All right. Doctor, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
The record should reflect that Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examining by Mr. Kelberg. Good morning, doctor.
Doctor, you are reminded that you still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination. And ladies and gentlemen, I have asked Mr. Kelberg to move some of the exhibits that will be shown to you, just so that it is not too close and in your face, but given the detail of some of the evidence that will be presented, it may be necessary or you may feel it necessary to have a closer look at some point in time. When we have concluded the direct examination, if any of you feel that you want the opportunity to have a closer look at any of the exhibits, we will have an opportunity for that. Mr. Kelberg.
Thank you, your Honor. Doctor, I'm going to actually ask, with the Court's permission, you to step down because I want to use a different photograph board for a brief series of questions and then return to the board that we were looking at yesterday afternoon. Your Honor, I have a board of photographs entitled "Possible sources for Ron Goldman's blunt force trauma injuries." May this be marked as People's 359 I believe we are at?
Doctor, inviting your attention to this board of photographs, exhibit 359, are you familiar in general terms with the areas?
Doctor, do the photographs show various parts of the area of 875 South Bundy where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
Doctor, did you examine in some detail that area when you visited, either of the two times you have testified you visited the 875 south Bundy location?
--plant and other structures which were there at the crime scene. I saw the space available in the area where the victim was found. I felt the surfaces of the various structures there.
The tree surface, the railing surface and also looked at the plant sapling, the support post which I saw, and also I paid attention to certain stumps of stalks of the plants which looked as though this particular plant was already removed with the stumps of the stalks still left in place. And also when I looked at the tree I saw the tree branches also had been cut and there were also similar areas of cut stalks on the tree branches. The other thing I did is also I saw how much--rough idea about the distance between the tree stump and the tree, the sapling and the stump, the railing and the sapling with the support post, and also brief evaluation of the distance between the tree and the front railing because you have a railing in the front, a railing--side railing on the side which separates this residence from the next, (Indicating). I looked at the gate area. I looked at the walkway. I looked at the steps.
You can see a portion of it in S-3 here, (Indicating), and I also saw the wall and the--opposite this area, opposite this stair--stair area.
For the record, an area opposite the area shown in the lower left-hand corner of photograph S-3 on our exhibit 359?
Doctor, one of the reasons you did that examination was as the title of the board is, to look for possible sources for Mr. Goldman's blunt force trauma injuries?
Was another purpose to assess the actual size and space available in this area where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
Yes, because I did mention earlier I had a rough estimation of the distance between the various structures I just alluded to.
Doctor, in forming an opinion as to how quickly Mr. Goldman could have received all of the sharp force injuries and blunt force trauma you've identified from your review he sustained, does the space that is available for the victim enter into your opinion?
Because when you have an assailant who is wielding a sharp weapon and is also doing thrusting elements, the victim naturally has--will try to escape. That is the normal response to anybody. If you don't have a weapon or you do have, you try and escape if somebody is more overpowering than you or even equal size of you, so if you don't have space, it naturally allows the assailant to deliver all the blows to the target, the target being the victim, so if you have an enclosed space, you don't have much space to move and that will be a factor. That means if you--let's say there is thrusts several times on the victim.
Wielding the weapon and trying to stab you, or as we saw the sharp force injuries, if you have a confined space, you don't have much space to move, so all the thrusts will probably be delivered on the victim, the possibility increases for all the thrusts which are--which are delivered. That is one possibility. I--the space is important.
In this particular situation, doctor, how would you characterize the space surrounding the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
It is a very confined space. I went--that is why I went twice. I went once in November and I again went again this year to get a good idea about how much space there is. There is not much space, and that was one of the principle surprises I had, because when I saw it--it looks as there is a lot of space, but when I went there was not that much space.
Doctor, is that important to you as when you testified yesterday that all of these injuries to Mr. Goldman could have been inflicted in less than a minute?
Because of the confined space and I felt that the injuries sustained could have been in rapid succession and I just said that is a minimum time I said, if I recall, and it is quite--it could have been--it could have happened within a minute, given the space constraints you have and the number of injuries you have, especially where we have a sharp injury like a knife.
