Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel.
MR. KELBERG: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Miss Chapman, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Mr.--
MR. KELBERG: Kelberg, your Honor.
THE COURT: --Kelberg and Mr. Lynch--I know all these names. I will get them--Mr. Darden. Mr. Fairtlough is with us as well. Mr. Cochran, I suspect we need to wait for Mr. Shapiro.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Let me check in the hall, your Honor.
THE BAILIFF: He is right here in the hall, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We have now been joined by Mr. Shapiro along with Dr. Wolf. Good morning, counsel.
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: I will give you a second there to get seated.
MR. SHAPIRO: I apologize.
THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?
MR. SHAPIRO: No, your Honor. We are ready to proceed.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg?
MR. KELBERG: I agree, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And counsel, I have asked the support staff to provide the doctor with a wireless microphone to make his presentation clearer to all of us, since he is constantly turning away from somebody who needs to hear his testimony, and we will see how that works. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lakshmanan, would you please resume the witness stand, please.
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: The record should reflect that Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Kelberg. Good morning, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. And good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The jury: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I believe we are going to go back to the photo, back to People's exhibit 355, to finish up some photographs of the hand and other areas of Nicole Brown Simpson, so again with the Court's permission, if we can--
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, we did correct the entry on photograph B-23 of exhibit 352 to reflect that it is the right rather than the left side of the head.
THE COURT: All right. Noted for the record. Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, we also corrected exhibit 354, I believe it is the crime scene board, to show that the photographs were taken on June 13, 1994, rather than `95, as originally depicted.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, can I see that just briefly?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Doctor, why don't you take the pointer with you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: I believe, doctor, we were talking yesterday about B-31 and B-12 with respect to the palm side of the right hand; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, was there anything further that you needed to discuss with respect to any findings with respect to the palm surface of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any photograph on this board, exhibit 355, showing the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Photograph B-1 shows the back of the right hand.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you normally expect, at the time of the June 14th, 1994, photography process, that a photograph similar in nature to the photograph B-29, showing the back of the left hand, would have been taken of the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Was any such photograph taken?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able, from your examination of photograph B-1, to see anything of significance with respect to the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is some blood staining, but one can also see a small abrasion on the right index finger which has been addressed in the report.
MR. KELBERG: Just to set the correct sequence of events, the photograph B-1 was taken on June 14th?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is this one of the first photographs that would have been taken in the course of the autopsy process?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How can you tell that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because this is the--the decedent is clothed and this is the first paragraph we take in the Coroner's office.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does this photograph represent fairly and accurately the condition of Nicole Brown Simpson as you saw her initially on June 13th, the day earlier?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: More or less.
MR. KELBERG: What is the more and what is the less?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because I saw her when she was lying on her back on the gurney when she was brought to the office. Right now she has been propped up on her side.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, even though I think you have a wireless microphone provided by the Court, you may be dropping your voice and it is still I think somewhat difficult to hear you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Otherwise it is the same person and the dress is--the clothing is the same which I saw on June 13th.
MR. KELBERG: On June 13th did you examine the back of the right hand to see whether or not there were any injuries, wounds or matters of consequence to you as a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't do a detailed examination of the body. I only saw the major wound which is the neck which has been discussed, and my purpose was to just to get an idea about the two decedents who are brought to our office and also assign the criminalist to examine the remains and assign a medical examiner. I didn't examine in detail.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the abrasion that you identify on the back of the right hand, again its located as seen in photograph B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on the right index finger here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Can you be any more specific where on the right index finger that abrasion--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on the base of the right index.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you will remember to wait until I finish my question, I will try and remember to wait until you finish your answer, and I have a feeling the court reporter will be very happy with both of us.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, where on the index finger?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The base of the right index finger here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Base," could you point on your own, showing it to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the area that you see in that photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Somewhere here, pointing to my index finger here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, where the finger appears to join the hand.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, that abrasion, are you able to tell from an examination of the photograph as to whether it was received before, at or around the time of or after death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was an antemortem abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: By the appearance and color, because I examined it with a magnifying glass.
MR. KELBERG: By the way, you had a magnifying glass I think over the last couple of days that you have pulled out. Is a magnifying glass one of the tools of the trade of a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How is it used by a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When you examine wounds, when you examine photographs, it is sometimes--not sometimes--it is a good habit to look at the wounds carefully. This way you see any minor--any minor irregularities on wound margins, and also if the wound is small, it helps you to understand the features better.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from what you observed in that abrasion on photograph B-1, do you have any opinion as to the manner in which that abrasion was received by Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a nonspecific blunt force trauma.
MR. KELBERG: Which means what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is a blunt force injury. It doesn't have any pattern, it doesn't have any specifics to it. It could occur in the same manner the abrasions to the left hand happened, contact with any rough surface.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does that abrasion play any consequence in any of the big picture questions that you have been asked to evaluate and about which you have testified to during the course of your presentation here?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as long as we are on this photograph B-1--in fact, before I move to that other area, did Dr. Golden address that abrasion in any way in his original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram it in any way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Does it also get addressed in any addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any--anything that you observed of significance between the description in the protocol and the diagram and the photograph showing the actual abrasion B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The diagram accurately reflects the injury, but the description, it was erroneously described as ring finger.
MR. KELBERG: Let me take the photo down and let's go and see the actual protocol and diagram. I don't think we are going to lean this up against here. This is one we have to move back, if we could ask counsel and the doctors to switch places with us.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: We are going to put up 0B and 4B from our group 349, your Honor.
THE COURT: Noted. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where in the protocol is there any reference to that particular abrasion on the index finger on the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 7.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here on paragraph no. 4.
MR. KELBERG: And that is a two-line paragraph and it talks about the dorsal surface. From our discussion, I guess on Tuesday, "Dorsal" is another word for the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, with a red pen or marker I will outline that two-line paragraph and on the right margin I will write "B-1."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that an accurate description of the location of the abrasion that you also identified in the photograph B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: What is wrong?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says "Ring finger" but it should be the index finger.
MR. KELBERG: And what I will do for the record then, your Honor, is with the blue marker I will circle the words "Ring finger" on the second line of the paragraph that is already circled in red on page 7 of the form 12.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, inviting your attention then to the board with the 23 form, do you see any entry there that goes along with the abrasion you identified from the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. On the right upper quadrant in the back of the right hand you can see the abrasion to the right index finger.
MR. KELBERG: Can you make out what is the writing from Dr. Golden regarding that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is "Reddish brown abrasion."
MR. KELBERG: And where the doctor has circled in the schematic in the upper right quadrant of this form, I have circled it in red and with a line going to the side I will write "B-1"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And that is 1/16 inch punctate abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 1/16 inch punctate abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: Is that an accurate description from your observation of the blunt force trauma abrasion on the index finger as seen in photograph B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you describe it as a mistake for Dr. Golden's autopsy report to reflect the ring finger as having this 1/16 inch punctate abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a mistake in his dictation, but in his documentation it is not a mistake because it has documented it properly.
MR. KELBERG: The mistake in the dictation, is that of any significance on any of these big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further about that particular finding?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, doctor, was there seen by you in the photograph any abrasion to the back of the right hand at the base of the ring finger as Dr. Golden's protocol actually says?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And then I think we are done with these and we will go back to the photographs. I'm sorry, so we don't move counsel, there is something I can take care of while we have these. You will excuse me just one second, doctor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I just wanted to briefly return to the entry that reflected B-24 and B-23, the sharp force injury that was to the head area of Nicole Brown Simpson, referring to the one that is seen in both of those photographs, B-24, B-23. Do you recall that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And you recall testifying that there had been an addendum addition made to reflect that Dr. Golden had described it in the diagram in one fashion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: But the dictation had it in a different form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And the addendum then corrected it to reflect what the diagram actually showed; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you review testimony given by Dr. Golden at a preliminary hearing in this case in which he was asked questions about the dimensions of that particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And inviting Court and counsel, if you all want to crowd around, I have it here, to page 70 of the preliminary hearing transcript, beginning at line 7 and going through line 18.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you review the following testimony: "Question: Now, Dr. Golden, there were two other wounds you observed with regard to Nicole Brown Simpson's scalp; is that correct? "Answer: Yes. There was a cutting wound or stab wound superficially right in the posterior parietal. In other words, lower down here on the right side of the lower scalp. This was a one and one-half inch in length superficial wound only going in 3/8 inch to one and one-half inches, a non-fatal wound, and there was a small amount of hemorrhage associated again that occurred before death. It was an antemortem injury." Doctor, did you review that testimony?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Is there an error in that testimony, in your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is the error?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He used the same information which was on the protocol when he gave the testimony.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say "The same information," specifically which information, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 6, item 6.
MR. KELBERG: The dimensions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And you have testified yesterday those dimensions were not the actual dimensions; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I believe you then testified that the addendum report contains the actual correct dimensions with the change?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, does this mistake in Dr. Golden's testimony affect in any way your ability to answer any of the big ticket questions that you've reviewed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now I think we are back to the photos.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. You are going back to 355?
MR. KELBERG: Correct, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: One last question about the back of the right hand as shown in B-1. Doctor, is there any significance to you in the fact that you observed only one 1/16 inch punctate abrasion at the base of the index finger in the area of the back of the right hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is the significance of that observation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same reason I gave yesterday, that there seems to be a paucity of Defense wounds in the hands of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson which would again support my opinion that she was rapidly incapacitated or incapable of resistance when she was assaulted.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want to take your attention back to June 13th, the first day that you saw the body of Nicole Brown Simpson. Were you present for a discussion about whether or not something called a sexual assault kit should be taken in this particular case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't play a part in the discussion, but we didn't take a sexual assault kit.
