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. The People are represented by Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Lynch. Also present is Mr. Darden and Ms. Lewis.
MS. LEWIS: Good afternoon, your Honor. Your Honor, I'm here just to ask the Court to set a date for a hearing on a discovery motion which I filed this morning. I faxed it to the Defense. I don't know if they have had an opportunity to read that fax. I have also left copies at counsel table for them. It is basically reiterating what we have gone through in the past. I also want to note, your Honor, that we were promised a report from Dr. Gerdes by what Mr. Blasier called the end of next week, which would have been last Friday. We still have not received that. We have not received one single report of an expert of theirs, so we would like this calendared as soon as possible to be heard. There are a couple of legal issues.
THE COURT: All right. We do have two matters already set on the 16th, and Mrs. Robertson, do you want to refresh my recollection why we have June 21st circled?
(Discussion held off the record between the Court and the clerk.)
THE COURT: All right. How about the 23rd at 1:30?
MR. COCHRAN: May I say something just a moment? I have not seen the motion but I believe with regard to Dr. Gerdes, I know Mr. Blasier has requested that report. Mr. Blasier is back east and I want to make sure, so he will be handling that, and I'm sure the report will be here. But with regard to the discovery motion, the 23rd will probably be good enough for us.
THE COURT: 23rd at 1:30.
MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, my only concern is that we are getting close to--we are not only beyond thirty days before trial, we are practically to the Defense case. Reciprocal discovery becomes meaningless given our lack of receipt of discovery from the Defense.
THE COURT: Counsel, here is the thing. You filed the motion. They are entitled to ten day's notice.
MS. LEWIS: I don't believe they are, your Honor. This is not a pretrial motion. This is a motion to get them to comply with orders of this Court.
THE COURT: You find me a court rule that says that any motion is exempt from the ten day notice and I will reconsider that.
MS. LEWIS: I don't mean to be disrespectful to the Court. It is just that we are very eager for this information.
THE COURT: I understand and I have expressed my concern as well.
MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: 23rd at 1:30. It is just that we have got so many other things that we would like to get to between now and then and we also have two other extensive motions set on the 16th.
MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, are we ready to resume?
MR. KELBERG: One brief comment for the record because I have already advised Mr. Shapiro and Dr. Wolf as it may affect her schedule. Over the weekend, and in consultation with my colleagues, I have decided that we will not call Dr. Golden, which has the ancillary benefit of providing me with an exit from the courtroom, not that I don't enjoy being down here with this Court and counsel, but I have other matters that I can attend to.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: But I may get out two or three days early, so I have made that determination. We didn't feel that the jury needed to have two or three days of wasted testimony, in our judgment, because all of the evidence that he could provide is provided by the witness now testifying. So we want to get the case to the jury and that is why we have made that decision. It is my decision ultimately, because I am the lawyer presenting this evidence, so if responsibility is to flow, it flows onto my shoulders.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Again, we have advised counsel.
THE COURT: Have you given Mr. Cochran and Mr. Shapiro any head's up as to who will be coming then after Dr. Lakshmanan?
MR. KELBERG: Yes. My understanding is that Mr. Bodziak from the FBI concerning shoeprint evidence would be our next witness, presented, I believe, by Mr. Goldman.
THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: Good afternoon. I can add this. Mr. Bodziak may not be ready to go immediately after the Coroner. In the event that that is the case, we will call the witnesses relative to the purchase of the gloves at Bloomingdales. That would consist of approximately five witnesses. Counsel has discovery, so they should be ready.
THE COURT: So either the gloves or the shoeprints?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. With regard to those witnesses--
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Cochran. While I'm still thinking about it, when will Mr. Bodziak be available?
MR. DARDEN: I'm not sure. That will be Miss Clark's witness. It is not just a matter of him being available or being ready as well. We have changed the schedule, the witness schedule, drastically.
THE COURT: Apparently. All right. So we may finish with the Prosecution case this month?
MR. DARDEN: We may.
THE COURT: All right. That would thrill me to death. Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Thrill all of us, your Honor. With regard to the witness that he is talking about with regard to Bloomingdales, I have previously said with Prosecution if we can arrange to meet with the lawyers for the Defense meeting with the lawyers from the Prosecution, because we could save some time as we go over that, so I will try to carve out some time with Mr. Darden with regard to each of these witnesses and see if we can reach--
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Before we get started, Mr. Kelberg, can I ask you to rescue your materials from the railing.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, your Honor. I apologize.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, one final matter regarding the testimony of Dr. Golden. We would ask the Court to request of Mr. Kelberg that we would like to subpoena Dr. Golden and ask his assistance in that regard and have him here for the beginning of our case in July as our witness.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Shouldn't be a problem.
MR. KELBERG: --Dr. Golden works every working day. He does not take sick days, as I understand it. His office is very close by. I would anticipate no difficulty. I don't know of any vacation schedule that he may have, but I would anticipate absolutely no difficulty--
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, if you would then, after our first break, why don't you talk to Dr. Lakshmanan, make sure that Mr. Golden is available first half of July.
MR. KELBERG: Very well, your Honor.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm sure we can do that informally. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, just briefly, this Friday the two motions that are going to be heard, the first one concerns allegations with regard to jurors. What is the other one?
THE COURT: I also have a 1026 proceeding on another case.
MS. LEWIS: Oh, I see.
THE COURT: A restoration of sanity after a second degree murder.
MS. LEWIS: Mary Ganahl I think is handling that?
THE COURT: Yes, yes.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough is back today and Miss Carter is off the hook.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lakshmanan, 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: However briefly. Let the record reflect that Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand. Good afternoon, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you for returning with us this afternoon. And doctor, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
MR. KELBERG: And to you, doctor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to do a little more follow-up regarding the two juries that you talked about at the end of Friday's testimony which are reflected--are demonstrated in photographs G-51 and one of which is better shown in a close-up in G-53 and these are the injuries which Dr. Golden originally described, in essence, as one wound going in where we have injury no. 1 by your designation of G-51, and exiting what you have as injury no. 2 and also nicking the ear which you have described, I believe, as injury no. 3 of that photograph; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And again the Court was correct, I don't think you get to sit very long. If you could step to the board and perhaps bring the pointer that is behind you--
THE COURT: And Mr. Kelberg, we are referring to 358?
MR. KELBERG: Exhibit 358, yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, your opinion, as I believe you testified last week, was that these are separate sharp force injuries, injuries no. 1 and no. 2; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And as I recall your testimony also, injury no. 2 is described by you as entering in the area shown in the photograph where Dr. Golden describes it, in essence, as exiting; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What leads you to form the opinion that that is where the knife entered rather than the knife exiting?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is because of the appearance of both the wounds. If you had a knife which entered here on the left side of the neck, (indicating), and came out here at this point behind the ear, (indicating), when this ripping of the skin is caused you would expect more cutting of the skin on this part, that is the outer part of this wound, which really doesn't show any cut in the depth wound. It only shows mostly like a bridge going. The cut is mostly on the surface. As I already mentioned, this is a complex wound caused by different penetrations on a preexisting cut or it could have been a separate penetration without a preexisting cut, but in my opinion this is a separate wound, (indicating), this is a separate wound, (indicating). This wound to the left ear could be related to this wound as I explained I think two days ago, and the--also the directions are different for--which supports my opinion.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, when the witness was initially talking about the appearance of the surface cutting, he was referring to injury no. 1 of G-51, and when he was referring to the direction, he was referring initially to injury no. 2 and then back to injury no. 1. May the record so reflect?
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your review of the evidence in this case, did you also review testimony given by Dr. Golden before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on June 20th of 1994?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: And inviting counsel, if they are so inclined, to page 114 of the grand jury transcript, and in particular beginning line 1 of that page and continuing on to page 115, and on to page 116, doctor, did you review this testimony from Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: "Question: I'm focusing now on the injury which appears to be a rather large hole in the left side of the neck." And you interpreted that, doctor, to refer to what is described as injury no. 1; is that correct, of G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And the answer is "Yes." "Question: Approximately how large was that particular wound? "Answer: That wound was three inches in length. It was a gaping, as you can see, wound, and after putting it together it was three inches in length, tapering as you--if you taper it here, tapering where I indicated towards the back of the neck where it involves just the skin.
"Question: Would you describe that wound as a cutting wound or stabbing wound or both? "Answer: Well, it appears to be a combination of stabbing and cutting wounds. "Question: Now, it appears to be a deep wound and I can see why you call that a stabbing wound. Can you tell us why it is that you also described that as a cutting wound? "Answer: Well, first of all, it is very wide, so it is compatible with a narrower blade that is also cutting the skin. Also, it appears to taper into that area which indicates that this may have been a slicing component also. It is a stab wound. It goes into the neck and connects with another wound behind the left ear which is at a distance of approximately four inches from that first wound." Doctor, you interpret that last reference to be to what is described as injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, these questions you read were from a Deputy District Attorney from the name of Mr. Conn, C-O-N-N?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Continuing the answer: "So it appears that it is at least four inches deep. "Question: So what you are saying is that this wound going into the neck is connected to this wound coming out on the left side on the back side of the left ear? "Answer: Yes. Of course I can't unequivocally say which one came first. It also appears that the one on the lower neck came first, but it is also possible that it came from downward and came out, depending on how the neck was held, but they do connect. "Question: And there also appears to be in this photograph an injury to the ear where the ear is cut." And did you interpret that, doctor, to refer to this injury, I believe you described it as injury no. 3 of photograph G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think it is injury no. 4.
MR. KELBERG: Or no. 4?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 4 I did.
MR. KELBERG: Injury no. 4?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And continuing on in the question: "Can you determine at all whether that injury to the ear was part of the--of one continuous movement from the neck into the back of the ear and then up to the ear? "Answer: Yes. I made an assumption by placing a rod or probe along the entire length there. They all connected up. So it is possible that one stabbing motion caused all three of those, which would make it about a six-inch long wound. In other words, from here, if I include this earlobe cut --correction, not earlobe but the ear cut--if the ear cut and this and this are all connected, there is approximately a six-inch long stabbing wound and that is the completion actually of the testimony regarding the relationship if any between these." Doctor, in your opinion is Dr. Golden's testimony in that area an erroneous opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons that you described with respect to how the addendum came to reflect a change to two separate wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is this a mistake, doctor, that you consider significant to you in evaluating the big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons as you explained last Friday on them same area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I don't believe we finished evaluating any injuries of G-51 beyond injuries 1, 2, 3 and 4; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Can you take us through what, if any, additional injuries you see in that photograph and then we will go through a description of each and any additional information and then we will go to the protocols and so forth on those.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. There is also a cut to the left earlobe. There is a cut to the left ear here, (indicating). This is a cut abrasion to the--part of the ear behind the ear canal. There is a triangular abrasion to the left side of the jaw. There is another linear interrupted cut to the left angle of the jaw here, (indicating). And there are some smaller abrasions to the left side of the chin which would complete all the injuries in this photograph.
MR. KELBERG: Have you again arbitrarily numbered these additional injuries that you have just described as numbers 5 through whatever the last number would be for--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, through 12 I think. Just a moment.
(Brief pause.)
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I numbered them up to 12.
MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Let's go individually, if we can. Injury no. 5 in photograph G-51 is which injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the one to the earlobe, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And what kind of injury is that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a cut to the earlobe.
MR. KELBERG: And in your evaluation were you able to determine the instrument or nature of how that cut was inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a sharp force injury.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, from what you saw, were you able to say whether or not it was only from a single-edged knife or could it have been from either a single-edge or a double-edge?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have been from either.
MR. KELBERG: What told you that that was the case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is just a cut, and as I mentioned earlier when we discussed in general about sharp force injuries, you cannot tell the difference when you just have a cut.
MR. KELBERG: From your observation of it and any review of Dr. Golden's protocol information, how deep was that cut?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a cut to the earlobe, so it is just a cut. It is not--depth has not been described.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, in that area, how deep is the earlobe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is less than a quarter inch.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to determine whether that injury was received before death, at or around the time of death or after death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Before death.
MR. KELBERG: What led you to that conclusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance.
MR. KELBERG: What about the appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The bleeding that you can see in some of the scene photographs also.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The crime scene photographs also you can see the wound.
MR. KELBERG: You have looked at all of the crime scene photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Concerning the bodies as found?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in those you saw what was of significance to you on this issue of whether or not that was received before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you have evidence of blood over the area and also the reddish appearance which is antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything about the position of that cut that gives you any information regarding the relative position of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else, as far as a description of that particular cut goes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Dr. Golden address that injury no. 5 in the autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram it in any of the available forms?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did.
MR. KELBERG: Was it addressed in any of the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion was there any reason to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did he accurately describe and diagram it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else before we move to injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: Injury no. 6 then is which one, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 6 is the cut to the left ear here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: If I could just duck under you for one second, doctor.
MR. KELBERG: Would you point again.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, this is a different cut than the cut you previously referred to as injury no. 4; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 4 is to the edge of the ear. This cut is to the side of the ear behind the ear canal there.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may the record reflect that this new injury no. 6 is slightly to the left and below what was previously described as injury no. 4.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, again, are you able to determine when in relationship to the time of death that injury was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That also occurred before death.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons you just described--pardon me--for injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, injury no. 5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the appearance and the nature.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that a sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to differentiate between a single-edge or a double-edge knife for that particular sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I'm not able to.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is only a cut and the same reasons I gave earlier, when you just have an incise wound you cannot differentiate between a single-edge or a double-edge.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion are both injuries 5 and 6, however, injuries which could have been inflicted with that same single-edged knife that you said approximately would have to have a six-inch long blade?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to offer information, from your review of that injury and any other material concerning the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that sharp force injury was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I'm not able to.
MR. KELBERG: Is this injury no. 6 addressed by Dr. Golden in the autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has addressed it in the autopsy protocol but not--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has addressed it.
