NOVEMBER 8, 1996





9:34 A.M.



THE COURT: Morning.

I understand counsel have worked out some stipulation with regards to the
exhibits that we're going to be ruling on this morning.

(The following exhibits were presented to the Court and marked for
identification purposes and retained by the Court: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 211;
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2142; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2148; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2149;
Plaintiffs; Exhibit 2150; Defendants' Exhibit 2147.)

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we voluntarily eliminated -- of the 18 Ms.
Nicole Brown photos, we eliminated all but five. And Mr. Baker has an objection
to one of those five, which is number 2014.

With respect to Mr. Goldman, we've eliminated 16 photos voluntarily, and we're
offering 10 of the original 26.

Of those ten, Mr. Baker is objecting to five. And those numbers are 1999, 2006,
2004, 2000 and 1986.

The number on the Ms. Brown photo that's being objected to is 2013.

The clerk has been kind enough to pull those photos for you, Your Honor.

(Autopsy photograph of Ronald Goldman was marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1986 for

(Coroner's photograph of Ronald Goldman was marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1999 for

(Autopsy photograph of back of head was marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2000 for

(Autopsy photograph of side of head was marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2004 for

(Autopsy photograph of side of head and upper torso of was marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2006 for identification.)

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: I'll hear from defense.

MR. BAKER: 352 -- I obviously don't have the photos in front of me because I
think the Court has those photos.

I think in looking at those photos, obviously the ones that have probative
value, we have not objected to.

The ones we feel the prejudicial effect far outweighs the probative value that
are exceedingly gruesome, I've objected to. And I've tried to be relatively
selective and only object to those that I feel that have -- for example, 2013
is a photo that is pretty gory, and there are other photos of that wound that
we have not objected to.

20 -- 1986 also has exceedingly limited probative value, Your Honor.

And this is the one that I was just indicating to you, sir, 2013.

And again, if you look at 1999, there are other photos of that particular

And this one, I would suggest, is quite gruesome.

I don't feel strongly, Your Honor, about 2000, although I don't think that it
has very much probative value.

And again, I don't feel that strongly about 2004.

2006, I think, is very -- would certainly have on 2004 -- and if the Court --
and the others that they've wanted to get in that we haven't objected to, those
will tell the story, I think, in great detail, without getting quite as gory as
some of these that we've objected to, I'll submit, Your Honor.

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, we tried not to duplicate there's one I'd suggest that
maybe we can eliminate I believe we need the others.

The 2013 is the neck wound to Ms. Brown. We've only offered two pictures of Ms.
Brown with the serious wounds.

The importance of the neck wound is one important factor in the case that the
next witness is going to testify to, is the nature of the injury where the
assailant was standing, the fact that he was cutting from one direction to
another, from left to right.

This shows the wound quite clearly and permits him to explain, where he's able
to form an opinion, that the -- that the assailant had his left arm over the
victim when he cut right to left and slashed the neck of the victim. And it
shows -- because of the size increasing, it demonstrates the basis for his

That's really the main picture on Ms. Brown, and one of the only two neck

In terms of Mr. Goldman, we've eliminated most of the neck pictures.

1999 is the front of the neck.

2004 is the left side.

2000 is the right side.

We can do without 2006, if the Court pleases, in that it's covered in one of
the other three. But the other three are necessary, because we want to show the
struggle and the attempt to cut Mr. Goldman on the left and the attempt to cut
him on the right and the front, in terms of similarity of modus operandi of the
assailant to both victims. So we don't believe there's any duplication there.

The last photo, 1986, is -- is a picture of Mr. Goldman, basically for purpose
of showing the left leg and the -- and the thigh, the result of the thigh
wound, and where the limited bleeding that's there was -- the limited external
bleeding was that most of the bleeding was internal, but this was basically the
external bleeding.

We would submit, Your Honor --

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we can block out the faces of these individuals and
still show the wounds.


As to 2006, the Court will exclude that.

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2006 was excluded from presentation to the jury by the

THE COURT: The remainder of the objection is overruled.

Okay. You ready for testimony?

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. GELBLUM: We have to go cover up that one photograph.



MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, there's one other point that we might take up now,
Your Honor, if it's agreeable.

We understand that the defense, Your Honor, that they might, on
cross-examination, use some sort of computer program that we were just made
aware of today. We don't know the nature of the computer program in terms of
how sophisticated, how rudimentary. We've not seen it before. It seems to me,
it's not impeachment document it's a document that should have been listed so
we have an opportunity to use it.

I might note that we were going to use several mannequins that we listed on the
board. Opposing counsel thought that they were at a disadvantage with respect
to them because we haven't shown them to them.

I voluntarily did not use the mannequins, to be confronted with a witness being
examined with a computer program that hasn't been verified. There's been no
testimony about the program in terms of how accurate it is, how crude or
noncrude it is.

It would seem to us, it would be inappropriate. We think at a minimum, it
should be authenticated, and its accuracy should be authenticated.

We think it's too late to do that. It should have been listed already, and we
should have had an opportunity to examine it, and determine just exactly how it
worked and if it was accurate or not accurate in particular areas. But to be
confronted with it now, on cross, as if it's an accurate demonstration of
various body parts, we think, is not well-founded and should not be permitted.

We might note also, it's not on the exhibit list.

The only reason we know about it is because it was being shown up on the board,
just to get it ready, and we first found out about it today.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, what we intend to use is not a computer program; it's
simply anatomy charts on CD-ROM, with a readily available -- like taking Gray's
Anatomy and putting it on the Elmo.

It's not tailored to this case; it's not specific to the wounds in this case;
it's simply illustrative for the cross-examination for impeachment purposes of
this particular witness.

I'm happy to show these are routine anatomy charts that are used all the time;
they're noncontroversial. We intend to use it for illustrative purposes.

In our opinion, it's not an exhibit; it's just illustrative evidence, and ask
that we should be allowed to use it.

MR. MEDVENE: As I said, we haven't seen it. We think the intent would be to
blow particular parts up. We don't know if it's accurate and --

THE COURT: Where's it from?

MR. BLASIER: It's called Adam, The Inside Story. It's simply a series of
anatomy charts on a computer, read into a book.

THE COURT: What is it called?

MR. BLASIER: Adam, The Inside Story, the 1987 edition. There are many available
that have been available and that are used by doctors.

THE COURT: Adam --

MR. BLASIER: Adam The Inside Story.

THE COURT: What's the source?

MR. BLASIER: There's another name of the program, Your Honor. The name of the

THE COURT: Who made it?

MR. BLASIER: Well, we can -- we'll be happy to show it. We can put it up and
you can see it.

THE COURT: Does it say who made it?

MR. BAKER: Adam Software, Inc., copyright 1996.

THE COURT: There's no authorship on it?


If we put it up, it's like taking Gray's Anatomy, if we came up with charts.

THE COURT: You put it on; let me see what it is.

(CD is played)

THE COURT: Not very realistic, is it?

(Indicating to photo.)

MR. P. BAKER: I can take the fig leaves off.

Just a Post-it note, examining areas of the body.

THE COURT: How about going to the beginning?

MR. P. BAKER: You want to see the original?

THE COURT: No. I want to see the credits.

No; I mean the first page, cover page.

MR. BLASIER: Go to help.

THE COURT: You don't have a first page?

There it is. There we go.

On the right side, Judge.

THE COURT: What's the next page?

There's no authorship to this thing.

Go up to help and about --

There we go.

MR. PETROCELLI: Stop it right there.

It says it's not warranted to be medically correct.

MR. BAKER: Oh, no.

MR. BLASIER: We can't back it up; we have to start it again.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. P. BAKER: You want me to run it again, Judge?


MR. BAKER: Anatomically correct.

MR. MEDVENE: It says, "This product not warranted to be medically accurate."

MR. GELBLUM: For general --

MR. MEDVENE: Purposes.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Spitz can say if the stomach is in the wrong place; it's not
rocket science. Dr. Spitz has done 60,000 autopsies. He should know when it's
anatomically incorrect.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: What portions do you intend to use.

MR. BLASIER: Pictures of the abdominal area.

THE COURT: Show me the exhibits.

MR. BAKER: Drop it down. (Indicating to computer.)

MR. BAKER: That's one. To the side.


What's next?

MR. BAKER: Side view.

Now, there we go.

That's it. (indicating to screen.

THE COURT: Any other view?

MR. BAKER: I don't think so.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll allow it.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Your Honor.

Dr. Werner Spitz.

WERNER SPITZ, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and
testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?


THE CLERK: And, sir, if you'd please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Werner Spitz, S-P-I-T-Z.

THE CLERK: Werner is W-E-R-N-E-R?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.

THE CLERK: Thank you.


Q. Good morning, sir.

A. Good morning.

Q. What's your profession?

A. I'm a medical doctor and I'm a pathologist and forensic pathologist.

Q. What is a pathologist?

A. A pathologist is a physician who has done a residency in the subject of
pathology and specialized in the field where tissues and body fluids are
examined for the purpose of diagnosis.

And if a person should die in a hospital, such a pathologist may do an autopsy
on such an individual at the request of the family.

Q. And what is a forensic pathologist?

A. A forensic pathologist is a -- or a forensic pathologist's sub-specialty of
pathology, where specialization is in the area of death and death from injury
or suspected injury, and interpretation of wounds in general.

Q. What is your educational background that qualifies you to be a forensic

A. I graduated from medical school in 1953; I did an internship and a residency
in pathology of five years.

I then did another residency in forensic pathology. I took the American Board
of Pathology Examinations in 1961 in New York, in pathology and hospital
pathology, and in '64 or '65 in forensic pathology, in Washington.

And I worked in forensic pathology following my residency in Maryland, at the
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Baltimore. I worked there for two

I then went to West Berlin in Germany and worked at the Department of Legal
Medicine which is the same as the coroner's office or medical examiner's
office, in West Berlin for two years and three months.

And then I came back to Baltimore and was an assistant medical examiner at the
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for Maryland for several years.

I then was promoted to be the deputy chief medical examiner for that office.
During that time, I was appointed as assistant -- Associate Professor of
Pathology and Forensic Pathology at Johns Hopkins University and at the
University of Maryland, within the department of pathology.

I left Maryland for Detroit, Michigan in 1972, to assume the position of chief
medical examiner for the County of Wayne, which is a Detroit suburb, and held
that position until 1988, in October.

During this time and to the present time, I'm Professor of Pathology at Wayne
State University School of Medicine.. And I'm a professor of chemistry in the
Windsor -- in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, which is across from Detroit, where I
teach forensic toxicology to students at the department of chemistry.

When I came to Michigan, I also served and still serve as pathologist for the
County of Macomb, which is north of Detroit.

And as of 1988, I'm also pathologist for the County of Monroe, which is south
of DetroitN.

Q. You had mentioned, Dr. Spitz, that I believe you were board certified in
particular areas?

A. Yes; I'm BOARD certified in anatomic pathology and in forensic pathology, by
the American Board of Pathology.

Q. What does it mean to be board certified?

A. Board certified means to have undergone a period of training under
supervision in an accredited institution, such as one that would be accredited
for such training by the American Board of Pathology and the accreditation
committee of the American Medical Association in Pathology that is five years
in forensic pathology. That's an additional year.

Q. Have you written various publications dealing with the subject of forensic

A. Yes. I've written and published 90 scientific papers which were published in
medical journals, and I have published a textbook in forensic pathology, which
I edited and authored in large part, which was published originally in 19 -- in
1972, and has since been republished in an expanded version in 1980, and again
in 1993.

Q. And the title?

A. The title is Medicolegal: An Investigation of Death.

Q. And did you both edit and write chapters in that book?

A. I'm the editor of the book. And I have written approximately, I would say,
60 or 65 percent of it.

Q. And did you write any chapters in that book that deal with trauma?

A. I think most of the chapter dealing with trauma, I wrote, which means
gunshot wounds, and stab wounds, and shotgun wounds, and asphyxiation, and
child abuse, and traffic accidents, and drowning, and maybe some others.

Q. And where, to your knowledge is that textbook used?

A. That book is used worldwide. It's the largest English book on the market
right now. It's used worldwide; it's used extensively in -- in medical schools,
in law schools, and by police academies, by lawyers who deal with this kind of

Q. Are you currently spending any portion of your time writing or editing
various books or articles in the area of forensic pathology and injury?

MR. BAKER: Objection. Relevance. Stipulate to qualifications.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I'm in the process of collecting material for a fourth edition. It
takes about three years to do this. And the book should really be updated every
seven, eight years.

Q. You licensed to practice medicine in various states?

A. Yes, I'm licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, Virginia, the District
of Columbia, Michigan, of course, and all the common market countries in

Q. Have you been appointed to any United States governmental commissions that
were involved in the investigation of death?

A. Yes; I was appointed years ago to a committee that was put together by
Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller, investigating the assassination of President

Three years later, I was again appointed to the committee of the House of
Representatives investigating the assassination of President Kennedy and Martin
Luther King.

Q. Among your duties as a forensic pathologist, do you, on a regular basis,
determine the manner and cause of violent death?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you frequently make such determination in cases where you have not
performed the autopsy?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can examinations of the cause of death and circumstances surrounding the
cause of death be done months and years after the death occurred?

A. Yes, it can.

Q. And how is that done?

A. Well, it -- it is based on material that is generated at the time, and --
unless, of course, there is a re-examination of the body -- but mostly -- by
far, mostly it is done on materials, such as an autopsy report or results of
various analyses that were generated at the time of the incident in question,
and that can be examined at any time.

Q. That generally include pictures?

A. Photographs, autopsy reports, results of various analyses.

Q. Is it customary in your field of work for one forensic pathologist, on the
basis of autopsy reports and pictures, to review the work of another forensic
pathologist or an individual who performed the autopsy?

A. That is very common, yes. These materials that are generated are really
largely generated for the purpose of enabling to provide a permanent record,
for whatever purpose, which includes review by others.

Q. In the course of your career, approximately how many autopsies have you

A. Many thousand. I wouldn't be -- I couldn't tell you. But many thousand.

Q. Have you also --

A. I've been in the work for 43 years.

Q. Have you also supervised thousands of autopsies?

A. Yes, I have. Because back in Maryland, I was in charge of the training
program, which means that pathologists came to do a residency and were trained
for the purpose of becoming forensic pathologists.

Of course, when I was chief medical examiner, as chief medical examiner, I
would supervise the residents and teach -- teach them and prepare them for the
board examination.

Q. Do you still do autopsies yourself?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Approximately how many a year?

A. I do between 300 and 350 autopsies a year at the present time.

Q. Are you presently called upon as a consultant to review the findings of
others in the field of medical examination relating to death?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Are you called by plaintiffs' attorneys, prosecutors, as well as defense
counsel, to see if you will consult with them?

A. Yes. I get called by attorneys representing both sides in civil cases, that
is, plaintiff and defendant, and in criminal cases, both defendant and
prosecution. Q. On occasion, in connection with your consulting work, are you
required to testify in court?

A. Occasionally. Mostly -- many times I evaluate a case and will testify in
court. Many times I get consulted and will not testify in court. Maybe because
I don't have the same opinion as the referring party and maybe for some other
reasons, which I don't know.

Q. Other than your official duties that you told us about for the Counties of
Macomb and Monroe, can you estimate approximately what percentage of your time,
when you do testify, is on behalf of the plaintiff and/or the defendant?

