Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Dr. Lakshmanan, would you resume the witness stand. Doctor, you are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And, Mr. Shapiro, you may continue with your cross-examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Hopefully we will try to conclude by the recess this afternoon.
And for proper preservation of trace evidence in a homicide, is it proper procedure to bag the hands of the decedent?
We do it if--in cases of firearm injuries. We don't do it routinely in our office.
Is it acceptable proper procedure throughout the forensic science community in pathology?
Well, I just told you what is done in our office. We do it on certain types of cases, not in all cases.
Any kind of trace evidence; hair, fibers, blood from someone else, skin from someone else. Would any of those things be important to a forensic pathologist?
Would you say that bagging the entire body protects the hands during transportation from a crime scene to the crime lab?
Would that protect the hands if there was trace evidence on the hands, by bagging the entire body?
No. It would be preferable to--if you have suspicion of something you want to collect and you want to preserve it, then bagging would be an option.
KEY QUOTEIs it the policy of forensic pathologists that when bodies are moved for transportation, that they should be kept in the same position they are found to preserve trace evidence and bloodstains that may be on the body?
If the--in our office, if the investigator feels that is necessary and if it cannot be collected at the scene by our criminalist or other person, then they would do the necessary procedure which would preserve that evidence.
Isn't it true that if the position of the body is changed in transportation, bloodstains may be smeared and contaminated and contaminate other trace evidence?
It's a possibility I suppose depending on what type of evidence you're talking and where it is located and what position the body was on when transported.
Do you know if Dr. Golden examined the bodies of the decedents in this case prior to them being cleansed and washed?
Yes. He examined the bodies on the 13th and I think he examined them again on the 14th.
I examined the bodies briefly on the 13th when the bodies were brought in, and I--I was the one who assigned the cases to Dr. Golden who also volunteered to do the cases. And then after that, I don't know how many times he saw the bodies on the 13th or the 14th. But on the 14th, he did see the bodies during the photographic process.
No, I did not. I just did a brief examination and to see the extent of the injuries, and I had to make a decision on whom to assign the case. So I did not do a detailed examination, no, sir, I did not.
Did you observe Dr. Golden do a detailed examination for trace evidence before the bodies were washed and cleansed?
Were videotapes taken of the postmortem examinations of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?
No. The clothing we wear is for our protection. We have universal body and blood fluid precautions in our department, and all our employees who enter the high-risk areas, which is the autopsy room, are provided with all the apparel necessary to conduct such a high-risk procedure, which is an autopsy.
Should personnel handling the bodies at the scene wear proper covering, shoe covering and gloves?
You told us an assault--sexual assault kit was not performed on Nicole Brown Simpson?
Isn't it true that you could have done a sexual assault kit test quicker than the time you took to explain why you didn't do it in this case?
Well, I already discussed this. We didn't take it. I was asked why we didn't take it. I gave an explanation. So I really--I don't know what more to say. We didn't take it and I've already said that and I gave you the reasons why the criminalist didn't take it, and I also felt we did not need to take it when I looked at the case.
It's a--it's a procedure which takes some time because the criminalist has to have a space available, photographs are taken during the process as the case may be necessary because you have to remove the clothing. So you're talking anywhere up to an hour of time involved of different personnel.
Between an hour--approximately less than an hour depending on what needs to be done.
Well, let's talk about a board certified senior criminalist. How long would it take that person to do--
In our department, the pathologists don't do the collection. We get the criminalist to do it because they're better trained to do it than us and we have the luxury of having them on our staff. So they do it for us.
I said within an hour. I guess it could be done within half an hour depending on the skills of the criminalist.
In trying to establish time of death, one of the factors you look for, other than the scientific factors, are witnesses; is that correct?
I said yesterday on the testimony independent verifiable evidence of witnesses.
And also, if there was evidence of consentual sex, might not that be of some benefit in assessing time of death?
What you will get there is only the postcoital interval, and even that is very vague and nonspecific in its estimation. You cannot get time of death from the intercourse--I mean from just doing the sexual assault.
But if you did a sexual assault kit, would that verify whether or not there may have been sexual consentual sex prior to death?
