|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.) MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Somebody has something they want to address? MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor. With regard to the Court's confidentiality order, we understand that there was a modification with regard to witnesses on the theory that the lawyers cannot control witnesses. But we have here, an expert witness consultant, retained by the defense, paid by the defense, on television last night commenting specifically about the testimony of a pending witness who's testimony is not even concluded. Dr. Baden is the fellow who is was on TV. He's going to be in court testifying for the defense, talking about Dr. Spitz's testimony in court. I don't think it's appropriate that witnesses under the control of a party, retain witnesses who are thereby agents and representatives of counsel or a party be talking about the proceedings, specifically the subject matter of their testimony while this case is pending; and that's why we filed the application. THE COURT: Well, bearing in mind that the Court addressed the summary issue with regards to the jury selection expert, I indicated at that time that the Court did not feel it had personal jurisdiction over that person. And in this instance, I don't feel that I have personal jurisdiction over Dr. Baden. However, as in the case of a jury selection expert, I indicated that if the defense cannot keep control of their people, the people they hire, they pay money to, the recourse that's available to the Court is to not permit them to testify. And that's exactly what's going to happen if Dr. Baden continues to comport himself in the manner which he's allegedly comported. MR. BAKER: Understood, Your Honor. We have one other matter. THE COURT: All right. In lieu of an Order to Show Causes re: Contempt, the Court orders that should Dr. Baden or any other any other defense witness get on television or news media and broadcast anything, connected with this case, the Court will do -- the defense and the plaintiff have been forewarned and any witness who prejudices this trial by making public comment on the media with regards to the matters that are directly involved in this case, will be precluded from testifying. That's going to be my -- That's the way I'm going to handle it. Okay. MR. BAKER: That witness' under our control, right? THE COURT: Well, you -- Dr. Baden appears to be your expert witness. MR. BAKER: He's our expert witness. I agree with that. THE COURT: You pay him. You have control over him. MR. BAKER: I don't know that -- adopt the Court's linkage. I understand the Court's order. THE COURT: All right. Anything else? MR. BAKER: Yes. THE COURT: Yes. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, during Friday's session, Dr. Spitz indicated at page 141 that after we took Dr. Spitz' deposition on August 16, he then had a conversation with Dr. Golden, this is at page 141 of the daily that I got, volume 12, lines 18 through 21. And I would move the Court that he not be allowed to discuss anything relative to that conversation. He certainly had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Golden between January, when he was retained, and August 16, when we took his deposition and he indicated in his deposition as well that he hadn't talked to Dr. Golden, the autopsy surgeon under the case of Kennemer at 233 Cal.App. 3d. We would request the Court to order him not to discuss or to bring into his testimony, any of the information gleaned from that conversation because we obviously didn't have an opportunity to cross-examine him about that and go back to Dr. Golden about that conversation, and I think that would be sandbagging us in this case and I don't think it's appropriate and the Kenner case so holds." MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, Dr. Spitz did not indicate it was the basis for his opinion and further what he said was in response to a question from the defense. He has no intent to raise that. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. MEDVENE: Unless the defense raises it. THE COURT: What was the question? MR. MEDVENE: My memory of the question. THE COURT: Mr. Baker, you have the transcript right there. MR. BAKER: Question (Reading:) "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. I think that the -- that -- "A. I think that it is evidence that, with everything else, are viewed to get it, such in my mind that I would see totally clear. I also called Dr. Golden, who did the autopsy and talked it over with me." Q. When you took your deposition, you hadn't talked to Dr. Golden. A. No I talked to him afterwards. THE COURT: Okay. The witness is ordered to the -- not order -- not to refer to any conversation that you had with Dr. Golden. THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Bring the jury in. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury:) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE COURT: Good morning. JURORS: Morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed. THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record? THE WITNESS: Werner Spitz. WERNER SPITZ, having been previously called and sworn as a witness by the Plaintiffs, testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. BAKER: Q. Morning Dr. Spitz. A. Morning. Q. Did you enjoy our southern California weekend weather over the weekend? A. Yes, I did. Q. Now, would it be -- would it be accurate, sir, for the first time since you've been involved in this case, that being from the criminal trial to this last weekend, you finally took some notes relative to this case? A. Well, Yes, I did. That's correct. I did make some notes over the weekend to refresh my memory on certain points and to -- and you know, it is really my habit to make notes. I didn't make notes before, for some unknown reason. I don't know why there was so much overwhelming material that I didn't make notes, but .... Q. Let me ask you, Doctor, you were consulted by the prosecution during the criminal case, were you not, sir? A. No. I was consulted. I was called by the prosecution during the criminal case to request permission to use pictures from my book. Q. Now, throughout the criminal case, throughout your retention in this case, in a complex matter, you say where there's so much information, you never took a note until this weekend; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, let me ask you in terms of your review in arriving at your opinions, you read and reviewed the autopsy reports in some detail, correct? A. Yes. Q. And is there anything that you disagree within the autopsy report? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Compound. MR. BAKER: Either one. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Compound, Your Honor and it's vague and ambiguous. The autopsy reports are 30 or more pages. THE COURT: You may answer yes or no as a preliminary hearing answer. THE WITNESS: No, I don't disagree with anything that's in the autopsy report. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The autopsy reports, as your counsel for plaintiffs just mentioned, are 20, 25 pages; are they not? A. Whatever they are. Q. Your usual autopsy report is a page or two; is it not? A. Yes. Q. So these have somewhat more detail than your customary autopsy report, you would agree, correct? A. Possibly. I'm not even sure of that. I know that 25 pages as appeared to one and a half or two pages sounds a bit different. Q. Sounds a lot different? A. Of course, but your including in the 25, 20 or 25 pages, I think you said diagrams and results of toxicological analyses and investigative reporting. I don't include all that. Mine is a -- my reports are single space densely typed. And when they are two pages like this, they -- I mean, you could extend that into easily six, seven pages if you typed it a little differently. Q. Now, in Ron Goldman's report, there's 18 pages of single space, typed written report, then 6 pages of addendum for 24 pages before the forms or diagrams are even shown. You would agree with that, correct? A. Yes. And you would also agree, Dr. Spitz, that when an autopsy surgeon pathologist is reporting, they put in their reports in the anatomical summary on page 1, in the order of importance, their findings. You would agree with that, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may ask whether or not that is the case in this instance. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court, please, he may be -- he's opening an area that we discussed, which is fine with us, if he knows. THE COURT: I don't know what your talking about. MR. MEDVENE: I didn't want to make a speaking objection. Can we approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. (The following proceedings were held at the bench:) MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker, what the autopsy report says, the autopsy report makes reference to the aorta wound. THE COURT: To what? MR. MEDVENE: The wound to the aorta and the blood flow. What the question is: Doesn't the autopsy report indicate certain findings and isn't that, in your experience, what the autopsy surgeon found? This witness knows more on what the autopsy surgeon found 'cause he actually spoke to them this morning. Your Honor ruled in a vacuum that he could not make reference to the conversations with Dr. Golden. It would be unfair to ask this witness what doesn't the autopsy surgeon indicate, X, when the witness knows from conversations with the autopsy surgeon the significance of what he wrote and why he wrote what he wrote. And what I'm saying is I think Mr. Baker's opening the area, which is fine, but the witness ought to be able to answer within -- if it's within Mr. Baker's question, what he learned from the autopsy surgeon as it's pertinent to Mr. Baker's question. In other words, the autopsy report says certain things. Dr. Spitz interprets them certain ways and formed certain conclusions. He then spoke to the autopsy surgeon who confirmed, as I understand it, Dr. Spitz conclusions. What Mr. Baker I think is trying to elicit is the autopsy report doesn't say everything that Dr. Spitz is saying, and isn't it true that the autopsy surgeon, in affect, doesn't believe what Dr. Spitz is saying, which is untrue; based on Dr. Spitz's conversation with the autopsy surgeon. So what I'm saying is we think Mr. Baker has opened up the area of Dr. Spitz conversation with Dr. Golden. MR. BAKER: I don't understand what he's talking about. In an autopsy report, in the anatomical summary, every -- and the autopsy report list the most important first. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about any conversation he had with Golden whatsoever. THE COURT: Well, as I said before, you can ask him about this particular autopsy report. We haven't established that there's a national uniform autopsy protocol. MR. BAKER: That's what I'm trying to do. THE COURT: But I don't want to get into the protocol autopsy. MR. BAKER: We're not -- the purpose of this is that No. 1 on the list, in the anatomical summary and then is in virtually every autopsy, is the primary cause of death, this and this one. It's the severance of the internal jugular vein for Ron Goldman. There's some evidence because that -- because of the order and that's all I'm going -- then I'm moving on. MR. MEDVENE: We think the witness -- THE COURT: I don't think you've opened up to any avenue to Dr. Golden. If there's something that's contradicted in the autopsy report, maybe you might consider Dr. Golden as a rebuttal witness. But at this point, I don't see how I can permit this witness from testifying as to his conversations about Doctor -- with Dr. Golden after his deposition. MR. MEDVENE: But if what he's trying to elicit is that Dr. Golden felt that the aorta wound had no significance and there was no bleeding, that's not accurate. THE COURT: He's trying to establish that the autopsy report says what it says in the order in which it says. MR. MEDVENE: There's no problem with that. But he's asking, as a background question, doesn't the person writing the report -- wouldn't ordinarily do A, B, and C. THE COURT: Yeah, so. MR. MEDVENE: Okay. THE COURT: You can't rehabilitate his opinion on the autopsy report from a conversation that was had after the deposition. MR. MEDVENE: All right, Your Honor. (The following proceeding were resumed in open court in the presence of the jury:) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, as we were saying, Dr. Spitz, on the anatomical summary, if we look at Nicole Brown Simpson, the first indication of cause of death is a transection of left and right common carotid arteries, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you would agree that that is the primary cause of death in Nicole Brown Simpson, true? A. Yes. Q. And if we look at Ronald Goldman, the primary cause of death listed, No. 1, sharp force wound of neck, left side with transection of left internal jugular vein and that was listed first in the Ron Goldman autopsy report, correct? A. Well, I suppose it's listed as No. 1. Q. All right. And did it -- is it correct, the custom and practice of autopsy surgeons in listing in the anatomical summary, the cause of death is that the primary cause of death is listed first, true? A. No. Q. Okay. Now, in terms -- A. May I explain? Q. You'll have plenty of time, sir. Now, in terms of your full reconstruction of the murders of June 12, 1994, and you did do a full reconstruction, in your own mind, did you not, sir? A. Of what? Q. Of how the murders took place? A. I did a reconstruction, a full reconstruction, as you call it, in my area of expertise. Q. Let me read what you -- A. I mean, if I did not do a full reconstruction in encompassing other disciplines. I'm a forensic pathologist. I did a full reconstruction from my angle? Q. Let me read what you told us on Friday afternoon on page 126 of volume 11 of your testimony on Friday. Starting at line 14 (Reading:) " ... You did a full reconstruction of how these murders took place in your mind, and you're willing to sit here and tell us about them? "A. Yes." Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you didn't qualify anything about your area of expertise when we asked you the question about full reconstruction, true? A. I don't know that that's true because I don't know what comes in the sentences before and what comes in the sentences after. If the question is fingerprint analysis or shoe print analysis or hair and fibers or DNA, I'm no expert in those -- in those areas. It goes without saying. There's a lot of things people say when they talk that isn't qualified. But it is certainly evident that I'm not an expert in areas in which I haven't had training. Q. Now, have you had training, sir, in how assailants inflict knife wounds on human beings? A. Yes. In that area, I think I have had training. Q. And you've had training, I take it, sir, then in timing of the infliction of wounds and reviewing a murder scene, to determine whether or not the estimate -- Strike that. Whether or not your time periods would fit within the parameters of what actually occurred at the time the murder took place, true? A. No. The main reason why I -- Q. Can you answer my question, sir? Can I ask the Court to -- A. No. That's not the only reason why I go to a crime scene. Q. Didn't ask you whether it was the only reason you go to a crime scene, sir. I said, have you had training where you attempt to assimilate all of the information of the crime scene to determine whether or not these estimates or -- strike that. Not these estimate, these absolute timeframes you gave this jury were, in fact, accurate when pragmatically compared to what occurred at the crime scene. You had training in that, sir? A. I wish I could answer you. I did not understand your question. Q. Well, in other words, sir, you gave this jury, on direct examination Friday morning, some pretty concrete timeframes within which all of these wounds were inflicted to these two human beings, true? A. Yes. Q. And my question to you, sir, is: Have you had any training in looking at all of the elements of a crime scene, so that these absolute timeframes that you gave this jury on Friday can be compared to the crime scene and what actually occurred to determine whether or not your time periods are, in fact, accurate in -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence that you have to go to the crime scene. THE COURT: Okay. Sustained. That's a multifaceted compound question that is starting off on one track and ending on another. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, let me ask you this question in terms of the injuries. We were talking about Ron Goldman on Friday in doing the accident, the -- not the accident, the reconstruction of the crime scene, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you -- I -- you have not seen any of the photos that were of the closed-in area, correct? A. I had not seen these pictures. I'd seen other pictures of the same areas but these pictures, I had not seen. The other pictures, I would say, show the same area. But these very pictures, I have not seen. Q. Okay. Now, I showed you a picture in the upper right-hand corner, and -- on Friday and you couldn't tell us whether or not you thought that that was blood 'cause you just didn't know, correct? The upper right-hand corner -- what's that chart number, please, Phil. MR. P. BAKER: 1342. MR. BAKER: 1342? THE WITNESS: May we -- may I approach the board? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, I put that, Monday, on the monitor, put a close-up picture of that on the monitor and you can tell us whether you believe that this is, in fact, blood of Mr. Goldman? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, outside the scope of the direct, "what's on the fence." THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Can you see that, sir? A. Yes. Q. What number is it? MR. P. BAKER: Going to mark that next in order. Sorry. THE CLERK: 2166. (The instrument herein referred to as Photo on Exhibit board 1342 showing blood stains on bar was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1342.) Q. Is that a close-up of the photo the upper right-hand photo of the board 1342, sir? A. I'd have to go and look at it. Q. Go ahead. A. Yes. Q. And would you now agree, sir, that that was, in fact, blood? A. You're talking about this area here? Q. Talking about on the lower horizontal bar of the fence. A. This? (Pointing to photo on board.) Q. Correct? A. Yes. Q. I'm talking about dripping down off of that horizontal bar into the dirt area in front of the concrete stone, whatever it is? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you would agree that's blood, correct? A. I would agree that that looks like blood, yes. Q. All right. And for a person to have bled in that particular manner, the person has to be above it, correct? Bled down on that horizontal bar, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You can answer. A. It looks to me -- Q. Can you answer my question. I didn't ask -- MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I didn't ask what it looks like to you. A. I'm not a blood splatter expert. Q. Would you agree that the person who left the blood there, had to be above the area where the blood is dropped on the horizontal rail of the fence and then puddles into the dirt area. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked and answered. The witness said he's not a blood splatter expert and he wasn't put on for that purpose. THE COURT: You can answer yes or no. He testified in direct examination with regards to blood flow. THE WITNESS: The origin of this blood could be from a higher level. It could be from the same level. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It's going to take some period of time for that blood to accumulate on the horizontal bar as well as to accumulate in the puddle areas that are about -- in the center of the TV monitor. You would agree with that? A. You mean that it takes time for this blood to accumulate here? Q. Yes, sir. That's what I mean. A. Everything takes time. There's nothing in life that doesn't take time. The question is: How much time, but it takes time. It takes time. Everything we do takes time. Q. Now, if you would come over, I want to point out on 1342, the middle picture on the left-hand side and ask you if you have looked at that area where there is a hole that is approximately 12 inches by 12 inches, maybe 8 to 10 inches deep? A. Yes. There is a hole. Q. And I want you to further assume that Detective Lange came into this courtroom and said that hole, more likely or not, in his opinion, was made during the struggle that culminated in the death of Ron Goldman. Now -- A. He said that this hole was made during the struggle. Q. That's what he said. A. Okay. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, do you have an opinion as to whether or not you can dig that hole, and you can have the blood that is indicated on the TV monitor, now, would that take over five seconds? A. I don't know how big the hole is. I don't know. I'm not an expert in hole digging. I don't base an opinion on the hole digging. I have really no opinion about whether that hole existed -- preexisted, existed or was done after the fact. I have never seen the hole. I don't know what it is. Q. Well, but you never took that into account in asking, for your opinion and conclusion, that within 60 seconds, the first wound was inflicted on Ron Goldman and until the last wound was inflicted on Ron Goldman, correct? A. My opinion is -- Q. Did you take -- A. Has been -- Q. Did you take it into consideration, was the question, Doctor, not what your opinion is. THE COURT: Did you take that into consideration, the hole? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The hole and the blood splatters and the -- that are on the photo on the monitor, did you take those, just those two elements into consideration in arriving at your opinions and conclusion that it was 60 seconds from the first wound to the last on Ron Goldman? A. Can I answer, Your Honor? Q. You may. THE COURT: You may. THE WITNESS: I took into consideration, the blood that I saw. I did not take into consideration the hole. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you didn't take into consideration the blood you saw on the horizontal bar of the fence, on the north end of the caged-in area because you didn't know it was blood on Friday; isn't that true? A. I took into consideration everything that I thought was blood in the -- in that general area. Q. What's the number of this one? MR. P. BAKER: 2134. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On 2134, do you know where this blood came from? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. No testimony about the back gate and the case -- THE COURT: This -- MR. BAKER: This is not the back gate, Mr. Medvene. THE WITNESS: Who's blood is this? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know where it is in terms of taking into consideration, your opinions that it took 60 seconds from the first to the last wound on Ron Goldman? A. These blood splatters were taken into consideration, although at this moment, I cannot tell you where this is. I looked at the scene. I looked at other pictures of the scene. I got a very excellent idea of what the scene looked like. I went to the scene a couple of times and I studied the scene. My opinion in regards to the length, to the duration of the altercation with both individuals has not changed one iota and will not change unless there is new evidence that comes in. Q. I'm sure of that. Now -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection. We object and move to strike Mr. Baker's last remark. THE COURT: Last remark stricken. Jurors to disregard it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On -- put up the diagram, Phil, of the closed-in area, please. (Mr. P Baker complies.) Q. No. Back off a little bit. (Indicating to monitor.) Q. Is your gate open or close at the time the altercation took place; that is the front gate? A. I believe that the gate was possibly open. Q. And -- A. But there's no lock. Q. Where was the first wound? Where was Mr. Goldman standing when the first wound was inflicted on Mr. Goldman? A. I think Mr. Goldman was probably in the area, in the general area in which he was eventually found dead. Q. Now, where was Nicole Brown Simpson standing when the first wound was inflicted upon her? (Indicating to diagram with yellow figures and red footprints.) Q. Where she's at the time she sustained her first injuries? A. Yes, sir. Q. Also in the general area in which she was found, the picture I just showed you, was a picture of the front gate which you believe was open. Now, does that indicate to you that there was blood spatter from Mr. Goldman, who was standing near the front gate at the time the first wound was inflicted upon him, rather than over in the dirt area or the closed-in area. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence in testimony of exactly where he was standing. He didn't say he was standing where Mr. Baker said he was standing. THE COURT: Overruled. But I'll sustain the objection because this witness didn't say the gate was open. He made a reference to the gate being either open or unlocked. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you not indicate that you thought the gate was open at time? A. I said the gate was opened but qualified it by saying unlocked. I didn't say that the gate was ajar. You didn't ask me that. Q. Did you believe that Mr. Goldman was standing on a tile walkway at the time the first wound was inflicted? A. He may have. The area is so small. It is six by four feet, so if you'd like me to show you what six by four feet is, I'd be glad to do that, if somebody has a tape measure. Q. The area is actually nine by four feet, when you put the tile area in it as well; isn't that true, sir? A. I'm talking about the area of altercation with Mr. Goldman. I'm not talking about the area, the areas that are adjacent. I'm talking about the area of the -- area in which Mr. Goldman met his -- met his death. Q. Okay. So that we're clear, the reason we're not -- A. Let me just show you what -- Q. Let me you ask you a question so that we're clear. The reason that we're concentrating on the area of six feet by four feet, is it's your view that Mr. Goldman did not incur any wound while he was on the tile area, only while he was on the tile area which is six feet by four feet, true? A. Yes. Q. All right. A. Yes. Let me just say that I am not certain whether he was standing near the tile or off to one side of the tile or to the other. But the area, where he incurred his injuries is the six by four feet. Q. All right. And that's -- all his wound were incurred in there, right? (Witness indicates with measuring tape.) A. This would be four feet. Q. Okay. Can you hold this for me? (Mr. Medvene complies.) A. This would be six feet. Q. Okay. A. So, in other words, the area in question is this area here, a little less than this area here because it only goes to here. This is -- Q. If we have the tiled area, that's another three feet right, this way? A. You go -- you mean over this way? Q. Right. A. Whatever it is, yes. (Indicating to diagram.) Q. Then three the six feet dimension is what I'm trying to get at. The six feet dimension you're talking about, is from the walkway to the fence on the north side, correct? A. Yes. Q. Um, and four feet is from the east side fence to the area where the tree is, correct? A. Yes. This is on the Bundy side. Q. Yes. The east side. All right. In terms of your analysis, Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, never came into contact with each other, correct, met? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, ambiguous "came into contact." THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They never had physical contact with each other at any time during the murder scenario, true? A. Who didn't? Q. The two victims. A. Once the altercation started or once the -- The injuries started -- Q. Okay. They did not have contact with each other? A. Once the injuries started, no, I don't believe that they necessarily had contact. Q. Well, not necessarily. Is it your belief that they did not, sir? A. I believe that -- I believe this, from my understanding, the way I understand the scene, but I am not the one and only in this case giving opinions. So from my angle, from the way I see it, based on injury and injury pattern and understanding of the scene from my angle, that's my opinion. Q. All right. Now, that's -- you read Dr. Lakshmanan testimony in the criminal trial, in preparation for your testimony before your deposition on August 16, 1996, correct? A. Yes. And you disagree with Dr. Lakshmanan in a couple major areas, do you not, sir? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. It's not relevant. It also misstates the record. Also compound. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: On which ground, sir. THE COURT: Dr. Lakshmanan has not testified in this case and apparently is not going to. MR. BAKER: I don't know about that. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. We'd ask Mr. Baker's remark be stricken. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In any event, sir, you read and reviewed his testimony so that you would have some semblance of what his thoughts were, correct? A. Yes. Q. And, well, let me ask you to go back just a minute. Did you -- did you believe that any of the wounds to Mr. Goldman were, could be classified as a taunting wound? A. As what? Q. Taunting. A. No. There are no taunting wounds. Taunting mean, torture-like wound, if that's what you mean. Q. Yeah. A. No. There are no torture wounds. Q. Let me go back a minute. You believe that the wound to the left side of Nicole Brown Simpson's neck, those were all wounds that were made in anticipation or in attempts, rather, to make the fatal wound that was ultimately made, correct? The slashing wound from left to right that cut both carotid arteries? A. Yes. Those wounds on the left side of her neck, the four stab wounds, the slash across the neck, the stab wound on the head were all done in an effort to kill her. Q. And -- but my question, I hope, was a little more specific than that. That the wound, the four wounds to the left side of the neck that are under the left ear, you testified, I believe, Friday were all made after Nicole Brown Simpson was being held -- and do you need a picture, Doctor? A. I would like to see the picture because I would like to know what you're talking about. Q. Well, let me just ask you a question, sir first. You can look at anything you want. A. Yes. Q. Did you not testify on Friday that the wounds that were made to Nicole Brown Simpson, under her left ear were made while she was in a position with the assailant, left arm around her stretched back and the wounds were made like with four stabbing wounds and then a slash across her neck from left to right. That's what you testified to; was it not, sir? A. Yes. I testified -- let me tell you what I testified to. Q. Can you just answer that yes or no. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, your honor, he's trying to answer the question. THE COURT: Answer; yes. You may -- he answered yes. You may ask another question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now is it your view then, that the assailant that had one knife that was single, single sharp-sided knife that made all five of those wounds in very rapid succession, the four underneath the left ear and the slash that ultimately severed the carotid? A. It is my opinion that all the wounds were inflicted with a knife, consistent or compatible with a single-edged sharp knife. Q. Didn't ask you that question. Maybe it was a poor one, I apologize. Is it your testimony that those four wounds underneath the left ear were made with this compatible single-edge knife and they were a precursor, they were made all in rapid succession just prior to the lashing wounds from left to right across Ms. Brown Simpson's neck that turned out to be fatal? A. You mean all five wounds? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes. Q. Now, the one directly under Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's ear has -- the blunt part of that wound is vertical and towards the ear lobe, true? A. No. Q. Did you look at the diagrams drawn by doctor -- A. I've -- I have looked at the diagram. If you like me to I'll be glad to explain to you why I'm saying, no. Q. Your view of the photographs, you believe, is better evidence of the angle of the cuts than the diagram of the autopsy surgeon who made the diagram, correct? A. Please, let me explain to you why I'm saying that. Q. Can you answer my question for a change? A. No. I'm not. I'm not in agreement with you because what you're doing is misleading. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court -- THE WITNESS: I would like the opportunity, sir. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No. No, have you -- MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there's no need for Mr. Baker to behave like this. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) He's here to answer questions. He's not here to give a speech. MR. MEDVENE: There's no reason for Mr. Baker to talk like this or behave like this, Your Honor. THE COURT: Ask your question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your view then, Dr. Spitz, is that you're looking at -- a photograph is more reliable than the drawing made by the autopsy surgeon at the time he did the autopsy, correct? A. My view is that I need to explain it. THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor. THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out. THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked. THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course. THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question. THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it. THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in your -- in your view of reconstruction of this, Mr. Goldman was -- Was in the caged-in area at the time this 15 second attack took place on Nicole Brown Simpson, right? A. Yes. Q. And, is it your view, based upon your reconstruction of this, that he just stood there during that period of time? He didn't run, he didn't yell, he didn't do anything? He just stood there for the 15 seconds while Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was being attacked? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence that Ronald Goldman was there at the time her throat was slashed and it's outside the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You just indicated that your opinion was that Mr. Goldman was present during the time that Nicole Brown Simpson was attacked and murdered; isn't that true? MR. MEDVENE: Court please, that misstates the evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you not -- well, let me get it. Page 131. This is your testimony from Friday (reading): "... And then it was your opinion and your reconstruction that you had done, in your mind, sir, that Mr. Goldman was in the closed-in area during that 15 second altercation. "A. I think it possibly was." Is that your testimony, sir? A. Yeah. Yes, my testimony that he was either there for that time or for part of the time, I don't know if he was there for all of the 15 seconds. I have my thoughts that he was there for the entire duration. And besides, I don't know that the altercation with Ms. Brown took 15 seconds. I always said 15 seconds or less. Q. And during this 15 seconds or less, when Mr. Goldman probably was in the -- in the area, did he attack the attacker in your reconstruction of the event, sir? A. He may have. Q. And if he attacked the attacker, most certainly the assailant would have had some bruises, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, if he attacked the assailant, in your scenario, sir, the assailant -- if Mr. Goldman came in through the gate, the assailant had his back to Mr. Goldman while he's at the initial stages of the attack, true? A. I don't know whether he had his back or whether he didn't have his back. Q. Well, did you -- Was it your view of the event that Nicole Brown Simpson was the person who took off the glove of Mr. -- of the assailant? A. I don't know who took off the glove. I know the glove came off, but I don't know who took it off. Q. Well, where did all of these fingernail gouges come from, did they come from Nicole Brown Simpson or did they come from Ron Goldman or did they come from somebody else? A. You mean the fingernail marks that we were talking about on Friday? Q. Sir, you have testified that every mark on the pictures of Mr. Simpson's was, in your view, made by a fingernail? A. Oh, I understand. Q. You testified to that right. Every one? A. Yes. May I have -- may I have the pictures back? Q. May I conduct this examination? A. Of course. Q. Thank you. Now, you testified that every one of those marks on his hands was, in fact, a fingernail gouge mark, correct? A. Now, when you say gouge, you're using the wrong term. If I'm to qualify the fingernail marks, they are fingernail marks of three different types. They are gouges, too. But they are not all gouges. Q. Okay. But in any event, sir, those fingernail marks are not going to be made from somebody wearing a glove. You would agree with that? A. Yes. All right. Q. And you would agree that -- A. Yes, that's correct. I'm sorry. Q. Now, I take it that in doing your careful analysis, you noted that and went down and reviewed the fingernail clippings of Ron Goldman at the County Coroner's Office, County of Los Angeles, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You did -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I agree. You didn't look at any fingernail clippings of Ron Goldman to determine whether or not he even had fingernails that could have produced any gouge marks on Mr. Simpson, did you? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes a fact not in evidence, that there were fingernail clippings taken. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker knows there weren't. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you attempt to find out the length of Mr. Goldman's fingernails to the -- to determine whether or not he could have made any gouge marks in Mr. Simpson's or any other assailant? A. Yes. Q. And did you find that his fingernails were of inappropriate length to make any gouge marks in Mr. Simpson's? A. No, I did not find that. May I explain? I will be glad to explain that to you. Q. Go ahead. A. Thank you. Q. No. No, just sit right there and explain to us, will you? A. Mr. Goldman had short fingernails. I have short fingernails. My fingernails are approximately those of Mr. Goldman's. Would you like me to show you how this works? Q. Sure. Gouge me. (Laughter.) A. You may be sorry. Q. Go ahead. A. Well, take your sleeve up. Q. No. Go ahead. Do it right on my hands where Mr. Simpson's (sic) hands were. Go ahead. A. You want me to scoop? You want me to scoop, tear you out? Q. I want you to scoop, tear it out. (Laughter.) THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I'm not going to have any gouging of flesh out in my courtroom. (Laughter.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I'm willing to see if he can do it. A. I wasn't going to do it, but what I would like to indicate to you, and I'll show you. I can show it to you on me rather than on you because I know when it hurts and when to stop. On you, I don't know when it hurts. So therefore, let me say what happens. When you fight for your life and you dig in deep, without concern of whether it hurts or didn't hurt, you push back the top of the flesh of the fingers and the fingernail suddenly becomes much longer. Now. Having said that, if you want to, I'll show you what I mean. (Witness removes jacket and lifts up shirt sleeve.) I'm not going to gouge, and you're not going to see blood. You're going to see the indentation. (Witness demonstrates on his own arm.) THE WITNESS: Can -- you like to see them? MR. MEDVENE: May the record show that there are indentations on Dr. Spitz's left arm? THE WITNESS: I'll be glad to. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) May Dr. Spitz show that to the jury, Your Honor? THE COURT: I think he's made his point. Go on and ask another question. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Dr. Spitz, then is it your opinion that the -- that the -- A. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Q. The fingernail gouge marks are made by Ron Goldman. Is that your opinion or do you have an opinion as to who they were made by? A. I'm not able to look at the fingernail marks and say who made them, obviously. I can say that Mr. Goldman could have made them, Nicole Brown could have made them. Q. Well, let's talk about her fingernails for a minute. What about her fingernails? Did you examine anything that indicated what type of fingernails she had on the night of the murder? A. I understand that she had, what they call -- Q. Fake? A. Fake fingernails. Q. Resin fingernails, right? A. I don't know. Q. They're included on -- A. I don't know what you call them. There's a name for this, I know, but I don't know the name. Q. Well -- A. They're included on -- Q. You would at least agree that the only genetic marker that was found under any fingernails of either victim was a genetic marker inconsistent with Mr. Simpson's, true? A. No, I -- I cannot really answer this with yes or no because there are -- there is no analysis ever made of Mr. Goldman's fingernails. There is a record in the report in the autopsy report -- Q. Dr. Spitz, we can't -- A. -- Which says that -- Q. -- We can't talk about evidence that wasn't processed. We don't know what it is; isn't that true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, ambiguous, calls for conclusion. I don't know what it means. MR. BAKER: I'll withdraw the question. The only genetic marker that was found under any nails was a genetic marker inconsistent with Mr. Simpson's, true or untrue? A. I cannot comment on that. Q. Well, you commented on it on Friday, did you not? A. I said no on Friday. And I'm sorry, I did that because it's a misleading answer. Q. So you want to change that answer today? A. I want to say. Q. Do you want to change the answer? I didn't ask you what you wanted to say. I asked you if you wanted to change the answer. A. Yes. I want to change the answer from -- Q. All right. From -- it is not the only genetic marker to what? A. Well, Goldman is excluded, to begin with, because his wasn't even taken for analysis. Q. Is that the change you want to make? A. The other change I want to make is that it really doesn't concern me whether there is anything under the fingernails or not and I'll elaborate on that in a minute if you let me. And I -- To indicate to you that when the fingernails of Ms. Brown were examined, there was a red substance on them, which was believed to be blood. Q. And there is no typing of blood to match Mr. Simpson from Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails, true or untrue? A. I -- Q. True or untrue, sir? A. No. This isn't true and it isn't untrue either because -- Q. Thank you. You've answered the question then if that's what you -- Now, I want to ask you, sir, from the front gate around item No. 119, you can tell that there's this metal meshing here that a -- that's a gate? A. Yes. Q. There was blood on the front gate. I showed you that picture which had the label of item No. 116 on it a few minutes ago. You want to see that again? (Indicating to upper left-hand photo in Exhibit 1342.) A. Yes, I understand that. Q. That is down below here? A. Yes. Q. So we had blood on the front gate, that would appear from these photographs, at least, when we were taken to be in an open position, correct? A. Yes. Q. We had, as we go around the area to the east side where Bundy is, out on the east side, we had more blood smears. We then have a hole in the northeast corner, correct? (Indicating to middle photo.) A. There's a hole on the picture. Q. We have keys that were dropped in the area or discarded or flung or whatever? A. You mean, within the four to -- four to six feet? Q. Yes. At the feet of Mr. Goldman, do we not? (Indicating to diagram with yellow figures and red footprints.) Q. Do we? A. Yes. Q. We have a pager that has been dropped or flung in the area behind the fence on the north side, actually onto the adjacent property, correct? (Indicating to diagram.) A. Behind Mr. Goldman's body. Q. Correct. A. In that you mean in that little space here or under the fence, there's a little level under the fence that you see over there on that picture where the pager may have been found. Q. Well, here's the pager right here? A. Yes. That's right -- (Indicating to 1342, left hand photo.) Q. It's indicated in this diagram. I think that's a photograph exhibit outside the fence. I think that's supposed to be a symbolic depiction thereof. And then we had Mr. Goldman lying on the right side, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that indicated to you that there was a struggle that took place in that closed-in area that you measured off, four feet by six feet, correct? A. Yes. Q. It also indicated to you that struggle consumed some period of time, did it not? A. As I indicated already, everything in life takes time. Q. And -- A. And, it was my opinion that this struggle took place in less than a minute. Q. And actually, would you agree or disagree that a forensic pathologist can only indicate the minimum time it takes to inflict wounds, but it can never indicate the maximum time? A. I don't necessarily agree with that. You can indicate what you believe is a reasonable estimate for a minimum time and you can indicate what, within reason, may be the range of something taking. And it is because of that, that I said that the injuries to Mr. Goldman took a minute and maybe less and the injuries to Ms. Simpson, Ms. Brown took 15 seconds or less. Q. And -- A. 15 seconds is a maximum time and a minute for Mr. Goldman is a maximum time. So I beg to disagree with you there. Q. Okay. So in your view, based upon the wounds itself, you can extrapolate that regardless of whether a hole was dug, regardless of whether keys were flung, regardless of whether an envelope is between the two victims, regardless of whether a pager is flung, regardless of whether Mr. Goldman had a bruise on his hand, that regardless of pools of blood and regardless of blood going down the pant leg of Mr. Goldman; that you can opine that all of those wounds were inflicted first to last within less than 60 seconds, true? MR. MEDVENE: Argumentative question, Your Honor. Object on that basis. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. That is my opinion and I would like to show you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You answered the question, Dr. Spitz. Now, let's examine, did you ever physically, in person, examine the clothes of Mr. Goldman? A. No, I saw the pictures. Q. All right. Now, you have testified that the thigh wounds to the left thigh did not bleed very much because what we have in our -- in the thigh area of our body is, we have the quadriceps muscle is that true; and we don't have a major artery until we get behind the femur, correct? A. Yes. Q. So in other words, when Mr. Goldman suffered the wounds in the left thigh, you certainly didn't think that that was a wound? A. Let me just say, because I don't want to go on the record as having said that the arteries are in the back, because that's not 100 percent true. I didn't say that. Q. Okay. A. But having said that -- Q. Now, Dr. Spitz, you, in terms of your analysis of this case, believe that the left thigh wounds did not bleed very much, correct? A. The left thigh wounds did not bleed very much when compared to the other wounds. The left thigh wounds entered a different type of tissue so as compared to the other areas in the body, like the aorta and other places, that thigh wounds bled very little. But as we know, it was enough to stain the pants and it was probably enough for some of the blood to go on the ground. Q. Well, let's talk about that a little bit. Where was the thigh wound in terms of it's relationship between, let's say, the knee and the pelvis? A. The thigh wound, as is shown on the photographs is about here. Q. Okay. Now, Phil, can you put that picture of -- MR. PETROCELLI: Hold on. JUROR: We want to see what he was doing. THE WITNESS: The thigh wounds is about here. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court -- if the Court please, may the record indicate Dr. Golden is pointing to his -- THE WITNESS: Spitz. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Dr. Spitz is pointing to his left leg, approximately how -- below your belt, Dr. Spitz. (Witness measures with tape measure.) THE WITNESS: Approximately 10 inches. Q. It was 33 inches from his heal, was it not? A. I measured 32. THE COURT: Let's take a 10 minute recess. That's Dr. -- that's Dr. Spitz's leg that was measured. (Break.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Dr. Spitz, Ron Goldman had what, 30 wounds? A. I never counted them, but that could be. Q. Well did it make any difference, the number of wounds he had, in arriving at your opinions that he all the wounds from first to last were inflicted in 60 seconds? A. Yes. It made a difference in my -- My decision. My determination was that the all these wounds were very likely inflicted in less than a minute. Q. But you didn't think it was necessary to count the wounds to come, to any conclusion that they were, in fact, inflicted in 60 seconds or less, right? A. I decided it doesn't make any difference whether that's 29 or 35. Q. And relative to the all of the blood in the caged-in area, that we have been talking about, did you make a determination whether or not there was any blood on the plant, the plant life that was in the closed-in area? A. I did not make any determination, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was blood on the plant life. Q. Now, the blood from the thigh wounds certainly did not travel towards the waist of Mr. Goldman. You'd agree with that? A. You mean upwards. Q. That's what I mean. A. No. Q. You would not agree with it or you would agree with it -- poor question. A. No. I would agree that it probably did not travel upwards. Q. Now Mr. Goldman's left pant leg was thoroughly encased with blood, was it not, from the waist on down? A. No. Q. This photo's going to be a little rough, so -- That one. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I apologize. What I want you to look at, sir, is the left pant leg, and then answer the question again, sir, if, in fact, the left pant leg is encased in blood from the waist on down. MR. P. BAKER: This is 860. (The instrument herein referred to as Photo of Ron Goldman on ground lying in area of open gate was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 860.) (Witness reviews exhibit 860.) Q. Yes or no? A. No, it's not, because some of it is a shadow. Because I have a picture of the same area that shows it differently. MR. P. BAKER: No. 38. (Exhibit 38 is displayed.) Q. From the waist on down? A. This picture was taken at night and there is -- Q. From the waist on down? A. I understand that. Q. Can you answer my question for a change Dr. Spitz? A. No, I disagree. Q. Just say you disagree? A. It is not encased in blood. Q. You don't have to make a speech every time. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Mr. Baker's remarks. THE WITNESS: It is not encased in blood. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The blood comes from the waist and goes down towards the feet, does it not? A. It does. Q. And, in fact, the left boot was bloody and the right boot was not, correct? A. There was blood. Q. Put up the photo? A. On the left boot and there was not, is my understanding, on the right. Q. That indicates that's quite a bit of blood; is it not? (Photo is displayed.) A. Well, there is blood on the boot, yes. Q. And that blood came down the Levi's and was absorbed in the left boot, correct? A. Yes it went down on -- on the leg and this shows that the pants are not drenched, as you say, and my picture doesn't show it's drenched either and it came down, ran down on the boot, yes. THE COURT REPORTER: What number is that, please? MR. P. BAKER: That is 860. (Indicating to exhibit 860.