A. You mean in all cases put together, criminal and civil?

Q. Yes. Other than your work for the Counties of Macomb and Monroe.

A. I would say that probably somewhat more in favor of the defense in criminal
cases. In civil cases, maybe the same.

Q. In your experience, do you always give an opinion that sides with the side
that hired you?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. That's leading and suggestive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No. Many -- many times what transpires is, I get a phone call,
then subsequently I get a file, and I review the file. Then I call up with my
opinion, or I write an opinion letter; and many times, I don't hear again.

Other times, I am called back or a letter comes back, "thank you very much,"
and they pay my fee who -- for whatever I generated and I never hear from them
again after that. And other times I may hear from them and have to come to
court and testify or give a deposition.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Have you testified many times in court as an expert?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And the majority of those times, did you personally do the autopsy?

A. No.

Q. And incidentally, were you present when the autopsy was done in this case?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Can you tell us, in terms of your time you spend on business now, in your
work as a doctor, what percentage of your time is spent in the area of
academics, what percentage of your time is spent doing autopsies, and what
percentage being a consultant in matters involving violent death?

A. As a crude approximation, I would say it might be safe to divide this as a
third -- a third.

Q. When you're called as a consultant by one side or another, do you have a
customary charge or fee?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And how much do you charge an hour?

A. I charge $300 an hour for office work.

Q. And is that your charge in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also charge a fee when you travel out of town and go to court?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. When were you initially hired or retained, approximately, in this matter?

A. Sometime early this year. I think it was January of 1996.

Q. And did you review certain material?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Could you tell us what material you have reviewed in connection with giving
the opinions that you intend to offer this morning?

A. I have reviewed the coroner's book, the coroner's documents generated, to
include the coroner's investigation, autopsy reports, autopsy pictures, scene
pictures. I've gone to the scene myself. I've reviewed the police reports. I've
reviewed various diagrams that accompany the autopsy reports. I may have
reviewed other things. I don't remember.

Q. You review testimony of individuals?

A. Various testimony, yes. I've reviewed various previous court trial

Q. All right. Let's go to this specific case now, if we can, Dr. Spitz.

Based on your review of the material, do you have an opinion as to the cause of
death of Nicole Brown?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that opinion?

A. Nicole Brown died as a result of blood loss.

Q. Blood loss coming from where?

A. Coming from a large wound of the neck, severing the carotid arteries and
other vessels.

Q. Could you describe for us the nature of her injuries?

If you can, group them.

A. Nicole Brown had some superficial injuries of the hands. She had an injury
to the top of her head. She had four stab wounds, ranging from approximately an
inch or an inch and a quarter in diameter, because it's a gaping wound, to one
that is maybe estimated at an eighth of an inch. Then two others of
intermediate size, entering, but not -- entering the skin and tissues
underneath, but not causing any major damage.

And then a slash across the neck running from left to right, which is a
devastating slash, causing severage of the carotid arteries and other vessels,
cutting through the voice box, separating a part of the voice box. In other
words, cutting the voice box in two and entering the -- the -- the bone of the
-- the vertebral column. Going through -- of course, on the way, it would have
had to go through the tube through which we swallow, the so-called esophagus.

MR. MEDVENE: May I approach, Your Honor, with your permission, to get a board?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I move over there to see what he's talking about
during the examination?

MR. MEDVENE: I apologize, ladies and gentlemen, for the pictures.

Approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, I'm going to ask you certain questions about a
board that we put up for the jury. It's titled now "Defensive Wound to Ms.
Brown." It's No. 375.

(The instrument herein referred to as A board entitled "Blunt Force Trauma and
Defensive Wounds to Ms. Brown," was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 375.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) So if you look AT 375, it has all the photos in it,
including ones that are on or not on the board?

A. Yes.

Q. And if --

MR. BAKER: Counsel, may I just --

(Pause for defense and plaintiff's counsel to converse sotto voce.)

(Plaintiffs' counsel approaches witness.)

(Plaintiffs' counsel and witness converse sotto voce.)

THE WITNESS: I'm fully aware of that.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I think the best way to do this, Dr. Spitz, is, could you
first tell me from the exhibits in front of you that are 375, what they show in
general in terms of blunt-force trauma or defensive wounds?

And then I'm going to ask you, with the Court's permission, just to come up to
the board, because I'm not going to place them on the TV screen.

If you could, just demonstrate to the jury what these photos show. Would that
be all right?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

A. So if I just go through the injuries depicted in -- and describe them.

I might say that there is a scraping, in a crude way of saying, approximately
the size of quarter coin on the back of the left shoulder in it -- the level of
the shoulder blade. And it's a scraping, which means that it's not a blow, not
a cut. It's a rubbing, where the upper layer of the skin has been rubbed off
and it dried and it appears brown.

Then, of course, then there are -- then there is a scraping on the back of the
neck, also, in a -- occurring in a similar way. Then there are some scrapings
on the back of the right shoulder and over the right shoulder blade, not very
large. Not very impressive.

Then there are rubbings up against a cement or stucco wall or floor or ground.
There is a scraping on the back of the right elbow, all again of similar size,
also from rubbing against a floor, cement floor or a stucco wall or -- or some
kind of object that had that kind of structure.

Q. Are these photos that you're looking at, but that are not on the board?

A. They're not on the board.

Q. When we get to the ones on the board, if you could, if you wouldn't mind,
with the Court's permission, coming down and just pointing out, when you
discuss the photos that are on the board.

(Witness approaches large board.)

A. On the back of the left hand and over the knuckle of the ring finger -- I'm

Yes. On the back of the left hand, over the knuckle of the left ring finger,
there's a scraping. And there's a small scraping on the back of the ring finger
in the level of where normally we'd wear a ring. And it may be an eighth of an
inch or so.

Then it looks like it's circular. Then on the back of the middle finger,
approximately a quarter of an inch forward of the joint -- of the joint -- of
the furthest joint on my hand, that would be about (indicating to his own
finger), about here, is a linear mark not -- not a scraping, but it looks like
it's a somewhat deeper, little, superficial tear of the skin.

The next picture.

Q. Excuse me. The next one is 2002 -- I'm sorry.

A. I might just tell you about the following picture, too.

Q. The following picture is 2023.

A. These two pictures show only that there are no injuries. These are just the
palm of the hand and the fingers, showing no damage.

Q. Next, sir, I'm going to ask you about -- and you can wait here, if you want.
(Counsel displays a new photo board.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) This is a little rough, I'm sorry -- "Entitled Sharp Force
Injuries and Blunt-Force Trauma To Head Face and Neck of Ms. Brown."

Dr. Spitz, I'm going to ask you some questions about sharp force injuries. And
I hand you a number of pictures that include Exhibits 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016,
2014 -- excuse me -- 2016, 2024, 2014 and 2010.

And I have on the board what's been marked 2013, the picture to the left. And
that's 2015 and 2013, which is the picture to the right of Ms. Brown and
showing her neck.

Could you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the Court about the
sharp force injuries and blunt-force trauma that you observed both with respect
to the pictures on the board and the pictures not on the board.

A. If I may go through the pictures not on the board first.

Q. Yes, that's fine.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of head injury was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2019.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of head injury was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2018.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Autopsy report of head injury was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2017.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Autopsy photograph of head injury was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2016.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Autopsy photograph of neck injury was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2014.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of piece of flesh was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2024.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Autopsy photograph of head and neck was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2010.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Autopsy photograph of Nicole Brown
Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2013.)

MR. MEDVENE: May I have the witness stand here. Would that be okay?


Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Turn around, if you don't mind. Don't display the pictures.

On the top of the head, somewhat to the right --

A. To the right is a stab wound, and it's got a little extension, a superficial
extension running from it. It is a stab wound that I know from the report --
the picture doesn't obviously show that -- that it does not enter the -- it
does not go through the skull. It goes to the skull, but it doesn't go through
the skull, and there's no injury into the brain underneath.

There is another wound in the head, somewhat more to the back, also a stab
wound, also a wound that does not go into the bone. It just goes into the skin
-- to the skin in the scalp and through the scalp, but not into the bone. It
does not penetrate.

And subsequently there are -- there is another one, a relatively small -- it
is, I would say, -- maybe it's less than half an inch long, and it is
superficial. And it, again, didn't go into the bone. It just involves the
scalp. It is behind the left ear, somewhere behind the -- I'm sorry -- behind
the right ear, somewhere where my finger is showing.

Q. May the record show that Dr. Spitz is pointing his finger at approximately 5
o'clock on the back side of his head.

A. On the -- I think it is the right side of the head, somewhat up above ear
level, there's a bruise. And the bruise is, I would say, maybe an inch, maybe a
little more than an inch in diameter.

And I think it's -- I think -- I say -- I think because the picture is so
close, that it's difficult to know exactly, but I think it's somewhere up here
on the scalp, there's a bruise.

(Witness indicates to head.)

And a bruise means -- a bruise -- people -- some people call it a contusion,
some call a black-and-blue mark.

Q. Let the record show Dr.` Spitz was showing the area at the top of his head,
about 3 o'clock.

A. There is -- in the next picture, there is a piece of -- a portion of brain
tissue. And this is a portion of brain tissue that was obviously taken from the
brain, and it shows bruising. It shows a black-and-blue mark, if you will, in
the brain, in the surface of the brain.

And I am not sure whether it is from under the bruise that I just described in
the scalp, or whether it is from an opposite area.

The reason I'm saying this is because the brain in the skull is like jello in a
cup. And when you rattle it very sharply, the brain strikes; or when you
inflict a blow to it, the brain moves and strikes the skull under the blow, and
then it moves opposite and strikes the inside of the skull on the opposite

So I don't -- either way, it would get a bruise. So I don't know whether it's
from under the bruise that is in the scalp. In other words, from the bruise
that was caused by a blow, or whether it is a bruise of the brain from the
opposite side, when the jello, or the brains, went and hit the inside of the

Q. On the right side -- I'm sorry. On the left side of the neck, below the left

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry, Doctor; could you identify, please, the number of the
photo you're looking at when you're making these descriptions.

THE WITNESS: I don't know the numbers.

MR. MEDVENE: This photo was on the board. It's 206.

MR. BAKER: I don't want to interrupt you, Doctor.

MR. MEDVENE: On the -- okay. It's 2015.

MR. BAKER: Thanks so much.


A. This picture, 2015.

Q. The one next to it is 2013.

A. Okay.

2015 shows four stab wounds arranged in a vertical orientation, meaning one IS
closer to the ear, one below that one, below that one, and one on the bottom.

They are in a vertical line, up-and-down line. Bottom part is the one that I
described earlier, which I said is approximately an inch to an inch and a
quarter and it's gaping. That's why, because it's gaping. It is -- it is wide
open and it looks round, but it is a stab wound.

Then above it is a smaller one, and then above that one is a tiny one, which is
maybe an eighth of an inch, and would correspond to the tip of a blade.

And above that one is the fourth stab wound, which is approximately, I would
say, an inch and a half below the ear.

The picture also shows a vast gaping wound, deep wound on the -- as a
continuation of a horizontal superficial cut, which goes from the level of the
ear on the neck towards the right, and towards the right end in a vast cut that
involves primarily the right side of the neck. And it starts -- the big cut
starts right here; and the horizontal superficial cut starts in the level of
the ear.

Q. Can you tell, Dr.` Spitz, from the photographs when you have a weapon,
whether the assailant was in front of or behind Ms. Brown when he slashed her

A. The assailant was in back; and the slash runs from left to right.

Q. Could you -- with the Court's permission, could you just demonstrate on me
quickly how that would happen.

(Witness demonstrates on Mr. Medvene.)

MR. MEDVENE: May the record show that Dr. Spitz' left hand is across my chin
and his right hand is to the left of my neck, looking forward.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And the wound would be delivered how?

A. The wound would be delivered, superficial deep --

MR. BAKER: Let the record reflect that his elbow is about at the left jaw of
Mr. Medvene, and that his left hand extended beyond Mr. Medvene's face for a
distance of approximately five inches.

Doctor -- correct, Doctor?

THE WITNESS: I didn't --

MR. BAKER: I was describing where your left hand was in holding Mr. Medvene.

THE WITNESS: My left hand is somewhere on the face. I didn't particularly

MR. BAKER: Describe where you put it, sir.

THE WITNESS: I put it -- I put it roughly across the middle of the face.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, sir.

The next picture, I believe, is 2013, you said?

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) 2013.

A. 1013 (sic) shows the gaping edge of the same wound that I just described,
the gaping portion of the wound that I just described, which starts roughly in
the level of the left angle of the mouth, and then goes all the way to just
below the right ear, which is not shown on this picture, but is shown on
another picture.

That the wound -- this gaping wound runs upward to the right and ends in the
level of just half an inch below the right ear.

The picture further shows an area which looks like it may be a -- may be
bruised on the left side of the mouth, the outside, the lips, here.

And below that, looks like there may be a bruise -- a bruise, black-and-blue
mark in this area. About -- together, but somewhat bigger than a silver dollar.
There are --

Q. Any other photos you haven't described?

A. Yes. There is a photo that I did not describe that I mentioned, but I didn't
-- it's not displayed -- is the photo that ends -- that shows this gaping
wound, ending just below the right ear.

(Witness resumes seat.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr.` Spitz, how soon, in your opinion, after the encounter
with the assailant began, was Ms. Brown's throat slashed?

MR. BAKER: I object to the vague, ambiguous -- I mean, is he -- is the question
asking from the first wound until the wound of the throat being slashed, or is
he asking for the first encounter with the assailant until --

THE COURT: Clarify your question, please.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, from the first mark or wound on Ms. Brown, to
the slashing of the throat, do you have any -- do you have an opinion on how
long it took before the assailant slashed her throat?

A. I think the slashing of the throat was the terminal event, and I think the
entire scenario of Ms. Brown's altercation, from the first wound to the last,
was less than 15 seconds.

Q. And what do you -- what do you base that on?

A. On the nature and number of the injuries, and on the recognition that it
takes seconds to inflict four stab wounds, or even less than seconds; and it
takes a very brief time, indeed, again, seconds or a second, perhaps, to slash
the throat.

I mean, how long does it take to make a -- wielding a knife and cutting into
flesh, regardless of the depth? If the knife is sharp, it will just penetrate.

Q. And how about whatever stab wounds there are on the neck; how long does that

A. Seconds.

Q. Show me, please.

A. I will stand up here, then. The height is maybe a bit better.

(Witness demonstrates.)

Q. From your examination, do you have an opinion which way the blood would flow
from the neck when Ms. Brown's throat was slashed?

A. In order to tell you which way the blood would flow, I would have to tell
you that she was bent forward. She was -- may I use you again?

(Counsel and witness demonstrate.)

A. (Continuing.) She was bent forward, and this was done in this way.

She was bent further downward, and the blood then would run downward, would run
downward. Some of it would run forward, but most of the blood would run to the

Thank you.

Q. Would the blood, in your opinion, be in large quantity on the assailant?

A. No, on the assailant, there would be very little blood, because as the blood
vessels that contain the blood are cut, the -- would you come back?

(Witness and counsel demonstrate.)

A. (Continued.) As this occurs, that -- the cutting occurs, the cut occurs very
rapidly. The hand holding the blade moves away from the source of the bleeding,
so the body of the victim shields the assailant, and the bleeding occurs after
the hand has moved away.

If the left arm that's holding is above the injury, as it would have to be, the
bleeding is forward and downward and not upward.