Doctor, is there anything else you want to add at this point regarding the space limitation with respect to any opinion on how quickly these injuries could have been inflicted on Mr. Goldman?
Doctor, before we take this board down, though, but in a similar vein, and I had asked you some questions I think on Nicole Brown Simpson when we were talking about how quickly injuries could have been inflicted, among the factors you consider in forming an opinion for how quickly the injuries could have been inflicted, does that include, no. 1, the relative sizes between the perpetrator and the victim?
That will be one factor which is always a consideration in any--any assault or altercation.
In general, doctor, in your opinion would the--would a larger perpetrator, that is a perpetrator who is bigger than the victim, tend to decrease the amount of time necessary for all wounds to be inflicted, all other considerations being equal?
Doctor, do you take into account the relative physical condition between the perpetrator and the victim in forming an opinion as to how quickly all of the injuries can be inflicted?
Doctor, do you take into account whether or not the perpetrator is a person who has worked out, for example, and is physically fit, muscular, agile and so forth, in deciding whether or not a set of injuries can be inflicted, relatively speaking, more quickly or to take longer?
I already said the--if the size of the assailant is known, I mean that will be--that is always another factor which should be taken into consideration, because naturally a weaker victim with a stronger assailant is more chance that the victim would receive the injuries than with the same size assailant.
I'm not talking just about size. That was my first area of inquiry. But I'm talking now about in general physical fitness and strength relative speaking between perpetrator or and victim?
Well, that would support opinions where I indicated partial immobilization of the victim and when some of the injuries were inflicted and that would support that theory.
That the injuries were inflicted in a shorter period of time rather than a longer period of time?
Yes, because I also indicated in an opinion yesterday that one possible scenario was that given the injuries we have, that they could have been partially immobilized.
That was when did you a demonstration with your left arm bent and around my upper left chest?
For one, and I also indicated that when I saw the four localized stab wounds on the neck of Miss Nicole I also indicated there was partial immobilization. Possible because it was one localized area, so for that, a larger victim with a smaller--larger assailant with a smaller victim, that theory would favor that.
Doctor, does the element of surprise, if that element exists, that is, the victim not anticipating an attack and an attacker who in fact anticipates making an attack, enter into the formulation of how long a set of injuries may take to be inflicted in a situation such as this?
Surprise is an element, and as I indicated earlier when I discussed Nicole's finding, there is a paucity of Defense wounds. I said she could be rapidly incapacitated or incapable of resistance and there your hypothetical, that element of surprise, would play a role. I mean, if somebody is surprised and don't know somebody is attacking them, there is less chance of resistance. I'm just giving support for your hypothetical theory.
Doctor, assuming that Mr. Goldman was coming to the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson for the purpose of delivering some glasses that had been left by Ms. Brown Simpson's mother at a restaurant earlier that evening and had not anticipated that there would be any kind of physical altercation with anyone whatsoever, would that enter into your consideration as to how long this set of injuries would take to be inflicted?
I already indicated that that will also be a surprise element there, but if Mr. Goldman--I think when Mr. Goldman did sustain these injuries in this area, I think the more important factor is that if Mr. Goldman was confronted by the assailant in this confined area, he has no place to escape, especially if he is cornered between that railing and the tree and that sapling, he is stuck there, especially if somebody is wielding a knife, which as we know, because of all the sharp force injuries, you are cornered, and plus the element of surprise which you brought up in your hypothetical situation is another factor which could--or rather would support the theory which I opined yesterday, that these injuries could have been inflicted in a minute's time. A minute is a long time. I mean, we all heat our coffee cups in the microwave oven and you know it takes a long time. One minute is a long time. And you are talking about 14 or 15 sharp force injuries in each of them, and if you just take one minute and you divide it by the number of injuries, you are talking about several seconds for an injury. It doesn't take that long to do a sharp force injury with a sharp knife.
Does it take very long, doctor, to do a series of them if the person is motivated to do that to a victim?
