Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined now by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness again undergoing direct examination by Mr. Kelberg. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
And, doctor, if you'll step down again with the Court's permission, let's continue on if we could with the review of the injuries 1 through 6.
While we have the protocol up and before we go to injury no. 4--actually we also have to go back and pick up injury no. 2 in the addendum. Why don't we do that first. I think you mentioned that there was an entry for it; is that correct?
Doctor, is this page 1 of the addendum what you indicate contains some indication of a change regarding injury no. 2?
And so again, this is now G-37 inj. no. 2, the lower superficial incise wound; is that correct?
Now, I'll outline that area also in blue on page 2 of the addendum and write "G-37 inj."--
Doctor, in your opinion, does the addendum with respect to both injuries nos. 1 and 2 accurately reflect the description of those two superficial incised wounds?
And if there is any opinion expressed with respect to those injuries in the addendum, are any such opinions accurate in your opinion?
Doctor, again, to go back to the protocol just briefly, yesterday I believe it was, we talked about a concept "Aspiration of blood"?
And as I recall your testimony, you talked about blood being taken through the trachea and getting into the lungs; is that correct?
Doctor, from the sharp force injury that you've described as injury no. 3 of G-37, would you normally expect there to be evidence of aspirated blood in Mr. Goldman?
And how is it that an injury to the vein rather than an injury to the carotid artery will not result in aspiration of blood?
See, in the other person, was Nicole Brown Simpson, the injury also--the injury also involved the thyroid hyoid area, which is between the voice box and the hyoid bone. So that was transected. So the question of aspiration comes. So for aspiration of blood to occur in the respiratory tract, it has to be an injury which causes bleeding and allows the bleeding to go into those areas. And also for aspiration, generally you expect person to be unconscious because usually aspiration occurs more when you are not conscious.
Because you lose your reflex which allows your epiglottis--remember I talked about epiglottis? That will close the air passage so you don't aspirate.
So normally there's an automatic reflex that you have in your body to keep you from swallowing things down the wrong pipe?
Yes. That's why you should not talk and eat, and you'll aspirate if you talk and eat.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, did Dr. Golden make an examination of the area of the trachea and the lungs?
Yes, he did. It's in the protocol, I think page--there it is. Starts there (Indicating).
It starts, "Respiratory track, throat structures," and starts with, "Oral cavity, no injuries to lips, teeth or gum, no obstruction of the airway."
"The injury to the left--left internal jugular vein has been previously described. Mucosa of the epiglottis, glottis--"
I think the court reporter and everyone else will be thankful if we don't have to have any of the expert terms. How far does this go down?
Now, doctor, from what is described here by Dr. Golden, in your opinion, is that what you would expect to find given the nature of the sharp force injuries to the neck that you have seen in the photographs of Mr. Goldman's body?
Yes. But Mr. Goldberg also suffered two stab wounds to the chest which caused injury to the lung, the right lung, which is reflected in paragraph 4 of page 15.
We'll get back to that when we see the photograph regarding the lung, sharp force injuries. But as to simply the sharp force injuries to the neck, is there anything inconsistent with this description from what you would expect to have seen?
Also, doctor, did you examine tissue samples that were preserved at autopsy from the Goldman case by Dr. Golden?
Did you find anything in your examination--is that a gross examination of tissue, that is a naked eye examination?
I did both naked eye examination of the tissue, but I saw the tissues actually twice, once with different pathologist, Dr. Baden, who is here, and again--again with Dr. Baden when he came to cut microscopic sections in May of this year.
Yes. And I also looked at the microscopic sections on this case with Dr. Golden.
Doctor, did you find anything that in your opinion was out of whack if you will from what you would have expected to see given the nature of the sharp force injuries to the neck?
No. The--the lungs did show some hemorrhage in the air spaces, but that is related to the stab wound through the lung--
All right. So, your Honor, for this area, I'm going to outline on page 15 in blue the three full paragraphs and the continuation of the paragraph from the previous page and write "No aspirated blood."
No aspirated blood from the left neck wound, but there is some blood in the lung from the injury to the--from the stab wound itself.
"From left neck wound." And I'm sorry. I didn't catch--what is there? There is some blood--
Okay. And let me just have that outline added for the page previous, and I'll just write, "No asp. B-l--" well, I'll spell out blood--"From neck wound." And that's page 14 of the protocol.
