All right. Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro.
Dr. Lakshmanan, it is clear from your testimony that you were not present when these murders took place?
There has been no weapon that has been associated with these murders that has been recovered?
So clearly what you are here to give us, when you tell us that in response to hypotheticals from Mr. Kelberg as to how you are trying to reconstruct what might have happened, when you say it could have been or could be, you are speculating?
I won't say it is speculation based on the hypothetical. I saw with the medical findings, which I have had an opportunity to review, fits the hypothetical, but sometimes the hypotheticals which are given may not fit the medical findings I have and then I will say it is not consistent. So the hypotheticals which you have presented during the direct examination fitted some of the medical findings and that is why I said it is consistent, so it depends on what the hypothetical is.
"Could be" is not medical certainty, but it is based on education and the findings that it is a good possibility that is what could have happened.
And when you say something could be, a fair additional response would also be it could have been something else?
No, because as I mentioned earlier, there are some wounds on both the bodies which are clearly a single-edged knife and I have opined that. There are other wounds on the bodies which could have been a single-edge or a double-edge knife, so there is a little difference. So when the question is posed can all the wounds be by a single-edge knife, I say could have been because there are some wounds on the bodies which could have been single-edge or a double-edge, but there are wounds which could be caused by a single-edge knife from my review of the report.
When you talk about the relative positions of the parties--let's get away for a minute from single versus double-edge. I think we have covered that in a great amount of detail. When you give an answer as to the positions of the assailant or assailants and victim and you answered "Could be," you were not giving us any medical certainty, were you?
No, but the answer was pertaining to that hypothetical. The injuries on the body match the hypothetical.
How many different scenarios do you think one could reasonably come up with as to the positions of the bodies at the time of death between Nicole Simpson and her assailant or assailants?
You mean the--could you repeat the question? I didn't catch the earlier part, I'm sorry.
How many different reasonable hypotheticals could you come up with regarding the relative positions of Nicole Brown Simpson and her assailant or assailants?
For the final wound there is only one possible position. I already opined that. But for the other wounds there could be several other scenarios, but I would rather you give me a scenario and I can opine whether that scenario will fit the injuries I have reviewed.
It is your testimony that you are medically certain the position of Nicole Brown Simpson and the position of the assailant at the time of death or assailants?
On the fatal wound are you medically certain as to the position of Nicole Brown Simpson at the time she received the fatal wounds?
Objection, your Honor. That misstates the testimony as to the number of fatal wounds.
As to the last fatal wound are you medically certain as to the position Nicole Brown Simpson was in at the time she received that?
Are there other reasonable interpretations other experts that you would hold in high regard could give?
I would like to listen to them before I offer any opinion whether I agree or disagree, but I have clearly enunciated, I think during the direct examination, what are the reasons why I felt that that particular wound took place in that particular position, and based on the crime scene photographs and the medical findings. So I do not know what other opinions are being offered, and when I hear them I can then make a decision.
Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?
Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?
And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct?
That is correct, but what I gave was what are the possibilities and based on the wounds. For example, the last wound on Nicole Brown Simpson had to be right-hand person because the wound travels, in my opinion, from left to right and it has to be done from the back based on the blood flow pattern.
Isn't that equally consistent with--how many different ways can a right-handed person hold a knife?
How many different ways, in your opinion as an expert, can a right-handed person hold a knife?
I already showed one way they could hold it. They could be--but for that wound it had to be held in that way.
Well, that is not my question, doctor. How many ways, as an expert, can you tell us that a right-handed person can hold the knife?
Only--only one way he can hold the knife; hold it on the handle part. I mean, how else can you hold it?
Your testimony as an expert witness is a right-handed person can only hold the knife in one position?
There is only one way I can see a person could hold the knife if you are going to hold it in the handle part.
Excuse me. For the record, the doctor, with his right hand he reached out and appeared to twist his wrist as if holding an object.
If you give me a knife I can show you one of the ways you can do it because this way we can demonstrate it better, because instead of going over a hypothetical in an abstract sense, if you give me a knife, let's go over it and I will tell you how many other ways you can hold it and we can look at it and make a decision on it.
Can you tell us how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife as an expert?
I can tell you if you have the knife, if you can give it to me, a weapon, and I can show you one of the ways I think it can be held, but to make it useful as an object, you can hold it in certain ways, but in certain other positions it won't be useful as to the function of that weapon.
So I understand you, and I don't want to belabor this point, you can't articulate how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife?
I think for somebody to understand it will be difficult. Unless you give a demonstration in certain types of situations, that is the best way to do it.
Well, let's assume we have reasonably intelligent people listening. Can you verbalize how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife? If you can't, just say you can't.
Okay. You can. What is the answer? How many ways can a right-handed person hold a knife?
You can hold it with the blunt edge facing you, the sharp edge facing you, depending on where you hold the handle. There are only two parts of the knife, the blade and the handle. You are going to hold it in the handle portion, and if it is a single-edge knife, the one sharp edge is going to face you when you hold it in one manner. If you will rotate the knife, the blunt edge is going to face you and hopefully you won't hold it in the blade portion so then it won't serve the function. And if it is a double edge knife, it doesn't matter how you hold it, because both edges are available for causing the function you want it to perform.