And if a person's pattern could be established when they might have time alone to engage in consentual sex, could that be of some benefit in assessing when this person was last alive?
It won't have any benefit when the person was last alive because you cannot make an estimation of time of death from the sexual assault. Even--the basic aim when you do that is to see the postcoital interval. You can only try and tell when the coitus took place, but even that is a very vague subject because of the various variabilities involved in this.
What if you established that a person was in this courtroom the entire day except for one hour during lunch and then did a sexual assault kit and found out that person had some type of sexual relationship? Would that help you determine time periods in any way?
It's very difficult to estimate time periods because I already said there is so much variability as I said. Let's take even the sperm mobility. I said sperm mobility is within--usually it stops within four hours, but it could be longer too.
Let's try to be practical. Let's say this morning, somebody was in this courtroom. It would be clear they didn't have consentual sex while they were here; is that correct?
And if they came back from 1:00 o'clock to 5:00 o'clock and they didn't have consentual sex with anyone present, that would be a fair assumption; would it not?
And if between 12:00 and 1:00 o'clock, they were not seen by anyone, and if that person expired at 5:15 and a sexual assault kit was done to show that there was evidence of consentual sex, could that be of some benefit? Yes or no?
I want to know what type of evidence you're talking about. I want--and--and I can't make any assumption whether it's consentual or not, and all you can tell from--depending on what evidence you have in your hypothetical, if you could tell that, then we can go forward on that. What is the evidence which was seen at 5:15 when the sexual assault is done?
At 5:15, it was determined that the person had some type of sexual relationship. Could that be of any importance to you? Yes or no?
Well, it will only say that there was a sexual relationship if you find evidence of sperms or the enzymes, but it doesn't give anything further than that.
No. To make an assumption, you must have done a sexual assault in the morning before the Court started to make sure that was negative to make any conclusions on the result you get at 5:15, because the material could have been there for more than a day or two depending on what the circumstances are and because you can have coitus, you may--it could depend on the amount of ejaculation in the body. It could be a non-ejaculated intercourse. It could be coitus interruptus as I--what they call. It could be that the lady had some vaginal douches after that. And there are a lot of variables in this. So you can't really make an assumption when the sexual act took place just because you have a sexual assault kit done at 5:15 unless you have done a sexual assault previously that morning or that afternoon to prove that there was nothing there and then you have something there at 5:15. So again, that's why I'm saying your question is a little bit vague to give a specific answer.
Doesn't your manual specifically say, doctor, that whenever identification of the last sexual partner may be of value to the investigation or whenever elimination of sexual activity may be of value to it, the examination, a sexual assault kit, whether the allegations or thoughts are consentual or nonconsentual, should be done?
That's correct. If you read the manual, and I remember that statement in the manual.
KEY QUOTEIf the oral area is examined, which is part of the sexual assault kit in our office, you'll find evidence for it.
I want to direct your attention to the marks on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson that you described as bruises. Do you know what I'm referring to?
And to a similar area on the back of the decedent Ronald Goldman that you referred to as lividity.
Isn't it true, doctor, by looking at the photographs alone, that you cannot determine lividity from a faint nonpatterned contusion?
You can. In this case, you can because it's very localized. Usually lividity will take place in the whole area of the body, and that area of the body is actually more of an area--the rest of the body on the right side doesn't show any other discoloration. The lividity of Miss Nicole was on the left side, not on the right side. These are distinct areas of discoloration consistent with bruising in my opinion.
Okay. Would you agree that as a medical examiner and expert in forensic pathology that the only true way to distinguish the difference in such a case would have been to incise the area of the skin to see if hemorrhage was present?
That is correct. If I was doing the autopsy, that could have been--should have been done. But this is an injury, as you recall, was not observed by Dr. Golden when he did the autopsy. And this was reviewed by me on the photographs and also the--our dental consultant had seen the same injury when he reviewed the photographs. He even considered this for evaluation of his bite mark. And in my opinion, based on the distribution, the localization, the patchiness and the presence of lividity to the other side and the lack of any other discoloration to the rest of the body on the right side, I have no doubt in my mind that is an area of nonspecific blunt force injury with patterned mortal contusion ecchymosis. It's not lividity. That's contusion on the right back.
