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. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Kardashian, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Lynch.
MR. KELBERG: I think we have Mr. Darden.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden is back there with the doctor. Good morning, counsel.
MR. KELBERG: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, you relocated the easel?
MR. KELBERG: We have, your Honor. I will point out for the Court, again my eyesight is not a good test, but because we have moved it back for the juror--I don't know the numbers, I apologize, but the juror who is seated in the first chair in the back row and probably the juror next to that juror and possibly the juror in the front seat of the first seat of the front row, the distance is a fact to see the clarity of these wounds, especially the smaller wounds from that position, I think is very poor. The alternative is perhaps to ask the Court to ask the jurors, obviously pointing out that the Court has moved the photographs back, but in the event the jurors feel a need to see the photographs at a closer inspection, that the Court will make that available. My suggestion would be, when I have finished with a board completely, that the jurors be given, as I understand they were with certain of the DNA exhibits, to basically walk in front of the exhibit and have an opportunity to examine it for some brief period of time.
THE COURT: All right. Any comment, Mr. Shapiro?
MR. SHAPIRO: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: I would like to be heard, your Honor, on one other matter.
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MR. KELBERG: Just a procedural thing. Our answer to a future trivia question of who operated the elmo at the O.J. Simpson trial is sick and I indicated to Mr. Fairtlough that he should go home and not infect anyone else down here, and more importantly, take care of himself. We have not used the elmo over the last couple of days. I do not anticipate using it in this morning's examination. If it comes up and it has to be used, we will just make do without it until Monday.
THE COURT: Well, what we will do is we have Mr. Simpson's counsel--their staff have the ability to operate the elmo, and I think as a professional courtesy they will be happy to do that for you.
MR. KELBERG: We would appreciate it. Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE COURT: That is just a matter of courtesy amongst counsel.
MR. KELBERG: They have been very courteous.
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera. I'm sorry, Mr. Cochran, you had one other matter you wanted to address?
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, I would like to propose to the Court, if the Court pleases, in view of the high emotions that were in the Court yesterday and the problems that we had at the end of the day, that the consider giving--I have a proposed instruction re the autopsy photographs and it is very brief and I think the Court would not have a problem with it. I think it is appropriate to read that this morning before we launch into the testimony.
THE COURT: All right. Have you given Mr. Kelberg a copy?
MR. COCHRAN: No, your Honor, just I had it sent here and I will be glad to share it with Mr. Kelberg.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. COCHRAN: What I would like to do, your Honor, is to indicate--
THE COURT: You only have one copy?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I only have one copy and I will be glad to make a copy.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you have Mr. Lee make us some copies, Mrs. Robertson.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. While they are doing that, your Honor, I have one other matter I wanted to indicate to the Court. We had previously had a conversation with regard to the scheduling on Monday, and I would just propose to the Court that I think as the Court indicated we would perhaps meet half day. Depending upon how far we get today, and I would anticipate the People will still be in direct examination and still be using these photographs, and Monday being an important day to everyone, it would seem to me that it might be an appropriate day not to have testimony for the jury and I would like to propose that to the Court for all the victims, that we take the balance of Monday off and perhaps use Monday for any motions the Court might want to hear, and I would propose that, if the Court pleases. I think that given the high emotions that we saw yesterday and the fact that we will still be in the middle of the Coroner's testimony, will be really a tough time for everyone, and I would just throw that out for Court's thinking, since we were going to do a half day at any rate.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, any thoughts on that proposal?
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I think probably everyday is a tough day for everyone who is associated with this case, from the families of Mr. Goldman and Ms. Brown Simpson, the families of Mr. Simpson, counsel, the Court, the jurors. Quite frankly, I believe the sooner this case gets to the jury, the happier this jury will be, and I believe that if there is time available that can be used, then the time should be used. Whether it is the anniversary of the event, the anniversary of any funeral associated with the killings of these two human beings, there is going to be some memory arising from this incident that is going to be commemorated during the next month or month and a half, and I think it would be wiser to move forward than it is to acknowledge and give some sense of importance which may have an influence that it should not have. So on that basis I would prefer to try and do something with the jury anytime that is available. We do appreciate the Court's consideration in allowing Dr. Lakshmanan to attend this international symposium to which he was committed many months ago, so I realize with the Court's indulgence we are asking the Court not to go in the morning, and with that understanding I would not find it inappropriate for the Court to accede to Mr. Cochran's request, but I in a more generalized sense believe that the time should be used as quickly and as efficiently and as effectively as possible to get this case to the jury for decision.
MR. COCHRAN: May I respond just briefly, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, as the Court is aware, the Defense has indicated to the Court that not only do we want to work long hours but we would be willing to work on Saturdays where possible. We want to do that if possible. I might say to my learned colleague that one of the ways that we get to the jury faster is speed up the testimony and the direct examination has been very lengthy and that is their decision, so we want to do that also. The reason we are not going to be here in the morning is because the doctor has another event. I thought about this last night, your Honor. In view of the fact that it is a difficult day for all the victims in this case, on Monday we are going to be off half day--I am not asking for us to be off. I'm saying that you may give us--we have motions that are pending we can perhaps deal with. I'm saying giving the emotions that we saw the other day, this Court is very wise, and I think the Court would consider that rather than coming in at 1:30, since it is June 12th and I think it will be more difficult day for everyone and so we want to move this case along and get it to the jury as soon as possible. Shifting gears, your Honor, with regard to the proposed autopsy--autopsy photos and what we saw yesterday, all we are asking is that if the Court would instruct the jurors as follows: "That as you have seen, the autopsy photographs introduced by the Prosecution yesterday are extremely gruesome and disturbing." Tried to use the Court's words. "In carrying out your duties as jurors you must not be swayed by sentiment, conjecture, passion or prejudice." Taken from the jury instructions I think. "But both the People and the Defendant have a right to expect that you will abide by the presumption of innocence, that you will conscientiously and dispassionately consider and weigh all the evidence without letting your emotions sway your judgment. When the case is eventually sent to you for deliberations you will find the Defendant not guilty unless the Prosecution has proven its guilt of this case beyond a reasonable doubt." And what we will try to do is incorporate what the law is, the paragraph--Caljic no. 1.00 with 2.90, and we think this would be an appropriate time to give this instruction in view of the fact of the overwhelming emotions we saw in Court yesterday, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. There is certainly a first issue of do we need it at this stage? I will leave that to the Court's discretion. The Court has observed this jury much longer than I and the Court obviously saw very clearly what the reactions were of the jurors. If the Court is inclined to give any kind of limited instruction to the jury, let me start with the first sentence which in my judgment is a characterization of the photographs which is, a, inaccurate, b, incomplete, and c, an invasion of the province of the jury to decide what they are. It is not unusual for Defense counsel in a motion under 352 dealing with autopsy photographs to argue that the photographs are "Gruesome" in an effort to convince a Court that by being gruesome the photographs should be excluded as prejudicial because it may influence the sympathies or emotions of the jurors in a way unrelated to the probative value of the evidence. Here we have added--let me correct for Mr. Shapiro's benefit, I believe it is an adverb "Extremely," not an adjective, so he has enhanced the nature of the gruesomeness argument by that characterization. And "Disturbing." Disturbing carries many different connotations. These photographs I believe are disturbing in a way that I don't think is intended by Mr. Cochran's suggested admonition. They are disturbing because of what they show happened to Ronald Goldman and the other photographs as to what they show as to Nicole Brown Simpson and they are extremely probative, in our judgment, as to who in fact killed these people. That is for the jury to decide. I would submit to the Court that if you are to give an instruction, you can frame it in terms of how the Court first prewarned, forewarned this jury about we were moving into this phase, we were going to see photographs, if anybody has any problems and so forth, they were to let the Court know and so forth, and then read the 1.00 instruction which is indicated on page 2 of the document that Mr. Cochran has given to me, after you give that generalized reflection of the nature of the evidence that the jury was to hear and has been hearing for the last few days, and of course to leave out what is included in the last portion of the proposed admonition or limited instruction beginning with the words: "And when the case is eventually sent to you for deliberations that you will find the Defendant not guilty unless the Prosecution has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." That is an admonition. I assume this Court has read to this jury at some point, in either voir dire or before opening statements, the presumption of innocence instruction, 2.90. I'm sure this jury understands quite clearly that the burden is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the charges before they can convict him and before his presumption of innocence is lost. But for the purposes of their reaction to these photographs, 1.00 fully and unambiguously conveys what is the necessary purpose, if there is one, for a limited instruction, that is, this jury must decide the case objectively and not on the basis of emotion or passion or prejudice as to either side. So if the Court is inclined to give a limited instruction or admonition, I believe that 1.00 fully and clearly provides that admonition, along with an introductory remark similar in nature to what the Court has said on several occasions to this jury with respect to this area of the testimony.
MR. COCHRAN: May I respond just briefly, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: We are not really that far apart, Mr. Kelberg and I. And I think that basically what we have done is used the Court's words. I want to put things in perspective, your Honor. We are in a different posture now. The Court did indicate to the jurors that the photographs, I believe you used the word disturbing or some words similar to that, that they could raise their hands at any time, and in fact the juror no. 5 did in fact do that yesterday, as I brought to the Court's attention, so we have now had that situation. These photos have had an affect upon the jury, they have been disturbing and they have been gruesome, and they are gruesome and I don't quarrel over any adverbs, but photographs are gruesome and disturbing. Those are factual statements. We have used the Court's words. The rest of it is 1.--pretty much a jury instruction which I think the Court would want to give in this case. This is a unique situation. We are still concerned about a fair trial here. The reason why we objected to these photographs, your Honor, is so that the passion and prejudice that might inure to these photographs would then be to the detriment of the Defendant and would cause us not to receive a fair trial. And the Court wants a fair trial above all else, so I'm asking the Court to put us back on track in that regard and you have taken safeguards in that vein. Further, who can quarrel with 2.90? How many times in a trial can you say the Defendant has to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? And that is all we are talking about, especially in view of the fact that the Prosecution was allowed to ask a hypothetical question about somebody six foot two, 200 pounds. Well, I'm sure the doctor, if asked that question, will say somebody 5-6, 150, could have done the same damage. They focus on a particular question and it inures to the detriment of our client. We have an obligation to bring that to the Court's attention and all we are asking for is fundamental fairness, as you have done yesterday in Court in moving this--the photographs back. That is all we are asking. And so I would ask the Court to give this instruction or an instruction very close to this instruction now and to consider my other request with regard to June 12th. Not a holiday for us. We are willing to work. But I just think, given the emotions and given everything we know and the fact that they have a problem in the morning, it seems to make sense. Your Honor. Thank you very kindly.
