Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And doctor, would you resume the witness stand. Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
Doctor, as long as we had the protocol up, I wanted to just quickly go over another aspect of Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony, and inviting Court and counsel to page 7 one and lines 7 through 19--
Incidentally, your Honor, one of the bailiffs was kind enough to point out to us there may be some difficulty by one or more of the jurors in seeing the easel board that would be closer to the door used by the jury. Obviously we can move these in any manner that will give everyone a full view.
All right. Any jurors--I'm confident all of our jurors know by now that if they can't see anything, all they have to do is raise their hand. All right.
Now, doctor, we have up on the easel page 7 of the protocol and I want to invite your attention in particular back to that photograph of B-31 regarding the ring finger versus the index finger. Do you remember that?
And as I recall from your testimony, Dr. Golden, in his protocol, inaccurately describes that particular injury as being to the right index finger rather than the ring finger. Is that a correct recitation of your testimony?
Doctor, in reviewing Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony did you review the following questions and answers from page 71: "Question: Now, doctor, during the course of your autopsy as performed on Nicole Brown Simpson's body did you notice any injuries to her? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Tell us about that, sir. "Answer: Referring to my notes, my autopsy notes, protocol, to refresh my memory, on the index finger, on the right index finger there was a 5/8 inch long cut of the skin adjacent to the distal knuckle. It involved the skin only and it had a tangential cut. I would indicate that it was shelved, it didn't go in straight, was an oblique cut which would indicate a shelving or tangential cut." Have you reviewed those questions and answers, doctor?
Doctor, in your opinion did Dr. Golden make a mistake in that testimony regarding the location of that particular injury?
In essence did he repeat in his testimony the mistake that is in the typewritten portion of the protocol?
Doctor, I now want to invite your attention to a photograph that is designated B-9 on exhibit 355.
That is evidence of a blunt force injury to the right lower back and there also appears to be an evidence of a dress impression above it, below the right shoulder blade area.
Doctor, is this the other aspect of the back of Nicole Brown Simpson which was evaluated by doctors Vale and Anselmo and your criminalist, Mr. Dowell?
And discussed in their reports that we have seen and we will see again with respect to this area on the form 13's?
Doctor, I want to move first to this area. You said there is evidence of blunt force trauma seen in the photograph; is that correct?
And with the pointer you are making a circle that is an area directly above the top horizontal portion of the measuring card and it is up approximately an inch and a half to two inches from that same area when you look at it on the photograph?
And keep your voice up, please, doctor. What are we looking at with respect to that blunt force trauma?
We are looking at an area of patchy contusion injury measuring about three and a half inches in the horizontal axis whereas on the photograph it is on the site-to-site measurement and two and a quarters inches in the vertical axis that would be in the photograph in our up/down configuration and it is mottled and patchy.
That means there are areas of skin which does not show contusion and there is areas of skin which show the contusion.
Because it is--even though it is evidence of a blunt force injury and that would indicate that the blunt force which caused the injury had an uneven surface.
If you remember the scalp contusion that we discussed yesterday on the right side of the head, there was one rounded contusion and here this--in this particular contusion, (Indicating), it is not continuous contusion. There is areas of interruption and that would favor being an irregular surfaced object which caused this blunt force injury which resulted in this bruising of the right lower back.
What source or sources could be the responsible agent for that kind of blunt force trauma as we see it in this photograph, B-9?
She had the dress in between the injury and on the skin surface and the force which caused the injury, so naturally the dress would be an intermediate object which would prevent getting a specific pattern. There is no specific pattern. One example could be an uneven--I mean, a shod foot like a sole of a foot could do it or even a fist with--but with a fist you need more--several impacts.
Let's back up for one second. The dress that Nicole Brown Simpson was wearing, as seen in the crime scene photographs, was covering the area of the body that is shown in the photograph B-9 with this mottled contusion?
And let's see if we can do this. For the record, your Honor, I've pulled our exhibit 355 out just enough so we can still see the photograph B-9 and I have covered the rest with our exhibit 354.
