Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Doctor. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand. Mr. Kelberg, you may continue.
Thank you, your Honor. And, your Honor, I have another board of photographs that I will ask to be marked as exhibit I think we're at 355?
Doctor, again, with the Court's permission--and I think we're going to start with these photos.
Dr. Lakshmanan, I want to begin the testimony of these photographs on exhibit 355 by looking initially at the photographs B-30 and B-29 that are in the lower series of photographs. Let's start with B-30. What is shown in that photograph, doctor?
B-30 shows the left hand of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson. You can identify all Coroner's photographs by the blue card. It has the case number there. And it shows the palmar aspect of the ventral aspect of the left hand and also the portion of the forearm, and there are no injuries seen in the areas which has been photographed.
Doctor, what kind of injuries if any in particular would you as a forensic pathologist be looking for on the palmar surface or in the palmar area of the hand and fingers as shown in this photograph in a case involving sharp force injuries?
You would expect to see Defense wounds like cuts and puncture wounds, and that's what you look for, and that is why this photograph is taken, to show there's no injuries seen to the palmar aspect of the left hand.
They are created when the victim uses the hand or palm of the hand to ward off any inflicting injury.
And, doctor, are there common ways that forensic pathologists find victims of impending sharp force injury attack try to ward off such attack by use of the hands?
You will usually see the cuts in the palms of the hands, you can see the wrists and forearms sometimes and the back of the hands.
One, the victim could try to hold the knife, and you would get injuries which would be consistent with it, or sometimes when a thrust is attempted on the victim, the victim could hold up the hand to prevent the thrust hitting the vital area. So the hand could get a puncture type stab wound. So it could be a variety of types of injuries you could see on the hand depending what the victim tried to do, if the injury pattern allows a forensic pathologist to interpret.
Doctor, and on this left hand of Nicole Brown Simpson, the palmar side, did you find any evidence whatsoever of defensive wounds?
Was the absence of defensive wounds of any significance to you as a forensic pathologist?
Yes. And I want to ask you with respect to the absence of defensive wounds that you say are not present, that is the absence of them, what significance if any does that have to you as a forensic pathologist?
The absence of injuries to the left palmar hand shows that she did not receive any such injuries to that part of the body. So most likely, she was either incapacitated or rapidly incapacitated and did not use the left upper extremity in that Defense.
And if incapacitated, not just didn't use, but incapable of using that area of the hand to ward off an attack?
Now, doctor, does Dr. Golden in his report protocol address the absence of defensive wounds to the palmar surface of the left hand?
And does he diagram in any fashion on any of the available diagrams the absence of such wounds?
Would you expect him to have a separate entry to reflect no defensive wounds noted?
There's a 3/8 inch linear cut type abrasion to the back of the left hand, it appears the left ring finger. There is a small punctate abrasion which measures 1/16 of an inch in the base of the left ring finger. There is another 1/16 inch abrasion to the middle of the middle finger and there's also another small abrasion here (Indicating) to the base of the left middle finger. So the main injuries are three small abrasions and the small cut abrasion to the back of the left hand.
Now, doctor, in your wound chart for Nicole Brown Simpson, which I believe is exhibit 350, do you identify each of these injuries that you just pointed out on this photograph, B-29?
And did you number them sequentially in the fashion in which you just pointed them out?
Now, doctor, starting with what you described as the cut abrasion which, in looking at the photograph, appears to be about perhaps a half an inch or so below the blue horizontally oriented measuring card; is that correct?
It is caused by a knife, but it could have been from the knife being drawn on the skin wherein you have some scraping of the skin, but doesn't cause a clear-cut deep incision wound there.
And is that something that can be caused by a single-edged knife such as you've previously described?
And is that caused by the sharpened--the edged--sharp-edged side of the blade or the blunt-end side of blade or what?
Because it's not caused a significant deep cut. It's just a superficial linear cut type abrasion.
Because that part of the hand was trying to ward off a particular injury to the body, but only a portion of the knife struck the skin surface. So it was not--so it didn't leave a deeper cut.
Can you, using myself as one participant and yourself as the other, indicate in some fashion how that type of injury could come to be inflicted if you use my left hand to represent that of Nicole Brown Simpson and you play the role of the perpetrator holding a knife, how that can occur?
