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: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas. The People are represented by Mr. Kelberg, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Darden, and Miss Clark. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jury to join us? Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor, to follow up on several matters that we briefly discussed last evening. First of all, I have informed Mr. Shapiro, and Dr. Lakshmanan has had a chance to as well, the document or documents in the category, I should say, because this is not evidence that we are aware of that any specific such document exists, but Mr. Hernandez, who is the director at the medical examiner's office, had no independent recollection of seeing any such document, but he was at home when he was contacted last night. He is checking this morning and he will contact us, and if he has them by about 9:30 or ten o'clock, 10:30 break, Dr. Lakshmanan will call him, because he was going to check through the records of which he is the custodian and has them to see whether any such type of document exists.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: The second order of business, we have been talking about other people's mistakes for about six or seven days. It is appropriate I think for me to talk about one of my own with respect to exhibit 363. The Court will recall in that short portion of the Primetime Live broadcast that there was left in the audio portion a statement made by Mr. Donaldson as he is chasing after Dr. Golden about an alleged gun incident. Undoubtedly the Court recalls that the Court was the recipient of much paperwork and heard much argument regarding the admissibility of any such incident. It was a motion in limine filed by Mr. Lynch and myself to exclude such evidence from cross-examination in the event Dr. Golden testified. The Court issued its ruling, I have it here on April 7 of 1995, and if nothing, should, out of an abundance of caution, basically I'm asking the Court to reinforce that that is its ruling in spite of my error in not verifying that that portion of the tape had been excluded or excised. I point out, first of all, that the Court's ruling indicated that the remark only had relevance with respect to potential bias on the part of Dr. Golden. And I don't know if the Court needs a copy of its ruling. I have a copy if the Court needs it, but the Court did not rule that it was admissible on the issue of Dr. Golden's competency, but only that it might be relevant on Dr. Golden's potential bias on the issue of the Defense. And the Court went on to find under section 352 that there were so many uncertainties with the incident itself, no. 1, whether it was directed to these Defense counsel and how the incident occurred and so forth--

THE COURT: No, I recollect the details of the argument.

MR. KELBERG: All right. That there is nothing about the incident which is relevant to Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony which deals with Dr. Golden's competency and about which there was a statement made by Dr. Lakshmanan in that interview regarding Dr. Golden's competency. So I would ask the Court to reaffirm that its ruling stands, that my mistake has not in some fashion "Opened the door" to make what the Court found to be inadmissible suddenly admissible. That is the first aspect of my motion in limine I made this morning.

THE COURT: So let's assume that I agree with you that that should not have come in. What direct remedy are you seeking?

MR. KELBERG: My remedy is I don't believe we can excise that statement from the disk and say, gee, it was never played before this jury. What my remedy would be is to provide a second copy of the exhibit which has had excised from it that statement, and in the event the jury wishes to hear that exhibit, 363, what they would hear would be the same exhibit but with that one statement excised. I don't think that any reinforcement of that information needs to be made at this point to the jury. It is obviously why I didn't make any effort to stop the tape and raise any issue as to admonishment regarding it as the tape was being played. So all I recommend, as a remedy, would be to order our office to make a second copy of the exhibit, but one which has excised that one statement and only that one statement, have it marked as exhibit 363-A, and that will be the one that will be offered in evidence, I assume, by Miss Clark or Mr. Darden at the conclusion of the People's case when all of the evidence admissibility questions will be litigated. At least I assume that is when that will occur, so that is the remedy I suggest.

THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, sir.

MR. SHAPIRO: The Court will recall that prior to the Sam Donaldson interview being played the Court invited counsel to side bar and the Court warned Mr. Kelberg that this may not be something that should be shown and the Court indicated that you would sustain our objection to showing it. We indicated that we had no objection to showing it and Mr. Kelberg indicated that although it was not his preference, he had been told by others in his office to show it. Second, the Court rules were violated in that this tape was never previewed before your Honor and myself before showing it, although I have seen it and I had no reason not to have it shown, because it does exactly what the People have said throughout this trial, it talks about the truth, about really what happens in the Coroner's office and what happens when fine reporters investigate problems that for some reason the Coroner does not want to investigate themselves, and even when pointed out, they don't want to investigate it. So this is no different than anything else that takes place in a trial. We are professionals, we are bound by rules of conduct, and on occasion there are questions that come out that if you had your chance to edit them, I would like to have them withdrawn and not have them considered. That is exactly what took place here. Further, I didn't want to press the issue of bringing up the incidents with Dr. Golden's gun, and after it was brought up, we didn't have any specific knowledge that it was directed towards any attorney. However, following your Honor's suggestion in the past, we did a Lexis search last night regarding Dr. Golden and we found an article August 12th in Newsday which in summary says: "As Dr. Golden left the courthouse, after being cross-examined by Robert Shapiro, Golden pounded the walls of the elevator and cursed Shapiro muttering `why did he have to ask me that question? Why did he have to ask me that question?'"

Then they go on to report: "The gun incident followed." There was a subsequent report that the comments were actually not only directed towards lawyers for Mr. Simpson, but directly towards me, and I will give the Court and counsel a copy from Lexis of that story from Newsday. So it is our strong feeling that the People had this piece of tape, they elected to show it. After it was shown it appeared to me that Miss Clark directed Mr. Kelberg to the problem that was raised and that is when it became an issue. And the fact that there is no coordination or lack of coordination should not be held against Mr. Simpson. Here is the story from Newsday. May I give this to your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. SHAPIRO: Can we ask Miss Robertson--

THE COURT: I will have Miss Robertson make a copy for both sides.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Any other comment on that issue, Mr. Shapiro?

MR. SHAPIRO: No, your Honor. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: I would like to respond, your Honor. Your Honor, I never take exception to counsel employing hyperbole and I certainly understand why the federal courts do not allow cameras in the courtroom to cut down on the hyperbole of counsel, but I take great umbrage when counsel misstate the facts. Let me state the facts as to that side bar conversation. The facts were that the Court wondered whether there was going to be an objection made to it. The Court never indicated the Court would sustain an objection or not because the Court was unaware of the contents of that particular episode.

THE COURT: The Court's comment was, "Mr. Kelberg, where are we going with this?"

MR. KELBERG: I believe the Court is absolutely correct in that, and I think the Court will acknowledge that I told the Court the content of what I expected the program section to show. Mr. Shapiro was asked, in essence by the Court, as I recall it, if he had any objection. Mr. Shapiro indicated he had no objection. The Court basically said, fine, and then we were going to proceed. Now, with respect to some representation that I was given instructions on playing this, let me set the record very clear, your Honor, if it hasn't been made clear already. When I am in court representing the Prosecution with witnesses, nobody tells me what to do from my office. I am our lawyer in Court. It is my judgment, it is my theoretical considerations that go into the tactics that I entertain in presenting testimony. And I can guarantee Mr. Shapiro and I can guarantee this Court that Ms. Clark had absolutely no input into any decision as to whether this would or would not be played. The decision was mine, mine alone, and I have no regrets whatsoever about doing it and I have no doubt that the evidence would have been admissible had Mr. Shapiro, as his first area of cross-examination, gone into Dr. Lakshmanan's assessment of Dr. Golden's competency in performing these autopsies. This jury has a right to know that Dr. Lakshmanan made a comment that I also believe he rues having made to Sam Donaldson, and I must say I believe this jury will see the kind of ambush tactics employed by Mr. Donaldson and find that if that represents sound journalistic practices, then there is a definite problem with the way the fourth estate practices its profession. Now, with respect to a conversation with Ms. Clark, let me point out my conversation with Miss Clark was with respect to the limited amount of time we had left yesterday afternoon, and I indicated to Ms. Clark I had various alternative pieces of evidence which I could play, and because I don't know what her schedule is and whether she can stay until a quarter to 6:00 or not, I wanted her to know what was available and she indicated that she would prefer that we play this incident. I said fine, because quite frankly, your Honor, it is either yesterday afternoon or it is this morning, and to my way of thinking, it makes no difference whatsoever. I have a plan in my mind as to how the evidence will be presented, and as long as I present that evidence, to me it makes no difference at all, so to accommodate Miss Clark's request, and in full agreement with her request, I played the tape at the time I did. I find it most interesting that Mr. Shapiro, instead of posturing for the camera, would have focused on the argument I made to this Court a moment ago, that he might have tried to respond to the issue, is this relevant to any issue regarding Dr. Lakshmanan? And the answer I believe has to be taken as tacit acknowledgment by him that it is not, because the Court found it was relevant, if at all, to bias. Now, Mr. Shapiro is relying upon a newspaper article, which of course is hearsay, reporting an alleged incident with Dr. Golden in the elevator.

THE COURT: I am not relitigating that aspect.

MR. KELBERG: All right. As far as--

THE COURT: The only issue is what do we do with 363? So why don't you confine your comment to that, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: With 363 my suggestion is, as I indicated--Mr. Shapiro has offered no alternative suggestion--I merely indicated a belief that the portion should be excised to conform with the Court's ruling, marked as 363-A, and that would be admitted. But on the other hand, I will tell you right now, Judge, the alternative remedy, keep it as is. They want to hear it, let them hear it. They send a question out, hey, do we have any evidence about some gun incident? The answer is going to be a big n-o and you are not to infer or speculate about any such evidence. Either way it is fine with me, I don't care, but I came down here because I made a mistake, I wanted it brought to the attention of the Court. I wanted the Court to handle it in an appropriate manner and that is the purpose behind that. So either alternative is fine with me, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: There is a second aspect to the motion, not to the tape itself, but as to the two incidents, the Gay Phillips incident. Mr. Shapiro has indicated at the side bar also last night that he believes evidence of the legal significance of Dr. Golden's mistakes are fuel for fodder or fodder for the cross-examination of Dr. Lakshmanan. As the Court will recall, I asked Dr. Lakshmanan whether or not there was any medical significance to Dr. Golden's mistakes dealing with entrance/exit wounds and dealing with the range of fire in the two cases. Dr. Lakshmanan indicated that they were significant mistakes and he testified in his opinion why they were. The question is what is the legal ramification that flows from each of those? The legal ramification is irrelevant to the issue of the medical significance because the whole thrust of this evidence goes to the significance or lack of significance of any mistakes Dr. Golden has made in the course of the autopsies he has performed.

THE COURT: Let's assume that to be true, though. Isn't it fair game for the Defense to then argue that point during closing argument, that given these medical mistakes, obviously they are going to have a legal consequence if they are believed by the trier of fact and if they are in fact false or not true.