For example, a right-handed person could hold the knife backhanded and make a thrust with the blunt edge out; is that correct?
And a right-handed person could hold a knife with the blunt edge out and make a thrusting motion from the right side; is that correct?
Where is the blade portion in your hand right now? You made a fist and I want to--
I believe that we did, your Honor, and we only needed them that first day, so they were kept downstairs, as I understand it.
So one way a person could hold the knife would be with the forearm back and the blunt edge to the outside, (indicating); is that correct?
If the thrust is being made in the fashion you are demonstrating and a wound is inflicted, it is a possibility, yes.
Then the knife could be turned just the opposite way and a thrust could be made, (indicating)?
Mr. Shapiro, would you just turn because the jurors in the back end were looking to see how you were holding the knife.
Now, on the wound that you saw on Mr. Goldman's neck, you saw one wound with a blunt end in one direction and one with a blunt end in an opposite direction?
In Goldman's wound both were incise thrust/stab wounds which I described, so it could have been either way.
And the same would be true if somebody held the knife coming from the outside of the right hand, they would thrust it with the blunt edge out, (indicating), or they could thrust it with the blunt edge in?
Turning the knife the other way and also coming backhand straightened, (indicating)?
And then a right-handed person could also, from behind, come backhand the same way we have described, (indicating); isn't that correct?
And the same thing for a left-handed person, a left-handed person could come behind, (indicating)?
So you couldn't tell whether it is right or left-handed because there are so many different ways a knife can be held; isn't that correct, sir?
And you really can't tell positions of the body because there are so many different--there are an infinite number of ways a knife can be wielded; isn't that correct?
You told us yesterday that there was a technician by the name of Mr. Taylor who was present at the autopsy of Mr. Goldman and Miss Brown Simpson?
I mean technicians assist in the autopsy as I told you, help in removal of the organs and assist the doctor in any way they need to assist the doctor, so--and I already told you yesterday I was not there when the autopsy was being performed in its entirety, so I don't know what exact assistance was provided to Dr. Golden by these two technicians. But I do know that Mr. Taylor took the photographs because some of the photographs that were on display on the posterboard was the photographs taken during autopsy, especially the photographs of the scalp wound on the victim.
I worked with him for many years. He has been there in the department many years, so I know his competence. I don't have to get an opinion from others on that.
In my opinion he has always been honest to me and he has done his job when I asked him to do something.
Anyone else present, that you are aware of, during the autopsy of both of the decedents or either of the decedents, I should say?
The autopsy supervisor and the other autopsy technicians will also be present. As I told you, there are six other--there are total six stations in that room, so there could be other doctors and other technicians there in that room at that time, so I can't really tell you who all were there. I already said that yesterday.
I could try and obtain some information for you on that, because who were working that day, but I can't really specifically tell you who was in the autopsy room at that time because, as you know, we do certain number of cases a day and doctors--different doctors could be doing different cases at that time and during the span these cases were done, and technicians could be taking breaks, other technicians could be coming in, so really all I can give you is who was working that day and what cases were done, but I really can't tell you with certainly who was there in the room when these cases were being done, other than what I've already told.
Are you saying that you do not keep log records of who is present during an autopsy?
We do. We usually keep log of the--the--the--the witnesses who attend the autopsy, and there is a log of which technician helped with a particular case, but I thought your question was who all were present in that room, so that is what I was trying to answer. I already told you who helped Dr. Golden on these cases.
Let me be more specific. Regarding Nicole Brown Simpson, do you have log records of every person who was present during the time her body was autopsied?
I have to check the autopsy technician sheet, which they do maintain, who helped whom, because that was one of the procedures which should be in place.
My question wasn't who was present. My question was do you have records as to who was present?
I said I have to go and check into that. I don't know whether they have the records or not on that particular issue.
It is kept that we have the record of the technicians present because the same technician may help in other cases, so we do have records on that.
So you will also have records of the doctor who was present and the witnesses, but other parties you will not have records?
I didn't say that. I said there are technicians who help in the autopsy. We keep records of the technicians' roster there. And I already told you who the technicians helped in these cases, but I am not sure whether we have information that these are the only technicians who worked only on these cases or did they do other cases. That is what I'm saying.
By policy would you kindly tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what records should be kept of who viewed the autopsy of Nicole Brown Simpson?
The persons who view the autopsies would be the doctor, the technicians who assist the case and the witnesses would be the police officers who attend the autopsy, and of course other doctors and technicians who are in the autopsy room will be seeing portions of the autopsy.
I said that I have to go and check in my department to see whether we got the log sheet for that and I will be happy to provide that and I'm sure we do.
At this time I don't have it, so I have to say I don't know, but I'm sure it will be there to get you that information.
Do you have any information as to whether or not any police officers were present during the autopsy?
Yes. I already showed that on the form 15. Dr. Golden has clearly recorded Detective Vannatter and Lange to be present during the autopsy on the form 15. It says "Witnesses to the autopsy." We saw that yesterday.
