Good.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG

Doctor, over the lunch hour, and perhaps you can step to the board, did we have an opportunity to complete a generalized description of the areas of the brain on this form 29 from the big blow-up that is a part of our exhibit 344--349? Excuse me.

Yes.

And, doctor, does the--does each of the entries that have been made in my handwriting or printing accurately reflect what is described by the entry made?

Yes.

And basically, does it accurately summarize what you told us this morning regarding the various structures and locations of the brain?

Yes.

The only word that I did not indicate anywhere is the word "Cerebrum," and you were talking about the cerebral cortex. That covers the entire area of the occipital, parietal, frontal and temporal lobes as we see it on the two right side--left and right side depictions of the brain?

Yes. The cerebrum includes all the four lobes we alluded to.

And I didn't want to write that in because I think it's getting a bit crowded in that chart. There is also--I think you testified yesterday regarding the material and horizontal running schematic that we have written in the words "Spinal cord." And does that accurately reflect what that diagram or schematic is intended to reflect?

Yes.

While we're up here--and yesterday, I asked you about one of the mistakes of Dr. Golden involving this contusion to the brain that is seen in photograph B-33 of exhibit 354 I believe it is.

Yes.

I'm sorry. 352.

Yes.

Now, doctor, let me circle--in fact, if I could get a blue marker just to--

For the record, your Honor, with the blue marker, I've outlined what appears to be two handwritten words in the middle of form 29.

Doctor, are you familiar with what's written there?

Yes.

Was that written by Dr. Golden?

Yes.

What does that reflect?

"No injuries."

And in the course and practice of the forensic pathologist conducting an autopsy and using this form, would you expect the doctor, having examined the brain as you expect the doctor to do so, to make an entry if in fact the doctor observes no injuries in the area depicted by this diagram?

Yes. This kind of entry is made only after examining the brain.

And do you interpret for your use in forming opinions from the entry of no injuries that Dr. Golden at the time of the original autopsy felt that there were no injuries observed by him in the areas of the brain depicted in these schematic drawings?

That would be my conclusion.

You'll have to keep your voice up, please.

That would be my conclusion.

Now, doctor, there's also a similar entry that appears at the very bottom--

And, if I might, your Honor, for the "No injury" that I just circled, I'm going to make a line and write B-33 to reflect the photograph that we're talking about and then I'm also going to outline in blue at the bottom this second entry that seems to say "No injuries" as well.

Is that correct; doctor?

Yes.

And you interpret that to reflect no injuries observed with respect to what area of the body?

The spinal cord.

I'm sorry. Keep your voice up.

The spinal cord.

Now, doctor, you indicated yesterday I believe that Dr. Golden addressed this contusion in an addendum; is that correct?

Yes.

And if we could ask Mr. Lynch to set up our other easel so we can put--I'll get the board if you'll set up the easel. And this is board 8-B as in boy, your Honor.

Now, doctor, I want to invite your attention to page 2 of the addendum that has this date handwritten in of July 1, 1994. This is Dr. Golden's addendum in the case of Nicole Brown Simpson; is that correct?

Yes.

Does this page--does this page reflect an entry by Dr. Golden regarding this brain contusion that you saw in the photograph B-33?

Yes.

Would you identify it for us, please?

This is item 1. On June 30th, I examined--I was present when he examined the tissue jar again, at which point I did show him the cerebral cortex with the contusion and we took photographs and a section was submitted for microscopic examination.

Now, doctor, you indicated that you observed this contusion initially when you examined the tissue in the presence of Drs. Baden and Wolf on June 22nd; is that correct?

Yes.

Did you speak with Dr. Golden at some time after that observation of June 22nd before the time that this addendum got even drafted in a rough form?

Yes.

When approximately did you speak to him?

I don't recall the exact date, but when I saw that there was a contusion to the brain which he had not addressed in his original report, I brought it to his attention, at which point, he was already planning to do an addendum anyway because of the other injuries which were not addressed which were seen in the photographs. So at my direction, an addendum was prepared.

And did you give instructions to Dr. Golden as to whether or not you expected any addendum prepared by him to include reference to this brain contusion?