Now, doctor, injury no. 4 of G-37. And can you refresh our memories with respect to which injury that is?
Injury no. 4 was that superficial cut we saw above the injury no. 1 in the front of the neck.
Let me just briefly put this up again and ask you if you would, please--I'm sorry. Superficial cut above--
And we also have injury no. 5, which is small abrasion below the injury no. 2 to the front of the neck which we have discussed.
All right. Let's take care of 4, 5 and 6 then. As I recall yesterday, did you testify that 4 and 5 were not addressed in the original autopsy protocol?
And they are not addressed in any way in this addendum that's on one of the easels; is that correct?
And as I also recall, you said there was no significance to any of them in your opinion?
Let's start with this and we'll just outline in blue. This is G-37 inj. no. 6; is that correct, doctor?
Actually before we go further, does Dr. Golden anywhere describe the depth of penetration of that sharp force injury?
The subcutaneous tissue is in general how deep below the top layer of the skin that we can look at with our eyes?
In an average person who's not of an obese size, it will be less than half an inch or quarter inch depending on where the location of the subcutaneous tissue is because you may have a thicker subcutaneous tissue on the abdomen compared to a subcutaneous tissue on the forehead. So it varies. But in this area, quarter inch to--quarter inch would be a rough estimate in a muscular young person.
Doctor, if you are attempting as a forensic pathologist to provide a completely accurate description of a sharp force injury as a stab wound versus an incised wound, must one know what the depth of penetration is?
And given Dr. Golden's--would you describe it as a failure, a failure to describe the depth of penetration of injury no. 6?
Given that failure, can you say whether that is a stab wound or an incised wound?
And as a superficial wound--and first of all, does it appear from the photograph to be a superficial wound?
Well, it's a cut on the skin surface, and you can not say how deep it is until you examine it, and he has examined it and he says it's skin and soft tissue, superficial.
Does it make any difference from your perspective in evaluating any of the big issues that you've considered whether or not it's an incised or a stab wound depending on whether the depth is greater than the length on the surface of the wound or the depth is greater than the length on the surface of the--surface of the skin?
It won't affect my opinion of the big picture questions which we already have discussed.
It ends approximately--actually it could conclude up to here. I'm sorry. Up to here (Indicating).
I'll outline that. Area on page 11, write "G-37 inj. no. 6." Doctor, in your opinion, is injury no. 6 nonfatal?
The appearance and also his description of small amount of subcutaneous tissue.
How does some appearance--you're referring to this line--the last two lines of the continued paragraph from page 11--page 10, "There is a small amount of fresh cutaneous hemorrhage"?
That means Mr. Goldman had blood pressure to cause bleeding at the time the wound was inflicted.
Doctor, the direction that Dr. Golden has provided, the first full photograph of page 11, which is one sentence, "No direction can be evident except for front to back, inasmuch as it is superficial." What does front to back mean as you interpret that description?
As I told you, we describe all our directions in the body being in the anatomical position, and this wound is situated in the right collarbone area. So it's going from front to back direction, from the front to the back.
Doctor, are you able to determine from that description the relative positions between Mr. Goldman and his assailant at the time injury no. 6 was received?
Because it's such a superficial wound, it could have been inflicted when the assailant was behind Mr. Goldman with a knife striking him on the right shoulder or it could be when he was in the front or in the side. It's a very superficial wound and you can't make any determination on the position of the assailant in relationship to the victim in this particular wound.
Mr. Lynch, is 20 over there by any chance? I think we have it here. Actually, why don't we put it up here. I think it might be safer if we can work with just the two easels that are presently up.
This is board by the way--I'm sorry, your Honor--2-G from the collection 357 I think.
I think our subpart--356-A through R as I recall are the autopsy materials. I think--yes. 356-A through R are the paper documents. So 357 I think is our collective set of blow-ups.
Yes. You see the entry for the wound on the diagram, the right collarbone area, and the entire description applies to the wound. It says superficial--
Superficial incised stab wound, vertically oriented, right clavicle, half an inch deep, subcutaneous, sub q and is given a configuration of the wound here in a diagrammatic fashion as an inscription next to the diagram.
Where Dr. Lakshmanan has been referring with respect to the diagram of the wound itself and the description, I've circled the area in blue. I'll write "G-37" on form 1 of the figure 20 and "inj. no. 6."
