Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Douglas. The People are represented by Mr. Kelberg, Mr. Lynch. Also present, Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Good morning. Mr. Neufeld, Mrs. Robertson told me that you had an issue you wanted to advise the Court of.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Yesterday I learned of a revised schedule from the District Attorney's office in which they said that after Dr. Lakshmanan there were going to be some witnesses involving gloves and shoes and then they intended to call Bruce Weir and the other DNA witnesses. Umm, you may recall, your Honor, that bruise Weir's name came up when the decision was made by the Prosecution not to rely on Dr. Cotton for certain frequencies, but instead to have that articulated by Dr. Weir. At that time Dr. William Thompson came into Court and expressed on the record our objection to what appeared to be a preliminary report of Dr. Weir's suggesting that he was going to testify about likelihood ratios, and our objection was based in part on the fact that there was no legal precedent for using likelihood ratios in a criminal case anywhere in the State of California, and perhaps anywhere in the United States, as well as other grounds. And at that point Mr. Clarke said we don't intend to use the likelihood ratios in that report, there is a lot of other data there that we intend to rely on to express frequencies. Well, we received another preliminary report from Dr. Weir last week which again relies heavily on this use of likelihood ratios. Dr. Thompson said at that time that if they intend to try and offer likelihood ratios or to offer anything different than what the Court's order required, which was simply an aggregation of frequencies in mixtures, that we would of course demand a 402 hearing on that particular issue, which had nothing to do with the DNA Kelly-Frye hearing, it just has to do with the manner in which evidence can be expressed to the jury. If they intend to call Dr. Weir and if they intend to utilize these likelihood ratios, then we need to sort of schedule this 402 hearing. We would call witnesses in opposition at that hearing just on that one issue of the likelihood ratios. So I'm simply asking for two things: One, perhaps someone from their office can come down either at the break, the lunch break, or the beginning of the afternoon session so just both of us can talk to the Court and get some head's up on, if that is their intent, so that we can schedule that at 1:30.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Can that be done at 1:30? Thank you very much.

THE COURT: By the way, we will be in recess for lunch today until 1:30.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I suggest actually if Mr. Neufeld has limited interest in hearing about forensic pathology, that Mr. Clarke and/or Mr. Harmon may well be upstairs on the 18th floor at this time, or shortly from this time, and it might be beneficial if in some fashion he can wander up to the 18th floor or I assume he has the office number for both Mr. Clarke and Mr. Harmon.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

MR. KELBERG: See if they can get together before 1:30.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine. We will report back to the Court at 1:30.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, with regard to the scheduling, the Prosecution yesterday did delete one witness from their list and we understand they have changed the order. What I'm asking now is whether or not from the Prosecution we can get a list, certain as possible, for the conclusion of the case, because we have lawyers who are all over the United States, and rather than have a delay in the trial--

THE COURT: There will be no delay.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, and I appreciate that, and so that in order to be ready, your Honor, we need to know who is coming up next and have some kind of certainty with regard to that, so the lawyers can return in enough time to make sure they are ready.

THE COURT: Let me make inquiry of Miss Clark and Mr. Darden since they have the overall responsibility for this. Good morning, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Good morning, your Honor. Yes, I informed counsel yesterday that we are closer to the end than we thought we were, and we are--I inquired of Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke yesterday as to when the last probe would be pulled off 117, and I have to solidify that before I can give counsel a totally accurate picture. But I have told counsel so far that after the Coroner--actually, maybe I told Mr. Douglas, I'm sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MS. CLARK: That after the Coroners it would be either shoes or gloves, and they know what chain of witnesses that is, and following that we believe we can proceed with the rest of DNA and Dr. Weir, and EDTA, and then perhaps the Airtouch representative concerning cell phone records, and a couple of other miscellaneous witnesses that I have to solidify, and then hair and trace, so that is roughly the scenario. There are certain things, obviously from what the Court has heard, that we have to solidify and I think that I will be able to do that by the end of the day. I would ask the Court to order, in return for this revised witness order and list, that the Defense be required to turn over the discovery that we have been requesting for months now. We have no expert reports, we have no valid witness statements. We have these little notes scribbled that are basically hieroglyphics. And we are asking the Court to order the Defense to comply in spirit, and not just in form, with 1054 and the Court's discovery orders, because we have received nothing in response to the Court's orders.

THE COURT: We have that scheduled for a hearing.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: So my understanding is gloves, shoes, DNA?

MS. CLARK: Or shoes, gloves, your Honor, yeah.

THE COURT: Cellular phone and then hair--hair and fiber?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Yes. Now, the witnesses I told you there were some that we have to solidify, regard domestic violence and we are not sure which, or you know, how many exactly we are going to call, but the Court knows which ones they are potentially, and so does the Defense, and we have to firm up exactly which ones those would be, so that--it won't take very long.

THE COURT: Just scheduling wise, when do you anticipate putting those on? Before or after DNA, before or after the cell phone records?

MS. CLARK: Around the cell phone records. Before or after the cell phone records, that is the feeling, and there are four or five of those witnesses, but they are brief.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: One last thing, your Honor, is I presume that that--what Miss Clark has just indicated will be solidified by the end of the day and we would like to be able to go with that and we will rely upon that and we would like to make sure we have all the discovery also for these upcoming witnesses. We are concerned about whether or not we have all the discovery for Bodziak and certainly with regard to any information on the tickets, on that, and we want to make sure we have all the discovery and make sure there is no delay.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: They have everything we have. We can't give them what we don't have. As soon as we have information, they will have it without any delay at all because everyone is interested in the expeditious end to this trial, so it will be literally within the time frame that we learn that we have a witness we are going to be calling, it will be minutes before we are on the phone to counsel, I can promise you that.

THE COURT: All right. As soon as we finish with the Coroner's testimony I would like to take a five minute recess and launch into the next witness.

MS. CLARK: Sounds good.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let's have the jurors, Deputy Magnera. I'm sorry, Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, before Court began I provided the Court with three photographs. I have advised Mr. Shapiro as well. And I ask for a motion in limine to be heard at this time regarding the use of these three photographs with Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony. The circumstances arose as a result of Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony yesterday concerning a difference of opinion he holds regarding incise wounds 1 and 2 from photograph G-37 and the time at which those wounds were inflicted. As the Court will recall, it is Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that those wounds represent control holds that were inflicted early on in the circumstances between the assailant and Mr. Goldman. Dr. Golden's testimony, which was read to Dr. Lakshmanan in front of the jury, suggested in Dr. Golden's opinion those wounds appeared to be inflicted closer to the time of death due to the absence of hemorrhage. In the course of Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony explaining a basis for his opinion that those wounds were in fact early on as control wounds, he referred to review of certain crime scene photographs. Those crime scene photographs have not been marked nor offered at any phase of the proceeding, to my knowledge, certainly not by me. They were not part of our photographic motion that the Court reviewed concerning autopsy photographs, and I believe a total of approximately five crime scene photographs. The three photographs that I provided to the Court, only two of which we were offering, your Honor, one has a glove covering the eye and upper face area of Mr. Goldman. That is one of the two we would offer.

THE COURT: What do you need to offer this for?

MR. KELBERG: It is for the appearance of the two superficial incise wounds. They show hemorrhage in the crime scene photographs which is the basis for Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that these are antemortem early in the relationship between the assailant and Mr. Goldman as to when they were inflicted. I will be the first to acknowledge to this Court they are nasty photographs to look at, primarily because of the blood that is surrounding the face and neck of Mr. Goldman, but it is extremely important, your Honor, extremely important where especially there is a difference of opinion between the two forensic pathologists, one of whom the Defense has indicated yesterday they intend to call, that this jury have the best available evidence on which to make a determination. Is Dr. Golden correct when he formed the view that they were inflicted at or near the time of death or is Dr. Lakshmanan correct in his view that they were inflicted early on before death as antemortem wounds? And unfortunately, your Honor, there is just no easy way for people to be presented with this evidence, but this is very probative. Of course the aspect of whether they are control wounds inflicted early on goes to the issue of premeditation and deliberation and all of the other circumstances that we posed before. But as I said, I would be the first to acknowledge that they are not pleasant paragraphs to look at, even in the scheme of a series of photographs which the Court has candidly acknowledged are unpleasant to look at. I think to some degree this jury is at least steeled to this type of photograph, and it would be my suggestion--I am not anticipating, if the Court allows me to use the two photographs we have proposed, to have them presented at close range to the jurors. I would rather have Dr. Lakshmanan refer to them, perhaps even while seated at the witness stand, as the basis for part of his opinion that those early--that those two incise wounds were inflicted early on, and then have them available for the jury's consideration. I will not have them put up even on the board. I will not have them even displayed to the jury at this phase, but rather to have them available as evidence at the end for the jury's consideration. But for Dr. Lakshmanan to say, gee, I reviewed some crime scene photos, they were informative to me because they showed hemorrhage and so forth, and that is the basis of my opinion, the jury has no basis on which to Judge his interpretation, because they would not have the photographs if the Court found that the prejudicial impact outweighed--substantially outweighed the probative value. I believe these are substantially probative on this important issue where there may be a conflict between the opinions and where these photographs help to give the jury a legitimate basis on which to determine who is correct in their opinion, Dr. Golden or Dr. Lakshmanan.

THE COURT: Have you shown these to Mr. Shapiro?

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Shapiro, I'm sure, has seen them, not today, so he may not know which ones they are and I will be glad to show them to him now and do whatever the Court wishes.

THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro, are you familiar with these three photographs?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, I am, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So I will submit it on that matter, your Honor, on that basis.