Yes, I did.

And, doctor, is this part that you've just outlined on page 2 of the addendum report to reflect what you were talking about when we were looking at the photograph, that is a section on July--I'm sorry--on June 30th of 1994, a section of that contused area of the brain was cut in order to provide for microscopic examination?

Yes.

Your Honor, for the record, I'm going to outline in blue on page 2 of the addendum the material referred to by Dr. Lakshmanan and I'll write again B-33.

Thank you.

Doctor, before we leave this entry, the last line of that paragraph says, "My recollection is that the above section was from the right parietal temporal region." Are you familiar with how that came about?

I asked him where he--when he saw the contusion, asked him where it--what side of the brain was it from and the region, and he indicated that he recollects that it was from the right parietal temporal area.

And, doctor, is there any way--you testified I believe this morning that there was no way from a scientific standpoint of looking at that tissue to distinguish whether it came from the right side from the parietal temporal area or from the left side of the parietal temporal area. Is that an accurate recitation of your morning testimony?

That is correct.

And short of Dr. Golden's memory being accurate, is there any way that you can confirm or refute that recollection?

I can do neither.

You have to keep your voice up, please, doctor.

I can do neither.

If we can flip briefly, Mr. Lynch, on the addendum blow-up.

Now, we're looking at a document on a form 14 that is titled, "Microscopic description," and it appears to be dated July 7, 1994. Are you familiar with this document, doctor?

Yes.

What is this?

This is a microscopic examination report on the examination of the contusion done by Dr. Golden.

Did you direct that he do that, that is make a microscopic examination?

Yes. Because we--when we had the injury examined on June 30th, I discussed with him that we should do a microscopic exam. That was why a section was submitted and a report has been generated to document this injury.

Did you tell him that you wanted a report generated?

Yes.

Did you, however, independently examine microscopically the tissue section that was removed?

Yes, I did.

Is your opinion as to what it shows the same or different from what Dr. Golden indicates in this form 14 report?

My conclusion is that it is an acute cerebrocortical contusion.

And when you say "Acute," in the sense that you described it earlier this morning?

Yes.

Now, doctor--

I discussed the contusion of the scalp and also the contusion of the brain, but I gave the timing for the scalp.

All right. If you'll keep your voice up. You said you gave the timing only for the scalp contusion?

Yes.

All right. Is there any difference in timing when you use the term "Acute" to reflect the brain contusion rather than the scalp contusion?

Well, here we have a microscopic section available. In the scalp, we did not have a microscopic section available. So this makes it easier to date an injury than just looking at it grossly.

And "Dating" in this sense means what when the interpretation is that it's an acute contusion to the brain?

"Dating" means you try to see how old the injury is since the injury was inflicted. "Cerebrocortical contusion" means this injury could have occurred soon after the injury and though the bruising of the brain occurred at the time of injury, you can perceive it grossly, that is on naked eye examination, within a minute and microscopically also, that's what it reflects. So this contusion could be as early as one minute and could be several hours old also.

If you'll recall my hypothetical question with respect to the perpetrator striking Nicole Brown Simpson on the scalp with either a closed fist or the rounded end of a knife and then moving to the area where Mr. Goldman was and then returning before inflicting the major stab incised wound, and you gave answers regarding that hypothetical set of circumstances, would your answers be the same with respect to that hypothetical as applied to the brain contusion?

Yes.

Now, doctor, is it a mistake of Dr. Golden's, number one, to have not identified that brain contusion at original autopsy?

Yes.

And is it a mistake of Dr. Golden's to have written on form 29 that there were no injuries to the brain given what you saw in the tissue sample seen in photograph B-33?

Yes.

And is it a mistake of Dr. Golden's not to have diagrammed on form 29 an area where this brain contusion actually was?

Yes.

Doctor, taking into account all of these mistakes by Dr. Golden, do any or altogether have any significance to you in addressing any of the issues that we asked you about and about what you have been testifying?

No.

Why not?

Now, doctor, over the lunch hour, did you have an opportunity to examine your photographs to attempt to refresh your memory as to whether or not our B-33 photograph reflects the tissue, the brain tissue sample before there was a section taken out for microscopic exam or after?