Is there anything further with respect to the six injuries on photograph G-37 that you wish to bring to our attention?
Doctor, let's go back to photograph then--photographs G-51 and G-53 to have you discuss in some detail, if you will, please, this injury that you say you have arbitrarily identified as injury no. 2 of G-51; is that correct?
And this injury that we see in G-51 is the same injury that is seen in G-53; is that correct?
It's an injury which shares a common path with injury no. 1 of G-51, but it's a separate injury. You have a 7/8 inch stab wound to the area behind the left ear and then you have an open area of skin which measures about 2-3/8 of an inch in the one is to one photograph. So--and this particular wound also cuts two inch preexisting cut in the skin at the same time, and this would be complex sharp force injury by a stab wound which took place behind the left ear, and the complexity was created by the head of the victim moving away from the knife or the knife being pulled away. But I would favor the former than the latter.
The head being pulled away at the time this plunge took place, which would cause this ripping of the skin by the knife as it's being withdrawn from the body.
Because a person who stabs would not pull out the knife in the manner this happened. They would pull it out the same way they put it in (Indicating).
For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan first began with a more or less side-to-side motion with his right hand appearing to hold a knife and said that that would not be what he would expect. He would expect that the knife to be withdrawn in the same manner in which it had been used to inflict the injury to begin with, and that was then changed with his right hand to an up and down motion with his clenched fist appearing to be holding a knife that is pointed in a downward direction.
And this also supports the--the situation which I've already described, that these are diametric processes, the movement of the weapon and the movement of the victim. So you'll never have--you'll always have these complex issues when you deal with sharp force injury. This only supports that statement which I made earlier. So this is due to that. And as I told you, there is also two-inch cut which I labeled as injury no. 3, and that was existing before this wound took place, and to explain further this wound in its depth, communicates with sharp force injury 1, which is to the left neck we've discussed. So this could have also injured the jugular--left internal jugular vein, same as stab wound no. 3 because they share a common path. But they are separate wounds in my opinion. And--
Before you get too much further ahead, doctor, you've given us a lot of information, and I want to ask some clarifying questions. Just to start with, when you're saying injury no. 1 of photograph G-51, are we talking about the same injury that we had earlier described by you as injury no. 3 of G-37?
It would mean that they--the internal injury track is shared by these two wounds, the one behind the left ear and the one in the left neck.
Now, doctor, from your review of all of the material, have you seen a description by Dr. Golden as to the path of the wound that is marked as either no. 1 of G-51 or no. 3 of G-37?
Yes, I have. The wound goes to the skin soft tissue. There's a muscle in this left neck called the sternocleidomastoid, S-T-E-R-N-O-C-L-E-I-D-O-M-A-S-T-O-I-D. And that muscle was incised. And then the--this particular wound also transected the internal jugular vein on the left side.
Can you use me again as an example and perhaps the ruler to represent a knife to indicate the direction of that particular injury, injury no. 1 of G-51?
And for the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan is holding the ruler where the end in contact with my left side of the neck is slightly elevated from the opposite end of the ruler, therefore pointing in an upward direction, and I can't quite see the left to right aspect.
That more than one penetration could have--penetration and twisting could have taken place when this wound was created. So I'm just giving one possible direction which shares this common path with this injury.
Now, doctor, is there a description of the pathway of what you have described as injury no. 2 of G-51?
Basically, as I told you, there is a skin cut because of either the--most likely from the victim moving away from the--pulling himself away from the weapon when that injury was created. The path on the internal part of the body is--is--is shared by this same wound. So you can not tell which part of the path is due to this and which part of the path is due to this (Indicating).
Doctor, is that somewhat similar to what we were talking about earlier this morning with respect to G-55 or G-40 with respect to the sharp force injury that's in the back of the neck area and that superficial incised wound, you can't tell where one ends and the other begins?
Yeah. It is very similar. Only thing here, we are discussing the external overlapping which can occur. Here we are discussing internal structure overlapping which can occur (Indicating).
Doctor, from your review of the material, do you have an opinion as to whether the complex wound that you've described as injury no. 2 was a fatal wound?
If it hit the internal jugular vein like the--the sharp force injury to the left neck which I discussed, then that also would be a potentially fatal wound.