Not at all. Not at all. Because you are talking about a very sharp structure and we all shave every day and we cut without our knowledge, and if somebody wants to stab you or cut you, you can do it in a short time. And I have no--when I opined yesterday about Nicole, and yesterday for Ron, I said the minimum time could be a minute. You could do it in a minute but it could also be several minutes, but I will be surprised if it is done in a minute. That is all I said.
Yes, yes. If you take a knife and you plunge it, just take any knife, just go home and plunge it quickly, you will see you can do about 15 thrusts in about 15 seconds.
KEY QUOTEFor the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan took his right hand, clenched as if holding, I assume a knife, and went up and down about four times perhaps in complete cycle of up and down movements in a period that appeared to be just several seconds.
Whatever the Court's counting is, but I assume the Court will admonish everyone not to go home and attempt to do what Dr. Lakshmanan suggested one could do if one went home.
Doctor, does the motivation of the perpetrator, that is, how motivated the perpetrator is to see that this person is killed by sharp force injury, enter into how quickly all of these sharp force injuries can be inflicted?
If somebody wants to hurt you, they are going to try and hurt you and as quickly. Especially if you are confined in a small place like this and you can't escape, you are going to be hurt. I'm just giving--these are all possibilities if you know the motivation of the person.
Doctor, but as a forensic pathologist do you take into account these kind of factors before you render an opinion based on your review of the pathology, the photographs from the autopsy and so forth?
Yes. In this case I took into consideration the scene circumstances and if you have the factors of motivation, that would also support my opinion that these injuries could have been inflicted as less than--in less than a minute.
Doctor, anything else that we need from this board at this time regarding this subject matter?
I think we are done with this, but I suggest counsel, maybe if they could just part long enough for us to put this one back and get a different board out.
It is going to be 358. I believe that is the board we marked yesterday at the end of the day, your Honor.
Doctor, I want to invite your attention for a moment to the photographs G-40, G-55 and we will start with G-37 with respect to what you described as injury no. 2 from photograph G-37. And again, you are not suggesting by your numbering scheme necessarily the order that any injury was received; is that correct?
No, no. This numbering was only done for purposes of convenience so that we can accurately correlate an injury with a photograph. They do not reflect sequence of infliction.
And that is how you correlated them in your chart that is our exhibit 351, by calling them injury no. 1, injury no. 2 and so forth?
That's correct, and I also correlated it to the area in which you have that description in the original report and the addendum and the diagram, et cetera.
Understood. The lower superficial incise wound no. 2, injury in G-37, you testified is also seen in G-55; is that correct?
And that seems to end where there is another sharp force injury seen; is that correct?
And looking at G-40, does that show basically a continuation of what we see in G-55, but this time with the head being rotated t-o-w-a-r-d-s a ninety degree angle so that the full back of the neck and head area is exposed?
Yes. This penetrating sharp force injury is the same injury you see here in the back and it extends as a cut from that penetrating portion.
Doctor, can you determine, from looking at G-55 and/or G-40, whether this superficial incise wound, injury no. 2, actually ends where it appears to come in contact with this next sharp force injury you just described?
The superficial incise wound ends right in the sharp force injury, so this particular injury could have continued as being this penetrating sharp force injury or the sharp force injury could have been superimposed on this superficial incise cut here in the right side of the neck, (Indicating).
I want to get some clarification from you, if I could. When we look at G-55 and G-40 with respect to the lower superficial incise wound, is it accurate to say that we may not be seeing where that wound actually ended at the time it was inflicted?
As I told you, the--there could have been the--this sharp force penetrating injury could have superimposed that cut so you won't be able to see where this injury ends. The other possibility is that this particular wound was continued as a sharp force penetrating injury.
Let's start with your first hypothetical and I want to, in essence, as a lay definition of what you have been saying, would it be accurate to say that this second superficial incise wound could have continued into the area where in photograph G-40 we actually see this next sharp force injury that you are talking about?
Excuse me. Mr. Kelberg, when you reach across the exhibit, I think you are blocking 165's view. I don't know if he can actually see what you are directing our attention to.
Let me try on this side, your Honor. I know the bailiff needs to have a corridor. I could move one of these maybe to the back there.