It was a photograph--B-33 is a photograph of the brain contusion before the microscopic section was taken, and you can see that is also indicated in the previous page.

All right. The addendum page 2?

Yes.

Incidentally, before Mr. Lynch flips this, let me write in the blue on the microscopic description, I'll write B-33 on that page.

Paragraph 1, line 4, the initial specimen as well as the representative section was photographed.

Now, if we could briefly put the photograph back up and leave the two schematics or the schematic and addendum--and we're looking again, doctor, at photograph B-33 to give counsel and the doctors an opportunity to position themselves. This photograph, now, doctor, your independent memory is a picture of the whole sample; is that correct?

Yes.

And I want to go back to the question or questions that I was asking this morning about when a forensic pathologist sees a brain contusion, would you expect the pathologist to excise the entire area of the brain contusion?

If it is a smaller contusion, yes. But if it's a larger contusion, you describe the dimensions of the contusion, photograph it if necessary, then take a section off a portion of the contusion in conjunction with the normal piece of brain tissue so that you can study it well.

Would you describe the contusion that you believe was sustained by Nicole Brown Simpson as reflected in this sample as a small contusion?

Yes.

As a result of that belief, doctor, would you have expected Dr. Golden to take out the entire section of brain tissue with the contusion in it?

If he had observed it, yes.

And if that had been done, would you expect to see around the margin or outside portion of the brain tissue an area of normal brain tissue so that you would know that you're seeing the entire contused area in that sample?

Yes.

In the photograph B-33, is that in fact what you see?

No. You can see the contusion come into the margin.

And as a result of that, are you able to say how much more extensive, if at all, that brain contusion was than from what you can see in the photograph B-33?

I can not say how much more it was.

But if it had been significantly more, would you expect to see on the photographic review of the head area of Nicole Brown Simpson some evidence to reflect that the brain contusion had in fact been sustained?

You can not make that kind of judgment by looking at the external photographs. You need to see photographs of the brain itself in the entirety to make that kind of judgment.

I was talking about the scalp for example.

Okay.

Can you look at the photographs showing the scalp to get some idea whether any additional area of contusion was significant or not if it had not been retained at the time of autopsy in the sample taken?

You can't do it from the scalp photograph.

So basically, doctor, on what basis then if any are you able to say that that's a small contusion?

Well, the--you could see the other margins of the contusion which is--which was there when I saw it. It's about a sonometer by 4 milliliters.

A sonometer is a centimeter?

Yes. Less than half an inch. And by 4 millimeters, which is 1/5 of an inch, approximately less than 1/5 of an inch. And based on my experience, when you see a contusion of this size, generally it's not a large contusion even if a portion of it is not available for review.

I want to go back now to the diagrams. We'll take this down for a moment. And, doctor, I want to focus on this last line of the addendum opinion regarding Dr. Baden--I'm sorry--Dr. Golden's recollection of the location of the brain tissue with the contusion. Are you familiar with something called a "Coup," c-o-u-p, type injury?

Yes.

What is that?

It is the term used to describe a brain injury which is on the same side of a surface injury, the scalp or skull, at the point the skull or scalp injury is. That would be a coup type of injury. That is the same location underlying the scalp and skull injury.

Now, given what Dr. Golden has had transcribed in that paragraph as to his recollection--and let me--I'm sorry to put this back so quickly, but just very briefly, to go back to g--I'm sorry--B-20 I believe it is, the scalp contusion.

Yes.

Now, if Dr. Golden's recollection is correct--that's fine. If his recollection is correct, that it's from the right parietal, temporal region, where would that be in relationship to the contused area of the scalp seen in photograph B-20 on the right side of the head?

It would be--it would be in the same vicinity in the brain underlying this contusion (Indicating).

If that is an accurate recollection and that means therefore that it is the circumstance you just described, would that have any bearing in forming an opinion as to whether a coup type injury had occurred?

That would be--that would be consistent with that kind of diagnosis, a coup type injury to the brain.

How is a coup type injury inflicted that would leave a contusion to the scalp and a contusion to the brain?