Would it--assuming it did not hit the jugular vein on the left side, would it create a life-threatening situation nevertheless?
It would cause significant bleeding, but it would not be a fatal wound like the one which--like a wound which would strike the internal jugular vein.
Is there any way you would have expected at autopsy, that given the nature of these two wounds, injury no. 1, injury no. 2, that you would have been able to determine whether in fact injury no. 2 resulted in injury to the jugular vein along with injury to the jugular vein caused by the first stab wound?
Because of the extensive bleeding there, and I told you, the venous channels are more fragile structures and it would be difficult to evaluate it, especially if you have a massive injury to the venous channel like Dr. Golden has described, it being transected.
The wall of the vein is thin compared to the arterial artery. And when you have a transection which is taking place, it's--a portion of the venous, the vein wall would be torn.
Oh, torn. I'm sorry. Okay. Doctor, can you, again using me as Mr. Goldman and yourself as the perpetrator, demonstrate what you were talking about with the turning, the dynamics that creates what you believe is the favorite alternative for this particular injury no. 2.
Yeah. And I'd also like to discuss at this point one more injury in the ear which may be related to this wound.
Would you prefer to wait on the demonstration until you describe that injury? Is it going to be more helpful that you describe this--
Or we can do the demonstration and then we can discuss the injury because--we'll do the demonstration.
And since it's my left side, your Honor, I'm going to turn so my left side is visible to the jurors.
Like this (Demonstrating), and you pull yourself away with the skin ripping open the--because the knife penetrates. And this ruler unfortunately is on the outside. So imagine the ruler to be inside the skin and the head moves. The sharp part of the knife will rip the skin as you see it here in this photograph as the knife is being--as the knife is pulled out because of the movement of the head.
Doctor, you're going to have to position yourself again and we'll very slowly go through this so I can describe it for the record.
For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan is face-to-face with me. He's holding the ruler in a manner that it's in his right hand. He's got the lower end of the ruler. I can feel it in contact with my ear, your Honor, but I can not see exactly where it's placed. Perhaps the Court could help me out on that part.
All right. Slightly below the ear on the left neck. The doctor is holding it in what appears to be an overhand--overhead stabbing fashion.
KEY QUOTENow, doctor, would you slowly go through the process that you are talking about, this dynamic process that you--
Since the knife would have penetrated because a stabbing has taken place, but since it's a dynamic process, the victim would have pulled the head; and at that point, the sharp blade of the--sharp edge of the knife would rip the skin out. And that's how the--this wound would have been created (Demonstrating).
And for the record, Dr. Lakshmanan--if you'll get back in position, doctor, please. Dr. Lakshmanan removed the ruler from the area where it was pulling it with his right hand back towards his head at the same time I believe he's asked me to pull my head away from him.
And I have done so in a diagonal direction to the rear to reflect an effort by the victim to avoid that particular stab wound?
Doctor, in your opinion, could a single--could a single single-edged knife with an approximate six inch blade have caused sharp force injury, this complex stab wound, this no. 1 of G-51 and no. 3 of G-37 as well as what you've said is injury no. 2, this complex sharp force injury of 351?
And for all of the sharp force injuries including the little nicks and so forth that you've described at this point, could it have caused all of those as well?
Are you able to determine--I think you testified yesterday, but correct me if I'm mistaken. I believe you testified that sharp force injury no. 3 of 37, 1 of 51 could have been caused by a single-edged knife, but it is also possible it could have been caused by a double-edged knife because you can not distinguish due to the appearance of the wound. Is that accurate?
Yes. But I said I favor the single edge because of the tissue bridging you see here (Indicating).
And also because of the abrasion in the margin. But I also stated that you can not absolutely exclude a double edge because the double-edged knife tip, if it is moved on the skin perpendicular to the sharp edges, it can cause an abrasion.
And you do not take into account, do you, for your interpretation of whether this is only from a single-edged knife or possibly from a double-edged knife as well any what I'll describe as circumstantial evidence that may be presented in a trial that is not of a medical nature?
You may answer the question if you recall. I think--from that smile, doctor, I have a feeling I'd better try again.
I'll do my best. Doctor, when you are assessing whether a single-edged knife and only a single-edged knife could have created a particular sharp force injury, are you limiting yourself to the medicine that is in front of you?
