Doctor, let me read you the testimony if I could and then do some very quick calculations. Oh, first of all--no. Let me invite counsel to page 16, lines 3 through 7 and ask you if you reviewed this testimony as well, doctor. Question by Mr. Shapiro at the preliminary hearing: "Do you have an opinion as to the time of death of Nicole Simpson? "Answer by Dr. Golden: I can give you a range. "Question: And what is that range? "Answer: Somewhere between 9:00 o'clock and midnight." Recall that, doctor?
Now, with respect to the question that Mr. Shapiro asked just when he stopped his examination, the answer given by Dr. Golden at the preliminary hearing stated, starting at line 20: "The rigor mortis was fixed and was fully fixed, so that also placed the time of death somewhere beyond 9 to 12 hours." Doctor, assuming that the rigor mortis reading was obtained at 10:50 in the morning and the assessment is that that shows death was beyond 12 hours before that time, then what is the latest time that the death could have occurred according to that opinion by Dr. Golden?
That means the death occurred beyond--beyond 12 hours. That is death occurred before 10:50 P.M.
And according to that, then the latest time for Nicole Brown Simpson's death would have been 10:50 P.M., correct?
And she could have died, according to that opinion of Dr. Golden, earlier than 10:50 including 10:15, correct?
And, doctor, going back to the gastric contents question asked by Mr. Shapiro where Dr. Golden said: "My estimate was based on the state of the gastric contents and the character of the gastric contents. It was somewhere three to four hours after her last meal," if Dr. Golden misspoke and left out the word "Within" so that his answer that he intended was actually, "It was somewhere within three to four hours after her last meal," would that be consistent in your opinion with the usefulness of the stomach contents as an estimator of time of death?
Assuming hypothetically, doctor--well, let me withdraw the question. Doctor, no. 1, in your opinion, would it make medical sense based upon the observation of the stomach contents to place the time of death at three to four hours after her last meal?
As I testified yesterday, you need to see grossly identifiable fragments, and that would suggest the meal was taken two hours prior to death. But as I said, because of the various variabilities, it's difficult to give an exact estimate.
And one of the studies you relied upon, the Bolandi study, which used pasta like rigatoni as the meal that was being followed in the stomach and through into the intestines indicated that in normal average healthy people, the passage time was four hours for the entire contents to pass the stomach plus or minus 30 minutes, right?
And in the observation of Dr. Golden, there is still 500 cc's, three ladles of six ounces each of identifiable rigatoni in Nicole Brown Simpson's stomach; is that correct?
And if that is the case, doctor, that it takes four hours for the stomach to empty and on the other hand, you find 500 cc's of rigatoni-based contents in the stomach, does it make medical sense to say that the person died three to four hours after having eaten that meal?
No, because they could have died within three to four hours because, as you know, from that--if you're using that study as in your hypothetical, stomach would have emptied in four hours and you still have a lot of residual material in the stomach. So it would be within four hours rather than three to four hours.
KEY QUOTEAnd, doctor, if Dr. Golden's opinion regarding the actual time of death, as he told Mr. Shapiro in response to his question, was somewhere between 9:00 o'clock and midnight, would an opinion saying that death was three to four hours after the meal and the meal was ended somewhere between 8:00 and 8:30 be consistent with what Dr. Golden has said is his opinion, 9:00 o'clock to midnight?
Now, doctor, let me ask you briefly and let's see if maybe we can get you out of here by noon. Just a few questions. First of all, if Mr. Shapiro feels that there's any value to Dr. Golden's testimony beyond what you've already said, is Dr. Golden available at your office at any time to be called by Mr. Shapiro to this courtroom and examined as a witness by Mr. Shapiro?
And if I asked you to make sure he's available, will you do your utmost so that if Mr. Shapiro wants him here, all Mr. Shapiro has to do is let me know, I'll let you know and Dr. Golden will be here?
Now, couple other points, doctor. You were talking about why you believe the killer would have been at least the size of, if not bigger, than Mr. Goldman. Do you recall that series of questions that Mr. Shapiro was asking?
Doctor, did you have provided to you some information concerning shoe sizes and human stature; that is heights and weights of people?