THE COURT: Thank you. Counsel, the record does reflect that the Court has previously already read to this jury in pre-instructions at the beginning of the case 1.00 and 2.90. However, I think that given the unique situation that we find ourselves in today, I will instruct the jurors when they return to the courtroom as follows: "In evaluating the evidence presented in this case you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. Both the Prosecution and the Defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences." And that is the last three sentences--two sentences out of 1.00. As to the request to be dark--not dark, but not have the jury in session on the afternoon of Monday, June 12th, I'm going to decline that invitation. We will be here, the Court will be here conducting other activities regarding this case Monday morning, and I would like to complete the doctor's testimony as soon as possible.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach just for a moment?
THE COURT: Sure. All right. Let's have the jury, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: 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: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in evaluating the evidence that is presented to you in this case, I want to instruct you that you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. Both the Prosecution and the Defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law and reach a just verdict in this case regardless of the consequences. Mr. Kelberg, are you ready to proceed?
MR. KELBERG: I am, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Doctor, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: The record should reflect that Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examining by Mr. Kelberg. Good morning, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: Doctor, you are reminded that you still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination. And ladies and gentlemen, I have asked Mr. Kelberg to move some of the exhibits that will be shown to you, just so that it is not too close and in your face, but given the detail of some of the evidence that will be presented, it may be necessary or you may feel it necessary to have a closer look at some point in time. When we have concluded the direct examination, if any of you feel that you want the opportunity to have a closer look at any of the exhibits, we will have an opportunity for that. Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. Doctor, I'm going to actually ask, with the Court's permission, you to step down because I want to use a different photograph board for a brief series of questions and then return to the board that we were looking at yesterday afternoon. Your Honor, I have a board of photographs entitled "Possible sources for Ron Goldman's blunt force trauma injuries." May this be marked as People's 359 I believe we are at?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 359 for id = posterboard)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, inviting your attention to this board of photographs, exhibit 359, are you familiar in general terms with the areas?
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Are you familiar in general terms with the areas shown in these photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I am.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do the photographs show various parts of the area of 875 South Bundy where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you examine in some detail that area when you visited, either of the two times you have testified you visited the 875 south Bundy location?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: With what degree of detail did you examine that area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically I looked for all the plant and other--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --plant and other structures which were there at the crime scene. I saw the space available in the area where the victim was found. I felt the surfaces of the various structures there.
MR. KELBERG: Structures such as?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The tree surface, the railing surface and also looked at the plant sapling, the support post which I saw, and also I paid attention to certain stumps of stalks of the plants which looked as though this particular plant was already removed with the stumps of the stalks still left in place. And also when I looked at the tree I saw the tree branches also had been cut and there were also similar areas of cut stalks on the tree branches. The other thing I did is also I saw how much--rough idea about the distance between the tree stump and the tree, the sapling and the stump, the railing and the sapling with the support post, and also brief evaluation of the distance between the tree and the front railing because you have a railing in the front, a railing--side railing on the side which separates this residence from the next, (Indicating). I looked at the gate area. I looked at the walkway. I looked at the steps.
MR. KELBERG: The steps that we saw in the earlier series?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can see a portion of it in S-3 here, (Indicating), and I also saw the wall and the--opposite this area, opposite this stair--stair area.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, an area opposite the area shown in the lower left-hand corner of photograph S-3 on our exhibit 359?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, one of the reasons you did that examination was as the title of the board is, to look for possible sources for Mr. Goldman's blunt force trauma injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Was another purpose to assess the actual size and space available in this area where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because I did mention earlier I had a rough estimation of the distance between the various structures I just alluded to.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in forming an opinion as to how quickly Mr. Goldman could have received all of the sharp force injuries and blunt force trauma you've identified from your review he sustained, does the space that is available for the victim enter into your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In what way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because when you have an assailant who is wielding a sharp weapon and is also doing thrusting elements, the victim naturally has--will try to escape. That is the normal response to anybody. If you don't have a weapon or you do have, you try and escape if somebody is more overpowering than you or even equal size of you, so if you don't have space, it naturally allows the assailant to deliver all the blows to the target, the target being the victim, so if you have an enclosed space, you don't have much space to move and that will be a factor. That means if you--let's say there is thrusts several times on the victim.
MR. KELBERG: "Thrusts" meaning what, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Wielding the weapon and trying to stab you, or as we saw the sharp force injuries, if you have a confined space, you don't have much space to move, so all the thrusts will probably be delivered on the victim, the possibility increases for all the thrusts which are--which are delivered. That is one possibility. I--the space is important.
MR. KELBERG: In this particular situation, doctor, how would you characterize the space surrounding the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a very confined space. I went--that is why I went twice. I went once in November and I again went again this year to get a good idea about how much space there is. There is not much space, and that was one of the principle surprises I had, because when I saw it--it looks as there is a lot of space, but when I went there was not that much space.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that important to you as when you testified yesterday that all of these injuries to Mr. Goldman could have been inflicted in less than a minute?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, that was one of the considerations I had.
MR. KELBERG: Why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the confined space and I felt that the injuries sustained could have been in rapid succession and I just said that is a minimum time I said, if I recall, and it is quite--it could have been--it could have happened within a minute, given the space constraints you have and the number of injuries you have, especially where we have a sharp injury like a knife.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else you want to add at this point regarding the space limitation with respect to any opinion on how quickly these injuries could have been inflicted on Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not at this time.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before we take this board down, though, but in a similar vein, and I had asked you some questions I think on Nicole Brown Simpson when we were talking about how quickly injuries could have been inflicted, among the factors you consider in forming an opinion for how quickly the injuries could have been inflicted, does that include, no. 1, the relative sizes between the perpetrator and the victim?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That will be one factor which is always a consideration in any--any assault or altercation.
MR. KELBERG: In general, doctor, in your opinion would the--would a larger perpetrator, that is a perpetrator who is bigger than the victim, tend to decrease the amount of time necessary for all wounds to be inflicted, all other considerations being equal?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is always a possibility.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you take into account the relative physical condition between the perpetrator and the victim in forming an opinion as to how quickly all of the injuries can be inflicted?
THE COURT: Isn't that vague, "Physical condition"?
MR. KELBERG: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you take into account whether or not the perpetrator is a person who has worked out, for example, and is physically fit, muscular, agile and so forth, in deciding whether or not a set of injuries can be inflicted, relatively speaking, more quickly or to take longer?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said the--if the size of the assailant is known, I mean that will be--that is always another factor which should be taken into consideration, because naturally a weaker victim with a stronger assailant is more chance that the victim would receive the injuries than with the same size assailant.
MR. KELBERG: I'm not talking just about size. That was my first area of inquiry. But I'm talking now about in general physical fitness and strength relative speaking between perpetrator or and victim?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that would support opinions where I indicated partial immobilization of the victim and when some of the injuries were inflicted and that would support that theory.
MR. KELBERG: That the injuries were inflicted in a shorter period of time rather than a longer period of time?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because I also indicated in an opinion yesterday that one possible scenario was that given the injuries we have, that they could have been partially immobilized.
MR. KELBERG: That was when did you a demonstration with your left arm bent and around my upper left chest?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: For one, and I also indicated that when I saw the four localized stab wounds on the neck of Miss Nicole I also indicated there was partial immobilization. Possible because it was one localized area, so for that, a larger victim with a smaller--larger assailant with a smaller victim, that theory would favor that.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does the element of surprise, if that element exists, that is, the victim not anticipating an attack and an attacker who in fact anticipates making an attack, enter into the formulation of how long a set of injuries may take to be inflicted in a situation such as this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Surprise is an element, and as I indicated earlier when I discussed Nicole's finding, there is a paucity of Defense wounds. I said she could be rapidly incapacitated or incapable of resistance and there your hypothetical, that element of surprise, would play a role. I mean, if somebody is surprised and don't know somebody is attacking them, there is less chance of resistance. I'm just giving support for your hypothetical theory.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, assuming that Mr. Goldman was coming to the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson for the purpose of delivering some glasses that had been left by Ms. Brown Simpson's mother at a restaurant earlier that evening and had not anticipated that there would be any kind of physical altercation with anyone whatsoever, would that enter into your consideration as to how long this set of injuries would take to be inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already indicated that that will also be a surprise element there, but if Mr. Goldman--I think when Mr. Goldman did sustain these injuries in this area, I think the more important factor is that if Mr. Goldman was confronted by the assailant in this confined area, he has no place to escape, especially if he is cornered between that railing and the tree and that sapling, he is stuck there, especially if somebody is wielding a knife, which as we know, because of all the sharp force injuries, you are cornered, and plus the element of surprise which you brought up in your hypothetical situation is another factor which could--or rather would support the theory which I opined yesterday, that these injuries could have been inflicted in a minute's time. A minute is a long time. I mean, we all heat our coffee cups in the microwave oven and you know it takes a long time. One minute is a long time. And you are talking about 14 or 15 sharp force injuries in each of them, and if you just take one minute and you divide it by the number of injuries, you are talking about several seconds for an injury. It doesn't take that long to do a sharp force injury with a sharp knife.
MR. KELBERG: Does it take very long, doctor, to do a series of them if the person is motivated to do that to a victim?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not at all. Not at all. Because you are talking about a very sharp structure and we all shave every day and we cut without our knowledge, and if somebody wants to stab you or cut you, you can do it in a short time. And I have no--when I opined yesterday about Nicole, and yesterday for Ron, I said the minimum time could be a minute. You could do it in a minute but it could also be several minutes, but I will be surprised if it is done in a minute. That is all I said.
MR. KELBERG: Or less than a minute I think were your actual words?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes. If you take a knife and you plunge it, just take any knife, just go home and plunge it quickly, you will see you can do about 15 thrusts in about 15 seconds.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan took his right hand, clenched as if holding, I assume a knife, and went up and down about four times perhaps in complete cycle of up and down movements in a period that appeared to be just several seconds.
THE COURT: Seemed like five or eight seconds.
MR. KELBERG: Whatever the Court's counting is, but I assume the Court will admonish everyone not to go home and attempt to do what Dr. Lakshmanan suggested one could do if one went home.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does the motivation of the perpetrator, that is, how motivated the perpetrator is to see that this person is killed by sharp force injury, enter into how quickly all of these sharp force injuries can be inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you--I mean, that would always be a factor, too.
MR. KELBERG: In what way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If somebody wants to hurt you, they are going to try and hurt you and as quickly. Especially if you are confined in a small place like this and you can't escape, you are going to be hurt. I'm just giving--these are all possibilities if you know the motivation of the person.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, but as a forensic pathologist do you take into account these kind of factors before you render an opinion based on your review of the pathology, the photographs from the autopsy and so forth?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. In this case I took into consideration the scene circumstances and if you have the factors of motivation, that would also support my opinion that these injuries could have been inflicted as less than--in less than a minute.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, anything else that we need from this board at this time regarding this subject matter?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: I think we are done with this, but I suggest counsel, maybe if they could just part long enough for us to put this one back and get a different board out.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, which board are you picking out?