THE COURT: Don't you feel we should at least crop some of these?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have no problem with cropping to basically just leave the neck area that will show in context the complete neck area that is shown in the photographs. That in and of itself will narrow but not eliminate the unpleasant nature of the photographs. But again, I have to go back to Justice Gardner's observation, these ladies and gentlemen of the jury do not come from an insular world where matters of this nature are completely foreign, and certainly after six days of testimony involving, to some degree, very difficult photographs to look at, I believe they have, at least to some degree, as I use the word "Steeled"--become more comfortable as not an accurate way of describing it--but steeled as to what they are going to look at. And I believe they do understand that these are being presented to them for their informational value, and if the Court would like them cropped, I have no problem cropping them to expose basically the neck area and eliminate everything else, because I anticipate a foundation will be laid by another witness to show that they fairly and accurately show the condition of Mr. Goldman's neck at the time the bodies were examined at the scene on Bundy on June 13, 1994.

THE COURT: I suggest that we mark these first for identification purposes, if nothing else, at this point.

MR. KELBERG: Certainly, your Honor. These go with what I believe is our board 358, so may I suggest they be marked respectively 358-A and B. If I could have the third photograph back--I'm really not offering it. It was just used to give the Court a context to compare two alternative photographs. Do you want me to take the two--

THE COURT: I don't know which one you marked--that you want marked as which?

MR. KELBERG: Do you want me to do it up here for the Court.

THE COURT: Please.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, on the back of the first photograph I'm writing "358-A" and on the second photograph I'm writing at the bottom "358-B." And if I may, your Honor, I would take back then the third photograph which I do not intend to offer.

THE COURT: All right. All right.

(Peo's 358-A & 358-B for id = Coroner's photos)

THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, we would strenuously object to these photographs, as we have strenuously objected to all the photographs. We believe that the Prosecution has presented a scenario to allow these photographs in and then withdrawn from that scenario once the Court admitted the photographs. The Prosecution told you, during the arguments, that these photographs would be necessary because there would be a conflict in the testimony between Dr. Lakshmanan and Dr. Golden and they would be necessary for Dr. Lakshmanan to point out the errors that Dr. Golden made. Now, after all the photographs have been entered, they have withdrawn Dr. Golden as a witness and are relying only on Dr. Lakshmanan who did not in any way participate in these autopsies. There are--what they have done is they have created their own issue that allowed these horrendous photographs to be displayed before the jury, and then said that is no longer an issue because they are not going to be offering testimony from Dr. Golden. What they have done, your Honor, is deliberately presented to this jury the most horrendous and horrifying photographs that one could imagine with only a desire to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury and anyone who would look at these photographs. And clearly the Court saw that was the case when you had to declare a recess last week when several members of this jury could not look at those photographs any longer and reported illness upon looking at those photographs.

Those photographs now have no value whatsoever. Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion of what took place need not be based on repeated gory photographs. Initially the only reason that they were going to be allowed was he was going to say, well, Dr. Golden looked at this injury and he is going to testify as to what that injury is and my opinion is different than his, and he is wrong and we are going to sacrifice Dr. Golden and his professional reputation because his theory doesn't fit the Prosecution's theory of this. And now you are in a position where you have admitted these photographs, they want more to be admitted with no purpose whatsoever since Dr. Golden won't be a witness. We would strenuously object and we believe that there should be sanctions against the People for presenting a theory to your Honor for entering the photographs and then after they were entered withdrawing from that theory.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: May I briefly respond, your Honor? I'm always impressed with Mr. Shapiro's hyperbole. I find that the more hyperbole counsel uses the more probative and the more relevant and the more success this evidence is having in establishing for this jury a true understanding of the circumstances. The record will clearly reflect, and I know the Court remembers it quite accurately, that in offering these photographs we have made it clear that it is not a question of whether Dr. Golden testifies or not, it is an issue that Dr. Golden made a lot of mistakes and these photographs will help this jury, as they have I'm sure helped Dr. Wolf and Dr. Baden who have to go through the very same process Dr. Lakshmanan has gone through, and I hope they have spent the same amount of time that Dr. Lakshmanan has, because if they are called to testify, they will be questioned by me quite extensively, that these photographs are the best record to show what in fact happened and with a qualified forensic pathologist like Dr. Lakshmanan to give the jury an understanding of the significance of the findings seen in the photographs and the autopsy materials and also to understand what, if any, significance flows from Dr. Golden's mistakes, because Dr. Golden's mistakes are mistakes whether Dr. Golden testifies or not. And I do find it somewhat disingenuous for the Defense to be claiming that these photographs are irrelevant because of a claimed, quote, conflict in testimony which is not being presented when of course that is not what we told the Court, and then counsel stand up yesterday and says, in essence, Dr. Golden is going to be one of our first witnesses. Well, let's give the jury the truth and let's cut the hyperbole down to a minimum, if we possibly can, and let's talk about what Dr. Lakshmanan said yesterday. Mr. Shapiro didn't mention one whit of what the testimony from Dr. Lakshmanan was yesterday. Mr. Shapiro never objected when the testimony given by Dr. Golden, I believe at the grand jury concerning his interpretation of those two superficial incise wounds, was provided to the jury and for Dr. Lakshmanan to comment on as another mistake in his opinion, Dr. Lakshmanan's, Dr. Golden's opinion on those wounds, that is a mistake.

THE COURT: So what does it tell us--

MR. KELBERG: It tells us--

THE COURT: --to see the hemorrhage in those two incise wounds? What does that tell us?

MR. KELBERG: It tells us, as I have talked with Dr. Lakshmanan, that by seeing that hemorrhage, those superficial incise wounds bearing the same general appearance from the standpoint of hemorrhage as the major stab wounds which is to the left side of the neck which is a fatal wound to the jugular vein, were inflicted antemortem, before death, and would be consistent with Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that they are in fact control wounds when the perpetrator was threatening or taunting, pardon me, Mr. Goldman, following which it is clearly that Mr. Goldman, realizing the very dangerous and life threatening situation he was in, attempted to save his life and for which there has been much testimony and there will be much more testimony concerning his injuries that ultimately resulted in his death. But Mr. Shapiro never mentions any of that aspect in responding to our comments. He doesn't mention the substantive value of seeing those wounds with their hemorrhage before the bodies are washed at the Forensic Science Center. And the washing, as the Court will recall, is for the specific purpose of getting rid of the bloody appearance, so that the wound can be carefully examined by the forensic pathologist.

THE COURT: How do I know that the blood that is apparent here is blood from the wound itself or blood from the jugular vein, given the proximity?

MR. KELBERG: I believe, and I can only make an offer of proof--and perhaps the Court might want to have Dr. Lakshmanan briefly get on the witness stand and I can do a very quick 402 examination regarding what he observes in those photos regarding those two wounds and the significance, if any, to him, or I can make an offer of proof, whichever the Court prefers.

THE COURT: Let's assume that there is a dispute whether or not--as to the age of those wounds. What is the real probative value one way or another?

MR. KELBERG: If in fact those are antemortem wounds and support Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that they are control wounds which would be in conformity with, as the Court will recall, the demonstration where Mr. Goldman is being restrained from behind by the perpetrator who is taunting him with the knife in front of his neck and drawing the knife across to create those superficial incise wounds, that is a reflection of premeditation and deliberation, that control and those threatening type wounds, rather than at the end, which I must suggest makes no sense logically. If all hell breaks loose, for lack of a better term, in a struggle between Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator, it makes no sense logically that the perpetrator, who is engaged in inflicting all the defensive wounds and in inflicting fatal stab wounds to the abdomen and the chest and left side of the neck is then going to at some point while Mr. Goldman is disabled from moving, because you need that, carefully draw parallel superficial incise wounds along the neck. I mean, logically I would suggest to the jury, if I were arguing this case, that that would make no sense whatsoever and would be another reason why Dr. Golden's opinion would not make sense, would not stand the scrutiny of scientific investigation. But from the standpoint of medical evidence, besides logic--

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, isn't the real issue here what was the cause of death and is it possible for one person to have committed both of these killings? Isn't that the bottom line here?

MR. KELBERG: That is part.

THE COURT: What does that tell me about that?

MR. KELBERG: It is part of the bottom line. One person committing, yes, the fact that these are control superficial incise wounds at the beginning with a taunting and so forth, I think does reflect that it is a single killer who has knocked Nicole Brown Simpson into a dazed or potentially even unconscious state from a concussion, as the Court will recall, to the contusion to the head and now is dealing with Mr. Goldman and dealing with Mr. Goldman with a threatening, taunting control type series, two superficial incise wounds and going to the issue of premeditation and deliberation. But those are not the only issues in this case. It is not just cause and whether one perpetrator did these things, because premeditation and deliberation is built along a process that is not necessarily related to the number of people involved, but actually to the manner of the killing itself. And cause of death, as the Court knows, is a narrow area dealing with the manner which a murder takes place and this is a matter that deals more with the manner than with the cause. I don't think anybody disputes the cause, I mean, having knows these two people bled to death from sharp force injuries, but if that were the only issue, I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't have taken up six days or seven days of this Court's time, the jury's time, Defense counsel's time. We are here because there is a lot more to this than cause of death and this concept of one perpetrator.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, this appears to be an unprecedented marathon to present evidence that is readily susceptible of reading from a crystal ball, and we have spent seven days, the People want to spend two more days, to criticize what they say is a search for the truth. And that is, there is not one medical examiner or forensic pathologist in the world who would tell you that you are better off looking at photographs to come to an opinion than you are at doing an actual autopsy and looking for evidence. The People love to continue to talk and press and go into minutia and detail that most people who are looking at this case are mystified by, and I think it is time for your Honor to step in and say the jury has enough evidence on the real issues at hand, limit the issues, limit the testimony, and let's, if the real intent is to move this case on and to get at the truth, get at the truth, and that would be by calling the person who did the autopsy, not by somebody who is trying to now look to the past in some mystifying way and reconstruct in their mind what might have happened. It is pure guesswork at its best. Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Just briefly if I might, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. I think I've heard enough. All right. The Court will sustain the objection to 358-A. I will overrule the objection to 358-B. I will direct that it be cropped to depict only the area between the gloved hands.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Your Honor, if I could get scissors--in fact, actually I think we have scissors. Can I give the Court scissors and the Court crop it in the manner--

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, may I ask that the two dismembered portions of the photograph be kept, however, as part of the exhibit in the event of the conviction and review on appeal, so that the Court will understand--Court of Appeal, that is--the discretion exercised by this Court in excising those two portions?