You have, as I told you, the impression of a dress in the lower right back below the shoulder blade area, and if you look at crime scene photograph 12 you can see that that area corresponds to the upper margin of this dress in the back portion of the dress, so this area of bruising is below that dress line in this region here, (Indicating). So this is what I meant by that the dress was interposed between the blunt force which caused that injury and the skin surface, so it does not allow you to be specific about a pattern, because a dress would be an interfering kind of object between the blunt force and the skin.
Doctor, you indicated that one possible source for that appearance of a mottled contusion would be the sole of a foot or a shoe I think you said?
How would that--assuming hypothetically, that is the source, how can that create that kind of appearing contusion?
The shoe has a rubber sole with irregular surface because you can have different patterns to the sole of the shoe, like a waffle pattern, which is one of the common patterns you see on a shoe's undersurface. What will happen is if somebody causes blunt force injury with a shod foot to the back, the protrusions of the undersurface of the shoe could leave marks like this, it could, but you cannot really specify that it is the shoe. It would be difficult.
And so as a forensic pathologist, in talking about a possible sole of a shoe as a source, you are not attempting to specify any specific shoe in this case; is that accurate?
Now, doctor, how is it, assuming it is a shoe, that the contusion can be created? What are the forces at play that result in this kind of mottled appearance?
Umm, what happens is when you get forcible compression of the soft tissues of the--I'm just giving the same possible sources. I'm not saying that is the source. Let's just take that as an example.
Hypothetically. Because of the uneven surface of the shoe, because of the waffle pattern, you have ridges and grooves in the shoe's surface, so what will happen is when you get compression of the body by such a surface, the skin will get pinched between the--into the areas where there are grooves, or not grooves--in a waffle pattern it would be the depressions--and that would result in the bruising of those areas which was affected by that part of the shoe. And you may have areas which don't have the bruising because of the raised part of the shoe.
"Compression" means the soft tissues are compressed against--by the force of the shoe. Underlying this you have the lower rib cage and it is actually below the rib cage and the soft tissues there.
Your Honor, there would be an objection. Motion to strike that testimony as being purely speculative and not based on any special knowledge. The doctor has admitted he doesn't possess--
You may answer the question, doctor. I'm not sure there was a question. I believe I was starting it.
Doctor, hypothetically speaking that the source for that blunt force trauma is a shoe, how in your opinion, can that compression take place? What does the shoe have to be doing in order to create the compression that leaves this kind of mottled appearance?
It could be a kick, it could be continuous compression of the body, like standing on a person.
KEY QUOTENaturally it would be one shoe, one shod foot on the body and one shod foot on the ground.
All right. Assuming that situation of one foot wearing a shoe on the body, does the person whose foot it is have to place the person's weight--transfer the person's weight to the leg and down to the foot and down to the shoe so that weight is being applied to the back, hypothetically, of Nicole Brown Simpson?
How long a process does that require in order for you as a forensic pathologist to expect to see the by-product of that compression?
It is basically just like any other means. I mean, you get crushing of tissues, the vessels get crushed, and you get leakage of blood, and as long the pressure is strong enough to cause that bleeding, you will see a bruising.
In your opinion, doctor, is this bruising bruising which was received before the death of Nicole Brown Simpson?
Do you have an opinion as to a minimum amount of time between the cause for that blunt force trauma and the actual stoppage of the heart action for Nicole Brown Simpson?
You need blood pressure. So as long as there was blood pressure you would have the bruise, so it could be a few minutes before the final loss of blood pressure.
As I asked you before, what in your opinion would be a minimum amount of time that Nicole Brown Simpson's heart must have beaten between the time whatever source created that blunt force trauma was applied and the time when she died?
The bleeding would start immediately after the blunt force trauma, so if--let's say this blunt force trauma took place a minute before death, you could see it a minute before death.
And doctor, does the rapidity with which the appearance of the blunt force trauma will be seen depend in any way on the force that is being applied?
There are two factors when you come to the back portion of the body where there is more deeper tissues. The force will become a factor. You will see it immediately after the force. Sometimes the force may not cause the injury to the superficial tissues, it will show the injury more to the deeper tissues and that may not be seen right away, but we will--for that you need the person to live longer so that you can see the bruising on the surface.