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The levis, the blood came down the levis, the Levi's more likely than not were at this area over the boot and because there's no blood here, and then bled into the boot area and was absorbed by the canvas portion of that boot, correct, sir? A. Yes. Q. And there is that bleeding pattern, you would agree, is totally consistent with the internal jugular vein being severed in this man as one of the first wounds of the altercation, true? A. Absolutely not. Q. All right. Now, in terms of the amount of blood that is shown in that photograph, sir, Mr. Goldman was upright for a period of time in excess of 60 seconds, true, after the bleeding started? (Indicating to Exhibit No. 860.) A. No. Q. Is it your testimony that all of the blood that we see in that photograph is from the thigh wounds? A. At least most of it, if not all of it is from the thigh wounds. And as far as -- it's 60, more than in a minute of him being upright, I disagree that it took longer than a minute and I disagree that he was necessarily standing for that duration. But much of the time, held upright. Q. He was held upright? A. Yes. Q. All of the area above the -- what would be right about the pocket, left pocket. All of that blood cannot be caused, we would at least agree on that, by the wounds of the thigh, correct? Gravity has not been repealed? A. I'm sorry. Q. Gravity hasn't been repealed. All of the blood above the pocket area, is going to be caused by the internal jugular vein bleeding from this man while he is in the fight, true? A. No. No. No, there's a misinterpretation here. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your analysis of the altercation, did Mr. Goldman attempt to kick the attacker? A. Mr. Goldman did not attempt to kick the attacker. Mr. Goldman used his left leg as a defense weapon. Q. Okay. It was his left leg that was a defense weapon, right? A. It was his left leg that he used to defend himself. Q. Okay. How did he use -- to defend himself with his left leg? A. If I may show, Your Honor. (Witness demonstrates.) Q. So that's how he got the wounds? A. That's how he got the wounds to the -- to the thigh. That's how he got the wounds to the hands. That's how he got the wounds to the flank. Q. Now, in your -- and you're sure, as you sit her now, that Mr. Goldman was -- had his left leg extended in the air and he was attacking or warding off an attacker who was to his left side, correct? You just demonstrated to us, sir, that you had your left leg extended and you had your hands extended out to the left, did you not? A. No. I don't know. Maybe I did -- my opinion is that he exposed his left side to the assailant and went like this (indicating). If I'm showing a -- stretching my arms out to the -- to the left so be it, like this -- Q. Okay. Fine and if you're standing? A. I can further tell you that at that time the attacker was jabbing the knife this way (indicating). Q. He was jabbing it right at him. He had all of his weight basically on his right foot, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, look at the TV monitor and tell the jury, if that is not a cut, fresh cut in his right boot, that was made at the time of the attack, and you can tell that because it's a fresh cut from a knife, true? A. It looks that way, yes. Q. So he was kicking at the attacker with his right foot; was he not? A. No. Q. No? A. I'm saying that he used his lower extremities right or left, or both to defend himself. Q. Well, I didn't hear right or left or both. When you were demonstrating twice to the jury, I heard you say that the reason that he was attacked on the left side, that the left thigh wounds and the left flank wounds was, he was attacking or warding off his attacker who was to his left side? A. That's correct. Q. Now it's to his left or right? A. No. No. No, that's not what I said. I said at the time that he sustained, that was the question, that he sustained the wounds in the thigh, he went like this (indicating.) Later on, or before we -- he may have done the same with the right leg except at that moment when he did that, he did not get a wound on the thigh or elsewhere. Q. Where was he, in the closed-in area when he was warding off the attacker with his left thigh? A. Somewhere in the four by six. Q. Can you be more vague? A. Vague, no. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court, please, it's not called for, the remark by Mr. Baker. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms -- In terms of your examination and determination of where everybody was in this reconstruction. If in fact the internal jugular vein was the first vein severed, and if, in fact, it bled down his left side and down his pants and down into his boot, you would agree that he would still have the ability to fight off an attacker for a period of time, five minutes or longer, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Hypothetical question. THE WITNESS: Are you asking, if I may, so I can understand the question, are you asking me whether with a severed jugular vein, he could still fight for five minutes? Is that what you're asking me? Q. I'll be happy to rephrase the question. THE COURT: Excuse me. Ask the -- asked the question. Answer that. THE WITNESS: Yes. None of the injuries of Mr. Goldman were immediately incapacitating. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, if in fact, he had the severed internal jugular vein, he could then have fought off his attacker at the front of the gate, could he not? A. Theoretically, yes. Q. He could have fought off his attacker as he went into the dirt and closed-in area where the keys and the envelope were found, could he not? A. Theoretically, yes. He could have fought his attacker anywhere. Q. And he could have continued to fight and kick at his attacker during the time period that the -- that the struggle took place, correct? A. Yes. Q. And he could have actually taken a swing or hit his attacker during that period of time, could he not? A. He could have. Q. And this picture is a little rough as well. Mr. Goldman had substantial bruises on his right hand, didn't he? A. Bruises? Q. Yes. A. He had some bruising. I wouldn't say -- I wouldn't call that substantial. He had a lot of cuts and he had a lot of scrapings. MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 878. (The instrument herein referred to as Photo of Ron Goldman's hand was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 878.) Q. The bruises on the middle knuckle and the knuckles, those are substantial bruises, are they not? A. I don't know what you call substantial. Q. Those are consistent? A. These are all bruises. Q. Those are consistent with him attempting to, or hitting his attacker, are they not, sir? A. I am not sure whether they're from hitting at an attacker or whether they are from hitting the ground or from hitting the wall or from hitting the fence, or from hitting the tree. There is abrasions in there as well. There's a little abrasion in this area and here. I am not certain, exactly what he hit. He hit something. (Indicating to photo.) Q. Doctor, let me ask you the question again. Those bruises are consistent with Mr. Goldman hitting his attacker somewhere on his body, regardless of when you know, specifically, whether he did or not, would you agree with that? True? A. Sir? Q. True? A. They are consistent with him hitting anything. Q. But we know at least one thing, he wasn't fighting the fence, he was fighting his attacker, don't we? A. But we -- he collapsed at some time. Q. Sir, can you answer my question? A. Yes. We know he was fighting his attacker. Q. And in fighting his attacker, it is not inconsistent for Mr. Goldman to try to have hit his attacker. You would agree with that, this is a fight for his life; is it not? A. Yes. Q. And those bruises on his right hand are consistent with hitting an attacker, correct? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Take that down, please. Now, did you review any of the photographs of Mr. Simpson's that were taken on the 15th or the 17th day of June 1994 other than his hands? A. Yes. Q. Did you see any bruises on Mr. Simpson's body that would be consistent with having Mr. Goldman attempt to hit him with a hand that produced a bruise such as we have just put on the board? A. I saw a bruise on Mr. Simpson's left arm. Q. You saw a bruise on Mr. Simpson's left arm? A. Yes. Q. And -- A. There's a picture that shows it. Q. Okay. And you think that's consistent? A. I'm saying -- you are asking; is there a bruise? I say there is a bruise and if there's a bruise, it's consistent. Q. Okay. And did you see -- well, strike that. Now, in terms of the marks that you say of Mr. Simpson's, are all these fingernail marks. These you testify to these are quasi cuts, correct in your deposition? A. Semi-used. Q. Well, let me see exactly what you used? A. I said I didn't say semi-cuts, I said semi-blunt. Q. Well, let's see exactly what you said? A. That is exactly what I said. Q. Page 55 line 7. (Reading:) "Q. Do you have an opinion on the amount of bleeding that would have occurred in the time that wounds was inflicted until it closed? "A. The amount of bleeding. "Q. Or the type of bleeding. "A. What do you mean by type? "Q. How much bleeding would there have been? "A. Not much. "Q. Why do you say that? "Q. (sic) Because these are not cuts; they are, for lack of a better term, quasi cuts. They're cuts by a blunt, semi-blunt object, which is a fingernail. A fingernail is not sharp, a fingernail has measurable thickness necessary and it crushes the skin and it causes more damage inside than outward. So therefore you have a lot of swelling and probably some pain associated with it." That's what you said; is it not? A. Fine. Q. And so you don't believe that Mr. Simpson's, if it was him who was the attacker, would have bled, correct? A. No. That's not what this implies. This doesn't say he wouldn't have bled. Q. Dr. Spitz -- MR. MEDVENE: The Court please -- MR. BAKER: If you, and my question -- move to strike as not -- as not responsive. MR. MEDVENE: Your honor, he's in the middle of answering the question. THE COURT: The answer's stricken. You may re-ask the question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In your view, there would not -- There would have been no bleeding, correct? A. From what? Q. We're talking, sir, about what you have characterized in your testimony as every one of the cuts on his left hand being a fingernail, crush type, semi-blunt injury? A. Yes. Q. And so I take it, sir, that if these crush type semi-blunt injuries, which cause more damage inside than outward, Mr. Simpson would not have been bleeding, right? A. I never said that. Q. Which cut, in your opinion, would have bled, if any of them? A. They probably would have all bleed, but not instantaneously. In a crush, if you let me explain, the tissue, as the term implies or indicates, is that the tissue is crushed and if blood in the bottom bellows up, comes up, it needs to overcome the crushed area of tissue which is crushed down. It takes a few seconds for that to happen. So -- and furthermore, if the hand is down, it may bleed a little sooner. If the hand is up, it will take a little longer. We all know that when we cut ourselves, if you raise the extremity, the bleeding may even stop. If you put it down, the bleeding will come. Q. And what is -- are any of those cuts going to bleed more than a few drops? A. Yes. Some of them may. Q. Which ones? A. They are -- there are gouges in the side. Those will bleed. There are fairly deep fingernail marks along the inside and the outer surface on the back of the -- I think it's the ring finger or the middle finger. Those injuries will bleed. Those were fairly deep injuries. In fact, there's one picture of the one on the middle finger, which bled, which it is still bleeding when the picture was taken, which is many hours later. Q. That was bleeding. That wasn't oozing, that was active blood? A. Oozing. Oozing to me is still bleeding just at a lower pace. Q. When you were shown this picture by Mr. -- MR. MEDVENE: What's the number of this? MR. P. BAKER: 714. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the jury, and demonstrated to the jury that that was in the webbing of Mr. Simpson's hand. And you actually got out of your chair and pointed to the webbing of his hand, did you not, sir? A. Yes, I did. Q. And you meant to do that, Dr. Spitz, because you meant to have the victim pulling down on his hands and grabbing him in the web of his hands so as to cause those particular cuts, right? A. No. I meant to do that because that was my opinion at that time where these -- this one and that gouge -- These two are gouges, where they were situated. I subsequently, as you remember, corrected it and said that I was wrong and repeat now that was wrong and that the actual injuries were in the extension of the little finger if I'm not mistaken. Q. You went outside. You talked to Mr. Medvene. You talked to Mr. Petrocelli and they told you, you were wrong on this photograph. That this photograph was not in the web at all. This photograph was under the -- The what's this, the distal aspect or what is it called? A. The extension of the little finger. There's clearly a medical term for it. Q. Well, don't you know it? A. No. It's a hypothenar eminence. Q. And you can see the wrist bone in that photograph, right? A. I beg your pardon? Q. You can see the bone that protrudes? A. No. Mr. Medvene or Mr. Petrocelli did not tell me. I made a mistake. Mr. Medvene or Mr. Petrocelli, or one of the other gentlemen told me. Q. Can you answer my question? A. Whether -- I would like to see the picture, another picture which will tell me better where these injuries are located. Q. Now, you want to go back -- move to strike as nonresponsive -- and see if you can answer my question. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) My question was, sir, that you can see the wrist bone in that photograph, right? A. Yes. Q. And it doesn't make sense that somebody's hand is underneath and around back in here when they could pull their hand all the way over into the webbing. That's why you wanted that photograph to be in the webbing because you are partisan advocate as you sit in this witness chair? A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Under any circumstances. THE COURT: Just a minute. I'm going to sustain the objection, that it's argumentative. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms, did either of those cuts produce a drop of blood, in your opinion, sir? A. I would say they probably did. Q. They did? A. Yes, they possibly did. Q. How many drops did they produce? A. I don't know that. Q. How soon would they coagulate? A. Mr. Baker, I don't know that they have coagulated on this picture. There's a crust over this one and a crust over there. I would have to be a wizard to tell you how many drops of blood came out of that and I am not a wizard. Q. Stipulated. Now, what's a normal coagulation time for a -- for a human being? A. A few seconds. It varies significantly. Q. Well, give us the parameters? A. It depends, as I indicated to you earlier, it depends on whether the arm -- I'm not talking about a laboratory now, I'm talking about whether the arm is down. The practical thing, like grandmother has taught us, if you put the arm down, it's going to bleed. So don't put it down, put it up. It will stop. Q. What's the coagulation time? I didn't ask you about when you put the arm down or when you put the arm up, what's a normal coagulation time? A. Somewhere around ten seconds. Q. And? A. Ten, 15 seconds. Q. And so if Mr. Simpson or any assailant gets gouged, there's going to be a coagulation of those cuts in a very short period of time, correct? A. No. I didn't say that. I said that is not in a laboratory. I said if the arm is down, it will bleed longer. If the arm is up, it will bleed less or not at all. Q. Well, but certainly those cuts are not going to take any three, four, five minutes to coagulate before they quit bleeding, are they? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered. He explained where the arm is. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you wouldn't anticipate that any of these blunt force, alleged fingernail marks would produce a trail of blood ten minutes later, would you? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence, that something happened ten minutes later. There's no evidence of that. THE COURT: Rephrase that. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As I understand the scenario that you believe occurred, sir, is it your belief that these gouge marks were made by Nicole Brown Simpson, and you demonstrated to us on Friday the position that she was in, correct? A. I don't know if I said that Nicole Simpson necessarily inflicted these or that Ron Goldman inflicted these or that both of them inflicted these. I cannot tell you. Or that one inflicted one and the other one was inflicted by somebody else. I did know that I said that I cannot tell who inflicted the fingernail marks. Q. And you don't know if the fingernail marks were inflicted by anybody on June the 12, 1994 to Mr. Simpson's, hands, do you? A. Yes, I do know. I have -- mean, I have some ideas about that. I don't know if I know to tell you I was there and saw how they were being inflicted. But I have reasons that I can give you why I think that these are fingernail marks sustained which is consistent with the timeframe of this altercation. Q. There is no such thing as a typical fingernail mark. You would agree with that? A. There is no such thing as a typical fingernail mark, but there is -- Q. You've answered the question. A. A -- Q. And that was your testimony, in fact, when you had your deposition taken on August 16, 1996 there -- that there is no such thing as a typical fingernail mark and testified that every one of these was a typical fingernail mark; isn't that true? A. Yes. They are typical fingernail marks. I have to explain to you -- Q. No. You answered the question, Dr. Spitz. Now in terms of the reconstruction of this case, did you then determine after -- Well, strike that. Your view was that Ron Goldman was upright when he got stabbed in the left flank and it was either the first cut or very early on, right? A. Yes. Q. And was he standing, then, with his back to the assailant by the front gate where we have blood? A. He was standing with the left flank exposed to the assailant, the way I told you earlier when I showed the raised leg -- Q. Now -- A. -- Raised left leg. Q. Have you ever looked at -- At photographs of him while he was in the closed-in area after his demise, and the blood pattern coming out of that wound in the left flank? A. I know that there -- yes, I have. Q. Have you looked at a photograph? A. Yes, I have. Q. And you would agree that if this was a very early-on flank wound, the blood from that flank wound would go down Mr. Goldman's side and there wouldn't be wounds going, blood going across his back and down to his right side, correct? You don't understand the question? A. No. Q. Okay. The flank wound is one of the first wounds. The blood from the hemorrhage from the track of that wound is going to come out the wound and it's going to go down his back towards his waist, true? A. No. Q. If he's upright, it's going to go down his back and towards his waist, true? A. No, he's -- your making a wrong assumption. Q. He's lying on his side and flank wound is inflicted before he expires. The blood will emanate from that wounds and it will go across his back from left to right. You would agree with that? A. No, I will not agree with that. Let me explain to you why. Q. Doctor, just answer my questions. A. Okay. Q. Will you -- Would you show that photograph? MR. BAKER: Apologize. I'm having some trouble locating that photograph. Now, we'll come back to that as soon as we find that. Did you get it? MR. P. BAKER: No, not yet. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of your scenario, then, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, after the attack on the Nicole Brown Simpson, never came in contact with each other, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: It's foundational. THE COURT: I don't want to rush you, but you said two hours and I'm waiting. So let's get on with it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of the clothing of Nicole and Ron Goldman, in your scenario, he comes in the gate. She's attacked, then he is a attacked, correct? They never touch each other; isn't that true? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection. Asked and answered. THE COURT: Answer the question. THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you don't have an explanation why there is transfer of blood between Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, that there are 11 separate transfers of blood, on one clothing and the other clothing, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. There's no facts to support that, none. MR. BAKER: We'll make an offer of proof that that is in fact a fact -- facts of this case. THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection. You may state it as a hypothetical. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want you to assume that after the murders, and there was an analysis done of the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, there were 11, at least 11 separate transfers of blood from one clothing to the other clothing. That is contrary to your professed scenario of how these events occurred, true? MR. MEDVENE: If the Court, please, lack of relevance. Objection, and there are no facts to support that, Your Honor, that we know of. THE COURT: Overruled. Ladies and gentlemen, a hypothetical question is one where the attorney possessing the hypothetical, sets the question up. And if later the evidence does not support that hypothetical, then you must consider the answer that he elicits from the witness in view of the fact that the basis for the hypothetical was not established. Okay. Everybody understand what that means? That means the basis for that question, we allow the lawyer to ask the question supposing that he's going to be able to prove something about that at a later time. If he doesn't prove it up, then the question and the answer is no good or you can give it the weight to which it's entitled, subtracting out the hypothetical evidence that was not proved. Okay? Q. You want to answer the question, Doctor? A. My opinion of this is that it supports my conclusion that there is a single assailant with a single weapon. Q. Well -- A. Because if there is a transfer, then there is others, of course. There is blood of one victim on the weapon and then there will be blood on the same weapon from the next victim. Q. Doctor, You, if that were true, there would be minuscule -- that is small amount of blood transferred because it would only be blood transferred by the knife, correct? A. I cannot discuss that. I am not an expert in blood spatter. I have no expertise. I have no training. I have not read about it and I think that if I'm going to go into the detail of how much is enough, I will be misleading you and the jury and the judge. Q. Let's just talk about simple physics for a minute. If you say that -- That 11 transfers of blood from -- a hypothetical: 11 transfers of blood from clothing of one to the other, in fact is made by a knife, they would be the blood of one victim taken to the blood of the next victim only on the knife, correct. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation, speculation, outside the scope, no foundation. MR. BAKER: He just said it, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your view of this particular case, and your 60 seconds and 15 seconds, were you of the opinion that there was any noise made whatsoever while these vicious and violent attacks were going on? A. There was. Q. And what noise was -- were you of the opinion was made during this minute and 15 seconds? A. "Hey, hey, hey." Q. Anything else, sir? A. That's enough for me. That's enough for me. Q. What else happened in the other minute and 14 seconds? Any noise whatsoever that occurred, in your opinion, sir? A. I am not aware of noise. I am only aware of that noise which I've heard about, which I've read about. I'm not aware of other voice noise. I don't think there's need to be -- for a need for other noise. These people were busy. Q. Well, isn't it true, sir, or do you know that when somebody is being attacked, they commonly scream? They commonly yell? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true. But somebody would have to explain to me how Nicole Simpson could scream with her throat cut because when you utter sound, what you are doing is bringing air from the lung through the airway. Her airway was severed. So how would she bring air over the vocal cords. Q. Well, she only had, in your view, less than 15 seconds. But Mr. Goldman had, in your view, 60 seconds plus. He was there while, for the 15 seconds or thereabouts when Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was being murdered. And he said -- if he said anything at all, "hey, hey, hey," which took about one second, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor sustained the last objection. That's where this question is going. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your view, Dr. Spitz, is that the L.A. County Coroner's Office bungled everything they did in this case; isn't that true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, outside the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: You relied for your opinions on the photographs in the autopsy report of the L.A. Coroner, County Coroner who you believe bungled everything that they did in this case, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Compound. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: On what ground, sir. THE COURT: You may ask a specific bungle, but I'm not going to go through this whole scenario of going through the coroner's reports in terms of bungle. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the Los Angeles times on or before October 8, 1995 the following, quote "the O.J. case has vastly exposed the inadequacies of that department," unquote. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. It's irrelevant. You may ask about this killing and these killings and the findings. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to approach. THE COURT: No. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said that, "I don't believe for a minute that the verdict would have been different if the Coroner's Office had done everything by the book and they bungled everything." MR. MEDVENE: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. The jury's to disregard that. Court made a ruling and attorneys continue to ask the same question. Counsel you're not to do that. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you believe that the L.A. County Coroner's Office bungled the autopsy report? MR. MEDVENE: Same Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: I think it goes to his bias. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Making argument in front of the jury. THE COURT: Bias. Is he bias? He's plaintiffs' witness. MR. BAKER: Can I have just a couple seconds? I want to get a photograph, Your Honor. (Pause in the proceedings.) MR. BAKER: Your Honor, let me go to another area while they're doing that. Now, Dr. Spitz, your view is, of course, that this aorta was severed and I believe within a very short period of time, Mr. Goldman would have been incapacitated, correct? A. I believe I stated that none of the wounds were immediately incapacitating. Q. Well, let me -- let me read what you testified to on Friday at page 147, volume 12, lines 25 discussing the wounds, flank wounds. (Reading:) "Q. And if this were the first wounds, Mr. Goldman would be incapacitated within a matter of seconds. Would you agree with that? "A. Probably. "Q. Because what happens is, if this is the first wound, you have an enormous loss of blood in the -- in terms of blood recirculating to the heart and then being pumped up to the carotid arteries to put oxygenated blood to the brain, correct? "A. Well, he would lose consciousness there (sic) very quickly because the brain would not get, although it would get blood, it would not get enough blood." Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The brain is very susceptible to oxygen deprivation. That's what you testified to on Friday? A. That is correct. Q. All right. And so, if Mr. Goldman -- and you've testified that that wound was either the first or very near the first wound he incurred, that is the wound to the abdomen, correct? A. If that's the impression I get, it is an early-on wound. I believe that the defense wound on the leg, on the hands occurred earlier. It is in my view the first of the major wounds -- Q. Well, let me read to you what you said in your deposition, sir. (Reading:) The sequence of the injuries to Mr. Golden -- page 24, line 22 -- I believe is that the injury to the posterior abdominal area is either first or very early on. Q. That's what you said, correct, sir? That's what you said? A. I know that that's what I said. What I'm trying to tell you is of the major wounds -- THE COURT: Just a minute, Doctor. MR. PETROCELLI: We'd like to have a page reference also. The time Mr. Baker read from the trial at page 147. He neglected to read the remainder of the answer which concludes at the top of page 149, which was part and parcel of that inquiry Your Honor. And I object to this and we ought to have time beforehand to know what he is reading so the jury is not misled. MR. BAKER: Well, I object to those comments. THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Baker, if you're going to read from anything, I think it is required of you to notify the opposing counsel as to what you're going to read. MR. BAKER: I have. I gave them the page and line number. THE COURT: No, you didn't. MR. BAKER: I did. THE COURT: This last one. MR. BAKER: All right. Now -- THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a ten-minute recess. Direct the jury back in 10 minutes. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I think you gave them a page number. You didn't give them enough time to get the document out. MR. PETROCELLI: Exactly. MR. BAKER: I'll give them more time. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Dr. Spitz, you believed early on that the area behind the peritoneal area, there was quarts of blood, liters of blood in that area of the peritoneal space, right? A. Well, when -- yes. Well, liters sounds like a -- quart sounds like five, ten. That's not how it works. It's -- Q. Well, was that your belief or was that not your belief? A. Yeah. My belief is that there was more than one. Q. Now, on page 70, line 27 through 8, on page 71, let me just read quickly what you said on Friday. Okay. (Reading:) "Q. By wound track, what do we mean? "A. The track from line of the knife, through the tissues, from the entrance into the flank until it pierced the aorta. All this space here lined the sack 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 blood." Q. That's what you testified to on Friday, right? A. Yes. Q. And how many quarts or how many liters of blood did it contain? A. I don't know. But it in order to be filled with blood, you can possibly have two or thereabouts. Q. Two or more or just two? A. Maybe two or less. Maybe two or more. Q. Is it your opinion, then, sir, that Mr. Goldman's blood loss of two quarts of blood caused his demise because there was an substantial bleeding in the lungs, you agree to that? A. Yes. Q. There was insubstantial bleeding in the peritoneal cavity. You agree with that? A. Yes. Q. And, in fact, if the aorta had been cut on one side, the other side and the knife had gone through, as it had to, because you have an inch cut in the exit hole of the aorta, there should have been, if the bleeding had occurred early on, as I you say it occurred, there should have been quarts of blood in the peritoneal cavity, true? A. No, never. Never. Shall I explain it to you. Q. Well, put up the picture, Phil. MR. P. BAKER: Which one? MR. BAKER: Yeah. And I apologize for the quality of this picture. MR. P. BAKER: Page 1 of 1420. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This is a -- MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. Could we get a look at what this is? MR. BAKER: On the contact sheet, page 1 of 1420. THE COURT: I don't know what that means. MR. P. BAKER: Contact sheet are the negatives of what Mr. Rokahr took. This is page 1 of the pages of contact sheets which is a collage of negatives. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that red spot we're seeing is, in fact, a flank wound, which you say was this devastating wound that you said early on, caused the demise of Mr. Goldman? A. This wound here is a stab wound situated right there. Q. And the blood tract from that stab wounds goes across the back and down towards the ground. There's a picture of Mr. Goldman lying on the ground, correct, after he has expired? A. From this injury? I'm not sure I understand. Q. Let me -- A. You mean externally or internally? Q. This is a picture taken after Mr. Goldman has expired and is still at the crime scene, lying on the dirted area with his shirt pulled up as it was when they found him, correct; on the right -- left side? A. Yes. Q. This is the blood tracking down towards the ground area; is it not, from the flank wound? A. No. This is not blood tracking. This is a smear of blood which probably occurred when they removed the body. Q. Did you --, the body has not been touched when this picture was taken? A. Then it is. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker is testifying. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want you to assume that the body has never been moved when this picture is taken and I want you to further assume that this wood stake is a stake on the tree in the closed-in area. You have any problem assuming that sir? A. No. Q. And then that the body has not been touched in the area of the flank whatsoever at the time that photograph has been taken. Does that alter your opinion in any way that that is blood coming from the flank wound? A. This is --. Q. Does that alter your opinion? A. No. It does not alter my opinion. This is -- Q. Thank you. A. This is blood. Q. Thank you. Now, if you have two quarts of blood in the back of the retroperitoneal space of Mr. Goldman, this is going to cause certainly a protuberance in tissue. It's not -- that's going to be visible by the human eye just looking, true? A. No. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in -- THE COURT: Excuse me. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If you put two quarts of blood in your abdominal cavity -- THE COURT: Did you make an objection -- I can't hear you. MR. MEDVENE: Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If -- hypothetically, if you are correct, and there is two quarts of blood that is in the retroperitoneal space, we can -- you know, maybe as I get older, my back is a little more firmer than my abdomen. If we put two quarts of blood in the abdominal cavity, that causes a major protuberance or expansion of the abdominal cavity, true? A. This is not the abdominal cavity. Q. I understand that, sir. A. That's behind the -- Q. Could you -- A. -- Behind the abdominal cavity. Q. Sir? A. And my answer to you is no, it does not cause any protuberance. Q. Okay. A. I'd explain that to you if you like. Q. I'm sure you have an explanation for everything. MR. MEDVENE: Objection to Mr. Baker's comments. Move to strike and ask that he cease making them. MR. BAKER: I think in view of this witness's comments, that I'm totally entitled to make those comments, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Please don't make -- because this witness is also being admonished not to volunteer any answer that is not asked by the question, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you review any of Dr. Goldman's (sic) testimony in the preliminary hearing? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, hearsay, Your Honor. And it opens up an area. THE COURT: Does not open up an area. If it's something he read before the deposition, he may inquire. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you or did you not? A. I don't recall. Q. You don't have a recollection one way or the other? A. No. Q. All right. Now, in terms -- one more area, sir. In terms of the -- of Mr. Simpson, you went through all of the photographs -- well, strike that. In the closed-in area, this four foot by six foot area, based upon your reconstruction, there was hand-to-hand combat going on in that area between Mr. Goldman and -- Mr. Goldman and the assailant, correct? A. Yes. Q. He was striking out. He was kicking. He was attempting to hit the assailant, correct? A. No, I don't think so. I think he wasn't kicking. I think he was using his lower extremities to defend himself, to put them out as a barrier. That's what you do. Like when you put your hands out to grab the knife or to do something to prevent the blade from hitting your body. So that's when you do, these kind of things instinctively, protecting the face and chest. Q. Well, instinctively protecting the face and chest. We saw where the bloody boot had, more likely than not, came in contact with the knife? A. That is correct. He fought off the assailant like that. Q. Okay. Except with the other boot, right? A. I beg your pardon. Q. The cut is on the right, sir? A. I'm talking about the injury to the thigh. When he turned and got the cut on the boot, he used his right leg. Q. He wouldn't have been kicking, and you can tell that he wouldn't have been trying to kick the knife out of -- out of the assailant's hand? A. He may have been kicking. But the usual and the expected is that people use their extremities to ward off an on-coming blade, other than in contrast to what happened -- what happens in gun shot wounds. Q. The usual and expected, right, in a knife fight? A. This is -- Q. Okay. Thank you, sir. Now, you -- Mr. Goldman is not only trying to ward off, he's trying to get the knife away from the attacker. That's usual and expected; isn't it? A. And he is, exactly that. That's when he got the stab wounds between the fingers. Q. All right. Now, Mr. Simpson's had some photographs taken, six of him, within a couple of days of the murders and you reviewed those photographs, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Simpson's have any bruises on his abdominal area, chest or abdomen? A. I'm not aware of any. Q. Put that up. (Indicating to photo 4 of Exhibit No. 714.) (The instrument herein referred to as a series of photos of O.J. Simpson was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 714.) MR. P. BAKER: This is photo 4 of 714. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You see any bruises whatsoever? A. No, I do not. Q. Did you see any bruises on his face? Put up the facial shot. MR. P. BAKER: This is photograph 1, 2 and 3 of 714. (Photo Nos. 1, 2 and 3 or Exhibit No. 714 are displayed on TV screen.) Q. No bruises there? A. No. There are no bruises and I wouldn't expect any bruises, either. Q. Put up his arm. (Photo Nos 4 and 5 of Exhibit No. 714 are displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Bruises there, sir? A. Here, there is a bruise. Q. You believe that's a bruise? A. That's what I thought, leaning on -- gleaned of a picture that I saw of this area. Q. So you think that's a bruise? A. If it isn't so, let it not be, but it looks like a bruise. Q. All right. Those are the only two options. Now, in terms of the -- that was the only thing on any part of his body that you felt even resembled a bruise, right? A. You mean this area? Q. Yeah. A. I would not expect bruises. Q. I didn't ask you what you expect. A. Yes. That is correct. That's the only bruise that I saw on the rest of the body, other than the hands because there are bruises on the hands. Q. I've gone into the bruises on the hands from your quasi, crushing fingernail cuts in some detail? A. And bruises. Q. And by the way, Doctor, when -- Mr. Goldman had some significant blood on his hands, did he not? A. Yes. Q. And if he had, of course, come in contact with Mr. Simpson, if in fact, Mr. Simpson were the assailant, blood would have been transferred from the cuts that you saw on Mr. Goldman's hands to clothing that Mr. Simpson, if he were the assailant, was wearing, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation. Calls for a conclusion, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There would have to have been, if Mr. Goldman hit his assailant and the cuts were made on his hands, there would have been a transfer of blood from Mr. Goldman hands to the assailant, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection. It's an argumentative question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On which grounds, sir. I'm not following. THE COURT: You can argue that to the jury. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, then, let's go back one thing and I'll try to sit down. When Nicole Brown Simpson had the carotid arteries severed, blood went splirting out of those carotid arteries onto the attacker, onto the tile and onto Ms. Simpson, true? A. No. Q. When you cut the carotid artery, Dr. Spitz, that carotid artery -- well, let's go back. When the heart pumped blood, it pumps 20 percent to the brain, 80 percent to the rest of the body, correct? A. I never thought of it that way. Maybe that's correct. I don't know if it does that or not. Q. And when it pumps blood from the heart, the two most direct sources of oxygenated blood to the brain are the carotid left and right, true? A. Yes. Q. And they are a force relatively close to the heart as contrasted, for example, to our abdomen, to our legs, et cetera? A. Yes. Q. And when that area is severed -- A. Yes. Q. -- The blood, the heart is still pumping and the blood pushes out of there when the left side contracts, true? A. Yes. Q. And so that is why this is an exceedingly bloody scene; is because both of this young woman's carotid arteries were severed, true? A. Because, of course, it's a bloody scene, all you need to do is look at the walkway. Q. I understand, sir. And if, in fact, someone had their left arm where you placed it, that left arm would be covered in blood, wouldn't it? A. No. Q. So your view of the severance of the carotid are that -- and when you have whoever is the attacker, and you know kind of the position that Mrs. Nicole Brown Simpson was in, down, with her head back and all of that; have you a clear picture of -- and you're clear picture of the bleeding that is caused by the direct severance of two carotid arteries in this young woman does not cause closed bleeding upon the assailant? True or untrue, sir? A. Correct. My opinion is that in the scenario which I described, and which is the basis of my opinion, there would be very little and maybe none on the assailant. Q. And there would be none on the assailant from Mr. Goldman attacking the assailant after he had defensive wounds on his hands, correct? A. Again, the same thing. Q. Can you answer? A. It may be. Q. Can you answer my question for a change? A. That is correct. There may be very little blood on the assailant from Mr. Goldman. Q. And? A. Or from the first victim. Q. Now, if Nicole Brown Simpson, she had defensive wounds on her hands as well, didn't she? A. Not bleeding defensive wounds, scratches. Q. Okay. So let's see if I got this straight, her wounds don't bleed but Mr. O.J. Simpson if, in fact, he was the attacker, those nail crushing injuries they bleed, right? Is that true? Is that your testimony or not? A. That is absolutely my testimony. All he need to -- Q. Nothing further from this witness. A. You have to look at the witness' pictures. Q. Nothing further from this witness. THE COURT: Anything further? THE CLERK: For the record, I like to clear up something about an exhibit number, number 1420 was referred to earlier and it's not -- that's not the right number. It should be number 2051. That's already been received in evidence. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Would you explain your last answer? A. The -- MR. BAKER: Please ask a question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: The injuries on Nicole Simpson's hands are superficial scratches. They are not through the skin. They are not even far into the skin. They are abrasion type injuries which scuff off the upper most layer of the skin, the epidermis and then dry and become dark, dark brown or black. These kind of injuries do not bleed. The blood vessels in the skin are deeper down. So -- Q. How do you -- deep? A. In the case of fingernail marks, if you look at the picture of the fingernail marks, you see that the depth of a fingernail mark is entirely different. All you need to do is display it on the camera, on the -- on the television. There is a depth to the fingernail mark, the fingernail markings into the skin. The fingernail digs into the skin and there is a crater, in the case of Nicole Simpson's abrasions, on the fingers, those don't bleed. Q. Now, you gave an opinion about whether or not you believe there would be blood or much blood on the assailant who slashed the throat of Nicole Brown Simpson by cutting the carotid arteries? A. Please understand, first of all, the victim shields the assailant. Her body shields him. Secondly, I'm not sure that necessarily the hand was held across the face, it probably was at one time or another. The same affect would be from holding the hair back. She's got fairly long hair and it's easiest and most available to be grabbed and pulled back. The further -- when you hold a person over down like so (indicating). MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this. I'm going to object to his demonstrating that. He should be required to answer a question. THE COURT: What is the question? MR. BAKER: I don't know. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) We were -- we were discussing, Your Honor, blood. The likelihood that blood would not be on the assailant if the assailant slashed Ms. Brown's throat. And the witness was answering the question and attempting to explain why, and attempting to explain the position and shielding by the -- by the assailant of the blood. THE COURT: All right. Finish your demonstration. THE WITNESS: If the victim is held like this over the ground, and the throat is slashed or stabbed, I can't -- I don't -- I can't see why there should be blood on the assailant. The assailant is behind her, either holding her head like so or holding the hair back. All I can say is that the neck was taut, otherwise the knife would never have gone into the vertebral column. She bled. She bled out tremendous amounts, but downward and forward not upward and sideways and certainly not through her body. Q. Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman, what is the basis for your opinion that there would not necessarily be much blood on the assailant as a result of the assailant's -- A. Goldman was held in a grip, too. The same way, only the slashing of the throat did not materialize and remained superficial because at that time, there was no more resistance. When Goldman was killed, he was held and all the assailant had to do was leave go. That's when Goldman collapsed. He's unconscious, unresponsive. Goldman was not dead at this time. Goldman was left dying. He was not expired. He was expiring. He was -- he still had a heart beat, a mild heart beat. Not a good heart beat because he had lost a lot of blood. But he died with time. He didn't die at that moment. MR. MEDVENE: Can you put up 2051 on the board, please. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You wanted to give an explanation with respect to 2051 and the wounds and what appears to be blood shown. Could you give that explanation now? (Exhibit No. 2051 is displayed.) A. This is blood that I think was transferred from the clothing. My opinion is that somebody moved the clothing to the side to take the picture. This is a very unimpressive wound. But it's a fatal wound. Because this wounds goes into the aorta. This is not a very big wound at all. This is what, three-quarter of an inch or maybe an inch or half an inch, but it goes into the aorta. That's the problem. This wound in the skin looks like nothing. Q. By the way, does the autopsy report refer to this wound as a fatal wound? A. The autopsy report refers to it as a fatal wound. The autopsy report describes that this is a wound that goes into the aorta. By necessity, it would be a fatal wound and it refers to it. It says so in the report. Q. Exhibit 2053 not 2051. Why would there be no protuberance in the retroperitoneal space if there was one to two quarts of blood? A. May I have the chart back that we used on Friday? Q. Yes. A. With -- Q. Yes, sir. May I go get it, Your Honor? THE COURT: (Nods in the affirmative.) (Diagram displayed with section of human and aorta and knife cut through it.) Q. Can you explain, sir? A. When the aorta is injured like it is here, this is the stab wounds in the skin. This is the back. This is the front. This is the abdominal cavity. There is the retroperitoneal cavity. This is the area where the bleeding occurred, up and down. This is a cupped section through the middle of the body. This is the stab wounds. This is the aorta. When there is bleeding into this area, you have the back, and there is a vertebral body and there are lower ribs. So you don't -- there's no protuberance here that back the muscles, shield it. We all know that when you eat a heavy meal you have all this food in the stomach, your abdomen protrudes because there's nothing in the front here except skin and a little fat or sometimes more fat. But in the back, there is heavy muscle that precludes swelling. People who die from a ruptured aneurysm. An aneurysm is a bubble of the aorta that suddenly busts and they bleed into the area in question here. And I go and do an autopsy on a person like that. I don't know what they died from. All I know is that they were found dead and I open the body and I don't find any protuberance. It would be wonderful if I looked, opened the body and I looked at a protuberance. I wouldn't have to do an autopsy. This bleeding here never protubes (sic). There is no such thing. That's a strange type of medicine. Q. Do we have 1977? THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, what number is that diagram, please? MR. GELBLUM: 2025. (Referring to exhibit 2025, a diagram.) (BY MR. MEDVENE) I want to show you now, remember we spoke earlier about the photo of the aorta that was taken by the coroner? A. Yes. Q. And I want to put that up if I might. MR. FOSTER: You want it up? MR. MEDVENE: Yes. MR. GELBLUM: 1977. (Exhibit No. 1977 displayed.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you -- would you tell us what that photo taken by the coroner shows? MR. BAKER: Asked and answered Your Honor. That was all gone into on Friday. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: This area here. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) The area in the front? A. The yellow area, this area is the area of the aorta which is a pipe opened up. In other words, the aorta was slit across the side and opened up like so. And it shows a nearly through and through cut nearly severed. This tissue here, by the way, these two holes are origins of other arteries. The aorta is the main artery of the body and from it, all the other arteries emanate and these two are origins of two other arteries. This dark tissue, all around that the aorta is resting on -- is totally infiltrated with blood tar. This should be yellow, like chicken fat or like you can see in the wounds of the thigh where you can see. Because of the slicing, you can see the cut and then the yellow fat underneath. If you want to put this on, then I can show this. There is -- MR. BAKER: Your Honor, who's directing the examination? (BY MR. MEDVENE) While that's being put on -- THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you draw the significance of the homogeneity of the fat and what that has to do with blood pressure? Steve, you want to put the aorta picture back up? MR. BAKER: Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. But I may sustain it for relevance. (Referring to previous photo.) MR. MEDVENE: We're going to tie it in in one second. THE WITNESS: The fact that the entire area, every where that this picture shows is infiltrated with blood indicates that there was a blood pressure at the time, because otherwise the bleeding would not have homogeneity infiltrated all this tissue with the same extent of bleeding. Q. What's the significance of there being a blood pressure in terms of the sequencing of the aorta wound and any other wounds? A. What the significance is, is that the heart was pumping with vigor like at the outset of the altercation. Q. And does that indicate anything to you in terms of the timing of the wounds to the aorta and the timing of the cutting of the jugular vein? A. This supports that this occurred early on. Early on in the course of this struggle and certainly before the jugular vein, because the jugular vein is in the -- in the neck is covered by muscle, by skin, and other soft tissues. And when that bled, it would bleed into these tissues. There is some bleeding described along the wound track, but there's no bleeding anywhere else here because this was opened up and there is no bleeding in this area under the skin. The bleeding outward would have occurred to some extent. But most of the bleeding from a semi severed jugular vein would have been inside. There is no such bleeding. Q. Now, Mr. Baker talked in a hypothetical about bleeding for five minutes or more from a cut in the jugular vein. And can you fight, or couldn't you fight? Is there any evidence that you found that that jugular vein was bleeding for five minutes or more before death? A. No. There's no -- no five minute jugular vein bleeding, not before death. Maybe after, after Goldman was in the -- collapsed in the four by six area that the jugular vein still oozed out some blood. But the jugular vein -- but it's nature is a vein, not an artery. Veins don't bleed like arteries. The aorta bleeds with great force, very extensive. As I described on Friday, would hit -- a severed artery would hit a 12-foot ceiling. A vein wouldn't do that, whether it's a jugular vein or any other vein. Q. Is there any indication from an examination of the tissue around the jugular vein of swelling or anything that would support a significant bleeding? A. No swelling, no evidence of bleeding under the skin to any extent or under the chest because that's where it would percolate downward. In an upright individual, that's where it would go. Q. In other words, if it was bleeding, it would have to be somewhere. A. Where is that blood? Q. Now, reference was made by Mr. Baker to certain stab wounds to Ms. Brown's neck, and your basis for saying that they occurred in rapid succession. MR. MEDVENE: I want to get the board that shows 2015 and 2013, please. (Mr. Foster complies. Indicating to display board marked "Sharp Force Injuries and Blunt Force Trauma to Head Face and Neck of Ms. Brown." ) MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry? THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the number of that, please. MR. MEDVENE: Yes. Number 2013 and 2015. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, would you come down, if you would, with your pointer and point out what it is about those wounds that leads to your conclusion that they were struck in rapid succession and very quickly. (Witness complies approaches board.) MR. LEONARD: May I, Your Honor? (Mr. Leonard repositions himself in courtroom.) A. There are four wounds on the left side of the neck in a vertical line all in one area. There is the wounds across the front of the neck which starts, as you can see here, right at this point (indicating). If you make a schematic out of that -- Do you have a felt writer? MR. PETROCELLI: Felt -- or I have -- THE WITNESS: There you go. If you make a schematic out of this, you have four wounds, one, two, three, four, and you have the fifth wound right there. This one is the fifth wound. The first, the second, the third, the fourth. I do not know whether this is one, two, three and four. I -- or whether this is one, two, three and four. I don't know whether they go from the top to the bottom or the bottom to the top. But I do know that this is one action. One action in which there is, like I demonstrated on Friday, a very rapid succession before there is possibility of moving. There is a holding and no movement sideways, because otherwise they wouldn't all be oriented in the one perfect line. And this one, extending from the same area, this is one unit. Q. And where does the -- where does the slashing movement of the throat start? A. The slashing movement starts in the extension of the left lower lip, the left angle of the mouth. If you run that, a vertical line right through the bottom, that's where the deep side slash starts. The actual slash starts much further over in proximity -- Right here. Q. And how long did it take, in your opinion, in your judgment, to deliver those stab wounds to the neck and then the slash cutting her carotid artery? A. One, two, three, four, angh (witness makes grunt sound) -- Q. Seconds? A. That is seconds? MR. MEDVENE: Good time to break. MR. BAKER: Let me put, for the record, there were four movements straight down by Dr. Spitz and a movement across from right to left. The first four went straight down and his right hand was moving in a vertical position from top to bottom and went down four straight times. Before then, he moved his hand over to the left and moved it across in a horizontal movement from left to right. MR. MEDVENE: Dr. Spitz, where you made the movements were where the stab wounds appear in the picture on the neck; is that correct? A. Let me do it again. THE COURT: Okay. Jurors. Jurors. JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: You're a juror. You have to watch the testimony and you have to watch the witness as the witness is testifying. All right. THE WITNESS: Difficult to. Difficult to do it on me, but this is how it went. (Witness demonstrates on himself.) MR. BAKER: Now -- THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: One, two, three, four. MR. BAKER: So now the record reflects that in this demonstration he -- MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, I wonder if Mr.` Baker has an opportunity -- MR. BAKER: No. I want the record to show, this is -- this is visual testimony. I want the record to be complete with the visual demonstration he just gave because it was nonverbal communication. And now, instead of having four vertical up and down motions with his hand, he had four straight in movements underneath the left ear and then a movement across, from left to right across the neck area. THE COURT: The record will indicate that the witness had a pencil or a pen in his hand, made four movements into the neck area and then across the neck. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't discuss the case. (At 12:01 P.M. an adjournment was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury.) THE CLERK: For the record, Exhibit 2051 that was referred to this morning, is actually 2053. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to move all of the exhibits into evidence that were referred to in the course of our direct examination of Dr. Spitz. The clerk requested it might be easier if we do it now than later, so I will do so. They are Exhibits 375, 2021, 2022, 2023, 3373, 2013, 2015, 378, 1999, MR. BAKER: I'd like to -- I'm sorry; were you finished? MR. PETROCELLI: No. 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 386, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1977, 2025, 2161, 2162, 2163, 2164, 2165, 1973, 826, 171, and 172. And we'd also like to move in 2167, the notes -- the handwritten notes taken -- of Dr. Spitz, made just before the noon hour. MR. BAKER: I'd like to reserve on that, Your Honor. I can't remember verbatim what all those are. 2167 -- these are cumulative, number one; and number two, I don't think I heard 2051, which is Ron -- I just referred to in the last few minutes -- maybe that's 2053. THE CLERK: I said it exactly wrong; it's supposed to be 2051, not 2053. MR. PETROCELLI: 2053 was referred to by you, not by us. Do you want that in? MR. BAKER: No, no, you put it on -- on the Elmo in the last few minutes before -- MR. PETROCELLI: 2053 is fine THE CLERK: No, no. 2051. 2051. MR. BAKER: Who's on first? MR. PETROCELLI: Where do we stand with these exhibits? THE COURT: They're all received, subject to any objection Mr. Baker may discover at a later time. MR. PETROCELLI: Erin, do we have a final ruling? Is it 2151 or 53? THE CLERK: It's 2051, 2051. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. Bring the jury in. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there was one exhibit, 2016, that we brought -- or wanted to bring to your attention. Originally, it was not going to be shown. There were some questions asked of the sequence of injuries to Ms. Brown, and we wanted to show that one photo of the injury to the head. And the doctor was going to relate it to when that occurred, as well as when 2013 occurred. He was going to try to put those in sequence. I believe that area was opened up on the cross-examination. THE COURT: All right. I will allow it. MR. MEDVENE: It will take us one moment to put that on the board, Your Honor, because we had taken it off. THE COURT: Counsel, tomorrow we're going to adjourn at 4:00. JURORS: Thank you. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I advised the clerk we have a change in the order of witnesses. I also advised Mr. Blasier. After Robin Cotton, we will have Renee Montgomery instead of Gary Sims. We will be reversing the orders of Montgomery and Sims. THE COURT: Thank you. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) 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: Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, when we were discussing the sequence of injuries to Nicole Brown, we hadn't discussed what's been marked 2016, which is a picture entitled, Right Side of the Head. And I would appreciate your coming down, if you could, and giving us your opinion when, in the -- roughly in the sequence of injuries, the right side of the head injury occurred and how and its relationship to 2016, the picture of Ms. Brown with the carotid artery slashed. (Witness approaches board.) A. On Nicole Simpson's left side of the face in the -- around the left side of the mouth, there is an bruise. It's obviously and definitely there. There is evidence of swelling and bruising of the lower lip on the left side. The bruise extends down to the level of my pointer here. And the top of the bruise is like that. (Indicating.) Q. Around the upper lip? A. Above the upper lip, which is also a little swollen. Q. This, in my opinion, by its oval shape and the configuration of this injury, that it's a punch with a fist. This caused her to fall back and sustain the injury on the right top of the head here, (indicating) from striking the stucco wall or the bannister over it. There is on -- when you look close at this, there are two areas where the upper layer of the skin is scuffed off, like in a scraping, where -- which we discussed earlier -- the upper layer of the skin is hanging loose; you can actually see it there on the -- on the left, and to a lesser extent, to the one on -- it's right where the skin is hanging loose, and it's like a white tissue, little piece hanging. And this would have occurred, in my view, probably -- more probably than not, from striking the wall, the stucco wall. In addition to that, she struck on the same wall, the back of the right shoulder and the elbow, as she went back somewhat dazed from this blow. And she was pulled up and held and stabbed and slashed. Between the two, between this set of injuries and the ones I just described, the blow to the face and the falling over on the wall, are four stab wounds to the head, which did not penetrate the skull and -- and just manifested by a little cut in the skin. So all these injuries: The head, the punch, the head wound and the ones in the neck area, they're all in one area of the body, inflicted in very rapid succession. Q. Thank you, doctor. JUROR: Could you tilt the exhibit forward? There's a glare across the picture. Thank you. (Witness resumes seat at witness stand) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Doctor, how much blood, in your opinion, would an individual have to lose in order to die? A. In a rapid blood loss, in an acute type of blood loss like in this case, or in a shooting or a stabbing, there is usually one and a half to two quarts of blood. In a cavity -- assume somebody is shot in the chest and there's an injury of the heart or the aorta or lung. When we do an autopsy, normally there is one and a half to two quarts of blood -- one and a half to two liters of blood. In a rapid blood loss, the body cannot get used to the -- to the loss, and the heart fails. In a lung, people would lose blood over a long period of time, like from a bleeding ulcer or some intestinal problem, they can use lose a lot more than that: Much, much more than that, and survive and be treated and do well. Q. You said in a rapid blood loss like this case. If you would have the amount of blood loss to cause death, why would this be rapid? What would cause it to be rapid? A. Well, the injury to the aorta would cause it to be rapid. Q. What happens with the blood pressures? A. All the injuries bled here. It's not like just the aorta bled; all the injuries bled together. The injury in the leg bled, as manifested by the blood on the pants. All the injuries -- every time there is an opening in the -- in the skin, it all adds together in the loss, and it's all lost within a confined period of time. Q. Now, I'm going to ask to be put on the board next in order, 216 -- I'm sorry -- to be put on the TV monitor. And this was some picture of Mr. Goldman's jeans. And where, in your opinion, did the blood come from? A. This blood that's running down in here, you see very nicely how it stains the pants -- it goes from practically the top of the pants, all the way down to the leg -- to the end of the leg, where the shoe is. This is blood that runs down from the -- runs down from the wound in the -- in the thigh, runs down on the leg. The wound bled and run down on the leg, and then was soaked up by the pants. This blood is not blood that came on -- from the pants to the outside; this is blood that ran down the leg and stained the pants from the inside and was soaked into it. (Indicating to photo number 216.) A. (Continuing) Similarly to the blood on the upper portion of the pants, which is -- which is all soaking from the bleeding wound and the thigh. Q. And the blood on the left shoe? A. The blood on the left shoe is blood that runs down here, that didn't meet the pants on the way, or did meet the pants up to where the pants go, and then went on the shoe, eventually soaked into the shoe and spread on the shoe. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Steve. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, I believe there was a suggestion by counsel of a jugular vein cut and some blood coming from the jugular vein and finding its way to the pants. And you were asked if, in your opinion, that occurred. And your answer was? A. No. In fact, I said never. Q. And would you explain why you say that? A. First of all, there is not this trail of blood from the jugular vein down. Secondly, as I explained earlier, the jugular vein only partially bled to the outside. Most of the blood -- if the jugular vein is really bleeding, then the jugular vein would cause bleeding under the skin and into the muscles, not in the area of the neck and chest. Thirdly, there is a wound in the chest which is totally, completely, and entirely capable of explaining how the blood got over the pants and onto the shoe. So I find it very difficult to take some remote -- remote possibility that to explain an event that is far more likely to be explained in the way that I did. Q. Now, you've possibly covered this, but when we're talking about the pants and the blood on the pants, you'd made some reference to some of the blood being somewhat above the thigh wound. How, in your opinion, did it get there? A. You mean on the pants? Q. Yes. A. Well, it means it gets soaked in and it spreads. Once it gets in the fabric, it spreads. This is what makes a spot on fabric look like more than it really is in terms of quantity of blood. Q. I want to briefly -- since time was spent on it and in the cross-examination -- talk for a moment about the sequence of wounds to Mr. Goldman, and ask, with the Court's permission, if you'd be good enough to -- you still have your ruler? If you would, mark off the four-by-six area for me. (The witness complies, uses measuring tape.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) This is roughly six feet. And so with the area, could you describe the area for me? A. May I borrow your chair? (Bailiff nods affirmatively.) THE WITNESS: This -- wait a minute. MR. BAKER: It's your courtroom, Judge. THE WITNESS: This would be the area. (Indicating.) THE WITNESS: This would be the area. Is that okay? Q. Yes. (Indicating to coat hanger.) Q. That would be the area where the struggle occurred? A. That would be the area where the struggle occurred. Q. In that area is marked by the -- A. By the coat hanger. Q. -- by the coat hanger? A. I -- Q. Yes. (Counsel assists witness with tape measure.) THE WITNESS: It's a little less than that. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) All right. A. And this is four feet. Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes. It's a little less than this. It's about up to where the -- where the wrapping paper is. Q. So within this area? A. In this area. Q. And within this area, when Mr. Goldman was stabbed in the aorta? A. Yes. Q. You had mentioned that he could have struggled for 40 to 60 seconds. What could have happened -- could all the actions that Mr. Baker asked you about have occurred within this confined space in that 40 to 60 seconds? A. Absolutely. MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading, vague, ambiguous as to what actions. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. Now, Mr. Baker mentioned an envelope being somewhere and a pager dropping, how -- and some blood on a railing. How long would it have taken for those actions that Mr. Baker asked you about, in your opinion, to have occurred within this confined area? A. You mean dropping these objects? Q. Yes. A. Seconds. Seconds. Q. And could a violent struggle have taken place over the period of time after Mr. A -- or Mr. Goldman's aorta was stabbed? A. Absolutely. The aorta is not an immediately incapacitating wound, not in that sense, not instant by -- this is not you cut the nervous system. Bleeding has to occur first. Q. Do you have a watch? A. Not only bleeding, but a lot of bleeding. The watch, yes. Q. All right. What I'd like you to do, because you've described -- well, first, if you would just describe for me quickly the wound that -- how many major wounds were there, because Mr. Baker asked you about a number of wounds. How many major wounds were there? A. There were -- there were, going from top to bottom, not in sequence -- there was -- there were the wounds in the neck area; there were two stab wounds in the chest on the right side. There was one wound in the left flank. I do not consider the wound in the thigh as a major wound, for the simple reason that it is not a life-threatening injury. Q. Now, were there wounds to the lung? A. The two stab wounds in the right side of the chest entered the lung, penetrated the lung. Q. When Mr. Goldman died, had his lungs collapsed? A. No. The right lung could have collapsed, given time, but it did not collapse because there was no time. Q. And what is the significance of that in terms of the time that it might have taken Mr. Goldman to die? A. His breathing stopped relatively early and his -- a significant exit of air from the lung into the chest cavity did not occur to cause a compression and collapse of the lung. If I -- if I -- well, I can say that in the chest cavity, normally there is a mild vacuum to keep the lung suspended; otherwise, the lung -- the lung would collapse. Inside the lung is what is atmospheric pressure. The lung is opened by way of the air ways to the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure is, as we know, quite high. Around the lung, it is a negative pressure, mild vacuum, not a very strong vacuum, a mild vacuum, so that when that vacuum is interrupted by a stab wound in the lung, there is atmospheric pressure transferred into this space around the lung, and the lung would collapse. It did not collapse in this case. Q. Now, during the struggle -- you saw some pictures of what appeared to be bruising on Mr. Goldman's hand, around his knuckle area? A. Yes. Q. In your opinion, what is the -- you weren't there, but what is the most likely cause of that? A. There was not only bruising, there was bruising, and over the bruising, in the middle, there were abrasions. And if you look at the picture, you will see that there is a dark area in the middle. That's an abrasion. That's where the upper layer of the skin is scuffed off. And it dried and became like leather and became dark brown to black. That, in my opinion, is far more likely the result of striking a rough, firm object, like the wall or the bannister or the tree, or something of that nature, rather than a person. Q. I'm going to ask, with the Court's permission, if you could -- You said the struggle lasted approximately a minute. And you've heard the questions of Mr. Baker in terms of the various activities that occurred within the struggle. Could you mark off on your watch for me -- and I'll be quiet for a minute -- 60 seconds, that period within which you said the activities occurred, starting now. A. Let me start according to my watch. (Witness pounds pager against witness stand.) (Pause in proceedings.) (Witness hits pager against witness stand.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is there any question, any actions Mr. Baker asked you about, or all the activities you described, could have happened within the 60 seconds? A. The 60 seconds is long. Q. Let me move to the topic of fingernails, if I might. MR. MEDVENE: And put on the board, please -- I'll look at 545 and 547 and 548 on the TV monitor. (The instrument herein referred was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 545.) (The instrument herein referred to was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 547.) (The instrument herein referred to was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 548.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you describe for the jury and the Court where on there you've identified his fingernail marks. And I'm going to ask you some follow-up questions. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. This is cumulative; asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. We went through this on your direct examination. MR. MEDVENE: I did. Mr. Baker asked some questions on cross but I didn't ask. THE COURT: If you want to redirect, redirect; Let's not go over the same testimony we got on direct. MR. MEDVENE: All right, Your Honor. THE COURT: It's a day and a half with this witness, two days. MR. MEDVENE: All right, Your Honor. Mr. Baker asked you some questions about typical fingernail marks or typical fingernail injuries. Could you look, if you would, at 545 and -- or -- let's step back. Could you go through for me why you say the marks you identified, not only on this picture but the other pictures, in your opinion, were fingernail marks? A. Whereas there is not such a thing as a typical fingernail mark is only because there are various types of fingernail marks. The fingernail marks, as this picture shows, can have gouges, where the fingernail scoops out a piece of tissue. This is not due to what I did this morning, digging in my fingers into the skin. This is a digging in and scooping out. And it gives rise to a missing piece of skin. That is what this is and this is. Don't make it too big. This and that. And then there are scratches, and those are like here, and there is another one here. And this one here is one line. And then on -- within that line are little, dark spots, dots, if you will, which are due to the fact that as the finger or fingers scrape the skin, they create a creasing of the skin, and the finger continues, or fingers continue over the crests of the creases, causing little defects in the crease, causing little scabs to form. So we have a fingernail mark and we have a -- totally different fingernails marks, and yet both are typical fingernail marks, but they look completely different. Then we have a third type of fingernail mark, which is on the fingers, which is here and there. And there are some more on the inside surface, which are not depicted here. And these -- you will see all of these that I will show you are curved, and ones on the inside are curved, too. And they are done by a fingernail which digs in, and the fingernail is curved and it leaves a curved mark. That's what you have here and here. And then, as I say, there were some others. There's another picture. Q. Does the location of the marks have anything to do with your conclusion that they're fingernail marks? A. The location is significant, because it is between the fingers. It is in an area that is accessible to the victim. It is only on the left hand. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point. We've been over this all on Friday. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further, Dr. Spitz. Thank you very much. MR. BAKER: Recross. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Now, Doctor -- MR. BAKER: Flip that back on, whatever number that is. MR. P. BAKER: The finger? MR. BAKER: The finger. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Doctor, just a couple quick questions. You've testified in your deposition, there was no typical fingernail marks, right? A. Yes. Q. All right. In every mark on that hand, some of us believe that we have had on our hands at some time without any fingernail coming anywhere near our hands. A. I'm sorry; say that again. MR. MEDVENE: Objection it's an argumentative statement. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You know, when you get a cut on your hand and you don't -- get out of the shower or something and you see there's a couple scabs there and they look like the scabs that you say are fingernail cuts, here, and these are fingernail cuts there, and -- Have you ever had the experience of seeing scabs like that and you don't have any idea where they came from? A. Mr. Baker -- Q. Have you ever had those types of scabs and have no idea -- on your hands and have no idea where they came from? Yes or no? A. Yes, I did. Q. Thank you. Now, in terms, Doctor, of curves -- MR. BAKER: Move that back a little bit. Q. (Continuing) -- these curves, cuts with curves, you say that's caused with the fingernails, that's caused by grabbing, right? That's your view of how those cuts are incurred, correct? A. No, Mr. Baker. I never used, and never will use the word "cut" for a fingernail mark, because a fingernail mark is not a cut. Q. Okay. And I thought that you testified earlier that the Ron Goldman ones, the aorta was punctured, would lose consciousness very, very quickly? A. Yes, I did. But he wouldn't lose all of the consciousness all at one time. Q. Well, let me talk about the -- just the concept of consciousness okay? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Outside the scope of redirect. MR. BAKER: I don't think so, sir. THE COURT: The question on redirect was time of death, as opposed to time of consciousness. Sustained. MR. BAKER: May I be heard on that, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. We've been through this once already. Let's not belabor the same issues over -- MR. BAKER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. Let's put this other board up we had over here. THE COURT: You might turn it around the other way. (Counsel displays exhibit) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As I understand, sir, you are of the opinion, in the lower left-hand corner of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's mouth, she was punched, right? A. Yes. Q. And that punch, in your analysis of the situation, took place with the assailant in front of her, correct? A. (No verbal response.) Q. They're going to get tougher, these questions. A. No, that's not a tough question. It's just that I'm thinking, would they necessarily have to be standing in front of her, because she is turning her face that way (indicating), then she is still, with her body facing forward, and with her face turned like (indicating) in my case, now turned to the left. And if the assailant is on her left, he could punch her and create the same injury. Q. Doctor, do you have an opinion, not if he was turned this way and she was turned that way and whatever -- you have testified in this court of law, that the assailant was in front of her for a period of time when she got the defensive wounds on her hand. A. Yes. Q. Did you form an opinion, yes or no, that these bruise marks, including the swelling, was made with the assailant in front of her? A. What swelling are you talking about? Q. You came up here and pointed out swelling on Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's lip? A. Yes. This is -- I don't know if he's in front of her or if he's sideways. Q. And if the assailant is in front of her, that's consistent with being on the left side of her face, with someone attempting to make physical contact with the right fist, correct? A. I never said the right fist, did I? Q. I didn't ask you what you said; I asked you a question, sir: Is it not consistent with an assailant being in the front of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and making contact with her face with his right fist? A. Yes, it is consistent. However -- Q. You've answered the question, sir. It is also consistent that it had to happen early because there's swelling; and you testified on Friday, you wouldn't get a bruise and swelling after death, true? A. Yes. Q. Also, true that, if on your Exhibit 2167, the assailant is behind the victim, the knife has to be torqued around and come down; and then as you demonstrated right where I'm standing, then go sideways, left to right; isn't that true? A. No. Absolutely not. Q. Isn't it true, sir -- MR. BAKER: Put up the picture with the, you know, Levi's. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On this particular picture, you testified a few moments ago that you believe somebody moved Mr. Goldman's shirt to take that picture. Is that what you testified? A. I don't know if they did. All I said was that was a possibility. If you tell me that's not a possibility, so be it. Q. That would be evidence tampering, would it not, sir? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Jury to disregard that question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This indicates there is blood from that wound that is going from the left side of Mr. Goldman, down into the area of the dirt below him; is that not true. Sir? A. This indicates that there is a small amount of blood running downward, yes. Q. And there isn't any -- strike that. MR. BAKER: Put on the other photo. Yeah. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you look at this photo, sir? A. Yes. Q. And that photo was represented to you to depict Mr. Goldman as he was discovered at the crime scene? A. Yes. Q. With his shirt up? A. This is out of focus. Q. I didn't ask you if it was in focus. A. Well, I can't see what you are talking about. I'd like to see what you're talking about, too. MR. P. BAKER: It's 38. THE COURT: Is that the best focus you can do? (Referring to Exhibit 38.) Q. That was represented to you to be Mr. Goldman as he was found at the crime scene, with the shirt in the position that is depicted on Exhibit No. 38 on the monitor, true? A. Yes. Q. And that doesn't indicate to you that anybody has moved a shirt from one of those photos to the other, true? A. Possibly not. Q. And now, relative to your view that there would be great force, very high blood pressure from the puncture of the aorta, that would have taken place, in your opinion, as you indicated, first, one of the first wounds, true? You're not following me? A. No. Q. You indicated when Mr. Medvene was asking you some questions about the great force, the great pressure of the aorta when it is perforated by this knife -- that is a knife five and a half inches long and at least a half an inch wide -- when it enters the aorta, right? A. I indicated that the pressure in the arterial system of the body is increased during an altercation, and that it is anyhow very -- quite high and much higher than in the venous system. Q. You have testified before, sir, that if in fact there is an aneurysm -- the lining between the aorta and the peritoneum -- the peritoneal cavity, the -- namely, the peritoneum is so thin and the blood pressure is so great, it will burst through the peritoneum and bleed into the peritoneal cavity, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. I believe it misstates his testimony. THE WITNESS: I don't think I said that. MR. BAKER: Have you never -- MR. MEDVENE: I thought he was talking about here, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have never said that in any of your testimony, correct? I'm not talking about this case; I'm talking about any case ever -- never testified under penalty of perjury, or written in any book, that if in fact you have an aneurysm of the aorta, where you have it in the location below the rib cage, that it will cause enough pressure to perforate the peritoneum and bleed into the peritoneal cavity? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope of redirect. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No. I don't see how there will be 100 ml or 100 cc's of blood entering the peritoneal cavity, other than the perforation by the tip of the knife as it goes through the aorta, perforation of the peritoneum, which covers the aorta and the tip of the knife, makes a hole in the peritoneum, and small amount of blood enters the peritoneal cavity. Q. And I think we've discussed at some length that blood, like other fluid, takes the path of least resistance, whether under pressure or not, correct? A. I, to this -- I know you have brought that up, but I don't know what you mean by that. Q. Well, does not fluid, such as blood, take the path of least resistance; that is, it will flow to the area of least resistance, doesn't flow uphill; it flows downhill, doesn't flow into solid space, flows into where there's a space for adequate volume for the fluid to flow to; isn't that what path of least resistance means? A. Well, that my be true when blood from the top of the mountain flows into the valley. I don't know if that's applicable to what happened here. Q. Let me give you a hypothetical. You have determined, based on your analysis of the case, that the wounds to the chest occurred late because there is a lack of blood in the right chest cavity, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Outside the scope of redirect. MR. BAKER: He talked about that. THE COURT: He did. Overruled. THE WITNESS: Can you ask me again? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, in terms, sir, of your analysis and the timing of the wounds, it was your conclusion, was it not, that the wounds to the chest that perforated into the thoracic or lung cavity, and perforated the lungs themselves, occurred late in the struggle, because there was a small amount of blood accumulated in the right pleural cavity? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, I want you to assume the following facts to be true. I want you to assume that, as this altercation takes place, the first wound is the internal jugular vein. And I want you to assume that Mr. Goldman continues to fight after the initial injury to the internal jugular vein. And I want you to assume that there is an all-out war in the area, six feet by four feet. And I want you to further assume that after Mr. Goldman has fought, bruised Mr. Simpson, or the assailant in multiple places, because there is a huge fight in that area and he is fighting for his life. I want you to further assume that after all of this occurs, there is stab wounds to his hands, to his neck, to his head. That then there is a wound. He -- strike that -- then he goes down on his right side. And as he is down on his right side, the last wound is the wound with his left flank sticking in the air, and the assailants or assailant puts a knife into that area. That would be consistent with 100 cc's of blood going into the peritoneal cavity; that would be consistent with the wounds and the chest wounds taking place just before he goes down; and that could be -- would be consistent with him fighting for a period of time. And all of the hole being dug. There's an envelope, pager being spread throughout the area: Blood at the front pole, blood on the north gate, blood on the east side, blood pools on the north side. You would agree or disagree? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, your honor. Improper hypothetical. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. MEDVENE: Also compound. THE WITNESS: This scenario that you have indicated is a different case. That is totally impossible in so many places. I'd have to go through them and tell you. Q. Thank you. Now, doctor, one area -- and I'm going to put up this hand. You talked about abrasions and this hand being consistent with -- MR. P. BAKER: 878. (Exhibit 878 displayed.) Q. (Continuing) -- Consistent with scraping himself on the ground, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. There's no scrapings in the area over the knuckle, is there, sir? A. No, there's no scraping. That's the only place where there's no scrape. Q. There's no scraping there, is there? A. I'm not so sure about that, because there is a scraping here; there is a scraping here. (Indicating.) Q. Was that a finger? A. Excuse me. You asked me the question. I'd like to answer it. There's a scraping here, here, here, here, there, there, and there and over these and here and here and there. (Indicating.) MR. MEDVENE: If the record could show that Dr. Spitz has pointed out scrapings on each of the four fingers shown in various locations on each finger. THE COURT: So indicated. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are those fingernail cuts? A. No. Q. They're not typical of fingernail cuts, are they? A. They are not, not typical. A fingernail cut does not have a bruise around it. Q. Doctor, are they typical of fingernail cuts? A. No; they're not fingernail cuts. Q. Thank you. MR. BAKER: Your Honor -- A. They're not fingernail marks. There is no such thing as a fingernail cut. Q. A fingernail quasi cut? A. 0h, yeah. Q. That's what you called them, fingernail quasi cuts. THE COURT: Let's not go through that again. MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further. MR. MEDVENE: Just one question, Your Honor. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. You were asked a question if the blow to the jaw was consistent with coming from the right hand. Is it also consistent with it coming from the left hand? A. It is coming from -- it is consistent as coming with the left hand; absolutely. MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're excused. Thank you. THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen . (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we would move in 2168 and 545. I believe the other exhibits have been moved in already from the last witness. THE COURT: Okay. Received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 545 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2168 was received in evidence.) MR. MEDVENE: Douglas Deedrick. DOUGLAS DEEDRICK was called as a witness on behalf of the 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 WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: And would you please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Douglas W. Deedrick. Deedrick is spelled D-E-E-D-R-I-C-K. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Mr. Deedrick, where are you employed? A. As Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I'm currently assigned at the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C. Q. How long have you been with the FBI? A. I've been with the FBI for over 24 years. I've been an agent since February of 1986 (sic); a little over 20 years as an agent. Q. What is your current assignment? A. I'm the chief of the Hairs and Fibers Unit in the Scientific Analysis Section of the FBI Laboratory. I've been the unit chief now for about three years. Q. Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what kind of work the Hair and Fiber Unit does? A. Well, our unit receives evidence from all around the country; and also, we receive some items sometimes from foreign countries. Most of the evidence that we look at comes from state, local police investigating crimes of violence: Homicides, aggravated assaults, sexual assaults, cases that may involve physical contact between individuals, between a suspect and a victim, between a victim and an object, or between two objects. Q. You say you receive evidence. What do you mean? What do you receive? A. Well, evidence mainly comes in the form of clothing that may have been worn by individuals suspected of crime to have been worn: Items recovered and submitted from a crime scene, where a crime may have been committed, where a crime they think may have been committed, items from vehicles. It may come in clothing; it may -- could come in debris packets, a lot of times. From around the country, evidence is submitted in small packets. They actually do the processing and we receive just the debris for analysis. Q. What do you try to determine when you examine the debris? A. Well, we try to determine whether or not contact may have occurred between two individuals, most of the time; as whether or not we can link an object to an individual or two individuals to each other by the evidence of hair evidence, fiber evidence, feathers, wood particles and other -- other materials. Q. How do you determine if contact between individuals or an individual and an object has occurred? A. Well, contact occurs all the time. We all know it; we may not realize it. In fact, it can occur from a direct physical contact -- it's called the primary transfer -- or it can occur as a secondary transfer. A secondary transfer would be one where I might be sitting in a chair somewhere; I deposit fibers as a primary transfer. The next person coming in the chair sits in it, picks up the fibers or hairs, and it becomes a secondary-type transfer. So by looking at this hair and fiber evidence, it's possible to determine whether or not, for instance, two people may have had contact at one point. Q. And how do you know that through this primary transfer or secondary transfer? A. Well -- Q. Give me -- if you can, give me an example. A. Well, for instance, when clothing might be submitted from an individual, say a victim in a case, it's processed for trace material, such as hair and fiber. These are then prepared on slides and examined with microscopes. These questioned pieces of material, these question hairs, question fibers are compared to known hair standards or known fiber standards from another individual, or from -- from a particular location. And once the comparison is made, then a determination as to whether or not they match or they exhibit the same characteristics or if they're different. Q. In your opinion, what determines if there is an exchange or transfer of hair and fibers from an object to an individual or an individual to an individual? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What's the nature, in your experience, of the contact that must occur before there's a transfer of hair and fiber? MR. LEONARD: Vague. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) How do hair and fiber get exchanged? A. I mentioned that this type of evidence can be exchanged through physical contact; that is, the hairs could come out of, off of a hair-bearing surface, from the hair in the pubic region, from some other surface, and what actually comes in direct contact with an object, these hairs could be transferred. Many times hairs would be deposited on the clothing routinely, as we go through our normal day. And these hairs then may be deposited onto an individual many times. That's what happens in crimes. For instance, we find a sexual assault; the hairs and fibers that transfer often come right off the clothing of the individual, but they're from that individual, and you can show that through a microscopic comparison. Q. Why do you care? Why do you spend the time determining whether hairs and fibers have been transferred or exchanged? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What's the significance of determining whether and what types of hairs and fibers have been transferred? MR. LEONARD: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. I don't want to suggest how you should put on your case, but if this witness is being offered for a specific purpose, it might be more helpful to establish what this witness did, and then ask the significance of that examined material with it's relationship to the case. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) If you're given an adequate hair sample of several individuals, are you able to differentiate between them? MR. LEONARD: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. THE COURT: You're just shooting in the dark at this point, Mr. Medvene. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you, Agent Deedrick, examine certain hairs and fibers in this case? A. I did. Q. And could we step back for a minute. And could you tell me, what can you tell from a hair analysis? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, may we approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. My suggestion is, let's put this witness on and hear what he has to say about what he did 'then you can ask him what the significance of his findings were. We don't need a course on -- on hair and fibers at this point. It's not particularly relevant until we get to some issue. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, may we approach? THE COURT: No. MR. LEONARD: It's not about this issue. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell me, Agent Deedrick -- then we'll move to the items in this case -- where does the FBI Hair and Fiber Unity receive trace evidence to analyze? Who sends it to you? A. Well, local police, state police, FBI field offices, for the most part; and as I said, we may get evidence from foreign countries, as well. Q. Have you -- about how much of your work is -- does the material come from FBI-related matters and how much from state-related matters? A. It's close to half, I believe. A little bit more comes from local and state police. Q. Do you do some work for foreign governments? A. We do some work, yes. Q. What's the nature of your training, education, and background that led up to your becoming chief of the Hair and Fiber Unit for the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A. Well, I came into the FBI in 1972, with a bachelor's degree in biology from the Indiana University. When I came on board in 1977 as a trainee, an agent trainee/examiner in the Hairs and Fibers Unit, there's a year of training under the supervision of the unit chief and other more experienced examiners. And then you go through a year of reviewing material, becoming familiar with the cases that are received, learning how to do -- and examine hair evidence and fiber evidence, attending schools, both at the FBI Academy and outside the FBI. And at the end of that year, a determination is made as to whether you're qualified. That's based on recommendations of the people in the unit and the unit chief. Once you start working cases, you gain a lot of experience just by seeing a pretty broad cross-section of what types of crimes, what types of evidence come into the laboratory from all around the country. And I've worked thousands of cases, testified hundreds of times. I've just about been in every state, I believe, as far as testimonies go. I speak at different groups, both at museums, Smithsonian, foreign -- I've spoken at a number of different foreign societies regarding hair and fiber evidence. So all of that is part of the learning process, keeping up the literature 2:53PM 11/12/96 Q. Are you involved in any training program with the FBI for hair and fiber exam? A. Yeah. For a long time, now, I've been the training coordinator in the unit, so I'm responsible for designing the training program, seeing that all the new people that we hire get through the program, or make a determination about their expertise, kind of do the same thing that my unit chief did for me when I was going through. Q. And are there certain proficiency tests that are taken by you and other hair examiners? A. Yes. Q. And what's the nature of the testing? A. Well, there's internal open testing, and there's external testing. We get external tests, some corroborative testing services. We also get external tests from other groups outside. Most of the tests we've had external have come from foreign countries, working in collaboration with us. Q. What is the nature of the test? What are the tests attempting to determine? A. Well, whether or not you can identify something properly and compare it properly. Could be a hair, could be a fiber. Q. In testimony of the way you work the Bureau, before testimony is presented such as you're going to present today, is it just your opinion, or is there any second check? MR. LEONARD: Objection. That calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No. All hair matches, hair associations are confirmed by another examiner independently before they go out. Q. Was that done in this case? A. Yes. Q. And how about fiber matches or fiber associations? A. All fiber associations are confirmed, most of the time with instrumental techniques. With fibers, you're able to use an infrared spectroscopy, a microspectrophotometry. You can use a number of techniques to confirm an identification and a comparison. So those are the tests that are used for that purpose. Q. Now, in the case involving Mr. Simpson, did there come a time that you became involved in doing any work in connection with the People of the State of California versus Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. And when were you first assigned to the case? A. Well, I guess when the evidence first came in? Some evidence was first submitted to our laboratory in August of 1994. It was delivered by Susan Brockbank, from the LAPD crime lab. Q. As time went on, did you receive other material? A. Yes, there were a number of submissions of evidence from -- at different times after that. Q. Could you summarize for me the material you received, the hair and fiber evidence that you received relative to what you're going to testify about today. A. Well, the first evidence submission consisted primarily of debris packets; that is, debris that had been collected by the police department crime laboratory from different items of clothing and from different items. This would have been from the crime scene, 875 Bundy and 360 Rockingham, as well as there was some other items that were submitted. And we also received some hair samples, head-hair samples from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman, and