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 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. Bailey, Mr. Douglas. The People are represented by Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Lynch. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jurors to join us? All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Also, Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, did you see Judge Bascue's memo?
MS. CLARK: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Regarding screening on the 9th floor, all attorneys are to be subject to that.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
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. Dr. Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SHAPIRO
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning once again, Dr. Lakshmanan.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good morning.
MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, it is clear from your testimony that you were not present when these murders took place?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: There were no eyewitnesses to these murders?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my understanding.
MR. SHAPIRO: There has been no weapon that has been associated with these murders that has been recovered?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my understanding.
MR. SHAPIRO: So clearly what you are here to give us, when you tell us that in response to hypotheticals from Mr. Kelberg as to how you are trying to reconstruct what might have happened, when you say it could have been or could be, you are speculating?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I won't say it is speculation based on the hypothetical. I saw with the medical findings, which I have had an opportunity to review, fits the hypothetical, but sometimes the hypotheticals which are given may not fit the medical findings I have and then I will say it is not consistent. So the hypotheticals which you have presented during the direct examination fitted some of the medical findings and that is why I said it is consistent, so it depends on what the hypothetical is.
THE COURT: When you use the term "Could be," is that a term of medical certainty?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Could be" is not medical certainty, but it is based on education and the findings that it is a good possibility that is what could have happened.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could be is a possibility?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And when you say something could be, a fair additional response would also be it could have been something else?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, because as I mentioned earlier, there are some wounds on both the bodies which are clearly a single-edged knife and I have opined that. There are other wounds on the bodies which could have been a single-edge or a double-edge knife, so there is a little difference. So when the question is posed can all the wounds be by a single-edge knife, I say could have been because there are some wounds on the bodies which could have been single-edge or a double-edge, but there are wounds which could be caused by a single-edge knife from my review of the report.
MR. SHAPIRO: When you talk about the relative positions of the parties--let's get away for a minute from single versus double-edge. I think we have covered that in a great amount of detail. When you give an answer as to the positions of the assailant or assailants and victim and you answered "Could be," you were not giving us any medical certainty, were you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, but the answer was pertaining to that hypothetical. The injuries on the body match the hypothetical.
MR. SHAPIRO: How many different scenarios do you think one could reasonably come up with as to the positions of the bodies at the time of death between Nicole Simpson and her assailant or assailants?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You mean the--could you repeat the question? I didn't catch the earlier part, I'm sorry.
MR. SHAPIRO: How many different reasonable hypotheticals could you come up with regarding the relative positions of Nicole Brown Simpson and her assailant or assailants?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: For the final wound there is only one possible position. I already opined that. But for the other wounds there could be several other scenarios, but I would rather you give me a scenario and I can opine whether that scenario will fit the injuries I have reviewed.
MR. SHAPIRO: It is your testimony that you are medically certain the position of Nicole Brown Simpson and the position of the assailant at the time of death or assailants?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not on all the wounds.
MR. SHAPIRO: On the fatal wound are you medically certain as to the position of Nicole Brown Simpson at the time she received the fatal wounds?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. That misstates the testimony as to the number of fatal wounds.
THE COURT: Sustained. You are referring to one specific wound.
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: As to the last fatal wound are you medically certain as to the position Nicole Brown Simpson was in at the time she received that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: There are no other reasonable interpretations that other experts could give?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have given you my opinion.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are there other reasonable interpretations other experts that you would hold in high regard could give?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like to listen to them before I offer any opinion whether I agree or disagree, but I have clearly enunciated, I think during the direct examination, what are the reasons why I felt that that particular wound took place in that particular position, and based on the crime scene photographs and the medical findings. So I do not know what other opinions are being offered, and when I hear them I can then make a decision.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.
MR. SHAPIRO: And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, but what I gave was what are the possibilities and based on the wounds. For example, the last wound on Nicole Brown Simpson had to be right-hand person because the wound travels, in my opinion, from left to right and it has to be done from the back based on the blood flow pattern.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't that equally consistent with--how many different ways can a right-handed person hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They could hold it in different ways.
MR. SHAPIRO: How many different ways, in your opinion as an expert, can a right-handed person hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already showed one way they could hold it. They could be--but for that wound it had to be held in that way.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, that is not my question, doctor. How many ways, as an expert, can you tell us that a right-handed person can hold the knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Only--only one way he can hold the knife; hold it on the handle part. I mean, how else can you hold it?
MR. SHAPIRO: Your testimony as an expert witness is a right-handed person can only hold the knife in one position?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I mean, for the wound which was caused.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you how many--this is a broad question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.
MR. SHAPIRO: The question is--and I think it is pretty simple.
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, to counsel's statement.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: How many ways can a right-handed person hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is only one way I can see a person could hold the knife if you are going to hold it in the handle part.
MR. SHAPIRO: Only one way?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. For the record, the doctor, with his right hand he reached out and appeared to twist his wrist as if holding an object.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you give me a knife I can show you one of the ways you can do it because this way we can demonstrate it better, because instead of going over a hypothetical in an abstract sense, if you give me a knife, let's go over it and I will tell you how many other ways you can hold it and we can look at it and make a decision on it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I would object to the witness asking questions.
THE COURT: That was an answer. Ask your next question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife as an expert?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think the best way is to demonstrate it.
MR. SHAPIRO: So the answer--would you give us an answer or you cannot tell us?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can tell you if you have the knife, if you can give it to me, a weapon, and I can show you one of the ways I think it can be held, but to make it useful as an object, you can hold it in certain ways, but in certain other positions it won't be useful as to the function of that weapon.
MR. SHAPIRO: So I understand you, and I don't want to belabor this point, you can't articulate how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think for somebody to understand it will be difficult. Unless you give a demonstration in certain types of situations, that is the best way to do it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, let's assume we have reasonably intelligent people listening. Can you verbalize how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife? If you can't, just say you can't.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said I could, but I said it will be better demonstrated.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. You can. What is the answer? How many ways can a right-handed person hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can hold it with the blunt edge facing you, the sharp edge facing you, depending on where you hold the handle. There are only two parts of the knife, the blade and the handle. You are going to hold it in the handle portion, and if it is a single-edge knife, the one sharp edge is going to face you when you hold it in one manner. If you will rotate the knife, the blunt edge is going to face you and hopefully you won't hold it in the blade portion so then it won't serve the function. And if it is a double edge knife, it doesn't matter how you hold it, because both edges are available for causing the function you want it to perform.
MR. SHAPIRO: So your answer is for a single-edge knife you can hold it in two positions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And for a double-edged knife you can hold it in one position?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: For a right-handed person?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would your answer be the same for left-handed person?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can people hold knives in different angles?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They could.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would there be an infinite number of angles that somebody could hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: For example, a right-handed person could hold the knife backhanded and make a thrust with the blunt edge out; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And a right-handed person could hold a knife with the blunt edge out and make a thrusting motion from the right side; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Using the--you are using an example of a single-edged knife, I presume?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Where is the blade portion in your hand right now? You made a fist and I want to--
MR. SHAPIRO: I don't want to--let's--
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.
MR. SHAPIRO: Mrs. Robertson, do we have a knife here?
THE COURT: Excuse me.
(Discussion held off the record between the court and the clerk.)
THE COURT: I will give you something from my evidence collection.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, Judge. I knew you would always have some demonstrative evidence.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, did you mark those knives that we had?
MR. KELBERG: I believe that we did, your Honor, and we only needed them that first day, so they were kept downstairs, as I understand it.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: If I could have a moment, I think I can give you an exhibit number.
(Brief pause.)
Mr. Douglas: 332, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Correct, and 333 and 334.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Doctor, this is a single-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would have to look at it up close. Yes, it looks like a single-edged knife.
MR. SHAPIRO: So one way a person could hold the knife would be with the forearm back and the blunt edge to the outside, (indicating); is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If the thrust is being made in the fashion you are demonstrating and a wound is inflicted, it is a possibility, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Then the knife could be turned just the opposite way and a thrust could be made, (indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: That would cause a blunt edge to the inside and a straight edge to the outside?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Depending on which part of the body it is striking.
THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro, would you just turn because the jurors in the back end were looking to see how you were holding the knife.
MR. SHAPIRO: This was the first time and this was the second time, (indicating).
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, on the wound that you saw on Mr. Goldman's neck, you saw one wound with a blunt end in one direction and one with a blunt end in an opposite direction?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In Goldman's wound both were incise thrust/stab wounds which I described, so it could have been either way.
MR. SHAPIRO: And the same would be true if somebody held the knife coming from the outside of the right hand, they would thrust it with the blunt edge out, (indicating), or they could thrust it with the blunt edge in?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could also somebody take a knife and thrust it underhand, (indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They could do that also.
MR. SHAPIRO: And there would also be four possibilities of doing it that way, wouldn't there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Turning the knife the other way and also coming backhand straightened, (indicating)?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, Mr. Shapiro, you are getting a little too close, if you don't mind.
MR. SHAPIRO: And also somebody could come from the bottom, (indicating); is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that could be four additional ways?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And then a right-handed person could also, from behind, come backhand the same way we have described, (indicating); isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: And from behind could come forehand, (indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is what I demonstrated in my demonstration, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And the same thing for a left-handed person, a left-handed person could come behind, (indicating)?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: On either side?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you couldn't tell whether it is right or left-handed because there are so many different ways a knife can be held; isn't that correct, sir?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I thought I opined that, that--
MR. SHAPIRO: And you really can't tell positions of the body because there are so many different--there are an infinite number of ways a knife can be wielded; isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have discussed that, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: You told us yesterday that there was a technician by the name of Mr. Taylor who was present at the autopsy of Mr. Goldman and Miss Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that Dr. Golden was present?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was anyone else present at the autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He was also I think assisted by Miss Maria Diaz.