Doctor, does--is one component of the concept of force something known as mass, m-a-s-s?
And so basically if we assume hypothetically that the source is a person with a shod foot, would it be an accurate statement of a concept of physics that the greater the weight of the person, the greater the force that is being applied?
And as a factor is it accurate to say that the more weight that is being applied, the more force that is generated?
Assuming, hypothetically, doctor, that the source is the shod foot of an individual who weighed 210 pounds, in your opinion, would that weight be sufficient top create the type of mottled contusion that is seen in photograph B-9?
KEY QUOTEIs this area of bruising diagrammed by Dr. Golden in any of the diagrams available?
Taken singularly or together do these mistakes affect or have any significance on the big ticket issues like cause of death?
Whether a single six-inch long single-edged knife blade caused all the sharp force injuries?
Because this is a nonspecific blunt force injury. We discussed a hypothetical situation, because it has nothing to do with the cause of death. It happened when the person was alive. It is an injury and it doesn't affect the big ticket issues you just discussed.
Doctor, give us, if you can, any other examples of possible sources for that type of mottled contusion?
As I said, it could be a repetitive blunt force from a fist, closed fist, and you could get bruising, because there are multiple areas of bruising here, and by repeatedly hitting the area you could get bruising also of a similar nature.
Because you have raised that as a possible source, doctor, could you help me by taking the exhibit down, and could I ask Mr. Lynch to give me exhibit 352, please, the original set of photographs. And doctor, could you pull that down just a bit. You had mentioned, in looking at the contusion to the scalp, the right side of Nicole Brown Simpson, that one possible source was the rounded end of a knife; is that correct?
And also, let's see if we can do something similar by--again we are going to try and show both B-9, your Honor, from the one board and what is B-20. If the jurors will excuse my leaning over, I can't quite see--B-20 of board 352. A rounded end from the knife as one source, but you also mentioned it could be due to a fist; is that correct?
Now, doctor, if a fist had been used for either of these two types of injuries, blunt force trauma, would it necessarily follow that the person--let's assume it is the same person--that the person's fist would show evidence itself of injury?
Because the forces coming from the fist, which is in this--in this situation this skin is being compressed by the broad surface of the skull.
The bruising to the right side of the head, the--if it was from a fist, you have the underlying bone here, which is a larger surface, and you would get bruising when the right side of the head is struck because the skin and soft tissues are crushed between that and the fist force which is being applied.
Would you expect to see bruising to the part of the fist that comes in contact with the area of the scalp?
Because of the force involved you may or may not see the bruising to the person's hand, because you don't have the same underlying broad bony surface which you have underlying here for the tissues to be crushed.
Doctor, I want you to assume for the sake of argument that it was a human fist rather than a rounded or smooth edge end of a knife, but the fist was a hand wearing a glove so that it was a gloved fist rather than a closed bare fist. Would that have any impact--that is probably a poor choice of words--would that have any affect, in your opinion, on whether the fist itself would show evidence of having struck the head.
The glove would be a buffer for the hand or the fist which is causing the injury, so there will be less--less probability of the fist ever having any injury perceived on the skin's surface.
KEY QUOTEHow does the glove acting as a buffer prevent injury being seen to the fist that has come in contact with the area of the scalp where the contusion is seen in B-20?
Because you have the layers of the glove itself which act like a cushion to the skin's surface of the fist.
Doctor, would the same apply to this issue on B-9 if a fist had been used to be the source for that blunt force trauma?
Now, you said, as I recall your testimony a moment or so ago, that it would require more than one blow from a fist to create the mottled contusion that you see in B-9; is that correct?
Because of the multiple small contusions you have here, (Indicating), I would--my--and I would--because of the--you are talking about a closed fist. To have these multiple contusions I would expect for that to happen, more than one blow to have been struck on that area if it was a fist which caused that.
Would it be accurate to say that the smaller--that the largest area of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson which is going to have impact will be dictated by the largest area of the fist which comes in direct contact with that body?