MR. KELBERG: Did you in fact give a concurrence to the determination not to take a sexual assault kit?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't give a determination, but I didn't feel it was necessary.
MR. KELBERG: And did you express that view?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I expressed that view later, but I didn't think it was indicated.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you are going to have to keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't think it was indicated.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, why did you not--first of all, let's define what is a sexual assault kit?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A sexual assault kit is the process by which you gain evidence from the genital area, oral area, rectal area, to document that there is any evidence of sexual assault which would indicate--you basically look for evidence of seminal material in these areas. Also look for evidence of injuries which could have been from a sexual act which resulted in injuries.
MR. KELBERG: Why did you not feel that it was appropriate or necessary to take a sexual assault kit in the case of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: She was fully clothed, the intimate apparel were in place.
MR. KELBERG: The intimate apparel being what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The panties. They were not in disarray. There were no evidence of any injuries to the thighs, which I could see, and basically the appearance did not indicate a necessity to do a sexual assault kit and I did call our criminalist and he also did not feel it was necessary to do, to take a sexual assault kit, because they didn't take any. And later during the autopsy Dr. Golden also did not see any injuries to the genital area and there was no indication for taking a sexual assault kit.
MR. SHAPIRO: Move to strike what Dr. Golden saw or didn't see as hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. That answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard that portion of the answer regarding what Dr. Golden said or saw.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden include in the autopsy protocol, the form 12, any material regarding an examination of the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: And we will look at it as to the specifics, but if you could summarize what that information was, please tell us.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically there was no injuries observed.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, did you examine the panties for any evidence of tearing, cutting, anything whatsoever that would appear, other than the normal appearance of a pair of women's panties?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: What, if anything, did you observe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I examined--as I mentioned earlier, I had an opportunity to see the panties first in this appearance when it was on Miss Simpson and later on June 22nd when the evidence was viewed with the Defense pathologist, Dr. Wolf and Dr. Baden, who are here, and at that time ultraviolet light was also used, the panty was carefully examined. There was no evidence of any fluorescence which would indicate a seminal stain. There was a fluorescence from frayed material and that--and also there was no visible tears which could be seen, so basically the panty appeared intact except for some fraying and the fluorescence was not as we could seen from seminal stains.
MR. KELBERG: When you saying "Fraying," doctor, what do you mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Fraying from fibers in the material because of wear and tear. You get some fibers of wear and tear and these fibers flourescence because of the material from which the panties are made from.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience as a forensic pathologist can you estimate for us how many cases of rape/murder you have seen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A significant number of cases. Either I have seen them during my autopsies, I have done several dozen strangulation cases myself, plus I have supervised cases.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say "Supervised," can you estimate approximately how many homicide cases were handled by your office last year that included evidence of the victim being sexually assaulted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't have the numbers off the top of my head. I have to get the numbers for you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience have you ever seen a situation where a woman was raped by the murderer, and to rape the woman her panties would have had to be removed so the penis could be inserted in the vagina and ejaculation could occur, and then before the murderer committed the murder the panties were put back on the victim and put back on in the appropriate position with no evidence of tearing or any disarray as you've described was the condition of Nicole Brown Simpson's panties?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. That is an improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have not seen any cases like that. The cases where the clothing has been put back on, they are--at least the cases I have seen they have been put back on improperly and there is always evidence of--evidence of assault which you can see.
MR. KELBERG: What do you mean by "Evidence of assault that you can see"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You will see blood staining and you will--because of the trauma involved and also the zipper--the pant would have been put back in a wrong fashion, the zipper in the back instead of being in the front, the panty could have been put back on upside down. So what I'm saying is I have not seen a case where the assault has taken place, the person has been murdered and where the clothing is in the condition where we see Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's clothing to have been when we see these photographs.
MR. KELBERG: Would your answer be the same if the sexual assault were changed from one of rape involving penetration of the vaginal area to one of sodomy for penetration of the anal area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same--actually in sodomy you would expect to see definite injuries because you will see evidence of anal lacerations which were not described. There was no--you will find evidence of bleeding and that is also not seen.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion is there any basis, from all of the material you have reviewed in this case, now taking you beyond June 13th and to today's date, which would cause you to have changed your opinion that it would have been appropriate to have taken a sexual assault kit in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I still feel it is not indicated and I would not have recommended it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does--may I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there a manual that is put out by your office to be used by your investigators called a "Physical evidence policy and procedures manual."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, there is.
MR. KELBERG: And basically is the last manual, full manual that was published, published in August of 1987?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Who is--if there is one or if there are more, who are the authors of this manual?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The procedures for physical evidence collection started somewhere in the early eighties and I think the manual was compiled by one of our senior criminalists at that time under the direction of the chief of laboratories at that time. And I think the manual came in place sometime in `88 I think, in `88--`87 or `88, the first date--it was--
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was first issued on February 4th, 1988.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to invite your attention--I can show Court and counsel--to page 8.1--I shouldn't have given the manual over to you, doctor. I lost my place. Hang on one second if you would, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: 8.13.1 on a page starting with the heading "Sexual assault evidence." Is this in fact what your manual indicates is to be a process or procedure followed in your office under "Definition: Evidence collected in the genitals, body orifices and other body surfaces for the purpose of determining if a sexual act may have occurred and who may have participated in that act," then a heading called "Collection, packaging and submission guidelines": "Evaluation for sexual assault evidence shall be made whenever the investigation indicates that a sexual act, whether non-consensual or consensual, may have occurred in association with a death by other than natural causes, whenever identification of the last sexual partner may be of value to the investigation, whenever elimination of sexual activity may be of value to the investigation or when a person involved in the investigation requests that such evaluation be made.
"It shall be the responsibility of the assigned Coroner's investigator and supervising investigator on duty to determine when sexual assault evidence evaluation is required and to notify the criminalistics laboratory staff as soon as possible. The assigned Deputy Medical Examiner may also request sexual assault evidence evaluation if the need has not been previously recognized.
"The body shall not be processed in any manner that might alter or destroy the sexual assault evidence until examined and released by the assigned criminalist. If the decedent has died in a hospital and the hospital or police record indicate that sexual assault evidence was collected antemortem, a criminalist shall be requested to verify the collection and determine if additional evidence collection is indicated.
"Evaluation for and collection of sexual assault evidence shall be made by a Coroner's criminalist. The assigned criminalist shall determine what evidence to collect based upon evaluation of the reported circumstances, the decedent's sex and body condition and personal observations. The prepared evidence kit materials shall be used for sexual assault evidence collection whenever feasible." And then it goes on as to the forms to be filled out and the processing. Is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And was that in fact a policy in your office in June of 1994?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you, in your opinion, follow that procedure in making a determination that a sexual assault kit was not needed in this particular case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion does a sexual assault kit assist you, as a forensic pathologist, in establishing a range for time of death that would be between nine o'clock in the evening and 12:13 in the morning, nine o'clock June 12th, 1994, and 12:13 in the morning, June 13th, 1994, when Officer Riske first found the bodies?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because just by finding evidence of seminal material or sperms it doesn't necessarily mean that they died between that time.
MR. KELBERG: In fact, is it a matter that is handled in a standard forensic pathology text regarding aging of death based upon the presence of something called motile sperm?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There are two issues which are done. One is motile sperms.
MR. KELBERG: First of all, what is motile sperm?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When you get the vaginal aspirate you look under the microscope to see whether there is motility to the sperms because sperm are motile.
MR. KELBERG: What is motile, motility?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Motility" means the sperm will be able to move around, even--are able to move around and that is how after an intercourse takes place the sperm are able to reach the fallopian tubes and fertilize the ova, so that is a normal process which the sperms are capable of physiologically.
MR. KELBERG: And even after a person dies, if you take a sample from the vaginal area and you are looking for sperm, you can microscopically see sperm moving around?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What, if any, significance does the presence of moving term have on the issue of when the ejaculation occurred?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would--you can see motile sperms, the average is less than--up to four hours, but people have seen motile sperms up to sixty hours, but generally the average is four hours.
MR. KELBERG: So four hours before time of death you can still see motile sperm?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no, no.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. If an ejaculation, four hours before death and a sample taken after death, you may still see motile sperm on average?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. The motility of the sperm is for four hours and that could go on up to sixty hours and so it has nothing to do with the death process itself. It is the sperm itself. It is a different--
MR. KELBERG: I understand, but if we put in context of a person dies sometime after there has been ejaculation and you are looking at a slide to look for moving sperm, would it be accurate to say that if you see moving sperm it means that on average that sperm could have been placed inside the vaginal tract as much as four hours before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That could be one conclusion, depending on that the sample being collected immediately after death and you see motile sperms, then that could be one conclusion. But I said there is variability to this and it can go on up to sixty hours they are seeing motile sperms.
MR. KELBERG: So if you were trying to evaluate whether Nicole Brown Simpson died between 10:15 in the evening on June 12th and eleven o'clock in the evening on June 12th, would the presence--just assuming hypothetically there had ever been motile sperm collected and seen--would the presence of motile sperm have permitted you to make that evaluation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, you cannot estimate a time of death from that, especially for such a narrow time frame, and even if it is not a narrow time frame I would not estimate a time of death from presence of sperms because you have so much variability in it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there another aspect of seminal fluid which may have some value in giving a range for when the ejaculation occurred versus when the sample was obtained?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. There is another test which you can do chemically, it is for acid phosphatase, it is an enzyme which is present in your prostatic secretions, and then you ejaculate. Prostatic secretions are mixed with your ejaculation, and if you calculate the amount of acid phosphatase and they are measured in what is called Bodansky, B-O-D-A-N-S-K-Y, units, and if you have a level between 10 and 30, it would indicate that the intercourse took place before--shortly before the specimen was collected.