THE COURT: I have stapled them together.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. May I approach to obtain that one photograph?

THE COURT: You may.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, this one is not marked because the portion that the Court excised had the writing. May I mark this as 358-B?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jury, please.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, while the jury is coming out, may we approach without the reporter?

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Cochran.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lakshmanan, would you please resume the witness stand.

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Good morning, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your direct examination.

MR. KELBERG: I take it not very subtle hint.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: But I assume I have at least perhaps all day?

THE COURT: Reasonable time.

MR. KELBERG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: Good morning, doctor. Doctor, I just want to cover a couple of areas that we touched upon yesterday, the first area dealing with a difference of opinion you hold from that of Dr. Golden concerning the time when those two superficial incise wounds, injuries numbers 1 and 2 of photographs G-37, were received by Mr. Goldman. Do you recall that testimony yesterday?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And you testified, as I recall, that you had reviewed certain crime scene photographs which caused you to believe that those superficial incise wounds were received early on and were part of control wounds inflicted by a taunting or threatening perpetrator on Mr. Goldman; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And that Dr. Golden, in his testimony in front of the grand jury, had indicated his opinion that those wounds appeared to be inflicted closer to the time of death due to the absence of hemorrhage; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but I supported my opinion with the statements he made in his autopsy report, which indicates that there is hemorrhage in the soft tissues underlying these wounds, which would indicate that there was blood pressure present when these wound were inflicted. And that is why I opined that they were antemortem wounds and I also gave an opinion that they are consistent with being control wounds which would have happened during the earlier part of the struggle, which is what I feel happened.

MR. KELBERG: But--and doctor, from what you just said, did you feel that there was an inconsistency between the material that had been included by Dr. Golden in his protocol regarding this hemorrhage that he observed and included in his description and yet his opinion being that these were wounds that were inflicted at or about the time of death rather than before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, perhaps in front of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, may I ask that this photograph that is a small rectangular-shaped photograph be marked as 358-B, as in boy.

THE COURT: So marked.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me show you photograph 358-B. Did you review, among crime scene photographs, this photograph in an uncropped fashion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In other words, you saw the full photograph and this has been cropped, as I understand, pursuant to the order of Judge Ito?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there something of significance shown in that photograph on the issue of when those two superficial incise wounds were received in relation to when Mr. Goldman died?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the appearance of the wounds itself, the coloration, taken in conjunction with the descriptive report which we have in the autopsy, supports the opinion that these are antemortem wounds because there is--you can see the hemorrhage in the tissues, in the margins and also underlying the--the superficial areas of the cut. You see there are areas of the cut which are deeper than the areas of the cut which are not so deep, and in the not so deep areas you can clearly see the discoloration which you get with hemorrhage underlying the tissue which has been confirmed in the autopsy report of Dr. Golden when he did the autopsy. So this photograph especially you can see very clearly in the upper wound and also in portions of the lower wound on the right side of the photograph, and I have no doubt that these are antemortem wounds based on the description of the autopsy report and the appearance of these photographs, the way they are presented to me.

MR. KELBERG: Another matter, doctor, just to finish up before we go back to the hand area, let me put up board 4G from our collection from 357, I believe, and invite your attention--with the Court's permission could the doctor step down again, please?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: If I could find the markers.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: I want to invite your attention, doctor, there is an area I noticed that has not been circled or addressed in some fashion by us. Do you recognize what is written in this area of this--this is roman numeral II form of no. 22?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This refers to the cut of the ear and the length of the wound as six inches and this is the sharp force injury and it says, "If ear involved." This refers to this wound on the left side of the neck which in Dr. Golden's original autopsy report indicated that if this left neck wound exited behind the left ear and also cut the left ear, the total length of that wound would be six inches. That is what this refers to.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in essence, is this referring to what you described as injury no. 1 of G-51, this fatal sharp force injury stab wound, injury no. 2 of G-51, the somewhat linear in appearance wound behind the ear running down the neck, and injury no. 4 of G-51, a nick to the area you called the pinna, P-I-N-N-A, of the ear?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So the overall reasoning, according to Dr. Golden, you assumed that was all one injury with the neck going--I'm sorry, the knife going in the injury no. 1 area and coming out the area of injury no. 2 and then nicking the ear in the process, would be six inches?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, on this form let me circle this area of information and I will write "G-51 inj. numbers 1, 2 and 4." Doctor, I would like to get back to a discussion of the hand injuries and see if you can identify in the protocol any of them that are described and to deal with the diagrams and the addendum. And for the record, with Mr. Fairtlough's assistance, we have been able to append a flap, I'm not sure it is--we may have to have it held--we have appended a flap which includes then the photograph that was described as G-34. And let me write "G-34," incidentally, on the board underneath the photograph. And also we have appended, with apparently some kind of photo mount, the photograph that was G-25 which I don't know that I have a marker--I think we could take care of it at a later time so that will be identified--but for the record we will do that.

THE COURT: I think there is also an evidence tag below it there.

MR. KELBERG: There is, but unfortunately it doesn't say that it is G-35.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. KELBERG: It refers to that course of testimony. Also with Mr. Lynch's help, if we could set up the two easels.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, we are going to be dealing with 0G, 10G and a diagram--Mr. Lynch, I'm going to ask that the addendum just be kept down here, if we could, please, and I will ask you to put up--this is our board 5G that appears to have a series of forms outlining the hand, again all from exhibit 357, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, with the Court's permission, can you step down, and yesterday we did not get into the specifics of where each of these injuries are, if they are described, et cetera, so I would like to do that now. Let's start if we could going photograph by photograph, doctor. I believe you started yesterday with photograph G-35?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.

MR. KELBERG: Is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let's take those injuries and go through the process of the protocol, the diagram, the addendum.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. G-35 shows a 5/8 inch cut in the web between the index and middle finger of the right hand on the palmar aspect.

MR. KELBERG: Is that designated arbitrarily by you as injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And that is described by Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed by Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any reason he should have?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: To need to.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, injury no. 2 in that photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is present in the palmar aspect of the hand, of the right hand, near the base of the thumb, and it measures--a y-shaped wound, and it is addressed in the protocol. It is addressed in the diagram. It was accurately defined in the reports and there was no addendum report prepared.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, if you would, please, doctor. As I recall, you said those were the only two injuries you observed in photograph G-35?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is it accurate to say that the injury that is seen in photograph G-34 is injury no. 1 that you have discussed in G-35?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. There were--the only reason the wound looks a little more gaping and bigger is because the index finger and the middle finger have been pried open so that the wound can be better visualized.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where in the protocol are injuries 1 and 2 described?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 11, no. 1 and 2. no. 1 and 2.

MR. KELBERG: Under "Sharp force injuries of hands"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Which is injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is--on page 11, no. 1, is the injury no. 1 and page 11, no. 2, is injury no. 2.

MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, I'm going to outline in blue each of these, write at the side "G-35 inj."--I'm sorry, is it 35?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: "Inj. no. 1" and another one I will outline in blue and that is going to be "G-35 inj. no. 2," and I will also, for the G-35 no. 1, write semicolon "G and G-34" and a line underneath that to separate.

MR. KELBERG: Is that accurate, sir?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are those descriptions in your opinion that are provided by Dr. Golden accurate on those two injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where are they diagrammed, if at all?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The diagram is 23-III.

MR. KELBERG: So if we ask Mr. Lynch to get us to that--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The right lower quadrant you can see both the injuries, incise wound, length, 3/4 inch, length half-inch deep, subcu. This wound is a y-shaped wound, depth is 1/4 inch and half-inch dimensions.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have to keep your voice up if you would, please. Injury no. 1--first of all, just circle the area, if you would, that is covered by that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, I will circle that same area in blue on that area of the lower right quadrant. I will write "G-35 inj., no. 1, and G-34."

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is that handwritten entry that you just read basically the same as what appears in the dictation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, the second injury is outlined in what area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same diagram of the right hand, in whole area here is injury no. 2, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this little inverted y, what appeared to be an inverted y of some significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it shows the appearance of the wound as you see it in the photograph.

MR. KELBERG: Is that a diagram that was made by Dr. Golden in the course of the autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where you have circled that area, let me do the same with the blue and I will write down at the bottom "G-35 inj. no. 2."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there appears to be some writing to the left of the schematic and some lines that run from that writing. What is that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just says there are two Defense wounds.

MR. KELBERG: Do you agree with Dr. Golden's assessment that injuries 1 and 2 are in fact Defense wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: As you testified yesterday?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me just circle that and in blue and I will put a line running to each of the two areas that we have previously just circled.

MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Are we done with injuries 1 and 2 of G-35?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we are.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's go back then, if we could, I believe the next photograph you looked at was G-34; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How many injuries do you identify in there?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I identified 12.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's try and take them individually and cover the protocols, diagrams, addendums as we go so that we don't--at least I don't get lost. Let's start with what you have arbitrarily numbered injury no. 1.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 1 is an abrasion to the ulnar aspect of the right wrist here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here in the ulnar aspect of the right wrist, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Is that antemortem?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that described in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any reason to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's find out where in the protocol and which diagram.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 11 and 12, no. 1.

MR. KELBERG: Under "Other injuries to hands and upper extremities"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: We are on page 11 board 0G. Let me outline this and I'm going to write "G-32 inj. no. 1" and see if we can flip the page.