Doctor, what I was asking you about is in lay terms would it be accurate to say that one possibility is--and now I'm not sure the doctor may be blocking the view of--that this lower superficial incise wound, when it was inflicted, actually continued for some distance which is no longer visible because it has been covered by this other sharp force injury?
And is there any way, from looking at the photograph or any of the materials you have reviewed, that you can make a determination whether that in fact occurred?
Is there any way you would have expected at autopsy, Dr. Golden to be able by dissection in any particular manner or any other technique to have made that determination?
Because it is very difficult to try to describe an injury which has been altered by a second injury which completely alters the primary injury.
Because when you have another penetrating injury on the area of a cut and there is a penetration, you won't be able to describe the previous existing injury, especially when the secondary injury is larger than the primary injury.
And in this case you would describe this last wound that you have been talking about as a secondary injury?
And the primary, under this set of circumstances, would be the lower superficial incise wound?
All right. Let's then go through--what is the second alternative you were saying?
The second alternative is that this wound itself at this point the--as I mentioned earlier, there was a superficial cut made and at this point a penetration of the same knife took place.
Can you perhaps use a ruler and use me and demonstrate for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you mean? And I think you are going to want to be on my right side; is that correct, doctor?
As I said, it is coming like this and when it came to the back there has been some movement, penetration could have taken place, (Indicating).
Left arm bent at the elbow around my upper chest area. He took the ruler and with his right hand he drew the ruler horizontally across my neck to a point where he stopped it starting in the back of the right side of my neck. And then I'm not sure how the record reflects this, but he pressed the end of the ruler in contact with the right side of my neck in an inward direction.
Doctor, are you able, from a medical standpoint, to offer an opinion as to which of these alternative hypothetical circumstances occurred in this actual case?
I would favor the demonstration I did, because it seems to come right there and then there is a penetration. That would be my favored opinion, but you can never tell what really happened.
Doctor, I'm not sure that we finished--may I step just briefly to the other side, your Honor? I'm not sure that we finished talking about all of the--I would call them perhaps ancillary aspects of this stab wound, complex stab/incise wound you talked about on G-51. You talked, I believe, about there is an abrasion associated with it?
A cut on the lower inferior margin here, (Indicating), right here, (Indicating).
All right. Mr. Kelberg, if I could ask the doctor to keep his personal notes, his notes, his set of notes, either with him or--thank you. Proceed.
If you look at--you can see the cut very well in G-37 and actually the lower incise wound which I described as injury no. 2 could have been a part of this cut and--but there is some--there seems to be some interruption in the skin here, (Indicating), between the cut and the injury no. 2. So there is a possibility that this could have been part of the same wound with an interruption in the cut. The other possibility is that when this penetrating sharp force injury took place, this could have been a cut which could have been part of this particular incise wound.
Doctor, can again you use me as Mr. Goldman and a ruler and demonstrate what you mean with respect to these alternatives?
Yeah. And maybe the same demonstration could be used to go over how one possible way this deep sharp force injury to the left side of the neck could have occurred, given the directions which we have in the autopsy report.
Before you start, just for the record, that was photograph G-37, and the doctor was pointing to what I believe he has described as injury no. 3 on that photograph.
The same movement, you have the superficial cut here, (Indicating), and this part describing the penetration going this way because I don't want to hurt you.
Penetration going this way which would fit the direction which we have, because this particular wound, with deep sharp force injuries, goes up and that is the one which transects the internal jugular vein on the left side and also shares a common path with this sharp force injury which is a separate wound, (Indicating), seen in G-53 behind the ear.
Doctor, can you again go back in position so that we can state for the record what you did?
Again, your Honor, for the record, the doctor with his left hand bent at the elbow around my upper chest and with his right hand holding a ruler to represent a knife has pressed the ruler against the left side of my neck in the general area where injury no. 3 is depicted in photograph G-37 and again he pressed in an inward direction when he held it at that position.
And I described yesterday that this is a complex injury so that there is only one penetrating component of that complex injury.
