathematics? "For those non-medical readers, including lawyers and police detective officers, as well as the many doctors who are unfamiliar with more advanced mathematics and physics, some parts of the text can be avoided in favor of the more practical sections, which summarize the best current methods and indicate the limits of accuracy."
Doctor, have you relied at least in part on the information you have read in this book?
And as part of the material that you have relied upon in part, has the following been included from the preface? "Though very many papers have been published on the subject, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first book in the English language to be devoted to the estimation of the time since death. "As the historical review will indicate, the problem of determining the postmortem interval--" and is that a fancy way of saying how long a person has been dead?
"--has exercised doctors and scientists for at least a century and a half, yet accuracy still remains beyond our grasp. "This book does not pretend to solve this ancient difficulty, but offers a series of monographs by different authors, which address various aspects of the problem. "Particularly in relation to temperature-based methods, the opinions of different authors will be seen to vary, but this lack of consensus is familiar to all those working in forensic medicine." Part of what you referred to, considered and relied upon, doctor?
And further, doctor, did you refer to, consider and rely in part on the following from the general introduction by Dr. Knight? "The importance of estimating the time since death must have been appreciated for centuries, probably millennia. Even in the most unsophisticated societies, when homicides took place, the community would inevitably have correlated the location and movements of the prime suspects with the apparent time of death, however crude that comparison might have been, to test what would later become the Defense of alibi. "Little has changed from those early days, except that their data acquisition equipment was merely the back of a hand to test the coolness of the corpse's skin, and their eyes and nose to evaluate decomposition. We now have multichannel thermometry with thermo-couples sensitive to a fraction of a degree, enzyme methods, vitreous chemistry, muscular reactivity and several other avenues for collecting data. Regrettably, the accuracy of estimating the postmortem interval has by no means kept pace with the enormous strides made in technical sophistication."
And further, doctor: "It is not only the Defense of alibi that has such relevance to the estimation of the postmortem interval in criminal deaths. In the earliest stage of many criminal investigations, before any suspect is questioned or charged, a knowledge of the approximate time of death is vital if the investigating officers are to direct their inquiries in the appropriate direction. The relationship of the time of death to other events, to persons in the vicinity and to those who could not have been in the vicinity, will automatically channel investigative efforts along certain lines. When several suspects are being considered, the best estimate of the time of death forms a primary screening procedure to eliminate some putative killers, who could not have had access to the deceased at the material time, and may strengthen suspicion against others whose movements coincided with the estimated time. There is thus a heavy responsibility upon the doctor who offers an opinion as to the probable time of death. If he or she is significantly in error, the investigation may be dislocated at its earliest and perhaps most vulnerable stage. "The onus is therefore upon the doctor to provide a range"--and the word "Range" is italicized. "--of times within which he or she thinks the death occurred, which is as accurate as is justified in the circumstances. Even more importantly, it must not be so unreasonably precise as to exclude incorrectly the true time of death, as this may provide a false alibi for one or more suspects.
"To offer an unreasonably accurate time of death is worse than providing such a wide range of times that the police derive no help from it. In the latter situation, they at least then know that they have to use other methods in their investigation, but to mislead them by some outrageously precise time runs the risk of their excluding the true culprit, as well as falsely implicating an innocent party. "Unfortunately, it is often the least experienced medical witness who tends to offer the most accurate estimate, not having seen enough cases to appreciate the many pitfalls and fallacies in the process. Certainly, with all the methods available up to the present time, the opinion of any doctor who offers a single"--and the word single is italicized. "--time of death, instead of a range or one who includes any fraction of an hour, instead of a whole hour must be viewed with considerable skepticism." Doctor, have you read, considered and relied in part on that information in forming your opinions?
Doctor, have you also reviewed chapters from a book that you have previously identified, Spitz' and Fischer's "Medical legal investigation of death, 3rd edition," edited by Dr. Spitz and dated 1993?
Have you also reviewed the materials related to estimation of time of death from another text called "The pathology of homicide" by Lester Adelson, A-D-E-L-S-O-N, dated 1974?
By the way, are both of these books considered recognized forensic pathology textbooks?