MR. KELBERG: It may well be a legitimate argument to suggest that many things can flow from medical mistakes of significance, and I would not find it inappropriate to argue in the abstract, keeping in mind there would be no evidence, because I am indicating to the Court my belief that such evidence is inadmissible as irrelevant, 352, calling for speculation, outside the expertise of this witness and a number of other grounds.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Kelberg, I am not inclined to entertain much more of this argument. At this point it he is premature. You haven't finished your presentation. I don't have an indication that the Defense is going to offer that.

MR. KELBERG: All right. I just want to alert the Court then because I would ask for a ruling in the event Mr. Shapiro intends to go into that area on cross-examination of Dr. Lakshmanan.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: And I have nothing further then, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. The Prosecution is ordered to prepare an alternative exhibit 363 which will be designated 363-A. It is to include the entirety of what was played yesterday, with the exception of the comments regarding the gun incident. The Court still finds that subject to 352. All right. Let's have the jurors.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Actually let me modify that. I want both a video VHS of 363 and 363-A, since we won't be able to provide the jury with a laser disk player.

MR. KELBERG: Just the VHS?

THE COURT: VHS.

MR. KELBERG: The 363-A and the 363 modified as b?

THE COURT: 363. We will substitute a videotape for a laser disk as 363, unless you want to donate to the Court a laser disk.

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Doctor.

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

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

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Dr. Lakshmanan is on the witness stand again. And Mr. Kelberg, is that some of your material there?

MR. KELBERG: Oh, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Good morning again, doctor. Sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your direct examination.

MR. KELBERG: I have every expectation of doing so, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have a series of documents. I've marked them by pen, but for the record may I mark them?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: These deal with chain of custody documents. As 364-A, an autopsy evidence collection log dated June 14, 1994.

(Peo's 364-A for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-B, an evidence log for the Goldman, Ron, autopsy.

(Peo's 364-B for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-C, an evidence log for the Simpson, Nicole, autopsy.

(Peo's 364-C for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-D, a document entitled "Drop-box log."

(Peo's 364-D for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-E, a document which talks about cassettes prepared in the laboratory by DME and contains many other entries.

(Peo's 364-E for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-F, a one-page document with the handwritten entry at the top "Toxicology log."

(Peo's 364-F for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-G, a similar-appearing document but this time with more writing in the middle and with the date of May 10 that appeared in the upper left-hand corner of the page excluded.

(Peo's 364-G for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: As 364-H, a seal concerning blood obtained before embalming in the Goldman autopsy.

(Peo's 364-H for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: And as 364-I a similar document for the Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy.

(Peo's 364-I for id = document)

THE COURT: All right. They will be so marked.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have blow-ups which counsel I believe will stipulate are accurate blow-ups. Mr. Shapiro?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry.

MR. SHAPIRO: May I just have one minute?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor. May we approach for a moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we are going to--

THE COURT: We are at the side bar. Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: We are going to interpose an objection to hearsay evidence regarding chain of custody through records as not being the best evidence, and ask that a proper foundation be laid for all evidence items regarding chain of custody.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, under I think it is City of Sonoma versus Grant W., official business records may be used to establish chain of custody. I will lay a foundation that each of those documents is an official record, that the entries are made by employees of the Coroner's office at or about the time of the events recorded. And counsel is actually referring to the best evidence rule under proposition 8. The best evidence rule no longer applies. It superseded the federal law by 352, if in some fashion the jury is misled by these documents, but a foundation can easily and will easily be laid with respect to these falling within 1280 of the evidence code as official records.

THE COURT: All right. I will take the objection as a continuing objection at this point. It is, although, premature since nothing has been offered yet.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

THE COURT: I will take this as a continuing objection because I suspect they are going to try to lay a foundation for business records.

MR. KELBERG: Exactly.

MR. SHAPIRO: Need I make a foundation objection or will the Court rule?

THE COURT: Assuming--you can make an objection after he has laid a foundation, if you feel it is inadequate.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Just for the record, it is official records, not business records.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Kelberg, you may proceed.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. And Mr. Fairtlough is going to be helping me out with the elmo.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: But first of all, doctor, let me show you the documents I just marked as exhibits 364-A through I.

(Brief pause.)

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms are you familiar with these--those documents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I am.

MR. KELBERG: In general terms please describe what each of those documents is.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 364-A is the autopsy evidence collection log. This is the log to reflect the--which specimens were collected during autopsy, and that is reflected on the current cases being discussed. And then this log is--when the specimens are received in the toxicology lab, it is marked off by the person receiving the specimens in the lab saying they received the specimen, they put their initials, and then they keep a copy and a copy is sent back to the autopsy area.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that document a true and correct copy of the particular autopsy evidence log from the two cases of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries which are made on that document entries made by employees of the Coroner's office acting in their official duties as such employees?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries which they make entries which are made at or near the time of the events which are recorded in that document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Perhaps instead of going forward to the next one, could Mr. Fairtlough put that document up on the elmo and let me show you the blow-up--and I'm not sure we got a stipulation yet. Mr. Shapiro, will you stipulate that we have blow-ups that correspond identically, except for size, to the documents which have been marked as 364-A through I?

MR. SHAPIRO: So stipulated.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again with the Court's permission, if you could step to the board with the pointer and tell us what is the information that is contained in this document pertaining specifically to the Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson autopsies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is the autopsy evidence collection log. The date of this log was June 14, 1994. You have 5135 is the Coroner's case number that belonged to Mr.--the number given to Mr. Ron Goldman. Golden is the medical examiner. This is the verifying forensic technician.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Verifying forensic technician was George McDowell.

MR. KELBERG: George who?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: McDowell.

MR. KELBERG: Can you spell his name for the record?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: M-c d-o-w-e-l-l.

MR. KELBERG: What is he supposed to do by initialing that document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He checked that these specimens were collected during the autopsy. The specimens collected on Mr. Goldman were blood, stomach contents, bile, a histo jar, that is the storage jar with the tissues and formalin and typing blood and these initials are J.M., which is the--Mr. Murillo who is the technician in the toxicology lab. When this log comes up he initials saying that he received it and checks off there, too.

MR. KELBERG: Can you spell Mr. Murillo's last name, please?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: M-u-r-I-l-l-o. So that belongs to Mr. Goldman's autopsy. Unfortunately due to the copying this is a little bit dark here. Thinks 5136 here, Dr. Golden. And this belongs to Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's specimen collection. They collected blood, urine, the storage jar which contains the tissues, and the typing blood and again the same initials indicating Mr. Murillo received it in the toxicology lab.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that a document of this nature prepared for each day of the year concerning all autopsies performed at your offices?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is the initial chain of custody of specimens collection at the autopsy room, and then I gave you the next stage which is the toxicology lab, wherein a person receives it and signs off on it, so you call a chain of custody from the autopsy room to the toxicology lab. And I already discussed the form 15 which is the initial log saying the doctor did collect it, he initials the 15th, so so far we have got the chain of custody for these specimens.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, why don't you, if you wouldn't mind, please, just stay where you are--and by the way, your Honor, I have marked these big boards correspondingly to the small paper exhibit by adding an extra letter, so this one is 364-AA to correspond to the blow-up of 364-A.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Peo's 364-AA for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me put up now the blow-up that has been marked as 365 double B.

(Peo's 364-BB for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: In general terms what kind of document is this one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the master evidence log for the--which records the collection of any physical evidence; hair samples, type blood, et cetera, for the department. Usually the investigator initiates this when the evidence collection starts. This particular exhibit refers to Mr. Ron Goldman's evidence log maintained by the Department of Coroner. As you can see the Coroner's number is here, 5135, and--

MR. KELBERG: Is there an individualized evidence log kept for each case handled by the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, there is, and what this card will reflect is the--when a particular piece of evidence was obtained, the date, the person obtaining it, how long it was in our custody, and also if it was released, the date of release and the person who obtained that specimen from us will be recorded also.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries which are made on this document made by employees of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In the course of their official responsibilities with the office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do the entries reflect events that occurred at or near the time of the entries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, can you take us through the specifics of what this document shows?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I already mentioned that this particular exhibit belongs to the evidence log of Mr. Ron Goldman. We will start with the typing blood swatch.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Typing blood swatch. This refers to a swatch which is made on every case where typing blood is obtained. It was done by Mr. Adrian Dersidan, D-E-R-S-I-D-A-N, and it was made on June 15, eight o'clock.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Dersidan is an employee of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And it was received in the evidence room by Mr. Siglar--Mr. Siglar who is our senior criminalist who is also in charge of the evidence area of our office. And it was released to Mr. Phil Vannatter of LAPD, robbery/homicide, by Mr. Siglar, on June 15 at 8:45.

MR. KELBERG: Next entry, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The next entry, this is for the typing blood which was--which I discussed so far. This just indicates that the swatch was made.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the released material is what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The typing blood.

MR. KELBERG: Is that in some kind of container or is that--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Test-tube, the tube.

MR. KELBERG: So that tube, with whatever blood was in it, was released to Mr. Vannatter?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. The next entry then?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then we have the hair kit. I discussed this I think on Tuesday last week. Miss Claudine Ratcliffe obtained the hair samples from Mr. Ron Goldman, put it in the drop-off box, which I mentioned, on June 13th in the afternoon at 1440.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that that mailbox like device?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then Mr. Patino retrieved it from our drop-off box in the evidence--and took it to the evidence room on June 15, `94, at seven o'clock. And as we discussed earlier, Mr. Grandis of LAPD SID retrieved it from our office from Mr. Patino on June 24 at 9:30.