MR. KELBERG: What is a short time when you are using these units?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is not defined because you can find up to several hours, but usually you don't find it more than 10 to 24 hours after that. I mean, you don't get a high level. You need to get a level of 10 to 30.
MR. KELBERG: Are there values actually given in a forensic pathology text, such as a Spitz and Fisher edition that we used with a couple of photographs earlier in your testimony?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you recall off the top of your head what those values are?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 10 to 30 and I think--
MR. KELBERG: 10 to 30?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --Bodansky units.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. And translating into a time frame of--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Up to--it favors that the intercourse took place just before you--you obtained the specimens.
MR. KELBERG: What is "Just before" defined in the text?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If somebody had coitus just before that.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: By the way, doctor, if there is motile sperm, is there something that is non-moving sperm that can be seen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because what happens is the motility is due to the tail of the sperm and you can lose the tail after certain time and you only see the heads of the sperms, and that you can see for a longer time because they can be there in the vaginal area.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is the time frame during which you can see the presence of non-moving sperm, that is, time of ejaculation to time of sample collection?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The--the non-moving sperm depend on the state of decomposition of the body. If the body is not decomposed, they have found sperms in frozen bodies even after a week. It depends on whether the decomposition is postmortem deterioration of the body. If that take place also, these tissues can deteriorate.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, inviting your attention, if I could, to pages 790 and 791--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --of Spitz and Fisher's third edition, have you reviewed that material?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: Has that material been relied upon in any way by you in forming opinions regarding the time frame regarding the acid phosphatase determination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I don't know if you want to take a look. Does this refresh your memory with respect to any specific--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says: "Values ranging from 10 to 30 Bodansky units suggest rape occurred shortly before death rather than intercourse five to ten hours earlier."
MR. KELBERG: And other than that does it define what "Shortly before" is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And is there any literature of which you are aware which is a scientific study of the relationship between Bodansky units of acid phosphatase levels and confirmed times between ejaculation and time of death and sample collection?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not in--not reviewed other literature.
MR. KELBERG: Or are you aware of any such?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There must be information in the literature which I have not reviewed.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "There must be," are you aware of any?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, taking all this into account, in your opinion would a sexual assault kit from Nicole Brown Simpson have been of any value to you as a forensic pathologist in either identifying the killer or killers of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (No audible response.)
MR. KELBERG: Multiple question. Any value to you in identifying the killer or killers?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And in identifying the specific time of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not as to each?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because--just because there was evidence of--let's assume there was consensual sexual intercourse because we don't have evidence of assault here, even then it doesn't mean that person is the--is the person who did these murders. Now, coming to time of death, I have already mentioned that there is--this time ranges. When we discussed for the sperm and acid phosphatase, you cannot estimate a time of death from that.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, have you taken into account in any way nonmedical observations such as evidence that may have been presented in this case regarding telephone records and telephone calls between Nicole Brown Simpson and persons such as her mother?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Mezzaluna restaurant?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: You have reviewed that material?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not reviewed. I am aware of the material.
MR. KELBERG: And with respect to subsequent contact between Nicole Brown Simpson and the Mezzaluna restaurant?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I am aware of that also.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything of which you are aware which leads you to believe, from a forensic pathologist standpoint, that there was a sexual assault of this woman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, is there anything further with respect to photograph B-1 that has not been covered?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is also blood staining of the left side of the face which would go along with the blood loss from her neck wounds which I discussed earlier.
MR. KELBERG: And that is all fully consistent with what you have seen in the crime scene photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I just have a sip of water.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Anything further on photograph B-1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me invite your attention now back to a photo that you briefly used in conjunction with photograph B-31 and that is photograph B-12. Do you see that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What are we looking at in that particular photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We are seeing four small abrasions arranged in the right shoulder region. Of course you are still seeing the cut wound which I described in the right ring finger. In addition, we have a small scar in the right posterior shoulder area. We also have a smaller abrasion, reddish brown in color, adjacent to the scar in the back of the shoulder, and I have the measurements.
MR. KELBERG: Could you get your wound chart which is our exhibit I believe 350?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. B-12 the measurements are--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up remember, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The abrasion which is next to the scar here is 1/8 of an inch and the scar itself is 3/8 of an inch by 3/16 of an inch. This is all my measurement from the one-as-to-one photographs. The four pink brown abrasions on the shoulder range from quarter inch by 1/8 inch, half an inch by 1/8 inch, 1/8 inch and quarter inch by 1/16 inch, so those are the measurements and they are--have been described.
MR. KELBERG: When you say they have been described, have all of the injuries that you have described now in B-12--we have already covered the aspect of the right hand--have all of these injuries been described by Dr. Golden in his original autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but--yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is the "But"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has described them as postmortem excoriations.
MR. KELBERG: We are going to get to the board to show that specifically, but is a term "Postmortem excoriation" of significance to you as a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would indicate that he felt it was a postmortem injury.
MR. KELBERG: What is an excoriation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Excoriations are the term which you can use for an abrasion. Basically the skin surface has been peeled off.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion is it a postmortem excoriation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the--the appearance of the injury looks perimortem in the shoulder area, which is pinkish brown, and rather antemortem, and the one on the back of the shoulder blade is antemortem also.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from the appearance of these abrasions, do you have an opinion as to the manner in which they were inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are nonspecific blunt force injury. They don't have any pattern to them and they are not fatal.
MR. KELBERG: Are they of any significance in your opinion as to any of the big ticket issues that you have reviewed in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Can you determine how long Nicole Brown Simpson's heart was beating after she received those abrasions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Within a few minutes or even less than a minute.
MR. KELBERG: And is there any way to be definite with respect to that timing from what you see in the photograph B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Before we move to the board, doctor, is there anything else seen in this photograph that you wish to discuss?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Perhaps we can all switch positions and we will move this board.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, we are putting up 0B and 2B from our 349 collection.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, can you tell us where in the protocol there is any entry reflecting any of these abrasions that you have described from photograph B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 3.
MR. KELBERG: Please show us where there is such an entry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Indicating). Paragraph 1 line 4, "Examination of the posterior surface of the trunk."
MR. KELBERG: How far does that run, doctor, to cover what we are looking at?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Up to line 8.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, where Dr. Lakshmanan has outlined with the pointer, I'm going to take a red marker and enclose that area and I will write at the side "B-12."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, excuse me. Dr. Golden has included the terms, "Compatible with ant to insect bites." As a forensic pathologist does the term "Excoriation" have some correlation with being caused by ant or insect bites?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that is a term which is used to--by some physicians to describe if they do see ant and insect bites.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion are those abrasions which you have described as antemortem, rather than postmortem as described by Dr. Golden on page 3, due to ant or insect bites?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the appearance have more reddish brown or pinkish brown in color which would indicate that they happened during life and I don't think they are postmortem excoriations.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you also examine, from the crime scene photographs, our board 355, the area of Nicole Brown Simpson's back which in the photograph B-12 contains these abrasions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: What did you examine that area of the back for with respect to this issue of ant or insect bites, if you did that examination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did the examination to see whether there was any ant activity on the body, no. 1. No. 2, also confirmed the appearance of the wound which was the same appearance as I see it in these photographs. You can see it in the right shoulder area very well.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience as a forensic pathologist, with respect to ant or insect bites, is it your experience that ants or insects operate individually?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: How do they operate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In large groups.
MR. KELBERG: And do you--do you expect to see, if there is a photograph at the crime scene of the body at a time when ants are inflicting this kind of postmortem excoriation, to see evidence of that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would see evidence of ant activity if it was present.
MR. KELBERG: Why don't we finish with the diagram and then we will get to the photograph by moving it out when we move the diagram down. This diagram form 20, does it contain any reference to this same aspect that is covered in page 3 or on page 3, the excoriations?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Right in the right posterior shoulder area here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And there is some entry along the right side of what appear to be several diagonal lines?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It shows the--that there are post--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That there are abrasions present and it says "Appears postmortem."
MR. KELBERG: Where you have outlined that, doctor, with your pointer, I will circle in red and write "B-12" on our board form 20.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor in the photograph I belief you identified areas beyond what is shown in this diagram as an area of abrasions, antemortem abrasions; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that other area or are those other areas shown on figure 20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a small abrasion right here, (Indicating), in the shoulder blade area, which was not diagrammed.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Here," let me just circle that--is this the area, doctor, (Indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes. That's fine.
MR. KELBERG: It is not fine, if it is not accurate--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just a dot of an abrasion; it is not a big one.
MR. KELBERG: I will circle the area in general and I will write "B-12" in blue on form 20.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that at least circling the area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, no. 1, is this a mistake in your judgment for Dr. Golden to have determined that this was a postmortem excoriation or abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a mistake to call it postmortem when it is antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: Is it a mistake to attribute the source of the abrasion or excoriation to ant or insect bites?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it a mistake not to have fully diagrammed, on a form such as 20, the totality of the abrasions seen in photograph B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Individually and collectively, doctor, do any of these mistakes by Dr. Golden have significance on any of the big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because these are very small abrasions and sometimes you can fail to document them when you have a case with so many injuries to document, but they have no significance to the cause of death and manner of death or the--to explain further detail as to the weapon or bleeding patterns, et cetera.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further for photograph B-12 that we need diagram 20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: I'm going to take down diagram 20 and I'm briefly going to pull out exhibit 355.