KEY QUOTEBut you would agree that to correctly make this evaluation from a forensic pathology point of view, that you would have to do an incision?
Isn't it true that for a forensic pathologist to give a medical opinion, you would have to do an incision?
If you have a question whether it's lividity or contusion or you feel it necessary to do--to prove it is a contusion, you need to make an incision, and usually we make an incision to see the depth of hemorrhage so that you can have an idea what the blunt force.
Yes. I already said that. This was an injury which was not observed and it was not addressed until I reviewed the photographs and we addressed it. And I have already discussed that in my direct testimony.
Also, if microscopic slides were taken of this area, that would have had--enabled a forensic pathologist, expert medical examiner to distinguish a bruise or contusion from an area of lividity; isn't that correct, sir?
If you can't make the diagnosis initially. I think I already opined that. Once you--you do microscopic sections only if you need to date an injury. The injury diagnosis is made on gross exam. Sectioning of the skin I agree would confirm your gross--gross means visual impression, and microscopic exam is done only to date the injury.
Is it true, sir, that trace evidence should be removed and thoroughly looked for on the hands before the hands are fingerprinted?
Because Miss Claudine Ratcliffe and I discussed it. I asked her what was exactly done and she told me that. And that's our normal procedure. You take all the evidence before you do fingerprinting.
Have you seen photographs of the hands with fingerprint powder on them showing that the fingerprints--that the fingernails had already been clipped?
Do you know if photographs were taken of the fingers before the fingernails were clipped and the body is fingerprinted?
No. The photographic process usually takes place in our office after the evidence is collected because during the photography process, you wash the body. So all evidence in on office is collected before photography for the autopsy purposes. So the evidence was collected when the bodies came in on June 13th.
Isn't it true that during the course of fingerprinting that valuable trace evidence could be lost?
But I told you the evidence is collected before the fingerprints. But in your hypothetical situation, if fingerprints are done before the evidence is collected, then there's a possibility you will contaminate the trace evidence.
You testified that it's the province of the Coroner's office to notify the next of kin; is that correct?
On one of the victims, we notified the next of kin I think and the other person, I think Detective Lange notified the next of kin. I'm a little confused on which one we did, but one was informed by the police. So the police agency can notify the next of kin on our behalf, but it is a function of our office.
You have testified that there was a lot of blood lost by both victims in this case?
Would you expect the perpetrator or perpetrators, if they were wearing gloves, to have those gloves soaked in blood?
There could be some blood contamination on the glove when the incision of the neck was made if you are referring to Miss Brown Simpson.
Would you expect the perpetrator or perpetrators to have a significant amount of blood on them?
Not in the--from the last wound which I discussed where the perpetrator's in the back and the neck was cut from left to right with the head being tilted, in that position, the perpetrator will not have much blood on the person because he's behind the victim. But the possibility of some contamination of the glove I can't exclude because the hand is in front of the neck and after all, the incision is going from left to right. So the bleeding from the initial vessel which is cut may contaminate the glove. But I will be surprised if the perpetrator in that situation would get any blood contamination on the--on him--on that person.
What about on the contact with Mr. Goldman? If they were to face to face as you opined at some point in time during this dynamic encounter they were, would you expect the perpetrator to have blood on him?
In Goldman's case, the neck injury was a jugular vein injury. There would be blood which will be--and also in the right neck area, there would be blood loss and there could be some contamination on the perpetrator. But the abdomen and chest wounds, the bleeding will be mostly internal. So you do not necessarily have blood on the perpetrator. And I also would like to emphasize that the jugular vein injury won't spurt blood like the carotid injury which we discussed earlier.
Well, you'll have some oozing of blood from the remaining blood in the cut end of the vessel, but you won't have any pumping of blood or--because there's no blood pressure. So there would be some leakage of the residue blood in that vessel, human. It's just like you have a garden hose, you turn the water off. Still there's some blood--water coming out of the tube even though the water has been turned off, whatever water is left in the tube. So you won't have any active bleeding, you won't have any bleeding of the tissues, but there could be some residual leakage of an existing--remaining blood in the human, but that's usually the--that's very, very minimum if at all there is some.
