Thank you, your Honor. And good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The jury: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
Doctor, I believe we are going to go back to the photo, back to People's exhibit 355, to finish up some photographs of the hand and other areas of Nicole Brown Simpson, so again with the Court's permission, if we can--
And for the record, your Honor, we did correct the entry on photograph B-23 of exhibit 352 to reflect that it is the right rather than the left side of the head.
And, your Honor, we also corrected exhibit 354, I believe it is the crime scene board, to show that the photographs were taken on June 13, 1994, rather than `95, as originally depicted.
I believe, doctor, we were talking yesterday about B-31 and B-12 with respect to the palm side of the right hand; is that correct?
And doctor, was there anything further that you needed to discuss with respect to any findings with respect to the palm surface of the right hand?
Doctor, is there any photograph on this board, exhibit 355, showing the back of the right hand?
Doctor, would you normally expect, at the time of the June 14th, 1994, photography process, that a photograph similar in nature to the photograph B-29, showing the back of the left hand, would have been taken of the back of the right hand?
Are you able, from your examination of photograph B-1, to see anything of significance with respect to the back of the right hand?
There is some blood staining, but one can also see a small abrasion on the right index finger which has been addressed in the report.
Just to set the correct sequence of events, the photograph B-1 was taken on June 14th?
And is this one of the first photographs that would have been taken in the course of the autopsy process?
Because this is the--the decedent is clothed and this is the first paragraph we take in the Coroner's office.
Doctor, does this photograph represent fairly and accurately the condition of Nicole Brown Simpson as you saw her initially on June 13th, the day earlier?
Because I saw her when she was lying on her back on the gurney when she was brought to the office. Right now she has been propped up on her side.
Doctor, even though I think you have a wireless microphone provided by the Court, you may be dropping your voice and it is still I think somewhat difficult to hear you.
Otherwise it is the same person and the dress is--the clothing is the same which I saw on June 13th.
On June 13th did you examine the back of the right hand to see whether or not there were any injuries, wounds or matters of consequence to you as a forensic pathologist?
I didn't do a detailed examination of the body. I only saw the major wound which is the neck which has been discussed, and my purpose was to just to get an idea about the two decedents who are brought to our office and also assign the criminalist to examine the remains and assign a medical examiner. I didn't examine in detail.
Doctor, the abrasion that you identify on the back of the right hand, again its located as seen in photograph B-1?
Doctor, if you will remember to wait until I finish my question, I will try and remember to wait until you finish your answer, and I have a feeling the court reporter will be very happy with both of us.
When you say "Base," could you point on your own, showing it to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the area that you see in that photograph.
Now, doctor, that abrasion, are you able to tell from an examination of the photograph as to whether it was received before, at or around the time of or after death?
By the way, you had a magnifying glass I think over the last couple of days that you have pulled out. Is a magnifying glass one of the tools of the trade of a forensic pathologist?
When you examine wounds, when you examine photographs, it is sometimes--not sometimes--it is a good habit to look at the wounds carefully. This way you see any minor--any minor irregularities on wound margins, and also if the wound is small, it helps you to understand the features better.
Doctor, from what you observed in that abrasion on photograph B-1, do you have any opinion as to the manner in which that abrasion was received by Nicole Brown Simpson?
Well, it is a blunt force injury. It doesn't have any pattern, it doesn't have any specifics to it. It could occur in the same manner the abrasions to the left hand happened, contact with any rough surface.
Doctor, does that abrasion play any consequence in any of the big picture questions that you have been asked to evaluate and about which you have testified to during the course of your presentation here?
Doctor, as long as we are on this photograph B-1--in fact, before I move to that other area, did Dr. Golden address that abrasion in any way in his original protocol?
Doctor, is there any--anything that you observed of significance between the description in the protocol and the diagram and the photograph showing the actual abrasion B-1?
The diagram accurately reflects the injury, but the description, it was erroneously described as ring finger.
Let me take the photo down and let's go and see the actual protocol and diagram. I don't think we are going to lean this up against here. This is one we have to move back, if we could ask counsel and the doctors to switch places with us.
Doctor, where in the protocol is there any reference to that particular abrasion on the index finger on the back of the right hand?
And that is a two-line paragraph and it talks about the dorsal surface. From our discussion, I guess on Tuesday, "Dorsal" is another word for the back of the right hand?
And for the record, your Honor, with a red pen or marker I will outline that two-line paragraph and on the right margin I will write "B-1."
Doctor, is that an accurate description of the location of the abrasion that you also identified in the photograph B-1?