MR. KELBERG: The next entry, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The next entry is the clothing. The clothing, as you recall, Mr. Goldman had shirt, pants, shoes and socks. As I discussed earlier, on June 13th--I'm sorry--June 14th the photographs were taken. During that time the clothing was removed and I--if you recall, it was Mr. John Marsden who was our autopsy technician, forensic photographic technician, who took the clothing off. It was done on June 14th at 8:40. As I mentioned earlier, this clothing is dried and when it is completely dry Mr. Patino retrieved it, kept it in the evidence room on June 20th, `94, and Mr. Grandis took custody of the clothing from our office from Mr. Patino. And Mr. Grandis works for LAPD SID and that was done on June 24th at 9:20 in the morning. And of course this just refers to this evidence here, that only the whole blood--the blood was released to Mr. Vannatter.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, you are referring to that initial entry under "Typing blood"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Referring to the whole blood in the tube that you've already described?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes. Then the typing blood swatch, as I mentioned earlier, was made by Mr. Dersidan on June 15th. Mr. Siglar got custody of it, of the swatch, at three o'clock in the afternoon because it has to dry. And then that was released to Mr. Grandis of LAPD SID on June 24th at 9:20. The fingerprint card, palmprint cards, as you recall, the fingerprints and palmprints were obtained by Mr. Jacobo of our office. It was obtained on June 13th, the day the remains were brought to our. Mr. Patino received those cards on June 15th in the evidence room and it was released to one Mr. Dube of LAPD by Mr. Patino on June 16th, 1994, at 8:45. The liver temperature thermometer which was used to obtain the liver temperature on both the decedents was kept in our custody on June 22nd by Mr. Mahanay. He calibrated the instrument that day. And Mr. Siglar has it in custody since February. It has not been released. It is still in our custody. That was the thermometer that was used to obtain the temperature.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me put up what I will ask to be marked as our 364 double C, a blow-up of the small document.

(Peo's 364-CC for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: And it appears to be a similar one to 364 double B, except it refers to refer to Nicole Brown Simpson instead of Mr. Goldman. Would you take us--first of all, let me ask you, in general terms, is this the same kind of document as the previous exhibit, 364 double b?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And would your answers be the same with respect to the manner in which this document is created and retained by the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The investigator starts the document and then it is kept in the evidence room of the Coroner's office.

MR. KELBERG: And the entries again are all made by employees of the Coroner's office in their duties as employees?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: At or near the time of the events recorded?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Take us through what this document shows, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again we will start--again this belongs to Miss Nicole Brown Simpson. Typing blood was received in the lab in the evidence room on 15--actually both the typed bloods were collected by Dr. Golden at autopsy and in the evidence room Mr. Siglar signs off on it, released to Mr. Vannatter the same day, of LAPD, at 8:45 in the morning. The fingernail kit was processed by Miss Ratcliffe on June 13th at 1340 hours, received in the evidence room by Mr. Patino from the drop box on June 15th, released to Mr. Grandis on June 24th at 9:30, Mr. Grandis of LAPD. Hair kit, Claudine Ratcliffe obtained it on June 13th, 1340. Patino receives it in the evidence room from the drop-off box on June 15th, and this specimen was also released to LAPD on June 24th. As you recall, the clothing worn by Miss Simpson was a dress and a panty. Recovered by our photographer, John Marsden, at seven o'clock on June 14th during the photographic autopsy process. The dry clothing was recovered by Mr. Patino on June 16th, released to the same Mr. Grandis of LAPD on June 24th. The liver thermometer, I already addressed this. One thermometer was used and it is in our custody. The blood scrapings, as you recall, was obtained by our criminalist from the right thigh and right calf of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson. This took place on June 13th and they were placed in evidence and retrieved from the box by Mr. Patino on the 15th and released again to the same LAPD person, Mr. Grandis, on June 24th. The finger and palmprints obtained by Jacobo on June 13th when the body came in. Patino retrieved it from the evidence room on June 15th, released to Mr. Dube on June 16th at 8:45. The typing blood swatch made by Mr. Adrian Dersidan on June 15th, received by Mr. Siglar the same time, released to Mr. Grandis on June 24th of 1994 by Mr. Patino.

MR. KELBERG: Just to clarify, you said received by Mr. Siglar the same time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The afternoon.

MR. KELBERG: The same date but a different time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me show you then--

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

MR. KELBERG: Let me take this one down and give it to Mr. Lynch and put up what I would ask to be marked as 364 double D as blow-up.

(Peo's 364-DD for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, is that going to affect the elmo? Is that too high?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: We need to lower it a little bit.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, move it forward?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Move it forward or lower it a little bit.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms are you familiar with this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is the drop off log sheet which is kept to the--next to the mailbox which we discussed last Tuesday.

MR. KELBERG: The purpose of this document, in general terms?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Is to record who dropped off what evidence in the drop off log--I mean the drop-off box and to record it.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries that are made on this document entries made by employees of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is the document kept in the course of the official duties of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are the events recorded on this document by the Coroner employee ones which reflect acts occurring at or about the time of the events recorded?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Take us through this document as it pertains to these two autopsies.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. We will start--5135 belongs to Mr. Ron Goldman. And this refers to Miss Ratcliffe dropping off the hair kit which was collected on Mr. Ron Goldman and you can see her initials here, (indicating), on 5135, which is the case number for Miss Brown Simpson. A fingernail kit was processed, a hair kit was processed which was also collected, some physical evidence of the bloodstains, scrapings taken by Mr. Mahanay, and all these samples were dropped off by Miss Ratcliffe. She also indicated that she had placed the evidence log card, because you know they generate--they--they start the evidence log sheet, so that was also made available.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before you go further, I just want to be sure, is that a reference to, for example, I don't know if I've got the one for Goldman or the one for brown Simpson, but is that the document you are referring to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see, Miss Ratcliffe starts off the document and that is--that is what is recorded there.

THE COURT: All right. That was the log as to Mr. Goldman.

MR. KELBERG: It was 364 double B. Thank you, your Honor. Let me just outline this area where you have just been discussing.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I gather this document is used for a number of different cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It is just a drop-off box and a log to show what specimens or evidence was dropped off. And then, if you go lower down on the same sheet, 5136 and 5135, 5136 belongs to Miss Simpson and 5135 to Mr. Ron Goldman.

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This reflects the drop off of the fingerprint and palmprint cards. The prints were taken by Mr. Jacobo but the drop-off log indicates that it was dropped off by one Mr. Mettin, M-E-T-T-I-N.

MR. KELBERG: Was Mr. Mitten an employee of your office at the time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He was a volunteer.

MR. KELBERG: A "Volunteer" meaning what, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: People who volunteer to work for our office.

MR. KELBERG: When they volunteer to work for your office are they considered employees in the sense that they have responsibilities as if they were being paid employees to do certain things that are the responsibilities of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and they work under the supervision of the staff supervising them.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline this area that you have now been describing. I will do that in red also.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else about this particular document that pertains to these two cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another board that I would ask for the record to be marked 364 double E.

(Peo's 364-EE for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: A blow-up of the smaller document.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what kind of document is this?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This reflects the histopathology evidence log wherein the tissue jar, which is generated at the autopsy, containing the specimens from the autopsies. They are received in the histopathology area, which is a separate section of the laboratory division, and a chain of custody is maintained for the histopathology specimens. And basically you have a reflection of how many jars there were, whether any microscopic sections were submitted, the date they were submitted and duplicates were made, et cetera.

MR. KELBERG: If you will keep your voice up, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The hold jar was received on Mr. Goldman, the number is here, Coroner's case number, on June 14th. The name of the DME is here. One jar was received on Goldman and Miss Simpson each, and on Miss Simpson microscopic section was cut.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is that category that is described at the top, "Cassettes prepared in the laboratory by DME"? What does that category refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That refers to when you--when you take a microscopic section, you take a piece of tissue and put it in what's called a cassette, which is then submitted and that is taken to a processing laboratory where it goes through a process wherein the tissue is made into what's called a paraffin block, wherein a histopathology technician can take sections of that tissue, thin sections, so that tissue can be studied under the microscope. And this process is what is done in the histopathology laboratory and a cassette is--this particular column refers to if microscopic sections were--were done. And on Miss Brown Simpson, but not on Mr. Goldman at that time, one section of the brain was submitted on July 1st, I discussed it briefly during my testimony, and then the slides that are available on July 12th and returned August 2nd back to the lab, and this refers to the same slide which--which came to me--

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This date--this says 2/1/94 and it should be `95. In February of this year, I think when we wanted to make duplicates for the Defense to send it to the--in February of this year to Albany we made some duplicate slides of the brain slide and that is reflected on the 28th here, two slides were made. And originally I sent the original slide to Albany and it came back, and when I got the duplicates I mailed it to Dr. Baden, so that is what is reflected here and this log is not--this is a copy of a log which is not really up to date, because in May of this year we cut additional sections at the request of the Defense on both the cases, a total of 16 cassettes were cut, nine on Miss Brown Simpson, if I recall, and seven on Mr. Goldman, and the current log in our office should reflect that having taken place. So what I'm saying is this log is a permanent log in the Coroner's office. Any additions or entries which are made at a later date, a few days later, will be maintained in the same log sheet, so that is a chain of custody of what sections were taken at what time as long as we have custody of the specimens.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you examined all of the slides that have been prepared in this case, including the most recent series of slides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And that was part of your preparation before testifying?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let me just outline again in red the areas that refer to the two cases before the Court and the jury.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else, doctor? Do you want to add something?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, no question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have we not covered some aspect of the chart to this point?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What aspect have we not covered?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, an entry which has not yet been made on this particular copy of the log when Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's jar was originally examined by the Defense pathologist and myself on June 22nd, the spine specimen and the laryngeal specimen of the same jar.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Were in the same jar, but now we made an additional jar to keep the specimens because we made some additional examinations goes. As you recall during my testimony about Miss Simpson, we had the evaluation by our criminalist on the laryngeal specimen and spine specimen, and as I recall, we also did x-rays on the spine specimen. So originally we put it in a separate jar, so we have two jars on Miss Simpson and one on Mr. Goldman. I just wanted to reflect that also and that will complete this chart.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, I would ask that this first page of this blow-up series with the toxicology log handwritten entry be marked as 364 double F.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: To correspond with the paper document.

(Peo's 364-FF for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, is that going to interfere?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms can you tell us what this document is?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the internal toxicology specimen log. As I recall, you saw the autopsy specimen log sheet wherein the log comes up. The toxicology technician signs off that he received the specimen but that log sheet goes back to the autopsy area. He just keeps a copy. So a new log is maintained in the toxicology lab and this is the internal toxicology log with reference to the specimens on each Coroner's case. And this particular document refers to both our cases. 5135 is Ron Goldman. We received blood sample. They also received stomach and bile.

MR. KELBERG: All right. You have got some letters that you've just been pointing to. Can you tell was those letters refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: June 15th "S" means stomach and "B" means bile.

MR. KELBERG: Is that a common designation used by personnel in your office to refer to such things?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and it is the same as to Joe Murillo, M-U-R-I-L-L-O, who received it in the lab, and 5136 is the blood specimen on Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, plus we got urine sample received, "U" stands for urine, and of course the--don't worry about the date here. We use old books so that we don't--I mean, we use the same books, but the dates are different.