So if it is a small area of the fist that comes in contact, the area that will show blunt force trauma will correspondingly be small?
A glancing blow is one where the--let's assume the fist was the--was being used to deliver the blow. The entire fist does not impact the area being struck, only a portion of the fist hits the area being struck, so that would be something like a glancing impact. And you will see that in--you can see that sometimes in the street fighting or boxing where the entire blow doesn't go to the person, just a small portion goes to the other person in the fight, because the head moves or the--or the person withdraws so the fist doesn't deliver the entire impact that it was intended to deliver.
Doctor, if a glancing blow is involved, can a glancing blow, nevertheless, leave evidence of blunt force trauma to the body where contact is in fact made?
If it is a glancing blow, does that have some affect on the probability that the fist itself will show evidence of having made such contact?
It may or may not show it, because as I told you earlier when I discussed the scalp contusion and also this area of injury, you may not see injury on the fist and it doesn't mean that it didn't cause the injury, but sometimes you do--you may see some bruising also.
If it is a glancing blow in the concept of the laws of physics, is the force that is being transmitted a lesser force than the force that is transmitted if the blow is a direct blow?
And if the force is less, does that affect the likelihood that the fist will show evidence of the blow?
That is correct also. The fist would show--I mean, there is less chance the fist will show injury.
And if the glove is over the fist when all of this is taking place, does that act as an additional basis as it is used as a cushion to lessen the likelihood that any evidence would be seen on the fist, that the fist had come in contact with the body of another person?
Doctor, is there anything else about the blunt force trauma in B-9 or the B-20 contusion area involving this possible source as a fist?
Now, doctor are there more sources that you consider a possibility other than a fist or a shod foot for the mottled contusion in B-9?
It could be multiple blunt force from the base of the knife as we discussed, the rounded part of the knife. Somebody was jabbing at the right lower back, that would be another source.
For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan, as he was saying those words, first with his left hand making multiple--
--sweeping motions, thank you, and with his right hand to a much lesser degree something similar on the right side.
Now, doctor, anything further about that area of mottled contusion before we discuss in a little more detail the other area that you described of your findings in B-9?
And we will go, when we complete the photo itself, back to the protocol and so forth. Tell us more about this dress impression.
This dress impression is located about two inches above this mottled bruising and it measures two and a quarters inches on the site-to-site axis of the photograph and it is a dress impression.
Is this something, in your opinion--withdraw the question. Are you able to determine from its appearance when in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson that impression was made?
Because there is no--it is--there is no reaction to this dress impression. It is just an impression of the skip, and I can't tell whether it happened before death or after death.
And is your inability to make that determination of any significance on any of the big ticket issues?
And this was another area that was evaluated by Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell; is that correct?
Singularly or all together are these mistakes of any significance on the issues we have already outlined many times?
For the same reasons that you gave with respect to the same failures concerning the mottled contusion?
Anything further before we go to the reports from Dr. Vale and Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowel?
Doctor, I'm sorry, you don't get to sit very long. Would you identify--again this is the first of the two odontology reports from the doctors, vale, Anselmo and your criminalist, Mr. Dowel; is that correct?
Can you identify for us, please, which portion of this first report deals with the dress impression area?
Photo d, mark on the right back inferior scapula and the paragraph corresponds to that.
Your Honor, I'm going to outline in blue the area just identified by Dr. Lakshmanan and I will write "B-9" and I will write "Dress impression" in the left hand margin.
Doctor, there is an area immediately below that that I have just outlined dealing with a lower back contused area. Is that area different than the area we were just looking at in B-9?
And what else, if anything, on this first page of the September 9, 1994, report, refers to the mottled contused area that we saw in B-9?
With the red marker I will outline that paragraph and to the right I will write "B-9 contused area."
Doctor, there appears to be another paragraph immediately under the one I have just outlined. Does that refer to something that we have not discussed yet?
All right. Is there anything further on this first page of the September 9, 1994, report, that deals with anything seen in photograph B-9?