THE COURT: That is 355?
MR. KELBERG: I believe so. I can't see. The exhibit number is on the front.
THE COURT: Lower right-hand--
MR. KELBERG: It is either 54 or 55. It is 354 Mr. Lynch tells me.
THE COURT: 354.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: This is going to be up so briefly we are going to have counsel moving very quickly back.
MR. KELBERG: But doctor, do you see in this photograph, CS-11, the area of the back which is seen also in B-12 and which contains the abrasions that you have identified?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This photograph doesn't show it very clearly, but this is the area where we are looking at in that photograph. I have seen other photographs where there is better outline.
MR. KELBERG: Let's try CS-12 on the same exhibit.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the area here, (Indicating). I have seen a better picture than this.
MR. KELBERG: All right. A photograph that we are not using; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in looking at these two photographs, CS-11 and CS-12, and the photograph that you have reviewed, do you see any evidence of ant or insect activity on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not on the photographs.
MR. KELBERG: Is that of significance then in evaluating whether in fact the source of those abrasions is due to ant or insect bites, as indicated by Dr. Golden in his protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I'm sorry.
MR. KELBERG: Is it of significance to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question? I'm sorry, I didn't catch it.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me slow it down. Is the absence of evidence of ant or insect activity in the area of the back shown in the three photos, the two here and the others that you reviewed, of significance to you in assessing the source of those abrasions seen on the back in photograph B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In what way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The absence of it would indicate to me that there is not--not--there is no ant activity at the time these photographs were taken.
MR. KELBERG: And if there had been a source for these abrasions from ant activity, would you expect them to be present in these three photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would expect them to be present.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Why don't we take this down. We are going to be right back to that page 3 of the protocol, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Lynch, you can leave that one there.
MR. LYNCH: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, because this page has a reference, I want to go back again to the B-1 photograph and the issue of a sexual assault kit and invite your attention to the first--I'm sorry--second full sentence on page 3, the sentence that is immediately above the outlined box for B-12. Is that one of the entries that you reviewed in Dr. Golden's protocol concerning the issue of trauma to the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Would you read to us, please what would is said in that sentence?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "The genitals are those of an adult female with no gross evidence of injury."
MR. KELBERG: I will outline that in blue on the posterboard size and write "B-1" on the right hand margin.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor is there a specific area of the protocol that discusses an examination of the genital area of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It should be in the latter part of the protocol under genital--urogenital system.
(Brief pause.)
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 12, page 12 of the protocol.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, there is an entry "Genital system," parenthesis, "Female," close parenthesis. What does this refer to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This refers to the internal examination of the genitalia of Miss Brown Simpson.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red, that block of sentences, and I will write out the side "B-1," right side "B-1."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you translate this into lay person's terms, what these observations mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The information is that: "The uterus, tubes, and adnexa are anatomic." That means the internal genitalia which are the uterus, fallopian tubes and the ovaries are normal, normal position and normal appearance. "The cut surface of the uterus shows no lesions and a thin light brown endometrium."
MR. KELBERG: First of all, what is a lesion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Le--
MR. KELBERG: Lesion. What is a lesion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Lesion is looking for your abnormal pathology because you can have--in the uterus you can have, common thing is fibroid, you can have a fibroid uterus. That is not present. There would be what's called adenomyosis which is presence of endometrial tissue in the muscle of the uterus. That is not present. You can see it grossly, so that is what is meant by "Lesion" when you are looking at the uterus and you are looking for vast abnormal pathology and that is not there. And the endometrium is thin light brown. That means the person--reflects the description of the endometrium which it is in the stage of the endometrium in what is called the stage after--grossly it would mean that it is not in the secretor stage or the proliferative stage.
MR. KELBERG: I--let me shortcut this by asking is everything normal with respect to that aspect of the internal examination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. How about the last sentence?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "The vagina has its normal mucosal surface and no lesions or injuries are evident," and it is self-explanatory. There was no pathology seen and there was no injury in the vagina present.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience in examining cases of rape/murder, does one normally expect to see some kind of injury or lesion in the vaginal area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You may see in some cases.
MR. KELBERG: And in some you may not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this particular entry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else to--which I need to discuss.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's take this one down.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Is this 355?
MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. We are back to that.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor is there anything further to discuss on B-12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let's move then, if we could, please, to B-11, the photograph which is immediately to the left. What are we looking at in that photograph, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the back of the right side of the neck you see a u-shaped abrasion which is more well-defined in its lower--in one limb of the u, which is the lower part which is on the lower part of the u, the u being horizontally oriented. And this abrasion, which you see, is also interrupted. That means you have space of intact skin between the points of abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: Does the interruption of an abrasion have any significance to you in evaluating how an abrasion such as this comes to be received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the--yes. Basically the object or surface which caused this injury was coming in intermittent contact with the skin's surface. That would be one interpretation.
MR. KELBERG: Can you explain what you mean by "Intermittent contact"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Umm, if you go back to B-5, I think you can--
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, remember, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: B-5 doesn't show. The clothing has been taken off. If you look at the dress in B-1, there is a neck strap here, (Indicating), which holds up and that strap had a hook--there is a hook to that strap in the back, and one possible source for this abrasion could be from that strap during the--at some point when Miss Simpson was--
MR. KELBERG: I just wanted you to have an opportunity, doctor--I won't put the board up. The crime scene photos, 354, does that show what you are attempting to--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It shows it in b--CS-12.
MR. KELBERG: Let me put up exhibit 354 then and ask you to please show us what it is you are trying to use as an example of an interrupted abrasion source?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This strap you can see it here just below her hairline in the back of the neck, it is a thin strap which is part of this dress.
MR. KELBERG: And how does that come into play if--assuming that is the source?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If--
MR. KELBERG: --to create this interrupted abrasion that you have seen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: At some point the strap would have been pulled backward to rub against the skin's surface there and could it have been one possible source for it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to determine whether this abrasion was received before death as an antemortem abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is an antemortem abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance, the reddish brown color and the features I described.
MR. KELBERG: Does it have any significance, in your opinion, to any of the big ticket questions that you have talked about and reviewed for this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it doesn't play a part in the cause of death or manner of death or the other issues I discussed already; bleeding patterns, evaluation of sharp force injury. It is a nonspecific--I mean it is a nonspecific blunt force injury.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address this in his protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did, but he didn't describe it as u-shaped, but he has addressed it.
MR. KELBERG: Would you have expected him to describe it as u-shaped based upon what you see in the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but the other limb of the u is very faint, so if it is not looked at closely, you may interpret it as a linear abrasion rather than u-shaped.
MR. KELBERG: A linear abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Meaning?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Straight, because you don't see the other limb as clearly as the other--the lower part of the u.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden diagram this particular abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has.
MR. KELBERG: And is it addressed in any way in an addenda?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything, before we move back then to see the protocol and the addendum--I'm sorry, protocol and diagram--about photograph B-11?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: Did you ask someone who acts as a consultant to your office to look at this particular abrasion for an interpretation as to possible bite mark?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Who did you ask to look at this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Vale is our forensic odontologist.
MR. KELBERG: Vale, V-A-L-E?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, Gerald Vale.
MR. KELBERG: And what is a forensic odontologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He is--a forensic odontologist is a dentist who specializes in forensic work and their role would be in identification of decedents by comparing the dental remains. The other function is they help in bite mark evaluations.
MR. KELBERG: What is bite mark?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Bite mark is the mark left on a body surface by the bite of another person, and what the forensic odontologist would do would examine the mark, take what is called an exemplar of the mark using certain material and also have that available in case they have a potential suspect to compare, they will examine the suspect's teeth and see whether there are features which match with the mark which is seen on the body.
MR. KELBERG: In this particular case was Dr. Vale asked to evaluate this abrasion as a possible bite mark after the autopsy had been completed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not after the autopsy was completed. It was only later when the body had already been released and much later, actually in September sometime in `94.
MR. KELBERG: When I said "After," I meant literally after, at any time after, but it was after; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in essence the body was not available for Dr. Vale to personally examine?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: But was Dr. Vale provided both with the type of photograph we are looking at in B-11 as well as the life-size photographs that you have reviewed of the same area for evaluating this issue?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He reviewed the original photographs and then he requested one-as-to-one photographs. He requested to examine the clothing. And all this was arranged for Dr. Vale who then gave his opinion on this particular injury.
MR. KELBERG: Did he in fact issue a report to your office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Is Dr. Vale, in his consulting role as a forensic odontologist, considered an employee of the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did he in fact submit his report on a form like we have seen in these other forms that there is a specific number used by the Coroner's office in the course of its official responsibilities?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What kind form is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a consultant form, form 13, which is used for this purpose.
MR. KELBERG: Now, is there anything else preliminarily to discuss on B-11 before we look at the protocol, the diagram and Dr. Vale's reports?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He did not think it was a bite mark.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: Motion as to strike as nonresponsive, calling for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Your answer was he did not think it was a bite mark?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: From the photographic review.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And Mr. Kelberg, 10:30.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: We are going to be using, your Honor, 0B, I believe that is 2B and 10B from our 349 collection.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let's start with the protocol itself. Where is any entry from Dr. Golden concerning this u-shaped abrasion you have identified in photograph B-11?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 3.