MR. KELBERG: I think I heard you say he has not diagrammed it in any of the available diagram forms?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is his failure to diagram injury no. 6 a mistake, in your judgment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does that mistake have any significance to you in evaluating things like cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or whether one knife could have caused all of the sharp force injuries that Mr. Goldman and Ms. Brown Simpson received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or the manner of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because as I mentioned earlier, it is only a cut and it could have been caused by a single-edge or a double-edge and really does not have any significant impact on all the items we just discussed and is not a fatal wound.
MR. KELBERG: I assume the same would apply to injury no. 5? That is not a fatal wound either?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this addressed at all by Dr. Golden in his addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was in the original protocol so it is not addressed in the addendum.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion was there any reason that he needed to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessary.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else about injury no. 6, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: How about injury no. 7?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 7 is a linear abrasion, measurement 3/8 of an inch in length, and it is behind the left ear canal.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me slide over one more time just briefly. Would you point that out again for us.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, where the witness has pointed, this injury no. 7, the abrasion, is to the left and below what has been described as injury no. 6, the cut to the ear.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how can you tell that is an abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the appearance and its characteristics.
MR. KELBERG: What is it about the appearance and characteristics that led you to that conclusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it looks like a linear scrape, reddish brown in color.
MR. KELBERG: Now, do you have an opinion as to what source or sources could have inflicted that linear abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: One source could have been the dull edge of the knife could have caused the same wound--the same stroke which caused this cut could have just scraped the superficial part of the skin here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the same--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Cut which caused the injury no. 6 could have also caused this cut abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: The same instrument you mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the same instrument.
MR. KELBERG: And you indicated I believe using the term "Dull"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Dull edge of a blade?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: If it is a dull edge of a blade, what kind of knife must that be?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Single-edge.
MR. KELBERG: And how in your opinion could that same knife have created that abrasion as it created the cut that is injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you could have had the cut and then the knife movement could have also caused the cut abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: How does the knife movement create that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if it is turned or twisted you could have this abrasion caused.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, again that is an antemortem, that is, before death abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance, the reddish brown color.
MR. KELBERG: Does this have any significant impact on cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address this in his original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is that a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it significant to you on these big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons that you just expressed for the failure to diagram injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else about that particular one, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, did Dr. Golden address it at all in his addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: How about no. 8 then, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 8 is the triangular abrasion in the left side of the jaw.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I'm sorry, would you point to it one more time, please.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may the record reflect that the doctor has pointed to something which appears to be almost in the immediate center of the photograph and does appear to be triangularly shaped with the point of the triangle facing the top of the photograph.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what kind of injury is that, in your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a triangular-shaped abrasion which is a blunt force type injury.
MR. KELBERG: How were you able to make that determination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the appearance of the injury itself.
MR. KELBERG: What is it about the appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is triangular in shape and it is not a cut. It looks more like an abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: Is this an injury that you inspect with your magnifying glass to make these kind of determinations as to is it is an abrasion versus a cut or laceration?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, because with a magnifying glass you are able to see. If it is due to a sharp force injury you will see the splitting of the skin.
MR. KELBERG: And did you in fact do that with this particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Did you see that splitting of the skin associated with the sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine when in relationship to death that injury was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is an antemortem, before death.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same reasons I gave earlier, the appearance and the nature of the wound.
MR. KELBERG: Does this play any significant impact on cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons as you have expressed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden address this in the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Does he diagram it anywhere in the available diagrams?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Does he address it in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he does.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you consider it a mistake on the part of Dr. Golden not to have described it initially and not to have diagrammed it initially?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Are those mistakes significant to you on these big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else about that--oh, I know I wanted to ask you, do you have any opinion, from your review of the material, as to what source or sources could have caused that particular triangular-shaped abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a blunt--nonspecific blunt force trauma. As I told you earlier, if you look at the scene, there are some branches which are cut--cut plant branches, some of them could have caused this kind of injury.
MR. KELBERG: I think we are going to look at that again when we look in more detail at G-55; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else then about that injury no. 8, I believe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: What is injury no. 9 then, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 9 is an interrupted three-inch cut abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 9 is an interrupted three-inch long cut abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: What do you mean by "Interrupted"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Interrupted means there is areas of skin which are intact in the line of--in the line of path of injury.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, where the witness has been pointing may the record reflect--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Intact skin in between, (indicating), the length of the injury.
MR. KELBERG: May the record reflect that the injury described as injury no. 9 by the doctor--this is injury no. 9, correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --appears to run at a 45-degree angle and appears to begin approximately halfway between the bottom of the ear and the left jawline and runs diagonally in a downward direction toward the back of the neck.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: When the doctor was talking about interrupted, in looking at the photograph there appears to be a reddishness part to the line and then it becomes pale for a short distance and then reddish again, pale again, reddish again, pale and slightly reddish as it tails off in the photograph in the lower right-hand side.
THE COURT: Yes, that appears to accurately depict that wound.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in talking about abrasions, I'm not sure you discussed what a cut abrasion is. You talked about other kinds.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Umm, a cut abrasion is where a dull edge of a knife can cause a wound on the skin's surface. Not necessarily--it mainly scrapes the surface of the skin, but the margins will be sharp because it is caused by a sharp instrument's dull edge and that is a little different from another linear abrasion where you do not necessarily have the clean-cut appearance to the margins. And if you see it in a magnifying glass you can tell the difference.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in talking about a dull edge, are you talking about a specific type of knife that creates that kind of interrupted abrasion, a cut abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A single-edge knife could do that or the dull tip doing this kind of injury.
MR. KELBERG: Would you expect a double-edge knife to be able to give that kind of impression?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could, but the--the knife has to be drawn perpendicular to the cutting edges. The tip has to be drawn across the skin's surface, but I would favor the former to the latter.
MR. KELBERG: Why is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: For the same reason I mentioned earlier, because this would--this would have a more linear appearance than the other one, but it is difficult to differentiate.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is this also an injury that is received before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the appearance and the color.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does this play any significant role in cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address this in his protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram it in any available form?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed at all in that addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: In your judgment any reason that he needed to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessary.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to tell in any way, from what you see and have reviewed, the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator to result in this particular injury no. 9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have considered that, but you cannot tell.
MR. KELBERG: Why can you not tell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is an injury which is in an area which could have been either the perpetrator could have been in the front or the back.
MR. KELBERG: The perpetrator could have been either to the front of Mr. Goldman or the back?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Back on the side.
MR. KELBERG: Of Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: When this injury was received or inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else about that injury, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: How about injury no. 10?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 10 is a faint abrasion which you can see running from the--below the left ear downwards here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is that seen also--if we could move up to G-53, is that seen in that photograph as well?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, running parallel to injury no. 2 I think, yes, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, may the record reflect that the injury no. 10 is a linear abrasion pointed out by the doctor in both photographs G-51 and G-53, appears to be, as you look at the photograph, to the left of injury no. 2 in G-51, running in the same direction as G-51's injury no. 2 and terminating short of where injury no. 2 in G-51 terminates?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how are you able to tell that is an abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance, and as I told you, I examined all these injuries with the magnifying glass also in the photographs.
MR. KELBERG: Did you measure from the life-size one-to-one photographs to determine the approximate length of that abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It was one and a half inches.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does this abrasion play any significant role in cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or in any of the big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to what cause or causes could have inflicted that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a nonspecific blunt force linear injury, and as I told you, there are some branches and plant stalk which could have resulted in that kind of injury.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Dr. Golden address this in his protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did not address this, per se, in his protocol. He described a cut there.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did he diagram this abrasion in his original diagram forms?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not as an abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: Did he address this abrasion in his addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: I think this might be an opportunity, if Mr. Lynch could help me out to put up a diagram.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you find, in your review of the protocol and a diagram, that Dr. Golden had some injury associated with this same general area as injury no. 10 but which, in your opinion, is not the same injury that you have just described and which you see in those photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Let me take this down for just a second.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Can you refer me, doctor, to which diagram?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think it is on the addendum description page 4 and if we go to the--
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If we go to the 22 diagrams.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Put that up first. Which one of the 22's, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The next. 22-II, I think, if I remember right. No, 22-III. Yeah. That is the one right there, 22-II.
MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 22-II.
MR. KELBERG: Let me get out of the way. First of all, what is it that you see on diagram 22 roman numeral ii that you believe is associated with the same general area as that injury no. 10?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This one and 1/8 inch cut that says, "Incise wound superficial," one and 1/8 inch long behind the left ear.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where you have indicated with your marker I'm going to circle and I will write "G-51" and I'm also going to write "G-53" and I will put in quotation marks, "Cut." Doctor, if Dr. Golden described this as a cut, in your opinion, he has inaccurately assessed what the injury that you see as an abrasion actually is; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and also this is a diagrammatic representation. All I could see in that area was this linear abrasion I just described. I didn't see any cut.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, is it a mistake to opine that that is a cut rather than an abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it significant, however, as a mistake, on your ability to determine any of these big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: For the same reasons I alluded to earlier, because it is only a superficial injury. It didn't have anything to do with the cause of death or my ability to characterize the wound or my ability to determine that it is a single-edge or a double-edge or my ability to interpret fatality from an injury, the bleeding patterns, because it is a superficial injury. So really it didn't have an impact as far as the big ticket items we have been discussing on every other injury so far.
MR. KELBERG: The measurement that is provided there of one and 1/8 inch is different than your measurement of one and one-half inch?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct, but also my orientation is a little different because the abrasion I diagrammed as--not diagrammed--I perceived from the photograph is parallel to the injury here. This looks as it is running from the attachment of the earlobe backwards into the skin--the back of the neck.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me put up again the photograph--let me actually hold it down a bit so that we can see the orientation as seen in the photograph. And I would ask you, if you can, please, to diagram on form 22, let me give your the blue marker--can you diagram in there the orientation you believe accurately reflects the orientation of the abrasion itself?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just an approximation, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, Dr. Lakshmanan has made three dash lines within that area of red that I just circled in the upper right quadrant diagram for form 22. And what I'm going to do is draw with a blue line out to the side and write "G-51, G-53, injury, inj., no. 10."
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think you mentioned Dr. Golden had some information in the original protocol referring to this cut; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes and--
MR. KELBERG: Where within the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on page 4, here, (indicating), lower paragraph: "Also in the left postauricular region, transversely oriented, extending from the auricular attachment laterally to the scalp is a one and 1/8 inch linear superficial incised wound." Last four lines of paragraph 3.
MR. KELBERG: And where Dr. Lakshmanan has just pointed that out and read it, I will outline that in blue on page 4 of the protocol which is our board 0G. And I apologize, 4G was the board for the form 22.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: I will write out at the side "G-51, G-53" and I will write the word "Cut," C-U-T, in quotation marks.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor was there any description or additional information provided by Dr. Golden in the addendum referring to the cut versus the abrasion injury no. 10?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let me put up the photo one more time because I want to focus this time on G-53 and invite your attention, if I could, to where I'm pointing now, is this same abrasion, injury no. 10; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And there appears to be some discoloration right at the upper end of that injury that is not seen in the angle of the photograph G-51. Do you see that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does that observation have any significance to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is just a blood clot there behind the ear which has not been washed off and that is what this discoloration is, a blood clot remaining there in spite of all the washing and cleaning before the photographing.
MR. KELBERG: Does that blood clot have any significance to you in being able to form an opinion as to whether what you described as an abrasion, injury no. 10, was in fact a cut as Dr. Golden described it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is no cut there, and this blood clot is probably related to the cut on the earlobe.
MR. KELBERG: Cut in the earlobe which you have previously described?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and Dr. Golden has described, also.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you consider it then a mistake for Dr. Golden again to have addressed in his protocol this particular item as a cut?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because I don't see it in the photographs.
MR. KELBERG: Is the area that Dr. Golden describes as being the area where the cut is observed visible in both photographs G-53 and G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and--
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else about this cut versus the abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is injury no. 11 then?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 11 is superficial irregular abrasions--actually 11 and 12 below injury no. 8 on the inferior chin here, those abrasions here, (indicating), and here, (indicating). This is 11 and 12 respectively. You have some faint abrasion itself which are nonspecific.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, doctor, which is 11 and which is 12?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The left chin below injury no. 8.
MR. KELBERG: Is 11 the one that is in the lower left-hand corner of the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, for the record, in the lower left-hand corner where the chin is.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where the doctor was pointing.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And 12 is an area which is a bit below and a little to the right of the triangular-shaped abrasion; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, tell us about these two particular findings?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: These are nonspecific superficial abrasions and could be related to the same type of plant material contact I discussed earlier regarding the linear abrasions.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to determine again whether these are inflicted or received before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They appear to be antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: Again why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Same reasons, the appearance, the discoloration.
MR. KELBERG: Do they play any role in cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address these in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram them anywhere?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Did he address them in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: All mistakes in your judgment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Significant singularly or collectively?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the same reasons I gave earlier, these are very superficial injuries. They have no significance to the cause of death. They do not interfere with my ability to discuss the nature of the sharp force injuries or the bleeding patterns or any of the other issues I have discussed before previously.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are there any other injuries that are in photograph G-53 that we have not discussed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I think we have discussed all the injuries in G-51 and G-53.
MR. KELBERG: Before--and I included, I'm sorry, by omission, but I intend to include it, G-37 before we put up the protocols and so forth to show which are the diagrammed injuries and described injuries, I wanted to come back just briefly to one of the injuries you described in G-37 as I believe a cut below injury no. 2, the superficial incise.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said it is an abrasion, yeah.
MR. KELBERG: Abrasion, I'm sorry. In talking with you this afternoon you brought some additional information to my attention. I think you said last week that it could be caused by a fingernail?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there additional source or sources that you believe it would be important to know?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it is a rough glove, the glove also could do the same type of abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: A rough glove?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It is an abrasion injury. I just gave one example the other day and I gave another example today.
MR. KELBERG: How is that done by a rough glove?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same kind of movement which I discussed that day, gloved finger can also cause the same type of abrasion when these threatening cuts were made.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else you wanted to add about that particular one, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, then let's go to the protocols and the addendums and the diagrams for the other injuries of G-51 that we have not discussed. Why don't we start--we had gone through injury 4, I believe you said, so should we start with injury no. 5? I think you said that that was addressed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, injury no. 5 is on the protocol and it is on page 4 here, (indicating). It is the linear triangular size wound of the inferior portion of the left earlobe.