MR. KELBERG: I was going to ask you, this document has up in the left-hand corner the date "May 10." Is that the date that refers to the entries that appear on this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no, no. The date is the correct date here. I just said that we use an older book because we have some books available, so we just use it. But the key thing is the date of entry for each specimen.

MR. KELBERG: And these numbers that appear to be stamped in vertically starting with 005127, I believe, in the upper left-hand corner, what do they refer to, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are the different cases which have specimens for that day, because you know in the Coroner's office, our case assignments go from the no. 1 for each year to the end of the year, so this particular day on June 14th and 15th all those case numbers are the ones which were processed in our office.

MR. KELBERG: Is this document prepared in advance with respect to those pre-stamped numbers?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it was--to a certain extent it is, but the entries are all made as the specimens are received.

MR. KELBERG: Are the entries then made by employees of the Coroner's office in the course of their official responsibilities?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And are the entries to reflect acts or events which occurred at or about the time the entries were made?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline, if I could, please, in red, the areas that you were just identifying.

MR. KELBERG: Is that an accurate circling of the area you have just been describing, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me flip on this chart--and your Honor, I ask that this blow-up be marked 364 double G to correspond with the paper document.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 364-GG for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is this document we are looking at?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is it same only the only thing is there are more entries made here with reference to--to what happened to these samples, as you recall, February of this year, I think February 17th or 18th of this year the Defense wanted specimens sent to Albany. And I was in Seattle and we coordinated the release of those specimens. Basically I think a sample of blood sample from each blood bottle was sent to Albany, and also I sent stomach contents on Mr. Goldman which was available for the Defense pathologist to examine. So in that particular day I communicated with the D.A.'s office, who in turn communicated with the Defense attorneys. We communicated with--I communicated directly with Dr. Baden, and we had what specimens they needed. And all these entries reflect the removal of the specimens from the lab, transmission to Albany and then back and when they were received, so a chain of custody is maintained at all times of any specimen in the Coroner's office, and it shows that we have a very good chain of custody in our office.

MR. KELBERG: Please take us through that chain of custody as reflected by the entries here, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As you can recall, this part I've already discussed, and this aliquot of blood and stomach contents of Mr. Goldman.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what does the word "Aliquot" mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Aliquot" just means just a small amount.

MR. KELBERG: Just a sample?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We didn't give the whole sample because that was agreed on by Dr. Baden and myself, what they needed, and then it was released by Mr. Gary Siglar to Brian Hale of L.A. County District Attorney's Office on February 17 at 4:45 and it was returned by our chief of laboratories, Joe Muto, on February 21, 1995 at 1500. That is the stomach contents was returned. The blood sample we sent they retained, and then we also put an indefinite hold on all the specimens we have on these particular two cases.

MR. KELBERG: Is that indicated in this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it says "Hold" and this hold has been there since July of last year.

MR. KELBERG: Does that terminology have a special meaning in the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it does, because you know we do 6000 autopsies and 3000 examinations a year so we have retention time for every specimens. We cannot retain them indefinitely. But in a particular case if a request is made for a hold, then we retain it, and that is what it reflects, so otherwise these specimens get discarded on the retention time schedule maintained by the Coroner's office.

MR. KELBERG: And does that complete a discussion of the entries that have been added on this document 364 double G to refer to the chain of events for the release and subsequent return of some but not all of the materials sent to Dr. Baden in Albany?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Again, doctor, any of the additional entries, would these be entries made by employees of the Coroner's office in the course of their official duties?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And made at or about the time of the events which are recorded in the document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me flip the page. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Try to flip the page.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor--and I would ask, your Honor, the record reflect a designation of 364 double H for a blow-up of the single-paged document?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 364-HH for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms are you familiar with this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I am.

MR. KELBERG: What is this one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a label which is on every blood bottle where a blood sample is obtained from a particular decedent. It has got two layers. One layer is left on the bottle. The outer layer is taken off in the toxicology lab. And this is the copy of the label of the blood bottle which was on Mr. Ron Goldman, 5135 Coroner's case number.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, there is--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, there is a stamp here, pre-addressed stamp.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And the number is again handwritten here, and it also says here--I mean, first let's start here. The autopsy was done on June 14th. The sample was obtained at 11:30 by Dr. Golden. He initials off the bottle here that he took the blood sample, and that is the way we know that he has seen that the sample belongs to that particular person. And as you recall, this blood sample was--the label was removed by Mr. Joe Murillo of our toxicology lab as part of maintaining the evidence on this particular case.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All entries made by Coroner employees?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: At or about the time of the events recorded?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In the course of their responsibilities as employees of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me flip to a document, your Honor, I would ask to bear the designation 364-II.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: A blow-of the smaller single-page, doctor.

(Peo's 364-II for id = document)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, this appears to be a similar kind of form to the one you were just talking about. Is that an accurate assessment?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is the difference between this form and the one we were just looking at, double h?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This belongs to Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, 5136. This is a pre-stamped imprint card information, handwritten case number again here, (indicating), blood sample was obtained by Dr. Golden June 14th, 9:30 in the morning. Mr. Murillo received the blood sample on June 15th and Dr. Golden has initialed it. It is upside down but I.G. Here June 14th, so that authenticates that he took the blood sample of this particular person on that particular date.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again all entries made by employees of the Coroner's office in the course of their official responsibilities?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: To reflect acts or events that occurred at or about the time of the entries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: I think that does it for this area. You may retake the stand, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: (witness complies.)

MR. SHAPIRO: There will be an objection based upon our comments at side bar.

THE COURT: All right. Noted. Overruled.

MR. SHAPIRO: And a motion to strike.

THE COURT: Yes. Under 1280 of the evidence code.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment to get a document, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, following the meeting on June 22nd, 1994, with doctors Baden and Wolf, was a document prepared by Mr. Siglar in your office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What was the purpose of that particular document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't know which particular document you are referring to, because we--we made some minutes during the meeting. I had some handwritten notes and Siglar had some handwritten notes and it was later transcribed. I had kept a copy of the transcript, copy for both Prosecution and Defense.

MR. KELBERG: Let me find the document, again, your Honor, with the Court's permission.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have what appears to be a three-page document along with a one-page handwritten form 42. The document is dated July 28, 1994. It appears to be a letter from Mr. Siglar to Mr. Hodgman of our office. May it be marked collective as exhibit 365?

THE COURT: 365.

(Peo's 365 for id = 3-pg document)

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

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me show you this series of documents. I will take the other exhibits away. Are you familiar with this letter and the one-page form 42 notes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In general, doctor, what is this letter, this July 28th letter from Mr. Siglar to Mr. Hodgman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is a letter sent by Mr. Siglar to Mr. Hodgman based on his request regarding our weekly meeting of the DME's on June 23rd. This letter was sent out when I was not--I had not seen the letter before it was sent out, but I have a copy of it, because I was on vacation at that time. It reflects some information which was discussed in a DME meeting which we had in our office on June 23rd of `94. And do you want me to go into the contents of the letter?

MR. KELBERG: Yes. In general first and then we will put it up on the elmo so the ladies and gentlemen of the jury will have an opportunity to read it.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They discussed the different issues pertaining to the two cases which are being discussed in trial and we are going to put it up on the elmo so we can discuss each item as we go through--as you put it up on the elmo. But what happens was after the DME meeting on June 26th, they also discussed it in a meeting of the forensic technicians, and these are internal department meetings, but I think somehow the information went to the press and then we were asked about these--this information and that is how the District Attorney's office wanted to have information--input on this information and that is how this letter came about.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate as a summary that the information pertains to possible mistakes or errors in the Coroner's office that relate to these two cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And that--

MR. SHAPIRO: I would object to the form of the question, "Possible."

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Why don't I just put it up on the elmo.

THE COURT: All right. This will be People's 365?

MR. KELBERG: It is, your Honor, and let me start with page 1.

(Brief pause.)

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

MR. KELBERG: Why don't we just start at the top, Mr. Fairtlough, and focus it in so that the ladies and gentlemen of the jury will have an opportunity to read it. And your Honor, I would ask that the jurors have an opportunity to read the letter and Mr. Fairtlough can move it at any time appropriate from the Court's perspective down so all paragraphs of each page can be read.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. 984, can you read that?

JUROR NO. 984: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

JUROR NO. 984: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Let's move the letter.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: May I inquire before I move to page 2 then, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, this summary listing on this page, six items, starting with item no. 1, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As you recall on Tuesday, I--last week, I showed you where the homicide cases are normally stored. That is in that crypt area where there were different levels where the gurneys could be placed. I also showed you on Tuesday a separate area in the Coroner's office, the third autopsy room with closed--where there are locked doors available. Basically this refers to that--placing certain types of cases where there is a lot of interest to place them in a more secure area in a locked crypt. That is what he is trying to refer to here.

MR. KELBERG: Was there any security for the bodies of these two decedents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: All bodies are in full security because they are in the Coroner's office in the cold crypt area and nobody can enter it unless you are a Coroner's employee. And what is meant here is little more security, locking the bodies in a secure area, that is what it means. It doesn't mean that the bodies are not secure. Everybody body in the Coroner's office is secure in the cold crypt area which I already showed all of you on Tuesday last week. If you want, you can show the photographs again and we can explain this a little better.

MR. KELBERG: I think we can recall that particular location. I would rather try and get through this list of items if we could, doctor. Item no. 2, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Preventing uninvolved employees from observing decedents should have occurred. Again, this is a personal opinion expressed I think by--

MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a personal opinion expressed. Basically in the Coroner's office we have visitors, volunteers, we also sometimes have people coming to watch autopsies, especially medical students and other pathology staff. And what is meant by this is if you keep the decedents secure, only the person who is responsible for the particular case will be able to visualize the--to view--not visualize, view the remains because they are the only persons who need to be involved with the particular case. This is what is meant by this sentence.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, were any personnel not directly involved in the autopsies in that location of no. 6, that table no. 6 where you've testified the autopsies were performed during the course of those two autopsies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: My recollection is the detectives were there. As I told you, I went there twice briefly. I was not there all the time, but the detectives were there and Dr. Golden was there. And of course you see we have six autopsy stations there, and autopsies are going on at every station, so you have pathologists there, forensic technicians, and if some of them are homicides, you are going to have the detective of those decedents there, and if it is an in-custody Defendant, you are going to have other personnel there. And it depends. I can't tell you all persons who were there, but all persons who are there in the autopsy room are all persons working on a case or have to be there for some reason. And the other personnel who--who could be in the corridors would be the cleaning personnel, if at all there were any there that day. I don't know.