And what I will do for the record then, your Honor, is with the blue marker I will circle the words "Ring finger" on the second line of the paragraph that is already circled in red on page 7 of the form 12.
Doctor, inviting your attention then to the board with the 23 form, do you see any entry there that goes along with the abrasion you identified from the photograph?
Yes. On the right upper quadrant in the back of the right hand you can see the abrasion to the right index finger.
And where the doctor has circled in the schematic in the upper right quadrant of this form, I have circled it in red and with a line going to the side I will write "B-1"?
Is that an accurate description from your observation of the blunt force trauma abrasion on the index finger as seen in photograph B-1?
Doctor, would you describe it as a mistake for Dr. Golden's autopsy report to reflect the ring finger as having this 1/16 inch punctate abrasion?
It is a mistake in his dictation, but in his documentation it is not a mistake because it has documented it properly.
KEY QUOTEThe mistake in the dictation, is that of any significance on any of these big ticket questions?
Incidentally, doctor, was there seen by you in the photograph any abrasion to the back of the right hand at the base of the ring finger as Dr. Golden's protocol actually says?
And then I think we are done with these and we will go back to the photographs. I'm sorry, so we don't move counsel, there is something I can take care of while we have these. You will excuse me just one second, doctor.
Doctor, I just wanted to briefly return to the entry that reflected B-24 and B-23, the sharp force injury that was to the head area of Nicole Brown Simpson, referring to the one that is seen in both of those photographs, B-24, B-23. Do you recall that?
And you recall testifying that there had been an addendum addition made to reflect that Dr. Golden had described it in the diagram in one fashion?
And the addendum then corrected it to reflect what the diagram actually showed; is that correct?
Doctor, did you review testimony given by Dr. Golden at a preliminary hearing in this case in which he was asked questions about the dimensions of that particular injury?
And inviting Court and counsel, if you all want to crowd around, I have it here, to page 70 of the preliminary hearing transcript, beginning at line 7 and going through line 18.
Doctor, did you review the following testimony: "Question: Now, Dr. Golden, there were two other wounds you observed with regard to Nicole Brown Simpson's scalp; is that correct? "Answer: Yes. There was a cutting wound or stab wound superficially right in the posterior parietal. In other words, lower down here on the right side of the lower scalp. This was a one and one-half inch in length superficial wound only going in 3/8 inch to one and one-half inches, a non-fatal wound, and there was a small amount of hemorrhage associated again that occurred before death. It was an antemortem injury." Doctor, did you review that testimony?
He used the same information which was on the protocol when he gave the testimony.
And you have testified yesterday those dimensions were not the actual dimensions; is that correct?
And I believe you then testified that the addendum report contains the actual correct dimensions with the change?
Now, does this mistake in Dr. Golden's testimony affect in any way your ability to answer any of the big ticket questions that you've reviewed?
One last question about the back of the right hand as shown in B-1. Doctor, is there any significance to you in the fact that you observed only one 1/16 inch punctate abrasion at the base of the index finger in the area of the back of the right hand?
The same reason I gave yesterday, that there seems to be a paucity of Defense wounds in the hands of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson which would again support my opinion that she was rapidly incapacitated or incapable of resistance when she was assaulted.
Now, doctor, I want to take your attention back to June 13th, the first day that you saw the body of Nicole Brown Simpson. Were you present for a discussion about whether or not something called a sexual assault kit should be taken in this particular case?
I didn't play a part in the discussion, but we didn't take a sexual assault kit.
Did you in fact give a concurrence to the determination not to take a sexual assault kit?
Doctor, why did you not--first of all, let's define what is a sexual assault kit?
A sexual assault kit is the process by which you gain evidence from the genital area, oral area, rectal area, to document that there is any evidence of sexual assault which would indicate--you basically look for evidence of seminal material in these areas. Also look for evidence of injuries which could have been from a sexual act which resulted in injuries.
Why did you not feel that it was appropriate or necessary to take a sexual assault kit in the case of Nicole Brown Simpson?
The panties. They were not in disarray. There were no evidence of any injuries to the thighs, which I could see, and basically the appearance did not indicate a necessity to do a sexual assault kit and I did call our criminalist and he also did not feel it was necessary to do, to take a sexual assault kit, because they didn't take any. And later during the autopsy Dr. Golden also did not see any injuries to the genital area and there was no indication for taking a sexual assault kit.
Sustained. That answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard that portion of the answer regarding what Dr. Golden said or saw.
Did Dr. Golden include in the autopsy protocol, the form 12, any material regarding an examination of the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
And we will look at it as to the specifics, but if you could summarize what that information was, please tell us.