By the way, doctor, the study based upon a review of the material listed, something called "Duplicate at scenes" appear to be Polaroids. Were these in fact two Polaroid pictures taken by Claudine Ratcliffe of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson at the scene?
And you indicated, I think when you were first testifying, that would be standard procedure for the investigator to do?
Is there anything on page 2 of this odontology report that refers to photograph B-9's contused area or dress impression?
Yes. He requested that we obtain the clothing so he could look at it and he also requested one-as-to-one photographs which was provided.
And for the same reason that you have already described with respect to the u-shaped abrasion, I think it was in photograph B-11?
Is there an entry in this report from Drs. Vale, Anselmo and Mr. Dowell concerning the findings in the areas that we have been talking about in photograph B-9?
It is the first paragraph after the heading "Conclusions" which refers to the dress impression.
Doctor, would you please, for the record, read what the conclusion is as indicated in this one paragraph which I am outlining in blue and writing "B-9"--"B-9" on the outside right margin of the page?
"Regarding the injury on the right back inferior to scapula, we conclude that the markings in the area were clearly made by the slide fastener, hook and adjacent portions of the decedent's dress. The at-scene photographs show the back of the dress"--
Doctor, let me interrupt you. You must read as the words appear there. I think you used the word "Photographs" and the word appears to be "Photos."
Yes. "The at-scene photos show the back of the dress twisted to the right side. There is an excellent match between the a-shaped marking and the tab or the handle of the slide fastener. Also, the hook corresponds well to the position and shape of corresponding marks on the skin. Significant areas of the dress are photographed. Also, there appears to be a pattern similar to the pattern of the tape or fabric adjacent to the slide fastener (zipper). We think the mark was likely made postmortem or recent antemortem, since the dress was off center."
I think you added a couple of the's doctor but, other than that, is that an accurate representation of the contents of that paragraph?
Took them into consideration in forming any opinion regarding what we were actually seeing in the photograph B-9?
Do you disagree in any way with the conclusions expressed in this report from doctors vale, Anselmo and Mr. Dowel?
Doctor, I believe we have two photographs still left to discuss on this exhibit 355. One is in the middle row at the far right which appears to be B-28 and one which appears at the top left B-5?
Can you see if we can discuss these together and then see whatever we need to see in the way of protocols, diagram and the addenda. Why don't we start with B-5, the upper left corner photograph. What are we looking at in that, doctor?
The photograph shows the upper back of Miss Simpson and you can see an abrasion over the left shoulder blade area.
The abrasion that you see, do you have an opinion as to when it was received in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson?
Does this abrasion play any significant role in the cause of Nicole Brown Simpson's death?
It is a nonspecific blunt force injury. It could have been from a contact from a rough surface. I can't say a particular source.
And are you able to say in any fashion the mechanism that such contact with a rough surface occurred?
It could have been an impact to a rough surface or a rough surface just rubbing against that area.
Doctor, did Dr. Golden describe this particular abrasion in his autopsy protocol?
Is there anything further that you wish to bring to our attention regarding that particular antemortem abrasion?
Let's move then to the photograph B-28. What are we looking at in that photograph, doctor?
You are looking at the lower right arm and right forearm. You can see the whole right forearm, (Indicating), and the elbow region of Miss Brown Simpson, the back of the elbow region, and you see an abrasion there.
Are you able to determine when in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson that abrasion was received?
In essence would your answers regarding how that abrasion may have been obtained be the same as your answers just given on the abrasion in photograph B-5?
Would you describe his failure to have a description in the protocol and to have a diagram--a diagrammatic representation of that abrasion in one of the diagram forms available, each to be mistakes by Dr. Golden?
Singularly or collectively, do those mistakes have any significance on any of the big ticket issues?
Yes. You can see the forearm and there seems to be no injuries observed on the back of the right forearm also.
What is the significance, if any, of the absence of any apparent injuries in that area?
The same reason I gave for the paucity of Defense wounds. The forearm area would be one area where the person would use to ward off any attack and the absence of injuries would indicate also rapid incapacitation or not having the capability to resist.
Perhaps we will take the photo board down and finish up with the protocols on these two photographs.