If I'm trying to stab you in the neck and you try to ward your hand, your hand may not have come at the same time when I--when I was trying to inflict the injury on the neck (Demonstrating). So only a portion of the blunt part could have struck the hand is one way, and this cut abrasion could also be caused by other mechanisms.
--because I think the jurors on that end of the box were not able to see your demonstration.
And I didn't try to describe it for the record because I don't think I could do that very easily, but we'll try maybe better with this.
All right. Doctor, I think you're going to have to take a step that way since you're being shielded out by the diagram. Go ahead.
One mechanism would be, when the thrust is being attempted, the hand could be raised and block the stabbing of the vital area of the body by the victim and--but the knife did not strike the entire portion of the hand, only the tip of it grazing the surface of the skin (Demonstrating). And that would be a mechanism by which this cut abrasion could have taken place.
And basically, your Honor, for the record, I raised my left hand so the back of the hand is facing Dr. Lakshmanan who is facing me. Dr. Lakshmanan raised his right hand and made a thrusting motion in the direction of my left hand as if to have a knife being thrust towards me.
That's one mechanism as I said. But the other--there are many other possibilities. When the knife is being wielded against this particular victim, the hand could have been injured in a similar fashion, but not necessarily when the thrust to a particular area of the body took place.
When the hand is--when the victim is trying to protect herself from this assault and the knife is being wielded, you could have a similar cut, but the knife did not cause a deep cut, but just a superficial cut. So it could be two--one--
One way could be that when the hand was right in front, but did not get the full cut. The other way is that the hand just got a portion of the knife injury causing a superficial cut.
And, doctor, from the depiction of that cut abrasion in the photograph B-29, is there any way that you as a trained forensic pathologist can provide more--a more definitive answer as to the actual positions of the perpetrator and Nicole Brown Simpson at the time that cut abrasion was inflicted?
Doctor, can you determine from your review of the photograph whether that cut abrasion was in fact inflicted while Nicole Brown Simpson was alive?
Because of appearance and the coloration and the description given in the report.
Can you form an opinion as to how long from the infliction of that cut abrasion at a minimum Nicole Brown Simpson must have had a beating heart and blood pressure?
This happened when she was alive, and you can get this injury as early as one minute before death.
Doctor, starting with that cut abrasion, did Dr. Golden address that cut abrasion in his original protocol?
Now, the second wound that you identified or injury, I believe you referred to as a "Punctate abrasion"?
And we had that term on our chart yesterday. But would you refresh our recollections regarding what is a "Punctate abrasion"?
And what if any causes would be possible for this particular punctate abrasion that you have identified in photograph B-29?
Can you generalize as to the type of mechanisms that can lead to such a punctate abrasion?
The--it's a blunt force trauma against a rough surface. But also, as I recall, she was wearing a ring on the finger, the crime scene photograph, if you can go back to the--
You're going to have to keep your voice up and we'll get the crime scene photograph out. Doctor, if you'll slide the board that's closest--I have a feeling that people that run that machine don't like to hear the sound of metal against that machine. Thank you. Let me put back up 354 and ask if you see something. We invite your attention to--
--the abrasion is the same region. So during the altercation of the hand that hit any particular rough surface, you could get an abrasion in relationship to that area.
Would you describe these stairs that you visited at the Bundy location as a rough surface?
Or the walkway that is shown in a number of these photographs as a rough surface?
Doctor, are you able to determine whether or not that punctate abrasion was inflicted while Nicole Brown Simpson was alive?
And is it safe to say that neither the cut abrasion nor this punctate abrasion have any significance whatsoever on the cause of death for Nicole Brown Simpson?
Did Dr. Golden describe in his protocol the punctate abrasion that you have pointed out on photograph B-29?
All right, doctor. And we're not marking on the photograph where these injuries are, but the punctate abrasion is on the left ring finger; is that correct?
And it's closer to the hand than it is to the nail of that finger; is that correct?
Now, the third injury--would you point that one out again for us, where it is, please, doctor?
And, doctor, would it be accurate to say that that injury can be seen, it's in about the middle if you look side to side of that finger and it's a little bit closer to the nail than it is to the hand?
Again, it's a non-specific blunt force injury. It's a scraping against a rough surface or contact with a--blunt force injury on a rough surface.
In your opinion, doctor, is his failure to do each of those three things a mistake?
Is there any significance on any of these big ticket questions for his mistakes either singularly or all three together?