Also, doctor, have you reviewed two other books with respect to their chapters dealing with the estimation of the time of death?
One of which is called "Gradwohl's, G-R-A-D-W-O-H-L'S, Legal Medicine, 3rd Edition," dated I believe it's 1976?
And something called "Modern legal medicine, psychiatry and forensic science" by Curran, c-u-r-r-a-n, and others dated 1980?
And also, doctor, have you reviewed specific individual medical articles concerning the estimation of the range for time of death?
And in particular, articles going to this issue of the use of stomach contents as a means of estimating the range for time of death?
Doctor, with those preliminaries aside, I have a series of boards that I want to go through with you on this subject of estimation of the range for time of death.
And, your Honor, the first board, which is called, "Factors commonly used to estimate range for time of death," I ask to be marked as People's exhibit 366.
And I think Mr. Fairtlough can put that one up on the elmo. I'm not sure--your Honor, I don't know--for the jurors convenience, if we can put it on the elmo and have it as a board. Prefer that?
Doctor, it might be more convenient for you if you might step down, with the Court's permission, to the board.
This exhibit mainly shows the various factors which are used in the estimation of time of death and the range of time of death, and the physical chemical factors is one, chemical factors is two and other associated factors. In physical chemical factors, one is algor mortis.
It is the postmortem cooling of the body. The other way of putting it is loss of warmth of the body.
Doctor, is algor mortis considered, among all the available techniques medically, the most reliable means of estimating the range for time of death?
It is the most common method used in our office and other jurisdiction in this country.
Rigor mortis, and that is the phenomenon of postmortem stiffening of the muscles which follows a period of primary flaccidity.
That is the muscles are not stiff. They're relaxed. Just after a person dies, if you lift their arms up, it won't be stiff. It will be just flaccid, relaxed, better word to use. And the stiffening process is due to chemical changes which involves the proteins in the muscle fibers. Do you want me to go into detail in each one?
I think we're going to see that when we discuss in specific terms rigor mortis. So perhaps that we'll finish in general terms.
Livor mortis is the draining of blood in--by gravity into the vessels of the dependent parts of the body after the circulation has ceased, that is after your heart has stopped beating, and causes a discoloration in the skin which is not subject to pressure. So in the area where the body is in contact with the ground, you won't have a coloration because the pressure would have pressed on the vessels and so blood cannot accumulate in the vessels.
Doctor, is that a part of what you discussed yesterday in looking at the position of Mr. Goldman's body and some discoloration that you saw in one of the photographs, I believe it was G-5?
Then we have chemical factors wherein you take some vitreous humor from the eye, estimate the potassium level in the vitreous humor. And the vitreous humor is that part of the eye--it's a substance found in the back of the eye behind your lens and in front of what is called the retina. It's a gel-like substance which is present in everybody, and you remove the material and you send it for analysis for this chemical potassium. And we'll discuss this in detail later. Associated factors, one is the stomach contents. Then of course, the other one is--which is--a factor which is independent verifiable evidence of when the victim was last seen or heard alive.
No. It's more information, which is not a medical factor, but is a factor which is important. If somebody saw somebody alive and you feel by your--this range, that they were dead already, it doesn't make sense. So you have to use--be intelligent and use all factors which are important, which can be verified--the important thing is, verify the evidence, just not hearsay. That is, you have independent verification that somebody saw and there's evidence for it.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, as an example, assuming there's been evidence received concerning a telephone bill showing a conversation between the mother of Nicole Brown Simpson and Miss Brown Simpson at 9:35 in the evening of June 12th, 1994, would that factor narrow your estimated range for time of her death from the 9:00 o'clock to 12:30 or 12:45 that you testified earlier would be the range based upon the medical factors?
You would have verified that the mother did speak to Miss Simpson or just the phone bill?
If the conversation can be confirmed, then that would be an important factor which would narrow the estimated range which is used, just not the telephone bill.
And assume, for example, that Mr. Goldman was seen at the Mezzaluna restaurant after 9:30 in the evening and he left the restaurant--assume there's been testimony in this case that he left the restaurant approximately 10 minutes to 10:00 that evening and assuming that that is an accurate observation, would that be another factor which would be useful to you in narrowing your range for the time of his death down from 9:00 o'clock to 12:30 to 12:45?