Now, doctor, did you examine the panties for any evidence of tearing, cutting, anything whatsoever that would appear, other than the normal appearance of a pair of women's panties?
I examined--as I mentioned earlier, I had an opportunity to see the panties first in this appearance when it was on Miss Simpson and later on June 22nd when the evidence was viewed with the Defense pathologist, Dr. Wolf and Dr. Baden, who are here, and at that time ultraviolet light was also used, the panty was carefully examined. There was no evidence of any fluorescence which would indicate a seminal stain. There was a fluorescence from frayed material and that--and also there was no visible tears which could be seen, so basically the panty appeared intact except for some fraying and the fluorescence was not as we could seen from seminal stains.
Fraying from fibers in the material because of wear and tear. You get some fibers of wear and tear and these fibers flourescence because of the material from which the panties are made from.
Doctor, in your experience as a forensic pathologist can you estimate for us how many cases of rape/murder you have seen?
A significant number of cases. Either I have seen them during my autopsies, I have done several dozen strangulation cases myself, plus I have supervised cases.
And when you say "Supervised," can you estimate approximately how many homicide cases were handled by your office last year that included evidence of the victim being sexually assaulted?
I don't have the numbers off the top of my head. I have to get the numbers for you.
Doctor, in your experience have you ever seen a situation where a woman was raped by the murderer, and to rape the woman her panties would have had to be removed so the penis could be inserted in the vagina and ejaculation could occur, and then before the murderer committed the murder the panties were put back on the victim and put back on in the appropriate position with no evidence of tearing or any disarray as you've described was the condition of Nicole Brown Simpson's panties?
I have not seen any cases like that. The cases where the clothing has been put back on, they are--at least the cases I have seen they have been put back on improperly and there is always evidence of--evidence of assault which you can see.
KEY QUOTEYou will see blood staining and you will--because of the trauma involved and also the zipper--the pant would have been put back in a wrong fashion, the zipper in the back instead of being in the front, the panty could have been put back on upside down. So what I'm saying is I have not seen a case where the assault has taken place, the person has been murdered and where the clothing is in the condition where we see Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's clothing to have been when we see these photographs.
Would your answer be the same if the sexual assault were changed from one of rape involving penetration of the vaginal area to one of sodomy for penetration of the anal area?
Well, the same--actually in sodomy you would expect to see definite injuries because you will see evidence of anal lacerations which were not described. There was no--you will find evidence of bleeding and that is also not seen.
Doctor, in your opinion is there any basis, from all of the material you have reviewed in this case, now taking you beyond June 13th and to today's date, which would cause you to have changed your opinion that it would have been appropriate to have taken a sexual assault kit in this case?
Doctor, is there a manual that is put out by your office to be used by your investigators called a "Physical evidence policy and procedures manual."
And basically is the last manual, full manual that was published, published in August of 1987?
Who is--if there is one or if there are more, who are the authors of this manual?
The procedures for physical evidence collection started somewhere in the early eighties and I think the manual was compiled by one of our senior criminalists at that time under the direction of the chief of laboratories at that time. And I think the manual came in place sometime in `88 I think, in `88--`87 or `88, the first date--it was--
Doctor, I want to invite your attention--I can show Court and counsel--to page 8.1--I shouldn't have given the manual over to you, doctor. I lost my place. Hang on one second if you would, please.
8.13.1 on a page starting with the heading "Sexual assault evidence." Is this in fact what your manual indicates is to be a process or procedure followed in your office under "Definition: Evidence collected in the genitals, body orifices and other body surfaces for the purpose of determining if a sexual act may have occurred and who may have participated in that act," then a heading called "Collection, packaging and submission guidelines": "Evaluation for sexual assault evidence shall be made whenever the investigation indicates that a sexual act, whether non-consensual or consensual, may have occurred in association with a death by other than natural causes, whenever identification of the last sexual partner may be of value to the investigation, whenever elimination of sexual activity may be of value to the investigation or when a person involved in the investigation requests that such evaluation be made.
"It shall be the responsibility of the assigned Coroner's investigator and supervising investigator on duty to determine when sexual assault evidence evaluation is required and to notify the criminalistics laboratory staff as soon as possible. The assigned Deputy Medical Examiner may also request sexual assault evidence evaluation if the need has not been previously recognized.
"The body shall not be processed in any manner that might alter or destroy the sexual assault evidence until examined and released by the assigned criminalist. If the decedent has died in a hospital and the hospital or police record indicate that sexual assault evidence was collected antemortem, a criminalist shall be requested to verify the collection and determine if additional evidence collection is indicated.