MR. SHAPIRO: Maria Diaz?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: What was her role?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I mean technicians assist in the autopsy as I told you, help in removal of the organs and assist the doctor in any way they need to assist the doctor, so--and I already told you yesterday I was not there when the autopsy was being performed in its entirety, so I don't know what exact assistance was provided to Dr. Golden by these two technicians. But I do know that Mr. Taylor took the photographs because some of the photographs that were on display on the posterboard was the photographs taken during autopsy, especially the photographs of the scalp wound on the victim.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is Mr. Taylor a competent technician?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he is.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is he somebody whose opinion you rely on?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: On Mr. Taylor?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I worked with him for many years. He has been there in the department many years, so I know his competence. I don't have to get an opinion from others on that.
MR. SHAPIRO: In your opinion is he honest?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In my opinion he has always been honest to me and he has done his job when I asked him to do something.
MR. SHAPIRO: Anyone else present, that you are aware of, during the autopsy of both of the decedents or either of the decedents, I should say?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The autopsy supervisor and the other autopsy technicians will also be present. As I told you, there are six other--there are total six stations in that room, so there could be other doctors and other technicians there in that room at that time, so I can't really tell you who all were there. I already said that yesterday.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any notes or logs to reflect who was there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I could try and obtain some information for you on that, because who were working that day, but I can't really specifically tell you who was in the autopsy room at that time because, as you know, we do certain number of cases a day and doctors--different doctors could be doing different cases at that time and during the span these cases were done, and technicians could be taking breaks, other technicians could be coming in, so really all I can give you is who was working that day and what cases were done, but I really can't tell you with certainly who was there in the room when these cases were being done, other than what I've already told.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying that you do not keep log records of who is present during an autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do. We usually keep log of the--the--the--the witnesses who attend the autopsy, and there is a log of which technician helped with a particular case, but I thought your question was who all were present in that room, so that is what I was trying to answer. I already told you who helped Dr. Golden on these cases.
MR. SHAPIRO: Let me be more specific. Regarding Nicole Brown Simpson, do you have log records of every person who was present during the time her body was autopsied?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have to check the autopsy technician sheet, which they do maintain, who helped whom, because that was one of the procedures which should be in place.
MR. SHAPIRO: My question wasn't who was present. My question was do you have records as to who was present?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said I have to go and check into that. I don't know whether they have the records or not on that particular issue.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you supposed to have records of who was present at an autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is kept that we have the record of the technicians present because the same technician may help in other cases, so we do have records on that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you supposed to keep records of everyone who was present at an autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: (no audible response.)
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes or no?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We only record the witnesses present during the autopsy; not the technicians.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you will also have records of the doctor who was present and the witnesses, but other parties you will not have records?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't say that. I said there are technicians who help in the autopsy. We keep records of the technicians' roster there. And I already told you who the technicians helped in these cases, but I am not sure whether we have information that these are the only technicians who worked only on these cases or did they do other cases. That is what I'm saying.
MR. SHAPIRO: By policy would you kindly tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what records should be kept of who viewed the autopsy of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The persons who view the autopsies would be the doctor, the technicians who assist the case and the witnesses would be the police officers who attend the autopsy, and of course other doctors and technicians who are in the autopsy room will be seeing portions of the autopsy.
MR. SHAPIRO: Those are the records you should have?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know if you have such records?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that I have to go and check in my department to see whether we got the log sheet for that and I will be happy to provide that and I'm sure we do.
MR. SHAPIRO: So the question is you expect that you do, but you don't know?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: At this time I don't have it, so I have to say I don't know, but I'm sure it will be there to get you that information.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you have any information as to whether or not any police officers were present during the autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I already showed that on the form 15. Dr. Golden has clearly recorded Detective Vannatter and Lange to be present during the autopsy on the form 15. It says "Witnesses to the autopsy." We saw that yesterday.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was Detective Fuhrman present during the autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, that is not recorded, so I would have to presume that he was not there.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know that for a fact?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I told you I reviewed the record and I gave you the information from the record. I was not present during the whole autopsy.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it important to maintain the security of the area where an autopsy is taking place?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and the security is provided for the department to have only people who are responsible to be there.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, isn't it true that construction workers were in the proximity of Mr. Goldman's body?
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I will object as vague on the term "Proximity."
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know what "Close to" is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Close to means, I believe, to observe a process.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know whether or not construction workers were close to Mr. Goldman while he was in the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I am not aware of that.
MR. SHAPIRO: You hadn't heard that from anyone?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: That wasn't brought up in any of your meetings?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you be surprised if that happened?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it will be new information which I have learned from you.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you be surprised if that happened?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I won't be surprised because there are people who visit the department and who--also there may be repairs going on, but I am not aware of it, that a construction worker was there watching the autopsy.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would there be anything wrong with that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I don't know whether it is wrong or right, but if he observed it, he observed it because he was doing some construction work, so I can't say it is right or wrong, but I would prefer that was not watched because it is a medical process and only the doctors and the technicians and the detectives who are supposed to be present should be present.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was Mr. Goldman's body, from the time it was brought in, ever left unattended, to your knowledge?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, when they are left in the crypt area they are left unattended because the doors are closed and they are unattended at that point, so I do not know what you mean by "Unattended."
MR. SHAPIRO: Left out in view of people other than medical professionals necessary to do the work of the Coroner's office?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, I have given you the whole process on last Tuesday, how the bodies went through our office and where they are stored, so it is my understanding that only the people who work in the department and who should have been watching the process, because that is my understanding.
MR. SHAPIRO: What about in the--is there any hallway areas where bodies are left prior to autopsy or after autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If at all they are left it is for a short time because you have to move a body to place another body in the autopsy room, so for a short period they will be in the hallways because you have to go through the hallway from the cold crypt area to go to the autopsy room. And I didn't have any photographs of the hallway, but there is a transit period, and also--so to answer your question, there is--the bodies will be in the hallway at some time between the crypt and the autopsy area.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was Mr. Goldman's body ever left in the hallway unattended?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not to my knowledge.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would that be a violation of your policy if it was?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I wouldn't say it is a violation because they would usually try and place the bodies, as soon as the autopsy is done, back in the cold crypt area, but as I told you, I am not aware that was done, so we like to remove the remains from the autopsy area and put them in the cold crypt area as soon as possible, because it is good to preserve the bodies in the cold area as much as possible, depending on the situation that day.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would it be proper for construction workers to be close to Mr. Goldman's body while it was in the hallway?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said I am not aware of that, so--
MR. SHAPIRO: I am asking you if it happened, would that be appropriate?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, if he is--if the person was there in the hallway doing some kind of construction work or he had to do some repairs, that is something which we can't avoid, as long as he doesn't touch the body, because the bodies are kept on gurneys.
MR. SHAPIRO: How would you know if he touched the body or not if nobody was watching?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, as I told you, it is beyond my expertise to tell you what exactly happened, but I am telling you that it should not happen and it is my understanding nothing of such nature happened.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you have told us that all of your information regarding your testimony comes from photographs; is that correct?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, that does misstate the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the coloration of the wounds, do you have any firsthand knowledge of the color of the wounds other than from photographs on the two decedents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I had--as I told you, I did examine the bodies briefly on the 13th and I saw some of the major wounds, but more--almost most of the other wounds which were in the covered areas of the body was from photographs, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: On the 13th did you dictate any memoranda as to what you observed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you write any notes as to what you observed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you file any notes as to what you observed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you make any measurements as to what you observed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: You have nothing other than your memory to rely upon to refresh your recollection as to what you observed on the 13th?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you have told us that as a supervisor you literally review thousands of bodies?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Over the year, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And this has been over a year?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Over a year means over a stretch of a year we do hundreds and thousands of cases so that is what I meant by an answer, but it is a year since I reviewed this body; that is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you have seen thousands of cases since then?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And with no notes to refresh your memory it would be very hard to describe with a medical degree of certainty, the wounds, the coloration that you observed on the 13th; isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you are relying entirely on photographs when you form those conclusions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And on photographs you can't measure depth, can you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, you cannot.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, is there a term in forensic pathology that takes a wound and puts it together called "Reassessment"? Have you ever heard that term?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have not heard the word "Reassessment." I have heard the word "Approximation" when you put the wound together, edges together.
MR. SHAPIRO: Reapproximation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be a better term I used than what you used.
MR. SHAPIRO: We will go with your term. And when you reapproximate a wound, that is to try to put it back to the position it was in at the time the injury took place; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what efforts did you make, in coming to your conclusions, to reapproximate any of the wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I clearly stated that I had limitations in the photographic process when I gave my testimony on the direct exam. Do you want me to repeat it?
MR. SHAPIRO: Let me just repeat the question.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.
MR. SHAPIRO: Maybe you didn't understand it. What efforts did you take to reapproximate the wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson before you gave this jury your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said I reviewed from photographs and I did not reapproximate the wounds. The measurements of Dr. Golden are those taken when the wounds were approximated.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, when he says they were approximated--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did, and he dictated that he approximated the wound.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see him do it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't see him do it.
MR. SHAPIRO: You have already told us he has made lots of mistakes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I also said that they were not significant mistakes. I told you that they don't have significance to the matter which concerns the case. There were no mistakes on the wounds which caused the major fatal injuries on both the victims.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you medically certain that there are no other errors that Dr. Golden made in this autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have truthfully discussed all the errors which I believe are there, but as I also opined that the significant injuries which I could evaluate, I could give an opinion on, and I believe that the errors which were addressed had no significance to my final opinion.
MR. SHAPIRO: My question was--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I am--
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm sorry. Finish.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm finished.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you medically certain that Dr. Golden made no other errors?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To my knowledge on the review of the case.
MR. SHAPIRO: All right. I didn't understand that answer. Can you answer yes or no? Are you medically certain that Dr. Golden made no other errors?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. I will object. It is asked and answered and argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you medically certain Dr. Golden made no other errors?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: To the extent I reviewed the case, yes. I mean, to the extent I reviewed the case, no, I don't think he made any other errors to the extent I reviewed.