You have no way of knowing regarding Nicole Brown Simpson what position her neck went in after it was cut, do you?
Regarding any of the wounds to her neck, do you know what position her neck went in after injuries to her neck?
After the injury, she was left in the prone position. So I really can't tell you which position the neck was left in after this cut. But since she could have died very rapidly after the injury, it could be the same position she was found in.
It may have been in a different position, but still she would have to be prone with the face-down position because all the blood flow is on the floor and there's nothing on her feet.
It's difficult to tell the size of assailant. But given my opinion on Mr. Goldman's where you have parallel cuts to the neck, the perpetrator must have been at least as tall or taller to get those parallel cuts because to hold--because obviously Mr. Goldman was immobilized and there were parallel cuts to the neck. It will be difficult for a perpetrator of smaller size to inflict those parallel cuts to the neck. It will be difficult. I'm just saying it will be--
Are you saying a small person couldn't hold a knife up and make parallel cuts to a neck?
Well, these are very parallel cuts. One goes all the way around. And I already said that cut, I will expect it to be from--the perpetrator being in the back and the victim being in the front of the perpetrator. And since they were controlled cuts, in my opinion, the victim was most likely immobilized during that--during that position when that wound was inflicted. So I would--based on that, I said I would favor the perpetrator to be at least of larger size or equal size of Mr. Goldman to immobilize him when this took place.
Well, based on the evidence that your office has presented, then you would opine that the perpetrator was at least five foot nine and weighed 170 pounds?
Well, that's what I said. I mean that's what the weight is in the chart. And at least you must be equal size or more to really immobilize somebody. But it would be preferable for somebody to be larger size to really immobilize a person because, as you know, in general terms, a stronger person is--finds it easier to immobilize a smaller person than people of equal size.
Well, as I said, the stab wounds could have been that--for that, it's a possibility, but not for these controlled cuts. I would favor what I already said.
Well, it's been reported there are smaller people who are more well-trained in martial arts than bigger people. So yes, they can beat big people.
Regarding the stomach contents that were saved of Ronald Goldman, you were relying on the findings that you observed or that Dr. Golden observed regarding what those stomach contents contained?
I observed the stomach contents on June 22nd when we looked at the jar, but we didn't open it. But mainly on Golden's stomach content report.
Is this something that you wanted to review and check to see if Dr. Golden was accurate in his description?
Is this something that should have been done by you independently if you were reviewing Dr. Golden's autopsy protocol?
Well, I didn't see the necessity to do it because describing a stomach contents--and furthermore, it was only some spinach pieces and liquid. I didn't do it independently, any further studies on it.
Well, what if he was wrong about what the stomach contents are and wouldn't that have some effect as to where he had his last meal?
Well, it doesn't have any bearing on the cause and manner of death of the injuries which I've described already.
What about the time of death? If stomach contents were different than that described by Dr. Golden, would that have any effect on the time of death?
I already opined on the time of death yesterday. It's such a variable factor. It's only an estimated range.
What if somebody says that when he left Mezzaluna restaurant, he had nothing--he ate only spinach and that stomach contents reveal residue from ice cream? Would that have any effect?
I would like to refer to my notes because I remember seeing the contents. I can refer to it and then I can--I would like to defer that question for a little bit, because I do recall seeing the contents, but I would like to refer my report before I say anything further on this question.
KEY QUOTEAre you saying now that you have some--you don't remember what the stomach contents were of Ronald Goldman?
Well, I recall that they appeared to be the same, what was described by Dr. Golden. But I would like to refresh my memory before I answer this question further.
No. It would be preferable to--if you have suspicion of something you want to collect and you want to preserve it, then bagging would be an option.
If you read the manual, and I remember that statement in the manual.
That is correct. If I was doing the autopsy, that could have been--should have been done.
I will be surprised if the perpetrator in that situation would get any blood contamination on the--on him--on that person.
I would like to refer to my notes because I remember seeing the contents... I would like to defer that question for a little bit.