Do you take into account at all circumstantial evidence that might point to who that person is that actually did this? Do you take that into account?
Or take into account, for example, if there were evidence that the person who was suspected of doing this had a particular kind of knife, that you should favor that as the kind of knife rather than another kind because there's not that kind of knife possessed by the person suspected?
No. I already emphasize, I'm only giving you medical facts. I'm giving you my opinion on the medical facts from my training, experience and education and my knowledge on the subject and my experience on doing a number of these kind of cases. It has nothing to do with circumstances. What we see here, I'm looking at the wound and I'm giving you an opinion based on the wound characteristics. And as I told you, we did do some experiments in our department with Mr. Steve Dowell and I'm giving you our experience with these type of injuries. Nothing to do with circumstances. It's pure medical opinion and nothing more than that.
KEY QUOTEDoctor, with respect to injury no. 2 of G-51, do you have an opinion as to whether that sharp force injury could only have been caused by a single-edged knife or, as is similar to the other injury, could also have been caused by a double-edged knife?
I think it could have been caused by a single-edged knife and I cannot exclude a double-edged knife.
Because of the complex nature of the wound and for the same reasons I discussed in my initial presentation of sharp force injury, cannot exclude it.
Is this injury no. 2 an example again of that third type of wound appearance that we saw in the chart?
No. This will be more akin to a penetrating/incised wound because you have a large wound. So it's very difficult to pinpoint class characteristics of a weapon from a wound as we see in G-53. As I told you, the best wound which you need to give class characteristic of a weapon is wounds where you have a simple penetration of the knife like we showed in the--in the--in the discussion on sharp force trauma earlier I think on Tuesday. And--so that is why when I did the assessment of the--of the weapons which were given to me to see if any of them could have--
Excuse me, doctor. Let me direct you back to the specific question. And I think you've answered it as I understand it. That this is more in keeping with one of those incised wounds where it is longer than it is deeper.
I said it's a complex wound because the--if it shares a common path, the depth is 4 inches, because of the communicating track of 4 inches and the length on the surface is only 2-3/8 inches. And so by that definition, it would be more of a stab wound. But--but if you look at the skin surface, it look like an incised wound. So that's why I'm saying there's a complexity to this wound.
And as a result of that complexity, you can not differentiate from what you see as to whether it is only a single-edged knife or it could be a double-edged knife?
All right. Doctor, you said something about this other injury to the ear. We did the demonstration first. Could we discuss at this point what it is regarding this ear injury that you see?
Of G-51. And let me--I mean--in G-51. And I'll see whether I gave a number--any--description of it in G-53 also.
Yes, yes, yes. I gave it a description of injury no. 4, as injury no. 4 in G-51.
It's a 3/4 inch cut to the ear and it's situated as it's seen in the photograph.
Does it have any significance to you with respect to the mechanism or manner in which this injury no. 2 of G-51 came to be inflicted?
It could have been part of the same penetration, when a portion of the knife cut the ear at the same time the penetration took place behind the left ear.
As I pointed out earlier, this wound took place in this part of the ear (Indicating). So the sharp edge of the knife was in relationship to the earlobe. As you know, the earlobe overlaps a portion of the skin behind the left ear. That left ear can also be cut while this wound is taking place.
No problem. He put himself back in the same position he was in for the original demonstration concerning that injury no. 2 and then was pointing out in relationship to where the ruler was being held where the ear was in contact with what would be the sharp edge of the knife.
Doctor, from looking at where you've described as injury no. 4, this cut, are you able to determine that it was in fact inflicted before death?
Does it have any significance to you other than as a factor in assessing a likely circumstance for injury no. 2 to have been inflicted? Does it have any significance beyond that to you on any of the issues you've considered?
In your judgment, was there any reason that it needed to be addressed in the addendum?
It need not be addressed in the addendum because it was accurately described on the diagram.
Now, again, before we go to the protocols and so forth, you also were mentioning something about how injury no. 2 is laying over another injury which, as looking at photograph G-51 and perhaps even better in G-53, there appear to be two lines for lack of a better lay term which are on either side of the scraping area of skin that is a part of injury no. 2. You did testify regarding those earlier?
Yes. I said that there was a cut which was preexistent to this sharp force injury behind the left ear.
Doctor, how are you able to say that this was a cut that was preexistent to injury no. 2?