MR. KELBERG: And it ends before the no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline that again and I will write the same information, "G-32 inj. no. 1."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is Dr. Golden's description in his protocol accurate, in your opinion, of that particular abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where is it diagrammed, if at all?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammed on 21-I.

MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Lynch is--

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, would you identify where on that particular item--and I will get the board number designation when we pull it down, your Honor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here. It is a diagram that is 3/4 inch by half an inch ulnar red brown not patterned abrasion, this injury right here, (indicating), the whole injury.

MR. KELBERG: And is there some designation on the form of the body as to its location?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, ulnar.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, there is an actual diagram on some part of the body to show what it is that Dr. Golden is referring to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Where there appears to be almost a circular heavy black outlined area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, then I will circle this area on 21-I and write "G-32 inj. no. 1."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And actually this also would belong to the same injury because it is in the distal forearm wrist area.

MR. KELBERG: What do those word say?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Distal forearm."

MR. KELBERG: So all of that goes with this injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. I will circle that and I will connect these two areas with a solid blue line.

MR. KELBERG: Anywhere else that that is diagrammed, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let me take this board down. That is 3-G, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Are we done basically then with injury no. 1 of G-32?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's go back and see what injury no. 2 is.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 2 is 5/16 inch by 1/16 inch abrasion over the back of the right wrist and I'm pointing to it right here.

MR. KELBERG: Is that addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it has been diagrammed.

MR. KELBERG: And is it addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Which diagram, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same diagram, 23-III, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: You are pointing in the upper right quadrant to an area. Is there some writing that you associate with that entry?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It says, "Half an inch superficial"--I can't read this word. Could be--

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't read this particular letter here, but this is "Superficial" and "Half an inch" and these injuries are--

MR. KELBERG: Where the doctor has just outlined with the pointer, your Honor, I will circle that in blue and write "G-32 inj. no. 2."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion was it a mistake for Dr. Golden not to include a description of that injury in his protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it of any significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is there any reason he should have addressed it in the addendum, given that he did not describe it in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He could have, but he didn't.

MR. KELBERG: Is that a mistake?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any significance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything more about injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing more.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to injury no. 3.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 3 is a 3/4 inch by one inch contusion to the right hand knuckle at the base of the middle finger here, (indicating), and let's see--

MR. KELBERG: Is that addressed in the original protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Is there any area of the addendum to which it is addressed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any reason it should have been?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessary.

MR. KELBERG: Before we go to that, doctor, just one follow-up on this. You testified yesterday that it was of significance to you that the original--in deciding whether or not Mr. Goldman's hand had been closed into a fist and delivering a blow, that the only contusion you saw, without a punctate abrasion centered over the contusion, was to that knuckle; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Can you point out which other knuckles you would have expected to see a contusion if in fact Mr. Goldman had delivered a direct blow to the face, for example, of the perpetrator?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you indicated that you had reviewed, among other material, literature from a sports medicine publication on boxing injuries; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Have you also, as part of your training and experience, studied blunt force trauma injuries received to hands of people who have struck faces of other individuals?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: From that have you formed opinions as to the kind of injuries in the form of blunt force trauma contusions one expects to see when a fisted hand delivers a direct blow to the face of another human being?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion why--withdraw that frame of the question and frame it this way: Point out where you would have expected to see additional areas of contusion, if any, had Mr. Goldman's hand been closed into a fist delivering a direct blow to the face of the perpetrator?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would expect to see contusion in the adjoining knuckles and also the adjoining portion of the phalanges, which we don't see here. We only see localized to one knuckle here, (indicating). And the other issue is also that the other injuries in the other fingers show to be abrasion contusions, so the only pure contusion is to one knuckle, which seems a rather unusual. If it was a closed fist which delivered a direct blow to a person, I would expect to see more injuries to the other knuckles, especially the fourth and fifth knuckles and the adjoining--adjoining proximal phalanges. You see, after all, the closed fist is like this, and if somebody is going to give you a direct blow, you would expect to see injury on this knuckle, adjoining knuckles and the adjoining phalanges. And this particular hand only shows a bruise to a knuckle without any abrasion on it, and of course the other injuries show abrasion contusions which do not follow the pattern you see in such a scenario.

MR. KELBERG: You don't expect to see the abrasion on top of the contusion from a blunt force trauma from a fist to the face of another human being?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: And that I think you indicated is part of the basis of your opinion as to why you also believe it was from a flailing into some of the trees and surrounding areas where Mr. Goldman's body was found?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, and I also indicated yesterday that the lack--the lack of sharp force injuries to the back of the hands favor that opinion, because the sharp force injuries, as we discussed, are onto the front of the hand, and further, there is no other sharp force injuries which I could see in the forearm either.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let's go to the protocol. Where is injury no. 3, that contusion, addressed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is addressed on page 12, no. 3.

MR. KELBERG: We are on page 12?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 3, second sentence: "On the proximal knuckle of the right middle finger is a one inch by 3/4 inch bruise with no overlying abrasion."

MR. KELBERG: Is that the extent of the description?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that then on board 0G and I will write to the side "G-32 inj. no. 3."

MR. KELBERG: Is that an accurate description, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And it is here on 23-III, right here, (indicating), same knuckle, "Fresh bruise, one inch by 3/4 inch" and you can circle it.

MR. KELBERG: You have outlined it with your pointer. Let me ask, before I circle it, there appears to be a circled area with some squiggly lines inside, the circle and a line running horizontally to the outside of this handwritten entry. What is this circled area with the wavy lines to reflect?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammatically depicting the injury that you see in the photograph and which has been dictated as such on the protocol and that is the measurement there, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline that then, this upper right quadrant with the board 2-3 and I will write out at the side "G-32 inj. no. 3."

MR. KELBERG: Anything else regarding this injury, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to injury no. 4.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 4 is 1/32 inch punctate abrasion in the base of the right index, which is a small one right here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: So this is on the index finger at the base?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed anywhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: And I think we are going to lose our easel in just a second, if we could have a moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your judgment, all mistakes by Dr. Golden not to have described, diagrammed or addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Individually or collectively of any significance to you on the big ticket issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's to go injury no. 5.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 5 is a linear diagonally-running abrasion half an inch to the back of the right index next to the small abrasion I just described. It is on the back of the right index here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: So we are working our way along the length of the first finger towards the nail area; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Is that linear abrasion addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Same page, 12, fourth sentence here, (indicating), on the--it says: "There is a linear diagonally half an inch reddish brown abrasion."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that whole sentence to refer to that particular injury no. 5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It also includes the bruising you see there near the--on the proximal phalangeal joint.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you identify that bruising as a separate injury or is that, in your opinion, a part of injury no. 5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I described it as a separate injury, but it could have been part of the same force which caused that other injury there.

MR. KELBERG: As long as we are here, is the next injury by your numbering system injury no. 6, what is described here as the fresh bruise?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So if I outline this entire sentence, would it be accurate to say that this concerns G-32, inj. numbers 5 and 6; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would be the--that's correct. Just one second.

(Brief pause.)

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, fourth sentence. One, two--yeah, fourth sentence, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, is either injury 5 or 6 diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is right here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And where--is there an area where it is actually drawn in in some fashion on the schematic?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can see it being drawn in right here on the index finger here has a linear thing and then you have the bruise next to it.

MR. KELBERG: And is there any written description provided by Dr. Golden for that particular--this would be injuries 5 and 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You have a line going from there and this is the description for that.

MR. KELBERG: What is written by Dr. Golden there?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says: "Half an inch by half an inch reddish brown abrasion and fresh bruise." And then he has also diagrammed the abrasion here, (indicating), length, half an inch separately, which corresponds to this, so actually the description for this injury would include this handwriting here and this handwriting there, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say, doctor, that this handwriting on the left of the first finger refers to what you have described as injury no. 5, the abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And what Dr. Golden has written as fresh bruise is referring to what you described as injury no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, I will circle in red this entire area that Dr. Lakshmanan has just talked about. On the upper right quadrant diagram of 23 roman numeral III, I will write "G-32 inj. numbers 5 and 6."

MR. KELBERG: Anything else in the way of a diagram for either of those two injuries, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Anything on the addendum either?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: I don't think you have actually shown us injury no. 6. Why don't do you that.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is here on the bruise on the index finger, proximal interphalangeal joint.

MR. KELBERG: And again this would be in keeping with a numbering system, if you will, where you are going along the length of the index finger, the first finger, excuse me, towards the nail; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is injury no. 7 then?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a discolored area on the nail which is a scraping and it measures 3/8 of an inch in area, and I'm pointing to it here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: This, doctor, again a photo you reviewed, life-size photo, for your purposes of measuring?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are you able to tell, doctor, whether that injury occurred during the circumstances of this incident on Bundy on June 12th or whether it occurred at some earlier time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is difficult to say when you have a nail injury, because the nail injuries, unlike skin injuries, do not leave a reaction and there was no hemorrhage which I could see, so I can't tell when that happened, but taking in conjunction with the other injuries, it probably could have happened at the same time, but I can't tell.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does Dr. Golden address that nail injury in any fashion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he does not.

MR. KELBERG: Does it diagram it in any way?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he does not.

MR. KELBERG: Does he address it in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he does not.

MR. KELBERG: Do you consider each of those to be a mistake?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Individually or collectively of any significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Why not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because as I told you, it has no bearing on the cause of death, my ability to discuss the sharp force injuries, what type of weapon, the bleeding patterns or any of the other issues which I have addressed previously many times on the injuries.