"Evaluation for and collection of sexual assault evidence shall be made by a Coroner's criminalist. The assigned criminalist shall determine what evidence to collect based upon evaluation of the reported circumstances, the decedent's sex and body condition and personal observations. The prepared evidence kit materials shall be used for sexual assault evidence collection whenever feasible." And then it goes on as to the forms to be filled out and the processing. Is that correct, doctor?
Did you, in your opinion, follow that procedure in making a determination that a sexual assault kit was not needed in this particular case?
Doctor, in your opinion does a sexual assault kit assist you, as a forensic pathologist, in establishing a range for time of death that would be between nine o'clock in the evening and 12:13 in the morning, nine o'clock June 12th, 1994, and 12:13 in the morning, June 13th, 1994, when Officer Riske first found the bodies?
Because just by finding evidence of seminal material or sperms it doesn't necessarily mean that they died between that time.
In fact, is it a matter that is handled in a standard forensic pathology text regarding aging of death based upon the presence of something called motile sperm?
When you get the vaginal aspirate you look under the microscope to see whether there is motility to the sperms because sperm are motile.
"Motility" means the sperm will be able to move around, even--are able to move around and that is how after an intercourse takes place the sperm are able to reach the fallopian tubes and fertilize the ova, so that is a normal process which the sperms are capable of physiologically.
And even after a person dies, if you take a sample from the vaginal area and you are looking for sperm, you can microscopically see sperm moving around?
What, if any, significance does the presence of moving term have on the issue of when the ejaculation occurred?
It would--you can see motile sperms, the average is less than--up to four hours, but people have seen motile sperms up to sixty hours, but generally the average is four hours.
I'm sorry. If an ejaculation, four hours before death and a sample taken after death, you may still see motile sperm on average?
No. The motility of the sperm is for four hours and that could go on up to sixty hours and so it has nothing to do with the death process itself. It is the sperm itself. It is a different--
I understand, but if we put in context of a person dies sometime after there has been ejaculation and you are looking at a slide to look for moving sperm, would it be accurate to say that if you see moving sperm it means that on average that sperm could have been placed inside the vaginal tract as much as four hours before death?
That could be one conclusion, depending on that the sample being collected immediately after death and you see motile sperms, then that could be one conclusion. But I said there is variability to this and it can go on up to sixty hours they are seeing motile sperms.
So if you were trying to evaluate whether Nicole Brown Simpson died between 10:15 in the evening on June 12th and eleven o'clock in the evening on June 12th, would the presence--just assuming hypothetically there had ever been motile sperm collected and seen--would the presence of motile sperm have permitted you to make that evaluation?
No, you cannot estimate a time of death from that, especially for such a narrow time frame, and even if it is not a narrow time frame I would not estimate a time of death from presence of sperms because you have so much variability in it.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, is there another aspect of seminal fluid which may have some value in giving a range for when the ejaculation occurred versus when the sample was obtained?
Yes. There is another test which you can do chemically, it is for acid phosphatase, it is an enzyme which is present in your prostatic secretions, and then you ejaculate. Prostatic secretions are mixed with your ejaculation, and if you calculate the amount of acid phosphatase and they are measured in what is called Bodansky, B-O-D-A-N-S-K-Y, units, and if you have a level between 10 and 30, it would indicate that the intercourse took place before--shortly before the specimen was collected.
That is not defined because you can find up to several hours, but usually you don't find it more than 10 to 24 hours after that. I mean, you don't get a high level. You need to get a level of 10 to 30.
Are there values actually given in a forensic pathology text, such as a Spitz and Fisher edition that we used with a couple of photographs earlier in your testimony?
Up to--it favors that the intercourse took place just before you--you obtained the specimens.
By the way, doctor, if there is motile sperm, is there something that is non-moving sperm that can be seen?
Yes, because what happens is the motility is due to the tail of the sperm and you can lose the tail after certain time and you only see the heads of the sperms, and that you can see for a longer time because they can be there in the vaginal area.
Doctor, what is the time frame during which you can see the presence of non-moving sperm, that is, time of ejaculation to time of sample collection?
The--the non-moving sperm depend on the state of decomposition of the body. If the body is not decomposed, they have found sperms in frozen bodies even after a week. It depends on whether the decomposition is postmortem deterioration of the body. If that take place also, these tissues can deteriorate.
Has that material been relied upon in any way by you in forming opinions regarding the time frame regarding the acid phosphatase determination?
And I don't know if you want to take a look. Does this refresh your memory with respect to any specific--
It says: "Values ranging from 10 to 30 Bodansky units suggest rape occurred shortly before death rather than intercourse five to ten hours earlier."