also from O.J. Simpson. The second batch of evidence that came in consisted of carpet samples from the Bronco. There were a number of other submissions, including some clothing items, as well Q. Now, you've referred to debris packets, having received them. What are debris packets? A. Well, it's a paper, full, that contains hairs, fibers, and other material that's been processed off of an item of evidence; could be a shirt or pair of pants. And it's folded up and put into a small envelope for preservation, and it could be examined -- a lot of times it's examined by a crime lab, after they collect all of the evidence. In this case, they brought it to me and I opened it there in the FBI lab. Q. Now, when you first receive the debris packets, do you inventory them or account for them in some particular way? A. Right. Each of the items -- each questioned item and the known items are given a Q number, and just start numerically, start with Q-1. That's the first item you look at with the corresponding identifier that's provided by the police department. And all known items are just given Ks; we know where they came from. Head hair samples would be Ks; carpet samples would be Ks. All question items would be given Qs. Q. Q for question, K for known? A. Right. Q. And after you -- and the known items you had to work with were what? A. Well, initially they were the head-hair samples from Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown Simpson, O.J. Simpson, and also the carpet samples. Those are the first few that we got. I also received some fabric samples from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress and from the clothing of Ron Goldman. Q. Now, after you received the items that you've told us about, what did you do with them? A. Well, debris packets are opened individually, and hair evidence, fiber evidence is monitored on a glass microscope slide. All the known samples, kind of same thing: You open them up, you mount up a representative sample, or you mount -- name out all of the hairs that are found on the sample on separate glass slides. Each slide is given the corresponding K or Q designations, so you don't mix them up. When I say "mounts on a slide," a slide is a glass microscope slide is one by three inches, and you put the hair or fiber on the surface of the slide and you add a material to it. It's like a glue; it's called Permounts. It's a permanent fixture. From that slide, then you conduct your microscopic analysis. Q. Now, what specific items that you're going to testify about today, or today and tomorrow, did you receive for analysis? A. Well, I received debris packets from a knit hat at Bundy, a glove found at Bundy, some debris packets from the clothing submitted from the victims at Bundy. There were some items that were recovered. There was an item recovered at O.J. Simpson's residence, I believe a pair of socks; and also, there was a glove that was recovered. Those items came in as debris packets. And I've already mentioned the known hairs. There was some dog hair samples, as well, and a few other things. Q. You received some clothing? A. Well, the clothing -- the only clothing that I received, the first time was the knit hat that was found at Bundy. Later on, I received some other items, and I also looked at some of the items at the Los Angeles Police Department crime lab. Q. Now, did you have occasion to examine any hair samples? A. Yes. Q. And you said you were sent certain known hair samples? A. Right, from the two victims and a suspect. Q. Okay. Can you tell us, related to this case, not generally, but what did you do with regard to those three known hair samples you received? Can you go through the procedure and why you did it? A. Each of the known hair samples is characterized. That is, the description of the characteristics is written down. And I do that to determine the range of characteristics of that known sample. I do that with each of the samples, take some notes, and using that as a basis of record, then conduct my analysis. And then the analysis conducted through the microscope notes are there just for me to identify some of these characteristics, just -- and also to note the range, because not all the hairs are identical to each other. There's a range of characteristics that we have and these hairs had, as well. Q. And with respect to the known hairs you received, how did you examine the microscopic characteristics? A. It's examined with a research microscope. And again, the hairs are mounted on the slides, and you look at them under the microscope at magnifications anywhere from 400X -- we go up to about 450X on our microscopes. Q. What does that mean, 400X or 450X? A. 40 (sic) times the actual items, or 450 times the actual size, by focusing up and down through the hair. It's called an optical cross-section. You can actually look through the hair because of the light transmitted through the base of the microscope. And then the hairs are characterized. You just describe them. Q. In the hairs you looked at, the known sample of Ms. Brown, the known sample of Mr. Simpson, the known sample of Mr. Goldman, what are the things you're looking for in terms of differentiating those hairs? A. Well, it's possible to determine, first of all racial origin, such as there are three main racial groups that we work with: Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, Mongoloid being Asians; Negroid, African persons, would be an example. Caucasians, there's a lot of varieties of Caucasian people. Each racial group exhibits characteristics. It's possible to determine the part of the body the hair came from. I would look at that. I know they were head hairs, so that wasn't a question. If there's damage, if there's disease, if there's treatment, if the hairs fill out naturally, if hairs are forcibly removed. All of these things can be determined from each of the samples. There are a number of microscopic characterizations that I used. They're internal in the hair and they're found throughout the length. There's an outer layer called the cuticle. It's made up of scales; they overlap like the shingles on a roof towards the end, and they may protrude a little bit; they may lay very close; they may be very thick, sometimes very thin. Asians have very thick cuticles, but Caucasians sometimes have very thin. The cortex is just underneath. It's like the wood of a pencil, if you think of the paint being the cuticle and the wood being the cortex. Most of the hair is the cortex. Hair is a long cylinder of different lengths; so it's three-dimensional. This cortex has pigment in it, pigment granules to give it color. They can be distributed different ways. I look at how the pigment is distributed in each of the known samples. Some of the hair has air spaces; they're air spaces. They're called cortical fusi F-U-S-I. And you also may have ovoid bodies, which are big, brown footballs -- if you think of footballs; it's what they look like inside the hair -- of different sizes and shapes. And the distribution of all these characteristics, whether or not they're present, how much they're present, how dense they are, all of these things were compared in all three of these samples. First of all, we had one individual of Negroid origin, and we had two Caucasian individuals. So it was easy to distinguish those hair samples. The colors were completely different, lengths were different, characteristics were different. No question about being able to distinguish these -- these samples, which is routine for any two samples that I get in. Q. Have you encountered a situation where you haven't been able to distinguish between two samples you received? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: In this case? MR. MEDVENE: In this case. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: In this case, it was -- it was not difficult to distinguish samples. And that's been the case ever since I've been there. MR. LEONARD: Move to strike. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, when you examined the known hair samples of Mr. Goldman, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Mr. Simpson, were you able to tell the differences between those samples? A. Yes. Q. Now, you told us you received -- I want to just talk about -- we'll continue talking just about hair, and then we'll go to fiber later. You told us you received certain hair and fiber that was removed from items of evidence at the crime scene at Bundy and at Rockingham. And I want to start now talking about the hair, fiber, and other debris removed from Ron Goldman's shirt. And did you examine that debris? A. I did, yes. Q. And did you get that from the LA Police Department? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you collect any yourself? A. I did, yes. Q. And how did you do that? A. Well, I collected that at the crime lab. I happened to be in Los Angeles -- and again, I may have been at pretrial -- pretrial or some other trip that I was on -- happened to stop in and I asked to take a look at the evidence, if that was possible. In looking at the shirt, which was Ron Goldman's shirt, I determined that, you know, it might be a good idea, if possible, to reprocess it, because it appears to me there were some hairs and fibers on it that hadn't been removed. And they agreed and I went ahead and processed it. Q. When you examined the debris from Mr. Goldman's shirt, did you find any hairs on that shirt? A. Yes. Q. And what general types of hair did you find on the shirt? A. I don't know if I quite understand the question. You're referring to all the items from the shirt that I received, including the debris packets? Q. I just wanted to focus, if I could, on whether or not you were able to identify at least three different kinds of hair. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I have an objection as vague, as to on what occasion, whether it was from the debris packet or from the occasion on which Agent Deedrick personally did some reprocessing. And I think he has a problem with it, too. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Okay. Most of the hairs that I examined from the shirt were from the debris packet. That was the material that was examined by the police department originally and then packaged in the paper fold and then submitted to me for analysis. In the debris packet there were three different types of hairs found; couple different types of Caucasian hairs and one hair of Negroid origin. There was also some Negroid limb hairs found on that shirt. Q. At my request did you prepare a chart? A. I did. Q. And what information did you put on the chart? A. Well, the chart listed some items across the top which included items taken from the Bundy crime scene which would have been Ron Goldman's shirt, a hat and a glove and from Rockingham location would have been a glove and a pair of socks. Q. Would you mind approaching the chart if you would and removing the paper and tell us what's that represent. Are these the items that you're going to testify about? A. Yes. Q. Okay. (Witness approaches board.) Q. 2169, Your Honor. (The instrument herein referred to as a chart by Douglas Deedrick was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2169.) Q. Again at the top of this chart, are those the items over the next several hours you're going to discuss? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, you said you found certain hairs, three different types, two Caucasian, one Negroid and one Negroid limb hair, could you put that on the chart. (Witness complies writes on chart.) MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, may I move over to this side. Q. Now, by putting what you put under the heading Ron Goldman's shirt, what were you meaning to convey, what information? A. Well, that these are the types of hairs that were found on that -- on the shirt from processing the shirt. Q. Now, can you generally describe what HH stands for what? A. Head hair. Q. Can you generally describe the two types of Caucasian head hair that you found on Mr. Goldman's shirt? A. Most of the hairs were long perhaps up to a foot in length. There was about 35 of them all forcibly removed. There were a number of short cut hairs that were darker Caucasian those were the two Caucasian types of hair that were found. Q. Did you have occasion to compare those hairs with any known hairs? A. I did, yes. Q. And what known hairs did you compare them with? A. Okay. I compared all the head hairs Caucasian hairs with the two white individuals Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman a Negroid head hair was compared that with O.J. Simpson initially. Q. And what kind of examination -- strike that. Did you perform the same or different examinations in terms of your comparison of all the hairs you've told us about? A. Well, the comparison process is the same. I mean, you take it and you compare it under a comparison microscope. Q. And did you reach any conclusions when you compared the known hairs with the question hairs? A. I did. Q. And what conclusions did you reach? A. Well, most -- Q. We're talking about the Caucasian hairs? A. This is the Caucasian hairs. Most of the hairs that came off the shirt matched with Nicole Brown Simpson's head hair. That would have been all the forcibly removed hairs, the lighter blond, treated-type hairs. Q. Can you put that on the board in the appropriate place. (Witness complies.) Q. Do you recall the proximate number of hairs that you found of Nicole Brown Simpson's, related to Mr. Goldman's shirt? A. Yeah. There was about 35. Q. And could you tell from looking at the hairs, how they had been -- how they the been removed? A. Well, some were cut, some were broken, and some actually had the root present, and it had been pulled out of the scalp. Q. When you say "cut" what do you mean, "cut?" A. Well -- Q. You mean with an instrument? A. Yes. Q. Such as? A. Knife, scissors. They were cut. Q. Now, how many of Mr. Goldman's hairs did you find? A. Well, there were a number. I don't recall the exact number, I mean, in terms of the question hairs. I compared the other questioned hairs with Mr. Goldman's known hairs, and they matched up with Mr. Goldman. They were found on his own shirt. You want me to write Ron Goldman? Q. Yes. (Witness complies, writes on chart.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell how Mr. Goldman's hairs came out, naturally or some other way? A. No, they were cut. They were cut. Q. Again, with an instrument like a knife? A. A pretty sharp cut. It would have been consistent with an item like a knife, as opposed to scissors, because they were both cut and torn. Q. Does it affect your conclusion at all -- strike that. Does it affect your conclusion at all, certain of the hairs found were microscopically similar to Nicole Brown and certain microscopically similar to Ron Goldman's? In Nicole Brown's case, you had 35 hairs? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague as to conclusion. I'm not sure which conclusion he's talking about. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection on the grounds that the question is unintelligible. MR. MEDVENE: All right, sir. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) When you compared Nicole Brown's hairs with the known sample, what is the significance, if any, you had 35 of her hairs found on the shirt? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Overruled. Now, you could ask this witness about transfers. MR. MEDVENE: All right, sir. THE COURT: You can lay a foundation as to transfers. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: With regards to the number of hairs, each hair has certain characteristics. I mentioned a range of characteristics. You have 35 independent comparisons that you make. The fact that you have 35, you've got two people laying next to each other, dead. In all likelihood, they're her hairs. You don't have to be a microscopist to make that determination. You could, if you want to make a scientific, valid analysis. In this case, they looked the same. They should have been there in that location. And that would have been my opinion: They're probably hers. Q. In your opinion -- you were discussing primary and secondary transfer before. What is your opinion of how Ms. Brown's head hair gets on Mr. Goldman's shirt? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation; lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. You may inquire of this witness what those terms are and what possible application they might have to this case. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you tell us what primary transfer is and secondary transfer. And tell us, if you would, what application those principles have to this situation of Ms. Brown's hair being found on Mr. Goldman's shirt. MR. LEONARD: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Okay. We have about 100 hairs, they say, shed every day, each of us do. And we grow new ones, most of us, and some don't grow back. But about 100 a day. So you're going to have primary transfers onto your own clothes; you have primary transfers if you rub your head against somebody, and hairs could get transferred that way. Many times, hairs will move as a result -- as I mentioned before, secondary transfer. In this particular case, you have 35 hairs. If the hairs were clenched in the hand of Ron Goldman, for instance, I might think that that is a primary transfer. The fact that we have a movement in -- and these people are separated -- either they came out just forcibly onto his clothes during a struggle between these two people, or some intermediary came in between and transferred it as a result of secondary transfer. So I would suspect secondary. Q. By transfer as a result of secondary transfer, how would that happen? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. You may explain secondary transfer. THE WITNESS: As when I mentioned secondary transfer, they had to have come off her head through some other intermediary, some other object. In this case, the person that may have been involved in killing the two individuals. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I move to strike as speculative, the last statement. THE COURT: Overruled. That's an explanation of secondary transfers. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you've told us about matching the Caucasian hairs of Ms. Brown, Mr. Goldman, as being on his shirt. You also mentioned that you found certain Negroid hairs. Well, let me -- let me do it this way. And I'm sorry. We were talking about Nicole Brown's hairs. Did you find head hairs matching hers on any of the other items that you have on your chart? A. I did. Q. Where? A. Well, they would have been all the way across, except for the Rockingham socks, on the Bundy glove, Bundy hat, the Rockingham glove. All of those had hairs like hers. Q. Can you put that on the chart. A. How about if I put -- should I put an arrow? Q. Yes; that's fine. (Witness marks chart with arrow.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, can you tell us again, in talking about primary and secondary transfer, your opinion of whether there was a primary other or secondary transfer which caused Ms. Brown's hair to be on the Bundy glove and the Bundy hat the and the Rockingham glove. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, that's compound, calls for speculation, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, there's no way to know precisely here, except that we're talking about gloves which are worn on hands. Those could have been the result of primary transfer. The Bundy glove, for instance, was found on the ground in an area where she was. So if her hairs had been deposited onto the ground and the glove landed on these hairs, it would -- it could have been a secondary transfer. On the Bundy hat, again, it could have been either: Could have been a primary transfer or a secondary transfer. Again, the hat on the ground, as well. The Rockingham glove, that could have -- could be either, to tell you the truth. Q. Did you prepare a board depicting the microscopic characteristics of the head hairs that you found on items of evidence and that you matched to Nicole Brown's known hairs? A. I did. Q. We would put up now what's been marked 520. (The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Known Head Hairs of Nicole Brown Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 520.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I put on the board what's marked as 520, and ask you if you prepared or caused that exhibit to be prepared? A. I did. Q. And could you please explain to the jury what it is. A. Well, these are photographs, each one taken about 250 times magnification, of known head hairs, which are across the top. These would have been the known head hairs of Nicole Brown Simpson. The question hairs were also photographed, same magnification, same microscope camera, setup of hairs from different items. Q-1, the first item I looked at in this case, was from debris from the Rockingham glove. Q-7b, just one of the debris packets, which was a hair in the glove from Bundy. Same from the one next to it on the right on Q-23, that's one of the hairs that came from Ron Goldman's shirt. Ron Goldman's shirt debris packet was number Q-23. And over on the far right, both top and bottom just represent what a hair looks like forcibly removed. The bottom, one being one of the hairs that came off of Ron Goldman's shirt, the top one being one of the known hairs that were pulled out of the head of Nicole Brown Simpson. And the photographs that I displayed here kind of correspond top to bottom, if you go across the board. The Q-1 hair, which is found at -- on the Rockingham glove, was about 12 inches, 10, 12 inches, something like that, had been forcibly removed. That was on the Rockingham glove. This Q hair, again, a little bit lighter because she had her hair treated; it was like treated or frosted. There was some change in the color along the length, so as you went out near the end, it seemed to get lighter. This is another hair, a lighter hair that matched up with one of her hairs. And then this is probably a distal fragment, distal being the furthest out, away from the head, and it's by far the most bleached out. Q-23 had a lot of hairs that work with Q-23 -- I mentioned I had about 35 hairs all together. And this -- I think this represents -- gives you an idea of the range. You see a range of characteristics of an individual. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, may I ask what the magnification is? THE COURT: I think he testified to that. MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry? THE WITNESS: Yeah. It's 250. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you take the photographs on the chart? A. I did. Q. And how do you go about taking them? A. Well, you put the hair under -- on the slide underneath the microscope, just like you're looking at it, and you have a camera that's sitting up on the top. You can actually look at the hair and photograph at the same time, if you want to. And the camera, as the focal point, it's set focus on the same material that you're looking at through the eyepieces, and you push a button and there's an automatic camera system that does the work for you. Q. So there are pictures of hair under a microscope under what magnification? A. 250. Q. Do the pictures depict what you're actually seeing when you look through the microscope? A. It's right on track. There's not a whole lot of difference. Q. Do the six photographs across the top depict all of the known hairs that you determined match the head hair recovered from Mr. Goldman's shirt, the Bundy glove, the Bundy hat, and the Rockingham glove? A. Yes. Q. How did you select the six photos of Nicole Brown's known head hairs to place on the chart of all the ones you have? A. It's just random, just pick a representative sample. Q. When you looked at the hairs, did you examine the whole length of the hair? A. Yes. Q. And are the photographs of the whole length or some portion of the hair? A. Well, it's just a portion, and it's two-dimensional. Keep that in mind, I mentioned before, the hairs are cylindrical. They're actually three-dimensional. We're capturing just a two-dimensional, very short segment of her hair. Q. Now, if you look at the chart comparing the hairs found on the Bundy glove that's depicted, I think, on the fourth photograph from the left on the bottom row, that appears to be lighter than the other hairs in that row, does it not? A. Right. I mentioned that it's probably been bleached. Q. Okay. Can you tell, Agent Deedrick, in looking at any of the photos of the hair, whether it appears any have been forcibly removed? A. Well, yes. I mentioned that the one on the far right, which is just one of them, an example of one of the roots that came off of the debris packet from Ron Goldman's shirt. Q. And what appears on the hair, as far as your opinion is concerned? A. Well, looks like blood. Q. And what would account for the blood being on the hair? A. Well, the known sample -- she -- I understand she was bleeding, so that would be a good source of the hair -- the question hair on Q-23. That blood was not tested, but it could be from either bleeding individual. (Witness reassumes witness stand.) (Counsel displays chart created by Mr. Deedrick containing hair samples.) Q. Now, you told us, I believe, earlier, that you had found two types of Caucasian hair on Mr. Goldman's shirt, and you've told us that one matched Nicole Brown Simpson. Did you attempt to make a determination whether you could find a match or nonmatch for the other hair? A. Well, on Ron Goldman, the hair -- the question hair, on Ron Goldman's hair, I compared that with Ron Goldman's known hairs. I mentioned that they exhibited the same characteristics as his. Q. Now, did you find his hair on any of the other items that are on the chart? A. I found -- I found some hairs on the Rockingham glove, head hairs, both cut and torn at the proximal end, and that would be the end nearest the root. They were found on the Rockingham glove debris. Q. Would you mind putting that on the chart. (Witness complies, marks chart.