MR. KELBERG: How about injury no. 8 then?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 8 is a 1/8 inch abrasion over a pink contusion just above the base of the right middle finger, right here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Is this one of these abrasion contusions you were referring to as being the cause, in your opinion, from contact with a rough surface like the tree?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this addressed in the original protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but the--in the original protocol he has addressed it as an index finger but actually it is the middle finger. He has diagrammed it correctly.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's see exactly what has been done here. Why don't we start with the diagram.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.

MR. KELBERG: Is it on this same form?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, right here, (indicating). You can see it as right here, the middle finger, you have an abrasion in the middle, which is 1/8 inch here, and you can see bruise half an inch by half an inch width abrasion, so this whole area reflects the injury no. 8 which I just showed you in the photograph there.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, has Dr. Golden specifically drawn diagrammatically on the outline of the hand, and in particular the middle finger, to show that this is in fact an abrasion sitting in the middle of this contusion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he has. He has very accurately described it. You can see the abrasion in the middle which is dense compared to the rest of the injury here.

MR. KELBERG: Where you have just pointed, the area of the abrasion, I'm going to circle that in red and then I'm going to circle the entire area that you have just described in blue, and make a line going to the top of the diagram and write "G-32".

MR. KELBERG: This is now injury no. 8, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Where is it described in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is actually on page--third sentence, and injury no. 8 should be the middle finger, but just an error here with the index finger. It says "Index finger" here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. First of all, is there an entire sentence to refer to what you've identified as injury no. 8?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, umm, to the semicolon part.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline that in red and write to the right "G-3 2 inj. no. 8." And in your opinion, doctor, the identification of the finger as an index finger is an error on the part of the Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If he dictated it as such, yes.

MR. KELBERG: As it is drawn, it is drawn on the middle finger?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And as you see it in the photograph, is it the middle finger?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me circle or underline the word "Index" in blue within this area and then I will draw a line in red out to the side and write "Should be middle, see diagram."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this mistake of indicating "Index" rather than "Middle" of any significance to you on the big ticket questions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Are we done with injury no. 8?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: What is injury no. 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 9 is a small--

MR. KELBERG: If I could just a moment, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Injury no. 9, please, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 9 is a small 1/8 inch abrasion just a little bit away from the injury I just described on the middle finger. It is a little more distal.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in looking at the diagram, 23-III, do you see a diagram by Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Very accurately diagrammed as 1/8 inch abrasion here.

MR. KELBERG: And he has written in some identification for that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, here, (indicating), and he has drawn a line and shown it accurately so that he has--

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does he describe it in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he does, and that has been described accurately here. After the semicolon which we just described it says: "Just distal to the middle phalange of the middle finger is a one-inch nondescript abrasion."

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, first of all, on the diagram that Dr. Lakshmanan was outlining with the pointer, I will circle in red and I have a very short line reading "G-32 inj. no. 9."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And an arrow going to that outlined area.

MR. KELBERG: And then, doctor--and your Honor, for the record, I will outline the rest of that sentence and put a line out to the side, "G-32 inj. no. 9." Anything further on that injury, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to injury no. 10.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 10 is a 1/8 inch abrasion overlaying the contusion near the middle of the ring finger here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this again one of these abrasion contusions which in your opinion is due to contact with a rough surface like the tree?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. That is my opinion.

MR. KELBERG: And inconsistent with what kind of abrasion--I'm sorry--what kind of blunt force trauma you would expect if a blow from a closed fist of Mr. Goldman to the head or face of the perpetrator?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Is this addressed in the original protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any reason it should have been?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessary to do that.

MR. KELBERG: Let's see where it is.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is--it is on page 12, paragraph no. 3, paragraph 2 here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Is that entire paragraph to refer to that injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Actually it also includes injury no. 11.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's stop with the part that is injury no. 10. You tell me where it stops.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Half an inch by half an inch bruise on the right ring finger surrounding two punctate abrasions approximately 18 inch in maximal diameter."

MR. KELBERG: Is that the part that completes injury no. 10?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red and I will write to the side on the left "G-32 inj. no. 10."

MR. KELBERG: While we are here then, what does the rest that have sentence refer to, or paragraph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That refers to the fifth finger, but he has included injury no. 11 which we saw in my description--in my description in the same sentence.

MR. KELBERG: And injury no. 11, as you identify it, is what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 11 is a punctate abrasion which is next to the injury no. 10 in the photograph. You can see it here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say that you see on that finger two punctate abrasions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And you see a contusion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And that you find that one of the punctate abrasions rests on the contusion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And collectively that is what you describe as injury no. 10?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I described as injury no. 10 and I described the other abrasion as injury no. 11.

MR. KELBERG: So the second punctate abrasion you've identified as injury no. 11?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And then for the record, your Honor, where Dr. Golden has written "Two punctate abrasions," I'm going to box that in blue and write down below "G-3 2 inj. numbers 10 and 11."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor show us, please, on the diagram, if there is an entry made by Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on no. 23 on the diagram, if we turn the page.

MR. KELBERG: And I've turned the page to the first diagram.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammed as the ring finger properly. It describes a bruise. It describes the two abrasions which are punctate 1/8 inch, and the whole area you can reflect that they were present, injury 11 and 10 of photograph G-32.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that then.

MR. KELBERG: And has Dr. Golden actually diagrammed on this form the appearance of the punctate abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he has. You can see them here, one, and the other one here, (indicating), on the bruise itself.

MR. KELBERG: And in the area I circled I will write "G-32, inj. numbers 10 and 11." Anything further about those two injuries, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's--I think you said there were 12 in this photograph; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. 12 is the small abrasion to the ring--I mean to the little finger here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Is that addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is, and it is the last sentence here on page 12, no. 3, paragraph 3, last sentence.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in blue and I will write "G-32 inj. no. 12." Is this also diagrammed, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You can see it here, 23-III--23-I, you can see it here, 1/16 abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the source or sources of that abrasion consistent with the environmental surroundings you saw on those photographs?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: Does that include the ground?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the rough surface of the tree?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me circle that area, I will do it in blue, on the chart, and I will write out at the side "G-32 inj. no. 12."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion has Dr. Golden, with respect to each of the injuries that you have seen in the photograph, G-32, and which he describes in the protocol, with the exception of the wrong finger on the one injury, which is injury no. 8, has he accurately described each of the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in your opinion has he accurately diagrammed, as to those that he has diagrammed, all of the injuries you see in that photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he has.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further about that photograph and that series of 12 injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I'm not sure when the Court wanted to take a break.

THE COURT: 10:30.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, let's go then--I believe we move next to G-28, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yesterday that is what we did.

MR. KELBERG: And then G-29, both of these are photographs of the palm surface of the left hand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let's start with 28, identifying specifically any injuries you see.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-28, I went over the sharp force injuries to the base of the thumb and the base of the little finger here, (indicating), not base actually, it is more on the palm of the hand near the same area as the base of the little finger, and we also discussed an abrasion to the tip of the left thumb and we also discussed a linear abrasion to the base of the left--left thumb.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that abrasion or those other abrasions, I think you talked about abrasions that can be inflicted if Mr. Goldman attempted to grab the knife and the knife rotated against--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not this abrasion, (indicating). This is a scrape type abrasion which could be--it is nonspecific.

MR. KELBERG: That abrasion, for the record, is the one that appears to be near the end on where the nail is of the thumb on the palmar surface, though, correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Was it consistent with any of the other--any other abrasion you saw?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. Even this linear abrasion could have a--it is a nondescript linear abrasion which could be from a rough surface.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Rough surface from the plant material, trying to hold it or trying to brace yourself.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, have you arbitrarily numbered these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have. The left thumb, the one near the tip, I call injury no. 1.

MR. KELBERG: Let's take care of that one. Is it addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not in the main protocol, it is not described on the diagram; it is only addressed in the addendum.

MR. KELBERG: I think we have the addendum right here, board 10G, if we could put it over the protocol for just a second.

MR. KELBERG: Where in the addendum, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 5, no. 16. Number here, "Distal phalange of the left thumb, 3/8 by 1/16 abrasion."

MR. KELBERG: Is this an accurate description, in your opinion, of what you see in photograph G-28, injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline this in the addendum in red and I will put "G-28, inj. no. 1."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, would these be mistakes on the part of Dr. Golden not to have addressed it originally in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And not to have diagrammed it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Are they of any significance individually or collectively?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not in the big picture items which we have discussed.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Are we done with injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How about injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 2 is that linear abrasion in the base of the thumb here, (indicating). You can see it here running.

MR. KELBERG: Is that addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: In the diagrams anywhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: In the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any of them of significance individually or collectively?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything more to say about injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to injury no. 3.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 3 is a cut to the base of the thumb--

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, if you would.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A cut to the base of the thumb half an inch in length.

MR. KELBERG: Is this a defensive wound, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact would you describe the other two as defensive wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Is that injury no. 3 addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 11, no. 3. Right here, page 11, no. 3: "Palmar surface of the left hand, the web of the thumb, there is a 3/4 of an inch cutting wound involving the skin and subcutaneous tissue, quarter inch deep with hemorrhage in the margins. This is comparable with the Defense wound," the whole paragraph.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this paragraph, in its entirety, in your opinion, accurate in its description and opinion as to the type of injury that injury no. 3 of G-28 is?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that on our board 0G. I will do it in red and I will write out at the side "G-28 inj. no. 3."

MR. KELBERG: Is that injury no. 3 diagrammed, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammed in 23-I here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. Would you identify, please, for us, where it is diagrammed and what, if any, writing is associated with it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammed at the base of the thumb. It says: "3/4 inch incise wound, web of thumb, skin subcu quarter inch deep hemorrhage."

MR. KELBERG: What does "Subcu" mean, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Subcutaneous tissue.

MR. KELBERG: "Subcutaneous" is a fancy word for saying what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The skin underlying the skin.

MR. KELBERG: What does that mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The wound is quarter inch in.