Because it's a non-specific abrasion and it doesn't affect the big picture as I already alluded to earlier in my other injury descriptions.
Are you able to tell from looking at this particular blunt force trauma, the specific positions or the rela--even the relative positions. Let me ask you that--the relative positions of Nicole Brown Simpson and the perpetrator at the time that injury was received?
And if not the relative, then may we safely assume that you can not identify the specific positions that the two of them had at the time that injury was received?
--base of the right middle--excuse me--left middle finger, and I found a small abrasion there.
And for the record, that appears to be very close to where the finger joins the hand; is that correct?
And again, are you able to identify the type of source or sources responsible for that?
Doctor, on the protocol, where do we find a description of injury no. 1? The protocol, doctor, not the diagram.
Okay. And I'll write B-29 for that. And while we're here, what about injury no. 2?
All right. Incidentally, I think I'll write no. 1 under the B-29 that I just outlined. And--I'm sorry. Which paragraph, doctor?
And I'll outline that in blue also, and I'll put a line for B-29 connecting to both of the paragraphs, but I'll put out no. 2 for the top of the two paragraphs and a line connecting no. 1 to the lower paragraph. Doctor, with respect to a diagram, is the diagram that is reflective of those injuries this form 23?
Would you show us, please, where there is any entry regarding those two injuries?
It's here in the back of the left hand and the back of the base of the left ring finger here (Indicating).
What has Dr. Golden written with respect--if anything, with respect to the first injury that you described?
It's half an inch incised cut here for injury no. 1 and he has described it as a punctate abrasion (Indicating).
Yes. You can see Punc A-B-R, and this is the abrasion here, the reddish brown, and this shows the superficial incised wound (Indicating).
Your Honor, where Dr. Lakshmanan has been indicating, I'll circle in the blue area.
Actually, this also belongs to the same injury because this is diagram oriented.
And is this area here the area that reflects injury no. 2 of photo B-29 (Indicating)?
And I'll circle that in blue, write B-29 no. 2. I'm sorry. Doctor, there appears to be two words written in the center of the top of this form. What are those words?
And is that commonly the procedure followed by the medical examiner who is looking in a sharp force injury case for these kinds of injuries?
And the left hand palm is in outline form the lower left quadrant of this diagram 23?
And, doctor--I'm sorry. There was nothing addressed in the addendum, two of them, because they were properly addressed, two of them, simply not addressed at all when they should have been?
While we're up in this position, I think we may not have identified all of the sharp force injuries to the scalp or skull area of Nicole Brown Simpson that appear in diagrams; is that correct, doctor?
Let's complete that if we could. And we're back to 5-B, board 5-B. And I don't think we touched upon it also in the protocol, did we, doctor?
We touched upon the description of the injuries of B-24 and B-23, but there's one more additional scalp wound which we did not discuss.
Counsel, while we are in this configuration, counsel have permission to cross the well when traipsing over here.
Let's cover that now then. First of all--and we--unfortunately at the break, we still didn't put a correction to B-23 reflecting that it's not the left, but the right, and we will do that at the end of today. What is shown in this photograph B-26?
Shows the left side of the back of the top of the head. And what you see here is a sharp force injury. It's an incised wound. And when I measured it using a one is to one photograph, it measured at one and a quarter inches in length. Would be--this is the front part of the wound corresponding to the front of the body and this is the back part of the wound corresponding to the back part of the body. The back part of the wound is curved. So it's a incised wound (Indicating).
Doctor, can you indicate using your own head where approximately this particular sharp force injury was?
It's in the--my back, this part here (Indicating). And I'm going to turn, your Honor.
Maybe the Court--and I'll turn just briefly so the Court can identify the area for the record.
Now, doctor, in the configuration of the incised wound that you see, do you see a sharp end?
Does that have any significance to you in your ability or lack of ability to identify the class of knife responsible?
This is an incised wound. It could be either a single-edged or double-edged knife.
So again, is this consistent with that same single-edged knife being responsible for all of the sharp force injuries?
Now, doctor, is this sharp force injury one which you can tell from the photographic review was received before death?
And from its appearance, can you give us an opinion as to the minimum amount of time from its infliction until death that must have occurred for the injury to appear as it does.
It could have occurred as early as or as short as one minute before death or much longer.
And in the big picture of cause of death and so forth, is there any significance to it?