MR. SHAPIRO: You don't know whether he overlooked something that may be important?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, from my review of the photographs there was nothing else which was overlooked on the case from what I already opined.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you are saying that a photograph is a substitute for an in-person autopsy by a medical examiner?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't say that. I never said that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, it is not my opinion. I never said that.
MR. SHAPIRO: That is what you are going on, isn't it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, under the circumstances, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you were shown a picture in a standard text of a wound that was reapproximated; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did I understand your testimony that the purpose of that was only to demonstrate for photography, but that wasn't a method that was actually used?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. My understanding is that I thought I said that on approximation you will find that the length of the wound will be greater than the wound--wound measurement when it is gaping, and true reflection would be when you approximate the wound and take the measurement, and that is what I restating.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true that you cannot, as a medical examiner, correctly measure a wound from a photograph unless it has been reapproximated, sir?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that wasn't done in this case, was it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not in my review; that's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: What about--you put a lot of emphasis in your testimony on the color of the wounds; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are there different degrees of color in photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do they vary based on lighting?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do they vary based on the type of equipment that is used?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And is there something that forensic pathologists use to measure color called a color slide or a color standard? Is there something like that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I am not a photographer and I do not know about this color standards, but the photographs which are developed clearly demonstrate the wounds and I have already given my opinion on it.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you are not aware of anything called a color chart that is taken simultaneously with a photograph to compare colors?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, I am not a photographic expert and that is not my area of expertise.
MR. SHAPIRO: But you are testifying from photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And would you agree that colors in photographs may vary due to the printing process of those photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have already said that I am not a photographic expert and do not want to go into that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you familiar with a process known as microscopic slides?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are microscopic slides something that is commonly used in forensic pathology?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And would you agree that you can better age abrasions and contusions from microscopic slides than you can from photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: What microscopic slides were taken of the skin areas of Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: None were taken.
MR. SHAPIRO: What microscopic slides were taken of the skin area of Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: None were taken.
MR. SHAPIRO: When was the first time you decided--well, let me ask you this: Did you decide on your own to independently review the findings of Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That was when the addendum was prepared I--I looked at the case and I brought his attention about the missed contusion and he brought to my attention some of the injuries which were not described in the original report, and that is the time I discussed that with him, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: My question was did you decide on your own to reevaluate the work of Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I did not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did someone ask you to reevaluate the work of Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did that reevaluation when the District Attorney wanted me to testify, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And who asked you to do the reevaluation of Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: When--actually initially I was considered as a possible witness during the latter part of last year, but this year, when Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Lynch came to see me, I was told that I would be testifying and that is the time I really started an intensive review process of the case.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could you give us a date?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you have your logs with you today?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I think I gave you a copy yesterday.
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, you do. Do we have that copy? Do you have that?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you provide it? I don't know whether we left it here or not, but go ahead.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would that refresh your memory, sir?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I have to look at the log sheet. Sometime the beginning of February 8;th I had my first conversation with Mr. Kelberg.
MR. SHAPIRO: So let's see if we can answer the question specifically. When was the first time your notes reflect that you were requested to reevaluate the work done by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This entry is February 8th of this year.
MR. SHAPIRO: That was by Mr. Coleberg--Kelberg, I'm sorry?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: When--was that the first time that you began to focus on reevaluating the work of Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I already said that we addressed some of the errors in the addendum report in July.
MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Let me--may I just stop you there?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. I would ask that the witness have an opportunity to fully complete his answer.
THE COURT: Overruled at this point because we are getting two different answers.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in July who initiated the reevaluation work?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Actually it was June 30th when I evaluated the report for the addendum preparation.
MR. SHAPIRO: Who initiated the work on June 30th?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That was me and Dr. Golden.
MR. SHAPIRO: You did this on your own?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And why did you decide to reevaluate the work on June 30th?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, there were some errors found. One was the contusion which was there in the storage tissues which was not addressed. And the other issue was Dr. Golden had some injuries which were not addressed which were in the photographs, and he had finished his recent review of the case, and I instructed him that you need to address these issues and that is how the addendum report was prepared.
MR. SHAPIRO: So prior to that you yourself, as the Chief Medical Examiner, did not undertake any reexamination of Dr. Golden's work; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: On these cases, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And it was only when Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf, who is not here today, through myself, made an appointment to come review your findings that attention was first focused on errors; isn't that true, sir?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: At least the brain contusion part because the errors which Dr. Golden had in his mind would have been also addressed, because that was not addressed in the meeting with Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf. The only reason which I felt I should definitely review was the contusion part of that. The rest of the addendum report was Dr. Golden's own initiative which resulted in the addendum report being repaired.
MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the brain contusion, is it correct, sir, that on June 22nd, at the direction of myself to bring in Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf to reevaluate the autopsy, for the first time the brain tissue was brought out for reexamination based on their request?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And at that time Dr. Baden was dictating notes to Dr. Wolf, was he not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you were also taking notes of what Dr. Baden was dictating, were you not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I was taking notes of what Dr. Baden was going and also what I was observing.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you took notes when Dr. Baden observed the injury to the brain, did you not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I also observed the injury at the same time, because I was working with him at the same time.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you take notes of Dr. Baden's findings regarding the brain? Yes or no?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I took notes of what I observed, but Dr. Baden also observed the same thing and he took his notes. I was taking notes of the meeting to record it for posterity.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you turn those notes over to the Defense as required by discovery?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I turned over the typed report which was present which is a final report, yes, and I also turned over the notes to you I think a few days ago.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did those notes indicate they were your findings or Dr. Baden's findings?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They were my findings and his findings, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Actually it was really obvious what the injury was, wasn't it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: But it was at Dr. Baden's request that that sample jar be brought out?
MR. KELBERG: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf ask to be able to take photographs of their findings?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't recall that because we did take photographs of the evidence during the histopathological process. I don't recall them requesting it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you recall denying them the right to take photographs saying that they couldn't?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That I said that as a general rule in our department we don't allow outside people to take photographs. We take the photographs and provide them copies, but I don't recall that they wanted to take photographs during the tissue examination process, but we did take photographs during the other evidence examination process.
MR. SHAPIRO: You know Dr. Baden for a long time, don't you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do. He takes a lot of photographs. I know that.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you trained under him, didn't you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I trained under him for two years on a part-time basis.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any reason why you would not allow him to take photographs in your laboratory?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have procedures in our department, and we can't break rules just because I know somebody and I am friendly with them. I have to follow the rules of the department because I establish these rules so that we have control on the photographs being taken in the department.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did Dr. Baden try to talk to you, as a medical examiner, about the findings while you were there?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Didn't you tell him that you were instructed by the District Attorney that you couldn't talk to him?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think I told you that also, because I didn't tell you about the District Attorney not asking me to talk to you. I told you that I won't be able to talk to you on the case because the case was in grand jury at the time and Dr. Golden was not present because he was testifying at the grand jury. So that is my understanding of our conversation, if I remember it right.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you were--you did instruct Dr. Golden--I'm sorry--Dr. Baden, that you could not speak with him?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: About the case, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Even about medical findings that would commonly be shared by forensic pathologists?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: At that time, yes, because the case was in grand jury.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true that the only slide that your office made at your own direction was after Dr. Baden asked for the brain tissue to be examined?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And isn't it true that the only other microscopic slides that have been done in this case were done recently at the request and expense of Dr. Baden, Dr. Wolf and myself?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: By the way, how much did you charge us for those slides?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If I remember right, the department charged you, not me, the County of Los Angeles charged you $1393.60, if I remember right, but I can pull out the invoice and I can verify that number, but that is my recollection of the number, $1395.60, but I can check it.
MR. SHAPIRO: And we were charged for your time?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. Basically what has happened is that the county has some fixed rates when tissues and slides--slides are made from tissue processing, and you were charged for 16 slides at the rate of eighty plus dollars per slide and that is what the county charges, yes, and that includes my time also or any doctor's time.
MR. SHAPIRO: How much an hour were you billed for my time?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You were not billed for my time. You were only billed for the slide cost.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you sure of that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Positive.
MR. SHAPIRO: So if I have a bill for your time, we will get a refund?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because the--the amount of money you were charged as the doctor's time is built into it. The county has some procedures.
MR. SHAPIRO: And the $80.00 a slide?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Eighty plus I said.
MR. SHAPIRO: Eighty plus. All right. Let's say eighty for the sake of this discussion. Would you say that the going rate in forensic laboratories around the country for such a slide is $5.00?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, calls for hearsay, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think you are confusing the picture here. Maybe I should explain this a little bit in detail. The cost when you are paying for slide includes the initial phone calls you made. The county takes a lot of things into consideration. My clerical person answering the phone call, our conversations, our being present. And remember, during the process we took extra photographs which we didn't charge you for. We gave you the photographs free. Whatever I think is necessary which needs to be done on the case is given to both parties without any cost. It is something when I don't feel it is necessary and is requested by another party, then the county charges for that request, no. 1. No. 2, if it is just a duplicate of a slide which is being made, it is done at a much lower cost. And with reference to the only slide we made was the brain contusion slide, that we gave the duplicate free, we didn't charge Dr. Baden for it. We didn't charge Dr. Baden or yourself for the initial set of photographs. We didn't charge you for anything. Whatever we gave the Prosecution, we gave you, but what a we did charge was for the extra effort the department made for the additional sections which in my opinion were not adding anything further to the cause and manner of death in this case was charged to you, and I think the charge is what the county sets up based on the clerical--if--the clerical call to the histopathology technician, going and retrieving the jars, his time, because he has to stop what he is doing, bring these jars from storage and then we are to give it to the processor and the processor process slides that come back. All these charges are built in, and then since we generated slides on a case, even though it is requested by another person, we still have to look at the slides, because it is our case, we have to generate a report. I mean, all these costs are built in and then--and that is how those charges come. So it looks--this is similar to what the hospital charges you when get Tylenol from the hospital. They have the built-in cost of running the whole show. It is just not the slide cost. It is not like buying retail. It is the whole process. That is what the auditor does. I just tried to explain my understanding of the process of why the cost should be so much.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you remember the question I asked?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: What was the question?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, object as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Didn't I just ask you isn't it the standard cost around the country that the cost is $5.00. Can you answer that yes or no?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it won't really explain the question the way you phrased it, because it looks--
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Let's move on.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, the best way to determine the aspiration of blood into the lungs is to examine microscopic slides?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can tell from grossly also, but microscopically you will see the aspirated blood, but in gross position you can see aspirated blood very clearly but you will have to see blood in the trachea and the larynx first. It is the initial pathway from where the blood reaches the lungs.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it your medical opinion that a better way to determine the issue of bleeding into the lungs, or aspiration of blood into the lungs, is by microscopic slide or relying on somebody else's visual observation?