As I told you, that is not recorded, so I would have to presume that he was not there.
I told you I reviewed the record and I gave you the information from the record. I was not present during the whole autopsy.
Is it important to maintain the security of the area where an autopsy is taking place?
Yes, and the security is provided for the department to have only people who are responsible to be there.
Well, isn't it true that construction workers were in the proximity of Mr. Goldman's body?
Do you know whether or not construction workers were close to Mr. Goldman while he was in the Coroner's office?
Well, I won't be surprised because there are people who visit the department and who--also there may be repairs going on, but I am not aware of it, that a construction worker was there watching the autopsy.
Well, I don't know whether it is wrong or right, but if he observed it, he observed it because he was doing some construction work, so I can't say it is right or wrong, but I would prefer that was not watched because it is a medical process and only the doctors and the technicians and the detectives who are supposed to be present should be present.
Was Mr. Goldman's body, from the time it was brought in, ever left unattended, to your knowledge?
As I told you, when they are left in the crypt area they are left unattended because the doors are closed and they are unattended at that point, so I do not know what you mean by "Unattended."
Left out in view of people other than medical professionals necessary to do the work of the Coroner's office?
As I told you, I have given you the whole process on last Tuesday, how the bodies went through our office and where they are stored, so it is my understanding that only the people who work in the department and who should have been watching the process, because that is my understanding.
What about in the--is there any hallway areas where bodies are left prior to autopsy or after autopsy?
If at all they are left it is for a short time because you have to move a body to place another body in the autopsy room, so for a short period they will be in the hallways because you have to go through the hallway from the cold crypt area to go to the autopsy room. And I didn't have any photographs of the hallway, but there is a transit period, and also--so to answer your question, there is--the bodies will be in the hallway at some time between the crypt and the autopsy area.
I wouldn't say it is a violation because they would usually try and place the bodies, as soon as the autopsy is done, back in the cold crypt area, but as I told you, I am not aware that was done, so we like to remove the remains from the autopsy area and put them in the cold crypt area as soon as possible, because it is good to preserve the bodies in the cold area as much as possible, depending on the situation that day.
Would it be proper for construction workers to be close to Mr. Goldman's body while it was in the hallway?
Well, if he is--if the person was there in the hallway doing some kind of construction work or he had to do some repairs, that is something which we can't avoid, as long as he doesn't touch the body, because the bodies are kept on gurneys.
Well, as I told you, it is beyond my expertise to tell you what exactly happened, but I am telling you that it should not happen and it is my understanding nothing of such nature happened.
Now, you have told us that all of your information regarding your testimony comes from photographs; is that correct?
Regarding the coloration of the wounds, do you have any firsthand knowledge of the color of the wounds other than from photographs on the two decedents?
I had--as I told you, I did examine the bodies briefly on the 13th and I saw some of the major wounds, but more--almost most of the other wounds which were in the covered areas of the body was from photographs, yes.
You have nothing other than your memory to rely upon to refresh your recollection as to what you observed on the 13th?
And you have told us that as a supervisor you literally review thousands of bodies?
Over a year means over a stretch of a year we do hundreds and thousands of cases so that is what I meant by an answer, but it is a year since I reviewed this body; that is correct.
And with no notes to refresh your memory it would be very hard to describe with a medical degree of certainty, the wounds, the coloration that you observed on the 13th; isn't that correct?
Now, is there a term in forensic pathology that takes a wound and puts it together called "Reassessment"? Have you ever heard that term?
I have not heard the word "Reassessment." I have heard the word "Approximation" when you put the wound together, edges together.
We will go with your term. And when you reapproximate a wound, that is to try to put it back to the position it was in at the time the injury took place; is that correct?
And what efforts did you make, in coming to your conclusions, to reapproximate any of the wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson?
I clearly stated that I had limitations in the photographic process when I gave my testimony on the direct exam. Do you want me to repeat it?
Maybe you didn't understand it. What efforts did you take to reapproximate the wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson before you gave this jury your opinion?
I already said I reviewed from photographs and I did not reapproximate the wounds. The measurements of Dr. Golden are those taken when the wounds were approximated.
I also said that they were not significant mistakes. I told you that they don't have significance to the matter which concerns the case. There were no mistakes on the wounds which caused the major fatal injuries on both the victims.
Are you medically certain that there are no other errors that Dr. Golden made in this autopsy?
I have truthfully discussed all the errors which I believe are there, but as I also opined that the significant injuries which I could evaluate, I could give an opinion on, and I believe that the errors which were addressed had no significance to my final opinion.
All right. I didn't understand that answer. Can you answer yes or no? Are you medically certain that Dr. Golden made no other errors?
Excuse me, your Honor. I will object. It is asked and answered and argumentative.
To the extent I reviewed the case, yes. I mean, to the extent I reviewed the case, no, I don't think he made any other errors to the extent I reviewed.
Well, from my review of the photographs there was nothing else which was overlooked on the case from what I already opined.
So you are saying that a photograph is a substitute for an in-person autopsy by a medical examiner?
Now, you were shown a picture in a standard text of a wound that was reapproximated; is that correct?