And is there any literature of which you are aware which is a scientific study of the relationship between Bodansky units of acid phosphatase levels and confirmed times between ejaculation and time of death and sample collection?
Doctor, taking all this into account, in your opinion would a sexual assault kit from Nicole Brown Simpson have been of any value to you as a forensic pathologist in either identifying the killer or killers of Nicole Brown Simpson?
Because--just because there was evidence of--let's assume there was consensual sexual intercourse because we don't have evidence of assault here, even then it doesn't mean that person is the--is the person who did these murders. Now, coming to time of death, I have already mentioned that there is--this time ranges. When we discussed for the sperm and acid phosphatase, you cannot estimate a time of death from that.
And doctor, have you taken into account in any way nonmedical observations such as evidence that may have been presented in this case regarding telephone records and telephone calls between Nicole Brown Simpson and persons such as her mother?
And with respect to subsequent contact between Nicole Brown Simpson and the Mezzaluna restaurant?
Doctor, is there anything of which you are aware which leads you to believe, from a forensic pathologist standpoint, that there was a sexual assault of this woman?
Now, is there anything further with respect to photograph B-1 that has not been covered?
There is also blood staining of the left side of the face which would go along with the blood loss from her neck wounds which I discussed earlier.
And that is all fully consistent with what you have seen in the crime scene photographs?
Doctor, let me invite your attention now back to a photo that you briefly used in conjunction with photograph B-31 and that is photograph B-12. Do you see that?
We are seeing four small abrasions arranged in the right shoulder region. Of course you are still seeing the cut wound which I described in the right ring finger. In addition, we have a small scar in the right posterior shoulder area. We also have a smaller abrasion, reddish brown in color, adjacent to the scar in the back of the shoulder, and I have the measurements.
The abrasion which is next to the scar here is 1/8 of an inch and the scar itself is 3/8 of an inch by 3/16 of an inch. This is all my measurement from the one-as-to-one photographs. The four pink brown abrasions on the shoulder range from quarter inch by 1/8 inch, half an inch by 1/8 inch, 1/8 inch and quarter inch by 1/16 inch, so those are the measurements and they are--have been described.
When you say they have been described, have all of the injuries that you have described now in B-12--we have already covered the aspect of the right hand--have all of these injuries been described by Dr. Golden in his original autopsy protocol?
We are going to get to the board to show that specifically, but is a term "Postmortem excoriation" of significance to you as a forensic pathologist?
Excoriations are the term which you can use for an abrasion. Basically the skin surface has been peeled off.
Because the--the appearance of the injury looks perimortem in the shoulder area, which is pinkish brown, and rather antemortem, and the one on the back of the shoulder blade is antemortem also.
Doctor, from the appearance of these abrasions, do you have an opinion as to the manner in which they were inflicted?
They are nonspecific blunt force injury. They don't have any pattern to them and they are not fatal.
Are they of any significance in your opinion as to any of the big ticket issues that you have reviewed in this case?
Can you determine how long Nicole Brown Simpson's heart was beating after she received those abrasions?
And is there any way to be definite with respect to that timing from what you see in the photograph B-12?
Before we move to the board, doctor, is there anything else seen in this photograph that you wish to discuss?
Doctor, first of all, can you tell us where in the protocol there is any entry reflecting any of these abrasions that you have described from photograph B-12?
(Indicating). Paragraph 1 line 4, "Examination of the posterior surface of the trunk."
Your Honor, where Dr. Lakshmanan has outlined with the pointer, I'm going to take a red marker and enclose that area and I will write at the side "B-12."
Doctor, excuse me. Dr. Golden has included the terms, "Compatible with ant to insect bites." As a forensic pathologist does the term "Excoriation" have some correlation with being caused by ant or insect bites?
Well, that is a term which is used to--by some physicians to describe if they do see ant and insect bites.
Doctor, in your opinion are those abrasions which you have described as antemortem, rather than postmortem as described by Dr. Golden on page 3, due to ant or insect bites?
Because the appearance have more reddish brown or pinkish brown in color which would indicate that they happened during life and I don't think they are postmortem excoriations.
Doctor, did you also examine, from the crime scene photographs, our board 355, the area of Nicole Brown Simpson's back which in the photograph B-12 contains these abrasions?
What did you examine that area of the back for with respect to this issue of ant or insect bites, if you did that examination?
I did the examination to see whether there was any ant activity on the body, no. 1. No. 2, also confirmed the appearance of the wound which was the same appearance as I see it in these photographs. You can see it in the right shoulder area very well.