Because if you see the cut, you can see that this other cut, this preexisting cut and you can see the depth of the cut in the margin of this wound.
Why is it, doctor, in looking at it, that it appears--I'll withdraw the question. Is it accurate to say that this part (Indicating), which is the part about midway down from where you indicated this sharp force injury begins and where you indicated it ends and is on the right side as one looks at the injury in the photograph G-53, and this other side, this smaller line, which is on the lower portion of the injury but on the left side as you look at it, how can you say that's--that was one injury that was preexisting? You talked about why it's preexistent. How can you tell it was a single injury?
Because of the complex nature of the sharp force injury behind the left ear and the ripping of the skin, the cut edges have been displaced. If you put the edges back together, you will see that they are one continuous cut. And there is a crime scene photograph, all of the autopsy photographs which I have reviewed which shows it in line.
And, doctor, is, again, this the kind of thing you're trained to look for and to do; that is try and put these wounds together to see whether these arise as a single wound or in fact are independent wounds?
So we're back down here. And again, it's not as clear there, but you have included both sides as the injury no. 3?
From what you've already told us, is it your opinion that that occurred before death?
Can you tell us anything, doctor, from its appearance or any of the other information you've gained knowledge of from your review the manner in which that injury was inflicted?
That's the kind of injury which is superficial cut. It could be from when the knife was being wielded and there's partial contact of the skin surface to the tip of the knife so wherein you only get a superficial cut, and it doesn't have any specific pattern to it like we saw in the two superficial wounds in the front of the neck where I was able to opine that there was some control over the victim at that point. But here, it's a random superficial cut which could be just from wielding and--a portion of the knife striking the victim during the dynamic process of the altercation.
Doctor, did Dr. Golden address in any fashion this injury no. 3 in his original protocol?
We've covered--let's see--injury no. 1, injury no. 2, injury no. 3 and injury no. 4 of G-51; is that correct, doctor?
Why don't we in the time that we have try and get those four taken care of with the protocols, the addendums, the diagrams, if that's okay with you.
Let's start with--we've taken care of injury no. 1 I believe; have we not, doctor?
And we've to some degree talked about injury no. 2, especially in relationship to the addendum. But where--to make sure we have covered it in an entry on the protocol, is there the reference by Dr. Golden to injury no. 2, this complex wound that you described under the left ear of Mr. Goldman?
It's described better in the addendum than in the main report because in the main original autopsy report, as you recall, Dr. Golden described that particular wound behind the left ear as part of the wound which was in the left neck.
Doctor, before we get to the actual entry, is there any way that you can understand medically how that determination could have been made by Dr. Golden?
Well, he felt that the wound to the left neck exited, came out in the--behind the left ear and also caused a cut in the left ear itself and he felt that together, they could be 6 inches in length, and that was his original opinion in the original protocol.
Before you go further, let's see if we can identify where in the original protocol he makes that kind of entry.
He says that the direction of the sharp force injury is upward front to back, the total length of the wound is approximately 4 inches.
Yes. Paragraph no. 1, page 4, it says here that the wound path went through the skin subcutaneous tissue, sternocleidomastoid muscle, transection of the left internal jugular vein with hemorrhage, dark red-purple and the direction is upward, slightly front to back, 4 inches approximately and it exits in the post-auricular area.
All right. Is that where we're going to find the beginning of what you interpret as Dr. Golden's description of this injury no. 2?
And it says that gaping stab/incised wound which has undulating or wavy borders, but is not serrated. Intersecting the wound at right angle is a superior inferior 2-inch interrupted superficial incised wound involving only the skin.
And then it continues here and it says that the length of the wound path to this one is 4 inches. He repeats that.
And before you go further, let me just finish outlining the first part of the description, and I'm going to put a red over the original blue for that very small area in the first paragraph of page 4, and I'll write out at the side "G-51 inj. no. 2." Is that correct? That is to reflect what Dr. Golden is in fact referring to that you believe is injury no. 2?
He--actually he doesn't address it further here except to say that he describes injury no. 4, which is the cut to the left ear, 3/4 inch cut.
Line 4, paragraph 3, page 4. However, there is a 3/4 inch cut--I mean 3/4 inch in length linear cutting incised wound to the top or superior aspect of the pinna of the left ear.