In general, what is the difference from the addendum or what is added in the addendum from how the wound was initially described in the protocol?
The initial wound was discovered as being rounded ends. The measurement was different. Actually the whole description has changed and we could look at it.
The bottom line was, he described it as rounded ends and then in the addendum, he described it as tapered ends, which is consistent with what is seen in the photograph.
Would it be accurate to say that from his description in the protocol, it is completely inaccurate?
KEY QUOTEAnd did he diagram it in a fashion that was consistent with his inaccurate description in the protocol?
All right. Why don't we move then, if we could. Put this back down and move--we've got the protocol. I believe we have the proper forms. Let's start with the protocol. Where in the protocol does Dr. Golden address this particular wound in B-26?
All right. Why don't we outline that also in red. And that's going to be B-26 which I'll write on the left margin.
All right. Doctor, let's get to the diagram so we can see if there's any comparison or difference where on--or which diagram shall we select?
All right. Why don't you go, if you would please, to that one and show us where there's an indication.
This is the injury that's being described, and he has measured it as one and a half inches here, but the protocol says half an inch in length. He has said that--he said both ends up here are rounded, and that's what his diagram and this diagram including the--
All right. Just a second. Let's circle this. On 20-F, this is B-26, and I've written that in as well. What's the next diagram, doctor?
Incidentally, just the general location where Dr. Golden drew that injury, is that an accurate depiction of the area that's actually seen in the photograph?
This is the same injury as diagrammed here and has got the same measurement as one and a half inches there (Indicating).
And, doctor--well, let me circle this. Is the--and I'll write--I'm sorry--B-26. Is the diagrammed form of the wound accurate? That is, is the appearance as hand-drawn accurate to how the wound actually appears in the photograph?
In what fashion--perhaps you can use the pointer. In what fashion is there a difference? We don't have the photograph up.
The wound doesn't have this forking and actually tapers off like a superficial incised wound here. So the wound diagramming is not accurate (Indicating).
Let me just briefly put this up so the ladies and gentlemen of the jury can have a comparison.
You look here, there's no forking and then it tapers off on both sides (Indicating).
And this, your Honor, is the 20-H that appears to have outlines of the human skull.
There is evidence of hemorrhage underneath this incised wound one and a half inches by one and a half inches. And I just said the right upper quadrant, 20-H.
And on that upper right quadrant outline, I'll write B-26. Incidentally, while we have this here, doctor, in the lower left quadrant of this same form, is there some outline that reflects on one of the earlier injuries that you've identified?
Yes. That reflects the hemorrhage on any of the bruise we've discussed in the right side of the head.
It's a superficial temporal and this is SGH, with subgaleal hemorrhage, two inches by one and a quarter inches.
And is that consistent with what you see in the form of the contusion on--under the scalp in the photograph B-20?
Yes. But you can't see this because this is a diagram of the hemorrhage after the scalp was reflected. So this is the diagram the doctor uses to show the hemorrhage after you reflect the skin. What you saw in the other diagram was the diagram of the injury on the surface. I don't know whether you saw that diagram or not. And that was diagram--
20-H, that is the head cover. That is the inner--that is the doctrination of the hemorrhage underneath the scalp.
Incidentally, doctor, while we've got this up, there's some other writing here. Can you--that's between the two outlines above and the two outlines below.
Yes. What he's trying to say here is that it's deep scalp hemorrhage under the same--there's also blood to the same injury and he says "No abrasion or laceration."
So does all of this writing that is between this upper and lower half go to the B-20?
And I'll circle that as well and connect up to the lower diagram that was circled.
Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough. It's good to see it takes three people from our office to get an easel to stand straight.
Now, doctor, where on this particular form is there a reflection of that B-20 contusion?
Maybe we ought to use the word "Mention" since "Reflection" has a specific meaning within this context.
Okay. First of all, when you say the skin is "Reflected," why don't you tell us what that means.
As--one moment. As I discussed the autopsy process, I said when the head is opened for examination of the brain, the first process is opening up the scalp, which is the reflection of a scalp skin. So when we discover injury on the skin surface, is what we see on the skin surface. Once you reflect the scalp skin away from the skull--
Again, doctor, you are using the same term we're asking you to define. "Reflect" means what? Pull away?