MR. KELBERG: How about item no. 3? We have already talked about the fact that the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson were not saved and you've testified as to the reason why you asked Dr. Golden to save the stomach contents of Mr. Goldman. Beyond what you've already testified to is there anything else that concerns item no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing. It is a factual statement. We didn't save Nicole's stomach contents.

MR. KELBERG: Is item no. 4 something you have also testified about when we were looking at the form 15 on the autopsy forms for Mr. Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is just that he collected the bile, everything is recorded properly, but the only thing is on the bottle the urine box was marked and not bile.

MR. KELBERG: Item no. 5, I believe we had testimony when we were doing the photographs of the Coroner's office, we also looked at photographs of various kits including the fingernail kits for--or kit for Nicole Brown Simpson. Is there anything beyond what you've already testified to that concerns item no. 5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: What about item no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item no. 6 is--refers to when the clothing is dried, the correct procedure is to place each item of clothing in a separate brown paper wrap--to wrap them separate. On June 22nd, when Dr. Baden was there to see the evidence specimens, we found that Nicole Brown Simpson's panty and dress had been wrapped in the same envelope and that is what this refers to.

MR. KELBERG: And what, if any, significance, from a forensic pathologist standpoint, is there regarding having the panties and the dress wrapped together?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is the same person's clothing, and as you recall the scene photographs, the dress was overlying the panty when--if at all, if there was any blood staining there, it was already in contact. It is not a correct procedure, so that is a mistake, but as far as the significance in this particular case, I don't think it has much significance, because the clothing was put together only after it was dry, and it happened and it is recorded.

MR. SHAPIRO: Motion to strike, nonresponsive, calls for speculation, the last portion only.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the last portion?

THE COURT: The last portion of the answer was nonresponsive.

MR. KELBERG: Could I have a moment to look at that?

THE COURT: Yes. The jury is to disregard the last comment regarding the significance of this. That was nonresponsive to the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you evaluated, as part of your preparation before testifying, the significance, if my, of putting those two pieces of clothing together?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is the significance, if any, for having done that?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation, also goes beyond the expertise of this witness.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Already--I said already they were laced together and the clothing was already dry. What I'm trying to say is this: I don't see anything new that would have occurred even if they had been placed together that any new evidence would be transferred to each other because they belonged to the same person. That is what I meant.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about item 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Could we have Mr. Fairtlough put the first portion of page 2 of this exhibit on?

THE COURT: Yes.

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

MR. KELBERG: I think Mr. Fairtlough would be benefited by having page 2.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: May I inquire, your Honor?

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, item 7, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is self-explanatory. Apparently a reporter was in our lunchroom without our knowledge and that is an indication for the security for the building, and that again states a fact which apparently happened.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where is the lunchroom? First of all, is your building a building of more than one floor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have--we have two buildings.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you were describing the physical layout of the Coroner's office.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have two buildings in the Coroner's office. We have the 1102 building and the 1104 building. The 1104 building the medical building, the lab building and the autopsy areas. It has got four floor; a basement, a service floor, a first floor, second floor.

MR. KELBERG: Where is the lunchroom located in the 1104 medical facility?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have lunchroom in two of the floors; on the first floor and the second floor, and this refers to the first floor lunchroom.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, on what floor are the autopsies performed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The service floor.

MR. KELBERG: In order to get to the service floor, how is one able to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a secured floor you need a key to get to the service floor or one of the Coroner's employees has to personally take you down there. You cannot go to the service floor without a key.

MR. KELBERG: Keys handed out to persons other than employees of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Do all employees of the Coroner's office have keys which allow access to the service floor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Only those employees who need access to the service floor.

MR. KELBERG: They would include whom?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The doctors, the technicians, the lab personnel, the investigators.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about item 7?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: What about item 8?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item 8 refers to trying to have a response team from the Coroner's office on certain types of cases wherein you have a team of a pathologist, a criminalist and an investigator and transport to go to a scene. Well, that is just a situation which we do sometimes when we have the necessity to do it.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this a wish list to some degree?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have the resources to do that in every case that is recommended?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, leading and suggestive.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what resources would be required in order to do that recommendation in every case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would need more--

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, irrelevant, 352.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would need more personnel in each division to--

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You need more personnel in each area so that you have them available, because in our office many of the employees wear different hats. For example, our criminalist is also our toxicologist. Pathologist need for autopsy but he also has to go to court, so if you have more staff, you can have the luxury of sending people to every scene, but it is not practical.

MR. KELBERG: And you already, I believe, have testified last week regarding whether in your opinion it would have made any significant difference on the issue of the Coroner visiting the Bundy location at the time the bodies were still there?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about item 8?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: How about item 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item 9 refers to the Coroner's office not having been allowed access to decedent by LAPD for ten hours.

MR. KELBERG: We are going to discuss that I believe when we talk about time of death, correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's go to item no. 10.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This refers to--there was a request for valve procurement on Miss Brown Simpson and that is a routine procedure in our office wherein, as you know, organs for transplant is--is obtained from--from different people in the familiar. If the family agrees to donate the organs and usually the--certain organs are removed from individuals where such permission is obtained, and our office is quite cooperative with all the organ procurement agencies as long as it doesn't interfere with our cause of death determination and injury interpretation. In this particular instance this refers to heart valve donation being allowed by the Simpson family. And when it was brought to my attention, I denied it in the night and in this particular case and that is what this refers to.

MR. KELBERG: Why did you deny it, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because heart valve donation is an intrusive process because I would prefer that the DME is available to be there, the medical examiner who does the autopsy to be there when the valve is taken. And you know, any organ procurement has to be done in a particular time frame. You can't just do it anytime and use the valve, and there was a time frame constraint here. The doctor assigned was Dr. Golden, because remember, on June 13th assigned the cases to him. This request was brought to my attention in the night the evening of June 13th and apparently one of my assistant doctors had given permission but he asked the organ procurement agency to contact me, and I at that time told him no, because Dr. Golden was not the one who was going to be there, they had got another doctor there who was--because as I told you, in our office we like a doctor to watch the procedure so that he knows exactly--or she knows exactly what was being done, because you open the chest, you take the valve, so you have to collect the blood sample properly, so there is a lot of procedures involved in this. So I made the medical decision, since Dr. Golden was not available in the night to go to this procedure and they had already got another doctor there and I felt in the best interest of the department that this procedure not be carried out and that was my decision.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, should I do one more or stop?

THE COURT: Let's take a break here. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess for fifteen minutes. And Miss Fitzpatrick, can I talk to you, please.

(Brief pause.)

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All counsel and Defendant are again present, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Kelberg for these purposes. Mr. Kelberg, you had something?

MR. KELBERG: Very briefly. I have informed Mr. Shapiro that Mr. Hernandez from the Coroner's office called. He found no such memorandum from the District Attorney's office concerning Dr. Golden. He did a record search. And then Dr. Lakshmanan tells me that apparently you had talked to Mr. Hernandez as well.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: That was the same information he had received.

THE COURT: Apparently--apparently Mr. Shapiro had some information to the contrary, that there was some--some of these items in existence.

MR. KELBERG: The form--Mr. Shapiro was going to show me a form which I am familiar with that's in the DME manual that is a suggested form to be used. But as to any completed form specifically with reference to Dr. Golden, the information is as I've indicated for the record. If Mr. Shapiro has something else, I will be glad to go back and search it out further.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, we do, your Honor. We would ask the Court to direct Mr. Kelberg's attention to the case of George Wilson McGowan, M-C-G-O-W-A-N. The information that's been furnished to us is that there were direct orders issued by the Judge in that case to the District Attorney to notify the Coroner directly about errors that had taken place, and that resulted in a capital murder case being abruptly ended and the Judge making a finding of factual innocence.

MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Shapiro has a Coroner's case number, it would certainly--

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Perhaps we can just pull that file in its entirety.

MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan has that number also.

MR. KELBERG: Apparently he doesn't.

MR. SHAPIRO: He reported it to a reporter from the Los Angeles Times on--

THE COURT: Well, we need the Coroner's case number so we can get the file.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I am going to get that right now. We're inundated with a mass of documents. So if the Court would bear with me for a moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SHAPIRO: We believe these were in response to Mr. Ralph Framalino's inquiry from the Los Angeles Times and it's referring to case no. 90-09679.

MR. KELBERG: And does the Court wish Dr. Lakshmanan to call Mr. Hernandez at this moment?

THE COURT: Yes. I'd like that to be available to the Court hopefully before the noon hour so counsel can have the opportunity to review the file, because I suspect it may be fodder for cross-examination.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, I have asked Dr. Lakshmanan to call Mr. Hernandez and have the entire case file with that number brought to the courtroom hopefully before the noon hour.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg, do you have all the other exhibits handy that you need to proceed with?

MR. KELBERG: At the moment I do, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: I can't think of anything I can do without the witness.

THE COURT: Well, is there another member of your staff who can make this phone call on his behalf?

MR. KELBERG: If Dr. Lakshmanan can give Mr. Lynch the phone number, Mr. Lynch can certainly make the call.

THE COURT: Please, since the Prosecution has another hour and eight minutes.

MR. KELBERG: Well, your Honor, I hope the Court will understand the need to perhaps have a short period of the afternoon devoted to the completion of the time of death material since that appears to have been made a major issue, and I think the jury should have the benefit of as much information on it as scientifically as is available for their consideration.

THE COURT: Well, we spent a lot of time on relative minutiae.

MR. KELBERG: Unfortunately, your Honor, my perspective in minutiae was raised long ago, and it's only at this point that we have an opportunity to show everyone it is minutiae.

THE COURT: Well, I just want to express to you my concern about undue consumption of time.

MR. KELBERG: I understand. I have one short area other than the one that we are discussing right now before I get into time of death.