Q. Where's the blood coming from?

A. The blood is coming from the two carotid arteries, which are each the
diameter of your little finger, which is very big for an artery, and from
branches of the carotid artery, and to a significant lesser extent, from
severed veins.

Q. Is it coming under pressure or --

A. The arterial pressure is such that if you cut an artery, you would have
blood and you let it bleed openly, it's a pulsating hemorrhage that would go up
to a 12-foot ceiling.

THE COURT: Okay. The Court will take a ten-minute recess.

Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

(Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Okay. The audience, first row by the jury box, there's a complaint
that the jurors are able to hear your comments that you're making. And if you
continue to talk and peer around that barrier, I'm going to clear that first

You may proceed.


Q. Dr. Spitz, when we concluded, you made a reference to the arteries and blood
spurting from arteries.

Were you making a specific reference to this case or arteries in general?

A. No, I was answering your question about pressure in the arteries. And this
is -- this was a general statement about how much pressure there is in an
artery, as opposed to some other blood vessels which don't have this kind of

This is not applicable to this case at all. In other words, yes, there is a lot
of pressure in this case, but it didn't go to any ceiling. There was no ceiling
in this case.

Q. Now, in this case, in your opinion, from what you've seen and viewed, where
did the blood go?

A. She was -- maybe you can help me.

She was bent forward; I think she was (demonstrating). She was even closer, I
think, a foot above the ground, because the blood comes out, gushes out under
great pressure. There is no blood in the vast area around; there is blood down
below, running down from the bottom step, down on the ground.

This is where the blood went. The blood shot downward because she was down like
so, and she was down like so. That's how the blood the got there. Otherwise,
the blood would have been all over the place.

Q. And her head was pulled out?

A. And her head was pulled back.

Q. How?

A. (Witness demonstrates.)

MR. BAKER: With the left hand underneath his nose?

THE WITNESS: Either that way or by the hair.

Somehow, the neck was taut; otherwise, you wouldn't get this kind of a gaping

Q. Okay. Thank you.

(Witness assists Mr. Medvene to stand up.)

Q. Let's move, if we might, to Mr. Goldman.

Based on your review of the -- of the material you previously described, do you
have an opinion as to the cause of death of Mr. Goldman?

A. Mr. Goldman died as a result of blood loss. The cause of death is the same
in Mr. Goldman as it was in Nicole Brown.

Q. You say the cause of death is the same. What do you mean by that?

A. Blood loss.

Q. Could you describe for us his injuries and put them in groups, if you could.

A. Ron -- Ron Goldman has injuries that can be grouped into four categories. He
had superficial wounds, superficial injuries, superficial cuts and bruises, and
various defensive-type wounds in various parts of the body, including a cut on
the left -- on the front of the left thigh.

I know it looks wide and gaping.

This was also not a very devastating wound, because the there are no major
blood vessels in the thigh. There is skin and fat and muscle, and they bleed,
but they don't bleed very, very heavily, not anywhere near what some of the
other areas of the body bleed.

Then there is a set of wounds in the neck area, and one of them is a stab wound
that enters into the internal carotid or -- internal jugular vein.

Thirdly, there is there are two wounds in the right side of the chest with a
penetrate into the -- through the chest wall into the chest cavity and into the

Lastly, there is a wound in the left flank, (witness indicates) here, somewhere
like in this area, 45 inches above the heels in this area, (indicating) in the
back side of the flank.

Q. Left side above your belt, approximately five inches?

A. Well, I wear my pants -- down in where like I'm showing.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. It's a short way above the hip bone in the back.

Q. Yes.

A. That's the last wound.

This wound is not very large in the skin, but it is the devastating wound that
caused the death before any of the other wounds. Even though some of them may
have been fatal or would have been fatal, this wound would have killed Ronald
Goldman in short order.

When I mention these wounds, I would like to emphasize that my listing of these
injuries does not correspond to the order in with a they were inflicted.

Q. Were there wounds on both sides of the body?

A. There were wounds on both sides of the body. The wound that I named the
devastating wound on the left flank on the left side of the body, and then
there were the stab wounds to the lung on the right side of the body. And there
are wounds on both sides.

Q. What accounts for wounds on both sides of the body?

A. Well, there's movement. There is movement. There is an attempt to get away
from this situation. Sometimes the victim presents the right side and sometimes
presents the left side. And there's movement on the part of the assailant, as
well, but very fast movement.

Q. You said that you weren't putting the wounds in any sequence when you listed
the groups.

Do you have any opinion on the nature of the struggle, in some general sense,
when the thigh wound was inflicted and the wound to the aorta or the left flank
was inflicted?

A. The wound of the thigh and many of the superficial, or maybe most of the
superficial cuts and bruises were inflicted at the outset.

In other words, that's how it started. That's during the active portion of the
altercation -- of the -- of the encounter.

The wound to the left flank, I cannot say exactly when it happened, but it
occurred early on. And the reason I'm saying that is because this wound entered
through the skin, through a muscle adjacent to the vertebral column, and into
the aorta.

The aorta is a garden-hose-diameter pipe, tube. The aorta comes directly out of
the heart, makes a curve called the arch, runs to the left of the vertebral
column, and then comes down into the lower abdominal area and bifurcates into
each leg.

Q. When you use the words vertebral column --

A. The vertebral column is the backbone.

And within the aorta, with a is the large-caliber artery, there's very large
pressure, so that when there's a hole in the aorta, the blood gushes out at
fantastic speed.

And so, there are two holes in the aorta. There is one that is described in the
report as half an inch, and then the knife went through the aorta a second time
as it came out of the aorta, and caused another half-an-inch opening.

I measured it on a picture and I found that it is indeed five-eighths of an
inch, but it's as close as half an inch as can be.

And the reason I'm saying that this wound was inflicted early on, is because
there is very little blood in the chest from two wounds that injure the lung.

And the reason that there is so little blood in the chest is because the blood
had already been running out of the aorta, however little time there was.

But as soon as there is a hole in the aorta, the pressure drops, just as --
exactly the same as would happen if you make two half-an-inch or two
five-eighths-inch holes in your garden hose, you could not expect that the
sprinkler at the end of the garden hose is going to generate a lot of water,
because the water is running out before it gets to the sprinkler.

Q. We'll talk about the aorta a little more in a moment.

But you mentioned a lot of blood coming out. Is that blood going out externally
or is it internal, within the body?

A. No. Most -- most of Mr. Goldman's blood was internal bleeding. And the
bleeding, in the case of Mr. Goldman, was from the aorta; all other wounds
combined caused little bleeding. But the bleeding from the aorta was
overwhelming, and is, in fact, is what killed him. And this wound was bled

Q. We'll talk more about it in a moment.

Let me go on to talk first in terms of the struggle about blunt-force trauma,
and put on the board Exhibit 383.

And if you would, look at all the pictures, please.

A. (Witness complies.)

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me; I'm not going to put a board up.

I wonder if you can look at exhibits 1991, 93, -- excuse me -- 1991, 1993, 384,
1995, 1998, 1992, 1994, 385, 1996, and 1997 that I place before you, and just
generally describe the nature of what those pictures depict. But we can do it
in a general way?

A. Mr. Goldman had, I believe, two stab wounds in the head. Again, small;
again, penetrated through the scalp -- through the skin, the scalp, but did not
go into the bone or through the bone.

I do not have the same numbers that you have indicated.

(The instrument herein referred to as a document with six photographs,
collectively was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 383.)

(Counsel approaches witness stand.)

A. (Continuing.) Then, there is -- there are some cuts and bruises and
scrapings. There is a scraping and a bruise in the area of the left lower
chest. Maybe -- in fact, there are two there.

It's a superficial scraping, where you can see that the uppermost layer of the
skin, called the epidermis, is rubbed off.

The epidermis is what a snake has. We are covered with a very thin membrane
called the epidermis, and a snake is covered with this; and once a year, it
sheds this. And we don't shed it, but we're covered with it, and it prevents --
its function is to prevent fluid loss. And if it's rubbed off, then there will
be some fluid loss.

But if the death follows in rapid succession, very quickly, then there is no
fluid loss, but there's drying of the area, and it becomes brown. That's why
these scrapings appear brown on the picture.

It's the same thing as what you sustain when you fall and scuff your knee, and
there is this little, white tissue membrane that you will rip off and throw
away. This is called a scraping. And then with time, of course, if you are
alive, then that will ooze and make a scab. In a dead person, it will just dry
and become brown.

So having said this, there is a scraping like this on the back of Mr. Goldman
on the left side. There are two like that, actually, and they're not very
large; they're a bit larger -- one them is a little larger than a silver
dollar; then there is one that is quite small; then there is another one, a
little bit higher, also not very large. And that's a superficial scraping on
the left side of the back, roughly in the level of the elbow, so about where my
finger is showing (indicating.)

Q. Beyond the -- on the left of the back, looking --

A. On the left.

Q. -- looking forward, about 9 o'clock?

A. Yes.

Then, there are scrapings on the left wrist and hand over the fingers. And over
the left wrist, there is evidence that the epidermis is just the same as what
you have on the knee when you fall.

The epidermis, as seen on the picture, IS hanging from one end, and that is due
to grabbing and moving at the same time and pushing the epidermis up from the
skin. And the epidermis, the upper layer of the skin, is still hanging on. And
you can see it depicted on the picture.

There are some other scrapes on the wrist, in total, about two; and then one
looks like it could be a fingernail mark, and on the back of the fingers, from
grabbing and from holding and moving at the same time. So it would be severe
moving, causing the upper layer of the skin to be scuffed off.

On the area between the right index finger and middle finger, there's a cut.
And it's fairly large cut; I would say it is a little less than an inch, and
it's a obviously a penetrating injury. And the fingers are spread like I'm
showing, and you can see the cut.

There is on the front -- on the front, I mean this area that I'm showing -- the
palm side of the right hand, on the index finger, in the -- just below or at
the level of the first joint, there is what could be a fingernail mark, and
what is possibly a fingernail mark on Ron Goldman's right index finger.

Q. Let me -- you have one more?

A. On the left hand, first on the thumb, there is a scraping, again, with some
loose epidermis.

On the web of the thumb, there is a cut, and on the side of the palm, in
extension of the little finger, where my right finger is, showing on the left
palm there is a semicircular cut.

All the cuts in here are defensive wounds. "Defensive wound" means that the
hand was used to ward off a blade that was coming towards him.

Q. Let's move -- let's move, if we can, to what we've marked as a board -- as

I want you to look at two photos and describe them. One is 2001 and one is

Could you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the Court, what that
indicates in terms of blows or what happened to Mr. Goldman?

Do you have 2001 and 2002 before you?

A. I don't know with a ones those are.

(The instrument herein referred to as a document entitled "Sharp Force Injuries
and Blunt Force Trauma to Head of Mr. Goldman," was marked for identification
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 382.)

(Counsel approaches witness stand.)

Q. Um-hum, um-hum; yes. Those two.

A. These are two superficial, small stab wounds in the head with a do not
penetrate. That means they don't go into the -- through the skull; they just go
into the skin, into the scalp.

Q. And I'm going to ask you now about certain sharp-force injuries, and I'm
going to put up a board. (Counsel displays board entitled "Sharp Force
Injuries, blunt-force trauma to Face, Neck, and Right Shoulder of Mr. Goldman.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You have certain photos in front of you, Dr. Spitz. I
wonder if you could -- this is Exhibit 378 -- if you might take the photos you
have in front of you that are part of 378, and approach the board and describe
for the jury the sharp-force injuries.

(The instrument herein referred to as A board containing six photographs,
collectively, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 378.)

THE WITNESS: You are talking about the ones that are on the board?

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yeah, the ones on the board and the others that are part of
that series.

A. The left lower picture.

Q. It's all right -- I think it's okay with the Court if you come up.

MR. PETROCELLI: Take the pointer, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: The left lower picture shows a large gaping cut, stab wound,
penetrating on the left side of the neck.

There is another stab wound -- also a stab wound, and they come together, see,
because of the movement of both parties.

When a stab wound is made, the opening is much larger, often, than the knife --
of the blade itself, because as the stabbing occurs, the victim moves away, the
hand of the assailant follows, and there is cutting, as well as stabbing.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) The doctor was speaking about Exhibit 2004.

A. That's the reason why these wounds look as large as they are. They are stab
wounds, but they are stab wounds with a cut with it.

And there are different superficial cuts around the -- or below and behind the
left ear, indicating an attempt to cut. Because of the movement, the attempt
was futile and ended up in a superficial cut. Eventually, a stab did occur
behind the ear and on the left side of the neck.

Q. You're going now to exhibit 1999?

A. The Exhibit 99?

Q. 1999.

A. 1999 shows, again, the same stab wound as I've indicated on the left side of
the neck, but primarily it shows the front of the neck with two horizontal
superficial injuries that did not succeed in penetrating as deep slashes
because of the movement.

Q. Direct your attention now to Exhibit 2000.

A. Exhibit 2000 shows one of the superficial stab wounds of the skull -- of the
scalp in the area where the head is shaved, and a stab wound of the left back
of the neck behind -- I'm sorry -- right back of the neck, behind or below, and
behind the right ear and a cut of the ear itself of the back portion of the

The stab/cut, stab, stab/cut, because there is stabbing and movement and
cutting behind and below the right ear is associated with superficial
extensions on both sides.

"Superficial" means just involving the skin.

Q. If you'll remain there for a moment, Doctor, I'm going to put another board

(Counsel displays board entitled Sharp-Force Injuries to Left Flank, Left Thigh
and Right Chest of Mr.` Goldman Blunt-Force Trauma.)

Q. This is board is entitled Sharp-force Injuries to Left Flank, Left Thigh and
Right Chest of Mr. Goldman Blunt-Force Trauma.

I direct your attention to that board, Doctor, which is Exhibit 386, and ask if
you would start with the picture to the left, which is Exhibit 1988.

(The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled Sharp-Force Injuries to
Left Flank, Left Thigh and Right Chest of Mr. Goldman Blunt-Force Trauma was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 386.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a side view photograph of a man's body
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1988.)

THE WITNESS: This is Ron Goldman's flank area and lower chest area on the left
side. The picture is confusing.

Here, this is a table he is on. This is his arm. So you are seeing this area
(witness indicating to his own body.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Excuse me, Doctor. You said this is the table. He saw -- he
was pointing to what appeared to be --

A. This.

Q. -- metal from the right of the picture, over about four, five inches, and
then you were pointing to the flesh on the right of that?

A. Yes.

This is his armpit up here. This is his pubic area down here. This is his left
arm. And his left arm is next to the body, and the picture actually shows this
area (witness indicating to his own body). The left arm shows all kinds of
scrapes, superficial -- here you can see pieces on the top one -- you can see
pieces of epidermis hanging loose.

These are all -- they all look like blunt injury. Here's a scraping, like a
linear scraping.

This is not a stab wound.

Here is a black-and-blue mark, a superficial bruise.

Q. That's to the right, about --

A. On the back of the hand.

Q. Yeah.

A. On the back of the left hand and over the back of the forearm -- I say back
of the forearm because normally this is the front of the body and this is the
back of the body -- this is the back of the hand; this is the front of the
hand. (Indicating.)

And the reason that this picture is important is because this is the
devastating stab wound. It is not very impressive; it's not a very big stab
wound; it is situated on the back of the left flank, and it is just above --
here is the hip -- and it is just above, and it is about (witness indicating to
his own body) in this area.

Q. On the diagram, it's about a quarter of an inch, a half an inch above the
blue marker.

A. It is about, yeah, three-quarters of an inch above the blue marker, the

This is the stab wound that went into the aorta, the picture next and below it.