And did I understand your testimony that the purpose of that was only to demonstrate for photography, but that wasn't a method that was actually used?
No. My understanding is that I thought I said that on approximation you will find that the length of the wound will be greater than the wound--wound measurement when it is gaping, and true reflection would be when you approximate the wound and take the measurement, and that is what I restating.
Isn't it true that you cannot, as a medical examiner, correctly measure a wound from a photograph unless it has been reapproximated, sir?
What about--you put a lot of emphasis in your testimony on the color of the wounds; is that correct?
And is there something that forensic pathologists use to measure color called a color slide or a color standard? Is there something like that?
I am not a photographer and I do not know about this color standards, but the photographs which are developed clearly demonstrate the wounds and I have already given my opinion on it.
So you are not aware of anything called a color chart that is taken simultaneously with a photograph to compare colors?
As I told you, I am not a photographic expert and that is not my area of expertise.
And would you agree that colors in photographs may vary due to the printing process of those photographs?
I have already said that I am not a photographic expert and do not want to go into that.
And would you agree that you can better age abrasions and contusions from microscopic slides than you can from photographs?
When was the first time you decided--well, let me ask you this: Did you decide on your own to independently review the findings of Dr. Golden?
That was when the addendum was prepared I--I looked at the case and I brought his attention about the missed contusion and he brought to my attention some of the injuries which were not described in the original report, and that is the time I discussed that with him, yes.
When--actually initially I was considered as a possible witness during the latter part of last year, but this year, when Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Lynch came to see me, I was told that I would be testifying and that is the time I really started an intensive review process of the case.
Yes. I have to look at the log sheet. Sometime the beginning of February 8;th I had my first conversation with Mr. Kelberg.
So let's see if we can answer the question specifically. When was the first time your notes reflect that you were requested to reevaluate the work done by Dr. Golden?
When--was that the first time that you began to focus on reevaluating the work of Dr. Golden?
No. I already said that we addressed some of the errors in the addendum report in July.
Excuse me, your Honor. I would ask that the witness have an opportunity to fully complete his answer.
Actually it was June 30th when I evaluated the report for the addendum preparation.
As I told you, there were some errors found. One was the contusion which was there in the storage tissues which was not addressed. And the other issue was Dr. Golden had some injuries which were not addressed which were in the photographs, and he had finished his recent review of the case, and I instructed him that you need to address these issues and that is how the addendum report was prepared.
So prior to that you yourself, as the Chief Medical Examiner, did not undertake any reexamination of Dr. Golden's work; is that correct?
And it was only when Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf, who is not here today, through myself, made an appointment to come review your findings that attention was first focused on errors; isn't that true, sir?
At least the brain contusion part because the errors which Dr. Golden had in his mind would have been also addressed, because that was not addressed in the meeting with Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf. The only reason which I felt I should definitely review was the contusion part of that. The rest of the addendum report was Dr. Golden's own initiative which resulted in the addendum report being repaired.
Regarding the brain contusion, is it correct, sir, that on June 22nd, at the direction of myself to bring in Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf to reevaluate the autopsy, for the first time the brain tissue was brought out for reexamination based on their request?
Well, I also observed the injury at the same time, because I was working with him at the same time.
I took notes of what I observed, but Dr. Baden also observed the same thing and he took his notes. I was taking notes of the meeting to record it for posterity.
I turned over the typed report which was present which is a final report, yes, and I also turned over the notes to you I think a few days ago.
I don't recall that because we did take photographs of the evidence during the histopathological process. I don't recall them requesting it.
Do you recall denying them the right to take photographs saying that they couldn't?
That I said that as a general rule in our department we don't allow outside people to take photographs. We take the photographs and provide them copies, but I don't recall that they wanted to take photographs during the tissue examination process, but we did take photographs during the other evidence examination process.
Is there any reason why you would not allow him to take photographs in your laboratory?
We have procedures in our department, and we can't break rules just because I know somebody and I am friendly with them. I have to follow the rules of the department because I establish these rules so that we have control on the photographs being taken in the department.
Did Dr. Baden try to talk to you, as a medical examiner, about the findings while you were there?
Didn't you tell him that you were instructed by the District Attorney that you couldn't talk to him?
I think I told you that also, because I didn't tell you about the District Attorney not asking me to talk to you. I told you that I won't be able to talk to you on the case because the case was in grand jury at the time and Dr. Golden was not present because he was testifying at the grand jury. So that is my understanding of our conversation, if I remember it right.
So you were--you did instruct Dr. Golden--I'm sorry--Dr. Baden, that you could not speak with him?
Even about medical findings that would commonly be shared by forensic pathologists?
Isn't it true that the only slide that your office made at your own direction was after Dr. Baden asked for the brain tissue to be examined?
And isn't it true that the only other microscopic slides that have been done in this case were done recently at the request and expense of Dr. Baden, Dr. Wolf and myself?
If I remember right, the department charged you, not me, the County of Los Angeles charged you $1393.60, if I remember right, but I can pull out the invoice and I can verify that number, but that is my recollection of the number, $1395.60, but I can check it.