MR. KELBERG: It is going to be 358. I believe that is the board we marked yesterday at the end of the day, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. We have confirmed that is 358?
MR. KELBERG: It is, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to invite your attention for a moment to the photographs G-40, G-55 and we will start with G-37 with respect to what you described as injury no. 2 from photograph G-37. And again, you are not suggesting by your numbering scheme necessarily the order that any injury was received; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no. This numbering was only done for purposes of convenience so that we can accurately correlate an injury with a photograph. They do not reflect sequence of infliction.
MR. KELBERG: And that is how you correlated them in your chart that is our exhibit 351, by calling them injury no. 1, injury no. 2 and so forth?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct, and I also correlated it to the area in which you have that description in the original report and the addendum and the diagram, et cetera.
MR. KELBERG: Understood. The lower superficial incise wound no. 2, injury in G-37, you testified is also seen in G-55; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that seems to end where there is another sharp force injury seen; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And looking at G-40, does that show basically a continuation of what we see in G-55, but this time with the head being rotated t-o-w-a-r-d-s a ninety degree angle so that the full back of the neck and head area is exposed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This penetrating sharp force injury is the same injury you see here in the back and it extends as a cut from that penetrating portion.
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: From that penetrating portion.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you determine, from looking at G-55 and/or G-40, whether this superficial incise wound, injury no. 2, actually ends where it appears to come in contact with this next sharp force injury you just described?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The superficial incise wound ends right in the sharp force injury, so this particular injury could have continued as being this penetrating sharp force injury or the sharp force injury could have been superimposed on this superficial incise cut here in the right side of the neck, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: I want to get some clarification from you, if I could. When we look at G-55 and G-40 with respect to the lower superficial incise wound, is it accurate to say that we may not be seeing where that wound actually ended at the time it was inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, the--there could have been the--this sharp force penetrating injury could have superimposed that cut so you won't be able to see where this injury ends. The other possibility is that this particular wound was continued as a sharp force penetrating injury.
MR. KELBERG: Let's start with your first hypothetical and I want to, in essence, as a lay definition of what you have been saying, would it be accurate to say that this second superficial incise wound could have continued into the area where in photograph G-40 we actually see this next sharp force injury that you are talking about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Kelberg, when you reach across the exhibit, I think you are blocking 165's view. I don't know if he can actually see what you are directing our attention to.
MR. KELBERG: Let me try on this side, your Honor. I know the bailiff needs to have a corridor. I could move one of these maybe to the back there.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Jex, would you grab that for us, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: That was my exercise for the day.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what I was asking you about is in lay terms would it be accurate to say that one possibility is--and now I'm not sure the doctor may be blocking the view of--that this lower superficial incise wound, when it was inflicted, actually continued for some distance which is no longer visible because it has been covered by this other sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, that is what I said.
MR. KELBERG: That is one possibility?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is there any way, from looking at the photograph or any of the materials you have reviewed, that you can make a determination whether that in fact occurred?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I cannot.
MR. KELBERG: Is there any way you would have expected at autopsy, Dr. Golden to be able by dissection in any particular manner or any other technique to have made that determination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is very difficult to try to describe an injury which has been altered by a second injury which completely alters the primary injury.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Alters"--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because when you have another penetrating injury on the area of a cut and there is a penetration, you won't be able to describe the previous existing injury, especially when the secondary injury is larger than the primary injury.
MR. KELBERG: And in this case you would describe this last wound that you have been talking about as a secondary injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If that is what took place.
MR. KELBERG: And the primary, under this set of circumstances, would be the lower superficial incise wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's then go through--what is the second alternative you were saying?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The second alternative is that this wound itself at this point the--as I mentioned earlier, there was a superficial cut made and at this point a penetration of the same knife took place.
MR. KELBERG: Can you perhaps use a ruler and use me and demonstrate for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you mean? And I think you are going to want to be on my right side; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I said, it is coming like this and when it came to the back there has been some movement, penetration could have taken place, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He could have done a penetration here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: For the record, the doctor put his left arm, again bent at the elbow--
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, could you get back into position.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Left arm bent at the elbow around my upper chest area. He took the ruler and with his right hand he drew the ruler horizontally across my neck to a point where he stopped it starting in the back of the right side of my neck. And then I'm not sure how the record reflects this, but he pressed the end of the ruler in contact with the right side of my neck in an inward direction.
THE COURT: Yes. That is an accurate description.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able, from a medical standpoint, to offer an opinion as to which of these alternative hypothetical circumstances occurred in this actual case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would favor the demonstration I did, because it seems to come right there and then there is a penetration. That would be my favored opinion, but you can never tell what really happened.
MR. KELBERG: From the medical evidence alone?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I'm not sure that we finished--may I step just briefly to the other side, your Honor? I'm not sure that we finished talking about all of the--I would call them perhaps ancillary aspects of this stab wound, complex stab/incise wound you talked about on G-51. You talked, I believe, about there is an abrasion associated with it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And there was also something about a cut?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A cut on the lower inferior margin here, (Indicating), right here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Did we discuss the significance of any of that cut to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, we didn't discuss that yet.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg, if I could ask the doctor to keep his personal notes, his notes, his set of notes, either with him or--thank you. Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what, if any, significance does that cut in that injury have for you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you look at--you can see the cut very well in G-37 and actually the lower incise wound which I described as injury no. 2 could have been a part of this cut and--but there is some--there seems to be some interruption in the skin here, (Indicating), between the cut and the injury no. 2. So there is a possibility that this could have been part of the same wound with an interruption in the cut. The other possibility is that when this penetrating sharp force injury took place, this could have been a cut which could have been part of this particular incise wound.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can again you use me as Mr. Goldman and a ruler and demonstrate what you mean with respect to these alternatives?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. And maybe the same demonstration could be used to go over how one possible way this deep sharp force injury to the left side of the neck could have occurred, given the directions which we have in the autopsy report.
MR. KELBERG: Before you start, just for the record, that was photograph G-37, and the doctor was pointing to what I believe he has described as injury no. 3 on that photograph.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same movement, you have the superficial cut here, (Indicating), and this part describing the penetration going this way because I don't want to hurt you.
MR. KELBERG: I would appreciate that, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Penetration going this way which would fit the direction which we have, because this particular wound, with deep sharp force injuries, goes up and that is the one which transects the internal jugular vein on the left side and also shares a common path with this sharp force injury which is a separate wound, (Indicating), seen in G-53 behind the ear.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you again go back in position so that we can state for the record what you did?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: Again, your Honor, for the record, the doctor with his left hand bent at the elbow around my upper chest and with his right hand holding a ruler to represent a knife has pressed the ruler against the left side of my neck in the general area where injury no. 3 is depicted in photograph G-37 and again he pressed in an inward direction when he held it at that position.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah, and I--
MR. KELBERG: May the record so reflect?
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And I described yesterday that this is a complex injury so that there is only one penetrating component of that complex injury.
MR. KELBERG: What does that mean, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is we have a penetration, and what I'm saying is looking at the injury when I discussed it yesterday, that--there was more than one penetration involved there, and twisting and turning of the weapon or the victim when that injury was inflicted, so that this could have been one penetration, there could have been a second penetration later.
MR. KELBERG: And is there any way--is there any way that you as a forensic pathologist at autopsy would be expected to distinguish that alternative of a second or multiple penetrations of that area from a single penetration?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said that this multiple penetration or complex twisting, but I won't be able to tell how it exactly occurred.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to cover the complex twisting component, though. If it is a complex twisting component, is that consistent with a single stab to that area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A single stabbing result in complex injury with twisting of the weapon or the victim trying to wrestle himself or herself away.
MR. KELBERG: Wrestles?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Wrestling him or herself away, but you can also have a complex injury from second, third penetrations which could be separate from the initial penetration.
MR. KELBERG: I would like to demonstrate, if you can, doctor, again using me as Mr. Goldman, what you mean by the twisting or turning with respect to both the weapon and with respect to the victim?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Victim, you have to--
MR. KELBERG: You tell me what to do and I will do it.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When I am holding the weapon you should wrestle yourself away from me.
MR. KELBERG: Wrestle in the fashion of turning my head?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just try to escape from me.
(Mr. Kelberg complies.)
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You see, you can get a different type of wound from that--I don't know whether that is how Mr. Goldman tried to wrestle himself away, but I just wanted to demonstrate that the stabbing process, the cutting process is not a fixed process; it is a dynamic process.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dynamic process of the victim trying to escape, the assailant trying to inflict the injury, plus there is also rotation of the movement, so there are a lot of factors to be kept in mind, so--so the opinions have to be couched to keep that in mind.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, can we get back into position just so we can try and establish for the record what happened with this last demonstration.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you start again where you were. For the record, your Honor, again the doctor, with his left arm bent at the elbow and around my upper chest with a ruler held in his right hand to represent a knife and pressed against the area of my left neck that is depicted in the photograph, then asked me to try and wrestle myself away. I pulled forward and to the right away from the doctor and at that time the ruler was dragged, if you will--I don't know if that is the right word 00 but it moved across the right side of my neck as I moved to the right and away from the doctor.
THE COURT: Noted.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did we complete a discussion of the cut aspect that you were talking about you saw in the wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This particular sharp force injury, (Indicating), also extends as a cut and this could have occurred when the knife was being withdrawn and also could have been from the victim wrestling himself away or--himself away from this situation.
MR. KELBERG: If you could keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Himself away in this situation.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in a similar manner to what you just demonstrated with me?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to come back to this particular wound, but before we get too many wounds, I think this might be an appropriate time to try and identify where in the protocols, the addendums, the diagrams and so forth there may be any reference to these. So to make sure we are covering everything, we have six injuries seen in photograph G-37; is that correct, that we need to cover?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And we are going to save this last sharp force injury on the back of the right neck as seen in G-40. Was there any other injury that you have described in any detail that we should cover?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-51 at this time.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And G-51 is a more detailed depiction of the same injury that you have described as injury no. 3, have you, in G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think that's correct.
MR. KELBERG: I don't--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: You take away the podium, your Honor, and we lose a place to put things.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Is there anything, doctor, before we go to those that you need to discuss with respect to these six injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not at this time.
MR. KELBERG: Let me take this down then.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And if we could ask counsel and the doctor to move.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: May I have a moment with the doctor, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Lynch is placing 0G.
MR. KELBERG: And we are also going to use 6G, your Honor, and 4G.