Q. Excuse me. That's Exhibit 1990?

A. 1990 shows the cut in the front of the left thigh.

For orientation sake, here is the hand.

Q. You were pointing over to the upper right-hand corner?

A. Yes; the upper right-hand corner shows the -- some fingers, and below it --
so, in other words, if I were Mr. Brown, [sic] the stab wound would be about on
my thigh, in the front, about where I'm showing.

Q. You said Mr. Brown; you meant Mr. Goldman?

A. Mr. Goldman. (Witness indicates to his own body.)

And it's a gaping wound, but it doesn't bleed very much. You can see the skin,
the top layer; then the yellow underneath is fat; and then the red in the depth
is muscle. And the cut goes into the muscle, but obviously not through the
muscle. It's a slash more than a stab.

Q. What's 1990?

A. 1990 shows --

Q. Excuse me. That picture is 1987.

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of a man's body was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1987.)

A. 1987 shows the back of Mr. Goldman's body, undressed. The head is shaved in
the back because of the stab wound that was previously discussed.

And there is the slash of the back of the right side of the neck, which is seen
there. And there is a scraping on the back of the left shoulder, a small one,
with a I think is a scraping from some wall, the ground, or something.

And then there are two bruises over the middle of the back, of the middle of
the lower back, with a are two black-and-blue marks, each about the size of a

And because of the vertebral bodies having a little knob in the back, this is
an area that was hit against some flat object, like a wall or the ground.

And then, more significantly is the exact location of the stab wound that
caused the death.

And that is a stab wound of the back of the left flank. And it is not a very
impressive wound, but this is the wound that went into the aorta.

Q. All right. Direct your attention to 1989.

A. 1989 is a picture of the right side of Mr. Goldman, showing the lower
portion of the chest and the two stab wounds, 1 and 2.

Q. That's -- I'm sorry sir. That's at the top of the picture?

A. That's at the top of the picture. Of what number?

Q. 1989.

A. 1989.

Two stab wounds in the lower chest, roughly about where my hand is showing
(witness indicating to his own body); and these are the two that went into the
right lung.

The rest of this only shows some scrapings, superficial scrapings, with a, as
we discussed before, once they dried, they become brown, brown and firm, and
little bit like leather.

(The instrument herein referred to as an autopsy photograph of a man's body
with ruler was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1989)

Q. Directing your attention to 1986.

A. 1986 shows Mr. Goldman dressed with shirt, blue jeans and shoes, sneakers,
and blood on the left pant leg from the slash with a I have shown earlier.

Mr. Goldman was upright when this happened, as is evident by the distribution
of the blood.

Q. And the exhibit I showed you earlier, was that Exhibit 1990?

A. Yes. I was pointing to this. This is a slash and this is the bleeding from


Q. Go to the picture on the far right; that's 1977. And can you tell us what
that is?

A. 1977 is -- shows the cut or the stab wound in the aorta. And the aorta has
been opened and is now not a tube, but flat, because it's been cut open to show
one of the cuts. There were two.

I measured it and found it to be five-eighths of an inch. The other report
describes it as half an inch, for what that's worth.

The aorta shows two little blood vessels down below the cut with a are the
origins of two arteries that come out of the aorta, because the aorta gives
rise to the entire blood system, the entire arterial system in the body, and
the blood vessels come out of the aorta and they look just like that.

And what is significant is that the soft tissues, the fat and other soft
tissues behind the aorta, is totally infiltrated with blood.

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of flesh was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1977.)

Q. How do you know that?

A. Well, because this is all brown and -- or brownish-blue from blood. The
normal color of this is yellow.

Q. And this -- this photo was taken by the coroner's office?

A. This photograph was taken by the coroner's office. All these photographs
were taken by the coroner's office.

Q. You mentioned infiltrated. What was infiltrated?

A. Because of the cut in the aorta, the blood came out and spilled into this
whole area. The picture was meant to show the cut in the aorta, but when the
picture was photographed, the tissue around the aorta shows the blood and

Q. You say this whole area. What do you mean "this whole area?" The whole area
that's depicted?

A. The whole area that is shown, yes, that is shown on the picture.

In fact, you can look through the cut and see the other side of the aorta, and
even see that's infiltrated.

MR. MEDVENE: Okay. Thank you, Doctor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll adjourn till 1:30.

Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions.

Thank you. (The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of wound was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1990.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a side view photograph of body was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1991.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of portion of arm was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1992.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of arm and hand on torso was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1993.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of hand resting next to body
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1994.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of hand was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1995.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of hand was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1996.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of man's hand was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1997.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of man's hand was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1998.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of head and wounds was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2001.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of head and wounds was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2002.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of hand was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2022.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of hand was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2023.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a two-paged chart was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2025.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of finger and ruler was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 172.)

(The instrument herein referred to as autopsy photograph of hand was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 384.)

(The instrument herein referred to as an autopsy photograph of arm and hand was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 385.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of a man and child's hand
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 826.)

(At 11:55 a.m., recess was taken until 1:30 p.m., this same day.)

1:35 P.M.



(Jurors resume their respective Seats.)

WERNER SPITZ, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, having been
previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: You may proceed.


Q. How long did the struggle take between Ron Goldman and the person that
killed him?

A. It is my opinion that this struggle took around a minute, give or take.

Q. And what is the basis for your opinion that it took a minute, give or take?

A. Primarily, the nature of the injuries, the injury in the left flank was one
that would have been incapacitating in very, very short time because what it
did -- What it caused is a near immediate fall of the blood pressure, which
means that because the blood oozes out from the circulation in the body, from
the blood circulation in the body, there is not enough blood to reach the

A person loses ability to stand up, loses ability to think, becomes woozy and
in very short order, becomes disabled.

The rest of the injuries, the superficial injuries in the fight, you have to
understand that many of these injuries occurred together in one movement. There
is a lot of movement in this kind of a situation.

And when the knife is wielded there and you use it to stab, there may be a
superficial injury in one place, the victim moves, and sustains a second and a
third injury by the same wielding of the knife.

So, yeah, there are a number of -- or a significant number of superficial
injuries and four or five other deep wounds. But as the deep wound is
inflicted, there is a scrape, a scraping of the tip of the knife causing
superficial cuts in other places, and then the thrust, which penetrates.

So you have to understand that there is not a lapse of time between wounds. It
all goes in one context.

Q. Let me put on the board, a chart.

(Counsel displays cross-sectioned diagram of torso.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you, with the Court's permission, would like to
approach the chart and please tell me what the chart depicts?

A. May I approach, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. MEDVENE: Exhibit numbers 2025. You have it.

MR. GELBLUM: He has it.

(Indicating to pointer.)


MR. BAKER: Is there a question pending?

MR. MEDVENE: Yes. I asked what the chart depicts?

THE WITNESS: When we speak about the abdomen --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to move to strike as nonresponsive and ask the Court have
him answer the question.

THE COURT: Describe what the chart is.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Yes. Describe the chart.

THE WITNESS: The chart depicts or the chart shows a cut through the middle of
the body. The middle of the body in the area of the stab wound in the left

In other words, here is the tab wound of the left flank. This chart shows the
body cut through this area, and we are looking down on the cut. And what it
shows, is that the abdominal cavity, the abdomen, the belly, is divided into
two compartments.

The front compartment, which is shown in green, contains the liver, the
stomach, the small and large intestines, but not the kidneys and not the
adrenal glands and not the aorta. And not the vertebral column. The vertebral
column is behind --

Q. Where "L" is?

A. Where "L" is. "L" stands for lumbar because it's the lumbar level of the
vertebral column. This is a vertebral body. And there's muscle on each side of
the vertebral body.

And the stab wound goes through the muscle and into the aorta and through the

It goes into the aorta, makes a half-inch cut and comes out of the aorta, makes
another half-inch cut.

Q. Does the tip --

A. And the tip of the blade, which already I said earlier in the morning, that
one of the wounds I believe in Ronald Brown (sic) --

Q. Ronald Goldman?

A. I'm sorry, Ron Goldman was made by the tip of the blade. So it is a knife
with a tip. The tip of the blade, just the tip pierces or enters the sac, the
membrane of the sac -- the wall of the sac that contains the organs in the
front compartment causing a small amount of injury, causing a small amount of

Q. Does that account --

A. That accounts for three ounces of blood in this large cavity which contains
the intestine and the liver and the large intestine.

Q. Does that cavity, as a general rule, have any blood in it?

A. Normally, there's no blood in there. Normally, there's no free blood
anywhere in the body.

Q. By free blood, we mean what?

A. Blood that is outside of blood vessels.

Q. Okay. Go ahead.

A. Except if there's an injury. When the aorta was injured, you can see the
aorta is in the white area, not in the abdominal cavity, in the other
compartment which contains the vertebral body, the kidneys, and the aorta.

The aorta is situated to the left of the vertebral column.

The wound track from the left flank into the aorta was measured at five and a
half inches. It goes through the muscle.

Q. By wound track, what do we mean?

A. The track from the line of the knife, through the tissues, from the entrance
into the flank until it pierced the aorta.

All this space here lined the sac containing the organs, was filled with blood
because the aorta seized the aorta, when the damage causes the bleeding into
this area.

This area behind the front compartment contained quarts of blood. Liters of

Q. Now, to the right is -- could you make --

A. To the right.

Q. Do you relate the drawing to the right, to what you're explaining to the
jury now?

A. To the right is an enlargement of this area here.

Q. This area?

A. This area meaning the area where the knife has gone through the aorta, comes
out of the aorta on the other side and the tip of the knife pierces the
membrane, which is call the peritoneum.

Q. So --

A. This whole area here, in medical language is called the peritoneal cavity
because it is surrounded by a membrane called the peritoneum.

Q. And all of the blood then?

A. All the blood accumulated in the back compartment, in the compartment behind
the peritoneum called the retroperitoneal compartment that is what this white
area is, which also contains the vertebral column, the aorta, the muscles along
the spine, along the vertebral column.

Q. Does the -- does the chest cavity have any blood?

A. No. The chest cavity has a few -- has maybe a fifth of an ounce of fluid
that is there to lubricate the surface, but contains no blood.

Q. So all of the blood went to the area you described?

A. All the blood, as soon as the aorta was cut, head into the space behind the

Q. In terms of the chest cavity, does it generally have blood or you're talking
about in this particular case?

A. The chest cavity has no blood. There is no free blood anywhere in the body
except if there is an injury to a blood vessel.

Q. Now --

A. When I say free blood I mean loose blood, blood that's shed.

Q. Now, you mentioned and explain to us the hundred milliliters to 200 in the
abdominal cavity?

A. 100 ml is described at the autopsy. One milliliter means three and a third

Q. How about the jugular vein? You had mentioned earlier that there was some
cutting in the jugular vein area?

A. The left jugular vein was cut. In fact, the left jugular vein was severed.

Q. Now --

A. The jugular vein is in the neck.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, can we go back to question and answer forum like we've
done for years in court?

THE COURT: It would be nice.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes, sir. Would -- is the bleeding from the jugular vein
similar to, or different than bleeding from the carotid artery that you
described, that was slashed of Nicole Brown?

A. No comparison.

Q. Could you?

A. No comparison at all.

Q. Can you explain the difference to us?

A. The carotid artery being an artery that has a lot of pressure, the heart --
can I make a drawing?

Q. Yes.

A. I'm not much of an artist. This is going to be very crude.

Here is the heart. The heart has two sides, the right side and the left side.
The left side of the heart generates the aorta. The wall of the left side of
the heart is thick. This is the wall of the left side of the heart.

When the heart pumps, it squeezes, which when it squeezes again, it has to
loosen up, then it squeezes again.

When the heart pumps, it pushes blood on, under great pressure into the aorta.
From the aorta, all the blood vessels to the body run off.

The blood has to come back to the heart in order to be ejected by the aorta. It
comes back by way of the veins.

The veins, whereas the arteries run from the heart, the veins run to the heart.

The wall on the right side of the heart is very thin because there is no need
for a lot of pumping because the blood comes back from the head and neck area
into the heart by gravity.

And in the lower extremities and the abdomen and chest, it comes back because
when the heart pumps and squeezes, the blood gets pushed out. But when it
relaxes, it creates a vacuum and that sucks the blood back.

Veins suck, arteries eject under great pressure.

Therefore, the pressure in the jugular vein is very, very low. In fact, it can
be as low as zero because there is no need for pressure from the head and neck.
It runs down by gravity.

So there is -- When the jugular vein is cut, the bottom part of the jugular
vein sucks. The top dribbles out, dribbles down.

Q. Did the cut in Mr. Goldman's jugular vein cause outward bleeding, in your

A. Very little of outward bleeding for two reasons.

First of all, there's no pressure. There's some outward trickle maybe, but
furthermore, I understand that there is tissue over the jugular vein, muscle,
fat, skin.

Q. Is there --

A. And I realize that the muscles are cut, but there not being any pressure
when the trickle occurs, the trickle would not bleed outward but bleed inward,
if at all.

Q. Is there any description in the autopsy report of a large amount of blood in
the soft tissue of the neck or the chest?

A. No. There's no description. There's description that there is blood along
the wound track, but no blood anywhere else.

Q. Any photographs to indicate the swelling, or evidence of swelling, showing
large amounts of blood in the soft tissue?

A. No.

Q. Of the neck or chest?

A. No. There are abundant pictures of the neck and chest area and there is no
swelling seen anywhere, nor is there a discoloration seen.

Q. Is the cause of death in this case a large amount of blood that came from a
jugular vein then?

A. No. There's only one cause of death here and the cause of death here is the
cut -- cuts in the aorta.

Q. How long before Mr. Goldman would become incapacitated and die if he
received the two stab wounds that you describe to the aorta?

A. Mr. Goldman would have been incapacitated and collapsed as he bleed. He's
unconscious. He's still bleeding, his heart is still trying to contract weaker
and weaker and weaker.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive as to time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Strike --

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) About --

A. Consequently.

MR. BAKER: Could we get an answer to the question, not consequently.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Approximately how long would it take for him to die?

A. It may take him several minutes to die, but he is dying from the moment the
aorta is cut.

Q. Is there, in your opinion, because of the nature of the bleeding you
described, a likelihood of much blood, if any, going on to the assailant?

MR. BAKER: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.


Because Mr. Goldman did not bleed externally to a great extent.

The bleeding in the thigh bled into the pants, and stained the pants. There is
some bleeding from the other wounds, and possibly there is some blood coming
out on the knife as it is withdrawn between stab wounds. But that doesn't
necessarily come on the assailant.

And if it does, there would be splatters and not tremendous large amounts of
bleeding. This bleeding from the aorta is within tissue of the back, the
compartment of the abdominal area.

Q. Let me move to a different area.

We would mark the drawing, Your Honor, as next in order, which I believe is

THE CLERK: 2161.

MR. MEDVENE: 2161.

THE COURT: So marked.

(The instrument herein referred to as drawing of heart done by Dr.'Spitz was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2161.)

(BY MR. MEDVENE) If I might move to another area.

Do you have an opinion as to whether all of the injuries inflicted on Ms. Brown
and Mr. Goldman could have been inflicted by one individual?

A. Yes. I'm of the opinion that all of the injuries of both victims could have
been inflicted by one individual, by a single individual.

Q. And what do you base that on?

A. First of all, I base that on the fact that the injuries on Nicole took 15
seconds or less. And when I say 15 seconds, I'm being very generous with time.
I think probably less.