And then he says that a straight metallic probe placed through the major sharp force injury shows that the injury to the superior part of the ear can be aligned with the metallic rod suggesting that the three injuries are related.
He says that he put a metal rod through the--metal rod through the wound behind the ear, and this wound and the left neck, they all share a common path which can also be related to the cut in the left ear.
When you say, "They share a common path," in lay terms, they're in a straight line?
And he says that path is 6 inches up to here, this point (Indicating). The length of the path is 6 inches.
So from what Dr. Golden has indicated on this particular entry, he has expressed a view that what you start out with as injury no. 1 of G-51, what you have as injury no. 2 of G-51 and what you have to the ear as injury no. 4 of G-51 were all the product of the knife going in where--where injury no. 1 begins, the knife going through and exiting the ear where you believe the beginning of injury no. 2 actually exists, exiting the head and cutting the ear in the area of the pinna as indicated from the photograph and Dr. Golden's description. Is that what in essence Dr. Golden has said?
Doctor, other than they're all in a straight line, medically, does any of that make sense?
Would you describe Dr. Golden's interpretation of what those three injuries reflect as a mistake?
Because the cause of death would still be the same because the jugular vein is injured and the cause of death is due to the bleeding of the vessel.
Because this is a homicide. This is a death in the hands of another. That really doesn't change with the interpretation of this wound.
Whether a single single-edged knife, 6-inch blade approximately, caused all injuries 1, 2 and 4?
Because as I told you earlier, these wounds are complex. You can not--it could be a single-edged knife and you cannot exclude a double-edged knife.
It doesn't change that either because the jugular vein, as I told you, is a big vessel in the left neck and it will cause bleeding and it won't change anything as to the effect of the bleeding from the description of these wounds.
With respect to how long Mr. Goldman lived from the time those three injuries were inflicted?
Again, that won't have an effect because of the physiological process of bleeding and shock is totally different from the interpretation of injuries which is what has been drawn here.
Including whether one person is responsible for killing Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?
Because one person could have done the same injuries as I see it and the--that doesn't--that will not be reflected by the appearance of these injuries.
Let's do the addendum in the short time that we have left, and we can pick up the diagram later if necessary. Doctor, you've already told us a bit about how the addendum--
Page 2, item 4. So where we have this outlined in red, should we also add now "And G-51 injury no. 2"?
All right. The part that we've already outlined, is this a change with respect to injury no. 2?
With the word: "Dissection discloses that this wound path communicates or connects along the tissue plane with a sharp force wound of the left posterior auricular region which is gaping and has undulating or wavy borders particularly on the anterior aspect; after approximation of the edges, it measures 2 inches in length and inferior end is tapered or pointed; the superior end has a semicircular configuration measuring 7/8 by 1/2 inch. The two sharp force injuries communicate along the tissue planes and are separated by a length of 4 inches." That's the discussion of injury no. 2?
Doctor, in your opinion, does that accurately reflect the true circumstances of injury no. 2?
And then back to this item 5, the opinion that had originally been expressed by Dr. Golden, in essence that this was one sharp force injury, 1, 2 and 4, one sharp force injury is now changed to read as it is in item 5?
"These sharp force injuries of the neck are fatal as they are associated with transection of the left internal jugular vein with hemorrhage. Though they share common areas of injury, they appear to be separate wounds." In your opinion, is that an accurate opinion to reflect the true circumstances that exist between injury no. 1 and injury no. 2 of photo G-51?
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess at this time, and we will not reconvene with you until Monday afternoon. Some of the parties have other commitments. And so we'll start--we'll be in recess until 1:30 on Monday. Please remember--that means you can sleep in Monday morning. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss this case among yourselves, do not form any opinions about this case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you and do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. All right. Have a pleasant weekend. We'll see you Monday morning--excuse me--Monday afternoon at 1:30. Let me see Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Cochran with the court reporter, please.
That's why you should not talk and eat, and you'll aspirate if you talk and eat.
No. I already emphasize, I'm only giving you medical facts. I'm giving you my opinion on the medical facts from my training, experience and education... It has nothing to do with circumstances. What we see here, I'm looking at the wound and I'm giving you an opinion based on the wound characteristics.
It didn't make sense to me.
All right. Slightly below the ear on the left neck. The doctor is holding it in what appears to be an overhand--overhead stabbing fashion.