Pull away. Pull away. And the scalp has got five layers. The letters themself reflect the different layers of skin. The c stands for carotid tissue. And underneath the scalp, part of the scalp is a muscle called the occipital frontalis muscle.
Excuse me. Mr. Kelberg, I was just getting you to try to use a different word than reflect as to the board, that it mentions it in the report. That's all we need to do at this point.
It just shows the hemorrhage on the scalp surface. It doesn't show the hemorrhage on the deep tissues as we saw it on the skull diagram.
Is there any handwritten notation to go along with that particular outline that's on this form 22?
The handwritten notation is on the 20-H we already saw, and the combined effects of this description is seen on page 7, no. 8.
All right. We'll get to page 7, no. 8, but let me just circle this area on our form 22, and this goes to B-20; is that correct, doctor?
And I've done that in blue marker. All right. Now, which page, doctor? I'm sorry.
Yes. Now, I will explain both the diagrams so it's easy to understand. 22 shows four inches above the right ear canal is a bruise, and you can see here on the right side of the scalp, four inches above the right ear canal is a scalp bruise. Now, if you go to the other diagram, 20-H, you can see the rest of the information which is there. It's been dictated to--transcribed as no. 8 on page 7.
Yes. He says that this bruise was red violet in color, scalp bruise, one inch by one inch. You can see the red violet, purple color, one inch by one inch, deep scalp--with deep scalp hemorrhage which he has diagrammed here. No abrasion or laceration. He has put skin is smooth, nonabrated, nonlacerated. Subsequent autopsy shows deep scalp hemorrhage, which is this one which is diagrammed (Indicated), and it measures two inches by one and a quarter inches, I showed that, two inches by one and a quarter inches, and it says that it's a subgaleal, it's a subgaleal hemorrhage here, and is again shown that the wound is four inches above the right ear canal. So between the diagrams--you see, this is what medical examiner is doing. That's why you need a pathologist to interpret the notations. We take notes on different parts of the diagram and then when you dictate, you synthesize the data to give a composite report.
And, your Honor, for the record, on item 8 on page 7 that the doctor was just referring to of the protocol, on that in red and mark B-20, and I'll also indicate 20 form, 20-H and 22.
Anything further--well, are you able to determine--going back just for a second to B-26, are you able to determine the relative positions of Miss Brown Simpson and the perpetrator at the time that injury was received?
Is there anything further you wish to discuss regarding this contusion either in the diagrams, in the protocol or in the photograph?
I think we're done with this, and we'll move back to examination of the hand photographs.
All right. We'll take down the protocol and we'll put up form 8-B from exhibit 349, your Honor.
All right. Doctor, where in the addendum is there a reference to this particular sharp force injury that's seen in photograph B-26?
Roman numeral ii, item 1, entire paragraph, line 1 through 5 of that description as amended to read, as that paragraph states, that the wound to the scalp is one and a quarter inches in length, diagonally oriented, superiorly is tapered and inferiorly it is also tapered and then continue as a superficial incised wound. So basically the entire description was changed in that addendum--
Doctor, from your review of the photograph, including the life-size photograph of that particular sharp force injury, in your opinion, does the addendum accurately describe the wound that is seen?
And, your Honor, I'll, in the blue marker, outline this area on page 1 of the addendum and write B-26 along the side.
Anything further, doctor, regarding this sharp force injury? All right. I think we are now ready to move back to the photograph of the hand.
Doctor, let me invite your attention now to photograph B-31 in the lower right corner of this array of photographs. What is shown--
B-31 shows the palmar aspect of the right hand, and you can see an area of injury to the right ring finger. It's a superficial cut. The photograph is a little dark here, but there's a cut here (Indicating).
Which photograph is it better seen in, doctor, if it's one of these that's on the board?
Yes. It's seen better in B-12. You can see the cut here better. Yes, you can see it better here in this (Indicating)--
You can see it better in B-12. If you use a magnifying glass, you can see it very well.
And are you able to tell in any generalized fashion the manner in which that was received?
It was a defensive wound which happened when Miss Simpson tried to defend herself when she was being stabbed.
Doctor, is there more than that one defensive wound on the palmar surface of the right hand?
What if any significance is there for you that there is one and only one defensive wound to the palmar surface of the right hand?
This would indicate to me that she was probably rapidly incapacitated and was not able to offer much resistance.