Doctor, in your experience as a forensic pathologist, with respect to ant or insect bites, is it your experience that ants or insects operate individually?
And do you--do you expect to see, if there is a photograph at the crime scene of the body at a time when ants are inflicting this kind of postmortem excoriation, to see evidence of that?
Why don't we finish with the diagram and then we will get to the photograph by moving it out when we move the diagram down. This diagram form 20, does it contain any reference to this same aspect that is covered in page 3 or on page 3, the excoriations?
And there is some entry along the right side of what appear to be several diagonal lines?
Where you have outlined that, doctor, with your pointer, I will circle in red and write "B-12" on our board form 20.
Now, doctor in the photograph I belief you identified areas beyond what is shown in this diagram as an area of abrasions, antemortem abrasions; is that correct?
It is a small abrasion right here, (Indicating), in the shoulder blade area, which was not diagrammed.
When you say "Here," let me just circle that--is this the area, doctor, (Indicating)?
Now, doctor, no. 1, is this a mistake in your judgment for Dr. Golden to have determined that this was a postmortem excoriation or abrasion?
Is it a mistake to attribute the source of the abrasion or excoriation to ant or insect bites?
Is it a mistake not to have fully diagrammed, on a form such as 20, the totality of the abrasions seen in photograph B-12?
Individually and collectively, doctor, do any of these mistakes by Dr. Golden have significance on any of the big ticket questions?
Because these are very small abrasions and sometimes you can fail to document them when you have a case with so many injuries to document, but they have no significance to the cause of death and manner of death or the--to explain further detail as to the weapon or bleeding patterns, et cetera.
This is going to be up so briefly we are going to have counsel moving very quickly back.
But doctor, do you see in this photograph, CS-11, the area of the back which is seen also in B-12 and which contains the abrasions that you have identified?
This photograph doesn't show it very clearly, but this is the area where we are looking at in that photograph. I have seen other photographs where there is better outline.
Doctor, in looking at these two photographs, CS-11 and CS-12, and the photograph that you have reviewed, do you see any evidence of ant or insect activity on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson?
Is that of significance then in evaluating whether in fact the source of those abrasions is due to ant or insect bites, as indicated by Dr. Golden in his protocol?
All right. Let me slow it down. Is the absence of evidence of ant or insect activity in the area of the back shown in the three photos, the two here and the others that you reviewed, of significance to you in assessing the source of those abrasions seen on the back in photograph B-12?
The absence of it would indicate to me that there is not--not--there is no ant activity at the time these photographs were taken.
And if there had been a source for these abrasions from ant activity, would you expect them to be present in these three photographs?
All right. Why don't we take this down. We are going to be right back to that page 3 of the protocol, your Honor.
Doctor, because this page has a reference, I want to go back again to the B-1 photograph and the issue of a sexual assault kit and invite your attention to the first--I'm sorry--second full sentence on page 3, the sentence that is immediately above the outlined box for B-12. Is that one of the entries that you reviewed in Dr. Golden's protocol concerning the issue of trauma to the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
I will outline that in blue on the posterboard size and write "B-1" on the right hand margin.
Now, doctor is there a specific area of the protocol that discusses an examination of the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
It should be in the latter part of the protocol under genital--urogenital system.
And doctor, there is an entry "Genital system," parenthesis, "Female," close parenthesis. What does this refer to?
This refers to the internal examination of the genitalia of Miss Brown Simpson.
Let me outline that in red, that block of sentences, and I will write out the side "B-1," right side "B-1."
Doctor, can you translate this into lay person's terms, what these observations mean?
The information is that: "The uterus, tubes, and adnexa are anatomic." That means the internal genitalia which are the uterus, fallopian tubes and the ovaries are normal, normal position and normal appearance. "The cut surface of the uterus shows no lesions and a thin light brown endometrium."
Lesion is looking for your abnormal pathology because you can have--in the uterus you can have, common thing is fibroid, you can have a fibroid uterus. That is not present. There would be what's called adenomyosis which is presence of endometrial tissue in the muscle of the uterus. That is not present. You can see it grossly, so that is what is meant by "Lesion" when you are looking at the uterus and you are looking for vast abnormal pathology and that is not there. And the endometrium is thin light brown. That means the person--reflects the description of the endometrium which it is in the stage of the endometrium in what is called the stage after--grossly it would mean that it is not in the secretor stage or the proliferative stage.
I--let me shortcut this by asking is everything normal with respect to that aspect of the internal examination?
"The vagina has its normal mucosal surface and no lesions or injuries are evident," and it is self-explanatory. There was no pathology seen and there was no injury in the vagina present.