Once she was cut in the throat, they -- she was inactive. She was collapsed.
Instantaneously, immediately. The nature and the locations of the wounds is,
for practical purposes, the same or very similar in both people.

Having said that my opinion is that one assailant caused these two -- The
injuries in both people.

Q. Is there any evidence, in your judgment, that more than one knife was used?

A. No. The injuries are totally compatible with a single knife.

Q. Could all of the injuries be caused by a single edged knife?

A. Yes.

Q. What is a single edge knife?

A. A single edged knife is a knife -- may I go to the board?

Q. Yes.

(Witness draws another diagram.)

A. A single edge knife is a knife that has a sharp edge on one side and not the
other. The other side is blunt.

A double edged knife is one that has a sharp edge on one side and a sharp edge
on the other. That would be a knife that is sometimes referred to as stiletto
would sometimes be referred to as a stiletto-type knife.

Q. Dr. Spitz, you discussed the altercation, the fight between the assailant
and the two victims. Would the assailant, in your opinion, have any injuries on
his person or marks on his person as a result of the struggle?

MR. BAKER: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: In the course of the struggle, there is holding of the victims,
each one from the back where the victim, obviously being unarmed and capacity
-- and rendered incapacitated by the hold, trying to get away. During this
holding, the victim one or the other, or both, tried to remove the arm and hand
from the hold.

During -- and this is a desperate attempt on the part of the victim.

During this desperate attempt, injuries from fingernails are likely to be
inflicted to the -- holding the extremity, to the hold of the assailant.

Q. Would you put on the board please exhibit 171.

THE COURT: Who you talking to?

MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Would you please put on the TV monitor,
exhibit 171?

(Exhibit 171 is displayed.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a photo description card of O.J.
Simpson's finger was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 171)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Photo of Mr. Simpson's finger. Can you look at that
photograph that we've stated, for the record, was taken June 13, some time in
the afternoon and tell us what you observed?

A. I observed the middle finger with an injury over the -- roughly, middle of
the finger which oozes which is swollen, as evident from the highlights around
and from the general appearance of swelling. And there is some discoloration
and there is some blood around from this injury.

And there is a second injury in this area here.

Q. I just placed before you, the actual photos.

A. Yes. And there is a second injury which is not terribly well visible on this
picture, but it's very well visible on the picture that you handed me. Here, in
this area, there's a second injury.

Q. That's above the nail?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. It's above the nail. I'm trying to describe it for the record.

A. No, it's not. It's below the nail.

Q. Below the nail?

A. But it's on the finger. It's right here. There's one injury here, there's
one injury here and there is something here, which I'm not quite certain of,
but is an injury -- this is an injury and both are in my judgment fingernail

Q. Let's go to 172.

(Exhibit 172 is displayed.)

A. This is the picture that was originally shown to me, and it shows the same
that 187 shows, except it's out of focus and shows it less well.

Q. When you said 187, that would be 171, sir?

A. 171.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. It's the same area and the same injury.

Q. All right. There was reference made yesterday to exhibit 714 and 715 and,
Steve, would you -- would you put on the board, number 9 from, I believe, 715.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

Q. Shown yesterday, I believe, during Dr. Huizenga's testimony.

I'm going to place a copy of that in front of you, placing four pictures in
front of you. First one is, I believe, number 9. You can look on the back and I
ask you, if you would, look on the TV monitor, tell us what marks, if any, you

Let's start with that and then what I'm going to ask you to do, is circle those
marks on the exhibit, the colored laser print that's in front of you.

A. Let me be sure that I understood. You want me to explain the picture?

Q. Yes.

A. On the monitor and then circle what I've talked about on the picture on the
-- on the -- on this ticket (indicating)?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Okay.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is the same picture he just talked about. This is
cumulative, sir.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAKER: The same cuts. I have an objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: This picture shows the same injury that we have talked about,
except later.


A. And they show less swelling and more detail of the wounds. Because the
swelling has subsided and the wounds are not oozing any more.

The detail of the wounds is noticeable to a much better -- in a much better
way. What you are seeing is the wounds on the inside on the -- on the outside
of the finger. And the wounds over the middle joint of the finger, which is
what I described earlier. Both wounds now are much more explicit with regards
to being fingernail marks.

You see the curvature on both, which is compatible with the curvature of the
fingernail and they -- the location of these wounds on the hand is the result
of this hand being exposed to the victim's hand when the removal -- attempt to
remove this hand was in progress.

Q. Would you please circle --

A. I did.

Q. May we mark this document 2162, Your Honor?

(The instrument herein referred to as a photo of hand with wounds was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2162.)

THE COURT: So marked.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Going to display quickly on the screen what you marked, and
ask for the record, if those are the places where you say there were fingernail

(Witness indicates with pointer.)

Q. Yes, sir. Let's go, if we can, to another photo introduced yesterday, number
13, I believe, of 715. Is this a different mark than we previously observed or
you previously talked about on 2162?

A. This is a different mark. This is a different mark. These are two different

Q. Could you identify?

A. And again, here, this is -- this is one. And this is the other.

Q. The one is the one you said was the one -- was about where on the ruler?

A. The one on this would be at the level of two-and-a-half inches.

Q. All right.

A. Two-and-a-half inches.

Q. All right.

A. Two-and-a-quarter to two-and-a-half inches.

Q. And the other one you pointed out?

A. And the other one is at one and three-quarters, approximately.

Q. And what?

A. So --

Q. What do those marks --

A. Those are, again, you'll have the curvature here. You'll have the raggedness
of the edge of the -- raggedness of the edge here. You have a piece of tissue
hanging out of this one.

Q. What are those marks?

A. Those are fingernail marks.

Q. Could those marks be from a cut glass?

A. No. Those are not cuts. These are injuries that were caused by -- not by
sharp force, but by semi-blunt force.

Q. We'll mark it 2163. Would you be good enough to circle on what you have, I
believe it's 13, in front of you and could you also initial it, please?

A. Initial it?

Q. Yes, sir.

Q. I'm going to ask you, with the Court's permission, if you could also initial

(Witness complies.)

Q. Thank you. Could you put on the screen, may we mark this 2163, Your Honor?

Would you put 2163 on the board, please.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo with circles drawn by witness was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2163.)

Q. Are those what you described as fingernail marks?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me put back on the board for a moment, 2162.

(Exhibit 2162 is displayed.)

Q. I'm sorry, let me put back on the TV screen, the monitor, 2162.

And I ask you if what you have marked there in your picture, those marks could
have been caused by a glass cut?

A. No. These are not glass cuts.

Q. Thank you.

A. These are not sharp injuries. These are not caused by a glass and these are
not caused by a knife.

Q. If we can -- thank you.

If we can go now to number 8 of 715.

Another picture of Mr. Simpson's finger that was shown yesterday.

(Number 8 of Exhibit 715 is displayed on screen.)

Q. Do you see any marks on his finger that you could identify for the jury?

A. Yes. There are two gouges. Gouges mean, where the upper layer of the skin
has been scooped out and it's gone. On both, here in the front, which is the
inner aspect of the base of the left index finger on my hand. This would be
right there.

Q. Which is this one?

A. This one is on the rib of the thumb, which is where I'm showing now
(indicating to his own hand).

These two are scooped out gouges by fingernail marks. They are typical for

Q. Those two marks consistent with being a cut which glass?

A. No. These are not glass cuts.

Q. Would you be good enough, mark on the laser print before you, what we've
marked as 2164, the inner nail marks that you described.

A. (Witness complies.)

Q. And initial it, please.

(The instrument herein referred to as a photo of flesh with marks was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2164.)

Q. Put that up and identify, for purposes of the record, what those marks are,
the ones that you described. Are those the marks?

A. Yes. Yes, sir.

(Displayed photo with circle marks by witness.)

Q. Are there any photographs you -- Strike that.

You have talked earlier about a text that you edited and wrote?

A. Yes.

Q. In that text, are there any photographs of fingerprints or -- excuse me.

A. Fingernail marks.

Q. Fingernail marks?

A. Yes, there are.

Q. And have you -- strike that.

We'll put on the board -- put on the board what's been marked 1973.


THE COURT: Excuse me, we'll put on the monitor what's been marked as 1973.

(Exhibit 1973 is displayed.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo of hand with fingernail marks was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1973.)

A. This is a hand with fingernail marks. This is not in focus.

MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. I'm going to object to this. Take that off the
screen. I want to approach.

THE COURT: Okay. Take it off.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. BAKER: Evidence Code 721, he can't use on direct, his book and his photos.
He can't do that under the Evidence Code 721. He can only be cross-examined.

MR. MEDVENE: Well, they're in the exhibit book. They've been there for a while.
There's been no objection to them and we're using them to show that he's going
to compare the fingerprint marks with the ones that he -- in the book or that
he's collected with the fingernail to support his conclusion that the
fingernail marks, that the marks on Mr. Simpson's finger are fingernail marks.

MR. BAKER: Can't do it, Your Honor. You can't use -- you can't use your own
writings to support it. He can only be cross-examined on his own writings under
721(b) of the Evidence Code.

In fact, the Evidence Code, the fact they're in the evidence book is

THE COURT: What's the foundation for the photo?

MR. MEDVENE: Going to lay the foundation that he's taken the photo. He's aware
of the photo and all he wants to do, if it's permissible, is compare the photo.

THE COURT: What's the foundation for the photo?

MR. MEDVENE: His knowledge of the taking of the photo and the source of the

THE COURT: Excuse me. Did he take the photo?

MR. MEDVENE: I'll have to ask him.

THE COURT: You don't know, do you?

MR. MEDVENE: I really don't, Your Honor.


(The following proceedings were resumed in open court in the presence of the

THE COURT: Ten minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case,
don't form or express any opinions.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: There's an objection pending.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, the picture was taken under the supervision
of Dr. Spitz, and results from a strangulation case where the victim
supposition would have acted in a similar way. That's our foundation, Your

MR. BAKER: I don't think that's adequate foundation.

Number one, under 721 of the Evidence Code, he cannot be examined, and his
supposition is pretty loose; and,

Number two, his supposition as to how somebody was struggling is exactly the
same supposition he's made here today. I don't think that's appropriate
foundation for either supposition.

THE COURT: You may inquire.

MR. MEDVENE: Do it now, sir?

THE COURT: Well, yeah, before the jury comes in, so I can decide.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, with respect to the picture, could you tell us
what part, if any, you had in the taking of that picture?

A. Your Honor, I was the chief medical examiner. And the picture -- we had a
photographer -- two photographers, actually and the photographer would take
pictures of deceased people at my direction. And I would tell the photographer
what I wanted photographed, how I wanted it photographed; and what he would do
is focus and pull the shutter.

THE COURT: Okay. Further foundation as to its relevance?

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And the particular victim, or the particular hand that was
photographed, what was the event that encompassed the injury on the hand?

A. This is a strangulation case, where an assailant had his arm around the
victim and strangled her.

MR. MEDVENE: That's our foundation.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What does the photo intend to illustrate?

A. Well, you see, this is a textbook, and it's meant to depict typical injuries
for students of this discipline, and so, depicts a typical type of a fingernail

Q. And?

A. Fingernail marks may be difficult to diagnose, especially for somebody who
is learning the profession.

Q. And what is the similarity, if any, between the photograph of a different
person and the marks that you described on Mr. Simpson's finger?

A. Well, I think there is considerable similarity.

Q. If you want, we can put it back up.

A. Well, I know what it shows, but I think there is considerable similarity.

Fingernail marks may have different configurations. Some fingernail marks look
this way; other fingernail marks look differently. And this fingernail mark, or
the fingernail marks on the picture in question, are very much like the
fingernail marks in question here. They are ragged; they are jagged; they are
the same similar size. I mean, everything about this is the same.

MR. MEDVENE: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) I place before you -- oh, I'm sorry.

(Defense counsel reviews book.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm placing before you, your book, Medicolegal
Investigation of Death, third edition, in particular page 265.

And could you tell the Court the heading and the purpose.

A. The -- what do you mean by "purpose?"

Q. The purpose of those photos.

A. Oh. The purpose of the photos is to show fingernail marks resembling gouges,
as the caption indicates, on victims' wrists, indicating a struggle had taken
place. The struggle in this case was a struggle to get a hand off somebody's

Q. And are those the photos that we put on the board --

A. Yes.

Q. -- on the monitor?

Is that one of the photos?

A. One the photos, yes.

Q. And are you using it just for an illustrative purpose?

A. That's correct.

MR. MEDVENE: That's our foundation.

THE COURT: Well, the foundation is, I think, still lacking as to how this
witness determined that the photograph that he had his photographer make shows
fingernail marks.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) How do you know it's a fingernail mark?

A. Well, for several reasons.

First of all, it looks like fingernail marks.

Secondly, there is no other type of trauma.

Thirdly, we know how the strangulation occurred. I cannot, as I sit here, tell
you whether the police found other evidence that would be corroborative or not,
but there is no question in my mind. I would not have put it in the book as a
typical case if it weren't a fingernail mark.

THE COURT: On that basis, I think foundation is lacking.

Sustain the objection.

MR. MEDVENE: All right, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Bring the jury back.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, on the basis of what was just related, I would move to
strike all of his opinions from the testimony relative to what are fingernail

He obviously relied on what's in his book. There's inadequate foundation to
show those are fingernail marks. I move to strike all of his testimony relative
to his opinions concerning the cuts on Mr. Simpson's hands being fingernail

THE COURT: That motion is denied.

This witness is testifying as an expert. Whatever experience and basis on which
he formed those opinions, subject to your cross-examination, will simply go to
its weight.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, before the break, I inadvertently, on 2164 --
that's number 8 -- showed you a picture, and I believe I referred to it as a

MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. He did not refer to it as a finger.


THE COURT: Overruled. Just start.


Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you tell me, did you have an opportunity, Doctor, to
look at 2164 -- that's number 8 -- at the break?

A. Yes.

Q. And could you just -- whatever I called it, could you tell me what it is?

MR. BAKER: I object. He didn't call it anything.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: The error was mine.

I attributed the gouges on the web side of the hand, and it is the opposite
side of the hand, two gouges on the side of the little, pinky finger.

Q. Okay. And?

A. And they show -- you see the edge of the -- of a bone here, and under the
skin, a little, white tissue area.

Q. Can you see the whole hand from the picture?

A. No, you cannot. That's where I made the error, because it's too close.

Q. Place on the board number 2, I believe, from 715, and ask if you would
please put it on the screen.

(Photo displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) This is Mr. Simpson's hand, discussed yesterday by Dr.

Can you tell the jury rather, the Court, if you see any marks on Mr. Simpson's

A. Yes, I see marks. I see little -- a row of little superficial injuries,
drying injuries on the back of the left hand, in proximity of the middle
knuckle, and at least one additional one there.

Q. Can you please circle them on the copy in front of you and initial them.

(The witness complies.)

MR. MEDVENE: Exhibit 2165, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you give us your opinion of the cause of those marks?

A. These are my view of fingernail marks, too.

Q. Why? What causes you to say that?

A. These are little superficial gouges. And the reason that there are many is
because they're skipping; the movement caused the hand of the individual in
collecting these, to skip from one to the next, to the next, to the next. And
here on the other one, it didn't skip.

Q. Dr. Spitz, in your opinion, would one that causes fingernail marks on
another individual necessarily have that other individual's skin underneath
their nails?