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I object as vague. Are we asking aspiration of blood or bleeding.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Aspiration of blood.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you sustained it, so I don't know what the exact--
THE COURT: No, he just restated it. Why don't you restate the complete question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding aspiration of blood, would you, as an expert medical examiner, say it would be a better way to make the determination by a microscopic slide or relying on a medical examiner who has made numerous mistakes in an autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It depends on the issue you are trying to study. If you think by gross examination the bleeding was acute, which was from a fracture of the skull or whatever the reason for the aspiration was, you don't need to do a microscopic study, but if you feel the aspiration occurred and you need to date the aspiration, then a microscopic study will be useful, but as far as looking at an aspirated blood, it is pretty obvious, if you have done many forensic autopsies, to see aspirated blood in the lungs.
MR. SHAPIRO: Wouldn't it have helped you in this case, in reaching your conclusions regarding the injuries to the neck that caused bleeding in the area of the windpipe, to have microscopic slides?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessary, because you have the cause of death clearly established and injury is an acute injury.
MR. SHAPIRO: It wouldn't be a better way, in your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say that a reasonable conclusion in a case involving stabbing is that the more stab wounds you find, the more likely there is that a struggle was put up?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I wouldn't make that conclusion by the number of stab wounds, because there are other factors involved.
MR. SHAPIRO: You have indicated that not all the blunt wounds on the decedents are in the same direction; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't know what you mean by blunt wounds. What direction? Which wound are you referring to? If you could specify your question, maybe I will be able to give an answer better.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are all the wounds that you observed on both of these decedents that have blunt ends to them in the same direction?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, they are in different--slightly different directions, depending on which wound you are referring to. The wounds on Goldman, they were in different directions. The--Nicole's wounds, two of them were in the same direction. One of them was in a different direction on the left side of the neck.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that clearly indicates that there was movement between the decedent and the perpetrators, doesn't it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I think I opined that the stabbing process is a dynamic process; it is not a static process. I already explained that.
MR. SHAPIRO: And because it is a dynamic process involving movement, you, nor any other medical examiner, has any ability to accurately reconstruct what took place; isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Accurately reconstruct it, no.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you talked about the reaction of an individual, who in this case was Mr. Goldman, and how he, in your opinion, would react to being attacked, did you not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you read that part of my testimony and then I can refresh my memory what I exactly said? Because I have been testifying for eight days, so I don't know which part of the testimony you are referring to.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your testimony was so long you have already forgotten it?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was your testimony so long that you already forgot it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, there were different scenarios posed, different questions asked, so if you can refresh my memory, I will be happy to look at the statements I made and explain it again, if you wish me to.
MR. SHAPIRO: One of the areas you talked about were injuries to the fist?
MR. KELBERG: I think, your Honor--
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you recall that?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. That misstates the testimony of the anatomy.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question; hands.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you testify about injuries to the hands?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you testify that you had read some literature in that regard?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: Where was that article published that you read?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I just read a chapter in a sports injury textbook. It was by Foo and Stone is the textbook, by Foo and Stone on sports injuries. It was a chapter on boxing injuries by timothy ward.
MR. SHAPIRO: And when did you read that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The last few months, and--
MR. SHAPIRO: Did anybody call that article to your attention?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: You just did research yourself?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that article dealt with injuries to the hand that take place in a fistfight?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, boxing injuries.
MR. SHAPIRO: Boxing with or without gloves?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: It dealt with both injuries that occur with gloves and without gloves?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And there is something in there that you have relied upon as to what you would expect if one individual struck another individual with a closed fist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There was information there as to the injuries they have observed in their research material, but when I opined, my opinion was based on my experience and information I gathered from there, so my experience on seeing blunt force injuries also is this when I gave my opinion.
MR. SHAPIRO: What information did you rely on in that article in coming to your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I was just saying what type of fractures one would get in the boxing and those other kind of information I was looking at.
MR. SHAPIRO: What information did you rely on in giving your purpose from reading that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The information that was just part of the chapter plus my experience.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what information was that that you relied on as to whether or not the victim or victims in this case struck the assailant or assailants?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I looked at where the injury patterns would happen with reference to if it is a closed fist, if it is a properly laid blow or a glancing--improperly laid blow on the person, what type of injuries you would get, what type of fractures you would get, just improved my understanding of the injury patterns observed by sports injury orthopedic physicians.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you relate to the jury that section that you relied upon for that opinion?
MR. KELBERG: Objection as asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically the area which I looked at was to see what type of fractures you can get. You can get fractures of the first metacarpal bone in a boxer who wears the gloves but the thumb was not in the glove, and you can get a fracture of the base of the metacarpal bone. You can get fractures of the fifth and fourth metacarpal bone, which is the outer little finger bones, if the blow is not improperly placed. You could get injuries to the ligaments on the back of the metacarpal phalangeal joints depending how the blow was applied, et cetera.
MR. SHAPIRO: So what you are saying is if one person hits another person they could hurt their hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you needed to do research to find that out?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: How much research did you do to find that out?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the chapter which just improves my knowledge based on it, but as I already told you, my opinion was based on also our own experience on different blunt force trauma you see in the hand of different individuals.
MR. SHAPIRO: How many bare hand fights have you actually witnessed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have not witnessed bare hand fights, but I have seen people who have died from altercations who have had fights and who have injuries to the face and hand. I have seen many cases.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a proper way to throw a punch?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is--there is an ideal punch when the whole force delivers its effect on the target and there are blows which may not deliver the entire force on the target.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is the position of the fist in a proper punch?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Do you want me to demonstrate, your Honor? This would be one way of holding your hand to deliver a punch, (indicating).
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, with his right hand Dr. Lakshmanan has closed his hand into a fist. His arm is at perhaps a 45-degree upward angle.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could you hit somebody with your hand in that position and cause injury to them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I have not hit anybody closing my fist, but you could cause definite blunt force injury by hitting somebody hard with this kind of closed fist.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could you cause injury to somebody by hitting them with a closed fist and not cause injury to yourself?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a possibility that you may not get injured, but you could also get bruising of your hand. That is why you do--you can get bruising of the hand, too.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you could get hurt; you could not get hurt?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct, and I also I think stated that if there were gloves present, there is less chance striking somebody would get hurt and the person who gets hit would get hurt more.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there something known as a glancing blow?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and that would be the one which the blow did not have its full effect on the target, either due to movement of the target being the victim and the--or the reach was not as it was planned to be delivered.
MR. SHAPIRO: So it is possible if someone hits someone improperly that they could only hit with one knuckle or one portion of the hand and not cause injury to other parts of the hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Generally that could happen, theoretically, but if you hit the knuckles you will expect other bruising of the other knuckles in that situation.
MR. SHAPIRO: What if you only hit one knuckle on the chin?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that is always a possibility, I suppose, but generally, if you look at it in context, you will get injuries to other knuckles, too.
MR. SHAPIRO: Even if only one knuckle came in contact with someone's chin?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said it is a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: You would expect injuries on other knuckles?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said in your theoretical possibility--I mean, your possibility that if only a glancing blow with only one knuckle hitting, then this is a possibility, I suppose, but if you look at it logically, it doesn't make sense that you would only hit one knuckle on somebody, especially in the case of Mr. Goldman, when you have a clear-cut bruise on the middle finger knuckle, it is--it is--it seems unlikely that--that you would not see bruising of the other knuckles, especially when the knuckle which was injured is in the middle of the closed fist.
MR. SHAPIRO: Doesn't the middle knuckle protrude in most people's hands from other knuckles?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The other knuckles protrude, too. In my hand you can see that both the knuckles protrude.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did Mr. Goldman's index knuckle protrude?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't close his fist to see that, but just in my experience this is the average appearance of a closed fist, and I think if you take the closed fist of most people, this is the appearance it will have.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you done any studies on that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have not done studies on that, but I'm just giving you from my experience.
MR. SHAPIRO: What experience is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Experience means my knowledge on this.
MR. SHAPIRO: Where did you obtain this knowledge?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Practical knowledge. If you close anybody's fist you can see the appearance.
MR. SHAPIRO: So general knowledge that all of us have?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: If someone was attacked from behind, would you expect that the victim would try to kick the assailant?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would depend what kind of attack was from the behind, so could you expand on it a little better?
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you did that demonstration. Maybe you can--with Mr. Kelberg you grabbed him with one hand around his chest and you held a ruler to his throat. Remember when you did that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, if Mr. Kelberg was fighting for his life, would you expect that he might try to kick you to get away?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a possibility, and I did mention it in my opinion, that the victim could have wrestled himself away from the assailant. And a normal human being is not going to just allow somebody to cut your throat. You are going to try and escape from that life-threatening situation.
MR. SHAPIRO: So the reasonable thing to expect is that there would be a struggle?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that the victim would try to kick?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would try to hit?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If the victim is being held, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Try to hit with closed fist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: With an open hand?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: With elbows?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: With anything else in the natural instinct to survive the attack; isn't that true?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you--now, part of this you say is you go through all these scientific things that you have studies and then one of the criteria is witnesses, to ask people what really happened or to ask about reactions of people. Is that part of your job?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I don't talk to witnesses, because we just do our autopsies and review the injuries.