MR. KELBERG: Just will you point that out real quickly for us?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (indicating). It is there and here, this G-53, it is on the left earlobe here, (indicating), and G-51 you can see it in the left earlobe here and this is the description here on the protocol, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red on page 4 of board 0G and that is going to be "G-51 inj. No. 5."
MR. KELBERG: Where is it diagrammed, if at all, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammed in 22-II.
MR. KELBERG: If I could ask Mr. Lynch just to temporarily take care of that board.
MR. KELBERG: You say 22-II which we have up, our 4G board?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What has he done?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has diagrammed accurately the left earlobe of an inch wound and you can see it here.
MR. KELBERG: Does this writing that appears above what appears to be a horizontal line have anything to do with that particular injury no. 5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is magnified demonstration of the same injury to show that it is a cut to the earlobe.
MR. KELBERG: Where the doctor has indicated on the form in the lower right-hand quadrant, I will circle it in red and I will write "G-51 inj. No. 5."
MR. KELBERG: Is that accurate, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does that take care of all of the entries regarding injury no. 5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Nothing in the addendum, correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 6 is page 7, no. 6.
MR. KELBERG: Let me ask you is it diagrammed somewhere?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 6, no.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Let's take this one down.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And put our protocol back up.
MR. KELBERG: And I'm sorry, doctor, the page number of the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 7, no. 6. The whole paragraph refers to injury no. 6 and 7.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's separate, if we could, first of all, point out for us, if you would, which is injury no. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 6 is the cut to the left ear behind the ear canal. You can see it also in G-53 and in G-51. The linear abrasion is behind the ear canal in G-53 and you can also see it in G-51.
MR. KELBERG: That would be injury no. 7; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let's break this down then. Which part is injury no. 6 as described?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The first two lines.
MR. KELBERG: Ending with the word "Pinna."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red on page 7 of this board and I will write "G-51 inj. No. 6."
MR. KELBERG: And then the next sentence refers to--in this same subgroup refers to injury no. 7?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I will outline that in blue and write on the right-hand side "G-51 inj. No. 7."
MR. KELBERG: Any other place in the protocol for either of those two?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: You said there was no diagram done of no. 6; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Any diagramming done of no. 7?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Any aspect of the addendum addressing either one?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: How about no. 8, injury no. 8?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 8 is in the addendum description.
MR. KELBERG: Injury no. 8 again is which one, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 8 is the triangular abrasion to the angle of the jaw which is this one here, (indicating), which I described earlier, and it is also seen in G-51 and 53.
MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Where in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is not in the protocol, it is not in the diagram, but it is on the addendum, page 4, no. 9.
MR. KELBERG: No. 9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no, not no. 9. No. 8, (indicating)--here, no. 10.
MR. KELBERG: "On the left side of the jaw at the angle of the mandible there is a triangular shaped brown abrasion measuring maximally 1/4 inch."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I will outline that from our board no. 10G, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And I will write at the side "G-51 inj. No. 7", doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 8.
MR. KELBERG: No. 8, I'm sorry. Any entry in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: How about injury no. 9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammed in--is--
MR. KELBERG: It addressed in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm sorry, not in the protocol. Is it is in the diagram and the addendum.
MR. KELBERG: Let's stay in the addendum since we have it up. Where in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on the page 4, no. 10, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: No, I think no. 10 we just outlined.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 9.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. First of all, let's refresh our recollection. Which is injury no. 9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The linear cut abrasion which I have described earlier just above the triangular abrasion in G-51 and in 53.
MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, on that same page then I will outline it in blue and on the left side I will write "G-51 inj. No. 9."
MR. KELBERG: Correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, where is it diagrammed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is in 22, no. I. You can see it here, (indicating), right here, (indicating), between the lower left neck, sharp force injury, and the left postauricular sharp force injury is a linear cut abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is there any writing that has been added by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says here, "Three and a half inch interrupted incise wound superficial," arrow pointing to that, so that would be injury no. 9.
MR. KELBERG: What the doctor has just pointed, your Honor, I will circle that area in the lower right-hand quadrant diagram of 22-I.
MR. KELBERG: And I will write "G-51 inj. No. 10," doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. No, no. 9.
MR. KELBERG: No. 9, I'm sorry. I will write no. 9. While we are here, doctor, I don't think we actually outlined injury no. 2, that is that one that we talked about that is part of the continuation of injury no. 3 of G-37, injury no. 1 of G-51 or whether, as you opined, it was a separate wound. Is that this area here, (indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can see it here. It says, "Two inch incise wound superficial" right here, (indicating), and this is the part of injury no. 2 which we discussed earlier under the photograph description.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there appears to be some writing above what you just read. Does that refer to this particular injury as well?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It says "Border is wavy" and that is what is being described.
MR. KELBERG: Does any of the writing above that refer to that injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says--actually this part of the six inches is the location of the--of this incise wound, actually, of injury no. 3, and the direction is--also refers to the injury no. 1 actually, so--
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, doctor. If you will keep your voice up. Let's break this down. Six inches refers to what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It refers to that is below the ear area here, (indicating), and refers to this particular injury no. 1 of g--
MR. KELBERG: 51, I believe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. So we will circle that as well and just include it with a line down to that same area that is already labeled.
MR. KELBERG: It is also injury no. 3 of G-37, correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I will write "G-51 injury no. 5, inj. No. 1."
MR. KELBERG: Okay. What about the rest of this? This refers to what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The front to back would refer to the same injury.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that and just have that connect up with the six-inch circle entry.
MR. KELBERG: Next?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And this "Border wavy," all this belongs to the injury behind the ear, all of this, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: What about this writing above the "Border wavy"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Border wavy" belongs to that injury also. That is the front margin.
MR. KELBERG: I understand that, doctor. I'm talking about the writing that appears above "Border wavy"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is difficult for me to read.
MR. KELBERG: I will circle that injury all in blue in the same form, lower right-hand quadrant and I will write "G-51 inj. No. 2."
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, anything more on the diagramming of injury no. 9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And then you said it is found in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. We already discussed that.
MR. KELBERG: Have we taken care of that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: So we are done with injury no. 9?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. How about injury no. 10?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 10 is not described.
MR. KELBERG: How about in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: So there is nothing referring to injury no. 10?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And no. 11 and 12, what did you say?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not diagrammed, not described.
MR. KELBERG: Not in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Are we done then with that photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else regarding G-53 that we have not discussed with respect to its appearance in G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, except that for the wound behind the ear there is a 7/8 component which is described in the addendum and it is seen in the photograph, which would be the penetrating part of the stab wound as I discussed.
MR. KELBERG: When you say a "7/8 inch component"--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is the penetrating area of the stab wound behind the left ear.
MR. KELBERG: And that is found in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In an area--let me just see if we didn't cover that. What page, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That will be in page 2, no. 4, here. It is covered in the addendum but not in the original protocol.
MR. KELBERG: And the component, is that of significance to you in deciding that that is an entry area for a second sharp force injury rather than an exit associated with injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct and also I have already given you the other reasons already.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else about that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's get that down.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: One last thing comes to my mind, doctor, regarding injuries numbers 1 and 2 as seen in photograph G-37. And again, as part of your review of the grand jury testimony by Dr. Golden, did you find Dr. Golden made reference to those two particular superficial incise wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: If I may have just a moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: And inviting counsel to page 120 of the grand jury testimony and beginning questioning by Mr. Conn of the District Attorney's office on line 8 through line 20 with the answer, doctor, did you review this testimony: "Question: Now, the wounds that we looked at so far, which are People's 6, 7 and 8, the injury to the neck here, can you tell us anything about the time that those wounds may have been inflicted? "Answer: Well, the two deep wounds on each side of the neck occurred before death. There is extensive bruising along or in the tissues. The two wounds across the larynx, those superficial ones, don't have as much bleeding." Let me stop at this point, doctor. Did you interpret that testimony to refer to injuries numbers 1 and 2, that is, the two wounds across the larynx?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Continuing, as I said: "The two wounds across the larynx, those superficial ones, don't have as much bleeding. I think that it is possible that they occurred on or about the time of death. In other words, when blood pressure had dropped considerably. In other words, maybe later on in the--or during the assault or the sequence." Doctor, in your opinion is Dr. Golden's opinion one which is medically sound concerning those two superficial incise wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. My--
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: My opinion is that they occurred when he had blood pressure, one, was there is dermal hemorrhage described by Dr. Golden in the report itself. No. 2, when I reviewed the crime scene photographs, we have definite evidence of bleeding from those wounds.
MR. KELBERG: Was the presence of dermal bleeding of significance to you in deciding when in relationship to the time of death those two control superficial incise wounds were received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would indicate that Mr. Goldman had blood pressure when those wounds were inflicted and that would--because to have bleeding in the dermis you need to have blood pressure.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor--
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Kelberg. Are you referring to G-37, the incise wound.
MR. KELBERG: Yes, G-37, injuries no. 1 and 2. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in forming your opinion that those two superficial incise wounds represented control type of injuries--I think you talked about threatening, as the perpetrator is threatening or taunting I believe may have been the words you used?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: --in your opinion did that indicate that those were, if not the first two, very close to the first two injuries received by Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because they are control cuts. As I told you, they run parallel. They railroad track like. And I also pointed out to you the cut above the wound which would favor that they occurred earlier when the victim was in close proximity and held immobilized by the suspect.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else you wish to add to your assessment of Dr. Golden's conclusion regarding those two superficial incise wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else, because the dermal hemorrhage has been described in the report. The crime scene photographs indicate they are antemortem when they happened during life.
MR. KELBERG: Since you mentioned again the dermal hemorrhage, can you refer me by page?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are on page--page 5, no. 3 and 4. No. 4, it says, "There is a small amount of dermal hemorrhage" and no. 3 it says, "Small amount of cutaneous hemorrhage is evident."
MR. KELBERG: Where the witness has indicated, your Honor, on or about our 0G page 5 of the protocol--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --I will underline sub-parts 3 and 4.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further on that issue, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden's opinion, which you describe as not medically supported, constitute a mistake, in your judgment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is an opinion.
MR. KELBERG: It is a mistaken opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In my opinion, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does it have any significance to you in forming any of your own opinions on these issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The presence of hemorrhage indicates it is antemortem and would go along with my opinion that they probably occurred earlier in the struggle and they were threatening wounds.
MR. KELBERG: Is the fact that in your opinion his opinion is a mistake, does the mistake aspect have any significance to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: You are able to form your own opinions regarding these matters in spite of that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And as I told you, the crime scene photographs do show bleeding in the wounds.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can we move back now, I think we are--we still have some injuries, G-55, G-40 and G-50 to describe; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Could we start with photograph G-55 and I'm going to save for a later time a discussion of the head area, but at this point I want to focus, if we could, please, on what appears to be some kind of discoloration area that is to the right of that major sharp force injury you described last week that is also seen in G-40.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a 5/8 inch stab wound and that is located in the right side of the neck, (indicating), and that is the main description of that injury.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this the same sharp force injury that we see in the lower right-hand corner of the cropped photo G-50 up here in the corner?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Here, this is a more closer up photograph of the same injury. You can see the ends of the wound better defined. You can tell whether it is a sharp end or a blunt end. You can see that the front of the wound is sharp and the back of the wound is slightly forked, and this measured I think 1/16 inch in width.
MR. KELBERG: What measured that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The forked end.
MR. KELBERG: The overall wound measured how much?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 5/8 of an inch.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is this also seen in the lower right hand neck area in photograph G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did you give this a number, with respect to one or more of these photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I described it as injury no. 2 under G-40.
MR. KELBERG: Now, injury no. 1 of G-40 is--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This larger penetrating type wound in the back of the right side of the neck which continues or is in conjunction--seen in conjunction with injury no. 2, which is that long superficial cut in the lower neck which we called this injury no. 2 in G-37.
MR. KELBERG: Let's focus then on injury no. 2 for a second, as seen perhaps most clearly, as you said, in G-50. Are you able to determine the type of instrument that could have made that injury, that sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a stab wound from a knife.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine whether it is a single-edged or it could be either a single- edge or double-edge?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be a single-edge or a double-edge knife. It could be a single-edge knife with a blunt edge which caused the forking of the wound.
MR. KELBERG: Going back to that chart we did I think the second day you were testifying regarding the correlation between types of knives and the kind of wounds and their appearances on the surface, do you recall which of the types--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is no. 3, no. 3, the lower portion which had the forking on the top. This wound is similar to that.
MR. KELBERG: Is it, however, doctor, your opinion that that approximately six-inch long blade that you talked about that is a single-edged knife could be the source for this sharp force injury, this stab wound injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be, because you see--the wound has been only described as two inches in-depth and it communicates with injury no. 1, and so it would be more toward the tapering part of the knife.
MR. KELBERG: When you say two inches, that is a description given by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: To represent what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The depth of the wound.
MR. KELBERG: Can you say again, this word "Communicates," what do you mean by that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They share a common path with this wound, (indicating), which is injury no. 1 in G-40, I think.
MR. KELBERG: If we could go perhaps to G-55, does this perhaps show most clearly the relationship on the body between the injuries--injury no. 2, this stab wound you have just been talking about, and what is that other sharp force injury, and I'm not sure which designation you gave it, I believe you said injury no. 1 of G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This gives a better orientation. This wound is in front of injury no. 1 of G-40 and it is behind the right terminal portion of injury no. 1 of G-37 which is one of the superficial cuts to the front of the neck which we discussed earlier.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address in his original protocol both injury no. 2 of G-40 and injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: How did he, in essence, describe them, before we look at the actual paperwork?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He described them as communicating and he described them as being possibly entrance and exit of one wound, but in the addendum he describes them that they could be separate wounds.
MR. KELBERG: In the original protocol, let's put that up then and see what he said and follow up with the specific questioning.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Where, doctor, on the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is page 4, no. 2, and page 5.