MR. BAKER: Leading. Suggestive.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you have an opinion whether or not the person who
received the fingernail -- excuse me -- do you have an opinion whether or not
the person who caused the fingernail marks would necessarily have skin
underneath their nails?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Leading. Suggestive, as well, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Why not?

A. Well, because in the case of gouges, there's a substantial amount of skin.
The skin, many times, remains suspended on the individual on whom the
fingernail mark is.

It remains suspended; it does not get any blood; it dries up and falls off in a
day or two.

MR. MEDVENE: Would you put on the board 826, please.

Q. Doctor, I show you a picture that's been previously marked. It's of Mr.
Simpson somewhere prior to -- I believe the facts are somewhere prior to 7:00
p.m. on June the 12th.

I ask you to look at that picture.

If we can narrow it down or get a close-up of Mr. Simpson's hands.

(Photo displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you see on Mr. Simpson's hand in this picture, taken
sometime on the 12th before 7:00 p.m. at his daughter's recital, any of what
you have identified as the fingernail marks?

A. No, I don't see any here.

If you make it less magnified, there are no -- there are no marks here, either.

Q. I have nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. BAKER: Put up 2165.


Q. Those are -- all of those marks that you've circled, Dr. Spitz, are about
the size of the head of a pin or less, right?

(Exhibit 2165 displayed.)

THE WITNESS: Well, they're not very large, though.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) About the size of a head of a pin, right?

A. I don't know. I can't tell you whether they're the size of a head of a pin
or less, depending on the pin. I suppose there are pins with little heads and
big heads.

There's no scale on this. I could say that they are small, but I cannot tell
you how small they are.

Q. And in virtually -- as I understand your testimony, virtually every cut,
abrasion that you saw on Mr. Simpson's hand, it's your opinion, was caused by a
fingernail, correct?

A. Well, those I saw are, in my opinion, fingernail marks.

Q. And this obviously was a sharp fingernail because they're very little cuts
and they're not broad-base cuts, right?

You understand the question?

A. No.

Q. What was it, a pointed fingernail that skipped across the top of Mr.
Simpson's hand that caused that?

A. No.

Q. All right.

Now, in terms of your opinions relative to these fingernail marks, there was
absolutely nothing found under Mr. Goldman's fingernails that matched anything
having to do with Mr. Simpson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the only thing that was found under any fingernail in this case, was
found under the fingernail of Nicole Brown Simpson; and that genetic marker
matched neither Mr. Simpson nor Mr. Goldman nor anyone that was knowledgeable
to be at the crime scene, true?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor. Move to
strike about the genetic markers.

THE COURT: Counsel asked the question; the witness answered.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Dr. Spitz, as I understand it, you have spent
considerable time on this matter, have you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you bill $3,000 per day?

A. For what?

Q. For doing what you're doing today?

A. For testifying in Los Angeles, yes.

Q. Or testifying in Detroit, Michigan?

A. No.

Q. Now, you would agree you're well compensated for your forensic pathology
testimony, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion, Your Honor. I mean vague,
ambiguous, "well compensated."

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't know if my testimony's well compensated or not. This is my
fee schedule; this is what I bill, whether I'm billing one party or another

Q. Well, It's your view that forensic pathologists take sides in a case, is it
not, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, ambiguous as to what point in time, Your Honor,
before or after an opinion has been drawn.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't know if that's the right way of putting it. You don't take
sides; you interpret the evidence.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, let me read what you told the Detroit News on October
17, 1994. Quote: "Invariably, the forensic pathologist will take sides."

Do you recall saying that?

A. Can you read me the whole sentence.

Q. I'd be happy to.

A. Or could you let me see it, perhaps.

Q. Let me read it to you.

A. I'd like to -- if you don't mind, I'd like to see it.

Q. Did you --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. Could we have a copy, Mr. Baker, of what --

THE COURT: If you're going to read from something, show it to counsel.

MR. BAKER: Sure.

(Counsel reviews document.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have -- while they're looking at that, you have -- you
have given a lot of interviews to various media relative to the O.J. Simpson
case, have you not, Dr. Spitz?

A. I've given some, yes.

Q. And you have been quoted in the L.A. Times?

A. I've been quoted in the Detroit paper.

Q. And others, true?

A. I don't know where I've been quoted. Those I read, I can tell you, but then,
many I didn't read.

Q. All right.

Now, in terms of this case, you would agree that you were taking sides relative
to the plaintiffs' position in the case, correct?

A. No.

Q. All right.

And you wouldn't be taking sides, correct?

You just, in looking at the evidence, giving your best independent judgment of
what that is, true?

A. I believe that I looked at the evidence in this case and interpreted it the
best way I know how.

Q. Fair enough.

Now, you told the -- let me get the name of the paper correct -- The Detroit
News --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: -- October 17 --

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, this is out of context. The two sentences before --
put it in context. It's unfair to ask it this way. The witness says --

MR. BAKER: Don't need an argument.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You may rehabilitate your witness at a later time if you

MR. MEDVENE: But he's reading from a document unfairly. He's -- if you could
look at the document.

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is cross-examination. And let's proceed.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the Detroit News on October 17, 1994, in talking
about the O.J. Simpson case, "Invariably, forensic pathologists will take
sides, who are not part of the prosecution at all. We work in an adversarial
system. Some other expert is going to come in and try to challenge us."

That's what you told the Detroit News, correct?

A. I couldn't tell you; I don't know. Maybe I did tell them that; maybe I did

Q. Have you ever written to -- the Detroit News is a paper in your hometown --

A. Yes.

Q. -- is it not?

A. And --

Q. Do you read it?

A. No; I read The Free Press.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I read The Free Press.

Q. Okay.

Have you ever indicated to the Detroit News or The Free Press that you've been

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, may we approach? This is unfair. He's quoting
part of it --

MR. BAKER: You know --

MR. MEDVENE: -- out of context.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, his characterization of unfair is improper.

THE COURT: Excuse me. He's making a speaking objection and you're making a
speaking response. I don't think it's helpful to anybody.

Objection's overruled. Let's get on with it and finish this.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in this case, you talked about being -- being part of
the select committee to investigate the assassination of JFK and Martin Luther
King. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. The chairman of that committee was Michael Baden?

A. Yes.

Q. You know who Michael Baden is, do you not, Dr. Spitz?

A. Yes.

Q. You're aware he was called by the defense in the criminal case?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are aware that he is going to be called by the defense in this case?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, let's talk just a little bit about you were retained in
January, February of this year?

A. I think it was January.

Q. And from that day to this day, have you prepared a single note relative to
this case, Dr. Spitz?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Not one single piece of paper, you will agree, that you have prepared
relative to this case, correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Doctor, how much blood is contained in the average human

A. I don't know. I suppose it varies. And there is no complete agreement, I
don't believe, in that regard. I would say, I would estimate maybe eight

Q. Doctor, isn't it true that there's eight to ten quarts of blood in a human

A. That may be.

Q. So, eight quarts is two gallons?

A. Eight quarts is two gallons.

Q. And in this particular case, you are of the view that Ms. Nicole Brown
Simpson died or -- strike that.

There was 15 seconds or less between the first and the last wound, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, sir, will you put that -- Phil will you put that card -- well, never

You would agree, Dr. Spitz, that the way the human body functions, is that for
us to survive, we have to have oxygenated blood to every part of our body,

A. Yes.

Q. And what occurs is that the heart pumps blood in a closed system, if there
aren't any cuts or vents, if you will, in any part of the cardiovascular
system, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And what occurs is, as we inhale, we send oxygen down into our lungs; the
oxygen transfers and goes into the blood through the lungs, and is pumped from
to the various parts of every part of our body, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And if, in fact, we do not get oxygenated blood to our body for a period of
time, that tissue that is deprived of oxygenated blood will become necrotic or
gangrenous and die, true?

A. I suppose, yes.

Q. And so the system --

A. There -- excuse me. Though, that is only partially correct, because what
happens if you don't get oxygenated blood to every part of the body, as you
say, the whole body is going to die. And then once it dies, then we become
gangrenous or decomposes, you might say, but it's not that, as we are alive,
little bits and pieces of us start falling apart. That's not how it works.

Q. Well, Doctor, let me just see if maybe we can get on the same wavelength.

If I take and put a tourniquet around my arm at the forearm level and tighten
it so as to preclude oxygenated blood flow from going through there, the first
thing that will occur is, everything posterior or distal to the tourniquet is
going to turn blue, correct?

A. No, it's not going to turn blue; it's going to turn white. It's only going
to turn blue if you obstruct the veins. If you obstruct the arteries and you
put a tourniquet on the arm, then you will obstruct the arteries; it's going to
turn white because it's not going to get any blood.

Q. Doctor, it's going to have blood in it before you ever put the tourniquet on

A. Well, it's got blood in it now.

Q. That's what I mean.

A. As a result of that, my hand is not blue. At least I don't think so.

Q. Well, I agree with you; I don't think it is, because it's got oxygenated
blood in it.

In any event, Doctor, let me move on.

The blood customarily is depicted -- our arterial blood flow is red in your
medical circles, is it not, and blue when it's on the venous return, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what occurs is that, after the oxygenation has been used to nourish the
various tissues in the body, the unoxygenated blood flows through the veins,
back to the lungs, to be reoxygenated and pumped again by the heart, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when that occurs, if we take and have a situation where we are
frightened, scared, at the risk of losing our life, a couple of things happen
to the human body, do they not?

One is that the heart rate increases dramatically, true?

A. Yes.

Q. The other is that the blood vessels constrict; that is, the aorta and the
vessels that feed not only the aorta or the vessels that feed various parts of
our body constrict, so that to pump more blood quicker to the various areas,

A. There is a constriction which raises the blood pressure. The amount of blood
that flows remains the same.

What happens is, there's a regulatory system in the body, and that regulatory
system provides no constrictions, which at the same time increases blood-vessel
pressure. So the amount of blood that comes out is the same when you are scared
or not scared.

Q. Doctor, that's actually exactly what I was getting at.

If you take a person that has a blood pressure and -- let's talk about systolic
pressure, okay, because that's the pressure when the left side of the heart
pumps and the blood is then pushed through our body, correct?

A. Yes; that's what I mentioned earlier.

Q. And if the systolic blood pressure is 110, that means that the blood
pressure will hold up a column of 110 millimeters of mercury, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is the pressure that will increase during a time of fright or when
the victim is afraid, correct?

A. I just said that the blood pressure rises.

Q. And so you can get a blood pressure over 200 at the time that you are, in
fact, frightened?

A. Yes.

Q. True?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the blood pressure, when there is a cut in the enclosed system that we,
as human beings have, that keep the blood inside of our bodies, if it is then
severed, that blood, especially in an area such as the carotid arteries, comes
out of the human body with great force, does it not?

A. It comes out with great force; however, at the same time, as you correctly
indicated a minute ago, there is constriction of the artery. So it doesn't come
out with a whole lot more force than it would have if the blood pressure were

Q. Doctor, if we take a hose and we use a three-quarter-inch hose, and we have
a volume of water going through that hose, and we reduce it to a half-an-inch
hose, and put the same -- increase the pressure by 50 to 100 percent, the
amount of water coming out into that hose is going to almost double. In other
words, by that, I mean the distance that that water will arc from the exit of
the hose until it hits the ground; you would agree with that?

A. No doubt. But the hose hasn't got a regulatory mechanism, nor have I ever
known of a hose that was scared.


Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, I certainly hope not.

Have you talked to many hoses?

A. No, not yet.

Q. Okay.


Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Be nice to me, now.

Now, doctor, In terms of the -- when a person is killed, after the person is
deceased, we don't bruise; you would agree with that?

A. That is only partially correct. If I may explain.

Yes, we do not bruise. However, if there is an injury that causes blood vessels
to rupture, like in a case of a -- what would have been a black-and-blue mark,
but is not because the individual is dead, blood still runs out of the injured
blood vessels. And because of the pressure, even though little of the gravity
of the blood, it will somehow percolate into the environment, into the area of
this injury.

So although there is no bruising -- the word "bruising" would be incorrect to
use -- but there would be some blood outside of a blood vessel, which is the
equivalent of a bruise in the area of damage.

Q. All right.

And you have, as I understand it, read and reviewed the autopsy reports in some
detail of both of the victims in this case, have you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And as I understand it -- strike that.

Let me ask you this: You seem to have pretty certain opinions on exactly how
these events occurred. And I want to know -- tell us, Doctor, how long before
the first wound was inflicted did the altercation take place?

A. How long before the first wound?

When you say "first wound" what do you mean, major wound, or do you mean a
defensive-type, scratch-like, superficial wound or any wound?

Q. Any wound, sir.

A. I don't have any idea.

Q. So you --

A. Before there was contact, I don't know what transpired.

Q. Okay. So I want to be clear, then, that you have no idea how long the
assailant or assailants were in the area where the murders took place before
there was a first wound?

A. I have -- I only can make a judgment for the duration of the period that
involves injury and incapacity and death, but not what occurred before there
was contact.

Q. Okay. So the answer to my question is, you don't have an opinion as to how
long the assailant or assailants was in the area where the murders took place
before the first wound was inflicted on whoever it was inflicted on, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, your view, as I understand it, is that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed
first, right?

A. That is my opinion.

Q. And your view is that the reason she was killed first is because if she
wasn't killed first, she would have run away, right?

That's what you testified to in your deposition, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

So -- and you believe from the first wound to the last wound was 15 seconds;
and that given a lot of time, you think it's actually possibly less than that,

A. Yes.

Q. And you are aware, of course, that Nicole Brown Simpson had a bruise on her
forehead in the upper portion of the head, that went into brain tissue,

A. Yes.

Q. That was a pretty good bruise, wasn't it?

A. Well, it's a bruise in the skin. The scalp bruise is about the size of a
silver dollar.

Q. So she was certainly alive at the time that that bruise was inflicted,
because bruises are not inflicted after the person's deceased; I think we've
already agreed on that, correct?

A. Well, this particular bruise, I agree with you, because there is an injury
to the adjacent brain.

Q. And your view relative to that particular bruise is that it didn't cause her
to be unconscious, nor was she severely subconscious, correct?

A. No. My opinion about that bruise is that it could have dazed her. I cannot
really make a definitive judgment --

Q. Okay.

A. -- of how intense that bruise is.

The bruise, in and of itself, is not of the kind that would necessarily cause
loss of consciousness or severe subconsciousness, that is, where she is still
conscious, but barely.

I could not make a judgment on that.

I would rather think that the bruise was not of such magnitude, but it could
have significantly dazed her to the point where she would lose her footing.

Q. Well, you testified when we took your deposition, that it may not have
affected her at all; it may have dazed her some.

A. Yes.

That's correct.

Q. Now, this bruise was inflicted, in your opinion, before there was any wounds
to her body, true?

A. No; I don't know specifically when that bruise occurred. It just as well
could have occurred as a result of striking the ground, and that the slashing
of the neck followed, because I'm nearly certain that the slashing of the neck
followed that bruise.

Q. Well, now, the slashing, as I understand it now, she had a couple of
defensive wounds on her hands; is that right?

A. She had a couple of defensive wounds on her hand.

Q. That didn't take, in your view, any time at all, correct?

A. Well, nothing takes no time at all.

Q. A second, two seconds?

A. It takes very little time to inflict that, yes.

Q. And your view, of course, Dr. Spitz, is that when those wounds to her hands
were inflicted, the assailant was behind her, right?