Doctor, where in the protocol is there a reference to the abrasion that you described in photograph B-5?
In the paragraph 1 it is on line 8. It starts saying: "An abrasion over the left scapula measures 3/4 of an inch by half an inch and is reddish brown in color and appears antemortem."
While I hand Mr. Lynch our board 2B, I will outline in blue that entry on page 3 and I will write on the right side "B-5."
Doctor, is the description given here by Dr. Golden, in your opinion, an accurate description?
Now, on the diagram form 20, there is an entry by Dr. Golden regarding that same abrasion?
It is on the right back view diagram. It is here, (Indicating), and he has given the measuring here, "3/4 inch by half an inch scapula abrasion antemortem" and here he says, "Antemortem red brown" and all of this would apply to the injuries seen in B-5.
With the red marker I will circle that area, doctor, on the form upper right quadrant and I will write "B-5." I don't know if we need to move this. I think this was the easel that was not clearly visible. I don't know if there is any problem.
Doctor, as long we have there form up, I want to invite your attention to the other side of the diagram which appears to show the outline of the human body looking at the front of the body, and what appears to be some kind of circle and a line going down beyond the right hand area. Are you familiar with what is shown in that part of the diagram?
That is a notation by Dr. Golden to indicate the postmortem liver temperature puncture done by our investigator.
I think you briefly alluded to this on Friday, that a liver temperature would be taken. I think you indicated, they were 82 degrees in the case of both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Is that an accurate recitation?
This particular entry then is to reflect what is left after the device used to make that measurement is removed from the body?
Now, you indicated, doctor, that there was an entry in the addendum to refer to the B-28 abrasion; is that correct?
Doctor, where on the addendum do you find some reference to that abrasion from B-28?
No. 3 item on page 1 it says: "There is a 5/8 inch by quarter inch abrasion of the lateral aspect of the dorsal aspect of the right elbow, the bottom side irregular."
Half an inch is 8-BY-16 and my measurement is 11-BY-16, which is 3/16 inch long.
Maybe I don't need the stipulation, but I will accept it anyway. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.
Is that difference in measurement, in your opinion, something that can be due to the limitations of human eyes examining the same photographs?
Is there any significance as to that difference on any issue that you have reviewed?
Thank you, your Honor. 10B, and if Mr. Lynch could turn that to--no, I'm sorry, flip the page to what will be a page after--after the second odontology report. Two more pages to be flipped, I believe, Mr. Lynch.
Doctor, I think you may be able to remain seated--I'm not sure if you can see it on--doctor, are you familiar--this is a form that is entitled "Radiology consult." Are you familiar with this particular form?
This is a same form but used by different consultants. This is a radiology consultant report on the case.
It is a report of the x-ray appearance of the spine specimen removed during autopsy from Nicole Brown Simpson by Dr. Golden.
Doctor, I want to invite your attention back to photograph B-16 which you have previously testified about. Does this area depict something that relates to what this report, Dr. Boger's report, is talking about?
Yes. This photograph B-16 as, I discussed yesterday, shows the cervical spine injury, C-3 spine injury related to this large incise/stab wound to the neck, and you can see it here, I'm pointing to it. And this portion of the spine was dissected and saved during the autopsy process, so that spine was examined by x-ray at a later stage and Dr. Boger did that examination of the x-rays on November 14, `94. A report was generated.
And is he basically operating in the same fashion that Dr. Vale operates for the Coroner's office when Dr. Vale is practicing forensic odontology?
So this is a report that is kept in the ordinary course of your official business?
And Dr. Boger is expected to make this report at or near the time of the events which he is describing in the report?
He indicates that: "There is no visible metallic or other radiopaque foreign body present within the specimen."
Doctor, if the knife which in your opinion caused this fatal major stab/incise wound had broken in any fashion, the tip or any portion of the knife had broken on contact with the third cervical spine, would you have expected a finding such as made by Dr. Boger?
If it had been broken and the tip was left in the spine, it will usually be stuck to the bone and you would see it if it was broken during that process.