THE COURT: Do you want to use the other easel?
MR. KELBERG: Sure. Thank you. Good suggestion.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And let me just get a marker or two.
MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Let's start with what you described as injury no. 1, the upper superficial incise wound. Is it described in Dr. Golden's autopsy report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, page 5, no. 3 and 4. Page 5, item no. 3 and 4 describes--item no. 3 describes injury no. 1.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Where we indicated or the doctor has indicated that, let me outline that, I will write "G-37 inj. no. 1" with a tic-tac-toe sign for the number designation.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: As long we are on this page, I have a feeling, is no. 4 referring to what is injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. No. 4 refers to injury no. 2.
MR. KELBERG: All right. This no. 4 on the same page is a reference to the second, the lower superficial incise injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Outline that in red and on the side write "G-37 inj. no. 2."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, Dr. Golden has expressed an opinion with respect to both of these that this is a non-fatal superficial incise wound. Do you agree with each of those opinions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and--
MR. KELBERG: All right. How about before we go to injury no. 3, was either injury one or two diagrammed in any fashion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, in 22, form 22, roman numeral I.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me invite your attention over to this easel. Do you see anywhere on this 22--no. 1, reference to the roman numeral I at the lower right-hand corner; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where if at all?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can see it here in the left upper quadrant front facial view of the diagram.
MR. KELBERG: What, if anything, has Dr. Golden written in that area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Superior border larynx" and he has described the LM-1. I can't read that one.
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't read this one. Just some initials here. Incise wound and here the "Superior border larynx" here and "Skin transverse wound" and also length is three inches.
MR. KELBERG: That is as to--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 1.
MR. KELBERG: And all of that refers to injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. There is also a depiction of injury no. 1 below the injury no. 1 here.
MR. KELBERG: Let me if I could, please, circle in red but I want you to outline before I do any circling in red, if you would, please, where, if at all, Dr. Golden has depicted the location of injury location?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: There is a line below and a line above?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The line above.
MR. KELBERG: The line above? Your Honor, I will circle that in red and out at the side write, "G-37 inj. no. 1."
MR. KELBERG: And does he indicate injury no. 2 by some kind of diagrammatic injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here, below that, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And I will circle that area that Dr. Lakshmanan has just pointed to and "G-37 inj. no. 2."
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, then the writing that refers to injury no. 1 is which writing, if you will just outline it with the pointer?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This one here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: I circled it with red, your Honor, and use a blue marker to make a line joining the line already made for the injury no. 1.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any other entry on this for injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Would you expect there to be an entry on this form for injury no. 2, besides just drawing it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't see any measurement mentioned here.
MR. KELBERG: Is there any other form that you have reviewed where it was in fact indicated, drawn in, measured, anything of that nature?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not that I recall.
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, if you would, please. Do you want me to flip?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, 2 and 3, roman numeral ii and--he has just repeated the same injury here in 22-II and to go no. 3.
MR. KELBERG: Just for the record, you are pointing to the upper left quadrant of 22, roman numeral ii and in this area where my finger is, ii?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He addresses the same injury there, (Indicating). There is that injury no. 1 and no. 2. It reflects the same area as injury no. 1.
MR. KELBERG: Let me circle that and I will write "G-37 inj. no. 1." All right. Let's flip then to no. 3.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is it. Only those two areas.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Doctor, in your opinion, is it a mistake of Dr. Golden's not to have made some kind of written entry somewhat similar in nature to that written in for injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: For injury no. 2?
MR. KELBERG: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does this affect--this mistake on Dr. Golden's part--you consider it a mistake, I assume?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is this mistake of any significance to you on any of these big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For all the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is there any addendum entry with respect to either injury no. 1 or injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is an addendum entry on both of them.
MR. KELBERG: This, your Honor, is board 10G which I will put up here.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 1, roman numeral ii, no. 1 and no. 2 reflect injury no. 1 and 2, so let's start with injury no. 1.
MR. KELBERG: Is injury no. 1 described in the paragraph or paragraphs under roman numeral ii, item no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he amended the--he did an addendum reviewing the photographs and he made the following amendment in addition to the original report.
MR. KELBERG: Do I include this what appears to be a third paragraph under item no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, this includes for this one.
MR. KELBERG: I will outline that series of paragraphs and write "G-37 inj. no. 1."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think we talked about this process with Nicole Brown Simpson, but I don't believe we have talked about it with Ronald Goldman. We have an addendum here; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is this similar in nature to what we saw with Nicole Brown Simpson, that is, Dr. Golden prepared what might be described as a supplemental report to make changes to whatever may have been entered in the original report and to add information that was not contained in the original report?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. This happened, as I told you when we discussed--when I told them about the brain contusion of Nicole, he indicated that he wanted to make an addendum report to reflect certain injuries on the photographs which he wanted addressed and that is how the addendum report came about to be made. And I told you the procedure in our department, that when any error or--is needed to be addressed, we issue addendums because the original report stays as it is, we have nothing to hide, and that is what exactly took place here. This is number--no. 2--item no. 2 is--
MR. KELBERG: Before we go to item no. 2, I am not quite done with the process. Let me flip to the last page. I don't think we have to flip it all the way. I'm afraid we do. There appears to be a date, at least a signed date--let's start with that--July 1, 1994?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.
MR. KELBERG: There also appears to be a "T" and a 6-30-94 in the lower area below the typewritten entry of Dr. Golden's name and position. Do you see that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What does that reflect?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the date it was transcribed.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, did you meet with Dr. Golden, as you testified you met with him regarding Nicole Brown Simpson, before that date, regarding the need for an addendum in the Goldman case, as well as the brown Simpson case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He brought up the Goldman case issue to me and I said "Do the addendum and let us look at it" and that is how I got involved in the addendum report of Mr. Goldman, too.
MR. KELBERG: Let me show you another board--Mr. Lynch can you give me the number of that?
MR. LYNCH: It is 9G.
MR. KELBERG: 9G, your Honor, and I think this easel can take one more.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was there, in a similar fashion to the Nicole Brown Simpson addendum, a rough draft addendum prepared by Dr. Golden, reviewed by you and following which we see the typewritten addendum that was on the earlier board?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. As I told you earlier when I discussed Miss Brown Simpson, my involvement was, one, as to the format of the addendum, because we have a certain format to follow, and you see my inscriptions reflecting "Amendment as stated." This is my handwriting, this is my handwriting, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Before you run too far along, for the record, your Honor, the witness was pointing to the handwriting that appears alongside the typewritten entry on page 1 of the--of the addendum on this board saying page 5, paragraph 3, for example, "Paragraph" is crossed out and the word appears to be--.
MR. KELBERG: I will let you tell me what the word appears to be, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Which one?
MR. KELBERG: Above "Paragraph."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Item no. 3."
MR. KELBERG: "Item no. 3" and then the line continues. Is all of that writing yours, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not all of it; portions of it are mine.
MR. KELBERG: And the item--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The item itself is not my handwriting, but this part is mine, so that was probably Golden's handwriting.
MR. KELBERG: What is this intended to convey?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You see, when you make an addendum, and especially if you revise a portion of the report, the reader of the addendum report should perfectly understand what is being corrected, and if you read the paragraph before, it says which paragraph in the original report is being corrected and what paragraph this addendum replaces.
MR. KELBERG: Let me see if we can pull the original--the original addendum draft to the right, ask Mr. Lynch to pull the final addendum down for a second just to flip the pages back over and see if we can compare--maybe the best thing is just for me to--what is it you are trying to convey with this change, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically if you see here, (Indicating), I spelled it out, page 5, item 3, line 1 through 5, "Amended as originally stated to read as follows." That is the original statements there as being amended. These five lines on page 5, item 3, item 3, line 1 through 5, line 1 through 5, is amended to read as follows, and that is what we have done there.
MR. KELBERG: And in your opinion it is important, in order to give any reader of this, the addendum and that, the original protocol, an accurate understanding of exactly what is taking place with this addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and that is basically it. I said we have nothing to hide, and we want to show that an error was made and we have addressed it.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say this is a procedural change that you wanted to see in the addendum, rather than one that goes to the substance of what the change itself is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct. I--I played a role in the procedure part of it.
MR. KELBERG: While we have--I think Mr. Lynch can take the completed board down. But while we have the draft available, doctor, there appears at the bottom of the fourth page of the draft addendum some substantial amount of handwriting which there is a page 5--I'm sorry--not a page 5, but we have another page. In the original--you have the original draft addendum, do you not, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: This is what appears on a separate page, actually written on the back of the last page of the draft addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And whose handwriting is this, if you recognize it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: All of that is Golden's handwriting.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does this handwriting on this page, and what we started with at the bottom of the earlier page, reflect--concern, sorry, your Honor, concern to some degree that injury no. 3, stab wound--complex stab wound to the left side of the neck that we saw--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --in photograph--if I may have just a moment--let me just briefly bring this up--concern injury no. 3 seen in photograph G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And does it also concern this injury that we have, alluded to by you earlier, along the left side under the left ear as seen in photograph G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is this aspect of the addendum where there are handwritten entries by Dr. Golden, no. 1, a substantive matter, not just a procedural, let's just get the wording right to make sure it is understood what is being exchanged in the way of the original with the addendum.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. There is a change in the substance of the opinion of the report.
MR. KELBERG: Did you participate in a discussion with Dr. Golden regarding the issue which is being discussed or addressed in this handwritten entry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: So in this particular instance you would have involvement in the substantive aspect of the addendum; not just the procedural?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, because my opinion was also concurred by Dr. Golden when he reevaluated the case.
MR. KELBERG: All right. If we could take this down, let's go to injury no. 3 and see where, if at all, it is in the protocol.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, injury no. 3, where in the protocol, if at all?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on G-51. One second.
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Injury no. 3 is described in page 3 and 4 of the protocol and actually starts on page no. 1 of the--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It starts on page no. 1. We will have to discuss the injury no. 2 of the lower incise wound in the addendum.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Thank you for pointing that out. We will get to it in just a number. "Sharp force injuries of neck," paragraph 1, injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Actually it is not paragraph no. 1. It is the last paragraph on page 3.
MR. KELBERG: It is the paragraph that has the number "1" next to it, right, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.
MR. KELBERG: I will write--this is a correct annotation, G-37 injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and it actually is injury no. 1 in G-51.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. We will write "G-37 inj. no. 3" and "G-51 inj. no. 1," doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. And this continues on--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To page 4 up to almost the end of the page.
MR. KELBERG: Where you stopped right to there, doctor, (Indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I will box this in red and write "G-37 inj. no. 3" and "G-51 inj. no. 1."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any diagram completed by Dr. Golden concerning this injury no. 3 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but this description also includes the injury behind the ear which we have to add later.