Doctor, I want you to assume that there were bloody shoeprints found along the walkway leading from the bodies to the back of the Bundy location and that I want you to assume hypothetically that there will be testimony that those bloody shoeprints are consistent with a person who has a size 12 shoe, and I want you to further assume hypothetically that people who wear size 12 shoes tend to be six feet to six feet four based upon studies conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI. Doctor, would that type of evidence, assuming it is true, serve to confirm your opinion that a single killer of a height greater than Mr. Goldman in a swift and violent assault on both of these human beings is the perpetrator?
And Mr. Shapiro asked you would you stake your reputation to a reasonable medical certainty. Remember that question?
Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?
I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.
KEY QUOTEAnd will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?
Now, doctor, this driver's license, 85-A, have you known people to fudge a little bit on providing information to the Department of Motor Vehicles with respect to heights, weights, ages and so forth?
All right. Doctor, have you ever encountered people who feel it's important to be six feet tall even if they might be 5/11 or 5/10?
Doctor, Mr. Shapiro asked you something about glancing blows. Recall that testimony this morning?
And he talked about the possibility of one knuckle striking the chin. Recall that?
Now, by definition, would you opine that a glancing blow results in the transfer of less force by the very nature of being a glancing blow?
As I already said, that in a glancing blow, the energy is not delivered completely to the target. Only a portion of the energy is delivered.
And if that is in fact the situation, doctor, does that reduce the likelihood that you would expect any injury to be seen on the person receiving this glancing blow?
And, doctor, there was questioning by Mr. Shapiro about would you expect somebody to kick and do all these various things to try and survive. Do you recall that series of questions?
Doctor, if somebody has a human being from behind and has a knife at their throat, would you expect the first place that that victim is going to try and deal with to be the knife which is the immediate threat to the person's life?
And if the knife is at the throat, would you expect the person to be trying to kick the perpetrator where the knife is?
That I would not be able to state whether it could happen or cannot happen because it depends on the fear limit in the victim because--as I told you, the victim could be in fear and frozen and there could be no kicking and nothing. But--so the reaction for that kind of hypothetical is difficult to speculate and I would not wish to make any further statements on that.
Doctor, when you talk about freezing, in fact, is it a recognized phenomena even in wartime that men and women who are being shot at or threatened with immediate death, some of them literally freeze and are unable to move?
Objection. Speculation. Beyond his expertise unless he participated in the war and saw it happen.
Doctor, from your knowledge as a physician, are you aware of such information that indicates that in circumstances where people's lives are in fact immediately threatened, some people simply freeze, unable to move?
Now, doctor, you testified also, Mr. Goldman has no cuts to the back of his hands, right?
And he has defensive wounds as if trying to ward off with open hands a knife, correct?
And all of that, doctor, is inconsistent with the fists of Mr. Goldman being created, that is by the hand closing?
Mr. Shapiro asked you something about the aging of contusions and abrasions. Recall that?
Are we talking about aging in the sense of, is it antemortem, perimorten or postmortem, or are we talking about aging in determining time of death?
Aging is for the age of the injury. You cannot estimate the time of death from the injury itself.
And, doctor, since Mr. Shapiro asked about contusions versus lividity, remember that photograph B9?
The area where you said there was a nonspecific blunt force trauma, if that had been contus--an area of lividity, can you explain how it would exist in that area given the position of the body which had the dependent portion of the body, that is the body that is below being the left side, not the right side?
And can you then explain how being on the right side, that bruised area, how that could be lividity? Scientifically, is that possible?
That's why I said it's not lividity and there was no other discoloration on the right side of the body.
KEY QUOTEDo you have to make any kind of incision based on the evidence you had to understand that situation?
No. But during the autopsy, if a doctor has a doubt, that is always an available option, to make an incision to confirm your initial impression.
Our department accountant and consultant in consultation with the auditor, they figure out what other process is involved, salaries involved, time limit involved, and they come up with some mathematical calculations, and the county has its way of getting the numbers which involves in the cost recovery.
Lastly, doctor, were you graded by Mr. Tuno on his suggestion that you learn to talk louder in court?
He didn't tell me to talk louder, but he's gave that as a general advice to everybody, to speak up and express yourself. That is general advice given during the talk.
And if you see him again, I suggest he might ask you to speak louder if you're another witness in another case.
I already said it could--it could be such a kind of perpetrator.
Yes. I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.
No, because they could have died within three to four hours because, as you know, from that--if you're using that study as in your hypothetical, stomach would have emptied in four hours and you still have a lot of residual material in the stomach. So it would be within four hours rather than three to four hours.
That's why I said it's not lividity and there was no other discoloration on the right side of the body.