MR. KELBERG: Is that consistent with subcutaneous?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it could be reaching the subcutaneous tissue at that point.

MR. KELBERG: Let me circle the area on 23-I, again board 5G, and I will write "G-28 inj. no. 3."

MR. KELBERG: Is the diagram and the description along with it accurate, in your opinion, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about injury no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any further injuries on photograph G-28?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It also shows the portion of the sharp force injury to the palm I discussed earlier, but I have described it under G-29 actually.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Anything else for G-28?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, do you wish to start on G-29 or--

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. KELBERG: Let's start with injury no. 1 then, however, you have designated it on G-29?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: On G-29 I started with the--this same wound which I discussed in G-28. It is injury no. 1 in my description, and it is 5/8 of an inch in length and it curves in its ulnar aspect here, (indicating), and--

MR. KELBERG: Ulnar aspect again, doctor, is toward the pinkie or little finger side?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Is that addressed in the original protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed anywhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Let's get the addendum. I think we will switch here for just a second. Let's put this up on this side.

MR. KELBERG: Where in the addendum, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 4, no. 13.

MR. KELBERG: If I could ask Mr. Lynch to join me here.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 13 says: "Palmar surface of the left hand, ulnar aspect, transversely oriented wound, 5/8 inch in length."

MR. KELBERG: Is this an accurate, description, in your opinion, of what you see in that photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red and I will write "G-29 inj. no. 1."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again a mistake not to address it originally in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Not to diagram it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Singularly, collectively, any significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

THE COURT: One more.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. Injury no. 2 of photo G-29. Let me take this down, if I could, please. I got the photo.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 2 is located on the little finger and you see it here. It is a 3/8 inch by quarter inch abrasion in my measurement of the one-as-to-one photograph with the skin being peeled off with a flap of peeled skin seen here. I'm pointing to it, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Is the fact you see a flap of peeled skin of significance to you in identifying how that injury came to be inflicted?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I mentioned earlier yesterday, I felt that it could be related to this cut in the left palm of the hand when the knife was--there was an attempted probable grabbing of the knife and with the knife turning, this skin could have been peeled off. That is one way it could have occurred, because if you look at the flap of the skin, it looks like very thin flap which has come off of the surface.

MR. KELBERG: Is the direction of the flap of some significance to you in evaluating the direction of the force which has created that abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It would mean two things: Either the skin moved in a fashion towards the wrist, the hand moving in this manner, (indicating), on the--

MR. KELBERG: Downward?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Downward. Or the force which caused it moved upwards to the tip of the finger to peel the skin in such a manner that you have a flap of skin toward the distal aspect of the finger.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan used his right hand to move upward against the left palm of his--I'm sorry, the palm of his left hand.

THE COURT: Thank you.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I just gave you one possible mechanism how it could have occurred.

MR. KELBERG: Was this addressed in the protocol, injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it has been.

MR. KELBERG: Let's throw the addendum back up and take care of this one. Where, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was a page on page 5, no. 15.

MR. KELBERG: Page 5, no. 15?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 15, yes. It says: "The volar surface of the left fifth finger shows a superficial brown abrasion with a 3/8--measuring 3/8 of an inch by 3/8 of an inch with portions of avulsed skin."

MR. KELBERG: "Avulsed" is a fancy way of saying what, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Peeled off.

MR. KELBERG: And "Volar" is the palm side of the hand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is this an accurate description, in your opinion, of the injury no. 2 or is it injury 2 or 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, injury no. 2.

MR. KELBERG: That you see in that photograph G-29?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red on the board. This is 10G again, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And I will write "G-29 inj. no. 2."

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about injury no. 2 of G-29?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess, mid-morning recess. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, allow anybody to communicate with you or conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will take a 15-minute recess. All right.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please excuse me, gentlemen.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. Doctor. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may resume concluding your direct examination.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: You're welcome.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, with the Court's permission, would you step to the board, and let's pick up with respect to these injuries to the hands.

(The witness complies.)

MR. KELBERG: And I think we're now on to, if there is an injury no. 3 of G-29, we're at that stage.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The injury no. 3 is an area of abrasion injury to the palm of the hand in the middle finger and near the tip of the middle finger, there are about three abrasions there, one, two and three, and they measure approximately quarter inch by 1/16 inch and 3/8 inch and quarter inch by 1/16 inch, and that's injury no. 3.

MR. KELBERG: Have you marked that then collectively, these abrasions, as injury no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion, doctor, as to the manner in which injury no. 3, these series of abrasions, were received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a nonspecific blunt force injury and it could be from scraping against any rough surface.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Diagrammed anywhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 5, no. 14.

MR. KELBERG: Let me pull the board down this way so we can see the injury. And if Mr. Lynch can turn to page 5. Doctor, does that description in item 14 of page 5 accurately describe in your opinion what you have described as injury no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It has been described collectively here, but actually there are--you can see three separate abrasions, but in the same area. So the report described abrasion collectively rather than individually.

MR. KELBERG: Are you able then to see that these are individual abrasions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, you can see the--there are some areas where they oppose each other, but they look like three separate areas of injury.

MR. KELBERG: When you say "They oppose each other," what do you mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The margins oppose.

MR. KELBERG: They're opposite each other?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They touch each other.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your opinion, is it a mistake on the part of Dr. Golden to have described these in the addendum "Collectively" rather than to see them and describe them as individual abrasions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And his mistake--I assume you find it to be a mistake of not including it in the protocol and a mistake of not diagramming it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Collectively, individually, any significance to them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Lynch could, because I think he's going to have a better chance maybe in blue, outline that area on the board, the addendum 10-G and then write out at the side, if you would, please, "G-29, inj. 3." And if you could write in quotation marks "Collectively."

(Mr. Lynch complies.)

MR. KELBERG: And may the record reflect that he has done so, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, anything further regarding injury no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: If we could ask Mr. Lynch then to take down the addendum. Let's go to--is there an injury no. 4 in the photograph of the palm of the left hand, G-29?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: So are we done with that photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we have.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's go to--I think we then talked about G-26 and then we had this smaller photograph that is B-25.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And this is now the back of the left hand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the wrist and lower part of the arm?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Do you have again this arbitrary numbering system for injuries seen?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let's start with injury no. 1.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 1 is the contusion to the back of the hand with a small abrasion which is punctate overlying it.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this again the same kind of contusion with punctate abrasion identified earlier on photograph G-32 in the area of the knuckles of the fingers?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is your opinion concerning the source for that abrasion contusion the same as you opined regarding the source or sources for the abrasion contusions to the fingers as seen in G-32?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could be one of the sources.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, doctor, is it inconsistent, however, with the source being a blow from Mr. Goldman's clenched fist to the face of the perpetrator?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons as you've previously expressed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Is that diagrammed by Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed at all in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any reason it should have been?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessary to.

MR. KELBERG: Where in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's page 12, no. 4.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 12, no. 4.

MR. KELBERG: And point out, if you would, please, where on page 4, no. 4--page 12, no. 4 of board 0G.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's here on the last line, the last sentence of page 12, no. 4, there's a fresh bruise on the dorsal surface of the left hand surrounding a punctate abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: I'll outline that in red and we'll write in "G-26." And is it also seen in G-25, doctor, the small photograph or is it covered by the card?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's covered by the card on--

MR. KELBERG: The small photo is G-25.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay. It's covered on G-25.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Partially covered. Partially covered.

MR. KELBERG: I'll write "G-26 inj. no. 1." Correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where is it diagrammed, if at all?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's diagrammed on I think 23-II or III I think. Can you turn--

MR. KELBERG: This is on 23-II of the board. I think it's 5-G?

MR. LYNCH: 5-G.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Lynch confirms it's 5-G.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, is there some writing that goes along with this injury diagram?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It says "Fresh bruise hemorrhage" and it says here--I'm sorry--one and a quarter inch by one inch. One and a quarter inch by one inch and "Punctate abrasion."

MR. KELBERG: And has Dr. Golden specifically diagrammed the abrasion to be in the center of what he has diagrammed to be the bruise?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that an accurate depiction of that injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: And is it an accurate description of that injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle this area in red and out at the side, "G-26 inj. no. 1." Anything further on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to no. 2 then if we could, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 2 is the linear abrasion which is situated between the base of the index finger and the wrist which here this is about three-quarters of an inch in length in my measurement and it's also diagrammed and described.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any significance to you in the appearance of that linear abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's just a nonspecific linear abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to any source or sources for that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same plant type environment which I described earlier in the crime scene photographs, the branches or one of them can do that kind of abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's again diagrammed in 33-II right here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: What is the description if any given?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's--it's described in actually paragraph 2 here (indicating), and you can see it here on 3/4 inch long skin abrasion terminating 1/8 inch nondescript punctate abrasion, and this is the abrasion which is--

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: --this is the abrasion which is diagrammed here and this is the punctate part of the linear abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: What is the significance, if any, to there being a punctate part of a linear abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, this is a nondescript blunt force trauma. And let's assume that the hypothetical situation is, you have a small branch or sharp--not--semi-sharp, not sharp branch which strikes the portion of the skin. And you can get a punctate part of the abrasion caused by that, but when the hand moves, the branch will be drawing against the particular surface of the skin causing the linear appearance adjoining the punctate part.