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

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may conclude your direct examination.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor--if Mr. Fairtlough can bring back exhibit 365--we're on page 2, I believe we're on item 11. And does that refer to what we were discussing yesterday? And we also discussed it with respect to the Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy of the initial request for an H screen and your decision to order a C screen, toxicological screen in each of those cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else to add to that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Item 12, did you discuss earlier in your testimony regarding flouroscopy as a form of x-ray?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And have you discussed what was or was not done in the form of x-ray?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, in your opinion, would flouroscopy have been desirable in this case as Mr. Siglar's letter indicates?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I think in stab wound cases, x-rays are better because if at all there are going to be any fragments of the knife, it's better seen on an x-ray than fluoroscopy. But sometimes flouroscopy can help. But I would prefer to have an x-ray of an area because even if the fluoroscope doesn't show it sometimes, you'll see it on the x-ray because flouroscopy doesn't have the resolution, fine resolution of an x-ray.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you also testify, however, that no x-rays were taken, for example, of the skulls of either victim?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: And we asked you questions about whether in your opinion there was any indication that the blade of the knife had broken off in the course of any of the infliction of the sharp force injuries. Do you recall that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, is there any evidence to indicate that that had occurred?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. Obviously if they didn't do the test, they couldn't find evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor--

THE COURT: That was a speaking objection, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, anything further about item 12?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Item 12, no.

MR. KELBERG: Item 13, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Oh, that refers to, in the week following the autopsy, there was request for photographs from our office because there's a grand jury hearing on the case, and our machine was not functioning. You know, after the earthquake, we had some problems with our printer and processor and now we have a new photographic equipment available. And basically we requested--I requested LAPD to cooperate and make the prints for us. So we made a one-print set for us and one-print set for the grand jury hearings. And what Mr. Siglar is referring to is, he feels that the prints could have been made by sheriff than LAPD. So it's just a matter of which agency you choose, and to me, it doesn't make any difference because LAPD were nearby, they were handling the case on these two decedents and I requested LAPD.

MR. KELBERG: How about the next item? What does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Oh, 14, "Photographic prints could have been available to assigned pathologist prior to review of the medical protocol." This is a procedure which is--which is being at least done on some of the cases wherein the pathologist looks at the photographs before the protocol is signed to see for any problems we may have with reference to injuries not being described or also to see whether the injuries which have been described are correct.

MR. KELBERG: And is there some delay in the normal course of your business about getting the photograph with respect to your requirement to have the protocol dictated within 24 hours of the completion of the autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That--that is correct. But right now, we have the new equipment that just came. Following the earthquake, we got a new piece of equipment wherein you can have contact prints available one hour after the photography is done. So what I'm trying to do at the current time is to have some contact prints available to the doctors before they even do the autopsy to make sure that all the injuries are photographed. And this again is a laborious procedure and there are--we're trying to do it, but it's not been very successful. But that's the goal.

MR. KELBERG: What is a contact print just so we'll understand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Contact prints, the print is the same size as the negative. So you have one strip with all the photographs taken on the case so the doctor knows which areas have been photographed. This is something new we are trying to do in our office.

MR. KELBERG: How about the next item, item 15?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Oh, that refers to the--to have bottles made depending on what kind of case you're dealing with reference to toxicology samples. If you have a suspect that's suicide, you make all the specimens available--I mean the containers available for a full tox collection because you like to have liver samples, stomach contents, bile, urine so that you can correlate the blood levels with the tissue levels and support your diagnosis or don't support your diagnosis of suicide.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything about this observation by Mr. Siglar that affects your ability to evaluate the evidence in these two autopsy cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I think the decision on what specimens to collect is the--is decision of the medical examiner. It's a medical decision. You are to use it intelligently to decide what you want done in a particular case. So this would apply because we do have residents coming into our office who work under supervision, and this is something which is already in place. We do a full tox on certain types of cases and certain types of cases we just collect blood like in traffic accidents, I already mentioned we collect blood and urine, depending on the nature of the case.

MR. KELBERG: Next item, item 16?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is just a statement. One of the diagrams was not available at the time of initial release of documents and it was released to the Defense team when I met them on June 22nd. It was one diagram form which was misplaced and later retrieved and presented to all parties concerned.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was this a type of diagram such as we've been using in the course of the discussion of these two autopsies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about item 16?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, can you show us the rest of that page, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Next page, please, Mr. Fairtlough.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Maybe we could lower it so we can see.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you identify--obviously we know who the middle name is--the first and third names, where the copies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Mr. Hernandez is the director of the department. He's in charge of all non-physician operations. Mr. Scott carrier is the public information officer.

MR. KELBERG: And if Mr. Fairtlough can put on a single page that is the last part of this exhibit 365. And, doctor, in general terms, what is this document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the notes taken by Gary Siglar during the medical examiner's meeting on June 23rd, `94, and these notes were used by him to generate that letter which we just discussed.

MR. KELBERG: So these handwritten entries then relate to what is later included in the listed 16 items in the letter to Mr. Hodgman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: I don't think we--I'll leave it up to the Court if the Court wishes the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to have an opportunity to read it.

THE COURT: Let's give them an opportunity to at least get a flavor for what it is.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: If I could inquire just briefly while we're showing this portion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, item 7--incidentally, just initially, this appears to be a shorthanded version of the items. For example, looking at item 2, it appears Mr. Siglar has handwritten "Looky loos," and in the current document, item 2 is "Preventing uninvolved employees from observing decedents should have occurred." Is this again to be a shorthanded method of note taking?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, looking at item 7, the "Late call out, liver temp/sexual assault"--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You mean 9, item 9?

MR. KELBERG: Oh, I'm sorry. You're correct. Item 9. And perhaps Mr. Fairtlough could raise that. We're going to talk about, as part of time of death, this issue of when your office was notified, when Miss Ratcliffe went and so forth. With respect to the sexual assault entry here, doctor, what if anything different than what we discussed with you on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of taking a sexual assault kit in this case of Nicole Brown Simpson is referred to in that entry?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing further to add.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, do you wish to give the jurors--

THE COURT: No. I think we've seen this now.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough.

MR. KELBERG: I have one other area of inquiry before talking to you, doctor, about time of death, and we raised it earlier dealing with Claudine Ratcliffe, your investigator, who went to the Bundy location, and it concerns the issue of taking blood samples of some form from a back of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you recall that general area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And you testified I believe already, even today, that when the body arrived at the Coroner's office on the 13th of June, you asked Mr. Mahanay, one of your criminalists, to take blood samples from two areas of Nicole Brown Simpson's body as reflected on the appropriate evidence log; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He took blood samples from two areas.

MR. KELBERG: And that's reflected in the appropriate evidence log, correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, I want to talk to you--

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Lynch, could you take one of the easels just very briefly and put it in the location where we used the photographs?

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, again with the Court's permission, would you step down.

MR. KELBERG: This is exhibit 354, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, do you see the area where you asked Mr. Mahanay to take samples from when you saw the body at your offices on June 13th?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He made the determination which areas to take. I think he took the right thigh and calf area, these blood samples.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Referring to photographs CS11 and the area of the right leg where you're pointing and down further below the knee; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: I want to invite your attention both to the back of Nicole Brown Simpson as seen in CS11 and the back of Nicole Brown Simpson as seen in CS12. Do you see what appears to you to be blood on the back of her body?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Would you have expected Claudine Ratcliffe to have taken any action at the scene to have that blood collected?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If she had seen it and she felt it was important, she would have asked it to be collected.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you have--

MR. SHAPIRO: Motion to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you have considered it significant in any way that--such that you would have expected her to have had action taken to obtain those samples?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it had been seen, I think it should have been taken.

MR. KELBERG: Why?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you don't have any injury in that area and you have blood drops there, and this could be blood drops falling off a weapon which could reflect the blood of the decedent, could be the blood of the--in this case, we have a second victim. It could have also reflected if the perpetrator had some injury, which can happen sometimes, and the perpetrator's blood. So it could be--it's good to collect and see whose blood it is.

MR. KELBERG: Does the failure--and there was no effort made by Miss Ratcliffe to have that collected as far as you understand; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was not collected as far as all the evidence logs we show.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the failure to have that collected a matter which causes you to be unable to determine the issues you have been talking about for the last week or so?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the absence of that evidence such that you cannot form opinions as a forensic pathologist with respect to the cause of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's nothing to do with the cause of death.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything about the absence of that evidence which prevents you as a forensic pathologist from determining whether a single-edged knife caused each and every one of the sharp force injuries you identified in the course of your review?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This evidence has no bearing on that conclusion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there any significance without that evidence to your ability as a forensic pathologist to determine how long it would take to cause all of these injuries on these two people?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, this evidence would not have any bearing to those conclusions or opinions I rendered.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the absence of that evidence of any significance to you as a forensic pathologist in ascertaining whether one person armed with a single-edged knife of approximately 6-inch length, tapered at the tip could have killed both of these human beings?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Again, this evidence collection would not have had any effect on my opinions on those hypothetical--I mean those issues that you brought up.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, could the evidence have--if taken have been helpful to you even if it does not prevent you from answering the questions I've asked?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it had been collected, it would be one more piece of information which is available. If it's the blood of Miss Simpson, then it would reflect that the blood drops are hers and falling off the weapon, and that would also support my opinion that the perpetrator was in the back, from the back lifted the head which was face down and cut her neck.

MR. KELBERG: And if, for example, it was blood that was tested and found to genetically match blood drops found along the walkway leading to the back of the property and which further matched genetically to that of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, would that have been helpful to you also in evaluating whether one perpetrator could have killed both of these two human beings in a brief, swift and violent attack?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would suggest--if that blood sample matched the perpetrator, it would suggest that at least one perpetrator was involved with this--with this evidence.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further about that issue, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: As a brief follow-up to that, doctor, in the investigators' manual which you talked about on sexual assault kits, and inviting counsel to page 6.0.1 under "Field evidence procedures," is this what your investigators are instructed to do?

THE COURT: Excuse me just a second. Mr. Shapiro, do you have that available?

MR. KELBERG: I can walk over and show it to him. It might be quicker.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, Judge. I appreciate it.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Again, doctor, referring to page 6.0.1, is this part of what your investigators such as Miss Ratcliffe are instructed to do at scenes like the Bundy location? Under "Field evidence procedures." "It is recognized that each death scene is unique and that the proper procedures for examining the decedent for evidence and the order of implementation of those procedures are dependent upon the circumstances of a particular case. "Coroner's personnel conducting an investigation at the scene of a death shall communicate and cooperate with investigative personnel from the investigating police agency to determine the best manner in which to proceed." Is that part of what they are instructed to do?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And one other manual. Doctor, is there something called an "Operations Bureau manual"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is the manual which is used by the investigations division of our office, their procedures.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

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

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: And now inviting counsel under "Field investigations", and I'm not sure of the page, but it has a reference 230. Is this part of what your investigators like Miss Ratcliffe are informed to do? "When a death is reported to this department and is under our jurisdiction and the decedent is at the location of death or at the place discovered, a Coroner's investigator will be assigned and dispatched to conduct the death investigation." Further on: "Field investigators are responsible for maintaining the integrity of a death scene including information and evidence. They coordinate their investigations with investigators of other agencies also having jurisdiction of the scene. They functionally supervise other Coroner employees at a scene including any personnel charged with the responsibility of transporting the body."