MR. KELBERG: All right. We will get to that, but what we have outlined does concern injury no. 3 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct, and injury no. 1 of 51.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Diagram is 22-i.
MR. KELBERG: I think we are over here, Mr. Lynch.
MR. KELBERG: Where is injury no. 3 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here, the right lower quadrant on the left side of the neck, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Is there an entry, handwritten entry by Dr. Golden, concerning that particular injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This one here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: What has he written?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Diagonal incise wound/stab wound, mid-laryngeal area. Length, three inches, smooth edges, front to back." And then he has--since he described in the original report that this is a part of the same wound behind the left ear, he has given the total length as six inches and he has also described other aspects of this injury which we saw behind the ear, (Indicating), which we have not discussed yet.
MR. KELBERG: Let's start if we could by just limiting whatever entry directly concerns the injury no. 3 as you find it in the photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here, (Indicating), all this correspond to that.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Your Honor, where Dr. Lakshmanan had the pointer, doctor, how far down do I go?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This whole thing, and you can cut out this, (Indicating), because the six inches reflect the whole depth.
MR. KELBERG: All right. I will leave that out if it does not in fact concern the actual injury no. 3 and I will write "G-37, inj. no. 3."
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor this other injury that you pointed out and which is just very briefly the injury seen in G-53; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden in essence characterize what you describe as two injuries as actually one injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that is in the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in your opinion was he wrong with that characterization?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, he did change his opinion on review of the photographs and analysis, so he initially made an opinion which was different from an opinion which was made later.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, but my question was, was his opinion that this was one wound, these two areas that are seen in these two photographs, was that opinion wrong?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In my opinion, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Was it therefore a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that mistake of significance to you on any of these major issues that you have reviewed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: I think I want to ask you why not when we get a better description and discussion of what you say is a separate injury and which you describe as injury no. 1--you viewed it as injury no. 1 of G-51; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This left side--no, that one is actually described as G-53.
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, doctor.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, 10:30.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Described under G-50--
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, please keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm trying to get the number here. G-53.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: I believe it is injury--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay. Injury no. 2 of G-51.
MR. KELBERG: And we will one get to that in a moment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was there any other diagram entry by Dr. Golden regarding the injury that you describe as injury no. 3, separate and apart from what you say is a mistake on his part to connect these two injuries shown in the diagrammatic outline of the left side of the human head in our roman numeral I of form 22?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He had not described the linear cut abrasion seen in the lower margin of this wound.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, he does not describe in the diagram some aspect that you see of this injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that aspect is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The linear abrasion underneath the wound.
MR. KELBERG: If you can show us what it is on photograph G-51, you have taken the pointer and traced a somewhat horizontal line along the bottom portion of that particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that a mistake not to have made some reference to it in this diagram?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Is it discussed, however, in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: So that would be a mistake as well not to have done some entry there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And again, have you reviewed the significance of those mistakes as to whether or not they affect your ability to answer any of the major questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: Is there any significance with respect to those mistakes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Any other diagram that has an entry for injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything in the addendum regarding injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, page--
MR. KELBERG: Again, your Honor, board 10G.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the pages?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 2, no. 4, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Lynch, I think you are going to have to move away.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Same thing, page 3, item 1, lines 1 through 5 and page 4, line 1 through 17 of the original report was amended with this paragraph which starts as item 4 on page 2 of the addendum and continues on to page 3.
MR. KELBERG: Before we flip the page, let me just outline on page 2, this is "G-37 inj. no. 3." And also G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Also.
MR. KELBERG: And "G-51 inj. no. 1." All right. If we can flip the page to get to page 3 of the addendum.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and it also up to here, (Indicating). Also item 5 of page 3 is an amendment to the opinion.
MR. KELBERG: Let's stop, before we get to that aspect, and outline this area that I'm outlining now along with the area I just outlined is the change in description of the injury.
MR. KELBERG: Is that accurate, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Change in description of injury and also this paragraph includes the injury no. 2 which we briefly alluded to in G-51.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Which is behind the ear.
MR. KELBERG: Let me write "G-37 inj. no. 3" and "G-51 inj. no. 1."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And 2.
MR. KELBERG: And I will write in blue "And inj. no. 2."
MR. KELBERG: Then you say, doctor, that this paragraph 5 of page 3, at least with the no. 5, that that entry concerns a change in opinion from the opinion expressed--if you can look on page 4 of the protocol where you are pointing right now, is that basically the opinion that is being changed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline this first. "G-37 inj. no. 3" and "G-51 inj. no. 1."
MR. KELBERG: And does this also reflect a change to injury no. 2 of G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it does.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because he has now indicated that they--both the wounds share a common path of injury, they appear to be separate wounds.
MR. KELBERG: And added for the record, your Honor, in blue "And inj. no. 2."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in lay terms summarize if you could for us what this change in a significant number of lines is all about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically it reflects the change in the opinion between being one wound and separating the wound behind the ear and the left neck as two separate wounds, and also the other change in the addendum is there is a better definition and description and injury behind the left ear.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you believe--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And this was based on the photographic review.
MR. KELBERG: And Dr. Golden's photographic review was of photographs much like the photographs that are on the exhibit, exhibit 358?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And photographs--358 is the board that I have been pulling out occasionally?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And those are similar to the photographs you reviewed initially; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but I also, as I mentioned earlier, I did measurement on one-as-to-one photographs, life-size photographs, on all these injuries, too.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, doctor, does the addendum concerning injury no. 3 of G-37 or injury no. 1 of G-51 accurately describe the injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it does.
MR. KELBERG: Does the addendum opinion accurately reflect your opinion as to that injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It reflects my opinion now.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It reflects my opinion.
MR. KELBERG: And would the same apply with respect to the description of what we are going to see as injury no. 2 of G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And as to your opinion concerning injury no. 2 of G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, except that I, in my one-as-to-one photograph, the measurement was slightly longer, but given the limitation of the process, there is no significant difference in measurements.
MR. KELBERG: I think, your Honor, this is an appropriate time.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our first short break for the morning. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, allow anybody to communicate with you or conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. And we will take a 15-minute recess.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, Mr. Kelberg, we're going to be concluding at 11:45 this morning.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
(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've been rejoined now by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness again undergoing direct examination by Mr. Kelberg. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, if you'll step down again with the Court's permission, let's continue on if we could with the review of the injuries 1 through 6.
(The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: While we have the protocol up and before we go to injury no. 4--actually we also have to go back and pick up injury no. 2 in the addendum. Why don't we do that first. I think you mentioned that there was an entry for it; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, again, this is board 10-G.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this page 1 of the addendum what you indicate contains some indication of a change regarding injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It's a--yeah. It starts there and go to page no. 2.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Before we go to page no. 2, this is the start of the change?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And so again, this is now G-37 inj. no. 2, the lower superficial incise wound; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where does it continue, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It continues as paragraph 1 and ends in paragraph 2.
MR. KELBERG: Now, I'll outline that area also in blue on page 2 of the addendum and write "G-37 inj."--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --"No. 2."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, does the addendum with respect to both injuries nos. 1 and 2 accurately reflect the description of those two superficial incised wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And if there is any opinion expressed with respect to those injuries in the addendum, are any such opinions accurate in your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, to go back to the protocol just briefly, yesterday I believe it was, we talked about a concept "Aspiration of blood"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And as I recall your testimony, you talked about blood being taken through the trachea and getting into the lungs; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from the sharp force injury that you've described as injury no. 3 of G-37, would you normally expect there to be evidence of aspirated blood in Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, because this injury was only to the vein.
MR. KELBERG: If you'll keep your voice up, please.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was only an injury to the vein.
MR. KELBERG: And how is it that an injury to the vein rather than an injury to the carotid artery will not result in aspiration of blood?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: See, in the other person, was Nicole Brown Simpson, the injury also--the injury also involved the thyroid hyoid area, which is between the voice box and the hyoid bone. So that was transected. So the question of aspiration comes. So for aspiration of blood to occur in the respiratory tract, it has to be an injury which causes bleeding and allows the bleeding to go into those areas. And also for aspiration, generally you expect person to be unconscious because usually aspiration occurs more when you are not conscious.
MR. KELBERG: Why is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you lose your reflex which allows your epiglottis--remember I talked about epiglottis? That will close the air passage so you don't aspirate.
MR. KELBERG: So normally there's an automatic reflex that you have in your body to keep you from swallowing things down the wrong pipe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That's why you should not talk and eat, and you'll aspirate if you talk and eat.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Dr. Golden make an examination of the area of the trachea and the lungs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did. It's in the protocol, I think page--there it is. Starts there (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: We're on to page 14. This is board 0-G, your Honor.
THE COURT: Page 14?
MR. KELBERG: Page 14. Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where does it start, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It starts, "Respiratory track, throat structures," and starts with, "Oral cavity, no injuries to lips, teeth or gum, no obstruction of the airway."
MR. KELBERG: And continues--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Next page.
MR. KELBERG: And saying?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "The injury to the left--left internal jugular vein has been previously described. Mucosa of the epiglottis, glottis--"
MR. KELBERG: I think the court reporter and everyone else will be thankful if we don't have to have any of the expert terms. How far does this go down?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This goes down all the way up to paragraph 4 on page 15.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, from what is described here by Dr. Golden, in your opinion, is that what you would expect to find given the nature of the sharp force injuries to the neck that you have seen in the photographs of Mr. Goldman's body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. But Mr. Goldberg also suffered two stab wounds to the chest which caused injury to the lung, the right lung, which is reflected in paragraph 4 of page 15.
MR. KELBERG: We'll get back to that when we see the photograph regarding the lung, sharp force injuries. But as to simply the sharp force injuries to the neck, is there anything inconsistent with this description from what you would expect to have seen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: None.
MR. KELBERG: Also, doctor, did you examine tissue samples that were preserved at autopsy from the Goldman case by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Did that include sample of lung tissue?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it did.
MR. KELBERG: And supporting structures?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you find anything in your examination--is that a gross examination of tissue, that is a naked eye examination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did both naked eye examination of the tissue, but I saw the tissues actually twice, once with different pathologist, Dr. Baden, who is here, and again--again with Dr. Baden when he came to cut microscopic sections in May of this year.
MR. KELBERG: In May of 1995?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And I also looked at the microscopic sections on this case with Dr. Golden.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you find anything that in your opinion was out of whack if you will from what you would have expected to see given the nature of the sharp force injuries to the neck?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. The--the lungs did show some hemorrhage in the air spaces, but that is related to the stab wound through the lung--
MR. KELBERG: That we're going to talk about later.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah.