MR. SHAPIRO: In forming your opinion, wouldn't you like to know if the victim was physically fit?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, from the appearance of the body, he appeared to be an athletic young man who was not obese. He was a very athletic, handsome young man.
MR. SHAPIRO: Wouldn't you like to know if that is the person who is likely to perhaps just kowtow to an attacker and melt away and not do anything or whether he is the type of person who would in fact try to defend himself and put up a struggle?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a difficult question to answer, because you are going into areas because sometimes you can have a very big person who can be intimidated by fear, and so I don't know what exactly happened, but theoretically physically athletic person could definitely offer resistance. But if there is fear element involved, they could be just intimidated and just freeze and that is also known to occur, so I really don't know what happened, but I do not what injuries happened, and I have given you my opinion on the injuries as to what could have happened.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would it have helped to talk to somebody and ask what the make-up of the victim was and what the victim would likely do?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't do that.
MR. KELBERG: That is a compound question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SHAPIRO: What about Nicole Brown Simpson? Was she physically fit?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: She looked like a young physically fit woman, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a difference between the way women react to an attack and men?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I can't say that because nowadays--not nowadays, any human being can react in the same way in a situation of stress. Either they can fight the attacker or they can be in fear and freeze. So I don't think a difference of sex matters. It is a situation in which the person is put into place.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would it be unreasonable to expect that a woman would fight off an attacker?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I would expect any human being to fight off the attacker if they are not frozen by fear. You are fighting for your life.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in such a fight for your life you would expect the attacker or attackers to have some injuries or evidence of being in some type of struggle, wouldn't you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If the victim was able to deliver some blows, but if the attacker quickly incapacitated them, you may not see injuries on the attacker, so it depends on the situation. It is--I am just giving you my understanding of what could happen, but I have already discussed what injuries each one had. And I already discussed what my opinion on both the victims are. It is in evidence and we could go over the transcript if you want.
MR. SHAPIRO: You told us the minimum amount of time the struggle between Ron Goldman and his attacker or attackers was and you said it could be less than a minute?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did say that.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is the maximum amount of time the struggle could have taken place between Ron Goldman and his attacker or attackers?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would say within a few minutes. Because of the nature of the injuries and the acute bleeding, I wouldn't expect the attack to be more than a few minutes because you can't really tell how long, but I would favor it within a few minutes the attack took place, but it could have been done very well within a minute.
MR. SHAPIRO: What if the fatal wound were the last wounds struck?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There were quite a few fatal wounds. He had two wounds to the chest, one wound to the neck which caused bleeding from the jugular vein. He had an aortic wound. The thigh wound was hot fatal, but it was still causing significant bleeding. The only other wounds you are left with is three, four cuts in the--two cuts on the top of the head--I mean of the back of the head and you have blunt force injuries to the hand, so I think the injuries which were inflicted to him were significant injuries, and I think they could have been done very well within a minute, and I would not expect the struggle to have been more than a few minutes based on the injuries he received. So unless there is any other possibility you want to offer, we could discuss it.
MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Well, let's assume Mr. Goldman was a physical--in very good physical shape, that he is 25 years old, that he is six feet tall, that he works out regularly and that he is not taken by surprise, but he sees attackers and he puts up a really valiant struggle. Is that something that could take place?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you explain what you mean by "Valiant struggle." What exactly happened?
MR. SHAPIRO: He fought his attackers real hard?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In what way?
MR. SHAPIRO: With his legs, with his hands, with his fists, with his body.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I already told you, I don't think he fought the attacker in the manner you are portraying because he was trying to avoid the wounds, as I see it. I think Mr. Goldman was mainly ducking, turning, twisting and backing when these injuries took place, as I already mentioned that he was in a closed environment, and in my own feeling he was rapidly incapacitated. He didn't have a chance. The injuries are in the front of the hands, there is no cuts on the back, so my feeling is he was turning, twisting at some point because of the nature of the clothing injuries we have. He was ducking because he has got injuries to the front of the hands as if he was facing the assailant and most likely backing into the bushes with his flailing hands when the attack took place, and that is my opinion from what I can see of the injuries we have discussed it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your opinion is that a person or persons with a knife came at Mr. Goldman, and rather than trying to cover his head and face or trying to bend over to protect himself, (indicating), or trying to get into some type of defensive stance, he just put his arms out and started hitting a tree and a fence? Is that your testimony, sir?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the point is he doesn't have any injuries on the back of the hand. In your demonstration you just said, if he did this, (indicating), the man has got wielding cuts in the left side of the neck from--I mean he has got cuts on the left side of the neck in the face from the wielding knife, so from your demonstration he should have a lot of cuts on the back of the hand which he doesn't have--which he doesn't have pathologically. You saw the photographs. I saw the photographs. There are no back--and there is no injuries to the back of the hand.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it your testimony that he did not try to defend himself but rather threw his arms out and hit a tree and hit the fence? Is that your testimony?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. My testimony is that the injuries I see do not support that hypothetical situation. It supports, rather, a situation which I already opined. He backed, he ducked, he turned, he twisted and he didn't have a chance.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you base that solely on viewing photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Photographs show the injuries and the description of the report is available for my review, and it is an independent review.
MR. SHAPIRO: And are there other experts whose opinion you trust who could give different scenarios?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. That calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Based on your expertise are there others who would disagree with that opinion?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, as calling for hearsay, speculation and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: You talked about the tip of the knife and that there was no evidence that any tip of a knife was broken off; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was a correct examination done to look for a tip of a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We didn't do x-rays before the autopsy, so--but we did do x-rays after the autopsy, and on the only bony structure which was injured, so that way we did an examination for any foreign body.
MR. SHAPIRO: The x-ray that you did was of what size of the spine?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The x-ray was of just of the spine specimen removed.
MR. SHAPIRO: What size of the spine specimen as compared to the entire spine?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was only three pieces of the vertebra.
MR. SHAPIRO: How large were those three pieces of the vertebra?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: One portion was a portion of the vertebra; the other two were intact.
MR. SHAPIRO: What size were they?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They were typical size which is a normal size with a couple of inches length of the spine which was removed which was x-rayed; not the entire spine, no.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you show the jury, just holding your hand, what size of a portion of the vertebra we are talking about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We had a length of the spine of this length, approximately, (indicating). Each body is about so much, so you are talking about this length of spine which was examined.
THE COURT: Approximately three or four inches.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it a medical possibility that if the tip of a knife broke off in that area that it could dislodge itself without a medical examiner finding it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Generally, no, because usually when a knife tip breaks, the knife tip is stuck to the bone. In my experience I have had two cases where we have seen this. The tip which is broken is imbedded in the bone, they won't fall off, because what breaks it is the tip gets stuck and then the knife is twisted, the tip breaks and it is imbedded in the bone, at least in my experience in the two cases I have been involved, the knife tip gets struck and you have to virtually take it out of the bone with the help of x-rays. So to answer your question, I don't think it is likely.
MR. SHAPIRO: So based on those two times that you have seen a knife tip in a bone, you would opine that it is not reasonable that a knife tip could become dislodged and go to another part of the body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Generally not. That is my feeling on it from my experience, because as I told you, the tip is the one which gets broken--the tip is usually very small. It is not a big chunk which gets broken. And the tip gets stuck this bone, in my experience, but--and I'm going with my experience.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it possible that the tip of the knife or knives could have been broken in any other portion of the body, other than that small fragment of spine that you saved?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Generally not. Usually the knives break when they hit bony structures, because when you have a soft tissue structure and you have a sharp instrument, there is no resistance. You usually break an instrument when there is resistance, and the resistance is compounded by the tip getting stuck somewhere. So in my experience and my reading of the subject, it would be most likely if the knife struck a hard bony structure and not a soft tissue structure.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, to ask the question the way they were asked on direct examination, could someone be cut with a knife, have the tip broken off and have it not lodged in the only small area of the spine that you covered?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you from my experience, I don't think that is very likely, but unless you have some information which you can provide me which shows that that is happened in other cases.
MR. SHAPIRO: My question isn't isn't it likely. My question is could it happen?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Theoretically it is possible, but from what I just opined, medically it doesn't seem possible.
MR. SHAPIRO: And wouldn't the best way to determine that be by taking an x-ray?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And x-rays were not taken in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have already said that.
MR. SHAPIRO: And they were not taken because the x-ray machine was broken?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't have an exact answer for that. I don't think the doctor felt it was necessary to do it at that time, but when I got involved in the case later, I ordered x-rays to be done on the spine, which we have, and most importantly, most importantly, during the examination Dr. Golden saved the only bony injury he observed, which was the spine. He saved it for storage.
MR. SHAPIRO: How much later did you take the x-ray--order the x-ray to be taken?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have to refer to the report, but I think it is sometime in September of last year when I ordered it to be done and I asked our radiologist to look at it.
MR. SHAPIRO: What happened during the three or four months which caused you to form the opinion that x-rays taken on the 13th were proper to take?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I just felt to complete the process to make sure we didn't miss anything. I just wanted to make sure, because the wound patterns didn't suggest the knife was broken, but I felt to complete the process we needed to make sure that we didn't miss anything which may be of importance in the case. And I just completed an investigation. Just like I ordered the c-screen, I ordered this also to complete the procession to make sure we didn't miss anything.
MR. SHAPIRO: Because you felt those were the proper things to do?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, you can put it that way, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if they were proper to do in September, they were certainly proper to do in June, weren't they?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but I also said that we saved what was essential. Dr. Golden saved the only major bony injury he observed on both the cases in storage. We had the specimen.
MR. SHAPIRO: But you are relying on somebody's observations who you've already told us makes lots of mistakes?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. That mistakes the testimony.