MR. KELBERG: Page 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where is the entry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He actually has included in the same paragraph because he has used the upper back, right side and medial part of the scapula and he refers to upper back in diagram 20 to this area here, (Indicating), so that is where he has documented it.
MR. KELBERG: All right. First of all, would it be accurate to say that he has in this paragraph on page 3, that we have already outlined in red as B-12, he has incorporated a description of both the B-12 blunt force trauma and what is seen by you in the B-11 photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. So what I will write is on--by B-12, I will also write "B-11" in blue by the box.
MR. KELBERG: But there is a separate entry, is there, doctor, on form 20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He has marked it in the back of the right neck area and he has called them antemortem, red brown and he also says "Appears antemortem"--"Ante, abrasion, red brown" and he has marked it here. This is the same injury.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Both where I'm pointing--I don't want to mark it until I'm clear--where I'm pointing, first of all, here, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. This abrasion description could apply to this one, but he has marked it separately as "Am" also, antemortem, so this could reflect for this and this, but in both he has also given notation being ante, a-n-t-e, antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Is it in your interpretation this entry in the right-hand corner reflects--I'm sorry--refers to these two somewhat diagonal lines?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me circle that in blue and I will write B-12--"B-11," excuse me.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, when you were testifying a moment or so ago, you said he didn't describe it as a u-shaped?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is the basis on that--on which you testified to that, the fact that in the diagram they appear to be in line with each other?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion is it a mistake for Dr. Golden not to have shown that abrasion to be a u-shaped abrasion as you see it in the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already thought I discussed it. The upper part of the u is very faint, and if you do not perceive it, you may describe it as a linear as he has done.
MR. KELBERG: Would you expect him to perceive it in a meticulous examination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And if he failed to perceive it and failed to record it, are those mistakes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Any significance to them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reason?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further as to protocol and that diagram for this particular abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let me put up--why don't we take down the--I'm sorry. Dr. Lakshmanan wants to add something; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He didn't describe it--he described it as antemortem in the diagram, but here he has included it as a postmortem.
MR. KELBERG: So again, on page 3, and let me outline in blue, the words "Postmortem injuries," within that box referring to B-11 and B-12, that would be different than how he has actually described it on the form used at time of autopsy, at least for this particular what you say is a u-shaped abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and he has recognized it as being antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: According to his diagrammatic entry; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in your opinion that is accurate, that it is antemortem?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further on that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Lynch will take down the protocol and we will substitute--
THE COURT: Do you want to just put it on top of the--
MR. KELBERG: I'm not sure. Can we put it back up? I don't know what the weight of this particular easel is.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in looking at this, are you familiar with this particular type of form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In general what is this type of form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a consultant report by the odontologist--it is a consultant report and here we have an odontology consultant report.
MR. KELBERG: And this is one of the reports received by Dr.--from Dr. Vale?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is this a report that is expected to be completed at or near the time of the events which he is describing in the report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is this report kept in the ordinary course of the official business of the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, in essence, what does this say?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That he has examined the mark on the back of the right side of the neck, he has examined certain other marks in the lower right back, and he has reviewed a lot of photographs and he--this is the point when he examined initially and then he wanted some--wanted someone, as to one photographs and clothing, to examine, and he has given a follow-up report after this one.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from your testimony, does this report discuss evaluations of things besides this u-shaped area that we have been talking about in photo B-11?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And matters which we have not yet discussed in one or more photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. What part of this September 9, 1994, report specifically refers to an evaluation of the u-shaped abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Photograph a.
MR. KELBERG: And I will outline that in red on page 1 of the September 9th form 13 and write "B-11" out at the side.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, at the bottom where it says initialed by G.L.V., that is Dr. Vale?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: You mentioned something about providing life-size one-to-one--as you described, one-to-one photographs, life-size photographs and an opportunity to look at the dress of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that is what Dr. Vale has included in this report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and he also requested my criminalist, Mr. Steven Dowell, to look at these injuries--these photographs and the clothing.
MR. KELBERG: There is also a second signature that falls below Dr. Vale's on this form. Who is Dr. Anselmo?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He is the core director of the School of Dentistry at USC, but he is also another of the forensic odontology consultant who works for our office.
MR. KELBERG: In the same manner that Dr. Vale does?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, flipping to a third page, this appears to be another form 13, this time dated September 14, 1994. What is this document, if you are familiar with it, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is the document which Dr. Vale prepared after reviewing the clothing in the LAPD lab and also the one-as-to-one photographs, and he generated a report.
MR. KELBERG: And what part, if any, of this report is discussing the u-shaped abrasion and possible source or sources for it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The second paragraph in the conclusion section of form 13 signed on September 15, `94.
MR. KELBERG: This entire paragraph, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I will write "B-11" after I have outlined in red.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you read what Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell have included in that paragraph in the report.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Regarding on the mark on the back of the neck, right side. It remains our opinion that this is not a bite mark, after having considered the possibilities of a bite in the vertical axis and in the horizontal axis. We do not exclude the possibility that the hook on the neck strap caused some or all of the mark, noting some similarity between the shape of the hook and the upper portion of the mark."
MR. KELBERG: You have examined the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson that is described in this report, have you, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, based upon Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell's report and based upon your evaluation of all of the materials you have reviewed, do you have an opinion that is any different from the opinions expressed in that paragraph as to the source or sources for that u-shaped abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I think we are done with this and this may be an appropriate time.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess, mid-morning recess at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss this case among yourselves, form any opinions the case, conduct any deliberations or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we will stand in recess for fifteen minutes. All right. Thank you.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Let's have the jurors, please, Deputy Magnera.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And Mr. Kelberg, do you have your next exhibit ready?
MR. KELBERG: For the next part of the examination, very briefly on that, and then we will go back to the photographs, your Honor.
THE COURT: How much more do you anticipate on Miss Brown Simpson?
MR. KELBERG: I hope to finish by the noon hour.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm sorry, your Honor, I didn't hear that.
THE COURT: He indicated he hoped to finish the brown Simpson autopsy by the noon hour.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And doctor, would you resume the witness stand. Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as long as we had the protocol up, I wanted to just quickly go over another aspect of Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony, and inviting Court and counsel to page 7 one and lines 7 through 19--
THE COURT: Mr. Lynch could you move this exhibit back because it is blocking juror no. 1.
MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, your Honor, one of the bailiffs was kind enough to point out to us there may be some difficulty by one or more of the jurors in seeing the easel board that would be closer to the door used by the jury. Obviously we can move these in any manner that will give everyone a full view.
THE COURT: All right. Any jurors--I'm confident all of our jurors know by now that if they can't see anything, all they have to do is raise their hand. All right.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, we have up on the easel page 7 of the protocol and I want to invite your attention in particular back to that photograph of B-31 regarding the ring finger versus the index finger. Do you remember that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And as I recall from your testimony, Dr. Golden, in his protocol, inaccurately describes that particular injury as being to the right index finger rather than the ring finger. Is that a correct recitation of your testimony?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in reviewing Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony did you review the following questions and answers from page 71: "Question: Now, doctor, during the course of your autopsy as performed on Nicole Brown Simpson's body did you notice any injuries to her? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Tell us about that, sir. "Answer: Referring to my notes, my autopsy notes, protocol, to refresh my memory, on the index finger, on the right index finger there was a 5/8 inch long cut of the skin adjacent to the distal knuckle. It involved the skin only and it had a tangential cut. I would indicate that it was shelved, it didn't go in straight, was an oblique cut which would indicate a shelving or tangential cut." Have you reviewed those questions and answers, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion did Dr. Golden make a mistake in that testimony regarding the location of that particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: In essence did he repeat in his testimony the mistake that is in the typewritten portion of the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And again, is this mistake of any significance on the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if we can get our photograph exhibit back, 355.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I now want to invite your attention to a photograph that is designated B-9 on exhibit 355.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What are we looking at in that photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is evidence of a blunt force injury to the right lower back and there also appears to be an evidence of a dress impression above it, below the right shoulder blade area.
MR. KELBERG: When you say a dress impression, are you referring to any specific garment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the black garment Miss Brown Simpson was wearing.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this the other aspect of the back of Nicole Brown Simpson which was evaluated by doctors Vale and Anselmo and your criminalist, Mr. Dowell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And discussed in their reports that we have seen and we will see again with respect to this area on the form 13's?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to move first to this area. You said there is evidence of blunt force trauma seen in the photograph; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Would you outline the area that you see.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And with the pointer you are making a circle that is an area directly above the top horizontal portion of the measuring card and it is up approximately an inch and a half to two inches from that same area when you look at it on the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: Is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And keep your voice up, please, doctor. What are we looking at with respect to that blunt force trauma?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We are looking at an area of patchy contusion injury measuring about three and a half inches in the horizontal axis whereas on the photograph it is on the site-to-site measurement and two and a quarters inches in the vertical axis that would be in the photograph in our up/down configuration and it is mottled and patchy.
MR. KELBERG: What does "Mottled" mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That means there are areas of skin which does not show contusion and there is areas of skin which show the contusion.
MR. KELBERG: Is that of significance to you as a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is--even though it is evidence of a blunt force injury and that would indicate that the blunt force which caused the injury had an uneven surface.
MR. KELBERG: What do you mean by an "Uneven surface"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you remember the scalp contusion that we discussed yesterday on the right side of the head, there was one rounded contusion and here this--in this particular contusion, (Indicating), it is not continuous contusion. There is areas of interruption and that would favor being an irregular surfaced object which caused this blunt force injury which resulted in this bruising of the right lower back.