And dropping further down to a part under the word, "Evidence": "Coroner's investigators coordinate their investigations with police officers or members of other investigative agencies so as not to mishandle or contaminate evidence in which all may be interested. When the Coroner's investigator determines the need to have a Coroner's criminalist respond to the scene for the purpose of collecting trace evidence or evidence of sexual assault, they will protect the scene until the criminalist arrives. In these instances, the criminalist will collect all evidence associated with the decedent." Are those instructions that are given to your investigators such as Miss Ratcliffe?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, let me move into my final area of inquiry dealing with the issue of time of death. And let me begin, if we could, please, with a brief review of the legal requirements regarding notification of the Coroner's office when a body has been found. Doctor, are you familiar with various statutes in the government code and the health and safety code that pertain to this issue of notification of the Coroner?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. In a general way.

MR. KELBERG: Let me invite your attention, if I could, please, to several sections of government code starting with a section of section 27491 of the government code under the heading "Duty to investigate and determine cause of death" in the fifth full paragraph: "Any funeral director, physician or other person who has charge of a deceased person's body when death occurred as a result of any of the causes or circumstances described in this section shall immediately notify the Coroner. Any person who does not notify the Coroner as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor." Is that one of the sections of which you are familiar pertaining to the duty to notify your office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And obviously this type of situation, of two people killed in a manner suggesting a criminal homicide, would be one of the areas covered by this statute; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And when it says, "Funeral director, physician or other person," you understand that to include police officers; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, let me drop down to 27491.2 under--

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to move to strike the last part of that answer as calling for a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: And as I was saying, dropping down to 27491.2: "A. The Coroner or the Coroner's appointed deputy, on being informed of a death and finding it to fall under the classification of deaths requiring his or her inquiry, may immediately proceed to where the body lies, examine the body, make identification, make inquiry into the circumstances, manner and means of death and, as circumstances warrant, either order its removal for further investigation or disposition or release the body to the next of kin." Is that another section of which you are familiar regarding the responsibilities of the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, would it be accurate to say that your office has the responsibility over the body itself?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Not the police agency?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Now, let me invite your attention under one more section of the government code 27491.3 under "Control of premises where body found," subsection C, the middle of that subsection as follows: "At the scene of any death, when it is immediately apparent or when it has not been previously recognized and the Coroner's examination reveals that police investigation or criminal Prosecution may ensue, the Coroner shall not further disturb the body or any related evidence until the law enforcement agency has had reasonable opportunity to respond to the scene if their purposes so require and they so request. Custody and control of the body shall remain with the Coroner at all times. Reasonable time at the scene shall be allowed by the Coroner for criminal investigation by other law enforcement agencies with the time and location of removal of the remains to a convenient place to be determined at the discretion of the Coroner." Is that another one of the sections of which you are familiar?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, how does this section affect the relationship between your people, including your investigators like Miss Ratcliffe, and police investigators such as Detectives Lange and Vannatter?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically, our office investigators cooperate with the police agencies if they require more time to collect evidence at a scene. That is one aspect of the government code which you just alluded to, that is 27419.3(C) indicates that. But the notification also is responsibility of the police department to call us as soon as they have a death.

MR. KELBERG: And that's what I want to next discuss with you. Doctor, given the resources your office has, do you automatically respond at the time you are notified that there is a body found by a police agency which believes the body is the product of a criminal event?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The way it works is, when they notify us, the inquiry is when they give us a time when we can come and pick up the remains because they might not have finished their criminal investigation and evidence collection, because we have limited resources of our personnel, because we like to go to the scene and do our investigation and bring the remains back to our office as soon as possible. And as we discussed earlier, if necessary, the criminalist will be called and evidence collection by our criminalist from the body may take place at the scene also. So it is a situation where we need to plan our response to a crime scene. So we like to be notified when a death is recovered--when a death is discovered rather, and the response will depend on what kind of investigation is being conducted by the law enforcement agency so that we can plan our response so that our investigators don't spend time there waiting for evidence to be collected. And this is something where communication helps to have a kind of situation where both agencies conduct their responsibilities in a manner which is fit so that the criminal investigation of a particular crime doesn't suffer.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in the course of reviewing materials for this case, have you become aware of two telephone conversations between a police detective from the Los Angeles Police Department named Detective Phillips and two employees of the Coroner's office, one, Mr. Willis, w-I-l-l-i-s, and one, Mr. Heath, h-e-a-t-h?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I had the opportunity to read the transcript. As you know, all calls coming into the Coroner's office are recorded, and I had a chance to read the transcript of that recorded information which came to our facility with reference to those communications between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Willis and later Mr. Phillips and one I think Mr. Heath of our office.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, assuming that there's been testimony in this court that the bodies were first observed by a Los Angeles Police Department officer by the name of Riske at about 12:13 A.M. on June 13th, 1994 and that the first call by the police to your office occurred at 6:49 A.M. or about six and a half hours later on the same date, in your opinion, doctor, was that timely notification to you as required by the sections that we've just reviewed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your review of these materials, have you attempted to form an opinion regarding the estimated time of death for Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Have you also attempted, from your review of these materials, to form an estimated time of death for Ronald Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And before I ask you if you have in fact formed such opinions and what they are, let me first ask you, in your opinion, doctor, has the delay of six and a half hours with respect to the first notification and the fact, as we've already seen, that liver temperatures were not taken until approximately 10:40 and 10:50 A.M. on June 13th as documented in our exhibits 298-A and B, those form 1's, has that set of circumstances, doctor, caused you to be unable to form an opinion regarding the estimated time of death in each case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: And further, doctor, if by some fortuitous work of faith, you had been with Officer Riske on June 13th at 12:13 A.M. on June--on that date with whatever bag of medical paraphernalia you would use for ascertaining the medical information from which you form an opinion as to cause of death, in your opinion, would you under those circumstances have been able to determine whether the death occurred at 10:15 P.M. on June 12th rather than 11:00 o'clock on June 12th?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Would you be able to exclude any time period between 10:15 and 11:00 o'clock on June 12th if hypothetically you had been fortuitously with detective or Officer Riske at 12:13 and had done whatever you are able to do medically to make such determinations?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor--and we're going to go through why you hold that opinion; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Let's start with, what is your opinion with respect to the estimated time of death for Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I cannot tell exactly at what time she died, but she--obviously the--I have taken all the factors into consideration. I can't pinpoint exactly what time she died between 9:40 and 12:40 when the body was discovered. But based on--based on the perimeters which were evaluated, that is liver temperature, rigor, livor, et cetera. But the only thing which would favor--and there's one more factor which one can take into consideration, which would include gastric emptying and contents which show that there were identifiable food fragments in her stomach at the time of autopsy, identified as rigatoni and black olives, et cetera, which would reflect that--and also, I was told information that she ate the dinner somewhere between 8:00 and 8:15 that evening. Just using that, it would favor death took place between 10:00 and 10:30, but that again would not be a definite answer because that factor of gastric emptying and gastric digestion has so many variabilities to the process. So the bottom line is, I can't narrow time of death between 9:40 and 12:13, which is the discovered time of the bodies, with precision more than what I've discussed.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, is the factor--let me withdraw the question if I might. Doctor, I want you to focus solely on medical factors and not on any information you may have received in the form of, for example, a documented telephone conversation between Nicole Brown Simpson and her mother at about 9:35 in the evening of June 12th and a documented call by Nicole Brown Simpson after that call to her mother or that call from her mother to the Mezzaluna restaurant. I want you to set that aside and focus solely on medical bases for forming an opinion on time of death. Have you an opinion--

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I am going to move to strike that narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Have you an opinion--

THE COURT: I'm sorry. The jury is to disregard the last deletion of factual circumstances, some of which are not in evidence yet. Let's just focus on the medical issues.

MR. KELBERG: Have you formed an opinion as to a range during which the death of Nicole Brown Simpson occurred?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That could occur anywhere between 9:00 and--just on medical facts, if you give a range as anywhere between 9:00 and 12:45.

MR. KELBERG: And we'll go through those medical facts. Do you have an opinion from the medical facts alone as to an estimated range for the time of death of Ronald Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would be the same.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, when forensic pathologists evaluate cases for time of death, do they attempt to provide a specific time or do they attempt something else?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They always give an estimated range because the perimeters you use to estimate time of death are rough perimeters and there's--you cannot be precise in giving a precise time of death. You always give an estimated range with a plus or minus of three hours for a particular time which you estimate the death should have taken place because you always have to give the range because the factors you use have so many variabilities in built in them themselves. So if you take those variabilities of the factors you use and apply them to a particular situation, you can only give an estimated range. You cannot give any precision to a particular time like 10:15 or 10:20. It's very difficult.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in preparing for this area of your testimony, have you reviewed medical literature on the subject of estimation of a range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is one of the materials you reviewed a book called, "The estimation of the time since death in the early postmortem period," by Henssge H-E-N-S-S-G-E, Knight, K-N-I-G-H-T, Krompecher, K-R-O-M-P-E-C-H-E-R, Medea, M-E-D-E-A, and Nokes, N-O-K-E-S?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I referred to that book, yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact, have you read this book?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I read the book to areas which apply to the pathologists.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, when did this work come out?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This year, 1995.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, to your knowledge, is this the first book devoted entirely to this subject, the estimation of the time since death in the early postmortem period that is published in English?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you familiar with who these people are, Henssge, Knight and so forth?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Perhaps if Mr. Fairtlough could just put the face of the book up on the elmo and then the doctor can tell us who these people are.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Henssge is the--works for the institute of forensic medicine at the University of Essen in Germany.

MR. KELBERG: University of what, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Essen, e-s-s-e-n. Mr.--

MR. KELBERG: What kind of institute is that if you're aware?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a forensic institute. I have not been there, so--it's a recognized forensic institution.

MR. KELBERG: And the next name, Dr. Knight?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Dr. Knight is the Professor of Forensic Pathology at University of Wales School of Medicine in Cardiff in the United Kingdom.