MR. SHAPIRO: Makes mistakes?
THE COURT: It is an argumentative question. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: You are relying on the opinion of someone else who you have already told us has made several mistakes in this autopsy; isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but I also said they were not significant as to the outcome of the case. There were some mistakes but they were all of the non-lethal injuries.
MR. SHAPIRO: As you testify today here as an expert, would you say that a certified medical examiner should know the difference between an entrance and an exit wound caused by a bullet?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but there are difficulties even for the most expended pathologist sometimes to differentiate an entrance and an exit when you have what's called a short exit, but I agree that a pathologist should be able to tell, but sometimes it is difficult--
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. And--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: --on certain situations.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you told the jury here yesterday that Dr. Golden made such an error?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did say that and it is the truth, he did make an error on that case.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you also--would you also opine that a board certified medical examiner should know the difference between a gunshot wound that is fired at a distance and one that is fired at close range?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and I opined on that also yesterday.
MR. SHAPIRO: And Dr. Golden you told us made that mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you--do you think an expert board certified medical examiner should be able to tell whether or not a thyroid is present during an autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you told us that mistake was made by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but that mistake is something on somebody who is on thyroid, they are--anyway, that is a mistake, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you still rely upon what Dr. Golden did as being correct in forming the basis for your opinions in this case, don't you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do, and--and the reason is he has done 5000 plus cases. I know him personally as a pathologist and I know he is a capable doctor and I have seen his work on other cases. These are mistakes which have been acknowledged and I have no hesitation why I can't rely on this report.
MR. SHAPIRO: You know about the case where there were two people who were victims with a gunshot wound that we talked about?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Yesterday Mr. Kelberg brought that up, that you said addendums were filed in those cases to correct the mistakes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: One addendum had been filed. When I reviewed the cases the second addendum was filed on the--the addendum on the sex case was filed and I also had to make a correction on the first case at that time.
MR. SHAPIRO: There was an autopsy that took place in 1990?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And a case that was prosecuted as a capital murder case?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, and counsel indicated he would--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: In this case one correction was made in 1993; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have to look at the papers, but that sounds about right.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was--
THE COURT: I'm sorry, "In this case" you said?
MR. SHAPIRO: In the case that we are talking about.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: In the case we are talking about where the errors were made regarding the gunshot wound.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That sounds about right, but I would like to refresh my memory.
MR. SHAPIRO: Were both errors corrected at about the same time?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, the second error--correction. The error on the other case, the close-range gunshot wound, that was done last year in `94. When I found that the addendum had not been done, I directed Dr. Golden to do the addendum. Another error on the change in direction was done probably in `93, I don't recall the date exactly, and so the addendums are the two mistakes were done at two different times, one at my direction, since it had not been done, and one which was done by Dr. Golden himself earlier in 1994. I also directed a change in the addendum on the other case because there was a typographical error on the number. They typed 9679 instead of 9678 and that addendum was made. So to summarize, we did one addendum in--if it is `93 I don't recall the exact date, but in `94 two addendums were issued, one for each case, one for the number change and one do reflect the range of fire.
MR. SHAPIRO: All right. May I just finish on this line of questioning?
MR. SHAPIRO: To get the sequence of events, two people were killed relatively--in the same crime scene in 1990 and autopsies were done by Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.
MR. SHAPIRO: In one case he said that it was a--he missed whether or not it was a point blank injury from a distance injury; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in the other he made a mistake as to whether it was an entrance or exit wound?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: The mistake in one of them was corrected in June of 1993?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If that is the date. I said I have to refresh my memory.
MR. SHAPIRO: Let me get those for you.
MR. SHAPIRO: And the mistake in the second case was corrected in September of 1994?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Were both mistakes discovered at the same time?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that is my understanding.
MR. SHAPIRO: Shall we take the recess at this time, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All the parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to join us?
MR. KELBERG: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: May I ask Miss Robertson the exhibit number of the last photographs?
MR. SHAPIRO: 1194.
MR. SHAPIRO: 1194?
MR. KELBERG: Actually, did you ever mark for the record, Mr. Shapiro, the driver's license?
MR. SHAPIRO: No. So that should be 1193. It's already--the original is already in evidence.
THE COURT: I had Mrs. Robertson bring that up because I thought the original Ronald Goldman driver's license was in evidence, but what we have is an elmo picture of it and it is not readable from the elmo.
MR. KELBERG: So what designation does that have?
THE COURT: That is People's 85?
MR. SHAPIRO: People's 85.
THE COURT: That's People's 85.
MR. KELBERG: Do you want to just--I don't know if Mr. Shapiro has some need to have it as a Defense exhibit designation or do you just want to make it 85-A?
THE COURT: Let's make that--Mr. Shapiro?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
THE COURT: I would prefer to have that as 85-A so we have all the Ronald Goldman driver's license--
MR. SHAPIRO: That's fine.
THE COURT: --in the same chandra so to speak. Okay.
(Peo's 85-A for id = driver's license)
THE COURT: Let's have the jurors.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Dr. Lakshmanan, would you resume the witness stand. Doctor, you are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And, Mr. Shapiro, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor. Hopefully we will try to conclude by the recess this afternoon.
MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, is trace evidence important to a medical examiner?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is preservation of trace evidence important to a medical examiner?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And for proper preservation of trace evidence in a homicide, is it proper procedure to bag the hands of the decedent?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do it if--in cases of firearm injuries. We don't do it routinely in our office.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it acceptable proper procedure throughout the forensic science community in pathology?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I just told you what is done in our office. We do it on certain types of cases, not in all cases.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is trace evidence susceptible to being on the hands in a case of a knife attack?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you tell what type of trace evidence you're talking about?
MR. SHAPIRO: Any kind of trace evidence; hair, fibers, blood from someone else, skin from someone else. Would any of those things be important to a forensic pathologist?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If he observe it, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say that bagging the entire body protects the hands during transportation from a crime scene to the crime lab?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's not our procedures, but I wouldn't object to that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would that protect the hands if there was trace evidence on the hands, by bagging the entire body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It would be preferable to--if you have suspicion of something you want to collect and you want to preserve it, then bagging would be an option.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it the policy of forensic pathologists that when bodies are moved for transportation, that they should be kept in the same position they are found to preserve trace evidence and bloodstains that may be on the body?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If the--in our office, if the investigator feels that is necessary and if it cannot be collected at the scene by our criminalist or other person, then they would do the necessary procedure which would preserve that evidence.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true that if the position of the body is changed in transportation, bloodstains may be smeared and contaminated and contaminate other trace evidence?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a possibility I suppose depending on what type of evidence you're talking and where it is located and what position the body was on when transported.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know if Dr. Golden examined the bodies of the decedents in this case prior to them being cleansed and washed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He examined the bodies on the 13th and I think he examined them again on the 14th.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you examine them with him?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I examined the bodies briefly on the 13th when the bodies were brought in, and I--I was the one who assigned the cases to Dr. Golden who also volunteered to do the cases. And then after that, I don't know how many times he saw the bodies on the 13th or the 14th. But on the 14th, he did see the bodies during the photographic process.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you yourself do a careful examination of the bodies for trace evidence?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I did not. I just did a brief examination and to see the extent of the injuries, and I had to make a decision on whom to assign the case. So I did not do a detailed examination, no, sir, I did not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you observe Dr. Golden do a detailed examination for trace evidence before the bodies were washed and cleansed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did not observe him on the 14th. I already said that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Does the Coroner's office have video equipment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we do.
MR. SHAPIRO: Were videotapes taken of the postmortem examinations of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: In conducting your work, do your personnel use head coverings add shoe coverings?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we do.
MR. SHAPIRO: And is that because you're concerned about contamination?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. The clothing we wear is for our protection. We have universal body and blood fluid precautions in our department, and all our employees who enter the high-risk areas, which is the autopsy room, are provided with all the apparel necessary to conduct such a high-risk procedure, which is an autopsy.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are gloves always changed by pathologists and assistants between bodies?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Should personnel handling the bodies at the scene wear proper covering, shoe covering and gloves?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was that done in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you sure of that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: You told us an assault--sexual assault kit was not performed on Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true that you could have done a sexual assault kit test quicker than the time you took to explain why you didn't do it in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I already discussed this. We didn't take it. I was asked why we didn't take it. I gave an explanation. So I really--I don't know what more to say. We didn't take it and I've already said that and I gave you the reasons why the criminalist didn't take it, and I also felt we did not need to take it when I looked at the case.
MR. SHAPIRO: How long does it take to do a sexual assault kit?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a--it's a procedure which takes some time because the criminalist has to have a space available, photographs are taken during the process as the case may be necessary because you have to remove the clothing. So you're talking anywhere up to an hour of time involved of different personnel.
MR. SHAPIRO: One hour it takes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Between an hour--approximately less than an hour depending on what needs to be done.
MR. SHAPIRO: Less than an hour?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: How much less than an hour?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, depends on the criminalist who's doing the procedure.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, let's talk about a board certified senior criminalist. How long would it take that person to do--
THE COURT: I think we're mixing up our terminology here.
MR. SHAPIRO: I probably am.
THE COURT: Criminalist, not pathologist.
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Pathologist. Thank you very much, your Honor.
MR. SHAPIRO: A board certified pathologist.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In our department, the pathologists don't do the collection. We get the criminalist to do it because they're better trained to do it than us and we have the luxury of having them on our staff. So they do it for us.
MR. SHAPIRO: How long does it take them to do it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said within an hour. I guess it could be done within half an hour depending on the skills of the criminalist.
MR. SHAPIRO: How much does that kit cost?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't know the cost, sir.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it expensive?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's not expensive.
MR. SHAPIRO: In trying to establish time of death, one of the factors you look for, other than the scientific factors, are witnesses; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said yesterday on the testimony independent verifiable evidence of witnesses.