MR. KELBERG: All right. So, your Honor, for this area, I'm going to outline on page 15 in blue the three full paragraphs and the continuation of the paragraph from the previous page and write "No aspirated blood."
MR. KELBERG: Is that accurate, doctor? Is there--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No aspirated blood from the left neck wound, but there is some blood in the lung from the injury to the--from the stab wound itself.
MR. KELBERG: "From left neck wound." And I'm sorry. I didn't catch--what is there? There is some blood--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is hemorrhage in the lung tissue from the stab wound to the lung.
MR. KELBERG: All right. But that's a different matter?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. And let me just have that outline added for the page previous, and I'll just write, "No asp. B-l--" well, I'll spell out blood--"From neck wound." And that's page 14 of the protocol.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, injury no. 4 of G-37. And can you refresh our memories with respect to which injury that is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 4 was that superficial cut we saw above the injury no. 1 in the front of the neck.
MR. KELBERG: Let me just briefly put this up again and ask you if you would, please--I'm sorry. Superficial cut above--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (Indicating). And that's injury no. 4.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And we also have injury no. 5, which is small abrasion below the injury no. 2 to the front of the neck which we have discussed.
MR. KELBERG: And then injury no. 6 is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The superficial stab wound to the right collarbone area, shoulder area.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's take care of 4, 5 and 6 then. As I recall yesterday, did you testify that 4 and 5 were not addressed in the original autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And further, they were not diagrammed in any of the forms available?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And they are not addressed in any way in this addendum that's on one of the easels; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: All of which were mistakes and I believe you described them as such?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And as I also recall, you said there was no significance to any of them in your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As far as the big picture item goes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, how about this item no. 6? Is it described in the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Page 10, no. 6.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And you say item no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item no. 6, page 10, yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And, doctor, this is the entire--it appears that it continues over.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To page 11 also.
MR. KELBERG: Let's start with this and we'll just outline in blue. This is G-37 inj. no. 6; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Actually before we go further, does Dr. Golden anywhere describe the depth of penetration of that sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He just says skin and subcutaneous tissue.
MR. KELBERG: The subcutaneous tissue is in general how deep below the top layer of the skin that we can look at with our eyes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In an average person who's not of an obese size, it will be less than half an inch or quarter inch depending on where the location of the subcutaneous tissue is because you may have a thicker subcutaneous tissue on the abdomen compared to a subcutaneous tissue on the forehead. So it varies. But in this area, quarter inch to--quarter inch would be a rough estimate in a muscular young person.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you are attempting as a forensic pathologist to provide a completely accurate description of a sharp force injury as a stab wound versus an incised wound, must one know what the depth of penetration is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And given Dr. Golden's--would you describe it as a failure, a failure to describe the depth of penetration of injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Given that failure, can you say whether that is a stab wound or an incised wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. But he does describe it's a very superficial wound.
MR. KELBERG: And as a superficial wound--and first of all, does it appear from the photograph to be a superficial wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it's a cut on the skin surface, and you can not say how deep it is until you examine it, and he has examined it and he says it's skin and soft tissue, superficial.
MR. KELBERG: Does it make any difference from your perspective in evaluating any of the big issues that you've considered whether or not it's an incised or a stab wound depending on whether the depth is greater than the length on the surface of the wound or the depth is greater than the length on the surface of the--surface of the skin?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It won't affect my opinion of the big picture questions which we already have discussed.
MR. KELBERG: But if we flip and just find where the description of this ends.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It ends approximately--actually it could conclude up to here. I'm sorry. Up to here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: So basically down to--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To paragraph 3 from the top on page 11.
MR. KELBERG: I'll outline that. Area on page 11, write "G-37 inj. no. 6." Doctor, in your opinion, is injury no. 6 nonfatal?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Is injury no. 6 one that was received before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: On what basis are you able to say that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance and also his description of small amount of subcutaneous tissue.
MR. KELBERG: How does some appearance--you're referring to this line--the last two lines of the continued paragraph from page 11--page 10, "There is a small amount of fresh cutaneous hemorrhage"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What significance is that to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That means Mr. Goldman had blood pressure to cause bleeding at the time the wound was inflicted.
MR. KELBERG: Now--and obviously from that, his heart had to be beating?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the direction that Dr. Golden has provided, the first full photograph of page 11, which is one sentence, "No direction can be evident except for front to back, inasmuch as it is superficial." What does front to back mean as you interpret that description?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, we describe all our directions in the body being in the anatomical position, and this wound is situated in the right collarbone area. So it's going from front to back direction, from the front to the back.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to determine from that description the relative positions between Mr. Goldman and his assailant at the time injury no. 6 was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it's such a superficial wound, it could have been inflicted when the assailant was behind Mr. Goldman with a knife striking him on the right shoulder or it could be when he was in the front or in the side. It's a very superficial wound and you can't make any determination on the position of the assailant in relationship to the victim in this particular wound.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was any diagram entry made by Dr. Golden for injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. 20, no. 1.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Lynch, is 20 over there by any chance? I think we have it here. Actually, why don't we put it up here. I think it might be safer if we can work with just the two easels that are presently up.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, showing you--
MR. KELBERG: This is board by the way--I'm sorry, your Honor--2-G from the collection 357 I think.
THE COURT: I don't think so.
MR. KELBERG: I think our subpart--356-A through R as I recall are the autopsy materials. I think--yes. 356-A through R are the paper documents. So 357 I think is our collective set of blow-ups.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, form 20, item no. 1, do you see an entry here for injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see the entry for the wound on the diagram, the right collarbone area, and the entire description applies to the wound. It says superficial--
MR. KELBERG: Slow down, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Superficial incised stab wound, vertically oriented, right clavicle, half an inch deep, subcutaneous, sub q and is given a configuration of the wound here in a diagrammatic fashion as an inscription next to the diagram.
MR. KELBERG: Sub q means?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Subcutaneous tissue.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have to keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Subcutaneous tissue. Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where Dr. Lakshmanan has been referring with respect to the diagram of the wound itself and the description, I've circled the area in blue. I'll write "G-37" on form 1 of the figure 20 and "inj. no. 6."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any aspect of the addendum which addresses injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further with respect to the six injuries on photograph G-37 that you wish to bring to our attention?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: All right. We can take this down.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let's go back to photograph then--photographs G-51 and G-53 to have you discuss in some detail, if you will, please, this injury that you say you have arbitrarily identified as injury no. 2 of G-51; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And this injury that we see in G-51 is the same injury that is seen in G-53; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that injury in the first place, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's an injury which shares a common path with injury no. 1 of G-51, but it's a separate injury. You have a 7/8 inch stab wound to the area behind the left ear and then you have an open area of skin which measures about 2-3/8 of an inch in the one is to one photograph. So--and this particular wound also cuts two inch preexisting cut in the skin at the same time, and this would be complex sharp force injury by a stab wound which took place behind the left ear, and the complexity was created by the head of the victim moving away from the knife or the knife being pulled away. But I would favor the former than the latter.
MR. KELBERG: The former being?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The head being pulled away at the time this plunge took place, which would cause this ripping of the skin by the knife as it's being withdrawn from the body.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, why do you favor that alternative?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because a person who stabs would not pull out the knife in the manner this happened. They would pull it out the same way they put it in (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan first began with a more or less side-to-side motion with his right hand appearing to hold a knife and said that that would not be what he would expect. He would expect that the knife to be withdrawn in the same manner in which it had been used to inflict the injury to begin with, and that was then changed with his right hand to an up and down motion with his clenched fist appearing to be holding a knife that is pointed in a downward direction.
THE COURT: In an overhand manner.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And this also supports the--the situation which I've already described, that these are diametric processes, the movement of the weapon and the movement of the victim. So you'll never have--you'll always have these complex issues when you deal with sharp force injury. This only supports that statement which I made earlier. So this is due to that. And as I told you, there is also two-inch cut which I labeled as injury no. 3, and that was existing before this wound took place, and to explain further this wound in its depth, communicates with sharp force injury 1, which is to the left neck we've discussed. So this could have also injured the jugular--left internal jugular vein, same as stab wound no. 3 because they share a common path. But they are separate wounds in my opinion. And--
MR. KELBERG: Before you get too much further ahead, doctor, you've given us a lot of information, and I want to ask some clarifying questions. Just to start with, when you're saying injury no. 1 of photograph G-51, are we talking about the same injury that we had earlier described by you as injury no. 3 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: No. 2, you talked about these two injuries communicating?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that a term of art that you as a forensic pathologist use?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What does it mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would mean that they--the internal injury track is shared by these two wounds, the one behind the left ear and the one in the left neck.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, from your review of all of the material, have you seen a description by Dr. Golden as to the path of the wound that is marked as either no. 1 of G-51 or no. 3 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have. The wound goes to the skin soft tissue. There's a muscle in this left neck called the sternocleidomastoid, S-T-E-R-N-O-C-L-E-I-D-O-M-A-S-T-O-I-D. And that muscle was incised. And then the--this particular wound also transected the internal jugular vein on the left side.
MR. KELBERG: Is there a direction that is attributable to this injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It went left to right in an upward direction there.
MR. KELBERG: Can you use me again as an example and perhaps the ruler to represent a knife to indicate the direction of that particular injury, injury no. 1 of G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's just an approximate left to right upward direction (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan is holding the ruler where the end in contact with my left side of the neck is slightly elevated from the opposite end of the ruler, therefore pointing in an upward direction, and I can't quite see the left to right aspect.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And I have to again reemphasize that this was a complex wound.
MR. KELBERG: Meaning?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That more than one penetration could have--penetration and twisting could have taken place when this wound was created. So I'm just giving one possible direction which shares this common path with this injury.
MR. KELBERG: And that was part of the demonstration that we did earlier this morning?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is there a description of the pathway of what you have described as injury no. 2 of G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically, as I told you, there is a skin cut because of either the--most likely from the victim moving away from the--pulling himself away from the weapon when that injury was created. The path on the internal part of the body is--is--is shared by this same wound. So you can not tell which part of the path is due to this and which part of the path is due to this (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that somewhat similar to what we were talking about earlier this morning with respect to G-55 or G-40 with respect to the sharp force injury that's in the back of the neck area and that superficial incised wound, you can't tell where one ends and the other begins?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. It is very similar. Only thing here, we are discussing the external overlapping which can occur. Here we are discussing internal structure overlapping which can occur (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from your review of the material, do you have an opinion as to whether the complex wound that you've described as injury no. 2 was a fatal wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it hit the internal jugular vein like the--the sharp force injury to the left neck which I discussed, then that also would be a potentially fatal wound.