MR. KELBERG: What source or sources could be the responsible agent for that kind of blunt force trauma as we see it in this photograph, B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: She had the dress in between the injury and on the skin surface and the force which caused the injury, so naturally the dress would be an intermediate object which would prevent getting a specific pattern. There is no specific pattern. One example could be an uneven--I mean, a shod foot like a sole of a foot could do it or even a fist with--but with a fist you need more--several impacts.
MR. KELBERG: Let's back up for one second. The dress that Nicole Brown Simpson was wearing, as seen in the crime scene photographs, was covering the area of the body that is shown in the photograph B-9 with this mottled contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, could you slide me the board that is directly there.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: And let's see if we can do this. For the record, your Honor, I've pulled our exhibit 355 out just enough so we can still see the photograph B-9 and I have covered the rest with our exhibit 354.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have, as I told you, the impression of a dress in the lower right back below the shoulder blade area, and if you look at crime scene photograph 12 you can see that that area corresponds to the upper margin of this dress in the back portion of the dress, so this area of bruising is below that dress line in this region here, (Indicating). So this is what I meant by that the dress was interposed between the blunt force which caused that injury and the skin surface, so it does not allow you to be specific about a pattern, because a dress would be an interfering kind of object between the blunt force and the skin.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you indicated that one possible source for that appearance of a mottled contusion would be the sole of a foot or a shoe I think you said?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A shod foot I said.
MR. KELBERG: How would that--assuming hypothetically, that is the source, how can that create that kind of appearing contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The shoe has a rubber sole with irregular surface because you can have different patterns to the sole of the shoe, like a waffle pattern, which is one of the common patterns you see on a shoe's undersurface. What will happen is if somebody causes blunt force injury with a shod foot to the back, the protrusions of the undersurface of the shoe could leave marks like this, it could, but you cannot really specify that it is the shoe. It would be difficult.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you hold yourself out as an expert in shoe patterns?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Do you hold yourself out as an expert in shoe comparison?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And so as a forensic pathologist, in talking about a possible sole of a shoe as a source, you are not attempting to specify any specific shoe in this case; is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Or specify any type of shoe; is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, how is it, assuming it is a shoe, that the contusion can be created? What are the forces at play that result in this kind of mottled appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Umm, what happens is when you get forcible compression of the soft tissues of the--I'm just giving the same possible sources. I'm not saying that is the source. Let's just take that as an example.
MR. KELBERG: I understand. Hypothetically?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Hypothetically. Because of the uneven surface of the shoe, because of the waffle pattern, you have ridges and grooves in the shoe's surface, so what will happen is when you get compression of the body by such a surface, the skin will get pinched between the--into the areas where there are grooves, or not grooves--in a waffle pattern it would be the depressions--and that would result in the bruising of those areas which was affected by that part of the shoe. And you may have areas which don't have the bruising because of the raised part of the shoe.
MR. KELBERG: What do you mean by "Compression"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Compression" means the soft tissues are compressed against--by the force of the shoe. Underlying this you have the lower rib cage and it is actually below the rib cage and the soft tissues there.
MR. KELBERG: Hypothetically, doctor--
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, there would be an objection. Motion to strike that testimony as being purely speculative and not based on any special knowledge. The doctor has admitted he doesn't possess--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor. I'm not sure there was a question. I believe I was starting it.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, hypothetically speaking that the source for that blunt force trauma is a shoe, how in your opinion, can that compression take place? What does the shoe have to be doing in order to create the compression that leaves this kind of mottled appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be a kick, it could be continuous compression of the body, like standing on a person.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say "Standing," the person who is doing the standing putting--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Naturally it would be one shoe, one shod foot on the body and one shod foot on the ground.
MR. KELBERG: And the short food--short?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Shot food.
MR. KELBERG: Shod foot. A foot that is wearing a shoe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Assuming that situation of one foot wearing a shoe on the body, does the person whose foot it is have to place the person's weight--transfer the person's weight to the leg and down to the foot and down to the shoe so that weight is being applied to the back, hypothetically, of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How long a process does that require in order for you as a forensic pathologist to expect to see the by-product of that compression?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is basically just like any other means. I mean, you get crushing of tissues, the vessels get crushed, and you get leakage of blood, and as long the pressure is strong enough to cause that bleeding, you will see a bruising.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, doctor, is this bruising bruising which was received before the death of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to a minimum amount of time between the cause for that blunt force trauma and the actual stoppage of the heart action for Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You need blood pressure. So as long as there was blood pressure you would have the bruise, so it could be a few minutes before the final loss of blood pressure.
MR. KELBERG: Can it be less than a few minutes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be less and few minutes, too.
MR. KELBERG: As I asked you before, what in your opinion would be a minimum amount of time that Nicole Brown Simpson's heart must have beaten between the time whatever source created that blunt force trauma was applied and the time when she died?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The bleeding would start immediately after the blunt force trauma, so if--let's say this blunt force trauma took place a minute before death, you could see it a minute before death.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, does the rapidity with which the appearance of the blunt force trauma will be seen depend in any way on the force that is being applied?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There are two factors when you come to the back portion of the body where there is more deeper tissues. The force will become a factor. You will see it immediately after the force. Sometimes the force may not cause the injury to the superficial tissues, it will show the injury more to the deeper tissues and that may not be seen right away, but we will--for that you need the person to live longer so that you can see the bruising on the surface.
MR. KELBERG: How much longer?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A few minutes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does--is one component of the concept of force something known as mass, m-a-s-s?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the weight.
MR. KELBERG: And so basically if we assume hypothetically that the source is a person with a shod foot, would it be an accurate statement of a concept of physics that the greater the weight of the person, the greater the force that is being applied?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Weight will be a factor, yes.
MR. KELBERG: And as a factor is it accurate to say that the more weight that is being applied, the more force that is generated?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Assuming, hypothetically, doctor, that the source is the shod foot of an individual who weighed 210 pounds, in your opinion, would that weight be sufficient top create the type of mottled contusion that is seen in photograph B-9?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. No foundation for his expertise in this area.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could cause this bruising.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this area of bruising described by Dr. Golden in his protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is this area of bruising diagrammed by Dr. Golden in any of the diagrams available?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is this area of bruising addressed by Dr. Golden in his addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is each of those failures by Dr. Golden, in your opinion, a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Taken singularly or together do these mistakes affect or have any significance on the big ticket issues like cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Manner of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Whether a single six-inch long single-edged knife blade caused all the sharp force injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Whether one person killed these two human beings?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: The blood flow pattern?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: The time to die?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Any other of these issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because this is a nonspecific blunt force injury. We discussed a hypothetical situation, because it has nothing to do with the cause of death. It happened when the person was alive. It is an injury and it doesn't affect the big ticket issues you just discussed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, give us, if you can, any other examples of possible sources for that type of mottled contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I said, it could be a repetitive blunt force from a fist, closed fist, and you could get bruising, because there are multiple areas of bruising here, and by repeatedly hitting the area you could get bruising also of a similar nature.
MR. KELBERG: Because you have raised that as a possible source, doctor, could you help me by taking the exhibit down, and could I ask Mr. Lynch to give me exhibit 352, please, the original set of photographs. And doctor, could you pull that down just a bit. You had mentioned, in looking at the contusion to the scalp, the right side of Nicole Brown Simpson, that one possible source was the rounded end of a knife; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And also, let's see if we can do something similar by--again we are going to try and show both B-9, your Honor, from the one board and what is B-20. If the jurors will excuse my leaning over, I can't quite see--B-20 of board 352. A rounded end from the knife as one source, but you also mentioned it could be due to a fist; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if a fist had been used for either of these two types of injuries, blunt force trauma, would it necessarily follow that the person--let's assume it is the same person--that the person's fist would show evidence itself of injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessarily.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the forces coming from the fist, which is in this--in this situation this skin is being compressed by the broad surface of the skull.
MR. KELBERG: This skin is the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The scalp skin, B-20.
MR. KELBERG: We will try and remember, doctor, to not talk on top of each other.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Apologize to the Court.
THE COURT: Not me; it is the court reporter.
MR. KELBERG: Well, indirectly then to the court reporter through the Court.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Go forward with your answer, I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The bruising to the right side of the head, the--if it was from a fist, you have the underlying bone here, which is a larger surface, and you would get bruising when the right side of the head is struck because the skin and soft tissues are crushed between that and the fist force which is being applied.
MR. KELBERG: The bleeding to what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To the soft tissues of the skin of the scalp on the right side of the head.
MR. KELBERG: Would you expect to see bruising to the part of the fist that comes in contact with the area of the scalp?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessarily.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the force involved you may or may not see the bruising to the person's hand, because you don't have the same underlying broad bony surface which you have underlying here for the tissues to be crushed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume for the sake of argument that it was a human fist rather than a rounded or smooth edge end of a knife, but the fist was a hand wearing a glove so that it was a gloved fist rather than a closed bare fist. Would that have any impact--that is probably a poor choice of words--would that have any affect, in your opinion, on whether the fist itself would show evidence of having struck the head.
MR. SHAPIRO: Vague as to the type of glove.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The glove would be a buffer for the hand or the fist which is causing the injury, so there will be less--less probability of the fist ever having any injury perceived on the skin's surface.