MR. SHAPIRO: And also, if there was evidence of consentual sex, might not that be of some benefit in assessing time of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well--
DR. LAKSHMANAN: What you will get there is only the postcoital interval, and even that is very vague and nonspecific in its estimation. You cannot get time of death from the intercourse--I mean from just doing the sexual assault.
MR. SHAPIRO: But if you did a sexual assault kit, would that verify whether or not there may have been sexual consentual sex prior to death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It may reflect that.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if a person's pattern could be established when they might have time alone to engage in consentual sex, could that be of some benefit in assessing when this person was last alive?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It won't have any benefit when the person was last alive because you cannot make an estimation of time of death from the sexual assault. Even--the basic aim when you do that is to see the postcoital interval. You can only try and tell when the coitus took place, but even that is a very vague subject because of the various variabilities involved in this.
MR. SHAPIRO: What if you established that a person was in this courtroom the entire day except for one hour during lunch and then did a sexual assault kit and found out that person had some type of sexual relationship? Would that help you determine time periods in any way?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's very difficult to estimate time periods because I already said there is so much variability as I said. Let's take even the sperm mobility. I said sperm mobility is within--usually it stops within four hours, but it could be longer too.
MR. SHAPIRO: Let's try to be practical. Let's say this morning, somebody was in this courtroom. It would be clear they didn't have consentual sex while they were here; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a fair statement.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if they came back from 1:00 o'clock to 5:00 o'clock and they didn't have consentual sex with anyone present, that would be a fair assumption; would it not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if between 12:00 and 1:00 o'clock, they were not seen by anyone, and if that person expired at 5:15 and a sexual assault kit was done to show that there was evidence of consentual sex, could that be of some benefit? Yes or no?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I want to know what type of evidence you're talking about. I want--and--and I can't make any assumption whether it's consentual or not, and all you can tell from--depending on what evidence you have in your hypothetical, if you could tell that, then we can go forward on that. What is the evidence which was seen at 5:15 when the sexual assault is done?
MR. SHAPIRO: At 5:15, it was determined that the person had some type of sexual relationship. Could that be of any importance to you? Yes or no?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it will only say that there was a sexual relationship if you find evidence of sperms or the enzymes, but it doesn't give anything further than that.
MR. SHAPIRO: But other things could, couldn't it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. To make an assumption, you must have done a sexual assault in the morning before the Court started to make sure that was negative to make any conclusions on the result you get at 5:15, because the material could have been there for more than a day or two depending on what the circumstances are and because you can have coitus, you may--it could depend on the amount of ejaculation in the body. It could be a non-ejaculated intercourse. It could be coitus interruptus as I--what they call. It could be that the lady had some vaginal douches after that. And there are a lot of variables in this. So you can't really make an assumption when the sexual act took place just because you have a sexual assault kit done at 5:15 unless you have done a sexual assault previously that morning or that afternoon to prove that there was nothing there and then you have something there at 5:15. So again, that's why I'm saying your question is a little bit vague to give a specific answer.
MR. SHAPIRO: Doesn't your manual specifically say, doctor, that whenever identification of the last sexual partner may be of value to the investigation or whenever elimination of sexual activity may be of value to it, the examination, a sexual assault kit, whether the allegations or thoughts are consentual or nonconsentual, should be done?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct. If you read the manual, and I remember that statement in the manual.
MR. SHAPIRO: And a sexual assault kit will show other things other than rape, won't it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It will show evidence of seminal material there.
MR. SHAPIRO: Which it could show evidence of oral sexual conduct--contact?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If the oral area is examined, which is part of the sexual assault kit in our office, you'll find evidence for it.
MR. SHAPIRO: I want to direct your attention to the marks on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson that you described as bruises. Do you know what I'm referring to?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The right lower back. I remember it very well.
MR. SHAPIRO: And to a similar area on the back of the decedent Ronald Goldman that you referred to as lividity.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: On the right side of the back, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, by looking at the photographs alone, that you cannot determine lividity from a faint nonpatterned contusion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can. In this case, you can because it's very localized. Usually lividity will take place in the whole area of the body, and that area of the body is actually more of an area--the rest of the body on the right side doesn't show any other discoloration. The lividity of Miss Nicole was on the left side, not on the right side. These are distinct areas of discoloration consistent with bruising in my opinion.
MR. SHAPIRO: That's your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Would you agree that as a medical examiner and expert in forensic pathology that the only true way to distinguish the difference in such a case would have been to incise the area of the skin to see if hemorrhage was present?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. If I was doing the autopsy, that could have been--should have been done. But this is an injury, as you recall, was not observed by Dr. Golden when he did the autopsy. And this was reviewed by me on the photographs and also the--our dental consultant had seen the same injury when he reviewed the photographs. He even considered this for evaluation of his bite mark. And in my opinion, based on the distribution, the localization, the patchiness and the presence of lividity to the other side and the lack of any other discoloration to the rest of the body on the right side, I have no doubt in my mind that is an area of nonspecific blunt force injury with patterned mortal contusion ecchymosis. It's not lividity. That's contusion on the right back.
MR. SHAPIRO: But you would agree that to correctly make this evaluation from a forensic pathology point of view, that you would have to do an incision?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: It was asked, but not answered.
MR. KELBERG: Objection to counsel's comments.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true that for a forensic pathologist to give a medical opinion, you would have to do an incision?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you have a question whether it's lividity or contusion or you feel it necessary to do--to prove it is a contusion, you need to make an incision, and usually we make an incision to see the depth of hemorrhage so that you can have an idea what the blunt force.
MR. SHAPIRO: That wasn't done in this case, was it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I already said that. This was an injury which was not observed and it was not addressed until I reviewed the photographs and we addressed it. And I have already discussed that in my direct testimony.
MR. SHAPIRO: Also, if microscopic slides were taken of this area, that would have had--enabled a forensic pathologist, expert medical examiner to distinguish a bruise or contusion from an area of lividity; isn't that correct, sir?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you can't make the diagnosis initially. I think I already opined that. Once you--you do microscopic sections only if you need to date an injury. The injury diagnosis is made on gross exam. Sectioning of the skin I agree would confirm your gross--gross means visual impression, and microscopic exam is done only to date the injury.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it true, sir, that trace evidence should be removed and thoroughly looked for on the hands before the hands are fingerprinted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was that done in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: How do you know?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because Miss Claudine Ratcliffe and I discussed it. I asked her what was exactly done and she told me that. And that's our normal procedure. You take all the evidence before you do fingerprinting.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you seen photographs of the hands with fingerprint powder on them showing that the fingerprints--that the fingernails had already been clipped?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have not seen any photographs bear that as--
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know if photographs were taken of the fingers before the fingernails were clipped and the body is fingerprinted?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. The photographic process usually takes place in our office after the evidence is collected because during the photography process, you wash the body. So all evidence in on office is collected before photography for the autopsy purposes. So the evidence was collected when the bodies came in on June 13th.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true that during the course of fingerprinting that valuable trace evidence could be lost?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: But I told you the evidence is collected before the fingerprints. But in your hypothetical situation, if fingerprints are done before the evidence is collected, then there's a possibility you will contaminate the trace evidence.
MR. SHAPIRO: You testified that it's the province of the Coroner's office to notify the next of kin; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: That wasn't done by the Coroner's office in this case, was it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: On one of the victims, we notified the next of kin I think and the other person, I think Detective Lange notified the next of kin. I'm a little confused on which one we did, but one was informed by the police. So the police agency can notify the next of kin on our behalf, but it is a function of our office.
MR. SHAPIRO: You have testified that there was a lot of blood lost by both victims in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said significant blood loss, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that the carotid artery when severed results in blood actually pumping out?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you expect the perpetrator or perpetrators, if they were wearing gloves, to have those gloves soaked in blood?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There could be some blood contamination on the glove when the incision of the neck was made if you are referring to Miss Brown Simpson.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you expect the perpetrator or perpetrators to have a significant amount of blood on them?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not in the--from the last wound which I discussed where the perpetrator's in the back and the neck was cut from left to right with the head being tilted, in that position, the perpetrator will not have much blood on the person because he's behind the victim. But the possibility of some contamination of the glove I can't exclude because the hand is in front of the neck and after all, the incision is going from left to right. So the bleeding from the initial vessel which is cut may contaminate the glove. But I will be surprised if the perpetrator in that situation would get any blood contamination on the--on him--on that person.
MR. SHAPIRO: What about on the contact with Mr. Goldman? If they were to face to face as you opined at some point in time during this dynamic encounter they were, would you expect the perpetrator to have blood on him?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: In Goldman's case, the neck injury was a jugular vein injury. There would be blood which will be--and also in the right neck area, there would be blood loss and there could be some contamination on the perpetrator. But the abdomen and chest wounds, the bleeding will be mostly internal. So you do not necessarily have blood on the perpetrator. And I also would like to emphasize that the jugular vein injury won't spurt blood like the carotid injury which we discussed earlier.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true that decedents continue to bleed after death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, you'll have some oozing of blood from the remaining blood in the cut end of the vessel, but you won't have any pumping of blood or--because there's no blood pressure. So there would be some leakage of the residue blood in that vessel, human. It's just like you have a garden hose, you turn the water off. Still there's some blood--water coming out of the tube even though the water has been turned off, whatever water is left in the tube. So you won't have any active bleeding, you won't have any bleeding of the tissues, but there could be some residual leakage of an existing--remaining blood in the human, but that's usually the--that's very, very minimum if at all there is some.
MR. SHAPIRO: You have no way of knowing regarding Nicole Brown Simpson what position her neck went in after it was cut, do you?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. It's vague since she has multiple wounds in the neck.
MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding any of the wounds to her neck, do you know what position her neck went in after injuries to her neck?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: After the injury, she was left in the prone position. So I really can't tell you which position the neck was left in after this cut. But since she could have died very rapidly after the injury, it could be the same position she was found in.