No. Basically what has happened is that the county has some fixed rates when tissues and slides--slides are made from tissue processing, and you were charged for 16 slides at the rate of eighty plus dollars per slide and that is what the county charges, yes, and that includes my time also or any doctor's time.
Yes, because the--the amount of money you were charged as the doctor's time is built into it. The county has some procedures.
Eighty plus. All right. Let's say eighty for the sake of this discussion. Would you say that the going rate in forensic laboratories around the country for such a slide is $5.00?
I think you are confusing the picture here. Maybe I should explain this a little bit in detail. The cost when you are paying for slide includes the initial phone calls you made. The county takes a lot of things into consideration. My clerical person answering the phone call, our conversations, our being present. And remember, during the process we took extra photographs which we didn't charge you for. We gave you the photographs free. Whatever I think is necessary which needs to be done on the case is given to both parties without any cost. It is something when I don't feel it is necessary and is requested by another party, then the county charges for that request, no. 1. No. 2, if it is just a duplicate of a slide which is being made, it is done at a much lower cost. And with reference to the only slide we made was the brain contusion slide, that we gave the duplicate free, we didn't charge Dr. Baden for it. We didn't charge Dr. Baden or yourself for the initial set of photographs. We didn't charge you for anything. Whatever we gave the Prosecution, we gave you, but what a we did charge was for the extra effort the department made for the additional sections which in my opinion were not adding anything further to the cause and manner of death in this case was charged to you, and I think the charge is what the county sets up based on the clerical--if--the clerical call to the histopathology technician, going and retrieving the jars, his time, because he has to stop what he is doing, bring these jars from storage and then we are to give it to the processor and the processor process slides that come back. All these charges are built in, and then since we generated slides on a case, even though it is requested by another person, we still have to look at the slides, because it is our case, we have to generate a report. I mean, all these costs are built in and then--and that is how those charges come. So it looks--this is similar to what the hospital charges you when get Tylenol from the hospital. They have the built-in cost of running the whole show. It is just not the slide cost. It is not like buying retail. It is the whole process. That is what the auditor does. I just tried to explain my understanding of the process of why the cost should be so much.
Didn't I just ask you isn't it the standard cost around the country that the cost is $5.00. Can you answer that yes or no?
Well, it won't really explain the question the way you phrased it, because it looks--
Isn't it true, doctor, the best way to determine the aspiration of blood into the lungs is to examine microscopic slides?
You can tell from grossly also, but microscopically you will see the aspirated blood, but in gross position you can see aspirated blood very clearly but you will have to see blood in the trachea and the larynx first. It is the initial pathway from where the blood reaches the lungs.
Is it your medical opinion that a better way to determine the issue of bleeding into the lungs, or aspiration of blood into the lungs, is by microscopic slide or relying on somebody else's visual observation?
Regarding aspiration of blood, would you, as an expert medical examiner, say it would be a better way to make the determination by a microscopic slide or relying on a medical examiner who has made numerous mistakes in an autopsy?
It depends on the issue you are trying to study. If you think by gross examination the bleeding was acute, which was from a fracture of the skull or whatever the reason for the aspiration was, you don't need to do a microscopic study, but if you feel the aspiration occurred and you need to date the aspiration, then a microscopic study will be useful, but as far as looking at an aspirated blood, it is pretty obvious, if you have done many forensic autopsies, to see aspirated blood in the lungs.
Wouldn't it have helped you in this case, in reaching your conclusions regarding the injuries to the neck that caused bleeding in the area of the windpipe, to have microscopic slides?
Not necessary, because you have the cause of death clearly established and injury is an acute injury.
Would you say that a reasonable conclusion in a case involving stabbing is that the more stab wounds you find, the more likely there is that a struggle was put up?
I wouldn't make that conclusion by the number of stab wounds, because there are other factors involved.
You have indicated that not all the blunt wounds on the decedents are in the same direction; is that correct?
I don't know what you mean by blunt wounds. What direction? Which wound are you referring to? If you could specify your question, maybe I will be able to give an answer better.
Are all the wounds that you observed on both of these decedents that have blunt ends to them in the same direction?
No, they are in different--slightly different directions, depending on which wound you are referring to. The wounds on Goldman, they were in different directions. The--Nicole's wounds, two of them were in the same direction. One of them was in a different direction on the left side of the neck.
And that clearly indicates that there was movement between the decedent and the perpetrators, doesn't it?
Yes. I think I opined that the stabbing process is a dynamic process; it is not a static process. I already explained that.
And because it is a dynamic process involving movement, you, nor any other medical examiner, has any ability to accurately reconstruct what took place; isn't that correct?
Now, you talked about the reaction of an individual, who in this case was Mr. Goldman, and how he, in your opinion, would react to being attacked, did you not?
Could you read that part of my testimony and then I can refresh my memory what I exactly said? Because I have been testifying for eight days, so I don't know which part of the testimony you are referring to.
Well, there were different scenarios posed, different questions asked, so if you can refresh my memory, I will be happy to look at the statements I made and explain it again, if you wish me to.