Doctor, in your experience in examining cases of rape/murder, does one normally expect to see some kind of injury or lesion in the vaginal area?
Let's move then, if we could, please, to B-11, the photograph which is immediately to the left. What are we looking at in that photograph, doctor?
In the back of the right side of the neck you see a u-shaped abrasion which is more well-defined in its lower--in one limb of the u, which is the lower part which is on the lower part of the u, the u being horizontally oriented. And this abrasion, which you see, is also interrupted. That means you have space of intact skin between the points of abrasion.
Does the interruption of an abrasion have any significance to you in evaluating how an abrasion such as this comes to be received?
That is the--yes. Basically the object or surface which caused this injury was coming in intermittent contact with the skin's surface. That would be one interpretation.
B-5 doesn't show. The clothing has been taken off. If you look at the dress in B-1, there is a neck strap here, (Indicating), which holds up and that strap had a hook--there is a hook to that strap in the back, and one possible source for this abrasion could be from that strap during the--at some point when Miss Simpson was--
I just wanted you to have an opportunity, doctor--I won't put the board up. The crime scene photos, 354, does that show what you are attempting to--
Let me put up exhibit 354 then and ask you to please show us what it is you are trying to use as an example of an interrupted abrasion source?
This strap you can see it here just below her hairline in the back of the neck, it is a thin strap which is part of this dress.
At some point the strap would have been pulled backward to rub against the skin's surface there and could it have been one possible source for it.
Doctor, are you able to determine whether this abrasion was received before death as an antemortem abrasion?
Does it have any significance, in your opinion, to any of the big ticket questions that you have talked about and reviewed for this case?
Because it doesn't play a part in the cause of death or manner of death or the other issues I discussed already; bleeding patterns, evaluation of sharp force injury. It is a nonspecific--I mean it is a nonspecific blunt force injury.
Would you have expected him to describe it as u-shaped based upon what you see in the photograph?
Yes, but the other limb of the u is very faint, so if it is not looked at closely, you may interpret it as a linear abrasion rather than u-shaped.
Straight, because you don't see the other limb as clearly as the other--the lower part of the u.
Is there anything, before we move back then to see the protocol and the addendum--I'm sorry, protocol and diagram--about photograph B-11?
Did you ask someone who acts as a consultant to your office to look at this particular abrasion for an interpretation as to possible bite mark?
He is--a forensic odontologist is a dentist who specializes in forensic work and their role would be in identification of decedents by comparing the dental remains. The other function is they help in bite mark evaluations.
Bite mark is the mark left on a body surface by the bite of another person, and what the forensic odontologist would do would examine the mark, take what is called an exemplar of the mark using certain material and also have that available in case they have a potential suspect to compare, they will examine the suspect's teeth and see whether there are features which match with the mark which is seen on the body.
In this particular case was Dr. Vale asked to evaluate this abrasion as a possible bite mark after the autopsy had been completed?
Not after the autopsy was completed. It was only later when the body had already been released and much later, actually in September sometime in `94.
When I said "After," I meant literally after, at any time after, but it was after; is that correct?
But was Dr. Vale provided both with the type of photograph we are looking at in B-11 as well as the life-size photographs that you have reviewed of the same area for evaluating this issue?
Yes. He reviewed the original photographs and then he requested one-as-to-one photographs. He requested to examine the clothing. And all this was arranged for Dr. Vale who then gave his opinion on this particular injury.
Is Dr. Vale, in his consulting role as a forensic odontologist, considered an employee of the Coroner's office?
Did he in fact submit his report on a form like we have seen in these other forms that there is a specific number used by the Coroner's office in the course of its official responsibilities?
Now, is there anything else preliminarily to discuss on B-11 before we look at the protocol, the diagram and Dr. Vale's reports?
We are going to be using, your Honor, 0B, I believe that is 2B and 10B from our 349 collection.
Doctor, let's start with the protocol itself. Where is any entry from Dr. Golden concerning this u-shaped abrasion you have identified in photograph B-11?
He actually has included in the same paragraph because he has used the upper back, right side and medial part of the scapula and he refers to upper back in diagram 20 to this area here, (Indicating), so that is where he has documented it.
All right. First of all, would it be accurate to say that he has in this paragraph on page 3, that we have already outlined in red as B-12, he has incorporated a description of both the B-12 blunt force trauma and what is seen by you in the B-11 photograph?
All right. So what I will write is on--by B-12, I will also write "B-11" in blue by the box.