MR. KELBERG: Let's see if we can--without impaling Mr. Lynch, if I hold this and I watch myself with Mr. Darden and Miss Clark, what page I'm sorry, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 4, no. 2. Start here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: You are saying item no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Down at the bottom of the page?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then it goes on to page no. 5.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Before we turn the page, Mr. Lynch, if you could give me a marker to the right of my notebook and let me outline this. As the description starts, doctor, is Dr. Golden referring to injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He is actually starting with injury no. 2. If you go on, I will show you the next page.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Well, let me outline it then and so this is going to be "G-40 inj. Numbers 1 and no. 2."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I will put also "G-55 and G-50" and that would be "Injury no. 2, inj. No. 2."
MR. KELBERG: Is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now let's flip.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He actually starts describing as a complex wound and then he says: "The initial wound present is present on the right side of the neck over the sternocleidomastoid muscle, three inches below the right auditory canal measures 5/8 of inch in length."
MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you. That is a reference then specifically then to injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And let me underline "After approximation of the edges measures 5/8 inch in length" and I will write out on the left border "G-40 inj. No. 2."
MR. KELBERG: Go on if you would, please, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then he says that: "The wound path is through the skin and subcutaneous tissue without penetration of injury of a major artery or vein."
MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you there. Does that have significance to you in evaluating whether either injury no. 1, as you describe it, or injury no. 2, as you describe it, are fatal wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are not fatal wounds.
MR. KELBERG: Either one of them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Go on, if you would, please.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "The direction of the--the direction is front to back and upward, for a total wound path of two inches and the wound exits on the right side of the back of the neck, posterior to the right sternocleidomastoid muscle where a two-inch gaping long incise wound is evident on the skin."
MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you at that point. I'm going to underline the part about the direction that you have just read.
MR. KELBERG: And would it be accurate where it says, "And the wound exits on the right side of the back of the neck," that Dr. Golden is referring to what you've described as injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: So let me write to the left of this "G-40 inj. No. 1."
MR. KELBERG: All right. Continue, if you would, please, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And he says that: "Superiorly there is an one-inch incise wound extension and inferiorly there is a two-inch long superficial skin extension inferior toward the back of the neck." It is reference to this cut here, you see here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you may be blocking the view of some of the juniors on that end. Would you point out again, please.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He is referring to this cut he sees here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: That is that this two-inch wound superficial skin extension?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: So this is all a matter that you would associate with the injury no. 1 of G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me--I'm sorry.
MR. KELBERG: Do you want to add something?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This one inch is one going to the back and this two inches is the one going here toward the base of the neck, toward the base of the neck here, this one, (indicating), which is actually part of six-inch wound injury no. 2 of G-37.
MR. KELBERG: Is one of G-37, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says--
MR. KELBERG: If I can show you the photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the--this one, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: The lower incise wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Of G-37.
MR. KELBERG: And the extension of it as seen in G-40 is--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here he says a two-inch extension here, (indicating), going inferiorly toward the base of the neck, and this is the one-inch extension to the back of the head.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say then that where he is describing inferiorly there is a two-inch long extension that actually he refers to injury no. 2 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you recall, he didn't have a measurement for it in the original protocol.
MR. KELBERG: Let me box that in blue and I will write "G-37 inj. No. 2."
MR. KELBERG: Anything further with respect to his description?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This one, the one-inch extension belongs to injury number--
MR. KELBERG: 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me mark that in and I will outline that so that this is "G-40 inj. No. 1."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Okay, doctor. That is basically the description?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in essence, and let me hold this out, hopefully without hitting anybody, in essence has Dr. Golden done the same thing with regard to injuries numbers 1 and 2 of G-40 that he did with respect to injuries 1 and 2 of G-51, that is, he has described them as all part of one wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion is he wrong?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because he has described this smaller 5/8 inch wound exiting in the back here, (indicating). I think they are separate wounds because you need to explain this cut abrasion which is going above the wound.
MR. KELBERG: When you say the cut abrasion above the wound, you have been pointing--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Which would only--which is part of injury no. 1 of G-40. You can see it here better, but I only concurred the knife was penetrating there, rather coming out, because there had to be a separate entrance and that could be a separate entrance sharing injury no. 2, could be a separate entrance.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion is it a separate entrance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this a mistake on Dr. Golden's part to have formed the opinion that he expressed in the autopsy on page 5?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and I think he changed his opinion in the addendum.
MR. KELBERG: Is this a mistake which you consider significant to you in forming any of your opinions on cause of death, manner of death, single-edge knife, single perpetrator, bleeding and so forth?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, because he has described the wound which you can make those determinations possibly the one with the 5/8 inch wound and they did not cause death because they did not injure any major vessels, so they don't play a role in the big ticket items which we have discussed several times before.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your knowledge of anatomy are you able to say that Dr. Golden has accurately described the absence of a fatal injury to a vein or an artery in that area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because--yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because he has described accurately what happened on the left side. If you look at the internal diagrams, he described the internal jugular vein injury and said that the carotid artery was not injured and he has also diagrammed them.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is--in Dr. Golden's description of the direction, if--because I'm going to have to put this down momentarily before we have an accident here--I want you to keep that in mind, because I'm going to ask you with the ruler--thank you--can you basically use the ruler and again myself to represent Mr. Goldman to give the orientation on the right side that Dr. Golden describes for injuries numbers 1 and 2 of G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I would like whatever side of mine that you need to be toward the jury box so they will be able to see.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Umm, you want me to demonstrate both injury no. 1 and 2?
MR. KELBERG: I would like you, if you can, to demonstrate the wound path, the direction as described by Dr. Golden, with respect to these two injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. He describes that this wound entered in a front to back direction.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is injury no. 2 which is the 5/8 inch wound we discussed and it came out here in the back, as this wound here, (indicating), as injury no. 1, and the path in the body was two inches without injury to the artery or vein.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you could just get back into position briefly so we can describe this for the record.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, with Dr. Lakshmanan behind me and slightly to my right and holding the ruler in his right hand, he has placed what appears to be about three or four inches of the ruler extending from his right hand against my neck on the right side with the ruler at a downward angle away from my neck and the angle appearing to me to be approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And then, doctor, the exit as described by Dr. Golden--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Was here in the back here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And you have pointed, for the record, to the back of the right side of my neck?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, three o'clock.
MR. KELBERG: Whenever the Court wishes.
THE COURT: Three o'clock.
MR. KELBERG: Now, you said, doctor, that--first of all, let's ask if Dr. Golden diagrammed either/or both of what you describe as injury no. 1 and 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Where?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In diagram 22-II.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me put up 4G again and let's see if we can flip to--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You see, this is the diagram 22-II, left lower quadrant. This is 2, and you can see the--this is the 5/8 inch wound here, (indicating), and this is the wound we just discussed--
MR. KELBERG: As injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and this is the two-inch extension which is actually going down here, (indicating), which if you look at the photograph, it really is part of injury no. 2 of G-37.
MR. KELBERG: Before you run further, if Mr. Lynch could hand me the marker? Let's see if we can mark these things as we go. Doctor, what you started with was where I am right now, correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And let me circle this and I will run it out to a clear area and this is "G"--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --40.
MR. KELBERG: "40 inj. No. 2," correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct. That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Then you pointed to an area right there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Let me circle that area in red and to a clear area. That is "G-40 inj. No. 1."
MR. KELBERG: Is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And then you pointed to a third area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is two-inch cut which goes to the base of the neck, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And this is actually, as you described it, injury no. 2 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you look at the photograph, that is how it looks.
MR. KELBERG: So I'm going to write in blue out at the side "G-37 inj. No. 2."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And this is that one-inch cut which he describes as going to the back of the neck which you can see in G-40 very well here, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And that you associate with injury no. 1; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: There appears to be a lot of writing surrounding this area. Can you give us an interpretation of that writing?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is "Sharp force, stab wound, diagonal, three inches below the right ear canal." That is the arrow going downwards. And then this is the a 5/8 inch wound. He has described the forked wound very clearly.
MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you here. Is this a diagram of what would be injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that.
MR. KELBERG: And the 5/8 you have already described as the length of the wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And the 1/16 dealing with the forking end?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that.
MR. KELBERG: And this is again "G-40 inj. No. 2"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Actually all this belongs to the same wound.
MR. KELBERG: All of--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: All the handwriting there. This is the external auditory canal "EAC."
MR. KELBERG: I will circle it so it is all connected and make another line--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: --that way.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And this is the--this is two-inch long stab wound here, (indicating), and this is one-inch extension. This is the "L" and "1."
MR. KELBERG: "L-1" means what?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Length, one inch, and "L-2" means it is abbreviated length, two inches.
MR. KELBERG: And the--the additional writing at the bottom was?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the L-2, two-inch extension which I interpret as injury no. 2 of G-37.
MR. KELBERG: So that aspect goes to this over here, (indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and these two go to injury no. 1 of G-40.
MR. KELBERG: Let me circle that in red and have it join the line up here where we have a designation of "G-40, injury no. 1."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, has Dr. Golden accurately described what is seen in the photographs, separate and apart from an interpretation of the correlation, if any, between the injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but as I told you, the cut abrasion on the surface of injury no. 1 has not been described, which is important for me to opine that it is a separate penetration rather than an exit. That is where this cut penetration you see--I mean, this cut abrasion. You cannot get it in an exit. It has to be a separate penetration there.
MR. KELBERG: How is that inflicted as a separate penetration? Again, if you could use the ruler and use me as Mr. Goldman, demonstrate for us.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When you--as I told you, as a hypothetical, when the threatening cut took place and we--in my hypothetical explanation, and the knife was drawn here, (indicating), and I said a penetration could have taken place at that point and then the sudden movement of the victim while trying to wrestle away, the knife would come out. And then because of the movement of the knife and the body you could get the cut abrasion which favors that being an entrance and not an exit, because you cannot get a surface marking on the skin from an exit.
MR. KELBERG: And so when we were doing a demonstration last week where you instructed me to pull away from you, it is in that pulling away and the twisting process that, in your opinion, one gets that appearance?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be one way would you get it.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. What are other potential ways you can get that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, before the perpetration itself there could have been movement and you could get a cut abrasion and then the penetration could have taken place, holding the person tighter, so there are different mechanisms. But what I wanted to drive home the point, to see a surface wound like that would favor this is a surface entrance and not an exit.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I believe the Court wishes to take a break.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a 15-minute recess at this time. And remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess for fifteen minutes. All right.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I assume there will be no further breaks or am I wrong?
THE COURT: Straight through to 5:00 or maybe 6:00.
MR. KELBERG: I have to teach tonight, your Honor.
THE COURT: 5:00 o'clock.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: In fact, before you start, let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.
MR. KELBERG: May I come through the well, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think you mentioned that Dr. Golden addresses in his addendum this relationship between injury nos. 1 and 2 of G-40; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And again, let's try another easel for a change in perspective. Could you step down and tell us where in the addendum Dr. Golden addresses those two particular injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (the witness complies.) Page 3, no. 6. Starts as the last paragraph here, "Page 4, item 2, lines 1 and 2, and page 5, paragraph 1, amended as originally stated." It starts here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, were you pointing, doctor, under subpart 6 of page 3? And Dr. Golden starts, "There is a sharp force wound on the right side of the neck 3 inches directly below the external auditory canal." Is that injury no. 1 or injury no. 2 as we look at it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's injury no. 2.
MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Lynch could hand me the markers again. I think they may be--thanks.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And it goes down how far in its description of what is injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Up to the last line--the line previous to the last line on the page.
MR. KELBERG: And for that--for the record, your Honor, I'm going to outline in red that box of information. On the right-hand side, I'll write "G-40 inj. No. 2."
MR. KELBERG: And then this paragraph continues, doctor, in what fashion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 4, no. 7 and 8.
MR. KELBERG: Now, before we flip the page, has the sentence, "This wound connects," and let me underline the word connects, "With a sharp force wound on the right," and I'll underline that as well. Is this sharp force wound on the right what is described as injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: So before we turn the page, I'll write a little arrow, "G-40 inj. No. 1." And now let me continue flipping the page.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And it goes on to say that right side of the neck 2 inches posterior, and it says that the wound is 2 inches in length, this all referring to injury no. 1 of G-40, and says that the posterior portion presents an incised wound 1 inch in length, which is that extension we've discussed, and the anterior end is rounded, and then he describes that it intersects, intersects with the transversely oriented incised wound of the front of the neck, which is injury no. 2 of G-37, injury no. 2 of G-37.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline that just briefly in red on page 4 of the protocol 0G, and I'll write "G-37 inj. No. 2." Is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Then Dr. Golden continues to describe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There's fresh hemorrhage and bruising and no major artery or vein is severed or injured.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, does paragraph no. 8 or item 8 of this same page also refer to injuries 1 and 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And also page 5 says, "Paragraph 2, delete" in the original protocol.
MR. KELBERG: And is that a procedural thing for us? Mr. Lynch can put the protocol up on the other easel and flip to page 5.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Reference to this (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, doctor. You've pointing to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is "There is fresh hemorrhage."
MR. KELBERG: And that's going to be deleted pursuant to that entry that you just outlined in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And then this opinion, is this the opinion that is being amended in essence?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It's being amended in--as item 8 on page 4 of the addendum.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline these two entries on page 5 of the protocol and at the side write, "Amended by addendum, page 4"?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that's going to be items?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 7 and 8.
MR. KELBERG: I'll write "Items 7 and 8." Doctor, in your opinion, does the description provided in the addendum on pages 3 and 4 accurately describe those two injuries, injuries 1 and 2 of G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And let me then write by boxing in blue on page 4 that this is G-40, and this is inj. No. 1; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And then let me outline 7 and 8, and at the side, I'll write "G-40 inj. No. 1 and no. 2." Is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And I'll just write a little red line, make a red line to separate it from the entry below that. Doctor, is that opinion expressed in item no. 8 in the addendum accurate in your judgment as to those two injuries, injuries 1 and 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further with respect to the protocol or the addendum concerning injuries 1 and 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is a single-edged approximately 6-inch long knife consistent with inflicting both of those injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: While we have the charts up, there was one additional chart I did not ask you about.