KEY QUOTEAnd doctor, in your opinion this was the last sharp force injury received by Nicole Brown Simpson?
You have pointed out, from looking at this board, that she received three sharp force injuries to her head area; is that correct?
Doctor, if there had been any breaking of the tip of the knife or portion of the knife blade in inflicting one or all of those sharp force injuries, would you expect the appearance of the stab wound/incise wound that is seen in B-16 and B-13 and the left side of it in B-18 to appear as it does?
Because if the tip is broken, I would expect to see some kind of more irregularity to the margins than what we see in this stab wound/incise wound.
Does that serve--the absence of that serve as some basis--do you want to add something? The doctor is holding up a finger. You must want to add something.
Also the internal structures were examined, the spine, the epiglottis, the spine. It looked like a clean cut and it was studied by our criminalist.
And in looking at this tissue that had been removed, what was the significance to you of the findings as to how the cutting had been done?
It was a clean cut and that is why I opined yesterday that it was a major single incise stab wound which caused this massive injury to the neck. And I do not think a broken knife could have caused such a clean injury all the way without any evidence of some kind of irregularity to the skin surface and also the deeper part.
And you also indicated that you asked your criminalist, Mr. Dowel, is it, to look at this material?
Now, doctor, you testified perhaps Tuesday that no x-rays were taken of any areas other than the third cervical spine area; is that correct?
Yes, and that, too, the cervical spine x-ray was only taken after the specimen was removed from the body. It was not taken when the portions of the bone were in-situ.
Doctor, given the finding by Dr. Boger of no visible metallic or other radiographic foreign body in the sample or specimen x-ray, given your findings from reviewing the appearance of this major stab/incise wound in the three photographs, 13, 16 and 18, given your findings from your independent review of the tissue which was removed by Dr. Golden and later examined by you, do you have an opinion as to whether the knife that was used to kill Nicole Brown Simpson broke in any fashion in the body, including the skull or any other part of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, in the course of the lethal assault?
Basically because my opinion is this is the last wound and I said that, and also the appearance of the other stab wound to the left side of the neck, they all have uniform configuration which you would only--you would get when you have a knife which is intact with an intact tip, so there are other injuries which will support that opinion.
Doctor, assuming, hypothetically, that the killer using this single-edged knife that you have described in general dimensions inflicted this last incise/stab wound to Nicole Brown Simpson after she had been incapacitated as you previously testified and after the murderer or killer moved away from Nicole Brown Simpson and murdered or killed Ronald Goldman and then came back to inflict this last fatal stab/incise wound, would you expect then that Mr. Goldman's autopsy findings would not show any evidence of a broken knife?
My answer would be that the knife would have been intact when Goldman's injuries were inflicted.
And if the knife were intact when Mr. Goldman's injuries were inflicted would you expect to see any evidence of a broken knife in any portion of his body at autopsy?
We would have expected to see a broken knife if it had hit any skeletal structures. His wounds did fracture--we will go into it, I'm sure--did fracture one skeletal structure, did hit, was the right seventh rib in one of the stab wounds to the chest--let me just recall--and he had two, three small cuts to the head. Other than that, there was no other bony structure I recall at this time which that knife--the knife which caused those injuries would have struck. And given your hypothetical, that this last wound on Miss Simpson occurred after the Goldman--Mr. Goldman was killed, I would have to opine that based on the features of this large incise stab wound the knife was not broken.
Your Honor, I have a couple of more brief reports. I don't know what the Court wants to do.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. all right. Doctor, you may step down.
It could be a kick, it could be continuous compression of the body, like standing on a person.
Assuming, hypothetically, doctor, that the source is the shod foot of an individual who weighed 210 pounds, in your opinion, would that weight be sufficient to create the type of mottled contusion that is seen in photograph B-9?
The glove would be a buffer for the hand or the fist which is causing the injury, so there will be less — less probability of the fist ever having any injury perceived on the skin's surface.
The absence of injuries would indicate also rapid incapacitation or not having the capability to resist.
If it had been broken and the tip was left in the spine, it will usually be stuck to the bone and you would see it if it was broken during that process.