|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: There are three declarations regarding service. First one is as to Brasini. MR. P. BAKER: In terms of Brasini, Judge, we called the number provided to us; we sent a process server out to his occupation or his workplace in Chula Vista for approximately six hours, informed Mr. Brasini -- that he was there. He wouldn't come out and accept service. I called him, asked to leave a message for Mr. Brasini, that I was an attorney trying to serve him with a subpoena. He wouldn't accept service. And we've tried, now, for over 20 hours to serve this gentleman; he's avoiding service. We would request to read his trial testimony in. THE COURT: Okay. That's not a deposition, but trial testimony? MR. P. BAKER: Trial testimony from the criminal trial. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Submit. THE COURT: You're conceding? MR. PETROCELLI: We don't concede anything, Your Honor; we submit to your good judgment. THE COURT: Normally, there are some issues, but if you're just submitting, then we'll go along. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: Declaration with regards to -- MR. P. BAKER: There's -- THE COURT: -- Ramirez and Ball. MR. P. BAKER: Ramirez and Ball are both in Indonesia. We're only going to call Edward Ramirez because Ramirez and Ball are duplicative. THE COURT: These are police officers? MR. P. BAKER: Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Same. THE COURT: Okay. MR. P. BAKER: Michael Norris, who currently resides in Kansas, we would request to read in his criminal trial testimony. MR. PETROCELLI: Same thing. THE COURT: Okay. MR. P. BAKER: We have some exhibits to move in, for the record for -- MR. BAKER: 1239, 1240, 1241, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1411. THE COURT: There being no objection, they're received. MR. BAKER: Thank you. (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1239 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1240 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1241 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1403 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1404 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1405 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1406 was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1407 for identification, was received in evidence by reference by reference to Criminal Case No. BA097211.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1411 for identification, was received in evidence by reference to Criminal Case No. BA097211.) THE CLERK: 1407 and 1411 were received by reference. THE COURT: Okay. Bring in the jury, please. MR. PETROCELLI: Before you do so, may I briefly be heard on the side-bar conference we had concerning Henry Lee's opinion testimony on the subject of the shoe prints? THE COURT: All right. MR. PETROCELLI: I reviewed the trial testimony taken by video deposition, and at page 167, Dr. Lee testifies that he saw one other imprint besides the Bruno Magli shoe prints, which he was able to identify as a shoe print that is set forth in Criminal Exhibit Number 1337-A. However, on cross-examination, at page 320, Dr. Lee testifies that he is unable to say whether that particular imprint was identified -- excuse me -- was put on the scene after the murders or not. In other words, Dr. Lee was unable to testify that this one particular imprint that he said was a shoe print was actually placed on the scene the night of the murders, as opposed to some subsequent time. So the only shoe prints that Dr. Lee was able to identify as having originated at the time of the murders were the Bruno Magli shoe prints. MR. BLASIER: Obviously, Dr. Lee wasn't allowed on the scene until the 25th of June. He saw this imprint evidence, which he testified was consistent with the shoe print. A phenol test was done on it; it was tested positive for blood. That's the best we can do. THE COURT: You may frame the question appropriately within the parameters of Dr. Lee's qualifications of that evidence. And you may not state it categorically as a determination. All right. Bring the jury in. (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Morning. JURORS: Morning, Your Honor. THE CLERK: You are still under are oath. Would you please state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Michael Baden. Thank you. MICHAEL BADEN, the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment on Monday, December 16, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: MR. MEDVENE: Morning, Your Honor. Morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Morning. MR. MEDVENE: Morning, Dr. Baden. THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. Medvene. CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. With reference to the sock or socks, Dr. Baden, that you referred to yesterday as having looked at, is it correct, sir, that you did not examine the socks? A. That's correct. Q. And you did not touch them? A. That's correct. Q. You did not pick them up? A. That's correct. Q. You did not hold them up to the light? A. That's correct. Q. You didn't perform any sort of microscopic examination on them? A. That's correct. Q. You did not turn them inside out? A. That's correct. Q. The lighting in the room was not very bright; isn't that true? A. Little brighter than the lighting here. Q. But not very bright for purposes of examination? A. That's correct. Q. And you wrote on that day, you were doing an analysis, or you were reviewing, or an inventory of certain items of evidence? A. That's correct. Q. And you wrote, "Two dark socks. No analysis yet." Is that correct? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. And would you agree, sir, that it's certainly possible when you saw the socks, because of the conditions, that you just overlooked or missed any blood that might have been on them? A. Yes, in general, that would be fair. Q. Thank you, sir. Would it be correct, sir -- I notice you have some -- and it's fine that you do -- I notice you have some things in front of you. What are they? A. I just have the report of the -- my visit to the laboratory that you're referring to, and two autopsy reports, in case some questions come up, I can answer them more quickly. Q. That's fine. Is it fair to say, Dr. Baden, that from your review of the autopsy reports, the tissue, the material that you examined at the coroner's office, that's all consistent with one assailant having committed both of the murders? A. Could you just repeat that question. Q. Sure. Yes, sir. Is it fair that, based on your review as a doctor, your profession -- A. Yes. Q. -- of the autopsy photos, the tissues, the other material you examined at the coroner's office, that those things that I've just referred to, were all consistent with one assailant having committed both murders? MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. The question is -- is vague and improper to ask him to consider just some things and not consider -- THE COURT: I can't hear you. MR. BLASIER: He's asking him to consider just some things and not everything that went into his opinion. And it's irrelevant unless he's allowed to consider everything that went into his opinion. THE COURT: Overruled. You may ask the witness to consider each item, piece by piece. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is my statement a fair one? A. Yeah, I understand what you're asking. On the basis that you listed, yes. Q. And are you aware, sir, of the testimony that it is anticipated Dr. Lee will offer at this trial, that other than the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints that were at the scene of the murder, there was only one other shoe print he could identify on the walkway; and he was not able to say whether or not that shoe print was placed there some date after the murders. Are you aware of that? A. No. Q. Now -- A. I'm not aware of that. Q. Now, assuming that Dr. Lee's testimony would be that, other than the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, the one pair of size 12 bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, he observed one shoe print on the walkway, but did not know when that print was placed there; and he observed that on June 25, is it correct, sir, that the facts available to you are consistent with one assailant having committed the murders? Yes or no, sir? A. I can't answer that yes or no. Q. All right, sir. A. May I ask you something? Q. Yes, sir. A. Just to clarify. Two things. Do I take into consideration Dr. Lee's prior testimony? Q. Just his testimony at this trial. A. Just what you're representing -- Q. Yes, sir. A. -- in testimony. And do I take into consideration what Dr. Lee and I discussed -- Q. No, sir. A. -- at the walkway when I was there at the time we identified that shoe print? Q. No, sir. Because if Dr. Lee has anything to say, he'll tell this jury in testimony that's going to be read or shown to this jury. So putting aside your discussions with Dr. Lee, which I'm sure if relevant, he'll tell this jury, and making the one assumption that I just told you about Dr. Lee's testimony, he only observed one pair of bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints on his examination; and he saw one other shoe print; and didn't know when it got there. Is it your testimony, sir, that, based on the facts that you know of as a medical doctor, as someone testifying here, that the facts are consistent with one assailant having committed the murders? Yes or no, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Improper hypothetical. Does not conform to the facts. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. MEDVENE: Yes or no, sir? A. If I accept just precisely what you say, that further would be consistent with one person. Q. Thank you, sir. Now, is it also true, sir, that it would be your testimony that all of the knife wounds inflicted in this double murder are consistent with having been delivered by one knife? Yes or no, sir? A. Yes, could be. Q. Isn't it true, sir, from your experience, in face-to-face struggles between a motivated killer with a knife and a defenseless victim, that the victim could have the kind of injuries Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman sustained, and there would be no wounds on the assailant? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Two victims here. Hypothetical based on a single witness. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Isn't that true, sir? THE COURT: Sustained. There's two victims mentioned Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: He said victim, but no two names. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that true, sir? Yes or no, sir? A. If I remember the question properly, yes; that is, the perpetrator need not have injuries, need not suffer injuries. Q. And while the perpetrator, as you said, in a struggle such as was sustained by Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman need not suffer injuries, isn't it, true, sir, that if the assailant had his left arm around one of the victims in the course of attempting to slash that victim's throat, in your experience, it is certainly possible that the victim could have attempted to scratch and pull away the assailant's arm from her throat? You would agree that that's certainly a possibility, would you not, sir? A. Yes. Q. And certainly, the answer would be the same if the assailant, instead of having his left arm around Ms. Brown's throat, had his arm around Mr. Goldman's throat, your answer would be the same; that it would certainly be possible for the victim to attempt to remove the assailant's hand and scratch the hand in the process; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, you saw Mr. Simpson and examined his left hand on June 17 of 1994; is that correct, sir? A. Yes. Q. And you were -- and Dr. Huizenga was with you? A. Yes. Q. Dr. Lee? A. Yes, and Dr. Faerstein, a psychiatrist. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. May I have a spelling for Dr. Faerstein, please. MR. PETROCELLI: F-a-e-r-s-t-e-i-n. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And, Dr. Baden, you were aware at the time of the examination, that Dr. Huizenga, on the 15th, had observed three cuts, one of which had an A and B portion, and seven abrasions on Mr. Simpson's left hand, are you not? Dr. Huizenga told you that? A. At some point, I knew that, but I'm not sure that I knew that at the time that I came there. At some point later, we discussed the findings. But I don't -- I didn't discuss it before I made my examination. Q. But you were with Dr. Huizenga that day? A. That morning, yes. Q. Now, is it accurate, sir, that after examining Mr. Simpson, he told you he received certain of those marks on his hands while he was still in Los Angeles on June the 12th, preparing for his trip to Chicago? A. Yes. Q. And he told you, did he not, sir, that he wasn't quite sure how he cut himself? A. Yes. Q. That he noticed he had been bleeding? A. Yes. Or had some blood on his hand, yes. Q. That he doesn't know how it came about in his house? A. Yes. Q. And it happened, he thought, somewhere in his home on Rockingham before he left for Chicago; is that correct, sir? A. Yes. Q. Thank you, sir. A. Yes. Q. Is it correct, sir -- Is it correct, sir, that it was your opinion that the injuries on Mr. Simpson's hand could have been the result of a struggle between Mr. Simpson and another human being? Yes or no, sir? MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. "Could have been" is vague. (Court reviews real-time computer screen.) THE COURT: Overruled. A. It's not my opinion, but it could have happened that way, yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, in discussing fingernail marks yesterday, doctor, you said, did you not, that one of the reasons you did not believe certain -- a certain mark or marks you were shown were not fingernail gouge marks, was because none of the fingernails had the skin of the assailant under them; is that correct? A. No. I -- that wasn't the reason I don't think it's gouge marks. Q. You were asked sir, can you tell us why, in your opinion, that couldn't be a fingernail gouge mark. And in part, didn't you say, sir, none of them had skin on them? Didn't you say that, sir? MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. If he's reading part of an answer, he should read the whole answer. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Didn't you say that, Sir; none of them had skin on them? A. I'd have to see that in context, if I might, because that's not the reason. Q. Excuse me, sir? A. That's not the reason that I don't think they're fingernail marks. However, if there were skin under them, of course, that would be a different situation. Q. Sir, my question was: Do you now recall, in answer to a question, whether, in your opinion, certain marks could be fingernail marks? You said in part, none of them had skin on them. Do you remember using those words? A. I don't see what you mean, "in part." I said in part or -- Q. As part of your answer, you said none of them had skin on them? A. That might be an aspect to it, but that's not the reason that I don't think they're fingernail marks. Because to get -- Q. Excuse me sir? A. -- them -- Q. I've asked you if you said those words. And you remember saying them or you don't. A. -- I -- Q. Just yes or no, sir. A. -- I remember saying those words, but not in quite the context that you're indicating. Q. Is it true, sir, that if a victim, during the course of being attacked, scratches their assailant, you would not expect to find the skin of the assailant under the victim's fingernails? That is an accurate statement? A. I think that's true. It happens occasionally, but that's very unusual to happen that way, in my experience. Q. Now, I'm going to put on the screen, Dr. Baden, certain of the marks on Mr. Simpson's hands. And this one is, I believe, 715, what we call number 2. (Exhibit 715-2 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And that's the -- now I'm going to -- Now, those marks that you see on top of Mr. -- those marks are on the top of Mr. Simpson's hand; is that correct? A. On the back of the hand, these marks here? (Indicating.) Q. Yes, sir. A. On the back of the hand, yes. Q. And you see several? A. Yes. Q. And those could be fingernail marks, could they not? They're curved; they're gouged; and they're certainly consistent, you would say, with fingernail marks. Is that true, sir? Yes or no? A. They're very nonspecific. Could be anything, including fingernail marks. Q. They could be fingernail marks? A. It's within the possibility. I wouldn't call them fingernail marks. Could be. Q. Okay. Now, did Mr. Simpson tell you how he received those marks? A. Not specifically. I didn't ask him about those marks. Q. Thank you. Your answer is, he did not; is that correct? A. We did not specifically discuss those marks (indicating to Elmo screen). Q. And you did not specifically ask him, did you? A. That's correct. Q. Thank you. A. I asked him about other things. Q. I didn't ask you if you asked him about other things. You didn't ask him about these marks that could be fingernail marks; you didn't ask him about those? A. I don't think they're fingernail marks. Q. Sir? A. I didn't specifically. Q. You've done this a lot of times, and I want you to answer my question, if you would. Your counsel will ask you his questions. Dr. Baden, let's go in steps again. You said they could be fingernail marks? A. No. You asked me if it's possible it's fingernail marks. Yes, it's a tenth of one percent possibility that they're fingernail marks. I didn't ask him about them. Q. You didn't ask him how he got them? A. Not specifically. MR. BLASIER: Can you put on 2165. (Indicating to Mr. Foster.) (Exhibit 2165 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. Dr. Baden, you said yesterday, by the way, did you not, in your testimony, nothing about one-half of one percent; but you said yesterday in reference to these very marks, that they could be fingernail marks, did you not, sir? Isn't that what you told the jury, yesterday? A. These marks here? Q. Yes, sir. A. They could be anything. They could be anything. I did not think then or now that they were fingernail marks, but they could be anything. Q. Okay, sir. Now, you say they were curved? A. You said they were curved. I don't really see them being curved. Q. You see some skin gouged out? A. They're abrasions. Like, I have one on my finger here, just a little crust. I can't tell what caused it. Q. Okay, sir. MR. BLASIER: We'll put up 715, number 13. (Exhibit 715, number 13 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, those, you would say, those were curved, wouldn't you, Dr. Baden? A. No, not curved. They're lacerations of the skin. Q. They're consistent with somebody having their fingernail and causing that mark, aren't they, sir? A. I don't think so, no, no. No. Q. You see some white tissue in the center of the photo, white tissue, white skin? A. This skin here? Q. Yeah. A. And this is a little -- this is tissue, and here's tissue (indicating to photo). I think this looks more like a paper cut kind of thing. Q. It wouldn't be a knife wound, would it, because that would cut it clean and be a different pattern? A. No, I think that sharp -- this is a sharp wound. (Indicating to Elmo screen.) One of the possibilities is a knife wound or some kind of a more jagged knife, not a sharp, very sharp knife. I think it's something -- it's something that cuts the skin. Q. Now, did you -- strike that. You didn't ask Mr. Simpson where he got those wounds, did you? A. I did. I did ask him. Q. Is that the one he told you he got in Chicago, or he didn't know where he got it? A. No, no. When I asked him about the cut wounds that -- the wounds that broke the skin, this, this, and the others, the other two I think, he indicated to me he didn't know where he had gotten them, but he had gotten blood on his hand after rummaging through his car, looking for the cell phone and while at his house. He noticed blood, but he didn't quite know how that happened. Q. Ah -- A. Because he often cut himself. And he does have a lot of scars on him. Q. You're not an advocate -- A. I'm sorry? Q. Now, Mr. Simpson got these wounds, he told you, at his house the night of the murders, and -- somehow, rummaging in his car, with his car phone. Now, Dr. Baden, did you ask him to look at his car phone to see if there were any rough edges, points sticking out, sharp objects that could have cut his hand in those two places? Yes or no, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. That misstates his testimony. THE COURT: Over -- THE WITNESS: I didn't quite -- THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no, sir? A. I didn't say he cut it on the car phone. Q. Sir -- A. I did not say he that he told me he -- didn't tell me he cut it on the car phone. Q. Sir -- A. Pardon. He cut himself, and I'm stating -- please. MR. BLASIER: May he -- THE COURT: Let him answer, Mr. Medvene. A. (Continuing.) -- that he told me he had -- he saw blood on his hands, and he had somehow cut himself while in the house and rummaging around. He didn't tell me that these were those cuts. I misstated that. He said somehow he cut himself; he didn't know where. He saw blood. He had rummaged for his car phone, and that there was -- it was dark. The light was out. And he thought he might have cut himself there or someplace else. I don't know which -- there were four different cuts, these two and two others (indicating). He didn't specify to me which -- what occurred at the time. I'm saying something happened, according to what he told me. Q. So that I have it correctly -- and I apologize -- A. I'm sorry. Q. That's okay. So -- So that I have it correctly, he was -- I don't want to misstate this. Are you saying he was rummaging around in his house in the dark in -- with the car phone? A. No. What I recollect in my discussion with him on that day, he said he was rummaging around in the car in the dark. He went out to the car to get -- he was looking for his car phone, and he was rummaging around. He then was in the house. And at some point, he noticed blood on his left hand -- Q. Oh, came -- A. -- and he doesn't know what happened when. Q. All right, sir. Just somehow started bleeding; that's the best -- A. He noted -- He noted blood on his hand. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm going to move to another area, if I might. Would you agree, Dr. Baden, that there's no question that a motivated killer could have inflicted the injuries that Ms. Brown sustained very, very quickly? Those knife wounds could have been very rapid; would you agree with that? MR. BLASIER: Vague as to "very, very quickly." THE COURT: Well, in conjunction with the motions that Mr. Medvene made, I don't think it's ambiguous. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you agree with that, sir? Yes or no? A. I can't answer. You have too many things in the question. Q. My question is, you're aware of the stab wounds Ms. Brown received, are you not? A. Yes. Q. And my question is, could somebody, intent on killing Ms. Brown, have inflicted those wounds very quickly, sir? Yes or no? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the evidence. There's more than stab wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson. THE COURT: I think he indicated more than stab wounds. Overruled. THE COURT: Yes or no, sir? A. The problem I have is "motivated and intent on." Those are different issues. I can't read motivation and intent on. Any killer -- any killer could have rapidly inflicted the cut wounds, stab wounds and the bump on the head, quickly. Yes, it could happen very quickly. But I can't tell if they're motivated or not. Q. Let's talk about that a little bit. As a man with your 30 years or so experience, would you say that the killer was motivated to kill? In looking at the wounds that show he virtually slaughtered Ms. Brown by severing the major vessels of her neck, would that appear to you that he was motivated to kill her, sir? MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, objection. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Or that it was an accident? MR. BLASIER: Argumentative. No foundation. This person can't tell what's inside his mind. THE COURT: Overruled. I think this witness can answer the question. You're trying to ascertain what is motivation and accidental. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you? A. Mr. Medvene, I don't think this was accidental. A killer killed Mrs. Simpson and -- Q. He was motivated to kill her, wasn't he, sir? A. I don't know what you mean by that, as all killers are motivated to kill their victims; and they're all terrible. And dying -- being murdered is terrible, whether it's ten wounds or one wound. It's terrible. Q. Dr. Baden, this killer -- this killer -- A. Yes. Q. -- virtually slaughtered Ms. Brown by severing the major vessels in her neck, did he not? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no? A. I don't know what you mean by "slaughtered." Q. When you slaughter an animal, sir -- are you familiar with slaughtering an animal? MR. BLASIER: Objection; argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Are you a familiar with how an animal is slaughtered? Yes or no? A. You're using how cows are slaughtered by cutting the neck? I guess that -- that -- Q. That's what -- A. -- Mrs. Simpson died of a cut wound to the neck that cut through the major arteries of the neck. Q. Like somebody slaughters an animal; isn't that true? A. I've never seen anybody slaughter an animal. Q. You know how it's done? A. I've heard. Q. That's how it was done here; isn't that true, sir? Yes or no? A. Slaughtering an animal is intentionally cutting through the arteries of the neck. I don't know if this was an -- if the murderer intentionally cut the arteries in the neck. This seems like a lot of stab wounds, a lot of cuts on the person, which happened to cut the carotid arteries, yes. Q. Did -- was there, sir, a large neck wound that Ms. Brown suffered that went around to the spine? Was that -- A. That went down to the spine, yes. About an inch or so. An inch or two. Q. And at the same time, she suffered the slashing of her carotid arteries; isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. No question the person meant to kill her by slashing her throat, is there, Dr. Baden? Are you saying maybe just giving her a warning? A. No, I'm not saying. "Slaughter" is not a medical or pathological term; may be a legal term, may be a public term. Whoever killed Ms. Brown, killed her by cutting through her neck and cutting her carotid arteries. I don't -- "slaughter" is not a term that I've ever used. Q. And she would have lost consciousness from the carotid artery cut within ten seconds or so; is that not true? A. Yes, I believe so. Once the carotid arteries are cut, she still could be conscious for five, ten seconds, and then lose consciousness. Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Let's talk about Mr. Goldman. Is it true, sir, that the assailant, with a large knife, could inflict a number of stab wounds on Mr. Goldman's body very rapidly, with very rapid thrusts of his knife, into Mr. Goldman? You would agree with that, would you not? A. Yes. Q. The issue you raise, as I understand it in your testimony, is not that the wounds could be inflicted very quickly, in a matter of seconds; but the issue you raise is how long does it take for the blood to pour out, so that Mr. Goldman became incapacitated, unconscious, and die. Is that a fair statement? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Mischaracterizes his testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that a fair statement, sir? Yes or no? A. It's partially fair. It's partially fair. There's another aspect to it: The fact that there was no bleeding from the chest, the two chest wounds, and the aortic wound. Q. All right. We're going to talk about that. You told this jury yesterday about the wounds to the left jugular vein. Do you remember that? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you told us about where you thought that blood went. Remember? A. Yes. Q. And it was your testimony, as I understand it, that the blood from the left jugular vein flowed all the way to Mr. Goldman's shoes, and that's what -- took whatever time you say it took him to be unconscious and then die; is that correct, sir? A. The time it took him till he collapsed to the ground; that is, he was upright for a few minutes, then he collapsed to the ground. And then I can't tell the time from the clothing. Q. Okay. Is it true, sir, the left jugular vein is -- could you point it out to the jury, point it out? A. It's right next to the carotid artery that we feel a pulse out in the neck (Witness indicates to his own neck). That is, on both sides of the neck, there's an artery that we take a pulse. On the outside of that artery, closer to the skin is the jugular vein. We can't feel the jugular vein because it doesn't have a pulse, but it's right there. It's about half an inch under the skin. Q. On the left side? A. Both sides. The one I related to was on the left side. Q. 