If you have nonmobile head and if somebody strikes you on the head, you can have a contusion of the brain--scalp, and the forces which causes the contusion of the scalp can cause the contusion to the brain also.

And if that occurs--but you said an immobile head?

Yes.

Meaning it's stationary?

Yes. But you could also have a nonmobile head, but it's--but it's more common with a nonmobile head.

I'm sorry.

That is a non-moving head. Non-moving head. That will be a simpler term to use.

Yes.

And, for example, could be struck by a closed fist?

Yes.

Or by the rounded end of a knife?

Yes.

And when that occurs, then you can have injury that will be seen both to the scalp and to the underlying brain that is on the same side as the scalp injury?

Yes. And the force should be considerable force.

And is there another way that is a common way that a coup type injury can be inflicted?

No. Usually the coup injury is underlying the area of impact, and the area of impact could be a direct impact or the coup injury is always from a direct impact underlying the area of direct impact.

All right. A direct impact to, in this case, the head?

Head on the right side because the contusion, as Dr. Golden recollects, was on the right side of the brain.

Now, doctor, are you familiar with something called a "contre coup" type injury, C-O-U-N-T-R-E--actually I think I got a u in there that's not entitled the credit--C-O-N-T-R-E C-O-U-P injury?

Yes.

And what is that kind of injury?

That injury occurs in an area of the brain opposite the area of impact to the skull of the scalp.

So using, for example, the right side of the head B-20 contusion as the area where there has been force applied, for example, by a closed fist or by the rounded end of a knife, if this were a "Contre coup" injury, where on the brain, if anywhere, would you expect to see a contusion?

In the hypothetical situation you just raised wherein the right side of the head was struck by base of a knife or a fist, that will not cause a--that could cause a contre coup injury if the head was not mobile and fixed. But then you'd also expect to see a coup injury associated with it. If the head had been pushed against a smooth surfaced object and the right side of the head had sustained this contusion so you have--now the situation is a little different. You have a moving head which is being--which is striking a fixed object--then you could have a contre coup injury diametrically opposite the area of initial impact on the other side of the brain, which would be the left side of the brain.

So in the hypothetical I raised initially, you could actually end up with both a coup type injury and a contre coup type injury?

Assuming that this direct impact with the base of the knife or the fist, as you postulated, occurred with a nonmobile head.

Now, in the third circumstance that you're indicating--

And again, you must use considerable force for this injury to occur.

What do you mean by "Considerable force"?

The force was not just somebody hitting like this, but a good punch or a good forcible striking of the head (Indicating).

Well, when you say "Considerable force" and "It wasn't like this" (Indicating), you took your fist, your left-handed fisted hand and I'm not even sure if you even touched the side of your head.

No. But I don't want to hurt myself.

I'm sure you don't, doctor. But can you give us some indication as to the degree of force that's required?

A knockout punch?

Yeah, which you see in the boxing matches. When somebody hits or somebody gets knocked out, that is a good considerable force punch which has caused--which will cause a coup and contre coup injury or a nonmobile head.

Now, to the third situation of a pure contre coup type injury, is the head moving?

Yes. The head is moving. It strikes an area and the brain opposite the area where the head has struck gets the contre coup injury.

In your visits to the 875 Bundy location, did you find environmental source or sources against which a moving head of Nicole Brown Simpson could have been struck in the area of the right side of the head shown in B-20 to create a contre coup injury, that is with the scalp contusion seen on the right side, but a brain contusion seen on the left side?

Objection. No foundation.

Sustained.

Doctor, hypothetically--well, let me withdraw the question. First of all, were you able to find smooth type surfaces at the Bundy location which would be of a type that if a moving head were forced against such a surface, a contre coup injury could have been inflicted?

Yes.

Objection. No foundation. Motion to strike.

Overruled.

You may answer the question.

Yes.

What surface or surfaces did you examine that would be consistent with that?

We had a side railing which had a rounded end. We also had evidence of a side railing on the--next to the wall which has posts in it, metal posts. And if you have a photograph, I can show you the areas.