KEY QUOTEBecause there's very few Defense wounds in her upper extremities. Because whenever you see Defense wound in the upper extremities, that is the hands and forearms, that means the person was conscious and was able to defend themselves. But when you see a paucity of defensive wounds, it would signify as a forensic pathologist that the person was rapidly incapacitated and was incapable of offering much resistance.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, did Dr. Golden address in his original protocol this particular defensive wound to the palmar surface of the ring finger of the right hand?
Yes, he did. But in the anatomic summary, he described it properly, but in the protocol itself, he described it in the report as the index finger, but in the diagram, he diagrammed it correctly.
All right. Let's break this down. There is a reference to this defensive wound in the protocol; is that correct?
And there is an entry on a diagram that reflects this defensive wound; is that correct?
But there is a difference between what the diagram shows and what the protocol says; is that correct?
Is either one of them accurate based upon what these two photographs, B-12 and B-31, show?
The diagram is accurate. The description of the wound in the protocol is wrong because it was said as index finger, but the anatomic summary reflects the injury correctly. The anatomic summary says "Right ring finger."
KEY QUOTEThat's the front page of the autopsy report where all the injuries are summarized.
All right. Is this defensive wound one which in your opinion was received before death?
And with respect to the minimum amount of time before death, would your answers be the same as they've been to the last series of wounds?
And in the big picture of things, does this have any significance beyond its significance on the issue of a defensive wound and the absence of other defensive wounds?
Anything further that we need to photograph for either B-31 or B-12 for the purposes of identifying that injury?
I believe we have until 3:30, your Honor? If we could just finish with--why don't we let counsel go through and then the doctor.
By the way, doctor, is the addendum--does the addendum reflect--I'm sorry--include any reference to the difference between the diagram and the protocol description?
Would you expect the addendum to include--I'll have to get that word out of my vocabulary--to include something to show that there was in fact this difference and to show which is the accurate identification?
All right. If Mr. Lynch can put up--this is 0-B. Where is there an entry on this summary that you described that accurately reflects the right ring finger defensive wound in photograph B-31 and B-12?
And I'll outline that. And this I'll mark B-31, B-12, and I'll write the word "Correct" in the margin. Now, doctor, in this same protocol, there is an inaccurate description provided?
Paragraph no. 2, right hand. It says there's a 5/8 inch incised wound on the volar surface of the right index finger.
And is "Volar" another term to indicate the back--I'm sorry--the palm of the right hand?
And I'll write again--I've circled it in red--B-31 B-12. And it's this particular indication of "Right index finger" that is inaccurate?
And I'll write "Inaccurate" after circling the right index finger area and "SB" should be ring. Would that be accurate, doctor?
Ring finger. All right. And you said there was a diagram that had an entry to indicate the identification of that defensive wound?
And I'll ask Mr. Lynch to put that up. And show us, please, doctor, where there is that indication.
It says 5/8 inch tangential cut skin avulsed and given a diagram of the injury here, and actually he has described that there is some forking to the ulnar aspect, that is this aspect of the wound (Indicating).
Yes. This side of the hand. And you have to add that paragraph also in the description here.
And I'll write "Accurate." Incidentally, doctor, this word "Defense" and "Ante"--is that "Antemortem" that appears there?
Well, if--all of these are antemortem wounds. So it could reflect for all of them.
All right. The area that you talk about, the ulnar area of the hand, the palmar area is also discussed in a paragraph?
And that area I'll outline also in red on page 7 of the protocol and draw a line to connect up also with the B-12 and the B-31 of the first paragraph that you've already identified. Is that description in that second paragraph accurate?
And corresponds to what Dr. Golden has diagrammed in the lower right quadrant for form 23?
Yes, it would. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all my admonitions to you; do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions in the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you and do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning. All right. Thank you, counsel.
This would indicate to me that she was probably rapidly incapacitated and was not able to offer much resistance.
Because there's very few Defense wounds in her upper extremities. Because whenever you see Defense wound in the upper extremities, that is the hands and forearms, that means the person was conscious and was able to defend themselves. But when you see a paucity of defensive wounds, it would signify as a forensic pathologist that the person was rapidly incapacitated and was incapable of offering much resistance.
Would it be accurate to say that from his description in the protocol, it is completely inaccurate?
The diagram is accurate. The description of the wound in the protocol is wrong because it was said as index finger, but the anatomic summary reflects the injury correctly.