A. To her hands?

Q. Yeah.

A. No. At one point, I said he was in front of her.

Q. Oh, okay.

So the assailant was in front of her at one time; and within 15 seconds, the
assailant is behind her, has stabbed her four times in the face and slashed her
throat; and this is even before she has any contusions at all, true?

A. No.

No, not true.

Q. Well, in your opinion, when the assailant or assailants are in front of Ms.
Nicole Brown Simpson, did she have the contusion to her head that may not have
affected her at all, or may have affected her, or may have caused her severe

A. You're asking me whether she already had that? Is that what you're asking

Q. I'm asking you, sir: When the assailant or assailants were in front of Ms.
Nicole Brown Simpson and she got these defensive wounds to her hands, had she
already incurred the bruise to her head and brain?

A. I doubt that, although it's not impossible.

I don't know when she sustained the bruise to the head. She could have --

Q. She couldn't have sustained the bruise to the head after the slash to the
neck; you'd agree with that?

A. I doubt that she sustained the bruise to the neck after the slash of the

Q. The bruise to the head after the slash to the neck.

A. Yeah, I think the slash of the neck was the last event.

Q. Because if, in fact, she had incurred the -- sustained a blow to her head
after the slash, there wouldn't be a bruise there; you'd agree with that?

A. Or less of a bruise, yes.

Q. Now, we know that's a severe bruise because we know the brain is bruised. It
goes -- she's got a bruise an inch square on the top of her head, where she's
got the hemorrhagic blood tissue, and then she has brain tissue underneath the
skull, whereas the petechiae are also infiltrated with blood?

A. I don't know what you mean. I don't know what you mean by "petechiae."

Q. Okay.

Let me get the autopsy report. I may be totally wrong. It wouldn't be the first


It says there are focal areas of concentrated intercerebral petechiae
characteristics of acute cerebral cortical contusion; is that correct?

A. Yes. I think I said yes.

Q. Okay.

And that indicated to you that there was bleeding in the brain tissue itself,

A. No. What that means is that the bruise or the contusion in the brain
consists of tiny, little gashes. The word petechiae, which are pinpoint size
hemorrhages, those are not -- that's not a massive hemorrhage in the brain.

The bruise, one, consists when there is a bruise in the brain, or what we call
a bruise in the brain, consists of an area of brain tissue in which are little
pinpoint hemorrhages. That's what he means.

Q. It was a subdural hematoma; it was petechiae that had ruptured as a result
of the blow that she took to the head, correct?

A. No, no. The petechiae don't rupture.

When there is a blow to the head from falling on the floor or hitting a wall,
there develops a bruise or a black-and-blue mark in the brain.

What is a black and blue mark in the brain?

A black-and-blue mark in the brain is a little area -- or big area, for that
matter -- in this case, the size of -- silver-dollar-size area in which there
are a lot of pinpoint-size bleedings. And that is what we look at when we say
oh, there's a bruise in the brain.

Q. Okay.

Now, that indicated to you in doing your reconstruction of the time frame
within which it took for Nicole Brown Simpson, from the first wound to the last
wound, being 15 seconds or less, that sometime between the assailant being in
front of Nicole Brown Simpson and then subsequently being behind her, that she
went to the ground or fell and lost her footing and hit one wall or the other,

A. Or some other firm thing.

There's a bannister there. I don't know what she hit. She hit something as she
may have lost her footing, as she may have been pushed, as she may have fallen
because of some other reason, but in that area. And I believe it's here that
Nicole's head -- she hit something flat and hard, consistent with paved floor
or a wall.

Q. Now, you went out to the scene of the murders, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw that in the area where her body was found, there was a concrete
stairway directly behind where her body was, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And there was a wall on either side of that stairwell that was rock or
concrete or whatever, something of substance, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And she hit something and then went on the right side of her head, as you
pointed out, close to the top; isn't that true?

A. Yes, somewhere like I'm showing here.

Q. Yeah. And that is not -- if you're going to fall to the right or to the
left, that's not where you would normally hit your forehead, is it, right up on
the top on the right-hand side?

A. No I'm not saying here.

Q. No, I know; it's right here.

A. It's here.

Well, people fall --

Q. It's not on the side; it's closer to the top of the head?

A. Well, here in this area.

Q. Doctor, did you look at the pictures in the autopsy report as to where that
particularly was? Did you, sir?

A. I don't have it here.

Q. You've got it. Let me --

THE COURT: Is that one of the photographs that was not received?

MR. BAKER: No; it's a drawing in the autopsy report on a form, sir. It isn't --
I gave it to you; I'm sorry.

(Indicating to reporter)

MR. BAKER: Did you review -- this is -- I guess this is just a form 28. 28,
yeah. It's labeled 00049. Okay.

THE WITNESS: May I request, could we use the photograph rather than the
diagram, because the diagram is not as accurate as the photograph.

MR. PETROCELLI: We have a photo here, Your Honor. I believe it was on the
board, too.

MR. MEDVENE: It's 2016, I believe, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

(Counsel hands photo to witness.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Dr. Spitz, that's up by where Ms. Brown had her hair parted
on the top?

A. It is above the ear. You can see -- in the picture, you can see Ms.
Simpson's nose.

Q. Can you answer my question, sir?

I said, it is up on the head, certainly above her ear, where she parts her

A. No.

Q. Towards the top?

A. No; I disagree.

Q. Then just answer the question.

A. I know it's not where she parts her hair.

Q. All you have to say is no.

A. There is a parting, but the parting is artificial, because the parting is
made to get the hair away, so it -- to enable the photograph, because the area
needs to be devoid of hair.

This is not where she normally keeps her parting.

Q. You're sure of that?

A. I'm sure of that.

Q. Okay.

A. Because the -- look at the parting. I cannot imagine that Ms. Simpson would
have a parting that's all zig-zag.

Q. You can't? Okay.

A. Besides, you see exactly where it is because you see the nose in the

Q. Okay.

Doctor, that indicates to you that she fell to the side?

A. Yes.

Q. And if she, in falling to the side, that type of blow, you would agree that
it's more likely than not that Nicole Brown Simpson went all the way down to
whatever was beneath her at the time she fell, true?

A. I cannot tell you whether she definitely struck the stair or the floor or
the wall. I -- the bruise does not permit a very definitive conclusion. All
that the bruise says is that she could have hit the floor in any one of these

Q. But after she hit it, she went all the way down; in your opinion, more
likely than not, Nicole Brown Simpson then went to the area of the walkway
where her body was found, that she went all the way down on her hands and was
essentially prone on the walkway, it's terra firma, whatever. You would agree
with that?

A. She could have. She didn't have to.

Q. More likely than not, if in the struggle that caused this woman to hit her
head on a wall or a concrete step or a walkway, she went all the way down to
cause that degree of bruising; you would agree with that?

A. First of all, this is not a huge bruise. This -- she could have gone all the
way down; she didn't have to.

Q. Well, then, I got the impression, sir, from your testimony in the last few
hours in the courtroom, that you had done, in your mind, a complete
reconstruction of how these murders took place, how these defensive wounds took
place, and how these wounds were inflicted, to come up with your opinion that
within 15 seconds from the time the first wound was inflicted, Ms. Nicole Brown
Simpson was deceased or had a fatal wound inflicted on her; and within less
than one minute from the first wound of Ron Goldman, he had a fatal wound
inflicted in him.

So, is that correct? You did a full reconstruction of how these murders took
place, in your mind, that you're willing to sit here and tell us about?


A. Yes.

Q. Yes or no?

A. Yes, I do --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- However

Q. Thank you.

Now, let's go through it. After Nicole Brown Simpson is in front of the
assailant and has defensive wounds inflicted upon her hands, is she standing in
front of the stairs?

A. I don't know where. Her fingernail -- her hands were injured.

Q. Is she standing on the stairs?

A. I don't know where the hands were injured.

Q. Was the assailant directly in front of her when the wounds were inflicted
upon her hands, sir?

A. I don't know. He could have stood sideways.

Q. Do you want to look at the autopsy report again and tell us whether or not
you believe that the assailant was sideways of Nicole?

A. Sideways, meaning -- you asked me whether he stood exactly in front of her.

I don't know that. Maybe he -- there was somewhat of an angle. That's what I'm
trying to say. I don't know that the autopsy report indicates that.

Q. Well, you can tell a little bit about how the assailant or assailants and
Nicole Brown Simpson were standing by the way the wounds were inflicted, can
you not?

A. I can say that the confrontation was from the front.

Q. Face to face?

A. Yes. But -- okay. Face to face, but not necessarily full face to face.

Q. And then in your reconstruction scenario, Dr. Spitz, after she takes a
couple of defensive wounds to her hands, she then is knocked or loses her
footing to the extent that she takes this blow to the head, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That's before she's taken any stab wounds to any other area than her hands,

A. I believe that's a likely scenario.

Q. And then, did you know if Nicole Brown Simpson was in good physical

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Did you know if she was in good shape and worked out and stayed relatively
muscular for her size and weight?

A. All I can -- I don't know if she worked out. I don't know. I don't think she
was weight-lifting. I don't know if she took steroids. I doubt it. I can tell
you that she was a healthy young woman.

Q. Do you know how easy it would be, for example, if she were standing in front
of the stairs, for an assailant to get behind her after the assailant has been
in front of her?

A. How easy it would be?

Q. Yeah.

A. That depends on the relative size of the assailant and her. For some
assailant, that would be very easy; for another assailant, it may be more

Q. And then your scenario is that after she's down, she gets back up, at least
partially, and the assailant is behind her, right?

A. She does not necessarily get up.

Q. I thought you said that she was not unconscious and that the blow to the
brain, contusion, may not have affected her at all.

A. That is a possibility.

But once she is down, it is easy to grab her from behind and to pull her head
back and inflict the stab wounds and the slash.

Q. So your scenario is that after she hits the head, she is then down, and the
assailant goes behind her and pulls her head back and slashes her throat,
right, after she is at that time, let's say, quasi conscious, she's been dazed,
is that right, when he's inflicting these?

A. I think she may have been dazed because of the injury at the sides of her
head. And she may have also been dazed because of a blow to her mouth which may
be the one that pushed her on over so that she sustained the one -- the blow to
the head. And at that moment, it would be easy to grab her by the neck and --

Q. Okay. And you testified earlier today that the reason there were four wounds
to her face is because there was so much movement just before the fatal wound
was inflicted, that the assailant could not do the job, essentially. And if
that's true, Nicole Brown Simpson isn't dazed at all, she's fighting, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. It's a speech and it misstates the evidence; assumes
facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. That's what you testified to --

MR. BAKER: Want to break?

THE COURT: Let's take a ten-minute recess.

Bring the jury back in ten minutes.


(Jurors resume their respective seats.)


Q. Now, Dr. Spitz, as suggested, you've been to the crime scene?

A. Have I been to the crime scene?

Q. You have been there?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. You're aware that the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found, in that dirt
area over to the right, as you face the condominium facing west is about six
feet by four feet, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the area where Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's body was found would add
another 36 inches to that width and would be approximately the same length, so
would add another three feet by four feet, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And so that is a very, very closed-in area; is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And during the -- we have on the -- on the monitor, sir, a diagram of that

Now, at the time the killing of Ms. Simpson was taking place, and you say, with
her confronting the assailant in front of her, whatever happened after that,
that caused her to fall and strike the right side of her head and her mouth.
And then the assailant, getting behind her and then the four stab wounds on the
left side of the face?

A. Of the neck.

Q. Neck, pardon me. Preceding the fatal wound to the neck that, in your
opinion, took less than 15 seconds, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then, was it your opinion in your reconstruction that you had
done, in your mind, sir, that Mr. Goldman was in that closed-in area during
that 15 second altercation?

A. I think he probably was, but --

Q. Okay.

A. I really don't know that he was, but I think he probably was; or was
arriving at that time.

Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

Q. You actually don't know 'cause you certainly weren't on the north side of
the fence, looking. This is your opinion based upon your reconstruction; is it

A. Yes. My reconstruction is primarily based on wounds and not on the overall
field of criminalistics.

Q. Well, Dr. Spitz, I take it that before you come into court, you raise your
right hand and swear under penalty of perjury that you're going to render your
opinion, that you want to take into account, every piece of information that
you can so that your opinions are as accurate as possible, true?

A. No. My oath relates to my giving truthful testimony to the best of my
ability, based on my area of expertise.

Q. I take it, before you come in here and tell this jury that the whole
struggle took a minute and 15 seconds or less, you want to review and analyze
all of the information that is available to you so that you can render the best
possible opinions that you have, true?

A. Of course.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. It's been asked and answered.

MR. BAKER: I agree. It's been asked.

THE COURT: Well that's too productive.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Dr. Spitz, in terms of the gate, that is the front gate,
sir, do you know whether that gate was locked or unlocked before you rendered
the opinion that Mr. Goldman was in the closed-in area at the time the
altercation with Nicole Brown Simpson took place?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. It misstates his testimony. He didn't say
he was in the area or not. He said he didn't know.

MR. BAKER: He said he believed he was in the area.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you just tell us, sir, that your best opinion was that
you believed Mr. Goldman was within the closed-in area that you've depicted, by
both the dirt and the walkway at the time the altercation took place with Ms.
Nicole Brown Simpson and the assailant or assailants?

A. You're asking me whether I said that?

Q. Yeah. Do you believe that Mr. Goldman was in that area when that altercation
and struggle and ultimate demise of Ms. Brown Simpson took place?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I believe --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. Objection calls for conclusion, lack of foundation.
Witness said he wasn't there. He's just testifying from wounds.

THE COURT: Overruled. The witness testified on direct examination as to certain
conclusions and defense has a right to cross-examine him.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Go ahead, sir.

A. I personally believe that he may have been there, but I'm not basing that
opinion on any scientific evidence or any material evidence that I really have.
My area of expertise are injuries.

Q. All right. Now, but you've opined here not only about injuries. You opined
about how long it took to get the injuries. You've opined about what angles the
assailant was. You've opined about how the knife wounds were inflicted. And you
weren't there when you opined about all of those things, correct, sir?

A. No. No, all I did -- I testified to is appearance of injury, types of
injury, how injuries were inflicted, how long it took to inflict the injuries,
how much blood was lost from injuries, and this kind of thing.

Every time you want to characterize my testimony, you'd have to submit that it
is -- my testimony intended to convey information about wounds; about injuries,
not whether who was present or how long interaction took place before the first
wound was inflicted. That, I do not know.

Q. Now, sir, did -- the gate was locked and Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson had to
open the gate to allow Mr. Goldman in the gate. They would have been
approximately how far from each other, if Mr. Goldman's inside the gate an
Nicole Brown Simpson is down from the first step where her body was found.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. It assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. I don't think this witness is competent to answer that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, in terms of -- you've testified as to where you thought
the assailant was. You've testified as to you thought the assailant was in
front of, behind. You've testified that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed first
because if she wasn't killed first, she would run away.

Those are all your opinions, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in your opinions, and you sure don't know whether Nicole Brown Simpson
were to run away or not, do -- you weren't there and you've never met her;
isn't that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you've testified that the assailant was in front and then around behind,
and you weren't there and you don't know whether the assailant was or wasn't in
front of her, do you?

A. Yes, I do know that he was in front of her when the hand wounds were
inflicted. And I -- when I say -- let me repeat when I say in front of her, I
do not mean at a 90-degree angle or parallel to her. What I mean is somewhere
in the front semi-circle.

Q. And you don't know that it took any 15 seconds from the first defensive
wounds, to the last because you weren't there, isn't that true, sir?