That is we have a penetration, and what I'm saying is looking at the injury when I discussed it yesterday, that--there was more than one penetration involved there, and twisting and turning of the weapon or the victim when that injury was inflicted, so that this could have been one penetration, there could have been a second penetration later.
And is there any way--is there any way that you as a forensic pathologist at autopsy would be expected to distinguish that alternative of a second or multiple penetrations of that area from a single penetration?
I already said that this multiple penetration or complex twisting, but I won't be able to tell how it exactly occurred.
Doctor, I want to cover the complex twisting component, though. If it is a complex twisting component, is that consistent with a single stab to that area?
A single stabbing result in complex injury with twisting of the weapon or the victim trying to wrestle himself or herself away.
Wrestling him or herself away, but you can also have a complex injury from second, third penetrations which could be separate from the initial penetration.
I would like to demonstrate, if you can, doctor, again using me as Mr. Goldman, what you mean by the twisting or turning with respect to both the weapon and with respect to the victim?
You see, you can get a different type of wound from that--I don't know whether that is how Mr. Goldman tried to wrestle himself away, but I just wanted to demonstrate that the stabbing process, the cutting process is not a fixed process; it is a dynamic process.
Dynamic process of the victim trying to escape, the assailant trying to inflict the injury, plus there is also rotation of the movement, so there are a lot of factors to be kept in mind, so--so the opinions have to be couched to keep that in mind.
For the record, can we get back into position just so we can try and establish for the record what happened with this last demonstration.
Doctor, would you start again where you were. For the record, your Honor, again the doctor, with his left arm bent at the elbow and around my upper chest with a ruler held in his right hand to represent a knife and pressed against the area of my left neck that is depicted in the photograph, then asked me to try and wrestle myself away. I pulled forward and to the right away from the doctor and at that time the ruler was dragged, if you will--I don't know if that is the right word 00 but it moved across the right side of my neck as I moved to the right and away from the doctor.
Doctor, did we complete a discussion of the cut aspect that you were talking about you saw in the wound?
This particular sharp force injury, (Indicating), also extends as a cut and this could have occurred when the knife was being withdrawn and also could have been from the victim wrestling himself away or--himself away from this situation.
Doctor, I want to come back to this particular wound, but before we get too many wounds, I think this might be an appropriate time to try and identify where in the protocols, the addendums, the diagrams and so forth there may be any reference to these. So to make sure we are covering everything, we have six injuries seen in photograph G-37; is that correct, that we need to cover?
All right. And we are going to save this last sharp force injury on the back of the right neck as seen in G-40. Was there any other injury that you have described in any detail that we should cover?
All right. And G-51 is a more detailed depiction of the same injury that you have described as injury no. 3, have you, in G-37?
All right. Is there anything, doctor, before we go to those that you need to discuss with respect to these six injuries?
All right, doctor. Let's start with what you described as injury no. 1, the upper superficial incise wound. Is it described in Dr. Golden's autopsy report?
Yes, page 5, no. 3 and 4. Page 5, item no. 3 and 4 describes--item no. 3 describes injury no. 1.
All right. Where we indicated or the doctor has indicated that, let me outline that, I will write "G-37 inj. no. 1" with a tic-tac-toe sign for the number designation.
As long we are on this page, I have a feeling, is no. 4 referring to what is injury no. 2?
All right. This no. 4 on the same page is a reference to the second, the lower superficial incise injury?
Doctor, Dr. Golden has expressed an opinion with respect to both of these that this is a non-fatal superficial incise wound. Do you agree with each of those opinions?
All right. How about before we go to injury no. 3, was either injury one or two diagrammed in any fashion?
Doctor, let me invite your attention over to this easel. Do you see anywhere on this 22--no. 1, reference to the roman numeral I at the lower right-hand corner; is that correct?
You can see it here in the left upper quadrant front facial view of the diagram.
"Superior border larynx" and he has described the LM-1. I can't read that one.
I can't read this one. Just some initials here. Incise wound and here the "Superior border larynx" here and "Skin transverse wound" and also length is three inches.