MR. KELBERG: This is on board 7G, your Honor.
THE COURT: 7G. Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And the previous--the addendum I think has been marked as 4--10G--excuse me--that we were looking at. Doctor, there's a form 24 page that is the first page of this particular board, and in the upper left-hand quadrant, there appears to be an entry made. What does this refer to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This refers to the internal injuries which Dr. Golden saw. This is sharp force injury, neck. He says then transection of the left internal jugular vein and the left common carotid artery being intact. LCCA stands for that. And he says the right side is within normal limits and negative also in the front. There's no injury to the larynx.
MR. KELBERG: The injury that he is describing in the upper left quadrant, is that injury no. 1 of G-37?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Injury no. 3.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm sorry. Sorry. Injury no. 3 of G-37.
MR. KELBERG: And injury no. 1 of G-51?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline all of that, and I'll "Write G-37 inj. No. 3" and "G-51 inj. No. 1." Now, doctor, what does the rest of this diagram refer to, "Within normal limits," "Negative" and so forth?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically there's no injury to the larynx like we saw on Miss Brown Simpson.
MR. KELBERG: Does that have some bearing on the depth of that particular penetration?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would have one meaning to that, and also it shows that there's no injury to those structures.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say that that wound that you described as the last sharp force injury inflicted on Nicole Brown Simpson seen in I believe B-13, 16 and 18 was a deeper wound than the wound that you described as a fatal wound, no. 3 of G-37, to Mr. Goldman's neck?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's difficult to make that kind of judgment because in Miss Brown Simpson, the knife went across the neck up to the spine and there's no specific depth given, whereas for the wound on the left side of the neck of Mr. Goldman, at least a 4-inch track because it communicates with the left--behind the left ear. So it's difficult to make that kind of conclusion.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else about this diagram that you wish to talk about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It just emphasizes the internal injury on the left side and no vascular injury on the right side.
MR. KELBERG: And that injury though is a fatal one in your judgment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The left internal jugular vein injury? Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, anything further about injuries 1 and 2 that we need to discuss?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: We'll just leave the protocol up and ask you if we could to go back now to photograph G-40 and talk about, if you have not already, additional wounds or injuries you see in that photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have a sharp force injury to the back of the right side of the head. We have a sharp force injury to the--behind the right ear here (indicating). We have another sharp force injury just near the back of the right earlobe, and then there's an abrasion in the area of the skin between injury no. 1 of G-40 and the ear, which you can see here. And G-50 shows the injuries to the ear very much better, a closer photograph of the two sharp force injuries behind the right ear, and G-55 shows the same sharp force injury to the back of the right side of the head. Doesn't show the cuts behind the ear because it's--the ear being seen on the side, but it does show the abrasion in the skin between the injury no. 1 of G-40 and the ear.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let's see if we can talk about these individually. Have you numbered them again with respect to these photographs in some arbitrary fashion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I labeled this sharp force injury to the back side of the right side of the head as injury no. 3.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's just stay with that. What is that sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's caused by a knife. It's 5/8 inch long and it was situated to the right side of the back of the head.
MR. KELBERG: If you'll keep your voice up, please, doctor. In your opinion, is this caused by a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What kind of knife if you are able to offer an opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a--it could be a single edge or a double edge.
MR. KELBERG: Why are you unable to tell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it's an incised type wound and you can not tell the difference.
MR. KELBERG: Is it still consistent with your 6-inch approximately long single-edged knife blade?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The tapering tip, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your opinion, was that sharp force injury received before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Appearance as I discussed earlier and the color.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to tell the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that sharp force injury was inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Why not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it could be inflicted if Mr. Goldman is ducking if the perpetrator was in the front. It could be if the perpetrator was in the back and cut Mr. Goldman in the back during the initial other wounds which are the back of the neck.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again using the ruler and myself to represent Mr. Goldman, can you demonstrate these alternatives you've just described in a general way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Want to put down your pointer and your paper, and let's see if Mr. Lynch can put those on the table.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it was in the back, it could be a cut like--a cut like this (demonstrating).
MR. KELBERG: Now, are you talking about in your scenario with the control hold and the two superficial incised wounds? Is that about that time?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And this cut could have occurred at the same time this cut occurred in the back of the ear (indicating). They are about the same level.
MR. KELBERG: Which--I'm sorry. Which cut, which ear?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Behind the right ear (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And you've pointed to photo G-40; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And how could that cut have been inflicted with the perpetrator behind Mr. Goldman and this injury no. 3 to the head?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They could be separate cuts, but they could have been in the same force when--I mean the same motion which occurred.
MR. KELBERG: How--how is that done with the same motion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: With the--there's been--as I told you, all the sharp injuries, sharp force injuries are due to a dynamic process. You have movement of the head and movement of the blade. And if--when the head--when the knife is in contact with the head or the head moves, you can also strike the right ear at the same time because the wound is right here in the back (indicating)--
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Would you turn around and show the ladies and gentlemen of the jury where that--and you're talking about this injury no. 3 in photo G-40 is where you are going to be pointing in a moment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It's right here, this region (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, the witness has pointed to an area that is slightly above the top of his right ear and to the left of that approximately 2 inches.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Fairly.
MR. KELBERG: How fairly is fairly?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I'm just pointing to my back of my head. So the picture is there and it's quite--
THE COURT: It's self-explanatory.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Self-explanatory.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And then there's another cut here (indicating). So this could have been--have occurred when the perpetrator is in the back, when the perpetrator was in the back of Mr. Goldman. And the other way it could have happened is if the perpetrator was from the front and wielding a knife, the head was tucked and trying to avoid the knife, cut--the back of the head could have been cut too.
MR. KELBERG: Can you demonstrate--you tell me what to do to represent Mr. Goldman and you be the perpetrator--how that can be inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: From wielding the knife like this and coming against you, and you bend your neck or bend your head downwards, you can cut the head like this right in the back (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, facing me, Dr. Lakshmanan, with the ruler in his right hand, took several side-to-side motions as he was talking about wielding the knife. I ducked my head in a forward and downward direction. Dr. Lakshmanan with his right hand, holding the ruler, then came I believe with a somewhat overhead motion in the direction of the top of my head, and I felt some grazing of the ruler over the top of my head.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Bottom line is, you can not really tell with definite certainty which kind of movements caused these type of wounds. But these are some possibilities which one could hypo--opine.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say that these alternatives that you've suggested are consistent with the physical findings that you can see from the photographs and the autopsy materials?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I believe we've lost some aspect of the microphone that goes here. So--
THE COURT: I think it's just the wind cover.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you need your pointer back?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. If I can have my pointer.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, again, not a fatal stab wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is this also shown in another photograph that gives a closer perspective of that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think g--I think--I don't--
MR. KELBERG: If I may have a moment.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't think we have it in evidence.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Anything further about that particular sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: By the way, is this process of exposing the injury part of the postmortem shaving that you described earlier?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this injury, this sharp force injury no. 3 addressed in Dr. Golden's original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he has.
MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed anywhere?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it has been.
MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed anywhere in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Need it be?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further about that injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have an injury no. 4 of G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I only describe three injuries under G-40 and actually I describe the injuries in the--behind the ear in G-50, actually in G-50.
MR. KELBERG: All right. The injuries behind the ears are more closely shown in photograph G-50?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Tell us about those. If you can start with some numerical designation and take us through your description.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The larger cut in the back of the right ear is injury no. 1 in G-50, it's about three-quarters of an inch in length, and the smaller wound in the right earlobe is quarter inch in length, and the ear has been--the photograph has been taken of the right ear in a close-up manner so the injuries can be perceived better.
MR. KELBERG: The ear has been moved in some manipulation to expose this?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, using my right ear, can you demonstrate what is being done to expose that area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Like this so that you can see the cut better behind the right ear and the earlobe (demonstrating). That's what's being done right here.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, the doctor with his right hand has pulled the large part of my right ear forward--in a forward direction.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, what kind of injury is injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a sharp force injury by a knife.
MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine from its appearance whether it is a single-edged knife or could be also from a doubled-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can not tell which one.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: But still consistent with the hypothesized single-edge 6-inch long approximately knife blade?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, from the tapering turn.
MR. KELBERG: Is this an antemortem injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: From the appearance and the coloration.
MR. KELBERG: Does it play any significant role in any of the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further on that one?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed by Dr. Golden in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Described by him anywhere?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not diagrammatically.
MR. KELBERG: And addressed anywhere in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: How about the next injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a smaller cut behind the right earlobe, and that's quarter inch in length.
MR. KELBERG: Is that also due to a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Would your answers be the same about single-edged, double-edged for that injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't tell.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that also an injury received before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is that a separate injury from injury no. 1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does it play any significant role on any of the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed by Dr. Golden in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Diagrammed by him?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Addressed by him in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Would those be considered mistakes not to have described and diagrammed it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: They play any significant role in your judgment on these big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Any other injuries besides those two in G-50?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you mentioned I think some other injuries in both 40 and 55, at least showing them to some degree, and I want to invite your attention, is there an injury in the area of the left--I'm sorry--of the right lower ear area?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And does that have possible significance with respect to either or both injuries 1 and 2 as shown in photo G-50, the ear injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have significance to the ear, to the injury behind the right earlobe, which is injury no. 2 of G-50. What we have here in the side of the head is a penetrating injury which went to the temporal bone, which is the bone underlying this area of the face (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you could turn so everybody on the jury can see that.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This injury is right here in front of the right ear in the earlobe area (indicating) and--
MR. KELBERG: For the--I'm sorry. For the record, your Honor, the doctor was pointing to an area above the bottom of his ear about a third of the way up towards the top of the ear and just adjacent to where the ear joins the face.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This injury goes for an inch deep into the--up to the bone.
MR. KELBERG: How far, doctor? I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: About an inch deep up to the temporal bone and stops there. So this injury no. 2 behind the right earlobe which is seen in G-50 could be related to this wound, but I can not exclude them from photograph as not being separate wounds.
MR. KELBERG: What would you be able to do as the autopsy surgeon if anything which would have allowed you to determine whether in fact there is a relationship between this penetration to the temporal bone area and this injury no. 2 to the right ear?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would see it communicate because what you're seeing is, because the wound goes through the earlobe like this (indicating)--
MR. KELBERG: Could you turn--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And since this is a reflected portion of skin, you will see a cut on the inside because of the same penetration. So it could be related, but I can't tell from the photographs.
MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden describe that temporal bone penetration in his autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he does.
MR. KELBERG: Does he describe it in a way which allows you to correlate, if there is a correlation to be made, that sharp force injury with this injury no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. His description basically gives the course in the body. I'm just giving an opinion based on the photographs, the location and my experience with such injuries.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say that Dr. Golden has not provided you with sufficient information to form an opinion as to whether a correlation exists between those two?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden address this injury and have you given it a number, and if so, which photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It will have been G-55. I gave it a number--
(Brief pause.)
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Let's see which one.
MR. KELBERG: Photograph G-55, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I can't find the number I gave it. But it's described in the protocol. I can't find the number for it, but it's in the protocol.
MR. KELBERG: Can I just borrow your paperwork for one moment?
MR. KELBERG: And I'm sorry, your Honor. May I have a moment?
THE COURT: You may.
(Brief pause.)
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 6.
MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, what you've just been talking about is this penetrating sharp force injury to the temporal bone is described as injury no. 6 of G-55?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And that sharp force injury, again, can't tell between single edge, double edge?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Antemortem?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's antemortem.
MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Nonfatal?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And--I'm sorry. Was this diagram by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the addendum at all?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, any other injuries on G-50?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And with respect to G-55, other than the injuries to the face, are there other injuries that you have not discussed at this point that are apparent in that photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This faint abrasion which is seen both in G-40 and in G-55.
MR. KELBERG: Would you point it out again? I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (indicating).
THE COURT: Your Honor, the doctor on photo G-55 has pointed to an area that appears to be midway between the bottom of the right ear and the top of what has been marked as that injury no. 1, sharp force injury as seen in G-40.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's just a faint abrasion which is seen between the injury no. 1 of G-40 and the right ear. And there's no other sharp force injury in the skin in this area, but there's a sharp force injury which was described in the report.
MR. KELBERG: Before we get to that, how are you able to determine that that is an abrasion rather than a sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: By the same examination I did with the other injuries; use a magnifying glass, and you can see whether there's a split in the skin or not. And there's no split. There's only a scrape in the skin.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to what source or sources could be responsible for that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a non-specific blunt force injury and it could be from the plant material which we have discussed before which you see in the crime scene area, and could be one of those cut branches.
MR. KELBERG: Does it have any significance to you on any of the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is this addressed by Dr. Golden in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed by him?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden have some indication in the form of a diagram or something in the protocol or both for that area describing something that you do not see in these photographs; in particular G-40 and G-55?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has described a cut there which is 3/4 of an inch long behind the right ear parallel to the sternomastoid muscle which is not seen in the photographs.
MR. KELBERG: While we've got the photos up, which diagram did Dr. Golden use to show that particular--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think it's 22-I or II I think.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, this is board 4-G.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here (indicating). It's on 22-I.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And, doctor, the location where Dr. Golden has made that what appears to be a vertical line--do you see that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is that the same location in general terms anatomically as the location where you see what you describe as an abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: More of the same anatomical area.
MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed though in the positional aspect the same as the abrasion appears in the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And the measurement--did you try and measure from the life-size photo that faint abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did. I got it as 1-1/8 inch in length.
MR. KELBERG: And Dr. Golden describes a superficial cut as how long?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Three-quarters of an inch.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, doctor, can the process of photographic measurement account for the difference between your measurement and that of Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To some extent, it can. But the injury you see is an abrasion and not a cut.
MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, is it a mistake for Dr. Golden to have concluded, if he is looking at what you describe as this abrasion, to describe it as a cut?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it of any significance on any of the big ticket questions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, let me, if I could for the record, circle in red that area including the written entry on form 22-I, and I'll write g--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's injury no. 7, G-55.