'Cause that's where she [sic] was cut? A. He was cut, yes, sir. Q. Now, is it accurate, sir, that in your words, there was surprisingly little blood found on Mr. Goldman's shirt? Is that and accurate statement, sir? A. There was blood on Mr. -- Q. Surprisingly little amount; is that correct, sir? A. My opinion is, there was blood on the shirt. I don't -- perhaps you can refresh my memory. Q. Wasn't there a surprisingly little amount of blood, in your opinion, on the shirt, sir? A. As I sit here, my best recollection, there was blood on the shirt. I wouldn't characterize it now as surprisingly little. It was blood. Q. Wasn't there, in your opinion, about three ounces of blood? A. Oh, oh, um, it might be. I mean, the amount of blood -- a small amount of blood can cause stains, yes. A few ounces of blood could all -- could be all that's on the shirt, yes. I don't think that's surprisingly little, because it all doesn't get absorbed. Q. Well -- MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Blasier, 41359. MR. BLASIER: 59? MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. 41360. I'd like -- I'm going to read from the middle of the answer which talks about the shirt -- MR. BLASIER: No, I'm going to ask -- MR. MEDVENE: -- At lines 14 through 20. MR. BLASIER: I'm going to ask that the question and the answer be read. MR. MEDVENE: Well, I just purport to read everything that has to do with the shirt, Your Honor. THE COURT: Read it. Mr. Blasier, you can read the whole thing when it becomes your turn. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'll read you the portion about the shirt, Dr. Baden. A. Yes, sir. Q. And the amount of -- I'm reading at line 14. "And the amount of blood on the shirt, seen on the shirt, doesn't account -- it's a very, you know, three ounces of blood, at most, and on the shirt fabric. And that's all accountable on the left side of the neck. "God bless you, Ms. Clark. "From the left side of the neck, that -- and surprisingly little blood on the shirt. " Did you give that answer on a previous issue? A. It sounds right MR. MEDVENE: We're putting 440 on the screen. (The instrument herein referred to as photograph depicting Ron Goldman's shirt was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 440.) (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 440 displayed on the Elmo screen.) A. I can't tell if -- if this shirt -- if the shirt is toward the normal position, and not inside out, then this would be the left side. (Indicating.) Q. That is the side with hardly any blood? A. Oh, no. That's blood here. (Indicating.) Q. That's blood? A. Yeah. Q. But it's not as much blood as on the other side? A. That's correct. This is -- Q. And -- A. -- this is after the body's moved and it's taken off. Q. Sir, just asking you -- A. Yeah. But at this point, when this photograph is taken, there's more blood on the right side than the left side. Q. And there appears to be, you said, surprisingly little blood on the shirt. If the blood is coming from the left side, the left jugular vein, there certainly is no soaking of the shirt on the left side; isn't that correct, Dr. Baden? Yes or no, sir? A. You asked too many things in the question. Q. My question, sir, is -- A. I mean, you have about three things in there. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Compound. THE COURT: It's not just -- excuse me. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. THE COURT: That wasn't compound. He just said if the blood came from the jugular vein on the left side, is that a lot of blood or not a lot of blood. A. It's not a lot of blood on the left side. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Thank you. A. But consistent with the blood, bleeding down from the left jugular vein. Q. And there's no soaking of blood on the left side, is there? A. Well, this is -- there's soaking of some blood in there, but it's not soaking as on the right side. But this soaking occurs after he's collapsed and he's on the ground. Q. All right, sir. So we're talking -- you've talked to us about gravity and what happens with gravity. And you talked to us about the oozing from the vein. A. Yes, sir. Q. And if the blood was coming from the left jugular cut and traveling down the shirt on its way to the shoes, for whatever reason, you don't see it on that photo; isn't that correct, sir? Yes or no? A. They're not inconsistent. Q. All right, sir. A. Blood can come down and not get -- for two or three minutes and not get onto the shirt very much. And then when I lay down on the ground, it sits there for ten hours on the ground. Q. So the blood -- Is it your theory -- A. It's not immediate absorption of blood. Q. Is it your theory that you're going to tell this jury, with reasonable medical certainty, that this blood you're talking about that oozed out slowly from the left jugular vein, somehow made its way across the shirt, basically, without being absorbed, and then made its way wherever it went? A. To the jeans. Q. Yeah. A. Certainly, because the shirt isn't the skin, it -- it goes down. And when I say "slowly," we're talking about a few minutes. It goes down from the jugular vein, on the skin, down to the pants, and -- or where the belt is. And it doesn't necessarily soak into the shirt, except in portions where the shirt is against the skin. And it's only a couple minutes' exposure, few minutes' exposure. Q. So we have it on the right side but not the left side. It wouldn't necessarily soak into the shirt on the left side, but it would soak into the -- somehow, some blood from in here came on the right side? (Indicating to photo) A. The right side soaking is while he's laying on his right side for ten hours, before the body is removed. And then while he's transported down to the -- to the L.A. mortuary, until the -- the clothing is removed. So most of this soaking, 95 percent of the soaking, occurs after he collapses. Q. But we have no soaking on the left side that we can -- A. Well, there is -- there's a lot of blood. If you or I had this much blood on our shirt right now, we'd be concerned about it. Q. Well, let's talk about that. You made some reference to the abdomen. That shirt, you're aware, was pulled up on Mr. Goldman's body, and his abdomen was exposed between where the shirt was pulled up and his belt line; is that correct, sir? A. At the time the first photograph was taken, yes. Q. Well, as he lay dead? A. As he was found. Q. Yeah. Now, is it true, sir, that you have previously testified that you did not see on the skin, a trail of blood along the upper edge of the left side of the body going down to the belt line; isn't that true, sir? A. I never testified, but that's my best recollection in the photographs. Q. Okay. So, we have whatever blood we have or don't have on the left side. Then we don't have any trail from where the shirt stops and the pants begin. And then we have a certain amount of blood in the pants. Is that correct, sir? A. Yes. And as I recall, there was some blood from the left flank wound that went horizontally down. Q. We're going to talk about the flank. THE WITNESS: There was a little bit of blood there. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) So, some? A. If I may, I'm talking from the first photographs. I don't know if anybody looked before they took the first photograph, because there were a lot of things going on before the photographs were taken. Q. Dr. Baden, if you don't know now that -- I'm trying to get the basis for your opinion -- A. Yes, sir. Q. So whatever happened or didn't happen, we're working with what you know, to give your opinion. And where we are so far is, we have whatever blood we saw or didn't see on the left side of the shirt. We then do not have a continuous trail -- A. Yes. Q. -- of blood to the belt line, and then we have the pants? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now -- and incidentally, there was no notation made anywhere of blood or any particular amount of blood on the abdomen; isn't that correct? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Notation by who? MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. Q. From your review of the photos, you and Dr. Wolfe, there was no notation made in those notes of any blood found caked on Mr. Goldman's abdomen, as contrasted with his buttocks, for example; isn't that true? A. I don't know what you mean by "buttocks." It's whatever the report is. But we have the photographs as the best evidence. Q. When you say you don't know what I mean by -- by buttocks, isn't it true, sir, that in an examination that you made of the evidence -- A. Which day is that? Q. -- on 2/19, February 19, '95, at the Albany Medical Center -- A. Oh, I'm sorry. That's -- Q. -- that there is a notation, dried blood staining, both buttocks? A. I'd have to review that. But that was at Albany Medical Center, yes, when they sent us the material. (Witness reviews document) A. (Continuing.) Oh, this is referring to the -- to the blue jeans, not to the skin. Okay. I'm sorry; I misunderstood. Yes, that there was -- there was dried blood on the buttock areas of Mr. Goldman's blue jeans, yes. Q. But no reference to any dried blood on the skin area, abdomen area, between where the shirt is pulled up and the belt line; is that correct? A. What I'm referring to there is when we examined the clothing -- Q. I understand, sir. A. -- not the skin. We didn't have the skin to examine. Q. Just trying to make the point, if you saw blood from pictures or clothing. A. Okay. Q. You made notes, correct? A. No, I didn't see the skin. When we examined evidence, we made notes. So. . . Q. You saw -- A. What those notes are, descriptions of the clothing, as we're including the -- the clothing, not of the photographs. The photographs are permanent documentation by themselves. But that's just the jeans that we're talking about. We handled it and looked at it. Q. Is it also true, in terms of blood, we know we have about three ounces on the shirt. You told us, is it true, that in the neck area, there's no swelling or discoloration internally that would demonstrate any massive bleeding in the neck or chest? A. Yeah. There was a little bit of hemorrhage in -- from the soft tissues around the jugular vein, but no accumulation of blood in that area; yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now, we then go down to the pants, if we can. MR. MEDVENE: And could you put the picture up, please. What number is that? THE CLERK: It's going to be next in -- MR. FOSTER: Next in order, 2268. MR. MEDVENE: Next in order, 2268, I believe. THE CLERK: (Nods affirmatively.) (The instrument herein referred to as photographdepictingn Ron Goldman's pants and a ruler was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2268.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, would it be -- first, in terms of the thigh wound, Mr. Goldman suffered a wound to the thigh; is that correct? A. Left thigh, yes, sir. Q. And the thigh wound was in a vascular area; isn't that true, sir? A. Not an exceptionally vascular area. There are blood vessels in every part of the body. It would have been around where I'm pointing, a few inches below the pocket of the jeans. Q. I didn't ask you if it was exceptionally vascular. Like, when we cut our finger, it bleeds? A. Yes. It's vascular. Q. It's vascular. What does "vascular" mean? A. There are blood vessels there. Q. And if it's cut, it's going to bleed? A. Yes. Q. And it's going to bleed even without striking a major blood vessel; isn't that true? A. Yes, yes. Q. Is it true, in terms of figuring out where the blood came from, that the blood on the left pant leg appears soaked, in contrast to whatever blood we saw on the left side of the shirt? Isn't that a correct statement, sir? A. It is heavier in the pant, in the jeans than in the shirt, yes, sir. Q. Now, sir, you're suggesting to us that blood from the jugular vein -- MR. MEDVENE: Would you throw that shirt picture up again. (Exhibit No. 440 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) That blood from the jugular vein is going to go down -- is going to go the left side of the shirt and leave that amount of blood. MR. MEDVENE: Now throw up the pants. And -- I'm sorry. (Exhibit 440 and 2268 are displayed on the Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And leave off that amount of blood, (indicating to photo) and then somehow when it makes its way to the pants; it's going to soak in that fashion. This same blood. Is that what you're telling us? Yes or no. A. Yes. Q. So -- excuse me? A. Because the bleeding -- the fabric and tightness of the garment against the skin. Q. Well, did you do -- you didn't do any analysis of the -- you have anything in your records that you did an analysis of a garment and the absorption ability of that shirt, did you? A. I didn't do any analysis -- Q. All right, sir. A. -- of that shirt's absorption. Q. Now, what you're telling us is, there was this trail of blood from the left jugular vein, not soaking the shirt, somehow making its way over the skin, where we also don't have any blood -- MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates -- Q. (Continuing.) -- And then getting to the pants, the same jugular vein blood, and soaking the pants. Is that your testimony? Yes or no, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Compound, misstates the evidence. THE COURT: Restate it. There's been no testimony about blood being on the stomach or not being on the stomach. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You've told us previously, sir -- remember when we asked that there was no trail of blood -- strike that. When Mr. Goldman was found, you observed the pictures with the shirt pulled up, showing a portion of his abdomen prior to his -- his pants, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you told us a few minutes ago that there was no trail of blood observed on the portion of his abdomen that was exposed between his shirt and his belt buckle, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, let's go back to the question. Are you telling us, then, that this blood came from the left jugular vein, did not soak the shirt, did not leave any blood caked on the portion of the abdomen that was exposed, and then soaked the left side of his thigh? Is that your testimony? A. Yes. THE COURT: Let's take a ten-minute recess. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: You may resume. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, we talked a little bit about your testimony at another time under oath. We talked about surprisingly little blood on the shirt. Do you remember that earlier today? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it true, sir, that you told this jury, under oath, yesterday, in contrast to that testimony, there was a great deal of blood present on the shirt? Did you tell this jury that yesterday, sir? Yes or no? A. I don't recall. I may have. MR. GELBLUM: Page 152 of yesterday's transcript. MR. BLASIER: What line? MR. GELBLUM: 16. MR. FOSTER: 16 and 17. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you give that testimony yesterday, sir? A. I said there's a great deal of blood present on the shirt and on the jeans. And I think that, as you point out, it was much more in the jeans than on the shirt. Q. Sir, you don't recall yesterday, you said there was a great deal of blood present on the shirt; is that correct. A. And on the jeans. Not fair to take the sentence in half. Take them both together. There was a great deal of blood; I agree with you. I hadn't reviewed the shirt; that there's more on the jeans than on the shirt. Q. Well, as a matter of fact, sir, with respect to the jeans, you had previously said under oath, there was only a few ounces on the jeans; isn't that correct, sir? Isn't that what you said before? A. I would -- Q. Yes or no, sir? A. I don't recall. Q. Didn't you say, sir, there was a few ounces of blood that are adherent -- MR. BLASIER: Could we have a page and line, please. MR. MEDVENE: Yes. 41364. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Didn't you say, with reference to the left leg, sir, that there were a few ounces of blood adherent to the leg? Maybe a half a quart, half a liter could be accounted for on the clothing and on the shoes, at a maximum? A. That sounds right. Q. So, a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the jeans; is that correct, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. That's not what it says. THE COURT: It's a question. Overruled. Q. Isn't that correct? A. Half a quart would be about 16 ounces. So that I would be referring to in the clothing and all that, perhaps that much could be on the clothing. Q. Okay. A. And a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the -- on the pants. Q. Of that amount, a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the pants; is that correct, sir? You don't mean "and" you mean "of that amount." A. "Of that amount," yes, sir. Q. So it's true also, sir, is it not, that there was little blood on the ground when the body was removed? Wasn't much blood in the area; isn't that true, sir? A. I didn't see much blood as far as the photographs were concerned. But the ground soaks up blood, so I can't -- Q. Sir, I didn't ask you if it did or didn't soak up blood. I'm asking you, from what you knew -- because we're going to track the amount of blood there is, sir -- from what you knew, there was not much blood on the ground when the body was removed, and not much blood in the area. Haven't you previously said that under oath, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection compound. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no? MR. BLASIER: Compound. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Can I see the testimony, please. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I read you, sir, from page 41359 -- MR. BLASIER: Line? MR. MEDVENE: I read you from -- this is in the middle of the answer, but it's the part that has to do the blood on the ground. THE WITNESS: Might I see it, or -- MR. MEDVENE: Sure. MR. BLASIER: What line, Mr. Medvene? MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. Lines 1 through 6. And lines 3 through 6 deal with the blood on the ground. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. BLASIER: Again, I would object just reading part of an answer. THE COURT: You can read the rest of it on your redirect. (Witness reviews transcript.) THE WITNESS: I can't get to where the question is. Thank you. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, did you say at a previous time, under oath, with respect to blood on the ground: "So if he were alive and the heart were pumping, maybe over a quart of blood would have to seep out in the position that he's in, which we don't see any blood in the soil, and there's no -- when the body is removed, there's not much blood in that area to start with." Did you make that statement under oath on a previous occasion? A. Yes, sir. MR. BLASIER: Objection. That's not inconsistent with anything. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Sir, I'm going to -- going to -- strike that. In terms of this trail of blood, is it true, sir, that if one were standing, and the blood -- instead of -- the blood on the pant leg, instead of going from the thigh, was coming from the jugular vein, you would expect that blood to soak into the top of the pants, isn't that true, and leave blood in the pants? A. It would stain and get into the pants, yes, sir. Q. All right. And certainly, if it was flowing down and the material were absorbent, there would be as much soaking at the belt area of the pants as there was lower down; isn't that true? A. That varies. It varies on many factors. The soaking of blood into the clothing in this fashion involves a lot of different factors. Q. All right. I'm sorry to do this, but would you put on 1986, please. (Exhibit 1986 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, in this trail that you've told us about that's going from the left jugular vein, we discussed already what blood there was or wasn't on the shirt; we discussed the lack of blood on the abdomen, getting down to the pants. And isn't it true, sir, that before the staining starts in the areas shown on the picture, there's little, if any, blood on the upper portion of the pant leg, where you would expect blood naturally to flow, if it was flowing, and Mr. Goldman was standing up for five, ten, whatever amount of minutes? Isn't that true, sir? There's little or no blood shown at the top of the pants around the belt; yes or no? A. There's little blood. There's a little blood, but not much blood. Q. And you have no explanation, sir, why there would be all this soaking above in the area of the thigh wound, and little or no blood up at the top of the belt line, if the blood was flowing down from the left jugular vein, somehow not on the abdomen and somehow not on the upper portion of the blue jeans, do you? A. I do have an explanation. May I give it to you? Q. Do you contend, sir -- MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may he finish his answer? THE COURT: That was an answer. THE WITNESS: May I continue? I -- My explanation is that when blood -- Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm going to ask you a question, sir. Your counsel will be able to ask you whatever, and maybe you'll get this explanation this way, sir. A. Okay. I wasn't sure if you were waiting for my explanation or not. Q. Is it your contention, sir, that Mr. Goldman was standing five, ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, while this assailant was attacking him with a knife, and the blood was dripping down from the left jugular vein, somehow didn't stain very much, or soak into his shirt on the right, skipped over his abdomen, skipped over the first portion of his jeans? THE COURT: Which side are you interposing the wound to, Mr. Medvene? MR. MEDVENE: The left side. A. No, I'm not saying that at all. I didn't say he stood up at any point for two, three, five, ten, fifteen minutes. Q. Stood up? A. I said he stayed up for two or three minutes, yes, while the blood came down and stained some areas and didn't stain other areas, yes Q. I understand. So he's up now two or three minutes and he collapses from loss of blood and-- A. He collapses from loss of blood and whatever else goes on when the jugular vein is cut. There are other things that happen. Q. I understand. We'll talk about the two or three minutes we now have him on the ground in a few minutes. But, what I want to ask is, your explanation is this blood somehow by gravity kind of jumped over these areas that you talked about, jumped over -- kind of jumped over the shirt sort of, jumped over the abdomen, jumped over this first part, and kind of landed here, this slow oozing blood from the vein that's oozing out, is that it, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Just yes or no, sir, is that what you're saying? A. That's not what I said, Mr. Medvene. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Sorry. Q. All right. Now, you've now told us under oath he's standing maybe two or three minutes before he's on the ground. Did you tell, in this TV program you went on a month ago, Mr. Rivera and the national TV audience, at that time we had him up at least five or ten minutes, did you tell whoever you were telling on TV that? Yes or no, just yes or no, sir, did you say that on TV? A. I didn't say what you said I said. Q. Did you say, sir, what I'm saying is that in order for the blood to flow from the neck down to the shoe, bleeding from the jugular vein, would have taken at least five or ten minutes, he was standing for that period of time? I could play it for you, sir. Did you say that? A. You can play it. Q. Did you say it, yes or no, sir, just tell me yes or no? A. I'd have to get it in the context. Q. Whatever context it is? A. My opinion -- you're asking my opinion? Q. No, no, no, sir. You're a pro. I'm asking you, did you say it on national television on November 11 on the Rivera show? That's what I'm asking you. Did you or didn't you? A. I don't answer it that way. What I should have said, would have been -- could have been, could have been standing five or ten minutes. Q. Sir, I didn't ask you what you should have said, what you could have said. I know we're now two or three minutes? A. No, no, he's alive when he collapses. Q. Did you say that, or do you want us to play it? A. You do what you want. I don't -- Q. Okay. A. I don't recall specifically what -- MR. MEDVENE: With the Court's -- do I have permission to play that segment? THE COURT: Only that segment. MR. MEDVENE: Only that segment. MR. PETROCELLI: Do you have it? MR. FOSTER: Yes. THE COURT: Would you watch this, Mr. Baden. (Tape playing at 35:24.) MR. BLASIER: Objection. THE COURT: Only that segment. MR. MEDVENE: Hold it. We're only going to play that segment. THE COURT: What are you doing? Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Just that one, Dr. Baden -- MR. MEDVENE: No, no, no. THE COURT: Excuse me. You're not going to play anything if you don't have this thing cued up. MR. MEDVENE: Here it is, sir. I'm sorry, Your Honor. (Tape playing at 21:36:06.) MR. MEDVENE: Can you back it up so we can -- (Tape playing at 34:65:27.) MR. MEDVENE: Okay. MR. BLASIER: Objection. A. Could you go back? I didn't understand the part before it -- (Tape continues playing.) MR. MEDVENE: What I'm saying is -- sorry, Your Honor. (Tape played again.) MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would object to the previous without -- I'd like to see the transcript so I can make an objection if there's one there. THE COURT: Show him the transcript. (Mr. Medvene hands transcript to Mr. Blasier.) THE COURT: Henceforth you're not playing anything unless you have it cued up. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, Your Honor. MR. BLASIER: I'd object to anything other than what they already played. THE COURT: Play that portion so that it's comprehendible. THE WITNESS: Might I see it, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. MR. GELBLUM: They talk over each other so much, very fine tuning. A. I'll agree I said what I said. (Pause for tape to be cued up.) MR. BLASIER: I would ask to approach if they're going to play any more of this tape. After reading the transcript -- (Pause for tape to be cued up.) MR. BLASIER: May I have a ruling on my objection. THE COURT: Overruled. (Tape played at 35:11.) (Tape concludes playing.) MR. MEDVENE: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, does that refresh you that he was -- that you said he was standing for that period, contrary to what you told this jury under oath a couple minutes ago, that we have him down in two minutes or three minutes on the ground? Does that refresh you, sir; yes or no? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. In discussing -- would you agree, sir, that all of the bleeding that we've gone through and described, does not account for the amount of bleeding necessary for Mr. Goldman to -- to collapse? A. No, I don't agree with that. Q. We have from the -- oh, and by the way, sir, you've told us that the amount of blood in the clothing and in the shoe is approximately half a quart or half a liter, maximum; is that correct, sir? So that's -- the shirt, the pants, the shoe, we're talking about half a quart. That's how many ounces? A. That's about 16 ounces. Q. Okay. And would you agree with Dr. Spitz that we need, in terms of sudden blood loss, about roughly a quart or liter and a half to two liters, two quarts; isn't that true? A. Blood -- some blood loss to what? Q. Some blood loss to cause incapacitation, unconsciousness. A. And death. Q. And death, yes, sir. A. That's reasonable, yes. Q. So we have half a quart, and we need another -- another quart and a half. We don't have it on the clothing, we don't have it on the abdomen, we don't have it on the ground, so -- A. That's not true. Nobody measured the ground. A lot of it would have been in the ground. Q. Excuse me, sir. You told us there wasn't much on the ground -- strike that. A. I didn't see any on the ground. Obviously, it has to be on the ground. Q. Excuse me, sir. If the bleeding was internal, Dr. Baden, if it was internal and inside Mr. Goldman's body, it wouldn't have to be in the ground, would it; yes or no? A. If there was no external bleeding it wouldn't have to be in the ground, but not everything you bleed from gets soaked up in clothing. Q. Sir, you told us before that as far as you knew, there was not much, if any, blood on the ground? A. I couldn't see any, that's correct. Q. All right. A. There had to be blood there. He was laying in blood. Q. Sir, you looked at the pictures, and there was not much blood on the ground; isn't that true? A. In the photographs, that's correct. Q. But that's all you saw, the photographs? You saw the photographs of the scene? A. That's correct. Q. And that's what you were working with in your diagnosis, photographs of the autopsy and what you saw at the scene around his body; isn't that true? A. And lots of other things. I mean I work with many things. But we can never reconstruct, in any murder how much blood is lost to the outside. Q. I want to find the other quart and a half. Now, Dr. Baden, yesterday, you talked about the aorta, and isn't it true that if the aorta is almost transected, that you would have massive internal bleeding from an artery? Is that true, sir? A. If the heart is beating, yes. Q. And the aorta we're here dealing with was almost transected; isn't that true? A. It's not described though as a half an inch in the front and a half inch in the back. Q. It wasn't almost transected, is that -- was it or wasn't it? A. That is not what is described -- Q. Sir -- A. -- in the autopsy. Q. Sir -- A. It's not described that way in the autopsy. Q. We're trying, all of us, to get the facts here. Now you're telling me it's not in the autopsy. I'm asking you -- A. It was not transected, no, it was not almost transected, but it had a big stab wound front and back. Q. Thank you, sir. It's not almost transected. Thank you, sir. When you examined this body -- you examined the body, didn't you, Dr. Baden? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you examine the aorta? THE COURT: Mr. Medvene -- MR. MEDVENE: Yes? THE COURT: Please don't crowd the jury. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You examined the aorta? A. I examined the tissues that were removed and put into the formalin jar, yes. Q. You did. You say in your report, in your hand, that the aorta was almost transected. A. Can I see that, please. Q. You just told us you never said it. I want to know if you said it? A. I don't recall saying that. MR. BLASIER: Can I see it, please. (Mr. Blasier reviews document.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, I'm showing you some papers that are marked at the top "Defense 001004," and it continues. Are these your notes, sir? A. Can I see? (Witness reviews document.) A. Yes, this page is my handwriting. Q. Is the second page your handwriting? A. No, it's not. Q. Who handwriting is that? A. I don't know. Possibly Dr. Wolfe. Q. And Dr. Wolfe was -- are those your initials up at the top of the page? A. That's -- I didn't write it, but it's my initials, yes. Dr. Lakshmanan, Dr. Wolfe, myself, and Dr. Ziegler of the coroner's office. Q. And these notes were written at the time you examined, among other things, the aorta? A. Yes, when I examined the tissues. Q. And do I read accurately, "Aorta with laceration and hemorrhage in surrounding soft" -- what's that word, sir? A. Tissue. Q. -- "soft tissue (almost transection)"? A. That's correct. Q. Be a fair statement, sir, that that's what you observed when you observed the aorta; yes or no, sir? A. That's fair, yes. Q. So when you told us a minute ago that there was no transection, it wasn't almost transected, that was incorrect, yes or no? A. No, that's -- Q. All right, sir. A. That's not incorrect. It was not transected. It was not almost transected. Q. No, no, sir. I used the word almost transected. A. I'd have to describe what almost transected means. Can I say what almost transected is? That's from that little piece of tissue we saw up there -- Q. At any rate -- A. -- doesn't make any difference to what we're talking about. Q. At any rate, when you observed the aorta, it had lacerations, which means what? A. There was stab wounds, cuts, through the aorta. Q. Did you measure them? A. I believe there were -- no, I adopted Dr. Golden's measurements of half an inch each because there's a shrinkage factor. Q. Excuse me, sir. My question was did you measure. Dr. Spitz measured them as 5/8ths of an inch. A. He didn't measure them. He measured the picture, he measured the photograph. I didn't measure the photograph. That's a distortion. A half an inch, it doesn't make any difference, the aorta will bleed very heavily from a half an inch laceration or whether it's transected. They all bleed very rapidly if a person is alive and the heart is beating effectively. Q. So you would agree that that -- if there was the kind of stab wound to the aorta that was described, let's put aside when in the struggle it occurred, it's a very serious wound that would bleed very, very profusely? A. Absolutely, absolutely, no matter what it -- you know, yes. Q. And you would agree, sir, that that wound would incapacitate one in a matter of seconds? A. No. Q. If the blood was pouring out, the blood pressure would immediately drop if -- if the heart was pumping at the time? A. No, no. Bleed profusely, but it self-seals as it's bleeding partially. Q. Did you -- didn't you say, sir -- strike that. Did you tell us when we were talking about transected and almost transected, it really doesn't matter because the blood is gushing out? A. No -- yes -- no -- that -- whether it's partially transected or transected or a stab wound front and back, it's going to be a great deal of bleeding in any of those three circumstances in a healthy -- in an otherwise healthy person. Q. In an otherwise healthy person, if it's almost transected or transected, we're going to have relatively the same amount of blood pouring out, if we have an otherwise healthy person? A. The two, half inch stab wounds were almost transected, whatever that means, would pour out a great deal of blood, yes. Q. And didn't you say, sir, again, on the Rivera show, on November 11, that if it were cut through, if it was transected, it would be very quick, very quick, you wouldn't be able to stand within seconds? Didn't you say that, sir; yes or no? Just yes or no? A. I think that sounds right. Q. All right. Thank you, sir. A. Depending on where the stab wound goes is the problem. Q. Now, in terms of -- in terms of the blood, you saw, did you not, from looking at the section of the aorta, that the tissue was saturated with blood? A. Infiltrated with blood, yes. Q. Is that a different word than saturated? A. Yes. Q. Infiltrated with blood. And the infiltration with blood, didn't that mean that there was still blood pressure in the victim, the homogeneity of the blood surrounding the fatty tissue, isn't that what that means; yes or no, sir? A. Not necessarily. Could be a reflection of that, it could be seepage of blood through the -- Q. But it could be a reflection, the homogeneity could be a reflection of the blood pressure? A. -- that there was still blood flowing out of those -- Q. Yes, sir. A. -- the stab wounds, yes. Q. Okay. Now, in the autopsy report itself, sir, that report describes a wound starting at the skin on the left flank and passing through that skin into the subcutaneous tissue, went through the retroperitoneal tissue which was bleeding or bloody; isn't that true? A. Which had blood in it, yes, in the tissue. Q. And the pathway was through a muscle that's in the back, not the abdomen, but in the -- A. Back, yes. Q. In the back, in the left flank. So there's no question that the stab wound didn't come through the abdomen or the belly button, but it went through the left flank, through the muscle, and cut the aorta, correct, sir? A. That's correct. Q. Now, there's no indication in the autopsy report of a stab wound to the abdomen, isn't that correct, sir? A. That's correct. Q. The abdomen is encased in what you told us about yesterday, this sack, remember, you brought up from lunch, that plastic -- A. It's lined by -- the abdominal cavity is lined by the thin peritoneal membrane. Q. Yes. A. Like a piece of cellophane. Q. And the aorta is in -- when it bled out, it was described as bleeding out into the retroperitoneal, that there was what, a retroperitoneal hemorrhage; is that correct, sir? A. It didn't say he bled out. It said there was hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal soft tissues. Q. All right, sir. And when you looked at -- A. Which is what we saw on the -- on the photograph of the aorta. Q. Yes. It showed a bloody -- A. Hemorrhage into the blood -- into the retroperitoneal fat of the soft tissue. Q. And I think you pointed out yesterday, there was some hemorrhaging or some blood that found its way even to the kidneys? A. No, to the adrenal gland, not to the kidney. Q. To the adrenal glands? A. Yes. Q. And in the autopsy report, there was no injury that was noted to the adrenal glands; isn't that correct? A. That's correct. Q. So that the adrenal glands are in the retroperitoneal space, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the adrenal glands are approximately 6, 7 inches from where the aorta was almost transected; isn't that correct? A. About 3 inches. Q. Not more than 3 inches? A. Three and a half inches. Q. And that meant, reasonably, that blood that poured out and was observed in that picture made its way to the area of the -- the adrenal glands? A. The blood didn't pour out. There was some blood that made its way to the adrenal gland, infiltrated the fatty tissue to the adrenal gland, not to the kidney, though, there's nothing described in the kidney. Q. Now, sir, isn't it true that -- an aneurysm means what, a bursting? A. An aneurysm is a dilatation or -- of a blood vessel. Q. Well, let's get a word -- A. Dilatation. Q. Let's get a word that I understand. Does it mean it broke? A. You and I would understand, in the old days, when we had tubes in the tires, an aneurysm is like a little ballooning out of that tube. Q. But if someone dies from an aneurysm -- A. It ruptures. Q. -- of the aorta, it means, in my language, it ruptured and blood comes out? A. If that aneurysm, that sac, the saccular dilatation ruptures, as does happen as we get older, in the aorta, then it means the person could bleed from pouring out of blood from that ruptured aneurysm, yes, of the aorta. Q. And that blood remains in the retroperitoneal space; isn't that correct, sir? A. Yes, yes. Q. All right. And the reason it remains in the retroperitoneal space is because it's -- it's confined there in this soft tissue in the -- in the retroperitoneal area, correct, sir? A. Because the peritoneum blocks it off and there's no communication normally through the peritoneum, so the blood stays behind it and it doesn't get into the peritoneal cavity. Q. And it stays in a retroperitoneal space? A. Yes. Q. Now, if -- so we know now from a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta, the blood rushes from the aorta and remains in a retroperitoneal space because the peritoneum is protected by that thin membrane, right? MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. There's no testimony there was an aneurysm. THE COURT: Sustained. And let's move it on. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, in -- in this case, sir, there being no wound to the abdomen, isn't it true that the only -- and the abdomen being in the peritoneum, that one explanation for the fact that there's a hundred or 200 cc's of blood in the abdominal cavity is that the tip of the knife that sliced the aorta went through the retroperitoneal area and nicked the membrane of the peritoneum? A. It went through the membrane communicating with the abdominal cavity, that is my opinion, that it caused the bleeding. Q. It caused some leakage of blood from the retroperitoneum? A. No, no, not from the retroperitoneum. From the aorta. See, as in your diagram, it made a -- the stab wound that comes out the front goes right into the peritoneal cavity, and there's a direct communication between the aorta and the peritoneum, and that caused the 100 cc, 3 ounces, of bleeding into that cavity. Q. There's only -- when we say direct communication, to be more precise, you've told us that on a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta, the blood will stay inside the retroperitoneal cavity and not go into the peritoneum? A. Usually because the peritoneum isn't ruptured, but sometimes it can go. Q. It's only if the peritoneum is ruptured by possibly a tip of a knife. In this situation, where some blood could ooze from the retroperitoneum from the aorta into the peritoneum; isn't that correct? A. Directly from the -- yes, directly from the aorta into the peritoneal cavity. Q. All right, sir. A. As I diagram on that diagram you have. Q. Now, did you speak -- strike that. You told us, several times on your direct, that you spoke to Dr. Golden; is that correct? A. It's true. I did speak to Dr. Golden, yes. Q. And did you ask Dr. Golden whether or not it was true that there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal area that resulted from the almost transection of the aorta? Did you ask him that question? A. I asked him two questions. Q. No, no, no, no, sir. I asked -- A. I asked two, after discussing matters with Dr. Golden -- Q. Excuse me -- THE COURT: Excuse me. Would you listen to the question and answer the question instead of arguing with the lawyer. MR. BAKER: I object to the Court's statement. THE COURT: Well, objection is overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you ask him that question, sir? A. Can you repeat the question, please, so I understand the question. Did I ask him what? MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, may the recorder read back the question. THE COURT: Read it. (Reporter reads the record as follows:) Q. And did you ask Dr. Golden whether or not it was true that there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal area that resulted from the almost transection of the aorta? Did you ask him that question? THE WITNESS: You have three things. THE COURT: Could you just answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: No, to the whole question. THE COURT: Ask another question. THE WITNES: Yes, sir. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. I'm about done. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You told us earlier today that whatever the first wound or second wound, that Mr. Goldman slumped to the ground, I think you said after -- is it two or three minutes? A. Yeah, I think two or three minutes, or could have been five or ten minutes but -- Q. Well, could have? A. I mean I don't think there -- I think it was pretty quick. Q. Pretty quick? A. That is within minutes. Q. And it's your theory, then, that it could have been two minutes, that after the two minutes, that the assailant then, seeing him still breathing after maybe two minutes, goes over and inflicts wounds to the lungs, the aorta, the abdomen and the neck? Is that your theory, sir; yes or no? A. My -- Q. No, no. Is that your theory? A. I don't know he saw him breathing. You're asking me questions that have six different things in them. If you can ask me one at a time, I can answer them. I don't know if he saw him breathing. Q. All right, sir. Let's check it. Did you say, sir, at a previous occasion under oath, 41384: (Reading:) I think it was dark and the perpetrator wasn't sure that Mr. Goldman was dead. That's why five minutes later or ten minutes later, additional stab wounds were made, because Mr. Goldman, while he was bleeding from the neck, would have collapsed to the ground after a few minutes, would have been breathing, and then additional wounds were made on the body while I believe he was lying on the ground, which included the lungs, the aorta, the abdomen and also the neck could have been cut. Did -- A. I'll agree with that, yes. Q. All right. So now we've moved our time to two minutes we have him breathing? A. No, could you -- okay, I agree with just what you read, just what you read, I agree with a few minutes, whatever that is. Q. Okay. So you've told us two, three, five, ten, but whatever it is, I think the latest you told us earlier today was two or three? MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) All right. So he's on the ground, and then the assailant sees him breathing and finishes him off? A. The assailant -- he's on the ground, and additional stab wounds are inflicted upon him when he's on the ground, yes. Q. Okay. And those wounds, as far as you know, could well have been inflicted the moment, even on your theory, the moment after he fell to the ground; yes or no? Yes or no, sir? A. Yes, if I could explain it, but I -- okay. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much. BY MR. BLASIER: Go ahead and explain it. THE COURT: Five minutes recess, ladies and gentlemen, or make it ten. Bring them back in 10 minutes. (Recess.) (Jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, you may proceed. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we move in as 603 the one page of the notes that we questioned Mr. Baden about, 2268, and 440. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 603.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 2268.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 440.) THE COURT: Okay. Proceed. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Dr. Baden, you recall yesterday when at the beginning of the cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about whether you were trying to mislead the jury about your opinion with respect to one or more perpetrators? A. I think so, yes. Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more than one perpetrator? A. Yes, I remember. Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion. (Reading:) A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator. A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not. Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a bunch of questions about whether certain things were possible. How do you interpret that term, possible, in terms of whether it's something likely or not? A. Possible means any circumstance which something could happen. It could be less than one-hundredth of one percent. Is it possible there's a dog out the door there. It's possible, I don't think so, but it's within the realm of possibility. Q. In terms of an expert testifying to various opinions, does that standard really have much meaning at all? A. I think it doesn't have any meaning as far as giving opinion to agree with the possibility except that the jury or the judge understands that that kind of an opinion has a lot less weight in my -- in my -- in my opinion, has much less weight, in my opinion, than opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, 95 percent, or more likely than not being 51 percent. Q. And how about when you're asked the question whether something is consistent with something else, what does that mean? A. It depends on the circumstances. But consistent with something, consistent with could be consistent one percent or could be consistent 50 or 60 percent. Q. So would you agree that we're asked questions about whether something is possible or whether something is consistent with something else that you're not being asked any kind of question about your quantitative assessment of whether that happened or not? A. That's correct. It's not an opinion of whether it happened that way, but whether there's any chance that it might have happened that way. Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you some questions yesterday about your background. Did we talk about your entire background when I asked you questions? A. No, you didn't go much into my background. Q. We left a lot of that out, didn't we? A. Yes. Q. Now, you went from the New York City Medical Examiner's Office to the New York State Police in 1985, '86? A. '85, '86, yes. Q. And Mr. Medvene asked you some questions about whether you were fired. You weren't fired, were you? A. No, I was never fired. Q. In the late 70's did you have a dispute with Mayor Ed Koch of the City of New York? A. Yes. Q. And describe that dispute. A. I was -- when I was chief medical examiner in the City of New York which is that I had been working in the office since 1960, deputy chief medical examiner since 1966, and in 1978 I was appointed chief medical examiner. And I had a dispute with one of the five district attorneys we work with and with the Mayor as to the independence of the medical examiner's office. Q. What was the -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. And that led to my being demoted to being back to deputy chief medical examiner. Q. What was the dispute about? A. The dispute was about the independence of the medical examiner's office, specifically listed a complaint from one district attorney in New York City which has five counties; Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island -- each county has a district attorney and there's one medical examiner for five counties, and one of the five district attorneys felt I wasn't a team player and I wasn't cooperative in giving evidence to help in the prosecution of cases. Q. They wanted you to testify in a couple of cases to something you didn't agree with; isn't that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you refused, didn't you? A. That's correct. Q. Now, you were also asked about your billing in this case. Your understanding is that Mr. Simpson has no funds at this point? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality. THE COURT: Sustained. You can ask him about his billing. MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry? THE COURT: You can ask him about his billing. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. Mr. Medvene asked you a question about changing your billing in a high-profile case. You work on high-profile cases all the time, don't you? A. Not uncommonly, yes. Q. And it's -- incidentally, when was the last time that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office asked you to consult with them on a case? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality, outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Past month. Q. They contacted you yesterday? A. Sent some stuff yesterday, yes, some autopsy report. Q. Now, why don't you tell the folks on the jury, we didn't cover it yesterday, some of your teaching positions. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I have -- I have various appointments to teach in medical schools, law schools and criminal justice schools on a part-time basis, aspects of forensic medicine, forensic pathology, and forensic science, which include, presently, visiting professor of pathology at Albert Einstein School of Medicine, adjunct professor of laboratory medicine in pathology at Albany Medical Center, and I teach some terms as visiting professor at John Jay School of Criminal Justice and New York Law School in New York. And I hold various other teaching positions, all of which are part-time, for medical students, law students and the police in training. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Have you won many awards that we never even talked about yesterday? A. I've received many awards, yes. Q. Now, you were asked some questions about the Geraldo show on November 11. At what point was your appearance scheduled for the Geraldo show; how long before that? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality. THE COURT: Overruled. A. About a week or two before I appeared. Q. And who scheduled it for you? A. It was scheduled through HBO, Home Box Office television program. Q. And what was supposedly the reason for the appearance? A. The reason for the appearance was to talk about and publicize a special program on autopsy that HBO had just completed. Q. And that program features you, primarily? A. I was the consultant. This is a third in the series, every year there's a new one, and it has to do with how you use forensic science and investigation of injuries and death, and yes, I'm featured in it. Q. Incidentally, in any of those three specialties, will any of Dr. Spitz's cases be featured? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, you were asked questions yesterday about -- with respect to your opinion about more than one perpetrator, and you were asked questions about shoe prints at the crime scene, correct? A. Yes. Q. Let's talk about your basis for saying that it's more likely than not that there was more than one perpetrator. What information do you have about shoe prints that goes into that opinion? A. The information I have is there's evidence of more than one type of shoe print at the Bundy crime scene, and on the envelope in which the eyeglasses were found at the crime scene, and also on the jeans that Mr. Goldman was wearing, and other shoe prints in the walkway leading up to the gate, outside the gate. Q. The shoe print that Mr. Medvene was asking you about Dr. Lee's testimony, tell us about that shoe print; when did you observe -- did you observe that personally? A. Yes. Q. And when was that? A. About the first week of the -- after the -- in the week following our examination of Mr. Simpson on June 17, just before he was arrested, just before he was taken into custody or arrested, Dr. Lee and I and the other doctors examined Mr. Simpson, and the following week we went to the various scenes, the Bundy scene in particular, and examined the walk and the area for evidence. And in one of those first reviews, when we went to the scene, there was evidence of -- remnants of bloody shoe prints, and Dr. Lee and I looked at them together, and he did blood tests. He has a little kit to do tests, presumptive blood tests. And there was one print there that didn't match the other prints. Q. And it tested positive for blood? A. And that tested positive for blood, yes, tested positive in a presumptive test for blood. Q. Let me show you Exhibit 717. And you mentioned shoe prints in the walkway area in front of Bundy. (Exhibit 717 displayed.) Q. Now, can you see -- actually, let me show you 2214 first. And I apologize for this picture. (Exhibit 2214 displayed.) Q. Dr. Baden, do you see the -- A. Yes. Q. Okay. Is that consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe print? A. It's a shoe print. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Consistent with a shoe print? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation Your Honor. THE COURT: As to shoe print, overruled. A. Yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that one of the shoe prints you were talking about when you just answered my prior questions? A. Yeah. This isn't one that I looked at with Dr. Lee, this is one I took into account in answering your previous question. Q. And let's look at 717. MR. PETROCELLI: What was that exhibit? MR. BLASIER: 2214. Back on out. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Then this one -- MR. MEDVENE: What exhibit is this? MR. BLASIER: 714 I believe. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, is this another indication of a shoe print. THE COURT: What did you call this? What did you call this. MR. P. BAKER: It's 717. It's also marked as 2257 I believe. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is this one of the ones you observed as well on the pictures? A. In the picture, yes. MR. BLASIER: Let's back that out so we can see where that is. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And that appears to be a number of feet out toward the Bundy walkway, correct? A. Yes. Q. And describe what you observed about those shoe prints that go into your opinion about the number of perpetrators? A. The two shoe prints are in clotted blood. That is, the shoe print was made after the blood had congealed, so that after bleeding had occurred from Mrs. Simpson, and it indicated that there was movement in and walking around within a few minutes of Mrs. Simpson's collapse. Q. Well, you say within a few minutes, what -- can we estimate that to any degree of particularity? A. Yeah. It would -- the blood remains pretty liquid, like water, for a few minutes and if you stepped into blood one or two or three minutes after it was shed, the blood would just -- it's like stepping into water, it would not leave a permanent impression. So in order for this permanent impression to remain there, the blood would have had to have clotted sufficiently to maintain its shape without liquefying, you know, disappearing, and that would take at least three to four to five minutes of clotting. Q. That would be after the blood had a chance to get down this far in the walkway, correct? A. As it was traveling down and after, yes. Q. And that would take some time as well? A. Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: One more time, that current exhibit? MR. P. BAKER: 2257. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Incidentally, when you examined or looked at the socks; you were prevented from actually examining them, weren't you? A. I was not permitted to pick them up or to examine them in any way other than to view and inventory the evidence that was there; I'd say about 59 pieces of evidence. Q. And it was Detective Vannatter that refused to let you even touch anything, correct? A. He was the one who told me that I couldn't -- we couldn't examine, touch anything or photograph anything. Q. Now, do you recall this morning, during cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you a couple of questions where he used a hypothetical where he had his arm around his neck; do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. If either of the victims in this case had a perpetrator's arm around their neck as Mr. Medvene demonstrated, what would happen if the perpetrator tried to cut the neck with the right hand? A. Well, so long as an arm, or any object, was present on the neck, that would interfere with the ability to cut the neck. Q. Cut the arm first, wouldn't you? A. Yes. Q. Now, with respect to the fingernail -- the absence of skin under a person's fingernails that may have scraped the perpetrator, is it your opinion that you usually don't find skin? A. That's correct. Q. You can find blood, can't you? A. That's more frequent than skin. Q. And what's another mechanism by -- when somebody is scraped with a fingernail, what do you expect to see on the skin? A. A scratch, a scratch mark. Q. And what happens to the person's skin, is it transferred to the fingernail or does it stay on the person that's being scratched? A. It can stay -- usually stays on the victim being scratched. It's like being scratched by a cat or some other animal. The skin is pushed aside. Q. Is that -- is that what's called an evulsion? A. It would be called an evulsion. It's a very minor evulsion. An evulsion would be a tearing of the skin. This would be a very minor tearing of the skin, yes. Q. Now, you were asked about blood on Mr. Goldman's clothing. Let's talk about his shirt first. Well, let's talk about the ground first. Is it your understanding that Mr. Goldman's body was allowed to lie on the ground for 10 hours before anybody collected it? A. Yes, at least that. Q. What happens to blood in dirt? A. It would be absorbed and it would not be possible to distinguish blood from dirt after a period of time. Certainly, the majority of whatever blood gets into dirt would be absorbed or made unrecognizable -- Q. Now -- A. -- over a 10-hour period of time. Q. Now, is it true that if there was internal bleeding, however, especially with no wound to the abdomen, had there been massive internal bleeding, that would be apparent to the autopsy surgeon? A. Absolutely. Q. And incidentally, is one of the reasons why a medical examiner should go to the scene as early as possible, is to evaluate some of these other evidentiary issues about rates of bleeding and that sort of thing? A. Yes. Q. Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman's shirt and his jeans, tell me, in your opinion, what's the difference between his shirt and his jeans with respect to when you would expect to find blood soaked into one versus the other? A. The amount of blood that soaks into clothing varies on how tight the clothing is on the body, varies on the fabrics, some fabrics are more absorbent than others, and also varies on the position of the individual, invariably, during the struggle or -- when somebody's being injured, it's unusual for the person to stand in the anatomic position at attention. The person is making all kinds of motions to get out of harm's way or to defend oneself. So that bleeding is not a direct linear line from the top to the bottom. It may vary depending on looseness of clothing, fabric, and on the position, whether the person's leaning forward, leaning backwards. And there's no predictable pattern for any kind of bleeding in that regard except that blood has to follow the law of gravity, that it goes downward. Q. Now, is the fact that there is no straight line from Mr. Goldman's neck wounds straight down his shirt, indicative of him struggling after that neck wound, moving around a lot? A. It would be supportive of that, yes. Q. Now, you were asked some questions about the jeans. Do you recall being shown one picture of Mr. Goldman lying on a table? A. Yes, sir. Q. You actually have examined the jeans themselves, have you not? A. Yes. Q. And let me show you next in order. THE CLERK: 2269. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Ronald Goldman's jeans was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2269.) (Exhibit 2269 displayed.) Q. Does this appear to be a pair of Mr. Goldman's jeans? A. Yes, that -- I think it's too close. MR. BLASIER: Can you back out a little. THE WITNESS: Back up a little. A. Yes. Q. Let's move to this area up here. Does this appear to be blood at the very top of Mr. Goldman's jeans? A. Yeah. That is the top side of the jeans. There is blood in the fabric going above the belt line. Q. And? A. In the front. Q. And? A. On the side. Q. Where is the thigh wound with respect to Mr. Goldman's jeans? A. I think it's about four or five inches below the pocket, as described in the jeans, to my best recollection. MR. BLASIER: Can you back out a little, Phil. MR. P. BAKER: Sure. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So we're talking about well below the area where the blood starts on Mr. Goldman's jeans? A. Yes, it would be below the screen. Q. Now, would you expect the person wearing jeans, if they were struggling, would you expect the jeans to move around a lot like a shirt might? A. Surely, it could, especially if there's no belt tightening. As I recall, there was no belt, so the pants would move in unpredictable ways during a struggle. Q. Would you expect them, however, to absorb more blood because they're tighter on the skin and closer to the skin? A. Yes. Q. Now, let me show you next in order. THE CLERK: 2270. MR. BLASIER: 2270. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Ronald Goldman's shoes was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2270.) Q. Is this a picture of Mr. Goldman's shoes? A. Yes. Q. And this is blood that is saturating his left shoe, correct? A. Could that be focused a little bit better. I can't -- Yes. There's blood soaking the left shoe. Q. Now, how far, approximately, would it be from the thigh wound down to the shoe? A. Possibly around two feet. Or -- Q. And is it your opinion that Mr. Goldman would have to be upright for his shoe to get saturated in that way, whether it's from the neck wounds or the thigh wound? A. Yes. Whether it's the thigh wound or the neck wound, the flow of blood is going to be downward by gravity, so it would indicate an upright position. Q. Now, you were asked about whether there was evidence of an accumulation of blood around the jugular vein cut. Would you expect to find an accumulation of blood around that area? A. No. The -- There was a little bit of blood on the cut but there's no space for the jugular vein to accumulate. It's like cutting one wrist, if the blood flows right out onto the skin and doesn't pool anyplace in the body. Q. Now, your testimony with respect to -- let me show you another picture. MR. BLASIER: Could we mark next in order. MR. P. BAKER: 22 -- THE CLERK: 71. MR. BLASIER: 2271. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does this appear to be another picture of Mr. Goldman's jeans, the back side of them. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of the back side of Ronald Goldman's jeans was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2271.) A. May I? (Witness approaches TV screen.) A. Yeah, this is the label on the right buttock area, so this is the back side of the jeans. Q. So the left side would be at the bottom of the picture? A. Yeah, this is the left side facing 6 o'clock. Q. And this picture seems to indicate a continuous stain from the top to the bottom. Is that consistent with your observation of the actual jeans? A. Yes, going from the very belt line. Q. Now, again, would you expect that to be an absolute straight line or could there be some breaks in that because of bunching of the jeans? A. Yes, there could very well be breaks. I don't see a break here but there could be breaks. Q. Now, the wound to the -- the jugular vein, are there things that happen once that wound is inflicted, other than just bleeding? A. Yes. Q. Describe what would go on with the body, what could go on in addition to that wound bleeding? A. When the wound is transected, as happened here, that is complete separation of the top part and bottom part of the jugular vein, the top part continues to bleed as the blood is continued to be pumped up into the head through the aorta and the carotid arteries, which are intact, the bottom part doesn't have blood in it so it sucks air into the heart, and that's another reason that that occurs when the internal jugular vein is cut. So that also happens. It's hard to interpret it from this autopsy because the autopsy was done some 36 hours later and there's no mention as to air in the heart. Q. Now, when you testified to your opinion about an approximate span of time between the infliction of the neck wound and the wound to the aorta, were you talking about specifically the time that Mr. Goldman would be upright as opposed to being lying down, or are you talking about the combined period of time? A. I'm talking about the amount of time it took for the heart to stop pumping effectively, the heart to stop, failing as a pump. So that would include the time he's standing up and the time he collapses until the heart beats so feebly that when the aorta is cut and when the lungs are cut, not much blood is pumped out. And these are both areas that if any of us in this room were stabbed in those areas, we would pump out one or two quarts of blood very quickly. Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about the wound to the aorta and bleeding into the retroperitoneal space, and he also described a tip of a knife going into the peritoneum. What was the size of the wound that went into the peritoneum in this case? A. A half an inch. Q. And is that considerably larger than a tip of a knife? A. It would have been the front portion of the knife that went through the aorta, and it would be more than just a tip, yes. Q. Now, you were asked some questions about an aneurysm. There was no aneurysm in this case, was there? A. No, there was no aneurysm. Q. Now, can people that are -- that are wounded in the back, with the aorta being severed or cut without the peritoneal space -- peritoneal sack being cut, what would happen there? A. If a person, and this happens on our streets, is stabbed in the back, and the aorta is cut in the back and not in the front, then the bleeding -- and there's no other injury to cause impairment, then the bleeding would be into the retroperitoneal space, as occurs when somebody has a ruptured aneurysm that Mr. Medvene referred to, and in those circumstances, as the blood infiltrates the retroperitoneal space, the space behind the aorta, it builds up pressure, and what's called a pseudoaneurysm, false aneurysm, because the blood clots around the aorta, it's got tissue pressure. These tissues are harder to infiltrate than a space like the peritoneum or the thoracic cavity, and these people usually live long enough to get to a hospital, be operated upon and oftentimes survive. So a stab wound in the -- that does produce hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal space, is not nearly as harmful as one that goes into the peritoneal cavity because once a stab wound goes into the peritoneal cavity, as I tried to illustrate with the plastic bag yesterday, there's a big space there with no counter pressure that just fills up with a great deal of blood, and those people who have bleeding from the front of the aorta into the peritoneal cavity have a much poorer prognosis, they don't do as well. They often don't live to get to a hospital. If it's only in the retroperitoneal space, many of these people are operated upon and are salvaged. Q. Now, the 100 to 200 cc's of blood that Dr. Golden found in the abdominal cavity, this is a relatively small amount, is it not? A. Yes, as is the blood in the right chest cavity is also a small amount. Q. And incidentally, it's routine in an autopsy to record those kinds of things? A. Absolutely, yes. Q. And just so the record is clear, describe again what your opinion is with respect to the state of Mr. Goldman at the time the aorta wound was inflicted? A. My opinion when the aorta wound was inflicted is the same as my opinion when the two lung wounds were inflicted, the heart was not beating effectively, the heart was failing as a pump, so it wasn't pumping blood effectively through the body or through any of the blood vessels, and that's why very little bleeding occurred. Q. And that would take a certain period of time that you've estimated after the neck wounds would have been inflicted for his body to have bled out enough to lower his blood pressure and produce that small volume of blood? A. Yes. In order for the stab wounds to the aorta and to the lungs to bleed very little would have required, that's where I get into these numbers, a good -- a good 10 minutes from that point, he's on the ground a good 10 minutes before, so that the heart can no longer pump. Now, that's modified -- that's also modified by the amount of air that's being sucked into the air (sic), because as the air gets sucked into the heart from the lower portion, it causes an airlock so blood can pump. And people with transected internal jugular veins have the additional problem of the blood not being able to pass through the heart because of the air, and this causes the heart to beat ineffectively as a pump, and within five or ten minutes the -- the stabbing into the aorta or the lungs will not produce much bleeding. Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a number of hypothetical questions. Do you have anyway of knowing whether the perpetrator or perpetrators saw Mr. Goldman breathing or not? A. I have no way of knowing that. Q. Now, what is your opinion with respect to whether he was stabbed in the aorta and in the chest after he had already collapsed on the ground some period of time after the neck wound? A. Yeah. My opinion is that when he's stabbed in the right chest area and the left thigh, the heart is not able to pump blood effectively. That would take at least five or ten minutes, you know, from the time of the cut -- wound, and that's where I get confused on numbers, and the stab wounds to the right -- right chest stab wound to -- the right chest would have been first, from the position of the body. The stab wound on the left chest would be the last one, from the position of the body as seen at the scene, but prior to that there would be stab wounds on the right side. During all this time -- During all this time Mr. Goldman is not conscious, he doesn't feel this, he's not conscious during all this time. Q. Now, is part of your opinion that you've talked about, deal with -- with the Bruno Magli set of shoe prints that make it appear that somebody went out and came back a second time. A. Well, during that time, there -- there are shoe prints in different areas, and part of that is the ones you showed me where there was motion, whoever was there, whether it's one person or two persons, there was motion going on and the -- the congealed or partially clotted blood was stepped into. Q. But as to the Bruno Magli shoe prints in the back walkway, you take into account Mr. Bodziak's testimony with respect to possibly the perpetrator going out and coming back and going out a second time? A. I also considered that, yes. Q. Now, you were asked questions about the adrenal glands having some hemorrhage. What does the autopsy report say about that in terms of how much hemorrhage? A. Is says in the description in the adrenal gland that -- that there is -- there is a small amount of hemorrhage around the adrenal -- of the left adrenal gland, due to the retroperitoneal hemorrhage caused by the stab wound. So in the course of that stab wound track which was illustrated in that diagram, there is hemorrhage around that stab wound's track, partially passive hemorrhage, and there might have been a small amount of blood pressure at that time, and that hemorrhage got into the -- to the adrenal gland area. Q. Now, had the wound to the aorta been inflicted early on as Dr. Spitz testified, would you expect to see a small amount of hemorrhage or a large amount? A. Well, I expect a large amount. And also, I expect the kidney in that area to be encased in blood because the kidney is right there in the retroperitoneal space, and there's no mention in the autopsy report of any hemorrhage around the kidney. Q. Now, you were asked questions about your conversation with Dr. Goldman -- Dr. Golden, excuse me. Did you have a conversation with Dr. Golden after you heard Dr. Spitz's testimony or read his testimony? A. Yes. Q. And did you discuss with Dr. Golden the issue of whether there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space? A. Yes. Q. What did he tell you? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. My understanding in talking to Dr. Golden, and I specifically asked him whether there was any additional information he had that was not included in the autopsy report -- his autopsy report about the hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal space, and he reassured me that he sticks by what he says in the autopsy report and what he testified to at prior -- prior testimony that he gave. Q. And is it accurate that he told you that he did not observe massive amounts of blood in the retroperitoneal space? A. He told me that he did not see massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space or if he did, he would have put it in his autopsy report. Q. Now, Dr. Baden, is it accurate to say, or fair to say, that you're somewhat reluctant to criticize Dr. Spitz; he's a friend of yours? A. I don't have -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) There is absolutely no basis in the evidence from the autopsy and from any of the observations here that support Dr. Spitz's conclusion with -- there is absolutely no support whatsoever for Dr. Spitz's opinion that the wound to the aorta was one of the earlier wounds and that there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space? MR. MEDVENE: Calls for conclusion, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's his job. He makes conclusions. A. In my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, I don't find any evidence for massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space and I disagree with Dr. Spitz's opinion to that point. Q. And if I asked you the same question with respect to all of the marks on Mr. Simpson's hand being caused by fingernail gouges, would you agree that that simply is not supported by the evidence? A. My opinion is that they're not finger scratch gouges but there's a little more evidence that I would agree with Dr. Spitz is that I can't tell. The little scratches on the back of the hand that were crusted could be from anything. So it's not my opinion they're finger scratch marks, but there's some basis that another person could think they are. I don't think there's a good basis that there's massive retroperitoneal hemorrhage. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor. MR. MEDVENE: Recross. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. You're not a shoe print expert, are you, Dr. Baden? A. I am not, sir. Q. And you performed, yourself, no analysis of what imprints of any kind were at the Bundy scene to determine the origin of those imprints; is that correct, sir? A. That's correct. Q. And if -- And if Dr. Lee said that as far as the Bundy walkway was concerned, other than the Bruno Magli footprints that had been previously identified by Agent Bodziak, the only other imprint on the walkway that he could say with scientific certainty was a shoe print, was one particular shoe print, you wouldn't disagree with that, would you? A. No, not -- Q. And if Dr. Lee said as far as that one particular shoe print, the only other one that he saw on the Bundy walkway, other than the bloody Bruno Magli size 12, if he said he did not know if that imprint was put on the scene after the murder, you would have no basis to disagree with that, would you, sir? A. I would not disagree with that. There's no -- we can't tell the time any shoe print is put down. Q. Thank you. And if Dr. Lee were to testify that he is not able to identify with any degree of scientific certainty, as a shoe print, any imprints that are on an envelope that you referred to, or on jeans you referred to, you would not quarrel with that, would you, sir? A. I would not quarrel with Dr. Lee's opinion. Q. All right. So, basically, then, if we assumed that the testimony is there's one set of bloody Bruno Magli size 12 shoe prints at the crime scene, and one other shoe print that nobody knows when it got there, are you telling us that with some degree of reasonable medical certainty -- you're claiming that based on that there were two assailants? A. No. I would not make an opinion based on that. Q. Now, when counsel -- and with respect to that one particular shoe print, the only one Dr. Lee said even though he didn't know when it was there, that he identified as a shoe print, other than the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, with respect to that one shoe print that was some distance in the walkway, do -- did you perform any examination to figure how that one shoe print could appear somewhere halfway in the walkway and nowhere else? A. No, I didn't. Q. So -- THE COURT: Okay. We're going to resume at 1:30. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions. You're excused. THE BAILIFF: Could I have it quiet in the courtroom, please. (Jurors exit courtroom.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.) THE BAILIFF: Please take a seat in the audience. THE COURT: Okay. I'll remind you, counsel, you've had ample cross-examination. The Court is not going to go through the same testimony the second time. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor. (At 12:04 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you will note that one of your number is no longer with you. You're not to speculate as to the reason why. I wish to remind you that it is very important for you to follow the instructions that I have given to you, and I give to you periodically about not talking about this case with anyone, not communicating anything about -- anything about this case, not even the fact that you're on this case. People may know you're on this case, but your duty is not to initiate any communications about anything like that. You're also not to form or express any opinions about this case until this case is completed. You're not to do any investigating on your own. You're not to permit yourself to be addressed about this case by anyone other than myself or the lawyers in the course of the trial, or by the witnesses as they testify. Everybody understand those instructions? JURORS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You may proceed. MICHAEL BADEN, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Baden. A. Good afternoon, Mr. Medvene. Q. Just a few more questions for you. You were asked on redirect about the question of blood under fingernails. I want to ask you, sir, isn't it true that it is uncommon to find an assailant's blood under the victim's fingernails? A. Yes. Q. There was some discussion on redirect about the shirt and the fact there wasn't much blood on the left side of the shirt. And you had talked about the absorbency of a shirt, and that might account for the possible lack of soaking on the left side. You know what kind of shirt it was, sir? A. That's not what I said. Q. All right. Do you know what kind of shirt it was Mr. Goldman was wearing? A. I did at one time. I don't recall. It was -- Q. Yes, sir. Was it a cotton shirt? A. I forget what it was. I'd have to review my notes on that. MR. MEDVENE: Put on the board next in order. THE CLERK: 2272. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph depicting shirt label was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2272.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I ask you to look at 2272, and ask if that's Mr. Goldman's shirt and if that is a cotton? A. Cotton; yes, sir. Q. And cotton, to your knowledge, would be an absorbent material? A. It would be absorbent, yes. Q. You also said with respect to the shirt, and discussing relative lack of blood on the left side, something about the assailant twisting the shirt. Is it your testimony that the -- A. I didn't say that. Q. Is it your testimony that the assailant was holding Mr. Goldman's shirt so that the left side was moved away from his left jugular vein for five or ten minutes? A. No, I didn't say that. And I would have no knowledge of that. And I would doubt that. Q. All right. Is it true, sir, that you have previously testified, under oath, that you did not see any blood in the soil, and there was no blood when the body was removed, and not much blood in that area, to start with? Did you previously say that under oath, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Outside of the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you say that? A. That would be my observation; I did not see any blood -- Q. Thank you, sir. A. -- in the soil or on the photographs. Q. Thank you, sir. And last question, sir: You have stated that, from whatever wounds he received, Mr. Goldman would be on the ground in two to three minutes, but might have stayed alive, before receiving the other wounds, for seven or eight minutes. Are you contending, sir, as you stated on the Rivera show, that the assailant could have inflicted a wound and stopped and talked, or maybe there was another perpetrator with a gun? Are you suggesting that that's what happened during this seven or eight minutes that Mr. Goldman was on the ground, before he was, you say, stabbed in the abdomen and the aorta? A. What I was trying to convey was that -- Q. Is that what you're saying, sir? A. What I'm trying to say, that many things could have happened in between the two. I'm not saying it happened that way at all. Q. So that's one of the things? A. But if I may answer your question -- In the context of the show, which I regret I have to have been involved in, from trying to explain my thoughts without having to review the record, I was trying to explain that we can only tell, as medical examiners, the minimum time, just like in a boxing match, that injuries are inflicted; and we don't know what happens in between. Q. Right. A. So the reason I'm was very confusing -- have been very confusing, is, between the cut and neck and the -- and the final stab wound, there's at least five or ten minutes. How long he stood during that time, I can't say. Q. Well, you had -- A. I -- I can say only as I've said it before. Q. Dr. Baden, so we stay focused, and I'm done -- A. I'm sorry. Q. -- you had him down on the ground in two to three -- A. Two to three minutes. I've given various numbers. I don't know how long he stood up. Two to five minutes, he'd be down on the ground. Q. So many numbers you've given us. A. I'm sorry. It's all in the same grouping. Q. I'm asking you, Dr. Baden, are you suggesting to this jury -- A. Yeah. Q. -- as you did on the Rivera show, that maybe the assailant didn't immediately, after two minutes, inflict the remaining blows, but he stopped and talked? Yes or no, sir? A. That he stopped, did something else. Q. Sir, you said stopped and talked. Are you suggesting -- A. That was an example. Q. All right. A. I don't mean that literally; I mean that figuratively stopped, walked to the car, came back, stopped, did something in between. Q. Sir, you're very verbal. You didn't say stopped and did something. A. I'm not very verbal. Q. You said stopped and talked. A. I may have said that as an example. Q. All right. A. Not -- not to mean that that's what happened. Q. All right. Sir, are you suggesting to the jury, as you did on the show, maybe there was another perpetrator with a gun? Are you telling the jury that that's what you believe happened? Yes or no, sir? A. No, I'm not saying what I believe. Q. Sir, did you say that? A. I said that as an example of what could have happened. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, sir. I have nothing else. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Dr. Baden, the Geraldo show, the purpose of that was to promote the HBO special? A. Yes. Q. And when you got on there, you found that Chris Darden was also on the show? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope. THE COURT: I don't have any inclination to allow any examination about anybody else on the show, Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: I think I'm entitled to let him explain. THE COURT: I'm not going to let you. You can ask about what he said; that's it. MR. BLASIER: All right. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, had you reviewed all your materials before you appeared on Geraldo? A. No, I hadn't. Q. And were you -- was it your understanding that you were even going to be asked about the Simpson case? A. I was hoping I wouldn't be asked about it. I was just going to talk about the -- I was hoping only to talk about the HBO program, which was kind of a foolish thought in my mind. Q. And the ten-minute period that you referred to on Geraldo, did you intend that to mean that's how long Mr. Goldman was standing up, or the period -- time period be a neck -- wound in the aorta? A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't agree with that. That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that. Q. Would you agree that no medical examiner could be so precise to say all this happened, for example, in a minute and 15 seconds precisely? MR. MEDVENE: Outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BLASIER: No further questions. A. I would agree with that. MR. BLASIER: No further questions. MR. MEDVENE: No questions. THE COURT: Your're excused. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, can we move in 2267, 2270 -- THE CLERK: Wait. MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. 2269, 70 and 71. THE CLERK: 2269, 70 and 71? MR. BLASIER: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2269 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2270 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2271 for identification, was received in evidence.) MR. MEDVENE: We move in -- I believe it's 22 -- 2272, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2272 was received in evidence.) THE COURT: I'm just trying to get my courtroom policed a little bit. I want to get rid of all those cups and things, if you don't mind. (Referring to cups on witness stand.) MR. LEONARD: I'll get it. THE COURT: No, you won't. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we're going to read in the criminal trial testimony of William Blasini, William Blasini, Jr. (The testimony of William Blasini, given in Criminal Case No. BA097211, was read into the record, with Mr. Philip Baker reading the testimony of Mr. Blasini, and Mr. Leonard reading the questions, as follows:) MR. LEONARD: Beginning at page 43972, line 9: Q. Mr. Blasini, what is your occupation? THE COURT: Excuse me. I think you better identify the witness so the jurors will know who it is. MR. LEONARD: This is Mr. William Blasini, who was called as a defense witness at the criminal trial. THE COURT: Spell that. MR. LEON |