MR. KELBERG: Before you go beyond his name, doctor, is one of the materials you also reviewed a chapter regarding "Estimation of time of death found in a forensic pathology text" with the name Bernard Knight, "Forensic pathology"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is this a 1991 text?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is this kind of text?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a textbook of forensic pathology addressing different issues in forensic pathology used by pathologists and other forensic scientists to have information pertaining to that particular medical specialty.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, is Dr. Henssge recognized as one of the leading researchers in the area of estimation of time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He has--he has done a lot of work in this area and he--actually his nomograms, which we will be discussing later, has been developed taking some variable factors involved in the cooling of the body and that nomogram, which we will be discussing later, will give you a tool, a tool to apply certain findings you--you--you have when you examine a body, and when you apply it in a nomogram, you can come up with an estimated range. And again, it's an estimated range. It's not a time of death with precision.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is Dr. Knight a preeminently recognized forensic pathologist?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He's well known in the forensic community. He has written this textbook. He also edits the other book, Keith Simpson.

MR. KELBERG: And I was going to ask you about that. Is there another forensic pathology text that you reviewed the chapter on "Estimation of time of death" entitled, "Simpson's--" obviously no reference to the Defendant--"Simpson's forensic medicine, 10th edition", Bernard Knight?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the edition date of this, doctor, is 1991?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is this--are both of these books with Dr. Knight as the editor considered as recognized medical text in the area of forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. How about if we--do you know any of the other names?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Medea is known. He always writes papers with Dr. Henssge. Dr. Medea is from the University of Koln, K-O-L-N, in Germany.

MR. KELBERG: And is Dr. Medea one of the recognized researchers in the area of "Estimation of time of death"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Most of the people by Dr. Henssge has his name also.

MR. KELBERG: Are you familiar with the other two names, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just when I read the book, Mr. Nokes works for the University of Wales, Cardiff. He's I think the engineering--I think he's in the engineering department.

MR. KELBERG: And actually if we could ask Mr. Fairtlough to put the title page up. It has references to each of these people and I think we'll find it's Dr. Nokes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: MD, doctor, stands for what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Medical doctor.

MR. KELBERG: Are you familiar with what MRCP stands for?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It stands for the member of the royal college of physicians, and usually that's a diplomat given in England and--

MR. KELBERG: How about the other designations for Dr. Knight? Are you familiar with what they mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: FRCPATH is Federal Royal College of Pathologists. DMJ is Dipomat Medical Jurisprudence, Pathology. Barrister is also a lawyer.

MR. KELBERG: And dropping down to--it is Dr. Nokes; is it not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I'm sorry. I--but he does work for the engineering department.

MR. KELBERG: At the University of Wales in Cardiff?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in reviewing this material, have you considered its contents in forming opinions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. As I told, I only reviewed portions which applied to pathologists. There's a lot of material there which is for mostly mathematicians, statisticians which is--which I didn't pay attention to.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact, is that part of the preface by Dr. Knight for people who are not inclined towards higher levels of mathematics? "For those non-medical readers, including lawyers and police detective officers, as well as the many doctors who are unfamiliar with more advanced mathematics and physics, some parts of the text can be avoided in favor of the more practical sections, which summarize the best current methods and indicate the limits of accuracy."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And have you done that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you relied at least in part on the information you have read in this book?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And as part of the material that you have relied upon in part, has the following been included from the preface? "Though very many papers have been published on the subject, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first book in the English language to be devoted to the estimation of the time since death. "As the historical review will indicate, the problem of determining the postmortem interval--" and is that a fancy way of saying how long a person has been dead?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: "--has exercised doctors and scientists for at least a century and a half, yet accuracy still remains beyond our grasp. "This book does not pretend to solve this ancient difficulty, but offers a series of monographs by different authors, which address various aspects of the problem. "Particularly in relation to temperature-based methods, the opinions of different authors will be seen to vary, but this lack of consensus is familiar to all those working in forensic medicine." Part of what you referred to, considered and relied upon, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And further, doctor, did you refer to, consider and rely in part on the following from the general introduction by Dr. Knight? "The importance of estimating the time since death must have been appreciated for centuries, probably millennia. Even in the most unsophisticated societies, when homicides took place, the community would inevitably have correlated the location and movements of the prime suspects with the apparent time of death, however crude that comparison might have been, to test what would later become the Defense of alibi. "Little has changed from those early days, except that their data acquisition equipment was merely the back of a hand to test the coolness of the corpse's skin, and their eyes and nose to evaluate decomposition. We now have multichannel thermometry with thermo-couples sensitive to a fraction of a degree, enzyme methods, vitreous chemistry, muscular reactivity and several other avenues for collecting data. Regrettably, the accuracy of estimating the postmortem interval has by no means kept pace with the enormous strides made in technical sophistication."

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach the bench, your Honor?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, part of what you have read, considered and relied upon?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And further, doctor: "It is not only the Defense of alibi that has such relevance to the estimation of the postmortem interval in criminal deaths. In the earliest stage of many criminal investigations, before any suspect is questioned or charged, a knowledge of the approximate time of death is vital if the investigating officers are to direct their inquiries in the appropriate direction. The relationship of the time of death to other events, to persons in the vicinity and to those who could not have been in the vicinity, will automatically channel investigative efforts along certain lines. When several suspects are being considered, the best estimate of the time of death forms a primary screening procedure to eliminate some putative killers, who could not have had access to the deceased at the material time, and may strengthen suspicion against others whose movements coincided with the estimated time. There is thus a heavy responsibility upon the doctor who offers an opinion as to the probable time of death. If he or she is significantly in error, the investigation may be dislocated at its earliest and perhaps most vulnerable stage. "The onus is therefore upon the doctor to provide a range"--and the word "Range" is italicized. "--of times within which he or she thinks the death occurred, which is as accurate as is justified in the circumstances. Even more importantly, it must not be so unreasonably precise as to exclude incorrectly the true time of death, as this may provide a false alibi for one or more suspects.

"To offer an unreasonably accurate time of death is worse than providing such a wide range of times that the police derive no help from it. In the latter situation, they at least then know that they have to use other methods in their investigation, but to mislead them by some outrageously precise time runs the risk of their excluding the true culprit, as well as falsely implicating an innocent party. "Unfortunately, it is often the least experienced medical witness who tends to offer the most accurate estimate, not having seen enough cases to appreciate the many pitfalls and fallacies in the process. Certainly, with all the methods available up to the present time, the opinion of any doctor who offers a single"--and the word single is italicized. "--time of death, instead of a range or one who includes any fraction of an hour, instead of a whole hour must be viewed with considerable skepticism." Doctor, have you read, considered and relied in part on that information in forming your opinions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you also reviewed chapters from a book that you have previously identified, Spitz' and Fischer's "Medical legal investigation of death, 3rd edition," edited by Dr. Spitz and dated 1993?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Have you also reviewed the materials related to estimation of time of death from another text called "The pathology of homicide" by Lester Adelson, A-D-E-L-S-O-N, dated 1974?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: By the way, are both of these books considered recognized forensic pathology textbooks?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, they are.

MR. KELBERG: Also, doctor, have you reviewed two other books with respect to their chapters dealing with the estimation of the time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: One of which is called "Gradwohl's, G-R-A-D-W-O-H-L'S, Legal Medicine, 3rd Edition," dated I believe it's 1976?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And something called "Modern legal medicine, psychiatry and forensic science" by Curran, c-u-r-r-a-n, and others dated 1980?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And also, doctor, have you reviewed specific individual medical articles concerning the estimation of the range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And in particular, articles going to this issue of the use of stomach contents as a means of estimating the range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, with those preliminaries aside, I have a series of boards that I want to go through with you on this subject of estimation of the range for time of death.

MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, the first board, which is called, "Factors commonly used to estimate range for time of death," I ask to be marked as People's exhibit 366.

THE COURT: 366.

(Peo's 366 for id = board)

MR. KELBERG: And I think Mr. Fairtlough can put that one up on the elmo. I'm not sure--your Honor, I don't know--for the jurors convenience, if we can put it on the elmo and have it as a board. Prefer that?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Fairtlough has broken this one down. So we'll see parts of it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, it might be more convenient for you if you might step down, with the Court's permission, to the board.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is the information conveyed on this exhibit?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This exhibit mainly shows the various factors which are used in the estimation of time of death and the range of time of death, and the physical chemical factors is one, chemical factors is two and other associated factors. In physical chemical factors, one is algor mortis.

MR. KELBERG: What is algor mortis?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is the postmortem cooling of the body. The other way of putting it is loss of warmth of the body.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is algor mortis considered, among all the available techniques medically, the most reliable means of estimating the range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is the most common method used in our office and other jurisdiction in this country.

MR. KELBERG: What's the next entry then?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Rigor mortis, and that is the phenomenon of postmortem stiffening of the muscles which follows a period of primary flaccidity.

MR. KELBERG: What does primary flaccidity mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the muscles are not stiff. They're relaxed. Just after a person dies, if you lift their arms up, it won't be stiff. It will be just flaccid, relaxed, better word to use. And the stiffening process is due to chemical changes which involves the proteins in the muscle fibers. Do you want me to go into detail in each one?

MR. KELBERG: I think we're going to see that when we discuss in specific terms rigor mortis. So perhaps that we'll finish in general terms.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Livor mortis is the draining of blood in--by gravity into the vessels of the dependent parts of the body after the circulation has ceased, that is after your heart has stopped beating, and causes a discoloration in the skin which is not subject to pressure. So in the area where the body is in contact with the ground, you won't have a coloration because the pressure would have pressed on the vessels and so blood cannot accumulate in the vessels.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that a part of what you discussed yesterday in looking at the position of Mr. Goldman's body and some discoloration that you saw in one of the photographs, I believe it was G-5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. If you'll continue.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then we have chemical factors wherein you take some vitreous humor from the eye, estimate the potassium level in the vitreous humor. And the vitreous humor is that part of the eye--it's a substance found in the back of the eye behind your lens and in front of what is called the retina. It's a gel-like substance which is present in everybody, and you remove the material and you send it for analysis for this chemical potassium. And we'll discuss this in detail later. Associated factors, one is the stomach contents. Then of course, the other one is--which is--a factor which is independent verifiable evidence of when the victim was last seen or heard alive.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, that last factor, B, is that in your opinion a medical factor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It's more information, which is not a medical factor, but is a factor which is important. If somebody saw s