MR. KELBERG: The hand in this hypothetical is sliding down in essence?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. That will be one way it can be caused.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor--I'm sorry. Is it just that one sentence of item 4 of page 12 starting with "On the dorsal surface"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That whole sentence and it's diagrammed here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And is there a description given by Dr. Golden along with the diagram of the linear abrasion with the punctate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This whole sentence here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: What does he say that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Length 3/4 inch skin abrasion. Then he says, abrasion 1/8 inch punctate, which is the lower part here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, do these entries both on the protocol and on the diagram accurately describe and diagram that injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, they do.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline those, please, in red on page 12 of the protocol, and I'll write "G-26, inj. no. 2" is it, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. In my description, yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. And I'll do the same over here and write out at the side "G-26 inj. no. 2." Anything further on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to no. 3 if there is a no. 3.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. No. 3 is abrasion which is described as "W" shape in the knuckle area at the base of the middle finger here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And that's an abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is the appearance of it described as a "W" shape--first of all, is that an accurate description of it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. If you look in the magnifying glass, you can see the middle limb of the "W", but if you look at it just from a distance, you can see it looks like a "V".

MR. KELBERG: Well, with the magnifying glass, you see all three limbs in the--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You can see the--you can see a faint third limb there.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any significance to you of the "W" shape in forming any opinion if you have concerning the source or sources for that particular injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a--it's a--it looks like a particular pattern, but I can't really tell a source for it. It's a nonspecific type of blunt force abrasion injury. It could be related to the same environment we discussed regarding the branches and the plant material there, but I can't really pinpoint a particular source to it.

MR. KELBERG: Described by Dr. Golden in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any need to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Where in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's on page 12, no. 4. If you look at the first sentence, it starts--it's a long sentence on item 4, paragraph 2. There is an irregularly configured abrasion of the proximal knuckle of the left middle finger, apparently 3 linear half an inch abrasions converging at the center having a configuration of the letter "W". They're all superficial skin abrasions.

MR. KELBERG: Just for the record, you've left out a few words as you've read portions of that description; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I was just summarizing the main highlights of the description.

MR. KELBERG: Is it accurate in your opinion as you look at the abrasion in the photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It's described here "Superficial abrasion" and it's diagrammed and described there.

MR. KELBERG: Is that an accurate diagram, a diagrammatic depiction along with description in that 23-II?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that area then in both the protocol--I'll do that in blue. I'll write out at the right side "G-26 inj. no. 3" are we at, doctor, injury no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. And I'll circle the same area you outlined in the upper left quadrant of 23-I and II in blue and write "G-26 inj. no. 3." Anything further about no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to no. 4 if there is one.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 4 is a punctate abrasion adjacent to the "W" abrasion I just described, and that has been diagrammed, but not described in the protocol.

MR. KELBERG: Where is it diagrammed, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 23-I. It's diagrammed there, next to it.

MR. KELBERG: Is there any description provided?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: I want to be sure--I'd like you to circle if you would, doctor, in red, what you believe to be the diagrammatic depiction of this injury.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The "W" or the smaller one?

MR. KELBERG: The smaller one.

(The witness complies.)

MR. KELBERG: And you've done that in red, and this is described by you as injury no. 4 of G-26?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is this another depiction of that "W" shaped abrasion that you saw and outlined for us earlier on II?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. What he has done is, he diagrammed it in that diagram and again diagrammed it in this diagram, and in this diagram is included a measurement of each limb, half an inch.

MR. KELBERG: What--has he written anything besides the length of the measurement?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He says skin abrasion, length, half an inch and letter "W" here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. I'm going to circle that in blue on I, form 23, and out at the side, I'll write "G-26 inj. no. 3." Is that correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the area that--I'm sorry--that you circled-- this is actually injury no. 4. I believe I made a mistake.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Injury no. 4.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Your Honor, for the record, I wrote no. 2. May I have the record reflect I'm taking the blue marker and covering over the no. 2, and in red I'll write the no. 4?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else regarding that one, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to no. 5.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 5 is a small abrasion the--as you can see, the base of the little finger here, very small one (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Is that addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: In the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any significance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any opinions regarding the source or sources for that small abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's the same, similar nonspecific blunt force trauma, same kind of scenario which can cause them as I discussed earlier like the environment.

MR. KELBERG: Is there an injury number--I think we're up to 6.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And this is a quarter inch by 3/16 inch abrasion with a mild contusion near the base of the back of the index finger right here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, you're pointing--that's our G-25. Is that injury seen in both G-25 and G-26?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And for the next series of injuries that we're going to look at, are we starting at the base of the first finger and working our way towards the nail of the first finger?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I mean index finger, yes.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. And is it accurate to say that G-25, the smaller photograph, shows more fully each of those injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Tell us a bit about then injury no. 6.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a quarter inch by 3/16 inch abrasion with a mild contusion near the base of the index finger.

MR. KELBERG: Is that something that in your opinion is consistent with being caused by a flailing and coming in contact with a rough surface like a tree?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Is that diagrammed somewhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is. It's diagrammed in 23-I.

MR. KELBERG: We have that up. Would you point out where that is, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And is there anything written alongside that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just says "Punctate abrasion" there. "Punctate." Doesn't say "Abrasion." Just says "Punctate."

MR. KELBERG: Says "Punctate"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that a completely accurate description of what you see in the photograph as injury no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It doesn't describe the contusion as you can see in the photograph.

MR. KELBERG: Let me circle this area in red in the upper left quadrant, and I'll write "G-26, 25 inj. no. 6." Would it be a mistake to characterize it only as a punctate abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that described in the protocol, injury no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has described all the injuries to the index finger collectively as one sentence in page 4--I mean page 12, no. 4.

MR. KELBERG: Would you show us using the photograph what Dr. Golden has described collectively?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has described the injuries to the different part of the index finger. You have an abrasion contusion. Let's go to G-25. You have abrasion contusion at the base of the index finger, one of the proximal interphalangeal joint, and then you have two abrasions distal to it on the middle phalanx.

MR. KELBERG: When you say "Distal," moving towards the finger?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Tip of the finger, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. I'm sorry. The nail I should say.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So you have in your opinion a total of four injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Is it a mistake in your judgment for Dr. Golden to have described these, as you pointed out on page 12 of the protocol under item 4, described them collectively rather than individually?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is a mistake in the sense that he has not described them individually, but he has addressed them.

MR. KELBERG: In the way he addresses them, is that description accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The abrasion part of it is accurate, but as I told you, the injury no. 7 also has a contusion underlying it.

MR. KELBERG: How about diagramming? Before we mark in any fashion this collective description, has injury number--I think we're up to no. 6.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 7 now.

MR. KELBERG: No. 7, has that been diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is. You can see here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And you've got no. 7 and what subsequent one, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have 8 and 9 after that, and I've already shown them on the G-25 distal to no. 7.

MR. KELBERG: And does Dr. Golden diagram those injuries in the same schematic?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has diagrammed one single marking on the finger corresponding to 8 and 9.

MR. KELBERG: Has he written anything concerning any of that area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has indicated that that is areas of abraded--I mean brown--I mean red abrasion in the back area there.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate if I were to circle this entire area (indicating) to then describe what you are describing as injuries nos. 7, 8 and 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Actually all this would also include that because he says "Multiple red brown abrasions" and he says quarter inch by 3/8 inch. That's a maximum dimension he gives it, reddish brown, and all this area would be included.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, what, if anything, does this refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He says that this will be the three knuckles of the index finger. He calls them, each of them a knuckle, the interphalangeal joints.

MR. KELBERG: And I can not make out, can you, the words that appear above the word "Knuckle" that you were just pointing to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I am not able to read that. I think it's--

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think it refers to "Irregular" here and configuration, "Conf."

MR. KELBERG: So now, doctor, I want--before I draw, I want to be sure I'm accurate. Would all of this information refer then to what you've described as injuries 7, 8 and 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. For the record then, your Honor, I will do that with the blue pen.

MR. KELBERG: And in the upper left quadrant diagram 23-I, I'll write "G-26, 25, injs. No. 7, 8 and 9," doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in the protocol itself, doctor, this first paragraph refers to what you have described as injuries 6, 7, 8 and 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Paragraph 4.

MR. KELBERG: I'll outline that in red, and out at the side, "G-26, 25, injs. No. 6, 7, 8 and 9" with an arrow touching the box. Anything further regarding these injuries, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I already addressed that 6 and 7 are also a contusion underlying them.

MR. KELBERG: And again, Dr. Golden's diagram does not include that description?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Nor does his protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Mistakes on your--in your judgment on his part?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any significance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No significance to the big picture items.

MR. KELBERG: Is it significant, however, as to sources for those blunt force trauma injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Because if it's just an abrasion, you'll just have a scrape against a rough surface. But if it's an abrasion contusion, it would be an impact of the hand against that surface which has a different connotation as to the mechanism of injury.

MR. KELBERG: And when you say an "Impact," doctor, would that be in your opinion consistent with a hand that is moving with force in a backward direction by Mr. Goldman coming in contact with the rough surface like the tree and backing away from the assailant?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about injuries 6, 7, 8 or 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is there any additional injury in either photograph G-26 or G-25?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is--I described one more injury in G-26. There's a small abrasion above the abrasion contusion that we've described here, and this is a 5/16 inch by 5/8 inch contusion--I mean abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is it seen in photograph G-25 as well?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see it better here.

MR. KELBERG: And for the record, on G-26, it appears that the area of the injury that is closest to the hand is in contact or covered if you will by a margin of the photographic identification card?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, now, this is an abrasion in your opinion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to the source or sources?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a nonspecific blunt force scraping injury to the back of the forearm.

MR. KELBERG: Is it one that in your opinion is antemortem, before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is it diagrammed in any way by Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It's diagrammed as--in 21-I.

MR. KELBERG: And I think Mr. Lynch has that.

MR. KELBERG: It's board 3-G, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could possibly be reflected by this abrasion injury here (indicating), but it's difficult to decide whether if you really--

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This diagrammatic marking here could represent that. I'm not sure whether that's what it was representing.

MR. KELBERG: What if any writing is associated with that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It just says "Abrasion" here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Is there a description given by dimension or any other information?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't read--it says 3/4 inch by half inch, and I think that refers to more the triangular abrasion above it, not to that marking.