MR. KELBERG: Would it--assuming it did not hit the jugular vein on the left side, would it create a life-threatening situation nevertheless?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would cause significant bleeding, but it would not be a fatal wound like the one which--like a wound which would strike the internal jugular vein.
MR. KELBERG: Is there any way you would have expected at autopsy, that given the nature of these two wounds, injury no. 1, injury no. 2, that you would have been able to determine whether in fact injury no. 2 resulted in injury to the jugular vein along with injury to the jugular vein caused by the first stab wound?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It will be very difficult.
MR. KELBERG: Why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the extensive bleeding there, and I told you, the venous channels are more fragile structures and it would be difficult to evaluate it, especially if you have a massive injury to the venous channel like Dr. Golden has described, it being transected.
MR. KELBERG: When you say a "Venous channel," what are you talking about? A vein?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say "Fragile," what do you mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The wall of the vein is thin compared to the arterial artery. And when you have a transection which is taking place, it's--a portion of the venous, the vein wall would be torn.
MR. KELBERG: Would be--I'm sorry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Torn. Torn. It will be torn, cut.
MR. KELBERG: Could you spell the word? I--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: T-o-r-n, torn.
MR. KELBERG: Oh, torn. I'm sorry. Okay. Doctor, can you, again using me as Mr. Goldman and yourself as the perpetrator, demonstrate what you were talking about with the turning, the dynamics that creates what you believe is the favorite alternative for this particular injury no. 2.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. And I'd also like to discuss at this point one more injury in the ear which may be related to this wound.
MR. KELBERG: Would you prefer to wait on the demonstration until you describe that injury? Is it going to be more helpful that you describe this--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Or we can do the demonstration and then we can discuss the injury because--we'll do the demonstration.
MR. KELBERG: We'll do the demonstration.
MR. KELBERG: And since it's my left side, your Honor, I'm going to turn so my left side is visible to the jurors.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Like this (Demonstrating), and you pull yourself away with the skin ripping open the--because the knife penetrates. And this ruler unfortunately is on the outside. So imagine the ruler to be inside the skin and the head moves. The sharp part of the knife will rip the skin as you see it here in this photograph as the knife is being--as the knife is pulled out because of the movement of the head.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you're going to have to position yourself again and we'll very slowly go through this so I can describe it for the record.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan is face-to-face with me. He's holding the ruler in a manner that it's in his right hand. He's got the lower end of the ruler. I can feel it in contact with my ear, your Honor, but I can not see exactly where it's placed. Perhaps the Court could help me out on that part.
THE COURT: All right. Slightly below the ear on the left neck. The doctor is holding it in what appears to be an overhand--overhead stabbing fashion.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, would you slowly go through the process that you are talking about, this dynamic process that you--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Since the knife would have penetrated because a stabbing has taken place, but since it's a dynamic process, the victim would have pulled the head; and at that point, the sharp blade of the--sharp edge of the knife would rip the skin out. And that's how the--this wound would have been created (Demonstrating).
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, Dr. Lakshmanan--if you'll get back in position, doctor, please. Dr. Lakshmanan removed the ruler from the area where it was pulling it with his right hand back towards his head at the same time I believe he's asked me to pull my head away from him.
MR. KELBERG: Is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I have done so in a diagonal direction to the rear to reflect an effort by the victim to avoid that particular stab wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, could a single--could a single single-edged knife with an approximate six inch blade have caused sharp force injury, this complex stab wound, this no. 1 of G-51 and no. 3 of G-37 as well as what you've said is injury no. 2, this complex sharp force injury of 351?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have.
MR. KELBERG: And for all of the sharp force injuries including the little nicks and so forth that you've described at this point, could it have caused all of those as well?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine--I think you testified yesterday, but correct me if I'm mistaken. I believe you testified that sharp force injury no. 3 of 37, 1 of 51 could have been caused by a single-edged knife, but it is also possible it could have been caused by a double-edged knife because you can not distinguish due to the appearance of the wound. Is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. But I said I favor the single edge because of the tissue bridging you see here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: On the right edge of the injury as you were looking at it in the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And also because of the abrasion in the margin. But I also stated that you can not absolutely exclude a double edge because the double-edged knife tip, if it is moved on the skin perpendicular to the sharp edges, it can cause an abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: And this is simply one of the limitations in forensic pathology, correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And you do not take into account, do you, for your interpretation of whether this is only from a single-edged knife or possibly from a double-edged knife as well any what I'll describe as circumstantial evidence that may be presented in a trial that is not of a medical nature?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Improper.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question if you recall. I think--from that smile, doctor, I have a feeling I'd better try again.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't recall. The question is a little--
MR. KELBERG: A little long and unclear.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you can break it down.
MR. KELBERG: I'll do my best. Doctor, when you are assessing whether a single-edged knife and only a single-edged knife could have created a particular sharp force injury, are you limiting yourself to the medicine that is in front of you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: Do you take into account at all circumstantial evidence that might point to who that person is that actually did this? Do you take that into account?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or take into account, for example, if there were evidence that the person who was suspected of doing this had a particular kind of knife, that you should favor that as the kind of knife rather than another kind because there's not that kind of knife possessed by the person suspected?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer that.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I already emphasize, I'm only giving you medical facts. I'm giving you my opinion on the medical facts from my training, experience and education and my knowledge on the subject and my experience on doing a number of these kind of cases. It has nothing to do with circumstances. What we see here, I'm looking at the wound and I'm giving you an opinion based on the wound characteristics. And as I told you, we did do some experiments in our department with Mr. Steve Dowell and I'm giving you our experience with these type of injuries. Nothing to do with circumstances. It's pure medical opinion and nothing more than that.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, with respect to injury no. 2 of G-51, do you have an opinion as to whether that sharp force injury could only have been caused by a single-edged knife or, as is similar to the other injury, could also have been caused by a double-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think it could have been caused by a single-edged knife and I cannot exclude a double-edged knife.
MR. KELBERG: Why can you not exclude a double-edged knife as a--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the wound--sorry.
MR. KELBERG: --as a possibility?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the complex nature of the wound and for the same reasons I discussed in my initial presentation of sharp force injury, cannot exclude it.
MR. KELBERG: Is this injury no. 2 an example again of that third type of wound appearance that we saw in the chart?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. This will be more akin to a penetrating/incised wound because you have a large wound. So it's very difficult to pinpoint class characteristics of a weapon from a wound as we see in G-53. As I told you, the best wound which you need to give class characteristic of a weapon is wounds where you have a simple penetration of the knife like we showed in the--in the--in the discussion on sharp force trauma earlier I think on Tuesday. And--so that is why when I did the assessment of the--of the weapons which were given to me to see if any of them could have--
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, doctor. Let me direct you back to the specific question. And I think you've answered it as I understand it. That this is more in keeping with one of those incised wounds where it is longer than it is deeper.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said it's a complex wound because the--if it shares a common path, the depth is 4 inches, because of the communicating track of 4 inches and the length on the surface is only 2-3/8 inches. And so by that definition, it would be more of a stab wound. But--but if you look at the skin surface, it look like an incised wound. So that's why I'm saying there's a complexity to this wound.
MR. KELBERG: And as a result of that complexity, you can not differentiate from what you see as to whether it is only a single-edged knife or it could be a double-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, you said something about this other injury to the ear. We did the demonstration first. Could we discuss at this point what it is regarding this ear injury that you see?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There's a 3/4 inch cut to the left ear. I'm pointing to that (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Now, that's on photograph G-53. Is it also seen in G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's seen here--I'm pointing to it (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And is this given a designation by you in the number of injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I have described it as--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --injury no. 4.
MR. KELBERG: Of which photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Of G-51. And let me--I mean--in G-51. And I'll see whether I gave a number--any--description of it in G-53 also.
MR. KELBERG: Please keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes, yes. I gave it a description of injury no. 4, as injury no. 4 in G-51.
MR. KELBERG: And that is then going to be this same injury that you pointed to in G-53?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes.
MR. KELBERG: First of all, what is that that we're seeing?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a 3/4 inch cut to the ear and it's situated as it's seen in the photograph.
MR. KELBERG: What if any significance does it have to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a cut wound to the ear. It's nonfatal.
MR. KELBERG: Does it have any significance to you with respect to the mechanism or manner in which this injury no. 2 of G-51 came to be inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have been part of the same penetration, when a portion of the knife cut the ear at the same time the penetration took place behind the left ear.
MR. KELBERG: How does that occur, if you can again use me as a demonstration?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I pointed out earlier, this wound took place in this part of the ear (Indicating). So the sharp edge of the knife was in relationship to the earlobe. As you know, the earlobe overlaps a portion of the skin behind the left ear. That left ear can also be cut while this wound is taking place.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, basically Dr. Lakshmanan--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Sorry.
MR. KELBERG: No problem. He put himself back in the same position he was in for the original demonstration concerning that injury no. 2 and then was pointing out in relationship to where the ruler was being held where the ear was in contact with what would be the sharp edge of the knife.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from looking at where you've described as injury no. 4, this cut, are you able to determine that it was in fact inflicted before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How can you make that determination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the appearance.
MR. KELBERG: And would it be accurate to assume that it is not a fatal sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Does it have any significance to you other than as a factor in assessing a likely circumstance for injury no. 2 to have been inflicted? Does it have any significance beyond that to you on any of the issues you've considered?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is that injury no. 4 described by Dr. Golden in his original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he has.
MR. KELBERG: Has he diagrammed that particular injury anywhere?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he has.
MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed anywhere in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: In your judgment, was there any reason that it needed to be addressed in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It need not be addressed in the addendum because it was accurately described on the diagram.
MR. KELBERG: Now, again, before we go to the protocols and so forth, you also were mentioning something about how injury no. 2 is laying over another injury which, as looking at photograph G-51 and perhaps even better in G-53, there appear to be two lines for lack of a better lay term which are on either side of the scraping area of skin that is a part of injury no. 2. You did testify regarding those earlier?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I said that there was a cut which was preexistent to this sharp force injury behind the left ear.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how are you able to say that this was a cut that was preexistent to injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if you see the cut, you can see that this other cut, this preexisting cut and you can see the depth of the cut in the margin of this wound.
MR. KELBERG: And is that something that you're trained to look for?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In an effort to figure out whether one wound came first or second?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why is it, doctor, in looking at it, that it appears--I'll withdraw the question. Is it accurate to say that this part (Indicating), which is the part about midway down from where you indicated this sharp force injury begins and where you indicated it ends and is on the right side as one looks at the injury in the photograph G-53, and this other side, this smaller line, which is on the lower portion of the injury but on the left side as you look at it, how can you say that's--that was one injury that was preexisting? You talked about why it's preexistent. How can you tell it was a single injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the complex nature of the sharp force injury behind the left ear and the ripping of the skin, the cut edges have been displaced. If you put the edges back together, you will see that they are one continuous cut. And there is a crime scene photograph, all of the autopsy photographs which I have reviewed which shows it in line.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, is, again, this the kind of thing you're trained to look for and to do; that is try and put these wounds together to see whether these arise as a single wound or in fact are independent wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, is this wound given a designation by you in one of the photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I gave it as injury no. 3 in G-51.