Your Honor, we actually have a series of boards that deal with algor mortis, and let me just get the total number. There are four boards with written information and two graph boards. May they collectively be marked as exhibit 367? And as we go through them, I'll make them A, b and so forth.
Doctor, starting with what I'd ask to be 367-A, algor mortis temperature, what does this board show?
This shows the details of this method of estimating the range of time of death.
That is the inner body temperature in the core of the body. That would be the--you take a temperature of the liver or the rectum or the brain, depending on which organ you use to obtain the temperature. That would be the central part of the body and that will be the--reflect the true temperature of the body because the skin surface does not really reflect the true temperature of the body. That is why when you go to a doctor, they put a thermometer in your mouth and take the temperature of the person.
Now, doctor, in your office, is there a general procedure or protocol as to the location from which this core temperature will be obtained?
We take in our office the core temperature from the liver. The investigator makes a small incision in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen and then passes this thermometer--this is a liver temperature probe. It's about four and a half inches long and you have this dial which is about one inch in diameter, and the tip of the probe is the temperature sensitive instrumentation which will give a digital readout of the body temperature, which is--at the time this procedure was done and usually the investigator, before doing this, will also take the ambient temperature, that is the temperature of the surrounding--where the body was found to get that temperature first, which is just for placing the thermometer so that you don't touch the tip. As I told you, the tip has the electronic sensitive accruement to read out the temperature. So you keep it free and you get the ambient temperature. And then five minutes later, you do the body temperature and you get the printout--I mean the digital readout of the body temperature. And that is how the core body temperature is obtained in our office, and we have some guidelines for that, yes.
Because if you use a rectal temperature, you may interfere in a case where you need to collect sexual assault. It may interfere with the collection process because you want to take this temperature as soon as the Coroner's office gets to see a decedent because we want to get the temperature as soon as possible so that we have an idea to give a better estimated range because in estimated range of time of death, the further the time is away, the estimated range also gets wider. The brain is not used because you have to do an intrusive procedure which is not feasible. So in our office, we use a liver temperature, which is an easier procedure, can be done by all our investigators, and we have some guidelines when they should do it. Basically we do it in all our unwitnessed deaths and homicide cases or there are several deaths in one scene to see--especially if it's the whole family who died, who died first, it helps sometimes.
Is there any reason beyond interference with possible sexual assault evidence why you do not use the rectum?
The other reason is, you need to have the temperature--thermometer probe at least 10 sonometers in the--in the--into the rectum so that you have an accurate reflection of the core body temperature. So that is again a situation where you have to--it's more like a medical procedure to put a probe into the anal-rectal area, and this is a much simpler procedure wherein you just have to put a probe in the liver which is right below the right coastal margin of the chest wall.
If you are using the rectum as the source for core temperature and you don't insert it properly, will the temperature you obtain be one which you can reliably use in formulating an estimated range for the time of death?
No, because you'll get a particular number which may not really reflect the core body temperature, and naturally this will throw--throw off your estimated range.
How difficult is it to hit the target, for lack of a better term, where the target is the liver?
It's much less chance that you will miss the target. The liver is a huge organ sitting on the right side of the upper abdomen, and the probe will strike the liver because our investigators are trained to do that.
Your Honor, I don't know where you wish to break. I have a chart I was going to put on the elmo now.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the lunch hour at this time. Please remember all my admonitions; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we'll resume testimony at 1:00 o'clock. All right. We're in recess.
I can't narrow time of death between 9:40 and 12:13, which is the discovered time of the bodies, with precision more than what I've discussed.
there were identifiable food fragments in her stomach at the time of autopsy, identified as rigatoni and black olives, et cetera, which would reflect that... it would favor death took place between 10:00 and 10:30
if, for example, it was blood that was tested and found to genetically match blood drops found along the walkway leading to the back of the property and which further matched genetically to that of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, would that have been helpful to you also in evaluating whether one perpetrator could have killed both of these two human beings
the opinion of any doctor who offers a single time of death, instead of a range or one who includes any fraction of an hour, instead of a whole hour must be viewed with considerable skepticism
No.