Let me if I could, please, circle in red but I want you to outline before I do any circling in red, if you would, please, where, if at all, Dr. Golden has depicted the location of injury location?
The line above? Your Honor, I will circle that in red and out at the side write, "G-37 inj. no. 1."
And I will circle that area that Dr. Lakshmanan has just pointed to and "G-37 inj. no. 2."
And doctor, then the writing that refers to injury no. 1 is which writing, if you will just outline it with the pointer?
I circled it with red, your Honor, and use a blue marker to make a line joining the line already made for the injury no. 1.
Would you expect there to be an entry on this form for injury no. 2, besides just drawing it?
Is there any other form that you have reviewed where it was in fact indicated, drawn in, measured, anything of that nature?
Yes, 2 and 3, roman numeral ii and--he has just repeated the same injury here in 22-II and to go no. 3.
Just for the record, you are pointing to the upper left quadrant of 22, roman numeral ii and in this area where my finger is, ii?
Yes. He addresses the same injury there, (Indicating). There is that injury no. 1 and no. 2. It reflects the same area as injury no. 1.
Let me circle that and I will write "G-37 inj. no. 1." All right. Let's flip then to no. 3.
Okay. Doctor, in your opinion, is it a mistake of Dr. Golden's not to have made some kind of written entry somewhat similar in nature to that written in for injury no. 1?
Does this affect--this mistake on Dr. Golden's part--you consider it a mistake, I assume?
Now, doctor, is there any addendum entry with respect to either injury no. 1 or injury no. 2?
Page 1, roman numeral ii, no. 1 and no. 2 reflect injury no. 1 and 2, so let's start with injury no. 1.
Is injury no. 1 described in the paragraph or paragraphs under roman numeral ii, item no. 1?
Yes, he amended the--he did an addendum reviewing the photographs and he made the following amendment in addition to the original report.
Doctor, I think we talked about this process with Nicole Brown Simpson, but I don't believe we have talked about it with Ronald Goldman. We have an addendum here; is that correct?
And is this similar in nature to what we saw with Nicole Brown Simpson, that is, Dr. Golden prepared what might be described as a supplemental report to make changes to whatever may have been entered in the original report and to add information that was not contained in the original report?
That is correct. This happened, as I told you when we discussed--when I told them about the brain contusion of Nicole, he indicated that he wanted to make an addendum report to reflect certain injuries on the photographs which he wanted addressed and that is how the addendum report came about to be made. And I told you the procedure in our department, that when any error or--is needed to be addressed, we issue addendums because the original report stays as it is, we have nothing to hide, and that is what exactly took place here. This is number--no. 2--item no. 2 is--
Before we go to item no. 2, I am not quite done with the process. Let me flip to the last page. I don't think we have to flip it all the way. I'm afraid we do. There appears to be a date, at least a signed date--let's start with that--July 1, 1994?
There also appears to be a "T" and a 6-30-94 in the lower area below the typewritten entry of Dr. Golden's name and position. Do you see that?
Now, doctor, did you meet with Dr. Golden, as you testified you met with him regarding Nicole Brown Simpson, before that date, regarding the need for an addendum in the Goldman case, as well as the brown Simpson case?
He brought up the Goldman case issue to me and I said "Do the addendum and let us look at it" and that is how I got involved in the addendum report of Mr. Goldman, too.
Doctor, was there, in a similar fashion to the Nicole Brown Simpson addendum, a rough draft addendum prepared by Dr. Golden, reviewed by you and following which we see the typewritten addendum that was on the earlier board?
Yes. As I told you earlier when I discussed Miss Brown Simpson, my involvement was, one, as to the format of the addendum, because we have a certain format to follow, and you see my inscriptions reflecting "Amendment as stated." This is my handwriting, this is my handwriting, (Indicating).
Before you run too far along, for the record, your Honor, the witness was pointing to the handwriting that appears alongside the typewritten entry on page 1 of the--of the addendum on this board saying page 5, paragraph 3, for example, "Paragraph" is crossed out and the word appears to be--.
The item itself is not my handwriting, but this part is mine, so that was probably Golden's handwriting.