I just read a chapter in a sports injury textbook. It was by Foo and Stone is the textbook, by Foo and Stone on sports injuries. It was a chapter on boxing injuries by timothy ward.
And there is something in there that you have relied upon as to what you would expect if one individual struck another individual with a closed fist?
There was information there as to the injuries they have observed in their research material, but when I opined, my opinion was based on my experience and information I gathered from there, so my experience on seeing blunt force injuries also is this when I gave my opinion.
Well, I was just saying what type of fractures one would get in the boxing and those other kind of information I was looking at.
And what information was that that you relied on as to whether or not the victim or victims in this case struck the assailant or assailants?
I looked at where the injury patterns would happen with reference to if it is a closed fist, if it is a properly laid blow or a glancing--improperly laid blow on the person, what type of injuries you would get, what type of fractures you would get, just improved my understanding of the injury patterns observed by sports injury orthopedic physicians.
Basically the area which I looked at was to see what type of fractures you can get. You can get fractures of the first metacarpal bone in a boxer who wears the gloves but the thumb was not in the glove, and you can get a fracture of the base of the metacarpal bone. You can get fractures of the fifth and fourth metacarpal bone, which is the outer little finger bones, if the blow is not improperly placed. You could get injuries to the ligaments on the back of the metacarpal phalangeal joints depending how the blow was applied, et cetera.
So what you are saying is if one person hits another person they could hurt their hand?
Well, the chapter which just improves my knowledge based on it, but as I already told you, my opinion was based on also our own experience on different blunt force trauma you see in the hand of different individuals.
I have not witnessed bare hand fights, but I have seen people who have died from altercations who have had fights and who have injuries to the face and hand. I have seen many cases.
Well, it is--there is an ideal punch when the whole force delivers its effect on the target and there are blows which may not deliver the entire force on the target.
Do you want me to demonstrate, your Honor? This would be one way of holding your hand to deliver a punch, (indicating).
For the record, your Honor, with his right hand Dr. Lakshmanan has closed his hand into a fist. His arm is at perhaps a 45-degree upward angle.
Well, I have not hit anybody closing my fist, but you could cause definite blunt force injury by hitting somebody hard with this kind of closed fist.
Could you cause injury to somebody by hitting them with a closed fist and not cause injury to yourself?
It is a possibility that you may not get injured, but you could also get bruising of your hand. That is why you do--you can get bruising of the hand, too.
That's correct, and I also I think stated that if there were gloves present, there is less chance striking somebody would get hurt and the person who gets hit would get hurt more.
Yes, and that would be the one which the blow did not have its full effect on the target, either due to movement of the target being the victim and the--or the reach was not as it was planned to be delivered.
So it is possible if someone hits someone improperly that they could only hit with one knuckle or one portion of the hand and not cause injury to other parts of the hand?
Generally that could happen, theoretically, but if you hit the knuckles you will expect other bruising of the other knuckles in that situation.
Well, that is always a possibility, I suppose, but generally, if you look at it in context, you will get injuries to other knuckles, too.
I said in your theoretical possibility--I mean, your possibility that if only a glancing blow with only one knuckle hitting, then this is a possibility, I suppose, but if you look at it logically, it doesn't make sense that you would only hit one knuckle on somebody, especially in the case of Mr. Goldman, when you have a clear-cut bruise on the middle finger knuckle, it is--it is--it seems unlikely that--that you would not see bruising of the other knuckles, especially when the knuckle which was injured is in the middle of the closed fist.
The other knuckles protrude, too. In my hand you can see that both the knuckles protrude.
I didn't close his fist to see that, but just in my experience this is the average appearance of a closed fist, and I think if you take the closed fist of most people, this is the appearance it will have.
If someone was attacked from behind, would you expect that the victim would try to kick the assailant?
That would depend what kind of attack was from the behind, so could you expand on it a little better?
Well, you did that demonstration. Maybe you can--with Mr. Kelberg you grabbed him with one hand around his chest and you held a ruler to his throat. Remember when you did that?
Now, if Mr. Kelberg was fighting for his life, would you expect that he might try to kick you to get away?
That is a possibility, and I did mention it in my opinion, that the victim could have wrestled himself away from the assailant. And a normal human being is not going to just allow somebody to cut your throat. You are going to try and escape from that life-threatening situation.
With anything else in the natural instinct to survive the attack; isn't that true?
Have you--now, part of this you say is you go through all these scientific things that you have studies and then one of the criteria is witnesses, to ask people what really happened or to ask about reactions of people. Is that part of your job?
Well, I don't talk to witnesses, because we just do our autopsies and review the injuries.
In forming your opinion, wouldn't you like to know if the victim was physically fit?
Well, from the appearance of the body, he appeared to be an athletic young man who was not obese. He was a very athletic, handsome young man.
Wouldn't you like to know if that is the person who is likely to perhaps just kowtow to an attacker and melt away and not do anything or whether he is the type of person who would in fact try to defend himself and put up a struggle?
That is a difficult question to answer, because you are going into areas because sometimes you can have a very big person who can be intimidated by fear, and so I don't know what exactly happened, but theoretically physically athletic person could definitely offer resistance. But if there is fear element involved, they could be just intimidated and just freeze and that is also known to occur, so I really don't know what happened, but I do not what injuries happened, and I have given you my opinion on the injuries as to what could have happened.