A. No.

Q. Okay. So you know that?

A. I know -- that's not the best way to say it. I know that to sustain these
type of injuries that Ms. Simpson had would take less than 15 seconds.

Q. Okay. And that -- I mean you sat up here and you demonstrated umpf, umpf,
umpf about three times with your hand and, you know, do you, Dr. Spitz, that's
how fast the assailant did it because you were there and you saw him, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: It's argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't know, sir, how fast the wounds were inflicted, do
you, now, do you?

Would you just answer my --

A. Yes, I do know.

Q. Now, let's, in terms of your opinions relative to Mr. Goldman, as I
understand it, sir, you believe that the wounds to the left flank was either
the first wound or very early, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is the wounds that entered the left flank, and we'll put the
diagram --well, let me, wait a minute. I apologize.

Let's talk a little bit about the anatomy of a human being. In the anatomy of a
25-year-old young man, we have, as you described, the peritoneal cavity where
you have the intestine, you have the large intestine, the small intestine, you
have the duodenum, spleen, and that is --

A. The liver.

Q. -- The liver is all -- And it's from about the diaphragm down in the
abdomen, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is encased in that thin cell, fine-like membrane called the
peritoneum, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And the organs contained therein -- are called the -- or the area is called
the peritoneal cavity, true?

A. Yes.

Q. In the area behind the peritoneum is called the retroperitoneal space, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in the retroperitoneal space -- Phil, you want to put up that
side-view, if you can?

From the retroperitoneal space, we have -- that's a side-view and it shows --
(indicating to TV screen) -- This would be the lungs up in here and the
thoracic lungs and thoracic cavity, right where I'm pointing, with the red?

A. This is the heart.

Q. Well, but that's all in the thoracic cavity, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. The lung has been taken out.

Q. In the lower -- below that is the peritoneal cavity?

A. You know, this is -- I have some difficulty with this picture because this
is over simplification of the anatomy for a high school student.

Q. Well, that's about my level of education.

A. Yeah, but not mine.

Q. Okay.


I understand that. You have more degrees than a thermometer, right?


Now, in the -- in the retroperitoneal space, and that's the area that I'm
pointing to, back here -- in other words, if you hit somebody in the kidney,
punch -- the kidneys are retroperitoneal?

A. The kidneys are retroperitoneal.

Q. And that space, the retroperitoneal space is relatively dense. You would
agree with that?

I mean it's filled with fat, muscle, kidneys, correct?

There is no, like, cavity, there. It is all solid?

A. Well, it's not -- It contains -- It contains, yes, fat; a little fat. I
mean, Ron Goldman didn't have a lot of fat. It contains loose tissue. I don't
know how to describe --

Q. All your back muscles are back there in the retroperitoneal.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, the witness was answering the question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A. No, the back muscles that we know as back muscles, those strong muscles that
allow us to lift, those are outside of that. Those are behind there. The
muscles that I showed surrounding the vertebral column, those were on my

Q. Let's use your diagram, then. I'll get it for you, sir.

I've got this one.

MR. MEDVENE: There's a front and a back, Bob.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Maybe you better get it. I can't find --

A. Should be this one. This is from the view.

Q. Okay. All right.

A. The other one is a view from the front.

Q. Okay.

Now, the density of the area, the retroperitoneal area is more dense, that is,
in terms of space for blood to accumulate than the peritoneal cavity, you'd
agree with that?


A. Could you -- excuse me, but could you say it again?

Q. I'd be happy to.

In terms of, let's just call it space, there is more area for blood to
accumulate if there is blood bleeding in the peritoneal cavity than there is in
the retroperitoneal space. You would agree with that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And would you further agree, sir, that in terms of blood loss and
blood leakage that blood being a fluid, follows the normal fluid dynamics of
any fluid, that is; it will take the path of least resistance. You would agree
with that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

Now, the thing that we know about the flank wounds to Mr. Goldman from the
autopsy -- by the way, sir, you did rely upon the autopsy report and the work
of the L.A. County coroner's office in arriving at your opinion and conclusions
in this case, did you not?

(Indicating to boards.)

A. Yes.

Q. As I understand it, you correct me if I'm in error, you did not view any
piece of evidence, would that be true?

A. Well, Yes, I did view evidence. I think the autopsy report is evidence. I
think the photographs are evidence.

Q. Okay.

A. I think that it is evidence that, with everything else I reviewed to get it
such in my mind that I would see totally clear, I also called Dr. Golden and --
who did the autopsies and talked it over with me.

Q. When we took your deposition, you hadn't talked to Dr. Golden?

A. No, I didn't. I talked to him afterwards.

Q. I want to talk to you about -- a little bit about, you didn't review any
physical piece of evidence. I mean, you looked at the reports. You looked at
the photographs. But as far as reviewing, for example, the tissue that you
showed us in one of the photographs, you didn't review that tissue, did you?

A. No. I saw the piece of tissue on the picture and then I spoke to Golden
about it.

Q. Okay. All right.

Now, in terms of the drawing that is on the board, this exploded area is a
little bit inaccurate. Because it shows a space between the aorta and this
would be the lining of the peritoneal cavity or the peritoneum, correct?

A. Well, it's not -- it's inaccurate and not inaccurate. It's the peritoneal,
as I testified right over the aorta. It dresses the aorta. It is practically --
it's not adherent, but it lies against it.

Q. And --

A. Right here, there is a small space because I wanted to show how --
(Indicating to drawing showing aorta) -- I want to make it clear that the arrow
goes through -- I thought it was clearer this way.

Q. Fine. Then all I'm trying to get you to agree with me, and I think you have,
is that the peritoneum, that is the lining of the peritoneal cavity, lies
adjacent to the aorta?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And rests upon it or one or the other?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now.

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Does this have a number?

MR. MEDVENE: 2025.

Q. In the autopsy property -- property of Mr. Goldman, in the photo that you
showed us, there is a one-half inch measured by Dr. Golden, a one-half inch
entry wound, and a one-half inch exit wound, right?

A. That's correct.

(Indicating to 2025.)

Q. And the opening at the left flank of Mr. Goldman was how big, sir?

A. You mean the wounds in the skin?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I can't say that I recall. I can't say that I recall, but I'll look it up.

Q. It's three-quarters of an inch, I believe.

A. I think you may be right.

Q. So -- and the wounds where it perforates the aorta, is five-and-a-half
inches from the entrance wound which is three-quarters of an inch, true?

A. Yes.

Q. So what we have is we have a knife that is at least five and a half inches
long. We have a knife that has a blade that probably goes at least a half inch
wide and was a half inch wide at the end of the blade, correct?

A. No.

Q. It had to be a half an inch wide going through the aorta, right?

A. No.

Q. When it went through the aorta, that blade had, of necessity, to go through
the peritoneal lining, did it not?

A. You mean the tip of the blade had to go through the peritoneal; is that what
you're asking me?

Q. The blade entered and put a slice or a rent to use your medical terms, in
the peritoneum at the same, virtually simultaneously with entering one side of
the aorta, coming out the other side of the aorta and having the peritoneum
lining adjacent to it, right?

A. Yes, it did and I testified to that.

Q. Okay.

A. I said that earlier.

Q. Okay.

Now, in terms, sir, of your construction of this being the first wounds, you
were of the view that that was the first wound and that as you testified, that
the whole incident took somewhere around a minute, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Misstates the evidence. He didn't say it
was the first wounds necessarily, he said the flank wound was the first wound
or the thigh wound, I think.

MR. BAKER: Well --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The sequence reading from your deposition page 24, line 22,
of injuries from Goldman, I believe is that the injury to the posterior
abdominal area is either first or very early on?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

Now, if that -- this -- if that was true, when you had the perforation of the
aorta -- Phil, will you put up the circulatory system, if we can, on the

(Mr. P. Baker complies.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As I understand it, and I agree, you have more education than
I do, the blood, after it leaves the heart, goes on the arch, comes down the
aorta and bifurcates into the femoral arteries, right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And the blood pressure in the aorta is at a minimum. The blood pressure that
the human being would have, that is if it was -- if that human being was
frightened and it was up to 200 over 140 at the time that the heart pumped, the
left side of the heart pumped, you would have 200 milliliters of pressure in
the aorta before the knife went through the aorta, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And if, in fact, the knife went through the aorta, then went through the
other side of the aorta, and went into the peritoneum, you would have to agree,
because you just testified that the density of the tissue in the
retroperitoneal space is greater than the density of the tissue in the
peritoneal cavity, that the first place blood would go is into the peritoneal
cavity, true, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we object. The question's compound and it
assumes facts. He made a statement.

THE COURT: He's asking an anatomical question. If it's incorrect, the doctor
can tell him it's incorrect.

MR. MEDVENE: All right, your Honor

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't think I testified about density of tissues in the
retroperitoneum versus the peritoneum.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I see.

A. I said that there is loose tissue in the retroperitoneum in the abdominal
cavity. They are --

Q. Is the answer to my question simply no?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. The witness is in the middle.

THE COURT: Finish your answer.

THE WITNESS: In the abdominal cavity, there are all kinds of organs. I don't
know that anybody ever measured the density of the retroperitoneal content
versus the density of the abdominal content.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Just let me ask you to assume hypothetically, sir,
hypothetically, let's just assume that the contents of the retroperitoneal
space are denser than the contents in the peritoneal cavity. Let's further
assume that the rent or cut into the aorta goes in one side, out the other side
into the peritoneal cavity.

You would agree, that if that is true, the blood would go into -- more blood
would go into the peritoneal cavity than would go into the retroperitoneal

A. No. I would definitely not agree to that.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE WITNESS: Let me just give you an example --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No you've answered the question.

A. -- Why, I don't agree with you.

Q. You answered the question.

A. Okay.

Q. If this were the first wound, Mr. Goldman would be incapacitated within a
matter of seconds. You would agree with that?

A. Probably.

Q. Because what happens is, if this is the first wound, you have an enormous
loss of blood in terms of blood recirculating to the heart and then being
pumped up the carotid arteries to put oxygenated blood to the brain, correct?

A. Well, he would lose consciousness very quickly because the brain would not
get, although it would get blood, but it would not get enough blood. The brain
is very susceptible of oxygen deprivation.

Q. And, Doctor, you're certainly familiar with some people get what they call
positional hypotension; that is, people with low blood pressure stand up and
they start to faint, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's because they have not adequate oxygenated blood going to the
brain, true?

A. Presumably.

Q. Well, it's presumably true; isn't it? Okay.

In other words, so Mr. Goldman, upon being inflicted with this right flank pain
-- right flank wound, I'll strike it again.

Left flank wound that goes through the aorta, is going to have an immediate
loss of blood pressure and an immediate -- and by immediate, I mean within five
or ten seconds, he is going to have a -- he's going to know that something's
seriously wrong. He's going to go semi-conscious and then within ten seconds,
he's going to be down on one knee. And within 15 seconds, he's going to be
down. You would agree with that?

A. No.

Q. Well, let's go through, now, the wounds to the -- if the fatal wounds -- if
the sequence is the wound to the internal jugular vein, Mr. Goldman would have
the ability to fight for a period of time. You would agree with that?

A. Yes.

Q. And the reason he would have an ability to fight for a period of time is
because, as you suggested earlier, the veins are not under the same pressure as
the arteries, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, he could fight for ten or 15 minutes with the internal jugular
vein severed, correct?

A. I don't know if he could fight for ten or 15 minutes with the internal
jugular severed, but he could continue being active and doing things for some

Q. Okay. I don't want to be -- to go as far as to say 15 minutes.

Phil, put up the diagram, please, of the closed-in area at the Bundy crime

(P. Baker complies, displays diagram.)

Q. Have you seen the photos of the closed-in area, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you seen the -- Thank you.

MR. P. BAKER: That's exhibit 867 on the screen and exhibit 1342 on the board:

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now --

A. I'm sorry these pictures I have not seen before.

Q. You've never seen these?

A. No.

(Indicating to 1342.)

Q. Were you aware that there was blood smears on the whole of the gate right at
the commencement of the closed-in --

A. Am I aware there are some blood splatters.

All right.

I'm not aware of large volumes Of blood. I'm aware of some blood splatters and
I mean, in terms of quantity that's an insignificant amount of blood. But in
terms of other values, in terms of other points to -- for the use of these
splatters for reconstruction of the events here for criminalists that I'm not
aware of.

Q. Well, so I'm to understand then, Dr. Spitz, that in arriving at your
opinion, that Ron Goldman from the first wounds to him being incapacitated and
in route to death, was one minute or thereabouts, you never looked at photos in
the closed-in area; is that true?

A. Yeah. My testimony is one minute or less.

Q. Okay. Or less?

A. Yes. And that is based on the wounds and not on the area where the body was
found -- the bodies are found other than what I gleaned when I went to the

Q. Okay. Now, would you be kind enough, sir, to go over and look at the top two
photographs on the right and tell me if you see blood pooling?

For example, the top photograph on the right, if you see blood pooling the
right, sir?

A. On the right?

(Indicating to top right of exhibit 1342.)

A. I don't see blood pooling. I see some blood here.

Q. Well, right below your pen; is that blood pooling or is it not?

A. This?

Do you mean this?

Q. That's what I mean.

A. I don't know what that is.

Q. Don't know what that is. Okay.

A. I've never seven it before so I cannot tell you.

Q. Do you see the boot that Mr. Goldman had in the lower right hand?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would agree, would you not, sir, that there is blood and dirt on
that boot?

A. Yes. Well, I don't know if it's blood. It looks like it could be blood.

Q. And you don't have any -- well, strike that.

Do you think that is indicative that there was a significant amount of blood
that was in that closed-in area that got in the dirt, and then when he was
struggling and fighting for his life in the closed-in area got on his boot?

A. You know, I cannot --

Q. Do you have an opinion at all?

A. If this is blood, I don't know where this blood came from and if blood could
have got on him in the area where Nicole Simpson was.

(Indicating to photo of Ron Goldman's shoe.)

Q. Really? I do know where the area of where Nicole Brown's. One was an area of

A. There was tile with a lot of blood on it.

Q. There was blood up into the crevice in those boots, is there not, assuming
that is blood?

A. There is blood on the photo of this shoe. That's what -- I don't know that
it is, but if you tell me that it is, then I have to believe you.

Q. Well, it --

THE COURT: Have you -- you have an estimate as to how long you're going to be?

MR. BAKER: Going to be a while. I'm going to be a while on Tuesday, I assume.

THE COURT: Okay. Give me an idea.

MR. BAKER: About two hours.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll adjourn until Tuesday at 8:30.

Let me remind you not to talk about this case among yourselves.

THE BAILIFF: We are still on the record. The judge is still on the bench.

(Pause in the proceedings.)

THE COURT: You know, if you can't maintain yourself in the audience, you are
going to be out of here.

(Indicating to audience.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you're not to talk about this case among
yourselves or with anybody else; not to form or express any opinions about this
case; not to watch anything on television, listen to anything on the radio,
read anything in the press. Don't watch any re-enactments, nothing connected
with this case.

Jay Leno has a skit. Don't watch it. Okay?

Everybody understand that.


THE COURT: It's very important that you comply with it. And if anybody
pressures you about talking about this case or anything like that, please be
sure to let me know.

Okay. Have a nice weekend. We will see you Tuesday morning at 8:30.

JURORS: Thank you.

(At 4:31 P.M. a recess was taken Until Tuesday, October 12, 1996 at 8:30 A.M.)