You see, when you make an addendum, and especially if you revise a portion of the report, the reader of the addendum report should perfectly understand what is being corrected, and if you read the paragraph before, it says which paragraph in the original report is being corrected and what paragraph this addendum replaces.
Let me see if we can pull the original--the original addendum draft to the right, ask Mr. Lynch to pull the final addendum down for a second just to flip the pages back over and see if we can compare--maybe the best thing is just for me to--what is it you are trying to convey with this change, doctor?
Basically if you see here, (Indicating), I spelled it out, page 5, item 3, line 1 through 5, "Amended as originally stated to read as follows." That is the original statements there as being amended. These five lines on page 5, item 3, item 3, line 1 through 5, line 1 through 5, is amended to read as follows, and that is what we have done there.
And in your opinion it is important, in order to give any reader of this, the addendum and that, the original protocol, an accurate understanding of exactly what is taking place with this addendum?
Yes, and that is basically it. I said we have nothing to hide, and we want to show that an error was made and we have addressed it.
Would it be accurate to say this is a procedural change that you wanted to see in the addendum, rather than one that goes to the substance of what the change itself is?
While we have--I think Mr. Lynch can take the completed board down. But while we have the draft available, doctor, there appears at the bottom of the fourth page of the draft addendum some substantial amount of handwriting which there is a page 5--I'm sorry--not a page 5, but we have another page. In the original--you have the original draft addendum, do you not, doctor?
This is what appears on a separate page, actually written on the back of the last page of the draft addendum?
Doctor, does this handwriting on this page, and what we started with at the bottom of the earlier page, reflect--concern, sorry, your Honor, concern to some degree that injury no. 3, stab wound--complex stab wound to the left side of the neck that we saw--
--in photograph--if I may have just a moment--let me just briefly bring this up--concern injury no. 3 seen in photograph G-37?
And does it also concern this injury that we have, alluded to by you earlier, along the left side under the left ear as seen in photograph G-51?
Is this aspect of the addendum where there are handwritten entries by Dr. Golden, no. 1, a substantive matter, not just a procedural, let's just get the wording right to make sure it is understood what is being exchanged in the way of the original with the addendum.
Did you participate in a discussion with Dr. Golden regarding the issue which is being discussed or addressed in this handwritten entry?
So in this particular instance you would have involvement in the substantive aspect of the addendum; not just the procedural?
That is correct, because my opinion was also concurred by Dr. Golden when he reevaluated the case.
All right. If we could take this down, let's go to injury no. 3 and see where, if at all, it is in the protocol.
Yes. Injury no. 3 is described in page 3 and 4 of the protocol and actually starts on page no. 1 of the--
It starts on page no. 1. We will have to discuss the injury no. 2 of the lower incise wound in the addendum.
All right. Thank you for pointing that out. We will get to it in just a number. "Sharp force injuries of neck," paragraph 1, injury no. 3?
Doctor, is there any diagram completed by Dr. Golden concerning this injury no. 3 of G-37?
Yes, but this description also includes the injury behind the ear which we have to add later.
All right. We will get to that, but what we have outlined does concern injury no. 3 of G-37?
Right here, the right lower quadrant on the left side of the neck, (Indicating).
Is there an entry, handwritten entry by Dr. Golden, concerning that particular injury no. 3?
"Diagonal incise wound/stab wound, mid-laryngeal area. Length, three inches, smooth edges, front to back." And then he has--since he described in the original report that this is a part of the same wound behind the left ear, he has given the total length as six inches and he has also described other aspects of this injury which we saw behind the ear, (Indicating), which we have not discussed yet.
Let's start if we could by just limiting whatever entry directly concerns the injury no. 3 as you find it in the photograph.
All right. Your Honor, where Dr. Lakshmanan had the pointer, doctor, how far down do I go?
This whole thing, and you can cut out this, (Indicating), because the six inches reflect the whole depth.
All right. I will leave that out if it does not in fact concern the actual injury no. 3 and I will write "G-37, inj. no. 3."
Now, doctor this other injury that you pointed out and which is just very briefly the injury seen in G-53; is that correct?