Would it have helped to talk to somebody and ask what the make-up of the victim was and what the victim would likely do?
Well, I can't say that because nowadays--not nowadays, any human being can react in the same way in a situation of stress. Either they can fight the attacker or they can be in fear and freeze. So I don't think a difference of sex matters. It is a situation in which the person is put into place.
Well, I would expect any human being to fight off the attacker if they are not frozen by fear. You are fighting for your life.
And in such a fight for your life you would expect the attacker or attackers to have some injuries or evidence of being in some type of struggle, wouldn't you?
If the victim was able to deliver some blows, but if the attacker quickly incapacitated them, you may not see injuries on the attacker, so it depends on the situation. It is--I am just giving you my understanding of what could happen, but I have already discussed what injuries each one had. And I already discussed what my opinion on both the victims are. It is in evidence and we could go over the transcript if you want.
You told us the minimum amount of time the struggle between Ron Goldman and his attacker or attackers was and you said it could be less than a minute?
What is the maximum amount of time the struggle could have taken place between Ron Goldman and his attacker or attackers?
I would say within a few minutes. Because of the nature of the injuries and the acute bleeding, I wouldn't expect the attack to be more than a few minutes because you can't really tell how long, but I would favor it within a few minutes the attack took place, but it could have been done very well within a minute.
There were quite a few fatal wounds. He had two wounds to the chest, one wound to the neck which caused bleeding from the jugular vein. He had an aortic wound. The thigh wound was hot fatal, but it was still causing significant bleeding. The only other wounds you are left with is three, four cuts in the--two cuts on the top of the head--I mean of the back of the head and you have blunt force injuries to the hand, so I think the injuries which were inflicted to him were significant injuries, and I think they could have been done very well within a minute, and I would not expect the struggle to have been more than a few minutes based on the injuries he received. So unless there is any other possibility you want to offer, we could discuss it.
All right. Well, let's assume Mr. Goldman was a physical--in very good physical shape, that he is 25 years old, that he is six feet tall, that he works out regularly and that he is not taken by surprise, but he sees attackers and he puts up a really valiant struggle. Is that something that could take place?
As I already told you, I don't think he fought the attacker in the manner you are portraying because he was trying to avoid the wounds, as I see it. I think Mr. Goldman was mainly ducking, turning, twisting and backing when these injuries took place, as I already mentioned that he was in a closed environment, and in my own feeling he was rapidly incapacitated. He didn't have a chance. The injuries are in the front of the hands, there is no cuts on the back, so my feeling is he was turning, twisting at some point because of the nature of the clothing injuries we have. He was ducking because he has got injuries to the front of the hands as if he was facing the assailant and most likely backing into the bushes with his flailing hands when the attack took place, and that is my opinion from what I can see of the injuries we have discussed it.
Your opinion is that a person or persons with a knife came at Mr. Goldman, and rather than trying to cover his head and face or trying to bend over to protect himself, (indicating), or trying to get into some type of defensive stance, he just put his arms out and started hitting a tree and a fence? Is that your testimony, sir?
Well, the point is he doesn't have any injuries on the back of the hand. In your demonstration you just said, if he did this, (indicating), the man has got wielding cuts in the left side of the neck from--I mean he has got cuts on the left side of the neck in the face from the wielding knife, so from your demonstration he should have a lot of cuts on the back of the hand which he doesn't have--which he doesn't have pathologically. You saw the photographs. I saw the photographs. There are no back--and there is no injuries to the back of the hand.
Is it your testimony that he did not try to defend himself but rather threw his arms out and hit a tree and hit the fence? Is that your testimony?
No. My testimony is that the injuries I see do not support that hypothetical situation. It supports, rather, a situation which I already opined. He backed, he ducked, he turned, he twisted and he didn't have a chance.
Photographs show the injuries and the description of the report is available for my review, and it is an independent review.
And are there other experts whose opinion you trust who could give different scenarios?
You talked about the tip of the knife and that there was no evidence that any tip of a knife was broken off; is that correct?
We didn't do x-rays before the autopsy, so--but we did do x-rays after the autopsy, and on the only bony structure which was injured, so that way we did an examination for any foreign body.
They were typical size which is a normal size with a couple of inches length of the spine which was removed which was x-rayed; not the entire spine, no.
Would you show the jury, just holding your hand, what size of a portion of the vertebra we are talking about?
We had a length of the spine of this length, approximately, (indicating). Each body is about so much, so you are talking about this length of spine which was examined.
Is it a medical possibility that if the tip of a knife broke off in that area that it could dislodge itself without a medical examiner finding it?
Generally, no, because usually when a knife tip breaks, the knife tip is stuck to the bone. In my experience I have had two cases where we have seen this. The tip which is broken is imbedded in the bone, they won't fall off, because what breaks it is the tip gets stuck and then the knife is twisted, the tip breaks and it is imbedded in the bone, at least in my experience in the two cases I have been involved, the knife tip gets struck and you have to virtually take it out of the bone with the help of x-rays. So to answer your question, I don't think it is likely.