MR. KELBERG: How does the glove acting as a buffer prevent injury being seen to the fist that has come in contact with the area of the scalp where the contusion is seen in B-20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you have the layers of the glove itself which act like a cushion to the skin's surface of the fist.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would the same apply to this issue on B-9 if a fist had been used to be the source for that blunt force trauma?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, you said, as I recall your testimony a moment or so ago, that it would require more than one blow from a fist to create the mottled contusion that you see in B-9; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why, in your opinion, would it require more than one?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the multiple small contusions you have here, (Indicating), I would--my--and I would--because of the--you are talking about a closed fist. To have these multiple contusions I would expect for that to happen, more than one blow to have been struck on that area if it was a fist which caused that.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say that the smaller--that the largest area of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson which is going to have impact will be dictated by the largest area of the fist which comes in direct contact with that body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: So if it is a small area of the fist that comes in contact, the area that will show blunt force trauma will correspondingly be small?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That also would be a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: And is there such a thing as a glancing blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is a glancing blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A glancing blow is one where the--let's assume the fist was the--was being used to deliver the blow. The entire fist does not impact the area being struck, only a portion of the fist hits the area being struck, so that would be something like a glancing impact. And you will see that in--you can see that sometimes in the street fighting or boxing where the entire blow doesn't go to the person, just a small portion goes to the other person in the fight, because the head moves or the--or the person withdraws so the fist doesn't deliver the entire impact that it was intended to deliver.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if a glancing blow is involved, can a glancing blow, nevertheless, leave evidence of blunt force trauma to the body where contact is in fact made?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: If it is a glancing blow, does that have some affect on the probability that the fist itself will show evidence of having made such contact?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It may or may not show it, because as I told you earlier when I discussed the scalp contusion and also this area of injury, you may not see injury on the fist and it doesn't mean that it didn't cause the injury, but sometimes you do--you may see some bruising also.
MR. KELBERG: If it is a glancing blow in the concept of the laws of physics, is the force that is being transmitted a lesser force than the force that is transmitted if the blow is a direct blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be also a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: And if the force is less, does that affect the likelihood that the fist will show evidence of the blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct also. The fist would show--I mean, there is less chance the fist will show injury.
MR. KELBERG: And if the glove is over the fist when all of this is taking place, does that act as an additional basis as it is used as a cushion to lessen the likelihood that any evidence would be seen on the fist, that the fist had come in contact with the body of another person?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else about the blunt force trauma in B-9 or the B-20 contusion area involving this possible source as a fist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Lynch could take 352 back.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor are there more sources that you consider a possibility other than a fist or a shod foot for the mottled contusion in B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be multiple blunt force from the base of the knife as we discussed, the rounded part of the knife. Somebody was jabbing at the right lower back, that would be another source.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan, as he was saying those words, first with his left hand making multiple--
THE COURT: Sweeping motions.
MR. KELBERG: --sweeping motions, thank you, and with his right hand to a much lesser degree something similar on the right side.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, anything further about that area of mottled contusion before we discuss in a little more detail the other area that you described of your findings in B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And we will go, when we complete the photo itself, back to the protocol and so forth. Tell us more about this dress impression.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This dress impression is located about two inches above this mottled bruising and it measures two and a quarters inches on the site-to-site axis of the photograph and it is a dress impression.
MR. KELBERG: Is this something, in your opinion--withdraw the question. Are you able to determine from its appearance when in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson that impression was made?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't determine that.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because there is no--it is--there is no reaction to this dress impression. It is just an impression of the skip, and I can't tell whether it happened before death or after death.
MR. KELBERG: And is your inability to make that determination of any significance on any of the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And this was another area that was evaluated by Dr. Vale, Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowell; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Was that area described by Dr. Golden in the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Was that area diagrammed by Dr. Golden in the original diagrams?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Was that area addressed by Dr. Golden in his addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Each of those a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Singularly or all together are these mistakes of any significance on the issues we have already outlined many times?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons that you gave with respect to the same failures concerning the mottled contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further before we go to the reports from Dr. Vale and Dr. Anselmo and Mr. Dowel?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: May we switch positions then, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, we are putting up again 10-B, our board 10-B from exhibit 349.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I'm sorry, you don't get to sit very long. Would you identify--again this is the first of the two odontology reports from the doctors, vale, Anselmo and your criminalist, Mr. Dowel; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Can you identify for us, please, which portion of this first report deals with the dress impression area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Photo d, mark on the right back inferior scapula and the paragraph corresponds to that.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to outline in blue the area just identified by Dr. Lakshmanan and I will write "B-9" and I will write "Dress impression" in the left hand margin.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there is an area immediately below that that I have just outlined dealing with a lower back contused area. Is that area different than the area we were just looking at in B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is that next paragraph to reflect the contused area we were looking at?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And what else, if anything, on this first page of the September 9, 1994, report, refers to the mottled contused area that we saw in B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: With the red marker I will outline that paragraph and to the right I will write "B-9 contused area."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there appears to be another paragraph immediately under the one I have just outlined. Does that refer to something that we have not discussed yet?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And which is shown in another photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Is there anything further on this first page of the September 9, 1994, report, that deals with anything seen in photograph B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: By the way, doctor, the study based upon a review of the material listed, something called "Duplicate at scenes" appear to be Polaroids. Were these in fact two Polaroid pictures taken by Claudine Ratcliffe of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson at the scene?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And you indicated, I think when you were first testifying, that would be standard procedure for the investigator to do?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything on page 2 of this odontology report that refers to photograph B-9's contused area or dress impression?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He requested that we obtain the clothing so he could look at it and he also requested one-as-to-one photographs which was provided.
MR. KELBERG: And for the same reason that you have already described with respect to the u-shaped abrasion, I think it was in photograph B-11?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. If we could flip now to the September 14, 1994, report.
MR. KELBERG: Is there an entry in this report from Drs. Vale, Anselmo and Mr. Dowell concerning the findings in the areas that we have been talking about in photograph B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is the first paragraph after the heading "Conclusions" which refers to the dress impression.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you please, for the record, read what the conclusion is as indicated in this one paragraph which I am outlining in blue and writing "B-9"--"B-9" on the outside right margin of the page?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Regarding the injury on the right back inferior to scapula, we conclude that the markings in the area were clearly made by the slide fastener, hook and adjacent portions of the decedent's dress. The at-scene photographs show the back of the dress"--
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me interrupt you. You must read as the words appear there. I think you used the word "Photographs" and the word appears to be "Photos."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. "The at-scene photos show the back of the dress twisted to the right side. There is an excellent match between the a-shaped marking and the tab or the handle of the slide fastener. Also, the hook corresponds well to the position and shape of corresponding marks on the skin. Significant areas of the dress are photographed. Also, there appears to be a pattern similar to the pattern of the tape or fabric adjacent to the slide fastener (zipper). We think the mark was likely made postmortem or recent antemortem, since the dress was off center."
MR. KELBERG: I think you added a couple of the's doctor but, other than that, is that an accurate representation of the contents of that paragraph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: First of all, doctor, you reviewed these two reports, did you not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Took them into consideration in forming any opinion regarding what we were actually seeing in the photograph B-9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do you disagree in any way with the conclusions expressed in this report from doctors vale, Anselmo and Mr. Dowel?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: I am done with that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I believe we have two photographs still left to discuss on this exhibit 355. One is in the middle row at the far right which appears to be B-28 and one which appears at the top left B-5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Can you see if we can discuss these together and then see whatever we need to see in the way of protocols, diagram and the addenda. Why don't we start with B-5, the upper left corner photograph. What are we looking at in that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The photograph shows the upper back of Miss Simpson and you can see an abrasion over the left shoulder blade area.
MR. KELBERG: The abrasion that you see, do you have an opinion as to when it was received in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was an antemortem abrasion so it happened before her death.
MR. KELBERG: Again, from the appearance you are able to form that opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does this abrasion play any significant role in the cause of Nicole Brown Simpson's death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine the manner in which that abrasion was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a nonspecific blunt force injury. It could have been from a contact from a rough surface. I can't say a particular source.
MR. KELBERG: And are you able to say in any fashion the mechanism that such contact with a rough surface occurred?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have been an impact to a rough surface or a rough surface just rubbing against that area.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Dr. Golden describe this particular abrasion in his autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram it in any of the diagram forms available?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Was there any aspect of it addressed in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion was there any reason to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it was correctly diagrammed and described.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further that you wish to bring to our attention regarding that particular antemortem abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let's move then to the photograph B-28. What are we looking at in that photograph, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You are looking at the lower right arm and right forearm. You can see the whole right forearm, (Indicating), and the elbow region of Miss Brown Simpson, the back of the elbow region, and you see an abrasion there.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine when in relationship to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson that abrasion was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That abrasion occurred before her death.
MR. KELBERG: This again based upon its appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to tell us the source or sources for such an abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It is a nonspecific blunt force trauma.
MR. KELBERG: In essence would your answers regarding how that abrasion may have been obtained be the same as your answers just given on the abrasion in photograph B-5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address in his original protocol that abrasion in B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram in any of the available diagrams that abrasion seen in B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did he address in his addendum that abrasion seen in photograph B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did.
MR. KELBERG: Would you describe his failure to have a description in the protocol and to have a diagram--a diagrammatic representation of that abrasion in one of the diagram forms available, each to be mistakes by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Singularly or collectively, do those mistakes have any significance on any of the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For all the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Before we move to the board, is there anything further about photograph B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You can see the forearm and there seems to be no injuries observed on the back of the right forearm also.