Yes. He has marked it in the back of the right neck area and he has called them antemortem, red brown and he also says "Appears antemortem"--"Ante, abrasion, red brown" and he has marked it here. This is the same injury.
All right. Both where I'm pointing--I don't want to mark it until I'm clear--where I'm pointing, first of all, here, doctor?
No. This abrasion description could apply to this one, but he has marked it separately as "Am" also, antemortem, so this could reflect for this and this, but in both he has also given notation being ante, a-n-t-e, antemortem.
All right. Is it in your interpretation this entry in the right-hand corner reflects--I'm sorry--refers to these two somewhat diagonal lines?
Now, doctor, when you were testifying a moment or so ago, you said he didn't describe it as a u-shaped?
And is the basis on that--on which you testified to that, the fact that in the diagram they appear to be in line with each other?
In your opinion is it a mistake for Dr. Golden not to have shown that abrasion to be a u-shaped abrasion as you see it in the photograph?
I already thought I discussed it. The upper part of the u is very faint, and if you do not perceive it, you may describe it as a linear as he has done.
Let me put up--why don't we take down the--I'm sorry. Dr. Lakshmanan wants to add something; is that correct?
He didn't describe it--he described it as antemortem in the diagram, but here he has included it as a postmortem.
So again, on page 3, and let me outline in blue, the words "Postmortem injuries," within that box referring to B-11 and B-12, that would be different than how he has actually described it on the form used at time of autopsy, at least for this particular what you say is a u-shaped abrasion?
I'm not sure. Can we put it back up? I don't know what the weight of this particular easel is.
This is a consultant report by the odontologist--it is a consultant report and here we have an odontology consultant report.
And is this a report that is expected to be completed at or near the time of the events which he is describing in the report?
Is this report kept in the ordinary course of the official business of the Coroner's office?
That he has examined the mark on the back of the right side of the neck, he has examined certain other marks in the lower right back, and he has reviewed a lot of photographs and he--this is the point when he examined initially and then he wanted some--wanted someone, as to one photographs and clothing, to examine, and he has given a follow-up report after this one.
Doctor, from your testimony, does this report discuss evaluations of things besides this u-shaped area that we have been talking about in photo B-11?
All right. What part of this September 9, 1994, report specifically refers to an evaluation of the u-shaped abrasion?
And I will outline that in red on page 1 of the September 9th form 13 and write "B-11" out at the side.
You mentioned something about providing life-size one-to-one--as you described, one-to-one photographs, life-size photographs and an opportunity to look at the dress of Nicole Brown Simpson?
Yes, and he also requested my criminalist, Mr. Steven Dowell, to look at these injuries--these photographs and the clothing.
There is also a second signature that falls below Dr. Vale's on this form. Who is Dr. Anselmo?
He is the core director of the School of Dentistry at USC, but he is also another of the forensic odontology consultant who works for our office.
Now, flipping to a third page, this appears to be another form 13, this time dated September 14, 1994. What is this document, if you are familiar with it, doctor?
Yes. This is the document which Dr. Vale prepared after reviewing the clothing in the LAPD lab and also the one-as-to-one photographs, and he generated a report.
And what part, if any, of this report is discussing the u-shaped abrasion and possible source or sources for it?
The second paragraph in the conclusion section of form 13 signed on September 15, `94.
Doctor, would you read what Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell have included in that paragraph in the report.
"Regarding on the mark on the back of the neck, right side. It remains our opinion that this is not a bite mark, after having considered the possibilities of a bite in the vertical axis and in the horizontal axis. We do not exclude the possibility that the hook on the neck strap caused some or all of the mark, noting some similarity between the shape of the hook and the upper portion of the mark."
You have examined the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson that is described in this report, have you, doctor?
And doctor, based upon Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell's report and based upon your evaluation of all of the materials you have reviewed, do you have an opinion that is any different from the opinions expressed in that paragraph as to the source or sources for that u-shaped abrasion?
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess, mid-morning recess at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss this case among yourselves, form any opinions the case, conduct any deliberations or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we will stand in recess for fifteen minutes. All right. Thank you.
There seems to be a paucity of Defense wounds in the hands of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson which would again support my opinion that she was rapidly incapacitated or incapable of resistance when she was assaulted.
I have not seen any cases like that. The cases where the clothing has been put back on, they are—at least the cases I have seen they have been put back on improperly and there is always evidence of—evidence of assault which you can see.
You cannot estimate a time of death from that, especially for such a narrow time frame, and even if it is not a narrow time frame I would not estimate a time of death from presence of sperms because you have so much variability in it.
It is a mistake in his dictation, but in his documentation it is not a mistake because it has documented it properly.