So based on those two times that you have seen a knife tip in a bone, you would opine that it is not reasonable that a knife tip could become dislodged and go to another part of the body?
Generally not. That is my feeling on it from my experience, because as I told you, the tip is the one which gets broken--the tip is usually very small. It is not a big chunk which gets broken. And the tip gets stuck this bone, in my experience, but--and I'm going with my experience.
Is it possible that the tip of the knife or knives could have been broken in any other portion of the body, other than that small fragment of spine that you saved?
Generally not. Usually the knives break when they hit bony structures, because when you have a soft tissue structure and you have a sharp instrument, there is no resistance. You usually break an instrument when there is resistance, and the resistance is compounded by the tip getting stuck somewhere. So in my experience and my reading of the subject, it would be most likely if the knife struck a hard bony structure and not a soft tissue structure.
Now, to ask the question the way they were asked on direct examination, could someone be cut with a knife, have the tip broken off and have it not lodged in the only small area of the spine that you covered?
As I told you from my experience, I don't think that is very likely, but unless you have some information which you can provide me which shows that that is happened in other cases.
Theoretically it is possible, but from what I just opined, medically it doesn't seem possible.
I don't have an exact answer for that. I don't think the doctor felt it was necessary to do it at that time, but when I got involved in the case later, I ordered x-rays to be done on the spine, which we have, and most importantly, most importantly, during the examination Dr. Golden saved the only bony injury he observed, which was the spine. He saved it for storage.
I have to refer to the report, but I think it is sometime in September of last year when I ordered it to be done and I asked our radiologist to look at it.
What happened during the three or four months which caused you to form the opinion that x-rays taken on the 13th were proper to take?
I just felt to complete the process to make sure we didn't miss anything. I just wanted to make sure, because the wound patterns didn't suggest the knife was broken, but I felt to complete the process we needed to make sure that we didn't miss anything which may be of importance in the case. And I just completed an investigation. Just like I ordered the c-screen, I ordered this also to complete the procession to make sure we didn't miss anything.
And if they were proper to do in September, they were certainly proper to do in June, weren't they?
Yes, but I also said that we saved what was essential. Dr. Golden saved the only major bony injury he observed on both the cases in storage. We had the specimen.
But you are relying on somebody's observations who you've already told us makes lots of mistakes?
You are relying on the opinion of someone else who you have already told us has made several mistakes in this autopsy; isn't that correct?
Yes, but I also said they were not significant as to the outcome of the case. There were some mistakes but they were all of the non-lethal injuries.
As you testify today here as an expert, would you say that a certified medical examiner should know the difference between an entrance and an exit wound caused by a bullet?
Yes, but there are difficulties even for the most expended pathologist sometimes to differentiate an entrance and an exit when you have what's called a short exit, but I agree that a pathologist should be able to tell, but sometimes it is difficult--
And you also--would you also opine that a board certified medical examiner should know the difference between a gunshot wound that is fired at a distance and one that is fired at close range?
And you--do you think an expert board certified medical examiner should be able to tell whether or not a thyroid is present during an autopsy?
Yes, but that mistake is something on somebody who is on thyroid, they are--anyway, that is a mistake, yes.
And you still rely upon what Dr. Golden did as being correct in forming the basis for your opinions in this case, don't you?
Yes, I do, and--and the reason is he has done 5000 plus cases. I know him personally as a pathologist and I know he is a capable doctor and I have seen his work on other cases. These are mistakes which have been acknowledged and I have no hesitation why I can't rely on this report.
You know about the case where there were two people who were victims with a gunshot wound that we talked about?
Yesterday Mr. Kelberg brought that up, that you said addendums were filed in those cases to correct the mistakes?
One addendum had been filed. When I reviewed the cases the second addendum was filed on the--the addendum on the sex case was filed and I also had to make a correction on the first case at that time.
In the case we are talking about where the errors were made regarding the gunshot wound.
No, the second error--correction. The error on the other case, the close-range gunshot wound, that was done last year in `94. When I found that the addendum had not been done, I directed Dr. Golden to do the addendum. Another error on the change in direction was done probably in `93, I don't recall the date exactly, and so the addendums are the two mistakes were done at two different times, one at my direction, since it had not been done, and one which was done by Dr. Golden himself earlier in 1994. I also directed a change in the addendum on the other case because there was a typographical error on the number. They typed 9679 instead of 9678 and that addendum was made. So to summarize, we did one addendum in--if it is `93 I don't recall the exact date, but in `94 two addendums were issued, one for each case, one for the number change and one do reflect the range of fire.
To get the sequence of events, two people were killed relatively--in the same crime scene in 1990 and autopsies were done by Dr. Golden?
In one case he said that it was a--he missed whether or not it was a point blank injury from a distance injury; is that correct?
And in the other he made a mistake as to whether it was an entrance or exit wound?
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
I had limitations in the photographic process when I gave my testimony on the direct exam.
None were taken.
That is correct.
So if I have a bill for your time, we will get a refund?
Not in my review; that's correct.