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And could you tell us again, utilizing the definition you previously gave us of primary and secondary transfer, how, in your opinion, you would account for Mr. Goldman's hair being on the Rockingham glove. A. Well, there's no way to know precisely how that happened. Again, as the glove on the hand possible primary. You can't rule out secondary. Q. When you say "possible primary," what is possible? MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation, based on his last answer. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: It could have been directly from contact, from contact with the glove with the head, or it could have been contact the glove with the shirt. That had cut hairs on it, as well. That would be a secondary transfer, a close secondary. Q. And the glove being deposited at Rockingham? A. Right. Q. Can you, if you wouldn't mind, on Nicole Brown to maybe under the Bundy glove, Bundy hat, and Rockingham glove. Instead of an arrow, put NBS, just so it will be a little clearer. (Witness complies.) Q. Did you prepare a chart depicting the microscopic characteristic of the hair you found on Mr. Goldman's shirt and the Rockingham glove showing why, in your opinion, it matched the known hair of Mr. Goldman? A. I prepared a chart. Q. I'm going to place before you what's been marked 521, chart entitled known head hairs from Ronald Goldman, head hair from Goldman's shirt. (The instrument herein referred to as chart entitled "Known Head Hairs from Ronald Goldman" was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 521.) Q. When you say you prepared a chart, can you tell us in summary fashion, did you go through the same steps you previously described in analyzing hair before you got to the stage of taking the pictures? A. The whole process from start to finish is the same. Any time you do a hair comparison, you follow the same procedures. Q. And the procedure again, quickly, so I know we have it is? A. You put on a slide. You examine it, identify the type of hair, the race, the body area, whether it's suitable for comparison or not and then compare it with a known standard. Now the comparison, I didn't really go into this. With a comparison microscope, there are two microscopes connected by an optical bridge. It allows you to look into the eye pieces and see both hairs at the same time. So the determination as to whether or not they look the same or they look different, is based on an actual view of both hairs at the same time. You can compare them all the way up and down the length of the hair at the same time. They're all mechanical stages. Q. And once that's done, then the determination of taking a photograph, the way the photographs are done, again, to clarify that is the camera is set up. There are little knobs at the top of this bridge and you can kind of change which side you want to take the picture of, left or right. So when I put the known hairs on the right side, the question hairs on the left side, and then when I get it to where I want to demonstrate how these hairs look best, then I would shut off one side and photograph the question; shut that side off, open the other and photograph the knowns. So you get an idea of what I'm saying. What I say, I'm making a comparison while I'm looking at, are these two things in the same field of view. Q. By these two things, you're pointing at? A. Well, the head hairs. The question hair and the known head hair. Q. Going to put on the TV monitor what's been marked as exhibit 503 that's right behind you. (The instrument herein referred to as A Chart of Microscopic Comparision of Hairs was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 503.) Q. Can you tell us what that chart depicts in terms of what you've been telling us about? A. It's kind of the same idea in graphic form where you have the circle representing your field of view. It goes off the field just a little bit. It's not really exact because it would actually be shown inside this circle there. Q. This lines represents a split screen, question hair on one side, known hair on the other side. What you try to do when you're doing the hair comparison, the best comparison you can come up with, like a mirror. A. And -- but actually it looks like one hair down the whole length, from question side to known side to compare all the characteristics; the cuticle, the cortex the gray area cuticle, not brown. It's for illustrative purposes. Most of the time it's clear. If it has dye, it could be colored. These little footballs I mentioned before ovoid bodies. You may have air spaces, which are -- this is -- it's hard to see, but these other things might be pigment granules, those small dots. Q. Now, could you go through what's marked 521 for us and tell the jury why you found that there was a match between the hairs of Mr. Goldman that you found on the Rockingham glove and his known hairs? A. Okay. With regard to the Rockingham glove, the hairs that you see, there's a little bit of a range characteristic. I mentioned before about primary transfers and secondary transfers. An example might be the Rockingham glove hair here. This is one of the hairs taken from his shirt, very similar. It might have been a secondary transfer. The more amber-colored hair, a little bit different -- difference in diameter, very similar characteristics. Again, hairs may vary a little bit as to their thickness. Some are a little thicker than others and also might be the orientation. Cause, you know, you're looking at hair laying on the slide. It's moving around. It may turn a little bit on side. This hair lined up pretty well. As you can see, there is -- there is medullation, which is dark. It has air surrounding, when you're looking at it through the microscope, it looks opaque or dark here. The medullation is clear or broken up a little bit. Medullation or the medulla in the center -- in the center canal, like the lead of a pencil, is in different forms, cuticle difference. I think you can see the cuticle a little bit. You may have a better look later. It says, "clear layer, outside cortex" here. Pigmentation a little bit to one side, sort of patchy; a little bit patchy. It looks like little cloudy areas. You may see some of the air spaces, air bubbles that are found in a hair shaft. It's just a comparison of all the characteristics. We're just picking out one area here to photograph. Q. And did you have more known samples of Mr. Goldman's hair than you've put on the board? A. I did. There were a lot of hairs from him. Q. And why did you decide to put the ones you put up? A. Well, just to represent the hair association. It was selection. MR. LEONARD: That's 250 as well? THE WITNESS: 250. MR. LEONARD: Okay. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Again, as on the chart with Ms. Brown's hair, did you look at the entire length of the hair in doing your examination. A. They were shorter, they're shorter hairs. Especially the hairs, the question hairs. They were taken from the shirt and from the -- from the Rockingham glove. They were cut and torn shorter fragments of hair. Q. Now, you mentioned that you also found some Negroid limb hair on Mr. Goldman's shirt. THE COURT: All right. Before you get into that, ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. Direct the jury back in ten minutes. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) When you say, Agent Deedrick, in discussing with us the matching between Nicole Brown Simpson known hairs and the question hairs, you've described Mr. Goldman's known hairs and question hairs, what is it that you're determining when you say there's a match or whatever word you feel is appropriate to use? A. Well, when a question hair is matched to a known hair sample, we say it exhibits the same microscopic characteristics and is consistent with having originated from that person. Hair examinations are not to the point where you can say absolutely that this hair came from the person. The known hairs, we know that. That's why we call them "K" or knowns. But with question hairs, we don't say absolutely. We never have. And we also qualify that in our reports that they're not an absolute form of identification. Q. And even though you say, as you've just told us, that it's not an absolute form of identification, then what, in your opinion, is the significance of the findings that you make when you use the term "match." MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, with regards to hairs, what I found, through my experience of looking at hairs through 19 years now, is it's unusual to find two people that have hairs that exhibit the same microscopic characteristics. I have reasonable doubt, no difficulty in distinguishing one hair sample from the next hair sample because of the variety that's out there. It makes -- it's very significant, in my opinion, when you can associate or match a hair, a questioned hair with a known hair sample. 'Cause it's just not going to match just anybody chosen at random out of the population. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) How many known hair samples have you examined over your career? A. Well, at least. MR. LEONARD: Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: At least 10,000, probably more. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And has there ever been a case where you haven't been able to differentiate between the known sample from the victim and the sample from the suspect? MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, that is vague and it's irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) We had started talking about Negroid limb hair. You told us earlier that you found certain Negroid limb hair on Mr. Goldman's shirt; is that correct? A. That's right. Q. Going back to the chart, did you find Negroid limb hairs on any other items of evidence that are listed on the chart? A. On the Rockingham glove. Q. Would you mind writing that on the chart? (Witness complies. Writes on Exhibit 2169.) Q. Can you describe for us, the type of examination that you conducted to reach your conclusion that there were Negroid limb hairs on Mr. Goldman's shirt and on the Rockingham glove? A. Well, it's simply a microscopic identification. Once the hairs are on the slide, it's just a matter of looking at it and drawing from your own experience. As I mentioned before, it's possible to distinguish different hairs in different body areas. Q. Is it possible to associate these hairs with a specific individual? A. No. Q. Why is that? A. Well, limb hairs are not as good as head hairs and pubic hairs for association purposes. What we're saying is that these limb hairs, arm hairs or leg hairs originated from a Negroid individual. I didn't compare these two hairs together. And if I did, it would not mean as much as a head hair or pubic hair. Q. And again, it wouldn't mean as much because? A. It wouldn't mean as much simply because they don't suppose enough individual characteristics like head hairs and pubic hairs do for individualization. Q. Now, you told us earlier that you found certain Negroid head hairs on Mr. Goldman's shirt; is that correct? A. Right. There was one Negroid head hair. Q. Did you compare that head hair with the known head hair of Mr. Simpson? A. I did, yes. Q. And what type of comparison did you make? A. Same type comparison, with a comparison microscope. Q. And based on your examination, what did you conclude? A. Well, that one hair matched the known hairs of O.J. O.J. Simpson, four head hairs. Q. And when you -- when you say it matched, what do you base that on? A. No significant differences. They looked the same microscopically. Q. Would you put that on the chart, please? (Witness marks on chart.) Q. Excuse me, Agent Deedrick, under the Rockingham glove its says COHH. What did that stand for? A. That's Caucasian origin. It's kind of a short hand. Q. And the HH? A. Head hair. Negroid would be NO and Mongoloid, MO just for expediency. Q. Now, with respect to the other items of evidence listed on the chart, did you find any Negroid head hair that matched Mr. Simpson's? A. I did. Q. And on which item? A. It would have been the Bundy hat. Q. Would you mind putting that down, please? (Witness marks chart.) Q. Now, using the primary and secondary methods of transfer that you've talked to us about before, based on your expertise, can you give us an opinion as to how those head hairs were deposited on Mr. Goldman's shirt, first off. MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: There was only one, and again, one head hair that was found on Ron Goldman's shirt. And again, that could have been the result of actual physical contact with a body that had a hair on the surface of the clothes or it could have been directly as the head making contact with -- With the clothing; with the shirt. It could have been either. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And how about your finding that -- How many head hairs on the Bundy hat that matched Mr. Simpson? A. There were 12. Q. And then, your opinion of how those head hairs might have been deposited on the Bundy hat -- MR. LEONARD: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, it depends on where you get hairs on hats. To reach that conclusion in this case, most of the hairs came from inside the hat which suggests primary transfer. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What does that mean in that case, say, primary transfer. MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, it means that either O.J. Simpson wore the hat or somebody else who had hairs that exhibit the same individual microscopic characteristics. That's what that means. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, have you ever found a case in the 10,000 you examined, where party A had the same microscopic characteristics of head hair as party B? MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, lack of foundation. Irrelevant and vague. THE COURT: Sustained as to the last. MR. MEDVENE: Sustained. THE COURT: Sustained as to vagueness "party A and -- A and party B." Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Have you ever encountered a situation in the 10,000 odd that you've examined, where the head hairs from one individual matched microscopically with the head hairs of another individual? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Same objections, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: In all the cases I've worked, I've never had a problem. I think I mentioned this of -- about, I never really had a problem distinguishing the known hairs from individuals in the case. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you said on the Bundy hat you found 12 head hairs that matched Mr. Simpson's. Do you recall where you found them? A. Well, I mentioned -- I mentioned about, I think there were about nine inside -- inside the hat. The others were found on the outside of the hat. Two of the hairs I removed myself. Q. And where did you remove them from? A. I -- they were removed from the inside -- they actually had entwined themselves into the fabric yarn of the hat. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object and move to strike on the basis that he just testified he only removed two himself. He can't know where the other ones were removed from. There's a lack of foundation. THE COURT: Lay a foundation as to the other seven. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect to the head hairs, other than the two that you found embedded inside the hat, where were they found? MR. LEONARD: Same objection. THE COURT: Foundation. Overruled. A. I would have to base that on the information provided to me by the police department, debris packets. And on the debris packets, they indicate -- MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, calls for hearsay. Move to strike. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Look at the debris packet. In the debris packet it was listed as to exactly where that hair was removed that was in the packet and I used that as a basis of my statement. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And where was it removed from? A. Well, the other 7 -- MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. I'm sorry. MR. LEONARD: Same Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. The witness said he read it from the debris packet. THE WITNESS: As I said, those other hairs were identified as coming from the inside of the hat. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, is there any significance, as an expert in this area, in the fact that two of the hairs matching Mr. Simpson's were found embedded in the fabric? A. Well, hairs, from my experience, that are in -- actually embedded in fabric, are -- it's often the case that they had been there a while; they just work their way into the fabric. We see that on blankets, sometimes, as well as other items, knit items. Q. Is there any greater significance for matching 12 head hairs, as you did in this case, to a known head hair of Mr. Simpson's, than there is to matching one questionable head hair to a known sample? A. Yeah. I think I went into this before a little bit as to independent individual variables. You have 12 hairs; each one has -- it falls within a range of characteristics of the known standards. You have 12 independent associations. Obviously, that has more significance than a single association. Q. Did you prepare a chart depicting the microscopic characteristics of the head hairs you found on the Bundy knit hat that you say matched the known four head hairs of Mr. Simpson? A. Right. I prepared two charts. Q. I'm going place on the board, 524. (The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Known Head Hairs from Orenthal J. Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 524.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Agent Deedrick, would you be good enough to tell me if you caused that board to be prepared? A. I did. Q. And what does it indicate? A. Well, the top row are photographs of known head hairs that were taken from the head of O.J. Simpson. And the bottom row are hairs that are questioned hairs taken from, I believe, different areas of the knit hat. And I can't see all the way down. If I could step down and take a look. Q. Could you? A. Yeah. Right. These are all from from the knit hat, different hairs that, again, that I photographed the same way that I photographed the top hairs. I have them lined up as best I could as to give you an idea of the range of characteristics and how some of the associations that I was looking at would be represented, as to the pigmentation, the distribution of the pigment, coloration, the fineness of the hair, the thickness of the hair, things of that nature. Q. Could you take us through the chart, if you would, and explain to the jury why you feel the particular K numbers are known Mr. Simpson hair matches, the particular Q numbers that you have on the chart. A. Okay. Again, it would be just from describing some of the characteristics that I was looking at, the hair samples, most of the hairs that I -- that I -- in fact, almost all of the hair samples I got from Mr. Simpson, I had a brownish coloration they're a little bit different than what I typically find in hairs of Negroid origin. They tend to be a little darker. And little heavier clumping pigmentation often makes the hair almost opaque they're very easy to see, very distinctive, one-sided pigmentation. Some of the pictures show that patches in the pigmentation that you see. Again, you see it here on this side; this hair is a little more gray-brown. And again, it ranges in thicknesses from some of the finer hairs and some of the thicker hairs, just gives you an idea of what I compared. Q. And why did you pick these particular known hairs? A. It's just a selection based on what I was looking at to demonstrate similarities of the characteristics. Q. Can you go through or pick any of the pictures and talk about some of the particular areas or microscopic characteristics that were significant to you. A. Yeah. I think you've already done that pretty much. The main point of comparison would have been the coloration. And what you can't see is the shape of the hair. I mean, you kind of see a little arc to it, but you really don't see the shape of the overall hair. That's another key point of comparison, because some hairs of black-headed individuals are very tightly coiled; others are relatively separate. This one, he had more of an S-curve to it, and the same -- both question hairs and known hairs. The coloration: I mentioned the pigmentation distribution. Dark hairs illustrate this very well. There were a number of these, as you can see, dark pigmentation of the lower portion of the hair; and just happens, the pigment tends to group itself on one side. Medullation -- not a lot of medullation. I mean the medulla in the central canal, that wasn't that obvious. The thickness of the cuticle, actually, it was relatively fine. It wasn't real thick. Protrusion, how the scales protruded away from the cuticle, didn't really protrude away too much. Again, that's a another variable used for comparison, protrusion of cuticle, thickness of cuticle, the delineation or how easy to see the inner border of the cuticle, which is this outside clear layer, the size of the pigment granules, and I'll find a medium in size. The presence or absence of clumping, patching, distribution of the pigment, ovoid bodies, and fusi, cortical fusi, they were not present to any significant degree. Now, another point of comparison I had was the root. Again it doesn't show it here. I compared the root, as well as the tip of the hair. Again, two-dimensional. Keep that in mind. Q. You say two-dimensional as compared with what? A. Three. Q. And? A. The real world. Q. And the real world is what you're actually seeing and not the photograph? A. That's right. Q. Now, again, the pictures on this chart, did you take them? A. I did. Q. Did you prepare another chart of Mr. Simpson's hairs? A. I did. Q. The known hairs and also the questioned hairs? A. Same idea. MR. MEDVENE: Put on the board 525. (The instrument herein referred to as Chart of Known Head Hairs of Orenthal J. Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 525.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you go through for us what 525 is. A. 525. Again, here we have, again, six known hairs that are photographed on the top portion of the chart. The bottom six are question hairs. Most of them came from the cap. One of the hairs originated -- identified as coming from Ron Goldman's shirt. And the same characteristics and descriptions apply. I don't need to go into all of those again because distribution of the pigment, the coloration, the range in characteristics, everything I mentioned before. I tried to line them up so they correspond top to bottom. There might be some variations in some of the thickness in the orientation, and also again how the photograph was taken. If it looks like it's on the right side or the left side of that distribution, just how the hair is laying on the stage when I -- when I took the picture. Q. Now, you said you found the -- you compared the known hairs of Mr. Simpson with the questioned hairs from the knit cap and you found those matched. And certain of the slides relate to that; is that correct? A. That's right. Five of the six. Q. And could you go -- because you've spoken about the other chart, 524, also matched the number of the questioned hairs from the Bundy cap with the known hairs, right? A. That's right. That's right. Q. Now this one also deals with Mr. Goldman's shirt? A. That's right. So we have 11 and one -- essentially, 11 from the cap, one from the shirt. Q. Could you -- we've talked about the match between Mr. Simpson's hair and the hairs found on knit cap. Could you go through a little bit of detail for us with respect to the shirt. Why did you feel that the -- why was it your expert opinion that Mr. Simpson's known hair matched the hair on Mr. Goldman's shirt. A. Well, when I say the hair matched the known hairs, the exhibit, the same microscopic characteristics, I put them side by side, they appeared the same in all respects. If I saw something significantly different, even the slightest difference; they were right on with the actual known hairs from Mr. Simpson. Q. Did you compare the Negroid hair found on Mr. Goldman's shirt and the hair found on the Bundy hat with any other hair samples from other people that were submitted to you by the police department? A. I did. Q. And what was the purpose of doing that? A. Well, elimination standards. It's not an uncommon practice for a police department to submit elimination standards from individuals who may have been at the crime scene, who may have handled the evidence, who may have had old -- removed the body or bodies, and who may have actually processed, maybe, some of the evidence in the laboratories. So I received a lot of elimination standards, hair standards from Caucasian individuals, Mongoloid individuals, and Negroid individuals. Q. And from what institutions? A. The LAPD. Q. Where else? A. Coroner's office. There were detectives, a number of the detectives that were there, and the crime -- crime lab people. I believe that's pretty much all. Q. And based on the comparisons you did, were there any hair matches by any of those individuals with the hair that you say was Mr. Simpson's found on the Bundy cap and the Rockingham glove? A. Right. No, there weren't. The question hairs could not have originated from any of those people, based on my comparisons. Q. Only one that it could? A. Why, in this case, yes. Q. Is Mr. Simpson? A. The only one I matched it to. MR. MEDVENE: This would be a convenient time, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, 8:30 tomorrow. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. Don't read any news articles, watch any TV or listen to any radio programs concerning any subject matter concerning this case. See you tomorrow. (At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, November 13, 1996, at 8:30 A.M.) |