MR. KELBERG: So we're back down here. And again, it's not as clear there, but you have included both sides as the injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: From what you've already told us, is it your opinion that that occurred before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, is that a nonfatal sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Can you tell us anything, doctor, from its appearance or any of the other information you've gained knowledge of from your review the manner in which that injury was inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's the kind of injury which is superficial cut. It could be from when the knife was being wielded and there's partial contact of the skin surface to the tip of the knife so wherein you only get a superficial cut, and it doesn't have any specific pattern to it like we saw in the two superficial wounds in the front of the neck where I was able to opine that there was some control over the victim at that point. But here, it's a random superficial cut which could be just from wielding and--a portion of the knife striking the victim during the dynamic process of the altercation.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Dr. Golden address in any fashion this injury no. 3 in his original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram that injury no. 3 anywhere in any of the available forms?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did.
MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed anywhere in any of the addenda?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: In your judgment, was there any need to do so?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He had accurately described it.
MR. KELBERG: We've covered--let's see--injury no. 1, injury no. 2, injury no. 3 and injury no. 4 of G-51; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why don't we in the time that we have try and get those four taken care of with the protocols, the addendums, the diagrams, if that's okay with you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Fine.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Let's start with--we've taken care of injury no. 1 I believe; have we not, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we have.
MR. KELBERG: And we've to some degree talked about injury no. 2, especially in relationship to the addendum. But where--to make sure we have covered it in an entry on the protocol, is there the reference by Dr. Golden to injury no. 2, this complex wound that you described under the left ear of Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's described better in the addendum than in the main report because in the main original autopsy report, as you recall, Dr. Golden described that particular wound behind the left ear as part of the wound which was in the left neck.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before we get to the actual entry, is there any way that you can understand medically how that determination could have been made by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, he felt that the wound to the left neck exited, came out in the--behind the left ear and also caused a cut in the left ear itself and he felt that together, they could be 6 inches in length, and that was his original opinion in the original protocol.
MR. KELBERG: Before you go further, let's see if we can identify where in the original protocol he makes that kind of entry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He says that the direction of the sharp force injury is upward front to back, the total length of the wound is approximately 4 inches.
MR. KELBERG: Now, is that referring to the injury no. 1 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And--
MR. KELBERG: Now, if you'll continue--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Actually it's--we should start here (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: All right. You want to back up and--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Paragraph no. 1, page 4, it says here that the wound path went through the skin subcutaneous tissue, sternocleidomastoid muscle, transection of the left internal jugular vein with hemorrhage, dark red-purple and the direction is upward, slightly front to back, 4 inches approximately and it exits in the post-auricular area.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Is that where we're going to find the beginning of what you interpret as Dr. Golden's description of this injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me start there with a blue line over that area, and I'll let you continue.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And it says that gaping stab/incised wound which has undulating or wavy borders, but is not serrated. Intersecting the wound at right angle is a superior inferior 2-inch interrupted superficial incised wound involving only the skin.
MR. KELBERG: Is that injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me in blue outline that area, and I'll write "G-51 inj. no. 3." All right.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And then it continues here and it says that the length of the wound path to this one is 4 inches. He repeats that.
MR. KELBERG: And before you go further, let me just finish outlining the first part of the description, and I'm going to put a red over the original blue for that very small area in the first paragraph of page 4, and I'll write out at the side "G-51 inj. no. 2." Is that correct? That is to reflect what Dr. Golden is in fact referring to that you believe is injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, where does he pick up with injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He--actually he doesn't address it further here except to say that he describes injury no. 4, which is the cut to the left ear, 3/4 inch cut.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Point out what portion deals with injury no. 4.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Line 4, paragraph 3, page 4. However, there is a 3/4 inch cut--I mean 3/4 inch in length linear cutting incised wound to the top or superior aspect of the pinna of the left ear.
MR. KELBERG: And I'll outline that area in red, and that is "G-51 inj. no. 4."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And then he says that a straight metallic probe placed through the major sharp force injury shows that the injury to the superior part of the ear can be aligned with the metallic rod suggesting that the three injuries are related.
MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you, doctor. In lay terms, what has Dr. Golden described?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He says that he put a metal rod through the--metal rod through the wound behind the ear, and this wound and the left neck, they all share a common path which can also be related to the cut in the left ear.
MR. KELBERG: When you say, "They share a common path," in lay terms, they're in a straight line?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And he says the rod suggests that.
MR. KELBERG: The rod, the metallic rod that he's putting through?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. If you'll continue on.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And he says that path is 6 inches up to here, this point (Indicating). The length of the path is 6 inches.
MR. KELBERG: So from what Dr. Golden has indicated on this particular entry, he has expressed a view that what you start out with as injury no. 1 of G-51, what you have as injury no. 2 of G-51 and what you have to the ear as injury no. 4 of G-51 were all the product of the knife going in where--where injury no. 1 begins, the knife going through and exiting the ear where you believe the beginning of injury no. 2 actually exists, exiting the head and cutting the ear in the area of the pinna as indicated from the photograph and Dr. Golden's description. Is that what in essence Dr. Golden has said?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the original report, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, other than they're all in a straight line, medically, does any of that make sense?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To me, my opinion was different.
MR. KELBERG: That wasn't my question, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It didn't make sense to me.
MR. KELBERG: Medically to you, does that make sense?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, it didn't make sense to me.
MR. KELBERG: Would you describe Dr. Golden's interpretation of what those three injuries reflect as a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, is that mistake one of significance as to cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the cause of death would still be the same because the jugular vein is injured and the cause of death is due to the bleeding of the vessel.
MR. KELBERG: As to the manner of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because this is a homicide. This is a death in the hands of another. That really doesn't change with the interpretation of this wound.
MR. KELBERG: Whether a single single-edged knife, 6-inch blade approximately, caused all injuries 1, 2 and 4?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It does not change my opinion on that either.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because as I told you earlier, these wounds are complex. You can not--it could be a single-edged knife and you cannot exclude a double-edged knife.
MR. KELBERG: With respect to the amount of bleeding one would expect?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It doesn't change that either because the jugular vein, as I told you, is a big vessel in the left neck and it will cause bleeding and it won't change anything as to the effect of the bleeding from the description of these wounds.
MR. KELBERG: With respect to how long Mr. Goldman lived from the time those three injuries were inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, that won't have an effect because of the physiological process of bleeding and shock is totally different from the interpretation of injuries which is what has been drawn here.
MR. KELBERG: From any other big ticket issue that you have reviewed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No other effect.
MR. KELBERG: Including whether one person is responsible for killing Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because one person could have done the same injuries as I see it and the--that doesn't--that will not be reflected by the appearance of these injuries.
MR. KELBERG: Let's do the addendum in the short time that we have left, and we can pick up the diagram later if necessary. Doctor, you've already told us a bit about how the addendum--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Starts here. It's page 4--sorry. Page 2, item 4.
MR. KELBERG: Page 2, item 4. So where we have this outlined in red, should we also add now "And G-51 injury no. 2"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: You're looking at me like I didn't quite catch that one.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. Actually injury no. 2 is better described on page 3.
MR. KELBERG: All right. The part that we've already outlined, is this a change with respect to injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. Second paragraph, page 3.
MR. KELBERG: With the word: "Dissection discloses that this wound path communicates or connects along the tissue plane with a sharp force wound of the left posterior auricular region which is gaping and has undulating or wavy borders particularly on the anterior aspect; after approximation of the edges, it measures 2 inches in length and inferior end is tapered or pointed; the superior end has a semicircular configuration measuring 7/8 by 1/2 inch. The two sharp force injuries communicate along the tissue planes and are separated by a length of 4 inches." That's the discussion of injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, does that accurately reflect the true circumstances of injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: This next entry deals with injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: So this is a mark out in blue. This is "G-51 inj. no. 3"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And then back to this item 5, the opinion that had originally been expressed by Dr. Golden, in essence that this was one sharp force injury, 1, 2 and 4, one sharp force injury is now changed to read as it is in item 5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: "These sharp force injuries of the neck are fatal as they are associated with transection of the left internal jugular vein with hemorrhage. Though they share common areas of injury, they appear to be separate wounds." In your opinion, is that an accurate opinion to reflect the true circumstances that exist between injury no. 1 and injury no. 2 of photo G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is my opinion.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess at this time, and we will not reconvene with you until Monday afternoon. Some of the parties have other commitments. And so we'll start--we'll be in recess until 1:30 on Monday. Please remember--that means you can sleep in Monday morning. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss this case among yourselves, do not form any opinions about this case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you and do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. All right. Have a pleasant weekend. We'll see you Monday morning--excuse me--Monday afternoon at 1:30. Let me see Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Cochran with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the sidebar. Counsel, this afternoon, the Kardashian matter is going to be heard by Judge Czuleger. And I had asked you previously whether or not your client would waive his presence at that hearing. You indicated to me that he would; is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: He will. Let me just check with him one more time. I'm sure he will.
MR. DARDEN: While he is doing that, I wanted to ask you about a discovery issue relative to the targeting juror motion to be heard on Wednesday.
THE COURT: Hold on.
(Brief pause.)
MR. COCHRAN: Sorry, your Honor. Yes. As I indicated, he will waive his appearance.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden, I thought we had that motion set for next Friday is my recollection.
MS. CLARK: Is it Friday?
THE COURT: I need to run.
MR. DARDEN: Just one question before you go. There's no discovery on that from the Defense. They're making these allegations in their moving papers, but--
MS. CLARK: Is there discovery for us so we can--
THE COURT: You can ask, and we'll see.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm sure before that time, we're going to file some additional papers.
MR. DARDEN: I don't want Dershowitz to come out here if we are not going to litigate it.
(At 11:50 A.M., an adjournment was taken until, Monday, June 12, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California,)
Plaintiff,)
Vs.) no. BA097211)
Orenthal James Simpson,)
Defendant.)
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Friday, June 9, 1995
Volume 164 pages 31296 through 31414, inclusive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
index for volume 164 pages 31296 - 31414
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Friday June 9, 1995 A.M. 31296 164
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 164 (Resumed) 31314bk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 164 (Resumed) 31314bk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
359 - Posterboard 31313 164 with 12 photographs entitled "Possible sources for Ron Goldman's blunt force trauma injuries"