Did Dr. Golden in essence characterize what you describe as two injuries as actually one injury?
Well, he did change his opinion on review of the photographs and analysis, so he initially made an opinion which was different from an opinion which was made later.
Doctor, but my question was, was his opinion that this was one wound, these two areas that are seen in these two photographs, was that opinion wrong?
Is that mistake of significance to you on any of these major issues that you have reviewed?
I think I want to ask you why not when we get a better description and discussion of what you say is a separate injury and which you describe as injury no. 1--you viewed it as injury no. 1 of G-51; is that correct?
Doctor, was there any other diagram entry by Dr. Golden regarding the injury that you describe as injury no. 3, separate and apart from what you say is a mistake on his part to connect these two injuries shown in the diagrammatic outline of the left side of the human head in our roman numeral I of form 22?
He had not described the linear cut abrasion seen in the lower margin of this wound.
I'm sorry, he does not describe in the diagram some aspect that you see of this injury no. 3?
If you can show us what it is on photograph G-51, you have taken the pointer and traced a somewhat horizontal line along the bottom portion of that particular injury?
And again, have you reviewed the significance of those mistakes as to whether or not they affect your ability to answer any of the major questions?
Same thing, page 3, item 1, lines 1 through 5 and page 4, line 1 through 17 of the original report was amended with this paragraph which starts as item 4 on page 2 of the addendum and continues on to page 3.
Before we flip the page, let me just outline on page 2, this is "G-37 inj. no. 3." And also G-51?
And "G-51 inj. no. 1." All right. If we can flip the page to get to page 3 of the addendum.
Yes, and it also up to here, (Indicating). Also item 5 of page 3 is an amendment to the opinion.
Let's stop, before we get to that aspect, and outline this area that I'm outlining now along with the area I just outlined is the change in description of the injury.
Change in description of injury and also this paragraph includes the injury no. 2 which we briefly alluded to in G-51.
Then you say, doctor, that this paragraph 5 of page 3, at least with the no. 5, that that entry concerns a change in opinion from the opinion expressed--if you can look on page 4 of the protocol where you are pointing right now, is that basically the opinion that is being changed?
Because he has now indicated that they--both the wounds share a common path of injury, they appear to be separate wounds.
Doctor, in lay terms summarize if you could for us what this change in a significant number of lines is all about?
Basically it reflects the change in the opinion between being one wound and separating the wound behind the ear and the left neck as two separate wounds, and also the other change in the addendum is there is a better definition and description and injury behind the left ear.
And Dr. Golden's photographic review was of photographs much like the photographs that are on the exhibit, exhibit 358?
And those are similar to the photographs you reviewed initially; is that correct?
Yes, but I also, as I mentioned earlier, I did measurement on one-as-to-one photographs, life-size photographs, on all these injuries, too.
In your opinion, doctor, does the addendum concerning injury no. 3 of G-37 or injury no. 1 of G-51 accurately describe the injury?
And would the same apply with respect to the description of what we are going to see as injury no. 2 of G-51?
Yes, except that I, in my one-as-to-one photograph, the measurement was slightly longer, but given the limitation of the process, there is no significant difference in measurements.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our first short break for the morning. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, allow anybody to communicate with you or conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. And we will take a 15-minute recess.
A minute is a long time. I mean, we all heat our coffee cups in the microwave oven and you know it takes a long time. One minute is a long time. And you are talking about 14 or 15 sharp force injuries in each of them, and if you just take one minute and you divide it by the number of injuries, you are talking about several seconds for an injury. It doesn't take that long to do a sharp force injury with a sharp knife.
If you take a knife and you plunge it, just take any knife, just go home and plunge it quickly, you will see you can do about 15 thrusts in about 15 seconds.
It is a very confined space. I went—that is why I went twice. I went once in November and I again went again this year to get a good idea about how much space there is. There is not much space, and that was one of the principle surprises I had, because when I saw it—it looks as there is a lot of space, but when I went there was not that much space.
I assume the Court will admonish everyone not to go home and attempt to do what Dr. Lakshmanan suggested one could do if one went home.