MR. KELBERG: What is the significance, if any, of the absence of any apparent injuries in that area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same reason I gave for the paucity of Defense wounds. The forearm area would be one area where the person would use to ward off any attack and the absence of injuries would indicate also rapid incapacitation or not having the capability to resist.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further with respect to B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Perhaps we will take the photo board down and finish up with the protocols on these two photographs.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where in the protocol is there a reference to the abrasion that you described in photograph B-5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 3.
MR. KELBERG: Where is the reference to that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the paragraph 1 it is on line 8. It starts saying: "An abrasion over the left scapula measures 3/4 of an inch by half an inch and is reddish brown in color and appears antemortem."
MR. KELBERG: While I hand Mr. Lynch our board 2B, I will outline in blue that entry on page 3 and I will write on the right side "B-5."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the description given here by Dr. Golden, in your opinion, an accurate description?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, on the diagram form 20, there is an entry by Dr. Golden regarding that same abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on the right back view diagram. It is here, (Indicating), and he has given the measuring here, "3/4 inch by half an inch scapula abrasion antemortem" and here he says, "Antemortem red brown" and all of this would apply to the injuries seen in B-5.
MR. KELBERG: With the red marker I will circle that area, doctor, on the form upper right quadrant and I will write "B-5." I don't know if we need to move this. I think this was the easel that was not clearly visible. I don't know if there is any problem.
THE COURT: Why don't you proceed and if I hear anything from the jurors we will--
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as long we have there form up, I want to invite your attention to the other side of the diagram which appears to show the outline of the human body looking at the front of the body, and what appears to be some kind of circle and a line going down beyond the right hand area. Are you familiar with what is shown in that part of the diagram?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a notation by Dr. Golden to indicate the postmortem liver temperature puncture done by our investigator.
MR. KELBERG: I think you briefly alluded to this on Friday, that a liver temperature would be taken. I think you indicated, they were 82 degrees in the case of both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Is that an accurate recitation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: This particular entry then is to reflect what is left after the device used to make that measurement is removed from the body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else about this diagram we need to discuss?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, you indicated, doctor, that there was an entry in the addendum to refer to the B-28 abrasion; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And we are putting up b--8B, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where on the addendum do you find some reference to that abrasion from B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 3 item on page 1 it says: "There is a 5/8 inch by quarter inch abrasion of the lateral aspect of the dorsal aspect of the right elbow, the bottom side irregular."
MR. KELBERG: "Dorsal" meaning back?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I think you may have left off the word "Brown" before abrasion.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, brown abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: I will outline that in blue and mark "B-28". Mr. Lynch has refreshed my memory.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that an accurate description as you examined the photograph B-28?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. My measurement was a little different from the--
MR. KELBERG: What was your measurement?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is only a 1/16 inch--my measurement was 11/16 inch by 3/16 inch.
MR. KELBERG: 11/16 is 1/16 inch more than a 5/8 inch measurement?
MR. SHAPIRO: So stipulated.
MR. KELBERG: I think we may need that stipulation. I think Dr. Lakshmanan said no.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Half an inch is 8-BY-16 and my measurement is 11-BY-16, which is 3/16 inch long.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Dr. Golden had it listed as 5/8?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Maybe I don't need the stipulation, but I will accept it anyway. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Let's move on.
MR. KELBERG: The other measurement you had was 11/16 by--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 3/16.
MR. KELBERG: So that is 1/16 more in both respects from what Dr. Golden has listed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 1/16 more in the length and 1/16 less in the width.
MR. KELBERG: Is that difference in measurement, in your opinion, something that can be due to the limitations of human eyes examining the same photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there any significance as to that difference on any issue that you have reviewed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Maybe we can take those down. May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to cover another of the form 13 reports on our board--Mr. Lynch?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm sorry, the board number--
THE COURT: 10B.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. 10B, and if Mr. Lynch could turn that to--no, I'm sorry, flip the page to what will be a page after--after the second odontology report. Two more pages to be flipped, I believe, Mr. Lynch.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think you may be able to remain seated--I'm not sure if you can see it on--doctor, are you familiar--this is a form that is entitled "Radiology consult." Are you familiar with this particular form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a same form but used by different consultants. This is a radiology consultant report on the case.
MR. KELBERG: And in general what is this a report of?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a report of the x-ray appearance of the spine specimen removed during autopsy from Nicole Brown Simpson by Dr. Golden.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment? If Mr. Lynch will take down the other--
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. This is 352?
MR. KELBERG: It is, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to invite your attention back to photograph B-16 which you have previously testified about. Does this area depict something that relates to what this report, Dr. Boger's report, is talking about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This photograph B-16 as, I discussed yesterday, shows the cervical spine injury, C-3 spine injury related to this large incise/stab wound to the neck, and you can see it here, I'm pointing to it. And this portion of the spine was dissected and saved during the autopsy process, so that spine was examined by x-ray at a later stage and Dr. Boger did that examination of the x-rays on November 14, `94. A report was generated.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, doctor, is it, Boger?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Boger, B-O-G-E-R.
MR. KELBERG: Dr. Boger is a specialist in radiology?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is he basically operating in the same fashion that Dr. Vale operates for the Coroner's office when Dr. Vale is practicing forensic odontology?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: So this is a report that is kept in the ordinary course of your official business?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And Dr. Boger is expected to make this report at or near the time of the events which he is describing in the report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in looking at item 1 under "Findings," what does Dr. Boger report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He indicates that: "There is no visible metallic or other radiopaque foreign body present within the specimen."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if the knife which in your opinion caused this fatal major stab/incise wound had broken in any fashion, the tip or any portion of the knife had broken on contact with the third cervical spine, would you have expected a finding such as made by Dr. Boger?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it had been broken and the tip was left in the spine, it will usually be stuck to the bone and you would see it if it was broken during that process.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, in your opinion this was the last sharp force injury received by Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: You have pointed out, from looking at this board, that she received three sharp force injuries to her head area; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And shown in photograph B-23, B-24 and B-26; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if there had been any breaking of the tip of the knife or portion of the knife blade in inflicting one or all of those sharp force injuries, would you expect the appearance of the stab wound/incise wound that is seen in B-16 and B-13 and the left side of it in B-18 to appear as it does?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if the tip is broken, I would expect to see some kind of more irregularity to the margins than what we see in this stab wound/incise wound.
MR. KELBERG: Does that serve--the absence of that serve as some basis--do you want to add something? The doctor is holding up a finger. You must want to add something.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Also the internal structures were examined, the spine, the epiglottis, the spine. It looked like a clean cut and it was studied by our criminalist.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Studied," was this material that you also studied?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I looked at it and I also asked our criminalist to look at it.
MR. KELBERG: In other words, this was material that was saved at autopsy by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And on June 22nd, 1994, was it examined by you along with Drs. Wolf and Baden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in looking at this tissue that had been removed, what was the significance to you of the findings as to how the cutting had been done?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was a clean cut and that is why I opined yesterday that it was a major single incise stab wound which caused this massive injury to the neck. And I do not think a broken knife could have caused such a clean injury all the way without any evidence of some kind of irregularity to the skin surface and also the deeper part.
MR. KELBERG: And you also indicated that you asked your criminalist, Mr. Dowel, is it, to look at this material?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And did he issue a report as well?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you testified perhaps Tuesday that no x-rays were taken of any areas other than the third cervical spine area; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and that, too, the cervical spine x-ray was only taken after the specimen was removed from the body. It was not taken when the portions of the bone were in-situ.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, given the finding by Dr. Boger of no visible metallic or other radiographic foreign body in the sample or specimen x-ray, given your findings from reviewing the appearance of this major stab/incise wound in the three photographs, 13, 16 and 18, given your findings from your independent review of the tissue which was removed by Dr. Golden and later examined by you, do you have an opinion as to whether the knife that was used to kill Nicole Brown Simpson broke in any fashion in the body, including the skull or any other part of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, in the course of the lethal assault?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: You have no opinion or you have an opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have an opinion; yes, but it didn't break during the process.
MR. KELBERG: And the basis for that is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically because my opinion is this is the last wound and I said that, and also the appearance of the other stab wound to the left side of the neck, they all have uniform configuration which you would only--you would get when you have a knife which is intact with an intact tip, so there are other injuries which will support that opinion.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, assuming, hypothetically, that the killer using this single-edged knife that you have described in general dimensions inflicted this last incise/stab wound to Nicole Brown Simpson after she had been incapacitated as you previously testified and after the murderer or killer moved away from Nicole Brown Simpson and murdered or killed Ronald Goldman and then came back to inflict this last fatal stab/incise wound, would you expect then that Mr. Goldman's autopsy findings would not show any evidence of a broken knife?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled, subject to connection.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: My answer would be that the knife would have been intact when Goldman's injuries were inflicted.
MR. KELBERG: And if the knife were intact when Mr. Goldman's injuries were inflicted would you expect to see any evidence of a broken knife in any portion of his body at autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We would have expected to see a broken knife if it had hit any skeletal structures. His wounds did fracture--we will go into it, I'm sure--did fracture one skeletal structure, did hit, was the right seventh rib in one of the stab wounds to the chest--let me just recall--and he had two, three small cuts to the head. Other than that, there was no other bony structure I recall at this time which that knife--the knife which caused those injuries would have struck. And given your hypothetical, that this last wound on Miss Simpson occurred after the Goldman--Mr. Goldman was killed, I would have to opine that based on the features of this large incise stab wound the knife was not broken.
MR. K