MR. KELBERG: Let me write "G-55 inj. 7," but I'll write "Cut" in quotes rather than "Abrasion."
MR. KELBERG: Any other diagram of that particular injury by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: And does he include an description of this in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he does.
MR. KELBERG: Where, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's on page--it's on the page 4 or 5 I think of the main protocol.
MR. KELBERG: 4 or 5 of the main protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Let's see if we can find it.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Actually it's page 6. Page 6, no. 3.
MR. KELBERG: I'm going to box that on page 6 of the protocol. I'll write "G-55." And this is inj. No. 6?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. No. 7 actually because we discussed no. 7--no. 7 is a faint abrasion in the--in the--so it would correspond in the protocol to injury no. 7.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Injury no. 7, and I'll write "Cut" in quotation marks rather than "Abrasion." Is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's--that would be a correct statement.
MR. KELBERG: Let me just make sure, doctor, that we have--yes. We have it correctly identified in form 22. Any significance to this description in your judgment and evaluating any of the big ticket issues?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: But a mistake nonetheless?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this one?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing further.
MR. KELBERG: All right. If we could put the photos back up then. Now, doctor, other than the faint abrasion, have we covered G-40--I'm sorry. With the faint abrasion, have we covered all the injuries in G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we have.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact, injuries no. 1 and 2 that you've identified from G-50 are seen to some extent in photo G-40; is that accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: But the ear is in the normal position in G-40; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Anything further with respect to photograph G-50 as to any finding or injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, except that the facial injuries, some of them are seen here which we're going to discuss later.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Let me just finish then with--you described these as injuries 1 and 2 of G-50; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And you indicated they were not addressed in the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Or diagrammed; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: But they are addressed in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And the addendum page no. Is page 4, no. 11 and 12. Page 4, no. 11 and 12.
MR. KELBERG: And on board--
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, Mr. Lynch. 10G I believe.
MR. LYNCH: 10G.
MR. KELBERG: Is this injury no. 1 and 12, no. 2?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline those. "inj. No. 1" and that's G-50?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And "G-50 inj. No. 2." Doctor, do each of these paragraphs actually describe in your opinion the nature of those two injuries of photograph G-50?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further to discuss regarding the addendum and those two injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before we get to the facial injuries--I'm--you wanted to point to something.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. We have not addressed this injury to the right ear, injury no. 6 in the protocol in the diagram.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's take care of that. Where in the protocol, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 6 is on page--
MR. KELBERG: That's the temporal bone?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Page 6. It's on page 6, no. 1, this one here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Do we have it up here already?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And that's injury no. 6 of G-55.
MR. KELBERG: Let me just outline that in red, "G-55 inj. No. 6." Doctor, in your opinion, does that entry actually describe that particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is it your opinion that Dr. Golden's opinion that this is a nonfatal stab wound is accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, where is it diagrammed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's diagrammed in 22-II.
MR. KELBERG: Where is it diagrammed, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And what if any--I'm sorry. What if anything has Dr. Golden written concerning that particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Says stab wound right here, lobe, one and a quarter inches right to left depth, and he has described the one-inch length and the forked ends, both ends, and he--the--he also indicates that the stab wound went from the ear to the temporal bone. So this whole description and this arrow here in the right side of the head would correspond to injury no. 6 of G-55 (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that area that you've just pointed to, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And up in the upper left-hand corner, I'll write "G-55" and underneath that "inj. No. 6."
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does that accurately in shorthand form diagram and describe that particular injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further about that one?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are we done then with respect to all injuries on all of the photographs of our exhibit 358 with the exception of the facial injuries as seen in photographs G-55 and G-50?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another small board of photographs. May this be marked as exhibit 360? It appears to have a title "Sharp force injuries and blunt force trauma to head of Mr. Goldman."
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 360 for id = board of photos)
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, on this particular exhibit, we have two photographs, one of which appears to have the designation G-48 and another that has a designation of G-49. Can we start with G-49, the one to the right, and tell us what if anything of significance you see in that photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-49 is the back of the head of Mr. Goldman and shows a superficial quarter inch cut to the back of the head.
MR. KELBERG: Now, where--first of all, using yourself--or why don't you use me. Would you point out where that area of the head is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Somewhere here in this region (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. If you'll--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And the doctor is pointing to what feels like slightly to the left of the midline of my head up near the top of my head.
THE COURT: Near the top of your head?
MR. KELBERG: Well, at least it feels that way. I don't know. Maybe I have a bad sense of--
THE COURT: It looks towards the back of the head to me.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where in relation--can you hold that pointer wherever you had it and also point to the injury to the back of the head or the head somewhere that's seen in G-40, injury no. 3 of G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-40 injury is somewhere here. The G-49 injury is somewhere here, this region (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And as long as we've got me in this position, do you see a second injury in G-49?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see it left of it and slightly to the front of it. In this region here, you have am abrasion contusion, which is a scrape (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And so those are the three injuries to the head in your review of the autopsy materials in Mr. Goldman that were identified?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You have a cut to the back side of the right side of the head which you have discussed, a smaller cut now which I've just discussed here, and then you have abrasion contusion to the left side of the head, which is actually seen better in G-48.
MR. KELBERG: Let's talk then first of all about the first injury that's seen in G-49 as you've described it. A sharp force injury that you described as a cut?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: The type of instrument to inflict that kind of injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be a single-edged or a doubled-edged knife.
MR. KELBERG: And again, the hypothetical, single edge, 6-inch long approximate blade would be consistent with doing that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah, the tip of it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to tell from that injury the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that injury was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I will not be able to do that.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is it the same situation as you demonstrated with me regarding alternatives, for example, for the injury that's seen in G-40 to the head?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this also an antemortem, that is before death injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden--excuse me--Dr. Golden address this in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Diagram it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: In the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. No. No addendum.
MR. KELBERG: Any reason it should be?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No need to.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the--nonfatal I gather?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Nonfatal.
MR. KELBERG: The other injury--can you give us an orientation, G-48, what we're actually looking at there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You're looking at the top of the left side of the head. You can see the nose here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Just stop if you would, please. The nose is where, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here, in the lower part of the photograph here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: In the lower left corner, your Honor, of the photograph where the light color meets a border that appears to be a lightish blue color in the photograph.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then you can see the eyebrow here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And the doctor has with the pointer made a horizontal tracing of a small area from the left margin of the skin towards the center of the skin area reflected or shown in that photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You also see the hair in the top of the head falling on the forehead here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And that area is where in the photograph--in the lower part of the photograph, the hair seems to end over the skin area; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And you can see the left earlobe here (indicating). I mean ear, not earlobe, portion of the upper part of the left ear on the right side of the photograph.
MR. KELBERG: Left ear on the right side of the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And that is where the skin apparently comes photographically in contact with the hair below the injury that's shown in the center of the photograph; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And the injury is above the left ear on the left side of the top of the head. And to show it on my head, it will be somewhere in this region (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Again, on the left side, your Honor, and perhaps four inches above the top of the ear?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what kind of injury is that again?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a blunt force injury. It's an abrasion contusion. That is you have a scrape and underlying bruising of the skin.
MR. KELBERG: And do you have an opinion as to the potential source or sources for that contusion abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a blunt force injury and could be from a rough surface. There are several areas in the crime scene photograph which could account for that.
MR. KELBERG: We may come back to that then when we look at the other blunt force trauma injuries. Again, doctor, all of these injuries or both of these injuries in 49 and the one in 48 are made apparent due to shaving, postmortem shaving at the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would your answers about nonfatal antemortem be the same for this contusion abrasion as they've been for the sharp force injury no. 1 of G-49?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden describe either of the injuries seen in 49 in the protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Both of them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram both of them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Does he address either of them in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Any reason he should have?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He need not have because he has described them accurately.
MR. KELBERG: The last thing about the abrasion contusion, is there anything about it which allows you to give an opinion concerning the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that injury was received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would not be able to give that--an opinion on that.
MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further just about the photographs and what they show regarding those injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.
MR. KELBERG: If we can just identify in the diagram and the protocols where these two injuries to the head are addressed and diagrammed.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The sharp force injury in G-49 is on page 7, no. 2.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, how do you designate it? Again, these are the arbitrary designations numerically. Is the sharp force injury injury no. 1 of G-49?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is the abrasion contusion injury no. 2 of G-49?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. So it's item no. 2 you said?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that will be our injury no. 1 of G-49?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Actually, we didn't give it a number for--in G-49 because we describe it separately in G-48.
MR. KELBERG: So let's start, paragraph 2 here or item 2 is the sharp force injury of G-49?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Seen only in G-49?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I'll write "G-49." And then item 3 refers to what is seen in both G-49 and G-48?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And let me outline that including the opinion, and I'll write at the side "G-49" and "G-48." Doctor, in your opinion, are those descriptions by Dr. Golden of each of those injuries accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is his opinion that's expressed with respect to that contusion abrasion accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And now, where is it diagrammed, either one of them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 20F.
MR. KELBERG: 20F?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, fill us in, if you would please, for each.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the cut, quarter-inch cut in the back of the head which is seen in G-49 and only seen in G-49. It says "Superficial skin cut, quarter-inch deep," and "No SGH" means no subgaleal hemorrhage.
MR. KELBERG: What is subgaleal hemorrhage?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the deeper part of the scalp below the galea, G-A-L-E-A.
MR. KELBERG: What is the significance if any of the observation that there is no such hemorrhage?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would signify that this is a superficial cut and not a deep cut in the scalp.
MR. KELBERG: What else if anything does Dr. Golden indicate concerning that particular sharp force injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is it. This whole thing is G-49.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that area that you've just outlined in the lower right quadrant of form 20F from board 6G of our collective set 357, and I'll write "G-49" in blue.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And then we have the quarter-inch red brown abrasion with skin bruising showing the injury in G-48.
MR. KELBERG: And that one is also seen in G-49?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline that entire area. Doctor, does this word here that appears to be between the diagram of the abrasion and the circled area for the sharp force injury refer to that abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And what is that word if you can--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Ovoid. It says ovoid, o-v-o-I-d.
MR. KELBERG: What does ovoid mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's oval shape, slightly oval shape.
MR. KELBERG: And is that a reference to the form of the abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline this area in the same lower quadrant of 20F, and I'll write "G-48, G-49." Now, doctor, as long as we have this board up, there appears to be an additional entry with some handwriting in that same diagram. What does that refer to if anything?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the sharp force injury which we saw in G-40 or 55, the one in the back of the head.
MR. KELBERG: Are you talking about injury no. 3, I think it's G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. G-40.
MR. KELBERG: Let me just get that board so you're certain.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That refers to injury in G-40, this one (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: All right. What has Dr. Golden indicated and diagrammed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has indicated that it's a sharp force injury, right posterior parietal, back to front.
MR. KELBERG: What does the back to front mean?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is, the wound is traversing back to front.
MR. KELBERG: From the back of the body to the front of the body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And it's a 5/8 inch cut. Depth is quarter-inch to 3/8 inch of the scalp. So this whole thing would reflect to sharp force injury no. 3 in G-40. I mean--G-40.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this area where I'm pointing out a diagram of some form used by Dr. Golden concerning that injury no. 3?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And what is he intending to depict by that diagram?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: He shows the higher magnification of the wound and he also describes a smaller cut in the upper margin there.
MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that entire area in red, and I'll then write "G-40 inj. No. 3." Doctor, from your review of all the materials, are these three the three and only three injuries to the head of Mr. Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further with respect to this diagram?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing further.
MR. KELBERG: Let's take this down if we could and take the protocol down.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have description here of the same injury if you want to--
MR. KELBERG: Oh, okay. Sure. As long as we've got the page, why don't we finish this up. There is some reference in the autopsy protocol to that injury no. 3 of G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Where is it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's right here, sharp force injuries of the scalp, the scalp is shaved postmortem, the whole no. 1 up to the "Opinion."
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, that description that is before the two lines for "Opinion," is that an accurate description of injury no. 3 of G-40?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is the opinion that is offered there one which in your judgment an opinion is accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that in red, and up at the left-hand border, I'll write "G-40 inj. No. 3." Is there anything further diagrammatically or in the protocol concerning any of these three head injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not that I recall at this time.
MR. KELBERG: Anything in the addendum regarding any of the three we have not discussed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's take this down then. And before we get to that one photograph with respect to the facial injuries, your Honor, I have another series of photographs that bears the title of "Blunt force trauma, sharp force injury and defensive wounds to the left arm, left and right hands of Mr. Goldman." May this be marked as exhibit 361?
THE COURT: Yes. People's 361.
(Peo's 361 for id = board of photos)
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, these are photographs that you have reviewed in the course of your examination of the autopsy materials?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And I also reviewed one is to one photographs.
MR. KELBERG: I was going to ask you, you reviewed the life-size photographs for each of these photos?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: And did you also see the photos in this dimension, but in an uncropped fashion? Obviously some of these have been cropped, narrowed and so forth to conform to the order of the Court.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: And also--
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, with this exhibit, I have two additional photographs which have designations on the back of the photographs. One is--has a "34" written on the back. And for the record, I'm going to write the letter "G" in the red on the back of that, and I would ask that that be marked as 361-A. And I will also write the designation of "Exh. 361-A" in the lower right-hand corner. And then I have a very small photograph that appears to show one hand and wrist area that has "G-25" written on the back, and I'll ask that this be marked as exhibit 361-B, and I'll write that same designation in the lower right-hand corner on the back of that photo.
THE COURT: So marked.
(Peo's 361-A and B for id = 2 photographs)
THE COURT: And I take it you've shown those to Mr. Shapiro?
MR. KELBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to talk first of all about the hands as shown in a series of photographs, G-28, G-35, G-26, G-29 and G-32 as well as our two additional photographs.
MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, I don't know--does the court clerk have little pins that I might be able to use to stick these two photographs--
THE COURT: Poster pins? Why don't you take some off of my bulletin board.