MR. KELBERG: And there also appears to be some writing down below where the schematic of the left hand ends. Does that refer at all to that same area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, if you'll point carefully to the area which possibly refers to this injury.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Possibly. I'm not sure. This one (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that in red. I'll write out at the side "G-26, 25 inj. no. 10" is it, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. Possible.

MR. KELBERG: And I'll put a big question mark.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah.

MR. KELBERG: Anything in the way of a description in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's on page 12, no. 2. All the injuries to the left forearm have been described, including the triangular one which we just discussed, and no specific mention of this particular one, but this paragraph would include all the injuries in the forearm.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you could look to the photograph to the left of G-26--and I can't see the number at the moment.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-21.

MR. KELBERG: G-21. Do you see this triangular-shaped injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Here. You can see it here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And that is what kind of injury, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's again a nonspecific blunt force injury which could have been caused by the environment which is present on the Bundy drive.

MR. KELBERG: What kind of blunt force trauma injury is it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, this could be a branch. You know, as I told you, there are branches which have been cut and there are stalks there; and when you have the forearm rubbing against one of those stalky branches or the stalks of the branch, you could have this kind of abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: It is an abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. And you've already pointed out, apparently it was diagrammed by Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there any description given with the diagram itself?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here. Triangular 3/4 inch by half an inch abrasion (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, and what number if any do you give to that injury in G-21?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In G-21, I gave it a no. 2.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle this area in blue.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And this measurement also corresponds to the same.

MR. KELBERG: Which measurement, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The 3/4 inch by half an inch. He's given the measurement twice on this.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me try and include that as well. Does this "Abr" refer to anything, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It's abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: You're referring to that same triangular area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: I'll include that then in the circled area on form 21-I and I'll write at the side "G-21"--and I'm sorry, doctor--injury no. 1? The triangular-shaped injury is which number according to your--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 2 in G-21.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Injury no. 2. I'll write that in. All right. Let's finish. What other blunt force injuries are included collectively by Dr. Golden in this paragraph item 2 of page 12? If you could go to the photographs and show us.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has also addressed this linear abrasion above the triangular abrasion of the left forearm in G-21, and that is also diagrammed here, and he has addressed it in the protocol here as a 3/4 inch in length abrasion (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: What injury number have you arbitrarily assigned that one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I assigned that as injury no. 3.

MR. KELBERG: Of G-21?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that first on the protocol in blue, and I'll write "G-21 inj. no. 3."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And I also have--you have to address this 3/4 inch by half an inch triangular abrasion as injury no. 2 of G-21.

MR. KELBERG: All right. I'll do that in red then on the protocol, same page. And that's going to be "G-21 inj. no. 2"; is that correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And then over here where you pointed out--before I circle, doctor, is this the area that refers to that injury no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes. This particular abrasion. But my concern is whether the measurement here--it says 3/4 inch by half an inch and again says 3/4 inch by half an inch--whether one of the 3/4 inch applies to this measurement.

MR. KELBERG: Does he describe injury no. 3 then as 3/4 inch by half inch?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He just says 3/4 inch. So I'll just diagram the no. 2 there next to it.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle this area in red. On the outline of the schematic, I'll write "G-21 inj."--this is no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you consider these mistakes in the sense that--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, he has described them fairly accurately, the triangular abrasion and the linear abrasion. So they're not mistakes per se.

MR. KELBERG: Is a fairly accurate description a satisfactory description in your judgment, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it's a--the triangular abrasion has been described properly and the linear abrasion has been described.

MR. KELBERG: But not completely?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct. Because you have another abrasion there which has not been addressed, but he says that there are multiple abrasions in the forearm. He has not addressed them individually.

MR. KELBERG: And is his failure to do that considered by you a mistake?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any significance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What's next in the selective group?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have a smaller abrasion just below the blue card here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: On G-21?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And you can also see it on G-26 here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: At the top of that photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Have you given it an arbitrary number?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 1.

MR. KELBERG: Of which photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Of G-21.

MR. KELBERG: Of G-21?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Do you see it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, this is the same area which we had a question mark whether it was injury no. 10 of G-26. It could also represent injury no. 1 of G-21 because there's only one marking there for both those injuries.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me then add under the description previously given on the diagram board the word "Or G-21 inj. no. 1" with a question mark.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And you can see both of them in context better in G-26.

MR. KELBERG: Is their relationship as shown in that photograph, G-26, of significance to you in forming any opinion as to how they were incurred?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. They're nonspecific blunt force injury. I can't make any inference on that.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further with respect to this collective group that's in this paragraph item 2 of page 12 of the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: So in order to complete this item, let me circle the no. 2 and indicate collectively which injuries, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 1, 2 and 3 of G-21.

MR. KELBERG: "G-21 inj. nos. 1, 2 and 3."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And could be g--injury number 10 of G-20.

MR. KELBERG: And possibly--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury 10.

MR. KELBERG: G-26?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: "inj. no. 10."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that accurate, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Are we done with G-26?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are we done with G-21?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So we are left with G-20 and G-23?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let's--we talked yesterday briefly about G-20, doctor, and you talked about this interrupted abrasion. Do you recall that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And also, I described the abrasion in detail, the different parts of it.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Is, first of all, that diagrammed in any fashion by Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed anywhere in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it discussed at all in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there any other injury you identify in G-20?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There's also a smaller abrasion just above the--in the region of the elbow area, and I've already discussed this complex interrupted abrasion in the left arm and the smaller abrasion above it and--

MR. KELBERG: The interrupted abrasion you talked yesterday about, the clothing getting folded is one basis that you end up with this situation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, what about this abrasion that you describe as being below the photographic card in G-20?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah, I gave it a number also. It's again a nonspecific abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: Is that diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Same answer to the mistakes question?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Including significance or lack of significance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any other injury in G-20?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Just to conform to the wound chart, which is our exhibit 351, of G-20, which is injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The lowest one is injury no. 1.

MR. KELBERG: What is injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 2 is this--the three portions to the left arm area. Three--an abrasion, just three portions to it, and then injury no. 3 is the top most one.

MR. KELBERG: And the top most one is where, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's right here. You can see it (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And what is that injury, no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's also an abrasion which is 3/4 inch by 1/8 inch in size.

MR. KELBERG: Is that discussed at all in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Diagrammed anywhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Same answers?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any other injuries in G-20?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Are we done with that photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we have.

MR. KELBERG: Let's go to G-23.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. G-23 shows the left forearm and shows the inner aspect of the left forearm and also shows the left nipple area. So I have described two injuries. The other injuries seen in this photograph have already been addressed. You have the abrasion behind the left distal forearm, which was juror no. 10 of G-26. We have the smaller abrasion here, which is injury no. 1 I think or--yeah--injury no. 1 of G-21. Yeah. Injury no. 1 of G-21. So barring that, we have an abrasion of the ulnar aspect of the left wrist and you have this abrasion here, the left nipple (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to be clear in my own mind. You're saying that that is the nipple of the left breast?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Of the right breast.

MR. KELBERG: All right. So that's the right breast?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. But the abrasion is in the left forearm wrist area.

MR. KELBERG: And injury no. 1 for G-23 is that area of the left wrist?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that described at all in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Where?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 13, no. 5 (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Is that an accurate description of what you see in photograph G-23?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, it is not.

MR. KELBERG: In what way is it inaccurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He described it as two bruises in his protocol description, but it's not a bruise. It's more--and he says it's not abraded. You can clearly see it's an abraded injury with a peeling of the skin.

MR. KELBERG: How can you see that it is clearly abraded and Dr. Golden on the other hand describes it as fresh bruises?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can only say what I see here. This is peeling of the skin, which is a flap of skin like any other abrasion like you saw in the little finger here where the skin flap has been peeled off. And you can see the peeling of the skin right here (indicating), and the injury itself is an abrasion injury.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you say that normally it is better to see the actual wound on the body than to review it photographically?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection to the form of the question, "Normally."

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your experience, do you find that a review of injuries on the body yields a more accurate identification than one drawn from photographic identification?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Looking at the body definitely helps because you have a 3-dimensional look at the injury. And also, you can make incisions to see the depth of the bruising and other--the ability to do other examinations to better define the injury. But in a photograph, you can clearly interpret what the injury appears to be, that is an abrasion or contusion, without difficulty, but you may not be able to tell how deep the bruise is because you can't cut--it's only a 2-dimensional view. It's not a 3-dimensional view and you don't have the additional ability to study the injury in more detail.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, I believe you--

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Motion to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I believe you testified several days ago that you routinely review cases performed by other medical examiners in forming independent opinions to testify where those individuals, for example, have left your office or on vacation; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And that's the same process also available for Dr. Wolf or Dr. Baden; that is, they weren't there to examine the bodies either; is that correct?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: I think we've already asked this question before.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this diagrammed, this injury no. 1 diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Where is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 23-I right here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Where you pointed appears to have a lot of blackened area.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What leads you to believe that there is an entry there that concerns injury no. 1 of G-23?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's--it's two discolored areas on the--I mean two markings on the diagram on the same area where the injury is present, and there is some notations here which also have been darkened, but the measurements here have been dictated here in the--in the body of the autopsy report (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And when you say "The measurements here," you're referring to where?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can see this to be 3/8 inch by 3/8 inch and then half an inch by half an inch.

MR. KELBERG: Even though it's darkened?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And you see that same description provided in this page 13, item 5 entry?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: From just looking at the diagram, doctor, and your experience in the office and its customs and practices and those of Dr. Golden, can you offer any explanation as to why this area is darkened?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I--I--one explanation would be that he diagrammed the injury and then he maybe went back and didn't want it mentioned or didn't think it was the right area, then he went back and thought it was the same area. I just have to give my feeling on what happened. I can't tell really what happened.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

DR. LAKSH