MR. SHAPIRO: And it could not?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It may have been in a different position, but still she would have to be prone with the face-down position because all the blood flow is on the floor and there's nothing on her feet.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you don't know if the body twisted at all, do you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I don't know that.
MR. SHAPIRO: And nobody knows that, do they?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you don't know if the killer or killers were large strong people, do you?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's difficult to tell the size of assailant. But given my opinion on Mr. Goldman's where you have parallel cuts to the neck, the perpetrator must have been at least as tall or taller to get those parallel cuts because to hold--because obviously Mr. Goldman was immobilized and there were parallel cuts to the neck. It will be difficult for a perpetrator of smaller size to inflict those parallel cuts to the neck. It will be difficult. I'm just saying it will be--
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying a small person couldn't hold a knife up and make parallel cuts to a neck?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, these are very parallel cuts. One goes all the way around. And I already said that cut, I will expect it to be from--the perpetrator being in the back and the victim being in the front of the perpetrator. And since they were controlled cuts, in my opinion, the victim was most likely immobilized during that--during that position when that wound was inflicted. So I would--based on that, I said I would favor the perpetrator to be at least of larger size or equal size of Mr. Goldman to immobilize him when this took place.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, based on the evidence that your office has presented, then you would opine that the perpetrator was at least five foot nine and weighed 170 pounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's what I said. I mean that's what the weight is in the chart. And at least you must be equal size or more to really immobilize somebody. But it would be preferable for somebody to be larger size to really immobilize a person because, as you know, in general terms, a stronger person is--finds it easier to immobilize a smaller person than people of equal size.
MR. SHAPIRO: What about a smaller person who is very agile and quick and strong?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, as I said, the stab wounds could have been that--for that, it's a possibility, but not for these controlled cuts. I would favor what I already said.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you ever seen small people beat big people?
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry? Beat?
MR. SHAPIRO: In fights.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it's been reported there are smaller people who are more well-trained in martial arts than bigger people. So yes, they can beat big people.
MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the stomach contents that were saved of Ronald Goldman, you were relying on the findings that you observed or that Dr. Golden observed regarding what those stomach contents contained?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I observed the stomach contents on June 22nd when we looked at the jar, but we didn't open it. But mainly on Golden's stomach content report.
MR. SHAPIRO: You had an opportunity to look at it yourself?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is this something that you wanted to review and check to see if Dr. Golden was accurate in his description?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did not do it independently.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is this something that should have been done by you independently if you were reviewing Dr. Golden's autopsy protocol?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I didn't see the necessity to do it because describing a stomach contents--and furthermore, it was only some spinach pieces and liquid. I didn't do it independently, any further studies on it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, what if he was wrong about what the stomach contents are and wouldn't that have some effect as to where he had his last meal?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it doesn't have any bearing on the cause and manner of death of the injuries which I've described already.
MR. SHAPIRO: What about the time of death? If stomach contents were different than that described by Dr. Golden, would that have any effect on the time of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already opined on the time of death yesterday. It's such a variable factor. It's only an estimated range.
MR. SHAPIRO: What if somebody says that when he left Mezzaluna restaurant, he had nothing--he ate only spinach and that stomach contents reveal residue from ice cream? Would that have any effect?
MR. KELBERG: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Vague.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like to refer to my notes because I remember seeing the contents. I can refer to it and then I can--I would like to defer that question for a little bit, because I do recall seeing the contents, but I would like to refer my report before I say anything further on this question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying now that you have some--you don't remember what the stomach contents were of Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I recall that they appeared to be the same, what was described by Dr. Golden. But I would like to refresh my memory before I answer this question further.
MR. SHAPIRO: How long will it take you to do that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A short time. I can look at my report.
MR. SHAPIRO: It's up to your Honor.
THE COURT: Be my guest.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And may I see Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Kelberg for a moment, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Let's allow the doctor to find the place in his notes and refresh his recollection.
(Brief pause.)
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay. I examined the stomach bottle during the time we examined the body with Dr. Baden. My notes are here. The stomach shows fragments of the green leafy material, thick cord-like material, masticated. So my notes reflect that I did see the contents, and so my recollection is that the contents as described by Dr. Golden is accurate.
MR. SHAPIRO: Spinach.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: These are my original notes we took during the process. So that's why I pulled the original notes. That's why I did it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you done? I'm sorry.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm done.
MR. SHAPIRO: So your notes confirm what Dr. Golden put into the protocol, that there was spinach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: That was the only thing observable in the stomach contents of Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I have a series of photographs that I've shown to counsel. I would like to mark them 1194-A.
THE COURT: All right. Defense 1194-A.
MR. SHAPIRO: Through J.
THE COURT: A through J.
(Deft's 1194-A through J for id = photographs)
MR. SHAPIRO: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. SHAPIRO: Doctor--
MR. KELBERG: May I also?
MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Golden--Dr. Lakshmanan, are those the--look at 1194-A. Do you recognize that as a container that's used in your department?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is a container from our department.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, I'd like you to go through the next series of photographs and describe what you see, the next one being B I believe is the contents taken outside the container. Would you describe what 1194-B is?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This looks like some pasty brownish material with some greenish leafy fragments seen in it on gross examination of this photograph. This is 1194-A.
MR. SHAPIRO: That looks like stomach contents containing spinach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it's not like looking at it directly as we did on June 22nd, but it could be interpreted as such. But I would not like to interpret from the photograph, but from previous knowledge, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: So your previous knowledge in this case is better than the photographs?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Would you go through the remaining photographs and describe what they show?
MR. SHAPIRO: And I think just out of respect, that these are probably not properly placed either on the elmo or to the jury.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like to know the--what this is--this particular photograph is. I can't--
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor--
MR. SHAPIRO: Does that look like tomato peel?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. First of all, I'd ask that the witness speak up.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: That Mr. Shapiro allow the witness to answer. And I'm not sure what photograph it is that the doctor--
THE COURT: Yes. Doctor--yes. I hear you, Mr. Kelberg. Doctor, would you tell us which photograph you're looking at?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm looking at now D which shows a close-up of the same contents, and there's some laparo photographs of the--some material which has been separated out from the contents.
THE COURT: And, doctor, which photograph is that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is 3 and--E and F and--
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you describe further what appears to be separated in those? Do you see food particles?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. This looks like vegetable matter to me, and there's a close-up of the vegetable matter in--I think this is G, your Honor? G. And there's a close-up of other vegetable matter which looks like an H, and there's also some two close-up photographs of another vegetable matter here which is I, and this one is--
THE COURT: Boy, you got me.
MR. KELBERG: C maybe?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: C. Probably C. Okay. C. These two I can't really understand as well as these fragments here. So I'll comment on these first.
THE COURT: Doctor, the first two that you just picked up and put down, said that you can't tell what they are, what are the numbers on them? What are the letters on the back?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is C and B. One of them, there's a fragment of what is seen on H, but these two look like two nondistinct brownish material which I'm having difficulty understanding what it is. But these close-up photographs of I, C and H, I can try and comment on.
MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Would you say that these are a series of photographs that would show the process that a forensic pathologist would undertake to determine stomach contents?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: First, you would see it in a container, then you would empty the container out, then you would spread the material out?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And upon spreading the material out, you would try to separate from there any undigested or partially digested material?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Then you would take close-ups of those materials and try to compare them to other samples you've seen in the past?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And now, by doing that process, would you say that you would be able to see if--did you do that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I didn't do that. I just--as I told you, my only visualization of the stomach contents was on June 22nd, and I already described what we saw then. I didn't do this detail study which has been done here.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that a proper way to do it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in doing it the proper way, do you see any evidence of raisins?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The three photographs that I can clearly identify--because, you know, the other photographs have a distinct type of--it's not a close-up. So it's difficult to really define what it is. But these three close-ups show what is being photographed very clearly and I can comment on these if you want.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you see any evidence of raisins? Yes or no?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not in the photographs I see here, the ones which I said I could--
MR. SHAPIRO: That's fine. Do you see any evidence of tomato skin?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you see any evidence of green pepper?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't know whether I can call it green pepper from a photograph, but there's a fragment which could represent green pepper fragment, but I can't tell whether it's a green pepper or not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you see any evidence of onion fragment?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not from the distant photograph, I'm not able to tell whether it's there or not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you familiar with a vegetable named kale?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you see any evidence of spinach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is a leafy fragment here which could be spinach, and gross examination did show there was spinach.
MR. SHAPIRO: By those photographs, are you testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that that vegetable you see is spinach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be spinach. And from my gross examination, it would favor being spinach, but from--it's difficult to say more than that at this point.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you medically certain it's spinach?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It looks like spinach I said.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, don't you have a term that you use within a reasonable degree of medical certainty?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that's what an expert would say, right?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: A lay person would say it looks like?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, when you see a photograph and of a vegetable fragment and especially it's only a portion of a leafy fragment, there could be other leafy vegetables which can look the same appearance. So it won't be able to--you won't be able to pinpoint exactly just for a cut fragment here. So I said it looks like.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty? Yes or no?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, from the initial examination of the stomach contents, it looked like spinach and this photograph would be consistent with that diagnosis.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, would you say then that if these are in fact the contents of Ronald Goldman that--the contents of the stomach, that many of the areas of food that was present were simply missed by you and Dr. Golden?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat it again, please, your question?
MR. SHAPIRO: If in fact these are photographs of the stomach contents of Ronald Goldman--which you still have; is that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say that by offering your opinion that there was only spinach, that you made a mistake?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: From the contents, yes. What was identified grossly, that's what--so it's not a mistake in the sense that from the initial impression because I know a detailed study was done as it was done in this particular instance as you showed in the photographs. So that way, it's a mistake, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: You previously testified that you asked Dr. Golden to make an estimate as to the time of death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that's the most frequently asked question by homicide investigators in a case where there are no eyewitnesses, isn't it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And Dr. Golden responded that he advised you based on--
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, as calling for hearsay, lack of foundat