MR. KELBERG: As long as we get into the discussion.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you talked last week about something called defensive wounds; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: And in looking at all of these photographs of Mr. Goldman's hands, did you examine them in particular to look for evidence of defensive wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Did you find evidence of defensive wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Let's start if we could, please, with the right hand, and the photographs that appear to reflect or represent the right hand are on the right-hand end of this exhibit 361, G-35 and G-32; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And also, this individual photograph which hopefully we will be able to put up alongside G-35 which is G-34; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I think the clerk has--I'm sorry?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Let's see which is better. We'll try the pins.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let's start then with 35 and what is also 34. What are we looking at in those two photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have evidence of two sharp force injuries. One is a cut in the palm of the hand between the right middle finger and right index finger web. It's right in the base of those two fingers. That's one cut. The other cut is in the palm of the hand near the base of the right thumb, and this is called the--it's like a t-shaped wound here which--
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. What shape, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A t or a y-shaped wound.
MR. KELBERG: Y or t-shaped wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Yes. No. 165, can you see that?
JUROR NO. 165: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: So you have two sharp force injuries, and what you see is--are we calling this G-30?
MR. KELBERG: That is G-34. Let me get behind here and just prop it out a little bit so the ladies and gentlemen of the jury can see it.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-34 shows the same sharp force injury which you see in the web here in a better manner because the fingers have been opened up so you can see the injury better and you can also see the characteristics of the wound.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Fairtlough tells me this is translucent on the part that extends. I don't think it causes any concern and the Court's indication conforms with mine. So we'll leave it as is.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, are these two injuries--and by the way, have you designated them arbitrarily with numbers?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. I called the one to the web as injury no. 1 and I called the one to the base of the thumb as injury no. 2.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, is each of those sharp force injuries what you would call a defensive wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In what manner in your opinion should they be considered defensive wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They would be called as defensive wounds because the victim obviously kept his hand open and tried to grab the knife or tried to defend himself from a knife thrust which was being directed against some part of his body to prevent the knife striking the body. So one option could be that he tried to grab the knife or block the penetration, and the other--the other option is, without grabbing, just kind of blocking maneuver.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you use the ruler, and you tell me what to do as if I'm Mr. Goldman. What is it that you have been talking about which would result in these kinds of defensive wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: See, one is a y-shaped wound at the base of the thumb. The other is a cut in the web between the index and middle finger (indicating). If you are Mr. Goldman, if the knife--
MR. KELBERG: Why don't you demonstrate if you can, please, doctor.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we're going to object to this as being pure speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may continue, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If I'm trying to stab you here, you bring your hand and try to hold the knife. You try to, but you won't be able to hold (demonstrating)--if you held the knife, you would have other cuts in the other fingers, and you don't have that. So it would be--though it could be a maneuver towards that, it would be most likely a blocking type of situation.
MR. KELBERG: And as a blocking situation, how are those injuries inflicted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: With the knife tip cutting the skin here (indicating). The other option is, when the knife is being wielded, you could have a cut in the hand without it necessarily having been a puncture type wound.
MR. KELBERG: And that would be injury no. 1 that you're talking about--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: --as seen in both of the photographs G-35 and G-34?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Both injury no. 1 and 2.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, from the appearance of injury no. 1, would you describe those besides being defensive wounds, as incised wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: In the sense that their depth is less than the length on the surface of the body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: As a result of being incised wounds, can you distinguish as to whether or not this is inflicted with a single-edged knife or a double-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't.
MR. KELBERG: But is it still your opinion that both of these are consistent with being inflicted with this hypothetical approximately 6-inch long blade single-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: With a tapering tip, yes.
MR. KELBERG: And when you say "Tapering tip," meaning getting narrower at the tip of the knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion and as you've described, are both of those defensive wounds antemortem, that is inflicted before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do either of them play any significant role in cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Or in any of the other big ticket questions that you've been talking about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Can you tell from this information whether they were received at or about the same time, that is as part of the same thrust of the knife or whether they resulted from individual thrusts or wields of the knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would favor individual thrusts.
MR. KELBERG: Why is that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because they're separate location, different appearance. And as I pointed out, if the knife was really held, I would expect to see more cuts in the other parts of the palm of the hand, which we don't have. We have two localized cuts to the palm of the hand, one near the base of the thumb and one near the web between the index and middle finger.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Where in the photo would you expect to see these additional cuts if in fact the hand closed on the knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would see it in other fingers.
MR. KELBERG: Can you point out on the photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Depending on how the knife is held, you could have it in the palmar surface of these fingers, of this part of the thumb (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, the doctor was indicating the middle finger.
MR. KELBERG: And was it also the index finger, doctor, that you were pointing to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Index and middle finger of the thumb also.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Anything further about those two defensive wounds regarding their nature?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else specific that I can talk about at this point.
MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden describe them in the original protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram either of them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: Both of them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is either addressed in the addendum?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Any reason they should have been?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They need not have been addressed because they have been described fairly accurate.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Fairly accurate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I mean accurate.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are there any additional injuries you see to the palm area of the right hand as seen in either of those two photographs, G-35 or G-34?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Anything further you wish to discuss at this point regarding those two photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Then let's move if we could, doctor, to the bottom photograph, G-32, the right wrist, the hand. And this is showing now the back of the hand and the wrist; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do there appear to be a number of findings in that photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Had you numbered these findings again arbitrarily by injury nos. 1 through whatever?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And what's the whatever end?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I numbered them starting from the abrasion here and I numbered them through no. 12.
MR. KELBERG: Why don't you take us through just a generalized overview of what each of the injuries you see in that hand depiction, wrist depiction of photograph G-32 shows.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have an abrasion to the ulnar aspect of the right wrist. You have an abrasion to the back of the right wrist here (indicating). You have a contusion, a bruising of the knuckle of the base of the right middle finger. You have a linear abrasion in the dorsum of the proximal portion of the base of the right index finger.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, that's a mouthful. Dorsum is still the back?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Back of the right index finger.
MR. KELBERG: And in lay terms, the location is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Near the base of the right index finger.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You also have a small abrasion adjacent to it. You have a contusion in the outer--I mean the ulnar aspect of the index finger near the abrasion I just described. There's also a scraping of the nail evident on the index finger. In the middle finger, you have an abrasion and contusion in the proximal interphalangeal area. See, each finger has three small pieces of bone called the phalanges, and this is located in the joint between the first and second phalanges here and the middle finger.
MR. KELBERG: Can you point that out for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury so they will be able to see, doctor? You want to do it with my hand? And I've got a few ink stains on it, but--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the index finger. You see the abrasion right here. You have an abra--you have a contusion in this aspect of the index finger, and on the middle finger, you have an abrasion here, and this overlies a contusion (indicating). And what I meant by phalanges are 1, 2 and 3, the three bones in the finger, and the joints are the interphalangeal joints. So what you have here is a scrape and bruising of the back of the proximal interphalangeal joint.
MR. KELBERG: "Proximal" is just a fancy way of saying it's the part that's closer to the hand itself?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And "Distal" is the opposite, meaning it's further away?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And of course, you do have a scraping of the nail here which is seen in the photograph. Then just under this abrasion bruise, you also have a smaller abrasion in the back of the right middle finger (indicating). The right ring finger shows a similar abrasion contusion over the proximal phalanx, same area as the middle finger, and you have a smaller abrasion here in the proximal interphalangeal joint of the middle finger. So you have several areas of blunt force injury to the back of the hand. And I've already described the other injuries in the wrist area. And I've now put them arbitrarily as 1 through 12 and so that we can correlate the description of these injuries with the diagram and the protocol and--
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is each of injuries 1 through 12 an injury that in your opinion was received before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: All antemortem?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And all the result of blunt force trauma?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Are any of them in your opinion significant on the issue of cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Are any of them of significance to you in the area of defensive action by Mr. Goldman to avoid his attacker?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He was trying to back away from the wielding knife.
MR. KELBERG: What leads you to form an opinion that what is shown in that photograph regarding the back of the hand indicates that Mr. Goldman was trying to back away from an attacker who was coming at him with a wielding knife, as you indicated for the record, with a side-to-side motion in front of your body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the nature of the appearance of the injuries. The abrasion contusions would indicate that this hand--there are two issues here. One, you don't see any cuts in the back of the hand. The cuts are all on the front of the right side of the hand.
MR. KELBERG: What's the significance of that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That means the back of the hand was not coming in contact with the sharp force like the front of the hand. And that would also--and also, the back of the hand shows blunt force injuries, which are abrasion contusions, which can be explained by the surroundings which you can--which we saw in the crime scene photographs. There are certain of the surroundings that can account for these types of injuries.
MR. KELBERG: We're going to break this down a bit if we could, doctor. First of all, in saying that you see no cuts to the back of the hand and you see the two defensive wounds to the palm surface of the hand, is that of significance to you in evaluating whether Mr. Goldman ever closed his hand into a fist as if to deliver a punch to his assailant?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would favor my opinion that the hand was probably kept open rather than clenched because if he had kept the hand clenched, he would have got some cuts in the back of the hand, which I don't see here in the photographs or the description.
MR. KELBERG: Why would you have expected the back of the hand to show cuts if in fact Mr. Goldman had closed his hand into a fist in an effort to deliver a blow to his assailant?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: One, he'll be getting closer to the assailant who is having a wielding knife, which is obvious from the sharp force injuries, and would have resulted in cuts to the back of the hand too because he will be more in a proximal or a closer situation to the assailant.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate, if I take on the role of Mr. Goldman and you're the knife-wielding assailant, in your experience, is the normal human reaction to attempt to avoid the wielding knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: If someone attempts to deliver a blow by use of a fist to the perpetrator in a manner such as I'm doing now with my right hand closed in a fist, your Honor, and approaching Dr. Lakshmanan, representing the assailant (indicating), would that take me further away from danger or in your opinion bring me closer to the danger?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would bring me--it would bring the--you closer to danger because I'm wielding a knife like this (indicating), and if you bring your closed fist towards me, you're going to get cuts in your forearms, back of the hand, depending on where the knife is in location to the moving arm of yours.
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, I moved forward again as I indicated before, but Dr. Lakshmanan moved closer to me with his right hand extended again waving in a side-to-side manner as if wielding a knife.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, that is one of the bases for your opinion that Mr. Goldman did not in fact close his hand into a fist to deliver a punch to the assailant; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is no. 1. And no. 2, also, the appearance of the injuries which you see, if you take them in collectively and also individually, especially the injuries to the back of the knuckles, they all have abrasion contusions, which would favor a blunt force which has a rough surface. And we have certain structures in the environment in Bundy which will explain these injuries which would be more consistent with an open hand trying to avoid a knife and backing of and striking the structures rather than a closed hand attacking the assailant with a wielding knife.
MR. KELBERG: And I'm going to get the photographs out of the environmental surroundings. But, doctor, in your review of this material before testifying, did you review, among other pieces of information, literature from a sports medicine textbook concerning boxing injuries to the hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I just looked at what kind of injuries seen in boxing and I did review some information on that.
MR. KELBERG: Was that information of any significance to you along with these other matters you've already described in assessing whether the grouping or pattern of injuries or absence of injuries in certain locations supported your opinion that Mr. Goldman did not close his fist--did not close his hand into a fist in an effort to deliver a blow to the perpetrator?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That supported my opinion--
MR. KELBERG: Why is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if you have a closed fist and this was--let's assume this bruise which is in the knuckle was from a closed fist--I've already explained there are no cuts on the back of the hand--and this bruise in a closed fist was the result of Mr. Goldman closing his fist and trying to give a punch. The problem is, you don't have other injuries in the adjoining knuckles, because usually in a closed fist type of boxing situation, you'll have other knuckles also affected, which is not present, no. 1. And no. 2, the injuries here, the abrasion contusions do not fit that kind of scenario because this kind of abrasion contusion you get more with a rough surface like the--one of the items which comes right staring at my face is the bark of the tree which you have there, which is in an enclosed environment I discussed on Friday or Thursday I think, the enclosed space in which this attack did take place.
MR. KELBERG: Let me invite your attention then to the board of photographs.
MR. KELBERG: I think we've already had this marked, your Honor, as exhibit 359 I believe. 349. Excuse me.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, we've left the photograph of the back of the hand so that everyone can follow your explanation. Would you show us what it is about the environmental surroundings of Mr. Goldman's body that in your opinion correlates with the nature of the abrasion contusions to the back of the hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: For that, once you go back to this environment we have, we have the tree here. We have this sapling to support wooden--I think it's a wooden support beam here which supports this plant (indicating). There's not much distance between all these structures. The tree and the side railing you see in the back here, there's only about within a foot, and the tree stump you see here is also pretty close to this tree. There's not much distance between the sapling and this tree nor is there much distance--actually, from this side railing to the walkway, which is a little more on this side of crime scene 1, is only about a couple of feet. So what I'm trying to say is, if Mr. Goldman was--assuming the hypothetical, was situated right between the sapling and the tree and you have somebody wielding a knife and you're backing off, your hand is going to be banging against this rough surface. And if you--I ran my hand myself along the bark of this tree. It's pretty rough. At the same time, it's a hard surface, and I would expect to see these kind of abrasions contusions can occur from that kind of blunt force with an open hand striking that kind of environment in my opinion.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, is the human body the kind of rough surface that would result in not just a contusion, but an abrasion contusion to the part of the fist or hand in contact with the human body as the blow is delivered?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not this type of abrasion contusion. And you won't get an abrasion. You'll get more of a contusion when you strike a human body.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the location of the abrasion within each of the contusions of significance to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. They seem to be localized in the center of the contusion which would go along with this kind of environment (indicating) rather than what you just also brought up in your hypothetical.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "In the center of the contusion," would that be the area that is in the direct contact with whatever the rough surface is that the hand is coming in contact with?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Like in the bark of the tree, there are uneven elevations and depressions. So the abrasion would be caused by the rough elevated areas of the bark rather than the depressed areas of the bark.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I think you indicate--you may have misspoken one word, but did you run your hand, the palm of your hand over the surface of the tree shown in S1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Did you also run your hand over the surface of the sapling shown in CS1, both of the same exhibit board 349?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did. And I also ran my hand over the--each of the--some of these bars here. You do have some irregularities. Even though it's a painted smooth type of metal railing, there are irregularities of the surface either due to dirt when the metal was painted or whatever the reason, there are some irregularities, and that would explain an injury which I have later in the left hand when we discuss it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are there also smooth areas of those bars?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, there are.