All right. Before I get to a photograph, those types of surfaces would be consistent with creating a contre coup injury if the head of Nicole Brown Simpson had been forced against one or more of them?

Yes. Because--the reason I have to emphasize the smooth surface is, the scalp contusion doesn't have any abrasion on it. It is a smooth--it was--so it has to be a smooth surfaced area where the head impacted.

And, doctor, in your examination of the surfaces at 875 Bundy, did you examine railings and fences, metal fences and the paint surface to look to see whether the surfaces were all smooth or there were rough spots in any of the surfaces?

Yes.

Objection. No foundation.

Overruled.

You may answer.

Yes. Yes.

What were your findings?

We had evidence of a tree there with a rough box surface. We had a--some plants which had been pruned and you had stumps of stalks of the stems of the plants too in place in the ground.

Doctor, I'm not sure that's responsive to my question because my question was dealing with the painted surfaces.

Okay.

There would be a motion to strike.

Yes. The jury is to disregard the last answer.

Thank you, your Honor.

The painted surfaces of any of the metal posts and so forth, did you examine those?

Yes.

And what were your findings with respect to smoothness versus roughness?

Your Honor, again, there's no foundation as to when this examination took place.

Overruled.

You may answer the question, doctor.

This was the painted surfaces of the railings and the gate and the side railing also.

And what were your findings with respect--

There was smooth areas. There was also some irregular areas, but there were smooth areas to the metal railing.

And irregular areas would be the same as rough areas?

Yes.

And if the head is forced against a rough area, what would you expect to see if something different than, for example, the contusion identified in B-20?

You would expect to see an abrasion contusion. You would expect to see a scraping of the skin in addition to the bruising.

And where within the contusion would you expect to see the area of the abrasion?

It would be on the area overlying the contusion.

And you see no such area shown in the scalp contusion identified in photograph B-20?

Yes. The only abrasion I see is the postmortem abrasion on a portion of the bruise which was from the shaving of the scalp.

Can you show us what you mean by the postmortem abrasion?

It's right here on the upper part here, a little bit because of the shaving, but the contusion still doesn't--it's not an antemortem abrasion (Indicating).

For the record, your Honor, on photograph B-20, Dr. Lakshmanan pointed to the top of the discoloration area that's depicted.

Thank you.

And, doctor, is it a relatively common matter that when the head is shaved at the Coroner's office, that such postmortem, after death abrasions can be created?

I wouldn't say common, but it does happen.

And is it something for which you are trained to be able to differentiate between a postmortem abrasion from shaving from what was an abrasion inflicted while the person was alive?

Yes.

And on what basis do you differentiate it in this photograph that circumstance?

Basically the appearance.

What about the appearance?

It's very superficial and it's from a sharp like a scalpel blade which has done it. And I used a magnifying glass when I did that examination.

Doctor, in the circumstance of a coup injury, Dr. Golden's recollection then would place that brain injury that's seen in B-33 under the scalp contusion seen in B-20?

In the same vicinity.

Is there any way that you can distinguish whether this brain contusion was the product of a coup injury from a blow to an immobile head from either a fist or a rounded end of the knife or a contre coup injury from the head in the area of the scalp contusion being forced against a smooth surface that was stationary?

I can't.

The fact that you can not distinguish--the fact that you can not distinguish whether this is a coup or a contre coup type injury, that is the brain contusion, in your opinion, is that significant in your ability to answer any of the questions that have been posed to you?

Objection. It calls for a conclusion.

Overruled.

You may answer the question, doctor.

No.

Why not?

Because, as I already mentioned, the fatal injury is to Miss Brown Simpson where the stab wounds and the large slash wound to the neck, and this contusion occurred before that. So she was alive when this contusion occurred. So it has no significance as far as the cause of death goes or describing or explaining the major injuries. Explaining the bleeding pattern, explaining whether it's a single knife--a single-edged knife or a double-edged knife, I give no opinion on that. So really, it's not affected the big picture.

But it would affect your ability to give a more definitive opinion as to the exact manner in which that brain contusion was inflicted?

That is correct.

I think we're done with--let's see. I'll put it down for just a moment if I could.