MR. KELBERG: If the hand like the right hand that shows the contusion--would you point to the one that's just a contusion without an abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the knuckle over the middle finger right here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And does that have an injury number just so we can--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The injury number for that is no. 3 of G-32. It's over the right middle finger. I gave it injury no. 3 of G-32.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that a contusion which in your judgment could be caused by Mr. Goldman, in flailing back with his right hand, that hand coming in contact with a smooth area of one of those bars?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could very well be.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: One more point you want to make is, then the question that can arise is, why didn't the rest of the finger get contusion? You have space between the bar. There is about a 4- or 5-inch space between the bar. So what I'm trying to drive at is, even though the hand is coming into contact with a particular bar, the rest of the hand need not have come in contact with the next bar. There's a couple of inches between each of those bars. I think it's about 4-1/2 inches between each of those bars if you go and measure approximately.
MR. KELBERG: And did you do that, doctor, when you were there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that therefore the pattern, if you will? Looking at all of these injuries to the back of the hand, in your judgment, is that grouping of injuries then consistent with this flailing, backing away from the attacker rather than an effort by Mr. Goldman to throw a punch in the direction of the assailant coming towards him with a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. And of course, my--one of the strongest reinforcing--reinforcing points is the cuts being to the palm of the hand, which would indicate that the hand was probably kept open and not closed, because I don't see any cuts in both of the hands like the ones you see in the palm of the hands in both the hands.
MR. KELBERG: You don't see cuts on the back of the hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, and is that consistent with your experience of what would be the expected defensive reaction on the part of a human being who is facing an impending assault with a knife-wielding assailant?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else for our present purposes that we need to describe with these photographs, the crime scene photographs and the injuries as seen to the right hand, the back of the right hand in photograph G-42?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let me put this board back then. I think before we go into the protocols and so forth, doctor, why don't we finish with the left hand and cover then all of the injuries if we can or as much as possible before we quit for the end of the day the hands before we then go to the protocols and diagrams and so forth. So can we start then with the left-hand? Photos we have appear to be G-28, G-29, G-26 and G-25, which I'm going to pin between photos G-26 and G-29 on the board. Let's start if we could, doctor, with 28 and 29. What do each of these photographs show?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 28 shows the palm of the left hand and you also see a portion of the thumb. The principal injuries you see in G-28 are a cut to the palm of the hand near the base of the little finger, a cut to the base of the thumb. You also see an abrasion to the tip of the thumb and you also see a linear abrasion to the base of the thumb here. And these are the principal injuries you can see in G-28 photograph.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you numbered these again arbitrarily?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have. And we can go into details if you want now or later.
MR. KELBERG: Why don't we do that later. I just want to be sure. You've numbered these four injuries arbitrarily 1 through 4?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: 1 through 3, and I've described the--this injury near the base of the little finger under G-29 (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: All right. And that's our next photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Why don't we then have you discuss, if you would, please, the findings of that photograph.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-29 shows a portion of the sharp force injury to the base of the thumb, which is a cut, and you see the cut to the base of the--into the palm near the base of the little finger, but you also see abrasions to the front of the little finger here and the middle finger in its distal aspect, that is the part of the middle finger away from the hand. So these are non-specific blunt force type injuries and this is a sharp force injury here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Where is that, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The one to the palm of the hand at the base of the little finger.
MR. KELBERG: Is that a description in general terms, doctor, of all of the findings of photograph G-29?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, taking these two photographs together, would you describe all of these injuries as evidence of defensive wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Are they of significance to you, their location and appearance, in forming an opinion as to how they may have been received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The--the--the palmar cuts could be the same way the palmar cuts of the right hand. You have a cut to the palm of the left hand here and the base of the thumb, which could be the same mechanisms I described by the hand being used to avoid a penetrating thrust to a part of the body. Could be from the wielding of the hand being interposed to protect the body against the wielding knife. There are numerous other ways it can happen, but I just gave you some examples. And the abrasion itself, this abrasion is on the little finger is--looks as though the abrasion, the skin has been peeled off or shaved off in a superficial part. And this could be from just scraping of the finger against a rough surface, but it could also be scraping of the finger against the blunt edge of a knife.
MR. KELBERG: How does that happen, doctor?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if a blunt end of the knife is scraped against the skin, you can get this kind of linear scraping of the skin with a peeling of a flap. But it could be from other mechanisms like rubbing against a rough surface with the skin being peeled off in that manner.
MR. KELBERG: Would the ground be considered a rough surface?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if it is a blunt end of a knife, would that mean a single-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Especially if we take this in conjunction with this cut to the hand, there could be an attempt at the grabbing of the knife at this point like this (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, could you use the ruler--it's to your left--and demonstrate either using my hand or yours? And if you'll face the ladies and gentlemen of the jury so they can see.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Like this with the blunt edge here and the sharp edge cutting like this, and you're trying to get it, and you can get the scraping of the skin that way (demonstrating).
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor--
MR. KELBERG: Could you do that slowly, doctor, hold--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (demonstrating).
MR. KELBERG: The doctor with his right hand has placed about the upper 2 inches of the ruler where it appears to be near the area of the ring and little finger of his left hand with those two fingers curled somewhat, but not curled around the ruler.
MR. KELBERG: And then, doctor, what did you do?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The other thing is, the knife is also turning and the skin gets scraped like this, and that's why you're getting the peeling of the skin here, here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, the doctor turned the knife so that the edge in contact with those two fingers was coming or rubbing or scraping, whatever the term may be, across those two fingers as it has been coming free from the area of the hand.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is one way it could have been caused.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your opinion, from observing all of these--these two photographs and reviewing any material, in your opinion, were all of these defensive wounds received before death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do any of them play any significance on the issue of cause of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, given the nature of that, those findings of defensive wounds, do you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Goldman closed his left hand in a fist-like action as if to deliver a blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: For the same reasons I gave before. If you look at the back of the hand in G-26--should we describe them briefly or--
MR. KELBERG: All right. Why don't we do that.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. In G-26, is the back of the left hand, you have an abrasion of the left lower forearm. You have a contusion of the base of the left hand here (indicating). But what is important is, you have a punctate, small abrasion middle of the contusion. And this important to remember. There's a linear abrasion here. And the back of the left hand shows an abrasion to the knuckle of the middle finger, an abrasion injury to the base of the index finger, an abrasion contusion to the proximal joint, interphalangeal joint of the index finger here, and there's a smaller abrasion distal to it. And if you look at the back of the left hand, you don't see any cuts. Just like the one in the right hand, you don't see any cuts. The only cuts are to the front of the hand, which again favors an opinion that the hand was probably not clenched or only the front of the hand came in contact with the knife. And the injuries again here (indicating) are non-specific blunt force trauma which can be explained by the environment, which would favor an open hand flailing away against a wielding knife and hitting those objects which I just described in crime scene photographs.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I was going to ask you, are those same findings, the rough surface of the tree, the rough surface of some of the bars and so forth, the sapling and the support stake for the sapling, are those the kinds of items which in your opinion are consistent with Mr. Goldman's back of his left hand in a flailing action coming in contact with, resulting in these blunt force trauma injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be my opinion.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is the location--you mentioned this contusion on photograph G-26 near the area where the hand joins the wrist as having a punctate abrasion on it. Is the location of that contusion of some significance in forming an opinion as to whether it was caused by a striking action, that is the fist being clenched to deliver a blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The location is more towards the wrist area, but the appearance of the injuries would be more consistent with hitting against a blunt smooth surfaced object with a rough random irregularity like in the metal bar, which I felt the surface, you have certain areas that could be rough, but mostly smooth. And one of the elevations of such a bar could have caused the injury. I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's one of the possibilities rather than the wrist coming in contact through a closed fist causing a punch, because if you throw a punch, you'll get the injuries more to the back of the phalanges and knuckles rather than the wrist unless it was an improperly thrown punch.
MR. KELBERG: Do you see--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: And then you can't explain the abrasion there.
MR. KELBERG: You cannot explain the abrasion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: By that scenario.
MR. KELBERG: The human body doesn't have that kind of rough surface that would translate into a punctate abrasion on top of the contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, would it also be your opinion--based upon what you told us a moment ago regarding the unnatural aspect of a victim throwing a punch to bring the victim closer to an attacking--a knife-wielding assailant, would your answers be the same as to why in your opinion Mr. Goldman did not have his left hand clenched in a fist to throw a punch?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be my opinion for the various reasons I've already discussed. But one of the important things is, you have cuts in the front of the hand and you don't have any cuts on the back of the hand. And to me, that is significant.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to tell from reviewing all of these hand photographs as to the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the attacker? And by that, I mean, for example, can you tell whether Mr. Goldman was seated and basically flailing backwards in a seated position or standing and flailing backwards? Are you able to make that determination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It will be difficult for me to opine on that, but I would favor that probably this was when he was mobile and able to move his extremities.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Mobile meaning?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Standing up at some point during the assault.
MR. KELBERG: And moving his extremities, referring to his arms?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me get another photograph. I think we have enough team to touch upon it.
MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, I have another board. May this be marked--oh, I'm sorry. I don't need it. I'm sorry. It's on this board. It's photograph G-20.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you see something in photograph G-20 above the blue photographic identification card that is of any significance to you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You have a smaller abrasion, and in front of it, there's an interrupted intact skin area, and in front of that, you have a triangular abrasion. By the way, the photograph shows the front of the body. On the left side of the photograph, you can see the nipple there.
MR. KELBERG: Nipple of the breast?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And the triangular abrasion base is facing the front, and you have another area of abrasion in front of the triangular abrasion. There's another area of intact skin between these two. And so you have three non-specific areas of abrasion injury. You also have a faint abrasion above it in this--running in a horizontal axis, on a side-to-side axis of the photograph in the left arm, and you also have a smaller abrasion near the left elbow area.
MR. KELBERG: I would like to focus if we could on this interrupted group of abrasions you talked about. First of all, can you point on your left arm in general where is that area on Mr. Goldman's arm?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is somewhere in this region here (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan is pointing to an area, appears to be halfway between the shoulder and the elbow and towards the--about the middle between the front and the back of the body.
THE COURT: Typical tattoo location.
MR. KELBERG: I'll take your word on that, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have looked at--
MR. KELBERG: If we could have the environmental photos back, please. Let me see if I can hold it over here this time. With the Court's permission, can I sit on counsel table?
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have examined, have you not, in your visits to the Bundy location the sapling and the support stake that are seen in photograph CS1?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, did you also examine Mr. Goldman's shirt that he was wearing at the time his body was found?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, and does that shirt and the sapling and the support stake have any significance to you in evaluating what you've described as this interrupted area of abrasion seen in photograph G-20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There are two issues here. One is, you have an--you have an intermediate object, the clothing, between the area in contact, if that was the area of contact which caused this injury and the skin surface. So you won't have a pattern of the object--
MR. KELBERG: Turn so--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You won't have the pattern of the object which caused the injury on the skin surface because the clothing is interspersed between the object and the skin. The second factor is, there is a space, interrupted skin space there. And if you look at the sapling of the support beam, there is an area between the two because the support beam or stake holds the sapling upright. So one way this injury could have been caused is if the hand put the shirt on its surface, had come in contact with that area causing an abrasion. It's not an abrasion contusion. It's mainly an abrasion injury. So you don't necessarily have force because if it was force, then it's just a scrape on the area.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if Mr. Goldman either backed into that area where his left arm in that area shown in the photograph came in contact or if he somehow was pushed into that area such that that part of his left arm came in contact with the space between the sapling and the support stake, would that in your opinion be consistent with the resulting interrupted abrasion pattern we see in photograph G-20?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That could be one explanation for it if that's what happened.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, is there anything about the appearance of that interrupted area of abrasions which allows you to be more specific as to potential manners in which that could have been received?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This would be one possible scenario of how this happened, especially with the interrupted intact skin which would be explained by the space between the stake and the plant. But of course, you should realize that you also have clothing which can also fold when this happens. But there's no specific pattern to the injury which can say with absolute certainty, that's how--that's what caused it, but I would favor that scenario more than other scenarios there.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, finally before I believe we're going to end the day, can you exclude that that is due to a blow struck by the perpetrator, either a fist to the perpetrator or a rounded end of the knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I couldn't exclude it, but the problem is, you have these areas of intact skin there which, if caused by the folding of the clothing, would leave more of a pattern. But I would favor more an object of this nature because it's only a scrape, because if it's a blow of the knife, you would expect also a lot of bruising there like we saw in the scalp contusion in Nicole because there would also be crushing injury, which you don't have here. It's only a scrape in the skin.
MR. KELBERG: And absent that bruising, does that suggest to you that in fact that was not the cause?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, would this be a convenient time for the break?
THE COURT: Yes, it would. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the day. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. Doctor, tomorrow morning, 8:45.
(At 5:02 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Tuesday, June 13, 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 Monday, June 12, 1995
Volume 165 pages 31415 through 31578, 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 165 pages 31415 - 31578
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Monday June 12, 1995 P.M. 31415 165
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 165 (Resumed) 31426Bk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 165 (Resumed) 31426Bk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
360 - Posterboard 31527 165 with 2 photographs entitled "Sharp force injuries and blunt force trauma to head of Mr. Goldman"
361 - Posterboard 31540 165 with 8 photographs entitled "Blunt force traumas, sharp force injuries and defensive wounds to the left arm, left and right hands of Mr. Goldman"
361-A - photograph of 31541 165 right palm of Ronald Goldman (G-34)
361-B - photograph of 31541 165 left hand and arm of Ronald Goldman (G-35)
362 - Posterboard (Not marked on the record) with 7 photographs entitled "Sharp force injuries to left flank, left thigh and right chest of Mr. Goldman/blunt force trauma and lividity"